While I admit, this might not have been the wisest choice of parody for Gerry to choose, if he even gave it a thought before he made the motion, but such is the way of things. One thing this man has in common with Micheal Jackson was that he too, is a perpetual peter pan. Even Michael Jackson found the move amusing, toying with the razzi when he held his son out the balcony window in jest, and look at the backlash that poor man received. Did it mean he didn't love his son to the depths and breadths of his soul? Of course not, but the razzi jumped on it and became the piranha that they are and crucified the man for his actions.
Gerry is human and therefore is fallible. His sense of humor is bawdy, he is the perpetual bad boy. Does this make him errant, straying from the proper standards of what many people consider to be good form? Perhaps so, but it also makes him a very real person, vulnerable to the fact that because of his fame that anyone will take advantage of a situation and put such a spin on it that it seems nefarious.
The man has been going non stop now on this press junket for months, at times traveling to three different locations in the same day. While it's exciting, it's also very taxing on the body and when fatigue sets in, the mind has a tendency to wander. It is no secret that Gerry walks to the beat of his own drummer, not everybody is going to get his sense of humor, just as not everyone understood Micheal Jackson's idiosyncrasies. Both men live in a world that is very different from the one most of us live in, subject to ridicule and conjecture about the smallest of actions.
What's next? Will Greenpeace now come out and say that Gerry endangered a plant and must therefore be boycotted? Will someone take his comments from when he introduced LAC in Glasgow, calling Alan to his side and saying he was his lover make it into the headlines? Never mind that Alan saw the potential in Gerry and did all the amazing things he's done. Will that be twisted and taken out of context? Of course it will. It's tabloid fodder. It's what these people thrive on. Pinpointing and picking out the most inopportune moments and twisting them into what, to me, seems like making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Was the incident with Micheal's jest what exemplified the man? Did it define who he was at his core? Did it point out all the many other things that the man did for the good of society as a whole? In my opinion, No. Was it blown way out of proportion and made out to be an otherwise unmemorable moment to glorify the negative aspects of his personality? In my opinion, yes. The same applies here with Gerry. I'd like to see if any of the rest of us could deal so well with the constant intrusion into our everyday lives as well as this man usually does.
Keep being you Gerry, don't ever let them take that from you.