Title IX change raises Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds’ ire
- By cigaretteman
- Off Topic
- 1 Replies
Federal education officials want to protect LGBTQ students from discrimination in school. Gov. Kim Reynolds can’t stand it.
At issue is Title IX, the 1972 federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in K-12 schools and higher education. The U.S. Department of Education is expanding the definition of sex discrimination to include sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics.
The governor, whose favorite political pastime is kicking around transgender students, is incensed the Biden administration would shield them from discrimination, bullying and harassment. After all, Reynolds worked overtime to scare us into believing transgender students can’s use restrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their sexual identity. This year, she tried and failed to put definitions of man and woman in the Iowa Code that would, basically, erase their existence in the eyes of the law.
Reynolds said the Title IX change is “marginalizing girls and women,” while vowing to “protect the rights of women of all ages.” She accused President Biden of caving to the “radical left.” And she called on “her” Attorney General Brenna Bird to take legal action. Bird plans to do just that.
Of course, this is a governor who is fixated on girls’ bathrooms but would yank away their basic right to bodily autonomy. The governor has championed a six-week abortion ban, cutting off access before most women know they are pregnant. Under Reynolds’s leadership, young women will be forced to give birth. Are you in an abusive relationship or face other heartbreaking circumstances? Tough darts.
The governor only cares about women’s rights when it gives her a chance to score political points by bullying transgender kids.
Reynolds expanded Medicaid postpartum care from 60 days to one year but lowered the income eligibility threshold so 1,700 women and babies will no longer be able to access care.
If Iowa would ever raise its minimum wage, more than 60% of the Iowans who would benefit are women.
Reynolds could have helped a lot of moms by accepting $29 million in extra summer federal food aid for kids. Instead, she turned the money down and introduced her own paltry program.
But the most pressing issue is who goes where to the bathroom.
Reynolds blames the radical left. But the expansion sounds a lot like what’s already in Iowa’s civil rights code, which also bars discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. The expansion was approved way back in 2007, nearly 17 years ago.
It was pushed to passage with critical help from Republican lawmakers. After majority Democrats agreed to adopt a largely symbolic amendment saying the bill would not open the door to same-sex marriages, it passed the House with 59 votes, including nine Republicans who pushed it over the top.
In the Iowa Senate, the final bill passed 34-16 with six Republicans on board, including the late great Mary Lundby of Marion.
So, what was bipartisan 17 years ago is now radical.
Rarely have so many heaped so much derision on so few. According to a 2022 estimate by the Williams Institute at the UCLA College of Law, 2,100 Iowans between the ages of 13 and 17 were transgender in 2022. There are more than 480,000 kids in Iowa public schools.
The governor would have us believe these kids are a dire threat. But the real threat is a governor who is unafraid to use her power to persecute Iowans. The question is who is next?
(319) 398-8262; todd.dorman@thegazette.com
www.thegazette.com
At issue is Title IX, the 1972 federal law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in K-12 schools and higher education. The U.S. Department of Education is expanding the definition of sex discrimination to include sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics.
The governor, whose favorite political pastime is kicking around transgender students, is incensed the Biden administration would shield them from discrimination, bullying and harassment. After all, Reynolds worked overtime to scare us into believing transgender students can’s use restrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their sexual identity. This year, she tried and failed to put definitions of man and woman in the Iowa Code that would, basically, erase their existence in the eyes of the law.
Reynolds said the Title IX change is “marginalizing girls and women,” while vowing to “protect the rights of women of all ages.” She accused President Biden of caving to the “radical left.” And she called on “her” Attorney General Brenna Bird to take legal action. Bird plans to do just that.
Of course, this is a governor who is fixated on girls’ bathrooms but would yank away their basic right to bodily autonomy. The governor has championed a six-week abortion ban, cutting off access before most women know they are pregnant. Under Reynolds’s leadership, young women will be forced to give birth. Are you in an abusive relationship or face other heartbreaking circumstances? Tough darts.
The governor only cares about women’s rights when it gives her a chance to score political points by bullying transgender kids.
Reynolds expanded Medicaid postpartum care from 60 days to one year but lowered the income eligibility threshold so 1,700 women and babies will no longer be able to access care.
If Iowa would ever raise its minimum wage, more than 60% of the Iowans who would benefit are women.
Reynolds could have helped a lot of moms by accepting $29 million in extra summer federal food aid for kids. Instead, she turned the money down and introduced her own paltry program.
But the most pressing issue is who goes where to the bathroom.
Reynolds blames the radical left. But the expansion sounds a lot like what’s already in Iowa’s civil rights code, which also bars discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. The expansion was approved way back in 2007, nearly 17 years ago.
It was pushed to passage with critical help from Republican lawmakers. After majority Democrats agreed to adopt a largely symbolic amendment saying the bill would not open the door to same-sex marriages, it passed the House with 59 votes, including nine Republicans who pushed it over the top.
In the Iowa Senate, the final bill passed 34-16 with six Republicans on board, including the late great Mary Lundby of Marion.
So, what was bipartisan 17 years ago is now radical.
Rarely have so many heaped so much derision on so few. According to a 2022 estimate by the Williams Institute at the UCLA College of Law, 2,100 Iowans between the ages of 13 and 17 were transgender in 2022. There are more than 480,000 kids in Iowa public schools.
The governor would have us believe these kids are a dire threat. But the real threat is a governor who is unafraid to use her power to persecute Iowans. The question is who is next?
(319) 398-8262; todd.dorman@thegazette.com
Opinion: Title IX change raises Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds’ ire
The governor cares about women’s rights when she can score political points by bullying transgender kids
www.thegazette.com
Iowa's new immigration law relies on local police, but many doubt they can enforce it
- By cigaretteman
- Off Topic
- 4 Replies
A new law passed by Republican lawmakers and signed by Gov. Kim Reynolds criminalizes "illegal reentry" into the state, tasking Iowa officers with arresting undocumented immigrants who have previously been deported.
But police chiefs across the state say they lack both guidance from the state and the resources and training to take on responsibilities normally held by federal officers.
And they expressed clear misgivings about whether they would be able to enforce the law.
"We weren't consulted on it," said Greg Stallman, the legislative chair for the Iowa Police Chiefs Association and chief in Altoona. "So we're unaware of what the intent of this legislation is, or what they're trying to get accomplished."
Senate File 2340 has been touted by Reynolds as a response to the Biden administration on immigration, granting Iowa officers the power to "enforce immigration laws already on the books."
It creates the new state crime of "illegal reentry," applied to anyone who has previously been deported, removed or denied admission to the United States.
In most cases, the offense is an aggravated misdemeanor, which carries a two-year prison sentence. In certain circumstances, it can rise to a class D felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. If the person had been previously arrested for another felony, it can become a class C felony, with up to 10 years of prison time. The law takes effect July 1.
As she defended the law in comments to reporters Wednesday, the governor said law enforcement had been briefed before it was signed.
"Well make no mistake, we talked to them," Reynolds said. "We talked to them before we implemented it."
She pledged to continue communicating with police about the measure and, if necessary, provide additional guidance.
"Of course we'll continue to work with them," Reynolds said. "And if we need additional legislation or if we need to provide rulemaking authority or whatever we need to do, we'll work with (Public Safety) Commissioner (Stephan) Bayens and we'll make sure that information gets out to law enforcement.
POLITICS
Galen Bacharier
Des Moines Register
A new law passed by Republican lawmakers and signed by Gov. Kim Reynolds criminalizes "illegal reentry" into the state, tasking Iowa officers with arresting undocumented immigrants who have previously been deported.
But police chiefs across the state say they lack both guidance from the state and the resources and training to take on responsibilities normally held by federal officers.
And they expressed clear misgivings about whether they would be able to enforce the law.
"We weren't consulted on it," said Greg Stallman, the legislative chair for the Iowa Police Chiefs Association and chief in Altoona. "So we're unaware of what the intent of this legislation is, or what they're trying to get accomplished."
Senate File 2340 has been touted by Reynolds as a response to the Biden administration on immigration, granting Iowa officers the power to "enforce immigration laws already on the books."
It creates the new state crime of "illegal reentry," applied to anyone who has previously been deported, removed or denied admission to the United States.
In most cases, the offense is an aggravated misdemeanor, which carries a two-year prison sentence. In certain circumstances, it can rise to a class D felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. If the person had been previously arrested for another felony, it can become a class C felony, with up to 10 years of prison time. The law takes effect July 1.
More:Justice Department warns it will sue if Iowa tries to enforce its new immigration law
As she defended the law in comments to reporters Wednesday, the governor said law enforcement had been briefed before it was signed.
"Well make no mistake, we talked to them," Reynolds said. "We talked to them before we implemented it."
She pledged to continue communicating with police about the measure and, if necessary, provide additional guidance.
"Of course we'll continue to work with them," Reynolds said. "And if we need additional legislation or if we need to provide rulemaking authority or whatever we need to do, we'll work with (Public Safety) Commissioner (Stephan) Bayens and we'll make sure that information gets out to law enforcement.
"But at least it begins to give them a tool to address," she added, "and it just, it sends a message."
On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Justice wrote to Reynolds and Attorney General Brenna Bird that the department would sue to block the law if it was still being enforced on May 7.
Multiple current and former police chiefs who spoke to the Des Monies Register said the responsibilities laid out for officers in the law were beyond both their resources and their management capabilities.
But police chiefs across the state say they lack both guidance from the state and the resources and training to take on responsibilities normally held by federal officers.
And they expressed clear misgivings about whether they would be able to enforce the law.
"We weren't consulted on it," said Greg Stallman, the legislative chair for the Iowa Police Chiefs Association and chief in Altoona. "So we're unaware of what the intent of this legislation is, or what they're trying to get accomplished."
Senate File 2340 has been touted by Reynolds as a response to the Biden administration on immigration, granting Iowa officers the power to "enforce immigration laws already on the books."
It creates the new state crime of "illegal reentry," applied to anyone who has previously been deported, removed or denied admission to the United States.
In most cases, the offense is an aggravated misdemeanor, which carries a two-year prison sentence. In certain circumstances, it can rise to a class D felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. If the person had been previously arrested for another felony, it can become a class C felony, with up to 10 years of prison time. The law takes effect July 1.
As she defended the law in comments to reporters Wednesday, the governor said law enforcement had been briefed before it was signed.
"Well make no mistake, we talked to them," Reynolds said. "We talked to them before we implemented it."
She pledged to continue communicating with police about the measure and, if necessary, provide additional guidance.
"Of course we'll continue to work with them," Reynolds said. "And if we need additional legislation or if we need to provide rulemaking authority or whatever we need to do, we'll work with (Public Safety) Commissioner (Stephan) Bayens and we'll make sure that information gets out to law enforcement.
POLITICS
Iowa's new immigration law relies on local police, but many doubt they can enforce it
Galen BacharierDes Moines Register
A new law passed by Republican lawmakers and signed by Gov. Kim Reynolds criminalizes "illegal reentry" into the state, tasking Iowa officers with arresting undocumented immigrants who have previously been deported.
But police chiefs across the state say they lack both guidance from the state and the resources and training to take on responsibilities normally held by federal officers.
And they expressed clear misgivings about whether they would be able to enforce the law.
"We weren't consulted on it," said Greg Stallman, the legislative chair for the Iowa Police Chiefs Association and chief in Altoona. "So we're unaware of what the intent of this legislation is, or what they're trying to get accomplished."
Senate File 2340 has been touted by Reynolds as a response to the Biden administration on immigration, granting Iowa officers the power to "enforce immigration laws already on the books."
It creates the new state crime of "illegal reentry," applied to anyone who has previously been deported, removed or denied admission to the United States.
In most cases, the offense is an aggravated misdemeanor, which carries a two-year prison sentence. In certain circumstances, it can rise to a class D felony, punishable by up to five years in prison. If the person had been previously arrested for another felony, it can become a class C felony, with up to 10 years of prison time. The law takes effect July 1.
More:Justice Department warns it will sue if Iowa tries to enforce its new immigration law
As she defended the law in comments to reporters Wednesday, the governor said law enforcement had been briefed before it was signed.
"Well make no mistake, we talked to them," Reynolds said. "We talked to them before we implemented it."
She pledged to continue communicating with police about the measure and, if necessary, provide additional guidance.
"Of course we'll continue to work with them," Reynolds said. "And if we need additional legislation or if we need to provide rulemaking authority or whatever we need to do, we'll work with (Public Safety) Commissioner (Stephan) Bayens and we'll make sure that information gets out to law enforcement.
"But at least it begins to give them a tool to address," she added, "and it just, it sends a message."
On Thursday, the U.S. Department of Justice wrote to Reynolds and Attorney General Brenna Bird that the department would sue to block the law if it was still being enforced on May 7.
Multiple current and former police chiefs who spoke to the Des Monies Register said the responsibilities laid out for officers in the law were beyond both their resources and their management capabilities.
Chicago Bears to announce plans Wednesday for new domed stadium on lakefront
- By cigaretteman
- Off Topic
- 31 Replies
The Chicago Bears have set noon Wednesday to announce plans for a new domed stadium on the lakefront.
Team officials will make the announcement at Soldier Field, which would be demolished under the proposal.
In what will be a busy week for the team, the announcement will come one day before the Bears are scheduled to make the No. 1 pick in the NFL draft.
The team said it plans to present a “state-of-the-art, publicly owned enclosed stadium, along with additional green and open space with access to the lakefront for families and fans, on the Museum Campus.”
The team has pledged to spend $2 billion in private money for the project. The cost of the stadium is estimated at $2.5 billion to $3 billion, plus $1 billion for associated roads and other infrastructure.
The crucial question is how any taxpayer cost would be funded, and whether city and state lawmakers would approve that. Taxpayers were still on the hook for $631 million for Soldier Field debt as of last year.
The new site would be on what are now parking lots just south of Soldier Field. The colonnades from the old structure would be saved. The proposal is believed to potentially include a hotel and improved access to and from DuSable Lake Shore Drive.
The Bears bought the former Arlington International Racecourse in Arlington Heights for $197 million last year, and announced plans for a $5 billion mixed-use development with a stadium, housing and entertainment. But the team switched focus back to Chicago this year after property tax negotiations with local school districts broke down.
Several other communities, including Naperville and Aurora, also expressed interest in luring the Bears.
Mayor Brandon Johnson’s office declined to comment Monday, but he has recently spoken about having promising conversations with Warren and hinted at unspecified benefits that Chicago would reap from the team’s continued presence downtown.
During an unrelated news conference last Wednesday, the mayor again said “ownership has to put some skin in the game” when asked about the ongoing jockeying for new stadiums by the Bears as well as other Chicago sports teams such as the White Sox. He also maintained there would be no new taxes to help out the franchises.
“If we’re going to build 21st century stadiums, we have to make sure that that investment is activating the entire city of Chicago, and these conversations particularly with the Bears have been quite positive,” Johnson said. “I appreciate the leadership of Kevin Warren. … But no, we have not made any commitments to any new forms of revenue.”
www.chicagotribune.com
Team officials will make the announcement at Soldier Field, which would be demolished under the proposal.
In what will be a busy week for the team, the announcement will come one day before the Bears are scheduled to make the No. 1 pick in the NFL draft.
The team said it plans to present a “state-of-the-art, publicly owned enclosed stadium, along with additional green and open space with access to the lakefront for families and fans, on the Museum Campus.”
The team has pledged to spend $2 billion in private money for the project. The cost of the stadium is estimated at $2.5 billion to $3 billion, plus $1 billion for associated roads and other infrastructure.
The crucial question is how any taxpayer cost would be funded, and whether city and state lawmakers would approve that. Taxpayers were still on the hook for $631 million for Soldier Field debt as of last year.
The new site would be on what are now parking lots just south of Soldier Field. The colonnades from the old structure would be saved. The proposal is believed to potentially include a hotel and improved access to and from DuSable Lake Shore Drive.
The Bears bought the former Arlington International Racecourse in Arlington Heights for $197 million last year, and announced plans for a $5 billion mixed-use development with a stadium, housing and entertainment. But the team switched focus back to Chicago this year after property tax negotiations with local school districts broke down.
Several other communities, including Naperville and Aurora, also expressed interest in luring the Bears.
Mayor Brandon Johnson’s office declined to comment Monday, but he has recently spoken about having promising conversations with Warren and hinted at unspecified benefits that Chicago would reap from the team’s continued presence downtown.
Related Articles
- Brad Biggs’ NFL mock draft 4.0: Top half of the 1st round — where Chicago Bears have 2 picks — could be a wild ride
- NFL draft: Minnesota Vikings have the 11th and 23rd picks — and a need for a QB. Can they get their guy?
- NFL draft: Detroit Lions — coming off successful season — are not looking for a starter for a change
- NFL draft: Green Bay Packers could still look to upgrade secondary even after adding Xavier McKinney
- NFL draft: Will Michigan — led by quarterback J.J. McCarthy — break Georgia’s record?
During an unrelated news conference last Wednesday, the mayor again said “ownership has to put some skin in the game” when asked about the ongoing jockeying for new stadiums by the Bears as well as other Chicago sports teams such as the White Sox. He also maintained there would be no new taxes to help out the franchises.
“If we’re going to build 21st century stadiums, we have to make sure that that investment is activating the entire city of Chicago, and these conversations particularly with the Bears have been quite positive,” Johnson said. “I appreciate the leadership of Kevin Warren. … But no, we have not made any commitments to any new forms of revenue.”
Chicago Bears to announce plans Wednesday for new domed stadium on lakefront
Team officials will make the announcement at Soldier Field, which would be demolished under the proposal.
www.chicagotribune.com
jo Just Doesn’t Get It, Nor Does He Care
- By Here_4_a_Day
- Off Topic
- 7 Replies
Biden dismisses low consumer confidence on the economy: 'We've already turned it around'
President Biden pushed back during a tense moment on a Wednesday CNN interview, arguing that voters' dissatisfaction with this economy is highly exaggerated.
LOL @ David Axelrod blasts Biden attempts to tout strong US economy: 'Drives me crazy when he does that'
- By Here_4_a_Day
- Off Topic
- 2 Replies
David Axelrod blasts Biden attempts to tout strong US economy: 'Drives me crazy when he does that'
David Axelrod, a former adviser to President Obama, said during a recent interview that Biden's touting of the "strongest economy in the world" drove him crazy.
Saudis seem nice…
If you don’t want to move so they can build the big dumb city thru the desert they’ll just kill you.
www.bbc.com
Neom: Forces 'told to kill’ to clear land for eco-city
An ex-intelligence officer tells the BBC he was permitted to shoot dead those resisting eviction.
www.bbc.com
CAN'T MAKE IT UP: Denver migrants refuse to leave encampment, send mayor list of demands
- By Here_4_a_Day
- Off Topic
- 14 Replies
The list includes demands for better food, access to immigration lawyers, and unlimited shower time.
Bust some ****ing skulls and call ICE, no?
www.foxnews.com
Bust some ****ing skulls and call ICE, no?
Denver migrants refuse to leave encampment, send mayor list of demands
An encampment of migrants in Denver has reportedly compiled a list of demands it wants the government to agree to before moving to government-funded shelters.
NYT editor Joe Kahn: ‘The newsroom is not a safe space’
- By Colonoscopy
- Off Topic
- 1 Replies
I guess all the right wingers can start reading the NYT again.
www.semafor.com
I stopped by Joe Kahn’s modest office in the New York Times newsroom Thursday to ask him what some of his readers want to know: Why doesn’t the executive editor see it as his job to help Joe Biden win?
The Times sets the tone for American journalism, and Kahn sets the tone for the Times. So it’s worth listening closely to his view on this topic. He told me the paper is a “pillar” of democracy but not a tool of power. He believes he is ignoring pressure to “become an instrument of the Biden campaign” and “turn ourselves into Xinhua News Agency or Pravda.”
Kahn has been in the job for two years. He is quiet, comfortable in his skin, and often described as cerebral, which is true both in the usual sense and of a defining physical feature, his large head. His job draws criticism from all quarters, and I put both left- and right-wing critiques to him, but his defining management challenge is with the left. The Times, he said, went “too far” in the summer of 2020, and Kahn sees his role as walking back from “the excesses” of that period.
Joe Kahn: Good media is the Fourth Estate, it’s another pillar of democracy. One of the absolute necessities of democracy is having a free and fair and open election where people can compete for votes, and the role of the news media in that environment is not to skew your coverage towards one candidate or the other, but just to provide very good, hard-hitting, well-rounded coverage of both candidates, and informing voters. If you believe in democracy, I don’t see how we get past the essential role of quality media in informing people about their choice in a presidential election.
To say that the threats of democracy are so great that the media is going to abandon its central role as a source of impartial information to help people vote — that’s essentially saying that the news media should become a propaganda arm for a single candidate, because we prefer that candidate’s agenda. It is true that Biden’s agenda is more in sync with traditional establishment parties and candidates. And we’re reporting on that and making it very clear.
It’s also true that Trump could win this election in a popular vote. Given that Trump’s not in office, it will probably be fair. And there’s a very good chance, based on our polling and other independent polling, that he will win that election in a popular vote. So there are people out there in the world who may decide, based on their democratic rights, to elect Donald Trump as president. It is not the job of the news media to prevent that from happening. It’s the job of Biden and the people around Biden to prevent that from happening.
It’s our job to cover the full range of issues that people have. At the moment, democracy is one of them. But it’s not the top one — immigration happens to be the top [of polls], and the economy and inflation is the second. Should we stop covering those things because they’re favorable to Trump and minimize them? I don’t even know how it’s supposed to work in the view of Dan Pfeiffer or the White House. We become an instrument of the Biden campaign? We turn ourselves into Xinhua News Agency or Pravda and put out a stream of stuff that’s very, very favorable to them and only write negative stories about the other side? And that would accomplish — what?
Joe Kahn: ‘The newsroom is not a safe space’ | Semafor
The New York Times’ executive editor said the paper is a “pillar” of democracy but not a tool of power.
www.semafor.com
I stopped by Joe Kahn’s modest office in the New York Times newsroom Thursday to ask him what some of his readers want to know: Why doesn’t the executive editor see it as his job to help Joe Biden win?
The Times sets the tone for American journalism, and Kahn sets the tone for the Times. So it’s worth listening closely to his view on this topic. He told me the paper is a “pillar” of democracy but not a tool of power. He believes he is ignoring pressure to “become an instrument of the Biden campaign” and “turn ourselves into Xinhua News Agency or Pravda.”
Kahn has been in the job for two years. He is quiet, comfortable in his skin, and often described as cerebral, which is true both in the usual sense and of a defining physical feature, his large head. His job draws criticism from all quarters, and I put both left- and right-wing critiques to him, but his defining management challenge is with the left. The Times, he said, went “too far” in the summer of 2020, and Kahn sees his role as walking back from “the excesses” of that period.
Q&A
Ben Smith: Dan Pfeiffer, who used to work for Barack Obama, recently wrote of the Times: “They do not see their job as saving democracy or stopping an authoritarian from taking power.” Why don’t you see your job as: “We’ve got to stop Trump?” What about your job doesn’t let you think that way?Joe Kahn: Good media is the Fourth Estate, it’s another pillar of democracy. One of the absolute necessities of democracy is having a free and fair and open election where people can compete for votes, and the role of the news media in that environment is not to skew your coverage towards one candidate or the other, but just to provide very good, hard-hitting, well-rounded coverage of both candidates, and informing voters. If you believe in democracy, I don’t see how we get past the essential role of quality media in informing people about their choice in a presidential election.
To say that the threats of democracy are so great that the media is going to abandon its central role as a source of impartial information to help people vote — that’s essentially saying that the news media should become a propaganda arm for a single candidate, because we prefer that candidate’s agenda. It is true that Biden’s agenda is more in sync with traditional establishment parties and candidates. And we’re reporting on that and making it very clear.
It’s also true that Trump could win this election in a popular vote. Given that Trump’s not in office, it will probably be fair. And there’s a very good chance, based on our polling and other independent polling, that he will win that election in a popular vote. So there are people out there in the world who may decide, based on their democratic rights, to elect Donald Trump as president. It is not the job of the news media to prevent that from happening. It’s the job of Biden and the people around Biden to prevent that from happening.
It’s our job to cover the full range of issues that people have. At the moment, democracy is one of them. But it’s not the top one — immigration happens to be the top [of polls], and the economy and inflation is the second. Should we stop covering those things because they’re favorable to Trump and minimize them? I don’t even know how it’s supposed to work in the view of Dan Pfeiffer or the White House. We become an instrument of the Biden campaign? We turn ourselves into Xinhua News Agency or Pravda and put out a stream of stuff that’s very, very favorable to them and only write negative stories about the other side? And that would accomplish — what?
