Conservatives and Michael Jackson
This morning I went on Ace of Spades conservative blog and found the following video:
This blog by a black conservative sums up the problem pretty well:
First of all. while Michael Jackson has been accused by quite a few people of child molestation, he’s never been convicted of anything. Secondly, this is a reach as the media’s coverage of Michael Jackson has nothing to do with dissing our troops. And yeah, at a time when the GOP is struggling, barely getting mention on the national radar, dissing a cultural icon is just the kind of lift it needs. Any wonder too why Blacks stay away from the GOP?
Really, this is just making conservatives look bad. And I think it’s worse than just alienating blacks, it alienates most of the rational world. It reinforces the stereotype of conservatives as the uptight soulless whitebread guys that were outraged by Kevin Bacon dancing in Footloose. It’s getting to the point of self-parody now guys.
Maybe you don’t want Michael Jackson to be the most famous and admired human being born in the 20th century, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was. Hence they’ll cover him.
Also, check out this 1994 GQ article about his child molestation case that makes a pretty strong case that MJ was framed:
http://www.usnewslink.com/framedjackson.htm
Now I know what a lot of people think, sure they found no proof against him in criminal trials, but if he was innocent why did he pay off the family? Glad you asked.
Little known fun fact: not only was insufficient proof found against him in both cases, the $20 million paid as a settlement to the first accuser was not from Michael Jackson himself but negotiated and paid by his insurance carrier, over the loud protestations of Michael Jackson and his legal counsel.
You can Google it yourselves and find plenty of corroborating links about this fun fact, but if you don’t believe me here’s one corroborating link from Daily Mail to get you started:
When Jackson settled out of court with his first accuser, Jordan Chandler, for more than $15million in 1994, his career went into a rapid decline from which he never recovered.
Jackson had not wanted to settle the case. I have obtained legal documents proving that his insurance company forced the settlement on him against his will.
The documents state: ‘The [1994 Chandler] settlement agreement was for global claims of negligence and the lawsuit was defended by Mr Jackson’s insurance carrier. The insurance carrier negotiated and paid the settlement, over the protests of Mr Jackson and his personal legal counsel.’
A Youtube video covering most of the flaws in the accusation cases that aren’t widely known:
Slate also did the research and came to the same conclusion:
http://www.slate.com/id/2120889/
So then comes the other questions: if he was not a molester, why was his behavior so off and why did he have a compulsive need to spend time with young boys? That is covered in my last post on his psychology.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Whatever happened to Americans being proud of its icons? The state of conservatism is already in a fragile state, why would they bother with a losing, ugly stance like bashing Michael Jackson every chance they get right now? What do they gain from it besides showing insensitivity to his fans worldwide, showing themselves to fit the stereotype of insensitive, unhip and uptight white guys and providing cannon fodder for those who love stereotyping conservatives as racists?
It’s just really ugly behavior and horrible PR for us on the right. Obviously, whether or not Michael Jackson means anything to you or not, he means a lot to the rest of the world and is getting covered accordingly. There’s nothing to gain politically by bashing the coverage of a man hundreds of millions loved worldwide. A man who sold more copies of single album than anyone who ever lived, a record that is likely never to be topped again. Ever. I mean, I never got the big deal about Princess Diana, but I respect the right of the rest of the western world to go batshit insane over her death.
Anyway, one more Michael Jackson post coming up and I’m done with the topic, promise. 
(2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Mr. T,
I love your writing always, and I’m sorry to see that this event has pushed you into batshit territory. Try to project out a few weeks or months. Do you really want to go on record with “the most famous and admired human being born in the 20th century?” Prepare yourself for some tedious conversation with your co-religionists.
“Sure Stephen Hawking opened up knowledge of the universe people will be studying for the next 200 years, but could he dance? How many records did he sell? Case closed. Michael is god.”
Looking forward to clearer skies in the city of Rawness.
I’ve never been much for ardent fanhood, regardless of the celebrity, but MJ definitely was wildly successful and you have to admire that. I also don’t have a strong opinion on his guilt or innocence, I just didn’t follow it and haven’t researched it.
That said, his fall exemplifies on the macro scale the fact that men in American are presumed to be guilty when it comes to sexual abuse allegations, be it a child or woman who is victim. We see this on a grand scale as men around the nation have lives ruined by accusations, even when they are proved innocent. We Americans have vilified men and taken this to the extreme that we fear being left alone with children. Who among us would babysit except maybe for family? Who among us wants to spend time in business travel or working closely one on one with a woman? I prefer to minimize interaction with women in the workplace, and definitely keep my opinions to myself due to the sexual harassment witchhunt that goes on today. In a time when allegations are sufficient to ruin lives, it simply doesn’t pay to take any risks. We can’t be free to watch our friends kid while they run to the store. We are much less likely to stop and help a child who appears distressed in a public place. We avoid the playground areas of parks. We are reluctant to coach or mentor children, lead scout troops etc. because it just isn’t worth the risk. You’d have to be a fool to be a male teacher. With women too, false rape allegations are prevalent and we had best watch out for any reservations on her part, avoid workplace hookups and anything else that can open the door to a he said/ she said situation.
It’s fucked.
alphadominance´s last blog ..Guest Post featuring G Manifesto on Dressing Like an Alpha
Yes. Because it’s absolutely true. I’m not making a prescriptive statement, I’m making a descriptive one. Does he DESERVE to be the most famous and admired person born in the 20th century? That’s arguable. I totally concede that he may not deserve it. But does that change the fact that he is the most well-known and admired? No. It’s simply the truth
Here’s a good article about that very topic:
http://www.themonitor.com/arti.....-king.html
I’m not saying Michael is god. But I stand by the statement that he is the most famous and admired person born in the 20th century. If you ask me who made the more significant contribution to human advancement, I’d say Hawking. But who is more famous and influential? I’d say Michael Jackson.
Here’s a good general test for seeing which individual is more famous and influential than another. Let’s say Michael Jackson spent every waking moment and public appearance talking about Stephen Hawking and singing his praises. Let’s say at the same time Stephen Hawking spent every waking moment singing the praises of Michael Jackson. Which would do more for creating awareness of the other’s life and career, Jackson or Hawking? I’ve met plenty of people who have never heard of Hawking, I’ve yet to meet one who hasn’t heard of Jackson.
Honestly, if anyone is close to rivaling Michael Jackson for being both influential and famous, it’s Oprah, not Hawking. In fact, she probably has now succeeded him as the most famous and influential person born in the 20th century.
Oprah is only really famous in the US. What influence does she have in Norway or Japan? There is no shortage of people who are far more famous than Oprah (like actors).