Will There Be a 2020 Football Season?

[teachercd]

30 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Your link is about universities and certificates, which I already acknowledged would work remotely. I don't think it will work short or long term for K-8.

It is like talking to a wall, remotely.  

 

Remote learning at the college level is done to make money, it makes sense.  Hire an adjunct, give that person 4,000 dollars to teach a course, load them up with 3 sections of 25 students each...all who are paying 2,000 to take the class.  Boom.  Prof posts an assignment for each week...students belt it out and comment on 3 of their classmates work.  On to the next week.  It is effective because you are in college and you know what you are doing and you tend to have time/privacy 

 

Now, tell a 6 year old to sit in front of zoom for 40 minutes while they learn math...good luck with that!  How about a 12 year old that is online with their class and their 10 year old brother is bugging them non-stop because well...that is what siblings do!

 

Or hey, try and have a serious talk about big issues where people are freezing up (their connection) and others have s#!t sound or get bumped out of the zoom room.

 

Or how about the 16 year old that has to babysit their little bro and sis WHILE trying to do class.

 

Oh yeah, PE works really well over zoom...

 

I don't mind teaching remotely because it made my life easier.  But I don't think it was great for the kids.  

[Guy Chamberlin]

Our school: 

 

100% of the parents want kids back in physical classrooms.

50% of the teachers aren't yet convinced to return

25% of the introverts and bully victims think remote learning is kinda nice

[teachercd]

10 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Our school: 

 

100% of the parents want kids back in physical classrooms.

50% of the teachers aren't yet convinced to return

25% of the introverts and bully victims think remote learning is kinda nice

One of the big first marketing ideas for online schools targeted the kids that hate being at school and were bullied.  That was their pitch.

 

The only parents that really want their kids learning from home...are ones that need the free daycare for their toddlers. 

[Huskers93-97]

2 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

That's why you listen to the medical experts. Masks are the key to this. Want football? Wear a mask. It's almost that simple.

Ok, but the medical experts don’t make the restrictive laws going on. I assume medical experts want everyone to wear masks. I just saw a deal in Oregon if you are white you have to wear a mask- if your anything other than white you don’t have to wear a mask to protect against racial profiling. If it is about being safe then what is that? That’s politics not medicine 

[knapplc]

3 hours ago, Huskers93-97 said:

Ok, but the medical experts don’t make the restrictive laws going on. I assume medical experts want everyone to wear masks. I just saw a deal in Oregon if you are white you have to wear a mask- if your anything other than white you don’t have to wear a mask to protect against racial profiling. If it is about being safe then what is that? That’s politics not medicine 

 

No you didn't. Don't be a goob.

[kalbo]

24 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

No you didn't. Don't be a goob.

I Googled "oregon white must wear masks", guess what...

[southernoregonhusker]

3 hours ago, kalbo said:

I Googled "oregon white must wear masks", guess what...

It's true.  I'm not sure what they are thinking in Lincoln County, but they excluded some from wearing masks due to race.  They've now reversed it, but it did happen.  

[teachercd]

4 hours ago, southernoregonhusker said:

It's true.  I'm not sure what they are thinking in Lincoln County, but they excluded some from wearing masks due to race.  They've now reversed it, but it did happen.  

Ha...get ready!  Here comes a rollercoaster of excuses...

[knapplc]

8 hours ago, kalbo said:

I Googled "oregon white must wear masks", guess what...

 

The hell....

 

Never underestimate the stupidity people will stoop to in order to try to do right.

 

A county with 46,000 people, of whom 90% are White, decided to exempt people of color from their mask policy.

 

Quote

The racial makeup of the county was 90.59% White, 0.30% Black or African American, 3.14% Native American, 0.93% Asian, 0.16% Pacific Islander, 1.66% from other races, and 3.23% from two or more races. 4.76% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race.

 

8 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

No you didn't. Don't be a goob.

 

I'm the goob.  That'll teach me to google first. 

 

 

 

 

[84HuskerLaw]

Not sure what you mean by “freedom” but I hope you are not in some way dismissing freedom (basic civil / human rights) like all that stuff in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, especially that little section called the Bill of Rights.  

There can be a tendency for people to be willing to give up freedom in exchange for security. This is short-sighted and often in the long term ends up with the loss of both.  

Even temporary infringements are unconstitutional and must be protected.  The shutdown orders are unprecedented, extreme, very arbitrary and capricious.   Based on the “police powers” mostly, at most these actions should be minimized (scope, time, etc).  After months and months and very little real evidence as to efficacy as to purpose and application, the tolerance of the people to be subjected to all of this amazes me.   On one hand, it shows the strong community spirit of cooperation with what has been presented as a national health emergency (it is).  On the other hand, it troubles me greatly to see the submissive and almost ignorant reaction by so many to the deprivation of life, liberty and property and inalienable rights.   These are the essence of freedom that is America at its core.  

 

[Cdog923]

32 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

Not sure what you mean by “freedom” but I hope you are not in some way dismissing freedom (basic civil / human rights) like all that stuff in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, especially that little section called the Bill of Rights.  

There can be a tendency for people to be willing to give up freedom in exchange for security. This is short-sighted and often in the long term ends up with the loss of both.  

Even temporary infringements are unconstitutional and must be protected.  The shutdown orders are unprecedented, extreme, very arbitrary and capricious.   Based on the “police powers” mostly, at most these actions should be minimized (scope, time, etc).  After months and months and very little real evidence as to efficacy as to purpose and application, the tolerance of the people to be subjected to all of this amazes me.   On one hand, it shows the strong community spirit of cooperation with what has been presented as a national health emergency (it is).  On the other hand, it troubles me greatly to see the submissive and almost ignorant reaction by so many to the deprivation of life, liberty and property and inalienable rights.   These are the essence of freedom that is America at its core.  

 

 

What does "promote the general welfare" mean to you?

[84HuskerLaw]

Promote the general welfare means what it says.  Basically government ought to serve the public interests within the limits of the Constitution’s prescribed and limited powers.  It is not some kind of all inclusive grant - rather more of a purposeful clause.  

It is not some kind of broad form exception phrase.  imo.  

[Cdog923]

42 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

Promote the general welfare means what it says.  Basically government ought to serve the public interests within the limits of the Constitution’s prescribed and limited powers.  It is not some kind of all inclusive grant - rather more of a purposeful clause.  

It is not some kind of broad form exception phrase.  imo.  

 

So it doesn't include providing protections for society in emergency events?

[Guy Chamberlin]

1 hour ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

Not sure what you mean by “freedom” but I hope you are not in some way dismissing freedom (basic civil / human rights) like all that stuff in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, especially that little section called the Bill of Rights.  

There can be a tendency for people to be willing to give up freedom in exchange for security. This is short-sighted and often in the long term ends up with the loss of both.  

Even temporary infringements are unconstitutional and must be protected.  The shutdown orders are unprecedented, extreme, very arbitrary and capricious.   Based on the “police powers” mostly, at most these actions should be minimized (scope, time, etc).  After months and months and very little real evidence as to efficacy as to purpose and application, the tolerance of the people to be subjected to all of this amazes me.   On one hand, it shows the strong community spirit of cooperation with what has been presented as a national health emergency (it is).  On the other hand, it troubles me greatly to see the submissive and almost ignorant reaction by so many to the deprivation of life, liberty and property and inalienable rights.   These are the essence of freedom that is America at its core.  

 

 

The shutdown orders were, in fact, delayed, inconsistent, and often un-enforced, but they were ultimately effective. Any interpretation of the data shows a clear correlation between quarantine mandates and flattening the curve, just as it shows a correlation between the recent loosening of restrictions and the resurgence of the virus. You can't blame the scientists for knowing this, nor the many levels of government that have to make difficult public health decisions. Not to mention private public health decisions, like playing sports. 

 

And let's face it, the shutdown probably couldn't have happened if Americans didn't see dead bodies being stacked like cordwood in New York, Italy, Spain, and New Orleans. Left to our own "freedoms" and devices, COVID is definitely capable of a nightmare scenario. When thousands are dying or in ICU and healthcare is overwhelmed, the economy tanks, too. Countries whose governments handled this much better than the U.S. will emerge to do free enterprise business and play sports sooner than we will.

 

I think we forget this is going on in virtually every country in the world. The temptation is to make this an American ideological battle, but governments as diverse as Japan, France, Iran, India, South Korea, Belgium, Germany, etc, all recognized the coronavirus as an unprecedented threat and virtually every country enacted governmental restrictions -- some far more strict than the U.S.  They did not doubt the science then, and nothing has happened to suggest the scientists were inherently wrong --- merely that there's still a lot to learn.  

 

There's a ton of leeway in how each of us assesses our risk factor, and I don't know anyone who doesn't want to get their freedoms back and the economy on track. People who stay home as much as possible and wear masks everywhere in public aren't being submissive to the government, they're listening to the experts and exercising their own abundance of caution. People who pointedly refuse to wear masks in public and refuse to social distance on principle aren't fighting for personal freedom, they're just being dicks. Most of us are somewhere in between. 

 

If we have to choose between the America that sacrifices together for the common good, or the America that lets public health be determined by our fearless individualists, I'm probably going to go with the former.

[WY4Skers']

17 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

 

So it doesn't include providing protections for society in emergency events?

Longtime lurker here, sad to say first post is vastly unrelated to football. "Promote the general welfare" has no substantive value in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution per the Supreme Court ("SCOTUS").

 

The other reference to general welfare is located in Congresses' Spending power somewhere in article I. It qualifies Congresses power to spend and tax. From my limited understanding, it's unrelated to a catch all phrase that encompasses emergency situations. For that, possibly see Congresses "Commerce clause." or the President's emergency powers in article II. The real debate to "providing for the general welfare" relates to the Hamilton view vs. Madisonian view. Hamilton has won out in the longterm as the SCOTUS has interpreted Congresses' ability to tax is not confined to their enumerated powers. They have the ability to tax and spend if it relates "to the general welfare" with a few caveats. 

 

Now, hopefully back to some football. Best wishes all.