Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
How Michael Jackson answered the ayatollah's prayers

Two men were overheard chatting at a Cosi restaurant in DC this weekend. One said, "You know, with the death of Ed McMahon, Farrah, and Michael Jackson, I think the 70s also died. They're over with once and for all." The other guy said, without hesitation, "I'd believe that if Jimmy Carter weren't still president."
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I just overheard the conversation. (Please read on for my rather different view.)
Personally, I found the obsessive retrospectives about Michael Jackson a little disgusting. His commercial success for a few years as a pop singer seemed to trump the dark and unsavory aspects of his life. But he was no hero. He was certainly no one to be celebrating. Unless of course, you were an ayatollah. Because one of the truly transcendental ironies of recent history has to be the fact that a symbol of the worst sort of Western spiritual and social corruption...celebrity worship, drug culture, financial excess, debauchery...ended up providing just the distraction that the keepers of the Islamic Revolution's flame in Tehran needed to direct the world's attention away from their abuses of their own people.
In an instant, the really important story of tens of millions struggling to be heard in Iran was swept off the air by the death of a 50 year old accused pedophile in America. CNN, which had been congratulating itself daily for bringing the "green revolution" in Iran to the world as only it could in an instant tossed its news judgment out the window and started offering 24/7 retrospectives on how Michael Jackson chose the red leather jacket he wore in the "Thriller" video. It was an appalling, cheap and cynical programming choice made worse by the fact that other major stories...from the Congress passing the landmark Waxman-Markey climate legislation to the coup in Honduras...were left to play the role only of journalistic spackle, filling in the cracks between paeans to a man who spent the last twenty years shocking the world with his unhinged depravity.
The sad reality is that none of the celebrities who died in the past week say much good about American culture or the state of hero worship in America.
Which brings us back to Obama and the overheard Carter crack. Because one way that Obama is clearly unlike Carter is that he has already achieved something momentous and, occasional cigarette aside, he actually does offer Americans a leader whose story is legitimately inspiring. It is far too early to tell whether he will be able to add to a legacy that has already been assured by the fact of his election...but Friday's passage of the Waxman-Markey legislation and the administration's vigorous defense of the bill is a sign that it just might.
The change in the America's stance on the issue of global warming is one of the most dramatic and meaningful of the Obama era. (Don't believe me? See Angela Merkel's recent comments on the subject.) It will not be easy to get Senate passage of similar legislation. Insiders on the Hill with whom I have spoken suggest that in all likelihood the Senate bill will be sidetracked by the healthcare debate and may not be even voted until after the Copenhagen climate summit. This in turn will mean the United States goes in saying "we can go this far if China and India commit to reductions" which is perhaps not optimal, but may well be a good negotiating position.
And if China and India and the other developing countries do commit to meaningful emissions reductions within a reasonable period, then early in 2010 Senate passage and a final bill going to the President seems likely. (One senator told me that the key to selling the bill is letting Americans know they won't be the only ones sacrificing and that for him, the Chinese are the lynchpin. In fact, he said the issue of coal-burning Midwestern states vs. the alternative energy loving coasts is overstated and that it will be fairly easily settled via "the usual horse trading that goes on up here.")
The United States has never been closer to meaningful action on combating climate change and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It would be a simultaneous breakthrough in climate security, energy security and economic security. The opposition's antics on the legislation (including Representative Boehner's reference to the just passed legislation as a piece of shit) well illustrated their desperation and cluelessness. In fact, the people on the wrong side of this legislation once it passes will be seen as being on the wrong side of history and will be very vulnerable to election challenges on those grounds. Especially since recent estimates, like those of the Congressional Budget Office, underscore how minimal the financial impact of the cap and trade provisions of the bill will be on the average family.
I wish CNN and others in the broadcast media had covered this story as they should have and given the president the great credit he deserves for fighting for it. (A nuanced stance which, over the weekend included the airing of the president's principled objections to provisions in Waxman-Markey requiring tariffs be levied against nations that don't commit themselves to emissions reductions.) The well being of millions and perhaps the fate of the planet hangs in the balance and as a consequence, I think a fair case can be made that we could have cut back on the interviews with Lisa Marie and Dame Elizabeth long enough to let the news creep through the maudlin aggrandizement of a featherweight, self-inflicted, altogether tawdry American tragedy.
Bill Pugliano/Getty Images
- Celebs | Environment | Freedom | Iran | Obama Administration







Can you really blame CNN and
Can you really blame CNN and the media? They are businesses after all, and the first principle of business is that they exist to make money (that's been true for newspapers and news media since forever, too).
The Jackson Story is something they literally couldn't afford to miss - a short-time story that draws the interest of millions of Americans.
Climate Change Bill
Mr. Rothkopf:
I agree with your commentary on how Michael Jackson's passing has played into the hands of the Iranian regime, a far more important and historical story.
I also agree much more covergae of the Waxman-Markey legislation is in order. However, I disagree that the "well being of millions and perhaps the fate of the planet hangs in the balance" on this piece of legislation.
I think a strong case can be made that we should address climate change and that the former Administration did nothing substantive whatsoever on it.
That said, the hyperbolic discussions surrounding this issue border on the comical when the leading cheerleader is Al Gore who has not exactly been a good symbol of environmental stewardhip with his energy guzzling lifestyle.
Also, we're not going to get China and India on board with an emissions control regime for a generation or so. They have too much need for rapid growth and it is dubious that they will be able to create the infrastructure necessary to shift towards "Green Energy" at the same time they are confronting demographic challenges and a relative slow down of their previously white hot economy. Petrol is still the "it" thing when it comes to energy and the truth is, until we have much more verification of the deleterious consequences than we have now, no one will want the economic pain.
I am curious whether the House knew this and intentionally passed it so they could run on "having done something" knowing the damage of actually implementing this bill on the domestic economy would be stopped by never being able to get it out of the Senate.
I agree this is a national security issue and necessitates positive steps forward on reducing reliance on oil (not just "foreign" oil). However, incrementalism is what's needed. Additionally, our matrix of energy options can and should include a more robust nuclear component, something I do not believe Waxman-Markey addresses in a meaningful way (though I am willing to be corrected).
Waxman-Markey = 21st-Century
Waxman-Markey = 21st-Century Smoot-Hawley.
Even Krugman is starting to get it:
"The goal of Waxman-Markey is make the cheapest form of energy we have more expensive, consequently making everything produced in this country more expensive. It would defeat the purpose of this legislation to allow U.S. consumers to evade this energy tax by purchasing products from countries like China that choose not to adopt a similar tax. Therefore, it makes perfect sense to restrict Americans' access to products from these countries, and the president is wrong to oppose such restrictions. What about that don't you dumb hicks understand?"
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/climate-trade-obama/
A strange post it is that
A strange post it is that condemns the appearance of mourning over deceased celebrities before celebrating the appearance of action to slow climate change -- action that will, naturally, not cost the American family very much at all and will generate hundreds of thousands of good-paying, nay extravagantly lucrative jobs.
Why David is Wrong
to be brief -
1) It was clear last Tuesday, that Iran was over. I said so much in a comment, and then someone said "but wait, its just a hiccup." History proved me right - hold your breath if you have hiccups.
2) The media gave Obama a free-wah on Iran. If you want to know why Iran is over - its thanks to the boy-genius. But that's not the story you'd get, thanks to CNN.
3) If Iran was over, and Obama get's his Goebbelsian freeway, then why not focus on what's really important?
4) Michael Jackson was important. Why?
Well, can you think of any other symbol in the world, which was global, and united more people? Remember this folks, once Madonna dies, Pop goes with them. There is no one as global as either of them, and certainly not as global as Jackson.
Remember the one with the statue of Stalin toppling over? Symbolic.
David is too negative on Jackson. Yes, he wore a Burkha and he converted to Islam - as did his sister. He died in Bahrain for creep's sake. He accused Hollywood of being run by Jews and had gone from being born black, to being born white - a movement which oddly, never had the popularity of becoming transgenders. I mean born-again white!?
Some see all this as very very bad. So why were the Sheikhs of Bahrain tap-dancing to his tunes (they were trying to Moonwalk - ahem)? No - there is something great about Michael. He was the first Christ, not-Christ. He was loved, because his music was awesome, and he was a performer. He was loved globally. He was a nice guy - his music had a better message than the crap we listen to today - certainly better than Rap, or Heavy Metal (two idiotic styles, listened to by idiots).
No - if you get Obamoid flunking democracy 101 on Iran, then it's better focusing on something freaky but cool - Michael Joseph Jackson.
Why Allan is Wrong
Well I don't know how anyone can take seriously your opinions about complex issues, such as your claims that Obama failed in Iran, when you have gotten wrong the simplest facts about the most covered story in the news media right now.
Just off the top of my head there are a few big things you got wrong about Jackson:
1. He died in Los Angeles, which is not in Bahrain.
2. He never converted to Islam, though his brother did years ago.
3. He never said he was born white and he always referred to himself as black.
So anyway that's just a few, so your credibility score quickly dropped to 0. Your opinion that Obama flunked in Iran also borders on the absurd. What exactly do you suggest he should have done to help the reformers? Are you upset that he didn't use his magic democracy potion to cast a spell on the basijis and revolutionary guards to change their ways? Or maybe some Bush style "tough-talk" would have "smoked 'em out".... or maybe he could have invited them to "bring it on"!
What the hell is wrong with you?
I'm really feeling the word salad going on here....
missing the point
Mr. Rothkopf:
Michael Jackson is one of the most popular and influential performers of all time. He is a cultural icon on par with Elvis and the Beatles. His music changed the course of popular music forever and inspired millions if not billions of people. He united music lovers across the world, and was the driving force behind the music video age. His music by the way, was also brilliant.
By contrast you believe that an energy bill and coverage of ever shrinking protests are more newsworthy than the death of this landmark individual? I (and apparently millions of others) disagree. Regardless of what he may or may not have done or what you feel about him or his music, he is important, and like with the death of any important person, news outlets are going to milk it for all its worth.
Instead of feeling like the world has gone to hell because Lisa Marie's thoughts on MJ are interrupting protest coverage, just turn off the TV, throw on a copy of thriller, give it a listen, and just enjoy this man's cultural contribution to mankind. When you're done and turn the TV back on, maybe you wont mind so much that the roundtable energy debate got co-opted for an album by album retrospective.
Ditto, ditto, ditto. Not a
Ditto, ditto, ditto.
Not a huge fan of his, but his enormous influence on the music industry? Undeniable.