…he asks for a change of venue and gets his trial moved to Los Angeles.
Seriously, I don’t know how to feel about the Michael Jackson verdict. Part of me wants to think, “I’m so glad it turns out he’s not guilty; maybe there really isn’t anything to these charges. Which would be nice because it means he’s not a pedophile and children weren’t being traumatized.” And on the other hand I think about the impressive percentage of celebrities walking away from crimes in California and wonder if–despite the jury’s claims to the contrary–the cult of celebrity really does render them invulnerable. After all, Nicole Simpson reportedly told friends that she was convinced her husband would kill her and get away with it.
I swear, if Phil Spector gets away with having shot Lana Clarkson…I mean, unlike all the other participants in all the other cases, her I actually met and talked with…the day she died, in fact. It’s not like we became fast buds or anything, but for the brief time I met her, she was very sweet and seemed so full of life, and that guy claims she went to his house and killed herself out of the blue? It’s an outrage. So let’s see what happens with that.
PAD
• 
The thing I find the most disturbing is all the people who just KNOW that Jackson was guilty. What a marvelous little lynch mob mentality we have going here. Heck, watching the aftermath of the MJ trial, I keep flashing back to the end of To Kill a Mockingbird, though I doubt a bunch of rednecks with a rope would get within 100 feet of Jackson.
But, back to my original point/gripe. You don’t KNOW that he’s guilty. It may be your OPINION or INFERENCE that he’s guilty. I’d even concede the possibility that he was, in fact, guilty. I have no way of knowing, though, one way or the other, and I refuse to get worked up about it.
-Rex Hondo-
To be completely accurate, even jury members have come forward to say yes, they personally feel that MJ acted improperly. One went as far as to say he felt that Jackson did molest boys. However “reasonable doubt” was present and they could not say absolutely for certain he did it. He emphasized that the judge warned them against using personal opinion.
Jackson is certainly not innocent. He has publically acted inappropriately upon several occassions. I think it’s fair enough to doubt innocence opposed to not guilty.
Going back to the juror that discussed the inability to allow his personal opinion to sway his vote, I have to ask. What does it say about our honesty and faith when we attempt to eradicate human emotion from the courtroom? I find it extremely disturbing to hear jurors announce that their personal beliefs do not coincide with their votes. Not that I don’t recognize the necessity in it. I do. I understand our juries should send a person to prison just on a personal whim because it sounds good. But I wonder what it says that we cannot rely on our instincts and common sense in addition to the facts presented.
From my post above… “I understand our juries should send a person to prison…”
It should be I understand our juries SHOULDN”T sent a person to prison…
Sorry 😉
“But I wonder what it says that we cannot rely on our instincts and common sense in addition to the facts presented.”
Perhaps if common sense was truly more common than it actually is…
-Rex Hondo-
And on the other hand I think about the impressive percentage of celebrities walking away from crimes in California and wonder if–despite the jury’s claims to the contrary–the cult of celebrity really does render them invulnerable.
Hmmm, maybe the jury should be made up of famous people who are already jaded by the cult of celebrity…
You know, I’ve often wondered if the jury has to follow the rules? Is there really anything stopping the jury members in the deliberation room saying, "Well, the prosecution really did a bad job proving beyond reasonable doubt, but we all know he’s guilty so screw it, lets find him guilty."
That would make for a dangerous precedent I guess…
Another comment mentioned that there were other cases that they couldn’t make a trial on because there is a statute of limitations that has passed. I’ve always found this expiry time a strange idea. Here in Australia there is no statute of limitations on sexual child abuse. (You should have seen the look on my abuser’s face when I told him that twenty years after the acts were committed…)
Dic. H.
I have followed the trial a bit because Sky One here in Britain broadcast the highlights using actors and scripts.
When you just look at the evidence as presented, no wonder that there must be reasonable doubt! The Home Alone star denied having been mistreated by Michael Jackson in any way after it was publicly stated that he was. The contrary, nobody even talked to him BEFORE this was done!
Magazines found at Michael Jacksons ranch weren`t checked for fingerprints for months. Worse, the boys who accused MJ could have touched them at the police station before these examinations were made!
The mother was definitely entertaining to watch. The bit if she got a leg wax or body wax was just hilarious. But as witness for the procecution, she was a disaster.
I don`t think any other verdict was possible here. Locking a man up because he shares a bed with boys without any sexual meaning behind it is enough to lock him up. This is obviously what the jury believed.
…is not enough.
Sorry, my daughter kept climbing all over me while I was typing.
“I am slightly appalled that someone with such a commitment to civil rights can suggest that in a particular case, any particular case, a person who is found not guilty should be considered as anything less than innocent.”
I’m a big fan of the “innocent until proven guilty” thing, but I have only two words for people who cling to it come hëll or high water: Al Capone.
“Well, the prosecution really did a bad job proving beyond reasonable doubt, but we all know he’s guilty so screw it, lets find him guilty.”
Jim Unger’s HERMAN strip had a good one on that as a dour-faced judge comments to the defendant: “The jury found you ‘not guilty’, but I’m going to give you two years, just to be on the safe side.”
PAD, I was neither trying to sneer nor snipe at you. I was just left with my mouth hanging open when I read your comments and responded to them.
I know there are cases where no right minded person agrees with the result given by the jury, and I know there are bizarre miscarriages of justice but my response was to a general comment you made about the subject, not a specific one.
The tone of many of the comments here has been “I disagree with the verdict and so I am going to do all I can to damage the life of this person.” In this case that really just means refusing to buy any products produced by them and talking trash whenever possible, but translate that to a more local situation and the action becomes a lot more direct and personal. Your comment in context seemed to sanction this lynch mob attitude. This makes me extremely uncomfortable.
As for the “feh” comment, I’m not sure where I picked that up from. I had rewritten a last sentence several times and in the end just decided the heck with it. I’m not sure whether to be amused or appalled to be taken for John Byrne.
I’ve been reading this blog for a while now, and while I don’t always agree with your opinions I do respect them. If my honest reactions are going to be dismissed as the simple minded sniping of someone with a grudge then I don’t see much point in sticking around.
“”They spend millions on convicting M. Stewart for a phone call she lied about.”
Ummm…no. They spent millions of dollars convicting someone of selling off $60K worth of stock that she knew was going to tumble the next day because of inside information.”
Actually, they *did* spend millions to convict Stewart for the crime of being a liar.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news/companies/martha_verdict/
Ok, os technically it was for obstructing justice, but the judge tossed the charge that related to the actual stock trade. So Stewart was convicted, even though the only law she broke was that she lied to the investigators…about an act that ultimately wasn’t a crime. It’s similar to what nearly happened to Chris Webber. He didn’t do anything illegal (accepted money from a booster while playing NCAA basketball at the U of M)…but he didn’t tell the precise truth during his grand jusy testimony (as I understand it, Webber was asked if he received a specific amount of money from the booster. Webber’s reply was something like “it was not that amount of money. The actual totals were only a few hundred $ off, so Webber’s answer was technically, factually, and legally correct. This didn’t stop the government for threatening to prosecute him, and his father, for obstruction of justice).
The lesson, of course, is don’t lie to the government during an investigation, especially if you haven’t done anything wrong.
The more insidious lesson, of course, is that the government employs some prosecutors that are little more than bullys, wielding enough power to take away your freedom.
The Michael Jackson trail would have been news had it happened during Clinton, Nixon, Reagan, Fillmore, whoever. OJ wasn’t part of a “distraction strategy” and neither was this.
My point was the fact that this should NOT be the most important news of any day.
No, I don’t see this as some governmental conspiracy (beyond the local idiots in California who yet again screwed up another prosecution).
But, either way, you know the White House is loving it.
Actually, I think justice was served BECAUSE of the cult of celebrity.
Let’s for a moment say that some unknown black man (with or without the bleached skin) was charged with this crime. History suggests that the jury would already believe the guy is guilty, making reasonable doubt much easier to overcome. (Or forget the black guy and make it a priest.)
Because MJ and OJ are celebrities, the willing suspension of innocent before proven guilty was almost a given… not because they believed them innocent, but because being “larger than life” they are difficult to judge (“this ain’t no common black man…”)and hearing the case out with a semblence of an open mind is possible.
The witnesses weren’t credible and they were seen that way. If they had been, he would have been convicted.
“Innocent until proven guilty” is for court, by the way, not the police or the common folk.
The lesson, of course, is don’t lie to the government during an investigation, especially if you haven’t done anything wrong.
cf. Clinton. The only thing the millions spent on his investigation was ever able to turn up on him was lying about something that wasn’t a crime. nothing else stuck.
“PAD, I was neither trying to sneer nor snipe at you. I was just left with my mouth hanging open when I read your comments and responded to them.”
And I’m saying that you overreacted and that overreaction came across as contemptuous at best, snotty at worst.
“I know there are cases where no right minded person agrees with the result given by the jury, and I know there are bizarre miscarriages of justice but my response was to a general comment you made about the subject, not a specific one.”
Except my comment was not a general one, but instead a very specific one as to the fact that–from a legal point of view–juries find someone “not guilty,” not “innocent.” In fact, I was simply acknowledging someone else’s post on the subject; I notice you didn’t excoriate them.
“The tone of many of the comments here has been “I disagree with the verdict and so I am going to do all I can to damage the life of this person.””
This is one of my favorite internet stunts: Completely distort what people are saying and put it in quotes as a means of adding veracity. I have reread this thread, every posting, and I have seen not so much as a single post that even comes close to your implication. Not even close. I didn’t even see a single person saying they were going to boycott Jackson’s future work. Now if I missed one and someone did say it, okay. I read through it fast. But it’s not remotely prevalent; there is no lynch mob mentality at work here. Which is actually kind of funny: All I have to express political opinions someone doesn’t like, and people come out of the woodwork to announce they’ll never touch my comics again. But many people believe that Michael Jackson wasn’t innocent of the charges, verdict notwithstanding, and they’re STILL not saying they’ll shun his future work…your fabricated quote to the contrary.
“Your comment in context seemed to sanction this lynch mob attitude. This makes me extremely uncomfortable.”
Then you need to reexamine the prism through which you’re viewing this thread, because in my opinion, you’re seeing something that isn’t there. Personally, I believe you have your own issues and concerns that are distorting what you’re reading here, but there is NO lynch mob attitude at work here. Most of the discussion revolves around an even-handed examination of the pros and cons of the judicial system, and posters here are as inclined to criticize the prosecution’s case as anything else. Indeed, many have said that they themselves would have found “Not guilty.” You’re reacting to something that simply isn’t there.
“As for the “feh” comment, I’m not sure where I picked that up from. I had rewritten a last sentence several times and in the end just decided the heck with it. I’m not sure whether to be amused or appalled to be taken for John Byrne.”
Well, it read like his, so take it however you wish.
“I’ve been reading this blog for a while now, and while I don’t always agree with your opinions I do respect them. If my honest reactions are going to be dismissed as the simple minded sniping of someone with a grudge then I don’t see much point in sticking around.”
Well, you said “simple minded,” I didn’t. But yes, I very much thought that you had a grudge for the simple reason that–at first read–what you wrote was SO unrelated to what was here that I was looking for some motivation. Your follow-up post, with your quotations of non-existent sentiments, only lends validity to my previous assessment. If you want to say that it was not motivated by personal enmity, fine, I accept that. But it sure was motivated by SOMETHING going on inside your own head. What that something may be, I haven’t the faintest idea, nor do I really care that much since it’s personal to you. But I’m telling you here and now that your condemnation of a pretty straightforward discussion of the pros and cons of jury trials and the power of celebrity in such situations are the rantings of a “lynch mob” is a wildly unfair characterization.
Now if that observation steams you so much that you feel the need to depart in a snit, that’s entirely your decision. No one is forcing you to do so, nor asking you, nor urging you. But I think that, in regards to boycotts and trying to make someone’s life difficult, we had more people howling for economic bloodletting when it came to the Dixie Chicks than Michael Jackson. Which might be an interesting indicator of where people’s priorities are, but I couldn’t say for sure.
PAD
Michael Jackson did go on television and talk about how much he loved spending the night sleeping in the same bed as young boys.
This may be true, but unless the prosecution showed it during the trial, it doesn’t get considered.
He has publically acted inappropriately upon several occassions.
Inappropiately does not always mean illegal.
What does it say about our honesty and faith when we attempt to eradicate human emotion from the courtroom?
I think it says that we can fairly judge someone after hearing both sides of the story. That’s why we use impartial juries. If we’re going to judge people according to our emotions, why bother with trials when we can just conduct opinion polls to decide.
PAD:
>>What does it say about our honesty and faith when we attempt to eradicate human emotion from the courtroom?
>I think it says that we can fairly judge someone after hearing both sides of the story. That’s why we use impartial juries. If we’re going to judge people according to our emotions, why bother with trials when we can just conduct opinion polls to decide.
Awww Peter, you take away the fun of considering the possibility of modern day reenactments of the witch trials when you make with this crazy talk… and uh stuff.
oops… misread this… Michal gave the response that I attributed to PAD.
Robert Blake sat in jail for months, if not years, and he hadn’t been proven guilty. Ed Kramer of Dragon*Con has remained under house arrest for FOUR YEARS, accused of child molestation, and still hasn’t had his day in court to my knowledge.
Don’t forget Jose Padilla – 3 years 37 days in prison while the government says “no trial if we say so”.
“Don’t forget Jose Padilla – 3 years 37 days in prison while the government says “no trial if we say so”.”
At least Padilla has some credible connection to terrorist actions. What about the hundreds of other internationals sitting in some US prison camp that we *don’t* have any evidence of terrorist activities on? And, convienently enough, since we blew up the governments that those people used to be under, there’s no one to fight for their rights.
Because no one else has said it yet:
Y’know, the only reason Jackson got off was because he’s white.
🙂
Actually, that was commented on last night in the “Daily Show.” Stephen Colbert stated that Jackson had played “the race cards.” When Jon Stewart questioned the plural “cards,” Colbert when on to explain that the all-white jury felt guilty over the concept of convicting a black man, but at the same time, naturally hesitated to find a fellow white man guilty.
PAD
I didn’t even see a single person saying they were going to boycott Jackson’s future work.
Well, to be fair PAD, it’s pretty easy to boycott MJ’s singing career considering he hasn’t had one for going on 10 years now. Whether he has actually committed a crime or not, his own bizarro and inappropriate behavior had already destroyed his career as an entertainer. So, even though he’s a free man, he really has no hope of resurrecting it. Maybe he can devote his life to finding the real pre-pubescent boy rapers.
Or maybe he’ll just take up golf.
Den
There’s no such phrase as “no hope” when it comes to resurrecting careers. If Richard Nixon could be treated as an elder stateman late in his career, Michael Jackson can come back from this. And he probably has more die-hard fans at this point than Nixon had.
I think people have too many fond memories of Jackson at his peak to want to write him off. I think if Jackson gives them the excuse to move beyond the recent ugliness by producing top flight music, going out on tour, reconnecting with his fans…I think they’ll leap at the opportunity if there’s quality product. In my opinion, it’s up to him. In terms of a career restoration, if he builds it, they will indeed come to him.
If, on the other hand, he retreats to Neverland and stays there, then Kathleen is absolutely right on her blog when she says he’ll be the new Howard Hughes, living in paranoid seclusion with strange hair and distended fingernails.
PAD
No one says it better than Andrew Vachss. If you’ve never read one of his books, may I recommend you start with FLOOD and work your way forward.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/15/opinion/15vachss.html
You have a point, PAD. But I look at the probabilities.
On the one hand, he would have to totally change his behavior, find his nose and reattach it, drop the entourage that has increasingly isolated him from his fans, and produce top-flight music, or at least music that doesn’t suck.
On the other hand, he could retreat further behind his umbrella holders and other hangers on, continue down the road of increasingly bizarro behavior, continue transforming his face into silly putty, and continue to produce music that is derivative and stale.
I’m giving 100:1 odds in favor of the latter.
One more thing:
Nixon is still a crook. He’s just a dead crook now.
Peter David cannot even comment on Michael Jackson without saying BUSH SUCKS.
Classic. And funny.
Also exponential!
“I’m giving 100:1 odds in favor of the latter.”
I don’t disagree. But whereas you admit that you’re considering the probabilities, I was focusing only on the possibilities. The whole reason that probabilities exist is to try and limit the infinity of chances that possibilities present.
PAD
Maybe so, but only if and when he actually modifies his behavior and image will he have a chance to revive his career. Until them, his career is and remains dead.
Personally, I think Robert Blake has a better chance of a comeback.
Hey! Maybe they could form a double-act, like Velma and Roxie did in “Chicago.”
C’mon. Admit it. You’d pay to see that.
PAD
“Well, to be fair PAD, it’s pretty easy to boycott MJ’s singing career considering he hasn’t had one for going on 10 years now.”
The song “Butterflies” he did for his last album was rather pretty. Caught it on the radio one night. Nice harmonies.
Aside to Bobb- you’re right, I’m wrong. Martha was conviced for lying and obstructing justice while the government was investigating here for her using inside info to sell 60K worth of stock that wasn’t worth 60K.
Except for one thing- I’m perfectly happy with the govvy spending that money to convict her. She knew the rules and broke them.
Absolutely right, Ray, and worse than that, she *thought* she had committed a crime, and was trying to cover it up. I don’t object to specifically sending Martha away, but the idea that you can go to jail when the only crime you committed was because of what you said about an act that wasn’t criminal….
Yeesh, it makes my head spin, but there’s something there that just doesn’t sit well with me. Maybe it’s the “poison fruit” idea that stems from legal evidentiary law: if the only way you obtain some incriminating evidence is through illegal means, you can’t use the illegally obtained evidence (in some cases….Mr. Bjorlin, feel free to correct and expand).
So, if the only reason you’re lieing to the government is to cover up some legal act…how is that a crime?? I get it, and I don’t….
The song “Butterflies” he did for his last album was rather pretty. Caught it on the radio one night. Nice harmonies.
That would be from his “Invincible” album that tanked, right?
I rest my case.
The thing I find the most disturbing is all the people who just KNOW that Jackson was guilty.
Including his past victims who got paid off to keep their mouths shut….
*chuckle* Wouldn’t you know it, somebody had to do a
cartoon about this.
JosephW wrote:
Regarding Gary Miller’s comments: Nancy Grace does NOT host a “news discussion program”. She hosts a “I’m Nancy Grace, former prosecutor, and anyone charged with a crime is GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY, and anyone who can’t see that is stupid” program.
I’m sorry, I’m not going to argue semantics with you. Your bias, your problem. I was being impartial and calling the program what it’s objectively called in respectable media. And anyway, my post wasn’t even about the quality of her program, but rather just a moment I found pretty hilarious. Doesn’t mean I endorse her as the greatest news anchor ever (I don’t). Hey, this thread isn’t about your petty biases about one news anchor. It’s all about vilifying Jacko the Whacko. (/sarcasm)
Looks like, according to today’s paper, 3 of the 12 jurors were leaning toward guilty, but got talked out of it by the other 9. Would that there was any serious consideration paid to the alcohol charge.
And I still think he’ll offend again.
~G.
At least Padilla has some credible connection to terrorist actions. What about the hundreds of other internationals sitting in some US prison camp that we *don’t* have any evidence of terrorist activities on? And, convienently enough, since we blew up the governments that those people used to be under, there’s no one to fight for their rights.
I agree. But Padilla is a U.S. citizen, and the Constitution says everyone has a right to a quick & speedy trial, a jury trial. There are no exemptions listed.
Also, if the Government has a case, they should bring him to trial. I think the Government is holding him as a test case, to see if they can get away with ‘disappearing’ someone.
If any repectable news media is calling Nancy Grace’s show a “news discussion” program, they’re doing their readers/viewers a disservice. Joesph W.’s evaluation of her absolute lack of objectivity is accurate, as anyone who’s ever seen her on Court TV or CNN should be able to tell. I understand there was a murder of a loved one (fiance?) in her past,so she is worthy of sympathy, but still – she is about as unbiased in her arena as Rush Limbaugh is in his. CNN isn’t doing much for their reputation as a news organization by ginving Grace a primetime hour.
Jerry Colvin, thank you for rather spectacularly making my case for me.
-Rex Hondo-
The thing I find the most disturbing is all the people who just KNOW that Jackson was guilty.
Including his past victims who got paid off to keep their mouths shut….
Which personally, I don’t buy it. If someone molested my daughter, there isn’t enough money in circulation in the world’s combined economies to make me shut up and go away. Nothing would satisfy me short of seeing the short-eyes that did it going into the roughest “correctional” institution in the state.
I don’t really believe that the family of a real molestation victim would take hush money.
Further thoughts: Now, I’ll be one of the first to admit, MJ is a Class-A wierdie, but when you’re one of the most recognizable people on the face of the Earth from childhood on, the odds of turning out “normal” are about nil. I suppose the main flaw I see in the whole “He settled, so he must be guilty,” argument, is that it fails to take into account a number of factors.
First, it ignores the overly litigious society of the United States of the last decade or so. When any dûmbášš can sue McDonald’s when they spill coffee on themselves and get a settlement, it makes somebody like Jackson who’s both strange and richer than fûçk a very easy target.
Which brings me to my second point. So he settled for a few million bucks before. The man has more money than he probably knows what to do with. A few million here or there is ášš-wìpìņg money. Even if he didn’t do it (I honestly don’t have an opinion one way or the other) it would have been more than worth it just to avoid the hassle. A trial is always a gamble, whether one is truly guilty or innocent. He put money on the sure thing.
*shrug* Like I said, I don’t know one way or the other, and don’t have any emotional investment in the case, but I do know that molestation is one of the most serious accusations you can level against someone, and if you’re going to, you’d better be dámņ sure you have some evidence to back it up. And for Joe Sixpack from Pig’s Nut, Arkansas to say that he KNOWS what goes on in Neverland is just typical armchair quarterback bûllšhìŧ.
-Rex Hondo-
“I don’t really believe that the family of a real molestation victim would take hush money.”
I don’t believe that YOU would take hush money–or at least your protestations that you wouldn’t come across as very sincere to me–and I know I sure as hëll wouldn’t. Then again, I know I sure as hëll wouldn’t go on an afternoon talk show and use it to air grievances about family members. But, boy howdy, people are sure lining up to do that.
So as repellant a notion as it is to think that people would accept hush money, I have to think that there are no limits as to what some people will do or not do.
PAD
“So as repellant a notion as it is to think that people would accept hush money, I have to think that there are no limits as to what some people will do or not do.”
Which, interestingly enough (to me at least) is a statement which swings both ways, depending on which “side” of the MJ verdict you happen to be on.
One of the best points I saw made as to why the prosecution’s case backfired so spectacularly is that (to paraphrase) anyone who lets their kid spend the night with Jacko is, by definition, too crazy to be credible in court.
-Rex Hondo-
“One of the best points I saw made as to why the prosecution’s case backfired so spectacularly is that (to paraphrase) anyone who lets their kid spend the night with Jacko is, by definition, too crazy to be credible in court.”
Yeah, but that’s just classic Catch-22. The only excuse for getting out of making bombing runs is insanity. But if you claim insanity for the purpose of getting out of bombing duty, the presumption is that you’re in fear of your life, and that fear is demonstrative proof that you’re not insane, so therefore you won’t be excused. But if you truly are insane and not in fear of your life, you won’t apply for getting out of making bombing runs.
Personally, I don’t know that anyone who let their kid spend the night with Michael Jackson is too crazy to be credible in court. I do, however, think they’re too stupid to be good parents. I mean, I’m 48, and if I told my folks I was planning to spend the night with Michael Jackson, they’d say, “The hëll you are.”
PAD
Well, I think you’d be hard pressed to find somebody who’d disagree that, given her performance, “crazy” just about covers the mother in this case.
Of course, the question remains, given Jackson’s legal past, and continuing rumors surrounding him, how much liability in the case rests with the parents? Whether the rumors are true or not, handing one’s child over to the man is dámņ near, if not completely, criminally irresponsible. Might we see proceedings in the near future to legally declare this woman an unfit parent?
(Sorry if I seem to be flogging a dead horse, but once the bluster on either side is out of the way, there are a couple of interesting points to be discussed here)
-Rex Hondo-
Jonathan (the other one):
“short-eyes” ???
I never heard that one before.
“I don’t really believe that the family of a real molestation victim would take hush money.”
Neitherw ould I but one has to admit that the families that did got a hëll of a lot more than the families that, as I would do, tried to use the legal system.
(Actually, my first impulse would be to have the bášŧárd killed and/or tortured but A- ofr the sake of my soul I hope I’d get over that idea and B- realistically, my chances of getting close enough to someone of Jackson’s power is highly unlikely).
“short-eyes” ???
“I never heard that one before.”
It’s the name of a chilling, somewhat obscure film on prison pedophiles. It’s prison slang for child molestors who “have eyes for” short people (children), according to one source. It’s interesting, (and gratifying on so many levels) that even the scum of the earth consider pedophiles to be at the absolute bottom rung of the human ladder and will gladly brutalize them in prison. (Of course, taht also means that one should be pretty dámņ sure of guilt before sending someone to prison on the charge).
Thanks for the definition Bill Mulligan.
Now, I’ll be one of the first to admit, MJ is a Class-A wierdie
What’s so weird about MJ? Sure, she doesn’t realize Spidey is Peter, but it’s not like Spiderman isn’t wearing a mask or anything. It’s perfectly understandable.
Oh, sorry, wrong thread.
Hey! Can we get back to the original topic of BUSH SUCKS?!?!?!?!