Fashion Board 11-2-03 - 12-09-03

[dtb]

Originally posted by Not Bob
And how does Mr Bill (oh nooooo!) feel about libraries?

I have asked this very question -- and his response was that libraries are not-for-profit enterprises, and B&N is a business -- a BUSINESS, dammit!

(Although, sometimes to spice it up, he'll say libraries are just another example of his tax dollars going to waste on all those bums without jobs.) (He's very compassionate.)

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by purse junkie
I am convinced "Michael"'s stubble is fake.

I just said this last night. I completely agree.

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by mmm3587
Actually, apparently she was 13:

I actually do think it's a pretty evil reflection on our society that Polanski is nowhere near as hated as Jackson is, when it seems what they did is pretty similar.

You make some good points... I think part of it is the man/boy angle, the relative difference in Polanski's and Michael's popularity/level of fame, the passage of time, and the fact that the victim in Polanski's case now supports him.

Personally I about threw up when all the celebs were fawning over Polanski at the Oscars. Pretty disgusting that they seem to save all their scorn and indignation for political targets (Bush, Elia Kazan, etc.) and then award an Oscar to a man who admittedly is a fine director, but who is also a fugitive from a sex crime charge...

[Anne Elk]

Originally posted by mmm3587
Ok, now, somebody remind me about why this is more evil than what Roman Polanski did?

Certainly, more titllating to the media, since there's a race angle, a sick kid angle, a homosexuality angle and he's a bigger star. But Michael is alleged to have fondled, right? And Roman is alleged to have sodomized a 14 year old while she was unconscious from drugs he gave her, right?

I just want to make sure that I understand this all...

I don't think it is more evil, but as a society we are no longer sweeping these allegations under the rug and ignoring them. Back in the 60's and 70's these things happened but if you didn't talk about them, then it was easy to pretend that they didn't happen. We also have more media who enjoy the feeding frenzy and slick graphics.*

When I was growing up in suburbia all the kids knew who the freaks were. There were two guys who drove around exposing themselves to us. We also knew that the father of one little boy was molesting his son's friends. We KNEW this, we told our parents this, we told our coaches this, and they said we were just telling stories or making up lies. Mr. So-and-so would never do such a thing, they see him in church, and he coaches Little League, and chaperones field trips, and Boy Scout camping trips, and he's a lawyer. Hah! Years later he was finally convicted on molestation charges and sent to jail.

Michael allegedly used drugs too. As for the sodomy, we'll have to wait for the charges.

Anne
*For example, how much ocean footage have we had to watch over the years whenever there is a plane crash at sea - JFK, Jr., Egypt Air, TWA. Can't speak to OJ's bronco, I was on a bus to Montreal and missed it. Darn.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by mmm3587
Actually, apparently she was 13:

http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments...thirtynine.htm

Spree: text about alleged statutory rapists on "How young can I fuck them" information site.


And I'm not asking about statutes; I'm asking about evil, and wrong and things like that.

I actually do think it's a pretty evil reflection on our society that Polanski is nowhere near as hated as Jackson is, when it seems what they did is pretty similar.

Without inserting my cock into this hunt, I would suggest 3 factors.

1. Time. The Polanski incident happened before many of were alive, or at least before we followed such matters. I think it was a pretty big deal when it was ongoing.

2. Celebrity Status. Polanski had a good run. But Michael was and is a much, much larger celebrity than Polanski has ever been.

3. Frequency of occurrence. If true, the allegations seem to represent an ongoing pattern of behavior. Polanski's infraction, to my knowledge, is a one-off deal.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
Prince is the only no-brainer in that group. Reasonable arguments can, I suppose, be made for ZZ, Traffic, and Jackson Browne. Can't speak to the Dells ("Dude, your getting..."). But Bob Fucking Seger? Has he ever inspired anybody to do anything other than change the channel? Maybe they couldn't get Uriah Heap.

I speak in defense of Bob Seger. He kept grinding out good old fashioned rock n' roll through the dark days of the 70's when the music had nearly died under disco's oppressive polyester fog.

He wasn't innovative or groundbreaking like the Talking Heads or Ramones. He was just there, sweating it out in smaller halls and bars, when it seemed like nobody was listening any more. He kept my appetite whetted for what was to follow. The man bridged two generations of rock music, and he survived, and he wrote some good tunes in the process.

And he did it without wearing pants that had his skinny little ass sticking out and a jeri-curl that made him look like Little Richard wannabe.

[purse junkie]

Originally posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand
You make some good points... I think part of it is the man/boy angle, the relative difference in Polanski's and Michael's popularity, the passage of time, and the fact that the victim in Polanski's case now supports him.

I think it's 'cause a lot of guys in Hollywood could see themselves nailing a barely-teen girl, but can't imagine being a monkey-loving toy-train-building zoo-keeping mutilated freak who is willing to say on TV how sweet it is to sleep in the same bed with a barely-teen boy.

Oh man. Time to break out the drugs.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Aloha Mr. Learned Hand
I think part of it is the man/boy angle, the relative difference in Polanski's and Michael's popularity, the passage of time, and the fact that the victim in Polanski's case now supports him.

Plus, Polanski's bit came up in the "pre-24 hour news all the time, with back-up internet days." I mean, the testimony is buried in old transcripts now. I'm willing to bet it wil be a long time before the Michael evidence is buried.

Michael trivia ?, was shortening to Jacko, after he turned wierd to provide the "wacko" joke, or was the shortening pre-turning wierd?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by purse junkie
I think it's 'cause a lot of guys in Hollywood could see themselves nailing a barely-teen girl, but can't imagine being a monkey-loving toy-train-building zoo-keeping mutilated freak who is willing to say on TV how sweet it is to sleep in the same bed with a barely-teen boy.

Oh, yeah. See #4, supra.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by mmm3587
Ok, now, somebody remind me about why this is more evil than what Roman Polanski did?

Certainly, more titllating to the media, since there's a race angle, a sick kid angle, a homosexuality angle and he's a bigger star. But Michael is alleged to have fondled, right? And Roman is alleged to have sodomized a 14 year old while she was unconscious from drugs he gave her, right?

I just want to make sure that I understand this all...

Roman was decent enough to become a fugitive and remain one without whining about it. Michael tried to expatriate the victim's family to make it impossible to prosecute him.

[SlaveNoMore]

Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
Prince is the only no-brainer in that group. Reasonable arguments can, I suppose, be made for ZZ, Traffic, and Jackson Browne. Can't speak to the Dells ("Dude, your getting..."). But Bob Fucking Seger? Has he ever inspired anybody to do anything other than change the channel? Maybe they couldn't get Uriah Heap.

Mocking the Detroit Springsteen?

Besides, Kid Rock and Jack White [or is it Jack Black] dig 'em, and isn't that all that matters?

On a side note, there is a Yahoo! headline titled "Phil Spector" indicted for murder, and I cannot help thinking it's somehow related to how he killed "Let it Be" judging from the uberfantastic "Stripped" version.

[robustpuppy]

Originally posted by taxwonk
And he did it without wearing pants that had his skinny little ass sticking out and a jeri-curl that made him look like Little Richard wannabe.

You give a man points for that? You are a very easy grader, Mr. Wonk.


And your sig line is funny. This is why I don't ignore them.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Pinky
I've been thinking the same thing. I don't understand why parents would have their kids sleeping over or even spending any extended period of time alone with him. I've always given him the benefit of the doubt but he was accused of molesting a kid before, and he did that creepy interview last year where he was holding that boy's hand and said he sleeps with the kids. That would enough for me never to want any kid I care about to be alone with him. Why risk it? I don't get it.

The parents are fans like PJ that never went through that realization that cute Michael Jackson from the Jackson 5 or even the Thriller version is a crazy man living in a fantasy world that isn't particularily friendly to children. They read the press releases from his camp and believe them. They see the interview from last year and nod enthusiastically when the rebuttal comes out two weeks later. They find no wrong in this freak and there are probably some out there who think that this whole thing is a misunderstanding and a ploy by an evil psychiatrist (who under state law has a duty to report child abuse) and/or bad little boy who is taking advantage of Michael's love for children who wants money.

[Aloha Mr. Learned Hand]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
find no wrong in this freak and there are probably some out there who think that this whole thing is a misunderstanding and a ploy by an evil psychiatrist (who under state law has a duty to report child abuse) and/or bad little boy who is taking advantage of Michael's love for children who wants money.

And neither Michael nor his people have done anything to discourage people from claiming he molested their kids by 1.) paying out $20m plus or whatever it was to the last accuser in 1993; and more importantly 2.) failing to stop engaging in behavior with kids that puts him in a position where he can be accused.

On CNN the other night, Johnnie Cochran, without saying what he advised Michael, seemed to express frustration that he wasn't able to convince Michael in 1993 to change his behavior to avoid exposure (no pun intended) like this...

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The parents are fans like PJ that never went through that realization that cute Michael Jackson from the Jackson 5 or even the Thriller version is a crazy man living in a fantasy world that isn't particularily friendly to children. They read the press releases from his camp and believe them. They see the interview from last year and nod enthusiastically when the rebuttal comes out two weeks later. They find no wrong in this freak and there are probably some out there who think that this whole thing is a misunderstanding and a ploy by an evil psychiatrist (who under state law has a duty to report child abuse) and/or bad little boy who is taking advantage of Michael's love for children who wants money.

I may be wrong, but I don't think PJ would let that love-child of hers hang with this child-lover obsession of hers.