Mark Lester Considers Himself Part Of The Family

via news.bbc.co.uk

So, Mark Lester the ex child star of Lionel Bart's 1968 movie Oliver claims to be the biological father of Michael Jackson's children.

In the prophetic words of the song Mark:

Considers himself at home.
Considers himself one of the family.
He's taken to them so strong.
It's clear they're going to get along.
Considers himself well in
Considers himself part of the furniture.
There isn't a lot to spare.
Who cares?..What ever we've goin we share!

In practical terms Mark raises the distinction between the biological and the psychological. Those of us with less gullible bones in our bodies (ask Mark to check them over) will know that Michael's daughter was grieving because of a strong emotional bond, and that Mark's rather timely claim stretches the belief that there is a reciprocal emotional connection based on a prior biological arrangement.

Now I'd never say Mark's on screen experiences were influencing his actions simply because:

In this life, one thing counts
In the bank, large amounts
I'm afraid these don't grow on trees,
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two

You've got to pick-a-pocket or two, boys,
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two.

Why should we break our backs
Stupidly paying tax?
Better get some untaxed income
Better to pick-a-pocket or two.

Clearly Mark doesn't want his intentions to be misunderstood and that:

A man's got a heart, hasn't he?
Joking apart -- hasn't he?
And tho' I'd be the first one to say that I wasn't a saint...

I'm finding it hard to be really as black as they paint...

So Mark...Where 'ere 'ere 'ere 'ere is love? Surely protecting the children from unnecessary limelight and mawkish intrusion into their father's past would be more appropriate.

Posted via web from Gullibimundi

What If Michael Jackson Had Lived To Do The Mars Walk!

via news.bbc.co.uk

Are we wasting time and money going back to the moon? The argument 'for' says that it will be the ideal springboard for exploring further. It is an argument based on the practicalities and technology of 'now'. It is the view-point of the technocratic manager not the inspirational leader.

Going for Mars is driven by more philosophical ambitions. To go to Mars is difficult, to go to Mars is demanding, to go to Mars stretches the capability of mankind.

Big Hairy Audacious Goals are what get people going places and doing things. I'm with the Apollo astronauts on this one. The very process of 'going for Mars' will produce far more than the mere technical and commercial benefits. The Mars ambition is aspirational, it is inspiring, it is exciting.

Getting there requires collaboration. Getting above petty differences and the medieval mind-sets of the gangsters and terrorists that are so consumed with this place and this time. The people of the world need to see far into the future of possibility so that they can reject the idea that we are stuck on the Blue Marble to be forever at each others throats.

We need heroes. We need to go to Mars

Posted via web from Gullibimundi

Michael Jackson Super Nova

via news.bbc.co.uk

The passing of any super talent is like the explosion of a super nova. In a flash the brilliance is signaled to the world and in a flash it is gone.

Putting the usual experiences of the bereaved to one side, such as the loss of something that was thought to be enduring, the taken for granted access to the individual who is now unequivocally gone, the demise of Michael Jackson brings home once more just how reliant the human race is on a very few individuals to change world views, be the source of original thinking to lead the way forward. The ratio of these significant individuals to the people of the world is microscopic, these are people we rely on to take our world forward and their number and frequency is very very small.

The media will lapse into pseudo intellectual deconstruction of every twist and turn of his life, people and fans will share their views. This however is the passive, uncreative approach to life used by people who rely on the creative leadership of others rather than taking responsibility for generating original ideas themselves. They feast on the dead bodies of the talented for the raw material for their 'pop' philosophising and mawkish sense-making.

How best to celebrate the life of Michael Jackson? My suggestion would be to originate something that gives pleasure to others. It needn't be global in its reach. It would be in the image of the King of Pop

Posted via web from Reasonable's posterous