Archive for November, 2003

Some conservative students at UCLA with a sense of humor recently marched in front of a group of liberal student protesters with a sign reading “This protest needs soap”.

In a letter to the editor of the Daily Bruin, some schmuck named Michael Cox reacts to this by saying:

For those who may not be aware of racism’s history, the group claiming supremacy always argues that those whom they oppress are unclean, stinky and, therefore, subhuman. . .

With the sign, I felt we got a taste, or should I say smell, of old, old-school racism. In my mind, the implication of the sign was that the progressive students were unclean and therefore subhuman.

No, you moron. What the sign means is that leftist liberal “progressives” like yourself are all socially maladjusted hippies who don’t believe in regular bathing and basic personal hygiene.

But watching this get twisted into a “racist” meaning is amusing.

Another parasite has emerged from the woodwork surrounding Michael Jackson. A certain Geraldine Hughes has popped up claiming that the Chandler case 10 years ago was an extortion attempt and that MJ was “framed”.

Hughes — who was fired by Rothman after about six months — claimed the plan to involve Jackson in the Chandlers’ divorce was an “elaborate” one. “You’ve got to see the whole plan,” she said. She claimed, for example, that almost none of the Chandler case was recorded, that very little correspondence exists and that most everything transpired behind closed doors with no secretary present to take notes.

Mind you, she was a low-level flunky working for the prosecuting attorney’s office — a legal secretary who was only peripherally involved in the case itself. The fact that she was fired after 6 months tells you something, as does the fact that she apparently kept a “daily annotated calendar”. How convenient. Rothman, however, has a different viewpoint:

Rothman, in a telephone call, confirmed for me that Hughes did work for him at one time, but that “she was privy to nothing in our office. She may also be in violation of attorney-client privilege,” he said, adding that he would read her book when it came out in January and that he wished her luck with it. As for the closed-door meetings, he agreed that the Chandler case did have little correspondence in the file. “It was mostly meetings,” he said. “And I take my own notes, I never have a secretary do it.”

I don’t have to be a fly on the wall to conclude that Hughes is full of shit.

Oh, and she has a book coming out in January, 2004, about the entire thing. I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.

Two generations ago, “I Love Lucy” was a popular television show. Today, “Everybody Loves Raymond” is a popular television show. Promiscuity and homosexuality are much more socially acceptable today than they were two generations ago.

There is absolutely no connection between these two facts.

I love stories like this.

[Fugitive] Eizember is in a Texas hospital recovering from four gunshot wounds that came from a gun concealed by one of his alleged kidnapping victims.

This guy is a suspect in a double-murder case. Thanks to the victim carrying a gun, he isn’t a quadruple-murder suspect.

MEChA is pissing me off again.

Fox News sums it up:

A Latino group at Glendale Community College in Arizona wants the administration to forbid a professor there from ever expressing his opinions on university Web pages because he sent out an e-mail saying the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán, or MEChA, is racist, reports the Arizona Republic.

MEChA also wants Walter Kehowski to apologize publicly for stating in an e-mail that the group fosters racism by praising racial separatism. He was alluding to a recent Dia de la Raza event on campus.

“We believe in the First Amendment … in this case, the e-mails and Web page are clearly against the district mission of diversity and has disrupted our campus with the hostility that it promotes,” the group said in a letter to the Maricopa County Community College District.

Gee, why don’t we talk about the campus disruption and hostility of MEChA’s (whose motto reads: “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada” [For the race, everything. For those outside the race, nothing.]) violent, racist, and tyrannical bylaws, which I have covered in other blog entries, but which consist partially of things like:


“. . .a people whose time has come and who struggles against the foreigner “gabacho” who exploits our riches and destroys our culture. With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our mestizo nation.”

Try substituting the word “nigger” for “gabacho”, and the word “white” for “mestizo” and you’ll start to get the picture.

MEChA wants the university to forbid — to forbid — this professor from speaking his opinion on the university-owned servers. Would they endorse prohibiting pro-MEChA speech, as well? Would they forbid any discussion of any kind regarding race, culture, language, ethnicity, or sexual orientation? Both for and against?

They state they believe in the First Amendment. Obviously not, since their request directly contradicts it in both spirit and letter. What they mean is, they support the First Amendment as long as the message is leftist or politically correct. Conservatives and others with differing opinions need not apply.

MEChA also states that the professor’s opinion is clearly in violation of the district’s diversity mission.

Is it? If they silence him, leaving only their side of the argument visible, does that constitute more diversity? Or less?

And actually, the professor is correct that MEChA’s promotion of separatism fosters racism. If this separation were being promoted by whites, you know what the reaction would be. Remember the civil rights movement, the real one, back in the 50’s where they fought to end segregation? MEChA wants to bring segregation back. Only this time it’s okay, because it isn’t whitey doing it.

Nauseating.

ABC News has not disappointed me. They are continuing to keep Michael Jackson on the front page headline in spite of the complete and total lack of any new information since he was arrested yesterday morning. It’s a goddamn tabloid, is what it is.

Who have they dug up now? One of Michael’s brothers, Jermaine Jackson. Jermaine says he thinks the whole thing is a racially motivated vendetta; “They’re a bunch of racist rednecks out there who don’t care about people.” He doesn’t think it was appropriate for 70 cops to search Neverland Ranch. After all, Jermaine says Michael isn’t a criminal. And Jermaine’s word ought to be good enough to keep that no-good so-and-so District Attorney from being mean to Michael Jackson.

Jermaine is also not terribly worried about what the cops might find at Neverland. In fact, he’s so sure that Michael is innocent, that if the cops do find something, it must have been planted there; “I’m not afraid of what they took out. I’m afraid of what they put in.”

What a charming man.

Might be interesting to watch Jermaine try to explain how the cops would fake evidence such as, oh, an explicit video of one of the kids in question in Michael’s bedroom. I’m not saying there is such a video. Just that there are certain kinds of evidence that can’t be faked or “put in”.

Jermaine just wants another 15 minutes. He’s a no-talent hack who tried desperately to strike out on his own when Michael became famous. But the fact is, the guy doesn’t have any skills. I don’t know what he does these days, but every time controversy starts to swirl around MJ, there’s no shortage of people — his family included — ready to step up to the mike and talk shit about him.

Jermaine seems to have inherited their father’s bigoted outlook on the world. Joe Jackson, in an interview by Louis Theroux, once became extremely offended when the interviewer asked if MJ had a “partner”. One of MJ’s handlers was present to control the nature of the interviewer’s questions (which gives you a good idea how paranoid MJ is). The handler’s name is referenced only as “Majestik Magnificent” (appropriately circus-like), reportedly a magician. The “Will” is Will Yapp, the director/producer. The conversation went on like this:

Louis: Would you like to see Michael settled down with a partner?
Joe Jackson: Now what’s a partner?
Louis: A loved one.
Majestik Magnificent: What are you trying… a wife, you saying?
Louis: A boyfriend or a girlfriend.
Majestik Magnificent: A what? What did you say?
Louis: A boyfriend or girlfriend.
Majestik Magnificent: What are you trying to say, that Michael’s gay now? What if Michael said I would, what would you just. Stop. Turn the camera off, now, turn the camera off, turn the camera, turn the camera, turn the camera off, turn the camera off, or else there gonna be when I let you turn it on and continue… turn the camera off.
Louis: Why? (over Majestik protesting) this isn’t your interview Majestik it’s Joe’s.
Majestik: I don’t care that’s why I’m here.
Louis: What do you say Joe?
Majestik Magnificent: Hey Hey Hey Louis Louis.
Joe Jackson: You’re asking me asking the wrong questions.
Majestik Magnificent: Louis, Louis we have to talk about this Louis.
Will: That’s a conversation we can have Majestik.
Joe Jackson: If I had known this was going to be talking about Michael, you know what I’m saying, I would never have given you the chance to do this, never.
Majestik Magnificent: Exactly, exactly. This is Michael’s father and you’re going to sit there and say has he got a boyfriend, how much more disrespectful can you be.
Louis: Or a girlfriend.
Majestik Magnificent: You should just say a girlfriend or a wife. That’s an insult to Mr Jackson to let you come in…
Louis: Why is that insult?
Joe Jackson: Because we don’t believe in gays. I can’t stand them.
Majestik Magnificent: Me neither.
Joe Jackson: And you’re trying to say that Michael should have a boyfriend.
Majestik Magnificent: That’s an insult, I’m so glad Kate (Michael’s mother) ain’t here.
Joe Jackson: Katherine would really get on to you about that.
Majestik Magnificent: You sit there and say Michael have a boyfriend to his father, you don’t think that’s an insult.
Louis: or a girlfriend.
Joe Jackson: You said a boyfriend.
Louis: I said a boyfriend or a girlfriend.
Joe Jackson: What does he need a boyfriend for. Are you saying having a boyfriend as a girlfriend?
Louis: No. I don’t know what Michael’s romantic interests are, I don’t know which way he goes.
Joe Jackson: Certainly I’m sitting here saying right now, he’s not with no boys, ok, it’s not that. Anyway Majestik I’m going have to end this.
Majestik Magnificent: See. I told you.
Joe Jackson: Because you know I’m not going to make Michael mad at me by talking about…
Majestik Magnificent: I understand (to Louis) I tried to warn you…
Louis: Let’s talk about something else…
Majestik Magnificent: I tried to warn you and you wouldn’t stop, you just wouldn’t stop, I tried to tell you it’s over.
Louis: The only reason I said boyfriend or girlfriend is because I said partner and Joe said what do you mean by partner and I was explaining what that means.
Joe Jackson: I don’t understand.
Louis: Let me rephrase it. Would you like to see Michael in a steady relationship?
Joe Jackson: If you’re referring to as a wife, with a wife, a lady wife, that’s up to him what he wants to do. If he’s happy like he is that’s fine; if he wants to be with a lady woman that’s fine with me. Whatever he wants is fine with me.
Louis: Well, except a boyfriend apparently.
Joe Jackson: That ain’t on… that ain’t going happen.
Majestik Magnificent: Michael’s not gay, so you have to be gay to have a boyfriend and I’m telling you Michael is not gay.
Joe Jackson: That is not going to happen. We’re through, you asked questions for twenty minutes, we’re through.
Majestik Magnificent: Yeah we’re through, that’s it.

As you can see, Joe and Majestik are both quite touchy on the subject of Michael being with “boys”. One wonders. Maybe these two are just homophobic weirdos. But Louis was clearly not attempting to be provocative. Joe’s general cluelessness about homosexuality is bizarre and cringe-inducing, and more than a little pathetic.

Note how Joe and Majestik both seem very agitated about the question in general. Louis even tries to drop the subject and move on, and they won’t let him. Joe says “You’re asking the wrong questions”, as if there’s a list somewhere of the Ten Things Thou Shalt Not Ask About Michael Jackson, and Louis has just broken the rules.

Joe is worried that Michael will get mad at him. In fact, various family members and friends of Michael have expressed this worry. I guess Joe is concerned his little singing meal ticket might expire.

Complete weirdness.

And quite shameless of ABC to be putting Jermaine’s mug on TV an “exclusive interview”. What trash. God, I wish they’d all just STFU and let the cops handle it.

I really wanted to believe that Michael Jackson was just a harmless eccentric.

I really did.

But I started doubting it after I read the declaration that was provided by the 13-year-old (J. Chandler) that alleged Jackson molested him 10 years ago. At the time, it seemed like the father was just trying to extort money from Jackson to make the accusation go away. Money changed hands (estimated at $20 million, although the exact figure is not known). The case didn’t go to trial ultimately because the boy refused to testify.

The Smoking Gun has a copy of the Chandler boy’s statement, which I have read. The tone of the declaration, the details presented, combined with my evaluation of Jackson’s psychology, make me believe the accusations were true.

California law has changed since then (largely because of that specific case), and kids can now essentially be forced to take the stand. Michael’s money can’t protect him this time.

A lot of the rumors about him are, indeed, false. But it is apparent that he was abused as a child by his father, definitely physically (his own father, Joe, stated as much in an interview, and split hairs as well: “I never beat him. I whipped him with a switch and a belt. I never beat him. You beat someone with a stick”), probably emotionally. I do not think it was sexual abuse. But obviously as a boy, Michael was under a lot of pressure and stress with his brothers to get rich and famous with their talent. Joe Jackson was determined to make those kids into his meal ticket.

Of the kids, only Michael and Janet turned out to have any real talent. Janet’s is significant, but is eclipsed by the extraordinary gift that Michael has for song and dance. I like his music, and I do believe he is one of the premier musical talents of our time.

He has always expressed an intense interest in the welfare of children, donating large amounts of money to humanitarian causes that help kids all over the world, and inviting terminally ill kids (and others) to his sprawling theme park home at Neverland Ranch. He has a childlike quality of his own, an innocence and naivete that is at times difficult to believe.

I think Michael has spent his life in search of the childhood he was denied. This could be both a symptom and a cause of his extreme gullibility and self-indulgence. He is reportedly quite intelligent, and capable of some shrewd self-marketing. But as time went on, he grew to rely more and more on people around him to handle things (such as his money). These people were not always honest, and thieves and con men gravitated to him like sharks scenting blood.

He became wealthy at an early age, and likely got used to just pointing at something he wanted and being accustomed to getting it. People who have been close to him say that he doesn’t accept being told he can’t have or can’t do something. So he surrounds himself with yes-men, who steal from him even as they hide his dwindling fortune and his overextended credit.

He also has an obsession with his physical appearance. Regardless of his various claims, it is obvious that he has had numerous plastic surgeries to alter the shape of his face (not just his nose). The distinctively “black” facial features he had as a child (dark skin, full lips, broad nose) are gone, replaced by a thin, pointy nose, thinned, wide lips, a dimpled chin, sharp cheekbones, and very light skin.

Some people accuse him of “trying to be white”. Michael himself says he is pursuing a personal ideal of beauty. Both could certainly be true. He has said before that he has vitiligo, a rare skin disorder that causes melanin production to be erratic, resulting in blotchy white patches on his otherwise dark skin. That may be true. It may not. But presumably he has a choice of whether to use light or dark makeup to conceal this.

Concomitant with this concern over his appearance is a marked tendency toward extremely gaudy, flashy, or just plain odd clothes. He often wears gloves, and usually wears a mask of some kind over his face in public. At times it is a surgical mask-type thing, other times it’s a silken veil or some other fashionable material. I don’t know what the motive for this is, but he also goes to great lengths to avoid being photographed except when HE decides to be photographed. He is very secretive and reclusive, in ways that go far beyond the prudence of someone extremely famous.

Because Michael has been able to exist into his adult years (he is 45 this year) in such an isolated, controlled environment, he has maintained a pathological immaturity. His quest for childhood is the driving force that sustains it, and external influencing forces are kept at a minimum.

He seeks out children for peers, rather than adults, and has been so desperate for kids of his own that he now has 3 by two different women. One of these women remains an unknown and unseen surrogate. It’s unclear whether these kids even share any of Michael’s DNA. The one he dangled over a railing in Germany had very light, Caucasian skin. He keeps these kids covered up, too. Their faces have not been seen, to my knowledge.

Someone like this, having normal adult sexual drives, would incorporate that sexuality into the immature psychology. His emotional attachments, his affections, are directed almost exclusively at children. It is, therefore, not unbelievable that his sexual urges would be directed to kids as well.

I think in Michael’s mind this is not harmful or ill-intentioned. He has stated he would never, ever harm a child in any way. I think he means that. But I also think that he is in denial about the harm he does to them with his sexual advances. He genuinely loves children and seeks to form affectionate, loving bonds with them.

He knows on some level, though, that this is not appropriate. He has explicitly denied in interviews that he has ever had any sexual contact with a child. His Neverland Ranch is a private enclave where his own bedroom is concealed and no one is allowed inside. The children’s guest bedroom has only one exit, which goes through Michael’s bedroom before continuing to the rest of the house.

He plies the children (and their families) with lavish gifts of money, cars, and other material goods. Certainly these could be innocent gifts of friendliness from a man with a ton of money, but the fact that the kids are the ones invited for pajama parties — alone with no adult supervision except Michael himself — is obviously suspicious.

Even after the accusations 10 years ago, he did not stop inviting kids to his home for parties, and continued to show an unusually strong interest in interacting with small children. It doesn’t look parental, when you watch video of him.

These are all classic pedophile behaviors; giving children gifts, inventing ways to be alone with them such as having sleepovers and camping trips with no other adults around, trying to be a child’s friend/peer rather than a parental figure such as an uncle. I would guess that Michael has engaged in some of the other typical behaviors, too, such as asking the kids to keep the abuse a secret, even from their parents.

It is also true that pedophiles sometimes view their activities as loving and harmless, as a natural continuation of affection for kids. Some allege that the kids come on to them, rather than the other way around. It will be interesting to see if Michael makes any such claim.

I predict that Michael Jackson will commit suicide at some point during these criminal proceedings, perhaps upon the rendering of a guilty verdict (if such is made). My mother believes he will try but fail. My vote is for a drug overdose.

[Kyle adds]: Me being me, I can’t resist riffing a sociopolitical point off the above. A key aspect of mature adult psychology is a sense of limitations. The adult world is one of limits, trade-offs, opportunity costs and cost-benefit ratios. Adults understand that they can’t have everything they want, and because of that they learn to arrange their values hierarchically and work to achieve them as best they can within the restrictions posed by the resources available to them. Children focus on “I want.” Adults move on to other questions like “How much will it cost me? Is it worth it? What alternatives are precluded by pursuing this?” And so on. If a child gets too many of the things it wants without grasping the true effort needed to obtain them, the adult questions (and corresponding modes of reasoning) play a much less significant role in their psychology. The result is arrested psychological development.

In other words, your parents were right when they said that failure builds character.

Now, the sociopolitical point. One of the things I find striking about many activists on the left is how immature they seem. Their protests often look like temper tantrums writ large. (Thankfully today’s protests in Britain didn’t seem to fall into that category; good for them.) And the left’s political program sounds like a child’s Christmas list — lots of expensive goodies without any consideration of whether Daddy/the taxpayer is capable of working enough to pay the credit card bills when they come due in January.

This probably explains why I often wish I could grab the leftist-du-jour, smack them in the head and say “Oh, grow up.”

(Thomas Sowell wrote more extensively on these issues in his excellent book The Vision of the Anointed, which I recommend to anyone who has ever talked to a leftist and walked away wondering “What they hell are they thinking?”)

East Cocalico Township in Pennsylvania has an interesting problem:

Neighbors claim a wild turkey is hunting them. If you’re in a car — you’re fair game.

“They’ll run along side of ‘ya and try to getcha,” resident Carl Mohler said.

“The mailman says they follow him to the end of the road and chase him to every stop,” resident John Wilson said.

“I just call him the attack turkey,” resident Guy Wilson said.

I’ll see if I can track down some video of this. Various folks in the area have allegedly captured it on tape.

I don’t get this. PETA is mad at Clay Aiken (the American Idol star) because of something he said about cats in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine. What did Clay say that was so awful? You decide:

“There’s nothing worse to me than a house cat. When I was about sixteen, I had a kitten and ran over it. Seeing that cat die, I actually think that its spirit has haunted me. I wasn’t afraid of cats before. But now they scare me to death[.]”

Clay is expressing his personal opinion about cats (an opinion which a lot of people share), and states that he ran one over when he was a teen. He doesn’t indicate whether it was an accident, but clearly he feels bad about it. He didn’t advocate running over cats, or express any pleasure in the act.

What revenge does PETA intend to take for this? An ad urging people to spay or neuter their pets, starring Triumph the Comedy Insult Dog with the line: “Get Neutered, It Didn’t Hurt Clay Aiken.”

PETA is delaying the ad, but threatens to run it unless Clay issues an apology.

An apology for what? I think Clay should give ’em the finger and let them run it. I mean, who fucking cares anyway? This kind of stupid extortion just makes people like PETA look like even bigger tards than they already are. I’m sure Clay can take it, and it brings disgrace on PETA to say such things unprovoked.

Stick a fork in ’em. They’re done.

I’m used to groups like the Stop the War Coalition making dire threats and predictions of huge numbers of protesters at various events. Bush’s visit to London (the first official State visit by an American President in history, and at the specific invitation of the Queen) was supposed to result in 60,000-100,000 protesters flooding London streets in an anti-American rage.

Well, it hasn’t happened.

Fewer than 100 anti-war protesters were standing outside Buckingham Palace on Tuesday night as Bush and his entourage arrived in two helicopters…

And this is my all-time favorite quote:

“We haven’t got started yet. You just wait ’til Thursday!” vowed protester Ann Butler, 63, who had taken the train into London from suburban Kent county in hopes of getting within shouting distance of Bush.

Pardon me a moment while I double over laughing my guts out.

Even London, the reputed locus of British anti-American leftism, can’t even summon a hundred people to protest Bush’s visit there. Highly amusing.

UPDATE: The Edge of England’s Sword has some eyewitness accounts from on the ground. My favorite quote from the comments section there: “Loony Lefties. Couldn’t organize a beer night in a brewery.”