ReportWire

Tag: U.S. Politics

  • Incivility reduces interest in what politicians have to say, shows research

    Incivility reduces interest in what politicians have to say, shows research

    Newswise — Toronto — Nasty remarks by politicians against their critics are so common that we may not pay them much mind. That’s the problem of political incivility, say a pair of researchers who’ve studied the phenomenon among U.S. politicians.

    “The results are pretty clear,” says Matthew Feinberg, an associate professor of organizational behaviour at the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management. “Incivility may grab attention, but the ultimate result is less interest in what you have to say.”

    Prof. Feinberg and fellow researcher Jeremy A. Frimer from the University of Winnipeg already knew from their past work that incivility has been on the rise, especially online. In this most recent research, their analysis of rude and demeaning language in former U.S. president Donald Trump’s and current U.S. president Joe Biden’s social media posts revealed that the two gained fewer additional followers in the days after they made particularly uncivil comments.

    The researchers analyzed more than 32,000 tweets issued from Trump’s Twitter account between mid-2015 and Jan. 8, 2021, when he was permanently suspended from the platform. Over that time, Trump’s followers rose from 3 million to about 89 million. However, his biggest gains were made in the days after his tweets were particularly civil – about 43,000 new followers versus only 16,000 new followers after he was especially rude.

    The researchers used a machine-learning program that detects toxic speech and phrases to identify and classify the most uncivil tweets.

    In Biden’s case, the researchers analyzed just over 7,000 tweets between 2012 and June 2021. His followers rose from 5 million to 32 million over that time. He gained an average of 45,000 new followers when his tweets were very civil but only 11,000 in the days after they were not.

    Prof. Feinberg said the steeper drop in new followers for Biden may be due to people expecting more civil behaviour from him than Trump. However, the researchers estimated that Trump’s incivility cost him more than 6.3 million followers.

    Two additional experimental studies that formed part of the research, with a total of about 2,000 participants confirmed the finding that political incivility breeds longer-term disinterest. That was true even when the participant identified with the same political party, something Prof. Feinberg called “surprising.” As well, the third study showed that moral disapproval of what a politician said had a stronger influence on a person’s ongoing interest than whether the politician’s words were attention-grabbing.

    So given the results, how come politicians continue to lob rhetorical grenades at one another? It’s possible they do it because they may inflict greater damage on their opponents’ reputations or even turn voters off so much that they don’t even bother going to the polls, the researchers suggest. Or, says Prof. Feinberg, “maybe it’s just that they’re wrong.”

    The study was published in Social Psychological and Personality Science.

    Bringing together high-impact faculty research and thought leadership on one searchable platform, the new Rotman Insights Hub offers articles, podcasts, opinions, books and videos representing the latest in management thinking and providing insights into the key issues facing business and society. Visit www.rotman.utoronto.ca/insightshub.

    The Rotman School of Management is part of the University of Toronto, a global centre of research and teaching excellence at the heart of Canada’s commercial capital. Rotman is a catalyst for transformative learning, insights and public engagement, bringing together diverse views and initiatives around a defining purpose: to create value for business and society. For more information, visit www.rotman.utoronto.ca

    -30-

    University of Toronto, Joseph L. Rotman School of Management

    Source link

  • Tying past mass extinctions with low atmospheric CO2 is false

    Tying past mass extinctions with low atmospheric CO2 is false

    Newswise — Attempts to discredit human-caused climate change by touting graphs of prehistoric atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature changes are not something new. Peter Clack, an out-spoken climate change skeptic has once again tried to make a point that current atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are comparatively low compared to past eras. In this recent tweet, shared by thousands, Clack includes a graph from the work of Chris Scotese, an American geologist and paleogeographer, which shows that current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are relatively low compared to past events and that the only other time CO2 levels were this low was during the early Permian geological era, which spans 47 million years from the end of the Carboniferous Period 298.9 million years ago, to the beginning of the Triassic Period 251.9 million years ago. Clack mentions the “greatest extinction event in world history,” also known as the Permian Extinction as if this happened despite the low atmospheric CO2 recorded. However, most geological scientists contend that the Permian extinction occurred over the course of 15 million years during the latter part of the Permian Period (299 million to 252 million years ago).* Does this at all negate human-caused climate change that is happening in our own era? Of course not. In fact, this observation only backs the belief that a rise in global temperatures (and a sharp rise in CO2) impacts the living species on the planet. The main difference is that today’s fast rise in global temperatures can be prevented by the de-escalation of greenhouse gas emissions.

    The Permian extinction was characterized by the elimination of about 90 percent of the species on Earth. Although the exact cause of the mass extinction event has been debated in the past, a recent study from 2018 showed that the Permian mass extinction in the oceans was most likely caused by global warming that left animals unable to breathe. In fact, there was a steep rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the late Permian era, as the Scotese graph shows. Scientists believe that this was caused by considerable volcanic activity in present-day Siberia (tied to the dismantling of the supercontinent of Pangaea). This event points to rising CO2 and temperatures drastically affecting the biosphere.

    Chris Cramer, chief research officer at Underwriters Laboratories explains…

    The first and second graphs in this Tweet show that the first claim (600 million year minimum) and second claim (lowest global temperatures) are demonstrably false.

    Any relationship between the Permian extinction event and a local minimum in CO2 (relative to prior higher levels) simply shows how catastrophic it can be to living organisms when there is a significant change in CO2 levels, and associated temperatures, just as is happening right now with human activity driving CO2 above 400 ppm for the first time in millennia.

    Andrew Dessler, director of Texas Center for Climate Studies and professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M also chimes in…

    So what’s wrong with this claim?  It suggests that low CO2 is the cause of the extinction.  I am not an expert on this, but I think the extinction has actually been linked to extensive volcanism that was occurring at about that same time.  In addition, 250 years ago the Earth had 280 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere and the biosphere was doing just fine.  In fact, during the ice age (20,000 years ago), atmospheric CO2 was 180 ppm and the biosphere did OK.

    *https://www.britannica.com/science/Permian-extinction/Alteration-of-the-carbon-cycle

    Note to Journalists/Editors: The expert quotes are free to use in your relevant articles on this topic. Please attribute them to their proper sources.

    Newswise

    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

  • Attributing the rising costs of groceries to “price gouging” is not accurate

    Attributing the rising costs of groceries to “price gouging” is not accurate

    Fact Check By:
    Craig Jones, Newswise

    Truthfulness: Mostly False

    Claim:

    Grocery stores need to be brought to heel over food prices. This isn’t ‘inflation’ because it isn’t caused by monetary oversupply. It’s just price gouging and we know that because we can literally see that they’re all reporting surplus profits.

    Claim Publisher and Date: Twitter user emmy rākete among others on 2023-01-21

    On social media, complaints regarding the rising costs of groceries are trending. It’s no surprise after all, the price of groceries has gone up around 13% compared to last year. According to the data from the Labor Department, the price of fruits and vegetables increased by 10.4 percent annually, while milk rose 15.2 percent and eggs soared 30.5 percent. Like other sectors of the economy, food prices are susceptible to supply chain complications and geopolitical unrest including the war in Ukraine. But some people have expressed their disdain for grocery store companies, accusing them of “price gouging” to increase their profits, which have been reaching exorbitant heights (corporate profits are at their highest levels in nearly 50 years, according to CBS MoneyWatch).

    For example, this tweet shared by thousands blames the rising prices of groceries on retailers engaged in price gouging: “Grocery stores need to be brought to heel over food prices. This isn’t ‘inflation’ because it isn’t caused by monetary oversupply. It’s just price gouging and we know that because we can literally see that they’re all reporting surplus profits.” 

    Is putting the blame on grocery store managers for your rising costs of orange juice accurate? It’s not quite that simple. The claim of “price gouging” at the grocery store is misleading because of the complex nature of the grocery business. Professor Lisa Jack, School of Accounting, Economics and Finance and lead of the Food Cultures in Transition (FoodCiTi) research group at the University of Portsmouth explains…

    Supermarket profits are complex and care should be taken with attributing them to any one cause. There are three main factors:

    1. Commercial income, also known as suppliers payments or back margin, contributes heavily to supermarket profits. These payments and support from suppliers to the supermarket include volume discounts and marketing fees. These can represent as much as 7% of a supermarket’s income: bottom line profits can average around 1-2% of income. Primary producers are seeing rapidly increasing costs for all inputs and having been squeezed to breaking point over the last 20 years, have no choice but to increase the prices of their output. Similarly for processors, packagers, distributors and every other business supplying supermarkets. The supermarkets themselves claim to be fighting on behalf of consumers to be keeping prices down and there is evidence that they are refusing price increase requests, which implies that commercial income is still being maintained. 
    1. In the last few years, supermarkets have been increasing profits by cutting overhead costs at head offices and in support services. Counterintuitively, the only economy of scale they have is bargaining power – see above. All their activities, including large stores, increase the overhead costs which can be as much as 75% of their spend. A significant amount of recent ‘soaring profits’ come from job losses, which are not sustainable in the long run. 
    1. Since their emergence in the 1920s, the business model for supermarkets has been to sell basics at little or no profit relying on high volumes to break even. Profits come from enticing customers to buy at least one impulse, premium item of food and non-grocery items. 8 of the 10 best sellers in supermarkets are the cheaper (but still higher profit margin) alcohol, confectionery and snacks. Since the pandemic and the cost of living crisis hit, more of us are exchanging going out for buying in ready-meals, alcohol and other treats, and buying more of our non-grocery items from supermarkets. These are where the profits come from, and they are being taken away from other sectors. Unsurprisingly, the food businesses that have the highest margins are those that produce brands of alcohol, confectionery etc – ‘Big Food’.

    Note to Journalists/Editors: The expert quotes are free to use in your relevant articles on this topic. Please attribute them to their proper sources.

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Identity, not income, drives desire to secede

    Identity, not income, drives desire to secede

    Newswise — DALLAS (SMU) – What most sparks a region’s desire to seek independence from their country – income or identity?

    A new study from SMU (Southern Methodist University, Dallas) and UC3M (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, Spain) found that the group people identify with tends to play a bigger factor in secession than differences in per capita income between regions. 

    Identity was shown to be a larger factor than income for many real-life examples of pro-independence movements in recent years – such as Tibet in China and Tigray and other Southern Nations in Ethiopia. Researchers looked at a total of 173 countries with 3,003 subnational regions, like Texas and California in the United States or Canadian provinces in Quebec and Ontario.

    The mathematical model that SMU and UC3M created also would have correctly predicted that the Soviet Union was in danger of collapsing before its eventual demise in 1991 and which Soviet republics would have been the first to declare independence.     

    “What we found is striking: separatism would be alive and well even if there were no income differences between regions, whereas it would almost completely die out if everyone spoke the same language,” said Klaus Desmet, Ruth and Kenneth Altshuler Centennial Interdisciplinary Professor of Economics at SMU and author of the study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. “From this we can conclude that the key driver of secessionist sentiment is identity, rather than income.”

    Desmet and economists Ignacio Ortuño-Ortín and Ömer Özak used their model to test if support for secession would grow stronger or weaker if there was no difference in the incomes of the people who lived there or no difference in their identity. 

    Across the globe, they found that support for secession would drop from an average of 7.5 percent of a region’s population to 0.6 percent in the absence of identity differences. Yet eliminating income differences would do almost nothing in terms of weakening the desire for secessionism, the study shows. 

    Ortuño-Ortín is a professor of economics at UC3M. Özak is an associate professor of economics at SMU and a research fellow at IZA.  

    The research team wanted to identify the major cause of secessionism because there are often questions of whether economic policies could potentially ease tensions. 

    “Of course, the drivers of separatism are complex, but if we want to simplify a bit, there are two key reasons why certain subnational regions might prefer to become independent,” Desmet said. “A first is income per capita: if my region is relatively rich, I may feel that I am ‘subsidizing’ the rest of the country, and that I would be better off if my region became independent. A second is identity: if my region has a separate ethnic or linguistic identity, I may feel less connected to the nation, and prefer to secede.”

    Desmet, Ortuño-Ortín and Özak were particularly curious about what was driving secessionist tensions in two of the team’s home countries – with Flanders in Belgium having a strong pro-independence movement and Catalonia having made a bid for independence from Spain a few years ago.  

    “Interestingly, because Flanders and Catalonia are relatively rich, the push for independence has been couched in economic terms,” Desmet said. 

    However, the study indicates that economic forces tend to be secondary when it comes to understanding secessionism.

    How the study was done

    The research team’s mathematical model ran on two options – whether subnational regions chose to form their own country or stay in the country they’re currently part of. 

    The economists then plugged different scenarios into the model – such as if the income per capita was the same throughout a country or if everyone spoke the same language. They also looked at what the income and languages spoken in those regions actually were.  

    Income per capita data for the different countries and subnational regions came from a source that economists widely use – Geographically Based Economic Data from Yale University, known as G-Econ 4.0 – for the year 2000.  

    Language was used as a measure for identity, as it has been shown to be a major identity marker that differentiates populations in other studies. The SMU-UC3M team relied on a detailed database of languages that they developed using information from the World Language Mapping System.

    The tricky part was determining how much weight income and identity should get in the model’s calculations.

    “For example, if we gave too much weight to linguistic identity, we would see too much separatism, and if we gave too little weight to linguistic identity, everyone would want to join and stay together,” Desmet said. 

    To gauge how their model matched up with the real world, the research team looked at how the predictions they got mirrored known breakups around the world, like the dissolution of the Soviet Union to create sovereign countries like Ukraine, Armenia and Lithuania.

    Their mathematical model generated predictions for the stability of 173 countries and 3,003 subnational regions. They then looked at how well these predictions lined up with actual secessionist movements and with the actual stability of states. Data for secessionist movements came from Wikipedia. A total of 2,529 hotspots were identified. Desmet, Ortuño-Ortín and Özak also consulted which countries were labeled as unstable in the Fragile States Index, an annual report put out by Washington, D.C.-based Fund for Peace. 

    “When doing these ‘checks,’ it turns out that our model performs very well,” Desmet said. 

    For instance, the model – based on data from the late 1980s – predicted that Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Georgia had a strong likelihood of seceding from the Soviet Union. All of those countries wound up being among the first to leave the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR).  

    The identity model also showed that Tibet in China, Tigray in Ethiopia, Bavaria and Saarland in Germany, Aceh in Indonesia and Lombardia and Sardinia all have the potential of wanting to secede from their country. Many of those same subnational regions regularly make the news for pro-independence movements today. 

     

    About SMU

    SMU is the nationally ranked global research university in the dynamic city of Dallas. SMU’s alumni, faculty and over 12,000 students in eight degree-granting schools demonstrate an entrepreneurial spirit as they lead change in their professions, communities and the world.

    Southern Methodist University

    Source link

  • What Does the Debt-Ceiling Fight Mean to You?

    What Does the Debt-Ceiling Fight Mean to You?

    Hitting the debt ceiling – how much money the federal government can borrow to pay its bills – could lead to economic catastrophe if the situation isn’t handled appropriately, said John Longo, a professor of professional practice at Rutgers Business School.

    The U.S. government is borrowing up to the $31.4 trillion debt limit, which has prompted Senate and House discussions on whether to raise it or risk economic disaster.

    Finance and economic expert Longo explained what this means for the average taxpayer and who is the most vulnerable if there is a default.

    What is the debt limit and why does it have to be raised?

    The federal government runs a persistent budget deficit. That is, its annual inflows, which largely come from taxes and fees, are less than its yearly spending. The U.S. Constitution allows Congress to control the federal government’s finances. Therefore, it must approve federal debt increases, which may be viewed as the sum of our country’s annual deficit from its founding until the present. Unless Congress approves increasing the debt ceiling, there is a risk that the U.S. government cannot pay its bills, which would have severely negative economic implications. 

    So what does this mean for the average taxpayer?

    The odds are that it will mean nothing for the average taxpayer in the short run since the debt ceiling has been extended roughly a hundred times since it was instituted in 1917. If the taxpayer receives some payment from the federal government, there may be a delay in receiving a promised payment. 

    If the debt ceiling is not extended and the federal government defaults on its U.S. Treasury obligations, it may result in a crash in financial assets, severely impacting most taxpayers. In the long run, taxes may increase, or federal government spending must come down. This is because there is growing frustration on both sides of the political aisle with regularly facing the debt-ceiling issue. 

    Who will be most affected?

    The immediate effect will be on those reliant on the federal government for payments. There may be a delay in receiving promised payments or receiving less than what they are owed. First in line is likely external government vendors or contractors. Then it can get quite serious since U.S. military members and those receiving federal government entitlement benefits won’t get paid on time. These entitlement beneficiaries include those receiving payments from programs that support Social Security, Medicaid and food and housing assistance. Overall economic spending would be reduced, likely pushing the U.S. economy into a recession. 

    Perhaps most seriously, if the U.S. Treasury does not meet its debt obligations, it would result in a default on trillions of dollars of assets. These assets, currently considered high investment grade, would turn into “junk” bonds overnight and may result in a cascade of selling across many financial assets. The U.S. Treasury can utilize accounting gimmicks to postpone the day of financial reckoning for several months, but it cannot go on indefinitely. Congress knows these issues and usually agrees to a deal at the last minute. Since the federal government almost always runs a budget deficit, it basically amounts to kicking the can down the road, which is why the debt-ceiling issue resurfaces every year or two. 

    What does the fight over the House Speaker foreshadow about the debt-ceiling fight? 

    The majority of the House and Senate must approve the debt-ceiling expansion. The current speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, was barely elected after more than a dozen failed elections. A sizable contingent of those opposing his nomination want greater fiscal austerity and said they would not vote to raise the debt ceiling. Some congresspeople want concessions, primarily in the form of spending cuts or increased taxes, to vote for an extension of the debt ceiling. In short, there is often a lot of political wrangling going on behind the scenes before the limit is increased, yet again. 

    Why are politicians even fighting about this in the first place? 

    Congress controls the federal government’s purse strings. They won’t let the federal government run an unlimited budget deficit, so the debt-ceiling issue is likely to resurface every year or so. It is highly unlikely that the federal government will run a persistent budget surplus since most congresspeople like to spend money. An aspirational goal may be to have a balanced federal budget in the long run. Several states have operated on this model, so it is not an impossible task.

    However, I think the odds are we will continue to do what has happened since the current model was adopted in the early 1900s. We will continue to face this issue every year or two until there is bipartisan agreement on a more rational model. 

    Rutgers University-New Brunswick

    Source link

  • Rutgers Philosopher Argues for a “Realistic Blacktopia”

    Rutgers Philosopher Argues for a “Realistic Blacktopia”

    A philosopher weighs in on the rise of voter suppression, anti-protest legislation and efforts to roll back racial progress

    Fifty-six years after Martin Luther King, Jr., told students at Southern Methodist University that “we have come a long way but we still have a long, long way to go,” Rutgers philosopher Derrick Darby is making a similar argument.

    In his new book, A Realistic Blacktopia: Why We Must Unite to Fight, Darby draws on King, W. E. B. Du Bois and the black radical tradition to explore how to make progress in the antiracist struggle.

    Darby, a Henry Rutgers Distinguished Professor of Philosophy and founding director of the Social Justice Solutions Research Collaboratory, discusses alliances, voting rights, affirmative action and the limits of racial remedies.

    Martin Luther King Jr. argued that voter suppression undermines a citizen’s right to make choices, undermining their dignity. Equal voting rights is something King strived to get the nation to do. What would he think of voter access today?

    The forms of voter suppression seen across America would have been a major concern for Dr. King. Tactics include tougher photo identification laws, closing or reducing polling places, attempts to eliminate Sunday early voting and making vote by mail more difficult.

    It is doubly shameful in a democracy like ours that values equality and justice when it creates a significant burden for groups such as communities of color, seniors, young people and the poor.

    Members of these groups tend to have more limited opportunities to vote because of voter suppression and long wait times on Election Day. We saw this in Georgia in 2020 and during the recent midterm elections. During the 2020 election, Georgia criminalized the distribution of water or snacks to people waiting to vote. Dr. King would have been appalled. He would have supported efforts to make voting easier – including issuing a federal voting ID card, enacting automatic voter registration, expanding early voting and ensuring greater access to polling places and multilingual ballot support.

    During the civil rights movement, King recognized building interracial alliances to address social problems that disproportionately affected African Americans. What were some examples?

    Dr. King believed addressing voter rights and civil rights concerns was crucial to getting America to live up to its promises and potential. Relying on the power of nonviolence direct action by interracial alliances of people committed to these and other causes was vital to this effort. The 1963 March on Washington for jobs and freedom is the most well-known example of the power of such alliances.

    King and other prominent civil rights organizers such as Bayard Rustin believed freedom wasn’t just about racial and other forms of discrimination. It was also about freedom from poverty, hunger, joblessness, illiteracy, preventable illness, etc. Because these issues don’t recognize racial divisions, they provide a broader basis for building alliances.

    King’s support of striking sanitation workers in Memphis and his efforts to build the Poor People’s Campaign are examples of objectives that demanded broader alliances.   

    Although America is awash in race and race-relations discussions, antiracist books are everywhere and diversity seminars are hot tickets. Many efforts are underway to roll back the racial progress clock. What are some of these efforts?

    Following the senseless murder of George Floyd by the police, there was a massive public outcry and scores of organized Black Lives Matter protests around the nation. Protesters – a large and diverse group representing different races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, classes and religions – took to the streets to demand social justice and end police brutality. These protests sought racial progress.

    Some state legislators proposed, and in some cases enacted, anti-protest legislation in response. Alabama enacted a law in 2021 that upgraded obstructing a sidewalk during a protest to a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail. Mississippi has a pending bill that would make “violent or disorderly assembly” of seven or more people a felony and would apply to peaceful protesters who pose a danger to property, personal injury or obstruct law enforcement.

    In your opinion, affirmative action was once a way to provide African Americans with better educational opportunities, but that time has passed. What do you suggest in its place?

    Affirmative action – understood as a race-specific remedy – is unconstitutional. Existing efforts to promote diversity in schools have had to show that considering race as a plus factor among other factors is part of a holistic approach to ensuring diversity. The U.S. Supreme Court will soon rule on whether this practice, is permissible. I’m not optimistic about the outcome.

    Various alternatives have been proposed, such as targeting socioeconomic diversity and targeting top students in districts for admissions but the jury is out on whether they can achieve the relevant kind of diversity without triggering court challenges.

    Whatever the outcome, greater investment in preparing kids from disadvantaged communities and providing support for families seeking opportunities for educational enrichment for their children is part of a broader solution.

    You argue securing racial justice in America calls for “big tent” remedies. That is, antiracists must build partnerships among populations interested in issues that impact them collectively. Could you explain further with an example?

    Big-tent remedies involve paying attention to matters of economic justice in addition to racial justice and remaining mindful of their interconnectedness.

    Marginalized populations are disproportionately impacted by health crises such as COVID-19 because they typically have no health care or poor care. They typically work low-wage jobs with no benefits, sick leave and time off. Individuals in these populations also can’t work from home, as many work in the service industry. They must rely on public transportation, which disproportionately increases the risk of exposure and illness in poorer black and brown communities.

    Health concerns, getting paid decent wages, better working conditions, affordable child care and educational opportunities are among the issues of broader concern.

    Rutgers University-New Brunswick

    Source link

  • GW Expert Available to Discuss Summit of North American Leaders

    GW Expert Available to Discuss Summit of North American Leaders

    WASHINGTON (Jan. 11, 2023)— Two days of talks between the leaders of North America in Mexico ended on a positive note during the meeting of President Joe Biden and Mexico President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Two years ago President López  Obrador was seen as having a distant relationship with the new elected American president, but the leaders found common ground on migration, economic integration, and fentanyl interdiction. López Obrador, who is known for being recalcitrant, ended their meetings with nothing but praise for Biden, particularly on issues surrounding migration across the border separating their countries.

    Susan Ariel Aaronson is research professor of International Affairs and Director of the Digital Trade and Data Governance Hub which aims to educate policymakers, the press and the public about domestic and international data governance issues. She is available to discuss the trade or human rights policies discussed at the summit. 

     

    George Washington University

    Source link

  • American University Experts Share Insights on 2nd Anniversary of January 6th Insurrection

    American University Experts Share Insights on 2nd Anniversary of January 6th Insurrection

    What:  As we reach the 2nd anniversary of the January 6th insurrection, American University has various scholars who are experts in extremism, far-right ideologies, white supremacy, militias and organized political violence. Below please find their insights on last year and their outlook for 2023. They are also available to comment on the January 6th hearings and the anniversary.

    When: Thursday, January 5, 2022 – ongoing

    Background:  American University experts who are available for interviews are:

    Kurt Braddock is an Assistant Professor of Public Communication in the School of Communication. His research focuses on the persuasive strategies used by violent extremist groups to recruit and radicalize audiences targeted by their propaganda. He is the author of Weaponized Words: The Strategic Role of Persuasion in Violent Radicalization and Counter-Radicalization.

    “2022 saw an intensification of far-right extremism in the United States, with motivations for violence evolving as the year progressed. In parallel with increased rhetoric by some far-right politicians and pundits about so-called “grooming”, attacks against LGBTQIA+ individuals grew over the course of the year. I expect this trend to continue through at least the first part of 2023, as some far-right politicians and pundits show no signs of abating their rhetoric in this regard. 

    White supremacy, white nationalism, and related topics are also likely to continue being key motivators of political violence, as communication surrounding these topics — by both extremists and some elected officials — shows no signs of abating. As these trends continue, I expect we will see continued — and possibly increasing — incidents of lone-actor plots and attacks against those they perceive as viable targets (e.g., the attack on Paul Pelosi).”


    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: “In 2022, 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: “2022 saw a troubling continuation of ongoing trends in the radicalization of mainstream American politics. Anti-LGBTQ violence and antisemitism 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 even 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.”

     

    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

  • Chinese Communist Party zero-covid “volunteers” have suffered from stress and anxiety, study shows

    Chinese Communist Party zero-covid “volunteers” have suffered from stress and anxiety, study shows

    Newswise — “Volunteers” tasked with enforcing the Chinese Communist Party’s zero-covid policies have suffered from stress and anxiety, a new study shows.

    Having to act as a “buffers” between disgruntled citizens and the Party’s image has led to “grassroots fatigue”, high workloads and people being put under intense pressure, researchers have found.

    These members of residents committees are responsible for monitoring and tracing sick residents and enforcing quarantines, as well as administering vaccines and achieving centrally set vaccination targets.

    Academics conducted 37 semi-structured interviews during summer 2021 in eight Shanghai estates in three districts. This included secretaries and directors from residents committees, government officials, representatives from property management companies and people who worked in party-community and social centres, as well as social workers, volunteers and residents.

    They found an increasingly pressurized grassroots infrastructure, then exhausted after 18 months of mobilizational governance, in which party secretaries are required to shoulder ever greater workloads and manage increasingly hierarchical chains of command.

    At the pandemic’s height, government officials were also sent into communities to assist with grassroots COVID management. In the second phase they went door-to-door providing information about the vaccine, alongside working in their usual party jobs. They were expected to do this voluntary work. One party worker described the work as ‘voluntary’, but when asked if she could choose not to go, she replied, ‘it seems like we cannot”.

    One residents committee secretary told researchers: “Now it seems like the public is forcing Party members onto the moral high ground in all issues. It feels like, if you are a Party member, you have to do this. If you don’t, you will be ashamed of your title of Party member.”

    The research, by Dr Catherine Owen from the University of Exeter and Xuan Qin from Fudan University, is published in the Journal of Chinese Political Science.

    Dr Owen said: “Since Spring 2022, when Chinese citizens have become increasingly dissatisfied with the on-going commitment to zero-COVID, the high costs of resource mobilisation and the hierarchical chain of command have resulted in intensified workloads and intense pressure on local cadres, leading to grassroots fatigue.

    “Following the emergence of Omicron and the hike in public dissatisfaction with the on-going lock-down policies it was the grassroots cadres that filtered out public discontents, protecting the Party’s overall image.”

    Another residents committee secretary said: “Now the secretary and the director are under too much pressure. It’s just hard work, and the psychological pressure is too great. We have indicators for every job, including vaccination, and every residential area has a ranking every day. I’m too anxious to sleep at night. Because the city has indicators for the district, the district has indicators for the streets, and the streets have indicators for the residential areas, it is very anxiety-inducing”.

    Researchers found tensions were created because higher-level authorities have asked for compulsory enforcement of policies at grassroot levels, but citizens are not formally required to comply. Local volunteers were told to meet vaccination targets, but mandatory vaccination was prohibited. This put the grassroots cadres in the impossible position of having to meet rigid targets without the authority to enforce the policy.

    Dr Owen said: “Leeway for street-level bureaucrats to adapt or customise decisions from above during periods of campaign governance is very limited. The tension between the requirement for comprehensive compliance and the basic need for personal freedom is a result of top-level design, but it is experienced and negotiated at the grassroots level.”

    University of Exeter

    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

  • Contemporary Japanese politics and anxiety over governance

    Contemporary Japanese politics and anxiety over governance

    Newswise — Chapters start by revealing the declining impacts of social capital on politics, the shrinking range of political parties from which to choose, and the mixing of Asian values with liberal democratic values. Then, by conceptualizing and empirically examining anxiety over governance, i.e., the perception of excessive risk for future governance, Ikeda explores the links of anxiety to Japanese political behavior. While the high regard for democratic politics lowers anxiety among the Japanese, the changes in Japanese political behavior/environment and culture contribute to a generally high level of anxiety, which also had a significant negative impact on the evaluation of countermeasures against COVID-19.

    Chapter 1 captures the changes in Japanese political behavior in the 21st century by contrasting social capital and political actors as determinants. A gradual decline in social capital and weakening of the ties with political actors occurred. By examining the elections from 1983 to 2019, especially the 2009 election that switched power from the long-dominant Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) to the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), Chapter 1 shows that the transition of power to the DPJ in the 2009 election was not supported by the social capital of civil society, but rather by perceptions regarding the political actors. The DPJ administration ended along with a decline in their reputation, whereas what is visible in the LDP administration after regaining power is a decline in the prospective expectations on the administration. 

    Chapter 2 examines the changes that have occurred in micro-level vote choice and macro-level meaningfulness since 1996 when voters became entitled to cast two votes in every national election in both Houses. Voting behavior is a choice for a set of alternatives, i.e., a set of political parties, but voters do not vote from the full range of the set as available choices; rather, they vote from a limited set of parties. On the other hand, the set of possible party choices defines the sense of meaningfulness that voting brings, i.e., the subjective empowerment on national politics. In fact, voters’ perceived set of party choices fluctuated in multiple LDP- and DPJ-centered clusters, and vote choices were basically distributed among possible choice sets of parties in each cluster. The LDP-centered clusters were consistently stable in determining vote choice, while the DPJ-centered clusters were less stable, and vote choice for the DPJ was rather heavily dependent on selective cues provided by its political actors. After the collapse of the DPJ administration, the perceived set of possible political parties to choose from has been greatly reduced to for or against LDP-centered clusters, along with the sense of empowerment.

    Chapter 3 examines whether the Japanese are unique in Asia and the world (which is often claimed) and whether such uniqueness is linked to the Japanese people’s social capital and their support for democracy, using extensive international comparative data from the Asian Barometer and World Values Surveys over a 20-year period. Although the Japanese are outliers in the Asian value system, which consists of the two dimensions of “vertical emphasis” and “harmony orientation,” in that the Japanese are weak in these characteristics, Japan is not uniquely positioned on the cultural map of the world. Nevertheless, Japanese people’s attitudes and actions are influenced by Asian values in terms of general trust and political participation, which are formed through social interactions with others, whereas this is not the case in terms of support for liberal democracy, which is enculturated by the post-war formal education. Overall, the Japanese may not necessarily be capable of making political and social decisions in a value-consistent manner, which may have a negative impact on the operation of the process of politics.

    Chapter 4 examines Japanese idiosyncrasy in their perception of social and national risk. In the World Values Survey, the degree of anxiety about future unemployment, education, and possible involvement in war, terrorism, and civil war perceived by the Japanese is considerably higher than objective indicators, demonstrating excessive risk perception, termed the “anxiety over governance index.” It was presumed that this excessiveness comes from Japanese people’s sense of worry over the future governance of their country. Analyses confirmed the excessive level of risk perception among the Japanese and revealed that this perception was reduced when the country was perceived to be democratically governed, i.e., the index was precisely related to perceptions of governance. Finally, anxiety over governance was more conceptually sophisticated as a pair conception, i.e., political distrust and anxiety over governance expressing diffuse negative evaluations of the past and the future, respectively.

    Chapter 5 explores the structure of Japanese anxiety over governance in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite Japan’s relatively good control during its first wave, an international comparative survey demonstrated that not only was there an overperception of risk, but the intensity of fear (risk perception) was positively correlated with a low evaluation of government handling ability, especially among the Japanese, which is consistent with Chapter 4. An Internet survey on the first general election of the Kishida administration in October 2021 revealed that Japanese excessive risk perception corresponded to the newly constructed direct measure of anxiety over governance, indicating that it was indeed anxiety about the future direction of Japanese politics and political dysfunction. Anxiety was reduced by perceptions of Japan’s degree of democracy, while its high level was explained by the cumulative negative effects of factors such as nonfunctioning social capital, reduced party choice, and inconsistent values.

    Chapter 6 examines a possible countervailing approach from citizens’ perspectives using an analysis of the 2021 election. While criticizing the government in the face of anxiety over governance, many Japanese are less involved in politics, even when confronted with the pandemic. However, the analyses indicated possible pathways for the Japanese to engage in politics, starting with protecting their everyday lives. The book closes by arguing that such grassroots movements are one way to reduce Japanese people’s anxiety over governance.

    [Book URL] http://www.routledge.com/9781032159331

    [About the author] Dr. Ken’ichi Ikeda is a professor in the Department of Media Studies at Doshisha University, Kyoto, Japan since April 2013, after 21 years of teaching at the University of Tokyo. He has been involved in many national/international survey research as the Principal Investigator of Japan, such as Japanese Election Study, World Values Survey, Asian Barometer, and Comparative Study on Electoral Systems(CSES).

    Doshisha University

    Source link

  • Inoculation from the vaccine does not transfer over to blood transfusion patient

    Inoculation from the vaccine does not transfer over to blood transfusion patient

    Fact Check By:
    Newswise

    Truthfulness: False

    Claim:

    The parents of Baby Will are right to insist on unvaccinated blood. The safety of the blood supply is unknown. We have a medical community which is not trustable on anything vax related.

    Claim Publisher and Date: Steve Kirsch, among others on 2022-12-04

    In New Zealand, the parents of a baby who needs life-saving open heart surgery insist that his blood transfusion comes from donors who haven’t had the COVID-19 vaccine. Anti-vaccine campaigners have recently used this case to focus on the lingering claim that those who have not been vaccinated against COVID-19 have “clean blood” or “pure blood” and that it’s dangerous for them to receive a transfusion from someone who is vaccinated.  For example, anti-vaccine activist Steve Kirsch claims that because of COVID-19 vaccination, “The safety of the blood supply is unknown.” The parents of the baby have appeared on far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’ Infowars podcast, defending their position. 

    The claim is completely false. Blood from an inoculated person cannot transfer any of the messenger RNA to the blood recipient. The vaccines that are available in the U.S. would not pose any risk of infecting either the recipient of the vaccine with the virus that causes COVID-19 or anyone who might receive a blood transfusion from that person, since none of the available vaccines use a live attenuated virus. The Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies have issued guidance to help doctors answer patient questions on the issue.

    “There is absolutely no contraindication,” says Edward Michelson – Professor and Chairman, Department of Emergency Medicine, Paul L. Foster School of Medicine (PLFSOM), Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center El Paso.

    “There is no increased risk in receiving blood from vaccinated donors. When it comes to your medical care, you should listen to your doctor, not Alex Jones,” says Dr. Brian Labus, Assistant Professor, School of Public Health at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. 

     

     

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Student Loan Forgiveness on Ice: Insights for Borrowers

    Student Loan Forgiveness on Ice: Insights for Borrowers

    Newswise — With the proposed student debt relief program mired and stalled in legal battles, it’s now revealed that erroneous notices of student debt forgiveness application approvals were emailed to about 9 million Americans. At this point, says UMD Smith’s Samuel Handwerger, “the Biden administration might be asking themselves ‘Is the road to hell really paved with good intentions?’”

    Handwerger adds: “Whether the intent has been solely to boost the economy and promote higher educational achievement amongst Americans or a veiled political ad for Democratic votes in the latest election, find me an economist that believes an educated population is not good for the economy and I will show you that Joseph Stalin’s many 5-year plans really did succeed.”

    Handwerger, CPA and accounting lecturer for the University of Maryland’s Robert H. Smith School of Business, gives more insights – especially for borrowers – in this Q&A:

    What are the essentials to know concerning the legal challenges?

    Handwerger: This boils down to two cases. First, in Texas, two individuals — backed by the conservative organization Job Creators Network Foundation — allege the forgiveness plan unfairly excludes them and shouldn’t be allowed. The other suit, “ Nebraska v. Biden,” comes from a group of states — Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina — claiming that the forgiveness would hurt them in the form of lost tax revenue. Normally, loan forgiveness results in taxable income for the individual whose loan has been forgiven. But based on the 2017 Trump Administration tax law, student loan forgiveness is not considered taxable income during the years 2018 thru 2025, after which that particular provision sunsets. Talk about a perfect storm of Republican and Democratic agendas.

    With another pause on repayments, is there anything different this time?

    Handwerger: Starting in 2020 under Trump, repayments for federal student loans have been in a state of suspended animation — no payments and no interest accruing. President Biden now has extended this original pause seven times with this latest move. But unlike previous extensions which expired by easily decipherable due dates, this latest extension almost requires a college degree to fully follow. But to put it as simple as possible, payments restart 60 days after whichever of the following scenarios happens first:

    • The lawsuits that have blocked the debt relief are resolved
    • Debt relief is implemented
    • The date is June 30, 2023

    In other words, if the debt relief is not implemented or the lawsuits are not resolved prior to June 30, 2023, then 60 days after this date, payments start to become due again and interest accrual resumes.

    Should borrowers make voluntary payments?

    Handwerger: Regarding this freeze-of-interest tolling, making voluntary payments in the interim is not an economically smart move, as normally one would be better served to earn some short-term interest on the funds. Even with a moving-target restart date making such financial planning tricky, the smart money move still is not to make payments while the freeze remains on. Adding to the efficacy of this argument is that the months during the pause still count as months with proper payment for many federal loan programs, where unpaid principal after a series of years is ultimately forgiven.

    How long before a resolution? What if Biden wins?

    Handwerger: It will be interesting to see how Biden will handle the applications for debt forgiveness if it legally can be resumed. Currently, loan forgiveness applications are suspended, and the government is not accepting any more applications. Originally the end date for applying was scheduled to be December 31, 2023. But the wheels on the legal process could go very slowly if the Supreme Court enters the picture. All of this makes for a lot of uncertainty for the 43 million-plus Americans holding unpaid student loan debt. The loan relief, in its original form, did not apply to loans originating after July 1, 2022. So, taking on more student debt needs to be carefully considered, as it always should be. My query: Would a win allowing for the loan forgiveness after a protracted legal battle entice Biden to expand the loans available for relief? I can’t wait for further developments to find out.

    University of Maryland, Robert H. Smith School of Business

    Source link

  • Scientists did not release a zombie plague by reviving a dormant virus, but their warning of a potential public health crisis is legitimate

    Scientists did not release a zombie plague by reviving a dormant virus, but their warning of a potential public health crisis is legitimate

    Newswise — You may have read the frightening headlines that are trending in the news now, Scientists revive ‘zombie’ virus that was trapped under frozen lake for 50,000 years, Scientists warn about revived ‘zombie virus’ in Russia, Zombie virus is revived after 48,500 years in the permafrost. These headlines may seem like a premise for a science fiction film, but there is some truth to them. The ancient viruses spotlighted in these articles cannot infect humans, but this hasn’t stopped many users on social media (examples here and here) from freaking out. 

    A team of researchers from Aix-Marseille University uncovered ancient viruses from underneath a frozen lake in Siberia. The oldest virus, named Pandoravirus yedoma after the mythological character Pandora, was 48,500 years old, a record age for a frozen virus returning to a state where it has the potential to infect other organisms. The virus infects single-cell organisms known as amoebas, and cannot infect humans or animals. The scientists say the revival was done in a controlled laboratory. And, while dangerous, the viruses could help us prepare for pandemic-level issues as the permafrost thaws. The same researchers discovered a 30,000-year-old virus frozen in permafrost in 2014 and confirmed that it could still infect creatures. Other ancient viruses have been located in mammoth wool and the intestines of a Siberian wolf – all buried beneath the Siberian permafrost.

    The preprint paper, titled, “An update on eukaryotic viruses revived from ancient permafrost” is published on the server bioRxiv. In the study, scientists found that all the “zombie viruses” that have been uncovered have the potential to be infectious, and are therefore a “health threat.”  If these giant viruses are still alive after several millennia, then it stands to reason that other viruses may be as well. The scientists warn, “It is therefore legitimate to ponder the risk of ancient viral particles remaining infectious and getting back into circulation by the thawing of ancient permafrost layers.”

    More research is needed to determine the level of infectiousness of these viruses when exposed to the elements such as the open air or the heat from the sun.

    The concern that climate change could unearth diseases that have been dormant is widespread in the scientific community. Here’s Sandy Dearth, Director, Center for Public Health Practice at Indiana University:

    I think there is legitimate concern about climate change revealing organisms that have been buried/frozen. The frozen anthrax incident the author mentioned in the article is a true event that many of us epidemiologists reference when discussing the potential impact of climate change on public health.

    Dr. Mark Stibich, Epidemiologist and Chief Scientific Officer and founder of Xenex Disinfection Services has this to say…

    Emerging pathogens, whether from species spill-over and antimicrobial resistance or melting permafrost, pose a serious threat to global public health. The COVID-19 pandemic clearly illustrates the need for improved public health investments. Hospital Infection Preventionists and Environmental Services Directors have wanted better weapons in the battle against superbugs for years. Fortunately there are now effective solutions available to battle the pathogens we know about today — and the ones we may face in the future. For example, these pathogens aren’t prepared for the intense UV light that LightStrike disinfection robots produce because UV-C light doesn’t naturally occur on Earth. In other words, these emerging pathogens — even the “zombie viruses” that may emerge from melting permafrost — have never been exposed to the intense UV light generated by our pulsed xenon UV robots and therefore don’t have defenses against it. Because we use physics, not chemistry, to destroy pathogens and disinfect surfaces, our robots are future-proofed against these frightening emerging pathogens.

    Newswise

    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

  • More U.S. adults carrying loaded handguns daily, study finds

    More U.S. adults carrying loaded handguns daily, study finds

     

    Newswise — The number of U.S. adult handgun owners carrying a loaded handgun on their person doubled from 2015 to 2019, according to new research led by the University of Washington.

    Data come from the 2019 National Firearms Survey (NFS), an online survey of U.S. adults living in households with firearms, including nearly 2,400 handgun owners. Compared to estimates from prior UW-led research, the new study suggests that in 2019 approximately 16 million adult handgun owners had carried a loaded handgun on their person in the past month (up from 9 million in 2015) and 6 million carried every day (twice as many as carried daily in 2015).

    Published Nov. 16 in the American Journal of Public Health, the study also found that a larger proportion of handgun owners carried handguns in states with less restrictive carrying regulations: In these states, approximately one-third of handgun owners reported carrying in the past month, whereas in states with more restrictive regulations, only about one-fifth did.

    “Between increases in the number of people who own handguns and the number of people who carry every day, there has been a striking increase in handgun carrying in the U.S.,” said lead author Dr. Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, a professor of epidemiology and Bartley Dobb Professor for the Study and Prevention of Violence at the UW.

    Among the other findings reported in the new study:

    • About 7 in 10 handgun owners said they carried a loaded handgun as protection against another person, dwarfing the number who said they carried as protection against an animal, for example, or for work
    • 4 in 5 handgun owners who reported carrying were male, 3 in 4 were white, and a majority were between the ages of 18 and 44

    Researchers pointed to some limitations of the study: Respondents were asked if they carried, and how often, but not where. It is possible that a person residing in a state with one type of permitting restrictions (or none) could have carried their handgun in another state with different laws. The study also did not ask whether the respondent carried a handgun openly or concealed.

    While the data are from 2019, researchers say the findings are timely, following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that struck down a New York state handgun-carrying law. States, in general, have become less restrictive over the years regarding handgun carrying — more than 20 do not require permits to carry today, compared to only one such state in 1990. The differences highlighted in this study suggest that this behavior may be responsive to the types of laws governing carrying that pertain in a state.

    “The Supreme Court ruling has already resulted in some states’ loosening of laws related to handgun carrying,” Rowhani-Rahbar said. “In light of that ruling, our study reinforces the importance of studying the implications of handgun carrying for public health and public safety.”

    The study was funded by the Joyce Foundation and the New Venture Fund. Co-authors were Amy Gallagher, now of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, previously of the Firearm Injury & Policy Research Program at the UW; Deborah Azrael of Harvard University; and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University.

    University of Washington

    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 Future of the Supreme Court: A Conversation with Law Professor Richard W. Garnett

    The Future of the Supreme Court: A Conversation with Law Professor Richard W. Garnett

    Newswise — On Oct. 3, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) began hearing cases for its new term, following one of its most significant sessions that featured a landmark abortion ruling, a major leak, ideological differences and security threats.

    Chief Justice John Roberts expressed hope for a return to “normalcy,” and the court welcomed Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman on the Supreme Court. 

    Also welcomed back, the public can now attend oral arguments in person for the first time since the COVID-19 lockdown of 2020. Justices remain under tighter security than in previous years, though barricades around the Supreme Court following last term’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade have been removed.

    Richard W. Garnett is the University of Notre Dame’s Paul J. Schierl/Fort Howard Corporation Professor of Law, director of the Law School’s Program on Church, State & Society and a concurrent professor of political science. He clerked for the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist during the court’s 1996 term. Garnett is co-author of “Religion and the American Constitutional Experiment.” He teaches and writes about the freedoms of speech, association, and religion and constitutional law more generally and is a leading authority on the role of religious believers and beliefs in politics and society.

    Garnett discusses the future of the Supreme Court.

    How do you respond to complaints that the Supreme Court is “broken” or “illegitimate”?

    This year’s Supreme Court term, like the last one, will involve a number of high-profile, controversial cases and, as usual, commentators’ and critics’ attention will focus almost exclusively on them. However, it is important for Americans to appreciate that the vast bulk of the court’s work involves technical legal questions, not ideological or partisan battles. Those who claim or complain that the court is “political” or even “illegitimate” simply because the justices do not always deliver their preferred policy outcomes misunderstand the court and its role in our constitutional system.  

    The court is not “broken” simply because it has recently corrected some previous errors or because a majority of the current justices were appointed by presidents of one particular party. The threat to the court today comes not from the justices’ rulings but from media coverage and political criticism that assume the court’s role is to deliver particular results.

    As the first Black woman, how will Ketanji Brown Jackson influence the Supreme Court? 

    It is too early to tell, of course. All of the justices bring their experiences, formation and background to their role; at the same time, they are all committed to deciding legal questions, as best they can, on the merits and not on the basis of their personal beliefs or preferences. Apart from her influence on the court, though, it seems very likely that her groundbreaking appointment will inspire many citizens, lawyers and law students.

    What are the most important cases you’re watching this term? 

    It is worth remembering that every case at the Supreme Court is important to someone. And, we do not yet know all of the cases the justices will consider during this term; they are likely to add several dozen more. That said, like most public law scholars, I am interested in the cases involving the use of race in college admissions and also those having to do with the role of state courts in reviewing states’ election laws.

    In addition, the justices are considering cases involving — to mention just a few — the tension between free-speech rights and antidiscrimination law, the ability of a state to regulate in-state commercial activity when that regulation has dramatic out-of-state effects, the reach of the Clean Water Act and the legality of certain Biden administration immigration policies.  

    There were several high-profile religious freedom cases during the last term. What are some other religious liberty questions that you expect to come before the court this term? 

    Last term was one of the most significant in the court’s history, in terms of religious freedom and church-state relations. So far, there are no major religious liberty cases set for argument, although there is a chance the justices will take up a New York case involving the right of a religious institution, Yeshiva University, to decline official recognition for an LGBT student group. In addition, there could be new religious freedom challenges to official vaccine mandates for public employees, public school students, etc.

    What will be the impact of the overturn of Roe, and how might that decision affect other precedents or invite new challenges to past decisions?

    The overturning of Roe v. Wade means that the question of abortion regulation is now one primarily for state legislators and courts. In many large states, with very permissive abortion laws, the Dobbs decision will not have any effect. In some others, there will be efforts to convince state courts to find Roe-type abortion rights in their own state constitutions. In still others, states will enact new regulations that, under Roe, would not have been permissible, and those new regulations will, almost certainly, be challenged. And we can expect efforts on the part of the current administration to use the powers of the executive branch to increase access to abortion and to push back on states’ pro-life policies.

    The Dobbs decision was a reminder that, among other things, all of the justices believe that, sometimes, a past decision of the court is so misguided, and so damaging, that it may and should be abandoned. Again, no justice and no commentator believes that past precedents may never be abandoned, and nearly everyone agrees that stability and predictability are important in the law. Roe v. Wade was contested and controversial from the very beginning and its reasoning was widely seen, including by people who support abortion rights as a policy matter, as weak. The court majority determined, applying familiar and fairly settled criteria, that the decision was so wrong that the law’s integrity required them to admit, and undo, their mistake. 

    How will the leak of the Dobbs opinion affect the court going forward? 

    The leak of the Dobbs draft was extremely regrettable and, if the leaker is a court employee, a gross breach of trust. Not only did the leak put some of the justices in very real danger, it undermined the judicial process and, indeed, the rule of law. It appears to have been an attempt to put non-legal pressures on the court and to undermine the court’s institutional standing.

    What more should be done to ensure the justices and their families are protected from violence or physical intimidation?

    It is unfortunate, but also unmistakably clear, that the justices require protection from people who do not respect the rule of law or the court’s role in our constitutional democracy. It is, of course, well within every citizen’s right to criticize the justices’ work, but there should be no tolerance for threats.

    University of Notre Dame

    Source link