The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Blessings For Child Molesters

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

satya — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:22:19 -0000

Of course, I don't think pedophilia is like homosexuality in any respect other than the fact that I believe sexual orientation is determined by deep, subconscious factors over which the individual has little control, and that is just as true for pedophiles as it is for homosexuals, or heterosexuals for that matter. That doesn't change the fact that homosexuality is based on consensual relationships and pedophilia is probably based on an exploitative relationship and for that reason one should be socially acceptable and the other should be illegal. But it does give me pause before rushing to judgment or coming up with over the top histrionics describing what I'd like to do to punish pedophiles for their crimes. If you take a moment to ponder the actual life of the pedophile, I think it is important to have some compassion, even in the face of moral judgment.

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

Torteya — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:19:52 -0000

Personally, I do go a bit with the "good riddance" theme. But I'm not interested (for personal beliefs reasons) in the whole "may he burn in hell" stuff. I just think: it's a good thing that there is one less person messing horribly up children's lives. And I know he's not been convicted of anything, and that plenty of innocent people have gotten convicted (although not quite as many when they can afford the best lawyers). Still, fairly or unfairly, I think he has done pretty bad damage to more than one kid. That is (would be) regrettable, and I'm glad there's one less person people have to worry about in this regard.

One annoyance of mine is this whole "doing something good negates something bad." No, it doesn't. Somebody isn't less guilty, or his actions less disgusting just because they happened to be good at something you enjoy. Phil Spector's crime is no less horrible than that of some talentless janitor (cue wall of sound was a worse crime than anything else he could've done jokes). Sure, it makes it easier for people to sympathize, or to refrain from demonizing, but it's absolutely irrational. And it's very unfair. It's basically some glorified version of "people I like can't do bad things, because I like them."

I've never been clear on why there's so much resistance to accepting the very simple fact that people do things that usually cover a pretty wide section of the good-bad spectrum. There's no "good people" or "bad people," there's just people. And people sometimes do good things, and sometimes do bad. Sometimes do mostly one kind or the other. But there's no permanent objective classification (usually supported by what some imaginary dude in the sky has to say) to which people belong that is unshakable and perennial. People are the sum of their actions, and that's it. Michael Jackson very well could have done horrible things, as well as really marvelous things. And when it's time to "remember" somebody and the effect his or her life had on others, the only way to be fair (not to mention truthful) is to take everything into account.

I think that's the main complaint from the "but he was a monster too! zomgs!" camp. Yes, he did some cool stuff, but for the love of god, could you all stop acting like he was a saint?

Of course, I don't know if that's a fair statement, I've not been following the media coverage, nor intend to. But I'd say there's way more to the "burn in hell" characterization. At least, there's people for which that's true.

One last comment (in regards to MJ): For me, this is mostly tragic. A kid who could sing like no other kid I've ever heard, so horribly affected by an abusive father and a life in the spotlight, becoming something (for me) painful to watch. I don't mean to trivialize the suffering (again, going with the assumption that he did it) of the people he affected, it doesn't excuse it. But what happened to the dude, the way his life evolved, the choices he made, what was imposed on him. That's just plain tragic and sad.

Full disclosure: Although I was a kid during the 'King of Pop' years, I never really developed any strong feelings for him or his music or his dancing. Dont' get me wrong, I didn't dislike it or anything. It just never really did it for me. So I may be a bit out of place in this conversation.

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

QueSpr90 — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:15:44 -0000

It doesn't excuse him for what he's done (if anything), but its someone else's job to judge him now. Think about all the good things he did for kids in this world. He was a true humanitarian.

I agree that he did do some good, but, in my mind, you're making the same flawed argument as TNC, namely, that we didn't walk in his shoes so it's difficult for us to judge him now that he is gone. That strikes me as somewhat of a dishonest and hypocritical argument to make as our righteousness is on display all the time for both the living and the dead. We castigate Bush for what he did over the past 8 years, but he also did some good. Should we simply forget and wait on his eternal judgment after death? It just seems duplicitous to me, essentially saying that for those we like let's reserve judgment but excoriate those we do not.

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

AndrewKY — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:14:12 -0000

Sad though this all is you, you know who gets away scott free? The parents of the children that were allowed to stay over at his ranch. Would I allow my son to stay over at a reclusive pop star's home overnight, when that person's "tastes" are one of the world's worst kept secrets? Don't be ridiculous, of course I wouldn't, and no sane parent would. If you ask me they were knowingly pimping their children out, hoping that a bit of fame might rub off on them or that they could cash in a la Jordan Chandler's parents. And yet no-one mentions them. Pretty disgusting if you ask me... and Jackson's "tastes" may have been as a result of his utterly messed up childhood... I'm not excusing him but there are clear reasons for his behaviour. Most of the parents, I assume, don't have any such reason.

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

Vito — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:08:34 -0000

Fair point.

You're right that at almost no point during this unfolding crisis did I get my "news" from a traditional MSM source (the Lede blog at the Times being the possible exception, though a new media format at the queen of the old media). That being said the MSM, and here I mean principally the cable news outlets, still reach an audience, and a type of news consumer, that Nico, Andrew, and Tehran Bureau by themselves can't.

The MSM provides access to this story to people whose news consumption habits are much more casual than the average reader of the Atlantic magazine. What upsets me isn't that the MSM isn't breaking news on Iran. We all understand that they are particularly ill equipped to do so at this point since hardly any are still allowed in the country. What upsets me is that MJ's passing is going to suck up any coverage that this much more important story would have received.

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

Andy in Texas — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:06:27 -0000

Jackson93 wrote:

ignoring or not discussing the crime isn't going to help either

I never suggested that.

What I am saying is that the over-the-top, emotionally charged rhetoric that often surrounds molestation cases may end up doing more long-term psychological damage to the victim than the original offense, if the victim's experience is dealt with appropriately (counseling, etc.). Victims, unfortunately, have no choice but to deal with the psychological consequences of the original act; what I am saying is that our first obligation to the victim is to not make the psychological and emotional burden that much worse by our careless words and actions afterward.

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

Borton — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:05:33 -0000

I understand that you didn't want to get bogged down in the debate, but when you title a post "Blessings for a Child Molester" and spend the majority of said post equating him with stained celebrities who earned their mark of shame (Tyson, Allen) it doesn't really help clear the air or add balance to the way this is being covered. You're just another voice in the crowd who's willing to assume out of hand that he was guilty; being willing to "look past" his supposed guilt and value him for his artistic contributions doesn't get you off the hook. That being said, the fact that he was accused of being a child molester is notable and deserves press coverage. It's a lot easier to make the case that predatory litigants drove him to substance abuse and ultimately his early death than it is to make a case that he was actually a child molester. And the fact is that both the Chandler and Arvizo cases were fishy as hell - the ONLY reason they're given any weight is because the accused was a weirdo, and it was hard for folks to process the way he looked and acted.

I guess my bottom line is that I wish you could have saved your post on Billy Jean for today, or focused more on his contributions to music, and left the "child molester" angle for those too lazy to do a little homework and balance the facts against their prejudices about the man. You're above this one, and you've basically dredged this one up. Not that it's a huge deal - I'm not a super fan, don't even know why I've waisted this much time on this.

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

Acromion — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:05:02 -0000

I wish we could just leave this alone for awhile.

He was a creative genius, and like most geniuses he had his eccentricities. He was abused and troubled. It doesn't excuse him for what he's done (if anything), but its someone else's job to judge him now.

Think about all the good things he did for kids in this world. He was a true humanitarian.

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

Sime — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:03:34 -0000

The problem is that we play this game with celebrities. Michael Jackson, basically, was an awesome singer and dancer. He was not a king. Elvis was not a king. Ray Lewis is not a real hero because he runs fast. Mike Tyson was not truly made of iron. But if you rooted for Tyson, that's exactly what you wanted him to be. We want linebackers to "save us" and when they do, well they must be called saviours and heros. Michael Jackson made us love music, so he can't just be a man who made songs and videos.

I guess I could stop seperating art from men. Regrettably, I think, I wouldn't be left with much art worth admiring.

That's because you never admired the art in the first place. That sounds harsher than I actually mean it. You say Tyson "demolished" Berbick, because it was more than just a sport competition for you. I think we connect such real life events with our imaginations in order to aggrandize them. To make them epic, to bring the great stories and tragedies into our own lives. In order to admire art, we must give it a place in our consciousness first. And this place is our own. It's a place with kings, legends, heros and villains. And when they die, they leave the real world as well as our own.

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:57:19 -0000

It's worth reviewing the original comment:

I gotta object to all this...love for the man. I dig the music as much as anybody, and long live the music, but as for the man, good riddance. T

Then:

Am I wrong to say you're all weeping over a child molester? I mean, I'm no expert on the case, but I don't see too many people defending him on those charges. And that's not a small thing. It should be the first line in any obituary, and is every bit as heinous as what OJ or Bernie Madoff did. Worse, really. We're talking about children here.

Then:

But the man's flaws are not the kind you overlook. If anything, they are the kind of thing you hope he burns in hell for.

And then considering your argument:

my main point is that your response to Thefoulness is really a strawman. It appears that you are ignoring the primary point of his comment, namely, that for all of Jackson's musical greatness, he had some serious "flaws" that should be a very large part of this conversation as well.

Now, you may think that calling for someone to "burn in hell," is merely requesting that Mike's issues be "a very large part of the conversation." But I think it is what it says it is.

I think this is another strawman as I don't see where anyone "insisted" that you, or anyone else, must believe what they do about Jackson. An opinion was shared, just as you do on your blog every day. Are you "insisting" that folks share your opinion simply by expressing it to others on your blog on a daily basis?

Fair enough. Withdrawn.

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

Andy in Texas — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:54:39 -0000

It sure looks like you didn't read anything past the first line of my post. I was making exactly the point you cite -- his psyche (and I believe, his actions) are that of a child, not a conventional molester.

As for the did he/didn't he question, I suspect that will become much clearer now that the threat of litigation by MJ himself is a lesser concern. There will be lots more allegations, witnesses (real or otherwise), and evidentiary documents coming to light now. While I don't expect that new information will sway die-hard believers on either side, there will surely be a more complete picture forthcoming.

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

Jonathan — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:53:25 -0000

you know, I had a similar response, in that the MSM was still reliant upon a tabloid/blog/internet source for that scoop. No MSM confirmed it until much later, but TMZ got the lead, ran it, and everyone else had to link to them.

Yet another MSM FAIL

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

jackson93 — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:48:11 -0000

it may not be a choice. it may be an illness, but it is something that people can seek help for. and when acted upon (even if it is *just* child porn) hurts other people in a very tangible and devastating way.

it is not like being gay, which leads people to seek relationships with other adults.

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

QueSpr90 — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:46:53 -0000

This is a point of religion, for me. I don't expect everyone to see it my way. Death is fucked up. I don't wish it on anyone. I don't have much use for evaluating who deserves the sword, and when they should get it.

TNC,
I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one. There have been some horrible people in this world who have brought nothing but misery and death. But, my main point is that your response to Thefoulness is really a strawman. It appears that you are ignoring the primary point of his comment, namely, that for all of Jackson's musical greatness, he had some serious "flaws" that should be a very large part of this conversation as well. Instead, you change the conversation to one of "righteousness" and being an arbiter of who does and who doesn't deserve to die. Additionally, I believe you help make this point by your rationalizations on Jackson.

When Jeffrey Dahmer died, I initially thought it served him right. And then I got to thinking about the internal torture that must have made him who he was, and I lost my righteousness.

Does this apply to those who are living as well? I'm sure George W. Bush, Cheney, et. al. were traumatized by 9/11, and this trauma (internal torture) played a huge role in their myriad transgressions after the attack. So, notwithstanding the hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions of people killed, and the millions displaced, along with torture, illegal wiretapping, elimination of habeus review and other Constitutional transgressions, should we take this same introspective approach, forgive and forget? Yes, we all sin. However, I don't think that prevents us from calling out others.

People who don't feel that way are welcome to their opinions. I'm not sure why they insist that others share them.

I think this is another strawman as I don't see where anyone "insisted" that you, or anyone else, must believe what they do about Jackson. An opinion was shared, just as you do on your blog every day. Are you "insisting" that folks share your opinion simply by expressing it to others on your blog on a daily basis?

I've been reading you blog for about a month or so and I love it! Keep up the great work.

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

jackson93 — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:42:53 -0000

I am sure that any stigma is not helpful, but ignoring or not discussing the crime isn't going to help either. And the crime is still the root of the trauma. Maybe there is a better way to discuss it, but how do you prosecute a child molester whith out stressing the damage done? It should be discussed so victims get justice and so people who commit these acts are kept away from children in the future.

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

brucds — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:42:39 -0000

I just have to say that I don't understand very much about Michael Jackson's personal life - other than that his father appears to bear a heavy burden for screwing up his youngest kid - but the layering of so much weird shit in so many aspects of his life and the fact that he lacked anything resembling an engaging or interesting personality or conveyed anything in his life other than clueless self-absorption made it impossible for me to react to him with much more than a shudder for most of the last two decades.

I've seen or heard very little over-the-top "I hope he burns in Hell!" dismissal and an awful lot of over-the-top obsessing over what an all-important cultural figure he was and why all of the creepy stuff wasn't what he should be remembered for. Sinatra was an asshole of the first order, Elvis was a basket-case by the time he died, Marvin destroyed himself and his family, and on and on. But I can't think of any top-tier cultural "icons" who just plain gave me the creeps to the degree that Jackson did. He really piled it on. I don't get the defensiveness around him. I get the feeling that we really aren't "welcome to our opinions" if we don't buy into the hype feel "empathyed out" after all of these years. (I was appalled by all of the sanctimonious bullshit around Princess Diana too, for the record. Guess I'm a bad person. Time to renew my People magazine subscription and start Tivoing Oprah.)

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

BreakerBaker — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:42:06 -0000

Oh yeah, Beretta did that shit.

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

Borton — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:39:21 -0000

Where's the "ample reason?" Look at the cases. In the first Jordan Chandler and his father instigated the charges. Jordan's mother said nothing happened. Jordan was taped saying something to the effect that he was going to get everything out of MJ, and that there was no way he would lose. The father and son approached MJ for money. As soon as they wrestled a financial settlement out of it they dropped the accusations.

In the second case MJ was acquitted in a court of law. The accuser was Gavin Arvizo, and the charges revolved around sleeping in a bed with MJ. Elizabeth Taylor, who had been there for some of the sleep overs and in the same bed, said they were completely innocent - similar to staying up in your parents' bed or that of an older sibling and watching Disney movies (this is what they were doing). The psychiatrist who evaluated both MJ and Gavin testified that MJ did not fit the profile of a pedophile. A regressed 10 year old, yes. But not a child molester. All charges were dropped.

Other than these two cases all you really have is LaToya making a temporary accusation that he was a pedophile (during the first case, later retracted, she wasn't a picture of stability herself), and the fact that he was abused when he was a child.

I suspect that most people who are convinced that he was a child molester are operating on a very small number of assumptions - namely that he looks and acts weird, and therefore the charges must have been true. They've heard the peripherals, and have made their judgement. Too lazy to even go to WikiPedia or use teh Google to fish out some background. Definitely too lazy to read an effing book on the subject. Granted, the latter seems pretty weird, something reserved for hardcore MJ devotees. But it's a hell of a lot more admirable than just saying "there's ample reason to believe that Jackson was guilty of many of the allegations against him" because you're too lazy to do some homework and balance actual facts against your own ignorance and prejudice.

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

BreakerBaker — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:38:11 -0000

"My point is that I don't accept that someone says, 'I fly the Confederate Flag from a completely race-blind pride in my heritage,' because you can't pick and choose that way. You can't say, 'Oh, I'm fond of John Wayne Gacy because I love clown pictures--nothing to do with the murders.'"

Really? There's no accepting somebody, even celebrating them in spite of their flaws? I mean, I guess it clearly depends on how you measure the flaws themselves, but it seems pretty clear that people know that everyone is imperfect. That some people are very deeply troubled. Some people simply don't understand and do not want to. Somebody who flies the Confederate Flag, for instance, is somebody. He may do it as a white supremicist or he may do it genuinely out of a desire to celebrate his heritage, or the myth of his heritage that he's been taught.

In the end, we can choose to jettison these guys like so much space junk, but we typically do this because it's easier for us to not make an effort to understand and to empathize.

I agree that Michael Jackson is forever tainted for better or worse. His life was one long train wreck. Looking back on it, his was a life that seems like a MacBeth soliloquy (you know the one I'm talking about, no need to quote it). His life was a mess of things good and bad, and we sit here today trying to figure out what it was worth in the end. Is it a net plus or negative? I honestly don't know. His life was a tragedy. His death feels empty, almost meaningless to me.

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

bigmix — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:37:44 -0000

I think it gets easier the more famous a celebrity is to ask callous questions like the record store lackeys of the movie High Fidelity: "Is it better to burn out or to fade away?" Should pop stars just burn out and die at their peaks so that we're all spared the spectacle of their shameful personal lives and shameless new material that never matches their glory days? Would it have been better for Michael Jackson to have died right after his 1993 Super Bowl appearance, letting us remember him as the King of Pop and not the cringe-inducing sideshow he became?

Put another way, it's easy to be like Frodo in the Fellowship of the Ring when he says "It's a pity that Bilbo did not kill Gollum when he had the chance!"

That's when Gandalf makes your point perfectly: "Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand! Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death and judgment. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

TNC, I'm with you: this is a point of religion. Snark and pettiness are easy, but genuinely charitable pity is tough as hell and worth every effort. Sending a wealthy, famous celebrity to hell for misdeeds (real or alleged) is easy, but it takes some doing to feel real compassion for a guy whose downward spiral probably started in his teens. We would all be better to follow Gandalf's lead.

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

satya — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:36:37 -0000

So is it your position that pedophilia is a choice?

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:35:38 -0000

And you also can't say, 'I celebrate Michael Jackson as a musician and performer--nothing to do with the molestation. No reason to even mention that.'

I'm always leery of people who are more interested in paraphrasing the opposition, as opposed to quoting and countering. It's relatively easy to take on an argument that you've invented in your mind. The real challenge is confronting what's actually written on the page.

I know it'd be nice if I'd said that there was "no reason to even mention" Michael's molestation charges. It makes arguing a lot easier. Of course, it skirts the obvious problem that that isn't what I said.

People deserve to have their arguments taken on the merits, on what they've actually said. This isn't Crossfire.

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

Josh Jasper — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:31:18 -0000

And who do you think got raped in order to make that child porn? And no, it's *not* the same as being gay. I get similar levels of rage when talking about rapists, but to be honest, there's a culture that encourages jokes about and defense of rape. Not so much about child rape. We're taught to protect children because they can't protect themselves.

We're not pathologically obsessed with preventing child molestation so much as we are with preventing damage done to the innocent and defenseless.

As for your friend with the child porn collection, if there were photos, someone was raped to make them. If you've ever known and loved any children, think about them being put through that, and you might get some sense of why people abhor child molesters so much.

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:22:01 -0000

If he molested children, he was a tremendously talented child-molester, and pretending he was just a brilliant performer is like ... well, like flying a Confederate flag in honor of one's 'heritage', nothing at -all- to do with anything racial, don't you know.

I don't think you understand. Being a "talented child molester" is not the opposite of being a "brilliant performer"--one can be both at the same time.

"Heritage not hate" explicitly argues that there's nothing racial about the flag. I'm not arguing that Mike isn't a child-molester. I'm arguing that, from my perspective, it's not relevant to how I feel about him as a performer.

Your welcome to strike him from your catalouge. I'd be wary of the expectation that others should do the same.

Re: Blessings For Child Molesters

Andy in Texas — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:19:04 -0000

And it sure seems to me that that emotional fury must surely have a serious negative effect on the victims, perhaps more severe than the original act. How many times does a victim -- child or adult -- have to hear the inflamed rhetoric that surrounds these cases (stolen innocence, childhood taken away, etc.) before it exerts a powerful, negative effect on that child's self-image that lasts, perhaps, forever? How often does a ten- or twelve-year-old have to hear someone (a parent, a relative, a prosecutor) say that their life's been ruined before they themselves actually begin to believe that?