sheeeit

lol. I am not interested, at all, in rehashing Trump. I would prefer to never have to hear about him ever again. But this topic has to do with the NYT. This article is by the Columbia Journalism Review. Google them if you want to learn what they do, but they are considered the gold standard in journalism ethics by everyone. The attached article is very long. It goes directly to the point of what I have been saying. The short version is that supposed respected papers, most notably the NYT and WAPO, essentially abandoned their journalistic ethics when reporting on Trump. https://www.cjr.org/special_report/trumped-up-press-versus-president-part-1.php

What is your point? The NYT article clearly insinuated that these collectives may be running afoul of the IRS like they are doing something illegal or somehow committing tax fraud. The collectives don't get to just say they are non profit. They approach the IRS asking for status as a 501(c)(3) entity. Either the IRS grants it or it doesn't. If the IRS comes back later and changes their mind then the collectives will have to re classify. Nothing will change with the NIL program.

I do not think the NYT is a rag. But it has become way more left leaning in the last 10 years. Part of that is simple numbers. The vast majority of journalism students are liberal, the vast vast majority of journalism professors are liberal and the majority of print newsrooms are liberal. It would be impossible for journalism to not lean left. But the fact that you posted this is the perfect example that you are just like the people you seem to detest. Anyone could start with Trump Russia collusion headlines and stories in the NYT. They willfully printed stories that were inaccurate or complete fabrications. They clearly did not do their own reporting or their own verifying because, as we know, virtually all of the nefarious allegations proved to be false. But let's just examine a few things the NYT has done regarding big headline grabbing stories in the last few years that might cause a person to think that they were biased. 1) The NYT headline and story about Israel Bombs Hospital in Gaza. I suppose the NYT can be sort of excused initially but not really. First, they said the information was "from Palestinian spokes people. Obviously trying to insinuate that it wasn't Hamas saying it but supposedly unbiased Palestinians. Lending credibility. Second (and almost worse for a supposed venerable outfit) they put a picture under the headline of a bombed out building. Now, of course, they admit the info was from Hamas and admit the picture was not the hospital in question. Someone with more compassion than me might forgive the original headline and story because it was a race to get out the news. But there can be no excuse for the blatant picture misrepresentation. That is like National Inquirer level for a political publication. Can you see why Israeli's might think the NYT is biased? 2) Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick. This one was really bad. The NYT used headlines saying he had been killed during the insurrection by someone bashing him in the head with a fire extinguisher. Someone on this thread made the absurd statement that the NYT always sources the people in their stories. Its just bullshit. In this case they said "according to two law enforcement officials". They obviously just either made up the quotes or, certainly, did absolutely zero investigating on their own. They kept the articles coming for months. They even then tried to insinuate he died from mace or pepper spray from one of the insurrectionists. These were Pulitzer winning journalists. Jan 6 was a big deal in America. Tensions were very high. Yet somehow the NYT and multiple Pulitzer winning journalists couldn't fact check a huge incident like this? Not a single phone call to his family or the doctors or anyone? The reporting absolutely flamed the fires. It was 3.5 months before they finally printed a retraction that the officer sustained no injuries on Jan 6. Obviously the damage was done. 3) Russian Bounty Stories. The NYT pushed this story full scale in the months leading up to the election. The NYT claimed not only that the bounties were real and that US soldiers were murdered but that also Trump knew about it and did nothing in response. They used "intelligence officials" as their source. No one identified. They ran stories right through the election. Months after the election the NYT "updated" the story to say that the intelligence was never confirmed and no US soldiers had ever been killed or even injured. You think they run a story like that about Biden or Obama? 4) Nick Sandman. The NYT headline was "Boys in ‘Make America Great Again’ Hats Mob Native Elder at Indigenous Peoples March". The story was completely one sided, no comments from any of the "boys". Weeks later an "updated" story to "provide more context" went up. No boys "mobbed" anyone. 5) Caliphate. The NYT promoted, sponsored, ran multiple stories etc on this report from one of its prized reporters. The story won a Peabody and was nominated for a Pulitzer. Again, months and months later, the NYT admits that the story was likely bullshit. They gave back the Peabody. 6) Duke Lacrosse. NYT first reported the story. Then after it became apparent the story was wrong, the NYT wrote a lengthy article defending itself and the reporter and later admitted to leaving out all exculpatory information. The reporter, Selena Roberts said this "I wrote that a crime didn't have to occur for us to inspect the irrefutable evidence of misogyny and race baiting that went on that night" That is the standard for the NYT? It doesn't matter if we get a story wrong and ruin lives if we "feel" it was bad? 7) 1619 Project. The NYT promoted the story vigorously. Multiple "fact checkers" were called on by the NYT to check the story/essay. Multiple fact checkers came back to the NYT and pointed out numerous errors. The NYT published the essay without any corrections. Months later they admitted that many of the historical points were in fact false and had to "correct" the story multiple times. This is the NYT. They can not do stuff like this and be considered a venerable institution. Like I said, I do not think the NYT is a rag and I truly believe it is a worthwhile publication. But I can absolutely see the argument made from some. And those that blindly champion it are just as wrong as those that now won't read it.

I read most of this topic and have some comments. While I think it is stupid to disregard an article because of someone's belief that the publication offering it is biased, I can see where they are coming from. And, those that vigorously defended the NYT seem just as obtuse if given a true read. The cry from the detractors was that if the article was in the NYT then it would be biased, socially liberal and/or not very informative on a subject like NIL. So I read the article and, to be certain, it had a biased, socially liberal lean and was pretty devoid of any real news. I believe that anyone who is a college football fan, regardless of school, knows more about the NIL situation in college football than was shared in the article. So the article, presumably, was directed to people other than college football fans. Looking at the article in those terms (people reading the article that do not know much about college football) it really is very biased. Starting with the headline "Best Teams Money Could Buy" is obvious clickbait but it still paints the picture that these four teams were somehow unique. It is WAY down the article that it even insinuates lightly that other schools do the same thing. I would bet that if you polled every just passing college football fan that read the article, almost all of them would think Washington was a major NIL player and the primary reason they were in the playoff. Obviously that is untrue. Just within their own conference their NIL program is dwarfed by USC and Oregon. Next, there was this little nugget in the article "They have also undermined the push for gender equity by immensely favoring male athletes." What purpose does that have in the article? When I first read it I assumed they would have some follow up or some evidence that it was true but it was just a throwaway line. It was a socially liberal throw in. Again, a person that is just a casual football fan but active NYT reader would infer that schools are somehow lessening their commitment to womens sports when that is absolute bullshit. They also suggest the IRS is investigating as if there is some nefarious stuff going on because most of the collectives are registered as non profits. For fucks sake, the only ones that could possibly have an issue with the IRS are the players not reporting their money. The collectives put in their own money for the lion's share of the funds. The collectives make no profits. It is, again, a shitty angle especially to non fans. They say it has created an "imbalance" with teams. As any fan knows the imbalances between programs has been in place since WW2. But for the ignorant it reads that the 4 teams are big bad wolves and the others are sheep. So, as said, it is silly to just ignore an article because of the source but I can see the argument and the article did nothing to help argue against it.

Great example!! Absolute movie star. Not a great actor. Not terrible at all but would have never made it strictly as an actor.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/07/nyregion/adams-migrants-destroy-nyc.html Too funny.

Given the crowd, he must have deserved it.

Unless you guys know each other really well, this was of absolutely no value to the question asker.

I’m high. Why did you guys neg this? Is there history?

"They are not an existential threat to the country that is leveling Gaza with impugnity and support from this country." This is absolute speculative bullshit. If Iran or some other could figure out a way for Hamas to smuggle a "dirty bomb" into Israel they would do it in a heartbeat and Hamas would set it off in a heartbeat. The continued rule by Hamas in Gaza is the literal definition of an existential threat to Israel. "Nope. Were the situation reversed and Israel under the kind of attack they have launched in Gaza, I would support more than materiel support. I'd be fine commiting forces to the fray. I think the position that Gaza and the Palestinians shouldn't be subject to this slaughter is a position against slaughter such as this in general rather than a particular sympathy for the Palestinians. I have the impression that I'm describing the position of many people on this page." This sort of perfectly illustrates the current thinking of so many. Think about what you wrote? You are against military aid to Israel right now because you believe that Israel has the upper hand. Yet you readily admit you would be for military aid to Israel if the balance of power was reversed. This is such a self rightous, self serving , its all about my feelings and my need to make myself feel good sentiment. You are basically saying that in any conflict anywhere if one side has a perceived power advantage over the other that the side that is weaker can do almost anything to the powerful side and if the powerful side fights back they are immediately the opressor.

I have said from the begining that the Texas law is madness, contradictory, hypocritical, ghoulish etc. I have said it perfectly summarizes the current Texas GOP. I am suggesting ways to get the law repealed.

We seem to be getting to the point of "do you want comfort or solutions". I don't disagree with your post in spirit. I have readily agreed on the intent of the statute and think it is repugnant. I am hopeful the Zurawski case will help. But if it doesn't then a different approach is going to be needed or else we all just join the choir and bitch.

It is not that either. Not sure where you are going. The Cox case can only be used as a precedent for women wanting abortions that refuse to follow the legal requirements to get an exception. And SCOTX and the AG's office have said that avenue is closed. And in that narrow window, the AG and SCOTX are correct. We all agree the law sucks but it is standing law.

You use your typical histrionics but I don't disagree with the sentiment. There are certainly things the hospitals and doctors can do to insulate them from this. In house medical panels that review, rigorous documentation etc. And if you read the statute jail time is only for doctors or others that "wantonly" violate the statute. But your point stands that there is risk. From a purely legal standpoint, I don't think this particular line of thinking is a winning strategy. Obviously getting the law repealed is ideal. Short of that, I think a woman is going to have to sue a doctor or hospital for denying her an abortion under the vagueness of the statute and force the courts to put in language that removes the ambiguity. We already have laws that deal with medical reasonableness and things like experimental drugs and procedures. These are not, at all, issues that the medical world hasn't dealt with before.

This is just not true or accurate. SCOTX as well as the AG's office have all agreed that Ms Cox is entitled to an abortion under the law. What SCOTX and the AG's office are saying is that she and the doctor and the hospital have to follow the requirements for the abortion as defined under the law. This case sets no precedent on dealing with exceptions to the rule because the plaintiffs admit they didn't follow the rule. I agree with you that the intent of the statute is to make it difficult to get an exception. That was by design. Possibly a case can be made that the requirements are too onerous but that is not the case they are bringing.

You missed the point. The staute will never be changed or repealed based on someone's belief that something might happen. Have a woman get an abortion based on the exceptions to the statute that clearly exist and then if the AG tries to interfere, a suit can be brought that has a chance of winning.

So what is your solution? You and others seem pretty emotional about this and rightfully so. I am sure the women this law affects are happy that you are screaming about it on a message board but I don't see how that actually helps them. Let's assume that the federal SCOTUS is not likely to change their stance on abortion anytime in the near future. SCOTUS said abortion needs to be defined by the states. As a result if you really want a change to the Texas law then it is going to have to come from Texas voters and by their proxy the Texas state legislatureor through SCOTX. I assme we can all agree on that? If your stance is that a majority of Texas minds will never be changed on this subject and further that even if the majority of Texans favor change, that the legislature is going to somehow ignore the will of the people and then insulate themselves from having to be re-elected so that the current statute/law will never face repeal or change then why are you even discussing it? You and so many others keep saying that you KNOW how the issue is going to be decided in a hypothetical scenario. That isn't knowing, that is speculating. You could be 100% correct in your speculation but you don't know it and it isn't fact until it happens. And, more importantly, your speculation does not have the power to change anything. Only allowing the actions to actually happen has the potential to change things. I would like the actual statute/law changed. I am advocating for a path forward that might actually produce a change. But what is happening now with the current cases isn't going to work imo. I haven't read every single scenario in the current suit but I have read most of them. Again, imo, those cases are going to lose because in those instances the plaintiffs are saying they want an abortion for a specific circumstance with their prgnancy and SCOTX has said that based on their reading of the statute all of the women are/were entitled to a leal abortion under the statute. So there is no case. What the plaintiffs are saying is that they do not want any restrictions on the abortions and that they do not want to go through the procedures required to get a legal abortion under the statute. That isn't goling to fly imo. I think a much better case would be a woman that has a viable prgenancy and did not realize she was pregnant until after the reporting timeline based on the statute but would have opted for an abortion if she knew. I think the statute is very shaky on this issue. It has been written in such a way to make it almost impossible for anyone in this scenario to get an abortion. I think a challenge on the vagueness of the statute and the hypocritical nature of the wording has a chance to win at SCOTX.

This is the point. You may very well be right that the AG would have come up with some other method. But we don't know and we didn't give him the chance. If minds are going to be changed then there must be a case where the statute was complied with and still the abortion was interfered with. Then you have a case to fight with.

I'm pretty high and not sure I understand the point you are making. I thought that you and the other guy were saying that because this case has legs and is getting a lot of national press and that this is an election year that it might actually change the minds of the Texas voters that approved the people in the legislature that put the statute into law. But then you post above about how truly crazy the people are. Which leads me to believe that no amount of national pressure is going to shame enough people to actually change the legislature, which was my point.

Hopefully you guys are right. But it seems to me that the only way to repeal the law is through the legislature. That is going to require a pretty serious conversion. I think the national dialogue will produce 2 things. Texas is going to look stupid and the ones responsible for being stupid are just going to hunker down and tell the world they don't understand the law. Shame does not work when people aren't ashamed of what they are doing.

Agreed to a point. I think you, as a good poster, should be above the crazies. I would like the law/statute repealed or replaced. But by bringing these types of cases, it actually gives the AG a defense by pointing out that, legally, the bad outcomes did not have to occur based on the statute. In order to actually get the statute repealed, hearts and minds are going to need to be changed. Perhaps they never will. But they certainly never will when the tactic used to try and change them is based on outcomes that could have been avoided if the current statute was applied correctly.

I think Rimbo is more right on this issue. Of course we will never know. But Gore believed, unequivocally (and as VP he had access to all of the intel), that Saddam had WMDs and was actively looking to share them with terrorists. Gore stated that in multiple speeches at the time. He couched support for the invasion by saying we needed more of an international consensus (and he was probably right about that in hindsight) but the die was cast and the US was going after Saddam regardless of who won the election. Further, no one could plausibly argue that the Clintons would not have had a major impact on Gore as POTUS and both Bill and Hillary supported the invasion, with Hillary being in the minority of dems that voted for the resolution (21 dem senators and 126 dem house memberts voted against the resolution). I did agree with Gore that we should not have slowed down our fight against Al Queda but that fight was proving to be harder than we thought. As to Haliburton, I think that line of thinking is just completely flawed and weak. When the authorization to invade was made there was absolutely no way to do a formal "bid" process to support the troops and handle the oil fields and Haliburton was, in fact, the best US corp to handle the work. Haliburton obviously made a shit ton of money but I do not believe, at all, that Haliburton getting the work played any role in the decision to invade. I think Cheney was an idealogue and truly thought he was helping the country. I don't think he actually did help the country but he was not motivated, nor was Bush, by Haliburton profiteering off the war.

To be clear, I disagree completely with the Texas abortion law and think it perfectly illustrtaes the backwords thinking and political grandstanding and blatant hypocrisy of the Texas GOP. It is ghoulish. The law is too vague and needs serious reform. It is likely written to put fear into doctors and hospitals. It is terrible. I would never support any of the people responsible for it. But there are definitely people on here that look to the few level headed attorneys on the board for information and I think you are greatly mischaracterizing the Texas law. To your points: 1)"Yeah and the statute doesn't require following the hospitals procedures."- I think it actually does. The law requires the doctor performing the procedure to have "active admitting privileges" at the time of the procedure and the hospital only grants privileges to doctors that agree to comply with all hospital policies. The truth is that if the hospital knowingly allows a doctor to perform surgeries/procedures that do not comply with their (the hospital's) own guidelines then the hospital is certainly at risk for penalties. This is true whether the procedure is an abortion or any other medical procedure. 2) "They are trying to force this woman to give birth to a stillborn infant and also to prosecute the hospital. "- Disagree again. The Texas statute (as ghoulish as it is) clearly states that an exception to the guidelines exists for any unborn child that " has a severe fetal abnormality". No woman would ever be forced to to give birth to a stillborn child under the statute. Again, they are not saying this at all. You, as a lawyer, know this. That was simply an answer to the specific filings in this case. There are many cisrcumstances that allow a legal abortion that do not require the mother's life to be in danger. As mentioned, the law is certainly vague and I can understand the hesitancy of the doctors. As stated, I think the statute is absolutely repulsive. But it was passed into law. And in making a PURELY legal and unemotional judgement on the actions of the AG (again I disagree to the law completely) in this case I would agree that the AG is correct in its arguments. There are laws and procedures required for legal abortions. Ms Cox and her doctor did not follow them and they certainly could have. The doctor could easily have noted the conditions present in Ms Cox's pregnancy that were a danger to "impairment of a major bodily function" and had another doctor concur and performed the abortion. I get it that they don't want to do that because it might show that the statute allows it and then they have a far more limited avenue to sue. They want to use the emotional scenarios to help draw attention to the law and the need for reform and I hope they succeed. What I do not like is the suffering that some of these women incur when they shouldn't have to legally or otherwise.

Good read. Just my opinion but I believe that after this conflict is resolved, Bibi will step down. I hope so.

I have a real problem with this sentiment. Maybe I am not understanding your point. The vast majority of people who are condemning Israel for their offensive and seemingly being supportive of Palestinians (as opposed to Hamas) all seem to suggest that Hamas represents a small percentage of Palestinians. I hear this a lot. Israel is killing "innocent" non combatives. I hear most Palestinians just want to live in peace and go to work and raise kids etc. So, IF that is true (I do not believe it to be) then why or how could another Hamas type group emerge in a post Hamas Gaza? Israel is going to shred Hamas including both people and weapons. It will be effectively destroyed. So if we assume that post Hamas Gaza gets vast international aid to rebuild their territory and some sort of international police force is present in Gaza during the rebuilding, how would a new Hamas get a foothold there? The only way would be if there really are a larger percentage of Gazans that are fine with killing Jews and trying to destroy Israel. I firmly believe that we are going to find out. Hamas is going to be wiped out. Gaza is going to be given an opportunity at true self determination after this conflict is over. International aid in the billions will flow into Gaza. If in 10 years, Gaza is living peacefully then they will be left alone by Israel. If in 10 years another Hamas type emerges to some position of control then Israel is going to decimate the whole population.