home

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 | Thursday Open Thread: Aspen Bound >
  • 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.

    Parent
    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>

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    jim, I gave you a 5 (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    Leave it there (3.67 / 3) (#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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Depressing.

    Sad,but highly predictable nonetheless, ... (none / 0) (#129)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 28, 2015 at 05:22:08 PM EST
    ... given the High Court's make-up. As a Democrat, I can only tell other Democrats that we can't say we weren't warned by ourselves and others, when Roberts and Alito were first nominated.

    I hang this one on our resident Beltway Dems who voted to confirm these two guys, heedless of the serious reservations which were being expressed by many of the party's rank-and-file, as well as numerous independents.

    I've got to get back to the home front here, since we're making the official changeover to our Hilo house next week. We're going out with Elder Daughter this afternoon to buy some furniture for the new nursery, which is her old bedroom. She and her fiancé are taking over our master bedroom. After next week, we'll be staying in the guest bedroom downstairs whenever we come back to Honolulu.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    I don't hold many grudges, but ... (none / 0) (#138)
    by christinep on Thu May 28, 2015 at 07:30:37 PM EST
    my memory is that then-Senator Feingold voted for the confirmation of John Roberts and Samuel Alito.  My memory is also that the reasoning had to do with the President's nominations should be given wide latitude, etc. etc.

    I'm being too lazy to follow through; and, I do understand that then-Senator Feingold was <otherwise> a very good Senator.  Yet ... we all have our thing ... and, this thing bothers me no end.

    Suggestions?

    Parent

    Interestingly (none / 0) (#160)
    by jbindc on Fri May 29, 2015 at 12:50:49 PM EST
    Hawaii could play a role:

    Hawaii may figure prominently when the Supreme Court this fall considers a case where plaintiffs are seeking to have legislative districts drawn based on a count of eligible voters rather than the total number of residents.

    That's because for nearly half a century, the Aloha State has had the high court's permission to ignore transients when drawing its political maps. While the Constitution requires equal population among legislative districts, a principle known as one-person, one-vote, a 1966 opinion said that Hawaii's "special population problems" justified using registered voters as the baseline.

    The problem, as Hawaii saw it, was the large concentration of military facilities on Oahu. Counting tens of thousands of service members would distort the electoral maps by awarding legislative seats to military bases.

    The 1966 opinion by Justice William Brennan was careful to say that its decision was contingent on the particular facts before it, and that it was not approving the limitation to registered voters "for all time or circumstances, in Hawaii or elsewhere."

    Nevertheless, Hawaii has continued to use the same approach, with some modifications, ever since, said David Rosenbrock, who crunches the numbers at the Hawaii Office of Elections.

    When drawing districts, the state excludes about 108,000 service members and dependents, as well as 15,000 out-of-state students attending the University of Hawaii, Mr. Rosenbrock said. Figuring out who should and shouldn't get counted is a difficult task, involving coordination with the Department of Defense and periodic litigation, he said.

    SNIP

    But excluding noncitizens and illegal immigrants, as desired by the case the court accepted on Tuesday, would be another matter, Mr. Rosenbrock said.

    "It would be very, very difficult," he said, because the census data the state uses doesn't identify the citizenship of the people counted."



    Parent
    ... from which this case comes. By and large, military residents will maintain their voter registration in their respective home states, and while there are obviously a few exceptions here and there, they do not participate in Hawaii elections.

    Ultimately, the argument comes down to whether the State of Hawaii should count them for purposes of election district redistricting, when they're already counted someplace else for that very same purpose.

    Residents of the Big Island, of whom I'll be one as of next week, don't want military residents counted because that means that per the 2010 census, they would gain one more seat in the 25-member State Senate, which obviously comes at the City and County of Honolulu's expense.

    Oahu state legislators, for equally obvious reasons, want to count military residents because then they keep 18 of those seats, rather than lose one of their number. When we said we weren't going to do that, several of them sued us in state court. This is be the culmination of that case.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Are the entire families.... (none / 0) (#171)
    by unitron on Fri May 29, 2015 at 10:52:44 PM EST
    ...of those maintaining their voter registration "back home" being counted back there and not where they currently reside?

    I know the Bureau of The Census tries very hard to "enumerate" people wherever they happen to be on Census Day, regardless of where they claim to "be", or "be from", or be "fixin' to move to", or what they say their "official" address is, and that's probably the best, or least worst, way to get an accurate count and not miss anyone or double count anyone.

    Of course Census statistics are used for far, far more than just apportionment of Congressional districts, and they track lots of other stuff besides just the number of people.

    Parent

    I agree, census taking is not easy. (none / 0) (#177)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 30, 2015 at 12:29:34 AM EST
    That said, over 10% of Oahu's population is comprised of either active duty military personnel or military dependents, whose tour of duty range between two to four years. Most of them reside in west Honolulu, Kailua, and central Oahu. When we included them in the count for redistricting purposes, it inflated the population in those areas, while depressing the number of actual registered voters per district.

    On average, we want our state House districts to represent about 54,000 people and 20,000 voters each. When we included the military population in District 46, which included the town of Wahiawa and the huge Army post at Schofield Barracks (made famous in "From Here to Eternity"), while we had 53,500 residents, 30,000 of them were DOD personnel and dependents. We would have ended up with a District that had less than 6,500 registered voters. Contrast that with my own House district, which has about 22,000 registered voters.

    This is why we've long excluded the counting of military residents for purposes of reapportionment / redistricting.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    Many years ago... (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by unitron on Fri May 29, 2015 at 10:59:19 PM EST
    ... Lyndon LaRouche, of whom I was previously unaware, bought himself half an hour on NBC and seemed to be making quite a lot of sense for the first 15 minutes.

    Unfortunately for him he kept going for the rest of the time.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    But they are, kdog! (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 27, 2015 at 11:45:35 PM EST
    It's a way of making an income (none / 0) (#112)
    by Palli on Thu May 28, 2015 at 02:21:15 PM EST
    or "hiding" one

    Parent
    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

    Parent
    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 :)

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.

    It was Lord of the Flies in here for a while (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by McBain on Wed May 27, 2015 at 10:38:17 PM EST
    What's this "we"? (5.00 / 3) (#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."   ;-)

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent

    And overdue (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 28, 2015 at 09:44:06 AM EST
    we can talk about climate change till Monday I guess.

    Parent
    Go Warriors! (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by MKS on Wed May 27, 2015 at 11:01:07 PM EST


    Santorum is off and running (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    Parent
    I think Rick's idea of "populist" and (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Anne on Thu May 28, 2015 at 10:59:12 AM EST
    mine are worlds apart. Maybe galaxies apart.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    nooze people--LOL (none / 0) (#104)
    by MKS on Thu May 28, 2015 at 12:36:31 PM EST
    Reality Checks: Ireland voting results on (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 28, 2015 at 04:01:34 PM EST
    civil same sex marriage (or as some call it, marriage): (l) Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican's Secretary of State (second in Church hierarchy) was "saddened by the results."  "The Church must take account of this reality, but in the sense that it must strengthen its commitment to evangelization. " I think, continued the Cardinal,  you cannot talk of a defeat for Christian principles, but a defeat for humanity."  Pretty nasty, in my view, but then who am I to Judge.

    (2) Diarmuid Martin, Archbishop of Dublin, said "It is clear that if this referendum is an affirmation of the views of young people, then the Church needs a reality check."

    (3) Note to Parolin and Martin. Only one of the 43 districts of the country voted the measure down.  And, the reality check may need to extend beyond young people--as support cut across Irish humanity: age, gender, geography, and income.

    ... that the Catholic Church must maintain a certain level of relevance in people's lives if it is to be successful. Further, if the referendum's results are indicative of the times in which we live, as Martin believes they are, then he's absolutely right about the Church needing a reality check.

    Parent
    Thought Crimes (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 02, 2015 at 04:13:38 PM EST

    just watching this fascinating HBO doc

    LINK

    "He's not a cannibal," the accused man's mother says. "He never ate anyone. Isn't that the true definition of a cannibal, is someone that eats human meat?"

    That head-spinning statement -- and let's note again that it's the defendant's mother saying it -- sums up "Thought Crimes: The Case of the Cannibal Cop," a documentary set for Monday night on HBO that is a trip down the rabbit hole if ever there was one.

    It revisits a notorious case that is still evolving, the one in which a New York City police officer named Gilberto Valle was accused of planning to kidnap women, then cook and eat them. What makes the case doubly bizarre is that at the heart of the preposterous-sounding charges are serious and sobering issues: Is it illegal to think vile thoughts and chat about them on the Internet? Where is the line between sadistic fantasizing and imminent crime?

    It's not simple.  The guy used police data bases to track potential victims.  Among other things.  

    Yup... (none / 0) (#201)
    by ScottW714 on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 10:38:37 AM EST
    ...thoughts and chats are fine, but the second the plan was pout into motion, is the second it became a crime IMO.

    The fact that mother is sticking up for this is just plain disturbing.  And shame on HBO for trying to sell it as a thought crime.

    Parent

    Did you see it (none / 0) (#202)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 04, 2015 at 10:44:32 AM EST
    the doc was excellent.  The title was, I think, meant to be provocative.  They do not paint a rosy picture if this person at all.   It does a great job of stating the case for and against.
    If you haven't seen it you should.

    And yes, there is something really creepy about his mother.   And him, omg.  The creepy simple oozes through the screen.

    Altogether excellent.

    Parent

    comments with insults and (3.00 / 2) (#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.

    Parent

    No 5 from me... (4.00 / 1) (#123)
    by lentinel on Thu May 28, 2015 at 04:32:27 PM EST
    for anything.

    "Cahones"?
    Don't think that reference to male anatomy applies.

    Rudeness is more like it.

    An unqualified 0.

    Parent

    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.


    Parent
    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?"

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

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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.  

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.

    "Unfuckingbelievable!

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

    TAKE OUT THE BAD COPS!

    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"

    Parent

    Please avoid the use of profanity, ... (none / 0) (#179)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat May 30, 2015 at 12:47:20 AM EST
    ... even if you're simply quoting someone else, as is apparently the case here. A well-placed asterisk or discreet misspelling will preclude the possibility of TL being blocked by security software. Per Jeralyn:

    "Censor software employed by law firms and businesses has blocked TalkLeft in the past for these types of violations. It is far easier for us to ban an offending commenter than to get reinstated by the software censors."

    Aloha.

    Parent

    "Take out".... (none / 0) (#170)
    by unitron on Fri May 29, 2015 at 10:28:48 PM EST
    ...may be subject to interpretation.

    Use of the N-word, by him, in a Tweet to a black person, is not.

    Parent

    ... 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.

    Parent
    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?

    Parent

    Many of the same complaints about shakedowns which have dogged FIFA for years are also probably applicable to those who run the Olympics.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

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

    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

    Parent
    Mark O'Connor (5.00 / 2) (#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".

    Parent
    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?

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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?

    Parent

    In very early pregnancy, (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    Parent
    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?

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    See Anne's answer to you. (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    Parent
    Thank you Anne and Zorba (5.00 / 1) (#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.

    Parent
    Not to mention breasts (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Zorba on Thu May 28, 2015 at 01:51:31 PM EST
    I get a yearly mammogram (breast cancer in the family) and it's extremely uncomfortable and getting more and more painful as I age.
    Every time I get one, I cannot help but think that, if men had to get their testic!es smashed between two pieces of glass every year, they would have come up with a better test.

    Parent
    Funny Zorba... (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by ScottW714 on Fri May 29, 2015 at 09:48:03 AM EST
    ...I was going to mention what a man has to go through when he feels something strange.

    Obviously some parts are specific to me, but others are for everyone.

    So I felt what I thought was a lump, and this came about because a friend felt a lump and it was cancer.

    Anyways I go to my doctor explain it, he doesn't even bother checking it out, but sets me up with an appointment to get... an ultrasound.

    I go there 10mins away, no wait, which is unheard of and they already have all my info.  I get gowned up and seated in the ultrasound chair.  A absolutely drop dead gorgeous nurse comes out and tells me whats going to happen and what I need to do.  So I pull up my gown and cover my junk with my hand, leaving the two fellas exposed.  She proceeds to run the lubricant on the ultrasound wand, then starts running it around.  To my utter shock and great delight that damn thing was heated, and I mean nice and warm.  Like in the movies I can see the screen.  We are talking, she was 100% on topic, professional, and me the scared patient trying to get her to comment about what we are seeing, she obviously can't, but asks me specifically where I felt it so she can focus in.

    So I am basically in a recliner, holding my junk while a beautiful woman rubs a warm devise coated in lubricant all over my body... just kidding, all over my parts.  I struggled to focus, this was after all very important, but it was difficult.  I wanted to lie back and let the Penthouse story unfold.  She gets done after about 10 mins, grabbed something from the machine, which I figured was the data, and gave me some wipes to clean up.

    I felt like I owed her money, it was that pleasant.  And by the time I got home an hour later, they had called and everything was fine.  I think I felt something that was normal, but overreacted because of my friend.

    My point here, yes you are 100% correct.  When we, men, need to check for lumps, the process is nothing like a mammogram.  Nothing gets squished, and while everyone might not get a beautiful lady, the process is the same.

    But I will say this, and it's certainly not nearly as bad as a mammogram, but men get the finger after 40 at our yearly physicals.  It's not really painful, but it's very unpleasant and I have never walked out after with my head held high.

    Parent

    We get (none / 0) (#158)
    by Zorba on Fri May 29, 2015 at 12:13:02 PM EST
    The "finger" up our vaginas every year when we go in for our well-woman gynecological exams.  ;-)
    And if we're still getting Pap smears, we get the instrument up there as well, in order for the doc to get some cells from our cervix for the lab test.

    Parent
    Um...in my experience, and sorry to (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Anne on Fri May 29, 2015 at 12:24:40 PM EST
    be so graphic, but the finger goes in the terminal end of one's colon (the attraction of an@l sex, I confess, escapes me); several fingers, and what sometimes feels like half a hand, go up the vagina.  Plus, there's the speculum, the swab, and the breast exam, all performed while positioned in the most exposed and vulnerable way.  And the sheet for modesty's sake doesn't really help that feeling, either.

    Parent
    Ok! (none / 0) (#161)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 29, 2015 at 01:23:19 PM EST
    moving on.....

    Parent
    Yah But... (none / 0) (#164)
    by ScottW714 on Fri May 29, 2015 at 03:48:12 PM EST
    ...we are used to be shamed on that level.

    Just kidding.  I am a man, therefore I have known a woman or two and I most certainly have heard the accounts.

    I was trying to show how right you were.  I don't think for a single second we have anything near as bad.  That was not what I was trying to convey.

    Parent

    And while we're on the subject, ... (none / 0) (#134)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 28, 2015 at 06:09:52 PM EST
    ... this is a good time to remind men to be aware that they, too, can get breast cancer. It's obviously much rarer than it is for women, but it can and does happen -- particularly with men who have large pecs with fatty tissue -- and the fatality rate is much higher than it is for women.

    That's because we've somehow been conditioned to think that we can't, and more often than not it's already penetrated the chest cavity and is affecting other organs by the time it's diagnosed.

    As far as mammograms are concerned, it really wasn't all that long ago that insurance companies would not cover the cost of getting one. Women have gotten the shaft on this stuff for years.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Yes Donald, breast cancer in men (none / 0) (#153)
    by fishcamp on Fri May 29, 2015 at 09:46:01 AM EST
    does happen.  A male fishing friend noticed one of his nipples was changing, and went to the doctor to find out he had the BRCA gene.  The same gene that made Angelina Jolie have both her breasts operated on before she even had cancer.  My friend had that breast removed and ultimately the other one too.  It's not so dramatic for men, and you can barely see the results, except he has no nipples.  He was lucky to find the cancer as it had begun to metastasize to his lymph glands.  He did go through chemo and radiation, and is taking some medicine for the next five years, but he's surviving, and fishing again.

    Parent
    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.


    Parent
    Technically, you are correct: the law (5.00 / 3) (#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.

    Parent

    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?

    Parent

    The state pay? These women will (5.00 / 2) (#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.

    Parent

    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.



    Parent
    I don't disagree that that's what the law (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by Anne on Thu May 28, 2015 at 01:42:46 PM EST
    says, but what is a woman to do if the doctor refuses to perform the abortion unless she has a TVUS that establishes the gestational age at 12 weeks or less?  Because after 12 weeks, in Wisconsin, the abortion has to be performed in a hospital.  If you're not sure when you got pregnant, it's not going to matter that you want the TAUS, you're almost certainly going to be required to get probed.

    Yes, the law says she has the choice, but from a medical standpoint, that may not be the case.

    Parent

    You have very kindly provided (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Zorba on Thu May 28, 2015 at 02:00:50 PM EST
    links, quotes, and explanations, but Sarc is clearly choosing not to understand that gestational age may very well, even probably not be determinable by abdominal ultrasound in the early stages of pregnancy and, as you said, if she waits until 12 weeks pregnant, she will have to go to a hospital.  Which is going to cost more than a clinic.
    Not to mention the fact that a woman who wants or needs an abortion would most likely prefer to have it performed as early in the pregnancy as possible.

    Parent
    it's often about the money, IMO (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by CST on Thu May 28, 2015 at 02:11:14 PM EST
    Rich women have always been able to get abortions.  This is just another economic barrier.

    Parent
    Ain't it the truth? (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Zorba on Thu May 28, 2015 at 02:33:38 PM EST
    If they couldn't find an amenable doctor here, when abortion was illegal, they could fly to Denmark, or elsewhere, where they could get one easily.

    Parent
    What really is humilitating (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 28, 2015 at 02:44:19 PM EST
    (and, please don't misconstrue my comment) is the pretext upon which this abominable invasion is being foisted on women. Women, who, apparently, committed the ultimate sin/crime of choosing for themselves what course of action they desire.

    One by one, (mostly) Republican men have been losing the battles of equality/inequality: Race, religion, feminism, basically all the areas that men have dominated for centuries. But, the last bastion of dominance, equal rights for women, is where they draw the line. The very idea that women should be free, and independent of men, when making decisions regarding their bodies is a humiliation they won't, can't, stand for.

    "If a man can't whup his woman wherever, and, whenever, he feels like it, then this isn't America any more. They took away our right to own Blacks, rights we had for hundreds of years, but, dagnabbit, Congress can't take away our right to do with/to women whatever we want to, a right that God hisself gave us. Period, end of story!

    p.s. yes, this is >snark<

    Parent

    I got the snark, Shooter ;-) (none / 0) (#116)
    by Zorba on Thu May 28, 2015 at 03:00:01 PM EST
    And bless you for your understanding of the whole thing.
    Would that very many more men were as enlightened as you.
    But what also drives me up a wall is that so many conservative women are also on the same page as these conservative men.
    WTH?  

    Parent
    Again, I'm new to this issue, (2.00 / 1) (#117)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 28, 2015 at 03:07:25 PM EST
    everything I google says:
    4. Although transvaginal ultrasound may better visualize early embryonic structures than a transabdominal approach, it is not more accurate in determining gestational age. Crown-rump length measurement from either transabdominal or transvaginal ultrasound may be used to determine gestational age.

    Is MDs requiring TVUSs as a condition for performing abortions a widespread or common practice?

    I could find little info about MDs requiring TVUSs.

    Parent

    I think the first thing you have to (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Anne on Thu May 28, 2015 at 03:27:59 PM EST
    understand is that the Wisconsin law, like many others on or about to go on the books in other states, wasn't created to make it easier for women to access abortion.  And part of making it harder is coming up with mandates and regulations for when and where these procedures can be done, and under what circumstances, and then prescribing criminal and civil penalties for violating them.

    So, if the law says only pregnancies under 12 weeks can be terminated in a non-hospital setting, are you taking the chance on getting gestational age wrong if your license and your practice could be damaged as a result?

    I don't think so.  Which means that, even if the abdominal scan is generally accurate in that regard, the doctor may insist on the more invasive and accurate scan for his sake - not the sake of the patient.

    Because the bottom line is, the state wants fewer abortions performed, and it will go to whatever lengths it can to make it more and more difficult to obtain one.  If it can't do it any other way, chilling the doctors' ability to provide them will just have to do.

    Parent

    But, but, TVUSs are NOT more accurate (none / 0) (#120)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 28, 2015 at 03:57:26 PM EST
    than AUSs in determining whether the fetus is > or < than 12 weeks old. And I've seen no evidence - so far - that MDs are ignorant of that medical fact and are therefor demanding TVUSs as a prerequisite to performing abortions.

    I do understand and agree with your broader point: "the state wants fewer abortions performed."

    Parent

    Have you even bothered to read (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Zorba on Thu May 28, 2015 at 06:35:23 PM EST
    all the citations provided for the questionable accuracy of AUS's in determining gestational age in very early pregnancies, are are you just blowing smoke out your @ss?
    How is the technician supposed to provide the woman with "accurate" information about the development of the embryo/fetus, as the law requires, if a clear picture is not available with an AUS?
    You do this all the time, Sarc.  You pick and choose little bits here and there that that you believe excuse an unacceptable situation, and then repeat and repeat these in order to bolster your own point of view, without acknowledging all the evidence on the other side.
    Fine, if that's the skewed way you want do things.  But why not just admit that you are opposed to abortion instead of this constant parsing that you do?  Be upfront about your beliefs, because you're not fooling anybody.
    (And, BTW, care to provide a link to your contention that "TVU's are not more accurate" in determining fetal age in very early pregnancy?)

    Parent
    Zorba, you are kidding. Right? (none / 0) (#139)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 28, 2015 at 08:24:56 PM EST
    Anne and I were not talking about "questionable accuracy of AUS's in determining gestational age in very early pregnancies."

    Just the opposite, Anne said TVUSs were more accurate than AUSs when determining gestational age in pregnancies of around the 12 week mark.

    Here is the link to the quote I provided above:

    4. Although transvaginal ultrasound may better visualize early embryonic structures than a transabdominal approach, it is not more accurate in determining gestational age. Crown-rump length measurement from either transabdominal or transvaginal ultrasound may be used to determine gestational age.

    Look, oh she who thinks she can read other poster's minds, the forced ultrasound topic was started and immediately several posters equated the ultrasound Walker talked about with "invasive" "proctology" "anal probes" etc.

    Struck by the "ew" factor, and having been present at several non-ew abdominal ultrasounds with my own wife, I googled around to learn about the subject, and it was almost immediately clear that those posters did not know what the bill actually said.

    Even Anne had to explain that it said it's the woman's choice.

    But she then went on to say that MDs don't accept the results of AUSs when confirming gestational age at about the 12 week mark, and that they'd insist on TVUSs because TVUSs are more accurate.

    Well, as the quote above says, unless the Nation Institute of Health is wrong, AUSs are no more or less accurate than TVUSs in determining gestational age.

    Zorba, neither TVUSs nor AUSs can determinine gestational age in "very early pregnancies."

    Granted, TVUSs can identify the gestational sac about 1 week earlier than AUSs can, at about 4 weeks of age vs 5 weeks, but neither are useful before that, and, none of this has anything to do with what Anne and I were talking about.

    But, of course, you then make claims of what I do or do not believe.

    Guess what, your (out of your @ss, natch) characterization of my beliefs regarding abortion are wrong.

    If you haven't noticed, I rarely am interested in anyone's beliefs or opinions on issues, and I don't expect anyone is much interested in mine.

    However, I am interested in the facts of the issues.

    Parent

    As a denial mechanism... (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by sj on Thu May 28, 2015 at 08:35:13 PM EST
    However, I am interested in the facts of the issues.
    ...it works pretty well.

    You hang your hat on the least significant fact, which you then repeat ad nauseam, and which lets you ignore the greater implications of any issue which, apparently, might otherwise trouble your conscience. Zorba is right -- you do this all the time.

    It's dishonest in the extreme. The sad part is that the person who most believes that blatant dishonesty is you.

    Parent

    Is it a blessing or a curse for you?

    Parent
    No need to read your mind (none / 0) (#157)
    by sj on Fri May 29, 2015 at 11:01:36 AM EST
    Your words -- both now and historically -- speak volumes.

    Parent
    Sarc, I'm not an expert - clearly! - on (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Anne on Thu May 28, 2015 at 09:30:49 PM EST
    ultrasound in general, much less the specs on transabdominal v. transvaginal ultrasounds; all I was interested in doing, in the limited time I had today, was to determine whether there was or wasn't an element of force as to the use of them in pregnant women seeking abortions.

    As you know, I found out that the law mandates that an ultrasound must be done; which type is allegedly up to the patient.  That being said, I also found some anecdotal references to the likelihood that in early pregnancies, or ones where it wasn't known how far along a woman's pregnancy was, women might not get the option the law says they do.  There were particular references to the 12-week point, and doctors not being able to comply with the law without having to do the transvaginal version.

    Here's the thing I got to thinking about: I haven't checked the stats, but I think there are probably not that many doctors providing abortion services.  It's been made clear, by passage of this law, that the State of Wisconsin would like there not only to be fewer abortions, but fewer facilities/hospitals in which to have them, and fewer doctors willing to perform them.

    And that made me think that the doctors who are still performing this service must feel like the state will use any excuse it can to shut them down - and that includes questioning which type of ultrasound was performed.  I don't know for a fact that this is the case, but it seems like a possibility.

    But if I can, I want to leave all that for a minute to look at the bigger picture. Women really don't have the kind of reproductive choice that should be theirs by right if some of those choices can't be exercised until they do this, or that and provide proof.  It puts barriers to their choices for the purpose of making them give up.

    In simplistic terms, it's like going to a restaurant with an all-you-can-eat buffet, and being told that before you can eat all the wonderful food on the buffet, you must first eat a selection of horrible food that the restaurant manager chooses for you. The manager will require proof that you ate it, and if you provide it, you still won't be allowed to eat the good food the same day: you will have to come back the next day.

    The way these states are treating women is cruel, and that cruelty ripples out beyond the individual woman.  We cut food and nutrition programs, we underfund early childhood education, we have antiquated family/maternity leave policies, we have inadequate paid sick leave policies, we don't want to expand Medicaid so poor women and children can have adequate health care.  The energy and effort that goes into this kind of cruelty really, truly makes me feel sad and sick.

    Parent

    I am embarassed to admit that I feel like (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by vml68 on Fri May 29, 2015 at 04:21:19 PM EST
    a bit of an expert on ultrasounds. I have had over 60 TV (yes,you read that right!)ultrasounds at the hands of numerous regular OBs as well as specialists. None of them would do abdominal ultrasounds before 10 weeks. And, between 10-12 weeks if they felt they were not getting a good picture with an AUS, then a TV ultrasound was used.

    In case you are wondering, it does not get any easier or less uncomfortable no matter how many times it is done.

    Parent

    That does not sound like fun. (none / 0) (#167)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 29, 2015 at 07:05:28 PM EST
    I asked my wife, but she does not specifically remember, but I think she probably did have a TVUS when we lost our first pregnancy due to ectopic implantation.

    While there seems to be some disagreement among medical professionals, it seems most likely that USs prior to abortions are usually not medically necessary.

    While we could debate whether the Wisconsin law has resulted a higher rate of TVUSs with abortions than occurred prior to the law, we really have no hard data to go on. I've googled a lot, I could find no source for such data.

    The law says the woman may choose which US process she prefers, and there is no mechanism in the law that would allow the US provider to override that choice.

    In the hopes of preventing more failed mind-reading attempts regarding my comments, please note, as I've said previously on this thread, I do think the intent of this law is to reduce the occurrence of abortions in Wisconsin and I do not support medical procedures (like USs) that are not medically necessary.

    Parent

    Not trying to read your mind. Just sharing (none / 0) (#168)
    by vml68 on Fri May 29, 2015 at 07:19:34 PM EST
    what my experience has been re ultrasounds.

    Can't remember where I read this but if I recall correctly, about 60% of abortions are performed by the 10th week and most of the women who had it done after the 10th week said that they would have preferred to have had it done earlier but could not due to monetary or scheduling issues.

    Parent

    I also read something along the same lines regarding timing of abortions, that the large majority are done w/in the first trimester.

    Parent
    I do appreciate your acknowledgement that:

    I don't know for a fact that this is the case, but it seems like a possibility.

    Despite what some of the more, er, "passionate," posters here may believe, imo that acknowledgement strengthens your position, it does not weaken it.

    As I said above: "I do understand and agree with your broader point: the state wants fewer abortions performed."

    Also, as I've said previously her on TL, the large majority of arguments here are over degrees.

    For example, regarding abortion, from what I've seen, there are very few, if any, here on TL, and in the world in general, who believe that any and all abortions, for any reason, at any point in gestation, are simply wrong.

    And, similarly, there are very few who believe that any and all abortions, for any reason, at any point in gestation, are simply hunky dory.

    That said, our host has previously made clear that she believes that abortion is ok for any reason up to the very last split second before birth. While I don't agree with that opinion, I do recognize the logic and consistency that takes her there.

    And, although I'm not aware of anyone specifically, I would guess there are some posters here on TL who believe any abortion after the very split-second of conception is wrong.

    So to lamely riff on the old joke, except for the two extremes I discussed above; We're all hookers. All we're doing now is haggling over price.

    Like Moynihan said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

    I generally try to determine what is fact and what is not because I think it's important to be honest with ourselves with what we use to arrive at our opinions.

    None of any citizen's rights can be exercised without doing this, or that, or providing proof, or whatever.

    Again, it's degrees.

    Thanks for the reasonable convo, I learned a lot today via TL. I can't often say that!

    Parent

    Lastly (and I debated even writing this (none / 0) (#152)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 29, 2015 at 09:24:10 AM EST
    due to some of the "passionate" comments other people have written) my position is that I support only medically necessary procedures during medical procedures.

    Parent
    What is the MEDICAL NECESSITY (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 30, 2015 at 07:46:22 AM EST
    for having any type of ultrasound prior to having an abortion?

    Parent
    Please see my comment #167
    While there seems to be some disagreement among medical professionals, it seems most likely that USs prior to abortions are usually not medically necessary. [...] I do not support medical procedures (like USs) that are not medically necessary.


    Parent
    Then we agree? (none / 0) (#182)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 30, 2015 at 09:52:23 AM EST
    We are both against the law because it imposes an unnecessary medical procedure on women who seek an abortion.

    Is that correct?

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 30, 2015 at 10:36:19 AM EST
    All these arguments about what type of ultrasound is required by the law distracts from that fact that no law should mandate a woman undergo ANY unnecessary medical procedure prior to obtaining an abortion.

    IOW - no ultrasound of any type should be required by law.

    Parent

    attention to their cause, imo, it often ends up working against them as the distortion simply makes those people look ignorant at best, and outright liars at worst.

    Like, as it turns out, these do:

    Scott Walker defends forcing transvaginal ultrasounds on women because they're `a cool thing'
    Scott Walker Endorses Mandating Transvaginal Ultrasounds
    Scott Walker: Women should be forced to have transvaginal ultrasounds because they are "a cool thing" - The Wisconsin governor said a procedure that involves being probed with a 10-inch rod is "lovely"


    Parent
    If the law is not overturned in the (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 30, 2015 at 01:42:17 PM EST
    courts, much will depend on how the requirement is interpreted and enforced.

    The law requires more than just determining  the gestational age with the ultrasound.

    Under the law, the person doing the ultrasound must tell the pregnant woman during the procedure "what the ultrasound is depicting," including the "dimensions of the unborn child and a description of any external features and internal organs that are present and viewable on the image." The person must also display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them, but the woman can't be forced to view them. the law, the person doing the ultrasound must tell the pregnant woman during the procedure "what the ultrasound is depicting," including the "dimensions of the unborn child and a description of any external features and internal organs that are present and viewable on the image." The person must also display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them, but the woman can't be forced to view them.

    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.

    Whether or not women really have a choice will depend on how the state and the doctors interpret the requirements.

    Parent

    which allows the US provider to override the patient's choice. I also don't think what PP said in the last paragraph is accurate.

    That said, I would expect the law to be overturned in the courts.


    Parent

    But what if the medical provider - (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Anne on Sat May 30, 2015 at 02:09:41 PM EST
    the doctor - says he or she will not perform the abortion unless the patient has a TV ultrasound?

    What then?  You have a situation where the law, it seems, is being complied with, but the woman is still faced with the barrier of having to undergo a type of ultrasound she doesn't want, so that she can obtain care it is supposed to be her choice to have

    Is insurance paying for all this, or is this another cost a woman must factor into whether or not she can afford to have the abortion?

    Parent

    a mechanism for the patient to choose, and does not provide any mechanism for the US provider to override her choice.

    Parent
    Okay, let's try this one more time: (none / 0) (#192)
    by Anne on Sat May 30, 2015 at 04:06:49 PM EST
    I am not talking about the ultrasound provider overriding her choice, I am talking about the doctor not accepting the abdominal ultrasound in an early-stage pregnancy and refusing to perform the abortion unless and until the patient has an internal ultrasound.

    The patient has chosen, the sonographer has complied with the choice, but when the woman goes to her doctor with her required ultrasound, the doctor says he or she will not perform the procedure without a transvaginal ultrasound.

    No laws have been broken.  The patient is in compliance, the ultrasound provider is in compliance.

    Does the law require the doctor to perform the procedure as long as the patient has had an ultrasound - any ultrasound?  Can the doctor exercise his or her medical judgment, impose more requirements than what the law contains, or is the doctor mandated to perform the procedure with an external ultrasound?

    If the law said that you, as a patient, had the right to choose either a CT scan or an MRI before having some kind of surgery - let's say, brain surgery - and your doctor said, "I am not comfortable performing this surgery unless you have an MRI," can you, or the law, force the doctor to perform the surgery or not?

    The choice contained in this law does not, I don't believe, bind the doctor to accepting the patient's choice and require him or her to perform the procedure against his or her better medical judgment.

    Parent

    That is the danger (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 30, 2015 at 04:41:07 PM EST
    If the doctor does not feel that he can complete the paperwork to the satisfaction of the state, the doctor may cover his a$$ by requiring the more intrusive procedure.

    Also, while the law states that the doctor will provide a list of providers that will do the service free of charge to the woman, there is no information on the location or number of providers available. A provider that is not in an area easily assessable to a woman or who has a long waiting list may prevent a woman from receiving the services that she needs. Also, there is a cost for traveling back and forth between the various entities. Depending on the woman's circumstances, the cost could include loss of several days wages and or child care costs as well as the transportation costs.

    Parent

    I'll re-phrase (none / 0) (#194)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat May 30, 2015 at 04:56:51 PM EST
    there is no mechanism for anyone to override the patient's choice of US procedure as required by the law in question.

    However, if the MD deems it medically necessary, I would expect that to be outside the law in question.

    I also would expect that the patient's choice, per the law in question, would be irrelevant to the MS's medical determination.

    iow, the MD's medical determination is separate from the law in question, and he would make that determination whether the law in question exists or not.

    Parent

    ...in a perfect world, anyway... (none / 0) (#195)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat May 30, 2015 at 05:03:14 PM EST
    I agree with you that there is a risk that (none / 0) (#190)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 30, 2015 at 02:23:38 PM EST
    a woman will not really have a.choice.

    Regarding the cost: I don't know who is paying for the ultrasounds According to the verbiage in the law the ultrasound should be free.

    That the pregnant woman is required to obtain an ultrasound that meets the requirements under sub. (3g), if she has not already had an ultrasound that meets those requirements. The physician, or other qualified physician, shall provide to the pregnant woman a list of providers that perform an ultrasound at no cost to the woman, as described in par. (em) 1.


    Parent
    Hopefully we will not (none / 0) (#188)
    by MO Blue on Sat May 30, 2015 at 02:09:33 PM EST
    find out how it will be enforced and it will be overturned in the courts.

    Parent
    It does serve one (none / 0) (#197)
    by Militarytracy on Sun May 31, 2015 at 08:24:45 AM EST
    Insures that early pregnancy isn't tubal, which is very dangerous.  A standard ultrasound almost always reveals the position of implantation.  I knew of one woman that it did not and for safety sake and by her choice they did a transvaginal ultrasound at that point.  Standard ultrasound equipment has improved since then though.

    Parent
    None so blind... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by sj on Thu May 28, 2015 at 04:08:54 PM EST
    Instead, what I see reading the law, is that it is completely the woman's choice.
    ... as those who will not see.

    Parent
    American education was supposed to be (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Palli on Thu May 28, 2015 at 04:33:24 PM EST
    "Separate but Equal" too.  Really, cyan you even see the real women behind each pregnancy choice?

    Parent
    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.  

    Parent
    "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."

    Parent
    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).

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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!

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    But how would a transanal probe ... (none / 0) (#148)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri May 29, 2015 at 04:57:27 AM EST
    ... ever fit past the guv's head?

    Parent
    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.

    Fiverr

    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?

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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  ;)

    Parent
    New lead on Natelee Holloway (none / 0) (#67)
    by McBain on Wed May 27, 2015 at 09:53:38 PM EST
    http://tinyurl.com/o84mbeb

    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.

    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 . . .

    I'm more concerned with (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by jbindc on Thu May 28, 2015 at 05:09:01 PM EST
    "I also get caned at times ...."

    Please tell me I am misunderstanding that or it's a typo.

    Parent

    Thanks for bringing that up (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by sj on Thu May 28, 2015 at 05:14:31 PM EST
    I was startled when I first read that bit and became even more startled as I continued to read. I hope you get an answer and, frankly, I'm a bit confused as to the whole point of that comment, period.

    Parent
    My guess is that (none / 0) (#142)
    by NYShooter on Thu May 28, 2015 at 09:03:24 PM EST
    he/she was saying that he had been assaulted sometime in the past. And, that might explain his readiness (pepper spray) to defend himself in the future. And, to finish this person's sense of duty (defending himself is only one piece of this citizen's Triage of Justice) executing a citizen's arrest would complete what he sees as his obligation.

    Like I said, a guess,

    Parent

    threatened, not assaulted (none / 0) (#174)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri May 29, 2015 at 11:01:48 PM EST
    I have been threatened several times in the last year, but not physically attacked . . . in the usual sense of the phrase .  . . .

    Parent
    He's a British Public Schoolboy? (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Mr Natural on Thu May 28, 2015 at 11:14:08 PM EST
    almost . .. . (none / 0) (#175)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri May 29, 2015 at 11:03:06 PM EST
    almost  . . .

    a certain religious background . . .

    You do know that one of the usual spiritual practices of Native Americans is to undergo certain very painful experiences?

    Parent

    caning (none / 0) (#173)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri May 29, 2015 at 11:00:21 PM EST
    One or two percent of the population in the USA, if the statistics are comparable to those of Australia, practiced things that might bother you . . . There are different degrees of being caned and normally the American somewhat consensual versions of getting caned are less bad than the Singapore and Malaysian versions  . . . I don't think that caning done by persons in the US leaves much if any permanent injury . . .

    You are concerned for my mental health?  You are concerned I might be a threat to others because I am caned?

    Parent

    your background (none / 0) (#176)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Fri May 29, 2015 at 11:06:48 PM EST
    And your educational, religious, spiritual and psychological training on which you conclude that being concerned about my being caned would be ??

    Parent
    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.

    Parent

    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    Forget about (none / 0) (#113)
    by Zorba on Thu May 28, 2015 at 02:31:45 PM EST
    the Republican "clown car."  At this point, they need a "clown bus."   ;-)

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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


    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    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.

    Parent
    I am watching Fox more now (none / 0) (#128)
    by MKS on Thu May 28, 2015 at 05:16:43 PM EST
    It really is entertaining in a macabre way....They really are nuts.

    Parent
    Tony Blair has (none / 0) (#118)
    by KeysDan on Thu May 28, 2015 at 03:27:58 PM EST
    given notice.  At the end of June, he will leave his position as special peace envoy to the Middle East. Blair was appointed, through the Bush Administration, in 2007,  to promote peace and economic development in Palestine.   After his 8-year stint in the unpaid position (an office/staff funded with 2 million pounds/year) he has determined that a political vacuum is filled with animosity and violence.  Washington and the EU have had their own concerns about "Bush's Poodle" in that he has poor relations with the Palestinian Authority.

    I don't (none / 0) (#125)
    by lentinel on Thu May 28, 2015 at 04:54:08 PM EST
    quite go along with the Bush's poodle designation.

    As I remember it, one by one, nations were dropping out of W's proposed adventure in Iraq.

    I also remember that the UK was also undecided, and David Gergen (then a commentator) saying that if the UK was out, then the invasion was off.

    So, from my point of view, Blair saved Bush's horrid face... and temporarily catapulted himself into the spotlight. A "world leader" was born - and the horrific slaughter was made inevitable.

    I don't think Blair went along with Bush as a pet doggie would. I think he did it purely because he thought it would put him out there on the world stage. A real man. Ugh.

    If he had had a modicum of integrity, that war would not have happened, imo.

    Now, in the UK he is dog meat.
    He and W. should be sharing a cell in a black hole somewhere, and the folks putting them their should be given something to make them forget the location so that those disgusting felons would never ever be found.

    Excuse the rant.

    Living though that nightmare was very difficult, and it's far from over.

    Parent

    Well I'll be damned (none / 0) (#135)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 28, 2015 at 06:25:32 PM EST
    I never pictured you as being a fan of black sites. Maybe you and Bush have found common ground.

    Parent
    I wouldn't (none / 0) (#137)
    by lentinel on Thu May 28, 2015 at 07:13:55 PM EST
    call myself, "a fan of black sites".

    That's rather nasty, don't you think?

    To make it clear to you:

    I am simply aware that these two abominable people brought black sites into being, and I think it would be highly appropriate for them to enjoy being incarcerated in them for the foreseeable future and beyond.

    And as for saying, in any context, that I have any common ground with Bush is really uncalled for.

    Parent

    Nasty? No. (3.00 / 2) (#141)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 28, 2015 at 08:45:14 PM EST
    Sadly you've just confirmed again that you are in favor of what you profess to hate. You're a fan of black sites if they suit your wishes. So yes, common ground.

    Parent
    Really (none / 0) (#147)
    by lentinel on Fri May 29, 2015 at 04:48:04 AM EST
    disgusting.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#150)
    by CoralGables on Fri May 29, 2015 at 07:16:18 AM EST
    What you said is disgusting.

    Parent
    You are quite right, of course. (none / 0) (#151)
    by lentinel on Fri May 29, 2015 at 09:22:35 AM EST
    I should never have taken for granted that everyone could distinguish between an individual posting hyperbole on a leftist website, and other individuals who actually set innocent people, thousands of them, to their deaths.

    Parent
    lentinel, this was a case where (none / 0) (#155)
    by NYShooter on Fri May 29, 2015 at 10:11:19 AM EST
    you should have "caught on" immediately, realized the comment was disingenuous at best, and, childish, inappropriate, and sadly depressing at worst.

    Then, you allow yourself a little smile, give your head a little shake that says, "who let the children into an ostensibly adult site, and just stroll away.

    Mainly, don't bite the bait the trolls toss.

    See?

    Parent

    I found the comment by CG to be (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Anne on Fri May 29, 2015 at 10:35:28 AM EST
    uncomfortably honest, actually.  If someone is opposed to black sites and torture, that principle should mean one doesn't want to condemn anyone to it, regardless of how reprehensible.  Similar to being opposed to the death penalty, but not having a problem wishing it upon some miserable excuse for a human being.

    Perhaps it would have made more sense if lentinel had said that if the people who make policies and are responsible for sending people to black site prisons and torturing them ever had to experience the hell they impose on others, we probably wouldn't have those horrible policies.

    But to be so angry at Bush/Cheney for policies of torture that you'd condemn them to it is hypocritical in the extreme.

    Your comment is just an embarrassment to thinking, intelligent people.

    Parent

    Breaking: Former Speaker Dennis Hastert ... (none / 0) (#131)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu May 28, 2015 at 05:36:41 PM EST
    ... has been indicted by a federal grand jury for evading federal currency rules and lying to the FBI. Rumor has it that a sex scandal had come back to dog him, and he was being blackmailed.

    Stay tuned.

    oh, (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 28, 2015 at 05:52:29 PM EST
    the irony is thick on that one. I remember all the smarmy moralizing that came out of his mouth back in the 90's.

    Parent
    The irony's thicker than you thought... (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Mr Natural on Fri May 29, 2015 at 05:20:20 AM EST
    Hastert was a lead dog in jamming the Patriot Act down our collective throats.  That's where the Feds got the enhanced financial transaction snooper-powers that resulted in his eventual indictment.

    So much for the original intent of the law - to enhance investigation of terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrorrrrrrrrrrrrism.


    Parent

    LOL! (none / 0) (#162)
    by Zorba on Fri May 29, 2015 at 02:34:19 PM EST
    I cannot help but feel more than a bit of schadenfreude here.

    Parent
    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by jbindc on Fri May 29, 2015 at 03:32:46 PM EST
    I knew that you can't deposit more than $9999 without some kind of declaration because of the Patriot Act - I knew that more than 10 years ago when I went to deposit a financial aid check.

    You know who else knows this?? Anyone who regularly watches police procedurals on TV.

    How is it the (former) Speaker of the House didn't know this, because, let's face it - that's how he got caught.

    Oy!

    Parent

    It's actually trickier than that now. (none / 0) (#196)
    by Mr Natural on Sat May 30, 2015 at 09:08:26 PM EST
    Jeralyn's discussed it a couple of times.  The "crime" of "structuring" consists of executing transactions in under $10,000 cash amounts.

    So, over $10K in cash gets the Feds on your case.  But so can a set of sub-$10K cash transactions.

    Catch-22.

    Parent

    Dennis Hastert (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Repack Rider on Sun May 31, 2015 at 01:49:33 PM EST
    ...pushed that law through congress for the specific purpose of identifying people like himself who are trying to "game" the system.  If he ran afoul of it, then he should serve a few extra years just for being so stupid.

    I'm starting to think all conservatives have some sort of sexual hangup.  The "isolated incidents" seem to be running far ahead of, "What are the @#$%ing odds of ANOTHER one?"

    Parent

    Hastert did know about limitations for donations (none / 0) (#199)
    by Palli on Mon Jun 01, 2015 at 10:20:47 AM EST
    In 2005, CREW filed a FEC complaint about Hastert campaign donations.
    http://tinyurl.com/pmhrw7s
    Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director, stated "if Hastert for Congress received an unusually large number of contributions in amounts just under $200 in a relatively condensed period of time, the treasurer's suspicions should have been raised, particularly if many of these checks appeared to be made out by individuals with foreign names."  "As a result," Sloan continued, "the treasurer should have followed the procedures outlined by the FEC to discover whether, in fact, the campaign illegally received contributions from foreign nationals."

    "The sheer number of small contributions should have raised a red flag. Hastert's campaign committee was obligated to ensure that no laws were being broken. It is now time for a thorough investigation into Hastert's finances."

    Remember also it is not evident that these payments were the only payments Hastert made since his sexual abuse of this individual or any the other individual(s) the FBI learned about. http://tinyurl.com/p223rv4

    Yorkville HS reunions might have been informative in jock circles. Wrestling may have had a "Sandusky".

    Parent

    Well hell (none / 0) (#132)
    by CoralGables on Thu May 28, 2015 at 05:41:16 PM EST
    They call it hush money for a reason. Would you expect him to pay and also blab to the FBI? It's either Plan A or Plan B to the bitter end.


    Parent