Terrible Loss (King of Pop)

Michael Jackson, the sensationally gifted child star who rose to become the “King of Pop” and the biggest celebrity in the world only to fall from his throne in a freakish series of scandals, died Thursday. He was 50.



Jackson died at UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles. Ed Winter, the assistant chief coroner for Los Angeles County, confirmed his office had been notified of the death and would handle the investigation.

The circumstances of Jackson’s death were not immediately clear. Jackson was not breathing when Los Angeles Fire Department paramedics responded to a call at his Los Angeles home about 12:30 p.m., Capt. Steve Ruda told the Los Angeles Times. The paramedics performed CPR and took him to the hospital, Ruda told the newspaper.

Jackson’s death brought a tragic end to a long, bizarre, sometimes farcical decline from his peak in the 1980s, when he was popular music’s premier all-around performer, a uniter of black and white music who shattered the race barrier on MTV, dominated the charts and dazzled even more on stage.

His 1982 album “Thriller” — which included the blockbuster hits “Beat It,” “Billie Jean” and “Thriller” — is the best-selling album of all time, with an estimated 50 million copies sold worldwide.

The public first knew him in the late 1960s, when as a boy he was the precocious, spinning lead singer of the Jackson 5, the music group he formed with his four older brothers. Among their No. 1 hits were “I Want You Back,” “ABC” and “I’ll Be There.”

He was perhaps the most exciting performer of his generation, known for his feverish, crotch-grabbing dance moves and his high-pitched voice punctuated with squeals and titters. His single sequined glove, tight military-style jacket and aviator sunglasses were trademarks second only to his ever-changing, surgically altered appearance.

“For Michael to be taken away from us so suddenly at such a young age, I just don’t have the words,” said Quincy Jones, who produced “Thriller.” “He was the consummate entertainer and his contributions and legacy will be felt upon the world forever. I’ve lost my little brother today, and part of my soul has gone with him.”



Jackson ranked alongside Elvis Presley and the Beatles as the biggest pop sensations of all time. He united two of music’s biggest names when he was briefly married to Presley’s daughter, Lisa Marie, and Jackson’s death immediately evoked that of Presley himself, who died at age 42 in 1977.

Though legal action stopped the auction, you can still get a look at Jackson’s crystal gloves and his life-sized stature of Darth Vader made entirely of LEGOs.
more photos

As years went by, Jackson became an increasingly freakish figure — a middle-aged man-child weirdly out of touch with grown-up life. His skin became lighter, his nose narrower, and he spoke in a breathy, girlish voice. He surrounded himself with children at his Neverland Ranch, often wore a germ mask while traveling and kept a pet chimpanzee named Bubbles as one of his closest companions.

“It seemed to me that his internal essence was at war with the norms of the world. It’s as if he was trying to defy gravity,” said Michael Levine, a Hollywood publicist who represented Jackson in the early 1990s. He called Jackson a “disciple of P.T. Barnum” and said the star appeared fragile at the time but was “much more cunning and shrewd about the industry than anyone knew.”

Jackson caused a furor in 2002 when he playfully dangled his infant son, Prince Michael II, over a hotel balcony in Berlin while a throng of fans watched from below.

In 2005, he was cleared of charges he molested a 13-year-old cancer survivor at Neverland in 2003. He had been accused of plying the boy with alcohol and groping him, and of engaging in strange and inappropriate behavior with other children.

The case followed years of rumors about Jackson and young boys. In a TV documentary, he had acknowledged sharing his bed with children, a practice he described as sweet and not at all sexual.

Despite the acquittal, the lurid allegations that came out in court took a fearsome toll on his career and image, and he fell into serious financial trouble.

Comeback had been planned
Jackson was preparing for what was to be his greatest comeback: He was scheduled for an unprecedented 50 shows at a London arena, with the first set for July 13. He was in rehearsals in Los Angeles for the concert, an extravaganza that was to capture the classic Jackson magic: showstopping dance moves, elaborate staging and throbbing dance beats.

Singer Dionne Warwick said: “Michael was a friend and undoubtedly one of the world’s greatest entertainers that I fortunately had the pleasure of working with. ... We have lost an icon in our industry.”

Hundreds of people gathered outside the hospital as word of his death spread. The emergency entrance at the UCLA Medical Center, which is near Jackson’s rented home, was roped off with police tape.

“Ladies and gentlemen, Michael Jackson has just died,” a woman boarding a Manhattan bus called out shortly after the news was announced. Immediately many riders reached for their cell phones.

Singer Michael Jackson dead at 50
Spielberg, Scorsese react to Jackson’s death
Jackson’s hometown fans pay tribute
Celebs tweet about Michael Jackson's passing
Jackson created childhood memories for many

So many people wanted to verify the early reports of Jackson’s death that the computers running Google’s news section interpreted the fusillade of “Michael Jackson” requests as an automated attack for about half an hour Thursday evening.

In New York’s Times Square, a low groan went up in the crowd when a screen flashed that Jackson had died, and people began relaying the news to friends by cell phone.

“No joke. King of Pop is no more. Wow,” Michael Harris, 36, of New York City, read from a text message a friend sent to his telephone. “It’s like when Kennedy was assassinated. I will always remember being in Times Square when Michael Jackson died.”

Market Direction

After a few months out of the currency spotlight the Federal Reserve will once again be the focus for traders when the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) meets this coming Wednesday and Thursday. This time it will not be the Fed Funds target rate, the central bank’s chief historical policy tool, that will be the locus of interest but the several special programs that the Fed has used to stem the financial crisis, in particular the quantitative easing attempt to cap Treasury interest rates.

Various Fed disbursements have added more than one trillion dollars in liquidity to the United States financial system. With up to $3.25 trillion in Federal debt sold or slated to be sold in the credit markets before the end of the US fiscal year in September oversupply and inflation are serious potential concerns that could drive Treasury interest rates considerably higher.

The 10-year Treasury note has risen more than 1.6% in yield since March and the reason for this sharp increase has gotten much speculative coverage in the press. But in fact the yields on the 10-year note have simply returned to where they were before the financial collapse last fall. Treasury yields have been trending downward for more than twenty years. It was the dip to zero yields in the wake of the Lehman failure that was the singular event not the recent return to trend. That is not to say that the huge coming supply of Treasuries and the theoretical inflation potential of the projected Federal deficits could not drive Treasury rates much higher. But the Friday close of the 10-year Treasury at 3.78% is a likely starting point for an inflation fueled run higher in yields, not an indication that it has already begun.

The currency market reaction to the Federal Reserve quantitative easing policy was as negative for the dollar as the policy itself was ineffective. If the goal of the policy were to put a floor under Treasury prices it failed. If its purpose was to indicate a serious Fed concern for consumer interest rates and hope that the bond market would take the hint it was also a failure. The quantitative easing purchase amount of $300 billion was always far too small to prevent a fall in Treasury prices if market sentiment were negative.

Quantitative easing has been detrimental to the dollar for three reasons. First and most important it monetizes US debt. With trillions of dollars more of US debt yet to be sold this year alone any hint that the US will print dollars to pay for its own debentures is anathema to currency traders and to holders of US debt. The fact that the policy was a failure, Treasury rates rose despite the Fed purchases, was unimportant. It was the potential flood of new dollars that impressed the currency markets. Second, if the US economy could not tolerate a return to more normal Treasury rates from the abnormal levels of March when the 10-year note was in the low 2.00s% then what possibility was there for an economic recovery anytime soon? And finally if the Fed were willing to take the momentous step of buying Treasury issues to keep interest rates from rising then any speculation that the Fed might begin raising rates sooner than expected was misplaced.

When the Fed announced its quantitative policy in March 18th the governors were in reality utilizing their other traditional economic policy tool--Talk. Given the small amount of the announced purchases and the six months time frame the Fed must have hoped that the mere existence of this exceptional precedent would hold the Treasury market much as intervention can sometimes deter the currency markets. The governors must have known that $300 billion would never thwart a determined bond market.

Mr. Bernanke also chose to use this traditional central banker’s tool to limit the effect of the quantitative easing policy. In testimony before Congress on June 3rd he said that ‘deficits cannot continue forever’. It is of course a truism, but it is a truism with a point. The Fed does not control the deficit and rarely makes comment on fiscal policy. But it does control the Fed purchases of Treasuries. The goal of the easing policy was to bolster the consumer economy by keeping mortgage and other consumer rates from rising to levels where they inhibit consumption. Was this criticism of the administration’s deficits an indication that the Fed now views the easing policy as a failure? If that is the case then the link between the deficits and quantitative easing is the dollar.

Nothing will be more damaging to the Obama administration’s deficit funding plans than a collapsing dollar. The mere hint of such a run on the dollar brought heavy and unusual criticism from the Chinese and the Russians; and their warnings are not empty. If the currency markets drive down the dollar because traders fear monetization there will be little owners of US debt can do with their current inventory, selling would only worsen the run. But China and Russia do not have to buy more Treasuries; and the administration must sell Treasuries or abandon its domestic agenda. A substantially lower dollar could also bring crude oil prices to $100 a barrel and beyond. One of the contributing factors to the plunge in consumer spending in the US and elsewhere was the rapid rise in gasoline prices.

The Fed cannot do two things at once. It cannot keep US consumer rates from rising with a renewed and augmented quantitative purchase program and hope to maintain a strong dollar. The currency markets have made their view of quantitative easing quite clear. Even though US interest rates rose from March the dollar fell. Monetization is a greater threat to the dollar than rates are a support.

The Fed governors must decide which is more important: domestic interest rates or a strong dollar. The FOMC approach to quantitative easing will provide the answer. This is an important meeting.



Joseph Trevisani

Tremendous Victory by Pakistan in T20 World Cup

I really got amazed to see Afridi's perfomance. He proves again that he is match winning performer. Well done and thanks to Al-mighty ALLAH.

The South African juggernaut was brought to a screeching halt by Shahid Afridi who, with a little help from his team-mates, dumped tournament favourites out of the World Twenty20 and secured Pakistan's place in the final. Afridi put in an all-round performance of tremendous intensity, lifting Pakistan to a defendable total with an aggressive yet methodical half-century, before bowling a spell that left the South Africans winded at Trent Bridge.

The clinical South African side, who were unbeaten in the competition, were favourites going in to the semi-final and their bowlers fought admirably to restrict Pakistan to 149 when at one stage a total of 170 seemed on the cards. With the exception of Jacques Kallis, though, their batsmen failed to give the chase any sort of direction. They were suffocated by Afridi and Saeed Ajmal and their inability to score enough runs during the initial and middle overs left them with far too much to do against the pinpoint accuracy of Umar Gul's yorkers.

20 overs Pakistan 149 for 4 (Afridi 51, Malik 34) v South Africa

Shahid Afridi signals his aggressive intent, Pakistan v South Africa, ICC World Twenty20, 1st semi-final, Trent Bridge, June 18, 2009
Shahid Afridi made a methodical half-century, but South Africa fought back well to keep Pakistan down to a chaseable score.

Player/Officials: Shahid Afridi
Matches: Pakistan v South Africa at Nottingham
Series/Tournaments: ICC World Twenty20
Teams: Pakistan | South Africa

Each time Pakistan's batsmen accelerated and threatened to set a formidable target, South Africa's bowlers pulled the game back, a contest that made for riveting viewing at Trent Bridge. Kamran Akmal and Shahid Afridi played aggressively but South Africa's bowlers recovered ground by restricting the run-rate after their dismissals. The eventual total of 149 was one that Graeme Smith will be happy with, while Pakistan will feel they could have got a few more.

The game followed a strangely symmetric pattern. Pakistan dominated the first five overs, scoring 43, while South Africa fought back between overs five and ten to keep Pakistan to 68 for 2. Pakistan once again controlled the game between overs 11 and 15, reaching 120 for 3, but South Africa conceded only 29 off the last five overs.

Pakistan's early dominance was due to Akmal, who was intent on smashing the ball from the start. He cut Dale Steyn twice for four in the first over and lofted him cleanly over long-off in the third. In between, he crashed Wayne Parnell to the midwicket boundary and raced to 23 off 11 balls before top-edging a pull off Steyn to mid-on.

Pakistan had raced to 47 for 2 after six overs, with Afridi pulling Jacques Kallis twice through midwicket but South Africa then cut off the boundary supply. Afridi and Shoaib Malik didn't hit a boundary for 30 balls before Afridi slogged Roelof van der Merwe through midwicket. He moved on to cut loose against Johan Botha, making room to loft the offspinner thrice in a row to the cover boundary before unveiling a delectable late-cut to snatch 18 off the over. The 50-partnership had come up off 49 balls but Pakistan had begun to accelerate, with Afridi placing the ball into gaps consistently, plucking twos.

South Africa desperately needed Afridi's wicket and it was given to them by JP Duminy, who struck with his first ball. Afridi tried to slog sweep and skied the ball straight to AB de Villiers at midwicket who took a vital catch with ease. South Africa celebrated the wicket with more relief than joy.

Malik had played a more subdued, anchoring role until then, but began to step up, scoring his first boundary - a sweep off van der Merwe - off his 31st ball. He soon added another, hitting Duminy over extra cover, but eventually holed out to long-off.

Younis and Abdul Razzaq were two new batsmen at the crease and Parnell and Steyn bowled with extreme accuracy to deny them loose deliveries at the death. They could only pick off ones and twos and had to settle for 149, when 170 looked gettable at one stage.

By: George Binoy who is a senior sub-editor at http://www.Cricinfo.com