September 11, 2001 plus eight: Let's never forget

One thing about the evolution of Americans' views -- and disagreements -- about the 9/11 attacks that I'll never understand is the almost total lack of interest in what took place in Afghanistan as the U.S. counter-attacked swiftly and with devastating effect on al Qaeda. In brief, while the Pentagon had no contingency plans to operate inside land-locked Afghanistan, a tiny team of seven CIA officers, led by veteran Gary Schroen (who was pulled back from planned retirement), flew in an old Soviet helicopter over the Hindu Kush into the Panjshir Valley on September 23rd. For nearly a month, Shroen's team were the only Americans on this battlefront, gathering intelligence, forging an alliance with local Afghans, and developing the strategy and tactics that would result in the Taliban and al Qaeda being quickly routed with remarkably little loss of life.

As Shroen summed it up in a compelling and informative "Frontline" interview:

What happened there in those last few months of 2001 to me was a validation of what the agency could be and should be. We were ready; we had established contacts long before anybody thought we'd needed them; ... we had the means in the area to allow us to infiltrate into the hostile territory to meet with [Afghan] colleagues there who were besieged. We had the area knowledge; we had language skills. We did it right. We did it cheap. ... We probably, in my little operation in the Panjshir Valley, spent about $6 million during that period, and we ended up freeing the northern half of the country for probably $10 million total, and no loss of American life, except for [former Marine and CIA agent] Mike Spann, unfortunately. ...

On 9/11/09, read the whole interview. You'll be glad you did.

Your thoughts on this day? Post a comment.

Obama's health care speech: nothing new, strongly partisan and a missed opportunity

As usual, President Obama delivered an impressive speech to Congress and the nation Wednesday night. But the speech contained nothing of consequence different from what he had to say in mid-July, despite the many signs of deep and growing public anxiety about and opposition to Democratic health care reform proposals.

The major questions surrounding these proposals remain unanswered, including these in particular:

How will programs that will cost $1 trillion, give or take, be paid for?

The President offered no support to any specific financing scheme but seemed to say that much of the cost would be covered by cutting "waste, fraud and abuse" in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. No one believes this. The President did say he would reject any plan that "adds one dime to the deficit." Fine words but the deficit will be added to a great deal without a major, new revenue stream -- very likely taxes -- to pay for a comprehensive plan and the President provided no guidance on that all-important matter.

How can Medicare and Medicaid be cut by as much as $500 billion without any reduction in benefits or increased out-of-pocket costs for beneficiaries?

The President said again that seniors would lose nothing, but no one believes this either.

Amidst sweeping changes of the roles of private insurers and payment methods, new efforts to extract savings from the current system, and a plethora of new federal rules and requirements, how is it possible that people who like the plan or doctors they have will be able to keep them?

If there is a government-run "public option," or a government-subsidized "co-op" option at the same time as private insurers are required to provide a certain specified benefits package and to insure everyone, while being barred from imposing lifetime benefit caps, isn't it obvious that private insurers won't be able to compete successfully with the government-linked plan over time so that large numbers of people will wind up having no choice

Obama had the opportunity to confront these questions head on and answer them laying out a new reform program that moderate Democrats and some Republicans could get behind. Unfortunately, he chose instead to give a basically partisan speech -- notwithstanding a few compliments to some GOPers and acknowledgement of a couple of GOP ideas. His aim seemed to be to mollify the left of his party, which had started to turn on him, while laying down a number of markers around which he can hope to rally Congressional Democrats and pressure those who are reluctant to back a sweeping, expensive plan.

I think he's missed a huge opportunity to bring about some really important health care reforms. He won't be able to rally or pressure enough moderate Democrats in the Senate to pass a bill that House progressives also support. He needs every single Senate Democrat to get the necessary 60 votes ("reconciliation" with only 51 votes simply won't work). The Senate's centrist Democrats are keenly aware of their states' and constituents' interests and are not easily pushed around, even by a President.

So we are still where we were in July. Nothing has changed -- except the President has put himself and his Presidency on the line without having provided Congress or the nation the clear leadership needed. My guess is that there will not be a bill passed and signed by the President anytime soon.

What are your thoughts about the speech and the issue? Post a comment.

GOP should punish Rep. Joe Wilson for "You lie" outburst against President Obama

Rep. Joe Wilson (R.-SC) making his loud point, "You lie!"

The whole country knows by now that Republican Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina shouted, "You lie!" at President Obama from the House of Representatives floor as Obama asserted that his plan for health care change would not cover illegal immigrants. The House GOP leadership and Senator John McCain, among others, immediately called Wilson's outburst wrong, and Wilson apologized. Most conservative commentators chimed in to criticize Wilson, too, although some seemed to go out of their way to downplay Wilson's rudeness by pointing to Democrats having treated President George W. Bush with less than courtesy.

So that's the end of it, right?

I don't think so. Wilson's behavior is inexcusable, so he should be made to pay a price, not get away with an apologetic phone call to Rahm Emmanuel. There can be no excuse because:

-- When the President -- any President -- speaks to Congress, he does so as the guest of both Houses. If a member can't stand a President or what he has to say, the member can stay away and put out statements of disagreement. But you don't invite the guy and then heckle him.

-- A member of Congress should be setting an example of decorum, civility in political discourse, and simple decency. We understand that political combat can sometimes be rough, but there are limits we all recognize intuitively. Wilson shattered those limits.

-- The President is not only the head of government and the leader of his political party. He's also our head of state. That does not in any way insulate him from criticism, however harsh. But criticism should be leveled in a way that respects the office. That's why Democratic disrespect toward President Bush does not and should not excuse Wilson. If we allow this coarseness toward one President, we can be sure that the next President will be on the receiving end of worse.

OK, but since Wilson has a safe GOP seat and voters there probably won't rebuke him, what can be done?

One thing -- the most appropriate thing, in my view -- would be for his colleagues in the House Republican Caucus to pass a formal statement of censure. It would be awkward for House Republicans, but they would be applauded for not allowing this to rest with the usual meaningless apology. Plus, GOPers will be able to hold Democrats to the same high standard in the future.

What's your opinion? Post a comment.

UPDATE -- Some House Democrats are pushing Wilson to make an apology to the whole House on the floor and threatening a motion of censure if he doesn't. I think the more significant end to this story would be a censure from his fellow Republicans. A censure by the whole House, with its huge Democratic majority, would be just another round in the seemingly endless bitter partisan quarreling -- and likely a Pyrrhic victory for Democrats.

Radical leftist "Truther" Van Jones resigns top White House job in dead of night on Labor Day weekend

Well, at least the White House knows how to bury an awful story for the President. Van Jones, the screwball left-wing radical inexplicably hired into a high-level, policy-making post in the White House has resigned, according to this AP story filed at 12:34 am, Sunday, September 6th.

The revelations about Jones' very recent and never repudiated leftist radicalism, as I blogged about here, were getting worse. The latest was the most repulsive. Jones was a key participatant in what truly can only be called an anti-American rally held on September 13, 2001 in Jones hometown, Oakland, California, where it seems every radical kook in the Bay Area took turns in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 denouncing the "growing climate of racism, nationalism and anti-Arab bigotry" in the U.S. This was no pacifist get together, but as the sponsoring organization put it, made up of "supporters of Palestine...police brutality activists, anarchists and socialists," among others, who "stood together against the threat of more US violence[!]."

Jones clearly played a major role in this over-the-top America-bashing exercise. Here's what the sponsors said about Jones' role:

"The bombs the government drops in Iraq [presumably referring to the First Gulf War] are the bombs that blew up in New York City," said Van Jones, director of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, who also warned against forthcoming violence by the Bush Administration [emphasis added]. "The US cannot bomb its way out of this one."

This is raw stuff -- what you'd expect from a "radical Marxist-Leninist," as Jones once described himself, but not from a high official of a Democratic Administration.

Jones is gone, and good riddance. What remains, though, is the question of how and whyt such an extremist could snare himself a big-time slot in the White House. The President owes it to his country, his party and himself to find out who was responsible for overlooking Jones' manifest unsuitability and chastise him, her or them.

And let me say this again: liberals must step up and demand answers, too, rather than pretend that Jones is the victim of "racism" or a "witch hunt." Democrats won't keep the trust of the American people and the power that goes with it if they ignore extremism of the left.

What's your take? Post a comment.

President Obama must fire radical leftist "Truther" Van Jones -- now!

As President Obama grapples with growing uneasiness with and opposition to his policies from the broad center of American politics -- independents and moderate Democrats and Republicans -- the last thing he needs is one Van Jones in a high, policy-making position in the White House.

Jones is the so-called "green jobs czar," the guy who's supposed to guide policies aimed at boosting the U.S. economy in ways that also enhance the environment -- a delicate balance requiring someone with sound judgement and political skill.

But Jones, it turns out, is a guy who as recently as a decade ago was a leader of radical leftists and a founder of an expressly "revolutionary Marxist-Leninist" California group. Even more disturbing (if that's possible), Jones helped organize a January 2002 protest against the U.S. reponse to the 9/11 attacks, along with a host of leftist cranks at a time when 99.9 percent of Americans across the political spectrum were united in determination to retaliate against al Qaeda. Lest you think he changed his mind about this extremist stance, in 2004, Jones signed a "Truther" statement -- declaring 9/11 to be an inside job (you know, a vast Bush-CIA-Pentagon-Jewish conspiracy).

It is beyond comprehension how this obvious left-wing extremist got his big, cushy White House job in the first place. But he should be out the door fast. Obama has no chance -- repeat, no chance -- of retaining the support of the vital center if he places or tolerates radicals in important, policy-making posts.

While he's at it, Obama should find out who let this happen -- Rahm Emmanuel? David Axelrod? Valerie Jarrett? -- and treat that person to a stern trip to the wood shed.

This whole business is reminiscent of how some liberals have refused for decades to acknowledge that Paul Robeson was, in fact, a Communist with a capital "C," even though Robeson made no attempt to hide his CPUSA membership and affection for the USSR. It's inconvenient to do so, but liberals must stand up

Any thoughts? Post a comment.

Lockerbie bomber was set free in British oil deal

Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, killer of 270 men, women and children, gets the hero's welcome back in Libya

It was pretty obvious all along, but the Times of London now has the goods. It's enough to make you sick. Let's hope it's enough to bring down the UK government government of Gordon Brown(and its Scottish stooges). It's hard to see how the British people will stand for it.

The British government decided it was “in the overwhelming interests of the United Kingdom” to make Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, eligible for return to Libya, leaked ministerial letters reveal.

Gordon Brown’s government made the decision after discussions between Libya and BP over a multi-million-pound oil exploration deal had hit difficulties. These were resolved soon afterwards.

The letters were sent two years ago by Jack Straw, the justice secretary, to Kenny MacAskill, his counterpart in Scotland, who has been widely criticised for taking the formal decision to permit Megrahi’s release.

The correspondence makes it plain that the key decision to include Megrahi in a deal with Libya to allow prisoners to return home was, in fact, taken in London for British national interests.

Read the whole story here. And more disgusting details here.

Any thoughts about this monstrous capitulation to terror? Post a comment.

GOP Chair catches on: Seniors are the people who will decide health care debate

I posted three months ago that seniors like those in the picture above would decide the outcome of the health care "reform" debate once they woke up to the fact that the major plans advanced -- some more than others -- would gouge Medicare, directly or indirectly, sooner or later to their detriment.

Sure enough, polls show that seniors are the major group that is least supportive of the various health care reform schemes, and the steady erosion of Obama's public approval ratings is being driven in significant part by seniors.

Enter GOP National Chairman Michael Steele. In an op-ed today, Steele proclaimed a Republican Seniors' Health Care Bill of Rights that would, in his words, ensure that reform is "not funded on the backs of our nation's senior citizens. "

Steele has a simple point that no amount of scorn for inconsistency heaped on him by Democrats can deny: the principal health care reform bill teed up by Democrats in the House would cut Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars, all but eliminate the highly popular Medicare Advantage programs that currently enroll eight million seniors and reduce some payments to providers that most likely would result in fewer providers accepting Medicare patients. These provisions -- which are in the House plan very deliberately to "save" money that can then be used elsewhere -- are what makes seniors worry about reform, not hyperbole about "death panels."

The odd thing here, of course, is that one would expect Democrats to be defending the premier accomplishment of the Democratic Party of the last 50 years -- but they aren't. They are throwing up smokescreens to avoid facing the music with their most reliable voting constituents, while keeping their fingers crossed that Republicans won't appeal to seniors, simply because of traditional Republican opposition to "entitlements." And there is already a bit of a backlash against Steele in conservative circles for thus "pandering" to the old folks. Be that as it may, Steele has hit upon the Achilles Heel of the current sweeping Democratic proposals. If he and a few others keep pounding that drum, we will shortly see all but the hundred or so House Democrats who occupy totally safe districts begin to distance themselves from all but the kind of step-at-a-time changes Joe Lieberman suggested Sunday.

What do you think? Post a comment.

"Public option" is dead, dead, dead -- but left-leaning Dems refuse to bury it ( so far)

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) makes the case for the already dead "public option"

After weeks of watching public opposition to health care reform proposals increase and President Obama's approval ratings drop, the Administration apparently reached the conclusion that siding with the more sweeping House leadership version of reform, with its so-called "public option," had zero chance of making it through the Senate. Rather than see the opportunity to get both Houses to agree on something slip away amidst an increasingly negative public debate, the White House "signaled" furiously over the weekend that it was willing to drop the public option and consider coops instead as a counter to private insurers.

Not surprisingly, the left commentariat erupted in a combination of crushing disappointment and flat-out fury that Obama would sell out the One True Reform. And leaders of the House liberal bloc warned the Administration that some 60 members would never, never, ever vote for a bill that did not include a public option, thus making passage of any such bill impossible.

Won't anyone tell these guys that the public option is as dead Julius Caesar and all they can accomplish by opposing Obama on compromising with the Senate moderates and House Blue Dogs is to kill any reform bill? Well, I will.

It's dead because Obama and Health Secretary Sebelius said they could live without it. They may have backtracked a bit today to appease the outcry from the left for the moment and give Administration operatives time to smooth things over with unions and other key allies. But the deed it done. Obama can no longer go to the moderate Democrats -- Max Baucus, Byron Dorgan, Kent Conrad, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson and others -- not to mention the few moderate Republicans -- conspicuously Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe whose votes might be decisive -- and say, we must have a public option. The moderates have been saying for weeks that the public option is a non-starter, and now Obama has said, OK, I can do without it. That genie is, as they say, out of the bottle.

The left-leaning blogosphere won't let go of this easily. Already, they have seized on a comment by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz) to the effect that the proposed co-ops are a Trojan Horse for a public plan to complain that compromising with the Republicans on health care gets you nowhere because the GOP will not ultimately support any plan. Maybe so, but the stumbling block is not Kyl and the GOP Congressional leadership. It's the moderate Democrats who simply will not vote for a bill they consider to be too radical for their states and constituents. And it's the moderate Republicans whose votes may be needed to head off a filibuster.

So the self-styled "progressives" in the House are threatening to cripple Obama's Presidency before its first year is by submarining his premier proposal if it doesn't come up to their standards, and Howard Dean is sitting up there in Vermont making vague threats of primaries against Democrats who don't support a public option. I say, hooey. The House members will cave as soon as Rhambo swings into action to squeeze them for their votes. And successful primaries run by liberals against sitting Democratic Senators in less-than-liberal states like Montana and Arkansas? Good luck with that.

Some health care reform bill will pass before the year is out (unless the left goes totally bonkers and screws Obama), but it will be less sweeping -- more moderate -- than what's been prematurely labled "ObamaCare," and that's all to the good. The health care system is huge, complex and not altogether well understood. The potential for bad unintended consequences is enormous. What's more, a great many people like the much-distained status quo, at least where their health insurance is concerned.

As I posted some time ago, it will be better for everyone if reform is done piece meal. If this year's bill encourages greater portability, eliminates the pre-existing conditions dodge, expands eligibity for Medicaid, especially to provide insurance for the unemployed, and sets up a co-op to compete with private companies, that will be a lot to digest for a couple of years.

If people like Rep. Weiner (see the video above) think this is the only chance to pass a more comprehensive set of changes, they must have very little faith in the likelihood that voters will return Democrats to power. Of course, the irony is that if Weiner had his way, they probably wouldn't!

What's your opinion? Post a comment.

The Gallup maps: Why Obama needs to govern from the center

Here's why...

Gallup's in-depth state-by-state analyses of party ID and ideology

A couple of weeks ago, Gallup came out with an analysis, gleaned from six months of tracking polls during the first half of 2009, of party identification by state. The results (in the top map) showed a powerful Democratic hold on the electorate nationwide -- the continuation of the appeal to voters that elected President Obama and handed control of Congress to the Democrats last November.

As I pointed out at the time, although the poll results demonstrated clearly the ascendancy of the Democratic Party, they were not in any way "proof positive of a sustained leftward lurch of American politics," as many tried to claim.

The reason is simple: party identification and ideological affinity are two separate things -- overlapping, yes, but very much separate anyway.

Now, Gallup has released a second study of self-declared political ideology -- based on 160,000 interviews (a huge sample) over the same January-June 2009 period. Gallup asked people whether their views were "very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal, or very liberal."

The second map above summarizes the results: only in the District of Columbia is there a larger proportion of liberals than conservatives. Even in Massachusetts -- a state with a liberal reputation (e.g., Kennedy and Kerry) that is second only to D.C. in pro-Democratic leaning, according to Gallup, only 29% call themselves liberal, while 30% say they are conservative and 38% self-identify as moderates.

Wait a minute! How can this be? How could Obama and the Democrats sweep the country if all the states they carried are colored one or another shade of green?

The answer is, of course, that most of the moderates and some conservatives joined with liberals in Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina and many other states, because voters were in a mood to fire the Republicans after eight years and two wars in the midst of a scary economic meltdown. The Obama supported by these legions of non-liberals came across as a thoughtful man of (dare I say it?) moderation; a "post-partisan" figure of national unity at a time of deeply felt crisis; a leader they could trust with their futures. To these millions of voters, he was not even an ideologue, much less a leader who would forge a significant shift to the left.

Well, now they're not so sure about that -- so Obama's (and the Democrats) standing in various polls is dropping steadily. To be sure, Democrats can still win in that crucial swath of light-blue states in the upper map that begins with North Carolina, runs north through Pennsylvania and then west to Arkansas, Missouri and Iowa. But all those states also have a moderately conservative bent seen in the green shades of the lower map. Their voters will gladly support Democrats in responsible steps to right the economy and very likely on some other key issues, as well. But they will decisively reject anything perceived as "too liberal."

I should add that I have a bone to pick with Gallup with respect to both of these maps, especially the one depicting ideological preference. It highlights the right and left poles -- while leaving the reader to wonder where the moderates are (no doubt, that makes for bigger news stories and more attention to Gallup). In fact, self-described moderates comprise a huge chunk of every state's population -- from a low of 32% to a high of 43%. Only in the most conservative state, Alabama, do conservatives outnumber the combined moderate-liberal total. So a "center-left" coalition (theoretically) could prevail in 49 states! And in fact, although Obama's victory was not nearly that overwhelming, it was support from moderates and even some conservatives that elected Obama and the sizable Democratic Congressional majorities in 2008.

The President, Speaker and Majority Leader will come to regret it, if they forget this obvious fact.

Any thoughts about this? Post a comment.

Reports: CIA drone-fired missile attack kills Baitullah Mehsud, leader of Pakistani Taliban

Waziristan Taliban chieftain Baitullah Mehsud in better times

We may never know for sure, but it's being reported widely that a CIA missile has blown Pakistan's most wanted terrorist, Baitullah Mehsud, the killer of Benazir Bhutto among countless other victims, to smithereens:

"There is strong indication" that Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud was killed in a CIA drone strike that targeted a house Wednesday, a senior administration official told ABC News.

U.S. and Pakistani officials believe Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud is dead. U.S. and Pakistani officials believe that a strike in South Waziristan yesterday "very likely" killed Mehsud. U.S. officials said they had visual and other "indicators" that it was Mehsud, and that there is a 95 percent chance that he is among the dead. Pakistani officials are trying to collect physical evidence to be certain.

Baitullah Mehsud is enemy number one in Pakistan. He is believed to be behind some of the most spectacular attacks in that country, including the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in December 2007 and suicide bombings in Lahore.

Recently, the CIA concentrated resources on tracking and targeting Mehsud partly at the behest of Pakistan's civilian government, led by Bhutto's husband, sif Ali Zardari. So Islamabad should be a bit happier place today.

This latest success should teach everyone a lesson about the capabilities of the CIA and America's intelligence community, which have lately come in for a wide range of criticisms from the left and the right. The CIA's Hellfire missiles fired from Predator and Reaper drone aircraft have been killing al Qaeda and Taliban leaders and fighters a lot more effectively than anything else being done by any arm of the U.S. Government or our allies.

Got an opinion? Post a comment.

UPDATE -- The New York Times reports that the Taliban has confirmed Mehsud's death last Wednesday in a CIA missile strike.

Nixon redux: Obama White House asks Americans to rat out neighbors to government

Whatever you think about President Obama's drive for health care reform, you ought to find the effort by the White House to enlist Americans as government informers on other Americans who don't agree with the current Administration distasteful and unsettling. We are accustomed to the role of any President as a political leader and give the occupant of the White House wide latitude to conduct essentially political operations using government employees and resources. Still, there are -- or at least, there used to be -- some bright red lines the President should not cross. One of these lines has surely been crossed by the current campaign organized by the White House Office of Health Care Reform to get Americans to report "fishy" emails and other communications from other Americans to Big Brother at the White House. Lest you think this isn't such a big deal, it seems that once your email has been reported, it will remain a permanent government record -- potentially a large-scale White House "enemies list" that Richard Nixon could only have dreamed about. Here's the White House pitch for informers:

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.

I sent the following email to flag@whitehouse.gov (I did not receive a reply so far)and urge other Democrats to do likewise:

I'm a Democrat, but this effort to get Americans to snitch on their relatives, friends and neighbors by forwarding "fishy" emails and such to the government is fundamentally at odds with the spirit of free expression without the heavy-handed interference of the state and, thus, reprehensible. It should cease immediately, and any records collected by this program should be expunged.

I have never seen a more blatant attempt by government to invade the privacy of Americans since the days of rampant and excessive tracking of dissidents by the FBI and other agencies during the Nixon Administration.

Rather than harass people who oppose him on policy grounds in this way, President Obama and his Administration would do better to answer forthrightly and in greater detail the many questions being raised by Americans of the right, left and center about the myriad of not-yet-explained and constantly changing health care reform proposals being shaped by Congress and the Administration. If people are in the dark and easy prey to Internet-driven rumors, Obama and the Congressional leadership have only themselves to blame.

John Burke

What are your thoughts? Post a comment.

UPDATE -- Asked about a possible permament record of people who disagree with the Administration, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, "Nobody is collecting names." It would be snarky to say that's what Nixon said, too. But the issue is not whether it is the government's intention to collect names. Rather, it's that the correspondence, along with whatever names are attached to it, will be Presidential records that must be kept and could be accessed in the future to your detriment.

Recession empathy: Congress buys itself three luxury jets for $200 million -- the better to keep the little people informed

Exterior and interior of the elite Gulfstream 550 business jet

They cost $65 million apiece, and Congress is buying three of them at a cost of some $200 million of the taxpayers' money in the midst of the worst recession in a generation. The Air Force, which flies government aircraft, put in for one of these luxurious babies, but somewhere in the murky innards of the House Appropriations Committee, that was quietly bumped up to three -- the better to keep many more poobahs of Congress flying off to junkets or just reaching out with a bit of empathy for the little people back home.

Here is some of what the manufacturer, Gulfstream, says about this nifty private airplane:

The Gulfstream G550® large-cabin, ultra-long range business jet turned heads right from the start.

[snip]

This is a brawny aircraft with an international reach...With its long legs, the G550 easily links Washington, D.C., with Dubai, London with Singapore and Tokyo with Paris.

[snip]

The cabin aboard the G550 combines productivity with exceptional comfort. It features up to four distinct living areas, three temperature zones, a choice of 12 floor plan configurations with seating for up to 18 passengers. Maintaining contact with the home office is easy thanks to a host of standard communication features: a fax machine, a printer, a wireless local area network and satellite communications. As an option, consider Gulfstream's Broad Band Multi Link, which combines fast Internet-connection speeds with low operating costs.

Ah, what sacrifices have to be made to serve the public!

Any thoughts? Post a comment.

The Gallup map: Does it mean the Democrats are still golden?

Click on image to enlarge

Gallup is out with a state-by state-analysis of its polling data on party self-identification from the first half of this year. The map above shows that 29 states plus the District of Columbia are either solidly Democratic or lean Democratic, while only four are solidly Republican with another one leaning. The rest are closely divided.

Gallup's data came from asking adults (not just voters) which party they preferred. Those initially calling themselves independents were then asked to which party they lean, and the proclaimed partisans plus the leaners were added together to put each state in the blue, red or grey categories. The data is based on interviews conducted throughout the six-month period and was weighted to reflect the actual demographics of each state. The details are here.

The map and the data are being interpreted by some on the Internet as proof positive of a sustained leftward lurch of American politics since last fall, an answer to those who are trying to put the brakes on the expansive agenda of the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership, and a bad sign for the GOP. Surely, there has been a sweeping realignment and Democrats need not worry about the 2010 mid-term elections, right?

Not right. These results — from surveys conducted from January through June — unsurprisingly reflect the state of play in the nation’s politics that produced Obama’s election and big gains for the Dems in Congress. During most of the first half of the year, after all, most people, even McCain voters, were in a mood to give the Dems a shot at governing. Obama was getting 65-70% approvals in most of those months. He was - and is — personally popular. If the map did not look like this, Democrats facing reelection in 2010 would have to be frantically worried. And it's a well-known phenomenon in polling that people climb on board a winning bandwagon.

In any case, the signs of an opening for a GOP comeback began to be evident only recently in Obama’s sagging approval ratings, which started in June and accelerated in July, alongside a steady loss the the Dem’s previously big edge in the “generic” Congressional polls and growing dissatisfaction with Obama’s stewardship of the economy and several of his “signature” programs, conspicuously health care. To be sure, it remains to be seen whether voters will still be dissatisfied come the second half of 2010, but there is every reason for GOPers to feel a lot more positive than they did just a few months ago.

I thought in November -- and I continue to think -- that it was a big mistake or Obama and the Democratic leaders, along with so many journalists, pundits and other folks to buy into the illusion that the 2008 election heralded some sweeping or historic political realignment, a shift to the left, or the beginning of an era of guaranteed Democratic dominance. You'd think that such notions wouldn't have survived if only because the much-vaunted GOP dominance of just a few short years ago evaporated quickly in the face of public distress about the prolonged Iraq war and then anger over the sudden financial mess and the recession.

It should be a cliche but apparently it needs to be repeated again and again that Obama and the Democrats won by capturing the center -- the independents, moderate Republicans and centrist Democrats who are always open to shifting their support. In the fall of 2008, these voters decided to "fire" the Republicans. Obama and company should keep front of mind that if they fail to govern from the center, the electorate may well be in a firing mood again.

It’s also worth remembering that the map is not at all relevant to most of the House races that are likely to be heavily contested in 2010 (really, does anyone think Republicans have no chance in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee, etc. because they are colored blue on this map?) and even some Senate races may be influenced more by issues that transcend party or ideology (e.g., see Dodd v. Simmons or whatever happens to the Obama-Burris seat in Illinois).

What are your thoughts? Post a comment.

President Obama's public standing will keep falling unless he turns back to the center

Pollster.com averages of Obama job approval
Click on image to enlarge

It's the big story everywhere for the past week. Obama's public approval ratings have fallen to earth and look to be on a very unfavorable downward course. The Pollster.com graphic above plots the average of polls as dropping from an unsustainable high point around 65% approval shortly after the election to a not-so-great 52% today. RealClearPolitics also has a summary graphic here, which shows the same decline and has him at 53-39 as of now.

Some Obama supporters are pooh-poohing the numbers on the grounds that other recent Presidents have seen a similar drop over the first six months of their first terms, and 52% favorables isn't all that bad.

True -- but most of those Presidents were not trying to push sweeping, expensive new domestic programs on a half dozen fronts at once, while also shifting the tone of America's foreign policies.

Something more than the natural end to the post-election honeymoon is over. Most of the polls tell us that even those who continue to approve of Obama have a lot of trouble approving his policy initiatives. In particular:

-- Most Americans like their current health plans, don't especially want a radical makeover of the health care system, and worry (not without reason) that "reform" will either cost them more or affect the quality of their care or both.

-- Most Americans are worried about spending trillions of dollars on bailouts for dozens of banks and GM, among others, on the "stimulus" bill, on the cap and trade bill, and now on health care reform, even as the rest of the federal budget expands.

-- Most Americans remain worried about the recession and aren't particularly pleased with the Obama Administration's handling of it so far.

Like all Presidents, Obama was elected because he captured the center of American politics -- the independents, moderate Republicans and centrist Democrats who are always open to voting for either party. As a result of a grave financial crisis and a deepening recession, combined with widespread fatigue with all things Bush and a badly run campaign by John McCain, the Democrats had an historic opportunity. Still, to seize that opportunity, Obama campaigned as a moderate -- a man who saw all sides, looked for responsible compromises, and sought a new era of "post-partisan" cooperation in Washington after a couple of decades of growingly bitter quarrels.

But as President, Obama has turned away from candidate Obama's centrist moderation on key domestic issues. (Fortunately for the nation, in foreign affairs and national security, what changes Obama has made so far are mainly cosmetic or shifts in rhetorical emphasis.) Above all, in November, millions of people voted Democratic in the belief that a change was needed to get the economy moving again. Many of those voters continue to believe that this should be Obama's number one priority on which he stays focused until the job is done. They may not be economists, but they know that spending a trillion dollars more on health care, even if desirable, has nothing to do with ending the recession, the key job they voted to give Obama. And they know that the stimulus program has fizzled, while unemployment has continued to rise.

Perhaps Obama will get through this period and see his popularity rebound -- maybe in time to save the Democrats from a whopping setback at the mid-term elections in 2010. But I doubt that will happen unless the moderate, consensus-building Obama we came to know and like in the campaign makes a reappearance.

What do you think of Obama's decline in the polls? Post a comment.

Wise words from comic Craig Ferguson: Why everything sucks.

Watch the whole thing. It's interesting to me that a late-night comic can summarize in a comedy bit what legions of academics and self-appointed social critics take millions of words to explain and never quite get.

Comments?

French Army artillery practice sets fire to Marseilles suburb

Oops.

One of France's worst fires for three years raged on the eastern outskirts of Marseille late on Wednesday burning dozens of homes but claiming no victims, rescue services said.

The wildfire caused by military practice shelling hit the eastern Trois-Ponts suburb of the southern city forcing the evacuation of scores of residents.

[snip]

Regional prefect Michel Sappin confirmed that the blaze had been started by the shelling, lashing out at the "imbecilic" action that had led to "an annoying and serious" situation in a zone close to a city and saying he was "exasperated".

More pics here.

Hmmm. Maybe we should shelve that idea about leaning on France to send more troops to Afganistan.

Any thoughts? Post a comment.

(Hat tip: Legal Insurrection)

Left-leaning groups launch attack on moderate Democrats over health care

David Brooks thinks the Democratic Party has launched itself on a "suicide march." I wouldn't go that far, but it's surely true that the left wing of the party has always been a tad suicidal -- more now than ever -- and seems always ready to pull the Democratic Party as a whole down if it can't get its way.

I've blogged about this before here and here. If more proof is needed, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a MoveOn.org spin off, and DemocracyForAmerica, which calls itself "the nations' largest progressive political action community," are running TV ads attacking Democratic Senator Max Baucus of Montana, who chairs the Senate Finance Committee and is probably the key guy on the Hill who can frame a health care bill that might just pass the Senate.

No matter to the self-styled progressives who claim that Baucus is out of step with "the 76% of Americans who support President Obama's public health insurance option." The groups cite a month-old poll at a time when public support for any health care reform has been dropping like a rock as the massive costs and not altogether pleasing trade offs have become obvious to people. In any case, Baucus has never said he does or doesn't support a public option; he's just trying to get a bill that enough Senators will support to pass it.

And did the two groups even pause to wonder whether in relatively conservative Montana -- which now has two Democratic Senators, thanks to the very moderate stances that the left is attacking --their ads really will undermine Baucus with his voters? Frankly, I think it will help him at home to be attacked by these guys.

Montana's junior Senator, Jon Tester, was one of the moderates elected in 2006 who handed control of the Senate to the Democratic Party. Tester has been keeping a relatively low profile on health care reform, and like many other moderates, appears to be keeping his -- and the Senate's -- options open. For the moment, then, Tester is not a target of the left. But seven other Democratic Senators may find themselves in the cross hairs, including such usual suspects as Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman but also, somewhat surprisingly, John Kerry!

Let me not mince words: this is crazy, does not make smart, sustainable health care reform any more likely, and weakens the Democratic Party's ability to hold power in Washington long enough to change much of anything.

Moderate Democrats in the Senate and the House are reflecting their constituents' unease with sweeping expensive proposals that might be pushed through with foolish haste and a myriad of unintended consequences. These members of Congress likely represent the center of gravity of American opinion on this issue. They should be listened to -- not attacked.

What's your opinion? Post a comment.

Why can't we reform health care one piece at a time?

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Today, President Obama ramped up the rhetoric in a renewed push for a health care reform bill, while giving significant ground by backing away from his insistence that Congress produce a bill before its August recess. Well he might, since the chance that the House and Senate will agree to anything is now zero, and even the odds of a bill passing one chamber are dropping by the minute.

The troubles besetting his "signature" proposal (the tag now used by many media, even though Obama doesn't have a specific proposal) are so many that the question may no longer be whether there can be a bi-partisan bill but whether the Democrats can muster enough Democratic votes to pass a partisan bill! House Blue Dogs and Senate moderate Democrats are far from sold on any of the various proposals popping up and down daily. Public support for a sweeping reform is fading, as voters catch onto the behemoth costs, the likely tax and/or premium increases, and the vagueness of the benefits. Meanwhile, Obama's honeymoon is over, and his standing in the polls is declining -- not a problem for him but a signal to Democrats in Congress that they need not fear him as much as they might have a few months ago.

So you would think that Obama and the Democratic leaders in Congress would begin to look for a "Plan B" to avoid the sort of political fiasco that could ensue, if they insist on passing a bill -- some bill, any bill -- regardless of the unintended consequences for health care and the possible public backlash against them.

The obvious Plan B is this: stop trying to fashion a single "comprehensive solution" to everything at once, and figure ways to solve pieces of the problem.

For whatever reason, we Americans are enamored of big, sweeping plans -- so much so that we scorn "piece meal" approaches to many problems and sneer at "patch work" answers to major challenges. But what if pieces and patches can actually gain wide, sustained public support and make real progress that delivers substantial benefits to large numbers of people without the risks of massive failure? It is hard to take that route after you've spent years saying that our health care system is "broken" and needs wholesale reform to keep us all from sinking with it. But such rhetoric is highly exaggerated: the "system" is not "broken;" most Americans have health care coverage and a large majority of them are happy with it; and we have for the most part quality care that extends and enhances our lives.

The problem is that about 15% of America's people do not have health care insurance at any given moment. Most of these folks are in one of these categories:

1) They have lost a job and their health care insurance with it.

2) They are young people who have passed the age when their parents' job-based insurance covers them but don't yet have -- or in some cases want -- coverage of their own.

3) They work for employers -- many of them small -- who do not offer health care insurance.

4) They are among the rapidly growing number of self-employed people, including those who work as temps or independent contractors.

Here's my suggestion: Why not start with a plan to address groups 1 and 2?

If you lose your job, you could be provided with stopgap coverage (say, through the existing Medicare program to avoid having to create new structures) for the period of time you're collecting unemployment compensation (unless you opt to exercise your Cobra rights, which people who can afford it might still do). Enacting this proposal in the midst of a recession in which there is 10% unemployment should be a breeze politically. And the fact that the stopgap is temporary would appease conservative sentiment. But millions of people would benefit concretely and right away.

What if you're one of the post-graduate young people who lose parents' coverage? This is actually an attractive group to insure, given that 20-somethings are generally healthy and unlikely to tap insurance funds a great deal. The problem is that private carriers have no easy way to aggregate them -- and only them -- into a group plan that makes sense for the carrier. It should not be rocket science for the feds to figure a way to encourage or require insurance companies to offer such plans for people within a specified (healthy) age range (and probably geographic area) who don't have access to other coverage. The cost of these plans could be held down further by offering what amounts to major illness coverage -- with low premiums but high deductibles. This step should be a piece of cake politically because it would not costs the taxpayers much, if anything.

OK, so that leaves the biggest group, number 3, and what may be the thorniest, number 4, uncovered. But it would be something accomplished this year, rather than nothing -- or what is becoming increasingly likely, a big mess.

What do you think? Post a comment.

PETA Playmates pitch veggie hot dogs to Congress, nation

As People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals put it: "Wearing nothing but strategically placed lettuce leaves, Playboy Playmate of the Year and stunning vegetarian Jayde Nicole will hand out tasty, humane, and healthy veggie hot dogs on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. The action marks National Veggie Dog Day--PETA's answer to the meat industry's National Hot Dog Month."

Kinda makes you want to eat your veggies.

More of Jayde and Jo go to Washington here and here. Click here if you're interested in what Playboy saw in Jayde.

Any profound thoughts, analyses or comments?

Believe it or not: New York State spending almost $1 million of "stimulus" cash on road signs touting stimulus projects!

In New York, 84-sq. ft. signs like this one eat up $6-$8,000 a piece in stimulus dough

Believe it or not, New York State is on track to spend close to $1 million of the precious federal dough available under the "stimulus" program passed in February on big road signs (like the one above) beating the drum for the program.

No doubt, the signs are well made but incredibly, each one costs at least $5,000 and with some coming in at a whopping $8,300!

Lest you think this is just a New York extravagance, the feds have "strongly encouraged" this billboarding of road work paid for under the program (no doubt, it's the public's "right to know"), and many other states are doing it, although most are going with smaller, cheaper signs than New York's. Some states (e.g., Texas, Florida and Virginia) have had the good sense to take a pass on this ludicrous waste of money that could easily be better spent.

Now that the media are onto the signs, the public backlash has started (in an online poll by a Syracuse TV station, 93.6% of the respondents call it a waste of money), and state legislators, recently back to "work" after weeks of fighting over the keys to the Senate Chamber, are putting out press releases to grandstand against the signs. Meanwhile, New York's hapless accidental Governor, David Patterson, stepped in doo-doo again by insinuating that the state had no choice but to put up signs required by the feds.

What a bunch of clowns.

Any thoughts? Post a comment.

Will health care reform turn into a big political fiasco for Obama and the Democrats?

President Obama at White House "summit" on health care reform

Way back on March 5th -- a whole four months ago! -- President Obama seemed sure to push through a health care reform package to his liking this year. It was conventional wisdom that he had learned from the Clintons' earlier failure, which was widely attributed to their attempt to control the development of a plan centrally, leaving Congress and the public open to competing arguments. This time, by rallying wide-ranging support for the concept of "reform" and leaving it to the Congressional barons to develop specific plans, that wouldn't happen. Meanwhile, given Obama's popularity and a solid Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress, who would be able to stop the momentum behind a health care bill as one of Obama's highest priorities? “Those who seek to block any reform at any cost will not prevail this time around,” the President said confidently.

Maybe so, but there is still no bill, no sign of a bill, many signs of deep Congressional worry -- among Democrats -- over the costs of any program and how to pay for it, as well as how to get reelected if it works out badly, and to top things off, growing public skepticism about the whole thing.

In a new poll, 49% of voters don't like the plans being advanced by Obama and the Congressional Democrats, while 46% are favorable. In a really bad sign for the Obama team, support is slipping away just as it's needed most. Only two weeks ago, 50% favored reform and 45% did not.

No wonder it's being reported that Obama's deadline of August for bills to be reported out of both Houses will not -- and probably cannot -- be met. Some Democrats don't want to raise tax rates on high-income people to meet the minimum $1-trillion price tag for reform; others don't want to tax health care benefits to raise the dough; some are opposed to a public insurance option, while others insist on one as a sine qua non of their support; and few people believe that reform will result in significant savings to offset the cost of wider coverage. All that before you get to what price a few Senate Republicans might exact before signing on!

Yet, Obama and the Democratic leaders of Congress have far too much riding on passing a bill to get cold feet altogether. There are big and powerful constituencies in the country that want universal health care insurance coverage -- including scores of members of Congress and major unions that backed Obama. So one way or another, there will be a bill for the President to sign, even if it's a little late.

Therein lies the problem. As we've seen in connection with the stimulus bill and the cap and trade bill, when you want a bill -- any bill -- out of Congress, you're likely to get one loaded with contradictory provisions, loopholes for special interests, uncounted costs, and lord knows what unintended consequences.

So, what if a reform bill passes that is hugely expensive, does not provide enough real revenue or savings to pay the costs, reduces access to quality care for people who currently have coverage while jacking up their costs, and doesn't cover everyone anyway? That would result in a political fiasco, making life difficult for Democrats running for reelection in 2010, and likely diminishing Obama's popularity.

Could that happen? I wouldn't have thought so four months ago, but it looks like a real possibility now. What can prevent it? Only Obama's seizing control of the process and imposing his standards for a reform plan. That wouldn't magically make all the problems disappear, but it would inject some coherence into a process that is now spinning wildly and give him a better shot at rallying public support. Will he do it? Beats me.

What's your opinion? Post a comment.

Al Franken debuts in the Senate

Senator Franken opposed President Obama in his first vote as a Senator.

That's sort of dramatic -- but will Franken ever be able to top the above video?

What do you think? Post a comment.

Department of pure bunk: U.S. hospital groups set to contribute $150 billion in "savings" to health care to health care reform

It's being reported widely that three major hospital associations, the Obama Administration and the Senate Finance Committee will announce Wednesday an agreement under which America's hospitals will make "cost savings" of $150 billion over 10 years as their "good faith" contribution to an as-yet-unknown health care reform effort that is estimated to cost at least $1 trillion over a decade.

A lot of money, that $150 billion, eh? It means there is "only" $850 billion to go, right?

Wrong. IMHO, the whole thing is pure bunk, a bit a sleight of hand with numbers on paper. Here's why:

-- First, $150 billion is the proverbial drop in the bucket for the nation's hospitals, which collectively account for more than 30% of all health care spending -- or a whopping $11 trillion expected over the next 10 years. That means that the promised "savings" are less than one and one-half percent of an on-paper projection of long-term hospital revenues. It's easy to see that a few currently "unanticipated" costs here and there would handily overwhelm such a tiny proposed cut.

-- Second, most of the "savings" (some $100 billion) will supposedly happen as a result of reduced Medicare and Medicaid payments to hospitals. But these are projected reductions linked to "productivity adjustments" and a change in the formula used by the government to determine future Medicare and Medicaid payments. The former may or may not materialize, and the latter can be renegotiated -- or just ignored -- by future officials of this or a subsequent Administration.

-- Third, another $40-$50 billion (depending on which story you read) will come from the elimination of payments the feds make to hospitals to compensate them for treating uninsured patients. These "savings" come with a very big catch: They "would begin in 2015 and be phased in as more Americans gain medical coverage through broad health-overhaul efforts." So it's actually cost shifting, not cutting at all. Only as care is provided via insurance will the hospitals see the compensatory payments reduced. Since we have to hope that currently uninsured patients will receive more, better and more expensive care when they are insured, these costs are likely to go up, not down.

-- Finally, the three hospital associations -- while undoubtedly negotiating with the Administration and Congress in good faith and with a firm sense of what their member hospitals are prepared to do as of now -- really cannot commit the future operators of thousands of the nation's hospitals to anything. Down the road, if hospitals feel they are being pinched, they and their associations will lobby in another direction.

Right now, they are under enormous pressure to contribute to the kind of health care reform package that Obama has made a major goal for this year. With tomorrow's announcement, the hospitals will be able to say, "We're doing our part." Meanwhile, the Administration will be able to say, "See that, we're getting the industry to pitch in to make reform happen cooperatively, so we can cut current costs enough to afford the increased costs of covering everyone."

But these "savings" are far from real. They are nothing more than numbers on a piece of paper -- a slight alteration of projections of costs in a field where such projections regularly turn out to be wrong. In short, it's bunk. Extending coverage to millions of people is going to cost a great deal of money -- and that cost is the sticking point. Instead of levelling with the American people about it, everyone engaged in this project is throwing up smoke and setting out mirrors.

What are your thoughts about this? Post a comment.

Major split in Iranian leadership as "most important" group of clerics calls election illegitimate

The holy city of Qum, Iran

The movement for change in Iran is far from over, as the organization of religious scholars founded by Ayatolah Khomeini himself has thrown its weight on the side of the reformers and against "Supreme Leader" Khamenei and would-be President Ahmadinejad. From The New York Times:

The most important group of religious leaders in Iran has called the disputed presidential election and the new government illegitimate, an act of defiance against the country’s supreme leader and the most public sign of a major split in the country’s clerical establishment.

The statement by the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum represents a significant, if so far symbolic, setback for the government and especially the authority of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose word is supposed to be final. The government has tried to paint the opposition and its top presidential candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, as criminals and traitors, a strategy that now becomes more difficult — if not impossible.

“This crack in the clerical establishment and the fact they are siding with the people and Moussavi in my view is the most historic crack in the 30 years of the Islamic republic,” said Abbas Milani, director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. “Remember they are going against an election verified and sanctified by Khamenei.”

Since the election, the bulk of the clerical establishment in the holy city of Qum, an important religious and political center of power, has remained largely silent, leaving many to wonder when, or if, the nation’s most senior religious leaders would jump into the events that have posed the most significant challenge to the country’s leadership since the Islamic Revolution. With its statement Saturday, the association of clerics — formed under the leadership of the revolution’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini — came down squarely on the side of the reform movement.

This is a huge split in the Iranian leadership. It's hard to see how Khamenei can hold onto his authority without at least mollifying the clerics -- perhaps by sacrificing Ahmadinejad. Of course, Ahmadi may not like being sacrificed and might keep control of the security services, although that will be a neat trick without Khamenei.

Any thoughts? Post a comment.

Happy Independence Day!

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Read the whole thing. It does us all some good to read it once in a while.

Sarah Palin resigns as Governor of Alaska -- Video of news conference

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Guess we'll be seeing a lot more of former-Governor Palin in the lower 48 soon -- especially in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina......

Your thoughts are as good as mine on this one. Post a comment.

Message from terrorists: Be careful on 4th of July!

(Hat tip: JammieWearingFool)

The terrorists send us a 4th of July message: hilarious video.

Getting tired of media coverage of Michael Jackson? Wasn't he a creepy wierdo?

I wasn't going to post anything about the untimely passing of Michael Jackson. It's not about politics; it's sad and tragic when anyone dies suddenly at age 50; I did like some of his music; and I appreciate how clever and inventive he was (at one time) in making the most of the then-new medium of music videos.

But enough is enough. We're well into Day Six of all-Michael-all-the-time news coverage that saturates the networks, cable news, radio, papers, magazines and the Web -- and they're is no end in sight, as breaking news about his will, the paternity of his children, the maternity of his children, the autopsy, the other autopsy, the doctor, the investigation, the many possibilities planned or not planned for the funeral and/or public memorials, and of course, the Jackson family.

All the while, the distraught fans troop to and from Neverland, the Apollo Theater, MJ's boyhood home in Gary, and every other place with an association, however attenuated, with the self-titled "King of Pop." One typical fan I saw on the tube, a 30-something white woman who drove from Tennessee toting a 4-5-year-old girl to hang around Neverland until she was interviewed on TV, saying that she wanted to pay her respects and make sure her daughter saw this "history." So the outpouring of fan grief is what makes this so newsworthy, right? Maybe, except for the fact that we'll never know how many fans gather at these makeshift memorials due to heartfelt grief and how many because they know the TV cameras will be there. Doesn't the presence of dozens of reporters and cameras certify this as a big deal (or "history")? Isn't the "fan" response much like that of demonstrators who start chanting slogans when the TV cameras run?

And then there are the over-the-top encomiums. Naturally, no one beat Al Sharpton in this department (or in managing to milk the event to shine the light of publicity on his humble self). Rev. Al told the throng at the Apollo that The Gloved One had broken race barriers as a "crossover" act (i.e., a Black performer who appeals to white people), thus paving the way for countless others in the entertainment world and even President Obama!

Huh? Didn't that trailblazing crossover happen in the 1950s and 1960s with Sammy Davis, Jr., Ertha Kitt, Johnny Mathis, Chuck Berry, Ray Charles, Aretha Franklin, Diana Ross and a host of others in pop and rock music (many far more talented than the "King")? In fact, dozens of African-American singers, actors and comedians were household names for people of all races across America before many people knew much about Michael Jackson. While MJ performed with The Jackson Five back in 1968, he did not become a star as a single by any standard until the late 1970s. So what is Rev. Al talking about?

Most of this is foolish blather. On-air talking heads now refer to MJ softly as having been "eccentric" or "sometimes controversial." I'll say he was "eccentric" -- if that means bleaching your skin and undergoing plastic surgery to alter the racial aspect of your face, always talking in a falsetto voice, keeping a pet chimpanzee, pretending you're Peter Pan in your 40s, reportedly ordering up children through surrogate mothers without even contributing the sperm, dangling one of them as a baby over a balcony edge, paying two guys to walk alongside you in public holding umbrellas over your head to shield you from the sun like Pharoah, and sharing your bed with small boys, among many, many, wierd and creepy things.

The Jackson saga will go on, and on, and on, I'm afraid. But the next few chapters may be less appealing to the fans and others, although everything is grist for the media mill. The family members, the ex-"wife", and others are lawyering up, with MJ's will and the fate of Jackson's estate, potentially a huge cash cow for years to come, at stake. Sadly, the three children may become pawns in a brawl over MJ's money. Then, the medical examiner will report what happened to Jackson, and even if the findings are supposedly private, they will leak in detail, and god knows what we'll find out.

In the end, it might be better for Michael Jackson and his family (certainly his kids) and even his true fans if there were more modesty and a sense of regard for propriety about his passing. Give the man and decent burial, and let him rest in peace.

What do you think? Post a comment.