‘We literally lost everything’: Woman issues warning after Quantum Fiber Wi-Fi box allegedly burned down her houseFalcons drafting Penix no longer a head-scratcher with rookie QB shining in place of benched Cousins

Bryce Thompson scores 17 points and Oklahoma State beats Miami 80-74 in the Charleston ClassicA teen cross-country runner at a California high school is ripping school officials for forcing the girls to accept a transgender teammate and says that trans athletes are neither fair nor safe. Kylie Morrow, a 16-year-old athlete from Martin Luther King High School in Riverside, California, spoke out after school officials censored two of her teammates for wearing t-shirts reading “Save Girls Sports.” The administrators outrageously said that the girls’ shirts were no different than wearing a “swastika.” The two girls were singled out by the school and then sued their school over the incident. The girls allege that the school forced a boy who identifies as a girl onto the varsity team, even though the boy never attended practices nor met other academic requirements, and then removed one of the girls from the team to make room for the trans student. For her part, student Kylie Morrow spoke out during a November 21 Riverside Unified School District board meeting in support of the girls who are being censored and insisted that girls should be allowed to support the cause of saving women’s sports from incursions by trans athletes, Fox News reported. “I’m constantly affected by the actions taken place this season, and I have been around the females, and just my team in general, who have felt almost silenced to speak out about i, because the whole LGBTQ is shoved down our throats!” Morrow said during her time at the mic. “We live in a society where it’s almost impossible to speak out on it without facing repercussions,” she said. “It feels as though that my school and the school district is choosing to support one person instead of the whole team,” Morrow added. “To see the athletic director turn around and tell my teammates that their shirts that say, ‘Save girl’s sports’ be compared to a swastika, that is not okay. These girls feel silenced, they felt silenced, and when they finally did something to speak out against it . . . they were completely stabbed in the back.” The teen also said that allowing boys to play on girls’ teams creates an “unsafe” environment for biological girls. “It is not okay that I have to be in position, and I have to see a male in booty shorts, and having to see that around me, as a 16-year-old girl, I don’t see that as a safe environment,” Morrow insisted. “Going into a locker room and seeing males in there, I don’t find that safe. I don’t find going to the bathroom safe when there’s guys in there. It’s not okay. I’m a 16-year-old girl!” One of the girls who filed a lawsuit against the school was heartbroken after being tossed off the school track team so officials could make room for the boy who identifies as a girl. “My initial reaction was like, I was really surprised, because it was like, why is this happening to me?” student litigant Taylor said. “There’s a transgender student on the team. Why am I getting displaced when I’ve worked so hard and gone to all of the practices, and this student has only attended a few of the practices.” The girls were also upset to be told that their “Save Girls Sports” shirts were equivalent to wearing a swastika. The two girls’ attorney, Julianne Fleischer, alleges that the school violated her clients’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and Title IX protections. “We’re seeing more and more women and young girls speak up and challenge these policies that are allowing biological boys to join and participate in these sports,” Fleischer insisted. “And so there’s lawsuits that are popping up all around the country. We’re hopeful that even with the incoming administration and Congress that, we’re going to see real positive change to Title IX that actually upholds and safeguards the rights of women to participate in their sports and to be safe and to be able to compete amongst one another.” Indeed, more and more women and girls are finally starting to fight back against transgenderism in sports. For instance, a girl’s high school volleyball team at a Christian school in Merced, California, recently forfeited a game because they did not wish to compete against a trans player. The Christian high school is only one of a growing list of school teams that are refusing to play against opponents with transgender players. A lawsuit was filed this year against San Jose State University (SJSU) and the Mountain West Conference for allowing a male to play on the SJSU women’s volleyball team. To date, five colleges have refused to play against SJSU over the school’s inclusion of transgender player Blair Fleming. The NCAA is also being sued by several groups over its policy of allowing transgender players to play as women. Follow Warner Todd Huston on Facebook at: facebook.com/Warner.Todd.Huston , or Truth Social @WarnerToddHustonTreaty protesters at Parliament. PHOTO: RNZ Do not overlook the fact there is a third position on the Treaty Principles Bill Rob Hamlin writes. Few things have been as depressing as the recent media coverage of the Treaty Principles Bill. The desire to create an adversarial spectacle to support attention-grabbing headlines means media outlets apparently seek to identify just two sides to a debate on a very narrow issue. This aggressive bipolarisation process has been particularly unfortunate with regard to the coverage of the current debate on the Treaty Principles Bill, because there are three, not just two, specific and significant positions within the governing elite of this country with regard to it. In order to understand what the eventual outcomes of this process might be for the nation, it is essential to understand all three of these positions and their relationship to one another, along with the motivations of those who hold them. I will therefore attempt to summarise these positions, all three of which are predicated by this statement: "The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill (1975) established the concept of ‘Treaty Principles’ for the Treaty of Waitangi, but did not define them. Instead, the expectation was that defined Treaty Principles would emerge subsequently via a common law process through rulings of the Waitangi Tribunal and the Courts." Position 1: The status quo Important Treaty Principles such as "partnership" and "Māori sovereignty" have now been firmly established via legal ruling/precedent. These common-law principles are increasingly applied via constitutional-level legislation that includes clauses requiring that Treaty Principles be adhered to. No change is necessary, or even possible, because these Treaty Principles, even though they are not formally defined, have superseded the sovereignty of Parliament. This is the position apparently held by Māori activists, large sections of the KC/legal community, Labour, Te Pati Māori and the Greens. Position 2: A full reset After 50 years there are still no consistently defined Treaty Principles. However, requirements to conform to these undefined common-law Treaty Principles are increasingly being incorporated within constitutional-level legislation. This creates the potential for unplanned, unpredictable, highly undesirable and possibly irreversible constitutional developments. The common-law process in this area therefore needs to be fully reset immediately by defining the Treaty Principles in publicly ratified legislation. This is the position apparently held by Act New Zealand (8% of parliamentary representatives), and by the general public who might eventually ratify it by a ratio of about two-to-one if recent polls are to be believed. This is the bipolar debate as it presented by the media, but of course the lists of adherents to the two sides of it reveal a glaring omission — National and New Zealand First have not said they are "for" either of these two positions. Between them these two apparently uncommitted components of the governing elite represent 80% of the ruling parliamentary group, the prime minister and the majority of the Cabinet. However, by word this group has said they are against the reset approach of Position 2, as both parties have categorically stated they will not support this Bill in its second reading. By deed they have indicated that they are also against the status quo of Position 1. The deed in question is their proposal to systematically remove all references to principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in existing legislation, dating back to 1986, that do not directly refer to specific Treaty settlement agreements. The words and deeds of National and New Zealand First thus suggest the specific nature of their critical and discrete third position in the debate. Position 3: Containment After 50 years there are still no clearly defined Treaty Principles. However, requirements to conform to these undefined common-law Treaty Principles are increasingly being incorporated within constitutional-level legislation. This creates the potential for unplanned, unpredictable, highly undesirable and possibly irreversible constitutional developments. This ongoing common-law process relating to the Treaty therefore needs to be fully contained at a sub-constitutional level by eliminating all references to general Treaty Principles in current and future legislation. With this third "containment" position revealed, everything the government is doing at the moment immediately makes sense. Under normal political circumstances, Position 3 would be considered to be extreme and would attract a considerable amount of political and media flack — but not when Act has Position 2 on the table. As long as Messrs Luxon and Peters stay well away from Position 2 (and they clearly are), what was a politically extreme proposal on their part thus becomes moderate — a classic positioning ploy. They are also able to stay outside of the structure of the bipolar debate that has been created by the media. The government can therefore look forward to at least six months’ peace and quiet within which to action Position 3 and fully eviscerate current Treaty-related legislation, while the doomed Treaty Principles Bill absorbs the flak and media attention in select committee. The sense of triumph/relief among the opponents of the Bill will likely supply the government with several more months to continue their containment work after they have eventually voted down the Treaty Principles Bill. It is likely even Mr Seymour would be satisfied with that outcome. After all, the legislation that is required to action Position 3 will have required his support. The media, by contrast, will likely be appalled once they eventually cotton on — especially as it is their mistargeted saturation reportage that will have largely provided the government with the opportunity. — Dr Robert Hamlin is a senior lecturer in the Department of Marketing, University of Otago. He is commenting here in a personal capacity.

As many companies are cutting back or ending diversity initiatives, Costco's Board of Trustees is pushing back on efforts to end the company's DEI programs. The Board urged its shareholders to vote against a proposal submitted by the National Center for Public Policy Research that called on Costco to eliminate DEI programs. The group claims that DEI programs are discriminatory and put the company at financial risk. "It's clear that DEI holds litigation, reputational and financial risks to the Company, and therefore financial risks to shareholders," the National Center for Public Policy Research wrote in its letter of support. RELATED STORY | US companies are rolling back DEI programs to critics' praise, but consumers don't agree, data shows In response, Costco's Board of Trustees voted unanimously to urge shareholders to decline the proposal. Shareholders will have their say on Jan. 23. "Our success at Costco Wholesale has been built on service to our critical stakeholders: employees, members, and suppliers," the Board wrote in response to the proposal. "Our efforts around diversity, equity and inclusion follow our code of ethics: For our employees, these efforts are built around inclusion – having all of our employees feel valued and respected. Our efforts at diversity, equity and inclusion remind and reinforce with everyone at our Company the importance of creating opportunities for all. "We believe that these efforts enhance our capacity to attract and retain employees who will help our business succeed. This capacity is critical because we owe our success to our now over 300,000 employees around the globe." The National Center for Public Policy Search said the Supreme Court decision reached in 2023 in SFFA v. Harvard indicated that companies' DEI programs could potentially be illegal. The Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action policies by colleges violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. RELATED STORY | Costco memberships grow despite price increase as profits surge Costco's Board countered that the group was incorrect on its belief that the company's DEI policies violate the law. "We believe that our diversity, equity and inclusion efforts are legally appropriate, and nothing in the proposal demonstrates otherwise. As part of our obeying the law, all decisions regarding recruiting, hiring, promotion, assignment, training, termination, and other terms and conditions of employment will be made without unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, religion, age, pregnancy disability, work-related injury, covered military or veteran status, political ideology or expression, genetic information, marital status, or other protected status," Costco's Board said in response.

Lou Holtz's pilot died in a plane crash near Beaufort 25 years ago. Here's what happened.

Here’s why the ‘Wicked’ movie is better than the stage musical

Prominent MAGA figures have accused Elon Musk of silencing critics who challenge his views on immigration . The controversy erupted when at least 14 right-wing accounts reported losing access to premium features on X, including blue verification badges and monetization tools, reports CNBC. This follows a wave of criticism targeting Musk's pro-immigration stance, particularly from anti-immigration factions within the MAGA movement. The affected users, many affiliated with the media group ConservativeOG, said they were penalized after publicly voicing opposition to Musk's position. These accounts saw their reach on the platform shrink significantly, triggering accusations that Musk was shadowbanning or censoring those who disagreed with him. Read Next: ‘Zelle Became A Gold Mine For Fraudsters': Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Lawsuit Some of these individuals expressed concern that losing monetization features would impact their ability to continue posting content regularly. In response to the growing controversy, Musk posted a "reminder" on X about the platform's algorithm, stating that accounts frequently blocked or muted by verified users would see their reach decline. However, this explanation only fueled further accusations of censorship. Critics felt that Musk, despite his claims of championing free speech, was punishing those who voiced opposition to his views on immigration. Among those impacted was Preston Parra , head of ConservativeOG, who described the actions as a "political takedown" aimed at silencing conservative voices. Parra vowed to continue fighting Musk's platform policies, which he sees as an attack on conservative values. The incident has sparked a broader debate over the influence of tech executives like Musk and their role in shaping political discourse, especially in light of his immigrant background and ties to pro-immigration figures. The controversy highlights the ongoing tension between free speech advocates and those who believe social media platforms should regulate harmful content. Read Next: Billionaire Investors Michael Burry, David Tepper Could Benefit From China's Stimulus Measures © 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.

Following the surprising announcement that Jung Woo Sung became a father and had a baby with model Moon Gabi (aged 35), past comments made by the actor about age differences have come under scrutiny. Jung Woo Sung, now 51, is facing backlash as netizens dig up his previous statements on the topic, accusing him of hypocrisy. A specific moment that has reignited controversy is a clip from 2017 that was recently re-shared online. An article reiterating the interaction tells of Jung Woo Sung politely turning down a fan’s marriage proposal. The fan mentioned being willing to overlook their age gap, to which Jung Woo Sung disagreed. Recently, a video of Jung Woo Sung rejecting a marriage proposal was uploaded to the official YouTube channel of Artist Company. He has long been known for his straightforward and decisive way of turning down proposals. In 2017, when a fan expressed their willingness to overcome the age gap and proposed marriage, he cheerfully responded with a bright smile, saying, “Age differences can’t be overcome.” — Jung Woo Sung Known for his blunt yet charming rejection of such proposals, the comment was initially well-received and earned the actor lots of praise. Age differences can’t be overcome. — Jung Woo Sung However, in light of the recent news, many are questioning the consistency of his stance. The actor’s relationship with Moon Gabi, who is 16 years younger, has sparked accusations that his remarks were disingenuous. Jung Woo Sung And Moon Gabi Weren’t Even Dating When She Became Pregnant — Now He Doesn’t Want To Get Married The lack of a marriage announcement has also added fuel to the fire, with some questioning why marriage is off the table despite the birth of their child. One online post retelling Jung Woo Sung’s words has attracted over 60,000 views and hundreds of comments, many of them harshly criticizing the actor for what they perceive as double standards and hypocrisy. “Turns out he’s such a fake person...” “He says he can’t overcome the age difference, so he doesn’t get married.” “They had a child, but marriage isn’t possible because of the age gap? Wow.” “Marriage isn’t okay, but everything else is fine, lol.” “LOL.” “So, not getting married makes what he said technically true? Disgusting.” “So, age difference is fine for pleasure-seeking like sex, but not for sharing a life together through marriage? Really?”2024 in pop culture: In a bruising year, we sought out fantasy, escapism — and cute little animalsYeh Jawaani Hai Deewani, starring Ranbir Kapoor, Deepika Padukone and Aditya Roy Kapur, is set to re-release in cinemas. Dharma Productions, the banner behind the film, announced the news on their social media handles. The re-release of films is part of a growing trend of classic superhit films making a return to the big screen. Before YJHD, Dharma's Kal Ho Naa Ho, starring Shah Rukh Khan, Preity Zinta, and Saif Ali Khan was re-released in cinemas. The film is (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); re-releasing in select cinemas across India and the UK on January 3, 2025 Earlier this month, Dharma Productions shared a cryptic post about Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani, sparking speculation among fans about a possible sequel. However, the announcement confirmed that instead of a new instalment, the 2013 hit will be re-released in cinemas, allowing a new generation of moviegoers to experience the magic of this iconic film on the big screen once again.