Michael Jackson: Heck On Wheels
I’ll have to ask Shaun O’Mac if he happened to see Michael Jackson on one of his recent trips to Barnes & Noble in Las Vegas. Watch your feet, Michael has taken to a wheelchair and jammies!
The singer attempted to travel about the town anonymously with his four-car convoy, wheelchair, dreadlock wig, sunglasses, trucker hat, and signature surgical mask:
It remained unclear last night whether Jackson, who is most famous for his footwork and in particular his moonwalk, actually needs the wheelchair to get around or whether he was just using it as a prop.
He has been spotted both with and without the chair in recent weeks.
He has battled numerous health problems over the years, having being diagnosed with lupus and vitiligo and the amount of surgery he has had has rendered him unrecognisable from his former self.
Rumor has it that he needs the chair at the moment because he is battling a persistent back problem. I can’t make fun of that, because I have a persistent back problem myself, and it’s hard to deal with at times.
He and his three children visited a Barnes & Noble to peruse the books and toys:
On this occasion, Jackson arrived with his three children, who were unusually unmasked, and headed straight for the children’s book section, where he remained alone for some time.
An eyewitness said: ‘They arrived at the Barnes and Nobel shop in Las Vegas on Monday afternoon.
‘First Michael was in the childrens’ section on his own in the wheelchair reading books. The three children were at another table with the bodyguards.
‘He was in the children’s section for about half an hour. He then went to the music section and was sitting in the chair looking through various books.
‘But this time the children were in the children’s section. Then he pushed himself around in the wheelchair for a while and ended up in the magazine section.
‘He was in the shop for about two hours in total. There was no special treatment. The shop was not closed to the public at any point.
‘There were quite a few members of the public in the shop who knew he was there but no one approached him.
‘To be honest, he looked a bit weird wheeling himself around covered up in a surgeon’s mask and that is probably what freaked people out to not want to approach him.
‘When they left the shop, the children came out first and he was wheeled out behind them. He never left the wheelchair at any point in the shop.’
You know what? If I saw a tall, extremely thin man sitting in a wheelchair with a dreadlock wig, trucker hat, sunglasses, and a surgical mask at my local bookstore, I’d think, “That is definitely Michael Jackson, and I’m staying away from him. Yuck.” Then I’d probably douse my hands with Germ-X just from being in the same room.
Let’s face it…these so-called “disguises” do nothing but draw attention to him. Everybody knows this is MJ, he’d do better to try and look like a normal black man. Now THAT would blend in and nobody would know it’s him!
The ones I truly feel sorry for are his children. They didn’t ask to be born into his perverted world, to live under a microscope all their lives. They’re living in a rented in Lost Wages (an apt place for MJ to live), they have no permanent home, they can’t go to school (I mean, they’re Michael’s kids, can you imagine?), and it appears they have no friends other than each other and whoever Michael brings home. From all accounts, they are polite and well-behaved, but there’s more to a well-brought-up child than knowing how to properly act in public. By all appearances they seem to be normal, attractive children, not the freaks the public has guessed them out to be in the past when their father kept them under wraps and masks and blankets. Yet, due to their father’s freakish behavior, we were led to believe that there must be either something wrong with them or he was hyper-afraid of something terrible happening to them if their faces were to be seen.
So if he really needs the wheelchair for a recurring back problem, then he has my sympathy. But if he’s just using it to try and disguise himself…well, do you think it’s working?
Pink Stripe WordPress Theme Designed by Joni Mueller &
It’s working if only because, as you say, people see him and run the other way.
I do feel sorry for his kids, especially the two boys who seem to rockin’ a look made popular by Celine Dion and Kate Hudson’s boys.
While it’s nice that the children have been brought up largely out of the public eye, I’m guessing their lives have been anything but normal.
Comment by crazymom — July 10, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
the only person who is perverted is you. its you and people like you following his kids around taking pictures of them and writing about them. you dont have the first clue about how michael jackson raises his kids or how he lives, all you hear is rumours.
so wat your saying just because hes michael jackson and he is famouse he cant have kids, thats a discusting thing to wrie.
for a jurnalist you dont have much brains
Comment by josh — July 10, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
josh, I just love people like you! I seriously do!
I’m sure you don’t know why, but it’s okay. Have a wonderful day, because you just made mine!
Comment by k — July 10, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
If Michael has a back problem then I, too, can sympathize. But I agree, if this is a disguise, well its not working!!
One day, when his kids are all grown up, maybe we will see/hear from them and they will be able to set the record straight. None of us could say that Michael had a ‘normal’ childhood, so what do you expect.
Comment by Jane — July 10, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
Ha, Michael 4Ever.
I was never very good with genetics, but those are some very white-looking kids for an African-American to be spawning. I know the mom was white, but I’ve never seen the black and white genes mix to be that cacasian.
Comment by Brooke — July 10, 2008 @ 11:48 pm
Michael Jackson. No one like him in the world, wow. No idea what to think of him at this point, if there is a him to fathom anymore… Sad.
Comment by toldya — July 11, 2008 @ 1:31 am
You say you feel sorry for the children who have to live under a microscope, but you’re one of the people holding the microscope. Does this not bring you any sense of moral insecurity?
I have to be honest, now. I have supported this site because of my solidarity with Dawn in exposing the Cult of Scientology. That is something that is very prosocial and highly called for. But during this entire time - and for years now - I have held a very serious grudge against people who seek money and attention by way of spending their days and nights spying on and telling the world about celebrities. How would you like it if you couldn’t so much as scratch your nose without some asshole taking a picture of it and then telling the world that it was a pick? How would you like it if you could not get a moment’s piece because a bunch of morally indifferent parasitical vultures wouldn’t leave you the fuck alone and stop snapping unwanted photos of you and jamming microphones and tape-recorders into your face when all you’re trying to do is go to the variety store and to grab the paper? How would you like it if you were having drug addiction, mood disorder or eating disorder problems and in addition to having to deal with these problems and how they’re affecting your personal life, you have a bunch of shutter-buggering vultures airing out your laundry to doesn’t-need-or-have-any-claim-to-know world, magnifying the problems multiple times over?
Dawn, I support your exposition of Scientology and it’s Fair Game policy. But look what you’re doing? You’re participating in something that is often as bad as many or most cases of Fair Gaming. You rightly get upset - like I do - when you hear of Scientologists obtrusively snapping photos of protesters and following them around town. But then in the post immediately following and preceding your posts on this sort of thing by Scientology, you support such undue invasiveness by tabloid parasites who make a living off of the embarrassment of celebrities.
Just because someone is a celebrity does not mean we have the right to know their personal lives. If they do something we like, we can buy their products, go to their shows and appearances, write them letters, and so on. We can even go say hello to them if we see them on the street - though hopefully with some sympathy to the fact that they’ve probably already been approached dozens of times this hour alone. But somewhere there is a line, and invasive tabloiding is well beyond this line.
Comment by Ron Brown — July 11, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
I wrote that article, not Dawn. Quite frankly, I find your comment offensive and rude.
If you can sit there and say that, then you have no clue what this site is about. Re-read Dawn’s excellent coverage of the CoS or my Hogan stories to get a feel for it. Or not, since celeb stories, which are basically human interest stuff, are so beneath you.
There are a great many people who come here specifically for the CoS news and ignore the fluffy celeb stories. Feel free to join them.
Comment by k — July 11, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
I know that you wrote this story, not Dawn. But both of you are behind this site. And I am one of the people who’ve come to this site for the CoS coverage - which is very good, by the way, and not for the celeb meddling.
And if you consider my message offensive and rude, well poor baby. How do you think the celebrities you victimize feel about you!?
If a mob of vultures was following you around all day everyday snapping a photo-album’s worth of pictures of you every time you walk to your car, would you be condemning a vulture critic like me for being offensive and rude?
If outwardly criticizing people for warrantlessly meddling in the lives of others and airing their personal lives to the world makes me offensive and rude, well then I guess I’m offensive and rude. But at least I’m not leaching off of the potentially embarassing private lives of others to get my 15 minutes of fame and my spending money.
Lastly, this is not about celebrity stuff being beneath me. It’s about what you euphemistically call “human interest stuff”. How would you like it if people made a human interest industry based on following you around and harassing you all day everyday trying to make a buck off of making you look bad? Just because people are entertained by hearing about the private lives of people who we know from the major media does not mean that we have any claim to have this information given to us and it does not justify an industry of morally indifferent vultures spending their time invading and mass publicizing every potentially “juicy” thing the person does - or can be portrayed as doing.
You and everyone behind this site and everyone in this industry who meddles in the personal lives of anybody who is not doing anything that can be deemed an affront to society are engaged in an industry of harassment, psychological abuse and pure and simple selfish calousness.
Comment by Ron Brown — July 11, 2008 @ 3:25 pm
You have the balls to come here for your CoS news, one of the best places for Scientology and anonymous news on the internets, and call US names?
Everything that Dawn has done for anons, and all the stories she’s written, everything she’s done for the effort, and you have the balls to come here and insult her, call her names, accuse her of abuse? On the one hand, you admit you come here for CoS news, and then with the other hand slap our faces?
Responding to the rest of your accusations would be pointless, since you’ve already made up your mind about us and what we stand for. That isn’t us, but if you believe it, more power to ya.
You don’t want to read the celeb stuff? Fine. You don’t like the whole site? Great. Do us all a favor. Take your toys and go away.
Comment by k — July 11, 2008 @ 3:36 pm
K:
You are being ridiculous. I didn’t realize that just because I think Dawn does great work regarding Scientology that I’m not allowed to criticize her and you and the industry of vultures of which you are both contributors for your patent incivility, insensitivity and pure undiluted selfishness.
I guess by your logic if I become some sort of a social or health worker - which I’m planning on doing - but in my free time engage in spousal abuse - which I’m not planning on - then I can be pardoned for being outraged when users of whatever social service I provide criticize me for beating my wife. After all, how dare anyone criticize me for one of my activities when they condone another of my activities.
And this is not about “oh, if you don’t like it, don’t read it and go away”. This is not morally neutral. This is morally vacuous and maximally selfish behaviour in which you and others are benefiting off of the privacy invasion and embarrassment of others.
Comment by Ron Brown — July 11, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
You don’t get it, and you never will.
I put a lot of thought, time, and effort into what I write. I don’t just sit in my pink palace (like SOME celeb writers) and rain snark down onto celebs just for hits to the site. I try to be honest, truthful, and sincere in my writings, and I know Dawn does as well.
If stars don’t want press, it’s easy to not get it…don’t be famous no mo. They know it is a part of the game that people want to know about them…if people don’t want to know about them, then it’s time to worry. I’m NOT excusing the actions of the terrorazzi, because they DO cross the line MANY times. Stars should have certain expectations of privacy. But so many celebs orchestrate these so-called “impromptu” or “candid” photo-ops, they let slip their own “leaks”, the “anonymous source” is really one of their friends done with their permission, did you realize that? Not all of them are staged, not all stars do this stuff, but some of them do. Not an excuse for some paps behavior, though, as I believe most of us agree.
We have pointed out MANY times when the photogs and tabloids have crossed the line. So many times we have said that this one or that one has gone too far and called for people to respect a star’s privacy. Guess you don’t read those parts, since it doesn’t fit into your holier-than-thou predetermined opinion of us.
If one thing I’ve written about the Hogans stops someone from drunk driving or drinking underage or street racing, if one thing I’ve written about Britney’s mental illness helps someone to recognize symptoms in a friend or themselves and prompts them to get help, if one thing I’ve written about Amy has caused someone to realize their own drug addiction, if one thing I’ve written about any celeb has caused somebody to sit up and recognize an area that needs help in their own life, if one thing I’ve written has exposed a self-righteous twit celeb for what they truly are (much like anons do to the CoS), then it’s all worth it, even having to deal with comments from people who truly don’t understand.
And yeah…it is pretty pitiful that you come here and on one hand kiss Dawn’s butt about her Scientology stories (even telling her how cute she is) and tell her how great she is for standing up and what a wonderful job she’s doing, and then on the other hand compare her actions to Fair Gaming and calling her callous and saying she harasses people. I don’t let people treat my friends that way. And as far as benefiting off the actions of others…if you only knew. Yeah, I so live in the lap of luxury because of my writings here…even the Sea Orgs would feel sorry for our paychecks. We do it because we want to make a difference.
This will be my last post to you, because I have found you just can’t discuss something with someone who is always right. Have a nice day.
Comment by k — July 11, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
“If stars don’t want press, it’s easy to not get it…don’t be famous no mo. They know it is a part of the game that people want to know about them”. Yes, it’s part of the game that people want to know about them. It’s also part of the game that I want to be able to see any girl I find attractive naked, but that doesn’t mean I deserve to have this want fulfilled. Just because people want to know if Lindsey Lohan was caught on camera giving a flirtatious eye to a guy she was at a party with (something that this blog brought to my attention) does not mean they have any need or claim to know.
Next, if you’re calling out certain media vultures for crossing the line, great. I support that. I don’t recall seeing it, but I’ll take your word on it. This is not about hollier-than-thouism, it’s about honest views on respect for these celebrities’ ability to live a private life without having a bunch of opportunists standing in their face with a camera and a mic just hoping that a button pops off, they’re drunk, or something else that can be used against them to turn a profit and get some blog hits.
Next, how very kind of you to use the problems of celebrities to help others. How very utilitarian of you to contribute to the public humiliation of celebrities in order to help the rest of us. Excuse me while I grab my sunglasses to protect my eyes from your shining halo.
Next, you can call my being nice to Dawn butt-kissing, though I personally think that’s unfair. I do commend her efforts against Scientology. And I do think she’s a good looking woman, and think that most males would agree with me on that. However, that doesn’t mean that I’m gonna apply a different set of standards regarding conduct to her than I would for othes. Actually, that’s not totally true. I did apply a different treat her differently than I would others for a number of months, keeping my reservations against tabloiding to myself in the interest of solidarity against the cult. However, when I saw the blatant ridiculous in this article wherein you, her partner, at once claimed to feel bad for MJ’s children and in the same post presented a picture of them, which directly contributes to one of the very things you feel sorry for them about, that unsealed my lips.
That you cannot even admit that what you are doing is benefiting off of the negative attention that you deliberately draw to these people who happen to be good at something that many people find interesting/enjoyable is quite saddening. And please spare me the indication that you are not benefiting from this site. Even if the paychecks are not particularly large, I highly doubt that the sense of personal meaning, importance and status that you are achieving from having a multi-thousand-hit-per-day site is not something that motivates and gratifies you.
Comment by Ron Brown — July 12, 2008 @ 2:04 am
Ron, just now seeing this and I have to say I am deeply disappointed by your lack of diplomacy and severe sense of self-righteousness.
K does an incredible job of writing about celebrities in the vein this site was created. I created Glosslip as a response to all the shallow celeb reporting I saw on the internet. As a mother and middle-aged adult, I understand (as does k) the importance of balancing out the celeb-worshipping in our society that sets the wrong standards for our culture at large.
You don’t have to agree with what we do, but if you are going to be derisive and apply some set of cheesy situational ethics to your viewing habits on this site, then I’d say you have some self-reflecting to do.
It’s neither your job, nor your place, to tell us what you see fit for us to write. My husband, the owner of this site, is the ONLY person who can tell either k or I what to write about. He thinks K is fabulous and does a noble job of writing about celebs using not only her excellent wit, but her conscience.
As for me, I started writing about Scientology BECAUSE it intersected with celebrity. It was only after I became intensely aware of the CoS dangerous nature that I chose to continue to pursue it.
This site would not exist without k, and it would not exist without celebs. If you don’t like it, well that my friend, is your problem and yours alone.
Oh, and I think you owe k an apology for being so completely without maturity and a sense of irony in your response(s) to her.
Also, Josh in comment 2, you are a farkling moron. MJ shouldn’t be around kids for the very same reason that poor young girl in Vermont (Brooke Bennett) shouldn’t have been around her sex predator uncle. Some things are common sense here people. Children and sex predators DO NOT MIX.
Ugh, people are really pissing me off today.
Comment by D — July 12, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
Dawn:
I owe absolutely nobody an apology. Your site runs snap shots of Lindsey Lohan flirting in her private life - like most of us do (you have flirted, so have I) - and in the post immediately adjacent to this one runs a zoomed in photo of Amy Winehouse’s upper pubic region - both with the intent of drawing negative attention to each of them for personal matters. What kind of person does this?
You criticize me for self-righteousness? It doesn’t take much in the way of moral sensitivity to see that when a person is going to great lengths to humiliate others, that a lack of compassion and civility is clearly being demonstrated present. You can try to frame this as me being overly self-righteous, but that’s BS. Anyone who goes out of their way to humiliate others by posting embarassing pictures for thousands (and, if you had your way, millions) of people to see is clearly showing a lack of the most elementary levels of compassion and civility.
You can also frame this as me being immature. Again, I beg to differ. You’re the 40 year old woman who is spending the majority of her day spying on celebrities and jumping at opportunities to facilitate their public humiliation if it will get your site an extra thousand hits. I will commend you for your work regarding CoS - as I’ve done before. And I will be intellectually honest enough to commend you on anything else you do that shows a genuine respect for others. But I’m not going to pretend that the uncompassionate uncivil opportunistic celebrity-scavenging that goes on on this site is anything less disgusting than it is.
Lets apply the Golden Rule to this. How would you like it if someone did what people like you do to celebrities to you? How would you like it if, for whatever reason, people were interested in knowing as much as possible about you and so you had a bunch of camera and mic-toting vultures who wouldn’t give you a moment’s peace? Would you feel that the public has a right to know if your low-riders fell a bit too low, or if you flirted with a guy at a party?
Comment by Ron Brown — July 12, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
jackson is a freak-end of story.
Comment by sally — July 12, 2008 @ 3:18 pm
Okay let’s see, at the top of this page it clearly states “Celebrity gossip from our lips to yours” and someone is bitching that this site contains…Celebrity gossip!
Give it a rest Ron. Don’t like glosslip? Don’t read it. Plenty of us appreciate Dawn and Kay and think they do a fabulous job. Comparing their postings with wife-beating and fair gaming is beyond ridiculous.
Comment by Rachel — July 12, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
I am not fucking 40 years old (not that there’s anything wrong with being 40, I just don’t feel like having people who don’t know me decide false things about me) and if I wasn’t pissed at you before, consider yourself terminated from this site. I will no longer respond to your comments. In fact, I have decided that you are in fact an asshole, so just get lost.
You really haven’t a clue about anything we do. NOT ONE SINGLE CLUE.
Oh, and I don’t wear “low-riders” clearly, according to you I wear “mom jeans” because I am so OLD. Also, I flirt with one person on this planet, the same person I married.
And as for having people make public comments about me, they have, they will and so what. If I don’t respect or care about them, I don’t give a crap. Consider yourself in that category of folks.
Buh-bye.
Comment by d — July 12, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
Oh, and thank you Rachel. Very much appreciated.
Comment by d — July 12, 2008 @ 6:35 pm
I should clarify something.
When I said you were 40, that wasn’t intended to be any sort of a backhanded comment or even a personal estimation of your age. It was a misremembering on my part from a long-ago look at your Facebook page. And even in the mis-memory, I thought that you were someone who looked notably younger than 40. So no offense at all was meant in what really was just a mis-remembering.
Anyhow, moving on to more pressing issues. To Rachel: I’m fully aware of the content of this site. But how about if I were to criticize a nazi site for being unbelievably inhumane and then a reader said “hey, this is a nazi site, if you don’t like it, leave!”. Now, am I saying that what is happening here is as bad as a nazi site? No. But the point is that it is bad - in my opinion, it is bad to benefit off of the deliberately induced suffering of others (yes, I’m aware that this happens in many places within society, and right now I’m criticizing this one, just as I’ve criticized others before). And same with the comparison to fair gaming and wife battery. It’s not about whether it’s as bad, it’s whether it is bad. And y’know what, I could easily argue that what the tabloid industry does can in some cases be worse than Fair Gaming and definitely battery. What would you rather have? A spouse that gives you a smack every month or two or a pack of vulture photogs who follow you around every day and night just hoping that you do something that appears embarassing that they can snap a photo of and sell, and then people like those who run this site can post in order to get the satisfaction of an extra thousand hits. I personally would rather be slapped in the face every month or two by a loved one than have 20 assholes with cameras and mics following me every time I step out of my apartment, and then a few thousand other vultures ready to spread the word on anything I do that is “juicy”.
This industry is in many ways a Fair Game industry. All celebrities are fair game for public humiliation because there is money and attention to be won from being one of the people who humiliates them. Scientology ruins people to shut them up and neutralize threats. The celebrity-watchers will ruin people because it will make them money and get them a bit of attention. Who here has anything good to say about how this site just ran a zoomed in photo of a drug addicted celebrity’s upper pubic region? Or how about covering a quick flirtation of Lindsey Lohan? Exactly how was any of this need-to-know or has-the-right-to-know public information? How many of us would like to have OUR lives invaded like this? Oh, but it’s not OUR lives! It’s THEIR lives! So who the fuck cares, right? Ohhh, well they do, but who cares!
This, by the way, is the kind of thinking that turns the world into a dangerous place. It is this sort of immorality that makes this a world of distrust and selfishness.
Dawn: Regarding flirting. The point, as I imagine you’re smart enough to have gathered but decided to play dumb because deep down you know that what you’re doing is morally-indefensible, is that flirting is something that we all do or have done and none of us would want to have this private activity put under an international microscope.
That neither you or Kay can bring yourself to admit that you’re doing something mean-spirited is absolutely disgusting. Have you forgotten that celebrities are people, too? Have you any compassion for celebrities? Are you incapable of applying the Golden Rule and thinking to yourself “how would I like it if people were doing this to me”?
Scientology exploits, abuses and dehumanizes, and that’s precisely what this site makes a regular habit of doing.
Is the celeb-watching industry the only one that does this? No. But it clearly does and that you so needlessly do this even though there is nothing stopping you from stopping this - aside from a personal (and genuinely understandable) desire for attention and a bit of extra money) - is quite disturbing.
You call me self-righteous earlier, as a way of deflecting attention off of your abusive exploitation and onto some supposed flaw of mine. I could so readily apply the same reasoning onto you. Stop criticizing Scientology! Stop being so self-righteous!
Comment by Ron Brown — July 12, 2008 @ 11:42 pm
Ugh, I can’t believe I am going to waste my time responding to you, but here I go.
First of all, an organization which goes out of its way to hurt, destroy or harass an individual as part of its doctrine deserves to be called out. I expose Scientology because few others seems to be doing so. It fits within the scope of what this site is already about, so to be able to do something helpful and stay on course is a blessing.
As for your take on our so-called vicious attacks on celebs. It’s a two-way street this celebrity journalism stuff. These people want us to talk about them, as this is how they make their money. Are you really that naive to not see that? K and I aren’t sitting in the bushes taking pics of famous people, nor do we condone it. In fact, we call out the terrorazzi all the time and call them vile when they cross the line. But don’t sit there and act like celebs aren’t PART of the game, because they are. You don’t become an entertainer and expect to be left alone. All jobs have perks and minuses to them. Celebs (and many admit it) know that losing some of their privacy is the price they pay for living lives of luxury most folks could only dream about.
You don’t see us writing about Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson or their kids. Why? Because they aren’t complete fucking assholes just BEGGING to be called out on their behavior. They make movies, they do their thing, they live their lives without making a spectacle of themselves. There are LOTS of stories k and I could cover if we were really cruel, but we don’t. The stuff we write about are things that have meaning to us.
Michael Jackson is a child abuser at his most innocent, and possibly a sexual predator. I am sorry, but buying children so you have someone to be around to make you feel like less of a freak is something I deeply frown on. Should we post pics of his kids? I don’t know, maybe, maybe not. I don’t have the slightest issue with k’s post. The children were clothed, they weren’t being spied on, they were in the public - I guess it’s no different than my local newspaper posting pics of kids from the 4th of July parade.
I think the central issue here is you’ve decided that since we also write about CoS stuff, that we should be held to some sort of “Ron Brown standard” and sadly, that’s something in YOUR mind, not ours. We have OUR standard, and we feel pretty good about what we do and how we approach it.
I am in no way ashamed or embarrassed about what I do. On our best days, we make social commentary that many of our readers deeply appreciate and feel touched by, and on our worst we make snarky off-handed funnies at goofy celeb’s expenses. But we NEVER seek to hurt anyone just for the sake of hurting them. K and I are not those people.
Now, if you want a list of sites that do that solely because the writers are hateful, greedy or just plain mean, let me know. I can point you and your righteous indignation in that direction, but you are barking up the wrong tree here.
We are good people and I stand by that and will defend it even to those who don’t deserve the time and energy.
So, how’s that self-reflecting going Ron? Let me know when you’ve reached nirvana and can speak with authority on perfection of one’s spirit. Until then, bugger off. I like who I am, and I love k.
Comment by D — July 13, 2008 @ 11:48 am
Okay Michael Jackson goes to the book store, Michael Jackson is in a wheelchair, okay Michael Jackson kids don’t have a mask on…..what hell of a difference does it make????? Leave the damn man alone he just want to go out spend a little time with his kids and have a good time why r u all up in his business????? Obsessed people like you are the reason why he does the things he do. All I’m saying to you and everybody else leave the man alone and let him live his life….having someone watching, and recording everything u do is not fun jux to let you know….let someone follow u around and do that nd see how u feel………and this is coming from a very mature 14yr. old african american young lady
Comment by shelle — July 13, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
shelle- A person does not come across as “mature” when they don’t bother to take the time to spell out words like “you” and “are”. You’re not texting a friend, you’re making a post on a public forum and trying to be taken seriously. You didn’t have to say you were 14, I already knew it.
And to attempt to place the blame for inappropriate behavior with children on anyone but MJ is beyond appalling.
Comment by Rachel — July 14, 2008 @ 9:01 am
Rachel:
Way to completely dodge Shelle’s points. I’m not saying that I remove blame from Jackson, but your fixation on Shelle’s completely comprehensible text while you ignore the relevant content is rather weak.
Dawn:
I’m aware that the entertainment industry (and thus, the celebs) benefit from media attention. They benefit from being in the public eye - it keeps them on the front burner of people’s minds, which will help their sales (as long as it’s not for something bad or stupid). And if they’re going to take the good, then I would agree that they have to be willing to take the bad, too. The question really is where is the line. You and Kate on the one hand, and myself on the other, have different views on where the line is. And all three of us have different views from the Paparazzi-types.
To figure out where the line *should* be, I think we would need to consider a variety of interacting factors. In no particular order, they would be:
1. The Golden Rule: What would any of us want?
2. The relevant history of media and the application of the Golden Rule at each step along the way. If at any point there was a direction taken that seems indefensible in terms of respect for those involved, some changes to standard operating procedures and relevant thinking may warrant consideration.
3. The good-bad trade off.
(perhaps you would want a few more in there)
Just to recap what set me off. What set me off was the declaration of K that she felt sorry for MJ’s children for, in addition to having the misfortune of being MJ’s kids, having to be under the public microscope, which increases the likelihood that people they meet will know who their guardian is. This, to me, came off quite discordantly given that right before this statement we see a nice big picture of the 3 kids along with an account of one of their personal day-to-day experiences. After months of seeing posts such as Lohan’s personal flirting and having just seen a zoomed in pic of Winehouse’s upper pubic hairs, I was rather perturbed. I’d been silently perturbed for months as I do view it as rather twisted that there are people who seek to gain attention and/or money along with self-gratification by way of going out of their way to humiliate others. And then when I confront a few of these people - judging by a number of the posts I’ve seen here, it seemed reasonable to put the posters on this site in this group - instead of admitting in the slightest bit of antisociality, lack of compassion, or simple selfishness, they try to turn it around on me suggesting that the problem is me - I’m arrogant, I’m self-righteous, and so on. As I said before, it doesn’t take much in the way of moral sensibilities to feel that it is rather socially unconstructive and, well, genuinely mean-spirited, that people are making a hobby and in some cases a livelihood out of humiliating others.
You can say that these are the costs of being a celebrity. But should these be costs? Is it good that this is the way that society is? Is it a good thing to contribute to it, and then use bad ideas and bad behaviour to justify further bad behaviour?
Comment by Ron Brown — July 14, 2008 @ 10:42 am
I don’t make the rules Ron, I merely respond to them. Celebs we write about fall into three categories. We celebrate them, we chastise them or we warn them.
I feel we provide a service, you clearly don’t. Since I neither like your attitude or approach, your opinion means nothing to me.
If you had meant to enlighten k or myself (her name is NOT Kate btw, simply “k”) then you might have wanted to approach us in a non-insulting, condescending way that didn’t come across as extremely rude. Diplomacy goes a long way.
Far more intelligent and respected people than yourself find what we do to be of quality and with a noble purpose. Since you are not in that category, and continue to take this same, failing approach with us, how about you give up and move on?
I’d sure like to at this point, because honestly, nothing you could say to me in the rotten tone you’ve presented yourself could have the slightest bit of impact on my decisions on this site. I find you to be contemptible and craven.
Go find another website to present your ill-formed and half thought out ideas to.
Comment by d — July 14, 2008 @ 11:20 am
I didn’t see anything “relevant” about it. I saw someone excusing a grown man for his abuse of children by blaming it on the media who, when it’s convenient for him, he seeks out.
This is the last time I’ll respond to you, as you don’t get it and probably never will, and I don’t wish to encourage more long-winded postings from you.
As I said earlier, give it a rest already. Your self-righteousness has become tiresome.
Comment by Rachel — July 14, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
^^^^
This!
Comment by d — July 14, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
Dawn:
So you care more about the speakers of ideas than the ideas themselves. That’s what we call ad hominem, and is one of the most well-known signs of argumentative weakness. If you cared about intellectual honesty and actually pursuing the most upstanding behaviour, then you would take my ideas seriously. You could call me a jerk for the way I delivered them - as that is how you took it - but you wouldn’t reject the ideas simply because someone you perceive to be an ass said them. Would the Golden Rule have been any worse of an idea if LRH had said it? No. It would have been the same idea, but spoken by an asshole.
Next. Y’know who else merely responding to rules rather than making them: nazis. Of course I’m not saying that you’re anything even approaching a nazi. But simply towing the party line rather than writing it yourself doesn’t make what you do any less questionable. Standing against societal poor practices can be difficult. For instance, it can be difficult to live outside of the capitalist system if you don’t like it because the very nature of property laws, currency and the nature by which capitalist markets spread their grasp can greatly limit one’s options. However, nothing even remotely close to this is stopping you from showing a bit more taste and civility in the stories you post. (And here it comes: “Hey Ron, why don’t you be more tasteful and civil in your comments?”. Well, one someone is going around seeking personal gratification under the lie of a warped social service from showing close-ups of celebrity pubes and invading on another celebrities private romantic affairs, the time for nonconfrontational pleasantries has passed.
Comment by Ron Brown — July 14, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
I wasn’t going to answer you again, but since you’ve decided to continually mention me and articles I’ve written, I feel that I have no choice but to rebut some of your statements. I’m not going to continually justify our site or what we do on it, but you seem to keep bringing up the same things over and over.
You are constantly referring to three specific articles I’ve done on this site. It makes me feel as if you have specific issues with those articles. Let’s break it down to what they truly are, instead of taking them just on face value, shall we?
You constantly chide us for the Lindsay flirting article. What you neglect to mention is that Lindsay was not just caught flirting at a party. She was caught practically on the lap of Joel Madden, “partner” of Nicole Richie and father to a baby. He’s been on record a zillion times telling how wonderful fatherhood is and how committed he is to Nicole…yet he allowed himself to be pulled into a situation where Lindsay was practically all over him. This wasn’t just a simple case of an innocent, or even not-so-innocent, flirtation between two available adults…this was two people who should never have let it go that far. Not saying it was all Lindsay’s fault or all Joel’s fault, because I’m sure there was enough blame to go around. But it certainly was not just a “Lindsay romantic moment” article.
Next, you continually reference the photo of Amy Winehouse, walking down a public street, with her low-rider jeans slung down just a bit too far. If it were just a wardrobe malfunction, I never would have said anything. After all, we all have had the occasional undone button or zipper at half-mast or hole in the crotch of our pants. But what you neglected to say is that this happened on a night where Amy was once again out on the town, roaming the streets of London, coked up out of her mind and looking for trouble. If you go downtown in any large, urban area, you’re going to see homeless drug addicts, wandering the streets, half-clothed and with various body parts on display. It isn’t because they don’t care what they look like, but because they’re so drugged out of their minds that they don’t realize what is going on…much like Amy.
And last, you got mad because I both expressed empathy for MJ’s kids while at the same time running a photograph of them. Let me explain my reasoning. For years now, MJ has not allowed his children to be photographed without some sort of camouflage…a blanket over their heads, masks on their faces, scarves or kerchiefs tied to cover half their features. The explanation offered was that he was afraid of kidnappers, but rumors ran rampant about the true reason, one of which was that they were not MJ’s kids after all. I ran the photo (the only one I am aware of on this site) because I wanted to show the world that these were normal, everyday, average children, not deformed or weird or ugly or physically unlike MJ. There is no mystery about these kids, because they are as normal as anyone else’s kids. While I’m not a huge fan of splashing photos of children on the ‘net, in this case using the photo seemed warranted.
Now, I think we all agree that the terrorazzi go way too far in their continual quest for the scoop, the perfect photo. I’ve said it, Dawn has said it, you have said it, many have said it. But there’s a huge difference between a stalker pap and a photographer from a news agency. These sorts of photographers have been following stars since there were famous people to follow. Yes, some paparazzi are probably much more aggressive now than they were in years past. But to say all are crossing the line is like saying all black people are gangstas. I have been involved “behind the scenes” with famous people, in my case in sports. I’ve seen the way people act when they get around famous people, and I’ve been complimented on my acting with tact and poise and respect for the people I was dealing with…because I treated them like people, not like idols.
Like it or not, the plain and simple fact is that there are people who look up to celebrities. They emulate what the celebs do, they buy what the celebs endorse, they go to movies and watch television shows featuring the celeb (thus enabling the celeb with their money). They will go to great lengths to excuse their favorite celeb’s behavior, even when that behavior is obviously bad or flawed. I’ve had I don’t know how many replies on here saying, “Everybody should leave [celeb] alone and let them live their life!” I say that letting a celeb live their life is one thing, while excusing their behavior (or worse, endorsing it) is another. I’m all for letting someone live their life in private, but I will not excuse a celeb’s behavior just because of their fame. I refuse to love a celeb to death, which is what so many are doing. And let’s face it…there are MANY celebs that we don’t write about, simply because they are not out in the public eye doing something stupid for the whole world to see.
People emulate what they see their favorite celeb do. The reasoning behind the Lindsay posting was to show people that for all the showbiz hype and whitewash her people were trying to put on her, her true self was coming out when she began a flirtation with a man who was in a (supposedly) committed relationship. Had it been Jane Doe down the street, I may have said it was none of my business…but this is an actress which many people look up to and who’s behavior is excused all the time. People continually say how wonderful she is, yet she’s coming on to a married man? Despite this, I was one of her staunchest supporters when she was in rehab, and I have called for her to re-enter rehab to help straighten herself out once again. Nobody is happier to see celebs straighten themselves out than me. I would love to see Lindsay truly conquer her demons and make something of her life.
Amy Winehouse? Once again, you have people who say she is just young and should be left alone to live her life. People say how wonderful she is and excuse her behavior. Yet, she’s continually going out, drugged up beyond recognition, not even realizing that her pants are falling off. Sometimes you need to slap people in the face with the truth before they’ll believe you. This is not a woman to idolize, this is a woman to pity. I’ve called again and again for someone to help her and get her off the drugs. When she managed to get it together for the Grammys, nobody was more excited than me, and consequently nobody was more disappointed than me when she started throwing it all away again. Yet people still don’t believe that she’s a drug addict, they just think she’s quirky and fun, so they excuse (and enable) her behavior…loving her to death.
MJ? I truly believe the man is a pedophile. But those children of his didn’t ask to be born into his world. For him to even bring children into his world was one of the biggest acts of selfishness I’ve ever seen, and then to act as he has with them (the scarves, the masks, etc) is nothing short of bizarre. I didn’t gratuitiously show photos for shock value or hits. I showed them because I wanted people to see that these were normal little kids, despite their father’s weirdness. Yes, I do feel sorry for them, but showing one photo of them (when I’ve had many chances to show others and did not) doesn’t cancel that out. Yes, I showed a photo of them…so what? I didn’t scribble little spit drools on them or say horrible things about them…in fact, I went out of my way to say nice things about them.
I can only assume you either haven’t read or have conveniently forgotten all the other articles Dawn and I have done on Amy and Lindsay, positive ones, ones where we have pointed out the good things in their lives. I guess you’ve overlooked the many times when we have called for help and intervention for a celeb who is experiencing problems in their life. Yes, when a celeb does something stupid, we call them out. When they do something good, we point that out too. When they need help, we call for it. We do it because there are so many people who want to do what celebs do. This is a celeb-worshipping society, and somebody has to point out the obvious. And who knows…maybe something we write can help someone realize the problems in their own life. Maybe they’ll recognize that they have a drug problem or that the affair with the married man is getting them nowhere in life, and that they need help. Maybe they’ll think that if this or that celeb can successfully turn themselves around, then they can too.
You find me a major celeb site where the articles take more than five minutes to write, including formatting and photographs. We don’t just churn out pulp and pablum for the masses. We don’t sit in our pretty pink gay palaces and rain down snark, along with stupid slobber doodles, on a celeb having a bad day. We don’t rush in like vultures, with clicking cameras and videotape, growing fat off other people’s misery. We take time to analyze the situation, look at what’s really happening, cut through the BS, and get to the real heart of the story.
And despite what you may think, we have many readers who DO recognize that the heart of what we do is social commentary. Ask William Kern of worldmeets.us, who is one of our biggest fans.
You can chastise us for talking about Lindsay flirting or Amy’s underwear or MJ’s kids, but you can’t truly do so without taking a look at the whole story, which you never do. You just take one little part of it and proceed to build your argument against us on that…you’re using selective morality to then judge us with, and it just doesn’t hold up.
Why not take another look at some of the articles Dawn has done on celebs and Scientology? They are truly in depth and insightful, and worthy of being included in any glossy mag anywhere. Why not take a look at some of the stuff I’ve done on the Hogans? They try to make themselves look like angels, and I show them for what they really are. Why not read the articles where we call for an intervention for the celeb drug addict or counseling for the suffering famous person? Or do those articles not fit into the preconceived notion of what you think we are? Why not take a look at the site as a whole, instead of picking and choosing a couple little snippets that don’t fit your idea of what we should be? What, you came to a celeb site and saw celeb news? The horrors! All that time you spent kissing Dawn’s butt about her Scientology articles, and you didn’t notice that she writes celeb news as well? It’s pretty sad that you’d spend all that time buttering her up about the CoS and then compare her writings to Fair Gaming.
Bottom line is that you can’t come here and tell us what you think we ought to do or not do. This is OUR site, and we will write about what WE like, regardless of your feelings on the matter. If you don’t believe me, that isn’t my fault. We don’t love celebs to death…in fact, we don’t treat them any differently than anyone else. We recognize that they are human beings, just like anyone else, and this is how we tell those who don’t realize that. How else can we tell people? This is our medium to get the message out that celebs are no better and no worse than you or I, and putting them on a pedestal and excusing their behavior just because they’re cute or sing well is actually a pretty foolish thing to do. Those who worship and emulate the bad behavior of celebs need to be told that the person they idolize is simply a human being, just like them. A favorite movie quote:
In short, if you don’t like what we do, you’re free to feel that way, but otherwise buzz off. GlossLip isn’t going to change. We aren’t leaving it. You, however, can feel free to go, and don’t let the doorknob hit you on the way out.
Have a nice day.
Comment by k — July 15, 2008 @ 1:20 am
Please don’t waste your time in expressing bad things about legend. MJ already proved himself as a great star and pop icon. Now he is nearing 50. He may have health problems like we all going to have. It doesn’t mean he can’t make another thriller. Though he may/may not dance like in early days (due to age barrier)but his music will rock.
In recent days, I have noted, whatever he does, haters are taking it in wrong way and they are making impression on others as if MJ is not any more. This is wrong and must be stopped.
Long live MJ…
Comment by Ramesh — July 15, 2008 @ 4:16 am
Beautifully written k. As always.
Comment by D — July 15, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
I love you Mike!
Comment by marie-clarence — July 15, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
K:
I agree with Dawn. That was beautifully written. Perhaps you can save that write up, or a more generalized version of it, for when other people with the same beefs as I had come around.
Much of what you told me is news to me. I had no idea about the background regarding Lohan, and knew very little about the background of the MJ-kids story. Had I known this background, I wouldn’t have been perturbed. So I concede in your favour in both of these cases. I also concede on your accusation of me holding pre-conceived notions. I never go to celeb sites and when I come here, I don’t really read many celeb articles. I come for Dawn’s Scientology posts. So when I read an article here and an article there on a site that says it’s about celeb gossip, considered in the light of how celeb watching is widely done and conceived of, the reaction was to view a number of posts as being nosy and uncivilized exploitation.
I don’t really blame myself for coming to the conclusions I came up with given how so many of the most well-known celeb-watchers really are in it primarily for opportunistic and rather immature and uncivil aims. But you were correct - I didn’t know you or the stories well enough, and I obviously did have a conception of the stories and the aims of the authors that was not accurate.
The Amy Winehouse story, I’m a bit more on the fence about as I don’t know the full background regarding her.
Also, once more on the accusation of kissing Dawn’s but. I don’t think I did that. I’m a person who gives compliments. I did and do think that she has done a lot of great work regarding CoS. On my site I have credited her as being one of the most productive and must-see/read/hear media activists against CoS. And yes, I have spoken well of her appearance. These were simply genuine compliments, though. Not but kissing.
Anyhow. I’ll say it again. It appears that I had you two and the site all wrong. I wish that this background info had been brought to my attention earlier. But of course, I’m sure you wish that I had known the background info before I went on attack-mode. And I imagine that typing out this sort of explanation to someone that you perceived as being an arrogant asshole probably wasn’t a high priority of yours.
Anyhow, for what it’s worth, apologies for my misinformed aggressiveness and insulting of your respective senses of decency toward others.
Ron
Comment by Ron Brown — July 16, 2008 @ 8:33 am
It was a bit wordy, wasn’t it?
I appreciate your coming here and replying again. I’m sorry for the tone, but I sometimes forget that people don’t follow celeb news like I do (I have to) or that perhaps they haven’t read the articles in question. I had assumed you’d read them, since you brought them up so many times, so naturally I was a bit confused. I’m sorry for making that assumption.
I understand that people have preconceived notions when somebody says “celeb blogger” or “celeb gossip”. They automatically get visions of snarky comments, photos of people in various stages of undress or embarrassing actions, and silly doodles on people’s faces. So many celeb sites just type out a little blurb making fun of the celeb in question, slap a few nasty photos on there, and move on to the next post, not bothering to peer beneath the surface and poke around a bit and see what’s really going on. That, or they shamelessly kiss butt trying to make a name for themselves. I mean, we could do those things…Dawn and I could make four or five times the postings we already do, possibly pick up more hits, maybe get more regular readers, make a lot of money. But that isn’t us. I don’t think we could live with ourselves if that’s what we did every day.
I think that this site has slowly evolved into less celeb “gossip” and more blogging about the ills that currently invade our world, using celebs as the conduit, especially since so many people look up to celebrities and want to be like them. It’s always been the focus, but I believe that especially with Dawn’s Scientology articles, it’s become even more prevalent.
So many children, teens, young people in the world just don’t have a figure in their life to point out that certain actions are immoral, indecent, or just plain wrong. They then grow up not knowing what they believe in and are ripe for anybody coming down the pike who can tickle their ears and amuse their eyes (much like Scientology does to people). They look up to these people who have the life they’d like to lead, and often times see nothing wrong with their behavior, which then unconsciously manifests itself in some form in their own life. They have nobody to say, “See this? Don’t do that.” Dawn and I are both parents and are a little older than the median age of most celeb bloggers, so we can bring some experience to the table that younger bloggers might not have yet. Not saying that we’re the moral compass, but perhaps we can give people something to actually think about instead of blindly following the next big thing.
Amy Winehouse, for example. Beautiful young woman, huge talent both in songwriting and singing. Multiple award winner including five Grammys. Throwing it all away on drugs. Goes out almost every night, coked up out of her mind, starting fights and punching people and acting stupid, in full view of the paparazzi which she knows are there. She doesn’t realize when she’s half-dressed or even half the time where she is. Yet, I continually get comments from people who are her so-called “fans” who tell me I should leave her alone, that she’s just misunderstood, that if I call for her to go to rehab I’m mean and nasty and I be hatin’. No…I just won’t love her to death. And for those who look up to her…is that really the type of person they want to be? Would they be so quick to excuse that behavior if it were a member of their family? (Perhaps so, and that’s scary.)
The butt-kissing thing…it just hit me wrong to compliment Dawn on one hand for her CoS coverage, and then compare her actions to the very people she’s protesting against. If I took it wrong, I apologize, that’s just how I saw it. Not an excuse, but rather a look at my thought process.
Well, anyway. I’m off on a tangent again. I’m sorry to come across like a jerk. I get a lot of comments telling me how terrible I am because I don’t buy the crap the PR machines want to shove down our throats. Most of the time, it’s water off a duck’s butt. But sometimes a comment just gets to me, and I feel compelled to respond. I hope we’ve reached some sort of closure to all this mess; it would make my day.
We’re not bad, we’re just drawn that way.
Comment by k — July 16, 2008 @ 4:10 pm
K:
Yes, we’ve certainly reached closure. Honest civil discourse wins!
Comment by Ron Brown — July 17, 2008 @ 1:52 am