Michael Jackson: Should he be revered?

Remove all ads!

My understanding is there are medications which will do the same thing.

 

It's also perfectly possible that his voice just never got much lower. I've known a few counter-tenors (real ones -- not baritones in falsetto) in my day; for whatever reason, their voices just didn't change all that much. It happens.

 

I don't like the sound of his voice or the style of his music. It has nothing to do with being "too 80s"...I love 80s big hair bands.

I stand corrected. Obviously, I wasn't born in the 70's...but thanks for dating yourself...

"This just in....A 'credible' source of a TMZ staff member's friend's step-brother's dog is reporting that Michael Jackson was in fact 80% finished with a gender reassignment procedure, more commonly known as a sex change. Sources say that medical examiners believe Jackson had the last surgery to remove his male parts with those of a woman's no less than 15 years ago."

Well...that clears a lot up, the only thing he was missing were some fun-bags...

 

The news is now reporting (and this really isn't that surprising as joacquin already pointed out) that none of MJ's three children are genetically related to him. In other words, he is not the biological father of any of them. The woman who MJ was married to for a time gave birth to the first two, but not the third. So the youngest one (named "Blanket" apprently) has no biological connection to either MJ nor MJ's former wife.

What is surprising is that apparently MJ never legally adopted any of the children. So this is going to cause some legal wrangling as to what happens to the kids - especially the youngest one. In somewhat better news, while MJ didn't have a formal will, he did have a trust fund set up for the three children (although none of the kids are 18, and so someone will be put in charge of the fund who will act in the best interest of the children. For the moment, MJ's mother has custody of the children, but has not been named executor of the trust fund at this time. I guess they have to determine who should have custody of the kids before they decide who can act in the best interest of the children when given the money.

 

Ah, Glam rock. Those were the days....



But it is really a creation of the 70s. The 80s got credit for it.

 

Actually Aldeth, it does appear that he had a will after all.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090701/ap_en_ot/us_michael_jackson

Where did you read about the kids not being his?

 

I queued up all night to get tickets to a concert he did in NZ in 1996. It was awesome.

 

DR, I heard on the news last night (after I had posted that he did not have a will) that while he technically didn't have a will, he did have a trust, which from a legal standpoint is practically the same thing. Those news agencies who said yesterday in the afternoon that MJ didn't have a will are technically correct, but are likely making a semantic point to sensationalize the story than actually reporting the facts. As your link says, he technically has a "family trust", but that is a will for all intents and purposes, as I found out last night after my post.

I heard a report on MSNBC TV last night while I was flipping through the channels (I'm thinking it was on Hardball, but strangely Chris Matthews was not the anchor, so maybe I have the wrong show. Chuck Todd was the anchor, but AFAIK, he doesn't have his own show, so maybe I'm just confused.) I cannot find a story to link to in a brief search I have just conducted.

I would not be surprised that they aren't his kids - one of them has blonde hair and blue eyes - very unlikely if your father is black. (Debbie DOES have blonde hair and blue eyes and she is supposedly the mother of the first two.)

 

I thought she was a redhead.

But yeah - "Blanket" is blonde haired and blued eyed, if memory serves. It's likely they aren't biologically his.

 

I have seen pictures of Debbie with red hair as well - I had assumed that she was naturally blonde and had it dyed red, although I suppose the opposite is possible as well. Regardless, we know from genetics that brown eyes and black hair are dominant over either blonde or red hair and blue eyes, and it is likely that MJ was not carrying any recessive lighter hair or eye color genes in his DNA, meaning most of his kids should look bi-racial, and at least two of them look 100% white.

 

I don't like Jackson as a human being, and as a performer he was OK in my book (I was never as enamoured with him as others seemed to have been) So posting this article is rather odd -- I also don't like the author. However, I pride myself on at least trying to see both sides of an issue, so in the interests of fairness, here it is:

Spoiler

Jackson not guilty
King of Pop cannot be remembered as a pedophile

By EDWARD GREENSPAN



In the frenzy of media coverage of Michael Jackson's death, his 2005 trial on charges of child molestation has been dredged up repeatedly, along with insinuations that the verdict was a case of a celebrity "buying justice." I am offended whenever I hear that tired accusation.

Cynics say Jackson went free because he hired the best lawyers. It may seem witty for critics to repeat Robert Frost's comment that a jury consists of 12 persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer, but I think that is nothing more than a "sour grapes" argument, trudged out whenever a celebrity accused is acquitted.

Obviously the quality of a lawyer matters in presenting the best defence possible, but it is pure ignorance to believe any defendant has ever won a case based solely on the fame of his lawyer. I cannot imagine any judge or juror ever explaining an acquittal on that basis. I have no doubt Jackson's lawyers worked exceptionally hard on preparing his case.

It is also an insult to prosecutors to suggest that Jackson's case was decided by his wealth or choice of defence lawyers. The prosecution's lawyers were no slouches, and the prosecution always has tremendous resources available to them.

Remember, the richest man in the world is Bill Gates, and even he lost when the U.S.government prosecuted Microsoft for anti-trust violations. Having served a five month jail sentence, Martha Stewart might also question whether wealth and celebrity can buy freedom.

Think again

If you think you know that Jackson should have been convicted, think again.

The Jackson trial lasted more than three months, and none of it was televised. Even a slow day of trial will usually include at least four hours of testimony. Thousands of words can be spoken during a single day of testimony, but the journalists who covered the trial probably never wrote more than 1,000 words or used three minutes of TV time to try to summarize each day's developments.

The fact of the matter is that reporting a trial is like a game of broken telephone. Do not think that you know what happened in the courtroom just because you followed the case in the news.

One observer who did attend the trial was Andrew Cohen, chief legal analyst for CBS News.

Following the trial he wrote a column addressed to those who were upset with the verdict: "The case against Jackson was so bad that even you would have acquitted him based solely upon the evidence. Yes, it was that bad."

In every democracy that has a constitution, one of the hallmarks of justice is the presumption of innocence. Everyone is presumed to be innocent and is, in fact, innocent unless and until the government proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

If a jury says not guilty, that means, in law and in fact, the person found not guilty is innocent. Whether or not people have difficulty accepting this proposition, it is a central tenet in a free country.

Jackson probably won't be remembered as a saint, but based on the evidence we have, he cannot be remembered as a pedophile, either.

You don't have to forget his unusual relationship with young boys, but you should remember what an acquittal means. It means that in life and in death, Jackson is an innocent man.

-- Edward L. Greenspan is a Toronto criminal lawyer

 

Michael Jackson created some moments of musical magic. I will revere him for that.

Plus, his ghost has already been sited:

 

I have to say i agree whole heartedly with congressman pete king

 

I agree with King that the 24/7 news coverage surrounding MJ is really wearing thin at this point. He's been dead for nearly two weeks now. His funeral and memorial service are today, so hopefully that means we'll have one more news cycle and then move on to something else.

However, I do take issue with King calling MJ a "pedophile", "pervert", and "child molester". He was taken to court on charges, but he was found not guilty. You're not a child molester if you are charged with child molestation and found not guilty, just like someone who is found not guilty of robbery isn't a robber.

That said, I don't think MJ was quite right in the head. The guy definitely seemed to have some serious psychological issues.

 

This sums it up accurately

 

Pervert is one that most people could agree on in that I don't believe that's a criminal, legal term. But the other epithets hurled by a lawmaker who should know better than to apply those labels to someone who was acquited are out of line. Of course I'd need to see the context in which he said them (can't get the video to run, blast it).

 

Why should someone not be allowed to put forth their views on MJ? He was cleared of charges in the 1st case against him. I still beleive he was a pervert, pedophile, etc... I understand that he was cleared. I also understand the failings in our legal system and public perceptions/personifications of stars. "Proven in court" is not the end all for me. I am an able, thinking man who has the ability to formulate my own opinions, as is the lawyer who is making the accusations. I probably wouldn't go on the air spewing off about it, but i'm not looking for exposure either.

MJ was and will continue to be in the afterlife a mega-media star. With that kind of fame comes the exposure of your life. It is highly accepted in the US for the media to open up and disect the life of and talk about or print the pros and cons of the said stars. Don't get me wrong, I personally don't like all the media exposure in the world right now, but i do recognize that it is hear to stay.

Do I think MJ should be revered? There is not one ounce of me that thinks so. But, I do believe he will be remebered for a lot of his accomplishments by the majority, as the opinions of many in these forums have expressed. I will just not be one of them.

 

To me it boils down to the fine line between slander and the expression of opinion. I feel quite justified in saying:

"I think Michael Jackson was a pedophile." That's an opinion*.

If I say:

"Michael Jackson was a pedophile." I am stating it as a fact, as in a legal fact, and one that is in legal fact not true.

I admit it's a fine line, but an important one in the never ending battle between freedom of expression and prevention of slander.

*I actually hold this opinion, mind you, but I have tried to be careful in its expression for the sake of legal accuracy.

 

Agreed, but let's face it, most big-time celebrities are a bit loopy. It goes with the territory. Michael's nuttiness was just a bit more unique and easier to label. If he'd been playing with a full deck, he wouldn't have been able to create the music that he did.

 

Interesting. That may very well be true. At times it seems there is a fine line between insanity and genius. I'm not saying you have to necessarily be insane to produce a great work of art, but there does seem to be some correlation going on.