Michael Jackson, R.I.P.

Michael Jackson has died.

For my part, I am saddened and somewhat bemused by Michael Jackson's death. Part of it is age-related. I'm 34, so while Thriller isn't in my memory's sweet spot, some of the Bad songs are, particularly "Smooth Criminal". I'm still awed by the full version of that song in his vanity movie "Moonwalker". When challenged by younger people about actually liking Michael Jackson, I have to tell him the old joke about how good he was as a black man before he became a white woman.

I liked several of his songs, I really enjoyed many of his videos, but I was just struck by how the man could dance. You could turn off the sound and still see the music flowing through his body. I especially liked anything that showed a sense of humor; I liked it when he let the cocky kid shine through. With his passing as well as Farrah Fawcett, it's like a little bit of the 70s and 80s died on the same day.

But ultimately, Michael Jackson became a pathetic creature--more to the point, a creature of pathos. I felt contempt for him, but also pity. He had everything that we claim to want: fame, wealth, acclaim, and to a large measure, freedom from consequences. He lived in a place where reality could not touch him. And as a result, he warped. He became a perversion, a distortion of what ought to be. He became that oxymoron of celebrity, the one known and adored by all who is utterly, utterly alone.

So rest in peace, Mr. Jackson, a peace I doubt you ever knew in life.

President Chapstick

President Obama ran on a message of hope and change. He was going to bring a new postpartisan approach to the White House. He was going to work with people on the other side of the aisle and put aside the politics of the past. Hope, change, etc. I didn't believe him then, and I don't believe him now:

THE PRESIDENT: Now, I just want to say this — I value the constructive criticism and the healthy debate that's taking place around this package, because that's the essence, the foundation of American democracy. That's how the founders set it up. They set it up to make big change hard. It wasn't supposed to be easy. That's part of the reason why we've got such a stable government, is because no one party, no one individual can simply dictate the terms of the debate…

So I welcome this debate. But come on, we're not — we are not going to get relief by turning back to the very same policies that for the last eight years doubled the national debt and threw our economy into a tailspin.

So while he says he welcomes the debate and appreciates it should be hard, he then states that the other side shouldn't be listened to. The bill should be passed immediately, right now, very fast, because the country can't wait to spend another several billion dollars on building vacant federal buildings. He's really going to listen to the other side and include their good ideas--it's just that they haven't had any good ideas yet.

That's why this man is President Chapstick: all he offers is lip service.

Well, That Was Dumb

That didn't take long.

President Obama has been trying to obtain bipartisan support and cover for his agenda, so what does he decide to do before his first weekend in office? Bully the Republicans into doing things his way or else.

First, he told the Republicans meeting with him to listen to him, not Rush Limbaugh. "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done." Sure, that's a great idea: call out a man with 15 hours a week with a microphone. It's also telling Republicans that they have to do things his way if they want to accomplish anything. And how will that work?

"In an exchange with Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) about the proposal, the president shot back: 'I won,' according to aides briefed on the meeting.

'I will trump you on that.'"

So apparently bipartisanship means doing things President Obama's way and, if they don't like it, too bad because he won the election. And he says this the first week before he's fully gauged his actual strength in the back-and-forth institional struggle between the legislative and executive branches? And he puts it in such crass, bald terms that make it to the public AND tick off the most prominent megaphone on the other side? I thought this man was supposed to be smart.

Here's what he's just given his opponents the green light to do: to walk around for the next six weeks with this confused/regretful pose saying things like, "banks are failing, and we're solving it by spending millions of dollars on contraceptives and grass for the Mall and after-school snacks? We're afraid we don't understand, and we don't know how to explain that to the American people. Maybe you can?" Since he's already signaled that he doesn't need them to pass what he wants--he won, after all--they can position themselves NOW to consistently point out the flaws and abuses in the bill--not in an attempt to get what they want (because they've already been told how that works) but for purely political purposes to knock some of the shine off the president. A party-line vote on his first major action won't look quite so hopey and changey.

Given the Republicans' recent political instincts, there's no guarantee that they'll follow this path. But it's a dumb move on President Obama's part to try to set the rules of the game like this so fast. Now the Republicans can play a different game if they decline the be the fig leap he clearly wants them to be.

There's a new sheriff in town, and he just shot himself in the foot.

A Thought Experiment for Roe v. Wade Anniversary

Today marks the 36th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions. Since I'm 33 years old, today always has a certain significance to me; knowing that it was legal for my mother to end me if she had chosen gives the issue a certain resonance. (Thank heavens my mom knew better.) Even though it's been well over thirty years since the decision, the issue of abortion remains powerful. A piece by the late Father Richard John Newhaus examines the pro-life movement in the context of following the '60s model of citizen participation--the nuts and bolts, if you will--while Ed Whelan reprises his earlier testimony about the pressure-cooker impact the Roe v. Wade decision had on participatory democracy and how it short-circuited the mechanisms that allow for general consensus on legal issues. Both very interesting reads.

In a slightly different vein, consider this thought experiment. Imagine yourself to be a resident of Tennessee in 1857. Your uncle Henry from southern Mississippi dies. He leaves you some property. Part of that property includes Jim, a slave. There are taxes on the property and someone to run it. If you keep Jim as a slave, the property becomes profitable. If you grant him his freedom, the property is unprofitable and will cause you to lower your standard of living to account for it.

Your neighbor Louis also has an uncle in Alabama who dies and leaves him property. That property includes John, a slave. Likewise, there are taxes on the property and someone to run it. The same profit/loss calculation applies to Louis.

Now, John and Jim: are they people, or are they property? In order for you and Louis to have a legitimate choice, the law must support that they are both property. You can choose to free Jim and change him from property to person, just as Louis can choose to keep John as property. But the law must establish that they are property first, and the person who chooses to free his slave must do so deliberately through determined action.

Thus, John and Jim, who are otherwise similar, have the basic question of their humanness decided by another party who, indeed, has a vested interest in the answer. You choose property, Louis chooses person, and the law supports both decisions. That seem right to you?

Let's now engage in another thought experiment. You are pregnant, living in New York. You're two months along. You're married with no other children, and you and your husband get by okay, but having a child is going to be a real financial burden on the both of you. There is, as it happens, a Planned Parenthood clinic three blocks down around the corner. You've been to your doctor, and he tells you the fetus is progressing normally; you're young, and no complications with the pregnancy are expected.

You get a call from your twin sister Susan. Lo and behold, she too is eight weeks pregnant. Her husband and she are also currently childless and financially comfortable as-is, but having a baby changes everything, as they say. Her doctor also tells her that the fetus is progressing normally, and she's just as healthy as you are. She tells you that if it's a boy, they'll name him Edward; it it's a girl, she'll be Caroline. She lives six blocks from you; guess what's right in the middle?

That being in your womb and the being in hers: are they people, or are they property? In order for you and Susan to have a legitimate choice, the law must support that they are both property. You can choose to carry the fetus to term and give birth, changing her from property to person, just as Susan can change her mind, consider Edward/Caroline to belong to her body, and dispose of it. But the law must establish that they are property first. However, unlike the previous case, the person who decides that the property is a person just has to leave nature to take its course; the person who considers it property has to take deliberate action to carry out that decision.

Thus, the two fetuses in you and your twin sister, who are otherwise similar, have the basic question of their humanness decided by another party who, indeed, has a vested interest in the answer. You choose property, Susan chooses person, and the law supports both decisions. That seem right to you?

(I've had this in mind for a while, but a nod goes to Alfonzo Rachel who also expressed this sentiment the other day. Check it about 6:30-7:00 into the video)

All the Plastic People

Some of the excesses of yesterday coupled with this piece by Dirk Benedict called to mind a poem I had written several years back about celebrities who tried to stump for causes. I've always liked it, so in the spirit of Breitbart's pledge, I'll post it once again.

All The Plastic People

All the plastic people
Are strutting on parade.
Now they smile, now they chant,
Now they pitch their flags and
Proudly pin their ribbons.

All the plastic people
Pour their people slogans
Into their plastic ears
And sit back and revel
In the tinny echoes.

All the plastic people
Are droll and mock on cue.
Behind their words they say
The same thing, “Look at me!”
“Look at me! Look at me!”