As I write this (November 16th, 2010) Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), once one of the most powerful members of the House, was convicted on 11 counts of violating ethics rules by the House ethics panel and now faces “punishment.”

Rangel is the embodiment of what is wrong with politics in America today. His sense of entitlement and privilege apparently know no boundaries. Mind you, this is certainly not the first time Rangel’s actions have been called to the attention of his peers, but he has, up till now, proven to be invincible.

Rangel has “served” on the House Ways and Means committee. These are the folks who decide how to spend your hard-earned tax dollars, yet Mr. Rangel has apparently put himself above paying taxes.

It was nothing short of remarkable that, during the first day of his rant-filled “testimony” he told the panel that he had not been given enough time to find suitable legal representation. This from the man who for two years has been demanding a “speedy” resolution to these matters.

Then, in a show of shows, this megalomaniac blow-hard had the impudence to “excuse” himself from these proceedings…it seems that the king didn’t feel like answering his accusers.

How is it that no one on the panel had the courage to say, “Mr. Rangel you will sit down and participate in this hearing. Should you choose to leave the room we will have you arrested.”

Imagine for one moment that you are on trial for some infraction, maybe for writing a worthless check or for cheating on your taxes. The charges are read and you stand up and admonish the judge and jury for being unfair to you. Then announce that because of their shortcoming that you are going to “excuse” yourself from the proceedings. Do you believe for a single moment that you would make it as far as the door before being wrestled to the ground and handcuffed?

So now Charlie has been found guilty. You or I might possibly serve hard time in a federal penitentiary for evading our taxes or participating in some of the other shenanigan’s that loveable Chucky has been up to.

But for Charlie? Folks, he might get a “reprimand.” It is relatively certain that he isn’t even going to lose his job! Unbelievable! If you were accused by the company that you work for of lying and cheating, do you think you might get fired?

He has been “serving” for 20 terms. Read that again, not 20 YEARS, but 20 TERMS, and his constituency has apparently decided that, as bad as things are in his district, perhaps if he has JUST ONE MORE CHANCE he can get it right. Of course the question here is who is more delusional, Mr. Rangel or the people who repeatedly vote this clown back into office.

Hopefully someday the American voter is going to change the rules. The people’s servants will serve two terms maximum. When they leave office they will take none of the perks home with them, not franking privileges, not insurance, not a pension. Only then will the bottom-feeders like Rangel and the rest of his ilk get the message and, when their service has ended, thy will disappear into the oblivion that they so richly deserve.

The figures of course vary wildly, but it is likely safe to say that the American government is spending slightly over 2.3 trillion dollars a year in foreign aid. Now 1 of every 7 Americans live in poverty. Health care is beyond the reach of more and more Americans.

How can we help our own citizens?

Kind of a no-brainer, ain’t it?

So now I’m told I can no long say “Colored People” when I discuss people of color. That seems odd to me, not least because it is apparently still acceptable to use the phrase, “people of color,” but not “Colored People.”
However I’ve never been much of one to follow convention and so I’ll pass on this new edict.
Particularly as long as I gets mail begging me for money from the National Association for the Advancement of COLORED PEOPLE. It seems only fair that if they can refer to themselves as “colored people” in order to get their hands into my wallet, I can use that same term at my descression.
This is the same as the word “Negro.” I’ve been told that, at the moment, at least, is offensive at worst and politically incorrect at best. However I received a postcard recently asking me to make a generous donation to The United Negro College Fund.
Hmmm.
I cringe now when I hear anyone, particularly a media anyone, say something about the “N” word.
The “N” word?
We’re all adults here. This isn’t kindergarten. Everyone knows what the “N” word is so why the ambiguity? Are these the same people who ask if they can use the little boy’s or little girl’s room? They have to go #1 or #2?
I don’t want an adult asking if they can use the “potty,” and if they do I might tell them to “F-Word” off.
What if I want to listen to my favorite comedian, the late Richard Pryor, and his uproarious live album? You know the one, “THAT N-WORD’S CRAZY.”
Or how about the rap group “N.W.A.”?
(Do you know what that means? “The N-Words With Attitude”. Now, in all fairness and in the spirit of full disclosure, according to their website the N-word in this case refers to “Niggaz.”)
And that’s okay (?)
Oh. I see.
For your edification I have actually been told, the word “nigga” is still moderately acceptable. Unless you’re “a cracker.”
(For those of you out-of-the-loop, a “cracker” is what was once called a “honkey” and before that, “Whitey.” But that’s another topic for another day.)
So, I looked it up, here and there, and this is what Wikipedia has to say about the N-word :
“The word originated as a term used in a neutral context to refer to black people, as a variation of the Spanish/Portuguese noun negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, meaning the color ‘black.’”
So does that mean that Hispanics are being insensitive when they warn about “el gato negro” crossing one’s path? Is that disparaging to people or to black cats or to both?
Ever read Agatha Christie’s book Ten Little N-words? It was first published in London in 1939 and continued to appear under that title until the early 1980s, when it became And Then There Were None.
Perhaps you remember some years ago (1999) when a D. C. city employee named David Howard was ordered to make a full, public apology (and was eventually compelled to resign) for using the word “niggardly?”
“The words niggardly (miserly) and, just so you know and before you ask, snigger (“to laugh derisively”) are in no way related to nigger.
“Niggard (miser) derives from the Old Norse word nig (stingy), and the verb niggle derives from the verb nigla (“chew,” “gnaw”; and “potter at”).
(Along the same lines not too long ago media mogul Ted Turner, no less, had to make an apology for calling a man from China a “Chinaman” because it was “derogatory.”
(Weird. I’ve heard the folks of France refer to themselves, rather proudly, as “Frenchmen.” Gents from Scotland don’t seem to mind being called “Scotsmen,” (but I’ve learned first hand it is not advisable to call them “Scotch.” I was told rather emphatically that “Scotch is whiskey!”
({Actually, of course, in Scotland that is spelled “whisky.” Ah, well…}
(The Irish are not noticeably distressed at being called “Irishmen,” and I’ve never gotten a dirty look from a Welshman…
(Why would they care? That’s where their from, it clearly derives from the name of their country. Unless one was ashamed to be from China, why would it be offensive to be known as a Chinaman? You’ve got me.)
It’s all gone a bit too far for me I am afraid. I learned many years ago that anyone is free to take umbrage at any thing we say to them.
Myself, I still tend to use the word “Black” when I am speaking of Negroes.
After all, being listed as a “White American” has never seemed offensive to me, though my lineage has a great deal of Indian blood from both my mother and my father’s side. (Not Native American. Bye the by, if you don’t know, Indians were NOT native to America.)
Likewise it seems perfectly okay to me to refer to the aboriginal people of Australia as “Aborigines.”
It only seems logical.
The same logic causes me to refute the overbearingly euphemistic “African-American.” I have met comparatively very few people from Africa. I do not accept this term on any level unless it refers to someone, black or white, yellow or tan, who has recently emigrated from an African nation to America.
(I did once meet a blue-eyed, blonde haired beauty of Dutch ancestry who was born in Johannesburg and who, after become a naturalized citizen of the U.S.A. referred to herself, quite accurately, as being “African-American.” She said that black people generally did not find it amusing, but it was the truth, after all.
The vast majority of black Americans were born and raised right here in the United States of America. Their parents were not from Africa. Nor their grandparents. Nor their great-grandparents. How far do we go back with this?
A (black) friend of mine’s family was from Jamaica. He didn’t like being called “African-American” because a.) he was second generation in the U.S.A. and b.) his ancestors had lived in Jamaica for more than a hundred years. However, he didn’t expect everyone to refer to him as “Jamaican-American,” nor should he have. But he definitely bridled when referred to as African-American, and he was quick to steer folks right on the issue.
Shouldn’t there be a statute of limitations on how far back you can trace your ancestry in relation to your relations.?I figure if your family has been in a given country for two or more generations you should consider dropping the hyphen.
This from a dyed-in-the-wool Welsh-German-English-Native American.

Scott Brown’s stunning victory in the Massachusetts senate race on January 19th was nothing short of remarkable. Personally I would have to say it was one of the most interesting and surprising political events of my life, and that covers some intriguing occurrences.
The night of the election my democrat friends were beside themselves, with much gnashing of teeth and self recrimination, wailing that “they” had lost. How could such a thing have happened, in Massachusetts, of all places, arguably the most liberal state in the union?
My republican friends were too busy high-fiving each other and generally gloating to notice. After all, how could such a thing have happened, in Massachusetts, of all places?
As a recognized independent I’ve since been engaged in many conversations trying to convince both sides that they are wrong.
The truth is that America won.
For years we have apparently (though erroneously) believed (as did both the people of Massachusetts and the Kennedy family) that this seat was theirs by entitlement. But paraphrasing Brown himself, no one party (or person) should “own” any seat or any position in our government by “birthright.” The concept should repugnant to people who love freedom.
Republicans certainly didn’t “win,” in the traditional sense because Brown’s victory was not created by republicans. The election was carried by independent voters, men and women who are a fast emerging force to be dealt with by both parties.
And in a way the dems won, too. The highflying, grating rhetoric of Pelosi, Frank, Reid and the rest has been ratcheted back a series of notches and, to put it bluntly, they have been put into their places not as dictatorial arbiters, but as servants of the people.
Now perhaps REAL bipartisan debate can come to important issues face our nation, rather than secretive, unilateral meetings behind closed doors. Perchance now debate can thrive and that is always a good thing in a democratic republic.
And perhaps the president will realize he is actually going to have to work for what he sees as his mission, rather than reciting high-flying platitudes from a teleprompter at some carefully scripted “town-hall” meeting. America and Americans are perhaps a bit more complex than he and his insiders once believed.
It is a good thing that people are finally learning that voting a “straight party line” is restrictive and obtuse. We are learning to vote for people and ideas rather than parties and ideologues.
We all share Scott Brown’s victory.

S. C. Dixon
724 Commercial
Emporia, KS.

News of moving the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators to NYC is disappointing at best. At worst it is butt-stupid. When I first heard the story, appropriately enough on Friday the 13^th, I actually felt a vague sense of melancholy. What possible gain could there be from this? Then the obvious occurred to me. Politics. Political hay is to be made.

Of course it will provide a venue for a real dog & pony show for Eric Holder and might possibly provide a great political payoff for the Obama administration. If it doesn’t backfire and it very likely will…

We will see the Bush administration on trial, which is what Holder and others of the president’s cabinet have been salivating for since the day they took office. Of course in the end this may be not such a good idea. Already it seems that there is something of a pattern that when the Obama Clan try to be clever they end up with egg on their collective faces.
One of the very few things I admire about W is that after 9-1-1 when we were ALL waiting for the ‘other shoe to fall,” it never did. Apparently he kept his word and kept America safe, by whatever means, for the next 7 years or so of his service. A LOT of folks recognize that and admire it and, in fact, and plenty from Obama’s own party are starting question his administration’s dismantling of some of the apparently effective Bush programs.

But then they, The Obamites, will have the distinct pleasure of (at least trying) to humiliate the former president and, of course, Dick Cheney too, which they will likely see as a huge bonus, if not the actual prize. It will provide a “twofer,” being able to denigrate the office of vice president (and with Joe Biden currently “serving,” who can blame them for that?) as well personally humiliating Cheney.

The trial is destined to be what is commonly called “a circus.” There will be great bombast from both sides, but doubtless in the end it will be the proverbial “bully pulpit” for the jihadists and will provide them with more publicity and news coverage recruitment materials than all the money on earth could buy. It seems impossible that this will not seriously damage the Central Intelligence Agency and the FBI and, in fact, America’s entire intelligence gathering community.

If somehow I was chosen to be a member of the jury I would double, no triple, my life insurance coverage. It occurs to me that I just might become a target for the next jihadist jerk who wants to make a name for himself so’s he can wind up at the prophet’s side with all those trick virgins.

What about the judge? Can I take out a policy on him/her as well? What’s that life expectancy going to be? Would you want the job? If so, how do you think your family might feel about it?

By it’s very nature the necessary testimony will be fodder, day in and day out, for what we jokingly call our “news” media and what they report will inflame Arabs and incense Muslims around the world. In turn this will damage already tenuous relations back to a point that they quite possibly can never be repaired, further alienating the Islamist population from the rest of the world’s society. And what will be the result if one or more of the attackers is sentenced to death, which we’re told is likely the case? How long will the appeals last? How will this NOT continue to fan the flames of hatred and “holy” self-righteousness? And, yes, it will drag on indefinitely. The talking heads will yammer this to the point that we will cease to listen or to care.

Monetarily this trial/these trials will cost millions of dollars to a city already teetering on the brink of insolvency at a time when that money could be better spent almost anywhere for almost anything.

In addition to all of this, it is, I think an inherently wrong approach. Criminal courts are designed to handle conventional crimes and conventional criminals, the appeals process and all the rest…this case involves neither a conventional crime nor conventional perpetrators.

The idea that the September 11^th attack was a criminal act is an insipid holdover from the Clinton years. It was laughable then and it is laughable now. For those with short memories, when the Towers were originally bombed on February 26, 1993 President Clinton treated it as a “criminal” affair. Of course that bit of brilliance ended up with the total destruction of the World Trade Center a scant few years later.

Back then a car bomb was detonated below the North Tower. The bomb was a big one, estimates say about 1,500 lb, but it apparently wasn’t quite big enough. The idea was to knock the North Tower (Tower One) into the South Tower (Tower Two), bringing both crashing down and to kill thousands of people in the process. Like most terrorists these guys were not awfully bright, thankfully, and “only” managed to kill six, although they did injure well over a thousand folks.

Quoting an article in Wikipedia, “The attack was planned by Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. It is well established that they received financing from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Yousef’s uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. In November 1997, two more were convicted: Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb.

Now, you tell me, in the real world, does this sound like a “common crime,” or does this sound like a terrorist/militaristic attack?

(It occurs to me that one does not charge an invading army of enemies with criminal charges. Instead, one engages them in a war, hopefully to assure that such attacks no not happen again. WHEN THE WAR IS OVER you try them for war crimes, not in the middle of TWO wars.)

This is why we developed military tribunals. How ridiculous would it have been if, in 1945 some genius proposed bringing Hess, Goering, and Himmler to New York for trial after the heinous crimes of W.W. II? Ridiculous then, ridiculous now.

Methinks that this whole scenario is based on politics pure and simple, rather ugly politics at that and that no good is going to come from it either for New York or for America and its people. I think it further muddies the waters of justice and confuses many of the issues that we were just now starting to get sorted out.

Speaking of politics it will also serve to draw attention away from our moribund economy, the Ft. Hood occurrence, and continuing gaff’s by the president (bowing to the emperor of Japan???) and his cabinet.

At best this is a disappointment and certainly isn’t the sort of “change” that I can believe in. Personally I think it is a travesty.

(more…)

Senator Edward Kennedy was the epitome of everything that is amiss with American politics. Without fail he put party interests before those of the nation and the American people.

Although his personal life was a sham and he was a moral reprobate, he still could not stop himself from condescending to others at every opportunity. Not particularly bright, not particularly articulate, without his family name and fortune he would have sunken into alcoholic anonymity years ago.

Yet there was seemingly never a time when he wasn’t willing to grandstand and he took every opportunity to monopolize the limelight. His skillful self-aggrandizing was amazing to behold.

His guiding doctrine seemed to be that Teddy (and his prestigious senate seat) came first, the Kennedy clan second, cronies, sycophants and suck-ups third, and the scraps were left over for the nation that he so proudly “served.”

He showed throughout his career, but particularly in the case of the senate confirmation hearings for Robert Bork, a willingness to stoop to any level of personal attack, spitefulness, and pettiness. He was willing to attack below the belt on a whim. Although personally a proven and reprehensible coward, the “Kennedy Machine” systematically bullied their way through any opposition with Teddy at the helm.

Perhaps the only thing truly interesting about the man was the dichotomy in his character that allowed him serve equally well as a dictatorial taskmaster or, if and when that position was unavailable, his willingness to be a servile lapdog lackey for those in higher positions.

His hypocrisy knew no bounds. Despite his crocodile tears for the poor and displaced he continued to the end to live a life of conspicuous consumption and excess. Bloated and red-faced, he never missed an opportunity to strut along the corridors of D.C. or to be seen at the helm of one of his many yachts sailing off Hyannis Port. (Although the perennial liberal do-gooder he still bridled viscously at the very idea of having wind turbines generating “clean” electricity for the masses anywhere near where he liked to sail…)

In failing health, even though he had known for a long while that his prognoses was poor, that he was old, ineffectual, and unable to complete his sworn duty, he still refused to relinquish the reins of power and selfishly held on till the bitter end without regard for what was best for his state and his country. Astonishingly, even in the final days of his existence, this nasty old man played politics, trying to reverse a state law which is was originally championed by him, in order to make sure that Massachusetts had a democrat in line to replace him.

“Ted the Toad” was the embodiment of the old cliché that, “Only the good die young.”

Those of us who are sickened at the media’s sycophantic adulation of this pitiful excuse for a “statesman” can take solace in knowing this: He is finally dead and America is better for it.

HEADLINE:

“The U.S. government is prepared to provide up to $10 billion in loans to finance the development of massive hydrocarbon reserves off Brazil‘s coast, a Brazilian official said Wednesday…”

WHATEVER I THOUGHT OF THE NEW ADMINISTRATION BEFORE…this is simply amazing.

This morning on CNN business news there was a report that the new administration is negotiating with a firm, Petrobras (and others) which is one of the largest companies on earth, to do the following:

We will LOAN this top-ten company TEN BILLION DOLLARS to hire AMERICAN drilling companies to drill for oil OFFSHORE in BRAZIL so that the Brazilian government can SELL the oil produced to US (U.S.) and to China!

In other words, while Florida and California hold the rest of the nation hostage, and their governments and the “left” believe that to harvest energy off of our own coasts is environmentally dangerous, it is however perfectly all right to use American money to HIRE an outside intermediary to CONTRACT American companies to do offshore drilling for another nation to SELL us oil.

Please think about the logic—or lack thereof—in such a deal. Now, in fairness, part of their rational is that Brazil is “friendly” with us. Of course, so was most of the Middle East until they realized that, with our dependence on their oil, that they held the winning hand and for that matter so were our good amigos in Venezuela till Señor Chavez decided to nationalize the industry.

Stupid is as stupid does. I’ve been trying to be fair and to give them a break, but good lord, if this is the way they are going to run the BUSINESS of government, god save America. This is stupid x 100.

For some fascinating reading on what can only be described as some of the most convoluted thinking I have ever encountered and a fine example of a presidential organization talking out of both sides of it’s collective mouth you can start here:

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=79003

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090821070839AAr2TEr

I didn’t vote for Obama. I didn’t vote for McCain either. Still, I will admit to a certain giddiness at seeing history being made as America voted it’s first black (well almost black) president. I hoped, in my heart of hearts, that Barack was sincere about “change,” though, frankly, I’ve heard the rhetoric before.

I hoped he was sincere but he wasn’t. He isn’t.

Now, after some time has passed I realize that he’s basically “business as usual” and, yes, he is a socialist. I don’t consider that to be just my opinion and it isn’t meant as some sort of slur. I mean it as a literal fact. I’ve read socialist authors from Marx & Mao on down and apparently so has Obama.

In the 60’s I actually thought most of that tripe was cool. Apparently Barack still does.

He was supposed to be articulate and urbane. He’s neither.

Without his prompter he hums and haws and stammers in a most infuriating way, generally forcing me to turn off whatever it is he’s trying so hard to say. I read about it later with all the “uhs” and “ums” and interminable pauses excised.

He has surrounded himself with bent-nosed holdovers from the Chicago political machine, known worldwide as being bullying, self-serving ideologues born and bred knee-deep in corruption.

Now were embroiled in an argument about something that doesn’t even exist, a so-called national health plan. The president, however, doesn’t have a plan. He’s letting congress come up with one. Yikes.

Let’s make this easy: My representatives have an excellent health plan for themselves and their families. I want that, too.

Like the so-called stimulus bill which ran into hundreds and hundreds of pages which, as we all know, less than a handful of our elected representatives bothered to read, the health bill seems to be written in sand. A work in progress, depending on which way the wind blows.

(Tell me please how it is that anyone elected to serve their constituents, be they Republican or Democrat, how is it that they can vote with good conscience on any piece of legislation, either yea or nay, without reading it? Doesn’t that sound like the punch line to an old joke?)

Now, back when I was in high school, I wrote book reports on books I’d never read. I was so good at it I finally achieved the ultimate by writing a report on a book that had never been written. I made up the title, the author, and the plotline. Yes, I got away with it. And I was rewarded with a very high grade.

Congress gets away with passing what, for all they know, is fictitious writing. Instead of getting a good grade, they then simply vote themselves a self-congratulatory raise.

It is time for a reality check and for us to all admit what we know is the truth: No bill should be 1000 pages long.

No bill should be 800 pages long, or 600 pages long. No bill should be even 50 pages long.

Ten pages. Tops. Moses’ Decalogue, which daily affects the lives of millions of Christians, & Jews (and which is not discounted by countless Muslims) was written in ten lines. It has served us well for several thousand years.

Perhaps we’ve passed enough bills into law already. After all, there is an industry of lawyers and legal assistants in the nation’s capital who do nothing more than research to find out if new bills under consideration are in conflict with prior legislation or already exist in a previously passed law.

When you have so many laws that it takes a highly-paid team to make sure we’re not collectively stepping on our own legal toes, perhaps it is indeed time for a change. Maybe for the next two or three terms the house and the senate should start cleaning out our nation’s legal closet and start having late night sessions repealing laws.

Let’s get things back to basics.

Starting with term limits.

And if our representatives will not limit terms themselves, we the people should make very, very sure to do it for them.

Since the death of Michael Jackson we have seen yet another glaring, blaring example of the so-called news media’s malfeasance, if not outright malpractice. Now, going on a week later, there is still no end to this crass exploitation in sight.

Jackson was not assassinated nor did he heroically battle a terminal disease, he did not die in the defense of others or while on a grand mission. He was not a scientist, inventor, world leader, or religious figure. He was not a soldier, he was not a teacher.

He was an entertainer, and a very, very well paid one at that. This story in no way justifies the amount of time, ink, and tape that has been invested in it.

We’ve read and have been bombarded by stories of Michael’s “sad” childhood, his “tough” early days, his overbearing, taskmaster of a father, etc.

Most people in my generation had parents who lived through a lot tougher childhoods than Michael Jackson but they never saw the reward of worldwide adoration, of living in mansions, of having the best of everything which money can buy. They just lived their lives as best they could and then they died, for the most part perfectly unnoticed, at least by the wider world.

I have been a paid musician since I was in my mid teens. I have been a radio deejay and spent over 10 years as a club DeeJay. Michael Jackson was a talented guy, there is no doubt about it. While not necessarily a heavy weight composer, he was a writer of solid, pop songs. While not actually a musician he was certainly a dynamic performer and, to his generation, he is an important figure. I consider his collaboration with Quincy Jones, an LP called “Off The Wall” one of my personal top 20 albums, based on both production and performance.

However, in the light of dawn, the claims of the standing and consequence of Michael Jackson are significantly exaggerated. He may be an icon for the 80’s but I doubt that his influence will go much beyond that of other extraordinary performers who have gone before. In other words, the media and his most vocal fans are portraying Michael Jackson as something a great deal more than he was.

He was most certainly not the catalyst for world-wide cultural revolution that Elvis Presley was, and later the Beatles, and it is doubtful that future generations will perform Jackson’s songs as neo-classical works such as we are seeing four decades later with the melodies of Lennon and McCartney.

Hundreds of thousands of young people in the 50’s combed their hair like Elvis, turned up their collars, put on their blue suede shoes, picked up on his lingo and even some of his mannerisms. He affected generations of musicians and song writers. After all, Elvis didn’t have to dub himself “The King.”

Later, for good or for bad, because of the Beatles a generation grew their hair long, listened closely to the lyrics of the songs, and changed their points of view about war, race, recreational drug use, sex, the government, and the press.

Clothing styles, like the relationship between teenagers and their parents, changed forever. The quality of “pop” songs changed from pure tribal dance music to a widely accessible form of expression.

Because of the standards of quality that they set advancements in recording technology and new and exciting venues to reproduce and broadcast music came into being. Techniques that are taken for granted in the recording profession today, something as “simple” as multi-tracking, for example, are directly attributable to the influence of the Beatles.

Honestly, except for a very minuscule faction, Jackson’s persona did not instigate young people to dress like him, to wear their hair like him, to listen to his lyrics for revelations. Even at the height of his fame I don’t remember anyone walking around in sequined socks or wearing a single sequined glove, except at Halloween. Ironically, when Jackson started regularly sporting military style uniforms the press described them as “Sgt. Pepper,” costumes, and it is noted with interest that Jackson himself ended up buying a large portion of the Beatles’ song catalog.

His musical style did not directly affect the way future songs would be written or recorded. As a solo artist he arrived on the coattails of disco and never quite caught on to hip-hop.

Although I have not purchased any of his musical products since my DeeJay days and do not personally listen to his music on any sort of regular basis, I wished him no ill will and I am sorry that the last few years were apparently unhappy ones for him and, yes, I’m sorry that he is dead in the same general way that I’m sorry Ferah Faucett passed away, comparatively unnoticed, on the same day as Jackson.

The reaction was sadly predictable and, of course, completely over the top. Every network and cable outlet fell all over themselves to provide coverage for this “major” media event. The long-suffering CBS Evening News with Katie Couric devoted their entire program to hashing and rehashing speculations, half-truths, and old video clips the day after the news broke.

Let’s take a closer look at this and try to make sense of CBS’s rationale. Katie’s ratings are the lowest in the industry, at least among the so-called major news outlets. Although she is not the most popular, she is still tuned in on an average evening by millions of people.

(Remember, we’re told that network news in general strikes an “older” demographic. People under 40 get the news from other sources.)

Just out of the blue, let’s say 5.18 million people turn in to CBS Evening News. Does anyone believe that even half of that number knows or care who Michael Jackson is, let alone calls themselves “fans” of Michael Jackson? I doubt it.

Right or wrong, it might be arguable that of those who know who Michael Jackson was, as many revile him as an unrepentant, unpunished pedophile as those who call themselves “fans.”

Be that as it may, let’s say that 2 million are fans. Of that number how many want an entire newscast devoted to the “news” about his death? Excluding the rabid, die-hards, being a fan doesn’t necessarily mean that one wants hour upon hour of continuous, generally tasteless yammer, a great part of the chatter being nothing more than the thinnest type of speculation.

By their glaring omission the casual viewer of CBS might have been lead to believe that the wars in Iran and Afghanistan were over. The riots and unrest had subsided in Iraq. Central and South America were free of drug lords and corruption. Africa was no long starving and engaged in tribal warfare. The ONLY news was the death of Michael Jackson. No other story was brought up in the entire broadcast.

Of course the irony is that there was no real news on that first day; just the fact that he was dead was really about all that was known for sure.

Still, on and on they railed, live camera crews, heartfelt testimonials, etc. ad nauseum. One CNN “news woman,” while fawningly waxing poetic about Jackson’s numerous talents, mentioned what a “great businessman” Michael was.

Only minutes before we had been told that he’d died 24 MILLION dollars in debt. Hardly a bona-fide J.P. Morgan or even Donald-Comb-Over-Trump.

As we saw in the case of Anna Nicole Smith, herself an extremely minor character in the American tableau until the media went on and on, creating a “story” that actually very few viewers were particularly interested in, till the general public becomes so sick of it that many televisions were simply shut off in disgust.

I was with a large group of people the day after the Jackson death, and midway into the CBS Nightly Michael Jackson Report, the cry went up, unanimously I might add, “Turn that damned thing off!”

And I did.

At least three American soldiers died in action on the same day that Michael Jackson died. If you did not hear their names then the media has failed you. Tell them so.