Has Mayor Satya taken a position on police body cameras?

After four years of dithering?

Bonnie Roe of Madison Area Safety Connection says so. She quotes Satya Rhodes Conway at Monday’s 02-27-23 candidate forum:

“What can we as a community, as a city, as a police department do to prevent police misconduct and prevent police violence in our community, and make sure that never happens in Madison again. I don’t think that body cameras are the answer to that.”

Always the emphasis on “police violence” and not the criminal degradation of minority communities! Satya’s opponent, Gloria Reyes, supports police-worn body cameras. So we have a choice!

Where do the Helbachs go for an apology? 

City-county health authorities drove their coffee shop out of business in August 2020 after the family advertised being mask-free. (There’s your caveat emptor.) While the shop fought the orders in court, do-gooders picketed the Middleton shop. That hurt business at the neighboring businesses and the landlord pulled their lease. 

“I’m sure the  protestors who harassed them are still wearing their masks, proud of what they did in the name of social justice,” comments friend Charles Schmeling.

Bret Stephens of the New York Times reports “the most rigorous and comprehensive analysis of scientific studies conducted on the efficacy of masks for reducing the spread of respiratory illnesses — including Covid-19” concludes “There is just no evidence that they” — masks — “make any difference,” he told the journalist Maryanne Demasi.

Trumpites war on Robin Vos

For too many Republicans, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos is the enemy. Mainly because he refused to throw Wisconsin’s electors to Donald Tr•mp. Fired Mike Gableman after the failed stolen-election sleuth endorsed a primary challenge to Vos from Adam Steen, whom Tr•mp personally endorsed. Now the Racine County Republican party is accused of purging Steen-ites.  

Gateway Pundit has taken notice. The national RITO blog repeats the proven lie that “140,000 ballots for only Joe Biden were dropped in the early morning hours after the election giving Biden a 20,000-vote lead.” On top of that steaming heap, G-Pundit loads an even more dubious claim:

A Steen supporter told The Gateway Pundit that only 15% of the GOP members in Vos’s district that she talked to said they were going to vote for Vos and 55% said they definitely would not vote for Vos in the primary.

Gateway Pundit

A Steen supporter would certainly know! Pundit now claims 18 applicants were denied Racine County GOP membership “because they supported Steen in the 2022 primary.” Pundit misinterprets a section of the Racine bylaws to support its case

Member is no longer considered ‘in good standing’….. if member affiliates with, supports, or declares a preference for a candidate of another party or candidate who is opposed to a candidate nominated [and] supported by this party.”

Except! Except! Except! County parties do not endorse before primary elections. Vos was nominated by voters in that primary election. Steen then tried to defeat the party nominee in a write-in challenge. We rule in favor of the Racine GOP.

Bureau of bad ideas

•  We like the time clock for pitchers and hitters. (How many times per at-bat did Ryan Braun readjust his batting glove?!) But lose the ban on the infield shift! Can’t batters adjust, instead?

  • • State Senate leader Devin LeMahieu, a flat tax? Robin Vos: toll roads in Wisconsin? Both are damn near Illinois!

•  Big applause line (from what we could see of CPAC on C-Span): term limits. Except for Ron Johnson’s third term (or 18 years) or Glenn Grothman announcing for a sixth term (for 12 years). Both gentlemen erred by promising limited terms.

Blaska’s Bottom Line: We already have term limits. It’s called “elections.” As for the Vos haters, they never explain why the Republican state assembly leader would want to make Joe Biden President.

Who is pulling YOUR strings?


About David Blaska

Madison WI
This entry was posted in Donald Trump, Election 2020, election challenges, Madison city government, Satya Rhodes-Conway, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Has Mayor Satya taken a position on police body cameras?

  1. Pingback: Has Mayor Satya taken a position on police body cameras? – Wisconsin Family News

  2. Montgomery Scott says:

    Mayor Satya’s philosophy on Police Body Cams:

    Hear No Evil! See No Evil! (Nothing about Speak No Evil, except when talking about those big, bad cops…)



  3. Steve3 says:

    I don’t know what Bret Stephens is smoking when he claims, “There is just no evidence that they” — masks — “make any difference”. There are plenty of well controlled lab studies showing that the masks prevent aerosols and virus particles from spreading, and then there are these two recent publications in very respectable science journals that say masks work!! So, I wonder what Bret means when he says “no evidence.”




    • nemoofthenorth says:

      Steve3, you can usually find shills, grifters, or pharisees that will support or disprove just about anything. That’s why you should really check your source verses the sources that take a contrary position.

      Cochrane has been for a long, long time the gold standard. Their latest meta study shows that “Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness”

      What I found a little more surprising was they went on to conclude “The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory‐confirmed influenza infection”.

      Squire, oddly enough the pigs in front of the bar have been particularly active this morning, only these pigs tend to be more tetchy and feathered. I have no idea if they intend to vote like a pig or cast a more principled ballot.


  4. David Gerard says:

    You may want to read the above referenced Cochrane study before you concur with Stephens’ conclusion. You fail to mention the two most important admonitions in the text:

    First: “The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions.”

    Second: “There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect.”

    Something else you missed is that the two studies in the meta-analysis that actually measured the effect of mask mandates in the COVID-19 pandemic, from Bangladesh and Denmark, showed that mask mandates did reduce infections and the spread of the virus — quite the opposite of a conclusion that they “did nothing.”

    You should read the report again, or perhaps read it for the first time. Because it doesn’t say anything like what you think it does.


    • Bill Cleary says:

      I love it. People who really give a crap about a subject and will back up or question a hypotheses by another person based on their research.

      It is the free exchange of ideas that I see in this blog that I love.

      Agree or disagree, I want to consider all sides of an idea.


    • Mordecai The Red says:

      What the Cochrane study definitely doesn’t say is that there is any conclusive evidence that masks reduce the spread of respiratory viruses. Also from the study:

      “The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection.”

      “We are uncertain whether wearing masks or N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.”

      “Compared with wearing no mask in the community studies only, wearing a mask may make little to no difference in how many people caught a flu‐like illness/COVID‐like illness (9 studies; 276,917 people); and probably makes little or no difference in how many people have flu/COVID confirmed by a laboratory test (6 studies; 13,919 people).”

      “Compared with wearing medical or surgical masks, wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes little to no difference in how many people have confirmed flu (5 studies; 8407 people); and may make little to no difference in how many people catch a flu‐like illness (5 studies; 8407 people), or respiratory illness (3 studies; 7799 people).”

      The Bangladesh study you cite has been revealed as flawed and biased, although perhaps not intentionally. From the reanalysis of that study mentioned in the Demasi blog:

      “The purpose of randomized control trials is to establish a causal link between interventions and outcomes. However, causal implications are diminished in the presence of unblinding, ascertainment bias, and bias-susceptible endpoints. Unfortunately, in the Bangladesh mask trial we evidence of all of the above.
      The study in question raises intriguing questions about the role of public health interventions in changing behavioral patterns to decrease COVID case rates in low- and middle-income countries. The mask intervention was highly effective at modifying behaviors (distancing, mask-wearing, symptom reporting). Nonetheless, the data is consistent with mask wearing having modest or no direct effect on COVID-related outcomes in this experimental setting.”

      So at best, the data is inconclusive. At worst, masks have modest to no effect on the spread of respiratory illnesses, which is what the generally accepted thinking was in the medical community before the pandemic. Fauci and others seemed to agree with this before COVID hit, but inexplicably changed their minds in short order afterward, likely to enhance the optics that the government was doing something useful to combat it. We need to demand answers on why.

      What is clear, if the Cochrane study is accurate, is that masks are not the spread-stoppers and life-savers that the government health organizations told us they were. In other words, it’s quite possible that we were lied to.


      • Mordecai The Red says:

        I’ll rephrase my last statement slightly:

        What is clear, if the Cochrane study is accurate, is that government health organizations told us that masks were spread-stoppers and life-savers without having clear evidence of this and when there was data that conflicted with that conclusion. In other words, it’s quite possible that we were lied to.


        • David Blaska says:

          It’s also quite possible that authorities erred on the side of caution. I.E., masks might or might not prevent Covid but at least they wouldn’t give it to you.


        • Mordecai The Red says:

          That is also possible. But if I were someone that lost my job, business, or home, had a child’s development set back years, or were denied a place at a loved one’s bedside during their final hours, I doubt the government just erring on the side of caution would give me much comfort. Especially if the evidence for erring that way just wasn’t there.

          The jury is still out on a lot of this. That said, having read what I have about the Barrington Declaration and its suppression, along with more than a few people at the CDC stifling their dissent over fear of losing their jobs, and now this, I have a growing suspicion that a lot of the draconian mask measures just weren’t necessary.

          The most grim realization I’ve taken from the pandemic is that science and medicine can be molded to fit a political narrative on a national and even worldwide scale.


        • Cornelius_Gotchberg says:

          In other words, it’s quite possible that we were lied to.

          More like DAMNED LIKELY; to wit:

          Fauci Commissioned Report To Disprove Wuhan Lab Leak THEN PRETENDED NOT TO KNOW THE AUTHOR

          The Gotch


  5. Cornelius_Gotchberg says:

    Anyone think that despicable No Camera Lefties will ever admit that they are anti cop camera because incident video footage removes any he said-she/xe/ze/zie/xie/it said wiggle room from claims of RAYcism from mouthy, ill-kempt VictimHoodies?

    Didn’t think so.

    The Gotch


    • Alan POTKIN says:

      I second that emotion, Gotch! E.g., here’s a link to my own dub/upload of the official body/dash camera tapes of an earlier encounter between the Glynn County, GA police and the late, lamented (he just had a street named after him!) Saint Arbery: 13 minutes)… https://vimeo.com/647957977

      Liked by 1 person

      • Cornelius_Gotchberg says:

        Mercy me! That b!tch needs to bite the soap!

        Because his Dear late Father was a career Corrections employee (Probation/Parole supervisor/specialist) The Gotch was taught early on to be respectful during encounters with LE, which were mercifully few.

        He still takes every opportunity to approach unengaged LEOs (Random Acts Of Gratitude) in order to thank them for their service.

        The Gotch


  6. One Eye says:

    Vos will make nice with Trump after CPAC. AntiTrumpFa R’s have a real problem on their hands.


    • David Blaska says:

      No he won’t. No reason he should.


      • Real(80)ity says:

        Correctamundo. Vos no longer needs Trump to win re-election.

        Vos beat his primary opponent by a whopping 260 votes with $2.5 million (and counting) of taxpayer support for the Gableman circus.

        And I thought Republicans opposed public financing for election campaigns.



  7. Real(80)ity says:

    Bret Stephens’ (and now the Werkes’) claim that the Cochrane study proves masks don’t work reminds me of Tucker Carlson’s claim that Trump’s Jan6 insurrection wasn’t violent. After all, in 41,000 hours of security footage, there are many clips that don’t show rioters beating cops.

    Cochrane disagrees with Stephens’ conclusion:
    “Now the organization, Cochrane, says the way it summarized the review was unclear and imprecise, and that the way some people interpreted it was wrong.

    “Many commentators have claimed that a recently updated Cochrane Review shows that ‘masks don’t work’, which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation,” Karla Soares-Weiser, the editor in chief of The Cochrane Library, said in a statement.
    – – – – https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/10/opinion/masks-work-cochrane-study.html#commentsContainer

    If you trust Stephens, here’s another thing on which to hang your hat.


Comments are closed.