The Price of Hemlock

I was watching The View this morning. Rebbie Jackson, Michael Jackson's sister was a guest. She talked about her new album and her work for bi-polar awareness, and of course she talked about her brother Michael. After The View went off, the local news at 11 came on. News of Charlie Sheen's hospital visit. I know that, even before hearing the details about what happened, somewhere in the story, the words "porn star" or "stripper" are sure to play a part in the drama. While I was watching, I wondered, why am I so interested in this man's life? Why do I care about about the Conrad Murray trial? If I think the man had anything to do with Michael Jackson's death, it doesn't matter. And my disgust with Charlie Sheen isn't going to do a damn thing to change his behavior. It's really a sad commentary about priorities. I know who these people are; I know about what drugs they take, who they're fooling around with, and occasionally, via a sex tape, their O-face. Not too lng ago, Time magazine issued its list of the "100 most influential people in the world". Alongside Brazillian president "Lula", Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, and Barack Obama was Taylor Swift, Ashton Kutcher, and Lady Gaga. No doubt that Taylor Swift, Ashton Kutcher, and Lady Gaga are famous. And in their fields they may be influential, but are they truly among the 100 most influential people in the world? When we think influence, are we really talking about popularity or are we saying that these people affect life across the globe in an actual quantitative way? Or, if they are influential, could it be that their influence is heading us in the wrong direction? Socrates was condemned to death for urging people to question the established orthodoxy. The Socratic tradition, the pursuit of truth, is embodied in the ideals of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment, or Age of Reason, was the 17th and 18th century political, scientific, and philosophical movement wherein Europe emerged from the dark age of ignorance and superstition. Enlightenment thinkers, such as Hume, Kant, Adam Smith, Rousseau, and early feminist writer Mary Wollstonecraft, believed that rationality was the key to progress, and re-evaluated the sciences, education, economics, the laws of nature, ethics, and philosophy to fit their new view of humanity and its relationship to the natural world. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant said that the motto of the age should be "dare to know". When the Enlightenment hit U.S. shores, the concept of natural rights influenced the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. American statesmen such as Thomas Jefferson believed that a properly informed public will make rational decisions. Ok, what am I getting at? It's this: we make decisions based on the quality of the information that we get. This is especially important in the area of politics, since whoever is chosen to lead affects the lives of the nation. But it's difficult to get the right kind of information if my local news choses to cover Charlie Sheen's hernia than cover something important, like explaining exactly why our economy continues to collapse or informing the local voting public as to who their congressional representatives are and how to reach them. The sad thing is, is that this reality, if you will, isn't new. It's been like this for years. And this fact has led me to ask, have we reched the end of the Enlightenment? Sure, we've got the Internet, I'm using it right now, and the Internet can deliver information at the click of a mouse. But, having lots of information readily available does not necessarily mean that I can say that I have knowledge. And it's not just me... I live in a culture full of people for whom an abundance of information does not lead to knowledge. In fact, one could make the argument that our culture values knowledge less than we value trivial information. The stuff that I as hearing on The View and about Charlie Sheen on the news is information. More to the point, it's trivial. It's the type of information that Chris Hedges says is a part of our "junk culture". Junk culture, according to Chris Hedges, puts its emphasis on celebrity. It is shallow and unconcerned about questioning about life's meaning. Academia, Hedges says, is a target of junk culture as junk culture is an assault on academia. I think that Chris Hedges is right. I remember when Al Gore was running for the presidency against George W. Bush, a frequent criticism of Gore was that he carried himself like a smarty pants. Is being smart and knowing it a bad thing? Is showing other people that you're smart something to be held against you when you run for the presidency? I'm more than aware of the fact that there are people who are fans of Sarah Palin because she's not a high-falutin' Ivy leaguer like Barack Obama. Is this good? I'm certain that if we held Jefferson or Madison to the same standards that we hold now they would have never been elected to the presidency. But here's the thing: The Enlightenment might have undid itself. It just may very well be the case that Enlightenment thinking is much like Karl Mark said of capitalism. That is, the Enlightenment might have within it the seeds of its own destruction. Follow this closely: The Enlightenment emphacized reason. Through the use of one's mind, one can discover truth. Philosophy spawned, among other things, the field of psychology. Psychology asked not what we reason, but how we reason. Freud's psychoanalysis detailed certain fundamantal laws of human behavior, including the influence of subconscious drives on human behavior. The field of public relations (one of the founders of public relations was Edward Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud), using psychoanalysis, demonstrated how behavior can be manipulated by appealing to drives such as fear or sex. Public relations is closely associated with advertising, which is essential to a capitalist economy, which leads to a consumer culture, where product is associated with celebrity, which is by nature, shallow and decidedly un-academic. Altthough there is plenty to lament about the end of the Enlightenment, the end in itself may not be a bad thing. Let us not forget that some of the evils of history were also products of the Enightenment, namely the enslavement of Africans and the birth of eugenics. Let me explain how that works: 1) reason + science --> theory of evolution 2) evolution + reason (theory that some groups of people have better use of than others) --> social Darwinism 3) social Darwinism --> eugenics --> genocide, apartheid, ethnic cleansing, etc. Perhaps what is going on is a paradigm shift, a time when the orthodoxy is challenged and ways of thinking is changed drastically. Maybe what is to come is not so much of a dark period than a dim one. We might be heading towards an era where we start to correct unhealthy thinking, to lose elements of our culture that are destructive or counterproductive. The end of the Enlightenment isn't necessarily an end to intellectualism, as Europe's Dark Ages was an age when the works of the ancient philosophers were unknown to all but a small group of people. We might be in the process of shrugging off our relentless fascination with the self and celebrity that has until now passed for deep examination of the self and knowledge. We're getting rid of the cult of the self that emerged when Enlightenment ideals were distorted. And who wouldn't like to turn on the news and not hear the name Snooki?

Maybe Hitler Should Have Tried A Sequined Glove

While the world waits for Michael Jackson's autopsy toxicology results, all of this still dwelling on this has got me thinking: given all of the praise and eulogies (all that is expected when someone of note dies) I wonder is it possible to think of Michael Jackson without thinking about or bringing up the allegations of molestation? I remember in the days that followed Jackson's death, when I listened to (former MTV VJ) Kennedy's radio show, a caller said that it was too early to start in on all of the talk about what Michael "supposedly" did -- that it was too early for all that negativity. He said that we have all the time in the world to talk about whether or not Michael molested kids, and that we should, at least for a time, try to remember the good things. Engaging in talk of well-rounded profiles can come later. Kennedy's response was that, in order to get a well-rounded picture of the person, we have to discuss both the good and the bad. The fact that Michael Jackson died shouldn't automatically wipe away any of the bad that he may have done. That makes sense. But, (and despite the fact that a logician would most certainly say that this is not possible) they're both right. If we ignore the bad stuff we're doing a disservice. If we dwell on it, we're no better than a pack of circling buzzards. Look, for what it's worth, I don't think that we'll get the definitive word on exactly what Michael Jackson did any time soon. What he did with Corey Feldman or Emmanuel Lewis is up for speculation as long as no one says anything or offers something like video of Michael feeling up some kid. I suppose, like thinking about the identity of Jack the Ripper, we won't really ever know. But in the meanwhile, damn, it's hard not to think that he did. But damn, the guy made some really good music. I'm listening to an one of our finer urban music radio stations right now, and "Never Can Say Goodbye" is on. Damn, it's good. (for the record, "Never Can Say Goodbye" is one of the few songs that I can think of that both the original and the remake are good. I'd also put on this list, "Heard It Through the Grapevine", "Proud Mary", Led Zepplin's "Misty Mountain Hop" and "Dancing Days" -- covered by 4 Non Blondes and STP, respectively, Michael Jackson's "Smooth Criminal" as covered by Alien Ant Farm, and the nine inch nails cover of Joy Division's "Dead Souls" ... wait, actually I liked that remake better than the original). Where was I? Was I anywhere? Anyway, thinking about Michael has got me thinking, of course, about how all of this fits into philosophy. I heard it said that, if there is no God then all is permitted. Meaning, what's the point of being moral if there is no one to punish you for the evil that you do -- assuming that the fear of eternal damnation is what will keep you from doing bad things. I thought of a twiat on that sentiment when it comes to celebrities. If there is no famous person, feel free to say anything that you want about 'em. This came to my mind when I listened to a guest on Coast to Coast "channeling" Michael Jackson! The guy had been dead for less than 72 hours and he was already appearing on a late-night talk show!?! I'm not saying that there is no need to say anything bad, we should if there is something to say. But, it seems that when a famous person dies, it's the ultimate talking behind your back, except there is nothing you can say to dispute whatever anyone says about you. Someone can say that Michael Jackson was a ringleader in an Illuminati child sex/murder ring -- there's absolutely nothing the guy can say. So what's my point? My point is is that people are right when they say that we should look at both the good and the bad about anybody, living or dead. And we shouldn't praise a person for molesting children. But, can we praise a child molester? I mean, Michael Jackson was a stellar artist, that is undeniable. But do the allegations of child abuse outweigh what he did musically? Is it possible to do something so horrendous that no matter what good you do is cancelled out by the bad that you did? (Like how I feel whenever I watch a Woody Allen movie or a Lakers game). Or we capable of doing something that is so brilliant that no matter what we have done (it doesn't make things ok, but) it mitigates what we did so that people will look fondly on us? I'm not talking about forgiving someone for doing harm to other people. What I'm saying is that we think of the bad as truly bad, even unforgivable, but we also bestow praise (for the good things) when we speak about the person as well. When I was thinking about whether we actually do this, a couple of people immediately sprung to my mind: filmmaker Elia Kazan and Founding Father (and 3rd president of the United States) Thomas Jefferson. Elia Kazan, director of cinema classics such as, A Streetcar Named Desire, On the Waterfront and East of Eden, ratted out his fellow Hollywoodians (and suspected Communists) to the government during the HUAC days of good old Senator Joe McCarthy. Careers of Communists, communist sympathizers and suspected Reds were destroyed by suspicions or allegations of being un-American. There are plenty of tales of suicides and all-around bad lives of those who were blacklisted. So when Kazan was awarded (sometime later) the Oscar's lifetime achievement award, there were some in the entertainment industry who were not pleased the a traitor and a ratfink was to be given an honor. They didn't think of Kazan as an esteemed director who deserved the lifetime achievement award, instead they saw a man who was willing to aid in the stiffling of freedom in America. That, according to those who saw Kazan as nothing more than a traitor, was unforgivable. To them, the man could have written the Bible -- it wouldn't have erased what he did. On the other hand, try this out for kicks -- on any 4th of July, around any random crowd of patriotic Americans, declare your unflinching hatred of Thomas Jefferson and all that he stands for. Carry plenty of ice and band-aids 'cause you're gonna need 'em. In Jefferson's Notes On the State of Virginia, Jefferson wrote that Native Americans (then affectionately refered to as "savages"), are "feeble" and that they "have no ardor for his female" and "he has no vivacity, no activity of the mind". On blacks, Jefferson wrote, ( this is where the fun begins) " their existence appears to participate more in sensation than reflection", and "that in memory they are equal to whites; [at least he gives us that -- author's comment] in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid." First, there are plenty of white people who are incapable of tracing the investigations of Euclid! Second, it's pretty hard to read Locke or study the pre-socratics when you're busy doing things like, let's see.... picking cotton and/or being raped by your master!!! But I digress. Let's not forget the fact that Jefferson did own slaves, and due to confirmation by way of DNA evidence, fathered at least one child with an under age slave (since sexual activity between masters and slaves was often non-consentual -- it didn't matter whether it was or not -- either Jefferson was a rapist or a child molester as Sally Hemmings was in her teens when she had her first child. Think about that). But we do not say that Jefferson deserves no praise. He, afterall, is why we are here, living in these United States instead of living as subjects of the British crown (although if we were, we'd have unversal health care, but that's another issue for another writer to handle). Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, and he increased the nation's size with the Louisianna Purchase. The fact that he owned slaves, or was for lack of a better word, a racist ( not in the way that Glenn Beck says that Barack Obama is a racist, but a real, deep down negroes-are-stupid kind of racist) is overshadowed by the fact that Jefferson was an essential element to the founding of a nation and to the spread of democratic principles both here and abroad. So, for Jefferson, his moral wrongs did not cross pollenate. The wrongs he did did not infect the good he did. Ok, that works for writers of the Declaration of Independence, but Michael Jackson was an entertainer. He may have made us happy, but he didn't make us a nation. Plus, he was accused of committing about the worst crime that a person can be accused of, child molestation. ( I guess the only one that is worse is genocide). Pederasts even rank low among criminals. But I'm listening to Michael Jackson and I feel that doing so, and enjoying it, and praising him for his music isn't wrong. I'm not really hung up on the possibility that he may have touched some kid's privates. I can't, for the life of me, figure out why. Is it that the good that Michael did outweighs the bad that he accused of doing (and most likely did do)? How bad does a bad act have to be before we say that a person's evils cancel out whatever good that the do? Ok, let's think up a thought experiment. Let's say that Michael Jackson did molest children. First point: as far as criminals go, a molester is a hands-on kind of pervert. He can't say that his act was unintentional of that he accidentally put his mouth and hands (and possibly his penis) where it shouldn't go on a person under the age of consent. We'll all agree that this is super-inappropriate. But, we say, Michael brought us joy. He contributed to more charities than any other musical performer, he did "Thriller" for goodness sakes! (fun fact: So-called "shock rocker" Marilyn Manson says that he stole all of his moves from Michael Jackson. He says if you don't believe him, watch the video for "Thriller" and then watch his moves. Exactly the same!) Can we say that Michael's talent and spreading of joy to the world mitigates what he did to a handfull of kids? If we say (as one very mixed up utilitarian might) that the answer is yes, then let's take someone else and see if we still feel the same. How about Hitler? One, philosophers, although they are reluctant to admit to this fact, love Hitler. He's the ultimate go-to guy for any thought experiment. A friend and I thought that it would be a good idea to set up a shrine for good old A since philosophers rely on him so much. In hindsight that would have been a really bad idea. Ok, let's say that Hitler was a really good artist. Really good. (he wasn't but that's besides the point. He was better than I am anyway). But let's pump him up a little. Let's add that he was a totally awsome woodworksman and cabinetmaker. Good old A could build a chifforobe that can withstand a hurricane. And let's say, since he loved animals so much, that he was working on a parvo vaccine. And since his own childhood was so dreadfully unhappy, let's say that he devoted his spare time (when he wasn't plotting the final solution) to advancing what we now call child advocacy. Given such a people-oriented Hitler, is it possible that the fact that he invented World War II be overlooked? Kant says that when we perform an act, our intent determines the rightness or wrongness of the act. So, for example, if I give to poor people, but I do it, not out of my duty to serve the needs of others, but out of my need to serve my own narcissistic desires (pats on the back, being told that I'm such a great humanitarian, civic awards that I'll brag about, guest spot on Oprah), no matter how many homeless people benefit, my act was never morally right. But the intent behind my act to be judged pertains to that act. I know that for Kant, what motivates my actions is GOOD WILL. For Kant, having a good will inclines a person to perform morally right acts. The logic is, is that if my will is good, I will do right things, as my actions are a reflection of my character. Kant would say that if the intent behind my act was ill, no matter the consequence, my act was morally wrong. But if the moral value of an act is tied to intent, if our intent behnd the act is good, then a watercolor cityscape by Hitler, or his creating the first effective parvo vaccine is good -- they stand apart from Hitler himself. Still, if we speculate that Michael Jackson did not intend to do harm to any child, but by having sexual contact with them, wanted to show them how much he loved and cared for them, how are we to judge the rightness or wrongness of an act if the intent was to show genuine love for another person? But somehow this still sounds strange to us. Because our feeling is still that someone like Hitler, even if he did do good, deserves condemnation, and that we'd have a difficulty separating the acts from the man ( or that we won't take his actions in total, as opposed to individually). But, does this mean that we cannot appreciate Michael Jackson's music in light of the molestation allegations? Does the bad extend to taint something that is unrelated to his sexual behavior? Wait, he grabbed his crotch when he sang, right? What was up with that? Do we, as they say, throw the baby out with the bathwater? If we do, does than mean that Jackson's music (and the fact that so many people were positively affected by his music) is morally unpraiseworthy? Would it be morally wrong for me to own a gate-leg table made by Hitler or to own a copy of Blood On the Dancefloor? Are our all of actions all morally connected? If I say that it is ok to own Michael Jackson cds even though he is a child molester, yet say that someone who owns a painting by Hitler is morally wrong for doing so, how do I defend myself against charges of inconsistency? Honestly, I don't know how this works out. All I know is that so long as I don't know, I'll still feel a little odd listening to Off the Wall. So I'll have to do it with headphones on.

Where the HELL Is Mark Goodman?!?

Try as anyone might, this Michael Jackson stuff isn't going away anytime soon. I think there's a reason. A host on radio show that I won't name (other than to say that it's an affiliate of a network that I badmouth from time to time), said that all this Michael Jackson stuff is a "distraction". Well, clutch the pearls! Duh! Is anyone really saying that it isn't? BESIDES AL SHARPTON. What I think is this: all of this hoopla isn't so meaningless as it's been dismissed by those who insist that we discuss "serious" topics. I've found that behind every act of seeming stupidity, there is an earnest attempt to make sense of something. For some people, I've observed, especially the masses collectively referred to as "fans", they aren't so much mourning the loss of a beloved cultural icon, as what they are mourning is the loss of themselves. Listening to a lot of talk radio, listening to callers led me to this conclusion. There was something that I realized that all of the callers had in common: There's an age range for whom Michael Jackson was (is) a pretty big deal -- so-called Generation X (those folks, like me, that were born between 1965 and 1981). We were the MTV Generation. The first to experience the magic and majesty of the 24-hour video channel. It was pretty awsome back then. It's especially more awsome to remember when MTV actually played music videos. The deal is, is that with many of my generation, we can relate nearly every moment of our early childhood to something we saw on MTV. A first kiss to a Duran Duran video, learning that Milton Berle had a career before he was in those Ratt videos, the value of a great pair of Hammer pants... Really. Try this one out: ask your local Gen-X'er what was the first video they saw on MTV. Make sure that you have plenty of time to spare, because the answer is bound to include such non-interesting details as rememberances of grade school dodgeball misshaps, and the halloween that I, I mean, they dressed up as Prince, and when music videos were actually filmed on video (this is kind of like those old farts who call themselves film purists who say that the only good porn was when porn was shot on film. Apparently, these people have never seen the fantastic work of Ben Dover). Anyway. For the record, the first video I saw on MTV was Bryan Adams' "Cuts Like A Knife". I've hated him ever since. For my generation, so much of our childhood memories are dominated by memories of Michael Jackson -- watching the video "Thriller", watching the Motown 25 special and seeing the Moonwalk for the first time, the Pepsi commercial, seeing Captain EO at Disneyland, that episode of The Simpsons with Michael as that fat dude who says he's Michael Jackson and sings that really sweeet birthday song to Lisa... Weird Al. I remember the first movie that ever really creeped me out as a kid was The Wiz -- co-starring Michael Jackson as the Scarecrow. The second, by the way, was The Dark Crystal. I don't know what kids Jim Henson had in mind when he made this movie, but I think that he didn't like them very much, because the only kids I would show a movie that disturbing to would be to a bunch of kids that I didn't like. I swear that's not a kids' movie. It's freakin creepy! What I think is, and why so much of our memorializing if Michael Jackson is so focused on the pre-molestation allegation Michael is because, nostalgia, in general, tends to set the past as clearer than it was. we only see the good. Back before all that he-touched-those-kids-and-we-all-know-it business, Michael was good. He was clean. You can trust your grandma and your dog with the guy (as opposed to say, someone like Prince, who you know would do any warm-blooded, breathing, female within fifty miles, if given the chance). The Michael that we grew up with is symbolic of a simpler time. Death, fortunately or unfortunately, amplifies the symbolism. Death washes away the bad, the things that we don't want to remember. I remember when Richard Nixon died. Sure, there was a lot of thank god he's dead, but there was also quite a bit of 'now that we look at it, he wasn't such a bad president' going on. The same with Reagan. I remember hearing people that hated Reagan giving him a prop or two after his death. It's because when we die, it's all over. We can forget (or at least temporarily ignore) that Michael Jackson was a more than mildly creepy guy, who looked frighteningly like Japanime (Ash from Pokemon gets my vote). We'll forget that the guy had become a joke, a punchline. He was the target of a running joke in at least two Scary Movie movies. Michael Jackson was Carrie at the prom. We'd dumped the pig's blood on his head and now we were having a good belly laugh at the freak. I figure now, when Paul Rubens dies, that we'll elevate him to the greatest commedian ever platform -- totally ignoring all that pulling his pud in a porn theater stuff. Death washes away the brutalities and unpleasantness, which is exactly what we're bombarded with every day on the internet, on the radio, and on TV. Things are so damned unpleasant out there, who wants to focus on the now? Over the past six years or so (and I'm not blaming Bush exclusively), the world has become a much more unpleasant place to live. It's really gotten much more Hobbsianesque. Life, for many people is nasty, brutish and short. When I was a kid, the Soviets were the bad guys. We were always in danger of being obliterated at any moment. Living near a military base made that possibility much more probable. There were movies like Red Dawn, Wargames, Russkies and Moscow On the Hudson, that made the point of scaring the ever-loving poop out of people as to what war with Mother Russia might be like. Sting asked if the Russians love their children, too. Frankie Goes to Hollywood told us what will happen whent two tribes go to war, Falco warned us about "Der Kommissar". But as long as war with the Reds meant mutually assured destruction, we could count that a real war was unlikely. The Russians may have been crazy, but they weren't stupid. Attack would mean suicide. (if you kill a planet, is it geocide?) But with our present-day enemies, killing themselves seems to be a part of the plan. Our enemies are everywhere, we don't know where they are. And they're always plotting against us, we're told. Dirty bombs, terrorist sleeper cells, bio weapons, IEDs, suicide bombings, religious extremism -- all a part of the daily who-hates-us-now update. This kind of everyday bad tidings makes one kind of nostalgic for a past when all we had to fear was being vaporized by crazy Ivan. We had the luxury of knowing where the Russians lived, what the looked like, and that they could be reasoned with. Today, we have enemies that jsut don't seem to be in the mood to accept the fact that we exist, let alone be open to any sort of reasoning. It's quite easy to understand why people would drown themselves in the mythos of a man who represents a good and simple past. And who better to symbolize that blissfully simple past than blissfully simple Michael Jackson? Michael liked climbing trees, for goodness sakes! Since we tie Michael Jackson to our own childhood memories, we see his end as an end of our childhood. Like Michael, our childhood is gone permanently. I'd heard the same thing go down about focusing on the trivial at the expense of the important some time ago when we weren't paying attention to what was going on in Somalia. I can't remember who said it, but who did said it on that aformentioned unnamed network. The person said that Americans were suffering from a bad case of Mogadishu-itis. All the coverage of the war and destruction was sensory overload. I think the same is going on now. I mean, think about it: we've got wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan (neither going as well as they should), Pakistan is on the brink of collapse every other week, Iran's no better, North Korea seems determined to start something, let's not forget the Israelis and the Palestinians, the economy is in the shitter, there's H1N1 (that always looks a little like the nine inch nails logo to me at first glance), global warming is worse than we ever dreamed of, not to mention all the everyday shit that goes on -- it's too much. I used to watch the same movie alot. Every day. It sucked, but I watched it. For years. I'd get home, and pop it in the DVD player (if it wasn't there already). I realized that watching that movie, as stupid as it was, was kind of like a blankey. It was a nice, warm place where I could snuggle up and not worry about the world. It made me feel good. It made me feel happy. There were days when I would watch it more than once -- just to feel better. I think that's what's going on here. Michael Jackson, however strange or distracting it may be, has become our collective blankey. Even though what we're doing is snuggling up to death. But, it's not about Michael at all. It's about how we feel. I heard Ted Koppel lamenting on NPR that all this Michael Jackson coverage (and other sensational "news") takes away from what we should be paying attention to. Does anyone know what Obama and Putin talked about? Does anyone notice that the economy is collapsing? Yes. They do. It's called multitasking. It's not that people are stupid (because people aren't), or that people don't care about what really matters. It's that we can focus on more than one thing at one time. For some people, thinking is dichotomous -- it's an either/or. You're either with the president or you're with the terrorists. You're either a lover of freedom of a lover of the New World Order. (I suppose you can guess which side they'd say that Michael Jackson fans are on). Maybe some people are incapable of of doinf this, but I know that I can appreciate the music and influence (and cultural significance) of Michael Jackson and worry about instability in the world's financial markets at the same time with the same brain. Besides, I don't see all of this as such a unnewsworthy or trivial thing as other people do. There is much to be learned from all of this. Why do we care or seem to care more about Michael Jackson than we care about what's going on in Islamabad? What does all this say about what kind of people we are? I'd say it shows that we are thoughtful. Roseanne Barr said that this Michael Jackson stuff (she probably wanted to say something a little harsher, but she was on radio and there's a FCC out there) is like an OCD. She said that it has nothing to do with reality (I'll quibble with what "reality" is later), and that the people who are upset by Michael's death and following all the coverage should "get a life". I don't doubt that there are some people who are simply lookie-loos who are enraptured by the celebrity. But I also say that, when someone offhandedly dismisses an event like this as unworthy of attention and calls those who are genuinely heartstruck "stupid", that they are the ones who are missing the point. A little bit of thinking would inform those who do not see any purpose to any of this(the haters) that this has very much to do with life. I know that watching these past two weeks, I have thought a great deal about race, gender and sexual roles (in particular as those roles relates to the representation of African-American men in popular culture), what is justice and was it served during the Jackson molestation trial?, the significance of music and celebrity and how each plays a part in what we think is the meaning of life (mine in particular), was Martin Bashir the true moral fiend (in his interview with Jackson) and did he set Michael up?... I'd say that's quite a bit of thinking squeezed from such a trivial event. So now that I'm in such a nostalgic mood, what I'm wondering about more than anything, is where the hell is Mark Goodman?

OMG! I'm White!

I've held, until this point, the idea that my blog posts would not become some sort of online diary. I didn't want my posts to end up sounding like Go Ask Alice. It is. The very nature of a blog makes it so. The fact that I choose to write about stuff that, in reality, matters to no one but me makes it the kind of self-indulgence that people like me complain about whenever we (I) look at other people's blogs. There's something a little funny about self-indulgence. The funny thing is, is that those who are prone to doing it often think that they're not self-indulgent at all. We tend to say that we're "reflective", or dare I say, "philosophic". Claptrap. Since I think I'm the only person that I know that will openly admit that some steroetypes are true, I was looking some time ago at the blog "Stuff White People Like". I realized, while I was looking (and laughing quite loudly, or LOLling), that alot of the stuff on the blog described me perfectly. I came to the horrific realization -- OH MY GOD, I'M WHITE! The fact that I am here, writing this blog post only serves to confirm the fact that I am indeed a white person ( #149 self-importance, which is just the same as self-indulgence). The problem is, though -- I'm not white. I had a conversation with a professor (who, if this list is anywhere near correct, may be the whitest person that I've ever met) about a year ago about "stuff white people like", and he maintained that the blog is more indicative of class than of race. Meaning, that if a person makes a certain amount of money and has a particular level of education, they are more likely to be a certain way, no matter the race. I actually expected him to answer the way that he did. You see, as the list suggests, white people like diversity. They also like the idea (and they will tell you at the drop of a hat) that all humans belong to the same race (i.e. the "human" race), so I expected that he would say that the list was about something other than race. Of course, given the fact that I was talking to a professor, if not race, then class. (What that meant is, that there is, as I see, an unwilingness among the "educated" to not tie any social problem to economy. This is a result of listening to too much Pacifica, I think). But, really, I am white. I mean, I like tea, I sport a "save Darfur" bracelet and a bracelet of coffee beans supporting free-trade coffee, I own 4 David Sedaris books, I like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report (and yes, in some strange way, Stephen Colbert is my ideal man), I listen to public radio and love "This American Life" (for the record, "Wiretap" is pretty good, too). I have a Liberal Arts degree (political science) and I have a degree in that Liberal Arts degree in disguise, philosophy. I'm crazy about recycling (I rinse, too). The only reason why I want to move to Canada is for the universal health care. Most disturbing is that I know who Noam Chomsky is. I've heard that there is something out there called gender dysmorphic disorder. If I'm not wrong on the name, as I am often wrong about a great many things --I know it's when a person feels that they were born the wrong gender. It's the classis Glenn or Glenda -- a man trapped in a woman's body (or as we've seen recently, a Chaz Bono trapped in a Chastity Bono's body). I wonder, could it be that it's possible for someone to be a white person trapped in a black person's body? I don't mean those kids who hang out at the mall with the sagging pants listening to Asher Roth. I'm talking about something that, if race is more than a social construct, and is (at least to some degree) biologically rooted, is it possible that nature, as in the case of gender, got something wrong? I was really trying not to bring Michael Jackson into this, but maybe instead of jesting at his becomming white, we should have recognized that he may have been sufferring from a real disorder. It may be possible that he was merely correcting a mistake -- he really was white. Maybe. I don't know. Maybe I should send a letter to David Duke and ask him what he thinks about it. LOL.

Thank you, Mr. Jackson

This morning when I woke up, I heard on the news that Farrah Fawcett had died. I have to say that it really didn't affect me, because I'm a) female, and b) I was too young when Charlie's Angels was on to remember anything about her being on the show. I think that My earliest memories of the show was when they added Shelly Hack. But this is all besides the point. My first thought, when I heard that she died, wasn't "how sad" or even " I wonder if she died with her family around?". It was, in typical ghoul fashion, "who's next?". They say that celebrities die in threes -- the old guy you thought was already dead, the obscure one and then the one from left field -- that is, the person you'd least expect to die suddenly. I quicly went over the lists of celebrities in my head -- Is Debbie Reynolds still around? When's the last time Lindsay Lohan made the headlines? Wow, I haven't seen Danny Devito in a movie lately, is Richard Branson still planning to try to go to space? That's dangerous, right?... Then I thought about the celebrities that I'd appreciate it if they died, and then the ones that I'd really feel bad if they did, like Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart (why do we always say their names together, as if they're a matched set or something) or George Romero. But then, my sister called me to say that Michael Jackson was in the hospital. I got kind of worried. I guess for my generation, Michael Jackson was about as big as you can get. If God was to go into music, he'd be Michael Jackson. I wouldn't say that I had the Jackson bug bad back in '83, but I was by no means immune. I definitely sported a "Beat It" t-shirt back in the day. I stayed up late to watch the premiere of "Thriller" on NBC's late night video show (the name of the show escapes me suddenly). I have a copy of Moonwalker. So, although I'm reluctant to admit it, I am a fan. My thought, when my sister called me wasn't he'd make the three -- it was, "My god, I hope he's ok". It seems that there are people that you don't want to die. It's weird, that when my sister called me again to say that he had, I didn't believe it. I kind of still don't. How can Michael Jackson be dead? I can imagine the deaths of just about anyone else -- my parents, some of my philosophy professors, that dude from my favoritte band, Kurt Vonnegut, even myself (and as an existentialist, I am quite prepared for that), but not him. There are some people that seem to exist in some other realm, somewhere where other people like me and everyone else don't. Some sort of land of immortals. Like once you reach a level of popularity you become transcendent. I don't know. It's really hitting me more weird than I expected it to. I feel kind of bad for eagerly awaiting the next celebrity death this morning. I just feel kind of bad altogether. I'm not going to say anything more than to thank Mr. Jackson for putting out some of the most infectious music that has ever been given to the human race (and I mean that in a good way). I've never seen kids get up and dance to any other music as quickly as I've seen kids spring to their feet the instant someone puts on "Billie Jean".