Cheerleader
February 1, 2008Peter R. de Vries. A horrible man, an attention whore, with a disgusting voice, and the ability to annoy the living daylights out of just about anyone. I don’t like the man, but, I have to admit: he has been able to capture criminals and murderers that the ‘ordinary’ police couldn’t get. And for that, he deserves respect.
And now, he claims to have solved the Holloway case - you know, that white blue-eyed blonde haired drunk whore innocent perfect little straight-A girl that got America all so worked up because, well, she was white. And had blue eyes. And probably was head cheerleader too.
She vanished on Aruba, and the last person to have seen her was Joran van der Sloot - a rather annoying (but not more annoying than other boys his age) white (not black! America mustn’t have liked that bit) boy who claimed to have left her on the beach - or something. Anyway, no evidence supporting his involvement was found.
A few weeks ago, Joran and his parents went on a late-night talkshow to finally close off this chapter - but guess who was there. Our friend Peter R. de Vries, who taunted Joran so far (you’re guilty! You did it!) that Joran threw a glass of wine in Peter’s face. Fully deserved, of course, and anyone who saw the entire show (like I did) can fully understand why Joran did it. Armchair psychologists (read: the people who make me not like democracy) were quick to deduct that throwing a glass of whine makes you a murderer (I’d have to tell that to Nina Persson), and so, he must have done it.
However, that was by far not the most interesting moment of the show. That moment came a few seconds earlier. Joran asked Peter, “If it all comes out and it turns out definitely that someone else did it, are you man enough to offer your apologies?” Peter stared him straight in the eyes and said, “What do you think?”. Joran looked straight back, and replied, “I don’t think so.”
“We’ll see.”, was Peter’s tantalising response.
To me, it seems that yesterday’s news can mean two things. One, the most obvious one: Joran turns out to be guilty after all - not of murder, but of getting rid of the body. Rumour has it that Holloway died of an accident, and Joran disposed of the body. Unlikely, but hey, we don’t know the inner psyche of Joran.
The second possibility is more tantalising, and not at all far fetched: Peter and Joran cooperated. They were in it together all along: put the blame solely on Joran, so that Peter could investigate another suspect in relative peace - the other suspect would feel safe seeing how Peter so squarely accused Joran. Sounds black helicopter-y to you? It’s considered a real possibility by many. The “We’ll see” actually fits this story - since it referred to offering apologies, and not the guilty/innocent question.
Sunday, we’ll know. I can’t wait.
Man… That DOES sounds black helicopter-y!
I’ve seen the show as well, I just got the feeling that Joran deeply hates Peter. And Peter is indeed just a ******.
So I’ll go for the first theory, but I refuse to watch Peter’s show just to see what he thinks is the truth. I thinks it’s quite lame that he refuses to say anything about it until his show is over.
Anyway… We’ll see.
Comment by LoeZ — February 1, 2008 @ 11:49 am
Wow you’re a prejudiced little fuck, huh? Where the fuck does this “America doesn’t like that the murderer isn’t black” thing come from? You know we’re about to nominate a black person for president, right? Have you been to the states? Was everyone you met racist and obsessed with Natalie Hollaway? Take this crap the fuck off of the osnews homepage, it doesn’t belong there.
Comment by Jimbo — February 1, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
Wow you’re a prejudiced little fuck, huh?
No shit.
Where the fuck does this “America doesn’t like that the murderer isn’t black” thing come from?
Oh, I don’t know, maybe from 23 years of experience with the American culture and society?
Have you been to the states?
Yup. And I’m about to go there again.
Was everyone you met racist and obsessed with Natalie Hollaway?
I don’t make any of those claims, so the fact that you bring them up yourself is kind of interesting.
Take this crap the fuck off of the osnews homepage, it doesn’t belong there.
If I wanted to put pwnies on OSNews, I’d do it. Lucky for you this isn’t on the OSNews page anywhere. It’s all in your head, kiddo.
Comment by Administrator — February 1, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
Hi. I too was surprised to find such a post linked to directly from the OSNews homepage. Rants, even if they’re full of prejudice, self-righteousness and european mass-media brainwashing (which is how I see this one), are of course everyone’s right to express themselves, on personal blogs just like everywhere else. But are you sure it’s wise to link to them from the OSNews homepage?
Comment by Hillel — February 1, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
One paragraph of a seven paragraph blog entry. Get over it already. This entry is not a rant at all.
OSNews staff blog is just that - a staff blog. If you can’t handle an opinion differing from yours, then please, for the love of god, don’t visit this weblog. Nobody is making you.
Comment by Administrator — February 1, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
Hi again Thom. Okay - your call anyway. It was just a suggestion. And it’s not about not being able to handle an opinion differing from mine (did I sound like that?), just about not mixing OSNews and the political opinions of its staff. I know that it could be argued that a link to staff blogs is not much of an intrusion; but I really don’t like it. Again, no big deal, just my two cents.
Comment by Hillel — February 1, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
Your a real asshole. referring to the victim as a drunk whore. Cut from the same cloth as van der scum are you. You are why there are so many Joran Van der Sloots in the world. And by the way racist - I have never met a guy like Joran- I don’t know how you create a monster like that. But then Ive never been to Holland. Sounds to me like Hilter fukced a bunch of drunk dutch whores if Van der Scum is the norm as you say.
Comment by lisa — February 4, 2008 @ 2:29 am
What a spectacular display of ignorance. Her disappearance drew an inordinate amount of media coverage, so it’s now fair game to call her a “drunk whore”?
Comment by Irony is thy name — February 5, 2008 @ 1:11 am
“(not black! America mustn’t have liked that bit)”
So basically, you’re being critical of the United States for its bigoted, prejudiced behavior, by write a prejudiced, bigoted comment on your blog.
You know, Thom, I really value your osnews.com contributions, but your sweeping statements in your blog about the United States irk me. They don’t irk me because some of them have a kernel of truth in them - no one can realistically deny that racism doesn’t exist in the United States, but they irk me because, in the way you say them, they suggest that this is an emblematic and quintessential feature of the United States, and it is offensive. I’m kind of tired of reading/watching this kind of self-righteousness from abroad in general, but I expect more out of you, personally, because you’re obviously an intelligent individual and not some bored adolescent with an internet connection looking for some kind of Lex Luthor to vent spleen against.
In the 35 years I have lived and travelled here, every encounter I have had with racism has been an anomaly. More commonly, I encounter overcompensatory histrionics - loud, self-aggrandizing rants *against* racism, and racists.
The more you slag your own country here, the more intellectual and enlightened you’re supposed to seem (and the more approval you earn from American critics abroad; a fashionable pose and a suck-up to mainly European “intellectuals.”)
It’s “cool” in a pretentious way to be the kind of American who goes around ranting about how this country is a GIANT RACIST LIE while, of course, reaping the fruits of it. This is why you find kids on mommy and daddy’s dollar engaging in this kind of thing when they’re in college and haven’t worked a day in their lives. (That racism has played a regrettable place in the USA’s history is an undeniable fact - that it explains everything, that it is the disgusting foundation upon which all American accomplishments rest, is a lie and a smear.)
When I encounter racism, it is a surprise, a story to be told at the dinner table: “You’re not going to believe what this guy said to me today.” I don’t know where you travel to in the USA, but clearly you must be making wide circles around any place I have lived and most places I’ve visited. My own experience with racism is it tends to come, for some reason, from the dumbest places - the lower classes, who are largely in the same boat as the people they blame for all of their ills (THEY’RE TAKIN’ OUR JAERBS!)
You have a right to hold this opinion and to state it in a blog, but you do two forms of damage with your own ignorance:
(1) You discredit yourself - sad especially if you are making otherwise valid points. I try to make allowances for this, but I do so in a state of agitation.
(2) You discredit all non-American critics with those in the United States who make the same error you’re making - those who will, mentally, lump you and your prejudices in as an example of “all Europeans.” If racism, militarism, and so forth really offend your values, one would think your goal would be to do your part to end them. Rather, there is a segment of the American population you alienate, who will shut their minds off to what you have to say, by telling porky pies about them that they know, through having been born and having lived here, are simply not true. I mention this specifically because I am guilty of this. Maybe I’m just not that bright or unbiased but I have to use pliers to keep my mind open when listening to people say ignorant things about a country they know a lot less about than they think they do. The same is true, incidentally, of the number of Americans I’ve met who have some kind of weird vendetta against France, a country I know they know jack about and have never been to (in my own experience, Americans have zero opinion on the Netherlands other than they heard they can get high in Amsterdam, which people can’t shut up about for five minutes.)
In particular, I have to doubt your opinions on other things based on the distortions you apparently hold as truth about issues such as this. This may have been “one line” in an otherwise…well, I have to admit, puzzling post, but it is clearly the one that sticks out because it does provide possible insight into your thought processes, the way a Freudian slip does.
But the post is further puzzling because you have made multiple blog posts about the most sensationalist news story (from an American viewpoint) of the past several years - a story that most here look at as an example of the decline of our media. You know what most Americans think about the Holloway case?
Trick question: Most Americans *don’t* think of the Natalie Holloway case except irritation at the increasingly irrelevant mainstream media’s obsession with it.
I don’t know how this is playing on the news where you are, but I suspect it is equally sensationalistic, craptastic bread and circuses.
Comment by Quag7 — February 6, 2008 @ 11:34 pm
Dude, CHILL. Don’t you get the concept of using generalisations and hyperboles for humourous purposes…?
Comment by Administrator — February 7, 2008 @ 8:12 am