## Re: Not OK

1

Stay classy, Oklahoma.

Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 2:17 PM
2

C'mon, when can we just start shooting the fuckers?
I don't want to reason or find common ground with such folk, I want them gone from my country, if not the world.

Tiller. They shot first.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 2:36 PM
3

Someone should explain to them that "labor omnia vincit" doesn't mean what they think it means.

Posted by: | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 2:36 PM
4

3 was me.

Posted by: Todd | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 2:37 PM
5

Death threats don't mean nothin' unless you specify the specific people, times, and methods, bob.

Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 3:06 PM
6

Death threats don't mean nothin' unless you specify the specific people, times, and methods, bob.

You mean, "aren't prosecutable". I know that, I have been at this a while, and been watching the opposition.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 3:09 PM
7

I try to limit the amount of naive outrage I express, and I usually do a pretty good job at it, but come in: surely a right to privacy forbids this? They can't do this, can they?

Posted by: k-sky | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 3:46 PM
8

Specifically allowing eye-averting is really perverse.

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 4:00 PM
9

I imagine that while in committee, the bill's backers argued for forced viewing, a la Ludovico. Special permission allowing women to avert their gaze was probably a critical concession.

Posted by: jms | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 4:18 PM
10

surely a right to privacy forbids this? They can't do this, can they?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 4:36 PM
11

surely a right to privacy forbids this? They can't do this, can they?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 4:36 PM
12

B is a big laugher.

Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 4:38 PM
13

So funny I just kept laughing.

Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 4:38 PM
14

And it was struck down for technical reasons: nothing to do with the content of the bill.

Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 4:42 PM
15

14: Technical reasons for striking down are more likely to stand up, I imagine, and technical mistakes in horrendous legislation are probably less likely to be overlooked by judges opposed in principle to the legislation.

Posted by: paranoid android | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 5:10 PM
16

I thought vaginal ultrasounds were a not uncommon procedure prior to abortion, not for the "lookit tha widdle baybee you're murdering" color commentary, but rather for, uh, aim.

Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 5:44 PM
17

15: Did you read the article, p.a.? The technicality involves the fact that too many provisions were included in a single bill; the pro-life contingent in OK intend to break it into 5 smaller bills if needed, and pass those. No idea, of course, if all 5 smaller bills would pass. If the state legislature is so set on passing something or other, it might be a (small) blessing that they'd be forced to break it out. There might be enough opposition to certain provisions that they wouldn't be able to override a gubernatorial veto on all 5, as they apparently did with this one.

Still not OK, obviously.

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 6:17 PM
18

7:"They" can do anything they want if they get the opportunity to write the laws and appoint the judges. Anything at all.

Fortunately, once you realize that laws are always written with the working end of a gun and have no moral force, you too are free to do anything at all.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 6:23 PM
19

bob, I want to tell you to calm down, but you're right.

Look, though, in this particular case, it's about whoever the fuck these people are who are on the state legislature in OK. They should be voted out of office, unless, unless, they have the overwhelming support of their constituents. In which case, I mumble about the people getting what they want. Apparently. Then we can mutter some more about voting districts and such. I don't know jack about OK.

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 6:44 PM
20

Jesus Christ. I have had the experience of sitting with a friend who was horribly emotional, borderline traumatized (due to having found out that a much-wanted last-chance pregnancy was ectopic) while she underwent a vaginal ultrasound.

It was excruciating for her, and she had me, a very dear friend, there with her to literally hold her hand in support (her s.o. was unfortunately 3000 miles away). And she had a tech who was friendly and easygoing and sweetly supportive.

I absolutely cannot envision what it would be like to go through that under even worse circumstances. I was already sort of weirded out by watching the tech put a condom on the probe, which felt somehow personal in a way that I don't like thinking of medical equipment.

God, this is disgusting beyond belief.

Posted by: Edith Roosevelt | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 7:01 PM
21

unless, they have the overwhelming support of their constituents. In which case

Well, then I suppose we are into the difficult Yggles territory of justifying "humanitarian wars" and "national interests" and so on. Obviously, opinions will differ on the appropriate reaction to people elsewhere being subjected to state rape and slavery, and the moral value of the assorted means.

But we had the argument about John Brown a while ago.

I am actually pretty calm, parsimon. I am at peace with myself and my beliefs.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 7:14 PM
22

Not contemplating an abortion, but I just had one as part of an overall pelvic ultrasound to figure out the size of my uterus. The woman had me put a sheet over my legs, so I didn't really see the probe. It wasn't bad.

I don't know nothing about getting an abortion, and if the reason is to make the mother look at the itty bitty fetus, then that's horrible--even if she's not a victim of rape or incest, though I'm sure it could be horrific under those circumstances.

Basically legislators, as opposed to regulatory boards staffed by medical professionals, shouldn't be legislating anything about how doctors provide treatment at all.

Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 7:18 PM
23

This doesn't even need to be said, but aside from the whole "penetration" angle, there's the base problem of *unnecessary medical procedure.* You don't need a vaginal ultrasound to do an abortion. It's an added expense, it's practicing medicine by ignorant unqualified dumbasses, and it's completely fucking offensive and ridiculous.

(This is also, of course true of any amount of "mandatory" crap that's legislatively mandated w/r/t abortion.)

Not that that matters to the people who support it, but you know.

Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 7:20 PM
24

21.1: My reaction is one of outrage, disgust, and actual ill-feeling in the pit of my stomach. What I can do about that, in the matter of Oklahoma, is a different matter.

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 7:23 PM
25

16: There is a very, VERY large difference between a a medical professional deciding to do a procedure and the law requiring one to be performed.

I don't know and won't speculate about the degree to which women who are already traumatized have to undergo this kind of ultrasound, but there is something qualitatively different about enduring it because your doctor explains why it is useful, rather than because a bunch of non-doctors decided you had to.

And I have faith that most doctors are compassionate enough that if a patient utterly could not deal with it, they would find another way, maybe even to the extreme of waiting a little longer to do the abortion.

Posted by: Edith Roosevelt | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 7:23 PM
26

Oklahoma has only about 3.5 million people total. The thing to do is start a concerted campaign aimed at young(ish) women to get them to migrate the hell out of there. Let the rest of the place and its idiots die out.

Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 7:26 PM
27

You don't need a vaginal ultrasound to do an abortion.

Uh, it was my belief as well that this is correct, but I didn't look it up, so I felt unqualified to say how things go generally.

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 7:30 PM
28

Plus, SD is going to shut down the Planned Parenthood clinic there, right?

I think I've made my feelings on the subject of 100% total reproductive freedom being non-negotiable pretty clear in the past. And yet, we need South Dakota Summer and Oklahoma Summer. I know the SD abortion-rights supporters said they didn't want a big influx of out-of-state people a couple of years ago, but I have to imagine that will change when there are 0 abortions being legally performed there. At that point, what do they have to lose?

I blame those astro-turf crypto-fascists at The New Agenda. And the patriarchy.

Posted by: minneapolitan | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 7:46 PM
29

27: You don't need one, and it certainly shouldn't be forced on anyone, but lots of clinics --prochoice, prowoman clinics -- require them for safety reasons, so that they're not rooting around in there blind, but rather with precision.

Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 7:49 PM
30

29: Things may have changed since my day. Every woman I knew when we were in our 20s who had an abortion did not have a vaginal ultrasound for a D&C, as far as I knew -- though it's possible they did undergo this, and they didn't say so.

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 8:00 PM
31

Further to 30: Hm. After reviewing short wikipedia articles on abortion methods, it's not clear to me what my 20-something cohorts were having done. Dilation was involved. Yet it was outpatient for the second visit, post-dilation.

It's not clear to me why the method seemingly preferable to D&C, vacuum aspiration, would require aiming so much.

In any case, I believe you if the ultrasound is now not unusual.

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 8:11 PM
32

I've had such a procedure to check for abnormalities (none found, anyway!) and it's not fun even under the best of circumstances. You have to--forgive the indelicacy--drink quite a lot of water prior to the process, for example. Ouch! And although the actual process was not painful for me, there are many women for whom it really, really hurts. Anecdata--an unskilled tech can actually hurt you, aggravate endometriosis pain, etc.

So creepy and grotesque. Back in the day, something like this would have been one of those "and forced medical procedures are what they do UNDER TOTALITARIANISM!" propaganda moments. I hate America, I really do.

Posted by: Nellie Herron Taft | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 8:18 PM
33

28: I know the SD abortion-rights supporters said they didn't want a big influx of out-of-state people a couple of years ago, but I have to imagine that will change when there are 0 abortions being legally performed there

I wondered about that. Would Oklahoman pro-choice people like out-of-staters to become involved in any way? We could find out.

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 8:26 PM
34

This is horrific.

"The law would have required the doctor or technician to set up the ultrasound monitor where the woman could see it and then talk her through the procedure, describing the heart, limbs and internal organs."

"Even if you don't look at the picture, you have to listen to the description," said Anita Fream, the head of Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma. "It almost reaches the stage of seeming cruel to me."

Way to argue your case strongly, Ms. Fream.

How about "It is an attempt to mandate psychological torture as part of the abortion process"?

Posted by: lurker | Link to this comment | 08-22-09 9:09 PM
35

Why do you have to drink a lot of water before a vaginal ultrasound?

Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 2:29 AM
36

You have to--forgive the indelicacy--drink quite a lot of water prior to the process, for example. Ouch!

Why do you have to drink so much water? And why is that 'ouch'?

Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 2:32 AM
37

Oops. Really, I really want to know!

Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 2:32 AM
38

Let the rest of the place and its idiots die out.

Give it back to the Cherokee as compensation and as a sovereign state - 2 fewer fascist Senators.

Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 3:00 AM
39

your full bladder helps the ultrasound go properly, I'm not sure if by providing a blank backdrop at certain angles, or forcing the uterus into a specific position, or what.

Posted by: alameida | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 3:30 AM
40

I wondered about that, and so I looked up transvaginal ultrasound on the internet, and all the descriptions of the procedure I found said "You will be asked to empty your bladder before the test" or "The test is done on an empty bladder." Maybe there are different requirements, depending on what they're looking for/at?

Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 3:54 AM
41

it's practicing medicine by ignorant unqualified dumbasses, and it's completely fucking offensive and ridiculous.

As you know, this is nothing new. See partial birth abortion laws that dont reduce late term abortions, just make them less safe.

Posted by: Will | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 6:03 AM
42

When I just had a pelvic ultrasound done, they want you to have a full bladder going in--32 ounces (or on a hot day more) of liquid drunk at least 30 minutes before. Then they take an overview picture of you from above your belly. Then you empty your bladder and come back for the vaginal part.

Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 6:26 AM
43

The tech told me that they want the full bladder to get an overview sense of the size of the uterus.

Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 6:29 AM
44

"At this stage, the thing in your uterus most resembles a boiled shrimp. It has eyes, but cannot see. It has ears but cannot hear. There are sparks of electricity in its primitive nervous system, but they mean nothing."

The law would still be awful, even if you could get away with saying things like that. However, it is for most abortions, the most apt description.

Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 7:14 AM
45

"At this stage, the thing in your uterus most resembles a boiled shrimp tinier, cuter baybee. It has eyes, but cannot see. It has ears but cannot hear. There are sparks of electricity in its primitive nervous system, but they mean nothing -- oh, look! It's blowing you kisses!"

What they are far more likely to say.

Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 7:21 AM
46

45: The people performing the ultrasound are probably not the ones trying to psychologically manipulate you into motherhood.

Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 7:37 AM
47

RTFA:

The law would have required the doctor or technician to set up the ultrasound monitor where the woman could see it and then talk her through the procedure, describing the heart, limbs and internal organs.

Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 7:41 AM
48

"Trying to psychologically manipulate you into motherhood" is certainly what that piece of performance art is for -- even though I am sure that you are right that the folks who still perform abortions in OK want no part of it. My bet is that if the law took effect they would be given a script to read, and the doctors and/or techs in question would affect a reading style much like that of prisoners of war in propaganda films.

Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 7:44 AM
49

Yes, oud. I read that. I see no itty bitty precious baby mandate. There surely are ways to describe the heart, limbs, organs the way Rob suggests. The tech is forced to narrate. They can't (haven't) script(ed) the narrative

Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 7:50 AM
50

49 before I saw 48. It would be hard to script it if they want you to actually describe the actual fetus. If not there's no point to the ultrasound. Well, other than abusing the woman.

Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:10 AM
51

Oh, dear. The boot in the face just drove by.

Posted by: jim | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:42 AM
52

"When I just had a pelvic ultrasound done, they want you to have a full bladder going in--32 ounces (or on a hot day more) of liquid drunk at least 30 minutes before. Then they take an overview picture of you from above your belly. Then you empty your bladder and come back for the vaginal part."

Must be different according to why you're having the procedure. I've had a few to make sure cysts weren't ovarian tumors (my mom died of ovarian cancer) which didn't require the overview picture and drinking of excessive amounts of liquid.

Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:46 AM
53

They are going to mandate a script. That is just the next step.

Posted by: Will | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:49 AM
54

52 is missing italic tags, obviously.

Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:50 AM
55

Reading this statute requires drinking excessive amounts of liquids and the urge to empty one's bladder on the statute.

Posted by: Will | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:53 AM
56

I read the last word in 55 as "statue" and I was trying to figure out on whose statue one should piss in this instance.

Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:56 AM
57

Fortunately none of the dumbnuts in the legislature have probably viddied A Clockwork Orange but I'm quite sure they'll get there on their own eventually.

Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:59 AM
58

57 pwned by jms in 9, albeit somewhat elliptically.

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:10 AM
59

58: Yes indeed it was, I had forgotten it had a name and one that made sense in context.

Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:17 AM
60

56: I have perhaps mentioned this here, but in Annapolis there was/is a statue of Justice Taney -- he of the Dred Scott decision. A certain prof was fond of wondering aloud in front of groups of undergraduates, "You know, that Taney statue has never been defaced or vandalized? I wonder why no one has every thought to deface it . . .."

Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:18 AM
61

-y, but maybe every works too.

Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:18 AM
62

59: Neb, on the other hand, would be forced to read comma splices

Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:19 AM
63

I had to do one of these ultrasounds to diagnose some stomach pains about 7 years ago and had to do the full-bladder kind. It was so miserable. I was to the point where I had to pee so badly I thought my bladder was going to burst and then the lady did the ultrasound and said "Oh honey. You're not even halfway full yet! Go back out and keep drinking MORE WATER and we'll try again in a while."

Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:31 AM
64

Forgive my naïveté, but why does the bladder need to be full?

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:37 AM
65

It's part of the torture process, neb.

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:43 AM
66

Comment 43, nosflow.

Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:54 AM
67

2: What an original idea! An act of wanton political violence in Oklahoma City! I bet no one has ever thought of that before!

Posted by: pain perdu | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:55 AM
68

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 11:03 AM
69

The reason for this is that the fluid in the bladder creates a "window" for the beam to pass through. (This provides a good medium for sound conduction.) It also serves as a "landmark" for the technician to get their bearings, so to speak. In addition, a full bladder can change the position of the uterus, taking the flexion out of it and pushing it up so it is easier to scan. A full bladder also moves loops of bowel up and out of the way to make the pelvic organs easier to view.

Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 11:07 AM
70

69: But that link is specifically referring to ultrasounds that are NOT transvaginal:

In later pregnancy, or with a transvaginal approach, (the probe is introduced into the vagina), a full bladder is not necessary.

Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 11:12 AM
71

Why do you hate science, oudemia?

Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 11:18 AM
72

D'oh. She's a girl.

Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 11:22 AM
73

They make women drink all the water to sort of pin the uterus down and keep it from wandering all over a woman's body.

Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 11:29 AM
74

73: The lust of the uterus is wanderlust.

Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 11:31 AM
75

73: More to keep it from wandering all over the doctor's body, really. Uteri are pushy like that.

Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 11:37 AM
76

Which of you will buy me this?

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 11:39 AM
77

60 -- It's on the statehouse grounds. Right in front. A little exposed, I'd think.

Or maybe his opinion in Ex parte Merryman has stayed their hands.

Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 11:40 AM
78

77: The despot's heel is on thy shore

Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 11:50 AM
79

(For this reason, if it's ever defaced, they ought to arrest, in the first instance, a certain sneering little shit who is still allowed to teach at the University of California. And let him argue whether or not he could have been in Annapolis on that day after 7 years in jail).

Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 11:52 AM
80

26: The thing to do is start a concerted campaign aimed at young(ish) women to get them to migrate the hell out of there. Let the rest of the place and its idiots die out.

You know, I'd really like to see this. Not out of hatred for Oklahomans, as much as to serve as an experiment and object lesson to other states: here, look and see, jackasses unthinking persons, what happens when you legislate conformity to this degree. You want a state full of nothing but like-minded people? Have it!

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 11:57 AM
81

And yet we ridicule libertarians for attempting to take over towns and states.

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 12:03 PM
82

81: I thought we made fun of them for wanting to take over floating islands and the moon.

Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 12:07 PM
83

Those are praiseworthy ambitions.

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 12:11 PM
84

67:Repeat after me:"We are not, and cannot become, the same as them."

Of course, what do I know, perhaps you do have a barely restrained inner fascist, only controlled by pacifism and appeasing your enemies. I don't. From the tone of your comments, I can have sympathy, but not empathy, with your self-loathing and desperate repression. You feel authoritarian, always telling me how immoral I am.

The sleep of reason creates saints as well as monsters.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 12:20 PM
85

81: You're right. They should go ahead and do so -- and be denied any outside aid. They can fix their own roads and handle their own wastewater treatment. It's a social experiment in the grandest fashion.

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 12:25 PM
86

Liberals tend to deny their authoritarianism.

I am not an authoritarian. I don't want to gain a majority, elect some legislators, enact some laws, and force the Right to do my will.

I don't want to educate, enlighten, persuade, bribe, or coerce my enemies in any way. I do not want control over the forced birthers.

I want them gone.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 12:37 PM
87

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride, I've heard.

Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 12:47 PM
88

The aponycalypse.

Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 12:50 PM
89

I like my aphorisms filtered through Bad Santa: Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.

Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 12:52 PM
90

My wishes are crèmes brûlées.

Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 12:52 PM
91

Liberals tend to deny their authoritarianism.

I'm not sure about that, at least not if you define authoritarianism in terms of representative democracy and the politicking that entails.

I want them gone.

I'd prefer them gone as well, but it's not going to happen. Either we defeat them using the tools legitimately at our disposal, or we become impotent. I'm not going to take up arms against them.

And, I'm not your enemy here, bob. I realize you're really pissed off and looking for enemies.

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 1:00 PM
92

OT: digby links to some argument at a cookout between someone and Joe K/lein, apropos of G. Green/wald being EVIL. I had to look.

The linked blog post includes this line, which has lightened the day so far:

You read WIKIPEDIA! AND THAT'S LEFTIST.

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 1:36 PM
93

92: And John Emerson comments on the post digby links to. He's everywhere but here!

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 2:15 PM
94

We're obviously boring Emerson. It's not that hard to put two and two together.

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 2:26 PM
95

92 - I didn't really find that account of the interaction between the blogger and Klein plausible.

Posted by: snarkout | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 2:29 PM
96

95: It may have included hyperbole. Hard to say. It's an amusement, I imagine.

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 2:39 PM
97

Further to 93 and 95: I hadn't read the comments. It's inside journalistic baseball. I'm not very interested, myself: it's their world.

I'd rather Greenwa/ld stay out of it as well, actually. The private stuff belongs precisely there: in the private zone.

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 2:50 PM
98

91: I'm not going to take up arms against them.

That's good tactical sense, considering the right has the left far out-gunned not even counting the military, police, Blackwater, and to hear them tell it, the one and only God hisself.

Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 2:55 PM
99

93:Well, there is a level of vitriol and viciousness, especially directed against Obama, in the comment sections at Digby's and FDL that I do find comforting and calming. Sometimes after Unfogged I just need to relax and have some fun.

I have seen Emerson at Mark Thoma's.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 3:08 PM
100

98: Ha! (I realize I'm overly commenting, but hey.)

Yeah. We're outgunned.

I'd been idly wondering what wouldn't bore Emerson, which turned into wondering what wouldn't bore me: and it's the question of political legitimacy. A state that's gotten to the point at which its various citizens are questioning its legitimacy (and bearing arms on occasion when they do so) is one that's testing the notion of civil war.

It's not funny stuff, obviously. We can't forget that liberals said similar things during the Bush administration, though. Legitimacy question, in that case due to to electoral procedure concerns. We didn't bear arms.

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 3:13 PM
101

The bladder thing with (non-coerced) transvaginal is really mean: they want to do about five seconds of abdominal with a full bladder to find out where the fetus and uterus are. Then they want an empty bladder for the internal bit.

I consistently have the opposite experience to Becks in 63: "um... oh, wow, that's... that's really full, wow, are you going to be OK? [am I going to be OK?]" I've wondered if I'm the only person who ever drinks the amount of water they say. But then, I also once saw a teenage girl crying and beating the floor while her mother implored her not to urinate all over the waiting room. Keeping a person with a full bladder waiting half an hour is even meaner than "1 litre 1 hour before and hold."

Posted by: Pineapple | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 3:43 PM
102

*chirp chirp*

Posted by: paranoid android | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 4:37 PM
103

If liberalism needs anything, it needs Internet Tough Guys posting about how much Republican ass they are planning to kick. That never gets old.

Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 4:38 PM
104

||

Beyerstein has joined Obsidian Wings. I was going to make some comment that would be so subtly nasty that only I would get it, like "a perfect fit" or "a most appropriate addition" but the only criticism I have about her is that she doesn't like me.

I really can't hold that against anyone.

|>

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 4:42 PM
105

103:Robespierre, Saint-Just, or Lenin weren't exactly Rambos But I wouldn't want a cagematch against either Trotsky or Che.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 4:50 PM
106

wouldn't want a cagematch against either Trotsky

What if you got to take in an icepick?

Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 4:56 PM
107

Ice axe, dammit.

I got to watch some Mad Men.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 5:07 PM
108

Not to mock your qualifications as a stepping razor, bob, but don't you have to go blame capitalism for your receding hairline or something?

Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 5:12 PM
109

"Whenever you read about the weapon, it is generally described as an 'ice pick', just as in the CNN story. As you can see from the photo below, it is indeed an ice axe. Wally is of the opinion that ice picks should be called 'ice awls', since that is what they resemble, and then ice axes could be renamed 'ice picks', since they certainly look like picks."

Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 5:28 PM
110

i REFUSE TO EVEN TALK TO YOU PEOPLE. THAT'S HOW BORING YOU ARE.

Posted by: OPINIONATED SIREN | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 5:52 PM
111

I can't help but feel this is all my fault. I'll change my name to Ouzel if Emerson comes back. That's much more interesting, isn't it?

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 5:57 PM
112

108:My relatives all go out with manes, dude. Maybe it's a lack of testosterone or our pure Aryan blood, but we get harryer after 70.

I have six episodes of Season 2 to go before 10 o'clock, but luckily I have a speed control on my player. Just kiddin.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 6:15 PM
113

109: With a little practice an ice axe would be a formidible weapon if the wikipedia description is accurate. However, I can see problems convincing a Los Angeles jury that one was carrying it just in case the weather changed.

Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 6:43 PM
114

It bothers me that "thrush" can denote both a bird and a fungal infection.

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 6:51 PM
115

And this place is boring now. But it's all ogged's fault.

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 6:52 PM
116

To continue talking to myself:

I have six episodes of Season 2 to go before 10 o'clock, but luckily I have a speed control on my player. Just kiddin.

I watched the last five or six episodes of season 2 earlier this weekend, and then the first of season 3. I find myself liking the show a lot, again. There was a point before that where it seemed almost too depressing, and the characters too despicable, to keep watching, but I'm glad I did.

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 7:06 PM
117

113: Leftist.

A short while ago I put into the oven, at 350, a makeshift individual casserole of layered tomatoes, zucchini, red onions, and fresh mozzarella.* This'll work, right, one way or another. I don't have any fresh basil. The tomatoes and zucchini are robust and fresh off the farm 5 miles away, so the freshness should carry the day.

Update! Wow, rather than this thing producing a tomato-ey juice-ishness in which it sort of stews, it's produced a milky thing. The mozzarella. Weird. I've drained off some of that. I didn't put enough tomatoes, it seems.

* It is not in a ramekin.

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 7:07 PM
118

116: I'm finishing up Season 2 tonight. I thought it started at a very low point and dragged. Now, it's getting more complicated again, which I like.

Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 7:08 PM
119

113:Having bought one to work my Texas caliche clay, I recognize a mattock when I see one. The other end of my mattock does have an working pick, and the ice mattock has much to thin a blade, rather than a thick triangle, to be considered a pick.

Moderation in the pursuit of wonky boredom is no virtue.

Betty just told Don not to come home. I can catch the last MM at midnight, which means I could probably get thru the five episodes left. I already caught 301. That may create an overdose, however.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 7:20 PM
120

apo, I took a chance on clicking your link and it was to gates of vienna. Noooooooooooooooooo!!!! I just noticed they use some arabic writing as the wallpaper, is it mutilated koran quotations or what? I'm sure I don't want to know.

Posted by: alameida | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 7:52 PM
121

it was to gates of vienna

I'm not familiar with the site. It was just a high google hit for trotsky and icepick. Are they unpleasant people?

Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 7:59 PM
122

The Gates of Vienna are where the noble European fended off the brown Mussulman foe. It's one of those vaguely genocidal blogs.

Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:04 PM
123

I just noticed they use some arabic writing as the wallpaper, is it mutilated koran quotations or what?

Looks like a tiled background composed of 1 or 2 verses from the Koran. My Arabic is so rusty that I can't tell what it says, but I doubt it was chosen for the content.

Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:08 PM
124

It bothers me that "thrush" can denote both a bird and a fungal infection.

Join me in calling the bird "throstle" instead.

Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:12 PM
125

It was just a high google hit for trotsky and icepick.

Posted by: eb | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:16 PM
126

||

Localwashing.

|>

Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:20 PM
127

Just call them by their Latin family name, Turdidae. The American robin is Turdus migratorious.

I think I prefer the Varied Thrush, which looks like a robin dressed up for Halloween.

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:20 PM
128

Not migratorius?

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:21 PM
129

Probably...I never did take Latin and I didn't bother to look the correct spelling up - I should never things from memory.

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:24 PM
130

Insert a verb in there somewhere, please.

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:24 PM
131

Tell us more of this Turdus meritorious of yours, ().

Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:24 PM
132

It is indeed -ius. I was worried that our nomenclators had declined terribly.

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:24 PM
133

132: No, just my memory.

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:26 PM
134

You must just be stressed.

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:31 PM
135

I'm watching Kingdom and preparing gizzards. Earlier today I took a nap after eating a pork leg. Another productive day!

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:33 PM
136

Insert a verb in there somewhere, please.

GAR before you talk dirty like that.

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:36 PM
137

125: Huh. I missed that thread altogether the first time around.

Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:36 PM
138

132: I was worried that our nomenclators had declined terribly.

Declined from when? Hardly surprising that this exceedingly common bird was classified by Linnaeus in 1766.

Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:37 PM
139

From some earlier period of greatness!

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:38 PM
140

Kingdom without The isn't Lars von Trier, is it?

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:38 PM
141

I mean I don't know anything, I just carp!

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:38 PM
142

It's always a declensionist tale with neb.

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:39 PM
143

It's a teevee show with S. Fry.

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:39 PM
144

It's always a declensionist tale with neb.

Even I myself always go down.

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:40 PM
145

I've been awake for enough hours that that commercial with the screaming squirrel was seriously disturbing.

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:43 PM
146

the screaming squirrel was seriously disturbing.

I am intrigued. Tell us more?

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:47 PM
147

There's this commercial? It involves a squirrel. Which screams. It can be Googled. And I'm sleepy and a bit slap-happy and about to nod off and suddenly look up to see and hear a squirrel. Screaming. Pretty simple really.

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:55 PM
148

This isn't actually a very good show.

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:58 PM
149

Pretty simple really.

THOSE ADS DON'T MAKE THEMSELVES, FUCK-O!

Posted by: Opiniated Don Draper | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 8:58 PM
150

Poor Don. Dealing with his father-in-law has him in such a bad mood.

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:00 PM
151

I wonder if everything's ok with Stanley.

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:06 PM
152

If a girl repeatedly challenges you to play Word Twist on Facebook, does that mean she likes you?

Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:08 PM
153

Maybe he decided that the post wasn't interesting enough to lure back John Emerson.

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:09 PM
154

Indubitably, Otto. You should proposition her immediately, on her wall.

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:10 PM
155

If a girl repeatedly challenges you to play Word Twist on Facebook, does that mean she likes you?

I'm pretty sure a guy tried to pick me up via Word Twist, Otto, even if he did claim to be married and live in Massachusetts.

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:10 PM
156

You're probably right, ().

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:12 PM
157

152: You should have someone pass a note asking her to check yes or no. (There must be a Facebook app for that.)

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:12 PM
158

No, I should come up with a proposition and then post an anagram of it on her wall. E.g., "Obit Scone"

Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:12 PM
159

"Incest, boo" indeed!

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:13 PM
160

I can't take the disappearing posts!

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:13 PM
161

I'm okay.

Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:16 PM
162

And, I'm sad because none of my friends will play WordTwist with me any more.

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:16 PM
163

I'll challenge you to a game, (). I don't mean anything untoward by it, though.

Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:17 PM
164

Yay!

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:18 PM
165

Maybe she meant something untoward by "play WordTwist with me", Otto. Way to muff the serve.

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:18 PM
166

Oh, nevermind.

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:18 PM
167

160: It's August. Things get weird.

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:19 PM
168

Seems like you missed an opportunity there, neb.

Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:19 PM
169

I think I'm still missing what "obit scone" is supposed to mean.

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:20 PM
170

No, really, my friends stopped playing with me. I'm not sure if they lost interest or simply got tired of losing, but either way, I'm forced to play with strangers.

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:20 PM
171

Is WordTwist just like Boggle? 'Cause I remember some epic fights over Boggle when I was in college.

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:23 PM
172

"nice boots", essear.

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:23 PM
173

169: Hint: "Wanna fuck?"

Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:23 PM
174

Why thanks, neb! But, um, that's not a proposition, per se, so I rejected it.

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:24 PM
175

Oh, right, the proposition is the implied omitted part. I'm dumb. See the above about sleep deprivation, which I should correct, if I can just get Mathematica to make this fucking plot the way I want and... um, I should be babbling less.

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:25 PM
176

Round One:
Otto - 78
() - 96

The new "friends with benefits" is "friends who play Word Twist with me, no strings attached".

Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:25 PM
177

Upon reflection, assuming a person is wearing boots, "nice boots" is kind of a proposition. I hadn't put it in those terms before, and it makes me laugh in retrospect, but it might not just mean: nice boots. Who knew!

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:28 PM
178

"nice boots" isn't a proposition, but "those are nice boots" is.

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:30 PM
179

I often compliment women on their shoes. I hope they don't all think I'm hitting on them.

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:30 PM
180

Anyway, essear, "nice boots" is enthymematic, as everyone knows.

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:31 PM
181

teo,

You might be interested in this short piece from the Times on parks on Native American lands (mostly about Canyon de Chelly). Not much of an article, really, but some nice pictures. Spider Rock in particular is really something.

Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:39 PM
182

"nice boots" isn't a proposition, but "those are nice boots" is.

How does this seem to you: "I can't tell you how much I love those boots with those pants. You have one crazy sense of style."

Proposition? Or just statement?

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:41 PM
183

Statement.

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:43 PM
184

You have to look for the \begin{proposition} to figure that out.

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:44 PM
185

Just in case anyone was curious, I won the game with Otto but by a fairly narrow margin. (Thanks, Otto!)

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:47 PM
186

338-273. You are kind to call that fairly narrow.

Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:49 PM
187

Or just bad at math.

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:51 PM
188

181: Interesting; thanks.

Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:55 PM
189

"Sarky"? Really?

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 9:58 PM
190

182: Pair of propositions.

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:01 PM
191

Whence "sarky"?

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:02 PM
192

I'm trying this WordTwist "ladder mode" thing. And one of the words that I missed was "sarky".

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:03 PM
193

Sarky. Seems to be a British shortening of "sarcastic." More.

Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:07 PM
194

There are many made-up words in the Word Twist dictionary.

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:07 PM
195

6 or 7 letters (not sure what those refer to)? Just tried it non-Facebook where it is 4x4 or 5x 5. Pretty good action for mousing in the 2.2 version (like the old Tangleword).

Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:07 PM
196

195: Is this a whole different game? Wordtwist.org is a nice boggle knockoff.

Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:10 PM
197

186, 187: So the humanities grad student is better at words, but the science grad student is better at math. You guys aren't doing much to shake up the stereotypes...

Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:11 PM
198

190: Ah. And agreed, actually.

Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:14 PM
199

Lire? Really?

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:17 PM
200

If you have lire, you also have rile. And lie, and lei, and ire. (I play way too often.)

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:19 PM
201

One could have an l-i-r-e path and not an l-i-e path; is it really a bogglealike?

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:19 PM
202

No, it's not really boggle-like - it doesn't have paths.

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:20 PM
203

There's a Boggle mode and a mode where it just gives you six or seven letters and you type as many words as you can make from them in some allotted time.

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:21 PM
204

Oh that one was fun. G G O G R Y; make 5 words.

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:23 PM
205

yog [as in sothoth]
go
goy
grog
groggy

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:25 PM
206

Yeah, on FB, Scramble is the Boggle knockoff; Word Twist is just anagrams. Word Twist is the fully connected graph version of Scramble.

Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:25 PM
207

Is the Boggle mode called Scramble? I'm confused. Like I said outside of the facist death regime of Facebook there is a very nice Boggle game called Wordtwist, but I guess that is a different thing.

Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:25 PM
208

206: I had no idea.

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:26 PM
209

205: No orgy for neb.

Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:26 PM
210

I can't afford to.

Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:26 PM
211

neb studiously avoids the orgy.

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:27 PM
212

Oh, I suck.

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:28 PM
213

Oh, yeah, the Boggle thing seems not to be there in Facebook, it just came up when I Googled "WordTwist". Odd.

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:28 PM
214

And what's your problem with lire, essear? Just because it's a dead currency, we don't talk about it anymore?

The thing that frustrates me is that Word Twist and Scramble use dramatically different dictionaries. Scramble's is way more permissive than Word Twist's. E.g., WT's dictionary lacks "eros". (It also lacks eros.)

I learned these things while preparing for my thesis committee meeting last week, by the way. At said meeting it was suggested that I might be able to graduate April-or-May-ish.

Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:29 PM
215

At said meeting it was suggested that I might be able to graduate April-or-May-ish.

Yay!

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:31 PM
216

Yay, indeed. And I haven't decided what's next, so if anyone would like to offer me a sinecure, now's your chance.

Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:35 PM
217

Does your expertise lend itself to serving on a Death Panel?

Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:36 PM
218

Fantastic idea! Just as long as I can surf the web in between life-and-death decisions.

Actually, on that note, I should be finishing at around a good time to start a campaign for Governor of Alaska.

Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:41 PM
219

Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 08-23-09 10:44 PM
220

And what's your problem with lire, essear? Just because it's a dead currency, we don't talk about it anymore?

Why do you hate the Turks, Otto?

Posted by: Josh | Link to this comment | 08-24-09 6:12 AM
221

177: Upon reflection, assuming a person is wearing boots, "nice boots" is kind of a proposition. I hadn't put it in those terms before, and it makes me laugh in retrospect, but it might not just mean: nice boots. Who knew!
179: "nice boots" isn't a proposition, but "those are nice boots" is.

'Nice shoes. Wanna fuck?' is an enquiry regarding possible future sexual activity.

max
[''Nice boots. Have we fucked before?' is an enquiry regarding possible sexual activity in the past.']

Posted by: max | Link to this comment | 08-24-09 6:30 AM
222

"Nice shoes. Are we fucking right now?" is always an embarrassing question to have to ask.

Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 08-24-09 7:43 AM
223

||

This is for bob.

|>

Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 08-24-09 8:01 AM
224

Awful, awful shoes. Would you mind if we ceased to fuck?

Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 08-24-09 8:08 AM
225

223: That was really interesting, Charley. Thanks for posting it. And thank heaven for local blogs.

Posted by: pain perdu | Link to this comment | 08-24-09 8:13 AM
226

"Nice shoes. Are we fucking right now?" is always an embarrassing question to have to ask.

"Nice shoes. Is it in yet?" is an embarassing question to have to answer.

Posted by: pain perdu | Link to this comment | 08-24-09 8:14 AM
227

"Nice shoes. Are we fucking right now?" is always an embarrassing question to have to ask.

"Nice shoes. Is it in yet?" is an embarassing question to have to answer.

Posted by: pain perdu | Link to this comment | 08-24-09 8:18 AM
228

227:Thanks CC

1_ I have never, well hardly ever, considered Baucus the bad or worst guy. A year ago he had a much better plan the Obama. If you want to blame Rahm okay, but I honestly think the problem is Obama. And 60 votes is a problem.

Just as I was warped by reaching maturity, if I ever have, during 1965-75, and learned lessons that are hard to shake I think Obama gained his political education 1975-85, when Tip O'Neill and Reagan were sharing Irish jokes, cutting taxes and spending, saving the world for Democracy. It really feels to me like Obama wants to be Reagan.

2)But we have two different political parties now, with much more fervent and determined bases, both of which are close to revolt. A party in power at least feels it can ignore its base until the election year, as Republicans partly ignored their base during the Bush years.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 08-24-09 8:42 AM
229

228 to 223

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 08-24-09 8:42 AM
230

I am indifferent to your footwear; my primary concern is whether we can engage in intercourse anytime soon.

Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 08-24-09 8:44 AM
231

Nice shoes. Could you give me 15 minutes alone with them?

Posted by: Unpronounceable Awl | Link to this comment | 08-24-09 9:06 AM
232

That's not punk rock.

Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 08-24-09 9:26 AM
233

Another for bob. Does this belong on the Stranger thread, though?

re: 228 -- I'm not so much mad at Baucus, as disappointed. He's been in office a long time, and I've supported him, one way or the other, since his first run for the Senate in 1978. He's not been particularly distinguished, and while he's cast a bunch of votes I don't like, a quick comparison of his record to that of former Sen Burns shows the wisdom of keeping him in. But here, now, finally, he has the opportunity to join Mansfield and Metcalf (Wheeler too, I guess) in the pantheon. Looking like he's getting played by Grassley -- whether true or not -- isn't exactly how you get in.

I understand why you blame Obama, but if Sen. Kennedy was healthy, the picture would look a little different. Sure the SFC would always represent the floor going into conference, but HELP would be where the action really was.

Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 08-24-09 12:13 PM
234

Everyone know the pen-and-paper Boggle-anywhere trick? Draw a grid, stick your finger into a book, fill in every other square of the grid with successive letters from your random-access string, fill in the empty squares next?

... This *feels* like a Victorian parlor game, and if it were, a Google-powered online version would be legal. Yes?

Posted by: clew | Link to this comment | 08-24-09 12:35 PM
235

Since this thread seems to have stopped and since it was initially about something kind of depressing anyway I'll just hijack it. Unfogged lawyers and professionals in general, I have a question for you about the situation of a friend of mine. I met this person after RNC and didn't even know Jesse was up on charges until just before the trial.

If you look at that website, it's worth noting how bail was handled for Jesse--if Jesse had a wealthy family, they would have been in a really different situation.

Jesse has some kind of prior conviction (which as far as I know is activisty) but that doesn't affect the fact that we're talking about what even the prosecution says is something like $4000-worth of damage to some glass. It's just dumb! The trial notes were taken by some folks I know. If you picture Jesse, you should think of a very tall, very amiable, very intense person with wild red hair who is very good at putting people at ease and very good at defusing tense, stupid kinds of activist situations. It's a funny situation. Jesse is accused of breaking a large business window during the RNC protest--convicted now, actually. I don't really know anything about that, although I was actually in the march when the window was broken. I saw the whole thing, but the people who did it were masked up and as I say I didn't know Jesse at the time. However, I will say that my immediate impression of the people involved was that they were shorter, slighter and younger than Jesse; I do remember thinking at the time that they were quite small people. But that's not important! And of course it's difficult to make an accurate judgment in such an action-packed situation. What is important is that Jesse faces up to five years in jail! Folks are saying that they expect something more than one year. Seriously, up to five years for breaking a window when "you're going to pay for this window, plus a fine, plus legal fees, plus some really boring community service" would seem much more reasonable. Quite aside from the taxpayer dollars angle. The city of St. Paul is very anxious to get convictions on RNC stuff because they spent so much money on beating a bunch of dirty hippies and arresting literally hundreds of peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders policing the convention. So they're loading people up with terrorism charges, especially the eight folks who they've charged with masterminding the whole thing. Once again, these are folks I know and a political process I know too. I add that I was invited to join the RNC Welcoming Committee but I was too busy and wasn't really feeling it. But it could be me on trial! One of my good friends was on the committee and frankly it's just the luck of the draw/city strategy that he's not on trial. (Although now that I think about it, several of the people who were charged--who did exactly the same "plan some protest stuff and invite people to protest" stuff as the rest of the committee--are long-term activists who've been involved in several other big actions in MN and aren't popular with the cops) So anyway, if Jesse gets lots of jail time that bodes very badly for everyone else. Also, Jesse is exceptionally level-headed, kind and thoughtful and I fail to see the point of sending them to jail for a property crime in which no one got hurt. Back just before I met Jesse, I was at a meeting with Minne and we were talking afterward about how irritating everyone had been. "Except that red-headed character," we both said simultaneously. All these people are DFHs pretty much like me--oh, maybe a little bit more with the refuse-to-disperse thing and a little less with the fancy German shoes, but they're no more terrorists than I am. (I know I'm just pixels to you...) Anyway, lawyers of Unfogged, there's a letter-writing campaign for Jesse and I'm trying to think of the best arguments to use. Now that there's a conviction, we don't want Jesse to get jail time. Is this possible? Do you have any advice? Is there any line of reasoning that's particularly alluring to judges? Posted by: Frowner | Link to this comment | 08-24-09 8:34 PM 236 Motion for a new trial supported by eyewitness testimony to the effect that the actual perps were short? Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 08-24-09 10:24 PM 237 I've been trying to think of a substantive comment for two days and I'm still getting stuck at "rage blackout" when I try to formulate a response to this law. I can't even read the thread. The people who came up with this must take real and sincere pleasure from inflicting pain on others. Self-righteous sadists, every one of them. Posted by: Robust McManlyPants | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 9:19 AM 238 Is there any line of reasoning that's particularly alluring to judges? Not a recidivism risk is what I'd want to emphasize, but it's going to be a hard sell for a young healthy activist convicted of an activism-related crime -- presumably, he is a recidivism risk. One of my few minimal forays into criminal justice was an appeal for a guy convicted of drug sales -- my substantive arguments went nowhere, but I got his sentence cut by arguing that he was middle aged and sick with a nice family who loved him and would take care of him. That's not available, but is he a caretaker for anyone else? Kids, sick parents, anything? Also, he should change his name. Probably to Robert Ford. Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 9:27 AM 239 236: See, I've thought about this, and I don't know that I could honestly swear that I was sure that the people were shorter and skinnier than him. I think they were. But it was an intense time, there was a big crowd and I didn't know Jesse so I didn't really have a strong, clear sense of comparison. I would have to waffle on the witness stand, I think, and that can't be good. They're trying to figure out an appeal. It's all activist culture stuff--in a sense, we're all pretty much risks for recidivism, since (for example) I couldn't assure anyone that I will never ever commit civil disobedience, do a tree sit or whatever. Probably I won't do anything more exciting than refuse to disperse, but it depends on the circumstances. But we're not risks for dangerous recidivism, which is the key piece that is either willfully ignored a lot of the time or simply not understood. People act, as Chesteron once wrote, as if all sins were kept in the same bag--as if a tree sitter on Monday were a child abuser or a drug dealer on Tuesday. And it's simply silly to pay$30,000 or so a year of taxpayer money to keep Jesse in jail for a year (or more if more) when there's simply zero danger of them hurting anyone.

Of course, that's what the courts don't want to admit because it will weaken their upcoming RNC8 case--once they start accepting "no one actually planned to do anything except stop some buses and make general nuisances of themselves plus there was a little ad hoc breakage in the heat of the moment when everyone was being followed by heavily armed riot cops" then they can't gin up fear with the terrorism argument.

Gah.

Posted by: Frowner | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 10:38 AM
240

And it's simply silly to pay $30,000 or so a year of taxpayer money to keep Jesse in jail for a year (or more if more) when there's simply zero danger of them hurting anyone. Well, it's silly, but it's not necessarily anti-activist silly, just general criminal justice silly. It makes as much or as little sense to imprison someone for destroying$9K worth of property as it does to imprison them for non-violently stealing $9K worth of stuff, and I've got the impression that the latter might just as easily have happened. Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 10:44 AM 241 And m.leblanc probably knows a lot more than I do about arguments for clemency. Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 10:57 AM 242 Yes indeed! Imprisoning people for small property crime is ridiculous. Various community-based restitution programs would be easy to work out and would probably discourage some folks from re-offending. With, I suppose, the degree of community service/fines/restitution required increasing with each incident. And of course it's a bit old hat to say that the various wall street swindlers of our time are much, much worse than even the hippiest window smasher, but they won't get send to jail (with minor exception). "General Electric, General Motors--they're the worst generals of all, you know!" Posted by: Frowner | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 10:58 AM 243 Motion to redact 239.1. Not wise at this stage. Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 11:00 AM 244 How do I redact? Can LB redact for me? Please? Wow, my first redact, eh? I am not a natural at security culture. Posted by: Frowner | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 11:03 AM 245 I can't at work -- I'll do it tonight, or someone else will get to it faster. Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it much -- looking at the trial notes, the other guy confessed; Jesse's defense isn't that he wasn't there when the other guy broke the window, just that he didn't himself break anything. At that point, I don't think your testimony helps much. Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 11:06 AM 246 I'm on it! The whole paragraph? Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 11:13 AM 247 It looks good to me now. Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 11:15 AM 248 Oh. I guess I'm just that good. Or it wasn't me. Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 11:17 AM 249 The idea is that if you jail one person for breaking 5k worth of windows, you avoid a dozen other people breaking 5k worth of windows. Deterrence is hard to measure, and maybe worthless is this kind of case: if this one guy spends 5 years in jail will that affect the decisionmaking of anyone else on whether to break windows? IANACL, but I understand that judges like contrition. A lot. Obviously nothing a third-party can say about that. Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 12:15 PM 250 235 What is important is that Jesse faces up to five years in jail! Folks are saying that they expect something more than one year. Seriously, up to five years for breaking a window when "you're going to pay for this window, plus a fine, plus legal fees, plus some really boring community service" would seem much more reasonable. Quite aside from the taxpayer dollars angle. This sort of argument is better made by your lawyer during plea negotiations. If you go to trial and lose you get hammered in order to encourage pleas (which save a lot of taxpayer dollars). What is the guy who pled guilty getting? Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 12:26 PM 251 249 IANACL, but I understand that judges like contrition. A lot. Obviously nothing a third-party can say about that. A bit late for that. And I understand judges don't like defendants who lie on the stand (which the judge may feel happened in this case). Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 12:30 PM 252 IANACL, but I understand that judges like contrition. I only know what for from transcripts, but the flip side is that judges hear a lot of contrition. A lot*! There is a certain skepticism of claims of contrition. And, of course, when you've actually insisted on your innocence (rather than challenging the sufficiency of the evidence of your guilt) and then express contrition for your guilt, they can come down on you for being two-faced. Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 12:43 PM 253 Oh, erm:; * Why am I catering to Josh's sensitivities on the a lot/alot issue? "A lot" pains me! Alot! Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 12:45 PM 254 but if Sen. Kennedy was healthy, the picture would look a little different. This depresses me so much. As I said before, he wasn't even healthy enough to go to his sister's funeral down the road. I mean, he looked fine at the convention, and he made it out to the inauguration, but he must be about to go soon. He's trying to get the replacement process changed so that somebody can be appointed in the interim period before a special election can be held. He knows. I sure hope that Barney Frank has diplomatic skills in addition to brains. Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 12:49 PM 255 I sure hope that Barney Frank has diplomatic skills Much as I love him, what he's got I wouldn't call diplomatic skills exactly. Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 12:56 PM 256 251, 252 -- Yes. I didn't mean that he could use it now. Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 12:58 PM 257 I also agree with 250, and am not particularly surprised that the statutes at issue carry potential sentences like this, or that, in the circumstances, a St. Paul judge might want to go to the full extent of them. My first civil case involved a plaintiff who had a criminal record. I remember that her first conviction arose from the theft of less than$2 worth of merchandise.

Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 1:04 PM
258

Unhelpful anecdote, from when I was a clerk for a conservative judge: Some judges are especially reluctant to give activist-type defendants community service, on the theory that community service isn't punishment to someone is already devoted to community service. And fines/restitution aren't punishment to people who aren't motivated by money.

A 60+ doctor of my personal acquiantance is probably about to serve an 18 month sentence for participation in political corruption that did not, and could not have, benefited him personally. My wife and I wrote a letter to support leniency in sentencing. At sentencing, he stressed his decades of good charitable works, both providing free medical services ot the indigant and charitable doncation, hoping to get some kind of community service. He thinks now it may have backfired for the reasons stated above.

Posted by: unimaginative | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 1:05 PM
259

255: No, it wouldn't appear that he does. I just wonder whether he's more effective at negotiating good deals in private.

Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 1:06 PM
260

Much as I love him, what he's got I wouldn't call diplomatic skills exactly.

Diplomacy can take many forms?

Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 1:18 PM
261

free medical services ot the indigant

I first read this as "indignant" and pictured:

Doc: Take two of these and call me in the morning.

Indignant Patient: How dare you!

Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 1:36 PM
262

I've been trying to think of a substantive comment for two days and I'm still getting stuck at "rage blackout" when I try to formulate a response to this law.

Me too.

Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 1:36 PM
263

As I said before, he wasn't even healthy enough to go to his sister's funeral down the road. I mean, he looked fine at the convention, and he made it out to the inauguration, but he must be about to go soon.

My morbid prediction: Teddy will be wheeled onto the floor of the Senate to cast the decisive vote for cloture on health care reform (as will Byrd), and will die soon afterward. Kennedy's gesture will exert a moral suasion that will bring both Baucus and Conrad (and possibly the two gentle ladies from Maine) around to the YES side, even though the conference bill provides for a public option.

Posted by: pain perdu | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 3:19 PM
264

263: In my scenario, Kennedy kicks the bucket right at the point where the liberals in the house decide that they'd rather vote against the bill on offer than accept the piece of crap that it is. They rally, introduce something that doesn't suck donkey balls, name it the "Edward Kennedy Memorial Single Payer Health Plan," and we all live happily ever after.

Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 3:57 PM
265

Here's some sport: guy shows up at Republican meeting with TEABAGGERS = FAIL sign and S&W.38 on the hip. I liked the fascinating range of data visualisation charts he'd added to the sign. Got yer Habermas right here. With guns!

I want to have his blog.

Posted by: Alex | Link to this comment | 08-25-09 5:12 PM