Michael Jackson Writes Song for Katrina Victims

[W-Side]

wow this is big news....how come no1 is interested in this....he should just make it a solo...fuck other artists



peace

Damn you're cynical. Belive it or not, there are some people who genuinely want to help others.

Because it's more publicity than charity. Same goes for all the other celebs that publicly donate. Charity is supposed to be private. And because it doesn't matter how much these celebs are donating. The real money is going to come from the government. Any celeb that donates and brags about it is just trying to create an kind image.

I have much more respect for the celebs actually there helping in person. It really helps the morale of the victims.

I also have a lot of respect for the people giving private donations. Something I'm sure there is a lot more of than we think. A lot of people got on Mel Gibson's case for making all that cash off of Jesus, but who knows how much he has donated to charity. If he is as much a Christian as he claims then you'd never know because "when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. (Matthew 6:3).

It doesnt say he is donating it says he is raising money through a charity song, so it will be the people who buy the cd that will be donating.

U can guarentee that Michael Jackson has given a lot more to charity and helped ill people a lot more than mel gibson or nearly any other celeb.

How do you know that? I know for a fact that Bill Gates has donated more money than MJ has ever made. My point about Mel isn't that he does donate, it's that if he did and he's the Christian he claims to be then you wouldn't know about it. Mel made over 200 million cash for Passion. Who knows how much if any he has donated.


Anyway, who cares. This is jut another way for Michael to try and get his clean image back. Kuwait is donating 500 mil, and the US is going to pour in billions. What the fuck is a few mil from MJ's song? I'll tell you. It's a nice way for MJ to look good.

Damn you're cynical. Belive it or not, there are some people who genuinely want to help others.

Then why do they have to be on TV and in the News when they do it? It's one thing to go down to New Orleans and give the victims some self esteem. It's another to say; "hey look at me, I'm donating money (that I'd usually just lose to taxes anyway)". They could do that in provate. If I'm a victim of Katrina all I need to know is that I'll be taken care of. I don't care if Spielberg or Diddy are the ones donating.

You don't make any sense. MJ didn't get on tv to tell everybody he's donating money (we don't even know whether he's donating any at all), he got on there to let people know a song is coming, it's the people's money that's gonna help, not his own so of course he HAS to tell everybody, the more people buy it the more money will be raised. The success of this kind of charity depends on publicity so saying it should not be made public is plain retarded.

[Shallow]

wow this is big news....how come no1 is interested in this....he should just make it a solo...fuck other artists



peace

Damn you're cynical. Belive it or not, there are some people who genuinely want to help others.

Because it's more publicity than charity. Same goes for all the other celebs that publicly donate. Charity is supposed to be private. And because it doesn't matter how much these celebs are donating. The real money is going to come from the government. Any celeb that donates and brags about it is just trying to create an kind image.

I have much more respect for the celebs actually there helping in person. It really helps the morale of the victims.

I also have a lot of respect for the people giving private donations. Something I'm sure there is a lot more of than we think. A lot of people got on Mel Gibson's case for making all that cash off of Jesus, but who knows how much he has donated to charity. If he is as much a Christian as he claims then you'd never know because "when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing. (Matthew 6:3).

It doesnt say he is donating it says he is raising money through a charity song, so it will be the people who buy the cd that will be donating.

U can guarentee that Michael Jackson has given a lot more to charity and helped ill people a lot more than mel gibson or nearly any other celeb.

How do you know that? I know for a fact that Bill Gates has donated more money than MJ has ever made. My point about Mel isn't that he does donate, it's that if he did and he's the Christian he claims to be then you wouldn't know about it. Mel made over 200 million cash for Passion. Who knows how much if any he has donated.


Anyway, who cares. This is jut another way for Michael to try and get his clean image back. Kuwait is donating 500 mil, and the US is going to pour in billions. What the fuck is a few mil from MJ's song? I'll tell you. It's a nice way for MJ to look good.

Damn you're cynical. Belive it or not, there are some people who genuinely want to help others.

Then why do they have to be on TV and in the News when they do it? It's one thing to go down to New Orleans and give the victims some self esteem. It's another to say; "hey look at me, I'm donating money (that I'd usually just lose to taxes anyway)". They could do that in provate. If I'm a victim of Katrina all I need to know is that I'll be taken care of. I don't care if Spielberg or Diddy are the ones donating.

You don't make any sense. MJ didn't get on tv to tell everybody he's donating money (we don't even know whether he's donating any at all), he got on there to let people know a song is coming, it's the people's money that's gonna help, not his own so of course he HAS to tell everybody, the more people buy it the more money will be raised. The success of this kind of charity depends on publicity so saying it should not be made public is plain retarded.

1) I was referring to public donations in general.

2) The song isn't going to help shit as much as it's going to try and help MJ. Tens of billions of dollars are going into New Orleans and the victims. The few million that come from the song won't help all that much. I question the integrity and sincerity of artists that do these kind of songs. I just don't buy it. I think Mike and anyone else who pulls shit like this are thinking of themselves before any victim. It's like giving a homeless guy who just won 50,000 dollars and 20 dollar bill and saying hey look at me I'm helping out. There are plenty of places in the world that need Mike's exposure more than Katrina. New Orleans is being taken care of with out Mike. Why doesn't Mike write a song about all the kids in Milan that are part of the child prostitution rings (aside from the obvious joke that he is a main customer)? Nations aren't putting billions together to help those kids. They could really benefit from exposure and money. How about women who live in certain parts of India and the Middle East who are killed by their own families for the stupidest things, like being seen with a man in public? They need more money and exposure than New Orleans. You want to know why Mike isn't sheddig light on those issues and publicly trying to help? It's because he looks bad in the American market and he's trying to clean up his image so he can sell records.

[W-Side]

1) I was referring to public donations in general.

2) The song isn't going to help shit as much as it's going to try and help MJ. Tens of billions of dollars are going into New Orleans and the victims. The few million that come from the song won't help all that much. I question the integrity and sincerity of artists that do these kind of songs. I just don't buy it. I think Mike and anyone else who pulls shit like this are thinking of themselves before any victim. It's like giving a homeless guy who just won 50,000 dollars and 20 dollar bill and saying hey look at me I'm helping out. There are plenty of places in the world that need Mike's exposure more than Katrina. New Orleans is being taken care of with out Mike. Why doesn't Mike write a song about all the kids in Milan that are part of the child prostitution rings (aside from the obvious joke that he is a main customer)? Nations aren't putting billions together to help those kids. They could really benefit from exposure and money. How about women who live in certain parts of India and the Middle East who are killed by their own families for the stupidest things, like being seen with a man in public? They need more money and exposure than New Orleans. You want to know why Mike isn't sheddig light on those issues and publicly trying to help? It's because he looks bad in the American market and he's trying to clean up his image so he can sell records.

You serious with this "this ain't gon help all that much anyway" shit ? a few millions can save loads of people's existances, would you wanna tell these 'few' people "sorry but I told michael to fuck off cause compared to the billions that come from our and other governments, these millions that woulda helped only such a comparatively low number of peeps ain't shit" ?

Of course there are people who need help more urgently than the people in new orleans but just like all the other people who donate here without having their personal benefit in mind (image) mj sees a catastrophy happen in his country and he wants to help them, that's only natural. No people from the us would ever get any help at all if we all always thought about who in the whole world needs our support the most. No person in this whole world has such a way of thinkin, if they did every move they made to help people would be a "waste of time" unless it's for the benefit of the absolutely poorest peiople in the absolutely poorest country. Fuck prostitution, there's loads of humans who will die this very minute cause they got nothin to eat. I guess that would make anybody who ever helped anybody other than the poorest of the poorest a selfish prick who's only doin it so he looks/feels better ?

On a side note, Michael did try to shed light on other places before in They Don't Care About Us.

[Shallow]

1) I was referring to public donations in general.

2) The song isn't going to help shit as much as it's going to try and help MJ. Tens of billions of dollars are going into New Orleans and the victims. The few million that come from the song won't help all that much. I question the integrity and sincerity of artists that do these kind of songs. I just don't buy it. I think Mike and anyone else who pulls shit like this are thinking of themselves before any victim. It's like giving a homeless guy who just won 50,000 dollars and 20 dollar bill and saying hey look at me I'm helping out. There are plenty of places in the world that need Mike's exposure more than Katrina. New Orleans is being taken care of with out Mike. Why doesn't Mike write a song about all the kids in Milan that are part of the child prostitution rings (aside from the obvious joke that he is a main customer)? Nations aren't putting billions together to help those kids. They could really benefit from exposure and money. How about women who live in certain parts of India and the Middle East who are killed by their own families for the stupidest things, like being seen with a man in public? They need more money and exposure than New Orleans. You want to know why Mike isn't sheddig light on those issues and publicly trying to help? It's because he looks bad in the American market and he's trying to clean up his image so he can sell records.

You serious with this "this ain't gon help all that much anyway" shit ? a few millions can save loads of people's existances, would you wanna tell these 'few' people "sorry but I told michael to fuck off cause compared to the billions that come from our and other governments, these millions that woulda helped only such a comparatively low number of peeps ain't shit" ?

Of course there are people who need help more urgently than the people in new orleans but just like all the other people who donate here without having their personal benefit in mind (image) mj sees a catastrophy happen in his country and he wants to help them, that's only natural. No people from the us would ever get any help at all if we all always thought about who in the whole world needs our support the most. No person in this whole world has such a way of thinkin, if they did every move they made to help people would be a "waste of time" unless it's for the benefit of the absolutely poorest peiople in the absolutely poorest country. Fuck prostitution, there's loads of humans who will die this very minute cause they got nothin to eat. I guess that would make anybody who ever helped anybody other than the poorest of the poorest a selfish prick who's only doin it so he looks/feels better ?

On a side note, Michael did try to shed light on other places before in They Don't Care About Us.

Michael could just as easily take a few mil out of his pocket and donate it privately. Most of the people that buy the song would just as easily donate to Red Cross, but if they buy the song they would see that as their main donation and probably not give as much elsewhere (as much meaning a couple dollars). It's real simple; you think MJ isn't doing this for his career and I think he is. There is no point trying to convince the other.


They Don't Really Care About US was not sheding the light. It was just a song with a video. He didn't try and make a campaign like he implied he will do with this next song.

I also see it pointless take care of itself when there are people in other countries that don't have that money.

[ABN]

1) I was referring to public donations in general.

2) The song isn't going to help shit as much as it's going to try and help MJ. Tens of billions of dollars are going into New Orleans and the victims. The few million that come from the song won't help all that much. I question the integrity and sincerity of artists that do these kind of songs. I just don't buy it. I think Mike and anyone else who pulls shit like this are thinking of themselves before any victim. It's like giving a homeless guy who just won 50,000 dollars and 20 dollar bill and saying hey look at me I'm helping out. There are plenty of places in the world that need Mike's exposure more than Katrina. New Orleans is being taken care of with out Mike. Why doesn't Mike write a song about all the kids in Milan that are part of the child prostitution rings (aside from the obvious joke that he is a main customer)? Nations aren't putting billions together to help those kids. They could really benefit from exposure and money. How about women who live in certain parts of India and the Middle East who are killed by their own families for the stupidest things, like being seen with a man in public? They need more money and exposure than New Orleans. You want to know why Mike isn't sheddig light on those issues and publicly trying to help? It's because he looks bad in the American market and he's trying to clean up his image so he can sell records.

You serious with this "this ain't gon help all that much anyway" shit ? a few millions can save loads of people's existances, would you wanna tell these 'few' people "sorry but I told michael to fuck off cause compared to the billions that come from our and other governments, these millions that woulda helped only such a comparatively low number of peeps ain't shit" ?

Of course there are people who need help more urgently than the people in new orleans but just like all the other people who donate here without having their personal benefit in mind (image) mj sees a catastrophy happen in his country and he wants to help them, that's only natural. No people from the us would ever get any help at all if we all always thought about who in the whole world needs our support the most. No person in this whole world has such a way of thinkin, if they did every move they made to help people would be a "waste of time" unless it's for the benefit of the absolutely poorest peiople in the absolutely poorest country. Fuck prostitution, there's loads of humans who will die this very minute cause they got nothin to eat. I guess that would make anybody who ever helped anybody other than the poorest of the poorest a selfish prick who's only doin it so he looks/feels better ?

On a side note, Michael did try to shed light on other places before in They Don't Care About Us.

Michael could just as easily take a few mil out of his pocket and donate it privately.

first you said that Mel Gbson might´ve donated a lot of money privately well how tha fuck do you know that Michael hasn´t? you know them personally? if not you really shouldn´t say who´s giving money and who isn´t. and you just saidthat a few millions won´t make a real difference but now you´re sayin he should donate a few of his millions privately.

[W-Side]

1) I was referring to public donations in general.

2) The song isn't going to help shit as much as it's going to try and help MJ. Tens of billions of dollars are going into New Orleans and the victims. The few million that come from the song won't help all that much. I question the integrity and sincerity of artists that do these kind of songs. I just don't buy it. I think Mike and anyone else who pulls shit like this are thinking of themselves before any victim. It's like giving a homeless guy who just won 50,000 dollars and 20 dollar bill and saying hey look at me I'm helping out. There are plenty of places in the world that need Mike's exposure more than Katrina. New Orleans is being taken care of with out Mike. Why doesn't Mike write a song about all the kids in Milan that are part of the child prostitution rings (aside from the obvious joke that he is a main customer)? Nations aren't putting billions together to help those kids. They could really benefit from exposure and money. How about women who live in certain parts of India and the Middle East who are killed by their own families for the stupidest things, like being seen with a man in public? They need more money and exposure than New Orleans. You want to know why Mike isn't sheddig light on those issues and publicly trying to help? It's because he looks bad in the American market and he's trying to clean up his image so he can sell records.

You serious with this "this ain't gon help all that much anyway" shit ? a few millions can save loads of people's existances, would you wanna tell these 'few' people "sorry but I told michael to fuck off cause compared to the billions that come from our and other governments, these millions that woulda helped only such a comparatively low number of peeps ain't shit" ?

Of course there are people who need help more urgently than the people in new orleans but just like all the other people who donate here without having their personal benefit in mind (image) mj sees a catastrophy happen in his country and he wants to help them, that's only natural. No people from the us would ever get any help at all if we all always thought about who in the whole world needs our support the most. No person in this whole world has such a way of thinkin, if they did every move they made to help people would be a "waste of time" unless it's for the benefit of the absolutely poorest peiople in the absolutely poorest country. Fuck prostitution, there's loads of humans who will die this very minute cause they got nothin to eat. I guess that would make anybody who ever helped anybody other than the poorest of the poorest a selfish prick who's only doin it so he looks/feels better ?

On a side note, Michael did try to shed light on other places before in They Don't Care About Us.

Michael could just as easily take a few mil out of his pocket and donate it privately. Most of the people that buy the song would just as easily donate to Red Cross, but if they buy the song they would see that as their main donation and probably not give as much elsewhere (as much meaning a couple dollars). It's real simple; you think MJ isn't doing this for his career and I think he is. There is no point trying to convince the other.


They Don't Really Care About US was not sheding the light. It was just a song with a video. He didn't try and make a campaign like he implied he will do with this next song.

I also see it pointless take care of itself when there are people in other countries that don't have that money.

he probably did take something out of his own pocket and this is adding to it. Not all of the people who buy his song would've donated anyway, me for example I won't donate shit but I might buy his song since it won't be on any album of his and I'd like to have it for my mj collection. 8 million peeps (maybe more by now) bought his last album, if all of em buy this song that's already a good number.

they don't care about us was a very successfull song with a video in one of the worst places of brazil. That alone sheds some light on the circumstances the people are livin in and the name/chorus and lyrics "the government don't wanna see it" ect. were a pretty clear message. The officials of the city even tried to prevent the video shoot from happening cause they didn't want that part of the town to be shown (they thought it might be bad for tourism) and michael had to pay off the mob n shit.

It's real simple; you think MJ isn't doing this for his career and I think he is. There is no point trying to convince the other.

You brought up the point people should do that charity stuff privately which was pointless in this context for the reason I mentioned, that's why I adressed your post. You're right none will convince the other anyway but you act like it's a clear thing which it isn't, there is nothing that would indicate michael is doin this just for his image, the publicity is necessary to raise the money.

[Shallow]

1) I was referring to public donations in general.

2) The song isn't going to help shit as much as it's going to try and help MJ. Tens of billions of dollars are going into New Orleans and the victims. The few million that come from the song won't help all that much. I question the integrity and sincerity of artists that do these kind of songs. I just don't buy it. I think Mike and anyone else who pulls shit like this are thinking of themselves before any victim. It's like giving a homeless guy who just won 50,000 dollars and 20 dollar bill and saying hey look at me I'm helping out. There are plenty of places in the world that need Mike's exposure more than Katrina. New Orleans is being taken care of with out Mike. Why doesn't Mike write a song about all the kids in Milan that are part of the child prostitution rings (aside from the obvious joke that he is a main customer)? Nations aren't putting billions together to help those kids. They could really benefit from exposure and money. How about women who live in certain parts of India and the Middle East who are killed by their own families for the stupidest things, like being seen with a man in public? They need more money and exposure than New Orleans. You want to know why Mike isn't sheddig light on those issues and publicly trying to help? It's because he looks bad in the American market and he's trying to clean up his image so he can sell records.

You serious with this "this ain't gon help all that much anyway" shit ? a few millions can save loads of people's existances, would you wanna tell these 'few' people "sorry but I told michael to fuck off cause compared to the billions that come from our and other governments, these millions that woulda helped only such a comparatively low number of peeps ain't shit" ?

Of course there are people who need help more urgently than the people in new orleans but just like all the other people who donate here without having their personal benefit in mind (image) mj sees a catastrophy happen in his country and he wants to help them, that's only natural. No people from the us would ever get any help at all if we all always thought about who in the whole world needs our support the most. No person in this whole world has such a way of thinkin, if they did every move they made to help people would be a "waste of time" unless it's for the benefit of the absolutely poorest peiople in the absolutely poorest country. Fuck prostitution, there's loads of humans who will die this very minute cause they got nothin to eat. I guess that would make anybody who ever helped anybody other than the poorest of the poorest a selfish prick who's only doin it so he looks/feels better ?

On a side note, Michael did try to shed light on other places before in They Don't Care About Us.

Michael could just as easily take a few mil out of his pocket and donate it privately.

first you said that Mel Gbson might´ve donated a lot of money privately well how tha fuck do you know that Michael hasn´t? you know them personally? if not you really shouldn´t say who´s giving money and who isn´t. and you just saidthat a few millions won´t make a real difference but now you´re sayin he should donate a few of his millions privately.

I don't know what MJ does privately and I never pretended to know what Mel does. For all I knowMJ does do that, but I fail to see the logic in doing so much publicly and then doing the same thing privately. That doesn't mean I know anything for sure, and I never pretended to.

[Shallow]

1) I was referring to public donations in general.

2) The song isn't going to help shit as much as it's going to try and help MJ. Tens of billions of dollars are going into New Orleans and the victims. The few million that come from the song won't help all that much. I question the integrity and sincerity of artists that do these kind of songs. I just don't buy it. I think Mike and anyone else who pulls shit like this are thinking of themselves before any victim. It's like giving a homeless guy who just won 50,000 dollars and 20 dollar bill and saying hey look at me I'm helping out. There are plenty of places in the world that need Mike's exposure more than Katrina. New Orleans is being taken care of with out Mike. Why doesn't Mike write a song about all the kids in Milan that are part of the child prostitution rings (aside from the obvious joke that he is a main customer)? Nations aren't putting billions together to help those kids. They could really benefit from exposure and money. How about women who live in certain parts of India and the Middle East who are killed by their own families for the stupidest things, like being seen with a man in public? They need more money and exposure than New Orleans. You want to know why Mike isn't sheddig light on those issues and publicly trying to help? It's because he looks bad in the American market and he's trying to clean up his image so he can sell records.

You serious with this "this ain't gon help all that much anyway" shit ? a few millions can save loads of people's existances, would you wanna tell these 'few' people "sorry but I told michael to fuck off cause compared to the billions that come from our and other governments, these millions that woulda helped only such a comparatively low number of peeps ain't shit" ?

Of course there are people who need help more urgently than the people in new orleans but just like all the other people who donate here without having their personal benefit in mind (image) mj sees a catastrophy happen in his country and he wants to help them, that's only natural. No people from the us would ever get any help at all if we all always thought about who in the whole world needs our support the most. No person in this whole world has such a way of thinkin, if they did every move they made to help people would be a "waste of time" unless it's for the benefit of the absolutely poorest peiople in the absolutely poorest country. Fuck prostitution, there's loads of humans who will die this very minute cause they got nothin to eat. I guess that would make anybody who ever helped anybody other than the poorest of the poorest a selfish prick who's only doin it so he looks/feels better ?

On a side note, Michael did try to shed light on other places before in They Don't Care About Us.

Michael could just as easily take a few mil out of his pocket and donate it privately. Most of the people that buy the song would just as easily donate to Red Cross, but if they buy the song they would see that as their main donation and probably not give as much elsewhere (as much meaning a couple dollars). It's real simple; you think MJ isn't doing this for his career and I think he is. There is no point trying to convince the other.


They Don't Really Care About US was not sheding the light. It was just a song with a video. He didn't try and make a campaign like he implied he will do with this next song.

I also see it pointless take care of itself when there are people in other countries that don't have that money.

he probably did take something out of his own pocket and this is adding to it. Not all of the people who buy his song would've donated anyway, me for example I won't donate shit but I might buy his song since it won't be on any album of his and I'd like to have it for my mj collection. 8 million peeps (maybe more by now) bought his last album, if all of em buy this song that's already a good number.

they don't care about us was a very successfull song with a video in one of the worst places of brazil. That alone sheds some light on the circumstances the people are livin in and the name/chorus and lyrics "the government don't wanna see it" ect. were a pretty clear message. The officials of the city even tried to prevent the video shoot from happening cause they didn't want that part of the town to be shown (they thought it might be bad for tourism) and michael had to pay off the mob n shit.

It's real simple; you think MJ isn't doing this for his career and I think he is. There is no point trying to convince the other.

You brought up the point people should do that charity stuff privately which was pointless in this context for the reason I mentioned, that's why I adressed your post. You're right none will convince the other anyway but you act like it's a clear thing which it isn't, there is nothing that would indicate michael is doin this just for his image, the publicity is necessary to raise the money.

Invincible is already up to 8 million? I know in the states it's only at 2. Anyway that's not the point. The only reason I feel celebrities should ever go public with charity is when they want to raise awareness. Everyone knows what happened in New Orleans. Charity in my opinion should always be private. That's all I'm saying. It's one thing when it's an issue not many know about and you wantto get people knowing and another to jump on something everyone knows about. I feel that is just milking it for self image. But that's just how I feel. You are free to feel any way you like.

I never meant to imply I know what is going on for sure or what is going on in any of these celebrities' minds. I just see it a certain way. Mike could just as easily write a song that has nothing to do with the hurricane and secretly donate that money.

[Trauma-san]

Several thoughts...


1.  All charity is selfish, if you look for it that way.  Selfishness is such a grey issue you can call anything selfish.  When I saw Jennifer Aniston on t.v. the other night begging people to donate, she was doing a really nice, charitable thing.  She was donating her time, her attention, her star power, her face, her voice, her history, her public image to try and get people to donate money, simply because she personally was asking them. 

On the other hand, she was also being selfish.  She did it because it made her feel good, it made her feel like she was doing something, it made her feel like she was helping and that she was worthful to these people.  That's selfish, isn't it?

In my opinion, a mature mind can see the difference between taking advantage of people and exploiting people.... and taking advantage of a good opportunity.

Now; when I saw Jennifer Aniston on t.v., it rose her stock in my book a little bit, I dunno maybe because I'm soft at heart... but I like seeing people who don't need to help, try to help.  I'm sure she's donated money, and she also donated her time on t.v.  one reason she did that was to feel good about it... but I don't mind, I wanna feel good too.  Only a child would think that charity should be without any benefit.  If you believed that, you'd donate everything you owned to charity and starve to death in the streets.  You don't because you don't want charity to be painful, you want it to be good for them and for you.  Everybody believes that, that's the spirit of charity, not suffering and gaining no benefit from it.

So, ultimately, a mature mind sees that yeah, maybe Michael's image will be helped out by making a charity song.  What difference does that make, though, if he helps the people by raising money for them?  IT DOESN'T!  He's not hurting those people or exploiting them... he's helping them, and in the process, he's feeling good about it, he's feeling worthful, he's improving him image... it's a win win situation.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

If Michael were to go down there, shake a kids hand for a picture, then as soon as the cameras are off he's rude and takes the money back... that'd be one thing.

He won't do that, though, because that's not the type of person he is.  Good people, and great people aren't defined by how they look when everyting is successful, they're defined by how they rise to the occasion when they have the opportunity to rise to the occasion from or in bad circumstances.  Jesus came because of the corruption in the world, Gandhi spoke and became a legend by resisting against the class system and speaking out against it, Mother Theresa was made a saint because she helped people when they had nothing, not because she was the head of some huge group of healthy, wealthy people... she was in charge of poor, starving sick people.  Jennifer Aniston and Michael Jackson aren't mother Theresa by a long, long shot, but it's the same principle.  Right now is exactly the time I would expect Michael Jackson to attempt to repair his image.  I don't expect you to understand a thing I just said.


2. Anybody that knows 1 thing about Michael Jackson knows he's dedicated his entire life to helping people.  His almost going to jail for 20 years last summer is ultimately the result of HELPING a boy he was told had cancer.  He acted like a weirdo, but the only reason he was in contact with the boy was everyone (including the boy's family) knew Michael has a huge heart, and that he would help this kid.  So the connections were made, etc.

In a sense, Michael's image was destroyed partially by his charity.  To me, it would be poetic justice if his image was partially restored by his charity. 

[Shallow]

Several thoughts...


1.  All charity is selfish, if you look for it that way.  Selfishness is such a grey issue you can call anything selfish.  When I saw Jennifer Aniston on t.v. the other night begging people to donate, she was doing a really nice, charitable thing.  She was donating her time, her attention, her star power, her face, her voice, her history, her public image to try and get people to donate money, simply because she personally was asking them. 

On the other hand, she was also being selfish.  She did it because it made her feel good, it made her feel like she was doing something, it made her feel like she was helping and that she was worthful to these people.  That's selfish, isn't it?

In my opinion, a mature mind can see the difference between taking advantage of people and exploiting people.... and taking advantage of a good opportunity.

Now; when I saw Jennifer Aniston on t.v., it rose her stock in my book a little bit, I dunno maybe because I'm soft at heart... but I like seeing people who don't need to help, try to help.  I'm sure she's donated money, and she also donated her time on t.v.  one reason she did that was to feel good about it... but I don't mind, I wanna feel good too.  Only a child would think that charity should be without any benefit.  If you believed that, you'd donate everything you owned to charity and starve to death in the streets.  You don't because you don't want charity to be painful, you want it to be good for them and for you.  Everybody believes that, that's the spirit of charity, not suffering and gaining no benefit from it.

So, ultimately, a mature mind sees that yeah, maybe Michael's image will be helped out by making a charity song.  What difference does that make, though, if he helps the people by raising money for them?  IT DOESN'T!  He's not hurting those people or exploiting them... he's helping them, and in the process, he's feeling good about it, he's feeling worthful, he's improving him image... it's a win win situation.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

If Michael were to go down there, shake a kids hand for a picture, then as soon as the cameras are off he's rude and takes the money back... that'd be one thing.

He won't do that, though, because that's not the type of person he is.  Good people, and great people aren't defined by how they look when everyting is successful, they're defined by how they rise to the occasion when they have the opportunity to rise to the occasion from or in bad circumstances.  Jesus came because of the corruption in the world, Gandhi spoke and became a legend by resisting against the class system and speaking out against it, Mother Theresa was made a saint because she helped people when they had nothing, not because she was the head of some huge group of healthy, wealthy people... she was in charge of poor, starving sick people.  Jennifer Aniston and Michael Jackson aren't mother Theresa by a long, long shot, but it's the same principle.  Right now is exactly the time I would expect Michael Jackson to attempt to repair his image.  I don't expect you to understand a thing I just said.


2. Anybody that knows 1 thing about Michael Jackson knows he's dedicated his entire life to helping people.  His almost going to jail for 20 years last summer is ultimately the result of HELPING a boy he was told had cancer.  He acted like a weirdo, but the only reason he was in contact with the boy was everyone (including the boy's family) knew Michael has a huge heart, and that he would help this kid.  So the connections were made, etc.

In a sense, Michael's image was destroyed partially by his charity.  To me, it would be poetic justice if his image was partially restored by his charity. 

I didn't know you knew Mike personally.


No one said charity has to be selfless (at least I didn't), but I strongly feel that charity when done in public is no different than advertising. If I ran a major corporation and I wanted to do a massive ad campaign on one of my products I would call and ad company and hire them to do it. Right there I have put significant money in other people's pockets. They hire people to build things for the campaign and work for it in general. Now there's a lot more people who get money. Now if the ad works and the product picks up then I may have to hire a lot more workers giving away more money. All the whie I'm making money back. Now that isn't considered charity by anyone but a lot of people end up putting food on the table for their families. That's how I see public donations from people that stand to gain from it. Like I said; MJ could easily write a song and release it and privately donate the money. No one will ever convince he isn't thinking of his career when he is doing this. Does he care at all about the victims? I'm not saying he doesn't, but to me and my good friend Jesus, charity should be done in secret to avoid self promtion.

[BJV]

MJ shouldve died in 1988 and became a legend but instead he chose to stay alive and fail with every step he takes ruining his legend.

[KURUPTION-81]

Several thoughts...


1.  All charity is selfish, if you look for it that way.  Selfishness is such a grey issue you can call anything selfish.  When I saw Jennifer Aniston on t.v. the other night begging people to donate, she was doing a really nice, charitable thing.  She was donating her time, her attention, her star power, her face, her voice, her history, her public image to try and get people to donate money, simply because she personally was asking them. 

On the other hand, she was also being selfish.  She did it because it made her feel good, it made her feel like she was doing something, it made her feel like she was helping and that she was worthful to these people.  That's selfish, isn't it?

In my opinion, a mature mind can see the difference between taking advantage of people and exploiting people.... and taking advantage of a good opportunity.

Now; when I saw Jennifer Aniston on t.v., it rose her stock in my book a little bit, I dunno maybe because I'm soft at heart... but I like seeing people who don't need to help, try to help.  I'm sure she's donated money, and she also donated her time on t.v.  one reason she did that was to feel good about it... but I don't mind, I wanna feel good too.  Only a child would think that charity should be without any benefit.  If you believed that, you'd donate everything you owned to charity and starve to death in the streets.  You don't because you don't want charity to be painful, you want it to be good for them and for you.  Everybody believes that, that's the spirit of charity, not suffering and gaining no benefit from it.

So, ultimately, a mature mind sees that yeah, maybe Michael's image will be helped out by making a charity song.  What difference does that make, though, if he helps the people by raising money for them?  IT DOESN'T!  He's not hurting those people or exploiting them... he's helping them, and in the process, he's feeling good about it, he's feeling worthful, he's improving him image... it's a win win situation.  I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.

If Michael were to go down there, shake a kids hand for a picture, then as soon as the cameras are off he's rude and takes the money back... that'd be one thing.

He won't do that, though, because that's not the type of person he is.  Good people, and great people aren't defined by how they look when everyting is successful, they're defined by how they rise to the occasion when they have the opportunity to rise to the occasion from or in bad circumstances.  Jesus came because of the corruption in the world, Gandhi spoke and became a legend by resisting against the class system and speaking out against it, Mother Theresa was made a saint because she helped people when they had nothing, not because she was the head of some huge group of healthy, wealthy people... she was in charge of poor, starving sick people.  Jennifer Aniston and Michael Jackson aren't mother Theresa by a long, long shot, but it's the same principle.  Right now is exactly the time I would expect Michael Jackson to attempt to repair his image.  I don't expect you to understand a thing I just said.


2. Anybody that knows 1 thing about Michael Jackson knows he's dedicated his entire life to helping people.  His almost going to jail for 20 years last summer is ultimately the result of HELPING a boy he was told had cancer.  He acted like a weirdo, but the only reason he was in contact with the boy was everyone (including the boy's family) knew Michael has a huge heart, and that he would help this kid.  So the connections were made, etc.

In a sense, Michael's image was destroyed partially by his charity.  To me, it would be poetic justice if his image was partially restored by his charity. 

good post,props

[Shallow]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Some may accuse me of being to hard on Mike, but you guys think way to highly of him. Comparing him to Jesus? LOL.

[.:Hercy Buggz:.]

Michael Jackson's reeling in some big names for his hurricane-relief charity single, "From the Bottom of My Heart." So far, Jay-Z, Mariah Carey, Snoop Dogg, Missy Elliott, R. Kelly, Ciara, Lenny Kravitz, Mary J. Blige, James Brown, Lauryn Hill, Wyclef Jean and Babyface are among the artists who've signed on to sing on the track, according to Jackson's rep. All proceeds will be donated to victims of Hurricane Katrina. ...

[RECOGNIZE187]

i opened a topic first ,and nobody replyed ?  http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=88185.0


can't wait for the song