Thursday, June 16, 2005

Michael Jackson's Acquittal

I'm delighted that MJ got off without even a slap on the wrist -- unlike the OJ trial, in this case I really don't think there was any manipulation: his accuser didn't have a strong case and Mesereau was able to prove it. Not that I think MJ's innocent -- I'm sure he's got an altered definition of what's "normal" in this world -- but surely it was the accuser's family which was totally twisted for leaving their boy alone with MJ, knowing that the guy had a ... shall we say ... history?

I was surprised to hear (from my niece, in Boston) that there are lots of people out there who believe that the BAD boy should've been locked away forever.

Why? There are millions of people who are much more dangerous on account of being less obviously twisted, in whose care children are entrusted: lecherous priests (of all religions); untrained nannies; untrained teachers; irresponsible parents. I'm not even getting into the issue of children used as slave-labour in all kinds of unmonitored industries, from glass bangles to fireworks, from carpets to rag-picking.

MJ was being used as a scapegoat for all the guilt people feel about the dreadful ways in which children are used and abused by adults. Even the atmosphere of fear in which children are being raised today is, in my opinion, a problem. Sometime or another, surely we have to face the truth about the dangerous and rapacious world in which we live -- rather than save ourselves the effort of looking in that direction, by focusing upon one or two scapegoats and crucifying them.

If Michael had gone behind bars, it would have been tantamount to shooting him -- or sentencing him to rigorous torture -- I doubt he'd have survived it. For all those who think he did something wrong, perhaps it's worth asking the question: how come such a twisted individual (which is apparently what many people think he is) became a mega-celebrity, anyway? Why do we reward freaks for being what they are -- then burn them at the stake when their freakishness ceases to amuse us?

Dance on, Michael! Thank you for the music.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

MJ was not "rewarded" for being a freak... his music & dance was just so popular with listeners that he became the biggest pop star ever.- Ms P

Marginalien said...

Just for the argument -- wouldn't you say the freakishness was PART of the music/dance? Is it possible (these days) to think of a pop star's music without the entire package of appearance/video/lifestyle? I think his fans bought the whole package -- freakish appearance, lifestyle and all -- so long as he remained youthful. I think of him in the same light as grown up dogs that get abandoned once they lose their puppy cuteness and begin to show sexual feelings.

Rabin said...

Marginalien, I've really had a delightful time browsing through your blog. BUT I have a very different opinion about this freak of nature (and plastic) that you've written about. I haven't followed this case closely but I am aware that his accuser's mother came across as a very shallow person.

Now tell me, why would someone pay millions and millions of dollars in out of court settlements (in one case I remember it was $20 Mn) if he was innocent? (especially when his financial resources aren't so good) Well, actually you write yourself that you don't think MJ is innocent but has an altered definition of what is normal (good for him), thats acceptable TILL he goes about altering what is normal for little kids. As much as I try not to judge him, I can't help it. How can the logic that the fault lies with the parents for leaving the kids with him work????? Do think through this logic again.

MJ became popular for his music, not so much for his freakishness. If you have followed his career like you apparently have, you would notice that his popularity began to wane just as soon as his freakishness got out of control.

Marginalien said...

Ummm ... okay, it may be that we'll need to agree to differ on this issue -- but I'll try to answer one of your questions. "How can the logic that the fault lies with the parents for leaving the kids with him work?"

My point isn't so much about blaming the parents but about not punishing a person who appears to be disturbed rather than predatory.

But we don't HAVE to agree, you know! Dissent is much more interesting.

Rabin said...

Agreed :-)

Anonymous said...

Thank God Michael was acquitted! If he was a child molester there would have been evidence by now. Michael has been scrutinized and attacked for years and all we get are insinuations. Everyone throws up the 1993 settlement to justify accusers who went to civil attorneys after not getting what they wanted from Michael. This includes both the Chandlers and Arvisos. I was upset with Michael, but guess what, how in the world could he feel that he was going to get a fair trial when the press and those involved with prosecution were offering monetary advantages to would be accusers?! As a matter of fact after Michael was aquitted, the hostile press said that he was guilty anyway! The accusers couldn't get their lies or timelines straight and he's guilty anyway?! Not settling the civil case wouldn't have made a difference. He would have been treated the same and would have lost much more time and money! Even the two jurors who were scouting for money and book deals went on about Michael's guilt. Of course they said 'Not Guilty' to be absolved from responsibility and explanation! People say 'Michael was accused twice so he must be guilty!' That's stupid. A lie is a lie no matter how many people say it. You have shady prosecutors and hostile one sided media entities giving rewards to would be attackers of Michael Jackson. I'm shocked that that there weren't far more accusers due to that fact. People hate Michael for reasons that have NOTHING to do with child molestation. They just use that as a weapon of choice and an excuse to destroy someone that they don't understand or resent for having things that they don't think he should have!

Marginalien said...

I'm glad you see things that way!