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.
Someone should explain to them that "labor omnia vincit" doesn't mean what they think it means.
Death threats don't mean nothin' unless you specify the specific people, times, and methods, bob.
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.
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?
Specifically allowing eye-averting is really perverse.
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.
surely a right to privacy forbids this? They can't do this, can they?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
surely a right to privacy forbids this? They can't do this, can they?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
And it was struck down for technical reasons: nothing to do with the content of the bill.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
Why do you have to drink a lot of water before a vaginal ultrasound?
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'?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The tech told me that they want the full bladder to get an overview sense of the size of the uterus.
"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.
"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.
45: The people performing the ultrasound are probably not the ones trying to psychologically manipulate you into motherhood.
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.
"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.
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
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.
Oh, dear. The boot in the face just drove by.
"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.
They are going to mandate a script. That is just the next step.
52 is missing italic tags, obviously.
Reading this statute requires drinking excessive amounts of liquids and the urge to empty one's bladder on the statute.
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.
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.
57 pwned by jms in 9, albeit somewhat elliptically.
58: Yes indeed it was, I had forgotten it had a name and one that made sense in context.
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 . . .."
59: Neb, on the other hand, would be forced to read comma splices
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."
Forgive my naïveté, but why does the bladder need to be full?
It's part of the torture process, neb.
2: What an original idea! An act of wanton political violence in Oklahoma City! I bet no one has ever thought of that before!
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.
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.
Why do you hate science, oudemia?
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.
73: The lust of the uterus is wanderlust.
73: More to keep it from wandering all over the doctor's body, really. Uteri are pushy like that.
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.
77: The despot's heel is on thy shore
(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).
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!
And yet we ridicule libertarians for attempting to take over towns and states.
81: I thought we made fun of them for wanting to take over floating islands and the moon.
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.
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.
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.
If wishes were horses, beggars would ride, I've heard.
I like my aphorisms filtered through Bad Santa: Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.
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.
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.
92: And John Emerson comments on the post digby links to. He's everywhere but here!
We're obviously boring Emerson. It's not that hard to put two and two together.
92 - I didn't really find that account of the interaction between the blogger and Klein plausible.
95: It may have included hyperbole. Hard to say. It's an amusement, I imagine.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
If liberalism needs anything, it needs Internet Tough Guys posting about how much Republican ass they are planning to kick. That never gets old.
||
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.
|>
103:Robespierre, Saint-Just, or Lenin weren't exactly Rambos But I wouldn't want a cagematch against either Trotsky or Che.
wouldn't want a cagematch against either Trotsky
What if you got to take in an icepick?
Ice axe, dammit.
I got to watch some Mad Men.
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?
"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."
i REFUSE TO EVEN TALK TO YOU PEOPLE. THAT'S HOW BORING YOU ARE.
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?
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.
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.
It bothers me that "thrush" can denote both a bird and a fungal infection.
And this place is boring now. But it's all ogged's fault.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
The Gates of Vienna are where the noble European fended off the brown Mussulman foe. It's one of those vaguely genocidal blogs.
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.
It bothers me that "thrush" can denote both a bird and a fungal infection.
Join me in calling the bird "throstle" instead.
It was just a high google hit for trotsky and icepick.
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.
Probably...I never did take Latin and I didn't bother to look the correct spelling up - I should never things from memory.
Insert a verb in there somewhere, please.
Tell us more of this Turdus meritorious of yours, ().
It is indeed -ius. I was worried that our nomenclators had declined terribly.
I'm watching Kingdom and preparing gizzards. Earlier today I took a nap after eating a pork leg. Another productive day!
Insert a verb in there somewhere, please.
GAR before you talk dirty like that.
125: Huh. I missed that thread altogether the first time around.
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.
From some earlier period of greatness!
Kingdom without The isn't Lars von Trier, is it?
I mean I don't know anything, I just carp!
It's always a declensionist tale with neb.
It's always a declensionist tale with neb.
Even I myself always go down.
I've been awake for enough hours that that commercial with the screaming squirrel was seriously disturbing.
the screaming squirrel was seriously disturbing.
I am intrigued. Tell us more?
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.
This isn't actually a very good show.
Pretty simple really.
THOSE ADS DON'T MAKE THEMSELVES, FUCK-O!
Poor Don. Dealing with his father-in-law has him in such a bad mood.
I wonder if everything's ok with Stanley.
If a girl repeatedly challenges you to play Word Twist on Facebook, does that mean she likes you?
Maybe he decided that the post wasn't interesting enough to lure back John Emerson.
Indubitably, Otto. You should proposition her immediately, on her wall.
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.
152: You should have someone pass a note asking her to check yes or no. (There must be a Facebook app for that.)
No, I should come up with a proposition and then post an anagram of it on her wall. E.g., "Obit Scone"
I can't take the disappearing posts!
And, I'm sad because none of my friends will play WordTwist with me any more.
I'll challenge you to a game, (). I don't mean anything untoward by it, though.
Maybe she meant something untoward by "play WordTwist with me", Otto. Way to muff the serve.
160: It's August. Things get weird.
Seems like you missed an opportunity there, neb.
I think I'm still missing what "obit scone" is supposed to mean.
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.
Is WordTwist just like Boggle? 'Cause I remember some epic fights over Boggle when I was in college.
Why thanks, neb! But, um, that's not a proposition, per se, so I rejected it.
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.
Round One:
Otto - 78
() - 96
The new "friends with benefits" is "friends who play Word Twist with me, no strings attached".
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!
"nice boots" isn't a proposition, but "those are nice boots" is.
I often compliment women on their shoes. I hope they don't all think I'm hitting on them.
Anyway, essear, "nice boots" is enthymematic, as everyone knows.
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.
"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?
You have to look for the \begin{proposition} to figure that out.
Just in case anyone was curious, I won the game with Otto but by a fairly narrow margin. (Thanks, Otto!)
338-273. You are kind to call that fairly narrow.
I'm trying this WordTwist "ladder mode" thing. And one of the words that I missed was "sarky".
Sarky. Seems to be a British shortening of "sarcastic." More.
There are many made-up words in the Word Twist dictionary.
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).
195: Is this a whole different game? Wordtwist.org is a nice boggle knockoff.
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...
If you have lire, you also have rile. And lie, and lei, and ire. (I play way too often.)
One could have an l-i-r-e path and not an l-i-e path; is it really a bogglealike?
No, it's not really boggle-like - it doesn't have paths.
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.
Oh that one was fun. G G O G R Y; make 5 words.
yog [as in sothoth]
go
goy
grog
groggy
Yeah, on FB, Scramble is the Boggle knockoff; Word Twist is just anagrams. Word Twist is the fully connected graph version of Scramble.
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.
Oh, yeah, the Boggle thing seems not to be there in Facebook, it just came up when I Googled "WordTwist". Odd.
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.
At said meeting it was suggested that I might be able to graduate April-or-May-ish.
Yay!
Yay, indeed. And I haven't decided what's next, so if anyone would like to offer me a sinecure, now's your chance.
Does your expertise lend itself to serving on a Death Panel?
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.
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?
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.']
"Nice shoes. Are we fucking right now?" is always an embarrassing question to have to ask.
Awful, awful shoes. Would you mind if we ceased to fuck?
223: That was really interesting, Charley. Thanks for posting it. And thank heaven for local blogs.
"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.
"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.
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.
I am indifferent to your footwear; my primary concern is whether we can engage in intercourse anytime soon.
Nice shoes. Could you give me 15 minutes alone with them?
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.
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?
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?
Motion for a new trial supported by eyewitness testimony to the effect that the actual perps were short?
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.
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.
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.
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.
And m.leblanc probably knows a lot more than I do about arguments for clemency.
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!"
Motion to redact 239.1. Not wise at this stage.
How do I redact? Can LB redact for me? Please?
Wow, my first redact, eh? I am not a natural at security culture.
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.
I'm on it! The whole paragraph?
Oh. I guess I'm just that good. Or it wasn't me.
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.
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?
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).
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.
Oh, erm:; * Why am I catering to Josh's sensitivities on the a lot/alot issue? "A lot" pains me! Alot!
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.
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.
251, 252 -- Yes. I didn't mean that he could use it now.
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.
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.
255: No, it wouldn't appear that he does. I just wonder whether he's more effective at negotiating good deals in private.
Much as I love him, what he's got I wouldn't call diplomatic skills exactly.
Diplomacy can take many forms?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.