|
"Michael Jackson: Good Riddance!"
or
"For Crying Out Loud: Use Your Common Sense!"
I've heard many attempts to defend Michael Jackson. Most bring up the fact that he'd never been convicted, had a terrible home life growing up, etc. This brings up the matter of common sense, personal judgement, and the priorities when it comes to protecting children from such people.
Using common sense and knowing of the baseness and evil some men are capable of, I first consider what the odds are that at least some of the accusations are true in this case--especially considering Jackson's bizarre upbringing and even more bizarre lifestyle after the Jackson 5. I can't help but strongly suspect that where there is smoke in these cases, there is fire.
Am I being "unfair" in my assessment of him? Well, if you see an alley full of fellows dressed in gang type clothing, you're a fool to go that way and then be surprised at being mugged. Likewise, life is too short to be risking your child's innocence by exposing him to a potentially very bad situation such as a slumber party with a legally adult, non-related male sleeping in the same bed with them. Who does that?
Being just one human being and not a court of law, I have no obligation to be "fair" to him as in ignoring his past behavior as his liberal defenders mean the term. In fact, the only reasonable course is to err on the side of caution when dealing with such a dangerous situation as he presented to children.
As usual, the liberals are lining up on one side of this issue and the people with sense are lining up on the other. "Benefit of a doubt" be damned! There are statistically verifiable and common sense bases for many stereotypes and one could easily be hurt or killed by ignoring or giving the benefit of a doubt to those who give all outward signs of being evil or corrupt. Gang members frequently dress like gang members, believe it or not. While others who are not gang members may only mimic them and not present a real danger, they've nonetheless presented themselves as members of a dangerous group and are subject to being treated as such. Michael Jackson acted like a freak and child molester by holding hands with young boys and his other effeminate mannerisms he displayed. Is such behavior to be ignored? Locking your door may not do much good sometimes but the last thing you want to do is to invite such potential trouble into the house.
According to studies, most child predators charm their subjects into willing submission and the victims are usually, especially with males, unwilling to acknowledge molestation. There could be silence covering a lot of sin here. Remember the many complaints against Catholic priests after so many years since the crimes?
That being said, I do not have to convict him on mere suspicions. His holding hands with a young boy as if they were lovers during interviews is just one nail in his moral coffin. His admissions of having slumber parties and serving wine (that he called, "Jesus Juice") and leaving out drugs of all sorts makes him a danger to children whose parents should have been much more vigilant in protecting them by restricting access to them.
If nothing else, Michael Jackson admitted to and openly demonstrated great moral corruption to the best of my ability to determine such. Where one draws the line where the law has failed to punish bad behavior is a matter of common sense and a duty adults have to protect children from such sick monsters.
My point is pretty much: "Watch the company you and your children keep." You don't have to wait until someone is convicted in a court of law. There are some folks I stay away from simply because they give me the creeps. I may give them a chance to redeem themselves in less clear-cut cases--if I have time. Otherwise I'm moving too fast to want to risk spending too much valuable time on such people. They just aren't worth it!
wtc
|
