Pills? A commenter tells me that Geraldo says pills may have been/are involved.

This is sorta, um, nothing, at least for now. I don't think there is much doubt that Michael Jackson was taking pills. So pills are "involved" in the sense they're in his system.

Whether or not pills are actually the cause of death is very much in doubt. Geraldo's insinuation may or may not be correct, but he's such a garbage-eater that I have to imagine he heard something about "pills" and just rushed his non-scoop on to the air, vaguely insinuating much more of a story than he actually has.

I pretty much don't believe anything Geraldo Rivera says.
...

Earlier reports said he'd suffered a heart attack and wasn't breathing when EMT responded.

Now TMZ says he's dead.

Update: Commenters say the LA Times reports he's not dead, but in a coma.

Pop star Michael Jackson is in a coma and his family is arriving at his bedside, a law enforcement source told The Times.

I don't know if the LATimes is behind or TMZ jumped the gun on shaky confirmation.

No, He's Dead: LATimes has now updated. "Michael Jackson is Dead," their post is now headlined.

AP and LAT say he was pronounced dead 16 minutes ago, 3:15 Pacific, 6:15 Eastern.

He is survived by his three children, Prince Michael Jackson, "Blanket," and, um, I don't know his other kid's name. "Spatula," maybe. "Soup Tureen." Some other common household item, I'd imagine.

One of His Better Later Songs: To say Jackson peaked with Off the Wall or Thriller would be something of an understatement. Thriller was so enormous (virtually every song on it actually was a radio hit and charted), it's kinda unfair to expect any sort of repeat performance, either in terms of actual quality or commercial success.

Still: One can't help but notice that he merely failed to recapture the success of Thriller (a stone-cold impossibiility, to be fair), but in fact barely managed to make any decent songs at all after that.

So, to be nice, I'll note one of his few good post-Thriller songs. He did manage some good work here and there, amidst the overhyped, overproduced, underwhelming songs that were forced on us by his pull with MTV and radio stations.

I mean, that one with Eddie Murphy in the video? What the hell was that? Why was that song forced on me so much I know most of the lyrics despite hating it?

But okay, here's one of the good ones.

Oh, Lord: Not to be a dick, but you do realize the camera-loving LaToya Jackson is now going to be on cable news 24/7.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 12:46 PM | Add Comment
Post contains 520 words, total size 4 kb.

Many commentators discuss Obama's statements on Iran only in terms of providing moral support. I have done so myself, actually. John McCain too, who specifically disclaimed any intent to arm the protesters or take any other aggressive action against the regime in demanding Obama speak out more forcefully.

But the thing is, that's kind of disingenuous.

When a President speaks out forcefully on a regime's behavior, he's putting a little of his credibility on the line. He's risking some authority in a gamble, basically.

If the regime backs down or otherwise modifies its behavior, he gains credibility.

If the regime goes further than it has even after he's spoken out forcefully, and he does not take any action whatsoever in retaliation, then the world knows his words are "just words" (to use an Obamaism, which he actually stole from Deval Patrick, which was actually written for him by David Axelrod). He loses standing. The world knows his words do not mean anything much at all.

If the regime doesn't back down and doesn't modify its behavior, but his words are then followed up with action, he gains also gains credibility. Whether his actions are dramatic or minor, he still gains credibility. The world knows words will be backed with actions of some kind.

The point of speaking out forcefully isn't just to provide moral support for the Iranian resisters. It's to put a little of America's credibility on the line, in a calculated gamble. The gamble is simple: Some credibility and authority is risked in hopes that the regime will understand that America now has skin in the game, now has made a promise of sorts -- a vague and inchoate promise, yes, but a promise just the same -- that failure to modify its behavior will incur consequences.

Either the regime backs down, or it doesn't.

And if it doesn't, either America follows up with tangible action or it doesn't.

Either the gamble works on modifying the regime's behavior, in which case the gamble pays off tremendously, because a positive change has been achieved through a cost-free statement; or the regime doesn't modify its behavior, but America takes strong actions, in which case the gamble pays off anywhere from a small amount to a (rarely) a large amount, but at the additional cost of action, whatever those costs may be; or the regime doesn't modify its behavior, and America does nothing, in which case the gamble is a loser and the credibility and authority risked is forfeit.

But speaking forcefully against a regime, and offering either explicit or implicit threats for noncompliance, puts a regime on notice that it now is itself at risk. America obviously does not wish to forfeit the credibility and authority it has gambled, so a regime that acts in complete defiance knows it is risking consequences.

It also knows that if it behaves outrageously -- going beyond mere defiance -- it almost demands a response from the American President.

Now speaking out like this limits a President's range of options, which is why presidents are cautious about it. Presidents don't want to overcommit to a policy, even in a vague manner; they don't want to be forced to act, merely to maintain their credibility. They would prefer, as anyone would, to have the greatest range of options open to them, at the lowest risk.

But sometimes they do have to take risks and commit themselves, however vaguely, to some unspecified future action should their words not be heeded. This is a critical middle step between business-as-usual diplomacy and open declaration of hostilities.

Obama, more "cautious" than most presidents -- feckless, really -- and much more allergic to the thought of acting, and much more hesitant to commit himself to any policy whatsoever that he might later wish to escape from, has refused until recently to so much as even "condemn" Iran. He calls brutality and murder in the streets a "vigorous debate" between repressed and repressors. His view seems to be that Iran is pioneering a novel and exciting new form of oratory: Xtreme Forensics.

Possibly with an eye to getting a show on Spike.

In short, he is unwilling to lay down any marker whatsoever vis a vis Iran. He is unwilling to suggest, even softly or vaguely, that US patience has its breaking point, because if he were to say so, he would be committing himself, however softly and vaguely, to some unspecified future action should the mullahs continue their brutality or, worse for him yet, dramatically escalate it.

The mullahs know this, of course. And they read into Obama's statements the utter lack of desire to lay down any tripwire which will invite, or even demand, a US response of actions, not words. And so he has broadcast to them, and to the world, that they can do anything they like, anything at all, without risking positive US action against them.

And so they are free to do as much evil as they want, or as they think they need. His statements actually encourage them through their feebleness; they know he has not risked any of his personal credibility in the matter, and so can walk away from the table without having risked any chips in the pot, and so they expect him to do just that. Walk away from their own big bets and bluffs.

Which, of course, he will. His own statements tell them that. They've "read him," they see his "tells." He's willing to watch over their shoulders and spectate, but entirely unwilling to join the game. Except, maybe (to continue this analogy), to play with "free chips," the kind of non-chips you give to a kid or a clueless girlfriend just to give them something to do.

The North Koreans have read his tells as well. They too know that Obama is simply not willing to confront them under any circumstances, except, perhaps, for a missile attack on US soil. And they don't even fear the consequences of that all that much, because they're aiming a missile at Hawaii and Obama still balks from putting up his chips and making it clear that there will be consequences for such an act of war.

Iran knows it can do what it likes. At the very least, they know they can continue with their strategy of random-but-not-mass killings, because even that incurs no implicit threat from Obama. Since he's finally gotten around to "condemning" their violence, they are perhaps somewhat mindful that going even further may incur consequences; but they doubt that as well, and besides, the current policy of a few murders here and there is working for them. They don't currently need to escalate, and Obama's reaction tells them they are completely safe as long as they continue with their current successful policy of selective murder.

Obama is willing to risk some political capital and credibility, but only on domestic pushes for socialism. The world knows he's a single-minded one-trick pony and views anything that occurs outside the headlong drive for socialism as an inconvenient "distraction" that does not need to be solved, but merely bumped off the front page.

The dictators and terrorists know this. Even US allies in socialistic Europe know this. The only people who don't seem to know this are the US media and the American public, which is largely shielded from these realizations by a severe underreportage of such "distractions."

Posted by: Ace at 12:22 PM | Comments (2)
Post contains 1254 words, total size 7 kb.

She's been named, and now her photographs are popping up.

A pretty minor detail, but everyone's linking it, so.

Via Allah, by the way, is this rumination on what's worse -- having empty, loveless sex with an adulterous partner, or falling in love with her?

Saletan echoes my post yesterday by comparing the kick-'em-to-the-curb strategy usually chosen by adultery-apologizers with Sanford's, um, more nuanced approach.

Again, I don't say this makes it better or worse. It's bad either way. But I do think there is some strangeness in the press and commentators demanding the typical quickie "lapse in judgement, I love only my wife, who is this foul temptress who so bewitched me" false resolution. That's sort of a sit-com wrap-up -- a major life-altering decision is quickly posed, resolved, and forgotten forever after 22 minutes (for a comedy) or 44 minutes (for a one-hour drama).

That might be quick and clean but it's not always, or even often, honest.

Of course, the fact that Sanford is still in love with the woman, and hedging as to whether he intends to reconcile with his wife or pursue his new romance, does mean he's not really contrite at all. Or at least not acting in a contrite fashion.

The Real Sin: Well, one of them. The one that is most important to the public. Or should be, at least.

On the affair, shit happens. I've seen friends go through it, they're not happy and whimsical, they are in pain most of the time.

That said, Sanford's 'crime' is dereliction of duty. He couldn't keep his personal life from interfering with his sworn obligations. He wasn't a fry cook who skipped a shift. He is the only man empowered to exercise certain responsibilities. You don't get to AWOL because your life is in the trash.

I'd have less scorn for him if he had done the transfer of power to his Lt. Governor (or left a fucking number where he could be reached).

He flaked out over his personal turmoils and that's the end of that when it comes to ever getting the keys to government responsibility again.

That's DrewM. writing. I agree, but I'm not stressing it because I think it's indisputably accurate.

The personal angle, the psychological and moral angles, are more interesting to me because they pose questions with arguable answers.

Is he better or worse because he's in love? And, whether better or worse, is the press wrong to demand the typical "Begone foul temptress" response from him?

Posted by: Ace at 11:33 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 434 words, total size 3 kb.

In limited screenings now around the country. Check out the trailer and the schedule for when it's coming to your town.

Thanks to Slublog.

Oh: The Stoning of Soroya M. is also making the rounds. Captain Ed has a review.

Posted by: Ace at 11:08 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 72 words, total size 1 kb.

An Iranian living in Germany says that's the rumor:

There is a possibility, and I am saying a possibility, for a compromise on the election result among the involved parties in Iran in the next couple of days. I received a call from Iran late last night indicating that there is a possibility for a runoff between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad.

He lists reasons that support this idea, such as the Guardian Council admitting that three million phantom votes were cast -- which seems an extraordinary admission, offered for the purpose of an Emergency Button should it become necessary to reverse their conclusions and state that the election was too close to call.

The Washington Post also reports more unconfirmed rumors of Rasfajani's bid to oust Khamenei. This claim has some specific details.

According to a well-placed source in the holy city of Qom, Rafsanjani is working furiously behind the scenes to call for an emergency meeting of the Khobregan, or Assembly of Experts--the elite all-cleric body that can unseat the Supreme Leader or dilute his prerogatives. The juridical case against Khamenei would involve several counts. First, he would be charged with countenancing a coup d'état--albeit a bloodless one--without consulting with the Khobregan. Second, he would stand accused of deceitfully plotting to oust Rafsanjani--who is the Khobregan chairman and nominally the country's third-most-important authority--from his positions of power. Third, he would be said to have threatened the very stability of the republic with his ambition and recklessness.

Rafsanjani's purported plan is to replace Khamenei's one-person dictatorship with a Leadership Council composed of three or more high-ranking clerics; this formula was proposed and then abandoned in 1989 by several prominent clerics. Rafsanjani will likely recommend giving a seat to Khamenei on the council to prevent a violent backlash by his fanatic loyalists.

As is usual, this is rumor-type stuff and can't be confirmed.

Meanwhile, Mousavi speaks out again, slamming Iran's "leaders." This is a read-the-whole-thing thing, but I'll quote the highlights.

After days of relative quiet, Mir-Hossein Mousavi launched a broadside against the Iranian leadership in comments published today, suggesting that the political rift over the country's disputed presidential election is far from over.
...

He slammed state-controlled broadcast outlets, which have intensified a media blitz against him and his supporters with allegations that recent unrest over the disputed June 12 presidential election was instigated by Iran's international rivals. And he vowed to pursue his quest to have President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's reelection annulled.

"I am not only prepared to respond to all these allegations but am ready to show how election fraudsters joined those who are truly behind the recent riots and shed the blood of people," he said in comments that appeared on his website and were distributed to supporters via e-mail. "I am not prepared to give up under the pressure of threats or personal interest."

Mousavi's forceful remarks appeared to show that he was willing to risk his standing as a pillar of the Islamic Republic to take on Iran's powerful leadership, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. And they seemed aimed at securing his position at the head of a broad and youthful movement seeking reform.

At least some of his comments were apparently delivered in a meeting Wednesday with a group of 70 social scientists, who were later arrested and taken to an unknown location.

Khamenei vowed Wednesday that he would not reconsider the lopsided official results, which have spurred infighting among the Islamic Republic's elite and street violence between pro-government forces and demonstrators.

Though the cleric is usually considered beyond public reproach, Mousavi seemed more than willing to take on Khamenei, who broke with tradition by openly taking sides in the country's factional political rows.

"The leadership's support to the government under normal circumstances is helpful," Mousavi said. "However, if the leadership and the president are the same, it will not be in the interests of the country."

Posted by: Ace at 10:28 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 671 words, total size 5 kb.

White supremacist blogger and radio host Hal Turner was arrested by the FBI today on charges that he threatened to kill three Seventh Circuit judges (Posner, Easterbrook, and Bauer, FYI) after they ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments.

Turner had posted on his blog:

"Let me be the first to say this plainly: These judges deserve to be killed. Their blood will replenish the tree of liberty. A small price to pay to assure freedom for millions.”

“These judges deserve to be made such an example of as to send a message to the entire judiciary: Obey the Constitution or die.”

He also said that the Seventh Circuit judges did not "get the hint" after the 2005 killings of the mother and husband of District Court Judge Joan Lefkow and that "it appears another lesson is needed."

He then posted the judges' pictures, phone numbers, work addresses, and courtroom numbers as well as a map of the courthouse with the "anti-truck-bomb" pylons highlighted.

Now, Turner is a nutcase and a racist and he has a lengthy history of this kind of thing. A criminal case of inciting violence against lawmakers is pending in Connecticut. He also posted the work addresses of judges in white separatist Matthew Hale's case. So I'm not sympathetic to him and the world would probably be a better place if he slipped and broke his noggin open (just saying).

But that doesn't mean that he "threatened to assault and murder three United States judges" as alleged by the FBI. It seems that it boils down to the meaning of "deserve." When Turner says they deserve to be killed, is that a threat? Does it become a threat in conjunction with posting the judges' work addresses and photos? Note, the FBI does not allege that Turner (or anyone else) took any affirmative act to carry out the threat aside from Turner's blogging.

The First Amendment implications are clear. Threats are not protected speech. But was this a threat? Here's what the magistrate judge had to work with (PDF).

Your thoughts?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 10:17 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.

I would have to say it makes it even more likely if the Mullahs and the IRGC prevail. The Israelis had little reason to trust in the good will of an Iranian regime that was pretending at democracy, but now that they have slaughtered their own people? I wouldn't and I think Bibi Netanyahu is a fairly serious realist himself. The rest of the civilized world can equivocate and say that the Iranians don't mean all that talk about wiping Israel off the map, but I think Neda and the hundreds (or more) cut down in the streets might take them at their words and the Israelis have little choice.

There is no reasonable doubt that if they prevail, the Mullahs and IRGC will redouble efforts to finish their bomb. They wanted it before, they need it now. The chances of a diplomatic solution to that issue were near zero before the uprisings, now they approach absolute zero. Well unless somehow the revolutionaries succeed. Given the underwhelming support from the free world and the deep penetration by the regime of the web 2.0 methods they were using to communicate,  I think they are being disappeared as they are unmasked. Iran funnels all their internets through a government portal and you can bet they have captured every conversation and are busy using their Siemens/Nokia provided tools to back track to every twittering freedom lover. They can expect that midnight crash of their door being kicked in and a quick trip to the torture chamber before gulag or death.

Israel does not have the luxury of Europe, Russia, China and America of
simply hoping the Iranians decide they don't really want a bomb, or containing them once they get one. They are targets 1-100 on the Iranian master list and I don't think there is any doubt they will act to preempt. If they do, that could be the catalyst for round two of the Persian Revolution. Many say an Israeli strike would galvanize Iranian nationalism in opposition to the Zionist threat. But now the Israelis could make a valid point that they are not attacking the Iranian people, but the mad, religious and autocratic zealots who oppress and kill them. They could claim to be helping topple a regime that threatens not just Israel but the Iranian people as well. Who could argue with them?

The Arab countries in the region have plenty of reasons to worry about a Mullah nuke, and they have been sitting on the sidelines in this current crisis silently cheering the protesters even as they wonder if their own oppressed masses were watching. They would have to condemn an Israeli strike, but not that powerfully.

The real question is can the Iranian people prevail in the absence of external help. At this point it seems more likely that the French Foreign Legion would assist them than the US, but can they pull it off if everyone else simply watches to see "How this plays out"? It seems unlikely, and yet all revolutions seemed unlikely until they worked. An Israeli-Persian alliance? It could happen.

Posted by: Uncle Jimbo at 09:38 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 531 words, total size 3 kb.

She succumbed to cancer at the age of 62. Story here. More to be added later. But really, what else do we need to know besides the following? (And I do mean that with the utmost respect...she was an icon and will be missed)

Posted by: Open Blog at 08:56 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

We've discussed the case many times here. This is the one where a 13 year-old student was subjected to a strip search in the nurse's office after another student who was caught with prescription-strength ibuprofen implicated her. The search of her bag turned up nothing, but the school has a "zero tolerance policy" when it comes to drugs of any kind, so the administrators lost their minds and made her strip. And shake.

The Supreme Court decided two questions: does this strip search violate the Constitution? Should the officials involved be protected from civil liability because the law was previously unclear?

The Court answered both questions in the affirmative.

Although the strip search violated Savana’s Fourth Amendment rights, petitioners Wilson, Romero, and Schwallier are protected from liability by qualified immunity because “clearly established law [did] not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The intrusiveness of the strip search here cannot, under T. L. O., be seen as justifiably related to the circumstances, but lower court cases viewing school strip searches differently are numerous enough, with well-reasoned majority and dissenting opinions, to counsel doubt about the clarity with which the right was previously stated.

The issue of the school district's liability was remanded for the lower courts to consider first.

The opinion is here (PDF). Justice Souter wrote the majority opinion, joined by the Chief Justice, and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito. Ginsburg and Stevens concurred in part and dissented on the question of qualified immunity. Justice Thomas concurred with the qualified immunity decision, but dissented on whether a Fourth Amendment violation occurred.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 06:08 AM | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 04:10 AM | Comments (1)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.