How about a match that we have coming up tonight, 10 o'clock Eastern, 7 o'clock out here on the West Coast, match number two of the day and for the tournament, South Korea takes on, uh, Czechia, and you have a bunch of plays for this, uh, match, yeah?

Yeah, I've, I've, I've got lots of plays for you here.

Main bet under 2.25 goals, because, I mean, if we consider that first match just now, forget the red cards.

After the first goal was scored, there was not really that many main chances, uh, when it was 11 versus 11.

And even when the, you know, it went 2-0 to, um, to Mexico, they were just looking to control the game and keep it at 2-0.

And even, you know, to only win 2-0 against, again, they were against nine men for the last 10 or 15 minutes is, uh, kind of incredible, and just shows you the importance of making sure you get off to a professional start.

If you, if you are leading 1-0, I think teams are just gonna try and control the game, and th- if the match stays a tie for a long period, it might end a tie.

How about top goal scorer?

They're the bedrocks of good mental health and personal well-being opportunities.

a whole university approach means a whole university approach.

It means looking at everything we do within the context, through the students' eyes, the services, the learning, the structures, the way in which we're engaging with our learners to understand their needs, but then to look at it through a strengths-based approach.

I do get concerned when people start talking about mental health in isolation.

It worries me, and it worries me because it tends to bounce into a clinical view of the world.

The second piece, I guess, is the whole university has to get behind it.

There's no point in one bit of the university, and I'll use compassionate communications as an example, where one part of the university absolutely gets it, which is completely undermined by another part coming in, being frankly crass and not particularly sensitive about anything, and then wondering why it all went wrong.

We all need an embodied experience of surviving difficulty in order to feel confident in our capacity to cope with difficulty.

Steve, what's next for this case?

There's a hearing on the teachers' motion for summary judgment on November 17th, and so if the judge grants that motion, and there's a good chance he will since he's already ruled once in their favor, that could end the case, and that would impact over five million students and 300,000 California public school teachers.

Nevertheless, it's an issue that likely won't go away until the Supreme Court takes a case involving the issue, and in the last year, it's twice declined to rule on cases that brought up the issue with Justice Samuel Alito calling it an issue of, quote, "Great and growing national importance." But there's others percolating in the lower courts.

Well, that sounds like a, a matter for the police.

It is, but what's also interesting is that a claim is also brought under a federal law known as the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or the FACE Act.

As you might gather from the title, it's historically been used to prosecute pro-life advocates accused of blocking abortion center entrances and intimidating women employees who seek to enter, but it also bars the same kind of intimidation, harassment, or blocking of entrances at places of worship.I don't think most people know that.

In fact, before this case, I had not recalled that, so it will be interesting to see how this one plays out.

All right, and then he sued the next year, correct?

Right.

He lost at the trial court, and then he appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in 2021, which sent the case back after the Supreme Court's Groff versus DeJoy decision.

That ruling raised the standard for when employers can deny religious accommodations.

They have to prove the requested accommodation would cause a significant hardship.

But the trial court again sided with the school, so Kluge appealed a second time in July 2024 arguing the school cannot show his requested accommodation caused it undue hardship.

That has been going on for more than four years.

It sure has, w- uh, just like the Kluge case.

Well, Mahmoud Khalil has certainly been in the news, but remind us who he is.

Well, Khalil is a recent Columbia University graduate. He was significantly involved in the protests on that campus. He was an outspoken critic of Israel and its military response to the attacks by Hamas, and he often served as a negotiator between the administration and protesters, some of whom were simply protesting, exercising their free speech rights, but others of whom were illegally occupying buildings or encampments on campus. He's not an American citizen, but he is a legal permanent resident. That is, he has his green card, and he was on track to becoming an American citizen until he was taken into custody by immigration agents on March 8th.

Mm-hmm. In fact, the Trump administration has called for his deportation. What's the administration's case, Steve?

Well, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said it's not a case about free speech. And I think what he really means to suggest is that it's about immigration law and whether the government's foreign policy and national security interests trump Khalil's free speech rights. You know, the government is reliant on a provision of federal law that allows it to remove or deport someone if the secretary of state has reasonable grounds to believe that their presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences. The government says Khalil was a supporter of Hamas, a designated terrorist organization, that he distributed pro-Hamas leaflets on campus. But so far, it really hasn't been put to its proof.