Silverthorne

There's no arguing with 'Supremist White folks think they have the right to rule everything.'

Any more than there is arguing with 'Illegally immigrating Mexicans/hispanics are ruining our economy'

Or 'the greedy Japanese are destroying the electronics market with their cheap knock-offs'

Or 'Lazy black folk just want the easiest way to make money without having to work for it'.

There just isn't.

But it makes for such LOVELY mental imagery, doesn't it?

Now I remember why I ignore all of it instead of trying to point out a broader view than just the skin color (and the problems that come up when you point just skin color out and use it as the focus). Pots and kettles.

I was taught not even to notice skin color, thanks. The only time I do is when I get hit with some racial reference or another from other folks. Or art, because they teach you 'traits' races have to help the audience recognize what they see. Because every one labels and expects to see labels. Not that I notice that either, except knowing that's why people do it.

Kinda hard to ignore though when it's in your face. I get real aware real fast, and it makes me sad, because then suddenly I realize there's gonna be a huge-ass gap there no matter what. I see humans, not races. Not until you remind me.

So, this melanin-challanged, possibly 'superior' chick (That would be White Chick Who Just May Be A White Supremist--whatever the fuck that is. Not real sure of the criteria, other than being white) is bowing out of such discussions until people learn a little more about just being goddamned human. 'Cause I'm just pissing in the wind, here.

Love you all.

Loud-mouth out.

The Duke rape case continues..

( So, one of the accused at least has been involved in other things )

Brittney Spears as the next 'mother figure'.

I mean...I really am not sure.

It's a lovely piece of art.

It's also already getting 'claimed' or derided by both sides of the abortion issue.

...He used Brittney Spears as a model.

I feel the same way about her that some people feel about That Woman.

So...uh...yeah.

Really torn here.

My comparison to OJ's trial:
Overly covered, overly assumed, overly exposed. None of our damned business. Since when do we need the paparazzi in the courthouse? SO glad I won't be hearing anymore peeps about this for a while...until the next money making scheme comes up, that is.

Opinion of the Verdict:
Had a serious WTF? moment. Instinct says you don't get 'caught' that many times for the same thing and there not to be something to it. May not be the 'somthing' everyone thinks it is...but it IS something. I don't care how much money the guy has, how influential he is, what color he is, who all wants a piece of him, and so forth. I don't even pay attention to that nowadays, because anyone with a high profile can and does join the chorus of "You're just after them/me because they're/he's *blat*. Yeah, right. Keep it off the cameras then. You got the money, use it for something sensible for once.

Not thinking that way here other than to acknowledge that's how it usually boils down when people start turning on each other for letting something like this spectacle evolve.

It's simple, guys. No matter if Jackson is white, black, polka dotted, rich, poor, sane, or eccentric...

Something is wrong with that boy. Something has been wrong with that boy since before he started plastic surgery way back in the 80's. He. NEEDS. A. PSYCHIATRIST! By the same token, now that I've thought about it (and read a few good, polite convos such as the one over in indigoskynet's LJ), I can see where the ball got dropped. No concrete evidence to blow the 'reasonable doubt' out of the water.

That's the only thing that sucks about doing trials legally.

Anyway...instinct says something is up with him. Part of me argues that mental 'kid' or no, Jackson should have known better. He knows enough of good and bad to make 'Moonwalker', make the song 'Just Leave Me Alone' (or whatever the title of the one song was where he hit back at everyone for trying to tear him apart in the media), then he knows enough to know not to get kids into his own bed, no matter his intentions or whatever 'innocent' activity went on.

...Don't we chase kids out of the parental bed by the time they're 8 or so anyway? You know, to teach them about boundaries and 'appropriate' relations?

Which bring us to...all these moms (and now adult kids) having fits after the fact? LONG after the fact?

Ignoring the obvious 'Well, they're after Micheal's money', let's just get down to brass tacks...

Why, when there has been reasonable doubt in the past, did you leave your kids with him in the first place? I realize the guy may just be 'a little loose in the head' and nothing else, but if you knew what's happened before (and you should, because every time this has come up, it's been broadcast in some way), then why were you stupid enough to take that chance with your kid?

Anyway...obviously, I'm still not really coherent here, so, let me summarize and go away.

1) A little shocked that he didn't get convicted on anything, but if the jurors followed the 'reasonable doubt' clause, it's to be expected. Especially with the media in on it.

2) I know something is wrong with the guy...he needs to be taken away somewhere--either to jail or a psyche unit. Well, he needs a psyche unit either way.

3) Glad it's over and hope the media hype around it dies quickly as well.

4) To the media: Next time, guys? Shut up and let them handle it in private? You're not helping if there is something really bad going on...in fact, you're making it easier for the guy to get away. Use a few brains yourself.