Posted on 11/22/2003 10:20:51 PM PST by Servant of the 9
I am the mother of an almost 11-year-old son. More than that, I won't say. Too many wackos out there.
As a parent, our job is to protect our children from those people. Isn't it?
With that in mind, could someone explain to me, care of this newspaper, parent to parent, how it is that you let your child spend the night with a man who was known to have made a multimillion dollar settlement to avoid possible prosecution for child molestation.
It isn't like it's some kind of secret that Michael Jackson has a problem with young boys.
In this year's televised interviews, Jackson describes his willingness to sleep with children only if their parents let them, suggesting that they did.
The lure of celebrity is strong. But your own child? I don't want to sound holier than thou. None of us are perfect. But "lewd and lascivious acts" can take a long time to recover from, and so can the punishment for them. What is going on around Michael Jackson is almost as horrifying as the charges against him.
It's not just the parents who let their children "play" with Jackson in "Neverland" whose judgment is at issue.
What about his well-paid entourage, the people who have literally eaten up millions of dollars over the years and are supposed to protect this man, whose talent is as unquestioned as his obvious problems, whatever the truth of these allegations?
If Michael Jackson were a drug addict, would these people have supplied him with drugs? If he were an alcoholic, would they have built a bar for him to preside over every night? If he were a compulsive gambler, would they have taken suites in Vegas?
How was it that he was allowed to remain in Neverland surrounded by children when it was clear that it was in this environment that he very nearly self-destructed? His failure to grow up cost him his career in the United States, relegating the King of Pop to the ranks of former star issuing albums of old hits for want of new ones, still drawing audiences in Europe, but selling only respectably at home, all because of charges arising out of his relationship with a boy.
A man nearly dies from candy, and no one tells him that he can't have more candy. Why? Because he loves it so.
Jackson's representatives have already made their second mistake, in choosing Mark Geragos to represent him. Geragos is a perfectly fine criminal defense lawyer, although some observers here question whether his style is suited to Santa Barbara or the case. But he has to be overstretched. And the picture of him leaving the courthouse where Scott Peterson was being bound over for the murder of his wife, Laci, and unborn son and going directly to Michael Jackson and his child molestation charges was about as bad an image as you could get.
Tying those two cases together would be the sort of thing you'd complain to a network for doing, not something you would ever in your right mind do to yourself.
I'm not going to be the only one who, every time I see Mark with Michael Jackson, thinks of Laci Peterson. Sorry, Michael. If anything could make you even less sympathetic than you are now, it's the choice of Geragos to stand next to you and represent you. I'm taking bets on how long he lasts. Scott Peterson will seem likely an easy client, seeing as how he is in prison already.
Michael Jackson himself almost certainly believes that whatever he did was as harmless and innocent as he is. The criminal law, however, does not leave those judgments to the individual. It's not a question of what he thinks is appropriate, or what children do among themselves -- but what is appropriate conduct between a child and a grown man according to society's standards.
In the end, if the system works, every individual is responsible for living up to society's standards, even if those around him have also failed.
So9
Surely the question is rhetorical, since surely Estrich knows the answer --- $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
No he wants boys rears.
BINGO!!!
Read Quigley's "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time"
We ASSUME that Fathers would 'protect' their daughters, and "teach" their SONS to be virle, masculine.
Quite frankly, it was evident to Quigley in the 1950's that American "males" were incapable of ANY kind of role in the SEXUAL educational arena.
PSSST!....He didn't even hint that Gobermint had a role.
I write this reply because people ask just how Clinton could charm the "B*lls off an Elephant", walking into a room and having everyone, including one Newt Gingritch, 'love' him.
Quigley was cited by B. J. Clinton in his Acceptance Speech as being the most influential Teacher in his education.
Yes!! Yes!! I know that you have to get the book from a John Birch Society storefront but it is worth the long hot shower you will need afterward!!
That will be proven! He has an iron clad alibi...
He was fishing with Scott Peterson at the time of the alledged molestation...OJ Simpson and Kobie Bryant were on the shore and have photos of them haviing to return to the dock to pick up Robert Blake, who had forgotten his rod and reel!
No question, Jaco is innocent...just "axe" me...I knowz the reel storie heuh!
I must admit I did a double-take when I saw who wrote this.
I was previously surpised by her when she said the groping allegations against Schwarzenegger were distasteful but did not appear to constitute a crime. I expected her to be second in line (behind Ariana Huffington) to file charges against him.
Exactly.
The American criminal justice system has been perverted (no pun intended) to the point where parents can use their children as "bait" to catch a mulitmillion dollar settlement from any celebrity stupid enough to do something illegal.
It's extortion. Either the celebrity pays, or the parents go to the cops.
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.