Log in

No account? Create an account
07 July 2009 @ 02:16 pm
Michael Jackson: my one and only post  
I wish him well in the next life, whatever that may be. To quote (from memory, so the wording may be a bit off) someone else, "I hope he finds more peace in the next world than he did here."

He was a brilliant and innovative entertainer.

Nevertheless, his death is not a matter of international or national security (although I am sure it's been a huge police / security / crowd control hassle in California), and I am deeply offended that CNN has been reporting from a "Situation Room".

Furthermore, there are other events in the world. Protests in Iran. Iranian clerics publicly opposing the Guardian Council. The subway crash in DC. Missiles in Korea. A military coup in Honduras. A mass shooting in Detroit and a possible serial killer in South Carolina. A monorail crash at Disney. Even the deaths of other celebrities. And what's on CNN? All Michael Jackson, all the time.

Finally, I was even more deeply offended by one CNN reporter yesterday or the day before who said something like, "I asked Al Sharpton when and where the family's private service was going to be. He told me about the public memorial at the Staples Center. I thought he must have misunderstood me, so I said, 'No, I'm asking about the family's private service -- when and where is that going to be?' But he refused to comment on that." It should have been nobody's damn business but the family's when and where their private services were held. What part of "family" and "private" did she not the hell understand (or, probably, respect even if she did understand the concept)?
Missybkwrrm_tx on July 7th, 2009 07:07 pm (UTC)
I enjoyed his music, but he had many, many faults and the one I can't overlook is his pedophilia.

Bury him, remember the artist but I really wish they weren't making him into some sort of national treasure.
Janet Miles, CAP-OMjanetmiles on July 7th, 2009 08:13 pm (UTC)
Given that he was acquitted in court, I'm going to assume there was no molestation. I've never been convinced one way or the other whether he was sexually attracted to children, or if he just didn't have a clue how to deal with adults and preferred to interact with children.
Buddha Buckblaisepascal on July 7th, 2009 08:40 pm (UTC)
I read a recent article which suggested that MJ identified with and wanted to be Peter Pan, and had the money to do so to the best of his ability (to the point of speculating that among his effects will be pictures of Peter Pan to be used as models for the plastic surgeons, and that his high-pitched speech was a deliberate affectation to retain the child-like characteristics he wanted in himself).

It is entirely possible and believable under that situation that MJ, like JM Barrie himself, was entirely asexual.
Maggiesillymagpie on July 7th, 2009 10:55 pm (UTC)
He did have a couple of sons with his second wife...
A Wandering Hobbitredbird on July 8th, 2009 12:10 am (UTC)
It's not clear who the biological father was, though. (They are his kids by my understanding of parenthood, but that doesn't prove anything about sexuality.)
Buddha Buckblaisepascal on July 8th, 2009 12:19 am (UTC)
MJ? According to his second wife, she and MJ never lived as husband and wife and the children were artificially inseminated. His third child was borne by a surrogate, also via artificial insemination.
Maggiesillymagpie on July 8th, 2009 06:39 am (UTC)
At a cursory glance, Rowe has gone back and forth on the parental business and her lawyer (not an unbiased source) claims she's the mother. I have a feeling there will be as many rumors back and forth about Jackson as there were about Elvis and Howard Hughes.
Maggiesillymagpie on July 7th, 2009 10:50 pm (UTC)
I thought he settled out of court rather than being acquitted.
Buddha Buckblaisepascal on July 8th, 2009 12:26 am (UTC)
He settled a 1993 civil suit, and was acquitted in a 2005 criminal trial.
Barbrahirah on July 7th, 2009 07:24 pm (UTC)
Yeah, that. it's not that I think his fans don't have a right to grieve, but this is ridiculously out of proportion.
TSJAFOtsjafo on July 7th, 2009 07:29 pm (UTC)
I don't remember there being this much ado when John F. Kennedy died.
madshutterbug: Expostulationmadshutterbug on July 8th, 2009 07:35 pm (UTC)
It was quieter, but it was there. And, it settled very quickly after the state funeral. However, the three days leading up to that the television coverage was pretty much only about the assassination & the state ceremonies. And the state funeral ran uninterrupted. No ads.
Janet Miles, CAP-OMjanetmiles on July 8th, 2009 08:22 pm (UTC)
To play Devil's Advocate for a moment, though, JFK was the president of the USA when he was assassinated. His death was a matter of national security.
madshutterbug: Expostulationmadshutterbug on July 9th, 2009 02:13 pm (UTC)
No argument at all. Plus, in his own way (their own way, the Kennedy's as First Couple as it were), as big a celebrity. Nor in my memory has that level of video coverage, unrivaled by any other route, been repeated. All networks carried the events as they happened, and that includes radio as well as video. Stipulated, this pre-dated today's gazillion channels, which in one sense allows for one or a handful of channels to be so occupied while the rest continue 'business as usual'.
Fat Fred the Otter and Skippy: I would lick it for days!fatfred on July 7th, 2009 07:35 pm (UTC)

Orkers here are watching online and crying.
What a farce.
Traveler Farlandertwfarlan on July 7th, 2009 08:23 pm (UTC)
The Plebs will have their bread and circuses. They will entertain themselves and worship what tiny gods they may. They, the people, the teeming masses, as quickly as shall anyone will fiddle while Rome burns.
Kathykath8562 on July 8th, 2009 01:13 am (UTC)
You know, I was thinking that this morning- it's time to dig out the history books and re-read about that era of Roman history (however, it will NOT be "The Rise and Fall of The Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbon- I just can't do that to myself more than once!)
thatwordgrrl on July 7th, 2009 08:26 pm (UTC)
Speaking as an Angeleno, wanna know what offends me more than anything you listed?

That my cash-strapped city is *footing the bill* for all of this.

It's Joe Jackson's son. He's got gobs of cash. The least he could do is pony up to cover for securty.

Janet Miles, CAP-OMjanetmiles on July 7th, 2009 09:12 pm (UTC)
Yeah, I saw your post about that. Good grief. I had just assumed that the city and county would be billing the estate. I guess I based that on the "sheriff's deputies who work overtime to direct traffic for the churches on Wednesday night and Sunday morning are paid by the churches" sort of thing I'm accustomed to here.

On the other hand, I wouldn't necessarily expect J. Random Citizen's estate to be asked to cover the cost of one or two cops to escort a large funeral procession from the church to the cemetery. (Do they still do that there? It's fairly common here for medium to large funerals. People here still pull over to let funeral processions go by, too -- even on the opposite side of the road if it's not a divided roadway.)

Also, does Joe Jackson have gobs of cash? I don't know where the money went, once Michael, Janet, and the others started their own separate careers.
thatwordgrrl on July 7th, 2009 10:15 pm (UTC)
J. Random Citizen's funeral costs likely do not come to $4 million.

You'd think that between Kobe, Magic and Mariah, they'd be willing to cover the costs.

But I ain't holding my breath.

Kats: Lion Kingwildrider on July 8th, 2009 12:13 am (UTC)
If J. Random Citizen wants police to escort the funereal procession, that is billed with the rest of the funeral expenses to J. Random's family (we did it for Dad's funeral so no one would get left behind at a traffic light).

As for Jacko... I don't feel it for him, but I DID for Elvis, so I feel I can't honestly say anything negative about all the hoopla. The only difference between now and then is the 24-hour media which we simply didn't HAVE then (but had we, I guarantee it would have been just the same). This is what people DO.
darrel jenkins iidjenk on July 7th, 2009 11:29 pm (UTC)
I never thought I'd find something to admire in Rev. Al Sharpton, but good on him for refusing to speak about private matters with the CNN paparazzi fool (I know you said reporter, not photog, but this sort of attitude is more in tune with those who fly helicopters over famous people's homes or climb privacy fences)
browngirl on July 8th, 2009 02:04 am (UTC)
Well said.
zemhitchhiker on July 8th, 2009 04:04 pm (UTC)
okay, i've been mostly indifferent to the michael jackson hoopla - people are welcome to mourn, and he did touch a lot of lives. but the reporter thing makes me sick.