You state . "Wouldn't it be nice if American television cared as much about the composition of the Supreme Court as it did Michael Jackson? "

I believe in an earlier post you said Michael Jackson deserved all the coverage he was given.

American television panders the masses and those masses are not that bright. Noam Chomsky has written that the American media manufactures consent among the public. That is very true.

He did deserve it. I just wish the network and cable channels would make as big a commitment to the Supreme Court hearing, which also deserves it. Z

"He did deserve it." I respectfully disagree.

Hi, I am not sure what you are disagreeing with. Can you clarify a bit? Thanks. Z

Oooh! Can you tell me what time the coverage is to take place? I certainly hope that NPR will also cover it.

Thanks,

Jane

Hi Jane, It starts at 10 a.m. Monday. Thanks. Z

Good for PBS and MPT. If MPT keeps this up, I may have to resume donating. On another positive note, MPT ssems to have dropped its Celtic Women programming. Also, I was disappointed that MPT had dropped Charlie Rose at 12:30 but then found him on MPT2 at 9:30 a.m..

Hi Mary, Thanks for the comment. And I think this is a good forum to let MPT know when you do approve of a programming decision -- as well as when you don't. I applaud MPT, too, for carrying the hearings. And I believe you are exactly the kind of engaged and thoughtful viewer/citizen that public TV wants and needs. Thanks. Z

Please watch this and it will partially explain my position. Except for Donna Brazile of course. The section is about 14 minutes in. George Will said synthetic grief.

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?catId=1206874

It sounds like Sotomayor was low in in the poll sited even among Hispanics. But, it sounds like she has a lot of poplularity in the senate and democratic party. Is that what anomymous meant. What about Donna Brazile is she opposing her nomination? CNN is providing coverage for anyone who wants to watch. I guess it will come down to her record of deciding past judicial cases with fairness and her overcoming some perceptions that she is biased in certain areas and sympathetic towards certain groups.

Sherry T. - My comment about Donna Brazile was related to Michael Jackson, not Sotomayor.

Anonymous - Oops thought we were talking about Sotomajor in this article. I get it now. Please explain synthetic grief (emotional response to people we only know as celebrities and have never met?).

Thanks - Sherry T.

Sherry T-
“Synthetic grief is a growth industry in the world today. We saw this with the Princess Di thing. People who didn’t know her, hadn’t thought about her for 10 years, suddenly dissolved in tears. I don’t understand it.”
George Will, drawing the exact same comparison I had been making all week and adding later on in the Roundtable discussion, “When Elvis died, the country didn’t go berzerk.”

I personally think it’s a bit ridiculous for people to cry over a celebrity’s death. Yes, it’s sad to see their actual loved ones upset and sad that we’ll never see anymore of them in music, movies or whatever, but c’mon people… did you know the celebrity or did their death somehow affect your life? No. Your life would go on exactly as it did had the dead celebrity not died.

Amonymous - Thanks for that explanation. I agree somewhat that the grief sometimes seems like an overreaction. However, I think we do connect emotionally with some of these people and the sadness is very real. I know that I connected with Princess Diana, I had read about her and followed her through the years and she was my age and had young children. I think your grief is real when they are suddenly gone. Not on the same level as a family member or friend. I could barely watch Paris talk about her father. Maybe this is what we really connect with the feeling that they must be facing and knowing that it could happen to us. We even mourn fictional TV characters when they are killed off see Z's article (maybe this is real synthetic grief). Good discussion anonymous you keep us thinking.

Hi Sherry, For what it is worth, I totally disagree with Anonymous: I think even though we only "knew" the person via media, our grief is still genuine and real. I totally disagree with the notion of calling it "synthetic" to somehow make it seem less authentic. Thanks. Z

Thank you Sherry. I respect your opinion. Each one of us has unique emotions and thoughts. As for Z's response to my reply to you, I respectfully disagree with him. The media created a significant amount of 'hype' over the situation. As we now move 3 weeks from his death, the stories have subsided, except for the Entertainment Tonight type shows, and issue that affect ALL of us as Americans have resumed to be covered.

For some of us, and I am in the generation that grew-up with with his music, he is a not the icon that other percieve him to be. I remember him more for his flamboyant lifestyle, radical changes in physical appearance, allegations of sexual misconduct, questionable mental state and drug abuse. This all led to a self-imposed seclusion from the media.

The media jumped on him whenever they could and this created a public circus, including his death. This is what I beleive George Will meant by his comment and I agree.

Hi Anonymous, I just want to say I respect your thoughtful and coherent position as well. I think we just disagree on this. But you do make a strong case on your side of the issue -- and I am not trying to dismiss it or knock it down. Thanks. Z

Hi, Z I respect your opinion more than you know. To Anonymous- I guess I was thinking more along the lines of degrees of emotion and I would have a different emotional response to a family members death than someone I did not really know. Maybe I am still unclear on the exact definition of "synthetic grief". I was joyous for the people who had the new baby when the GYN doctor finally came in and announced a baby girl even though I have never even seen these people. So I guess that I might have to scratch "synthetic grief" out of my dictionary after all. I am being to belive that all emotion is authentic and degrees really don't matter, even if we are grieving the loss of a fictional character etc. Whew this has been a long day.

I have to go to work tonight. Wish me luck.

SONIA SOTOMAYOR SHALL BE AN ASSET TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.

SOTOMAYOR IS BRILLIANT.
_____________________
SCANDALS! SCANDALS! SCANDALS!

DANGER! DANGER! DANGER!

GEORGE W. BUSH IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CRIMINAL STALKER!

“In her suit, Margie Schoedinger states that George W. Bush committed sexual crimes against her, organized harassment and moral pressure on her, her family members and close relatives and friends. As Schoedinger said, she was strongly recommended to keep her mouth shut. . . . Furthermore, she alleges that George Bush ordered to show pressure on her to the point, when she commits suicide” (go to Google, type “blog of drizzten Margie Schoedinger,” and hit “Enter”).

“George [Bush is personally complicit] in the death (murder to be precise) of my friend Margie Schoedinger in September of 2003. Determining the exact whereabouts and contacts of . . . George Bush on September 21 thru 22, 2003, should be entirely lacking in difficulty” (Leola McConnell—Nevada Progressive Democratic Candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010).

McConnell is correct: Bush applying pressure (continuously criminally stalking Margie Schoedinger) purposefully to force Schoedinger to commit suicide does in fact constitute murder where it culminated in her death.

Bush’s method of murdering Schoedinger cannot exist in a vacuum: he must have murdered other people in the same way.

During Bush’s presidency, of course Bush would have desired to kill people whom he hated or get them out of his way. Insofar as Bush was clearly capable of murdering Schoedinger—even in “broad daylight”—and is clearly capable of getting away with it, in consideration of common sense and the laws of human nature, Bush of course murdered numerous people in the disgusting way he murdered Schoedinger. One can examine public information; in various situations where people who sought to oppose or disadvantage Bush ever so frighteningly ended up “committing suicide”—specifically—Bush murdered them just like he murdered Schoedinger. For example, Bush murdered James Howard Hatfield by continuously criminally stalking Hatfield to the point that Hatfield could not get away from it—purposefully to force Hatfield to commit suicide—and Hatfield committed suicide in desperation to escape. However, the vast majority of such scandalous cases will never come out (the grisly details are typically hard to substantiate). A prosecutor really can lawfully charge a former president with murdering one or more people in the disgusting way Bush murdered Schoedinger. The American people unfortunately live in a world where evil presidents can murder any number of people—figuratively—with a wave of a magic wand and get away with it.

(There are thousands of copies of the information above on the Internet. Please feel free to go to any major search engine, type “GEORGE W. BUSH IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS CRIMINAL STALKER” or “George W. Bush continuously criminally stalked Margie Schoedinger to the point that she could not get away from it, and she committed suicide in desperation to escape: he murdered her” or “George W. Bush applying pressure (continuously criminally stalking Margie Schoedinger) purposefully to force Schoedinger to commit suicide does in fact constitute murder where it culminated in her death” or “George W. Bush murdered James Howard Hatfield by continuously criminally stalking Hatfield to the point that Hatfield could not get away from it—purposefully to force Hatfield to commit suicide—and Hatfield committed suicide in desperation to escape,” hit “Enter,” and readily find hundreds of copies.)

(Please feel free to go to Google, type “GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY blog of Andrew Wang,” and hit “Enter.”)
_____________________
Andrew Wang
(a.k.a. “THE DISSEMINATING MACHINE”)
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

Devoirs kind of worries me. I read about these accusations and some of it seems kind of "crazy", I don't know if I should say that, but it is my opinion.