There are a lot of things I don't get. A lot of them I just figure that neither I, nor anyone else was meant to know what they really mean. Stonehenge. The Bermuda Triangle. Geometry. All puzzles of nature that seem to be indecipherable to man. But another one that I'd like to add to that list is the continuing fascination with Michael Jackson. Where were you people when this guy was alive and kicking it? No where to be found, from what I recall. No where. But yet he's dead and suddenly, there's hubbub. And I don't understand the hub, nor the bub at all. Allow me to share with you some of my more recent head scratchers, shakers and bangers that I've run across pertaining to the recently deceased Jacko. I knew that the whole "President Barry Wins the Nobel Peace Prize" ordeal was g
oing to cause a ruckus somewhere. And it did, but in what I had considered to be an unlikely arena, that of the American Music Award nominations. From the folks over there at HitFix (and I'm not faulting them in this one, they were just the messenger) I read "American Music Award nominations: Michael Jackson snares 5, Lambert to perform." Wait. The Michael Jackson? The still dead Michael Jackson? THAT guy? Was nominated for how many? Five? Five AMAs?? For what?! Being a guy that needed elephant tranquilizers to doze off every night? Five?! How do they come up with five?! Mind you, some folks who were not nominated for an AMA award were Brittney Spears and Miley Freaking Cyrus! But the dead guy who hasn't released anything new in years (How's that Katrina relief song coming along there, Mike?) gets nominated for five AMAs. OK, then.
oing to cause a ruckus somewhere. And it did, but in what I had considered to be an unlikely arena, that of the American Music Award nominations. From the folks over there at HitFix (and I'm not faulting them in this one, they were just the messenger) I read "American Music Award nominations: Michael Jackson snares 5, Lambert to perform." Wait. The Michael Jackson? The still dead Michael Jackson? THAT guy? Was nominated for how many? Five? Five AMAs?? For what?! Being a guy that needed elephant tranquilizers to doze off every night? Five?! How do they come up with five?! Mind you, some folks who were not nominated for an AMA award were Brittney Spears and Miley Freaking Cyrus! But the dead guy who hasn't released anything new in years (How's that Katrina relief song coming along there, Mike?) gets nominated for five AMAs. OK, then. Sweet mother of God, he was nominated for Artist of the Year!! What year?! 1984?? And "Jackson’s “Number One” is also a contender for favorite pop/rock album." What is Number One? Are you kidding me?! I'm not saying that the AMAs were ever any sort of credible award. I'm not saying that any of the awards are any sort of credible award. I'm saying that nominating Michael Jackson for five AMAs is asinine. He's been dead for three months and he hadn't released anything at any point in recent memory before that. How does one get nominated for Artist of the Year when he wasn't even around for the entire year?! Is there an Artist of January - June Award that they give out? What is wrong with you people? Are you that desperate to feel good about something? What say you find something else, all right? Honestly. Look, here are the most recent photos I have found of Jacko at the AMAs. You know. Like when he would have been there because he would have been in contention for something. Here he is with Brooke Shields. You remember her. Wasn't she a Breck girl?
Here he is with Eddie Murphy (pre-Shrek)
Here he is with Elizabeth Taylor (and in the words of Joey from "Friends" Elizabeth Taylor would appear to be Michael Jackson's "identical hand twin".)
Here he is wearing his Sherlock Holmes homage whilst accompanied by his sister, Janet Jackson. I'll let you use your sharp skills of deduction to determine how recent (or not) that photo was taken. (Here's a hint: He was still black at the time.)
Here he is beaming behind Miss Ross. The point here is that none of these are recent.
Here's another thing I don't get re: Michael Jackson. The Michael Jackson movie "This Is It" (strangely missing the appropriate subti
tle, "Sucking Money From a Corpse) hits theaters for a limited engagement showing of two weeks on October 28. The preview is October 27. Today is October 18. So do tell, why in the world, when no one in the world has seen this movie yet, are there 83, yes, eighty three reviews for this movie over there at Fandango, your online ticket purchasing, uh, place. Not surprisingly, most of the reviews, the overwhelming majority of them, for a movie no one has seen yet, are positive. I haven't had faith that I'd be able to scroll through and look for the one or two negative comments without reading so many positive comments (for a movie no one has seen) without hanging myself. There's even a section for "Fans Who've Seen It" and 23 people who are obviously below a substantially substandard IQ level, have added their opinion to that section. What is wrong with you people?
tle, "Sucking Money From a Corpse) hits theaters for a limited engagement showing of two weeks on October 28. The preview is October 27. Today is October 18. So do tell, why in the world, when no one in the world has seen this movie yet, are there 83, yes, eighty three reviews for this movie over there at Fandango, your online ticket purchasing, uh, place. Not surprisingly, most of the reviews, the overwhelming majority of them, for a movie no one has seen yet, are positive. I haven't had faith that I'd be able to scroll through and look for the one or two negative comments without reading so many positive comments (for a movie no one has seen) without hanging myself. There's even a section for "Fans Who've Seen It" and 23 people who are obviously below a substantially substandard IQ level, have added their opinion to that section. What is wrong with you people?See, you can't make something great just because you want it to be
great. It could suck. And if it does, will those folks still say it's great? They probably will because they're already saying it doesn't suck and they haven't even seen it yet! Yo, Fandango folks! It would seem that your site is frequented by folks with IQs slightly below that of navel lint, so you might want to disable that "Fans Who've Seen It" portion of your show until after the movie has actually had an opportunity to be viewed. By anyone!
great. It could suck. And if it does, will those folks still say it's great? They probably will because they're already saying it doesn't suck and they haven't even seen it yet! Yo, Fandango folks! It would seem that your site is frequented by folks with IQs slightly below that of navel lint, so you might want to disable that "Fans Who've Seen It" portion of your show until after the movie has actually had an opportunity to be viewed. By anyone! Moving on to Part Three of Things I Don't Understand Surrounding 
Michael Jackson. We're entering the Autopsy Phase. What was up with that? For starters, Jacko was five feet nine inches tall. (That's 175 cm for those of you in, oh, the rest of the entire world.) He wasn't a monster (height-wise), but he wasn't short by any means. He weighed 136 lbs. at the time of croakage. (That's 62 kg for those of you still in the rest of the entire world.) I have read in every single account of this fact that being 136 lbs and standing (or, in this case, lying) five feet nine inches tall are "within normal limits." Um, no they're not! I shall cite both Metropolitan Life and something called Health Check Systems and both of their websites have height-weight charts that do not indicate that being a mere 136 pounds and MALE is "normal" if you are 5'9". Duh. Yet it's being reported as if that is perfectly fine! The Guardian goes as far to claim "Yet he was fit and well-fed." Yeah, he wasn't either of those things.
Michael Jackson. We're entering the Autopsy Phase. What was up with that? For starters, Jacko was five feet nine inches tall. (That's 175 cm for those of you in, oh, the rest of the entire world.) He wasn't a monster (height-wise), but he wasn't short by any means. He weighed 136 lbs. at the time of croakage. (That's 62 kg for those of you still in the rest of the entire world.) I have read in every single account of this fact that being 136 lbs and standing (or, in this case, lying) five feet nine inches tall are "within normal limits." Um, no they're not! I shall cite both Metropolitan Life and something called Health Check Systems and both of their websites have height-weight charts that do not indicate that being a mere 136 pounds and MALE is "normal" if you are 5'9". Duh. Yet it's being reported as if that is perfectly fine! The Guardian goes as far to claim "Yet he was fit and well-fed." Yeah, he wasn't either of those things. "The autopsy stated that he had a healthy heart and was actively producing sperm." Um, 
at the time of the autopsy he was actively doing that? I don't think he was! But regardless, do we need to know that? That he was a sperm producer? Eww! Who asked?! I didn't! I didn't ask! I'm thinking that might be a bit too much information there, Doc (or whoever else felt we needed to know that). Am I supposed to be happy at that news? Glad that he was producing a regular amount of sperm and not producing a massive amount of sperm? What if he had been producing the number of sperm for ten men? Would we then had to have heard, "He was like a sperm whale, if you will." "It's a shame that he's dead because this man had a gift!" "I've never seen anything like this! He had testicles the size of lemons!"
at the time of the autopsy he was actively doing that? I don't think he was! But regardless, do we need to know that? That he was a sperm producer? Eww! Who asked?! I didn't! I didn't ask! I'm thinking that might be a bit too much information there, Doc (or whoever else felt we needed to know that). Am I supposed to be happy at that news? Glad that he was producing a regular amount of sperm and not producing a massive amount of sperm? What if he had been producing the number of sperm for ten men? Would we then had to have heard, "He was like a sperm whale, if you will." "It's a shame that he's dead because this man had a gift!" "I've never seen anything like this! He had testicles the size of lemons!" (Wait. I can't resist. He was actively producing sperm...but what he really wanted to do was direct. Ba-da-DA! Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week. Try the veal. Tip your servers.)
The autopsy also stated that he had "...scars around both nostrils, indicating that he had had some sort of work done on his nose." Oh, really? I hadn't noticed. Work done? You don't say! Are you sure? It looked so natural! I should really find out who his plastic surgeon was because it was so discrete, almost undetectable, if I were to ever have work done so that no one would be able to figure it out (or if I were to ever hit my head real hard and wake up feeling the need to have my nose shaved down to two slits and a point), that's the guy for me!
Now here comes the fun part. Let's see how many comments I get from people who are Anonymous and who feel the need to tell me how disrespectful I am because Jacko was such a great artist, he was acquitted, etc. But before y'all comment (and y'all know who y'all are), just remember that the humor here is a) tongue in cheek and b) is saying more about the media and society than it is about Jacko. All right? So just back off if that's where you were headed. OK. I'm done now. Thanks for reading!! Have at it.
No comments:
Post a Comment