i've got another confession to make

that's the first line of the new foo fighters' song, "best of you". it's all i seem to be listening to these days.

anyways, i'm back from my little hiatus. got a little r & r as summer is now in full swing for me. i really f-in hate the quarter system. most of you who are still in school have been done with the school year for almost a month now, while i've only been off a week. anyways, hopefully you've been keeping up with the world of sports and pop culture via other blogs. but just know that i'm back and i plan on keeping you current in the latest of my opinions. lord knows i've got plenty of opinions on tomkat, carl everett's recent comments, and the sorry excuse for basketball that is this year's nba finals. talk to you again real soon.

real quick, on the michael jackson verdict - we all saw this coming. i've said it once and i'll say it again, michael jackson is too rich to go to jail. from what i could tell, the prosecution didn't do a very good job of making a good case. and really, that's who is the big loser, tom sneddon, the santa barbara county prosecutor. mj was his white whale, and like moby dick did to captain ahab, mj (get it? white?) getting off (pun very much intended) will prove to be tom sneddon's tragic legacy. he'll now go down as the guy who couldn't convict a likely child molester. all i know is that i hope to god people stop sending their kids to spend the night with michael jackson now.

one more thing: this is genius (via poplicks).


MJK said...

The taxpayers of Santa Barbara County should be outraged at the waste of their tax dollars in trying the MJ case - what case really? Tom Sneddon should be voted out of office - his personal vendetta has cost the citizens millions. As for the "case" itself - who wouldn't have reasonable doubt based on listening to the testimony of witnesses who seem to make a habit of perjury for personal gain?

Bob said...

i think it's more complicated than one man abusing his power to fulfill a personal vendetta. i agree that sneddon shouldn't have tried the case without better evidence, but i don't think he is wrong in pursuing michael jackson as a child molester. is there enough evidence to convict him beyond a shadow of a doubt, of course not, but would i let my kids stay with a man who keeps a gigantic collection of pornography in his house and thinks that there's nothing wrong with him sharing a bed with kids who aren't related to him...no. i read somewhere that this came down to the jurors beleiving that the mom was more culpable for letting her son stay with jackson in the first place, which mirrors the commonly used rape defense of "well, she shouldn't have dressed like that", which places the blame on the victim and makes it harder to convict rapists and child molesters, which in turn discourages people not to report this behavior, which in turn makes the problem of sexual assault on all people worse. and if this is the case, then it's not sneddon we should be mad at.

thanks for stopping by the blog mrs. k.

MJK said...

Thanks for your reply, and yes, this case is about so much more than just Sneddon. This case defies logic on so many levels, and I agree that hopefully the ultimate outcome will be no more little boys in Michael Jackson's bed.
I would also like to comment on the possibility that Joe Biden might run for the Presidency in 2008 - he is a straight shooter, and someone who would tell the American people the truth. That is something I am not finding at the present time from the Bush White House. Should Joe run, this old lady will get out her walking shoes and go door to door for him, and dip into her pension check as well.
I think I will become a regular blog visitor, and please no Mrs. K, just MJ.