Johansen.se

For Pennsylvania residents like me, there is no escape from the record-breaking number of political attack ads disrupting our favorite shows and filling our social media feeds.

A projected US$10.7 billion is being spent nationwide – but particularly in battleground states – on political ads this election season.

For those who are feeling election fatigue and just want to stream in peace: Buckle in, because it’s about to get worse.

As of late August 2024, over $1.7 billion in political ads had been reserved nationwide to run between Labor Day and Election Day. Over $400 million of that is just for presidential election ads in seven key battleground states.

With Pennsylvania widely considered the most decisive state in the 2024 presidential election, it may be no surprise that the Keystone State has the most presidential ad reservations, totaling $137 million.

And the Philadelphia market alone is the top market in the country, with $125 million in ad reservations. Democrats are spending about 25% more than Republicans on presidential ads in Philly.

As a political communication expert and professor of media and social influence who lives in Philadelphia, I am often asked: “Why are there so many political ads, why are they so negative, and more importantly, how do we make it stop?”

I’ll answer the first two below. For the last, the truth is we don’t.

A billboard in Philadelphia purchased by the Trump campaign.
Selcuk Acar/Anadolu via Getty Images

Voters feel exhausted, angry, stressed

If campaigns are spending all this money on political attack ads, they must work, right? Surely they sway at least undecided voters?

In a word: no. Research suggests deluges of negative political advertising do little to change voters’ minds.

They can even backfire on candidates.

When voters perceive ads as unfair or manipulative, they are less likely to vote for the candidate or party producing the ads. And when subjected to repeated unwanted exposure to political ads, they can experience “psychological reactance” and behave opposite of what the ads intended.

Some studies also suggest that negative ads create election stress, which can reduce voter turnout among the less politically interested.

In a 2023 Pew Research Center survey, 65% of U.S. adults reported that they always or often feel “exhausted” when they think about U.S. politics. More than half reported that they always or often feel “angry” with U.S. politics.

More concerning, research suggests our elections are harming voters’ mental health. This is marked by lost sleep, increased anxiety and chronic stress.

‘Daisy’ and the birth of ad wars

Historically, political advertising was considered an effective tool for educating voters, building momentum and engaging the politically uninterested.

Although the research is mixed, past studies have shown that advertising increased election turnout and influenced voter behavior.

The infamous 1964 “Daisy” ad run by President Lyndon Johnson’s campaign shocked audiences with the potential horrors of nuclear war. While the ad never mentioned Johnson’s opponent, Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, it is largely credited as a turning point in presidential political advertising, ushering in an era of political attack ads.

LBJ’s “Daisy” ad played on American’s Cold War fears.

However, political ad wars have been a feature of U.S. presidential elections since the 1800s, with attack ads on TV starting in the early 1950s.

But why the constant barrage now?

Citizens United unleashes flood of dark money

Political ad spending has monumentally increased over the past several election cycles, and hit the billions after the landmark 2010 Citizens United case.

In that ruling, the Supreme Court decided that limiting spending from corporations or outside groups violated those groups’ First Amendment right to free speech. Prior to Citizens United, corporations and other groups like nonprofits and labor unions were subject to prohibitions on campaign donations. Individual campaign contribution limits, which currently stand at $3,300 per candidate per election, kept spending relatively level across the electorate.

Following the ruling, however, the influx of corporate and outside money completely changed the campaign finance landscape.

In 2010, political ad spending reached $3.3 billion – an 11% increase from the 2008 election that took place pre-Citizens United. A decade later, total spending on political ads soared to $9 billion in the 2020 election.

Significant portions of this spending come from political action committees that are not bound by traditional campaign contribution limits as long as they do not donate the money directly to a candidate or coordinate with a candidate’s campaign.

These groups, known as super PACs, can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from undisclosed donors. While super PACs have to disclose identities of people who donate over $200 in a year, donors can use shell companies to hide their identities.

This web of secret money, known as dark money, exceeded $1 billion in 2020.

During the 2024 election cycle, over $2.4 billion has been raised by super PACs. This is where much of the funding for the political ad barrage that voters experience in the weeks leading up to the election comes from.

But why are the ads so negative?

Activists who opposed the Citizens United decision rally outside the White House in January 2024 on the 14th anniversary of the Supreme Court ruling.
Drew Angerer via Getty Images

Attack ads lose appeal

These days, most political ads are negative, according to a 2020 Pew Research Center study.

For example, in the weeks following President Joe Biden leaving the race, 95% of pro-Trump ads focused on attacking Vice President Kamala Harris rather than promoting policy, according to the Wesleyan Media Project, which tracks political advertising.

Americans are a deeply divided electorate. Political violence is on the rise, misinformation floods the system, and trust in media is at an all-time low.

Research shows that fear-based negative messaging leads to stress and anxiety, elicits more bias and entrenches attitudes.

Knowing this, it is reasonable to ask why campaigns continue down the path of negative advertising. The answer likely rests in old beliefs.

Prior studies have shown that people pay closer attention to negative information than to positive information. And infamous ad effects like Johnson’s easy win after the airing of the Daisy ad contribute to the commonly held belief that negative ads still win elections.

But the media environment has changed drastically, and voters are growing resentful.

Voters resent microtargeting

Unlike traditional voter segmentation where an entire group of voters would receive similar messages, campaigns now use data analytics to microtarget messages for specific voters.

Microtargeting enlists the help of social monitoring companies to identify voters’ psychometric data – their hopes, fears, likes, dislikes and so on – so that campaigns can finely tune messages to target them on social media.

Not only are these microtargeted messages manipulative, but they can be an unwelcome disruption and invasion of privacy, especially among the politically uninterested.

A 2020 Pew survey found that over half of voters believe tech companies should not allow political ads on social media. Three-quarters oppose campaigns using their personal data to target them with political ads.

Some evidence suggests that political microtargeting even reduces citizens’ trust in democracy.

After record-breaking amounts of advertising this election cycle, the latest polls remain very tight, and most are within the margin of error. The reality is that Americans are already divided and steadfast in their voting decisions, and it is difficult to change entrenched political attitudes.

Put simply, the political ad barrage coupled with microtargeting strategies is not an effective campaign strategy that sways voters’ minds. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence that this level of negativity is harming the electorate and undermining trust in democracy. Läs mer…

John J. Hopfield and Geoffrey E. Hinton received the Nobel Prize in physics on Oct. 8, 2024, for their research on machine learning algorithms and neural networks that help computers learn. Their work has been fundamental in developing neural network theories that underpin generative artificial intelligence.

A neural network is a computational model consisting of layers of interconnected neurons. Like the neurons in your brain, these neurons process and send along a piece of information. Each neural layer receives a piece of data, processes it and passes the result to the next layer. By the end of the sequence, the network has processed and refined the data into something more useful.

While it might seem surprising that Hopfield and Hinton received the physics prize for their contributions to neural networks, used in computer science, their work is deeply rooted in the principles of physics, particularly a subfield called statistical mechanics.

As a computational materials scientist, I was excited to see this area of research recognized with the prize. Hopfield and Hinton’s work has allowed my colleagues and me to study a process called generative learning for materials sciences, a method that is behind many popular technologies like ChatGPT.

What is statistical mechanics?

Statistical mechanics is a branch of physics that uses statistical methods to explain the behavior of systems made up of a large number of particles.

Instead of focusing on individual particles, researchers using statistical mechanics look at the collective behavior of many particles. Seeing how they all act together helps researchers understand the system’s large-scale macroscopic properties like temperature, pressure and magnetization.

For example, physicist Ernst Ising developed a statistical mechanics model for magnetism in the 1920s. Ising imagined magnetism as the collective behavior of atomic spins interacting with their neighbors.

In Ising’s model, there are higher and lower energy states for the system, and the material is more likely to exist in the lowest energy state.

One key idea in statistical mechanics is the Boltzmann distribution, which quantifies how likely a given state is. This distribution describes the probability of a system being in a particular state – like solid, liquid or gas – based on its energy and temperature.

Ising exactly predicted the phase transition of a magnet using the Boltzmann distribution. He figured out the temperature at which the material changed from being magnetic to nonmagnetic.

Phase changes happen at predictable temperatures. Ice melts to water at a specific temperature because the Boltzmann distribution predicts that when it gets warm, the water molecules are more likely to take on a disordered – or liquid – state.

Statistical mechanics tells researchers about the properties of a larger system, and how individual objects in that system act collectively.

In materials, atoms arrange themselves into specific crystal structures that use the lowest amount of energy. When it’s cold, water molecules freeze into ice crystals with low energy states.

Similarly, in biology, proteins fold into low energy shapes, which allow them to function as specific antibodies – like a lock and key – targeting a virus.

Neural networks and statistical mechanics

Fundamentally, all neural networks work on a similar principle – to minimize energy. Neural networks use this principle to solve computing problems.

For example, imagine an image made up of pixels where you only can see a part of the picture. Some pixels are visible, while the rest are hidden. To determine what the image is, you consider all possible ways the hidden pixels could fit together with the visible pieces. From there, you would choose from among what statistical mechanics would say are the most likely states out of all the possible options.

In statistical mechanics, researchers try to find the most stable physical structure of a material. Neural networks use the same principle to solve complex computing problems.
Veera Sundararaghavan

Hopfield and Hinton developed a theory for neural networks based on the idea of statistical mechanics. Just like Ising before them, who modeled the collective interaction of atomic spins to solve the photo problem with a neural network, Hopfield and Hinton imagined collective interactions of pixels. They represented these pixels as neurons.

Just as in statistical physics, the energy of an image refers to how likely a particular configuration of pixels is. A Hopfield network would solve this problem by finding the lowest energy arrangements of hidden pixels.

However, unlike in statistical mechanics – where the energy is determined by known atomic interactions – neural networks learn these energies from data.

Hinton popularized the development of a technique called backpropagation. This technique helps the model figure out the interaction energies between these neurons, and this algorithm underpins much of modern AI learning.

The Boltzmann machine

Building upon Hopfield’s work, Hinton imagined another neural network, called the Boltzmann machine. It consists of visible neurons, which we can observe, and hidden neurons, which help the network learn complex patterns.

In a Boltzmann machine, you can determine the probability that the picture looks a certain way. To figure out this probability, you can sum up all the possible states the hidden pixels could be in. This gives you the total probability of the visible pixels being in a specific arrangement.

My group has worked on implementing Boltzmann machines in quantum computers for generative learning.

In generative learning, the network learns to generate new data samples that resemble the data the researchers fed the network to train it. For example, it might generate new images of handwritten numbers after being trained on similar images. The network can generate these by sampling from the learned probability distribution.

Generative learning underpins modern AI – it’s what allows the generation of AI art, videos and text.

Hopfield and Hinton have significantly influenced AI research by leveraging tools from statistical physics. Their work draws parallels between how nature determines the physical states of a material and how neural networks predict the likelihood of solutions to complex computer science problems. Läs mer…

During the Sept. 24, 2024, debate, Democratic vice presidential hopeful Tim Walz said he “misspoke” when asked to clarify his story of being in Hong Kong during the Tiananmen Square crackdown in June 1989.

To many, Walz’s use of the word misspoke came across as an attempt to weasel out of what was at best an embellishment and at worst an outright lie.

The word misspoke has certainly long been used to politically backpedal after verbal inaccuracies or blunders, as Ronald Reagan learned in 1981 after he said that Syrian surface-to-air missiles placed in Lebanon were “offensive weapons,” when they were in fact defensive weapons. Both Presidents Bill Clinton and the much “misunderestimated” George W. Bush likewise were deemed to have misspoken after making mistakes, big and small.

For instance, a spokesperson for Clinton claimed he had misspoken when the then-president said that North Korea would not be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb – after there was reason to believe they had already developed them. During George W. Bush’s term in office, verbal errors were so common they earned a nickname of their own: “Bushisms.”

But misspoke’s extension to factual fabrication is one step further down the semantic road. In using it in this way, Walz joined other “misspoken” politicians, such as Hillary Clinton, who used it after falsely recollecting having landed in Bosnia under sniper fire.

As a sociolinguist who writes about how language changes over time, misspoke’s euphemistic recasting of lying as an inadvertent mistake calls for deeper linguistic scrutiny.

Tim Walz, being pressed on a statement he made and whether it was true, during the vice presidential debate.

From mumble to mea culpa

To understand how and why words morph like this, linguists like to trace them to their very beginnings.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, “misspeaking” is quite old in the history of English, appearing as “missprecon” in a Northumbrian text dating before the 11th century. Its original sense was one of “to grumble” or “to mumble,” a meaning now obsolete.

But after the 11th century, its meaning shifted from inarticulateness to that of speaking amiss or disparagingly, often mentioned in reference to saying something improper or upsetting. Chaucer makes use of this sense in the “Miller’s Tale”: “And therfore if that I mysspeke or seye, Wyte it the ale of Southwerk, I you preye,” where the Miller handily blames a bit too much ale for whatever impropriety might fall from his mouth.

Around the time Chaucer was composing “The Canterbury Tales” in the late 14th century, the word “misspeak” branched off down yet another semantic path, taking on the meaning of “to speak incorrectly or misleadingly.” It is this sense that gave birth to the modern political mea culpa used when backtracking on a misleading prior statement, such as by Sen. John McCain after he claimed President Barack Obama was directly responsible for terrorist attacks on Americans.

Expanding meaning

These shifts in the meaning of a word over time fall under what linguists refer to as “semantic broadening.” Semantic broadening, which means expansion of a word’s meaning, is incredibly common, generally occurring when a word becomes used more frequently and across more situations. As a result, its core sense can expand to take on supplemental or tangential meanings.

Semantic shift like this is constantly at work, pushing and pulling senses in related but new directions to stay relevant to the needs of speakers.

The word “soon,” for instance, at first carried a meaning of “immediately,” but human nature being what it is, its meaning began to creep in the direction of “as immediately as possible” as people took their merry time.

Some new meanings, such as the nonliteral use of “literally” and Walz’s use of “misspeak,” are sites of contest, with multiple meanings at play.

The semantic broadening of misspeaking to cover not just misleading but knowingly false information didn’t start with Walz, nor did it begin with Clinton. In fact, this politically expedient expansion seems to go back at least to the Nixon administration.

There’s been a lot of misspeaking by politicians over the years, as these stories show.
The Guardian US; The Hill; Wall Street Journal; Politico; Washington Post.

‘I misspoke myself’

In 1973, Nixon and his advisers were called to task in a Time article accusing them of a tendency to “make flat statements one day, and the next day reverse field with the simple phrase, ‘I misspoke myself.’” Given the Watergate scandal, it’s safe to say that misspoke as used by his administration had already shifted into deceptive speech territory.

Perhaps misspeaking’s semantic slippery slope started even further back, when the prefix “mis,” with its sense of “badly,” combined with “speaking.”

Consider other potentially weaselly words that are also formed by “mis” prefixation: misunderstood, misinterpret, mishear, mistake. These are all examples of words, like misspeak, that can and have been used by politicians to avoid taking responsibility for the false or “misleading” things they say.

Even if led astray by its prefix, from a linguistic perspective, the broadening of misspeak to cover not just incorrect but fabricated statements turns out to be not such a surprising development given the tendency of words to take on new senses over time, particularly in the world of political doublespeak.

The bigger surprise might be how this new meaning translates with voters, but that’s one surprise that will have to wait for the ballot box. Läs mer…

Many Americans are not thrilled with either of the two major-party candidates for president. As of Oct. 4, 2024, polls showed that 46.5% had an unfavorable opinion of Kamala Harris and 52.6% felt unfavorably toward Donald Trump.

Some of these unhappy voters are considering voting for a third-party candidate, or not voting at all. They may be thinking of those actions as a form of protest against the two-party system dominant in the United States, or against these two particular candidates.

For example, in a September poll 3.5% of Michigan voters said they planned to vote for a candidate other than Harris and Trump.

At first glance, these choices might seem perfectly reasonable: If you don’t like a candidate, don’t vote for that person. But my work as a scholar of cognitive biases – systematic errors people make in their thinking – makes me fear that this option does not best serve the interests of those voters.

Instead, protest voting is in fact likely to harm the democratic process, potentially leading to the election of the candidate the majority of voters overall, and protest voters specifically, most dislike. There are several reasons protest voters might make this mistake.

How much does one vote matter?

It’s clear that any one vote is very unlikely to swing the presidential election. And some might say that if one vote doesn’t really matter, then voters may as well vote however they want, or not bother to vote at all. Here’s why that’s flawed thinking:

Suppose there are 10,000 voters in a state who feel unhappy with both candidates. But they almost surely dislike one candidate more than they dislike the other. Perhaps they disagree with some of Harris’ views but fear Trump. Or maybe it’s the other way around. They don’t have to agree on why they’re unhappy about the candidates either – some who are unhappy with Harris but prefer her over Trump may think Harris is too far left, while others may think she’s not enough of a leftist.

Now suppose the rest of the state’s voters – those who are happy to vote for one of the two major candidates – are very narrowly split. Perhaps the gap is 5,000 votes. So, if the 10,000 unhappy voters do vote for one of the two major-party candidates, they can swing the election.

Again, these unhappy voters really do have a preference – they like one of the major candidates better than the other. So while each individual unhappy voter wants to keep their hands clean and not vote, they would each like the other 9,999 unhappy voters to step up and swing the outcome in favor of their preferred candidate.

Parents teach the Golden Rule to kids – do unto others as you would have them do unto you – and most people do actually believe in it and try to act accordingly. In this case, following the Golden Rule means that if you’re an unhappy voter and would like other unhappy voters to hold their noses and vote for the major candidate they least dislike, you should be willing to do the same thing yourself.

But not all unhappy voters think this way. Some are led astray by their intuition and choose to protest-vote even when their own values would indicate they shouldn’t.

A boycott might close a store, but it’s not going to prevent an election from delivering a winner.
Nikolay Tsuguliev/iStock / Getty Images Plus

A boycott error

One reason a person might still think a protest vote makes sense is because of the assumption that boycotting something they don’t like is an effective means of contributing to positive change.

A boycott against a person or organization you have a problem with often makes good sense. For instance, if there’s a restaurant in town with a reputation for being discriminatory, or just for being slow to get the food out, don’t go to it. Maybe it will close and make room for another business with better performance. Or maybe it will make some changes in hopes of growing its customer base.

But when you cast a vote, whether on Election Day or beforehand, boycotting the viable candidates isn’t going to help. One of them is going to win whether you like it or not. Boycotting in this context is an example of a misapplied heuristic – a rule of thumb that’s often, but not always, helpful. Boycotting here doesn’t help you achieve your goal of eliminating or improving something you don’t like.

Omission vs. commission

Another reason people might choose a protest vote is because of a phenomenon in which people prefer to make mistakes of inaction – omission – over making mistakes that involve taking action – commission. People feel less guilty when they haven’t acted directly in support of a bad outcome. But both action and inaction can be errors, and both can deliver undesired results that constitute bad outcomes.

The omission bias can help explain why some people are hesitant to get vaccinated against serious diseases: If they chose to get vaccinated and the vaccination led to a health problem, that would be a mistake of commission. Not getting vaccinated also might lead to a health problem, but that would be a mistake of omission. People tend to prefer the latter.

Similarly, voting for a candidate you’re unsatisfied with could feel like a mistake of commission. Not voting, or voting for a third party, risks a mistake of omission – an error often assumed to be less significant. But choosing the possibility of an error of omission over one of commission doesn’t ensure you aren’t making a mistake – it just changes your mistake to one that’s intuitively more appealing.

They are both politicians, but they are very different candidates.
AP Photo

False equivalence

A final reason people might opt out of voting or choose to back a third-party candidate is that they object to the assumption that they dislike one candidate more than the other. Instead, these people claim the two main options are equally bad.

But regardless of what your actual values and policy preferences are, that’s almost certainly untrue. The two candidates hold very different views on a wide range of issues, and have different records of what they have done – and not done – when in office.

People who claim the two different candidates are basically the same are misusing another mental shortcut: the human tendency to think in categories. Grouping distinct items in the same category can simplify thinking, but it can ignore substantial differences.

Some people think about 1-in-10 chances and 1-in-a-million chances as both being in the category of “possibilities.” But they’re very different: If you’re flipping a coin repeatedly, one is about equal to your chance of getting heads three times in a row, and the other is how likely you are to get heads 20 times in a row.

Seeking your most desired outcome

During the 2000 presidential campaign, I recall a friend said he wasn’t voting for Democratic candidate Al Gore because he thought Gore and Republican nominee George W. Bush were equally bad. But after winning – partly because of third-party voters who cast ballots for independent Ralph Nader – Bush withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto Protocol to limit global carbon emissions, invaded Iraq, and passed tax cuts favoring the wealthy.

All of those were actions Gore would almost certainly not have taken. The two candidates were very far from being the same, and even though my friend didn’t see it beforehand, he should have been able to.

The U.S. will have a new president on Jan. 20, 2025: Trump or Harris. A third-party winner is not a real option.

In some states voters can rank candidates in order of preference, more clearly expressing their choices without wasting their vote on a candidate who can’t win. People who believe it would be nice to have more choices with realistic chances of winning could work to adopt that system – known as ranked-choice voting – in their communities, or seek to adopt other methods that could eventually yield more viable options in the future. But it won’t happen in time for this election.

Whether you like it or not, you face a binary choice: Vote for one or vote for the other. And please vote. Läs mer…

The Drug Enforcement Administration announced in early 2024 that it would act on President Joe Biden’s call to reclassify marijuana, moving it from the tightly controlled Schedule I category that it has been in since 1970 to the less restrictive Schedule III status of the Controlled Substances Act. That triggered a long process of hearings and reviews that will not be completed until after the presidential election in November.

The news drew strong reactions from critics: 25 Republican lawmakers sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland protesting any changes to federal marijuana laws. They argued that the decision “was not properly researched … and is merely responding to the popularity of marijuana and not the actual science.”

As a philosopher and drug policy expert, I focus on assessing arguments and evidence rather than politics or rhetoric. So, what are the arguments for and against rescheduling cannabis?

Scheduling under the Controlled Substances Act

The Controlled Substances Act places each prohibited drug into one of five schedules based on known medical use, addictive potential and safety. Schedule I drugs – which, along with marijuana, also includes heroin, LSD, psilocybin, ecstasy (MDMA) and quaaludes – is the most restrictive category.

Schedule I substances cannot be legally used for any purpose, including medical use or research, though an exception for research can be made with special permission from the DEA. The criteria for inclusion in the Schedule I category is that the substance has a high potential for abuse, is extremely addictive and has “no currently accepted medical use.”

Schedule II, which is slightly less restrictive than Schedule I, includes drugs that are addictive and potentially unsafe but also have some accepted medical use. These include strong opioids such as fentanyl, as well as cocaine, PCP and methamphetamine. Though they are still tightly regulated, Schedule II drugs can be used medically with a prescription or administered by a licensed physician.

Schedule III is much less restrictive and is intended for substances with legitimate medical use and only moderate risk of abuse or dependency. This category includes low-dose morphine, anabolic steroids and ketamine.

Schedule IV – which includes the sedative valium, the weak opioid tramadol and sleep medicines such as Ambien – is even less restrictive.

The least restrictive category is Schedule V, which includes cough syrups with codeine and calcium channel blockers such as gabapentin and pregabalin. All scheduled drugs require a doctor’s prescription and can be distributed only by licensed pharmacies.

What rescheduling would mean for marijuana

The push to reschedule is largely to make federal laws consistent with state medical marijuana programs that – as of October 2024 – are legal in 38 states plus the District of Columbia.

Moving marijuana to Schedule III would not change its legal status in states where it is banned. It would make marijuana legal at the federal level but only for medical use. Recreational use would still be federally prohibited, even though it is currently legal in 24 states plus Washington.

Rescheduling, however, might not make medical marijuana any easier for patients to access and could even make it much harder for some. Currently, getting a medical marijuana card is quite easy in most states. In Washington D.C., where I live, patients can self-certify.

Reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule III drug would legitimize its medical use.

If marijuana is reclassified as Schedule III, medical marijuana programs will have to start requiring a doctor’s prescription, just like with all other scheduled substances. And it could be distributed only by licensed pharmacies, which would put medical dispensaries that are now selling it without a license from the Food and Drug Administration out of business.

Rescheduling, however, would give medical marijuana legitimacy as a bona fide medicine. And the intent of the move is to increase access, even if it is unclear how rescheduling would achieve that.

So, assuming that rescheduling would have the intended effect of expanding access to medical marijuana, should it be rescheduled?

Medical uses of marijuana

Though there are three criteria for Schedule I in the Controlled Substances Act, the DEA in fact relies on only the medical use criterion. This was the basis of the DEA’s proposal to reschedule marijuana. The fact that almost 75% of Americans live in a state with a medical marijuana program suggests that marijuana has an accepted medical use.

More importantly, Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act already includes dronabinol, which is delta-9 THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. Although dronabinol is synthesized in the lab rather than extracted from the cannabis plant, it is the exact same molecule. The FDA approved THC in the form of dronabinol in 1985 for treating anorexia caused by HIV/AIDS as well as nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy. Placing marijuana in the same schedule as its primary active ingredient makes a lot of sense.

Another argument in favor of rescheduling is that it would open up new opportunities for medical research into marijuana’s effects, research that is currently hampered by its Schedule I status. This work is critical because the system of cannabinoid receptors through which marijuana causes its therapeutic and psychoactive effects is crucial for almost every aspect of human functioning.

Research has shown that cannabis is effective not only in treating nausea and AIDS but also chronic pain and some symptoms of multiple sclerosis.

There is also good evidence that marijuana can help treat other conditions, including Lou Gehrig’s disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS), glaucoma, irritable bowel syndrome, insomnia, migraine, post-traumatic stress disorder and Tourette syndrome. Keeping marijuana in the Schedule I category severely hampers research that might establish more effective treatments for these conditions.

Researchers have been extremely limited in their abilities to study marijuana because of its Schedule I classification.

Balancing risks and benefits

Those opposed to rescheduling cite possible health risks associated with marijuana consumption. Heavy use is linked to an increased risk of developing schizophrenia. However, the increased risk of schizophrenia from cannabis use is comparable to that caused by watching excessive television, eating junk food or smoking cigarettes.

Long-term marijuana use can also lead to sleep problems and diminished visuospatial memory. It can also cause gastrointestinal trouble, such as cannabis hyperemesis syndrome, which is characterized by nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. The symptoms, while extremely unpleasant, are temporary and occur only after consuming marijuana. The condition disappears in people who stop using.

Marijuana use can also be addictive. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about three out of every 10 regular marijuana users meet the diagnostic criteria for cannabis use disorder.

All of the concerns above are legitimate, though it is worth noting that virtually no effective medicine is free from undesirable side effects. And although marijuana can be habit-forming, it is not as addictive as alcohol, tobacco, oxycodone, cocaine, methamphetamine or benzodiazepines. None of those other drugs are categorized as Schedule I, and alcohol and tobacco are not scheduled at all.

Unlike most other prescription medications, marijuana use is associated with many benefits. For example, in states where marijuana has been legalized, worker’s compensation payments have fallen by an average of 21% among people over 40. Researchers think that this is because marijuana helps workers better manage chronic pain. The use of marijuana for pain management also helps to reduce dependency on opioids. One study found that U.S. counties with one or two marijuana dispensaries had an average of 17% fewer opioid-related fatalities compared with counties with no dispensaries.

Research also shows that marijuana use can help to prevent Alzheimer’s by blocking the enzymes that produce amyloid plaques. It also shows promise for reducing a person’s risk of developing Type 2 diabetes by helping the body regulate insulin and glucose levels.

All of these benefits add up to marijuana users having an overall lower rate of premature death than nonusers. Läs mer…

Polls and analyses from journalists, scholars and even religious leaders often seem to assume that evangelicalism represents a singular religious and social identity. Former president and Republican nominee Donald Trump, who received 81% of the white evangelical vote in the 2016 election, is predicted to garner a majority share of this vote again in 2024.

Yet, the reality is much more complex. In 2016, for example, evangelical leaders such as Jerry Falwell Jr. and Robert Jeffress celebrated Trump’s victory and evangelicalism’s role in bringing America back to God. Others – such as Russell Moore, currently editor of the evangelical magazine Christianity Today – saw Trump as the opposite of what evangelicalism represents.

Led by prominent figures such as the late Jerry Falwell, contemporary evangelicalism emerged as a political force in the 1970s and 1980s and championed conservative religious values. Since then, evangelicals have been regarded as a uniform, monolithic group who are opposed to gay rights, abortion and more, and that they are a reliable conservative voting bloc.

As a scholar of American religion who has studied the evangelical movement for over 30 years, I was dissatisfied with this interpretation. At University of Southern California’s Center for Religion and Civic Culture, we decided to bring together our collective research on evangelicalism to develop a broader template to understand the dynamics of American evangelicalism. The result was a report first published in 2018 that we continue to update.

We have identified and described five varieties, or “types,” within the broader evangelical movement.

Evangelicals and their beliefs

At its core, evangelicalism is characterized by a belief in the literal truth of the Bible.

For example, evangelicals believe that the world and humans were created by God; that Jesus was literally God’s son and also born as a human; that Jesus died and physically rose from the dead; and that God currently acts through humans to achieve his ends for humanity. A hallmark belief for evangelicals is having a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ” and a focus on encouraging others to be “born again” or “saved” through Jesus.

Despite sharing the same basic theology, there are differences within evangelicalism politics and social engagement.

We used three criteria to develop our five categories: First, each type shares a basic agreement on evangelical theology. Second, they each understand themselves as existing within the larger tradition of American evangelicalism. And third, their theology motivates how they act in the world, including appropriate social and political actions.

Typologies simplify in order to explain, but they also can blur some of the finer distinctions between categories. Still, the perspectives these different varieties of evangelicals maintain shape not only who they will vote for but also why they vote a certain way.

1. MAGA-vangelicals

MAGA-vangelicals consist of the white Christian nationalist core of the “Make America Great Again” or MAGA, movement, with some Latino, Asian and Black American pastors aligning themselves with this movement.

MAGA-vangelicals have been the most vocal and visible group of evangelicals since the 2016 election.

The origins of this group trace back to the 1980s – the time of the emergence of the religious right. MAGA-vangelicals echo many of the same issues – such as opposition to abortion and LGBTQ+ rights and support for anti-immigration policies. One significant shift, however, since the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, is an increased acceptance of political violence. “Jan. 6 was not an insurrection,” evangelical leader Lance Wallnau has falsely asserted. “It was an election fraud intervention.” The baseless election fraud myth was the pretext for the violence on Jan. 6.

2. Neo-fundamentalist evangelicals

Neo-fundamentalists are evangelicals who are as theologically or politically conservative as MAGA-vangelicals but maintain a [theological commitment] to remain separate from any relationships – whether personal, social or political – that would, in their view, compromise the teachings of evangelical Christianity and their own identity as evangelical Christians.

For example, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Albert Mohler and Christianity Today editor Russell Moore have opposed Trump due to his, by evangelical standards, lack of values and amoral lifestyle.

The Rev. Russell Moore.
AP Photo/Mark Humphrey, File

However, they support how the Trump administration furthered the political goals of evangelical Christianity. In particular, they support the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and supporting evangelicals’ religious freedom to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people in their businesses.

Yet there has recently been some qualified support among neo-fundamentalists offered for Trump himself, despite their opposition to his personal morals. For example, Mohler has argued that Trump is the better candidate to achieve their goals in 2024, despite his personal shortcomings. Mohler takes the position, though, that this support largely depends on Trump remaining committed to evangelical goals on issues such as abortion.

3. iVangelicals

iVangelicals are evangelicals primarily focused on personal faith and the weekly worship experience in their churches. They are mainly concentrated in the evangelical megachurch movement.

iVangelicals want to reach large numbers of people through their popular worship services, varied social programs and small group ministries.

iVangelicals are particularly adept at borrowing and adapting elements of popular culture to provide a “relevant” church atmosphere.

For example, most iVangelical megachurches include music that, other than the lyrics, is nearly indistinguishable from secular pop and rock bands, in both style and quality. Although they are generally conservative in their theology and politics, they tend to stay away from overtly political messages in their churches.

There is, however, a range of beliefs and commitments among iVangelicals, with some being attracted to groups such as Evangelicals for Harris, a new effort to mobilize evangelicals to move away from Republicans, Trump and MAGA and to vote for Harris. Their approach uses biblical examples and references to argue that true Christian teachings and actions are more aligned with Democrats than Republicans.

Evangelicals for Harris.

4. Kingdom Christians

Kingdom Christians are evangelicals who, in their churches and ministries, strive to mirror the demographic and socioeconomic mix of the neighborhoods where they are rooted.

They tend to have a more diverse racial and ethnic mix of members than other evangelical churches. Their focus is to be a part of, and to serve, their local communities in a manner that mirrors their conception of the kingdom of God on Earth.

Leaders among Kingdom Christians often critique the economic and political systems that produce poverty and racial injustice. The focus of their efforts, however, is on creating relationships with local businesses and activists in the local community and contributing to policy through engagement with local officials.

Kingdom Christians are present-oriented; the kingdom of God is to be realized in the communities where believers live, as well as in some future spiritual world.

5. Peace and Justice evangelicals

Peace and Justice evangelicals are a loose network of pastors, nonprofit leaders, professors and activists. They are a small segment within evangelicalism often embedded in larger organizations, and they focus their work on key social and political issues such as racial justice, immigration reform and environmental issues. They seek to have a wider impact than just a focus on the local community.

Peace and Justice evangelicals trace their origins to the late 1960s publication, The Other Side, originally Freedom Now, which represented a freshly emerging evangelical social consciousness around issues of racial justice. Following close behind was the Sojourners community, and Sojourners magazine, which is still active today.

In 1973, a group of evangelical college professors wrote the Chicago Declaration of Social Concern, which ultimately led to the launch of Evangelicals for Social Action as a national organization in 1978.

This is a small but growing minority in the larger evangelical world, with many belonging to traditional evangelical institutions. For example, Alexia Salvatierra, at Fuller Seminary, is a longtime “faith-rooted” community organizer and has more recently been instrumental in forming Matthew 25/Mateo25, a group that aids immigrants and “defends the vulnerable.” Shane Claiborne, a long-time urban activist, is currently head of Red Letter Christians, a movement that combines “Jesus and justice” and seeks to “live out Jesus’ counter-cultural teachings.”

Several Christians work with organizations that help immigrants.
AP Photo/Russell Contreras

Evangelicals and the future

Following historical evangelical voting patterns, it is likely that most white evangelicals will vote for Trump in 2024. I believe many will do so with enthusiasm, while others will vote for him because of his policies, while remaining troubled by his rhetoric.

Of the evangelicals who oppose Trump, some will refuse to vote for either Trump or Harris, refusing to cast a vote for president. Others will vote for Harris, following the example of many Republican leaders who are seeking to move beyond the damage that Trump and the MAGA movement have done to the Republican Party and to conservatism.

Meanwhile, for the Kingdom Christians and Peace and Justice evangelicals, the true values of evangelical Christianity will be supported by the more progressive policies of the Democratic Party.

Regardless of how they vote in the 2024 election, evangelicals in all of these categories will continue to promote their distinct vision of evangelicalism and educate members on how they should bring their faith to bear on important social and political issues in American culture. Läs mer…

Think of your favorite fantasy or science fiction novel. You’ll know the author and title, of course. But can you think of its editor or publisher?

In publishing, the people who work behind the scenes rarely get their due. But on Oct. 1, 2024, at least, one industry pioneer got the limelight. On that day, PBS aired “Judy-Lynn del Rey: The Galaxy Gal,” the first episode of its new documentary series “Renegades,” which highlights little-known historical figures with disabilities.

A woman with dwarfism, Judy-Lynn del Rey was best known for founding Del Rey Books, a science fiction and fantasy imprint that turned fantasy in particular into a major publishing category.

As a scholar of fantasy literature, I had the good fortune to serve as research consultant for the PBS project. Due to time constraints, however, the episode could tell only half of del Rey’s story, passing over how she affected science fiction and fantasy themselves.

Judy-Lynn del Rey, you see, had very clear notions on what kind of stories people wanted to buy. For some critics, she also committed the unforgivable sin of being right.

The Mama of ‘Star Wars’

Over the course of her career, del Rey earned a reputation as a superstar editor among her authors. Arthur C. Clarke, who co-wrote the screenplay for “2001: A Space Odyssey,” called her the “most brilliant editor I ever encountered,” and Philip K. Dick said she was the “greatest editor since Maxwell Perkins,” the legendary editor of Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald.

She got her start, though, working as an editorial assistant – in truth, a “gofer” – for the most lauded science fiction magazine of the 1960s, Galaxy. There she learned the basics of publishing and rose rapidly through the editorial ranks until Ballantine Books lured her away in 1973.

Soon thereafter, Ballantine was acquired by publishing giant Random House, which then named del Rey senior editor. Yet her first big move was a risky one – cutting ties with Ballantine author John Norman, whose highly popular “Gor” novels were widely panned for their misogyny.

Del Rey’s acquisition of the rights to ‘Star Wars’ was a boon for Ballantine.
The Internet Speculative Fiction Database

Nonetheless, del Rey’s mission was to develop a strong backlist of science fiction novels that could hook new generations of younger readers, not to mention adults. One early success was her “Star Trek Log” series, a sequence of 10 novels based on episodes of “Star Trek: The Animated Series.”

But del Rey landed an even bigger success by snagging the novelization rights to a science fiction film that, at the time, few Hollywood executives believed would do well: “Star Wars.”

This savvy gamble led to years of lucrative tie-in products for Ballantine such as calendars, art books, sketchbooks, the Star Wars Intergalactic Passport and, of course, more novels set in the Star Wars universe – so many different tie-ins, in fact, that del Rey dubbed herself the “Mama of Star Wars.”

Afterward, she became someone who, as reporter Jennifer Crighton put it, radiated “with the shameless glee of one of the Rebel forces, an upstart who won.”

A big player in big fiction

Del Rey’s tendencies as an editor were sometimes criticized – often by competitors who could not match her line’s success – for focusing too much on Ballantine’s bottom line. But she also chose to work within the publishing landscape as it actually existed in the 1970s, rather than the one she only wished existed.

In his book “Big Fiction,” publishing industry scholar Dan Sinykin calls this period the “Conglomerate Era,” a time when publishing houses – usually small and family run – were being consolidated into larger corporations.

One benefit of this shift, however, was greater corporate investment in the industry, which boosted print runs, marketing budgets, author advances and salaries for personnel.

Ballantine’s parent company, Random House, was also known as an industry leader in free speech, thanks to the efforts of legendary CEOs Bennett Cerf and Robert L. Bernstein.

Accordingly, Random House gave their publishing divisions, including Ballantine, immense creative autonomy.

And when del Rey was finally given her own imprint in 1977, she took her biggest risk of all: fantasy.

The Del Rey era

In prior decades, fantasy had a reputation for being unsellable – unless, of course, your name was J.R.R. Tolkien, or you wrote Conan-style barbarian fiction. Whereas the top science fiction magazines often had distinguished runs, fantasy magazines often folded due to lack of sales.

The popular film version of ‘The Princess Bride’ was aided by del Rey’s earlier advocacy for reissuing the novel.
The Internet Speculative Fiction Database

In 1975, though, del Rey hired her husband, Lester del Rey, to develop a fantasy line, and when Del Rey Books launched two years later, it landed major successes with bestsellers such as Terry Brooks’ “The Sword of Shannara” and Stephen R. Donaldson’s “The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever.” Yet even though Lester edited the fantasy authors, Judy-Lynn oversaw the imprint and the marketing.

One lesser-known example of her prowess is “The Princess Bride.”

Today, most people know the 1987 film, but the movie originated as a much earlier novel by William Goldman. The original 1973 edition, however, sold poorly. It might have faded into obscurity had del Rey not been determined to revive Ballantine’s backlist.

She reissued “The Princess Bride” in 1977 with a dazzling, gate-folded die-cut cover and a new promotional campaign, without which the novel – and the film – might never have found its later success.

Accolades accumulate

Thanks to these efforts, Del Rey Books dominated genre publishing, producing more bestselling titles through 1990 than every other science fiction and fantasy publisher combined. Yet despite complaints that the imprint prioritized commercial success over literary merit, Del Rey authors earned their fair share of literary accolades.

The prestigious Locus Poll Award for best science fiction novel went to Del Rey authors Julian May and Isaac Asimov in 1982 and 1983. Other Locus awardees include Patricia A. McKillip, Robert A. Heinlein, Larry Niven, Marion Zimmer Bradley and Barbara Hambly.

Barry Hughart’s “Bridge of Birds” was one of two winners for the World Fantasy Award in 1985 and won the Mythopoeic Society Award in 1986. Even more impressively, Del Rey ran away with the Science Fiction Book Club Award during that prize’s first nine years of existence, winning seven of them. The imprint’s titles also won three consecutive August Derleth Fantasy Awards – now called the British Fantasy Award – from 1977 through 1979.

Yet despite these accolades, Del Rey’s reputation continued to suffer from its own commercial success. Notably, Judy-Lynn del Rey was never nominated for a Hugo Award for best professional editor. When she died in 1986, the Hugo committee belatedly tried granting her a posthumous award, but her husband, Lester, refused to accept it, saying that it came too late.

Although the current narrative continues to be that Del Rey Books published mainly formulaic mass-market fiction in its science fiction and fantasy lines, the time may be ripe to celebrate the foresight and iconoclasm of a publisher who expanded speculative fiction beyond the borders of a small genre fandom. Läs mer…

The first time many Americans heard about Springfield, Ohio, came during the September 2024 presidential debate when Donald Trump falsely claimed that Haitian immigrants in the city were eating other residents’ cats and dogs.

Though shocking, these harmful rumors had been spreading on social media since the beginning of the summer and had gained more notoriety when JD Vance, a U.S. senator from Ohio and Trump’s running mate, made similar statements on X, the social media platform formerly called Twitter.

But what has gone mostly overlooked is the effect these racist lies have had on energizing Ohio’s nearly 50 white extremist groups.

Members of the white supremacist group Blood Tribe marched through Springfield on Aug. 10, 2024, with with swastikas on their signs.

Since then, members of the Ku Klux Klan and the right-wing extremist group Proud Boys have each marched in separate demonstrations through Springfield.

As scholars of extremism who live in Ohio and work at the University of Dayton, we have seen these events unfold at a time when city officials have received multiple bomb threats targeting local government offices and schools since Trump’s false and racist claims against Haitian immigrants.

The changing landscape

In our research, we have found that the rapidly changing social conditions in Ohio have played a significant role in the growth of extremism.

Between 1990 and 2019, for instance, manufacturing jobs shrank from 21.7% of all employment in the state to 12.5%, a loss of nearly 360,000 jobs. As a result, income disparities between the professional and working classes have widened – as has the heightened sense among some alienated white men that white conservatives are the real victims of bias in a society growing more racially and culturally diverse.

A neo-Nazi group speaks under heavy police protection at a 2005 rally sponsored by the National Socialist Movement at City Hall in Toledo, Ohio.
Bill Pugliano/Getty Images

For many of these alienated men, particularly those in rural areas that lack significant numbers of Black and Hispanic residents, extremist ideologies offer easy answers to complex questions that involve their sense of disenfranchisement.

In 2020, for example, the population of Springfield was about 60,000. But over the past three years, city officials estimate that the population has grown by about 25%, partly fueled by the arrival of as many as 15,000 Haitian immigrants during that time. Many of them are legally living in the U.S. under a special federal program.

Similar demographic shifts are occurring throughout the state. Between 2010 and 2022, the percentage of the white population dropped from 81.2% to 77.3%, a loss of about 250,000, putting the state’s white population at about 9.1 million. During the same time, the Hispanic population, for instance, grew from about 357,000 in 2010 to nearly 525,000.

For some of these white extremists, these population changes will lead to an inevitable race war between white people and nonwhite people. We have found that the attraction of belonging to a group that promises strength, protection and a source of identity can be particularly compelling.

The Ohio connection

In recent years, white extremism in Ohio has received attention as a result of the extremist rhetoric of and often violent crimes committed by white men who call the state home. Consider just a few examples:

Born and raised in Ohio, Andrew Anglin founded the Daily Stormer, a popular neo-Nazi website, in 2016.

James Alex Fields Jr. of Maumee, Ohio, poses for a mug shot after he drove his car into a crowd of counterprotesters in Charlottesville, Va., on Aug. 12, 2017.
Albemarle-Charlottesville Regional Jail via Getty Images

James Alex Fields Jr., a white nationalist from the Toledo area, was sentenced to life in prison in 2019 for the murder of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, Virginia. Fields was convicted of driving his car into a crowd of counterprotesters during the white nationalist Unite the Right Rally in August 2017.

Prior to the attack, Fields frequently posted the hashtag #Hitlerwasright on his social media accounts and called for violence against nonwhites and Jews.

In the summer of 2022, Ohio law enforcement officers shot and killed Ricky Shiffer after the armed Navy veteran fired a nail gun at the FBI field office in Cincinnati. On his social media accounts, Shiffer had called for violence against federal law enforcement officials after the FBI searched Donald Trump’s residence at Mar-a-Lago as part of the federal probe into Trump’s handling of classified documents.

Tres Genco, a self-described incel – short for “involuntary celibate” – who hated women and believed he was owed sex from them, was from the Cincinnati area and pled guilty in 2022 to plotting a mass shooting of women at Ohio State University. Law enforcement officials in Ohio stopped the planned attack before it happened.

On April 21, 2023, Christopher Brenner Cook, 20, of Columbus, Ohio, and others were sentenced to nearly eight years in prison for his plan to attack power grids across the U.S. Cook and his accomplices believed that they were starting a race war and used neo-Nazi propaganda and white supremacist ideology to recruit young people to join their group.

Online recruitment tactics

Leaders of white supremacist and militia groups often use both traditional outreach and digital platforms to recruit people to their groups. Traditional outreach includes recruitment in conversations, attending events, and sharing books, pamphlets, flyers and posters.

At the same time, social media has become a critical tool for extremist groups to spread their message, recruit members and organize events.

These online platforms create echo chambers that reinforce extremist beliefs in debunked conspiracy theories, such as the assumption that the federal government is part of a plot to eliminate the white race.

In addition to the increased traffic on social media, we have seen a rise of extremist groups in Ohio known as active clubs, where members engage in physical fitness, combat training and emotional support that encourages the development of a warrior mentality in preparation for what followers believe is an inevitable race war.

Countering extremism in Ohio

Though the emergence of white extremist groups goes far beyond the borders of Ohio, we have found that community-based, educational initiatives are effective in understanding and ultimately eradicating the root causes of racial and ethnic hatred on the local level.

In our view, community engagement that emphasizes dialogue and understanding across different racial groups is crucial for demonstrating the dangers of intolerance – and the benefits of diversity. Läs mer…

Exercise is great for improving heart health. But the thought of hitting the gym or going for a jog might put some people off from doing it. And, if you have a heart condition already, such dynamic exercises may not be safe to do.

The good news is, you don’t necessarily need to do a vigorous workout to see heart benefits. You can even improve your heart health by holding still and trying really hard not to move.

Isometric training, as this is called, is becoming increasingly popular as a way of reducing blood pressure and hypertension, and improving strength and muscle stability.

Normally, to build strength and force, our muscles need to change length throughout a movement. Squats and bicep curls are good examples of exercises that cause the muscle to change length throughout the movement.

But isometric training involves simply contracting your muscles, which generates force without needing to move your joints. The harder a muscle is contracted, the more forceful it becomes (and the more forceful a muscle is, the more powerfully we can perform a movement).

If you add weight to an isometric exercise, it causes the muscle to contract even harder. A wall sit and a plank are examples of isometric contractions.

Isometric exercises are associated with a high degree of “neural recruitment”, because of the need to maintain the contraction. This means these exercises are good at engaging specialised neurons in our brain and spinal cord, which play an important role in all the movements we do – both voluntary and involuntary. The greater this level of neural activation, the more muscle fibres are recruited – and the more force generated. As a result, this can lead to strength gains.

Isometric exercises have long been of interest to strength and power athletes as a means of preparing their muscles to generate high forces by activating them. But research also shows isometric exercises are beneficial for other areas of our health – including reducing hypertension and promoting better blood flow.

There are a couple reasons why isometric exercises are so good for the heart.

When a muscle is contracted, it expands its size. This causes it to compress the blood vessels supplying this muscle, reducing blood flow and raising the blood pressure in our arteries – a mechanism known as the “pressor reflex”.

Then, once the contraction is relaxed, a sudden surge of blood flows into the blood vessels and muscle. This influx of blood brings more oxygen and (crucially) nitric oxide into the blood vessels – causing them to widen. This in turn reduces blood pressure. Over time, this action will reduce stiffness of the arteries, which may lower blood pressure.

Over time, isometric exercises may help lower blood pressure.
Andrey_Popov/ Shutterstock

When blood flow is reduced during an isometric movement, it also reduces the amount of available oxygen that cells need to function. This triggers the release of metabolites, such as hydrogen ions and lactate, which stimulate the sympathetic nervous system – which controls our “fight of flight” response. In the short term, this leads to an increase in blood pressure.

But when an isometric exercise is done repeatedly over many weeks, there’s a reduction in sympathetic nervous system activity. This means blood pressure is lowered and there’s less strain on the cardiovascular system – which makes these exercises good for the heart.

Isometric exercises may be even more beneficial for heart health than other types of cardiovascular exercise. A study which compared the benefits of isometric exercise versus high-intensity interval training found isometrics led to significantly greater reductions in resting blood pressure over the study period of between two and 12 weeks.

How to use isometric exercise

If you want to use isometric training to reduce blood pressure, it’s recommended that you should do any isometric contraction for two minutes at around 30-50% of your maximum effort. This is enough to trigger physiological improvements.

You can start by doing this four times a day, three-to-five times per week – focusing on the same exercise. As you progress, you can start to vary the exercises you do, add weights to the exercise, or add in more than one isometric exercise.

Some good isometric exercises to begin with include a static squat, a wall sit or a plank. Even during these small bouts of exercise, your heart rate, breathing and arterial pressure will all increase – the same responses that occur during more conventional whole-body exercises, such as cycling and running.

The beneficial improvements in blood pressure start to manifest around 4-10 weeks after starting isometric training – though this depends on a person’s health and fitness levels when starting out.

Isometric training appears to be a simple, low-intensity mode of exercise that offers big benefits for cardiovascular health – all while requiring little time commitment compared with other workouts. Läs mer…

Telegram’s founder Pavel Durov has confirmed that the messaging app, which is widely used in Russia, has made several changes related to user privacy.

Durov, who was arrested in France in August in connection with a range of crimes as well as refusal to communicate information or documents, has made some alterations that address user safety and user privacy.

Telegram says the changes are expected to also reduce criminal activity on the app. But users are concerned that the changes make the app more compliant with legal requests from authorities.

While Durov’s political and legal tussle continues in the EU, at home in Russia Telegram remains one of the most influential media platforms. It is one of the only places where both opposition and official voices coexist.

It is particularly popular with Russians between the ages of 12 and 24, with around 85% of them using Telegram. Around 25 of its 30 most popular channels are news and politics related. Telegram is also popular for calls and messaging.

The platform is a vital space for the independent journalism and activism that survives in Russia. Independent media outlets and commentators covering Russian affairs and using Telegram include Meduza (1.3 million subscribers), TV Rain (500,000 subscribers) and Mediazona. All are using Telegram to reach the public but are operating from outside Russia’s borders.

Pro-government channels also attract big audiences on Telegram, often with even larger followings than the independent outlets mentioned above. The most popular Telegram channels are Ria Novosti with 3.3 million subscribers, Readovka with 2.6 million subscribers, and Solovyov Live (1.3 million subscribers), along with several others promoting pro-government lines and supporting Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Additionally, alternative voices such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a former oligarch and prominent Kremlin critic, and Ekaterina Shulman, a respected political scientist and commentator, are steadily gaining audiences. Both have been labelled as foreign agents or extremists in Russia.

Where do Russians get news?

In the past decade, Russia’s media landscape has undergone significant censorship due to increasing state control. Radio stations have closed down and many journalists have left the country to be able to report.

Russian media usage

MediaScope, Author provided (no reuse)

Traditional media sources, such as television, continue to have a massive audience. Television has a monthly reach of 98%, while radio has a monthly reach of 79%. (Reach is the total number of different people or households exposed, at least once, to a medium during a given period).

Both remain significant in today’s Russia. While television remains a primary news source for many Russians, the internet is used by 84% of people daily.

Since 2012, the state has progressively tightened control over political information. People and organisations will self-censor, and there is legislation penalising social media reposts and other forms of dissent. These laws claim to be addressing users who “discredit the armed forces” or “spread fake news”, but are actually aimed at cracking down on dissent.

Most viewed Telegram channels in Russia during July 2024

Data from BrandAnalytics, Author provided (no reuse)

As of 2024, over 2,000 administrative cases and more than 273 criminal cases have been initiated under these laws. Individuals and organisations critical of the official Kremlin narrative have been fined, had their assets confiscated and been imprisoned.

Read more:
Ukraine recap: Putin’s nuclear sabre-rattling becomes more ominous

Another government method used to control online discussion includes slowing down or blocking social media platforms. The state blocked major western platforms Facebook, Instagram and Twitter in March 2022, leading millions of Russian users to migrate to Telegram.

Content creators followed en masse, transforming Telegram into a vital hub for news and political debate. Alternatives to Telegram in Russia include state-controlled domestic networks like VKontakte (VK) and Odnoklassniki, which have strong ties to figures close to the Kremlin.

Why is Telegram allowed?

The use of Telegram for propaganda, influencing public opinion, and promoting the positions of the state and Putin could be one of the reasons why Telegram has not faced the same restrictions as other platforms.

Another reason for its popularity is the platform’s ease of use as a messaging app, including for state organisations. This makes it less of a direct threat to state control over public opinion, while still serving as a crucial tool for those seeking alternative sources of information.

Its appeal to the Russian government is strengthened by the fact that Telegram is not owned by global (western) companies such as Meta, which owns WhatsApp (also popular in Russia). Additionally, issues surrounding legally questionable content, such as the near-official tolerance of digital piracy, have long been controversial in Russia.

Telegram’s moderation policies have often been associated with a less regulated approach to content, which has contributed to its popularity in Russia. These new changes may make ordinary Russians worry more about whether what they say on the app is safe from the state’s prying eyes.

The platform’s prominence in Russian public life is undeniable, but so too are the challenges it faces. How Telegram and its leadership navigate the coming years will have profound implications, not just for the platform, but for broader public debate in Russia.

Durov’s arrest underscores the growing pressure on Telegram, from some quarters, and reflects a critical juncture for platform leaders navigating state intervention. But for Russian people looking for a space where they can exchange news and views, it remains one of most free platforms they can still access. Läs mer…