If the Bambi awards are for mental instability, then he is certainly deserving of the lifetime achievement award.
His behavior in the photo is (or should be) criminal.
That was a joke, by the way.
The pool is just beneath the balcony. What's the problem?
""
It's all about CHOICE!
Come on, Mark: It's not like the guy's been accused of child molestation or anything...
Sad, sad. The poor chap wants for nothing materiel, and yet he's coming apart before our very eyes. I think it might be wise to pray for him -- and for the pople who come into contact with him, lest they be injured by his antics.
I know his face is slowly melting off, but that's no excuse for this.
Francois:
We should certainly pray for him. But we should also stop kidding ourselves that many in our "free" press are not in the thrall of the cultus of celebrity, money and power. Why, as things are going, many in the media might give a free pass to a child-molesting "street priest" in Boston for years and years, or help a rapist remain president when there is very credible evidence against him!
Better to pray for the poor children left in the Gloved One's "care."
If that were my child, I would have the man's head. No excuse would satisfy.
The anchor on our NBC local news also used the phrase "apparently holds his son". I suppose they fear to be sued.
Jackson's celebrity isn't what it was--he seldom makes the front pages of the trash tabloids these days. Or so I see from the supermarket checkout line.
Think the baby's head is covered so it doesn't get scared by Michael's face?
Blech! Can anyone explain to me what the heck is going on with that dude's face? One shot of Dristan and the guy's nose will melt away!
Blech, blech, blech!
I wonder if he's extorting the awards. Letting the public know that if they don't appease him, he will do something most people will consider heinous ... and amaze them by getting away with it.
If this were anyone else, the police would have removed that child from his custody within the hour -- and would have been completely justified and within their moral and legal responsibilities to do so. As Mark says, the cult of celebrity triumphs again.
On another note: It's hard to believe that I'm old enough to remember that Michael Jackson once was an attractive man.
No surprise here. Jacko is freaking nutty and has been for years. I admit that I enjoyed his music in the early eighties as a kid but the man has mad me sick for over a decade. The only upside has been the clever Weird Al parodies.
ZF
Jackson does something briefly stupid and the world goes into an uproar, yet parents across this country do repeatedly more idiotic things on a regular basis and the coverage is lacking - that, my friends, is the cult of celebrity.
This dad has his child snugly in hand, or rather, in arm. A picture CAN lie - it can say a person dandled a baby over a rail for - what, 48 hours now? when it all took (? a second and a half?) before the "wave to the nice camera people" moment was over? Talk about charity.
Paula:
He most assuredly does *NOT* have "his child snugly...in arm." I demonstrated the hold before my horrified wife last night, my semi-cooperative toddler daughter hovering three feet above the floor. To put it "charitably," the hold is very precarious.
Doing the same thing over a balcony five stories up with a squirming infant is insane. He could have much more easily displayed his unfortunate concealed child from behind the rail. Stop making excuses for it.
My wonderful aunt has trouble conceiving. I have trouble conceiving. I look at this and want to spit nails.
Even his handlers saw there was a problem:
http://www.nydailynews.com/front...94p-
34895c.html
I would rather my husband have demonstrated such a hold with my stuffed bear or the body-parts Elmo.
I wonder what the purpose was of covering the child's face. Sure, he can say it's to protect the child in the future, but at the rate Michael is going, nobody is going to notice who "Dad" is by the time this little one is walking.
My thought is, it's to conceal that the child looks more like Lancelot than Arthur.
Jackson was born black and became... well, white, sort of thanks to surgery. His children, who are alleged to be his biological issue (though I don't think he gave birth himself), are white... does this mean his surgeons will turn them black later on?
BTW, before you go accusing Michael Jackson of child molestation, remember- the charges were filed in California, the same state that tried to make it look like O.J. Simpson was a murderer. 
(My biggest rage during the pedophilia allegations wasn't at Jackson[who I think is basically a sick sick puppy and needs to be accordingly put to sleep] but with the father; he settled for $20 million- if that had been my child, I wouldn't have wanted his money, but rather I'd have wanted to be alone in a room with MJ, some well placed electrodes, and a bulimic wildebeest for a few hours- ordinarily, I'd just ask for a pound of flesh, but he probably keeps more than that in his refrigerator.)
You people are hypocrites.
That "baby" as you all call it is obviously nothing more than a blob of cells that only vaguely resembles an fully human being. (Look how tiny its limbs are, can anybody really call it human?) To suggest that Mr. Jackson cannot do with his pre-human substance what he pleases is the most fascistly severe restriction on personal freedom and yet another attempt by the religious right to replace common sense with their view that something which is alive and human is the same thing as a human life.
Stop oppressing me!
Oy gevalt-
Can you really look at Michael Jackson and debate the wisdom of abortion?
(Michael is rumored to have quite a few zygotes on ice (Prince Michael III through Prince Michael XXXVI) in petrie dishes, incidentally; if he through those dishes out of a window, would that be infanticide in your definition?)
Jon "have you aborted your kid today?" Darby
Michael Jackson is a grown man. If I, a woman (and mother of four) can hold a small infant (not toddler) in a body press (one arm across the body under the arms, cinched against your own) with no particular difficulty I fail to see how he cannot. This is not a "precarious" hold. This runaway story is a triumph of appearance over substance.
Paula:
Take another look at the picture. The child is hardly "cinched against" Jackson: The metal railing quite effectively separates the boy from him.
If it's such a great hold, why did his handlers feel the need to apologize for a "terrible mistake"?
"Michael Jackson is a grown man. If I, a woman (and mother of four) can hold a small infant (not toddler) in a body press (one arm across the body under the arms, cinched against your own) with no particular difficulty I fail to see how he cannot."
Were you holding the baby 5 stories above concrete at the time with lots of noise and distractions?
Andy: Nope, not at all. Try doing the same thing with your child or that of a friend of yours and watch the reaction you get. By itself it is probably an innocent act of stupidity hardly worth removing the child. Yet it certainly does deserve a good belt across the head and a bunch of criticism. Now if this kind of stuff continues that's a different matter entirely...
7 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
