Jackson 5: I Want You Back

~ by lolarusa on June 26, 2009.

9 Responses to “Jackson 5: I Want You Back”

  1. That’s fantastic. I think I like him in the Jackson 5 better than as an adult. I remember the 80s, though, and you couldn’t throw a rock without hitting a copy of Thriller.

  2. This it the commentary at Michael Jackson’s video “They Don’t Care About Us”:

    It’s an interesting video, but the message I get from it is centered
    around his “I’m a victim of police brutality.” Michael Jackson was
    no victim of anyone but himself and his inability to admit that he
    was one fucked up individual. It’s a shocker that he died in this
    fashion at this point in his life but I am certain that the families
    of some small children are not entirely unhappy to see him gone.
    He had a talent for music but his actions around small boys were
    certainly questionable. Which makes the content and message in the
    video also questionable.]

    And this is my reply:

    Certainly, you’re right. It’s sad to criticize a dead man
    (“de mortuis nil nisi bene” or “de mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est”
    – “No one can speak ill of the dead” – but also it’s an error
    not to say the truth. I deliberate made this choice to point the sarcasm
    between his incontestable musical endowment (not genius, he wasn’t “The King”
    as it’s said, he wasn’t John Lennon) and his way of life.
    A literary critic said that those who loved Percy Bysshe Shelley must bemoan his
    death at 30 and those who loved George Gordon Byron must rejoice that he quit
    at 36 because he would become a reactionary if he would live more.
    I don’t agreed, but I’d say it’s sad that Lennon passed at 40 and it’s dismal
    that Jackson lingered on beyond 25.


  3. I prefer to remember her like this.

  4. I prefer not to speak ill of the dead. Although I’m not very familiar with the legal case brought against Michael Jackson, I know that to be publicly accused of certain crimes is proof enough for far too many people. A jury who I presume knew much more about it than I do acquitted him.

    I also believe that a person’s art can be appreciated independently of their private life.

  5. I think you’re giving far more credit to the typical American jury than they deserve. Every person who I have ever known who has served on a jury has told me how intellectually challenged they are, and how common sense is in short supply. You can see it in many rulings. It’s one thing to let someone off because the legal case against them is flawed, but it’s another to raise the standard of burden of proof to such an impossible level that no one can be convicted.

    That is unless it’s a case that involves an accusation of Islamic terrorism. The burden of proof seems to be very low in those cases. Would you also presume that the juries equipped with additional information had judged fairly then?

  6. Hi Daranee,

    As I said, I’m not familiar with the case. Perhaps you know a lot about it, and that’s why you’ve formed a different opinion. I certainly have heard of acquittals given when proof of guilt seems clear – the Rodney King case comes to mind.

    From the little I do know, I understand how his bizarre behavior could lead to a conclusion that he must have done something wrong. It’s just that I can also imagine someone doing all the truly strange things that Jackson did without molesting any children. Some people can’t. I leave it to the courts – it’s not my job to decide.

    In the end, his personal life doesn’t matter much to me, in terms of judging his music. I understand the fascination with such a weird life story, though.

  7. My intention was not discuss the MJ case at all, but rather to dispute the presumption that juries always know best. I think you can see that by looking at my comment. I’m surprised you didn’t respond to that part.

  8. Hi Daranee,

    Sorry – I assumed you meant that Michael Jackson’s was another example of an undeserved acquittal. Of course you’re right that juries deliver unjust acquittals – such as the Rodney King verdict.

    And I completely agree about the low burden of proof for those accused of “terrorist” activities. Partly that’s due to the fact that the Patriot Act is vague enough to convict people for activities that wouldn’t have been called terrorism in the past. And, of course, most of those detained for “terrorism” haven’t been tried, let alone convicted, but a large swathe of the public has decided they’re guilty without any proof.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: