May 25, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Sam Zell’s Nightmare Continues (11)
William S. Stevens: 1948-2008 (22)
Teixeira’s Options (18)
Cole Hamels Meets Talk Radio (23)
Appropos of nothing (4)
Shyster's Daily Circuit
Joe Posnanski Blog
Cot's Baseball Contracts
It IS About the Money
Baseball Think Factory
MLB Trade Rumors
Way Back and Gone
Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog
The Biz of Baseball
The Daily Fungo
The Common Man
Jorge Says No!
Baseball Over Here
Friday, June 26, 2009
MLB on JacksonDoes this give me license to go off topic and dive into a Posnanskian-length Michael Jackson essay when I get some time later today?
The year was 1976.
Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 9:42am
No, Craig, it doesn’t give you license to go off topic later on. Plenty of other news sites are reporting on a drug addled homosexual child molester. Just stick to baseball, please.
Posted 06/26 at 09:46 AM
Craig Calcaterra said...
Oh well. I’ll just have to hang out in my co-workers’ doorway and share my unified theory 1980s pop music with them.
Posted 06/26 at 09:55 AM
The drug addled and homosexual are par for the course for entertainers, of course, the molestering children thing is pretty horrific. Anyways, lets hear it Craig, ditmar can skip that post.
Posted 06/26 at 10:15 AM
ditmars, why did you feel the need to lump in “homosexual” right between “drug addled” and “child molester”?
Posted 06/26 at 10:19 AM
Richard in Dallas said...
Michael was a severely flawed human being, to be sure, but his talent was at a level with Elvis, Lennon and McCartney, Steven Spielberg, and the like. There will be no more Thriller videos, no next generation moonwalk, no “Rockin Robin” and no more Neverland. I believe he was a tormented soul who, in a way, was fortunate to find the sweet relief of death at an early age…..
Posted 06/26 at 10:31 AM
Farrah Fawcet hung on my wall next to Red Sox gear and I had a boom box that wore out several tapes that featured Michael’s music that was also used to listen to games. It is often hard to separate the childhood memories from the present day realities and despite that fact that Farrah aged and Michael’s declined in so many way I will choose to remember them in their more idealistic states.
Posted 06/26 at 10:51 AM
Second what Jimmy said.
Posted 06/26 at 11:07 AM
Jonah Keri probably has the best take of Michael Jackson that I’ve read so far, touching on the joy that he brought to billions of people, the pain/trauma that he caused to others, and the immense psychological beating he took as a kid that led to both aspects of his being: The Complicated Legacy of Michael Jackson.
I’m with others: There’s a lot to dislike and hate about what Michael Jackson became, but he did bring a lot of joy to many people’s lives (both directly and indirectly). Probably more than any of us could ever hope to even imagine, let alone replicate. There’s infinite time to settle on exactly how it all balances out cosmically, but there’s no reason to completely ignore his positive contributions. So let’s try to be positive at least for a couple of days.
Posted 06/26 at 11:11 AM
Jack Marshall said...
Go for it, Craig. Jackson is a horrific example of the ravages of child-exploitation by parents who see talented kids as income centers. His folks sold his childhood, and he paid the price. There sure are a lot of parallels with sports, but I’m eager to read your unified theory. Still, lets go easy on MJ. He gave an awful lot of pleasure to the world, and was a unique talent, despite being damaged goods almost from the beginning.
Posted 06/26 at 11:35 AM
Just being factual, Jimmy, not homophobic, if I’m properly interpreting what you’re trying to say. I sincerely apologize if I offended you and J.W.
And to the other kind posters, MJ was immensely talented, nobody can possibly argue with that. But his freakish lifestyle sort of cancels that out, doesn’t it?
Posted 06/26 at 11:43 AM
“His folks sold his childhood, and he paid the price…Still go easy on MJ.”
Isn’t the problem that he wasn’t alone in paying the price? Isn’t it possible that at least two children paid the price as well? I’m all for withholding judgment and giving the benefit of the doubt, and presuming innocence, but I’m sure Jack Marshall and Craig and really all of us can attest to the fact that the result of a trial isn’t always the last word on an issue. In the absense of absolute evidence, all are free to make their own judgments on whether or not Michael Jackson sexually abused children. But if we do come down on the side of believing that he did, in fact, abuse at least two children, then isn’t it incumbent upon us not to support his music and not to shed tears about his passing? Craig said the following: “Basically, if you avoid violence, cruelty and the mistreatment of kids, I’m probably going to still buy your product even if I wouldn’t seek you out at a party.” If we believe that Michael Jackson molested children, then he doesn’t pass the test, does he? I read Jonah Keri’s piece, and the Slate article he links to. I am aware of the horror inflicted on Michael Jackson as a child. I refuse, however, to accept that as an excuse for sexually abusing a child. Like I said, if you believe he did not abuse anyone, that is your right. But I’d be curious to hear about your thinking, Jack Marshall, about this issue. If you believe (and you may not) that Jackson molested children, then why do you propose going easy on him, all the while going quite hard on Manny Ramirez and others who display a lack of good character?
Posted 06/26 at 11:51 AM
Craig, I have no objections if you decide to opine at length, a la Poz, on the subject of MJ. Just please don’t say anything like Chad Ochocinco did about yesterday being “worse than 9/11” because of the losses of Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson.
Posted 06/26 at 11:51 AM
Craig Calcaterra said...
ECP—please tell me that Johnson didn’t say that. Dear lord, that man’s an idiot.
J.W. (and whoever): I don’t think it’s inconsistent to (a) have sympathy for MJ as a result of the abuse he went through at the hands of his father; (b) feel scorn and refuse to forgive him for him for the things he did to other children when he grew up; and (c) still absolutely love his music.
Building off of something I said in a comment somewhere yesterday, when it comes to celebrities, I don’t buy the notion that Hollywood and the sports world tries to sell which holds that if you want to be a fan you have to go all-in.
Jackson was a pitiful, shameful, and immenseley talented figure, and I don’t know that it’s too hard to make those views mesh in a coherent fashion.
Posted 06/26 at 12:03 PM
In support of J.W., you’d think that the man who got his childhood sold out by his parents would be EXTRA sensitive to NOT ruining another’s. Apparently, Mr. Marshall disagrees.
OK, let’s get back to baseball! Yanks/Mets in another very very tired subway series, but I have to say, “Go Yankees!!!”
And, JW, I really didn’t mean to offend you previously.
Posted 06/26 at 12:04 PM
In defense of Ocho Cinco, he quickly realized it was stupid, that it was an emotional reaction, walked it back, and said he was sorry.
Posted 06/26 at 12:13 PM
OK, Craig. I hear and agree with most of what you wrote about celebrities and appreciating them for the entertainment they provide, and not necessarily anything else. Still, you did write: “Basically, if you avoid violence, cruelty and the mistreatment of kids, I’m probably going to still buy your product even if I wouldn’t seek you out at a party.” So, how do you make that jive with your obvious appreciation of MJ? Do you have second-thoughts about that statement? Do you rationalize it by not actually buying any MJ products (which, I think, would be side-stepping the issue a bit since you still enjoy his music)?
I’m genuinely curious about this b/c there’s all sorts of a**holes whose work I enjoy. But when it comes to mistreatment of kids, well, I suppose I have come to a point in my life where it is very difficult to overlook those types of transgressions.
Posted 06/26 at 12:55 PM
I meant to say this earlier: no apology is needed, but it’s greatly appreciated and very cool of you.
Craig, I hear what you’re saying and it makes sense to me. But I still think (and this isn’t really the point I made before, but anyway) that he may not necessarily be worthy of the tears of strangers, and while it’s understandable to hold the three perspectives you mentioned above, the one questionable stance (I think) would be to allow love of his music to erase the wrongs he (may or may not have) committed.
Posted 06/26 at 12:59 PM
Craig Calcaterra said...
Tad: I guess what it boils down to is that I’m unwilling to shed any tears for Jackson. When he was alive I was unwilling to buy any of his products post-molestation business. I was unwilling to listen to his p.r. rebop. If something new arose, I would have been decidedly skeptical of whatever his position happened to be. I won’t turn off a demonstably awesome song of his that came on the radio, however, because to deny something like that is silly and rather self-defeating.
To put it in the context of what I said in the quote you note, I’m not going to turn off the television just because Brett Myers pitches (though if there’s another game I’d reserve the right to switch) but I’d never seek out his autograph, or buy his jersey, or listen to an interview of his, or give him much the benefit of the doubt if something came up about him appropriate for comment on this blog.
I guess what I’m saying is that I’m not in the total boycott business with these guys because, in Jackson’s case, there is something that he did that I can appreciate without having to endorse the man (i.e. his music) and in Myers’ case, there are 17 other guys playing any given game he’s in, and I can pretty much ignore his ass (and root against him of course). Both of them are people I’d never want to associate with, even if I had the opportunity.
I hope that’s not still inconsistent, but to the extent that it is, it’s simply because it’s sometimes hard to draw bright lines between the good and the bad things human beings do.
Posted 06/26 at 01:20 PM
Yeah, Craig, I’m serious. He really said it.
Oh, and Joao, from what I heard, he only gave that little bit of a back-off at the point when the initial rumors of MJ’s death were denied. It was more like, OK, he’s not dead, sorry I overreacted, that was a dumb thing to say. It was a qualified retraction.
Posted 06/26 at 01:29 PM
John Northey said...
If one is abused as a child it does lead to a drastically increased likelihood of becoming an abuser when you get older. There is no question on this, sadly enough.
I suspect Jackson’s parents never got him the treatment he needed, and once an adult he didn’t seek it out as he should’ve. The difference between someone who takes responsibility (seeks treatment for childhood traumas and does whatever they can to avoid putting it onto a new generation) and those who don’t.
You can feel sorry for Jackson and also be mad at him quite easily as it is no excuse, just an explanation.
Posted 06/26 at 01:35 PM