Advertise on podcast: Ken Scott Baron Podcast

The moment we are living through is looking ever more like the 1970s — in the depth of the crises we face, and in its potential to create a genuine rupture with what came before. I remember Ronald Reagan in the United States and Margaret Thatcher in Britain. Iran has reoccupied center stage and fears of stagflation looms again. In the late 1970s, Americans sensed that their country was growing weaker in the world, (Vietnam, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the Iranian hostage crisis. Today there is a war and an economy without a coherent strategy or clear objectives. The University of Michigan’s consumer sentiment hit its lowest point in more than 70 years, and the International Monetary Fund warned on Tuesday that war in the Middle East could slow growth and fuel inflation, risking a global recession. Voter discontent is a normal part of a democracy. But what we saw in the 1970s and what we are seeing now is distinctive: a comprehensive loss of faith in the future, a collapse of respect for our governing institutions and alarm that American influence in the world is doomed to diminish. The Democrats are called upon to make the leap past our problems. Perhaps they need to ask themselves: What would Reagan do? Anyone seeking to change our trajectory can learn a lot from his understanding of the political imperatives and possibilities of his moment.Democrats can’t win by just opposing the president. Specific proposals grow out of what needs fixing. A place to start: commitments to end corruption of the current administration, its favoritism toward a select group of very wealthy people. The success of the opposition to Viktor Orban in Hungary’s election on Sunday suggests the power of these issues when they’re linked to economic discontent. Reagan was shrewd about turning a specific problem that was on voters’ minds into a rationale for policies he wanted to pursue anyway. He made the gas lines Americans hated into a case for deregulating the fossil fuel industry. While this may not work now it should be a winning point. Like now Reagan used stagflation to argue for tax cuts tilted toward the wealthy. Neither policy was necessarily popular then and now , the way inflation was driving people into higher tax brackets and rising property taxes helped make his supply-side approach sound positively populist. Reagan noted that in a time of crisis, the public is inclined to say: Above all, try something. In Democratic campaigns last year, they used public concerns about higher prices to make a case for government action in areas such as health care, child care, housing and electricity prices. Voters don’t usually make foreign policy a priority, but they do sense when the country is in trouble in the world. That’s how they felt in 1980, and it’s how they feel now. American should vote after asking: Is the United States stronger and more respected now than it was three and a half years ago? Is the world today a safer place in which we live?” Then ask: are you spending more on essentials than before? This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

With more than 5.5 billion people online – and nearly as many on social media – digital spaces have become central to how we learn and connect. But alongside its benefits, the internet is also being used to spread hate, abuse and misogyny. The “manosphere:” a loose network of communities that claim to address men’s struggles – dating, fitness or fatherhood, for example – but often promote harmful advice and attitudes. These groups are united by an opposition to feminism and misrepresent men as “victims” of the current social and political climate. Two-thirds of young men regularly engage with masculinity influencers online. Experts are finding that the popularity of extreme language in the manosphere not only normalizes violence against women and girls, but has growing links to radicalization and extremist ideologies. These communities promote the idea that emotional control, material wealth, physical appearance and dominance, especially over women, are markers of male worth. The manosphere targets male audiences on social media, podcasts, gamer communities, dating apps and just about all digital spaces. Many participants engage with it while searching for forums to openly discuss or learn about men’s issues. But while content may appear focused on men’s self-improvement, many of these groups promote unhealthy behaviors, like instructing boys and men to build themselves up by putting others down. It is normal to seek community in digital spaces. Many of us build a sense of identity, nurture interests and find like-minded people online. But, the manosphere’s lifestyle coaches have drawn young men in by claiming to teach personal responsibility. But ironically, instead of encouraging the self-exploration that can get to the heart of men’s challenges, they suggest men are victims of society’s prejudice against men. While groups within the manosphere do not all share the same beliefs, many are united in their misogyny – a prejudice and resentment of women and girls. In many ways, the manosphere is descended from a long line of anti-feminist movements. Involuntary celibates (incels): believe that men are entitled to sex, and women purposefully deprive them of it. This culture promotes rape and assault and brings together other ideologies, including racism and homophobia. There is a real-world impact: gender stereotypes harm everyone In the manosphere, everyone loses. Misogyny and gender inequality are harmful to men, as well as women. Incels are also more prone to depression and suicidal thoughts. If boys and men aren’t encouraged to speak openly about their emotions or issues, they may gravitate towards these online communities as a place to get advice on topics like relationship struggles, fatherhood, anxiety and sexual health. Meanwhile, younger men today are more likely to hold regressive ideas about gender roles than older men, representing a backlash that could reverse hard-won gains in gender equality. Im addition, some of the men and boys who enter manosphere forums feel alienated by mainstream society. Even if relatively few users travel down rabbit holes to more extremist content, research suggests the pathway is there. Standing up to the manosphere requires we challenge the harmful beliefs and social norms that perpetuate gender inequality. In our social circles and communities, this work often begins and grows with conversation. It’s also helpful to talk to kids about gender equality and stereotypes. We need to promote healthy masculinity in the digital age and value empathy and communication, as opposed to stoicism or isolation. We need to build relationships based on trust, not dominance or status We need to normalize emotional expression and show that it’s safe to be vulnerable. Finally let’s model respect and ways to have healthy disagreements and point out and discuss gender stereotypes in the media This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

61 years ago when President Lyndon B. Johnson called on Congress to pass the Voting Rights Act, which empowered millions of people of color to vote. Yet, when a war is raging in the Middle East and an affordability crisis is brewing at home, the Senate is poised to begin what could be a marathon debate on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, a bill that would block millions of eligible American citizens from voting — reversing decades of progress. And now, Florida passed a bill on Thursday that would require voters to verify their citizenship when registering and limit which forms of identification they can present at the polls. The new requirements would result in the removal of perhaps thousands of voters from the rolls and in the disenfranchisement of young voters. The votes in both Florida chambers were along strict partisan lines, with all Democrats against the measure. Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican has supported the legislation. The bill’s enactment would make Florida the most populous state in the country to impose proof-of-citizenship requirements on voters. But the Florida requirements would take effect next year, not before this year’s midterm elections. “This is about the integrity of our elections,” one of the bill’s sponsors, State Senator Erin Grall, a Republican from Vero Beach, said on the Senate floor on Wednesday. “It is something that puts greater trust into our system.” Under the bill, Floridians would have to provide proof of citizenship, such as a birth certificate or passport, when they register to vote. Every existing voters’ citizenship would be verified against government databases, such as Real ID, when the bill goes into effect. If no citizenship document came up, the local elections supervisor would notify the voter by mail; to stay registered, the voter would have to bring proof of citizenship, such as a passport or a birth certificate, to his or her county elections office. About 98 percent of Floridians have Real IDs, about 872,000 residents still do not. Separately, the bill would no longer allow voters to use either college IDs or those provided by retirement homes to identify themselves at polling places. Republicans said those types of ID were too easy to fake. Banning student IDs drew especially strong opposition from Democrats, who accused Republicans of trying to disenfranchise voters on a partisan basis. Young voters often lean Democratic. Eight states have banned student IDs for voting, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan organization, but six of them still allow voters to cast provisional ballots. The Florida bill was modeled in part after the SAVE America Act that would impose strict voter ID and proof-of-citizenship requirements nationally. That legislation has become so important to the president that he has said he will not sign any other bill until it passes. But studies have shown that requiring proof of citizenship across the country may end up affecting more Republicans states Mr. Trump won handily in 2024 have the largest percentage of citizens without valid passports, according to an analysis last year by the Secure Democracy Foundation, a nonpartisan organization that studies and analyzes voting policy. This is creating an issue where there are going to be a lot of impacted voters that are going to need to produce a passport or a birth certificate and on the margin, you’re going to have eligible citizens who are not going to be able to vote. Federal law is clear that only American citizens can vote in federal elections, and evidence suggests that noncitizen voting is exceptionally rare. Also, in Arizona, voters passed a ballot initiative in 2004 that required proof of citizenship for registering. That law created a bifurcated system, in which any state election required proof of citizenship, but voters without such proof could still participate in federal elections. In 2024, nearly 100,000 potential voters were at risk of losing their registration because of a glitch in Arizona state data: Voters who were issued driver’s licenses before 1996 might not have proof of citizenship on file. A court granted those voters relief before the 2024 election. In Kansas, 31,089 potential voters had their registrations rejected or denied because they had failed to produce documents proving their citizenship, according to federal court records. The court also found that almost all of the affected voters were citizens. The law was ruled unconstitutional and has not been enforced since 2018. In 2024, New Hampshire passed a law requiring all first-time voters in the state to prove their citizenship in order to vote. The law is being challenged in federal court. Louisiana also passed a law in 2024 requiring voters to provide proof of citizenship when registering. This year, legislatures in South Dakota and Utah passed proof-of-citizenship laws that are awaiting signature by each state’s governor. Don’t forget this reminder that the stakes are immensely high. As the 2026 midterms fast approach, we see renewed efforts to control or undermine our elections on Capitol Hill and in States! This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

What’s happening in the Middle East can seem very far away — at least until you stop for gas. Prices at the pump have jumped since Iran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz at the start of the conflict, creating a gap in the energy supply chain that spans the world. It’s a reminder that war has profound effects on all those who are connected to it. And we are all connected to it, somehow. The longer the conflict in the Middle East continues the greater the likelihood that people around the globe will pay more for food. And those in the most vulnerable countries could face hunger. The Persian Gulf is a dominant source of the world’s fertilizers, especially those that deliver nitrogen to soils — a source of nourishment for crops that amount to half the world’s food. Fertilizer is produced in the region and shipped … everywhere. If the Strait of Hormuz remains strangled, prices for fertilizer will rise. And as a result, farmers may use less on their crops, if they can get any at all. The world will get less food, and it will cost more. We saw this happen at the start of the Russia-Ukraine war, when the world received a lesson in the geography of agriculture. Both countries provided the world with substantial quantities of wheat and other grains. Without them, bread shortages soon developed in West Africa and South Asia, among other places. The Middle East won’t affect the harvesting of grain. But the effects of a fertilizer shortage, or more expensive fertilizer, may be even more intense. ​​The volumes are greater this time around, potentially, than in the Russia-Ukraine conflict Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain — supply more than a third of the world’s urea, an important nitrogen fertilizer, and nearly a quarter of another one, ammonia. And they all use the Strait of Hormuz to export their products. Farmers in the Northern Hemisphere, who will soon need fertilizer to boost their spring crops. Where might they get it? China’s the most obvious alternative. But last year the Chinese government imposed restrictions on the export of fertilizer, in part to shield its farmers from just the sort of geopolitical chaos this war brought on. Prices are already climbing. Over the past week, the price of urea sold in Egypt, a market that economists track closely, climbed more than 35 percent. If the trend continues, governments across the Global South could need to subsidize the cost of growing crops. And that could add to their debt burdens. The long-term solution is not to be dependent on fertilizer that has to be trafficked through Strait of Hormuz. We have become hooked on these imports. Those hooks are everywhere, once you start looking for them. War is hell on us all. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

So much of being a gay man in this country has entailed resistance to neglect, to exploitation, to death. As gay men we have settled for stories about men wanting men that use tragedy in stories. If we didn’t suffer, we didn’t exist. But, have we turned a corner? The show “Heated Rivalry” is a beautiful, life-giving, hot take. Who wouldn’t wont to watch this? It’s a six-episode show that’s great as romance television. We have suffered during, say, “Cruising,” in 1980, that remains an index of gay sex clubs in the Meatpacking District. The men in that movie like it hot. A homicidal maniac is on the loose, and he’s killing “homosexuals.” He might, alas, be gay himself, and the heterosexual detective trying to catch him worries he might not be as straight as he thought. Pathos again. Or how about “The Talented Mr. Ripley” which also produces a body count. There is a lot of gay media of torment and death, but let’s also never fail to remember that for a long time “Brokeback Mountain” was our “gay love story.” But Jack Twist gets beaten to death and, in the final shot, Ennis Del Mar stands in a trailer all by his lonesome. Maybe we are accustomed to art that would enrage us as we are fed morsels like “Moonlight.” During the AIDS crisis, a regime of dehumanization spawned a knowing counterculture of subversion. Being allowed to marry some man always seemed beside the point. Are we going to be allowed to live? We watched movies and still wondered if it did a number on the gay psyche. During all of these years of gay comedies and weepy ghost stories, of high school comings-of-age and great-man biographies, the gay romance shelf has been barren. One of the marvels of “Heated Rivalry” is its de-emphasis of tragedy. It hails from the world of the romance novel, where gay plots aren’t novel at all. (Rachel Reid, its author, has written a slew of these books.) “Heated Rivalry” has no subtext in play, the stars meet during their rookie years and spend years trying not to fall in love. The last shot of the final episode puts the camera in the back seat of a car as these two drive out of the closet. Source: New York Times This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

Of the 1.2 million people living with H.I.V. in the United States, more than 60 percent are Black or Latino. Transgender women, gay and bisexual men and teenagers and young adults of color face the greatest overall risk of contracting the virus in any given year. There is disconnect between science and politics in the long war against H.I.V. Forty years ago, the infection was a mystery and a death sentence. Today, thanks to a combination of biomedical breakthroughs and diligent, public health (testing, education, robust social safety nets), it is a chronic but manageable condition that really only flourishes among society’s most marginalized groups. The first Trump administration vowed to finally end the American H.I.V. epidemic, by 2030, doubling down on prevention efforts in the hardest hit communities. The resulting initiative paid off: Transmission rates are down in the targeted ZIP codes, according to the National Minority AIDS Council, a nonprofit devoted to stopping the virus’s spread. Racial health gaps are narrowing as a result, and because prevention is cheaper than treatment, money is being saved. The second Trump administration seems determined to reverse course anyway. The future of H.I.V. research became uncertain when it was caught in the cross hairs of the Trump administration. The Adolescent Trials Network, a massive research apparatus focused on treating and preventing H.I.V. infection in teenagers and young adults, had been abruptly closed. A 10-year study on H.I.V. and substance use in L.G.B.T.Q. teenagers and young adults was suspended. So was another project on reducing H.I.V. risk in relationships. Another project, on how to improve the measurement of sexual orientation and gender identity in federal surveys, was also done for. So were at least two fellowship programs for early-career scientists who wanted to specialize in L.G.B.T.Q. health. Salaries were reliant on N.I.H. funding and a lot of jobs are now gravely imperiled. Federal grants are the lifeblood of academic research. They support scientists and students, institutes and administrators. They covered overhead costs. It is not uncommon for one person to be funded by several grants. Likewise, medication that prevents H.I.V. transmission (known as pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP) has became widely available. Within the gay community, middle-aged white professionals had embraced the treatment as an ordinary component of overall health and wellness. But younger adults, immigrants and racial and ethnic minorities still had not. “It’s not unlike birth control when it was first introduced. It’s pretty straightforward as a treatment, but it’s attached to all of this cultural baggage that makes it challenging to get across. Nobody outside the scientific community seems to realize what is happening. We have lost years of research in a matter of weeks. Whole labs had been closed and successful, decades-long careers ended — and none of it appeared to have anything to do with the quality or import of the research itself. The decisions were political and ideological. They were also arbitrary and needlessly cruel. Trust had been broken as a result. Whatever came next, it seems extremely unlikely projects would be able to just pick up where they had left off. Do you remember scientist having to cull words like “gay” and “sex” back in the early 1990s. But this was different. In the past, even if they had to change a word or two, they still got to do their research. Seasoned scientists are fleeing the profession, and younger ones are deciding not to pursue it at all. It’s impossible to say what new medicine those minds might have developed or what wicked problems their efforts might have solved. Source: NYT This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

A year ago, even the most optimistic Democrats could not imagine winning back the Senate in 2026. President Trump had just stormed back to power. The Democratic brand was damaged. And Republicans were up to 53 Senate seats — with Democrats facing an unusually daunting midterm map. But now, after a series of candidate recruitment in red states, Leader Schumer said that Democrats were poised to capitalize on rising anger from voters toward Mr. Trump over a cost-of-living crisis. Mr. Trump’s approval ratings have slumped, and Democrats have won a series of elections over the last year. The political environment has so brightened for the party that there is an path to victory. Flipping Alaska, Maine, North Carolina and Ohio, defending defending all of the states Democrats now hold is possible. Schumer faces attacks frpm many on the left and those who are desperate for younger leadership to take the fight to Mr. Trump. Some progressives are dreaming of a challenge from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. A series of blue-chip Senate recruits include Mary Peltola, a Democratic former congresswoman, who entered Alaska’s race . She joined former Senator Sherrod Brown in Ohio and former Gov. Roy Cooper in North Carolina, two other top Schumer recruits who are running in states that Mr. Trump has carried all three times he has been on the ballot. But taking the Senate remains a steep challenge for Democrats. The party would need to not only sweep the four states that Mr. Schumer identified as his top targets, but also hold seats in the battleground states of Michigan, New Hampshire and Georgia. Democrats also face an unusual number of fractious primaries — most notably in Michigan and Maine — and a Republican president with a super PAC that is flush with cash. Most Democrats still view the House as the main battleground in 2026, given Republicans’ paper-thin majority in the chamber and its historical tendency to swing against the party in power in midterm elections. There are parallels to 2006, when Democrats took back power by winning seats even in red states like Montana and Missouri. That year, voters recoiled from President George W. Bush’s proposals to privatize Social Security as well as the quagmire of the Iraq war. Today Trump is similarly distracted by “military adventurism” and weighed down by an affordability crisis. The cost issue is much more trenchant than Social Security privatization because that was the future. People are having their health care costs, their electricity costs, their housing costs raised right now.” This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

Listen better to get more love. On Valentine’s Day we all are talking about LOVE. In order to feel more loved by others, you must begin by making them feel loved by you. And becoming a better listener is one of the most powerful ways to do that. Many of us think we’re pretty good listeners, but really, we’re mostly just waiting for our turn to speak. So learned people recommend adopting a “listening to learn” mind set. Basically, shift your focus from responding to understanding. We all know that feeling, when someone is so curious about you, like they just can’t wait for you to share your story. Their eyes are shining. They’re leaning in.” That kind of genuine, focused listening is rare, and quite powerful. When someone feels deeply seen, valued, and understood by you, they become more willing, motivated, and even eager to do the same for you. But becoming a better listener takes practice. Some simple best practices: Don’t interrupt, and don’t offer advice unless the person you’re talking to asks for it. And ask follow-up questions like “Tell me more”. Focus on one relationship at a time. It might be someone you’re already close with, like a partner or a parent or it could be a colleague you’d like to get to know better. Romantic relationships aren’t the only place to get that feeling of being loved, nor is feeling loved confined to just a few close relationships. Giving and receiving love function together like a seesaw: You lift a person up with the weight of your curiosity and attentiveness — and they do the same in turn so it can really become a two-way street. But, know when to throw in the towel. If the other person gives you zilch in return those are signs this isn’t the right relationship to invest a lot of effort and energy in There are questions like: Does this person seem to “get” me on some level, or at least show an interest in doing so? When I’ve shared struggles or imperfections, have they been curious and listened enthusiastically? Feeling loved is not out of your control. Practice all of this on Valentine’s Day. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

The 2026 Mid terms SENATE Republicans are entering the 2026 midterms with a 53-47 majority in the Senate (including the two independents who caucus with the Democrats). This cycle, 35 Senate seats are up for election, including special elections to permanently fill the Ohio seat JD Vance vacated to become vice president and the Florida seat Marco Rubio left to be secretary of state. Nine senators are retiring — five Republicans and four Democrats — creating 11 open seats, as Democrats defend nine incumbent seats and Republicans defend 15. To retake the Senate, Democrats must hold all of their seats and flip four Republican-held ones — a difficult task even given the fact that the party out of power typically gains ground in midterms. The fight for the Senate would center on four crucial states: Maine, North Carolina, Michigan and Georgia. THE PRESIDENT The results from the latest New York Times/Siena University poll show that, one year in, the second Trump coalition has unraveled. The major demographic shifts of the last election have snapped back, and Democrats have regained their usual advantage among young, nonwhite and low-turnout voters in the race for control of Congress. Only 40 percent of registered voters say they approve of Mr. Trump’s performance, the poll found. THE HOUSE The battle for control of the House of Representatives this fall will be decided by a small fraction of the chamber’s seats. Republicans are clinging to a five-seat edge, the narrowest margin in modern times. The nation’s political climate is volatile, and much can change between now and November. But at the start of the year, only a small number of seats are seen as genuinely competitive, magnifying the stakes of individual House races that routinely cost tens of millions of dollars. The clearest Democratic pathway to a majority — and the power to serve as a check on President Trump and his legislative agenda — is defending the party’s most vulnerable incumbents and flipping a handful of Republican-held seats. The Cook Political Report rates just 18 seats as tossup races — four held by Democrats and 14 by Republicans. But the map is evolving and Cook recently shifted 18 House races in Democrats’ direction, a sign of the party’s momentum and Mr. Trump’s struggles. Of the House’s 435 seats, the vast majority, 375, are rated as “solid” for one party or the other — meaning they are essentially noncompetitive. Another two dozen races are seen as likely to favor one party, while 18 are in the more competitive “lean” category. To get to the House majority, Democrats would need to hold all of their solid and likely seats, sweep the 13 seats that lean toward their party and win at least seven of the 18 tossups, according to The Cook Political Report. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

Phones and Whistles Recent events in Minneapolis led to protests and community responses. Much of what’s been reported involves how residents have used phones and whistles as tools during confrontations with federal immigration enforcement. The right to assemble, protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, guarantees the right of the people to peaceably gather, protest, and associate for lawful, public, or private purposes without government interference. It applies to public spaces and protects against actions that violate freedom of speech, though it is subject to reasonable, content-neutral restrictions on time, place, and manner. In recent weeks, the streets of Minneapolis have echoed with the shrill blasts of whistles, the constant buzz of cellphones recording and communicating, and the honking of car horns — an auditory backdrop to simmering tensions around federal immigration enforcement actions in the city. Phones as Witness and Network Cellphones have become indispensable tools for Minneapolis residents mobilizing in response to heightened U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity. Teams of community members actively document enforcement actions with video, sending footage in real time to local and national audiences. This real-time documentation serves a dual purpose. First, it acts as evidence and oversight, ensuring that interactions between federal agents and civilians are visible beyond the immediate scene. Second, the presence of phones and cameras tends to draw larger crowds of observers — a tactic some see as a deterrent to potential misconduct. Whistles as Alert Systems Whistles — simple, loud, and highly portable — have taken on outsized symbolic and practical importance in Minneapolis. Residents have adopted them as alert systems to signal approaching immigration enforcement, with different patterns of whistle blasts conveying different meanings: Short, sharp blasts indicate that federal agents are approaching or present nearby. Longer, sustained whistles can signal that someone is being detained or that help is needed. These audible signals spread quickly through neighborhoods, prompting residents to come outside to observe, record, assist, or bear witness. In some cases, the blasts have summoned neighbors within minutes, creating spontaneous gatherings of observers and improvised legal observers. The Soundscape of Protest The combination of whistles, phone alerts, and video documentation has reshaped the nature of protest and community defense. Rather than centralized demonstrations, the emphasis has been on decentralized rapid responses: a way of signaling across phone networks that something is happening somewhere in the city. This is a choreography of civic resistance, in which sound — from whistles, shouts, and horns — drives movement and response. A New Auditory Politics In Minneapolis today, phones and whistles represent evolving forms of civic engagement, ways for people to support one another, bear witness, and assert community presence in the face of federal enforcement actions that many view as intimidating or destabilizing. Whether seen as grassroots solidarity tactics or sources of controversy, these sound-based methods have become defining features of the city’s current moment — a reminder that in urban conflict, even the simplest signals can carry profound social meaning. Here at the NABWMT we have a proud history of peaceful protest and fighting injustice. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

Ever since cameras became embedded in cellphones, people have been using their devices to bear witness to violence. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees five essential freedoms: religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. Adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, it prevents the government from restricting expression, establishing a state religion, or interfering with peaceful protest and petitioning for redress of grievances. Courts have long granted citizens a First Amendment right to film in public. But this right on paper is now being increasingly contested on the streets as federal agents try to stop citizens from recording their activities. We are seeing a pattern of intimidation of people who are just trying to observe. A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the government from retaliating against peaceful observers and protesters. But that injunction was lifted on Wednesday by an appeals court. Government officials have said that violence against agents includes “videotaping them where they are at, when they are out on operations.” The nation’s founders worried that if the state had a monopoly on weapons, its citizens could be oppressed. Their answer was the Second Amendment. Now that our phones are the primary weapons of today’s information war, we should be as zealous about our right to bear phones as we are about our right to bear arms. To adopt the language of Second Amendment enthusiasts, perhaps the only thing that can eventually stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a camera. The difference between oppression and liberation, is, who will ultimately control the cameras. The smartphone camera is a potent weapon because it offers the promise of future accountability. Even if the person filming is killed, the camera can preserve evidence of a crime that could be prosecuted in the future. A desire to evade such accountability is why governments engaged in violent repression often shut off internet access and thus prevent witnesses from sharing video and photos. The best defense is to double down on documentation. Those who can afford the personal risk should keep filming. And those who can’t risk being on the front lines can support those doing the documenting in other ways. We need to question whenever the government asks us to put away our phones — especially when it comes to filming people we pay with our tax dollars. Source: New York Times This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

Genetic researchers were seeking children for an ambitious, federally funded project to track brain development — a study that they told families could yield invaluable discoveries about DNA’s impact on behavior and disease. They also promised that the children’s sensitive data would be closely guarded in the decade-long study, which got underway in 2015. The scientists did not keep it safe. A group of fringe researchers thwarted safeguards at the National Institutes of Health and gained access to data from thousands of children. The researchers have used it to produce at least 16 papers purporting to find biological evidence for differences in intelligence between races, ranking ethnicities by I.Q. scores and suggesting Black people earn less because they are not very smart. Mainstream geneticists have rejected their work as biased and unscientific. Yet by relying on genetic and other personal data from the prominent project, known as the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study, the researchers gave their theories credence. Members of the research group were ineligible to obtain data from the ABCD project. But one of them gained access through an American professor who was already being investigated by the N.I.H. over his handling of another child brain study. Their papers have provided fodder for racist posts on social media and white nationalist message boards that have been viewed millions of times. Some of the papers are cited by A.I. bots like ChatGPT and Grok in response to queries about race and intelligence. On the social media platform X, Grok has referred users to the research more than two dozen times this month alone. The science is faulty, but it’s being used to advance an unethical agenda.” The misuse of the children’s data has validated longstanding concerns that hundreds of thousands of Americans’ genetic information held by the N.I.H. could fall into the wrong hands. Critics say the N.I.H. has failed to address the risks that the data, even with personally identifiable details removed, could be misused in unethical research, for commercial purposes or by foreign adversaries. In dozens of cases, the N.I.H. suspended researchers’ access and demanded that compromised data be destroyed, but the agency relies heavily on good-faith pledges of compliance. The misuse of the data for so-called race science is not the only example of a security failure involving the ABCD Study. There has been no official public accounting of how the N.I.H. lost control of the children’s genetic information. When Elon Musk invited X users last June to post politically incorrect “divisive facts” on the social network, a so called researcher replied with a criticism of affirmative action and said white people had bigger brains than Black people. The conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza said on X in 2023 that studies showed that Black people, “who are the rock-solid base of the Democratic Party, have the lowest IQ of any ethnic group.” As evidence, he reposted another chart based on ABCD data about American 10-year-olds. Scientists said the unauthorized use of the data underscored the need for stronger controls. Several families in the ABCD Study said in interviews that they were not told about the misuse of the information and never would have agreed to participate had they known it could be used to promote racial division. There needs to be an acknowledgment that there are bad-faith researchers. But the Government Accountability Office, a federal watchdog, reported last April that the N.I.H. did not have the resources to properly monitor all the downloads of genetic data and “may be missing violations that go unreported by researchers.” Data from the projects has generated hundreds of papers on, among other things, the effects of social media on mental health, genetic links to addiction and the causes of sleep disorders. In a 2023 paper, a researcher tried to rank the intelligence of children across ethnic groups. But the sample size for the vast majority of groups was far too small to draw meaningful conclusions. Mankind Quarterly, a journal known for pushing race science. A researcher studied penis sizes by race and once looked for correlations between intelligence and first names, concluding that people with “non-western Muslim names” had lower I.Q.s. This runs counter to the scientific consensus that any correlation between a complex trait like intelligence and genes, let alone social constructs like race, is not the same as causation. Research has found that the environment in which people are raised can affect their cognitive abilities. In the United States, for example, any serious analysis must consider how Black people endured centuries of slavery and racial discrimination and how they today face disproportionately high poverty rates and a lack of quality education and health care. A Substack article last April asserted that Black people’s supposed lack of intelligence was the source of the racial income gap. While some scientists have pushed the N.I.H. to limit how sensitive genetic data can be used in research, there is little indication the administration agrees — and there are signs it is moving in the opposite direction. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

The acceptance of gay people in the United States has peaked around 2020 and has sharply reversed since then. Americans’ bias against gay people did indeed decline faster than any other bias ever tracked in social surveys. Until 2020. Research led by Professor Charlesworth published in 2022 detailed a decline. Drawing on 7.1 million responses from Americans collected from 2007 to 2020, the researchers tracked both explicit bias and implicit bias. Forecasting models suggested that, at that pace, anti-gay bias could hit zero as early as 2022. But at that time, the Charlesworth research team was also analyzing new data showing that anti-gay bias had begun to rise. The analysis of an additional 2.5 million responses from Americans collected from the beginning of 2021 through 2024 revealed that progress had not only stalled; it had reversed. In just four years, anti-gay bias rose by around 10 percent. Increases also appeared in bias toward Black, darker-skinned, older, disabled and overweight people, but not as starkly. Just as bias against gay people fell especially steeply before 2020, it has surged particularly sharply since. These trends were distinctly robust among the youngest American adults — those under 25. This group increased its animus against marginalized groups in general and gay people in particular at a faster rate than older Americans did. And although anti-gay bias has risen faster among conservatives, it has also risen among liberals. What explains this decline in tolerance? Evidence suggests that we can rule out two common hypotheses. The first is that the anti-gay backlash is a side effect, or spillover, of the backlash against the movement for transgender rights. If that were so, you would expect increases in anti-trans bias to be meaningfully correlated with subsequent increases in anti-gay bias — which the research does not show. The second hypothesis is that the anti-gay backlash reflects the rise in panic about sexual grooming, the notion that gay adults are recruiting or influencing children to become gay. But the research shows no evidence of spikes in grooming discourse (measured through Google searches) that are meaningfully correlated with subsequent spikes in anti-gay bias. The first idea is social instability. Starting around 2020, the United States experienced a sustained disruption consisting of the Covid pandemic, economic strain and intensifying political conflict — each of which has been linked to heightened intergroup hostility and scapegoating. This would explain the overall rise in bias against marginalized groups. The second factor, which would explain the rise specifically in anti-gay bias, is anti-establishment sentiment. The sustained social disruption since 2020 has fueled resentment and a loss of confidence in institutions perceived to have failed — governments, corporations, the broader establishment. By 2020, support for gay and lesbian equality had become an establishment position. Corporate America, for example, demonstrated a concrete commitment to gay rights, with companies donating hundreds of thousands of dollars for Pride celebrations and other efforts at gay and lesbian inclusion. Gay and lesbian people, newly woven into the fabric of mainstream society, may have been collateral damage in a broader revolt against a system that felt broken, especially among younger generations grappling most intensely with uncertainty about their future. The recent rise of anti-gay bias suggests that public attitudes and media representation are no longer moving in lock step. (An example is the exuberance surrounding “Heated Rivalry). By all means, celebrate our media success but stay vigilant against homophobia. Source: NY Times This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com

As I read Cross’s book, “All White People live in Racism.” This seemed uncomfortable to me as a white person, but I grew up in the UK where the perception is that the Brits are liberal. However, the country has emerged from a colonial past but racism is evident there. In Johnson’s book, he attended a Catholic school initially and history was taught from a revisionist perspective, and Johnson even took part in pageantry glorifying the heroes of the revolution who often were slave owners. As Cross points out, race is an evolving social idea crated to legitimize racial inequality and protect white advantage. I emigrated to the US in 1971 as a 25 year old and 14 years before Johnson was born, my knowledge of US history was minimal. I was “bathed” in the students of the University of California’s anti war and the peace movement and began my career in science in (partial} understanding of the colorism of US history. Johnson, years later as he changed to a Black school, undergoes the transformation from this whitewashing to an honest reckoning of his Black History. The Eurocentric view of white privilege is all pervasive, whether you are white, Black or Brown. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit nabwmt.substack.com