ReportWire

Tag: U.S. Elections News

  • MSU expert: What an earlier primary means for Michigan and the 2024 election

    MSU expert: What an earlier primary means for Michigan and the 2024 election

    BYLINE: Matt Grossmann

    Newswise — MSU has a satellite uplink/LTN TV studio and Comrex line for radio interviews upon request. 

    EAST LANSING, Mich. – The 2024 presidential election is underway with the first contests being Iowa and New Hampshire. While Iowa holds caucuses, New Hampshire holds an open primary — illustrating that the way states assign their delegates isn’t always the same. For this election, Michigan’s contests are now sooner, on Feb. 27 and March 2 — with Michigan Republicans now holding both a primary and caucus. So, how does it all work?

    Matt Grossmann is the director of Michigan State University’s Institute for Public Policy and Social Research, as well as a professor in the Department of Political Science in the College of Social Science. Grossmann is an expert in both state and national politics. He answers questions about how to understand different systems and the role Michigan will play in 2024.

    How do the presidential primaries work for Republicans and Democrats?

    Officially, Democrats and Republicans select their nominees at national conventions this summer. The presidential nomination process evolved out of reforms to the delegate selection process for those conventions, which now means delegates are overwhelmingly selected based on presidential primary results. From the voter’s perspective, it often looks like any other election where you select your preferred candidate. But the parties still have power to coordinate their rules and selection procedures. That means there are still party differences, such as which states are allowed to go earlier in the process and whether the state winner gets all of the delegates from that state. Usually, the winner is determined when all other candidates drop out after it becomes infeasible for them to gain enough delegates to win. Officially, the winner needs to accumulate a majority of delegates. But the winners will likely be clear after most states vote early in the process.

    How does a caucus work?

    A caucus is a party meeting that can include the selection of delegates. The Iowa caucuses evolved out of a three-round process for selecting delegates to county conventions to select delegates to the state convention, who select delegates to the national convention. Caucuses now play a smaller role in the process, with most delegates selected by primaries. How delegates are awarded differs by state.

    How is a general primary different from a caucus and why does format vary by state?

    A primary is a normal election to select a party nominee, but the presidential primaries officially select delegates affiliated with the candidates. To organize a primary for delegate selection, a state party has to coordinate with the rules of their state and their national party. States often like to go early in the process (while several candidates are still in the race and they might influence other states), but the national parties set the rules on whether those voting early are selecting delegates to the national convention. This year, the Democratic Party approved Michigan moving earlier in the process and the Michigan Legislature (controlled by Democrats) moved our election date earlier in the process. But there is not really a contest on the Democratic side. Republicans had to adapt to this process because their national party did not approve a move earlier in the process.

    Why do Michigan Republicans have a hybrid caucus this election and how does it work?

    Michigan Republicans are trying to adapt to their national party rules and the state government-held election (coordinated by Democrats). There are also parts of the party that would like voters to have less of a role in nominating candidates compared to those more involved in party organizing and activism. The idea behind a hybrid system is to have a meaningful election where voters have a role in selecting the nominee, but official delegate selection can still conform to national rules and enable party activists to have a role in the process. 

    What are the important dates in Michigan’s voting process?

    Both parties will hold their primaries on Tuesday, Feb. 27 and the Republicans will have their caucus on Saturday, March 2, which awards most of the party’s delegates. Michigan voters who want to participate must ensure they are registered for the primary by Monday, Feb. 12. Absentee ballots requested by mail must be done so by Friday, Feb. 23. It is also important to know that Michigan now has early in-person voting, which communities must start by Saturday, Feb. 17. 

    Will Michigan’s earlier primary date have a significant effect on the presidential race?

    On the Democratic side, there is not much of a race against the incumbent president. But Michigan has an opportunity to set the terms for future elections, showing that it can become engaged, with diverse interests, and earn the right to vote early in the process in 2028. On the Republican side, it will depend on whether candidates other than Donald Trump remain in the process and how viable they are by the time Michiganders vote. Since Michigan does not have party registration, voters will be able to participate in the primary of their choice, which has provided an incentive for individuals to vote in the contest that presents the most uncertainty.

    What are some fun facts about previous presidential primaries?

     

    1. Barak Obama was not on the primary ballot in 2008 because Michigan jumped in line, holding a primary before national party rules allowed it on the Democratic side. Eventually, the delegates were still seated — but only after it was clear that they would not put Hillary Clinton over Obama.
    2. In 2016, Bernie Sanders unexpectedly defeated Hillary Clinton in the Michigan primary, prolonging the Democratic contest, in part because many Democratic-leaning voters decided to vote in the Republican contest.
    3. John McCain won the 2000 Michigan Republican primary over George W. Bush — Michigan was one of only seven states where McCain won over Bush. 

    ### 

    Michigan State University has been advancing the common good with uncommon will for more than 165 years. One of the world’s leading public research universities, MSU pushes the boundaries of discovery to make a better, safer, healthier world for all while providing life-changing opportunities to a diverse and inclusive academic community through more than 400 programs of study in 17 degree-granting colleges.

    For MSU news on the web, go to MSUToday or twitter.com/MSUnews.

    Michigan State University

    Source link

  • Psychological science can help counter spread of misinformation, says APA report

    Psychological science can help counter spread of misinformation, says APA report

    Newswise — WASHINGTON – Debunking, “prebunking,” nudging and teaching digital literacy are several of the more effective ways to counter misinformation, according to a new report from the American Psychological Association.

    Written by a panel of U.S. and international experts on the psychology of misinformation, the report outlines the processes that make people susceptible to misinformation and offers solutions to combat it.

    People are more likely to believe misinformation if it comes from groups they belong to or if they judge the source as credible, according to the report “Using Psychological Science to Understand and Fight Health Misinformation: An APA Consensus Statement.” It defines misinformation as “any information that is demonstrably false or otherwise misleading, regardless of its source or intention.”

    The report outlines the key features of misinformation that fool people into believing and spreading it. For instance, it found that people are more likely to believe false statements that appeal to emotions such as fear and outrage. They are also more likely to believe misinformation that paints groups that they view as “others” in a negative light. And people are more likely to believe information the more it is repeated, even when it contradicts their prior knowledge. These findings suggest that it is important to stop misinformation early, the report says.

    The report also describes features of social media that help misinformation spread very quickly. “Rapid publication and peer-to-peer sharing allow ordinary users to distribute information quickly to large audiences, so misinformation can be policed only after the fact (if at all),” the report says. “’Echo chambers’ bind and isolate online communities with similar views, which aids the spread of falsehoods and impedes the spread of factual corrections.” 

    As a result, “most online misinformation originates from a small minority of ‘superspreaders,’ but social media amplifies their reach and influence.”

    There are two levels on which misinformation can be stopped, according to the report: systemic approaches, such as legislation and technology standards, and individual approaches focused on changing individual behaviors. The latter include: 

    • fact-checking, or debunking; 
    • prebunking, or pre-emptive debunking to prevent people from falling for misinformation in the first place; 
    • nudges, such as asking people to consider the accuracy of information before sharing it, or rewarding people to be as accurate as possible; 
    • and formal education or community outreach to raise people’s awareness about healthy online behavior and media use.

    The report acknowledges that there is much more to learn and recommends more research funding and industry cooperation to understand behaviors related to misinformation and create tools to correct it. The panel members who wrote the report spent more than a year reviewing the scientific literature to develop their recommendations. The report was commissioned by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and funded as part of a $2 million grant to develop effective solutions to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. 

    While the panel’s recommendations focus on health misinformation, they can also be used for broader topics such as politics and climate change. For instance, these findings offer direct input to one of the main issues highlighted in APA’s Health Advisory on Social Media by addressing tactics that can be used to combat misinformation.  

    The report recommends eight steps for policymakers, scientists, media and the public to help curb the spread of misinformation and the risks it poses to health, well-being and civic life: 

    1. Avoid repeating misinformation without including a correction.
    2. Collaborate with social media companies to understand and reduce the spread of harmful misinformation.
    3. Use misinformation correction strategies with tools already proven to promote healthy behaviors.
    4. Leverage trusted sources to counter misinformation and provide accurate health information.
    5. Debunk misinformation often and repeatedly using evidence-based methods.
    6. Prebunk misinformation to inoculate susceptible audiences by building skills and resilience from an early age.
    7. Demand data access and transparency from social media companies for scientific research on misinformation.
    8. Fund basic and translational research into the psychology of health misinformation, including ways to counter it.

    “These psychological science findings help to explain how misinformation enters our thought processes,” the report states. “It is effortful and difficult for our brains to apply existing knowledge when encountering new information; when new claims are false but sufficiently reasonable, we can learn them as facts. Thus, everyone is susceptible to misinformation to some degree: we acquire it even when we know better.”

     

    The American Psychological Association, in Washington, D.C., is the largest scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the United States. APA’s membership includes over 146,000 researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. Through its divisions in 54 subfields of psychology and affiliations with 60 state, territorial and Canadian provincial associations, APA works to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people’s lives.

    American Psychological Association (APA)

    Source link

  • Trump’s mug shot expression was a calculated move for his presidential campaign strategy, says experts

    Trump’s mug shot expression was a calculated move for his presidential campaign strategy, says experts

    For the first time in United States history, a former president has their mug shot taken and released to the public in connection to criminal charges. Donald Trump surrendered at the Fulton County Jail in Georgia last night and was booked on felony charges alleging he participated in a criminal conspiracy to illegally overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia.

    Virginia Tech political science and public relations experts alike, believe there was a calculated effort by the former president and his team in regards to how he should look in the mug shot.

    “Trump’s mug shot expression tries to convey strength and defiance, likely a strategy used to rile up his base,” says Chad Hankinson, a political science expert at Virginia Tech. “The likely interpretation for them is that he is fearless, powerful, confident, and undeterred by efforts to undermine him.” 

    Trump’s campaign released the photo while requesting donations. Hankinson believes he’s trying to capitalize on this to raise more campaign funds. “Overall, he views this as a win that will net him more campaign contributions and supporters, and further the narrative that he is the target of politically motivated investigations that are meant to derail his chances of regaining the presidency.”

    “Former President Trump has long been said to claim that any publicity is “good” publicity,” says Virginia Tech political expert Karen Hult. “This is another historic “first” for U.S. presidents and arguably another step along the path of a collapsing constitutional republic.”

    Cayce Myers, a public relations professor in the School of Communication says mug shots have become a defining visual for news coverage of arrests. 

    “Often thought of as a degrading experience, mug shots frequently are thought to be unflattering and frequently present the subject as a guilty person who got caught,” says Myers. “In high profile cases there is a strategy for taking a mug shot where the person arrested attempts to send a message to the public with their picture.”

    “Trump’s expression in his Fulton County Jail mugshot expresses a certain disgust and contempt, which helps promote his narrative that this is an unjust, politically motivated arrest,” says Myers. “Trump’s mug shot may become a defining visual for the 2024 presidential campaign, perhaps not surprisingly on both sides.”

    While pundits predicted that such images would be used to undermine Trump’s credibility in 2024, Myers agrees with Hankinson that it is Trump who is likely to use the visual to promote his own campaign. “His indictments have become a rallying cry and platform for his 2024 presidential campaign, and polling in the Republican primary shows that his sizable lead has not diminished despite these legal problems.”

    Virginia Tech

    Source link

  • What to know about the state of voting rights ahead of 2024

    What to know about the state of voting rights ahead of 2024

    CHICAGO –– In a pair of decisions this summer that surprised some voting rights advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court went against the trend of recent decisions weakening the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

    As the anniversary of the landmark civil-rights legislation approaches on August 6, Manoj Mate, an associate professor with DePaul University College of Law, discusses the details and implications of these recent court rulings for the 2024 elections and the broader challenges facing voters. Mate is the faculty director of the Racial Justice Initiative, and his interdisciplinary research focuses on public law, constitutional law, election law and voting rights, and comparative constitutional law. 

    How did the Supreme Court rule this summer?

    First in Allen v. Milligan, the court ruled that Alabama’s 2022 congressional redistricting plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by packing a large bloc of Black voters into one majority-minority district. This divided up and diluted the voting power of the remainder of Black voters among surrounding districts. As a result of the decision, Alabama must now draw a second majority-minority district.

    In the second ruling for Moore v. Harper, the Supreme Court rejected the extreme version of the independent-state-legislature theory, a fringe legal theory that would have limited state courts’ powers to review electoral work of state legislatures.

    The power to draw legislative maps has become central to the elections process. Why is the Moore v. Harper case so important for voting rights and democracy?

    Moore is important because it preserves a pathway for challenging partisan gerrymanders through state courts. In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the Supreme Court held partisan gerrymandering claims are political questions that cannot be adjudicated by federal courts, but they held that state courts could still review partisan gerrymandering claims under state constitutional law. While affirming the power of state courts to review partisan gerrymanders under state constitutions, the Supreme Court in Moore v. Harper held that state court decisions would still be subject to review by federal courts.

    What is the likely impact of the case going forward?

    The impact of the Supreme Court’s decision is still uncertain given the lack of clarity surrounding the new standard for reviewing state court decisions. However, under the new standard, federal courts will have the power to review state supreme court decisions on redistricting, as well as state regulations of voting and elections involving federal elections.

    These federal court decisions could have significant impacts on voting rights and federal elections as early as 2024. In applying the Moore standard, federal courts could potentially overturn state supreme court decisions invalidating partisan gerrymanders based on scrutiny of state courts’ interpretation of state constitutional provisions codifying voting rights, equality, and democratic principles. These decisions could have a significant influence on state Congressional maps, potentially affecting which party wins a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    What is happening at the state level?

    States continue to impose restrictions on voting rights through voter suppression policies. These include passing voter identification and felony disenfranchisement laws, restricting early voting and vote by mail, and reducing the number of polling places in major cities and population centers.

    In addition, election denial strategies are targeting election administration, including attacks on election workers, efforts to challenge certification of elections, and the creation of ‘election fraud’ policing units. All of these present significant threats to voting rights and elections.

    As faculty director of the Racial Justice Initiative, you bring together students, lawyers, researchers, policymakers and activists to collaborate on community-driven solutions to advance racial justice. Why is voting rights a priority for your work?

    Policies that seek to curtail or restrict voting rights have disproportionate impacts on minority communities and their power and influence in our democracy. Protecting voting rights and preserving and expanding access to the vote is essential to advancing legislation and policy reforms in the area of racial and social justice through the political process.

    DePaul University

    Source link

  • Hi, my name is Sierra – Sierra Cougot, Kyodo News

    Hi, my name is Sierra – Sierra Cougot, Kyodo News

    FROM: Sierra Cougot, Kyodo News

    Hi, my name is Sierra and I’m an assistant political correspondent with Kyodo News DC.

    As I’m sure you know, Trump is facing indictment for Jan 6 and I was wondering if any of your polisci experts might be willing to speak with me on the topic. Because this is last minute, my schedule is open from 9 to 6 ET tomorrow (7/21) if anyone is available/interested and, while a phone call is preferred, email correspondence would also be doable.

    Our questions are as followed: What is the difference between this indictment and Trump’s previous indictments? How is this indictment around Jan 6 more significant? What makes this case easier to indict, if anything? How do you anticipate this could affect the 2024 election?

    Thanks for your help!

     

    DEADLINE: Fri Jul 21 18:00 PM EDT 2023

    CONTACT: [email protected]

    Newswise Expert Queries

    Source link

  • Gender, Race Gaps in Democrats Voting: New Study

    Gender, Race Gaps in Democrats Voting: New Study

    Newswise — The enduring gender disparity in voting preferences between Democrats and Republicans stems, in part, from a greater percentage of female voters being Black and the historical trend of Black voters favoring the Democratic Party, as indicated by a recent study conducted by a group of sociologists.

    “The connection between gender and racial disparities in voting has been recognized for some time, but the exact interplay between the two has remained uncertain,” states Paula England, the Dean of Social Science at NYU Abu Dhabi and the primary author of the research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “These discoveries highlight that approximately one-fourth of the gender gap in favoring the Democratic Party can be attributed to the fact that a larger proportion of female voters are Black compared to their male counterparts.”

    In every U.S. presidential election since 1980, women have consistently demonstrated a greater tendency to vote for the Democratic candidate compared to men. Importantly, prior studies have revealed that Black men face disproportionately higher rates of mortality, incarceration, and disenfranchisement resulting from criminal convictions. These disparities contribute to a reduced representation of Black men among the voting population, leading to a higher proportion of Black voters being women in relation to other racial groups.

    The study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) aimed to enhance our understanding of the relationship between gender, race, and partisan voting disparities. The research team, comprising Michael Hout, a sociology professor at NYU, as well as NYU doctoral students Karyn Vilbig and Kevin Wells, conducted the study in order to shed light on the dynamics between gender and race as contributing factors to differences in voting preferences between political parties.

    To accomplish this, the authors of the study analyzed data from the General Social Survey (GSS) spanning the period from the 1980 to the 2016 presidential elections. Additionally, they replicated their analysis using data from the American National Election Surveys to ensure the robustness and consistency of their findings across different datasets. By utilizing these sources, the researchers aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between gender, race, and partisan voting gaps over several decades.

    The findings of their analysis revealed that the discrepancy in racial composition between genders accounted for 24% of the gender gap observed in favoring the Democratic Party. In simpler terms, since around 90% of Black voters tend to support Democrats, which is a considerably higher proportion compared to other demographic groups, the fact that a larger percentage of female voters are Black influences women’s voting preferences in favor of the Democratic Party.

    According to Paula England, a professor of sociology at NYU and the lead author of the study, while a gender gap in voting exists among White voters as well, approximately 25% of the total gender gap can be attributed solely to the variation in racial composition between male and female voters. This statement highlights the significant impact of racial demographics on the observed gender disparity in voting preferences.

    In order to eliminate the influence of another potential factor contributing to the gender gap, the researchers examined the role of income. Specifically, they focused on unmarried voters and investigated whether the higher likelihood of single women being economically disadvantaged compared to single men could explain why women tend to vote more Democratic.

    Interestingly, the study revealed that the gender gap in favoring the Democratic Party was particularly pronounced among unmarried individuals. It was observed that unmarried women, despite experiencing a higher poverty rate compared to unmarried men, displayed a stronger tendency to vote Democratic. However, the researchers also noted that although lower-income voters do exhibit a slightly higher inclination towards voting Democratic, the difference in voting preferences between lower-income and more affluent voters was not substantial. These findings suggest that while income disparities may contribute to the gender gap in voting, they do not fully account for the magnitude of the difference observed.

    The study’s authors reached the conclusion that no matter how they examined income and accounted for its influence, it had no mitigating effect on the gender gap in voting preferences. They highlighted the importance of the racial makeup of the voting population as a key factor contributing to this gap. These findings imply that although income disparities do contribute to the gap, they are not the exclusive explanation for the observed differences in voting preferences. The racial composition of the population significantly influences voting disparities as well.

     

    New York University

    Source link

  • Debt ceiling blues. Find political experts on the debt negotiations and the presidential bids in the Politics channel

    Debt ceiling blues. Find political experts on the debt negotiations and the presidential bids in the Politics channel

    The House is on track Wednesday afternoon to begin considering a bipartisan plan to suspend the nation’s debt ceiling and limit spending, with the nation facing the risk of default if the debt ceiling is not raised by June 1st. The two parties remain deeply divided about how to rein in the federal deficit, with Democrats arguing wealthy Americans and businesses should pay more taxes while Republicans want spending cuts.

    More contenders enter the Republican presidential nominees’ list with Gov. DeSantis and Sen. Tom Scott declaring their bids to run. Do they have enough support to take on the front-runner, former President Donald Trump?

    Below are some of the latest expert pitches posted in the Politics channel.

    DeSantis to launch 2024 presidential campaign on Twitter, expert discusses implications for democracy

    -Virginia Tech

    GW Experts on Ron DeSantis Presidential Campaign Launch

    -George Washington University

    University of West Florida Expert Available to Interview on the Debt Ceiling

    -University of West Florida

    University of West Florida Expert Available to Discuss Gov. Ron DeSantis’ Looming Presidential Campaign

    -University of West Florida

    University at Albany Experts Available to Discuss U.S. Debt Ceiling Crisis

    -University at Albany, State University of New York

    GW Experts on Tim Scott 2024 Presidential Campaign

    -George Washington University

    Social media expert discusses consequences of changes for TikTok, Twitter

    -Virginia Tech

    University of West Florida professor available to interview about Gov. DeSantis’ potential run for President

    -University of West Florida

    Media Availability: Experts to Comment on New Hampshire’s First-in-the-Nation Primary Status

    -University of New Hampshire

    Looming debt ceiling deadline: Expert says economic impact could be significant if deal is not reached by June 1

    -Virginia Tech

    After Title 42: Limited Access to Asylum, Increased Discrimination, Rapid Deportation, predicts SMU Expert

    -Southern Methodist University

    Politics Experts in the Expert Directory 

    Yphtach Lelkes, PhD
    Associate Professor of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, Annenberg School for Communication

    Yphtach (Yph) Lelkes’s interests lie at the intersection of political communication, public opinion, and political psychology.

    		 Jennifer Chudy, PhD

    Jennifer Chudy, PhD
    Knafel Assistant Professor of Social Sciences; Assistant Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College

    Dr. Chudy focuses on White racial attitudes generally and the attitude of racial sympathy – defined as White distress over Black suffering – specifically.
    Adam Cayton, Ph.D.

    Adam Cayton, PhD
    Associate Professor, Government Department at the University of West Florida

    Dr. Adam Cayton conducts research on representation in Congress, legislative institutions, campaign effects, institutional change, and other topics.

    		 Megan Goldberg, Ph.D.

     Megan Goldberg, PhD
    Assistant Professor of American Politics at Cornell College

    Her work examines the dynamics of state politics in an increasingly nationalized context, studies how governors and state parties shift their rhetoric and ideologies towards elections, and how often governors use national politics to frame issues.
    Adam Cayton, Ph.D.

    Neil O’Brian, PhD
    Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Oregon

    Neil can comment on public opinion and political participation in Oregon’s congressional and statewide races as well as national politics. His research agenda and expertise also include the partisan politics of abortion in the United States.

    		  

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Immigration experts on Title 42, analysis of immigration policies, and other migrant news in the Immigration Channel

    Immigration experts on Title 42, analysis of immigration policies, and other migrant news in the Immigration Channel

    Title 42, the United States pandemic rule that had been used to immediately deport hundreds of thousands of migrants who crossed the border illegally over the last three years, has expired. Those migrants will have the opportunity to apply for asylum. President Biden’s new rules to replace Title 42 are facing legal challenges. The US Homeland Security Department announced a rule to make it extremely difficult for anyone who travels through another country, like Mexico, to qualify for asylum. Border crossings have already risen sharply, as many migrants attempted to cross before the measure expired on Thursday night. Some have said they worry about tighter controls and uncertainty ahead. Immigration is once again a major focus of the media as we examine the humanitarian, political, and public health issues migrants must face. 

    Below are some of the latest headlines in the Immigration channel on Newswise.

    Expert Commentary

    Experts Available on Ending of Title 42

    George Washington University Experts on End of Title 42

    ‘No one wins when immigrants cannot readily access healthcare’

    URI professor discusses worsening child labor in the United States

    Biden ‘between a rock and a hard place’ on immigration

    University of Notre Dame Expert Available to Comment on House Bill Regarding Immigration Legislation, Border Safety and Security Act

    American University Experts Available to Discuss President Biden’s Visit to U.S.-Mexico Border

    Title 42 termination ‘overdue’, not ‘effective’ to manage migration

    Research and Features

    Study: Survey Methodology Should Be Calibrated to Account for Negative Attitudes About Immigrants and Asylum-Seekers

    A study analyses racial discrimination in job recruitment in Europe

    DACA has not had a negative impact on the U.S. job market

    ASBMB cautions against drastic immigration fee increases

    Study compares NGO communication around migration

    Collaboration, support structures needed to address ‘polycrisis’ in the Americas

    TTUHSC El Paso Faculty Teach Students While Caring for Migrants

    Immigrants Report Declining Alcohol Use during First Two Years after Arriving in U.S.

    How asylum seeker credibility is assessed by authorities

    Speeding up and simplifying immigration claims urgently needed to help with dire situation for migrants experiencing homelessness

    Training Individuals to Work in their Communities to Reduce Health Disparities

    ‘Regulation by reputation’: Rating program can help combat migrant abuse in the Gulf

    Migration of academics: Economic development does not necessarily lead to brain drain

    How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected immigration?

    Immigrants with Darker Skin Tones Perceive More Discrimination

     

    Newswise

    Source link

  • State of the Union Coverage: Experts Available

    State of the Union Coverage: Experts Available

    Rutgers University–New Brunswick faculty experts are available before, during and after President Biden’s State of the Union address on Feb. 7. For interviews, please reach out to the listed contacts.

    David Greenberg, @republicofspin

    Expert on U.S. political and cultural history, including the presidency, campaigns and elections, political parties, political ideas, public policy, and a contributing editor to Politico. Greenberg can discuss past States of the Union, presidential history and rhetoric, and the impact Biden’s speech may have on current divisions in the United States. Professor of history and of journalism and media Studies.

    Ross Baker, @Rosbake1

    Expert in U.S. government, legislative politics, Congressional issues and the presidency. Baker can discuss coronavirus relief, bipartisanship and polarization in the House and Senate, and passing legislation. Distinguished Professor in political science.

    John J. Farmer, Jr.

    Expert on U.S. politics, redistricting, law, security and community protection for vulnerable populations. Farmer can discuss the U.S. Capitol riots, national security and how President Biden is working to bridge the partisan divide. Director of Rutgers’ Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers’ Miller Center for Community Protection and Resilience, and University professor of law.

    Ashley Koning, @AshleyAKoning

    Expert on U.S. public opinion, survey design, polling trends and mass political behavior. Koning can discuss President Biden’s approval rating and public opinion on COVID-19, the vaccination rollout and coronavirus relief, and the national political dynamic and polarization. Director of Rutgers’ Eagleton Center for Public Polling and Eagleton assistant research professor.

    Saladin Ambar, @dinambar

    Expert on race and U.S. politics, the president and American governors. Eagleton associate professor of political science, senior scholar at the Eagleton Center on the American Governor.

    John Weingart

    Expert on U.S. politics and government, including history of relevant past elections, and the administrative functioning and inclusion of the public in government operations. Associate director of Rutgers’ Eagleton Institute of Politics and director of the Eagleton Center on the American Governor.

    Kristoffer Shields

    Shields researches and analyzes the office of the governor in a national context. He is an Eagleton Assistant Research Professor and Historian at the Eagleton Center on the American Governor.

    Debbie Walsh, @DebbieWalsh58 Expert on the modern history of women in politics, progress in political representation, women and the political parties, and campaign messaging for women candidates. Director of the Center for American Women and Politics, a unit of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers.

    Jean Sinzdak Expert on milestones in women’s political history, candidate recruitment and training, and state legislatures. Associate director of the Center for American Women and Politics, a unit of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers.

    Kelly Dittmar, @kdittmar Expert on gender and campaigning, women and institutions of government, current data and analysis on women’s representation, and women voters. Director of Research and Scholar of the Center for American Women and Politics, a unit of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers.

    Kira Sanbonmatsu Sanbonmatsu’s research interests include gender, race/ethnicity, parties, public opinion, and state politics. Professor of political science and senior scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics.

    Rutgers University-New Brunswick

    Source link

  • Notre Dame study finds voter ID laws mobilize voters in both parties, rather than sway election results

    Notre Dame study finds voter ID laws mobilize voters in both parties, rather than sway election results

    Newswise — In the past two decades, many state governments have enacted voter identification requirements for constituents voting in their state, requiring a photo ID or other significant proof to access a ballot. These laws were intended to prevent voter fraud and increase election security, but they also sparked national debate over whether they disenfranchised disadvantaged groups such as people living in poverty or people of color, who may not have a valid ID nor be able to obtain one. 

    Many argued that implementing the ID requirements gave Republicans the electoral advantage while harming Democrats, whose supporters were more likely to be affected by the laws. Up until now, the extent to which these laws provided electoral benefits for Republican candidates and/or disadvantages for Democratic ones had not been considered. 

    In a study recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Jeffrey Harden, the Andrew J. McKenna Family Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and concurrent associate professor in the Department of Applied and Computational Mathematics and Statistics, and Alejandra Campos, a third-year graduate student in the political science doctorate program, both at the University of Notre Dame, found that voter ID requirements motivated supporters of both parties equally to comply and participate, but had little overall effect on the actual outcomes of the elections.

    “We addressed a very simple question of whether or not these laws actually have the sort of electoral effects that people seem to think they do,” Harden said. “It was surprising to us to see that no one had really addressed that question yet.”

    The two researchers examined the effect of voter ID laws on the electoral results for significant political races at the state level (state legislatures and governorships) and federal level (U.S. Congress and president) from 2003 to 2020. The framework of the study was to find out whether a voter ID requirement affected the vote share advantage of Republican or Democratic candidates in these races. The assumption, Harden explained, is that because Democratic voters tend to be the ones who are more impacted by voter ID requirements, it is in the Democratic Party’s interest to push back against these laws and in the Republican Party’s interest to advocate for them. 

    “This suggests that one party’s candidates would benefit more, and one party’s candidates would be penalized more, by these laws,” Harden theorized. “But that’s not really what’s going on here — the long-term implications of voter ID are more nuanced than that.” 

    Rather, the researchers speculated, voter ID laws had a countermobilization effect by creating a complex series of events, happening over the course of the campaign, that resulted in supporters of both parties getting motivated and mobilized, which ultimately diminished the laws’ anticipated effects on the actual election results.

    “The parties had to take additional steps to counteract these laws,” Campos explained. “The Democratic Party, for example, mobilized their constituents to meet the ID requirements so the laws would not impact their electoral fortunes.”

    Other implications include the idea that ID requirements frustrated Democrats and enthused Republicans — motivating both groups’ supporters to vote. In addition, the researchers wrote, voters may have become accustomed to adhering to the laws, thus softening their controversial stigma in the public’s opinion and eventually reducing their effects.

    “Any impact these laws exert on voter access occurs concurrently with their effects on other elements of the electoral process,” the researchers pointed out. “What we find out, in the end, is that the results get washed out to the point where these voter ID laws don’t have much of an impact on the actual electoral outcomes.”

    With existing research pointing to the fact that voter ID laws don’t necessarily impact voter fraud or voter turnout, and Harden’s and Campos’ research indicating that they don’t have much of an effect on election results, Harden suggested we ask ourselves: “How difficult should it be in a democratic society for a person to vote?” 

    “We think this should be a part of the discussion,” both researchers said. “Future election policy may benefit from a shift in the debate.” Instead of focusing on which is more important — voting security or access — lawmakers should consider what is the minimum amount of voter responsibility required to vote, the researchers said, rather than setting up barriers to voting not supported by evidence.

    “We need to ask ourselves: Why are we doing this?” Campos noted. “We need to think seriously about the consequences of these laws and whether or not there’s any benefit to them at all.”

    Harden noted the importance of studying democratic institutions and the way in which democracy can ebb and flow within a country — and how this practice fits in ideally with the mission of Notre Dame. 

    “What we’re talking about here are reforms that make a fundamentally democratic practice (i.e., voting) more or less difficult for people,” Harden said. “Being at a university committed to truth and the common good, we need to understand if this significant reform is doing what people expect it to when they enact that reform.”

    University of Notre Dame

    Source link

  • Political orientation could be predicted by differences in brain activation and synchronization

    Political orientation could be predicted by differences in brain activation and synchronization

    Newswise — A first-of-its-kind study scanned the brains of dozens of politically involved participants while they watched campaign-ads and speeches by parties from both ends of the political spectrum, just before one of the last rounds of elections. The participants, half right-wing and half left-wing, were scanned using magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), a method that measures brain activation. Surprisingly, it was found that political-dependent differences in the brain response emerged already in early brain regions, such as regions involved in vision and hearing, and in fact the response in these regions was enough to predict an individual’s political views.

    The researchers note that right-wing participants had synchronized brain response (meaning their brain worked in a similar manner) while they watched the right-wing stimuli, whereas left-wing participants had synchronized brain response (meaning their brain worked in a similar manner) while they watched the left-wing stimuli. This was true for regions within the sensory, motor, and somatosensory cortices, which are responsible for vision, hearing, and movement.

    The study was led by Noa Katabi, a research student in the lab of Dr. Yaara Yeshurun in the School of Psychological Sciences and the Sagol School of Neuroscience. The study was published in the Journal of Neuroscience.

    During the study, participants watched video-clips, including a neutral (in terms of political characteristics) video-clip and different political campaign-ads and political speeches by politicians from both blocs, Right and Left. The researchers were surprised to discover widespread partisanship-dependent brain activation and synchronization when Right-wing individuals watched the videos of their political bloc, or when Left-wing individuals watched the videos of left-wing politician.

    Interestingly, the researchers found that such partisanship-dependent differences in brain synchronization was not limited to “higher” areas of the brain, associated with interpretation and abstract thinking, as was previously found. Rather, these differences occurred already in regions responsible for sight, hearing and even touch.

    Dr. Yeshurun: “The research clearly showed that the more the subjects were politically aligned with a certain group, the more their brain response was synchronized, including in motor and somatosensory areas, that is, those areas of the brain that are active when we move or feel things with our senses. In fact, just by the brain’s response in these primary sensory areas we could tell if a certain individual was left or wight wing. Intriguingly, it was not necessary to examine the activity in “higher” brain areas – areas that are involved in understanding why a certain character did something, or what that character thinks and feels – in order to predict participants’ political views, it could even be done by examining an area of the brain that is responsible for seeing or hearing.” The researchers think that this surprising finding is due to the fact that the participants they chose were politically involved, and also due to the timing of the experiment – a few weeks before the elections, when the political atmosphere in Israel was very present and emotional.

    Dr. Yeshurun adds: “This is the first study to show political-dependent brain activity in early sensory and motor areas, and it can be said that at the most basic brain level, rightists and leftists in Israel literally (and not just metaphorically) don’t see and hear the same things. I think that if we try to understand how people who hold opposite political views to ours experience the world, we might be able to conduct a slightly more effective public discussion that can hopefully attenuate the current political polarization.”

    Tel Aviv University

    Source link

  • American University Experts Look Ahead to 2023

    American University Experts Look Ahead to 2023

    What: Uncertainty in the economy and a possible global recession, the quest for normalcy after the COVID-19 pandemic; the continued war in Ukraine; record numbers of migrants surging across the U.S.-Mexican border… As 2022 concludes, American University experts share their insights on this year’s headlines and their outlook for 2023.

    When: Tuesday, December 20, 2022 – ongoing

    Background:  American University experts who are available for interviews include those listed below as well as some who have provided insights.

     

    U.S. Politics & Elections

    David Barker is the Director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University’s School of Public Affairs. He is a nationally recognized expert on a broad range of topics, including American political parties, campaigns and elections, representation, culture and polarization, ideology and attitudes, information and communication, political institutions. His latest book is The Politics of Truth in Polarized America.

    Prof. Barker said: “Both at home and abroad, after several years of democratic backsliding, 2022 offered some modestly encouraging signs regarding democracy’s resilience and its prospects for renewal.  However, we cannot allow ourselves to become complacent.  Freedom is always precarious; it must be vigilantly protected and persistently pursued.”

    Amy Dacey is Executive Director of the Sine Institute of Policy & Policy at American University. For more than two decades, she managed prominent national organizations, advised leading elected officials and candidates, including President Barack Obama and Senator John Kerry, and counseled a variety of nonprofits and companies. During the 2016 presidential election, she served as the Chief Executive Officer of the Democratic National Committee.

    Amy Dacey said: “The midterms showed yet again that while all issues matter, certain issues motivate voters. The passion we saw from voters — and particularly young voters – about access to abortion, may have been what prevented the ‘red wave’ that so many observers predicted. But while campaigns are about contrasts, governing is about consensus. That won’t be easy in this age of extremism and political polarization. The number one task for 2023 is to keep our democracy intact and functional.”

    Dean Sam Fulwood, III of American University’s School of Communication is a prominent journalist, public policy analyst and author, whose work addresses key issues of media influences on American life. In addition to his work at SOC, Fulwood is a nonresident senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, where he was a senior fellow and vice president for race and equity programming.

    Dean Fulwood said: “Every sector of U.S. society remains in recovery mode from the aftershocks of the COVID pandemic. While most Americans are fatigued by the lingering restrictions the pandemic imposed, it’s perhaps a bit overly optimistic to expect that 2023 will bring an immediate return to past normalcy. In fact, the U.S. – and the world – are creating pathways to a new normal. This will continue well into the New Year.

    I think this emerging new normal will be evident both in our national and local politics and will be revealed primarily in our various media modes. 2023 will not be an election year for most Americans, but politics will continue to be front and center as presidential aspirants jockey for positioning to run in 2024. Campaigns are likely to be particularly contentious among GOP hopefuls as they navigate internal struggles and come to grips with the legacy of the Trump/MAGA hold over much of the party.”

     

    Economy & Finance

    Valentina Bruno is a professor of finance in the Kogod School of Business where she studies topics at the intersection of macroeconomics and finance and opened new lines of inquiry into how global financial markets interact with the real economy. Before joining American University, she worked at the World Bank in the Financial Sector Strategy and Policy Group and in the International Finance Team.

    Prof. Bruno said: “Many indicators point to a global recession coming in 2023. And yet, in the past recent weeks financial conditions have loosened, stocks have rallied, and mortgage rates have fallen from their recent peaks. The US dollar has reaffirmed its dominant role, and data shows that 88% of all foreign exchange transactions have the dollar on one side. And yet, emerging markets have been quite resilient so far. Consumer demand and a tight labor market have partially undone the actions of the Fed. As Chairman Powell said recently, we have a long way to go to get back to price stability. However, once inflation is under control, we will see the light at the end of the tunnel. A soft landing is still possible.”

    Jeffrey Harris is the Gary D. Cohn Goldman Sachs Chair in Finance at the Kogod School of Business. He has an extensive background in market microstructure and regulatory issues. Dr. Harris recently served as Chief Economist and Division Director for the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

    Prof. Harris said: “With higher rates in store, I expect variable rate mortgages to pinch consumer spending along with dismal house prices. These higher rates will likely tame inflation but will pinch the economy.  Most businesses will persevere, but the housing and financial sectors will slow. The uncertainty in Ukraine will continue to keep energy prices high, but this bodes well for the energy and defense sectors. I expect GDP growth south of 2% but a continuing strong job market as more boomers retire.”

    Dean David Marchick leads the Kogod School of Business to support more than 2,000 students and offer more than two dozen undergraduate, graduate degree, and certification programs. He previously was a managing director at the Carlyle Group and served as Chief Operating Officer of the US Development Finance Corporation during the first year of the Biden Administration, and also served in Clinton administration in various roles.

    Dean Marchick said: “The biggest uncertainty for the global economy is not based on what happens at the Federal Reserve but rather what happens with COVID in China. This month, in the wake of protests in China, Chinese authorities lifted the drastic COVID restrictions across the country.  Now the question is whether China will be shut down not based on policy, but disease. More than 600 million PRC nationals remain unvaccinated or unboosted weeks before the Lunar new year, when more than 300 million PRC nationals travel to see family and friends. Not only could we see a humanitarian crisis worse than the peaks in India, New York or Italy, but the crisis could further stress supply chains, exacerbate political instability and slow China’s economy. Since China accounts for almost 20% of global GDP, the level of China’s growth, or lack thereof, has global implications.  At 4.4% growth in 2023, China is projected to contribute 30% of aggregate global growth next year. But if China’s growth rate falls to zero, global GDP could drop by more than 1%.  Thus, the US and other countries have a deep interest in helping China avoid a humanitarian disaster, but also a self-interest in seeing China grow.”

     

    Extremism & Polarization

    Carolyn Gallaher is an expert on extremism and the right-wing, organized violence by non-state actors and urban politics, including the politics, internal dynamics, and patterns of violence of militias, paramilitaries, and private military contractors, among others. Gallaher is the author of On the Fault Line: Race, Class, and the American Patriot Movement.

    Prof. Gallaher said: “This year, the January 6th Committee revealed how President Donald Trump inspired a failed insurrection that almost toppled 245 years of American democracy. Much of 2022 was spent on holding insurrectionists and other participants to account. The Department of Justice has arrested more than 900 people who participated in the assault and recently successfully prosecuted several members of the violent Oathkeepers militia, including two for seditious conspiracy. As 2023 begins, Trump’s star may be growing dimmer, but right-wing conspiracy theories, online disinformation, and a distressing lack of trust in the basic institutions of democracy continue apace. In particular, it will be important to see whether the Republican Party will reject those within its ranks who have embrace election disinformation and spread false claims about the so-called ‘deep state.’  The fate of the party, and American democracy may hinge on whether the party embraces or rejects right wing extremists within its ranks.”  

    Brian Hughes is the Co-Founder and Associate Director of the Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL), where he develops studies and interventions to reduce the risk of radicalization to extremism. His scholarly research explores the impact of communication technology on political and religious extremism, terrorism, and fringe culture.

    Prof. Hughes said: “This year saw a troubling continuation of ongoing trends in the radicalization of mainstream American politics. Anti-LGBTQ violence and antisemitism in particular were on the rise, while racism, male supremacy, and other forms of extremism have not abated. Unfortunately, these trends are spurred on and exploited for profit and power by a large cohort of media and political figures. It is all the more crucial that in 2023 we continue our work inoculating the public against their divisive, hateful, and manipulative rhetoric.”

    Janice Iwama is an assistant professor in AU’s School of Public Affairs. Her research focuses on examining local conditions and social processes that influence hate crimes, gun violence, racial profiling, and the victimization of immigrants. Iwama has served as a co-principal investigator and lead researcher in projects funded by the Department of Justice Civil Rights Unit and the National Institute of Justice. Prof. Iwama said: “Following the recent spike in hate crimes, I expect federal and state legislators to introduce new legislation in 2023 that will actively seek to improve our data collection on hate crimes, develop better preventative measures against bias incidents, and improve law enforcement responses to hate crimes.”

    Pamela Nadell is director of AU’s Jewish Studies Program and an award-winning historian and expert on the history of antisemitism in America and around the world. Nadell can provide commentary on current trends and problems of antisemitism.  

     

    Foreign Policy – War in Ukraine, Refugees & Immigration

    Ernesto Castañeda is Associate Professor of Sociology at American University and the Director of the Immigration Lab. He is an expert on international migration, borders, social movements, and ethnic and racial inequality. He is currently working on research projects about health disparities, Central American migration, and Afghan refugee integration.

    Garret Martin is the co-director of the Transatlantic Policy Center and Senior Professorial Lecturer at the School of International Service.  He has written widely on transatlantic relations and Europe, security, U.S. foreign policy, NATO, European politics, and European foreign policy and defense.

    Jordan Tama is an associate professor in the School of International Service, he specializes in U.S. foreign and national security policy, foreign policy bipartisanship, presidential-congressional relations, national security strategic planning, the politics of economic sanctions, the foreign policy views of U.S. elites, and the value of independent commissions. He is currently working on a book Bipartisanship in a Polarized Age: When Democrats and Republicans Cooperate on U.S. Foreign Policy.

    Joseph Torigian, assistant professor at the School of International Service, is an expert on politics of authoritarian regimes with a specific focus on China and Russia. His research draws upon comparative politics, international relations, security studies, and history to ask big questions about the long-term political trajectories of these two states.

    Guy Ziv is an associate professor at the School of International Service and expert in U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East, U.S.-Israel relations, and Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. He is the author of Why Hawks Become Doves: Shimon Peres and Foreign Policy Change in Israel.

     

    Media & Technology

    Dean Sam Fulwood, III of American University’s School of Communication.

    Dean Fulwood said: “For journalists and media observers, the runup to the 2024 presidential campaign will dominate much of the 2023 news cycles. While some stories are evergreen, journalists will continue struggle to find audiences as the new normal unfolds with changes in media delivery modes. Twitter, Facebook, Tik-Tok and other forms of social media will continue to erode advertising base for traditional, mainstream media outlets, exacerbating an ongoing trend toward declining local news and expanding news deserts in small American communities without comprehensive media presence.”

    Filippo Trevisan is an Associate Professor of Public Communication at American University’s School of Communication and Deputy Director of the Institute on Disability and Public Policy. His research explores the impact of digital technologies on advocacy, activism, and political communication.

    Prof. Trevisan said: “In a year without elections, no Olympics, and in which the pandemic seems to finally be waning, we likely need to wait until the next “crisis” to know what the media are going to focus on in 2023. The war in Ukraine is certainly going to stay at the top of the agenda and invite a fair bit of misinformation, especially if negotiations will start and each side will try its best to win the narrative “war.” A lot will also depend on what will happen to Twitter following Elon Musk’s takeover. Whether or not more companies will withdraw their advertising dollars from it, its brand is already badly damaged, which threatens to put the platform into a vicious circle. Musk’s seemingly erratic moves will continue as it’s one way to keep the company relevant in the news, but it may only be a matter of time before the news media stop reporting every one of his moves verbatim.”

    Sherri Williams is an assistant professor in the School of Communication, her interests are at intersection of social media, social justice, reality television, mass media and how people of color use and are represented by these mediums. Prof. Williams teaches journalism and focuses on how marginalized groups, especially women of color, are portrayed in the media.

    Prof. Williams said: “I hope that next year will include more national and local news coverage about how inequality is embedded into law. We are at a critical time in history where extremely conservative legislators are codifying discrimination into law. State legislation that discriminates against transgender youth, limits protests, restricts education about state and national legacies of oppression and bans abortion all essentially legalize discrimination. Journalism that explores how legislators can help close equity gaps with legislation is essential to helping Americans understand that discrimination is often legal and can be remedied with policy, like the Respect for Marriage Act that President Biden just signed. I also hope to see more reporters localize U.S. Supreme Court stories and translate the importance of the court to the public and what is on its docket.”

     

    Environment/ Sustainability 

    Paul Bledsoe is an adjunct professorial lecturer at the Center on Environmental Policy at American University’s School of Public Affairs at. He was director of communications of the White House Climate Change Task Force under President Clinton from 1998-2001, communications director of the Senate Finance Committee under Chairman Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and special assistant to former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt.

    Todd Eisenstadt, professor and Research Director at the Center for Environmental Policy at American University’s School of Public Affairs, is an expert on climate change policy. He recently co-authored Climate Change, Science, and the Politics of Shared Sacrifice and has written extensively on climate finance and adaptation in the developing world. 

    Jessica Gephart is a U.S. Department of State Science Envoy and Assistant Professor of Environmental Science. She focuses on the intersection of seafood globalization and environmental change, evaluating how seafood trade drives environmental impacts, and how environmental shocks disrupt seafood trade. Gephart is currently working on the development of a global seafood trade database.

     

    About American University

    American University leverages the power and purpose of scholarship, learning, and community to impact our changing world. From sustainability to social justice to the sciences, AU’s faculty, students, staff, and alumni are changemakers. Building on our 129-year history of education and research in the public interest, we say ‘Challenge Accepted’ to addressing the world’s pressing issues. Our Change Can’t Wait comprehensive campaign creates transformative educational opportunities, advances research with impact, and builds stronger communities.

     

    American University

    Source link

  • There’s no evidence that U.S. aid money sent to Ukraine was then used to invest in FTX as a money laundering scheme

    There’s no evidence that U.S. aid money sent to Ukraine was then used to invest in FTX as a money laundering scheme

    The news that FTX, the cryptocurrency company, filed for bankruptcy protection amid news it was short billions of dollars has spawned many conspiracy theories being shared on social media. Viral tweets like this one posted on November 13th claim that U.S. aid to Ukraine was laundered back to the Democratic Party through the failed cryptocurrency exchange firm FTX. An article in the conservative site The Gateway Pundit with the headline “Tens of Billions of US Dollars Were Transferred to Ukraine and then Using FTX Crypto Currency the Funds Were Laundered Back to Democrats in US” was shared widely on social media. There is no evidence to support this claim. The Ukrainian government has not invested nor stored money in FTX, according to the country’s Ministry of Digital Transformation. The claim has been rated False.

    Dr. Nigel Williams, a Reader in Project Management at the University of Portsmouth has this to say…

    The collapse of FTX was catalyzed by a tweet on Sunday, November 6th, by the CEO of Binance, Changpeng Zhao: 

    As part of Binance’s exit from FTX equity last year, Binance received roughly $2.1 billion USD equivalent in cash (BUSD and FTT). Due to recent revelations that have came to light, we have decided to liquidate any remaining FTT on our books. 1/4

    Before this date, however, FTX’s actions were heavily scrutinized by conservative commentators on Twitter despite the fact that FTX donated to both political parties. Even before the collapse, efforts were made to link FTX’s actions to the Democratic Party. For example, on November 4th, Wayne Vaughan, CEO of Tieron tweeted, “Sam [Sam Bankman-Fried. former CEO of FTX] is one of the largest Democrat donors. It’s logical that he’d want to get the bill done before Republicans take control of Congress.”

    On November 8, when it became clear that FTX was floundering, commentators attempted to blame the company’s troubles on their political involvement (example here).  While the results were being tallied, early conspiracy theories emerged (example here). These theories later evolved into the story that now links FTX, the Democrats, and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine when it became clear that the Democratic party performed better than the previous media narrative would suggest.

    While FTX’s bankruptcy has begun to offer insights into possible gaps in financial controls that resulted in their collapse, the full story will not be known until detailed audits are completed. To date, the promoters of the FTX/Ukraine/Democrat narrative have not offered any supporting evidence for their theory.  This is, of course easily explained by these promoters who claim that there is a cover-up and no evidence would be available. 

     

    Newswise

    Source link

  • EXPERT: Trump presidential campaign, author of book “News After Trump: Journalism’s Crisis of Relevance in a Changed Media Culture”

    EXPERT: Trump presidential campaign, author of book “News After Trump: Journalism’s Crisis of Relevance in a Changed Media Culture”

    Newswise — Seth Lewis is an internationally recognized expert on news and technology, with more than 10,000 citations to a body of work that includes nearly 100 journal articles and book chapters. He recently co-authored the book, “News After Trump: Journalism’s Crisis of Relevance in a Changed Media Culture,” which was published by Oxford University Press.

    His research, which broadly addresses the social implications of emerging technologies, focuses on the digital transformation of journalism — from how news is made (news production) to how people make sense of it in their everyday lives (news consumption).

    In addition to being the founding holder of the Shirley Papé Chair in Emerging Media in the School of Journalism and Communication at the University of Oregon, Lewis is a fellow with the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University, an affiliate fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School, an affiliated faculty member of the University of Oregon’s Agora Journalism Center and Center for Science Communication Research, and a recent visiting fellow at the University of Oxford’s Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

    He is a two-time winner of the International Communication Association’s award for Outstanding Article of the Year in Journalism Studies — in 2016 for the article “Actors, Actants, Audiences, and Activities in Cross-Media News Work,” and in 2013 for “The Tension Between Professional Control and Open Participation: Journalism and its Boundaries,” as well as an honorable mention distinction in 2014 for “Open Source and Journalism: Toward New Frameworks for Imagining News Innovation.”

    During the past decade, Lewis has been a leader in studying innovations in digital journalism, both in examining developments in journalistic practice as well as in introducing new conceptual frameworks for making sense of change.

    In 2009, he co-organized one of the first major studies of journalists’ use of social media, in an article that has become one of the most-cited papers in the field (Lasorsa, Lewis, & Holton, 2012). Since that time, Lewis’ research has examined developments in digital audience analytics/metrics, open innovation processes, and computer programming and software development, as well as the role and influence of nonprofit foundations and other actors in shaping news innovation (see Google Scholar for a complete list of papers).

    University of Oregon

    Source link

  • Iranian Political Expert Available to Talk About Recent Events

    Iranian Political Expert Available to Talk About Recent Events

    Newswise — Dr. Mehrzad Boroujerdi, vice provost and dean of the College of Arts, Sciences, and Education at Missouri University of Science and Technology, is an expert in comparative politics, Middle East regional politics and Iranian history.

    Boroujerdi is the author of four books: Post-revolutionary Iran: A Political Handbook, published in 2018; Mirror for the Muslim Prince: Islam and Theory of Statecraft, published in 2013; Tarashidam, Parastidam, Shikastam: Guftarhay-i dar Siyasat va Huvyiyat-i Irani (I Carved, Worshiped and Shattered: Essays on Iranian Politics and Identity), published in 2010; and Iranian Intellectuals and the West: Tormented Triumph of Nativism, published in 1996.

    Missouri University of Science and Technology

    Source link

  • The Idea of Democracy Is Simple. Its Execution Is Complicated.

    The Idea of Democracy Is Simple. Its Execution Is Complicated.

    In 2016, 137.5 million Americans voted in the presidential election. For some, casting their ballot wasn’t easy. Six years later, voters are the most polarized they’ve been in decades.

    How do we sustain a republic? Restore faith in the election process, says Gretchen Macht. Macht is an assistant professor of mechanical, industrial and systems engineering at the University of Rhode Island and the founding director of URI VOTES.

    Established in 2017 with the aim of using data and technological advances to help shorten voter wait times and improve voting procedures, URI VOTES takes an engineer’s approach to election science. Macht and her team of graduate and undergraduate students study voting through various lenses: voting in person versus voting by mail, how the accessibility of polling places affects persons with disabilities, strategies to avoid COVID infection in polling places, election law, allocating election resources, and the arrangement of polling place facilities, among them.

    Simply put, URI VOTES studies how a system – an election – functions and how to improve it.

    According to Macht, “People will believe the outcome of an election under two conditions: one, their person won; two, their voting experience was easy.”

    She notes some of the issues in the past presidential election were related to the length of time it took election administrators to count mail ballots. “When the counts didn’t meet voters’ expectations, they thought things were wrong with the election.”

    Recently named an election expert by the Board of MIT’s Elections Lab, Macht says, “My elections work is a calling. It is inspiring to watch democracy at work, and now it’s become a question of how can I continue to make this happen? How can I continue to help?”

     

    University of Rhode Island

    Source link

  • The increase in funding for the IRS is not going create an army of agents that will come after you

    The increase in funding for the IRS is not going create an army of agents that will come after you

    The Inflation Reduction Act that President Biden signed on Tuesday includes a $79 billion injection for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Many political figures and members of the media are reacting incredulously to this long-sought budget increase for the nation’s tax agency. In discussing this budget increase, Senator Chuck Grassley suggested in an interview on Fox News last week that the IRS “are they going to have a strike force that goes in with AK-15s already loaded, ready to shoot some small-business person in Iowa with these? Because I think they are going after middle class and small business people…” On August 11th, Fox News host Brian Kilmeade warned his viewers that “Joe Biden’s new army” of armed IRS agents could “hunt down and kill middle-class taxpayers that don’t pay enough.” We find these hyperbolic claims to be false. Although the IRS intends to hire more people, Treasury Department officials say not all new hires will work on enforcement and increased revenues won’t come from middle-income earners. Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen directed IRS Commissioner Charles P. Rettig not to use the new funding to increase enforcement of taxpayers earning less than $400,000. The IRS is a bureau of the Treasury Department.

    Overall, IRS audits dropped by 44% between 2015 and 2019, according to a 2021 Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report. Last year the Treasury Department had proposed a plan to hire roughly 87,000 IRS employees over the next decade if it was allocated enough money. The IRS will be releasing final numbers for its hiring plans in the coming months, according to a Treasury official. But those employees will not all be hired at the same time, they will not all be auditors and many will be replacing employees who are expected to quit or retire.

    As reported by AP…

    The IRS currently has about 80,000 employees, including clerical workers, customer service representatives, enforcement officials, and others. The agency has lost roughly 50,000 employees over the past five years due to attrition, according to the IRS. More than half of IRS employees who work in enforcement are currently eligible for retirement, said Natasha Sarin, the Treasury Department’s counselor for tax policy and implementation.

    Budget cuts, mostly demanded by Republicans, have also diminished the ranks of enforcement staff, which fell roughly 30% since 2010 despite the fact that the filing population has increased. The IRS-related money in the Inflation Reduction Act is intended to boost efforts against high-end tax evasion, Sarin said.

    Albany Law School Professor Danshera Cords shares her insight on this budget increase to the IRS…

    The Inflation Reduction Act appropriated $79 billion over 10 years to the IRS to improve three areas: taxpayer service, enforcement, and operations. Since 2012, it has been widely reported on the degree to which budget appropriations have resulted in declining service levels, aging IT, and falling staffing levels. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Charles Rettig, an appointee of President Trump, has repeatedly sought budget increases to jump start the hiring and technology to more sophisticated audits of higher income individuals, businesses and crypto-assets. Given the aging infrastructure, computer systems that are out of date, and a filing backlog, the expenditures have long been needed.

    This appropriation is intended to help implement a plan to improve the IRS’s infrastructure in each of these areas. According to IRS data, in FY2012 the IRS had nearly 90,000 full-time employees. As a result of budget reductions, retirements, hiring freezes, the number of employees had dropped 12.9% to 78,661 in FY 2021.

    Restoring the IRS to previous staffing levels with new employees is more likely to help the average taxpayer than threaten them in any way. Moreover, hiring new enforcement staff including auditors, requires time and new personnel need training. Within its FY2021 budget, examination and collections personnel comprised more than five times the budget as investigations, consistent with prior years. New initiatives to combat fraud in higher income brackets require more sophisticated technology and better trained personnel.

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Herschel Walker’s claim on how China’s “bad air” would move over to America is grossly inaccurate

    Herschel Walker’s claim on how China’s “bad air” would move over to America is grossly inaccurate

    At a campaign event in Georgia, Herschel Walker, the former NFL star who is running for Senate and endorsed by President Trump, shared his thoughts on the “Green New Deal” and efforts to curb climate change with government policy. Walker suggested that U.S. climate efforts were pointless because “China’s bad air” would simply move over into American “air space.” 

    “We in America have some of the cleanest air and cleanest water of anybody in the world,” Walker begins at about the 24 mark in the video of his speech. Under the Green New Deal, he said, the U.S would spend “millions of billions of dollars cleaning our good air up. … Since we don’t control the air, our good air decided to float over to China’s bad air so when China gets our good air, their bad air got to move. So it moves over to our good air space. Then now we got to clean that back up, while they’re messing ours up.”

    “So what we’re doing is just spending money,” he continued. “Until these other countries can get on board and clean what they got up, it ain’t going to help us to start cleaning our stuff up. We’re already doing it the right way.”

    We find nearly every aspect of this claim to be completely inaccurate. Walker’s description of how air circulates around the world is not correct, nor is the simplification of his assessment of “clean air” and “bad air.” The United States does not actively “clean” air now or under the proposed “Green New Deal.” The “Green New Deal” is a nonbinding resolution introduced in Congress in 2019 that lays out a broad vision for how the country might tackle climate change over the next decade in order to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. It didn’t pass the Senate vote. The Green New Deal does not address traditional air pollutants nor does it propose to spend “millions of billions of dollars cleaning our good air up.” Facts on the “Green Neal Deal” can be read here.

    “Bad” air does not take over “good” air or vice versa. Yes, some forms of air pollution can travel to other places. Near-surface pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, can be lofted to high altitudes where strong winds can transport high concentrations across oceans to other continents. However, greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, are responsible for climate change. These greenhouse gasses accumulate in the Earth’s atmosphere on a global scale as a result of human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, which traps heat and warms the entire planet. Also, to suggest curbing pollutants from its local source is pointless because some other locality’s pollutants will take over is missing the point. These harmful air pollutants affect local residents the most. Read more about the harmful effects of air pollution here, here and here. 

    As reported by Jessica McDonald at Factcheck.org

    “Each of these gases can remain in the atmosphere for different amounts of time, ranging from a few years to thousands of years,” the Environmental Protection Agency has explained. “All of these gases remain in the atmosphere long enough to become well mixed, meaning that the amount that is measured in the atmosphere is roughly the same all over the world, regardless of the source of the emissions.”

    “There can be enhanced concentrations near point sources and urban areas, but the levels of atmospheric CO2 over the US aren’t drastically different than over China,” Davis said in an email, referring to carbon dioxide. He noted that in April 2020, carbon dioxide levels over China and the U.S were within three to four parts per million of each other.

    In other words, there is no American “good air” or Chinese “bad air.” When it comes to greenhouse gases, everyone ultimately shares the “air” — and the concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere is increasing. This is raising the global average temperature, which is also causing other effects, such as sea level rise, ice melt and more extreme weather.

     

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Abe assassination is a rare act of gun violence in Japan

    Abe assassination is a rare act of gun violence in Japan

    Following the horrific mass shootings in the United States, social media is rife with discussions on gun laws and regulations. Friday morning’s news of the assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe by a gunman has brought the issue of strict laws on gun ownership to light. How could this happen in a country with only one firearm-related death in all of 2021? Since 2017, there have been 14 gun-related deaths in Japan, a remarkably low figure for a country of 125 million people. Compare that to the 45,222 people who died from gun-related injuries in the U.S. in just one year (2021).1

    Republican Congressional candidate Lavern Spicer has chimed in on this shocking assassination by tweeting, “How did Shinzo Abe get assassinated when guns are banned in Japan? Liberals, care to explain?” Her tweet was shared by thousands. We find this claim to be misleading and inaccurate.

    Firstly, guns are not banned in Japan but are regulated by very strict gun ownership laws. 

    This backgrounder by the Council on Foreign Relations explains how guns are regulated in Japan…

    Gun control advocates regularly cite Japan’s highly restrictive firearm regulations in tandem with its extraordinarily low gun death rate. Most years, fewer than one hundred Japanese die from gun violence in a country of 125 million people. Most guns are illegal in the country and ownership rates, which are quite low, reflect this.

    Under Japan’s firearm and sword law [PDF], the only guns permitted are shotguns, air guns, guns with specific research or industrial purposes, or those used for competitions. However, before access to these specialty weapons is granted, one must obtain formal instruction and pass a battery of written, mental, and drug tests and a rigorous background check. Furthermore, owners must inform the authorities of how their weapons and ammunition are stored and provide their firearms for annual inspection.

    Some analysts link Japan’s aversion to firearms with its demilitarization in the aftermath of World War II. Others say that because the overall crime rate in the country is so low, most Japanese see no need for firearms.

    Secondly, by asking “liberals” to explain, Spicer is suggesting that gun laws don’t prevent gun violence, since those who identify with “liberal” political beliefs tend to support stricter gun control measures. However, the simple fact that this act of violence is so rare in Japan supports the idea that gun control in Japan is working. Yes, culture is one reason for the low rate, but gun regulation is a major one, too. The result is a situation where citizens and police seldom use guns. The fact that the shooter of Shinzo Abe most likely used a “homemade gun”2 to get past laws restricting the sales of firearms and ammunition, proves that guns are harder to obtain in Japan. 

    According to a recently published article on Vox, gun regulations in other countries reflect a significant difference in recorded instances of gun violence. 

    No other high-income country has suffered such a high death toll from gun violence. Every day, more than 110 Americans die at the end of a gun, including suicides and homicides, an average of 40,620 per year. Since 2009, there has been an annual average of 19 mass shootings, when defined as shootings in which at least four people are killed. The US gun homicide rate is as much as 26 times that of other high-income countries; its gun suicide rate is nearly 12 times higher.

    The following excerpt published in The Guardian by reporters Cait Kelly and Justin McCurry compares gun violence in U.S. and Japan and other high-income countries.

    A 2022 report from the University of Washington revealed that, while the US had more than four firearm homicides per 100,000 people in 2019, Japan had almost zero. Comparing high-income countries in the World Bank with the rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 people, the US had 4.2, Australia had 0.18 and Japan 0.02, the report found.

    In 2013, the country hit a record high for gun crime, with 40 criminal cases of guns being fired, but it has followed a downward trend since.

    There are also strict laws about how many gun shops are allowed to open – in most of the countries’ 47 prefectures, a total of three gun shops can operate in each prefecture.

     

    1 https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

    2 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/08/japan-shinzo-abe-shooting-gun-laws/

    Newswise

    Source link