Shore Times Does It Again
Schifanelli-linked Publication Doing The Only Thing It Can Do: Snark and Obfuscate
ShoreTimes does it again. Another Dan Cox-biased “journalistic endeavor”. “Why is Dan Cox the Best Choice for Maryland Governor” (I do not make corrections to the writing.). https://shoretimes.org/2021/09/22/why-is-dan-cox-the-best-choice-for-maryland-governor-2/?fbclid=IwAR1dmzUgQg6-LjrNkho1YpYQqcawIMl06YkvW_WOEoM_gG0Wwkhhtz3mayg
No author is given, but I think we can guess who wrote the article. For discussion purposes here, I will refer to the author as “The Author”.
I’m not going to get in the poor grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, etc. But I am going to comment on the snark comments that simply are not necessary in a “professional journalistic” writing.
Here are just a few examples of the snarky (I’ll bold the snark words):
“ . . . some politically biased and emotional unstable far left-wing and right-wing commentators. . “
“Maybe those who still have more IQ than a cabbage. . . “
“Dan Cox . . and continued to push scared and incompetent Republicans and democrats. . .”
“. . the overreaching Government may create an emergency to control the population and limit their freedom.” (Me: seriously, the Gov’t will create an emergency to control us? Sounds like conspiracy theory to me.)
“. . . Dan Cox before he is slandered and dragged through the mud as labels start piling up against him by those morally drained and educationally inapt to comprehend the values of individual liberty . . .”
“Maryland went to woke political abyss . . .”
“. . alarming deprivation of oxygen and illogical, forced mandates resemble more of a third-world political theater than a rational and reasonable electorate.”
“People in Maryland will . . filter the trash that will be piled up against some. . .”
There you have the snark, the childish rhetoric, the hyperbole, and comments not worthy of writing of/from a serious candidate or politician. What the author does not understand is that the snark makes the writing unbelievable and irrelevant. By the time the reader stops laughing at the snark, the author has lost the reader.
I’ll leave The Author’s comments re: Dan Cox’s legislative achievements to others more familiar with his achievements. Please feel free to comment whether the identified legislative achievements are factual.
I want to get to the falsehoods within the writing – things where I have some experience:
The author states: “Coronavirus does not infect people in Home Depots or Walmart’s, but the virus is deadly only in small Maryland businesses, churches and places of. . . “ Well, Ms. Author, it is true that in places like churches, there is a higher risk than walking through a Walmart masked and social distancing. We know that the preaching, the singing emits far more virus particles into the congregation. Knowing that many elderly and Covid vulnerable attend church, the church services within an enclosed sanctuary indeed create a higher risk situation. That’s been documented.
Then The Author cites United Van Lines’ 44th Annual National Migration Study, which revealed Maryland is in the top 10 on the list for people leaving the state.
I looked this report up. This is what I saw:
I do not see where The Author gets her data: 41% of Marylanders left for a job and 26% of people move out of MD to retire, 19% of people left because of family and 11% moved out for lifestyle. (The Author’s statement is not phrased well, nor is her statement in context.)
Let’s look at retirement. 11.39% came into MD for retirement, with 28.03% left MD – for a net loss of 16.64%. Looking at coming and leaving MD for a job, the net GAIN is 1.76%. For family issues, there was a 10.09% GAIN. For lifestyle there was a 1.50% GAIN. Coming to MD for health reasons gave MD a GAIN!!! Overall there was a 4.4% net loss.
I stop trusting a writer when the author obfuscates with the numbers, taking things out of context to make an erroneous point, trying to win the argument.
Let’s move on. “The Hogan Administration had failed Marylanders. . “ I really don’t think people are going to buy this. Governor Larry Hogan has an extremely high approval rating of around 74%. The Author should understand that manipulations of the truth only serve to show readers the Author is not telling us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Then, The Author makes this statement: “. . . Maryland’s failed education system for Elementary, Middle and High School Education is in the bottom quintile out of all 50 States. “
Dear Author: where did you find that “fact”? This is what I found. Maryland ranked #5 of all 50 states (and ranking better than Florida)!
And I find a whole lot more:
In 2022, U.S. News & World Report ranked Maryland fifth in the nation for "Best High Schools." https://msa.maryland.gov/msa/mdmanual/01glance/html/edelem.html
I found this: “In 2021, WalletHub ranked Maryland as the second most educated state in the nation. Rankings are based on achievement gaps, educational attainment, and school quality. It also ranked Maryland sixth among states with the best school systems.”
Look at my link above to find other achievements of Maryland’s public school system.
And last, but not least, the pandemic. The Author makes some real unsubstantiated remarks. “. . the public schools continue to push masking mandates and continue to disregard scientific evidence – cloth and paper masks do not protect anyone from Covid-19 viruses – even the disclaimer on the box states the obvious. Hence the alarming deprivation of oxygen. . . “
Let me address the fallacies. The Author has NO references to support this statement.
There is absolutely scientific evidence that masking (preferably surgical masks, KN95’s and N95’s) do protect us from Covid-19 viruses.
How many references do you want to see?
Then this one:
“The findings of this report reinforce that in addition to being up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations, consistently wearing face masks or respirators while in indoor public settings protects against the acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 infection (9,10). This highlights the importance of improving access to high-quality masks to ensure access is not a barrier to use.”
The next reference:
“We find that mask wearing is associated with a notable reduction in transmission. “
I could go on and on with more references and studies.
The author would cast doubt on the ability of masks to reduce transmission because of the labeling on the box. Ok, I know something about labeling on a medical device or prescription or OTC drug.
The labeling on a box of masks is legitimate, but again the non-medical author is misinterpreting it. Masks are effective in REDUCING the spread of the virus – this is called part of the NPI mitigation strategy. The mask cannot claim that it stops the spread of the virus.
Certain medical grade masks (N95) can filter aerosol particles as small as 0.3 micron.
Masks like the ear-loop or homemade cloth masks can reduce the spread of the virus (“source control – i.e., from the person infected).
Basically we are looking at masking from 2 standpoints – protecting the wearer from infection, but more importantly the masking prevents the infected from spreading the virus.
So here you go. This is why mask wearing can help reduce the spread.
And the last point The Author tries to claim: masks deprive us of O2. Me: Good golly, have our surgeons been deprived of O2 during our surgeries?
NO. IT. DOES. NOT. DEPRIVE. US. OF. O2!!! (Thank goodness, I thought maybe my colon resection really didn’t get resected since my surgeon was O2 deprived during my six hour surgery!!!!)
“The risk of pathologic gas exchange impairment with cloth masks and surgical masks is near-zero in the general adult population.”
“Among 50 adult volunteers (median age 33 years; 32% with a co-morbidity), there were no episodes of hypoxemia or hypercarbia (0%; 95% confidence interval 0–1.9%). In paired comparisons, there were no statistically significant differences in either CO2 or SpO2 between baseline measurements without a mask and those while wearing either kind of mask, both at rest and after walking briskly for ten minutes.”
So here we are. I found too many false statements in The Author’s article such that this author is simply not able to make her case. She loses her audience with the hyperbolic snark and then piles on with statements that are clearly not documented and falsely trying to win the argument.
Most importantly, I’d suggest that The Author stop manufacturing data before he/she loses the readers’ vote!