Not My Love
Because I am cranky and opinionated, people naturally want to hear my response to the Michael Jackson verdict. (Cranky and Opinionated were two of the dwarves Snow White was lucky enough not to meet. They worked white collar jobs and lived in a condo at the nicer end of the forest. They had a Polish cleaning lady who came in once a week, so they didn't need Snow's help anyway.)
Of course, I was disappointed when he was found not guilty.
I am not a justice hound. I don't think Michael Jackson was guilty of such heinous acts that he deserved to be put away. I wanted him to be found guilty for the same reason I wanted O.J. to be found not guilty: I find it more amusing. I can't devote more than a tiny sliver of my day or brain to Michael Jackson. Anything that was once human in him has been long since swept away by years of abuse, celebrity, and self love/loathing. He is a tragic figure only in that his destruction has been all self-inflicted. I was curious to see what would happen to him after a few years in the joint. Heck, months. Days. Now, he'll live out his time in ever growing diminution, eventually dying alone like Michael Corleone at the end of Godfather III. That scene, with Michael dying in that chair in the middle of the plaza, is almost exactly how I expect Michael Jackson's life to end. That, or shrunken in his bed, piled high with comforters, deep in the recesses of Neverland, like Charles Foster Kane. But I'll be long dead by then, and it will be private. I like my humiliation public.
I was not surprised by the verdict. Clearly, Jackson was guilty on some counts. Not necessarily conspiracy, though Jackson is clearly surrounded by henchmen who do his dirty work for him. But that doesn't make him different from any other celebrity. And it explains why Donald Trump finds him a kindred spirit. The conspiracy charge reminded me of filmmakers who put sexy or violent scenes in their movies because they know the MPAA will object to their film no matter what, and this may allow them to cut those scenes and keep the scenes they want. Prosecutors knew the jury wouldn't buy conspiracy, but it would allow them to find him not guilty of something. Instead they found him not guilty of everything.
Including giving alcohol to a child. Even if you don't believe he gave liquor to these kids for purposes of seduction, it's pretty likely that he gave liquor to these kids. Did the defense even refute it? [All I know of the case is what I saw in Countdown's Puppet Theater (hilarious) and the E! reenactments (even funnier).] Jackson should be found guilty of giving liquor to a minor for purposes of making him think you're cool. He's like the teenager who breaks into his parent's liquor cabinet and steals the crème de menthe so all his friends can get hammered and then puke green. Which is pathetic if you're 45 years old, and even worse if you're a superstar.
This case was the perfect storm of reasonable doubt. Believing Michael Jackson has molested children, yet not completely believing he molested this kid, is the definition of reasonable doubt. On the other hand, not believing the mother because she snaps her fingers at you when she talks is insane.
But as I said, I was not surprised by the outcome. Californians don't like to convict their celebrities. That and sunny weather is all they've got. I recall an article in the New Yorker following the O.J. verdict in which Marcia Clark was quoted as saying her superior told her not to take the case, because O.J. was "unconvictable." Heck, Robert Blake went into court wearing a shirt that said "I murdered my wife and all I got was this lousy jumpsuit," and they let him walk. Martha Stewart is kicking herself that her trial was in New York.
My primary reason for wanting Michael Jackson to be found guilty – once you get past the entertainment value – was to have someone tell him "No." In my eyes, much of Jackson's behavior around children falls on the scale between "creepy" and "objectionable." "Abuse" is difficult to categorize, because much of it depends on response rather than actions. The law is unwilling to go much past outright sexual activity, and I think that's fine. The law has to draw the line somewhere, and in general I prefer it to err on the side of liberty. But what Macaulay Culkin does not find abuse, your child or grandchild or niece or nephew might. In some ways, Michael Jackson's crime is worse than O.J.'s, because unlike O.J., he will do it again.
At least the public dismay over Jackson's admission that he likes to sleep with young boys – in a completely non-sexual way, of course – has put the kibosh on that activity. For now, at least.
Tom Mesereau, Jackson's legal eagle, told the press that Jackson will no longer let children sleep in his room, "because it makes him vulnerable to false charges." How about, "because it's a creepy thing for a middle aged man to do"? During this interview, the contract Mr. Mesereau has signed with the devil was clearly visible in his back pocket. It's one thing to defend Michael Jackson. It's one thing to believe he is innocent (quite different from not guilty) of these particular charges. It's one thing to convince yourself, in order to properly defend your client, that he is an okay guy. It's quite another thing to imply that the children who sleep in his bed are somehow to blame. I'm Michael Jackson's age, and I never find children in my bed. Especially not ones I'm not related to. How about you? How about you, Mr. Mesereau?
Crazy Tom took it a step further, as lawyers are wont to do (some people need to learn when to shut up), calling Jackson a "kind-hearted, child-like person" who could be taken advantage of, because he was too nice to people. Really? Would one of those people be his one time BFF Paul McCartney, who he outbid for publishing rights to the library of Beatles songs? Not that I have any problem with this on a purely business level. But the notion that a decision is "business, not personal," puts us in mind of a certain capo di tutti capi from paragraph 3. And since MJ's decision to screw his best friend happened 20 years ago, when the argument could be made that he truly was too young to know what he was doing, the mind reels at what he's capable of today.
Of course, I was disappointed when he was found not guilty.
I am not a justice hound. I don't think Michael Jackson was guilty of such heinous acts that he deserved to be put away. I wanted him to be found guilty for the same reason I wanted O.J. to be found not guilty: I find it more amusing. I can't devote more than a tiny sliver of my day or brain to Michael Jackson. Anything that was once human in him has been long since swept away by years of abuse, celebrity, and self love/loathing. He is a tragic figure only in that his destruction has been all self-inflicted. I was curious to see what would happen to him after a few years in the joint. Heck, months. Days. Now, he'll live out his time in ever growing diminution, eventually dying alone like Michael Corleone at the end of Godfather III. That scene, with Michael dying in that chair in the middle of the plaza, is almost exactly how I expect Michael Jackson's life to end. That, or shrunken in his bed, piled high with comforters, deep in the recesses of Neverland, like Charles Foster Kane. But I'll be long dead by then, and it will be private. I like my humiliation public.
I was not surprised by the verdict. Clearly, Jackson was guilty on some counts. Not necessarily conspiracy, though Jackson is clearly surrounded by henchmen who do his dirty work for him. But that doesn't make him different from any other celebrity. And it explains why Donald Trump finds him a kindred spirit. The conspiracy charge reminded me of filmmakers who put sexy or violent scenes in their movies because they know the MPAA will object to their film no matter what, and this may allow them to cut those scenes and keep the scenes they want. Prosecutors knew the jury wouldn't buy conspiracy, but it would allow them to find him not guilty of something. Instead they found him not guilty of everything.
Including giving alcohol to a child. Even if you don't believe he gave liquor to these kids for purposes of seduction, it's pretty likely that he gave liquor to these kids. Did the defense even refute it? [All I know of the case is what I saw in Countdown's Puppet Theater (hilarious) and the E! reenactments (even funnier).] Jackson should be found guilty of giving liquor to a minor for purposes of making him think you're cool. He's like the teenager who breaks into his parent's liquor cabinet and steals the crème de menthe so all his friends can get hammered and then puke green. Which is pathetic if you're 45 years old, and even worse if you're a superstar.
This case was the perfect storm of reasonable doubt. Believing Michael Jackson has molested children, yet not completely believing he molested this kid, is the definition of reasonable doubt. On the other hand, not believing the mother because she snaps her fingers at you when she talks is insane.
But as I said, I was not surprised by the outcome. Californians don't like to convict their celebrities. That and sunny weather is all they've got. I recall an article in the New Yorker following the O.J. verdict in which Marcia Clark was quoted as saying her superior told her not to take the case, because O.J. was "unconvictable." Heck, Robert Blake went into court wearing a shirt that said "I murdered my wife and all I got was this lousy jumpsuit," and they let him walk. Martha Stewart is kicking herself that her trial was in New York.
My primary reason for wanting Michael Jackson to be found guilty – once you get past the entertainment value – was to have someone tell him "No." In my eyes, much of Jackson's behavior around children falls on the scale between "creepy" and "objectionable." "Abuse" is difficult to categorize, because much of it depends on response rather than actions. The law is unwilling to go much past outright sexual activity, and I think that's fine. The law has to draw the line somewhere, and in general I prefer it to err on the side of liberty. But what Macaulay Culkin does not find abuse, your child or grandchild or niece or nephew might. In some ways, Michael Jackson's crime is worse than O.J.'s, because unlike O.J., he will do it again.
At least the public dismay over Jackson's admission that he likes to sleep with young boys – in a completely non-sexual way, of course – has put the kibosh on that activity. For now, at least.
Tom Mesereau, Jackson's legal eagle, told the press that Jackson will no longer let children sleep in his room, "because it makes him vulnerable to false charges." How about, "because it's a creepy thing for a middle aged man to do"? During this interview, the contract Mr. Mesereau has signed with the devil was clearly visible in his back pocket. It's one thing to defend Michael Jackson. It's one thing to believe he is innocent (quite different from not guilty) of these particular charges. It's one thing to convince yourself, in order to properly defend your client, that he is an okay guy. It's quite another thing to imply that the children who sleep in his bed are somehow to blame. I'm Michael Jackson's age, and I never find children in my bed. Especially not ones I'm not related to. How about you? How about you, Mr. Mesereau?
Crazy Tom took it a step further, as lawyers are wont to do (some people need to learn when to shut up), calling Jackson a "kind-hearted, child-like person" who could be taken advantage of, because he was too nice to people. Really? Would one of those people be his one time BFF Paul McCartney, who he outbid for publishing rights to the library of Beatles songs? Not that I have any problem with this on a purely business level. But the notion that a decision is "business, not personal," puts us in mind of a certain capo di tutti capi from paragraph 3. And since MJ's decision to screw his best friend happened 20 years ago, when the argument could be made that he truly was too young to know what he was doing, the mind reels at what he's capable of today.
posted by John Bliss at
9:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home