Recent Kansas editorials

The Topeka Capital-Journal, Oct. 17

As we head into the fall and winter months, we should all make sure to avail ourselves of the prime COVID-19-fighting tool at our disposal.

Masks.

Yep, masks are an incredibly valuable part of our arsenal, and we can’t lose sight of the fact. The most valuable way to battle the virus is to have no contact with other people in our daily lives, but that’s difficult (and painful) to accomplish. Coupling masks with social distancing when possible should be everyone’s goal.

First and most clearly, they protect others from possible infection by you. Masks prevent wearers from exhaling viruses or germs into the open air. But how effective are masks at protecting from infection by others? Pretty darn effective, according to researchers. According to the journal “Nature” this month: “In a review of observational studies, an international research team estimates that surgical and comparable cloth masks are 67% effective in protecting the wearer.”

No, that’s not 100%. But a two-thirds reduction in transmission is nothing to sneeze at.

What’s more, “Nature” says: “The work also points to another potentially game-changing idea: ‘Masking may not only protect you from infection but also from severe illness,’ says Monica Gandhi, an infectious-disease physician at the University of California, San Francisco.”

The theory is fairly simple. Masks can reduce the number of virus particles inhaled if someone infectious is nearby. That could mean that wearers - even if infected - have much milder or asymptomatic cases.

Masks offer at least three levels of protection, then. They prevent infected folks from spreading the virus. They prevent uninfected folks from catching it. And if a handful of people do become infected while wearing masks, the barriers could mean they have an easier course of infection.

Like most health measures, though, masks work best when used universally. Protecting yourself is great. But reducing and eliminating community spread is the goal.

The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington’s School of Medicine has gamed out the next few months. Its projections for Kansas show that universal mask wearing could save 855 lives by late February. Wouldn’t you wear a mask to literally save the lives of your fellow Kansans?

Much about this pandemic remains uncertain. The months ahead have the potential to be difficult. But we know more about the virus now than we did, and we know without question that masks are a vital tool for every single one of us.

______

The Manhattan Mercury, Oct. 16

We applaud Kansas State University’s efforts to spark discussion on important issues related to Native Americans. For the past few years, the university has marked Indigenous Peoples Day that way. Here in Manhattan, we are, after all, on land once occupied by the Kansa tribe.

We also found the remarks of a keynote speaker at this year’s events instructive and valuable. But we have to say there was also something she said that clanged a bit. We’d like to critique that, not in the interests of undermining her other observations, but because we think there’s something important about the critique.

The speaker was Stephanie Fryberg, a member of a Native American tribe who is a professor at the University of Michigan. As an aside, her title - University Diversity and Social Transformation Professor of Psychology - is enough to make a cynic roll her eyes and a reasonable person scratch his head.

Anyway, Dr. Fryberg’s speech was about Indian mascots, of which there is one right here in River City. We’re going to set aside that issue for the moment.

What we want to ponder is the closing sentence of the Mercury’s report on her presentation, wherein she said that, to paraphrase, Indigenous Peoples Day and the discussion about these issues is about recognizing that activists continue to fight for progress “and that we will force the world to see us the way we want to be seen.”

There’s something wrong with that view.

We might like to be seen as Albert Einstein. We might like the world to see us as Mother Teresa. We might want to force everybody to view us as the second coming of George Washington, or Socrates.

That just won’t work.

OK, so we can grant Dr. Fryberg the point that the underprivileged have to fight for everything, and have to sometimes be confrontational to make progress. Fair enough. We can accept that. Martin Luther King, Jr., was viewed at his time as something of a radical.

But if the whole thing is about forcing the rest of the world to see a group the way it wants to be seen, that’s simply impossible, and will lead to frustration and misunderstanding.

A better way to phrase it - and to think about it - is to structure the goal as helping society see Native Americans the way they actually are. That includes the beauty, the culture, the history, the warts, the flaws, and the bumps and bruises. Otherwise we’re further in the soup of imagery and illusion, and then it’s just a battle of paying for and controlling a public relations campaign.

This is why events like Indigenous Peoples Day are important. They bring to the surface issues like this. A university at the center of that sort of discussion is nothing but good. We encourage a continuation of that discussion. We simply want to encourage the discussion to be about reality, and about facts, and not just about an image that somebody wants to portray.

_____

The Lawrence Journal-World, Oct. 18

The United States Constitution has not been amended since 1992. Perhaps you have forgotten the hoopla surrounding the 27th Amendment. Granted, it was a long time in building. The amendment - clarifying issues of pay raises for members of Congress - was approved 203 years after it was formally proposed by James Madison and others.

Today’s Congress dreams of such efficiency.

It also ought to dream of another constitutional amendment. It is clear that the Supreme Court is at risk of falling prey to Congress’ reverse Midas touch. Nothing Congress touches turns to gold these days, and heaven help us if we still had to pay debts created by Congress in that metal.

The recent confirmation hearings for Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court has become the most recent reminder of how little Congress cares about protecting the court’s standing in America.

To be certain, politics have always been a part of the Supreme Court and the selection of justices. But it is abundantly clear that the two parties no longer have any agreed-upon rules for the confirmation of justices, and there certainly is reason to believe that, if Democrats end up controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, legislation will be approved to enlarge the Supreme Court’s membership.

By itself, the expansion of the court is not problematic. The country has functioned fine with a larger Supreme Court in its past. The problem would be what happens next. If Democrats add seats to the court, then Republicans will look for a chance to add more or to make other changes aimed solely at creating an advantage for their party and philosophies.

Politics is a game of payback. That’s been true forever, and it unlikely to ever change. In America, the Constitution has been the device that has kept the game from spiraling out of control.

That’s why America needs a Constitutional amendment creating a set of rules for the Supreme Court. Ideally, an amendment would spell out five things:

1. Set the number of justices the Supreme Court has.

2. Create basic eligibility requirements for justices.

3. Create a maximum number of years a justice can spend on the court.

4. Proscribe a formal code of ethics that Supreme Court justices must adhere to.

5. Clarify how long a nomination to the court can sit without a vote from the full Senate.

Can such an amendment be passed in today’s political climate? Well, of course not. What can pass with two-thirds of a vote of Congress these days? (Notably, though, a president has no role in the Constitutional amendment process. So, if one party can gain significant control of both houses, if wouldn’t need to win the signature of a president.)

An amendment, though, would require approval of two-thirds of the states (34, currently.) That process would ensure messiness. Perhaps the most disconcerting chart in America is a color-coded map showing the red and blue domains of America. Democrats control the masses of population. Republicans control the masses of geography. The Founding Fathers ensured that both would matter. They did not ensure both would get along.

But we should try to accomplish this. Likely, the best we could hope for is an amendment that would set term limits - some polls show 60% of the population approves of such an idea - and creates some basic eligibility requirements. Why does it make sense to have basic age and residency requirements for the president and members of Congress, yet no requirements of any sort for a Supreme Court justice? The common sense of the populace would prevail on those ideas, if they simply could escape the Congressional chambers that devour common sense.

The amendment would not solve all problems facing the standing of the court. But the term limit idea - say a 20-year term - would lower the temperature somewhat on the Supreme Court confirmation process. The stakes still would be high, but finite.

Citizens of America in 2223 surely would appreciate the lower temperature.