Sue

Imagine of Gavin Newsom receiving Kohl’s inaugural peace prize, which comes with $50 in Kohl’s cash.

Oh yeah, I should’ve mentioned these accommodations weren’t even for tests. They’re just for class time. Which is even worse 🤯 During exams our students are not allowed access to their phones.

One reason for timing is fairness--esp when students are graded on a curve. If there's no time limit, students with more time (e.g., those without jobs or caretaking responsibilities) will have an advantage over those with those responsibilities.

One accommodation some students get is "allowed to take brief exits from class for restroom breaks." I have no idea why this needs to be an accommodation. As in, who in the hell isn't letting students leave class to go to the restroom? It's a university accommodation, so these students are adults.

*has done

They do not. There is no line. Any willingness to impeach is only to protect their hold on power not because they have any moral opposition to what Hegseth is done. Or else they'd be saying the same about Trump.

It seems that the only way some people will truly understand that elections have consequences for their lives is for them to suffer the repercussions of their vote (or decision not to vote). And that just really sucks. Especially for the folks who worked and voted against this outcome.

I wish my university "only" paid me $8M. And yes, I understand contracts & damages (I teach Remedies). But the problem isn't what's paid for a breach. It's paying $50M for a football coach while raising tuition, hiring freezes. As the OP wrote, they act like sports leages, not universities.

Penn State will pay nearly $50 million to fire the coach who took it to the playoff last season James Franklin's buyout is the second richest in college football history.

I googled to see why they were paying someone they fired and found Penn has done the same thing, just a few months earlier. This seems problematic. Wow.

www.nbcnews.com/sports/colle...

🎯 Headline writers are the worst. And have been for a while. I don’t know how we change that. So it really is time for people to wise up and read the article to know what it actually says before commenting. Or just ignore it completely.

This might be why those six Democrats thought it necessary to remind military service members that they must refuse illegal orders.

Same question. Reminds me of niche kitchen gadgets that just clutter up the countertops.

It’s not my experience either. In 20 years teaching law students, I’ve had very few who come close to this description. And that isn’t something I’ve noticed getting worse.

Men are treated unfairly because women are outperforming them. Hmmmmmmm. Maybe Tyler should smile more.

I see that. And also Snoopy modeling the appropriate response to the fascist’s fear-mongering that Lucy has fallen victim to.

“But it’s illegal!”

Sure. But we decided some laws are only enforced through private civil lawsuits. Then have the nerve to complain about “too many” lawsuits instead of too many violations of the laws.

I think maybe you’re talking about something else because I don’t really understand your point. But I know enough about the work that Stacey Abrams has done and her expertise on voting so I’m gonna trust her diagnosis. Have a great day.

You might read about the work Abrams has put into Georgia (where I live) on voter suppression. And the history of voter suppression here. Sounds like it might surprise you.

As Stacey Abrams has pointed out, the southern states are often red because they're states with a whole lot of voter suppression.

My in-laws live in southern UT. Lots of confederate flags there and schools with "dixie" mascots. Though, to be fair, Reagan kicked off his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, with coded "states rights" speech.

I have no idea which parts of the south Spiers has been to, but I live in GA, in majority-Black area (Macon/Bibb County). We're a blue dot. Yet I see confederate flags on trucks, hats, windows to trailers, flag poles, or shirts every single day. Black people see them on houses of their neighbors.

And the headline's focus on the damage to his political career as if that is the real tragedy. 🤬

Because he thinks he can intimidate her into changing her vote? (I realize your question was rhetorical)

There's a third option: they're fans of both.

Ms. Leavitt, just because we can all see right through him, that doesn't mean he's being transparent.

Someone needs to explain to WH spokespuppet Leavitt he's being "transparent" just because we can all see through him.

Which is precisely why the headlines are written the way they are--and also why they should not be. That people don't read the articles before weighing in on what it's saying is a whole other problem.

Headline writers know outrage gets clicks. I don't like the practice, I think it's a disservice to readers & article/column writers. But it's the world we live in. So maybe I wouldn't read the column, but I also wouldn't comment on something I haven't read.

People are talking about the headline. Very few are talking about the column.

From what I read before columnists don’t get to write their headline. So they have a click bait headline and people not reading the actual column. 🤦‍♀️