Horrific school shooting in Texas [scroll down for UPDATES]

The New Neo Posted on by

There has been another school shooting, this time in the town of Uvalde, Texas. Fourteen precious and innocent elementary school children and one teacher are dead. The shooter was named Salvatore Romas (or probably Ramos) and was apparently killed by police after barricading himself in the school.

Reports are also that Ramos shot (and perhaps killed?) his grandmother first. But I didn’t find much about that in a quick perusal of the news.

I plan to write more about this later tonight when further facts emerge, but I wanted to put up a quick thread for you to talk about it.

UPDATE 8:25 PM:

More information on the shooter can be found here. I’ve found in the past that the source, heavy.com, tends to be first with these things and tends to be fairly accurate although not entirely so.

Here are a few excerpts:

An Instagram page with pictures of guns appears to belong to the shooter. Although it has not been publicly authenticated by authorities, it was removed shortly after the shootings. The page followed Uvalde High School students, and people who knew the gunman have posted about it on social media…

The Associated Press is reporting that a border patrol agent who was nearby rushed in without backup and killed the gunman…

Abbott said the gunman was an U.S. citizen…
“It is being reported that the subject shot his grandmother right before he went into the school. I have no further information about the connection between those two shootings,” the governor said in the news conference.

Gutierrez said on CNN that the grandmother is clinging to life. He said Ramos bought the firearms on his birthday, legally, from a dealer. He said the gunman crashed his car near the school before going inside and opening fire. According to Gutierrez, Ramos was originally from North Dakota…

ABC News reported that the gunfire occurred inside the school, debunking early reports that the shooting occurred outside.

UPDATE 10:35 PM

The death toll is now 18 children and 3 adults. There are many wounded as well.

Roughly 90% of [the school’s] students are Hispanic. About 80% of the children attending come from families who are struggling financially.

The students who were killed are reported to have been second, third, and fourth-graders. This was an act of great evil.

Many of the newspaper articles refer to Ramos as the “alleged” shooter. But at this point, I see no indication that there is any doubt that he was the shooter. And since he is dead, the word “alleged” certainly isn’t being used to protect his rights at a future trial. Perhaps to protect his family? We haven’t heard much if anything about them yet, except for the grandmother he supposedly shot (although that’s not clear, either).

Biden made the usual pro-gun-control speech.

RIP Roger Angell

The New Neo Posted on by

Roger Angell, noted baseball writer for The New Yorker, has died at the age of 101. I had no idea he was still alive, but I used to read him regularly during the thirty or so years when I had a subscription to that magazine, before I finally canceled because The New Yorker became more and more political – and stupidly (although still somewhat elegantly) political at that.

Even before that happened, though, I increasingly found it hard to keep up with new issues, although it was always a treat when they arrived, glossy and sleek, in the mail. It was a weekly and I read almost everything in it for years and years and years, and it was hard to keep them from piling up as my life got busier.

Angell had that graceful, understated, and entertaining style for which the magazine used to be known (I almost wrote “style the magazine used to be known for,” but the long-departed editors of those days would not have liked that construction). Angell’s mother was at the magazine for ages as well, and his stepfather was well-known author E.B. White.

Those days are so long gone, but it was always fun to get the spanking new issue with its usually-clever cover and amusing cartoons. My favorite cartoons had these captions: “Does my body make me look fat?”; “You have his masterpiece. But then you know that, of course”; and “Mighty good eating for the [few] pennies it cost.”

Through the magic of the internet I can find those first two: this and this (scroll down for the 1976 one by Everett Opie). But I can’t find the third, which featured a strange spiked Dr. Seuss-like creature being displayed by the proprietor of a food store.

Here’s an example of the style of Angell’s baseball writing:

“Baseball is not life itself, although the resemblance keeps coming up,” Angell wrote in “La Vida,” a 1987 essay (as reprinted by ESPN). “It’s probably a good idea to keep the two sorted out, but old fans, if they’re anything like me, can’t help noticing how cunningly our game replicates a larger schedule, with its beguiling April optimism; the cheerful roughhouse of June; the grinding, serious, unending (surely) business of midsummer; the September settling of accounts … and then the abrupt running-down of autumn, when we wish for — almost demand — a prolonged and glittering final adventure just before the curtain.”

The curtain has finally come down on Roger Angell. RIP.

I suppose this is an RIP for The New Yorker, as well, even though it’s nominally alive.

Lying for rhetorical advocacy

The New Neo Posted on by

On the judicial nominee front:

Nusrat Choudhury, Biden’s pick for a New York City federal trial court, allegedly claimed during a 2015 panel that police shoot unarmed black people every day in the United States. Choudhury defended the statement in a confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in April. But on May 11, Choudhury told the committee she had never made such a statement.

“I did not make this statement. I strongly disavow this statement, and I regret not disavowing this statement during my hearing,” Choudhury wrote in a letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon…

Republicans have yet to defeat one of Biden’s judicial nominees, and Choudhury’s unexplained turnabout presents their best opportunity yet. A second hearing would prolong the confirmation process and heighten pressure on the nominee.

Choudhury is a career ACLU lawyer whom Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) has championed for the bench. She participated on a panel at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs in 2015. A representative from a school alumni group live-tweeted the event and reported that Choudhury claimed unarmed black people are shot by police on a daily basis.

There is no record of Choudhury’s statement apart from the tweet. But when pressed by Sen. John Kennedy (R., La.) about the claim at an April 27 hearing, Choudhury said she had been “engaging in rhetorical advocacy” three times and never disavowed the false claim.

It’s hard to sort this out, but whatever’s going on, it’s another depressing story. “I strongly disavow this statement, and I regret not disavowing this statement during my hearing” – what does that sentence even signify? Why would a person who is accused of making a false and incendiary statement – accused in an official public forum – try to make excuses for the statement rather than simply saying, “I never said that!”, and then suddenly much later on claim that he or she actually had never made the original statement? Are we to imagine that it had just slipped Choudhury’s mind to let us know she’d never said it? That doesn’t pass the smell test.

Choudbury is a “career ACLU lawyer.” The ACLU has turned into a leftist organization, and “rhetorical advocacy” would indeed be common among its lawyers. But it is not a recommendation for someone who would be a federal judge. And yet the bench is loaded with such people.

The lie that unarmed black people are shot by the police “every day” (or often) is a falsehood that has done a remarkable amount of damage, from riots to property destruction to killings of police officers. It’s financially and politically enriched a lot of people as well, most particularly the BLM officials who siphoned off a lot of the money they collected by peddling the lie. The false “narrative” has also fed a great deal of hatred and paranoia, and it’s been repeated and repeated and repeated by people who should know better and who probably do know better.

Was Choudhury one of those people who knew better? I think the evidence tends towards the conclusion that she most likely was.

The Aussie election

The New Neo Posted on by

Australia recently had an election in which the far left won. I hadn’t followed it at all till I heard the news, but the BBC calls it a “great shock to the system”:

Victory belongs to Anthony Albanese, only the fourth Labor leader since World War Two to oust a Liberal prime minister, but the 2022 Australian election was primarily a rejection of Scott Morrison and the brand of politics he has come to personify.

A politics that denied, and sometimes even mocked, the seriousness of the climate crisis – as Treasurer, Morrison laughingly brandished a lump of coal in parliament.

A politics that many female voters especially found bloke-ish and boorish…

Tumbling down have come the walls of conservative citadels. Parliamentary seats where Liberals had for generations dominated now look like barren lands.

The shoreline of Sydney Harbour, which is home to the most expensive real estate on the continent, is a case in point. It has been overwhelmed by a “teal” wave, the colour adopted by the swathe of independents who have had such a transformative effect on the country’s political geography.

Remarkably, the Liberals no longer control any harbour-side seats that stretch from the Opera House to the ocean…

It is akin to San Francisco, another great harbour city, losing all its Democrats.

That’s the BBC, of course, which considers this a Good Thing. And I often get confused by Anglosphere politics outside the US: the parliamentary systems and the nomenclature by which “liberal” supposedly means “conservative” but actually by US standards is usually decidedly nonconservative.

So, what really happened there?

More:

A party that has become fixated in recent decades with attracting working class battlers in traditional Labor strongholds has lost touch with Tesla-driving professionals in blue-ribbon seats.

For the first time in more than a decade, the electric car nudged out the coal train.

The rise of the teal independents has shattered the main party duopoly in the major cities – urban Australia accounts for 86% of the country’s population.

Before you express shock at that last figure, it may surprise you to learn (as it surprised me) that the percentage of urban dwellers is similar in the US. However, in the US it’s been quite some time – if ever – that conservatives have found much support with “Tesla-driving professionals.”

It’s the climate-change emphasizing Greens that seem to have turned the tide, with neither of the main parties (Liberal or Labor) drawing all that many votes. There’s that parliamentary system complexity again:

There was always a none-of-the above feel to the head-to-head between the main party leaders. That has been borne out in the results.

Anthony Albanese, then, has achieved an ambiguous victory. There was no great groundswell of support for Labor. Indeed, its primary vote was actually 2% down from 2019, a meagre 32%. Although he is certain to emerge as prime minister, we still do not know whether he will stand at the head of a Labor majority government.

Albanese has promised to make Australia a “a renewable energy powerhouse.” Good luck with that.

This election apparently was all about climate change, at least according to the MSM:

One topic dominated Australia’s election: climate change.

Following a string of climate-related catastrophes in recent years, Australian voters this weekend returned the opposition Labor Party to power, with incoming Prime Minister Anthony Albanese vowing to “end the climate wars” and turn Australia into a “renewable energy superpower.”…

Oquist pointed out that although Albanese’s Labor Party had won a narrow majority to form the next government, it was the Greens and the so-called teal independents — both of whom campaigned on strong climate action — who received the biggest bump in support.

“Parliament now effectively has a ‘supermajority’ in support of climate action, which can’t be ignored,” he said.

Were people also just plain tired of Morrison, who had been PM since 2018 (which includes all of the COVID years, among other things)? Perhaps. Here’s a clue, I think:

Morrison drew near unanimous condemnation for taking a holiday during Australia’s 2019–20 bushfire season and for his government’s response to the disaster…

Morrison was heavily condemned for his government’s response to the 2022 Eastern Australia floods; criticism was levelled against him for campaigning in Perth instead of being present in New South Wales, causing a relief package for flood victims to be delayed, with many critics suggesting that Morrison was prioritising marketing over the flood response.

I’m not so sure anything about Australia is transferable to the US, and vice versa. But when the far left gets in the driver’s seat (literally), bad things tend to happen.

Sowell on the history of Ukraine and Russia

The New Neo Posted on by

This is a reading from Thomas Sowell’s book Conquest and Cultures, that was witten in 1998. I’ve never read it but it sounds interesting – of course, virtually all his books sound interesting and probably are. This is a good summary of the interactions between Ukraine and Russia up to that point, and quite relevant today:

Pithy sayings by none other than Otto von Bismarck

The New Neo Posted on by

Otto von Bismarck certainly had a way with words.

For example:

“Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied.”

“God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America.” (I’d heard that one many times, but had forgotten it was von Bismarck who said it.)

And also:

“Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death.”

“One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.”

“What we learn from History is that no one learns from History.”

Well, not no one. A few people do learn from history. But they usually are not in charge of making the history that follows, and can only sit helplessly by and watch it and/or be victimized by it.

Open thread 5/23/22

The New Neo Posted on by

Okay, so the chicken is being cued by a red laser. The bird nevertheless seems to anticipate a few of the higher notes, and the execution is impressive. And then there’s the eating of the flower stems at the end; a nice humble touch:

The story of my left eye – so far: Part VI

The New Neo Posted on by

[Part I can be found here.
Part II can be found here.
Part III can be found here.
Part IV can be found here.
Part V can be found here.]

At the end of Part V, I’d had my surgery and was trying to relax and heal. I continued to be astounded and entranced by the clarity of my distance vision after all those blurry years. All I had to do to refresh my memory, at least somewhat, was to close my left eye and look at the world with my right. My right eye had been my good eye previously, so it wasn’t really a trip back in time, but my vision with that eye was bad enough in comparison to my new left eye that it practically made me gasp.

Reading was another story, but I had expected that to degrade because I’d been given a monofocal distance lens. Before the surgery, I was able to read without glasses with my left eye (close-up vision is sometimes improved with a cataract), although with some difficulty and with the print being fainter than it really was, looking gray rather than black. My right eye wasn’t so good at the task as my left had been, although with some struggle I still could do it. But now, to my great surprise even though I’d been told it would happen, reading glasses actually corrected my left eye’s close vision so that print was not only sharp but dark black. This had not been possible before the cataract was removed.

Our next plan (I was with my ex-husband) was to drive along the west coast and visit various relatives along the way. About ten days after the surgery we made the first stop, which was in a fairly rural part of California. The first day of our arrival we all went for a walk in the countryside near dusk. It was lovely there, and even more lovely because I was now able to see the surrounding hills in sharp focus.

Suddenly I saw a flash in the left of my vision. What was that? Actually, I knew almost immediately what it was, because in 2016 something similar had happened in my right eye. I assumed I was either having a retinal detachment, a retinal tear, or a posterior vitreous detachment. It had been the latter, less serious occurrence that had given me the symptoms in my right eye years ago, so I was quite familiar with that. I also knew from my readings, as well as the release I’d signed before the surgery, that all of these things were possible complications from cataract surgery and are not even extremely rare.

Frightened, I excused myself and went back into the house. And then I realized that I’d also had a sudden increase in floaters, which is a possible sign of all the aforementioned occurrences: detachment, tear, or PVD. I also know that floaters can increase for other reasons after cataract surgery, or can become more visible because of the increased visual acuity that results. In fact, with all the eye doctors I’d seen prior to surgery I’d discussed the post-surgery possibility of seeing the floaters I already had better, and they all agreed that was very possible and happened quite often.

But right after the surgery I’d been relieved to note that my floaters weren’t more visible or annoying, although the light in my eye from my iridotomy was. But now, ten days later, I had new floaters, and one of them was largish, quite dark, and floated across my main line of vision. I knew from past experience that people sometimes had floaters disappear or at least get more tolerable as the brain gets used to them, but I found it depressing to realize that my new and amazingly clear vision was now troubled by this large floater as well as a sprinkling of small blackish dots that had appeared at the same time.

And I was frightened. Was this a retinal tear or retinal detachment rather than a PVD? Would I require more surgery? I was in a strange place, too, hundreds of miles from LA and the doctor. Fortunately, he has a policy of responding quickly to emails or texts or phone calls, and so I called him and left a message and he called back promptly and reassured me that according to my symptoms (no curtain across my vision) it probably wasn’t the more serious possibility of a retinal detachment although I had to go the next day to see an eye doctor. He knew a good one in the city nearby, and told me to call in the morning and tell them I was a patient of his.

He added that he wasn’t particularly surprised that I was having more floaters and a possible PVD, because he’d had to do so much extra work on my eye that it could easily have stirred things up. This was in line with everything I’d been told prior to the surgery, including what I’d heard from previous doctors, so it made sense to me. But I was still frightened.

I spent the next morning at the office of a very nice ophthalmologist who said it was probably a PVD and he saw no evidence of a retinal problem. That was reassuring, but now I had to deal with the floaters. Fortunately the flashes had subsided – with my right eye they’d lasted about a month, so I saw this as a good sign. But now I struggled against noticing and studying the floaters, and tried to start ignoring them.

It wasn’t easy. It still isn’t easy, although it’s gotten somewhat easier over time. It helps that the little black dots are now a much paler gray. I don’t know why that happened, but it’s an improvement and any improvement is a good thing.

My distance sight continues to be good, for which I’m extremely grateful. I hesitate to say it because I still find it so astounding and it somehow feels tenuous. I think when a person has had diminished vision for many years, and it’s suddenly restored, it’s hard to trust it will continue because the whole thing feels like some sort of miracle.

The PVD (or whatever it was) and the resultant floaters were reminders, and continue to be reminders, of the fact that we never know what’s in store for us. All we can do is our best, go to the best people for help, and hope for the best.

This may seem like the last post in the series. But I plan a Part VII to explore further reflections on the whole thing, and lingering questions that I have. So, to be continued…

Biden border injunction

The New Neo Posted on by

During the Trump administration, he was often blocked by federal judges issuing national injunctions on things he was attempting to do. Now the shoe is on the other foot:

A Louisiana federal judge blocked the Biden administration on Friday from ending Title 42—a pandemic-related border restriction that allows for the immediate expulsion of asylum-seekers and other migrants.

The preliminary injunction provides a more long-term stop to the administration’s plans while the lawsuit led by a multi-state coalition of Republican attorneys general plays out—barring a successful appeal by the Biden administration. The border restriction had been set to lift Monday.

The ruling, issued by the US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, is the latest in a series of judicial rebukes of the Biden administration’s border security and immigration policies, with implications for US-Mexico border operations, international migration patterns, and Capitol Hill battles.

The judge, Robert R. Summerhays, was a Trump appointee.

What happens next? This:

The Justice Department announced it will appeal the ruling. The case will go to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, a bench that leans heavily conservative.

“The authority to set public health policy nationally should rest with the Centers for Disease Control, not with a single district court,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement.

If the ruling had gone their way – as it sometimes did during the Trump years – you would not have heard a peep of protest from the left.

This might end up with SCOTUS, although it’s hard to predict. However, there is actually significant bipartisan Congressional support to stop (or at least postpone) the Biden administration’s lifting the restriction – that’s how unpopular the administration’s position on this has become.

Help for spinal cord injuries?

The New Neo Posted on by

This is tremendously encouraging:

The drug, called AZD1236 and developed by the pharmaceutical firm AstraZeneca, can reduce the “secondary damage” generated by the body’s response to spinal cord injury, they said in an article published Friday by the journal Clinical and Translational Medicine.

In animal experiments, AZD1236 promoted nerve regeneration, with 80% preservation in nerve function following spinal cord compression injury, which can occur following motor vehicle accidents or falls, the data showed.

This translated into an 85% improvement in movement and sensation following three days of treatment with AZD1236 and starting within 24 hours post-injury, according to the researchers.

That was in animals, and often drugs that show great promise with animals fizzle out in humans.

Also, the time frame is discouraging although unsurprising:

University of Birmingham Enterprise, a school-affiliated initiative that connects academic research with financial support, has filed a patent application for the use of AZD1236 in the treatment of spinal cord injury and is seeking investors and partners to help bring it to clinical trials.

They are already prepared to conduct Phase 2 trials, the second stage of the development process, which will take two years to complete, according to Ahmed.

If those are successful, a full Phase 3 trial, the final step in the process, could be started in two years and “if all goes well as we believe it will, this drug could be ready for use by spinal cord injured patients in approximately five years,” he said.

“Safety studies have already been performed with this drug in humans and the drug was extremely well tolerated at clinically relevant doses for up to six weeks,” Ahmed told UPI.

If it’s truly well-tolerated and it’s the only treatment that might prevent the terrible results of such injuries, why five years? I know they’re just following the protective rules that are in place for a good reason, but the slow pace does seem very frustrating.