Features
Courage was the reason campus anti-Semites were beaten
A Tufts University student stood up to the mob of Israel-haters. His victory won’t necessarily prevent others from being targeted, but it showed how they, too, can prevail.
By JONATHAN TOBIN (March 5, 2021 / JNS) It was a familiar story but with an unfamiliar conclusion. A Jewish student objected to the anti-Semitic slanders promoted by a student organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction.
For his pains, he was targeted for harassment and then scheduled to be hauled before a disciplinary meeting at which he was likely to be impeached from his post in student government for his pro-Israel views.
The outcome—in which, for a change, the Israel-haters backed down—is not only a victory for the student. It also provides a template for others in similar situations to follow. That’s why, though dismissed by some as a tempest in an academic teacup, the drama that recently unfolded at Tufts University outside Boston is deserving of attention on the part of all those who worry about the future of American Jewry.
For those who follow the battles being fought on North American college campuses in recent years as pro-BDS groups have worked to delegitimize the State of Israel and its supporters, what happened to Tufts student Max Price was nothing new, even if the abuse hurled at him was pretty severe.
The Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapter at Tufts promoted a student referendum aimed at rebuking the university’s former police chief for participating in a 2017 exchange program in which American law enforcement and first responders receive training in Israel. The exchange programs involve information-sharing and are useful because the Americans learn from the Israelis’ time-tested experience in dealing with emergencies.
These programs are, however, the centerpiece of a propaganda campaign called “Deadly Exchange” launched by the anti-Zionist group Jewish Voice for Peace. According to them, they are a diabolical plot in which Americans are taught how to abuse and kill minorities by Israelis. In this way, groups like JVP and SJP not only attack Israel, but also delegitimize the American Jews who sponsor the trips as somehow responsible for American police shootings of African-Americans. As such, it is not merely a false and defamatory argument, but a 21st-century blood libel in which Jews are blamed for crimes committed by others.
At Tufts, that took the form of a referendum promoted by SJP in which a resolution filled with misleading and false information about the exchanges was voted on by the students.
That’s where Price, a member of the Tufts Community Union Judiciary, stepped in. His post is tasked with the job of fact-checking and removing false information from student government legislation. Price denounced the falsehoods in the referendum text. That led SJP and its supporters to single him out for a campaign of harassment, culminating in an effort to get him thrown out of his position by a disciplinary committee because of his “pro-Israel bias.”
Price’s treatment—not just by SJP but also others in student government—was outrageous. Not only was he subjected to profane insults but also forced to sit through student government meetings in which he was questioned about his Jewish background and beliefs. At a Zoom meeting during which the referendum was discussed, he was muted and literally prevented from speaking. The message from the student government and from a university administration that stood by silently as Price suffered these insults was clear: If you are a pro-Israel Jew, you are going to be treated as a racist advocate of white supremacy who must be marginalized, rather than respected and heard.
It is fear of similar treatment that more often than not convinces Jewish students to keep their heads down and stay silent when Israel is being falsely besmirched as an “apartheid state.” Indeed, that’s the whole point of the BDS movement. While ostensibly a campaign of economic warfare against the Jewish state, it has done nothing to damage its vibrant economy through its pathetic drive to undermine, for example, sales of Sabra hummus. Instead, like other successful cancel culture efforts, it seeks to silence those who refute intersectional myths about the Palestinian war against Israel being linked to the struggle for civil rights in the United States and which brands Zionism as racism.
But Price wouldn’t be silent.
In similar situations, most college kids choose to avoid putting a bull’s eye on their backs by challenging fashionable leftist theories promoted by both professors and other students. Indeed, even many of those who do speak up respond to the personal attacks by quitting student government in disgust. The same thing happens in other venues, such as journalism, when those labeled as too interested in defending Jewish rights or Israel are singled out. Walking away from such fights as not worth the grief is understandable. When that happens, though, anti-Semites win. After all, their objective is to clear the public square of proud Jews and friends of Israel.
Rather than granting a hate group like SJP such an undeserved triumph, Price fought back. And he wasn’t alone. The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which specializes in defending students in these situations, intervened to represent him. It rightly accused the university of failing to defend Price’s rights. Allowing him to suffer anti-Semitic harassment was in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1965, which forbids such discriminatory treatment at educational institutions that, like Tufts, receive federal aid.
What followed was what usually happens when bullies are challenged. Rather than face a lawsuit or the escalation of this fight into something much bigger than a simple case of successful intimidation, SJP gave up. It withdrew its effort to throw Price out of his student government post.
That’s good news for Max Price and more evidence of the necessity of the Brandeis Center’s efforts.
Price was right when he told JNS that SJP’s retreat didn’t absolve them of their responsibility for the anti-Semitic treatment he received. The university also deserves blame for the passive role it played. They wouldn’t step in to stop the harassment of a Jewish student because of his unwillingness to join with others in smearing Israel. Would they have been so slow to act had an African-American or other minority student been attacked for defending his community?
While Price won this fight, there’s little reason to believe that will stop SJP and cowardly university administrators, who fear being “canceled” more than they value the rights of Jewish students, from behaving in a similar fashion the next time a student calls out anti-Semitic groups for their conduct. After all, even a Jewish publication like The Forward covered this story as if it were a misunderstanding in which both sides had some right on their side rather than a straightforward example of anti-Semitic agitation.
But this also points the way to the answer as to how the BDS movement can be beaten.
Jewish students must be armed with the facts to enable them to respond to lies like those of the “Deadly Exchange” campaign with the truth. But they need more than just information. They need to have the courage that is necessary to swim against the intellectual tide on campuses in which BDS is considered enlightened thought and support for Israel is deemed reactionary.
That’s a difficult thing to ask of anyone, let alone a college student who at that age is more eager to fit in than to be a noisy dissenter against academic fashion. Yet as has always been the case throughout history, courage is what is needed if Jewish rights are to be successfully defended.
Not every student can be expected to be as tough or to suffer the kind of opprobrium to which Price was subjected by anti-Semitic BDS supporters. But if we are to end the idea that it’s always open season on Jews who care about Israel on college campuses, then we are going to need more young men and women who can learn from his example.
Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS—Jewish News Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.
Features
Ontario Online Casinos Let Players Set Daily, Weekly and Monthly Deposit Limits
A deposit limit sets a ceiling on how much money someone can add to an online gambling account. In Ontario’s regulated market, players can choose limits covering 24 hours, seven days and one month, with the website’s system enforcing the amounts they select.
The settings are straightforward, but the timing deserves attention. A daily allowance may sit within weekly and monthly caps, while an increase can involve a waiting period. For adults using Chrome on a Chromebook, understanding these account rules starts with knowing where to find them.
Finding the Settings and Choosing a Period
Deposit controls sit within the gambling website’s account menus. The Tooniebet Ontario responsible gaming page is an operator-specific resource readers can consult alongside their account settings. ToonieBet is operated by Canadix Limited and regulated by the AGCO under an agreement with iGaming Ontario.
Ontario’s standards require an easy and obvious way to set financial and time limits during registration and afterward. Players must be offered deposit and loss limits when signing up, and the controls must remain easy to reach and change once an account is open.
Menu names differ between sites. Published examples place deposit limits under account settings or responsible-gaming tools, where players can select an amount and a period.
Each type of limit measures something different. Deposit limits cap money added to the account. Loss limits restrict net losses after winnings are taken into account, while time limits govern playing time. iGaming Ontario’s player guidance explains all three.
For Chromebook users, these settings are managed through the website’s account interface. Chrome’s own permissions handle separate browser functions, such as access to location information.
How Several Limits Apply to One Deposit
Players can have daily, weekly and monthly limits running together. A deposit must fit within every active cap.
Take a hypothetical account with limits of CAD $40 daily, CAD $100 weekly and CAD $250 monthly. These figures illustrate the process.
If someone has already deposited CAD $90 during the weekly period, the remaining weekly allowance is CAD $10. That becomes the most they can add, even when the daily limit has more room. Reaching the monthly cap would likewise block another deposit until some monthly allowance becomes available.
This is why checking all active limits matters. A new day may bring fresh daily capacity while the weekly or monthly total remains close to its ceiling. The longer periods continue to apply as the shorter one refreshes.
When Money Drops Out of a Rolling Window
The next question is when previous deposits stop counting toward a cap. Some sites use rolling periods, which track elapsed time from individual deposits.
Published Ontario policies include daily windows of 24 hours, weekly windows of 168 hours and monthly windows of 720 hours, equivalent to 30 days. Under that approach, each deposit frees up its corresponding allowance once it falls outside the window.
Suppose someone has a CAD $100 rolling weekly limit and deposits CAD $25 on Friday, followed by CAD $75 on Saturday. Seven days after Friday’s deposit, CAD $25 becomes available again. The other CAD $75 returns seven days after Saturday’s deposit.
Leaving the restored Friday allowance unused means it combines with Saturday’s restored amount. At that point, the full CAD $100 is available. Reviewing deposit dates and times helps explain how much room remains within a rolling period.
Changing a Cap Takes a Separate Step
A limit refreshing follows the schedule already attached to the account. Raising that limit requires a request and a wait.
Ontario’s standards require at least 24 hours before a player’s request to relax or remove an established limit can take effect. The existing limit remains enforceable during the cooling-off period.
Operators publish their own timings. Documented examples include a seven-day wait for deposit-limit increases or removals. Another published schedule allows increases after one day for a daily cap, seven days for a weekly cap and 30 days for a monthly cap.
Lower limits take effect immediately under these published policies. Some policies also restart the waiting period when a player requests another increase while an earlier change is pending. The effective date shows which amount currently applies.
Other Controls and Support
Deposit limits work alongside loss limits, time limits, short breaks and self-exclusion. Together, these give players ways to restrict account funding, gambling activity or access.
Ontario-regulated online casino play is restricted to adults aged 19 and older who are physically in Ontario. Gambling involves financial risk.
For concerns about your gambling or someone else’s, ConnexOntario offers free, confidential information and referral support around the clock. Call 1-866-531-2600 or text CONNEX to 247247. Standard message and data rates may apply.
Features
What “Best Odds” Really Means When Comparing Gambling Review Websites
The phrase best odds appears frequently in gambling discussions, but it is surprisingly easy to use imprecisely. MonsterBetList is primarily a casino review and rankings website, not a dedicated live sportsbook odds comparison terminal. That difference is central to evaluating what its reviews can and cannot establish. A casino rating may explain payout conditions, licence information and bonus restrictions, while a claim about the best available price on a sporting outcome requires a different kind of evidence altogether.
Odds and ratings answer different questions
Sports betting odds represent a price offered on a specified outcome. A review rating is an editorial judgement built from multiple criteria. These two numerical systems cannot be substituted for one another. A bookmaker rated highly for service may offer a less competitive price on a particular match, while a service with a more attractive price may impose different limits or verification rules.
Similarly, a casino review can discuss return-to-player statistics, but RTP is not the same as sportsbook odds. RTP describes a theoretical long-run percentage built into a game model. It does not tell a reader what will happen in one session and it is not an individually negotiable market quotation.
What makes sports odds comparable?
A fair odds comparison starts with identical selections: the same event, outcome, market rules and settlement conditions. Comparing a three-way football result with a draw-no-bet price is invalid because the products pay under different circumstances. The observation time also matters; displayed prices can change quickly as market information or trading decisions evolve.
The numerical format should be standardised. Decimal odds provide one convenient representation, but American and fractional formats express the same underlying idea differently. Converting these formats is straightforward. What matters is the net price, the operator’s rules and whether the quoted offer remains available when reviewed.
Overround explains the hidden cost of many markets
In a simplified two-outcome market, dividing one by each decimal price produces an implied probability. If the implied probabilities add to more than 100%, the excess is commonly described as the bookmaker’s overround. It is one way of understanding the margin embedded in prices, although individual market structure and adjustments can complicate the interpretation.
This concept explains why the word best should not be attached to a price without context. A strong headline may look appealing yet represent an ordinary margin after calculation. More importantly, any single quote is time-dependent. Genuine comparison requires a dated observation and equivalent market rules; broad editorial praise is not enough.
What casino rankings can establish instead
MonsterBetList publishes casino reviews and guides addressing licences, bonuses, payout experiences and responsible gambling. Those topics are relevant to evaluating consumer risk and service quality. A report about the length of a withdrawal process, for example, can be useful if its methodology is transparent. A bonus review can help identify restrictive wagering requirements that marketing headlines omit.
However, a casino ranking should not be presented as evidence that its highest-rated operator consistently offers the best sports prices. Unless a site publishes repeated market-by-market comparisons, that conclusion is not supported. Readers benefit when publishers clearly distinguish what was measured from what readers might assume was measured.
Bonuses can complicate comparisons
A sportsbook may offer free-bet tokens, cashback or other promotions. Their effective value depends on conditions rather than the largest number printed in a banner. Some credits are not withdrawable as cash; others require qualifying selections, minimum odds or a deadline. Casino welcome bonuses often introduce wagering requirements, game-contribution rules and limits on withdrawals. Combining these products under one generic promotional score can hide important differences.
For instance, a large matched deposit might require extensive play before bonus-related funds become eligible for withdrawal. The required betting volume is not a promise of profit. The presence of a promotion may therefore make comparisons more complex instead of simpler. Clear disclosures should precede any judgement about value.
Editorial independence and methods
Review sites sometimes state that rankings are editorially independent. Such a statement is relevant but does not replace evidence of consistent testing. Readers should look for the criteria used, the date of each review, whether real transactions were examined and how negative findings are treated. If one platform receives detailed testing while another is scored on marketing copy, the ranking loses comparability.
Commercial incentives should also be visible. Referral relationships or sponsorships do not automatically make every observation inaccurate, but they create reasons to ask how rankings are insulated from revenue. A publication that explains its methodology and corrections process gives readers a stronger basis for trust than one that simply declares its winners.
Licensing and dispute rights before price claims
A marginally attractive price is of limited value when the operator is not legally available to the reader or does not provide meaningful avenues for redress. Regulations vary by jurisdiction, and a licence in one country may not authorise service in another. It is prudent to verify the legal entity behind a brand and the current status of any licence through official records.
Consumers should also review identity verification, account restrictions and dispute resolution procedures. These operational conditions influence the actual experience of using a gambling service. A sensible evaluation includes them before discussing promotions or theoretical market advantages.
Why guaranteed-profit language is a warning sign
No ordinary review or odds list can guarantee that an individual will win money from gambling. Claims of certain returns often omit the fact that results are uncertain, prices move and transactions are subject to restrictions. Casino games generally incorporate a house advantage, and sports outcomes remain uncertain regardless of a persuasive analysis. The safest response to absolute promises is scepticism.
Readers should also avoid treating gambling as a means of addressing financial problems. Chasing previous losses and increasing stakes to recover money can deepen harm. Consumer-oriented coverage is more valuable when it explains risk and offers realistic options for stepping away.
Conclusion: define the claim before ranking the service
“Best odds” is a specific comparative proposition, not a synonym for a high casino rating. MonsterBetList can be examined for its published casino research, review structure and risk disclosures, but those materials should not be stretched into claims they have not tested. Clear definitions, dated evidence and honest limitations are the foundations of trustworthy comparison journalism.
Features
Noah Wyle explains Robby’s controversial behaviour in season two of The Pitt
Noah Wyle believes audiences struggled to accept the changes in Dr. Michael “Robby” Robinavitch during the second season of The Pitt. In a recent interview with Vanity Fair, Wyle explained why viewers reacted strongly to the emergency physician’s increasingly difficult behaviour, arguing that audiences often expect their heroes to maintain an unrealistic standard of “purity”.
(Spoiler warning: for anyone who hasn’t yet watched The Pitt, this article contains minor spoilers.)
In season one of the HBO medical drama, Robby was a dedicated doctor whose composure and clinical instincts made him a reliable member of staff. Season two revealed a more troubled side of the character, with grief and deteriorating mental health affecting his relationships with colleagues.
“An interesting American hypocrisy”
Wyle, who also works as a writer, director and executive producer on the show, sees Robby’s behaviour as part of a character journey rather than a sudden departure from the person audiences admired.
He said that viewers often forgive villains who occasionally do something admirable but tend to judge traditionally heroic characters much more harshly when they make mistakes. Wyle described this as “an interesting American hypocrisy”.
Wyle credited executive producer John Wells for encouraging the team to tell Robby’s story honestly.
Gaming and the success of House
Wyle has suggested a potential five- or six-season trajectory for Robby, with the character currently moving from denial towards recognizing his problems and seeking a way forward. Season two was uncomfortable for viewers, as Robby struggled to acknowledge his condition.
The success of The Pitt, particularly if it lasts for that five- or six-season run, may interest game developers. House, another of the most popular TV medical dramas, inspired two games back in its heyday. In 2008, Exelweiss designed a cellphone game for the show, releasing Spanish and English versions. Two years later, Legacy Interactive released a video game based on the series; players acted as House’s diagnostic team to solve five unusual medical cases.
For now, iGaming companies like Casino Days Ontario are more focused on the immensely popular slots themes, such as ancient civilizations, as well as variations on table classics like poker and blackjack.
The Pitt has been credited with reviving the medical drama, after a successful era of shows that included House (a “prickly” take on the format, in the words of one critic) alongside ER, Grey’s Anatomy, and The Good Doctor. That same critic praised The Pitt for showing that TV medical dramas can be “satisfyingly elongated”, which could inspire developers who specialize in RPGs or other long form games.
Season three could change Robby’s relationships
Wyle offered a glimpse of how the next season might develop Robby’s complicated connection with Dr. Langdon.
Their relationship changed after Langdon disappointed his mentor in the first season. Robby was reluctant to welcome him back in season two, leaving the two characters more separated despite their history.
Robby will return to the hospital after spending a couple of months away, potentially confronting embarrassment about his previous conduct and uncertainty about his abilities.
