The Eclectic One

…Because labels are a poor substitute for thinking

Michael Jackson: Pedophile? Maybe. Popular singer? Sure. Important to Music or Culture as a Whole? Gimme a Break!

Posted by Bill Nance on July 6, 2009

We just got back from our fifth anniversary trip to Montreal tonight.  It was a wonderful trip where we got together with some old and some newer friends, had a ball at the Montreal Jazz Festival and got a chance to have stellar Paella at our favorite restaurant.

We had some down-time here and there and of course it always takes me a while to fall asleep, so we had a chance to watch the boob-tube for a while, mostly CNN, trying to get more on the Palin resignation, or on Iran.

Apparently Michael Jackson’s death and all the idiocy surrounding his life is the ONLY thing of import happening in the world.  At least if you’re CNN.

I have freaking news for you people, he wasn’t that big a deal.

Muddy Waters, Buddy Guy, Buddy Holly, The Beatles and The Doors all had lasting impacts on popular music that are 1000 times more lasting and serious than anything Michael Jackson ever even approached.  He was about as significant a figure as Fred Astaire when you look at his dancing, or as Paris Hilton when you look at anything else.

And of the above mentioned rock/blues bands/artists, none were ever indicted twice on child molestation charges.

He’s dead, and no crying from me.  For all you people acting as though he was Elvis, get a friggin grip.

And CNN has officially been removed from my list of reputable news sources. Anyone that devotes 24/7 coverage to Michael Jackson in the middle of giant news events goes to the bottom of the list. You’d be better off watching Fox. How pathetic is that?

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Michael Jackson: Pedophile? Maybe. Popular singer? Sure. Important to Music or Culture as a Whole? Gimme a Break!”

  1. Jacklambe said

    Yup

  2. the truth said

    All you ignorant fools should actually research the cases before passing judgment or else say you don’t know if he’s guilty or not because you don’t know the evidence. There is no evidence that Michael Jackson ever molested anyone other than the words of proven and admitted liars who couldn’t keep their lies straight under oath. If they had evidence in 1993, Sneddon would have arrested Michael Jackson and charged him with child molestation, instead the police investigation went on for more than a year and no charges were ever brought. Jackson was found not guilty in 2005 because he was NOT GUILTY. The prosecution presented NO evidence to support Gavin Arvizo’s claims that Michael Jackson molested him. Instead all the evidence, even the prosecution’s ‘evidence’ pointed to the fact that Gavin and his family were a bunch con-artists trying to pull the biggest con of their careers with the help of the mainstream media. People like to claim Michael Jackson was a pedophile based on these idiotic lines of reasoning.
    1. “He’s spends time with kids instead of women, therefore he is a child molester”. If so how come all the kids he spends time with aren’t accusing him? How come all the victims that exist in your imaginations never come forward with allegations. He’s had thousands of kids at Neverland over the years, and only three accusers, all whose parents happen to be con-artists chasing after money.
    2. “He paid them off so he’s guilty.” Do you know the difference between a civil case and criminal case. WTF is something as serious as child molestation doing in civil court instead of criminal court. If you think someone molested your kid you go straight to the cops, you don’t call your lawyer and file a lawsuit and then refuse to cooperate with the police once you get a settlement. Explain to me where in the settlement http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0616041jacko1.html does it say the money is contingent upon the accusers failure to cooperate with the police. It was the Chandler’s decision and theirs alone to run after taking the money. If you bother to read it (I know its to difficult for idiots) you’d notice MJ claimed he’s innocent in the settlement and accuser and his lawyers agreed to sign it. By this idiotic logic, Janet Arvizo and her children were telling the truth when they claimed that a JC Penny’s security guard beat and sexually abused her because JC Penny settled with her for more than 100,000. Please.
    3. “He had money so he beat the rap.” Martha Stewart, Paris Hilton, Chris Brown, Madoff, etc. I guess did not have enough money to beat the rap. Michael Jackson’s trial was one of the most expensive trial in U.S. History. It cost taxpayers 2.7 million dollars. http://news.softpedia.com/news/Michael-Jackson-s-Trial-Costs-2-7-million-5327.shtml Sneddon had been chasing after Michael Jackson for 12 years and he still could not find any evidence or credible witnesses, despite ransacking Neverland twice with 70 police officers, setting up a hotline for alleged victims to come forward, and traveling around the world looking for victims.
    4. “OJ Simpson got away with it, so Michael Jackson got away with it too.” People who think OJ is guilty can point to evidence, something that MJ haters have a hard time doing. By that same logic, Charles Manson is also innocent because some people are wrongfully convicted. Therefore, we should release all convicted criminals from prison.
    5. “He sleeps with boys.” This is not illegal. If you want to use this as proof of his guilt, then at a minimum the boys he’s sleeping with have to be the ones accusing him, NOT you. This didn‘t happen in the Michael Jackson case, contrary to popular belief. Gavin Arvizo the boy accusing him in 2005 never slept in bed with Michael Jackson, according to the Martin Bashir interview and witnesses at the trial. He slept in the guest room with his family. Macaulay Culkin, Wade Robson, and Bert Lewis, all testified they slept with Jackson in the early 90s and nothing happened. Do you know better than them what happened to them? Jordie Chandler (the boy got the settlement in the early 90s) skipped the country so he wouldn’t have to testify in the 2005 case. Gee, I wonder why?
    6. “There was ‘lurid’ testimony. ‘Little boys never lie’. When a child speaks we should believe them…” I can give lurid testimony about you too. I wonder if that makes it true. Here’s one of my favorites from you tube. On the witch hunt for victims Diane Diamond comes across a boy who could give ‘lurid testimony’ that Michael Jackson molested him and details of his time at Neverland. She believed him and wasted months trying to corroborate his story and even gets the police involved. Turned out this kids a liar who’d never even met Michael Jackson. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3GbPkR-ne4
    If you are an intelligent person with an interest in the cases read Aphrodite Jone’s book, Geraldine Hugh’s book, and this GQ article http://www.buttonmonkey.com/misc/maryfischer.html.
    If not, then quit slandering the man’s name.

  3. Bill Nance said

    I find it interesting that you I’ve accused Jackson of being a definite child molester.

    As the title says: “Maybe.” “Maybe” is reasonable doubt, which is enough to be found not guilty of the specifications charged. A not guilty verdict does not clear you of any wrongdoing, it merely says the state has not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Jackson may or may not have been a pedophile. Given his strange attachment to and behavior towards young boys I’m not willing to rule out the possibility. As for Sneddon, I happen to have been living in Santa Barbara County at the time and remember rather clearly that there was a civil settlement with the alleged victim that derailed the criminal case. We’ll never know what the outcome might have been.

    Finally, if you think someone who has many millions of dollars available for the best possible legal defense isn’t likely to be acquitted absent an extremely clear-cut chain of evidence and witnesses, you don’t know much about our legal system.

    It’s sad you are so blindly willing to follow the lead of a few sympathetic reporters in the face of extremely bizzare, long-lasting behavior that points very strongly to a profile of a pedophile. I’m willing to admit he may have been totally innocent, though I think it unlikely. You, however, seem unwilling to admit the possibility that he may not have been. Again, given the behaviors exhibited by the man, I think I’m on much more solid ground in being skeptical of Jackson’s innocence.

    As for his stardom, I will bet you money that in 20 years other than a few hits playing on the radio now and then, people will say “Michael Who?

  4. ghdfhjdsfs said

    Your a dick…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: