Search headlines

Court says conservative think tank can get Biden audiotapes

The audiotapes informed a special counsel report that called Biden an ‘elderly man with a poor memory.’

Jul 21 • 12:49 PM EDT • Politics • washingtonpost.com

Cowboys players with the highest floor for this season

Which players on the Cowboys do you think have the highest floors?

Jul 21 • 10:30 AM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

The last 9 spots: Why Cowboys roster projections go wrong

How many roster spots do you think are truly up for grabs?

Jul 21 • 9:00 AM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

Inhospitable climate: GOP's disdain of science helps foul air again

It requires a specific combination of stupidity, ignoring expertise and thinking that the voting public will fall for silly grandstanding.

Jul 20 • 11:45 PM EDT • Science • journalgazette.net

Hospital food gets a healthy makeover from celeb chef: 'Food is medicine'

After three years of rethinking hospital meals, Michelin star chef Geoffrey Zakarian is swapping boxed shakes, seed oils and sugar for fresh comfort food, smoothies and protein-rich dishes built around the idea that food can help with healing.

Jul 20 • 11:41 PM EDT • Health • foxnews.com

UFC Freedom 250 Fails to Knock Out The Ratings

(Welcome to my weekly streaming ratings report, the single best guide to what’s popular in streaming TV and what isn’t. I’m the Entertainment Strategy Guy, a former streaming executive who now analyzes business strategy in the entertainment industry. If you were forwarded this email, please subscribe to get these insights each week.) If UFC fans wanted one image to say, “Hey, Paramount+ is crushing it with their UFC rights deal,” I could provide that image. Here it is: (Reminder: this is my creation of the Nielsen Top 30, since Nielsen doesn’t combine the lists or include sports. I take all three lists and combine them. Some streaming TV shows probably have higher ratings than many of the films on this list.) Look at that! UFC Freedom 250 is number one! It topped the Nielsen “Top 30” list for shows and films that made the top ten the week of 15-June. So if you’re a UFC fan or supporter of Paramount+, that’s the good news for you this week. This program topped the ratings charts for one week. Everything else is bad news, or at least a huge caveat to that story, which I’ll explain today in the first part of this week’s Streaming Ratings Report—for the weeks of 8-June and 15-June—which is a double issue since I’ve been writing on a bunch of topics recently. UFC Freedom 250 is one of the biggest streaming events of the year, and super relevant to Paramount+’s strategy, so it merited its own article. Let’s dive in! (Reminder: The streaming ratings report focuses on the U.S. market and compiles data from Nielsen’s weekly top ten viewership ranks, Luminate’s Top Ten Data, JustWatch and Reelgood interest data, Samba TV household viewership, company datecdotes, Netflix hours viewed data, Google Trends, and IMDb to determine the most popular content. While most data points are current, Nielsen’s data covers the weeks of June 8th to June 21st 2026. You can find a link to my terminology here.) Subscribe Check Out My Interview on UFC 250 at MMA Draw After you read this article, if you want even more thoughts on UFC and Paramount-Skydance/Paramount+, I did a written interview with MMA Draw. They asked me to answer some questions about UFC Freedom 250, and I was happy to chat with them. Find it here: [ The MMA Draw Newsletter Did Paramount really overpay for the UFC? What the data tells us so far If you know the history of American television, you also know that combat sports is often a leading indicator of the future… Read more a day ago · 10 likes · 1 comment · Nate Wilcox and Zach Arnold ](https://www.themmadraw.com/p/did-paramount-really-overpay-for?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web) I never thought I’d need a combat sports newsletter in my life, but the good folks at MMA Draw publish an excellent one on UFC, MMA, pro wrestling, boxing and more, analyzing both the sports themselves and the politics, economics and antitrust issues that impact them. Check the article and their newsletter out! Paramount+ Has Its Best Sporting Event of All Time…But Was It Worth It? Before we look at the UFC Freedom 250 data in particular, let’s talk about what we can’t say. Namely, let’s start with the lack of comparisons. First off, I’d love to put a chart out comparing this fight to past UFC fights on Paramount+…but we don’t have the data. This is the first time we’ve gotten Nielsen data about a Paramount+ UFC fight. As far as I can tell, Paramount provided data for the first fight, but it was a proprietary datecdote (saying it had “an average minute audience” of 5 million “views”) and then, for two fights, we got the linear viewership numbers when they aired on CBS, but no streaming data. Everything else was crickets. We also can’t compare this fight to other fights/combat sports on streaming, in particular the MMA and boxing, because Netflix also didn’t use Nielsen to track those events, opting for TVision and VideoAmp, respectively. (This isn’t Paramount’s fault, but does still suck.) We also can’t compare to UFC’s fights that used to be on ESPN+, since we don’t have any data for that, plus Disney+ didn’t have marquee fights. The comparisons would not be apples-to-apples. Can we compare to past Pay-Per-View fights? Absolutely not. The comparisons would absolutely NOT be apples-to-apples. That didn’t stop Paramount+, though, who bragged that their UFC events have reached drastically more people than past PPV fights. Duh. Sorry, but I gotta make this point again. A basic tenet of economics is that the cheaper something becomes, the more people consume or buy it. That’s Econ 101. (Sometimes pundits call things “Econ 101” that are actually like Econ 210 or even PhD-level economics, but no, this is really like first or second class basic economics.) Yet I still see one analytics firm consistently say that more people watch films on streaming than PVOD proves streaming which means that the streaming window is more valuable than the PVOD window. No, it’s not! Same thing here. Pay-Per-View events back in the day could be really, really, really expensive! So whole groups of people pitched in to buy them. That increased the perceived value of, say, the Mike Tyson fight. Or a UFC numbered event. So yes, the fact that Paramount+ makes numbered UFC fights essentially “free” if you’re already a Paramount+ member means consumption will go up. Obviously. Same for Netflix and their boxing matches. They’re talking about fights that used to cost consumers, in some cases, $50 in 1996…which is over $100 in today’s dollars. Over 1.6 million people paid that to watch the Tyson-Holyfield fight! Again, streaming is essentially “free”. Or $10 to $20, depending on what streamer we’re talking about and what tier you’re on. No wonder more people are “watching”. (Plus, Nielsen’s out-of-home viewing also helps these numbers.) UFC Freedom 250 Did Well…But I Have A Lot of Worries So what can we compare the fights to? Well, the good news is Nielsen put out that the fight averaged 7.0 million viewers for UFC Freedom 250, which is a solid number for a fight. We also know the length, at roughly 4 and a half hours. (I saw different run times, but this seems to be the consensus considering it started at 8 pm, had a delay and then finished after midnight on the East Coast. If you assume a shorter run time, then yes, the total hours viewed would go down.) That means I have the two numbers needed to add this to my Nielsen database. And then…I can compare this viewership to the NFL: And, uh, not great. But also within striking distance, mainly because the runtime for this event was so long. I’d also add that this event had viewership equal to a regular season NFL game on streaming, but if anything, it was more comparable to an NFL playoff or Super Bowl-esque event. And you can compare viewership to the top football games on broadcast, cable and streaming, and it’s not impressive at all: We can also compare it to other sports that week, including the NBA Finals and start of the World Cup: Again, not great. The NBA generated roughly four times as many average viewers each game for its NBA Finals. The World Cup has similarly big numbers. Also, that’s just a tiny fraction of the 25 most watched sporting events each week. The NBA, NHL and FIFA World Cup had many, many more games racking up hours. We could also compare this to other streaming programs to get an idea of “is this a good investment?” and here is how it ranks compared to other top Paramount+ programs: The worry here? Well, unlike scripted programming, which has rewatchability, older fights/sporting events have very little library value. Very, very few people are rewatching these fights, especially years from now. Paramount has also released datecdotes bragging about their subscriber numbers. Earlier this year, they claimed that the first UFC fight on Paramount+ brought in 1 million subscribers. Then, in their quarterly earnings report, they only ended up with 700K subs. Not great! They claimed they dropped lower-value international subscribers, but that’s why I tend to discount subscriber additions when they’re leaked to the press.1 I expect we may see a bump again for UFC Freedom 250, but I’d caution using subscriber growth so soon after these events to judge the success, since new subs with high churn (see Peacock) aren’t great either. Also, analysts often want to attribute all subscriber growth to their favorite/pet show, and that just doesn’t make sense. The biggest caveat for UFC Freedom 250 and Paramount’s very first UFC marquee event is that these could be high watermarks for the sport. UFC Freedom 250 had an incredible amount of earned media coverage compared to most UFC fights. I mean, it had wall-to-wall national news coverage in the lead up to the event. (The first fight also had a lot of promotion from Paramount since it was first.) Other fights could reach this bar—say the Conor McGregor return to the Octagon—but they’ll be fewer and far between. Was This Deal Worth It? All to ask: is this Paramount deal worth it? In this case, I think the UFC Freedom 250 numbers are more distracting than helpful. This fight did well and compares well to other top sporting events. But we know that the first marquee event was at least a third smaller, if Paramount’s own data is to be believed. And it’s likely the other fights are much, much, much smaller. And then you get to the paycheck that Paramount-Skydance paid. FIFA’s World Cup cost about the same for Fox, but clearly generated multiples more total viewership. (Though it’s only every four years.) The NBA is much more expensive, but until the playoffs, they likely didn’t pay for itself. Even still, Disney, NBCUniversal and Amazon Prime Video likely overpaid. So, in that context, the NBA may be an overpay that makes the UFC look not so bad. But two overpays don’t make an underpay, to paraphrase the old cliché about wrongs and rights. And looking at UFC Freedom 250 as the likely ceiling of MMA on Paramount+, Paramount-Skydance likely paid too much. Share 1 I would love regular reports on subscriber additions by programs, but as is, it’s mostly leaked or rumored in haphazard ways.

Jul 20 • 6:48 PM EDT • Entertainment • entertainment.substack.com

‘Iowa is acting different’: Political expert discusses Democrats’ chances in Iowa

Political expert Charlie Cook, the founder of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report, said Monday he thinks Democratic State Auditor Rob Sand will win Iowa’s gubernatorial election, but the U.S. Senate race between State Rep. Josh Turek and U.S. Rep. Ashley Hinson may not be as competitive as Democrats might think.

Jul 20 • 3:41 PM EDT • Politics • kcrg.com

‘Iowa is acting different’: Political expert discusses Democrats’ chances in Iowa

Political expert Charlie Cook said Iowa's U.S. Senate race may not be as competitive as Democrats might think.

Jul 20 • 3:23 PM EDT • Politics • iowacapitaldispatch.com

Rethinking the campus mental health “crisis”

A developmental psychologist who studies college student mental health explains why it's time to retire the "kids these days" narrative.

Jul 20 • 1:20 PM EDT • Health • journalistsresource.org

What does 'The Odyssey' translator Emily Wilson think of Christopher Nolan's film?

If someone knows the text, it's Emily Wilson.

Jul 20 • 12:08 PM EDT • Entertainment • mashable.com

Check Out the Top Five Cards from Mega Evolution—Pitch Black

Find out why this Pokémon TCG expert thinks Mega Excadrill ex, Hide ’n’ Sneak, and even Slowbro will make an impact on the Standard format.

Jul 20 • 11:11 AM EDT • Technology • pokemon.com

Shaky political "science": breakdown of the peer review process

[This article is the latest in our “Shaky Political Science” series. In our 38 page report, “Shaky political ‘science’ misses mark on ranked choice voting,” released in December 2025, we examined over 40 studies focused on ranked choice voting (RCV). Many of these studies suffered from puzzling research methodologies, poorly constructed surveys, unrealistic simulated elections, cherry picked data and faulty analyses that often were contradicted by results from real-world elections (a link to our full paper is here). Here are links to the first four articles in our series: the first one summarizing the overall results of our report; the second one analyzed a study co-authored by University of Minnesota academic Larry Jacobs, which was one of the most error-prone of all the research we reviewed in our report; a third article showing an admirable example of two political scientists holding two other political scientists accountable for their flawed, sloppy research; and a fourth article that analyzed seven studies sponsored by New America’s political reform program that deployed flawed methodology based on “simulated” elections instead of real-world elections, which when combined with some basic misunderstandings of RCV, produced odd and misleading results]. In this fifth article in our “Shaky Political Science” series, we examine two flawed studies on the impact of RCV on voter turnout authored by San Francisco State University professor Jason McDaniel. McDaniel’s research in these two papers stands out for its puzzling methodology, inadequate and cherry-picked data, and faulty analyses that not only misunderstands ranked choice voting but reflects a basic misunderstanding of politics in general. The first of the McDaniel studies actually passed through a peer review process and then was subsequently published by the Journal of Urban Affairs, despite its obvious errors. It is perplexing that a jury of peer political scientists did not catch the errors and send it back to McDaniel for a rewrite or outright rejection. This calls into question the credibility of the peer review process itself. The peer review process is supposed to represent the intellectual pinnacle of the profession – a way for academics to certify the quality of each other’s work, and to act as a check against sloppy research. In the case of the McDaniel study, the peer review process failed. Yet his flawed study has been cited dozens of times by other political scientists in their own flawed works — an unvirtuous circle of academic research. Here is the first Jason McDaniel study that we analyzed: “Writing the Rules to Rank the Candidates: Examining the Impact of Instant-Runoff Voting on Racial Group Turnout in San Francisco Mayoral Elections,” by Jason McDaniel, 2016, Journal of Urban Affairs. This study covered San Francisco’s use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in mayoral elections, purporting to show that RCV reduces voter turnout overall, increases voter errors, and has a negative impact on “marginal populations,” i.e. racial minorities, mainly as the result of the alleged complexity of RCV asking voters to rank candidates and having to be familiar with multiple candidates and related dynamics. McDaniel reached these conclusions by examining five San Francisco mayoral elections taking place in odd years (i.e. where there are no federal or state races on the ballot) from 1995 to 2011, comparing three earlier non-RCV races (in 1995, 1999 and 2003) with the later two RCV races (in 2007 and 2011). Only two RCV races were studied, and as McDaniel acknowledged, only the contest in 2011 was “competitive” (that contest in 2007 was the first mayoral election using RCV, and incumbent mayor Gavin Newsom won easily in the first round of counting, earning 74% of first choices and far ahead of the second place candidate who had just 6.3% of first choices). Yet even the allegedly competitive contest in 2011was won by an incumbent with a landslide margin of nearly 20 points. No other elections were studied by McDaniel, even though San Francisco elects 17 other offices besides mayor with RCV, including the 11 seats on the Board of Supervisors (the name for the city council) in even years, and six other citywide offices in odd years. Previous academic research has found that competitive elections can stimulate greater voter involvement and higher turnout. For unexplained reasons, this study ignored at least 34 other RCV races between the years 2004 to 2011, many of which were very competitive and had high voter turnout. Instead, McDaniel’s analysis based its conclusions on data from only a single, marginally-competitive mayor’s race using RCV. These 2007 and 2011 mayoral elections were the only two RCV elections that McDaniel used as the sole basis for his small data set to determine the impact of RCV on voter turnout. Despite having no meaningful data to inform his study, McDaniel nonetheless concluded that RCV lowered turnout when compared to the previous three mayoral non-RCV elections using two-round runoffs. Then, using the same inadequate database of San Francisco elections, McDaniel also found that “Instant-runoff voting is associated with a significant decline in Black voter turnout and White voter turnout…On average, Black voter turnout decreases by 18 points and White voter turnout decreases by 16 points …” But how could he credibly arrive at that conclusion when his study was based on voter turnout in two RCV contests that were not even remotely competitive? Beyond that, McDaniel tacitly admits that the key determining factor driving Black voter turnout was not RCV vs non-RCV elections, but the presence of a viable Black candidate. McDaniel wrote, “Black voter turnout was about 17 percentage points higher for the two elections that featured an African American candidate compared to the three elections that did not” — but one of those three elections did not use RCV. The same dynamic was present for White voter turnout, in which higher turnout was not correlated with RCV vs non-RCV elections, but the presence of a viable White candidate. Beyond that, McDaniel’s voter turnout results, whether correlated with the race of the candidates or RCV vs non-RCV elections, showed no clear patterns. In his Figure 1, he shows low Asian voter turnout in the non-RCV elections in 1999 and 2003 when there was no viable Asian candidate running, but in the 2007 mayoral election using RCV, there is still no viable Asian candidate, yet Asian turnout increases dramatically. For Latinos, voter turnout is virtually the same in 1999 (no viable Latino candidate, non-RCV elections), 2003 (leading Latino candidate, non-RCV elections), 2007 (no viable Latino candidate, RCV elections) and 2011 (leading Latino candidate, RCV elections). Meanwhile White voter turnout increased dramatically from a low in the 2007 mayoral election, in which the leading candidate was a white incumbent, to the 2011 election in which there were no leading white candidates that finished any higher than sixth place with 5.6% of the vote. Clearly other factors were determining voter turnout than either the race of the candidates or RCV vs non-RCV elections. Despite these inconsistent findings, McDaniel boldly marches forth to render conclusions about the impact of RCV on different groups of racial voters, even though his conclusions are not remotely supported by his data. This looks like the worst kind of “data cherry picking” to cover up a puzzling conclusion based on a poor data set involving only two RCV elections, neither of which were remotely competitive. McDaniel’s cherry picking didn’t stop there. In calculating voter turnout for the three non-RCV mayoral elections in 1995, 1999 and 2003, he failed to mention that in each of these years there was a two-round runoff election, with a first round election in November in which no candidate garnered a winning majority of the vote, followed by the decisive runoff in December. So there were two non-RCV elections in each election year. But McDaniel only decided to include one of the two elections in his data set, apparently the December runoff in each year (which had higher turnout in two out of the three mayor’s races, and lower turnout in the third). So he ignored the November 1995 election, the November 1999 election when turnout was only 45 percent, and the November 2003 election when turnout was only 45.7 percent. This is flawed methodology based on blatant cherry picking, since McDaniel simply omitted three elections worth of data that did not fit within his frame. His study should never have made it through a peer review process, and it is an embarrassment to political science that not only was it approved for publication, but it has been uncritically cited by dozens of other political scientists. Share A “study” without wider context or credible data Lacking a data set that included even a single competitive RCV mayoral race, McDaniel declared that RCV lowered voter turnout in 2011, when turnout was 42.5 percent. But he also ignored -- or did not realize -- that voter turnout in mayoral elections during 2011 had sharply declined in all big cities, including far more steeply in nearby Los Angeles and other cities. In fact, San Francisco’s election in 2011 had the second highest turnout of any mayoral election in the nation’s 22 largest cities from 2008-2011. Was 2011 just a particularly low turnout year all across the country, perhaps because the country was still reeling from the aftermath of the housing market collapse in 2008-2010? McDaniel ignored this factor and did not search for alternative explanations beyond his flawed thesis. Furthermore, while McDaniel suggested that RCV leads to more “overvotes” – which is an invalidated ballot in which a voter, in either a non-RCV or RCV race, makes a mistake and selects two candidates for a single choice – he failed to address that in the June 2012 US Senate primary contest, which used the typical “one-choice” plurality method and did not use RCV, there was more than five times as many overvotes in San Francisco and Oakland than in the RCV mayoral elections in those cities. Additionally, turnout had been significantly higher and more representative in RCV elections for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors races -- that McDaniel didn’t even bother to study -- as compared to previous “delayed two-round runoffs” for those offices, often higher by as much as 40% in the RCV races. Perhaps the most surprising irony was that an earlier study co-authored by McDaniel (Overvoting and the Equality of Voice under Instant-Runoff Voting in San Francisco by Francis Neely and Jason McDaniel, 2015, California Journal of Politics and Policy) found that overvotes are often more common in lower-income precincts, but that the pattern of overvoting is similar in both RCV and non-RCV contests. Wrote Neely and McDaniel: “[Overvote] errors appear to be a function of complexity in general and not IRV per se…. the pattern of overvoting is similar in both IRV and non-IRV contests…Even among votes cast in a top-of-the-ticket race like U.S. Senate, overvoting occurs in an uneven fashion” (IRV, or ‘instant runoff voting,’ is another name for ranked choice voting in single-winner contests). So McDaniel not only contradicted his own conclusion in his earlier study with Neely, but the earlier study had been an important corrective for one of the most frequently made mistakes made by anti-RCV political scientists – a continual failure to provide crucial context by pairing a comparative analysis of real world RCV elections with an analysis of real world plurality or other electoral methods. Unfortunately McDaniel’s earlier study does not get cited much by other researchers, and McDaniel did not even cite it in his own flawed study analyzed above. Incredibly, McDaniel cherrypicked McDaniel, even as his flawed study has been cited dozens of times. Despite being a textbook example of poor political “science,” featuring both inadequate as well as cherrypicked data, the shelf life of McDaniel’s study has been extended endlessly by other political scientists and media outlets who have cited it uncritically. Equally troubling, the Journal of Urban Affairs put this paper through its peer review process and published it despite its numerous flaws. McDaniel gets it wrong, Part II Not content with producing one shoddy, confused paper, McDaniel produced another one a few years later, here is the link: Electoral Rules and Voter Turnout in Mayoral Elections: An Analysis of Ranked-Choice Voting by Jason McDaniel. San Francisco State Univ. (McDaniel, 2019). In this paper, McDaniel extended his previous flawed research focused on San Francisco, about voter turnout and voter impact, to multiple RCV cities through the 2018 elections. In his data set he included San Francisco, Minneapolis, St Paul, Oakland, Berkeley, San Leandro and Santa Fe. He then compared their turnout in mayoral elections to non-RCV cities, and to mayoral elections in those cities held before first RCV usage, and concluded “a significant decrease in voter turnout of approximately 3–5 percentage points in RCV cities after the implementation of RCV.” But he replicated many of the same mistakes as his first study presented above. While in this study McDaniel attempted to distinguish between various factors, such as odd year vs. even year elections, competitive races vs. noncompetitive, contests with open seats and other factors, the analysis is superficial and inadequate. He attempts to incorporate so many often-conflicting variables that his conclusions are once again unsupported by the actual data, and ultimately unconvincing (this second study never underwent a peer review process). For example, McDaniel declared that for RCV cities “in elections that are more competitive than average (margin of victory less than 20%), there is no significant RCV effect on voter turnout.” Yet McDaniel is a professor in a city, San Francisco, in which the 2018 special election using RCV to fill a mayoral vacancy was exceedingly close, decided by a margin of only one percentage point, and resulted in the second highest turnout in San Francisco history for a mayoral election. Illustrating the complexity involved in assessing the critical factors in turnout, that special election was held on the same election day as federal and state offices, which tends to boost turnout. Yet more voters participated in that RCV mayoral election than voted on the same day in the non-RCV primary for governor in which former San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom was running. Even more puzzling, in this study McDaniel inaccurately cited his own previous study from 2015 with Neely. McDaniel wrote, “Neely and McDaniel (2015) examine individual ballot image files within a natural experiment, and find higher rates of ballot errors in RCV elections compared to non-RCV elections” (emphasis added). However, we quoted from that 2015 study several paragraphs above, and in actual fact Neely and McDaniel actually concluded the opposite -- that the pattern of overvoting – which is the most common form of ballot error – is similar in both RCV and non-RCV contests. McDaniel also ignored the fact that in Bay Area RCV elections held in even years – at the same time as federal and state elections, when turnout is highest -- the “undervote” (that is, the dropoff in ballots cast for governor or mayor) has declined, which contradicts his thesis that the act of ranking ballots in RCV elections is too complex and presents a barrier for certain demographics of voters. To his credit, McDaniel actually acknowledged another contradiction in his own paper, which found a negative RCV turnout effect in some odd-year elections but not others, admitting that “may present a challenge to the theory that increased complexity [from RCV] will have a marginal negative effect on voter turnout.” But he tried to wallpaper over that contradiction by blaming it on an unlikely source -- bad election administration. McDaniels wrote, “This would suggest that the negative impact of RCV on voter participation may be alleviated by high quality election administration,” without presenting any data or even anecdotes to support such an unfounded theory. While competent election administration of any election, whether RCV or non-RCV, is crucially important, there is no credible research that supports the far-fetched notion that the quality of election administration has much of an impact on voter turnout in US elections, whether using RCV or otherwise. Upgrade to a $5 subscription The unvirtuous circle of academic research It is puzzling how McDaniel’s first study could have survived the peer review process for the Journal of Urban Affairs. The mistakes in McDaniel’s first study above should have been obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of ranked choice voting as well as elections in general, and elections in San Francisco specifically. It undermines faith in the credibility of the peer review process to think that a jury of peer political scientists did not catch the egregious errors and reject McDaniel’s sloppy research and paper. And it remains a black mark on political science that this thoroughly discredited study has been cited dozens of times by other researchers. Indeed, in our research paper it became apparent that many political scientists cite each other’s flawed research to pad their list of citations and to legitimize their own flawed research, creating an unvirtuous circle of political science. More broadly, McDaniel’s voter turnout studies, like other studies evaluating RCV’s impact on turnout, lacked a recognition that no credible opinion or research can claim that RCV increases voter turnout merely because so many voters are excited to vote for their favorite candidates instead of “lesser evil” candidates without worrying about spoilers. Instead, with respect to turnout, the advantage of RCV has always been that, in most places where it has been used, it has eliminated a pre-November primary or post-November runoff, which usually saw about half the turnout of the November general election. This is especially true during even years when there are state and federal elections on the ballot which substantially drive turnout more than local contests. Any study that does not adequately account for this non-November primary/runoff vs November general election dynamic, or odd year vs even year election factors, is simply not credible. Both of McDaniel’s studies largely failed on those grounds. Steven Hill and Paul Haughey Share Upgrade to a $5 subscription Thanks for reading DemocracySOS…your digital portal for the pro-democracy movement. Subscribe for only $5 per month to receive full benefits and to support our work. Subscribe

Jul 20 • 9:29 AM EDT • Science • democracysos.substack.com

Science can serve dark as well as light

I’m not sure how many of you are watching “Star City,” Apple TV’s spin-off of its “For All Mankind” program (2019-present), but it’s one of the better sci-fi series I’ve seen in a while, with an impressively dark political message. (Some light spoilers below.) For the uninitiated, “For All Mankind” presented a slightly tweaked history of the U.S. space program in which it was the USSR that landed on the Moon first in 1969, and shortly thereafter put a woman cosmonaut on the lunar surface. This sparks an ongoing space race that, in the original series, yields a lot of benefits for humanity. President Nixon’s insistence on a female astronaut corps to compete with the Soviets boosts the feminist movement of the 1970s and the ERA passes. New fuels generated for the space program create clean and cheap energy around Earth. There are also some darker changes — the USSR is thriving well into the 2000s, there are terrorist counter-technology movements around the globe, laborers on Mars work in nightmarish conditions and organize strikes and riots, etc. the @smotus report is a reader-supported publication. To support this work, please become a paid subscriber. Subscribe That show offers glimpses into the subtle ways this Earth is different. Teddy Kennedy never went to Chappaquidick because he was racing back to Washington to deal with the space program crisis; he gets elected President in 1972. John Lennon survives his early 1980s shooting but Pope John Paul II does not. The Apple Newton succeeded. Pretty much the whole of season 4 is a setup for an Al Gore joke. Again, mostly, the vision that “For All Mankind” presents is a positive one, with technology advancing many human interests. “Star City” goes in a very different direction. This spin-off show is about the same set of events but from the Soviet perspective. As we meet them, the team of scientists and cosmonauts responsible for the lunar landing are still basking in their hero status, but their program is embedded deep in the Soviet security state of the late 1960s. Everyone’s apartment is bugged. Whole teams of clerical staff spend their days transcribing recordings of people’s lives. People in the program, including respected cosmonauts, are regularly arrested. An incredibly menacing Colonel Lyudmilla Raskova (Anna Maxwell Martin) forces confessions and tortures and kills, expressing little more than annoyance in the process. Meanwhile, the space program’s highly respected Chief Designer (Rhys Ifans) has a vision for the program that he knows the government will not approve. He insists that they need to think past the Moon to focus on colonizing the solar system, starting with Venus. (This is a rough parallel to the Americans’ pivot to Mars in the original show.) He essentially builds a secret space program within the space program, calculating that the government will embrace the mission after it has succeeded. (As an aside, I’m not sure why the Venus obsession, as a successful mission can’t produce the biggest public relations payoff: a cosmonaut standing on the surface holding the Soviet flag. Anyone standing on Venus would be immediately crushed by the 92-bar atmosphere and then cremated in the 900°F temperatures. But in a country with no free press perhaps the visual payoff was less valued.) But the overall vision is that the technological advances have only amplified the most fearsome aspects of the Soviet system. The state is paranoid (but not incorrect) about American spies and does monstrous things to protect its secrets. People are terrified to trust each other. Classic banality-of-evil figures order people to harm those they care about; those people comply rather than get shot. Others are forced into criminal behavior to protect loved ones. We’re reminded all the time these days of what happens when a government despises science. It manifests in the defunding of schools, the elevation of fossil fuels as the rest of the world pivots to solar, outbreaks of measles and diarrhea, etc. But “Star City” offers a vision of a bad government that likes science. It’s not encouraging. It’s not yet clear if there will be a season two of this show. But I strongly recommend season one. It’s both thoughtful and gripping. Share

Jul 20 • 8:04 AM EDT • Science • smotus.substack.com

Kansas Health Science University Granted Accreditation by the WASC Senior College and University Commission, Meeting Rigorous Quality Assurance Standards

Wichita, Kan., July 20, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Kansas Health Science University (KHSU) has been granted accreditation by the WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC), a significant milestone in the school’s mission to produce forward-thinking, empathetic healthcare leaders. WSCUC is an institutional accreditor recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. The agency’s outcomes-focused accreditation supports institutions in building and sustaining innovative educational programs

Jul 20 • 7:32 AM EDT • Science • finance.yahoo.com

Conversation With: Dr. Nagaraj Kikkeri, Hinkapin Health

The founder and CEO shares why she thinks healthcare pricing remains broken, what employers are demanding these day, and why compassion over cost should shape the industry's future.

Jul 20 • 6:00 AM EDT • Health • dmagazine.com

Opinion | America Has 2 Political Parties but 8 Political Tribes

Think of our two major political parties as two coalitions.

Jul 20 • 5:01 AM EDT • Politics • nytimes.com

NBA Reddit thinks Cooper Flagg grew 2 inches

This would be big news for the star out of Duke.

Jul 19 • 9:37 PM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

The Science Behind Why You Prefer Sweet, Salty, Or Spicy Foods

Why do some people crave spicy food while others love sweets? It turns out there's an explanation, and it has more to do with science than you might think.

Jul 19 • 8:25 PM EDT • Science • yahoo.com

Samyang Roundsquare Launches Spindle, a Science-Led Metabolic Health Brand Focused on the Gut–Muscle Connection

Samyang Roundsquare announces the launch of Spindle, a science-led metabolic health brand with its debut product, Spindle Muscle+, to redefine how adults think about strength and aging. Spindle Muscle+ is powered by Akkermansia MYO™, a clinically studied strain shown to support muscle strength, through the gut.

Jul 19 • 8:00 PM EDT • Science • newswise.com

AI advice made people three times less accurate but twice as confident, researchers found

A study found that access to AI advice collapsed people's willingness to say "I don't know" from 44% to 3%, while accuracy dropped from 27% to 9%.

Jul 19 • 11:35 AM EDT • Technology • thenextweb.com

Florida Hemp Businesses Hope Trump Can Save Them From Planned Federal Ban On THC Products

“The category’s too big to fail. The consumer demand is there. The infrastructure is in place. I don’t think that it’s going anywhere. It’s a matter of when and how we get regulated.” By Mitch Perry, Florida Phoenix On Saturday, St. Petersburg retailer Herban Flow hosted its third High and Dry Festival, which featured dozens […]

Jul 19 • 9:23 AM EDT • Business • marijuanamoment.net

I replaced my notebook with an AI pen for a month

No, you may not borrow my AI pen — here's why I think you should get your own

Jul 19 • 7:00 AM EDT • Technology • tomsguide.com

Restoring Britain’s health to 2014 levels could add 2% to GDP, thinktank says

Health Foundation paper argues health is an economic asset and improving it could generate £72bn for public finances

Jul 19 • 5:00 AM EDT • Health • theguardian.com

The Nintendo Switch 2 Pro Controller is worth buying - here's why you should get it

One year after release, is the Nintendo Switch 2 Pro Controller worth it? We think so, and here's every reason why.

Jul 19 • 12:50 AM EDT • Technology • nintendoeverything.com

Eagles Can Only Trade Jalen Carter Under One Condition

If the Philadelphia Eagles planned to trade Jalen Carter, though I don't want to say that it absolutely would be the worst move ever, I think it's important to recognize that first-round picks and draft assets aren't always as promising as they seem.

Jul 18 • 11:28 PM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

Valve Says RAM Prices Are 'Lagging' And Will Only Get 'Worse'

Valve's top Steam Machine engineers think we have 'three to six months' before memory prices somehow become even more extortionate

Jul 18 • 12:00 PM EDT • Technology • kotaku.com

The great Netflix turn-off

Music fans will be familiar with the curse of the difficult second album, when an act they like follows up a wonderful debut record with a disappointing one (think Second Coming by the Stones Roses or...

Jul 18 • 10:04 AM EDT • Entertainment • yahoo.com

How are Giants fans feeling about the season thus far?

With the All-Star break behind us, how are Giants fans feeling about the season so far? What do they think is next?

Jul 18 • 8:00 AM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

So you think you caught cyclospora, the diarrhea-causing parasite. Here’s what to do next

The symptoms of cyclospora resemble other, more common stomach bugs, and many people will try to wait it out at home rather than seeking care.

Jul 18 • 6:30 AM EDT • Health • cnn.com

30-30-30 rule popularizes healthy morning routine

The 30‑30‑30 rule is a catchy idea meant to promote weight loss and overall wellness. A Maryland doctor thinks it could benefit a lot of people.

Jul 17 • 3:22 PM EDT • Health • wtop.com

BBC mini-documentary shines a light on community health workers in Arizona

When people think of health care professionals, what often comes to mind are doctors and nurses. In reality, there are more than 250 distinct professions in the field. This summer, a new BBC mini-documentary is bringing attention to one of them: community health workers.

Jul 17 • 12:59 PM EDT • Health • news.asu.edu

As a PC Gamer Who Hasn’t Bought a Disc in a Decade, I Think PlayStation All-Digital Future Was a Long Time Coming – but There Are Still Reasons To Be Wary

PC gaming has been all-digital for years, but while Steam proves it can work, PlayStation owners should still be wary of losing physical discs.

Jul 17 • 12:00 PM EDT • Technology • ign.com

Energy security starts at home

By Carly West With Colorado’s legislative session behind us and a new group of lawmakers preparing to take office next year, now is a good time to step back and consider a broader question: What role should Colorado play in America’s energy future? For most Americans, energy security isn’t something they think about every day. […]

Jul 17 • 3:00 AM EDT • Politics • coloradopolitics.com

I Think ESPN's FPI Is Too Low on Oklahoma State

ESPN's Football Power Index isn't as high on Oklahoma State as I am. The Cowboys are underdogs in several key Big 12 games, but I think the model is underrating a team with 87 newcomers, Drew Mestemaker and Caleb Hawkins. This isn't the same team that went 1-11 a year ago.

Jul 16 • 4:22 PM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

Inside Iowa Politics: How Pete Buttigieg thinks Democrats should show ‘tough’

Former presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg doesn't think Democrats need to emulate President Donald Trump as they campaign before voters.

Jul 16 • 11:45 AM EDT • Politics • kwqc.com

John Cena had eye mites. The pesky bugs are a lot more common than you think

John Cena reveals the "parasite" causing his blurry vision and red eye symptoms. He's taking proactive steps to protect his health as he approaches 50.

Jul 16 • 9:59 AM EDT • Health • usatoday.com

Inside RFK Jr.’s push to dismantle decades of U.S. vaccine policy

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has brought a series of once-unthinkable public-health proposals to the highest levels of the Trump administration.

Jul 16 • 7:00 AM EDT • Health • cnn.com

DC Sports Reality Check: The fan you think you are vs. the fan you actually are

In Part 4 of a five-day series on how D.C.-area sports fans follow their teams, Rob Woodfork finds the common thread between multiple types of fans.

Jul 16 • 4:02 AM EDT • Sports • wtop.com

Duke Basketball Star Recruit Throws Insane Shot at UNC

I don't know how people feel about Duke and North Carolina when it comes to which program is better. I think both are pretty comparable in the college basketball landscape, at least historically.

Jul 15 • 10:02 PM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

Chico City Council approves entertainment zones for downtown and Meriam Park

CHICO, Calif. - Chico City Council voted 6 to 0 to approve an ordinance creating entertainment zones in downtown Chico and Meriam Park.The ordinance, taking effect September 18, 2026, will allow customers to carry approved alcoholic beverages and walk around outside within those designated areas."I feel like the downtown could use all the help it could get right now," said Celeste Cramer, general manager of Downtown Chico Business Association. "In the other areas where they have been doing the entertainment zones and throughout California, it has increased their sales. They haven't seen an increase in violence, or tickets, or anything like that. It's a good thing to try out."Numerous other cities around California such as Redding, Sacramento and San Francisco have put their own entertainment zones into effect and have had success.Action News Now stopped by both designated locations and spoke with organizers and bar owners."I'm super excited, I think this is an opportunity for us," said Scott Baldwin, owner of Argus. "We can get a booth at the farmers market. You can order a cocktail from that booth and then we'll have it ready for you at the door as you walk through. Think of it as a picnic situation. You can grab some tacos, you can get a Kentucky Buck. You can sit down anywhere in the entertainment zone and enjoy Argus outside of Argus."Chico's Chamber of Commerce hosted community stakeholder meetings and community engagement sessions to tailor the ordinance to the city's needs as a university town and rural area.The ordinance will allow people 21 and older to walk around with open containers of alcohol within the entertainment zones as long as they have a wristband, stamp or another visible marker showing they're allowed to do so."To us it's more than an ordinance," said Jen Rothenwander, marketing manager at Meriam Park. "It's an opportunity to invest back into the community, and to continue to do what Chico does well – which is to create the spaces for people to stick around and gather, and shop and spend."The Meriam Park entertainment zone will be enclosed by Springfield Drive, Alcott Avenue, Notre Dame Boulevard and E. 20th Street.The Downtown Chico entertainment zone will span mostly from Highway 32 to Lost Park.Chico Chief of Police Billy Aldridge spoke with Redding Police and was informed they had zero problems with their entertainment zone.Chief Aldridge endorses the ordinance in Chico. freestar.config.enabled_slots.push({ placementName: "actionnewsnow-com_blox_yup-rectangle-one", slotId: "actionnewsnow-com_blox_yup-rectangle-one", targeting: { "pos": "yup-rectangle-one" } });

Jul 15 • 7:37 PM EDT • Entertainment • actionnewsnow.com

Bald Eagle school summer camp teaches students about science, critical thinking skills

Jul 15 • 5:44 PM EDT • Science • wjactv.com

Who pays the cost when Americans opt out of science?

Astronomer Adam Frank used to think the consequences would play out on the individual level. Today, he's changed his mind.

Jul 15 • 4:14 PM EDT • Science • bigthink.com

Are you getting health insurance?

Looking for health insurance? Sometimes shady companies will try to make you think you’re buying health insurance when it’s really a medical discount plan. Watch this video to find out what to know to avoid the scams.

Jul 15 • 11:27 AM EDT • Health • consumer.ftc.gov

Here’s What Northcoast Thinks About Six Flags Entertainment (FUN)

Six Flags Entertainment Corporation (NYSE:FUN) is one of the best small cap stocks to buy with the highest upside potential. Six Flags Entertainment Corporation (NYSE:FUN) received a rating update from Northcoast on July 8, with the firm initiating coverage of the stock with a Neutral rating. For reference, in its financial results for fiscal Q1 […]

Jul 15 • 4:33 AM EDT • Entertainment • finance.yahoo.com

A large amount of the Universe is missing. Scientists think they may have found it | BBC Sky at Night Magazine

A lot of normal matter in the Universe is missing. Astronomers think they might have found it, and it's been hiding in plain sight all along.

Jul 15 • 2:07 AM EDT • Science • skyatnightmagazine.com

Nearly 75% of Americans think there’s too much money in politics

Jul 14 • 11:15 PM EDT • Politics • aljazeera.com

South Omaha businesses say little to no communication creates barriers during Plaza de la Raza construction

"I think there should have been like more communication or try to rearrange something beforehand," a South Omaha business owner said.

Jul 14 • 7:50 PM EDT • Business • ketv.com

Why This Thursday Is One of My Favorite Political Anniversaries of the Year

When I think of it, I always return to a certain Senate hearing exchange.

Jul 14 • 1:31 PM EDT • Politics • esquire.com

Cowboys 2026 roster rundown: WR KaVontae Turpin

How much do you think the Cowboys will use KaVontae Turpin on offense?

Jul 14 • 1:30 PM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

The Cowboys players who will likely exceed expectations in 2026

Who on the Cowboys do you think will exceed expectations this season?

Jul 14 • 10:30 AM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

Politics & Power: Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical calls on Catholics to put human dignity first in age of AI

Pope Leo XIV's first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, challenges Catholics — and the world — to think carefully about how artificial intelligence is reshaping human life. Catholic leaders across the Archdiocese of Baltimore and beyond say the message is clear: technology must always serve people, not the other way around.

Jul 14 • 9:05 AM EDT • Politics • news4jax.com

What it Costs to Scale a Business

Most entrepreneurs think scaling is about accelerating growth, but the real challenge is managing complexity before weak systems, reactive decisions, and operational inefficiencies slow the business down.

Jul 14 • 8:00 AM EDT • Business • inc.com

⚾ Crack of the bat

And what VJ thinks about LeBron in Philly

Jul 14 • 5:01 AM EDT • Sports • inquirer.com

Scripting the Cowboys ultimate return to Super Bowl glory

How legitimately possible do you think it is that the Cowboys could make a Super Bowl run?

Jul 13 • 6:00 PM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

The Quintessential Trump-era Politician

In 2020, I wrote an article about collaboration and collaborators. The title was History Will Judge the Complicit, and it started with the story of two famous East Germans, Markus Wolf and Wolfgang Leonhard, who both landed in East Berlin just after the end of the war. Although they came from very similar backgrounds, the former stuck with the regime, eventually becoming its spy boss; the latter, horrified by the brutal reality of Soviet-style communism, escaped. By way of juxtaposition, I also wrote about Lyndsey Graham and Mitt Romney. These two men also made very different decisions when confronted by Donald Trump’s assault on the ideals that they had both grown up believing: A glance at their biographies would not have led many to predict what happened next. On paper, Graham would have seemed, in 2016, like the man with deeper ties to the military, to the rule of law, and to an old-fashioned idea of American patriotism and American responsibility in the world. Romney, by contrast, with his shifts between the center and the right, with his multiple careers in business and politics, would have seemed less deeply attached to those same old-fashioned patriotic ideals. Most of us register soldiers as loyal patriots, and management consultants as self-interested. We assume people from small towns in South Carolina are more likely to resist political pressure than people who have lived in many places. Intuitively, we think that loyalty to a particular place implies loyalty to a set of values. But in this case the clichés were wrong. It was Graham who made excuses for Trump’s abuse of power. It was Graham—a JAG Corps lawyer—who downplayed the evidence that the president had attempted to manipulate foreign courts and blackmail a foreign leader into launching a phony investigation into a political rival. It was Graham who abandoned his own stated support for bipartisanship and instead pushed for a hyperpartisan Senate Judiciary Committee investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden’s son. It was Graham who played golf with Trump, who made excuses for him on television, who supported the president even as he slowly destroyed the American alliances—with Europeans, with the Kurds—that Graham had defended all his life. By contrast, it was Romney who, in February, became the only Republican senator to break ranks with his colleagues, voting to impeach the president. “Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office,” he said, is “perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.” In the wake of Graham’s unexpected death on Saturday, I wrote about him again. He was, in many ways, the quintessential politician of Trump’s Washington, a man who shifted 180 degrees. Graham had been a fervent American patriot, proud reserve officer and military lawyer; he became one of the most important defenders of a president who believes soldiers are “suckers and losers” and shows no respect for law of any kind. As his politics changed, his language grew coarser and his behavior grew worse: He urged Israel to “level the place” in Gaza, and insulted the Danish prime minister in Munich, prompting a colleague, Senator Elissa Slotkin, to issue an apology. Here’s an excerpt from the article, which you can read in The Atlantic (gift link here) Like his close friend John McCain, Graham believed that America should stand at the center of a broad democratic alliance. The few times I met him were in that context, at the Munich Security Conference or at other European-American gatherings, which he once attended with great regularity. He also took seriously the practice of American democracy at home. In a 2014 conversation with The Atlantic, he described himself as a pragmatic politician who eschewed populist slogans. “I know Washington is broken, but what’s broken about it is everybody yelling and nobody trying to fix it,” he said. “I’m trying.” When Donald Trump first appeared in U.S. politics, Graham recognized him immediately for what he was: the spokesman for an alien ideology, one radically different from the idealistic patriotism that Graham had practiced and preached since childhood. Trump privately mocked the military that Graham loved as nothing but “suckers and losers.” He put falsehoods, cynicism, and personal greed at the center of his politics, while expressing disdain for transparency, accountability, and democracy itself. In 2015, Graham described Trump as a “race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot” who should “go to hell.” Also as a “nutjob.” When Trump won, Graham understood, as did so many others, that he would have to make some important choices. For a while, he went silent. In the spring of 2016, I saw him at one of those conferences in Europe. He seemed too depressed to speak. But then, like many other Republicans—and, more important, like many other people who have lived under political occupation or experienced radical regime change—he made the decision to abandon his previous ideals, to bury the patriotism that was once so important to him, and to become, instead, a loud, opportunistic collaborator. As I wrote in 2020, it’s very hard to look in to anyone’s heart and to understand their motivations from the outside. But it does seem that Graham had a deep need to be relevant, to be in the game, to be a player, at any cost. And that, rather than any particular achievement, is what he will be remembered for. Continuing to monitor conflicts of interest, ostentatious emoluments, outright corruption and policy changes that will facilitate outright corruption. (Read my original article, Kleptocracy Inc and check out the SNF Agora Institute chart) June 27 Trump diverted funds from more than 900 projects nationwide—including safety upgrades at national parks—to finance beautification projects around Washington, including $700,000 used to fix a White House walkway. June 28 After a years-long Department of Justice investigation into Abbott Laboratories over its management of a baby formula facility where potentially deadly bacteria turned up enough evidence to criminally charge the firm, top department officials instead opted for a financial penalty—illustrating the department’s move away from strict corporate enforcement under the Trump administration. June 29 Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth stacked the Defense Policy Board—which is charged with providing independent national security recommendations to the Office of the Secretary of Defense—with Trump allies, including tech billionaire Marc Andreessen, who has invested in defense contractors like OpenAI and SpaceX, after purging the panel last year. Trump purchased between $1 million and $5 million worth of stock in Axon—which makes about 90% of US tasers—two weeks before ICE solicited bids for a $220 million taser contract. The White House unveiled limited-edition US passports for America’s 250th birthday, featuring a portrait of Trump overlaid on the Declaration of Independence. June 30 Trump made around $1.2 billion from his various crypto companies last year, including more than $500 million from World Liberty Financial and $600 million from sales of his meme coin. Trump is considering issuing 250 pardons to commemorate America’s 250th birthday. These are expected to be largely doled out through the Office of the Pardon Attorney’s informal network of intermediaries. White-collar defense attorneys say they can typically win pardons for clients for $2 million. Last year, Trump administration officials awarded a no-bid contract worth up to $500 million to Clark Construction for the White House ballroom—negotiations in which the president was directly involved. July 1 The Amazon MGM Studios documentary about Melania Trump earned the First Lady more than $10 million. Trump made hundreds of individual stock purchases worth as much as $12.8 million the day before his announcement pausing “Liberation Day” tariffs for 90 days sent the S&P 500 soaring nearly 10%—one of the largest single-day gains ever. Mar-a-Lago and Trump National Doral saw record surges in revenue during Trump’s first year in office, earning $77.5 million and $121.9 million respectively, compared to average annual revenues of $25 million and $75 million during Trump’s first term. Entities across the Persian Gulf paid more than $300 million to Trump’s businesses last year, including $263 million from the sale of half his stake in World Liberty Financial to a firm backed by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a top UAE royal and brother of the country’s president. Kash Patel failed to properly disclose his stock purchase of a Department of Justice contractor, MicroStrategy, worth up to $250,000 last year, despite laws requiring disclosure within 45 days of the trade. July 2 Trump has been directing administration officials to steer more government contracts—so far worth more than $2.4 billion—to Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin aerospace firm, after Amazon gave $1 million to Trump’s inaugural fund, donated to the White House ballroom project, and reached a $40 million deal to license a Melania Trump documentary. Alongside the billions he made from cryptocurrency last year, Trump earned millions of dollars from real estate licensing fees, including $21 million from organizations in the UAE and $9.2 million in Saudi Arabia, along with smaller sums from merchandise sales, including $4.7 million from Trump Watches and $35,920 from 45 Guitar, a guitar brand endorsed by the president. House Democrats accused consultants tied to the Trump administration of financial fraud, alleging they gave prospective donors to America250—the bipartisan committee created by Congress to celebrate the nation’s semiquincentennial—the banking and routing numbers for Freedom 250, the White House’s fund for events like the UFC cage fight. Democrats also allege that Freedom 250’s CEO traveled to the World Economic Forum in Davos to solicit donations from foreign government officials and business leaders. The Trump administration’s proposed rollback of gun regulations would lift the prohibition on mailing handguns to individuals, a significant win for GrabAGun—the direct-to-consumer firearm retailer on whose board Donald Trump Jr. sits and in which he holds a 1.1% ownership stake. GrabAGun currently must rely on a middleman to transfer firearms to customers. Trump’s financial disclosure revealed that he made more than 21,000 securities trades during his first year back in office, growing his investment account to at least $858 million across stakes in around 1,600 companies, compared to the 13 total trades Joe Biden made during his entire presidency. July 4 Nearly 1 million people who bought the president’s meme coin—Trump Coin—collectively lost $3.8 billion on the token, while he walked away with $636 million. July 6 Shares of Dell closed up 4.4% after Trump recommended people buy the firm’s computers during a speech announcing the launch of Trump investment accounts for children, boosting the more than $1 million worth of shares the president owns in the company. July 9 Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh named crypto investor and Trump ally Marc Andreessen to a task force aimed at modernizing the Federal Reserve, including rethinking its approach to inflation—a key factor keeping interest rates elevated. Palm Beach International Airport has officially changed its name to Trump International Airport—a move that will require Florida to pay royalties to the president’s family for licensing his name. I was there a few months ago, during a trip to Barcelona. The sculptures were a revelation, I’d never seen so many together before. Each one has its own personality. Enjoy the good weather, if you are lucky enough to have it. History Will Judge the Complicit The Quintessential Politician Autocracy Inc Open Letters, from Anne Applebaum is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe

Jul 13 • 4:19 PM EDT • Politics • anneapplebaum.substack.com

‘A Blessing and a Challenge’: What Teachers Think of the Science of Reading (Opinion)

In these classrooms, the recent push for foundational literacy skills has been transformational.

Jul 13 • 3:49 PM EDT • Science • edweek.org

Broncos Coach Thinks Officiating Transparency Is Coming Soon

Denver Broncos coach Sean Payton has been known to get salty about officiating, but he thinks transparency is coming.

Jul 13 • 2:02 PM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

It's time to reclaim the Luddite

Big Tech looted our attention. Getting it back means rethinking the world offline.

Jul 13 • 9:00 AM EDT • Technology • salon.com

Will the Braves be better in the “second half?”

I hope so, but I don’t think so

Jul 13 • 9:00 AM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

Iraola: “I Think Football Is About Connecting with the Supporters”

Liverpool’s new head coach held his first press conference as pre-season began ahead of the 2026-27 season.

Jul 13 • 8:16 AM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

Scientists discovered the brain doesn't make decisions the way we thought

A new study suggests the brain begins making decisions much earlier than scientists previously thought. Researchers found that even primary sensory regions are influenced by higher brain areas through rapid feedback loops, rather than simply passing information forward. This more dynamic view of brain function could help engineers design future AI systems that think more like biological brains while using far less power.

Jul 13 • 8:00 AM EDT • Science • sciencedaily.com

No political action in the summer? Think again.

Political yard signs and ads are months away, but local parties and candidates are quietly preparing for that time when they will go all-out in an election year.

Jul 13 • 5:09 AM EDT • Politics • courierpress.com

Small business creation is booming. What's contributing to the rise?

Small business creation is booming. Amid economic uncertainty, more workers are becoming their own boss. Here's what they think you should know.

Jul 13 • 5:02 AM EDT • Business • usatoday.com

When regulation is good for business

By now, I think I have established both my view that I am a fan of ESG investing and the benefits of regulating what is and isn’t a sustainable investment, and my view that in Europe, ESG regulation has gone too far and become too costly. It almost feels like the old Aristotelian maxim of doing things in moderation that leads to the best outcomes is valid in regulatory efforts as well. To give you an example, let’s look at a study by the National Bank of Belgium on the impact of the EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) on fund flows of conventional and ESG funds. The SFDR was announced on 27 November 2019 and came into effect on 10 March 2021. It was implemented in several stages and split funds marketed in the EU into three broad categories: (i) Art. 6 funds that are basically conventional funds without any specific ESG integration, (ii) Art. 8 funds that ‘promote environmental or social characteristics’, which must provide additional reporting how they do that, and (iii) Art. 9 funds that are impact funds. The gaps between the announcement and the phased implementation give us an idea of how fund flows were affected by the regulation. It is clearly visible in the figure below that once the new regulation was announced and when it was initially implemented, fund flows in Art. 8 and Art. 9 funds increased significantly. Conventional Art. 6 funds also saw more inflows, but the increase was not statistically significant. I should add that the data below is pure fund flow, cleaned of performance effects and of any reclassified funds that moved from one classification to another. Note also that once the initial rush in ESG funds was over, additional, stricter regulatory requirements didn’t create that many new flows. This implies that with additional regulation, the funds incurred higher costs to comply but didn’t benefit in terms of new inflows and higher assets under management. Fund flows as the SFDR regulation was implemented in the EU Source: Emiris et al. (2026) When examining the drivers of these flows, the authors of the study found that institutional investors were more likely to switch to ESG funds and particularly so in countries where concerns about sustainability are culturally more accepted. In a society where buy-in into environmental and social risks is higher, private investors were shifting more of their assets into ESG funds as the regulation made it clear which funds are really green and which ones are not. And institutional investors in these countries did so as well, given the societal pressures and reputational risks of sticking with conventional funds. Meanwhile, fund managers reacted to the changing regulatory environment as well. Many funds that were mildly green before the regulation was announced became greener and more sustainable as the regulation was introduced to attract new assets and new investors. Cleverly, and unsurprisingly, these ESG funds also charge on average higher fees, which means that not only did fund managers gather fresh assets, but their profitability increased as well.

Jul 13 • 2:00 AM EDT • Business • klementoninvesting.substack.com

Kyle Juszczyk raves about 49ers rookie ahead of training camp

Kyle Juszczyk thinks Kaelon Black has what it takes to stand out in the 49ers offense as a rookie.

Jul 12 • 3:45 PM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

Weighing an octopus starts with a laundry basket

It’s not as hard as you might think.

Jul 12 • 3:15 PM EDT • Science • popsci.com

Graham’s death triggers a scramble to replace him

South Carolina governor will pick successor to serve out Graham’s term as Trump says ‘I have somebody I think would be great’

Jul 12 • 1:08 PM EDT • Politics • theguardian.com

Why the Real Bottleneck in Your Business Is Biological

Great leadership comes from managing stress and decision-making by protecting and optimizing the brain’s ability to think under pressure.

Jul 12 • 12:00 PM EDT • Business • inc.com

They're Building Half A Bridge to Save Science...

Today’s post is about science: what you can do now to protect it from unprecedented threats, and how your action is the first half of a long-term program that Congress must take up next. Let me start with describing the embryonic state of science advocacy. There are many well-meaning organizations: the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Research!America, and subject-specific organizations such as the Society for Neuroscience and the American Physical Society. Their general approach is to emphasize the common good: the remarkable value that science and innovation have provided to all Americans. However, these organizations are offering an incomplete solution. Before I start, a preliminary: If you already know about the threat, go ahead and weigh in with OMB at this link. Ideas about what to say come from Research!America and the American Physical Society. You have until Monday, July 13 at 11:59pm Eastern. Then come back here and read the rest of this post. Finally, get in touch with whoever is likely to be your next member of Congress in 2027. The threat: An end to merit-based science… The onslaught of attacks on science is accelerating. It’s not just cuts to grants, which was the last battle. That battle is not done yet, but there is a new and worse threat. Now comes a proposed public rule from the Office of Management and Budget. The rule would take decision-making power over grants away from experts and put it into the hands of political appointees. Former NIH official Elizabeth Ginexi wrote an excellent summary of what OMB is trying to do, which is codify the executive branch’s ability to award or terminate grants, for arbitrary cause or no stated cause. Since World War II, a necessary step in scientific grant-making has been consideration of scientific merit. This approach has made America into a dominant scientific superpower, the envy of the world. Of course, political considerations do come into the mix. The proposed rule tilts the balance dramatically away from merit. …but why? Many people have difficulty comprehending why Russell Vought and OMB would want to damage science in this way. If you’re a working scientist, you are likely to be particularly uncomprehending. Who would hurt an activity so self-evidently good? The answer is: this is part of the program to replace the rule of law with a personalist regime. OMB Director Russell Vought, a Christian nationalist, would like to implement what legal scholars call a “unitary executive,” and what I would call a dictatorship. Or if you like, a personalist authoritarian regime. I am a working scientist. This rule will debilitate my research. It may chill the speech of scientists for speaking freely in the public sphere. It is a form of personalizing power and decision-making within the executive branch. In short, it sacrifices science in the service of tyranny. To Russell Vought, a decrease in the quality of science might be an acceptable cost. He might even consider it an added benefit to weaken a pillar of soft U.S. power based on knowledge and skepticism. The professional societies are building half a bridge The nonprofits are asking you to make public comment. Public comment is like building the first half of a bridge. Before implementation, OMB is compelled by law to have a period of public comment. Rules have to be consistent with the law and the Constitution. They express the federal government’s stance toward how those laws will be implemented. When a presidential administration works in good faith, these public comments are used to inform their eventual action, and sometimes mitigate it. The comment period reflects our First Amendment right to petition our government. The executive branch is then supposed to take those comments into account - completing the bridge between us, the people, and our government. Project 2025 seeks to take away the second half of the bridge. We have to replace it. The first half of the bridge Organizations like AAAS, Research!America, and SfN are partly right. You should certainly comment. Their core model is earnest: if enough of us make noise, then we will achieve change. This idealistic point of view is offered in good faith. That point of view is also currently bullshit. The fundamental reason is that the federal rulemaking process has two parts: There has to be a period of public comment. OMB makes the final rule…but is free to disregard public comment. Oops. That’s a loophole. However, not all is lost. Congress can complete the bridge Congress has enormous power. That power suggests a roadmap for how to proceed. This lawless administration is still going to issue that rule. Nonetheless, your comments still play an essential role. Here are two steps you can take. Step 1: Send your comment to your Representative and Senator. Whether they are Democrats or Republicans, many of them support science. Whatever you wrote as public comment in the Federal Register, also send it to your member of Congress. You can include information about jobs in your district or state by looking at Joshua Weitz’s ScienceMatters interactive map. Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and give your town, zip code, or state, then deliver your message. Step 2: Politicize the hell out of science. You heard me, politicize it as an issue. We hear a lot from the old scientific establishment about science being nonpartisan. This is obsolete, sentimental thinking. Under normal conditions, it was true. But we can no longer make that assumption. We can keep on pretending, but we’re putting science at risk. There is a way forward. Rules are subordinate to the law…and Congress makes laws. Therefore Congress can step in. In this fall’s election, it is likely that Democrats will retake the House of Representatives. That puts at least one chamber of Congress in the hands of Democrats. They are far more inclined than the current Congress to investigate and legislate. This opens a path to undoing the damage. It also creates a permission structure for pro-science Republicans to find a way back from the brink. We have to encourage them. In the House, every district is up every two years. In your district, contact both of the major party candidates. If your state has a Senate race, contact those candidates too. Specifically mention the proposed OMB rule. Ask for two things: For this year’s appropriations process in August and September, ask that amendments be added to stop the implementation of the new rule. Those amendments should support peer-reviewed science and stop political interference. Looking ahead to next year, ask the Congressman/Congresswoman/Senator to work to hold hearings in 2027 on the importance and benefits of peer-reviewed science for health and prosperity. What hearings and amendments will accomplish Congress can use its investigatory power to summon heads of agencies and the director of the OMB. That will allow fact-finding regarding the consequences of this rule. Congress can override the rule through the appropriations process. They can write into statute a requirement to follow peer review and best scientific practices. In this way, Congress can stop the attacks on science. Postscript: Moving forward Now I have a request for you, to help me. As many of you know, I ran for Congress in order to save democracy and science. Although I did not win, that battle continues by other means. I met and heard from thousands of supporters both here in New Jersey and nationally. I learned that pro-science, pro-democracy activists have the potential to become a much greater force. In the weeks and months ahead, I will be building ways to harness that energy. I will be announcing those plans soon. In the meantime, an important step is to wind down the Congressional campaign, which has a few remaining bills to pay. Please help me retire that last debt.

Jul 12 • 2:14 AM EDT • Science • samwang.substack.com

Football brain health: Players more likely to suffer from depression and anxiety, study says

A new study finds evidence of reduced brain volume in former elite footballers, who also report difficulties with thinking skills and decision-making.

Jul 12 • 1:09 AM EDT • Health • bbc.com

Scientists Think Bee Silk Could Be a Surprising New Supermaterial. Here's Why.

Who knew?

Jul 11 • 8:00 PM EDT • Science • sciencealert.com

Ex-PlayStation Boss Says Sony Ending Discs Is 'Kind Of Sad'

'I think there's probably a whole lot of financial analysis that went behind this decision'

Jul 11 • 11:08 AM EDT • Technology • kotaku.com

The assumption about the Cowboys most likely to be wrong

What Cowboys assumption do you think is most likely to be wrong this season?

Jul 11 • 11:00 AM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

What Smart Glasses Can (and Can't) Do: I Wore the Top Models So You Don't Have To

From AI assistants and built-in cameras to AR displays and wearable private screens, smart glasses come in more flavors than you might think. After testing every major type, here's how they differ—and which features actually matter.

Jul 11 • 10:11 AM EDT • Technology • pcmag.com

Michigan Democrats are angry at their party. Abdul El-Sayed thinks he knows why

Key Democratic establishment figures believe Abdul El-Sayed will blow the party’s chances of holding onto a critical Senate seat this fall. He is out to prove them wrong — and to show that they misunderstand what voters really crave.

Jul 11 • 6:30 AM EDT • Politics • cnn.com

What Delawareans should know about this diarrhea-causing parasite

Cyclosporiasis cases are rising across the U.S. Here's what Delawareans should know about the illness and how to help prevent infection.

Jul 11 • 5:23 AM EDT • Health • delawareonline.com

EAST TEXAS POLITICS: Reps. Hefner & Harris weigh in on East Texas groundwater fight

State Rep. Cole Hefner, R-Mount Pleasant, discusses efforts to create a new regional groundwater conservation district. Holland asks Hefner about the process, how the district would be funded and his response to those who worry about adding another layer of bureaucracy and regulation. Hefner also reacts to Gov. Greg Abbott calling for a ban on data centers in rural neighborhoods and whether he thinks a special session should be called to create new legislation related to data centers.

Jul 10 • 8:30 PM EDT • Politics • kltv.com

Patriots Fans Claim Tom Brady Is Sabotaging Drake Maye

Do Tom Brady and Drake Maye have unresolved beef? New England Patriots fans certainly think so. Brady had an incredible run with the Patriots, throwing for 74,571 yards and 541 touchdowns. He's undoubtedly the best player to ever suit up for the franchise. Maye, on the other hand, was an MVP ...

Jul 10 • 8:30 PM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

Your resting heart rate could reveal more about your health than you think, doctors say

Here is what your resting heart rate reveals about cardiovascular health and when to see your doctor. Pulse checks and wearable devices can help with measuring the rate.

Jul 10 • 3:41 PM EDT • Health • foxnews.com

NC’s first full budget since 2023 reflects transformed health policy landscape

It’s been more than 1,000 days since the legislature passed a state budget, but sweeping federal health care changes may force North Carolina to rethink how it funds Medicaid, food assistance and other health programs.

Jul 10 • 3:35 PM EDT • Health • bpr.org

Scientists Say We May Need to Nuke Asteroids—But Not How You Think

A new study favors buried explosions over Hollywood-style head-on impacts.

Jul 10 • 3:33 PM EDT • Science • zmescience.com

Scientists Used AI to Find Hidden Earthquake Signals Along the San Andreas Fault

Scientists used to think so-called “slow slip events” were “theoretically impossible.” Now these subtle tectonic shifts could be the key to predicting future earthquakes.

Jul 10 • 2:20 PM EDT • Science • gizmodo.com

Can a pro-Israel Jewish Democrat be the party’s 2028 nominee? Hear what progressive House candidate Brad Lander thinks

Jul 10 • 2:02 PM EDT • Politics • cnn.com

Romney weighs in on 2028: Those 80 and older shouldn't be 'running the world'

Former Sen. Mitt Romney, who will turn 80 next year, indicated that he does not think individuals 80 and older should be at the helm of the nation.

Jul 10 • 1:51 PM EDT • Politics • foxnews.com

From Vision to Joint Health: A Full-Body Guide to Staying Well

When you think of wellness, what comes to mind? Is it eating healthy? Exercising regularly? Or going to the doctor when you’re feeling under the weather? Wellness can mean many different things depending on who you ask, but to the healthcare providers at The Baton Rouge Clinic and Affinity Health Group, true wellness comes from […]

Jul 10 • 11:59 AM EDT • Health • batonrougeclinic.com

MAGA's attack on science is even worse than it looks

In my post on America’s 250-year anniversary, I argued that respect for the individual was the “secret sauce” in the U.S.’ long-lasting preeminence among nations. But it was certainly not the only factor. There were plenty of institutional innovations that helped the U.S. stay on top — economically, militarily, and in terms of the attractiveness of its society. One of these was American science. Today we take things like the modern research university, government grants for science, public-to-private research spinoffs, etc. for granted, but a lot of that infrastructure wasn’t there before World War 2. It was either invented or scaled up massively by the U.S. government in the postwar period, led by far-sighted scientist-bureaucrats like Vannevar Bush (pictured above). If you want to read about this history, a good place to start would be Jonathan Gruber and Simon Johnson’s excellent book Jump-Starting America. Those scientific institutions didn’t exist in a vacuum, however. They were backed by the U.S. government’s abiding faith in the power of science — and, even more fundamentally, by deep popular trust in the scientific enterprise. Science gave us radar and the atom bomb in wartime, and in peacetime it gave us plastics, vaccines, cheap food, and a thousand other things that made our lives easier. Science was also the driver behind American industry — chemicals, aerospace, telecommunications, computers, electronics, and so on. We owed science our jobs, our livelihoods, our comfortable living standards, and our greatness and power as a nation. It’s little wonder that both political parties, even as they fought viciously over other issues, were steadfast in their support of science. For a long time, the only people who distrusted science were a hippie fringe on the left who disliked modernity (or thought they did, anyway), who also disliked American industry and American power, and who subscribed to an early version of degrowth environmentalism. America’s scientific enterprise is still strong, especially compared to the systems in Europe, Japan, Korea, and other developed countries. It has lost a lot of ground to China in a relative sense, but a lot of that is because of China’s incredible growth; as China has poured untold amounts of money and talent into its research labs, spending and output have overtaken the U.S. by some measures. There are a few ways in which China’s rise creates problems for American science — for example, top scientists can choose to work in China instead of in the U.S. — and of course there’s the concern that China’s technological strength will help its military to reign supreme. But overall, China’s rise in science should be good for American science, since American scientists can use Chinese discoveries for free and build on them. The much bigger problem is that the scientific enterprise America built during and after World War 2 is now being threatened with absolute decline. The biggest problem, of course, is that much of the country — the Republican half — has basically lost faith in the scientific enterprise. To what degree this loss of faith is justified is an open question, and deserves to be discussed openly. But the larger point — that the system that powered American dominance is under threat — is true either way. Most Americans still trust science, but MAGA Republicans don’t There’s a myth, popular in right-wing circles, that scientists have lost the trust of regular Americans — either due to the increasingly left-wing composition of academic departments, or to misbehavior during Covid, or to DEI-related research taking over science, etc. This also fits with a wider narrative that Americans are losing trust in all of our institutions. But it just isn’t true. Poll after poll shows that on the whole, Americans still trust scientists and want to spend more on science. For example, here’s a Pew poll from late 2025 showing that although about a fifth of Republicans did lose confidence in science in 2020, two thirds still have at least “a fair amount” of confidence: That same poll found that scientists are among America’s most trusted groups — even better trusted than the military! In fact, Americans trust scientists more than people in most other countries do. Other polls show that although Republican trust in science has dropped somewhat, Republican support for spending more on science remains very strong: A Pew poll in 2023 found the exact same thing: So when MAGA types tell you about scientists losing their credibility, or a drop in trust in science, they’re only talking about themselves. Whatever left-wing politicization of science happened during the Biden administration — and there was definitely some of that — it was not enough to make most Republicans lose faith in the scientific enterprise, or favor research cuts in order to purge unwanted ideology from the system. That doesn’t mean I think progressives should continue down the path of politicizing scientific research. They should not, and Biden made real missteps in this area. Objectivity clearly matters for public trust of science in the long term. But as of right now, there’s no crisis of trust in science, except among the smallish minority of people who are running around screaming that there’s a crisis of trust in science. But despite science’s overwhelming popularity and public trust, Trump and his administration are launching an unprecedented and devastating attack on American science — cutting funding, and forcing science projects to undergo ideological review by government commissars. Trump’s comprehensive attack on science

Jul 10 • 11:23 AM EDT • Science • noahpinion.blog

We pay nearly $50,000 for childcare. I think it's worth it.

Karina Monesson says staying in the workforce has strengthened her family's long-term financial future despite high childcare costs.

Jul 10 • 10:21 AM EDT • Business • businessinsider.com

Melissa Gilbert names the most progressive episode of original ‘Little House on the Prairie’

Melissa Gilbert is looking back on the original ‘Little House on the Prairie’ ahead of the new Netflix series, and singing the praises of this progressive 1977 episode: ‘I don’t think we get more woke than that.’

Jul 10 • 8:00 AM EDT • Entertainment • ew.com

Minnesota high school sports moments we’re still thinking about

Looking back at the Minnesota high school sports moments from the past school year that Strib Varsity reporters are still thinking about.

Jul 10 • 5:45 AM EDT • Sports • varsity.startribune.com

Romney on running in 2028: 80-year-olds ‘shouldn’t be running the world’

Former Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) supported growing calls from voters across the country for a younger generation of political leaders in a new interview released Wednesday. “I basically think…

Jul 9 • 6:24 PM EDT • Politics • thehill.com

UAB Launches EA Sports College Football 27 Dynasty Challenge

BIRMINGHAM – Think you have what it takes to lead the Blazers to college football glory? With the release of EA SPORTS College Football 27, UAB Athletics is ...

Jul 9 • 3:15 PM EDT • Sports • uabsports.com

Dragon Age creator reckons the series is dead following Veilguard flop, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have another go at it if given the chance

Dragon Age creator David Gaider has said he thinks it's "unlikely" the fantasy RPG has a future under EA.

Jul 9 • 12:36 PM EDT • Technology • eurogamer.net

Scientists Say We Should Nuke Dangerous Asteroids—Just Not the Way You Think

It's sort of like Armageddon, but with less oil drills.

Jul 9 • 10:55 AM EDT • Science • gizmodo.com

Kern County Science Fair Leads Students to International Stage

The Kern County Science Fair equips students with the curiosity, critical thinking, perseverance, and problem-solving skills to tackle real-world challenges, empowering young innovators like Simar Singh and Eric Nahama to achieve international STEM...

Jul 9 • 8:43 AM EDT • Science • news.kern.org

MLS’ Newest Billionaire Owner Thinks Investors Can Do Better Than Buying A Sports Team

Months after spending hundreds of millions of his own cash to buy Sporting Kansas City, wealth advisor Peter Mallouk says he still prefers stocks as an investment.

Jul 9 • 6:00 AM EDT • Sports • forbes.com