I get it -- Jackson was a flawed man. What are we supposed to do about that? One could write a scathing profile like the one you wrote about many, perhaps most of the great figures of history. Some of the architects of the Nazi party were men of great integrity when it came to their personal lives and business dealings, but for whatever reason they saw no contradiction in the fact that they were working for a killing machine. Is that the human behavior you prefer, Mr. Ehrenstein? Martin Luther King had extramarital affairs - so we should stop honoring him, discredit his work, and all go out and buy guns because the philosophy of non-violence should now be considered the mark of a sleazy aldulterer? Beethoven's nephew was driven to attempt suicide because of his uncle's oppressive guardianship. So now we can't listen to Beethoven's Pastoral because, according to you, doing so glorifies child abuse. Howlin' Wolf never credited any of the personnel on his records, so we should stop buying them. I could go on.

The point is, how does one judge a man? By his works? By his intentions? By what was done to him? By the influence he and his work had on others? Michael Jackson was a great artist. He was not a good role model; neither were the people who were supposed to be his role models. I'm not excusing his crimes, but I don't think his crimes should be allowed to define him. I also don't think that crimes should be allowed to define the majority of the inmates of the nation's prisons. People are complicated and life is messy, Mr Ehrenstein. I'm not sure who lives up to your standards. Do you?