Michael Jackson Still Not Buried.
ProConPundit Pushing for Gary, Indiana.
The Jackson Family wants Michael buried as Neverland, where, I imagine, he would have wanted to be buried. The State of California has very strict regulations regarding the burial of dead human remains outside of a cemetery. Santa Barbara County is also DEAD SET AGAINST his burial there, for all of the turmoil it would create to the quiet, upscale area. The ProConPundit also questions whether Jackson actually still owned the property. I thought he donated/sold all or part of it to a boarding school.

Conventional wisdom would have Jackson buried at Forest Lawn which is where most of the rich and famous are buried, if they are not tucked away in the small Westwood Village Cemetery. The ProConPundit thinks burying Jackson at Forest Lawn is crazy. I think, like Elvis, wherever he is buried will bring a lot of people. Elvis is buried on the grounds of his Memphis mansion, Graceland. It’s a great tourist attraction site in a place that needs one. It also raises a lot of money for Elvis’ family. I think it would be unfortunate for him to not be in a place unique to him and also hard to imagine his family not capitalizing on it. Although you’d be inclined to think they should have figured it out in the two weeks since he died, it makes sense that it would take time to work out legalities, logistics, details.

The ProConPundit believes it makes best sense for Michael Jackson to be buried in GARY, INDIANA. It’s his birthplace, his boyhood home and from there that his music career, and that of his family, was launched. Its located in the heartland, close to Chicago, near several interstate expressways and a place that could benefit immensely from the tourism his burial, and presumed, museum or tourist center would be located. The ProConPundit is pushing this...to the point of calling Al Sharpton and Gary Mayor Rudy Clay.

A person has always had a greater chance of being murdered in Gary than getting a job. Bringing the King of Pop to his hometown for burial would help Gary become something better and be a last, lasting act of altruism on the part of MJ.

ProConPundit Softens Stand on--
King of Pop, and...

The ProConPundit watched the entire funeral of Michael Jackson. And, incidentally, it was a Funeral Service, not a Memorial Service. The media seems to lack the distinction but a funeral service one in which the body is present and a memorial service is one in which it is not. In all fairness, it was unknown until 8:30 a.m. Chicago time today as to whether the body would be present for the service. When it was announced to the assembled masses at the Staples Center that the casketed remains of Michael Jackson would be present, people were euphoric. I experienced it something of a teachable moment in that his body being present mattered to people. It was, naturally, a continual focal point during the service. Particularly in a case where people didn’t get the chance to say good bye, the presence of the body, even in a closed casket, is helpful.

I was never a fan of MJ. It was a great funeral. I was particularly moved by Stevie Wonder, Brooke Shields, my dear friend, the Rev. Al Sharpton, and the words by Jackson’s daughter, Katherine Paris Jackson. I also learned a lot about Jackson. I had not realized the depth of his financial generosity and humanitarian efforts. I still stand with Congressman Peter King (R-NY) on Jackson, in general, but I cannot dismiss the impact he has had on music, history, and the African American community.

Queen of Conservatives

When Sarah Palin was plucked from relative obscurity to be John McCain’s running mate last year, she was already a remarkable success story, an effective governor, and someone who fought her way to the top. Some people blame him for the defeat, some blame her. Definitively: It was his fault–it was his race to lose. I don’t think she helped. She solidified conservatives who were already holding their noses and voting for McCain. She alienated moderates and independents, as did he. For all of his talk of being a maverick and for as much as conservatives shunned him, he chose to dance to the right, instead of the center in the general election, the opposite of the Nixonian recipe for GOP victory.

As much as I don’t personally care for Palin, I do think the media has absolutely been relentless in their ridicule of her and her family. When Saturday Night Live made jokes about the child Chelsea Clinton being homely, they were forced to apologize. When MSNBC’s David Shuster, an unabashed liberal, referred to Chelsea Clinton’s role in her mother’s campaign last year as being “pimped” by her parents, he was suspended for over a month. Don’t let anyone tell you Palin was treated fairly. She wasn’t.

Palin’s resignation as Governor of Alaska is inconsequential, one way or the other. Personally, I don’t support it and don’t think it is equivalent to people vacating an office for higher office. She isn’t. Whatever her reasons, it doesn’t really matter. She accomplished what she was going to accomplish, which was much, prior to McCain tapping her as his running mate. That was at a time when the Democrats in the state legislature played ball with her to get things done. The Republicans in Alaska were always look warm to her given her defeat of her GOP predecessor. The one thing she has handled badly in this is her assertion that lame duck office holders take advantage of their constituents by taking trade trips and just letting the clock run out. Bullshit. She is vacating her office with 17 months remaining in a 48 month term. If that suits her, and she feels her agenda will be continued more effectively by the current Lt. Governor, her ally, good for her. To do so ridiculing others who finish the commitment they were elected to is poor.

I don’t like her and I don’t think she’ll ever be elected to national office.. So what? According to a USA Gallup poll, 43% of Americans would vote for her today over 54% for Obama. 43% doesn’t win, but its pretty impressive for such a controversial figure. She is the Queen of Conservatives. She will have the time now to spend in the lower 48 to give speeches, raise money and be a formidable presence in the GOP for years to come.

The ProConPundit loves anyone
who gets buried in this casket!

The Promethean is made by Batesville Casket Co., of Batesville, Indiana. Batesville is the largest American manufacturer of caskets. A decade ago or so, they acquired Marsellus Casket Co., the premier casket manufacturer of hardwood caskets in the U.S. Presidents Kennedy, Reagan, and Ford are all buried in Marsellus caskets. Aurora Casket Co., of Aurora, Indiana is the second largest manufacturer of American caskets. Aurora acquired Clarksburg Casket Co., the runner up to Marsellus as fine hardwood caskets. The Promethean is a 14 karat gold plated casket with a dark blue velvet interior and a hand-polished, mirror finish. The wholesale cost alone is around 25k.

ProConPundit Hall of Fame

First Inductee:
MAUREEN ORTH

These have been challenging times for the Progressive Conservative movement. The death of Michael Jackson, as much as anything, ratifies the mission of the ProConPundit as a spokesperson for a common sense moderate majority.

Michael Jackson’s death also occasions the absolute necessity for the ProConPundit to establish a HALL OF FAME. There are a lot of personal heroes I could have named to the HALL OF FAME, but the first inductee is someone I had never heard of before the death of Tim Russert one year ago.

My attorney, one-time professor, fellow funeral director, and, I’d like to say, friend, Frederick Cappetta, once said, “There is a remarkably small number of people in the world who have the courage to tell the truth.” Telling the truth is particularly difficult to do when people, as Jack Nicholson would say, can’t take the truth. It’s even more courageous to tell the truth when it marches against the flow of a parade. Maureen Orth has done that.

It’s no wonder the ProConPundit never heard of Maureen Orth. She is a journalist who covers pop culture. She is a correspondent for Vanity Fair, a former contributing editor for Vogue, and a former columnist for New York Woman. I never heard of Maureen Orth until her husband, Tim Russert, died a year ago.

Is it intellectually honest to say that you were shocked but not surprised by something? That’s how I felt yesterday about Michael Jackson’s death. Shocked to hear it, shocked at the timing, but not really surprised. I am sensitive to the fact that there are tons of people who are fans to his music. I’m not one of them. Not since the Jackson 5, really. I experienced Man In The Mirror and We Are The World as powerful songs. I was a little shocked but not surprised by the over reaction to his death. I thought the LA Coroner removing his body from the UCLA Medical Center by helicopter was outrageous.

At the gym this morning I watched “Morning Joe” on MSNBC while tread milling. They convened a panel to discuss Jackson’s death including Maureen Orth, who had covered him extensively. Also on the panel was the ultra liberal ideologue, Eugene Robinson, columnist for the Washington Post and unemployed comedian and commentator, John Ridley. Maureen Orth, who objectively knew more about Jackson than anyone else on the panel was candid about, well, the truth. While noting his undisputed musical talent, she also spoke of what a keen business person he was, something the others on the panel clearly knew nothing about. In responding to others who spoke of his having been acquitted of the criminal prosecution for child molestation, stated that it was simply factual that he had spent “millions and millions and millions” of dollars to pay off three different sets of parents. She also spoke of his having dangled his infant son over a balcony. John Ridley was visibly angry and unnerved by Orth’s temerity to speak the truth. To be truthful, I have not watched a lot of the coverage of Jackson’s death. From what I have seen, balance has been in short supply.

On MSNBC last night, Keith Olbermann ( a real chuckle head) was speaking with a reporter in LA and asked her about “man on the street” comments about Jackson’s death. She said the most poignant remark she heard came from an 8 year old boy who said, “I feel bad that Michael died. I hope that he had a chance to tell God how sorry he was before he died.” You should have seen the look on Olbermann’s face. Olbermann was none too pleased, I presume, that God had been brought into it.

Michael Jackson wasn’t proclaimed the King of Pop by anyone other than himself. I am not objective but I don’t think his music had the kind of cross generational appeal that, say, Elton John has. Prognosticators predict that Jackson’s scandals will fade from his reputation and only his fame will endure. That may be, but I don’t think his music will have the staying power decades from now the way the Beatles and Elvis have.

As I establish the ProConPundit Hall of Fame, I think it fitting to name Maureen Orth as the first inductee. I wish I knew the name of the 8 year old boy so I could name him, too. Neither the ProConPundit nor I suspect the 8 year old boy is a religious fanatic. I am also one who believes strongly in the grace of God and the power of God to forgive...I’m banking on it.

The 8 year old boy spoke of something so basic yet profound, and still it was poo-pooed. He wasn’t preaching fire and brimstone. This child understands right and wrong. He has a world view that perceives a loving God who can forgive anyone with the humility to express–if only to God–that we have done wrong.

I have more pity for Michael Jackson than judgement. I do think he was used and manipulated for a good part of his life–perhaps mostly by his father and family. I also don’t think he was a child molester in the sense of violent acts. I picture two types of active pedophiles. The first is the stereotypical perv in a raincoat or like the types who commit violent acts then kill their victims/witnesses. The other type is the less violent, trusted person like a clergyman, or King of Pop. I don’t think Jackson ever violently assaulted anyone. I do think he had sick relationships with children some of whom may have been so thrilled by his attention or awestruck by his wealth to have either not known or ignored that there was anything wrong. Their parents did. They were paid off. He was a pedophile and a drug addict. He wasn’t a good role model. I don’t begrudge him his musical success and acclaim.

When Richard Nixon died, his own intentions, his family’s request, as well as common sense dictated a subdued funeral given his “resignation in disgrace.” The liberal media has never allowed any telling of Nixon’s life without including his transgressions. Jackson should be held to the same account. He was a far more lethal influence on young people than tricky Dick.

Cheers to Maureen Orth and the 8 year old boy.

The ProConPundit has always respected Bill Kristol's intellect and have often agreed with him. He and his magazine, The Weekly Standard, vigoroulsy pushed the Iraq War and he has been a chief apologist for it. His dangerous neo-conservative insincts are where he and I parted company. Nonetheless, I thought his presence in the New York Times was a good thing. This was his last column, printed Sunday.

I agree with Kristol that the Conservative Era has ended. Its not gone for good. It will be back. Republicans and Conservatives in exile will eventually learn what they need to learn to wage a come back. When more competant and reform minded people than George W. Bush and Sarah Palin emerge, they'll be on their way back.

The ProConPundit wishes President Obama well. I want him to succeed and I hope to God he does. I wish him well despite the otherwise poorly run Democratic Party. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Dick Durbin all share in the responsibility for the econimic woes of this country.

The ProConPundit is responding to the end of the conservative era in two ways. First, retreat from Republicans. The time of exile for Republicans to regroup won't be pretty and I neither have anything to add to it nor anything to gain from it. Second, I'll not be joining the Democrats any time soon. I wish the President well and support him. The Democratic Party, led by the evil posse named above, are not for me.

The end of the Conservative era will be over in four years if Obama fails. Otherwise, it will be at least eight years before they return with potence. The return to Liberalism will be nothing more than Carterism if Obama fails. Carterism, is a ProConPundit defined pathogen that is a piercing, short term, experiment in self righteousness and weakness. Hopefully, Obama will do better.

As for me, I intend to spend this new era learning and listening--and putting my two cents in ALL THE TIME. In terms of political parties, I want to flirt a bit with the Reform Party http://www.reformpartyusa.org/ and the Libertarians http://www.lp.org/. Is the ProConPundit running with the losers? I am still drinking my coffee out of a McCain cup. What else is new?

Will Obama Save Liberalism?

By WILLIAM KRISTOL

Published: January 25, 2009 New York Times

All good things must come to an end. Jan. 20, 2009, marked the end of a conservative era.

Since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, conservatives of various sorts, and conservatisms of various stripes, have generally been in the ascendancy. And a good thing, too! Conservatives have been right more often than not — and more often than liberals — about most of the important issues of the day: about Communism and jihadism, crime and welfare, education and the family. Conservative policies have on the whole worked — insofar as any set of policies can be said to “work” in the real world. Conservatives of the Reagan-Bush-Gingrich-Bush years have a fair amount to be proud of.

They also have some regrets. They’ll have time to ponder those as liberals now take their chance to govern.

Lest conservatives be too proud, it’s worth recalling that conservatism’s rise was decisively enabled by liberalism’s weakness. That weakness was manifested by liberalism’s limp reaction to the challenge from the New Left in the 1960s, became more broadly evident during the 1970s, and culminated in the fecklessness of the Carter administration at the end of that decade.

In 1978, the Harvard political philosopher Harvey Mansfield diagnosed the malady: “From having been the aggressive doctrine of vigorous, spirited men, liberalism has become hardly more than a trembling in the presence of illiberalism. ... Who today is called a liberal for strength and confidence in defense of liberty?”

Over the next three decades, it was modern conservatism, led at the crucial moment by Ronald Reagan, that assumed the task of defending liberty with strength and confidence. Can a revived liberalism, faced with a new set of challenges, now pick up that mantle?

The answer lies in the hands of one man: the 44th president. If Reagan’s policies had failed, or if he hadn’t been politically successful, the conservative ascendancy would have been nipped in the bud. So with President Obama today. Liberalism’s fate rests to an astonishing degree on his shoulders. If he governs successfully, we’re in a new political era. If not, the country will be open to new conservative alternatives.

We don’t really know how Barack Obama will govern. What we have so far, mainly, is an Inaugural Address, and it suggests that he may have learned more from Reagan than he has sometimes let on. Obama’s speech was unabashedly pro-American and implicitly conservative.

Obama appealed to the authority of “our forebears,” “our founding documents,” even — political correctness alert! — “our founding fathers.” He emphasized that “we will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waver in its defense.” He spoke almost not at all about rights (he had one mention of “the rights of man,” paired with “the rule of law” in the context of a discussion of the Constitution). He called for “a new era of responsibility.”

And he appealed to “the father of our nation,” who, before leading his army across the Delaware on Christmas night, 1776, allegedly “ordered these words be read to the people: ‘Let it be told to the future world that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive, that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet it.’”

For some reason, Obama didn’t identify the author of “these timeless words” — the only words quoted in the entire speech. He’s Thomas Paine, and the passage comes from the first in his series of Revolutionary War tracts, “The Crisis.” Obama chose to cloak his quotation from the sometimes intemperate Paine in the authority of the respectable George Washington.

Sixty-seven years ago, a couple of months after Pearl Harbor, at the close of a long radio address on the difficult course of the struggle we had just entered upon, another liberal president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, also told the story of Washington ordering that “The Crisis” be read aloud, and also quoted Paine. But he turned to the more famous — and more stirring — passage with which Paine begins his essay:

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.”

That exhortation was appropriate for World War II. Today, the dangers are less stark, and the conflicts less hard. Still, there will be trying times during Obama’s presidency, and liberty will need staunch defenders. Can Obama reshape liberalism to be, as it was under F.D.R., a fighting faith, unapologetically patriotic and strong in the defense of liberty? That would be a service to our country.

This is William Kristol’s last column.

A ProConPundit First: Watching The View

Thank you Blago. Not only is the Lifetime movie that is YOUR LIFE going down the tube but now you are taking me with you! Today, I will go lower than I ever imagined. I have never watched The View. Honest. I've seen clips from it when political flair ups put it on cable news. The thought of it makes me feel, well, a little icky. When I've seen clips, I have found The View to be in over its head scratching and clawing at each other over politics. But I won't miss it today. Actually, I'll record it and watch it later. Embattled, beleaguered, mile-high hair, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich has taken his PR blitz to the national stage today. He is making several appearances including The View at 10 a.m. Chicago time on ABC. (Program note: Technically, I will record The View and watch it later. Does that still count? Hell, recording it--thats even worse!)

Blago has been impeached by the Illinois House and will be tried this week by the Illinois Senate. He will most definitely be found guilty and be removed from office by Friday.

The ProConPundit has been curiously silent on Blago, who Chicago Mayor Daley calls cuckoo. There is an ongoing investigation which has kept me from saying much. Ha ha. As if that was possible even if I was involved. I'll say more following his appearance on The View. For now, I'll say this:
1. It's Mayor Daley's fault he is the Governor.
2. The ProConPundit twice voted against him. I regret not having more opportunties to vote against him.
3. He is a creep.
4. His civil liberties have been violated.
5. His impeachment was triggered by a crime the Federal Prosecutor has not indicted him for.
6. Even a broken clock is accurate twice a day. Blago should never have been the Governor but he is being railroaded out of office.

7. Illinois voters should be horse whipped for picking him over Illniois Attorney General Jim Ryan in 2002 and Illinois State Treasurer Judy Baar-Topinka in 2006.

Three Cheers by the ProConPundit

Reagan Wouldn't Recognize This GOP

Op-Ed January 24, 2009 Los Angeles Times
The Gipper may be the patron saint of Limbaugh and Coulter,

but he'd be amazed at what's been done in his name.

By Mickey Edwards

Mickey Edwards is a former U.S. congressman, a lecturer at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School and the author of "Reclaiming Conservatism."

In my mind's eye, I can see Ronald Reagan, wearing wings and a Stetson, perched on a cloud and watching all the goings-on down here in his old earthly home. Laughing, rolling his eyes and whacking his forehead over the absurdities he sees, he's watching his old political party as it twists itself into ever more complex knots, punctuated only by pauses to invoke the Gipper's name. It's been said that God would be amazed by what his followers ascribe to him; believe me, Reagan would be similarly amazed by what his most fervent admirers cite in their desire to be seen as true-blue Reaganites.

On the premise that simple is best, many Republicans have reduced their operating philosophy to two essentials: First, government is bad (it's "the problem"); second, big government is the worst and small government is better (although because government itself is bad, it may be assumed that small government is only marginally preferable). This is all errant nonsense. It is wrong in every conceivable way and violative of the Constitution, American exceptionalism, freedom, conservatism, Reaganism and common sense.

In America, government is ... us. What is "exceptional" about America is the depth of its commitment to the principle of self-government; we elect the government, we replace it or its members when they displease us, and by our threats or support, we help steer what government does.

A shocker: The Constitution, which we love for the limits it places on government power, not only constrains government, it empowers it. Limited government is not no government. And limited government is not "small" government. Simply building roads, maintaining a military, operating courts, delivering the mail and doing other things specifically mandated by the Constitution for America's 300 million people make it impossible to keep government "small." It is boundaries that protect freedom. Small governments can be oppressive, and large ones can diminish freedoms. It is the boundaries, not the numbers, that matter.

What would Reagan think of this? Wasn't it he who warned that government is the problem? Well, permit me. I directed the joint House-Senate policy advisory committees for the Reagan presidential campaign. I was part of his congressional steering committee. I sat with him in his hotel room in Manchester, N.H., the night he won that state's all-important primary. I knew him before he was governor of California and before I was a member of Congress. Let me introduce you to Ronald Reagan.

Reagan, who spent 16 years in government, actually said this:"In the present crisis," referring specifically to the high taxes and high levels of federal spending that had marked the Carter administration, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." He then went on to say: "Now, so there will be no misunderstanding, it's not my intention to do away with government. It is rather to make it work." Government, he said, "must provide opportunity." He was not rejecting government, he was calling -- as Barack Obama did Tuesday -- for better management of government, for wiser decisions.

This is the difference between ideological advocacy and holding public office: Having accepted partial responsibility for the nation's well-being, one assumes an obligation that goes beyond bumper-sticker slogans. Certitude is the enemy of wisdom, and in office, it is wisdom, not certitude, that is required.

How, for example, should conservatives react to stimulus and bailout proposals in the face of an economic meltdown? The wall between government and the private sector is an essential feature of our democracy. At the same time, if there is a dominant identifier of conservatism -- political, social, psychological -- it is prudence.

If proposals seem unworkable or unwise (if they do not contain provisions for taxpayers to recoup their investment; if they do not allow for taxpayers, as de facto shareholders, to insist on sound management practices; if they would allow government officials to make production and pricing decisions), conservatives have a responsibility to resist. But they also have an obligation to propose alternative solutions. It is government's job -- Reagan again -- to provide opportunity and foster productivity. With the nation in financial collapse, nothing is more imprudent -- more antithetical to true conservatism -- than to do nothing.

The Republican Party that is in such disrepute today is not the party of Reagan. It is the party of Rush Limbaugh, of Ann Coulter, of Newt Gingrich, of George W. Bush, of Karl Rove. It is not a conservative party, it is a party built on the blind and narrow pursuit of power.

Not too long ago, conservatives were thought of as the locus of creative thought. Conservative think tanks (full disclosure: I was one of the three founding trustees of the Heritage Foundation) were thought of as cutting-edge, offering conservative solutions to national problems. By the 2008 elections, the very idea of ideas had been rejected. One who listened to Barry Goldwater's speeches in the mid-'60s, or to Reagan's in the '80s, might have been struck by their philosophical tone, their proposed (even if hotly contested) reformulation of the proper relationship between state and citizen. Last year's presidential campaign, on the other hand, saw the emergence of a Republican Party that was anti-intellectual, nativist, populist (in populism's worst sense) and prepared to send Joe the Plumber to Washington to manage the nation's public affairs.

American conservatism has always had the problem of being misnamed. It is, at root, the political twin to classical European liberalism, a freedoms-based belief in limiting the power of government to intrude on the liberties of the people. It is the opposite of European conservatism (which Winston Churchill referred to as reverence for king and church); it is rather the heir to John Locke and James Madison, and a belief that the people should be the masters of their government, not the reverse (a concept largely turned on its head by the George W. Bush presidency).

Over the last several years, conservatives have turned themselves inside out: They have come to worship small government and have turned their backs on limited government. They have turned to a politics of exclusion, division and nastiness. Today, they wonder what went wrong, why Americans have turned on them, why they lose, or barely win, even in places such as Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina.

And, watching, I suspect Ronald Reagan is smacking himself on the forehead, rolling his eyes and wondering who in the world these clowns are who want so desperately to wrap themselves in his cloak.