![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 4 to 28 of 28. Go back in thread:
Posted by Mark H. on April 11, 2005, at 19:32:06
In reply to Michael Jackson???, posted by Spriggy on April 11, 2005, at 16:12:52
It reminds me of an awful joke that goes like this: "What do Michael Jackson and JCPenney have in common? Little boys pants half off."
I think Jackson is developmentally stalled at an emotional age of somewhere around 12-13 years old. I don't know whether he is predatory or not, but I don't think he belongs in prison.
Used2b is right -- even if he's acquitted, it doesn't necessarily mean he's innocent. It's a genuine tragedy no matter what happens in his trial.
Mark H.
Posted by Spriggy on April 11, 2005, at 21:18:22
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson???, posted by Mark H. on April 11, 2005, at 19:32:06
He seems on the verge of an emotional breakdown to me.
I have even wondered if he is suicidal. He just seems so sad.. It really breaks my heart.. the whole thing.
Posted by annierose on April 11, 2005, at 21:46:44
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson???, posted by Spriggy on April 11, 2005, at 21:18:22
Feel sad? for who? Michael ... please ...
How about those young boys? But I digress, how could any responsible parent let Michael Jackson "babysit"? Seriously. Michael has troubled written all over his face! And as a parent, I can't imagine letting my children anywhere near his estate.Guilty. Enjoy life in prison.
Posted by used2b on April 11, 2005, at 23:06:08
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson???, posted by Bobby on April 11, 2005, at 18:07:50
> I wonder who's going to hold his umbrella in prison?
If he is convicted, the State of California will likely provide shade. The Associated Press reported in 1986 that Doctor of Dermatology Arnold Klein confirmed a diagnosis of vitiligo. The state is obligated to provide adequate care for people in its custody, though the adequacy of that care is often the subject of controversy.
I was told on the admin board this site is open to comments about how one feels when reading certain posts. I feel sad when I read jokes about people with vitiligo. I feel uncomfortable when I read jokes about pedophiles, accused pedophiles and their victims or alleged victims. I feel confused when I read rules that I don't see enforced.
Anybody wonder how I feel now?
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 11, 2005, at 23:21:21
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson???, posted by Spriggy on April 11, 2005, at 21:18:22
It makes me very sad too Spriggy.
Posted by partlycloudy on April 12, 2005, at 7:50:02
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson???, posted by Spriggy on April 11, 2005, at 21:18:22
I feel the same way - I don't know when the ride will stop spinning for this particular circus, but it's very sad for ALL victims - of possible crimes committed, and victims of the media.
pc
Posted by Dinah on April 12, 2005, at 8:06:01
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson??? » Spriggy, posted by partlycloudy on April 12, 2005, at 7:50:02
I haven't been following this news story at all, but I checked last night to see if the verdict was in, and I was *appalled*.
I couildn't believe the testimony about a former child star by *name* was allowed at all. Perhaps it might personalize things for the jury, but I can't think that worth *at all* the embarassment they are putting on a person who was a child at the time this was allegedly happening. I thought it was required that minors be referred to without name if they aren't involved in the trial.
I can't believe the judge is allowing that.
Posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 10:41:11
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson???, posted by Dinah on April 12, 2005, at 8:06:01
> I couildn't believe the testimony about a former child star by *name* was allowed at all. Perhaps it might personalize things for the jury, but I can't think that worth *at all* the embarassment they are putting on a person who was a child at the time this was allegedly happening. I thought it was required that minors be referred to without name if they aren't involved in the trial.
>
> I can't believe the judge is allowing that.The people of California allowed it. The state passed a law recently that allows evidence of prior allegations in sexual assault and domestic violence cases, even though the prior matters might never have gone to trial. The use of names is not consistent -- in the one instance where a child actor is now appearing on TV to say "nothing happened" between him and MJ, it was some action he took that opened the door to use of his name. I would need to sort out details, but any other juvenile appearing in the trial is assured anonymity unless they have made some public comment that revealed their role in the trial. Otherwise, juvenile faces have been blurred and names have been redacted.
For the most part, media orgs have ethical guidelines that go beyond legal requirements for withholing the names of victims of sexual assault. In most cases, a victim's public statement rends the ethical and legal curtain.
Posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 10:56:47
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson??? » Spriggy, posted by partlycloudy on April 12, 2005, at 7:50:02
> I feel the same way - I don't know when the ride will stop spinning for this particular circus, but it's very sad for ALL victims - of possible crimes committed, and victims of the media.
> pcThe wheels of justice will hopefully continue turning. It's seldom pretty when justice degrades to mob action. And the opposite -- secret trials -- might be even worse.
When people use mass communication to gain wealth and fame, they become public figures whose lives the media can and should watch. News coverage lets the public see their humanity, for better or worse, beyond the pretense of their public performances. (Acting on stage is formal pretense.) If not for the media, one young man's teachers would never have asked the difficult questions about what happened in Michael's bedroom.
Posted by partlycloudy on April 12, 2005, at 11:35:06
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson??? » partlycloudy, posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 10:56:47
Posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 11:57:00
In reply to Michael Jackson???, posted by Spriggy on April 11, 2005, at 16:12:52
Posted by partlycloudy on April 12, 2005, at 12:41:29
In reply to Don't post to X/ I haven't seen the first request (nm), posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 11:57:00
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/479673.html
Posted by Susan47 on April 12, 2005, at 12:48:51
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson???, posted by Mark H. on April 11, 2005, at 19:32:06
You said you don't know whether Jackson is predatory or not. Then you said you don't think he belongs in prison. Does that mean that you don't think predators belong in prison? Or do you not believe that people can be predatory? Or would you re-phrase what you said ...?
Posted by Susan47 on April 12, 2005, at 12:50:27
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson??? GUILTY » Spriggy, posted by annierose on April 11, 2005, at 21:46:44
If by "troubled" you could possibly be referring to the fact that here is a human being who has completely, by choice mind you, altered the landscape of the face he was born with ... then yes, it certainly is written all over his face.
Posted by Susan47 on April 12, 2005, at 12:51:47
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson??? GUILTY » annierose, posted by Susan47 on April 12, 2005, at 12:50:27
And the alteration was not done once, it was done innumerable times .. each one HAD to have been very painful ... each surgery making him more and more vulnerable ...
Posted by Mark H. on April 12, 2005, at 12:55:25
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson??? » Mark H., posted by Susan47 on April 12, 2005, at 12:48:51
I truly regret my post from yesterday and wish I could delete it. Out of respect to all involved, I'd prefer not to make any further comments about the Michael Jackson case.
Mark H.
Posted by Susan47 on April 12, 2005, at 13:00:22
In reply to Re: I Regret My Previous Post, posted by Mark H. on April 12, 2005, at 12:55:25
I am afraid there are a great many people who don't complete their thinking. Celebrity or not, a predator is a predator. Or not. A celebrity you "like" or "love" is a person. What are people capable of?
I fear the public so terribly much at times. You are too easily swayed.
Posted by Larry Hoover on April 12, 2005, at 13:02:06
In reply to 2nd request - please do not post to me. (nm) » used2b, posted by partlycloudy on April 12, 2005, at 11:35:06
Very kind of you to give another chance.
Lar
Posted by Dinah on April 12, 2005, at 22:36:06
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson??? » Dinah, posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 10:41:11
I'm not talking legality. I'm talking morality.
He has been pestered for years about his relationship with Michael Jackson. I think a denial under those circumstances of something very private that others were attempting to make public doesn't open the doors to rip away his privacy.
I don't know what happened between him and Michael Jackson at all. But whether the testimonies are true, or whether they're false, I don't see any added benefit in naming names. If they're true, it's horrible no matter who the child was. And I see harm in naming names. I wouldn't want it done to me.
Posted by used2b on April 13, 2005, at 0:06:12
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson??? » used2b, posted by Dinah on April 12, 2005, at 22:36:06
> I'm not talking legality. I'm talking morality.
>
> He has been pestered for years about his relationship with Michael Jackson. I think a denial under those circumstances of something very private that others were attempting to make public doesn't open the doors to rip away his privacy.
>
> I don't know what happened between him and Michael Jackson at all. But whether the testimonies are true, or whether they're false, I don't see any added benefit in naming names. If they're true, it's horrible no matter who the child was. And I see harm in naming names. I wouldn't want it done to me.
I guess I don't know which one you say is being named. There is the child actor that is appearing on Larry King. Nobody subpoenaed him to go on television. If nothing happened sexually between them and he wants to support his friend Michael by telling the public nothing happened, it's his choice.Otherwise, the ones appearing in the trial, as I said, are shielded by law and by news-industry ethics unless they voluntarily appeared in a public forum.
How could it be immoral for the news industry to do its job by following up on allegations that a millionaire is raping children and using his wealth to cover it up? I am confident responsible media organizations offer confidentiality to those they are able to shield. The child actor is making personal apperances of his own volition, so it would be impossible to shield him.
The moral issue arises when a grown man publicly advocates sleep-overs with unrelated young boys who consider him an authority figure.
Posted by Dinah on April 13, 2005, at 0:28:13
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson??? » Dinah, posted by used2b on April 13, 2005, at 0:06:12
I'm not going to argue the point. I wouldn't want that sort of story being told about me publicly, whether or not it's true. I wouldn't be able to face the world knowing what everyone was picturing. And so it upsets me to see it done to someone else. Whatever happened or didn't happen, he was a child.
Mr. Jackson was not.
Neither were the parents of any of the children involved. Why child endangerment charges haven't been brought up, no matter what actually went on in Mr. Jackson's bed, is totally beyond me. I consider keeping my son out of the beds of grown men a rather basic parental duty.
There's no reason you need to agree with me. And no reason I need to agree with you.
Posted by used2b on April 13, 2005, at 2:12:00
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson??? » used2b, posted by Dinah on April 13, 2005, at 0:28:13
> I'm not going to argue the point.
That's cool. I concur child victims of sexual abuse should not be named, nor should rape victims. I've argued the point for real elsewhere, where it counts. I just haven't seen the names named that seem to have upset you.
Posted by Dinah on April 13, 2005, at 7:37:00
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson???, posted by used2b on April 13, 2005, at 2:12:00
Well, that's good, right? Because if you saw the names, then I was violating my own principles.
Posted by used2b on April 13, 2005, at 22:38:59
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson??? » used2b, posted by Dinah on April 13, 2005, at 7:37:00
> Well, that's good, right? Because if you saw the names, then I was violating my own principles.
It seems consistent with your principals, yes.And thanks, because though I might be interested in more details about which witnesses have been identified by what organization, I really didn't want to read the names here.
Posted by Susan47 on April 17, 2005, at 20:24:53
In reply to Re: I Regret My Previous Post, posted by Susan47 on April 12, 2005, at 13:00:22
Oh yes, do I ever. So I just re-read it for the first time since I posted and I'm thinking, okay, that sounds really high-handed and arrogant, and I knew that as I was thinking and posting it, but I did it anyway, because I thought, well maybe somebody will see through all that attitude and get at the truth ... this is a technique commonly used by some people, but why? Because right now all this thinking, and the post I'm referring to, sound completely and absolutely manic but it all also makes sense. (sigh, oh shite I'm getting off Babble before I drive everybody crazy most esp. me.)
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.