Queasy (alternately, WANTED: Catharsis, and then...Indifference)

***(hiatus is dead. i bludgeoned him with a bat and then shot him 4 times in the chest. keeping me from writing is like keeping a crackhead from his rocks: nearly impossible without rehab, with a little violence sprinkled throughout.)***

See, that's why I don't like liking people. They always let you done in some way. And the funny thing is that you are the one with the problem, not them (well, maybe they do have some issues...).

Let's get real.

As much as I say I'm just a casual admirer of Michael Jackson, in some way he does have this weird hold over me. It's not fucking healthy, especially since I don't know the man!

Ugh.

Anyway, so being the strong woman I am, I have a weakness for any man that is sweet and sensitive-seeming. I would say Michael came off that way, no? My mother always says she likes men who look like they will protect you if something goes down. I see how women want that in a man but it is not of the most importance to me; I prefer sweetness over brute strength because I want someone to baby.

What's the point, you ask?

So, according to some nebulous source, Michael was allegedly someone who got his with hoochies, if you know what I mean. (Maybe I'm overdramatizing it a bit... they weren't really hoochies at all.)

MY CYNICISM ASIDE (because I sure as hell don't buy all of it), I shouldn't be suprised since he was a man. And, as any woman knows, men are just plain disgusting at times; revolting creatures of the Night. 

What I'm grappling with is the deception. Why pretend to be an innocent 'Peter Pan' (well, that is pretty weird) if you really aren't that way? Why not be who you are? R. Kelly is a freak and, yes, he does like teenaged girls, but he didn't hide it.

Also, I don't get the fans. If you are in on this MJ game, you'd be well aware of his fans being fucking nuts. I don't want to be like that because you lose your sanity (not to mention your intelligence and ability to reason!). I also am not the type of person to turn someone I admire's sins into virtue, which is also ridiculously common among his fans. sure, i've done my fair share of apologetics in the past when I was a naive, young, and impressionable christina aguilera fan, trying to assuage my own revulsion to her increasingly slutty image by defending it (how twisted is that?).

See,  I don't get it. None of the fans (mostly female) would ever want their boyfriend to be a fork-tongued, bed-hopping cad. But if it's Michael and it is something that can prove he was never a homosexual or a pedophile, it's all fine and dandy.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Please. He was never a pedophile or gay; why does that have to even be an issue? And to use his VAST porn collection as a NOBLE example, rather than simply invalidating the claims of the accusers (or, really, their money-hungry parents), is more than just a little disturbing and backwards.

Any man who has an inordinate amount of pornography (including magazines dealing with fat girls and old ladies) has a serious problem. Men who view porn typically have a low opinion of a woman's value. I shouldn't necessarily blame him for completely for having viewed women as prurient. The girls he viewed were willingly disrobing for dollars. In sum, porn is absolutely toxic for the puny male brain, not to mention the sake of womankind!

Come on, fans, are you seriously bigging up such a twisted mindset? The poor guy couldn't have been happy if, allegedly, he was jumping from bed to bed and leaving a trail of tears. As a black person, I know that we black people are slightly more sexual than others. Point understood. But, if all of this is so-called 'womanizing' is true, it is indicative a someone who needed help, not 'attaboys'.

So, fangirls around the world, you are happy that someone is an unbalanced 'freak' (sexually, not weird)? Well, go ahead on, then. Last time I checked, people with issues needed to get it together. Among the phony marriages, the hanging out with kids (some of which, including Gavin Arvizo, he wasn't feeling--I guess the whole 'i-love-all-kids' thing was a sham...), the nose jobs, the off-the-wall way he had his children, and now this (once again, i have very reasonable doubts), Michael was in serious need of a course of therapy!

This is not someone you should admire. It is someone you should pity! I pity Michael, I do. I pity any man who cannot get past his own fervent sexism and misogyny to find happiness with a woman. I feel sorry that Michael died before he was able to get himself together and live a healthy life with someone he loved. cough*GRACE*cough.

But what Michael doesn't get, or deserve, is my veneration. He doesn't deserve anyone's veneration. Turning sin into a virtue is typically not the sort of thing evenly granted to all. But it is bestowed upon the rich and famous by legions of their fans at a distance and vampiric sycophants up close.

Nah, Michael was a great entertainer but that should be it, or, at least, we should only give him that much. The man had issues, issues only a shrink could hope to fix, issues no one (yes, that includes you, Grace) should blame themselves for if they eventually led to his death. But hard-headed arrogance comes with fortune and fame, doesn't it? I'd be a naive little girl to believe he would have ever tried to get himself straight.

But fans: such alchemy done by some of you should be a crime, your own virulent hypocrisy notwithstanding.

That's why I don't associate with MJ fans; they tend to be annoying, whiny little gits.

Okay, I'm done. It's late. If I drank, it would be cocktail time, given all of this ridiculous stress I put myself through...not to mention making myself look as crazy as *them*...

Re: Tabloids

I think something has to be made perfectly clear before I go further with this blog, especially on Michael Jackson-related issues, thoughts, conspiracies, ponderings...

nigga, PLEASE!

It's about so-called tabloid magazines. I enjoy them and I am not ashamed to admit it.

But here's the thing about those delicious, gossip-filled rags: although it would be a stretch of the imagination to suggest that they never twist a story, or never take a truthful account out of context, or never omit facts (the aforementioned are all examples of a half-truth), it would be inaccurate to suggest that they lie outright about each story in every publication.

For want of example, I have actually tried to peddle a story to a tabloid and they didn't bite. The headline? That Michael Jackson and his nanny Grace Rwaramba had actually been secretly married in Las Vegas, Michael becoming her groom under the pseudonym of "Joseph Kisembo". ("Joseph" was Michael's middle name and "Kisembo" contains the name "Mike" was how I explained it.) I'd even linked to the Clark County recorder's website as proof of this union.

Apparently, they didn't want bullshit in their pages. They are...respectable, for lack of a better term. i was just testing the system, mind you. i wasn't trying to...hurt...anyone...(cue ominous music)

Tabloids are sometimes the only place to find celebrity-related news. Seriously, have you ever seen a 'Michael Jackson boozed up and on pills' news story in Time magazine? Nope, that gem would be on TMZ or in the National Enquirer.

So, what am I trying to say?

***IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT A TABLOID STORY IS ONLY AS TRUTHFUL AS IT'S SOURCE! If the source is not legit, the whole story is usually (perhaps not always) complete and utter bullshit!***

The key to enjoying and getting the most out of tabloid magazines is to be able to discern fact from fiction. With that ability, I can pick up the National Enquirer, laugh or nod where appropriate, and then go about my day.

TV's Judge Judy stated this truism: "If it doesn't make sense, then it probably isn't true."

Also--and this is especially relavent to Michael Jackson--have a good knowledge of the subject's own character. Truth be told, 99.9% of the celebrity gossip eaters in this country are not familiar with celebrities on an intimate level. But that does not mean you can't have a smidgeon of insight as to a person's nature.

So, if I see a headline proclaiming: 'Michael Jackson had secret lovers in 12 different countries', eh, I'm going to be intrigued but won't necessarily believe it until further research is done, especially by way of who is the source? what is their proximity to Michael? do they have an axe to grind? is there a book in the works? how are they benefitting from such a story? Why? Well, some of it might be due to the fact that I don't want to think of him as a sex maniac. The other is because he doesn't seem like a 'sex maniac' or a 'cheater'. This also goes for any story or book (i happen to have 2 copies of said linked book in my home) about him being a pedophile: that same line of questioning and those same reasonable assumptions as to his character flash within my brain.

That is how tabloid info should be used properly, with discernment, pragmatism, and a good working knowledge of body language thrown in for good measure. Otherwise, when it comes to Michael Jackson, you'll end up one of those blubbering numbnuts always proclaiming: 'I don't know what to believe!' well, sweetie, you don't 'get it' because you are stupid not very bright.

I think I should also note that the named sources in the 'bloids will typically shoot themselves in the foot before any real damage is done. Think about the brilliant, old saying: "What a tangled web we weave when we first practice to deceive..." I'm just saying: liars are notoriously stupid.

So, in sum, tabloids have literally tons of tiny, unearthed diamonds within their pages. Not everything is necessarily untrue and I have read things--which will end up in future posts--that I know are fact. If you doubt me, well, think of John Edwards. The NE broke the story of his affair when he was running for president. Another 'bloid said Elin Nordegren attacked Tiger Woods over infidelity when he was saying 1. it never happened and, 2. his accident was just that: an accident. And please don't forget Mr. Livin' la Vida Loca!

Dammit, I'm just waiting for the 'Oprah Winfrey: lesbian' rumors to come out (pardon the pun) as fact. When they do, I'll say, 'Globe, you had it first, baby!'