Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Richard Gerhold, Professor of Parasitology, University of Tennessee

A moose in Minnesota stumbles onto the road. She circles, confused and dazed, unable to orient herself or recognize the danger of an oncoming semitruck. What kills her is the impact of 13 tons of steel, but what causes her death is more complicated. Tunneling through her brain is a worm that doomed both of them to die.

Commonly known as the brain worm, Parelaphostrongylus tenuis is a parasitic nematode that infects a large range of wild and domestic herbivores, such as moose and elk. The worm can migrate into the brain of unsuspecting hosts, where it may cause catastrophic disease and death.

While the Minnesotan moose is a hypothetical example, this worm has caused serious neurological impairments in many animals. The symptoms of the disease can vary, from disorientation and circling to paralysis across the animal’s back end, the inability to stand up and potentially death.

As parasitologists, we’ve been studying the effects these worms can have on moose populations in Minnesota. Tracking the spread of parasites and diseases in wild moose populations helps wildlife managers preserve those populations and reduce the spread to other animals or livestock.

While white-tailed deer can harbor these parasites without having any symptoms of disease, the worm can wreak havoc on populations of ungulates, like moose and elk, that aren’t adapted to the parasite. And tracking the disease in the wild isn’t easy.

The disease cycle

White-tailed deer harboring these parasites may shed the worms into their environment when they defecate. Snails and slugs then take up this larva, where it develops inside them to the point where it’s capable of infecting other types of deer, moose, elk and cattle.

For us as parasitologists, the biggest challenge lies in detecting the disease before it irreversibly damages its host. Only white-tailed deer pass the parasite in their feces. This means we can’t detect this parasite by analyzing the poop of moose, or any animal, besides the white-tailed deer.

Once an animal is visibly sick, it’s too late for it to make a recovery. Only after their death can we recover the body and identify the parasite from where it’s embedded in the brain or spinal cord.

Even once we’ve recovered the body, finding a single, threadlike worm within the entirety of a moose or elk’s nervous system is time-consuming and often futile. Usually, wildlife biologists can only tell that an animal was infected by looking at microscopic evidence that suggests a parasite migrated through the central nervous system, and by analyzing DNA fragments left behind by the worm.

Diagnostic confusion

To make things even harder, disease signs caused by other worms, like the arterial worm Elaeophora schneideri, look similar to brain worm and can affect Minnesota moose. The arterial worm generally lives in the neck of black-tailed deer and mule deer. Like P. tenuis, this parasite moves around in the bodies of hosts that aren’t adapted to it, and can cause harm.

Biologists attempting to diagnose a wild moose based on the visible clinical signs alone could easily confuse these two parasites and incorrectly conclude which parasite may have caused the disease. Given that the transmission of the parasites are vastly different, separate mitigation steps would be employed to minimize transmission.

And, biologists diagnosing based on microscopic findings in samples from the animal’s body still risk misidentifying the worm. The best way to get an accurate diagnosis is through genetic analysis – analyzing the DNA sequence of the worm causing disease. The DNA sequence will tell researchers whether it is P. tenuis or E. schneideri.

Serological testing

While genetic analysis can help researchers monitor the presence of the disease in a population, they can’t use it to diagnose live animals. But our team, with colleagues at the University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine’s molecular diagnostic lab, has created a test that can help diagnose animals while they’re alive.

When a moose or elk has a brain worm, its cells produce antibodies, which are a type of protein in the blood that try to defend against the parasite. Our serological test looks for these antibodies in an animal’s blood.

To perform the testing, wildlife health specialists collect blood from sick or recently deceased animals and ship it to the lab. There, scientists run part of the blood through a test that looks for these specific antibodies against P. tenuis, so the animal isn’t misdiagnosed with another type of parasite.

This test, which the molecular diagnostic lab is now using to test samples sent in from across the country, has helped us monitor populations of moose and elk for this parasite. It can detect the parasite’s presence while the animals are still alive and without expensive genetic testing.

Ripple effects from testing

After the Minnesotan moose from our example is hit by a semitruck, wildlife officials find the deceased moose on the side of the road and quickly take a sample of her blood for testing. They send it off to the University of Tennessee, where it joins thousands of other samples from moose, elk and even caribou across North America.

Each submission helps our colleagues in the molecular diagnostic lab improve the test. The test can also screen blood samples from animals that live in areas where researchers haven’t detected P. tenuis. If positive, those results may alert biologists that the parasite is expanding into new areas and help them manage populations.

If a test at the molecular diagnostic lab indicates that the parasite is present in a new population early on, they will have more time to try to curb the disease spread. Wildlife managers may try to reduce snail and slug populations with controlled burns. Or, they might increase how many white-tailed deer hunters in the area can harvest to reduce the deer population.

We hope that in the future, other researchers will use the techniques behind this serological test to make similar tests for other infectious disease agents containing RNA or DNA.

Richard Gerhold works for the University of Tennessee and his research lab offers to perform serology tests for moose and elk for wildlife groups, as mentioned in the article, but this service is not widely advertised, and is not for profit. Funding for this research came from the National Center of Veterinary Parasitology, the National Park Service, and the Northeastern Wildlife Health Cooperative via funding from the state wildlife agencies of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Jessie Richards works for the University of Tennessee and her research lab offers to perform serology tests for moose and elk for wildlife groups, as mentioned in the article, but this service is not widely advertised, and is not for profit. Her research funding comes from the University of Tennessee.

– ref. Parasitic worms bury themselves in the brains of moose and elk – a new test can help diagnose these animals to prevent disease spread – https://theconversation.com/parasitic-worms-bury-themselves-in-the-brains-of-moose-and-elk-a-new-test-can-help-diagnose-these-animals-to-prevent-disease-spread-214908

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Thomas Morgan, Associate Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology, Institute of Human Origins, Arizona State University

While developing his theory of natural selection, Charles Darwin was horrified by a group of wasps that lay their eggs within the bodies of caterpillars, with the larvae eating their hosts alive from the inside-out.

Darwin didn’t judge the wasps. Instead, he was troubled by what they revealed about evolution. They showed natural selection to be an amoral process. Any behavior that enhances fitness, nice or nasty, would spread.

Selection isn’t limited to DNA. All systems of inheritance, variation and competition inexorably lead to selection. This includes culture, and I’m one of a team of researchers at Arizona State University’s Institute of Human Origins who use a cultural evolutionary approach to understand human bodies, behavior and society.

Culture shapes everything people do, not least scientific practice – how scientists decide what questions to ask and how to answer them. Good scientific practices lead to public benefits, while poor scientific practices waste time and money.

Scientists vary. They might be meticulous measurement-takers or big-picture visionaries; cautious conservatives or iconoclastic radicals; soft-spoken introverts or ambitious status-seekers. These practices are passed on to the next generation through mentorship: All scientific careers start with years of one-on-one training, where an experienced scientist passes on their approach to their students. A successful scientist can train dozens of graduate students; meanwhile, poor strategies lead to an early career exit.

The currency of scientific success

When scientists apply for jobs or funding, the primary way they compete is through their research papers: reports they write describing their work that are peer-reviewed and published in scholarly journals.

One of the sources of selection on scientists is how these papers are evaluated. Experts can provide detailed assessments, but many hiring or promotion committees use blunter metrics. These include the total number of papers a scientist publishes, how many times their papers are cited – that is, referred to in other work – and their “h-index”: a statistic that blends paper and citation counts into a single number. Journals are rated too, with “impact factors” and “journal ranks”.

All these metrics can incentivize some rather odd outcomes. For instance, citing your own past papers in each new one that you write can inflate your h-index. Some unscrupulous researchers have taken this to the next level, forming “citation cartels” where the members agree to cite one another’s work as much as possible, no matter the quality or relevance.

Recently there have been moves away from these simple-yet-flawed metrics. But without better alternatives, institutions simply put more emphasis on the raw number of publications, selecting for scientists to publish as much as they can, as fast as they can. Perhaps you’ve heard of the slogan “publish or perish,” or maybe even played the board game.

The publishing landscape

Scientists aren’t the only organisms in the scientific ecosystem. There are also publishers, the owners of the journals. Publishers live in an often-uneasy symbiosis with scientists, publishing their work, but also needing to make money off the process.

The traditional model was for journals to charge readers – or, more often, university libraries – subscription fees. This setup selects for journals to carefully vet their contents, as otherwise they will lose readers. Indeed, prominent journals reject the vast majority of submissions they receive.

The downside is that subscription fees block access for readers who can’t afford them. If you’ve ever tried to read an academic paper but been presented with a paywall, this is why.

Open access adaptation

The Open Access movement aims to make journal articles free for everyone to read and has led to many journals removing reader paywalls. But journals still need money, so most Open Access journals have swapped subscription fees for publication fees, paid by scientists on a per-paper basis.

This model allows anyone to read papers for free, but, as I have argued, it has also changed the selection pressures on journals, leading to some perverse outcomes.

There are two ways for journals to succeed in this new landscape. For prestigious journals, they can leverage their reputation to charge large publication fees, sometimes over US$10,000 per paper.

For low-prestige journals, no one would pay such large fees. They must instead focus on quantity over quality. Like scientists, they must “publish or perish,” and publishers are already adapting to this new pressure – publishing more papers, opening new journals, increasing acceptance rates and expediting peer review.

These changes created a new niche for scientists too, who are coevolving with the journals. An underhanded minority are adapting to laxer journal policies by using artificial intelligence to accelerate their research pipeline. The resulting papers are very low quality and so risk the authors’ reputations. However, until they are exposed, this strategy boosts research output and so brings rewards.

Alternatives

Publication fees aren’t the only model out there.

Diamond Open Access journals don’t charge fees at all and instead rely on donations.

Some scientists share what are called preprints, skipping peer review and putting their papers online for everyone to read for free. They may also publish them later in a conventional journal.

Academic society journals, which date back to the 17th century, often tie free publication to society membership and rely on interpersonal relationships and reputations to incentivize high-quality work.

PCI’s or “peer community in’s” are groups of volunteer scientists aiming to wrest peer review away from journals entirely.

All of these are interesting options, and all would change the selective forces acting on both scientists and publishers. It makes sense to think about the evolutionary changes they could produce on the scientific landscape.

Why scientific evolution matters

Darwin’s parasitic wasps reveal two truths: Selection is both unavoidable and amoral.

Whatever the domain, selection can lead to outcomes you might not like. For science, these might include the emergence of paper mills, mass retractions, citation cartels, fraud, excessive fees or bizarre AI-written papers.

But science can also do tremendous good: It produced modern medicine, discovered electricity and computing, and put people on the Moon. Like Darwin with his wasps, those of us who care about the scientific enterprise don’t need to limit ourselves to asking why some people do bad things. Instead, we need to ask why bad acts are selected in the first place and design better systems.

Don’t blame the player, redesign the game. If we can put better rules in place, evolution will do the rest.

Thomas Morgan 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. ‘Publish or perish’ evolutionary pressures shape scientific publishing, for better and worse – https://theconversation.com/publish-or-perish-evolutionary-pressures-shape-scientific-publishing-for-better-and-worse-259258

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Arie Perliger, Director of Security Studies and Professor of Criminology and Justice Studies, UMass Lowell

The fatal shooting of prominent conservative activist Charlie Kirk on Sept. 10, 2025, has brought renewed attention to the climate of political violence in America. Kirk’s death reflects a sizable increase in threats against officeholders and politicians at the local and federal level.

Alfonso Serrano, a politics editor at The Conversation, spoke with University of Massachusetts Lowell scholar Arie Perliger after Kirk’s shooting. Perliger studies political violence and assassinations and spoke bluntly about political polarization in the United States.

Serrano: What were your initial thoughts after Charlie Kirk’s fatal shooting?

Perliger: It was a bit unusual that the attack was not against an elected official. Rarely have we seen political assassinations that are aimed at the nonprofit political landscape. Usually those people are not deemed important enough.

Secondly, and it’s something I see a lot in my research, political assassinations come in waves. We see that not only in the United States but other countries. I’ve looked at political assassinations in many democracies, and one of the things I see in a fairly consistent manner is that political assassinations create a process of escalation that encourages others on the extreme political spectrum to feel the need to retaliate. And that is my main concern. That this process creates legitimization and acceptance, that it provides the sense that this is an acceptable form of political action. This will not end here.

In 2024, there were two attempts to assassinate Donald Trump. Then, in early 2025, the residence of Gov. Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania was firebombed on Passover, and within months the U.S. witnessed the killing of Minnesota state lawmaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, among other acts of political violence. The U.S., of course, is not immune to political violence, as we saw in the 1960s. But what stands out about this latest wave?

The data shows that there’s a substantial increase in the level of threats against officeholders at the local and federal level. What’s different now is we see an increased support in political violence from both sides of the political spectrum. Consistently, almost a quarter of the public is willing to support political violence in some form, or see that as a legitimate form of political action.

And as we see an increased political polarization, and the increased demonization of political rivals, we see the decline and disappearance of political discourse and policymaking. The bipartisan political process in Congress in the past few years has been almost nonexistent. And that spills over to the public, where the other (political) side is seen as a one-dimensional figure that is a threat.

We’ve had political polarization in the U.S. in the past, but usually it was around a specific issue like civil rights in the 1960s and the Vietnam War. But this time there is no specific issue that we can say, “If we solve this, we solve the political polarization.” The problem is that there’s no space for convergence from both sides where they can work together, so there’s no bridges they can rely on to come together.

Does it strike you that Kirk’s assassination occurred on a college campus? It seems as if college campuses have become a flash point of violence in the U.S.

Campuses are becoming more and more contentious spaces. They were always intellectual hubs where political views were debated intensively. Activism was always part of campus life. But what we’ve seen in the past year is that campus life has become in some cases more violent. And the fact that Kirk was killed on a campus is, I think, heartbreaking because campuses symbolize a place where you can engage in political debate in a way that encourages intellectual exploration.

What’s happened in the past year is that campuses are not those spaces anymore. Yes, we still see political activism, but it’s the activism that doesn’t leave any room for actual debate. It’s just two sides that are completely hostile to each other and unwilling to hear each other.

Trump on Wednesday night blamed the media and the “radical left” for language used to describe people like Kirk. He said this rhetoric is “responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country today.” Any thoughts?

I agree that language and rhetoric impact people’s behavior. I’ve seen that again and again in my studies, that the discourse of political figures impacts the way people think of the legitimacy of violence. Of course, we need to understand the context here, which is that Trump himself was willing to pardon thousands of people who engaged in political violence.

So, on the one hand, I agree with him that political leaders should be responsible for how they discuss political issues. It’s important for them to convey that political discourse can be constructive. However, we need to acknowledge that our own government, in many cases, sends signals that provide encouragement and support that legitimize violence. I think it’s important for politicians on both sides to be consistent in understanding that the way they discuss their political rivals is important.

You’re an expert on the history of political assassinations. How do countries untangle themselves from waves of political violence?

Political leaders need to insist on working together. There are lots of policy areas where politicians can work together. When we see that people can work together within the political system, that sends an important message, that there is a space where we can work together. The second thing is trying to think about how the U.S. can restructure part of the political process to ensure that there is a real competition of ideas, to incentivize a constructive, productive approach that will legitimize those who are willing to engage in constructive policymaking.

Any last thoughts?

As part of my work, I track the most extremist online social media accounts, and what we see right now is a strong sense that this assassination is being celebrated by parts of the left. And that has created an escalation of language from those in the extreme right social media ecosystem. There is much more willingness to discuss issues of retaliation, an actual civil war.

And that’s my biggest worry. If you look at social media, what we see is that both sides embrace this kind of rhetoric that really concerns me. More than ever, I’ve seen calls for retaliation and a strong sense that the other side is unwilling to show any sympathy to what happened. Emotions are running very high, and I’m very worried about what may happen in the next few weeks.

Arie Perliger 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. ‘This will not end here’: A scholar explains why Charlie Kirk’s killing could embolden political violence – https://theconversation.com/this-will-not-end-here-a-scholar-explains-why-charlie-kirks-killing-could-embolden-political-violence-265060

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Rhonda Conner-Warren, Assistant Professor of Health Programs, Michigan State University

Detroit kids 17 and under were nearly three times more likely to be hospitalized for asthma than other kids in Michigan, according to data from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services released on Sept. 2, 2025. The data examines the years 2019 to 2023.

During those years, the asthma death rate among Detroit kids was more than four times higher than the state average, according to the state’s data. Dying from asthma is rare and largely preventable.

Detroit was also named the most challenging place to live with asthma in the country by the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America’s annual rankings of asthma capitals. The ranking, released on Sept. 9, 2025, looked at the 100 largest cities in the U.S. The high number of low-income residents in Detroit and the city’s air pollution are among the risk factors that can worsen asthma and drive asthma rates, the report said. Last year the city ranked third.

Even mild asthma exacerbations such as coughing or congestion can disrupt a child’s and family’s daily routines. When a child is unwell, parents may have to miss work, and children can fall behind in school, adding stress for everyone in the family.

September is the peak month for asthma flare-ups in children. It’s a time when they can be exposed to a variety of triggers such as mold, pollen and respiratory viruses at school or home.

As a pediatric nurse practitioner and clinical faculty member in community health, I partner with health educators and families to create personalized, practical care plans that promote children’s well-being.

I currently work with Focus: HOPE’s early childhood education center in Detroit. During the 2024–25 school year, Focus: HOPE observed a 20% increase in asthma diagnoses among students, meaning we were serving 30 children with asthma, a trend that aligns with state health data.

Although Focus: HOPE shut down part of its Head Start program in August 2025 after losing federal funding, I remain deeply proud of the work my colleagues and I have done to care for children and their families. We remain committed to finding new ways to support our families, communities and children at risk for poor health and educational outcomes.

What worsens asthma symptoms

Asthma is a condition that affects the child’s lungs. It causes the airway to become swollen and narrow, sometimes producing extra mucus. This can make it harder to breathe and may lead to symptoms such as coughing, wheezing – a whistling sound when breathing out – and shortness of breath.

Asthma is not always classified strictly as an allergic disease, but many cases are allergy related, and such cases are becoming more common worldwide. This increase is fueled in part by climate and environmental changes, living in urban populations, increased time spent indoors, obesity and use of cleaning products that can worsen asthma and allergies.

Understanding asthma medications

Asthma is treated with medications, including emergency inhalers, daily long-acting inhalers, combination inhalers, which contains two or more medicines and nebulizer machines. Knowing when and how to use each is essential, and your child’s provider should review this with you regularly.

Many parents from my practice share a common concern about their children taking asthma medications with steroids. They often worry their children will build up a resistance or intolerance to them.

I tell them inhaled steroids go straight to the lungs and don’t affect the whole body like oral or systemic steroids do. They help control daily inflammation and prevent attacks.

An oral corticosteroid “burst” is a short-term treatment, typically lasting five to seven days, used to rapidly reduce severe airway inflammation during asthma flare-ups. It’s usually given in a tapering dose and is not meant for long-term use. These medications are safe, targeted and can make a huge difference in keeping your child out of the ER.

Many believe that children and families will simply “grow out of” asthma. While some with mild symptoms may improve over time, others remain at risk, especially when exposed to common triggers such as freshly cut grass or outdoor play during high-pollen days. Even simple activities such as running through a field can lead to serious asthma flare-ups.

Here are practical steps to help protect your child from experiencing an asthma attack:

• Talk with their health care provider to create an asthma action plan.

• Clearly label inhalers.

• Keep their vaccines up to date.

• Limit exposure to outdoor allergens.

Emergency medical plans at school

Every school staff member should be prepared for a student’s asthma flare-up with a documented emergency plan, knowledge of triggers and medication protocols.

Children should be sent to school with an individualized asthma action plan. An asthma action plan is a form that outlines what to do when symptoms such as coughing, wheezing, fatigue or abdominal pain occur. It specifies the medication, dosage, frequency and when to call parents or 911. The plan should be signed by the provider and kept in the child’s classroom file with their medication.

At school, ensure your child’s inhaler is clearly labeled. Put a prescription label showing the child’s name on both the box and the canister itself. Ask your pharmacy for an extra label, since unlabeled inhalers can easily get lost or mixed up, especially on the playground.

Viruses can trigger serious asthma attacks and lead to complications such as bronchitis or pneumonia. Staying up to date on yearly immunizations, especially the flu and COVID vaccines, can lower these risks and keep your child breathing easier.

Keep your child’s provider up to date about any changes, improvements or worsening symptoms — such as during travel or after moving to a new area. Ask about environmental irritants in your area and what “poor air quality,” increasingly caused by wildfire smoke in Michigan, means for your child’s breathing.

Protect your child from outdoor allergens at home

Everything your child brings in from outside – on their clothes, shoes, and even in their hair – can trigger allergies or asthma symptoms indoors. Here’s how you can help reduce exposure and keep their environment healthy:

1. Vacuum or dust floors frequently to remove allergens that may trigger an asthma attack. Install HEPA filters on vacuums and HVAC systems to improve air quality in the home.

2. Take shoes off at the door. Leave sneakers and outdoor shoes outside to avoid tracking allergens inside.

3. Change clothes before entering bedrooms. Clothes worn outside can carry pollen, dust and other irritants.

4. Wash hair before bed. Outdoor allergens can settle in your child’s hair and transfer to their pillow, increasing overnight exposure. If daily washing isn’t possible, consider using a bonnet and changing pillowcases frequently.

5. Daily hygiene matters. A warm shower and nose-blowing at the end of the day help clear inhaled irritants.

6. Stay hydrated. Keeping your child well hydrated helps thin mucus and reduce respiratory discomfort.

Rhonda Conner-Warren Full-time faculty at MSU College of Nursing, with part of my time subcontracted to Focus: HOPE in Detroit.

– ref. Detroit is the most challenging place in the country for people with asthma − here’s how to help kids in the Motor City breathe easier – https://theconversation.com/detroit-is-the-most-challenging-place-in-the-country-for-people-with-asthma-heres-how-to-help-kids-in-the-motor-city-breathe-easier-262474

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Frank and Bethine Church Endowed Chair of Public Affairs, Boise State University

The fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk during a speaking engagement at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10, 2025, has drawn widespread condemnation and renewed attention to the climate of political violence in the United States. To many, Kirk was not just another partisan commentator.

He was one of the most visible leaders of the young conservative movement. Kirk helped shape Republican politics on college campuses, in media and within President Donald Trump’s coalition.

To understand the significance of the attack — and why the reactions to it have been so strong — it helps to know who Kirk was, what the organization he built stood for, and the role he and his allies have played in national debates.

Turning Point USA founder

Charlie Kirk was a conservative activist, author and media personality who rose to prominence unusually early.

Raised in the Chicago suburbs, he made national headlines at 18 for founding Turning Point USA, a conservative youth movement. Kirk only briefly attended college. Instead, he chose to devote himself full time to conservative organizing.

That decision became central to the mythos surrounding him: He represented a choice among promising young conservatives to skip higher education in protest of the alleged left-leaning bias of universities.

Over the next decade, Kirk grew into a national figure. Beginning in 2016, he frequently spoke at Trump rallies, which helped him to build an extensive media profile.

In 2020 he published the “The MAGA Doctrine,” a bestselling book that argued in favor of nationalism and Trump’s “America First Agenda.” And his eponymous podcast – “The Charlie Kirk Show” – was downloaded more than 120 million times over the past 10 months, according to Turning Point.

Kirk’s program featured political commentary and interviews with prominent Republican personalities and politicians – guests included Tucker Carlson, Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. These conversations amplified Kirk’s reach well beyond student audiences.

Connecting college students and GOP

Turning Point USA was founded in 2012 by Kirk and Bill Montgomery. Kirk met Montgomery, a retired businessman, after Kirk gave a speech at a conservative youth summit in Kansas. Montgomery urged him not to pursue college but to instead dedicate himself fully to building a youth conservative movement.

Kirk described the early days as lonely: driving to campuses, handing out flyers and trying to recruit students to talk about free markets and limited government.

Turning Point drew significant financial backing from high-profile conservative donors, including Foster Friess, the Wyoming financier; the Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation; and Illinois businessman Richard Uihlein and his family foundation.

By 2024, Turning Point claimed chapters at more than 1,000 campuses, employed more than 400 staffers and had grown its annual budget to over US$8 million

Today, Turning Point is best known for hosting large-scale conferences. Its Student Action Summit in Florida regularly draws between 4,000 and 5,000 students and has featured appearances by GOP heavyweights including Donald Trump Jr. and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. A 2022 gathering in Phoenix, called AmericaFest, attracted more than 10,000 attendees.

Most controversially, the group’s Professor Watchlist webpage publishes the names of academics it accuses of bias against conservatives.

Turning Point has also spun off like-minded subsidiaries, including Turning Point Action and TPUSA Faith. These organizations expand Turning Point’s reach into electoral politics and church organizing. TPUSA’s media division produces a steady stream of popular videos, livestreams and podcasts, a legacy that should ensure Kirk’s influence lasts despite his death.

Expanding national role for Turning Point

Kirk and Turning Point provided important connections for younger conservatives and the Republican Party. In 2016, Turning Point mobilized thousands of students for Trump’s campaign, and Kirk was invited to speak at the Republican National Convention.

By 2020, the organization was playing a more overt political role. Turning Point Action ran voter-registration drives in battleground states, and the group sponsored buses and advertising to bring supporters to Washington, D.C., ahead of the Jan. 6, 2021, “Stop the Steal” rally. Kirk tweeted at the time that Turning Point would be sending “80+ buses full of patriots” to the event.

While he later deleted the message and distanced himself from the violence, it underscored the group’s entanglement in the most contested moments of the Trump era.

Kirk also acted as a crucial media surrogate for Trump. He used his podcast, social media, and speaking tours to amplify Trump’s message and attack critics. He was an early and persistent promoter of Trump’s baseless claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election, helping translate them for younger conservative audiences.

Spreading misinformation, inflaming tensions

Critics argued that Kirk thrived on outrage and intimidation rather than debate.

The Professor Watchlist has been denounced by faculty associations as a blacklist that chills academic freedom. Journalistic investigations by outlets such as The New Yorker raised questions about Turning Point’s finances, including allegations of blurred lines between nonprofit educational work and partisan campaigning.

Kirk was criticized for spreading misinformation, such as false claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election and misleading statements about COVID-19 vaccines and mask mandates. He suggested that public health measures were a form of government control, rhetoric that public health experts argue undermined trust during a crisis.

More broadly, his sharp attacks on political opponents – he framed them not merely as wrong but as dangerous – drew accusations that he fueled polarization and inflamed tensions on American college campuses and beyond.

Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin 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. Who was Charlie Kirk? The activist who turned campus politics into national influence – https://theconversation.com/who-was-charlie-kirk-the-activist-who-turned-campus-politics-into-national-influence-265056

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Cal J. Halvorsen, Associate Professor of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis

For the first time in U.S. history, there are more Americans over 62 than under 18. With the national workforce getting older every year, many economists argue that having people keep working longer than they used to would help maintain a robust labor market.

But it can be hard for many older adults to stay employed past the age of 62, the year they typically become eligible for early Social Security retirement benefits, even when their health is good. In part that’s because approximately half of full-time workers in their early 50s lose their jobs involuntarily by the time they turn 65, possibly due to age bias and discrimination. And because it is much harder for workers over 50 to get hired than their younger counterparts, many of those older Americans exit the labor force before they’re ready to retire when they unexpectedly become unemployed.

As gerontological social work researchers, we have conducted multiple studies on the career aspirations, workplace experiences and civic engagement of older adults.

We’re concerned about the fate of a federal program that helps low-income and unemployed adults age 55 and older get help with employment. The Trump administration has not released more than $300 million in funds – typically disbursed in May – to its grantees in 2025 from the Senior Community Service Employment Program.

And the Trump administration proposes that no money be spent on it at all in the 2026 fiscal year. The effects of this defunding are already rippling across the country, from Florida to Oregon.

Job training for older adults

This federal program has been running since 1965. It provides on-the-job training to people over the age of 55 who are unemployed and have incomes at or below 125% of the federal poverty level, which in 2025 means $19,563 for singles and $26,438 for couples.

The approximately 40,000 older workers who have benefited from it annually in recent years have earned their area’s prevailing minimum wage as a stipend while working part time. With some exceptions, workers can remain in the program for up to four years, but the average tenure was less than half that in 2022, around 22 months.

The program funds job training that takes place at nonprofits and government agencies, such as Goodwill Industries, Easterseals, local social services agencies, and the network of public and nonprofit agencies that serve older adults and their caregivers around the country, called Area Agencies on Aging.

The Department of Labor funds the program through direct grants to states, as well as grants to 20 national nonprofits, which in turn work with local organizations to recruit older adults and train them to do jobs like clerical, janitorial and customer service roles in all 50 states, Washington and U.S. territories. In most cases, at least 75% of federal funds must go directly to wages and benefits for participants, with the payments usually being made by the local and statewide organizations that recruit the participants and place them into host agencies.

Benefits for individuals and communities

This program helps older Americans balance their checkbooks, enjoy better health and engage more regularly with their own communities.

Many participants consider it a lifeline because it helps them to pay their bills and gives them a sense of purpose. For older adults who have trouble finding jobs, the program gets them out of their homes and back into their communities while boosting their self-esteem.

Once they’re trained, many of them find jobs – as many as 26%, according to the most recently posted estimates from the Department of Labor, and up to 38% in 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic upended the economy and labor markets.

For some participants, the government-supported employment becomes an avenue out of homelessness, a way to boost mental health or an activity that strengthens their relationships.

Through working for the government or nonprofits, participants in this program also learn about other ways they can get help, whether it’s accessing affordable health insurance or other job-training opportunities.

The program’s benefits outweigh its costs at the federal level, the Urban Institute has found. And the government and nonprofit agencies that host these older workers are better able to serve their local communities, partly because the program’s participants often share information about the services they learn about with their relatives and friends.

On the chopping block

In the summer of 2025, Senior Community Service Employment Program grant recipients across the country began to furlough their staff. Program participants have exited ahead of schedule, and prospective participants are missing out on job-training opportunities that would have otherwise been available to them.

The White House said it left the program out of its proposed 2026 budget due to what it said was a failure at moving older workers into unsubsidized employment.

We question this rationale because it ignores the constraints that federal regulations place onto the Senior Community Service Employment Program.

Its grantees are required to enroll unemployed and low-income older adults who have trouble getting jobs. Many can’t find work due to severe disabilities, limited literacy, trouble speaking English, homelessness, being 75 or older, having formerly been incarcerated and other challenges.

To require a program designed to help people who are inherently going to have the most trouble landing jobs – and then to criticize it because all of its participants do not successfully and quickly wind up employed – is a Catch-22. The mission and purpose of the program make that expectation unrealistic.

There’s another Catch-22.

On one hand, the Trump administration has mandated work requirements for health insurance coverage through Medicaid and introduced those requirements for food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for the first time for able-bodied adults who are 60 to 64 years old.

On the other hand, it is disrupting the only federal program specifically created to help older adults with low incomes find jobs and become better positioned to earn a living.

These policies effectively remove a ladder while insisting that older adults must climb it.

Improvement and innovation

To be sure, we do see some room for improvement in the program.

For starters, we think it needs new metrics of success beyond job placement rates. Remaining employed requires good health, so it’s worth tracking what happens to the physical and mental health of older adults who participate in this program.

We support the Labor Department’s efforts to find new ways to deliver this job-training program. AmeriCorps, the volunteering and community service arm of the federal government, is also testing a new workforce development program for older workers that we think is promising.

But for now, there are few alternatives to the Senior Community Service Employment Program. In our view, it’s well worth preserving it at a time when older workers face growing pressure to earn a paycheck.

Cal J. Halvorsen is an adviser to two research projects on programs to support older job seekers, funded by the U.S. Department of Labor and AmeriCorps Seniors.

Ernest Gonzales received funding from Senior Service America Inc in 2015.

Nancy Morrow-Howell 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. A federal program helps older people get jobs, but the Trump administration wants to get rid of it – https://theconversation.com/a-federal-program-helps-older-people-get-jobs-but-the-trump-administration-wants-to-get-rid-of-it-262596

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Margaret Riley, Professor of Law, Public Health Sciences, and Public Policy, University of Virginia

On Sept. 10, 2025, a federal judge blocked the Department of Justice’s attempt to subpoena medical records and other private health information on minors receiving hormone therapy and other gender affirming care at Boston Children’s Hospital.

The move is the first public legal decision after the Department of Justice, in July, issued more than 20 subpoenas to doctors and clinics treating transgender patients under age 19.

A subpoena to Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, made public by The Washington Post on Aug. 20, demanded documents that are related to virtually any aspect of the care provided, including highly confidential documents like psychotherapy notes.

According to news reports, the Justice Department subpoenas have sown fear and concern, both among people whose information is sought and among the doctors and other providers who offer such care. Some health providers have reportedly decided to no longer provide gender-affirming care to minors as a result of the inquiries, even in states where that care is legal.

I’m a law professor at the University of Virginia specializing in health law. I spend a lot of time teaching future lawyers and medical professionals how medical privacy laws work. Normally, subpoenas demand information relating to specific crimes. But these subpoenas are unusual in how much information they seek, while giving no inkling of any alleged crimes that may have been committed.

The subpoenas also push against the bounds of legal protections on health information.

What is HIPAA and why did Congress pass the legislation?

In the 1990s, growing use of the internet made it increasingly easier to violate people’s health care privacy. Some notorious breaches of privacy involving celebrities, such as USA Today’s revelation that tennis champion Arthur Ashe had AIDS, drove the point home. Genetic testing was also becoming prevalent in clinical care, raising concerns about the privacy of peoples’ genetic information.

In response, Congress passed the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, in 1996. The legislation required the Department of Health and Human Services to develop a set of privacy regulations specific to health care. These regulations went into force in 2003.

HIPAA prohibits health care providers and people working with them, such as administrative staff, laboratories, pharmacies and health insurers, as well as businesses, from disclosing patients’ health information without their permission. The regulations cover everything in a patient’s medical record as well as any documents or information kept by their health provider relating to their health care.

Most if not all of the information sought by Justice Department subpoenas is the type of information typically covered by HIPAA, meaning that it would generally be illegal for health care providers to disclose it.

Does HIPAA constrain providers’ response to subpoenas?

HIPAA’s privacy rule has a few exceptions, however – and responding to a subpoena is one of them.

The regulations permit but do not require health care providers to disclose protected health information in response to a subpoena. In other words, providers may choose not to comply with a subpoena. Notably, however, they may face consequences for doing so. For example, a court might find a provider in contempt if it does not disclose the requested information. That can leave health care providers in a difficult position, caught between their interests in protecting their patients and obligations demanded by courts or law enforcement.

If health care providers do choose to share HIPAA-protected health information in response to a subpoena, the regulations outline certain requirements that both providers and, in this case, the government, must follow. Providers must get written authorization from patients before disclosing some types of information, such as psychotherapy notes.

The government, meanwhile, must notify patients whose health information it seeks and provide them with enough information about the crimes or other legal violations that it is investigating so that they can decide whether they want to object to the subpoena. It must also give patients enough time to do so.

The government must also wait until after that time period ends before taking any action on providers’ compliance with the subpoenas. And it must certify to providers that it has followed these rules and that the court has resolved any objections patients may have filed.

Finally, HIPAA requires that when health care providers do disclose protected health information, they disclose the “minimum necessary” to accomplish the intended purpose of the subpoena or other legal request. In the context of a subpoena, that means the health care provider must ascertain the purpose, accuracy and legality of the subpoena before disclosing any information.

The subpoena to the Children’s Hospital of Pennsylvania provides very little information about the government’s allegations, so without more information, the health care providers would be unable to determine the minimum necessary here.

How might shield laws affect privacy protections?

HIPAA acts as a floor for privacy protections. In other words, states cannot pass laws that reduce those privacy protections. But they can introduce laws that offer more protection. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have so-called shield laws that offer protections both for those providing and those receiving gender-affirming care.

Shield laws are state laws that protect individuals from being required to reveal specific types of information. In the context of gender-affirming care, most of these laws are designed to limit the effect another state’s laws might have on care performed in the state with the shield law. For example, if someone travels from a state where gender-affirming care is banned and receives that care in another state where it is legal, a shield law may protect the people who received or provided the care against civil or criminal charges from the state where the care is banned.

Some state shield laws may offer additional privacy protections. For example, Washington law on protected health services does not permit health care providers to respond to any requests for information from out of state that are related to investigations or proceedings relating to services lawfully provided in Washington.

It remains to be seen whether the federal courts will uphold these shield laws, and it is not clear whether they apply at all against a federal subpoena.

How will this play out?

Both the health care providers that have been subpoenaed and the individuals whose health information has been requested may raise objections to the subpoenas.

At this point, the Justice Department has not revealed the underlying claims it intends to pursue. Based on its press release, which mentions “health care fraud,” it seems likely that the government intends to pursue claims under the federal health care fraud statute and the False Claims Act for failing to meet federal requirements or for providing fraudulent billing or claims.

The government may decide to proceed under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, perhaps alleging that physicians somehow used a drug or device for a prohibited purpose. Given that the press release about the subpoenas refers to “mutilated children,” it is even possible that in some instances, the government might allege violations of a federal law against female genital mutilation. That law was passed to prohibit the removal of female genitals for nonmedical, usually cultural, reasons.

Before any of the subpoenaed health care providers or the people whose health information the government requested can determine how to respond to the subpoenas, they will need more information about the underlying claims. Their lawyers may move to dismiss or modify the subpoenas because they are so broad, arguing that they amount to a fishing expedition rather than a targeted investigation – as Boston Children’s Hospital has done.

These issues will undoubtedly continue to be decided in the courts, and their resolution may take some time. More broadly, however, medical privacy laws were passed to help patients feel comfortable seeking medical care – and the government’s intrusion on medical privacy is likely to make that harder.

Margaret Riley 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 subpoenas for transgender care records raise medical privacy concerns and put providers in a legal bind – a health law expert explains what’s at stake – https://theconversation.com/federal-subpoenas-for-transgender-care-records-raise-medical-privacy-concerns-and-put-providers-in-a-legal-bind-a-health-law-expert-explains-whats-at-stake-264120

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jayde N. Hirniak, Ph.D. Candidate in Archaeology, Arizona State University

If you were lucky 74,000 years ago, you would have survived the Toba supereruption, one of the largest catastrophic events that Earth has seen in the past 2.5 million years.

While the volcano is located in what’s now Indonesia, living organisms across the entire globe were potentially affected. As an archaeologist who specializes in studying volcanic eruptions of the past, I often think about how incredible it is that humans survived this extinction-level event that was over 10,000 times larger than the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption.

The Toba supereruption ejected 672 cubic miles (2,800 km³) of volcanic ash into the stratosphere, producing an enormous crater roughly 1,000 football fields in length (62 x 18 miles, or 100 x 30 kilometers). An eruption this size would have produced black skies blocking most of the sunlight, potentially causing years of global cooling. Closer to the volcano, acid rain would have contaminated water supplies, and thick layers of ash would have buried animals and vegetation.

With all those odds stacked against Homo sapiens as a species, how did we survive to piece together the story today?

Survival amid the ashes

Human populations living in close proximity to the Toba volcano were probably completely wiped out. Whether people on other parts of the globe were affected is a question that scientists are still investigating.

The Toba catastrophe hypothesis was one prominent school of thought for many years. It proposes that the Toba supereruption caused a global cooling event that lasted up to six years. Its effects, according to the hypothesis, caused human population sizes to plummet to fewer than 10,000 individual people living on Earth.

This scenario is supported by genetic evidence found in the genomes of people alive today. Our DNA suggests that modern humans spread into separate regions around 100,000 years ago and then shortly after that experienced what scientists call a genetic bottleneck: an event, such as a natural disaster or disease outbreak, that leads to a large decline in population sizes. These calamities drastically reduce the genetic diversity in a group.

Whether this apparent reduction in human population size resulted from the Toba supereruption or some other factor is heavily debated. As scientists collect more data from climate, environmental and archaeological records, we can begin to understand what conditions were most important for human survival.

How to study a supereruption’s impact

To piece together what happened 74,000 years ago, scientists have one direct line of evidence they can use: the rock and ash ejected from the volcanic eruption itself. This material is referred to as tephra. Scientists can trace the layers of tephra across the landscape both visually and chemically.

Microscopic volcanic glass called cryptotephra travels the farthest, making it important for understanding the true extent of an eruption. Because cryptotephra is not visible to the naked eye, it can be really challenging to identify. Researchers like me carefully separate out the tiny glass shards by sifting through the dirt and using a micromanipulator, a tool that can pick up and move microscopic grains. This process can feel like looking for a needle in a haystack and can take months to complete for one site.

Every volcanic eruption has a unique chemistry, which scientists can use to determine which eruption a particular sample of volcanic material originated from. For instance, tephra from one eruption might have more iron in it compared to tephra from another eruption. With this knowledge, we can begin to understand how large past eruptions were and who they directly affected.

When I work in the field, I look for cryptotephra that settled on archaeological sites – places with traces of past human activity such as tools, art or even buried remains. I collect samples from areas of the site that have been excavated and bring them back to the lab to extract the microscopic volcanic glass out of the dirt. Then I chemically analyze the glass to figure out the volcanic fingerprint.

But even if I determine that a certain sample from an archaeological site is from the Toba supereruption, what does that reveal about whether people survived the blast?

Once we identify a tephra or cryptotephra layer, the next step is to look closely at what’s preserved in the archaeological record before and after that eruption. In some cases, people change their behavior after an eruption, such as using a new stone tool technology or eating something different. Sometimes, people even abandon a site, leaving no trace of human activity after a catastrophic event.

Studying volcanic deposits on archaeological sites fills in only one piece of the puzzle, though. Environmental and climate records preserve information on how the local vegetation or global temperatures changed at the time of the eruption. This information helps scientists understand why people made the changes they did.

What does the archaeological evidence reveal?

Given the size and intensity of the Toba supereruption, it almost seems inevitable that humans across the globe would have suffered immensely. However, most archaeological sites tell a story of resilience.

In places such as South Africa, humans not only survived this catastrophic event but thrived. At archaeological site Pinnacle Point 5-6, evidence of cryptotephra from Toba shows that humans occupied the site before, during and after the eruption. In fact, human activity increased and new technological innovations appeared shortly after, demonstrating humans’ adaptability.

This miraculous result was not restricted to South Africa. Similar evidence is also preserved at archaeological site Shinfa-Metema 1 in the lowlands of Ethiopia, where cryptotephra from Toba was present in layers that also preserve human activity.

Here, past humans adapted to changes in the local environment by following seasonal rivers and fishing in small, shallow waterholes present during long dry seasons. Around the time of the Toba supereruption, humans in this region also adopted bow-and-arrow technology. This behavioral flexibility allowed people to survive the intense arid conditions and other potential effects of the Toba supereruption.

Through the years, archaeologists have found similar results at many other sites in Indonesia, India and China. As the evidence accumulates, it appears that people were able to survive and continue to be productive after Toba blew its stack. This suggests that this eruption might not have been the main cause of the population bottleneck originally suggested in the Toba catastrophe hypothesis.

While Toba might not help scientists understand what caused ancient human populations to plummet to 10,000 individuals, it does help us understand how humans have adapted to catastrophic events in the past and what that means for our future.

What could a future disaster mean?

The good news is that we are a lot more prepared now than people were 74,000 years ago, and even then, they were able to adapt and find new solutions in the wake of devastating events. Today, programs such as the USGS Volcanic Hazards Program and the Global Volcanism Program focus on preparation by monitoring active volcanoes through a variety of techniques. In fact, you can check out what volcanoes are currently erupting at any time.

Aside from our increased preparedness, humans are defined by our adaptability to almost any condition, even cataclysmic events. By studying the impact of volcanic eruptions in the archaeological record, we can better understand what conditions were key for human survival in the past and apply these lessons to the future.

Jayde N. Hirniak has received funding from the Hyde Family Foundation, Institute of Human Origins, Geological Society of America, Society for Archaeological Sciences, and the Cave Research Foundation for work related to this topic. This work also involves a collaboration between Arizona State University and the University of Nevada Las Vegas.

– ref. A massive eruption 74,000 years ago affected the whole planet – archaeologists use volcanic glass to figure out how people survived – https://theconversation.com/a-massive-eruption-74-000-years-ago-affected-the-whole-planet-archaeologists-use-volcanic-glass-to-figure-out-how-people-survived-254782

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Nick Marx, Professor of Film and Media Studies, Colorado State University

The Season 27 premiere of “South Park” in July 2025 began like so many of the show’s episodes: Resident bigot Eric Cartman is pissed off. He directs his ire at the Trump administration, which had recently pulled federal funding for NPR, because he enjoyed hearing liberals “whine about stuff.” In other words, Cartman is irate that Trump has stolen his hateful, vindictive shtick.

As the episode goes on, other South Park residents join Cartman in rallying against Donald Trump. In the show’s infamously over-the-top style, the president is depicted as thin-skinned, deceitful – and, well, sexually ill-equipped. The episode ends with a surreal, graphic deepfake scene of a totally nude Donald Trump stumbling around a desert.

The White House immediately blasted “South Park” as irrelevant and “desperate for attention.”

The ratings tell a different story. The season premiere scored 6 million viewers across Comedy Central and Paramount+, with even more tuning in two weeks later for the follow-up. Each ensuing episode has further skewered Trump and his administration.

“South Park” has long targeted ineffectual authority figures with ripped-from-the-headlines timeliness, which is made possible by its weekly production schedule. Whereas most animated television shows require months of production lead time, series co-creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone need just a week or two to write, voice and animate an entire episode.

While the ever-churning news cycle has made it more difficult to hold those in power accountable, the cartoon’s timely satire still galvanizes viewer attention. This makes it uniquely suited to channel rage toward Trump and other political leaders – and, perhaps, influence an audience that has recently proved elusive to Democrats.

A history of poking the powerful

The appeal of “South Park” doesn’t necessarily lie in partisan attacks on Republicans.

Its politics have always been all over the map, with both liberals and conservatives railing against the show at various points.

The 2006 episode “ManBearPig” ridiculed former Democratic Vice President Al Gore’s climate activism. In 2014, liberal critics decried an episode titled “Mr. Garrison’s Fancy New Vagina” for deploying transphobic tropes. And “The Pandemic Special,” which aired in 2020, mocked the restrictive vaccine policies promoted by progressives.

Meanwhile, conservative watchdog groups such as the Parents Television and Media Council have long targeted “South Park” for its allegedly harmful influence on children. The none-too-subtly titled 1999 movie “South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut” satirized these efforts: Throughout the movie, Kyle’s mom, Sheila, tries to censor the graphic children’s cartoon characters Terrance and Phillip.

That movie also marks one of the earliest appearances of the Iraqi despot Saddam Hussein. It portrays him as a crazed, lecherous supervillain hellbent on taking over the world alongside his gay lover, Satan.

The current “South Park” season has animated Trump with the same cutout, stop-motion style as it did with Hussein, implying direct parallels between their dictatorial desires. Behind the scenes, Trump has reportedly been “seething” over the depiction.

In the 2006 two-part episode “Cartoon Wars,” Parker and Stone warred with Comedy Central over the right to show an animated depiction of the Muslim prophet Muhammad.

The network rejected the idea after political violence followed in the wake of a Danish newspaper’s publication of a cartoon featuring Muhammad. Eventually, censored animations of Muhammad aired with disclaimers from Comedy Central, but only after Parker and Stone’s refusal to address the issue before broadcast.

The cartoon continues to relish poking its corporate benefactors. The current season premiered hours after Trump’s Federal Communications Commission approved a merger for the show’s parent company, Paramount. The administration delayed the transaction in order to settle its lawsuit against the Paramount-owned news show “60 Minutes,” which Trump had accused of favorably editing an interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris while she was running as the Democratic nominee for president.

That same day also saw the announcement of a new US$1.5 billion deal keeping “South Park” at Paramount. Parker and Stone’s skewering of Trump sends a message to Paramount in the wake of the “60 Minutes” settlement and the cancellation of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert”: Let politics dictate your content at your own risk.

Reaching the right voters

As the Democratic Party’s establishment struggles to appeal to young, internet-savvy, male voters – look no further than party strategists’ attempts to find “a liberal Joe Rogan” – “South Park” is garnering record viewership with young audiences.

The rest of the season, meanwhile, has provided a timely, steady drumbeat of Trump mockery.

The second episode of the current season calls out the Trump administration’s illegal ICE raids. The next episode lampoons Trump’s affinity for lavish gifts and compliments. In it, tech CEOs and world leaders obsequiously note that Trump “does not have a small penis.” The fourth episode depicts him as a negligent and emotionally abusive lover to Satan, further connecting him to the show’s previous portrayals of Saddam Hussein.

Despite its penchant for outrageous and, at times, scattershot satire, “South Park” has an important lesson to teach Trump’s political opponents.

The appeal of both Trump and “South Park” to many young men is not in the positive ideas they offer, but in the way they both humiliate their opponents. I research comedy on the right, and I’ve written about how right-wing humor has long thrived on “owning the libs.” Now, “South Park” is owning Trump, and with each new lurid reveal in the Jeffrey Epstein saga, it will have plenty of fodder as the season progresses.

Simply calling attention to Trump’s hypocrisies and corruption – long the forte of media figures such as Jon Stewart, John Oliver and the hosts of the podcast “Pod Save America” – becomes white noise after a while.

But actually animating the sitting president with a micropenis? Making a mockery of the self-serving business deals of the “dealmaker in chief” and his spineless corporate cronies?

Well, those things won’t win an election on their own. But they inadvertently could help Democrats lure back some of the young men who drifted to Trump in 2024.

Nick Marx 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 ‘South Park’ could help Democrats win back the young voters the party lost to Trump – https://theconversation.com/how-south-park-could-help-democrats-win-back-the-young-voters-the-party-lost-to-trump-263488

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Elizabeth Castaldo Lundén, Kluge Fellow at the Library of Congress, University of Southern California

The death of Giorgio Armani marks the passing of one of Italy’s most influential fashion designers.

As someone who studies the intersection of fashion, media and entertainment, I think one of the designer’s most impressive feats is how he harnessed Hollywood to extend the global reach of his brand.

Born in Piacenza in 1934, Armani abandoned medical school in 1954 to work at Milan’s La Rinascente department store. There, he developed a passion for fabrics and first learned about fashion licensing, a business strategy that allowed brands to sell luxury designs at affordable prices to middle-class customers.

Observing how the licensed lines of fashion designer Pierre Cardin retailed at La Rinascente at lower prices, Armani came to understand that diversifying a brand to appeal to different customer groups could be a profitable strategy for global expansion.

When he went off on his own in 1975 to co-found his own brand with architect Sergio Galeotti, Armani soon found success by executing simple, relaxed tailoring that rejected the stiff formality of traditional suits.

In 1978, he signed an agreement with Gruppo Finanziario Tessile to produce luxury, ready-to-wear clothing under his close supervision. That deal gave rise to the Giorgio Armani Corporation and its multiple lines aimed at international markets.

Introducing affordable luxury to America

Armani’s first ready-to-wear line debuted in the U.S. in 1979.

The designer had appointed Edward Glantz, a former employee at Barney’s New York, as the product development coordinator for Giorgio Armani U.S.

Glantz was tasked with adapting Armani’s products for Americans, who were accustomed to low-maintenance, affordable clothing. He worked to ensure the designs retained their relaxed elegance by using permanent-press fabrics, which require less ironing than natural fibers, while incorporating cheaper materials to reduce costs.

In Milan, Armani’s jackets retailed for US$600, while his suits went for $800. In the U.S., prices for his sports and formal-wear lines ranged from $150 to $450, and could be found at department stores such as Bergdorf Goodman and Nan Dusking.

But many Americans encountered Armani’s clothes for the first time while watching the 1980 film “American Gigolo.” The protagonist, Julian Kay, a high-priced escort played by Richard Gere, wears lightweight Armani suits that can be worn with a tie for a formal look or paired with jeans and a polo shirt for a more casual style. Part of the trick for this relaxed look involved using softer textiles that were commonly used for womenswear.

As fashion scholar John Potvin noted, “The film introduced American audiences to a visual style which has been much imitated since. Its wardrobe launched Giorgio Armani in the U.S. and … consolidated Richard Gere’s sex symbol image.”

The designs featured in the film came from the white label Armani Collezioni – Armani’s more affordable line targeted at American consumers – meaning audiences could watch Julian’s wardrobe on screen and purchase the similar pieces in stores.

Over the course of the decade, power dressing – donning outfits that communicate authority, competence and confidence – was in vogue, further fueling the popularity of Armani’s sleek, broad-shouldered suits. In 1982, Armani became just the second designer in history to appear on the cover of Time magazine.

But Hollywood is where he continued to flex his brand’s muscles. Over the years, he outfitted characters in more than 200 films.

Titles such as “The Untouchables” (1987) and, more recently, “The Wolf of Wall Street” (2013) featured hard-charging leads who donned Armani suits, reinforcing the brand’s reputation as a symbol of style and power. During this time, Armani managed to earn a reputation as a master tailor, even though his suits were 70% machine-made and partially manufactured in Hong Kong.

Selling ‘prestige and dreams’

Recognizing the importance of celebrity exposure, Armani hired Wanda McDaniel in 1988 as his West Coast liaison to coordinate Hollywood A-listers’ wardrobes for on- and off-screen appearances.

A former journalist turned Hollywood housewife, McDaniel had observed how entrepreneur Fred Hayman had pampered clients at his Rodeo Drive boutique, Giorgio Beverly Hills – no relation to Armani – making him the go-to outfitter for Hollywood elites.

She worked to apply that same VIP treatment for clients at Armani’s newly inaugurated Rodeo Drive flagship store, which opened in August 1988 to cater to Hollywood celebrities and what the Los Angeles Times described as “the generic working rich.”

In the 1990s, McDaniel became the president of the Rodeo Drive Committee, a nonprofit organization for local business and property owners to shape and promote the shopping district. It had been founded by Hayman, who was also serving as the Oscars’ fashion coordinator.

Armani soon became regularly name-dropped during media coverage of the red carpet, with commentators gushing over the Armani dresses – and, sometimes, unisex suits – that actresses donned as they posed for the cameras. Armani later said that the gowns worn at the Oscars were always the first to sell out in his collections.

The designer’s awareness of the entertainment industry’s promotional power only grew over time, with the company’s Entertainment Industry Relations department – which is still active – overseeing celebrity relationships and styling for the company’s various lines. This paved the way for other fashion houses to establish their own in-house VIP teams.

Reflecting on the significance of the red carpet to his career, Armani once said, “It is about prestige and dreams, but those lead to dollars and cents.”

Elizabeth Castaldo Lundén receives funding from Fulbright and The Kluge Center.

– ref. How Giorgio Armani mastered the art of outfitting Hollywood stars to sell clothes to the masses – https://theconversation.com/how-giorgio-armani-mastered-the-art-of-outfitting-hollywood-stars-to-sell-clothes-to-the-masses-264730