Category: The Conversation – USA

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Ana Carolina Garriga, Professor. Department of Government, University of Essex

The fate of Lisa Cook, who is fighting attempts by President Donald Trump to remove her from the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, has huge implications for a keystone of good economic policy: central bank independence.

At the heart of her firing attempt – and other moves to undermine the Fed by the Trump administration – is a power struggle. Central banks, which are public institutions that manage a country’s currency and its monetary policy, have an extraordinary amount of power. By controlling the flow of money and credit in a country, they can affect economic growth, inflation, employment and financial stability.

These are powers that many politicians would like to control or at least manipulate. That’s because monetary policy can provide governments with economic boosts at key times, such as around elections or during periods of falling popularity.

The problem is that short-lived, politically motivated moves may be detrimental to the long-term economic well-being of a nation. They may, in other words, saddle the economy with problems further down the line.

That is why central banks across the globe tend to receive significant leeway to set interest rates independently and free from the electoral wishes of politicians.

In fact, monetary policymaking that is data-driven and technocratic, rather than politically motivated, has since the early 1990s been seen as the gold standard of governance of national finances and has largely achieved its main purpose of keeping inflation relatively low and stable.

But despite independence being seen to work, central banks over the past decade have come under increased pressure from politicians.

Trump is one recent example. In his first term as president, he criticized his own choice to head the U.S. Federal Reserve and demanded lower interest rates.

Attacks on the Fed have accelerated in Trump’s second administration. In April 2025, Trump lashed out at Fed Chair Jerome Powell in an online post accusing him of being “TOO LATE AND WRONG” on interest rate cuts, while suggesting that the central banker’s “termination cannot come fast enough!” Unable to force Powell out, Trump has now brought the power struggle to a head with his firing of Cook, nominally over allegations that the Fed governor falsified records in a mortgage application. Cook has said that the president does not have the grounds or authority to fire her.

As political economists, we are not surprised to see politicians try to exert influence on central banks. For one thing, central banks remain part of the government bureaucracy, and independence granted to them can always be reversed – either by changing laws or backtracking on established practices.

Moreover, the reason politicians may want to interfere in monetary policy is that low interest rates remain a potent, quick method to boost an economy. And while politicians know that there are costs to besieging an independent central bank – financial markets may react negatively or inflation may flare up – short-term control of a powerful policy tool can prove irresistible.

Legislating independence

If monetary policy is such a coveted policy tool, how have central banks held off politicians and stayed independent? And is this independence being eroded?

Broadly, central banks are protected by laws that offer long tenures to their leadership, allow them to focus policy primarily on inflation, and severely limit lending to the rest of the government.

Of course, such legislation cannot anticipate all future contingencies, which may open the door for political interference or for practices that break the law. And sometimes central bankers are unceremoniously fired.

However, laws do keep politicians in line. For example, even in authoritarian countries, laws protecting central banks from political interference have helped reduce inflation and restricted central bank lending to the government.

In our own research, we have detailed the ways that laws have insulated central banks from the rest of the government, but also the recent trend of eroding this legal independence.

Politicizing appointees

Around the world, appointments to central bank leadership are political – elected politicians select candidates based on career credentials, political affiliation and, importantly, their dislike or tolerance of inflation.

But lawmakers in different countries exercise different degrees of political control.

A 2025 study shows that the large majority of central bank leaders – about 70% – are appointed by the head of government alone or with the intervention of other members of the executive branch. This ensures that the preferences of the central bank are closer to the government’s, which can boost the central bank’s legitimacy in democratic countries, but at the risk of permeability to political influence.

Alternatively, appointments can involve the legislative power or even the central bank’s own board. In the U.S., while the president nominates members of the Federal Reserve Board, the Senate can and has rejected unconventional or incompetent candidates.

Moreover, even if appointments are political, many central bankers stay in office long after the people who appointed them have been voted out. By the end of 2023, the most common length of the governors’ appointment is five years, and in 41 countries the legal mandate was six years or longer. Powell is set to stay on as Fed chair until his term expires in 2026. The Fed chair position has traditionally been protected by law, as Powell himself acknowledged in November 2024: “We’re not removable except for cause. We serve very long terms, seemingly endless terms. So we’re protected into law. Congress could change that law, but I don’t think there’s any danger of that.”

In the 2000s, several countries shortened the tenure of their central banks’ governors to four or five years. Sometimes, this was part of broader restrictions in central bank independence, as was the case in Iceland in 2001, Ghana in 2002 and Romania in 2004.

The low inflation objective

As of 2023, all but six central banks globally had low inflation as their main goal. Yet many central banks are required by law to try to achieve additional and sometimes conflicting goals, such as financial stability, full employment or support for the government’s policies.

This is the case for 38 central banks that either have the explicit dual mandate of price stability and employment or more complex goals. In Argentina, for example, the central bank’s mandate is to provide “employment and economic development with social equity.”

Conflicting objectives can open central banks to politicization. In the U.S. the Federal Reserve has a dual mandate of stable prices and maximum sustainable employment. These goals are often complementary, and economists have argued that low inflation is a prerequisite for sustainable high levels of employment.

But in times of overlapping high inflation and high unemployment, such as in the late 1970s or when the COVID-19 crisis was winding down in 2022, the Fed’s dual mandate has become active territory for political wrangling.

Since 2000, at least 23 countries have expanded the focus of their central banks beyond just inflation.

Limits on government lending

The first central banks were created to help secure finance for governments fighting wars. But today, limiting lending to governments is at the core of protecting price stability from unsustainable fiscal spending.

History is dotted with the consequences of not doing so. In the 1960s and 1970s, for example, central banks in Latin America printed money to support their governments’ spending goals. But it resulted in massive inflation while not securing growth or political stability.

Today, limits on lending are strongly associated with lower inflation in the developing world. And central banks with high levels of independence can reject a government’s financing requests or dictate the terms of loans.

Yet over the past two decades, almost 40 countries have made their central banks less able to limit central government funding. In the more extreme examples – such as in Belarus, Ecuador or even New Zealand – they have turned the central bank into a potential financier for the government.

Scapegoating central bankers

In recent years, governments have tried to influence central banks by pushing for lower interest rates, making statements criticizing bank policy or calling for meetings with central bank leadership.

At the same time, politicians have blamed the same central bankers for a number of perceived failings: not anticipating economic shocks such as the 2007-09 financial crisis; exceeding their authority with quantitative easing; or creating massive inequality or instability while trying to save the financial sector.

And since mid-2021, major central banks have struggled to keep inflation low, raising questions from populist and antidemocratic politicians about the merits of an arm’s-length relationship.

But chipping away at central bank independence, as Trump appears to be doing with his open criticism of the Fed chair and his removal of a member of the bank’s Board of Governors, is a historically sure way to high inflation.

This is an updated version of an article that was originally published on June 14, 2024.

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

– ref. Trump’s push to fire Fed governor threatens central bank independence − and that isn’t good news for sound economic stewardship (or battling inflation) – https://theconversation.com/trumps-push-to-fire-fed-governor-threatens-central-bank-independence-and-that-isnt-good-news-for-sound-economic-stewardship-or-battling-inflation-263970

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Ana Carolina Garriga, Professor. Department of Government, University of Essex

The fate of Lisa Cook, who is fighting attempts by President Donald Trump to remove her from the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors, has huge implications for a keystone of good economic policy: central bank independence.

At the heart of her firing attempt – and other moves to undermine the Fed by the Trump administration – is a power struggle. Central banks, which are public institutions that manage a country’s currency and its monetary policy, have an extraordinary amount of power. By controlling the flow of money and credit in a country, they can affect economic growth, inflation, employment and financial stability.

These are powers that many politicians would like to control or at least manipulate. That’s because monetary policy can provide governments with economic boosts at key times, such as around elections or during periods of falling popularity.

The problem is that short-lived, politically motivated moves may be detrimental to the long-term economic well-being of a nation. They may, in other words, saddle the economy with problems further down the line.

That is why central banks across the globe tend to receive significant leeway to set interest rates independently and free from the electoral wishes of politicians.

In fact, monetary policymaking that is data-driven and technocratic, rather than politically motivated, has since the early 1990s been seen as the gold standard of governance of national finances and has largely achieved its main purpose of keeping inflation relatively low and stable.

But despite independence being seen to work, central banks over the past decade have come under increased pressure from politicians.

Trump is one recent example. In his first term as president, he criticized his own choice to head the U.S. Federal Reserve and demanded lower interest rates.

Attacks on the Fed have accelerated in Trump’s second administration. In April 2025, Trump lashed out at Fed Chair Jerome Powell in an online post accusing him of being “TOO LATE AND WRONG” on interest rate cuts, while suggesting that the central banker’s “termination cannot come fast enough!” Unable to force Powell out, Trump has now brought the power struggle to a head with his firing of Cook, nominally over allegations that the Fed governor falsified records in a mortgage application. Cook has said that the president does not have the grounds or authority to fire her.

As political economists, we are not surprised to see politicians try to exert influence on central banks. For one thing, central banks remain part of the government bureaucracy, and independence granted to them can always be reversed – either by changing laws or backtracking on established practices.

Moreover, the reason politicians may want to interfere in monetary policy is that low interest rates remain a potent, quick method to boost an economy. And while politicians know that there are costs to besieging an independent central bank – financial markets may react negatively or inflation may flare up – short-term control of a powerful policy tool can prove irresistible.

Legislating independence

If monetary policy is such a coveted policy tool, how have central banks held off politicians and stayed independent? And is this independence being eroded?

Broadly, central banks are protected by laws that offer long tenures to their leadership, allow them to focus policy primarily on inflation, and severely limit lending to the rest of the government.

Of course, such legislation cannot anticipate all future contingencies, which may open the door for political interference or for practices that break the law. And sometimes central bankers are unceremoniously fired.

However, laws do keep politicians in line. For example, even in authoritarian countries, laws protecting central banks from political interference have helped reduce inflation and restricted central bank lending to the government.

In our own research, we have detailed the ways that laws have insulated central banks from the rest of the government, but also the recent trend of eroding this legal independence.

Politicizing appointees

Around the world, appointments to central bank leadership are political – elected politicians select candidates based on career credentials, political affiliation and, importantly, their dislike or tolerance of inflation.

But lawmakers in different countries exercise different degrees of political control.

A 2025 study shows that the large majority of central bank leaders – about 70% – are appointed by the head of government alone or with the intervention of other members of the executive branch. This ensures that the preferences of the central bank are closer to the government’s, which can boost the central bank’s legitimacy in democratic countries, but at the risk of permeability to political influence.

Alternatively, appointments can involve the legislative power or even the central bank’s own board. In the U.S., while the president nominates members of the Federal Reserve Board, the Senate can and has rejected unconventional or incompetent candidates.

Moreover, even if appointments are political, many central bankers stay in office long after the people who appointed them have been voted out. By the end of 2023, the most common length of the governors’ appointment is five years, and in 41 countries the legal mandate was six years or longer. Powell is set to stay on as Fed chair until his term expires in 2026. The Fed chair position has traditionally been protected by law, as Powell himself acknowledged in November 2024: “We’re not removable except for cause. We serve very long terms, seemingly endless terms. So we’re protected into law. Congress could change that law, but I don’t think there’s any danger of that.”

In the 2000s, several countries shortened the tenure of their central banks’ governors to four or five years. Sometimes, this was part of broader restrictions in central bank independence, as was the case in Iceland in 2001, Ghana in 2002 and Romania in 2004.

The low inflation objective

As of 2023, all but six central banks globally had low inflation as their main goal. Yet many central banks are required by law to try to achieve additional and sometimes conflicting goals, such as financial stability, full employment or support for the government’s policies.

This is the case for 38 central banks that either have the explicit dual mandate of price stability and employment or more complex goals. In Argentina, for example, the central bank’s mandate is to provide “employment and economic development with social equity.”

Conflicting objectives can open central banks to politicization. In the U.S. the Federal Reserve has a dual mandate of stable prices and maximum sustainable employment. These goals are often complementary, and economists have argued that low inflation is a prerequisite for sustainable high levels of employment.

But in times of overlapping high inflation and high unemployment, such as in the late 1970s or when the COVID-19 crisis was winding down in 2022, the Fed’s dual mandate has become active territory for political wrangling.

Since 2000, at least 23 countries have expanded the focus of their central banks beyond just inflation.

Limits on government lending

The first central banks were created to help secure finance for governments fighting wars. But today, limiting lending to governments is at the core of protecting price stability from unsustainable fiscal spending.

History is dotted with the consequences of not doing so. In the 1960s and 1970s, for example, central banks in Latin America printed money to support their governments’ spending goals. But it resulted in massive inflation while not securing growth or political stability.

Today, limits on lending are strongly associated with lower inflation in the developing world. And central banks with high levels of independence can reject a government’s financing requests or dictate the terms of loans.

Yet over the past two decades, almost 40 countries have made their central banks less able to limit central government funding. In the more extreme examples – such as in Belarus, Ecuador or even New Zealand – they have turned the central bank into a potential financier for the government.

Scapegoating central bankers

In recent years, governments have tried to influence central banks by pushing for lower interest rates, making statements criticizing bank policy or calling for meetings with central bank leadership.

At the same time, politicians have blamed the same central bankers for a number of perceived failings: not anticipating economic shocks such as the 2007-09 financial crisis; exceeding their authority with quantitative easing; or creating massive inequality or instability while trying to save the financial sector.

And since mid-2021, major central banks have struggled to keep inflation low, raising questions from populist and antidemocratic politicians about the merits of an arm’s-length relationship.

But chipping away at central bank independence, as Trump appears to be doing with his open criticism of the Fed chair and his removal of a member of the bank’s Board of Governors, is a historically sure way to high inflation.

This is an updated version of an article that was originally published on June 14, 2024.

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

– ref. Trump’s attempted firing of Fed governor threatens central bank independence − and that isn’t good news for sound economic stewardship (or battling inflation) – https://theconversation.com/trumps-attempted-firing-of-fed-governor-threatens-central-bank-independence-and-that-isnt-good-news-for-sound-economic-stewardship-or-battling-inflation-263970

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Eric Zillmer, Professor of Neuropsychology, Drexel University

What sport combines the intensity of a high-wire circus act with the strategic thinking of a grand master chess match?

I’d say the sport of squash, for the first time an Olympic sport at the 2028 Los Angeles Games. Squash has its U.S. epicenter in Philadelphia, which is also considered the birthplace of squash in America. The sport was introduced to the U.S. at the Racquet Club of Philadelphia in 1900, where the first squash doubles court was later established.

James Zug, the preeminent historian of the game, writes about how, in the winter of 1901, 32 men competed at the club in the first squash tournament on American soil. Many other Philadelphia clubs followed, leading to a local squash culture that spread to high schools and colleges.

The United States Squash Racquets Association, now US Squash, was founded in Philadelphia in 1904, later moved to New York City, and in 2021 relocated its offices back to Philly.

I’m a sports psychologist who works with elite professional squash athletes and also writes about the game. As the former athletic director at Drexel University, I helped introduce varsity squash to the school and also assisted in starting a nonprofit community program called SquashSmarts for Philly public school students.

I believe squash is one of Philly’s best-kept secrets, as many Philadelphians do not know our city is host to an Olympic training high-performance center, the U.S. Squash Hall of Fame and youth development programs known as urban squash.

A feast for the brain

Squash originated from the older game of racquets, which was played in London’s prisons during the 19th century.

The vulcanization of rubber by Charles Goodyear in 1839 enabled the creation of a squeezable rubber ball that maintained its original shape after being “squashed” against the wall. The British Commonwealth, through its worldwide military, social and political influence, promoted and grew the game internationally and set standardized rules and courts.

Watching professional squash today feels like being in gym class and science class at the same time: The sport showcases incredible athleticism and celebrates the laws of mathematics.

Squash is best understood in terms of its form and its essence.

The form of squash includes the ancient proportions of the cella of the Parthenon, which held the sacred statue of Athena holding Nike, the goddess of victory. An international squash court is 32 feet by 21 feet, and this ratio of approximately 1 to 1.5 establishes a sense of geometric order. With all walls and angles in play, and emphasizing elements such as time, velocity and space, squash allows for an amazing spectacle of creativity, elegance and speed. It is a feast for the brain.

Mental aspects of the game

But the essence of squash is mental, and the three aspects I find especially intriguing are mindfulness, playfulness and fairness.

Mindfulness: Mindfulness involves not dwelling on the past or worrying about the future. This is easier said than done, especially when a player is exhausted and struggling. The competitive squash player must focus on the moment and anticipate the next. This requires processing information in real time and practicing mindfulness to avoid distractions.

Playfulness: When I was a young athlete, I gave a B effort in practice and an A effort during competition. I had it all wrong.

I now understand that intense, disciplined practices are the foundation for tomorrow’s world-class athlete. There are no shortcuts. Psychologist Angela Duckworth advocates that excellence is 66% grit – which she decribes as a combination of passion, effort and perseverance – with the other 34% being innate talent.

For high-performance athletes, it is beneficial to be a neurotic perfectionist in practice, but not during competition, when they need to be situationally aware. Performance coach Brian Levenson writes about the pro athlete being the opposite of a perfectionist when competing, shifting to being playful, intuitive, confident and adaptable instead.

In other words, practice like a pro, play like a kid.

Fairness: One intriguing aspect of squash is the two competitors share the same space. This requires respect for your opponent as well as the game.

At its best, squash resembles a dance between two foes, with the winner graciously allowing their opponent to leave the court first.

US Squash has made sportsmanship and character a key initiative as the sport grows in popularity at all levels of play. While the art of deception, such as head fakes or varying your swing timing, is a valued tactical skill, blocking the opponent, whether subtle or overt, is not.

Philly’s Olympic center

One of Philadelphia’s most passionate amateur players was the longtime U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter. In 2021, the Arlen Specter US Squash Center, located on the campus of Drexel University, opened and was named in his honor.

The Specter Center is a state-of-the-art training facility and home to Team USA, the administrative center for US Squash, the home for the U.S. Open, and a hub for the U.S. junior and senior national teams, as well as urban squash.

The inclusion of squash in the 2028 Olympics is a milestone for the increasingly international sport. Currently, eight nationalities are represented among the top 10 male and female pro players, although in recent years Egypt has dominated both the men’s and women’s game.

Two U.S. women who are ranked in the world Top 10 are Team USA’s best chances to win gold: Amanda Sobhy, who went undefeated at Harvard, and Philly’s own Olivia Weaver.

If you want to catch them in action before the 2028 games, both will compete at the U.S. Open Squash Championship at the Arlen Specter US Squash Center from Oct. 19 to Oct. 25, 2025.

Read more of our stories about Philadelphia.

Eric Zillmer serves as an unpaid advisor to the following non-profit boards. 2010-present Advisory Board, Philadelphia SquashSmarts; 2019-present PHL Sports Congress, Vice Chair Advisory Board; 2020-present Philadelphia Convention & Visitors Bureau (PHLCVB) Board of Directors; and 2025-present US Squash Board of Directors.

– ref. Squash has been played in Philly for 125 years − a sports psychologist explains why it’s one of the city’s best-kept secrets – https://theconversation.com/squash-has-been-played-in-philly-for-125-years-a-sports-psychologist-explains-why-its-one-of-the-citys-best-kept-secrets-260898

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Sam Wineburg, Emeritus Professor of Education, Stanford University

Mike Evans knew something had to change.

As the lead instructor for American Government 1101 at Georgia State University in 2021, Evans had watched his students over the years show up with fewer facts and more conspiracy theories. Gone were the days when students arrived on campus with dim memories of high school civics. Now they came armed with bold, often misleading beliefs shaped by hours spent each day on TikTok, YouTube and Instagram.

One example of misinformation making the rounds back then was an anonymously posted video that more than half of teens in a national survey said provided “strong evidence” of U.S. voter fraud. The video was actually shot in Russia, crucial context that could be gleaned by entering a few choice keywords into a browser.

Ignoring the problem of online gullibility felt irresponsible – even negligent. How could the course deliver on its aim of helping students become “effective and responsible participants in American democracy” if it turned a blind eye to digital misinformation? At the same time, a major overhaul of a course that enrolls more than 4,000 students each year – with 15 instructors teaching 42 sections in person, online and in a hybrid format – would create a logistical nightmare.

That’s when Evans, a political scientist, came across the Civic Online Reasoning curriculum, developed by the research group I used to lead at Stanford University. The curriculum, which is freely available to anyone, teaches a set of strategies based on how professional fact-checkers evaluate online information.

In fall 2021, he reached out with a question: Could aspects of the curriculum be incorporated into American Government 1101 without turning the whole course on its head?

My team and I thought so.

Teaching informed citizenship

Evans’ challenge was hardly unique to his campus.

For Generation Z, born between 1997 and 2012, social media – especially YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat – has become their source of information about the world, eclipsing traditional news outlets. In a survey of more than 1,000 young people ages 13 to 18, 8 in 10 said they encounter conspiracy theories in their social media feeds each week, yet only 39% reported receiving instruction in evaluating the claims they saw there.

We built our Civic Online Reasoning program to address this gap.

When we launched the program in 2018, digital literacy was a catchall that included everything from editing and uploading videos to cyberbullying and sexting. “Checking the credibility of sources” was just one criterion among many buried in a list of desired outcomes.

We narrowed the focus of our program to skills essential to being an informed citizen, such as “lateral reading” − that is, using the full context of the internet to judge the quality of a claim, identify the people or organizations behind it and assess their credibility. Rather than fixate solely on the message, we taught students to vet the messenger: What organizations stand behind the claim? Does the source of the claim have a conflict of interest? What are the source’s credentials or expertise?

We tested our approach in an experiment in 12th grade classrooms teaching government in Lincoln, Nebraska, public schools.

Across six hours of instruction – two hours less than the average teen spends online each day – students nearly doubled in their ability to locate quality information compared to a control group. We thought it wouldn’t be a huge leap to extend our approach to college classrooms.

In a version of this program modified for Evans’ course, we designed six short modules that could be used asynchronously, meaning that students could complete them on their own time, regardless of course format. Unlike information literacy lessons that soar above the particulars of any one discipline, our modules were closely tied to course content.

In a unit on the executive branch, for instance, students examined an Instagram video that falsely claimed President Joe Biden wanted Americans to pay more at the gas pump. In a module on the judiciary, they watched a video on TikTok about Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court confirmation, posted by a partisan, left-leaning organization.

We created videos that pulled back the curtain by deconstructing tactics common in political campaigns – quotes ripped from context, videos spliced and selectively edited, and corporate-funded websites that masquerade as grassroots efforts.

We also taught students how to check facts like the pros. The main strategy was lateral reading – searching across the internet to see what other, more credible sources say about an organization or influencer. We challenged common assumptions too, such as that Wikipedia is always unreliable. Not true, especially for “protected pages,” indicated by a padlock icon at the top of an article, which prevent editorial changes except those made by established Wikipedians. Another is the belief that a dot-org website has passed rigorous tests that qualify it as a charity, which is never true. Dot-org has always been an “open” domain that anyone can register, no questions asked.

These lessons took just 150 minutes in total over the semester, and instructors didn’t need to change a thing; they just listed the lessons on the course schedule.

Positive outcomes, modest effort

Did this approach work for Evans and his American Government 1101 students?

Across two semesters in one academic year, 3,488 students took a test at the beginning of the course and again at the end. It included items such as one in which students evaluated a website that claimed it “does not represent any industry or political group” but is actually backed by fossil fuel interests.

In June, Evans, two co-authors and I uploaded a preprint of a journal article, which hasn’t yet been peer reviewed, that documents the experiment and its results. We found that from the beginning to the end of the semester, students became a lot smarter at identifying shady sources and more confident in evaluating where information comes from. Students’ scores showing how well they were able to do this improved by 18%. Even better, 80% said they “learned important things” from the modules.

Not bad for an easily adopted addition to the course.

These results add to other studies we’ve conducted, such as one in a college nutrition class and one in a rhetoric and writing intro course, that similarly showed how educators can improve students’ digital literacy – and their awareness of misinformation – without causing a major disruption to the curriculum.

And I believe it’s needed. A chasm separates the approved content that appears on students’ reading lists and the massive amount of unregulated, unverified and unreliable content they consume online.

The good news? This intervention could work in any subject where misinformation runs wild: history, nutrition, economics, biology and politics. Findings similar to ours from other college campuses buoy our confidence in the approach.

These changes don’t require waiting for a big revolution. Small steps can go a long way. And in a world flooded with misinformation, helping students learn to sort fact from fiction might be the most civic thing we can do.

Sam Wineburg received funding from the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation for this research. He is a board member of the not-for-profit Digital Inquiry Group (inquirygroup.org), which now operates the Civic Online Reasoning curriculum.

– ref. College students are bombarded by misinformation, so this professor taught them fact-checking 101 − here’s what happened – https://theconversation.com/college-students-are-bombarded-by-misinformation-so-this-professor-taught-them-fact-checking-101-heres-what-happened-262409

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Art Jipson, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Dayton

Small local organizations called Active Clubs have spread widely across the U.S. and internationally, using fitness as a cover for a much more alarming mission. These groups are a new and harder-to-detect form of white supremacist organizing that merges extremist ideology with fitness and combat sports culture.

Active Clubs frame themselves as innocuous workout groups on digital platforms and decentralized networks to recruit, radicalize and prepare members for racist violence. The clubs commonly use encrypted messaging apps such as Telegram, Wire and Matrix to coordinate internally.

For broader propaganda and outreach they rely on alternative social media platforms such as Gab, Odysee, VK and sometimes BitChute. They also selectively use mainstream sites such as Instagram, Facebook, X and TikTok, until those sites ban the clubs.

Active Club members have been implicated in orchestrating and distributing neo-Nazi recruitment videos and manifestos. In late 2023, for instance, two Ontario men, Kristoffer Nippak and Matthew Althorpe, were arrested and charged with distributing materials for the neo-Nazi group Atomwaffen Division and the transnational terrorist group Terrorgram.

Following their arrests, Active Club Canada’s public network went dark, Telegram pages were deleted or rebranded, and the club went virtually silent. Nippak was granted bail under strict conditions, while Althorpe remains in custody.

As a sociologist studying extremism and white supremacy since 1993, I have watched the movement shift from formal organizations to small, decentralized cells – a change embodied most clearly by Active Clubs.

White nationalism 3.0

According to private analysts who track far-right extremist activities, the Active Club network has a core membership of 400 to 1,200 white men globally, plus sympathizers, online supporters and passive members. The clubs mainly target young white men in their late teens and twenties.

Since 2020, Active Clubs have expanded rapidly across the United States, Canada and Europe, including the U.K., France, Sweden and Finland. Precise numbers are hard to verify, but the clubs appear to be spreading, according to The Counter Extremism Project, the Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center and my own research.

The clubs reportedly operate in at least 25 U.S. states, and potentially as many as 34. Active U.S. chapters reportedly increased from 49 in 2023 to 78 in 2025.

The clubs’ rise reflects a broader shift in white supremacist strategy, away from formal organizations and social movements. In 2020, American neo-Nazi Robert Rundo introduced the concept of “White Nationalism 3.0” – a decentralized, branded and fitness-based approach to extremist organizing.

Rundo previously founded the Rise Above Movement, which was a violent, far-right extremist group in the U.S. known for promoting white nationalist ideology, organizing street fights and coordinating through social media. The organization carried out attacks at protests and rallies from 2016 through 2018.

Active Clubs embed their ideology within apolitical activities such as martial arts and weightlifting. This model allows them to blend in with mainstream fitness communities. However, their deeper purpose is to prepare members for racial conflict.

‘You need to learn how to fight’

Active Club messaging glorifies discipline, masculinity and strength – a “warrior identity” designed to attract young men.

“The active club is not so much a structural organization as it is a lifestyle for those willing to work, risk and sweat to embody our ideals for themselves and to promote them to others,” Rundo explained via his Telegram channel.

“They never were like, ‘You need to learn how to fight so you can beat up people of color.’ It was like, ‘You need to learn how to fight because people want to kill you in the future,’” a former Active Club member told Vice News in 2023.

These cells are deliberately small – often under a dozen members – and self-contained, which gives them greater operational security and flexibility. Each club operates semi-autonomously while remaining connected to the broader ideology and digital network.

Expanding globally and deepening ties

Active Clubs maintain strategic and ideological connections with formal white supremacist groups, including Patriot Front, a white nationalist and neofascist group founded in 2017 by Thomas Rousseau after the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Active Clubs share extremist beliefs with these organizations, including racial hierarchy and the “Great Replacement” theory, which claims white populations are being deliberately replaced by nonwhite immigrants. While publicly presenting as fitness groups, they may collaborate with white supremacist groups on recruitment, training, propaganda or public events.

Figures connected to accelerationist groups – organizations that seek to create social chaos and societal collapse that they believe will lead to a race war and the destruction of liberal democracy – played a role in founding the Active Club network. Along with the Rise Above Movement, they include Atomwaffen Division and another neo-Nazi group, The Base – organizations that repackage violent fascism to appeal to disaffected young white men in the U.S.

Brotherhood as a cover

By downplaying explicit hate symbols and emphasizing strength and preparedness, Active Clubs appeal to a new generation of recruits who may not initially identify with overt racism but are drawn to a culture of hypermasculinity and self-improvement.

Anyone can start a local Active Club chapter with minimal oversight. This autonomy makes it hard for law enforcement agencies to monitor the groups and helps the network grow rapidly.

Shared branding and digital propaganda maintain ideological consistency. Through this approach, Active Clubs have built a transnational network of echo chambers, recruitment pipelines and paramilitary-style training in parks and gyms.

Club members engage in activities such as combat sports training, propaganda dissemination and ideological conditioning. Fight sessions are often recorded and shared online as recruitment tools.

Members distribute flyers, stickers and online content to spread white supremacist messages. Active Clubs embed themselves in local communities by hosting events, promoting physical fitness, staging public actions and sharing propaganda.

Potential members first see propaganda on encrypted apps such as Telegram or on social media. The clubs recruit in person at gyms, protests and local events, vetting new members to ensure they share the group’s beliefs and can be trusted to maintain secrecy.

From fringe to functioning network

Based on current information from the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism, there are 187 active chapters within the Active Club Network across 27 countries – a 25% increase from late 2023. The Crowd Counting Consortium documented 27 protest events involving Active Clubs in 2022-2023.

However, precise membership numbers remain difficult to ascertain. Some groups call themselves “youth clubs” but share similar ideas and aesthetics and engage in similar activities.

Active Club members view themselves as defenders of Western civilization and masculine virtue. From their perspective, their activities represent noble resistance rather than hate. Members are encouraged to stay secretive, prepare for societal collapse and build a network of committed, fit men ready to act through infiltration, activism or violence.

Hiding in plain sight

Law enforcement agencies, researchers and civil society now face a new kind of domestic threat that wears workout clothes instead of uniforms.

Active Clubs work across international borders, bound by shared ideas and tactics and a common purpose. This is the new white nationalism: decentralized, modernized, more agile and disguised as self-improvement. What appears to be a harmless workout group may be a gateway to violent extremism, one pushup at a time.

Art Jipson 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. Active Clubs are white supremacy’s new, dangerous frontier – https://theconversation.com/active-clubs-are-white-supremacys-new-dangerous-frontier-262786

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Barbara Kates-Garnick, Professor of Practice in Energy Policy, The Fletcher School, Tufts University

When the Trump administration announced it was moving to eliminate dozens of U.S. climate policies, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin said he was sending “a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.”

That drive – to both repeal environmental regulations and cast doubt on science – reflects the Trump administration’s approach to environment policy.

Deregulation has long been a key theme in Republican environmental policy. The conflict between the obligation to protect public health and the desire to boost markets traces back to Ronald Reagan’s presidential administration. Reagan’s perspective that government is not a solution to problems, but is the problem instead, set the stage for Republican administrations that followed.

Reagan argued that the growth of government spending and business regulation had stymied economic prosperity. Environmental regulations were a prime target.

Forty years later, America is seeing many of the same concepts in the Trump administration. However, its strategy could have a greater effect than Reagan ever envisioned.

Slashing budgets and staffing

There are many ways to kneecap government agencies: Instituting massive budget cuts, cutting staff with critical functions and appointing leadership whose goal is limiting the reach and effectiveness of the very agencies they direct are just a few.

In these efforts, Reagan and Trump had similar approaches to the EPA, although with different levels of intensity.

Trump’s EPA budget plan for 2026 includes a draconian 50% cut from the previous year and the lowest budget proposal, when adjusted for inflation, since Reagan. Staff cuts in just the first six months of the second Trump administration put the agency’s total employment at 12,448, down from 16,155 in January.

Reagan dissolved the EPA Office of Enforcement to limit “unnecessary regulation,” which resulted in a 80% decline in actions to enforce environmental regulations. Trump is also stopping enforcement actions, dismantling the EPA’s Science and Research Office and politicizing the agency’s science by putting political appointees in charge, moves that undermine EPA’s independence and expertise.

Both cut EPA’s budget, but that alone does not reduce an agency’s effectiveness.

Politicizing EPA leadership

When the EPA was founded in 1970 during the Nixon administration, it represented a bipartisan consensus: After decades of auto exhaust, polluted waterways and smog-filled air, environmental protection had become a national policy priority.

But industries that EPA regulated argued that the costs of implementing the agency’s mandates were too high. That created tension between economics and science and enforcement.

As part of his “government is not the solution” approach, Reagan issued an executive order shortly after taking office in 1981 requiring federal agencies to submit all proposed rules to the White House Office of Management and Budget before making them public. In Reagan’s eyes, this approach centralized power in the White House and was a way to eliminate burdensome regulations before the agencies announced them to the public.

He also appointed an EPA administrator who shared his anti-government perspective. Anne Gorsuch Burford was a lawyer and state legislator from Colorado, where she routinely voted against toxic waste cleanup and auto pollution controls.

Once in Washington, she appointed several people to the EPA’s leadership team with direct ties to industries the EPA regulated. An example was Rita Lavelle, head of the EPA’s toxic waste programs, who was later convicted of perjury for lying to Congress about when she knew her former employer, a defense contractor, was disposing of toxic waste at a now notorious dump site.

These appointments were an example of regulatory capture by the industries EPA was in charge of overseeing. Anne Gorsuch Burford was held in contempt of Congress for not turning over records related to the Superfund cleanup of the same hazardous waste site, which led to her resignation. The Superfund program to clean up toxic waste dumps was new and one of EPA’s largest programs at the time.

The scandals, broken staff morale, stripped budgets and fights over policy discredited the agency.

Going after government scientists

Anne Gorsuch Burford’s deregulation efforts weren’t fully successful, in part because EPA staff experts rallied to preserve science and regulatory functions. They leaked materials about delays in the Superfund site cleanup to sympathetic congressional staff, who in turn found support from Republican and Democratic senators.

That history may have influenced the Trump administration’s strategy toward the federal bureaucracy’s staff experts, who Trump calls “the Deep State.”

The Department of Government Efficiency, an unofficial group Trump set up in early 2025 headed by Elon Musk, directed the firing of tens of thousands of government scientists and other staff with expertise that government agencies rely on. Thousands more have resigned amid intimidation tactics such as surveillance.

Trump’s head of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, has been clear about targeting bureaucrats. He said in 2023: “We want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can’t do all of the rules against our energy industry because they have no bandwidth financially to do so. We want to put them in trauma.”

There is a clear focus today on EPA programs that don’t align with the administration’s views. Programs related to environmental justice for low-income communities are in the line of fire. The appointment of people from the chemical, fossil fuel and corporate industries to high-level regulatory and legal positions raises questions about regulatory capture – whether their focus will be more on the health of the industries they oversee than on the health of the public.

The first Trump administration had a focus on reforming permitting and bureaucracy. While appearing radical at the time, the revamping of scientific boards to include more industry representatives, the undoing of power plant rules and the lessening of enforcement hobbled but did not completely undo the agency.

The second Trump administration, in actively supporting fossil fuel “energy dominance,” is taking steps to not just eliminate regulations but to ensure future administrations can’t bring the regulations back, by using a complex set of legal arguments related to the regulation of greenhouse gases.

At the same time, the administration is trying to discredit scientific research to downplay the risks of a warming planet.

The Reagan administration, while it also pushed for deregulation and expanded permitting of oil, gas and coal leases, embraced some elements of environmental protection. Reagan designated more than 10 million acres as protected wilderness and signed the Coastal Barriers Resources Act, which helped protect 3.5 million acres of shoreline from development. When Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol in 1988 to help protect the ozone layer, he cited scientific data showing the growing risks of ozone-depleting substances.

When Congress doesn’t push back

There is another critical difference between the first and second Trump administrations: The current Republican-controlled Congress is consenting to almost every request the president makes.

Congress has a constitutional responsibility to be a check on the executive branch, and a bipartisan Congress has long taken an active role in oversight and investigation involving environmental issues.

In 2025, however, Congress has approved most of Trump’s demands, including voting to repeal much of the Inflation Reduction Act, a package of pro-environment spending it had just passed two years earlier and that included many projects in Republican districts.

The administration’s effort to eliminate U.S. climate policies will take time and face lawsuits.

In an irony of history, Anne Gorsuch Burford’s son Neil Gorsuch now sits on the Supreme Court. His vote when those cases come before the court may be the ultimate Reagan legacy on the Trump EPA.

Barbara Kates-Garnick 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. Like Reagan, Trump is slashing US environment regulations, but his strategy may have a far deeper impact – https://theconversation.com/like-reagan-trump-is-slashing-us-environment-regulations-but-his-strategy-may-have-a-far-deeper-impact-262929

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Eric Kevin Stern, Professor of Political Science, Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security, University at Albany, State University of New York

Hurricane Katrina looms large in the history of American emergency management, both for what went wrong as the disaster unfolded and for the policy changes it triggered.

As the nation looks back on the disaster 20 years later, I believe as a crisis and emergency management specialist that it is more important than ever to remember Katrina’s lessons to avoid repeating past mistakes.

When Katrina hit New Orleans on Aug. 29, 2005, its storm surge broke through levees protecting the city. Water quickly poured into low-lying neighborhoods, flooding houses up to their rooftops and inundating an estimated 80% of the city. People who could not evacuate before the storm and were lucky enough to escape to their roofs were stranded for days in some cases.

Once the water had receded and the death toll counted, it became clear that nearly 1,400 people had died as a result of this devastating storm. The hurricane did more than $100 billion in damage, equivalent to about US$170 billion today when adjusted for inflation.

While there were many unsung heroes during Katrina, the tragic missteps and missed opportunities at all levels of government emergency management are what no emergency manager ever wants to repeat. The response failed in many areas, from broken communications among federal, state and local agencies to the reported horrors in the Superdome as 16,000 evacuees faced failed generators, poor security, dwindling supplies and overflowing toilets.

Three lessons from Katrina stand out today as the Trump administration talks about dismantling the Federal Emergency Management Agency and putting more responsibility for disaster management on local and state agencies.

1. Emergency response is only as strong as the weakest links

FEMA took the brunt of the criticism after Hurricane Katrina. However, serious analyses of what went wrong recognize that good disaster response requires effective governance at all levels.

Before FEMA could spend significant money to deploy people and aid, the state of Louisiana had to request a presidential disaster declaration. However, tensions between the state and federal governments reportedly delayed President George W. Bush’s approval, according to a Senate committee report assessing the response. The committee also found that New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin’s decision to first issue a voluntary evacuation and not issue a mandatory order until a day before the storm cost precious time.

Once the storm hit, communication and coordination fell apart.

Vehicles badly needed for the disaster response were damaged by the storm. Problems with communication systems and a breakdown in situation reporting from local law enforcement and rescue services left state and federal government decision-makers flying blind, without up-to-date reports of conditions on the ground. Media reports of a “war zone” in New Orleans exaggerated the extent of public disorder and threats to responders. That further delayed the arrival of federal military and National Guard assistance – and hindered some local efforts – because it required additional precautions for coping with a hostile security environment.

As challenging as the information environment was during Hurricane Katrina, it is more difficult now. Social media, hyper-partisanship and deliberate misinformation attempts complicate emergency response and recovery efforts.

If the federal government now proposes to push more responsibility for disaster relief to the state and local levels, emergency managers at those levels will be taking on highly complex disasters in a potentially toxic information environment with less support.

States, counties and cities vary greatly in their readiness to shoulder this responsibility.

2. Leave no one behind

An enduring image of Hurricane Katrina was the plight of residents who lacked transportation and took shelter at the New Orleans Superdome, where conditions quickly deteriorated.

Another was the harrowing tales of gravely ill patients and exhausted medical staff stranded at Memorial Medical Center for five days without power as temperatures rose and the lower floors flooded.

These extreme predicaments and the deaths of people trapped in flooding homes in the Lower Ninth Ward were powerful reminders of the vulnerability of many low-income, elderly and ill residents who were unable to get out ahead of the disaster.

A few years after Katrina, Obama administration FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate and his team placed a new focus on forging a “whole community” emergency management strategy. It is designed to include marginalized populations in emergency planning and ensure that those who aren’t able to evacuate due to disability or financial limitations are not forgotten during disasters.

Government guidance now states that emergency mass care shelters be in buildings that people who have trouble walking can navigate easily. Emergency information is typically distributed in multiple languages, accessible for people with impaired hearing or vision, and written in ways adapted to the cultures and circumstances of minority groups.

However, many of these advances are in jeopardy today as the Trump administration seeks to eliminate initiatives that might be considered DEI – diversity, equity and inclusion. The misery and death caused by Hurricane Katrina should serve as vivid reminders of why many existing emergency management programs emphasize the needs of socially vulnerable populations.

3. Professional emergency management is essential

The face of the federal government’s shortcomings in responding to Hurricane Katrina was then-FEMA Administrator Michael Brown. Initially, he was publicly praised by President Bush, who declared: “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job!”

But Brown was not a professional emergency manager. His prior on-the-job experience in the role did not prove sufficient in this extreme situation. As the problems with the response to Katrina became increasingly evident, Brown proved unable to provide effective leadership in the crisis and was forced out.

Part of the legislative legacy of Katrina is the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006. It requires that FEMA chief administrators have extensive knowledge of emergency management and substantial relevant executive leadership experience. All of the subsequent confirmed heads of FEMA were once state emergency management directors or had been in charge of emergency management in major cities.

However, those requirements do not always apply to acting administrators. In his second term, President Donald Trump has had two acting FEMA administrators – Cameron Hamilton and David Richardson. Both lacked prior experience managing major disasters on a statewide or comparable basis. Hamilton was abruptly fired after suggesting to Congress that FEMA should not be eliminated. Richardson’s leadership was quickly tested during the Texas flash flood tragedy on July 4, 2025, that killed more than 135 people.

The shortcomings of the response to Hurricane Katrina also led to wider adoption of the National Incident Management System, which helps all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations and the private sector work together in an emergency.

If more responsibility for emergency management devolves to states in the future, they will need to cultivate the ability to coordinate and collaborate effectively to respond to disasters.

Looking ahead

Leaders and organizations such as FEMA have learned from crises such as Hurricane Katrina.

However, political priorities come and go, staff turns over, and generations pass the torch to their successors. Leaders and organizations can forget critical lessons from the past.

As efforts to reform – and possibly rebalance – the U.S. emergency management system continue during the Trump administration, it is essential to remember and heed the costly lessons of Hurricane Katrina.

Eric Stern has recently received funding from DHS Science and Technology for an extreme weather informatics project and from NOAA for work on extreme heat events. He has lectured at the National Emergency Management Executive Academy and many similar programs around the country and the world.

– ref. Hurricane Katrina: 3 painful lessons for emergency management are increasingly important 20 years later – https://theconversation.com/hurricane-katrina-3-painful-lessons-for-emergency-management-are-increasingly-important-20-years-later-260907

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Mark Satta, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Law, Wayne State University

George Orwell’s dystopian novels “Animal Farm” and “1984” have remained popular in the U.S. ever since their initial publication in the 1940s.

What’s less well known is that in the years before the publication of “Animal Farm” and “1984,” Orwell’s writing often focused primarily on other themes including work, poverty, anti-imperialism and democratic socialism.

In fact, Orwell remained a committed democratic socialist until his death in 1950.

“Animal Farm” tells the tale of a group of farm animals who take ownership of their farm from their human master by means of rebellion, but who eventually end up re-enslaved by the farm’s pigs. “1984” tells the story of one man’s failed attempt to resist totalitarian rule in a hypothetical future dictatorship set in Orwell’s home country of England.

Part of these books’ initial appeal came from their critiques of Soviet communism as the U.S. was entering the Cold War. Part of why the books seem to have remained popular are their anti-totalitarian and pro-freedom messages, which have been praised by people across the U.S. political spectrum.

Orwell, who died of tuberculosis at age 46, is a writer famous for the ideas that preoccupied him in the final years of his life. His journey to those ideas via his thinking about work, poverty and democratic socialism, among other themes, may surprise those familiar with only his dystopian fiction.

Communism and socialism not synonymous

Orwell’s democratic socialism may surprise some Americans for at least two reasons.

First, when many Americans talk about politics, they often treat communism and socialism as interchangeable terms. How could Orwell, the great satirist of Soviet communism, have been a socialist?

The answer is that communism and socialism are not synonymous.

Orwell denied that Soviet communism was a form of socialism. Instead, he saw Soviet communism as totalitarianism merely masquerading as socialism.

Orwell claimed in his 1937 book, “The Road to Wigan Pier,” that “Socialism means justice and common decency” and a commitment to “the overthrow of tyranny.” Elsewhere in the same book, he maligned communism’s anti-democratic behavior as like “sawing off the branch you are sitting on.”

A second reason that Orwell’s commitment to democratic socialism may surprise some is because in the U.S., democratic socialism is often associated with the nation’s most left-leaning political figures, such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani. And Orwell is often not viewed in popular imagination as a political progressive.

Yet, by American standards, Orwell was very politically progressive. He argued in “The Lion and the Unicorn” that his home country of England ought to nationalize mines, railways, banks and major industries. He also argued for limits on income inequality. Some of these policies run to the left of even most U.S. democratic socialists.

For Orwell, such left-leaning economic policies were not only compatible with, but required, a strong commitment to the central pillars of democracy, such as intellectual freedom, free speech, a free press and genuine rule by the people.

I think the best way to understand how these aspects of Orwell’s political views came together is to look at the evolution of his writing.

Work and poverty

Two of the most important themes in Orwell’s first decade as a professional writer, the 1930s, are work and poverty.

These are what he focused on most in his first book, the autobiographical “Down and Out in Paris and London,” published in 1933. There he recounts his experiences living among the poor and unemployed in France and England in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

The book is full of pithy insights, such as “poverty frees people from ordinary standards of behavior, just as money frees people from work,” and “the average millionaire is only the average dishwasher dressed in a new suit.”

The latter quote highlights one of the key ethical and political messages of “Down and Out”: It is primarily social and political circumstances, and not moral character, that separates the rich from the poor.

Another key theme in “Down and Out” is that without a certain amount of leisure, people are incapable of doing certain kinds of thinking.

For example, Orwell argued that the reason the kitchen staff in French restaurants had not gone on strike or formed a union was because “they do not think, because they have no leisure for it; their life has made slaves of them.”

Orwell blamed the owners of such establishments for exploiting their workers. As he saw it, at most upscale restaurants “the staff work more and the customers pay more” and “no one benefits except the proprietor.”

In multiple novels and works of nonfiction in the 1930s, Orwell continued to explore the idea that social and political circumstances robbed people of the time they needed to engage in tasks like serious thinking and writing.

Imperialism and democratic socialism

One of Orwell’s earliest and most enduring political commitments was anti-imperialism – opposition to extending national power by means of colonialization or military force.

Orwell was of English and French descent. He was raised in England, but born in India in 1903. His father worked for the British Civil Service, which at the time exercised administrative control over India as a British colony.

Following his father’s footsteps, he spent five years working for the Imperial Police in Burma, now Myanmar. He came away from that experience with a deep hatred of imperialism. He drew upon this in his novel “Burmese Days” and his essays “A Hanging” and “Shooting an Elephant.”

In “The Road to Wigan Pier,” he wrote, “I hated the imperialism I was serving with a bitterness which I probably cannot make clear.”

“Wigan Pier” also displays Orwell’s commitment to democratic socialism. In the book’s first half, he reports on the dismal working and living conditions of the poor and unemployed in northern England. In the second half, he uses that material to make a case for democratic socialism.

In Orwell’s view, in deciding whether to embrace democratic socialism one had “to decide whether things at present are tolerable or not tolerable.” He concluded that present conditions were not tolerable and that democratic socialism was the way to make things better.

Propaganda and totalitarianism

Orwell developed into a sharp critic of Soviet Russia after witnessing how they used propaganda to mislead much of Europe about the Spanish Civil War. He discussed this in his book “Homage to Catalonia,” which recounts his time during the Spanish Civil War as a volunteer soldier fighting with the Spanish left against Gen. Francisco Franco, who would go on to become the country’s longtime dictator.

From Orwell’s perspective, communism highlighted the risks of how socialist revolution could go wrong. He thought that, without care, attempts at socialist revolution could create opportunities for a new form of oppression through totalitarianism.

He saw that totalitarianism was not limited to either the political left or right. Soviet communism represented left-wing totalitarianism, while Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy represented right-wing totalitarianism.

Thus, a major preoccupation in his final years was trying to warn people about the risks of falling into totalitarianism during times of political upheaval. Orwell wanted radical political change, but the change he wanted was in the service of increasing freedom and democracy, not decreasing it.

“Animal Farm” is a story about falling into autocracy. “1984” is a story about just how much autocracy can take from us.

But the things Orwell wanted to preserve, such as freedom of the mind, were also things that he thought were at risk from circumstances like poverty, oppressive working conditions and imperialism.

Research for this article was supported by a faculty fellowship from the Douglas A. Fraser Center for Workplace Issues at Wayne State University.

– ref. Orwell’s opposition to totalitarianism was rooted in his support for freeing workers from poverty and exploitation – https://theconversation.com/orwells-opposition-to-totalitarianism-was-rooted-in-his-support-for-freeing-workers-from-poverty-and-exploitation-261121

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Pintu Kumar Mahla, Research Associate at the Water Resources Research Institute, University of Arizona

Farmers in South Asia rely on the summer monsoon’s rainfall, but extreme monsoon rains in recent years have been destructive and deadly.

Since July, flooding during the 2025 summer monsoon has killed more than 700 people in Pakistan as water and mud swept through settlements and ancient towns. Streets in Karachi, a vital port city of about 20 million people, were inundated.

The damage has been reminiscent of 2022, when monsoon flooding stretched for miles across the country and displaced more than 8 million people.

Pakistan has a long history of natural disasters, from lethal heat waves to flash flooding. As global temperatures rise, the risks from powerful downpours, flash floods and melting glaciers are increasing.

I work on issues of water security and grew up in South Asia. I see how climate change is raising the risks and creating an urgent need for a dangerously unprepared region to invest in disaster preparedness.

Why Pakistan gets such extreme floods

The effects of climate change have wide-ranging implications for ecosystems, human communities and the physical environment.

Rising temperatures increase both evaporation and the amount of moisture the atmosphere can hold, leading to powerful downpours.

At the same time, warming in the mountains speeds up the melting of snowpack and glaciers. Melting glaciers increase both runoff into rivers and the risk of glacial lake outburst floods. Glacial lake outburst floods occur when depressions dammed by glacier ice or rock fill with meltwater and overflow or burst through their dams.

A glacial lake outburst in Pakistan’s northern Gilgit-Baltistan region on Aug. 22, 2025, showed the cascading dangers. The resulting flood damaged dozens of houses and pushed up debris that temporarily blocked a river. With the river blocked, water built up, creating a broad lake that threatened more flooding for communities downstream. Dozens of schools were evacuated as a precaution.

Torrential rains in the same region a few weeks earlier had triggered landslides and flooding that stranded 200 people.

Earth’s cryosphere – its glaciers, ice sheets, sea ice and snow cover – is a key part of the planet’s climate system. Snow- and ice-covered surfaces can reflect up to 80% or 90% of sunlight, keeping temperatures cooler. The loss of reflective snow and ice cover as temperatures rise helps to further accelerate warming.

Temperatures have been rising faster in the Himalayan region in recent decades, from increasing at about 0.18 degrees Fahrenheit (0.10 Celsius) per decade in the early 20th century to rising at about 0.58 F (0.32 C) per decade by the early 21st century.

In July, Pakistan saw record-breaking heat, with temperatures in Chilas, in the mountains, reaching 119 F (48.5 C), which may have contributed to the flooding that followed. When heat waves hit, faster melting can trigger major flooding, particularly in the Indus River Basin’s lower reaches, where agriculture fields are common in the flood plains.

Deforestation, homes in flood plains add to risks

Pakistan’s challenges include having a fast-growing population that has more than tripled since 1980 to over 250 million people.

A large part of that population, about 96 million, live along riverbanks and in dried riverbeds. Those areas provide flat, available land but also high flood risks.

More people has also led to more deforestation, removing both a source of cooling and increasing the risk of faster flooding and mudslides. From 2001 to 2024, Pakistan lost about 8% of its tree cover, primarily to logging. Some of that has gone into building large dams for hydropower.

Preparing for future disasters

Pakistan is among the countries hit hardest by weather-related disasters over the past two decades, yet it ranks 150th globally out of 192 countries when it comes to being ready to deal with disasters, according to the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative’s assessments.

The Pakistan National Disaster Management Authority’s recent National Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy (2025-2030) discusses improvement in disaster risk management since 2006. But Pakistan’s disasters preparedness is still limited by poor coordination between institutions, too few early warning systems and not enough financial resources.

People’s vulnerability to disasters is made worse by old infrastructure, often poor drainage and urban planning that, in my view, doesn’t do enough to take disaster risk reduction into account. Political instability in Pakistan can also make disaster responses less effective.

The country could improve safety by designing infrastructure to better withstand disasters, expanding early warning networks, making risk reduction a part of education and policy, and improving community training and awareness programs. Those steps will require better governance and funding.

For long-term protection against natural and human-made disasters, nature-based strategies can also help, such as replanting forests to reduce erosion and mudslide risks and improving land-use planning to avoid building in flood-prone areas or creating new flood risks. The world can help by reducing greenhouse gas emissions that are driving climate change.

Pintu Kumar Mahla is affiliated with the Water Resources Research Center, the University of Arizona. He is also a member of the International Association of Water Law (AIDA). Pintu Kumar Mahla has not received funding related to this article.

– ref. Monsoon flooding has killed hundreds in Pakistan – climate change is pushing the rainy season from blessing to looming catastrophe – https://theconversation.com/monsoon-flooding-has-killed-hundreds-in-pakistan-climate-change-is-pushing-the-rainy-season-from-blessing-to-looming-catastrophe-263610

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Patrick Tutka, Clinical Associate Professor of Health and Kinesiology, Purdue University

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com.

---

Why is the object of golf to play the least amount of golf? – Bryleigh, age 12, Chandler, Arizona

---

In most sports, the team or player with the highest score wins, and fans celebrate super-high-scoring games. In golf, it’s the opposite – the lowest score is the champion. And since golf scores are the number of strokes each player needs to get around the course, the object is to do it with as few strokes as possible.

I study sport management, which includes training people to manage golf courses, help run associations that set the rules, and create scoring for golf. When I play golf, I find that it’s a great mental test. If I score poorly on one hole, how do I play the next hole? Will I let frustration cause me to play poorly and score high again, or can I recover?

Skilled players are able to manage each shot, finding the best place to hit the ball so that they leverage the strengths of their game and work with conditions (weather, wind) at the hole they are playing. This allows them to limit the score they get on the hole.

In golf every shot is a stroke, and you play each hole only once. There are no do-overs or second chances, so each move is extremely important for scoring. That’s different from a game like basketball, where you may get a rebound or a second chance to make a particular shot.

Par for the course

Each hole on a golf course is assigned a par score, which is the number of shots the designer believes it will take to play that hole. Almost all golf courses are made up of par 3, par 4 and par 5 shots.

On a par 3, a person is expected to take three shots to put the ball in the hole. That usually begins with a tee shot from the starting point of the hole and then two shots around or on the green area where the hole is cut. Par 4s expect two shots, covering more ground, before they get to the green area; par 5s expect three shots.

Par is designed for each hole and then added up for the course. Most golf courses have 18 holes and a par between 70 and 72.

There also are par 3 courses, where every hole is a par 3, so they can be spaced more closely and players don’t have to hit long drives. And there are short courses with fewer than 18 holes and total pars as low as 27, usually set on smaller properties.

Golfers want their score to be at par, or even lower, for each course. A decent golfer would probably shoot around 90 on an 18-hole, par 72 course. Coming in close to par lets people play together and compete against each other. Imagine that they were all trying to use as many shots as possible: They would never finish a hole, let alone a full round of the course.

Each score is given a name in comparison to par for a given hole. A score two strokes under par is called an eagle, and a score of one under par is called a birdie. When players go over par, it’s a bogey for one stroke over, a double bogey for two strokes over, and so on. There also are less-known terms, such as a snowman, which is shooting an 8 on a hole.

Every shot matters

Other sports that reward the lowest scores or the fewest attempts include darts and pool. For example, in 8-ball or 9-ball pool, the winner is the first person who sinks all of their colors and either the 8 or 9 ball into pockets with the fewest shots. Similarly, both swimming and track and field are won with low scores, although these are based on competitors’ times, not strokes or shots.

Golf requires great concentration and a good understanding of how your shot may move in the air. Players also need strategies for getting around objects in front of them on the course, such as trees, ponds and sand traps, which are also known as bunkers.

Good golfers are able to control relatively closely where their ball lands. But one of my favorite statistics is that the very best professional golfers land their ball within 10 feet of the hole just 1 in 4 times when they hit from 100 yards away.

A sense of humor helps. Baseball great Hank Aaron once said, “It took me 17 years to get 3,000 hits in baseball. It took one afternoon on the golf course.”

---

Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

Patrick Tutka 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. Why is the object of golf to play as little golf as possible? – https://theconversation.com/why-is-the-object-of-golf-to-play-as-little-golf-as-possible-256170