When I was staying up late on Saturday night so I could text K at midnight, and I was flipping channels endlessly, as I am wont to do, I came across some Michael Jackson stuff somewhere and I thought about this but I forgot to write it yesterday, and now I remembered. Here it is:First, I don't know what he did or didn't do, but I suspect that his behavior with children was not what it should have been.
However, I don't believe any of these people who are testifying against him; I don't think they are reliable in any way. Several of them, it seems, have tried to sue him at one point or another, or were fired by him for stealing and such, so that makes them have their own agendae. But my real question is this: if these people saw him do innappropriate things to children and they didn't say anything or call the police, then they are guilty, too. They allowed these things to happen, and now they're saying "Oh boo hoo I saw this and it really happened!" Why are these people not being prosecuted as well? Have they perhaps struck deals saying that if they testify, they won't be? And if so, can't they say anything, anything at all, true or false, just to get back at him?
The shame is, it probably is all true, but these people can't be believed, and so he probably won't be convicted again. And what was wrong with all these parents that they let their children be with him alone? Did they not have eyes, ears, television sets? Oh wait... that's right, they got paid, or got gifts, or whatever. So essentially they sold their children into prostitution for Michael Jackson. And these people are not only not being prosecuted, they're suing him?
Something is seriously wrong here, no?
In other news ...
It was a beautiful day again today, but the sinus headache was with me until about four, which coincided with the end of the most boring faculty meeting in the world, and then I had to pick up potatoes for dinner and then I came home. So no walk today, but I did a lot of situps. Ooh, I'm old, I mean crunches. Is that even right, crunches are situps? I like situps better.
Speaking of being semantically out of date, there was the time that they started talking about "cooperative learning" at every faculty meeting and I figured I had missed a memo or something because I had no idea whatsoever what that was. This went on for some time and then they were describing one of the techniques (or more likely, "strategies") for cooperative learning and it all fell into place and I said to someone sitting next to me "Are they talking about learning in groups? Is that what the hell cooperative learning is? Why can't they just call it groups; I know what that is!"
Anyway, I made pork chops and potatoes and carrots for dinner and it was all edible. So go me.
I'm going to the dentist tomorrow, another whole saga. The SCM is going to the dentist tomorrow too, but he's all whiny about it. Sheesh. The Colleague is mightily pissed, since her husband had major surgery a week and a half ago and is still in rehab for a few days and even he isn't as whiny as the SCM is over a trip to the dentist. We had a very SCM day today.
I'm working on a new website area for the library and I guess I'm just not as quick as I used to be, or maybe I'm just not as interested. One of the things I don't like on websites I put together is for the links to be underlined; I just don't like it. I've gotten rid of it on every diary template I've had, but it just doesn't seem to work on this one I'm doing, and I just don't seem to care that much. I'll probably end up changing the whole layout before I'm done anyway. And then there's that pesky copyright-infringement thing that I have to work around. So I'll be busy at work this week. Good.
Off to read some new diaries. If I haven't seen them before, they're new to me.
