Dr. Drew strikes again...

Two years ago, I blogged about Dr. Drew being a hack, referencing his disturbing habit of "diagnosing" callers on the Loveline show within seconds of hearing their voices or exploiting patients on Celebrity Rehab while violating confidentiality clauses important to achieving sobriety and encouraging poor behavior amongst addicts instead of offering the treatment they needed.

Sadly, the situation has worsened. Two of Dr. Drew's former patients (both appeared on Celebrity Rehab) have died within the past few months: Alice In Chain's bassist Mike Starr and actor Jeff Conaway. Dr. Drew was quick to release a statement today on the passing of Conaway, disputing reports that the actor had died from an overdose by saying his death was caused by years of drug abuse (he was 60). Time will tell what the cause of death really was, but I certainly wouldn't take Dr. Drew's word for anything. These addicts were expected to 'put on a show' and be entertaining on television (bad antics = good ratings) instead of focus seriously on their treatment. Rocker Steven Tyler wrote a passage in his new book (Does the Noise in my Head Bother You?) discussing the show 'Celebrity Rehab' and sharing his anger with respect to how the show exploited his friend Steven Adler (of Guns N' Roses): "They wanted him to act out his own messed-up state when he entered rehab. It was ghoulish and unreal. They gave him 30 grand for the episode, he snorted it all, crashed his car, and he ended up in jail detox." Of the show itself, he mentions: "It didn't seem to me all that ethical using actual f**ked-up people like Steven Adler in a reality show, but who am I to say? Not to mention getting trashed celebrities to mime their own self-destructive nosedives which they then sensationalize on a melo-f**king-dramatic reality show, which so traumatizes them they end up in worse shape than ever - from the drugs they bought with the money from the show." The late DJ AM, who died of an overdose two years ago, was also a patient.

Sadly, Dr. Drew's patients are losing their lives and battles with addiction, a sad reminder of how unorthodox and completely unethical Dr. Drew's methods truly are. While it is true that many addicts relapse even when seeking treatment, one need not look further than an episode of Celebrity Rehab to understand the dangers and errors of his approach. Odd that a man who has written a book about celebrity narcissism not only promotes it on "Celebrity Rehab" but is also a prime example of it, finding his way on countless shows to break the Hippocratic Oath left and right by talking about not only his patients but also the lives of countless celebrities, commenting on their personal matters that are none of his business or concern, nor does he have the knowledge about their situations to comment as they aren't patients (just as he 'diagnosed' callers on Loveline based on a split-second call. That is NOT sound psychology, nor is it useful. Not only is this behavior not becoming a doctor, but Dr. Drew is so hungry for attention and fame he takes any opportunity to get on television to judge and exploit celebrities in trouble. This helps no one. He might as well join the cast of "The View" with all the trash-talking he engages in. (Remember when he diagnosed Joaquin Phoenix based on his infamous interview with Dave Letterman? Despite Joaquin playing a part in an elaborate hoax, Dr. Drew took the appearance seriously saying "Notice that his facial expressions are not still but rather one can see what we call flat suggesting a physiological alteration of his facial expressions due to his mental state. He was dysarthric, a specifically thick tongue that again is difficult if not impossible to mimic. And finally there was severe motor slowing which is a yet another feature of intoxication or a severe psychiatric condition such as depression." Er, wrong diagnosis, Doc. This example is a perfect demonstration of why no doctor can diagnose a stranger, nonetheless someone who isn't even a patient (nor is it ethical to tempt to do so).

I am sad that Dr. Drew is given so many TV shows and forums to express his warped priorities and opinions. He is no better than many of these television "doctors" who are more interested in attention than public service only he is far more dangerous than many as his name continues to be linked with tragedy for those under his care, as an enabler (not unlike the doctors charged in the death of Anna Nicole Smith or Dr. Murray whose inattention and mistakes led to Michael Jackson's passing). Dr. Drew may not be giving celebrities drugs, but he certainly isn't helping them get off of them when they turn to him for guidance and is enabling and encouraging bad behavior for his own reward. It is my sincere hope that the public wakes up to the dangers of doctors who suckle off of celebrities and place profits over humanity. Human life is sacred, these unfortunate individuals deserved better care.

Beware of fake interviews...

Since the death of Michael Jackson, there have been several fake interviews published supposedly from those closest to him. Debbie Rowe and his children's nanny Grace Rwaramba have confirmed that their 'interviews' were fake. I urge readers to be vigilant of such attempts and to exercise common sense prior to making judgments or assumptions. None of these 'interviews' have been officially confirmed and are all coming from British tabloids with reputations for creating falsehoods just as US tabloids do.

The likelihood of these being real are slim, The Jacksons hate the tabloids and always have, of all the news sources they could interview with (and they all want them right now), why would they chose tabloids, nonetheless ones with zero credibility or foreign press when they could just jump right on headline news and do it?

Everyone is printing anything they can for money and ratings to momentarily cash in. No one is denying that there are indeed several people, celebrities, and media all cashing in on Michael Jackson after his death which is sad, but the credibility of many of these individuals is seriously lacking and many have suspect motivations if they are chosing to speak and come out now after this tragedy. There was a former Jackson employee who worked at Neverland Ranch that made claims about seeing Michael taking heavy drugs. If there was any credibility to this story at all, this woman should have reported this to the authorities then, and not talked about it for her 15 seconds now. Personal responsibility and accountability are a reality to media and consumers alike. I remember when people just accepted tabloids as a joke, now they are being printed as a fact. Sad and the implications are disturbing. This is why PopSpiracy was created, to continue inform the public about discrepancies of fact and fiction. This blog is not a Michael Jackson blog, it addresses numerous media inaccuracies on various topics and new articles are to come on countless topics as has occured in the past. The current media fixation and a large number of lies have been printed the past few weeks so we are keeping track of them and reporting back and clearing the air where possible.

Interviews that are confirmed with the Jackson family include Joe Jackson who did indeed do an interview with ABC released this week. He has continued to do smaller interviews since Michael's death, including the repeated attempts at promoting his new record company. Jermaine Jackson also did interviews with Larry King prior to the memorial service.

ABC News photos

ABC News released photos of Michael's legs that supposedly show 'fresh needle marks' as well as well as an injury caused by a 'caustic fluid'. These pictures are not new (check out photos in my Vitiligo post from two years ago and you will see the photo of Michael lifting up his leg and revealing it). These photos are old and this injury did not result from from a caustic acid and wasn't necrosis, it was attributed to a spider bite which caused Michael to miss a court appearance that day. The photos were taken to prove to the judge that the excuse was valid. As for needle marks, none of that is confirmed yet and could just be bug bites or any number of things. We will not replicate those photos beyond the information and photos already presented out of respect. Our job is to debunk pop culture rumors, not add to them.

Michael Jackson funeral arrangements still up in the air.

It seems the Jackson family has not yet shared funeral plans with the public. There were rumors circulating around the internet that the family planned a public viewing at Neverland Ranch. This was not confirmed by the family at the time, yet the media continued to advertise this, resulting in sold out hotels all over Santa Barbara, CA. During interviews with family lawyers to the media this week, the lawyers had said no plans were set in stone. I'd like to urge people to question the information they receive and to be vigilant against media inaccuracies (the reason I created this blog - to present fact from fiction). If anyone made plans for this occasion, they should have waited until the family themselves issued a statement.

Today, the media are reporting that a Jackson family "spokesperson" has issued the following statement, supposedly from the Jackson family:

"Contrary to previous news reports, the Jackson family is officially stating that there will be no public or private viewing at Neverland. Plans are underway regarding a public memorial for Michael Jackson, and we will announce those plans shortly."

As this individual was unnamed, and as many fake interviews and statements are circulating, I cannot confirm the accuracy of this report either way, and caution anyone who wanted to make plans to attend to wait for an official statement that can be confirmed (just because it's on CNN doesn't mean it's true. 'America's most trusted news source' has certainly taken many creative liberties in the past to fill in air time, sadly.

At PopSpiracy, we will continue to report the TRUTH as it happens.

On a personal note, I have mixed feelings about a Neverland ceremony or the notion that it might one day turn into a museum like Graceland. First of all, Elvis Presley lived at Graceland during the height of his career and life and lived there until the end. The decor, particularly in the upstairs room, hasn't been altered much at all and was much as he'd left it. Neverland Ranch is a shell of its former self at present. The items have been moved, sold, or are in storage facilities and in the hands of private collector's. To be able to recreate Neverland in it's hey-day (purchased in the late 80s, when Michael's career began a slight decline) would be extremely difficult. I do not believe rumors that he was supposed to be buried there, again, I'm sure the family will release details in due time. Michael apparently didn't leave specific wishes (at least none have yet turned up that were made public) so his family ultimately has the final say. Michael Jackson didn't live in Neverland when he died nor the last few years leading up to his tragic passing. I had the joy to visit Neverland when it was fully operational and Michael was alive and vibrant. It was a gorgeous place, and held a certain magic that simply can't be recreated. Graceland is the real thing, Neverland would be a recreation to try to assemble. Part of the magic of Neverland was Michael's influence and inspiration which could be felt in every corner of the ranch from it's decor and layout (you could see the perfectionism and long range of his genius to be able to create something so astounding). Sadly, Michael is gone, and so too is the spirit of Neverland Ranch, which is simply bare at present. The idea behind J.M. Barrie's Neverland was that it was a magical place where kids never had to grow up. Michael never got that chance, and I shudder to think of Neverland as a place of death. From a logical standpoint, it would be large enough to accomodate hundreds of thousands of people as it is a few thousand acres large. However, it's a long drive to the middle of nowhere, and would thus make a poor location for a museum. I'm sure people would make the trip, and the residents of Santa Barbara County who clearly moved out there for scenic beauty and a rest from the crowds would be might unhappy. I think any idea to create a museum or memorial for Michael Jackson is appropriate, but I don't know that this place would be a good choice. It didn't represent the finest years of his career or the happiest memories in the end, and it seems Michael himself had moved on from it quite some time ago.

Wherever Michael ends up, I hope it's a place where he can finally get the peace he deserves. Some part of me wishes for a burial at an undisclosed location (but I'm sure that would also be a source of rumors for years to come) or possibly an ash spreading at a secret place or ashes kept by the family, to retain the privacy he should have always had. The man is gone and owes the world nothing else, he gave all he had to give. I respect the family's wishes either way. I personally would hate to see his gravesite become a tourist attraction.

The nanny of Michael Jackson's children issues a statement, her 'interview' was fake.

Today's official statement from MJ's children's nanny, Grace Rwaramba:

“Michael Jackson was an exceptional Human Being. He was gifted, deeply compassionate and brought joy to the lives of so many. He loved his family dearly, and above all, his beautiful children.

In addition to being my employer over the past 17 years and entrusting the care of his beloved children to me, he was my dear friend. While our friendship had challenges, as do all friendships, he was loyal to the end. I cherish and honor his memory.

I am shocked, hurt and deeply saddened by recent statements the press has attributed to me, in particular, the outrageous and patently false claim that I “routinely pumped his stomach after he had ingested a dangerous combination of drugs". I don’t even know how to pump a stomach!! In addition, I have never spoken to the Times Online, the original source of the story that has now been picked up worldwide. The statements attributed to me confirm the worst in human tendencies to sensationalize tragedy and smear reputations for profit.

I convey my heartfelt and deepest condolences to Prince, Paris, Blanket and the entire Jackson family. The pain and sorrow I feel over the loss of Michael pales in comparison to what has been taken from them forever.”

-Grace Rwaramba


This was issued in response to a fake interview circulating in which Grace supposedly admitted she repeatedly pumped Michael Jackson's stomach, not allowing the children to see him on drugs, trying to stage an intervention between Michael and his family, and Michael's mother Katharine demanding the location of Michael's cash.

It's a shame these rumors and fake interviews continue to make rounds, we at PopSpiracy will keep reporting and standing by the FACTS, not rumors.

NOTW interview fake, excerpts from REAL Debbie Rowe interviews.

Michael Jackson's ex-wife, Debbie Rowe, confirmed that the News of the World interview circulating currently is a fake. Debbie has not yet done an interview that has been released by the public since his death. However, I dug up clips from two Debbie interviews she conducted around the time of the birth of Michael's children. Here are clips of Debbie in her own words, where she claims birthed her children to be raised by Michael Jackson, that having children was her idea, and that she didn't want to be their caretaker. She also states that their divorce was her decision.



From "The Jackson 3" NBC news segment:

Debbie Rowe comments:

On media:
"I didn’t think it was going to be this brutal. It’s very hurtful, even if it’s a lie and I don’t care what the Enquirer says, they’re not truthful. They don’t go for the facts. They go for the sensationalism, they go for the story. They don’t care who they hurt."

On MJ:

"There’s nothing that Michael could do that would humiliate me, nothing. My friendship with him is the most important thing to me and if this marriage gets in the way of that friendship, we’ll put the marriage aside but I want to go on as friends. That’s more important to me than anything else, especially with having kids."

On what kind of dad Michael is:

"The best."

On daughter, Paris, and having children:

"We’re going to name her Paris because that’s where she was conceived. I hope we have a lot of kids together. He’s such a great dad.

From Michael Jackson: The Interview You Never Saw on FOX

Debbie quotes:

On rumors:

"What’s happened in the past is things have been taken out of context, twisted around. If I can help straighten it out, as much as I don’t speak about my family, I will. Right now."

On motherhood:

"My kids don’t call me mom because I don’t want them to. They’re not…They’re Michael’s children. It’s not that they’re not my children but I had them because I wanted him to be a father. I believe that there are people who should be parents, and he’s one of them. And he is such a fabulous man and such a good friend and he’s always been there for me. Always. From the day I met him. I could do something for him, and this is what I wanted to do. I think it was 18 years, 17-18 years that I knew him when I had Prince."

On MJ being fun:

"Yeah, we had a good time. He’s always a lot of fun."

On the decision to have children after his divorce with Lisa Marie:

"No, they had broken up and I was trying to console him because he was really upset and he wanted to be a dad. So I said, be a dad. And I said, let me do this. I want to do this. You’ve been so good to me, you’ve been such a good friend. Please let me do this. You want to be a dad. Please let me do this. And I nabbed him into it, if you will."

On Michael warning her about the perils of fame and her living in the public eye:

"He said, you don’t know what they can do. And I said, come on. We’re having a baby, come on. How can that be weird? We’re having a kid. If anything, that’s beautiful, it’s wonderful, it’s great. Boy was I wrong. I found out a picture of me pregnant was worth half a million dollars.

On childbirth:

And we were very excited. Michael was definitely more excited than I was. He was so excited when I had a contraction and he was there. We had videos, we had music, and it was long. It was 23 hours. And I had very colorful language and everytime I went to say something, Michael would cut me off with ‘shoot’or 'fudge’ (i.e. Debbie's cursing). He didn’t think it was necessary when there were other words to do so. But he was there the whole time to hold my hand, stroke my head, I think I puked once and I was so embarrassed and he was like 'Stop, you’re fine. This is beautiful, this is wonderful.' I said, 'I’m going to die.' 'No your not going to die, this is great. Oh my god, this is so beautiful.' Having come from a medical background, there’s no way blood is beautiful. But he was welling up. And then his son was born. And the look on his face (Debbie begins to cry as she speaks): Talk Amongst yourselves. I’d never seen him that happy. And that’s what made it wonderful for me. Was to see the look on his face.

On the non-traditional circumstance of having your children raised by someone else:

"People don’t understand that and they want a traditional – they think someone has to be traditional and they have this notion of Beaver Cleaver. That wasn’t reality in the 50s and that’s not reality in the 21^st century. We have a non-traditional family and if that makes people uncomfortable, it’s a shame that they’re not more open. We are a family unit. I will always be there for him."

On leaving her kids:

"Left them? I left my children? I did not leave my children. My children are with their father, where they are supposed to be."

On the reason for their divorce:

"We split up because I it got to a point where I couldn’t go to a grocery store. One, I’d get followed. Two, I’d have to look at crap on the newsstands at the registers as you go out that wasn’t true. I wasn’t used to it, I like doing things for myself. I was more than generous. I didn’t have to go to the grocery store but I want to. I want to go back to what I can go back to, that’s what I was used to. It’s what I was comfortable with."

I can't confirm that Michael was or wasn't the biological parent of Debbie's children though he claims he was. I am simply presenting a transcript of Debbie's only known interviews to counter the fake recently released.

Timothy Treadwell vs. Steve Irwin

I clearly remember where I was when I first heard the news. In the terminal of the Atlanta airport about to catch a flight to Paris. "Crocodile Hunter Steve Irwin killed by stingray" scrolled across the news screen. Stingrays are oddly my favorite animal and I have pet countless rays and swam alongside thousands. I was in absolute shock to hear of his passing. I had a trip to go on and was rather preoccupied for the next few weeks when I returned home to hear about the tragic loss of a good friend of mine at a young age. Eventually, I did have time to think about Steve Irwin's strange journey and was saddened by the news and mostly for his young children who would grow up without a father.

Steve was one of those guys you felt you knew, he was a father-figure sort to kids around the world with his daring exploits to exotic locales peppered with all sorts of dangerous predators he loved to show you. It was wonderful that Steve cared so much about the conservation of wild life and educating young people. However, there were clearly better ways to have gone about it. Steve didn't just take you into an animal's world and show it to you, he would go up to the creature, pick it up, and many times taunt it, poking it and trying to provoke it to attack. Partly to show off it's defense mechanisms, and partly out of machismo. That aspect didn't seem too congruent with respecting wildlife but Steve was an entertainer. He well knew the risks of such behavior. He was almost a godly figure to his wife who followed him all over and to his friends and team, who all seemed completely baffled when something awful finally happened. Steve supposedly thought he would die young, but not at the hands of an animal. Despite his obvious knowledge on animals, he seemed to perceive himself as invincible when handling animals, exposing himself and his loved ones to constant risks, medic on hand or not. I remember the controversy surrounding Steve when he held his brand new baby Bob Irwin in one hand and fed a giant crock meat with the other. The audience was horrified and his actions met with international outrage. Steve responded by scoffing at his critics and boasting that he knew what he was doing and that he would never expose his child to any real danger. (Because feeding a giant killing machine a few feet away from a newborn is a totally sane harmless choice). Steve clearly thought himself a Crocodile Dundee, some larger-than-life character unbound to the same rules as the rest of us mere mortals in the face of wilderness. Contrary to his own flawed beliefs, NO ONE, no matter how smart, can predict an animal's every move.

Brushes with death were a recurring theme in Steve's life. I recall watching footage Steve and his then-brand wife Terri rock climbing. For some unknown reason, they didn't have much protective gear at all and Terri nearly lost her life that day, slipping to what would have easily been her death if Steve hadn't managed to find strong footing and pull her up with one arm. She seemed visibly pissed afterward, though I have to wonder which genius decided this was a good idea. How many times were Terri and those children constantly exposed to situations that could have easily turned upside down? As strong as Steve was, he couldn't possibly have controlled it all. The footage of the sting ray incident was billed as a freak accident; as a stingray lover, one of the things I love the most about this alien creature is how gentle and majestic they can be. Human deaths caused by sting rays are astoundingly low in recorded history. A stingray rarely attacks unless it is provoked, such as stepped on or caught on a hook. According to Steve's camp, the camera was somewhere in front of the stingray, shooting Steve swimming alongside rays. Steve was swimming above the ray when it was supposedly startled by the camera and thurst its tail upwards, penetrating Steve's heart with its barb. The stingray's thrust didn't kill him (and it's possible he could have survived if the appropriate action was taken; a man who was stung in the heart by a stingray barb was successfully treated). Steve's death was the result of his impulsive decision to pull the barb out which caused instant death. He probably didn't know just how deep in the barb actually was and I'm guessing it was panic as the worse thing you can do in a puncture situation is to rip out the object. (Remember that, folks). It seems a bit suspicious to me that a camera startled the ray. If Steve Irwin handled the stingray as he did every other poisonous animal he encountered on TV, my guess is that it was poked or provoked in some fashion and Steve's team didn't want to release that information. Either way, we'll never know as the tapes were destroyed against Steve's wishes. He once proclaimed on TV that if he ever died while being eaten by a croc or some such scenario, he wanted the camera to keep rolling.

The tragedy was obviously very sad, but I can't say it was altogether unpredictable. Much of Steve's work was educational in nature, but constant provocation was unnecessary and a show of ego. Steve wasn't the king of the jungle or the sea, he was another man trying co-exist with nature. Such an event could have happened at any point in his career and if it didn't happen in the sea that day, there is a big possibility it would have happened in another fashion. You can only luck out so many times. The thing that really gets me is how shocked everyone who knew him the most was. They clearly bought into the myths Steve was bent on perpetuating. Clearly, the family hasn't learned it's lesson. The other day, I saw a picture of Bindi Irwin with a huge snake wrapped around her neck. Not in some loose necklace fashion but literally with it's body completely twisted a few times around her neck in a tight fit. I can't imagine what prompts them to continue to play with fire and have pretty negative feelings about Terri Irwin having Bindi work so much after Steve's death and trying to get little Bob a show of his own. Those two children are beautiful and I'm sure they will continue to preserve wildlife and educate the public. I just hope they find more constructive means of doing so and learn their father's lessons.

Which brings us to yet another example of overly cocky man vs. beast. Timothy Treadwell, otherwise known as the man who lived amongst grizzly bears for 13 summers. I recall his appearance on The David Letterman Show where Dave asked him if he was "one of those guys that's going to end up on TV eaten by bears". Of course it was a joke and he passed it off as such and denied such an event, yet sadly it was a foreshadowing of events to come. Treadwell was certain no harm could come to him at the claws of a Grizzly, he claimed he knew how to assert his dominance in their environment and could peacefully live amongst them. Sadly, while at his campsite with his girlfriend, the two were killed and partially ingested. Recording actually existed (audio, not video, as the cap was still on the camera). Only one copy of the recording exists and it has never been available to the public, though partial transcripts exist. Apparently, Treadwell and the bear struggled. He shouted to his girlfriend that the bear was killing him and to help him. Apparently, they had no appropriate protection with them despite living in the woods and dealing with dangerous animals. He was heard yelling to his girlfriend to "get a frying pan". I was horrified to think that he was getting survival tips from Yogi the Bear cartoons. Thing about the logistics of this. An 800 lb bear is already about four times the weight of a human and is covered with fur and insulation. What on earth is a frying pan going to do, even if you get a good spot?! I am horrified that these two had zero weapons at their disposal despite their lifestyle and location. (PLANNING IS EVERYTHING. No one wants to think the worse is going to happen, but sometimes, it inevitably does. Be prepared.) These two should have known better, and anyone willingly subjecting themselves to these living conditions should absolutely know all of this. It's that same "Nothing will happen...I'm invincible...I know what I'm doing" mentality and naivete that kills. These men were not superheroes. Sometimes I wonder who is more delusional about their reality, the men who do this or the women who blindly follow them. Surely, there must have been SOMETHING of better use lying around. A pole from the tent? At least that could provide some leverage and distance, though I doubt even that would have done much. I'm sure there is little time to make decisions during emergency situations, but that's why it's so important to make a good one prior to acting. I'm sure the emotion involved must have been incredible. No one wants to see their loved one in peril and naturally people will do what they can to change the outcome but they should do so realistically. As romantic as it is that this woman tried to save her boyfriend, the woman was biologically far less equipped to successfully fight that bear off than he must have been unless she had a weapon on hand. There is a documentary available about Treadwell directed by Werner Herzog, "Grizzly Man". RIP.

Naturally, my heart goes out to the people in these tragedies and their families. I hope that the general public learns from these accidents and doesn't watch reruns of the Croc Hunter with ideas that any of this is something they should try while out and about. Just as in the recent story of the woman who had an adult primate at home with her who ripped off her face, people need to be aware that animals are unpredictable, no matter how trained they are. Especially wild animals that humans are thoroughly warned about interacting with in such an intimate manner.
(To that person housing a tiger in their basement - I know you're out there - DON'T DO IT! And if you do, make sure you are prepared for anything.)

Lesson: Ego scores 1000 points. Man scores zero. Komodo dragon takes all. Including Sharon Stone's husband's toe. (By the way, what was up with THAT?! Who told him to get into a cage with a Komodo dragon? My point exactly. Think people. Think!)

Dr. Drew is a hack.

I first came across the words of Dr. Drew Pinksy via Loveline, the once-MTV program turned radio show. Callers would phone the show with any number of sexual problems and scenarios for Dr. Drew, co-hosts, and guests to toss in their 2 cents. Most of the "advice" callers received arrived in the form of jokes and a condescending attitude, a fabulous response to people calling with real problems. Well, most of them were real. The ones that weren't deserved everything they got... Within 30 seconds of talking to a caller, Dr. Drew had already given them a diagnosis and the majority were told that they were sexually abused as children, whether they remembered it or not. It is actually completely unethical and incorrect for a doctor to diagnose a patient they haven't even met with based on dialogue that doesn't even last one minute. Dr. Drew is not the all-seeing eye of the universe, which would probably shock the hell out of him. People are complex machines unable to be broken down in a millisecond. I was often taken aback by some of the comments and smugness of Dr. Drew towards people in need.

Now, Dr. Drew is onto reality shows (surprise, surprise). First there was the Celebrity Rehab on VH1, which followed a group of addicts on the road to recovery. Then came Sober House, which chronicled the transition of addicts from a rehab clinic into sober living prior to taking their lives completely back in the real world. Initially I thought the concepts of the show were interesting, then I actually thought about what I was watching from the perspective of the guinea pigs who were a part of it. Whether they signed contracts to be on the show or not, this experiment is highly immoral and bound to lead to failure among the participants. The presence of cameras undoubtedly affects human behavior. The last thing addicts need is extra stimulation and reasons to act out. Suddenly, the patients are more concerned about getting their daily dose of publicity than actually taking their recovery seriously. It's not a surprise most of the individuals on the show are still relapsing constantly. How could they not??? The very idea of bringing cameras into the world of addicts breaks two of the cardinal 12 traditions of AA, NA, and recovery programs (which have 'Anonymous' as part of their title for a reason:


11. ... we need always maintain personal anonymity at the level of press, radio, and films.

12. Anonymity is the spiritual foundation of all our traditions, ever reminding us to place principles before personalities.

(Source: The 12 Traditions of AA)

Nothing can break sobriety like people already obsessed with fame having more opportunities to access the very world that has contributed to the excess that put them at a rehab facility. These patients are going through very private battles which they can only weather under anonymous conditions. Dr. Drew is well-versed in this and doesn't appear to care about the success rate of his patients recoveries but rather getting his own name out in the public eye.

I discussed this matter with a good friend of mine who successfully fought the perils of addiction and turned his life around. He has since been sober for over a decade and is living a very fulfilled life. He can't stand these reality shows, which he finds to be a horrid idea and damaging to not only the participants but the fields of recovery themselves. He is correct to point out that such scenarios including cameras create opportunity for great conflict and drama, the essence of "watchable" TV. He also points out that many of these people are has-beens anyway and their addiction is suddenly affording them the opportunity to get famous again, so what message does that send out?

Clearly, these addicts are not a priority for anything but good ratings. My heart goes out to these people who are obviously under tremendous strain and are poor decision makers, proven by their decision to compromise recovery by signing onto one of these shows. I have no idea how Dr. Drew thinks he can justify such behavior, but I'd like to see him try. He writes extensively about ego, narcissism, and celebrity, three things that seem to describe him to a T.

The Jade Goody Phenomenon

Jade Goody was one of the biggest media stories of 2009. For those who don't know who she was, Jade was a reality television star that frequented several several reality shows including Big Brother, during which she became a controversial figure in the house for her lack of knowledge and racist comments towards Indian actress Shilpa Shetty which resulted in Jade being kicked off the show and over 50,000 consumer complaints to the networks. Jade continued to be a prominent figure in reality television shows and became a big star in the UK, having been part of numerous books (including a biography) and headlines and sold many products despite many polls suggesting most people had a negative opinion of her. While doing the reality TV gig "Bigg Boss" in India, Jade received the call that she had cervical cancer and left the show. She eventually found out the cancer was terminal and continued to live her life in the spotlight, heavily relying on the media to cover her every move and making a documentary as the disease ravaged her body. Jade gave interviews and allowed the media to tape and photograph her throughout the last months of her life. Jade even sold her wedding photos (marrying long-term reality TV star and criminal Jack Tweed) to the tabloids. Jade justified such behavior by saying that she was saving the money for her children, Bobby and Freddie, despite the huge salary and assets Jade already had as a result of her career choices. The media descended on Jade and public tide for her flipped, resulting in the public fixating on every morbid detail of her last days and elevating her into a somewhat saintly figure. Her husband Jack was able to get a significant portion of time out of jail (for assault) to spend time with her during her final months. Sadly, Jade Goody passed away on March 22, 2009, at age 27 on Mother's Day. Her home was flooded with flowers and cards of sympathy and mass public outcry (somewhat like the events that transpired after Princess Diana's demise, on a smaller scale).

Jade Goody made many enemies during her years for her racist views and comments and aroused antagonism from many in life as well as with the choices she made in handling the last month of her life so publicly. When Jade got cancer, public polls went from strong disagreement to a positive image and even many of Jade's detractors began to think of her as a wonderful person and forgot how much they had disliked her. They watched her deteriorate and die like bloodthirsty hounds, anxious for every new development. Even OK! magazine leaked the cover of their tribute issue with the years of her birth and death before she even died. The British public couldn't seem to get enough of Jade Goody.

I am astounded that the public could change their opinion so widely about someone because they became terminally ill. The truth is that cancer or any terminal illness is a horrible fate not to be wished upon anyone. I am appauled by the hypocrisy of the public for sanctifying Jade Goody after their constantly ridiculing her. I am disturbed that the public salivated for new photos of her and grisly details about her last days and that magazines and newspapers kept feeding the public very private details and fueling an inappropriate fire. I am completely baffled by the fact that Jack Tweed was able to get a get-out-of-jail-free card to be with her. As much as the public romanticized these two, the man committed serious crimes of assault and shouldn't have been given special privilege regardless of the circumstances as other criminals don't receive such treatment. Part of the punishment of being in jail is not being able to be there for milestones. As much as the public sympathized with Jade and wanted Jack by her side, it is unbelievable that he was shown such leniency and exception in the matter when that option is not available to anyone else in any similar situation. I am surprised that a disliked public figure and her criminal husband could be perceived as one of the great romances of the year. There are many wonderful couples who never receive such unprecedented attention who have a far more positive story to tell and many cancer patients and terminally ill stars who deserve to have their stories told as well and never get that chance, even if they were far better an example. I'm am not a fan of Jade's decision to live the end of her life in the public eye to raise money for her sons, but I can see both sides of the argument. I think it's noble to try to ensure her sons have a good life but she already was banking quite a bit of money and her husband was a TV presenter and the children weren't going to live poorly by any means already. Marrying someone guilty of assault and exposing your sons constantly to that person doesn't seem to be an idea of great foresight. Sure, we all make mistakes (though most of us never on that scale). However, Jack Tweed committed assault twice, once against a 16 year old boy. Fortunately, the children will spend most of the time with their father (who is not Jack Tweed). Jade Goody's short life and death is a great example of the media's exploitation of human suffering and the public's incessant and unnecessary "need to know" as well as the concept of elevating someone to a status they don't deserve just to sell papers.

I am glad Jade Goody is no longer suffering and is finally at peace. I may not have been fond of her but I was sad to hear she got cancer and I hoped it would not be fatal. I hope the media and public can finally leave her alone, even though I am aware she invited much of that attention. It just all went too far. My only consolation is that the rates of cervical cancer screenings in the UK went up 40%. Perhaps something good comes out of tragedy after all.

Reasons Michael Jackson didn't do it.

With an endless parade of media outlets clammoring at money and ratings by professing Michael Jackson's absolute guilt at charges of child molestation, I will put together a strong argument as to why he ISN'T guilty.

Public Argument #1: Where there's smoke, there's fire. If one kid said he got molested, then another kid did, obviously it's true.

Isn't the reverse argument also true? If one family got money, isn't another one going to try? Okay, so the out-of-court 1993 settlement was a bad idea. Celebrities settle out of court all the time, if they have the money to banish a problem into disappearance and move on with their lives, they figure it's worth it. I argue that there are times when it isn't, and this case is the clearest example possible. Michael Jackson is an escapist by nature, an artist who has made a career out of avoiding public opinion as much as humanly possible. At least he didn't settle this time. What kind of parents accept money as a payback for child molestation?! If that were my kid, you'd better believe they'd have something else coming to them. No amount of money should be able to satisfy a parent in such a situation. And, note that the accuser in 1993 came from a wealthy family, unlike the latest accusers. The boy's father was a prominent Beverly Hills dentist who was already up to his knees in cash. Note that the latest accusers called the civil attorney of the '93 accuser PRIOR to even calling or going straight to the police.

Public Argument #2: Michael Jackson is a grown man who spends time with kids, so he must be a pedophile.

There are many reasons an adult might want to spend time with young people that don't have to center around perversion. Take a look at people who have a mid-life crisis and have issues with aging. They try to surround themselves with younger people, buy hip toys like fancy cars, and try to alter their behavior to appear far younger than their years. In Michael Jackson's case, his hang-ups are clearly centered around his lost childhood, hence his Peter Pan complex. As a boy who couldn't even go to a movie theatre without being mobbed, it's not surprising that Michael Jackson built and created Neverland, his own way of going on rides, watching movies, and going to the zoo undisturbed. Sure it's odd, but if we had a billion dollars we'd be able to afford eccentricities too and build a getaway of our chosing as well. As an overworked child from a broken home, Jackson didn't have many opportunities to play or exercise his rights to youthful freedom. He grew up feeling incomplete and has tried to recreate the part of his life he never knew by surrounding himself with all things youthful. Michael Jackson clearly suffered from childhood traumas and has a regressed emotional state, not to mention being a kid in an adult industry in which he was taken advantage of and hurt by numerous adults in his life, it isn't surprising that he prefers the company of children and animals, who don't seem to want anything but your attention.

Food for Thought:

Michael Jackson must be the most selective pedophile in the world. Of all the millions of children he has been exposed to yearly, he molested two, one every fifteen years. Pedophiles DON'T do this, they are compulsive and carry out their desires constantly. Where are the others? And please don't say they were scared to come forward. They had safe opportunities to do so, in a society convinced of Jackson's guilt and on their side. Santa Barbara County district attorney Tom Sneddon tried his hardest to wrangle up as many 'victims' as he could, promising the courtroom and the world that he would get five boys to testify against Jackson in the current case: the boy from 1993, the current accuser, Macaulay Culkin, choreographer Wade Robson, and Brett Barnes. The boy from '93 had every opportunity to put his attacker behind bars and clear his name and didn't bother to show up but his mother did, who had nothing but positive things to say about Michael and claimed she never noticed anything out of the ordinary. Macaulay Culkin, still friends with Jackson and godfather to Michael's children, scoffed at the FBI's handling of the previous case, talking about how they never interrogated him or came up to him and asked if he'd been molested and instead people just assumed that he had been when nothing of the sort ever happened. Wade Robson also leaped to Jackson's defense claiming he slept next to Michael for years and nothing inappropriate ever happened, Robson's mother attacked the current accuser's mom saying she was just in it for money. Brett Barnes also defended Jackson from any wrongdoing, and the current accuser changed his story and was caught lying on the stands so many times (as did his family) that the jury didn't believe them. Five boys promised by the D.A. to deliver testimony that would lock Michael away, all defending Jackson except for the current accuser who couldn't keep a story straight for the life of him.

Michael Jackson must also have the worse luck of any pedophile in the world, the only two boys he chose to molest were the two who had criminal families that had legal histories of suing people for false claims. The 1993 accuser whose wealthy dentist father sued his patients for false claims numerous times (and was also caught on audio tape talking about how destroyed Micheal Jackson's career was going to be and how much money he was going to get from him) and the current accuser whose mother sued JC Penney for excess of $100,000 dollars because she alleged one of their security guards tried sexually assaulting her (Jay Leno also called the police on her, claiming he felt she was "looking for a mark" to extort money from, and she also contacted numerous other celebrities trying to acquire financial assistance). Jackson's mistake was being the celebrity who fell for it and took pity on the family. During the Michael Jackson case, she admitted to welfare fraud, which she has since been to court for.

Further embellishments:

The mother of the current accuser, coincidentally named Janet Jackson, probably would have had a better chance at building a case for herself if she hadn't repeatedly changed stories constantly during the trial. First, the timeline of the case doesn't add up. Pre-court fiasco, her son had appeared on a documentary with Jackson talking about what a great friend he was and that Michael had never molested him. There is both video and written statements from the boy and his mother made at the time professing their belief in his innocence against the allegations. The mother explained this away by saying Michael molested her son immediately AFTER this admission, then later claimed she was forced by Michael's on-set bodyguards into saying he was innocent and incapable of such an act. Videographers on the set that day said there wasn't anyone around on the set and she seemed calm and relaxed, speaking of her own free will. Then she went on to talk about how Michael kidnapped the family and kept them prisoner at Neverland, and that there were no clocks there and you lost track of time. Did she not notice the giant 12 foot clock in the entrance of Neverland or the clocks all around the ranch as it's themed after the Peter Pan story?! And what kidnapped individual goes out in public on massive shopping sprees spending thousands of dollars of their captor's money including getting a bikini wax and fails to notify someone that they are being held against their will?


In both of these cases, it was an aggressive parent spearheading the allegations who seemed to play the part of abuser in their child's lives. In 1993 it was the boy's father making all the accusations, in the recent case, the boy's mother. Many assume that the current jury voted Michael innocent because he was rich and famous. The jury claimed they simply didn't believe the mother or her son (or her other children) as all of them were caught changing their stories and lying multiple times. If the allegations were true, why would they have such a hard time being consistant? The young boy's criminal record as a shoplifter and history as an actor plus his mother's trips to mental institutions probably didn't help their credibility either. So then, there are those that allege that it's possible the current case was untrue, but that the first one wasn't. Not that we'll ever know seeing as it never completed it's journey in court. But what is known about the case doesn't make it appear to be a strong one either. Aside from the 1993 accuser's father's criminal history of extortion attempts and the audio tape of his own admissions of a plot against Jackson, there were several former Neverland employees who had come out in defense of the accusers, claiming they had "seen things". Since, several of those employees recanted their stories, saying that tabloid shows were offering them immense amounts of money they couldn't turn down to say they had seen things they hadn't, and one former employee who had taken the stand at the start of the 1993 trial wasn't able to complete his testimony, having stood up and admitted that he had been dishonest and was "paid" to say he had seen something he hadn't. The 1993 family didn't make an appearance in court at the current case minus the boy's mother who testified in defense of Jackson. If Michael Jackson did indeed molest just one boy total that doesn't make him a pedophile, it makes him a unicorn, because he's the only one I've ever heard of.

The 1993 accuser drew a diagram of what Michael's genitalia supposedly looked like and provided a description. In the early hours of the morning, Jackson was cuffed and dragged out of bed and taken to the station where he had to submit to a complete strip search, where he was thoroughly photographed. Supposedly he covered his face and cried the whole time. Jackson appeared via satellite emotional and trembly a few hours later, talking about the humiliating experience and saying "If this is what I have go through to prove my innocence, then so be it."

View Jackson's response to the initial allegations here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCbwenIZ4Ao

Supposedly, the markings didn't match the description, and the photos weren't accepted as evidence in the current trial. The district attorney also refused to return the photos to Jackson post-verdict, saying he was going to hold on to them because he might need them for later.

One thing that was uncovered at Neverland was Jackson's heterosexual porn stash, which seemed to puzzle the flustered District Attorney who kept trying to criminalize it and explain it's existance, which he claimed was 'to entice boys'. This doesn't explain why there was porn in places kids clearly wouldn't be in, such as locked up at Jackson's office. One journalist remarked that if there was one thing about Jackson and his sexuality that had been revealed during this trial it was that "he's 46 years old, likes porn, drinks wine, and has a bad back. Who knew?" Apparently Jacko isn't all that whacko compared to his contemporary counterparts in that respect. Imagine if the government decided to raid your house and criminalize your porn stash. We'd all be in trouble!

Public Argument #3:

So why does Michael Jackson keep sleeping in the same bed with kids if he's not molesting them?

I'm not going to defend Michael's right to sleep next to a kid. Whether or not you think that behavior is inappropriate, that's up to individual opinion. Provided nothing sexual is taking place, I personally don't see it as criminal other than being a no-no as far as social norms are concerned, I can understand both sides. I think Jackson sees ceasing such behavior as an admission of guilt in the first place. Why should he stop having sleepovers if he wasn't doing anything sexual to begin with? It would seem that stopping that behavior would suggest that something was wrong with it in the first place, which Jackson doesn't personally seem to believe. When pressed about it on a 1996 interview with Diane Sawyer who had asked if the sleepovers were going to stop, Michael seemed his usual naive confused self and seemed dismayed, suggesting he hadn't done anything wrong to begin with and that there was nothing wrong with sleeping next to a kid. Jackson's bedroom isn't a typical room either like the one you or I probably sleep in. It's two stories tall , and Jackson claims he sleeps on the floor and let's kids have the bed, so "I sleep with kids" probably conjures up an image for us far different from the reality. He later elaborated that he and the kids stay up late watching movies and he brings them milk and cookies. Okay, so Michael's eccentric and wants to be the friend of all children or Daddy of the Month. Maybe Michael wants to be a positive male influence in their lives that he didn't have as a child. I'm not justifying all of Jackson's actions. I don't agree with everything he does. The point of this post is to try to find options and alternatives to why Jackson MIGHT do certain things that don't have to lead to a criminal activity. Do you remember when you were a kid? Have you spent time with kids? If they like you, they do NOT leave you alone. They want to follow you everywhere, do everything you do. Let's presume it's nighttime at Neverland and the kids parents aren't on the premises (Note: If parents are really concerned that Michael Jackson is a predator, they shouldn't leave their kids alone at his ranch. What kind of parents are these?!). Kids are afraid of the dark, they are afraid of being in unfamiliar places. If parents aren't at the ranch and kids are being left there, good luck getting a child to spend the night by themselves in a guest room at a stranger's house. Especially if the person appears uber-cool and has a mystical ranch filled with candies and toys and rides and llamas. Of course they're going to want to emulate this guy and be around him every second, and kids know how to play an adult's sympathies and guilt, and that adult will fall for it if he's gullible and sensitive. A kid will start kicking and screaming and throwing a tantrum the minute you try to rip them away from whoever their current idol is. I'm not saying this is the best idea in general. Parents should always accompany their children places, especially if they don't know who they are leaving their kids with. Given Michael's legal history, he should have known better than to set himself up in another situation like this. Obviously he enjoys the company of youth and the feeling it brings being able to relive parts of his life and have sleepovers he wasn't allowed to have as a kid, but I think he should give it a rest. At a certain point, you have to realize the past is what it is and there's no way to get it back. Michael's far too unrealistic to accept that.

I think a lot of people also think Michael is guilty because of superficial reasons, because he's an eccentric we can't seem to understand and because he looks peculiar, so he must be a criminal. Peter Pan complexes aren't a crime. Any genius is eccentric by nature. We're never going to understand that guy because we don't know what it is to have that kind of talent, and we don't know what it is to have lived through what he has. Our live experiences shape us, Michael Jackson is no different. Just because a guy looks like he could maim you doesn't mean he will. People still have this pre-century believe that someone's face and features tell you something about what crimes they are capable of committing. Because Jackson defies categorization on so many levels, it's not surprising that people have judgements and biases. People are afraid and accusatory towards things they don't understand.

I'm not opposed to the possibility that Jackson could be a child molestor. If I was given concrete proof or if ONE person could come forward with an incredibly solid story I'd be more apt to believe it. But you'd better believe I'm going to be damn sure someone is a pedophile or killer before I label them so. A label like that can destroy lives, and whether you like him or not Jackson has a family and children and a life that's been ripped in half by rumors lacking sufficient proof. It seems awfully unfair. People have allowed the media to dictate every thought they have on the trial, which was clearly biased to begin with. The district attorney of the case clearly had his own personal reasons for going after Jackson including his impending retirement and bringing Michael's finances and personal dirt into the case which had nothing to do with the trial at hand and was a personal smear. As was having over 80 officers raid Neverland when the house isn't that large and five people would have been sufficient, or cuffing Jackson, or calling an entire (and completely unneccessary) press conference together to publicize the raid and then taking personal stabs at Jackson, laughing at him, cracking jokes, and saying "I don't listen to that kind of music" at what was supposed to be a serious announcement of a criminal investigation. Millions of California taxpayer's money have been thrown out for these lame court displays brought on by the District Attorney who as usual, had promises he couldn't deliver and a vendetta he couldn't seem to let die.

The recent court case was not televised, though court transcripts were available each day. It was shocking to read what was happening in the courtroom and then open up a newspaper and see stories come out that day that had been COMPLETELY REWRITTEN and skewed by the media on a daily basis to profit off the situation as much as possible (though I guess I shouldn't be surprised, this happened in 1993 as well). I encourage the public to seek their own answers and truths be relying on factual information and sources prior to coming to conclusions and forming opinions. Not just about the Michael Jackson trial but about all celebrities and any news intake about world events. The media will always try to manipulate any story if it can cash in, and sadly the public rarely questions it. I suggest the BBC, NPR, and Reuters as reliable news sources, they are far more accurate than their ratings-driven sensationalistic counterparts.

Justin Timberlake - NOT "The New King of Pop"

Justin Timberlake owes the Jackson family massive apologies. From the start of his career, the Jacksons have been largely responsible for his artistic success.

During Janet's "The Velvet Rope" tour, she gave NSYNC a huge break in their careers by making them her opening act on a leg of her tour. NSYNC was not a popular group at the time, that city-to-city exposure greatly helped give them visibility. Janet claimed she had seen a Disney concert they had done and was impressed, most likely because Justin did a rendition of Michael's Jackson's 'Don't Stop Til You Get Enough' on that show equipped with MJ's moves.

Justin ended up building a career around Michael Jackson's influence. From the way he sings to the way he dances and even the way he dresses, as evidenced by his "Like I Love You" dance attire. Timberlake has cited many influences, but never has he "borrowed", or blatantly ripped off, the others. I have no problem with artists having influences, surely Michael Jackson did, the difference is that: a) you give props and credit where they're due and b) you add something unique of your own, ORIGINALITY to change it up. I'm not doubting Justin Timberlake's ability to be talented. I believe he is. But he doesn't have one iota of originality, and hence he could never be in the same ballpark as someone like Michael Jackson, not that he had a fighting chance either. He's not a genius, he's not THAT talented. Seeing Justin named "The New King of Pop" on Rolling Stone's magazine cover a few years ago was incredibly laughable and sad. Justin did cite Michael as an influence for awhile and Michael Jackson appeared with NYSNC at the MTV Video Music Awards years ago, the boys presented him with an award at the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame, and they joined the Jackson Five onstage at Madison Square Garden in 2001. All of that changed when child abuse allegations resurfaced about Michael. Justin began doing interview after interview of dropping Michael's name off his list of influences and continued to steal all of Michael's attributes. This appears to be a typical pattern for Justin, who whimps out whenever he sees any inkling of controversy surrounding anything. He clearly can't take a stand for anybody or anything he believes in if it's not 100% popular. Again, totally unoriginal. Original people have their own thoughts and are unafraid to publically be true to themselves. In all honesty, Usher steals from Michael pretty badly as well. The difference is Usher has always admitted it and given Michael mad props, and gives him a shout out every time he wins an award. He's aware he owes Michael, big time.

But it isn't Michael that has been the most royally screwed Jackson by Timberlake, it's Janet. Janet gave NSYNC a huge break, and she continued to support NSYNC's careers and even went to see them in concert. When Justin did his first solo album 'Justified', he asked her to appear on the record and they did a duet together. In fact, you can even hear Janet's voice sampled on his latest single, 'Sexy Back'. If you chose to give any credence to rumors, supposedly Janet reciprocated Justin's life-long crush and the two were seen making out at some clubs and allegedly had a one night stand. If that were true in any way, it would add even more insult to injury into what ended up happening. Fast-forward to Nipplegate, Janet and Justin's performance at the Superbowl where Janet's breast became an international scandal. Justin denied knowing the "wardrobe malfunction" was going to take place, and profusely apologized publically and blamed it on Janet, blaming it all on her. Which is pretty funny considering the event took place right after Justin sang the lyric '...and I'll have to you naked by the end of this song" and RIPPED off her clothing.



The Grammy's would not let Janet or Justin appear at their show unless they issued public apologies, Justin apologized his heart out and continued denying responsibility in all forms while Janet refused to apologize and didn't attend the ceremony. Eventually she did apologize for the incident, cleverly wording it "I'm sorry people were offended" as opposed to apologizing for the action. True artists don't need to apologize for their artistic expression, and people suing national television networks for 'emotional distress' (in light of these same people watching multiple killings and maimings on TV and being fine with it) and CBS being fined half a million dollars plus MTV severing their relationship with Janet despite all that her family has done for the channel was already such a hypocrisy and a serious sign that something is wrong with our society. Janet's career suffered a massive backlash, her 'All For You' album which was released after the Superbowl incident was the lowest selling album she ever released, and the media and public turned on her. Over a breast! One of the most successful female recording artists in history was brought down by FLASHING A TIT. Of course, squeaky-clean mama's boy Justin was able to distance himself completely from the scandal and continue on with his career as if nothing had ever happened. Though in a different way, Justin felt his own backlash. Not from the media or the public, but from his peers and the artistic community, many who distanced themselves from him and expressed upset over his treatment of a friend and woman who had done her best to help him and his career. Justin has since tried to get a hold of Janet who refuses to talk to him, claiming he wasn't the guy she thought he was and had changed since his success.

On a recent interview, Justin was asked what specifically he would have done differently about the Superbowl if he had a chance. He gave an emotional three minute speech about how he let down a lot of his peers and Janet and that he'd felt the consequences of it and should have taken responsibility and stood by her. Oops. He also mentioned that the backlash on her career said something about society's view of women, which while partially true, certainly seemed like another way to evade the fact that the situation was as bad as it was because he dumped it all on her and fled. I doubt her career would have suffered anywhere near that level of destruction had he shouldered half the blame, if not more than half seeing as he was the one to rip off her clothes and expose her to the world. Justin's such a baby. Kind of like when he retaliated after the Britney Spears break-up by telling the world she wasn't a virgin or by making the 'Cry Me A River' video where he's stalking the Britney look-alike. Give me a break, was all that really necessary? Is it possible that this kid can act like a mature adult once in his life? I have yet to see it. You reap what you sow. I doubt Justin will be successful in this industry for a lifetime like the Jacksons. He doesn't have the originality or the backbone.