Daily Archives: January 9, 2021

I am feeling a bit sorry for Donald Trump. These last few weeks, he has only been applying the Golden Rule. Unfortunately, it is not the one taught to us as children by our mothers.

Donald Trump learned his from his father. It goes like this: He who has the gold, makes the rules.

Trump has been trying to teach this rule to his followers for some time. It is a tough sell in a democracy. You must diminish reason and civility to get followers to focus on single issues and not be concerned about unintended consequences.

Your mothers rule is complex and tears at your conscience.

Trump's rule allows you to simplify your thought process and blindly follow him. I am thankful that he has failed, but, there is a smarter, more devious version of Trump in the Lone Star State and the battle between which version of the Golden Rule prevails will continue.

Patrick Duenwald

St. Peter

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

See the original post here:

Ted Cruz more devious than Trump | Letters To The Editor - Mankato Free Press

USA TODAY Sports

Rashaan Evans threw a punch in the season opener against Denver. The Titans linebacker said his ejection led to officials putting him under a microscope all season.

Evans finished with a team-high eight penalties.

To be honest with you, I really havent changed anything, Evans said, via Terry McCormick of TitanInsider.com. Its one of those situations that whenever you get in a position or situation at the beginning of the season where you punch a guy, everybody is going to be looking for you and going to be keying on you. Thats just how it is. Unfortunately, that happened and you get keyed on a lot more differently than other guys.

Evans finished his third season with 96 tackles, a half sack and five pass breakups.

Evans had only four penalties last season after getting none in his rookie season. Despite the rash of penalties this season, Evans said he will continue to play physical while seeking to follow coach Mike Vrabels golden rule of not doing dumb s that hurts the team.

Youve got to know that when that whistle blows, youve got to completely eliminate yourself, Evans said. Youve got to run away, or do what you have to. It all depends on the player, and at the end of the day, even with the penalties Ive had, Ive never allowed it to change the way Ive played. My physicality is the greatest asset I have. I dont want to hurt the team, but at the same time, you can still hurt the team by not playing your game. Its one of those give-and-take type of things. The No. 1 thing is to try your best not to get any fouls that hurt the team.

Read the original here:

Rashaan Evans believes uptick in penalties stems from his ejection in Week 1 - NBC Sports

from the there's-a-point... dept

When I started writing this post, it was about Facebook's decision to suspend Trump's account indefinitely, and at least until Joe Biden is inaugurated in a couple weeks. I had lots to say on that... and then Friday afternoon, Twitter decided to ban Trump's Twitter account permanently. This is a bigger deal, not just because it's permanent, rather than indefinite, but because so much of Trump's identity over the last four years (and before that) is tied up in his Twitter account and followers.

Certainly, all of this has kicked off a whole new storm from across the political spectrum. You have Trump supporters who are furious and (falsely) claiming that this is "censorship" or unprecedented and heavy handed (it is none of those things). Then you have Trump haters who are screaming about how this is all way too late and is trying to close the barn door after the horses have long since bolted. I think neither argument is accurate. Will Oremus has a long (and very interesting!) look over on OneZero about how Facebook supposedly chucked out its own rulebook to come up with an excuse to suspend Trump's account:

Yet Facebooks indefinite ban on Trump marks an overnight reversal of the policy on Trump and other political leaders that the social network has spent the past four years honing, justifying, and defending. The unprecedented move, which lacks a clear basis in any of Facebooks previously stated policies, highlights for the millionth time that the dominant platforms are quite literally making up the rules of online speech as they go along. As I wrote in 2019, theres just one golden rule of content moderation that every platform follows: If a policy becomes too controversial, change it.

Zuckerbergs claim that Facebook has allowed Trump to use its platform in a manner consistent with our own rules is laughable. The only thing that has been consistent, until now, is Facebooks determination to contort, hair-split, and reimagine its rules to make sure nothing Trump posted would fall too far outside them. The Washington Post wrote a rather definitive account of the social networks yearslong Trump-appeasement campaign earlier this year. Among other Trump-friendly measures, the Post noted, Facebook has constrained its efforts against false and misleading news, adopted a policy explicitly allowing politicians to lie, and even altered its news feed algorithm to neutralize claims that it was biased against conservative publishers.

And Twitter is also justifying its decision by saying that the reason was a rules violation:

We assessed the two Tweets referenced above under our Glorification of Violence policy, which aims to prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts and determined that they were highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

This determination is based on a number of factors, including:

I don't need to post the factors. You can take a look yourself if you want. So, Oremus is mostly correct that they're making the rules up as they go along, but the problem with this framing is that it assumes that there are some magical rules you can put in place and then objectively apply them always. That's never ever been the case. The problem with so much of the content moderation debate is that all sides assume these things. They assume that it's easy to set up rules and easy to enforce them. Neither is true. Radiolab did a great episode a few years ago, detailing the process by which Facebook made and changed its rules. And it highlights some really important things including that almost every case is different, that it's tough to apply rules to every case, and that context is always changing. And that also means the rules must always keep changing.

A few years back, we took a room full of content moderation experts and asked them to make content moderation decisions on eight cases -- none of which I'd argue are anywhere near as difficult as deciding what to do with the President of the United States. And we couldn't get these experts to agree on anything. On every case, we had at least one person choose each of the four options we gave them, and to defend that position. The platforms have rules because it gives them a framework to think about things, and those rules are useful in identifying both principles for moderation and some bright lines.

But every case is different.

And no matter what you think of Trump, his case was different.

The regular rules could never apply to Trump because Trump is not a regular person. And, no, not even comparisons to foreign leaders are apt, because as silly as American exceptionalism is, the United States is still different than nearly every other country in the world. And, it's not just the position he's in (for the next few days anyway), but also Trump's willingness to use his account to make pronouncements unlike pretty much any other world leader (or at least, world leader of consequence).

Trump is, perhaps, the perfect example of why demanding clear rules on social media and how they moderate is stupid.

As for the question of why now? Well, clearly, the context has changed. The context is that Trump inspired a mob of goons to invade the Capitol building this week, and there remain legitimate threats that his cultish followers will continue to do significant damage. Certainly some people have insisted that this kind of violence was always a risk -- and it was. But it had not actually erupted to this level in this fashion. Again, we're talking about context. There's always more context.

And given that the situations are always edge cases, that the context always matters, and that things are always shifting, you can totally see why it's a reasonable decision to ban Trump from their platforms right now, based on everything else going on, and the likelihood that he might inspire more violence. I think it's worth reading Ben Thompson's analysis as well. He's long explained the risks associated with banning Trump from these platforms, and suggested why they should not have in the past. But the thing that changed for him, beyond even just the threat to democracy, is the threat to the rights of both individuals and companies to make their own decisions on these things:

Remember my highest priority, even beyond respect for democracy, is the inviolability of liberalism, because it is the foundation of said democracy. That includes the right for private individuals and companies to think and act for themselves, particularly when they believe they have a moral responsibility to do so, and the belief that no one else will. Yes, respecting democracy is a reason to not act over policy disagreements, no matter how horrible those policies may be, but preserving democracy is, by definition, even higher on the priority stack.

Turn off Trumps account.

But here's the more important point -- especially directed at the people who will falsely claim that this is somehow censorship: President Trump is not being censored. He is not being limited. At any moment of any day (certainly for the next two weeks, and likely beyond) he can walk out of his office and have every major TV news channel (and every internet streaming platform) broadcast whatever he wants to say, and people will see it.

And to those who think that Twitter should have done this earlier, or that it would have made a difference, recognize that your concern is not so much with Twitter, but with Trump himself. Remember that while Trump might not be able to send a tweet right now, he still (literally) has the power to launch nuclear missiles at Twitter's headquarters. And, really, that's the problem. Trump is obviously too toxic for Twitter. But he's also too toxic for the White House. And the real complaint shouldn't be about Twitter or Facebook acting too late, but about Congress failing to do their job and remove the mad man from power.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyones attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise and every little bit helps. Thank you.

The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: adaptability, censorship, consequences, content moderation, donald trump, free speech, platforms, rules, section 230, social mediaCompanies: facebook, twitter

See the original post here:

Not Easy, Not Unreasonable, Not Censorship: The Decision To Ban Trump From Twitter - Techdirt

Opening of citys new emergency shelter location delayed until February, Jan. 5

It is disturbing to read of the manner in which people who lack money are treated in this country. Most people think we are guided by the Golden Rule roughly Treat others as you yourself would like to be treated, the basis of ethics proclaimed in most of the worlds religions in some form or other. The reality is that our governments behave according to an alternate Golden Rule: Them that has the gold makes the rules.

The article speaks of delay in making shelter available to the homeless. Do you live, or want to live, in a shelter? I dont, I live in a home, with no desire whatsoever to live in a shelter. That is what I want, and am lucky enough to have. According to the usual Golden Rule, that is what I should wish for others to have. I do, and believe that the vast majority of others agree. So why does everyone not have a home of their own?

At this point, we encounter our form of government. We are told that, unlike some others, it is not authoritarian, but democratic. If indeed we live under democracy, why do we not do what it appears that the vast majority want? Why do we not provide everyone, no matter how poor, with a home of their own?

So I suggest that, to show that the vast majority do not approve of the manner in which people who lack money are treated and, in the process, to demonstrate that we have, at least, a modicum of democracy, we hold a referendum which asks Do you want everyone to have a home of their own, where they can live with privacy, free from harassment by others?

Failure to hold such a referendum will support those who contend that our government is authoritarian rather than democratic.

Ken Ranney, Hillcrest Avenue

View original post here:

Opinion | Peterborough letter: Put right to housing to a referendum test - ThePeterboroughExaminer.com

Editor,

Its time to chill.

I drove past the Trump rally in Oak Harbor yesterday about 1:30 p.m., right after I had watched Trump supporters in D.C. invade and desecrate Congress.

I was so angry I wanted to flip all of them off as I drove past, but I was afraid they would attack my car, so I simply gave a thumbs down.

Provoking a fight and inciting hatred would have been a lousy choice.

My attitude towards the Oak Harbor protesters is that they drank deeply from the Trump Kool-Aid for years, and they would rather believe whatever Trump says, than think for themselves.

I used to believe that if young children were taught critical reasoning skills, we could improve American society.

This approach might help, but it would likely take a long time. I used to believe that civil discussions from opposing points of view could result in progress.

I used to believe that respect for other points of view was essential if we wanted positive changes. These beliefs have now become wishful thinking.

I still affirm that protest, expressing your opinions, and taking a position is an American right, privilege, and a core American value.

I still hold that all Americans have the right to believe and follow whatever religious or spiritual path makes sense to them, as long as the Golden Rule is part of their belief system.

I still believe that strong forms of democracy are bulwarks against absolute power held by a tyrant or dictator.

But we need to examine closely our definition for politics.

One definition I like is: Politics is the peaceable resolution of conflict among legitimate competing interests (Mark Shields).

He also said that the two hallmarks of American politics are optimism and pragmatism. How many of us are feeling optimistic about the future?

I encourage everyone in Island County to not take the hate bait, to not accept what a leader says until you have checked it out for yourself, but instead, find a way forward that involves listening with an open mind and putting yourself in the other persons shoes.

Yesterday we all witnessed what blind group allegiance produces.

Mike Diamanti

Coupeville

Originally posted here:

Letter: We witnessed what blind group allegiance produces - Whidbey News-Times

A $35 investment is bringing something good to the homeless in North Texas. That money could potentially save a life.

"Every year in Dallas-Fort Worth, multiple homeless folks literally freeze to death., and a sleeping bag can literally save a life," said Chris Bailey, the organizer of the sleeping bag drive.

"The sleeping bags are $35 apiece. They're good quality Coleman sleeping bags rated down to 20 degrees. So, it'll handle cold weather. Again, these will literally save somebody's life."

The latest news from around North Texas.

Bailey has a wish list on Amazon where donors buy a sleeping bag "or two or ten," he says, ship it to his house in Denton County and he delivers them to homeless shelters.

He launched the sleeping bag drive on December 26, and 10 days in, he's collected close to 1,200 bags. It's far surpassed the effort in 2019 when he collected 769 bags in the 35-day drive.

"The response has been overwhelming. I had to call my boss and tell 'em I need a couple of days off to handle all this," said a foundation repair salesman. "I have the greatest boss in the world. He was good with that."

Boxes of sleeping bags are piled in Bailey's driveway and in the garage. Students from Byron Nelson High School come in the afternoons to help unpack then dismantle boxes so Bailey can get them to shelters like The Bridge and Austin Street Shelter in Dallas and True Worth and Presbyterian Night Shelter in Fort Worth.

Bailey started the drive five years ago after crossing paths with a homeless man on New Year's Eve. Bailey was a designated driver that night and as he waited on the group, he saw a man who needed help and took him to get a meal. That encounter put him on his path.

"I set a New Year's resolution years ago to help or feed at least one homeless person a week," he said. "One person a week. Fifty-two weeks. That ended up being a little too easy, so we ramped it up from there. We try to help as many people as we can. practice the golden rule."

Bailey calls his grassroots effort Everybody Love Everybody. It was born out of a comment he posted on social media following the deadly ambush on Dallas officers in 2016.

"I wrote on my Facebook, 'Everybody love everybody.' And, one of my friends commented immediately, 'That's impossible.' And that crushed me. I just figured there's enough hate out there, let's see if we can maybe turn that around and do something that's the opposite of hate. And everybody love everybody is what I came up with. I wrote it on my sign, and I still to this day, I'll get on street corners and stand there with my sign and wave at cars that pass by," he said.

Everybody Love Everybody turned into a movement of people across North Texas. Each doing what they can to spread love and positivity by doing simple little things that can make a big difference. The page on Facebook followed by 40,000 and counting emphatically states, "WE ONLY SPREAD THE LOVE HERE!!"

The sleeping bag drive will go on through the end of January. Find his wish list on Amazon here.

See the original post here:

Denton County Man Launches Sleeping Bag Drive to Help Homeless - NBC 5 Dallas-Fort Worth

CLEVELAND Chaos at the U.S. Capitol Wednesday is prompting questions from the most inquisitive minds.

She was looking at it and she's like, Mommy, what are they doing? Tricia Ouermi said. It was important that she was aware of what was going on.

Ouermi is a mother, a Cleveland native and a woman of color. She said its important to explain historical events in terms her 6-year-old daughter can understand.

In every movie, everything, there's always a protagonist and an antagonist. There's always a good and a bad and that's what we struggle with in life, Ouermi said. Some people don't like apples. Some people do. Some people have never tried an orange, but they just don't like them because someone else doesnt like them.

Ouermi then allows her daughter to draw her own conclusions and reflect on her feelings.

I think the important thing is to ask, How do you feel about it? If she has questions about something we answer them, but we're very careful not to answer things for her, Ouermi said. When she expresses herself, then we can go and talk about how we may feel about a situation and what the world is today, but we always try leaving it on a positive note.

Ouermi said tough, honest conversations about civil unrest are no longer optional with children.

I allow her to see the beauty and the destruction, but explain it in a way where beauty exists, Ouermi said. Our parents used to say, It's grown-up stuff. They didnt explain things, but I don't think we're in those times anymore.

Child psychologist Dr. Jane Timmons-Mitchell said children take note and mirror their parents in times of turmoil.

If they have seen any of the footage themselves directly, they may have their own direct questions, but more likely, they're going to be reacting to how the people around them are feeling about it, Timmons-Mitchell said. Im thinking of prominent funerals of people that are broadcast for days. Kids are aware of it, but they're more aware of the reactions of the people around them.

Timmons-Mitchell said it is important to answer their questions while simultaneously providing a sense of security.

It's very important for parents, caregivers and other people around them, as much as possible, to be able to preserve and establish a sense of safety. We can feel scared and angry and threatened and all kinds of things, Timmons-Mitchell said. But in communicating with the children, it's really important to communicate that despite whatever else is going on, the adults around you are going to be able to keep you safe.

Danielle Waskowskis teenage daughter was keeping a close eye on the television screen Wednesday.

Her exact words were, Oh, it sounds like Trumps followers have been pushed far enough, Waskowski said. I said, You know, there's a lot of angry people out there. I used basically the whole year of the coronavirus, being quarantined and people stressed about finances and the world just not being good right now.

In the other room, her much younger son was blissfully unaware of the events at the U.S. Capitol.

While the whole world is falling apart outside in Washington, he's worried about an art project. So I took him and we went and got art stuff, Waskowski said. Being that I've been through 9/11 and seen how parents reacted during different crises in the world, you just have to be strong and just be as positive as you can for the kids.

Erin Wallaces approach to guiding her children through times of turmoil is complex.

I don't want to say the wrong thing because if I say the wrong thing, it'll stick with him, Wallace said. Maybe I should expose him a little bit to what is going on out there, but I just don't want him to get upset.

Wallaces daughter Mya is only five years old and her 8-year-old son Max has autism, which makes navigating difficult conversations even tougher.

We visited Washington, D.C. a little over a month ago. The sparkle that they had in their eyes, I cant explain. This is where the president lives. Look at the Washington Monument. Look at the Capitol where laws are being made, Wallace said. To take that innocence away from them and show them images of what happened yesterday, I can't do that to them.

According to experts, Wednesdays events may cause skepticism and agitation in children.

What we teach our children is that it's okay to speak your mind and we value free speech. There's a distinction between your words and then doing something more than that, Timmons-Mitchell said. Its golden rule stuff to treat other people like you want to be treated and unfortunately there has been a breach of that.

However, Timmons-Mitchell said this is a time to nourish, not neglect, relationships with family, friends and neighbors.

Reinforcing the importance of ongoing safety and holding tight to those people that support you. Looking for the people who will protect you. The teachers. The helpers, Timmons-Mitchell said. We have a lot of helpers, but the biggest helpers are the people that are in your family. It's really important to strengthen those ties rather than let them fry at a time of potential crisis and turmoil.

Read more here:

'Mommy, what are they doing?' - discussing Wednesday's events at the US Capitol with your children - News 5 Cleveland

The King of Queens was a sitcom about a couple where the character Carrie (Leah Remini) was not always supportive of her partner.

Just like Seinfeld and Friends, there was another popular sitcom from the late '90s. Instead of the comical and troubling lives of a group of friends, The King of Queens was all about married life between Doug (Kevin James) and Carrie (Leah Remini).While Doug was the comedic relief of the marriage, it's more than clear that Carrie wore the pants in the relationship.

RELATED:The King Of Queens: Arthur's 10 Funniest Quotes, Ranked

She's a true New Yorker after all. She has tough skin, speaks her mind, and doesn't take anyone nonsense. Her tough demeanor often led her to not be so supportive of the people around her, even her husband. Sometimes her hard shell would crack and showcased how loving she could really be.

Part of the show's dynamics is that Doug is known as the slightly overweight character who is a bundle of love and jokes. While he is aware of his weight, he can also feel a bit insecure. In "Fatty McButterpants," Carrie goes shopping andbuys Doug a new shirt.

But Doug later discovers that she bought it at a Big & Tall shop. He was mortified and upset that his clothes aren't bought at normal men's store. But the sweetest moment is when Carrie tries to reassure Doug that she will love him no matter what size he is.But she does end up telling him that he should lose weight for his wellbeing.

Early on into the first season, Carrie's father, Arthur Spooner, played by actor Jerry Stiller, moves in with the couple. He plays a unique and interesting supporting character who lives in the basement. At one point, Arthur becomes tired of being controlled by Carrie. She tells him when to take his med, where he has to go, and forces him to events at the senior citizen center.

Arthur wants no more and one day sneaks off to a local bar for some fun. It's not hard to feel sympathy for Arthur. He's an older man with no wife living with his daughter. But Carrie isn't as sympathetic towards how he feels. She instead berates him for sneaking off and insists on controlling him.

Marriages or couples walk a fine line on the golden rule of telling their partner the truth. Doug walks that fine line in "Bun Dummy." Carrie starts wearing a new bun hairdo which Doug loathes. He keeps getting bizarre images of a librarian. Doug decides to stop beating around the bush and tell Carrie.

Carrie is at first is mad at Doug for telling her. All Doug wanted was for Carrie to look incredible and gorgeous at his high school reunion. Carrie, being the supportive wife, gets dolled up and gets rid of the hairdo. All for Doug to show off how he scored a babe.

When Doug gets bit by the workout bug, he gives it his all to lose weight. At first, Carrie was over the moon at Doug's new passion for a healthy lifestyle but it soon turned sour. Carrie finds him even more handsome and attractive but so do other women. It's safe to say that she had a little green monster on her back.

RELATED:The King Of Queens: 10 Storylines That Have Aged Poorly

Her jealousy and Doug now up to her level in looksleads Carrie to become unsupportive. She tries to get him to break his diet with temping pancakes. On their trip upstate, she becomes cold and envious of Doug. Instead of being proud of him, she let her jealousy get in the way.

This is a small feat of support that Carrie does for Danny (Gary Valentine). Danny was first a guest role before becoming more permanent characters as Doug's cousin. Throughout the show, Carrie has helped other characters, mainly Doug's friends, in many ways. In season six, Danny is once again on another business venture.

He takes his hobby of landscaping and uses it as a business. Carrie knows he's really good at it. She even goes out of her way to help promote his business. She even recommends him to her new gynecologist. That story ends in disaster when Danny overcharges and might lead Carrie to look bad.

It becomes clear that as the show progressed that Carrie always wondered if she could've become something more. Hence her high levels of jealousy. Her biggest example of being an unsupportive friend was when Holly (Nicole Sullivan) gets engaged. Holly is known for not dating the best men but she ends up meeting Mr.Perfect.

Carrie isn't so enthused, especially after seeing the huge diamond ring. She at first tries to convince Holly it's a fake and so is her new man. Holly is happy and ready to move in with him, but Carrie does everything possible to try and stop her. The sole reason is that Holly is getting the lifeCarriealways dreamed of. Marry a rich and successful man and live in a gorgeous apartment in Manhattan, New York.

Carrie often treats Doug's friends as her own and can be incredibly supportive. She shows this when Danny becomes unemployed andlater works at Doug's job, IPS. Danny is natural and starts at the bottom. But wants more and to become a driver like Doug. Doug is hesitant to write him a letter of recommendation.

He feels that Danny is trying to outdo him. Carrie finds it ridiculous and wants to help Danny. She takes matters into her own hands and writes the letter and has Doug sign it. Danny proves that he's a better driver and deserving of the job.

While Doug is perfectly happy in his position at IPS, he does have a secret dream. He's known amongst his friends and Carrie as being an impeccable sandwich creator. He always wanted to open his own shop. When his uncle comes into town, he allows Doug to invest and buy his own shop.

RELATED:King Of Queens: 10 Things That Make No Sense About Doug

Carrie is against it. She feels that Doug is ill-equipped to run a business despite it being his lifelong dream. She tries to talk him out of it and even gets Danny to persuade his father to invest in him instead. Doug is upset to learn what Carrie did and gives up. It's clear that Doug is hurt but accepts it anyway.

Throughout the show, Doug and Carrie are only close friends with Deacon (Victor Williams) and Kelly (Merrin Dungey). They're the only other married couple. But sadly, Deacon and Kelly go through a divorce. Carrie and out are there for moral support. Carrie shows her support for both of them, especially Deacon.

She ends up feeling sorry for him on his first Thanksgiving separated. She agrees with Doug to lend a helping hand and cook dinner for Deacon and his two boys. Before the split, she and Doug would also take care of the boys soDeaconand Kelly could have a night out.

Many fans can agree that one of the most hurtful and unsupportive things Carrie had done was lie to Doug about the Manhattan apartment. In a flashback, Doug and Carrie once put their names down for an apartment of Carrie's dreams. It becomes available and Carrie wants to move. Doug disagrees and they have a huge blowout.

When Carrie and Doug reconcile and realize they want a family, it comes with some strings attached. Carrie wants Doug to quit his job for an office position. Doug does so for Carrie. But he later finds out the truth that Carrie still kept her apartment. Doug then contemplates divorce and is heartbroken that she would be so unsupportive, especially when they already applied for adoption.

NEXT:King Of Queens: Arthur's 10 Stupidest Schemes, Ranked

Next The 10 Highest-Rated Episodes In Television History (According to IMDb)

Gabriela is a list writer for Screerant with experience in all things television, film and pop culture. She's interviewed some great actors from Cress Williams of Black Lightning to Tati Gabrielle from Chilling Adventures of Sabrina.She grew up with her eyes glued to a television screen or in a book. She has a guilty pleasure for thriller and action films from the 90's and loves a good K-drama to unwind. You'll most likely find her binge-watching a new television show or movies on Netflix into the early morning.

Read the rest here:

The King Of Queens: 5 Ways Carrie Was Supportive (& 5 Ways She Wasnt) - Screen Rant