RIP in 2009

[Kevy Baby]

Got an email tonight from a friend of mine (very much a straight shooter). Slightly edited to protect privacy.

As some of you know, I was working on the rehearsals for the Michael Jackson
comeback tour/show at the Staples Center the last couple of weeks. It looked
like I might go to London for a couple of weeks to install the XXX
part of the show.

Well, you all know what has happened.

I just want to mention how very surreal it is to be this close to something
like this. I've seen on TV when a star passes, just not when I was waiting
for him to show up. At the Staples Center we watched reports today on CNN,
saw reporters, then turned around to look out the window and could see the
report going on outside. New experience for me.

Last night he looked vibrant and healthy, and went until midnight. We were
all kind of stunned. Again, just very weird being on the inside of this.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Disneyphile

Yet, his works are highly revered and people speak of his talents, rather than discussing what a crazy mother****er he really was.

I don't think this is a good example. The only reason most people know who Van Gogh is, is because he took off the ear. Seriously, people who couldn't pick out one of his paintings in a lineup with cereal boxes will be able to tell you what a crazy mother****er he was.

That said, I never considered him a freak because of the bleaching and plastic surgery. All indications were the he was severely emotionally crippled in various ways and certainly was eccentric (and I suspect he wasn't necessarily aware that he was eccentric) but I never cared what he did to his body. But then, even though my two first musical memories involve him, I remained indifferent to his brand of fame so he was just a curiosity that occasionally came up.

[Alex]

The TV journalist's template for the Significant Celebrity Death:

Spoiler:

[innerSpaceman]

DP, I don't necessarily want to get into it with you, because you're obviously a bit touchy about it ... and someone you cared for and admired just died, so that's perfectly cool.

But need I remind you OJ was never convicted of a thing. The justice system is not so perfect that we need rely on it completely. I guess people in California really DO have the right to take away my civil rights, huh? The Court says so.

I hope you'll at least grant dispensation to Jazzman, whose own grandmother relayed to him testimony she heard as a juror in court. Conviction not necessary for her particular convictions.


I know it's in poor taste to speak ill of the dead, and I don't want to belabor this point. But in MJ's case, his "legacy" is indeed mixed ... and every news outlet in the world concurs. I don't think we must shy away from that on the LoT.


I'll certainly grant talent often travels side-by-side with eccentricity. But Michael inspired quite a debate over his character while he was alive, and I don't see how that's going to be stifled upon his shocking and untimely death.

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by Disneyphile

I knew this would happen, so I'll shut my mouth now. But, I'm certainly not alone in how I feel, and thankfully, I know that.

No you're not alone. I am also sick of people calling him a pedophile when he was acquitted- fer goodness sake- innocent until proven guilty unless your convicted in the court of public opinion by people who need something- ANYTHING-to explain to themselves why someone who is different and a little odd must have something sick and wrong with them-

Maybe it makes them feel better to condemn him in their own minds for something that a legal court could not-

Whatever-

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

But need I remind you OJ was never convicted of a thing.

He was found responsible for their deaths in a civil case-but not the criminal case.

So yea, he was convicted-he was made by the courts to pay for their deaths.

MJ was not- at all.

[Alex]

MJ paid a reported $25 million to keep a civil case from actually going to trial after which the paid off family refused to participate in the criminal trial, forcing it to be abandoned (this is the accusation from the early '90s).

I don't really have strong feelings on the issue but the perception that Michael Jackson did some bad things to young boys is not without some justification.

[scaeagles]

Curious - In your opinion Nephy, why did MJ make the huge payoff he did to the family of that one young boy?

Do you find it inappropriate for a man who isn't the father of young boys (admittedly) having cookies and milk in bed with them?

[lashbear]

Media can trial anyone and make anyone innocent or guilty without the need for a court. We all know that.

My own belief (and I'll just pop my 2c in here just to balance the scales) is that MJ was yearning to recapture the child within so badly. In part (a lot, actually) I understand where he came from. I spend a lot of time (way too much, in fact) trying to recapture the experiences, smells, tastes, feelings of the childhood I remember fondly (and also changing history for myself by re-writing unhappy memories too).

Do I wish I could have my own personal Disneyland in my backyard? One where I could go without being bothered by the press, and one I can fill with kids who appreciate it for it's innocence, it's fun, just the giddy in-the-moment times you have as a kid without worrying about where the family meals are going to come from, or who might be waiting to lop down the tall poppies?

You betcha.

Would I build a house where I could invite those kids who are sick, dying, or from underpriviledged homes to spend some happy days watching movies, having fun and forgetting their own sadness outside at home - just letting them know they can be happy and teaching them to carry the flame of happiness within when all without appears lost? I'd love to.

I'm not going to comment on any other stuff either, because there will always be the "nobody knows what went on behind closed doors" argument from plenty of folk - actually, let me just say that I believe this is the reason that he may have settled with the families: Without evidene one way or the other, if a child makes an accusation at the urging of parents in order to reap a large settlement, wouldn't you just settle out of court, rather than be found guilty by a media-biased jury (and you've all said a lot of people believe he was strange anyway, so why not just believe the kid, huh? - bias that would be easy to engender in the jury) , but I just wanted to say that I personally don't believe the Adult Child that was Michael Jackson meant to give those kids anything more than the Ohana love, support and happiness he so desperately wanted for himself.

End of soapbox.

Oh, Stoat wants to add: Who can't think of at least one person who hasn't at one time or another thrown money at a problem to make it go away quickly, even though they're not personally responsible for the problem? (My EG: Kevy at a certain dinner ?)

[Nephythys]

Originally Posted by Alex

MJ paid a reported $25 million to keep a civil case from actually going to trial after which the paid off family refused to participate in the criminal trial, forcing it to be abandoned (this is the accusation from the early '90s).

I don't really have strong feelings on the issue but the perception that Michael Jackson did some bad things to young boys is not without some justification.

No- it's not- but he was not convicted and there is room to believe he was the victim.

-as for the family- if someone had touched my kid I would not take a payoff. So that makes me suspect that they just wanted the money in the first place- not justice.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Curious - In your opinion Nephy, why did MJ make the huge payoff he did to the family of that one young boy?

Do you find it inappropriate for a man who isn't the father of young boys (admittedly) having cookies and milk in bed with them?

A mistake? Wanted to make it go away. MJ seemed like just a big kid- and frankly not very worldly wise- and I think the people around him hurt him more than they helped him. -and like I said, why did they take it? Because they wanted the $$$$- not justice for their kid.

-and weird, odd, unique- yes-but not inherently menacing or sexual. I think there is proof galore of his driving need to stay in childhood-at any cost. Children have sleepovers-

Was he emotionally stunted, immature- yes. A sick predator? I don't believe so-in the end, God will judge-not us.