Michael Jackson and Saddam Hussein have something in common.
Both are accused of "crimes against humanity." Is there a
difference between their alleged crimes? Or, are they
equally guilty of killing the innocence of the children?
And, what can be done to keep children from being seduced by idols?
19, 2003—Ground Zero Plus 828
What Do Saddam Hussein & Michael
Jackson Have In Common?
Editor, New York City Combat Correspondent News
GROUND ZER0, New York, N.Y.--Dec. 19, 2003 --
It seems a wide stretch to equate parity between the Butcher of
Baghdad and Jacko, the once-great innovator of 21st Century rock and
roll. But the differences between Saddam Hussein and
Michael Jackson aren't as vast as one might think.
skin crawl with the same horror Saddam created
Jackson's alleged crimes....
The charge against them
both is "crimes against humanity."
In both situations, the subject of the
crimes is "Terrorism."
Saddam Hussein, of course, has already been
tried and some say convicted of brutalizing tens of thousands, even
millions, of the citizens of his country. Such crimes
include torture and rape rooms, gassing Kurds, invading other
countries and wantonly executing anyone who opposes his tyranny and
Michael Jackson, the alleged King of Pop, may not
have cut anyone's throat or dragged the bodies of his victims through
the streets of Santa Barbara to show how powerful and above the law he
was, but the nature of his alleged crimes make the skin crawl with the
same horror that Saddam is charged with creating.
Killing the innocence of children is an
ugly crime, one that some might think ranks with the butchering of
innocence of children is an ugly crime
life. Killing it is murder.
Humans have two lives. One is the
exterior life--the life composed of flesh and blood--or, commonly
called the "physical life." It is separate from the
"interior life," the life one lives inside his or her soul, or within
the parameters of his or her "emotional chemistry."
This distinction has been the
dividing line between humans and beasts. The human
creature has the ability to "feel emotions," to live within its shell
of body and bones. A turtle, on the other hand, may simply be
driven by instincts. Its shell is its life.
Everything is about the physical world--about surviving.
driven by instinct.....Turtles don't question their existence
don't "think" or "feel" in the conventional sense humans do.
They don't reason or question their existence, or band together to
figure out how to evolve better, or rearrange the world to fit their
Mother Nature didn't flip on the "soul of the
turtle switch" when she created creatures. She saved that
experiment for humans. Reasoning, choice, morality,
dreams, ambitions, love, hate, hope, dismay--all the massive feelings
that make humans distinct from other creatures were given solely to
one group, humans.
saved the "soul" and "think switches" only for humans
selfish that Mother Nature, or God, or the Higher Power, or whomever
is credited with offering humans the ability to think and feel,
limited that gift to only humans. Nevertheless, for the
moment, that's the case. Perhaps one day, deep into space,
humans will find they are one of many creatures given the ability to
cogitate the reason for their existence. But for now, the sum of
gifts rests with one species--us.
That means that Saddam Hussein and Michael
Jackson stand before the court of humanity as one example of the flaws
in human nature.
Both are accused of misusing the power of
choice and feeling over others.
Both are charged with being Beasts of
Jackson may appear at first glance to not
stand on the same pedestal as Saddam Hussein until one peers deeper at
his alleged crimes.
Like Saddam, Jackson is a king, a leader of
a sovereign state, the President of Modern Pop. No
other entertainer has had more impact on the youth and music of the
modern world than Jackson. Not long ago, Jackson was
ranked as the number one known household name in the world.
Not long ago Michael Jackson was considered the King of Pop
Millions of young people followed him as the children of Iraq followed
Saddam. In Saddam's country, nearly half the population is
under the age of 15. Youth idolize leaders.
They aspire to "be like them." Many youth transform the role of
"parenthood" from their biological parents to their idols. For
many children, Jackson was their "father." He struck the
emotional notes of their hearts with his music. His lyrics
lulled them into worlds no parent could compete in.
They took his messages to bed, to school, when they were walking,
going to parties. He was their "god," their siren of
transformation from one era to another, from pre-teen to teen, from
teen to adult.
enjoyed absolute rule and was adored
ruled in a similar fashion. He was the future of his
nation. The youth aspired to be "like" their
leader--strong, defiant, powerful. His sons
controlled the media, issuing only positive public relations on Father
Saddam. He ruled absolutely and was adored with passion.
Jackson is charged with the "abuse of
power" over the innocent. If the charges are true, he
"killed" the innocence of his victim(s). He tortured that
"innocence" that thrives in a child's mind by using his "throne" to
serve his own selfish desires.
If convicted, he will be an
authorized "Beast of Terror." Now, he is only an "accused" one.
are now seeing their "god" deposed of power and on trial as a
Beast of Child Terror
But what about
the impact his crime has on those who adored him? There is
a ripple effect on all his fans. It comes in the form of a
question: "Did the parent violate the child?"
Jackson fans embraced him more as a
"god" than as a person. Now, they are faced with seeing
their "god" deposed of power, his image smeared in the muck of human
frailty and twisted persona.
Their belief in their "god" has been
He is now on trial as a Beast of Child
Terror. He is accused of the worst of crimes, the stealing
of innocence, the rape, pillage and plunder of the helpless.
Complacency asks us not to equate the
crimes Jackson is supposed to have executed to the same level as those
of Saddam Hussein. But what difference exists between the
two, assuming Jackson's guilt?
Is the brutalization of a child's innocence
equal to the brutalization of a society such as Iraq?
Vigilance demands we see them on the same
plane. When an adult, responsible for the protection of
the children, acts in such a manner as to maim, cripple and denigrate
the child's innocence, then a crime against humanity has occurred.
Iraq's children suffered horribly under
Saddam's rule, of that there is no question. Jackson is
accused of a similar crime within the walls of his "palace."
He is alleged to have lured children to his bedroom and taken
advantage of them.
The Sentinels of Vigilance shudder at the
thought a Parent of Vigilance wouldn't see the similarity between the
two Beasts of Terror. The degree of the crime is the
same, the amounts of the crimes may differ, but the result is the
(allegedly) and Saddam have robbed children of their innocence
innocence--the inner beauty of the child--has been forever marred,
soiled, stained by actions of an adult placed in a role of duty to
protect that innocence.
What is important about how Saddam
and Jackson relate is the role each Parent of Vigilance plays in
raising his or her children.
A Parent of Vigilance has a duty to
protect a child's innocence. It is that innocence that is
preciously protected by society. Parents who abuse
their children physically or emotionally are not exempt from becoming
the Saddam Husseins or Michael Jacksons.
Using Fear, Intimidation and
Complacency to rear a child is the act of a criminal, for the child's
innocence is endangered in the process.
Unless a Parent acts to manage
Fear with Courage, to displace Intimidation with Conviction, and to
shun Complacency for Right Actions that benefit future generations,
the child is in danger of become a victim of the Beast of Parental
The case in point is thinking
there is a difference between the charges against Jackson and the
charges levied against Saddam Hussein.
To wash away the differences
because of the amount of brutalization Saddam delivered to his people
is an act of Complacency. Parents should see through
the haze of the degrees of violence, and consider any act that
endangers a child the only evidence necessary to convict.
abuse their children are not exempt from being a Michael
(Above - Jackson's release from Santa Barbara County Jail)
many times can we Terrorize a child before we become a Terrorist?
How many times can we attack
the innocence of a child before we commit a crime against humanity?
A hundred? Tens of thousands?
...or a Saddam
That's why each
and every Parent needs to become a Parent of Vigilance. A
Parent of Vigilance is wary of the Beast of Terror. He or she
keeps the Shield of Vigilance held high at all times, aware that the
fragile nature of the child is perishable.
Children, for example, who
idolize others are sending parents a symbol that they do not have an
idol at home. They are reaching out to embrace something,
somebody that is illusionary because the reality of the idol at home
A Parent of Vigilance learns to
become the center of the child's universe. When a Michael
Jackson or a Saddam Hussein becomes the "father" or "mother" figure in
a child's life, when someone is elevated to the highest level of a
child's view, then it means that those around them are failing to meet
|The Beast of
Terror can kidnap our children if we are not Vigilant--Note
Children seek to love and be loved. When they idolize
others, as countless millions have Michael Jackson, it suggests the
parents of the child are practicing Complacency. They are
turning their heads to the thirst within the child, the desire to
receive from the outside what it cannot get from the inside of the
The Saddam Husseins and
Michael Jacksons serve as a reminder that the Beast of Terror can
kidnap our children if we are not Vigilant.
Be Vigilant. Take
the Pledge of Vigilance and protect your children from those who would
seduce them into believing they love them more than you do.