Michael J, whose to say?

I love hearing people speak for Michael Jackson as to why he did this or that. Its entertaining to hear people defend him, claiming that he did what he did simply because of a skin condition or insults from his father. Joe Jackson was no doubt physically and verbally abusive, but to say that MJ did what he did to his face because his father mocked him is silly. Michael literally mutilated his face, to the point where he had no cartilage left in his nose and dented his chin tremendously. Thats not excusable or healthy. To say that he bleached his skin to the point where my Irish complexion looks vastly darker by comparison because he "had no choice" is also funny. Ive met several people in my life with blotched skin on their body, and i would bet that none would vampirize their complexions if they had the finances. MJ was not psychologically healthy, AT ALL, and i am entertained by people ignoring that. I will concede MJ was a phenomenal performer (MOONWAlK?!, Heck yea!) and his early work sold phenomenally, but he was warped. Even assuming that the numerous allegation of molestation were not true, who has "sleepovers" with random kids? Who brings Webster as his date to an awards ceremony. I love Paul McCartney as an artist, but if it came out tomorrow that he had Peter Pan syndrome and hung around with nine year olds while trying to liquor them up, i wouldnt defend him because i love the music he previously made. I would say that Sir Paul is probably a gross pedophile who used to make good music. MJ hadnt even made anything of quality in over 15 years. Maybe your "king of Pop" pays off kids to not say that he fondled them, but not mine. John Lennon wrote, cowrote, played instruments, and sang over 250 "pop"(assuming "pop" simply means popular) songs on over a dozen albums in a seven year period. And i cant even find one allegation of child molestation or a single example of self mutilation or psychosis. He can be my "king of pop." You can keep Michael.