Ed. Note: This piece was originally submitted to Unlikely 2.0 on March 5th, 2005, but was withheld at the author's request for completely personal and uninteresting reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with world events.
We live in dark times. At present, a war in the sand consumes us. A peninsula with nuclear weapons and bad manners threatens us. An ever-warming planet cries to be recognized. And, perhaps most disturbingly of all, a beloved pop icon stands accused of having loved just a little too much. Of whom do I speak? Our one-gloved national treasure: Michael Jackson, once again charged with allegations of child molestation, four counts this time, accompanied by one count of conspiracy to commit child abduction and false imprisonment. Dark times indeed.
As we may all freely admit, the issue is in dire need of attention, yet the fear of broaching taboo sexual topics often sets limits to an open and honest discussion. Therefore, when speaking of the matter, let's allow ourselves to be both honest and analytical, a request I make to even the most diehard supporter of our man. Michael is the king of pop, yet he is a king who has fallen woefully from his throne. He lies almost helplessly at the feet of persecution and parody, an epic tragedy of a man who has nearly been defeated by his own hubris and seemingly wanton desire for sex with young boys. His flaws are many and grand. For this, I fret we are in bleak accord.
Yet can we not also agree on this: a world without Michael would be far too dismal to imagine? I speak of a world without the moonwalk, without the debonair white glove, without the stunning successes that are "Invincible" and "Dangerous," and perhaps, most importantly, without the many future masterpieces which are sure to come. Could we function in such drab existence? I dare say no.
Thus said, a solution is in order, one as grand and dark as the problem it faces, and I assure you, there are few problems darker than life without Mike. Digging deeply into the bowels of the beast, pulling from them an answer of grandeur and wit, acting triply as a fan, patriot, and humanitarian, I've developed such a solution, one that is both remarkably deft and pragmatic- at least in regard to other sicknesses our society has yet to make well. In essence, its simplicity is wondrous, yet it is complex in its ability to disentangle Michael's legal woes, as well as a range of foreign policy conundrums. However, like the many number of brilliant ideas great men have put forth, it is dark and may bear the need for some argument. Having given caveat to my scheme, I present it: In point, we need to save Michael Jackson from himself. If he is incarcerated, we risk proceeding into eternity without ever truly knowing the paternity of Billy Jean's baby. I propose a swift and drastic acceptance of pedophilia, only for Michael. We corral his passion for children, harness it, and manifest into the greatest diplomatic endeavor in human history by making Michael America's official ambassador to the world.
Lessen your shock by pondering this: what do we really know of pedophilia? Is it truly as unthinkable as we are raised to believe? Perhaps in the western world. Having traveled extensively throughout the Middle East, I can say with some assurance that it is a perfectly conventional practice for a man to take a younger man into his bed, in many instances, more natural than even a woman. Middle easterners engaging in such customs will cite various reasons for this, ranging from, "Women are dirty and for breeding only," to "I'm not gay. I don't catch." Yet, to them, these reasons are justified, so much so as to make it a nearly common practice in all socio-economic levels of their culture.
Such behaviors do not limit themselves to the desert. Indeed, those of righteous ancestry, the Crusaders, were rumored to have romantic liaisons with their squires, as were the Spartans and the Janissaries. Combatants of the highest breed, profound in the art of killing, besieged by the carnivorous and contrasting desire to make both war and sweet man love, maybe as a method with which to clear their conscience. And do we not hold these warriors in high-regard? In addition, though sufficient evidence lacks, I venture to say, if graced with Michael's talent, these hardened souls would be enamored, not to mention perfectly accepting of Michael's asserted conduct.
I must digress; this is not a piece on pedophilia through the ages, nor is it my intent to make the tendency towards boy-touching seem natural. I'm simply asking for a reexamination of certain so-called "social norms." Clearly I do not advocate Michael's alleged behavior as a treatment for the various social ills, which grievously affect his psyche. On the contrary, I am quick to recognize pedophilia as the great civil hindrance for which it is, not to mention an unyielding and blatant violation of the aforementioned puritanical values that we, as citizens of a free and democratic republic, hold so dear to our hearts. But, for Christ sakes, people, he wrote "Thriller". Does that mean nothing to you?
I am near certainty that we, as fans and Americans, could at least find some concurrence in the issue for two very important reasons. One, Michael's alleged conduct can be morphed into an expedient resolution for mending certain holes in the American patchwork, and thus be acceptable in some form. Two, spending some quality time with Mr. Jackson is not such an inconceivable malady when placed in comparison to world famine and rampant orphaning of the world's children.
To address my first claim, I am forced to present the reader with a series of statistics that are imperative to my theory. Though I most normally believe statistics to be the tool of a weaker man's argument, the numbers in this case are simply astonishing. Take for example the results of an official survey, conducted around the world in 1997, which proved Michael to be the most recognized person on the planet. Indeed, ninety-nine percent of the world's population, ages five to sixty-five years, identified Michael by name, making him more popular and better known than both Pope John Paul II and Elvis.
During The History World Tour, Michael performed eighty-two concerts in fifty-eight cities, thirty-five countries, to a total of more than 4.5 million fans. This tour, which on average attracted 58,878 spectators per concert, holds a Guinness World Record for being the most viewed musical performance in the history of man.
A concert given in Bucharest, October 1, 1992, was broadcasted to sixty-one countries and became HBO's highest-grossing special ever.
I'm sure my point has become apparent: everyone knows and loves Michael, regardless of his alleged conduct. The rest of the world does not care what Michael supposedly does to young boys. Besides being convinced by the aforementioned statistics, my certainty lies in this fact: though Michael stood accused of child molestation in the fall of 1993, he was nominated five years later by the Norwegian Nobel Committee for the Nobel Peace Prize. A heralded institution of peace and diplomacy disregarded an accusation that would normally tarnish another man's reputation indefinitely. So why are we in America so quick to chastise the king for his flaws? Why can we not see Michael for what he truly is- a diplomatic powerhouse and a representative of all things American. He is soul and he is rock. He is Pepsi and he is McDonald's. He is a minority... sort of, who has lived the American dream, rising from poverty to conquer a nation of white people, brought to their knees by watching him spin and grab his crouch. He is an American icon that all the world adores.
Ironically, the world hates America. This claim needs no argument; it should be accepted by all who've traveled outside the borders of the states or those of us who've bothered to read a foreign periodical. Therefore, I decline to present one. Yet I will say that, though our foreign policy has destroyed America's image in the eyes of sovereign citizens everywhere, it has not yet tarnished Michael's. I have seen him in Afghanistan after the invasion, his image worn on the shirts of the disheveled dirt merchants who roam the streets of Kabul. I have seen him in Iraq after the bombing, his face plastered in music shops and theaters throughout Baghdad. I have seen him in Europe exhaustively. I have heard his music mixed with the call to prayer at sunset in Kuwait. Though I have been burnt by the fiery stares of anti-Americanism nearly everywhere I've gone, I have felt Michael's warm and cherished presence in those very same places.
I am saying that we use this presence in a manner beneficial to our international interest. We make Michael a proponent of foreign policy and we do it with radical pursuit. Rather than send Condaleeza Rice to a European Union summit, we send Michael. Tell Jimmy Carter to go back to the ranch because Michael is going to Southeast Asia to aid the Tsunami victims. Jesse Jackson isn't the only one who can mitigate hostage crises; Michael's got more face time in Iran than good old Jesse ever will. In point, Michael could be the seamstress that mends the tattered ends and gaping holes in America's blanket policies.
Naysayers will be quick to comment that Mr. Jackson may decline an offer to be the savior of our union. I disagree. The courts have our boy wound tighter than a nine-year-old girl's pigtails; the horrors of a possible stint in a correctional institution have him shaken and alarmed. I'm sure the Jackson legal team will be quick sweep up any offer the Justice Department makes, specifically one so sweet as the offer to be America's ambassador to the world. And, as ambassador, world leaders will embrace him, just as their people embrace him, along with any course of action with which our government seeks to smother their economic progress.
I must now touch on my second claim: time with Michael is not so bad as time spent starving in the alleys of some third-world country.
I was in Milan for business driving down a side street when I halted for a red light. Two males, one older, mid-thirties, the other younger, perhaps thirteen, approached my vehicle, hands outstretched for money. After cracking the window slightly, I informed them, in Italian, that I had no spare change to give. Upon hearing this, the older male, who identified himself as the young man's father, offered me his son for my sexual pleasure. He said the boy would give but not receive for a small fee. Appalled, I drove immediately through the red light and back to my hotel.
In free moments during the next few days, I pondered how any father could pimp their son. What could bring a grown man to offer his own flesh and blood as a sexual plaything for passersby? My conclusion is that fathers want what is best for their sons. The pimp and his progeny were hungry. They needed to eat. Eating was the best thing for the son to do. The father was trying to do what was best for his son. When faced with two evils, the lesser evil will be chosen. The father in Milan knew that starvation is a greater evil than anal sex. I assure you that other fathers of the world know this to be true as well.
Can we not also use this choice to our advantage? A strategy employed by various human rights organizations is to claim that U.S. bombs kill unarmed combatants, to include many children. Let's give these kids and their parents an option. Before invading our next country, let's offer amnesty to the little ones of that nation, much in the same way we offered Saddam the chance to leave Iraq before we attacked. We take the kids across the sea, place them in Neverland and have them spend some quality time with Michael. In addition, we put into action various scholarship programs in which the kids receive a year of fully funded education at any American institution as reimbursement for each year they spend with Michael. With this option, everyone comes out a winner. Watch groups won't be given the chance to have a field day with the ever-emerging photos of children, amputated limbs and all, who lie bloody on the streets of our war zones. The parents of these kids will sleep peacefully through the raids, knowing they had allowed their children the chance to pursue brighter futures. Americans will receive the news ecstatically; they will find comfort in the fact that Michael will not allegedly prey on their young ones, but rather on the young ones of the country we will next attack (these lives serve little purpose anyway; they only act as annoying little blips that scroll across the bottom of the screen as we try to watch Fox and Friends). In addition, we, as a society will be continually blessed with the forthcoming works of the King of Pop. But, most importantly, Michael will have all the company that he ever allegedly desired.
Dear readers, we live in a world swathed in wickedness. Sometimes our problems seem too great to surmount. But I assure you there are righteous solutions hidden in all that we do. As representatives of the free world, we must strive to find these solutions, no matter how dark and imposing, or else risk losing our divinity on the world stage. Michael is America. He stands for our values like no other, embodying the righteousness we seek to bring to the rest of the world. He is an American that men, women and children across the globe love. Let's do good to Michael by letting him to good to the world, specifically to the children. In the end, we'll be better off for it.
You can contact Marshall Smith at marshallsmithwriting@yahoo.com.