Editorial: Court or 'Jacko' circus

The spectacle that is the Michael Jackson trial started like any other trial. Well, it started like any other trial of a multi-millionaire 80’s pop star that won’t let go of a childhood he, arguably, never had. It started with a raid of his Neverland Ranch—a symbol of purity and the innocence of a childhood lost—for evidence that Jackson “criminally” molested a 13-year-old boy.

Jackson insisted he had nothing to hide, citing the 1993 accusation that never landed in court. Instead, Jackson settled outside of court for millions of dollars.

“Nothing to hide” turned out to be plenty to hide. The ranch Jackson touted as a place for kids was stocked with porn and alcohol, two perfectly legal substances for adults. A problem arose for Jackson when both his fingerprints and the fingerprints of his accuser were found on a “sexually explicit” magazine according to CNN. Additionally, his accusers testified that Jackson served them alcohol on several occasions. In one alleged incident, Jackson served his accuser white wine in a Diet Coke can calling it “Jesus juice.”
Read More...

Guest Opinion: 'Til death do us part

Why can’t the media just let the Terri Schiavo case die? When did the struggle over whether to let a loved one live or die become a national priority? It’s as if the reality television fetish has leaked into CNN headlines. Honestly, I think whether Terri Schiavo lives or dies is none of my business, nor is it any of the rest of the nation’s business. Nevertheless, proudly wearing a double standard on my sleeve, I will give my opinion on a topic that has already been beaten more times than the proverbial horse.

There are so many angles from which to address the Schiavo case. Is it morally right to allow Terri to starve to death without her feeding tube? Is she truly in a “persistent vegetative state,” or something more promising? Is there any hope for someone to recover after clinging to life for 15 years in the state that Schiavo has? What role does religion truly play in the Schiavo case? Who has the right to make the final decision as to whether the tube comes out or stays in? What role should the government play in this whole fiasco?
Read More...

Some pithy conjecture

Ananova News reported that an embarrassed British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) admitted to requesting an interview with Bob Marley on April 1, a request the Bob Marley Foundation thought was an April Fool’s joke. It wasn’t. The foundation had to turn down the interview request because Marley has been unavailable for interview since 1981. The year he died.

The BBC wanted Marley to spend “one or two days” with them arguing that the story they were writing, “would only work with some participation from Bob Marley himself” according to Ananova. I imagine the BBC no longer wants the interview. What’s the point in interviewing Marley’s rotting corpse when Keith Richards is readily available?
Read More...