midnightmover said:

That last post was a little unfinished business from the locked thread. I hate liars.

Anyway, I saw the verdict and I'm pleased that justice was done. It was very sad though - the whole situation. There are no winners in this, only losers.

One man is dead and another has been sentenced to a lifetime's misery. Conrad Murray is clearly a broken man. He was weak and stupid. Boy, is he paying a price for it.

There are a lot of weak and desperate people out there, but most won't suffer for it like him because most won't meet someone with the same combination of wealth and wackiness as Michael Jackson had.

[Edited 11/8/11 5:22am]

Very true

PDogz said:

Tittypants said:

[real talk]

I love MJ to death, but I honestly think he did accidentally killed himself......

I loved Michael as well, but he had become very reckless, and became very accustomed to manipulating people for whatever it was he wanted at whatever time he wanted it, regardless of the consequences. Although, I feel that Conrad Murray was rightfully convicted of involuntary manslaughter, because he made some very stupid and dangerous mistakes. But honestly? I hold Michael Jackson accountable for his own death. If it hadn't been Dr. Murray that had been the one to make those mistakes, Michael would not have stopped until he found another to do so (...and the end result would likely have been the same - because these were untested waters - administering Propofol outside of a hospital setting). Nevertheless, MICHAEL was the one who put those actions into play.

I loved Michael, and hate that he's gone, I miss his creative genius. But he was warned many times by various people that what he was searching for was going to kill him (...and well what do you know? It did!). It's not like he didn't know the risk involved with what he was doing. I feel strongly that we all need to be held accountable for our own actions, behaviors, and the consequences that result, including Michael Jackson (whom we have certainly since learned; was as human as the rest of us).

I think this verdict was a fair one though. But Dr. Murray is no monster IMHO. Hindsight is 20/20, and I'm sure Conrad Murray understands where it was he screwed up. I can easily see how he may have lost sight of better judgment in the glaring light of Michael's mega-stardom, and with the prospect of making a lot of money. But now is the time for him to accept the consequences of his actions. Let Michael, and all the chaos that surrounded his world, rest now. Let the music play!

right.

This is the part that just boggles my mind. The whole reason that MJ went to a DOCTOR to get this "treatment" is because the doctor would know how to do it safely. Honestly I would not take the risk to do this. But if I was somehow compelled to do it I would do it as correctly as possible and as safe as possible.

MJ was rich enough to have a mini hospital set up in his house. With the proper staff. Angelina Jolie had a baby in a non hospital setting in Africa on the coast of Indian Ocean. I read how she and Bradd Pitt pretty much built a hospital for her delivery. So it can be done.

Why oh why did Murray be so damn CHEAP??? Nickle and diming the whole operation. If he had informed MJ that I will need this, and this, and this to do this treatment safely, MJ I am sure would have said.... "do whatever is needed". And then I think chances are good that MJ would not have died.

Why did Murray go so damn cheap that it was UNSAFE????

Timmy84 said:

ViintageJunkiie said:

Get ready for Conrad's book "The Conviction of an Innocent Man"

Nah it'll be titled "If I REALLY Killed MJ (This Is How I Will Do It)" then a few months later, he ends up robbing a jewelry store and gets sentenced to 15 years to life lol

Hilarious! Great response. What a dumb ass (that OJ Simpson).

prodigalfan said:

Why did Murray go so damn cheap that it was UNSAFE????

I keep saying it. Money makes you do some crazy things.

Ann Curry did an interview with Rebbie on the Today show... Here's the link:

http://today.msnbc.msn.co...rtainment/

Unholyalliance said:

Exactly. Trusting your doctor is your own fault as well. Which is why when it comes to medical malpractice the victim is also held responsible.

[Edited 11/8/11 6:25am]

What are you talking about? EVERYBODY who has not studied medicine and is not a doctor themselves trusts their doctor. Of course, you may be informed about the risks and benefits, but even if the risks are zero, you still trust your doctor.

You can tell Joe and Randy are incredibly sad with the veredict. With Conrad Murray considered guilty, there's no way the AEG lawsuit can continue. The millions they're worked on to achieve for 2 years, the thousands of plans they've executed in order to prepare ground for the lawsuit and the thousands of hours spent trying to create an argument in order to get those millions out of AEG have just gone into the bowells of hell.

Too bad Joe and Randy and company will now be getting NOTHING out of AEG. After two years creating an argument against AEG in order to get money off of them, they come out with the perspective of ending empty handed. They invented all kinds of arguments, every single day they executed a new plan to sue AEG and get millions off of them...but with Murray guilty (something they didn't want, since it's the obstacle to the lawsuit being successful), the AEG lawsuits and its coveted millions will now forever be burned.

The Jacksons' (or some of them) biggest nightmare has become a reality: Conrad Murray is considered guilty.

See, inventing Michael was a junkie (so they could create an argument against AEG and grab those millions) served for nothing.

Shall this cruel family be served justice. Murray's judgement day was today. After two years of the most vile and cruel campaign agianst an instituion and Michael (since he had to be thrown under the bus in order for AEG to be successfully sued) I've ever witnessed, this family shall taste their own venom.

Can you possibly imagine what Joe is thinking, right now? "Damn, I worked so hard to get Murray exonorated so I could successfuly sue AEG and get millions and he was convicted! Damn! I called the ATM machine, I think his name is Michael or something, all kinds of name, I successfuly made the world think he was a junkie and a monster so I could sue AEG and get money, but now...!".

What goes around, comes around. Eventually, all one's malicious actions will turn against one. Some of the Jacksons are incredibly mad at Murray being convicted: how are they gonna make money off of AEG now?!

But while Rebbie Jackson admitted to Curry her brother “had an addiction to prescription drugs — I do know that,” she said she believes Murray went against his professional oath in administrating propofol in a private setting.

After two years, the Jacksons still haven't understood the case. Even my grandmother who is 100 y.o., knows what the hell happened. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS FAMILY? Is their IQ that low? Are they this stupid?

The problem has nothing to do with the fact that a medical substance was admnistered in a private setting: if one has money to duplicate a hospital setting in a private area, so be it.

The problem is VERY simple: 1. Michael, a hardcore insomniac and a millionaire, wanted to sleep.

2. Michael, desperate, hired a doctor to put him to sleep. The average person suffering from the same problem can't afford to do that, but Michael shat money.

3. Murray, instead of putting his patient to sleep, killed him. That is, instead of admnistering enough proprofol to put Michael to sleep, admnistered 40x more due to negligence.

4. Added to error explained in #3, Murray did A LOT more errors.

5. Michael died.

IT'S VERY SIMPLE. Being an addict or not has NOTHING to do with anything. This is propofol we're talking about. If Michael was addicted to it, he wouldn't have even been able to open his eyes properly let alone dance for hours. Being an addict or not has ZERO to do with his death. ZERO. But, even with this in mind, the fact is that Jackson was not an addict.

Please, Jackson family lovers, answer my question: WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THIS FAMILY? I'km not even a MJ but I have to put my head in my hands and wonder how can this family be so cruel, so stupid! IS THIS EVEN POSSIBLE? I'VE NEVER, IN MY ENTIRE LIFE, SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS. MY father is a docor, I'm on my way to become on: we've seen EVERYTHING there is to be see in people, but I have NEVER, NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS FUCKING FAMILY? WHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH THEM?

I just want 2 say:

I know 4 a FACT Michael Jackson IS with God now, I have no doubts about it either.

Rest In Peace Sir, the pain from this earth is gone 4ever.

PDogz said:

If it hadn't been Dr. Murray that had been the one to make those mistakes, Michael would not have stopped until he found another to do so (...and the end result would likely have been the same - because these were untested waters - administering Propofol outside of a hospital setting). Nevertheless, MICHAEL was the one who put those actions into play.

Not to be funny or anything, but I believe that he had used Propofol with success before so why woudn't worlk again as long as he had someone who knew what they were doing right? I mean...if what you said was true then he would have died back in the 90s.

Though your conclusion he would have died anyways regardless of the doctor he would have gotten doesn't make any logical sense though... There's no way knowing that.

[Edited 11/8/11 10:39am]

I think the whole thing is sad for everyone involve. Murray deserves to be convicted, but I do believe if it wasn't Murray it would be another Doctor.

Another thing what do you guys think about the contradictions about his health? According to the Pathologist he had an unusal heart for 50 year old, it was a heart of a much younger person. And on the other hand according to Murray he was clinically blind. Apparently he also had an extra rib.

[Edited 11/8/11 10:58am]

Graycap23 said:

AnaisKarim said:

That's funny because the term was coined during the OJ trial and that was not 20 years ago. Plus you are one of the ones who misuses the term.

It is a dumb ass term 2 begin with. If racism did not exist, they would be no need 4 it.

True. This term came about because people wanted to believe racism doesn't exist. So supposedly black people can invoke this "card" that actually creates an ADVANTAGE. Fiction and BS promoted by people with an agenda and repeated by those without a clue. LOL

whatsgoingon said:

I think the whole thing is sad for everyone involve. Murray deserves to be convicted, but I do believe if it wasn't Murray it would be another Doctor.

Another thing what do you guys think about the contradictions about his health? According to the Pathologist he had an unusal heart for 50 year old, it was a heart of a much younger person. And on the other hand according to Murray he was clinically blind. Apparently he also had an extra rib.

[Edited 11/8/11 10:58am]

Well, I don't remember pathologist sayign he had an unusual heart. I remember him saying strong, but I might be mistaken. Gotta watch it again.

As for what Murray said, do you seriously believe taht he was blind dancing around with shades?

13 ribs, yeah that was mentioned, but why could it be such a problem?

dag said:

whatsgoingon said:

I think the whole thing is sad for everyone involve. Murray deserves to be convicted, but I do believe if it wasn't Murray it would be another Doctor.

Another thing what do you guys think about the contradictions about his health? According to the Pathologist he had an unusal heart for 50 year old, it was a heart of a much younger person. And on the other hand according to Murray he was clinically blind. Apparently he also had an extra rib.

[Edited 11/8/11 10:58am]

Well, I don't remember pathologist sayign he had an unusual heart. I remember him saying strong, but I might be mistaken. Gotta watch it again.

As for what Murray said, do you seriously believe taht he was blind dancing around with shades?

13 ribs, yeah that was mentioned, but why could it be such a problem?

I don't know about blindness, but the autopsy said he had inflammed lungs, an extra rib, and arthritis

bboy87 said:

dag said:

Well, I don't remember pathologist sayign he had an unusual heart. I remember him saying strong, but I might be mistaken. Gotta watch it again.

As for what Murray said, do you seriously believe taht he was blind dancing around with shades?

13 ribs, yeah that was mentioned, but why could it be such a problem?

I don't know about blindness, but the autopsy said he had inflammed lungs, an extra rib, and arthritis

I read that as well.

Unholyalliance said:

PDogz said:

If it hadn't been Dr. Murray that had been the one to make those mistakes, Michael would not have stopped until he found another to do so (...and the end result would likely have been the same - because these were untested waters - administering Propofol outside of a hospital setting). Nevertheless, MICHAEL was the one who put those actions into play.

Not to be funny or anything, but I believe that he had used Propofol with success before so why woudn't worlk again as long as he had someone who knew what they were doing right? I mean...if what you said was true then he would have died back in the 90s.

Though your conclusion he would have died anyways regardless of the doctor he would have gotten doesn't make any logical sense though... There's no way knowing that.

[Edited 11/8/11 10:39am]

i believe this as well. i don't think this just popped into mj's head out of the blue with murray. he didn't die before b/c the doctor(s) before did the job right. as the expert dr. shafer testified, he is appalled at how propofol, a perfectly safe and effective drug, has been given a bad name b/c of murray's misuse of it.

yes, the other doctors definitely misused it on mj, too, if they were giving it to him for sleep, BUT the big difference here seems to be murray walking away, not monitoring, talking on the phone when everyone - including mj - knew that propofol has to be monitored.

i don't think mj would be dead if murray had been monitoring him that morning. he might have died later as this was an extreme practice, and as dr. shafer also said, to the extent that there have never been any studies done on the prolonged use of propofol on a nightly basis, i think it's possible that mj could have died from an unknown side effect eventually.

ComputerBlueSpain said:

You can tell Joe and Randy are incredibly sad with the veredict. With Conrad Murray considered guilty, there's no way the AEG lawsuit can continue. The millions they're worked on to achieve for 2 years, the thousands of plans they've executed in order to prepare ground for the lawsuit and the thousands of hours spent trying to create an argument in order to get those millions out of AEG have just gone into the bowells of hell.

Too bad Joe and Randy and company will now be getting NOTHING out of AEG. After two years creating an argument against AEG in order to get money off of them, they come out with the perspective of ending empty handed. They invented all kinds of arguments, every single day they executed a new plan to sue AEG and get millions off of them...but with Murray guilty (something they didn't want, since it's the obstacle to the lawsuit being successful), the AEG lawsuits and its coveted millions will now forever be burned.

The Jacksons' (or some of them) biggest nightmare has become a reality: Conrad Murray is considered guilty.

See, inventing Michael was a junkie (so they could create an argument against AEG and grab those millions) served for nothing.

Shall this cruel family be served justice. Murray's judgement day was today. After two years of the most vile and cruel campaign agianst an instituion and Michael (since he had to be thrown under the bus in order for AEG to be successfully sued) I've ever witnessed, this family shall taste their own venom.

Can you possibly imagine what Joe is thinking, right now? "Damn, I worked so hard to get Murray exonorated so I could successfuly sue AEG and get millions and he was convicted! Damn! I called the ATM machine, I think his name is Michael or something, all kinds of name, I successfuly made the world think he was a junkie and a monster so I could sue AEG and get money, but now...!".

What goes around, comes around. Eventually, all one's malicious actions will turn against one. Some of the Jacksons are incredibly mad at Murray being convicted: how are they gonna make money off of AEG now?!

i agree with what you've said. however, i don't share your belief that the jacksons will pull their lawsuit. in spite of the fact that murray admits that he was employed by mj, and the only thing aeg was doing was fronting money that they were going to recoup back from mj after the tour, the jacksons will continue to press this lawsuit. in these two years, we've all seen and learned things about these people that defy explanation. why would that stop now?

"Am I the Beast You Visualized?" The Cultural Abuse of Michael Jackson

Posted: 11/2/11

We have heard the point made over and over these past few weeks: It is not Michael Jackson currently on trial; it is Dr. Conrad Murray. But, of course, we know the reality. This is the "Michael Jackson Death Trial." He is, as he always was, the main event, the tantalizing spectacle. It is Michael Jackson who is under the microscope as we pry, one more time, through his home, his medical records, his body. And while the public at large is much more sympathetic now that Jackson has passed, he remains the subject of endless scrutiny and judgment.

Does any of it matter now that the man himself can't feel the abuse? Should the average person even care whether a "celebrity" like Jackson is treated with callousness or disregard? Projects like Voices, whose "Words and Violence" series highlights the disturbing trajectory of our social discourse, says yes. Words matter. No matter the target. Words, as we have witnessed with the recent attention on youth bullying and suicides, can lead to devastatingly tragic ends.

They can also be used to inspire and heal.

Michael Jackson knew this. In 1988, he befriended AIDS victim Ryan White, a young boy forced out of his school in Kokomo, Indiana because of relentless verbal assaults and threats of violence. Jackson, White said, made him feel normal. "[Michael] didn't care what race you were, what color you were, what was your handicap, what was your disease," recalled Ryan White's mother, Jeanne. "[He] just loved all children."

White is one of thousands of "outsiders" to whom Jackson reached out, befriended and treated with kindness. He identified with them. He understood their pain and loneliness. He felt empathy for their struggle to live in a world that refused to accept them for who they were, whether because of illness, physical appearance, race, sexual orientation or some other reason.

Even as a young boy, Jackson possessed this sensitivity. Listen to the song, "Ben." There is genuine pain and compassion in Jackson's delivery ("They don't see you as I do/ I wish they would try to"). The song can be seen as one of the first artistic statements Jackson made on behalf of the marginalized and misunderstood. Many more would follow.

Jackson's outsider role may have begun in childhood (as there was never a time Jackson felt "normal" and never a time he was perceived as such). Yet the intensity and hostility caused by his difference grew over time. In his 1996 essay, "The Celebrity Freak: Michael Jackson's Grotesque Glory," David Yuan argued that Michael Jackson was the defining "freak" of our time. No other public figure in the world evoked the same level of ridicule, scrutiny and hyper-interrogation. As early as 1985, Jackson was being labeled "Michael Jackson" by the tabloids, a term he despised (as recently as this year, some mainstream news organizations continued to refer to him as "Jackson"). In the press, he was frequently described as "bizarre," "weird," and "eccentric." Indeed, there was very little he said or did from the mid-1980s forward that wasn't described in these terms by the media.

Jackson was mocked incessantly for his skin disorder, vitiligo, which most people didn't believe was real until it was confirmed definitively in his autopsy. He was mocked for his love of animals; for his love of children; for his love of the planet. He was mocked for his marriages, for his three kids, for his Neverland home. He was mocked for his sexuality, his voice, his childlike behavior. Even reviews of his music couldn't resist filling up the majority of the space with pseudo-psychoanalysis and ad hominem assaults. Can there be any doubt that this treatment by the media and culture at large was abusive?

Certainly the victim of these dehumanizing attacks felt that way. Listen to the lyrics of his songs. In "Tabloid Junkie" he describes the mass media as "parasites" sucking the life out of him, while drugging/distracting the general public with a steady dose of sensationalism. In "Stranger in Moscow" he is an artist in exile, used up and spit out by his native country. "I was wanderin' in the rain," he sings from the lonely role of vagabond, "Mask of life/ Feeling insane."

In "Scream" he is so weary of being bullied, he pleads, "Oh brother, please have mercy 'cause I just can't take it." The song, however, also serves as a vehicle of strength and resolve ("Kickin' me down/ I got to get up"). Michael and sister Janet deliver a fierce counterblow to a system they rightfully see as corrupt and unjust. "You're sellin' out souls," Janet sings in one verse, "but I care about mine." It is a defiant song about standing up to cruelty, even when the pain and indignation is so deep it can only be expressed in a guttural scream.

In numerous songs, Jackson uses his music as a rallying call for others who have been mistreated. In "They Don't Care About Us," he witnesses for the disenfranchised and demeaned. "Tell me what has become of my rights," he sings, "Am I invisible because you ignore me?" "Little Susie" draws attention to the plight of the neglected and abandoned, telling the story of a young girl whose gifts go unnoticed until she is found dead at the bottom of the stairs in her home ("Lift her with care," Jackson sings, "Oh, the blood in her hair"); "Earth Song" offers an epic lamentation on behalf of the planet and its most vulnerable inhabitants (represented by the choir's passionate shouts, "What about us!"). Through such songs (as well as through his life and persona), Jackson became a sort of global representative of the "Other."

The mass media, however, never held much regard for Jackson's other-ness, just as they held little regard for the "others" he spoke of in his songs. Rather, they found a narrative that was simple and profitable -- Jackson as eccentric "freak" -- and stuck with it for nearly three decades, gradually upping the stakes.

Perhaps Jackson's most compelling response to the public perception of him that resulted comes in his trio of late Gothic songs: "Ghosts," "Is It Scary," and "Threatened." It is here that Jackson holds a mirror up to the society that scorns him and asks it to look at its own grotesque reflection. "Is it scary for you!" he demands. The songs, and their accompanying visual representations, are not only keenly self-aware, they demonstrate a shrewd understanding of the toxic forces that surround and haunt him.

In the short film, Ghosts, the Mayor of Normal Valley (a conservative figure of authority inspired, in part, by Santa Barbara District Attorney, Tom Sneddon) taunts Jackson's character: "Freaky boy! Freak! Circus freak." Interestingly, it is Jackson himself (disguised as the Mayor) that delivers these words, and one can feel the way they have been internalized. They are slurs intended to mark, marginalize and humiliate (which was ultimately the purpose of the witch hunts of 1993 and 2005). For the Mayor, Jackson's presence in the community is intolerable. It is not that Jackson has done any harm; it is simply that he is different and that difference is threatening.

In such artistic expressions, Jackson clearly recognizes what is being done to him. He is being defined by outside forces. He is a phantom they have constructed in their own minds. As he sings in "Is It Scary," "If you wanna see/ Eccentric oddities I'll be grotesque before your eyes." He will be grotesque, in other words, because that is what the public "wants to see." It is how they have been conditioned to see. Later in the song, he anticipates his audience's reactions, asking: "Am I amusing you/ Or just confusing you/ Am I the beast you visualized?" Has he become something less than human? Why is this? Is it his physical appearance? His ambiguous identity? His unusual life story? There is no question Michael Jackson was different. The question is why this difference incited such fervent disparagement and abuse.

One of the remarkable qualities of Jackson's life and work, however, is that he refuses to compromise his "difference." He never becomes "normal," as the term is represented by, say, the Mayor of Normal Valley. He doesn't conform to expectations. Rather, he is true to himself and flaunts his unique, multi-faceted identity, to the frustration of those who would like him to fit in more predictable boxes. His differences, as Susan Fast notes, were "impenetrable, uncontainable, and they created enormous anxiety. Please be black, Michael, or white, or gay or straight, father or mother, father to children, not a child yourself, so we at least know how to direct our liberal (in)tolerance. And try not to confuse all the codes simultaneously."

Even over two years after his tragic passing, it seems, many people don't know what to make of Michael Jackson. He is reduced, therefore, to easy labels like "drug addict." A picture of his lifeless body is callously plastered on news sites. It is cruel, abusive behavior masquerading as "normal." Perhaps this is why Jackson chose the medium of the Gothic to fight back. It was a way to turn the tables, to symbolically represent the world as it often felt to him: monstrous and grotesque. His "horror stories" certainly weren't intended merely to entertain.

"Freaks are called freaks," observed author James Baldwin, "and are treated as they are treated -- in the main, abominably -- because they are human beings who cause to echo, deep within us, our most profound terrors and desires." In Jackson's case those "terrors and desires" were manifold, including race, sexuality, money and power. Yet as much as Jackson became the symbolic magnet onto which many of these cultural anxieties were projected, he was also an actual person trying to live his life. Toward the end of "Is It Scary" he explains, "I'm just not what you seek of me," before revealing to the compassionate listener: "But if you came to see/ The truth, the purity/ It's here inside a lonely heart/ So let the performance start!"

Ironically, it is in the "performance" of his art that we find "the truth, the purity." This is where he exorcizes his demons, where his anguish is transfused into creative energy. This is where the walls come down and the mask comes off. To the outside world, he may be a spectacle, a caricature, a freak; but here, finally, inside his music, he bares his soul. He is a human being.

The question is: What do we see?


This article is cross-posted at Voices: Education Project as part of the "Words and Violence" curriculum.

Joseph Vogel is the author Man in the Music: The Creative Life and Work of Michael Jackson, released worldwide November 1, 2011.

http://www.huffingtonpost...68750.html

ComputerBlueSpain said:

But while Rebbie Jackson admitted to Curry her brother “had an addiction to prescription drugs — I do know that,” she said she believes Murray went against his professional oath in administrating propofol in a private setting.

After two years, the Jacksons still haven't understood the case. Even my grandmother who is 100 y.o., knows what the hell happened. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS FAMILY? Is their IQ that low? Are they this stupid?

The problem has nothing to do with the fact that a medical substance was admnistered in a private setting: if one has money to duplicate a hospital setting in a private area, so be it.

The problem is VERY simple: 1. Michael, a hardcore insomniac and a millionaire, wanted to sleep.

2. Michael, desperate, hired a doctor to put him to sleep. The average person suffering from the same problem can't afford to do that, but Michael shat money.

3. Murray, instead of putting his patient to sleep, killed him. That is, instead of admnistering enough proprofol to put Michael to sleep, admnistered 40x more due to negligence.

4. Added to error explained in #3, Murray did A LOT more errors.

5. Michael died.

IT'S VERY SIMPLE. Being an addict or not has NOTHING to do with anything. This is propofol we're talking about. If Michael was addicted to it, he wouldn't have even been able to open his eyes properly let alone dance for hours. Being an addict or not has ZERO to do with his death. ZERO. But, even with this in mind, the fact is that Jackson was not an addict.

Please, Jackson family lovers, answer my question: WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THIS FAMILY? I'km not even a MJ but I have to put my head in my hands and wonder how can this family be so cruel, so stupid! IS THIS EVEN POSSIBLE? I'VE NEVER, IN MY ENTIRE LIFE, SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS. MY father is a docor, I'm on my way to become on: we've seen EVERYTHING there is to be see in people, but I have NEVER, NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS FUCKING FAMILY? WHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH THEM?

I agree with you that MJ was not a drug addict. That label was pushed from almost the moment he died starting with that lying sack of sh!t Deepak Chopra. But there was a motive to kill him, he feared that he would be killed and he is dead. Branca, McClain, Sony, AEG all skipping off down the road while Murry takes the fall because he was the actual trigger man but he didn't act alone. In fact, he probably wasn't even privy to the details, just the stupid azz who was blinded by the dollars and actually committed the act. His contempt for MJ is obviouis from that recording - as though any one of us would sound any different recorded while under anethesia!

As for the family pushing the drug addict label it was probably so all contracts signed with AEG and other corrupt entities could be nullified due to MJ not being "in his right mind" when he signed them.

AnaisKarim said:

ThruTheEyesOfWonder said:

Alright...at the urging of another fan, I have come in briefly to say this.

Michael did not and COULD not inject himself with Propofol. As you all saw the trial, I don't have to explain to you how or why.

But as a student pharmacist, I should tell you that it wouldn't surprise me if Michael did ask for Propofol from Murray. Propofol is not a dependency-inducing drug (yes, it is abused sometimes by other health care professionals; but never outside of a hospital setting. Complex neuromolecular physiology aside, it does not cause dependency like heroin). Normal treamment for insomnia is usually a prescription for benzodiazipines, which CAN AND WILL cause dependency. Michael I'm sure, knew this and didn't want to have a dependency problem, with 50 shows coming up that he had to perform.

I am NOT condoning Michael's decisions...BUT it is ultimately Murray who is the one responsible for Michael's death. Murray is the physician. There are different ways to treat insomnia that do not include benzo's or hospital grade anesthetics he's not qualified to handle or administer. Michael's chronic insomnia is not uncommon. 15% of people in US suffer from insomnia. Yet...they are not written prescriptions for PROPOFOL as treatment in their own homes.

Murray acted in an unethical and criminally negligent way. He not only put Michael's life at risk every night, he failed to save his life and make the call at the appropriate time. He got what he deserved.

And for all you nay sayers out there, trying to throw shade on a dead man. Quite simply, fuck you. Whether you liked Michael or not, a human being is gone because of the criminally negligent acts of another. Whether Michael was an addict or not (records show that he was NOT in fact an addict at the time of his death), HIS LIFE WAS STILL WORTH SAVING. This is why addicts do not come forward to get help. I strongly encourage anyone on here who knows anyone battling addiction, to encourage them to come forward and seek treatment. Stop the stigma.

It starts with you. Show your compassion. Show you care.

Thank you. The coroner and other medical professionals have provided evidence and testimony that Michael Jackson was not a drug addict. Yet people who claim to have been following this all along seem completely oblivious to this! It's obvious that their main sources of information are tabloid papers, websites and tv shows and they don't in fact understand what is going on. I've even heard people calling Propofol a narcotic as they repeat the lies about MJ being addicted to it.

Murray has been found guilty, but the masterminds are controlling the estate and laughing all the way to the bank - while fans repeat tabloid BS and moan about future albums that aren't sophisticated enough for their discerning tastes. That's because the people putting out the new albums don't care about MJ's legacy, they care about lining their pockets!!

totally co-sign. what trial were they watching? certainly not the same one i was. walgren made mincemeat - absolute mincemeat - of the def's so-called addiction expert, and a lot of these poster act like that didn't happen. wtf?????

i'm really tired of hearing this 'oh, poor dr. murray got caught up in mj's money and fame', 'oh, poor murray is the fall guy for mj's addictions', 'if it wasn't him, it would have been someone else'.

murray wanted to be caught up in mj's money and fame. dr. metzger and nurse lee had no trouble telling mj 'no' and warning him. you bet believe when mj asked him, murray downplayed any risks b/c of the potential benefit to himself if he could convince mj that he was the right man for the job. if, as murray said, he believed that klein was giving him addictive drugs, it certainly didn't stop murray himself from administering his own store of benzos, did it? how can he hypocritically point the finger at anyone?

finally, it is an absolutely irrelevant, non-sensical argument to say that if it wasn't murray, it would have been someone else. would someone else have left mj unmonitored under the influence of propofol? there is no evidence to conclusively state that. and what is even the point of saying that anyway? so murray shouldn't have been prosecuted? that's absurd. if my friend and i rob a bank, but the police catch her and not me, should they not prosecute her for what she took part in, just because b/c i got away? you hear this absurd argument applied to klein and the so-called other doctors. i say so-called b/c all the mj doctors were investigated and not one charge has been brought against any of them in over two effing years. the bottom line is that none of them were in the room anyway. i don't care if klein gave mj demoral three days before he died; to the best of my knowledge, he didn't leave mj unattended to go chat up some girl.

[Edited 11/8/11 11:54am]

tmo1965 said:

babynoz said:

Thanks. I heard another version of the story. Did they mention what caused Murray to record it?

No one knows for sure except Murray. Personally, I think he was setting MJ up to be blackmailed.

i personally think you're right.

what other purpose could he have been making it for? this guy was looking for $5m, and he was going to get it somehow.

now we hear that he's been working on a documentary which will be aired this friday. wonder no more at how murray was able to afford his defense.

[Edited 11/8/11 12:01pm]

Yeah I doubt another doctor would've killed him. Murray was just DUMB.

dag said:

"Am I the Beast You Visualized?" The Cultural Abuse of Michael Jackson

Posted: 11/2/11

We have heard the point made over and over these past few weeks: It is not Michael Jackson currently on trial; it is Dr. Conrad Murray. But, of course, we know the reality. This is the "Michael Jackson Death Trial." He is, as he always was, the main event, the tantalizing spectacle. It is Michael Jackson who is under the microscope as we pry, one more time, through his home, his medical records, his body. And while the public at large is much more sympathetic now that Jackson has passed, he remains the subject of endless scrutiny and judgment.

Does any of it matter now that the man himself can't feel the abuse? Should the average person even care whether a "celebrity" like Jackson is treated with callousness or disregard? Projects like Voices, whose "Words and Violence" series highlights the disturbing trajectory of our social discourse, says yes. Words matter. No matter the target. Words, as we have witnessed with the recent attention on youth bullying and suicides, can lead to devastatingly tragic ends.

They can also be used to inspire and heal.

Michael Jackson knew this. In 1988, he befriended AIDS victim Ryan White, a young boy forced out of his school in Kokomo, Indiana because of relentless verbal assaults and threats of violence. Jackson, White said, made him feel normal. "[Michael] didn't care what race you were, what color you were, what was your handicap, what was your disease," recalled Ryan White's mother, Jeanne. "[He] just loved all children."

White is one of thousands of "outsiders" to whom Jackson reached out, befriended and treated with kindness. He identified with them. He understood their pain and loneliness. He felt empathy for their struggle to live in a world that refused to accept them for who they were, whether because of illness, physical appearance, race, sexual orientation or some other reason.

Even as a young boy, Jackson possessed this sensitivity. Listen to the song, "Ben." There is genuine pain and compassion in Jackson's delivery ("They don't see you as I do/ I wish they would try to"). The song can be seen as one of the first artistic statements Jackson made on behalf of the marginalized and misunderstood. Many more would follow.

Jackson's outsider role may have begun in childhood (as there was never a time Jackson felt "normal" and never a time he was perceived as such). Yet the intensity and hostility caused by his difference grew over time. In his 1996 essay, "The Celebrity Freak: Michael Jackson's Grotesque Glory," David Yuan argued that Michael Jackson was the defining "freak" of our time. No other public figure in the world evoked the same level of ridicule, scrutiny and hyper-interrogation. As early as 1985, Jackson was being labeled "Michael Jackson" by the tabloids, a term he despised (as recently as this year, some mainstream news organizations continued to refer to him as "Jackson"). In the press, he was frequently described as "bizarre," "weird," and "eccentric." Indeed, there was very little he said or did from the mid-1980s forward that wasn't described in these terms by the media.

Jackson was mocked incessantly for his skin disorder, vitiligo, which most people didn't believe was real until it was confirmed definitively in his autopsy. He was mocked for his love of animals; for his love of children; for his love of the planet. He was mocked for his marriages, for his three kids, for his Neverland home. He was mocked for his sexuality, his voice, his childlike behavior. Even reviews of his music couldn't resist filling up the majority of the space with pseudo-psychoanalysis and ad hominem assaults. Can there be any doubt that this treatment by the media and culture at large was abusive?

Certainly the victim of these dehumanizing attacks felt that way. Listen to the lyrics of his songs. In "Tabloid Junkie" he describes the mass media as "parasites" sucking the life out of him, while drugging/distracting the general public with a steady dose of sensationalism. In "Stranger in Moscow" he is an artist in exile, used up and spit out by his native country. "I was wanderin' in the rain," he sings from the lonely role of vagabond, "Mask of life/ Feeling insane."

In "Scream" he is so weary of being bullied, he pleads, "Oh brother, please have mercy 'cause I just can't take it." The song, however, also serves as a vehicle of strength and resolve ("Kickin' me down/ I got to get up"). Michael and sister Janet deliver a fierce counterblow to a system they rightfully see as corrupt and unjust. "You're sellin' out souls," Janet sings in one verse, "but I care about mine." It is a defiant song about standing up to cruelty, even when the pain and indignation is so deep it can only be expressed in a guttural scream.

In numerous songs, Jackson uses his music as a rallying call for others who have been mistreated. In "They Don't Care About Us," he witnesses for the disenfranchised and demeaned. "Tell me what has become of my rights," he sings, "Am I invisible because you ignore me?" "Little Susie" draws attention to the plight of the neglected and abandoned, telling the story of a young girl whose gifts go unnoticed until she is found dead at the bottom of the stairs in her home ("Lift her with care," Jackson sings, "Oh, the blood in her hair"); "Earth Song" offers an epic lamentation on behalf of the planet and its most vulnerable inhabitants (represented by the choir's passionate shouts, "What about us!"). Through such songs (as well as through his life and persona), Jackson became a sort of global representative of the "Other."

The mass media, however, never held much regard for Jackson's other-ness, just as they held little regard for the "others" he spoke of in his songs. Rather, they found a narrative that was simple and profitable -- Jackson as eccentric "freak" -- and stuck with it for nearly three decades, gradually upping the stakes.

Perhaps Jackson's most compelling response to the public perception of him that resulted comes in his trio of late Gothic songs: "Ghosts," "Is It Scary," and "Threatened." It is here that Jackson holds a mirror up to the society that scorns him and asks it to look at its own grotesque reflection. "Is it scary for you!" he demands. The songs, and their accompanying visual representations, are not only keenly self-aware, they demonstrate a shrewd understanding of the toxic forces that surround and haunt him.

In the short film, Ghosts, the Mayor of Normal Valley (a conservative figure of authority inspired, in part, by Santa Barbara District Attorney, Tom Sneddon) taunts Jackson's character: "Freaky boy! Freak! Circus freak." Interestingly, it is Jackson himself (disguised as the Mayor) that delivers these words, and one can feel the way they have been internalized. They are slurs intended to mark, marginalize and humiliate (which was ultimately the purpose of the witch hunts of 1993 and 2005). For the Mayor, Jackson's presence in the community is intolerable. It is not that Jackson has done any harm; it is simply that he is different and that difference is threatening.

In such artistic expressions, Jackson clearly recognizes what is being done to him. He is being defined by outside forces. He is a phantom they have constructed in their own minds. As he sings in "Is It Scary," "If you wanna see/ Eccentric oddities I'll be grotesque before your eyes." He will be grotesque, in other words, because that is what the public "wants to see." It is how they have been conditioned to see. Later in the song, he anticipates his audience's reactions, asking: "Am I amusing you/ Or just confusing you/ Am I the beast you visualized?" Has he become something less than human? Why is this? Is it his physical appearance? His ambiguous identity? His unusual life story? There is no question Michael Jackson was different. The question is why this difference incited such fervent disparagement and abuse.

One of the remarkable qualities of Jackson's life and work, however, is that he refuses to compromise his "difference." He never becomes "normal," as the term is represented by, say, the Mayor of Normal Valley. He doesn't conform to expectations. Rather, he is true to himself and flaunts his unique, multi-faceted identity, to the frustration of those who would like him to fit in more predictable boxes. His differences, as Susan Fast notes, were "impenetrable, uncontainable, and they created enormous anxiety. Please be black, Michael, or white, or gay or straight, father or mother, father to children, not a child yourself, so we at least know how to direct our liberal (in)tolerance. And try not to confuse all the codes simultaneously."

Even over two years after his tragic passing, it seems, many people don't know what to make of Michael Jackson. He is reduced, therefore, to easy labels like "drug addict." A picture of his lifeless body is callously plastered on news sites. It is cruel, abusive behavior masquerading as "normal." Perhaps this is why Jackson chose the medium of the Gothic to fight back. It was a way to turn the tables, to symbolically represent the world as it often felt to him: monstrous and grotesque. His "horror stories" certainly weren't intended merely to entertain.

"Freaks are called freaks," observed author James Baldwin, "and are treated as they are treated -- in the main, abominably -- because they are human beings who cause to echo, deep within us, our most profound terrors and desires." In Jackson's case those "terrors and desires" were manifold, including race, sexuality, money and power. Yet as much as Jackson became the symbolic magnet onto which many of these cultural anxieties were projected, he was also an actual person trying to live his life. Toward the end of "Is It Scary" he explains, "I'm just not what you seek of me," before revealing to the compassionate listener: "But if you came to see/ The truth, the purity/ It's here inside a lonely heart/ So let the performance start!"

Ironically, it is in the "performance" of his art that we find "the truth, the purity." This is where he exorcizes his demons, where his anguish is transfused into creative energy. This is where the walls come down and the mask comes off. To the outside world, he may be a spectacle, a caricature, a freak; but here, finally, inside his music, he bares his soul. He is a human being.

The question is: What do we see?


This article is cross-posted at Voices: Education Project as part of the "Words and Violence" curriculum.

Joseph Vogel is the author Man in the Music: The Creative Life and Work of Michael Jackson, released worldwide November 1, 2011.

http://www.huffingtonpost...68750.html

Too many well meaning people are still totally oblivious to the underlying motive to destroy Michael Jackson. Quite simply put, no black man was supposed to outsell Elvis and The Beatles plus OWN the publishing rights to all their sh!t. Look at the huge difference in the People magazine cover of MJ that came before MJ purchased the ATV Catalog and the one that followed. Once MJ "owned" The Beatles and Elvis, the sh!t storm started and never let up. Once he merged ATV with Sony's publishing to create Sony/ATV he had an asset that would ultimately cost him his life, while the average person on the street believed him to be financially irresponsible and virtually bankrupt. The irony is just too much.

AnaisKarim said:

ComputerBlueSpain said:

After two years, the Jacksons still haven't understood the case. Even my grandmother who is 100 y.o., knows what the hell happened. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS FAMILY? Is their IQ that low? Are they this stupid?

The problem has nothing to do with the fact that a medical substance was admnistered in a private setting: if one has money to duplicate a hospital setting in a private area, so be it.

The problem is VERY simple: 1. Michael, a hardcore insomniac and a millionaire, wanted to sleep.

2. Michael, desperate, hired a doctor to put him to sleep. The average person suffering from the same problem can't afford to do that, but Michael shat money.

3. Murray, instead of putting his patient to sleep, killed him. That is, instead of admnistering enough proprofol to put Michael to sleep, admnistered 40x more due to negligence.

4. Added to error explained in #3, Murray did A LOT more errors.

5. Michael died.

IT'S VERY SIMPLE. Being an addict or not has NOTHING to do with anything. This is propofol we're talking about. If Michael was addicted to it, he wouldn't have even been able to open his eyes properly let alone dance for hours. Being an addict or not has ZERO to do with his death. ZERO. But, even with this in mind, the fact is that Jackson was not an addict.

Please, Jackson family lovers, answer my question: WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THIS FAMILY? I'km not even a MJ but I have to put my head in my hands and wonder how can this family be so cruel, so stupid! IS THIS EVEN POSSIBLE? I'VE NEVER, IN MY ENTIRE LIFE, SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS. MY father is a docor, I'm on my way to become on: we've seen EVERYTHING there is to be see in people, but I have NEVER, NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS FUCKING FAMILY? WHAT THE HELL IS THE MATTER WITH THEM?

I agree with you that MJ was not a drug addict. That label was pushed from almost the moment he died starting with that lying sack of sh!t Deepak Chopra. But there was a motive to kill him, he feared that he would be killed and he is dead. Branca, McClain, Sony, AEG all skipping off down the road while Murry takes the fall because he was the actual trigger man but he didn't act alone. In fact, he probably wasn't even privy to the details, just the stupid azz who was blinded by the dollars and actually committed the act. His contempt for MJ is obviouis from that recording - as though any one of us would sound any different recorded while under anethesia!

As for the family pushing the drug addict label it was probably so all contracts signed with AEG and other corrupt entities could be nullified due to MJ not being "in his right mind" when he signed them.

I have no patience for conspiracy theories. I usually don't even reply to users who start spewing them, as I have such little regard for their intelligence but I will, this time. Sony, AEG, Branca and McClain have nothing to do with MJ's death. Murray acted alone. Period.

Second: the addict claims didn't start with Deepak. They started with Randy, Joe and Leonard Rowe who, literally two minutes after Mj was announced death, sent Oxman on TV to bash MJ in the cruelest of manners. The three later proceeded to cement the junkie legacy and dragged along the entire family. The purpose? Ohhh...so many self-serving purporses, from money from rich entities to desire to clean up the their reputation. The family created the junkie legacy not anyone else, so stop pointing the finger.

Third: nope. Stop excusing the family's behavior. They don't have MJ's interests at heart. Never had and never will. They care NOTHING about them. That argument about nullifying contracts is rosy made up bullshit invented by some desperate, looney tooney mind. That is NOT true and only an idiot would think it's true. It's made up and it's false. But, hey, you're a Jackson family fan, right? That might explain some things.

The Jackson family floons are on fire...I see.

kibbles said:

AnaisKarim said:

Thank you. The coroner and other medical professionals have provided evidence and testimony that Michael Jackson was not a drug addict. Yet people who claim to have been following this all along seem completely oblivious to this! It's obvious that their main sources of information are tabloid papers, websites and tv shows and they don't in fact understand what is going on. I've even heard people calling Propofol a narcotic as they repeat the lies about MJ being addicted to it.

Murray has been found guilty, but the masterminds are controlling the estate and laughing all the way to the bank - while fans repeat tabloid BS and moan about future albums that aren't sophisticated enough for their discerning tastes. That's because the people putting out the new albums don't care about MJ's legacy, they care about lining their pockets!!

totally co-sign. what trial were they watching? certainly not the same one i was. walgren made mincemeat - absolute mincemeat - of the def's so-called addiction expert, and a lot of these poster act like that didn't happen. wtf?????

i'm really tired of hearing this 'oh, poor dr. murray got caught up in mj's money and fame', 'oh, poor murray is the fall guy for mj's addictions', 'if it wasn't him, it would have been someone else'.

murray wanted to be caught up in mj's money and fame. dr. metzger and nurse lee had no trouble telling mj 'no' and warning him. you bet believe when mj asked him, murray downplayed any risks b/c of the potential benefit to himself if he could convince mj that he was the right man for the job. if, as murray said, he believed that klein was giving him addictive drugs, it certainly didn't stop murray himself from administering his own store of benzos, did it? how can he hypocritically point the finger at anyone?

finally, it is an absolutely irrelevant, non-sensical argument to say that if it wasn't murray, it would have been someone else. would someone else have left mj unmonitored under the influence of propofol? there is no evidence to conclusively state that. and what is even the point of saying that anyway? so murray shouldn't have been prosecuted? that's absurd. if my friend and i rob a bank, but the police catch her and not me, should they not prosecute her for what she took part in, just because b/c i got away? you hear this absurd argument applied to klein and the so-called other doctors. i say so-called b/c all the mj doctors were investigated and not one charge has been brought against any of them in over two effing years. the bottom line is that none of them were in the room anyway. i don't care if klein gave mj demoral three days before he died; to the best of my knowledge, he didn't leave mj unattended to go chat up some girl.

[Edited 11/8/11 11:54am]

I don't know wtf is wrong with some of these poster in here. Some in here trying to go "Oh MJ was an addict, but MJ fans are far too stupid to realize it" have so much misinformation in their posts I would be here all day trying to point them out.

If you just came to the party now, don't sit here and try to school anybody here.

Even though I do think that watching Murray's eventual downfall is sad as well, he only has himself to blame for his poor decisions. Not MJ, not his baby's mama(s) or whomever else. Just him.

nursev said:

alphastreet said:

The thought of him going to jail was just so awful I wish people would let it die down, but I feel so sorry for those who were not old enough to remember him as we do though I do believe it's changed a great deal and that there were always people out there of different ages who enjoyed him.

Everybody loved Michael-yes even his haters! I think that half the jury are his fans. I think he is loved more in death than when he was alive which is sad. People realize that they lost the greatest entertainer ever! Yes I have always been a Prince fan, but Michael was the greatest!

Really?

ComputerBlueSpain said:

AnaisKarim said:

I agree with you that MJ was not a drug addict. That label was pushed from almost the moment he died starting with that lying sack of sh!t Deepak Chopra. But there was a motive to kill him, he feared that he would be killed and he is dead. Branca, McClain, Sony, AEG all skipping off down the road while Murry takes the fall because he was the actual trigger man but he didn't act alone. In fact, he probably wasn't even privy to the details, just the stupid azz who was blinded by the dollars and actually committed the act. His contempt for MJ is obviouis from that recording - as though any one of us would sound any different recorded while under anethesia!

As for the family pushing the drug addict label it was probably so all contracts signed with AEG and other corrupt entities could be nullified due to MJ not being "in his right mind" when he signed them.

I have no patience for conspiracy theories. I usually don't even reply to users who start spewing them, as I have such little regard for their intelligence but I will, this time. Sony, AEG, Branca and McClain have nothing to do with MJ's death. Murray acted alone. Period.

Second: the addict claims didn't start with Deepak. They started with Randy, Joe and Leonard Rowe who, literally two minutes after Mj was announced death, sent Oxman on TV to bash MJ in the cruelest of manners. The three later proceeded to cement the junkie legacy and dragged along the entire family. The purpose? Ohhh...so many self-serving purporses, from money from rich entities to desire to clean up the their reputation. The family created the junkie legacy not anyone else, so stop pointing the finger.

Third: nope. Stop excusing the family's behavior. They don't have MJ's interests at heart. Never had and never will. They care NOTHING about them. That argument about nullifying contracts is rosy made up bullshit invented by some desperate, looney tooney mind. That is NOT true and only an idiot would think it's true. It's made up and it's false. But, hey, you're a Jackson family fan, right? That might explain some things.

The Jackson family floons are on fire...I see.

I really don't care what you have no patience for. You are on a tangent believing whatever you want and honestly I don't give a baby rat's butt what you think of the Jacksons. Any of them. You don't matter in the grand scheme of ANYTHING being discussed here and you probably weren't even alive, let alone aware of what was going on in the country, when the J5 became famous and have a totally revisionist, tabloid sullied view of the Jackson family anyway.

I know that Deepak Chopra started the lie because he was spewing his BS on Larry King Live when the body wasn't even cold and Usher took his mic off and walked away in disgust. At that point the people who hate the Jacksons certainly weren't discerning enough to see all the propoganda that was being planted from the get go by all these self-proclaimed "best friends" and MJ experts that people of your ilk consider credible sources.

And obviously you have no clue about the Sony/ATV catalog and the more than 750,000 songs contained therein.

[Edited 11/8/11 12:36pm]

lazycrockett said:

If you were in it for the money you wouldnt kill your cash cow.

except that he did, didn't he? facts can be diametrically opposed and simultaneously true. it's called a paradox; i'm assuming you've never heard of the word.

murray was in it for the money. as the evidence shows, he demanded a lot of money for his "treatment", eventually settling for less, but still more than he probably had ever seen. he knew full well propofol was not for home use. that's why he didn't keep records. that's why he lied to the emts, the doctors, katherine jackson when they asked him 'what happened'. there is only one reason he was willing to take all these risks to his own well-being and livelihood. MONEY.

paradoxically, however, he never had any concern for mj's health or well being. as the evidence also shows, murray certainly didn't treat mj as he treated his other patients. murray was bad-mouthing him to police within two days after mj's death. he couldn't even be concerned enuf to consult with klein about his treatment, though by his own admission he knew who klein was and when mj visited him. he rebuffed kenny ortega when ortega tried to inquire about what was going on. frank dileo left a message for murray about an 'episode' that mj had had. and i'm sure he heard about mj's call to nurse lee about the hot and cold feelings on his body. yet, in spite of knowing ALL of this, as walgren said, murray went right back to administering the benzos and propofol, and went off to talk on the phone, thereby killing the cash cow.

AnaisKarim said:

dag said:

"Am I the Beast You Visualized?" The Cultural Abuse of Michael Jackson

Posted: 11/2/11

We have heard the point made over and over these past few weeks: It is not Michael Jackson currently on trial; it is Dr. Conrad Murray. But, of course, we know the reality. This is the "Michael Jackson Death Trial." He is, as he always was, the main event, the tantalizing spectacle. It is Michael Jackson who is under the microscope as we pry, one more time, through his home, his medical records, his body. And while the public at large is much more sympathetic now that Jackson has passed, he remains the subject of endless scrutiny and judgment.

Does any of it matter now that the man himself can't feel the abuse? Should the average person even care whether a "celebrity" like Jackson is treated with callousness or disregard? Projects like Voices, whose "Words and Violence" series highlights the disturbing trajectory of our social discourse, says yes. Words matter. No matter the target. Words, as we have witnessed with the recent attention on youth bullying and suicides, can lead to devastatingly tragic ends.

They can also be used to inspire and heal.

Michael Jackson knew this. In 1988, he befriended AIDS victim Ryan White, a young boy forced out of his school in Kokomo, Indiana because of relentless verbal assaults and threats of violence. Jackson, White said, made him feel normal. "[Michael] didn't care what race you were, what color you were, what was your handicap, what was your disease," recalled Ryan White's mother, Jeanne. "[He] just loved all children."

White is one of thousands of "outsiders" to whom Jackson reached out, befriended and treated with kindness. He identified with them. He understood their pain and loneliness. He felt empathy for their struggle to live in a world that refused to accept them for who they were, whether because of illness, physical appearance, race, sexual orientation or some other reason.

Even as a young boy, Jackson possessed this sensitivity. Listen to the song, "Ben." There is genuine pain and compassion in Jackson's delivery ("They don't see you as I do/ I wish they would try to"). The song can be seen as one of the first artistic statements Jackson made on behalf of the marginalized and misunderstood. Many more would follow.

Jackson's outsider role may have begun in childhood (as there was never a time Jackson felt "normal" and never a time he was perceived as such). Yet the intensity and hostility caused by his difference grew over time. In his 1996 essay, "The Celebrity Freak: Michael Jackson's Grotesque Glory," David Yuan argued that Michael Jackson was the defining "freak" of our time. No other public figure in the world evoked the same level of ridicule, scrutiny and hyper-interrogation. As early as 1985, Jackson was being labeled "Michael Jackson" by the tabloids, a term he despised (as recently as this year, some mainstream news organizations continued to refer to him as "Jackson"). In the press, he was frequently described as "bizarre," "weird," and "eccentric." Indeed, there was very little he said or did from the mid-1980s forward that wasn't described in these terms by the media.

Jackson was mocked incessantly for his skin disorder, vitiligo, which most people didn't believe was real until it was confirmed definitively in his autopsy. He was mocked for his love of animals; for his love of children; for his love of the planet. He was mocked for his marriages, for his three kids, for his Neverland home. He was mocked for his sexuality, his voice, his childlike behavior. Even reviews of his music couldn't resist filling up the majority of the space with pseudo-psychoanalysis and ad hominem assaults. Can there be any doubt that this treatment by the media and culture at large was abusive?

Certainly the victim of these dehumanizing attacks felt that way. Listen to the lyrics of his songs. In "Tabloid Junkie" he describes the mass media as "parasites" sucking the life out of him, while drugging/distracting the general public with a steady dose of sensationalism. In "Stranger in Moscow" he is an artist in exile, used up and spit out by his native country. "I was wanderin' in the rain," he sings from the lonely role of vagabond, "Mask of life/ Feeling insane."

In "Scream" he is so weary of being bullied, he pleads, "Oh brother, please have mercy 'cause I just can't take it." The song, however, also serves as a vehicle of strength and resolve ("Kickin' me down/ I got to get up"). Michael and sister Janet deliver a fierce counterblow to a system they rightfully see as corrupt and unjust. "You're sellin' out souls," Janet sings in one verse, "but I care about mine." It is a defiant song about standing up to cruelty, even when the pain and indignation is so deep it can only be expressed in a guttural scream.

In numerous songs, Jackson uses his music as a rallying call for others who have been mistreated. In "They Don't Care About Us," he witnesses for the disenfranchised and demeaned. "Tell me what has become of my rights," he sings, "Am I invisible because you ignore me?" "Little Susie" draws attention to the plight of the neglected and abandoned, telling the story of a young girl whose gifts go unnoticed until she is found dead at the bottom of the stairs in her home ("Lift her with care," Jackson sings, "Oh, the blood in her hair"); "Earth Song" offers an epic lamentation on behalf of the planet and its most vulnerable inhabitants (represented by the choir's passionate shouts, "What about us!"). Through such songs (as well as through his life and persona), Jackson became a sort of global representative of the "Other."

The mass media, however, never held much regard for Jackson's other-ness, just as they held little regard for the "others" he spoke of in his songs. Rather, they found a narrative that was simple and profitable -- Jackson as eccentric "freak" -- and stuck with it for nearly three decades, gradually upping the stakes.

Perhaps Jackson's most compelling response to the public perception of him that resulted comes in his trio of late Gothic songs: "Ghosts," "Is It Scary," and "Threatened." It is here that Jackson holds a mirror up to the society that scorns him and asks it to look at its own grotesque reflection. "Is it scary for you!" he demands. The songs, and their accompanying visual representations, are not only keenly self-aware, they demonstrate a shrewd understanding of the toxic forces that surround and haunt him.

In the short film, Ghosts, the Mayor of Normal Valley (a conservative figure of authority inspired, in part, by Santa Barbara District Attorney, Tom Sneddon) taunts Jackson's character: "Freaky boy! Freak! Circus freak." Interestingly, it is Jackson himself (disguised as the Mayor) that delivers these words, and one can feel the way they have been internalized. They are slurs intended to mark, marginalize and humiliate (which was ultimately the purpose of the witch hunts of 1993 and 2005). For the Mayor, Jackson's presence in the community is intolerable. It is not that Jackson has done any harm; it is simply that he is different and that difference is threatening.

In such artistic expressions, Jackson clearly recognizes what is being done to him. He is being defined by outside forces. He is a phantom they have constructed in their own minds. As he sings in "Is It Scary," "If you wanna see/ Eccentric oddities I'll be grotesque before your eyes." He will be grotesque, in other words, because that is what the public "wants to see." It is how they have been conditioned to see. Later in the song, he anticipates his audience's reactions, asking: "Am I amusing you/ Or just confusing you/ Am I the beast you visualized?" Has he become something less than human? Why is this? Is it his physical appearance? His ambiguous identity? His unusual life story? There is no question Michael Jackson was different. The question is why this difference incited such fervent disparagement and abuse.

One of the remarkable qualities of Jackson's life and work, however, is that he refuses to compromise his "difference." He never becomes "normal," as the term is represented by, say, the Mayor of Normal Valley. He doesn't conform to expectations. Rather, he is true to himself and flaunts his unique, multi-faceted identity, to the frustration of those who would like him to fit in more predictable boxes. His differences, as Susan Fast notes, were "impenetrable, uncontainable, and they created enormous anxiety. Please be black, Michael, or white, or gay or straight, father or mother, father to children, not a child yourself, so we at least know how to direct our liberal (in)tolerance. And try not to confuse all the codes simultaneously."

Even over two years after his tragic passing, it seems, many people don't know what to make of Michael Jackson. He is reduced, therefore, to easy labels like "drug addict." A picture of his lifeless body is callously plastered on news sites. It is cruel, abusive behavior masquerading as "normal." Perhaps this is why Jackson chose the medium of the Gothic to fight back. It was a way to turn the tables, to symbolically represent the world as it often felt to him: monstrous and grotesque. His "horror stories" certainly weren't intended merely to entertain.

"Freaks are called freaks," observed author James Baldwin, "and are treated as they are treated -- in the main, abominably -- because they are human beings who cause to echo, deep within us, our most profound terrors and desires." In Jackson's case those "terrors and desires" were manifold, including race, sexuality, money and power. Yet as much as Jackson became the symbolic magnet onto which many of these cultural anxieties were projected, he was also an actual person trying to live his life. Toward the end of "Is It Scary" he explains, "I'm just not what you seek of me," before revealing to the compassionate listener: "But if you came to see/ The truth, the purity/ It's here inside a lonely heart/ So let the performance start!"

Ironically, it is in the "performance" of his art that we find "the truth, the purity." This is where he exorcizes his demons, where his anguish is transfused into creative energy. This is where the walls come down and the mask comes off. To the outside world, he may be a spectacle, a caricature, a freak; but here, finally, inside his music, he bares his soul. He is a human being.

The question is: What do we see?


This article is cross-posted at Voices: Education Project as part of the "Words and Violence" curriculum.

Joseph Vogel is the author Man in the Music: The Creative Life and Work of Michael Jackson, released worldwide November 1, 2011.

http://www.huffingtonpost...68750.html

Too many well meaning people are still totally oblivious to the underlying motive to destroy Michael Jackson. Quite simply put, no black man was supposed to outsell Elvis and The Beatles plus OWN the publishing rights to all their sh!t. Look at the huge difference in the People magazine cover of MJ that came before MJ purchased the ATV Catalog and the one that followed. Once MJ "owned" The Beatles and Elvis, the sh!t storm started and never let up. Once he merged ATV with Sony's publishing to create Sony/ATV he had an asset that would ultimately cost him his life, while the average person on the street believed him to be financially irresponsible and virtually bankrupt. The irony is just too much.

Well, what you say may have been the intentions of those above, the different corporation bosses, but as for the regular folks, I think the guy hits the nail on its head. Plus I¨d put in what's stated in my signature. Remember the movie Amadeus? I think Mike's greatness was something many people couldn't put up with. He reminded them of their averageness. I think many people worked their ego by putting him down, insulting him as if saying "well, maybe I am not as great as you are, but AT LEAST I AM NORMAL." I will never be amazed at how people just WANT Mike to be weird. I wrote a while ago how someone at an anniversary at our work pointed out how they believed that they bet Mike did not become white because of vitiligo and that he surely must have had himself injected with something. You can feel that no matter what, people WANT him to be a freak. It makes them feel better about themselves.

AnaisKarim said:

dag said:

Too many well meaning people are still totally oblivious to the underlying motive to destroy Michael Jackson. Quite simply put, no black man was supposed to outsell Elvis and The Beatles plus OWN the publishing rights to all their sh!t. Look at the huge difference in the People magazine cover of MJ that came before MJ purchased the ATV Catalog and the one that followed. Once MJ "owned" The Beatles and Elvis, the sh!t storm started and never let up. Once he merged ATV with Sony's publishing to create Sony/ATV he had an asset that would ultimately cost him his life, while the average person on the street believed him to be financially irresponsible and virtually bankrupt. The irony is just too much.

oh lord...Elvis died almost the same way Michael did--a combination of addiction and enabling from a doctor. So what were the motivations to destroy him?

People read way too much into this stuff. Michael Jackson was a beloved entertainer who tarnished his own image & hurt himself with drugs. Nobody was bothered that he sold that many records, we all bought them!!!