Hey, what's up with this headline today: "Trump Vows to ‘Destroy’ Law Banning Political Activity by Churches." If you read the article itself, it says nothing about some over-reaching ban on political activity. It says that tax-exempt institutions cannot endorse specific candidates or campaigns. Nowhere does it say that churches cannot engage in political activity. And any church can endorse candidates if it wants to, it just can't do so while being subsidized by the government with tax breaks. Martin Luther King conducted political activity from his church, but never did he endorse a candidate. Hell, without the Johnson law, any political organization could call itself a church and grant itself tax exempt status. Defining the issue in this way distorts its meaning so much that the headline itself is practically political activity.
3
On the news (non-opinion) story about Neil Gorsuch, Adam Liptak describes the judge as "an originalist, meaning he tries to interpret the Constitution consistently with the understanding of those who drafted and adopted it." One would be hard-pressed to find a more credulous acceptance of the right wing's characterization of their judicial nominees. What Gorsuch and his ilk do is interpret the Constitution consistent with what they believe is the understanding of the drafters. And lo and behold, this approach, as Liptak reports, "leads him to generally but not uniformly conservative results." What a coincidence! What are the odds?
Is there a way to see that writers of non-opinion pieces carefully monitor their writing to try to restrict them to facts?
Is there a way to see that writers of non-opinion pieces carefully monitor their writing to try to restrict them to facts?
2
Is it just me, or are more and more of the columns in the Opinion section (and elsewhere) not allowing comments? What gives?
6
You will need to be more specific, because, 11 out of 12 columnists have comments on their most recent column. The only exception is Leonhardt.
2
@vpl: Of the first 15 articles on the digital opinion page of January 31, scrolling down from the top, only six are open for comment, including one editorial (of three) and four columnists' output. Note, not only are NONE of the freelanced opinion pieces open for comment, neither is a Francis X Clines "Editorial Notebook." It was not ling ago that "Editorial Notebook" was treated as a blog with ALL entries open for comment.
Does this help?
Does this help?
2
Paul: Madeline specifically used the word "columns", which I interpret to be pieces by the 12 columnists under the "COLUMNISTS" heading here:
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html
As for editorials signed by the Editorial Board, 3 of 9 have comments. That is problematic. All Times editorials should be opened for comments. NB: I did not count one signed by Clines -- although he is on the editorial board, I regard that as an OpEd, not an editorial.
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html
As for editorials signed by the Editorial Board, 3 of 9 have comments. That is problematic. All Times editorials should be opened for comments. NB: I did not count one signed by Clines -- although he is on the editorial board, I regard that as an OpEd, not an editorial.
2
If we are talking about measuring - then just just look at the Times' article about record Earth's temperatures for the third year in a row.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/science/earth-highest-temperature-rec...
Where's an outcry about this? Do you see the record numbers? And the numbers won't come from graphics either... (it's 0.01 degree at 0.1 margin of error)
"Scientists at the Met Office and East Anglia University found 2016 was 1.1 degrees Celsius warmer than the average between 1850 and 1900.
This puts 2016 only nominally ahead of 2015 by just 0.01C – within the 0.1C margin of error"
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/dangerous-climate-change-time-r...
------------
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/science/earth-highest-temperature-rec...
Where's an outcry about this? Do you see the record numbers? And the numbers won't come from graphics either... (it's 0.01 degree at 0.1 margin of error)
"Scientists at the Met Office and East Anglia University found 2016 was 1.1 degrees Celsius warmer than the average between 1850 and 1900.
This puts 2016 only nominally ahead of 2015 by just 0.01C – within the 0.1C margin of error"
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/dangerous-climate-change-time-r...
------------
"Where's an outcry about this?"
Did you read any of the 1431 Comments on the Times article you linked?
Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year
By JUSTIN GILLIS
JAN. 18, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/science/earth-highest-temperature-rec...
Did you read any of the 1431 Comments on the Times article you linked?
Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year
By JUSTIN GILLIS
JAN. 18, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/science/earth-highest-temperature-rec...
2
@VPL,
Why the Times won't issue an apology for a misleadingly inappropriate article? Why the other MSM won't attack the NYT for a strikingly unprofessional reporting? I don't believe that there were no scientists who wanted to rebuke the Times' article in an op-ed in the paper. Were these opinions published?
Commenters and comments are just commenters and comments...
Why the Times won't issue an apology for a misleadingly inappropriate article? Why the other MSM won't attack the NYT for a strikingly unprofessional reporting? I don't believe that there were no scientists who wanted to rebuke the Times' article in an op-ed in the paper. Were these opinions published?
Commenters and comments are just commenters and comments...
This man doesn't even know what an inauguration should be - it isn't JUST about numbers! Here's an inauguration....such a short and long time ago....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE4H0k8TDgw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE4H0k8TDgw
Yes, a lie suggests intent to deceive. But it begs the question: If there is no intent to deceive then what motivated the "lie"? What could it be? Perhaps the originator of the false statement is misinformed, a disturbing trait in a president. Or the president is mentally ill, a far more consequential conclusion.
2
"... a lie suggests intent to deceive."
"Intent to deceive" is NECESSARY for a statement to be a lie, but a lie must also be a FALSE statement.
However, a true statement could be intended to deceive by omitting crucial information. Another method of deception is to use ambiguous words so that a statement is true in one interpretation while false in another interpretation.
For more, see "The Art of Deception: An Introduction to Critical Thinking" by Capaldi and Smit.
"Intent to deceive" is NECESSARY for a statement to be a lie, but a lie must also be a FALSE statement.
However, a true statement could be intended to deceive by omitting crucial information. Another method of deception is to use ambiguous words so that a statement is true in one interpretation while false in another interpretation.
For more, see "The Art of Deception: An Introduction to Critical Thinking" by Capaldi and Smit.
Wait a minute: "Swarms" of women? Not the best word choice yet again says someone from the terrible "rust belt" who had the joy of marching with many men as well as throngs, huge crowd, choose your better word, of women in lovely Ann Arbor with 11,000, more than 1% of the non-student population.
3
"... choose your better word ..."
What word do you suggest?
What word do you suggest?
Gaggle?
Flock?
Clutch?
Herd?
Pride?
Coven?
Inmates from and insane asylum?
Flock?
Clutch?
Herd?
Pride?
Coven?
Inmates from and insane asylum?
2
While Trump may not be "lying" in the usual sense, because he does not know or recognize the truth, the dictionary definition assumes a rational person (which he is not.) Failure to acknowledge the obvious truth can also imply intent to deceive.
2
Since Trump seems so transfixed on numbers in crowds to satisfy his ego, let's use real numbers to illustrate how devastating doing away with the ACA would be.
Assume that it takes 100,000 people to fill a football stadium such as Michigan State's. There are 20,000,000+ people who will lose health coverage when the ACA is repealed and not replaced. Picture the number of people who will be left with no healthcare insurance and imagine that it would take 200 football stadiums like Michigan State's to hold them all.
These numbers stand for the uninsured left behind if the Affordable Care Act is abolished.
How's that for a devastating visual, Mr. Trump!
Assume that it takes 100,000 people to fill a football stadium such as Michigan State's. There are 20,000,000+ people who will lose health coverage when the ACA is repealed and not replaced. Picture the number of people who will be left with no healthcare insurance and imagine that it would take 200 football stadiums like Michigan State's to hold them all.
These numbers stand for the uninsured left behind if the Affordable Care Act is abolished.
How's that for a devastating visual, Mr. Trump!
3
I believe that The Grey Lady must be absolutely perfect in every way, shape, and form. She must eschew any hint or suggestion of humanity --ever!
(Should I type some of this in CAPS?!?)
(Should I type some of this in CAPS?!?)
Can we stop with the torture of logic that insists that someone who tells a lie must be intending to deceive in order for the lie to be a lie please? Just because someone sincerely believes in a lie does not stop them from being a liar. Self deception does not change a lie to a falsehood or any other diminishing euphemism, nor does it relieve the liar of responsibility for their persisting in ignorance. Believing that the universe was created in six days is someone's privilege. Teaching my children in school that it is so would be a lie. Sorry, but that's the truth.
I completely disagree. Let's say that you tell me your mother-in-law is sitting outside in your car waiting for you to come out and drive her to the airport, but in fact, when you weren't looking, she slipped back into the house, intending to stay two more weeks. You didn't tell me a lie, because you honestly believed she was sitting outside in the car. The lie would be when you tell me you are happy she's going to stay longer.
1
As usual, the Public Editor only addresses complaints from liberals complaining that the NYT is not liberal enough.
The NYT is the mirror image of Fox News. It only attempts to appeal to liberals.
The NYT is the mirror image of Fox News. It only attempts to appeal to liberals.
5
Did I miss an estimate of the crowd size for the Right to Life march? Is the Times now intimidated?
2
The Times should do a follow up on the crowd sizes. Use the best science possible and state the sources. This country is relying on our "Paper of Record" to build a solid case against the most dangerous president to come along in my 62 years. (OK, Nixon was pretty bad). Even if the immediate tallies cannot be proven, future researchers will look back and find the follow up articles with good evidence to back them up.
1
All this because delicate Donald Trump could not accept the fact that his inauguration drew far fewer attendees than Barack Obama. It reminds me of Trump's imaginary wall, which is nothing more than a monument to Trump's ego; impossible to actually build and would doubtless exceed the $28 billion construction estimate. There's no need for it, it wouldn't keep anyone out anyway.
I refuse to pay for Donald Trump's hallucinations with my tax money. He should take a sobering look at the genuine inauguration turnout and start asking himself why it was so small. And forget the stupid wall already. We need those tens of billions for schools, healthcare and so much more. Giving out massive tax cuts to the wealthy won't make America great again. But there's no point in hoping Republicans will talk any sense into Trump--that ship sailed when the rest of the GOP folded like a cheap tent when Trump began winning.
I refuse to pay for Donald Trump's hallucinations with my tax money. He should take a sobering look at the genuine inauguration turnout and start asking himself why it was so small. And forget the stupid wall already. We need those tens of billions for schools, healthcare and so much more. Giving out massive tax cuts to the wealthy won't make America great again. But there's no point in hoping Republicans will talk any sense into Trump--that ship sailed when the rest of the GOP folded like a cheap tent when Trump began winning.
3
Then stop paying your taxes, David. You have a perfect right to withhold them if you wish.
But the government also has the perfect right to assess your income taxes and use means in its power to extract them from you.
Your choice? Pay your taxes or become a felon?
But the government also has the perfect right to assess your income taxes and use means in its power to extract them from you.
Your choice? Pay your taxes or become a felon?
1
Denied entry on questionable grounds? I wonder if you go to any country's border seek entry and when asked the reason say, instead of tourism or business " I'm going to protest the current government" you'll get in.
5
DJT "saw" images of thousands of Muslims in New Jersey on 9/11, cheering, he "knows" that 3 million people voted illegally, he "saw" a million people before his eyes during his inauguration speech. He has also said that his ratings on TV were the biggest when they weren't , that one of his building had more stories than in reality, among other "misstatements". So, is this fantasy, delusion, exaggeration, playing loose with the facts?
Please, will DJT supporters please explain to us how they explain these actions to themselves?
Please, will DJT supporters please explain to us how they explain these actions to themselves?
3
The NYT Book Section is doing away with their Graphic Novel category along with YA and several other categories.
So the book that won The National Book Award (March, Book 3), won't even be recognized by The NY Times because the list it would have been on is being discontinued, but they're expanding the coverage of graphic novels? This makes absolutely no sense.
Kill the Sports and Science lists and keep YA and Graphic Novels, especially since the latter is the fastest growing segment in publishing at the moment and the former may actually get Millenials and younger readers to actually read the NYT.
Hey NYT- I'm unemployed, live in NYC and need a marketing job. Fire the guy who made that decision and bring me in!
So the book that won The National Book Award (March, Book 3), won't even be recognized by The NY Times because the list it would have been on is being discontinued, but they're expanding the coverage of graphic novels? This makes absolutely no sense.
Kill the Sports and Science lists and keep YA and Graphic Novels, especially since the latter is the fastest growing segment in publishing at the moment and the former may actually get Millenials and younger readers to actually read the NYT.
Hey NYT- I'm unemployed, live in NYC and need a marketing job. Fire the guy who made that decision and bring me in!
2
Graphic novels?
Come on, man. Has the political correctness world eliminated the word "comics" because it was offensive to some one?
Get a grip on reality, Ben.
Come on, man. Has the political correctness world eliminated the word "comics" because it was offensive to some one?
Get a grip on reality, Ben.
1
My comment is about the article on the Anti-Abortion March, since there was nowhere to post a comment after it. I just have to say, that one article demonstrated the NYTimes effort to provide balanced coverage of news. During the campaign, I felt all the coverage in mainstream media, was decidedly slanted and I continue to look for a media source that is willing to bend over backwards to be fair, balanced and represent conservative as well as liberal points of view. This article on the Anti-Abortion March, did that. And I appreciate it.
And I would try to make the NYTimes a bigger part of my daily reading, if they would just find a way to allow comments after more of their articles. The Post does it, I don't understand why the Times won't.
And I would try to make the NYTimes a bigger part of my daily reading, if they would just find a way to allow comments after more of their articles. The Post does it, I don't understand why the Times won't.
While you're at it, let's consider how the Times described the size of the women's march crowds compared to the anti-abortion crowds. Although there were hundreds of thousands who came out in DC (and millions worldwide) last Saturday to oppose Trump, there were only tens of thousands who came to oppose abortion (according to the LA Times). Shouldn't you make that distinction, rather than making the 2 marches sound comparable?
2
I've been counting crowds since the Vietnam War, and I've found the Times' own counts to be unerringly accurate reflections of its editorial bias at any given moment.
1
PE quoting Schafran re article on Polanski: "This phrase is legally inapplicable ..."
Schafran is right on that point. The Times should have used the name of the ACTUAL CRIME as defined in the California Penal Code. Further, the Times should have explained that Polanski agreed to plead guilty to only one crime: "Unlawful sexual intercourse ... with a minor." That is what is sometimes called "statutory rape", which is defined in the Oxford dictionary as "sexual intercourse with a minor".
Polanksi's case is more complicated than the above, but the correct legal terminology is not at all complicated. Indeed, the Times did a somewhat better job of explaining Polanski's case in an earlier article.* Although that article still uses the misleading description to which Schafran objects, the article does say that Polanski "was to plead guilty to a count of statutory rape."
The Times bungles its reporting on legal affairs often enough that I wonder why it doesn't send ALL of its reporters and editors through a short course on the law and the legal system.
* Roman Polanski Extradition Request Rejected by Poland’s Supreme Court
By JOANNA BERENDT
DEC. 6, 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/world/europe/roman-polanski-extraditi...
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
Schafran is right on that point. The Times should have used the name of the ACTUAL CRIME as defined in the California Penal Code. Further, the Times should have explained that Polanski agreed to plead guilty to only one crime: "Unlawful sexual intercourse ... with a minor." That is what is sometimes called "statutory rape", which is defined in the Oxford dictionary as "sexual intercourse with a minor".
Polanksi's case is more complicated than the above, but the correct legal terminology is not at all complicated. Indeed, the Times did a somewhat better job of explaining Polanski's case in an earlier article.* Although that article still uses the misleading description to which Schafran objects, the article does say that Polanski "was to plead guilty to a count of statutory rape."
The Times bungles its reporting on legal affairs often enough that I wonder why it doesn't send ALL of its reporters and editors through a short course on the law and the legal system.
* Roman Polanski Extradition Request Rejected by Poland’s Supreme Court
By JOANNA BERENDT
DEC. 6, 2016
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/world/europe/roman-polanski-extraditi...
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
1
In the past year-and-a-half, I cannot recall reading a single favorable article about Donald Trump in the NYT.
Is this responsible journalism?
Is this responsible journalism?
2
Yes. All of the articles the NYT has run about Donald Trump were based on facts.
4
Descriptors about "the rest of the country":
The NYT continues to preen its Eustice Tilley elitist pomposity.
The NYT continues to preen its Eustice Tilley elitist pomposity.
1
Did the public editor really understand the reader's objection to “Many participants,” The Times wrote, “believed Mr. Trump expressed misogynistic views during the presidential campaign”? His comment seems unrelated to the complaint.
The issue is that the Times said that people BELIEVE Trump expressed misogynistic views. No, as Martin Benjamin said, he DID express such views. That's what should have been stated -- not the beliefs of march participants, but the ACTUAL FACT that our President makes misogynistic statements.
The issue is that the Times said that people BELIEVE Trump expressed misogynistic views. No, as Martin Benjamin said, he DID express such views. That's what should have been stated -- not the beliefs of march participants, but the ACTUAL FACT that our President makes misogynistic statements.
I used to think there was hope. Now you are drinking the kool-aid too.
1
About Rust Belt: if the people from a region don't fondly use a moniker for their region, maybe people from outside that region shouldn't use the moniker.
7
This article uses faulty logic about the Women's March numbers. First you reference the worldwide total: Some readers were concerned that The Times did an inadequate job estimating how many people showed up when it described the number as more than a million worldwide.
The letter you quote from Mark Michaels specifically references the worldwide total he had seen of more than 3 to 4.5 million.
But then you reference the Washington march total only, writing: For greater accuracy in estimating the Washington numbers, editors asked Marcel Altenburg and Keith Still, crowd scientists at Manchester Metropolitan University in Britain, to analyze aerial photographs and video. The Times incorporated all this material to reach its final estimate of “more than one million.”
If you are saying that the Washington march was estimated at more than a million, and there were 673 sister marches, it doesn't seem like the worldwide estimate could accurately be described as just "more than a million."
Even if this is poorly edited to misattribute "more than one million" to D.C. rather than worldwide totals, in the link you shared in reference to estimates compiled by police, the numbers I could find from police/mayoral estimates total 707,000 for New York, St. Paul, Atlanta and Key West, Fla. alone. That's not including L.A or Washington, let alone all sister marches, so it seems to safe to say that worldwide numbers of "more than a million" are an unfair and wholly inaccurate appraisal.
The letter you quote from Mark Michaels specifically references the worldwide total he had seen of more than 3 to 4.5 million.
But then you reference the Washington march total only, writing: For greater accuracy in estimating the Washington numbers, editors asked Marcel Altenburg and Keith Still, crowd scientists at Manchester Metropolitan University in Britain, to analyze aerial photographs and video. The Times incorporated all this material to reach its final estimate of “more than one million.”
If you are saying that the Washington march was estimated at more than a million, and there were 673 sister marches, it doesn't seem like the worldwide estimate could accurately be described as just "more than a million."
Even if this is poorly edited to misattribute "more than one million" to D.C. rather than worldwide totals, in the link you shared in reference to estimates compiled by police, the numbers I could find from police/mayoral estimates total 707,000 for New York, St. Paul, Atlanta and Key West, Fla. alone. That's not including L.A or Washington, let alone all sister marches, so it seems to safe to say that worldwide numbers of "more than a million" are an unfair and wholly inaccurate appraisal.
1
Maybe the next time that a march or rally is supposed to take place all people should check in with the NY Times reporter(s) on the scene so an accurate number of attendees can be documented.
This whole crowd estimate thing is a silly game to spin one way or another.
It is unproductive unless "the numbers" are far greate or far less than "expected".
Please, let's stop this charade.
This whole crowd estimate thing is a silly game to spin one way or another.
It is unproductive unless "the numbers" are far greate or far less than "expected".
Please, let's stop this charade.
1
Proper link here to my previous post about Canadians turned back at US border on their way to Womens March on Washington.. (my bad!)
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montrealers-bound-for-trump-inaug...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montrealers-bound-for-trump-inaug...
Here is a link to the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) story about Canadians, and even a dual Canadian/US citizen who were turned back at the US border, on their way to the Womens March on Washington.
http://www.thejaycloud.com/contact.html
one of those, who was turned back said,
"The first thing he asked us point blank is, 'Are you anti- or pro-Trump?'" Decunha claims he was asked by a border guard who eventually denied him entry."
Decunha said agents then took his fingerprints and photograph, and told him that if he tried again to enter the U.S. this weekend, he would be refused. Others who were turned back , were told if they tried to re-enter the USA they would be arrested.
Another group of Canadians turned back, here
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/sudbury-woman-us-border-1.3944672
"One of the Montrealers who was turned away is a dual U.S. citizen."
http://www.thejaycloud.com/contact.html
one of those, who was turned back said,
"The first thing he asked us point blank is, 'Are you anti- or pro-Trump?'" Decunha claims he was asked by a border guard who eventually denied him entry."
Decunha said agents then took his fingerprints and photograph, and told him that if he tried again to enter the U.S. this weekend, he would be refused. Others who were turned back , were told if they tried to re-enter the USA they would be arrested.
Another group of Canadians turned back, here
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/sudbury-woman-us-border-1.3944672
"One of the Montrealers who was turned away is a dual U.S. citizen."
Contrary to popular belief, it is not a piece of cake to enter the US by car from Canada. Before 9/11, hard questions were asked and I can only imagine it is much harder post-9/11.
It is not outrageous that a US border guard upon hearing a noncitizen wishes to enter the country to participate in a government protest would ask about past travels and views of violence. That is how it is now, like it or not.
The arrest threat if the Canadians tried to "admission shop" the border again that weekend is not outrageous. I wonder why they would try to cross into the US again to attend a government protest as "pacifists" if their initial attempt was denied. The border guards did nothing wrong here.
The Montrealer who claimed to also hold US citizenry somehow forgot his American passport. If you are crossing into a country where you are a citizen, why would you not have that passport on you to simplify your experience at the border?
Also, one man claimed he was in a car with "two individuals he had met on the Internet." Really? The red flags are obvious. How was he shocked at being denied entry into the US?
I'm not seeing that anyone was denied entry on questionable grounds. If anything, I applaud the border guards for doing their jobs in keeping questionable people out of the US.
It is not outrageous that a US border guard upon hearing a noncitizen wishes to enter the country to participate in a government protest would ask about past travels and views of violence. That is how it is now, like it or not.
The arrest threat if the Canadians tried to "admission shop" the border again that weekend is not outrageous. I wonder why they would try to cross into the US again to attend a government protest as "pacifists" if their initial attempt was denied. The border guards did nothing wrong here.
The Montrealer who claimed to also hold US citizenry somehow forgot his American passport. If you are crossing into a country where you are a citizen, why would you not have that passport on you to simplify your experience at the border?
Also, one man claimed he was in a car with "two individuals he had met on the Internet." Really? The red flags are obvious. How was he shocked at being denied entry into the US?
I'm not seeing that anyone was denied entry on questionable grounds. If anything, I applaud the border guards for doing their jobs in keeping questionable people out of the US.
Yes, PLEASE stop -- now! -- using the term "rust belt" -- often now dignified with an "R" and a "B" -- when referring to the states where millions of Americans live. I am a native, and once again, a resident of Michigan, a place I love. Those who sneer at us in the "RB" should remember that if it were not for the Detroit automobile plants switching over to building tanks and planes in WWII, we would most definitely have lost the war. And for all those still wanting to mock us, and Detroit in particular, but who are running low on water, just remember you need water to make rust.
4
Yesterday Rasmussen poll gave Trump 59% job approval rating. Doesn't seem like a minority.
1
The crowd counting fiasco with respect to the inauguration was all about words, not numbers. Trump's initial statement was that "it looked like a million and a half to me." That was a personal impression that was reported to be a factual misrepresentation. At the news conference, Spicer claimed that the inauguration was seen by more people than any other, including those watching by media. That reference to media was soon dropped and the statement was characterized as a knowing lie. Subsequent reference to alternate facts was treated as Orwellian when common sense makes clear that the statement was intended to reference alternate evidence. Finally, the role of the Park Service as a neutral arbiter ignores the fact that Trump had just imposed a hiring freeze on the Park Service and that there may be two Republicans among the thousands of Park Service employees.
By false and misleading reporting, crowd counting for the inauguration remained on the front page for days. I hope the Times reporters had fun playing with the story and playing with the truth.
By false and misleading reporting, crowd counting for the inauguration remained on the front page for days. I hope the Times reporters had fun playing with the story and playing with the truth.
1
My brother-in-law the activist has started a campaign to end the use of the term "rust belt" in the press. I always thought it referred to the state of our cars following a winter of salted roads. You know, being a bit cheeky. Now that I understand it to be a general label for the state of our economy, I will be joining the fray to end its use.
1
Last week I watched Margarethe von Trotta 2012 film Hannah Arendtt, I said it was the best film ever made but maybe I should have for me it was the most important movie ever made.
Much of the movie takes place in 1960 during the Eichmann trial and examines the time where US media decided sometimes it is better not to tell the truth.
Hannah tried to tell us the truth but the media decided that we couldn't handle the truth. The Holocaust was just to evil too be caused by the banality of ordinary men like Eichmann and Heidegger surely there must exist a malevolence stronger than simple banality. Surely a man as knowledgeable as Heidegger and a man so much like us as Eichmann couldn't be responsible for the Holocaust.
We have been dealing with evil forever and as the world becomes more interconnected we have conquered a great deal of evil.
We are suffering the consequences of failing to realise our greatest danger is banality and it is only truth as painful as it may be that can vanquish the banality of evil.
Sometimes we need to be hit over the head to pay attention.
Much of the movie takes place in 1960 during the Eichmann trial and examines the time where US media decided sometimes it is better not to tell the truth.
Hannah tried to tell us the truth but the media decided that we couldn't handle the truth. The Holocaust was just to evil too be caused by the banality of ordinary men like Eichmann and Heidegger surely there must exist a malevolence stronger than simple banality. Surely a man as knowledgeable as Heidegger and a man so much like us as Eichmann couldn't be responsible for the Holocaust.
We have been dealing with evil forever and as the world becomes more interconnected we have conquered a great deal of evil.
We are suffering the consequences of failing to realise our greatest danger is banality and it is only truth as painful as it may be that can vanquish the banality of evil.
Sometimes we need to be hit over the head to pay attention.
2
Trump's statement re voter fraud is less off base than claims HRC won the popular vote and therefore should have won. Irrelevant. Trump won the electoral college and that how the election is determined. Post facto claims that she would have won except for the EC are ill informed. If the EC had not been in play, both campaigns would have changed strategies and voter turnout would have been different. No way to extrapolate from what happened to what might have happened under a different set of rules.
As far as voter fraud, it is unlikely enough fraudulent votes were cast to affect the popular vote. However, in past major elections voter fraud has occurred, most famously in LBJ's 1948 senate run and possible in the 1960 presidential campaign.
But more important, there are no safeguards to prevent fraud. Voters show up and are not required in all precincts to present photo ID. Totals are passed up from precincts, but not individual votes. And there is no reconciliation at the national level -- no way to ensure people didn't vote in multiple states, or precincts. No national voter ID means you can't reconcile.
Moreover, obstacles to keep non citizens from voting are huge.
Obviously, it would take a large scale effort to swing a presidential election through fraud. But as the progs have complained, you can look at things like it was a few thousand votes that won for Trump. And, JFK won in 1960 by about 160k total votes -- but won Chicago by over 300k.
As far as voter fraud, it is unlikely enough fraudulent votes were cast to affect the popular vote. However, in past major elections voter fraud has occurred, most famously in LBJ's 1948 senate run and possible in the 1960 presidential campaign.
But more important, there are no safeguards to prevent fraud. Voters show up and are not required in all precincts to present photo ID. Totals are passed up from precincts, but not individual votes. And there is no reconciliation at the national level -- no way to ensure people didn't vote in multiple states, or precincts. No national voter ID means you can't reconcile.
Moreover, obstacles to keep non citizens from voting are huge.
Obviously, it would take a large scale effort to swing a presidential election through fraud. But as the progs have complained, you can look at things like it was a few thousand votes that won for Trump. And, JFK won in 1960 by about 160k total votes -- but won Chicago by over 300k.
"It would take a large-scale effort to swing a presidential election." Like Russia spending four years actively hacking into American computers under Vladimir Putin's watchful eye in order to influence the election results?
4
I love this feature.
1
The international number was about 7 million.
Boston expected 70,000 and got 175,000 (Boston Globe is not fly by night, and the estimate was professional). LA, I heard, was 400,000. Small Alaskan towns got thousands. London had more protesters than after Brexit.
It is risible that the NYT would not look at the readily available tallies and check wth credible sources. In every small and large center in the land people showed up. Many were also concerned about the denial of science.
Your authorities diminish their credibility when they double down on implausible numbers. But since Trump seems obsessed with "proving" he's the best ever, I lower myself by mentioning it and descending to his level.
Trump lies. Don't hedge. Maybe he doesn't always know he's doing it, and maybe he doesn't care. But he is dangerously dishonest in every possible sense of the word. Don't prevaricate about his lies!
Boston expected 70,000 and got 175,000 (Boston Globe is not fly by night, and the estimate was professional). LA, I heard, was 400,000. Small Alaskan towns got thousands. London had more protesters than after Brexit.
It is risible that the NYT would not look at the readily available tallies and check wth credible sources. In every small and large center in the land people showed up. Many were also concerned about the denial of science.
Your authorities diminish their credibility when they double down on implausible numbers. But since Trump seems obsessed with "proving" he's the best ever, I lower myself by mentioning it and descending to his level.
Trump lies. Don't hedge. Maybe he doesn't always know he's doing it, and maybe he doesn't care. But he is dangerously dishonest in every possible sense of the word. Don't prevaricate about his lies!
22
The most improbable claims pass for true. Alaska has three cities of 30.000 or more. Its small cities have a population of a few thousand. Most of its towns have less than 1,000 people the notion that small towns got thousands of marchers is physically impossible. Factcheck.org should go to work here to expose the ludicrous statements that pass for true.
2
Your right. The Times needs to stop calling the midwest the "Rust Belt." Though most know what the term means, and there's a modicum of basis in fact, the phrase has strong negative connotations, which are usually both unnecessary and gratuitous. It's condescending, especially from a New York City publication. If the Times' goal is to broaden its reach, this is a really bad way to do so. Right up there with Hillary Clinton's "deplorable" comment. And look what that got her.
There are many alternative phrases, as you point out; heck, even "fly-over country" is better.
But, judging by the headline on today's column by Paul Krugman (I believe headlines are written by Times' editors, not the columnists themselves), the Times hasn't gotten the message yet.
There are many alternative phrases, as you point out; heck, even "fly-over country" is better.
But, judging by the headline on today's column by Paul Krugman (I believe headlines are written by Times' editors, not the columnists themselves), the Times hasn't gotten the message yet.
28
Alex, I never thought of it that way, me being a redwood burl West Coastey. Although I wouldn't be very insulted at anybody that would want to denigrate the Santa Cruz region as full of pot smokers at any cost (especially when driving), with quack doctor-false medical marijuana certificates. So I could see how you might be insulted by a prestigious news organization using corny, not politically correct phraseology or however you would call it.
How about calling the midwest the midwest? Or is that not pejorative enough for a progressive paper like the New Yark Times.
4
Improve your (that is the correct usage of your, by the way) grammar, if you don't wish to be verbally side-lined by the grey lady.
1
I disagree with the use of the word "lie" to characterize President Trump's comments on voter fraud. The man exaggerates, to a flaw, that is his style. It's not presidential, and on this issue, he's likely wrong. But I don't think it's an intentional lie. If he were knowingly speaking a falsehood, would he be asking for an investigation?
And what's wrong with an investigation, anyway? Yes, there have been studies already, which seem to refute the possibility of widespread voter fraud. But there are accusations of bias in many of the previous studies, and it wouldn't be a bad thing to do another investigation. The stakes remain high, and a thorough, impartial, and transparent investigation would do much to quell demands for voter ID laws.
It's noteworthy that with the exception of England, most or all western European countries have voter ID laws. Many, probably most, Europeans think these are wise, and are surprised many states in the US don't have them.
And what's wrong with an investigation, anyway? Yes, there have been studies already, which seem to refute the possibility of widespread voter fraud. But there are accusations of bias in many of the previous studies, and it wouldn't be a bad thing to do another investigation. The stakes remain high, and a thorough, impartial, and transparent investigation would do much to quell demands for voter ID laws.
It's noteworthy that with the exception of England, most or all western European countries have voter ID laws. Many, probably most, Europeans think these are wise, and are surprised many states in the US don't have them.
10
Alex, Trump claimed that being registered in two states amounted to fraud. As usual, he shot from the lip. Turns out that 2/3 of his brain(trust) are registered in two states. Steve Bannon in NY & FL, and his own son in law, Jared Kushner, in NY & NJ.
2
Wouldn't it be nice if the NY Times Editorial Board and the editorial boards of all of the other liberal papers joined in a campaign actually to investigate the charge that Trump is making.
The results of that investigation should shut one of the two of you up.
The results of that investigation should shut one of the two of you up.
1
Did it feel good to vote for Trump?
Continuing the gratuitously perjorative name calling is why the liberal...er...progressive...er...whatever they are calling themselves these days to evade being tagged with the failures of their policies and administration...has lost the state legislatures and governors chairs, the House, the Senate and the presidency, is it not?
Then why continue?
Then why continue?
14
Your comment shows why it's time to restructure America's many gerrymandered districts that rob citizens of the power of their votes. Restore the fair voting districts, remove all gerrymandering, and you'll be amazed at how quickly the petrified GOP loses its congressional majorities.
3
Because they are correct. Trump is a misogynist and a liar. And you are a fool. Your mother is ashamed to have layed the egg you hatched out of.
I believe that some of Donald Trump's false statements are lies, some are just unjustified, and some are surely best described as delusions.
17
Phil Corbett: “Lie” is a strong word. We don’t use it lightly or without careful discussion and consideration. And I do not expect we will be using it routinely, in connection with the new administration or anything else. As [Executive Editor Dean Baquet] has said, we’re not going to use “lie” to describe the sort of routine obfuscations or exaggerations that politicians engage in.'
And what about the routine obfuscations and exaggerations (lies) the Times engages in? For years, when their legal status was mentioned at all, the Times said of Jewish settlements on the West Bank that "much of the world regards them as illegal." The last few years the Times has upped it to "which most of the world regards as illegal." But of course the entire world regards Jewish settlements on the West Bank as (maybe you saw the resolution) a "flagrant violation of international law."
So why does the Times continue to, yes, even after that vote, say "most"? How is that not a lie? Why is that so important to you?
And what about the routine obfuscations and exaggerations (lies) the Times engages in? For years, when their legal status was mentioned at all, the Times said of Jewish settlements on the West Bank that "much of the world regards them as illegal." The last few years the Times has upped it to "which most of the world regards as illegal." But of course the entire world regards Jewish settlements on the West Bank as (maybe you saw the resolution) a "flagrant violation of international law."
So why does the Times continue to, yes, even after that vote, say "most"? How is that not a lie? Why is that so important to you?
15
Numbers...
Could you please ask the Times reporters to be honest? That's just from one of the latest articles:
"said Mr. Wade, a registered Republican. “But I think this first week is proving he’s capable of following through on that with real action.”
It may be a minority opinion. A Quinnipiac University poll released on Thursday gave Mr. Trump a 36 percent job approval rating and found that majorities of people surveyed said he was neither honest nor levelheaded.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/trump-backers-like-his-first-draft...
Yeah, citing only Quinnipiac, when on the same day PPP (D) poll had Trump job approval rating at 44 percent and Rasmussen at 59 percent.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
By the way, it's Rasmussen who got the election results right.
Could you please ask the Times reporters to be honest? That's just from one of the latest articles:
"said Mr. Wade, a registered Republican. “But I think this first week is proving he’s capable of following through on that with real action.”
It may be a minority opinion. A Quinnipiac University poll released on Thursday gave Mr. Trump a 36 percent job approval rating and found that majorities of people surveyed said he was neither honest nor levelheaded.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/trump-backers-like-his-first-draft...
Yeah, citing only Quinnipiac, when on the same day PPP (D) poll had Trump job approval rating at 44 percent and Rasmussen at 59 percent.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/
By the way, it's Rasmussen who got the election results right.
11
Polls are opinions, not facts. And the fact that they vary so wildly provides proof that polling in the age of smartphones is not accurate, not comprehensive and not reliable.
2
About measuring.
Why the Public editor doesn't call to account reporters that are claiming that Trump lies about his "landslide" victory?
Trump did win by a landslide. By 74 votes out of 538. In a basketball game it'd be a win by 27-28 points. A loss by this amount is called a rout.
Why the Public editor doesn't call to account reporters that are claiming that Trump lies about his "landslide" victory?
Trump did win by a landslide. By 74 votes out of 538. In a basketball game it'd be a win by 27-28 points. A loss by this amount is called a rout.
10
Whatever are you talking about?
This was not a basketball game.
Your math skills clearly could use some refreshing.
This was not a basketball game.
Your math skills clearly could use some refreshing.
1
The EC has a finite and fixed number of points. A basketball game has neither. A final score of 130-102 would not be called a rout while a final score of 90-62 might be. Your logic is faulty.
2
Trump didn't win by a landslide. Thanks to gerrymandering (and plenty of help from Russian hackers) he squeaked through the EC but lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. Without gerrymandering, we'd have a sensible and stable president today instead of the wildly unhinged fraud we have now.
3
With respect to President Trump and the word lie. We citizens are jurors in the case of public trust - to which we evaluate the 'evidence' by the 'facts' that we are presented through the press (1st Amend) and other means. This puts the press and those means in the place of the prosecutor, who in real federal court, will not hesitate to call the defendant a 'liar', when the evidence shows the defendant is lying - http://federalevidence.com/blog/2013/november/drawing-line-calling-defen... . Mr Trump - witnessing in the case of public trust - said this at the CIA Saturday afternoon “I'm like, wait a minute. I made a speech. I looked out, the field was, it looked like a million, million and a half people.” “The rest of the 20-block area, all the way back to the Washington monument was packed,”. Even Fox News abandoned him on that one: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/21/fact-check-trump-overstates-crowd-s... . These are not the first time Mr Trump has lied to the jury, "And I watched in Jersey City, N.J., where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering." You - the press - in your role of prosecutor of public trust - need to stop kid gloving this Presidency and call out this mans lies individually - as straight up lies and not to hesitate to call him a liar because of the lies he has already perpetrated.
12
The problem with what you are setting up, sir, is that there is no meaningful defense counselor for the other side.
1
What about the politician who claims that "The U.S. has the best health care in the world"?
If that individual does not know that the statement is patently untrue, he or she damn well should. Knowing is part of the job description and one can only assume a lie.
If that individual does not know that the statement is patently untrue, he or she damn well should. Knowing is part of the job description and one can only assume a lie.
13
I found the most important, and certainly valid (indeed, understated) comment to be your thoughts regarding Roman Polanski. The Times should call him what he is: a convicted child rapist. And the Times should refrain from reviewing his movies, at least during his lifetime. Give the invaluable publicity to more worthy directors.
Woody Allen presents more difficult issues. He has not been convicted of a crime. But he took erotic, nude photos of the daughter of his common-law wife, when the daughter was barely an adult in age. The woman, now Mr. Allen’s wife, came to the US from Korea, and has no family here; she is 35 years younger than Mr. Allen. What Mr. Allen has done is not illegal, but it does not pass the smell test. Mr. Allen has also been accused (but not convicted) of abusing his adopted, then 7 year old daughter, Dylan.
The Times idolizes Mr. Allen, most recently publishing his lengthy review of a biography of Mary Astor on the front page of the Book Review.
In July, the Times published provocative, scantily clad photos of actress and director Natalie Portman as lead article in the Sunday Style section, objectifying Ms. Portman.
When it comes to standing up for women, all too often the Times talks the talk, but doesn’t walk the walk.
Woody Allen presents more difficult issues. He has not been convicted of a crime. But he took erotic, nude photos of the daughter of his common-law wife, when the daughter was barely an adult in age. The woman, now Mr. Allen’s wife, came to the US from Korea, and has no family here; she is 35 years younger than Mr. Allen. What Mr. Allen has done is not illegal, but it does not pass the smell test. Mr. Allen has also been accused (but not convicted) of abusing his adopted, then 7 year old daughter, Dylan.
The Times idolizes Mr. Allen, most recently publishing his lengthy review of a biography of Mary Astor on the front page of the Book Review.
In July, the Times published provocative, scantily clad photos of actress and director Natalie Portman as lead article in the Sunday Style section, objectifying Ms. Portman.
When it comes to standing up for women, all too often the Times talks the talk, but doesn’t walk the walk.
41
Why is the Times so hell-bent against Trump? Whatever happened to honest journalism? When did 'progressive' writers become the stewards of patriotism? Get over it -- Trump won, Hillary lost and The Times SHOULD NOT take a position in the national debate. Report on it, don't shape it.
19
There are multitudes of millions here and around the world who are hell bent against Donald Trump as our President. So you get over it. Can't take the heat - get out of the kitchen !!
It's only the beginning.........
It's only the beginning.........
4
Factually what exactly and precisely has the Times got wrong about Trump? Because Trump won the electoral vote, but lost the popular vote, should the Times join his administration with alternative facts?
29
To be honest is to be against Trump. His every statement and step before, during and after the election has been despicable, and to name it for what it is is simply truthful reporting. Get over it.
32
Not sure why I'm the only one with access to Merrian-Webster but intent is NOT a requirement for something to be a lie. Merriam-Webster's first two definitions of "lie" -- "a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive; b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker 2: something that misleads or deceives."
Using that common sense description, plenty of objectively verifiable untrue statements made by DJT are lies and the news outlets tying themselves in knots to avoid calling them lies are cowards.
Using that common sense description, plenty of objectively verifiable untrue statements made by DJT are lies and the news outlets tying themselves in knots to avoid calling them lies are cowards.
49
Just as are "plenty of objectively verifiable untrue statements" made by the liberal media, including the Times...
10
Ted, I am glad you said that, because I was going to if no one else had. If it's false, stating it is a lie whether or not you believe it to be so. If it's the truth, it remains the truth whether or not you believe it.
1
One must conclude, then, that the Times lies.
That is certainly the conclusion that that argument must reach.
That is certainly the conclusion that that argument must reach.
1
In regards to Trump's lies, as my old dad pointed out, "How can you tell if a politician is lying? His lips are moving."
Truth be told, they all lie, ALL of them.
Truth be told, they all lie, ALL of them.
13
The scope, depth, brazenness and sheer magnitude of Trump's fabrications is unprecedented. This must be pointed out anytime anyone tries to minimize his attempts to gaslight the American public with "they all do it."
43
That glib statement does at mean that all politicians lie equally. They most certainly do not. So repeating such a statement serves no purpose other than obfuscation.
3
Yes they do - but not at a clip of 70% of the time which Trump has/does. It's in his DNA.
17
I'm trying to imagine Breitbart, Fox News, or similar propagandist media outlets publishing something like this about their own pieces. Thank you, Times editors, for engaging with your readers.
53
Breitbart absolutely would not. Fox has actually had been on their cable news network that criticized their coverage and they discussed it. Not saying they are perfect but they are no more biased to the right than CNN or MSNBC is biased to the left. You might not see the latter two as biased because it's harder to tell these things when they are agreeing with you (For clarification I lean left).
I applaud the NYT for its headline regarding Trump's Lies. (Capitalization intentional.) Not merely a misstatement, the lies are a deliberate attempt to create a different understanding of the events in the minds of people than was actually the fact. Trump must not be allowed to manipulate the media, nor create false impressions in the minds of people with lies, exaggerations, or falsehoods. These are different than political discourse, and must be called out as being different.
35
I agree presidents should be held accountable. My question is do you believe the Times would be so driven to hold the president accountable had the election gone the other way. Did they ever call "if you like your doctor you can keep them" or "if you like your current healthcare plan you can keep it" lies? They downplayed those lies as simply turning out not be the case. During the 2012 election cycle when many from the right said how the measures that would be implemented the following year would result in some people having to change plans/doctors he told the American public the right was lying to them about it and to trust him that they wouldn't have to change anything. The times wouldn't call this a lie just misinformed. Obama did a lot of great things but some not so great and the times didn't hold him accountable when he did things wrong. That perception of bias causes people to dismiss rightful criticism of Trump because they'll think oh that's just the Times being anti Trump like they always are.
TL;DR: holding presidents accountable is important but if you only hold presidents from one party accountable you're not being noble you're just being biased and will end up hurting your efforts.
TL;DR: holding presidents accountable is important but if you only hold presidents from one party accountable you're not being noble you're just being biased and will end up hurting your efforts.
I am begging, once again, for the Times to stop calling any area of the country the "heartland," particularly the Midwest. It is most often used to describe that region, in the middle of the country geographically, true, but because "heart" implies more than location (why not call it the "stomachland" or "diaphragmland?"), it truly insults the rest of the country, as if we who live elsewhere are less fundamentally American than those who live in the middle of the country. As a native of Buffalo and happy transplant to New York City, I deeply resent the idea that the Midwest is somehow more central to the US than we on the coasts are. In fact, because of our liberal, inclusive, pro-diversity, pro-liberty values, I argue that WE are the heartland (if there must be one at all), we hold dearest the values embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, that we voted for inclusion, for trust and not fear and that therefore we are the Heart of this great nation.
96
@Ellen T: Although I live in Massachusetts, I lived in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Michigan for most of my life. So the part of the country you're mentioning is my home region. I also object to "heartland", but for different reasons. I find its use by the media to be partonizing--almost as bad as "Rust Belt" or "Flyover Zone". If one is referring to those states known for smokestack industries and factories that have mostly vanished, then the correct moniker is the "Industrial Midwest". It begins in the Youngstown area of Ohio and ends in the west with St. Louis and the Twin Cities. The epicenter is the Greater Chicago area, from Milwaukee through to South Bend. I lived in that area from 1955 to 1980, so I know.
9
Well, we all know what large parts of our failing cities should be called, and that isn't "the head" or "the feet".
8
yes, Yes, YES! Talking about the Midwest as The Heartland grants the area too much legitimacy as The Voice of America the same way the Electoral College grants too much power to rural areas. As a native Californian I would pit our liberal values against my reactionary extended family members' in Iowa any day of the week--and twice on Sunday.
1
Here in the deep red state of Oklahoma, 12,000 marchers showed up at the Capitol building in Oklahoma City last Saturday. Oklahoma is so conservative that the organizers thought fifty people might show up.
Twelve thousand might seem small compared to Chicago or New York, but for Oklahoma that is huge. I hope the state's Republicans took note.
Twelve thousand might seem small compared to Chicago or New York, but for Oklahoma that is huge. I hope the state's Republicans took note.
106
Oklahoma, where the wind comes whipping down the plains. Oklahoma, whose attorney general is leaving iffice, not to take leave of reflexively suing the EPA, but to run it (into the ground, I'm sure he hopes). Into the ground, once seismically stable. But this year, thanks to fracking, the site of a 5.8 richter earthquake, which happens to be the most intense earthquake anywhere in the lower 48 for auite a few years.
The turnout is a green shoot of hope.
The turnout is a green shoot of hope.
11
Yay, Oklahoma! Keep it up! Everybody everywhere counts.
10
Wonderful. Thank you for reporting in.
8
Was proud to stand with our mothers, sisters and significant others last Saturday AND will continue to do so as long as I live.
I was astounded by the local turnout. Hope it continues to swell.
I was astounded by the local turnout. Hope it continues to swell.
31
What's the difference between Jill Stein's demand for a recount and Trump's demand for an investigation into voters fraud? Why is an outcry now?
Jill Stein's request for recount was the most egregious attack on our Democracy. But the Times obviously preferred to keep its silence when what needed was a unambiguous scorn of Stein's actions and the defense of the principles of our system.
Jill Stein's request for recount was the most egregious attack on our Democracy. But the Times obviously preferred to keep its silence when what needed was a unambiguous scorn of Stein's actions and the defense of the principles of our system.
9
Stein's recount request was to negate the claims of voter fraud, not because she thought there was any.
Trump's claim is a waste of taxpayer money as it duplicates checks which are already in place.
Trump's claim is a waste of taxpayer money as it duplicates checks which are already in place.
27
I never supported Jill Stein's efforts, but the difference is that she raised money for a recount and then allowed the process to unfold. Also, she was asking for a recount in three closely contested states, not claiming, without evidence, that the election results across the nation were compromised.
Trump is not going to have an "investigation" because he is not interested in the truth. He's interested in riling up his base and undermining people's confidence in the most basic institutions of your democracy. Do not let him do this. It is the work of a demagogue, and it hurts everyone, regardless of their politics.
Trump is not going to have an "investigation" because he is not interested in the truth. He's interested in riling up his base and undermining people's confidence in the most basic institutions of your democracy. Do not let him do this. It is the work of a demagogue, and it hurts everyone, regardless of their politics.
16
Asking for a recount and pointing out potential weaknesses in the system is entirely different from declaring with full confidence that 3-5 million people fraudulently voted for a specific candidate. The right to ask for a recount is essential to protecting public trust in the electoral system. Making baseless assertions of fraud and calling for witch-hunt investigations has the opposite effect, and is intended to.
26
I'll bet our intelligence services could give an accurate count of crowds in real time.
19
I love those dads. Thank you! I marched in Denver and was proud to walk alongside many men, families, people of color, and people of all ages. Just as in all of nature, diversity makes us stronger, better, smarter, and more resilient.
33
With the 25th Amendment looming larger and larger in importance with each passing day, I think the idea that he knows he's lying every time he says something provably untrue is looking less and less certain.
4
I'm sad to say that for many a decade I had the wrong impression of what had happened between Polanski and his young victim. And this ignorance was based on how the media, including The Times, had repeatedly recapped the events whenever the issue came up. Then a few years ago, when he was holed up in Switzerland fighting extradition to the US, I was directed to the site thesmokinggun.com and their trove of legal documents relating to the case, including depositions from both Polanski and his victim, as well as a psychological evaluation of Polanski. I then learned that:
*She was only 13 (because she was "going on" 14, some news organizations had gone with the higher age)
*Polanski plied this 13-year-old with alcohol
*He plied her with the sedative quaalude
*Not wanting to impregnate her (he claimed), he told his victim they'd be having anal sex
*Not wanting to have anal sex, she said no ... and no, and NO!
*He did it anyway
*That means he committed forcible rape as well as statutory rape.
Either the media were too squeamish to print the details, were just doing what the old boys' network does-- protect one of the boys-- too lazy to dig for the truth, or some combination of the above. But the truth is, he should have served hard time for what he did, great director or not, and notwithstanding the ill-conceived and inappropriate deal originally struck with the judge.
*She was only 13 (because she was "going on" 14, some news organizations had gone with the higher age)
*Polanski plied this 13-year-old with alcohol
*He plied her with the sedative quaalude
*Not wanting to impregnate her (he claimed), he told his victim they'd be having anal sex
*Not wanting to have anal sex, she said no ... and no, and NO!
*He did it anyway
*That means he committed forcible rape as well as statutory rape.
Either the media were too squeamish to print the details, were just doing what the old boys' network does-- protect one of the boys-- too lazy to dig for the truth, or some combination of the above. But the truth is, he should have served hard time for what he did, great director or not, and notwithstanding the ill-conceived and inappropriate deal originally struck with the judge.
68
And how much did you say was the price of rice in China?
1
Marc "Lacey's answer was spot on."
Only uf he follows through and it doesn't represent lip service, as a plethora of Times editorial reactions do.
And the "I'm from the Rust Belt so..." tale can be problematic on its own.
Only uf he follows through and it doesn't represent lip service, as a plethora of Times editorial reactions do.
And the "I'm from the Rust Belt so..." tale can be problematic on its own.
2
"An editor who helped anchor the coverage in New York said:"
What editor? During her entire term as public advocate, Margaret Sullivan worked tirelessly to help readers understand when anonymous sources should and should not be used. One of the reasons not to use anonymity was....no reason at all.
Yet, now we have a public editor who for some inexplicable reason grants anonymity to "an editor who helped...." when, I'm sure, national security or some such reason is absent. AND, no reason is given for this. I find this as lacking in transparency as are the black pants I wore yesterday. Unacceptable.
What editor? During her entire term as public advocate, Margaret Sullivan worked tirelessly to help readers understand when anonymous sources should and should not be used. One of the reasons not to use anonymity was....no reason at all.
Yet, now we have a public editor who for some inexplicable reason grants anonymity to "an editor who helped...." when, I'm sure, national security or some such reason is absent. AND, no reason is given for this. I find this as lacking in transparency as are the black pants I wore yesterday. Unacceptable.
30
Spot on, Alan. Since the quote said the editor was "proud" of the coverage, than he/she would have no reservation about being identified publicly, right?
Alan is correct, anonymity here was no more acceptable than the late David Carr granting people in the Times' newsroom anonymity for the purpose of disparaging the recently fired Jill Abramson.
Working in the Times' newsroom means you can't be quoted anonymously and still comply with the Times' putative standards for grants of anonymity.
Alan is correct, anonymity here was no more acceptable than the late David Carr granting people in the Times' newsroom anonymity for the purpose of disparaging the recently fired Jill Abramson.
Working in the Times' newsroom means you can't be quoted anonymously and still comply with the Times' putative standards for grants of anonymity.
4