[RavenSong]

I admit it -- I'm having a huge problem the past couple days reading posts on these forums that adulate Michael Jackson. I'm having trouble reading posts written by people I've followed the past several years here...parents who don't hesitate to tear into any biological mother who uses drugs, who is the victim of domestic violence, who is impoverished. It's making me sick to my stomach, to tell you the truth.

I guess it's okay to be a drug addict, someone who has been charged with child molestation, but not convicted. It's okay to dangle your infant over a balcony, as long as you're a pop-music legend. Why isn't that same gold standard applied to biological parents who have lost their children to CPS and foster care? A lot of parents lose their children to the system and are never convicted of any crime. Why should it be different just because you have the big bucks, the fame?

People seem all so eager to point out that Michael Jackson was found "not guilty" in his child molestation trial. They say that since he was found "not guilty", then he must not have done anything. Well, a lot of parents who lose their kids to CPS are never found guilty of anything either.

Child molestation aside, Michael Jackson was a known narcotics addicts for a very long time. He first entered the Betty Ford Center at the urging of Elizabeth Taylor in the 1990's for opiate addiction. People have known for so long now that he was an addict, but I guess it's okay to be an addicted parent as long as you have money and fame.

You know, I don't hold any grudge against Michael -- his music has a special place in my heart and memories. When I first started dating my son's father in 1969, the Jackson Five had just released "ABC"...when I sat in Juvenile Hall the following summer because I refused to quit seeing my son's father, the number one hit on the radio was "I'll Be There"...it played all throughout the day on the radio in the dayroom. I was happy when he revived his career in 1979 with "Off the Wall", and I danced more than I care to recall to "Billie Jean" and "Thriller" at the bars.

But I don't understand the hypocrisy. You know, Michael Jackson was never charged or convicted of being a drug addict, and yet we all know that he was one. And I don't understand the hypocrisy about where his children should end up. So many people here on the forums are saying that his mother, Catherine, should raise them. And yet, isn't Catherine the one who turned a blind eye to Michael's and LaToya's abuse in childhood...the woman who wouldn't leave her man? How many threads have I read that villianize women who don't leave the men who beat the crap out of them? I've read posts by the same people who are now singing Michael's praises say that women who don't leave their abusive husbands deserve to lose their children. I've also read in recent days how Debbie Rowe, the mother of Michael's two oldest kids, should never, ever get custody...mainly because she took Michael's money to give up her custodial rights. But I haven't seen it questioned one time that Michael bought those rights. I guess it's okay to buy kids, but it's not okay to sell them.

Will the hypocrisy ever stop?