Suchergebnisse

The Biden administration must take steps to increase the oversight of U.S. weapons given to Israel in order to reduce civilian harm in Gaza, argued a group of powerful Democratic senators in a new open letter to President Joe Biden."Israel is a U.S. partner, and we must ensure accountability for the use of U.S. weapons we provided to our ally," wrote the group of lawmakers, which included Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Tim Kaine (D-Va.).The letter, while carefully worded to avoid condemning administration policy, is among the strongest statements of concern from Biden's Senate allies about how he has approached the war. The U.S.-backed Israeli campaign has left more than 16,000 Palestinians dead, 70% of whom were women or children, according to Palestinian officials.The statement comes as Congress considers a large spending package that includes $14 billion in weapons aid for Israel as well as measures that would waive some transparency requirements for military assistance to the country — a sharp contrast with the detailed information that the Biden administration has shared on its aid to Ukraine.Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) announced Wednesday that he plans to introduce an amendment to the bill that would require that all weapons sent through this package be used in accordance with U.S. law and international law, including the law of armed conflict. The proposal would also require Biden to report to Congress on this question, forcing the administration to evaluate Israel's adherence to U.S. laws and policies.Sanders, meanwhile, has gone further than his colleagues and said he opposes the package in its current form, arguing that the U.S. should not be helping "the right-wing, extremist Netanyahu government to continue its current military strategy.""What the Netanyahu government is doing is immoral, it is in violation of international law, and the United States should not be complicit in those actions," he argued in a separate letter.In the Warren-led letter, the lawmakers highlight the dramatic impact that Israel's bombing campaign has had on Gaza by rattling off a list of alleged human rights violations committed by Israeli forces. Drawing on press reports, the senators say Israel has struck civilians in "safe zones" they were told to flee to, killed well over 100 civilians in attacks on a refugee camp, and targeted hospitals such that it became impossible to provide medical care."While these strikes were aimed at Hamas, we have concerns that strikes on civilian infrastructure have not been proportional, particularly given the predictable harm to civilians," the lawmakers wrote. Sens. Martin Heimrich (D-N.M.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) also signed the missive.Notably, the letter questions whether the administration has held to its own policies in Gaza, a point raised by numerous experts and former officials over the past two months. They applauded several civilian protection initiatives that Biden has undertaken — including a policy saying the U.S. will not give weapons to anyone who will "more likely than not" use them to violate human rights — but argued that it is "unclear, however, how these different efforts are or will be applied to protect civilians in Gaza.""Your administration must ensure that existing guidance and standards are being used to evaluate the reports of Israel using U.S. weapons in attacks that harm civilians in order to more rigorously protect civilian safety during Israel's operations in Gaza," they wrote.The lawmakers also raised concerns about specific weapons that the U.S. continues to provide Israel, including artillery rounds that have been used in allegedly indiscriminate attacks. "The DoD as a whole has yet to define safeguards or issue a statement on how Israel should use U.S. weapons," the letter notes.The letter ends with a series of questions for the administration demanding details about what assurances Israel has provided about its use of U.S. weapons as well as an explanation of how the U.S. addresses allegations of civilian harm by Israeli forces.Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn't cleave to the mainstream orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily. Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraft so that we can continue this quality coverage — which you will find nowhere else — into 2024. Happy Holidays!

The Senate voted overwhelmingly Thursday to reject a bill that would have mandated the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Niger, where a coup has left the country in crisis since July.The 11-86 vote followed a heated floor debate in which Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) made an impassioned speech in favor of bringing U.S. soldiers home from the country."Does it make sense to station over 1000 troops in a country ruled by a military junta?" Paul asked. "We're in the middle of a potential war with 1100 troops in Niger where the democratically elected president has been deposed, and they're being ruled by a military junta and still our troops are there."Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho), who voted against the bill, argued on the floor that "a swift withdrawal from Niger, as proposed in this resolution, would weaken our regional reconnaissance efforts" and open the door to Russian influence in the country. Sen Ben Cardin (D-Mary.) also argued against the measure, contending that U.S. troops are not engaged in active hostilities and that American soldiers are there with the permission of local authorities.Paul led the bill alongside co-sponsors Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.). Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), John Kennedy (R-La.), J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), and Mike Braun (R-Ind.) also voted in favor of a floor vote on the bill.The proposal was endorsed by Just Foreign Policy, the Friends Committee for National Legislation, the Heritage Foundation's advocacy arm, and the Quincy Institute, which publishes RS.The news comes amid growing pressure to reevaluate America's war on terror, which has quietly hummed along in places like Somalia, Niger, and Syria in recent years with little attention from the U.S. public. Most deployments are justified under the broad authorization for the use of military force passed by Congress just days after the September 11, 2001, attacks."Using an AUMF from 22 years ago, an authorization to get the people who attacked us on 9/11, to justify a war in Niger is a ridiculous notion and should be rejected out of hand," Paul argued.While these operations are largely confined to training and intelligence gathering, American soldiers have been involved in recent skirmishes in Somalia, and Islamic State fighters killed four U.S. servicemen in Niger in 2017. The father of one of those soldiers recently pleaded with lawmakers to reconsider America's presence in the country."If a conflict is not worth the death of your own son or daughter, if you are not willing to send your own son or daughter to death's door to return home in a flag-draped coffin, don't send ours," he wrote.Observers initially speculated that the coup in Niger could make it more challenging for the U.S. military to operate, especially given the junta's decision to expel French troops from the country. But U.S. officials reportedly struck a deal with coup leaders that has allowed the 1,100 American soldiers deployed in the country to return to their regular intelligence and surveillance work.Further complicating the issue is the State Department's decision earlier this month to officially designate the takeover as a coup, restricting the extent to which U.S. forces can provide security assistance to and coordinate with the Nigerien government. It is unclear whether the U.S. military continues to arm and train the Nigerien military.Paul has previously raised questions about the secretive nature of the U.S. presence in Niger. As he noted in a recent letter to Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, it remains unclear what authority underpins the operations, which must be authorized legally by an act of Congress.Recent presidents have largely justified such operations using the broad authorization for the use of force passed in the days after 9/11. But legal experts have recently raised doubts as to whether that law remains applicable after more than two decades of global war.New threat assessments "raise the question of whether the United States has passed the 'tipping point' such that U.S. counterterrorism efforts are no longer considered an armed conflict," noted Brian Finucane of the International Crisis Group and Heather Brandon-Smith of the FCNL.In the case of Niger — a country that, by all accounts, had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks — Paul argues that operations "circumvent our constitution, which was designed to ensure that the decision to engage in hostilities would be made only after serious deliberation in the legislature."

The United States has committed support to the Israeli effort to rescue its hostages in Gaza, according to President Joe Biden in televised remarks to the nation on Tuesday afternoon.In an emotional speech, the president said there were 14 Americans dead and a number of American hostages among the 150 reported taken by Hamas in the attacks. "I'm directing my team to share intelligence and deploy additional experts from across the United States government to consult with and advise Israeli counterparts, hostage recovery, and recovery efforts," he said. "Because as president, I have no higher priority than the safety of Americans being held hostage around the world."In an earlier report, Sky News said it had confirmed that the Pentagon was sending "hostage rescue support" to Israel. It would be "intelligence support, it will be logistical support," but "at a distance." No boots on the ground, said SkyNews reporter Mark Stone early Tuesday afternoon before Biden's remarks.Earlier Tuesday, when talking to CNN about the hostage-taking, Israel's Minister for Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer said "there's also American hostages as part of that number as well." An exact number has yet to be confirmed. In his remarks, Biden also said it would be "surging additional military assistance including ammunition and interceptors to replenish Iron Dome. We're going to make sure that Israel does not run out of his critical assets to defend its cities and its citizens." On Monday, the Washington Post reported that the administration may try to roll Israel aid in with the Ukraine aid it wants Congress to pass by the end of the year. He did not provide any details about the level of aid or how he would present it to Congress in his remarks, however.Where he was light on details, he was strong in affirming his disgust with the wave of Hamas attacks, which began over the weekend. Though numbers are still unverified, reports said Tuesday afternoon that the death toll was nearing 1,008 Israelis and 770 Palestinians. "The blood thirstiness brings to mind the worst rampages of ISIS," Biden said. "This is terrorism. But sadly for the Jewish people, it's not new. This attack is brought to the surface painful memories and the scars left by a millennia of anti-semitism and genocide, the Jewish people in this moment, we must be crystal clear. We stand with Israel. We stand with Israel."Hamas, Biden added, "does not stand for the Palestinian people's right to dignity and self determination." "This is what they mean by human tragedy — atrocity on an appalling scale. We're going to continue to stand united supporting the people of Israel who are suffering unspeakable losses, and opposing the hatred and violence of terrorism."Israel has called up 300,000 reservists and appears to be readying for a ground invasion of Gaza, which has been slammed by Israeli retaliatory missile strikes against Hamas over the last 72 hours, with nearly 200,000 residents displaced as of Tuesday, according to the UN. Israel's defense minister ordered a cut-off of all food, water and electricity to Gaza, which is already under a blockade. According to ABC News, more than 73,000 people were sheltering in schools as of Tuesday morning, while Gaza's main hospital, Beit Hanoun Hospital, was damaged and is now out of service. Biden did not mention the unfolding civilian crisis in Gaza, but emphasized the assistance to Israel in its war against Hamas in Gaza moving forward. He said, too, that his administration is addressing any potential for domestic threats. "The Department of Homeland Security, Federal Bureau of Investigation are working closely with state local law enforcement and Jewish community partners to identify and disrupt any domestic threat that could emerge in connection with these horrific attacks," he said.Biden did not mention Iran, or what role it might have played in resourcing Hamas's attacks. But he did note the deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier group to the Eastern Mediterranean, which was announced Monday. Observers say this is not only a show of commitment to Israel's security, but a show of force in the region, with a particular nod to Iran. "We stand ready to move in additional assets as needed," Biden added.

Calls for a military response against Iran in response to this weekend's attacks in Israel are beginning to percolate in Washington, particularly among long-time advocates for regime change.
While Iran has provided funding and training for Hamas, the militant organization responsible for the attacks, Tehran's direct role in the attacks is not yet clear.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday that Iranian security officials played an important role in planning Saturday's attacks in Israel, but many experts have expressed skepticism about the report. Both U.S. and Israeli officials have said that they have seen no evidence Iran was directly involved in this weekend's events.
"Iran is a major player but we can't yet say if it was involved in the planning or training," said an IDF spokesman on Monday.
Nonetheless, many hawkish voices are already floating the possibility of a military response against Tehran.
"How much more death and destruction does the world have to take from the Iranian Ayatollah and his henchman before they pay a real price?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) wrote on the social media platform X. "If this 'Israel 9/11' - in which American citizens have apparently died - was in fact authorized and planned by the Iranian regime that would more than justify the use of military force to deter future aggression."
On Monday, during an interview on Fox News, Graham went a step further, saying that he was "confident" regarding Iran's involvement, and that it was "time to take the war to the Ayatollah's backyard."
Nikki Haley, former ambassador to the United Nations and current presidential candidate, said in an interview on Fox News that her message to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was: "Finish them. Hamas did this, you know Iran's behind this. Finish them."
"What happened to Israel could happen here in America," Haley said in a separate interview. "I have been terribly worried about the fact that Iran has said that the easiest way to get into America is through the Southern border … we don't need to wait for another 9/11." Washington-based advocacy groups have also been calling for war with Iran in response to the Hamas attacks on Israel..
"We call on our government in Washington, together with Israel, and our allies around the world to launch strikes against military and intelligence targets in Iran, including Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) sites, and missile and drone bases, where Iran's proxy and partner network is trained," said United Against Nuclear Iran chair and former Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman and the group's CEO Mark Wallace in a statement. "If we do not stop Iran now, its threat will only grow more lethal."
"The Israeli response must be overwhelming and aimed not just at Hamas but at the head of the snake inside Iran," added Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu himself notably did not mention Iran in his address to the nation on Monday.
Many other members of Congress have stopped short of explicitly calling for a military response, but rather placed responsibility for the attacks squarely on Iran. This rhetoric opens the door for escalation that risks bringing the United States into the conflict.
"From a US perspective, it is critical to help prevent further escalation since a direct Israeli-Iranian confrontation will very likely drag the US into yet another major war in the Middle East," says Trita Parsi, executive Vice President of the Quincy Institute. "The US simply cannot afford such a war in the midst of the conflict in Ukraine and the risk of conflict with China over Taiwan."
Others claimed the Biden administration's recent decision to release $6 billion in Iranian funds held by South Korea as part of a prisoner exchange agreement helped fund the Hamas attack.
The White House has pushed back against these accusations, maintaining that the funds were transferred to Qatar and have not yet been spent. "[W]hen it is spent, it can only be spent on things like food and medicine for the Iranian people," wrote National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson on X. "These funds have absolutely nothing to do with the horrific attacks today and this is not the time to spread disinformation."

The strategy of economic boycotts from the far left
aimed at jurisdictions like Louisiana over social issues officially ran out of
steam with California Democrat Gov. Gavin
Newsom's quiet
repeal of a ban on paid employee state travel to states who rejected
empowering individuals of certain characteristics at the expense of others,
emphasizing the moral poverty of the left's argument.

California was the first of several states, by gubernatorial
executive orders, to enact this and similar measures involving potential commercial
activity between a state and others who passed laws allegedly discriminating against
politically-favored constituencies. For example, California initially issued a
fatwa on state travel to North Carolina because the latter passed a law
mandating that people of their natal sex or altered sex when using single-sex
restrooms to use those corresponding to their current sex.

At
first isolated, North Carolina eventually did away with that law having little
to do with California's action, but because leftists and special interests through
a combination of suasion and bullying activated some economic interests to join
the boycott. Fortunately, that didn't cow a number of other jurisdictions like
Louisiana – now over half the states – to pass laws refusing to privilege the
agendas of such groups. Since then, corporations and nonprofit entities have
realized they lose business and opportunities to interact with all community
interests and walked back from highly-politicized public pronouncements and
actions signaling solidarity with the actions of the groups attempting to gain
privilege.

Louisiana actually was one of the earliest targets
of the ideologues, over the popular vote almost a decade prior to California's move
over amending its Constitution to define marriage as a union between a single
man and single woman. A smattering of groups declared they no longer would
engage in activities in the state, such as the American Political Science
Association declaration
in 2012 just before it held its last annual meeting in New Orleans (I let
my membership lapse in it to protest its anti-intellectual, narrow-minded
decision).

Not that it's really affected anything. Last year,
77
major conventions were held in New Orleans, including arguably professional
associations farther around the bend than the APSA such as the American
Historical Association, Society for Social Work and Research, and American
Psychiatric Association who seemingly have acquiesced to meeting in a state
with policy at odds with their organizations' political prejudices.

And similar threats were sounded by Democrats when
a couple of years ago legislative majorities moved to promote fairness in women's
sports by allowing only biological females to compete in collegiate and
scholastic events designated for females only. Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards –
one of those predicting boycotts would rain from the skies if the bill became
law – vetoed
it, only to back down when essentially a copy came before him again last
year.

Meanwhile, boycott threats fizzled, such as paper
tiger talk from the National Collegiate Athletic Association that it wouldn't
stage championship events in states with a fairness law like Louisiana's. That
disappeared entirely, for example, when the University of Oklahoma's softball
team this year, by virtue of its 61-1 record which is the best ever in the
sport, successively hosted regional and superregional tournaments and then won
its third national championship in a row at the Women's College World Series in
Oklahoma City, despite Oklahoma having such a law. Nor did the NCAA stop
Louisiana State University's baseball team from hosting regional and
superregional tournaments just afterwards.

The bullies' tactic ultimately failed because the
moral case clearly was on the side of states like Louisiana. Claimed rights of
differing groups clashed, but there was no compelling reason why those of small
minorities should have the privilege of overriding of the legitimate and
compelling human rights of the majority. Those majorities, through articulation
of their interests both intellectually and in the resulting political action,
didn't allow themselves to become steamrolled by noisy, petulant, and emotional
ideologues.

Thus, California joins just about every other
significant entity in throwing in the towel. Of course, rearguard actions will
continue, such as through products supporting that agenda emanating from
academia and entertainment, but thoughtful people will see through and ignore
it, if
not retaliate giving them a taste of their own medicine. And Louisiana can
be proud it acted as one of the bulwarks that repelled the leftist boycott
strategy.

 The announcement that the Trudeau government is cutting the defence budget along with every other budget by a smidge is getting a heap of play.  On the one hand, $1b is not that dramatic of a cut to the largest discretionary part of the budget.  On the other hand, given what is going on the world and given where the commitments the government has made, this has a lot of people shaking their heads.  It does help us understand why there is no defence policy update: it would be very embarassing to indicate how much the world has gotten more threatening and then say "and we are cutting defence."  Now, one could argue that Canada spends enough as the threats are distant and we have some big oceans protecting us.  Yet.... here are the big commitments that need to be funded:NORAD Modernization: the government has repeatedly committed to spending many billions on improving the warning systems and other facilities as part of its commitment to defend Canada and to cooperate with the US on the defence of North America.  The technology is, the infrastructure needs much work in the face of climate change and age.  So, is this the commitment Trudeau is going to break?Sending a brigade to Latvia: the government has committed to sending 2200 to Latvia and remain the Framework (leading) nation for NATO in Latvia.  This is going to cost a lot of money to send troops, have them armed and supplied with ammunition, and also provide resources to the other countries in the Canadian-led brigade.  Is this the promise that Trudeau is going to break?Reversing the personnel crisis.  The CAF is currently at least 16,000 people short for a force of 100,000.  That means lots of jobs are either unfilled or people are working multiple jobs.  This can create a spiral as people leave because they are working too hard and/or are underserved AND it slows down recruitment and training.  Solving this requires culture change, sure, but it also requires $$$$.  We need to pay folks more, find ways to cover child care, provide better facilities, and, in all ways possible, make it more attractive to serve Canada.Keep on saving Canadian lives and property when natural disasters become emergencies. Climate change means more of these events, and crappy provincial politics means that the CAF will be called out again and again--more, not less.  So, will Trudeau cut back on these efforts, despite a basic commitment to have the CAF surge in when Canadians need help? Ships and planes.  Yeah, Trudeau promised to build 15 new warships to replace those rusting away, and something like 88 F-35s to replace fighter planes that are twice as old as those joining the RCAF.  As we start to actually buy the planes and build the ships, it will mean more money being spent.  Oh and new equipment costs more to maintain.  Is this the promise Trudeau is going to break?Sure, I have a minor interest in all of this as the CDSN gets some money from DND via the MINDS program, which is an easy cut to make, just as the old Security and Defence Forum was under Harper.But the larger point remains: the government has made a number of defence commitments that require more money to be spent, not less.  The Defence Policy Update was supposed to justify those additional expenditures and explain to the public how those funds would help Canada adjust to a more threatening world.   But now we see the budget going down.  It may be good politics since no one votes either way on defence spending, but the polls do indicate that the public supports more defence spending.  These cuts are not due to pressure to spend less on defence.  So, other than not caring about defence, it is not clear what is driving this.The joy of not being a Conservative is that Liberals don't have to care as much about deficits [and, yes, the Conservatives will cut defence if they get into power as they care more about deficits than most things].  Why not lean into that joy, FFS?

Remember the old line, "What if they had a war and nobody came?" That's increasingly how the 2024 Republican presidential primary is shaping up.


When former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie traveled to Ukraine to show his solidarity with the government in Kyiv against the Russian invasion, it was also intended to send a shot across former President Donald Trump's bow.


Christie wanted to remind every Republican skeptic of an open-ended commitment to Ukraine in its war with nuclear-armed Russia — from Trump to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy — who's really boss in the GOP more than three decades after the curtain came down on the Cold War.


"I cannot understand what Governor DeSantis's position is on Ukraine," Christie told the Washington Post afterward. "Vivek is Trump's wingman. There's no substance to what Vivek Ramaswamy is saying on this issue."


Yet a look at the RealClearPolitics polling average shows the three Ukraine-skeptical candidates are together drawing 77.6 percent of the vote. Christie is winning 3.1 percent, a 74.5-point gap. To be generous we can throw in former Vice President Mike Pence and former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley, who hold the same position on U.S. involvement in the war. Sen. Tim Scott, the South Carolina Republican, is in substantial agreement with this bloc of candidates.


That's 13.7 percent of the vote for the four of them combined. None of the other candidates tops 1 percent of the vote. It calls to mind Pat Buchanan's 1996 quip about his GOP primary opponent Arlen Specter, that, given the margin of error, the Pennsylvania Republican might not even exist.


When the debate takes place on Wednesday night, DeSantis and Ramaswamy will be at the center stage because of their polling status. At the same time on X (formerly Twitter) the missing frontrunner, Donald Trump, a touch under 56 percent in the latest averages, will be seen in a pre-recorded interview with the conservative media personality who is perhaps most critical of current Ukraine policy, Tucker Carlson.


Christie does have a meaningful pocket of support in New Hampshire. But that appears to have more to do with blue state moderate Republicanism than foreign policy hawkishness.


The stature gap between the candidates isn't the only indication the maximalist hawkish line on the conflict is no longer selling. Even before the debate starts, the Heritage Foundation will be rolling out an ad opposing President Joe Biden's latest Ukraine spending push. That's a much larger and more venerable conservative think tank than the Bill Kristol-led outfit pushing in the opposite direction.


Then there is mounting evidence that rank-and-file Republican voters are souring on Ukraine-related spending, in a time of domestic problems and an "America First" emphasis by many ascendant conservatives. When an August CNN poll found that a 55 percent majority of Americans did not want Congress to authorize new Ukraine aid, an Atlantic Council blogger tried to spin it away with this riposte to "isolationist commentators":



"After eighteen months of the Russian war on Ukraine and tens of billions of dollars in US support to Kyiv, nearly half of Americans want Congress to spend more money to help Ukraine defend its sovereignty and freedom." (Emphasis in the original.)....


...While US public support for military aid to Ukraine has fallen since February 2022, the sky is certainly not falling. The picture of US support is far more complex than the cheerleaders for ending US support to Ukraine might want to believe.



Another argument that remains in heavy circulation among Republican hawks is that aiding Ukraine degrades the Russian military at a cheaper cost than boosting our own defense budget against future threats from the Kremlin. This is undoubtedly reassuring the growing number of Ukrainians dying and losing limbs on the battlefield today.


So the intra-party debate isn't over, exactly. Nor is a lot of the Republican criticism of Biden on Ukraine entirely sophisticated. Some of it is undoubtedly partisan and opportunistic. But it is a lot harder to pull an "Unpatriotic Conservatives" card on Ukraine when Trump is the frontrunner and Bill Kristol and David Frum are effectively Democratic operatives and Resistance bloggers.


Quite a lot has changed in Republican foreign policy discourse in the last 20 years. Whether that will translate into lasting changes in how Republicans actually govern remains to be seen. But at least the neoconservative monologue has been turned into a broader conservative debate, one that has reached as far as the 2024 GOP presidential candidates.

Will Duffield


In Missouri v. Biden, Missouri and Louisiana have sued the Biden administration for pressuring social media platforms to remove controversial and COVID‐​skeptical speech. On Independence Day, Federal District Court Judge Terry Doughty issued a preliminary injunction barring a bevy of executive branch agencies and specific federal employees from pressuring social media platforms to remove speech.
An accompanying memorandum ruling documents dozens of examples of inappropriate or careless government pressure to censor. Although it is heartening to see courts take jawboning seriously, the judgement illustrates the difficulty of drawing workable lines around government communication with social media platforms.
The injunction prohibits officials from flagging content, pushing for content policy changes, and meeting or communicating with platforms for the purposes of "urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech." On its face, this is a broad prohibition. However, what is or is not protected speech is often difficult to determine, and government officials often mistake or exaggerate the First Amendment's limits.
Indeed, the injunction includes exceptions for "informing" and "contacting" social media platforms about criminal activity, threats to national security, public safety, election interference, and, more generally, "deleting, removing, suppressing, or reducing posts on social‐​media platforms that are not protected free speech."
These exceptions can be read to cover much of the government speech that prompted concerns about jawboning in the first place. "Contacting and/​or notifying social‐​media companies about … foreign attempts to influence elections" is the whole of the controversy about government involvement in Twitter's decision to bar the New York Post's Hunter Biden story from its platform. Judge Doughty didn't necessarily draw bad lines here – the House's HR 140, legislation intended to prohibit jawboning, includes unworkably narrow exceptions. It is simply hard to draw feasible lines here.
The tensions between the injunction's overlapping prohibitions and exceptions show how difficult it is to draw clear lines between constitutionally acceptable notification and even persuasion, and impermissible pressure and bullying. Any practical prohibition will be too narrow and open to abuse, but any prohibition broad enough to resist gaming will prove unworkable when it covers normal government communications.
The memorandum ruling briefly outlines the two standards under which government communications with platforms might be unlawful, drawn from Supreme Court decisions in Bantam Books v. Sullivan and Blum v. Yaretsky. While Blum hinges on "significant [government] encouragement" such that "the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State", Bantam Books merely requires government to make a clear threat. I examine both lines of jurisprudence and their implications in greater detail in "Jawboning Against Speech."
Although the penumbra of government pressure cataloged in Missouri v. Biden might be more easily judged "significant encouragement" than outright coercion, there is good reason to prefer the court use Bantam Books when it decides the merits of the case. Bantam Books is a much more workable standard for addressing government interference in content moderation, where the frequency of private content moderation makes it hard to determine what wouldn't have been removed but for government pressure. Although outright coercion is less frequent, it is much easier to identify. And starting from government coercion leads to better remedies than treating social media platforms as state actors.
As the judgement illustrates, crafting a workable remedy is difficult. A solution must be able to discourage government pressure upfront rather than bind platforms' hands after they have been bullied. Outright prohibitions struggle to find workable lines. Beyond the facts of specific cases involving particular government demands, there might not be a goldilocks zone of viable general prohibitions on government communication with private platforms.
Disclosure is a better approach. If we cannot establish rules to cover every case, we can expose government requests to public scrutiny. On the margin, officials will refrain from sending bullying messages if they know that they will be made public. When jawboning implicates particular speakers, a disclosure regime will make it far easier for them to bring suit. Make no mistake, judicial attention is valuable, and this injunction sends a strong signal that jawboning is a real problem. However, it is problem that will ultimately require congressional action to solve.

Статья посвящена рассмотрению дискуссии между А.Я. Гуревичем и Л.М. Баткиным, которая внесла значительный вклад в становление «несоветской» медиевистики. Цель исследования состоит в определении характерных черт полемики между А.Я. Гуревичем и Л.М. Баткиным, ее значения в процессе трансформации эпистемологического поля отечественной исторической науки. Теоретической основой статьи стали принципы интеллектуальной истории. Исследование осуществлено на основе сравнительно-исторического и историко-генетического методов. В настоящей работе проанализированы взгляды А.Я. Гуревича и Л.М. Баткина на ряд методологических вопросов, которые оказались в центре прений между учеными. В публикации делается вывод о том, что рассматриваемый диспут затрагивал вопросы о культурной и социальной сущности личности, о реализации личностью функций внутри общественных структур, о причинах и механизмах изменения культурных ценностей и доминант. Трактовка понятия «личность» определяла выбор подхода к изучению общества. Если для А.Я. Гуревича личность является порождением социально-культурной системы конкретной эпохи, а особенность личности заключается в оригинальном соединении общих черт культуры, то для Л.М. Баткина личностью является индивид, который, руководствуясь общими нормами и установлениями, пропускает их через свое сознание и словно вновь порождает нормы и ценности. Согласно Л.М. Баткину, «осознающая личность» – начало преодоления стереотипов и матриц общественного сознания. В этой связи подход А.Я. Гуревича был нацелен на реконструкцию общественных стереотипов и матриц, определявших поведение людей. Л.М. Баткин анализировал выдающиеся литературные произведения, которые, по мысли ученого, открывают в исследуемой культуре ее изменение и трансформацию. Ряд тезисов, высказанных Л.М. Баткиным в ходе полемики, был воспринят и интерпретирован Ю.Л. Бессмертным, А.Л. Юргановым, А.В. Каравашкиным, И.Н. Данилевским и оказал влияние на формирование их научно-исследовательских программ. Ученые сошлись во мнении, что средневековую культуру необходимо изучать исходя из особенностей развития самой культуры, следует уделять внимание пониманию специфики культурного языка, особенностей мышления и самовыражения исследуемой эпохи, надлежит учитывать уникальные черты культуры и использовать принципы герменевтики в качестве методологической основы интерпретации письменных источников.
he article is devoted to the discussion between A. Gurevich and L. Batkin, who made a significant contribution to the development of "non-Soviet" medieval studies. The purpose of the study is to determine the characteristic features of the controversy between A. Gurevich and L. Batkin and its significance in the process of transformation of the epistemological field of Russian historical science. The principles of intellectual history constitute the theoretical foundation of the article. The study was carried out on the basis of comparative historical and historical genetic methods. The present work analyzes the views of A. Gurevich and L. Batkin on a number of methodological issues that were at the center of the debate between the scholars. The author concludes that the dispute under consideration raised questions about the cultural and social essence of the individual, about the implementation by the individual of his functions within social structures, and about the causes and mechanisms for changing cultural values and dominants. The interpretation of the concept of personality determined the choice of approach to the study of society. While for A. Gurevich, the personality is a product of the socio-cultural system of a particular era and the peculiarity of the personality lies in the original combination of common features of culture, L. Batkin views the personality as an individual who, being guided by general norms and regulations, lets them go through his consciousness and as if generates norms and values again. According to L. Batkin, "the conscious personality" is the beginning of overcoming stereotypes and matrices of social consciousness. In this regard, the approach of A. Gurevich was aimed at reconstructing social stereotypes and matrices that determined people's behavior. L. Batkin analyzed outstanding literary works, which, according to the scholar, reveal change and transformation in the culture under study. A number of points made by L. Batkin during the polemic were perceived and interpreted by Yu. Bessmertnyi, A. Yurganov, A. Karavashkin, and I. Danilevskii and influenced the formation of their research agenda. The scholars agreed that medieval culture should be studied proceeding from the peculiarities of the development of the culture itself; attention should be paid to understanding the specifics of the language of culture, features of thinking and self-expression of the era under study; unique features of culture should be taken into account; it is required to use the principles of hermeneutics as a methodological basis for the interpretation of written sources.

(It was Cinco de Mayo when the actual
event occurred, not Apr. 1. But, given the views of leftist political
elites these days, maybe this isn't so far-fetched ….)

Activists and Democrats from the White House on
down hailed as historic the victory by Heemaneh in the Kentucky
Oaks, the premier race for three-year-old fillies, as the first win ever in a Grade
1 stakes race by a transgender horse.

As Louisiana-bred Heemaneh, who goes by the pronoun
"zir," has done since zir transitioning began at the start of the year, zir decimated
the field, as trainer Bob Baffling's bettor favorite smashed the race record
and won by double-digit lengths. Standing a couple of hands higher than any of zir
competitors, from the time they left the gate all they saw of zir was zir rear
heels.

"This win is so gratifying, not just for the marginalized
and persecuted transgender community, but for me personally," said Baffling. "This
time, they can't question my use of drugs for a horse." Baffling, who uses
he/him/his pronouns, recently came off a suspension related to his past
Kentucky Derby winner Mecca Spirit, who uses he/him/his pronouns, who was stripped
of his title when impermissible levels of drugs were found in him after his
win.

Heemaneh competed at the New Orleans Fair Grounds as
a male two-year-old last year with lackluster results. But that all changed
when she surprisingly was claimed by Kelly Two-Spirit, an equine psychologist
at Loyola University's Center for Social Injustice.

"This presented a classic case of gender
dysphoria. You easily could tell that zir ached to express zirself as female,"
said Two-Spirit, who goes by the pronouns "ze/zim." "I'm told that as a yearling
zir tried to nibble at a female trainer's hair barrettes and jewelry, was calmer
with a pink rather than blue blanket, and rode more steadily with bedazzled
rather than ordinary blinkers," ze said.

After claiming, Heemaneh began ingesting a series
of puberty blockers to halt any remaining male development. Gelding was
postponed so not as to interfere with zir race program this spring, where zir delivered
resounding wins at the Fair Grounds' Untapable, Silverbulletday, Rachel
Alexandra, and Fair Grounds Oaks graded stakes races this spring, before the
Kentucky Oaks triumph.

Not all involved seemed pleased. Wayne D. Lucas,
like Baffling a Hall of Fame trainer and user of he/him/his pronouns, opined pejoratively,
"Tomahawk Chop developed as male to have larger lung capacity, a larger heart,
and larger legs, things that make horses run faster that drugging cannot change.
He [sic] has a physical advantage over fillies solely because of his [sic] natal
sex and should not compete against them. How in the world can somebody
disregard the physical nature of a horse and claim that a non-verbal being is
telling someone what sex [sic] he [sic] is and should be?" "Tomahawk Chop" is
the deadname of Heemaneh.

"That's just ignorant," said Two-Spirit, in response
to Lucas' remarks. "If
you listen to the yearlings, you will discover their gender. It is not for us
to tell, but for them to say. And if we don't listen, we might as well help
anguished horses like Heemaneh commit suicide as these horses otherwise inevitably
will if we don't affirm their gender choices," ze said.

Pres. Joe Biteme lauded the win. "Come on, man, that
is such good news" Biteme said when informed by a female reporter of the
victory. "It's time for the malarkey of America's rampant discrimination and subjugation
of anybody not a drug-free human white male Christian to stop, and this is a
necessary step to that end. We should celebrate. Give the Big Guy a hug!"

Two-Spirit said the next step for Heemaneh, in
preparation for the Breeders' Cup this fall, would be gelding. "Even after zir monumental
spring campaign, even after pumping zir full of drugs, zir doesn't seem happy.
Zir really needs to get rid of the oppressive appendage between zir legs and
then zir finally will get relief zir so long has wanted in aligning sex with
gender. Trust me; I have a Ph.D."

 A series of questions from a new survey sponsored by the Wall Street Journal is getting a lot of attention.  The figure that's been circulating shows the percent who says that the following values are very important "to you personally" in surveys taken in 1998, 2019, and 2023:So it appears that patriotism, religion, having children, and community involvement are becoming less important to people, while money is becoming more important.  The WSJ story on the survey also mentions that the percent who say that tolerance and hard work is very important to them fell between 2019 and 2023.  So the results seem to show a dramatic turn towards selfishness in the past few years.A few people have raised questions about this interpretation.  Patrick Ruffini notes that the 1998 and 2019 surveys were taken by telephone, while the 2023 survey was online.  He suggests that phone surveys are affected by "social desirability bias"--you want the interviewer to think well of you, so you give answers that will make you look better.  Social desirability bias might have inflated the numbers for values like hard work, patriotism, and community involvement, and held down the numbers for money.Another new feature of the 2023 poll was that half of the sample were asked the response options ("very important," "somewhat important," "not that important," and "not at all important") in reverse order (see p. 7 here).  This may also make a difference--making a distinction "very important" and "somewhat important" may be harder than making a distinction between important and not important.  In this case, whether people say "very" or "somewhat" may depend on which answer is offered first.  In the phone surveys, "very" was always offered before "somewhat"--in half of the internet surveys, "somewhat" came first.  So my hypothesis is that the distribution of answers in 2023 differed depending on the order of the response options.  If so, comparison with the earlier years should be based only on the part of the sample that offers them in the same order as the phone surveys.  Or you could look at the the combined percentages for "very" and "somewhat" important:                                        1998    2019   2023Hard work                         98%    98%   94%Self-fulfillment                  94%   94%   91%Tolerance                           NA     96%   90%Money                                 88%   92%   90%Community involvement   94%   96%    80%Patriotism                           93%   88%    73%Children                              84%    77%   65%Belief in God                      NA     72%    65%Religion                              89%    75%   60%For the first four, there's little change--they are almost universally regarded as important at all three times.  The results for "self-fulfillment," which isn't mentioned in the WSJ article, are particularly interesting--the percent rating it as very important fell from 64% in 2019 to 53% in 2023.  That's hard to square with either the growing selfishness or the social desirability interpretations, but is consistent with my hypothesis.  These figures indicate some changes in the last few years, but not the general collapse of values that is being claimed.Unfortunately, the Wall Street Journal doesn't make the original survey data available.  If they ever do, I will check and see if the response order makes a difference.  

O objetivo deste artigo é analisar as atividades realizadas pelos moradores de vilas rurais sob influência da dendeicultura no Nordeste Paraense. A expansão desse cultivo tem transformado não só a paisagem, mas também a dinâmica social, cuja face mais visível são as vilas rurais, lugares de residência de grupos que trabalham na dendeicultura na condição de assalariados e de integrados. A pesquisa foi conduzida no âmbito do projeto AFInS, e a metodologia constou de observações e entrevistas com atores-chave residentes em 346 vilas rurais em 22 municípios. Os principais resultados mostram a predominância de quatro tipo de vilas e a inquestionável importância da agricultura e do assalariamento.

Referências
ALENCAR, E. F. Memórias de Mamirauá. Tefé, AM: Instituto de Desenvolvimento Sustentável de Mamirauá, 2010.
AQUINO, S. L. Estratégias empresariais e efeitos locais: A inte- gração de pequenos agricultores à indústria fabricante de papel e celulose. Revista IDeAS, v. 7, p. 158–197, 2013.
BRANDÃO, F.; CASTRO, F.; FUTEMMA, C. Between structural change and local agency in the palm oil sector: Interactions, heterogeneities and landscape transformations in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Rural Studies, v. 71, p. 156–168, out. 2019.
CANDIDO, A. Os parceiros do rio bonito: Estudo sobre o caipira paulista e a transformação dos seus meios de vida. 7. ed. São Paulo: Duas cidades, 1987.
GOMES, D. L.; SCHMITZ, H.; MOTA, D. M. Agricultores familiares, agroindústrias de dendê e a integração produtiva na Amazônia paraense. Caminhos de Geografia, v. 22, n. 83, p. 301–320, 4 out. 2021.
GUANAIS, J. B. Vida e trabalho dos cortadores de cana: migração, assalariamento temporário e labor nos canaviais paulistas. Século XXI – Revista de Ciências Sociais, v. 4, n. 1, p. 260–290, 22 set. 2014.
GUEDES, E. B.; CORDOVIL, G. V. Vilas Rurais na Amazônia Paraense: Uma Proposição Conceitual. Revista Geoamazônia, v. 1, n. 1, p. 28–47, 30 jun. 2013.
HÉBETTE, J.; ALVES, J. M.; QUINTELA, R. Parentesco, vizinhança e organização profissional na formação da fronteira amazônica. In: No mar, nos rios e na fronteira: faces do campesinato no Pará. Belém, PA: Universidade federal do Pará, 2002. p. 173–202.
MARIN, J. O. B. Juventudes Rurais: projetos de emancipação social. Desenvolvimento em Questão, v. 18, n. 52, p. 33–54, 24 jul. 2020.
MOTA, D. M. et al. Oil palm contract farming improves quality of life for family farmers in the Brazilian Amazon? ETFRN News 59 - Exploring inclusive oil palm production, p. 8, 2019.
MOTA, D. M.; BALSADI, O. V.; MOURÃO JÚNIOR, M. Transformações na estrutura ocupacional do Norte do Brasil com foco na dendeicultura. Raízes: Revista de Ciências Sociais e Econômicas, v. 39, n. 2, p. 289–312, 13 dez. 2019.
MOTA, D. M. DA; RIBEIRO, L.; SCHMITZ, H. A organização do trabalho familiar sob a influência da produção de dendê em Tomé-Açu, Pará. Boletim do Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências Humanas, v. 14, n. 2, p. 531–552, ago. 2019.
QUEIROZ, M. I. P. Bairros rurais paulistas. São Paulo: Duas cidades, 1973.
RIBEIRO, L. B. O trabalho sob influência da dendeicultura em vilas rurais Paraenses. Mestrado—Belém: Universidade Federa do Pará/Programa de Pós-Graduação em Agriculturas Amazônicas, 2016.
RIBEIRO, L. B.; MOTA, D. M.; ALVES, K. S. Vilas rurais na Amazônia Oriental: O Nordeste Paraense em questão. Cadernos de Ciência & Tecnologia, v. 34, n. 3, p. 339–358, 2017.
RIBEIRO, L. B.; NASCIMENTO, D. A. S. DO. Ruralidade imposta pela produção de uma commodity em vila rural no Pará. CP02 - Ruralidades e Lutas sociais no campo. Anais... In: 20 CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO DE SOCIOLOGIA. Belém: Universidade federal do Pará, 2021.
ROBERT, L. F. O. J. Trabalho agrícola na colheita do dendê: a contribuição da ergonomia na avaliação das condições de trabalho em uma empresa de médio porte no Nordeste do Estado do Pará. Doutorado—São Carlos: Universidade Federal de São Carlos, 2017.
SILVA, D. W. ENTRE A VILA E O ASSENTAMENTO: Belém: Universidade Federal do Pará/Programa de Pós-Graduação em Agriculturas Amazônicas, 2011.
WAGLEY, C. Uma comunidade amazônica: estudo do homem nos trópicos. 3. ed. São Paulo: Editora da Universidade de São Paulo, 1988. v. 136

Readers of this blog are most likely vaccinated to some extent against COVID-19 -- a big majority of Americans are. Of course, the level of vaccination varies greatly. The CDC says that about 78% of the US population has had one dose of vaccine and 67% has had the "complete initial protocol." Only about 38% of Americans have received the booster even though almost everyone 5 or older can get one dose. FYI: The CDC officially recommends that everyone eligible should get boosted. Below I reference some research suggesting the booster might save your life. A second booster shot (also recommended by the CDC for those eligible) is available for people aged 50 and above, plus the immunocompromised -- basically, the people facing the greatest risks during the pandemic.Unfortunately, the virus keeps mutating and so neither the vaccines nor previous infection have been especially effective at preventing transmission of the latest version of the disease. They are doing a much better job at preventing hospitalization and death, as the rates for those outcomes have been lower in the US in 2022 than they were in 2020. The Washington Post reported in late April that the most recent variants have primarily been  killing peopled aged 75 and up: "nearly two-thirds of the people who died during the omicron surge were 75 and older." However, there are differences among the victims:the bulk of vaccinated deaths are among people who did not get a booster shot, according to state data provided to The Post. In two of the states, California and Mississippi, three-quarters of the vaccinated senior citizens who died in January and February did not have booster doses.A new study also finds that it is dangerous to become infected with the virus multiple times: The constellation of findings show that reinfection adds non-trivial risks of all-cause mortality, hospitalization, and adverse health outcomes in the acute and post-acute phase of the reinfection. Reducing overall burden of death and disease due to SARS-CoV-2 will require strategies for reinfection prevention.This is likely already be baked into that data, but experts say about 1 to 5% of COVID patients develop what is commonly called "long COVID"The percentage of people with severely debilitating symptoms is probably between 1 and 5 percent — amounting to millions of people in this country, according to Harlan Krumholz, a Yale University professor of medicine.The April information referenced above is now a bit out of date as it is primarily discussing the Omicron variant that was then dominant -- version BA.2. The new BA.5 variant is seemingly much more contagious. Indeed, from Alpha to Delta and then through the several Omicron variants, virtually ever wave of the virus has been propelled by an ever more contagious version of the disease. There is some good news: While it was recently calculated and reported that the R-naught (or R0) of BA.5 is over 18, making it the most contagious viral infection known to man (worse than measles), that is apparently incorrect and fact-checkers have now corrected the reporting. It is, however, too soon to calculate the R0 precisely. By the time we can calculate it, the new BA.2.75 circulating in India might be dominant. The original reproductive rate of COVID was likely 2 to 3 with Delta probably around 5. The initial omicron variant number was apparently 8. Additionally, the current circulating versions of the disease remain deadlier than the seasonal flu -- at least for the unvaccinated. In all, the information fairly clearly reveals that the pandemic is not over -- no matter how many unhelpful strangers tell you that it is -- and people should continue to take precautions.Get boosted. Wear an effective mask (N95 or KN95). Maybe even outdoors (in crowds). Practice social distancing. The government should be pushing harder to reinstate masks on planes and other forms of public transportation.  Indeed, because of standing room only crowds and poor ventilation, buses might be the most dangerous. 
Visit this blog's homepage.

For 280 character IR and foreign policy talk, follow me on twitter.

Or for basketball, baseball, movies or other stuff, follow this personal twitter account.

In this dissertation, I present five articles regarding two relevant discussions within the field of energy economics: First, three papers discuss the German energy transition and in particular the increasing shares of renewable energies, its cost, benefits and respective challenges to its realization. Second, two papers discuss potential asymmetric pricing in the retail fuel sector in Germany, realizing an analysis with significantly improved data sets compared to earlier studies to answer more specific research questions. The first three articles focus on the reconstruction of the German energy market into a low-carbon emission setting, especially by utilizing renewable energies. First, the analysis concentrates on the developing energy policy-related goals and the energy economic status-quo, such as the functioning of the system of feed-in tariffs within the market for renewable energies and its general effects on costs. Second, the study deals more deeply and with a quantitative emphasis on the roll-out of renewable energies in Germany and especially its economic effects, such as costs and benefits for energy consumers. Results showed that until 2030, German electricity consumers will pay around €2011 200 billion for RES installations built before the end of 2011. Third, related to the public opinion on the energy transition process, the dissertation unfolded challenges and misconceptions and offers implications for an improved communication approach. The analysis showed by the use of qualitative, semi-structured, in-depth expert interviews that despite the alleged clarity of goals, about two dozen questioned German energy stakeholders have very diverse reasons for the energy transition. The results indicated that one crucial reason is climate protection while a second one is energy autarchy. However, the heterogeneity of goals and conflicting objectives can lead to social tensions and mistrust, which can be appropriately addressed with specific communication methods (e.g. infographics). The last two articles focus on econometric analyses regarding potential asymmetric pricing within the German retail fuel sector. In particular, the two papers examine the potential existence of Rockets and Feathers, i.e. higher adjustment speeds of retail fuel prices after oil price increases compared to oil price decreases. The dissertation analyzed a tremendous amount of data regarding retail diesel prices from two databases, compiled and processed by the author. The analysis proved with the help of Error Correction Models (following Engle/Granger) that e.g. specific major brands of retail fuel station as well as the local competitive environment influence the probability of Rockets and Feathers. Additionally, the analysis revealed that the nature of Rockets and Feathers is not static over time, i.e. the magnitude of the effect has dynamics across different time periods and consumer behavior can be seen as one reason for the phenomenon of asymmetric pricing. ; In der vorliegenden Dissertation werden fünf Artikel in Bezug auf zwei Bereiche der Energieökonomik vorgestellt. Zum einen beschäftigen sich drei Artikel mit der deutschen Energiewende, vor allem mit dem Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien, den damit verbundenen Kosten sowie Herausforderungen einer erfolgreichen Umsetzung der Transformation. Zum anderen beschäftigen sich zwei Artikel mit der Untersuchung von asymmetrischer Preissetzung im deutschen Dieselmarkt. Die ersten drei Artikel fokussieren auf den Umbau des deutschen Energiemarktes hin zu einem Markt mit vermehrtem Einsatz erneuerbarer Energien. Die Analyse beschäftigt sich erstens mit den sich verändernden politischen Zielen als auch mit dem regulativen Status Quo, wie z. B. der Funktionsweise des Systems der Einspeisetarife für erneuerbare Energien. Zweitens wurde der Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien in Deutschland mittels einer quantitativen Kostenanalyse ökonomisch bewertet. Hierbei wurden die Kosten für Energiekonsumenten quantifiziert. Die Ergebnisse zeigten, dass für erneuerbare Anlagen, welche bis zum Ende des Jahres 2011 installiert wurden, ca. 200 Mrd. €2011 bis zum Jahr 2030 bezahlt werden. Drittens zeigt die Arbeit Herausforderungen und Missverständnisse in Bezug auf die Energiewende. Durch die Auswertung von qualitativen, halbstrukturierten und vertiefenden Experteninterviews konnten Ansätze und Schlussfolgerungen präsentiert werden, welche einer verbesserten Vermittlung der Energiewende dienen. Die Analyse zeigte, dass trotz der scheinbaren Klarheit der Ziele der Energiewende, zwei Dutzend befragte Stakeholder unterschiedliche Beweggründe für die Umsetzung der Transformation vorlegen. Eine wichtige Motivation ist hierbei der Klimaschutz, eine zweite das Thema Energieautarkie (Energieunabhängigkeit). Die Heterogenität von Zielen und entsprechende Zielkonflikte können zu gesellschaftlichen Spannungen und Misstrauen führen, denen mit spezifischen Methoden (z. B. Infografiken) entsprechend begegnet werden kann. Die letzten zwei Artikel widmen sich einer ökonometrischen Analyse in Bezug auf die potentielle asymmetrische Preissetzung im deutschen Dieselmarkt. Die Untersuchungen beschäftigen sich speziell mit der möglichen Existenz des Preisphänomens Rockets and Feathers, d. h. einer höheren Geschwindigkeit der Preisanpassung von Kraftstoffen nach Ölpreisanstiegen im Vergleich zu Ölpreissenkungen. Genutzt wurden zwei umfangreiche Datensätze, die durch den Autor aufbereitet wurden. Die Analyse zeigte mithilfe der Anwendung von asymmetrischen Fehlerkorrekturmodellen nach Engle/Granger, dass u. a. spezifische Marken von Tankstellen und die lokale Wettbewerbsintensität die Wahrscheinlichkeit von Rockets and Feathers beeinflussen. Des Weiteren wurde gezeigt, dass die Existenz von Rockets and Feathers nicht statisch ist, sondern sich über die Zeit verändert und Konsumentenverhalten für einen Teil der Preisasymmetrien eine Rolle spielen können.

2021 Fall. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Landfalling tropical cyclones (LTCs) are responsible for numerous hazards, including damaging winds, storm surge, inland flooding, and tornadoes. Furthermore, multiple hazards may threaten an area at the same time, which raises challenges from a prediction, warning operations, and human impacts standpoint. Previous research has approached overlapping tornado and flash flood events—which exemplify these challenges because the recommended protective actions can be in conflict—in continental systems from multidisciplinary perspectives, but less work has been done to explore these phenomena in LTC environments. Because LTCs also introduce other hazards, additional complexities may exacerbate already challenging circumstances. This work integrates meteorological and social sciences to broadly advance the understanding and implications of simultaneous flash flood and tornado events in LTCs. Part I of this thesis investigates the relationship between two predecessors to tornadoes and flash floods—meso- to storm-scale rotation and heavy rainfall rates, respectively—using observations. Motivated by previous work that has drawn linkages between these two processes in continental convective storms, this connection is explored in Tropical Storm Imelda, a system that was among the wettest LTCs on record to impact the contiguous United States (CONUS), producing rainfall accumulations in excess of 1000 mm when it made landfall on the western Gulf Coast in September 2019. First, a synoptic and mesoscale overview of the tropical cyclone (TC) is presented as motivation for its utility in examining overlapping embedded rotation and extreme rainfall rates. Then, rain gauges from a high-density observing network in southeast Texas are analyzed alongside polarimetric radar data to compare rainfall rates that occur in the presence of embedded rotation to those that occur when no rotation is evident on radar. According to these results, 5-minute rainfall rates that followed subjectively-identified meso- to storm-scale rotation on radar tended to be statistically significantly greater, and when accumulated over time, more than twice as much rainfall was recorded at gauge sites when rotation was present near the gauge compared to when there was no rotation located nearby. To further quantify the spatial and temporal relationships of embedded rotation and heavy rainfall rates, quantitative precipitation estimates (QPE) and rotation tracks from the Multi-Radar Multi-Sensor system are compared in time and space. A positive correlation was found to exist between the hourly-accumulated 0-2 km rotation tracks and hourly local gauge bias-corrected QPE, suggesting that more rain tends to fall in the presence of low-level rotation. In Part II of this thesis, social science methods are used to investigate another LTC: Hurricane Harvey (2017)—an unprecedented event that became the wettest LTC on record to impact CONUS and spawned over 50 tornadoes when it affected the western Gulf Coast. This work aims to explore the notion of experience as it evolves on Twitter in real-time during Harvey among a group of users who were located in areas that were impacted by the LTC and its overlapping hazards. Though a significant amount of research has investigated experience through surveying and interview techniques after LTCs occur, much less work has been done to study experience as it is shared live during an event or through the lens of social media. Using this motivation and drawing on the overarching theme of concurrent hazards, this research begins with a database of tweets composed during the period surrounding Hurricane Harvey that reference tornadoes and flash flooding. The sample is refined through a multi-step querying process, ultimately resulting in a group of 39 users who shared 158 tweets about "past events"—that is, events related to LTCs and/or the hazards that are associated with them. These tweets are thematically analyzed by individual users, by individual past events, and over time. The results of these analyses show that Twitter users referenced past events during Harvey for two main reasons: first, because the user has a personal connection to the event and second, because the past event is helping them to make sense of various aspects of the situation that is unfolding around them. Understanding what roles past events may play in a real-time crisis is useful to leaders and decision-makers, such as meteorologists, local politicians, and emergency managers, as it provides insight on the evolving needs and concerns of the public that they serve as they change and are modulated by various events that unfold throughout the overarching crisis.