acko acko

posted by jack at 09:37 CET in / thinking

(I never thought it would come to this, but here I am: blogging about Michael Jackson. Hopefully this is the only time.)

So, the big "not guilty" judgement came down the pike yesterday. I'm not plugged-in to the 24/7 American disinfo feed (FAUX News, CNN, etc) so I didn't hear this important news until this morning when I awoke to hear the TV saying "Michael Jackson blah blah king of pop blah blah" followed by my wife calling out "Michael Jackson's DEAD!!!" That kidder. As if.

Anyway. I caught a clip of some jurors talking about the reasons for their decision, and one of the explanations was that no sound parent would let their child attend sleepovers at Michael Jackson's house. Let's lay this out:

1. Michael Jackson is a known freak.
2. That mom let her son stay at Michael Jackson's house.
3. No good mom would allow that.
4. Therefore, that's a bad mom.
5. Therefore, Michael Jackson is innocent.

Now, I know a little bit about logic, and I think that the jump from step 4 to step 5 there is a little wide. But then I'm no legal expert, and the law surely can't be held back by something like logic.

This reminds me of the Chewbacca defense, a Johnny Cochran parody defense in South Park, which (in extremely shortened form) goes something like this:

1. Look at this picture of Chewbacca.
2. Chewbacca is a Wookie.
3. That makes no sense.
4. Therefore, my client is innocent! You must acquit!

Your Comment