Michael Jackson Splitting Democrats? Sounds Like the Summer Doldrums To Me

First, let me say I am a pretty big Michael Jackson fan. I think he meant a lot to the African-American community, meant a lot to many other communities, and hey, I can moonwalk.

So I'm not not too beside myself about the MJ coverage. There's an argument such a presentation was in demand. Let it be. I was surprised however to see the beltway political Web site Politico launch into a bevy of articles about the death of the pop icon. Two stuck out, one because it was interesting, the other because it was a stretch.

First, Al Sharpton said that it was Michael Jackson that made it possible for a man like Barack Obama to be elected President.

This isn't the aforementioned stretch I was referring to earlier. I think, in, of course the broadest sense of the terms, that Michael Jackson may have helped ease some of the previous tensions that in times past would have kept some white voters from voting for Obama. He certainly wasn't the only reason, and I doubt he was even a big reason. Maybe just in the societal subconscious. I'm just saying. Okay, it's a stretch, I admit it. Happy?

Plus, I don't think Al Sharpton saying something as ridiculous as that should have surprised anyone.

But a Politico article that shamefully used the pun "moonwalking" to connote delicately toeing around a divisive issue was brought to my attention last night. Since the new administration took office in January, there has been a theme over the past few months regarding a possible schism between the far and middle left. It happens to every majority. Some want to keep it going in the other direction (In the early decade, it was the Far Right and to much success on their part, now it's the Far Left, with less-than-expected success) others fight to keep it more moderate.

Politico asserted that since Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas, was announcing that she was planning a resolution to honor MJ and his humanitarian efforts, and the leftward Congressional Black Caucus being in support of such a bill, could further the divide in House Democrats.

I think this is a wild, crazy idea, personally. There are resolutions submitted every single day on the House floor for things more crazy than Michael Jackson and his humanitarian bent. And no matter how bust Congress is right now (which they are) a twenty minute break to talk a little bit about the actual tangible good MJ did might be a good breather.

Plus, if there are such stark cultural differences between the pro-Michael and anti-Michael camps within the Democratic Party, I think those differences would have already made themselves apparent by this point.

I think what this is is a good opportunity for the media to get a quick respite from what are called the summer doldrums. You know, the slow news times where nothing seems to happen and that seem to go on without end and are endless and go on without end? Making something out of nothing, I guess.

By the way, the blog post is an example of summer doldrums respite.

Hankins v. Rutherford: Too Civil/Lacking of Bloodshed To Be Entertaining

The minor tremors about the Arkansas blogotwitterspheres today were regarding a column published by Arkansas Business publisher Jeff Hankins on the omnipresence of new media and the subsequent rebuttal by blogger Blake Rutherford of Blake's Sentient Bull Dozer.

Hankins says that media is now everywhere thanks to these meddling kids and their blogs and their twitters and their pop music. Rutherford retorts, "Yeah, so?"

In short, they seem to agree with one another about the viability and actuality of new media being on the prowl, but disagree on whether or not this is necessarily a causal "pitfall." Rutherchevy says that people have been spreading rumors and traditional news outlets have been getting it wrong for quite sometime, and to blame new media for those conventions is downright erroneous.

He also points out that it's a vast generalization to say that bloggers wouldn't correct themselves if they admittedly got a scoop wrong, which is true. But come to think of it, I don't see a lot of corrections made, unless it's regarding a source, quoted statement, or something else supplementary, rarely affecting the entire body of the post. But maybe the blogs I frequent are rarely wrong (ARKANSAS BLOGOSPHERE ELITISM! FIST PUMP!).

There's more agreeing going on here than not to really say this is a debate. As I say this, I'm hoping that a shirtless Hankins is storming down to the Bowen Law School, kicking open the door to Rutherford's law class to open a can in front of his students, ya know, to spice this narrative up a bit, but in case that doesn't pan out, it seems that both made good points about the whole state of affairs, without stomping each others' toes. Cue to the cheesy Full House electric guitar, denoting a valuable lesson to be learned.

Hankins is right: The media in its new form is now everywhere, unfettered by the old media's rules and governance. Rutherford is right: That doesn't mean that old media is infallible, not that Hankins was claiming it to be.

I actually spoke on an SPJ panel about the rift or symbiosis of old and new media. I really believe that the cream will rise to the top, meaning credible bloggers are more likely to be carried on and be successful than those that are known to spew bias and misinformation to prove its own point or attain a cheap, non-informative goal.

I think that credible blogs do indeed hold themselves to standards. We all know the credible blogs around town. While I certainly see bias in the analysis, very rarely are they flat out wrong about the events. In fact, I don't recall any. In double fact, I recall one such blog — Max Brantley's not-very-originally titled "Arkansas Blog" — getting information regarding the no-smiling law on our driver's licenses that turned out to be bogus and through investigation — huh? fact checking? on a blog?! — and then corrected it, shedding light on the subject through good ole fashioned journalistic checking of sources.

But "citizen journalism" is here to stay, anyway. It ought to. At it's very core, all journalism, conventional and otherwise, ought to at the very least be geared toward the citizenry.

David Kinkade (Apparently) Joins Ark. Times Staff, Promises to 'Spruce Up the Joint'

Well, well, well. Looks like Maxwell Brantley is taking a number from the ole Arkansas Project repertoire.

Not complaining. It's very, very newsworthy.

Plus, food! Specifically, potato salad! Could this day get any better? I submit that it could not.

States Approving Gay Marriage Just Dandy for Ark. Delegates

The Gay Marriage-Gay Rights agenda that most on the Right feared would sweep in with a cataclysmic bang once Obama et al. assumed office is on the move, but with no bang, nor whimper.

That doesn't mean it isn't being effective.

To date, five states, with Maine being the latest and Iowa (Iowa?!) being the first, have passed state legislation to make gay marriage a-okay in their respective states. The decisions are catching national headlines and causing some to shift awkwardly in their seats, like an auto mechanic roped into watching Project Runway.

Pelosi yesterday offered what on the surface appeared to be a cold statement about the Gay Rights agenda and its place on the legislative docket — saying it would not take the focus away from Congress' goal to create jobs, meaning, don't hold your breath — but in fact, likely, progress that agenda through a more constructive avenue:

Send it to the states.

One of the most recent examples of Congress passing the buck could be viewing in the historical context of the Employee Free Choice Act (not to bring that behemoth up again, but it was the best example of which I could think). The House, after having dealt with the issues to no avail in two separate sessions cried 'Uncle,' saying they weren't going to move on it until the Senate had done something first.

To put it in a local perspective, that's why the Arkansas Democrats in Congress weren't under nearly as much scrutiny this year, while Sens. Pryor and (especially) Lincoln dealing with the tiresome issue of card check. The House had passed it off.

Comes now the entirety of the Congress, both House and Senate, taking a back seat and letting someone else (state legislatures) deal with this tiresome and radioactive issue of Gay Marriage. I wager that when this issue comes up, you will be able to see these delegates kick back in a chaise lounge and sip on a banana daiquiri at the thought, excited to see someone else take their licks.

No one will be more relieved than Southern Democrats, namely, anyone from Arkansas, save the Fightin' 3rd's John Boozman, the state's only Republican delegate. It's for the same reason that the congressional delegates were at ease about Card Check; This is someone else's fight now, and not ours.

Arkansas, collectively, will never vote in favor of Gay Marriage in the near or likely distant future. It just doesn't fly down here, whether you like that fact or you don't. The Democratic Senators and Congressman are now free from being pinned against their party and their constituency which, after seeing this whole Arlen Specter meltdown, is pretty potent.

Now it would be up to the State Senators and Representatives, likely of the Democratic persuasion, to push any such Gay Rights agenda, and I would say there are a great many things that are more likely than that happening: Me hula-hooping for eighty-straight hours, Blake Rutherford not referencing the West Wing, John Brummett helping a kitten out of a tree. These are all in the same vein of the 'pigs flying' reference I am currently boycotting due to the overdosage of that pun being facilitated during the current Swine Flu panic.

Their constituency has become quite accustomed to seizing any and all priority from the national Democrats. Anything contrary would resemble a fighter pilot pulling a level to his ejection seat, and the legislator would go flying out of the dome in the Capitol building.

I think this will likely be the way of things for the next long while. The environments are respectively hospitable for the causes. California is obviously very pro-Gay Rights and will likely adopt legislation as such. I would not expect anything like that from Arkansas, Mississippi, or Louisiana, although you do have to keep an eye on those wacky Cajuns. Texans, too, they're equally wily. You can never really expect what they're going to do.

This is all, mind you, wholly independent of any musings about whether opposing Gay Rights is an affront to liberty and justice or whether endorsing Gay Rights is a rallying point for the decimation of the American Family/Way of Life. This is just looking at the numbers, the politics, rather than the morality that may be implied on either side of the fence.

Morality and Politics have never been good bedfellows in the first place.

Caption Contest! I'm Good Enough, I'm Smart Enough, and Doggonit People Like Me

It's yet another rabble-rousing Friday with yet another Caption Contest.

Last week's winner was anonymous. I donated five dollars in his or her name to a local charity. Congratulations! Unless this guy/gal hates Catholics. In which case, he/she doesn't need to win anyway. Shame on you.

Al Franken, comedian, will now have his name followed by D-Minn. in most places now. Public Strategies polls Minney-soda with 63 percent wanting the other guy whose name has already escaped me (Coleman? Callahan? Cartwheel?) to give it up already and get to representing. I'll get it started.

"HUG ME!"

"He's got the Whoooooole World in His Hands, He's got the Whole-Wide-World, In His Hands! Everybody!"

"I've played worse joints than this so-called Senate."

Pretty weak sauce attempts by yours truly, but this one's pretty open. Have at it.

Kicking a Dog When It's Down

Seems to be a lot of that going around lately.

Not that it's necessarily bad. Not that it's necessarily undeserved. Not that it's untrue, either.

But for a Republican to read the New York Times or Politico today, words like "crazy," "idea-bankrupt," and "powerless" are jumping off the page and piercing into their hearts like a dagger.

Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

Krugman takes a bearded look at these Tea Parties that are sprouting up around the country, indeed, here in Little Rock, laughingly. Finally, an idea that Republicans are unifying behind that seems to get a couple of people at least half-interested and thud: America's Hometown newspaper writes this is the desperate act of a semi-brain dead political party.

Politico unbiasedly observed that the No. 2 man for the GOP in the House is trying desperately to assert the competency of the Republican Party by offering no ideas. Crazy like a fox, perhaps, but maybe just crazy period.

Politico's poll is also telling. Of all of the people in the Republican Party offered, one is a radio host (Limbaugh), one who has amounted to little more than an obscure governor/gimmick (Palin) and a no-name who reminds many of John Kerry (Romney).

The Republican Party is in a bit of a bad way. Luckily, the contest is politics, where those who are in power absolutely lose power each and every time. This isn't the Republican's Decade. Wait til next time.

Pro-Union, Anti-Card Check? Possible, I think

My thoughts on Card Check were refreshed by this article from The Hill, a DC-based news service, that said former West Wing stars Martin Sheen, Bradley Whitford and Richard Schiff had more to say on the matter than the actual politicians at a Labor Rally in Washington today.

I say they had something to say on the matter of Card Check, but in reality, from the report, they said nothing about EFCA, but a great deal about the benefit of Unions in general, a most agreeable point.

I was on the horn with Alan Hughes, President of the Arkansas AFL-CIO regarding another article. With Democratic Senators finicky about how to handle the Employee Free Choice Act in a right-to-work state, who better to talk to than the chief delegate of Labor and get his take?

Needless to say, he was agitated.

Asked what he thought about Sen. Lincoln saying the matter was 'not on her radar,' Hughes laughed. "Huh, I believe that it is definitely on her radar," Hughes said. He then went on to run on the point that the NBC West Wingers would make a few weeks later.

"How can you be for Unions and be against Card Check?" Hughes clamored. "You can't."

Nobody thinks Unions are bad. In fact, they're necessary to balance the power of the employer and the power of the employee.

Notice the key word there is 'balance.'

My best good buddy John Brummett has reluctantly been all over Card Check. He says that Unions are getting ready to compromise and 'make some sausage.' I'm reminded of what he said about the biggest spur in the EFCA argument, the secret ballot:

You can be pro-union without wanting unions to reap an inappropriate advantage, just as you can root for the Razorbacks without wanting the officials to give them the game with unfair calls.

Like I said. Balance.

I'm all for watching people's backs against the big, oppressive businesses. But who watches the business' back? Those are made up of people, after all. Can't have one group dominating the other.

It's that whole 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodies?' bit again.

UPDATE: I was right. The Artificially Intelligent Panzer has been so totally super-psyched about it ALL DAY.