Innocent Until Proven Guilty
Written on December 13, 2003
By Cary Gossett
“Innocent until proven guilty” Isn’t that how it is supposed to be? Let me start by saying I’m not a fan
of Michael Jackson. I don’t like his music. I do think he is weird. I do think he has had a
tremendous amount of plastic surgery and now looks like something from outer space. I am not
here to defend him in any way. If he is guilty, let him burn in hell.
Everybody has heard of the Honor Amongst Thieves system our modern day prisons have.
Everybody has heard that even amongst rapists and murderers, child molesters face punishments
only fitting a child molester. And I don’t see any way in the world Michael Jackson can survive that,
all 120 lbs. of him. But the truth of the matter is, we don’t know anything. We know he’s been
accused by a family who had a relationship with him.
We know there are accusations. And the vibe I get on this is a throw back to the ugly times in
human history of people hating someone because they are different. Be it the Salem Witch trials, or
the ugly face of racism in our recent past, it appears we’ve learned nothing from the past.
Yes, Michael dresses funny, looks funny, dances funny, and is flamboyant and strange. But does
that make him guilty of such a horrendous crime? I’ve actually heard people say out loud, “Well
look at him, he must be guilty.” Or “he just looks like a child molester.” I’m sorry, but I don’t have
the first damn clue of what a child molester looks like. So many people in the country are so damn
hypocritical I can hardly stand it any longer. In the last two years, we’ve heard so much about
freedom, and liberty and justice. And the majority of the time, it is these people who are preaching
about freedom who are convicting Michael Jackson before we know anything. And they’re doing it
because he dresses funny, looks funny, dances funny and is flamboyant and strange.
Well, if we are truly free, aren’t we free to dress, look, and dance the way we want? Aren’t we free to
be flamboyant, and strange? What business is it of ours if he chooses to sleep in an oxygen
chamber, or if he owns the skeletal remains of the Elephant Man? If we are truly free, we are free to
sleep where we want and buy what we want, as long as it’s not illegal. Isn’t that liberty? Do we only
consider justice to be punishing the guilty? Or isn’t justice also exonerating the innocent?
Freedom, liberty, justice, the pursuit of happiness; aren’t these the staples of our society? And if
sleeping in an oxygen chamber makes us happy, aren’t we free to pursue it? Or should Michael be
guilty because his bed is different than ours.
Yes I do find it strange and completely inappropriate that he would have kids other than his own
sleep in his bed. But if he knew he had a thing for young boys, would he go on national television
and admit he’s had young boys sleep in a bed with him? Only someone with a clear conscience
would admit to that. Because that type of statement just breeds speculation. Saying something like
that is just asking to be investigated. And maybe it should. And maybe he is stupid and wanted to
get caught and be arrested and face time in prison. Maybe he sees it as a life challenge. Who
knows? Maybe he dislikes himself so much and feels so guilty that he did want to get caught.
Maybe he believes he should go to prison and face being on the lowest social level of the prison
system. Or maybe he’s naïve enough to believe that people have changed and no longer lynch
people because they dress funny, look funny, and dance funny. Or maybe he knows he did nothing
wrong, so he believes he has nothing to fear.
This may sound like I’m defending Michael Jackson, but the truth is I’m defending a philosophy. I’m
defending a philosophy that the founding fathers of this country believed in. I’m defending what is
the basic principle of our freedom. I’m defending being innocent until proven guilty. I have no idea if
he’s guilty or innocent. None of us do. I’ll remind you we know nothing of this family. We know
nothing about the relationship. We know nothing because we weren’t there. I do think he has
demonstrated poor judgment. After being accused in a sexual molestation case once before,
continuing to welcome kids into his bedroom is just plain and simple stupidity. He has to know he
is a target.
Bottom line, we have a system of innocent until proven guilty for a reason. We’re not going to know
anything until there is a trial. Until the facts come out in court. All this talk right now about him is
just speculation. And everything I keep hearing seems like a rush to judgment. This reminds me of
a movie. Do you remember the movie, Edward Scissorhands? Doesn’t Michael Jackson remind
you of him, just a little bit?
Transcript: State of the Union Address This is not very exciting reading, but I want to make you
think about achieving peace. In his inaugural address, the President spoke of spreading
democracy and freedom in the Middle East and the left went on the attack. Last night, the President
said "In the long term, the peace we seek will only be achieved by eliminating the conditions that
feed radicalism and ideologies of murder." I think it is safe to say those conditions include poverty
and oppression.
It's a known fact that poverty and oppression are leading causes in crime. Right here in a America
we see that very manifestation take place in our inner cities. Impoverished youth, who are told every
day they are oppressed by "the man," and are looking for acceptance fall into gangs and into crime.
For that sense of belonging they willingly disregard the basic laws of humanity. I think even the
radical left would agree with me on that point.
The Middle East is no different. Young Muslims, looking for a sense of belonging, often find
themselves following anyone who will lead. They will abandon common sense and find logic in
killing innocent people.
If you look at the extremists right here in our own country, they are motivated by a perception of
oppression. PETA thinks we oppress animals. Militant minority groups blame all their problems
on the oppression of their particular races. Homosexuals claim they are oppressed by the law.
Seems obvious to me that the perception of oppression causes people to go to extreme measures.
Looking at the big picture, what could possibly be the solution for this problem? What have we
been told for years and years will solve the problems of our inner cities? An end to poverty and the
end of oppression. The left has proclaimed this time and time again. President Bush proposes
solving the terrorism problems we face based on the same principles. By spreading freedom
because freedom is the cure to oppression.
President Bush said "the only force powerful enough to stop the rise of tyranny and terror, and
replace hatred with hope, is the force of human freedom." When the left opposes this, they will
show their true colors. They will show they don't truly want peace. What they truly want is power.
And for them to get power, they have to oppose the powers that be. Even if the powers that be are
right. What is amazing to me is they will actually oppose the solution they have preached for years.
I read an editorial recently in a Pennsylvania paper encouraging people to vote with their heart.
They were encouraging people to take a close look at the world around them and make the best
choice they can for president. They encouraged people to forget about party loyalty and go with what
they feel in their heart. In their editorial, they made the argument that the war on terror is not the only
issue facing this country. Needless to say, I do agree with that. There are hundreds of issues
facing this country. It seems you can’t open a newspaper without some group of individuals
complaining about what is happening to them. Minorities are being discriminated against. People
can’t afford healthcare. Jobs are being sent overseas. People can’t find work. Our children are not
being educated up to our standards. Our children are overweight because of fast food restaurants.
Our children are living in poverty. Our children will face terrible peril. Our children, our children, our
children…
Where in the Constitution does it say the President is responsible for our children? Where in the
Constitution does it say the President is responsible for our jobs? Where in the Constitution does it
say the President is responsible for the way people are treated? Where in the Constitution does it
say the President is responsible for our lot in life? I’ve read the Constitution and nowhere does it
specify that the President should have a say in what our children eat. The idea of a free society was
to limit the Governments role in our lives. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the
press are all based on limiting Governmental intrusion into our lives. So if the idea was to limit
government, why is everybody blaming government for their problems?
In 2003, I moved to Pennsylvania and couldn’t find a decent job for 2 months. Was that the fault of
the government? No, it was not the government’s fault. It was my own. I could have had gotten a
better education. I could have made myself more employable by obtaining more skills. I could have
waited longer to move. I could have not moved at all. I had the freedom of choice in every instance I
just described, and I made my choices. I realize I’m lucky to have found my job and there are many
that are not so lucky. But is it right to blame the government for bad luck? Is it right to base your
vote on something that at some point was completely up to you? You are free to live where you
want to live. If you can’t find a job where you are, then move. Don’t blame the President because
the factory you worked at closed down. Blame the people that let the factory become unproductive.
Blame the competing company that put yours out of business. Better yet, don’t blame anybody and
just accept the fact that life is hard and you need to keep moving. So many people in this country
feel this need to blame somebody for their misfortune. And in an election year, the non-incumbent
party always wants to blame the party in power. That’s how you win elections. However that is not
how you lead.
When I was in the Marine Corps, I learned a lot about leadership. The primary responsibility of
leadership is to accomplish the mission. The secondary responsibility is to take care of your
troops. Of course the mission must always come first. You have a job to do and it is up to you to
get it done. But then, you need your troops to accomplish your mission so taking care of them is
paramount. I believe when talking about Presidential leadership, the same two rules apply. The
first line of the Presidents Oath of office is the following: “I do solemnly swear that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” By that
oath, his primary mission is to defend this country. I believe that as important as all the other
issues in this election are very important, the primary issue has to be National Security. If you don’t
think I’m correct in this, ask the victims of 9/11 if Social Security is going to help them at all. I can
assure you, it is not. Granted, people rely on Social Security, and yes it is important. However, a
true leader has to prioritize. If those who would see us dead get their hands on a nuclear weapon,
the impact on this country would by far outweigh any impact the fall of Social Security would have.
Am I saying we should ignore the problems with Social Security? Absolutely not; Even though
nowhere in the Constitution does it mention a retirement plan, I do believe Social Security is a good
thing and should be preserved. But wouldn’t Social Security fall under the secondary responsibility,
taking care of the troops?
As a father, my primary mission is to raise my son. There are steps I have to take to accomplish
that mission. I have to provide a shelter, food, clothing, plus all the non-tangibles such as
emotional support, teaching him things. But wouldn’t my first step in raising him be to protect him
from those who would do him harm? Isn’t that the primary responsibility of a father? Providing
shelter and food are enormously important, but the best home in the world does him no good if I
would let someone do him harm. I believe this is an important lesson for all of us. I believe if we all
take a leadership roll in our own lives and take that leadership roll very seriously, the country would
be better off. It seems simple to me. We are all leaders in our own lives and we shouldn’t depend
so much on others to accomplish our mission. Yes we all need help from time to time. We need
teachers and police officers and firemen to help protect our children, but are we not the frontline of
defense for our kids? Isn’t it our responsibility to see to it that the right things are in place for our
kids?
By no means am I trying to portray the President of the United States as our father and by definition,
our protector. However, he does have the responsibility, according to the oath he takes, of doing
everything he can to protect us from those who would see us dead. If he takes an aggressive stand
to protect us from terrorists, then I will support him.
We’ve been on the defensive from terrorists since 1979 when 54 Americans were taken hostage in
Iran. And until 9/11 we just didn’t get that playing defense against terrorists simply doesn’t work.
We need to be on the offensive and take the fight to them. And as any good military leader knows, it
is always better to give than to receive. Meaning it’s better to take the fight to them rather than let the
fight come to us. I believe it is the Presidents responsibility to protect us the best way possible.
And I do believe this President is doing just that, by taking the fight to them. Yes it’s going to cost
lives. Yes it’s going to cost money. But isn’t our responsibility to lose those lives and spend that
money so our children don’t have to? Thomas Jefferson once said, “If there must be trouble let it be
in my day, that my child may have peace.” Doesn’t that define what being a father is? Doesn’t that
define leadership? Whining and complaining about your character being attacked by those who
don’t like you, threatening to sue them if they don’t stop picking on you are not characteristics of
leadership. Throwing your medals over a wall, then claiming those medals are why you should be
elected president are not characteristics of leadership. Taking the country to war because you
believe it is the right thing to do, risking your career to do what you believe in, and not wavering from
your decision when times get tough, those are characteristics of leadership. The deeds define the
man. The rest is just conversation.
