(07/08/09) "Resolution honoring Jackson faces GOP opposition" (Associated Press)

[Spang]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee may have trouble keeping the promise she made at Michael Jackson's public memorial for a House resolution that "forever" honors the late pop star.

Jackson Lee, a Texas Democrat, took the stage Tuesday at the Staples Center in Los Angeles and hoisted a framed copy of the resolution, embossed with a gold seal. The measure will be debated on the House floor, she said.

For that framed, embossed resolution to be completely legit, it must first get past some opposition.

Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican who called Jackson a "pervert, child molester, pedophile" in a video he posted on YouTube this week, vowed Tuesday to do "whatever I have to do" to oppose honoring Jackson.

Without mentioning King by name, Jackson Lee noted at the memorial that Michael Jackson was acquitted of child molestation charges. She blasted critics who "don't understand the hearts of entertainers" and "don't know how they heal the world on behalf of America."

"We understand the Constitution. We understand laws and we know people are innocent until proven otherwise. That is what the Constitution stands for," Jackson Lee said, clutching the framed resolution in front of her shiny white suit.

Her legislation, House Resolution 600, lists several charitable acts by Michael Jackson over his long career and proclaims him as an American legend, musical icon and world humanitarian. He is, Jackson Lee said, "someone who will be honored forever and forever and forever and forever and forever."

In the House, non-controversial resolutions honoring a person who has died or carried out a noteworthy accomplishment normally move quickly from committee to the House floor and then pass on a voice vote. The Michael Jackson resolution, introduced June 26, is awaiting action in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, of which Jackson Lee is a member and King is not.

An opponent could ask for a recorded vote, which then requires a two-thirds majority for passage. So far, Jackson Lee's resolution has just one co-sponsor, Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif.

Jackson Lee hosted a 2004 meeting in her Capitol Hill office that brought Michael Jackson together with ambassadors to the U.S. from African countries. At the time, Jackson was considering a tour to raise money to fight AIDS. However, he was also facing child molestation charges and was unable to leave the country without court permission.

Even so, Jackson was greeted by screams, applause and flashing cameras.

Jackson also visited Iraq veterans at Walter Reed Hospital while in Washington.

The Source (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iOlvbAybUHXcVLYAJn6GGgcLDTogD99A4HHO2)

[Brooke]

I know Hannity has been ranting about the MJ overexposure as well. I know a few conservatives on another forum I'm on who have been saying nasty things about Michael. And I heard Peter King's comments.

I have no idea why the Right is so against MJ? Is it because his lifestyle wasn't "normal"? Do they have anything against his music? I'm not even going to think it's a race issue because I wouldn't consider MJ "black" anymore.

I suppose the Republicans would prefer a resolution honoring Mark Sanford.

[Spang]

Speaking of Rep. Steve King:

Rep. Steve King only one to vote against recognizing slave labor’s construction of U.S. Capitol.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA) was the only congressman to vote against a resolution yesterday that acknowledges the role that slaves played in the construction of the U.S. Capitol Building, reports Ryan Grim of the Huffington Post. According to the text of the resolution, which passed 399-1, its simple goal is to recognize those who constructed the Capitol with a marker:

“Whereas enslaved African-Americans performed the backbreaking work of quarrying the stone which comprised many of the floors, walls, and columns of the Capitol…

Whereas recognition of the contributions of enslaved African-Americans brings to all Americans an understanding of the continuing evolution of our representative democracy; and

Whereas a marker dedicated to the enslaved African-Americans who helped to build the Capitol will reflect the charge of the Capitol Visitor Center to teach visitors about Congress and its development…”

King has never been afraid to stand alone, particularly when it comes to his blatantly racist sentiments. He has referred to both the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus as “separatist groups” and immigrants as “livestock” who are waging a “slow-moving terrorist attack.” This past election season, he used Obama’s Kenyan heritage and middle name to proclaim that terrorists would be “dancing in the streets” if “Hussein Obama” won. In 2008, King also said that apologizing for slavery wasn’t about contrition, rather “White Americans wallowing in guilt.”

The Source (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/08/steve-king-slavery-capitol/)

I guess he has no aspirations of ever getting reelected.

[Suzan]

In the House, non-controversial resolutions honoring a person who has died or carried out a noteworthy accomplishment normally move quickly from committee to the House floor and then pass on a voice vote. The Michael Jackson resolution, introduced June 26, is awaiting action in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, of which Jackson Lee is a member and King is not.

Apparently these resolutions are something congress does routinely, but the article doesn't mention how often they're done for entertainers or whether any of them have had a less than perfect past. It would be a shame to turn it into a partisan fight.

Steve Lopez came out today in the L.A. Times very critical of the memorial. He mentioned the child molestation charges in his article and said it had been almost impossible to find anything reported on them in the media. Possibly that's because people want some space to mourn MJ and remember him for his musical impact?

I don't know how I feel about the resolution or whether it's even necessary, but I think it's ridiculous that some in the media are demanding that we focus on the dark side of the man. He just died. Let people be to mourn him and remember what his music meant to them. The media will start picking his legacy apart soon enough.

[Suzan]

Speaking of Rep. Steve King:



The Source (http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/08/steve-king-slavery-capitol/)

I guess he has no aspirations of ever getting reelected.
That depends on Steve King's constituency. It may be ultra conservative. I would think that Peter King from New York might be more trouble.

[Spang]

That depends on Steve King's constituency. It may be ultra conservative. I would think that Peter King from New York might be more trouble.

Oops, I got my kings mixed up. :o

[Suzan]

Oops, I got my kings mixed up. :o
Hey, it happens. Lots of Kings in the news--and how weird that these two (Steve and Peter) are bad-mouthing the King of Pop.

Hm, a turf war, perhaps??

[Horizon]

Michael was never CONVICTED of anything. It escapes people that each and every single accuser's parents settled out of court for HUGE cash pay offs from Michael, at their demand, not his request.

Here is my take on that, as a mother and a victim of molestation as a child myself: If ANYONE ever touched my child in the way he was accused of, I would move heaven and earth to see that asshat locked up in a jail cell, getting the "treatment" that child molesters are given by other inmates. In fact, I would PAY other inmates to do this if I had to! NOT ON A COLD DAY IN HELL, WOULD I WANT A CASH SETTLEMENT IN LIEU OF THIS!!!! I have NEVER believed any of these charges against him, not one. Both of his wives say the same thing: NOT POSSIBLE! He would never hurt a child this way. The one mother of one of his accusers was found after the fact, to have been a con artist most of her life, and had in fact used her sick child to do this to another unnamed celeb before they landed on MJ. But still, everyone WANTED to believe he was some kind of pervert. After all, would this not explain how "different" he was? And we all know how "difference" scares people.

If the GOP is not in line with this, it will flat out not surprise me. But Larry Craig is a great guy, as is the latest embarrassment, Sanford.

[NativeSun]

Michael was never CONVICTED of anything. It escapes people that each and every single accuser's parents settled out of court for HUGE cash pay offs from Michael, at their demand, not his request.


If the GOP is not in line with this, it will flat out not surprise me. But Larry Craig is a great guy, as is the latest embarrassment, Sanford.

People across the globe sell their kids, and it's usually not because they want their kid to have more opportunities then they can provide. As for Craig and Sanford, their liasons were always with adults, and no one is trying to memorialize them to begin with. I grew up listening to Michael Jackson's music. I'm very aware of his musical gift. But his father ruthlessly exploited him as a child, which probably is the main reason why we were exposed to the other side of Michael Jackson. Using his own words about "who wouldn't want to share their bed with children" makes me believe that there's more to the story than just con artists trying to make a quick buck.

[Horizon]

People across the globe sell their kids, and it's usually not because they want their kid to have more opportunities then they can provide. As for Craig and Sanford, their liasons were always with adults, and no one is trying to memorialize them to begin with. I grew up listening to Michael Jackson's music. I'm very aware of his musical gift. But his father ruthlessly exploited him as a child, which probably is the main reason why we were exposed to the other side of Michael Jackson. Using his own words about "who wouldn't want to share their bed with children" makes me believe that there's more to the story than just con artists trying to make a quick buck.

My kids slept with me for years, as did their friends in my huge king sized bed. My daughters friends would all pile in and we watched movies and crashed all over the damn thing. Sexual activity of any kind was the last thing on anyones mind.

He had a history of helping children. It was not until he was insanely rich that any of this even came up, and then they came out of the woodwork after him. just because someone is accused of a thing, does not make them guilty of that thing. I find it hard to believe that he was a lucky enough molester to go after that many kids whose parents "sold" them to him. Really, what are the odds of that? As many kids as accused him, you would think at least ONE of those parents would have pressed the issue if it were even true. Any good therapist will tell you that in terms of sexual abuse, seeing the perp punished is KEY to the childs recovery. I would think that SOME parent would have know this, or was at least seeing their child was in therapy. Still not buying he was ever guilty of one of these charges.

My point about Craig asd Sanford was this: When it comes to the sexual misconduct perpetrated by GOP Party members, everyone should look the other way, but they are sure quick to point out when someone not of their liking, or party, has sexual conduct issue. Double Standard it seems.

[Tybee]

Personally, I don't think our elected officals should get involved with anything to do with celebs.

[Spang]

Personally, I don't think our elected officals should get involved with anything to do with celebs.

Those "celebs" are Americans, too.

[mack20]

People across the globe sell their kids, and it's usually not because they want their kid to have more opportunities then they can provide. As for Craig and Sanford, their liasons were always with adults, and no one is trying to memorialize them to begin with. I grew up listening to Michael Jackson's music. I'm very aware of his musical gift. But his father ruthlessly exploited him as a child, which probably is the main reason why we were exposed to the other side of Michael Jackson. Using his own words about "who wouldn't want to share their bed with children" makes me believe that there's more to the story than just con artists trying to make a quick buck.

I'm not trying to jump on your case or anything, but I wanted to share something that a facebook friend of mine posted last week. He wrote:

Last week when the news of MJ's passing hit, I looked around at what people and the various news outlets were saying and entered a mild state of shock.

How could the same people who were making MJ jokes just a few weeks ago - and the same news outlets who couldn't wait to break negative stories about him - now all-of-a-sudden FORGET all of that upon his passing and start worshiping him like some kind of God?

It just didn't make sense.

So I decided to say something about it.

I updated my Status to read:

"I don't know if he was guilty or not... but my gut feeling is that he was... and if he was indeed guilty then I am GLAD he is dead and hope it was painful. Death to child molesters!"

What happened next was even more surprising...

I was expecting to get DOZENS of comments saying things like, "Exactly!", "Amen", "High five", etc.

And many of those I got.

But I ALSO received a lot of comments of a different sort.

Along with several text messages, phone calls, and heart-felt personal emails... not from the people on my friend list of whom I tend to disagree with... but from a lot of people who's opinions I tend to REALLY respect.

And these people thought I was DEAD WRONG.

Yet still, my stubbornness led me to feel that even these respected friends of mine were also were being distracted from real issue by the outcropping of SUPPORT the people and media now all-of-a-sudden had for this man they had so recently scorned. So I decided to update my Status again:

"I predict this same thing will happen when O.J. dies. Everyone will be like, 'Oh poor OJ, he was such a great running back!' After all, he was found innocent too, right?"

This brought about more of the same - a MIX of positive and negative comments from my friends.

And of course, my first thoughts were, "How can these smart people STILL be so pro MJ after I just hit them with that AMAZING analogy??"

And that was when I stumbled upon this blog by Andrew Jackson:

Thinking About Michael

There are two things to say about him. He was a musical genius; and he was an abused child. By abuse, I do not mean sexual abuse; I mean he was used brutally and callously for money, and clearly imprisoned by a tyrannical father. He had no real childhood and spent much of his later life struggling to get one. He was spiritually and psychologically raped at a very early age - and never recovered. Watching him change his race, his age, and almost his gender, you saw a tortured soul seeking what the rest of us take for granted: a normal life.

But he had no compass to find one; no real friends to support and advise him; and money and fame imprisoned him in the delusions of narcissism and self-indulgence. Of course, he bears responsibility for his bizarre life. But the damage done to him by his own family and then by all those motivated more by money and power than by faith and love was irreparable in the end. He died a while ago. He remained for so long a walking human shell.

I loved his music. His young voice was almost a miracle, his poise in retrospect eerie, his joy, tempered by pain, often unbearably uplifting. He made the greatest music video of all time; and he made some of the greatest records of all time. He was everything our culture worships; and yet he was obviously desperately unhappy, tortured, afraid and alone.

I grieve for him; but I also grieve for the culture that created and destroyed him. That culture is ours' and it is a lethal and brutal one: with fame and celebrity as its core values, with money as its sole motive, it chewed this child up and spat him out.

I hope he has the peace now he never had in his life. And I pray that such genius will not be so abused again.



Wow.

In my quick-to-judge analysis of MJ... it had never occurred to me that maybe HE was the one who was abused... and maybe THIS explains some of his bizarre behavior...

This line also hit me pretty hard:

"He had no real childhood and spent much of his later life struggling to get one."

Looking at things from this perspective made me see that maybe the reason he built Neverland was not to get kids to come over to his place with bad intentions... but to create the childhood he never had for himself.

Armed with this new perspective, I started to feel stupid for buying into the notion that he was guilty without doing any of my own research. So I decided to dig into the cases themselves...

I did so STILL expecting to discover that my assumptions were correct, and to re-affirm my belief that he was guilty.

All the years of MJ jokes and tabloid covers had taken their toll on my mind.

But as I began pouring through all information on the cases available online... much to my surprise... I couldn't find a single shred of evidence that suggested he had molested a child.

Not one.

Here are some of the main facts that swayed me in the opposite direction (skip this if you already believe him to be innocent):

1. BOTH of the kids who accused him were - at the time of the said molestation - 13 YEARS OLD.

Now, I don't know about you... but when I was 13 I was a full blown TEENAGER - not a kid... and I went through puberty late.

NO ONE was touching me against my will at age 13. That is 7TH/8TH GRADE. There wasn't a single kid in my Junior High School at that age that could have been touched without his consent... even... if he was drunk!

2. The father of the child in the first case, Evan Chandler, was tape-recorded on a phone call saying this:

"There was no reason why he [Jackson] had to stop calling me...I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find [Evan Chandler's lawyer, Barry Rothman], all he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can and humiliate as many people as he can. He's nasty, he's mean, he's smart and he's hungry for publicity. Everything's going to a certain plan that isn't just mine. Once I make that phone call, this guy is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. I've given him full authority to do that. Jackson is an evil guy, he is worse than that and I have the evidence to prove it. If I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever...Michael's career will be over."

In the same conversation, when asked how this would affect his son, Chandler replied, "That's irrelevant to me...It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want. It's going to be bigger than all us put together...This man [Jackson] is going to be humiliated beyond belief...He will not sell one more record"

I'm sorry, but these are not the words of a man who's son was molested... and definitely not the words of a man who would have anything against using his own son for monetary gain.

3. Evan Chandler was a dentist, and his son Jordan was found to be under the influence of the controversial sedative Sodium Amytal when he claimed Michael Jackson touched his *****. Experts state that the drug sodium Amytal "makes patients extremely susceptible to suggestions", and Evan Chandler was later forced to admit that he administered the drug to his son.

2003 Case:

1. Again the accuser Gavin Arvizo was 13 at the time.

2. In August 1998 the Arvizo family was detained on a shoplifting charge at a J. C. Penney department store in West Covina, California. According to J. C. Penney, Gavin and Star Arvizo were sent out of the store by their father with an armload of stolen clothes

Yes, you read that right. The father SENT HIS KIDS OUT OF THE STORE WITH STOLEN CLOTHES.

3. The accuser's mother, Janet Arvizo, contacted an ATTORNEY before contacting the police about her son. The attorney was Larry Feldman... the same attorney who had represented Jordan Chandler in the 1993 case... and he sent Gavin Arvizo to the same psychologist that he sent Jordan Chandler to in 1993 for evaluation.

+++

After doing my own research, I felt like such a fool.

In my opinion, there is ZERO credible evidence against him.

I feel he is 100% INNOCENT.

And I feel like such an idiot for choosing the easy, uneducated way out and writing him off as what I feel to be the worst type of human being imaginable - a molester - before I studied the facts.

I also feel like an idiot for not realizing all of the good he brought to the world.

Aside from his music, he supported 39 different charities.

Along with Lionel Richie, he co-wrote the song "We Are The World", which sold 20 million copies and raised millions of dollars for famine relief.

And that's just the start.

He also personally suffered from some of the worst child abuse imaginable.

His father would watch him and his brothers rehearse with a belt in his hand, and if they performed in a way he didn't like, they were beaten unmercifully.

Michael mentioned in his interview with Oprah that as a child he often cried from loneliness... and would start to VOMIT upon seeing his father.

Upon discovering all of this I began crying uncontrollably (serious). The tears are coming back in my eyes now I as am writing.

Despite all MJ went through as a child, he arouse from the hell and violence to become a true angel on earth who changed the lives of BILLIONS.

I feel like such a fool for jumping to conclusions about him... and to all of you that set me straight, thank you.

R.I.P. Michael. You will be missed but not forgotten.

Craig



P.S. While I have changed my stance on Michael, I have NOT changed my stance on child molesters. I still feel they should die painfully... along with rapists and child abusers... such as Michael's father, Joseph Jackson.

P.P.S. I'd like to end on a positive note and share 2 of my favorite Michael performances.

Here he is at around 13 years old.

This is LIVE, and recorded in pre-lip-sync days. Think about how this compares to the American Idols... or even today's established singers. His voice is simply memorizing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSqo17o2a1w

Did I mention he was *13*? It's eerie how the lyrics - while not written by or about Michael - seem to describe the one thing he was missing in his life to a tee.

This next one is from the 1988 Grammys. He is around 30 years old.

They say you become reasonably good at something after 3 years of practice.... very good after 5 years... and at about 10 years is when you start to reach the level of "mastery"...

At this point MJ had been crushing the stage for nearly 20 years.

He was in his PRIME.

A seasoned veteran, nothing left to say, nothing left to prove... and his subtle mastery of song and performance is just RIDICULOUS.

It is beautiful to witness the master at work. While you're listening again think of how your average pop star would have sang it and FEEL the differences Michael made.

Here is how it was meant to be done... and how it will never be done again...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zpTQCQEFhg

[NativeSun]

My kids slept with me for years, as did their friends in my huge king sized bed. My daughters friends would all pile in and we watched movies and crashed all over the damn thing. Sexual activity of any kind was the last thing on anyones mind.

My point about Craig asd Sanford was this: When it comes to the sexual misconduct perpetrated by GOP Party members, everyone should look the other way, but they are sure quick to point out when someone not of their liking, or party, has sexual conduct issue. Double Standard it seems.

Maybe I lived in a sheltered world, but a mother having her daughter and her friends sleep over in the bedroom doesn't have the same stigma as an adult male doing it with other people's kids. But that's just me.

As for the GOP thing: How often are they pointing out the sexual misconduct of McGreevy, Spitzer, or even Edwards? Cause I don't hear it that often. And they've got good ammo with those ones.

[Tybee]

Those "celebs" are Americans, too.


You know what I mean, don't spin it.

[Suzan]

This says it all for me. Such a sad and beautiful elegy. Thanks to Mack20 for posting it and to Andrew Jackson for writing it:

Emphasis mine.

Thinking About Michael

There are two things to say about him. He was a musical genius; and he was an abused child. By abuse, I do not mean sexual abuse; I mean he was used brutally and callously for money, and clearly imprisoned by a tyrannical father. He had no real childhood and spent much of his later life struggling to get one. He was spiritually and psychologically raped at a very early age - and never recovered. Watching him change his race, his age, and almost his gender, you saw a tortured soul seeking what the rest of us take for granted: a normal life.

But he had no compass to find one; no real friends to support and advise him; and money and fame imprisoned him in the delusions of narcissism and self-indulgence. Of course, he bears responsibility for his bizarre life. But the damage done to him by his own family and then by all those motivated more by money and power than by faith and love was irreparable in the end. He died a while ago. He remained for so long a walking human shell.

I loved his music. His young voice was almost a miracle, his poise in retrospect eerie, his joy, tempered by pain, often unbearably uplifting. He made the greatest music video of all time; and he made some of the greatest records of all time. He was everything our culture worships; and yet he was obviously desperately unhappy, tortured, afraid and alone.

I grieve for him; but I also grieve for the culture that created and destroyed him. That culture is ours' and it is a lethal and brutal one: with fame and celebrity as its core values, with money as its sole motive, it chewed this child up and spat him out.

I hope he has the peace now he never had in his life. And I pray that such genius will not be so abused again.

[NativeSun]

This says it all for me. Such a sad and beautiful elegy. Thanks to Mack20 for posting it and to Andrew Jackson for writing it:

Emphasis mine.

That is probably the best way to eulogize the man. Very realistic. It told the whole story of his life.

[Horizon]

I'm not trying to jump on your case or anything, but I wanted to share something that a facebook friend of mine posted last week. He wrote:



Wow.

In my quick-to-judge analysis of MJ... it had never occurred to me that maybe HE was the one who was abused... and maybe THIS explains some of his bizarre behavior...

This line also hit me pretty hard:

"He had no real childhood and spent much of his later life struggling to get one."

Looking at things from this perspective made me see that maybe the reason he built Neverland was not to get kids to come over to his place with bad intentions... but to create the childhood he never had for himself.

Armed with this new perspective, I started to feel stupid for buying into the notion that he was guilty without doing any of my own research. So I decided to dig into the cases themselves...

I did so STILL expecting to discover that my assumptions were correct, and to re-affirm my belief that he was guilty.

All the years of MJ jokes and tabloid covers had taken their toll on my mind.

But as I began pouring through all information on the cases available online... much to my surprise... I couldn't find a single shred of evidence that suggested he had molested a child.

Not one.

Here are some of the main facts that swayed me in the opposite direction (skip this if you already believe him to be innocent):

1. BOTH of the kids who accused him were - at the time of the said molestation - 13 YEARS OLD.

Now, I don't know about you... but when I was 13 I was a full blown TEENAGER - not a kid... and I went through puberty late.

NO ONE was touching me against my will at age 13. That is 7TH/8TH GRADE. There wasn't a single kid in my Junior High School at that age that could have been touched without his consent... even... if he was drunk!

2. The father of the child in the first case, Evan Chandler, was tape-recorded on a phone call saying this:

Quote:
"There was no reason why he [Jackson] had to stop calling me...I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find [Evan Chandler's lawyer, Barry Rothman], all he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can and humiliate as many people as he can. He's nasty, he's mean, he's smart and he's hungry for publicity. Everything's going to a certain plan that isn't just mine. Once I make that phone call, this guy is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. I've given him full authority to do that. Jackson is an evil guy, he is worse than that and I have the evidence to prove it. If I go through with this, I win big-time. There's no way I lose. I will get everything I want and they will be destroyed forever...Michael's career will be over."
In the same conversation, when asked how this would affect his son, Chandler replied, "That's irrelevant to me...It will be a massacre if I don't get what I want. It's going to be bigger than all us put together...This man [Jackson] is going to be humiliated beyond belief...He will not sell one more record"

I'm sorry, but these are not the words of a man who's son was molested... and definitely not the words of a man who would have anything against using his own son for monetary gain.

3. Evan Chandler was a dentist, and his son Jordan was found to be under the influence of the controversial sedative Sodium Amytal when he claimed Michael Jackson touched his *****. Experts state that the drug sodium Amytal "makes patients extremely susceptible to suggestions", and Evan Chandler was later forced to admit that he administered the drug to his son.

2003 Case:

1. Again the accuser Gavin Arvizo was 13 at the time.

2. In August 1998 the Arvizo family was detained on a shoplifting charge at a J. C. Penney department store in West Covina, California. According to J. C. Penney, Gavin and Star Arvizo were sent out of the store by their father with an armload of stolen clothes

Yes, you read that right. The father SENT HIS KIDS OUT OF THE STORE WITH STOLEN CLOTHES.

3. The accuser's mother, Janet Arvizo, contacted an ATTORNEY before contacting the police about her son. The attorney was Larry Feldman... the same attorney who had represented Jordan Chandler in the 1993 case... and he sent Gavin Arvizo to the same psychologist that he sent Jordan Chandler to in 1993 for evaluation.

+++

After doing my own research, I felt like such a fool.

In my opinion, there is ZERO credible evidence against him.

I feel he is 100% INNOCENT.

And I feel like such an idiot for choosing the easy, uneducated way out and writing him off as what I feel to be the worst type of human being imaginable - a molester - before I studied the facts.

I also feel like an idiot for not realizing all of the good he brought to the world.

Aside from his music, he supported 39 different charities.

Along with Lionel Richie, he co-wrote the song "We Are The World", which sold 20 million copies and raised millions of dollars for famine relief.

And that's just the start.

He also personally suffered from some of the worst child abuse imaginable.

His father would watch him and his brothers rehearse with a belt in his hand, and if they performed in a way he didn't like, they were beaten unmercifully.

Michael mentioned in his interview with Oprah that as a child he often cried from loneliness... and would start to VOMIT upon seeing his father.

Upon discovering all of this I began crying uncontrollably (serious). The tears are coming back in my eyes now I as am writing.

Despite all MJ went through as a child, he arouse from the hell and violence to become a true angel on earth who changed the lives of BILLIONS.

I feel like such a fool for jumping to conclusions about him... and to all of you that set me straight, thank you.

R.I.P. Michael. You will be missed but not forgotten.

Craig

Can I thank you any more for posting this?? This is EXACTLY what I was talking about. I had read of these two cases in point a few years back, and was appalled at how these people set out to viciously use and abuse a person that genuinely loved kids, to the point he engineered his life around being one. It is the parents of these kids that should have been brought to trial, not MJ. They were the criminals and abusers here, yet Michael was the one that had to go on national television and explain what he went through when he was brought up on charges, and literally begged people to believe in him. I did and I am forever proud of that.
Having been abused myself, I know an abuser when I see one, and MJ was no abuser.@};-

[Brooke]

Oh my gosh. Can I repost that in another forum? There are a lot of people on there hating on him and convinced he's a child molester.

And what the heck is with the comparison to OJ? I keep seeing that come up. When he dies, I will not shed a tear, nor say "He was a great running back" and this country will never honor him like they did Michael.

[TheTaoOfBill]

Michael was a tortured soul and maybe what he did with children was a bit weird. I might even say inappropriate. But I wouldn't say it was molestation.

I honestly think Michael just felt good being around those kids. And he felt like a child himself. And he just wanted to do what they do and have slumber parties and enjoy himself like a kid should.

He lost his childhood before he ever had it and the older he got it seemed like the younger at heart he got.

I just don't think we're used to seeing a grown man want to achieve a 2nd childhood as badly as Michael and I think it scared some people.

[mack20]

Oh my gosh. Can I repost that in another forum? There are a lot of people on there hating on him and convinced he's a child molester.

And what the heck is with the comparison to OJ? I keep seeing that come up. When he dies, I will not shed a tear, nor say "He was a great running back" and this country will never honor him like they did Michael.

I don't mind if you repost that at all. And I don't think my friend would either, because he posted about it as a status update for days on end to make sure people on his friends list saw it and read it. Plus, I find it to be a beautifully worded and very personal take on Michael Jackson's life from someone who was convinced he was a child molester, and that kind of thing seems to have more impact than the opinion of someone who already thought Jackson was innocent.

[CGP]

Peter King is a f-ing disgrace.

Given MJ was never convicted of anything, I think it's digusting that a politician would be so publicly venemous about such a popular figure.

How would King feel if people said the same things about him, given that a conviction is apparently not necessary to be branded with the various labels King is throwing about.

I am of the opinion that given MJ was never convicted of anything, there are no grounds whatsoever on which to call him the kinds of things King did.

Is what King said defamation? Or does that only apply to living people?

[mack20]

Peter King is a f-ing disgrace.

Given MJ was never convicted of anything, I think it's digusting that a politician would be so publicly venemous about such a popular figure.

How would King feel if people said the same thing about him given that a conviction is apparently not necessary to be branded with the various labels King is throwing about.

I am of the opinion that given MJ was never convicted of anything, there are no grounds whatsoever on which to call him the kinds of things King did.

Is what King said defamation? Or does that only apply to living people?

I was under the impression that defamation only applies to people who are alive because it's based in the notion that whatever was said caused personal strife or mental/emotional injury and you can't cause mental/emotional injury to a dead person. But I could be totally wrong and anyone who knows better can feel free to correct me.

[CGP]

Personally, I don't think our elected officals should get involved with anything to do with celebs.

Especially when the issues involved are controversial.

[Ikasu]

Peter King is a f-ing disgrace.

Given MJ was never convicted of anything, I think it's digusting that a politician would be so publicly venemous about such a popular figure.

How would King feel if people said the same things about him, given that a conviction is apparently not necessary to be branded with the various labels King is throwing about.

I am of the opinion that given MJ was never convicted of anything, there are no grounds whatsoever on which to call him the kinds of things King did.

Is what King said defamation? Or does that only apply to living people?

It's not the first time King has made stupid comments.

[Spang]

BREAKING NEWS: Pelosi Shoots Down Jackson Congressional Resolution

Will post an article if one arises.

Pelosi rejects Michael Jackson resolution

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has a message for Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee: Beat It.

The Texas congresswoman — who held aloft her copy of a proposed House resolution honoring Michael Jackson at the King of Pop's L.A. memorial service — won't get her wish, the speaker just told reporters at her weekly press conference.

"I don't think it's necessary," said Pelosi, who thinks bringing the measure to a vote would "open up contrary views" about the singer that the House doesn't need to deal with "at this time."

In sotto voce, she acknowledged Jackson as a "great performer" — but scoffed when a reporter asked about the resolution.

"We're into popular culture now," she said.

Jackson-Lee's office will be commenting shortly, I'm told.

The Source w/ Video (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0709/Pelosi_rejects_Michael_Jackson_resolution.html)