Rep. Nancy Pelosi isn't my favorite person in the world, but I kind of have to go with her on this one. Pelosi said today that, while members of the House are welcome to speak about Michael Jackson on the floor, it's inappropriate to honor him with a formal resolution at the moment.
It's not so much because of the "Jackson was quite possibly a pedophile" factor. For me, it's the "it's been two weeks and you people can't possibly have nothing else better to do than waste time writing, debating and passing this" factor.
I also find myself in the somewhat surreal position of agreeing with Bill O'Reilly. Jackson may have been iconic and ever-present, but was he in fact uniquely influential as an artist? And I'm sorry, the implication that Jackson is in any way responsible for President Obama's election (20 years after Jackson's last significant album) is both ludicrous and insulting to the thousands of African Americans who fought their way into leadership positions in policy and government.
FWIW, the House did pass a resolution naming "Frank Sinatra Day," but that was in 2008 on the occasion of the release of a commemorative Sinatra stamp 10 years after his death. From what I can tell, Elvis didn't get an individual resolution, but was mentioned by name in a 2004 Senate resolution marking the 50th anniversary of rock 'n roll (as determined by the date of the earliest Sun Studios recordings). Another proposed Senate resolution in 2006 congratulated Graceland on being named a National Historic Landmark. Elvis died in 1977.
There's a reason that sports Halls of Fame require that an inductee be retired for a certain amount of time, and why the postal service won't put a living person on a stamp. It may be appropriate to honor Jackson with a resolution one day, but Congress should probably wait for the dust to settle first so that we can take a clear-eyed look at Jackson's legacy. If you ask me, Pelosi got this one right.
No comments:
Post a Comment