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?

“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.

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...

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

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

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Best,
Hunter (Pedro Bouça)

Bill Gates??