All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Mister Mets]

I'm no expert on this, and I haven't done any research on it yet, but I was thinking that, if possible, it might be a good thing to give the Native Americans a status that allows each recognize tribe living on their own land, a right to hold their own elections.

I mean, instead of being bound to vote based on whatever State rules they are surrounded by, they can be truly independent as far as running their elections.

i remember reading about how difficult some states were making it for Native Americans to vote. So, why not simply allow the Native Americans to run their own elections, much like Puerto Rico does only more so.

People with Puerto Rican heritage who live outside Puerto Rico are able to vote in the elections of their residence.

The policy you're suggesting would mean that Native Americans (presumably those living on reservations) would have a more autonomous government, but be unable to vote in congressional elections. That would be relevant in some swing states.

4.5% of Arizona's population is Native American.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...ona-population

I suspect many Republicans will be on board with a new system in which many of those Native Americans are unable to vote for President or Senator.

[mogwen]

Oh, that’s hilarious! I’m betting it was suggested that Trump tell his lemmings to get vaccinated since his base were literally dying off, still, I’m sure Trump never envisioned getting booed. But yeah, just like Dr. Frankenstein, it looks like he can no longer control the monster he himself created.

For someone like Trump who craves the adoration of the crowds (like the narcissist monster he is) that must be a real traumatic experience, good! I don't know how he will react to this and I'm afraid that he will double on anti-vax rethorics endangering more people in the process. He's even able to go full QAnon rethorics. He's now unfortunately bound to pander to his most extremist base which should scare people.

[Tami]

People with Puerto Rican heritage who live outside Puerto Rico are able to vote in the elections of their residence.

The policy you're suggesting would mean that Native Americans (presumably those living on reservations) would have a more autonomous government, but be unable to vote in congressional elections. That would be relevant in some swing states.

4.5% of Arizona's population is Native American.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/st...ona-population

I suspect many Republicans will be on board with a new system in which many of those Native Americans are unable to vote for President or Senator.

I hadn't considered the issue of Congressional Elections. I don't see why they could have their own House Representatives. Actually, simply allowing them to run their own elections might not preclude them from voting for a State Senator. Still, I can see that as being tricky. They should still be allowed to vote fro President.

So, as far as Presidential elections and elections for Representatives to the House are concerned, I think my idea could still work. State Senators might be a sticking point.

It could be that they would have the right to elect their own Senators as well. Perhaps they could be given a form of Statehood.

[Tami]

Covid killed her husband. Now it’s taking the only home her kids have ever known.

OZARK, Mo. — Lisa Grim braced herself as she turned the key to her family’s new apartment.

It had taken more than a month to find a landlord willing to accept her — a newly widowed 33-year-old raising two kids, barely making $20,000 a year. None of the other 20 apartments had returned her calls and emails. This unit, which she had rented sight unseen, was the only one that approved her application.

“I’m not expecting anything fancy. As long as it’s clean and doesn’t smell,” she said as she opened the door on the first day of July, trailed by her 10-year-old son, Ralphie. She’d left her 4-year-old, Walker, crying that morning at the new day care he hated.

Nine months had passed since her husband Alan, 37, died of covid-19 in a rural Missouri ICU once again filling with coronavirus patients. Nine months since Lisa realized that without Alan’s salary, they could no longer afford their mortgage, forcing her to put the family’s house on the market and move to this apartment an hour away from everything her boys had known.

“Oh yay, it doesn’t stink,” Lisa declared as she walked into the living room. “It’s not bad, not horrible at all.”

Ralphie trudged in behind her and frowned. “It’s smaller than our old house,” he said.

He’d cried and yelled at her when she told him that they had to sell their modest, three-bedroom ranch home.

“It’s the only house I’ve ever lived in,” Ralphie argued. “It’s the house Daddy lived in.”

[Kevinroc]

Oh, that’s hilarious! I’m betting it was suggested that Trump tell his lemmings to get vaccinated since his base were literally dying off, still, I’m sure Trump never envisioned getting booed. But yeah, just like Dr. Frankenstein, it looks like he can no longer control the monster he himself created.

I had the exact same thought, lol.

[Tami]

Racehorse that ran down a Kentucky highway is being treated for burns from a barn fire

It turns out that the 30-minute run a two-year-old filly took Saturday on a Kentucky highway after shedding her jockey and bolting from a racetrack wasn’t the horse’s only terrifying experience of the weekend.

Recovering from the trauma of a run that made national news and left her dehydrated and with minor cuts, Bold and Bossy was staying overnight in an Ellis Park receiving barn when it caught fire early Sunday morning. An “unknown hero” saved her and six other horses, according to Bold and Bossy’s owner, Michael Ann Ewing.

The horse sustained burns on her neck and withers, Ewing said. By 10 a.m. Sunday, Bold and Bossy was in the care of the Rood & Riddle Equine Hospital in Lexington, not far from where Ewing trains her 20 or so horses.

Kelsey Wallace, a trainer with Ewing, had made a three-hour trip with the filly to Ellis Park in Henderson, Ky., for the horse’s first race, during which she threw off jockey Miguel Mena. She ran over a levee and headed for U.S. 41, briefly running alongside autos on Interstate 69 and Veterans Memorial Parkway, as trainers, along with police and the sheriff’s department, gave chase.

“The racing community is so great,” Ewing said. “The staff, trainers and assistants — people I didn’t even know — jumped in their trucks or golf carts and there was a massive search for her as soon as she went running.”

Wearing blinkers, Ewing said, the horse could see only straight ahead and just kept going, finally tiring after about 30 minutes when “all the muscles in her body just tucked up” in cramps from dehydration, a painful and dangerous development for a horse and one that makes it difficult to move. Luckily, a veterinarian was in pursuit, along with the equine ambulance. She was immediately sedated and given fluids.

“Just by the grace of God, she was not hit,” Ewing said. “Thank God she was not hurt or caused someone else to be severely injured or killed.”

That led to the decision by Ewing and Wallace to keep Bossy, as Ewing calls her, overnight in the receiving barn, calming her and treating her as she received 30 liters of fluid before taking her back to Ewing’s facility.

“Kelsey was unprepared to stay overnight, but she said she thought it would be better to keep Bossy there to settle her overnight before giving her more meds and taking her back,” Ewing said. “She sat with her until later in the evening and they checked on her again and again before she finally went to her hotel room. Then she calls me at 5 a.m. to say the receiving barn had burned down.”

Maybe this horse should be renamed "Close Call".

[Mister Mets]

I hadn't considered the issue of Congressional Elections. I don't see why they could have their own House Representatives. Actually, simply allowing them to run their own elections might not preclude them from voting for a State Senator. Still, I can see that as being tricky. They should still be allowed to vote fro President.

So, as far as Presidential elections and elections for Representatives to the House are concerned, I think my idea could still work. State Senators might be a sticking point.

It could be that they would have the right to elect their own Senators as well. Perhaps they could be given a form of Statehood.

This has come up before.

The Cherokee Nation asked to send a delegate to Congress, because this was allowed by the 1835 Treaty of New Echota, ratified by Congress in March 1836.

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/03/75604...te-to-congress

The main argument was that the treaty was voided by the voting rights for Native Americans, which granted them the same level of representation as other American citizens.

There would be logistical hurdles, in terms of figuring out who qualifies as a voter, as well as serious legal questions.

[Tami]

This has come up before.

The Cherokee Nation asked to send a delegate to Congress, because this was allowed by the 1835 Treaty of New Echota, ratified by Congress in March 1836.

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/03/75604...te-to-congress

The main argument was that the treaty was voided by the voting rights for Native Americans, which granted them the same level of representation as other American citizens.

There would be logistical hurdles, in terms of figuring out who qualifies as a voter, as well as serious legal questions.

I agree it would be complicated. To be honest, my original idea is simpler. Have them vote in state and federal elections like everyone else, only, allow them to set up and control the means by which the voting is done on their own reservations. Those votes could be added to the votes of the state in which they reside, much like adding the votes of a county, city, or district.

Maybe I went a little overboard, but in most states each county has some level of control over elections. Perhaps just designate, for the purpose of elections, that a reservation is equivalent to a county.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Covid killed her husband. Now it’s taking the only home her kids have ever known.

No doubt horror stories like that are happening from coast to coast.

[skyvolt2000]

There are also major learning losses with distance learning systems so it should be avoided to the extent possible.

I keep hearing this said by folks.

I honest HATE to be the one to say it-most of those kids (and parents) DO NOT CARE about learning.

You know how many kids with their parents I saw at various places during school hours?

If there is so much learning lost-why are online schools prospering? This was before the pandemic. It's the same thing.

And I will point out one of the struggles with distance learning was teachers pulling DOUBLE duty.

You had teachers teaching in person and online. As SILLY as that sounds-schools were not having one set of teacher do online and the other do in-person. Teachers were doing BOTH and now that teacher shortage has gotten WORST.

[Mister Mets]

I agree it would be complicated. To be honest, my original idea is simpler. Have them vote in state and federal elections like everyone else, only, allow them to set up and control the means by which the voting is done on their own reservations. Those votes could be added to the votes of the state in which they reside, much like adding the votes of a county, city, or district.

Maybe I went a little overboard, but in most states each county has some level of control over elections. Perhaps just designate, for the purpose of elections, that a reservation is equivalent to a county.

You could probably have something like this. It's basically how voting is done in a private organization. For example, someone's vote in union elections does not affect their ability to vote in federal elections.

[Tendrin]

The way you commented on it suggested that my only evidence was the Substack article, when that wasn't the case. You wrote "versus what some guy on substack who's not even a doctor says." Schools don't need masks because some guy on Substack has CHARTS." and "which your substack article never even mentions once" while completely neglecting the source that you found to be more credible.

That's not a mistake. That's me pointing out you using substandard, biased evidence yourself that doesn't come from an epidemiologist or doctor (in either case!), that doesn't take into account the delta variant's increased transmission risk, higher likelyhood of infecting children, and beginning with an anti-mask position from a guy who started from not wanting kids to wear masks in schools. Your primary goal here is portraying the demand for masks as both partisan and an overreaction and that GOP Govenrors, in their red states where more people are dying of covid, lest we forget that point, have 'reason to doubt' the effectiveness of masks and are thus being 'perfectly reasonable' in denouncing them.

Your anecdotal evidence wasn't even about someone catching Covid because of their kid's school's mask policy.

My anecdotal evidence is about kids catching covid in proximity to other kids, something you assured me that the chance was 'low' of and passing it onto their adult caregivers who can then pass it on to others. If you think that this is only going to happen in my house, and not in schools which are *well frigging known for being petri dishes even before pandemic*, I don't think you understand disease and are just more interested in protecting a Republican governor from criticism than you are in public health and sound logic, no matter what you pretend or how many studies starting from an anti-mask position you're working with to start.

The problem with the Duke study is that it doesn't look at the effectiveness of masks in schools in isolation, which is the general way to demonstrate that a policy is effective.

We have a lot of studies on the effectiveness of masks in general. Obviously, not all things are equal with children, and we know that with the alpha strain that other mitigation strategies can reduce the risks substantially. However, not all schools are built equally, especially in the USA which is replete with substandard, decrepit buildings, charter schools that don't follow guidelines for public school buildings, and underfunded schools with larger classes sizes and so masks remain the last line of defense, and there is evidence, however imperfect, that mask use reduces transmission in children. The reality is that any mitigation strategy we adopt succesfully will help end the pandemic, and mask mandates are one such strategy we know works. One doesn't need to look further than the states which have maintained mandates and the ones who haven't. The stark reality is the number of people dying in red states, but hey, as long as we can own the libs, right?

For now, students and staff in Union County public schools won’t be required to wear face coverings, despite a growing body of research showing strict mask policies not only help protect children from COVID-19 but also limit interruptions to the school year by reducing the need for proactive quarantine measures.

The largest reported coronavirus school or daycare outbreak in North Carolina is currently in Union County, in a charter school where leaders reversed their earlier decision to leave masks optional after a cluster of cases grew to more than 100.

District leaders have suggested the Union County school board adopt a mask mandate and local health officials published data recently showing stark increases in the county’s positivity rate, number of COVID-19 cases and the number of people hospitalized due to the virus.

It REMAINS UNCERTAIN.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/ne...253611418.html

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/...e1.htm#T1_down

Frankly, when your audience that is cheering you is right-wing cranks who think masks-use has 'consequences' and isn't concerned about covid, this isn't really about public health, it's about 'don't tell me what to do!', the same petulant reaction that has been prolonging the pandemic from the word go.

[thwhtGuardian]

The way you commented on it suggested that my only evidence was the Substack article, when that wasn't the case. You wrote "versus what some guy on substack who's not even a doctor says." Schools don't need masks because some guy on Substack has CHARTS." and "which your substack article never even mentions once" while completely neglecting the source that you found to be more credible.

Your anecdotal evidence wasn't even about someone catching Covid because of their kid's school's mask policy.

The problem with the Duke study is that it doesn't look at the effectiveness of masks in schools in isolation, which is the general way to demonstrate that a policy is effective.

It was covered in both of the links. In the New York magazine article, they wrote...



When David Zweig, writer of the New York piece, asked some questions about their evidence on masks, which was obviously relevant for his article, they stopped responding to him.

It's not surprising that they stopped responding, when you realize the other party is a nutjob pushing an agenda you're only giving them and their misinformed opinion a sense of legitimacy by engaging with them so it's not in your (or the public's) interest to engage.

Not believing in masks helping stop the spread is just silly at this point.

[Mister Mets]

That's not a mistake. That's me pointing out you using substandard, biased evidence yourself that doesn't come from an epidemiologist or doctor (in either case!), that doesn't take into account the delta variant's increased transmission risk, higher likelyhood of infecting children, and beginning with an anti-mask position from a guy who started from not wanting kids to wear masks in schools. Your primary goal here is portraying the demand for masks as both partisan and an overreaction and that GOP Govenrors, in their red states where more people are dying of covid, lest we forget that point, have 'reason to doubt' the effectiveness of masks and are thus being 'perfectly reasonable' in denouncing them.

First, I identified the substack guy as a data visualization writer. That is his specialty. His work doesn't take into account the delta variant, because it is an overview of the research, much of which predates the Delta variant. It's also worth noting that if someone was wrong about specific factual claims before the Delta variant, it doesn't make them right later. If they're on the right side of an issue, it's going to be by accident.

It is misleading to summarize anything posted here as "Schools don't need masks because some guy on Substack has CHARTS" as that wasn't the main argument being made. I thought a post was better with more links than less. I'll still maintain that the Substack link is okay, but I don't think this is an argumentative approach anyone would want embraced. It would be very easy to dismiss an argument by focusing exclusively on the weakest point anyone has made. For example, an antivaxxer dismissing an imperfect argument for vaccines would be able to just keep mentioning that again and again, ignoring everything else.

It's also flawed to blast articles as being written by people who are not epidemiologists or doctors. Some doctors are great communicators, but sometimes others are better at digging through data and communicating it to a general audience. This gets to be an easy way to dismiss most journalism. And it's also not really relevant to an analysis of data on a specific question.

If an epidemiologist has something to say, that could be valuable. I would also make an educated guess that if there were a credible study showing that masks in schools are effective, you wouldn't dismiss an article about it because the writer didn't go to Med School.

Many people believe that it's perfectly fine to ignore what others have to say because they may have some partisan goal. This seems problematic since you're not actually dealing with someone's argument, but looking at your impression of them, which in some cases is going to be wrong. It also invites people on the other side to respond the same way. Personally, I think the solution is to focus on the argument. Character is relevant if you can point to an inconsistency, but a douchebag may be right on occasion. If you're inferring something that isn't said, you can ask.

My anecdotal evidence is about kids catching covid in proximity to other kids, something you assured me that the chance was 'low' of and passing it onto their adult caregivers who can then pass it on to others. If you think that this is only going to happen in my house, and not in schools which are *well frigging known for being petri dishes even before pandemic*, I don't think you understand disease and are just more interested in protecting a Republican governor from criticism than you are in public health and sound logic, no matter what you pretend or how many studies starting from an anti-mask position you're working with to start.

Things that have low chances of occurring still occur, though I try to be more careful than to say something like "kids catching covid is rare." The main question I've been looking at is is whether it makes a significant difference to mandate masks in schools.

I'll be clear that I think kids are going to get covid, and they're going to spread it to adults, who will spread it to other adults. The questions are how often this happens, what policy decisions would make an appreciable difference, and what the tradeoffs are.

Regarding my motives, I support masks for adults. I've generally been open about that. I think some people have gone too far, insisting on masks for people outside in places where they don't interact with others, but that's as far as that goes.

Regarding DeSantis, there's a bit of a Catch-22. If there's an argument against him that's weak, it's likely to be covered by his ideological allies which increases the chances that people come across his side of it. And if people think that a politician is criticized while in the right, that's likely to encourage support. It is possible that he's right about mask mandates, and wrong about other stuff.

It's also really easy to make this point in any argument on any contentious issue. "You're interested in protecting a Democratic mayor from criticism" is hard to prove or disprove and ignores the merits of the criticism.

We have a lot of studies on the effectiveness of masks in general. Obviously, not all things are equal with children, and we know that with the alpha strain that other mitigation strategies can reduce the risks substantially. However, not all schools are built equally, especially in the USA which is replete with substandard, decrepit buildings, charter schools that don't follow guidelines for public school buildings, and underfunded schools with larger classes sizes and so masks remain the last line of defense, and there is evidence, however imperfect, that mask use reduces transmission in children. The reality is that any mitigation strategy we adopt succesfully will help end the pandemic, and mask mandates are one such strategy we know works. One doesn't need to look further than the states which have maintained mandates and the ones who haven't. The stark reality is the number of people dying in red states, but hey, as long as we can own the libs, right?

We do have some data comparing places where most things are similar but the one difference is that masks are mandated in schools. And we can see whether it makes a difference.

One subtext here is that there are two ways to deal with the pandemic: Team Blue and Team Red. So it's important to pick the side, and then defend the side. Personally, this seems dishonest. Team Blue can be right on some stuff, and wrong on others. We should discuss everything openly.

It REMAINS UNCERTAIN.

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/ne...253611418.html

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/...e1.htm#T1_down

Frankly, when your audience that is cheering you is right-wing cranks who think masks-use has 'consequences' and isn't concerned about covid, this isn't really about public health, it's about 'don't tell me what to do!', the same petulant reaction that has been prolonging the pandemic from the word go.

Cranks will use the truth just as easily as they use lies.

The important thing isn't the audience, but whether the information is true.

As for the point about it remaining uncertain, I haven't said otherwise. What policies should have we have in place based on the uncertainty? And how should this be communicated to the public?

[Mister Mets]

It's not surprising that they stopped responding, when you realize the other party is a nutjob pushing an agenda you're only giving them and their misinformed opinion a sense of legitimacy by engaging with them so it's not in your (or the public's) interest to engage.

Not believing in masks helping stop the spread is just silly at this point.

David Zweig appears to be a journalist in good standing.

What made his questions misinformed, or indications of a nutjob pushing an agenda?

It seems to be a legitimate question to ask about the evidence regarding a controversial policy. One can believe that masks help stop the spread, but that it's not effective in a particular case.

I keep hearing this said by folks.

I honest HATE to be the one to say it-most of those kids (and parents) DO NOT CARE about learning.

You know how many kids with their parents I saw at various places during school hours?

If there is so much learning lost-why are online schools prospering? This was before the pandemic. It's the same thing.

And I will point out one of the struggles with distance learning was teachers pulling DOUBLE duty.

You had teachers teaching in person and online. As SILLY as that sounds-schools were not having one set of teacher do online and the other do in-person. Teachers were doing BOTH and now that teacher shortage has gotten WORST.

Over the pandemic, I had to simultaneously work with a small group in-person and the rest of the class online.

There are going to be logistics issues with any new set-up. Schools aren't designed to have redundant teachers, so there will be shortages if there are any serious changes.

As for what you said about people who don't care about learning, if parents don't prioritize education, it is then better for the kids to be in schools.

There are going to be other reasons for learning loss. Some families will have tech issues, especially if there are several children using zoom at the same time. Mandated services (speech therapy, guidance counselors) are also built around in-person schools, and many of the professionals involved just aren't that tech-savvy. It can also be easier to get a hold of a student who is in a classroom that one who has signed up to Zoom. Being in a physical classroom focuses children more than being in the same environment in which they might play video games/ browse TV. Some kids just need to be supervised, and lack the maturity to focus on their education when no one's holding them immediately accountable.