Thank you. Excellent. Minor quibble. Less about "science." Those who need to hear this think "science," is used to shut them down. I like "tested," most tested, the catastrophic risks of hep B to infants (and I'm good with other side has no science).

Not much of a concession with at least two W coaches earning seven figures last season. No coach is worth anything like the best players. Becky's great but no one thinks she's worth as much as A'ja. Steve Kerr makes a fraction of Curry's salary.

I think this is right but there's a strategy where Cathy plays hardball and if the players don't blink, the owners throw her over the side and move towards what players want. This is also a way to defuse tension within ownership between hard liners and more pro-player types.

I hear you but I was going off your comment that the refs are getting instruction on what to call and what to let go. Great pod btw.

This wasn't just about lack of knowledge. Russo was there to carry water for ownership. That's why he tried to shift discussion to Cheryl, the link supposedly being that Phee was merely upset at being injured on a no-call. It was a deliberate diversion and it was garbage.

Why do you think the League wants physicality? And to take just one specific, why allow a defender to put two hands on the ball handler in the open court?

Great, great pod. RC, you said a lot of the refing is about how they're instructed. In the big ABC Paige v CC match up (2.1 MM eyes), the refs let defenders have their hands all over CC, which was called out by ABC. Do you say the W told the refs to call it that way? if so, why?

All critics? There certainly are some critics who are as bad as David Duke. You can't tell anything about this without quoting the actual statement.

Besides, shouldn't the bigger point be that you watch the video and then, having seen it, make a well supported protest.

Kruse should do better.

I believe the no quarter line was from a tweet, not the NYT op ed

"Democrats consistently elevating voices with no constituency and no results"

Ridiculous. Gallego and Slotkin have "no constituency and no results"? What about Sherrill and Spanberger when they win? NYC's screwy politics is not a referendum on the Party.

A good read but the tenure of Larry O'Brien, who was picked over Gourdine, coincided with an enormous positive reversal in the League's fortunes.

"Why isn't every one of your posts ..."

Because they're about speech. And what your posts reveal is that your position is not pro-free speech but instead that you have a monopoly on correct speech: everyone must say what you want them to say.

Like Vemuri, you too are entitled to your beliefs. But throughout, you have been at pains to avoid the fact that this doesn't require MIT to deliver Vemuri an audience for her views, any more than it would be obligated to do that for someone with opposing, or just different, views.

Really? Why doesn't Vemuri have a moral duty to speak out for the hostages?

And why does MIT have a moral duty to divest from companies who make the weapons Ukraine needs to defend against murderous Russian aggression?

Vemuri is entitled to her beliefs, not to be given an audience.

Haven't said anything about that. Why don't you tell us why MIT is required to deliver to a student a platform to give her personal political views to a captive audience.

Gotta be kidding. If you ask her, she'd say her speech was political.

Unclear why this is viewed as a freedom of speech issue. The job of the speaker is to celebrate the graduating seniors and be welcoming to all students and their families. The speaker is not entitled to have MIT deliver to her a captive audience to hear her particular political views.