Courtesy of The Daily Show.

Dear Commons Community,

As Trump wrapped up his nearly 75-minute speech on Friday night, he delivered a final pitch (see video below) to the Christian conservative crowd, saying if they vote for him on Election Day, they would never be obligated to vote again.

“I don’t care how, but you have to get out and vote,” Trump said at Turning Point Action’s Believers Summit in West Palm Beach. “Christians, get out and vote just this time.”

“You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years. You know what? It’ll be fixed,” Trump said.

He added: “I love you, Christians. I’m a Christian. I love you, get out, you gotta get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again, we’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going to have to vote.”

The Harris campaign is characterizing Trump’s comment that if Christians vote this one time they won’t have to do it anymore as a “vow to end democracy.”

“When Vice President Harris says this election is about freedom she means it. Our democracy is under assault by criminal Donald Trump,” Harris for President Spokesperson James Singer said. “Donald Trump wants to take America backward, to a politics of hate, chaos, and fear – this November America will unite around Vice President Kamala Harris to stop him.”

Dictator Trump for president!

Tony

Trump: You have to get out and vote. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four years, it will be fixed, it will be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore.. In four years, you won’t have to vote again. pic.twitter.com/DBGcBr3Wht

— Acyn (@Acyn) July 27, 2024

Dear Commons Community,

I got the the piece above from by colleague, Patsy Moskal. 

Parton had made the decision early in her life to never have children.

Vance has vilified women who don’t have children.

She represents all that is good in our country. He all that is ugly.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Politico had an article earlier this week questioning the selection of JD Vance as Trump’s vice presidential running mate. It pulls no punches in establishing that Vance might  turn out to be the entirely wrong pick for vice president.  Here is an excerpt.

U.S. President Joe Biden’s decision to withdraw from the White House race may well turn 2024 into the Year of the Woman — namely, that of Vice President Kamala Harris who is now the front-runner to replace him atop the Democratic ticket.

Truth is, if Harris is successful in getting the nod from the Democratic Party, much of the subsequent election campaign is likely to domestically focus on abortion and women’s rights. Trump already has a problem with women voters — polls have consistently shown that the proportion of women planning to vote for him this November is smaller than those who did in 2020. And Vance has nothing to offer Trump on this score — quite the reverse, he risks compounding his boss’s problem.

Presumably, Trump chose Vance as his VP candidate largely to fire up the MAGA base and boost the Republican ticket in Rust Belt states. But that was a choice made when Biden was still heading the Democratic ticket. Now that he’s not, Vance may well become a liability.

Vance’s strict anti-abortion positions of the past, and a string of highly contentious statements he’s made about divorce, implying that women trapped in abusive marriages should remain married for the sake of the kids, aren’t likely to be forgotten. In 2021, he suggested ending marriages that were “maybe even violent” as selfish. “This is one of the great tricks that the sexual revolution pulled on the American populace,” he said. “Making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear.”

He’s also a strict pro-natalist, characterizing those who don’t have kids as “childless cat ladies,” and suggesting that people with children should be given additional votes. He has taken aim at childcare subsidies as “class war against normal people,” despite — or maybe because — such subsidies provide women with young kids more opportunities to work or go to school and be independent. 

Furthermore, Vance has only recently moderated his position on abortion to fall into line with Trump, who argues that abortion should be left up to states to decide individually. But in 2022, when he was an Ohio Senate candidate, Vance said on a podcast that he would like to see a national abortion ban with no exceptions — even for rape or incest. That was before Trump’s Supreme Court appointees overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that protected the right to have an abortion. And Vance has even argued that federal action is needed to stop women seeking terminations traveling from states where abortion is illegal to states where it’s allowed.

Women currently comprise 51 percent of the voting-age population in the U.S. , and they’ve been making their vote felt since Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022.

Excellent analysis but how does Trump gracefully (not his strong suit) dump Vance?

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Last week, the Democratic Party was on a high as Joe Biden gave up his quest to run for President and passed the torch to Kamala Harris. The media were elated, fund raising soared, and polls indicated that Harris had narrowed the gap with Trump.  James Carville, a staunch supporter of the Democrats, cautioned that amid all the hoopla, that Harris and the Democratic Party had better buckle down and be prepared for a close and highly contentious campaign.  Below is an interview he gave on Thursday on MSNBC.

He provides a lot of good advice!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The United States economy is humming with solid economic growth in the first half of the year solid and expanding a robust 2.8% annualized rate in the second quarter, according to fresh Commerce Department figures released yesterday which are adjusted for inflation and seasonal swings.

Stocks surged in the morning after the economy’s powerful show of resilience, but later lost steam and closed the day mixed. The Dow rose 81 points, or 0.2%, after jumping more than 500 points earlier in the session. The S&P 500 fell 0.5% and the Nasdaq Composite lost 0.9%. That comes after the benchmark index and tech-heavy Nasdaq on Wednesday logged their worst day since 2022.

Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of economic output, was much stronger in the second quarter than economists had predicted. The GDP report showed that businesses are continuing to invest and that consumers are still opening their wallets. That’s key, because consumer spending is America’s economic engine, accounting for about two-thirds of US economic output.

As the economy continued to expand from April through June, inflation resumed a downward trend and seems to be on track to slowing further toward the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.  As reported by CNN.

America’s economy is about to stick what’s called a “soft landing,” which is when inflation returns to the Fed’s target without a recession — a feat that’s only happened once, during the 1990s, according to some economists.

The latest GDP report showed that a key gauge of consumer demand picked up in the second quarter to an annual rate of 2.9%, matching the rate in the fourth quarter of 2023 for the strongest pace in two years. A measure of business investment also strengthened in the April-through-June period.

The current health of the American economy shows that the Fed, with Jerome Powell at the helm as chair, has successfully handled inflation so far, with the finish line coming into clear view. The Fed beginning to cut interest rates indicates that central bank officials feel confident that inflation is under control just enough.

The economy’s enduring strength is also a boon for the Biden administration. Despite the Fed aggressively raising interest rates to tamp down inflation, which have been perched at a 23-year high since last July, the economy has so far avoided a recession. Last year, the resilience of the US consumer shocked economists who widely expected an economic downturn to ensue.

“Today’s GDP report makes clear we now have the strongest economy in the world,” President Joe Biden said in a statement Thursday. “The Vice President and I will keep fighting for America’s future — a future of promise and possibilities, of ordinary Americans doing extraordinary things.”

But even as the broader economy remains robust, Americans have still felt sour. Inflation is an economy-wide problem, so the pessimism has been felt broadly. Purchasing a home in many markets across the country remains out of sight, with home prices at a record high and mortgage rates still painfully elevated. The booming job market in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic has recently returned to normal, and it’s becoming a lot tougher to find a new job.

Waiting on the Fed

Fed officials meet next week to set monetary policy, and they’re widely expected to hold interest rates steady. The meeting will also offer a chance for the Fed to communicate whether or not it has gained any additional confidence that inflation is under control. Either way, it’s clear that officials are pleased with the economy’s performance so far.

“Current data are consistent with achieving a soft landing, and I will be looking for data over the next couple months to buttress this view,” Fed Governor Christopher Waller, a key central banker, said earlier this month at an event in Kansas City. “While I don’t believe we have reached our final destination, I do believe we are getting closer to the time when a cut in the policy rate is warranted.”

Wall Street traders are overwhelmingly betting that the Fed will decide to cut rates in its September 17-18 meeting.

Fed Chair Jerome Powell hasn’t given a definitive signal that rate cuts are coming, but he has provided some subtle hints. Powell earlier this month told lawmakers that “elevated inflation is not the only risk we face,” pointing to how much the labor market has cooled recently. The Fed chief has said that unexpectedly higher unemployment would prompt the central bank to cut rates sooner, since in addition to stabilizing prices, the Fed is also responsible for maximizing employment.

“Prices are easing and growth is strong. We had some worries about slowing GDP last June but those haven’t panned out,” David Russell, global head of market strategy at TradeStation, said in a note Thursday. “The second half could be in good shape for the bulls. Goldilocks is getting stronger and the risk of stagflation is fading. There’s not much stag and not much ‘flation.”

Good news!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) held its annual conference this week and has passed a resolution on artificial  intelligence.  There are twelve aspects to the resolution, all of which are important.  I especially like the wording on “the responsible and principled development and use of AI and social media technologies” as well as “the critical need for equitable access to AI and advanced technologies across all sectors, advocating for the democratization of technological benefits to ensure that no group is left behind.”

The entire resolution is below.

Tony

————————————————————-

Resolution Passed by the AFT

Artificial Intelligence

WHEREAS, the AFT represents the collective voice and aspirations of a diverse body of professionals, including teachers, school and college support staff, public employees, higher education faculty and healthcare workers, advocating for equitable access to high-quality healthcare, public services, education, and the advancement of social justice; and

WHEREAS, the emergence and integration of generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, exemplified by innovations such as ChatGPT, machine learning algorithms and other AI-driven tools, have ushered in a new era of technology with the potential to foster transformative change across all sectors around the globe, particularly in education, healthcare and public services creating both remarkable opportunities and significant challenges that necessitate careful consideration and a strategic and immediate response; and

WHEREAS, the AFT advocates that any and all implementation of advanced technology must be guided by core commitments to ensure safety and privacy, promote human-centered implementation and individuality, advance equitable access, guarantee equity and fairness, advance democracy, and teach digital citizenship and balance; and

WHEREAS, the AFT has created the report “Commonsense Guardrails for Using Advanced Technology in Schools,”[1] which shares the expertise and collective voices of our members in the field as they navigate the integration of advanced technology and AI in the classroom and beyond; and

WHEREAS, the AFT champions the principle of participatory innovation, advocating for the meaningful involvement of workers and other relevant stakeholders in the design, development, procurement, application and ownership of AI technologies to ensure that AI-based tools enhance rather than replace human expertise, judgment and interpersonal interactions, and that they are tailored to meet the specific needs and challenges of the sectors in which they are employed; and

WHEREAS, critical decision-making must remain with teachers, paraprofessionals, higher education faculty, healthcare professionals, and public service workers, regardless of the AI tool being used, and must never allow the institutions where we work to become dependent on AI or the corporations that develop it; and

WHEREAS, the opportunities of AI in education hold the promise of personalized learning experiences, adaptive instructional design, increased access, and enhanced teacher and staff support. AI-driven innovations in healthcare have the capacity to optimize diagnoses, streamline treatment plans and improve patient outcomes. In addition, AI technologies offer opportunities for more responsive government, data-driven decision-making, and enhanced service delivery, enabling governments to improve public infrastructure, and promote inclusivity and equity; and

WHEREAS, the challenges of technological development have, in some instances, been marked by a prioritization of technological advancement and profit over ethical considerations and societal welfare, leading to adverse outcomes, including the negative impacts of social media on young users; the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation, including deepfakes; creation of unreliable responses such as hallucinations and other nonsensical results; undermining of intellectual property rights; erosion of public trust; the loss of students’ and workers’ personal information and privacy; the widening of socioeconomic gaps; and the narrowing of workers’ rights; and

WHEREAS, the indiscriminate or ill-considered implementation of AI-based technologies, particularly in sensitive sectors such as education, healthcare and public services risks compromising the quality and integrity if these essential services, exacerbating exiting disparities and diminishing the role and efficacy of the professionals in these fields; and

WHEREAS, the international community, including the International Labor Organization, UNESCO and the U.N. High Commission on Technology continues to examine a global response to an emerging technology; and

WHEREAS, the current regulatory and policy landscape in the United States has proven inadequate in addressing the complex and evolving challenges posed by many technologies, including AI, evidenced by the failure to hold technology companies accountable, ensuring robust protections for personal privacy, enforcing ethical standards in AI development and use, and preventing potential harms associated with these technologies, leaving individuals, public workers and communities vulnerable;

WHEREAS, the AFT recognizes the profound implications of AI and social media on the professional practices and personal lives of our members, underscoring the need for a nuanced, informed approach that maximizes the benefits of these technologies while proactively addressing their potential risks and ensuring they serve to support, rather than undermine, the critical work of educators and school staff at all levels, healthcare workers and public employees; and

WHEREAS, the AFT stands firmly against any application of AI and social media technologies that may lead to displacement; that infringes upon the fundamental rights of workers, including the right to collective bargaining; that perpetuates or amplifies systemic biases; that contributes to the widening of the digital divide, or that in any way detracts from the core mission and values of the AFT and our members, advocating instead for the development and implementation of these technologies in a manner that is ethical, equitable, transparent, inclusive and aligned with the public interest:

RESOLVED, that the AFT will endorse the responsible and principled development and use of AI and social media technologies, emphasizing the importance of transparency, accountability, corporate responsibility, respect for intellectual property and other creative outputs, the protection of workers’ rights and privacy, and the maintenance of professional integrity, and calls for the establishment of ethical guidelines and standards that govern the use of these technologies across all sectors; and

RESOLVED, that the AFT will emphasize the critical need for equitable access to AI and advanced technologies across all sectors, advocating for the democratization of technological benefits to ensure that no group is left behind in the digital age. Recognizing that AI has the potential to significantly enhance education outcomes, healthcare delivery and public services, the AFT will call for intentional efforts to bridge the digital divide and provide equal opportunities for all individuals to benefit from these advancements, regardless of socioeconomic status, geographic location or other barriers; and

RESOLVED, that the AFT strongly will advocate for a union seat at the table during the development, procurement and implementation of comprehensive, forward-looking regulations and policies that directly address the multifaceted challenges and opportunities presented by AI and social media, ensuring that these technologies are harnessed to serve the public good in a manner that upholds the principles of quality, equity and accessibility in education, healthcare and public services, and that safeguards are in place to prevent potential harms; and

RESOLVED, that the AFT will assert that the impact of AI in the workplace is a mandatory subject of bargaining and will develop contract language, policies, procedures and practices to support our affiliates at the bargaining table and beyond, including specific measures to mitigate the displacement of workers due to the integration of AI or other advanced technologies; and

RESOLVED, that the AFT will call for robust regulatory and policy measures to address the ethical, legal and social implications of AI. These measures should prioritize the protection of personal privacy, enforce ethical standards in AI development and deployment, and prevent potential harms such as bias, misinformation, disinformation, deepfakes and the erosion of public trust. The AFT will urge policymakers to implement forward-thinking regulations that safeguard individual rights and promote the responsible use of AI in ways that align with societal values and the public interest; and

RESOLVED, that the AFT will proactively engage with policymakers, technology developers, educational institutions, healthcare organizations, civil rights organizations and other key stakeholders in a concerted effort to establish clear, ethical guidelines and standards for the use of AI and social media within educational, governmental and healthcare settings, prioritizing the well-being, development and success of students, patients and the broader communities served by AFT members, and ensuring that these technologies are deployed in a manner that is respectful of the professional expertise and autonomy of educators, healthcare workers and public employees; and

RESOLVED, that the AFT will commit to facilitating ongoing research both in the United States and abroad, dialogue, professional development and training initiatives designed to empower our members with the knowledge, skills and competencies necessary to effectively navigate and leverage AI and social media in their professional practices, thereby enhancing the quality of education, healthcare and public service delivery, and ensuring that members are well-prepared to engage with these technologies in an informed, critical and constructive manner; and

RESOLVED, that the AFT will reaffirm our unwavering commitment to advocating for a future in which technological advancements, including AI, serve to enrich and enhance the professional endeavors of educators and staff, healthcare workers and public employees, fostering environments that are inclusive, equitable and conducive to high-quality, personalized learning and public service, and ensuring that technology acts as a catalyst for positive change, empowerment and innovation within society, thereby contributing to the fulfillment of the federation’s mission to improve the lives of our members and the communities they serve; and

RESOLVED, that all AFT members will be provided with the tools, time and trust necessary to learn and use AI technologies in an ethical, responsible and effective manner, ensuring that they are equipped to integrate these new tools into their professional practices in ways that enhance their work and uphold the highest standards of integrity and efficacy; and

RESOLVED, that the AFT will advocate for ongoing comprehensive training and professional development programs to equip our members with the necessary skills and knowledge to effectively utilize AI and advanced technologies. Such initiatives should focus on enhancing digital literacy, fostering critical thinking and promoting ethical considerations in the use of AI. By empowering educators, healthcare workers and public employees with the tools to navigate and leverage these technologies, the AFT aims to improve service delivery and outcomes while maintaining the highest standards of professional integrity; and

RESOLVED, that the AFT will continue to ensure that the expertise of our members is front and center in any development and/or integration of advanced technology and AI in their workplaces by expanding the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on AI and widely sharing its work such as the report “Commonsense Guardrails for Using Advanced Technology in Schools,”[2] conducting a back-to-school conference on AI highlighting the leadership of AFT school-based members, creating similar ad hoc committees, as necessary, in all AFT constituencies, and continuing to grow and disseminate user-ready resources and additional examples of productive use of advanced technology on dedicated sections of AFT’s Share My Lesson and e-learning platforms; and

RESOLVED, that the AFT executive council will periodically review and update this resolution to reflect the rapid evolution of AI technologies in the workplace. This ongoing review will ensure AFT policies remain current and effectively address the dynamic nature of today’s workplaces, thereby safeguarding the interests and enhancing the capabilities of our members in an increasingly digital world.

Dear Commons Community,

H. Holden Thorpe, editor of Science, has an editorial this morning commenting on academic freedom and institutional neutrality. The issue is particularly important given the struggles of college presidents in responding to activism on their campuses regarding the Israel-Hamas War. For those of us in academia, Thorpe’s conclusion about universities “shirking their responsibility to stand up not for any particular finding but for a more overriding principle—the importance of independent scholarship” is critical. 

Below is the entire editorial. It is well-worth a read.

Tony

——————————————————–

Science

H. Holden Thorp

July 26, 2024

The idea that universities in the United States—and especially their presidents—should be politically neutral was taking hold long before their recent struggles in responding to the Israel–Hamas war. A document called the Kalven Report that was produced at the University of Chicago in 1967 famously declared that “the university is the home and sponsor of critics; it is not itself the critic.” Thus, in matters of political controversy, the university best serves its faculty and students by remaining neutral so that those with disciplinary expertise can opine freely. Neutrality makes good sense when it comes to political issues that by their nature are matters of opinion. But what about matters of science, especially when a finding has powerful political implications such as studies on climate or vaccines? Where should universities draw the line?

The proponents of blanket neutrality assert that universities should not only stay out of geopolitical matters but should also not comment on findings of their faculty’s research if they are politically sensitive. But does that paint the issue with too broad a brush? There is a distinction between the science itself and opinions about whether and how to act on it. The results of a vaccine trial are neutral—however, the role of government in mandating vaccines is political.

Peter Hans, president of the 17-campus University of North Carolina system, told me he would not support or oppose a particular scientific finding but “will defend all day the faculty’s right to share that finding with the world.” Jenna Robinson, a staunch proponent of neutrality and president of the conservative James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, went even further, saying to me, “I think it’s better for presidents not to comment on the content of the research (italics hers).” And University of Chicago president Paul Alivisatos, also a renown nanoscientist, told me that the proper approach is wholesale neutrality, with the university standing as a place where “both popular and dissenting viewpoints are thoughtfully subject to reason and evidenced debate. A president seeking to foreclose debates by issuing institutional proclamations will inadvertently erode the credibility of the university in the eyes of the public and policy-makers alike.”

“For the scientists themselves, university neutrality is a two-edged sword.”

Many critics of neutrality are disheartened by this hands-off approach. The prolific biomedical scientist Eric Topol described the stance to me as “a consistent path of being spineless, hiding in plain sight, ducking controversy, appearing to be dissociated from faculty and the science that they publish.” It’s discouraging that institutions can validate the scientific research of faculty by hiring and promoting them but then opt for neutrality if the findings have political implications. I don’t fault the presidents for adopting this position—the polarizing politics of the moment gives them little choice. But it is a major shift from an era when university presidents were regarded as both academic and moral leaders who stood up for the truth in times of crisis.

For the scientists themselves, university neutrality is a two-edged sword. It comes with a strong commitment by administrators to back the rights of faculty to carry out their research, wherever the results may lead, but the trade-off is that if the findings are politically sensitive, the institution is going to stay out of the fray.

If neutrality is to be the order of the day, then scientists need to take extra care not to be intimidated when their research ignites a political storm. Dartmouth College President Sian Beilock put it like this: “I think a scientist’s job is to do the best work they can and publish the findings that they believe will be most impactful to humanity,” she said, “regardless of whether their conclusions align with one particular idea.”

At the same time, scientists need to hold the institutions accountable for their commitments to stand behind their researchers in every other way. True neutrality means that institutions would not take actions to defund or deemphasize research because it is controversial, but there are worrying signs that this is already happening. Stanford University just shut down its disinformation research program after it was hit by lawsuits from conservative groups. Unless this reciprocity holds, there is a danger that universities will shirk their responsibility to stand up not for any particular finding but for a more overriding principle—the importance of independent scholarship.

Dear Commons Community,

The Chronicle of Higher Education has a piece this morning on how to advise students who major in history written by a history professor and a retired IBM executive.  Here is an excerpt.

A sense of urgency can be felt around the hallways of liberal-arts departments: We have less money, fewer students, and more pressure to justify what we do. The future of the humanities seems uncertain, and a future without the humanities seems frightening yet all too imaginable in the face of political attacks and program cuts.

History faculty members share the sense of impending doom: “It’s the end of history,” an essayist recently warned in The New York Times, “and the consequences will be significant.” We’ve responded by updating curricula, jazzing up our course titles (from “Medieval History” to “Knights and Monsters”), and teaching about the historical aspects of present-day concerns such as technology, the environment, or social equity. Likewise, for more than a decade, we’ve had energetic conversations about how to better prepare our doctoral students for nonacademic career options.

But have we done enough to help majors and graduate students grasp the full range of career options available to them with a history degree? Clearly not. As historians whose careers and focus have bridged the gap between higher education and the business world (one of us was an IBM executive and the other hosts a podcast on the practical uses of history, especially in business and tech), we suggest three steps that academics and administrators could take to build the case. More specifically, these steps would help students find fulfilling careers in the kind of well-paying domains — business and tech — that rarely feature prominently in our history-career conversations.

The article goes on to make three broad recommendations.  The article goes into detail on each recommendation.

Step 1: Identify and spotlight your discipline’s “superpowers.”

Step 2: Get more tactical in linking your students to good jobs.

Step 3: Be open to the value of “practical” history.

History as a professional discipline developed in response to the Enlightenment’s call to arms for a systematic exploration of the universe. But it flourished under the aegis of 19th-century nation states that relied on historians to consolidate ideas about nations and peoples in order to justify their power. We need not sympathize with all premises of 19th-century historiography to appreciate the fact that state building helped our discipline to evolve, to make an impact on such areas as international diplomacy, and to become central to the liberal-arts curriculum.

Today, businesses are increasingly expected to be socially responsible, and many of them are improving people’s lives. They might be our natural partners in the effort to revive interest in history and the humanities.

As a political science major and a history minor,  I was fortunate enough to develop an administrative and technology-based career.  Our colleagues in the liberal arts need to become creative in advising their majors.  The information in this article is most helpful

Tony