nancynall.com » Another round of Jesus juice!

Another round of Jesus juice!

I don’t give a fat rat’s ass about Michael Jack­son. Hon­estly, in a per­fect world? He would have been con­victed side-by-side with the kid’s mother. They’d have to share a cell.

Now that would be justice.

That said, I watched a lit­tle of the post-verdict blah-blah on CNN. They held and held and held on a tight shot of peo­ple cel­e­brat­ing. These were Jack­son fans, or “sup­port­ers” as they’re called in CNN-speak, and they were exul­tant, oh yes they were. All I could this was: Does he actu­ally still have fans? I mean, even if he’d never been accused of any­thing worse than fail­ing to clean the chimp cages on a reg­u­lar basis, are we to believe the guy’s work is wor­thy of fans and fan­dom? NPR just called him the “king of pop.” By my reck­on­ing, that makes Aretha Franklin the Grand Priest­ess and Philosopher-Queen of Pop. That touches off a whole episode of tltle infla­tion. Please.

Miles Davis beat his wife. But he made great music. Ray Charles was a heroin addict. But he made great music. Sid Vicious stabbed Nancy. But he remade “My Way” in a way that wasn’t great, but was dif­fer­ent and auda­cious enough to qual­ify as real cre­ativ­ity, even if it was heroin cre­ativ­ity. Michael Jack­son sleeps with boys, and his music sucks. Peo­ple, grow up.

Oy, a busy one behind me and another one ahead, made oddly unset­tling by the great, preg­nant clouds that wad­dled over the area all day, refus­ing to rain — on our house, at least. There were squalls and show­ers here and there, but mostly just oppres­sive humid­ity. Today, more of the same. Think I’ll work out early, then stay inside, dust­ing things.

Also, writ­ing. I think I have a new gig, which won’t make me famous but will put me in a very nice place, byline-wise, on a reg­u­lar basis. More as it unfolds. And last night was the inau­gural meet­ing of a long-delayed impulse my local friend John and I had a while back — a writer’s group that meets reg­u­larly to exchange, cri­tique and work­shop one another’s work. The first meet­ing was small, but heart­en­ing. Only we need a new venue. Cof­fee houses seem like such a won­der­ful solu­tion, until you con­front their noise level. One of our mem­bers has a hear­ing loss in one ear, and do you have any idea how loud a com­mer­cial cof­fee grinder is, not to men­tion those indus­trial steam­ers? Good lord, but it’s like a fac­tory in there. Next time: The library.

No blog­gage today, because it’s all about the king of you-know-what. Maybe later. Until then, ta.

16 responses to
“Another round of Jesus juice!”

  1. michaelg said on June 14th, 2005 at 8:42 am

    I fully agree with you about Jack­son. I’ve always felt that he was the most over-rated (how do you write that?) enter­tainer ever. Want a great cover of “My Way”? Check the Gypsy Kings.

  2. juan said on June 14th, 2005 at 11:07 am

    Those CA pros­e­cuters failed to learn the les­son of the O.J. trial:

    Don’t try to frame a guilty man.

  3. carmella said on June 14th, 2005 at 12:27 pm

    Best line of the day yes­ter­day: MJ found not guilty by rea­son of CELEBRITY.

  4. mary said on June 14th, 2005 at 12:29 pm

    The “King of Pop” title was cre­ated by Michael Jack­son him­self around 1990. I had friends who wrote the blurbs your hear between pro­grams for Fox TV, and MJ’s video of “Black and White” was going to be shown on Fox exclu­sively. Every blurb on Fox for weeks before the debut of the video had to include a men­tion of the video and had to include the title “King of Pop.” The use of the phrase was in his contract.

    I agree that his music is grossly over­rated. Hear­ing him referred to as a genius is truly grat­ing. I saw an old clip of Amer­i­can Band­stand once with Aretha Franklin sit­ting at a piano tak­ing requests. She sang a Temp­ta­tions song, “…ooooh, baby baby…” so soul­fully it gave me chills. Noth­ing Michael Jack­son has done or will ever do can touch that.

  5. brian stouder said on June 14th, 2005 at 1:13 pm

    Carmella has it right. Who was the last ‘celebrity’ to get con­victed? Prob­a­bly Martha Stew­art, and her crime was telling a “lie” to the feds. If only they could have put the mother of the fed­eral agent she lied to on the stand, and let the jury decide that they didn’t like her — she too could have been acquitted!

    I recall after the con­vic­tion of the telegenic fel­low who mur­dered his telegenic preg­nant wife, that the striped-pants defense lawyer crowd on teevee began to growl about ‘jury mis­con­duct’ because of some of the post-verdict remarks they made.….and nobody I’ve heard has men­tioned “jury mis­con­duct” about the twit of woman who indig­nantly said that the accuser’s mom had no buisi­ness snap­ping her fin­gers at the jury, etc etc

    Any­way — I think the par­al­lel here is to Robert Blake; another faded out ‘star’ (par­don the pun) who sim­ply ‘got over’ on the sys­tem, thanks to his celebrity. Ide­ally we all have the ‘pre­sump­tion of inno­cence’, but that pre­sump­tion is surely harder to pierce, when peo­ple remem­ber you as Baretta, or as a moon-walking pres­ence on MTV

  6. Nance said on June 14th, 2005 at 1:17 pm

    Hon­est, Brian, that finger-snapping detail is the only one that inter­ests me, and I haven’t seen it explained any­where. In what con­text did she snap her fin­gers at the jury? Was she sig­nal­ing for some­one to fetch her a mar­garita, or try­ing to catch their atten­tion so she could motion to some­thing weird the defen­dant was doing?

  7. alex said on June 14th, 2005 at 1:48 pm

    Brian, I don’t know that it’s star­dom so much as it is hav­ing the best defense attor­neys money can buy, along with the good for­tune of pros­e­cu­tion wit­nesses so unsym­pa­thetic no one cares what the accused did. Blake’s wife was such a skank the jury doubt­less for­gave him. And the mother of the vic­tims in the Jack­son case, though not on trial, ought to have been.

  8. blue girl said on June 14th, 2005 at 2:21 pm

    Nance: I also was intrigued by the fin­ger snap­ping comment.

    Here’s what I found at cnn​.com:

    “The jurors, who lis­tened to the mother for more than five days, indi­cated that they, too, doubted her cred­i­bil­ity and were put off by the way she directly addressed jurors and accented her tes­ti­mony by snap­ping her fingers.

    “I dis­liked it intensely,” said Juror No. 5, a 79-year-old woman from Santa Maria. “I thought, ‘Don’t snap your fin­gers at me, lady.’ ”

    Must be a habit she had –

    The other thing that I couldn’t get over — was that one woman who looked com­pletely nor­mal who was let­ting a dove fly out of a cage every time they read “not-guilty.”

    It is quite a world we live in. Never a dull moment.

  9. Dorothy said on June 14th, 2005 at 2:47 pm

    A for­mer co-worker of mine is a racist, pure and sim­ple. She loves Amer­i­can Idol and refused to vote for any con­tes­tant who was black. So I was stunned to get an e-mail from her this morn­ing say­ing she was “very excited and happy” that MJ was found inno­cent. I am still amazed at this. I was con­vinced she’d be fum­ing mad that he was not con­victed. It is indeed a strange world, blue girl.

  10. mary said on June 14th, 2005 at 3:24 pm

    Dorothy

    Michael Jackson’s race is sort of non-existent, isn’t it? He uses the race card when things aren’t going his way, but his two mar­riages were to white women, his chil­dren are white, and to me that crowd of dove releas­ing weirdos looked mostly white. Maybe a white racist would like him because he tries so hard to not be black.

  11. Nance said on June 14th, 2005 at 3:35 pm

    What would she have done with those doves if the ver­dict had gone the other way? “Stand back, I’m stran­glin’ another one!”

  12. John said on June 14th, 2005 at 3:47 pm

    Where was it that they released the dove and it immea­di­ately took a nose dive?

  13. Dorothy said on June 14th, 2005 at 4:08 pm

    Mary — as I typed my pre­vi­ous entry it did dawn on me: Hey — he’s not really black any­more!! So maybe that’s why this woman feels the way she does. But I just think she’s twisted — in more ways than one.

  14. mary said on June 14th, 2005 at 11:51 pm

    Dorothy

    What could a racist find more appeal­ing than a black man who des­per­ately wants to be white? It’s like he’s seen the error of his ways. Michael Jack­son had the money and power to make him­self and his chil­dren white, which is pretty rare.

    I heard some com­men­tary on the radio today about the “celebrity” idea. Some­one pointed out that if this was Mike Tyson on trial, it’s not likely he would have been more liked by the jury than the accuser and his mother.

  15. Dorothy said on June 15th, 2005 at 6:54 am

    Excel­lent point, Mary! When it comes to this woman, I feel what­ever feel­ings she has must be sub­lim­i­nal at best. She is not very bright and was always very petty over things that hap­pened in the office. But you called this one right — he’s white now, so he’s accept­able to her.

  16. Ricardo said on June 15th, 2005 at 5:31 pm

    Phil Spec­tor hair saved him? http://​sfgate​.com/​c​o​l​u​m​n​i​s​t​s​/​a​s​m​ussen/

    (look at 6/15 archive after Friday)

    I remem­ber a kid with tons of tal­ent. Some­times kid stars look funny when they grow up. Like Jerry Mathers.

    “Jackson’s John­son” was dis­cussed on Radio’s Stephanie Miller show, I thought that was pretty funny.