SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " opinion " 1,451 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Opinion: Colorado can learn from more than 250 years of Army medicine, especially when it comes to mental healthcare
As an Army psychiatrist and chair of behavioral health at Denver Health, I know we can take lessons from military to help solve Colorado’s current crisis.
Opinion | Trump’s funding threat is anti-science, not scientists’ fault
Trump’s proposal would substitute political, ideological, and religious considerations for scientific criteria.
‘Very little about these twists and turns are as they seem’
Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
Biggest question for the Cowboys after start of training camp
What questions did Day 1 of camp bring in your opinion?
CRE Opinion: Your Real Estate Strategy Is Your Business Strategy
The right workplace can do more than house employees, writes Scott Morse, it can strengthen culture, attract talent, improve performance, and create enterprise value.
Opinion: Data disruptions put powerful maternal and child health tool at risk | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
The consequences of disruptions to the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System are falling heaviest on already-vulnerable populations.
Opinion | Is More Data About Your Body Actually Good for You?
The Silicon Valley health trend making doctors nervous.
How climate law is reshaping global politics - Center for International Environmental Law
Learn how the ICJ climate advisory opinion and UN General Assembly resolution are transforming climate governance, international law, climate justice, and fossil fuel accountability.
Tick Tock: SEC and Big Ten receive revised Protect College Sports Act as Senate vote timeline looms
Revised Protect College Sports Act language was sent to SEC and Big Ten for opinion after weeks of work from Ted Cruz, Maria Cantwell and other leaders.
Meredith Poll Assesses Public Opinion on Legalized Sports Betting
A Meredith Poll conducted in July 2026 provides one of the first comprehensive statewide assessments of public opinion regarding legalized mobile sports betting in North Carolina.
KFF Health Tracking Poll: Ebola & Pandemic Preparedness
Much of the public has yet to form an opinion on the U.S. government’s response to the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, this poll finds. Four in ten adults say the U.S. is less prepared for a pandemic now than it was in 2020.
(LETTER) Don't let nostalgia blind you to present business support
Cap City News publishes letters, cartoons and opinions as a public service. The content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Cap City News or its
Free Press Opinion: Where politics are concerned, churches should keep first things first
If the mission of a Christian church is to proclaim the lordship of Jesus Christ and ask those who would follow him to lead a similar life, why would it use part of its primary Sunday service to promote political candidates the leader of the church believes should be elected?
Maryland candidates should hear from small businesses
Opinion: Maryland candidates should speak to small business owners to learn what they can do to improve the state’s business climate, writes Mike O’Halloran.
‘Both approaches ultimately run into the same obstacle’
Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
Opinion: Expanded rail service can be Michigan’s next economic engine
A Michigan Central-Ann Arbor segment of rail service doesn’t need another study, and it’s too important to wait for federal action. The state should take the lead and fund this work.
Opinion: Programs to help ease caregivers’ burden can be a lifeline
The success of programs like Kinship Support isn’t measured only by the number of families served; it’s measured by children who remain connected to the people who love them most.
Opinion | Costco or Whole Foods? Grocery Stores are Symbols of Identity
Our grocery stores mirror the mess of America.
Inside Fauci's private diary: What he wrote about Trump, TV personalities and celebrities
Anthony Fauci's diary entries reveal candid opinions about Trump, Mark Meadows, Jake Tapper and celebrities he encountered during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The false dichotomy between capitalism and socialism in US politics
Opinion: The political debate in the United States over capitalism and socialism is centered on an over-simplified and false dichotomy, writes Dave Anderson.
Opinion | Obsessing About Our Mental Health Is Part of Our Mental Health Problem
We need to support psychological well-being without fixating on it.
Opinion | Boston's traffic troubles: Elected officials need to act now
If you’re driving into the city you’re going to pay. It’s just a question of whether you pay with your time, or your money.
New business numbers should be source of optimism
We know and share in the pain that fluctuating energy costs and gas prices and a decade of rising prices for groceries and other costs of living have inflicted on our nation and region. A Center Square article in Tuesday’s edition of the Williamsport Sun-Gazette offered some good news: The United States has seen nearly […]
How U.S. Audiences Feel About Gen AI in Entertainment Content
A central question facing all media industries has been what role generative AI should have in content creation. Yet business decisions about AI use aren’t insulated from public opinion. As generative AI begins to enter aspects of content creation, media industry leaders, producers and creatives increasingly need to understand how audiences will respond to its […]
Ex-NFL Coach Provides Honest Assessment of Ravens’ Lamar Jackson
There have been different opinions on Baltimore Ravens quarterback Lamar Jackson of late, but everyone knows he’s among the best players in the NFL.Last year was an outlier for Jackson since he dealt with so many injuries during the season. That affected his play on the field, finishing with a 63.6% completion percentage for 2,549 […] The post Ex-NFL Coach Provides Honest Assessment of Ravens’ Lamar Jackson appeared first on HEAVY.
Sophie Cunningham: 'Biological men' don't belong in women's sports
Indiana Fever guard Sophie Cunningham, who is sometimes referred to as 'MAGA Barbie,' has doubled down on her opinion that 'biological men' shouldn't participate in women's sports.
‘Monetary transmission channels are themselves evolving’
Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
Opinion | Politicians, Pensions and Public Unions
Collective bargaining in the public sector presents an obvious potential conflict of interest.
Opinion | AI makes it easier to deny reality. Michigan politics are already suffering
Being caught on tape no longer ruins political careers — and policymakers, courts and media companies must act quickly to ensure accountability remains.
Opinion: Michigan’s businesses need more CPAs. Lansing shouldn’t delay the solution.
State lawmakers should move quickly to enact legislation creating an additional pathway to CPA licensure.
Watch China's Hanfu Boom Is a Political Tool
Bloomberg Opinion columnist Karishma Vaswani says China's Hanfu boom gives young people comfort amid economic uncertainty and the Communist Party a tool for promoting national greatness. But nostalgia cannot create jobs, revive the property market or persuade young people to start families.
Poland, Hungary's foreign worker curbs create headache for business
Facing a choice between upsetting businesses and a public opinion backlash, the Polish and Hungarian ruling centrists are opting for curbs on foreign labour — something economists warn may hurt the two countries' growth prospects.
Poland, Hungary's Foreign Worker Curbs Create Headache for Business
By Gergely Szakacs, Canan Sevgili and Alan Charlish KISVARDA, Hungary/GDANSK, Poland, July 22 (Reuters) - Facing a choice between upsetting businesses and a public opinion backlash, the Polish and Hungarian ruling centrists are opting for curbs on foreign labour — something economists warn may ...
Opinion: Chicago’s quantum advantage isn’t the technology. It’s the timing.
The real test of this moment is not whether the hardware works, but whether the rest of Chicago’s business community plugs in before the window closes.
New Jersey behavioral health company acquires independent medical examination provider
Red Bank, N.J.-based PAX Health acquired Ho-Ho-Kus, N.J.-based Makraf IME, a statewide psychology and neuropsychology independent medical examination (IME) provider group operating across 17 counties. Makraf IME provides independent medical examination opinions on causality, need for treatment, maximum medical improvement, permanency and fitness for duty. The practice also provides psychology and neuropsychology IMEs, disability evaluations, […]
5 lessons from 20 years of climate surveys: Political party matters, but it doesn’t explain everything
Why would a young Republican back solar but reject a carbon tax? Twenty years of survey data shows climate opinion is more complex than party labels suggest.
International Courts Against the Defunding of Climate Science? Revisiting the ICJ’s Climate Change Advisory Opinion
Introduction The first eighteen months of the second Trump administration have witnessed a sustained assault on scientific infrastructures enabling understanding of anthropogenic climate change. This has taken the form of cuts to national science agencies; freezes and dramatic reductions in grants to universities; and attempts to dismantle observation arrays and crucial monitoring stations. It has […]
Why Hybrid Healthcare Is a Business Imperative for Employers in Nevada
The Nevada Independent is a nonpartisan, nonprofit news and opinion website founded in 2017 by veteran political journalist and commentator Jon Ralston. The site and its supporting channels are focused on ethical, unbiased and transparent journalism. In general, we aim to gather and disseminate important public information and increase civic engagement.
Why Hybrid Healthcare Is a Business Imperative for Employers in Nevada
The Nevada Independent is a nonpartisan, nonprofit news and opinion website founded in 2017 by veteran political journalist and commentator Jon Ralston. The site and its supporting channels are focused on ethical, unbiased and transparent journalism. In general, we aim to gather and disseminate important public information and increase civic engagement.
Win a $100 B&H Photo Gift Card: Join the Good Entertainment Group Photography Research Panel
If you’re a photographer who wants to get paid for your opinions and win gear money at the same time, this one is for you. SLR Lounge has partnered with Good Entertainment Group to bring our community an exclusive opportunity: join their new Photography Research Panel and you’ll be automatically entered to win one of ... Read more
Shaky political "science": breakdown of the peer review process
[This article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in December 2025, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting (RCV). Many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first four articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report; the second one analyzed a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report; a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research; and a fourth article that analyzed seven studies sponsored by New America’s political reform program that deployed flawed methodology based on “simulated” elections instead of real-world elections, which when combined with some basic misunderstandings of RCV, produced odd and misleading results]. In this fifth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we examine two flawed studies on the impact of RCV on voter turnout authored by San Francisco State University professor Jason McDaniel. McDaniel’s research in these two papers stands out for its puzzling methodology, inadequate and cherry-picked data, and faulty analyses that not only misunderstands ranked choice voting but reflects a basic misunderstanding of politics in general. The first of the McDaniel studies actually passed through a peer review process and then was subsequently published by the Journal of Urban Affairs, despite its obvious errors. It is perplexing that a jury of peer political scientists did not catch the errors and send it back to McDaniel for a rewrite or outright rejection. This calls into question the credibility of the peer review process itself. The peer review process is supposed to represent the intellectual pinnacle of the profession – a way for academics to certify the quality of each other’s work, and to act as a check against sloppy research. In the case of the McDaniel study, the peer review process failed. Yet his flawed study has been cited dozens of times by other political scientists in their own flawed works — an unvirtuous circle of academic research. Here is the first Jason McDaniel study that we analyzed: “Writing the Rules to Rank the Candidates: Examining the Impact of Instant-Runoff Voting on Racial Group Turnout in San Francisco Mayoral Elections,” by Jason McDaniel, 2016, Journal of Urban Affairs. This study covered San Francisco’s use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in mayoral elections, purporting to show that RCV reduces voter turnout overall, increases voter errors, and has a negative impact on “marginal populations,” i.e. racial minorities, mainly as the result of the alleged complexity of RCV asking voters to rank candidates and having to be familiar with multiple candidates and related dynamics. McDaniel reached these conclusions by examining five San Francisco mayoral elections taking place in odd years (i.e. where there are no federal or state races on the ballot) from 1995 to 2011, comparing three earlier non-RCV races (in 1995, 1999 and 2003) with the later two RCV races (in 2007 and 2011). Only two RCV races were studied, and as McDaniel acknowledged, only the contest in 2011 was “competitive” (that contest in 2007 was the first mayoral election using RCV, and incumbent mayor Gavin Newsom won easily in the first round of counting, earning 74% of first choices and far ahead of the second place candidate who had just 6.3% of first choices). Yet even the allegedly competitive contest in 2011was won by an incumbent with a landslide margin of nearly 20 points. No other elections were studied by McDaniel, even though San Francisco elects 17 other offices besides mayor with RCV, including the 11 seats on the Board of Supervisors (the name for the city council) in even years, and six other citywide offices in odd years. Previous academic research has found that competitive elections can stimulate greater voter involvement and higher turnout. For unexplained reasons, this study ignored at least 34 other RCV races between the years 2004 to 2011, many of which were very competitive and had high voter turnout. Instead, McDaniel’s analysis based its conclusions on data from only a single, marginally-competitive mayor’s race using RCV. These 2007 and 2011 mayoral elections were the only two RCV elections that McDaniel used as the sole basis for his small data set to determine the impact of RCV on voter turnout. Despite having no meaningful data to inform his study, McDaniel nonetheless concluded that RCV lowered turnout when compared to the previous three mayoral non-RCV elections using two-round runoffs. Then, using the same inadequate database of San Francisco elections, McDaniel also found that “Instant-runoff voting is associated with a significant decline in Black voter turnout and White voter turnout…On average, Black voter turnout decreases by 18 points and White voter turnout decreases by 16 points …” But how could he credibly arrive at that conclusion when his study was based on voter turnout in two RCV contests that were not even remotely competitive? Beyond that, McDaniel tacitly admits that the key determining factor driving Black voter turnout was not RCV vs non-RCV elections, but the presence of a viable Black candidate. McDaniel wrote, “Black voter turnout was about 17 percentage points higher for the two elections that featured an African American candidate compared to the three elections that did not” — but one of those three elections did not use RCV. The same dynamic was present for White voter turnout, in which higher turnout was not correlated with RCV vs non-RCV elections, but the presence of a viable White candidate. Beyond that, McDaniel’s voter turnout results, whether correlated with the race of the candidates or RCV vs non-RCV elections, showed no clear patterns. In his Figure 1, he shows low Asian voter turnout in the non-RCV elections in 1999 and 2003 when there was no viable Asian candidate running, but in the 2007 mayoral election using RCV, there is still no viable Asian candidate, yet Asian turnout increases dramatically. For Latinos, voter turnout is virtually the same in 1999 (no viable Latino candidate, non-RCV elections), 2003 (leading Latino candidate, non-RCV elections), 2007 (no viable Latino candidate, RCV elections) and 2011 (leading Latino candidate, RCV elections). Meanwhile White voter turnout increased dramatically from a low in the 2007 mayoral election, in which the leading candidate was a white incumbent, to the 2011 election in which there were no leading white candidates that finished any higher than sixth place with 5.6% of the vote. Clearly other factors were determining voter turnout than either the race of the candidates or RCV vs non-RCV elections. Despite these inconsistent findings, McDaniel boldly marches forth to render conclusions about the impact of RCV on different groups of racial voters, even though his conclusions are not remotely supported by his data. This looks like the worst kind of “data cherry picking” to cover up a puzzling conclusion based on a poor data set involving only two RCV elections, neither of which were remotely competitive. McDaniel’s cherry picking didn’t stop there. In calculating voter turnout for the three non-RCV mayoral elections in 1995, 1999 and 2003, he failed to mention that in each of these years there was a two-round runoff election, with a first round election in November in which no candidate garnered a winning majority of the vote, followed by the decisive runoff in December. So there were two non-RCV elections in each election year. But McDaniel only decided to include one of the two elections in his data set, apparently the December runoff in each year (which had higher turnout in two out of the three mayor’s races, and lower turnout in the third). So he ignored the November 1995 election, the November 1999 election when turnout was only 45 percent, and the November 2003 election when turnout was only 45.7 percent. This is flawed methodology based on blatant cherry picking, since McDaniel simply omitted three elections worth of data that did not fit within his frame. His study should never have made it through a peer review process, and it is an embarrassment to political science that not only was it approved for publication, but it has been uncritically cited by dozens of other political scientists. Share A “study” without wider context or credible data Lacking a data set that included even a single competitive RCV mayoral race, McDaniel declared that RCV lowered voter turnout in 2011, when turnout was 42.5 percent. But he also ignored -- or did not realize -- that voter turnout in mayoral elections during 2011 had sharply declined in all big cities, including far more steeply in nearby Los Angeles and other cities. In fact, San Francisco’s election in 2011 had the second highest turnout of any mayoral election in the nation’s 22 largest cities from 2008-2011. Was 2011 just a particularly low turnout year all across the country, perhaps because the country was still reeling from the aftermath of the housing market collapse in 2008-2010? McDaniel ignored this factor and did not search for alternative explanations beyond his flawed thesis. Furthermore, while McDaniel suggested that RCV leads to more “overvotes” – which is an invalidated ballot in which a voter, in either a non-RCV or RCV race, makes a mistake and selects two candidates for a single choice – he failed to address that in the June 2012 US Senate primary contest, which used the typical “one-choice” plurality method and did not use RCV, there was more than five times as many overvotes in San Francisco and Oakland than in the RCV mayoral elections in those cities. Additionally, turnout had been significantly higher and more representative in RCV elections for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors races -- that McDaniel didn’t even bother to study -- as compared to previous “delayed two-round runoffs” for those offices, often higher by as much as 40% in the RCV races. Perhaps the most surprising irony was that an earlier study co-authored by McDaniel (Overvoting and the Equality of Voice under Instant-Runoff Voting in San Francisco by Francis Neely and Jason McDaniel, 2015, California Journal of Politics and Policy) found that overvotes are often more common in lower-income precincts, but that the pattern of overvoting is similar in both RCV and non-RCV contests. Wrote Neely and McDaniel: “[Overvote] errors appear to be a function of complexity in general and not IRV per se…. the pattern of overvoting is similar in both IRV and non-IRV contests…Even among votes cast in a top-of-the-ticket race like U.S. Senate, overvoting occurs in an uneven fashion” (IRV, or ‘instant runoff voting,’ is another name for ranked choice voting in single-winner contests). So McDaniel not only contradicted his own conclusion in his earlier study with Neely, but the earlier study had been an important corrective for one of the most frequently made mistakes made by anti-RCV political scientists – a continual failure to provide crucial context by pairing a comparative analysis of real world RCV elections with an analysis of real world plurality or other electoral methods. Unfortunately McDaniel’s earlier study does not get cited much by other researchers, and McDaniel did not even cite it in his own flawed study analyzed above. Incredibly, McDaniel cherrypicked McDaniel, even as his flawed study has been cited dozens of times. Despite being a textbook example of poor political “science,” featuring both inadequate as well as cherrypicked data, the shelf life of McDaniel’s study has been extended endlessly by other political scientists and media outlets who have cited it uncritically. Equally troubling, the Journal of Urban Affairs put this paper through its peer review process and published it despite its numerous flaws. McDaniel gets it wrong, Part II Not content with producing one shoddy, confused paper, McDaniel produced another one a few years later, here is the link: Electoral Rules and Voter Turnout in Mayoral Elections: An Analysis of Ranked-Choice Voting by Jason McDaniel. San Francisco State Univ. (McDaniel, 2019). In this paper, McDaniel extended his previous flawed research focused on San Francisco, about voter turnout and voter impact, to multiple RCV cities through the 2018 elections. In his data set he included San Francisco, Minneapolis, St Paul, Oakland, Berkeley, San Leandro and Santa Fe. He then compared their turnout in mayoral elections to non-RCV cities, and to mayoral elections in those cities held before first RCV usage, and concluded “a significant decrease in voter turnout of approximately 3–5 percentage points in RCV cities after the implementation of RCV.” But he replicated many of the same mistakes as his first study presented above. While in this study McDaniel attempted to distinguish between various factors, such as odd year vs. even year elections, competitive races vs. noncompetitive, contests with open seats and other factors, the analysis is superficial and inadequate. He attempts to incorporate so many often-conflicting variables that his conclusions are once again unsupported by the actual data, and ultimately unconvincing (this second study never underwent a peer review process). For example, McDaniel declared that for RCV cities “in elections that are more competitive than average (margin of victory less than 20%), there is no significant RCV effect on voter turnout.” Yet McDaniel is a professor in a city, San Francisco, in which the 2018 special election using RCV to fill a mayoral vacancy was exceedingly close, decided by a margin of only one percentage point, and resulted in the second highest turnout in San Francisco history for a mayoral election. Illustrating the complexity involved in assessing the critical factors in turnout, that special election was held on the same election day as federal and state offices, which tends to boost turnout. Yet more voters participated in that RCV mayoral election than voted on the same day in the non-RCV primary for governor in which former San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom was running. Even more puzzling, in this study McDaniel inaccurately cited his own previous study from 2015 with Neely. McDaniel wrote, “Neely and McDaniel (2015) examine individual ballot image files within a natural experiment, and find higher rates of ballot errors in RCV elections compared to non-RCV elections” (emphasis added). However, we quoted from that 2015 study several paragraphs above, and in actual fact Neely and McDaniel actually concluded the opposite -- that the pattern of overvoting – which is the most common form of ballot error – is similar in both RCV and non-RCV contests. McDaniel also ignored the fact that in Bay Area RCV elections held in even years – at the same time as federal and state elections, when turnout is highest -- the “undervote” (that is, the dropoff in ballots cast for governor or mayor) has declined, which contradicts his thesis that the act of ranking ballots in RCV elections is too complex and presents a barrier for certain demographics of voters. To his credit, McDaniel actually acknowledged another contradiction in his own paper, which found a negative RCV turnout effect in some odd-year elections but not others, admitting that “may present a challenge to the theory that increased complexity [from RCV] will have a marginal negative effect on voter turnout.” But he tried to wallpaper over that contradiction by blaming it on an unlikely source -- bad election administration. McDaniels wrote, “This would suggest that the negative impact of RCV on voter participation may be alleviated by high quality election administration,” without presenting any data or even anecdotes to support such an unfounded theory. While competent election administration of any election, whether RCV or non-RCV, is crucially important, there is no credible research that supports the far-fetched notion that the quality of election administration has much of an impact on voter turnout in US elections, whether using RCV or otherwise. Upgrade to a $5 subscription The unvirtuous circle of academic research It is puzzling how McDaniel’s first study could have survived the peer review process for the Journal of Urban Affairs. The mistakes in McDaniel’s first study above should have been obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of ranked choice voting as well as elections in general, and elections in San Francisco specifically. It undermines faith in the credibility of the peer review process to think that a jury of peer political scientists did not catch the egregious errors and reject McDaniel’s sloppy research and paper. And it remains a black mark on political science that this thoroughly discredited study has been cited dozens of times by other researchers. Indeed, in our research paper it became apparent that many political scientists cite each other’s flawed research to pad their list of citations and to legitimize their own flawed research, creating an unvirtuous circle of political science. More broadly, McDaniel’s voter turnout studies, like other studies evaluating RCV’s impact on turnout, lacked a recognition that no credible opinion or research can claim that RCV increases voter turnout merely because so many voters are excited to vote for their favorite candidates instead of “lesser evil” candidates without worrying about spoilers. Instead, with respect to turnout, the advantage of RCV has always been that, in most places where it has been used, it has eliminated a pre-November primary or post-November runoff, which usually saw about half the turnout of the November general election. This is especially true during even years when there are state and federal elections on the ballot which substantially drive turnout more than local contests. Any study that does not adequately account for this non-November primary/runoff vs November general election dynamic, or odd year vs even year election factors, is simply not credible. Both of McDaniel’s studies largely failed on those grounds. Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to a $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS…your digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe
Opinion: Atlanta Black businesses are under threat. Here’s how to save them.
Black entrepreneurs should be able to thrive in Atlanta, but the price of commercial rents is driving businesses out. The Staying Power Toolkit will help turn the tide.
Opinion | Capping the Price of Health Care Is a Mistake
A government bureaucrat doesn’t know how much your medicine or doctor’s visit should cost.
Opinion | America Has 2 Political Parties but 8 Political Tribes
Think of our two major political parties as two coalitions.
George Deek’s Story Offers a Rebuttal to Politics of Blame and Hatred
In a sharply argued opinion piece, Felice Friedson […]
Watertown Public Opinion-Aberdeen News poll question centers around volleyball
This week's poll question asked the readers to decide with area high school volleyball team has best chance to win a state title this fall?
What science loses when T. rex becomes a trophy (Opinion)
Over the course of three years, starting in 2021, a commercial collector excavated one of the most complete Tyrannosaurus rex fossils ever from the Hell Creek Formation in South Dakota. On July 14 of this year, “Gus” was sold at…
Opinion: Cancer doesn't care about politics — federal research funding must stay science-driven
A New Mexico family fighting a rare pediatric cancer warns that proposed federal grant changes could delay lifesaving research for children.
Opinion | Double standard over GLP-1 drugs hits women especially hard
Women experience the effects of obesity in many ways, including heart disease, certain cancers, fertility challenges, maternal health complications, and more severe menopause symptoms.
New Hospital Reflects Commitment to Cherokee Health
Guest Opinion The new W.W. Hastings Hospital did not rise from the ground overnight. It grew from decades of planning, staff dedication, and a belief from everyone involved that Cherokee families deserve state-of-the-art care in the heart of the Cherokee Nation Reservation. That belief is now standing six stories tall in Tahlequah. This $470 million […]
Israel’s $50 Million Experiment to Change U.S. Public Opinion
Israel deploys AI and payments to conservative media to try to beat back the tide of unfavorable U.S. views about its handling of wars in Gaza and Iran.
OPINION: Health investments reverberate through our Nation
At the heart of the Cherokee story is an innate commitment to community. It’s the background rhythm that connects every Cherokee Nation citizen. Gadugi, our word for working together for
(LETTERS) Convenient politics and careful voting
Oil City News publishes letters, cartoons and opinions as a public service. The content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Oil City News or its
Takeaways from the AP-NORC poll of more than 1,000 Jewish Americans
The Associated Press has surveyed more than 1,000 Jewish adults in the U.S. to better understand their views on Israel’s military actions in Gaza, their opinions of the political parties and their experiences with prejudice
Takeaways from the AP-NORC poll of more than 1,000 Jewish Americans
The Associated Press has surveyed more than 1,000 Jewish adults in the U.S. to better understand their views on Israel’s military actions in Gaza, their opinions of the political parties and their experiences with prejudice.
Opinion | The ‘Devil’s Bargain’ at the Heart of American Politics Now
This week: the Todd Blanche hearing, Lindsey Graham’s legacy and progressive infighting.
Video: Opinion | The ‘Devil’s Bargain’ at the Heart of American Politics Now
This week: the Todd Blanche hearing, Lindsey Graham’s legacy and progressive infighting.
Opinion | What Trump’s Charisma Has Wrought
What will the Republican Party look like after 2028?
Opinion: Burke’s second act should benefit all of Cleveland
Creating a human-scale resident neighborhood at the Burke Lakefront Airport site would provide direct and wide-ranging benefits for Cleveland and Cuyahoga County, writes economist James Trutko.
ICYMI: Sen. Banks Joins The Evening Edit on Fox Business Network
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Yesterday, Senator Jim Banks (R-Ind.) joined The Evening Edit with Elizabeth MacDonald on Fox Business Network to discuss the debate over birthright citizenship and his Citizenship Act of 2026. Click the image above for the full discussion. Key Excerpts: Sen. Jim Banks (R-Ind.): “It’s very simple, I am taking a page right out of Justice Kavanaugh’s playbook in his concurring opinion […]
Opinion | Politics Has Taken Over My Union
The UAW should focus on automotive job growth, not leftwing fads.
China and Xi are seen more favorably than the US and Trump in many nations, new survey says
The world has largely viewed the U.S. more favorably than China for years, but those opinions now have flipped in Beijing’s favor
State of Indiana to end minority and women's business contracting program
Gov. Mike Braun's announcement comes after Attorney General Todd Rokita issued an opinion stating that the Minority and Women's Business Enterprises program is unlawful.
Indiana Gov. Braun to end minority and women's business contracting program
The announcement comes after Attorney General Todd Rokita issued an opinion stating that the Minority and Women's Business Enterprises program is unlawful.
Opinion | Can Democrats Harness the Data Center Backlash?
David Wallace-Wells and Robinson Meyer discuss whether the gathering coalition of Americans against data centers could be the next Occupy Wall Street movement or Tea Party.
Regulations Limit Possibilities for Small Business
Opinion piece highlights historic contributions of small business and how regulatory burdens limit small business’ growth potential.
We Need a New Science Funding Playbook (opinion)
Researchers can borrow from the start-up world to sustain science as a public good.
Opinion: The AI question colleges need to address now
The future will not be determined by who adopts AI first but by who uses it to build systems that better serve the people they exist to support, the dean of U of I's Gies College of Business writes
Law enforcement leaders clash over police training company Force Science and DA’s opinion piece
Shelby County District Attorney Steve Mulroy and several law enforcement leaders are at odds over Force Science, a national company that trains police officers across the country, including in Tennessee.
Opinion | Why China is seriously cultivating AI entertainment
With rules and support, policymakers appear to be positioning AI and its entertainment nexus as the foundation for a new cultural economy.
The Quintessential Trump-era Politician
In 2020, I wrote an article about collaboration and collaborators. The title was History Will Judge the Complicit, and it started with the story of two famous East Germans, Markus Wolf and Wolfgang Leonhard, who both landed in East Berlin just after the end of the war. Although they came from very similar backgrounds, the former stuck with the regime, eventually becoming its spy boss; the latter, horrified by the brutal reality of Soviet-style communism, escaped. By way of juxtaposition, I also wrote about Lyndsey Graham and Mitt Romney. These two men also made very different decisions when confronted by Donald Trump’s assault on the ideals that they had both grown up believing: A glance at their biographies would not have led many to predict what happened next. On paper, Graham would have seemed, in 2016, like the man with deeper ties to the military, to the rule of law, and to an old-fashioned idea of American patriotism and American responsibility in the world. Romney, by contrast, with his shifts between the center and the right, with his multiple careers in business and politics, would have seemed less deeply attached to those same old-fashioned patriotic ideals. Most of us register soldiers as loyal patriots, and management consultants as self-interested. We assume people from small towns in South Carolina are more likely to resist political pressure than people who have lived in many places. Intuitively, we think that loyalty to a particular place implies loyalty to a set of values. But in this case the clichés were wrong. It was Graham who made excuses for Trump’s abuse of power. It was Graham—a JAG Corps lawyer—who downplayed the evidence that the president had attempted to manipulate foreign courts and blackmail a foreign leader into launching a phony investigation into a political rival. It was Graham who abandoned his own stated support for bipartisanship and instead pushed for a hyperpartisan Senate Judiciary Committee investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden’s son. It was Graham who played golf with Trump, who made excuses for him on television, who supported the president even as he slowly destroyed the American alliances—with Europeans, with the Kurds—that Graham had defended all his life. By contrast, it was Romney who, in February, became the only Republican senator to break ranks with his colleagues, voting to impeach the president. “Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office,” he said, is “perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.” In the wake of Graham’s unexpected death on Saturday, I wrote about him again. He was, in many ways, the quintessential politician of Trump’s Washington, a man who shifted 180 degrees. Graham had been a fervent American patriot, proud reserve officer and military lawyer; he became one of the most important defenders of a president who believes soldiers are “suckers and losers” and shows no respect for law of any kind. As his politics changed, his language grew coarser and his behavior grew worse: He urged Israel to “level the place” in Gaza, and insulted the Danish prime minister in Munich, prompting a colleague, Senator Elissa Slotkin, to issue an apology. Here’s an excerpt from the article, which you can read in The Atlantic (gift link here) Like his close friend John McCain, Graham believed that America should stand at the center of a broad democratic alliance. The few times I met him were in that context, at the Munich Security Conference or at other European-American gatherings, which he once attended with great regularity. He also took seriously the practice of American democracy at home. In a 2014 conversation with The Atlantic, he described himself as a pragmatic politician who eschewed populist slogans. “I know Washington is broken, but what’s broken about it is everybody yelling and nobody trying to fix it,” he said. “I’m trying.” When Donald Trump first appeared in U.S. politics, Graham recognized him immediately for what he was: the spokesman for an alien ideology, one radically different from the idealistic patriotism that Graham had practiced and preached since childhood. Trump privately mocked the military that Graham loved as nothing but “suckers and losers.” He put falsehoods, cynicism, and personal greed at the center of his politics, while expressing disdain for transparency, accountability, and democracy itself. In 2015, Graham described Trump as a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot” who should “go to hell.” Also as a “nutjob.” When Trump won, Graham understood, as did so many others, that he would have to make some important choices. For a while, he went silent. In the spring of 2016, I saw him at one of those conferences in Europe. He seemed too depressed to speak. But then, like many other Republicans—and, more important, like many other people who have lived under political occupation or experienced radical regime change—he made the decision to abandon his previous ideals, to bury the patriotism that was once so important to him, and to become, instead, a loud, opportunistic collaborator. As I wrote in 2020, it’s very hard to look in to anyone’s heart and to understand their motivations from the outside. But it does seem that Graham had a deep need to be relevant, to be in the game, to be a player, at any cost. And that, rather than any particular achievement, is what he will be remembered for. Continuing to monitor conflicts of interest, ostentatious emoluments, outright corruption and policy changes that will facilitate outright corruption. (Read my original article, Kleptocracy Inc and check out the SNF Agora Institute chart) June 27 Trump diverted funds from more than 900 projects nationwide—including safety upgrades at national parks—to finance beautification projects around Washington, including $700,000 used to fix a White House walkway. June 28 After a years-long Department of Justice investigation into Abbott Laboratories over its management of a baby formula facility where potentially deadly bacteria turned up enough evidence to criminally charge the firm, top department officials instead opted for a financial penalty—illustrating the department’s move away from strict corporate enforcement under the Trump administration. June 29 Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stacked the Defense Policy Board—which is charged with providing independent national security recommendations to the Office of the Secretary of Defense—with Trump allies, including tech billionaire Marc Andreessen, who has invested in defense contractors like OpenAI and SpaceX, after purging the panel last year. Trump purchased between $1 million and $5 million worth of stock in Axon—which makes about 90% of US tasers—two weeks before ICE solicited bids for a $220 million taser contract. The White House unveiled limited-edition US passports for America’s 250th birthday, featuring a portrait of Trump overlaid on the Declaration of Independence. June 30 Trump made around $1.2 billion from his various crypto companies last year, including more than $500 million from World Liberty Financial and $600 million from sales of his meme coin. Trump is considering issuing 250 pardons to commemorate America’s 250th birthday. These are expected to be largely doled out through the Office of the Pardon Attorney’s informal network of intermediaries. White-collar defense attorneys say they can typically win pardons for clients for $2 million. Last year, Trump administration officials awarded a no-bid contract worth up to $500 million to Clark Construction for the White House ballroom—negotiations in which the president was directly involved. July 1 The Amazon MGM Studios documentary about Melania Trump earned the First Lady more than $10 million. Trump made hundreds of individual stock purchases worth as much as $12.8 million the day before his announcement pausing “Liberation Day” tariffs for 90 days sent the S&P 500 soaring nearly 10%—one of the largest single-day gains ever. Mar-a-Lago and Trump National Doral saw record surges in revenue during Trump’s first year in office, earning $77.5 million and $121.9 million respectively, compared to average annual revenues of $25 million and $75 million during Trump’s first term. Entities across the Persian Gulf paid more than $300 million to Trump’s businesses last year, including $263 million from the sale of half his stake in World Liberty Financial to a firm backed by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a top UAE royal and brother of the country’s president. Kash Patel failed to properly disclose his stock purchase of a Department of Justice contractor, MicroStrategy, worth up to $250,000 last year, despite laws requiring disclosure within 45 days of the trade. July 2 Trump has been directing administration officials to steer more government contracts—so far worth more than $2.4 billion—to Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin aerospace firm, after Amazon gave $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund, donated to the White House ballroom project, and reached a $40 million deal to license a Melania Trump documentary. Alongside the billions he made from cryptocurrency last year, Trump earned millions of dollars from real estate licensing fees, including $21 million from organizations in the UAE and $9.2 million in Saudi Arabia, along with smaller sums from merchandise sales, including $4.7 million from Trump Watches and $35,920 from 45 Guitar, a guitar brand endorsed by the president. House Democrats accused consultants tied to the Trump administration of financial fraud, alleging they gave prospective donors to America250—the bipartisan committee created by Congress to celebrate the nation’s semiquincentennial—the banking and routing numbers for Freedom 250, the White House’s fund for events like the UFC cage fight. Democrats also allege that Freedom 250’s CEO traveled to the World Economic Forum in Davos to solicit donations from foreign government officials and business leaders. The Trump administration’s proposed rollback of gun regulations would lift the prohibition on mailing handguns to individuals, a significant win for GrabAGun—the direct-to-consumer firearm retailer on whose board Donald Trump Jr. sits and in which he holds a 1.1% ownership stake. GrabAGun currently must rely on a middleman to transfer firearms to customers. Trump’s financial disclosure revealed that he made more than 21,000 securities trades during his first year back in office, growing his investment account to at least $858 million across stakes in around 1,600 companies, compared to the 13 total trades Joe Biden made during his entire presidency. July 4 Nearly 1 million people who bought the president’s meme coin—Trump Coin—collectively lost $3.8 billion on the token, while he walked away with $636 million. July 6 Shares of Dell closed up 4.4% after Trump recommended people buy the firm’s computers during a speech announcing the launch of Trump investment accounts for children, boosting the more than $1 million worth of shares the president owns in the company. July 9 Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh named crypto investor and Trump ally Marc Andreessen to a task force aimed at modernizing the Federal Reserve, including rethinking its approach to inflation—a key factor keeping interest rates elevated. Palm Beach International Airport has officially changed its name to Trump International Airport—a move that will require Florida to pay royalties to the president’s family for licensing his name. I was there a few months ago, during a trip to Barcelona. The sculptures were a revelation, I’d never seen so many together before. Each one has its own personality. Enjoy the good weather, if you are lucky enough to have it. History Will Judge the Complicit The Quintessential Politician Autocracy Inc Open Letters, from Anne Applebaum is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe
‘A Blessing and a Challenge’: What Teachers Think of the Science of Reading (Opinion)
In these classrooms, the recent push for foundational literacy skills has been transformational.
Mick Jagger slams idea of artists talking politics at concerts
OPINION: Mick Jagger, lead singer for The Rolling Stones, explained in an interview why he doesn’t want to “lecture” his audience at concerts, in comparison to more political arti…
‘This has seen a rapid change over the past decade’
Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
Opinion: Anchorage’s mental health system has bigger problems than the location of care
When it comes to helping people with an acute mental illness, both Anchorage and Alaska are failing.
Opinion | Welcome to the Golden Age of the Crone
A new generation is not willing to settle for being invisible.
Opinion | Alabama politics costs so much because power is worth buying
Alabama’s $40.6 million primary spending reveals how money, access and human nature can reshape the obligations of public office itself.
Opinion: The Science of Reading Goes to High School
For anyone who cares about student literacy, the past few years have given us reason to cheer. While trends in national test scores, young people’s reading habits, and talk of a “learning recession” a...
The new* Home Run Derby, plus Pulisic’s future
The Pulse Newsletter 📣 | This is The Athletic’s daily sports newsletter. Sign up here to receive The Pulse directly in your inbox. Good morning! Watch your swings today. Coming up: ⚾ Vintage HR Derby 🎾 Sinner’s silky serve 🇺🇸 Pulisic’s future The Home Run Derby returns tonight from Philadelphia, where All-Star festivities are happening this week. It will be a radically different experience than what we’ve seen in recent memory. But that doesn’t mean it’s new. Quick catch-up before we get to opinions: Instead of outs, hitters will get a limited number...
JJ Watt Makes Opinion of Joe Burrow, Bengals Very Clear
Retired NFL star J.J. Watt shared high praise for Joe Burrow during a visit to Cincinnati.
Opinion: The cost of Trump’s war on science will be measured in Alaska
When federal agencies lose expertise and data, Alaskans lose tools for navigating storms, fisheries, wildfires and a changing climate.
Opinion: A baton pass to welcome a new era of Alaska politics
In a political climate built for outrage, Alaska needs leaders who still know how to build coalitions.
Europeans Have 'Changed' Their Opinion Of America During World Cup
It's official: Europeans have changed their opinion of America during the 2026 FIFA Men's World Cup. Thousands of Europeans, from countries like England, Norway, Switzerland, Spain, etc. flocked to North America for the 2026 FIFA Men's World Cup. While the United States, Mexico and Canada acted as ...
Opinion: The ‘billionaire tax’ dominates this year’s ballot measure politics
The wealth tax is destined to be not only the single most controversial ballot measure this year but probably have the most expensive dueling campaigns.
Why we need a new model for global emergency response
Opinion: In today’s environment, political interests and public visibility often determine funding, not urgency or need, writes Chris Skopec.
Opinion | Fitness Influencers Are Not Making Men More Fit
Manosphere fitness influencers are the wrong model. Health requires looking at life as a whole, not as an exercise in “optimization.”
Opinion | Politicians work for donors and lobbyists, not the electorate
“Who do they work for?'” The answer is simply the person who backs their campaign with the biggest donation…
Opinion | Markets, not politics, will make China’s yuan a global currency
Until authorities can reduce costs and allay the market’s concerns, yuan internationalisation will be stronger on paper than balance sheets.
OPINION: Forest blowdown project is good science and good business
Guest commentary: Opinion of Jesse Short
They're Building Half A Bridge to Save Science...
Today’s post is about science: what you can do now to protect it from unprecedented threats, and how your action is the first half of a long-term program that Congress must take up next. Let me start with describing the embryonic state of science advocacy. There are many well-meaning organizations: the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Research!America, and subject-specific organizations such as the Society for Neuroscience and the American Physical Society. Their general approach is to emphasize the common good: the remarkable value that science and innovation have provided to all Americans. However, these organizations are offering an incomplete solution. Before I start, a preliminary: If you already know about the threat, go ahead and weigh in with OMB at this link. Ideas about what to say come from Research!America and the American Physical Society. You have until Monday, July 13 at 11:59pm Eastern. Then come back here and read the rest of this post. Finally, get in touch with whoever is likely to be your next member of Congress in 2027. The threat: An end to merit-based science… The onslaught of attacks on science is accelerating. It’s not just cuts to grants, which was the last battle. That battle is not done yet, but there is a new and worse threat. Now comes a proposed public rule from the Office of Management and Budget. The rule would take decision-making power over grants away from experts and put it into the hands of political appointees. Former NIH official Elizabeth Ginexi wrote an excellent summary of what OMB is trying to do, which is codify the executive branch’s ability to award or terminate grants, for arbitrary cause or no stated cause. Since World War II, a necessary step in scientific grant-making has been consideration of scientific merit. This approach has made America into a dominant scientific superpower, the envy of the world. Of course, political considerations do come into the mix. The proposed rule tilts the balance dramatically away from merit. …but why? Many people have difficulty comprehending why Russell Vought and OMB would want to damage science in this way. If you’re a working scientist, you are likely to be particularly uncomprehending. Who would hurt an activity so self-evidently good? The answer is: this is part of the program to replace the rule of law with a personalist regime. OMB Director Russell Vought, a Christian nationalist, would like to implement what legal scholars call a “unitary executive,” and what I would call a dictatorship. Or if you like, a personalist authoritarian regime. I am a working scientist. This rule will debilitate my research. It may chill the speech of scientists for speaking freely in the public sphere. It is a form of personalizing power and decision-making within the executive branch. In short, it sacrifices science in the service of tyranny. To Russell Vought, a decrease in the quality of science might be an acceptable cost. He might even consider it an added benefit to weaken a pillar of soft U.S. power based on knowledge and skepticism. The professional societies are building half a bridge The nonprofits are asking you to make public comment. Public comment is like building the first half of a bridge. Before implementation, OMB is compelled by law to have a period of public comment. Rules have to be consistent with the law and the Constitution. They express the federal government’s stance toward how those laws will be implemented. When a presidential administration works in good faith, these public comments are used to inform their eventual action, and sometimes mitigate it. The comment period reflects our First Amendment right to petition our government. The executive branch is then supposed to take those comments into account - completing the bridge between us, the people, and our government. Project 2025 seeks to take away the second half of the bridge. We have to replace it. The first half of the bridge Organizations like AAAS, Research!America, and SfN are partly right. You should certainly comment. Their core model is earnest: if enough of us make noise, then we will achieve change. This idealistic point of view is offered in good faith. That point of view is also currently bullshit. The fundamental reason is that the federal rulemaking process has two parts: There has to be a period of public comment. OMB makes the final rule…but is free to disregard public comment. Oops. That’s a loophole. However, not all is lost. Congress can complete the bridge Congress has enormous power. That power suggests a roadmap for how to proceed. This lawless administration is still going to issue that rule. Nonetheless, your comments still play an essential role. Here are two steps you can take. Step 1: Send your comment to your Representative and Senator. Whether they are Democrats or Republicans, many of them support science. Whatever you wrote as public comment in the Federal Register, also send it to your member of Congress. You can include information about jobs in your district or state by looking at Joshua Weitz’s ScienceMatters interactive map. Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and give your town, zip code, or state, then deliver your message. Step 2: Politicize the hell out of science. You heard me, politicize it as an issue. We hear a lot from the old scientific establishment about science being nonpartisan. This is obsolete, sentimental thinking. Under normal conditions, it was true. But we can no longer make that assumption. We can keep on pretending, but we’re putting science at risk. There is a way forward. Rules are subordinate to the law…and Congress makes laws. Therefore Congress can step in. In this fall’s election, it is likely that Democrats will retake the House of Representatives. That puts at least one chamber of Congress in the hands of Democrats. They are far more inclined than the current Congress to investigate and legislate. This opens a path to undoing the damage. It also creates a permission structure for pro-science Republicans to find a way back from the brink. We have to encourage them. In the House, every district is up every two years. In your district, contact both of the major party candidates. If your state has a Senate race, contact those candidates too. Specifically mention the proposed OMB rule. Ask for two things: For this year’s appropriations process in August and September, ask that amendments be added to stop the implementation of the new rule. Those amendments should support peer-reviewed science and stop political interference. Looking ahead to next year, ask the Congressman/Congresswoman/Senator to work to hold hearings in 2027 on the importance and benefits of peer-reviewed science for health and prosperity. What hearings and amendments will accomplish Congress can use its investigatory power to summon heads of agencies and the director of the OMB. That will allow fact-finding regarding the consequences of this rule. Congress can override the rule through the appropriations process. They can write into statute a requirement to follow peer review and best scientific practices. In this way, Congress can stop the attacks on science. Postscript: Moving forward Now I have a request for you, to help me. As many of you know, I ran for Congress in order to save democracy and science. Although I did not win, that battle continues by other means. I met and heard from thousands of supporters both here in New Jersey and nationally. I learned that pro-science, pro-democracy activists have the potential to become a much greater force. In the weeks and months ahead, I will be building ways to harness that energy. I will be announcing those plans soon. In the meantime, an important step is to wind down the Congressional campaign, which has a few remaining bills to pay. Please help me retire that last debt.
Health Investments Reverberate throughout Our Nation
Guest Opinion At the heart of the Cherokee story is an innate commitment to community. It’s the background rhythm that connects every Cherokee Nation citizen. Gadugi, our word for working together for the common good, is a part of our nature. Gadugi, itself, is unquantifiable. We can’t measure it directly. But when we look at […]