"His Greatness Was Perfection"-Donna Summer On Michael Jackson

When I was very little, I used to sometimes get Diana Ross and Donna Summer confused. But maybe that’s not too hard to understand why-at least, in a kid’s mind. They were both beautiful disco divas of the era, both had names that began with the letter “D”, both had really big hair-and both loved Michael Jackson.

Of course, by 1979, there was no confusing the two. That was the summer that everyone was going around singing, “Toot toot, hey, beep beep!”

We are still not even halfway into 2012, and already this has shaped up to be a sad year of losses, at least, it seems, for my generation. Allforloveblog is a site dedicated to Michael Jackson, so of course my focus here is on him. But I think it is only the respectful thing to do to take a moment out and pay tribute to those friends who loved and respected him when they, too, have been called home. I just wish I wasn’t doing the fourth such tribute in only three months’ time.

Rare clip of an energetic, young Michael singing on Donna’s record State of Independence, along with other superstars, in 1982 (thanks, Sina,  for the find!). Interesting in that this predates We Are The World by about three years!

Donna Summer reacts to the news of Michael’s death on Larry King:

Donna was not able to attend Michael’s memorial service because she was performing in Paris. But she compensated with a beautiful tribute:

"I Will Miss His Light, I Will Miss His Star"-Donna Summer On Michael Jackson

“I Will Miss His Light, I Will Miss His Star”…and we will miss your light and your star, Miss Summer! Thank you for all the years of dancing joy!

My favorite Donna Summer song; this is still one of the hottest jams to ever leap out of a set of stereo speakers (this is what we were all secretly listening to in the closet when we were running around saying disco sucked-forgive us our sins!)

While I am busy working on my next post on They Don’t Care About Us, I wanted to pass along a press release that was sent to me from The Jackson Family Foundation. I am a huge supporter of what this organization is trying to accomplish, which is to make the Michael Jackson Museum in Gary a reality. But more on that in just a sec. Here is the press release. Now, you may be wondering what is the connection between this event in France and Michael’s history in Gary. Well, read on and I’ll explain. Simply put, receiving this press release from the Jackson Family Foundation served to remind me that this is a very important topic that I’ve been meaning to address for some time.

Awhile back, I had posted an article on Facebook that reported the sad fact that over a year and a half after the announcement of the proposed Michael Jackson museum, the site still sits empty and everything appears to be at a standstill. Gary’s then mayor, Rudy Clay, was on the way out, and the project was simply not a priority for the encumbent. It would be left to Gary’s new mayor, Karen-Freeman Wilson, to pick up the pieces of the project and move forward…or not.

“…Today, the proposed site is empty. Instead of the Michael Jackson Museum, there’s an abandoned stadium, empty fields, and a city golf course.-Cheryl Burton.

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/special_segments&id=8442413

This video, accompanying Burton’s article, highlights the struggle to get The Michael Jackson Museum off the ground:

This recent update in an article on Karen-Freeman Wilson reveals that the project remains besought with difficulties:

“There’s all this controversy about who represents whom and I’m like, you know what. I’m not going to try to work out y’alls differences for you. I need to talk to one person,” Freeman-Wilson says. “You all determine who that is because this isn’t my primary initiative. I’m not opposed to it but I’m not going to spend a whole lot of energy on it because I just don’t see it. There are a lot of things on our laundry list that are much more close to being done and being realistic.”

Her voice remains even and does not reveal a shred of frustration. Switching topics, she discusses the proposed Jackson museum.

“You know, if somebody brings me a viable proposal that is financed, I’d do it. We can have it right there,” Freeman-Wilson says, pointing towards her office window where across the street the Genesis Convention Center sits. “I’d tear down the Genesis Center in a heartbeat. But …I got something in the mail yesterday or the day before and there are lines where they clearly cut and paste signatures, I’m like what is this?”

Just as she completes her thought, Freeman-Wilson looks down at her office phone and laughs. She never completely hung up the phone from the call with the Jackson family member.

“Well,” she smiles. “I don’t say anything that I wouldn’t say on the 10 o’clock news.”

http://www.dominionofnewyork.com/2012/03/12/after-michael-jackson-can-garys-new-black-mayor-restore-it-to-glory/

Freeman-Wilson’s words hit on two very real obstacles that have prevented this project from moving forward-the ongoing struggle between the Jackson family and the Michael Jackson estate (this is what she means when she is saying, “I’m not going to try to work out y’all’s differences for you” -and I do not blame her one bit, nor do I envy her position in being caught between those warring factions!) and the city’s financial struggles. It’s been no secret that, for years, Gary, Indiana-a once booming steel town- has become a struggling community and, some say, a virtual ghost town (This video is the first of a multi-part series, but so as to not drain this site’s memory, I am only posting Part 1; the rest can easily be accessed on Youtube):

The segregation that they speak of in this video is a large part of what eventually led to the city’s economic decline (as one person put it, when the whites left cause they didn’t want to live with the blacks, they took the businesses and the money with ‘em!).

While it can be argued that a Michael Jackson Museum might bring much needed revenue into the community, what we’re stuck with for now is an unfortunate Catch-22. To reap the benfits of that revenue, the city first has to have the money to spend on the project in the first place-as the old saying goes, “It takes money to make money.”

The monument that has been erected in front of the Jackson house. It's nice, but in a town where most of the Jackson family history is fast disappearing, is it enough?

When I was in Gary in 2010, the one thing that really struck me as the saddest was the realization that so much of Michael’s-and the Jackson family’s-history and legacy is being irretrievably lost. While the Jackson home is in good repair (in fact, probably better repair than it’s been in years) and remains a favorite tourist attraction, it is really about the only building connected to Michael’s history in Gary that is currently preserved (that, and the two schools nearby-Roosevelt High and Garnett Elementary). But most of the clubs, studios, and other places of note where Michael and The Jackson 5 first performed are either abandoned and in desrepair, or have long since been converted into other businesses (often, with no recognition of the Jackson connection) or have been razed completely.

Consider these descriptions from a 2009 article on what Michael Jackson fans touring Gary, Indiana can expect to see (boldfaced passages are my emphasis):

Mr. Lucky’sLounge (1100 Grant St.). In 1964, the Jackson 5 held one of their first performances in this now-defunct lounge. The new owner has expressed plans to sell the hardwood stage and exterior bricks for those who want to own a piece of Jackson history.

– Garnett Elementary School (21st Avenue) and Roosevelt High School (730 W. 25th Ave.). Jackson attended Garnett (now closed) and performed with his brothers in a talent show at Roosevelt (they won). Roosevelt is the city’s first and only school built for African Americans, and its students included three Jackson siblings: Rebbie, Jackie and Tito.

– Knights of Columbus Building (333 W. Fifth Ave.). The brothers performed at a variety of venues, including the ballroom of this historic brick structure, considered one of the tallest buildings in Gary. It’s now an affordable-housing high-rise. They also played in the ballroom of the Hotel Gary (northwest corner of Sixth Avenue and Broadway), now an affordable-housing high-rise for seniors.

– Gordon Keith home (1025 Taney St.). Keith, who ran Steeltown Records, produced “Big Boy” and “We Don’t Have to Be Over 21 (to Fall in Love)” before the group left his label to sign with Motown Records in 1968. “People go by the Jackson house,” said Keith, “then they come by my home.” The Jacksons used his residence as rehearsal space, and Keith owns the group’s first demo record.

– Small Farms section. The Jackson 5 frequently sang and danced at juke joints and honky-tonk after-hours spots in the more rural parts of Gary. Such haunts as Joe Green’s Club Woodlawn, Big Steve’s, White Tiger and Yellow Dragon no longer exist, but the ducks probably won’t complain if you crank up “I’ll Be There” in memoriam.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/10/AR2009071001646.html

And this was three years ago, so you can only imagine how much worse the situation has probably gotten since then, with no efforts underway to preserve these buildings or to maintain their legacy as important elements of the Jackson family history.

For me, the saddest thing was seeing the state of Mercy Hospital, where Michael was born. Mercy Hospital is an abandoned, decaying  building with broken windows. I only saw the outside, but here is a video that someone shot from the inside and posted on Youtube.

How many times have you ever visited the birthplace of a famous person and walked away thinking, I can’t believe he/she came from such a humble beginning! But looking at the above video, can you ever imagine that this is where The King of Pop was born? It looks more like something from out of Ghost Hunters!

One fact is indisputable: The physical emblems of Michael’s Gary, Indiana history are eroding fast, and I suspect within a few years, the house will be all that is left-and even that is no guarantee. I, myself, have no easy answers or solutions, other than to help bring awareness of this problem. But I would like to see something done, and I think it is within our power to do it. We can’t afford to be complacent, and we can’t just say, “Oh, that is the city of Gary’s responsibility” or “Let the Jacksons worry about it if it means so much to them; they’re rich!”

Yes, they undoubtedly have more money than you or I. But still, in a lot of ways, their hands are tied just like the rest of us. The Michael Jackson Museum is one of those projects for which I really wish the family and the estate could come together on, and work out their differences. Elvis fans have Graceland, a place where they can not only gather to visit his grave and pay respects, but can also contribute to the local economy, thus ensuring that their beloved shrine will always be there. And even a casual stroll through downtown Memphis can take one to any number of preserved locales that are connected to his history.

But what do Michael Jackson fans have when they want to visit Gary? As I said, the house on Jackson Street…and not a heck of a lot more.  While the museum cannot replace what has already been lost or may be lost in the future, it can at the very least provide a focal point for Michael Jackson’s historical ties to the city. I would imagine that when children visit the Jackson home for the first time, they may know that this is the home of someone famous (otherwise, why are all those grown-ups taking pictures, dressing up with fedoras and sun shades on, and buying so much stuff!) but wouldn’t it be great to be able to bring them to a place where they can begin to understand why he was so famous and beloved-and so important to the town! What message does it send to the youth of Gary when the only thing left to commemorate its favorite native son, other than the house, is…an empty lot?

I am going to suggest a few things that fans can do:

Email Mayor Karen-Freeman Wilson, and let ker know that there is a viable interest from the fan community in seeing this project completed!

kfreemanwilson@ci.gary.in.us

Write to Gary’s Department of Community Development:

Department of Community Development
839 Broadway, Suite 302
Gary Indiana 46402
TEL 219-881-5075
FAX 219-881-5085

Write, email or phone Caren Jones, superintendent of Gary’s Department of Public Parks:

455 Massachusetts St.
Gary, IN 46402
(219) 886-7099
(219) 881-0008 Fax
cajones@ci.gary.in.us
asmith@ci.gary.in.us

Please try to support (whenever you can) any MJ-related events that are taking place in Gary. This sends a very strong message to officials that it is in the economic best interest of the city to “keep MJ fans in Gary.”

The King of Pop Fanvention (the event I attended in 2010) is taking place again this year in August.  I can’t say enough good things about the people behind this event, and I would really, really like to encourage all fans who may be in the area and can afford it to attend! This year’s guests will be Joe Vogel and nurse Cherylin Lee. Although it is being hosted in nearby Chicago, many of the convention’s major events will be taking place right in Gary. I don’t know yet if I will be able to go this year, but this event is definitely a wonderful way to help support Michael’s legacy in Gary, and I can’t think of a better way to celebrate Michael’s birthday than in his own hometown!

http://www.mjfanvention.com/

And, mostly,  I would like to encourage everyone to continue to support and contribute to The Jackson Family Foundation, the organization that is working so hard to make this dream a reality:

http://www.jacksonfamilyfoundation.us/

In honor of this Mother’s Day, I went back to Michael’s amazing and beautiful book “Dancing The Dream” for this poem dedicated to his mother Katherine.

People can say what they will about Katherine Jackson, but some things can’t be denied. Katherine is one tough lady-a woman who raised nine children, and buried two. When Michael was very little, she took a job at a department store in downtown Gary, Indiana to help feed and clothe her family. The job often required her to work late nights and to walk home through some of the worst Gary winters, late at night through some of the town’s worst neighborhoods, and in defiance of the town curfew that required all African-Americans to be off the downtown streets after 6pm.

She lovingly sewed by hand all of the bright, colorful, matching stage outfits that Michael and his brothers wore as The Jackson 5.

During Michael’s trial in 2005, she was there by his side every single day, even if it meant having to hear hideous lies about her son that no mother should ever have to endure.

At the Conrad Murray trial, she was once again there every day other than the week she was in Wales for the tribute concert, and once again having to sit through the most gruesome details of her son’s homicide and death.

Now in her 80′s, an age at which most women are either in nursing homes or peacefully enjoying their sunset years, she is raising Michael’s three children and setting for them the same example of strength that she did for their father.

A couple of lines that always stand out to me in this poem: One is the line that says, “You taught me how to stand and fight/for every single wrong and right.” Another is “From your being I was born.”

Michael, an amazing man, could not have been so without having been born from an amazing woman.

Mother by Michael Jackson
Eons of time I’ve been gestating
To take a form been hesitating
From the unmanifest this cosmic conception
On this earth a fantastic reception
And then one fateful August morn
From your being I was born
With tender love you nurtured a seed
To your own distress you paid no heed
Unmindful of any risk and danger
You decided upon this lonely stranger

Rainbows, clouds, the deep blue sky
Glittering birds that fly on high
Out of fragments you’ve made my whole
From the elements you fashioned my soul
Mother dear, you gave me life
Because of you, no struggle or strife
You gave me joy and position
Cared for me without condition
And if I ever change this world
It’s from the emotions you’ve unfurl’d
Your compassion is so sweet and dear
Your finest feelings I can hear
I can sense your faintest notion
The wondrous magic of your love potion

And now that I have come so far
Met with every king and czar
Encountered every color and creed
Of every passion, every greed
I go back to that starry night
With not a fear for muscle or might
You taught me how to stand and fight
For every single wrong and right
Every day without a hold
I will treasure what you’ve mold
I will remember every kiss
Your sweet words I’ll never miss
No matter where I go from here
You’re in my heart, my mother dear.

"You taught me how to stand and fight For every single wrong and right"

Michael Wearing A Kippa At Uri Geller's Wedding. Uri Geller Himself Released These Personal Photos, Which Prove Michael Was Not Only Well Aware That His Friend Was Jewish, But Deeply Respected His Traditions

I am hoping that with these next couple of  installments, I’ll be able to address one of the more serious accusations leveled against Michael by Matt Fiddes, and with that, be able to move on. This bad fly has certainly taken up enough of my time here, and I have a lot more far more interesting topics on Michael that I would like to get to.

Of course I realize my title is perhaps a bit of a misnomer. Can we ever really know “the truth” about anyone or anything? This is especially true when it comes to any form of racism, being as how we live in a society that is pretty much intolerant of overt racism, as it should be.  Most people in the public eye aren’t going to publicly advertise their racism or bigotry; that goes without question. So what we have to look to, instead, are a person’s outward actions-what they say and do.  That is all we really can do in reaching a consensus as to a person’s views on race and racism. So in attempting to address this question about Michael’s beliefs and anti-Semitism, we can only look to the outward evidence. No one can presume to know what he thought privately, inside his head. We can only judge the man based on what he said and did, as well as what those closest to him can testify. But in so doing, we can’t just cherry pick what we want to hear-that goes equally for both sides, fans and haters.

Unfortunately the rumors of anti-Semitism had haunted Michael for several years, at least since the 90′s and his infamous “Jew me/sue me” line from the original version of They Don’t Care About Us (which I’ll be addressing). And it’s an ugly rumor that continues to dog his legacy even now. While it’s easy to dismiss Fiddes’ latest ramblings as the rubbish of yet another money-grubbing and attention-hungry whore, it nevertheless doesn’t change the fact that this ever-persistent rumor of Michael as an anti-Semite has become an ugly taint to Michael’s name and legacy, one only slightly less damaging than that of pedophile or child molestor.

Since the Sun story first broke, there has already been an outpouring of statements from those who knew Michael best,and many of Fiddes’ outrageous statements have already been resoundingly rebutted on other MJ sites. But what I would like to look at more closely is how these rumors evolved in the first place, and perhaps through a close analysis that puts all sides of this issue into perspective, to arrive at what I feel is the most truthful answer. My approach is probably a lot more middle-of-the-road than you will see elsewhere, for while I firmly believe Michael was not an anti-Semite, I also don’t buy into explanations that are too easy and too pat. It’s never as cut and dried as simply saying, One is a racist or one isn’t. To truly get to the heart of such a question, it involves a complex analysis of looking at an individual’s complete makeup. Family history, background, and life experiences, for example, all play a part in shaping our views of people, as well as shaping the person that we, ourselves, become. I know there are some who will come up with the automatic kneejerk response that “A racist comment=Racism.” But not so fast. Words have to judged in the context in which they are spoken.

The reason I say this is because there is  one-and only one-disturbing thing that keeps coming back to me when I attempt a defense of Michael against these absurd charges of anti-Semitism, and that is a brief tape that was released in 2005 in which Michael (albeit, I believe a very drugged Michael) is heard clearly saying that Jews are “like leeches.” Just as  Michael’s comment about sleeping with kids in the Bashir doc would forever come back to haunt him (regardless of what he actually meant or how he meant it) it also proves a bit of a problem in trying to defend Michael against charges of anti-Semitism when we have his own voice on tape saying some…well, obviously, not nice things about Jews. I just want to say up front that, even as a diehard Michael Jackson fan, there are some things I simply can’t and won’t defend, whether it is Michael or anyone.

But in order to really be fair, this is where we have to do away with the kneejerk responses and look at the full context of what was said, why it was said, and under what circumstances. Then, in addition, we have to add up everything else that is known of Michael’s history with Jewish people-a history that, as it turns out, is rich in many deep and lasting friendships (as well as, frankly, some betrayals, but such is human nature; an indefinable thing that in and of itself has nothing to do with race, creed, religion or nationality).

In short, if you want to believe Michael was a Nazi sympathizer and raging anti-semite, you’re going to be in for a letdown. But also, if you believe he was without question as pure as the driven snow when it came to complex issues of race relations, then you may be in for a bit of a rude awakening as well. I will stress as I always have that my goal is to arrive at a deeper understanding of who Michael the man was, in all his complexity, not some sugar coated version of it.

To simply state that Michael had many Jewish friends, in and of itself, is not enough to disprove racism. It’s like the person who drops the “n” word and then, when caught, turns around and says, “But some of my best friends are Black!”

However, Michael’s Jewish friends are certainly a great place with which to start. Let’s look at what Rabbi Schmuley Boteach said in a recent Huffington Post article (and yes, I’m aware that he is one of those who betrayed Michael, so I use the word “friend” quite loosely here. But as a Jewish person whom Michael probably confided in more than any other, Schmuley would certainly be in a good position to know how Michael felt about Jews):

The Revolting Lie That Michael Jackson Was a Nazi Sympathizer
Posted: 05/09/2012 9:00 am
All a man has in this world is his good name. The book of Ecclesiastes says that a good name is better than fine oil. Our reputations determine what others think of our character. We have a right, therefore, to defend our name against scurrilous and slanderous attack. When those we know cannot defend themselves, we must stand up and speak out on their behalf.

I generally try to avoid the gossip that is so often said and writing about Michael Jackson. Libraries of nonsense have been written about him, and now that he is tragically no longer alive, he cannot defend himself. In general I see no point in highlighting slanderous material about him by responding to it.

But several headlines recently caught my attention when I heard that a man who claims to have worked as Michael’s bodyguard made the incredulous charge that Michael was a Nazi sympathizer. This kind of viciousness should usually not be responded to because it just gives it more credibility for the retelling. But the slander against Michael’s name in this instance is so great that it deserves to be rebutted.

As is well known, I was Michael’s Rabbi for two years. During that time, we discussed every subject under the sun. A great deal of it was captured in the conversations we recorded specifically for publication in the books that became The Michael Jackson Tapes and its follow up, Honoring the Child Spirit. In one of those conversations, Michael spoke of Hitler’s mesmerizing oratorical skills. He said that oratory is in many ways one of the most effective tools that evil uses to manipulate others and thereby gain power. Michael argued that Hitler used many of the same techniques that showbiz performers use today in order to manipulate audiences and steer them toward evil deed. I was disheartened when the book was first published to see some newspapers highlight these comments of Michael completely out of context and misrepresent him as someone who could have admired Hitler. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Michael detested and despised anyone who would do harm to another human being, especially the Nazis who gassed six million Jews, one and a half million of whom were children. Michael loathed everything Hitler stood for. As I have consistently stated, Michael was a great friend of the Jewish people. He celebrated his relationship with the Jewish community and never shied from demonstrating how much he learned from Judaism through our conversations and friendship.

In one of our first meetings I gave him a mezuzah as a gift, which consists of a small scroll from the Torah that is affixed to the doorpost. I did not give it to him with the intention that he put it on his door as his was not a Jewish home. Nevertheless, Michael insisted that we put it on the front door of his rented home in Manhattan. A few weeks later he came with me to the Carlebach Synagogue in Manhattan one of the happiest days of the Jewish calendar, Shemini Atzeret, and told me later, as part of The Michael Jackson Tapes, that it was the happiest night of his life.

As the boy superstar of the Jackson 5, Michael had a Jewish tutor who traveled with him and helped to raise him whose name was Rose Fine. Michael spoke of her in The Michael Jackson Tapes with great affection and revealed to me that he and Janet covered many of his former tutor’s expenses as she aged. In one of the conversations he says that as the group’s plane landed in Germany, Mrs. Fine became agitated. Michael asked her why and she shared with him the horrors of the Holocaust. He was just a boy and it was the first time he had heard of the wholesale slaughter or Europe’s Jews.

Later, I would take Michael to meet and converse with my dear friend, Nobel Peace Laureate Elie Wiesel — arguably the greatest living Jewish personality — who further shared with him the horrors of the Holocaust and the importance of reconciliation and love. Prof. Wiesel showed Michael boundless acceptance and affection, which Michael warmly reciprocated.

Michael’s strong feelings for the Jewish community meant he was even prepared to suffer professionally for his love of Israel and the Jewish people. It is well-known that in 1993 Michael went to Israel on his Dangerous Tour where he performed for 160,000 fans in Tel Aviv. My dear friend Frank Cascio, later to become Michael’s manager, accompanied him and he told me how much Michael loved being in the holy land. Less well known, however, is the following story.

In late 2000, a Jewish philanthropist called me and told me that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was coming to his home that night for a reception. He said it would be good for Israel if Michael would come there and meet with the prime minister. I turned to Michael, in the presence of some of his professional staff, and asked him if he would like to meet the Israeli prime minister. Michael immediately jumped at the opportunity and told me he would love to do so. However, the people who surrounded him at the time mentioned that it might not be a good idea. They said that Sharon was hated in many parts of world, especially in Arab nations. A photograph of Michael with Ariel Sharon could spark a significant backlash including a boycott of Michael’s albums and music. Michael immediately dismissed their concerns and said that he felt very excited to meet the prime minister. A few minutes later we embarked in Michael’s van and crossed town to the meeting. The pictures of Michael greeting Prime Minister Sharon, along with me and our dear mutual friend Uri Geller, appeared throughout the world. Michael’s professional staff were correct. The very next day websites called for a boycott of Michael’s music saying that he supported Israel’s “hated” leader. However, Michael did not care. Michael loved Israel and the Jewish people and he was thrilled to meet someone of Prime Minister Sharon’s stature.

Above everything else in our relationship, Michael was immensely sensitive to my family’s Jewish observance and did everything to respect it at all times. When we would visit him at his homes and hotel suites, he would always order kosher food from local restaurants for us. He developed a taste for the cuisine of some well-known kosher restaurants and would often go there on his own after getting to know the restaurant through me.

The speech I composed for him, based on our conversations, that was delivered at the Oxford Union in March, 2001 — one of his crowning achievements where he received a standing ovation and which, unfortunately, has yet to be released by his estate — was filled with Jewish references and wisdom. Michael told me to leave it all in. As a Jehovah’s Witness he felt an immediate kinship and bond with the Jewish people and their teachings.

Michael was an African-American male who told me that he and his family had experienced a great deal of discrimination in their lives. Surely it is adding insult to injury to accuse Michael of a racism that was never expressed through his actions and never felt in his heart.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/michael-jackson-na zi-sympathizer-bodyguard_b_1502497.html

When I read this piece, I was reminded of Michael’s own essay, My Childhood, My Sabbath, My Freedom, which in turn had been inspired by just such an evening spent with Boteach’s family and enjoying one of their Jewish traditions. Here is Michael’s essay, with the passages emphasizing his respect and reverence for Jewish traditions highlighted:

  In one of our conversations together, my friend Rabbi Shmuley told me that he had asked some of his colleagues–-writers, thinkers, and artists-–to pen their reflections on the Sabbath. He then suggested that I write down my own thoughts on the subject, a project I found intriguing and timely due to the recent death of Rose Fine, a Jewish woman who was my beloved childhood tutor and who traveled with me and my brothers when we were all in the Jackson Five.

  Last Friday night I joined Rabbi Shmuley, his family, and their guests for the Sabbath dinner at their home. What I found especially moving was when Shmuley and his wife placed their hands on the heads of their young children, and blessed them to grow to be like Abraham and Sarah, which I understand is an ancient Jewish tradition. This led me to reminisce about my own childhood, and what the Sabbath meant to me growing up.

When people see the television appearances I made when I was a little boy–8 or 9 years old and just starting off my lifelong music career–they see a little boy with a big smile. They assume that this little boy is smiling because he is joyous, that he is singing his heart out because he is happy, and that he is dancing with an energy that never quits because he is carefree.

But while singing and dancing were, and undoubtedly remain, some of my greatest joys, at that time what I wanted more than anything else were the two things that make childhood the most wondrous years of life, namely, playtime and a feeling of freedom. The public at large has yet to really understand the pressures of childhood celebrity, which, while exciting, always exacts a very heavy price.

More than anything, I wished to be a normal little boy. I wanted to build tree houses and go to roller-skating parties. But very early on, this became impossible. I had to accept that my childhood would be different than most others. But that’s what always made me wonder what an ordinary childhood would be like.

There was one day a week, however, that I was able to escape the stages of Hollywood and the crowds of the concert hall. That day was the Sabbath. In all religions, the Sabbath is a day that allows and requires the faithful to step away from the everyday and focus on the exceptional. I learned something about the Jewish Sabbath in particular early on from Rose, and my friend Shmuley further clarified for me how, on the Jewish Sabbath, the everyday life tasks of cooking dinner, grocery shopping, and mowing the lawn are forbidden so that humanity may make the ordinary extraordinary and the natural miraculous. Even things like shopping or turning on lights are forbidden. On this day, the Sabbath, everyone in the world gets to stop being ordinary.

But what I wanted more than anything was to be ordinary. So, in my world, the Sabbath was the day I was able to step away from my unique life and glimpse the everyday.

Sundays were my day for “Pioneering,” the term used for the missionary work that Jehovah’s Witnesses do. We would spend the day in the suburbs of Southern California, going door to door or making the rounds of a shopping mall, distributing our Watchtower magazine. I continued my pioneering work for years and years after my career had been launched.

Up to 1991, the time of my Dangerous tour, I would don my disguise of fat suit, wig, beard, and glasses and head off to live in the land of everyday America, visiting shopping plazas and tract homes in the suburbs. I loved to set foot in all those houses and catch sight of the shag rugs and La-Z-Boy armchairs with kids playing Monopoly and grandmas baby-sitting and all those wonderfully ordinary and, to me,magical scenes of life. Many, I know, would argue that these things seem like no big deal. But to me they were positively fascinating.

The funny thing is, no adults ever suspected who this strange bearded man was. But the children, with their extra intuition, knew right away. Like the Pied Piper of Hamlin, I would find myself trailed by eight or nine children by my second round of the shopping mall. They would follow and whisper and giggle, but they wouldn’t reveal my secret to their parents. They were my little aides. Hey, maybe you bought a magazine from me. Now you’re wondering, right?

Sundays were sacred for two other reasons as I was growing up. They were both the day that I attended church and the day that I spent rehearsing my hardest. This may seem against the idea of “rest on the Sabbath,” but it was the most sacred way I could spend my time: developing the talents that God gave me. The best way I can imagine to show my thanks is to make the very most of the gift that God gave me.

Church was a treat in its own right. It was again a chance for me to be “normal.” The church elders treated me the same as they treated everyone else. And they never became annoyed on the days that the back of the church filled with reporters who had discovered my whereabouts. They tried to welcome them in. After all, even reporters are the children of God.

When I was young, my whole family attended church together in Indiana. As we grew older, this became difficult, and my remarkable and truly saintly mother would sometimes end up there on her own. When circumstances made it increasingly complex for me to attend, I was comforted by the belief that God exists in my heart, and in music and in beauty, not only in a building. But I still miss the sense of community that I felt there–I miss the friends and the people who treated me like I was simply one of them. Simply human. Sharing a day with God.

When I became a father, my whole sense of God and the Sabbath was redefined. When I look into the eyes of my son, Prince, and daughter, Paris, I see miracles and I see beauty. Every single day becomes the Sabbath. Having children allows me to enter this magical and holy world every moment of every day. I see God through my children. I speak to God through my children. I am humbled for the blessings He has given me.

There have been times in my life when I, like everyone, has had to wonder about God’s existence. When Prince smiles, when Paris giggles, I have no doubts. Children are God’s gift to us. No–they are more than that–they are the very form of God’s energy and creativity and love. He is to be found in their innocence, experienced in their playfulness.

My most precious days as a child were those Sundays when I was able to be free. That is what the Sabbath has always been for me. A day of freedom. Now I find this freedom and magic every day in my role as a father. The amazing thing is, we all have the ability to make every day the precious day that is the Sabbath. And we do this by rededicating ourselves to the wonders of childhood. We do this by giving over our entire heart and mind to the little people we call son and daughter. The time we spend with them is the Sabbath. The place we spend it is called Paradise.

http://jetzi-mjvideo.com/books-jetzi-04/00mycsf/00mycsf0a.html

Certainly this paints a very different picture than the one that people like Fiddes are trying to portray. But what of Michael’s early teachings? As a Jackson family member, could he have been raised in an anti-Jewish home that shaped (whether condsciously or not) some of his feelings about Jews? In her first book, Michael’s sister Latoya pulled no punches in accusing her family of being anti-Semitic. Of course, there is a lot in that book that has to be taken with a heaping grain of salt. Latoya herself would later retract much of it. But surprisingly, in a book that painted such an unforgivingly scathing picture of her family, Michael emerged from its pages not only as surprisingly sympathetic (obviously Latoya at that time was still trying to stay in her hugely successful brother’s good graces) but, also, as perhaps the family’s most idealistic member. But this shouldn’t be a surprise, considering this was the same young man who told his mother at a very early age that one day he would help all of the starving children of Africa-and really meant it! The following passage is from pp. 132-134 of “Latoya”:

According To Latoya, She And Michael Banded Together In Disapproval Of Their Parents' Anti-Semitism

Well, obviously from there the passage moves on to discuss Frank Dileo. But let’s go back to these alleged comments made by Joe and Katherine regarding Jews.  I say “alleged” because with so many things in this book having been retracted and denied, it’s hard to know what to believe. I have always been inclined to believe there was a lot of truth in Latoya’s first book, even if albeit embellished for dramatic effect. I think the real version of the truth is somewhere in the middle, between her overly melodramatic and embellished first book, and her rather whitewashed second (in which all of a sudden her family become saints and it was all the doings of that no good, dastardly Jack Gordon). At any rate, when presented with such totally polarizing views, my tendency is to take the pragmatic approach and believe that the truth must lie somewhere in between the two extremes.

So let’s just play devil’s advocate for a moment and assume that maybe Michael did have racist parents who said some of these things, if not all. God knows it wouldn’t be as if they were the first. I, too, knew what it was like to grow up in a racist family, even as my experiences in school and other places out in the world were teaching me that there were more enlightened ways of thinking and seeing the world; ways that did not jibe with some of the things I heard my parents and grandparents say. Michael and I were/are about the same age, and ours was the first generation to experience desegregation. In the South, black kids and white kids were attending the same schools together for the first time. For the first time, black teachers were being hired to teach white students, and vice versa.  Educational TV shows like Sesame Street and The Electric Company featured racially mixed casts, sending us the message that–at least on TV-everyone could get along, regardless of their differences. Michael and I, both growing up in the same generation, were experiencing many of the same mixed signals–the new values we were being taught by school, by TV, by all of our friends, vs. what our parents and grandparents said at home, behind closed doors. A generation fueled by the idealism of our age, we wanted to believe in equality and to believe that we could all get along, regardless of color or creed. But often, we were caught in the tug-of-war battle between being a part of a  generation that was moving progressively forward, and the views of our parents who were firmly rooted in an earlier time.  When we went to school; when we watched TV; when we read books, we were presented with a view of what the world should be. But often, living under our parents’ roof was our unfortunate  reality.

As A Child, Michael had Identified With the Sufferings Of The Jews. I Would Imagine That All Of the Trials And Tribulations Of His Adult Life Only Intensified That Sense Of Kinship

What is clear from the above passage-again, depending on how much credibility one is willing to grant Latoya- is that Michael, even at a very young age, clearly identified with the sufferings of the Jews, and spoke out openly and defiantly against his parents’ views, which he clearly did not share and was even embarrassed by. The Michael that is described in Schmuley’s account and by his own words in My Childhood, My Sabbath, My Freedom is, for sure, a man who had a profound and genuine respect for Jewish people and Jewish traditions.

But over time, did experience change or harden some of his idealistic views?  What would have propelled this humble, respectful, and idealistic man who said “Racism is not my motto” to utter such words as we heard on that audio recording?

Well, first of all, we really have to look at the circumstances behind this recording-not only what was said, but what was not said (or at least, not what was played in this brief clip). When this audio recording was released, it was this one segment that Michael’s detractors wanted the public to hear-and, of course, the media, as they always do, chose only to highlight what would make Michael appear in the worst light. Let’s not forget that this was in the fall of 2005, when the anti-Jackson bias was at its height (after all, many journalists were still writhing from the sting of the “Not Guilty” verdict and all those crow sandwiches they had been forced to eat). It’s also important to know what parties responsible for releasing this tape-none other than Deiter Weisner, who at the time was engaged in a very nasty civil lawsuit against Michael to the tune of $64 million, and Marc Schaffel, who was also involved in a civil lawsuit with Michael (and would later be countersued by Michael).

Here is the clip that was played in November of 2005 on Good Morning, America. Warning: It’s not pretty to listen to. But it’s important to know that THIS is the message the public heard, and that elicited a demand for an apology from the Anti-Defamation League (too bad there are no similar activist organizations to demand apologies every time a deceased person is slandered by people like Matt Fiddes in the media!). I know already that some will ask: Why draw attention to this? But the fact is, ignoring something like this won’t make it go away. Michael’s detractors know about this tape all too well, and are only too ready to use it at any given turn as indisputable evidence of his “racism” and “bigotry.” It’s on Youtube and there are numerous links to it readily available on the ‘net, usually in accompaniment to some very ignorant articles. Therefore, rather than attempting to bury something like this, it’s best just to meet it head on, confront it, and and analyze it for what it really is. Truth is a much better means of disarmament than ignorance.

But after you listen to this, let me ask you one simple question: Does something not sound eerily familiar about this recording?

Ironically enough, here was an article that appeared shortly after the airing of that clip in which the writer felt that the media hadn’t made a big enough stink over the clip!

http://newsbusters.org/node/2963

But the transcript provided by this article provides some interesting clues as to why this recording was made, why it was released to the public, and the not-so-coincidental timing of that release.

A couple of things stand out to me about this recording right away. I asked if it sounded eerily familiar. We all heard the audio recording made by Conrad Murray that was played at the trial. What I noticed when listening to this recording is a very similar scenario. His words are very slurred, and though he is not incoherent, his garbled syntax is very similar to what we heard in the Murray recording. In other words, just as in the Murray recording, Michael is obviously very drugged and in a vulnerable state. It doesn’t excuse what he said, but I thing it does call into severe question both the circumstances and context of what was said, and why, as well as the similarly troubling ethical question of why the tape was made public-obviouisly, for no gain other than to humiliate and intimidate someone who was already in a vulnerable state.

This particular tape dates back to about the same period in 2003 when Michael left a series of voice mails to Deiter and Schaffel, many of which surfaced in 2010 when they were-no surprise here!-sold to The Sun. In 2005, the media spin had been to make it all about his racist remarks and legal/financial problems. In 2010, in the wake of his passing and an ongoing death investigation, the spin had shifted to focus on his apparently “drugged” and “paranoid” state of mind. But all I remember at the time, when I first listened to these tapes in their entirety, was being disturbed by the obvious fact that this was not only someone in a very vulnerable state, but also someone who seemed to be in genuine fear for his life. My outrage was vented at those who were making these tapes all about “the messenger, rather than the message.”

http://old.allforloveblog.com/?p=2345

While Michael may have to some degree suffered from paranoia, I believe it was a paranoia nevertheless grounded in some very legit and very real fears. Regardless of whether one believes there were people really trying to kill him, or just serving as enablers to keep him drugged and vulnerable enough so that they could rob him blind and pick his bones clean, it all amounts to the same thing in the end-a tragedy. The simple truth was that, by 2003, having endured decades of being manipulated, cheated, robbed and swindled at every turn (and let me stress, this is a travesty no matter how one might want to blame it on some of his own choices) Michael was angry and bitter. Not only is it impossible to judge a man until we’ve walked a mile in his moccasins, it is also impossible in this case to judge how Michael felt unless we’ve had a thousand knives in our back, and until we know what the cold, hard steel of that blade actually feels like, especially when it is multiplied a thousand times over.

He Was A Person Who Had Very Real Reasons To Be Afraid, And Very Real Reasons For Lashing Out

This was the reality of Michael Jackson’s life. And yes, over time, he did become very bitter towards certain individuals. What we have to keep in mind is that it was these individuals he was lashing out against, not all Jews in general. Yes, he chose his words poorly, just as he did in the Bashir doc. But I think, given the full context of the conversation, it becomes easier to understand why he said what he did-again, that is not to excuse it entirely, but to put it in its proper perspective.

Here is a website I found that discusses in some depth, for example, Michael’s relationship with Al Malnik and how the Jewish mafia had “their hooks” in Michael. While this writer is much more conspiracy-prone than me (and I suspect anti-Semitic themselves) I can’t entirely discredit all their claims. Michael, it seemed, had been a pawn to these people for years, and had lived under their fear and control. Is it any wonder he lashed out in some of the ways he did? By the way, there is an interesting bit of trivia (which I had forgotten) involving Sacha Cohen Baron,a Jewish comedian who himself has been accused of anti-Semitism even though he insists his character Borat is merely a tool for holding up the prejudices of society. This writer seemed to think that Cohen was offering up a little bit of Jewish payback against Michael and Latoya in a scene that ended up being cut from his movie Bruno. Apparently they thought it would be in bad taste to leave the joke in, since Michael had just died (which just goes to show, wow, Michael was actually shown some respect for all of five minutes after he died!).

http://snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.com/2009/08/michael-jackson-another-way-jewish.html

However, a word of caution! There are also, as I’ve discovered, a LOT of such sites which are, in reality, little more than anti-Semitic hate sites designed to fuel the conspiracy that Michael Jackson was killed by Jews, and thus whose only purpose is to fuel the flames of hate. (I couldn’t help but laugh at Debbie Schlussel’s comment here: “Hmmm… Dr. Conrad Murray doesn’t look Jewish.”

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/5644/farrakhan-yes-the-zionists-killed-michael-jackson/

While I think it is one thing to honestly acknowledge that Michael obviously had some very personal beefs with certain individuals who just happened to be Jewish, we have to keep in perspective that Michael’s message was not about hate, and any site, group, individual or organization that promotes hatred in the name of Michael Jackson should not be tolerated or supported.

I am a firm believer, as I know Michael was, that good and evil are not exclusive to any race, creed, or nationality.

Another Photo Of Michael From Uri Geller's Wedding. Note The Crutches. Poor Baby Was Always So Accident Prone!

Michael’s dearest friend and godmother of his children,Elizabeth Taylor, was a converted Jew. Michael attended the Jewish wedding of Uri Geller and was his best man in 2001, a full TWO YEARS before he fell out with Geller in 2003-not because Geller was Jewish, but because of his hand in the Martin Bashir fiasco. Certainly he was well aware, long before 2003, that Uri Geller is Jewish!

If one needs further proof that Fiddes’ story is bunk, they don’t have to look much further than this very touching account of the time leading up to Michael’s speech at Oxford in 2001, in which Jewish journalist and author Joseph Margolis writes a poignant account of the time spent with Michael, Schmuley and Uri Geller. Even if this account is somewhat tainted by all that we knew would come afterward with Schmuley and Geller, it is still a very beautiful and revealing piece that I think really sheds valuable light on Michael’s relationships with the Jewish community:

By Jonathan Margolis, Mail On Sunday, March 2001

The call came at 2am.

They say the only thing worse than a wrong number in the middle of the night is a right number, because it invariably heralds tragedy. In this case, however, a right number in the small hours brought one of the most remarkable opportunities imaginable for a journalist.

‘Would you like to come and meet Michael Jackson off the plane at Heathrow at 9am and spend some of the week with him?’ asked a familiar American voice.

The caller was Shmuley Boteach, my hyperactive rabbi friend who, in one of showbusiness’s more unpredictable couplings, has become pop legend Michael Jackson’s guru, friend – and, last week, partner in founding a children’s charity.

Naturally, I accepted Shmuley’s offer and, hours later, would enter for the second time in a few months the maelstrom that is the life of the 42-year-old singer, once described by Bob Geldof as ‘the most famous man on the planet, God help him’.

Behind the scenes of one of this most extraordinary of celebrity stories, I would find myself doing everything from listening to Michael in his pyjamas putting the finishing touches to his Oxford Union speech, to making him laugh with a joke in the back of his car, to hearing him make one of the most emotional phone calls of his life – while on the Hammersmith flyover in West London.

Michael Jackson was coming to England to launch his US-based charity Heal The Kids, in a speech at Oxford University, and to be best man at paranormalist Uri Geller’s wedding, as thanks to Geller for having introduced Jackson to Shmuley over two years ago.

It had been a tense weekend for Shmuley. Jackson’s long-planned trip was jeopardised at the last minute by his breaking two bones in his foot falling downstairs, then by an airline strike – and finally by a snowstorm in New York.

So it wasn’t just cynics who doubted that the singer would ever make it to Oxford. The rabbi, too, was getting distinctly nervous. He had put almost a year’s work into getting Michael to speak at Oxford, against advice that the controversial megastar might get a rough reception from the students.

But a few minutes before phoning me, Rabbi Shmuley had received confirmation from America. Michael Jackson was in plaster, in pain and on crutches – but he was also on a flight out of JFK airport.

In November, I had spent a week around Michael in New York for an American magazine article. Now Shmuley wanted me to witness further, by getting me still closer, how Jackson, who this month becomes a UN Special Ambassador for children at the behest of his friend Nelson Mandela among others, is morphing from entertainer into serious world figure – or so his influential supporters hope.

Shmuley has made it his mission to convince the world that the twice-divorced Michael may be unconventional in a host of ways, but is a good-hearted, fundamentally innocent innocent man whose desire to sensitise adults to the needs of children deserves to be heard.

So now here we were, travelling out to the airport in a minicab.

Michael’s people, a tribe of burly blokes, were already there, of course.

There were the squat, silent, watchful American minders, and the drivers, all English and experienced at whisking celebrities around in convoys of blacked-out Mercedes and people-carriers. There was even a photographer employed to video and photograph Michael’s every move for his personal archive.

Then the travelling party arrived – Jackson’s young manager, his elderly Lebanese doctor, there to look after the star’s bad foot, plus yet more watchful and burly men.

Normally, there would also have been Michael’s children’s nanny, a nice, sensible, middle-aged lady who fusses and cares for the Jackson Two, Prince and sister Paris. (There is, incidentally, no troop of 12 nannies as is often reported – just the one).

Michael’s children (both by his second wife, nurse Debbie Rowe) are an impeccably behaved pair; unspoiled and scarily bright.

Their father had decided for once not to bring them on a trip, because he feared they might be photographed, something he dreads after a childhood of being constantly hunted by paparazzi.

As Michael and his men cleared Customs, the four-car entourage got into position in a public part of the airport, next to people getting out of cars to go on holiday.

To my amazement, Michael was wearing his black silk facemask, an item that hadn’t made an appearance once, either in private or when we went out in New York, or for that matter when I met him in Japan years ago.

Indeed, I have always told people that the mask is another myth, along with the oxygen tent story and rumours of Michael having Prince and Paris’s toys thrown away after one use for fear of germs, both of which I know to be untrue.

The oxygen tent tale, Michael told me when we had Thanksgiving dinner at the Boteach home in New Jersey, stemmed from a joke he cracked to a photographer after he had crawled into one he bought for a children’s hospital and emerged saying: ‘Gee, if I had one of those, I could live to be 150.’ The Sun took up the gauntlet and the ‘Wacko Jacko’ label, which he despises, was born.

Michael’s physical distress at Heathrow, too, was palpable. He was stressed and exhausted, hobbling on crutches and putting every effort into staying upright.

He was too focused on merely walking to say hello to anyone apart from Rabbi Shmuley and, unfortunately for me, his crutches and outstretched leg took up what was going to be my place in his people-carrier.

So I followed the convoy to London’s Lanesborough Hotel with a 67-year-old driver, Stan, who has been chauffeuring Michael since the singer was a teenager. Stan was illuminating on the subject of that facemask. ‘It’s for the fans and you lot in the Press, isn’t it?’ he chuckled.

‘Putting it on guarantees pictures will appear in tomorrow’s papers.

Never forget that Michael is a showman.

‘The fans were out en masse at the back of Michael’s hotel, dozens of them camping in plastic bags on the pavement for a glimpse of their idol.

As Michael settled into his suite, I watched his video man going around the crowd, who screamed and wept messages to Michael into his camcorder. It was both touching and disturbing.

Upstairs in the suite, Michael was seeing his doctor. I wondered when he emerged if he would have any idea who I was. However, he spotted me and greeted me with a funny military salute. I’ve no idea if he really recognised me, but he made a convincing job of making me feel he had.

Michael’s makeup and quiet, shy manner make it seem as if he is detached and unaware of what is going on around him, but he has almost 360-degree vision and rarely misses anything.

Everybody, of course, wants to know what this mysterious man is really like. To me, he comes across as childlike, funny, generous spirited, considerate, if quite demanding, and unfailingly polite. He is also unexpectedly gossipy, though never really malevolent. He has, for instance, a pet snake jokily called Madonna – but is always anxious to say how he really thinks the world of his rival for the number one superstar spot.

His voice is light and has a distinct Western twang and, although he speaks quietly and dreamily, also laughs loudly and often, especially at any physical joke. People bumping into things and throwing food about crack him up. He hates even the mildest swearing and is always asking questions. He listens carefully, watches you with ever-so-slightly suspicious eyes and ensures by not saying much that he is listened to intently. As for his appearance, I don’t pretend to fully understand why he cultivates the image he does, but I’m sure it has to do with shyness and wanting to hide. Up close, his cosmetic surgery is obvious and he now seems to be competing with the natural ageing process. I have no reason to disbelieve (and some reasons to believe) his claim that he suffers from a skin-lightening condition, and I know for certain that he is proud of his black heritage.

He told Jackie Onassis, who helped him with his autobiography, Moonwalker, that he used to wear masks to hide, and it is also known that his father, the famously harsh and demanding Joseph Jackson, told him repeatedly as a child that he was ugly – a pretty scarring inheritance.

Michael reminds me of an anorexic teenager who is never quite satisfied with the image they see in the mirror and has to keep changing it.

Michael wanted to sleep for a few hours and we agreed to see him later as Shmuley had a list of charity-related matters to discuss. I was to be allowed to tag along as an observer again.

There was a knock on the suite door as Michael and his mentor were deep in conversation that evening. Michael asked if I wouldn’t mind going to the door. Outside was Macaulay Culkin, in London for his West End play and here to hang out with Michael. ‘Hi, there, you big, fat monkey head,’ Culkin said to his friend.

You either understand Michael Jackson’s Peter Pan thing or not, but he is earnest about it and says that he is not fond of adults and not proud of being one – hence his fellow feeling with ex-child stars like Culkin who, like him, missed out on childhood.

We left Michael and Macaulay to do whatever they do, which according to one tabloid, was sit on Michael’s bed and watch kids’ films.

It’s interesting that when it comes to Michael, people say that what puts them off is the (ultimately fruitless and unproven) accusations in the early Nineties of child molestation and how he made an £18million settlement to quell his accuser.

When I point out that the local District Attorney subsequently invited further accusations, and that none came despite there being so much money on the table, and how surprising that is considering that some 10,000 children a year visit Michael’s home, Neverland, people shift theirobjection to the indisputable fact that he looks a bit odd – a lesser charge, I can’t help feeling.

But perhaps I had already become too understanding of Michael after our time in New York.

I saw him there working tirelessly on planning Heal The Kids, which will ‘campaign globally for parents to spend quality time with their children’.

He did this despite being under pressure from his record company to get on with recording his album, his first new music in nearly a decade.

I saw him in conversation and holding his own with child psychiatrists, bankers, writers and society bigwigs, and assured and informal on a conference call with actor Denzel Washington and Nelson Mandela, whom he asked to join the Heal The Kids board. (‘I’ll do whatever you want, Michael,’ Mandela said. ‘You know how I respect you.’) I also listened to Jackson in business meetings, where a different man still emerged – focused, numerate, business-savvy and imaginative.

He has a host of plans for his future from property acquisitions to publishing ventures and leisure businesses.

And I witnessed the extent ofwhat I think is Jackson’s real commitment to children. Rabbi Shmuley’s eldest daughter, Mushki, had complained tearfully to Michael on one of his frequent visits to the Boteaches’ home that she was being bullied by a boy at school.

Michael proposed hosting a peace conference, chaired by him, with the boy’s parents to sort it out. This was no idle promise, either.

For a week, Michael phoned Shmuley and Mushki daily demanding to know how arrangements for the summit were going. When the day of the meeting came, Michael discovered it clashed with the photographic session for his new CD cover.

So rather than change the date, he began the session at 5am to get it over with. In the event, ironically, the boy and his family failed to turn up.

Shmuley also told me, from the hundreds of hours of interviews he has recorded with Michael for a book they are writing together, about Michael’s torment over the Jamie Bulger murder on Merseyside, which he surprised his Oxford audience by mentioning last Tuesday.

The reference was dismissed by some as an attempt to inject local colour into the speech, but in fact Michael’s concern over the case goes back to his first marriage, to Lisa Marie Presley, daughter of Elvis.

They ended up arguing about Jamie Bulger on a trip to London, when Michael outraged his wife by saying that, devastated as he was for Jamie and his parents, he was also concerned for Jamie’s killers because he was sure they must have had a bad childhood – as indeed was the case.

Michael refuses to believe on principle that any child can be fundamentally evil.

As late as last autumn, Michael was asking what had happened to Jamie’s killers and saying how he would love to have written to them, but wouldn’t dream of doing so because his fame would make them think they were being rewarded, which he knew would be unacceptable.

He was, says Shmuley, quite downcast when he realised how his celebrity status could occasionally be a handicap in his mission to help children.

I joined Michael again on Tuesday afternoon in his suite, as he did a dry run of his Oxford speech, which he had been working on with Shmuley for a week.

They were already behind schedule, thanks to Michael’s foot. He was insisting on delivering the speech standing up, and even reading through it as he would at Oxford, apart, that is, from the stripy grey pyjamas with Mickey Mouse on the breast pocket.

His focus and attention to detail were remarkable. The speech was to climax with Michael forgiving his father. There was a line where he said if the Jackson Five did a great show, Joseph would say it was OK, and if they did an OK show, he would say it was lousy.

‘You know,’ Michael said, ‘I’m wrong there. He never said it was lousy, he just said nothing. This has got to be honest.’ He went quiet and sat for a while, holding a tulip from a vase and seemingly lost in thought.

He changed the line, and that bleak’nothing’ was the very word where, that night, he broke down and sobbed for nearly a minute. Some thought this was theatre; I am certain it was genuine, as were most of the Oxford students around me.

While Michael was getting dressed and seeing the doctor again, the hours were ticking worryingly away, I had a nose around the suite. Everywhere were the results of Michael’s reported £2,000 after-hours shopping spree at HMV with Macaulay and a pretty, blonde, 20-year-old student daughter of a family friend in London, whom Michael has known since she was young.

Scattered around the suite were DVDs of various children’s films, the David Attenborough wildlife video collection (down from £59.99 to £49.99) and dozens of CDs, including the Beatles’ album 1, to which Michael of course owns the rights, and so by buying, was paying himself royalties.

It struck me that it’s not correct that Michael Jackson only enjoys the company of children, as is often said. What he likes is to surround himself with people in their twenties whom he has known since they were young – and can, therefore, trust, such as the lovely student.

Before we left, getting ever later, Michael gathered up fruit for the journey to Oxford (two apples, a banana, two plums and an orange) and frantically hobbled around on his crutches looking for reading material – a pile of upmarket magazines plus a copy of the Royal Academy’s £25 catalogue for their current exhibition, The Genius Of Rome, 1592-1623 – a present from his student friend.

We piled into the people-carrier with the manager, the doctor, a bodyguard and Shmuley an hour before we were due in Oxford for dinner. Michael cradled the art book on his lap in the back, where he sat with me and the doctor and discussed Renaissance art. He explained that Diana Ross had taught him a lot about art, but that his father was also a talented painter.

It was Rabbi Shmuley who suggested when we were on the Cromwell Road that Michael phone his father in Las Vegas. ‘You’re making a speech forgiving him.

I think now’s the time, Michael. Michael considered the idea silently all the way to Hammersmith, when he suddenly asked for the nearest mobile phone and dialled. ‘Joseph,’ he said, as we crawled through the London rush hour. ‘It’s me, Michael. I’m in London. I’m OK, I’ve broken my foot and it hurts a lot, but I wanted you to know I’m on my way to Oxford University to make a speech, and you’re mentioned in it …no, no, don’t worry, it’s very positive. . sure…how are you keeping? Uh-huh. . .sure, of course I will. I love you, Dad, bye.’ After saying this, he stared out of the window for a long time. ‘You know,’ he said to all of us, beaming, ‘that’s the first time I’ve ever, ever said that. I can’t believe it.’ Shmuley gave him a bear hug and congratulated him. Michael continued reading.

It was a happy journey, apart from the traffic. Michael complained that all the CDs his manager had chosen for the drive were too loud. At one stage on the M40 there was a silence and I cracked one of those jokes you wish you hadn’t. ‘It’s getting boring now,’ I said, ‘I think we should have a singsong. Can anyone here sing?’ Normally, making jokes around celebrities is unwise, but the atmosphere was so jolly and excited that I couldn’t help it. To my delight, Michael had the generosity to laugh loudly.

Michael began to panic as we got later and later. He wanted to phone everyone he had inconvenienced by being late. For a star who doesn’t need to give a damn, it’s hard not to be struck by his solicitousness.

Michael’s speech was amazing.

We know the students and the newspapers and TV were bowled over by it, but I wondered what the reaction would be of Trevor Beattie, the advertising creative guru, who was in the packed Victorian debating chamber, with its statues of Asquith and Gladstone.

Beattie is probably Britain’s most renowned ad man, and has worked on commercials for UNICEF recently with Mandela, and with everyone from Muhammad Ali to Tony Blair, whose TV commercials for the forthcoming Election campaign he has just made.

Beattie, in other words, knows a bit about presentation. ‘What I’ve seen tonight confirms what I’ve always believed about Michael,’ he said. ‘All these theories about him trying to become white miss the point. I believe his great thing is not to be anything like his father and that tonight, he has finally laid the ghost of Joseph and can start again.

‘That’s why I find it sad that until now, everyone’s concentrated on things like his appearance and his eccentricities and overlooked his personal turmoil. He did it brilliantly with obvious sincerity. I couldn’t admire the man more.’ We went on to an incredibly grand, starry, late dinner for 40 at Blenheim Palace, where I was amused to watch Richard E. Grant, a Hollywood star himself, fretting over how to approach Michael.

‘I mean, what does one do? Do you pretend you know him and say, hi, [and] introduce yourself. I’m just not quite sure.’ And the next day came the glitzy Geller wedding. Michael was late again (more trouble with that foot, exacerbated when he slipped on it – believe it or not – in a fish and chip shop in Marylebone.) People were sorry, especially for Uri’s wife, Hanna, but then Michael also had to cancel a helicopter trip from the Gellers’ out to George Harrison’s home. Harrison, he told me, is the Beatle he is closest to.

My 11-year-old daughter shook hands with Michael and pronounced him, ‘Not as scary as in photos, actually really nice looking.’ And I was asked to dance under the wedding canopy with Uri, Shmuley and David Blaine, the American magician – and with the world’s number one song-and-dance man, Michael Jackson, sitting in a chair three feet away, clapping along.

Noting my hippopotamus-like attempts at rhythm, the King Of Pop winked at me. I do not expect to be signed up for his next video any time soon.

He, on the other hand, seemed happy, as if some sort of weight had been lifted from his shoulders.

http://home.c2i.net/mjj/michael_jackson_articles_realmanchild.htm

With Boteach, Uri Geller and Ariel Sharon

Michael married a Jewish woman (Debbie Rowe) thus making his own children half-Jewish. Needless to say, we know Michael loved his children better than life. Would an anti-Semite willingly marry a Jewish partner and bring Jewish children into the world? I think that alone should be enough to put the debate to rest, for once and for all. Obviously, though, just as with all the controversies of Michael’s life, that is probably wishful thinking. All we can effectively do is counter with the truth. Michael’s own words and actions speak louder than any media spins. And when they fail to do so, that is the time when we need to take an even closer look at who is doing the spinning-and why.

In leaving you today, here is another interesting article I found about Michael’s ties to the Jewish community. I thought the last couple of lines were very poignant, and befitting my topic for today:

“Maybe someone troubled and in need of direction will find that Judaism has some answers, offers some comfort, provides some solace. Obviously Michael Jackson even found some within Judaism, at least for a period of time.”-Nina Amir 

http://www.examiner.com/article/what-michael-jackson-s-jewish-ties-mean-for-jews-general

Lastly, Michael's Own Family...Half Jewish Children By Birth. What More Need Be Said?

In Part Two: Analyzing the real meaning behind the song “They Don’t Care About Us”

Wanna Know Something Funny? I Kid You Not! I Was Actually Googling For Pics Of "Michael Jackson And Snakes"...When This Popped Up! With An Omen Like That, How Could I Not Use It?

Here is the thing I really have to ask. What IS up with Matt Fiddes? He is obviously a man with a vendetta-and a vicious one. But what’s even more disgusting is that The Sun-for whatever reasons of their own-continue to give this con artist a platform. While it’s no secret that the press has continued to smear Michael Jackson’s name even after death, this latest series of “interviews” from Fiddes really scrapes the bottom of the barrel when it comes to libeling the dead, without even benefit of the most rudimentary fact checking. It says a lot when even The National Enquirer-hardly a paragon of virtuous journalism-refuses to publish a story because the facts don’t check out:

http://www.zimbio.com/Michael+Jackson/articles/V49n4TgZkQO/National+Enquire+refused+Michael+Jackson+Bodyguard

In fact, reading his latest vituperative outpouring, it seems he’s gotten so caught up in getting things “off his chest” that he’s completely forgotten that somewhere in all of this, it was supposed to be all about Blanket. Well, no, it was never about Blanket. It’s always been about Matt Fiddes. He also seems to be so caught up in his vendetta that he’s forgotten it is possible for most of his stories to be checked out. You see, there is something that became obvious to me after reading this second interview, which I won’t bother linking to because it’s garbage and The Sun does not deserve more hits and profit off of slandering a dead man.  In fact, I suspected this after reading the first article. The giveaway was when he mentioned the “needle marks” that Michael, according to him, tried to pass off as spider bites. Well, here is the problem with that story. Anyone who knows much about Michael knows that this was a popular tabloid story and rumor that started in 2002 when a series of “shocking” photos were released after he had failed to appear in court (this was during the breach of contract case for a series of millenium concerts) and then later appeared on cruthes, claiming he had suffered a spider bite. The story got a lot of press, of course, as stories about Michael always did. And, as usual, the media were jumping to their own conclusions, aided by associates like Marc Schaffel who were also only too willing to sell out:

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1459053/michael-jackson-skips-court-due-spider-bite.jhtml

http://www.contactmusic.com/news/jacksons-spider-bite-was-caused-by-heroin-injection—report_1109288

In his book My Friend Michael, Frank Cascio said that the wound was indeed caused by a needle injection that was ripped out, but guess what! It was from a vitamin infusion, and the “accident” occurred when Michael tried to get up from bed and fell. I don’t believe Frank was just whitewashing the incident, since obviously, he didn’t whitewash other incidents he relates in the book. Therefore, I am more inclined to believe his version is credible. Perhaps Michael was embarrassed about the real cause of the wound; perhaps wisely, he knew he could not just say to the press, “Oh, by the way, yes, this happened because, you see, I did have a needle injected, but it was only for vitamins…” This was Michael Jackson. Who would have believed it? Maybe in his mind, the spider bite story was more palatable.

Anyway, that is neither really here nor there for my purpose at the moment (perhaps another blog for another time). My reason for bringing it up now is because, while Fiddes mentions this incident, he offers absolutely no insight into it; no details beyond the information that is known from those tabloid stories and published accounts. You would think someone who was with Michael and supposedly such a good friendwould have more insight and more details to offer than just what any person reading those 2002 stories could come up with. (Oh, but that’s right; none of Michael’s real friends had even heard of this guy until a couple of years ago!).

But this is an amazingly consistent pattern with everything Matt Fiddes has claimed in his Sun interviews. These are all, without exception, combinations of various tabloid stories-none of which offer any additional depth or insight from the original hit pieces. In fact, in most cases, his details and timelines are so far off as to be laughable. But one thing becomes apparent very quickly: Matt Fiddes, whose one claim to fame with Michael Jackson was holding his umbrella in 2001 during Michael’s speech at Oxford, knows no more about Michael Jackson than you or me. His “education” has come from the same sources as many of us-i.e, the tabloids. Actually, I am doing most fans a disservice, since we actually do far more research than either Fiddes or The Sun.

His latest interview is nothing but rehashes of old tabloid stories that were stale ten years ago. And now, having read both pieces, I’ve come to the conclusion that my initial hunch was correct. While piggybacking off the fact that he had a brief association with Michael and the Jackson family, he is simply peddling combinations of every tabloid story about Michael he has ever read, trusting that the gullible won’t remember these stories and that he will be able to convince them that he is revealing “shocking” new info.

And even the stuff he seems to think is supposed to somehow vindicate Michael is hardly even newsworthy, nor especially revelatory. And in fact, some of it is downright laughable.

For example, this:

And the chart-topper desperately tried to BED Pamela Anderson months before his death — after becoming obsessed with her fake breasts and plastic surgery

Most Believed That This Mysterious Man In A Mask, Seen With Pamela Anderson In 2008, Was Michael

But this was a 2008 tabloid story (which Fiddes admits in the article)-long after Fiddes was out of Michael’s life. Not only that, but it’s a story that has been common knowledge FOR YEARS.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/michael-jacksons-secret-dates-with-pamela-333380

In fact, the rumors that Pam was dating Michael were so prevalent that Pamela herself had to confront them in this interview with Ellen:

Now let’s have a look at a typical Matt Fiddes statement that is supposed to be sooooooo shocking and revealing about Michael Jackson:

Matt said that in the last years of his life Jacko had a bizarre sexual fantasy involving Pamela Anderson.

Okay, first of all, tell me what redblooded man out there HASN’T had a sexual fantasy about Pamela Anderson, bizarre or otherwise!

“He became absolutely besotted with her after seeing her boobs and all the rest on Baywatch. He used to say she was like a ‘work of art’ and an ‘angel sculpture sent from heaven’.”

I about sprayed my computer screen, I was laughing so hard at this one! So are we supposed to be shocked that Michael, like a thousand other men, would be “besotted” watching Pamela’s boobs on Baywatch?

The superstar also had a “huge stash” of porn in his wardrobes at Neverland.

Again, this is hardly news, as this information pretty much became common knowledge after the 2003 raid on Neverland and the trial in 2005. No one past 2003 would have had to have had access to Michael’s private quarters at Neverland to know this. In fact, all they have to do is google. This is the most comprehensive list I’ve found:

http://lacienegasmiled.wordpress.com/2010/02/15/michael-jacksons-porn/

My whole point is that there is nothing revealed in Fiddes’ interview that hasn’t already, at some point, been written about, discussed, and in some cases, thoroughly dissescted in the press. Simply put, Fiddes’ “stories” are not original facts at all, but rather,  information he has simply read through the years like the rest of us and has cobbled together to make a patchwork quilt hit piece.

Another obvious lie is his story about Michael’s snake, Madonna:

Michael Checks Out Madonna's Rear View

Dipping back into the dirty water for a second, this is what Matt Fiddes said about Michael, Madonna, and a certain snake:

But the tormented star DESPISED Madonna. Matt said: “Michael hated Madge so much because he saw her as his direct competition. He once stopped off to buy a boa constrictor snake when I was with him in London. He said, ‘I’m naming this after Madonna because she’s poison’.”

Again, this is not exactly a bombshell since it’s pretty much known that Michael and Madonna had a weird love-hate on-again, off-again thing with each other for years. However, I don’t think it stemmed so much from jealousy as whatever went down privately between them during those first few dates they had:

“I think she (Madonna) likes shock value and she knows how to push buttons on people. I think she was sincerely in love with me and I was not in love with her. She did a lot of crazy things. I knew we had nothing in common.-Michael Jackson to Schmuley Boteach.

Newsday, April 18, 1991Are Madonna and Michael Jackson up to the kissing stage yet? As unbelievable as it may seem, we hear Madonna has confided (OK, blabbed) that she and Jackson “suck face,” but that’s as far as their relationship goes.

http://mjfa.forumotion.com/t1372p30-1991-madonna

 But what about the snake Madonna?

Matt said: “Michael hated Madge so much because he saw her as his direct competition. He once stopped off to buy a boa constrictor snake when I was with him in London. He said, ‘I’m naming this after Madonna because she’s poison’.”

However, let’s back up here. Matt Fiddes did not even know Michael until the early 2000′s. Yet I had distinctly recalled seeing a photo of Michael and some children at Neverland with a pet snake named Madonna in the early 90′s.  And here is a passage from Lisa D. Campbell’s The King of Pop’s Darkest Hour, which not only confirms that Michael had a snake named Madonna long before Fiddes ever knew Michael, but also explains why the snake was named Madonna (an explanation that has nothing to do with poison):

More info on Michael’s snake Madonna, which backs up that she was an albino python, and not a boa constrictor at all. Unless there were two pet snakes named Madonna at two different times, somone is lying big time!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/michael-jackson/7843202/Michael-Jacksons-menagerie.html

Here Michael Is Shown With A Group Of Kids And His Albino Python Named Madonna In June of 1993...LONG Before Fiddes' Claim That He Bought A Boa Constrictor He Named Madonna In Early 2000's!

However, it appears that the real source of Fiddes’ story about the snake named Madonna is this old Globe story from 2002. All he has done, it seems, is to recycle an old tabloid story from a decade ago-and conveniently insert himself into it!

http://popdirt.com/jacko-hates-madonna-names-snake-after-her/11195/

So, is this a statement on how desperate the Sun has become, that they are paying good money now for recycled tabloid stories from their competitors?

It’s also completely feasible that, with Michael’s crazy sense of humor, any remark about a snake being named Madonna “because she’s poison” could have also been a joke-a joke that Fiddes is now trying to take out of context. There is no way to know for sure, but one fact we do know: Michael had a snake named Madonna LONG before the time Fiddes claims to have been with him when he purchased a snake named Madonna in London, and besides, pythons are not poisonous!

Not to mention, I believe he is submitting obviously photoshopped pics of himself and Michael to make it look like they had more contact than they actually did. I could be wrong, but something about this one just looks “off” to me:

And, of course, those claims regarding Spielberg and the voodoo doll nonsense come straight out of Maureen Orth’s Vanity Fair fantasy piece.  You can read more about the origins of that particular story here:

http://vindicatemj.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/fact-checking-michael-jacksons-christian-faith-part-4-of-6-so-called-christians-who-have-lied-against-michael/

The bottom line is that it seems very obvious that there isn’t one original idea, thought or experience that Matt Fiddes is bringing to this interview. So if he lacks credibility on the small issues, how much credibility does he really have with the larger issues, such as Blanket’s paternity and the accusations of anti-semitism?

More on that next time. In the meantime, I’ll just add one closing thought. It seems a pity that if Matt Fiddes’ one and (I firmly believe) only encounter with Michael Jackson was to stand beside him as he delivered his powerful speech at Oxford in March of 2001, that he couldn’t seem to remember one word of that speech to use in his interviews. If this guy had ever been a true friend at all, THAT is the little-known side of Michael he would want to share with the world.

But here is the truth. That day in March of 2001, while Michael delivered his rousing speech about the importance of love and forgiveness, a snake stood at his side.

It was poison, but its name wasn’t Madonna.

Although This Pic Is An Obvious Photoshop, It Nevertheless Shows The Amazing Physical Resemblance Between Father And Son

I had hoped back in 2010 that I had addressed Matt Fiddes for the last time, but since this bad fly that Michael allowed into his life (however briefly) refuses to buzz away, here we are again. By the way, is it any wonder that Fiddes just happens to be good friends-as in BFF good friends-with Uri Geller, the snake responsible for bringing Martin Bashir into Michael’s life? Boy, Fiddes and Geller, what a great pair!

Well, this might be a good time to reprint that article I did in 2010, along with some updates on Mr. Fiddes that might be of interest to those who want to look past The Sun and The Daily Mail-and any other rag that chooses to pay this man for more lies.

And If You're One Of Those Who Thinks Blanket Only "Sort Of" Looks Like Post-Vitiligo, Post-Surgery Michael (As I've Heard Some Claim), Then Check Out THIS Composite Photo of Blanket And Michael As A Child...The Resemblance When Compared To Michael's natural Features Is Even More Uncanny!

But first, I want to go back to this piece I wrote in 2010 because the reason I wrote this piece in the first place was due to an explosive discovery I had made while reading through some rare documents sent to me by a reader. Admittedly, this info has not been verified, but the fact that at least two independent sources in 1996 and 1997 reported it is enough to lend some weight to the claims. What was reported at the time was that Michael and Debbie Rowe had signed a prenuptial agreement-and all references to that agreement also mention that a DNA test was performed to determine Michael’s biological paternity of Prince!  At a time when the media and tabloids were far more concerned over Michael’s financial arrangement with Debbie Rowe, rather than the issue of paternity, this information regarding the alleged paternity test seemed to go completely under the radar.

However, you might ask: How is this information relevant to Matt Fiddes, who is claiming to be the biological father of Blanket? Well, for one simple reason. If there exists proof that Michael is, in the fact, the biological father of Prince (the child who, in my opinion, physically resembles him the least) then common sense should dictate that this makes an even weaker case for Fiddes, who is claiming to be the biological father of the child who resembles Michael the most.

First, let’s revisit what I had to say on this issue in 2010, and that mystery DNA test:

A Few Words (Again) On The Paternity Issue: Could A 1996 Tabloid Story Hold The Key To The Truth?

A DNA Test Reportedly Done In 1996 COULD Hold The Key To Shutting The Doubters Up. But Just Look At Michael’s Face Here! Do We Really Need “Proof” That He Is These Kids’ Father?

First of all, I think everyone knows by now where I stand on this issue. As I’ve said time and again, it makes no sense to indulge in all of these wild speculations about who is the father of Michael Jackson’s children. He said himself he is their biological father. Debbie Rowe, the woman who carried and gave birth to both of the older children, said he is the biological father (and she should know better than anyone!). And although the identity of Blanket’s mother remains a mystery, Michael is listed on the birth certificate as the paternal father.

http://dna-paternity-test-dallas.com/?p=23

Of course, the speculation continues as to whether Blanket’s mother was a woman Michael had an actual relationship with, or if she was simply a paid surrogate. In the Martin Bashir documentary (pardon me, “crock”umentary) Michael says that Blanket was conceived via a surrogate mother and “my own sperm cells.” I find his word choice interesting, since he doesn’t say “my sperm” but “my sperm cells” which, to me, does lend credence to the idea of an in vitro fertilization. However, I do believe absolutely Michael knew who Blanket’s mother was, just as he knew who Debbie was. I think he chose to protect her identity and to shield her from the kind of media scrutiny that Debbie has been subjected to. Anyway, I will get back to the issue of Blanket’s mother and her possible identity-which is a whole other can of worms-in another blog. But I can say this much: I do believe it was a real relationship. And even though it may be fun to speculate, in the end, we have to respect his reasons for wanting to keep this part of his life private.

Debbie and Michael talk about the nature of their relationship and their decision to have children in this video:

ETA: When I wrote this article in October of 2010, Frank Cascio’s book My Friend Michael hadn’t yet been published. In that book, Frank Cascio claims that Michael never had an intimate relationship with Debbie, and that Prince and Paris were both conceived in vitro. He also states that Blanket’s mother was an Italian surrogate that he helped Michael choose from a catalog. I know how strongly some fans feel about Frank Cascio; nevertheless, he undenibaly was a close friend of Michael’s and I tend to believe most of his account is true-there are, of course, some things I take with a grain of salt. But when all is said and done, it really doesn’t matter if it was a natural or in vitro conception-either way, it would still make Michael the absolute biological father of his children, and that is the real issue at stake. Not meaning to sound crude, but frankly, I really could care less if Michael “put it in her” or not. But it would be kind of nice to be able to put this issue to rest for once and for all, so that vultures like Fiddes can crawl back under the rocks they came from.

The fact is, I cannot say with certainty that Michael’s children were conceived naturally or in vitro. But I can say with a 99.9% degree of conviction that they are his children-and yes, I do mean biologically. And I say this because, simply as I’ve stated before, it makes more sense to take the man at his word and the word of the woman who gave birth to those kids, than it does to buy into all these crazy, unproven theories and tabloid stories about all of these alleged sperm donors. It strikes me as peculiarly odd that in all of these stories you read-whether it’s Arnie Klein’s claims, or Mark Lester’s, or now Matt Fiddes’s-no one ever seems to raise the question, “But wait a minute, what was wrong with Michael medically that he seemed to think he was infertile?” Hmm. It is interesting that the question is never asked, and no one ever attempts an answer. (ETA: Well, until this latest Sun article, at least, although it’s an “explanation” I’m not buying, and will explain why).

You know why? Because they don’t know. And if they were pressed hard enough, they would be forced to admit it.

But somehow, it is so easy to get the public to swallow these stories. Well, here’s why. It is because after twenty-five years (that’s a quarter of a century!) of feeding the public the notion that Michael was “so” weird, asexual, gay, whatever label thay wanted to hang on him, it would be easy enough to make people think he was this gay/asexual/emasculated man incapable of reproducing and/or who abhorred the idea of sex with a woman so vehemently that he would resort to whatever crazy measures necessary to conceive children. Trust me, if they thought they could sell a story of Michael as a mad scientist creating his children in a laboratory, Dr. Frankenstein-style, they would do it in a heartbeat (in a way, they have already).

“You look like a woman who needs to hook up and have some fun. You look like a woman who needs to hook up with me!”-Michael Jackson to Lisa Marie Presley

But none of these notions jibe with the facts. We know that Michael was married twice. It is pretty well a given now that Michael and Lisa did have a sexual relationship-a hot one, at that, according to Lisa. Even Taraborelli has finally come around and conceded to that fact. We also pretty much know that Lisa’s refusal to have children was one of the breaking points of their marriage. So it also begs the question: If Michael was trying so hard to impregnate her, and so furious after finding out she had lied to him about being on the pill, and all of this because he wanted his own kids so bad…why would he then want to rush out and ask all of his male friends for sperm? And I’m willing to buy that he had sex with Debbie, even if it wasn’t the same kind of love he might have had for Lisa. Anyone who doesn’t believe that a man and a woman who are “just good friends” can’t also have a sexual relationship needs to take up residence with Peter Pan and the Easter bunny. Because it does happen, and a lot more often than people might think.

And as most of us are learning, he also had many other relationships, many of which we’ll probably never know the whole truth about, but that’s okay. Michael was a private person, most of these relationships were with non-famous women, and it’s really no one’s business (even if, albeit, it is fun playing detective to try to figure out who they are, as I’ll be the first to confess).

And given the fact that he had over 1800 images of nude women in his porn collection, I think we can safely assume he was definitely “into” that sort of thing.

This would leave a medical issue as the only reasonable explanation. But so far, nothing has surfaced that would seem to support the idea of medical infertility (Update: Fiddes is now trying to claim that Michael was impotent due to alcohol and drug abuse. Well, just be patient; I will address that issue when I rebutt his latest nonsense ramblings in The Sun).  According to his autopsy report, he was producing sperm. Granted, producing sperm still does not necessarily mean a man is fertile. Conditions such as low sperm count can still affect fertility. Also, certain medications can affect fertility. For example, many anti-psychotic, anti-depressent, anti-anxiety, high blood pressure medications, and medications used to treat prostate hypertrophy can cause a male condition known as retrograde ejaculation, in which a man may experience orgasm, but no semen is ejaculated. Instead, the ejaculate flows into the bladder, to be released as urine rather than an ejaculation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrograde_ejaculation

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/retrograde-ejaculation/DS00913

In short, a man who experiences retrograde ejaculation may be able to experience a fully satisfactory sex life in all regards but one…he will be infertile, until and unless the condtion is corrected. It is known that Michael was on a lot of medications due to his various (and very real) health problems, including lupus. Is it possible that his fertility could have been impeded by some of them?

The answer is, well…theoretically, it’s possible. But anything is possible if you take that approach.

Now, I’m just throwing that out there because one has to be somewhat aware of the possibilities before one can just debunk them out of hand. Given how reticent Michael was about his health issues-he did not even wish to discuss his vitiligo publicly-it might make sense to assume that if he did have a medical problem that affected his fertility, he would not want the whole world to know it.  This would certainly not make me think any less of him as a human being, nor any less of him as the father of his children.

But my point is that we can’t just assume things if there is no basis in fact. And the facts, as far as we know, are this:

Michael Jackson had three children, two by his wife; one by an unknown, or secret, mother.

Michael Jackson was a straight male who loved women.

Michael Jackson had no known medical conditions or fertility issues.

Michael Jackson desperately wanted his own children. If he was the sort of father who was content merely to “play daddy” with someone else’s children, he would have been perfectly content playing stepfather to Lisa Marie’s other two children, and wouldn’t have been pressuring her so hard to have his babies-to the point that it broke up their marriage. As has been pointed out before, it makes no sense that he would break up his own marriage over this very issue, and then run out and solicit sperm donations from all his friends to impregnate another woman.

Michael Jackson, with all due love and respect, had a very big ego. Do you honestly think he woud’ve been content with the product of another man’s loins, if there was any way in hell he could have his own? I don’t think so.

For all the above reasons, I choose to take the sane path and to believe that Michael is the father of his children in every way, including by blood. I will believe this until such time as more convincing evidence proves otherwise

The fact is that there simply isn’t one viable explanation as to why Michael wouldn’t want his own biological children, and not one viable reason why he couldn’t have them. But as people always say, it doesn’t matter either way because Michael was their father and he gave them all the love and care they needed.

It’s Funny That The Tabloids Will Show You Photos Like These, Comparing Blanet To Matt Fiddes…

However, with the Matt Fiddes story once again raising the question of the paternity issue and making it a hot topic, it seemed as good a time as any to address the issue. We can say it doesn’t matter because Michael was the children’s father regardless, and we can continue to say that until we are blue in the face. But that isn’t going to stop these ridiculous friends and these ridiculous stories from circulating, and yes, it gets annoying. It gets under my skin because, to me, it harkens back to everything that is wrong about how the media has portrayed Michael Jackson and how they are continuing to perpetuate a myth about him that is not based in reality, and as always, aided and abetted by his unscrupulous “friends” and associates who are all too ready to either get their hands on the kids’ fortune, or simply to have their fifteen minutes of fame.

….But They’ll Never Show You Pics Like This…

Does anyone else find it interesting that, in all of these stories circulating about Matt Fiddes, he continues to deny any intention of getting a DNA test? Well, duh, I wonder why that could be. Maybe because he knows a DNA test would reveal his story as baloney, and he would have to then crawl back under the rock he came from?

Well, this is where it gets interesting. Because although the tabloids are evil and we all know how Michael felt about them, and how he told us we should feel about them, sometimes if you know what to look for, they can be quite enlightening. Why? For the same reasons that an anti-MJ book like All That Glitters can actually serve in many uintentional ways to prove Michael’s innocence (as our researcher friend Dave Edwards has been doing such a great job of proving) it can also be true of the tabloids. You see, the tabloids love to have their cake and eat it, too. They love to think they can produce these ridiculous stories and no one will catch on to their contradictions, or that an old story from a decade ago will be conveniently forgotten by their readers.

…Or This. Now Come On, Who Do You Think This Kid REALLY Looks Like?

Let us, for a minute, go back to 1996. Michael’s children have yet to be born, so the tabloid world has yet to realize that-gasp!-his first child will come out looking more “white” than “black.” (And no matter how you slice it, that has been the whole root cause of the controversy and speculation. If Prince and Paris had come out with dark skin and curly, Afro hair I guarantee you this would have all been a moot point from the get-go. Never mind that if they had come out with those features, it could have just as easily meant that another black man besides Michael was their dad). In late 1996, Debbie has already lost her first child by Michael, and is pregant with Prince Michael I. The tabloid world hasn’t yet caught on that in a few years hence, it will be fashionable to doubt Michael’s paternity of these children. They haven’t yet caught on that the last thing they want to do is publish any stories that might actually prove he is the biological father, because for the moment they are too caught up in the novelty of Michael Jackson being a dad and the guaranteed headlines the story will generate.

Flynn Earl Jones, Son Of James Earl Jones

Rashida Jones, Daughter Of Quincy Jones

No, the Big Question of the day is not whether Michael is the father, but the nature of his “arrangement” with Debbie Rowe and, more importantly for the tabloids’ sake, How Much Did He Pay?

Michael And Blanket. Father And Son. End Of Story.

It was in the midst of this atmosphere, when certain news outlets and the tabloids were more concerned with the “Capitalist Values Run Amock”  angle of his fatherhood story and how much money he had paid than they were with the paternity issue, that a little story began circulating that might bear a closer look now, in hindsight. The story was first broken by The Daily Mirror, was then picked up by The Associated Press, and appeared as a mention in several other outlets that were reporting on an alleged prenuptial agreement that would guarantee him exlusive rights to the unborn child should they divorce. It’s probably worth mentioning here that prenuptial agreements are a fact of life in the entertainment business, and practically all celebrity couples have them. It makes sense. After all, for celebrity couples, there are millions at stake if the marriage dissolves, not to mention the often sticky issues of property and other assets. I would say for children to be the subject of a prenuptial agreement is unusual, but not unlikely, considering that the children were really the whole reason for the marriage to begin with. Michael and Debbie both were always very open and honest in that regard. If you listent to their interviews, they both acknowledge that the whole basis of their arrangement was so that she could bear him children,and the children were to be an essential element of this arrangement. This is an excerpt from a website debunking the myths regarding prenuptial agreements:

Debunking the Myths about Prenuptial Agreements

Excerpts from Prenups for Lovers

Misinformation and lack of information have given prenuptial agreements a bad name. A prenuptial agreement is often seen as cold and calculating, cynical and sinister, even as a prescription for divorce. But a well-drafted prenuptial agreement can make your marriage stronger, more caring and more carefree. The book debunks dozens of myths about prenuptial agreements. Here are a few:

Myth #1

A prenuptial agreement says, “I don’t love you, I don’t trust you.”

Reality: In a prenuptial agreement, you are open and honest with your partner about money and other matters. You don’t keep any secrets. The nub of a prenup is disclosure of all your assets and liabilities to your partner in a net worth statement and resolution of financial matters.

You also have an opportunity to grapple with lifestyle issues. When you’re planning the rest of your life with another human being, you’re supposed to share your hopes, dreams, demons and doubts. Unmet expectations are a major source of marital breakdown.

A prenuptial agreement provides the vehicle and impetus for full disclosure and discussion of what you and your partner expect from the marriage in both personal and financial arenas. In sum, in a prenuptial agreement you tell your partner everything. You broach delicate and private topics; you tell each other secrets and expose your vulnerabilities. It’s an opportunity to work out your differences. You bare your soul and express an abiding love and trust for one another. What could be more romantic?…

But if these prenuptial stories are to be believed, it also means something else. It means that in 1996, Michael did have a DNA test to determine his paternity, because reference to this alleged DNA test is made in all the stories about the prenuptial agreement.  Interestingly (perhaps conveniently) enough, most of the the original sources of this information seem to have disappeared, and perhaps but for the quick actions of a few vigilant fans who managed to find and save this info, it might have vanished completely off the face of the ‘net. The information that I’m repeating here came from another board, from a poster who in turn got it from another board, so it is what it is and I’m not pretending this is rocket science research here. But these were all from verifiable articles that were actually printed in ’96 and ’97.

This was from The Associated Press, as per the Daily Mirror story, in 1996:

Michael Jackson agrees to pay off mother of his child

The Associated Press
LONDON – After DNA tests confirmed that he is the father, Michael Jackson signed a multimillion-dollar deal with his pregnant wife, a British newspaper said.

Under the headline “Jacko Buys His Baby,”The Daily Mirror reported Friday that Debbie Rowe would be paid $1.25 million when the child is born, and $280,000 a year after that for as long as the couple is together.

Citing an unidentified source, the newspaper said Jackson would pay Rowe $2.3 million if…

Published on 1996-12-22, Page A12, The Kansas City Star

And from another source:

Michael Jackson: The Performer Vs. the Person

Back in 1997 I published a newspaper editorial in San Diego’s North County Times (02/09/97) on the details of a postnuptial contract he ordered his attorneys to write up for him. It was to provide him with exclusive rights to his not-yet-born child should he split up with Debbie Rowe (his “nominal” wife at the time). My article wasn’t simply about Michael, but about the excesses of our capitalistic system, which seemed to permit traditional ethical values to simply be “bought out” at the right price.

JACKSON’S BABY DEAL AN EXAMPLE OF CAPITALIST VALUES RUN AMOK

I read in your paper recently that Michael Jackson had signed a multimillion-dollar deal to purchase outright (if need be) his own offspring. Assured through DNA testing that his wife-of-convenience, Debbie Rowe, is in fact carrying his baby, he has reportedly had his attorneys fashion a contract wherein should the marriage deteriorate and the two of them split up, he would obtain exclusive rights to the child. In this (not at all unlikely) event, his wife has allegedly agreed–for the tidy compensation of $2.3 million–”never to see the child again.”

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/200906/michael- jackson-the-performer-vs-the-person

(Note: the link above no longer works)

This is all very interesting because if such a DNA test ever took place, there has to be a record of it somewhere, though given the confidentiality of most medical records, it would probably be well nigh impossible to obtain. You would think that as clever as the tabloids are, they would have paid someone off by now to disclose it. But of course, they probably wouldn’t want to do that now,  since they’ve gone to such great lengths over the past decade to convince the public that Michael was practically a eunich (unless his sexual exploits in question involved little boys, at which point, as far as the media was concerned, he miraculously grew a penis)  and that there’s no way he could possibly be  the biological father of his own children.

Well, guys, I hate to break it to you, but it doesn’t work both ways. In the late 90′s, you had Michael as an opportunistic capitalist who would go so far as to have a DNA test to prove the child he had “bought” was his. In 2010, you want us to believe he was soliciting sperm donations from every male friend in sight.

Which is it?

The Jacksons. Not Exactly The Cleavers…But What Family Is?

I certainly think the DNA test and even the prenuptial agreement are quite plausible, and casting aside the shadow that these tabloid writers tried to paint over it, I think it makes perfect sense. With that much at stake, Michael wanted to make sure the child Debbie was carrying was indeed his, which makes perfect sense to me. Michael had learned early not to trust the motives of anyone when it came to money, and perhaps if any such prenuptial agreement and test was done, it was wise on his part to do so. People can say what they want, but the man was no dummy.

He went into this arrangement with Debbie with one purpose in mind, and that was to have children. I think it makes perfect sense that he would want to make sure he wasn’t getting hoodwinked, and if that sounds callous to the average person who has no idea what life is like when you’re a celebrity and especially if you’re Michael Jackson, then so be it.

But it also means something else, too. It just might mean there is concrete evidence, after all, that Michael Jackson is indeed the father of his children. In every sense of the word. Of course, the tabloids will never tell you-NOW-that they ever admitted that fact.

Now that brings us to the present:

Before I say anything further, let me just point out that this website, Et Tu, Brutus, is already doing an EXCELLENT job of debunking most of the garbage that Matt Fiddes has been spewing (not just debunking; ripping it shreds is more like it!). I can’t attempt to top what these guys have already done so well, and so much better, and am not going to even try. They have been working non-stop to compile all of the Matt Fiddes-related info (i.e, “lies”) in one convenient place:

http://youtoobrutus.wordpress.com/2012/04/19/matt-fiddes-michael-jackson-lies-over-blankets-biology/

But just some of the juicy tidbits their excellent detective work has unearthed:

*Most of Michael’s closest friends and other bodyguards who worked with him had never heard of this guy!

*In the past, this guy has already sold NUMEROUS tabloid stories regarding Michael and/or the Jackson family, some of which have now been admitted, by Fiddes himself, to have been bogus! (In fact, this looooooooong list of tabloid stories sold by this guy will have to be seen to be believed!).

*His story regarding the “conception” of Blanket has changed so many times, and with so many details varied, that it will make your head spin!

*A history of frivolous lawsuits and forged documents, the latter of which may possibly include the docs he “claims” revealed him to be the father.

*A bombshell from ex girlfriend Carly Galliford, who claims via her tweets that Fiddes admitted to her the whole story about Blaket was a “money making scheme.”

Michael and Whitney. Friends, Yes. Lovers? Possibly. But I'm Not Convinced

* Although some of the more romantic among us might like to BELIEVE that Michael had a love affair with Whitney Houston, the timlelines of this alleged affair simply don’t add up. David Gest has also made statements regarding an alleged romance between Michael and Whitney, but it’s interesting that NEITHER of these stories surfaced until AFTER Whitney’s death-and only after neither party can confirm or deny the claims. It’s not that I wouldn’t love to believe it. It’s that I simply don’t. Michael and Whitney were good friends, and I believe that is where it begins and ends. And, yes, I believe Michael had a lot of girlfriends. I just don’t think Whitney was one of them. Whitney’s physical interest was in Jermaine, not Michael. I’m also not sure how trying to claim a fake relationship with Whitney Houston is somehow supposed to clear Michael’s name of the molesation allegations. I “get” the logic of trying to prove he had straight relationships (which I’ve never questioned). But how convenient to drop Whitney’s name, who has just died, and whose name is bound to draw even more attention to this bogus story? I’m sure his publicist also had a handy-dandy part in scheming up that one. You can just hear how the plot was probably hatched: “The only way you’re going to keep crazy MJ fans from killing you over this story is to throw in something positive; something they’ll go for. I know just how we can do it…let’s throw in a romance with Whitney to “prove” he was a straight guy who had no interest in kids! Yeah, that should do it!”

* And, last but not least, in the most hilarious Fiddes contradiction of all, how the allegedly “infertile” Michael (um, you know, that guy who had to, like, beg all of his buds for their sperm) wanted to have his own sperm frozen so that his “life force” (am barely containing my laughter here) “could be around for hundreds of years and released at the flick of a switch.” Ooooohkayyy. So Michael, who was allegedly  too “infertile” and too “impotent” to produce his own biological children in the here and now-according to Fiddes- nevertheless believed he might be capable of populating the earth with his “life force” at some future point?

Honestly, I don’t know which Matt Fiddes “version” of Michael Jackson is more hilarious-or more bizarre! The impotent drug addict, or the egomaniac superstud! If Matt Fiddes can’t even make up his mind which it is, then how the heck should we?

This video also does a great job of compiling many of these same facts just discussed:

I’ll be doing a Part Two to this about mid-week, and will take a closer look at some of the other claims being made by Fiddes, such as Michael’s views on Semitism-already excellently rebuked on the Et Tu Brutus site, but I have some additional insights of my own that I want to add to this-some of which might surprise you, but I think they are necessary to understanding Michael’s true views on Semitism and rebuking the kind of nonsense being spouted by people like Fiddes for once and for all. (Update: I apologize, but it will probably be closer to this weekend before I can get the next post up). 

In the meantime, for sh*ts and giggles, here is a video clip of Matt Fiddes’ 1999 martial arts “extrvaganza” (link courtesy of Shelley, thanks!). Actually, to be totally fair, I’ve seen worse, I suppose. It’s not a bad MJ tribute…but MJ quality, it ain’t.

Anyway, knowing what we know now, any “tribute” from this man is bound to ring hollow.

The only thing I can say for Fiddes is that I’m sorry his mom has cancer…if she has cancer. (This guy has told so many lies, how does one know what to believe?). As to his claims that he has no interest in custody of Blanket, it really, really begs the question, then why is he doing this? The answer is simple. He’s hoping that eventually he can make enough stink that the family will pay him a huge settlement to make him go away. I guarantee you, if that were to happen, we won’t see or hear anymore of Matt Fiddes and his “concern” for Blanket ever again!

Michael said it best right here:

Some flies you can’t catch with sugar. You just gotta squash ‘em.

UPDATE (5/1/12): Well, guess who else Matt Fiddes is in cahoots with? None other than Terry George (you know,  Terry George of the notorious I-once-fantasized-about-having-phone-sex-with MJ-fame!). Boy, birds of a feather really do flock together, don’t they? Especially vultures. (Thanks, Shelley, for the find!):

Nothing Like A Classic MJ Pose To Go With Classic Allforloveblog!

Good news for all of you who have asked about the old Allforloveblog articles from back before the original site went down in February of 2011! The complete archives from November 2009 to February 2011 are now available. You can access them by clicking on the Old Allforloveblog.com link in the menu at right (or here):

http://old.allforloveblog.com/

These archives are only available in a “Read Only” format. You cannot comment on them, nor can I access them to make updates, so for example, if you discover that a link is broken and no longer working, I won’t be able to fix it, nor will I be able to update or correct anything (I cannot access the administrative board to the old site to make those kinds of changes).

You may notice that, in the earlier entries, all of the images will appear with their file titles. That was due to a glitch that occurred several months before the site went down, when a Word Press upgrade caused the earlier images to default to their file titles-again, I apologize, but it is not something I can correct currently. However, this only occurs in the earliest entries from November and December, 2009.  There may also be a few articles where the text and images did not re-format correctly. I have found a few like that, but thankfully, not too many. Other than that, everything looks fine as far as I can tell.

What I will probably do over the next few weeks and months is to reprint here any articles I find that need major updates or a format overhaul.

So if you just want a trip down memory lane, or have been looking for a particular piece that I’ve written in the past, or are new to Allforlove and want to catch up…well, it’s all there!

This is a great day! I finally feel, after all of the up’s and down’s I’ve been through with this site over the past year, that everything has finally come back together. While I was delighted to have the site back up and running as of last October, I still felt that, without my archives, a huge part of this site’s history here had been totally obliterated. Of course, I always knew the old content was safe. But at the same time, I knew it was as good as lost if I could no longer access it or allow others to access it. There were times when I wondered if all the months and months of hard work I had done had all been for nothing; if I would ever even be able to get these articles back. But now they are here.

I hope if you’re new to the site that you’ll take some time to look back through our HIStory. Its certainly been an amazing journey!

ETA: The concert downloads still work, too! Yay!

There often emerges a picture of Michael Jackson in the post-trial years as a wounded, broken man, wandering the world in exile; living a vagabond existence. Maybe that was part of the picture. Certainly the Michael Jackson that emerged from the post-trial era was very much a tragic hero in many ways. When the This Is It concerts were announced-and later, the film was released-many writers liked to romantically portray This Is It as Michael’s return to the saddle. It’s human nature, I suppose. Whenever an artist leaves us too soon, we always tend to look at their final project (especially if it was a project-in-progress) and think: What if?

Many critics were impressed with the suave, ultra cool and ultra in control artist they saw depicted in This Is It (as if it were some revelation to them that Michael had always been an artist ultimately in control of every aspect of production). I’m not quite sure what they were expecting. A spoiled diva? A basketcase? A puppet on a string?

At any rate, This Is It reminded many that Michael the artist had never left the building. While much of the world ridiculed him, he continued behind the scenes quietly doing what he had always done-writing and creating music.

As Michael stresses in the above video, he had never stopped working on music. Only three years before, he had told an incredulous Martin Bashir the same thing. But caught up in the desire to keep the “Wacko Jacko” spin going, most either ignored anything he had to say about music, or simply weren’t listening. Certainly we know that hearing new Michael Jackson music was the last thing on Martin Bashir’s mind-but sadly, Bashir wasn’t alone. Perhaps the world simply wasn’t ready yet.

The above video, labeled as Michael Jackson’s “last TV interview” isn’t exactly rare, but at the same time, hasn’t been in wide circulation, either. It is a very revealing glimpse of Michael The Artist, post-trial but still several years before This Is It, and we see him here exuding the same confidence and doing what he loves best. Also, we get to hear some more of his infamous musical direction (“Can you pump it more?”/”Make it hotter”/”Take away the shadows, I’m trying to look like I slept.” Even his fascination with a digital camera was lovingly captured.

Michael was clearly excited and enthusiatic about this project and the tracks he was working on with Will I Am; enough so that he was willing to share part of the process with the world. And perhaps it was important for him to get the message out to the public: I am still here; still strong; still invincible.

I still hope that one day we will get to hear these tracks, though not in some doctored up version, but simply as they were recorded.

Michael With The Chandlers At The World Music Awards In '93. The Little Girl Is Jordan's Sister Lily...And Notice Who Is Getting All The Attention Here? It Sure Ain't Jordie!

A few days ago, a story surfaced in The Sun that mentioned comments allegedly made by Jordan Chandler at the  Coachella music festival last weekend. Jordie, it seems, was among the festival’s many celebrity (or in this case, psuedo-celebrity) attendees. Here is a link to the article and what was reportedly said by writer and Sun entertainment editor Gordon Smart:

“But someone who did not want to be recognised was Jordan Chandler, who accused Michael Jackson of child abuse in 1993. He said he was keeping a low profile in case Jacko fans attacked him.”-Gordon Smart

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/article4259093.ece

I had an immediate, kneejerk response to the article that I posted on Facebook:

ON WACKO JACKO “I respected him when he was a proper artist before he started getting into all this cosmetic surgery shit. When he was in the Jackson Five, he was a genius. Now he’s just a fuckin’ freak, man.”-Gordon Smart

http://www.myspace.com/goagssmarty#

Eeks! And this is somone supposedly unbiased enough to be eligible to be a music critic and commentator? Oh yes, well, we’re talking The Sun here, whose standards of journalism aren’t exactly anything to be measured by. First of all, his personal tastes, if the bands he lists as favorites are any indication, are indicative of the typical, indie music snob whose fav artists are the ones oh-so-cool-our-sh**-don’t stink. But that’s beside the point; anyway, I happen to like Oasis, too, even if Lian Gallagher is an egotistical jerk, but that’s another subject for another time and place.

I could pick the above statement apart on so many levels it’s not even funny. First of all, Michael Jackson is the only artist mentioned on his page who doesn’t even get addressed by his respectful name, but by that horrid moniker (which Smart loves, as he NEVER passes up an opportunity to use it, even when writing supposedly balanced articles about Michael’s latest music releases). Secondly, what does cosmetic surgery (regardless of whether you believe Michael had a lot of it or not) have to do with being a “proper” artist? Last time I checked, cosmetic surgery doesn’t change one’s talent! Thirdly, I wouldn’t exactly call Michael’s Jackson 5 years as the apex of his musical genius, considering those were the years in which he had the LEAST creative control and input.

A quick google search, in fact, can quickly reveal the pattern of hate filled (or at the very least, snark-filled) articles that Smart has churned out about Michael Jackson over the years. There is even one gem where he completely picked apart Michael’s beautiful memorial service as a “macabre circus.”

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/bizarre/2523526/Michael-Jackson-memorial-was-like-a-macabre-circus.html

Truthful Words Spoken At Michael's Memorial Service Made Haters Like Gordon Smart Squirm

Of course, he wasn’t the only journalist left squirming uncomfortably by the many truths that were spoken that day for the world to hear, but in reading his piece, I was struck by the especial vitriol that he seemed to take such pleasure in spouting, including the following:

Taking children to a funeral is one of the most difficult decisions a parent will ever have to make.

 

But the King of Pop’s young daughter speaking as the climax of the memorial just wasn’t right. (Hmm, one has to ask why…because her loving words humanized her father?)

 

Paris didn’t look comfortable and more importantly, capable, of doing it. (Yes, dimwit, she looked uncomfortable because she was an 11-year-old, grieving child at the time, not some polished actress! It was the very artlessness, the genuine emotion of her speech, that gave it the impact that it had. Had she come out all suave, polished and confident, a big stink would have been made of that as well! But no, an 11-year-old kid at her father’s memorial isn’t expected to be, or supposed to be, suave, polished, and confident! Good grief. )

 

As the family gathered on stage I was surprised to see the children being paraded in front of a gold coffin holding the remains of their beloved father. (Um, isn’t it customary at most memorials or funeral services for the family to walk past the coffin? At least, it has always been so at all that I have attended!).

Or how about this?

It wasn’t the time or the place for REV AL SHARPTON to be preaching about Michael’s good work for black people. (And if not at his memorial service-a time when it is fitting and appropriate to address all of the accomplishments of a deceased person’s life-then, pray tell, when in the world WOULD it be the “right time and place” to address that issue?).

Or Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee to be reminding us all you are “innocent until proven guilty” under the American constitution. (No, you didn’t want to hear this, Mr. Smart, because just like so many of your cohorts who particpated in Michael’s public lynching, you didn’t want to be made to feel uncomfortable or guilty-after all, you were doing your civic duty by taking a few hours out of your life to watch the memorial and pay tribute to a “once upon a time” music genius, and by golly, let’s all stay focused on that so that we don’t have to think about all the other stuff he went through).

In both cases, there have been rumors of Jordan’s and Gavin’s “confessions” but never anything substantial that can be confirmed. It is always, without fail, unsubstantiated, off the record remarks from acquaintances (i.e, ex-girlfriends and the like) who, for all we know, may have their own personal axes to grind with these young men. In Gavin’s case, I think he has been pretty much completely brainwashed by his extended “family” and there is not much hope for him:

http://www.allforloveblog.com/?p=5432

Jordan, however, has always been for me a much murkier case. Partly because I think his real feelings for Michael, if we go back in time to ’92 and early ’93,before things got ugly, were much deeper and more genuine than Gavin’s. I think he had more to lose emotionally-and was scarred deepest. There is a part of me that pities Gavin Arvizo, the 13-year-old cancer victim; the kid who couldn’t help being born to a scamming, extortionist mother; the kid who was genuinely hurt and puzzled when Michael, who had paid for his expensive cancer treatments, suddenly began to back off and distance himself from Gavin (all of which I have well documented in past blogs). But once that little boy’s heart had hardened, oh boy did it ever! I can certainly feel sorry for the child Gavin who was too young to understand that Michael had to distance himself emotionally and physically from this family for his own peace of mind. But I have no sympathy for the man Gavin Arvizo, who is now old enough to realize that his childish act of revenge ruined a man’s life. And it’s even difficult to feel sympathy for Gavin the child when you hear things such as how concerned he was that his friends at school were accusing him of being Michael Jackson’s boyfriend. I understand how cruel kids can be-and how intense peer pressure can be at that age-but in all honesty, if this was the man who had saved MY life from cancer, do you think I would have cared one fig what some snot nosed kids at school had to say about him? No; if I’d been Gavin, I would have punched their lights out and been done with! End of story.

Anyway, in both cases, Jordan and Gavin were scarred long before Michael Jackson came into their lives. In Jordan’s case, especially, I think his friendship with Michael was probably the only bright spot in an otherwise troubled childhood-certainly, he was probably the closest Jordan ever had to a positive male figure and mentor in his life-his dad Evan was a bullying tyrant who even tried to kill him, and from what I’ve gathered, his stepdad David Schwartz wasn’t much better.

But again, I make the distinction between Jordan Chandler the child, and Jordan Chandler, the man.

These Photos That Surfaced In The Late 2000's Show A Pretty Healthy And Happy Jordan Chandler. If He Has Regrets, We'll Most Likely Never Know

A couple of years before Michael died, a very interesting piece was published on the floacist’s website entitled: Time Flies When You’re Living Off Of Michael Jackson’s Money, which was sympathetic towards Jordan, yet bluntly honest about his refusal to come forward with the truth:

http://floacist.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/time-flies-when-youre-living-off-of-michael-jacksons-money/

But Jordan didn’t care to do this in 2007, when it still could have made some difference in whether Michael lived or died (because I think his admission alone would have done wonders to heal Michael’s spirit, and who knows, had that happened, Michael might not have needed a lot of the other stuff just to keep going day to day!). He didn’t care to do it in June of 2009, when it might have made a crucial difference in how the world was reacting to Michael’s death, and when clearing Michael’s name should have been an utmost priority if he was ever going to make it one.  He didn’t even care to do it in November of 2009, after his father’s suicide should have freed him of any residual guilt or fear of the matter.

What reason do we have to think he ever will now?

My consensus is that Jordan and Gavin have both grown into adult men with hearts of stone.

There is no changing them, so for those of us who loved Michael-and whose hearts bleed for the injustice that was done to him-we have to stop looking for a miracle from these two, and instead look within ourselves to find the peace to forgive and move on (or maybe I should say, even if we can’t forgive, to at least move on). That doesn’t mean we have to stop seeking the truth, or speaking and writing the truth. It simply means we may have to accept the fact that these two players will never own up, and that if the whole truth comes out, it will not be because of these two, but in spite of them.

Over the last few weeks, I have been covering the life and works of Oscar Wilde in my Biritish Lit II class. I probably need not tell you that there are many, many uncanny parallels between what was done to Wilde, and similarly, what was done to Michael Jackson in this century. I am planning to do a multi-part series on this comparison very soon, but for our purposes today, I am thinking specifically of how Oscar Wilde’s turbulent relationship with Lord Alfred Douglas resulted directly in Wilde being sentenced to two years in prison (where he was forced to do hard labor and ultimately died as a result of an illness sustained in prison) whereas the ever-spoiled Douglas went on about his merry life and never seemed to express one iota of grief or remorse for his hand in Wilde’s downfall. In fact, when Wilde poured out  the depth of his feelings toward Douglas in a long, prison letter entitled De Profundis (“From the Depths”) Douglas, many years later when he was imprisoned for libeling Winston Churchill, blithely wrote a mocking piece entitled “From the Heights”-which showed just how flippantly he viewed Wilde’s anguished outpouring to him.

At some point, Wilde had to realize the futility of ever expecting Alfred Douglas to be more than what he knew him to be…a spoiled child who could not accept responsibility; who did not know the meaning of guilt; a narcissist who felt the whole world and all its problems revolved around only him-and that all others were to blame.

It would be left for history to restore Wilde’s legacy and reputation; not Alfred Douglas.

I think this is the same situation we are looking at when it comes to Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo.

I know a lot of fans who talk big behind the keyboard, just as a lot of haters do. They rant and rave against these two; they type in all caps. They say they will kill Jordan or Gavin if they ever see them. But it’s easy to vent frustration from behind a computer screen, and is no different, really, from all of the MJ haters who engage in this same behavior. There are haters who stalk fans, who pose as fans, create sock puppet accounts, and devote endless hours on the internet to tracking down and harassing fans. They harass members of Michael’s family; they send hate-filled tweets to his kids. Why are these people never addressed, while MJ fans are being labeled as unbalanced and crazy?

Most of the fans I know (and I can speak for myself personally) are tired of injustice. But we’re not radical nuts or threats to anyone’s safety or well being. Gavin Arvizo lives less than four hundred miles from me. I know where he attends college; I probably know (or could find out easily enough) who most of his instructors are. But the truth is, it simply doesn’t interest me. What is to be gained from it? The most I can say for Gavin is that I hope he has a nice life-a life he has today courtesy of Michael Jackson and God’s good grace.

As for Jordan, I would say judging from his ability to attend the pricey Coachella Festival, he must still be doing well for himself on his MJ blood money. His life is already mapped out for him-a life of living in hiding, under assumed identities. It’s no kind of life, really, but it’s the one he has apparently chosen for himself.

In fact, if recent comments and actions are any indication, it seems that both Jordan and Gavin have made their choices. Perhaps Jordan did utter those words to Gordon Smart last weekend, or maybe he didn’t. But I don’t think it really matters when all is said and done. As I said before, Jordan’s continued silence speaks louder than words. The time to plead to either Jordan’s or Gavin’s  heart and conscience is past. They have hardened their hearts; so, too, must we. And by hardening our hearts, I don’t mean to imply harboring anger or bitterness. It just means that perhaps the time has come to let go; to give up any romantic notions that these two have a conscience; to let go of all lingering false hope that some shred of moral decency will induce them to come forward.

In an ideal world, it might happen. But this is reality, where everyone looks out for #1.

 

 

It’s very sad that once again I am posting a requiem for one of Michael’s dear friends (meanwhile, his friend Robin Gibb still remains in grave condition). It was only two months ago that I posted similar tributes here to Don Cornelius and Whitney Houston. But there are more parallels to be drawn between Cornelius and Clark. Both hosted the two most popular dance shows of my generation, although by the 70′s Soul Train had the upper hand with the urban youth market. Amercian Bandstand, by comparison, had already been around since the 50′s, and for some, was already a bit passe. Soul Train, it was generally conceded, was where all the “cool kids” went to hang out. Yet I have fond memories of both shows as sort of rival choices-friendly rivals. We called them “The Saturday Morning Dance Shows” and it was easy enough for my sisters and me to simply switch the channel back and forth between them. If we got bored with what American Bandstand was showing, we simply switched over to Soul Train, and vice versa. We didn’t see it as a competition between “black” and “white” although in hindsight we know now that was how the bigger picture was shaping that rivalry for posterity. (It was the same with our Tuesday night ritual of fighting over whether to watch Good Times or Happy Days. Both shows were funny, but for us kids, Good Times had the edge because Good Times had JJ and…well, JJ was a heck of a lot funnier to us than Fonzie. But Fonzie, being white, usually won out when it came time for our parents to settle the issue). We just thought both American Bandstand and Soul Train were fun and-in an era long before Ipods and Youtube-a great way to hear the latest hot tunes, as well as whatever current dances were supposed to go with them.

Both shows, however, had a lot more in common than sharing the same Saturday morning time slot. They were both similarly pioneering shows of their genre that changed the face of popular music-and how popular music was presented. They were both spearheaded by two geniuses, sadly, both of whom have now passed, within a matter of months (2012 is fast shaping up as another 2009, as far as celebrity deaths). But they had something else in common, too. At a time when both shows were bridging the cultural gap between black and white, they both routinely featured a little boy in the early 70′s who would grow up to be not only one of the greatest entertainers who ever lived, but also a crucial player in bridging that gap for once and all.

Michael Jackson formed lifelong friendships with both Don Cornelius and Dick Clark, and in both cases, these were lifelong bonds that endured all of the turbulent up’s and down’s of Michael’s life. Of course, that isn’t to say it was always all roses, but the brief dispute between Michael and Dick Clark in 2002 over the AMA’s was quickly resolved, and put behind them:

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,623266,00.html

What’s more, however, both of these men, Cornelius and Clark, were very symbolic of Michael’s roots in the music business. No matter to what heights he climbed, some of our fondest memories go back to that exuberant little boy on American Bandstand who took Dick Clark’s microphone-and refused to give it back! Since the news of Dick Clark’s passing broke yesterday, many have been posting their favorite photos and videos of Dick Clark and Michael, along with some of Michael’s vintage American Bandstand performances. Of those, I’ve selected here my own favorites. I hope you guys enjoy my tribute to another legend, and another friend of Michael’s who has gone home to join him.

And one of my most favorites, Dick Clark interviewing Bubbles. Too cute!