Forming a wave in the ocean of inconsistencies in the testimony against Michael Jackson is that part of the testimony wherein the accuser and his brother can not decide whether Jackson was erect on various occasions. You might say "Well, some men have volatile erections that ebb and flow," and that is true. However, the inconsistencies in the testimony include one brother saying that Jackson had his hand on the accuser's chest with no further activity at a given moment and the other saying that Jackson was dry-humping, to use the legal term, the accuser at the same moment. We think the brothers should be asked in separate rooms, without one knowing that the other is being asked the same question, whether Michael Jackson is circumsized. (By Scott Rose)