We love you, Michael!
Aside from the obvious truth that any parent that allows a child within a mile radius of clearly strange Michael Jackson should be immediately be prosecuted for child endangerment; the scene outside the courtroom made it clear that many, many people are really screwed in the head.
Watching the throng of congenital morons and paint chip eaters chant, "We love you Michael!" was frankly horrifying. We can set to the side the fact that the King of Pop has not had a decent record in almost a quarter century, and has not looked human for almost as long. We will allow the subhuman chanters their musical taste.
But you are outside a courtroom chanting approval of a 'man' who is for the umpteenth time facing serious charges of child molestation. He has not been convicted, sure. Innocent until proven guilty and all that. But shouldn't your no doubt sincere admiration for the man's musical genius and the glories contained in his catalog be outweighed by at least mild moral repugnance and a wish not to be associated with someone who at a guess is at least as guilty of pederasty as OJ Simpson is of murder?
on
| § 5
§ 5 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]
In my opinion, the Jacko
In my opinion, the Jacko picture is creepy, but foes not actually cross the line into disgusting. And, now that I have gotten used to it, I like the new setup. Because, in all likelihood, everything beneath the fold is going to be way too goddamn much perfidy anyway.
I will change the "remove the perfidy" link at the bottom though.
Patton, you really need to
Patton, you really need to make up your mind.
Well, on the "what", it's
Well, on the "what", it's easy - I was politely suggesting that you put old crusty-face below the fold.
On the other, after the original "oh-my-god-that-guy-is-huge-and-disgusting picture" you just got imprecise specifications from one of your readers, namely me. Feel free to revert to the way it was before I started bitching about stomach-turning pictures, and let's just forget I even mentioned it.
Jeez, I hate to be a bore,
Jeez, I hate to be a bore, but that Jackson pseudo-face is scary enough that it, too, should be hidden behind the tried-and-true "More Perfidy" link, and to then be hidable via the "Way too much goddamned Perfidy" link.
In a complete reversal, I might add, of the current setup, but hey, it's your blog, not mine, and I must have confused matters with my request of several weeks ago.
He's not been proven guilty,
He's not been proven guilty, and his past payments to potential plaintiffs can't be used against him. Just ask his freakily-long-haired attorney.
No, moral repugnance based on a guess that he's guilty isn't the answer here: it's too easy for the paint-chip eaters to argue against. I propose being repulsed simply because he's a freak. If, later, justice rears her head and he's convicted, we can then dislike the guy for being a pederast. For now, I'm quite comfortable disliking him for seeming like a pederast. I'd even conditionally accept protestations of his innocence - he still acts like a pederast, and that's enough for me.
Not at all like OJ, whom I'd shun for actually being guilty of murder.