Know what I mean? If you do, then you were clearly "woke" while it was all going down.
So, now that Greenlight Bookstore is no longer just Ft. Greene's bookstore but OUR bookstore too, I'm happy to trumpet their kooky and informative and entertaining goings on. I was at a storytime a weekend ago and was happily surprised by the vibe and turnout. Other readings have been similarly well-attended. But nothing prepared me for the news of their offsite talk happening at Kings Theater, with none other than Mike Tyson, the once unstoppable brute force who almost single-handedly destroyed the concept of professional boxing, then came crashing back to earth, spectacularly. The doc on him is pretty great too, btw.
So...that's the book, taming the beast (great cover).
Here's the event:
Thursday, June 1, 7:30 PM
Mike Tyson presents Iron Ambition: My Life with Cus D'Amato
In conversation Paul Holdengräber
Greenlight Bookstore in association with Brooklyn's newly-restored Kings Theatre is pleased to announce a one night only appearance of boxing legend Mike Tyson, presenting his new memoir Iron Ambition in conversation with Paul Holdengräber, the founder & director of Live from the New York Public Library.
Copies of the book Iron Ambition signed by Tyson are included with bundled tickets; additional signed copies for sale on site at the event.
|
|
|
|
|
So, now that Greenlight Bookstore is no longer just Ft. Greene's bookstore but OUR bookstore too, I'm happy to trumpet their kooky and informative and entertaining goings on. I was at a storytime a weekend ago and was happily surprised by the vibe and turnout. Other readings have been similarly well-attended. But nothing prepared me for the news of their offsite talk happening at Kings Theater, with none other than Mike Tyson, the once unstoppable brute force who almost single-handedly destroyed the concept of professional boxing, then came crashing back to earth, spectacularly. The doc on him is pretty great too, btw.
17 comments:
For a brief moment, I thought this was a joke when Rebecca announced this on FB yesterday. Of ALL the entities to sponsor this talk, a woman-owned bookstore welcoming a CONVICTED RAPIST?!!!
Makes me reconsider spending my $$ there to be honest.
That's a remarkable point, because I'd forgotten all about his rape conviction. How is it he only served 3 years? Do you think the judge thought he didn't really do it? That seems like a pathetically short term for rape. Do they take into account the fact that she came to his hotel room voluntarily? That's so intense to think about. Or maybe the judge wanted to see him fight again. Dershowitz was involved...then The Hangover movies. And Holyfield's ear. Sheesh.
What a complicated story. But not surprising that people want to hear him talk and buy his book. It's a strange strange world we live in. Where the good are damned and the wicked forgiven. (Holy moly I just quoted Regina Spektor, who, by the way, I take credit for having "discovered." Long story true...)
That's a remarkable point, because I'd forgotten all about his rape conviction. How is it he only served 3 years?
Desiree Washington. Last heard from in 2010 after being arrested for shoplifting in Milford CT where she worked on the local TV station as a traffic reporter.
Tyson was sentenced to 10 year, with four years suspended. He served three. Early release for his good behavior. Dershowitz went to bat for him. Of course Dershowitz consulted on OJ's trial too. A clearly guilty perpetrator of a double homicide. At least he has experienced some karmic retribution.
Worst rape trial in history. She willingly went to his hotel room late at night and had consensual sex with him. It affected her so little that she couldn't trouble herself to go to the police until some time well into the next day, after she completed some kind of dance workout, or group cheer-leading practice.
"Of course Dershowitz consulted on OJ's trial too. A clearly guilty perpetrator of a double homicide"
I watched the OJ decision come in with the head of the Homicide bureau of the Queens D.A.'s office (where I worked, at the time). That guy was a conservative card-carrying NRA member. He also was honest and believed in justice. FWIW he thought that OJ probably did it, but that his acquittal was perfectly proper because the LAPD had clearly "cooked" the evidence, in an attempt to improperly ensure a conviction.
Classic "blame the victim" retort from 5:39. My question was whether the victim came to his room had anything to do with the remarkably light sentence. With Dershy on the casey though I'm not surprised he was able to lessen the time.
As to O.J. - if you haven't seen the recent OJ documentary you don't know shit. And frankly, I didn't know what the hell was going on during that trial either. In this country, lest you forget, it's not really about whether you did it or didn't do it. Never has been. It's about the law that's broken, sure, but it's SUPPOSED to be about whether the state LEGALLY obtains a conviction. That's why we have lawyers on BOTH sides. As we've seen through history - particularly post Civil War history - it is all too easy to throw people behind bars simply because they don't fit the desired profile. The OJ story is the story of money finally buying a black man a free pass, like the thousands of rich white men before him. Most white folks will never understand that because they haven't been the victims of constant injustice. When was the last time YOU were suspected of criminal activity because of your skin, your outfit, or your attitude? Lots of Chain Gang memories in your family tree? Undue trouble getting a mortgage or lease? Any trouble getting into a club or swimming pool? How about voting? Ever been impeded threatened beaten or worse for trying to exercise a Constitutional right?
Now...quick hypothetical Mr. No Slappz. Were I to be brutally assaulted but not come forward the very next day due to any number of factors, including psychological ones, would that lessen the crime? What if I had willingly walked into a place KNOWN for its violent patrons, out of, I don't know, curiosity? And if, some years later, I was arrested for petty crime, would that somehow reflect on my earlier assault?
Or are you just a misogynist racist reductionist prick? I'm pretty sure that's a yes/no question. Take your time. It's not a trick question.
Bob: FWIW he thought that OJ probably did it, but that his acquittal was perfectly proper because the LAPD had clearly "cooked" the evidence, in an attempt to improperly ensure a conviction.
If your statement is true, it makes me fear for the reasoning powers of ranking members of the Queens DA's office. The relevant fact was in the blood. OJ's blood was found at the murder site. I suppose you'll argue that his blood was planted there by the cops. As if the police had a vendetta against OJ.
It's also disturbing that someone from the DA's office sees prosecution as a game conducted without concern for the guilt or lack of guilt of the defendant. As you know, most defendants accept plea deals -- because they're guilty of at least some of the charges.
The OJ investigation and trial included several moments of ineptitude. But none of the goofs exonerated OJ. The mountain of evidence was incontrovertible. Nothing was exculpatory. However, nothing can stop a jury determined to ignore the obvious and engage in the old game of nullification.
The members of the jury were black, with the exception of one white woman. After a year of listening to the gasbag lawyers jabber interminably, the jury took about three hours to acquit. They'd had enough. They wanted to go home. No group of responsible jurors could have assessed a year's worth of testimony and reached a decision in three hours.
Sadly, those who accept the verdict generally say something about balancing some racial scorecard. Yeah, they say, it's about time a black guy got away with killing some white people. They add, yeah if the killer had been white and killed a couple of blacks he would have skated.
Meanwhile, when OJ was sued by the Goldmans in civil court, the jury found him guilty of causing the deaths of his ex-wife and Goldman. And, as you might imagine, he's in jail now because he was convicted of a relatively minor crime that would have led to virtually no jail time if he hadn't literally gotten away with murder in 1995.
Classic "blame the victim" retort from 5:39. My question was whether the victim came to his room had anything to do with the remarkably light sentence. With Dershy on the casey though I'm not surprised he was able to lessen the time.
Tyson was convicted on three counts. One was rape. The other two were sex related. He received sentences of ten years for each count, reduced to six years for each count. All to be served concurrently. Hence a six-year sentence. Indiana gives convicts a 50% discount for good behavior, so he was out in three. In other words, he got the customary treatment.
But obviously the woman was lying. Yeah, if you're a young woman and you find yourself caught in a hotel room with Mike Tyson and he intimidates you into having sex, you are probably too scared to fight with him. However, when you leave the hotel room without a scratch, go to your own room, get some sleep and go to cheerleading or dance rehearsal in the morning, are seen on video looking smiley and happy, you're not someone who is suffering post-rape trauma.
She seems to be someone who experienced some embarrassment and disappointment for having sex with Tyson. Probably asked herself why she did it and wished she hadn't. Apparently she felt she had taken the walk of shame.
Meanwhile, there was no mention of birth control. Hence, she didn't sacrifice her virginity to Tyson. Therefore, she was experienced enough to exercise some judgment. She was quite a knockout, thus, hardly suffering from a lack of male attention. She was capable of staying out of trouble, yet she went to his room in the middle of the night after some foreplay in his limo. Not rape. Just post-sex remorse.
But, when you're a black defendant facing an all-white jury in Indiana in 1992, your fate may be touched by some biased sentiments among jury members. OJ would agree.
As to O.J. - if you haven't seen the recent OJ documentary you don't know shit.
Ha ha. The preceding is perhaps the silliest statement you've ever shared with the universe. Let's see, a soft-headed liberal now hitches his OJ wagon to a "documentary" that, I gather, exonerates him. Or, at the very least, throws some shade on some of the evidence.
You're up there with the 9/11 Truthers and all the other crackpots desperate to confuse people with irrelevant information and claims about painfully clear-cut events.
Means, motive and opportunity. On planet Earth only one person had the means, motive and opportunity to kill those two people on the night in question. One person.
However, the fact that you strain to find some alternate scenario delineating the commission of a double homicide in which a black perpetrator is clearly guilty shows the depth of bias that inspires your beliefs.
The OJ story is the story of money finally buying a black man a free pass, like the thousands of rich white men before him.
Ah, again, the racial scorecard. A point for the black team. Just so you know, the scholarship on lynchings -- a period acknowledged to have run from 1865 to 1965 -- states that 3,500 people, mostly blacks, were lynched. Let's say they missed a few, and bump the number to 5,000 over the 100 years. That's an average of 50 a year, or about one a week.
Sadly, when it comes to homicide and blacks, we know blacks are killing other blacks about 7,000 times per year. Per year. And the current figure of 7,000 is a reduction from the past. In NY City alone, in 1990, the murder total was 2,250, mostly blacks.
You seem determined to excuse or overlook murder if it's committed by people whose actions you approve. Astounding.
When was the last time YOU were suspected of criminal activity because of your skin, your outfit, or your attitude?
Over the years I've been detained by cops because I fit the description. Including armed robbery, which led to me looking at a bunch of drawn guns after getting pulled over on the highway. After radio communications with the police station, they realized I did not fit the description. The perps were described as being clean-shaven. At the time I had a beard.
Lots of Chain Gang memories in your family tree?
Please. Stop with the cheap melodrama.
Undue trouble getting a mortgage or lease?
News flash. Mortgages are granted based on credit-worthiness. In 1977, the secondary market for mortgages was created. In other words, a bank could underwrite a mortgage, earn a fee and sell the mortgage to another bank, thereby offloading any unwanted risk.
If blacks were truly the victims of mortgage discrimination, the statistics would show their default rate was LOWER than the default rate for whites. Do you understand that concept? However, it's always been higher. Not lower.
Any trouble getting into a club or swimming pool?
For the most part, clubs are private. Like Ivy League colleges. Private clubs are not subject to discrimination laws. Hey, how about that Catholic Church and all those female priests?
How about voting?
Hilarious. Illegal immigrants vote, but black citizens are blocked. Yeah, sure. Nice try.
Ever been impeded threatened beaten or worse for trying to exercise a Constitutional right?
I have some scars on my arms that came from a black burglar who jumped me in my house and went after me with a knife. Minor stuff, however. Something tells me you've never known a murder victim. Such as the father of a close friend you've known almost all your life.
"If your statement is true, it makes me fear for the reasoning powers of ranking members of the Queens DA's office"
I was there my anonymous friend; I heard it first hand, and I'm NOT a liar. This was the opinion of one bureau chief (who I know to have been politically almost as conservative as you seem to be) and had nothing to do with guilt or innocence and everything to do with his perception of police misconduct. Of course this particular ADA was a carry-over from a previous administration, which had been brought down because a VERY conservative District Attorney had successfully prosecuted a case of police misconduct within his own county.
"News flash. Mortgages are granted based on credit-worthiness"
Leaving aside a SLIGHT blip in financial markets at the close of W's administration, that is generally acknowledged to have been caused by lenders ignoring that minor consideration, I can assure you that I was eminently credit worthy when I bought my house in 1974 [working professional couple with almost enough saved to make the purchase outright] and couldn't even get an application form from most banks because ALL of brownstone Brooklyn was considered off limits.
Anonymous:
1) The jury that convicted Mike Tyson wasn't all white.
2) You obviously, blissfully have no clue what many rape survivors go through, and how they have to put on a "happy face" to the world after their assaults. Because...life goes on.
3) Also, did it even dawn on you that Desiree may have gone to Tyson's room to have consensual sex and then CHANGED HER MIND once she got there?! BTW, "intimidated" into having sex = RAPE.
This was the opinion of one bureau chief (who I know to have been politically almost as conservative as you seem to be) and had nothing to do with guilt or innocence and everything to do with his PERCEPTION of police misconduct.
Ahh. It's the old "perception" issue. Proof of exactly nothing. Meanwhile, OJ's blood was found at the murder site. Soooo, the dried up crusty glove that didn't fit is irrelevant. But then there were the bloody footprints of those "ugly ass" Bruno Magli shoes.
Meanwhile, the occurrence of minor procedural mistakes during an investigation and/or trial do not exonerate or nullify or eliminate the culpability of a defendant. In this case, the trial was over once the jury was seated. But it took more than a year for this unfortunate reality to reveal itself.
I'm reminded of the thousands of people who have gotten off due to good lawyering or favorable juror selection and wondering how there's a difference. It doesn't really matter in the long-run. His career was over, he lost a civil lawsuit, he ended up behind bars anyway. It's not like he walked away without a care in the world.
What's truly unusual about the case was that we all got to see the whole thing unfold in real time, every last bizarre twist. I'm sure plenty of cases would blow our minds if they were as public.
I should think Mr. 9:50, that you too would hope for a generous jury selection were you committed of a capital crime. Perhaps a bunch of other grumpy conservative racist white guys?
I'm reminded of the thousands of people who have gotten off due to good lawyering or favorable juror selection and wondering how there's a difference.
I gather you're referring to the proverbial "Bronx Jury", the group of people who find themselves sitting in the jury box who decide they're going to spring the defendant no matter what.
Fortunately, most criminals weren't the smartest guys in their class at Stuyvesant. And some people do call the cops to identify the thugs. And now, social media is doing wonders for catching people in the act. Gotta love Worldstar.
Mr. No Slappz's point isn't about rape. It's about race, as is everything that consumes him. Where do you live exactly, Slappy? Are you happy in Brooklyn? Are you just seething with fear and rage every time you walk down the street, or trying to disappear behind your Monster energy drink? I just don't get it. You've given enough clues to show you actually live (or lived) around here. But there's GOT to be other options for a guy like you. The Daily Stormer isn't hiring? I'd say this is a growth period for them, and your writing is sadly quite accomplished.
Post a Comment