Probably one of the most moving words I have ever heard on television were spoken at the end of last week's memorial service when his 11-year-old daughter Paris tearfully came to the podium:
I – just wanted to say…Ever since I was born . . . Daddy has been the best father that you can ever imagine.. . . and I just want to say that I love him – so much.
As I looked about the stage, watching Al Sharpton and Rev. Jesse Jackson jockeying for position on stage, the whole event and the massive media saturation coverage (even by the Fox News Channel) seemed contrived. What we know is that there were differences among Michael Jackson and family members (in particular, his father) and he was an intensely private man; the anecdotal reminiscences of Smokey Robinson and Brooke Shields seemed to be more casual than intimate in nature. But perhaps one of the most revealing tidbits about the man's personality comes from Brooke's revelation that Michael Jackson's favorite song was Charlie Chaplin's "Smile":
Smile though your heart is aching
Smile even though its breaking
When there are clouds in the sky, you'll get by
If you smile with your fear and sorrow
Smile and maybe tomorrow
You'll find that life is still worthwhile
If you just
Light up your face with gladness
Hide every trace of sadness
Although a tear may be ever so near
That's the time you must keep on trying
Smile, what's the use of crying?
You'll find that life is still worthwhile
If you just
Smile though your heart is aching
Smile even though its breaking
When there are clouds in the sky, you'll get by
If you smile through your fear and sorrow
Smile and maybe tomorrow
You'll find that life is still worthwhile
If you just smile
that's the time you must keep on trying
Smile, what's the use of crying?
You'll find that life is still worthwhile
If you just smile”
The song choice, in my view, is not simply a songwriter's tribute to another multi-talented performer from a different era; I think it speaks to a profoundly sad, lonely, extraordinarily gifted man. He found fame and riches at too early an age and to a large extent had an entourage and professional contacts, but probably few true friends and a couple of broken marriages. The one thing I don't doubt is the love and devotion of this man for his children, and Paris' testimony for her father came straight from the heart--it was no scripted moment.
When the ceremony did a reprise of his mid-80's charity appeal, USA for Africa's "We Are the World", it brought to mind a concern that I had about charity acts as fads; the problem is that however laudable the intention, liberals often underestimate the logistical difficulties, theft, corruption and bureaucratic inefficiencies that stand in the way of well-intended aid to reach the target poor, and there is a lot to be said for extending aid beyond just relief supplies, but investments in local economic growth and diversification. In addition, music fads come and go; Africans still faced challenging circumstances (wars and genocide, AIDS, hunger, etc.) long after "We Are the World" faded from the music charts, and pop stars moved on to the next crisis, disease, or other politically correct goal.
Much was made about Michael Jackson's work for charity and the revelation that a portion of his estate will go to charity. I see charity as a positive good, and I'm not going to critique the nature, extent or effectiveness of his charity work. However, I do regret that Jackson never had people in his life whom would confront him over his notorious drunken sailor spending sprees; I think there's much more he could have done and left for charity purposes if he had been more fiscally responsible.
But it goes beyond that; I wish there were people whom could have tempered his unrealistic expectations in following up the top selling album of all time, and I wish there are people whom could have gotten him off all those medications he was unnecessarily and dangerously taking. At the same time, I expect that Michael Jackson was a grown man whom probably didn't react well to other people questioning his own personal behavior. Certainly, as an American citizen, Jackson had the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Final point: Congressman Peter King's (R-NY) inflammatory comments ("He was a pervert, a child molester; he was a pedophile. And to be giving this much coverage to him, day in and day out, what does it say about us as a country?"; "...low-life...") Let me point out, Congressman King, that the mother hitting up Jackson for a settlement in question was a known welfare cheat, and Michael Jackson was found innocent of the charges. Whereas I agree coverage has been over the top, I don't understand the timing, the tone or the necessity of this divisive statement; if you don't like the TV coverage, watch a movie. He had 3 surviving young children whom have never known another parent. I think it's politically retarded for a congressman to personally attack a deceased person unable to defend himself. I think Republicans imitating the Angry Left's politics of personal destruction by mean-spirited, disrespectful, irresponsible insults to singers and comedians are going to have no chance of capturing the hearts and minds of independent and moderate voters. Congressman King, reportedly with an eye on the US Senate seat up for grabs next year, may come to rue his impulsive rant.
Senator Burris Not Running for Reelection
The controversial replacement for Obama's Senate seat from the impeached governor Blagojevich's remaining days in office has given a face-saving announcement, based on fundraising difficulties (how ironic!) I've mentioned in past posts that Burris was badly trailing both prospective Democratic and Republican candidates, no doubt given the kiss of death by his selection from Blagojevich with a near unanimous impeachment and removal from office by the Illinois legislature. Durbin, the senior senator, had already announced that he would not support Burris' reelection.
Speculation on Burris' replacement had focused on the intentions of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, whom was swamping her competitors for either the governor or US Senate position--when she swerved everyone to announce her intention to run for her own reelection. Republican Congressman Mark Kirk, widely rumored to be a candidate for either the governor or US Senate race tentatively said he's in; the Democratic attack machine, showing their fear of his candidacy, immediately jumped on him. Kirk has his own drama on a couple of fronts: he was one of only 8 GOP Congressmen to inexplicably vote for the closely-passed Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill (which almost certainly will fail in the Senate, with key Democratic votes in energy-producing states), which has ignited a political firestorm by conservatives. Mark Kirk is primarily concerned over the intentions of Andy McKenna, the GOP state party chair for the same seat. (I don't think McKenna, a prior failed candidate at the statewide level, has a chance in the general election.)
I don't think the cap-and-trade vote was wise from the standpoint of possible primary challengers next spring, but it could be crazy like a fox from a general election standpoint. Conservatives would be well-advised to cool their jets; the fact that the Dems immediately went after Mark Kirk indicates their real fears over holding the seat next year, and it's unlikely that that House bill will win Senate approval as is. In fact, McCain, who supported a version of cap and trade in the past, has been a strong critic of the Obama version, and the Washington Post reports that the Dem leadership is about 15 votes away, indicating that substantial compromises will need to be made. Almost certainly we'll see the consumer tax burden reduced, and I expect more movement of nuclear plants besides the 17 applications for 26 or so new plants already in process.
An Unwise Elderly Jewish Woman Brings a Lifetime Tenure of Bad Decisions on the Supreme Court
The US Senate Judiciary Committee is due to start hearings tomorrow morning on the Judge Sonia Sotomayor nomination to the Supreme Court. My section heading for this commentary is not anti-Semitic in intent; I'm clearly intending to mock Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on her recent unprecedented comments affirming her support of Sotomayor, whom infamously made her "wise Latina woman" comment I've discussed in prior posts.
Emily Bazelon's July 7 New York Times Magazine interview with Justice Ginsburg is breathtaking in its softball leading questions (or really conclusions) at times. For example, in a follow-up to a discussion of Judge Sotomayor's alleged intemperate behavior towards lawyers presenting their appeals, Ms. Bazelon gives the following leading "question" to Justice Ginsburg: "It seemed to me that male judges do much more abrasive things all the time, and it goes unremarked."
What I did find particularly interesting is that Justice Ginsburg did not actually rubber-stamp the "wise Latina woman" type thesis, despite given a perfect opportunity by a leading question from Bazelon:
I tend to read this as a validation that a "good" judicial decision, from Ginsburg's perspective, is gender-neutral.
However, I find it entirely unconscionable for any member of the Supreme Court, unelected by voters, to influence the constitutional process in confirming a new justice. And Justice Ginsburg is clearly uninformed of the fact that Judge Sotomayor made similar comments in multiple public speeches over a number of years, implying it was merely just a matter of awkward phrasing: "And I thought it was ridiculous for them to make a big deal out of that. Think of how many times you’ve said something that you didn’t get out quite right, and you would edit your statement if you could." Justice Ginsburg is trivializing the legitimate issues that have been raised, including the way Judge Sotomayor short-shrifted legitimate equal protection issues underlying the recent Ricci decision and the fact that she has now been reversed on four (over half) of her relevant decisions before the Supreme Court.
Senator Burris Not Running for Reelection
The controversial replacement for Obama's Senate seat from the impeached governor Blagojevich's remaining days in office has given a face-saving announcement, based on fundraising difficulties (how ironic!) I've mentioned in past posts that Burris was badly trailing both prospective Democratic and Republican candidates, no doubt given the kiss of death by his selection from Blagojevich with a near unanimous impeachment and removal from office by the Illinois legislature. Durbin, the senior senator, had already announced that he would not support Burris' reelection.
Speculation on Burris' replacement had focused on the intentions of Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, whom was swamping her competitors for either the governor or US Senate position--when she swerved everyone to announce her intention to run for her own reelection. Republican Congressman Mark Kirk, widely rumored to be a candidate for either the governor or US Senate race tentatively said he's in; the Democratic attack machine, showing their fear of his candidacy, immediately jumped on him. Kirk has his own drama on a couple of fronts: he was one of only 8 GOP Congressmen to inexplicably vote for the closely-passed Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill (which almost certainly will fail in the Senate, with key Democratic votes in energy-producing states), which has ignited a political firestorm by conservatives. Mark Kirk is primarily concerned over the intentions of Andy McKenna, the GOP state party chair for the same seat. (I don't think McKenna, a prior failed candidate at the statewide level, has a chance in the general election.)
I don't think the cap-and-trade vote was wise from the standpoint of possible primary challengers next spring, but it could be crazy like a fox from a general election standpoint. Conservatives would be well-advised to cool their jets; the fact that the Dems immediately went after Mark Kirk indicates their real fears over holding the seat next year, and it's unlikely that that House bill will win Senate approval as is. In fact, McCain, who supported a version of cap and trade in the past, has been a strong critic of the Obama version, and the Washington Post reports that the Dem leadership is about 15 votes away, indicating that substantial compromises will need to be made. Almost certainly we'll see the consumer tax burden reduced, and I expect more movement of nuclear plants besides the 17 applications for 26 or so new plants already in process.
An Unwise Elderly Jewish Woman Brings a Lifetime Tenure of Bad Decisions on the Supreme Court
The US Senate Judiciary Committee is due to start hearings tomorrow morning on the Judge Sonia Sotomayor nomination to the Supreme Court. My section heading for this commentary is not anti-Semitic in intent; I'm clearly intending to mock Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on her recent unprecedented comments affirming her support of Sotomayor, whom infamously made her "wise Latina woman" comment I've discussed in prior posts.
Emily Bazelon's July 7 New York Times Magazine interview with Justice Ginsburg is breathtaking in its softball leading questions (or really conclusions) at times. For example, in a follow-up to a discussion of Judge Sotomayor's alleged intemperate behavior towards lawyers presenting their appeals, Ms. Bazelon gives the following leading "question" to Justice Ginsburg: "It seemed to me that male judges do much more abrasive things all the time, and it goes unremarked."
What I did find particularly interesting is that Justice Ginsburg did not actually rubber-stamp the "wise Latina woman" type thesis, despite given a perfect opportunity by a leading question from Bazelon:
Q: I wanted to ask you about the academic research on the effect of sex on judging. Studies have found a difference in the way male and female judges of similar ideologies vote in some cases. And that the presence of a woman on a panel can influence the way her male colleagues vote. How do these findings match your experience?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: I’m very doubtful about those kinds of [results]. I certainly know that there are women in federal courts with whom I disagree just as strongly as I disagree with any man. I guess I have some resistance to that kind of survey because it’s what I was arguing against in the ’70s.
I tend to read this as a validation that a "good" judicial decision, from Ginsburg's perspective, is gender-neutral.
However, I find it entirely unconscionable for any member of the Supreme Court, unelected by voters, to influence the constitutional process in confirming a new justice. And Justice Ginsburg is clearly uninformed of the fact that Judge Sotomayor made similar comments in multiple public speeches over a number of years, implying it was merely just a matter of awkward phrasing: "And I thought it was ridiculous for them to make a big deal out of that. Think of how many times you’ve said something that you didn’t get out quite right, and you would edit your statement if you could." Justice Ginsburg is trivializing the legitimate issues that have been raised, including the way Judge Sotomayor short-shrifted legitimate equal protection issues underlying the recent Ricci decision and the fact that she has now been reversed on four (over half) of her relevant decisions before the Supreme Court.
