RAGGED THOTS

Labels: sarah palin

# posted by Robert A. George @ 8:04 PM

Reading Time magazine's special issue on Michael Jackson is a great way to get angry.

The articles and personal testimonials are all very nice, but i's the pictures that make one's blood boil. When you look at the cherubic little black boy with eyes alternately showing irrepressible joy and a hint of shyness (almost sadness) and then see the more recent pictures of him, the question screams out -- "HOW!?? How could this have happened to this person?" Even when putting the ugly molestation stuff aside, just look at Michael Jackson and one realizes how things went terribly terribly wrong.

Yes, taking note of the ridiculous excesses of Neverland and everything else, a lot of this deterioration falls on Jackson's own head: He had all this talent and allowed his own ego and narcissism to drive himself hundreds of millions into debt.

But then again, if you've turned on the television of the last few days -- or checked the stories on the Internet -- you realize that with Michael Jackson, whatever he did to himself, there were at least a half-dozen people never too far away to help him ease on down the road to damnation.

It's as vivid in the barely a week since death as it was in his life. Joe Jackson, the so-called "patriarch" of the family who, in his 80's can't let a media opportunity pass without shilling his new record company or some garbage that is being released on Blu-Ray disc. Goodness knows, if Billy Mays hadn't died a couple of days after Michael, you know Joe would have hired him to do the evening infomercial selling the memorabilia.

As horrible a man as Joe Jackson has been reported to be as a father -- the severe beatings when recording sessions didn't go right, for example -- one is tempted to give him a modicum of slack. As a 40-something black man, I'm uncomfortable judging the choices made by a man several decades my senior who -- growing up in an America with many states having Jim Crow laws -- saw the talent within his children and wanted to harness it in the best way possible to rise the entire family out of poverty. He played the hand dealt him -- and it was not done pretty.

That said, after decades of success, when he helped produce the biggest star in the world, someone who made himself and his family millionaires many times over (nearly all of which was squandered), is it really the case that his son's death is seen as just another hook with which he can gain one more buck in his dotage? His son essentially had his soul squeezed out of him -- left as a walking drained husk well before his heart gave out -- and this is the best Joe Jackson can do before his son is even buried in the ground? Just squeeze still more blood from a stone.

But this is why Michael Jackson is dead -- because those in his orbit, even those tangentially, can never subsume their own personal dramas for their supposedly beloved relative or friend. And, standing front and center, right by the rapacious Joe -- the political ministers of black America, Revs. Jesse Jackson (no relation, as much as it galls him) and Al Sharpton.

Michael's death has renewed the simmering rivalry between the political ministers and one-time presidential candidates. Did they step in to try and provide some order to the growing chaotic circus around all things Jackson? Hah! They had to become part of the show, of course! Thus, Jesse was zooming to Los Angeles within 24 hours of Michael's death to emerge as yet another spokesman to declare that the family wasn't satisfied with the first autopsy and requested another one.

Meanwhile, Sharpton held court in New York, rushing to the Apollo Theatre to take the lead in East Coast mourning. Sharpton, of course, has practice at this: He orchestrated the James Brown viewing and wake at the Apollo three years ago. In fairness, he and Brown truly were close: Sharpton's once signature pompadour hairstyle was directly modeled after the Godfather of Soul's. While he may have known Michael for 35 years, he was never quite as much an intimate of the King of Pop. Regardless, Sharpton was in California Monday before zooming back to the Big Apple to lead a cheering, dancing mini-revival memorial back at the Apollo.

For his part, Jesse Jackson knows something about gaining some personal prestige by being in the right place at the right time when a legend known as a "King" passes in untimely fashion. A late-era member of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s entourage, Jackson notoriously kept wearing a sweater stained with King's blood for days after the April 4, 1968 assassination. How the blood even got on the sweater was a point of mystery itself -- a fact that Sharpton didn't mind reminding media of some years back, when a reporter brought up Tawana Brawley between the 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns. Regardless, Jesse has also made himself available to record a public service message to prevent overzealous fans from killing themselves over their idol's death.

It's sad. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have become famous themselves, controversial though their methods may be. But are they so starved for attention that they must bask in the reflected glory of a truly tragic entertainment figure? To ask the question is to answer it.

No wonder Jesse and Al needed to rush to be in front of microphones by Joe Jackson's side. Birds of a feather flock together. And vultures love to share in a tasty meal.

Labels: Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Joe Jackson, Michael Jackson

# posted by Robert A. George @ 8:30 AM

The aftermath of a sex scandal involving a married elected official can play out in different ways depending on the circumstances.

In some cases, like former President Bill Clinton and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), the philanderer manages to save both his office and his marriage (for whatever reason the wronged spouse chooses to stay).

In other cases, like former Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D-NY), the politician can lose the job but not the marriage.

And then, there's the worst of all possible worlds: Like former Gov. Jim McGreevey (D-NJ), the politician can lose his office and his spouse. Admittedly, the McGreevey affair was somewhat unusual because of his admission that he was a "gay American." Given that Dina McGreevey was female, the writing on that wall was pretty much a foreordained conclusion. The divorce four years later was especially ugly.

South Carolina Republican Gov. Mark Sanford, however, seems hell-bent on joining McGreevey by simultaneously destroying career and marriage.

As awful as last week's press conference was admitting to his affair, Sanford went one better (i.e. worse) this week. Last time around, Sanford managed to garner some sympathy by stepping in front of the cameras and delivering a solo cri de coeur, sharing his anguish with thousands of viewers in his state and across the country. While no one could approve of what he had done, he at least seemed so honest that that one would have to be completely heartless not to feel some compassion for the man.

His wife, Jenny's statement, stern as it was -- and admitting that she had kicked him out of the house two weeks before -- also seemed filled with fair amounts of Christian charity. She made it clear that she was hoping for a reconciliation.

This week's Sanford outpouring will make that rapprochement much harder -- if not impossible.

In an interview with the AP at his Statehouse office, Sanford admitted to "crossing lines" with other women (though evidently not sleeping with them). He also admitted to at least two love getaways to New York (the Big Apple) and the Hamptons over the last year -- contradicting his assertion last week that he only met Maria Belen Chapur a handful of times in her native Argentina.

Tuesday's admissions created an opening for the South Carolina's Democratic attorney general to request a review of all of Sanford's travel records (Sanford claims that his New York getaways were paid by himself and that he paid cash for his hotel stays). That provides more ammunition to the growing number of members of his own party calling for Sanford to resign.

But, as bad as that is, Sanford may have also put the final nail in his marital coffin too. The AP reports that he considers Chapur his "soul mate", but wants to try to fall back in love with his wife. Oh, geez! So, after saving his wife from the humiliation involved of having her at his side when he publicly admitted the affair, he now has to present it to her? How could any woman take back her husband after he's declared that the mother of his four children is not his soul mate -- but he'll try to fall back in love with her any way? How does he face her now? How does he face his sons?

Sanford thinks he "crossed lines" with other women? He's crossed the line on basic human decency this time. This interview will bring him and his state even more bad headlines. That will lead to him losing whatever political support he may have had left. And then he he will lose his family too.

By the time this sad saga his over, one wouldn't be surprised if he also finds that his supposed "soul mate" decides that she wants nothing to do with a man who has clearly lost his own soul.

Labels: Mark Sanford

# posted by Robert A. George @ 2:00 AM

Labels: Michael Jackson

# posted by Robert A. George @ 10:32 AM

Yeah, I'm going to be little maudlin here tonight.

But for the generation born in the 1960s and '70s, a large piece of our childhood died today.

While many of us certainly grew up with recently-departed Ed McMahon as Johnny Carson's sidekick, he definitely "belonged" to the boomer's cultural experience more than our own. Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson? Now that's something else. They were as different from each other as any could be and their deaths were as dramatically different too. Regardless, they "belonged" to us in a unique way. And, their deaths within hours of each other forces certain thoughts of mortality.

Farrah's death was not unexpected. She'd been ill for some time. Her last TV appearance was in, of course, a reality TV show where she plaintively prayed for a miracle from the anal cancer that was destroying her.

Her career was a rather strange one, blasting into the cultural consciousness (as Farrah Fawcett-Majors) like a comet. In one season of "Charlies Angels", she became the "It" pin-up girl of every pubescent and post-pubescent male. Even after she made an ill-advised career choice to split the show after one season (except for a few guest appearances over the next few seasons), she managed to stay linked with the culture. Eventually, she even showed that, amazingly, she wasn't just a pretty face, but could act too doing Emmy-nominated work in made-for-TV movies in the '80s like "The Burning Bed" and "Small Sacrifices."

In short, she proved that she could be something more than just a pin-up girl. The culture captured her at her most radiant -- in a snap-shot, but the lesson she told the post-boomers is that life is a motion picture. She chose to keep moving and reinventing herself.

Those two words sum up Michael Jackson -- "moving" and "reinvention." Even with all the strangeness of his later years, he's not supposed to be still so soon. Boomers can lay claim to the Jackson 5 part of his story -- the last great group to come out of the original Motown empire. At 11 years old, Michael was this incandescent ball of energy -- a miniature James Brown with a scary emotional vocal range. His solo early-70s songs were nice and sweet pop extensions on what he had been doing with the J5.

But it wasn't until he released Off The Wall in 1979, with a new, vibrant sound, that the world noticed that there was something really special in its midst. The album arrived at just the right moment. Rock was in a drudgy period; disco was on its last legs, the economy was a shambles (and, hey! there was a revolution going on in Iran)!! But Jackson produced an album that mixed R&B, disco and rock. It was of the moment while sounding like nothing else in the moment. (The nervous mumbling that builds into an exuberant yelp to kick off album-starter "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough" is pure magic.) It was music that insisted that black and white kids could still listen to the same sounds -- despite what the rest of the culture seemed to be saying. (And, yeah, the "new" Michael had a new nose as well -- presaging the type of perpetual physical transformation would make him a tragic figure as the years elapsed).

Jackson took that sound and musical philosophy and launched it into the stratosphere with Thriller.

At the same time, he single-handedly turned music video into an art form all its own. He became the Rosa Parks of MTV -- forcing the then-new music channel to play videos by black performers. MTV insisted that it was a "rock" station, and "black" music didn't fit the format. But Michael Jackson was a product of a generation that grew up with both "black" and "white" music. Having Eddie Van Halen play the guitar sol on "Beat It," may have been a gimmick, but it was one that worked and "fit. As a result, Jackson ended up leading an early-'80s pantheon that appealed to a broader cross-section of music fans than any before or since: Jackson, Prince (my personal favorite), Madonna, Bruce Springsteen all could be heard on Top 40 radio, the last moment before the industry began to segregate itself again.

In 1983, with Thriller selling well, Jackson appeared on a Motown 25th Anniversary TV special. After much debate with the producers, he agreed to play a couple of Jackson 5 songs, but insisted on playing one of his current hits. It was on that show that he sang "Billie Jean" and performed the moonwalk for the first time. In that one show and moment, Michael Jackson told the world that the boomer's "Big Chill" era was over. He inherited it, but was not going to be bound by it. He moon-walked pop music into a different era.

Jackson released Bad in 1987 and it produced five Number One singles, but the magic culture-commanding moment had passed. The tours were immense, but already the "weirdness" had begun, as his face seemed to be something new and strange every time he appeared.

The tragedy of his child molestation charges (which were never proven) is that, even if he were truly innocent, his bizarre personal behavior/facial refigurations soured so much of the benefit of the doubt out of the minds of too many.

That said, Michael Jackson musically bridged the boomer soul-pop of the '60s, stood as a solitary shining light in the '70s and created the musical goulash of the early '80s. At his peak, no one worked harder to create musical perfection. He wanted a sound that had no defining color, appealed to the masses but was dynamic in a way that "pop" music traditionally wasn't perceived. His multiple plastic surgeries suggested he didn't like his own looks, and so was driven to produce outer aural beauty. For the generation that grew up in the shadow of the boomers, he was the perfect soundtrack and antidote to a chaotic childhood, a light in an at-times dark period.

That light has dimmed much earlier than it was supposed to. And a generation realizes that it's older than it thought it was.

UPDATE: The Motown 25 performance that put him and Thriller in a different orbit.

UPDATE II: Ta-Nehesi Coates has some great thoughts (and, d'oh! -- almost the exact same title as I used for a slightly different version of this I did for NBC's web-sites).

Labels: Farrah Fawcett, Michael Jackson

# posted by Robert A. George @ 8:57 PM

Has a rising star ever flamed out so quickly?

It was just a few months ago, that many Republicans were looking to pin their fortunes to South Carolina's Gov. Mark Sanford. The fact that he was defiantly rejecting the federal stimulus money pegged him exactly as the bold, defiant individual that a beleaguered and dispirited party needed to counter the Obama phenomenon.

Yet, in barely a week, Sanford's future has evaporated. It began Monday with a bizarre, "Where's Gov. Waldo?" storyline that had everyone trying to figure out exactly where the governor had gone for the weekend -- and then culminating Wednesday in a stunning news conference where the governor admitted to having a long affair with a woman in Argentina.

Cue up the jokes: "Apparently, Sanford wasn't against all stimulus!"

Or: "South Carolinians are most upset not that Sanford strayed, but where: Apparently "mistress" is one more job the state is now outsourcing to South America! Damn that NAFTA!"

While in many ways it couldn't be considered a surprise (what is, these days?), as Sanford's press conference unfolded, it still came as a bit of a shock. Not quite up there with Eliot Spitzer-involved-with-prostitution-ring shock, but still something that came nearly out of the blue. That said, as such "I have sinned" announcements go, this could be considered one of the "better" ones. The Times called it a "rambling" performance, which it was. However, that fact humanized Sanford. This was no slick statement clearly written by committee. On the contrary, he sounded like a truly remorseful man -- as opposed to a "politician." He apologized to his wife, family as well as advisers and the public.

But, especially notable, Sanford stood there alone. Unlike, the Eliot Spitzer debacle, Jenny Sanford wasn't there by his side, enduring the humiliation of a husband admitting his infidelity in public. Who's idea that was is unclear. However, Mrs. Sanford's own released statement made one thing quite clear: She had kicked him out of the house two weeks ago, in what she referred to as a "trial separation."

Whether Sanford pays a larger price than merely stepping down as chairman of the Republican Governors Association remains to be seen. He may have attracted a certain sympathy factor based on the press conference. However, the release of e-mails between the governor and "Maria from Argentina" -- and whether state resources were used for his affair could cause him serious political complications for some time. And, don't forget, many South Carolina Republicans couldn't stand their governor before this. It's not like he has a lot of political goodwill upon which he can fall back.

As much as this is a personal tragedy for the governor, his wife and their four sons, the national Republican Party has to wonder if it's snakebit. Over the last two weeks, it would be fair to ask, what Republican politicians are NOT cheating on their wives (well, except for Sarah Palin)? Sanford's announcement came one day after Nevada Sen. John Ensign apologized to his GOP colleagues for the affair that he admitted to last week. Sanford followed Ensign also in resigning his GOP leadership position (Ensign was head of the Senate Republican Study Committee, the fourth-highest ranking member).

It's always difficult for a party out of power to compete with the megaphone of the White House. However, during a two-week period when Barack Obama is beginning to show some political bruises, sex scandals involving possible up-and-coming (no pun intended) party leaders are getting in the way of Republicans producing a clear-cut opposition message.

Pretty soon the party might start requiring chastity belts be worn by any other candidates considering throwing their hats in the ring.

Stay tuned.

Labels: Barack Obama, John Ensign, Mark Sanford

# posted by Robert A. George @ 10:16 AM

Has a rising star ever flamed out so quickly?

It was just a few months ago, that many Republicans were looking to pin their fortunes to South Carolina's Gov. Mark Sanford. The fact that he was defiantly rejecting the federal stimulus money pegged him as the exactly the bold, defiant individual that a beleaguered and dispirited party needed to counter the Obama phenomenon.

Yet, in barely a week, Sanford's future has seemingly evaporated. It began earlier this week with a bizarre, "Where's Gov. Waldo?" storyline that had everyone trying to figure out exactly where the governor had gone for weekend -- and then culminating today in a stunning news conference where the governor admitted to having a long affair with a woman in Argentina.

Cue up the jokes: "Apparently, Sanford wasn't against all stimulus!"

"South Carolinians most upset not that Sanford strayed, but where: Apparently "mistress" is one more job the state is now outsourcing to South America! Damn that NAFTA!"

While in many ways, it couldn't be considered a surprise (what is, these days), as Sanford's press conference unfolded, it still came as a bit of a shock. Not quite up there with Eliot Spitzer-involved-with-prostitution-ring shock, but still something that came nearly out of the blue. That said, as these "I have sinned" announcements go, this could be considered one of the "better" ones. The New York Times called it a "rambling" performance, which it was. However, that fact humanized Sanford. This was no slick statement clearly written by committee. On the contrary, he sounded like a truly remorseful man -- as opposed to "politician." He apologized to his wife, family as well as advisers and the public.

But, especially notable, Sanford stood there alone. Unlike, the Eliot Spitzer debacle, Jenny Sanford wasn't there by his side, enduring the humiliation of a husband admitting his infidelity in public. Who's idea that was is unclear. However, Mrs. Sanford's own released statement made one thing quite clear: She had kicked him out of the house two weeks ago, in what she referred to as a "trial separation."

Whether Sanford pays a larger price than merely stepping down as chairman of the Republican Governors Association remains to be seen. He may have attracted a certain sympathy factor based on the press conference. However, the release of e-mails between the governor and "Maria from Argentina" -- and whether state resources were used for his affair could cause him serious political complications for some time. And, don't forget that a lot of South Carolina Republicans couldn't stand the governor before this. It's not like he has a lot of political goodwill upon which he can fall back.

As much as this is a personal tragedy for the governor, his wife and their four sons, the national Republican Party has to wonder if it's snakebit. Over the last two weeks, it would be fair to ask, what Republican politicians are NOT cheating on their wives (well, except for Sarah Palin)? Sanford's announcement came one day after Nevada Sen. John Ensign apologized to his GOP colleagues for the affair that he admitted to last week. Sanford followed Ensign also in resigning his GOP leadership position (Ensign was head of the Senate Republican Study Committee, the fourth-highest ranking member).

It's always difficult for a party out of power to compete with the megaphone of the White House. However, during a two-week period when Barack Obama is beginning to show some political bruises, sex scandals involving possible up-and-coming party leaders are getting in the way of Republicans producing a clear-cut opposition message.

Pretty soon the party might start requiring chastity belts be worn by any other candidates considering throwng their hats in the ring.

Stay tuned.

Labels: Mark Sanford

# posted by Robert A. George @ 7:23 PM

As the US Congress considers the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, the Australian Senate is on the verge of rejecting its own version of cap-and-trade. The story of this legislation's collapse offers advance notice for what might happen to similar legislation in the US—and to the whole global warming hysteria.

Since the Australian government first introduced its Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) legislation—the Australian version of cap-and-trade energy rationing—there has been a sharp shift in public opinion and political momentum against the global warming crusade. This is a story that offers hope to defenders of industrial civilization—and a warning to American environmentalists that the climate change they should be afraid of just might be a shift in the intellectual climate.

One of the most remarkable changes occurred on April 13, when leading global warming hysteric Paul Sheehan—who writes for the main Sydney newspaper, the Sydney Morning Herald, which has done as much to hype the threat of global warming as any Australian newspaper—reviewed Plimer's book and admitted he was taken aback. He describes Plimer, correctly, as "one of Australia's foremost Earth scientists," and praised the book as "brilliantly argued" and "the product of 40 years' research and breadth of scholarship."

What does Plimer's book say? Here is Sheehan's summary:

Much of what we have read about climate change, [Plimer] argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modeling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive."…

The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.

To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable—human-induced CO2—is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly.

There are 7 other votes in the Senate: five Greens who say the scheme doesn't go far enough but who could be induced to go along; one independent, Nick Xenophon, who has pledged to vote against the bill unless the government waits till after Copenhagen; and one other, Senator Steve Fielding of the Family First Party, who has decided to investigate the whole thing first hand. Fielding could turn out to be the single deciding vote.

...Fielding went to the US to assess the American evidence for global warming at close quarters. As Melbourne's Age reported on June 4:

Senator Fielding said he was impressed by some of the data presented at the [US Heartland Institute's] climate change skeptics' conference: namely that, although carbon emissions had increased in the last 10 years, global temperature had not.

He said scientists at the conference had advanced other explanations, such as the relationship between solar activity and solar energy hitting the Earth to explain climate change.

Fielding has issued a challenge to the Obama White House to rebut the data. It will be a novel experience for them, as Fielding is an engineer and has an Australian's disregard for self-important government officials. Here is how The Age described his challenge:

Senator Fielding emailed graphs that claim the globe had not warmed for a decade to Joseph Aldy, US President Barack Obama's special assistant on energy and the environment, after a meeting on Thursday…. Senator Fielding said he found that Dr. Aldy and other Obama administration officials were not interested in discussing the legitimacy of climate science.

Telling an Australian you're not interested in the legitimacy of your position is a red rag to a bull. So here is what Fielding concluded:

Until recently I, like most Australians, simply accepted without question the notion that global warming was a result of increased carbon emissions. However, after speaking to a cross-section of noted scientists, including Ian Plimer, a professor at the University of Adelaide and author of Heaven and Earth, I quickly began to understand that the science on this issue was by no means conclusive….

As a federal senator, I would be derelict in my duty to the Australian people if I did not even consider whether or not the scientific assumptions underpinning this debate were in fact correct.

Labels: Australia, Barack Obama, Global Warming

# posted by EdMcGon @ 11:59 AM

Labels: 2012 GOP nomination., Mark Sanford

# posted by Robert A. George @ 9:10 AM

Labels: Ed McMahon, Johnny Carson

# posted by Robert A. George @ 3:01 AM

If South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford plans on running for president in 2012, he's already shown how he will distinguish himself from Barack Obama.

In contrast to Obama who is in danger of getting a wee bit overexposed with all sorts of television specials on NBC, ABC and CBS, Sanford is apparently in favor of taking the occasional "time out" where no one knows exactly where he is -- including his wife.

But she's not too worried. She knows he's off "writing something and wanted some space to get away from the kids." On Father's Day weekend. Right.

Sanford did give his staff a heads-up to let them know where he was, but that he wouldn't be easily found. Oh, and his police detail wasn't with him.

Ooookay.

Now, it's usually a little bit difficult for elected officials to just step out for a few days -- away even from your family members. It opens up room for, shall we say, speculation that the politician is doing more than just, ahem, fishing.

That's especially true when another Republican looking at 2012 has recently been caught admitting to engaging in certain activities with a woman not his wife.

That's also especially true when you are the governor of a state with a former governor/senator well-known for having a wandering eye.

Let's be clear: No one is saying that Sanford is doing anything either morally or ethically wrong. It's just somewhat, well, unusual, for a politician to just up and disappear.

Furthermore, Sanford's former House colleague, Steve Largent (R-OK) might give some advice about not disappearing without letting staff know where to find you: Largent went hunting for a few days in September 2001. His staff couldn't locate him and he didn't learn about the 9/11 attacks until a couple of days later. Oops.

Oh, well, perhaps Sanford decided to take a page out of the book of this guy from Oregon:

A man reported missing by his wife last week was located Saturday. But he says he wasn't missing -- just following his wife's wishes to go away.

William Peterson told police he and his wife had an argument and she told him to get out. So, Peterson spent the week fishing and camping in Bend.

As things go, that's a slightly better explanation.

Not by much, but it is up there.

Labels: 2012 GOP nomination., Mark Sanford

# posted by Robert A. George @ 8:00 PM