He doesn't actually explain how that number comes about and what it means exactly. This is where he pulled that information from http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034015

Possible, but I don't really think so. I think that the Medical minds of the time thought that physical shock, pressure waves from bombing etc. as you described, were a (or perhaps THE) primary cause of the psychological problems of returning soldiers. So the name "shell shock" came from there, but the symptoms that it was describing were psychological and, I think precisely equal to modern PTSD. Basically, "shell shock" became a polite euphemism for "soldier that got mentally messed up in the war and is having difficulty returning to civilian life".

My grandfather was an Army Air Corps armorer during WWII. He went through basic training, but his primary job was loading ammunition, bombs, external gas tanks, etc. onto P-47 airplanes. He was never in a direct combat situation, as I would describe it. He was never shot at, never in the shockwave radius of explosions, etc. But after the war he was described as having mild "shell shock", manifested by being withdrawn, not wanting to talk about the war, and occasionally prone to angry outbursts over seemingly trivial things. Eventually, he started talking about the war in his mid 80's, and here's a few relevant (perhaps) stories of his:

He joined the European theater a couple days after D-Day. Came to shore on a Normandy beach in the same sort of landing craft seen in Saving Private Ryan, etc. Even though it was days later, there were still LOTS of bodies on the beach, and thick smell of death. Welcome to the war!

His fighter group took over a French farm house adjacent to a dirt landing strip / runway. They put up a barbed wire perimeter with a gate on the road. In one of the only times I heard of him having a firearm and being expected to potentially use it, he pulled guard duty at that gate one evening. His commanding officer gave him orders to shoot anyone that couldn't provide identification on sight. While he was standing guard, a woman in her 20's rolled up on a bicycle, somewhat distraught. She spoke no English, only French. She clearly wanted to get in, and even tried to push past my grandfather. By the letter of his orders, he was "supposed" to shoot her. Instead, he knocked her off her bike when she tried to ride past after getting nowhere verbally and physically restrained her. At gunpoint! When someone that spoke French got there, it turned out that she was the daughter of the family that lived in the farm house. They had no food, and she was coming back to get some potatoes they had left in the larder.

Riding trains was a common way to get air corps support staff up to near the front, and also to get everybody back to transport ships at the end of the war. On one of those journeys later in the war, my grandfather was riding in an open train car with a bunch of his buddies. They were all given meals at the start of the trip. A short while later, the track went through a French town. A bunch of civilians were waiting around the tracks begging for food. I'll never forgot my grandfather describing that scene. It was tough for him to get out, and then all he managed was "they was starvin'!" He later explained that he and his buddies all gave up the food that they had to those people in the first town -- only to have none left to give as they rolled past similar scenes in each town on down the line.

When my mother was growing up, she and her brothers learned that they'd better not leave any food on their plates to go to waste. She has said that the angriest she ever saw her dad was when her brothers got into a food fight one time, and my grandfather went ballistic. They couldn't really figure out what the big deal was, until years later when my grandfather started telling his war stories and suddenly things made more sense.


A lot of guys had a much rougher war than my grandfather. Way more direct combat. Saw stuff much worse -- and had to DO things that were hard to live with. I think the psychological fallout of stuff like that explains the vast majority of "shell shock", without the addition of CTE-like physical head trauma. I'd wager that when the docs said Stewart's father's shell shock was a reaction to aerial bombardment, that was really just a face-saving measure to try to explain away the perceived "weakness" of his condition.

Sooo...anyway. Had a cop friend who worked in my district and he used to pull me over every time he saw my car, just to say Hi. I drove a bright yellow Karmann Ghia, so it was easy to spot. Then one day he pulled me over...except it was my wife driving the car. He felt really bad. Never pulled me over again after that.

Ok, so....

Cops should just jump on people they think *might* commit a crime because: Reasons .

Good call, citizens!

Due process. Due fucking process.
It exists for reasons beyond your cynical worldview...or even worst case scenarios. It exists to protect the rest of us. The majority.

The cops were right there to take the guy away once he did something stupid. They were also "correct" in not doing anything beforehand. Right before he pulled a knife and stabbed someone, he was just being an asshole, nothing more. That's not illegal. Sorry.

and no: you don't want the police "protecting" you. That's what the Mafia does.

So what's the alternative? Preemptive police takedowns? That happens too, and people scream all the same.

Difference is: I'd rather live in a free society where cops wait for somebody (maybe me) to actually do something wrong, than just leave it up to them to decide when you (or I) *might* be a risk, and then taze or shoot you or me dead.

The police are not there to keep you safe. For one, there is no such thing as "safe" in absolute terms, and in my opinion, if there was, you sure as shit don't want the state prescribing that "safety".

But...that's just my opinion.

Maybe...maybe not. It's a claim, with no verifiable evidence either way available.
What I found was wiki claims only 14 American officers of any color have ever been convicted of murder 1. Often, that's because when a cop wrongly kills someone in the performance of their duties, that's manslaughter. Murder is a far higher bar requiring proof of premeditated intent to kill without a legal reason or to hide a crime.
(Side note: I have a friend who was convicted of manslaughter decades back....he pulled out a knife and stabbed someone in the stomach and chest over 7 times and left them to die. If he's not even charged with murder, the bar must be incredibly high, no?)
How many have been convicted for killing a black person? Totally unknown.

Even if his claim is correct, here's a chance to change that.....one is charged with murder right now.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/05/06/texas-police-officer-who-killed-black-teen-could-spend-rest-of-his-life-in-prison/?utm_t
erm=.3c90c35abc6c

A few points.
First, that was more than two points. ;-)
Second, watch again. The first time he pulls the trigger, it's pointed head high into the crowd, but fortunately for everyone, he didn't have a round chambered. True, his second attempt didn't look like it was aimed at people.

Yes, people on both sides of this conflict came armed with pepper sprays, helmets, masks, and clubs. Only one side seemed to have guns, and they used them.

The guy who shot was far from being attacked, he approached gun drawn to have a confrontation, not to avoid one.
Side note, I hope they arrested the fucker with the spray can too. I don't justify unjustifiable actions...ends don't justify means.

So, the antifa should have shown up with guns? Or are you saying the right is SO dangerous you should expect to be shot if you protest Nazis? What is your point?

Clearly, you are a petty cunt, hence the petty comment. If this was a commentary opinion piece excusing the flamethrower, like that other video, I wouldn't expect any upvotes.

Wow, at 1:11 he pulls his hands in and braces for impact.

He also blocked 2 other cars with the one he pulled out...
If its a Jeep add its really paining Jeep drivers as Jerks.

Trump said he will "repeal Obamacare and replace it with something amazing".

These people bought into that. The average sifter (myself included) did not.

However, as someone who wants to see health care improve in the US, I think that a Trump presidency is likely to lead to things getting better (long term). Even if he massively screws up. Actually, sorta especially if he massively screws up.

These people had deductibles in the multiple thousands of dollars range. With a median family income of $16k per year. According to CNN, the premium for the standard package will be $296 per month on average. So for the people in the video, they'd pay about 20-25% of their yearly income on premiums, with another 12-15% out of pocket before they hit their deductible for any needed care. Sure, some insurance is better than no insurance, but these people have been living dangerously with no insurance for a LONG time. Thirty plus percent of your yearly wages vs rolling the dice? A bunch are gonna roll the dice.

So, option A -- a miracle occurs, and Trump actually follows through and replaces Obamacare with something that actually is better. My money isn't on this one, but if he pulls it off more power to him.

Option B -- the people in the video are right, and Trump and the GOP will lose interest in actually repealing the ACA when they realize that they are going to have a hard time actually making something better. I don't think this one is likely either, because I don't think they really give a shit. But you never know. This one would represent a slow stagnation and likely eventual death for the ACA (without any intervention in 2018 or 2020) as more and more people decide to roll the dice and go back to living uninsured.

Option C -- whatever "plan" Trump and the Republican Congress come up for to "replace" the ACA with is a trainwreck. The people in the video that did benefit from the ACA get screwed, at least short term. But the thing is ... "fool me once". Some of them would be pissed, and wouldn't forget. Some would blame Trump and the GOP. Some would remember Trump's answer to Kathy in the video -- that the ACA isn't perfect, but it could be improved. But that her Senator (a Republican) isn't talking about doing that, he's talking about dumping it.

Maybe a bunch of people get fooled again, and eat up whatever excuses Trump, the GOP, and Fox News feed them. But some will remember. And it doesn't take a whole lot to shift the balance of power -- popular vote totals are often just a few percentage points apart. I think it will be extremely hard for the GOP to avoid a major shakeup in midterms and/or 2020.

Great save. My heart sunk when the plane went off the carrier. So happy he pulled up.

I said it's "over in all but name".

Look, I completely back you for voting Bernie in the primary, and I hope to jebus he pulls it off, but I just don't think it'll happen.

If he pulls out a trebuchet then I really need to meet that guy's tailor. Otherwise, that's the happiest, friendliest looking fuzzy death machine I have ever seen.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. That first snap he takes didn't look like a play bite at all. It's funny that he pulls the cover back and all but it seems to me like he was looking to draw blood when he snaps at the woman's hand.

Sheesh. Well, I hope he pulls through because he's going to have a lot of Facebook followers after this...

The funny thing is that you can see the wind from the passing bikers just blows the mace right back at him. You can see the cloud never makes it more than 2-3' away then blows back at him and the truck he pulled over. Not only is he an asshole, but he's an idiot too.