Posted on 07/09/2009 7:16:42 AM PDT by safetysign
We appreciate the input of hundreds of people who have voiced their opinions, both positive and negative, on the issue of including Michael Jackson in the 2009 butter sculpture.
The ongoing discussion has created a lot of, well, churn. Since everyone has an opinion about the sculpture, weve decided to put it to a vote and let Fairgoers decide.
The concept of the sculpture will be a celebration of the 40th anniversary of Neil Armstrongs moonwalk on July 20, 1969. In honor of Armstrongs giant leap for mankind, this years sculpture will include an astronaut, an American flag and a buttery rendition of the surface of the moon. Depending on the vote, Michael Jackson would be featured in a small side portion of the sculpture as the first pop-star to perfect and popularize choreographed moonwalking.
Do you think Michael Jackson should be part of the 2009 butter sculpture?
Yes No Email Zip Code
All fields are required. This information is for voting purposes only and will not be used in other ways.
Results will be posted on July 17.
Good one!
The article said — Do you think Michael Jackson should be part of the 2009 butter sculpture?
—
Actually, I think Michael Jackson’s brain should be displayed... in an exhibit... “Your brain on drugs!”.... :-)
Wow....keep us posted please....
Right next to the “Gay(homosexual)Marraige” Iowa “Supreme Court” exhibit.
You know what, you’ve got an opinion that seems pretty close to my own.
It think Jackson was a talent, don’t get me wrong, but was he the brilliant mastermind of all things he got credited with producing? I don’t think so.
You simply cannot produce some of the things Jackson did without a creative team to provide expertise and suggestions how to come up with some of his vision. And when that happens, there’s really a melding of vision rather than a single vision. It’s a shared vision.
This idolization is therefore somewhat uncalled for. If people feel compelled to idolize an entity, it should be the creative teams that contributed to develop the public persona that was Michael Jackson. They’re just kidding themselves if they think his efforts were solely the culmination of only his creativity.
He came up with premises, and teams blossomed them out, and helped bring it to the public. The initial kernels of those ideas could just as easily have been projects presented to him by creative types also.
As I said, he had talent. I’m just not convinced that he was some legendary creative genius.
Qunicy Jones was his producer. And that says a lot.
I know who Quincy Jones is, but I don’t know enough about him to extrapolate meaning from your post. If you wouldn’t mind, could you expand on your comments.
Phil Spector was also a talented producer but he was also an egotistical jerk.
Someone should ask Phil Spector what he thinks about this adulation that Michael Jackson is getting in spite of his own failings.
I agree.
I also think it’s interesting how folks explain away all unsavory things Michael Jackson.
Take a look at that balcony scene. The guy has a flimsy grip on the kid, hanging them over the balcony, and he’s also got a blanket over their face.
It’s a toss-up which was worse, the dangling, or the suffocation. Defend that pinheads.
If Iowans want to heap honor on a member of NAMBLA and in the process look like idiots, it’s none of my concern. BWWWAAAAHHHAAAAHHHAAA!!!
This makes my stomach churn.
When you say "pants around his ankles" you're thinking sexual, you make that sexual, it's not sexual. It's really very charming.
LOL I had the same idea I used 50316. Des Moines Apt ad had the zip in it. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.