Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kate Perepezko, Research Scientist, Miami University

The number of family caregivers has grown from 53 million Americans in 2020 to 63 million as of 2025. This number is expected to increase as the baby boomer generation ages and faces the limitations of our current health and social services systems.

A family caregiver is an unpaid individual who provides assistance to a family member who needs support due to illness, disability or aging.

The population of metro Pittsburgh is one of the oldest in the country, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. This means an increasing proportion of the local population will require care from family caregivers as they age. In Allegheny County, the number of residents age 65 and older is projected to grow by 50,000 by 2050.

Despite their critical role in supporting the aging population, however, family caregivers are not often provided with medical training or help with navigating the health and social services systems. This puts them at significant risk of experiencing physical and mental strain that can lead to burnout and leaving the workforce before retirement age. Caregivers and those they support can also develop health complications based on these factors.

This is particularly true for women, who provide a disproportionate amount of care in the U.S.

I study ways to improve the quality of life for aging adults and their care partners. My work centers on how family caregiving can improve mental health for families. I also examine the toll that caregiving takes on families navigating serious illness and decline.

Sandwich generation caregivers

The “sandwich generation” refers to adults – typically in their 40s and 50s – who are simultaneously caring for their aging parents while raising their own children. They are “sandwiched” between two generations of dependents and often face significant financial and emotional pressures as a result.

These caregivers often find themselves caught between work and unpredictable caregiving demands. Without formal protections like paid leave, they may feel forced to reduce hours, turn down promotions or leave the workforce altogether. These decisions can add to the financial strain they’re already under.

Where the law falls short

Several national and state programs exist to support older adults.

The federal Older Americans Act funds services like meal delivery, transportation and caregiver support, and Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services helps older adults receive care at home rather than in a facility. But systemic barriers – from eligibility gaps to access issues – limit their reach.

Federal initiatives like the RAISE Family Caregivers Act offer some hope for family caregivers. It outlines specific actions the government can take to help caregivers, including making it easier for them to balance caregiving with their jobs.

In addition, several states have implemented paid family leave policies. California, for example, offers up to eight weeks of paid family caregiving leave – replacing up to 90% of wages for lower earners. Washington and Massachusetts both provide up to 12 weeks, with wage replacement rates of 90% and 80%, respectively, and include job protection so caregivers don’t have to choose between their loved one and their livelihood.

Pennsylvania may be next. Legislators are currently debating the Family Care Act, paid leave legislation proposed by state Rep. Jennifer O’Mara. The bill, approved by the Pennsylvania House in March 2026, would allow employees to take up to 12 paid weeks off after the birth of a child or to care for a family member during a serious illness. Spotlight PA reports that the House-approved bill proposes employers cover the cost, with grants available for small businesses.

The state Senate’s version of the Family Care Act, pending in the Labor & Industry Committee as of May 2026, would fund benefits through employee payroll deductions of up to 1% of their income. This addresses a critical gap in existing federal law, which guarantees only unpaid leave.

Even if passed and signed into law, the proposal may fall short for sandwich generation caregivers, who face simultaneous, overlapping demands on both ends of the age spectrum. Many of these caregivers have already reduced hours or left the workforce entirely. A benefit tied to employment may never reach the people who need it most.

Pittsburgh’s generational tug-of-war

Pittsburgh-based sandwich generation caregivers face competing demands: securing reliable, affordable childcare – a growing problem in Allegheny County driven by staffing shortages and limited spots – while simultaneously managing eldercare responsibilities. Without a state or federal paid leave mandate, many Pittsburgh workers, like those in lower-wage or part-time roles, have no guaranteed access to the time off they might need to meet either obligation.

Paid leave policies vary by employer, and without a universal federal mandate, coverage is uneven – often weakest for lower-wage workers, part-time employees and people at small businesses.

Research has shown that sandwich generation caregivers already use most of their paid time off for caregiving tasks. This means they have limited time to take care of their own health. The proposed Family Care Act caps paid leave at 12 weeks per year. While this is an improvement from having no mandatory paid leave, it’s designed to supplement – not replace – standard sick days. The Family Care Act would cover intermittent leave for singular events, like childbirth or surgery. But sandwich generation caregiving is chronic, overlapping and resource-intensive in ways the bill isn’t designed to address.

In addition, the act proposes a partial wage replacement – 90% of wages for a weekly benefit cap ranging from $573 to $995 per week, depending on the individual’s earnings.

Caregivers who step back from work to care for a child or an aging parent are disproportionately lower- and middle-income workers. A 90% wage replacement rate at a lower-wage tier means those workers don’t have to choose between a paycheck and showing up for their family.

Yet this coverage is still likely insufficient for caregivers who often face significant financial strain related to caregiving, such as out-of-pocket expenses for care.

While the Family Care Act – whether it is funded through employee and employer payroll contributions – is a step forward, it still falls short for sandwich generation caregivers. What this population needs is the ability to take flexible time off as needs arise, not just in one block. However, intermittent leave presents administrative challenges for employers, like scheduling disruptions and paperwork burdens that could make it harder to put into practice.

Kate Perepezko 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. How Pennsylvania’s new paid leave bill leaves the sandwich generation behind – https://theconversation.com/how-pennsylvanias-new-paid-leave-bill-leaves-the-sandwich-generation-behind-281273

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Michael J. Socolow, Professor of Communication and Journalism, University of Maine

Ted Turner, who died on April 6, 2026, was bright, shrewd and, most of all, lucky. The cable TV visionary proved to be in the right place, at the right time, to change television and video news forever.

Most of his big gambles, on things such as the MGM studio and library, which led to the creation of the Turner Classic Movies channel, paid off handsomely.

But Turner will be remembered mostly for the creation and development of the Cable News Network – CNN – which launched in 1980 and made our knowledge of distant events instantaneous and our world more comprehensible. In this sense, Turner’s legacy extends beyond television. He changed our conception not only of journalism but also of our world.

Turner’s obituaries note his record-setting philanthropy, his impressive conservation efforts and his campaign to make the world safer by securing post-Soviet Union era nuclear weaponry. Over the course of his 87 years, Turner proved an outstanding yachtsman, an active and involved sports team owner and a quotable maverick in the business world.

Yet as a scholar of broadcast history – and a former CNN employee – I think Turner’s ultimate legacy is a bit more atmospheric than measurable.

He changed the media ecology in profound and lasting ways. CNN’s arrival disrupted an established media environment, in which broadcast journalism routines and audience viewing habits had become standardized by the ABC, CBS and NBC TV networks.

The ramshackle early CNN, with its farcical “world headquarters” housed in a former Atlanta-area country club, was derided as the “Chicken Noodle Network” by veteran network journalists. But by the mid-1980s it had established profitability, and by 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Gulf War, it assumed a singular position in America’s – and the world’s – information environment.

CNN had matured to respectability, and Turner was recognized as a visionary by Time magazine, which named him 1991’s Man of the Year. His idea had blossomed into a new arena for global information sharing, and his cable network fully competed with the established broadcast channels on big stories throughout the 1990s.

Right place, right time, right team

Turner’s cable TV news revolution required significant collaboration. The fulfillment of his vision needed luck, inherited money, innovative new technologies, supportive partners and even federal regulatory intervention.

For example, had Newton Minow’s Federal Communications Commission not pushed Congress to pass the All-Channel Receiver Act of 1962, American TV manufacturers would likely never have placed the UHF dial on their sets. That UHF dial made additional local TV competition possible by allowing more stations to broadcast.

In 1970, Turner purchased UHF Channel 17 in Atlanta, which he named WTGC for “Turner Communications Group,” and UHF Channel 36 in Charlotte, North Carolina, which he named WRET for “Robert Edward Turner,” and began building his broadcasting empire.

By the mid-1970s, the cost of satellite distribution to cable system operators had decreased to such an extent that Turner realized – and seized – an opportunity to nationally distribute his local station. He worked with satellite and cable system operators, building early relationships that would prove beneficial to everyone in the cable industry as it developed over the 1980s and ’90s.

In 1979 and 1980, he used these relationships to build the first 24-hour TV network, but it was his internal hires that made the original channel function. To launch CNN, Turner hired veterans of the TV news business, including Robert Wussler, who had previously been president of CBS Sports and the CBS Television Network. And he hired Reese Schonfeld, who had previously founded the Independent Television News Association, a national syndicator of pooled local TV programming.

It was Turner’s vision, investments and established partnerships that made CNN possible. But the creation of the network proved a team effort requiring managerial competence and veteran television production experience.

CNN’s success was never assured. The channel continually lost money in its initial years. But the idea of 24-hour TV news being delivered to paying subscribers, through their cable system operators, proved so valuable that as early as 1981, two CBS executives secretly jetted to Atlanta to meet with Turner and Wussler about purchasing the network.

“I’ll sell you CNN,” he told them. But the deal floundered when the CBS executives would not accept anything less than 51% ownership – and control – of the channel. “You want control? You don’t buy control of Ted Turner’s companies,” he explained. “Forty-nine percent or less.”

Only four years later, Turner would turn the tables and attempt to take over CBS.

Turner came very close to living long enough to see CBS and CNN under a single ownership. CBS’ parent company, Paramount Skydance, is closing in on the purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery, the corporation that owns CNN.

Yet today, these two once hugely profitable news operations have been subsumed within massive multinational corporations, with their legacy brand equity providing as much value to their ownership as their journalism. Turner had long bemoaned the managerial fate of his cable news channel, which he sold to Warner Bros. in 1996.

Success invites criticism, establishes a legacy

Turner is one of the few figures in American media history who left a clearly identifiable legacy. There was a media world that existed before CNN and the one that came after. CNN’s success gave rise to competitors such as MSNBC, Fox News and others.

These channels simultaneously differentiated themselves from CNN while constantly measuring themselves against their older rival. But Turner’s original vision was distinct from the panel programs and punditry that’s now replaced original reporting from around the world.

Turner wanted to own and operate a global news organization where the news would always be the star, and where, like the classic wire services, professional reporting would be instant and accurate. And he wanted to make a fortune while doing it.

When he finally succeeded, critics began to complain about what journalist and academic Tom Rosenstiel called “The Myth of CNN” in a cover story in The New Republic in 1994. Scholars bemoaned CNN for its privileging good visuals over context and depth. They argued that its foreign coverage failed to maintain sufficient independence from the U.S. government.

Dictators and terrorists around the world learned to exploit CNN to get their messages across to the American public. In this sense, CNN’s neutrality, once a source of respect and credibility, could also undermine it by making the channel easily exploitable.

Billions of people around the world now take for granted the profusion of news access to anywhere on earth, at any time of day or night. That world was unimaginable before Turner’s work to make CNN conceivable and then real.

His legacy is not simply a series of cable channels but an entirely new way of thinking about information retrieval and access. Think about that the next time you scroll past video clips from London, Tokyo, Beirut or Mexico City, or check out breaking news videos from Ukraine or Tehran. And thank Ted for making such a world possible.

Michael J. Socolow 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. Ted Turner didn’t just revolutionize television − he changed the way we see our world – https://theconversation.com/ted-turner-didnt-just-revolutionize-television-he-changed-the-way-we-see-our-world-282434

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Daniel Pastula, Professor of Neurology, Medicine (Infectious Diseases), and Epidemiology, University of Colorado Anschutz

The MV Hondius, a Dutch cruise ship with a deadly outbreak of hantavirus, was on its way to the Canary Islands on May 7, 2026, after evacuating three ill passengers for treatment.

The World Health Organization confirmed the outbreak on May 4, noting a total of seven infections, with three deaths since the outbreak began in early April. An eighth case was confirmed on May 6.

Because of the illness’s one- to eight-week incubation period, additional cases may still be identified. Health officials around the world are monitoring passengers who disembarked from the ship in the early days of the outbreak in late April. Health officials emphasize, however, that the risk to the public from the outbreak is low.

I’m a medical epidemiologist – here’s what you need to know about the virus and how the outbreak is playing out.

What is hantavirus?

Hantavirus isn’t just one virus but a group of closely related viruses found throughout the world. Their natural reservoir is rodents, such as wild mice, rats and moles. Infected rodents don’t get symptoms, but the virus replicates in their cells. It sometimes spills over into other animals, including humans, and can cause severe disease and even death.

There are two general types of hantaviruses. Old World hantaviruses, typically found in Europe and Asia, generally affect the kidneys. Their mortality rate in people is 15% or less.

New World hantaviruses, such as the one causing the outbreak on the Hondius, occur in North and South America. The best-known strains of this type are the Andes virus, the strain that was confirmed in the cruise ship outbreak, and the Sin Nombre virus, which likely caused the death of Betsy Arakawa, Gene Hackman’s wife, in March 2025.

These viruses generally affect the lungs and are fatal in about 40% of cases. Symptoms start with a flu-like illness and can progress quickly to intense inflammation in the lungs that leads to lung and heart failure.

A person with a hantavirus infection may experience symptoms anywhere from a week to eight weeks after exposure. There is no treatment; doctors can offer only supportive care, such as hydration, artificial respiration or dialysis.

How do these viruses spread?

Cases of hantavirus infection are rare. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded 890 cases in the U.S. from 1993, when surveillance began, through the end of 2023.

The vast majority of cases occur in China, with thousands of cases caused by Old World hantavirus strains occurring annually.

Most often, people become infected with these viruses by inhaling aerosolized urine or droppings from infected rodents. Imagine a cabin infested with mice infected by the virus – sweeping the cabin would shake up dust from the mouse urine and droppings, distributing it through the air and enabling people to inhale the viral particles. There’s a smaller risk of getting ill through direct contact, such as by being bitten by an infected rodent or by touching its saliva.

The worry on the cruise ship is human-to-human transmission. Epidemiologists had previously found hints that the Andes virus may be transmitted from one person to another under certain circumstances, such as close, sustained contact in close quarters, like a small cruise ship.

What do investigators think happened on the cruise ship?

The Hondius, now carrying close to 150 passengers, started out in Argentina on April 1 and was sailing north on a 33-day journey.

There were no reports of rodents on the ship, so it’s unlikely the illness started there. According to news reports, the people who first got sick had been touring Argentina and Chile for months beforehand. Researchers speculate they likely got infected during an activity in which they were exposed to a rodent carrying the disease or its excrement.

Given these viruses’ weekslong incubation period, these people may have been feeling fine when they boarded the ship, before eventually falling ill. They may have then spread Andes virus to others through breathing shared air or other close contact in close quarters.

What happens now?

The ship is now traveling to Spain, and multiple patients are being evacuated along the way.

Also, researchers are tracking 29 people who disembarked from the ship on April 24, before the outbreak was identified. People who had significant exposure will likely be quarantined to watch for symptoms and be isolated if symptoms develop.

Residents of three U.S. states are being monitored. Dutch officials announced on May 7 that a flight attendant who was not a passenger but briefly interacted with a passenger was hospitalized with possible hantavirus symptoms.

Is the situation dangerous?

Health officials can’t rule out that additional hantavirus cases may emerge in the cruise ship outbreak, but beyond the ship the risk remains low. That’s because most cases of hantavirus, including Andes virus, are acquired directly from rodents or their excrement and not from other humans.

It’s important to note, however, that even on vacation, people should pay attention to risks for infection – particularly as they may be very different from the ones they’re used to at home.

Daniel Pastula 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. Health authorities work to contain cruise ship hantavirus outbreak – https://theconversation.com/health-authorities-work-to-contain-cruise-ship-hantavirus-outbreak-282343

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Margena A. Christian, Emeritus professor, University of Illinois Chicago

During the 1960s, in a country divided by racial strife, the music of Berry Gordy Jr.’s Motown Records helped bring people together.

Motown was noted for star performers like Mary Wells, The Miracles, The Supremes, The Temptations, Martha Reeves and the Vandellas, Marvin Gaye and Stevie Wonder. But, behind the scenes, a talented group of lesser known women were driving the hits in Hitsville U.S.A.

I’m a scholar of popular culture and author of the biography “It’s No Wonder: The Life and Times of Motown’s Legendary Songwriter Sylvia Moy.” Researching my book inspired me to find other women who contributed to the Detroit label’s era of chart dominance and helped change the music industry, despite going largely unrecognized for their efforts.

I listened to Motown growing up, but it wasn’t until 2021, while sitting at home during the pandemic, that I discovered Moy’s history as the lyricist for Stevie Wonder and how she helped revive his early career.

Because Moy died in 2017, I wasn’t able to speak with her for the book. Instead I researched her life by reading countless interviews she gave, along with talking to her former colleagues at Motown, family and ethnomusicologists, who are scholars that study music through the lens of culture.

Architect of the early sound

When Gordy was organizing his company, Janie Bradford was one of the original five founding members who arrived in 1958. She was the label’s first secretary and its first female songwriter after co-writing, with Gordy, the song “Money (That’s What I Want).” That song was released on Tamla Records in 1959 and performed by Barrett Strong. When Motown was incorporated the following year, the song became the label’s first hit record on the R&B chart and Billboard Hot 100.

Later, Bradford co-wrote “Contract on Love” for Wonder and “Too Busy Thinking About My Baby,” first recorded by The Temptations and later, Marvin Gaye. Bradford, who later became Motown’s director of writer’s relations, teamed up with pianist Richard “Popcorn” Wylie in the early 1960s to form Janard, a small production company.

Bradford’s collection of poetry is what captured Gordy’s attention, so he encouraged her to be a songwriter. Her witty lyrics told stories about situations that most anyone could relate to – namely, money and love – blended with up-tempo, thumping beats.

Laying the foundation as a producer

Another key figure who paved the way with the Motown sound was Raynoma Gordy Singleton, who was married to Berry Gordy Jr. from 1960 to 1964. She organized Motown during its beginnings by completing the necessary paperwork to incorporate the business. Known as “Miss Ray” to some and “Mother Motown” to others, she located the legendary house at 2648 West Grand Boulevard that became the Motown headquarters and, decades later, the Motown Museum.

In her role as the label’s first executive vice president, she established a tape library. A piano virtuoso and singer, the Cass Technical High School graduate wrote that she was able to play all string and wind instruments. As a result, she became the company’s first female arranger and producer by putting together its first backup vocal group, the Rayber Voices, in 1958.

“Producing records was where the action was controlled – and where the money was to be made,” she wrote in her memoir, “The Untold Story: Berry, Me, and Motown,” which aimed to reclaim her place in the Motown echelon.

During the 1960s, women weren’t considered producers because of broader biases and norms in the male-dominated music industry. Even so, Miss Ray got credit for producing Jimmy Ruffin’s song “Don’t Feel Sorry for Me” in 1961.

Earning a producer’s credit was a sign of legitimacy. Most producers received a songwriting credit and determined who received credit in the liner notes for their contribution to the recording.

While women mostly worked in administrative roles at Motown, there still weren’t any female full-time, in-house songwriters and producers. Like the rest of the music industry back then, Motown’s internal structure was patriarchal with those positions.

The first certified female songwriter and producer

Yet this imbalanced gender dynamic at Motown didn’t stop Sylvia Moy.

There hadn’t been any women producers behind significant, popular songs at Motown until Moy arrived, according to interviews I conducted for her biography.

Motown was at its peak in 1964. Demand for new songs was intense. When the label’s executives realized how skillfully the two audition songs Moy performed were composed, they decided that her future was in songwriting instead of singing.

Discovered by William “Mickey” Stevenson and Marvin Gaye, Moy was hired as the first female in-house songwriter, competing with eminent colleagues like Smokey Robinson, Norman Whitfield and the songwriting trio Holland-Dozier-Holland who wrote 10 of the Supremes’ chart-topping singles. Moy made more history in 1965 after co-writing and co-producing Stevie Wonder’s “Uptight (Everything’s Alright).”

While she received the songwriting credit and helped revive the teenaged Wonder’s career, Moy wasn’t given the producer’s credit, unlike her two male counterparts, Stevenson and Henry “Hank” Cosby.

A lack of recognition stymied Moy’s career opportunities. If a songwriter or producer wasn’t credited, their value could not be validated or established, which made it harder for them to find work at other record labels.

According to my research, Moy revealed that she never got producer credit for any of her work while at Motown. This is why her legacy was buried for so long.

Other tunes she wrote for Wonder were “I Was Made to Love Her,” “My Cherie Amour” and “With A Child’s Heart,” co-written with Vicki Basemore. Moy also wrote Marvin Gaye and Kim Weston’s “It Takes Two” and The Isley Brothers’ “This Old Heart of Mine (Is Weak For You).” Though songwriter Eddie Holland told me he gave her a co-writing credit for “This Old Heart of Mine,” Moy’s name was not listed on the record, only Holland-Dozier-Holland.

Interviews I conducted with Moy’s family members and research from an ethnomusicologist suggest she was even an uncredited co-writer for Wonder’s “Signed, Sealed, Delivered (I’m Yours),” his first song as a solo producer, and The Temptations’ “Ain’t Too Proud to Beg.”

However, Holland denied this claim in an interview with me, though he also admitted that the song’s late co-writer and producer, Norman Whitfield, presented him with the lyrics, and he wasn’t sure where they came from.

Full credit along with creative control

In 1968, Valerie Simpson became Motown’s first female songwriter to also receive a producer credit. This possibly happened because her songwriting partner was her husband, Nickolas Ashford.

Other famous female songwriters like Carole King, Ellie Greenwich and Cynthia Weil also had a prominent husband in the music industry. Sylvia Moy did not, which made what she did unprecedented.

Simpson told Billboard in 2023 that the credit was difficult to attain because so few women were producers back then. It finally happened with the Tammi Terrell and Marvin Gaye song “Ain’t Nothing Like The Real Thing,” with Simpson getting credit for co-writing, co-producing and performing background vocals along with Ashford.

This was their third hit tune by Terrell and Gaye, who also recorded “Ain’t No Mountain High Enough” and “Your Precious Love,” in 1967. The following year, they had another hit with “You’re All I Need to Get By,” which Ashford and Simpson also co-wrote, co-produced and did background vocals on.

Simpson became the first Black woman to be inducted into the Songwriters Hall of Fame in 2002. Moy became the second in 2006.

Though female songwriters and producers continue the fight for inclusion in the recording studio, the doors were opened by the tenacious women of Motown. It is because of them that future generations of female creatives know what is possible.

Margena A. Christian 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. Motown’s Black women songwriters and producers were the invisible architects behind the pop music juggernaut – https://theconversation.com/motowns-black-women-songwriters-and-producers-were-the-invisible-architects-behind-the-pop-music-juggernaut-278514

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Miriam Eve Mora, Managing Director of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute, University of Michigan

The gesture may lack the explosive drama of a rooftop fight or the tension of a car chase, but on May 11, 2026, a street sign honoring a legendary comics creator will be unveiled in Manhattan’s Lower East Side.

After a lobbying effort by comics expert Roy Schwartz, the New York City Council in December 2025 approved the naming of a block of Essex Street between Delancey and Rivington streets in honor of Jack Kirby.

Kirby, born Jacob Kurtzberg in 1917 to Jewish immigrants, spent roughly the first 40 years of his life in New York, aside from a stint serving in the military during World War II. Before enlisting, he’d already embarked on a career as a comics artist. He went on to become a key figure during the medium’s golden age, a period that most scholars and fans agree began with the creation of Superman in 1938 and ended with the implementation of the Comics Code Authority in 1956, which heavily restricted content until enforcement weakened in the 1970s.

Though you may not have heard of Kirby, you’d have to deliberately avoid pop culture to miss his most influential creations: Captain America, the Fantastic Four, X-Men, Thor, Hulk, Iron Man and Black Panther.

For my part, however, as a scholar of American Jewish immigration history – and as a lifelong comic book fan – I hold a place of reverence for the man known as the “King of Comics.”

Jewish American history, immigration history, the history of New York City and the origins of the comics industry are inextricably linked. New York played a starring role in the golden age of comics. And like Kirby, many of the genre’s most famous artists were Jewish.

Jewish immigrants put pen and ink to paper

Comics found a wide audience in New York City during their early years in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, from early newspaper strips like “The Yellow Kid” and “Abie the Agent” to later ones like “Little Orphan Annie.”

As World War II drew to a close in the summer of 1945, there was a citywide newspaper delivery strike, leaving many New Yorkers desperate for news and entertainment – so much so that Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia took it upon himself to read the Sunday comic strips over the radio, performing them with characteristic vigor and enthusiasm.

Among the first publications that would today be recognizable as “comic books” were compilations of these early newspaper strips, assembled by newsprint salesman and Jewish New Yorker Max Gaines. Gaines, born Maxwell Ginzburg, compiled various comic strips into neatly packaged, inexpensive entertainment for the masses, helping pioneer the saddle-stitched comic book – thin, stapled magazines that would become the primary format for superhero stories.

As the superhero genre took off in the late 1930s, other publishers emerged from Jewish New York. Harry Donenfeld and Jack Leibowitz, in partnership with Malcolm Wheeler-Nicholson, created Detective Comics and Action Comics, which helped establish the company later known as DC Comics.

In addition to early publishers, many pioneering comics artists were raised in New York City as the children of Jewish immigrants, including Marvel Universe architect Stan Lee and his brother, Larry Lieber; Will Eisner, creator of “The Spirit” and co-creator of “Sheena: Queen of the Jungle”; and Al Jaffee, a longtime contributor to Mad Magazine.

An ode to the Lower East Side

In Jack Kirby’s comics, the city shines through.

The Fantastic Four – the superhero squad that Kirby created with Stan Lee – operates out of midtown Manhattan’s fictional Baxter Building, which Kirby modeled after the city’s mid-century skyscrapers.

Kirby also based the character of Ben Grimm – The Thing – on himself, mining his own life to write Grimm’s backstory. Grimm’s home is on the fictional Yancy Street, a tribute to Kirby’s own working-class upbringing on the Lower East Side’s Delancey Street. The thoroughfare is rich with Jewish history and in close proximity to iconic businesses like Katz’s Deli and Russ and Daughters.

Another of Kirby’s most iconic characters was Steve Rogers – Captain America – which he co-created with Joe Simon.

A poor orphan from Brooklyn, Rogers attempts to enlist in the U.S. Army to fight the Axis powers during World War II, but is rejected as unfit for duty. He is later recruited into Project Rebirth, where he is transformed into a super-soldier after being injected with a serum designed to maximize human physical and mental abilities.

Captain America attracted legions of fans among American youth, many of whom saw themselves in the superhero. Though Rogers is Christian, his story of transformation from weakling to hero certainly spoke to young Jewish boys and men, who were often inaccurately portrayed in the media and press as intellectually superior but physically inferior.

Captain America, though fictional, is already recognized as a part of New York City history, and has a statue in Brooklyn, which was unveiled in 2016 with the inscription “I’m just a kid from Brooklyn.”

The city as a muse

Even comics created by artists outside New York City – like Ohio natives and Superman co-creators Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster – are, by virtue of their content, still in many ways New York comics.

The glittering Metropolis in “Superman” is widely understood as a stand-in for New York; for example, in the April 1950 issue of Action Comics, the Statue of Liberty is said to appear in “Metropolis Harbor.”

If Metropolis is the bright, shining, optimistic view of the city, then Gotham, the home of Batman, reprises the city through a grittier lens.

Writer Washington Irving had first described New York as Gotham in the early 1800s. But by the time Batman came on the scene, the term had become less common in everyday speech, and DC Comics repurposed the name for the fictional Gotham City. Beyond the name, Gotham City’s architecture, bridges, boroughs and neighborhoods are an homage to New York.

By officially recognizing Jack Kirby, the city adds the artist to a distinguished roster of politicians, community activists and celebrities honored with street names.

Jack Kirby Way celebrates a legendary comics artist while also acknowledging the immigrant creators who helped shape the genre. It’s a fitting tribute: As much as the comics industry is indebted to the city, the city is indebted to the comics industry.

Miriam Eve Mora 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. Lower East Side street named for ‘King of Comics’ Jack Kirby, a nod to one of the countless kids of immigrants who shaped the genre – https://theconversation.com/lower-east-side-street-named-for-king-of-comics-jack-kirby-a-nod-to-one-of-the-countless-kids-of-immigrants-who-shaped-the-genre-279716

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kimberly Nath, Dean of the School of Arts and Humanities, San Juan College

On the eve of the American Revolution, Matthias Aspden made a decision that would change the trajectory of his life. A wealthy merchant from Philadelphia, Aspden carefully prepared to leave his home in March 1776 as rumors of revolution circulated. He drafted a will and appointed trusted friends to manage his property while he traveled to England.

As a loyalist, someone who wanted to remain loyal to the crown and the British empire, Aspden believed the war would be brief. Historians estimate that at the beginning of the war as many as one-third of all American colonists identified as loyalists. Aspden believed his departure would be temporary. Order, he assumed, would soon be restored, and he would permanently return within a few years.

But that wasn’t the case.

The American Revolution is often told as a triumphant story of democracy and freedom. But this narrative leaves out a significant group: the loyalist men and women who remained faithful to Britain and, as a result, lost their homes, property and sometimes their sense of belonging.

As a historian of the American Revolution who studies Philadelphia loyalists, I believe Aspden’s story offers a glimpse into an overlooked experience of the war.

A wealthy Philly merchant exiled in England

Born and raised in Philadelphia, Aspden was not a marginal figure. He was a Quaker merchant with extensive property holdings, including a home on Water Street, in what is now the Old City neighborhood, and land in Chester County outside Philadelphia.

When he left in 1776, he abandoned nearly everything he owned, believing he would return. As others celebrated independence that summer, Aspden quietly slipped away to London.

In England, reality set in. Exile was not just physical; it was deeply social and emotional. In Philadelphia, Aspden had been established. In London, he was one of tens of thousands of displaced loyalists trying to rebuild a life. He gravitated toward communities of fellow exiles. These networks offered some stability, but they could not replace what he had left behind.

Aspden’s letters to friends and family from this period reveal a man caught between hope and anxiety. He followed news from Philadelphia obsessively, requesting newspapers and updates from friends and business contacts. At one point, he described himself as “an idle man until I can return to America.” His words suggest both longing and uncertainty, as if his life were on pause.

By 1780, that uncertainty turned into fear.

A ‘traitor’ trying to come back home

Aspden began hearing about laws in Pennsylvania aimed at confiscating loyalist property. These laws required individuals accused of treason to appear in court and defend themselves. Aspden, still in England, could not do so. As a result, he was tried in absentia, declared a traitor and subjected to the state’s harshest penalties.

The consequences were devastating. In 1782, Aspden learned that all of his property had been confiscated and would be sold to aid the patriots in the American Revolution. An official commissioner of confiscation seized his Philadelphia home and wharf, which were worth thousands of pounds, along with his land in Chester County. Aspden, facing financial ruin, decided to return to Philadelphia to defend his name and his property.

In 1785, after nearly a decade abroad and with the war over, he crossed the Atlantic, hoping the new United States would restore his property under the terms of the peace treaty with Britain. Instead, he was met with rejection.

Pennsylvania officials informed him that individuals in his position were not protected. He had no legal claim to his property and, more shockingly, no rights as a citizen. While the peace treaty prevented further confiscation of loyalist property, his property was not restored.

The message was clear: Philadelphia was no longer his home.

One last trip to Philadelphia

Aspden left again, traveling through New Jersey and New York before securing passage back to England. Reflecting on his departure, he wrote of the pain of being forced from his “native country.” His brief return confirmed what he had feared. He had no home.

In the years that followed, Aspden sought compensation wherever he could. The American government offered nothing, so he turned to Britain. The Loyalist Claims Commission, established to reimburse those who had lost property during the war, eventually awarded him just over 1,100 pounds, a fraction of his estimated losses.

Aspden made one final visit to America in the early 1790s. By then, he had received a legal pardon and could travel without fear of arrest. But he still could not recover his property or successfully pursue compensation in American courts. Once again, he left – this time for good.

Heirs recover his fortune

Aspden died in England in 1824, having spent nearly 50 years in exile from the city he always considered home.

Decades after his death, his heirs pursued a legal claim in the United States against Pennsylvania, arguing that his estate had been unjustly seized. After years of litigation, the court ruled in their favor in 1848, awarding them over a half-million dollars – approximately US$20 million today. It was a remarkable reversal, but Aspden never saw justice.

His life raises difficult questions about loyalty, identity and belonging. Aspden did not see himself as disloyal to Philadelphia. To him, loyalty to the British Crown and loyalty to home were not opposites.

His story reminds us that the Revolution was not just a fight for independence. It was also a civil conflict that divided communities and reshaped lives. For every celebrated patriot, there were loyalists like Aspden and others who lost so much during the American Revolution.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia, or sign up for our Philadelphia newsletter on Substack.

Kimberly Nath 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 American Revolution’s triumphant story of democracy and freedom overlooks loyalists who paid a steep price for allegiance to Britain – https://theconversation.com/the-american-revolutions-triumphant-story-of-democracy-and-freedom-overlooks-loyalists-who-paid-a-steep-price-for-allegiance-to-britain-280421

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Yu-Ru Lin, Professor of Computing and Information, University of Pittsburgh

Hate communities often flourish online for years, raising the question of how they persist. My research team has found that powerful stories keep members of a hate group galvanized, either by repeating the story over and over or by constantly adding fresh accusations and interpretations to it.

I’m a computational social scientist who studies social and political networks. My colleagues and I uncovered these trends by examining 10 years of posts, reactions and participation patterns in Facebook groups that shared antisemitic and Islamophobic content. Our findings have been accepted at the 2026 International Conference on Web and Social Media.

First, we measured who was posting and how that related to engagement on a site. Groups in which a small number of people produced most of the content tended to attract more reactions and responses. Then we looked at subjects the group members discussed – religion, immigration, geopolitics – and the kinds of stories members told about those topics, such as describing an entire group of people as criminals or warning that certain types of people are secretly taking over a country’s way of life.

When we put these pieces together, we discovered some clear patterns. Messages posted by a few very active people were strongly associated with higher site engagement in the form of likes and shares in the near term. And repetition – espousing the same ideas again and again – was an effective tactic. We also found that when many users kept adding fresh accusations, conspiracy theories and explanations, a group tended to persist. Very uniform content that used the same framing led to less engagement over time.

Different communities seemed to be drawn to different messaging patterns. In Islamophobic groups, the most prolific posters tended to repeat a narrow, consistent set of messages. Often these were religiously framed posts that portrayed Muslims as morally condemned. In antisemitic groups, the most engaged members were more likely to impart a mix of narratives, from tales of victimization to conspiracy theories about public figures.

Why it matters

Our findings suggest that hate communities can sustain themselves in various ways, so efforts to moderate them should consider these variations. If a few voices drive the conversation, removing them could quiet the noise. If new stories constantly appear from many contributors, harmful ideas may survive even if a few key online accounts are taken down. Hate networks can persist even after social media platforms ban specific groups or accounts.

It is also important to understand how stories can make prejudice feel justified and emotionally compelling. Extremist stories may claim that a group is under attack, that outsiders are dangerous or subhuman, or that violence is the only way to stay safe. Groups seen as outsiders – such as immigrants – are common targets, and they may be described as an “invasion” that threatens the nation.

What other research is being done

Researchers are finding that extremist ideas are now spreading through looser networks where many voices contribute and messaging can vary widely. That could affect whether engagement in the future still depends on consistent repetition or novelty. Some investigators are also scrutinizing how harmful language, conspiracy theories and propaganda evolve over time.

What’s next

Another important direction is tracking how hate narratives are spread by public figures and influencers, how the narratives move between online platforms, and how they surface in offline groups and efforts to organize supporters, all of which can normalize harmful ideas. My group is starting to study how this amplification works: who shares which narratives and why, which kinds of people become bridges across different online platforms, and how those roles shape which messages spread.

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

Yu-Ru Lin’s research has received federal funding, including National Science Foundation and the Department of Defense (DARPA, AFOSR, Minerva, and ONR). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding sources.

– ref. Online hate groups sustain their messages by repeating powerful stories or routinely adding new allegations – https://theconversation.com/online-hate-groups-sustain-their-messages-by-repeating-powerful-stories-or-routinely-adding-new-allegations-276744

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Andrew Muhammad, Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Tennessee

Almost a year and a half after President Donald Trump began slapping tariffs on nearly all U.S. trading partners, Canada’s pushback has reordered the economic relationship between Ottawa and Washington.

Canadians are pulling back on U.S. travel, boycotting U.S. goods and protesting in droves – further galvanized by Trump’s call for Canada to become the 51st U.S. state.

But the example of one sector in particular, U.S. alcohol, shows how quickly access to an important market can disappear – and how difficult it can be to regain.

From 2022 through 2024, Canada accounted for roughly 35% of U.S. wine exports, more than 15% of U.S. beer exports and as much as 13% of U.S. distilled spirits exports. Within just one year of Trump returning to office, Canada’s imports of U.S. alcohol cumulatively have plunged over 70%, thanks to a mix of both tariff and nontariff retaliatory measures.

It’s a sharp reversal from Canada’s traditional role as a top foreign destination for American beer, wine and spirits. That relationship reflected both long‑standing consumer preferences as well as geographic proximity and largely tariff‑free access through agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement and its successor, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

As an agricultural economist working on trade issues related to alcohol, I see Canada’s alcohol sector as a textbook example of how market access for politically exposed goods can quickly unravel. And for American beer, wine and spirits producers – and for the farmers who grow the barley, grapes and corn that go into these products – the recent experience highlights how trade disputes often hit food products hardest. If a trade ban becomes entrenched, it opens a way for consumers to develop a taste for domestic as well as other foreign alternatives.

The Trump tariff shock

Before Trump’s tariffs and talk of Canada as the 51st U.S. state, U.S. alcohol occupied substantial shelf space in major alcohol-consuming provinces such as Ontario, British Columbia and Québec. In 2024, these exports to Canada constituted more than 20% of Canada’s alcohol imports, totaling US$744 million. For most U.S. producers, Canada served not only as a key export destination but as a stable and relatively low‑risk entry point into international markets.

That changed in February 2025, when Trump, citing a national security emergency, imposed 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Those tariffs – which were overturned by the Supreme Court in February 2026 – marked the first time that law was used to authorize broad tariffs.

Canada responded by slapping retaliatory tariffs of 25% on roughly $30 billion of U.S. goods and signaling it would significantly expand countermeasures if tensions persisted. It also enacted nontariff countermeasures, most notably by letting provincial liquor authorities remove U.S. beer, wine and spirits from store shelves. These tools, which fall within Canada’s system of shared federal and provincial powers, sharply restricted market access for American producers.

Immediately after Trump’s announcement, eight of Canada’s 10 provinces imposed partial or full bans on U.S. alcohol imports by instructing their liquor boards to stop importing and selling U.S. alcohol altogether. In many cases, American products were physically removed from store shelves and online platforms – sometimes with instructions to target imports from U.S. “red” states that had supported Trump.

U.S. wine exports were hit hardest, plunging from $460 million to just $103 million, while distilled spirits fell from $238 million to $89 million and beer exports from $47 million to $17 million. Collectively, these declines slashed total U.S. alcohol exports to Canada from $744 million to $208 million, wiping out $536 million in trade.

The spat quickly became testy. The alcohol boycott is one of the reasons Trump and White House officials have called Canada “mean and nasty to deal with,” in the words of U.S. Ambassador to Canada Pete Hoekstra.

The trade war’s latest turn

Those provincial restrictions remained in place even after the two countries reached a partial deal exempting about half of USMCA‑compliant goods from ongoing tariffs in summer 2025, leading Canada to scale back some retaliatory levies. However, the de facto trade bans on U.S. alcohol remain in place.

Alcohol resurfaced again recently as a flash point, when the top U.S. trade official, Jamieson Greer, said in April 2026 that existing U.S. levies on Canadian industrial goods would stay in place and might even be toughened until Canada walked back its alcohol restrictions. That threat a drew sharp retort from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.

Meanwhile, the trade dispute hasn’t prompted Canadians to drink less alcohol overall. Instead, their consumption has largely shifted to other countries, especially for wine. United Nations trade data shows that in 2024, American wine accounted for 21% of all imported wine in Canada before dropping to only 5% in 2025. That year, imports from major wine exporting countries not only increased but roughly offset the decline in imports from the U.S. For distilled spirits, the U.S. slipped from 24% in 2024 to only 10% in 2025, while beer has dropped from 13% to 5%. At the same time, Canadian imports of beer, wine, and spirits from other countries increased by 9%, 15%, and 7%, respectively.

“What’s different this time is that people aren’t just swapping one bottle, they’re rethinking the whole bar,” said Craig Peters, CEO of Canada’s Barnburner Whiskey, in an interview with the online magazine VinePair. “Traditionally, those rail spots were locked up by big U.S. brands for decades. Now, we’re seeing bars, especially independents, completely reset and go Canadian across the board.”

Andrew Muhammad has received funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Southern U.S. Trade Association to address issues related to U.S. distilled spirits trade.

– ref. Canada is kicking its US booze habit as trade tensions persist – https://theconversation.com/canada-is-kicking-its-us-booze-habit-as-trade-tensions-persist-279918

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Aditya Simha, Professor of Management, University of Wisconsin-Whitewater

I have been a dog lover ever since I was a kid and have spent years learning about the temperaments and histories of different dog breeds, as well as famous dogs and their adventures. I have attended a variety of dog shows to meet various breeds and talk with their owners, and I’ve also lived with several dogs – including a dachshund, otterhound, German shepherd, Indian spitz and Labrador retriever – over the course of my life.

Beyond my canine concerns, I’m a professor of management who loves teaching courses and conducting research on leadership. So, it was a no-brainer for me to combine my two interests to write a book, “Learning Leadership from Dogs.” Various dog breeds embody distinct traits and behaviors that we humans can emulate to become better leaders.

Here are five qualities dogs model that any leader, at work or in life, can learn from.

Joie de vivre

Happy-go-lucky hounds have an abundance of joie de vivre, a French phrase that refers to a cheerful and exuberant enjoyment of life. My own otterhound, Fiona, amply embodied this trait. A simple walk in the woods or hike on the beach was all she ever wanted.

This kind of optimism and cheerfulness can make leaders more empathetic and pleasant to work with, partly because psychology research finds that positive moods increase helping, generosity and interpersonal understanding. Those are key ingredients of empathy.

Followers feel and perform better when led by good-natured, enthusiastic leaders who look on the bright side. A leader’s joie de vivre can be passed on to the team. Scholars of positive leadership call this process emotional contagion – how a mood or emotional tone can spread through a group.

Courage

Who wants to follow a timid leader, right? Most people want a leader who is brave and who walks the talk – someone who’s courageous enough to do the right thing under all circumstances, not just when it’s convenient to do so.

While there are many dog breeds that embody courage, I want to single out the Dutch shepherd. Smaller than the German shepherd and the Belgian Malinois, the Dutch shepherd is used in police and military work because of its athleticism, trainability and strong work ethic. Just like how Dutch shepherds run toward danger to protect others, courageous leaders take risks for their values and to support their team.

Intelligence

Leaders must not only know about their domain, they also need to be able to understand which of their followers needs to be treated or led differently. Both emotional and cognitive intelligence are essential for effective leadership and have positive consequences for their followers’ attitudes and performance.

I point to the border collie as a dog that exemplifies both forms of intelligence. The border collie not only knows how to herd sheep, but also which sheep to herd with patience and which sheep need a bit more sharpness.

This intelligence is something that needs to be guided and channeled. Border collies left without enough work or stimulation are famous for finding their own “jobs,” such as herding the human children, chasing shadows or inventing new mischief around the house.

Without proper direction, even brilliance can become counterproductive – another lesson leaders can keep in mind when managing their own flocks.

Kindness

Kindness is one quality that is sadly not given the amount of attention it merits in the world of management, even though it can shape whether followers feel respected, trusted and willing to contribute.

Displaying kindness is a canine specialty. The dog breed that comes to mind for me here is the Newfoundland. First bred in Canada and known as a fine water rescue dog, these gentle giants are supremely kind to everyone and display a benevolent, protective nature.

Leaders similarly need to be kind to their followers, even if a team member has failed at a task. A kind response does not mean ignoring mistakes; it means correcting them in a way that preserves dignity, making followers more likely to learn, speak up and try again. Together those patterns facilitate work environments that promote what researchers call psychological safety: a shared belief that people can ask questions, admit mistakes and raise concerns without fear of embarrassment, rejection or punishment.

Resilience

Resilience is not just toughness; it is the ability to recover from setbacks, adapt under pressure and keep moving forward when things don’t go as planned. Leaders rely on it during crises, failed projects, public criticism or periods of organizational change, all moments when uncertainty is high and confidence can falter.

Any leader can look to the Rhodesian ridgeback as a resilience role model. This breed hails from South Africa and was originally used to assist in lion hunting – an activity fraught with peril and with high prospects of failure. Rhodesian ridgebacks are dauntless dogs, always ready to try another dangerous hunt even in the wake of repeated failures.

Like these dogs, leaders often must confront perilous tasks with a high likelihood of failure, and they must be ready to bounce forward so they can eventually seize success. Without resilience, leaders may panic, withdraw or become overly reactive, especially during a crisis. When that happens, uncertainty spreads, confidence erodes and teams are less likely to stay focused or move forward effectively.

Dogs are the most popular choice of pet in the United States and worldwide. You probably don’t need to look far to find some furry friends who can inspire you with their admirable characteristics. Dogs may never author a leadership book, but they live out leadership lessons in courage, kindness and joy every day.

Aditya Simha 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. Dogs display many traits of great leaders − here are 5 breeds that can be your leadership role models – https://theconversation.com/dogs-display-many-traits-of-great-leaders-here-are-5-breeds-that-can-be-your-leadership-role-models-266121

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Laura Baehr, Assistant Professor of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Sciences, Drexel University

Physical activity is one of the most powerful health tools people have to improve mood, energy and sleep, even after just a few sessions.

But the real superpower of an active lifestyle is what it can do for health and quality of life over time. Scientific evidence repeatedly demonstrates that physical activity reduces the risk of developing chronic conditions such as heart disease, diabetes and even some cancers. Despite this, most Americans are not getting enough physical activity in their daily lives.

So why are so few people physically active when the benefits are widely known?

As a physical therapist and rehabilitation scientist who studies how to boost movement for people living with chronic conditions and physical disabilities, I spend a lot of time thinking about that question.

The short answer is that understanding the importance of exercise usually doesn’t translate into exercising. Making it a part of your lifestyle requires believing you can do it and knowing you can do it.

Exercise is a lifestyle choice that helps reduce the likelihood of developing a chronic illness. But the good news is that if you’re one of the 194 million Americans already living with one or more chronic illnesses, beginning or maintaining an exercise routine can slow the progression, reduce symptoms and improve health outcomes.

An array of health benefits

The list of benefits from movement is long. Here are just a few examples:

• Physical activity improves the heart’s efficiency to move blood to the lungs and circulate it throughout the entire body.

• Engaging in physical activity protects against cognitive decline over time.

• Becoming more active contributes to improved insulin resistance, which protects against diabetes risk and helps manage diabetes symptoms.

• An active lifestyle can reduce cancer risk and improve outcomes for various cancer types, including breast, colorectal and prostate cancer.

Guidelines for getting and staying active

While some movement is better than none, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention offer research-based guidelines for the type and frequency of activities to engage in weekly for long-term health benefits.

The CDC encourages all adults, including those with chronic health conditions or disabilities, to aim for at least 150 minutes of moderate intensity aerobic activity, such as walking, jogging or swimming. Adults should also do muscle-strengthening activities two or more days per week, which could include weightlifting and body weight exercises.

Older adults should add balance activities, such as tai chi or yoga, to help prevent falls by challenging the body’s balance systems.

If you’re not achieving these recommended weekly physical activity guidelines, you’re not alone. Only half of Americans hit the aerobic target, and just 1 in 4 meet the full CDC guidelines.

This gap represents a health crisis that, if addressed, could save lives. A 2024 large-scale review showed that people who engage in regular physical activity in adulthood may reduce the risk of early death by 30% to 40% from all causes, most specifically from cardiovascular disease and cancer.

The study also showed that beginning exercise at any time in adulthood can improve survival benefits.

The difference between knowing and doing

People are perpetually being sold on the benefits of physical activity, whether it’s from national healthcare organizations, their medical teams or social media influencers.

But research is clear that education alone does not predict changes in behavior.

Instead, shifting your beliefs about the barriers preventing you from exercise might actually be the key to get you moving more.

In 1977, a psychologist named Albert Bandura proposed that the ability to perform a task even when it’s difficult – a concept called self-efficacy – is the most important personal characteristic that drives healthy changes in behavior.

Half a century later, self-efficacy is still considered one of the most crucial personal factors for behavioral change when it comes to long-term physical activity. Researchers who develop and test exercise interventions, including me, evaluate novel tools and programs that are built to boost self-efficacy.

Someone with high self-efficacy might say that they can get back to their exercise routine even if they miss a day. Or they might find a way to still exercise when they’re busy or tired. Someone with lower self-efficacy might be thrown off their routine if presented with the same obstacles.

But how do you build this crucial trait and get moving more? A meta-analysis found that despite its importance, there is not one magic way to boost self-efficacy.

That’s because people’s behavior is more complicated than individual factors alone. People and groups have varying needs and contexts that require tailored approaches.

Tips increase exercise self-efficacy

Self-efficacy may be affected by multiple factors, but people can still apply techniques to boost their ability to start and stay with an exercise routine.

Make it manageable. It may seem intuitive to set personal goals, but many of us aim too high and end up discouraged. Goals focused on weight loss, heart health or muscle strength are fine, but they can take a long time to achieve. Long-range goals don’t tend to be motivating in the difficult moments – like when you want to hit snooze but promised yourself that you were going to take a long walk before work.

Instead, try short-term goal-setting – such as aiming to get a set number of lunchtime walks in during the workweek. This will move you toward your long-term goals, while making it easier to see and feel progress.

In 2026, the American College of Sports Medicine refreshed its guidance on strength training, which represents synthesized findings from 137 systematic reviews and the first update since 2009. The biggest recommendation difference? Consistency matters more than specificity of strength programs. What that means is that doing any strength training has health benefits as long as it is the kind you will keep doing.

Make it add up. The CDC’s recommended 150 minutes of aerobic activity is meant to be spread throughout the week – not done all at once. Research shows that small bursts of activity still have significant impacts on your overall health, and you’re much more likely to stick with them.

Only have 15 minutes while your kid is asleep? Have a short exercise video or app cued up for nap time. Waiting for your next Zoom meeting to start? Climb your stairs once or twice. Microwaving your lunch? Hold on to the counter and lift and lower your heels until the timer goes off. Every little bit matters to your mind and body.

Make it meaningful. Prioritize doing things you enjoy. The gym is not for everyone, and luckily this style of structured exercise is just one of many options for physical activity. Go bird-watching, join a gardening group, binge watch your favorite show on the treadmill. Any activity you do that uses energy is like dropping a coin into your weekly physical activity bank.

Make it more fun. Choose to be around people who are already exercising – and who encourage you to do it, too. Research shows that people who are sedentary will increase their physical activity by socializing with someone who is active.

Another study shows that older adults can tap into the energy of their peers during group exercise, helping to build self-efficacy. Exercising with others can even reduce social isolation and loneliness. As a bonus, choosing physical activities you enjoy can improve your mood and boost your confidence.

Overcoming the hurdles

These strategies come with a very important caveat: Increasing self-efficacy is empowering, but context also matters.

Some structural barriers to physical activity are beyond the scope of our individual motivation. Researchers and health professionals know that lower socioeconomic status, decreased neighborhood safety and lack of access to exercise programs make being and staying active even more difficult.

But the thing to remember is that even small improvements can have big impacts. It is consistent practice – not perfection – that is key to reaping all the benefits physical activity has to offer.

Laura Baehr receives funding from the Department of Defense, the Arthritis Foundation, and the Clinician-Scientists Transdisciplinary Aging Research Coordinating Center (a National Institutes of Health National Institute on Aging funded center).

– ref. You know exercise is good for you – so why is it so hard to put it into practice? – https://theconversation.com/you-know-exercise-is-good-for-you-so-why-is-it-so-hard-to-put-it-into-practice-274493