LongJim

The Times published it, and then was cowed into disavowing it. Either they didn't read it, proof it, or edit it before they published (very unlikely, but if so, inexcusable), or they were browbeaten into disavowing it. How about they let the reader make a decision on whether they can understand the difference between news and opinion? They shouldn't trot out the "You're a child. With a child's mind" excuse for specific opinion pieces and not others. If they're so concerned about the public's collective mental capacity and the safety of their employees, maybe they should either stop doing it altogether, or publish their op-ed articles in the pages of Highlights or Nickelodeon.

I enjoyed your thoughtful post here. I deleted the backstory for brevity, but I suspect many had similar experiences, and like yours, they are all valid. Regarding the thread title--the title is provocative on purpose. It is intended to provoke discussion and a response to the topic. Similar to the NYT Is A Joke topic. When we get into which groups and activities are allowed "freedom" by the state, and which aren't--we are entering DANGEROUS territory and times. If the marches and protests are allowed (and they are, and SHOULD be) then the person that wants to bury their mother and invite whoever they want to the funeral should be able to--period. That is not what is happening. We can't allow the state to divide the public and enforce laws based on a shifting interpretation of what is "right and wrong" which is influenced by a specific group.

You're right. There was nothing in your post to reply to, as it was not on topic. I think whenever the media is cowed into what is "fit to print" (ironic), then we have set a very dangerous precedent. The New York Times! The "paper of record"! On the op-ed page! It can't be thought of as a "paper of record" if it has no stones.

The New York Times is a joke.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/06/04/trump_team_whatever_happened_to_social_distancing.html

https://reason.com/2020/06/04/new-york-times-journalists-scared-to-have-an-op-ed-page/

Kyler Murray runs a 4.3 40, and has a cannon. There were big doubts about his size, as well.

Great post. There's no reason that UNT--largest state school in the region--can't be the one to do that. Built-in potential TV fanbase, and overwhelming # of alumni in area. Have to consistently win. It's not an instantaneous process, but it's right there for the taking.

Phyllis George is a legend. Remember her well from NFL Today. Not sure how many folks know how big a deal it was to have a woman on the set of a major sports show. It was a huge deal, and she was truly a trailblazer. Really cool thing about her is she knew her stuff, and held her own on that set. Sorry to hear of her passing.

Sure looks like it. Great pickup.

Hey man! The press is not the enemy of the people!!

Limit/beat this: Specifically? What blueprint do you refer to? I think the bolded part speaks more to the act of not completely shutting down the economy while allowing for increased immunity among groups more likely to exhibit milder/no symptoms of infection. Sort of a balance. That's the way I'm reading it. I think your third paragraph is simplistic, partisan nonsense.

I pretty much agree with this take. Especially the bolded section: ********************************** "There are only two ways that this epidemic ends. One is by population immunity that makes transmission rare, and one is eradication of the virus. The latter is simply not going to happen. The former can be accomplished in two ways, or really, by a combination of both. One is natural immunity and the other is vaccine-aided immunity. We seem to have a number of people who don’t understand these basic facts; who somehow believe that the lockdowns are making the virus go away and when they end, we will all be safe. Not only is the first part of that belief not accurate (the second part is already the case for most of us), the lockdowns are delaying the one thing that would make it safe, especially for the at-risk groups. The sheer stupidity of the lockdown strategy, given the bifurcated nature of this epidemic, is that the strategy is forcing both the epidemic course and the lockdowns to go on indefinitely. If you ease the lockdowns now, you will see greater transmission and infections. You might as well never have put them in place. Only a government employee with a guaranteed job or a rich person (yeah, I’m talking about you Bill Gates) could think indefinite lockdowns are a viable strategy. The smartest strategy is one that would have allowed a moderate pace of spread, building population immunity, while protecting at-risk groups. The biggest at-risk group, seniors in congregate living situations, is already isolated, so it shouldn’t be difficult to protect them. Almost a third of our population, people 24 and under, have essentially a zero risk, and they have the highest rate of contacts. That group is an enormous head start on population immunity. The remainder of the population is generally very low risk as well. It is not hard to imagine getting to the desired 60% or 70% (and as some research suggests, it may not need to be that high) of the population being immune with very low risk. Certainly a lot lower risk than the damage we are doing to people’s lives right now with lost jobs and deferred health care."

https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/money/medical-center-admits-planting-staff-180543963.html

Interesting opinion on Cuomo's handling of the situation in NYC: https://reason.com/2020/05/07/andrew-cuomos-morally-grotesque-rationale-for-maintaining-covid-19-lockdowns/

I read that too. Entertaining read. I think he's stretching a little bit, but his premise is definitely thought-provoking.

I think it's an ok article. There are a lot of nuances in these types of cases, and she makes the point about "many other reporters...learning, corroborating, analyzing". I personally think that's a convenient excuse (not by the author) for some media outlets to sit on the Biden accusations. I particularly have a problem with the NYT. I would believe more of the "wait until we have more info" crowd if stuff like this hadn't come from the NYT: "The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden, beyond the hugs, kisses, and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable." Which was then amended to remove everything after the word Biden. 😆 I don't buy the clock ticking down thing on Kavanaugh, either. Especially as it relates to the Times. I'm too lazy to look it up at the moment, but the handling of Ford, and the handling of Reade have come from totally different universes.

IMO, the issue stems from the great majority of folks being faced with decisions to be made that do not have binary choices, but are nuanced. The real tantrums occur when people want to apply their own reality/situation to those faced by others, and believe that "their" choice is the "right" choice for everyone.

@QuonerAbout 5 weeks ago I was exposed in close quarters to a co-worker who contracted the illness from his roommate here in Denton. The co-worker ran a fever, and after a couple of days of this, was told to stay home until he was fever-free. His roommate apparently was tested positive and was sick for almost 2 weeks. Both of these guys are mid-20's, (UNT grads) and both have recovered. FWIW, the co-worker was *not* tested, so I have a feeling that there are a lot of folks who come down with this, and never really do anything about it except typical stay at home, drink fluids and rest stuff. The co-worker apparently felt like he could have come in to work, but after running the fever, called to ask about it, and was told hell no, stay home. I was "quarantined" at home for 2 weeks simply for being exposed to the co-worker, during which time I didn't notice any symptoms of illness. The co-worker came back after 2 weeks and has apparently had no other issues.

NYC is a strange place. https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/samaritans-purse-excluded-from-nyc-for-the-sake-of-inclusion/

I'm not doubting anyone's bonafides. I'm sorry if you took my comment personally. I intended it as a general observation. Regardless, the (not your) attitude baffles me, and it's self-defeating, IMO.

I'll never get the tendency to automatically assume the worst scenario for this program. Years of frustration, I guess. But I just don't get it.

The NYT wants a thorough investigation. To be carried out by the DNC.

I didn't say King did.

Yes, so memorable. I'm sure that run will live in perpetuity at the CHS field house. I also remember that he bailed on your program. He probably felt like it failed him. Good that he got out while he could, right?