Wednesday Open Thread

My blogging is light because I'm just finishing watching the last 24 episodes of Cartel de los Sapos (First Season.) In between episodes, I read about the real life persons the charaters are portraying, to see how closely the show follows their real lives In this case, it's closer than I would have thought. The first half of season two is arriving tomorrow, so I think I'll be buried in that in the evening. Thursday I leave for Aspen and Owl Farm and the NORML Legal Seminar. My topic this year: "Getting High With Someone Who Dies: Defending federal complicity charges in drug overdose cases." The penalty for is a 20 year mandatory minimum. Another law that needs to be changed.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< Soccer Officials Face U.S. Indictment and Extradition
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Matt Taibbi has an excellent article (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Anne on Wed May 27, 2015 at 06:46:06 AM EST
    in Rolling Stone, "Why Baltimore Blew Up," that is a good companion to a David Simon post at The Marshall Project I linked to a couple weeks ago.

    From the article:

    But Baltimore remains a place where police stop pedestrians, ask them for ID and sometimes take them for rides if they give the wrong answers. "First thing they say is, 'Gimme your ID,' " says Malik Ansar, 44, who's standing on the corner of Penn and North in the days after Freddie Gray's death. "They look and say, 'Oh, you live in ZIP code 21227. What you doing way over here?' "

    Ansar points at a run-down town house behind him. "You can tell him you were born in this house right here. They don't care. They say, 'You live here now?' And you say, 'No, man, I moved outta here 17 years ago.' And they say, 'What the fk you doing here now?' "

    The way residents like Ansar describe it, if you're not at the address listed on a photo ID, you go into the paddy wagon. But if you run, it's worse. "Then, it's an ass-whipping," says a nearby bystander. "Believe me, Freddie [Gray] knew he was gonna get an ass-whipping if he got caught. . . . Everybody knows that. It may not be a real bad one, but you gonna get one."

    So most people go along, which at minimum is a huge waste of time. Ansar's friend, who goes by the name of Big T, says if you get picked up at lunchtime, you're lucky if you make it to central booking by five. You spend the whole freaking day in that hot, cramped van.

    And once you get to booking? "You're spending the night," says Big T. "It's just them saying, 'We're gonna get you.' "

    Many of these "cases" of loitering, or disorderly conduct, or whatever, never amount to anything, and if they do, get dropped as soon as anyone with half a brain and a law degree sees the charging papers. But the endless regimen of street interrogations and "long rides" serves its own moronic purpose, being a clumsy, bluntly illegal method of intimidating residents and searching whole neighborhoods without probable cause.

    The comparison may not be (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 27, 2015 at 07:18:33 AM EST
    a PC one but that sure sounds sort of brownshirtish doesn't it.

    Or life under a Communist regime. (none / 0) (#3)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed May 27, 2015 at 07:22:53 AM EST
    Is this a great country or what?</s>

    I have heard my LE relatives (none / 0) (#4)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 27, 2015 at 07:29:41 AM EST
    discussing this tactic.  But around here it's Mexicans.

    The cops in the small San Joaquin Valley (none / 0) (#5)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed May 27, 2015 at 07:43:56 AM EST
    town I live in used to do that with teenagers, pick them up, take them to the station for a while, and then release them if they had nothing to arrest them on.  This was 50 years or so ago.

    jim, I gave you a 5 (none / 0) (#6)
    by fishcamp on Wed May 27, 2015 at 07:45:05 AM EST
    in the last thread regarding your idea about taking Memorial Day off from speaking about past armed forces members who died while fighting for our freedom.  You didn't respect your own idea, and continued with your same adversarial comments.  Good idea backed with bad thinking.

    In All Fairness... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 27, 2015 at 09:06:12 AM EST
    ...I believe he waited until the next day to start his diatribe.  Apparently the dead are honored on a very tight schedule.

    A lot of the Baltimore stories (none / 0) (#29)
    by ruffian on Wed May 27, 2015 at 12:50:16 PM EST
    echo the ones from NYC that Taibbi talked about in his excellent book 'The Divide'

    That last paragraph you quoted says it all in a nutshell.


    An impotent chickenhawk. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 27, 2015 at 09:03:06 AM EST
    That started my day with a laugh. Well done sir.

    I won't get into his service record, ... (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 27, 2015 at 09:37:01 AM EST
    ... since I tend to take people at their word that they served in the military whenever they claim to do so. As the son of a deceased USMC officer killed in Vietnam, I respect and honor such service.

    But he should have never wielded his own service record as a weapon to impugn the patriotism of others -- and on Memorial Day weekend, no less. I find that particular penchant of his to be abhorrent and despicable, and I'll call him out on it every time.

    (That said, those who would fabricate a past military service or otherwise inflate their service records deserve both our scorn and our contempt.)

    We've heard more than enough from our resident American Über-Patriots over the decades and my own perspective, not only has nothing good ever come from their vitriol, they've further enabled some truly monstrous and inhumane acts to be committed in our country's name. I appreciate what you did in taking him down a richly deserved few pegs.

    Mahalo and Aloha.

    I Am the Same... (none / 0) (#25)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 27, 2015 at 11:19:36 AM EST
    ...except Jim implied that I lied about mine yesterday and that did not sit well with me.

    Unfortunately the thread filled up, so I dragged it over here.

    I believe he served, but I also believe that he is being disingenuous about what he actually did.


    Leave it there (3.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 27, 2015 at 06:49:27 PM EST
    I'm cleaning this one of insults.

    Jim and Mordigan are in timeout for blogclogging and insults to each other.


    Mulligan (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Repack Rider on Wed May 27, 2015 at 10:05:23 AM EST
    I put this into the last thread, but too late for anyone to comment.  A performance artist has inspired a number of people across the South to hold ceremonies on Memorial Day for burning Confederate flags, which of course took place.

    This might be the most perfect "troll" of fools and bigots I have ever seen, since that flag stands for two fairly despicable things, treason and slavery.  No patriotic American would feel anything but pleasure watching this hated symbol burn.

    Predictably the fools and bigots were outraged at being exposed.  In the link you will find my comment and the hilarious response.

    Well... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 27, 2015 at 12:24:58 PM EST
    ...since it's Fox News and TPM states:
    A total of 13 ceremonies were held on Memorial Day. While not every ceremony involved the burning of the flag, in each, the flag was buried in a series of WSMV called "funerals."

    So less than 13 flags were burned.

    Personally I don't care.  I find it extremely odd that the flag that represented treasonous people who tried to divide the country, and lost, is now held up as some kind of glory days symbol.

    Why not go back a century and fly the Union Jack if they are going to go all nostalgic.  It makes no sense to fly a flag that represents shame, and a 'country' that does not exist.  But it's America and they can fly the Jolly Roger for all I care.

    When I see it, I think racist aholes who can't get past the fact that they lost a war they started even with slave labor, much like Nazis.  But then I am a yankee living in the south and I find all the confederacy non-sense, and there is a lot of it, very disturbing.  

    If it were me I would want to forget my ancestors (here in Texas), not only stole land from Mexico at the end of a gun barrel, they enslaved people to work it, and then started a war to protect it that they lost because of it.


    I tried to read all the comments. (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Wed May 27, 2015 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    But who knew such people track the CSM?  The Juneteenth commemoration comment is restorative.

    Am sort of surprised no one's (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Anne on Wed May 27, 2015 at 11:13:20 AM EST
    brought up the other case the Supreme Court has agreed to hear: settling the meaning of "one man - one vote."

    From the NYT:

    The court's ruling, expected in 2016, could be immensely consequential. Should the court agree with the two Texas voters who brought the case, its ruling would shift political power from cities to rural areas, a move that would benefit Republicans.

    The court has never resolved whether voting districts should have the same number of people, or the same number of eligible voters. Counting all people amplifies the voting power of places with large numbers of residents who cannot vote legally, including immigrants who are here legally but are not citizens, illegal immigrants, children and prisoners. Those places tend to be urban and to vote Democratic.

    A ruling that districts must be based on equal numbers of voters would move political power away from cities, with their many immigrants and children, and toward older and more homogeneous rural areas.

    My feeling is that those elected to Congress are elected to represent everyone who lives in his or her district, not just those who are eligible to vote.

    Charlie Pierce

    You really have to admire how they've [the Supreme Court] done it. First, they turn our elections into a plutocrat's playground (Citizens United, McCutcheon). Then they uphold in the main voter-suppression tactics designed by the candidates the newly corrupt system produces out in the states (Crawford). Then, they gut any remedy that the people against whom these new laws discriminate have in federal court (Shelby County.) And now, it appears, the day of Jubilee having been declared, the circle may be closing for good.


    I Don't Know Mordiggian... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 27, 2015 at 01:14:02 PM EST
    ...I have tried to do it myself and failed many times.  Most of us have.

    But we are the occasional smokers, you are putting away 3 packs before lunch.  More power to you, but I am very skeptical only because I can't do it myself.

    I swear, I was going to post (none / 0) (#58)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed May 27, 2015 at 06:00:06 PM EST
    in any follow-up comment Mark Twain's observation that you can only give up smoking once.

    Any way, one day at a time.


    There's a reason Paul runs (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jondee on Wed May 27, 2015 at 02:22:55 PM EST
    as a Republican..

    What does he have to say about Republican's organized efforts to make it harder for people to vote? Is that another issue he skims over while circling back to the Patriot Act?

    There's also a reason that (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Anne on Wed May 27, 2015 at 02:38:42 PM EST
    Charlie Pierce has established the "5-minute rule" for both Rand and Ron Paul:

    The Five Minute Rule regarding the public pronouncements of any member of the extended Paul family is well-known around this shebeen, but to recap for people who may have joined this blog in progress, the Five Minute Rule states the following: while listening to any member of the extended Paul family, things will make sense for exactly five minutes. However, invariably, exactly at the five-minute mark, any Paul will say something either so unmoored from reality, or just so overwhelmingly insufferable, that you will think yourself the victim of an elaborate con that you ever saw anything of merit in what they were saying.

    That 10-hour "filibuster" must have made Lewis Carroll green with envy.


    Gov. John Kasich (R), (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 27, 2015 at 03:02:37 PM EST
    has officially announced that he will officially announce a bid for the Presidency in July. I'm guessing all the other dates between now and then were already taken by future GOP presidential candidates.

    Are any of these cats... (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by kdog on Wed May 27, 2015 at 03:38:41 PM EST
    really running for president?  Or are they just running for future Fox News/right wing speaking circuit gigs?

    I mean surely they all can't be serious.


    Never underestimate (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Zorba on Wed May 27, 2015 at 04:09:57 PM EST
    the power of the ego, which these people have in full abundance.
    OTOH, speaking circuit money is also good.   ;-)
    Most politicians (and so-called "business people" like Fiorina and Trump) live in an exclusive little bubble.  Few, if any, people that they normally surround themselves with tell them that they are full of it.  So they begin to believe that their pronouncements are golden, and that the sun shines out of their @sses.

    But they are, kdog! (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 27, 2015 at 11:45:35 PM EST
    So, I guess God (none / 0) (#38)
    by nycstray on Wed May 27, 2015 at 03:25:56 PM EST
    got back to him on that . . .   :P

    Nebraska abolishes the death penalty (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by Peter G on Wed May 27, 2015 at 04:20:29 PM EST
    By a vote of 30-19, the Legislature (with no votes to spare) overrides the governor's veto. Which state is next?

    Wow, I am stunned (none / 0) (#61)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 27, 2015 at 07:22:05 PM EST
    Someone mess with Texas :)

    Never happen in Texas. (none / 0) (#86)
    by Chuck0 on Thu May 28, 2015 at 09:33:14 AM EST
    In the words of Ron White,  "Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty. My state's putting in the express lane."

    They like killing people. Another of the many reasons I left and never looked back.


    Sad, I'm sorry (none / 0) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 28, 2015 at 11:25:17 AM EST
    Our hostess deleted 36 comments (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 27, 2015 at 10:27:07 PM EST
    from the last Open Thread.

    We have not been good children.

    What's this "we"? (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Zorba on Thu May 28, 2015 at 05:38:15 AM EST
    It was only a limited number of commenters, whose insulting comments were deleted, and two of whom are in time-out for a few days.
    "They," not "we."   ;-)

    Ha (none / 0) (#77)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 28, 2015 at 07:30:15 AM EST
    Well it appears one of those indecorous comments was mine, but it could have come at the hands of me commenting on a comment of one of the two mentioned above.

    Still, 36 is quite a trash can of deletion.


    For Me... (none / 0) (#87)
    by ScottW714 on Thu May 28, 2015 at 09:35:13 AM EST
    ...it was stupid, but sometimes I can't sit back and let someone say certain things.  I was baited and ran with it like an idiot.

    I think I started it, but it was pretty obvious that some people having been waiting to vent, myself included.  And with no adults around it certainly got out of hand.

    And while it was unnecessary, 'illegal' in these parts, and even a bit shameful, I don't think anyone can argue it wasn't deserved.


    And overdue (none / 0) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 28, 2015 at 09:44:06 AM EST
    we can talk about climate change till Monday I guess.

    It was Lord of the Flies in here for a while (none / 0) (#69)
    by McBain on Wed May 27, 2015 at 10:38:17 PM EST
    comments with insults and (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 27, 2015 at 07:33:45 PM EST
    personal attacks will be deleted. An open thread is to discuss topics of interest to you, not to attack other commenters.

    Dang Mordiggian 88... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by ScottW714 on Thu May 28, 2015 at 11:08:04 AM EST
    ...a '1' ??

    Got to give you a '5' for cahones, and a '0' for common sense.


    MotherJones (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 27, 2015 at 07:59:39 AM EST
    The Rise and Fall of Twitter's Most Infamous Right-Wing Troll

    The guy at Little Green Footballs, who's name also happens to be Charles Johnson, has been all over this.  Some funny stuff  there.

    Update, 5/26/2015: On Monday, Twitter permanently suspended Chuck Johnson's Twitter account, as well as another account, @citizentrolling, he set up in response to the initial suspension. The suspension came in response to a tweet Johnson sent out asking for help "taking out" activist civil rights activist DeRay McKesson. (Johnson has said he was merely referring to his reporting and was not making a physical threat.) You can read his lawyer's letter to Twitter demanding immediate reinstatement here. Read the original piece below:

    In case you are wondering where, (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 27, 2015 at 08:19:30 AM EST
    you know....

    His other recent antics have included suing for access to Mike Brown's juvenile records, making the unproven claim that the Ferguson police shooting victim had once been charged in a second-degree murder.⁠ Citing police sources, he accused "street thug" Eric Garner, the Staten Island man who died after being put in a chokehold by a New York City police officer, of domestic abuse.

    His tweet was essentially (none / 0) (#13)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed May 27, 2015 at 09:10:51 AM EST
    "Will no one rid us of this meddlesome activist?"

    Like King Henry (none / 0) (#34)
    by jondee on Wed May 27, 2015 at 02:44:26 PM EST
    talking about Thomas Beckett..

    And in doing so, (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Peter G on Wed May 27, 2015 at 04:17:31 PM EST
    soliciting Becket's murder.

    Richard III did this too, according (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by oculus on Wed May 27, 2015 at 05:22:09 PM EST
    to Shakespeare.  

    Exactly! (none / 0) (#57)
    by Mordiggian 88 on Wed May 27, 2015 at 05:51:11 PM EST
    Deniability is an old concept in power politics.

    BTW, most of Shakespeare's historic plays are Tudor-friendly propaganda, remember who was sitting on the Throne at the time they were written.


    His site was such a magnet (none / 0) (#35)
    by jondee on Wed May 27, 2015 at 03:00:19 PM EST
    for people with that rw dirty trickster mentality, that he had to give a couple of his beside-themselves regulars the boot after Obama was elected and comments were made at the site that bordered on physical threats.

    Is Kos guilty of making death threats? (2.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Redbrow on Wed May 27, 2015 at 07:50:00 PM EST
    THU JUN 05, 2014 AT 01:20 PM PDT
    Let's take out Scott Walker in Wisconsin: Mary Burke for governor

    ...or maybe it is just a common figure of speech.

    I am not pro Chuck Johnson.

    I am anti arbitrary political censorship.


    That being said (none / 0) (#64)
    by Redbrow on Wed May 27, 2015 at 07:56:45 PM EST
    This highest rated comment from a recent Shaun King diary does seem like apossible call to violence.


    At some point you'd have to think the survival instinct would kick in for the city.


    The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. - MLK Jr.

    by Quabbin on Mon Apr 27, 2015 at 10:44:03 AM PDT"


    ... a few years ago by FIFA, soccer's governing body, to award the 2018 World Cup to Vladimir Putin's Russia and the 2022 event to very tiny but stupid and obscenely rich Qatar, then-U.S. Attorney Loretta Lynch apparently opened an investigation into the practices of soccer's governing body, FIFA.

    That investigation culminated today in pre-dawn raids by Swiss police on FIFA headquarters in Zurich and by the FBI on FIFA's offices in Brooklyn, and the subsequent arrest of nine prominent FIFA officials and five marketing and banking executives who had been indicted on charges of bribery and corruption, as announced by now-Attorney General Lynch this morning in Washington.

    While FIFA spokesman Walter de Gregorio issued a statement following the arrests which insisted that the organization's decisions on the host countries for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups were "final" and would not be revisited, most sports analysts aren't quite so sure now. This morning's events likely calls into question FIFA President Sepp Blatter's chances for re-election to a fifth term, which had once been considered a lock.

    Allegations of systemic bribery and widespread corruption had long been staples regarding the activities of soccer's governing body. Most certainly, the world's most popular spectator sport has been shaken to its very core as a result of Ms. Lynch's investigation. This should get very interesting, regardless of whether or not you're a soccer fan.

    Stay tuned.

    Yes. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Zorba on Wed May 27, 2015 at 10:29:50 AM EST
    Jeralyn has posted a thread, right below this one, entirely devoted to the FIFA investigations and indictments.

    And that beacon of liberal humanism (none / 0) (#37)
    by jondee on Wed May 27, 2015 at 03:06:52 PM EST
    and human rights, China, hosted the Olympics.

    How did that come about?


    Just reading an interesting thing (none / 0) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 27, 2015 at 10:30:13 AM EST
    interesting (none / 0) (#23)
    by CST on Wed May 27, 2015 at 10:49:22 AM EST
    That they talk about the decline of ROTC programs as well.  My grandfather, one of the most left-wing people I've ever known (and a WW2 vet), was a big proponent for increasing ROTC programs, as he feared the political polarization of the armed forces.

    And then I consider his two sons and Vietnam.  The older son (significantly older) tried to volunteer and was rejected for medical reasons.  His younger son starved himself down to 80lbs to avoid the draft.  By the time my generation came around military service was the farthest thing from consideration, despite sept 11th happening shortly before my 17th birthday.


    One Dove (none / 0) (#26)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed May 27, 2015 at 11:22:44 AM EST

    happy Wednesday

    Oooooo doves... (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by desertswine on Wed May 27, 2015 at 10:50:28 PM EST
    Perla Batalla - Cucurrucucu Paloma

    Mark O'Connor (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 28, 2015 at 10:46:12 AM EST
    Senator Rand Paul (R. KY) (none / 0) (#31)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 27, 2015 at 01:45:27 PM EST
    appeared on the Daily Show last night, pushing his book "Taking a Stand: Moving Beyond Partisan Politics to Unite America."   Jon Stewart had an introductory piece on the Patriot Act and, then, discussed the law with Rand, particularly, Paul's mini-filibuster--the first question being is it true that you can not go to the bathroom.  Paul answered, yes, and called to memory the excretory procedures taken in the past by Strom Thurmond, the infamous senator from South Carolina.

    When the conversations went from the Patriot Act to inconsistencies and disingenuousness in Paul's selective government over-reach admonitions (e.g., Patriot Act, too much; Abortion/gay marriage, not enough), Paul cycled back to the Patriot Act, to the dismay of Stewart.  Jon threw up his hands, giving up, apparently,  on the success of interviewing a weasel.

    Paul, on the so called religious freedom movement, sympathized with the Christian bakers and other "Christian businesses,"  noting that many religious conservatives were afraid that their opinions would not longer be allowed even in their own churches.  

    Although Stewart responded that no one is saying that, Paul just insisted that "it is out there."  Jon missed the opportunity to remind Paul of his book's title, and expect that his uniting of Americans might include providing leadership, not to mention, truth.  

    Anything's possible... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Wed May 27, 2015 at 03:36:09 PM EST
    but I seriously doubt it...my money is on him being here for kicks, just like the rest of us.

    Though if you're right, his shadowy sponsor is getting hustled, and good for Jim if that's the case...whoever would pay people to infiltrate internet comment sections deserves to get took;)

    Maybe I'm giving too much credit (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by jondee on Wed May 27, 2015 at 03:47:49 PM EST
    but I think a person would have to be getting paid to talk like they truly believe man-made greenhouse gases are an international scientific "hoax".

    Nothing wrong with (none / 0) (#45)
    by KeysDan on Wed May 27, 2015 at 03:50:18 PM EST
    forced ultrasounds.  They are cool, says Scott Walker.  Not ready to pine over Mittens, but a big concern in his case was, if elected, would he have enough time to govern what with all his visits to see his money in Switzerland and the Caymans.  With Walker, the worry is one of inadequate gray matter.

    Because what women (and other humans) (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Peter G on Wed May 27, 2015 at 05:18:11 PM EST
    object to about forced vaginal probes is the display to them of the resulting picture, right?  I mean, I'm not a woman, but I couldn't have misidentified the offensive and problematic part, could I?

    Does he understand...? (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by jbindc on Wed May 27, 2015 at 05:50:44 PM EST
    That when you see the ultrasounds of someone's grandkids, chances are that ultrasound was done when a doctor rubbed some KY jelly on the mother's abdomen and then rubbed a wand ON it.  Not IN it.

    Put some gel on your belly and then take a pop can or bottle of water and rub it on your belly.  THAT'S where they generally get the ultrasound pictures from.

    Now take Harry Potter wand and stick it INSIDE of you.

    Not the same thing at all.  What an idiot he is.


    if I am clueless on this.

    I have two children and was present for several ultrasound exams.

    Where does he discuss a "Harry Potter wand" probe getting stuck "INSIDE of you?"

    Did something get deleted from the link before I read it?


    In very early pregnancy, (none / 0) (#74)
    by Zorba on Thu May 28, 2015 at 02:25:11 AM EST
    The embryo is so small, a transvaginal ultrasound is necessary in order to get a picture of it.

    Zorba, do all mothers get a (none / 0) (#78)
    by fishcamp on Thu May 28, 2015 at 08:30:12 AM EST
    transvaginal ultrasound if they want it, or is it done for a specific reason?

    According to what I've read about (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Anne on Thu May 28, 2015 at 09:02:42 AM EST
    the law in Wisconsin, it does not mandate that all women seeking an abortion have a transvaginal ultrasound - it mandates that an ultrasound be performed, that the technician provide the patient with information - spoken - about the development of the fetus, but technically, it is supposed to be the patient's choice as to whether she has a transabdominal US or a transvaginal one.

    But, here's the catch: in pregnancies of 12 weeks or less, where the patient is seeking an abortion, a transvaginal US is considered the optimal form of ultrasound because it provides better images at such an early stage.  See here for specifics.

    See here for more info.

    Most prenatal ultrasound procedures are performed topically, or on the surface of the skin, using a gel as a conductive medium to aid in the image quality. However, a transvaginal ultrasound is an alternative procedure in which a tubular probe is inserted into the vaginal canal. This method of ultrasound produces an image quality that is greatly enhanced, but it is not a common prenatal procedure. However, it may be used early in pregnancy to get a clearer view of the uterus or ovaries if a problem is suspected. It may also be used early in pregnancy to determine how far along you are in your pregnancy (gestational age).

    When my daughters were pregnant, both had transabdominal ultrasounds at their 2nd OB appointment, when they were around 10 - 12 weeks along.  They both also had them at 20 weeks, for what is known as an "anatomy scan."  With my older daughter, she had additional ultrasounds to check on the position of the placenta, as the 20-wk scan showed that it was partially covering the cervix, which, if it had not migrated to a better location, could have put her at risk of placenta previa.

    Neither had a transvaginal ultrasound.


    See Anne's answer to you. (none / 0) (#84)
    by Zorba on Thu May 28, 2015 at 09:27:52 AM EST
    It's done at very early pregnancy in order to get a clearer image.
    Trust me on this one, no woman "chooses" to have a transvaginal ultrasound if she can avoid it.  
    I had one once, not because of a pregnancy, but because my gynecologist suspected that I had a uterine polyp and wanted to get a better idea of its size.  (It turned out to be large enough that it warranted surgical removal.)
    The ultrasound was not painful, but it was not a pleasant experience.

    Thank you Anne and Zorba (none / 0) (#92)
    by fishcamp on Thu May 28, 2015 at 10:53:41 AM EST
    for the clear explanations.  Just yesterday I went in for my yearly organ scan, with the jelly on the belly.  There were no lesions or tumors revealed, for which I'm thankful.  Little thingies growing on interior organs could be bad, since  I have enough strange spots on my skin from years of skiing and fishing.  BTW last week I went in to see my urologist for that charming exam we men must get.  As I was leaving I mentioned to the nurse how lucky she was not to have a prostate gland.  She told me how lucky I was not to have a vagina.

    Thanks. This issue was not on my radar (none / 0) (#95)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 28, 2015 at 11:18:43 AM EST
    before this thread so I also googled around some.

    Everything I read says there is no requirement for transvaginal ultrasound in Walker's recent comments nor his 2013 bill.

    The bill Walker signed:

    allows women to choose between transvaginal ultrasounds and less-invasive abdominal ultrasounds.

    Technically, you are correct: the law (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Anne on Thu May 28, 2015 at 12:14:16 PM EST
    does not mandate a transvaginal ultrasound, but, from a medical standpoint, it may still be considered necessary even if the woman would prefer a transabdominal US.

    I found this:

    Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin told us that only a transvaginal ultrasound would enable a clinician to meet the requirements of the law for early-stage pregnancies, up to 12 weeks. And according to an August 2014 report from the state Department of Health Services, 84 percent of abortions in Wisconsin are performed at 12 weeks or less.

    Really, you should take a look at the law itself; it's a doozy.  My favorite part has to be the section on rape:

    (a) A woman seeking an abortion may waive the 24-hour period required under sub. (3) (c) 1. (intro.) and L. and 2. (intro.) and may waive all of the requirements under sub. (3g) if all of the following are first done:

    1. The woman alleges that the pregnancy is the result of sexual assault under s. 940.225 (1), (2) or (3) and states that a report alleging the sexual assault has been made to law enforcement authorities.

    2. Whoever provides the information that is required under sub. (3) (c) 1. or 2., or both, confirms with law enforcement authorities that a report on behalf of the woman about the sexual assault has been made to law enforcement authorities, makes a notation to this effect and places the notation in the woman's medical record.

    (b) The 24-hour period required under sub. (3) (c) 1. (intro.) and L. and 2. (intro.) is reduced to at least 2 hours if all of the following are first done:

    1. The woman alleges that the pregnancy is the result of incest under s. 948.06 (1) or (1m) and states that a report alleging the incest has been made to law enforcement authorities.

    2. Whoever provides the information that is required under sub. (3) (c) 1. or 2., or both, confirms with law enforcement authorities that a report on behalf of the woman about the incest has been made to law enforcement authorities, makes a notation to this effect and places the notation in the woman's medical record.

    (c) Upon receipt by the law enforcement authorities of a request for confirmation under par. (a) 2. or (b) 2., and after reasonable verification of the identity of the woman and her consent to release of the information, the law enforcement authorities shall confirm whether or not the report has been made. No record of a request or confirmation made under this paragraph may be disclosed by the law enforcement authorities.

    And Scotty has gone on the record saying he would sign a law currently in the Wisconsin legislature that would ban abortions after 20 weeks, even in the case of rape or incest.

    Charlie Pierce's description of Walker as the "goggle-eyed homonculus" seems about right.


    what I want to know (none / 0) (#99)
    by CST on Thu May 28, 2015 at 12:17:59 PM EST
    Does the state pay for the extra ultrasound?

    Or is that just another thing we have to suck up?


    The state pay? These women will (none / 0) (#100)
    by Anne on Thu May 28, 2015 at 12:25:31 PM EST
    be lucky to get their insurance companies to pay for them, if the insurance company does not consider them to be medically necessary - and I don't think compliance with a legal requirement necessarily meets that test.

    Honestly, reading the law itself felt like an invasion of privacy; bad enough a woman may have been raped, or in need of an abortion for deeply painful reasons, but the state is going to make her jump through a bunch of hoops before her choice can be exercised?

    It all just makes me see red.


    Thanks for the link to the law. (none / 0) (#107)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 28, 2015 at 12:56:58 PM EST
    Specifically regarding the narrow issue of the ultrasound, I see no requirement under the law for a TV ultrasound. Instead, what I see reading the law, is that it is completely the woman's choice.

    (3g) Performance of ultrasound.

    (a) Except as provided under sub. (3m) and except in a medical emergency and before a person may perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman, the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion, or any physician requested by the pregnant woman, shall do all of the following, or shall arrange for a person who is qualified to perform an ultrasound to do all of the following:

    1. Perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman using whichever transducer the woman chooses after the options have been explained to her.

    Maybe Walker is just confused? (none / 0) (#60)
    by EL seattle on Wed May 27, 2015 at 06:55:38 PM EST
    He might be thinking that U.S. hospitals use the same ultrasound processes that Shell Tribe people use in exotic foreign lands.  If that's the case, it probably won't help to try to correct him about this, because he'll probably just stick to his dream of "cool" probe-free ultrasounds. It can be really hard to argue with people like that who get committed to a specific idea.  

    "Look Ladies (none / 0) (#50)
    by Repack Rider on Wed May 27, 2015 at 04:52:13 PM EST
    ...It's no different than a recreational proctology exam, but with something a little bigger.  Who doesn't like a good one of those?  I'm doing it for your sake, and you're welcome.  Vote for me."

    Maybe if women started (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Anne on Wed May 27, 2015 at 05:13:54 PM EST
    faking orga$ms - a la Meg Ryan in "When Harry Met Sally" - while being probed, Republicans would ban their use, because what would the fun be in women enjoying the experience?  I mean, it is supposed to be a humiliating and uncomfortable experience if women are going to learn - the hard way - not to get pregnant (which really means, not having sex).

    I Don't Get It... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 27, 2015 at 05:22:48 PM EST
    ...is like A Clockwork Orange, do they put toothpicks in their eyes and force them to watch.

    How exactly is the ultrasound, which actually doesn't have sound, something they are required to view.  What about the blind, no abortions if you can't see ?

    The idea that you can make a law to force someone to watch something in America is just plain nuts on so many levels.

    D's should make R's watch videos of soldiers getting killed, or children going hungry, or people getting shot by assault rifles.  Or are these consequence videos just for women who have sex.


    Let's test it out (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by jbindc on Wed May 27, 2015 at 05:45:30 PM EST
    Scott Walker should submit to a transanal probe - just to check things out, ya know - and do it for YouTube.  Let's see how cool it is then!

    I Don't Think Anyone... (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by ScottW714 on Thu May 28, 2015 at 09:10:04 AM EST
    ...wants to know what is up there, but I am positive you would find 'Koch Bros Were Here' inscribed somewhere.

    Hey... (none / 0) (#49)
    by ScottW714 on Wed May 27, 2015 at 04:49:13 PM EST
    ...there is an app called Fiverr, where you can hire 'contractors' to do anything office like fort $5 and hour.

    My friend uses them all the time to do S at his job that he doesn't want to do.  They get around minimum wage because they are not employees, but contractors.


    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by coast on Wed May 27, 2015 at 08:06:52 PM EST
    I might be slow here, but how exactly does being a contractor rather than an employee change $5/hr to almost $15/hr?

    I Have Absolutly No Idea (none / 0) (#82)
    by ScottW714 on Thu May 28, 2015 at 09:15:16 AM EST
    What my friend told me was if you hire someone to mow you lawn, you are paying for the service, not their wages.  To which I replied any company could just hire a bunch of contractors to skirt minimum wage.  He shrugged his shoulders.

    I think it's crazy that they specifically advertize below minimum wages, and it's in the name, Fiverr.

    But I am told it's a popular app.


    When they call the app fifteenerr (none / 0) (#65)
    by nycstray on Wed May 27, 2015 at 07:57:31 PM EST
    maybe I'll check it out  ;)

    New lead on Natelee Holloway (none / 0) (#67)
    by McBain on Wed May 27, 2015 at 09:53:38 PM EST

    I haven't heard much about this case in a long time.  New tip says Natalee's body is buried on Aruba.  Previous tips/rumors included her body was dumped in the ocean and she was sold to sex traffickers. She disappeared 10 years ago.

    Go Warriors! (none / 0) (#71)
    by MKS on Wed May 27, 2015 at 11:01:07 PM EST

    On and off in the last few months I have prayed that the Seattle police be in the right place at the right time to stop or detect crimes.  

    I have been threatened a few times and so I carry pepper spray.

    On Sat or Sun this weekend, I was walking back to my car from the gym which is downtown Seattle.

    As I was walking, there is an intersection on 6th ave next to a major hotel often used by international travelers.  There is a freeway offramp at this street and the light does not change very quickly and more than a dozen persons at times gather on one side or the other to cross the street.

    On this day, there were many persons wait to cross going south or going north, to or from the hotel or continuing beyond.

    On the corner to our east there were two fellows (African American) who had gotten into some argument and had raised fists at each other, without having hit each other yet.

    One of them leaves the corner and then returns in about a minute with some long cane or whip thing--plastic or part of a thin tree limb.

    He then attempts to cross the street when there is some traffic and a car is in the intersection already.  The fellow with the cane gets mad and strikes the rear light thing of the car and breaks it and then starts to retreat to the west.  The fellow in the car did not have or brandish a weapon, but he did get out of the car briefly.

    All these events were witnessed by between 10 and 30 persons, including hotel staff on hand.

    No one stopped or attempted to stop the guy, though after the driver got back in his car, he drove to the next corner where the fellow had took off to . . .

    I did not react or get involved other than taking a photo of the attacker from his rear.  However, I could have drawn the pepper spray and it seems I could have told the fellow he was under arrest.

    I also get caned at times and I figured that that cane he was using would be nasty, but not deadly if not striking the face or head.

    In Wash state, a citizen can do a "citizen's arrest" in the case of a felony or in the case of a misdemeanor when such misdemeanor is a breach of the peace.

    In August 2014, a nearby Mall had a white security guard who pepper sprayed and manhandled a black bystander on the sidewalk, and got himself and his employer sued for wrongful conduct.

    In this case, the criminal conduct of the fellow was clear--fighting behavior, brandishing a cane as a weapon and intentional destruction of property.

    The pepper spray has a range sufficient to reach the fellow slightly out of the range of his cane.

    However, I do not or would not use such a defensive weapon even simply on the basis of the criminal conduct described, I assume.

    Lets assume the fellow is an idiot.  Anyone wish to comment on the legalities of the possibilities?

    The main one I see is: I approach with pepper spray drawn, say he is under arrest and to drop the weapon and he does not drop the cane.

    Possibility one is that he menaces me and possibility two is that he tries to run off . . .

    Well (none / 0) (#97)
    by sj on Thu May 28, 2015 at 12:05:08 PM EST
    I can't say I've ever been so eager to execute a citizen's arrest. Having said that, your execution of said arrest can't possibly be any worse than many arrests made by real LEOs.

    I doubt that your botched arrest would be as protected as one of theirs, though.

    Not a legal opinion which you say you are seeking. This is just an observation.


    The new non-leader for the 2016 GOP nomination (none / 0) (#79)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 28, 2015 at 08:48:08 AM EST
    Today's Q poll for the 2016 Republican nomination:

    Bush 10
    Walker 10
    Rubio 10
    Huckabee 10
    Carson 10
    Paul 7
    Cruz 6
    Christie 4
    Kasich 2
    Fiorina 2
    Perry 1
    Jindal 1
    Graham 1
    I'm Republican but thinking of voting Clinton 26

    Okay so I added that last candidate.

    Google News just said (none / 0) (#83)
    by fishcamp on Thu May 28, 2015 at 09:25:52 AM EST
    former New York Gov. George Pataki has announced his Republican bid for President of the U. S.

    I guess his announcement (none / 0) (#85)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 28, 2015 at 09:31:01 AM EST
    that he was announcing in July was short-lived. Or do you think Google News took his official announcement that he would officially announce as his official announcement? It's all so confusing.

    And Hillary bets Jeb, the final real nominee (none / 0) (#101)
    by MKS on Thu May 28, 2015 at 12:30:39 PM EST
    most likely imo, by 10 points, and Rubio and Paul, the closest GOPers by 4.

    And, this re the Iraq War (none / 0) (#102)
    by MKS on Thu May 28, 2015 at 12:33:42 PM EST
    Going to war with Iraq was the wrong thing to do, American voters say 59 - 32 percent. Republicans support the 2003 decision 62 - 28 percent, while opposition is 78 - 16 percent among Democrats and 65 - 26 percent among independent voters. 2016 House and Senate Races

    So, GOPers will play to base (none / 0) (#103)
    by MKS on Thu May 28, 2015 at 12:34:42 PM EST
    and talk trash re military and be unelectable in the Fall.

    The GOP (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 28, 2015 at 12:45:36 PM EST
    is going to spend a very long time talking to the bubble people and by the time they come out of the bubble themselves it will be too late. They will have become a bubble person themselves.

    Santorum is off and running (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 28, 2015 at 09:49:25 AM EST
    im being reminded by nooze people that he more or less came in second last time.  Won several states.

    He's supposed to be running on a populist message.  If by some miracle he won, and stranger things have happened, we could have a old fashioned populist election.  Imagine the things that might be discussed.  

    What a rip if icky Ricky was the candidate.  

    That would be considered a populist message (none / 0) (#90)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 28, 2015 at 10:30:25 AM EST
    only to an extreme wing of the already extreme Republican party, hanging on a life-vest off the starboard stern.

    I think Rick's idea of "populist" and (none / 0) (#93)
    by Anne on Thu May 28, 2015 at 10:59:12 AM EST
    mine are worlds apart. Maybe galaxies apart.

    No doubt (none / 0) (#105)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 28, 2015 at 12:45:34 PM EST
    still, if he feigns running a populist campaign it might increase the possibility of actual populist themes creeping in.  
    Populism seems to be big on the left. It will be interesting to see what the right makes of at least the concept.

    nooze people--LOL (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Thu May 28, 2015 at 12:36:31 PM EST