Category: Analysis

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Greg Edwards, Adjunct Lecturer, Missouri University of Science and Technology

The Little Engine That Could wasn’t the most powerful train, but she believed in herself. The story goes that, as she set off to climb a steep mountain, she repeated: “I think I can, I think I can.”

That simple phrase from a children’s story still holds a lesson for today’s business world – especially when it comes to artificial intelligence.

AI is no longer a distant promise out of science fiction. It’s here and already beginning to transform industries. But despite the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on developing AI models and platforms, adoption remains slow for many employees, with a recent Pew Research Center survey finding that 63% of U.S. workers use AI minimally or not at all in their jobs.

The reason? It can often come down to what researchers call technological self-efficacy, or, put simply, a person’s belief in their ability to use technology effectively.

In my research on this topic, I found that many people who avoid using new technology aren’t truly against it – instead, they just don’t feel equipped to use it in their specific jobs. So rather than risk getting it wrong, they choose to keep their distance.

And that’s where many organizations derail. They focus on building the engine, but don’t fully fuel the confidence that workers need to get it moving.

What self-efficacy has to do with AI

Albert Bandura, the psychologist who developed the theory of self-efficacy, noted that skill alone doesn’t determine people’s behavior. What matters more is a person’s belief in their ability to use that skill effectively.

In my study of teachers in 1:1 technology environments – classrooms where each student is equipped with a digital device like a laptop or tablet – this was clear. I found that even teachers with access to powerful digital tools don’t always feel confident using them. And when they lack confidence, they may avoid the technology or use it in limited, superficial ways.

The same holds true in today’s AI-equipped workplace. Leaders may be quick to roll out new tools and want fast results. But employees may hesitate, wondering how it applies to their roles, whether they’ll use it correctly, or if they’ll appear less competent – or even unethical – for relying on it.

Beneath that hesitation may also be the all-too-familiar fear of one day being replaced by technology.

Going back to train analogies, think of John Henry, the 19th-century folk hero. As the story goes, Henry was a railroad worker who was famous for his strength. When a steam-powered machine threatened to replace him, he raced it – and won. But the victory came at a cost: He collapsed and died shortly afterward.

Henry’s story is a lesson in how resisting new technology through sheer willpower can be self-defeating. Rather than leaving some employees feeling like they have to outmuscle or outperform AI, organizations should invest in helping them understand how to work with it – so they don’t feel like they need to work against it.

Relevant and role-specific training

Many organizations do offer training related to using AI. But these programs are often too broad, covering topics like how to log into different programs, what the interfaces look like, or what AI “generally” can do.

In 2025, with the number of AI tools at our disposal, ranging from conversational chatbots and content creation platforms to advanced data analytics and workflow automation programs, that’s not enough.

In my study, participants consistently said they benefited most from training that was “district-specific,” meaning tailored to the devices, software and situations they faced daily with their specific subject areas and grade levels.

Translation for the corporate world? Training needs to be job-specific and user-centered – not one-size-fits-all.

The generational divide

It’s not exactly shocking: Younger workers tend to feel more confident using technology than older ones. Gen Z and millennials are digital natives – they’ve grown up with digital technologies as part of their daily lives.

Gen X and boomers, on the other hand, often had to adapt to using digital technologies mid-career. As a result, they may feel less capable and be more likely to dismiss AI and its possibilities. And if their few forays into AI are frustrating or lead to mistakes, that first impression is likely to stick.

When generative AI tools were first launched commercially, they were more likely to hallucinate and confidently spit out incorrect information. Remember when Google demoed its Bard AI tool in 2023 and its factual error led to its parent company losing US$100 billion in market value? Or when an attorney made headlines for citing fabricated cases courtesy of ChatGPT?

Moments like those likely reinforced skepticism – especially among workers already unsure about AI’s reliability. But the technology has already come a long way in a relatively short period of time.

The solution to getting those who may be slower to embrace AI isn’t to push them harder, but to coach them and consider their backgrounds.

What effective AI training looks like

Bandura identified four key sources that shape a person’s belief in their ability to succeed:

1. Mastery experiences, or personal success

2. Vicarious experiences, or seeing others in similar positions succeed

3. Verbal persuasion, or positive feedback

4. Physiological and emotional states, or someone’s mood, energy, anxiety and so forth.

In my research on educators, I saw how these concepts made a difference, and the same approach can apply to AI in the corporate world – or in virtually any environment in which a person needs to build self-efficacy.

In the workplace, this could be accomplished with cohort-based trainings that include feedback loops – regular communication between leaders and employees about growth, improvement and more – along with content that can be customized to employees’ needs and roles. Organizations can also experiment with engaging formats like PricewaterhouseCoopers’ prompting parties, which provide low-stakes opportunities for employees to build confidence and try new AI programs.

In “Pokemon Go!,” it’s possible to level up by stacking lots of small, low-stakes wins and gaining experience points along the way. Workplaces could approach AI training the same way, giving employees frequent, simple opportunities tied to their actual work to steadily build confidence and skill.

The curriculum doesn’t have to be revolutionary. It just needs to follow these principles and not fall victim to death by PowerPoint, or end up being generic training that isn’t applicable to specific roles in the workplace.

As organizations continue to invest heavily in developing and accessing AI technologies, it’s also essential that they invest in the people who will use them. AI might change what the workforce looks like, but there’s still going to be a workforce. And when people are well trained, AI can make both them and the outfits they work for significantly more effective.

Greg Edwards 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. The biggest barrier to AI adoption in the business world isn’t tech – it’s user confidence – https://theconversation.com/the-biggest-barrier-to-ai-adoption-in-the-business-world-isnt-tech-its-user-confidence-257308

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jay L. Zagorsky, Associate Professor Questrom School of Business, Boston University

President Donald Trump’s promise to eliminate taxes on tips may sound like a windfall for service workers — but the fine print in Congress’ latest tax bill tells a more complex story.

Right now, Republican lawmakers are advancing the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — a sprawling, 1,100-page proposal that aims to change everything from tax incentives for electric vehicles to health care. It also includes a proposal to end taxes on tips, which could potentially affect around 4 million American workers. The Senate has recently passed its own version – the No Tax on Tips Act.

The idea started getting attention when Trump raised it during a 2024 campaign stop in Las Vegas, a place where tipping is woven into the economy. And the headlines and press releases sound great — especially if you’re a waiter, bartender or anyone else who depends on tips for a living. That may be why both Democrats and Republicans alike broadly support the concept. However, like most of life, the devil is in the details.

I’m a business-school economist who has written about tipping, and I’ve looked closely at the language of the proposed laws. So, what exactly has Trump promised, and how does it measure up to what’s in the bills? Let’s start with his pledge.

The promise of money that’s ‘100% yours’

Back in January 2025, Trump said, “If you’re a restaurant worker, a server, a valet, a bellhop, a bartender, one of my caddies … your tips will be 100% yours.” That sounds like a boost in tipped workers’ income.

But when you look at the current situation, it becomes clear that the reality is far more complicated.

First, the new tax break only applies to tips the government knows about — and a lot of that income currently flies under the radar. Tipped workers who get cash tips are supposed to report it to the IRS via form 4137 if their employer doesn’t report it for them. If a worker gets a cash tip today and doesn’t report it, they already get 100% of the money. No one really knows what percentage of tips are unreported, but an old IRS estimate pegs it at about 40%.

What’s more, the current tax code defines tips only as payments where the customer determines the tip amount. If a restaurant charges a fixed 18% service charge, or there’s an extra fee for room service, those aren’t tips in the government’s eyes. This means some tipped workers who think service charges are tips will overestimate the new rule’s impact on their finances.

How the new bills would affect tipped workers

The “Big Beautiful Bill” would create a new tax code section under “itemized deductions” This area of the tax code already includes text that creates health savings accounts and gives students deductions for interest on their college loans.

What’s in the new section?

First, the bill specifies that this tax break applies just to “any cash tip.” The IRS classifies payments by credit card, debit card and even checks as “cash tips.” Unfortunately for workers in Las Vegas, noncash tips, like casino chips, aren’t part of the bill.

While the House bill limits the deduction to people earning less than US$160,000 the Senate bill caps the deduction to the first $25,000 of tips earned. Everything over that is taxed.

Second, the current House bill ends this special tax-free deal on Dec. 31, 2028. That means these special benefits would only last three years, unless Congress extends the law. The Senate bill does not include such a deadline.

Third, the exemption is only available to jobs that typically receive tips. The Treasury secretary is required to define the list of tipped occupations. If an occupation isn’t on the list, the law doesn’t apply.

I wonder how many occupations won’t make the list. For example, some camp counselors get tips at the end of the summer. But it’s unclear the Treasury Department will include these workers as a covered group, since counselors only make up a proportion of summer camp staff. Not making the list is a real problem.

And while the new proposal gives workers an income tax break, there’s nothing in either bill about skipping FICA payments on the tipped earnings. Workers are still required to contribute slightly more than 7% in Social Security and Medicare taxes on all tips they report, which won’t benefit them until retirement. This isn’t an oversight — the bill specifically says employees must furnish a valid Social Security number to get the tax benefits.

There are a few other ways the legislation might benefit workers less than it seems at first glance. Instituting no taxes on tips could mean tipped employees feel more pressure to split their tips with other employees, like busboys, chefs and hosts. After all, these untipped workers also contribute to the customer experience, and often at low wages.

And finally, many Americans are tired of tipping. Knowing that servers don’t have to pay taxes might make some to cut back on it even more.

The specifics of any piece of legislation are subject to change until the moment Congress sends it to the president to be signed. However, as now written, I think the bills aren’t as generous to tipped workers as Trump made it sound on the campaign trail.

Jay L. Zagorsky 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. For Trump’s ‘no taxes on tips,’ the devil is in the details – https://theconversation.com/for-trumps-no-taxes-on-tips-the-devil-is-in-the-details-258276

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Robert Manduca, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Michigan

How wealthy are you?

Like most people, you probably would do some math before answering this question. You would add up the money in your bank accounts, the value of your investments and any equity in a home you own, then subtract your debts, such as mortgages and car loans.

But many economists believe this approach, known as calculating your net worth, leaves out a big chunk of your wealth: the benefits you’ll get in the future from Social Security, if you live in the United States, or similar government benefits programs that help retirees pay their bills in other countries.

As a sociologist who studies income and wealth inequality, I wanted to figure out just how much government safety net programs are worth to their recipients, and whether they truly can substitute for private savings.

A $40 trillion trove

A team of researchers recently estimated that future Social Security payments amounted to more than US$40 trillion as of 2019 – about $123,000 for everyone in the U.S. That huge number, which is not adjusted for inflation, was nearly one-third of the $110 trillion of Americans’ collective net worth in that year.

In a recent peer-reviewed study, published in April 2025 in Socio-Economic Review, I found that even this expanded definition of wealth leaves some important things out: unemployment insurance, the child tax credit and other widely available benefits. People who have access to these programs don’t have to dip into their savings as much when unexpected costs come up.

Social Security is by far the largest of these programs. As of 2019, the typical worker nearing retirement had banked about $412,000 in future Social Security benefits, I found – nearly as much as the $472,000 in private retirement savings such workers had. This estimate doesn’t include Social Security benefits to orphans, widows or people with disabilities.

The value of Social Security retirement benefits varies according to workers’ income and work history, ranging from $271,000 for the poorest 10% of recipients to $669,000 for the richest 10%.

Benefits from smaller safety net programs can also add up. Because some programs differ by state, I analyzed California and Texas, the two largest states. In California, I calculated that the average 45-year-old worker can count on almost $12,000 in unemployment insurance over 26 weeks, while in Texas the same worker would be eligible for more than $15,000 over the same period.

Meanwhile, under current law, many families having a child in 2025 can expect to receive about $29,000 through the federal child tax credit over the course of that kid’s lifetime.

Texas doesn’t mandate paid family leave, but California requires that each parent receive eight weeks of their salary. That’s worth another $13,000 to a family earning $90,000 a year – the median in my study – and more if the parents have higher incomes.

Where there’s even more hidden wealth

These somewhat hidden sources of wealth are worth far more in many other countries, especially Scandinavian ones. Norway provides a useful contrast.

The typical Norwegian worker retires with more than $510,000 in public pension wealth, I calculated. The exact amount they collect will vary depending on what they’ve earned and how long they live, as is the case with Social Security. But, unlike in the U.S., if they get sick, Norwegians are eligible for a up to a year of paid sick leave – worth about $57,000 to the median worker.

Norwegians can get unemployment insurance benefits for almost two years, amounting to $70,000 for the average worker, depending on their wages. And the combination of Norway’s child benefit and parental leave is worth between $60,000 and $80,000 from the time each child is born until they turn 18, depending on the parents’ exact income.

In the past few years, researchers have estimated the wealth value of public pensions – though not other government benefits – in several countries, including Australia, Austria, Germany, Poland and Switzerland, among others.

In many nations, this value rivals or exceeds that of all stocks, real estate and other private assets held by their residents combined.

Because so many people are eligible for Social Security or its equivalent public pension programs in other countries, there is also much less inequality in total retirement wealth than in standard measures of net worth.

Wealth vs. income

Wealth is much more unequally distributed than income just about everywhere. In the United States, for example, the richest 5% of the population has 32% of all income, but 70% of all wealth.

Wealth inequality has grown over time, and the Black-white wealth gap in the United States is particularly large. While typical Black families have incomes that are about 56% of what white families earn, they own only 18% as much wealth as the typical white family.

For these reasons, many politicians, scholars and activists have proposed ambitious policies to reduce inequality in private wealth, such as a wealth tax. Another idea gaining in popularity is to start issuing “baby bonds,” which give each newborn a prefunded savings account.

Wealth embedded in government benefits offers a complementary method of addressing wealth inequality. Even today, when Social Security and similar pension programs in other places are counted alongside private savings, inequality in retirement wealth is much lower than in privately held wealth alone.

Less flexible source of wealth

To be sure, the wealth you’re eventually due through Social Security and other government programs isn’t the same as the private assets you might own.

You can’t sell or borrow against your future Social Security benefits to meet an unexpected expense or make a down payment on a home. And if you die before reaching retirement age, you won’t receive any payments from the Social Security system yourself, although your spouse or heirs may be eligible for survivor benefits.

Also, government programs are not set in stone. Eligibility requirements can change, and benefit levels can be cut.

For instance, if the Social Security trust fund is depleted, retirees could see their benefits decline. But private wealth is also never guaranteed to last: Stock values can fluctuate wildly, and inflation erodes the value of any cash you’ve saved over time.

For these reasons, having a combination of private savings and government benefits offers the most promising way for everyone to prepare for their future. This can also help society address wealth inequality.

Robert Manduca has received funding from the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.

– ref. You’re probably richer than you think because of the safety net – but you’d have more of that hidden wealth if you lived in Norway – https://theconversation.com/youre-probably-richer-than-you-think-because-of-the-safety-net-but-youd-have-more-of-that-hidden-wealth-if-you-lived-in-norway-255833

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Andrew Fieldhouse, Visiting Assistant Professor of Finance, Texas A&M University

Large cuts to government-funded research and development can endanger American innovation – and the vital productivity gains it supports.

The Trump administration has already canceled at least US$1.8 billion in research grants previously awarded by the National Institutes of Health, which supports biomedical and health research. Its preliminary budget request for the 2026 fiscal year proposed slashing federal funding for scientific and health research, cutting the NIH budget by another $18 billion – nearly a 40% reduction. The National Science Foundation, which funds much of the basic scientific research conducted at universities, would see its budget slashed by $5 billion – cutting it by more than half.

Research and development spending might strike you as an unnecessary expense for the government. Perhaps you see it as something universities or private companies should instead be paying for themselves. But as research I’ve conducted shows, if the government were to abandon its long-standing practice of investing in R&D, it would significantly slow the pace of U.S. innovation and economic growth.

I’m an economist at Texas A&M University. For the past five years, I’ve been studying the long-term economic benefits of government-funded R&D with Karel Mertens, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. We have found that government R&D spending on everything from the Apollo space program to the Human Genome Project has fueled innovation. We also found that federal R&D spending has played a significant role in boosting U.S. productivity and spurring economic growth over the past 75 years.

Measuring productivity

Productivity rises when economic growth is caused by technological progress and know-how, rather than workers putting in more hours or employers using more equipment and machinery. Economists believe that higher productivity fuels economic growth and raises living standards over the long run.

U.S. productivity growth fell by half, from an average of roughly 2% a year in the 1950s and 1960s to about 1%, starting in the early 1970s. This deceleration eerily coincides with a big decline in government R&D spending, which peaked at over 1.8% of gross domestic product in the mid-1960s. Government R&D spending has declined since then and has fallen by half – to below 0.9% of GDP – today.

Government R&D spending encompasses all innovative work the government directly pays for, regardless of who does it. Private companies and universities conduct a lot of this work, as do national labs and federal agencies, like the NIH.

Correlation is not causation. But in a Dallas Fed working paper released in November 2024, my co-author and I identified a strong causal link between government R&D spending and U.S. productivity growth. We estimated that government R&D spending consistently accounted for more than 20% of all U.S. productivity growth since World War II. And a decline in that spending after the 1960s can account for nearly one-fourth of the deceleration in productivity since then.

These significant productivity gains came from R&D investments by federal agencies that are not focused on national defense. Examples include the NIH’s support for biomedical research, the Department of Energy’s funding for physics and energy research, and NASA’s spending on aeronautics and space exploration technologies.

Not all productivity growth is driven by government R&D. Economists think public investment in physical infrastructure, such as construction of the interstate highway system starting in the Eisenhower administration, also spurred productivity growth. And U.S. productivity growth briefly accelerated during the information technology boom of the late 1990s and early 2000s, which we do not attribute to government R&D investment.

More R than D

We have found that government R&D investment is more effective than private R&D spending at driving productivity, likely because the private sector tends to spend much more on the development side of R&D, while the public sector tends to emphasize research.

Economists believe the private sector will naturally underinvest in more fundamental research because it is harder to patent and profit from this work. We think our higher estimated returns on nondefense R&D reflect greater productivity benefits from fundamental research, which generates more widely shared knowledge, than from private sector spending on development.

Like the private sector, the Department of Defense spends much more on development – of weapons and military technology – than on fundamental research. We found only inconclusive evidence on the returns on military R&D.

R&D work funded by the Defense Department also tends to initially be classified and kept secret from geopolitical rivals, such as the Manhattan Project that developed the atomic bomb. As a result, gains for the whole economy from that source of innovation could take longer to materialize than the 15-year time frame we have studied.

Role of Congress

The high returns on nondefense R&D that we estimated suggest that Congress has historically underinvested in these areas. For instance, the productivity gains from nondefense R&D are at least 10 times higher than those from government investments in highways, bridges and other kinds of physical infrastructure. The government has also invested far more in physical infrastructure than R&D over the past 75 years. Increasing R&D investment would take advantage of these higher returns and gradually reduce them because of diminishing marginal returns to additional investment.

So why is the government not spending substantially more on R&D?

One argument sometimes heard against federal R&D spending is that it displaces, or “crowds out,” R&D spending the private sector would otherwise undertake. For instance, the administration’s budget request proposed reducing or eliminating NASA space technology programs it deemed “better suited to private sector research and development.”

But my colleague and I have found that government spending on R&D complements private investment. An additional dollar of government nondefense R&D spending causes the private sector to increase its R&D spending by an additional 20 cents. So we expect budget cuts to the NIH, NSF and NASA to actually reduce R&D spending by companies, which is also bad for economic growth.

Federal R&D spending is also often on the chopping block whenever Congress focuses on deficit reduction. In part, that likely reflects the gradual nature of the economic benefits from government-funded R&D, which are at odds with the country’s four-year electoral cycles.

Similarly, the benefits from NIH spending on biomedical research are usually less visible than government spending on Medicare or Medicaid, which are health insurance programs for those 65 years and older and those with low incomes or disabilities. But Medicare or Medicaid help Americans buy prescription drugs and medical devices that were invented with the help of NIH-funded research.

Even if the benefits of government R&D are slow to materialize or are harder to see than those from other government programs, our research suggests that the U.S. economy will be less innovative and productive – and Americans will be worse off for it – if Congress agrees to deep cuts to science and research funding.

The views expressed in the Dallas Fed working paper are the views of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas or the Federal Reserve System.

Andrew Fieldhouse 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. Federal R&D funding boosts productivity for the whole economy − making big cuts to such government spending unwise – https://theconversation.com/federal-randd-funding-boosts-productivity-for-the-whole-economy-making-big-cuts-to-such-government-spending-unwise-255823

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Wolfgang Messner, Clinical Professor of International Business, University of South Carolina

Artificial Intelligence began as a quest to simulate the human brain.

Is it now in the process of transforming the human brain’s role in daily life?

The Industrial Revolution diminished the need for manual labor. As someone who researches the application of AI in international business, I can’t help but wonder whether it is spurring a cognitive revolution, obviating the need for certain cognitive processes as it reshapes how students, workers and artists write, design and decide.

Graphic designers use AI to quickly create a slate of potential logos for their clients. Marketers test how AI-generated customer profiles will respond to ad campaigns. Software engineers deploy AI coding assistants. Students wield AI to draft essays in record time – and teachers use similar tools to provide feedback.

The economic and cultural implications are profound.

What happens to the writer who no longer struggles with the perfect phrase, or the designer who no longer sketches dozens of variations before finding the right one? Will they become increasingly dependent on these cognitive prosthetics, similar to how using GPS diminishes navigation skills? And how can human creativity and critical thinking be preserved in an age of algorithmic abundance?

Echoes of the Industrial Revolution

We’ve been here before.

The Industrial Revolution replaced artisanal craftsmanship with mechanized production, enabling goods to be replicated and manufactured on a mass scale.

Shoes, cars and crops could be produced efficiently and uniformly. But products also became more bland, predictable and stripped of individuality. Craftsmanship retreated to the margins, as a luxury or a form of resistance.

Today, there’s a similar risk with the automation of thought. Generative AI tempts users to conflate speed with quality, productivity with originality.

The danger is not that AI will fail us, but that people will accept the mediocrity of its outputs as the norm. When everything is fast, frictionless and “good enough,” there’s the risk of losing the depth, nuance and intellectual richness that define exceptional human work.

The rise of algorithmic mediocrity

Despite the name, AI doesn’t actually think.

Tools such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini process massive volumes of human-created content, often scraped from the internet without context or permission. Their outputs are statistical predictions of what word or pixel is likely to follow based on patterns in data they’ve processed.

They are, in essence, mirrors that reflect collective human creative output back to users – rearranged and recombined, but fundamentally derivative.

And this, in many ways, is precisely why they work so well.

Consider the countless emails people write, the slide decks strategy consultants prepare and the advertisements that suffuse social media feeds. Much of this content follows predictable patterns and established formulas. It has been there before, in one form or the other.

Generative AI excels at producing competent-sounding content – lists, summaries, press releases, advertisements – that bears the signs of human creation without that spark of ingenuity. It thrives in contexts where the demand for originality is low and when “good enough” is, well, good enough.

When AI sparks – and stifles – creativity

Yet, even in a world of formulaic content, AI can be surprisingly helpful.

In one set of experiments, researchers tasked people with completing various creative challenges. They found that those who used generative AI produced ideas that were, on average, more creative, outperforming participants who used web searches or no aids at all. In other words, AI can, in fact, elevate baseline creative performance.

However, further analysis revealed a critical trade-off: Reliance on AI systems for brainstorming significantly reduced the diversity of ideas produced, which is a crucial element for creative breakthroughs. The systems tend to converge toward a predictable middle rather than exploring unconventional possibilities at the edges.

I wasn’t surprised by these findings. My students and I have found that the outputs of generative AI systems are most closely aligned with the values and worldviews of wealthy, English-speaking nations. This inherent bias quite naturally constrains the diversity of ideas these systems can generate.

More troubling still, brief interactions with AI systems can subtly reshape how people approach problems and imagine solutions.

One set of experiments tasked participants with making medical diagnoses with the help of AI. However, the researchers designed the experiment so that AI would give some participants flawed suggestions. Even after those participants stopped using the AI tool, they tended to unconsciously adopt those biases and make errors in their own decisions.

What begins as a convenient shortcut risks becoming a self-reinforcing loop of diminishing originality – not because these tools produce objectively poor content, but because they quietly narrow the bandwidth of human creativity itself.

Navigating the cognitive revolution

True creativity, innovation and research are not just probabilistic recombinations of past data. They require conceptual leaps, cross-disciplinary thinking and real-world experience. These are qualities AI cannot replicate. It cannot invent the future. It can only remix the past.

What AI generates may satisfy a short-term need: a quick summary, a plausible design, a passable script. But it rarely transforms, and genuine originality risks being drowned in a sea of algorithmic sameness.

The challenge, then, isn’t just technological. It’s cultural.

How can the irreplaceable value of human creativity be preserved amid this flood of synthetic content?

The historical parallel with industrialization offers both caution and hope. Mechanization displaced many workers but also gave rise to new forms of labor, education and prosperity. Similarly, while AI systems may automate some cognitive tasks, they may also open up new intellectual frontiers by simulating intellectual abilities. In doing so, they may take on creative responsibilities, such as inventing novel processes or developing criteria to evaluate their own outputs.

This transformation is only at its early stages. Each new generation of AI models will produce outputs that once seemed like the purview of science fiction. The responsibility lies with professionals, educators and policymakers to shape this cognitive revolution with intention.

Will it lead to intellectual flourishing or dependency? To a renaissance of human creativity or its gradual obsolescence?

The answer, for now, is up in the air.

Wolfgang Messner receives funding from Center for International Business Education and Research (CIBER) at the University of South Carolina.

– ref. Is AI sparking a cognitive revolution that will lead to mediocrity and conformity? – https://theconversation.com/is-ai-sparking-a-cognitive-revolution-that-will-lead-to-mediocrity-and-conformity-256940

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Tulasi Srinivas, Professor of Anthropology, Religion and Transnational Studies, Emerson College

Could a Philly cheesesteak joint actually get a Michelin star?

The Michelin Red Guide is coming to Philadelphia, and inspectors are already scouting local restaurants to award the famed Michelin star.

Michelin says the selected restaurants will be announced in a Northeast cities edition celebration later this year. Boston will also be included for the first time.

As an anthropologist of ethics and religion who has an expertise in food studies, I read the announcement with some curiosity and a lot of questions. I had seen this small red guide revered by chefs and gourmands alike around the globe.

How did the Michelin guide begin reviewing restaurants? And what makes it an authority on cuisine worldwide?

From tires to terrines

It all began in 1889 in the small town of Clermont-Ferrand in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region of France. Brothers Andre and Edouard Michelin founded their world-famous Michelin tire company, fueled by a grand vision for France’s automobile industry – though there were fewer than 3,000 cars at the time in the whole of France.

To encourage travel, they distributed a red-bound guide filled with maps and helpful tips on routes and destinations. Initially free to automobile owners, it soon started to sell for seven francs – roughly US$1.50 at the time. The guide later added lists of restaurants and eateries along with other points of travel interest.

Being French, readers had questions about the quality of the food at these establishments, so the brothers started a rating system of a single star to denote high-quality establishments worthy of their elite customers and their fancy automobiles.

But that wasn’t enough for discerning diners. So the guide created a discriminating hierarchy of one-, two- and three-star establishments: one star for “high-quality cooking worth a stop,” two stars for “excellent cooking worth a detour,” and three stars for “exceptional cuisine worth a special journey.”

An army of anonymous inspectors

How do restaurants get a Michelin star – or three? According to the guide, restaurants have to be consistently extraordinary to garner three stars. To ensure a restaurant’s excellence is consistent, Michelin has to surveil them repeatedly, which it does using a stable of mysterious diners called “inspectors.”

You might be thinking of Inspector Clouseau, the klutzy, misguided detective from the Pink Panther movies played by the inimitable Peter Sellers.

Mais non!

Michelin inspectors are dreaded anonymous restaurant reviewers. They dine at restaurants unannounced and undercover, and inevitably write scathing critiques of everything – ingredients, food, chefs and dishes – in their reports.

In the 2015 Bradley Cooper movie “Burnt,” the restaurant is obsessed with the mystery Michelin inspectors, who dine incognito. Restaurateur Tony, played by Daniel Bruhl, instructs the dining room staff on how to spot them:

“No one knows who they are. No one. They come. They eat. They go. But they have habits. One orders the tasting menu, the other orders a la carte. Always. They order a half a bottle of wine. They ask for tap water. They are polite. But attention! They may place a fork on the floor to see if you notice.”

Holy grail for chefs

The inherent elitism of the iconic Michelin Guide was central, though left unspoken.

To counteract the guide’s existential classist bias, Michelin introduced the Bib Gourmand award in 1997 to identify affordable “best value for money restaurants.” Bib Gourmand restaurants are easier on the wallet than Michelin-starred establishments and offer casual dining. The award’s logo is the Bibendum, also known as the inflatable Michelin Man, licking his lips.

In 2020, the guide introduced yet another award: the green star for eateries with farm-to-table fresh quality.

Today, the Michelin Guide has become a vaunted yet controversial subjective yardstick by which restaurants are measured.

Getting a Michelin star has become a holy grail for many chefs, a Nobel prize of cuisine. Chefs speak of earning a star as an honor they have envisaged for a lifetime, and starred chefs often become celebrities in their own right.

The 2022 dark comedy “The Menu” stars Ralph Fiennes as one such celebrity Michelin chef, whose exclusive island restaurant has a lavish modern menu that culminates in a mystery performance. His greatest fear is losing his Michelin star – a cause for lament, mental health crises and, sometimes, murder.

Three stars for Eurocentrism

The Michelin Guide evaluates restaurants on the quality of their ingredients, the mastery of their flavors, the chef’s personality in their cooking, the harmony of flavors, and the consistency of the cuisine over the course of numerous visits.

Yet somehow, all these factors, seemingly easily translatable across the world’s cuisines, has led to an intensely parochial guide.

Only in 2007, 118 years after its inception, did the guide recognize Japanese cuisine as worthy of its gaze. Soon after, stars rained down on Tokyo’s many stellar eateries.

On a contemporary map charting where the Michelin Guide is found, huge swathes of the world are missing. There is no Michelin Guide in India, one of the world’s greatest and oldest cuisines, or in Africa with its multiplicity of cultural flavors.

Perhaps a side of racism with the boeuf bourguignon?

Despite a movement to decolonize food by rethinking colonial legacies of power and extractive ways of eating, Michelin has derived its stellar reputation primarily from reviewing metropolitan European cuisine. It has celebrated obscure European gastronomic processes such as “fire cooking” in Stockholm’s famous Ekstedt restaurant, and new chemical processes such as “molecular gastronomy” in Spain’s famed el Bulli eatery.

One could say Michelin is a somewhat conservative enterprise. Rather than leading the way, it has followed consumers’ expanding palates.

In 2024, in a rare break with tradition, Michelin awarded one star to a small family-run taqueria, El Califa De León, in Mexico City. The taqueria is known for its signature tacos de gaonera – thinly sliced rib-eye steak cooked in lard on fresh corn masa tortillas with a squeeze of lime.

Some discerning diners worried that Michelin had gone downhill.

Quelle horreur!

The decision to give a star to a Mexican restaurant that is essentially just a steel counter, fridge and griddle was so unlike Michelin that it resorted to describing El Califa tacos as “elemental and pure”; language previously reserved only to describe elite cuisine.

A big bill

Soon-to-be-reviewed Philadelphia boasts a portfolio of epicurean excellence, with contributions from a global diaspora of culinary creators. Restaurants such as Zahav, Kalaya and Mawn – which serve Israeli, Thai and Cambodian food, respectively – are surely eyeing their prospects for a starry future.

That Boston and Philadelphia’s tourism boards likely paid for the pleasure of the guide visiting their cities has been a topic of discussion among food cognoscenti. Reportedly, the Atlanta Tourism Board paid nearly $1 million for Michelin to visit their city. Is Michelin merely a well-regarded shakedown? A few stars in exchange for a million dollars?

After indirectly footing that big bill, what can local diners look forward to in the wake of Michelin awards scattering across the Northeast?

Since Michelin restaurants are notoriously difficult to get into – the award invariably prompts a surge in customers and reservations – the enhanced reputation of the restaurants might translate to price increases for diners.

Starred restaurants will also likely feel tremendous pressure to maintain high food quality and service, and this too can add to cost – particularly in an era of tariffs on foreign ingredients and alcohols.

Diners won’t escape unscathed. Industry officials suggest that Michelin stars add an average of $100 per diner per star. But, on the upside, diners may be able to gawk at local and international celebrities at dinner, since hanging out at Michelin-starred establishments has long been a celebrity preoccupation.

So if you have a favorite hot restaurant in Philadelphia, better make that reservation immediately, before a Michelin star makes it impossible to get in.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia.

Tulasi Srinivas 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. The Michelin Guide is Eurocentric and elitist − yet it will soon be an arbiter of culinary excellence in Philly – https://theconversation.com/the-michelin-guide-is-eurocentric-and-elitist-yet-it-will-soon-be-an-arbiter-of-culinary-excellence-in-philly-256667

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Diane Winston, Professor and Knight Center Chair in Media & Religion, USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism

President Donald Trump has never met Todd Chrisley, the reality TV star that he pardoned on May 27, 2025, along with Chrisley’s wife, Julie.

But the pair have much in common.

Both are admired by their fans for their brash personas and salty ripostes. Both enjoy lavish lifestyles: Trump is known for his real estate deals and rococo White House redecoration, and Chrisley for his entrepreneurial skill and acquisitions of sprawling properties.

Quick-tempered tycoons, they live large and keep score – especially when people cross them.

And maybe most importantly, both have run into legal trouble with Georgia prosecutors. In 2019, The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Georgia indicted the Chrisleys for fraud and tax evasion, and the Fulton County district attorney filed charges against Trump in 2023.

In 2022, Todd and Julie Chrisley were tried in Fulton County, found guilty and sentenced to 12- and seven-year sentences, respectively. A year later, a Fulton County grand jury indicted Trump as part of an alleged conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia, a case that’s currently in limbo.

After the Chrisleys went to prison, their daughter Savannah began campaigning for their release. Her efforts to win over prominent conservatives – including her outspoken support for Trump – led to a prime-time appearance at the 2024 Republican National Convention.

“My family has been persecuted by rogue prosecutors due to our public profile and conservative beliefs,” she told the delegates and a television audience of 15 million viewers.

Turning an insult into an accolade, she claimed prosecutors had called them the “Trumps of the South.”

Her framing of her parents’ imprisonment aligns with Trump’s broader campaign narrative of victimization, redemption and retribution, which critics say he has continued to promote and carry out during his second term.

Preaching perfection

Like Trump, who starred on “The Apprentice” for 11 years, the Chrisleys had their own reality television show.

“Chrisley Knows Best” aired on USA Network from 2014 to 2023. I’m familiar with the Chrisleys because I wrote about Todd in a 2018 book I co-edited on religion and reality television. The show was particularly popular among viewers in their 30s, who were fascinated by the Chrisleys’ extravagant lifestyle and Todd’s over-the-top personality.

The self-proclaimed “patriarch of perfection,” Todd flew twice a month to Los Angeles from Atlanta, and later Nashville, to have his hair cut and highlighted. He spoke freely about using Botox and invited viewers into his room-size closet where his clothes were organized by color. No matter the time of day, Todd was camera-ready: buffed, manicured and dressed in designer clothes.

The family enjoyed all the trappings of success: fancy cars, a palatial home and expensive vacations. Yet, in almost every episode, Todd made clear that his life, and theirs by extension, centered on family, religion and responsibility. In fact, many episodes revolved around Todd’s efforts to promote these values through his parenting lessons.

On the one hand, Todd tried to teach responsibility and the value of hard work to his five children. On the other hand, he bribed and cajoled them into doing what he wanted. Todd seemed to have it both ways: His strictness and traditional values appealed to Christian viewers, but his sass and cussing won over secular audiences.

Yet sometimes his words rang hollow. Todd talked a lot about work, but viewers rarely saw him at a job. He frequently quoted the Bible, but audiences seldom saw him in church. He extolled family, but a few years into the series, his two older children, Lindsie and Kyle, disappeared from the show.

In 2023, the series disappeared, too. By then, the Chrisleys were in prison.

Trump knows best

On the day of his inauguration, when Trump pardoned or commuted the sentences of the roughly 1,500 people involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, he vowed to “take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to the weaponization of law enforcement.”

According to the president, the imprisonment of Todd and Julie Chrisley and his pardoning of them is just that.

“Your parents are going to be free and clean and I hope that we can do it by tomorrow,” Trump told Savannah Chrisley in a recorded phone conversation. “They’ve been given a pretty harsh treatment based on what I’m hearing.”

Trump’s pardons, which have freed a number of conservatives convicted of fraud, may stem from his belief that he and many others have been falsely accused and persecuted by the elite, liberal establishment.

But the pardons also strike home for his right-wing religious supporters, many of whom think that Democrats will do anything to quash their faith, including using the justice system to specifically target Christians.

“We live in a nation founded on freedom, liberty and justice for all. Justice is supposed to be blind. But today, we have a two-faced justice system,” Savannah Chrisley said during her RNC speech. “Look at what they are doing to countless Christians and conservatives that the government has labeled them extremists or even worse.”

While those claims have been disputed, eradicating anti-Christian bias, at home and abroad, has nevertheless become a centerpiece of Trump’s policies during his second term.

The lawyers who prosecuted the Chrisleys had a different perspective. They called Todd and Julie “career swindlers who have made a living by jumping from one fraud scheme to another, lying to banks, stiffing vendors and evading taxes at every corner,” and whose reputations were “based on the lie that their wealth came from dedication and hard work.”

The couple were ultimately found guilty of defrauding Atlanta-area banks of US$36 million by using falsified papers to apply for mortgages, obtaining false loans to repay older loans, and not repaying those loans. They also were convicted of hiding their true income from the IRS and owing $500,000 in back taxes.

At his sentencing, Todd said that he intended to pay it all back. At a press conference after his pardon, he said he was convicted for something he did not do.

In the days since their release, the Chrisleys announced they were filming a new reality show, which will air on Lifetime. The series will focus on the couple’s legal struggles, imprisonment, pardon and reunification.

Thanks to the constitutional protections of the presidency, Trump’s reelection has shielded him from ongoing federal criminal prosecution. And now, thanks to the stroke of Trump’s pen, the “Trumps of the South” are back in business, too.

Diane Winston 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. In pardoning reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley, Trump taps into a sense of persecution felt by his conservative Christian base – https://theconversation.com/in-pardoning-reality-tv-stars-todd-and-julie-chrisley-trump-taps-into-a-sense-of-persecution-felt-by-his-conservative-christian-base-257932

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Xianda Huang, PhD student in Asian Languages and Cultures, University of California, Los Angeles

Several years ago, an employee at Universal Music came across a cassette tape in a Tokyo warehouse while sorting through archival materials. On it was a recording by the late Taiwanese pop star Teresa Teng that had never been released; the pop ballad, likely recorded in the mid-1980s while Teng was living and performing in Japan, was a collaboration between composer Takashi Miki and lyricist Toyohisa Araki.

Now, to the delight of her millions of fans, the track titled “Love Songs Are Best in the Foggy Night” will appear on an album set to be released on June 25, 2025.

Teng died 30 years ago. Most Americans know little about her life and her body of work. Yet the ballads of Teng, who could sing in Mandarin, Cantonese, Japanese and Indonesian, continue to echo through karaoke rooms, on Spotify playlists, at tribute concerts and at family gatherings across Asia and beyond.

I study how pop music has served as a tool of soft power, and I’ve spent the past several years researching Teng’s music and its legacy. I’ve found that Teng’s influence endures not just because of her voice, but also because her music transcends Asia’s political fault lines.

From local star to Asian icon

Born in 1953 in Yunlin, Taiwan, Teresa Teng grew up in one of the many villages that were built to house soldiers and their families who had fled mainland China in 1949 after the communists claimed victory in the Chinese civil war. Her early exposure to traditional Chinese music and opera laid the foundation for her singing career. By age 6, she was taking voice lessons. She soon began winning local singing competitions.

“It wasn’t adults who wanted me to sing,” Teng wrote in her memoir. “I wanted to sing. As long as I could sing, I was happy.”

At 14, Teng dropped out of high school to focus entirely on music, signing with the local label Yeu Jow Records. Soon thereafter, she released her first album, “Fengyang Flower Drum.” In the 1970s, she toured and recorded across Taiwan, Hong Kong, Japan and Southeast Asia, becoming one of Asia’s first truly transnational pop stars.

Teng’s career flourished in the late 1970s and 1980s. She released some of her most iconic tracks, such as her covers of Chinese singer Zhou Xuan’s 1937 hit “When Will You Return?” and Taiwanese singer Chen Fen-lan’s “The Moon Represents My Heart,” and toured widely across Asia, sparking what came to be known as “Teresa Teng Fever.”

In the early 1990s, Teng was forced to stop performing for health reasons. She died suddenly of an asthma attack on May 8, 1995, while on vacation in Chiang Mai, Thailand, at the age of 42.

China catches Teng Fever

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of Teng’s story is that Teng Fever peaked in China.

Teng was ethnically Chinese, with ancestral roots in China’s Shandong province. But the political divide between China and Taiwan following the Chinese civil war had led to decades of hostility, with each side refusing to recognize the legitimacy of the other.

During the late 1970s and 1980s, however, China began to relax its political control under Deng Xiaoping’s Reform and Opening Up policy. This sweeping initiative shifted China toward a market-oriented economy, encouraged foreign trade and investment, and cautiously reintroduced global cultural influences after decades of isolation.

Pop music from other parts of the world began trickling in, including Teng’s tender ballads. Her songs could be heard in coastal provinces such as Guangdong and Shanghai, inland cities such as Beijing and Tianjin, and even remote regions such as Tibet. Shanghai’s propaganda department wrote an internal memo in 1980 noting that her music had spread to the city’s public parks, restaurants, nursing homes and wedding halls.

Teng’s immense popularity in China was no accident; it reflected a time in the country’s history when its people were particularly eager for emotionally resonant art after decades of cultural propaganda and censorship.

For a society that had been awash in rote, revolutionary songs like “The East is Red” and “Union is Strength,” Teng’s music offered something entirely different. It was personal, tender and deeply human. Her gentle, approachable style – often described as “angelic” or like that of “a girl next door” – provided solace and a sense of intimacy that had long been absent from public life.

Teng’s music was also admired for her ability to bridge eras. Her 1983 album “Light Exquisite Feeling” fused classical Chinese poetry with contemporary Western pop melodies, showcasing her gift for blending the traditional and the modern. It cemented her reputation not just as a pop star but as a cultural innovator.

It’s no secret why audiences across China and Asia were so deeply drawn to her and her music. She was fluent in multiple languages; she was elegant but humble, polite and relatable; she was involved in various charities; and she spoke out in support of democratic values.

A sound of home in distant lands

Throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, the Chinese immigrant population in the United States grew to over 1.1 million. Teng’s music has also deeply embedded itself within Chinese diasporic communities across the country. In cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco and New York, Chinese immigrants played her music at family gatherings, during holidays and at community events. Walk through any Chinatown during Lunar New Year and you’re bound to hear her voice wafting through the streets.

For younger Chinese Americans and even non-Chinese audiences, Teng’s music has become a window into Chinese culture.

When I was studying in the U.S., I often met Asian American students who belted out her songs at karaoke nights or during cultural festivals. Many had grown up hearing her music through their parents’ playlists or local community celebrations.

The release of her recently discovered song is a reminder that some voices do not fade – they evolve, migrate and live on in the hearts of people scattered across the world.

In an age when global politics drive different cultures apart, Teng’s enduring appeal reminds us of something quieter yet more lasting: the power of voice to transmit emotion across time and space, the way a melody can build a bridge between continents and generations.

I recently rewatched the YouTube video for Teng’s iconic 1977 ballad “The Moon Represents My Heart.” As I read the comments section, one perfectly encapsulated what I had discovered about Teresa Teng in my own research: “Teng’s music opened a window to a culture I never knew I needed.”

Xianda Huang 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. ‘The Eternal Queen of Asian Pop’ sings one last encore from beyond the grave – https://theconversation.com/the-eternal-queen-of-asian-pop-sings-one-last-encore-from-beyond-the-grave-255560

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Stefan Szymanski, Professor of Sport Management, University of Michigan

The FIFA World Club Cup, which kicks off in the U.S. on June 14, 2025, may seem like a new competition.

Certainly, soccer’s governing body, FIFA, is promoting it as is it were, marketing the monthlong competition between 32 of the world’s biggest soccer teams as the “pinnacle of club football,” with up to US$125 million in prize money for the winning team and $250 million set aside for promoting “football solidarity.”

In reality, the competition is the latest chapter in FIFA’s long-running quest – going all the way back to 1960 – to create a global championship that would determine which club really is the best in the world.

The organizing body has trumpeted a $1 billion prize pot for the World Club Cup. But FIFA has been less vocal about the broadcasting deal underpinning the event, which is being financed by Saudi Arabia reportedly to tune of $1 billion. That deal was announced just days before Saudi Arabia was confirmed as the host of the men’s 2034 World Cup – a lucrative prize for the Gulf kingdom.

This sounds more like the FIFA we all know, with the whiff of corruption and dodgy dealing that has dogged the organizing body for decades.

FIFA’s critics argue that the competition is nothing more than an attempt to line the governing body’s coffers. FIFA’s line is that it will not keep “one dollar” from the event, and instead plans to distribute revenue to the clubs.

Not helping FIFA’s case is the fact that clubs and players are similarly unimpressed, protesting that the event is an unnecessary addition to an already-overburdened soccer calendar.

As always, the litmus test for success will come from the fans. So far, things are not going well on that front. Falling prices on Ticketmaster bode ill for the competition. Just days before the games were due to begin, FIFA slashed prices for the opening match: MLS club Inter Miami against Egypt’s Al-Ahly. Reports suggest that less than a third of tickets at the 65,000-seat venue for the opener, Hard Rock Stadium in Miami, had sold – despite the likely presence of soccer superstar Lionel Messi.

Of course, the declining number of tourists coming to the U.S. since the second inauguration of Donald Trump – and the president’s recently announced travel ban affecting 19 countries – hasn’t helped encourage fans of the global game to the U.S., even if none of the competing clubs come from one of those countries.

FIFA vs. UEFA

So, given all the problems and controversies, why is FIFA so invested?

As someone who has long researched the nexus of soccer, money and power, I see the World Club Cup as part of a struggle between UEFA, the European governing body that runs the Champions League – currently seen as the pinnacle of soccer club competition – and FIFA, which wants to supplant the Champions League with its own competition.

UEFA’s power stems from hosting the world’s biggest clubs. Only one club from outside Europe appears in soccer data website Transfermarkt’s list of the 50 most valuable squads – with Palmeiras from Brazil squeaking in at 50.

Top players in their prime rarely quit Europe to play on another continent – the high-profile names that opt to play in the U.S. or Saudi leagues tend to be veterans cashing in on their name.

Meanwhile, the world’s soccer talent flocks to European clubs. It’s not just that big clubs like Real Madrid, Liverpool or Bayern Munich that can pay top dollar for the star players – less storied clubs like Brentford, Real Sociedad or VfB Stuttgart have the wherewithal to fish in the global player market.

The wealth and status of these clubs form the muscle behind UEFA. And the jewel in the UEFA crown is the Champions League, an annual competition that brings together the best clubs in Europe.

A game of two halves

While UEFA also has its own national competition, the Euros, its pull is nowhere near as great as FIFA’s World Cup.

This division – with FIFA dominating the international team competition and UEFA the club competition – dates back to the 1960s and the early years of mass television.

When the 1966 World Cup was hosted by England, it was one of the very first global sports events, watched by an estimated audience of 400 million people worldwide.

The 1970 World Cup, a legendary event in the eyes of boomer soccer fans, established the four-year ritual that surpasses even the Olympics as a global sporting event.

At this time, UEFA’s Euros were barely a competition at all. The 1968, 1972 and 1976 editions – played in Italy, Belgium and Yugoslavia, respectively – each had only four teams and only four or five games.

UEFA had by then established its role in club competition. The European Cup, as the Champions League was then called, started in 1955.

But the game remembered today for establishing the dominance of European club competition is the 1960 final between Real Madrid and Eintract Frankfurt – a 10-goal thriller that Los Blancos won 7-3.

Witnessed by a crowd of 128,000 at Hampden Park in Glasgow, Scotland, the more important statistic was the estimated 70 million television audience in Europe.

The 1968 final at London’s Wembley Stadium, when Manchester United overcame Benfica in honor of the “Busby Babes” – Manchester players who died in a 1958 Munich air disaster while traveling home from a European Cup game – saw a TV audience of 270 million.

A history of failure

The ambition to create a club world cup to rival the European Cup goes back to the 1950s. Soccer powerhouses Brazil and Argentina in particular promoted the idea that the top clubs in Europe should face off against the top South American teams.

The resulting Intercontinental Cup ran from 1960 to 2004, with the top teams from UEFA and CONMEBOL, the South American soccer federation, taking part.

But played in midseason, it barely made an impression on the fans.

In 2000, FIFA created the Club World Championship, with eight teams drawn from the five international federations.

It also attracted little love, and the 2001-to-2004 editions had to be canceled for lack of financial backing.

In the early years, it seemed like an excuse to emulate the Intercontinental Cup, and the first three winners were South American. However, since 2006, all the winners bar one – Brazil’s Corinthians in 2012 – have been European.

Europe is ‘on the beach’

Then, in 2017, Gianni Infantino, the FIFA president, announced plans to expand the competition and move it to the summer. With 32 teams, the competition will look more like the World Cup and will receive a lot of TV coverage.

The fact that it will be free to watch will help. So too will the presence of Messi.

Yet the overwhelming feeling going into the competition is that, like its predecessors, the revamped FIFA club competition is destined for failure.

With the European domestic leagues all completed and the Champions League final – the unofficial marker of the end of the soccer season – having taken place on May 31, players and fans appear to be “on the beach,” to use a favorite phrase of soccer commentators.

Ultimately, FIFA’s revamped World Club Cup faces the same issues that beset its forerunners: European teams are overwhelmingly tipped to win.

Rather than the global soccer “solidarity” that FIFA hopes, the competition sets to reinforce the dominance of European clubs – and of Europe’s governing body when it comes to club competition.

Stefan Szymanski 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. Dismal ticket sales, grumblings from fans and clubs – is FIFA’s latest attempt to establish a global club game doomed before it starts? – https://theconversation.com/dismal-ticket-sales-grumblings-from-fans-and-clubs-is-fifas-latest-attempt-to-establish-a-global-club-game-doomed-before-it-starts-258378

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Sean G. Massey, Associate Professor of Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies, Binghamton University, State University of New York

The story of the AIDS movement is one of regular people: students, bartenders, stay-at-home mothers, teachers, retired lawyers, immigrants, Catholic nuns, newly out gay men who had just arrived in New York, and many others. Some had lost friends or lovers. Some felt a moral calling. Some were just trying to balance their sexual karma. Many were angry. Most had no medical background or professional credentials – just a sense of urgency, tenacity and an unwillingness to look away.

When Gay Men’s Health Crisis, the world’s first AIDS service organization, was founded in 1982, it was regular people trying to meet the needs of all people living with AIDS. Its workforce of volunteers provided HIV prevention education as well as physical, emotional and legal support.

At the start of the epidemic, AIDS was considered a “gay plague,” and to be openly queer was to risk abandonment, eviction, assault or worse. Families disowned their children. Hospitals turned patients away. Funeral homes refused bodies. And many people with AIDS found themselves alone and in need.

Public officials didn’t just fail to act – they refused to acknowledge that anything was happening at all. Elected leaders such as President Ronald Reagan and Sen. Jesse Helms stoked the moral panic guiding public policy by declaring people with AIDS “perverted human being(s).”

In 2025, with the Trump administration cutting federal funding for HIV research and support services and restricting protections and services for LGBTQ+ people, studying how everyday people approached the early AIDS crisis provides a model for surviving through innovation, commitment and community.

Stories informing the present

“I think 26,000 people died before (Reagan) even bothered to utter the word ‘AIDS,’” said Tim Sweeney, former executive director of Gay Men’s Health Crisis.

This quote is featured in the GMHC Stories Oral History Project, a collection of over 100 interviews with former volunteers, staff and donors from the first 15 years of the organization. Along with our colleague Julia Haager, we and our team at Binghamton University’s Human Sexualities Lab compiled these interviews. Acquired by the Manuscripts and Archives Division of The New York Public Library, the collection is scheduled to open in fall 2025, showcasing how everyday people responded to the AIDS crisis.

These stories document how a community presented with a set of circumstances threatening their very existence built a self-sustaining organization to advocate for and provide care to each other outside institutional support. They did this while enduring grief, standing up to external threats and navigating internal tensions.

Improvisation for survival

The work was an ongoing challenge. Organizations dedicated to aiding people affected by AIDS such as Gay Men’s Health Crisis were left to fund their own survival – and defend their right to do the work. When North Carolina Sen. Jesse Helms moved in 1988 to eliminate federal support for AIDS service programs that mentioned homosexuality, it severely limited AIDS prevention efforts nation wide. However, GMHC had the foresight to fund its more explicit education materials with private donations.

At the beginning of the epidemic, queer New Yorkers and their allies had to improvise new systems of care in the absence of state and federal support. “People often (ask) me, what was the model you worked off of?” said Sweeney. “And I said, there was no model, there was just a muddle. We just made it up the whole time.”

What they created almost overnight was staggering. “There were over 1,000 volunteers in the agency,” recalled staff member Tom Weber, who started at GMHC as an office volunteer in 1988. “We would have orientations every single week, and they would flood in.”

One of the most well-known expressions of that volunteer labor was the buddy program, where lay caregivers provided emotional and practical support to people living with AIDS. “A lot of people were not alone in their death because of the work that we did,” said Barbara Danish, who led the buddy program from 1996 to 2002.

Education and prevention were also grounded in queer culture and community. Unlike early depictions of AIDS in the media that reduced patients to “vectors” of transmission, it was defiantly sex-positive. “We came up with shit that no one in the world had ever done,” Sweeney said. “Because finally it was gay men saying … we’re going to talk to each other about how to stay safe, healthy and sexy.”

When that sense of mission extended to emotional survival, humor and unapologetically queer culture were critical to bearing the weight of the work. “Sometimes you just break down and cry for an hour. But that’s how you survive it – by staying authentic to your emotions,” said Tommy Thomson, former director of client programs. She recalled how staff member “Carolotta,” or Carl, would sometimes put condoms and chocolate in a basket and go from office to office, frequently in drag. He would offer either or both to make people feel better. “He’d make you remember that you weren’t alone, and that we all know how hard it is. That’s part of what held you together.”

Internal tensions

Although Gay Men’s Health Crisis remained mission-driven, its internal politics were never simple. As it grew in size and national stature, it confronted the limits of its founding identity.

Founded by, and initially serving, primarily white gay men, GMHC sometimes struggled to adapt to the emerging realities of the epidemic. While AIDS also affected people of color, women and intravenous drug users from the outset, much of the agency’s early prevention and outreach work was designed with gay men in mind.

By the late 1980s, the increase in AIDS cases among white gay men had begun to plateau, while rates among Black and Latino people, women and IV drug users continued to rise sharply into the next decade. Women and people of color who were deeply embedded in GMHC’s operations nonetheless had to navigate assumptions about whose needs were prioritized – assumptions that often manifested in how resources were allocated and services were designed. As GMHC expanded its outreach to Black and Latino populations, it struggled to be culturally responsive and build trust in communities that had long been underserved and stigmatized.

As GMHC grew, it became more and more successful in fundraising and visibility, while smaller organizations sometimes struggled to access resources. This led to growing tensions, particularly in communities of color, where local groups feared that GMHC’s expansion would limit funding and undercut their efforts at community-specific approaches to care and prevention. In addition, efforts to address racism, sexism and cultural insensitivity encountered both support and indifference.

Yet, staff and volunteers continued to push – reshaping messaging, fighting for inclusive programming, and holding conversations about race, gender, power and public health. For staff and volunteers, the agency was a complicated institution that could both empower and marginalize. Its strength, and its struggle, was learning how to expand without losing sight of the legacy and history it was built on.

A guide for today

Forty years later, LGBTQ+ people face a new set of crises in a landscape riddled with dangers.

Trans health care is being banned in multiple states. Book bans and surveillance laws are targeting queer youth. Anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric is fueling violence and censorship. Funding for HIV prevention and research is disappearing even as new infections persist. Black and brown communities still face disproportionate barriers to health care and housing. Decades of scientific progress and medical discoveries are coming to a halt with funding cuts under the Trump administration.

And yet many of the same questions and challenges remain: Who gets left behind when public health systems collapse under political pressure or moral panic? Who will do the work when institutions fail? What does it mean to care for one another in the midst of the wreckage? How do people come together across differences?

The history of GMHC is more than memory – it is a lesson in the possibility of care, creativity and community, especially in the face of fear and uncertainty today. It shows how people can come together – not just to demand policy change, but to directly meet one another’s needs with whatever resources they have. It is a reminder that mutual aid is powerful; that grief can coexist with joy; and that queer resilience has always included laughter, desire and shared vulnerability. In a time of renewed political backlash and public health failures, GMHC’s story is more than history – it’s a guide. Today, the staff and volunteers at GMHC continue their work to confront the epidemic and uplift the lives of all people affected by AIDS.

“We’d say to them, ‘You’re just ordinary citizens doing extraordinary things,’” Sweeney said. “And we really meant that.”

Sean G. Massey was a volunteer and staff member at Gay Men’s Health Crisis (GMHC), the organization that is being discussed in this article, from 1988-1998.

Casey W. Adrian and Eden Lowinger do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Gay Men’s Health Crisis showed how everyday people stepped up when institutions failed during the height of the AIDS epidemic – providing a model for today – https://theconversation.com/gay-mens-health-crisis-showed-how-everyday-people-stepped-up-when-institutions-failed-during-the-height-of-the-aids-epidemic-providing-a-model-for-today-258139