Michael, Michael, Michael--why does everything always have to be about Michael?

I’ve noticed that a lot of people seem to be squabbling about whether Michael Jackson was found “innocent” or “not guilty.” People, now is a time for healing, not divisiveness. (I’m not saying there will never be a time for divisiveness. There will be such a time—I’m really looking forward to it--and when it comes I’ll see to it that you’re among the first to know.) It doesn’t matter if Michael was found “innocent” or “not guilty.” All that truly matters is that he was found to have the resources to hire his own lawyers, rather than having one appointed for him by the court. This is the heart of the American system of jurisprudence, the finest in the world.

I also think it’s important to keep in mind that Mr. Jackson is a visitor from another world, in a galaxy far, far away, and he appears to be having a bit of difficulty understanding and adjusting to our ways. Perhaps the radio transmissions upon which his pre-mission briefings were based had gotten badly garbled by sunspots or something. It may well be that on his home planet sleeping with children is considered acceptable, even admirable. Or maybe they don’t care for it either, and that’s why they sent him here.

As you may recall, we had a similar situation a few years back with E.T. the Extraterrestrial, who also slept in the bed with earth children. Or maybe under the bed, I can’t quite remember. The point is that he was never even brought to trial, much less convicted. So please just leave Michael alone—don’t you think he’s suffered enough? And even if you don’t think he’s suffered enough, I can assure you that I have suffered more than enough for both of us as a result of this incessant Jacksonian prattle, and that I deserve a break today, or if not today, at least by early next week.

Now is the time that we must come together to heal America’s wounds, and I can think of no better way to do that than for us to turn our nation’s collective gaze away from Michael’s misadventures and focus it once again on Janet’s breasts, which in my opinion have received shockingly little coverage. Sure, there was a brief, titillating flurry of interest in her right breast, but what about the other one? I’m sure it’s nice too. Why have we heard nothing in the press—and seen less—of Janet Jackson’s left breast? Could it be a partisan cover-up? Think about it. Not now--later, when you’re alone.