Except there are actual "fake" news sites that intentionally report false and misleading information. They are not mainstream and neither is their target audience. There are also others (example: redstate.com) that are so obviously biased that there is no way to gather credible information from them without fact checking every part of a story. Those who support those sites are the ones pushing the narrative about "fake" news in the mainstream media, and blurring that line for consumers is intentional.

Our schools around here have them, but I don't believe they are commonly used anymore. I know one school we used for basketball practice used their shower area for storage. From talking to other parents the only times there showers are usually used would be when the basketball teams have early morning practices and the kids don't want to smell bad all day.

Our local middle schools (all relatively new construction) have a coaches office in the locker room with a window that can see into the changing area, which sounds similar to what you had but on the ground level.

^^^This.

I didn't say one word about kids who punched someone for grabbing their butt. Your logic is strange. I am not sure how you can say something is not a big deal but also worthy of punching someone over. One would think you would also support those who take the route of reporting someone who grabbed their butt.

Grabbing the genitals of another goes past being "wrong" imo. We aren't talking about someone being rude and ticking someone off.

I don't get your logic at all. Why is it okay for a stranger to get one free grab at the privates of another if they are adults?

He explains the legal perspective fairly well. He was very neutral on the perjury issue, with my only quibble being the larger perjury issues were raised before the Ford allegations.

Everything else aside, the owner of that site is taking on a legal risk that is mind boggling.

Subjective opinions are not necessarily insults. It is a way of explaining why someone is viewing an issue differently.

It's an observation. It is based on perception, and one can choose to take offense from it if they are so inclined.

Threatening/hinting at a lawsuit when you know you have no intention of going forward or know you do not have a solid legal basis to go forward is a poor tactic. Youth sports organizations have liability coverage that will cover them if they are sued, including all legal costs. I am on a board that has been threatened with lawsuits numerous times, been sued twice (2-0 in court fwiw), and it really isn't that much of a threat. If you do make that kind of threat and then don't follow up with legal action when changes aren't made, any complaints made later won't be taken as seriously. Regarding what the league "should" be doing, officiating is always tricky and is filled with gray areas in any contact sport (one of the reasons for the gross negligence standard), The pool of highly skilled officials in any area is generally low relative to the population, and youth leagues often work with the best they can get. Citing specific areas of concern in the officiating and offering constructive suggestions for how the officials can improve will often get a better response than taking an immediately adversarial approach.

Unless there is an issue of gross negligence most states protect officials and leagues from liability suits related to how a game is refereed. Poor/inconsistent calls generally do not rise to the level of gross negligence.

Just for clarification, the OP can ask the prosecutor to move forward with charges, but whether they do or not is out of the OP's hands. If there is the possibility of criminal action, contacting the parents of the other child would not be advisable.

Calling her a troll was way out of line.

One of the major costs people like to point out (medical liability) can be significantly reduced via a socialized healthcare model. Suffering an injury due to medical negligence under our current model can be absolutely catastrophic for a family due to the possibility of future costs. Absorbing those costs into a socialized model removes the need for a large % of current medical liability costs and would also reduce the need for CYA tests requested by doctors.

Really? I run into more people from other countries who seem appalled by our current system. Other western nations with various forms of socialized healthcare all spend less per capita and have better overall health outcomes.

We have a 13yo nephew who is Type 1. I worry about what his options will be down the road. We are fortunate that it is *likely* someone in the family will be able to assist him financially but it is so scary.

The black out/amnesia strategy is rarely successful as a defense. Not remembering that you committed a crime is not a defense to the crime. Those defense can sometimes play a role in sentencing but I would expect this one to be ineffective.

Leading Nebraska to a title in 1997 wasn't enough?

While Netflix does receive money whether you watch the movie or not via your subscription, the success of their shows is based on how often they are viewed. If you don't watch it you will be sending a message.

Have any of you ever watched the Exorcist? A certain scene in that film is more graphic and disturbing.

Legally this isn't as clear cut as you make it out to be. The fact the child is clothed and did not actually engage in a sexual act matters. The odds of Netflix facing any distribution charges are effectively zero.

I have found they all have a bit of an aftertaste.

1.) I am not so sure that previous generations believed they could cause the world to end. I believe there was always a fear of some kind of cataclysm, but considering how tenuous life was for many, many generations I think that is understandable. 2.) Again, climate change aside, humans do possess the ability to end life as we know it on this planet. That ability did not exist prior to 1945. Fallout shelters and drills were already a thing of the past when we came close to accidental nuclear launches in 1983 and 1995. There was also a lesser known malfunction in 2010. 3.) Actually your exact words were " so much so that govt officials want to criminalize dissent from the said theory."