That’s an insipid column.

Image from the Bullying Project

The author prattles on through the whole thing like a narcissistic twit, arrogantly proclaiming that if he could handle a particular bad situation, everyone else should just buck up and do so as well. What psychologically ignorant twaddle! People don’t grow up in the same circumstances or with the same neurochemistry. One can’t generalize what a person “should” be able to handle based on some anecdotes.

Furthermore, the author makes inappropriate analogies between childhood bullying and adulthood situations. Getting bullied isn’t like losing out on a job. It’s literally suffering beatings (what adults call assault, as the author acknowledges but bizarrely ignores), constant verbal abuse (harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress), and relentless pursuit (stalking). Everyone must learn to suck up embarrassment, but in civilized society, we don’t have to just accept being assaulted, harassed, or stalked if we can’t or won’t fight back. That’s the point of civilization.

Whereas “bullying” is of course too ambiguous a concept around which to structure penalties, the aforementioned behaviors that typify the worst bullying have been relatively clearly defined in the criminal and civil law that buttresses civilization. I don’t think bullies should be sent to jail, but I also think ludicrous the suggestion we should accept as no big deal children committing what would be serious crimes off the schoolyard.

Sure, as the author says, “Boys are going to make fun of the effeminate kid. They’re also going to make fun of the slow kid…” Children do all kinds of things adults have a responsibility to stop. Bullying — and by that, I don’t mean occasionally saying an unkind thing, but the egregious behavior I mentioned above — only seems inevitable because adults tolerate it.

Is bullying a big deal? is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Like the current hysteria over Facebook’s so-called threat to privacy, teeth gnashing over information sharing on social networks has often bespoken a nonsensical understanding of “privacy.”

The best definition of privacy, which comports with how most people use the term, comes from Merriam-Webster: “freedom from unauthorized intrusion”. If Internet users enjoy sharing more personal details with more people than in the past, as Zuckerberg claims, that hardly portends the “end of privacy.” It might herald a rise of exhibitionism with a concomitant ascendance of voyeurism, but these do not entail involuntary revelation of secrets.

Tweeting one’s boredom waiting for a flight at the airport doesn’t force him to tell of his anticipation of joining the Mile High Club or of his arrest upon landing for public indecency. He can choose what to share or not, and with whom to share it.

That’s why even discreet introverts like me needn’t fear Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, or other social networking tools. On my Facebook privacy settings, I’ve toggled almost all visibility settings to “only friends” and disallowed public search engines from indexing my profile page. I still let other Facebook users search for me, but I could forbid that if I chose. On Twitter, even though I opt not to shield my tweets from public view, I could if I wished. And on both Facebook and Twitter, I resist sharing sordid personal trivia.

Individual users have ultimate responsibility for protecting their information from eyes they don’t want seeing it, as I have done. Some privacy hawks complain the default privacy settings of sites like Facebook are too open. But prudence demands users ensure beforehand their intended audiences are the recipients of their digital detritus.

If people inadvertently overshare because they couldn’t bother to check their settings first, that demonstrates more an epidemic of laziness than a crisis in privacy. (Not knowing how to verify privacy settings indicates unwillingness to learn about an application before using it, which to me qualifies as laziness.) And, if people decide to reveal embarrassing situations and later regret doing so, the fault is their own. Facebook, Twitter, and their kin can’t make their denizens act wisely.

Casting such banalities as invasions of privacy trivializes the concept.

When governments around the world pry into our lives by any means necessary, so diffusing the meaning of privacy could damage the cause of maintaining it. How fiercely would the populace hold onto “privacy” if it consists of preventing Mr. Frat Boy from carelessly telling the world about his drunken vomit-fest on Facebook?

I agree with social networking cynics that we must defend privacy at all costs. Toward that end, let’s remember to what privacy genuinely refers: “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” (to borrow from the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution).

Robust social networking such as on Facebook could help protect the essence of privacy. As Julian Sanchez of the Cato Institute notes, the most easily accessible information about people online usually takes the form of their own “[b]logs, Facebook or MySpace profiles, Twitter accounts, Last.fm pages, YouTube channels”. What we want the world to know about us, Sanchez says, is shoving aside potentially ugly or invasive chatter from others. So we can be our own public relations managers, wielding a potent arsenal to keep secure information we might not want everyone to know.

All this looking under the bed to slay the bogeyman of Facebook’s threat to privacy, however, distracts from how profoundly social networking facilitates human communication. Whereas, yes, this greater interconnectivity allows vapid effusions to travel at lightspeed onto our TweetDecks, it also lets friends and family who might be thousands of miles apart keep up with each other’s lives more easily than ever before. It provides distressed individuals an avenue to seek comfort they otherwise mightn’t know how to get. It simplifies the organization of aid to worthy causes, such as relief for victims of the earthquake in Haiti. It exposes the wrongdoing of authorities. Most famously, it has nurtured the Green Revolution that is agitating against Iran’s brutal theocracy.

I remember when people did not write blogs, upload YouTube videos, send tweets, or have Facebook profiles. Without such constant flow of ideas, stories, and news, the Internet felt more isolating and drab. Mark Zuckerberg and his peers are fulfilling the Internet’s promise as an “information superhighway,” which implies traffic zooming in both directions. I do not fear but embrace Zuckerberg’s world, and I look forward to seeing where it takes us next.

Facebook: slaying the privacy bogeyman is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Now everyone can have his privacy violated by the Huffington Post.

The Huffington Post has put up a feature it calls “Fundrace,” which allows users to search by address, city, name, occupation, or employer to find out who has made campaign donations of $200 or more, of which federal law requires public disclosure. On a whim, I did a vanity search for my name, even though I had only contributed $100 to the Ron Paul campaign.

Of course, I wasn’t in the results, but someone else who shares my name was: Jason Vines, vice president of corporate communications at Chrysler. Apparently, he has given $2,300 to the Mitt Romney campaign so far.

Whereas I find humorous the appalling political tastes of my alter ego, I also feel horror at the idea anyone on the Internet can discover the political activities of people who have donated as little as $200 to a candidate. The heretofore-mentioned federal campaign finance disclosure laws—which bear the understandable intent of revealing the machinations of special interests—have now facilitated violations of privacy for millions of Americans.

The Huffington Post admits such is its goal with its Fundrace mission statement:

Want to know if a celebrity is playing both sides of the fence? Whether that new guy you’re seeing is actually a Republican or just dresses like one? If your boss maxed out at that fundraiser or got comped? Whether your neighbor’s political involvement stops at that hideous lawn sign?

Thanks to efforts like those of the Huffington Post, one can no longer act politically on his beliefs—the sacred birthright of every American—and then keep his opinions private if he wishes to do so. Consequently, just for exercising his political liberties, he risks alienation from his friends, scorn of his family, termination of his employment, revenge from his candidate’s opponents, and retribution of more severe character. I wish that were an exaggeration, but “Angry in America” from U.S. News & World Report describes the relationship-breaking, rage-inducing hatred that can ensue from different political views even amongst ordinary people.

Inevitably, common knowledge of who supports which politicians will discourage Americans from backing the candidates of their choice. In the name of political decency, federal disclosure laws are demolishing the foundation of our political culture, the First Amendment, as well as undermining the mechanism of our electoral process, the secret ballot. (Does no one remember why states implemented the secret ballot in the first place?)

Of course, Congress could increase the monetary threshold beyond which campaigns would have to report donations and their sources. That way, the privacy of normal Americans donating a few hundred dollars would be safe. But equality before the law, the bedrock of freedom itself, demands legislation embody neither special restriction nor special treatment for any group of Americans. So, wealthy citizens deserve as much protection of their constitutional rights as everyone else does.

To preserve Americans’ privacy and liberty, then, campaign finance disclosure laws should be altogether eliminated. That would destroy “peeping tom” sites like Huffington Post‘s Fundrace, letting everyone feel safe in the knowledge their political beliefs won’t land them in trouble.

Say goodbye to political privacy is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

What Christmas is really all about

On December 25 of every year, a wonderous celebration takes place: We scarf down copious amounts of food, imbibe generous portions of alcohol, and give and receive presents in joyous approbation of the money, greed, free enterprise, industriousness, decadence, and gluttony that define our culture. We should do that; it promotes recognizance of what we are, which is a good thing. But let’s stop calling the day on which we indulge in a capitalist wet dream “Christmas.”

Jesus Christ, from whom Christmas takes its name, preached against love of wealth. “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven,” said Jesus in Luke 18:25. He deplored coveting a neighbor’s possessions, hording things for oneself, valuing the material world before God, harboring pride, etc. He urged his followers to give to the needy, whom Jesus extolled as “blessed” (Luke 6:20).

Jesus would like the communism of Karl Marx more than the capitalism of Adam Smith. (At least, he’d prefer the economic aspects of communism, not the atheistic parts.)

So naming the December 25 holiday, which features the best and worst of capitalism, after Jesus makes no sense. Volunteering in soup kitchens, while sending thanksgivings to the Lord for what we have in life, would celebrate Jesus. What we actually do on a day ostensibly in honor of Jesus is broadcast a huge “Sod off!” to him.

Let’s officially rename the holiday “XMas” already and stop pretending we care about Jesus on that day.

Rename Christmas already is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

The last time the American court system grappled with “under God” in the Pledge, Michael Newdow represented himself, and he sued on behalf of his daughter against the Pledge in public schools, on the grounds it contained “under God.” Newdow argued that constituted government endorsement of religion. The Ninth Circuit agreed, ruling the 1954 law that introduced “under God” into the Pledge unconstitutional. The Supreme Court overturned the Ninth Circuit’s ruling, though without resolving the underlying constitutional question. They chickened out of that by saying Newdow didn’t have standing to file a lawsuit on behalf of his daughter, of whom he didn’t have custody.

Now, though, Newdow has sued against “under God” again, this time as a lawyer representing three parents who do have custody of their children. With the standing of the plaintiffs in this case unquestionable, the Supreme Court won’t be able cowardly to dodge the constitutional issue. They’ll have to resolve the matter one way or another.

(Read from the Washington Post: School Pledge is Unconstitutional.)

I champion the separation of church and state. As per the First Amendment of the Constitution, the government has no business endorsing religion. Forcing children in public schools to acknowledge the United States as “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance constitutes government support for monotheistic religion. If you don’t believe me, believe the man who signed the 1954 bill adding “under God” to the Pledge, President Dwight D. Eisenhower:

From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.

Eisenhower admits the intent of the bill was to impress upon schoolchildren belief in Christianity! For the American government to do this flouts our Constitution.

So I applaud today’s ruling against compelling kids to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. Still, I have quibbles with it. Judge Karlton maintains the 1954 “under God” law isn’t unconstitutional in and of itself; only forcing students in class to proclaim they’re “under God” defies the Constitution. I disagree. The Pledge of Allegiance receives the sponsorship of the United States government. With “under God” in the Pledge, the government is thereby acting unconstitutionally.

Also, concentrating on “under God” instead of the whole Pledge of Allegiance would make the findings of the decision more palatable to the citizenry. It wouldn’t be such a radical change from what they experienced in school, so it wouldn’t scare them as much. Children would still recite the Pledge every morning, just without proclaiming subservience to God. (I actually think compulsory recitation of any version of the Pledge evokes Fascism, but that’s another argument for another screed. )

I hope the Ninth Circuit tweaks the findings more sensibly, to reflect the Constitution more accurately and to increase the acceptability of a decision in favor of Newdow.

School pledge ruled unconstitutional is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Consider the coverage of Hurricane Katrina over the last few days. The news channels regaled their audiences with snazzy logos for the crisis. CNN even billed itself as “Your Hurricane Home” or “Your Hurricane Channel” or something like that. Or think about how the media handled the invasion of Iraq a few years ago. Each of the networks had its own “Operation: Iraqi Freedom” design and accompanying fanfare. If viewers didn’t know better, they might have thought they were watching an exciting new drama from Don Bellisario. That’s especially the case given how antiseptically the American media handled a scary and brutal war.

I know I’m not alone in thinking all this packaging of the news is… crass! When human beings are suffering and dying, prefacing stories of their pain with a flashy graphic and a jaunty tune disrespects them. It downplays the serious of their ordeals. And it makes newscasters seem like profiteers of human misery.

A return to some of the old practices of news, such as handling tragedies seriously, shouldn’t be an unreasonable desire. The media accomplished serious reporting on September 11, 2001, so we know such is not beyond the media’s capabilities.

It shouldn’t lie beyond their usual sensibilities, either.

Packaging the news for maximum crassness is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

I haven’t played the game, but I’ve read it allows players to control a main character who fights both street gangs and corrupt police, during the course of which he can hijack cars, participate in shoot-outs, etc. A lot of people say it’s fun, but definitely not for kids. The game carries a rating of “M,” for “Mature,” to reflect that. This tells parents Grand Theft Auto is only for players above the age of 17.

Senator Clinton, casting herself as a defender of American values before her probable 2008 presidential election bid, has condemned the game and demanded the Federal Trade Commission investigate Grand Theft Auto, from Rockstar Games. Why? Not because of the game’s violence. Not even because of how the game was when it shipped. Instead, a user modification of the game is what has drawn Clinton’s anger. This mod permits Grand Theft Auto‘s main character to have sex with his girlfriends in various min-games, which if available in the standard game, would have earned it an “Adults Only” rating, keeping it off many store shelves. The creator of the mod, known as Hot Coffee, claims he unlocked content already in the game’s code that Rockstar had disabled. Rockstar contradicts the modder, saying that the content was never in the game, and that the modder added it all himself.

Clinton’s ruckus is much ado about nothing. Let’s presume the sex games were indeed part of the original code of Grand Theft Auto. That’s still nothing scandalous. Inactive programming from discarded features ships all the time with games. Eliminating code from abandoned ideas can be difficult, and it could even break algorithms for concepts a game’s producer wants to keep. So the game’s programmers leave the code as inactive, and it’s not part of the game as it ships. A bored modder could sift through a game’s code and write files to reactivate the dormant code, which might have occurred with the Hot Coffee mod.

Rockstar Games, though, cannot be accountable for what a modder does to Grand Theft Auto. They are responsible only for the game they distribute to the public. And the sex adventures are not part of that game. Whether someone chooses to change the behavior of the game is solely the affair of the person in question.

Besides all this, let’s not forget Grand Theft Auto bears an “M” rating. The M appears right on the box, informing parents about the game’s potential inappropriateness for children. The addition of slightly more risque sexual content by an independent modder hardly changes the overall nature of the game. If parents don’t want their kids playing such a game, then they should forbid its purchase. The use of government power to threaten investigations in order to scare game developers violates the First Amendment and imperils an activity many adults legitimately enjoy.

I don’t expect these arguments to concern many politicians or commentators. They seek easy answers to America’s problems. Rather than trying to determine the flaws with our society itself, that lead to unsafe underage sex, for example, blaming and attacking a video game is simpler. It enables politicos to sit back at their desks and say, “We’re doing something,” while the hard task of attempting to resolve our difficulties remains undone. Heaven forfend the original thought we would need otherwise!

Self-important politicians meddle with game industry is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

I have a question: Why should we care? Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are actors; they’re not any more important than anyone else. Certainly, acting is a tougher profession than many people credit. But other Americans work hard, too, and we don’t see their engagements on the front page of a newspaper website. What gives the “engagement” of Cruise and Holmes greater significance?

Let’s widen our gaze a bit. What about music and movie stars makes them so special that they merit coverage even in Time and Newsweek? What makes them so compelling that at least two syndicated television shows (Entertainment Tonight and Access Hollywood), one weekly magazine (People), and an entire cable network (E!), are necessary to cover their lives?

The answer, of course, is, “Nothing.” Other topics, which I outlined yesterday, deserve all that bandwidth and ink more than the personal details of vain celebrities. I do support attention to film, music, literature, theater, and other arts; these are essential components of any thriving culture. (If anything, we should concentrate more on literature.) What we don’t need all this focus on, though, is the private minutae of celebrities. None of it matters. The impact of a gnat is greater than its effect on the American public.

I understand, however, why the media operates at it does. As I said yesterday, the media enjoys easy assignments. What can be easier than waving a microphone in front of an actor’s face or chatting with Hollywood gossip mongers? In addition, such coverage is easy on the audiences. After a hard day at work, they can understand what’s happening without challenging their intellects or preconceptions much. They can also live precariously through the deeds of celebrities.

Those Americans who behold their peers from the heights of power love this. Government officials, influential lobbyists, Congressional representatives, etc., likely don’t have vile hidden agendas. We don’t have little Palpatines at work, as some paranoid individuals would have us think. But they would still like to conduct their business without intense scrutiny from the American people. That way, they can toil more for the betterment of their own positions and expansion of their own powers than for what’s best for the country as a whole. This is what happens in many principal-agent relationships when the principal doesn’t closely watch the agent. (In this case, the principal would be the American citizenry, while the agent would be their government.)

So long as the American media and public would rather keep up with “exciting” celebrities than “boring” politicians, this situation will continue.

If we care about our country, then we must reverse this trend. We must observe our government more strenuously. The next time you’re tempted to watch Entertainment Tonight or read People… watch Wolf Blitzer Reports or read U.S. News and World Report instead. Consider turning on C-SPAN rather than E! Decline the bread and ignore the circuses that distract us from the nation’s real issues.

Our free and prosperous future depends on it.

Why cover vain celebrities? is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Really, how many people did the Michael Jackson trial affect? (I don’t mean, how many haters and fans had feelings about the issue, but how many lives were truly impacted by the trial?) What makes the sad case of Natalee Holloway in Aruba more significant than most of the other instances of missing children each year? Did a comatose woman in Florida merit substantially more attention than everything else happening in the country? Going even farther back, was the O.J. Simpson murder case much more compelling than the other crimes people had committed? Etc., etc.

Certainly, many of these kind of stories are interesting. Some attention to them from the media is due. But, in the coverage of news outlets who purport to tell us about the world, should these stories crowd out everything else?

No.

As someone who is studying journalism, I understand the media’s tendency to focus on these sensationalist topics. They are easy; all journalists have to do is talk to a few cops, lawyers, or celebrities, camp out in front of a courthouse or stay in a hotel, and then they have a story. They don’t have to dig through evasive, hostile, or obscure sources, and they don’t have to risk making anyone angry. Also, news organizations know their audiences will eagerly consume this fluff. It provides viewers or readers doses of excitement without challenging their preconceptions and worldviews much. Not even the Terri Schiavo affair did that, being as it was about a matter that was abstract for most people.

So, this whole cycle enables journalists to relax with unchallenging assignments, while still raking in the money. And it allows consumers to go through life without serious introspection of themselves and their societies.

But this process obscures issues that, even though they are difficult to cover and contemplate, still affect the lives and well-being of many Americans, if not all of them.

I’m talking about subjects such as these:

• Government corruption. I don’t mean just malfeasance, but abuses of power that might be “legal” but still assault the principles our nation holds dear.
• Domestic ramifications of the War on Terror. In the news, the War on Terror appears as mainly a struggle in foreign lands. We know this War on Terror impacts life at home, too, and we need to understand more about it. I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m not comfortable being ignorant of these things. If the intransigence of the Bush administration prevents the media from covering this more thoroughly, then the media should make an issue of that.
• The histories and motivations of people around the world. As the events of September 11, 2001, showed us, Americans hardly live alone on this Earth. What other countries and societies do can affect us profoundly. Comprehending their thoughts and beliefs is, therefore, important.
• Related to the point above, but American news outlets should tell us more in general about what’s happening about the world. For example, the savagery of the Sudanese government in Darfur and the massacre of protesters in Uzbekistan should receive more attention in the American media. No country is an island, to borrow from an old proverb, and the tragedies of one region can eventually impact us. Besides which… The country from one of those examples, Uzbekistan, is an ally of the United States in our War on Terror! If our partners conduct state-sanctioned murder and other human rights violations, the American people should know that, and be able to pressure their government accordingly.
• The environment. The health of our planet impacts everyone. It merits more than the token quoting of a scientist source every once in a while. How are Americans to know what to do about the environment if the media doesn’t investigate and illuminate the issue?
• Crime and punishment. I don’t refer to telling us Mrs. Wutherford was mugged last night. Already, local newscasters and newspapers focus too much on criminal incidents. But what no media on any level examines is, how effective is our justice system in punishing felons? Do our cops and prisons serve as effective deterrents? Does capital punishment do anything to prevent heinous murders?

This is but a small sampling of the things on which the national media should focus. Will the media ever minimize their sensationalist fluff pieces in favor of these kinds of stories?

That depends on the American people. Above all, news corporations want to make money. Sadly, that is their driving force these days. If Americans tune out substanceless vapidity and demand actual enlightenment, then the media will have to respect that. Can something like this actually happen anytime soon?…

I hope.

Sensationalist media ignores real issues is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Michael Jackson stands trial on trumped up charges of child molestation.

Before the trial against Michael Jackson started, his prosecutors, with the aid of an eager media, promised the world damning evidence against the superstar. Finally, we were led to believe, the allegations that “Wacko Jacko” shopped for partners in the junior section would morph into facts. After the prosecution was done with him, the whole world would see him for the child molester he supposedly was, and he’d be going to jail for a very long time.

Reality has developed differently.

After a trial that has lasted a few months and elicited the testimony of hundreds of witnesses, all Jackson opponents have to go on is still a pack of vague allegations. They have wild and inconsistent rambling from the accuser’s mom, who has tried to bilk celebrities and institutions from their money before. They have contradictory stories from the accuser’s siblings and the accuser himself. They have unsubstantiated claims and hearsay from former Jackson employees resentful of their old boss. What they don’t have is any physical evidence that Jackson abused anyone. They don’t have the trustworthy word of any reliable witness. In essence, the prosecutors and their allies would have people believe Jackson is a molester simply because they say so. Never mind that we have no reason to believe them.

After the prosecution’s shoddy presentation of their case against Jackson, the defense’s effort was just a formality. The prosecutors hadn’t remotely proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Still, Jackson’s defenders put in more than a perfunctory effort as they presented witnesses who opposed everything the accusers had said. Certainly, the defense witnesses didn’t offer much proof of their contentions, either. But the burden of proving that something sinister happened at Neverland, thereby discrediting the witnesses’ claims, was on the prosecution. And the prosecution didn’t meet that burden. Also, the testimony of the defense witnesses had the benefit of being more plausible.

Consider this: Over the course of his adult career, from the early 1980′s to the present, Michael Jackson has had access to thousands of children. Many of these kids were guests at his Neverland ranch; he could’ve had them to himself and did whatever dastardly things he wanted to them, if he were so inclined. Despite that, however, only a few dubious allegations of wrongdoing have arisen. This tells us straightaway that Jackson is probably not a pedophile. If he actually did molest children, a lot more victims and families would be accusing him of evil acts. His wealth wouldn’t awe into silence many parents whose children had really faced molestation. (Parents who are reading this, think about what you’d do if your own kids faced abuse. I’d bet no amount of money could stem your fury.)

I hope the jury deliberating in California now reaches an honorable verdict of, “Not guilty.” That could be the only just conclusion to this kangaroo trial.

The case against Michael Jackson is flimsier than a roof of straw is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

Jackson's "Beat It" helped eradicate MTV's reluctance to air videos from black artists.

Michael Jackson has established himself as one of the most successful musical artists in history. His album Thriller—which won a record eight Grammies—remains the bestselling album of all–time, having sold over 51 million copies worldwide. Jackson’s enormously popular videos for “Billie Jean,” “Beat It,” and “Thriller” eliminated MTV’s reluctance to broadcast videos from black artists. Also, TV Guide, BET, and MTV determined “Thriller” to be the best music video ever made.

Jackson’s later albums also experienced phenomenal success. Bad, from 1987, was the second bestselling album of the 1980′s, and it was the first album to have six number one singles. In addition, Jackson’s Bad concert tour was the most successful tour ever. A few years later, Michael Jackson’s Dangerous became the bestselling album of 1992, and Jackson’s 1993 half–time performance at Super Bowl XXVII was at the time the highest rated show in television history.

That year of 1993 was when the media’s dogs pounced on Michael Jackson and tore his reputation to pieces.

Almost everyone alive at the time would remember what happened. A young boy named Jordy Chandler accused Michael Jackson of molesting him, and not even 24 hours after the media discovered this, they had spread the allegation all across the globe. Tabloid writers and legitimate journalists alike competed fiercely amongst themselves to write or to air the most sensational stories about Jackson. Before long, the media had pronounced Jackson guilty of child molestation and had branded him a pedophile and a pervert.

At first glance, the media’s case against Michael Jackson appears strong. Jordy Chandler had provided to police descriptions both of Jackson’s body parts and of the acts he said Jackson had performed upon him. Also, former housekeepers and security guards who had worked at Jackson’s home, Neverland Ranch, asserted that they had witnessed Michael Jackson performing illicit acts with many young children. Finally, Jackson settled with the Chandler family out of court, an act many people interpreted as an attempt by Jackson to bribe the Chandlers to silence themselves about the molestation.

Upon close scrutiny, though, the case against Michael Jackson collapses faster than a $10 tent hit by a $2 million missile. Jordy Chandler’s famous descriptions of Jackson’s body turned out to be incorrect. A dispatch from Reuters news service on January 27, 1994, revealed that when the police examined and photographed every micrometer of Jackson’s body in an attempt to corroborate what Jordy had said, the police found that none of Jackson’s features matched Jordy’s descriptions.

In 1993, Michael Jackson vehemently denied allegations he'd molestated children.

As for the boy’s stories about his risqué encounters with Jackson, the circumstances under which those stories arose rob them of all credibility. Before Jordy Chandler said anything about molestation, the boy’s father, Evan Chandler, an aspiring screenwriter, became angry at Michael Jackson for not helping him with his career in Hollywood. Therefore, as he revealed in a secretly recorded telephone conversation, Chandler launched a plan to destroy Michael Jackson, as he revealed in a secretly recorded telephone conversation exposed by GQ magazine in October 1994.

According to Chandler in this conversation, “This guy [his attorney, Barry Rothman] is going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I’ve given him full authority to do that.” Later in the conversation, Chandler added, “If I go through with this, I win big–time. There’s no way I lose. I’ve checked that inside out. I will get everything I want, and they will be destroyed forever… Michael’s career will be over… It will be a massacre if I don’t get what I want.”

Chandler’s plan was to accuse Michael Jackson of child molestation, but unfortunately for Chandler, Jordy refused to implicate Jackson in any way whatsoever. To solve that problem, Chandler took his son to dental anesthesiologist Mark Tobiner. Tobiner injected into Jordy the barbiturate sodium Amytal, under the influence of which a person is highly impressionable; the effect is similar to hypnosis. With sodium Amytal swimming through his system, Jordy said for the first time that Jackson had molested him.

Finally armed with this crucial tidbit, Chandler brought Jordy to psychiatrist Mathis Abrams, to whom Jordy repeated his allegations of Jackson’s misconduct. Abrams contacted the Department of Children’s Services, which in turn called the police. Five days after the police began to investigate Jordy’s claims, the media discovered the allegations against Jackson.

A short time later, former Jackson employees emerged into the spotlight, saying they had seen Michael Jackson molesting children other than Jordy. Something worth noting is that all of these employees had been fired, so they had reason not to like Michael Jackson. Also, these employees received money for their stories from tabloids such as The Globe and Hard Copy. When these people were in a courtroom, however, where they had to tell the truth on pain of imprisonment, none of them could say they had seen Jackson perform any untoward acts on even a single young boy.

Of course, if the case against Michael Jackson was full of holes, then that begs the question of why Jackson settled with the Chandler family rather than fight against the allegations in court. The reason is, said Jackson lawyer John Branca, “He just wanted the whole thing to go away.” Jackson naívely believed that if he paid the Chandlers to stop pursuing him, then he could get on with his life. He thought the public would support him instead of a father who would accept money in lieu of justice.

Almost a decade after the molestation saga, life for Jackson hasn’t transpired in the way he had hoped it would. Many people throughout the world still believe Michael Jackson is a freak who abuses children. As Jackson prepares to launch his campaign in support of his new album, Invincible, he must accept that reality and work to change it. Only then could Jackson hope to reestablish the pristine reputation the media took from him in 1993. And only then could Jackson hope for his career to ascend once again to the dizzying heights from which he saw his past albums break all records possible.

Is Michael Jackson Guilty? is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos

People always need convenient scapegoats to blame for society’s problems. The practice of deflecting responsibility is certainly nothing new. Before the advent of television, culture critics assailed books as the cause of juvenile corruption. Now, software developers and movie studios are the ubiquitous demons supposedly debauching the youth of America.

The focus on and criticism of violent forms of media is entirely misplaced. Thousands of people watch violent movies and play bloody video games each year without going on rampages of death and destruction. A relatively mature individual who is sound of mind will not kill or maim someone because of a brutal act the individual has seen in a motion picture or a video game.

Few people will admit the real problem: oblivious and naívé parents. These parents, instead of spending time with their children to impart to them the standards of civilized behavior, simply rely on the television or the computer to teach life lessons. These parents think nothing of it when their little kids (who certainly are impressionable, unlike mature people) play violent video games or see blood-soaked movies. Therefore, these children grow up thinking of violence as an acceptable solution to life’s problems. They don’t know any better because their parents didn’t act as a force to counteract the messages from violent media.

Some people, such as Mr. Ashcroft, believe the entertainment and gaming industries should refrain from making violent products. But the thousands of people who can enjoy such things without hurting or killing people should not be punished for the insane acts of a deranged few. Parents have the responsibility to make sure their impressionable young children are not exposed to violent media. The time has come for them to live up to that responsibility.

Entertainment Industry Does Not Create Teen Killers is a post from Hypersyllogistic - Politics, Culture, Entertainment, Discussions, Blogs, Photos