Actually, I'm currently thinking about Michael Jackson...

Mrs. ScottN is watching the 20/20 on him... man is that one f***ed up dude! His egotism seems to know no bounds, and he actually expects us to belive that he's only had two procedures, and that the changes in his face since Thriller are the natural result of growth.

More on Jackson...

He really seems to be in a different world... He really seems to have no clue as to why people might find a problem with a 40 year old sleeping with a 12 year old.

Unbelievable!

I saw that Prime Time special, too. Several things that got me:

Michael says he's Peter Pan. In his heart. Uh....

Michael denies wanting to look or be white. He claims he's proud to be black and if he looks white, then that's how god made him. Uh, yeah, right, Mike. But, uh, god didn't make you with long straight hair, hair like Elizabeth used to have. At least wear your hair in a 'fro if you're proud of being black.

Michael described how when kids would sleep in his bed, he'd tuck them in, turn on some music, turn off the lights and read to them. He said, "It's charming." No, it's romantic and it's disturbing.

"He really seems to be in a different world... He really seems to have no clue as to why people might find a problem with a 40 year old sleeping with a 12 year old." - ScottN

What was unbelievable to me was Michael's attitude towards anyone who was disturbed by his sleeping in this same room as children not their own. He thought there was something wrong with them. That's denial.

I can't help wonder how screwed up Prince, his sister (I can't remember her name) and "Blanket" are going to be when they grow up. That can't be healthy growing up wearing masks in public all the time. These kids are going to be socially retarded and possibly even more emotionally disturbed than Michael is.

And what kind of a name is "Blanket"? Michael's explanation of it was... lacking.

Michael wants to adopt two children from each continent. Lord, no, please. Three should be limit on how many he's allowed to mentally f**k up.

That shopping spree made Michael look quite spoiled, didn't it? "Is that mine? I want it. Add it to the list."

His last album did so badly, Michael owed Sony Music money. How's he worth a billion? On paper?

"The Giving Tree"? Okay, Michael, you've read that Shel Silverstein book enough. Time to find another book to read. And no, you can't reread Peter Pan.

All in all, Michael is a very frightening and frighteningly disturbed man, er boy. (Did anyone else notice that when Martin Bashir and Michael entered the Las Vegas store, Bashir called him a "boy"? The average black man would kill a white person for calling him that.)

I didn't watch it, but heard enough recaps on the radio the next day to feel like I had.
If any of us acted even one tenth as strange as he does toward children (even our own!), we'd be branded pedophiles, get locked away (in jail or a psych ward, or both) and have the kids put in foster care.
I was going to say he's living proof of the self-delusional idea that any press is good press, but he usually turns around and criticizes the very press he seems to crave, so I guess it doesn't apply.

Moderator, now that I think about it, how about making Artists a sub-board (with an Add Topic button), and putting this all in a "Michael Jackson" topic underneath.

Easier said than done ...

I have better things to do than watch Michael Jackson confirm what everyone already knew. My favorite reaction was Ozzie Ozbourne's (sp?) He said, "Censored, censored, censored, 40 year old in the same bed as a bloody 12 year old is censored, censored, sick. Where is his censored father now to bash some sense into him now that he censored needs it? His father is unavailable? I'll bloody well censored do it." (I'm paraphrasing obviously.)

a view on Micheal Jackson from the finest source in modern jornalism.

Upon reflection, I think the thing that disturbs me the most is that there are parents out there who will sleep in a separate building while their children stay, for all purposes, alone in another house with a 44 year old "man". I mean, I'm sorry, but if I had children, even if I trusted the 44 year old, if they're a close friend or a member of my family, I'd still want to be staying in the same house as them. Suppose they get hurt? As a parent, it would be my responsibility to be there for my kids. Not somewhere else. I mean, Neverland is not the same as Summer Camp or a church meeting. It's not kids spending the night at their best friend's house. It's the home of a rich 44 year old man, who apparently has no friends amongst his peers. Why are these parents acting so irresponsibly? Or am I the only one who sees it that way?

OK- try to envisage the scenario. You have a poor family, your husband is out of work and an alcoholic and you're staying at home looking after your child living from welfare cheque to welfare cheque.
All of the sudden, one day your kid comes home and says "I made friends with this really nice fellow called Michael Jackson, he's invited me to his ranch". Michael "I'm worth a billion dollars" Jackson. Suddenly the dollar signs pop up, here's a man who can spend some time with your kid, sleep with him then you can say you'll sue and he'll pay you millions to shut you up.
Small price to pay to suddenly get very, very wealthy.
Does that explain why parents do that then?

Yes. And it's still damned irresposible of them. On the other hand, there has to date only been one lawsuit filed against Michael Jackson. That, of course, has been settled out of court. Even assuming that there have been others that have been kept quiet, there'd surely be rumors of them. Yet there hasn't even been that.

It just occurred to me. Aren't Corey Feldman and Emmanuel Lewis on that WB show, The Surreal World? I think they've "stayed" with Michael a time or two. Wonder if they've traded stories?

I'm thinking there is a lot of money involved. If you're a poor struggling family just given a couple million tax-free dollars on the condition you stay quiet, I think you would zip your lip firmly.

Irresponsible?? You're absolutely right, but since when has that stopped people trying to make a grab for quick cash? Why do you think shows like Springer keep on going? Because people will say and do ANYTHING to get their face on tv and then get money for their appearance. It's even better when they can make their money and remain anonymous.

"If you're a poor struggling family just given a couple million tax-free dollars on the condition you stay quiet, I think you would zip your lip firmly."

You might, but that sudden change of lifestyle is going to speak volumes. Loud volumes. Here's the thing, this is something the tabloids look for. They surely would eventually learn that, say, the Smith boy stayed over at Michael's. He was from a poor family. Suddenly, he's not going over there any more. When the reporter(s) go to ask the Smith boy about Michael, they don't find him in the poor part of town. The Smiths are now living in a very nice house with two very nice cars. That's very simple math there - two and two. And given how highly scrutinzed Michael's life is, that's bound to come up somewhere. And not by accident either. This is something the press - not just the tabs - are looking for.

"Irresponsible?? You're absolutely right, but since when has that stopped people trying to make a grab for quick cash? Why do you think shows like Springer keep on going? Because people will say and do ANYTHING to get their face on tv and then get money for their appearance."

That can sometimes make me lose all hope and respect for the human race and hope WWIII starts.

The Culkins don't fit in the poor, out-of-work, living-on-welfare scenario.

"Irresponsible?? You're absolutely right, but since when has that stopped people trying to make a grab for quick cash? Why do you think shows like Springer keep on going? Because people will say and do ANYTHING to get their face on tv and then get money for their appearance."

That can sometimes make me lose all hope and respect for the human race and hope WWIII starts.

So I'm guessing you weren't on the edge of your seat waiting to see who Joe Millionaire'd pick then, eh, Benn?

Seriously...I agree with you and Craig both, Jackson'a a basket case who in the real world wouldn't be allowed within miles of any child. One glimpse of his baby being fed through a veil was enough to confirm that.

Michael denies wanting to look or be white. He claims he's proud to be black and if he looks white, then that's how god made him.

Uh-huh. You bet. So when somebody pulls out photos of the dark-skinned, broad-nosed, cherubic-cheeked kid he used to be, and holds them up to the flour-white finely-sculpted death-mask he now wears, he explains the difference as one of those 'miracle' thingees, right?

Really, in the end, I'm not sure why Michael Jackson even matters anymore - except maybe as a freak show attraction.
I mean, yes, the man definitely made an impact on pop/R&B...twenty years ago. Since then he's released a series of albums ranging from humdrum to silly to self-aggrandising to just plain scary. And now that that career path's hit the skids he's decided to reinvent himself as the Singing Messiah (complete with angelic choir) who's gonna save the world - or at least the world's children - via the power of inanely syrupy, overproduced ballads.

Sheesh. Stick the guy on a Very Special Episode of Jerry Springer and get him outta here, can't we?

"So I'm guessing you weren't on the edge of your seat waiting to see who Joe Millionaire'd pick then, eh, Benn? " - kerriem

You mean the show hadn't ended yet? I do not watch any "reality" TV show.

"The Culkins don't fit in the poor, out-of-work, living-on-welfare scenario." - Darth Sarcasm

You mean Malcauley's parents haven't spent all of the Home Alone money? There's still some left? Amazing. (I know, Macauley was a bad example.)

I have to admit that I DO enjoy his music (I think his HIStory album (the 2nd disc) is some of his best material).
He clearly defined a sound and look for pop in the 80's. One glimpse at the brilliant videos he made back then proves it.
Unfortunately, he has always tried to evolve as an artist and it hasn't always worked.
If this were any other artist we'd be saying "Oh well, let's move on" and the guy/group would fade away. But because it IS Michael Jackson and he leads this bizaare existence, we keep having his shoddy attempts at pop being hurled at us.
Mind you, I'd rather listen to a Jackson album as opposed to a Britney or Christina album anyday. Actually, I think Michael looks (and sounds) more feminine than either of them!

Michael Jackson ruined the New England Patriots for years. (OK, it was the fault of the 1diot that decided to go into debt and use the team as collateral to finance the "Victory" tour. I'm sure the buying spree had the Sullivan’s wondering if that was their football team.)

Oh, BTW, he's a pedophile.

On a stump the DJ joke contest some one called in the difference between Michael Jackson and Neil Armstrong. The answer was one was an astronaught and one is a pedophile.
It didn’t win but it got me to e-mail in "What is the difference between Michael Jackson and Louis Armstrong?" There are three (not counting one is dead) 1) Louis Armstrong was a talented musician: 2) Louis Armstrong stayed black: 3) Louis Armstrong blew the trumpet.

LOL!

Rodney, I have to admit I am not a fan of Michael's and never have been. I do have a copy of Thriller on CD and will eventually pick up Off the Wall. But that will be it.

For me, there's a sterility to Jackson's music. I don't think he follows his own muse, but rather tries to compose the next billion selling number one single. Lyrically, he often writes songs that are reflections of his personality, but I'm not sure the same can be said of his music. To me, Michael is a craftsman, not an artist.

np - Melon Collie and the Infinite Sadness - The Smashing Pumpkins

Benn- I think that is certainly true for his current stuff. He is trying too hard. Like Madonna, he's thinking "How can I get exposure THIS time???" and starts writing either a)songs with controversial topics or lyrics or b)making a video which is controversial.
Sadly, all it does is tick his fans off more.
As for the Smashing Pumpkins- the less said, the better!
Give me The Beatles, Queen or Kiss anyday.

Of course, controversy sells. And it may be this fact that's he's banking on, instead of honest creativity and true artistic endeavors. But as each controversial lyric or video fails to produce the desired sales he craves, the more desperate I think Michael becomes.

What's bad is that by some reports, Michael himself was responsible for the stories about him wanting to buy the Elephant Man's bones, sleeping in the hyperbaric (sp?) chamber and other such rumors of his "strangeness" in the Eighties. I think he was operating on the "any publicity is good publicity" theory. Unfortunately, those stories bit him in the ass and created a public perception he will never be free from. He will now always be perceived by the public as "Wacko Jacko". And this, I'm sure has had a very negative impact on his musical creativity.

One irony is that the Living With Michael Jackson special has apparently renewed interest in Jackson's back catalog. I would assume that this is a temporary sales spike. But who knows?

It does, however, make me wonder just how "upset" he really is with the report. I get the impression that Michael is eating all this attention up.

As for Smashing Pumpkins, they're not one of my favorites. But I like "Zero" and "Bullet With Butterfly Wings". And "1979" is one of my favorite songs. I haven't played Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness in a long time and felt like listening to it.

I do like the Beatles (pretty much have all their albums, plus a couple of bootlegs), a few KISS CDs and only one Queen disc - for now. I used to have most of their albums on tape or CD. I just haven't rebuilt that part of my collection, yet.

np - Shades of Two Worlds - The Alllman Brothers

I just saw this cartoon in The Riverfront Times, St. Louis' weekly alternative paper. (It's a sister paper to The Dallas Observer.) The strip is by someone who calls himself "Derf". Uh, Mr. Moderator, sir...?

http://www.riverfronttimes.com/comics/thecity/index.html

The Riverfront Times also has an article on Jackson that I haven't read yet.

I saw a fake photograph of Michael's latest stunt.
You know the end of "Jaws", as the ship is sinking and only the mast is above water? Jackson is standing on the mast holding his baby over the shark's mouth.

Anyone got a web link for this picture? (I got it my email.)

---

Quote:

OK- try to envisage the scenario. You have a poor family, your husband is out of work and an alcoholic and you're staying at home looking after your child living from welfare cheque to welfare cheque.
All of the sudden, one day your kid comes home and says "I made friends with this really nice fellow called Michael Jackson, he's invited me to his ranch". Michael "I'm worth a billion dollars" Jackson. Suddenly the dollar signs pop up, here's a man who can spend some time with your kid, sleep with him then you can say you'll sue and he'll pay you millions to shut you up.
Small price to pay to suddenly get very, very wealthy.
Does that explain why parents do that then?

---

Did anybody else catch Michael's interview with Ed Bradley on 60 Minutes tonight? Aside from questions about his current legal hassles, Bradley said something about Jacko's decline in sales. Michael said his records are number one all over the world. But one place - the U.S. This was, he claimed because of a "*Conspiracy*". Yeah, there's no way it's because you're out of step with the current music scene and that your current offering just sux, is there, Mikey?

For those of you who were unable to watch the interview, CBS' website has a transcript of it. You can read it here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/28/60minutes/main590381.shtml (Gee, I remember when you had to send money by snail mail to get a transcript. Ain't the Internet wonderful?)

np - Let It Be...Naked - the Beatles

"It's all one song." - Neil Young

The Simpsons have announced they'll cut their Michael Jackson episode where he sings Billie Jean and moonwalks from their archives following 'monstrous' evidence in the Leaving Neverland documentary.

Are they also going to cut the episode where Homer is in a mental institution and meets a fat white patient who thinks he is Michael Jackson and talks with Jackson's voice? Because if you're going to be stupid, you might as well be stupid all the way.

Franco, withdrawing from syndication i can just about understand. but this un-personing of Jackson?

Seems to be popular on the Left these days, getting people banned from Twitter, Facebook, shutting down their bank accounts, etc.

Frankly, the current backlash against Jackson is weird. I mean the first allegations came out in the '90s? Lots of people assumed he was a pedophile back then, when he was still alive.

Some comedian (Bobcat Goldthwaite?) had a joke about the parents of the boy demanding justice... until they get a check to settle the lawsuit.

In Living Color did a sketch of another Home Alone movie with Michael trying to get into Macauly Culkins house.

Hell, after he died, I did a cartoon referencing it.

So why is everyone acting like this is a new thing? Did he rise from the grave?

but this un-personing of Jackson?

"Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia."

Amazing how a novel, published seventy years ago, is still relevant. Mr. Orwell may have been 35 years off, but he was spot on in many ways, wasn't he.

Of course, it's okay for a studio or music company to unperson someone, but don't let a government dare.


Frankly, the current backlash against Jackson is weird. I mean the first allegations came out in the '90s? Lots of people assumed he was a pedophile back then, when he was still alive.

And he was brought to trial on such charges, a few years before his death. While he was acquitted of said charges in the end, his reputation never really recovered.


the parents of the boy demanding justice... until they get a check to settle the lawsuit.

Jackson chose to settle out of court. So some, that was an admission of guilt.


In Living Color did a sketch of another Home Alone movie with Michael trying to get into Macauly Culkins house.

I've seen that sketch, and it is funny (BTW, the kid playing "Macauley" was Jonathan Taylor Thomas, who played Randy on Home Improvement).


I did a cartoon referencing it

Got a link to said cartoon? I'd like to see it.



So why is everyone acting like this is a new thing?

Because Jackson is now dead, and cannot fight back.


Did he rise from the grave?

There are some that think he faked his death, so he could withdraw from public life.

Sure, he and Elvis are yukking it up on Bora Bora (although that whole Jackson marrying Lisa Marie thing might be awkward).

Got a link to said cartoon? I'd like to see it.
Here you go.

Tim: I was banned from a feminist blog for suggesting that un-personing Jackson - taking down his music and TV ("The Simpsons") would punish his children who are innocent and shouldn't be deprived of income.

Jackson was acquitted of all this years ago. Why are they bringing it up now?

Not to mention punishing fans of the music.

And, metaphorically speaking, his music IS a child of his. It committed no crime.

The idea that we should destroy anything because the person who created it was a flawed human being who did terrible things is insane.

Keith: It's also not allowing someone to be complicated, capable of both good and evil. There's talk of removing the ribbon denoting the ticket-tape parade Philippe Petain got for her heroic acts in WWII because of his role with Vichy France in WWII. His good deeds should still be acknowledged and he should be allowed to be complicated.

heroic acts in the First World War i mean. Sorry it's midnight here.

Also called Petain "her". I'm not doing good tonight.

The idea that we should destroy anything because the person who created it was a flawed human being who did terrible things is insane.

I agree.

I mean if we go by that line of thinking, then both the U.S. Declaration Of Independence and the Constitution would have to be destroyed. They were written by a bunch of slave owners, after all.

---

quote:

What a load of nonsense - it's pretty obvious as to why they have 'banned' the episode, and that is simply for fear of appearing to condone Jackson. It's the classic "anyone who fails to sufficiently condemn the witch is suspected of being a witch" thing, if you do not sufficiently demonstrate your purity you are by default deemed tainted.

I despise this sort of revisionist nonsense but thankfully own the episode on DVD so they can go right ahead in their attempts to expunge it from history.

I honestly can't see anything in this episode of a cartoon which features someone who doesn't even look like Jackson could be perceived as grooming.

I think there's some confirmation bias going on, Jackson was a paedophile so everything that has anything to do with him had to involve his paedophilia. People see what they expect to see, so once they knew, they went back and watched the episode again and "oh yeah..."

---

Jackson was a paedophile so everything that has anything to do with him had to involve his paedophilia.

The same could be said for the U.S. Founding Fathers. They were all slave owners, so anything connected with them is evil and corrupt. That would include the Declaration Of Independence, the Constitution, heck the U.S. itself.

As I said, Jackson did go to trial on all this, but was, in the end, acquitted. Why is this coming back now?

As I said, Jackson did go to trial on all this, but was, in the end, acquitted. Why is this coming back now?

Because the Leaving Neverland documentary just came out and re-ignited the whole affair, and this time around there is social media to fan the flames.

---

quote:

this sort of sanitising the past in a Ministry of Truth fashion is just nonsense, and the studios get into a terrible panic at the first hint that anyone night be "tainted" in some way, and race to airbrush them out ; as stated above, once someone has been found guilty in the court of public opinion they become persona non grata, and every trace of their existence must be expunged for fear of negative publicity if they don't.

The Simpsons episode is one of the really good ones: it's funny and it's moving. The thing is, you could probably have replaced Jackson with another famous pop star and it would be pretty much the same.

It's almost as though, at the time, the makers were willing to trade on Jackson's fame for their own gain, and now they are desperately trying to distance themselves from him.

---

---

quote:

The UK courts exonerated Glitter on his first child abuse claims. If it weren't for the horrifying and undeniable evidence of his hard drive he'd no doubt still be a free man now. One 'not guilty' verdict doesn't sponge away every allegation.

---

Why is this coming back now?

Because the hatemongers, like birds, need a "shiny object" to attract their attention. The recent documentary focused their tiny, hate-filled brains on Jackson so now he's their target.

No doubt they figured that, since he's dead, no one will be hurt.

Uh, he's dead, but his kids are not. And they ARE being hurt by this.

They should get rid of the Simpsons episode that has Hitler's Car in it next /sarcastic

Hang all Pedophiles, they cannot be rehabilitated

Except that most countries, ours included (Australia and Canada), abolished the death penalty long ago.

Of course, there is always castration.