Erik's Rant
 

June 14, 2005

On Michael Jackson

The Imperial Tribunal, in reviewing the Michael Jackson case over a pitcher of margaritas (recipe? 1/3 lime juice (with the juice of an orange thrown in for added depth), 1/3 triple sec, 1/3 100% blue agave tequila. Stir on ice and serve up), followed by a plate of carnitas and homemade guacamole (that was, what, 14 hours ago, and I'm still not that hungry. There is something to be said for frying pork in goose fat), has determined the following:

1. Michael Jackson may or may not have been guilty of the allegations brought to the court in Santa Maria. We were not really following it, having better things to do. Those who actually watched the dramatic recreations of said trial should be forever barred from voting, holding public office, or teaching.

2. Either way, he is a sick puppy who should be supervised by adults whom he cannot hire or fire, who have no connection with his parents or with the sicko Jehovah's Witness cult that they belong to, and who are not employed by the record label. Any parent who thinks that it is smart to let Junior stay the night at the Jackson compound should face Child Protective Services scrutiny.

3. However, none of this clears the Jackson name of years of making crappy music for years.

4. Since the Jackson name is just about worthless in terms of selling records and getting airplay, the whole thing is moot, unless a Jackson revival were to happen. Don't laugh. It happened to disco.

Thus, in Our considered opinion, no more action is required to this point in the Jackson affair. However, in the first signs of a revival, We may order the burning of his records.

Posted by erik at June 14, 2005 11:43 AM | TrackBack
Comments

We bow to the Imperial Tribunal's obvious wisdom and thank the members for sharing same with us ... especially since I was part of the not really following it crowd, to the point where I was surprised if it was mentioned.

Posted by: Julie D at June 14, 2005 12:57 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?