Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Ronald S. Green, Professor and Chair of the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Coastal Carolina University

Over the past two decades, the concept of mindfulness has become hugely popular around the world. An increasingly ubiquitous part of society, it’s taught everywhere from workplaces and schools to sports programs and the military.

On social media, television and wellness apps, mindfulness is often shown as one simple thing – staying calm and paying attention to the moment.

Large companies like Google use mindfulness programs to help employees stay focused and less stressed. Hospitals use it to help people manage pain and improve mental health. Millions of people now use mindfulness apps that promise everything from lowering stress to sleeping better.

But as a professor of religious studies who has spent years examining how mindfulness is defined and practiced across different traditions and historical periods, I’ve noticed a surprising problem beneath the current surge of enthusiasm: Scientists, clinicians and educators still don’t agree on what mindfulness actually is – or how to measure it.

Because different researchers measure different things under the label “mindfulness,” two studies can give very different pictures of what the practice actually does. For someone choosing a meditation app or program based on research findings, this matters.

The study you’re relying on may be testing a skill like attention, emotional calm, or self-kindness that isn’t the one you’re hoping to develop. This makes it harder to compare results and can leave people unsure about which approach will genuinely help them in daily life.

From ancient traditions to modern science

Mindfulness has deep roots in Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Sikh and other Asian contemplative lineages. The Buddhist “Satipatthana Sutta: The Foundations of Mindfulness” emphasizes moment-to-moment observation of body and mind.

The Hindu concept of “dhyāna,” or contemplation, cultivates steady focus on the breath or a mantra; Jain “samayika,” or practice of equanimity, develops calm balance toward all beings; and Sikh “simran,” or continuous remembrance, dissolves self-centered thought into a deeper awareness of the underlying reality in each moment.

In the late 20th century, teachers and clinicians began adapting these techniques for secular settings, most notably through mindfulness-based stress reduction and other therapeutic programs. Since then, mindfulness has migrated into psychology, medicine, education and even corporate wellness.

It has become a widely used – though often differently defined – tool across scientific and professional fields.

Why scientists disagree about mindfulness

In discussing the modern application of mindfulness in fields like psychology, the definitional challenge is front and center. Indeed, different researchers focus on different things and then design their tests around those ideas.

Some scientists see mindfulness mainly in terms of emphasizing attention and paying close attention to what’s happening right now.

Other researchers define the concept in terms of emotional management and staying calm when things get stressful.

Another cohort of mindfulness studies emphasizes self-compassion, meaning being kind to yourself when you make mistakes.

And still others focus on moral awareness, the idea that mindfulness should help people make wiser, more ethical choices.

These differences become obvious when you look at the tests researchers use to measure mindfulness. The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale, or MAAS, asks about how well someone stays focused on the present moment. The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory – FMI – asks whether a person can notice thoughts and feelings as they come and accept them without judgment. The Comprehensive Inventory of Mindfulness Experiences – CHIME – adds something most other tests leave out: questions about ethical awareness and making wise, moral choices.

As a result, comparative research can be tricky, and it can also be confusing for people who want to be more mindful but aren’t sure which path to take. Different programs may rely on different definitions of mindfulness, so the skills they teach and the benefits they promise can vary a lot.

This means that someone choosing a mindfulness course or app might end up learning something very different from what they expected unless they understand how that particular program defines and measures mindfulness.

Why different scales measure different things

John Dunne, a Buddhist philosophy scholar at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, offers a helpful explanation if you’ve ever wondered why everyone seems to talk about mindfulness in a different way. Dunne says mindfulness isn’t one single thing, but a “family” of related practices shaped by different traditions, purposes and cultural backgrounds.

This explains why scientists and people trying to be mindful often end up talking past each other. If one study measures attention and another measures compassion, their results won’t line up. And if you’re trying to practice mindfulness, it matters whether you’re following a path that focuses on calming your mind, being kind to yourself, or making ethically aware choices.

Why this matters

Because mindfulness isn’t just one thing, that affects how it’s studied, practiced and taught. That’s important both at the institutional and individual level.

Whether for places like schools and health care, a mindfulness program designed to reduce stress will look very different from one that teaches compassion or ethical awareness.

Without clarity, teachers, doctors and counselors may not know which approach works best for their goals. The same rough idea applies in business for organizational effectiveness and stress management.

Despite the disagreements, research does show that different forms of mindfulness can produce different kinds of benefits. Practices that sharpen attention to the moment are associated with improved focus and workplace performance.

Approaches oriented towards acceptance tend to help people better manage stress, anxiety and chronic pain. A focus on compassion-based methods can support emotional resilience. Programs that emphasize ethical awareness may promote more thoughtful, prosocial behavior.

These varied outcomes help explain why researchers continue to debate which definition of “mindfulness” should guide scientific study.

For anyone practicing mindfulness as an individual, this is a reminder to choose practices that fit your needs.

Ronald S. Green does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Not all mindfulness is the same – here’s why it matters for health and happiness – https://theconversation.com/not-all-mindfulness-is-the-same-heres-why-it-matters-for-health-and-happiness-264096

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Peter Harris, Associate Professor of Political Science, Colorado State University

America’s role in the world is changing. If this wasn’t obvious before, it should be now, following President Donald Trump’s efforts to take over Greenland and his visibly strained relations with traditional allies in Europe and elsewhere.

But how much will the world change if America’s stance is different?

Some scholars of international relations argue that because Washington has been central to global governance for so long, Trump’s “America First” turn – suggesting isolationism on some issues and unilateral action on others – spells the end of the international order as we’ve known it.

The most pessimistic analysts caution that the era of “Pax Americana,” or the long period of relative world calm since World War II due to U.S. leadership, is coming to a close. They forecast a turbulent transition to a more chaotic world.

This view may well prove correct in the long run. But it is too early to say with confidence. As a scholar who studies U.S. foreign policy, I see some grounds for optimism. The world can become a more just, stable and secure place despite the diminishment of American leadership.

For the remaining three years of Trump’s presidency, all bets are off. Trump is famously difficult to predict. That world leaders genuinely believed in recent weeks that the United States could invade Greenland – and still might – should give pause to anyone who thinks they can foretell the remainder of Trump’s second term.

The unprecedented raid on Venezuela and Trump’s oscillation between threatening Iran and calling for negotiations with Tehran provide additional examples of Trump’s volatile foreign policy maneuvers.

But the long-term trends are clear: The United States is losing its enthusiasm (and capacity) for global leadership. The rest of the world can assume that, after Trump, there will continue to be a decline in America’s participation in world affairs. His recent actions suggest America’s security guarantees to others will become more dubious, its markets will become less accessible to foreigners, and its support for international institutions will weaken.

Does this mean a cascade of disorder for smaller nations? Perhaps – but not necessarily.

Are US allies more vulnerable?

Certainly U.S. foreign policy and its wars and other actions abroad have sparked criticism over the past few decades. Still, the prospect of U.S. retrenchment understandably causes anxiety for those who have long sheltered under America’s security umbrella.

Once U.S. forces, spread throughout the globe, have decamped to the continental United States, the argument goes, there won’t be much stopping large countries such as Russia and China from steamrolling their vulnerable neighbors in Europe and East Asia.

This is an overly pessimistic assessment, in my view. It must be remembered that America’s alliance commitments and vast military deployments date from the early Cold War of the 1950s, an era that bears few similarities with the present day. Back then, U.S. forces were needed to deter the Soviet Union and China from attacking their neighbors, who were almost uniformly weak and impoverished following the Second World War.

Today, the European members of NATO and America’s allies in Asia are among the world’s wealthiest countries. These governments are easily rich enough to afford the sort of national militaries needed to deter potential aggressors and uphold stability in their respective regions. Indeed, they can likely do a better job of securing themselves than the United States presently manages on their behalf.

Preserving free trade

Will the world become poorer and perhaps more dangerous if global economic integration falls by the wayside?

This is a reasonable concern given the standard view that free trade leads to economic growth and, in turn, that economic growth can help foster world peace.

But again, it is wrong to assume that the worst will happen. Instead of accepting that globalization is irreversibly in retreat, there is every chance that governments will relearn the benefits of economic integration and defend an open world economy, even absent U.S. leadership. After all, Trump’s trade wars have visibly harmed U.S. firms and consumers, as well as caused friction with America’s allies. Future leaders in Washington and around the world will presumably learn from such fallout.

Finally, there is no reason to conclude that global governance must collapse in the absence of strong U.S. leadership. As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney proposed at the recent Davos conference in Switzerland, so-called middle powers, such as Australia, Brazil and Canada itself, have the capacity to rescue the world’s most vital international organizations for the benefit of future generations, and to create new institutions as necessary.

Nations such as Canada, Japan, Australia and the members of the European Union obviously lack the overwhelming military power and economic clout of the United States. But they could choose instead to implement a more collective approach to global leadership.

No safe bets

There are obviously no guarantees that the post-Pax Americana era will be an unbridled success. There will be war and suffering in the future, just as there has been war and suffering under U.S. leadership. The idea of Pax Americana has always rung hollow to some people, including citizens of countries that have been attacked by the United States itself.

The question is whether the international system will become any more violent and unstable in the absence of U.S. leadership and military dominance than it has been during America’s long period of global dominance. It well might, but the international community shouldn’t resign itself to fatalism.

The United States has lost influence. The silver lining is that more countries – including America’s friends and allies – might rediscover their own capacity to shape world affairs.

The post-American era is therefore up for grabs.

Peter Harris is a Non-Resident Fellow with Defense Priorities.

– ref. The end of ‘Pax Americana’ and start of a ‘post-American’ era doesn’t necessarily mean the world will be less safe – https://theconversation.com/the-end-of-pax-americana-and-start-of-a-post-american-era-doesnt-necessarily-mean-the-world-will-be-less-safe-274354

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Christy Remucal, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison

No matter where you live in the United States, you have likely seen headlines about PFAS being detected in everything from drinking water to fish to milk to human bodies.

PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a group of over 10,000 synthetic chemicals. They have been used for decades to make products waterproof and stain- and heat-resistant – picture food wrappers, stain-resistant carpet, rain jackets and firefighting foam.

These chemicals are a growing concern because some PFAS are toxic even at very low levels and associated with health risks like thyroid issues and cancer. And some of the most common PFAS don’t naturally break down, which is why they are often referred to as “forever chemicals.”

Now, PFAS are posing a threat to the Great Lakes, one of America’s most vital water resources.

The five Great Lakes are massive, with over 10,000 miles of coastline (16,000 kilometers) across two countries and containing 21% of the world’s fresh surface water. They provide drinking water to over 30 million people and are home to a robust commercial and recreational fishing industry.

My colleagues at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and I study how chemicals like PFAS are affecting water systems. Here’s what we’re learning about how PFAS are getting into the Great Lakes, the risks they’re posing and how to reduce those risks in the future.

PFAS’ many pathways into the Great Lakes

Hundreds of rivers flow into the lakes, and each can be contaminated with PFAS from sources such as industrial sites, military operations and wastewater treatment plants in their watersheds. Some pesticides also contain PFAS, which can wash off farm fields and into creeks, rivers and lakes.

The concentration of PFAS in rivers can vary widely depending on these upstream impacts. For example, we found concentrations of over 1,700 parts-per-trillion in Great Lakes tributaries in Wisconsin near where firefighting foam has regularly been used. That’s more than 400 times higher than federal drinking water regulations for PFOS and PFOA, both 4 parts-per-trillion.

However, concentration alone does not tell the whole story. We also found that large rivers with relatively low amounts of PFAS can put more of these chemicals into the lakes each day compared with smaller rivers with high amounts of PFAS. This means that any effort to limit the amount of PFAS in the Great Lakes should consider both high-concentration hot spots and large rivers.

Groundwater is another key route carrying PFAS into the Great Lakes. Groundwater is a drinking water source for more than one-third of people in the U.S., and it can become contaminated when PFAS in firefighting foam and other PFAS sources seep into soil.

When these contaminated plumes enter the Great Lakes, they carry PFAS with them. We detected PFAS concentrations of over 260 parts-per-trillion in the bay of Green Bay in Lake Michigan. The chemicals we found were associated with firefighting foam, and we were able to trace them back to a contaminated groundwater plume.

PFAS can also enter the Great Lakes in unexpected ways, such as in rain and snowfall. PFAS can get into the atmosphere from industrial processes and waste incineration. The chemicals have been detected in rain across the world, including in states surrounding the Great Lakes.

Although PFAS concentrations in precipitation are typically lower than in rivers or groundwater, this is still an important contamination source. Scientists estimate that precipitation is a major source of PFAS to Lake Superior, which receives about half of its water through precipitation.

Where PFAS end up determines the risk

Much of the PFAS that enter Lake Superior will eventually make their way to the downstream lakes of Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario.

These chemicals’ ability to travel with water is one reason why PFAS are such a concern for drinking water systems. Many communities get their drinking water from the Great Lakes.

PFAS can also contaminate other parts of the environment.

The chemicals have been detected in sediments at the bottom of all the Great Lakes. Contaminated sediment can release PFAS back into the overlying water, where fish and aquatic birds can ingest it. So, future remediation efforts to remove PFAS from the lakes are about more than just the water – they involve the sediment as well.

PFAS can also accumulate in foams that form on lake shorelines during turbulent conditions. Concentrations of PFAS can be up to 7,000 times higher in natural foams compared with the water because PFAS are surfactants and build up where air and water meet, like bubbles in foam. As a result, state agencies recommend washing skin that comes in contact with foam and preventing pets from playing in foam.

Some PFAS bioaccumulate, or build up, within fish and wildlife. Elevated levels of PFAS have been detected in Great Lakes fish, raising concerns for fisheries.

High PFAS concentrations in fish in coastal areas and inland waters have led to advisories recommending people limit how much they fish they eat.

Looking ahead

Water cycles through the Great Lakes, but the process can take many years, from 2.6 years in Lake Erie to nearly 200 years in Lake Superior.

This means that PFAS that enter the lakes will be there for a very long time.

Since it is not possible to clean up the over 6 quadrillion gallons of water in the Great Lakes after they have been contaminated, preventing further contamination is key to protecting the lakes for the future.

That starts with identifying contaminated groundwater and rivers that are adding PFAS to the lakes. The Sea Grant College Program and the National Institutes of Water Resources, including the Wisconsin programs that I direct, have been supporting research to map these sources, as well as helping translate that knowledge into actions that policymakers and resource managers can take.

PFAS contamination is an issue beyond the Great Lakes and is something everyone can work to address.

• Drinking water. If you are one of the millions of people who drink water from the Great Lakes, find out the PFAS concentrations in your drinking water. This data is increasingly available from local drinking water utilities.

• Fish. Eating fish can provide great health benefits, but be aware of health advisories about fish caught in the Great Lakes and in inland waters so you can balance the risks. Other chemicals, such as mercury and PCBs, can also lead to fish advisories.

• Personal choice. Scientists have proposed that PFAS only be used when they have vital functions and there are no alternatives. Consumer demand for PFAS-free products is helping reduce PFAS use in some products. Several states have also introduced legislation to ban PFAS use in some applications.

Decreasing use of PFAS will ultimately prevent downstream contamination in the Great Lakes and around the U.S.

Christy Remucal receives funding from National Science Foundation, U.S. Geological Survey, and Department of Defense.

– ref. PFAS are turning up in the Great Lakes, putting fish and water supplies at risk – here’s how they get there – https://theconversation.com/pfas-are-turning-up-in-the-great-lakes-putting-fish-and-water-supplies-at-risk-heres-how-they-get-there-271489

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Joanna Dreby, Professor of sociology, University at Albany, State University of New York

When Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents detained Liam Conejo Ramos, a 5-year-old boy who is an asylum seeker, in Minneapolis on Jan. 20, 2026, the photos quickly became a flash point in the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement activity.

In one image, a man wearing a black uniform holds onto a gray and red Spider-Man backpack that the worried-looking young boy, wearing a blue bunny hat with floppy ears, has on his back.

Meanwhile, ICE and Customs and Border Patrol operations near schools have become increasingly common over the past year, spreading from Texas to Maine. While some parents in Minnesota have set up patrols around schools, there are families choosing to keep their kids home for days or weeks.

We are scholars of migration and children and childhood adversity.

Our research shows that exposure to severe immigration enforcement experiences during childhood carries long-term, significant consequences: These children are twice as likely to suffer from anxiety in young adulthood.

Why this matters

There is well-documented research showing how immigration enforcement has immediate negative effects on children and adults

Children whose immigrant parents are arrested, detained or deported often experience emotional and behavioral problems, including separation anxiety, school absenteeism, hyperactivity and other behavioral issues.

Yet, until recently, it has not been well understood how experiencing or being subjected to immigration enforcement actions affects children once they grow up to become adults.

That said, over three decades of research shows the clear links between traumatic childhood events and mental health problems in adulthood. Studies show, for example, that adults who experienced temporary separation from their parents as children are more likely to say they’ve experienced depression symptoms years later.

We decided to investigate whether a child being exposed to immigration enforcement actions – meaning the arrest of a parent, or detention of a close family member, for example – is associated with mental health problems among young adults who grew up in immigrant families.

How immigration enforcement unravels families

Our study first combined interviews and open-ended survey questions to define what it means to experience severe immigration enforcement during childhood.

We then examined the link between severe immigration enforcement actions and anxiety among 71 young adults – all U.S. citizens age 18 to 34 – who were raised in immigrant households in New York.

As children, all of these young adults witnessed or experienced the arrest, detention or deportation of an immigrant family member or a member of their communities. Three-quarters of the participants identified as Hispanic.

We analyzed our interviews to develop several criteria to determine what constitutes severe exposure to enforcement during childhood, considering factors like whether they witnessed a detention or arrest more than once, and how old they were when these experiences took place.

We found that approximately 26% of the survey participants – all of whom in this group were Hispanic, except one – had severe exposure to immigration enforcement actions during childhood. Not all of them had a parent who has been deported.

Some of these young people had relatives who had drawn-out cases in immigration court, or felt constant fear that their parents might be deported.

When we linked our interviews with survey data, our results were striking.

We found that young adults who experienced severe immigration enforcement actions as children were twice as likely to have anxiety, compared with young adults who did not have this experience when they were growing up.

Exposure to severe immigration enforcement actions as a child was not independently associated with depression as a young adult. But all the survey participants who said they were experiencing depression also reported anxiety symptoms – further evidence of a connection between severe immigration enforcement actions and anxiety among young people.

Lasting impact of today’s policies

Many legal experts and political observers say that the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics in Minneapolis and in other cities are designed to intimidate and instill fear among civilians.

Children are not immune to these tactics, either as witnesses or as targets.

Federal immigration officers deployed tear gas, for example, on students at Roosevelt High School in Minneapolis on Jan. 8. Experiences like this constitute a major adverse childhood event, exposing children and adolescents to significant trauma.

We believe that we can learn from decades of adverse childhood experiences research, which clearly shows the link between childhood adversity and physical and mental health outcomes in adulthood.

The enforcement tactics ICE is using in Minnesota and other places in the U.S. today are likely, our research suggests, going to harm the next generation of U.S. citizens and residents.

As trauma researchers have long known, our bodies keep score over a lifetime. The question facing policymakers is not whether these enforcement tactics will cause lasting harm – our research suggests they would – but what human costs we, as a nation, are willing to bear.

Joanna Dreby receives funding from Russell Sage Foundation

Eunju Lee receives funding from Russel Sage Foundation (PI Dreby).

– ref. There are long-lasting, negative effects for children like Liam Ramos who are detained, or watch their parents be deported – https://theconversation.com/there-are-long-lasting-negative-effects-for-children-like-liam-ramos-who-are-detained-or-watch-their-parents-be-deported-274271

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jared Bahir Browsh, Assistant Teaching Professor of Critical Sports Studies, University of Colorado Boulder

A variety show that’s still revered for its absurdist, slapstick humor debuted 50 years ago. It starred an irreverent band of characters made of foam and fleece.

Long after “The Muppet Show”‘s original 120-episode run ended in 1981, the legend and legacy of Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, Gonzo and other creations concocted by puppeteer and TV producer Jim Henson have kept on growing. Thanks to the Muppets’ film franchise and the wonders of YouTube, the wacky gang is still delighting, and expanding, its fan base.

As a scholar of popular culture, I believe that the Muppets’ reign, which began in the 1950s, has helped shape global culture, including educational television. Along the way, the puppets and the people who bring them to life have earned billions in revenue.

Kermit’s origin story

Muppets, a portmanteau of marionette and puppet, first appeared on TV in the Washington, D.C., region in 1955, when Henson created a short sketch show called “Sam and Friends” with his future wife, Jane Nebel.

Their motley cast of puppets, including a lizardlike character named Kermit, sang parody songs and performed comedy sketches.

Henson’s creations were soon popping up in segments on other TV shows, including “Today” and late-night programs. Rowlf the Dog appeared in Canadian dog food commercials before joining “The Jimmy Dean Show” as the host’s sidekick.

After that show ended, Rowlf and Dean performed on the “Ed Sullivan Show,” where Kermit had occasionally appeared since 1961.

From ‘Sesame Street’ to ‘SNL’

As Rowlf and Kermit made the rounds on variety shows, journalist Joan Ganz Cooney and psychologist Lloyd Morrisett were creating a new educational program. They invited Henson to provide a Muppet ensemble for the show.

Henson waived his performance fee to maintain rights over the characters who became the most famous residents of “Sesame Street.” The likes of Oscar the Grouch, Cookie Monster and Big Bird were joined by Kermit who, by the time the show premiered in 1969, was identified as a frog.

When “Sesame Street” became a hit, Henson worried that his Muppets would be typecast as children’s entertainment. Another groundbreaking show, aimed at young adults, offered him a chance to avoid that.

“Saturday Night Live’s” debut on NBC in 1975 – when the show was called “Saturday Night” – included a segment called “The Land of Gorch,” in which Henson’s grotesque creatures drank, smoked and cracked crass jokes.

“The Land of Gorch” segments ended after “Saturday Night Live’s” first season.

Miss Piggy gets her closeup

“The Muppet Show” was years in the making. ABC eventually aired two TV specials in 1974 and 1975 that were meant to be pilots for a U.S.-produced “Muppet Show.”

After no American network picked up his quirky series, Henson partnered with British entertainment entrepreneur Lew Grade to produce a series for ATV, a British network, that featured Kermit and other Muppets. The new ensemble included Fozzie Bear, Animal and Miss Piggy – Muppets originally performed by frequent Henson collaborator Frank Oz.

“The Muppet Show” parodied variety shows on which Henson had appeared. Connections he’d made along the way paid off: Many celebrities he met on those shows’ sets would guest star on “The Muppet Show,” including everyone from Rita Moreno and Lena Horne to Joan Baez and Johnny Cash.

“The Muppet Show,” which was staged and shot at a studio near London, debuted on Sept. 5, 1976, in the U.K, before airing in syndication in the United States on stations like New York’s WCBS.

The Muppets hit the big screen

“The Muppet Show” was a hit, amassing a global audience of over 200 million. It won many awards, including a Primetime Emmy for outstanding comedy-variety or music series – for which it beat “Saturday Night Live” – in 1978.

While his TV show was on the air, Henson worked on the franchise’s first film, “The Muppet Movie.” The road film, released in 1979, was another hit: It earned more than US$76 million at the box office.

“The Muppet Movie” garnered two Academy Award nominations for its music, including best song for “Rainbow Connection.” It won a Grammy for best album for children.

The next two films, “The Great Muppet Caper,” which premiered in 1981, and “The Muppets Take Manhattan,” released in 1984, also garnered Oscar nominations for their music.

‘Fraggle Rock’ and the Disney deal

The cast of “The Muppet Show” and the three films took a break from Hollywood while Henson focused on “Fraggle Rock,” a TV show for kids that aired from 1983-1987 on HBO.

Like Henson’s other productions, “Fraggle Rock” featured absurdist humor – but its puppets aren’t considered part of the standard Muppets gang. This co-production between Henson, Canadian Broadcast Corporation and British producers was aimed at international markets.

The quickly conglomerating media industry led Henson to consider corporate partnerships to assist with his goal of further expanding the Muppet media universe.

In August 1989, he negotiated a deal with Michael Eisner of Disney who announced at Disney-MGM Studios an agreement in principle to acquire The Muppets, with Henson maintaining ownership of the “Sesame Street” characters.

The announcement also included plans to open Muppet-themed attractions at Disney parks.

But less than a year later, on May 16, 1990, Henson died from a rare and serious bacterial infection. He was 53.

Of Muppets and mergers

Henson’s death led to the Disney deal’s collapse. But the company did license The Muppets to Disney, which co-produced “The Muppet Christmas Carol” in 1992 and “Muppet Treasure Island” in 1996 with Jim Henson Productions, which was then run by Jim’s son, Brian Henson.

In 2000, the Henson family sold the Muppet properties to German media company EM.TV & Merchandising AG for $680 million. That company ran into financial trouble soon after, then sold the Sesame Street characters to Sesame Workshop for $180 million in late 2000. The Jim Henson Company bought back the remaining Muppet properties for $84 million in 2003.

In 2004, Disney finally acquired The Muppets and most of the media library associated with the characters.

Disney continued to produce Muppet content, including “The Muppet’s Wizard of Oz” in 2005. Its biggest success came with the 2011 film “The Muppets,” which earned over $165 million at the box office and won the Oscar for best original song “Man or Muppet.”

“Muppets Most Wanted,” released in 2014, earned another $80 million worldwide, bringing total global box office receipts to over $458 million across eight theatrical Muppets movies.

The ‘Muppet Show’ goes on

The Muppets continue to expand their fandom across generations and genres by performing at live concerts and appearing in several series and films.

Through these many hits and occasional bombs, and the Jim Henson Company’s personnel changes, the Muppets have adapted to changes in technology and tastes, making it possible for them to remain relevant to new generations.

That cast of characters made of felt and foam continue to entertain fans of all ages. Although many people remain nostalgic over “The Muppet Show,” two prior efforts to reboot the show proved short-lived.

But when Disney airs its “The Muppet Show” anniversary special on Feb. 4, 2026, maybe more people will get hooked as Disney looks to reboot the series

Jared Bahir Browsh does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. It’s easy making green: Muppets continue to make a profit 50 years into their run – https://theconversation.com/its-easy-making-green-muppets-continue-to-make-a-profit-50-years-into-their-run-272855

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Arjun Mohan, Clinical Associate Professor of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan

Researchers and doctors are beginning to modernize asthma treatment using innovative therapies.

Asthma is a common, chronic and treatable lung disease that touches nearly every family in America. It affects people of all ages and costs our health care system about US$82 billion each year.

In Michigan, the problem is acute. About 12% of Michigan adults live with asthma, compared to almost 9% nationwide, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nowhere is the burden heavier than in Detroit, which is ranked No. 1 in the U.S. as the most challenging place to live with asthma – based on prevalence, emergency department visits and deaths.

Between 2021 and 2023, the city’s adult asthma rate was 14.8%, compared with 11.5% statewide, according to data from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. Childhood asthma reaches nearly 15%, almost double the state average.

Between 2019 and 2023, Detroiters were hospitalized for asthma more often than residents elsewhere in the state. Black residents, women and people with lower incomes bear the greatest burden, facing higher rates of disease and worse outcomes, such as hospitalization.

Personalized care based on medical advances

My experience as an asthma specialist has taught me humility in the face of this complex disease. Over the past decade, I’ve learned the value of pausing and inviting each patient to reflect on their own journey with asthma.

For some, it is a new and confusing diagnosis – often accompanied by a degree of denial about having a chronic condition that needs constant management.

For others, this process gives them space to reflect on disease-related harms such as lifetime exposure to corticosteroids, which treat inflammation, or the number of emergency department visits they have endured.

Taking time to reflect also gives doctors and patients an opportunity to think about other issues affecting the patients’ health. For example, patients often struggle with the relationship between asthma and being overweight. It is hard for them to lose weight due to their symptoms or the side effects of oral steroids.

This mutual understanding becomes the foundation for a personalized care plan, often using the latest scientific advances in therapy. My colleagues and I at the University of Michigan are deeply involved in clinical trials investigating novel therapies and forward-thinking approaches to asthma care.

These approaches are centered in the long-held principle that a preventive and proactive approach to care is better than a reactive one.

The problem with ‘wait-and-see’ care

Decades of research show that asthma, while characterized by airway inflammation and spasming, is a heterogenous syndrome. This means it takes many forms and affects patients in different ways.

For some, asthma fades over time or remains mild and manageable. For others, it is a lifelong struggle, marked by frequent flare-ups, hospital visits, missed days at work or school and declining lung function.

Alarmingly, severe outcomes can happen even in those labeled as having “mild” asthma. A seemingly manageable episode can suddenly become serious, reminding us how easily this disease can be underestimated.

Most people seek help for asthma only when symptoms get bad. They may find themselves overusing a rescue inhaler or needing urgent care or the emergency department. These flare-ups, also called exacerbations, are serious.

Patients who have frequent exacerbations are more likely to have future flare-ups and face long-term risks such as loss of lung function or even death.

Even the medicines used to treat flare-ups carry risks. Just two courses of oral steroids per year can raise the risk of osteoporosis, diabetes or cardiovascular disease. It is also important to note that poorly controlled asthma or regularly needing higher-dosage inhalers can lead to irreversible airway damage and loss of lung function.

Many patients also rely on the emergency department for routine asthma care. This is often due to poor knowledge about asthma, high medication costs, insurance barriers and life constraints such as work or school. Yet emergency departments are not designed for ongoing management. Emergency departments cannot provide lung-function testing, maintenance inhalers, long-term monitoring or follow-up care – all critical to keeping asthma under control.

In other words, the health care field’s current approach is reactive, waiting for symptoms to spiral downward and not really focused on addressing risk. Patients with warning signs often go unnoticed or receive treatments that don’t meet their needs. This approach to care is outdated and poorly suited to modern medicine.

Tailoring interventions to each individual

A better approach starts with awareness of asthma’s variability and moving away from “one-size-fits-all” care.

Consider allergen control. Detroiters are exposed to both year-round allergens – such as dust mites, cockroaches and indoor molds – as well as seasonal allergens such as tree, grass and weed pollens.

Allergen mitigation was once a major strategy for managing asthma and often thought of as a stand-alone intervention. But allergen mitigation alone is rarely enough. For example, if dust mites trigger asthma, using mattress covers alone isn’t sufficient – you also need to wash bedding weekly and avoid heavy humidifiers. The approach should incorporate different methods to reduce exposure.

Meanwhile, allergen control for people without clear sensitivity is often ineffective and expensive. The best care starts with a conversation between patients and a clinician: testing triggers, reviewing evidence-based strategies and tailoring interventions to what will work for each person.

Asthma also often flies under the radar, not just for doctors but for patients too. About 1 in 5 patients underestimate the severity of their asthma, while many overestimate their control. Awareness of red flags – such as frequent flare-ups or poor symptom control – is critical. Daytime symptoms more than twice a week, nighttime symptoms more than twice a month, frequent use of emergency inhalers or limited physical activities all signal risks.

These warning signs can be controlled in nearly 95% of patients with minimal medications, proper inhaler technique, addressing environmental triggers and treating related conditions such as acid reflux.

For 5% to 10% of patients with severe or hard-to-treat asthma, close monitoring and specialist care are essential.

Specialist visits allow a thorough review of a patient’s history, including long-term steroid use, and help identify low-hanging fruit such as poor inhaler technique, lifestyle factors, coexisting conditions or diseases that mimic asthma.

Identifying symptoms early can mitigate health risks

New tools, such as blood tests and breath analyses, can measure airway inflammation and even predict flare-ups, treatment failures or lung function loss. While not yet widely used, these tools are the first giant leap toward proactive care, identifying problems before they take a serious toll. For example, patients with signals of inflammation in both blood and breath tests are at a much higher risk of future loss of lung function and exacerbations than their counterparts without these signals.

Another major advance is targeted therapies called biologics. These shots are usually administered under the skin by patients at home. They help control inflammation caused by asthma. In carefully selected patients, biologics can reduce flare-ups and hospitalizations, improve lung function, enhance quality of life and lower the need for oral steroids.

Many federally sponsored insurance programs now include certain biologics on their list of covered prescription drugs. However, actual approval and patient out-of-pocket costs can vary widely.

Advancing a new vision for asthma care

Michiganders would benefit from raising their awareness of asthma, not just because asthma is common here but because our environment is changing fast. Events like the 2023 Canadian wildfires show that the air we breathe is dynamic and unpredictable.

In my view, it is imperative to adopt a proactive approach that uses commonsense measures, promotes awareness, applies evidence-based practice and identifies at-risk people early. Achieving this vision requires addressing real-world challenges such as research gaps, costs and access to care.

Asthma is not just a personal health issue, it is a public health priority. My patients are impacted not only by lifestyle choices but also by factors outside of their control – factors such as drug costs, insurance plans, environmental changes and access to care.

Arjun Mohan received funding from Verona Pharm LLC and Regeneron Pharm for Consulting Services (one time, relationship has ended). These services have no conflict with the article written here

– ref. Innovations in asthma care can improve the health of Detroiters living with this chronic disease – https://theconversation.com/innovations-in-asthma-care-can-improve-the-health-of-detroiters-living-with-this-chronic-disease-260487

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Chris Meyers, Adjunct Professor of Philosophy, George Washington University

Medical marijuana could soon be reclassified into a medical category that includes prescription drugs like Tylenol with codeine, ketamine and anabolic steroids.

That’s because in December 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to reschedule marijuana to a less restricted category, continuing a process initiated by President Joe Biden in 2022.

Currently, marijuana is in the most restrictive class, Schedule I, the same category as street drugs like LSD, ecstasy and heroin.

For years, many researchers and medical experts have argued that its current classification is a hindrance to much-needed medical research that would answer many of the pressing questions about its potential for medicinal use.

In January 2026, Republican Senators Ted Budd, of North Carolina, and James Lankford, of Oklahoma, introduced an amendment to funding bills trying to block the rescheduling, claiming that it “sends the wrong message” and will lead to “increased risk of heart attack, stroke, psychotic disorders, addiction and hospitalization.”

As a philosopher and drug policy expert, I am more interested in what is the most reasonable marijuana policy. In other words, is rescheduling the right move?

Broadly speaking, there are three choices available for marijuana regulation. The U.S. could keep the drug in the highly restricted Schedule I category, move it to a less restrictive category or remove it from scheduling altogether, which would end the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws.

As of January 2026, cannabis is legal in 40 of 50 states for medical use and 24 states for recreational use. Rescheduling would only apply to medical use.

Let’s examine the arguments for each option:

The Controlled Substances Act

The Controlled Substances Act places each prohibited drug into one of five “schedules” based on proven medical use, addictive potential and safety.

Drugs classified as Schedule I – as marijuana has been since 1971, when the Controlled Substances Act was passed – cannot be legally used for medical use or research, though an exception for research can be made with special permission from the Drug Enforcement Administration. Schedule I drugs are believed to have a high potential for abuse, to be extremely addictive and to have “no currently accepted medical use.”

As a Schedule I drug, marijuana has been more tightly controlled than cocaine, methamphetamine, PCP and fentanyl, all of which belong to Schedule II.

The status quo option

Some policy analysts and anti-marijuana activists argue that marijuana should remain a Schedule 1 drug.

A common objection to rescheduling it is the assertion that 1 in 3 marijuana users develop an addiction to the drug, which stems from a large study called a meta-analysis.

A careful reading of that study reveals the flaws in its conclusions. The researchers found that about one-third of heavy users – meaning those who use marijuana weekly or daily – suffered from dependence. But when they looked at marijuana users more generally – meaning people who tried it at least once, the way addiction rates are normally measured – they found that only 13% of users develop a dependency on marijuana, which makes it less habit-forming than most recreational drugs, including alcohol, nicotine and caffeine, none of which are scheduled under the Controlled Substances Act.

Further, if the 1-in-3 figure were accurate, then marijuana would be more addictive than alcohol, crack cocaine and even heroin. This defies both common sense and well-established studies on the comparative risk of addiction.

Critics of rescheduling also deny that there is convincing evidence that marijuana or its compounds have any legitimate medical use. They cite research like a 2025 review paper that assessed 15 years of medical marijuana research and concluded that “evidence is insufficient for the use of cannabis or cannabinoids for most medical indications.”

This claim is problematic, however, given that the Food and Drug Administration has already approved several medicines that are based on the same active compounds found in marijuana. These include the drugs Marinol and Syndros, which are used to treat AIDS-related anorexia and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. Both of these contain delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, the substance that is responsible for the marijuana high.

If the active ingredients of marijuana have legitimate medical use as established by the FDA, then it stands to reason that so must marijuana.

Option 2: Moving marijuana to schedule III

Moving marijuana to schedule III would make it legal at the federal level, but only for medical use. Recreational use would remain federally prohibited, even though it is legal in 24 states as of early 2026.

The most obvious benefit to rescheduling, noted above, is that it would make research on marijuana easier. The system of cannabinoid receptors through which marijuana confers its therapeutic and psychoactive effects is crucial for almost every aspect of human functioning. Thus, marijuana compounds could provide effective medicines for a wide variety of ailments.

Contrary to the 2015 review mentioned earlier, studies have shown that cannabis is effective for treating nausea and AIDS symptoms, chronic pain and some symptoms of multiple sclerosis, as well as many other conditions.

Rescheduling could also improve medical marijuana guidance. Under the current system, medical marijuana users are not provided with accurate, evidence-based guidance on how to use marijuana effectively. They must rely on “bud tenders,” dispensary employees with no medical training whose job is to sell product. If cannabis were moved to Schedule III, doctors would be trained to advise patients on its proper use. On the other hand, medical schools need not wait for rescheduling. Given that many people are already using medical marijuana, some medical experts have argued that medical schools should provide this training already.

Rescheduling, however, is not without complications. To comply with the law, medical marijuana programs would have to start requiring a doctor’s prescription, just like with all other scheduled substances. And it could be distributed only by licensed pharmacies. That might be a good thing, if marijuana is as dangerous and addictive as critics claim. But advocates of medical marijuana might be concerned that this would increase costs to the consumer and restrict access. That concern might be mitigated, however, if health insurance companies are required to cover the costs of medical marijuana once it is rescheduled.

In addition, it is unclear how rescheduling would affect state-level bans on medical marijuana. Generally speaking, states cannot legally restrict access to pharmaceuticals that have been approved by the FDA. However, this principle of federal preemption is currently being challenged by six states claiming they have the authority to restrict access to the abortion medication mifepristone.

Option 3: Unscheduling marijuana

The debate over rescheduling ignores a third option: that marijuana could be removed entirely from the Controlled Substances Act, giving states the authority to allow medical marijuana to be distributed without a prescription.

Some of the objections to rescheduling come from marijuana advocates. Given that marijuana is safer and less addictive than alcohol – which is not scheduled under the Controlled Substances Act – a case could be made for removing it entirely from the list of scheduled substances and allowing states to legalize it for recreational use, as many states have already.

In fact, many drugs as, or more powerful than, marijuana are also not scheduled. For example, most over-the-counter cough medicines contain dextromethorphan, a hallucinogenic dissociative, which in large doses causes effects similar to PCP.

Removing marijuana from the list of controlled substances would also decriminalize the drug. Over 200,000 Americans were arrested for marijuana in 2024, over 90% of them for mere possession.

At the moment, the third option seems very unlikely. Although over 60% of Americans are in favor of full marijuana legalization, it lacks support in Congress.

Medical marijuana rescheduling looks likely to occur in 2026. After all, it has been proposed by both Biden and Trump. Whether it is the right move, only time will tell.

This article includes portions of a previous article originally published on Oct. 9, 2024.

Chris Meyers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Should medical marijuana be less stringently regulated? A drug policy expert explains what’s at stake – https://theconversation.com/should-medical-marijuana-be-less-stringently-regulated-a-drug-policy-expert-explains-whats-at-stake-272494

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Joanna Dreby, Professor of sociology, University at Albany, State University of New York

When Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents detained Liam Conejo Ramos, a 5-year-old boy who is an asylum seeker, in Minneapolis on Jan. 20, 2026, the photos quickly became a flash point in the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement activity.

In one image, a man wearing a black uniform holds onto a gray and red Spider-Man backpack that the worried-looking young boy, wearing a blue bunny hat with floppy ears, has on his back.

Meanwhile, ICE and Customs and Border Patrol operations near schools have become increasingly common over the past year, spreading from Texas to Maine. While some parents in Minnesota have set up patrols around schools, there are families choosing to keep their kids home for days or weeks.

We are scholars of migration and children and childhood adversity.

Our research shows that exposure to severe immigration enforcement experiences during childhood carries long-term, significant consequences: These children are twice as likely to suffer from anxiety in young adulthood.

Why this matters

There is well-documented research showing how immigration enforcement has immediate negative effects on children and adults

Children whose immigrant parents are arrested, detained or deported often experience emotional and behavioral problems, including separation anxiety, school absenteeism, hyperactivity and other behavioral issues.

Yet, until recently, it has not been well understood how experiencing or being subjected to immigration enforcement actions affects children once they grow up to become adults.

That said, over three decades of research shows the clear links between traumatic childhood events and mental health problems in adulthood. Studies show, for example, that adults who experienced temporary separation from their parents as children are more likely to say they’ve experienced depression symptoms years later.

We decided to investigate whether a child being exposed to immigration enforcement actions – meaning the arrest of a parent, or detention of a close family member, for example – is associated with mental health problems among young adults who grew up in immigrant families.

How immigration enforcement unravels families

Our study first combined interviews and open-ended survey questions to define what it means to experience severe immigration enforcement during childhood.

We then examined the link between severe immigration enforcement actions and anxiety among 71 young adults – all U.S. citizens age 18 to 34 – who were raised in immigrant households in New York.

As children, all of these young adults witnessed or experienced the arrest, detention or deportation of an immigrant family member or a member of their communities. Three-quarters of the participants identified as Hispanic.

We analyzed our interviews to develop several criteria to determine what constitutes severe exposure to enforcement during childhood, considering factors like whether they witnessed a detention or arrest more than once, and how old they were when these experiences took place.

We found that approximately 26% of the survey participants – all of whom in this group were Hispanic, except one – had severe exposure to immigration enforcement actions during childhood. Not all of them had a parent who has been deported.

Some of these young people had relatives who had drawn-out cases in immigration court, or felt constant fear that their parents might be deported.

When we linked our interviews with survey data, our results were striking.

We found that young adults who experienced severe immigration enforcement actions as children were twice as likely to have anxiety, compared with young adults who did not have this experience when they were growing up.

Exposure to severe immigration enforcement actions as a child was not independently associated with depression as a young adult. But all the survey participants who said they were experiencing depression also reported anxiety symptoms – further evidence of a connection between severe immigration enforcement actions and anxiety among young people.

Lasting impact of today’s policies

Many legal experts and political observers say that the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics in Minneapolis and in other cities are designed to intimidate and instill fear among civilians.

Children are not immune to these tactics, either as witnesses or as targets.

Federal immigration officers deployed tear gas, for example, on students at Roosevelt High School in Minneapolis on Jan. 8. Experiences like this constitute a major adverse childhood event, exposing children and adolescents to significant trauma.

We believe that we can learn from decades of adverse childhood experiences research, which clearly shows the link between childhood adversity and physical and mental health outcomes in adulthood.

The enforcement tactics ICE is using in Minnesota and other places in the U.S. today are likely, our research suggests, going to harm the next generation of U.S. citizens and residents.

As trauma researchers have long known, our bodies keep score over a lifetime. The question facing policymakers is not whether these enforcement tactics will cause lasting harm – our research suggests they would – but what human costs we, as a nation, are willing to bear.

Joanna Dreby receives funding from Russell Sage Foundation

Eunju Lee receives funding from Russel Sage Foundation (PI Dreby).

– ref. There’s long-lasting, negative effects for children like Liam Ramos who are detained, or watch their parents be deported – https://theconversation.com/theres-long-lasting-negative-effects-for-children-like-liam-ramos-who-are-detained-or-watch-their-parents-be-deported-274271