2 year old cat with more sense than the teenage human boy. “I thought a bear was going to eat my cat”, so you took out your phone to record the final moments?
Of course, the kid is probably making bank over the video, so he will have enough money to get a new cat when the bear comes back hungry.
Do bears eat teens?
om, just very stupid ones.
Just watched a video of very stupid people in Yellowstone getting up close and very personal with a big Bison Bull. The Bull charged, the parents ran, leaving the child to be trampled by the Bull. But another person ran in and saved the child. Stupid stupid People, and very uncaring about their child.
Supreme Court rules, 5-4, to partially undo the damage to Oklahoma of the McGirt decision. Non-Indians may be prosecuted by the state for crimes against Indians in tribal areas (eastern Oklahoma, essentially). Gorsuch joins the dissent. Prior to this ruling only the feds or Indian authorities could prosecute crimes in those areas. They had enough resources to investigate only very serious crimes like murder, with the result that non-Indians could steal Indians’ trucks with impunity.
It is a complete disgrace that all those cops haven’t been fired.
Maybe that is happening, skeptical, not like the media is trustworthy …… Clicks, clicks, clicks
There appear to be some holes in this woman’s story….. The police on scene deny anyone was handcuffed; she claims to have driven 40 miles after notification to reach the school (that’s 40 minutes at a steady 60mph); photos show her with the child in tow, apparently picked up from the holding area when the other students evacuated from the school were taken.
No pertinent documentation or corroboration of her activity appears…. at least a phone would document the time of the notification and the source… but none appears. Hold off on condemnation until something reliable is revealed.
Erasmus; Cornhead; Another Mike:
I have written about that mother already many times. See this as well as this. So far, there is still no independent corroboration for her story. There’s a photo of her in the parking lot with the kids which obviously is no proof of anything except that she was there and she was reunited with her kids. There were plenty of people around and so far – over a month after the incident – there has yet to be a single person corroborating her story, or a single photo of her in handcuffs, inside the building with other people running around rescuing people, etc.. She seems to have a criminal record and was already on probation – although that’s hard to ascertain either. Police have denied the parts of her story in which they were supposedly involved at the school. Even by her own account, the timeline has problems because by the time she could have gotten to the school the evacuation was at least partly complete and perhaps even mostly complete (although the exact timeline is difficult to ascertain as well, one teacher said that her text messages indicated that police evacuated her classroom at around noon, for example).
It’s certainly possible that this mother is telling the truth. But I would have expected someone to have come forward to agree with at least some parts of it. She has been telling her story to news sources, and she’s got a lawyer doing the same, but other than that I’ve seen crickets about it. In addition, note that in the new link that Erasmus and Cornhead both gave, there is no new corroboration and it explicitly says, “We only know about Gomez’s experience because she later told reporters about it.” The author of that piece is stating that as though it means there was some sort of coverup until this brave woman spoke up. But the author also doesn’t seem to find it the least bit odd that no one – and that includes all the other parents there – has ever spoken up about seeing it, or produced a photo other than the one in the parking lot.
The link also says: “But according to her attorney, the Uvalde school police were not happy with her willingness to spill the beans. They previously threatened her with having a warrant issued involving a domestic incident that resulted in her being put on probation.” I have read several interviews that have quoted her as saying she was already on probation for a violation (unspecified as to type and severity) that occurred ten years earlier and was still ongoing at the time of the shooting.
I have no idea what’s really going on with this woman. But until someone else speaks up about it besides the woman herself and her lawyer, I would not rely on her story as truth. I do believe she was there that day and I do believe she was reunited with her children, and I have little doubt it was a terribly stressful experience. The rest of it? Wait and see.
Does a cat ever tire of the laser pointer game?
Don’t be that cat? 🙂
We all have buttons?
I guess the Hotair website should check with neo before it runs a story.
TommyJay I sometimes have that problem but can click on the story headline, open again and see the video filled in. At least that’s how it works on my gadget
HotAir – Home of Allapundit.
Your mileage may vary.
Cornhead:
What’s the snark about?
Obviously Hot Air can run any story they want. But the sources they should check have to do with the story itself; it would be nice to have some corroboration.
I’ve already said the woman’s story may be true. But it has holes in it that need to be clarified and filled in before I regard it as true, and the total lack of corroboration is troubling in a situation that would have had many witnesses and most of them would have had cellphone cameras with them (including the woman herself).
More on the Oklahoma ruling. It’s more extensive than I previously thought. “Indian country” is part of a State, not separate from it. Ordinary state criminal prosecutions can now be pursued, and the FBI is no longer responsible for ordinary criminal prosecutions in eastern OK. The State is enjoined only from actions which would infringe on tribal self-government. The governor of Oklahoma, a Cherokee, says this is the right ruling.
“Supreme Court poised to drop another bombshell ruling after Roe v Wade”
“It seems overturning Roe v. Wade may not be the biggest decision to come down from the Supreme Court as its ruling on West Virginia v. the Environmental Protection Agency could strip the government and alphabet agencies of their unfettered powers.
The case asks whether pressing policies that have an impact on the lives of all Americans should be made by unelected bureaucrats or by Congress. The ruling could decide that governing by executive agency fiat is unconstitutional, according to Fox News.”
Glitch in the Matrix, don’t see any reason why it’s italicizing within the blockquote. Can’t erase it.
I believe blockquotes are always fully italicized. If you want emphasis within the block use the boldface tag.
I think I had read some of Neo’s SSRI related links in the past, but I re-read those ones just now. I’d say that’s fairly unpersuasive. If anything, it persuades me that there is a modest link between SSRIs and violence.
The Psychology Today article in particular correlates a 40% increase in violence to low dosage use. The number was stated to be statistically significant.
Then the author dismisses the finding for one or possibly two reasons bad reasons.
1) The excess violence must be because the dosage is too low; below the correct therapeutic amount. Thus, the mental problem was not solved. He ignores, or at least does not address, the fact that people with zero dosage were included in the stats. That’s even lower than low dosage and yet for some inexplicable reason they do better than the low dosage people.
2) He doesn’t state this, but I suspect that the doctor assumes some kind of cause and effect, or dosage and response, linearity or monotonicity. That is, more dosage must equate to more response for all possible responses considered. Um, no. Nobody should assume this. It could very well be that low dosage is a key causal factor that doesn’t show up at higher dosages.
(I don’t have a problem with his discussion of the on-again, off-again part of the study.
_____
In related news, I see where the pharma industry, government and Sesame Street is making a big push to get all children vaccinated including the very young. Marty Makary stated that the Dutch gov. is apologizing to parents for encouraging parents there to vaccinate little children, but it is full speed ahead here.
TommyJay:
People who are prescribed SSRIs and people who are not prescribed SSRIs are two hugely different groups to begin with. That’s the basic problem with research on this question – truly meaningful research on this is almost impossible to do because it’s hard to get the correct control group. So the reason zero dosage people do better than low dosage people is not “inexplicable.” It’s easy to come up with a hypothetical reason: they’re mentally and emotionally healthier to begin with.
Yes, I was thinking about that. The PT author mentions the on-again, off-again situation where the same subject is both control and dosing subject. I can see that complaint (in the article). In that case everybody is in therapy of some type I presume.
Now in the general zero dosage situation, are these folks the off-again folks? All of them, some of them? That’s a problem or potential problem.
One could have a group in therapy that never takes meds. because of their personal choices. It seems to me that would be a nice group to have for a study.
I agree it’s messy, and would warrant a better write-up too.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
No video shown for me on an Edge browser. Just a black box.
Bad things are still happening in Uvalde:
https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2022/06/29/bad-things-are-still-happening-in-uvalde-n479535
2 year old cat with more sense than the teenage human boy. “I thought a bear was going to eat my cat”, so you took out your phone to record the final moments?
Of course, the kid is probably making bank over the video, so he will have enough money to get a new cat when the bear comes back hungry.
Do bears eat teens?
om, just very stupid ones.
Just watched a video of very stupid people in Yellowstone getting up close and very personal with a big Bison Bull. The Bull charged, the parents ran, leaving the child to be trampled by the Bull. But another person ran in and saved the child. Stupid stupid People, and very uncaring about their child.
Supreme Court rules, 5-4, to partially undo the damage to Oklahoma of the McGirt decision. Non-Indians may be prosecuted by the state for crimes against Indians in tribal areas (eastern Oklahoma, essentially). Gorsuch joins the dissent. Prior to this ruling only the feds or Indian authorities could prosecute crimes in those areas. They had enough resources to investigate only very serious crimes like murder, with the result that non-Indians could steal Indians’ trucks with impunity.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/scotus-allows-oklahoma-prosecute-non-indian-tribal-lands
I’d be interested to see here the comments of Oklahoma residents on this.
a picture says a thousand words,
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/828483401069494272/991724595210109069/unknown.png
Uvalde police are harassing a woman who ran in and saved her kids.
https://hotair.com/jazz-shaw/2022/06/29/bad-things-are-still-happening-in-uvalde-n479535
It is a complete disgrace that all those cops haven’t been fired.
Maybe that is happening, skeptical, not like the media is trustworthy …… Clicks, clicks, clicks
There appear to be some holes in this woman’s story….. The police on scene deny anyone was handcuffed; she claims to have driven 40 miles after notification to reach the school (that’s 40 minutes at a steady 60mph); photos show her with the child in tow, apparently picked up from the holding area when the other students evacuated from the school were taken.
No pertinent documentation or corroboration of her activity appears…. at least a phone would document the time of the notification and the source… but none appears. Hold off on condemnation until something reliable is revealed.
Erasmus; Cornhead; Another Mike:
I have written about that mother already many times. See this as well as this. So far, there is still no independent corroboration for her story. There’s a photo of her in the parking lot with the kids which obviously is no proof of anything except that she was there and she was reunited with her kids. There were plenty of people around and so far – over a month after the incident – there has yet to be a single person corroborating her story, or a single photo of her in handcuffs, inside the building with other people running around rescuing people, etc.. She seems to have a criminal record and was already on probation – although that’s hard to ascertain either. Police have denied the parts of her story in which they were supposedly involved at the school. Even by her own account, the timeline has problems because by the time she could have gotten to the school the evacuation was at least partly complete and perhaps even mostly complete (although the exact timeline is difficult to ascertain as well, one teacher said that her text messages indicated that police evacuated her classroom at around noon, for example).
It’s certainly possible that this mother is telling the truth. But I would have expected someone to have come forward to agree with at least some parts of it. She has been telling her story to news sources, and she’s got a lawyer doing the same, but other than that I’ve seen crickets about it. In addition, note that in the new link that Erasmus and Cornhead both gave, there is no new corroboration and it explicitly says, “We only know about Gomez’s experience because she later told reporters about it.” The author of that piece is stating that as though it means there was some sort of coverup until this brave woman spoke up. But the author also doesn’t seem to find it the least bit odd that no one – and that includes all the other parents there – has ever spoken up about seeing it, or produced a photo other than the one in the parking lot.
The link also says: “But according to her attorney, the Uvalde school police were not happy with her willingness to spill the beans. They previously threatened her with having a warrant issued involving a domestic incident that resulted in her being put on probation.” I have read several interviews that have quoted her as saying she was already on probation for a violation (unspecified as to type and severity) that occurred ten years earlier and was still ongoing at the time of the shooting.
I have no idea what’s really going on with this woman. But until someone else speaks up about it besides the woman herself and her lawyer, I would not rely on her story as truth. I do believe she was there that day and I do believe she was reunited with her children, and I have little doubt it was a terribly stressful experience. The rest of it? Wait and see.
Does a cat ever tire of the laser pointer game?
Don’t be that cat? 🙂
We all have buttons?
I guess the Hotair website should check with neo before it runs a story.
TommyJay I sometimes have that problem but can click on the story headline, open again and see the video filled in. At least that’s how it works on my gadget
HotAir – Home of Allapundit.
Your mileage may vary.
Cornhead:
What’s the snark about?
Obviously Hot Air can run any story they want. But the sources they should check have to do with the story itself; it would be nice to have some corroboration.
I’ve already said the woman’s story may be true. But it has holes in it that need to be clarified and filled in before I regard it as true, and the total lack of corroboration is troubling in a situation that would have had many witnesses and most of them would have had cellphone cameras with them (including the woman herself).
More on the Oklahoma ruling. It’s more extensive than I previously thought. “Indian country” is part of a State, not separate from it. Ordinary state criminal prosecutions can now be pursued, and the FBI is no longer responsible for ordinary criminal prosecutions in eastern OK. The State is enjoined only from actions which would infringe on tribal self-government. The governor of Oklahoma, a Cherokee, says this is the right ruling.
\\https://dailycaller.com/2022/06/29/oklahoma-scotus-indian-crime/
Those two make want to say, Get a haircut! And get off my lawn! 😉
https://mobile.twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1542170162304106498
Several weeks ago, Neo suggested while a view commonly held by many is fatherlessness is a significant factor in school shootings, it isn’t.
Is there a common denominator? How about psychiatric drugs.
https://thenewamerican.com/from-prozac-to-parkland-are-psychiatric-drugs-causing-mass-shootings/
Brian E:
Please see paragraph 7 of my recent post on fatherlessness. In that paragraph I deal with the SSRI question, and offer links.
Nah. Too time-consuming and sensible.
“Supreme Court poised to drop another bombshell ruling after Roe v Wade”
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2022/06/28/supreme-court-poised-to-drop-another-bombshell-ruling-after-roe-v-wade-1255492/
Glitch in the Matrix, don’t see any reason why it’s italicizing within the blockquote. Can’t erase it.
I believe blockquotes are always fully italicized. If you want emphasis within the block use the boldface tag.
I think I had read some of Neo’s SSRI related links in the past, but I re-read those ones just now. I’d say that’s fairly unpersuasive. If anything, it persuades me that there is a modest link between SSRIs and violence.
The Psychology Today article in particular correlates a 40% increase in violence to low dosage use. The number was stated to be statistically significant.
Then the author dismisses the finding for one or possibly two reasons bad reasons.
1) The excess violence must be because the dosage is too low; below the correct therapeutic amount. Thus, the mental problem was not solved. He ignores, or at least does not address, the fact that people with zero dosage were included in the stats. That’s even lower than low dosage and yet for some inexplicable reason they do better than the low dosage people.
2) He doesn’t state this, but I suspect that the doctor assumes some kind of cause and effect, or dosage and response, linearity or monotonicity. That is, more dosage must equate to more response for all possible responses considered. Um, no. Nobody should assume this. It could very well be that low dosage is a key causal factor that doesn’t show up at higher dosages.
(I don’t have a problem with his discussion of the on-again, off-again part of the study.
_____
In related news, I see where the pharma industry, government and Sesame Street is making a big push to get all children vaccinated including the very young. Marty Makary stated that the Dutch gov. is apologizing to parents for encouraging parents there to vaccinate little children, but it is full speed ahead here.
TommyJay:
People who are prescribed SSRIs and people who are not prescribed SSRIs are two hugely different groups to begin with. That’s the basic problem with research on this question – truly meaningful research on this is almost impossible to do because it’s hard to get the correct control group. So the reason zero dosage people do better than low dosage people is not “inexplicable.” It’s easy to come up with a hypothetical reason: they’re mentally and emotionally healthier to begin with.
Yes, I was thinking about that. The PT author mentions the on-again, off-again situation where the same subject is both control and dosing subject. I can see that complaint (in the article). In that case everybody is in therapy of some type I presume.
Now in the general zero dosage situation, are these folks the off-again folks? All of them, some of them? That’s a problem or potential problem.
One could have a group in therapy that never takes meds. because of their personal choices. It seems to me that would be a nice group to have for a study.
I agree it’s messy, and would warrant a better write-up too.