You probably didn't remember so I'll remind you

Michael Jackson has been acquitted, a verdict some self-proclaimed legal ‘experts’ are describing as "stunning". But it isn't stunning, as I wrote on February 27:
Jackson is clearly innocent. Really, he is. Examine the past actions of his accuser’s family. And examine the testimony of Corey Feldman, who assures us Jackson never fondled him. Think about it for a moment – would someone who takes advantage of boys pass on a young Corey Feldman given the chance? It makes no sense.

While it may be because of his wealth and fame, I suspect the poor creature’s being persecuted in part because he’s the best dancer in the world. Envy is an ugly thing. I also think he’s resented because he’s a homosexualist by nature yet chooses to be asexual. This is something modern liberals and activist homosexualists find intolerable, but I find it admirable, as it allows even those who loathe homosexualists to enjoy his delightful dancing.

Some worry Jackson won’t get a fair trial, as the jury has no Afro-Americans on it. If I were Jackson I would be more concerned about the jury’s lack of mimes. It is a dilemma for legal theorists though: how can a man who has none be given a jury of peers? But I have faith in the legal system, and at the end of these sham proceedings when he is found not guilty and fully vindicated, remember who told you it would happen.


  1. I admire your steady confidence in Jackson's innocence. I don't have an opinion either way, could care less, except that it makes me sad to see what's become of him, and sadder still to think that he's basically had to spend every dollar he's ever made on legal bills.

    I saw his video with Paul McCartney a while back - It's hard not to be impressed. The guy was really good.

  2. Seeing McCartney singing along with Jackson you realize just how much McCartney could have accomplished if he'd only had someone talented along side him to work with earlier in his career.

  3. Do you really think gay people resent Jackson because he "chooses to remain asexual" despite homosexual characteristics? I'm sorry, I'm gay and I just don't see it.

    Besides, Michael Jackson has admitted to sleeping in bed with young boys. If any other "homosexualist" admitted to as much but swore it wasn't sexual, would you believe him? I don't think I would, any more than I would believe a straight man who invited other people's daughters into his bed if he told me it was all completely innocent.

    Anyway, if Michael Jackson is being persecuted unjustly it is because he has turned himself into a freak, not because of his asexuality per se. Or do you think that liberals and gays have been harsher on Jackson than mainstream America?

  4. If Michael Jackson claimed to have relationships with adult males while denying any interest in boys I think liberals and homosexualists would be defending his 'right' to be around young boys, the way they aggressively promote the notion that homosexualists should be allowed to be scoutmasters.

  5. First of all, what is a "homosexualist"? Why not just "homosexual?"

    Anyway, I don't approve of the push for gay Boy Scouts. (My thoughts on the morality of discrimination in this instance are here. But it stems from a desire for normalcy and equality, which is not something that any group acheives by associating itself with Michael Jackson...


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Christmas Books

Sacred Duty