I suppose some folks were right about the Michael Jackson coverage - too much of it, of course. It blocks other, more substantial news coverage. But that's always been the case with Michael Jackson; he was that kind of personality. The world couldn't help but pay attention to everything he did, for good or ill.
I was twelve years old when Thriller hit the record shops. For the next few years, there were no junior high school classrooms without a student in a Michael Jackson T-shirt. I was not one of them. I was one of the guys who joked that MJ and Boy George were lovers. In short, I was not a fan. I'm more charitable now, but not much. Other than Thriller and Off the Wall, his albums didn't strike me as impressive. I think his skills as a songwriter were overrated. As a showman, however, he was unparalleled; only Elvis Presley could match him. For good or ill (mostly ill), every pop, R&B, and hip-hop icon can trace their stage show to Jackson's, but none will come close to him in terms of sheer stage presence.
So why am I, a non-fan, writing about Michael Jackson? Because of the Republican Congressman Peter King's attack on Michael Jackson, calling him a "low-life," "pervert" and "pedophile." The Long Island right-winger has had a reputation in the past of being a blowhard, but something about the attack rubbed me the wrong way.
Do I believe that Michael Jackson molested children on more than one occasion? Yes. Was he a pervert, a sexual predator? There's the rub, right there. Yes, I believe that Jackson molested children, but I don't think he was a sexual predator. Legally, of course, there's no distinction, and there shouldn't be. If Michael Jackson was guilty of child molestation, he should have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But this isn't about law; this is about the man, or rather the boy. Because Michael Jackson was an adult only chronologically. He was a child to the day of his death. If his voice hinted at it, his behavior and habits confirmed it. Not only was Michael Jackson a child in a man's body, he did everything he could to maintain his childhood, largely because it was the only thing about himself he had full control over.
When I was a kid, I saw other kids' genitals, and other kids saw mine. The circumstances were innocent, of course: two kids taking a bath, my cousins and I using the bathroom, a friend and I play the "you show me yours, you show me mine" game. As for touching, my mother loved telling my old girlfriends - to my horror - one of my female cousins and I were caught playing doctor. But we were four years old, so it was written off as kids doing what kids do alone. Other than that, I recall no other instance of any similar exploration as a child, although I'm sure other children have gone further.
I suspect Michael Jackson's activities with children fell into that category. He thought - and explored - as a child. It doesn't excuse his behavior at all, but it does explain the paradox of a child molester who is not a sexual predator. It's an incredibly fine line, and for that reason the behavior should not be seen as acceptable, whether the motive was innocent or not.
So I don't hate Michael Jackson for what he did. In fact, I feel an incredible amount of pity for the man. His childhood was distorted and twisted beyond endurance by fame and a psychotic and cruel father. He was babysat his entire life, never had to want for anything, and became fatally dependent on others. He was American culture personified, taken to a sick, sad end. Worst of all, he lived the ultimate American dream: he never grew up, and he never grew old.
