Voto:
So: the Jackson case sparks divergent opinions; some see him as one of the greatest of the last 30 years (rightfully) and others just a pedophile, a turncoat to his people and chipiùnehapiùnemetta... Well, then take a moment to reflect: Jackson sold 750 million records (not 2 or 3, weāre talking about almost a billion records), he held sold-out concerts all over the world, he championed causes through his humanitarian projects, for those children who will never have anything, he invented a new way of dancing, singing, making music. Jackson was unrepeatable, period. Have you ever seen a Michael Jackson show? Because if you haven't realized it, those were not ānormalā performances, like "one two three four and see you at the end," but there were choreographies, light shows, special effects, backup singers pouring in, a band that was absolutely fantastic, really fantastic, and then there was him, whose every gesture sparked roars and frenzy from the crowd below. It was an event, not a concert. So, at this point, think: how much money did Mr. Michael Jackson have with all this popularity? A lot, really a lot, much more than our (hated) prime minister himself. The Jackson industry was a goldmine. And what better opportunity to make money than to invent that good Michael, so fond of children that he let them play freely in his Neverland and hosted them by the dozens every day, had touched them right there? Itās easy to sue someone with billions of dollars.. Money and temptation turn a man into a thief, not to mention worse. Thereās also the consideration that good Jackson didnāt have a ānormalā childhood, since at 5 years old (when you, and I of course, were still in diapers and playing on the slide and swing, getting dirty like little piglets, eating Kinder eggs and watching cartoons on bim bum bam with Paolone Bonolis) he was already a star, a child prodigy, singing and dancing as if he were 20, while his father, this saint of a man, forced him and the brothers, with solid beatings, to rehearse continuously, every day, because the ogre was hungry for money... He never had a normal childhood, sure, neither did the children of Rwanda for that matter, you might say. But the result, a dangerous statement, is the same, a burned childhood, but, while the children of Rwanda end up with a gun in hand and nobody gives a damn about them, for Michael Jackson we can only talk about Peter Pan syndrome, total isolation in a world made only of the creatures he trusted most (children are the mirror of truth), quirky to just the right degree, with his fears of infections and everything else, the hatred for his father (not for his race, of which the father was part) led him to deny his features (some say he had a rare skin disease), and to take refuge in his Neverland, created specifically for children. And then down with the sentences: the children of Rwanda are being slaughtered, but we care more that Jackson was a bit strange. Jackson was a child, have you seen the documentary years ago? He wandered around, entered stores and bought what he liked, like children do, I want this, I want that, just for the sake of having his toy, then he left it in the store and didnāt care about it anymore. A child does not abuse other children. But his fault is that he was one of the richest men in the world. If he had been any random person, no one would have dreamed of suing him unless there were damned concrete evidence. And it doesnāt seem to me that there was this overwhelming evidence against him. And then where were the parents of these violated kids? I wouldnāt leave my children alone at the house of a stranger, even if he had an amusement park in his home, even if he was named Michael Jackson or Mother Teresa or any priest (considering the results). Where were the parents? If they worked, they should have hired a babysitter, not left them with Jackson. Never judge someone by the common clamor, without knowing them personally, itās too easy. Superficialit
