May 6 2009, 11:34 PM
I'll be damned. Paula Abdul finally owned up to it: she had a problem with prescription painkillers. Really, Paula? WE HAD NO IDEA.
Oh, & Kelly MCGillis came out.
May 18 2009, 10:48 AM
Okay, so I know this has gotta be total bullshit, but it struck me as being really really really funny, too. From IMDB:
"Jamie Foxx has been tipped to play late Rat Pack crooner Frank Sinatra, according to reports.
Leonardo DiCaprio and Harry Connick Jr. were among the names rumoured to be in contention for the role after it was announced earlier this month that filmmaker Martin Scorsese will direct a biopic.
But now African-American actor Foxx, who won an Oscar for his portrayal of Ray Charles in 2004's Ray, has emerged as the favourite to play Ol' Blue Eyes.
And studio bosses are convinced Foxx has the charisma and talent to tackle the role of Sinatra, who died in 1998.
An insider tells Britain's Daily Star, "Jamie would seem to be born to the role. Magnificent voice, convincing acting ability - like Frank himself - born the wrong side of the tracks, makes it big against all odds, has his brush with authority. The guy's a gift."
How the fuck is that gonna work?
May 18 2009, 11:09 AM
May 19 2009, 02:02 PM
kittenb, your link didn't work for me.
AP, that is odd. I'm also confused by Jaime Fox's appearance in a group shot of country music performers in an issue of People magazine. There were about 20 country musicians in this staged photo shoot...did he do a country song or something?
May 19 2009, 07:41 PM
i suspect that that photo was from the country music awards
, star. jamie foxx did a song with rascal flats on their last album. they did that song live for the cma. then they took a pic.
May 19 2009, 07:50 PM
A-ha! Thanks GT! I'm sure there was a caption stating that news. I was just dumbfounded by this sea of white country stars and Jaime Foxx directly in the middle. It was like some odd Highlights photo.
May 22 2009, 07:40 PM
Not really a celebrity, but Hot for Teacher night!
I can't decide if I'm disturbed or delighted.
May 22 2009, 08:31 PM
i just posted something about that in the CFBC thread.
it's the talk of the town. what a douchebaby (and douchemama?)
...freud, we need you to sign this paper for your field day....
there have been stories about that harry potter dude hanging out with a particular transexual (although the press keeps insisting she's a drag queen. she's trans). the coolest part is that he's utterly casual about it. he said he saw her show, and he loves drag culture. he's said he would love to play a drag queen cos it's an excuse to wear tons of eye make up.
Jun 2 2009, 10:03 PM
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! X's Exene Cervenka is suffering from Multiple Sclerosis. Not only is she a WORLD CLASS, amazing musician, writer, artist & mother, she was married to both John Doe & Viggo Mortensen. Thems were some *****LUCKY****** mens to share any kinda life with such a GENIUS, KILLER broad.
Jun 3 2009, 07:37 AM
Aww, that's too bad, AP.
Jun 20 2009, 06:39 PM
Oh, noes! This news makes me so sad as these two are probably one of my top five favorite Hollywood couples: Bradley Whitford & Jane Kaczmarek are filing for divorce.
Jun 21 2009, 11:33 AM
I read that this morning, too, AP. Very sad!
Jun 24 2009, 03:38 PM
I guess none of us are really surprised about the divorce proceedings of Jon and Kate.
Jun 24 2009, 04:34 PM
did you see that footage of the 8 asking for water? one of the kids begs kate for water. she gets a waterbottle from the crew, takes a long pull, and puts it away without giving the kid any.link
i wonder who buys that woman's books on parenting. *shakes her head* might as well ask joan crawford...
Jun 24 2009, 05:38 PM
*oops nothing to see here*
Jun 26 2009, 09:34 AM
They are suspecting if Michael Jackson's Prescription Drug Abuse
was the culprit to his death.
Jul 6 2009, 06:42 PM
Does anybody know when Michael Jackson's funeral is actually going to happen? I'd have to assume that it's going to be televised, just like Princess Diana's.
Jul 6 2009, 07:30 PM
They're pretty much being *extremely* secretive, as expected, about the real deal. The media stories are all over the map. There's talk of a private family ceremony at Forest Lawn, which seems most likely to me.
I do know the BIG memorial is being organized by the same guy that does the Emmy's. They're talking the Staples Center & having Jumbotrons at places like the Nokia for the off flow. Without it, the streets could be clogged by literally thousands of people that couldn't get tickets. Supposedly no date has yet been given because the city of LA needs to prepare for the onslaught (They're predicting upwards of 200,000 people converging on LA, I'm not surprised.) & Joe Jackson refuses to give the go-ahead until the second autopsy reports are in. Those are being done by Dr. Michael Baden, who seems extremely competent for being something of a "celebrity" coroner. (I do have great respect for the man.) US networks are definitely watching their schedules because you KNOW there will have to be minute by minute coverage.
Of course, I've also heard rumors that the guy behind Body Worlds exhibits, Dr. Gunther von Hagens, would like to plastinate
MJ. Which to me seems fitting. I can see him all done up in that pose on his toes, raw except for a single, bejeweled glove.
Jul 6 2009, 08:20 PM
I kept hearing that the memorial service would be tomorrow at 10am at the Staples centre but the online TV guide isn't mentioning anything about it, that's why I was confused. And also it's a memorial service, not necessarily the actual funeral. Anyway, I guess we'll find out more about it as time goes on.
Jul 6 2009, 08:23 PM
See, I keep hearing the ten am, but no specific date. His passing is going to be just as much of an insane media clusterfuck as his life was.
Jul 8 2009, 08:29 AM
I watched snippets of the MJ memorial (because it was on every. fucking. channel.) and was irritated by it. Granted, I take a minority view that Michael Jackson was an unrepetant, unpunished pedophile, and have considered him persona non grata for many years now. Forgive me if this is offensive to anyone here who is a fan, but I consider pedophilia an executable offense, possibly the only one.
So without the rose coloured curtain that has seemed to envelope the world for the last 11 days, the whole sideshow circus was unnerving. Particularly when the Jackson Family put a GRIEVING CHILD on a mike for a TELEVISED SERVICE. Let the poor girl grieve privately, with family. Do something right and normal for these poor kids for once in their lives. I realize for the Jackson Family being a healthy functioning family unit may be a foreign thing, but it'd be nice to see them try for once.
I feel immensely sorry for those kids. I don't think anything will ever be normal for them, ever, and that's not fair. It's not their fault they were born Jacksons.
PS: Auralpoison--I met Exene when my band opened for her husband's band in STL last year. I had her autograph my copy of "We've Got the Neutron Bomb" that I was lucky enough to have with me because I was rereading it for the 1000th time. She married a St. Louis musician and comes through here a lot, apparentally. It was pretty cool. I totally geeked out.
Jul 8 2009, 03:39 PM
I actually forgot that the funeral was yesterday until I woke up this morning. My day yesterday was nutty and great. To realize that I forgot it kind of suprised me.
A very long time ago I was convinced that Michael Jackson was innocent. Until very recently, I thought he was guilty as hell. Now I no longer know.
All I know is that I have been forced to think about Michael Jackson more in the past few weeks than I have in the past several years. I feel like I have come to some sort of peace with him. This is important to me. I can listen to his music again and I really like some of his stuff (well, before "Remember The Time." I just don't get that song.) In some weird way I feel like I have gotten something back that I missed more than I realized.
As for the funeral, I don't think it is that uncommon to have children speak. What I thought was tacky, tacky, TACKY, was all the Jackson sibs wearing one white, sparkly glove.
Jul 8 2009, 03:44 PM
It isn't uncommon to have children speak to the family. Not to TV cameras. The Jackson family should be ashamed of themselves.
Jul 8 2009, 04:03 PM
Paris has been silenced for years. How long was it before she was out in public without her face covered? I think that her words were touching. I also think that to assume it wasn't her idea is a mistake. I am pleased that in her father's death she has gained a voice.
Jul 8 2009, 05:11 PM
Maybe the kid just wanted to talk. Yes, the whole thing was televised but maybe she just wanted to say something nice about her dad. What's wrong with that? I doubt that that the family forced her to say anything.
Jul 8 2009, 06:02 PM
from what i understand, there was a kind of battle inside the family about whether the children should be allowed to speak. i don't think you can really assume from the outside what went on. i think that's the problem. people assume they know the whole story when they don't. i don't know if he did or didn't do things with those kids. i find it strange that with all the kids he had going in and out of neverland, that only 2 took him to court, but i've found out someone i never would have suspected was a molester was, so i don't think you can ever assume someone's not. but what i do know is that i don't know.
Jul 9 2009, 07:14 AM
This will have to be one of those topics where we agree to disagree. I firmly believe MJ molested those kids, and I don't come by this assumption with no cause. (Can't prove OJ killed his wife, either, but there's some pretty compelling circumstancial evidence)
I'm not naive enough to believe Paris wasn't coached. While her emotion is undoubtedly real (and heartbreaking), it has no place in the public forum. Now is a time the children should be protected from the press, not shoved in front of them. A normal parent protects their children from media scrutiny at a time when they are vulnerable and grieving. Some of that scrutiny is inevitable just because of who she is, but that doesn't mean the adults in the room are exempt from ridicule if they invite it. I feel deeply sorry for those kids, because I don't think they have even one sane functional person in their corner.
I'm pretty much done with the whole Jackson clan at this point. History can go on revising itself.
Jul 9 2009, 07:38 AM
I also feel very badly for those children. It seems like they don't have any possible guardian that would take proper care of them. It's really quite upsetting to think about, so I just choose not to. At least they're not wearing masks anymore...
Jul 9 2009, 11:23 AM
yup, busty girl, we will have to agree to disagree, and you absolutely do believe mj molested those children. just as people are free to believe the moon is made of cheese.
i am astounded at your certainty. i assume you are, what, friends with the family who made the accusation? or are you the former baby sitter for the child? no? perhaps a friend of a uncle of a niece of a mother-in-law's labradoodle's dog walker's business partner? no? well, then you're kind of guessing, aren't you?
sorry, but the OJ justification? are you serious? it rubs me completely the wrong way when OJ is used to prove the ipso facto guilt of any black man. it makes zero sense, it's a non-sequitur, and a non-arguement. after all plenty of people in prison proven innocent by DNA testing, aren't there? hell, the crimes aren't even similar. talk about faulty, slipshod logic. there are only three things they have in common: wealth, fame and race. there are plenty of people who are wealthy and famous, and i've never heard people use their name as justification. that leaves only race. how odd that all of the sudden people like to use that as their weak proof of mj's automatic guilt, as if that settles it, or proves diddley squat. i'm afraid if you want to come up with some rationale as to why mj is guilty, you'll have to do better than that. innocent until proven guilty only applies to those we want it to, doesn't it?
the fact is, you have no more proof of his guilt than i do, and my being "naive" isn't so much that as not feeling the need to see everyone in that family as evil fiends. i do not have some mental picture of them rubbing their mitts together to construct some elaborate fraud for public sympathy. you call it naive, i call it a complex understanding of the way human beings operate. whatever. family dynamics after death are bound to be contentious, and the idea that they all thought using a child as a PR puppet was good idea is absurd. that family most of all-- they have felt the brunt of the paparazzi and parental manipulation more than most. it is not some huge leap to think that there was some debate as to them being seen w/o masks, speaking etc. took place. it is not naive to think that this was something that was argued about, and not some monolithic familial groupthink. perhaps, they thought she was old enough to make up her own mind, and as candy suggested, she had something to say. i do not think that is completely out of the realm of possibilities, and it is absolutely not ridiculous.
no, what i think, however, is worthy of ridicule, is people who claim ultimate knowledge, when they have utterly no way of knowing, other than the national enquirer.
Jul 9 2009, 11:36 AM
I know you and I had this conversation on FB, GT- for me, at least, using OJ as a comparison has nothing to do with the fact that he's black and everything to do with the fact that he's rich and powerful. The fact that they're both black is just a coincidence for me. But these were two rich, powerful men who were accused of terrible things, caused a media circus before, during and after their trials, and worked the legal system in their favor to get away with what they were accused of. And used their wealth to manipulate those around them, outside of the trial. I mean, if MJ were just the weird guy at the end of the block on a street in Gary, IN, people would be avoiding him like the plague. But he was a celebrity! And a celebrity with a zoo and an amusement park in his backyard! Load the kids into the car and drop them off, and don't ask any questions!
ETA: okay, read your post a little more carefully. I think the automatic jump to OJ also comes from the sheer amount of coverage and media-created obsession and drama over these two cases. Yeah, there are other cases, and there are plenty or rich white guys who get away with shit (several members of the Kennedy family!) but MJ and OJ were just the two most recent ones who reached this level of insanity.
Jul 9 2009, 01:33 PM
sorry, polly but the idea that it had NOTHING to do with race is absurd. how can you say, oh, well 2 out of 3 are valid, but, that third, no, i don't see race at all. they all have some place in this argument, and it is most prolific whenever the guilt or innocence of a black man is in question. did you hear this argument in discussions of bernie maddoff? no. how about when phil spector was on trial? i don't ever recall hearing one conversation, post or pundit, justifying his guilt by using OJ as the yardstick. yet, he was famous. he was wealthy, yet, no OJ. race is not a buried issue in this country, and any good or ill that a black person does is still universalized. particularlly the ill. if obama fails, his failure will be subtly imbued upon every other black person.
this idea that you can exclude one of the things, "just because" does not work. why is race absolutely not a factor? you have to disprove that. you don't get to dismiss it out of hand. sorry, you don't. i'm not saying busty or anyone else is a racist. but we all have are prejudices, no matter our color. to say that she, or you, or any of us is free of race is the biggest pile of horseshit ever sold. we all swim in that sea of race and class and gender, and we are emboldened by our cliques, our groups. when people use that OJ defense we understand that it is an acceptable means of making an argument that makes no sense, that we could not possibly make otherwise. it's lazy, it makes no sense, and there is ABSOLUTELY a subtle component of race involved. everyone's perceptions are filtered thru race and gender, and nobody is free of it. not you, not me, not her. if you don't think so, if you are so sure that the OJ argument is race free, then lay out your case. cos just to say, "oh, it's just not," ain't gonna cut the mustard. even when talking about the kennedys were not constantly held up as proof of a fucked up legal system. it's being current is a rather weak argument as well. sorry.
honestly, if you wanna get down and dirty about getting away with things, please, i got a fuckton of cases that never get a single tear from most people whining about OJ. umpteen cops get away killing black men, in both new york and sf this year 2 black men were killed-- their backs riddled with bullet counts over 20 each. white men don't need fame or wealth to get away with murder, so spare me the injustice talk. it's bullshit.
stop and think about that knee jerk reaction and think about how little it applies. it doesn't apply in any logical way. it's like saying, well, 2+2= 4 so anything you add to 2 will equal 4. it's false, faulty logic.
what's more, if you are so certain that you know what went on, as busty and so many others who hide behind that specious argument, it should be terrifically easy to PROVE YOUR CASE WITHOUT OJ. really. if it's that obvious, if it's that clear cut, why do you need OJ?
the sweet, simple, ugly truth is, it's short hand, and race absolutely is involved.
Jul 9 2009, 01:40 PM
QUOTE(girltrouble @ Jul 9 2009, 11:23 AM)
Sorry, but the OJ justification? are you serious? it rubs me completely the wrong way when OJ is used to prove the ipso facto guilt of any black man. it makes zero sense, it's a non-sequitur, and a non-arguement. after all plenty of people in prison proven innocent by DNA testing, aren't there? hell, the crimes aren't even similar. talk about faulty, slipshod logic. there are only three things they have in common: wealth, fame and race. there are plenty of people who are wealthy and famous, and i've never heard people use their name as justification. that leaves only race. how odd that all of the sudden people like to use that as their weak proof of mj's automatic guilt, as if that settles it, or proves diddley squat. i'm afraid if you want to come up with some rationale as to why mj is guilty, you'll have to do better than that. innocent until proven guilty only applies to those we want it to, doesn't it?
I agree with you, GT. I don't think some people do not think about the issue of race when comparing the trials of Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson. Why not compare Michael Jackson's trial to Roman Polaski's trial of statutory rape? Why the OJ comparison? I'm not implying or pulling the race card, but, perhaps, those people who rushed to compare those 2 situations may reconsider why they chose another high profile court case of an African American male celebrity. Just putting it out there.
I am not convinced of Michael Jackson's guilt or innocence in his 2 cases. What's been clear is the man has made poor choices for himself. With the amount of scrutiny he experienced with the presence of children in his private life, he did not look after himself and set boundaries by his interaction with children. He continued to pour salt in the wound by acting arrogant and defiant by talking in that documentary about sharing his bed with children. His interviews also became more erratic towards the last decade. I think what is truly sad is the amount of exploitation of him by others and his being own naivete and trusting of the wrong people to look after him. He really did dig his own grave.
And the exploitation continues by his family and those involved with him in death. I'm not shocked that his family had the children talk. His parents aren't really known for sheltering their children from harm. Latoya and Jermaine were doing the talk show circuit to help sell their books and talked about Michael whenever they could when Michael was alive. So, yeah, I'm not so surprised by the decision to have the children speak.
Jul 9 2009, 02:26 PM
I'm guessing that the children were molested, as you are guessing that they weren't. Neither of us knows for sure. However, the fact that Michael Jackson himself went on television and admitted to sharing his adult bed with unrelated children sends up numerous red flags for me, as an abuse survivor. There are two points of view: one is Michael Jackson's, and one is either of the children who came forward. I tend to err on the side of the children, particularly since there are multiple cases, and particularly in light of Michael Jackson's own words.
If Michael Jackson were not famous or rich, this would be moot because no one who heard him utter those words would have his back. Were he just another person like you or I in the news who said the same thing everyone here would have him tarred and feathered by the end of this sentence. I am simply a person for whom fame is not an excuse for bad behaviour. I grew up on his music, too. I loved him as a performer for many years, even once his eccentricities started to manifest themselves. After all, music is full of inspired madness: look at Elvis, look at Billie Holliday, Jimi, Janis, the Sex Pistols, Iggy, et al. I even stayed on the fence after the first accusation, which for someone like me is difficult to do.
But after the interview, I just couldn't pretend what he was doing--what he himself professed to doing--was anywhere near okay. I wrote him off after that, and that is my right. As a person who has survived abuse myself, I know firsthand how difficult it is to speak up, and I can only imagine how much more difficult this is made by your abuser having millions upon millions of dollars at his disposal.
I picked OJ as an example because he is someone famous who had a great deal of circumstancial evidence--more than the average perp--who got away scott-free because he had money and fame. I can't off the top of my head think of someone in a similar situation. Phil Spector, perhaps?
If you want to attribute racist motives to me, I can't stop you, but if you knew me well, you'd realize that's pretty laughably far from the truth. As for my actual motives, if you don't want to guess: both men are famous, both men are suspected of highly harmful crimes with a damningly large amount of circumstancial evidence--much of it directly from their own mouths--and both men served no real jail time for crimes that the rest of us would see many years in prison for. I cannot think off the top of my head of another celebrity who fits this description. Now that I think of it, Phil Spector got convicted, didn't he? So he's out.
I dislike revisionist history, and I highly dislike abusers that get away with it. I've seen too many in my time, and I've seen the damage they've done for those involved, and how viciously it harms those victimized. I cannot put those values and beliefs away just because someone made wonderful music. I'm sorry, I just can't.
PS--Roman Polanski is a decent example, except for the following points: a.) he was convicted, but fled before he could be punished, and b.) he is not a current enough example for most people to know who he is. Michael Jackson and OJ are contemporaries; hence the comparison. But make no mistake, I fucking hate Roman Polanski, refuse to watch any of his movies, and would kill him with hammers if I had the chance.
Jul 9 2009, 02:39 PM
Phil Spector's victim was also found in his house. It's a little more obvious.
Jul 9 2009, 02:41 PM
And the exploitation continues by his family and those involved with him in death. I'm not shocked that his family had the children talk. His parents aren't really known for sheltering their children from harm. Latoya and Jermaine were doing the talk show circuit to help sell their books and talked about Michael whenever they could when Michael was alive. So, yeah, I'm not so surprised by the decision to have the children speak.
Which was my original problem with it: it felt, and still feels, exploitative to me. And exploitation of children in the moment of their grief is unforgivable. Fucking unforgivable. Those children have suffered enough. The Jacksons fucked up their own children, they don't need to get a second chance with a new generation.
PS--You can disagree with me, and you can believe that Michael Jackson didn't molest children, but automatically attributing racist motivations to me simply because I'm white is in itself racist. It's a two-way street.
Jul 9 2009, 03:00 PM
Okay, one thing that is bugging me over and over about Michael Jackson saying that he let kids sleep in his bed. If you actually watch the interview he says that he lets them sleep in his bed and he would sleep on the floor. Now of course, maybe he was just saying that to make it sound better, who knows. I am really starting to think that maybe he allowed children to sleep with him in his bed but I really don't know if he would have actually touched them.
Another thing, this man was truly messed up. I think that if you had a dad that forced you into show business, beat you into performing perfectly, witnessed your older brothers hooking up with groupies while on tour, had women constantly throwing themselves at you from the time you were 13, could not leave your house without starting a frenzy, and truly did not have a childhood that maybe you would be a bit fucked up and would want to create a kids paradise where you could act like a child and be around other kids all the time. I honestly think that Michael Jackson opened Neverland in the hopes of giving sick kids a mini Disneyland style park where they could hang out and have fun without having to worry about the cost of it all. Anyway, that's just my theory.
Jul 9 2009, 03:23 PM
Another thing, this man was truly messed up.
Agreed. And I blame his parents for their mistreatment of him. They dropped the ball on a grand scale in his upbringing, and they should be made to pay for it. Don't think I don't understand that he had a shitty childhood, and was deeply disturbed as a person. My heart grieves for the child he was, and how much he was exploited and victimized. A lot of abusers were victimized themselves. But there comes a point where we cannot excuse latter behaviour for former pain. We all have to take responsibility for our adult actions. My mother was a horrible parent; that doesn't mean I should have carte blanche to abuse my son. There has to be a line in the sand.
Put someone else in Michael Jackson's place, take his name out of it, and tell me honestly, truly, you believe nothing happened. Put your own children in that situation; tell me you still feel okay leaving them with someone who acted like that. Meet someone on the street who does the same thing and try to honestly
tell me you'd find nothing fishy about it. If you'd find someone reprehensible for the same actions if they aren't Michael Jackson, why give him so much slack? Just because he's a performer? If so, ask yourself why.
Also, the UK times online has this to say about the sleeping arrangements:
In the film, Living With Michael Jackson, he talked openly about sleeping with boys, including the Home Alone star Macaulay Culkin and his brother Kieran when they were 12 and 10 and a cancer patient called Gavin Arvizo, then 12. He had, he said, “slept in a bed with many chidren,”
But this is all the attention this topic is going to get from me. I have too much work to do to let this derail me further. Peace.
Jul 9 2009, 04:31 PM
QUOTE(bustygirl @ Jul 9 2009, 02:41 PM)
You can disagree with me, and you can believe that Michael Jackson didn't molest children, but automatically attributing racist motivations to me simply because I'm white is in itself racist. It's a two-way street.
The issue is not whether or not I agree or disagree with you. I was simply stating my belief of not convicting the man on some evidence which is what our justice system is based on. I believe GT brought up a good point about the potential use of OJ comparison with the issue of race. I was not implying anyone was racist for comparing OJ or Michael Jackson. Institutional racism is such a complex beast and prevalent in our media that even the leftist of liberals sometimes do not realize how loaded some of the content can affect others. Being raised in the dominant white culture, as a latina, I've made this mistake and still do. I think there is nothing wrong with being reflective about the use of the OJ case as a go-to with Michael Jackson's court cases. We are not going to resolve it here, but, I think we would do ourselves a injustice if we just kept it to only class issues.
Woody Allen is a great current controversial figure who has been able to violate the boundaries of his family with his stepdaughter and maintain his genuis by alot of people. So, I guess, as a society, why are we willing to accept some behavior and vilify others? Btw, I don't condone Woody's behavior.
Jul 9 2009, 07:52 PM
I'm guessing that the children were molested, as you are guessing that they weren't. Neither of us knows for sure. However, the fact that Michael Jackson himself went on television and admitted to sharing his adult bed with unrelated children sends up numerous red flags for me, as an abuse survivor. There are two points of view: one is Michael Jackson's, and one is either of the children who came forward. I tend to err on the side of the children, particularly since there are multiple cases, and particularly in light of Michael Jackson's own words. and had you simply said that, i would have no quibble with you or your opinion. in fact, you would have my respect. to be accurate, i am agnostic on the question. i do not know. it could have happened, it might not have. i do not know, nor do i see any way of knowing. as for this business, of other cases, there were exactly 2, and that result is ambiguous, legally if nothing else. i understand the idea of taking the victim's side, and normally i would be with you, but i do think that jackson's fame and wealth trouble things. if my child was molested, no amount of hush money would keep me from taking it to court. and the second case resulted in a not guilty verdict. i can see both sides, so i cannot say one way or the other. you are free to guess, just as i am , however, what bugs me is your claim to ultimate knowledge, your certainty. which you reassert when you talk about revisionist history. as you stated, you do not know any more than i do. you are guessing.
QUOTE(bustygirl @ Jul 9 2009, 02:41 PM) yup. it is a two way street, i am fully willing to admit that i have prejudices. *shrug* now what? how funny that you project that i am calling you a racist, when i went out of my way to make it clear that i am not. i am all to happy to call a spade a spade, but i made a very careful point to talk about race and prejudice. i didn't say you were racist, i did, however, call you prejudiced. the difference is that one is about hatred, the other is about how one perceives things. but make no mistake, i don't say you've got prejudices because you are white, but because you are human. but you don't hear me tho. quite honestly, i tire of white people declaring that they couldn't possibly have a predjudiced bone in their body. it's horseshit. if i can be black and have my prejudices, you're telling me, you, being white and having the benefits of privilage are not? i call bullshit on that-- and that's my point.
If you want to attribute racist motives to me, I can't stop you, but if you knew me well, you'd realize that's pretty laughably far from the truth...
...You can disagree with me, and you can believe that Michael Jackson didn't molest children, but automatically attributing racist motivations to me simply because I'm white is in itself racist. It's a two-way street.
as i said, i don't think anyone is racist, i do, however, think that we all see (or neglect to see in this case), race, sex and gender thru our own personal filter, and our experiences. that's prejudice. it's why white people tend to trust cops, and blacks and latinos do not. our experiences have lead us to different ideas of what those people represent. to say you are exempt of those filters is indeed naive, not to mention absurd, it is, however, not surprising. white people, particularlly on the left, seem to have an aversion to admitting any sort of prejudice. that you seem to think you are above this tells me everything i need to know. yup. you guessed it. that's my prejudice.
but back to the subject. this idea that, "oh, i just used OJ because he is most current or the most familiar," is cheap, easy, and convenient, but it does not hold water. after all the cases were about completely different things. one involves death and victims that could not speak for themselves, the other, children and negligent parents that might be extortionists. there are too many huge differences for it to be a useful argument in any way shape or form. i submit it is a form of cultural code that short circuits debate, or dissent, by saying, we all agree on this, right? and this is the same thing, right? we all agree on this too, right? it is a form of peer pressure. the fact that race is so blindly and blithely dismissed, only proves my point. the idea is never looked at for it's obvious flaws for fear that the dreaded r word might rear it's ugly head.
Jul 9 2009, 08:15 PM
Don't get me started on Woody Allen. You'll never hear me call him anything but a creepy perv. I refuse to watch his movies, and want nothing to do with him. Were Soon-yi not of age when he put his creepy hands on her, I would want him in the same cell next to Jackson, R. Kelly, Polanski, Gary Glitter, and the guy who played the Principal in Ferris Bueller. Throw the Duke LaCrosse team in while you're at it.
I didn't bring up race. I brought up OJ because he's a celebrity who I believe got away with something he shouldn't have when evidence pointed clearly in the other direction. I believe he did this by being rich, primarily, so if I have a problem with anything, I have a problem with wealth. Race was brought up for me, and I believe it was done so because I am white. I also believe it says more about your preconceived assumptions of me than anything I believe or anything I myself said.
I can't prove otherwise, but I don't really care to. This is my opinion; you have yours. In the end they cancel each other out. I can say I believe in yours not much more than you believe in mine. Life goes on. That said, you do not speak for me, and while you have the right to your opinion, it is 100% incorrect where it pertains to me.
I never made the claim of being wholly unprejudiced (although you seem to attribute that claim to me as if I should have something to feel guilty about), but you don't know me well enough to know where they lie. I can divulge that information for you if you like; I primarily have large immediate problems with fundamentalist christians, homophobes, wealthy people, people who treat children and animals with neglect or abuse, sexist pigs of either gender, venture capitalists, republicans, alcoholics and drug addicts, Toby Keith, and anyone driving a Hummer, Mercedes, Dodge Ram full-size pickup truck, or any car with aftermarket spoilers. I also dislike croc wearers, bad spellers, and people who shop at Wal-Mart. Plus, clowns creep me out.
Anyone who knows me, knows me. Anyone who doesn't, I'm not worried about. This may make me curmudgeonly, but it doesn't make me racist. Or 'prejudiced', if we're using semantics.
Jul 9 2009, 11:17 PM
Just to be clear, I'm not denying that the media (however you define that) used race to create a perspective in both OJ and MJ's cases. I mean the magazine- was it Time or Newsweek- who darkened the photo of OJ to make him look more menacing? C'mon. What I'm saying is that it doesn't play a part in my suspicion that both of them could be guilty. If you want to argue that it would be impossible for me personally to not consider race in what's made me feel this way....then I don't know how to argue against that, other than to say that's not the case.
Jul 10 2009, 01:32 AM
busty: not that you'll bother to read my posts, it's obvious you skim, then dismiss them, but whatever.
this idea that you couldn't possibly be at all prejudiced, it kills me. oop. i guess i'm using semantics. how funny. i was just trying to make a point. weird huh? wanting to be accurate about what i'm saying? too bad you never bothered to figure it out. you entirely missed the point, then made it for me. i'm not interested in a bullshit itemized list-- i'm not here to get all in your business and interrogate you on who bugs you, but for reals, you left out bad breath, and rude guys. *roll eyes* quite honestly, that's your business, in the same way that my prejudices are mine, but i don't think one should run from one's prejudices. but whatever, you are perfectly happy playing the, "oh! not me!" game. so play it. it's not like you listen anyways, instead, you just prove my point.
polly: i love you, but this idea that there is no way that race didn't play any part in it, i'm sorry, i just don't buy it. it's not that i think you are consciously injecting race into it, far from that. but understand what i AM saying: we swim in a culture where race and racial concepts are implicit, not explicit. race is the subtext, it is the background of how we view things, there is no OJ without the racial history that precedes him. it cannot be divorced from who he is, or what happened. race is intertwined in it-- inextricably. when we raise his case in a place where it has NO REAL RELEVANCE, it is used because our culture tells us this is an acceptable thing to do. think about it: does it really deepen the discussion of MJ being guilty or innocent, or is it just the easy thing to grab for? i think it's the latter. our culture-- the larger one, and the smaller one that is rooted in our peers, and cliques-- tells us that that it is ok. it's a form of group think. that racial subtext creeps in, so subtly, and we never examine it. we never ask why. we are told, they are somehow comparable. we further this racial subtext, without consiously knowing. i am not accusing you of anything other than not interrogating that idea. it's not a crime-- it's what most people do. i'm just asking the question, how is it really relevant? is race involved, and if not, what makes you think not? it's not a matter of it being something personal-- i think you keep hearing what i say as personal, but it is anything but. again, it's cultural group think. it shouldn't be taken at face value. question it in the same way we look at the way women are viewed around here. you can't just divorce sex and gender from the equation, any more than race because it is deeply embedded in how we view it for good or ill.
Jul 10 2009, 06:10 AM
In other news, there's apparentally a movie about The Runaways in the works! Unfortunately it has Kimberly Stewart in it, but other than that, any movie about The Runaways can't be all bad.
Jul 10 2009, 07:36 AM
Oh ffs. I turned on CNN last night and it was all "Breaking news!" and they said that the LA police chief is saying that MJ's death could have been either an overdose or a homicide. Overdose doesn't surprise me but homicide?!
Jul 10 2009, 08:27 AM
QUOTE(bustygirl @ Jul 9 2009, 09:15 PM)
Throw the Duke LaCrosse team in while you're at it.First of all, only 3 members of the team were accused in that crime. There were 47 students on the Duke lacrosse team at that time. You are welcome to your opinion, BustyGirl. However, I urge you not to damn a large group who are guilty only of being on the same athletic team as the accused.
And just so you know, charges were dropped in the Duke Lacrosse case and the accused were declared innocent. Many things lead to this decision and you may agree or disagree with this final decision. Amongst the evidence was a DNA test that showed that, although sperm was found on the accuser, none of it matched the DNA of any of the members of the Duke Lacrosse team - not the 3 accused nor anyone else on the team. I understand that this still is not good enough evidence for many people, but it's still pretty compelling.
Jul 11 2009, 04:32 PM
Okay, so throw those three members in.
The charges being dropped were not as compelling for me since those accused went on the internet and talked about killing their accuser. Perhaps it's not tantamount to guilt, but it's douchey enough behaviour to warrant a couple of knocks upside the head regardless. It's not worth an argument on a busy day.
I hadn't heard the homicide charges--are they charging the doctor, or are they saying it was something other than the drugs? Considering how many drugs he was using at the time, an overdose seems much more likely. Diprivan, especially, is a powerful sedative not usually used outside of a hospital. It's pretty easy to overdose on something that powerful, especially if you're not using it for what's its prescribed for.
Jul 12 2009, 09:47 AM
I never said they were perfect citizens. I'm certainly not planning on inviting any of them 'round for tea. I'd just rather people didn't blame the WHOLE team for this situation.
Do any of you ever listen to "Wait Wait ... Don't Tell Me" on NPR? Paula Poundstone said something on the show this weekend that reminded me of this conversation. She commented on how people have been avoiding Michael Jackson for years because of the allegations of abuse and his increasingly strange behavior. You rarely even heard his music on the radio anymore - even on '8os stations - because he'd become such a controversial figure. Then he dies and suddenly there's this HUGE outpouring of love for the man. What's that about?
I think we're witnessing simple human nature. Jackson was never found guilty of molesting those kids so it became an unknown, grey area for a lot of people. The public may have suspected that he did something but they did not know it for certain. But what they do know is that Michael Jackson wrote & performed songs that they loved. His music and his dancing made them smile. That's something that they felt personally so they know it to be true. So they've chosen to hold on to those feelings, those memories. I'm sure there may be a touch of don't-speak-ill-of-the-dead thrown in there, too. Personally, I think people have just decided to shove the feelings of uncertainty aside for a bit. The accusations certainly have not been forgotten, though. They've been mentioned over and over again in the coverage of MJ's death. I'm sure the subject will be touched on further as Michael Jackson's death is investigated further & as we learn more about his final years.
Jul 12 2009, 10:36 AM
MJ did make some awesome music, which is why the accusations saddened and ultimately angered me. They're unproven, but the circumstancial evidence is too much for me to ignore, and the nature of the crime is so horrendous to me personally that I can't ignore it. I won't fault anyone for choosing to focus on anything else, but for me, myself, I can't. Especially not now that I have a darling little boy of my own.
You may be angry about child abuse before you have kids, but let me tell ya, it packs a much mightier wallop when you have one. It personalizes a lot of things. I can't watch the news at all now.
I made parallels to Reagan in the days following Michael Jackson's death, because there was a similar--I felt--whitewashing of the man's history. Overnight the things we were allowed to talk about changed completely, and suddenly you weren't allowed to even mention the accusations, the baby dangling, that horrific interview, etc. When Reagan died they made him into a great president whom everyone loved. Except I went through Reagan firsthand, and he was a godawful president. So it irritated me, because death doesn't erase one's life, whether you're Ghandi or Hitler.
If I had a problem with someone's behaviour before they died, I'm not going to change my mind after. And whether someone agrees with my reasons, I had big problems with Michael Jackson before his death, and my opinion of him cannot be restored by the mere fact of it. If anything, it finalizes that chapter for me.
It can be a grey area for everyone else, but for me, I just can't pretend that little feeling in my gut wasn't screaming through his entire interview with Bashir.
Jul 12 2009, 11:20 AM
Hm the evidence against him certainly wasn't damning, it was found to be almost entirely contradictory especially in the 2nd case.
I also found it interesting that all of the accusers that trailed those cases went to the press for a fee, not to the police. The mother of the accuser in the 2nd trial went to an attorney before she went to the police - the same attorney who helped get that $20 million out-of-court settlement for Jordan Chandler.
The accuser then went to the same psych that the Chandler's used in their attempt to uncover abuse. This psychiatrist made a mandatory report to the police when the accuser's brother claimed to be a witness to touching. And yet in this psych's opinion, Micheal Jackson wasn't a pedophile, he was just "a regressed 10-year old". After reading about the case it's pretty obvious to me that money is what she was hoping for, not a guilty verdict.
Jul 12 2009, 12:44 PM
how ironic, rose that of all people paula poundstone would be beating her chest on that topic, since, if i remember right, in 2001 she was arrested of child molestation
of her adopted children too. she took a plea deal. i guess we all know she's as guilty as OJ, right? sorry, guilty as MJ right?
thanks for the detail, logic. hardly a slam dunk case, as you say.
i'm not a big fan of revision of history either, busty, and i am sure, you will find no one who will run down a list of bs perped on us from reagan, hell, i still talk about how dems whitewash clinton's time in office. but you and i both know what is FACT with a president. we can also claim personal harm where they are concerned, because it can all be traced to some piece of paper, or speech. with a celebrity, we cannot make that claim. i don't know anyone who knew oj, or paula, or roman, or spector. i might think what happened was a shame, but i do not know the facts, i was not personally harmed. for me to claim to know the absolute truth as i can with a president is NONSENSE.
as i've said, you are free to believe whatever you want, be angry, sad or indignant. those are your feelings, and you have every right to feel how you feel.
just don't pretend that you know with absolute certainty. the only thing to do is to believe in the courts and hope that justice will be served, and when you feel it doesn't, hope it will tomorrow.