Category: The Conversation – USA

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

The compulsion started soon after my marriage.

Long before e-books and audiobooks, I furtively read paperbacks whose covers of bosomy maidens and bare-chested men would have outed my obsession. Then, on a family car trip, my husband told my young stepdaughters why I liked sitting alone in the back seat.

“Diane is reading bodice rippers,” he said, citing the old-fashioned name for sexually explicit romance novels. Back then, they were my guilty pleasure.

More than 30 years later, I remain a fan of romance novels, but it’s no longer a craving I feel compelled to hide. In fact, I value the window it opens to my research interests in pop culture, religion and gender.

I’m not alone. Romantic fiction makes up almost 25% of books sold in the U.S., and the genre earned US$1.44 billion globally in 2022-23. The Bible may be the bestselling book of all time, but annual sales of romance novels even outpace the Scriptures.

Written by women, for women

Among scholars, there’s a range of opinions on the genre’s enduring popularity.

Some describe romantic fiction as the literary equivalent of Marx’s “opium of the masses.” They argue that these books are perennial bestsellers because they offer escapism and the promise of “happily ever after” – a quick sugar high to distract from the struggles of everyday life.

Other scholars cite the genre’s pedigree. Though they’re canonized as literary classics, 19th-century novels such as “Pride and Prejudice,” “Jane Eyre” and “Wuthering Heights” can also be read as romances – stories written by women and centered on women’s emotional lives, courtship and desires. In a world circumscribed by the era’s narrow gender roles, these books featured clever, often headstrong women who exercised some agency over their love lives and their fates.

In my view, this explains their popularity: 19th-century readers may have found vicarious pleasure in Jane Eyre’s journey from timid governess to independent heiress and happy wife. Likewise, Catherine Earnshaw’s decision to marry the wealthy Edgar Linton, thus abandoning the penniless Heathcliff, may have struck the female fans of “Wuthering Heights” as an understandable choice.

Nineteenth-century women had limited pastimes. Books that reflected on their own circumstances, albeit with more intrigue and drama, were catnip. But as readership grew, male authors wanted to cash in on the expanding market.

As men penned their own novels, their perspectives dominated, pushing women’s fiction to the side. Changing social mores also made the once popular “woman’s novel” seem dated.

The romance genre was revived in the 20th century when authors added more oomph to their plots and edgier characters. Daphne Du Maurier’s 1938 classic, “Rebecca,” breathed new life into gothic romances – love stories set in dreary, desolate places, intermingled with horror and suspense. And Georgette Heyer revitalized historical romance with smoldering stories such as “The Grand Sophy,” set in England’s Regency period (1811–1820).

Bodice rippers debuted in the 1970s. The name came, in part, from the covers, which often depicted a woman in a half-torn dress being embraced by a buff male. A racier take on the romance genre, they were often set in early 19th-century England and ended in happily-ever-afters. But the characters were sexually active in ways that would have shocked and scandalized Jane Austen’s heroines.

Kathleen E. Woodiwiss’ “The Flame and The Flower” (1972) is widely credited with launching the modern bodice ripper: The first romance novel published in paperback, it became a huge bestseller, despite its graphic rape scenes.

These novels, which debuted in the midst of the sexual revolution, were more explicit than their precursors, and heroines enjoyed more agency in their life choices. That said, the sex was male-driven and often implied that a “throbbing member” could send the heroine into paroxysms of ecstasy.

Lovestruck mafiosos and bull breeders

The digital revolution further transformed romance novels.

Self-publishing, digital publishing and BookTok brought new and younger readers into the mix. Anyone could become a romance novelist, leading to an array of new characters, plots and sexual adventures.

A genre that once mainly featured straight, British aristocrats now embraced Black, Latino and Asian protagonists. There were wanton witches, voracious werewolves and vampire lotharios. Some stories explored alien pairings and lovestruck mafiosos, while in others, LGBTQ characters and professional athletes took center stage. Readers drawn to bawdier fare could dive into erotic fiction, with plotlines featuring women mating with bulls, reverse harems – one woman with several men – and women consorting with multi-limbed aliens.

Many of these innovations have something in common. Rather than sticking to the male-driven plotlines of 20th-century bodice rippers, most contemporary romance writers focus on the female orgasm. Men are far less likely to rush penetration because, before seeking their release, they want their partners to experience multiple climaxes.

But contemporary female characters are not just sexually satisfied. They also enjoy successful careers and close female friends. True to real life, some are plus size or have disabilities. Others were burned in past encounters. They need suitors to scale their emotional walls before blowing their minds in the bedroom.

Women in control

Put together, the genre has undergone a 180-degree turn from the books I hid in the 1990s.

Today’s romantic fiction is less about horny couplings and happy endings and more about exploring emotional connections and power dynamics. Stories also play out the impact of race, class, gender and sexuality on relationships.

Consider the bestselling book and breakout hit HBO series “Heated Rivalry,” which explores the complicated romance between two gay hockey players. It’s beloved by straight and gay female fans for depicting a blossoming relationship characterized by emotional vulnerability rather than toxic masculinity. And it reveals a trend previously underreported: Women like watching gay men enjoying sex.

While the “Heated Rivalry” phenomenon is intriguing, readership also has skyrocketed for romantasy.

Romantasy features unconventional women navigating make-believe worlds populated by magic, faeries and dragons. Some heroines are timid, others are brazen, but they share a drive to succeed on their terms.

The genre took off in 2015 with Sarah Maas’ “A Court of Thorns and Roses,” the saga of a beautiful but impoverished teen who finds herself in the faerie court. Eleven years and two series later, Maas’ books have sold more than 75 million copies. Each novel is kinkier than the last, and they’ve even inspired some readers to spice up things in their own bedrooms.

The success of these new romance subgenres reflects a striking societal shift: Women are no longer shy about being on top. As writers and readers increasingly see powerful women in C-suites and boardrooms, they expect similar strength in the bedroom.

Although what women want has not changed over time, our ability to achieve it has. That’s why the popularity of books by, for and about women is as fervent today as when Elizabeth Bennet, the heroine in “Pride and Prejudice,” fell for Mr. Darcy. But Lizzie Bennet lived in a world where she could do only so much, hemmed in like her real-life counterparts.

Thankfully, women today enjoy more power, agency and pleasure. And thankfully, too, we have a lot more books by, for and about women as we contemplate what lies ahead.

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

– ref. From bodice rippers to romantasy, romance novels are dominating the book market – and rewriting women’s sexual power – https://theconversation.com/from-bodice-rippers-to-romantasy-romance-novels-are-dominating-the-book-market-and-rewriting-womens-sexual-power-273765

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Logan Pant, Assistant Professor of Marketing, University of Evansville

Thinking about certain types of alcohol can alter your mood and trigger certain mindsets, especially among young consumers. For instance, tequila calls up a party mindset, whiskey activates a masculine mindset, and wine primes a sophistication mindset.

Those are the key takeaways of a new study my team and I published in the journal Young Consumers.

We carried out four studies with 429 total participants to examine the cultural themes and moods people associate with different types of alcohol.

We conducted two preliminary studies to understand how people think about different types of alcohol. In the first study, participants answered open-ended questions, and in the second they completed a word-association task. These studies helped us identify common cultural associations, which we call “learned associations,” or ideas people develop through experience and cultural exposure.

We used these associations to create questions about alcohol-related mindsets. Participants rated how much they felt different qualities when thinking about a randomly assigned type of alcohol in response to the prompt, “I feel ___ when thinking about this type of alcohol.” For example, the sophisticated mindset included sophisticated, elegant, classy, formal and fancy; the masculinity mindset included masculine, tough, confident, manly and strong; and the party mindset included energetic, outgoing, fun, like partying and like celebrating.

Then we conducted two experiments where participants were randomly assigned to think about either wine, whiskey or tequila and respond to the mindset questions, allowing us to test whether different types of alcohol evoke different associations.

Importantly, participants did not consume alcohol, allowing us to isolate the learned associations these drinks evoke, separate from alcohol’s physiological effects.

Clear patterns emerged. Tequila was frequently associated with words like fun, wild, celebration and party. Whiskey elicited terms such as strong, rugged, confident and masculine. Wine, by contrast, was associated with elegance, class, refinement and sophistication.

These findings show that alcohol can function as a “symbolic cue.” In other words, the mindsets people associate with different drinks appear to originate from learned associations rather than from intoxication itself.

Why it matters

More than half of the U.S. adult population consumes alcohol: 54% in 2025. This is the lowest level recorded since Gallup began tracking the drinking habits of adults in the U.S. in 1939, and it marks a decline from 1997-2023, when over 60% of adults reported drinking.

Some drink to enhance experiences, while others drink for enjoyment, socializing or even escapism. For others, drinking may become compulsive or difficult to control, defined as an alcohol use disorder.

Research increasingly shows that even moderate drinking can carry health risks, including higher risks of several cancers.

A considerable amount of research on alcohol has explored what happens as a result of drinking. Studies have found that people become uninhibited and make risky decisions when they drink. Other researchers have found that people pick up ideas and habits about drinking from the world around them and that advertising can influence what, when and how young people drink.

Fans of the popular sitcom “How I Met Your Mother” might recall an episode titled ‘The Perfect Cocktail.“ In this episode, different alcoholic beverages reflect the personalities of Marshall (Jason Segel) and Barney (Neil Patrick Harris). It’s funny and engaging, but what if there’s a real psychological basis for these associations?

Such learned associations have not been thoroughly studied – in particular, it’s unknown whether they can activate distinct drinking mindsets even without actual consumption.

One reason why this is important is that even though Gen Zers drink less alcohol than previous generations, they are still exposed to alcohol-related media and cultural cues. Understanding these psychological cues may help explain how alcohol-related social norms and expectations develop and influence drinking decisions.

What’s next

Learned associations for different alcoholic drinks can influence how people feel, which in turn might shape their intentions, choices and social expectations. For example, if thinking about tequila prompts a “party” mindset, it could influence how a person plans their evening and what choices they make.

A better understanding of these associations could help public health campaigns promote moderation and responsible drinking, such as pacing drinks, staying hydrated and avoiding overconsumption. Future research could examine how these associations form in different social contexts, how they vary across age groups or cultures, and how interventions might shift them to further reduce risky behaviors and encourage safer, more responsible alcohol consumption.

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

This research was funded by the Department of Marketing at the University of North Texas.

– ref. Just thinking about tequila, whiskey or wine shifts your mindset – new research – https://theconversation.com/just-thinking-about-tequila-whiskey-or-wine-shifts-your-mindset-new-research-277160

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Rachel French, Assistant Professor of Family and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania

Patients who are prescribed higher daily doses of the medication buprenorphine for opioid use disorder are significantly more likely to stay in treatment. Those on 17 to 24 milligrams averaged 190 days in care compared to 90 days for those on 8 milligrams or less. Yet Black patients are less likely than white patients to receive the higher doses.

Those are the key findings of a study my colleagues and I conducted with 5,000 adults enrolled in Medicaid in Philadelphia who are prescribed buprenorphine to treat their opioid use disorder.

I am an assistant professor at University of Pennsylvania’s School of Nursing, and my research focuses on improving care and outcomes for people with opioid use disorder.

Why it matters

Buprenorphine is one of the most effective treatments for opioid use disorder. Unlike most opioids, buprenorphine only partially activates opioid receptors, providing enough stimulation to prevent withdrawal and cravings while not causing euphoria. This lowers the risk of overdose.

Buprenorphine also blocks other opioids from binding to opioid receptors and causing euphoric effects. This deters patients from using other opioids while on the medication.

Across the board, patients who received higher doses of buprenorphine – usually 17 to 24 milligrams per day, but sometimes more – stayed in treatment significantly longer than those who started on medium doses of 9 to 16 milligrams, or lower doses of 8 milligrams.

Staying in treatment for opioid use disorder is important because it reduces overdose risk and provides a foundation for recovery.

Our study also revealed racial disparities.

Black patients were less likely than white patients to receive the 17 to 24 milligram prescriptions. These differences may reflect prescriber preferences, inequities in health care or misconceptions among both patients and clinicians about safe dosing.

Other groups were more likely to receive higher buprenorphine doses. Over half of our sample was diagnosed with a musculoskeletal condition – such as osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and gout – alongside opioid use disorder. These patients were more likely to receive higher doses.

Why it matters

Over the past decade, the unregulated street opioid supply across the U.S. – and notably in Philadelphia – has become much more potent and unpredictable. The powerful synthetic opioid fentanyl as well as the animal tranquilizers xylazine and medetomidine are pervasive in Philadelphia. With these changes, standard buprenorphine doses may not be enough to stabilize withdrawal symptoms and prevent patients from using again.

Identifying disparities in buprenorphine dosing also sets up a number of interventions that insurers can use to address them.

For example, Community Behavioral Health, Philadelphia’s Medicaid behavioral health managed-care organization, has provided education about buprenorphine at faith‑based conferences, convened focus groups with Medicaid members to understand barriers to buprenorphine treatment, and allowed us to present our findings in a forum with local prescribers and pharmacists.

In December 2024, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration updated its recommendations about buprenorphine dosing. Previously, it supported a target dose of 16 milligrams and said that doses over 24 milligrams showed no clinical advantage.

Now, the FDA has removed the phrase “target dose” from the drug label. It also added that although doses over 24 milligrams have not been investigated in randomized clinical trials, they “may be appropriate for some patients.”

This clarification rolls back outdated language that many clinicians and insurers took to mean that 16 milligrams was the maximum for treating opioid use disorder.

What still isn’t known

Clinicians still do not fully understand patient preferences around buprenorphine dosing. Some patients may want higher doses to better manage withdrawal or cravings. Others may prefer lower doses due to concerns about not being able to discontinue buprenophrine if they are on a high dose.

The dosing patterns that we observed suggest that Black patients do not have equal access to higher doses of buprenorphine they may need. Understanding why these differences occur, and how to address them, is essential to equitable treatment.

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

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

Rachel French 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. Higher buprenorphine doses help patients stay in opioid use disorder treatment, new study finds – https://theconversation.com/higher-buprenorphine-doses-help-patients-stay-in-opioid-use-disorder-treatment-new-study-finds-274804

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Tim Hulsey, Associate Professor of Psychology, University of Tennessee

A few semesters into my teaching career as a psychology professor, I uncovered a cheating ring. I determined who the ringleader was and called him to my office.

He admitted that he had illicitly obtained a copy of the exam and shared it with other students. He began to cry, telling me he was from a single parent family, the first in his family to go to college, and that his mother would be crushed if he was dismissed from the university for academic dishonesty.

I did not know what to do. I was angry at what he had done, but I also felt sorry for his situation. For reasons I still don’t fully understand, I decided to call his mother. When I told her what he had done, she apologized repeatedly, then said coldly, “Let me speak to him.”

I don’t know what she said, but as the color drained from his face and he was reduced to repeatedly saying, “Yes, ma’am,” I assumed he was being read the riot act. After he hung up, he headed home to, I suspect, more severe punishment than the university could have given. He received a “0” on the exam and an official reprimand in his student file, but I’m willing to bet that the most important lesson he learned didn’t come from the university or me.

Though I didn’t yet know the word, the decision to call his mother was an example of phronesis, an ancient Greek word usually translated as “practical wisdom.” It refers to the ability to make good decisions in real-life situations, especially when there are no clear rules or easy answers.

Charioteer of the virtues, guiding them all

Phronesis provides you with the ability to deliberate well about what is good and bad in specific circumstances. Unlike theoretical knowledge (sophia) or technical skill (techne), phronesis is about judgment – how to choose the right action at the right time for the right reasons.

When you think about wisdom, maybe you imagine a philosopher pondering big questions or a scientist unlocking the secrets of the universe. But phronesis is a different kind of wisdom, one that is less about abstract ideas and more about navigating the messy, unpredictable realities of everyday life. Phronesis helps you live well, not by following rules, but by making wise choices in the face of complexity. It’s what allows you to turn knowledge into action that is then beneficial.

Phronesis is a central component of the virtue approach to character development and morality first described by Aristotle. Virtues like courage, generosity, justice and temperance tell you what goals you should aim for, but they don’t tell you how much, when or in what way you should act in a specific situation. Phronesis helps you think through and decide the right means to achieve the right ends in the moment.

Aristotle called phronesis “the charioteer of the virtues” because it provides the guidance system that ensures the other virtues are applied correctly in real life. As he put it, “It is impossible to be good in the strict sense without practical wisdom.”

Let’s take the example of courage. Everyone wants to be brave and stand up for their values. However, without phronesis, too much courage may become recklessness, or too little courage could result in cowardice. Phronesis allows you to know when to take a risk and when to hold back.

Or consider justice, the virtue of treating others fairly. Phronesis allows you to choose what is fair in a specific situation. Virtues set the goals – for instance, “be courageous” or “be just” – but phronesis determines the right way to achieve them.

Practice phronesis in the face of complexity

Developing phronesis takes time and effort. It requires experience, reflection and careful reasoning. Because phronesis is social, it thrives in environments where people share their perspectives and challenge each other’s assumptions.

You don’t have to be a philosopher or a scientist to practice phronesis. Modern life is full of complexity. We are regularly faced with questions that don’t have clear answers.

Picture a parent who must decide whether to enforce bedtime or allow a child to stay up for a special family occasion. The rule says bedtime is nonnegotiable, but practical wisdom reminds us of the value of shared family experiences.

Or consider a manager who notices an employee missing deadlines. Instead of simply reprimanding them, they might ask what’s going on and discover a family emergency. They could adjust expectations and offer support, balancing fairness with compassion.

These kinds of decisions reflect practical wisdom because they anticipate future needs, not just rules or consequences.

In a world obsessed with data and efficiency, phronesis reminds us that human judgment still matters. Algorithms can optimize processes, but they can’t weigh moral values or capture the subtleties of human relationships. Whether in education, health care, business or politics, decisions that affect lives require more than technical expertise. They require wisdom.

Phronesis counters the illusion that life’s problems have simple, one-size-fits-all solutions. It helps us realize that good judgment takes time, empathy and reflection. So, the next time you face a tough decision, pause and ask: What’s the wise thing to do?

Tim Hulsey 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. Making good choices when life gets messy – practical wisdom relies on human judgment, not rules – https://theconversation.com/making-good-choices-when-life-gets-messy-practical-wisdom-relies-on-human-judgment-not-rules-271928

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Danielle Wirsansky, Ph.D. Candidate in Modern European History, Florida State University

On the cold evening of Feb. 27, 1943, Charlotte Israel gathered with a small crowd of women on the Rosenstrasse, a narrow street in central Berlin. They were not Jewish, but their husbands were, and the men had just been arrested in a sweeping roundup of more than 9,000 Berlin Jews. Heinrich Himmler, leader of the SS and an architect of the Holocaust’s murder of 6 million Jews, called this arrest a “de-judaization of the Reich.”

Nearly 2,000 of those arrested had non-Jewish wives and were crammed together in a building on the Rosenstrasse. Israel and the other women who had gathered outside resolved to return the next day. Early the next morning, as she approached Rosenstrasse in search of her husband, Annie Radlauer heard a chorus of voices growing louder as she drew nearer: “Give us our husbands back!” The vigil, which sometimes grew into collective protests, continued off and on until March 6.

This protest still raises questions about how Hitler ruled and about attempts to rescue German Jews.

Families under pressure

Under the Nuremberg Laws of 1935, Nazi Germany banned marriage and sexual relations between Jews and people it considered “Aryans,” and it ratcheted up pressures for already married couples to divorce.

In most of these marriages, the non-Jewish partners were Christian women who faced enormous social stigma and political threats. Their households were considered “Jewish,” and the Gestapo could storm their homes, day or night, in a terrifying search.

Jewish women married to gentile men, on the other hand, lived under the protection of an “Aryan household,” and virtually all were exempted from wearing the yellow star that Jews in Germany were required to wear from 1941 onward. Yet their husbands were pressured by restrictions to their careers.

Jews married to Christians did face persecution, and at least hundreds of them were murdered in the Holocaust. The Gestapo deported Jews whose spouses had divorced them to labor and death camps, intending that they would never return.

Over the decade leading up to Rosenstrasse, however, as many spouses refused the pressure to divorce, the regime created temporary exemptions. Intermarried couples with Christian children were classified as “privileged” Jews, for example, exempt from wearing the yellow star. And until Himmler’s February 1943 campaign, even “non-privileged” Jews who did wear the star were “temporarily” held back from deportations.

Courage on the street

That February’s mass arrests are sometimes referred to as the “Factory Action,” since many Jews were arrested at work. But others were snatched from home or from the street if seen wearing the star.

The women and girls who gathered on Rosenstrasse were not political activists. They were wives, mothers and children trying to keep their families together under a murderous dictatorship. Their protest was unusual for its public visibility, since non-Nazi public gatherings were outlawed. Eyewitnesses recalled the women shouting for the release of their husbands and moments when guards threatened to shoot if protesters did not clear the street.

Most of the imprisoned Rosenstrasse Jews were released on March 6. American intelligence reported that Himmler’s action was discontinued “because of the protest which such action aroused.”

Meanwhile, 7,000 other Jews arrested in the same roundup – Jews not shielded by family relationships with non-Jews – were deported to Auschwitz, with many murdered.

Weighing the impact

Some scholars see the protest as tipping the balance to save the 2,000 men’s lives – based, in part, on events leading up to Rosenstrasse.

On Dec. 6, 1942, Adolf Hitler had authorized Joseph Goebbels, in his role as district leader of Berlin, to “ensure that the unprivileged full Jews are taken out of Germany,” likely to be murdered. And Nazi officials had promised Auschwitz’s Buna work camp thousands of skilled Jewish laborers – a quota that was not met because of the Rosenstrasse Jews’ release.

But Germany’s defeat in the Battle of Stalingrad by February 1943, coinciding with an increase in Allied bombing raids, sent public morale plunging. That made public opposition a bigger concern for the regime, especially for Goebbels, the propaganda minister. On March 6, he wrote that he had discontinued the deportation of the Rosenstrasse prisoners because “large throngs” gathered to side with the Jews.

During the decade since Hitler took power, women married to Jewish men defied scornful social, economic and political pressure, day after day. Some historians see their refusal to comply – even putting their lives on the line for their families – as causing Hitler to make a series of concessions.

Other scholars, however, say this runs “a danger of dramatically underestimating the power of the Nazi regime.” Gestapo terror suppressed all outward resistance, they argue, and a street protest could not have influenced policy.

This interpretation holds that the regime never intended to send the Rosenstrasse Jews to Auschwitz or elsewhere in the east but was holding the men to register them and select some for labor in Berlin.

Never before or after did the regime imprison Jews for such purposes. In any case, these protesters could only have had influence because they were not Jewish. Any Jewish resistance, such as the famous Warsaw Ghetto Uprising that started that April on the eve of Passover, was violently suppressed.

‘We stuck together’

Our research sees intermarriage and the Rosenstrasse protest as significant for several reasons.

First, they highlight how gender shapes expectations about protest and resistance. Nazi society cast women primarily as wives and mothers. Christian women wishing to reunite their families without calling for Hitler’s demise, or the release of all Jews, were harder for the regime to portray as political enemies or criminal agitators.

Second, the protest underscores the importance of visibility. Much of Nazi persecution relied on secrecy and masking genocide with bureaucratic language and routines. In Germany, deportations to killing sites or forced labor camps were often carried out quickly, with limited public exposure. A protest in the center of Berlin made secrecy impossible.

Third, the Rosenstrasse protest illuminates the range of responses available, in certain circumstances, to ordinary people living under Hitler. While armed resistance movements have received extensive attention, protests rooted in family and community operated differently. For example, Hitler compromised with German women who publicly protested orders to leave their families in order to evacuate cities being bombed by the Allies. Nazi officials appeased protesters opposing the removal of crucifixes from German schools.

The Rosenstrasse protest has become part of wider conversations about women-led resistance in World War II – alongside actions such as sheltering their Jewish neighbors, serving as couriers for underground networks or using workplaces and churches to quietly obstruct Nazi policies.

Decades later, Holocaust survivor Margot Graebert remembered what was at stake on Rosenstrasse. Her father and sister were held there, and her mother brought her to the protest. In the years before, “We’d seen so many families (of intermarriage) split up … and we stuck together.”

Rosenstrasse was not only a public protest but also a struggle to keep families from being torn apart: Above all, the women were fighting for the return of their own husbands and relatives. Its outcome does not change the scale of Nazi persecution or suggest that the regime tolerated dissent. But we argue that Rosenstrasse and its testimonies still matter today – not as a simple story of triumph but as a revealing debate about what protests could and could not accomplish under Nazism.

Danielle Wirsansky is affiliated with the Rosenstrasse Civil Courage Foundation.

Nathan Stoltzfus is co-founder of the Rosenstrasse Civil Courage Foundation.

– ref. Women of the Rosenstrasse protest challenged the Nazi regime for their detained Jewish husbands’ freedom – and won – https://theconversation.com/women-of-the-rosenstrasse-protest-challenged-the-nazi-regime-for-their-detained-jewish-husbands-freedom-and-won-277154

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Farah N. Jan, Senior Lecturer in International Relations, University of Pennsylvania

The United States military achieved every objective it set when it went to war in Iraq in 2003. Decapitation: Saddam Hussein was captured, tried and hanged. Air dominance: total, within days. Regime collapse: The Iraqi government fell in 21 days.

Now, consider Iraq more than 20 years after the U.S.-Iraq war. Iraq is still an authoritarian state governed by political parties with deep institutional ties to Tehran. Iranian-backed militias operate openly on Iraqi soil – some holding official positions within the Iraqi state.

The country the U.S. spent US$2 trillion and 4,488 American lives to remake is, by any reasonable measure, within the sphere of Iran’s influence.

As an international security scholar specializing in nuclear security and alliance politics in the Middle East, I have tracked the pattern of U.S. military success across multiple cases.

But the military outcome and the political outcome are almost never the same thing, and the gap between them is where wars fail.

Two and a half millennia ago, Thucydides recorded the Athenian empire at its most confident in his “History of the Peloponnesian War”: “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” Athens then destroyed Melos and launched the Sicily Expedition with overwhelming force and no coherent theory of governance for what came next.

The lesson, then and now, is not that empires cannot destroy. It’s that destruction and governance are entirely different enterprises. And confusing them is how empires exhaust themselves.

The U.S. military can destroy the Iranian regime. The question that the Iraq precedent answers – with brutal clarity – is what fills the power vacuum when it does?

The military and political ledger

In April 2003, American L. Paul Bremer arrived in Baghdad as the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, which served as a transitional government, and issued two orders that would define the next two decades.

Order 1 dissolved the ruling Baath Party and removed all senior party members from their government positions, purging the administrative class that ran its ministries, hospitals and schools. Order 2 disbanded the Iraqi army but did not disarm it. Approximately 400,000 soldiers went home with their weapons and without their paychecks.

Washington had just handed the insurgency – the Sunni-led armed resistance that would turn into a decade-long war – its recruiting pool. The logic behind Bremer’s de-Baathification was intuitive: You cannot build a new Iraq with the people who built the old one. The logic was also catastrophic

Political scientists have long observed that countries are held together not by ideology but by organized coercion. That is, by the bureaucratic machinery, institutional memory and trained professionals who keep the lights on and the water running. Destroy that machinery, and you do not have a clean slate. You have a collapsed state, and collapsed states do not stay empty of leadership.

They fill, and they fill with whoever has the most organizational capacity on the ground. Iran had been building that capacity in Iraq since the 1980s, cultivating Shia political networks, exile parties and militia groups during and after the Iran-Iraq War and beyond with the explicit goal of ensuring a post-Saddam Iraq would never again threaten Iranian security.

Tehran did not need to build infrastructure in Iraq after the U.S. invasion, because it had spent the previous two decades building it. When the old order collapsed, Iran’s networks were ready.

The opposition the U.S. had cultivated in Iraq – Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress – had Washington’s ear but no Iraqi constituency. They had not governed the country, or built networks inside it.

The lesson is that military success created the precise conditions for political catastrophe, and that chasm is where American strategy has gone to die – in Iraq and in Libya, where the Obama administration helped bring about regime change in 2011, but where political instability has endured since. And perhaps now in Iran.

The vacuum is not neutral

The fundamental misunderstanding at the heart of American regime-change strategy is the assumption that destroying the existing order creates space for something better.

It does not.

It creates space for whoever is best organized, best armed and most willing to fill it. In Iraq, that was Iran.

The question now is who fills it in Iran itself.

In Iran, the group that meets all three criteria – organized, armed and willing – is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Revolutionary Guard is not simply a military institution. It controls an estimated 30% to 40% of the Iranian economy and runs construction conglomerates, telecommunications companies and petrochemical firms. And it has cultivated a parallel state infrastructure for decades.

Since Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s death at the start of the U.S.-Israeli bombing campaign, the Revolutionary Guard has taken effective control of decision-making. As one Iran expert told NBC News: “Even if they replace the supreme leader, what is left of the regime is the IRGC.”

The succession confirmed it: Mojtaba Khamenei, with deep ties to the Revolutionary Guard, was named supreme leader on March 8, 2026. It’s a Revolutionary Guard-backed dynastic succession that represents maximum continuity with the old regime, not regime change.

You cannot dismantle the Revolutionary Guard without collapsing the economy, and a collapsed economy does not produce a transition government; it produces a failed state. Washington has already run that experiment in Libya.

You cannot leave the Revolutionary Guard in place without leaving the regime’s coercive core intact. There is no clean surgical option of dropping bombs, killing certain people and declaring it a new day in Iran.

The Iranian opposition in exile, the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq; the monarchists who support the return of the late-shah’s son to lead the country; and the various democratic factions all present the same problem Chalabi did in 2003: Washington access, no domestic legitimacy.

The Mujahedeen-e-Khalq is listed as a terrorist organization by Iran and is widely despised inside the country. The monarchist movement has not governed Iran since 1979, and its corrupt, despotic leader was overthrown in the revolution. The democratic reform networks that had been building momentum inside Iran were not saved by the U.S. strikes. The regime had already crushed the movement in January, detaining and killing thousands.

Decades of research on rally-around-the-flag effects confirm what common sense suggests: External attack fuses regime and nation even when citizens despise their leaders. Iranians who were chanting against the supreme leader are now watching foreign bombs fall on their cities.

Iraq in 2003 had 25 million people, a military degraded by 12 years of sanctions, and no active nuclear program. Iran has 92 million people, proxy networks that would not disappear if Tehran fell – in fact, they would activate – and a stockpile of over 880 pounds of highly enriched uranium that the International Atomic Energy Agency has been unable to fully account for since the 2025 U.S. and Israeli strikes.

The question Washington hasn’t answered

Who governs 92 million Iranians?

President Donald Trump has said whoever governs Iran must receive Washington’s approval. But a veto is not a vision.

Approving or rejecting candidates from Washington requires a functioning political process, a legitimate transitional authority and a population willing to accept an American imprimatur on their leadership — none of which exists.

Washington has a preference; it does not have a plan. If the objective is eliminating the nuclear program, then why does Iran still hold an unverified stockpile of weapon-usable uranium eight months after the 2025 strikes? The strikes have not resolved the proliferation question. They have made it more dangerous and less tractable.

If the objective is regional stability, why has every round of strikes produced a wider regional war?

Washington has no answer to any of these questions – only a theory of destruction.

Farah N. Jan 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. Iraq war’s aftermath was a disaster for the US – the Iran war is headed in the same direction – https://theconversation.com/iraq-wars-aftermath-was-a-disaster-for-the-us-the-iran-war-is-headed-in-the-same-direction-277585

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Amy Myers Jaffe, Director, Energy, Climate Justice, and Sustainability Lab, and Research Professor, New York University; Tufts University

Oil is a global market, so when prices rise in one place, they rise everywhere. The current war against Iran has already raised oil prices significantly.

Mideast oil production has been slowed by efforts to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key route for oil tankers from the Middle East to the rest of the world, as well as by attacks – and fears of attacks – on oil production, storage and shipment installations.

And this war has also disrupted the flow of liquefied natural gas from Qatar, which controls almost 20% of the global market. That also affects the world economy and supply chains. And shortages of natural gas affect production of fertilizer and aluminium, as well as other key materials.

As a professor who has been studying oil price shocks for two decades, I’m often asked about the effects of rising oil prices on the U.S. economy. The answer to that question has changed over the past two decades.

The global economic picture

Countries that import much of their oil have to pay other countries for that imported oil.

That was a problem for the U.S. back in the 1970s through the early 2000s. The U.S. sent billions of dollars a year abroad to oil-producing countries in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. That money built up other countries’ economies or sloshed around as financial surpluses that fueled financial market exuberance and asset bubbles that could suddenly pop.

Oil imports increased the U.S. trade deficit in the 1970s and beyond. And as a result, U.S. industries suffered from high energy costs, which forced closures of major U.S. steel plants and iron and copper mines. Falling purchases of cars and other durable goods also stimulated worker layoffs.

A shift in US production

Now, however, the United States is a major producer and exporter of oil and refined petroleum products. Every day, on average, the U.S. exports over 6 million barrels of refined products and over 4 million barrels of crude oil.

The U.S. does still import some crude oil, most of which is heavy oil from Canada handled at certain American refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Factoring in those imports, net U.S. oil trade balance is a positive 2.8 million barrels per day, as contrasted with the mid-2000s, when the balance was a deficit of 12 million barrels per day.

U.S. production comes from 32 states – though mainly from the biggest producers: Texas, New Mexico, North Dakota, Alaska, Oklahoma and Colorado. Because that revenue comes to companies in the U.S., the nation’s gross domestic product is less vulnerable to oil price increases than in the past, when high prices meant more U.S. dollars flowing overseas.

A changed economy

In addition to being less dependent on imports, the U.S. economy is much less oil-intensive than it used to be, producing more economic value with far less oil use today than in the past.

And researchers at the U.S. Federal Reserve report that gasoline prices haven’t been a major contributor to U.S. inflation in recent years. That’s because there are lots of ways Americans use less gasoline, including telecommuting and remote work, online shopping and using electric vehicles and delivery trucks that run on batteries or other fuels.

Still, other economists disagree and say current oil prices, which are above $100 a barrel, could increase current U.S. inflation rates by as much as 1 percentage point.

The mental toll

Though the U.S. is economically less vulnerable to oil-price shocks, there is also a psychological factor. It’s hard not to feel pessimistic when gasoline prices at the local pump are already rising: Bulk market prices are already soaring amid hedging trades and speculative fervor among traders and wholesalers and on U.S. commodity futures markets.

Americans feel pessimistic about consumer spending when gasoline prices are rising. And a study found that high gas prices even make people feel unhappy.

Research also shows that people tend to put off major durable goods purchases, such as automobiles, when oil prices rise sharply. That could mean bad news for the U.S. auto industry.

But it is also possible that high gasoline prices might encourage more Americans to consider buying electric cars. That could help the car companies that were having difficulty moving their electric-vehicle inventories. And for people who own electric vehicles, the war and its resulting price increases can be a reminder of the benefits of living gasoline-free.

More broadly, the war might be yet another reminder of the benefits of diversifying energy sources away from fossil fuels. As my research shows, oil price shocks generally lead to greater investment in clean technologies.

Amy Myers Jaffe 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. US is less prone to oil price shocks than in past decades – https://theconversation.com/us-is-less-prone-to-oil-price-shocks-than-in-past-decades-277709

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Dan McGrath, Associate Professor of Cryospheric Sciences, Colorado State University

Every summer, people living near the Mendenhall River in Juneau, Alaska, keep a close eye on the water level. When the river level begins to rise rapidly, it’s a sign that Suicide Basin, a small glacier-dammed lake 5 miles up the mountains, has broken through the glacier again and a glacial lake outburst flood is underway.

After nearly 15 straight years of ever-larger and more damaging floods in Alaska’s capital city, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is discussing an ambitious and expensive solution: create a permanent drain from the lake that would prevent it from reaching outburst stage.

The initial cost estimates for the project range from US$613 million to $1 billion.

Suicide Basin is just one example of a growing problem from glacial lakes that threaten communities around the world, particularly in the Himalayas and Andes, and is transforming Alaska’s landscape as global temperatures rise.

In a new study, colleagues and I documented the evolution of 140 of the largest glacial lakes in Alaska between 2018 and 2024. We found they are expanding about 120% faster on average today than they were from 1986 to 1999 – more than twice as fast.

Using ice thickness data to reconstruct the shape of the land beneath these glaciers, we found that these glacial lakes could become more than four times larger than they are today as the glaciers melt, increasing the potential for damage to downstream ecosystems and infrastructure from glacial lake outburst floods.

The hazards of glacial lakes

Glacial lakes, often the color of aquamarine gems and sparkling with icebergs, are common around the margins of glaciers around the world. Years of satellite images have documented a dramatic increase in their number, area and volume – a direct response to glaciers retreating as global temperatures rise.

Tenuously held back by moraines – the jumble of rock and sediment deposited by glaciers at their edges – or dammed by glacier ice, these lakes are anything but stable.

Between 1985 and 2020, ice-dammed lakes in Alaska alone broke through their barriers and drained more than 1,150 times. Alaska’s vast landscape and low population density means that the impact of these drainages on human infrastructure was fairly minimal, with a few notable exceptions, including Suicide Basin and Snow Lake, on the Kenai Peninsula.

However, the enormous amount of icy water rushing down rivers with each outburst can transform ecosystems, altering river channels through erosion and sediment deposition, tearing out trees and other vegetation, and damaging fish habitat.

A recent study found that glacial lake outburst floods from moraine-dammed lakes are occurring at an accelerating rate. In the steep, narrow valleys of the Himalayan Mountains, the impact of these events are acute: destroyed hydropower stations, roads and entire villages wiped away, taking hundreds of lives over the years.

More than 15 million people globally live in areas at risk of glacial lake outburst floods. Mapping where these lakes might form and expand can help people living downstream prepare. That’s what we did in Alaska.

Mapping Alaska’s expanding lakes

Glacial lakes can form in a variety of settings: on the surface of glaciers, in side valleys, and at the terminus, or toe, of the glacier. We found that the fastest-growing lakes are those at the toe, and in our work, we showed that many of these lakes reside in deep depressions carved by glacial flow.

We mapped these depressions – known as glacial-bed overdeepenings – by subtracting ice thickness estimates from surface elevations measured by satellites.

We found that more than 80% of the lake growth has occurred in the mapped basins, illustrating how this approach can help locate glacial lakes that are likely to form and expand in the future.

With this information, we found that existing glacial lakes in the region may ultimately expand fourfold, growing by as much as 1,640 square miles (4,250 square kilometers). A glacial lake at the terminus of Malaspina Glacier, the largest glacier by area in southeast Alaska, could expand to cover an additional 570 square miles (1,475 square kilometers) alone. That would create what would be the second-largest lake in Alaska.

As glaciers continue to retreat, new basins will be exposed, many of which could fill with water. In total, more than 5,500 square miles (about 14,200 square kilometers) of overdeepened basins exist in Alaska, pointing to a landscape that is going to look very different in the coming decades to centuries.

When a glacier terminates in a lake, the warmth of the water can speed up the ice’s melting, making the glacier flow faster, thin and retreat, thereby expanding the size of the lake. We found that glaciers that terminate in lakes are shrinking 23% to 56% faster than land-terminating glaciers.

The future as glaciers retreat

Future climate projections combined with sophisticated glacier models indicate that glaciers will cumulatively retreat by 26% to 41% by 2100, spelling the loss of 49% to 83% of all glaciers globally.

This is concerning for numerous reasons. Glacier mass loss is currently the largest contributor to sea-level rise. Melting glaciers also change the water quantity and timing of ice melt that feed major rivers, particularly Asian rivers such as the Indus and Ganges. And they create hazards, such as the outburst floods that originate from glacial lakes.

The landscapes that we know and love are transforming before our eyes, and with these changes come growing concerns about hazards.

Dan McGrath receives funding from the U.S. Geological Survey.

– ref. Alaska’s glacial lakes are expanding, increasing the risk of destructive outburst floods – https://theconversation.com/alaskas-glacial-lakes-are-expanding-increasing-the-risk-of-destructive-outburst-floods-275799

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Jim Franklin, Professor of Accounting, Western Governors University School of Business

The days are getting longer and W-2s are blooming, which can only mean one thing – the U.S. tax season is here.

Many Americans may receive a bigger tax refund than in previous years as a result of changes under what has been dubbed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” a package of tax breaks and spending cuts that President Donald Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025.

The act renewed tax cuts originally put in place in 2017 that had been set to expire at the end of 2025. Had that happened, one estimate shows the average individual filer would have seen a US$2,955 increase to their tax bill starting in 2026.

That hike would have come from factors including higher individual tax rates, while the standard deduction and child tax credit would have been slashed in half.

Instead, many filers can expect the new law to reduce their taxes for 2025 and beyond, with numerous provisions in place for the next three years.

Trump’s tax and spending package has introduced a variety of provisions aimed at benefiting a broad cross-section of individual taxpayers. The changes under the act are retroactive, meaning that even though the law was signed in July, taxpayers can treat the provisions as if they went into effect at the start of 2025.

Here are some of the new things 2025 filers should know about:

1. Increased deduction of state and local taxes

People subject to steep local and/or state taxes can now deduct a significantly larger portion of those assessments.

Allowable property, sales or income taxes paid to state and local governments in 2025 are deductible up to $40,000, or $20,000 for married filing separately. That’s up from the previous maximum of $10,000 and $5,000, respectively.

Higher income taxpayers – those with modified adjusted gross income exceeding $500,000, or $250,000 for those married filing separately – won’t be able to take full advantage of the $40,000 deduction. OB3 calls for gradual reductions in the deduction amount as income level rises.

In 2030, the state and local deduction reverts to the previous $10,000 limit, or $5,000 married filing separately.

2. Tip income deduction

Workers in approved occupations, such as hospitality, cosmetology or personal training, who receive qualified tips will be able to deduct up to $25,000 in tip income from their taxes for the first time.

This new deduction is phased out for single filers with a modified adjusted gross income over $150,000 and married couples filing jointly over $300,000.

This tax break is available through 2028.

3. Overtime pay deduction

Have earnings from working overtime? From 2025 through 2028, filers can take a deduction for pay exceeding their regular rate.

For example, if an employee typically earns $20 per hour and earns $30 per hour when working overtime, they qualify for a deduction of the extra $10. The maximum annual deduction is $12,500, rising to $25,000 for joint filers.

As with many of these deductions, there is a phaseout for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income over $150,000, or $300,000 for joint filers.

4. ‘Made in America’ car deduction

Purchased a new vehicle for personal use or thinking about buying one soon? From 2025 through 2028, buying a vehicle made in the United States means the filer can deduct vehicle loan interest.

Vehicles that qualify include cars, minivans, vans, SUVs, pickup trucks and motorcycles that underwent final assembly in the U.S.

The maximum annual deduction is $10,000. The deduction starts to phase out for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income over $100,000; $200,000 for joint filers.

5. New deduction for seniors

For tax years 2025 through 2028, individuals older than 65 are eligible for a deduction up to $6,000 or $12,000 total for a married couple when both spouses qualify. The deduction begins to phase out when modified adjusted gross income exceeds $75,000 or $150,000 for joint filers.

It’s important to note that this deduction is in addition to the existing senior deduction that was passed under a prior law.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional tax advice. Please seek a qualified tax professional for advice based on your individual tax circumstances.

Jim Franklin 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. Big beautiful refund? 5 tax code changes that may put more money in your pocket – https://theconversation.com/big-beautiful-refund-5-tax-code-changes-that-may-put-more-money-in-your-pocket-275528

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Casey Ryan Kelly, Professor of Communication Studies, University of Nebraska-Lincoln

When Secretary of Defense James Mattis addressed the intensification of U.S. combat operations against the Islamic State group in 2017, he assured the American public of his commitment to “get the strategy right” while maintaining “the rules of engagement” to “protect the innocent.”

Mattis’ professional tone was a stark contrast to Secretary Pete Hegseth’s remarks following the first days of the joint U.S.-Israeli combat operations in Iran.

On March 2, 2026, after bragging about the awe-inspiring lethality of U.S. “B-2s, fighters, drones, missiles,” Hegseth casually brushed aside concerns about long-term geopolitical strategy, declaring “no stupid rules of engagement, no nation-building quagmire, no democracy building exercise, no politically correct wars. We fight to win.”

Admonishing the press for anything less than total assent, he commanded, “to the media outlets and political left screaming ‘endless wars:’ Stop. This is not Iraq.”

Two days later, Hegseth gloated about “dominance” and “control,” while asserting that the preoccupation of the “fake news media” with casualties was motivated by liberal media bias and hatred of President Trump.

“Tragic things happen; the press only wants to make the president look bad,” he said. He dismissed concerns about the rules of engagement, declaring that “this was never meant to be a fair fight. We are punching them while they are down, as it should be.”

I’m a communication scholar who has studied MAGA rhetoric for a decade. I have observed how Hegseth and other officials in the second Trump administration refuse to abide by what recurring rhetorical situations – urgent public matters that compel speech to audiences capable of being influenced – typically demand of public officials.

The theme of this administration is that no one is going to tell it what to say or how to say it. It will be encumbered neither by norms nor the exigencies that compel speech in a democratic society.

The big man

When the U.S. goes to war, the public expects the president and the defense secretary to convince them of the appropriateness of the action. They do this by detailing the justification for military action, but also by addressing the public in a manner that conveys the seriousness and competence required for such a grave task as waging war.

But during the first week of the Iran war, Hegseth’s press briefings deviated from the measured tone expected from high-ranking military officials.

Hegseth flippantly employed villainous colloquialism – “they are toast and they know it,” “we play for keeps,” and “President Trump got the last laugh” – delivered with a combative tone that communicated masculine self-assurance.

Many observers were taken aback by his haughty tone, hypermasculine preoccupation with domination, giddiness about violence and casual attitude toward death.

During Trump’s first term, this penchant for rule-breaking was by and large isolated to the president, whose transgressions were part of his populist appeal.

Although Trump’s first cabinet members agreed on most political objectives, they attempted to rein in what they saw as the president’s more dangerous whims.

But with loyalty as the new bona fide qualification for administration officials, Trump’s second cabinet is populated with a large contingent of right and far-right media personalities like Hegseth, including Kash Patel, Sean Duffy and Mehmet Oz.

The anti-institutional ethos of far-right media explains why these officials refuse to conform to “elite” expectations and instead speak in a manner that is bombastic, outrageous and perverse.

Among them, there is little reverence for what they may perceive of as emasculating rules of tradition and politeness in a media marketplace where “owning,” “dominating,” and “triggering” your enemy is precious currency. Far-right media personalities are adept at commanding attention with showmanship and swagger.

Trump appears to have chosen Hegseth for precisely this reason: He performs the role of the big man to perfection.

‘Kill talk’

Hegseth’s language choices and petulant tone do not demonstrate an ignorance of what rhetorical situations demand of him; instead, they reflect a refusal to be emasculated by such cumbersome norms.

When making statements about the first week of the war, Hegseth grinned as he delivered action-movie one-liners, like “turns out the regime who chanted ‘Death to America’ and ‘Death to Israel’ was gifted death from America and death from Israel.”

Hegseth engaged in what is known as “kill talk,” a verbal strategy, typically directed at new military recruits, that denies the enemy’s humanity and disguises the terrible costs of violence. His repetition of words like “death,” “killing,” “destruction,” “control,” “warriors” and “dominance” framed violence in heroic terms that are detached from the realities of war.

In my view, Hegseth addressed the public as a squad leader addresses military recruits. Hegseth apparently delighted in dispensing death and elevating and glorifying war. He said virtually nothing of long-term strategy beyond “winning.”

In the MAGA media world, winning is really all that matters. If winning is the only goal, then war is, by profound inference, a game, a test of masculine fortitude.

This point was made clear when the White House posted a video that interspersed footage of airstrikes on Iran with “killstreak animation” from the popular video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. In the game, when a player kills multiple opponents without also dying, they are rewarded with the ability to conduct a missile strike to exterminate an opposing team. Again, this message gamifies violence and obscures the destructive toll of war.

Informed by the contemptuous hypermasculinity of far-right media culture, all this taboo behavior and glorified portrayals of death convey one fundamental message: When the public most needs explanation and justification for the actions of their government, the powerful owe the public neither explanation – nor comfort.

Casey Ryan Kelly 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. I’ve studied MAGA rhetoric for a decade, and this is what I see in Hegseth’s boasts, action-movie one-liners and gloating over dominance – https://theconversation.com/ive-studied-maga-rhetoric-for-a-decade-and-this-is-what-i-see-in-hegseths-boasts-action-movie-one-liners-and-gloating-over-dominance-277731