
Open letter from a Texas county judge about his Covid mask order - beervirus
https://kfdm.com/news/local/judge-branick-writes-letter-to-citizens-explaining-mask-order
======
airstrike
> When did it happen that we all became so focused on our rights and not our
> obligations to our fellow man and woman?

When our society abandoned values in favor of individuals simply valuing
themselves. Our world and the incentive and reward systems we have in place
have made us selfish loners.

Roger Scruton argues something similar but from an art / aesthetics
perspective in Why Beauty Matters:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHw4MMEnmpc)

Sadly the only link I can find is with Portuguese subtitles, so hope you don't
mind

------
coding123
The entire point of civil society is to allow people to exist with one
another. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that wearing a yellow shirt in
public instantly kills 5% of the population. I think that anyone would agree
that it would be a good law to make it illegal for someone to wear yellow
shirts. In fact we would probably make it just as illegal as pointing a gun at
someone and shooting them in cold blood. Because, well, that's what you would
be doing wearing a yellow shirt (except even more people would die from the
shirt).

So if society's main goal is to make it so that we can live peacefully amongst
each other. Then by golly we should have the ability to make it illegal to
walk around with a yellow shirt on. In fact it would be so insane to put on a
yellow shirt we should have no fear in telling cops (the ones that survive the
yellow shirt murderer) to arrest, incarcerate for life said person.

Now, I get that society is hard to change. In this so called Yellow Shirt
Means Death world, the meaning and outcome of wearing a yellow shirt has
existed forever. So it would be ingrained in everyone. Yellow shirts = fucking
bad news.

So let's alter this and present a challenge: Yellow shirts didn't start
causing this problem until March of 2020. And to make it even stranger, the
death happens 30 days after being in the presence of a yellow shirt. But still
5% die. And now you have all sorts of wacko people that don't fucking care and
put on yellow shirts anyway.

Some percentage of society has never seen one of these people die, so they
don't believe the yellow shirt causes it. Some of them wearing yellow shirts
may have killed people but the person that died 30 days later so it has no
effect on them. They don't even know they killed someone.

Anyway, if you didn't read between the lines, I'm saying arrest and jail those
that don't wear a mask - because at this point, everyone knows what happens.

~~~
ScottFree
Your premise is flawed. Yellow shirts don't kill people. Not wearing a mask
does not kill people. Letting a TSA officer fondle your groin doesn't save
people's lives. It's all security theater.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

~~~
coding123
We also have a society that requires clothing. And that doesn't even KILL
people. Yet we handcuff -> jail nudists anyway. One major exception is pretty
much 97% of the state of Oregon, where that is 100% legal.

------
Jedd
For many outside of it, even from 'cousin colonies' (I'm in Australia) there
is much about the USA that is simply bewildering.

I can recommend Kurt Andersen's book 'Fantasyland', published around the time
of Trump's ascension, to help you make some small sense of it all.

He writes persuasively, and describes a history full of (perceived)
persecution and exceptionalism-inspiring events that, almost ineluctably, led
them here.

"America was the dreamworld creation of fantasists, some religious and some
out to get rich quick, all with a freakish appetite for the amazing. Beyond
our passionate beliefs in various kinds of magic and destiny, our particular
religious DNA, supercharged, was the source of other defining American habits
of mind as well, such as the craving for the mysterious to be literal, and the
hair-trigger sensitivity to persecution by elites. In addition to being the
first designed-built Protestant nation, America was also the first designed-
built Enlightenment nation. The two fed each other—and sometimes became toxic
in combination."

[0]
[https://www.kurtandersen.com/fantasyland](https://www.kurtandersen.com/fantasyland)

~~~
beervirus
Hell, I voted for Trump and agree with a lot of his policies (if not his
tweets)... and even I find the anti-mask brigade totally baffling.

------
justin212k
Lawyers are good at writing.

~~~
sandworm101
Not all judges are lawyers. Most are, but in the US it is not always a
prerequisite.

------
umvi
Haven't we established that ~1/3 of covid cases are asymptomatic and that
overall mortality rate is likely <1%? If so, why are we continuing the mask
charade?

~~~
rootusrootus
Because when the cost is essentially zero it's okay to be a little overzealous
with our prevention efforts.

And your numbers are still very much up for debate. Some localities are
already above 1% without having infected the entire population.

~~~
umvi
> Because when the cost is essentially zero it's okay to be a little
> overzealous with our prevention efforts.

We can impose all sort of inconveniences on society in the name of saving
lives. Why not just wear masks 24/7/365 since it's "free"? Think of all the
public health issues that would solve.

I for one am sick of having foggy glasses any time I'm inside a store.

~~~
rootusrootus
What is your threshold of acceptable mortality before you will accept nonzero
inconvenience?

~~~
umvi
1% mortality rate is my threshold. Anything less isn't worth halting society
over. To be clear, I think people that are sick should wear masks no matter
what. That's just common courtesy for people around you.

~~~
beervirus
We were talking about masks, not halting society.

------
noobaccount
Historically speaking perceived government overreach is followed by backlash
of some sort. In life, we’re all playing the long game. I question the wisdom
of some of the health orders in the long run.

------
sandworm101
Interesting. There are cases where witnesses have been specifically banned
from using masks to hide themselves. Americans have a right to see the face of
their accuser, and to have the jury see it too. I'm all for covid masks but
let us not allow this to become an excuse for an evil witness to hide thier
face.

~~~
krapp
> Americans have a right to see the face of their accuser, and to have the
> jury see it too.

Americans have the right to _face their accuser in court_ not to literally see
the face of their accuser in its entirety.

If the latter were an actual thing, all plaintiffs would be required to go
into court clean-shaven, so as not to obscure their face with a beard.

~~~
sandworm101
No. I meant literal. This issue come up when a witness wants to appear by
phone. There is a cultural assumption that by looking someone in the eye we
can tell if they are lying. So phone is not good enough. It has to be
phone+video. It has also been an issue where witnesses, mostly women, want to
were veils while on the stand.

This principal hasn't gotten to scotus, but is well recognized.

And procedures for child witnesses appearing outside the courtroom. A speaker
on the stand is not good enough. Someone, at least the lawyers, has to see the
witness. That has gone to a few higher courts.

And special agents who don't want to reveal thier identities.. and and and.
There isn't much new when it comes to witnesses.

~~~
krapp
> There is a cultural assumption that by looking someone in the eye we can
> tell if they are lying. So phone is not good enough. It has to be
> phone+video.

I only had to Google for a minute to find plenty of instances where courts
will allow testimony over the phone (no video) and even by letter, and nowhere
did I see "cultural assumptions" like determining truth by being able to look
into someone's eyes mentioned as relevant.

Show me actual case law to the contrary or I'm calling BS on your claims.

~~~
sandworm101
[https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/telephonic-testimony-
when-...](https://attorneyatlawmagazine.com/telephonic-testimony-when-is-it-
allowed)

Too many little rules and exemptions to cite any one case. Look to the rules
in each jurisdiction.

>> The Tennessee Supreme Court has addressed the reasons why live, in-person
testimony is more desirable than remote testimony. Kelly v. Kelly, 445 SW3d
685 (2014) explains this preference: “(1) It assists the trier of fact in
evaluating the witness’ credibility by allowing his or her demeanor to be
observed firsthand; (2) It helps establish the identity of the witness; (3) It
impresses upon the witness the seriousness of the occasion; (4) It assures
that the witness is not being coerced during testimony; (5) It assures that
the witness is not referring to documents improperly; and (6) _In cases where
required, it provides for the right of confrontation of witnesses._

Note: in SOME cases in-person testimony is REQUIRED. That means in those cases
remote testimony is disallowed.

~~~
krapp
One court considering in person testimony to be _more desirable_ is not in any
way equivalent to a decision that doing otherwise is a violation of anyone's
rights. You haven't proven that a right exists, nor does the article defend
that claim. You've proven that it's an administrative matter that different
jurisdictions handle differently depending on circumstances, but _still
perfectly legal._

Certainly you haven't proven your original assertion that wearing a mask
according to COVID-19 guidelines is a violation of Americans' Sixth Amendment
rights (the "right to face their accuser") because that argument depends on a
blatant misinterpretation of what the wording of that Amendment means.

