https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies Style Advice for Fashion Lovers en-US Wed, 22 Apr 2026 00:17:39 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.2 q https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/search.php https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1779487 Fri, 17 Feb 2017 18:16:26 +0000 rachylou 1779487@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>Tracey, Ryce - you bring up interesting points I hadn't even thought about. What do the absolute numbers suggest and so forth... </p> <p>Drat it! Now I have to watch for other letters to the editor! Lol </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1779453 Fri, 17 Feb 2017 16:41:29 +0000 Traci 1779453@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>My question is, if someone could get 33-37 mental health providers to sign something saying they think Trump is sane, healthy, and a good leader, would that change anything for you? &nbsp;Or would 33-37 suddenly seem like a really small number in the grand scheme of things? &nbsp;Would their motives seem less than genuine? &nbsp;How many different ways can you imagine you'd find to discredit those 33-37 people? </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1779443 Fri, 17 Feb 2017 15:57:56 +0000 Anonymous 1779443@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>Here's another perspective on the issue, very consistent with <b>Marley's </b>&nbsp;excellent points written by the psychiatrist who was&nbsp;chairman of the task force that wrote the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (D.S.M.-IV). It appears to have been written in direct response to the letter cited above.</p> <p>ETA: Link</p> </p> <p><a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/opinion/an-eminent-psychiatrist-demurs-on-trumps-mental-state.html?_r=0">https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0.....-state.htm</a></p> <p></p> <p>The gist:<br />"Bad behavior is rarely a sign of mental illness, and the mentally ill behave badly only rarely. Psychiatric name-calling is a misguided way of countering Mr. Trump’s attack on democracy. He can, and should, be appropriately denounced for his ignorance, incompetence, impulsivity and pursuit of dictatorial powers."</p> <p><b>racheylou,</b> I am 100% with you on concerns about the numbers of corrections we are seeing even from the most reputable news sources. I also feel that compulsion to go back and check because so often the story changes.&nbsp;</p> <p><b>JAileen</b>, speaking for myself, when I see that a journalist hasn't initially reported accurately on an easily verifiable fact, it really makes me wonder how much care they are taking with regard to the parts of their stories that require more judgment. &nbsp;Like, how much care are they taking to vet the inside sources they are relying on? &nbsp;And are they making other mistakes that are never corrected. &nbsp;</p> <p>Like <b>racheylou's</b> baking, some types of work require absolute precision and attention to detail. &nbsp;In my mind, journalism is absolutely one of those endeavors. &nbsp;(So is running the government of the United States, but that is a conversation for a different time.) </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1779250 Fri, 17 Feb 2017 02:10:38 +0000 rachylou 1779250@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>I heard him, the ghost writer, talking in a radio interview. It was before the elections. He's a writer not a psychiatrist, but he spent real time with the man. It may take a psychiatrist to classify and treat crazy, but it takes real time to diagnose it - and ordinary people can spot crazy too. </p> <p>I mean, I had a neighbor, for example, who said her husband was cheating on her. Maybe he was; not implausible - people do things like that. However, three months later, when she pointed to the non-existent space between bed and wall (bed was pushed up against it) and said 'there's the girl'... yeah, couldn't say what type of crazy that was, but certainly could say it was crazy.</p> <p>I think my problem with the letter and it being published as news is ... it's from people who are breaking their own professional standards and it's really not being called out, but is clear as day. This makes them unqualified, is unpersuasive, and will end up being chalked up as more fake news noise. They appear not as ethical whistleblowers but as unethical rule breakers. </p> <p>Makes me think of how Bradley/Chelsea Manning was ungrateful for his pardon. And how this letter strikes me as different from what the Union of Concerned Scientists does with its letters. I feel a difference there. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1779216 Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:58:56 +0000 JAileen 1779216@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>Marley, thanks. Evidently there's a Goldwater rule, preventing diagnosis from afar. I think the letter is trying to make the point that the behavior of the person in question is so very egregious that they felt they had to speak up.</p> <p>Rachy, Marley makes a good point. The ghostwriter is an ordinary person like us. I read he deeply regrets the project. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1779208 Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:42:21 +0000 rachylou 1779208@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>I read (present tense) 'his actions and words suggest he is unable to empathize.' Does and is are brought together. And I read that they are calling on their professional credentials. Yeah, I am indeed more persuaded by the direct experience of someone who spent months with the man. </p> <p>And yeah, don't need no authority to tell me he's messy, Marley! </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1779203 Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:28:11 +0000 Marley 1779203@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>Oh JAileen - you just made the point I was trying to make - but you did it better! </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1779202 Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:27:05 +0000 Marley 1779202@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>I saw that article signed by the mental health professionals. &nbsp;I thought they were giving their opinion regarding an individual's behavior and words - rather than a diagnosis. I really don't know any ethical mental health professional who would actually give someone a diagnosis without evaluating them in person. &nbsp;Even trump's ghostwriter - who spent many hours with him - is not qualified to give a diagnosis since he isn't a mental health professional. &nbsp;Regardless - we don't need a mental health professional to tell us what we all can observe on our own. &nbsp;Diagnosis or not - gulp!</p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1779198 Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:20:29 +0000 JAileen 1779198@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>33 cosigners in addition to the two lead signers, whose names appear, equals 35. They are saying he has done xyz, not that he is xyz. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1779197 Thu, 16 Feb 2017 23:07:42 +0000 rachylou 1779197@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>I believe they went from 35 to 33?</p> <p>What I think is, it's a lot of work to check up on all the articles, for when the big mistake comes. Numbers are basic editing, tho. I get the sense they, and everyone else, are pushing too hard to put headlines out. No time for the basics even.</p> <p>I don't know that 33 professionals evaluating a person from afar is quite the thing, esp when the profession doesn't perform evaluations that way. I do think the opinion of a person's autobiography ghostwriter carries more weight (that was NPR) (he said the same thing). Because he was in the same room for months on end. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1779192 Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:58:10 +0000 JAileen 1779192@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>Rachy, you thnk the fact that they originally said 37 cosigners makes it an invalid observation? </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1779184 Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:32:26 +0000 rachylou 1779184@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>Did you see the correction at the bottom, JAileen? I'm just sayin' it irritates the buggrit out of me that every story I read, I feel like I have to come back later to check up on it - if it still stands. Lol. Right. I know, *whatever.*</p> <p>Anyways, ok, it's a little weird diagnosing someone you haven't seen in person, so the reticence makes sense to me. HOWEVER, his autobiography ghost writer - that's a different story. His worry makes me worry. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1779174 Thu, 16 Feb 2017 22:16:49 +0000 JAileen 1779174@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>This letter was published in the NYT a couple days ago. It was signed by 35 mental health professionals, including a retired assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. It's quite startling, actually:</p> <p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/opinion/mental-health-professionals-warn-about-trump.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&#038;smid=nytcore-iphone-share" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0.....hone-share</a> </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1777880 Mon, 13 Feb 2017 06:46:48 +0000 rachylou 1777880@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>That's sobering, Claudia! </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1777841 Mon, 13 Feb 2017 04:04:47 +0000 Claudia 1777841@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>Echo, in reference to your last thoughts in your post above, you might find this article from Politico interesting, and disturbing.&nbsp;</p> <p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/donald-trump-lies-liar-effect-brain-214658">http://www.politico.com/magazi.....ain-214658</a> </p> <p><b>'Repetition serves to solidify'</b></p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1777839 Mon, 13 Feb 2017 03:53:13 +0000 Claudia 1777839@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>Echo, have you ever noticed that Oprah Winfrey does the same thing with the repetition of key phrases and words when she is selling/endorsing a product, or making a point? Years ago I was struck by this habit in her, too.</p> <p>I think it is an intentional technique.</p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1777835 Mon, 13 Feb 2017 03:36:32 +0000 Echo 1777835@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>Claudia, regarding Trump repeating things and his manner of speech, my aunt can no longer watch him. Her DH, my uncle, died last year and had been battling dementia. The similarities are too close for her, and they make her sad and scared at the same time.</p> <p>I realize that is purely hearsay and it is not meant to be a diagnosis or accusation. But I've heard others say similar things. It would potentially explain some things, but it is a very scary thought.</p> <p>Regarding literacy rates in the US, I agree they are sobering and sad. I work in Title 1, and it is my full time job to make sure that our students are literate. Even so, it is not at all unusual for graduates to read at about a fifth grade level. Indeed, most popular newspapers, magazines and even novels are not written much past the fifth grade level. That is also part of the reason young adult fiction is wildly popular among adults. Part of the reason simplistic news from echo-chamber sources is gaining in popularity is because so many people are unable to get their news from more reputable sources (or even to define what a reputable source is). Many people believe what they hear without question, which is dangerous, IMO, for a democratic republic. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1777832 Mon, 13 Feb 2017 03:18:16 +0000 Claudia 1777832@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>Vix, those are sobering statistics. I didn't realize the magnitude. The impact is clear.</p> <p>Listening to Trump speak at press conferences, rallies, and the debates, his limited vocabulary and habit of constant repetition of phrases, and repeated emphasis on key words would drive me crazy with irritation. It brought to mind a kindergarten teacher lecturing a class of children. When I first heard him campaigning, there was a disconnect for me in imagining that he was this great businessman if he talked to his peers in the manner I was hearing on TV. I did read that the candidate Trump spoke at a third or fourth grade level. Very savvy of him.</p> <p>After analyzing the national election results by county, the statistician Nate Silver wrote on his blog FiveThirtyEight that education level overwhelmingly predicted who would vote for Trump.</p> <p><a rel="nofollow" href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-predicted-who-would-vote-for-trump/">http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea.....for-trump/</a></p> </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1777804 Mon, 13 Feb 2017 02:14:18 +0000 Vix 1777804@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>I'm sure I don't need to tell this group that high literacy is a privilege many don't share.</p> <p>The news sources mentioned above are VERY well-written but much more complex than many in the US can understand.</p> <p>"<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.statisticbrain.com/number-of-american-adults-who-cant-read/">According to a study conducted in late April by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy</a>, 32 million adults in the U.S. can’t read. </p> <p>"That’s 14 percent of the population. </p> <p>"21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates can’t read."</p> <p>ETA fixed links!&nbsp;</p> <p>I'll link to the HuffPo article for context:&nbsp;<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/illiteracy-rate_n_3880355.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....80355.html</a></p> </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1777762 Mon, 13 Feb 2017 00:37:41 +0000 Echo 1777762@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>Claudia, Rachel Maddow ROCKS. And she always, always has the video or transcript footage to prove what she's saying. She's one of the best. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1777666 Sun, 12 Feb 2017 20:36:43 +0000 Claudia 1777666@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>rabbit, we have the exact same reading list.</p> <p>I do watch Rachel Maddow fairly regularly for her political commentary on recent happenings, and occasionally will turn on Fox just to see &nbsp;what I'll be hearing from the Trump supporters I associate with.</p> <p> </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1777662 Sun, 12 Feb 2017 20:23:15 +0000 rabbit 1777662@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>Crossposted, but yeah <b>rachylou</b>, I agree online sources are great for tracking bills, and watching livestreams from the Senate floor and all, going back to raw data. &nbsp; I remember the Jayson Blair-gate from way back when and kind of feel &nbsp;that the fact that it WAS a major scandal that was super embarrassing and discussed forever is one of those exception that proves the rule things, that it really threatened the core brand of the Times.&nbsp; </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1777661 Sun, 12 Feb 2017 20:19:46 +0000 Gaylene 1777661@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>Rachylou, I have friends in journalism who, fifteen years later, still cringe at the name "Jayson Blair". ;)</p> <p>Sloppy oversight, to be sure, and the NYT was justifiably racked over the coals and publicly humiliated for that event. What alarms me more, though, is the almost daily transgressions by some media outlets and personnel who do the same thing without any remorse or public pillorying. It is dismaying to see journalists who try hard, even if imperfectly, to be accurate, fair, and factual lumped in with those who prefer to spout "alternative facts" without any semblance of conscience or misgivings. </p> <p>A "belief is NOT a fact" ought to be drilled into everyone's head. My beliefs (and experiences) are important to me, but I'm on quicksand when I try to use them as facts on which to build an argument to convince another--a statement which seems germane, actually to the 200+ comments on this thread. ;)</p> <p>ETA: And I so agree with you, Rabbit, that reading from a wide range of international sources has become even more vital in today's global environment. Even with the best intentions, news outlets are colored by nationalist and political concerns. The effect of the Trump presidency is different in different countries. Since Canada and the USA have shared a relatively open border for decades, many of Trump's restrictions and statements directly affect us. Our politicians have their work cut out for them as they try to reconcile a different set of political beliefs with those of the current administration. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1777660 Sun, 12 Feb 2017 20:12:02 +0000 Ledonna N. 1777660@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p><a href="http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/02/sears-kmart-dump-trump-home-products-from-online-stores.html" rel="nofollow">http://nymag.com/thecut/2017/0.....tores.html</a></p> <p>Apparently Ivanka had home goods there. </p> <p>I remember living outside of America to really see what news should be. It is very skewed. </p> <p>I try to watch and listen to a bit of it all. NPR e<br /> Was my go to but I'm really Trump exhausted at this momemt. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1777657 Sun, 12 Feb 2017 20:10:30 +0000 rabbit 1777657@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>I echo <b>Gaylene</b>. I believe democracies depend on a mostly informed electorate, and my criteria for news is much like my criteria for science, it follows a rigorous process of research, it shows it's work and it's clear who the original sources for data are, there is peer review and it cross-checks across multiple sources and internationally. &nbsp;Also, generally I believe you need to pay for it to get quality results. &nbsp;Luckily you can still generally get 10 free articles a month. If it's a little dry all the better (strong appeals to emotion are warning signs). &nbsp;Also if it prints retractions and is upfront about occasional errors, great. &nbsp;So I pay for subscriptions and groups like ProPublica that support investigative journalism. &nbsp;I still have to evaluate whether the headline accurately summarizes the content, and what is and isn't getting covered (and why) but sometimes if something isn't covered at all, &nbsp;a look at the fact-checking sites sometimes makes clear that something is not getting covered, because it isn't actually true.&nbsp;</p> <p>So I read from lot of papers and magazines (Washington Post, NYT, Guardian, BBC, Mother Jones, Atlantic, Reuters, WSJ, and Business Insider among others, and Politico and the Hill for DC insider stuff), but all online. &nbsp; I generally avoid both TV news (four people in boxes yelling at each other isn't all that informative to my mind), unless it's an important enough interview that print sources start talking about it, and the various kinds of click-baity headline generator sites that seem to pretty much subsist on Facebook revenue. &nbsp;(These are designed to appeal to both left and right wing readers, nobody is immune).</p> </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1777638 Sun, 12 Feb 2017 19:53:23 +0000 rachylou 1777638@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>I use the big formal newspapers now to be alerted to events. One thing about the web, you can go trolling for raw data. See what's happening to bills in progress, find out what's in the public comment stage and see what people are saying (outside contributors of expertise submit their contributions that way too, not just the hoi polloi). Voting records, science papers, lots of stuff there. I like to check the news from other countries too, run the stories through Google translate. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/9#post-1777632 Sun, 12 Feb 2017 19:45:31 +0000 rachylou 1777632@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>What Trump stuff was at Kmart and Sears? That's quite a different retail category from Nordstrom et al. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/8#post-1777630 Sun, 12 Feb 2017 19:41:44 +0000 rachylou 1777630@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>I find NYT's editing poor. I don't mean punctuation, but rate of retraction.</p> <p>They've beefed up the role of their ombudsman, which probably has to do with their rate of retraction, but it was after they got caught as being rife with outright journalistic fraud ( <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/05/10/ny.times.reporter/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Nor......reporter/</a> )</p> <p>I don't know of any other paper in a situation like that, quite honestly. The scandal explosion was awhile ago, but it's really hard to root out problems like that in a corporate culture, esp when aspiring journalists see it as the big prize. It's like landing a job at Goldman Sachs. It's not as if Wall St or the big banks have been cleaned up yet either. Look at Wells Fargo, I mean.</p> <p>Let's be clear tho about who's not in the running at all for being called a news organization: FB and Breitbart </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/8#post-1777629 Sun, 12 Feb 2017 19:40:27 +0000 RoseandJoan 1777629@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>That's a good way to be Gaylene, I also try to read articles from an alternative editorial viewpoint.</p> <p>I gravitate towards the Guardian because it reinforces my point of view, however, I do not wish to be too comfortable so I counterbalance my reading with articles from the more conservative Telegraph. </p> https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/topic/ivanka-trump-at-nordies/page/8#post-1777622 Sun, 12 Feb 2017 19:28:06 +0000 Gaylene 1777622@https://youlookfab.com/welookfab/ <p>I agree with Aileen. I "trust" some sources like NYT, but that doesn't mean I always agree with their interpretations or their opinion pieces.</p> <p>My trust is based on that paper's commitment to research, fact checking and citing sources, providing credentials for the "experts" they consult, providing and verifying evidence to support their "facts", acknowledging what is still unclear or unknown, and clearly distinguishing between opinion pieces and news stories. </p> <p>I also "trust" other sources who commit to following the same principles, like the BBC, Reuters, and the Economist. If several of my "trusted" sources report the same event and draw similar interpretations, I feel more confident in forming my own opinions.</p> <p>I DON'T trust media sources which use inflammatory language, refuse to distinguish fact from opinion, rely on a limited group of "experts" or research to support their conclusions, or which expect me to buy into their perspective without checking other sources. I read, but with a skeptical eye, media which depends on funding from advocacy groups, think tanks, and/or a few wealthy backers. I'm amused by Twitter and Facebook news, and articles and information presented in forums (yes, even YLF!), but I don't "trust" it until I've done my own research. </p> <p>Can you tell it bothers me when I read comments like "you can't trust the media"? </p>