Posted on 01/22/2004 12:35:40 PM PST by neverdem
Understanding our anger.
There is an aspect of the Michael Jackson affair that has been insufficiently explored, namely, what exactly are we mad about? The general charge is that he has corrupted a young boy. The prosecutor's specific claims are that he had Angelo (we'll call him) to Neverland, talked him into the same bed used by Michael, perhaps even gave him a whiff of alcohol, and then off into sexual dreamland.
Mr. Jackson's lawyer says the fantasy is that of the prosecution — that his client extended to his 12-year-old guest nothing more than the warmth and hospitality he gives out as an expression of his nature. Yes. But did he do it?
The mystery lies in our society's confusion over sexual misconduct and the causes of it. Jump to Angelo just six years older than he now is. At age 18, he would be free of any interference by the state in his private life, as we like to put it. When he is 18 plus one day, he can hire out to Hollywood studios to do live sex. He can, now that the Supreme Court has swept away the cobwebs on that issue, court other relationships with men old and young (though not under 18), even if they can't smoke together in a New York restaurant.
If what Michael Jackson allegedly did to Angelo is proved, what exactly do we then fear for Angelo as he grows up, under the shadow of the sleep-in at Michael's? That his senses will have been deranged? It is entirely believable that a paedophile's activity with children menaces them psychologically. What is far less than clear is the suspension of any menace attaching to sexual molestation after age 18.
Our sex-driven culture is in overdrive, showing no signs of alarm, let alone dismay. Reports on the Michael Jackson case bring up data on the incidence of child molestation. We learn that in the past thirty years there has been a tenfold increase in such activity. The question that is not being asked is: How is that so? Does this tell us only that guardians of the law have been sleepy in the matter of preventing grown men (if that correctly describes Michael Jackson) from debauching boys?
Let us assume what it is always safe to assume, that a lot of misconduct always happens, and it is a matter of coincidence whether we uncover it, let alone do anything about it. We learned last week that there are three hundred thousand prostitutes in Spain. Well, there were fifty thousand of them in Rome at the time of Saint Augustine. Are we to assume that these prostitutes, male as well as female, set out in their profession because as children they were disoriented? Treated like Angelo at Neverland?
We appear to be saying, in our fulminations against Michael Jackson, that he might well have influenced Angelo toward a life of dissolution, where sexual gratification dominates thought and act. But don't we speak with forked tongues? The American Civil Liberties Union stays up all night worrying lest anyone should get in the way of Angelo's sating himself, on radio and on television, in movies and in books, with the sap of degeneracy. But if Michael Jackson did it with Angelo at age 12, he is damned and we are prepared to lead him into prison. If the lawyer could prove that notwithstanding his young appearance, Angelo actually had turned 18 the week before Neverland, Michael Jackson would be protected by the engines of license in whatever he did.
There is something studiously unattractive about the particular depravity of Michael Jackson. His struggle against aging gives him absolute title to Dorian Gray, Manqué — the man who tried everything science could come up with to arrest the aging of his face, but got it all bollixed up, so that he looks now like a circus clown halfway through makeup. It was in a true sense charming that he thought to distract the world's attention from his problems by jumping up on top of an automobile and dancing — his trademark, since age 6.
That didn't stop the fuzz, but the tides were with him, singing their loyalty and devotion, signaling the public's power to relegate Angelo to nothing more than one dance step in the ageless pursuit of pleasure.
This is the only column I have ever read or ever need to read about Michael Jackson.
I never read a story about Michael except one or two about the new relationship with the Nation of Islam. I thought WFB had some interesting insights on the culture.
I promise I won't post another about Michael. I turn the channel when this story or Scott Peterson's, Kobe Bryant's, etc. come on the boob tube.
LOL, me too. However, never refrain from posting a WFB as far as I am concerned. This one was insightful as always.
Senile, jaded, cynical old men of fame and good fortune whose moral and ideological underpinnings become rusty and cast off as they age. That is, if they ever really had any of these underpinnings to begin with as they always led us to believe.
All the world's a stage.......
Leni
”The mystery lies in our society's confusion over sexual misconduct and the causes of it. Jump to Angelo just six years older than he now is. At age 18, he would be free of any interference by the state in his private life, as we like to put it. When he is 18 plus one day, he can hire out to Hollywood studios to do live sex. He can, now that the Supreme Court has swept away the cobwebs on that issue, court other relationships with men old and young (though not under 18), even if they can't smoke together in a New York restaurant. ”What is far less than clear is the suspension of any menace attaching to sexual molestation after age 18. Our sex-driven culture is in overdrive, showing no signs of alarm, let alone dismay.
Buckley is not exonerating Michael Jackson of whatever he is accused of doing. His point is: why do we condemn Jackson for doing something with a 12 year old when we give absolution – and some celebrate - the same act when performed by someone just 6 years older.
I admire Buckley for making the point and I am ashamed that I had not thought of it first.
Buckley is not condoning Michael's actions, but he sure is employing a form of moral equivalency if you read through his usual tortured verbiage.
Why can't he just come out and say in plain language that just because "everybody does it", or "a few months in one's age makes an unfair difference between right and wrong" it doesn't excuse Michael Jackson from charges? And if the creep is found guilty by his peers, he should be thrown in the slammer for punishment. I can say this clearly, why not the exalted Mr. Buckley?
I used to love this man for all he did for the conservative movement, and I still have a measure of respect for him for his past work. But in the last decade, he's contributed nothing of real value to The Cause except for occasional windy scribblings. He moves in his Park Avenue circles while we less cultured conservatives are out on the streets, in the hustings and sticking our necks out for our principles.
Buckley is no spring chicken. If he's getting too old to inspire, lead or make cogent arguments, he should get out of the way, retire to his yacht and shut his yap about what he thinks OUR morality should be.
Leni
There is something studiously unattractive about the particular depravity of Michael Jackson. His struggle against aging gives him absolute title to Dorian Gray, Manqué — the man who tried everything science could come up with to arrest the aging of his face, but got it all bollixed up, so that he looks now like a circus clown halfway through makeup.
WFB describes this Jackson foolery with the terms "depravity" and "degeneracy". Methinks you have your "War on Drugs" blinders on.
First, neither you nor I have the right to tell WFB to shut up about anything. He has done more for the conservative cause than either one of us has by an order of magnitude, and he has earned the right to his opinion. And, by the way, I hear more than a little class envy in your references to Park Avenue, yachts and culture. If you are insecure about yourself, take my advice: don’t let is show so obviously. And leave the politics of envy to the Left where it belongs.
Second I agree with him. If we are going to condemn Jackson for his alleged activity with 12 year olds and have him “thrown in the slammer” then I think we should do the same when his partner is 18 or 28 or 68. You appear to believe that depravity is age dependent. I don’t and apparently neither does WFB. I side with WFB on this, there is no age at which we should turn our backs and say it’s OK.
You can go with the spirit of the age if you want. I like WFB’s definition of a Conservative as someone who is standing in the path of history yelling, “stop.”
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.