Okay, I'm only on my first cuppa joe, so forgive me. Why are people stocking up on toilet paper? Is it just a stocking up thing or does this virus give you an ungodly case of the poops?
My guess is that as more and more people get the virus and/or are put under quarantine people will not be able to or want to go out to the store(s). There is also the risk that the manufacturing could temporarily stop if people fall ill or shipments may be delayed. And as more people stock up others will follow along so as to not be without.
I don't get it either. As far as I know, cheap-ass paper is one of the few products that you can get that is overwhelmingly domestically produced. Someone let me know if that's wrong.
Why aren't we running shitless at the thought of influenza?
The difference is that more of us - a larger percentage of the population - will probably get this bug, since we won't have a vaccine within this first year. I haven't had the flu in over ten years, because I always get vaccinated. As an otherwise healthy old with asthma, it knocks me off my feet for real (but probably would not kill me yet).
I am encouraged that it seems to be attacking olds but not the youngs - I'd rather go a little early than see the grandkids off. People will grieve but society will carry on without 10% or so of the old folks. If we all get our flu shots there will be more medical resources freed up for COVID19 patients.
Of course we'd be better off with a sane and decent president.
Mind you, in the video he wipes his nose with his left hand and shakes with his right hand. But (later, not in this video) he reportedly clapped his fellow stooges on the back. If Trump then claps those same stooges on the back and then grabs Ivanka's ass, you can see how quickly the disease could spread though the White House.
I'm also a little confused about why we are supposed to stock up on water. Does the coronavirus cause people to go mad and burn down water treatment plants? Or are we expecting an earthquake too and I missed that?
The satisfying smugness of being able to say "I told you so" often gets overwhelmed by the need to deal with the shit consequences of other people's bad decisions.
Schools that receive federal support over and above their normal state/local support can qualify for that federal support in two different ways, but one is by proving a certain amount of poverty in their districts. The overall program is called REAP (Rural Education Achievement Program).
Of the two halves that could be affected, DeVos announced changes to the RLIS sub-program of REAP. The statutory language creating the program and specifying eligibility is clear that to qualify schools must have twenty percent or more of the children ages 5 through 17 years served by the LEA belonging to families with incomes below poverty.
What DeVos has done is change without warning what evidence is necessary to prove that 20% of students are below poverty level. Individual students may qualify for the free & reduced lunch program ("reduced" here means "reduced in price" the program is good, it's not a monstrous way to give only 50% of nutrition to poor kids). In the past, if the school district had enough kids on the program, that was used as a proxy for RLIS qualification. As I understand it, pretty much every school district has been using these data for RLIS eligibility for a little over 20 years.
There is, however, also a US Census estimate of poverty in an area. This estimate can differ from the use of the free & reduced lunch program for various reasons. But even more importantly, the school districts just aren't ready to use the new data. They don't know where to get it. They don't know how or why data from the two different sources would differ (if they differ) so they don't know how or when to appeal a negative finding of eligibility.
DeVos claims to have not changed the program, just updated the data used to determine eligibility. She claims that this is because the statute demands that F/RLP data not be used and that she is fixing a 20+ year oversight by the Department of Education. She claims that this isn't a policy that requires public comment before implementation, since she's only going back to the statute.
I haven't found the specific bit of statute yet to see whether Census bureau data is really required, but I doubt it is or the DoE would have never used FRLP data. What I'm expecting to find is that the legislation specifies data "such as that collected by the Census Bureau" or "data included in Census Bureau report XXX, or equivalent data".
This kind of suggested-but-fuzzy language occurs in legislation all the time, because even if Congress has a good, firm idea of what data they want to use, the CB or other referenced agency might change its reports at any time, and they don't want the DoE to stop functioning because some other bureau or department made internal changes. Affected agencies are supposed to use good faith when substituting one criterion not mentioned in the statute for another that was mentioned in the statute, but the statute will typically have room for such substitution.
So I'm guessing that DoE a long time ago took advantage of a fuzzy area in the law to accept FRLP data even though FRLP data does not come directly from the Census Bureau (which might be stretching Congressional latitude, but I'll have to find the statutory provision to make sure). Why? I have no idea, but it might simply have been because 1) it's as fair as any other way of determining which kids in the district are living in poverty, and 2) the schools by definition are the ones that have to know which kids are on the FRLP, so this is data the they already have and know how to use, which makes the process less daunting and more frustrating and probably even more accurate.
This has since become the standard way of determining eligibility for RLIS and the sudden, unannounced switched to another procedure is leaving schools unprepared to prove that they do, in fact, serve kids in poverty. After all the dust settles, we won't have fewer kids in poverty because the rules changed at DoE. But we will have fewer school districts get money over the next year because our poorest, least supported schools aren't experts in Census Bureau data, don't keep it on hand, and don't even have ongoing working relationships with CB personnel that can get them the specific data that they need in time to apply for this year's grant cycle.
In short, DeVos is using legislative language that (probably -I'm still looking for the exact place in statute) suggests specific data but allows for equivalent to announce that only the specific, suggested data is acceptable, and to make that announcement suddenly at a time of year when schools with few resources are least able to get themselves up to speed (or hire outside experts) in order to get their grant applications in on time. This will result in (and DeVos knows or should know this will result in) a number of our poorest schools serving many poor kids failing to get money they desperately need to educate those kids. From everything we can observe, it appears that depriving those schools and those kids of education dollars is the point of changing the qualification requirements in this specific way at this particular time of year. In other words, the cruelty is the point.
Well, it's worse than I thought. I found the bit of statute at 20 U.S. Code § 7351.
There is no requirement to use Census Bureau data or even a suggested source for data in this section. The entire relevant bit in this section is as follows (from Paragraph B):
(1) Eligibility. A local educational agency shall be eligible to receive a grant under this subpart if—(A)(i) 20 percent or more of the children ages 5 through 17 years served by the local educational agency are from families with incomes below the poverty line; and(ii) all of the schools served by the agency are designated with a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, as determined by the Secretary; or(B) the agency meets the criteria established in clause (i) of subparagraph (A) and the Secretary, in accordance with paragraph (2), grants the local educational agency’s request to waive the criteria described in clause (ii) of such subparagraph.
This does not mean that there is no such requirement or suggestion. It's just not here with the specific program description. I'm going to look a couple of other places where they might define specific terms for subsequent sections, that sort of thing. The USCode is huge, so even if I don't find it doesn't mean it isn't there, but since I haven't seen anything referenced in the news stories and since there's nothing specific to this program, the odds are getting higher that DeVos just made this shit up entirely.
ETA: And now I've combed through all of Title 20 Chapter 70 for potentially relevant definitions and constraints upon statutory construction. There really isn't anything here that even suggests that the Census Bureau is the place where schools should look first for poverty data, much less the only place or place of final authority. Hell, I even went through Title 20 Chapter 48 (the legislation that creates the DoE itself) to see if it had definitions or requirements of construction that would apply to chapter 70. Nope. I also did a quick scan of all the chapters in Title 20 to see if any of them were about definitions or construction that might apply throughout Title 20. Nope.
Honestly, though I still can't say for certain, in my opinion this is looking 98% likely that DeVos just pulled this out of her ass with no basis whatsoever.
He'd demand to be Saruman
Okay, I'm only on my first cuppa joe, so forgive me. Why are people stocking up on toilet paper? Is it just a stocking up thing or does this virus give you an ungodly case of the poops?
He takes that pose when someone is trying to give him actual, truthful information.
Gawd, what a complete asshole.
My guess is that as more and more people get the virus and/or are put under quarantine people will not be able to or want to go out to the store(s). There is also the risk that the manufacturing could temporarily stop if people fall ill or shipments may be delayed. And as more people stock up others will follow along so as to not be without.
I don't get it either. As far as I know, cheap-ass paper is one of the few products that you can get that is overwhelmingly domestically produced. Someone let me know if that's wrong.
Why aren't we running shitless at the thought of influenza?
The difference is that more of us - a larger percentage of the population - will probably get this bug, since we won't have a vaccine within this first year. I haven't had the flu in over ten years, because I always get vaccinated. As an otherwise healthy old with asthma, it knocks me off my feet for real (but probably would not kill me yet).
I am encouraged that it seems to be attacking olds but not the youngs - I'd rather go a little early than see the grandkids off. People will grieve but society will carry on without 10% or so of the old folks. If we all get our flu shots there will be more medical resources freed up for COVID19 patients.
Of course we'd be better off with a sane and decent president.
Pence has a miserable record dealing with AIDS in his home state. And bad as that is, he may have mutated into:
Mike Pence, DISEASE VECTOR!
https://www.youtube.com/wat...
https://www.rawstory.com/20...
Mind you, in the video he wipes his nose with his left hand and shakes with his right hand. But (later, not in this video) he reportedly clapped his fellow stooges on the back. If Trump then claps those same stooges on the back and then grabs Ivanka's ass, you can see how quickly the disease could spread though the White House.
Because of course he is.
I'm also a little confused about why we are supposed to stock up on water. Does the coronavirus cause people to go mad and burn down water treatment plants? Or are we expecting an earthquake too and I missed that?
An EXPENSIVE course of treatment (thanks Gilead and Merck), but a treatment nonetheless.
"I feel like Cassandra."
The satisfying smugness of being able to say "I told you so" often gets overwhelmed by the need to deal with the shit consequences of other people's bad decisions.
Try being a chronic pain patient.
Schools that receive federal support over and above their normal state/local support can qualify for that federal support in two different ways, but one is by proving a certain amount of poverty in their districts. The overall program is called REAP (Rural Education Achievement Program).
Of the two halves that could be affected, DeVos announced changes to the RLIS sub-program of REAP. The statutory language creating the program and specifying eligibility is clear that to qualify schools must have twenty percent or more of the children ages 5 through 17 years served by the LEA belonging to families with incomes below poverty.
What DeVos has done is change without warning what evidence is necessary to prove that 20% of students are below poverty level. Individual students may qualify for the free & reduced lunch program ("reduced" here means "reduced in price" the program is good, it's not a monstrous way to give only 50% of nutrition to poor kids). In the past, if the school district had enough kids on the program, that was used as a proxy for RLIS qualification. As I understand it, pretty much every school district has been using these data for RLIS eligibility for a little over 20 years.
There is, however, also a US Census estimate of poverty in an area. This estimate can differ from the use of the free & reduced lunch program for various reasons. But even more importantly, the school districts just aren't ready to use the new data. They don't know where to get it. They don't know how or why data from the two different sources would differ (if they differ) so they don't know how or when to appeal a negative finding of eligibility.
DeVos claims to have not changed the program, just updated the data used to determine eligibility. She claims that this is because the statute demands that F/RLP data not be used and that she is fixing a 20+ year oversight by the Department of Education. She claims that this isn't a policy that requires public comment before implementation, since she's only going back to the statute.
I haven't found the specific bit of statute yet to see whether Census bureau data is really required, but I doubt it is or the DoE would have never used FRLP data. What I'm expecting to find is that the legislation specifies data "such as that collected by the Census Bureau" or "data included in Census Bureau report XXX, or equivalent data".
This kind of suggested-but-fuzzy language occurs in legislation all the time, because even if Congress has a good, firm idea of what data they want to use, the CB or other referenced agency might change its reports at any time, and they don't want the DoE to stop functioning because some other bureau or department made internal changes. Affected agencies are supposed to use good faith when substituting one criterion not mentioned in the statute for another that was mentioned in the statute, but the statute will typically have room for such substitution.
So I'm guessing that DoE a long time ago took advantage of a fuzzy area in the law to accept FRLP data even though FRLP data does not come directly from the Census Bureau (which might be stretching Congressional latitude, but I'll have to find the statutory provision to make sure). Why? I have no idea, but it might simply have been because 1) it's as fair as any other way of determining which kids in the district are living in poverty, and 2) the schools by definition are the ones that have to know which kids are on the FRLP, so this is data the they already have and know how to use, which makes the process less daunting and more frustrating and probably even more accurate.
This has since become the standard way of determining eligibility for RLIS and the sudden, unannounced switched to another procedure is leaving schools unprepared to prove that they do, in fact, serve kids in poverty. After all the dust settles, we won't have fewer kids in poverty because the rules changed at DoE. But we will have fewer school districts get money over the next year because our poorest, least supported schools aren't experts in Census Bureau data, don't keep it on hand, and don't even have ongoing working relationships with CB personnel that can get them the specific data that they need in time to apply for this year's grant cycle.
In short, DeVos is using legislative language that (probably -I'm still looking for the exact place in statute) suggests specific data but allows for equivalent to announce that only the specific, suggested data is acceptable, and to make that announcement suddenly at a time of year when schools with few resources are least able to get themselves up to speed (or hire outside experts) in order to get their grant applications in on time. This will result in (and DeVos knows or should know this will result in) a number of our poorest schools serving many poor kids failing to get money they desperately need to educate those kids. From everything we can observe, it appears that depriving those schools and those kids of education dollars is the point of changing the qualification requirements in this specific way at this particular time of year. In other words, the cruelty is the point.
I have a Brita, a bidet seat and I subscribe to two newspapers in print. I don't need no Costco run.
Well, it's worse than I thought. I found the bit of statute at 20 U.S. Code § 7351.
There is no requirement to use Census Bureau data or even a suggested source for data in this section. The entire relevant bit in this section is as follows (from Paragraph B):
(1) Eligibility. A local educational agency shall be eligible to receive a grant under this subpart if—(A)(i) 20 percent or more of the children ages 5 through 17 years served by the local educational agency are from families with incomes below the poverty line; and(ii) all of the schools served by the agency are designated with a locale code of 32, 33, 41, 42, or 43, as determined by the Secretary; or(B) the agency meets the criteria established in clause (i) of subparagraph (A) and the Secretary, in accordance with paragraph (2), grants the local educational agency’s request to waive the criteria described in clause (ii) of such subparagraph.
This does not mean that there is no such requirement or suggestion. It's just not here with the specific program description. I'm going to look a couple of other places where they might define specific terms for subsequent sections, that sort of thing. The USCode is huge, so even if I don't find it doesn't mean it isn't there, but since I haven't seen anything referenced in the news stories and since there's nothing specific to this program, the odds are getting higher that DeVos just made this shit up entirely.
ETA: And now I've combed through all of Title 20 Chapter 70 for potentially relevant definitions and constraints upon statutory construction. There really isn't anything here that even suggests that the Census Bureau is the place where schools should look first for poverty data, much less the only place or place of final authority. Hell, I even went through Title 20 Chapter 48 (the legislation that creates the DoE itself) to see if it had definitions or requirements of construction that would apply to chapter 70. Nope. I also did a quick scan of all the chapters in Title 20 to see if any of them were about definitions or construction that might apply throughout Title 20. Nope.
Honestly, though I still can't say for certain, in my opinion this is looking 98% likely that DeVos just pulled this out of her ass with no basis whatsoever.
Don't be encouraged too much. If you're lucky you'll get to be an old soon enough.