my conflicting feelings over michael jackson

This post is not for those of you who are holding nightly vigils near Michael Jackson posters.

This post is for those of us who have conflicting feelings about the passing of Michael Jackson (henceforth referred to as MJ).

When I first heard about his sudden death and the flood of grief and shock, I was confused. After all, the MJ that everyone is grieving right now, the one who was an innovator in music and in dance, 'died' about 20 years ago. Within the last 20 years, MJ has turned into a caricature, a person haunted by both personal and external demons.

In the last 20 years, MJ

• had lightened his skin
• had one too many rhinoplasties
• had married and divorced Elvis' daughter (not before filming a creepy music video in which they both appear naked)
• was accused of child abuse countless times (at least one case was settled out of court)
• dangled his baby from a balcony
• went to trial for child abuse charges
• went to said trial in pajamas
• agreed to appear in a documentary about his life
• did not appear to be lucid in said documentary
• admitted to lying in bed with children (little boys specifically) and expressed how there was nothing wrong with that (in said documentary).

Although MJ was found not guilty of child abuse charges (for the record, OJ was found not guilty too), the court of public opinion had already condemned him (myself included). The documentary did nothing to change my mind about this, particularly his comment about sharing his bed with boys. I wonder, if MJ had a fondness for sharing his bed with little girls, would his fans still believe in his innocence? Would there have been a bigger public outrage? Would his fans have gotten over that pretty quickly just as they did with his alleged abuse of little boys? What is it about celebrities that we are so quick to forget their transgressions?

As you know, I see a lot of substance abuse and mental illness in my line of work and my opinion is that MJ is a classic case of both. I have no doubt that MJ was mentally ill. The longtime abuse from his money-grubbing father and an entire lifetime in the spotlight does not leave someone unscarred by the experience. If anything, I feel much sadness that MJ never got the help he truly needed, probably because the people he surrounded himself with only saw him as a meal ticket, rather than a human being crying out for help. Instead of getting real help, MJ self-medicated (I read somewhere that the only things that were in his stomach at the time of death were pills). And all of those around him probably noticed but decided to look away.

The Michael Jackson everyone is mourning now has long been gone. Celebrity friends are coming out of the woodwork, commenting about how troubled he was and how they knew it all could end this way. Well, then, so-called friends, where the f*ck were you all when he was down and out and looking to prescription drugs for help?

I do feel like an outsider (or even more of a minority than I usually feel) because I'm not crying over MJ's death while so many are. His sudden death does not surprise me. Yes, he was a musical innovator. He was a great singer and entertainer. But he was also a troubled person who sought comfort in drugs and the company of little boys.

Michael Jackson was a victim who victimized. I can't mourn someone who hurt others. But I can be sad because his cries for help were never answered.

state of crap: CA budget cuts detrimental to criminal justice system

As you already know, California's economy is in the crapper. What you probably didn't know is that the people of California recently voted on proposed measures that were designed to reduce future debt. In a move that is sure to make future CA residents who are not even born yet pay for the consequences, voters rejected all of the measures. The measures included tax increases and the reallocation of funds.

In rejecting these measures, the state government had to find other ways to close the multi-million dollar budget gap. Schwarzenegger is cutting everything. Funds for HIV/AIDS services will get cut, state beaches will shut down and poor children will be uninsured. I think the NY Times sums it up best:

The cuts Mr. Schwarzenegger has proposed to make up the difference, if enacted by the Legislature, would turn California into a place that in some ways would be unrecognizable in modern America: poor children would have no health insurance, prisoners would be released by the thousands and state parks would be closed.

One of those proposals is to cut all funding for Proposition 36. Prop 36 is (take it away, Wiki) "an initiative statute that permanently changed state law to allow qualifying defendants convicted of non-violent drug possession offenses to receive a probationary sentence in lieu of incarceration. As a condition of probation, defendants are required to participate in and complete a licensed and/or certified community drug treatment program. If the defendant fails to complete this program or violates any other term or condition of their probation, then probation can be revoked and the defendant may be required to serve an additional sentence which may include incarceration."

You're probably wondering why I am against this cut when I'm no longer a California resident (*sniff, sniff*).

Well, when I was in California two months ago, I was there for a training. Prop 36 was an integral part of the training. One of the days of the training, I got to visit and participate in an actual drug court. Instead of going to regular court, defendants with minor drug-related offenses would go to see this one judge who would then refer them to treatment.

The drug court consists of the judge, a public defender, a probation officer, two substance abuse counselors and the director of the substance abuse program that the defendants were referred to. Every week/every two weeks (depending on the severity of the addiction problem and the related crime), the defendants would go back to check in. The drug court judge was the most compassionate person I've ever seen in any legal system. He would publicly acknowledge defendant successes, especially those who completed treatment without relapse. People who had relapsed would receive a father-like lecture from the judge and were then sent to jail for a week to think about what they had done and how they were going to make things right when they are released.

In meetings both before and after the session, the drug court judge expressed empathy when discussing clients, but in court he showed some tough love. He genuinely cared about the defendants and they returned that sentiment. I sat close to the judge during the proceedings and he would often counsel the defendants privately. The defendants trusted him with their stories (which I obviously can't reveal here--let's just say they were depressing), and the judge would advise them appropriately. He was under no obligation to do so, but I think he liked that the defendants trusted him and sought his opinion on personal matters.

With cuts to all Prop 36 funding, drug courts and the treatment programs they refer to will no longer be able to count on this state funding stream. This would be extremely detrimental to the agency who trained me (an agency which counts among its successes its ability to treat meth addicts effectively. In my experience, meth addicts are the hardest to treat). Now, the offenders will probably face short prison sentences (you know, with overcrowding and all), receive absolutely no treatment for their problems, and just go back to committing the same crimes all over again.

There was a time in this country when incarceration was about rehabilitation, not punishment. And the drug courts were a perfect example of this. Without Prop 36, the cycle of recidivism will not stop. It would be a damn shame to end this program and negate all of its success.