August 29, 2009

Today, Google redoes its logo to celebrate...

... no, not Teddy Kennedy — how would you do that? — Michael Jackson!

It's his birthday, you know.

He was murdered.

Teddy wasn't murdered. Teddy Kennedy died of cancer at the age of 77.


Fred4Pres said...

Okay, here's one so Teddy will not feel left out.

Jason (the commenter) said...

... no, not Teddy Kennedy — how would you do that?

Turn the two O's into the tops of beer mugs.

But this is an amazing come-back for Jackson. There's no way he would have gotten this treatment before he died

Barristers said...

I don't think it's accurate at this stage to say that he was "murdered." Homicide embraces more than just murder, the facts so far look like a negligent killing. I think you could accurately say he was "killed."

campy said...

Turn the two Os into the tires of an overturned, submerged Oldsmobile?

Diamondhead said...

I don't get it. Is Michael Jackson being caught up to heaven?

Gina said...

What a banal country we live in.

Or is it just Google that's banal?

I'm going to say both/and.

bagoh20 said...

We have a problem. A lot of famous people have died recently, and many of them lead quite honorable lives without abusing themselves, or children, or killing anyone.

Is it really that hard to be famous without being far less decent than the average person?

Is it hard to find an honorable celebrity to honor?

As Socrates would say: "WTF?"

J. R. said...

Let's talk about the people, Ann.

You've been commenting quite a bit about the media deathfest for Ted Kennedy.

But the people don't give a hoot. If you're not plugged into the incestual and dysfunctional marriage of politics and media, you might think Ted Kennedy died a year ago.

It's just like the thing with Tim Russert-- a top-down post-humous publicity effort concocted by political and media elites. It's advertising. Propaganda.

It don't matter to the people though, except insofar as they see it on the nightly news and in the NY Times, and either let their minds wander for a few minutes or skip to the next article.

The people want to dance! They like the music! Google gets this, the mainstream media (which is just a branch of political establishment now anyway) doesn't. Which one is the future??? You gonna bet on the NY Times or on Google as the place where the people will turn to for that thing that used to be called "news"?

By putting Michael Jackson up there today despite the official government/media line that we are supposed to all be in mourning for Ted Kennedy, Google just declared its victory once and for all over mainstream media. It's the end now. See 'ya.

Kirby Olson said...

I had an IV the other day for a routine colonoscopy (I'm over 50). Just before the anasthesiologist put me out he told me he was using papafol, which he said, is extremely safe, but in combination with other drugs, it can kill you --

I said, "That's interesti..." but before I could finish the sentence, I was out.

It was indeed a total sleep. When I came back out the nurse told me she was against universal health care (she thinks doctors will leave the system), and gave me some stock tips.

she said I should try to figure out which companies Obama favored, and to invest in those for quick, short-term gains...

Or maybe I was still dreaming.

EDH said...

In honor of Ted Kennedy?

"GOOGLE" => "GURGLE" for the day.

Oh, that's so wicked!

Jason (the commenter) said...

Diamondhead : I don't get it. Is Michael Jackson being caught up to heaven?

For Kennedy they could change the socks and flip the shoe image horizontally!

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
john said...

Never take a stock tip from a physician.

The heat in the stock market seems to be mostly in financials, companies that the government is heavily invested in, and many of those would otherwisw have junk-bond status, or not be trading at all, if not kept propped up. Why do I suspect that Treasury and National banks are "circulating" money into this to prop up their own holdings, and the Obama white house? I wish I knew more about this, sometimes

G Joubert said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EDH said...

A misapprehension of what the term "homocide" covers seems to be recurring theme with our resident law professor.

Speaking of which, has anyone heard from Titus lately? Now I'm worried.

David said...

Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.

Ann Althouse said...

@G Joubert I'm using the word "murder" for rhetorical effect, not in the sense of a prosecutor deciding which statutory crime to charge, but it is nevertheless the case that "murder" under the Model Penal Code includes the situation where you've killed someone "under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life."

Fred4Pres said...

Well said Barristers, Michael Jackson was killed (allegedly) by medical providers who recklessly have him dangerous medications. Could be construed as 2nd degree murder.

And for the best Ted Kennedy comment so far, that honor goes to Jim Treacher:

We could have once more seen Camelot Ascendant, were it not for Excalibur being denied to the Rightful Heir by the Lady in the Lake...

TosaGuy said...


Ann Althouse said...

I should add that the traditional hardcover dictionary definition of murder -- definition #1 -- is the unlawful killing of a person. Thus, as a writer in the English language, I stand 100% behind my use of "murder" in the case of Michael Jackson.

Ann Althouse said...

Also, G. Joubert, if you're going to pose as a pedant, you ought to spell the word you're posing about correctly.

OldGrouchy Doug Wright said...

Mary Jo Kopechne refused to comment about today's installment, in spite of a Constitutional bias against aristocracy, of Teddie Kennedy as a "Prince of the Nation!"

Also, I do like G. Joubert's use of "homocide," even if a tad anti-PC and certainly misspelled to boot!

bagoh20 said...

Poor Titus too?, that's awful!

Florida said...

... no, not Teddy Kennedy — how would you do that?

Easy. Like this:

(Word Verification: festopi ... a 3.1415 festapallooza baby!)

bagoh20 said...

Assisted suicide is most accurate.

AllenS said...

Kennedy and Jackson, two people who walked the face of the earth and left terribly ugly carbon footprints.

WV: comen

What Kirby Olsen was in when he received the stock tips.

Ann Althouse said...

"Assisted suicide is most accurate."

Assisted suicide is self-murder with an accomplice.

amba said...

Surprised to hear you, a lawyer, say that, after having just learned that homicide does not equal murder

bearbee said...

she said I should try to figure out which companies Obama favored, and to invest in those for quick, short-term gains.

She must receive The Motley Fools newletter.

wv - lifyi: not relevant to this thread.

Meade said...

Speaking of Google, much can be learned by googling "alcohol," Ted Kennedy," "brain cancer," and "malignant gliomas."

For example:

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (Centre International de Recherche sur le Cancer) of the World Health Organization has classified alcohol as a Group 1 carcinogen. Its evaluation states, "There is sufficient evidence for the carcinogenicity of alcoholic beverages in humans. …Alcoholic beverages are carcinogenic to humans (Group 1)."[10]

It is said that a drunk stops growing emotionally at the age at which he began serious drinking. That would probably be the age then of the unofficial self.


An alcoholic, especially at the age of 59 after years of habitual drinking, often finds it difficult to keep up with his work, or to keep a job at all. Alcohol punishes brain and body and wears them down.

amba said...

extreme indifference to the value of human life. I doubt the doc was indifferent to the value of Jackson's life. He killed the goose that laid the golden eggs, after all. He was an incompetent and a spineless lackey, giving in to a rich and famous addict's demand for oblivion at the expense of whatever professional responsibility and judgment he ever had. It's a stretch (or a tabloidean slip) to call that murder.

bagoh20 said...

I use the Motley Fool for recommendations and my portfolio is up 90% since Feb. Of course, it is still down from a year ago. I have no stocks in the financial sector.

The current administration has me very bearish long term, but the crazy anti-government mob running rampant has me very encouraged. So as usual I have no idea what to do, so I come here to drown my worries in the intoxicating gallows verse, hoping to live as long as Teddy, without falling apart like Michael.

Michael should have blogged; he might be alive today. He seemed in some measure to have died of loneliness.

Ann Althouse said...

"Surprised to hear you, a lawyer, say that, after having just learned that homicide does not equal murder."

1 I'm not just a lawyer and I'm not talking about the meaning of a legal statute. I'm using the English language with its dictionary meaning of a long-established word. People writing statutes cannot change those words except for legal purposes. Thus, murder could be defined by statute as only premeditated murder, but that would not deprive us English language speakers of the word meaning what it has come to mean in the process of language-making. It would make us wrong if we were to assert that a prosecutor could charge someone with murder under circumstances where there was no premeditation. But that isn't what we do when speaking, and I don't accept a limitation imposed on me because I'm (arguably) a lawyer. I'm not required always to speak using words that are sometimes terms of art as if I am always using them in that way. I won't be put in the box you'd put a lawyer giving an official legal opinion. If I want to give a legal opinion, I'll make it clear I'm doing that. Here, I'm calling something murder as a matter of my own opinion. I'm in no way purporting to tell you exactly what a criminal statute means.

2. Even if "homicide does not equal murder," some homicide is murder under the statutory law, and conceivably the Jackson killing is the subcategory of homicide that is murder.

Diamondhead said...

Jason, if I understand you correctly, ouch!

Florida said...


Is it possible to murder someone by omission?

For example: If I drive a car into a pond, and then sit idly by while someone in the backseat dies of suffocation as the air pocket they are breathing slowly fills with their own carbon dioxide ... would I be guilty of murder?

Alex said...

Google is banal and ultra-leftist.

hillbilly said...

I didn't know Gloria was sick.

Kirby Olson said...

WSJ defined homocide this morning as death caused by another person (it doesn't decide whether this is intentional or not -- I assume that murder would cover the intentional category?).

G Joubert said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
kathleen said...

FLorida, see "criminally negligent homicide". here's tennessee's statute as a random example:
" For you to find the defendant guilty of this offense, the state must have proven beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the following essential elements:1

(1) that the defendant's conduct resulted in the death of the alleged victim;


(2) that the defendant acted with criminal negligence.

“Criminal negligence” means that a person acts with criminal negligence when the person ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the alleged victim will be killed. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the accused person’s standpoint."

Diamondhead said...

The more I see this abortion the more I think the next step in the programme is to have the word Google positioned directly over the shark.

MamaM said...

From a old song written by another popular king and musician:

"Low born men are but a breath,
The high born are but a lie;
If weighed on a balance, they are nothing;
Together they are only a breath."

Only a breath...To draw air into the lungs, to inspire, links to the Latin words "inspirare, spirare, to blow into or upon, to breath".

To inspire is also defined as having "an animating effect upon; to influence, stimulate, or impel; especially to simulate or impel some creative or effective effort.

In terms of inspiration, Kennedy and Jackson both run the gamut from pity to adoration. In terms of their effect a similar spectrum exists.

Paddy O. said...

"You, (arguably) a lawyer!"

By the way, I'm a big fan of separating word usage into common and specialized meanings.

Words can, otherwise, become simply another attempt at domination. They then lose their strength of communication across specialized boundaries.

I think that's why Althouse (the blog) attracts so many commenters from a variety of backgrounds. Words can be words rather than weapons. We can just chat here, with a strong tendency towards the poetic rather than legalese.

In other news, California is on fire again. My brother just got evacuated. Lives right by JPL, not far from the Rose Bowl.

I'm not worried about his house, the firefighters are great and know their job. But, it's a big bother. My sister in law was planning a big birthday bash--Fiesta themed. Now canceled. Alas.

Paddy O. said...


Is there such a thing as a heterocide?

I looked this up on urban dictionary but decided not to post the definitions found there.

rhhardin said...

Shortest path through the thesaurus from homicide to celebration

homicide bloodshed carnage shambles chaos tumult excitement jubilation celebration

We're missing the excitement element.

Ann Althouse said...

G Joubert "you _still_ haven't evidenced a handle on the word. And I'm still not saying you don't know, I'm just saying I'm not seeing it. "Homicide" in the way the LA County coroner is using it DOES NOT imply murder or necessarily even anything untoward. It just simply means he died at the hands of another person, nothing more, nothing less, which is entirely consistent with the Webster's definition."

You're assuming I am restricting myself to what the coroner, within his professional scope of practice, was able to say. I'm not.

What we know is that a particular drug killed Jackson. We know that from the coroner, and it's homicide, within that narrow view, because someone gave him the drug. Now, I make additional inferences about the behavior of the doctor. The coroner didn't do that, because it's not his job. I did that. Why don't you?