meow kitty meow now

Archive for January, 2012

The Child as “Father Of The Man”: A Look At Michael And Wordsworth-Pt 1


 My heart leaps up when I behold
A rainbow in the sky:
So was it when my life began,
So is it now I am a man,
So be it when I shall grow old
Or let me die!
The Child is father of the Man:
And I could wish my days to be

Bound each to each by natural piety.-William Wordsworth

Buckle down, guys! We’re heading back to class again for today’s entry.

In the past, I’ve managed to draw several parallels between the life and works of Michael Jackson and the life and works of many prominent literary figures. Today I’m going to examine some interesting parallels between the poetic philosophies of William Wordsworth-one of the major Romantic poets-and Michael Jackson. An odd combination, you think? Well, think again!

First of all, let me just say I am a firm believer that things don’t happen purely by coincidence. Just a couple of weeks ago I did an article rebutting Joanna Schaffhausen’s 2003 hit piece, ‘Is Michael Jackson Stuck In Childhood?”

At about the same time, I was also prepping a lecture on William Wordsworth’s poetry that I would be giving in a few days to my current British Lit II class. This is the first semester in a few years that I’ve been assigned to teach British Lit II; in fact, the last time I had taught this course was back in 2007, long before Michael died and long before I had begun my serious scholarly study into his life and work. In the interim, I hadn’t thought much about the connection between Wordsworth’s and Michael’s views on childhood, but as I reread the works of Wordsworth for this course (as I always do, since it’s imperative that I come to any writer’s work with fresh eyes after five years) I was startled by how closely Wordsworth’s views on the necessity of holding onto childlike inocence echoed exactly what Michael Jackson was trying to tell us almost two hundred years later!

Youthful Portrait of William Wordsworth

It’s interesting to think that, while the words of William Wordsworth on this subject are still being anthologized even today as works worthy of serious academic scholarship, Michael was scorned and ridiculed by the masses for espousing nothing more than the exact, same views!

Too often, the public and the media has done a grave disservice to Michael Jackson by trying to simplify his views on the connection between artistry and innocence into an either/or. This was the whole point of my previous article. Cynics have been trying to prove for decades that Michael’s apparent desire-not to hang onto childhood per se, but to hang onto childlike innocence-had to be the result of either some form of mental regression (i.e, an illness or defect) or else something more sinister. Few seemed to consider that this was an aesthetic CHOICE-the conscious choice of an adult in full control of his faculties, who had discovered that the true key to creativity was in holding onto not only the innocence, but also the reverence, awe, and wonder of childhood.

The above poem by Wordsworth, “My Heart Leaps Up When I Behold” is one that continues to inspire debate among critics and students alike. Most puzzling to many is the line, “The Child is Father of the Man.” But really, it’s not that hard of a concept to interpret. The entire poem is written from the viewpoint of a man in middle age who is recalling how he viewed the wonders of  nature as a child, and is thankful that he has been able to maintain that sense of innocent wonder into his adult years. He implores passionately, “So was it when my life began” (I had the child’s ability to marvel at the beauty of Nature)/”So is it now I am a man” (Miraculously, despite the jadedness and cynicism that comes with adulthood, he has been able to hang onto his reverence and innocent awe)/”So be it when I shall grow old/Or let me die!’ (If there should come a time he should ever lose this innocence, he would rather die first).

That impassioned line is exactly the same sentiment Michael was expressing when he told Martin Bashir that if there were no more children left, he would jump off a bridge. “I’m done.” To some, that statement may have seemed extreme; even a bit bizarre. But it was really just another way of saying what Wordsworth is saying in his poem. If we lose our innocence, we might as well be dead! For Michael, children were the embodiment of that innocence. Without them, we are nothing-nothing but a world of jaded and cynical adults. From the beginning of time, poets, artists, philosophers and great thinkers have urged us to look at the world “through the eyes of a child.” There is good reason for that. Who really wants to look at the world through the eyes of an adult? Knowing all the filth, smut, and greed that would be looking back at us? It’s the child in us that helps us to mainatin some sense of purity; some sense of hope; some sense of magic.

While a lot of critics have their own spin on the line ‘The Child is Father of the Man” the line itself really isn’t that hard to interpret. Religious interpretations aside (and even those are not invalid to my purpose here) it is simply saying that the child we are/were determines the adult we become. Human life is cyclical-the child begats the man (or woman); the adult is simply that same child in a bigger body. We do not serve our purpose, either to Nature or to God, when we allow ourselves as adults to become a separate entity from our childhood selves. In this regard, Wordsworth had more in common with later Transcendentalists like Emerson, Thoreau, and Whitman than to his contemporary Romantics, and was even a bit of an anamoly among them.

When this line was put up for analysis on, it was interesting to see the diversity of responses it received! Yet what’s even more interesting is that one could easily take any one of these interpretaions-or all of them!-and see how easily they apply to Michael Jackson.  Just glancing at this first page of the discussion, I was able to highlight some interesting parallels (boldfaced emphasis mine):




eNotes Newbie


In “My Heart Leaps Up,” what does Wordsworth mean when he says, “The Child is Father of the man?”

Posted by julieashley1 on September 6, 2008.

Flag Post
Message julieashley1
Reply to Post





High School – 12th Grade

Editor Emeritus, Debater, Dickens, The Bard, Churchill


In his famous ode to nature, William Wordsworth says that the child in every person teaches him to appreciate nature beginning with the simple beauty of rainbows and by implication, other natural wonders. What we think as children will help determine how we think as adults. The lines that follow “the child is the father of the man”, suggest, with almost religious zeal, that he hopes to always love nature as he did as a child.

Posted by ms-mcgregor on September 6, 2008.

Flag Post
Message ms-mcgregor
Reply to Post






College – Junior

Editor, Debater, Expert, Educator, Dickens, The Bard


In addition to the answer above, this line could also be religious in nature, due to “Child” and “Father” being capitalized.  We can think of this line as the child is Jesus, the father is God, and man is everyone on Earth, in one interpretation.  Also, we can look at it like this: the only way to salvation is through Jesus, according to Christian beliefs, because Jesus was sent to bear all of our sins through his suffering and death.  Jesus, the child of God, was the father of men because he came onto this Earth, preached and shared his beliefs about salvation and about God, and died so that his “children” could be saved, much as a father would do if one of his children was in danger of dying or being killed.

Posted by kwoo1213 on September 7, 2008.

Flag Post
Message kwoo1213
Reply to Post





eNotes Newbie


In reply to #1: I am little philosophically oriented person. When I read this poem in this light I felt there is a reference to the ETERNAL BLISS. And one would experience this only by aligining and surrendering to NATURE. This line, as well as the whole poem, might be highlighting the ENTERNITY.

Posted by hmashwinkumar on April 5, 2009.

Flag Post
Message hmashwinkumar
Reply to Post





eNotes Newbie


In reply to #1: I am little philosophically oriented person. When I read this poem in this light I felt there is a reference to the ETERNAL BLISS. And one would experience this only by aligining and surrendering to NATURE. This line, as well as the whole poem, might be highlighting the ETERNITY.

Posted by hmashwinkumar on April 5, 2009.

Flag Post
Message hmashwinkumar
Reply to Post





eNotes Newbie


I grew up with lots of childhood issues, which I buried until I was in my late 40’s.  These issues dominated much of my adult behavior, especially with my children.  With this background I see Wordsworth’s quote as meaning that things we experienced as children, which are still buried within us, play the role of a controlling father to us as adult men.  Classic example: “I hate the way my father treated me and I don’t want to treat my children that way, but I can’t seem to help it.”


Posted by jdeegerman on June 25, 2009.

Flag Post
Message jdeegerman
Reply to Post






Graduate School

Editor Emeritus, Debater, Expert, Educator, Scribe, Dickens, The Bard


Is so interesting to see how many interpretations we all have about his phrase, which is what makes his poetry so magical and intense as an experience. I feel that, as some have posted, Wordsworth is saying that our heart speaks for our brains, in not such exacting words. If we are children at heart, our inner child will dictate all the great and the wonderful things that we find in life. If we aren’t born with an inner child, our life will lack that, and we might even lose control of it.

Posted by herappleness on June 25, 2009.

Flag Post
Message herappleness
Reply to Post






eNotes Newbie






eNotes Newbie





eNotes Newbie

Whren in a College English Lit class we explored the meaning behind Wordsworth’s words “The Child Is The Father Of The Man.” We determinedf that he meant that the Child is born all knowing and it is through experiencing life that we lose that knowlege! That our life experiences make us lose those knowings those memories we are born with because The Child Is The Father Of The Man!

Posted by ladynads on April 28, 2010.

The response of poster #4 reminded me of Michael’s poem “Are You Listening?” with its refrain “From bliss I came/In bliss I’m sustained/To bliss I return…”

Poster #6 also reminded me very much of what Michael said in his speech at Oxford, when he spoke of how his own childhood experiences had shaped the adult he had become and how he was striving to be a much better father to his own children (or at least, a more loving and affectionate father) than his own father had been to him.

Michael's Goal Was To Be A Better Father To His Own Kids Than He Felt Joseph Had Been To Him; To Break The Cycle Rather Than Perpetuate It

In all of these responses, I could hear the very words Michael had echoed so many times coming back, but no one was listening because…well, this guy is freaky and strange, right? So what does he know?

Wordsworth’s poem was actually part of a larger collection entitled “Ode: Intimations Of Immortality From Recollections of Early Childhood.”  Wordswoth stated in a letter from 1814: ‘The poem (“Intimations”) rests entirely on two recollections of childhood, one that of a spendour in the objects of sense which is passed away, and the other an indisposition to bend to the law of death as applying to our particular case. A Reader who has not a vivid recollection of these feelings having existed in his mind cannot understand that Poem.” (Damrosch and Dettmar, Masters of British Literature, Vol. B, 272).

Much of Ode: Intimations of Immortality From Recollections of Early Childhood” is steeped in a single, simplistic view: When we lose touch with childhood, we have not only disconnected from our innocence, but also our own immortality (for we are never as far removed from the notion of death as we are in childhood).

In the letter quoted above, Wordsworth drew on another one of his own verses to further illustrate the concept of “Ode”,” a poem entitled “We Are Seven”:

————–A simple Child,
That lightly draws its breath,
And feels its life in every limb,
What should it know of death?-William Wordsworth

 Most of us can still recall what a traumatic experience it was a s a child to first learn the concept of death. However that realization may have come about-perhaps the death of a beloved pet, or a close relative, or even, God forbid, a fellow playmate our own age-it’s often for many the first, jarring initiation into the world of adulthood. A world where we realize that nothing is permanent; nothing guaranteed-except death. A world where we begin to lose touch with bliss.

Using his own, earlier poem “The Child is Father of the Man” almost as a kind of echo from a tale long past, the narrator in “Ode” writes almost wearily:

Let’s return to that last line: “The things which I have seen I can now see no more.” This is what lies in store for us once we have lost touch with our inner child; this is what the loss of bliss entails!

You can also read a very excellent analysis of Wordsworth’s poem here in Robin Bates’s “Coping With The Loss of Childhood”:

Michael And Ryan White

Which brings us back to Michael. Was he, in a sense, not only trying to hang onto bliss, but also to immortality? This is going-out-on-a-limb stuff, but perhaps not as far fetched as it sounds. When we look at all of the humanitarian work he did for terminally ill children (Ryan White comes to mind as I was reading Wordsworth’s “We Are Seven”) we realize this is someone who’s heart was literally bleeding for all of the world’s children who were losing their innocence to the greatest thief of all.

Generally speaking, “Man In The Mirror” (the VH-1 TV movie, not the song) was an abomination-a movie so horribly bad that even Michael himself broke his usual reticence to publicly condemn it. However, there is one scene that always haunted me, in which the fictional Michael reacts to the death of a terminally ill child who has visited Neverland (I suspect the boy in the film may have been a fictionalized representation of Ryan White).  Just look over the bad acting and horrifically corny dialog; the power is in the visual of the scene, which perfectly captures the horrific juxtaposition of childhood joy and innocence with death and is probably the only scene in the whole movie that actually worked (and to save you the nausea of watching the whole clip, I’ll just tell you that the scene in question begins at 2:34):

Now let’s have a look at the real Michael, saving the life of a dying child in Budapest (I know this will be familiar to most fans, but I’m posting this for the benefit of anyone who isn’t familiar with the story of Bela Farkas):

But the stories of Michael’s legendary generosity and humanitarian efforts to help dying children don’t stop there. There are far too many stories to even begin to post them all here. Although equating Michael with Peter Pan was, I think, largely a media exaggeration, there’s no denying that he was attracted to the idea of Neverland-a magical place where innocence is never lost, where no on grows old, but more importantly, perhaps, where no one ever has to die.

Michael wasn’t naive enough to believe he could actually create such a reality. But I think that he was definitely attuned to Wordsworth’s belief that we have to remain as a child in order to be “Father of the Man” and to maintain our Eternal Bliss.

In Part Two of this series, I will take a closer look at the parallels between Wordsworth and Michael as fathers themselves, and will also examine another Wordsworth poem aptly entitled…”Michael!”  

When Michael Addressed “That One In The Mirror”

How Did Michael REALLY Feel About The Man In The Mirror? His Own Words Reveal Some Interesting Insights

Of all Michael’s “message” songs, “Man In The Mirror” remains the most commercially succesful and in many ways, most enduring. There is good reason for that. Unlike the overly saccaharine  “Heal The World” or more darkly angry political songs such as “Earth Song” and “They Don’t Care About Us,”  “Man In The Mirror” derives its popularity due to a very simplistic yet universal message: That change has to start within. We can’t change the world until we have changed the reflection that is looking back at us.

Michael didn’t write “Man In The Mirror,” but along with “Human Nature” and “Thriller” it’s become one of those iconic songs so indelibly identified as “his” that it’s almost hard to believe that he had no hand in its creation.

But hold on…not so fast. According to those who attended last year’s Columbia Chicago Symposium, “Man In The Mirror” songwriter Siedah Garrett revealed that Michael actually had quite a significant hand in shaping the song’s final outcome. According to Garrett, Michael initially refused the song because he felt the bridge was too weak. He then collaborated with Garrett to build the song’s bridge, making suggestions and giving creative ideas, until finally “Man In The Mirror” took shape into the powerhouse gospel arrangement that eventually made it onto the “Bad” album and the top of the charts.

But how did Michael himself really feel about the man who stared back at him from his own mirror? The answer may be best revealed by something Michael did undisputably write-a piece that made it into his book Dancing the Dream, Michael’s 1992 collection of poems and reflections.

In a piece entitled “That One In The Mirror” Michael reveals something interesting-and very honest-about  his own feelings of disconnect from his public image/persona as opposed to the person he really felt himself to be. Looking at this piece, it’s easy to see how and why Michael identified so powerfully with the speaker in “Man In The Mirror.”

But first, let’s look at the familiar lyrics from the song. I’ve boldfaced those lyrics that will be especially pertinent to this discussion:


I’m Gonna Make A Change,
For Once In My Life
It’s Gonna Feel Real Good,
Gonna Make A Difference
Gonna Make It Right. . .As I, Turn Up The Collar On My
Favourite Winter Coat
This Wind Is Blowin’ My Mind
I See The Kids In The Street,
With Not Enough To Eat
Who Am I, To Be Blind?
Pretending Not To See
Their Needs
A Summer’s Disregard,
A Broken Bottle Top
And A One Man’s Soul
They Follow Each Other On
The Wind Ya’ Know
‘Cause They Got Nowhere
To Go
That’s Why I Want You To
KnowI’m Starting With The Man In
The Mirror
I’m Asking Him To Change
His Ways
And No Message Could Have
Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The World
A Better Place
(If You Wanna Make The
World A Better Place)
Take A Look At Yourself, And
Then Make A Change
(Take A Look At Yourself, And
Then Make A Change)
(Na Na Na, Na Na Na, Na Na,
Na Nah)I’ve Been A Victim Of A Selfish
Kind Of Love
It’s Time That I Realize
That There Are Some With No
Home, Not A Nickel To Loan
Could It Be Really Me,
Pretending That They’re Not
Alone?A Willow Deeply Scarred,
Somebody’s Broken Heart
And A Washed-Out Dream
(Washed-Out Dream)
They Follow The Pattern Of
The Wind, Ya’ See
Cause They Got No Place
To Be
That’s Why I’m Starting With
(Starting With Me!)I’m Starting With The Man In
The Mirror
I’m Asking Him To Change
His Ways
And No Message Could Have
Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The World
A Better Place
(If You Wanna Make The
World A Better Place)
Take A Look At Yourself And
Then Make A Change
(Take A Look At Yourself And
Then Make A Change)-Man In The Mirror, Lyrics By Siedah Garrett, Performed By Michael Jackson
Now let’s look at what Michael wrote about himself and the man in his own mirror. The boldfaced passages are my own emphasis:
“I wanted to change the world, so I got up one morning and looked in the mirror. That one looking back said, ‘There is not much time left. The earth is wracked with pain. Children are starving. Nations remain divided by mistrust and hatred. Everywhere the air and water have been fouled almost beyond help. Do something!’
That one in the mirror felt very angry and desperate. Everything looked like a mess, a tragedy, a disaster. I decided he must be right. Didn’t I feel terrible about these things too, just like him? The planet was being used up and thrown away. Imagining earthly life just one generation from now made me feel panicky.
It was not hard to find the good people who wanted to solve the earth’s problems. As I listened to their solutions, I thought, ‘There is so much good will here, so much concern.’ At night before going to bed, that one in the mirror looked back at me seriously. ‘Now we’ll get somewhere,’ he declared. ‘If everybody does their part.’
But everybody didn’t do their part. Some did, but were they stopping the tide? Were pain, starvation, hatred, and pollution about to be solved? Wishing wouldn’t make it so-I knew that. When I woke up the next morning, that one in the mirror looked confused. ‘Maybe it’s hopeless,’ he whispered. Then a sly look came into his eyes, and he shrugged. ‘But you and I will survive. At least we are doing all right.’

I felt strange when he said that. There was something very wrong here. A faint suspicion came to me, one that had never dawned so clearly before. What if that one in the mirror isn’t me? He feels separate. He ‘sees’ problems out there to be solved. Maybe they will be, maybe they won’t. He’ll get along. But I don’t feel that way-those problems aren’t ‘out there,’ not really. I feel them inside me. A child crying in Ethiopia, a sea gull struggling pathetically in an oil spill, a mountain gorilla being mercilessly hunted, a teenage soldier trembling with terror when he hears the planes fly over: Aren’t these things happening in me when I see and hear about them?

The next time I looked in the mirror, that one looking back had started to fade. It was only an image after all. It showed me a solitary person enclosed in a neat package of skin and bones. ‘Did I once think you were me?’ I began to wonder. I am not so separate and afraid. The pain of life touches me, but the joy of life is so much stronger. And it alone will heal. Life is the healer of life, and the most I can do for the earth is to be its loving child.

That one in the mirror winced and squirmed. He hadn’t thought so much about love. Seeing ‘problems’ was much easier, because love means complete self-honesty. Ouch! 

 ‘Oh, friend,’ I whispered to him, ‘do you think anything can solve problems without love?’ That one in the mirror wasn’t sure. Being alone for so long, not trusting others and being trusted by others, it tended to detach itself from the reality of life. ‘Is love more real than pain?’ he asked.

‘I can’t promise that it is. But it might be. Let’s discover,’ I said. I touched the mirror with a grin. ‘Let’s not be alone again. Will you be my partner? I hear a dance starting up. Come.’ That one in the mirror smiled shyly. He was realizing that we could be best friends. We could be more peaceful, more loving, more honest with each other every day.

Would that change the world? I think it will, because Mother Earth wants us to be happy and to love her as we tend her needs. She needs fearless people on her side, whose courage comes from being part of her, like a baby who is brave enough to walk because Mother is holding out her arms to catch him. When that one in the mirror is full of love for me and for him, there is no room for fear. When we were afraid and panicky, we stopped loving this life of ours and this earth. We disconnected. Yet how can anybody rush to help the earth if they feel disconnected? Perhaps the earth is telling us what she wants, and by not listening, we fall back on our own fear and panic.

One thing I know: I never feel alone when I am earth’s child. I do not have to cling to my personal survival as long as I realize, day by day, that all of life is in me. The children and their pain; the children and their joy. The ocean swelling under the sun; the ocean weeping with black oil. The animals hunted in fear; the animals bursting with the sheer joy of being alive.

This sense of ‘the world in me’ is how I always want to feel. That one in the mirror has his doubts sometimes. So I am tender with him. Every morning I touch the mirror and whisper, ‘Oh, friend, I hear a dance. Will you be my partner? Come.'”-Michael Jackson, “That One In The Mirror.”

Something I find very interesting about this piece is how he speaks of the disconnect and separateness between himself and his mirror image. The mirror image is the outside self, the flesh and blood shell that the world sees. I think that here, he is referencing the image he sees in the mirror as his public, outward self. The “man in the mirror” is aware of the earth’s problems, and makes a great show of standing up for these causes and uniting people all over the world to fight them. But when push comes to shove, he is only giving lip service to the idea of change. Inwardly, he feels afraid and powerless.

Did Michael feel afraid and powerless, even as he strove to tell us to “make that change” and to unite and “heal the world?” Did he have his moments of doubt and selfish weakness?

In this piece, he is very candidly giving us those answers. His outer self tells him, “It doesn’t really matter what happens to the world. You and I-(here the image is pointing outward, as if to say, “You and I, Michael”)-will be all right.” What did Michael Jackson, world famous celebrity and mega rich entertainer, have to be worried about? His position in life was secure. In fact, this was someone who had wanted for very little in the way of material riches since childhood. His “outer image” tells him that no matter what happens to the world or to the people and animals in it, his own life isn’t going to be affected. How many times have we seen stories of war and destruction in the news, or the commercials of starving children in Africa, only to turn away in numb indifference? Because the petty concerns of our own lives are so much more urgent, and pressing? In this piece, as Michael honestly looks upon his own reflection, his “friend” in the mirror, he makes a disturbing discovery-he realizes he doesn’t really know this person at all! The outer man he sees has become smug, complacent; numb and unfeeling-a hypocrite, even.

But the inner man knows better. He becomes somewhat repulsed by the selfish image in the mirror. Is this the person he has allowed himself to become-selfish, indifferent; someone who gives lip service to the suffering of the world only because it’s the “fashionable” thing to do? Or who gives up too easily just because the fight seems so hopeless?

He comes to dislike the man in the mirror. But the realization only serves to intensify his sense of helplessness.

"A faint suspicion came to me, one that had never dawned so clearly before. What if that one in the mirror isn't me? He feels separate..." Michael Jackson

As long as there is disconnect within the self, there can be no true happiness and no true inner peace. Here Michael seems to be taking a very deep and honest look at his self-reflection and coming to the realization that this is not someone who can heal the world-not yet. Because he can’t even heal himself.  And that is both a scary and disconcerting realization. “A faint suspicion came to me, one that had never dawned so clearly before. What if that one in the mirror isn’t me? He feels separate. He ‘sees’ problems out there to be solved. Maybe they will be, maybe they won’t. He’ll get along. But I don’t feel that way-those problems aren’t ‘out there,’ not really. I feel them inside me.”

In this very candid self-realization, he admits that it’s much easier to “see problems” than to actually give love, especially if one has no love to give! And what would keep one from being able to give love selflessly? “He hadn’t thought so much about love…because love means complete self-honesty. Ouch!”

The interjection of the word “ouch” here is very telling. He’s admitting that it hurts to really look at one’s self; the self-honesty of reflection is a painful process, forcing us to face not only the truths we keep hidden from the world, but even from our own selves. If most of us really took the time to look at our own reflections, we probably wouldn’t like what we see! But forcing ourselves to look is the first painful, crucial step to embracing ourselves fully. We can’t begin to love others until we can love ourselves.

The next paragraph is perhaps one of the most revealing and honest glimpses into his soul that Michael has ever allowed us. This is coming straight from the heart of that little boy who had to learn a very hard lesson far too early in life: You can’t trust anyone.  “Being alone for so long, not trusting others and being trusted by others, it tended to detach itself from the reality of life. ‘Is love more real than pain?’ he asked.”

That the image who speaks to Michael from the mirror even has to ask this question is very telling. He speaks of his mirror image as being something “detached” from “the reality of life.” Yet, coming from within himself, he knows this is not the real man. He realizes there is a disconnect between what he is capable of feeling-the love he is capable of giving-and that empty, lonely man in the mirror. But how to bridge them? He seems to arrive at his own answer.

“The pain of life touches me, but the joy of life is so much stronger. And it alone will heal. Life is the healer of life, and the most I can do for the earth is to be its loving child.”

Part of becoming “that loving child” is reaching out to that pained, lonely, and fearful man in the mirror, making him realize the true power that comes from the abilility to love. This is Michael looking at himself-the scarred and abused child; the megastar who had learned craftily how to hide his true emotions; even the philanthropist who was telling us “We Are The World.” This is all of that completely stripped away, and what is left? Nothing but a naked man and frightened child, too scared to love; too indifferent to care.  “When that one in the mirror is full of love for me and for him, there is no room for fear. When we were afraid and panicky, we stopped loving this life of ours and this earth. We disconnected. Yet how can anybody rush to help the earth if they feel disconnected? Perhaps the earth is telling us what she wants, and by not listening, we fall back on our own fear and panic.”

"That one in the mirror has his doubts sometimes. So I am tender with him..."-Michael Jackson

But the next paragraph is very telling. He says that the “man in the mirror” is just an image-and one that is ‘starting to fade.” Perhaps this is a double play on the word “image,” meaning in the one sense, his literal mirror reflection, and in the other sense, “image” as when we speak of a celebrity’s public persona and how we perceive them. He says it was “only an image, after all,” a solitary person ‘enclosed in a neat package of skin and bones.” The self-serving image, along with all of its fears, doubts, and shallow insecurities, fades as he learns to fully embrace and love himself. “That one in the mirror smiled shyly. He was realizing that we could be best friends. We could be more peaceful, more loving, more honest with each other every day.”

The word “honest” is key here. Michael is attempting, finally, to bridge his inner and outer self in order to achieve true peace and happiness. He is finally learning how to love himself so that he can be a good steward in the way that God and Mother Earth intends. Or at the very least, he is arriving at the self realization of this need, which is the crucial first step to healing and becoming whole. In doing so, he can even give himself permission to stumble; to be weak; to embrace his imperfections as part of the human dance. I do not have to cling to my personal survival as long as I realize, day by day, that all of life is in me…

Life is a force much bigger than ourselves; we are but a part of the dance. This was a theme that Michael’s work returns to over and over again. But as children of God and of Mother Earth, we cannot partake fully in life  if we remain divided from our own self-or if we insist on loathing the man or woman in the mirror. After all, that image is only ourself as we are, encased in “a neat package of skin and bones.”

The last paragraph seems to reflect a newfound inner peace and self-acceptance,and perhaps we can take this as indicative of the place Michael finally arrived at, at least for a little while.

This sense of ‘the world in me’ is how I always want to feel. That one in the mirror has his doubts sometimes. So I am tender with him…”

In this piece, Michael seems to be telling us that he has come to an important crossroads; an important realization. This “man in the mirror” isn’t perfect. This “man in the mirror” is no Pollyanna. He knows the world is a dark, scary and sometimes lonely place. He knows it’s a dirty, screwed up world and humanity in general sucks. He knows it because he sees it in himself.

But he also sees something else. He sees love and the eternal hope that keeps us all hanging on, in hopes of a brighter day tomorrow. He sees the light within himself. He sees the possibilities.

He’s not afraid to ask for change; to demand it even. Not from the world, and not from us, but from where it matters most. From deep within the heart of that man staring back in the mirror.  

Corporate Greed vs. Free Speech Hypocrisy: Which Is Worse?

Image (c)

If you’re like me, you’ve probably been seeing a lot of social media posts from MJ fans protesting the SOPA bill. The rallying cry has been that if the SOPA bill is passed, you can get up to five years for downloading or uploading a Michael Jackson song-one more year than the doctor who killed him!

Well, the irony hasn’t been lost on, one of the biggest websites dedicated to free downloading, who have now taken up the rallying cry of MJ fans by…yep, you guessed it, making Michael Jackson their new, official poster boy for the cause! So now, on a website that gets millions of hits per day, the first thing that now greets every visitor to the site is a reminder that in the eyes of corporate America, downloading a Michael Jackson song is apparently a worse crime than killing him!

Initially, I was excited about this and kind of proud, as an MJ fan, to see that even beyond the grave, Michael Jackson could still be used as an example against the kind of corporate greed that he stood against all of his life. After all, there is good reason for us to be very concerned about SOPA. If the bill were to pass, it would definitely impact the rights of small website owners such as myself from being able to upload videos of MJ music from places like Youtube. It would impinge on the current freedom we now have to share music and videos; it would mean, ultimately, that the sort of multi-media articles that bloggers like myself are able to do could be adversely impacted; in fact, websites could be permanently shut down and their owners imprisoned for so much as a reported violation! (And yes, just for uploading an MJ song, you could get more prison time than Conrad Murray is facing for killing him!).

But that was before I learned of disgusting comments made about Michael Jackson by a Pirate Bay administrator back in 2008, when apparently they were sued for $100 million by Websheriff for publishing content belonging to Michael as well as several other artists.

I had no sooner posted my previous version of this blog (Michael Jackson Becomes The Official Poster Boy For The Ant-SOPA Campaign) than I was notified by someone on Facebook of the disgusting comments made by Pirate in 2008 in reaction to this lawsuit. My initial reaction was to delete this post. But then on cooler reasoning, I thought: Why not instead use this as an example to illustrate how Michael Jackson has been used, and continues to be used, for profit and/or exploitation?

The 2008 case aside, Michael himnself wasn’t particularly adverse to fans downloading his songs or concerts. In fact, in the wake of his very public falling out with Sony in 2002, he actually encouraged it. He was also well aware of how many of his concerts were available on Youtube and was reportedly quite wowed and flattered. I suspect the 2008 lawsuit was most likely the result of advisers encouraging him to jump on board the Websheriff bandwagon. Even now, many fans rely on downloading as a convenient means around a very difficult ethical conundrum-for example, if they want his music, but don’t wish to support Sony and/or Branca in the process.

However, my concern isn’t so much the impact on free downloads but rather, the potential impact on sites like Youtube and the ability to share/embed videos of Michael’s songs and performances via social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter-a privilege and a freedom we’ve all come to take for granted.

But as for sites like Pirate making Michael their new “poster boy” for the cause, take it with a heaping grain of salt. Sure, PB can use him as a poster boy NOW…now that it’s “cool” to be an MJ fan again and his music is selling in the millions (and thus, interest in uploading MJ music, whether legally or not, is also at an all-time high).

I guess we can simply add to the long list of hypocrites using the name Michael Jackson for nothing but their own benefit. They are making a good show now by playing on the emotions of fans. But what they said in 2008 shouldn’t be forgotten-or forgiven.

Rebutting Schaffhausen and The “Stuck In Childhood” Myth

Shortly after I posted my last piece  debunking the media myth of Michael Jackson as a dysfunctional adult, one of my readers, shelley, sent me the link to this November 2003 ABC News article written by Joanna Schaffhausen. This article, published on the heels of Michael’s 2003 arrest on the Arvizo charges, very much reflects the typical sort of biased news articles that were written about Michael in the wake of the Bashir interview which had aired earlier, in Februray of that year, and then the November arrest. It seemed everyone was asking the question: Is this man simply living out some sort of regressed childhood that he never had, or is there something more sinister at stake?

Of course, Michael himself had been perpetuating the quasi-image of himself as a kind of Peter Pan, an eternal man-child, since at least the early 90’s. It’s interesting that we really started to see the emergence of this side of Michael about the time that he moved out of his family home at Hayvenhurst and into Neverland. It wasn’t that anything about his personality had drastically changed. Michael had always been very much like a big kid, loving amusement park rides, Super soaker fights, and with a penchant for the sort of juvenile humor that made him so endearing to those who knew that side of him. But once Michael was on his own, it seemed that he was finally, as a man entering his 30’s, truly giving himself permission to have the childhood he’d never had. What with the combination of his own natural childlike qualities, coupled with a sort of quirky  Buster Keaton-ish persona, and topped off with the ever present fedora and long-sleeved corduroy shirts (both the hats and long-sleeved shirts became a necessity for protecting his delicate skin as his vitiligo had advanced, but in typical Michael Jackson style, he managed to transform a medical necessity into a true fashion statement!) and the picture was complete: This was the real beginning of Michael’s transformation into a sort of almost ethereal, Peter Pan figure.

This video from Michael Jackson’s Private Home Movies showcase Michael’s childlike persona at its most loveable and endearing:

But what had seemed like just another eccentricity took an unfortunately sinister twist after the first allegations were brought against him by the Chandlers in 1993. And from that point on, scarred and humiliated by the accusations, it seemed that Michael’s whole “Lost Boy” image only intensified as if it had now become a kind of rallying cry for him, a way of justifying to the world, “This is who I am.” Admittedly, the image also set him up as a convenient punching bag, especially by those who thought he was simply playing the whiny victim. By the time of “Childhood”-a song perceived even by many fans as excessively maudlin-Michael seemed to be firmly entrenched in the role of misunderstood martyr.

This rocked along a few years until the fiasco that was the Bashir interview and his association with the Arvizos blew things wide open, and once again Michael found himself, his home, and his entire lifestyle once again under intense public scrutiny-and along with it, his personality profile.

In the wake of this second round of allegations, suddenly everyone was an “expert.” Pseudo “psychologists”-people who had never even met Michael Jackson-were offering up their “expert” opinions on whether he fit the profile of a typical pedophile. What’s worse, even journalists with no psychiatric credentials whatsoever were jumping the bandwagon, firing off articles like this monstrocity that made ABC News headlines.

The danger in such poorly researched and biased articles as the Schaffhausen piece is that, once written and published on the internet, they are forever “out there,” turning up in Google searches and endlessly perpetuating a misleading and false image of who Michael Jackson was. What’s worse is that the Schafhausen article is one that haters have often latched onto as “proof” that Michael fit the steretypical profile of a pedophile, while ignoring the fact that the article actually quotes Richard Lawlor, chief of Outpatient Forensic Child  Pschiatry Services at the Indiana School of Medicine, as saying Michael does not fit the stereotypical pedophile profile, and retired FBI special agent Ken Lanning who cautioned that even though Michael may fit some of the profile characteristics of an “Acquaintance Molestor” it is not sufficient evidence to draw an automatic assumption of guilt.

However, you can see how Schafhausen conveniently-and ignorantly-spins Lanning’s cautionary statement.

Let’s just look at Schaufhausen’s article in its entirety. Then, I’m going to go through, point by point, with my own rebuttals.

Is Michael Jackson Stuck in Childhood?

By Joanna Schaffhausen
Nov. 21
For years, Michael Jackson’s eccentric behavior has fascinated the world. Now, some medical experts are wondering whether the King of Pop suffers from some “psycho-emotional” retardation that causes him to live in a kind of permanent childhood.

With an amusement park for a back yard and penchant for entertaining young friends, is Jackson just a big kid himself, or could his actions signal something more troubling?

Jackson, 45, surrendered Thursday to police in Santa Barbara County, Calif., after authorities obtained an arrest warrant accusing him of multiple counts of child molestation. Jackson has denied the allegations and says he will be vindicated in court.

The singer spends a great deal of his time associating with children, but he himself maintains many childlike qualities. He speaks in a childlike voice and pursues childish activities such as scooter riding (even when children are not present). Like Peter Pan, he even lives in a place called Neverland.

Permanent Childhood

Many people love children, and there is nothing necessarily sinister about Jackson’s affinity for youngsters. None of the experts in forensic psychiatry and child development who were interviewed had any direct knowledge of the case, and none made any judgment on Jackson’s possible guilt or innocence.

It is the seemingly extreme childishness that Jackson himself exhibits that experts find unique.

Television interviews with Jackson make it appear as if he wants to “hang onto and preserve his childlike demeanor,” said Dr. Fred Berlin, a psychiatric expert in pedophilia at Johns Hopkins University. “He seems proud of it.”

“He seems stuck in childhood himself,” said forensic psychiatrist Ryan Finkenbine of West Virginia University Medical School. “It’s one of the more interesting aspects of the case.”

Michael Borack, a forensic psychiatrist at the University of Cincinnati Medical School, has evaluated many pedophiles, and says Jackson does not fit the usual profile.

“[His eccentric behavior] is not typical of most offenders,” Borack said. “Most offenders are ‘normal’ people who could be your neighbors, not freaky or weird.”

Most pedophiles will keep toys or other such appealing items around to lure children, but they do not usually play with the items much themselves.

Richard Lawlor, chief of Outpatient Forensic Child Psychiatry Services at the Indiana School of Medicine, notes that many pedophiles do display some form of arrested development in that they choose to focus their attention on young children over other adults. “They become ‘fixated’ during development,” Lawlor said. “We don’t know why.”

However, Lawlor says Jackson’s childish demeanor would be rare among pedophiles. “I don’t think that kind of behavior is very common,” he said.

Some experts feel that pedophiles display a kind of Peter Pan syndrome and use children to hang onto their youth. Berlin cautions that this explanation is perhaps too hasty. “That’s getting into a theory of cause, which I think is difficult,” he said.

Berlin maintains there is no “typical” pedophile. “That’s like saying, ‘What is the typical heterosexual?'”

However, Ken Lanning, a retired FBI special agent who specialized in child sex crimes, says Jackson may fit some of the characteristics of an “acquaintance molester.” Acquaintance molesters choose victims outside the family and seduce children with affection and attention.

But, he cautioned, “Just because you have some of the characteristics, it does not mean you are guilty.”

Not an Excuse

Jackson raised eyebrows when he told British journalist Martin Bashir in a documentary that he has allowed children to sleep in his bed at the Neverland Ranch. He said there was nothing sexual about it.

If Jackson does suffer from some form of psycho-emotional retardation, it’s possible he thought innocent snuggling in bed would be OK, experts say. However, Borack pointed out, “Jackson is an adult with an adult’s sex drive.”

Experts agree that, regardless of what may or may not have happened with Jackson, children should not be sleeping with unrelated adults of the opposite gender. “It just opens the door for misunderstandings at best,” said Borack.

Borack speculates that Jackson’s tumultuous upbringing may have left lasting emotional scars that help explain his odd behavior as an adult. “From what I’ve observed in TV interviews, Jackson had a violent, dictatorial father and an isolated upbringing. He never really had a childhood.”

In any event, Jackson’s eccentricities have increased the attention surrounding the scandal.

“[Jackson] is such an unusual person,” Berlin said. “It makes the case that much more difficult.”

 Oooh boy, where to begin! First of all, look at the loaded language used in this piece. In the very first paragraph, we have the phrase “psycho-emotional” retardation, a phrase she repeats in Paragraph 20. Granted, we know she’s referring to psychological/emotional retardation, rather than mental retardation (an important distinction) but the word “retardation” in and of itself carries the negative connotation of its more common usage, as a term describing those who are mentally regressed. Its a loaded word that also connotates in the mind of the average reader one who is mentally deficient.

Writers Like Shaffhausen Used Their Poison Pens To Define Michael's Quirky Charm, Eccentricities and Love of Children Into "Pscho-Emotional Retardation" Among Other Enlightening Phrases

Unfortunately, this sort of derogatory characterization of Michael as being somehow regressed (regardless of whether the writer meant emotionally or mentally) played right into the whole “Wacko Jacko” myth and the media misconception that helped lead to exactly what I wrote about a few days ago here:

She next mentions that Michael had “an amusement park for a backyard.” That’s another common misconception, since the amusement park area actually only comprised a very small area of Michael’s vast, sprawling 2700 acres of Neverland. To say the amusement park comprised his enire backyard is a bit of an exaggeration, to say the least.

Aerial View Of Neverland Shows Just How Small The Amusement Park Area Actually Was In Comparison To The Overall Size Of The Estate

It also ignores the fact that having his own amusement park “for the children of the world” had been a dream of Michael’s since as far back as his teenage years. Here is a very interesting article about Robert E. Swinson, the man who was Michael’s personal ride consultant and developer for Neverland Valley Amusement Park. (By the way, Swinson states at the end of the article that the whereabouts of the Ferris Wheel are unknown. That mystery has since been solved. Michael’s Ferris wheel was purchased by Archway Amusements of Missouri, who now rents it out to various state and county fairs. I got to take a few spins on it myself, back in October of 2010!).

While Michael did publicly exhibit many of the childlike traits that Schaffhausen attributes to him, she exaggerates many of these qualities and at the same time fails to acknowledge such troublesome contradictions as his adult business savvy, artistic genius, and (often very overt) sexual stage persona. At the time that Schaffhausen wrote this hit piece, a decade had passed since the Chandler allegations. Within that decade, Michael had married twice, divorced twice, had released an album of some of the darkest and and most political songs of his career, had single-handedly taken on the record industry, and had become a father himself, none of which exactly fits the definition of being “childlike.”  Perhaps most disturbing is how she underplays Michael’s philanthrophy as nothing more than having “an affinity for kids.” Typically, journalists like Schaffhausen tended to attribute Michael’s love for children as either being indicative of fitting the pedophile profile (at worst) or, at best, as nothing more than his own selfish desire to hang onto childhood. Seldom do they truly acknowledge his genuine desire to help the terminally ill, sick, and disadvantaged children of the world. It’s not that making the philanthropic arguement in any way “proves” his innocence, as my friend sanemjfan from Vindicating Michael has pointed out in many of his own excellent rebuttal articles (in fact, here’s a very good article that I highly recommend on this very topic; it’s a 5-part series, but well worth the read):

However, I do think it’s very important that Michael’s philanthrophy is recognized as a huge factor in his motivation, and that it’s recognized that his “affinity for children” didn’t just spring from some self-serving purpose, regardless of how innocent or sinister the media may wish to portray that purpose.

Everyone Has An Opinion On Who He Was. But Some, More Than Others, Like To Pass Off Their Educated Guesses As "Fact"

As noted, the experts Schaffhausen quotes appear to be relatively unbiased. At the time, they were simply looking at the known facts of the 2003 case and Michael’s public image/persona as a means of measuring the likelihood that Michael could fit the profile of a pedophile. But again, it presents a danger when you have “experts”-with no personal or firsthand knowledge of the individual in question-offering up a public diagnosis (or even a hypothetical diagnosis) of that individual’s case. Regardless of the use of qualifying phrases such as “most” or “many” or “tends” the general reader is apt to draw their conclusions based on the general assumptions. However, it’s important to note that none of these individuals had ever known, or had any personal contact with Michael. They had never sat down with him face to face, never spoken to him on the phone, never talked to anyone who knew him, and had no access to any of his medical records or history. They were  basing their assessments solely on what they knew secondhand from the media!

Well, as we all know, many so-called “experts” have presumed to “diagnose” Michael based on nothing more than what they know from the media, some even going to quite ridiculous lengths like this beauty here:

Seriously, if one were to believe everything that’s been written by so-called “experts” then one would have to believe that Michael had everything from Asperger’s Syndrome to “Erotic Identity Disorder.” (Yes, that little beauty is out there, too, and will be next on my rebuttal agenda!).

We have a plethora of internet experts diagnosing him as a pedophile, a hebophile, an autohebophile, as obsessive-compulsive, as having body dysmorphic disorder, as an anorexic, a bulimic, and, well, just about every brand of neurosis or disorder underneath the sun (curiously, for all that, they still remain mostly silent or curiously ambiguous when it comes to discussing his real ailments, such as vitiligo). We have cosmetic surgeons who never worked on Michael nevertheless offering up their own “expert analysis” of his procedures (which, again, are usually ridiculously exaggerated). It never ends.

So here we have a forensic psyhiatrist, a chief of forensic child psychiatry, and a retired FBI investigator-all experts in their field; all experts at pinpointing what “may” be the warning signs of pedophile behavior. But admittedly they can only draw conjectures based on what they knew at the time of Michael’s public behavior and media image-at least they are honest in admitting they are only drawing conjectures (all of Schaffhausen’s spinning aside).

What is interesting here is that all three experts seem to reach the same unanimous conclusion, which is that if Michael is/was indeed actually regressed and “stuck in childhood” then this would actually serve to exonerate him. It would mean that at the very least, there would have been no consciousness of guilt on his part. (Of course, Schaffhausen then proceeds to totally ignore their conclusions. “NO EXCUSE” she screams in all caps, proceeding from there to put her own spin on their conclusions).

The Characterization Of Him As A Regressed Child-Like Man, Used To Help Exonerate Him During The Trail-In The Long Run May Have Done Just As Much Damage To His Legacy

The notion of Michael as simply a regressed, innocent child himself came back time and again throughout the trial. Even Thomas Mesereau played that card somewhat, in interviews always stressing Michael’s very innocent and childlike nature. Many fans, also, often fall back on it as the ultimate defense of his innocence. But the problem is that it’s a weak defense (after all, nice guys can still be pedophiles; sweet, humble, and meek guys can still be pedophiles!). Falling back on the “Michael was just a big kid and pure as the driven snow” arguement actually does more harm than good; in the long run, it does an injustice to his legacy because the downside of that arguement is that it creates a lasting impression that is just as damaging: That of a naive simpleton.

Too often, this has come down on the side of both haters and fans as one of those either/or, black or white questions. It’s as if there can only be two choices: Either Michael Jackson was a fool and an innocent, naive simpleton who had no idea how his actions-and specifically his interactions with children- appeared to the outside world, or an Evil Genius and manipulator who knew exactly and intuitively how the world worked-and how to get around it. I think the truth is much closer to meeting in the middle. Michael was neither an evil manipulator nor an innocent simpleton. I think he realized perfectly well how the world operates, but his heart was answering to a higher calling. Unfortunately, Michael wasn’t the most articulate person in the world when it came to explaining his actions. Just as many of his well-intentioned defenders sadly miss the mark when attemptiing to answer the tough questions, Michael himself seemed at times to be his own worst PR enemy. The Martin Bashir interview, of course, is the classic example, and Schaffhausen doesn’t hesitate to fall back on it.

It’s true that Bashir manipulated the interview and engaged in a lot of devious, underhanded tactics to get the results he wanted, including sneaky editing and by purposely baiting Michael with many of the questions. All the same, what we have is Michael at least appearing to confess that he has allowed children to share his bed. He denies that it’s sexual, but at this point in the interview, the damage has been done. He says he would “slit his wrists” before he would hurt a child, but the savvy will say, “Well, there’s more than one way to hurt a child, and besides, pedophiles never believe they are harming a child, anyway.” Do I personally believe Michael was sincere in that statement? Yes, I absolutely do. It’s just that there is a problematic disconnect between what he said, what he meant, and how it was perceived by the majority of viewers, especially when that is put up against Bashir’s sinister voice-overs and Michael’s own “admission” of sharing his bed with children.

Then, of course, when Michael insists that it’s all very sweet and innocent…”I give them cookies, sing them songs…” it only serves to take on an even more sinister quality-not his intent, but at this point he’s fallen into a trap that he can’t escape from unscathed. Then, in a response even more ineffectual than “I’d slit my wrists” he asks defensively, “Who’s Jack the Ripper in the room?”

Again, Michael is mistakenly equating the idea of hurting a child with that of physical violence, as if that could be the only possible means of hurting a child. I am only pointing this out because this is the sort of thing that intuitive viewers picked up on, myself included. I remember thinking at the time, “But Michael, no one is asking if you would kill a child!” Needless to say, none of these responses did much in helping viewers either to understand why he had children in his bed to start with, or if he was actually guilty of any wrongdoing. If anything, it only added to the confusion and made the waters murkier than ever-and, of course, eventually led to a criminal investigation. The sad irony is that Michael had hoped that doing the documentary would clear up the confusion and misunderstanding about his life!

But perhaps what’s more interesting than what Michael said during the interview is what he did not say. Let’s have a refresher look at that portion of the interview:

There has arisen a general misconception that Michael Jackson routinely called up random kids (specifically boys) to come over to Neverland for “sleepovers.” What isn’t understood-and isn’t explained here-is the fact that these were cases in which entire families, families Michael knew well, were staying over. It was not unusual for many of these families to travel great distances. And although most of these families were put up in guest houses, Michael’s two-storey bedroom suite became a sort of informal gathering point, a place where kids and  their parents would hang out, watch TV, talk and play games until often exhaustion overtook everyone. Both Macaulay Culkin and Frank Cascio have discussed what those “sleepovers” were like and it was nothing like the sinister picture the media tried to portray. In his book, Frank Cascio describes his favorite spot during those sleepovers-on the floor, beside the fireplace! (Not in Michael’s bed!). This space was shared by all his siblings, including his sister. You can also catch that Michael never at any time claims to have allowed Gavin to share his bed (and this seems to be true as evidenced by Frank Cascio’s claims in his new book, as well). In fact, Michael had been extremely cautious ever since the Chandler allegations, usually only allowing children into his bedroom if their parents were present. What he’s actually describing here to Bashir is a time that was already long past at the time the interview aired, going all the way back to the time when Macauley Culkin and his sister were little and staying over.

You can also hear how slyly Bashir manipulates Michael into a “confession” that he paid off the Chandlers to avoid a jail sentence. At least, haters and doubters often latch onto this brief segment as if it serves as irrefutable proof that Michael felt he had something to fear from the Chandler accusations. They also like to use it as evidence that Michael willingly settled the case, therefore refuting the arguement fans often use that it was Michael’s insurance company that actually settled the case. In fairness, this is again a situation where Michael unfortunately does a poor job in his own defense. It didn’t help that Michael was under a legal gag order and could not discuss the details of the case-but Bashir was aware of this when he brought it up! Without the benefit of being able to explain the specific details of the case, it left Michael in the awkward position of being able only to discuss his reactions to the case-minus the justifications for those reactions. But rather than answering that he just wanted it to “go away”-even if that was the truth-he should have used that platform to let the world know that he actually wanted to fight the case, and was advised otherwise. (Now whether Bashir would have allowed his answer to stand, or cleverly edited and/or manipulated it, we can’t say. But I do wish Michael would have made a better case for himself than what he did).

He should have said what he told John Branca, when Branca reportedly told Michael that people thought he was trying to delay the criminal trial by six years and Michael’s reply was: “Six years, what are talking about, Branca? I don’t want to delay the trial not even a day!”

The following is excerpted from the article HIStory vs. EVANstory:

Michael agreed to be deposed for the civil case on January 18, 1994  The Los Angeles Times wrote on December 4, 1993:

Michael Jackson has agreed to be deposed January 18 about allegations that he sexually molested a 13-year-old boy, lawyers on both sides of the case said Friday.

Jackson’s attorneys have said he is eager to tell his side of the story under oath, but they also have warned that they may oppose efforts to take Jackson’s deposition [in a civil suit] if criminal charges are filed against the entertainer or are still under consideration when the date for his deposition arrives.

In a hearing last month, Superior Court Judge David Rothman ordered Jackson’s deposition [in a civil suit] scheduled before the end of January. But Rothman also noted that he might reconsider that order if Jackson is indicted on criminal charges.

Bertram Fields, one of Jackson’s lawyers, said Friday that the entertainer might request a change in the deposition date if there are significant changes in the status of the criminal investigation before the end of January [indictment].  “If things change in the criminal case, we would reconsider the whole question of the civil case. We want the criminal case to go first.”

Since the settlement is seen by many doubters as an admission of guilt, it’s vitally important that people understand that Michael did want to fight this case. But in the Bashir interview, I think Michael found himself with his back to the wall. He was obviously aware by this point in the interview that he was being manipulated; his “fight or flee” instincts had kicked into high gear; his limbic system would have been working rapidly to process his defense. At such times, we’re often not at our sharpest; we’ve been caught off guard. It’s a tactic that defense attorneys know well. The problem that often arises in this situation, however, is that even if the person is 100% honest and sincere, their brain is not working at full capacity to be able to adequately filter the kind of precise responses the situation calls for. In such cases, where the person may be feeling cornered and manipulated, their responses often become defensive and emotion-based, rather than reasoned out in a rational manner (because what the person is thinking/feeling deep down is, Why are you asking me this? Where are you trying to drive me with this information?). The brain and limbic system kicks into survival mode-not the most conducive for rational thinking, and certainly not the most conducive for articulating “the right answers.”

So I don’t entirely fault Michael for being his own worst PR enemy in this interview. The manipulation and line of questioning by Bashir left him with little defense. The unfortunate consequence is that what’s been done cannot be undone. Michael’s own words in this crockumentary-albeit even if taken somewhat out of context and twisted by Bashir to look more sinister than they actually were-have come back to haunt him ever since. They continue to haunt him, even from the grave. They also provide many yellow journlaists like Schaffhausen a convenient excuse to avoid delving any further into the issue. After all, with such catchy soundbytes from Michael’s own mouth to fall back on-“What’s wrong with sharing your bed?”- why bother researching any further?

But one doesn’t have to look too closely between the lines of this article to see that Schaffhausen is simply drawing on the conjectures of a handful of randomly selected “experts” to justify her own bias.

In fact, it’s a bias that becomes very clear immediatly after having used the Bashir interview example. Note what she says:

Experts agree that, regardless of what may or may not have happened with Jackson, children should not be sleeping with unrelated adults of the opposite gender.

Okay, but…I thought the whole issue here was supposed to be that Michael was sleeping with kids of the same gender-boys! So is she trying to sell us on the idea that it’s only a problem if the children in question are of the opposite gender? Or did she even realize the slip she made here!

It’s probably not even a point worth quibbling, except what we do know is that throughout the years, many children of both sexes often ended up sleeping overnight in Michael’s bedroom suite. They included among them Dakota Culkin (Macauley’s sister), Marie Nicole Cascio, Chantal Robson (sister of Wade Robson), and Karlee Barnes (sister of Brett Barnes) among many others.

This is an excerpt from the direct testimony of Joy Robson (mother of both Wade and Chantel) from the 2005 trial. In this excerpt, she claims that it wasn’t just her son who had slept in Michael’s bedroom, but her daughter Chantel (then 10) as well:

 A. Well, the first — the first night they had

9 been out doing the usual thing at Neverland,

10 playing. And later that night, they all came back

11 to the suite where my husband and I were staying,

12 and my parents were with us, as well. We were all

13 talking in the suite.

14 And Wade had been impersonating Michael for

15 some time and had lots of costumes of Michael�s that

16 we had made. And Michael was looking at them, and

17 we were just all discussing those.

18 And then it was getting late, and my

19 children said to me, both Chantel and Wade, my

20 daughter, said, �Can we stay with Michael.�

21 And my husband and I sort of looked at

22 Michael, and said, �Well, if that�s okay with you.�

23 And he said, �Oh, absolutely. If they�d like to

24 stay, that�s fine.�

25 Q. And did you allow your son and daughter to

26 stay in his room?

27 A. Yes.

28 Q. How many times do you think your son and 9213

1 daughter stayed in his room?

2 A. Many times. I have no idea.

3 Q. Did you ever have a problem with them doing

4 that?

5 A. Not at all.

And here is a summary of both Chantal Robson’s and Karlee’s Barnes’s testimonies, taken from a website that was tracking the trial on a daily basis in 2005 (but please try to not be confused, as the writer seems to have  erroneously confused the names of the two girls):

Marie Lisbeth Barnes stayed in a Neverland guest unitfor three weeks in 1992 while her son and daughter both slept in Jackson’s bedroom. (my emphasis).Jackson took them to Disneyland and Las Vegas. “I still trust him,” she said of Jackson, “He’s a very nice person. You can feel when you trust someone.”

Marie Barnes, who phoned Neverland from her home in Melbourne and volunteered to testify, said letting her son Brett go on two world tours with Jackson that each lasted half a year was a learning experience for her son. He visited so many cities and countries she couldn’t remember them all.

Prosecutor Ron Zonen pressed hard, saying “Jackson took care of your travel, food and housing, gave you gifts, and by the fourth night he was sleeping with your son.” She said that Jackson told them he thought of them as family and that she is “proud of loving Michael Jackson.”

Barnes began to explain how she knew Jackson had not molested her son. She said that she’d told her boy to look her in the eyes and tell her whether Michael Jackson… Her story was stopped cold by Zonen, who’d started her down that path.

Guilt, shame and denial loomed
large in the prosecution’s questions

Prosecutors intimated all these family members may be in denial — pointing out that a family might be ridden with guilt and shame if a child had been molested.

Karlee Robson, Wade’s sister, replied “It would be a disgrace that it would happen — if it had happened.” But she said it hadn’t — her brother would have told her, adding that she loves Michael Jackson with all her heart. “He’s just a human being. Same organs, same blood…”

Karlee also provided the defense with a possible answer to why so many of the sisters of Jackson’s boy buddies left Jackson’s bed to the pop star and their brothers. “I was developing as a girl,” she said. “I wanted a little bit of privacy.” She said that her sleeping arrangements were her call.

What does she think of the child molestation charges against Jackson? “I think they’re liars,” she said.

Chantal Barnes said she’s been a Jackson friend since she was 10 years old in 1989 and considers Jackson a family member. She’d fallen asleep on Jackson’s bed with her brother Brett at least four times and was in and out of the room a lot. (my emphasis). Does she feel guilty? “I do not,” she insisted. “It’s a normal friendship.”

The prosecution asked whether she trusted Michael Jackson not to have figurines of nude women in bondage attire on display in view of children (such figurines were shown as evidence earlier in this trial). Chantal said she did.

“Would you trust Michael Jackson to not show erotic materials to a child he’d given alcohol to?” Chantal said she thought so, but added that she was only a guest in Jackson’s home and that sometimes people have such magazines in their houses.

Karlee Barnes described her and Wade “skipping, jumping and doing silly dances” late at night with the singer in his bedroom.

Joy Robson said she even spent a couple evenings lying in Jackson’s bed watching movies and talking.

He Was As Beloved By Girls As He Was By Boys

At this point, I know what some of you may be thinking: Was it not just as improper (in fact, perhaps even moreso) for these parents to be allowing their female children to sleep in Michael’s bedroom? How does this exonerate him? Well, considering that both sets of accusations brought against him were by boys, it matters a great deal. For one thing, it effectively busts the myth that only boys slept in Michael’s bedroom. Most of those who believe Michael was a pedophile believe that he was a gay pedophile whose only interest was in boys (actually, the word “pedophile” in itself is probably a misnomer since in the case of both accusations, the boys were already adolescents; thus, even if  Michael had been guilty as charged and/or accused, the correct term would be “hebophile.”). That children of both sexes routinely slept in his bedroom-regardless of whatever the arrangement might have been-certainly muddies the waters considerably. One has to ask: If he was a gay pedophile intent on molesting boys, wouldn’t he have wanted to keep the girls out?  And conversely, if he had been a straight pedophile whose only interest was in the girls, why allow their brothers to stay? Unless one wants to argue that he was a bisexual pedophile (not that I have any doubts that someone is probably out there peddling that theory out there even as I write!) the facts simply don’t support that he was favoring boys over girls, or vice versa.

Michael Continues To Be Victimized By Pseudo Profiling

This brings us full circle back to Schaffhausen’s article and the potential hazards of profiling. While profiling does serve a useful function in enabling law enforcement and social workers to perhaps pinpoint potential problem cases (specifically dealing with pedophiles, and cases of persons with mental/anti-social instability who could prove a threat to society) it can also be dangerous in that it often impinges on a person’s civil rights, especially in those cases where the person may be innocent or poses no actual threat. It also becomes a dangerous practice when those who are not qualified to pass such judgements do so anyway, thereby damaging an individual’s reputation in the process. I know this from first-hand experience in the mental health field, where many who seem to fit the classic profiles of say, sociopathic disorder are often found to not be sociopaths at all once they have undergone full psychiatric evaluation. Diagnosis of any serious disorder-whether psychotic, personality, or sexual-is often difficult and tricky at best  even for the most trained of professionals-people who are actually familiar with their subjects and have had first-hand dealings with them.

So you can imagine how it becomes even more of a slippery slope when we’re talking about yellow journalists attempting to profile a celebrity they’ve never even met! Yet unconscionable journalists and pseudo “experts”have been doing just that to Michael Jackson for decades.

Sadly, all it takes is a quick Google search to realize not much has changed since 2003. Dissecting Michael Jackson remains a media obsession.


Does This Look Like The Face Of Dysfunction?

While The Media Sold us The Idea Of “Wacko Jacko,” Michael Jackson In Reality Was Embarking On The Most Politically Active Era Of His Career

I’m dipping a bit into the vault today. This was a piece that I originally wrote back during the trial, but since Allforloveblog was still offline at the time, I didn’t have a means to widely distribute it. I decided it was a topic still worthy of examination, so I’ve dusted it off and made a few tweaks. The article originally came about in response to a comment made one night on HLN by the ever brilliant and scholarly Dr. Drew (I am being sarcastic, of course!). For the record, I don’t classify Dr. Drew among the MJ haters. Throughout the trial, his position came across to me as one that was mostly sympthaetic towards Michael as the victim in the case-but nevertheless, his was a position steeped largely in ignorance, as evidenced by many of his comments regarding Michael’s life. Whether ignorance comes cloaked in malicious intent or not, it is still just that-ignorance. And when one is speaking to a potential audience of millions, ignorance is dangerous.

I fired this off the night I heard Dr. Drew comment that it was tragic how Michael Jackson’s artistry had been overshadowed by the “dysfunction of his life.”  That one brought me up sharply. It reminded me that for almost two decades the media has been trying to sell us on the idea that Michael Jackson in his last years was a poster boy for the dysfunctional adult, one who was at best mentally regressed; at worst, a very unstable individual. They sold an entire generation on the idea of “Wacko Jacko” to the point that even one of my students-a very smart young man who simply hadn’t had the time or inclination in his short life to delve seriously into the subject of Michael Jackson -asked me, “Do you really think he was very intelligent?”

Oh boy, talk about a palm-slap-to-the-head moment! Where does one even begin to unravel the intricacies of such deeply entrenched and ingrained beliefs?

It’s especially troublesome when we realize that we’re talking about one of the most influential musical geniuses of our time. Of course, most people are aware that there is a difference in the way we quantitatively measure “genius” as opposed to “intelligence.” Throughout history, most geniuses have been considered eccentric and odd by the standards of so called “normal” people. It’s accepted that geniuses simply operate on a different level from most of us. But while most people will agree that Michael was eccentric, somewhere along the way the media began to deconstruct what had been considered his charming and mostly harmless eccentricities into that of an erratic, unstable and (after 1993) even sinister persona.

In The World of Michael Jackson, “Black or White” Is More Than Just About Race. It Also Seems To Define How Everyone Wants To View Him!

Even now, I still see debates where people will ask: Was this man an innocent simpleton, or an evil genius? As if there could be no room for anything in between! As if only the most extreme, polarizing ends of the spectrum could apply!

In truth, Michael was a genius, yes. But evil? Certainly not! An innocent simpleton? Well, only if one is so cyncical as to believe that innocence and being of a simple mind go hand in hand.

But let’s examine who was the real man behind this tabloid myth.

Yes, if we believe all of the tabloid stories, one would wonder how this man even had walking around sense, let alone the ability to raise children, conduct business, and still create music. But the problem is that the idea of a Michael Jackson so “dysfunctional” and strange that he was barely a functioning individual is just that-a tabloid myth. Sadly, I understand all too well how easy it is to become brainwashed by these myths-I was one of those people myself, for a long time. I remember once, several years ago, I was riding in the car when “Wanna Be Starting Something,” came on the radio. I remember gushing enthusiastically as I cranked it up, “Oh boy, Michael Jackson, back before he went crazy!”

Yes, I said that. An ignorant spurt from someone who hadn’t bothered to really learn what was going on in this man’s life, but only believed what I heard on TV and in tabloids. I am here right now to say ignorance is not an excuse. The “real” Michael Jackson is there, if you care to learn who he really was. I did. It took many dedicated hours, days and months-and now years. But I did it. Others can, too. There’s no excuse other than laziness or apathy-and maybe the driving need for a scapegoat, who knows?

For years, Michael Jackson had become such a convenient scapegoat that I think we simply took it for granted that he could always be our punching bag. The media pointed fingers and laughed at what seemed the wreck of a once talented artist’s life in ruins.

But what was Michael’s life REALLY like during his last decade or so? Was it really the definition of dysfunction? Consider this:

Michael Jackson spent his last twelve years as a single parent, raising a family. And not “just” raising a family, but raising three exceptionally mature, well adjusted children, as the world has now seen. We have heard testimony from his own children-as well as everyone who knew him-about what a wonderful father he was. Had he ever, in any way, been an abusive or dysfunctional parent, his kids certainly would not speak up for him now, nor would they be so determined to carry on his legacy. You can tell when his children speak about him that their words and emotions come from the heart. They are truly grieving a wonderful father who gave them unconditional love-but also strict discipline (had he not, they would have turned out as spoiled brats, not the very emotionally mature children they have turned out to be). Could a dysfunctionally operating parent achieve this? I think not.

In The Recording Studio, 2006. Still Working. Still Creating.

In his last decade, Michael Jackson was still working on music-actively writing, recording, and producing. The world is just now catching on to the wealth of material he left behind-and not just from the 80’s and 90’s. In fact, the very day of the raid on Neverland, he was working on the music video for “One More Chance.”  The legal battle of the resulting trial halted many of his artistic projects that were in the works at the time. It wasn’t that he had ever stopped working or recording; it was simply that the financial and personal strain of fighting a drawn out, two year legal battle would put a crimp in anyone’s artistic endeavors. But the truth was that Michael Jackson was a Working Artist right up to the very end-if nothing else, This Is It should have disspelled that myth. Of course,  the success of This is It also brought about its own romantic legacy, of a sort- that Michael Jackson, after years of tragedy, “dysfunction” and scandal, had finally “jumped back into the saddle” and was ready to make this great comeback. Keep dreaming. The truth is that Michael had never left the saddle at all. If some things had to be put on hold to fight the money grubbing Arvizos, so be it.

If This is The Face Of “Dysfunction” Maybe We Should All Be So Dysfunctional!

In the 2000’s, Michael Jackson was extremely active, involved in many causes. He began the decade by forming the Heal the World foundation; in 2001, he gave a famous speech at Oxford where he advocated for children’s rights and urged us all to love another; in 2001, he released a #1 album (Invincible), performed at Madison Square Garden, and organized a benefit for the victims of 9/11. By 2002, he had become a staunch civil rights activist for Black artists in the recording industry. Listen to his speeches sometime. They are not the words of a raving madman-at least, not the raving madman the media would have had us believe he was. Rather, they are the words of a thoughtful, intelligent, sensitive man who had seen too much, and lived too much-and knew intuitively how the world operated. Most of all, they were the words of someone fighting to make a difference-for the planet, for our children, for music, and for us.

So all in all, it begs the question: Are we talking about the same person here? Is this really the person the media tried to tell us was so weird, so strange, so “dysfunctional?”

The answer is no. Yet the media still persists in trying to sell us the lie of this “dysfunctional” Michael Jackson. The truth is that this so called “dysfunctional” Michael Jackson is a myth that the media itself created, through tabloid stories, lies, and distorted exaggerations of the truth. Through this manipulation of our minds, they managed to create this fictional being whom we then, all too unfortunately, believed was real.

Here, in its entirety, is Michael Jackson’s speech at Oxford in 2001. Consider that this was at the height of when the media was trying to convince us that this man was so weird; so strange; so bizarre.  Well I challenge you to listen and judge for yourself if these sound like the words of someone who was “wacko.” Then ask yourself if you can really in good conscience go on believing the myth that the media has fed you.

Have any of you ever seen that show on cable called “Monster Quest?” (I think it comes on The History Channel, or used to).  I have watched that show a few times. It’s somewhat interesting, but after awhile, it gets boring because you catch on to the pattern very quickly. The show always starts off as a kind of teaser, in which we get a story and alleged eyewitness accounts of some mythical monster that is lurking about some specific locale. They then go to great lengths to “track down” this monster-teams will go hiking into the wilderness, set up camp, and have all of this special night vision equipment to try to capture this “thing”-whatever it is. But each episode ends exactly the same. They never actually find a thing. Instead, we are teased for almost an hour with innuendo, false alarms, and photos or something captured on camera that “might” be something, only it’s always conveniently too blurry to tell. Usually there is some tantalizing bit of evidence, but nothing that can ever be proven conclusively. Every show ends on a kind of anti-climactic note because the monster is never found.

the Search For The Mythical, Tabloid Michael Jackson Is A Lot Like The Premise For This Cable TV Show…And Every Bit As Futile!

Trying to find the tabloid  Michael Jackson is a lot like that. One finds as they beging to research that the “monster” the media tried to create simply doesn’t exist. Michael himself sang of this very “Monster Quest” over and over. In songs like Threatened, Is It Scary, and the song entitled Monster he acknowledged that we were a society ever in search of the elusive beast.

Remember how Nancy Grace seemed to almost glorify in constantly reminding viewers that Michael Jackson had died “surrounded by his own urine?” While this seemed like a ploy to garner sympathy for the way he had to die as a victim, there was also a far more sinister undertone-she was also rubbing it in that, after all the fame and the glory and the adulation, this was how Michael’s life had ended. This was what it had all come down to. They still want us to believe the myth of a tragic, washed up, has-been great artist wallowing in the madness of his own dysfunctional life. When one finds that the reality is that of a hard working, still dedicated artist who was even considering going back to school to study art, who was quietly raising his three kids, still honing his craft,  and still actively engaged in charities and the causes he believed in–suddenly, the myth doesn’t seem quite so glamorous or attractive anymore-if one is looking at it from a medialoid standpoint. After all, a washed up, dysfunctional superstar sells a lot more copy than a dedicated, hard working dad.

But I learned something when I began researching the life of Michael Jackson. I learned the difference between sensationalism and truth.

Sensationalism sells. Truth is often boring.

Boring, yes. But also, real.