Michael Jackson, RIP

I had originally wanted to start blogging again next week, but I feel compelled to say something about Michael Jackson's life and music as we head into what is certainly a perfect media storm of bullshit.

I heard that semi-literate, speech-impaired token named 'Sway' on MTV call Michael's death a "tragedy" yesterday. Perhaps, in addition to a much needed haircut, someone should get that brother a newspaper because no one with the depth of a rain puddle would call the (natural?) death of a 50 year old man with the influence, power, wealth and popularity Michael Jackson had a tragedy. In light of events elsewhere pretty much anywhere else around the world, this ranks somewhere in the "damn, that sucks" range of emotion.

That said, I was admittedly saddened by his death.

Michael became a freakish embarrassment over the past 15-20 years and to those in Gen Y and after, I can fully understand their air of dismissal about his music and their surprise of the general reaction to his death. But anyone alive in the early 80s, at the pinnacle of his career, understands exactly how huge he was. He was a superstar of the highest order--he was, after all, simply "Michael."

Jokes about his skin-lightening and hair straightening aside, Michael was racially transcendent well before Barack Obama's candidacy brought in the pundits' half-assed search for words to describe a "post-racial America." People of all races knew and wore his red leather jacket, tried to emulate the moonwalk, and danced jubilantly to his songs. He was a musical ambassador to the world before Bono appointed himself the patron saint of musical philanthropy. There wasn't a politician, musical artist, or sports superstar who would refuse Michael anything. Put simply, whether some like to admit it today or not, Michael Jackson was indisputably the coolest man on Earth.

The allegations surrounding his more recent personal life are well-known and just add to the awfulness of what I believe Michael's image became--whether they were true or not. I think he was a tortured man, for reasons I never will understand and, as far as I'm concerned, those reasons died with him. The media circus that is already underway will be sickening to me and anyone else who fondly remembers what Michael used to be.

I was talking to a friend and mentor last night, via IM, who was most definitely touched by Michael's death. She said:

I get that it's silly to a lot of people and I know people think he was a bad person...[but] for him, the pain is over. But I think he was a beautiful soul and his music has brought me incredible amounts of joy, has moved me to tears, [and] has made be boogie my ass off.

Michael's music made my friend, me, and millions of others smile nearly any time one of his songs came on a radio or jukebox. To this day, I can barely keep from dancing when I listen to 'Billie Jean' or 'Beat it' or a half-dozen other songs that immediately bring back memories of my childhood and happy times.

I will choose to remember him as he was at the Motown 25 celebration when he debuted the Moonwalk, and am glad that now, at least, the media can't hound him anymore and he will finally be left alone.

RIP, Michael.

Quote of the Day

"I expected to be disappointed by Obama. It’s a little breathtaking how early and how badly, though."

-Jason Kuznicki, on Obama's move to the Right cop-out on gay marriage recognition.

It really is amazing that he has been so bad on even the few things libertarians thought he'd be good (or, at least, better than Bush) on.

Arlington Rap

I May Have Been Robbed by My Government

No, it's not hyperbole:

In an apparent crackdown on Internet gambling, federal authorities in New York have frozen or seized bank accounts worth $34 million belonging to 27,000 online poker players, according to representatives for the players and account holders.

In an operation that began last week, the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York froze or issued seizure orders for bank accounts in Los Angeles, San Francisco and Arizona held at Wells Fargo, Citibank, Goldwater Bank and Alliance Bank of Arizona.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. attorney's office had no comment.

The accounts are managed by Allied Systems Inc., and Account Services, which handle cash for popular online poker sites, including Full Tilt Poker, Poker Stars, Ultimate Bet and Absolute Poker. Though the money belongs to the poker players, it is held for them in accounts managed by the two service companies.

Account Services, which had an account worth $15 million frozen in its San Francisco bank, doesn't accept deposits, but writes checks to players who are cashing out, said lawyer for the company, Jeff Ifrah. As a result, thousands of players receiving checks from the company won't be able to cash them, he said.

Emphasis mine.

I don't think "pissed" quite covers how I feel right now.

I love my job, but it's never gonna make me rich. I make extra money on the side by playing a game of skill for money. Even if it were clearly illegal, which it is not, it shouldn't be. Everyone plays voluntarily, risking their own money. On the whole, their skill level is the determining factor on whether or not it is a profitable venture. I fail to see how robbing me of my earned money is remotely related to the idea of justice.

This is bullshit on a stick.

UPDATE: I have just been contacted by my gaming provider. This is a redacted version of the email I received in response to my question about whether or not my money was safe:

Hello Jonathan,

Thank you for writing.

According to our records, you have made the following cashout requests recently:

June 01 [amount redacted] [electronic transfer]
June 09 [amount redacted] paper cheque (currently being processed)

In regards to your [electronic transfer] cashout, we are working with our [electronic transfer] processor to confirm the status of recently processed cashouts. Updates will be communicated to our players by email.

In regards to your paper cheque, [game provider] uses a number of processors and a variety of methods for players to cash out their funds. You can rest assured that your money is always safe in your [game provider] account, and you will always have access to your funds and the ability to cash out.

Please note that once your request has been approved, you may deposit your cheque at your bank as per normal.

If there is anything else we may assist you with, do not hesitate to contact us.

Regards,

[name redacted]
[game provider redacted] Cashier Specialist

Mood Music Monday

I submit this as this week's MMM for a couple reasons:

1) It's pretty cool, albeit in a cheesy way

2) Because I have a sneaking suspicion, given reaction to events on a less grander scale, this couldn't be pulled off in a lot of places in the U.S. because of some god awful fear that the terrorists may be choreographing routines to showtunes, thus wreaking untold havoc on American sensibilities and its economy.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 'REVERSE RACISM'

There is racism, and then there is not racism. There are varying degrees of prejudice, from assumptions to flat-out hatred. But, for the love of God, there is no such thing as "reverse racism." Treating individuals poorly or differently on account of the happenstance of their race is racism.

That is all.

SCOTUS Nod: An Exercise in Benevolent Bigotry

Pop quiz:

Which of the following are legitimate qualifications for a position on the Supreme Court:

a) a born-into tan
b) a cool "ethnic" last name
c) boobs/who-ha
d) legal acumen
e) all of the above, with special emphasis on a, b, and c

While put so crudely as to garner disgust from the Left, any astute non-comatose observer of the nomination process leading up to today's announcement can say, without reservation, the answer the Obama administration would give is "e." As proud as I was of my country for electing a black man--among a field of white men (and woman)--to be POTUS, I am disgusted by the manner with which the administration made its selection for the next Supreme Court justice.

The nomination of Second Circuit judge Sonia Sotomayor is an exercise in racial and gender pandering. This nomination should make her the new face of Affirmative Action: someone who may or may not be qualified for a position but gets in on an Affirmative Action "twofer." The administration made no secret that they were looking for a woman and/or Hispanic--arrogantly walking all over the letter and spirit of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Either we, as minorities, are equal or we are not--searching for the best among a gender/class/race is to degrade the equality so many fought for and intimates that if a given token nominee were to be judged against a truly open field, they would fall short.

It is not without a heaping spoonful of bitter irony that Sotomayor's record is, by most accounts, relatively unremarkable save for an Affirmative Action case now being considered by the Supreme Court--Ricci v. DeStefano.* The case illustrates what is wrong with Affirmative Action and the mindset of those who implement it: the results of a race-neutral test for promotion within a fire department were thrown out, thus preventing all promotions, because not enough blacks passed the exam. The city was afraid of being sued, thus they blocked all promotions. How this amounts to justice--genuine or "social"--has yet to be rationally explained, to my satisfaction at any rate. (Feel free to attempt in the comments.) The would-be Ms. Justice Sotomayor sided with the city, blocking justly earned promotions in the name of racial something or other.

I fail to see how selecting someone for their race/gender/ethnicity is substantively different than picking only among old white men. If to do the latter is racist and/or sexist, so is the former. Simply changing the race/gender of the selected does not make it any less unfair nor does it give the decision some sort of made-up nobility. To do so is not just logically inconsistent, it is simply wrong.

I suppose that the administration was open about its happenstance favoritism should mean something, excepting the fact that this patent tokenism is being hailed as some sort of milestone for Hispanics. Unless Hispanic women read differently than everyone else, unless laws apply to them differently than everyone else, and unless there is a fundamental legal reason that a Hispanic woman should be on the Supreme Court, to delimit the selection process to exclude or severely hamper the chances of any gender or race--or a certain combination of the two--is overtly racist/sexist and anyone who argues differently is not to be taken seriously. (Notice, too, there were no black men on the shortlist. I guess we made our quota.)

If the "shortlist" candidates could hold their own against white men--and all indicators show that most of them could--there is no legitimate reason to exclude them. To do so cheapens the nomination and everyone associated with it. I don't know enough about Judge Sotomayor to say definitively one way or the other if she is qualified for the Supreme Court. However, when all signs pointed to "woman and/or Hispanic" immediately after Justice Souter's announcement--instead of "Judge Sotomayor leads the field of jurists and professionals due to her accomplishments/decisions/writings/unusually high esteem, etc."--I find it sickening that most people just took it as given that giving any job, let alone THIS job, on qualifications of happenstance--gender and race--is in any way acceptable.

While it should go without saying, the traditional counter-argument is "It's not that we're giving a job to someone strictly because they are Hispanic/a woman, but among qualified candidates..." Yeah yeah yeah. Well, a lot of white men were given jobs over as or more qualified blacks/women and were not given their positions strictly because of their race and gender either. Inexplicably, it makes all the difference in the world that excluding all but white males is morally reprehensible yet excluding those white and male is morally praiseworthy and cause for celebration.

Maybe with her swearing-in, we could get Judge Sotomayor fitted with a robe with a big shiny letter "T" on the front:

It isn't that she's not good enough--she very well may be eminently qualified. But the way in which she was selected inevitably casts a shadow on her nomination. Justice Thomas complains openly--and in his legal opinions--about Affirmative Action, yet so many of his critics point to it as the main, if not only, explanation he's on the Court himself. The fact that he's the most Constitutionally consistent justice on the Court doesn't seem to enter into it--what must be a particularly harsh smack in the face to a proud man who has endured as much as he has. (And I'm not denying his race wasn't a huge factor in his selection, but the fact that people use it against him only strengthens my argument that it taints the accomplishment.)

Judge Sotomayor should have been considered against a full field of candidates--not just those whose biological and ethnic traits met political qualifications that have no bearing on their jurisprudence.

*Full disclosure: My employer filed an amicus brief on behalf of the firefighters in the case.