Comic Book Resources

Bravo! I'm also in the camp that is largely unmoved by Jacko's passing.

On the other hand, Farrah Fawcett spent the last few years of her life actively using her fame to try and increase awareness of the disease that eventually killed her. I think that’s a little more deserving of coverage than the narcissistic freakshow who blew millions of dollars constructing a pedophile’s honey trap.

Tacky.

Besides, I never understand praising people for bringing awareness to a disease that's killing them. How is that any less narcissistic?

How is that any less narcissistic?

The chances certainly are that Farrah Fawcett probably was as shallow and narcissistic as most of the Hollywood starlets are that rise to fame on a body and a hairdo. I'm not suggesting she was a saint. Nevertheless, when she found out she was dying she used her fame for something that could conceivably contribute to the common good.

Mostly my point is that when the Jackson hysteria reaches a saturation point where even the comics press are eulogizing him, it's a reach. Farrah's connection to comics is about as tenuous and she did more work I liked. Also, not a pedophile.

Now T. is the arbiter of tact and respectfulness?

On the other hand, Farrah Fawcett spent the last few years of her life actively using her fame to try and increase awareness of the disease that eventually killed her. I think that’s a little more deserving of coverage than the narcissistic freakshow who blew millions of dollars constructing a pedophile’s honey trap.

Brilliant.

Besides, I've never understood why pedophilia was considered "eccentric" behavior when Michael Jackson did it, but a perverse felonious sickness when perpetrated by the less wealthy.

Um, why do we have to make a competition out of Farrah and MJ? Can't it just be sad that two 70's/80's icons died?

When discussing Farrah Fawcett in connection with comics, let's not forget her Earth-C counterpart, Fara Foxette, who actually appeared in an issue or two of CCaHAZC. Also, Art Adams did a version of the famous pinup that appeared in one of the Captain Carrot lettercols.

Just realized (because you had to reach for Logan's Run) that there must never have been a Charlie's Angels comic. How stunning a realization is that? That is a very stunning realization. Bob Oskner could have kicked ass on that license.

Besides, I never understand praising people for bringing awareness to a disease that’s killing them. How is that any less narcissistic?

While I can't fault anyone who raises money/awareness to fight for a cause, you do have an excellent point that is oh-so-often overlooked by so many people -- most celebrities/famous figures who SUPPORT causes only support them AFTER the cause starts affecting them personally (Michael J. Fox, Christopher Reeve). Now, I'm not saying they are bad people, but the underlying message her is "Well, I didn't care much about this cause BEFORE it affected my life, but now that it does it has become important enough for me to care!" I'm glad they're giving money/attention to the cause, it is, as T. points out, self-serving.

I have much more respect for celebrities like Paul Newman or Gregory who gave support and money to charitable causes which don't actually affect them personally. Even Bono, who I can't stand, at least tries to do some good for Africa, which is about as far-the-heck-away from Ireland as you can get.

Oh, and I know the above wasn't exactly comic-book related, so here:

SUPERMAN BATMAN WOLVERINE SPIDER-MAN

Now I'm good.

I have much more respect for celebrities like Paul Newman or Gregory who gave support and money to charitable causes which don’t actually affect them personally. Even Bono, who I can’t stand, at least tries to do some good for Africa, which is about as far-the-heck-away from Ireland as you can get.

I agree totally.

Besides, I’ve never understood why pedophilia was considered “eccentric” behavior when Michael Jackson did it, but a perverse felonious sickness when perpetrated by the less wealthy.

Michael Jackson's alleged pedophilia was NEVER simply dismissed as "eccentric." He was raked over the coals for it and it ruined his career. The media crucified him for it, remember the 20/20 special and the backlash. Problem was, there was not enough proof and more than enough evidence of an attempt at entrapment by the second accuser. Lots of horrible character impeachment of the kids parents that made the claims very shaky.

Also, OJ Simpson never killed anybody.

Uhhh ... yeah.

Also, OJ Simpson never killed anybody.

Uhhh … yeah.

Not saying he didn't do anything improper. But the proof wasn't sufficient and the character of the accusing parents was HORRIBLY impeached during trial so the case was rightly dismissed. That doesn't mean that his pedophilia was dismissed as an "eccentricity" because he was famous. He was publicly crucified for it and his career suffered big-time. The dismissal came from a weak prosecutorial case.

"On the other hand, Farrah Fawcett spent the last few years of her life actively using her fame to try and increase awareness of the disease that eventually killed her. I think that’s a little more deserving of coverage than the narcissistic freakshow who blew millions of dollars constructing a pedophile’s honey trap."

Yeah, Michael Jackson was narcissistic, especially when you look at his career and see things like his participation in USA for Africa, millions of dollars personally donated to various charities (including donating the full settlement from his Pepsi lawsuit to a burn unit) and his Heal the World Foundation. sheesh, what a bum!

I've never been a fan of dragging anyone through the mud after they've died. Michael Jackson obviously had some very severe issues, and he may or may not have been a pedophile. If he was, that is a horrible thing and should not be celebrated or condoned (and I don't think anyone is really celebrating or condoning it right now, either).

Generally, though, I try to separate the artist from the art. And Michael Jackson was in fact a gifted pop artist who gave the world a lot of great music that is going to live on for a long time. Heck, even leaving out the amazing '80s solo career, his music with the Jackson Five alone is worth celebrating. And then there's songs like Thriller, Billie Jean, Man in the Mirror, which speak for themselves.

And truly, by throwing in a cheap shot at the recently deceased, you've done exactly the opposite of what your post set out to accomplish - draw attention to the accomplishments and sad passing of Farrah Fawcett. Like Brendan H. said above, it shouldn't be a contest anyway - we can remember both Farrah and Michael today. Oh, and Ed McMahon as well - was he ever in a comic?

Thank you, Neal K.

Also, http://thatsmyskull.blogspot.com/2006/02/comic-book-ad-joe-kubert-draws-ed.html

Good stuff Neal, s1rude.

Could we not get into a Byrnian debate about whose charitable actions are "better" than others'?

Moonwalker was a fun video game for the Genesis.

Between MJ, Farrah, and Ed McMahon, it's been a bad week in Hollywood. I'm a "Generation X-er" who grew up with all 3 and will miss all 3 equally...

Moonwalker was a fun video game for the Genesis.

Hell yeah!!

Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to say that Jackson's charitable activities where better than anyone else's. I was simply trying to show that he had done quite a bit of charitable work.

Moonwalker was a helluva game.

I'm 15 and I've never heard of Farrah Fawcett until her death, so I can't really contribute to her morals, but when I think of Michael Jackson, I think of all of the wonderful contributions he made to the world through his music and other art forms. He was the voice of a generation and even before death was prominent yesterday, as he will be for years to come. Plus who doesn't like "Billy Jean"??????

Michael didn't. She is not his lover. She is just a girl who says he is the one.

I heard her kid was not his son.

But it's not really Farrah: the likenesses of the actors obviously wasn't licensed to use in the comic; oherwise we wouldn't get these generic faces. Even this early in his career George Pérez is a better artist than that.

Equaler time:

According to a commentator on the Beat named Robert Boyd, Michael Jackson was not only into comics, but into GOOD comics - he bought a complete set of Russ Cochrane EC hardcovers.

On the other hand, he did try to buy Marvel comics. So nobody's taste is spot on 100% of the time.

I actually heard that they went on to have a pretty lengthy relationship.

...when I think of Michael Jackson, I think of all of the wonderful contributions he made to the world through his music and other art forms. He was the voice of a generation and even before death was prominent yesterday, as he will be for years to come. Plus who doesn’t like “Billy Jean”??????

I guess that's the difference. When *I* think of Michael Jackson, I think of a guy that walked away repeatedly from child molestation charges he probably should have done time for... walked away, basically, for no other reason than because he was rich.

Let me put it into perspective here. I make my living as a schoolteacher, i work with kids age 12-15. Every year -- every year, for the last fifteen years -- I have my name run by local and state police to insure that I have no outstanding warrants. I must attend a seminar every September to re-certify that I am familiar with the warning signs of child abuse, predatory "grooming" of potential victims, and molestation. I am not allowed to be alone in a room with a single student, there must always be a witness. I am forbidden to give a kid at school or on a field trip a ride home in my car, not even if the alternative is to leave the kid stranded.

I put up with all these frankly offensive precautions and their attendant insinuations because I understand the importance of protecting children, and the necessity of remaining above suspicion at ALL times.

Now let's take a look at yesterday's hysterics. All over cable news -- not E!, not TMZ, not Access Hollywood, but frigging CNN -- anchors who should know better are falling all over themselves to run clips of Jackson's career highlights, to mourn him as a 'genius,' an 'icon.' Sorry, but from where I sit, the guy was a talented singer with a serious entitlement complex who leveraged his fame into persuading starstruck parents to leave their kids with him unsupervised overnight --for purposes that (the preponderance of evidence suggest) were malignant and predatory.

And no one in this thread is denying this. They're just... I dunno, suggesting it shouldn't count?

I can't do that.

Okay, I understand separating the artist from the art. I do. You can't BE a comics fan without buying into that. The entire comics industry was built on deceit, swindles, broken promises, sweatshops and worse.

But you gotta draw the line somewhere. Mine's at the posthumous deification of child molesters.

I don't actually CARE that much about Farrah Fawcett. I'm suggesting that if the comics press are making connections to comics so tenuous that news sites have to resurrect Captain Eo to get a piece of the Michael Jackson eulogy action, we might as well go that far for every dead celeb that pops up in the news, especially since all of them are almost certainly by definition a step up in newsworthiness from a serial molester who paid out millions in hush money and settlements. (I wish I'd remembered Joe Kubert's Ed McMahon comic, I'd have run with that one.)

If we're weighing how much impact the various recent celebrity deaths had on me personally? I'd have to go with David Carradine, as recounted here. And since we're talking about cheap shots and dragging names through the mud, I'd add that my idea of a cheap shot is "David Carradine died doing what he loved!" This post was meant more in the spirit of setting the record straight, and suggesting we keep our eye on the bigger picture.

Moreover, as skanky and embarrassing as Carradine's passing turned out to be, he was hurting no one but himself. I doubt the same thing will be said of Michael Jackson, especially since the truth is sure to come out now that the golden goose is dead. Jackson's various enablers, stooges, and hangers-on will be trampling each other to cash in on tell-all books. Probably not one in that parade of parasites will have a good excuse for why they knew all that bad stuff and still kept silent.

Greg,

I agree entirely.

Except that you're disgracing the memory of Mssrs. Howard, Fine and Howard in that last paragraph.

And I can see your contact at the print shop following this string and sighing.

I guess that’s the difference. When *I* think of Michael Jackson, I think of a guy that walked away repeatedly from child molestation charges he probably should have done time for… walked away, basically, for no other reason than because he was rich.

Did you follow the details of his trial? The testimonies, the proof presented, the prosecutorial misconduct, etc? Because there was more reason he walked away than just being rich. It was a badly carried out prosecution.

On the other hand, he did try to buy Marvel comics. So nobody’s taste is spot on 100% of the time.

That purchase is more proof of his good taste!

Sorry, but from where I sit, the guy was a talented singer with a serious entitlement complex who leveraged his fame into persuading starstruck parents to leave their kids with him unsupervised overnight –for purposes that (the preponderance of evidence suggest) were malignant and predatory.

And no one in this thread is denying this. They’re just… I dunno, suggesting it shouldn’t count?

As someone who works with kids and is as sensitive to their abuse as you are, why not be a little more sympathetic to the fact that this was a man who was so abused and traumatized as a child his psyche fractured, he was frozen as a childlike state.

As a child under 10 years old, a little kid, his first gigs were in raunchy, Gary Indiana strip clubs, forced to singe emotionally and sexually suggestive songs with an adult level of wisdom. He wasn't singing PUppy Love or kids' songs, he was singing adult songs with adult themes with an adult swagger....in strip clubs. That's where his weird relationship to sex starts. He is almost never in regular school getting socialized around other kids, he is working day and night from 7 years old on a backbreaking grind under the thumb of an abusive father and never has a childhood. Fast forward a few years and he is a growing star and he and his brothers share a room whenever on the road. He has to hide under the sheets or pretend to be asleep as his brothers bang groupies almost every night. And he's only 10 years old. Meanwhile, his dad gets some sexual benefit too. For groupies desperate to see his sons, he acts as gatekeeper: they only get to see his sons if they will sexually service him first. Little Michael is forced to keep quiet about all of this when he goes home to his mother, and for a little boy whose morals, sexuality and psyche aren't fully formed yet, how can he not feel guilty lying to his mother. How can he not be confused about proper moral and sexual boundaries? How can his psyche not become fractured and damaged? And what happens when someone with such a screwed up sexual, psychological and emotional foundation becomes the most famous successful celebrity ever in the history of mankind? People who grew up NORMAL and got much LESS famous and rich get totally warped and screwed up by fame, so imagine someone who would have been WAY more screwed up o begin with becomes way more famous? Let's not even throw in the physical beatings, psychological terrorism of his dad and the fervent Jehovah's witness religion foisted upon him by his mother. If you value kids and abuse as much as you say, realize that this is an abuse child who grew up untreated. Everyone who was adult and supposedly responsible totally ignored any and all warning signs because of the benefit he provided them, from his parents, his business managers, his record labels, and every other adult who stood to gain from this child. Since every adult used or betrayed him, is it any wonder he sought out the company of kids, rightly or wrongly?

And those parents who brought their kids over to sleep at his house are users too. If Michael Jackson was an unfamous, middle class guy who could sing and dance very well, had tons of plastic surgery to look white, spoke like a little girl, never went to school, called himself a Peter Pan, had a pet monkey, was known to have grown up with an abusive dad and no normal childhood, the parents of those children would have run from him and never let their kids come near him. But because he was a superstar with fame, they ignored all the red flags and used their kids for the benefit of meeting a superstar, just like Michael Jackson's parents ignored all the red flags because of the benefit they gained from him. The only reason they allowed a plastic surgeried, emotionally stunted freak like that to be around their kids unsupervised during sleepovers is because he was a famous superstar and they wanted to be associated with him and were willing to use their kids to do so.

It's a story of someone with abusive, selfish parents being allowed to be alone with the kids of selfish parents who should have known better.

As someone who works with kids and is as sensitive to their abuse as you are, why not be a little more sympathetic to the fact that this was a man who was so abused and traumatized as a child his psyche fractured, he was frozen as a childlike state.

As someone who works with kids, I am sympathetic -- up to a point-- to the fact that Michael Jackson was made into a monster by his dad and that the process was aided and abetted by all sorts of Hollywood sleazebags. I don't excuse the starstruck parents either.

But the guy was still a monster. You lose me when you suggest the fact that he could, what, sing and dance well? that it should excuse that. Certainly, the media loses me with that attitude. It's as though they are pretending it's still 1983.

You lose me when you suggest the fact that he could, what, sing and dance well? that it should excuse that.

I'm not suggesting he should be excused because he could sing and dance well. I'm saying if he was just a normal guy who can sing and dance well and had all those same issues, those parents would not have trusted their kids around him. They would have known better. It was because of his fame they threw aside all normal caution to the wind.

If a person being a monster kept us from appreciating amazing art, most of the incredible art in human history would be unable to be appreciated. He had a tragic life. His weird obsession with kids was one more symptom of that tragic life. You make it sound like his fame and money was just something he used to get away with things. Well guess what? It's also the thing that made him so supremely screwed up. If he couldn't generate all that money, he wouldn't have been worked like a slave and driven and abused so hard. People would have sought help for him instead of ignoring his problems for the sake of cashing in on the little cash cow. He would have gone to school and been properly socialized around other kids the way kids are supposed to be instead of contantly being uprooted and exposed to sex. Enough with the "soak the rich" class warfare I say.

Thank you Neal K for putting it so eloquently.

Greg, before yesterday ,the only thing reported about Jackson for the last 15 years was how he was pedophile (and as T has pointed out, that was a mess of a case and we may never know the entire truth). So don't worry, nobody's forgetting that the guy might've been a monster. That said, let Jackson have the day he died to be remembered as arguably the most influential pop star since the 1960s.

Enough with the “soak the rich” class warfare I say.

Uh-huh. Because,yeah, that's my REAL issue. that he wasn't TAXED highly enough. Please. Is that the best you can do?

That said, let Jackson have the day he died to be remembered as arguably the most influential pop star since the 1960s.

Jackson's dead. He doesn't care. I suspect what you really mean is, "let all his fans feel better for supporting the insane cult of celebrity that led to all that child abuse." Sorry, but that's exactly the mentality I object to.

Let's put it in examples that may be more relevant to you guys:

Bob Kane was a scumbag who actively tried to deny any and all credit to Bill Finger, savagely maligned him in the fan press as a liar and allowed him to die penniless and creditless. Someone could argue that we should never celebrate Batman, a great creation, because by doing so we're paying homage to a monster.

Weisinger was arguably a jerk that treated people terribly, most notably the creators of Superman. Yet people write affectionately about his era of comics and often pay tribute to it. Legion of Superheroes arose from this era. All Star Superman pays tribute to much of this era too.

DC Comics totally crapped and Seigel and Shuster. It's pretty inexcusable. DC Comics is a monster of a company one could argue.

Marvel and Kirby's original art. And so on and so on.

Valid points, T. Points I and Mark Andrew and others here have made many times, as it happens. But that's not the argument you've been making. You've been suggesting we forgive Jackson for his molestations because he couldn't help himself. Not buying it.

"I suspect what you really mean is, “let all his fans feel better for supporting the insane cult of celebrity that led to all that child abuse.” Sorry, but that’s exactly the mentality I object to."

No, that isn't what I really mean. But thank you for putting words in my mouth.

To remember Jackson only for his alleged crimes is the same as remembering him only for his music. Jackson, like everybody, was a messed up mix of good and bad and more. Maybe his lows were a lot more twisted and horrible than ours, but you know what? His highs were higher too. Just acknowledge both.

You’ve been suggesting we forgive Jackson for his molestations because he couldn’t help himself.

I've never said to forgive him. Just that his situation is more complex than just being an evil monster, and that it's possible to enjoy his incredible music even as you acknowledge he was also deeply flawed. Like Brendan says at 3:09 comment.

I want to say so much, right now but I will refrain from many of my comments because like Greg's they are totally taken out of context and picked apart - much like these "celebrities". Might I suggest that everyone step away from their computer and take a chill pill.

I will say death is a leveler for everyone. We all will die of something at sometime, some of us know what it will be caused from if we have chronic diseases and some of us don't. I would suggest instead of ranting and showing hate/disrespect (for those of you who are clearly doing that) and find a loved one and show them the exact opposite great love and respect.

Julie, I know tone doesn't come across well in comments but I'm not angry at Greg in the least. I have nothing but respect for him and anyone else in the debates so long as no one uses ad homs or personal insults (which no one here has)

it's endearing that you have my back, Julie, but really, I'm not mad at T, either. I just disagree emphatically with the idea that Michael Jackson's musical legacy should outweigh his actions with children in his 'care.'

...that said, I REALLY gotta get back to work!

T, you are correct in that tone doesn't come across well in comments and this doesn't come across as any debate that I have ever witnessed or read. That is why I gave the suggestion and which is why I seldom comment on Greg's board's or CSBG articles or mini posts but read all of them.

I as well am concerned about the kids. I wasn't pointing out any one person or defending Greg as you all know my beloved can defend himself quite well. Just saying, now I am backing away cuz I got job hunting to do.

Julie, not to Godwin you, but I think we can make an exception to your point when it comes to people who unambiguously and unambivalently hurt significant numbers of people: I'm thinking more the likes of dictators, serial killers, and their ilk than anyone mentioned in this thread to date.

For people who deal that much death, death probably can't be a leveler for perception in the way that you suggest.

That said, I believe we should stop arguing about Michael Jackson and instead join together to what's really important right now -- tracking down and imprisoning R. Kelly. Seriously, how's that guy out walking around?

I've forgotten the specific issue number, but there was an issue of Marvel's "John Carter, Warlord of Mars" - it was illustrated by Frank Miller, I'm almost certain of it - that had a trio of slave girls in one scene that were quite obviously the three original "Charlie's Angels" stars. So there's another Farrah Fawcett comic book appearance for you.

Here´s the thing Greg:

I´m a student of cinema. The other day I was watching "The Triumph of the Will", a documentary by german filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl. It´s basically a piece of nazi propaganda. It´s also an awesome documentary, a really espectacular and astounding technical and artistic feat.

I´m also very fond of the french writer Louis-Ferdinand Céline. "Voyage to the End of the Night" is one of the best books I ever read, and it universally acknowledged as one of the best novels of the 20th century. Céline was also a major scumbag and anti-semite ass, whose pamphlets "denouncing" the jewish conspiracy would make Mel Gibson sound as a standard for tolerance between religions.

Fact is, humans are complex beings. And the thing about great artists is that their work can frequently overcome the moral and socail shortcomings of their individual lifes. Its like something Carl Jung once said: the work of a great artist does not come from them, but TROUGH them.

Michael Jackson was a f***ed up individual, with a very tragic story. I do understand that you feel unconfortable by his post-mortem eulogizing. I feel the same. I think that, at this moment, we should pay attention to the dark side of his life. But, to see things completely, we should also keep in mind that he was not just the boogeyman from Neverland. This is a man who basically created the musical industry as we know today. Who was, during his lifetime, the biggest individual charity donor of the world, who gave millions and millions every year to help the poor, the sick, the disenfranchised. Who actually used his fame not only to his personal gain, but to bring awareness and get funding to help others.

This is not comic book world, were we know very clearly and conveniently who are the villains and the heroes. In real world, those capable of great evil often are capable of doing great good, too. Judging if Michael Jackson was a evil predator or a misunderstood saint... well, quite frankly, I guess that really doesn´t matter anymore. What matters was the undeniable impact he left in our culture, with his life and his death. Praising the art is not kin to praising the man. The man is dead. The art lives on, way beyond his sins.

PS: also, keep in mind: there was never any proof against Michael Jackson. Particularly, in the LA case, he was being accused by people who had a previous history of fraud and lying to the jury. As a teacher, you may know that if a student made a false claim, you would be in a dire position, even if you were completely innocent. And, even if you were acquited, your reputation could remain tainted for quite a long time. After all, it´s impossible to proof that you DIDN´T do something.

I´m not defending Michael Jackson. But I don´t think we should hurry to accuse him, either. Things are more complicated than that.

I'm with Greg on this one - if he was indeed a child molester, that pretty much trumps anything else he may have done. Seriously, if you put both 'child molester' and 'gifted musician' on the scales, it's not even close. One does not make up for the other.

That said, MJ also showed up (unnamed, but it was very clearly MJ) in the Nexus/Madman special.

"I´m not defending Michael Jackson. But I don´t think we should hurry to accuse him, either. Things are more complicated than that."

Well put, Felipe. I second that. I also second Omar's idea of hunting down R. Kelly and imprisoning him if he is indeed guilty.

And I appreciate Julie coming in here as the cooler head to keep this from blowing up any bigger. Much obliged.

It´s not a question of "making up", Perry. It´s more like it´s besides the point.

Michael Jackson´s impact on culture and the relevance of his art is a reality, despite any wrongdoing he commited in his life. Or, in other terms, you may not like the person he was, but you cannot deny the importance of his music.

Of course, if you would like to do that, then you really shouldn´t stop at Michael Jackson. What about Roman Polanski? Charlie Chaplin? Walt Disney?

And, in fact why stop at "child molesters"? James Brown beated up his wife. So did Alec Baldwin and Ozzy Osbourne. William Burroughs went a step further and actually killed his spouse.

There´s no "making up". His art is one thing, his personal problems and victories are other. People commit mistakes, and they pay dearly for it in their personal lives. I´m sure Michael Jackson had his share of misery. What I´m saying is we are not the judges of it.

I think the reason Michael Jackson is getting so much press after his death now is because he didn't die young and leave a good looking corpse. The reactions to his death now are basically what I think are reactions to an MJ that died before he became super creepy/alleged sex offender. I say alleged because I am too lazy to research if he was convicted. Would I let my kid stay with him? Capital N No. Was he raised in a totally screwed up environment that may have affected his later years? Survey says yes (not saying this excuses anything he did, just giving it scope). Anyways, the reaction now is more akin, albeit toned down, to what I think it would have been if he had died at the peak of his success, which is how everyone likes to remember people after they are dead. I think it is also about people just feeling nostalgic for childhood memories. Like if GI Joe or Transformers just died yesterday after having been found with a dozen dead nuns or something in the 90's.

Not convicted.

He definitely (and admittedly) slept in the same bed as pre-pubescent boys - which honestly, is creepy-in-the-sense-Cronin-uses-it enough on it's own - and there's certainly a decent amount of evidence that it went further than that, AND there were four separate sets of allegations - but nothing I'd consider ABSOLUTELY damning or conclusive.

"why not be a little more sympathetic to the fact that this was a man who was so abused and traumatized as a child his psyche fractured, he was frozen as a childlike state."

I agree with that T. But I don't see how that fits with personal responsibility. Its clear that Jackson's circumstances made him who he was, yet EVERYONE'S circumstances make them who they are. Under personal responsibility, surely people are FREE to act DESPITE circumstance, otherwise how are the responsibile for there acts? And if we still hold Jackson absolutely responsible for his acts, how are we being sympathetic? And if we hold him only partially responsible, what's the other part? Other circumstances? Or just random chance?

"It’s a story of someone with abusive, selfish parents being allowed to be alone with the kids of selfish parents who should have known better."

But something surely MADE those parents abusive and selfish, so shouldn't we be sympathetic to them as well? Once again it seems personal responsibility is not really a maintainable idea, and we should just admit that everyone is a victim of circumstance and no-one has free will.

I got so swept up in the worldwide sympathetic reaction to Michael Jackson's death I neglected to comment on the original intent of this post. On the same day JFK died, so did C.S. Lewis and Aldous Huxley. It truly is all in the timing, apparently, in death as in life.

There was a play were Kennedy, Lewis and Huxley debated their philosophies while waiting together outside Peter's gate.

I'd love to see the follow-up with McMahan, Fawcett and Jackson.

Was Jackson "biggest individual charity donor of the world" ?

Bill Gates??

Do remember that in the US it's possible to write-off those charity donations on taxes, so that's hardly a sign of generosity by itself. Lots of rich people donate to charity.

Best,
Hunter (Pedro Bouça)

Jackson was far, far from the top charitable donor in the world. Unsurprisingly such lists are usually topped by incredibly rich people you've never heard of.

Isn't it ironic that, in a post designed to turn attention away from all things MJ, we ended up doing almost nothing but debating MJ? [sigh] If I might bring the thread away from Jackson and back to Farrah for a moment ...

Someone made to this point, early on in this thread: "I never understand praising people for bringing awareness to a disease that’s killing them. How is that any less narcissistic?" Well, in this culture, there are plenty of people (especially celebrities) who'd do anything to appear young and vibrant at all times. No doubt the pressure is most severe on women and especially on former sex symbols. Farrah could've pulled a Garbo or a Dietrich and secluded herself, staying out of the public eye and not talking about her illness. Instead, she chose to confront it and to talk about it. When celebrities harness their power to capture broadcast time and print inches to talk about their illnesses, they're helping de-stigmatize that illness. They're reminding our youth- and beauty-obsessed culture that life has a lot more facets to it, and they're not all pretty, but cancer (or spinal-cord injury or what-have-you) is no reason to hide or feel worse about yourself.

Some might call "Farrah's Story" (her home-movie doc about her struggle against rectal cancer) narcissistic. Maybe ... but surely it was brave too. She didn't have to talk about it, or to show herself getting sicker and thinner and losing her hair.

In a related note: I have such incredible respect for Roger Ebert, who has been waging this very fight against societal expectations since cancer took his jaw and his voice. He's not been shy about appearing in public. He once had this to say about it: "I have been very sick, am getting better, and this is how it looks. I still have my brain and my typing fingers. ... We spend too much time hiding illness."

p.s. Here's a picture and an article about him and his wife:

chicago.timeout.com/articles/cultural-heroes/62651/roger-ebert-and-his-wife

As the article says, Roger Ebert is a cultural hero. Farrah Fawcett and Christopher Reeve were too. Bless 'em all.

Ok, I did the research, and stand corrected. The information was collected from Bussiness Week, Wikipedia and the assorted media.

Warren Buffett and the Gates are the biggest donors, by far. Buffett donated something around 40 billion dollars (!!) in the last years, while the Gates donated 2 billions, mainly through their Bill & Melinda Gates foundation.

They are followed by George Kaiser, George Soros e the Moores (founders of Intel). Michael Jackson, who allegedly donated 300 million dollars to charity in the last few years, would be something around the 33th place in the list, dominated by big investors and bussisnesman. It´s still a lot of money. And he´s still the biggest donor among the show biz, followed by George Lucas, who donated 196 millions in the last five years... with the difference that is 5% of Lucas net worth, while Jackson´s donations amounted to almost half of his fortune.

Wacko Jacko.

In any case, I must confess that I'm just not that affected by Jackson's unfortunate demise beyond the simple, I hope human impulse to say it's saddening that anyone dies of anything but a healthy old age.

Or, in other terms, you may not like the person he was, but you cannot deny the importance of his music.

I can damned well deny that it should cut him any slack over being a child-abuser.

Of course, if you would like to do that, then you really shouldn´t stop at Michael Jackson. What about...

Nobody gets a free pass.

I´m sure Michael Jackson had his share of misery.

Yeah, people suddenly not letting their children have sleepovers with him must have been a real torment.

What I´m saying is we are not the judges of it.

What an absurd notion.

We judge people all the time. We judge who we would and wouldn't like to date. We judge which co-workers are morons. We judge who we wouldn't turn our backs to in a sleazy bar. And yes, we judge which people we wouldn't dream of letting within 500 yards of our children.

I have absolutely no problem being judgemental toward pedophiles. If MJ were not a celebrity, most people wouldn't dream of cutting him any slack. But the cult of personality that people have built up around him allow the joy they found in his work to override the disgust they should be feeling toward this wretched excuse of a human being.

Does this change things any?

http://awkwardstar.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/jordan-chandler-admits-he-lied-about-michael-jackson/

We have no idea if he was actually a child molester people.

It could be a hoax though, I don't see any reputable news sources reporting it yet.

Actually, it's a hoax. The father and kid names are reversed.

Ezra Pound was a fascist, and one of the most important English-language poets of the last century. Leni Riefenstahl was a Nazi, and one of the most important directors and filmmakers of all time. H.P. Lovecraft was one of the most important horror writers of all time, and a man so racist that even in the 1930s his contemporaries thought he was out of his mind on the matter.

I don't cut any of them any slack for their misdeeds, for the misery in which they were involved and the atrocities that they advocated. But it doens't make Pound's poetry crappy or its influence nonexistent; it doesn't make Riefenstahl's techniques any less artistically effective or foundational to the language of cinema; and it doesn't mean H.P. Lovecraft isn't a major horror writer who casts a long shadow over the likes of Stephen King.

Even if we assume every bad thing ever about MJ's conduct -- and it seems even that is more in the realm of suspicion and speculation than actual fact -- it would in no way mean he wasn't an important popular music act, a damned talented dancer, and a huge cultural force.

They're two entirely separate topics.

I'd just like to say that the media coverage on Jackson's death was completely justified. I work with several people from several different countries. All of them knew who I was talking about when I said that Michael Jackson was dead (I found out while working). Most of them weren't familiar with Farrah Fawcett. If an international superstar dies, I think it's news.

I really did not follow the case trials well enough.. it was in the news and I tried to avoid it. I do wish people would give equal time. I know of Michael Jackson a bit from music and understand objectively that he changed music and was a big name, but mostly he was that guy from Captain Eo at Epcot, and from reading about Ryan White in middle school. (Kid who got HIV from a blood transfusion before it was screened for.) Michael Jackson and Elton John both did a fair bit for him and his family, and at eleven I thought that was pretty damn cool. I understand people, especially those who are a little older than I am or people who watched the Jackson Five perform, wanting to remember the good stuff he did and the awesome music he made. I've seen a lot of images up of him from the 90's and found it.. both to be interesting and a kindness that I'm not entirely sure he deserves. But a lot of people have obituary images from their prime, not the week before death, so... I can get it there.

I hope that if there is missing truth, it gets settled. I'm also hoping, probably unreasonably, that there won't be an extra bit of shitstorm with people jumping out onto nothing.

I feel I should make myself clearer: I´m not cutting Michael Jackson any slack whatsoever. If he was a pedophile, he should have been punished for it, with full force of the law. End of the question.

Now, I´m not even mentioning the fact that the man was never found guilty of this. Or that public opinion is hardly a valid indicator of guilt is cases such as this (as we learned from Chaplin´s paternity trials, or the Guildford Five case. Righteous is seldom right).

What I´m saying is: Taking the stand that, because Michael Jackson was a supposed pedophile his death is not a major deal or his art is unimportant is just as biased and uninsightful as saying that Michael Jackson SHOULD get slack for his crimes because he was a very gifted musician and a major benefactor. It´s taking one aspect of a man´s life and extrapolating it to everything else. When, in fact, what should be done is taking things separately and giving each its own: praising the good art, punishing fiercely the crimes.

Because, quite frankly: if "nobody gets a free pass" then our appreciation of art will likely be reduced to very few boring country stars, gospel music and Jack Chick. If that.

Humans are humans. Art is not. If Michael Jackson´s music should be forgotten, it should be because of its intrinsic qualities.

I don't know if this article is true, but it's damn fascinating:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1196009/Im-better-dead-Im-How-Michael-Jackson-predicted-death-months-ago.html

In this country, we are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of our peers. The courts decide guilt and innocence, not the Liberal Media.

Unless of course there's rumors that somebodys a kid-toucher. Then all bets is off.

So he was a gifted entertainer. Doesn't mean that we should be saddened by his passing. Brian Bendis had it right this week on Twitter: "so we're all going to pretend he wasn't a mentally ill child molester who should have been drinking his jesus juice in jail?". On top of all that, you do not father children and give them names like "Blanket" and ask them to parade around in public with their faces entirely covered from the world. That kind of shit will scar a child for life. Regardless of whether or not he raped young children, a notion deplorable enough in and of itself, his parenting skills left enough to be desired, so much so that I weep no tears for the man. Instead, I think subjects more worthy of our mourning are recently-passed folks like Lorena Gale (who had recurring roles on both Battlestar Galactica and Smallville), who just passed of gastrointestinal cancer, and Dom DeLuise, who recently passed of kidney failure, not to mention the people in Iran who are dying in great numbers in order to save their imploding nation.

Oddly enough, the Jackson debacle reminds me of another recent death, that of Ronald Reagan just over five years ago. The memorials instantly sprung up everywhere from broadcast television to newspapers to the Internet; his flaws were forgiven, his star elevated, his life virtually canonized. Like Jackson, who has now somehow surpassed his title of "King of Pop" to become The Greatest Musical Performer Who Has Ever Lived, Reagan was somehow instantly, and ironically, crowned The Greatest American President in the History of Forever and Ever. People forgot, almost overnight, that the man had singlehandedly made unemployment rise to 10% with his ludicrous economic policies. Washington Post writer Howard Kurtz even went so far as to state that "He was widely portrayed as uninformed and uninterested in details, the man who said trees cause pollution and once failed to recognize his own housing secretary." No one seemed to remember his disdain for the poor, which Kurtz felt was epitomized "by the administration's 'ketchup is a vegetable' school lunch debacle." So too do people seem to be forgetting Jackson's ludicrous parenting (the man most definitely had child services in his pocket), his enabling minors to drink alcohol, his sexual abuse scandals, his obvious mental illness and his drug addictions (to cocaine and Demerol, the latter of which was given to him just moments before his death).

Neither Jackson nor Reagan were saints, and they need to be treated the way they were: as human beings, complete with flaws, who made mistakes. They may have been important individuals, yes, maybe even had talent, but they were people first and foremost. Neither Michael Jackson nor Ronald Reagan were gods, but because their sins were debatable, they get a free pass. When OJ Simpson and Charles Manson die, they will not be remembered as the star football player or the failed musician, but as the criminals a jury of their peers concluded they were. The notion that a jury's verdict can decide whether or not someone is remembered fondly is not only purely a product of 20th and 21 century America, but also one of the most deplorable thing about any justice system in the history of the world.

And since this isn't enough about comics, I could turn this into a debate about the accountability of Norman Osborn and Tony Stark over the last several years of Marvel books...

“so we’re all going to pretend he wasn’t a mentally ill child molester who should have been drinking his jesus juice in jail?”.

So we're going to pretend that we know for a fact he did molest kids? Let me guess, you were privy to the trial and have damning evidence the rest of us don't?

If so, please share it with us.

People forgot, almost overnight, that the man had singlehandedly made unemployment rise to 10% with his ludicrous economic policies.

Oh forget it, after reading your Reagan thoughts you're obviously a crackpot. Sorry.

Dearest T.,

The first quote is from Brian Bendis, not me. I was quoting a succinct representation of my reaction to the whole incident.

The second quote is a direct paraphrase of Howard Kurtz's article "15 Years Later, the Remaking of a President", published in the post on 7 June 2004.

And why apologize for calling me a crackpot? Doesn't that undo the insult? And by me backing up my statements, doesn't that make you look more like a fool?

Guys, enough is enough. I think everyone's had their say at this point. Let's move on.