Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Comfort Women – UConn expert weighs in as a dark piece of history returns to light
A recent article in an academic journal claiming that Korean comfort women -- imprisoned, raped, and subjected to brutal atrocities during World War II -- were "prostitutes" who had willingly entered indentured contracts set off a firestorm of controversy and a chorus from historians and academics calling for the paper's retraction. It's a topic garnering international attention as survivors continue to seek resolution, compensation, and acknowledgement of the past. UConn's Alexis Dudden is a professor of history specializing in Japan and Korea who has heard stories from survivors first-hand and is among those scholars calling out the erroneous claims: A recent academic journal article by the professor — in which he described as “prostitutes” the Korean and other women forced to serve Japan’s troops — prompted an outcry in South Korea and among scholars in the United States. It also offered a chance, on the Zoom call last week, for the aging survivor of the Japanese Imperial Army’s brothels to tell her story to a group of Harvard students, including her case for why Japan should issue a full apology and face international prosecution. “The recent remarks by the professor at Harvard are something that you should all ignore,” Lee Yong-soo, a 92-year-old in South Korea and one of just a handful of so-called comfort women still living, told the students. But the remarks were a “blessing in disguise” because they created a huge controversy, added Ms. Lee, who was kidnapped by Japanese soldiers during World War II and raped repeatedly. “So this is kind of a wake up call.” The dispute over the academic paper has echoes of the early 1990s, a time when the world was first beginning to hear the voices of survivors of Japan’s wartime sexual slavery in Asia — traumas that the region’s conservative patriarchal cultures had long downplayed. Now, survivors’ testimony drives much of the academic narrative on the topic. Yet many scholars say that conservative forces are once again trying to marginalize the survivors. “This is so startling, 30 years later, to be dragged back, because in the meantime survivors from a wide range of countries found a voice,” Alexis Dudden, a historian of Japan and Korea at the University of Connecticut who has interviewed the women. In dual articles from The New Yorker and The New York Times, Dr. Dudden weighed in on the controversial journal article and offered her findings on the atrocities committed against the women: Alexis Dudden, the historian of Japan and Korea, was one of the scholars invited to publish a reply to Ramseyer in the journal. In her comment, she observes that a reason for studying past atrocities is to try to prevent similar occurrences in the future, “not to abuse history by weaponizing it for present purposes.” She told me of meeting Korean comfort women in Tokyo, in 2000, at the Women’s International War Crimes Tribunal on Japan’s Military Sexual Slavery. “One of them had her tongue cut out,” she said. “Another woman literally lifted up her hanbok to show me where one of her breasts had been lopped off.” Dudden said that the tribunal was “a big watershed in terms of understanding how oral testimony really was necessary, to shift the legal approach but also in terms of doing historical evidence gathering” in the study of crimes against humanity. In some sense, such testimony of atrocities is seemingly irrefutable. But historians such as Dudden continually seek to verify it, producing knowledge of unspeakable horrors, through cycles of historical denial, political conflict, and diplomatic irresolution. If you are a journalist covering this topic, Dr. Dudden is available to speak with media about how history is playing a role in the current controversy. Click on her icon to arrange an interview today.
Georgia Southern's Continuing Education offers credentialing assistance to active-duty military
Active-duty soldiers and National Guard Reserve service members can take advantage of the certification programs offered through Georgia Southern University’s Division of Continuing Education, which is now an approved provider for the Army Credentialing Assistance (CA) program. Together with the Federal Tuition Assistance and Army Credentialing Assistance programs, soldiers can receive up to $4,000 total per fiscal year to cover costs for eligible certifications. The CA can cover the cost of training, materials, study guides, fees, textbooks and certification exams. Georgia Southern is one of the first universities approved in the country, and one of only a handful in Georgia, said Deedee Southerlin, Ed.D., manager of adult programs for Continuing Education. “This program is truly designed to enhance a soldier’s skill set for their current Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) and close the gap between relevant MOS’s and civilian certifications,” she said, noting these types of programs aren’t considered for academic credit, but rather nationally recognized certifications. “If a soldier chooses their certifications for a career post-military, it may help them secure employment quicker,” she added. “Many times when exiting the military, soldiers are really only trained on what their Army role was. These certifications can help them have more of a seamless transition into civilian life.” So far, Southerlin said these programs, which are completely online or virtual, have drawn participants from Georgia, Alaska, Korea, Maryland, Texas and Ohio, among others. In addition, spouses of service members on active-duty may take advantage of the workforce development program, My Career Advancement Account Scholarship (MyCAA), credentialing program as well. If you are a journalist looking to cover how schools like Georgia Southern University are supporting America’s military during and after they have served their duty –simply reach out to Georgia Southern Director of Communications Jennifer Wise at jwise@georgiasouthern.edu to arrange an interview today.
U.S.-Iran Crisis: Outlook and Implications
Executive Summary: The immediate crisis following the death of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in a U.S. airstrike and Iran’s retaliatory missile strikes against two U.S. airbases appears to have settled down. However, the conditions for a future flare-up remain in place because the underlying conditions have not changed. Going forward, each side is likely to double down on its stated strategic objective, with Iran pushing for an end to U.S. presence in the region and the U.S. pushing for an end to the Iranian nuclear program. Further, the norms that had previously prevented an open exchange of fire between the two sides have been eroded. Why It Matters: The events of January 3rd and 8th represent the first time since the skirmishes of the “Tanker Wars” of 1987-88 that the military forces of the United States and Iran have directly and openly exchanged fire with each other. For the last three decades, the contest between the two states has been a shadow war of proxy conflicts, plausible deniability, and non-military measures. The American decision to strike Soleimani and the Iranian decision to fire missiles in response removed many of the guardrails that have set limits on previous escalations of tensions. The Iranian decision to renounce cooperation with the 2015 nuclear agreement places back into contention an issue that had previously brought the U.S. and Israel to the point of war with Iran in 2012-13. Business Impact: Markets have been largely taking a wait-and-see approach in order to determine the form of Iranian response to Soleimani’s death, and they responded with relief when President Trump signaled that the U.S. would not retaliate. To an extent, uncertainty in the Middle East had already been priced into the markets due to tensions in the second half of 2019. A significant or prolonged conflict would have an obvious negative impact on energy markets and regional economies. In addition, American and Western companies operating internationally or their employees could suffer collateral damage from any future Iranian proxy attacks against visible symbols of U.S. presence overseas. Looking Forward: In the immediate term, the resolution of the crisis represented one of the best possible outcomes: Iran has publicly signaled that the missile launches conducted on January 8th constituted the extent of their military retaliation to Soleimani’s death and President Trump’s White House address acknowledged Iran’s desire to de-escalate and spoke of finding mutually beneficial outcomes with no further mention of military action. Going forward, both Iran and the United States are likely to double down on their desired strategic outcomes. Iran will seek to use all of the levers of its influence to drive the United States from the region, beginning with Iraq but also including indirect pressure on the Gulf states that host U.S. forces. Offensive cyber operations and deniable proxy attacks against civilian infrastructure in the Gulf could be part of that campaign, returning to tactics observed in the past. For its part, the United States will continue its maximum pressure campaign over the Iranian nuclear program, with President Trump promising additional economic sanctions even as he stepped back from military action. Therefore, although both sides appear to be committed to non-military means, the points of tension that caused the most recent crisis are all still present and have arguably increased based on Iran’s increased non-compliance with JCPOA. It remains to be seen whether coming close to the brink of open conflict will have changed the risk tolerance of either side or whether the first acknowledged exchange of fires between the U.S. and Iran for 32 years will usher in a new period of low-level conflict. The View from Tehran: Iran has played Soleimani’s death for maximum strategic benefit. The messaging of the past 96 hours was aimed at various audiences within the country, the region, and around the world. Having been caught on the backfoot by the U.S.’s strike on Soleimani, the Supreme Leader allowed the IRGC to retaliate against U.S. forces in Iraq in a calibrated manner, likely calculating that a strike with limited casualties would satisfy demands for vengeance while not prompting a response. Khamenei’s Decision: Ayatollah Khamenei is an inherently conservative figure and one who is above all else motivated by the priority of regime survival. Given their long-standing personal relationship, there is ample reason to believe that his displays of emotion of Soleimani’s death, including weeping over his coffin during the funeral on January 6th, were genuine and heart-felt. However, his expressed desire for revenge has been tempered by the overarching imperative to avoid a conflict that would have threatened the regime’s hold on power, either from within or without. Rally Around the Flag: Within Iran, the regime is seeking to use Soleimani’s death and their subsequent retaliation to build national unity following a period of significant domestic unrest. This has been emphasized by the extended period of mourning for Soleimani, days-long funeral spectacle, and the invocation of religious and cultural symbols associated with Shi’a martyrs. The death of Soleimani comes on the heels of a series of mass protests in Iran that originally began on November 15th in response to proposed increase in the price of gas, but which have since expanded to a wider challenge to the regime. Media reporting from late December suggested as many as 1,500 Iranian civilians have been killed as part of a regime crackdown on the protests, which have been characterized as the most serious challenge to the regime since the Green Movement of 2009. JCPOA as a Wedge Between U.S. and Europe: Iran announced on January 5th that it would cease compliance with the remaining provisions of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action but would be willing to return to compliance if sanctions are removed. The nuance in Iran’s position highlights the fact that it is continuing to attempt to use the nuclear issue to drive a wedge between European signatories to the agreement and the United States, which unilaterally walked away from the treaty in May 2018. Regime Dynamics: Soleimani was a high-profile figure within Iran, but his outsized influence on Iranian foreign policy also created friction with other stakeholders in the regime, including leaders of the conventional military forces, the ministry of foreign affairs, and the intelligence services. He was one of few genuinely strategic thinkers in the Iranian national security apparatus and the one with the most extensive and deepest connections within the Arab-speaking world. His replacement as commander of the Quds Force is his long-time deputy who will be familiar with the day-to-day operations of the IRGC’s external operations arm but will not have the stature or the network of Soleimani. As a result, other stakeholders may jockey to move into the vacuum created by his death. The View from Washington: The present challenge for the U.S. is how to maintain both a deterrent posture and establishing the means to avoid further escalation. The policy on Iraq going forward will have to balance President Trump’s desire to disengage from the conflict while not creating the appearance of having been pushed out by Iran. Escalate to Deter: President Trump’s decision to kill Soleimani reflected an “escalate to deter” strategy, using a sudden and unexpected escalation of force during a crisis in order to reestablish deterrence after previous provocations in 2019 had gone largely unanswered. However, deterrence is only as good as the last demonstration of a willingness to respond. The decision to not respond to Iran’s retaliatory missile strikes reflected a pragmatic decision to de-escalate. National Security Decision-Making: Nearly three years into his presidency, Donald Trump feels increasingly confident making national security decisions based on his own instincts. The original coterie of experienced national security establishment members such as Jim Mattis and H.R. McMaster who had populated the Situation Room during the early days of the administration have largely resigned or been fired and replaced with individuals of lower profile and/or proven loyalty. Although the mechanisms of the formal interagency process continue to function, President Trump increasingly makes decisions based on a network of informal advisors and media sources. Domestic U.S. Considerations: The decision to launch the strike on Soleimani came during a period of high political tension in Washington, as it had been expected this month that the U.S. Senate would begin a trial in response to articles of impeachment passed by the House of Representatives in December. The Soleimani strike is being taken up by both Trump’s supporters and opponents as evidence of either his credentials as a decisive commander-in-chief or his unsuitability for office, depending on their perspective. Congress has proposed votes to limit President Trump’s independent authority to initiate hostilities with Iran, but this is unlikely to gain traction in the Senate. Separately, the first voting in the Democratic primary is less than one month away, and a sudden shift in focus to national security issues could have results that are difficult to predict, either boosting those with national security credentials (such as former vice president Joe Biden and military veteran Pete Buttigieg), or rallying support among primary voters for anti-war (such as Bernie Sanders). Third-Party Perspectives and Responses: Iraq: The strike at Baghdad International Airport that killed Soleimani also killed the deputy commander of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Front, a coalition of militias that forms a part of Iraq’s official security apparatus. Iraq’s new Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi has condemned the attack as a “massive breach of sovereignty” and an “aggression on Iraq”. Iraq’s parliament passed a draft law on January 5th calling for the removal of all foreign troops from Iraqi soil, but the law was non-binding and the session had been boycotted by most of the Sunni and Kurdish members of the legislature. Iranian presence has also been the recent target of Iraqi ire, such as in November when a crowd of Iraqis burned down the Iranian consulate in the Shi’a holy city of Najaf, and the Iraqi government will likely try to play both sides against each other to maximize its leverage for military and financial support. Withdrawal from Iraq would mean that the remaining American forces in Syria could no longer be supplied or supported through the western desert of Iraq and would therefore also have to be withdrawn. Iran will likely seek to use all its considerable levers of influence in Iraq to convince the government to see through the expulsion of American forces. The United States leaving Iraq and Syria due to Soleimani’s death would be a fitting legacy from the Iranian perspective and a perverse one from the American perspective given that Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American servicemembers in Iraq (and thousands of Iraqi civilians) through his support for Shi’a militias in the mid-to-late 2000s. Europe: Statements from European capitals emphasized the need for restraint and de-escalation. French President Macron is likely to view this event as further justification for his proposals that the EU develop a defense and security apparatus independent of NATO in order to avoid being entangled by potentially reckless American actions. Iran will likely continue to use this event as an opportunity to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe on the nuclear program and other issues, and their chosen retaliation was likely calibrated at least in part to allow them to continue positioning themselves as a responsible actor. For his part, Trump is urging the European signatories to join him in walking away from the JCPOA in order to increase Iran’s international isolation. United Kingdom: The British government has tried to tread a fine line in its responses to the strike, with Prime Minister Johnson calling for de-escalation while also stating that he “will not lament” the fact that Soleimani is dead. The U.K. is likely trying to balance its desire to remain aligned with France and Germany in trying to keep the JCPOA together with its traditional close alliance with the United States and Johnson’s personal relationship with President Trump. Russia: Unsurprisingly, Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned the American strike, which removed a valuable interlocutor for Russian forces in Syria. Russian troops and Iranian-backed militias in Syria had periodically found themselves with diverging interests in their campaign to support the Assad regime, and Soleimani performed a critical function in directing the activities of those militias to ensure that both Russia and Iran achieved their strategic objectives in Syria. A potential American withdrawal from Iraq and Syria would advance Russia’s interest in establishing itself as the indispensable foreign power in resolving the crisis in Syria and within the region more broadly. China: In line with their long-standing principle of non-intervention and their own interest, China condemned the strike, but the response was muted overall. Chinese interests are primarily economic and tied to ensuring a steady supply of petroleum. One of China’s newest and most capable naval destroyers recently participated in trilateral naval exercises with Iran and Russia in the Gulf of Oman. Although such exercises primarily serve a strategic messaging and diplomatic function, they do signal an emerging alignment of interests between the three states that would be significant for the response to any future crises.
A new program being offered by the Waters College of Health Professions at Georgia Southern University is helping soldiers with the 3rd Infantry Division (ID) rank up their readiness by offering a new Tactical Athlete Certificate (TAC) program. This program is designed to help soldiers improve their performance, avoid musculoskeletal injuries in physical training, receive college credits and points toward promotions. The program comprises three courses including a basic course, trainer course and programming course. “The Tactical Athlete Certificate is a beneficial program for both the military as a whole and the individual soldier,” said Nancy Henderson, Ph.D., assistant professor in the Department of Rehabilitation Sciences. “The military gains more knowledgeable soldiers who can develop science-based and comprehensive physical training plans, and the individual soldier benefits by receiving college credits, which can help them as they advance in their military careers.” Each course is a three-week hybrid course with two weeks online and one week of face-to-face instruction and could be completed in one semester. Institutional fees are waived for active-duty military, and the admissions process does not require a minimum GPA or SAT/ACT score. If you are a journalist and are looking to cover this topic or learn more about how Georgia Southern University is working with the armed forces, the let us help with your stories. Dr. Nancy Henderson is an assistant professor in the Department of Rehabilitation Sciences at Georgia Southern University. She is an expert in injury prevention, running form and assessing meaningful change of interventions. Nancy is available to speak with media regarding this topic – simply click on her icon to arrange an interview.
As China clamps down on Hong Kong – Is Taiwan next?
As protests erupt again across Hong Kong against the recent imposing of new security laws essentially giving Beijing unprecedented powers – it has some worried about what is next as China pursues it’s One-China policy. In Taiwan people are watching, and concern is growing. Professor Elizabeth Freund Larus teaches political science at the University of Mary Washington and is an #expert on China and the field of Asian studies. She has also been interviewed by media such as CNBC, The Diplomat and CBN News regarding this topic. She has noted that the developments in China, especially with regards to Hong Kong and Taiwan are catching global attention and will impact economies and governments across the globe. Beijing has taken an especially hard line towards Taiwan since the 2016 election of President Tsai Ing-wen of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), ramping up military, economic and diplomatic pressure. Tsai views Taiwan as a de facto independent nation and not part of "one China". But the pressure campaign has done little to endear China to Taiwan's 23 million people. In January, Tsai won a second term with a historic landslide and polls consistently show a growing distrust of China... Social media is filled with messages of support for Hong Kong's democracy movement. Some back Taiwanese independence, or highlight China's rights abuses in regions such as Tibet and Xinjiang. Wendy Peng, a 26-year-old magazine editor who said she often shared pro-Hong Kong democracy messages on social media, said she would now avoid visiting the city. "The national security law makes me wonder how far would China go. Right now I don't see a bottom line and there's probably none. I think it's possible they will target Taiwan next," she said. July -7 Yahoo! New/AFP If you are a reporter covering this progressing story – then let our experts help. Elizabeth Larus is available to speak to media, simply click on her icon to arrange an interview.
Is Asia a powder keg ready to blow?
This week has seen rising tensions across Asia with key players facing off on what looks to be a dramatic rise in tensions with the potential for action. First off … Korea, where early Tuesday the first salvo was thrown: North Korea has blown up a joint liaison office with the South near the North's border town of Kaesong. The move comes just hours after the North renewed threats of military action at the Korean border. The site was opened in 2018 to help the Koreas - officially in a state of war - to communicate. It had been empty since January due to Covid-19 restrictions. In a statement, South Korea warned it would "respond strongly" if the North "continues to worsen the situation". The destruction of the office, it said, "abandons the hopes of everyone who wanted the development of inter-Korean relations and peace settlement in the Korean Peninsula". "The government makes it clear that all responsibility of this situation lies in the North." June 16 - BBC And this incident occurred which saw gun fire traded between China and India for the first time in almost a half century: Three members of India’s armed forces have been killed in a “violent face-off” with Chinese soldiers on their disputed Himalayan border, the Indian army has said in a statement. The deaths are the first loss of life in the border area in at least 45 years, and come amid a renewed dispute between the two countries in recent weeks. Indian and Chinese soldiers, who often do not carry weapons in the area to avoid escalating conflicts, have brawled, detained each other and deployed forces and equipment in the western Himalayas in recent weeks. “During the de-escalation process under way in the Galwan Valley, a violent face-off took place yesterday [Monday] night with casualties on both sides,” the Indian army said in a statement on Tuesday afternoon Delhi-time. “The loss of lives on the Indian side includes an officer and two soldiers.” It said “senior military officials of the two sides are currently meeting at the venue to defuse the situation”. It was unclear whether shots had been fired or if the men were killed in hand-to-hand combat. Several Indian media reports cited defence sources claiming the fighting involved stones and clubs. The Chinese also military suffered casualties, according to a tweet by the editor-in-chief of China’s state-run Global Times newspaper. “Based on what I know, Chinese side also suffered casualties in the Galwan Valley physical clash,” Hu Xijin wrote. He did not give further details. June 16 - The Guardian The world seems on edge, and if you are a journalist covering these topics and you need the perspective and input of an expert who can help with your story – then let us help. Dr. Glen Duerr's research interests include comparative politics and international relations theory. Glen is an expert on this subject and is available to speak to media regarding this topic– simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
Entrepreneurship expert: New Americans vital to U.S. economy
In the United States, there is a long history of marginalized communities being extremely entrepreneurial. These communities were driven, in large part, by the desire to meet their own ethnic, religious, and cultural needs, according to Christine Beech, D.M., the Dr. Jon and Betty Kabara Endowed Chair in Entrepreneurship and Innovation at Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota. In the mid-19th century, more than 100 hospitals were founded by the Jewish community to fight anti-Semitism in medical school appointments and meet patient needs of having kosher options during the hospital stay.These opportunities were not available in the existing network of mainstream hospitals. Similarly, in the beginning of the 20th century, Irish Catholic immigrants began establishing a network of parochial elementary schools as a way to preserve their faith and culture and allow children to learn about their faith in school, Dr. Beech said. These two initiatives, led by immigrant groups, helped establish networks of schools and healthcare institutions that served a social good in their communities while generating jobs and stimulating the economy. In addition, there is a long line of entrepreneurs in the African-American community who combatted racial discrimination through new businesses because they were marginalized from the mainstream economy, Dr. Beech said. Examples of these entrepreneurs include Madam C.J. Walker, who invented a line of hair care products to serve the needs of her community, and Charles Clinton Spaulding, who developed the largest African-American business in the early 20th century specifically serving the insurance needs of the African-American community. In modern times, one of the largest marginalized communities in the U.S. is comprised of new Americans, many of whom are immigrants and have developed culturally responsive businesses. Although current policies are set in place to curtail U.S. immigrants, it is important to remember that the country could potentially lose an entire segment of the population that has been vital to the economy, Dr. Beech said. Beech pointed to a 2015 study from the Kauffman Foundation which mentioned that 40% of the Fortune 500 in 2010 were companies founded by an immigrant or the child of an immigrant. Nearly 30% of all new businesses started in 2014 were started by immigrants, Dr. Beech said, according to a related study from the same foundation. “We've been able to see constant growth and diversity within our economy that's been very healthy for us,” said Dr. Beech, who also serves as the executive director of the Kabara Institute for Entrepreneurial Studies at Saint Mary’s. “There's a narrative that says that the immigrant community is coming here to find work. But in fact, when we look at the data, a significant portion of them are actually creating jobs and starting businesses.” Dr. Beech added three primary reasons for these continued statistics indicating significant immigrant entrepreneurship: The drive to be independent A desire to meet their communities culturally specific needs A response to societal biases that hinder success within the mainstream workforce “Those migrant communities often develop their own businesses, almost like a subset of the economy, where they can't be marginalized, where they're actually taking charge of their own economic well-being,” said Dr. Beech. When it comes to knowing the overall impact of the immigration policies on the economy, there will be a natural lag in the data — possibly as long as five years — given how much time it typically takes for immigrants to establish businesses after arriving in a new country, Dr. Beech said. Are you a journalist covering this topic and interested in an interview? That’s where we can help. Christine Beech, D.M., has had a career that encompasses academics, entrepreneurship, military service, and consulting. She has been a faculty member in the business department at Saint Mary’s University since 2017 and is the executive director of the Kabara Institute for Entrepreneurial Studies. Before joining Saint Mary’s University, Dr. Beech owned her own consulting business in the Washington, D.C., area for many years. Before that, she worked as a corporate entrepreneur where she led the development of a multimillion-dollar business line for a global consulting firm. Dr. Beech is an expert in entrepreneurship, social entrepreneurship, and women entrepreneurs. She is available to speak with the media. To arrange an interview with her, simply click on her photo below to access her contact information.
Hacking billionaires and the link between Bezos, Iran and what’s next for America
It’s becoming the ultimate he said/she said between the ultra-rich and world elite. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is claiming Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman hacked his phone via WhatsApp. The motive seems routed to the murdering of the Washington Post’s journalist Jamal Khashoggi. However, as the billionaires debate and deflect what actually happened, the event should be a warning sign of what could be on the horizon. America is still on guard and expecting retaliation in one form or another from the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, and online attacks and targeting cellphones could be the preferred method from America’s enemies abroad. “We should expect attacks from Iranian hackers or those sympathetic to their cause who appear to be civilians without nation state sponsorship will hit low level targets on the basis of ideological/national pride,” says Michigan State University’s Thomas J. Holt. “There will likely be nation-state sponsored attacks though it is unclear how quickly they will launch or how effective they may be.” This is an area that is familiar with American military and intelligence circles, Holt further explains. “Historically the U.S. has been involved in cyber-attacks that are able to severely affect Iranian capabilities, such as Stuxnet. Their counterattacks have been less public and seemingly less effective. However, they’ve already begun as with that web defacement against a US government website reported last week that appears to have Iranian ties or origination.” And as America waits and watches... What are the obvious and perhaps not so obvious approaches to breaching American cyber-security that we can expect? Will it be app based? Will the general public be a target or is it in the best interests to hit higher- and more visible properties? And if Jeff Bezos and all of his resources are vulnerable – is there any true way to ensure anyone is safe online? There is a lot to be explored as this story progresses and if you are a journalist covering this topic – then let our experts help. Thomas J. Holt is a professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University whose research focuses on computer hacking, malware, and the role of the Internet in facilitating all manner of crime and deviance. Professor Holt is available to speak with media about these issues – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.
Voters Split on Whether Trump Should be Removed from Office Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden has widened his lead to 26 points among Florida voters in the race for the Democratic party’s nomination for president in 2020, according to a statewide survey by the Florida Atlantic University Business and Economics Polling Initiative (FAU BEPI). Among the Democratic candidates, Biden has increased his support to 42 percent, up from 34 percent in BEPI’s September 2019 poll. U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders jumped into second place at 14 percent, while U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren fell to third at 10 percent, down significantly from 24 percent support in September. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg came in fourth at 7 percent, followed by U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar at 6 percent, entrepreneur Andrew Yang at 5 percent and South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 3 percent. A majority of Democratic primary voters (54 percent) said they will definitely vote for their top choice, with 46 percent saying there is a chance they could change their minds and vote for someone else. The Florida Democratic primary is March 17. “Joe Biden continues to be in a very strong position in Florida,” said Monica Escaleras, Ph.D., director of the FAU BEPI. “However, it will be interesting to see what impact the early contests in New Hampshire and Iowa will have on voters in Florida regarding their support for Biden.” Sanders fared best among Florida voters in head-to-head matchups against U.S President Donald Trump, with a 53-to-47 percent advantage on the president. Biden and Warren have narrow two-point leads on Trump, 51 to 49 percent, while Buttigieg finished in a 50-50 dead heat with the president. In September, Trump held small leads in each of these head-to-head matchups. With an impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate looming, Florida voters are split on whether Trump should be removed from office, with 51 percent saying he should be removed while 49 percent are against removal. Voters are also split about how their Congress person’s decision whether or not to impeach Trump will affect their support for them as a candidate, with 40 percent saying it will make them less likely to support the candidate, 38 percent saying they would be more likely to support them and 21 percent saying it would have no effect. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who has just completed his first year in office, is popular among voters with 48 percent approval and 28 percent disapproval, while 25 percent of voters were neutral or had no opinion. With tensions rising with Iran, 61 percent of voters do not think the U.S. is going to get into a war with Iran, while 39 percent think recent military action will lead to war. Trump’s approval rating is slightly above water among Florida voters, with 45 percent approval and 43 disapproval. He continues to be hugely popular among GOP voters, with a 66-point lead on his Republican rivals, former U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh and former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld. “Floridians are deeply divided on the president and on impeachment,” said Kevin Wagner, Ph.D., professor of political science at FAU and a research fellow of the Initiative. “Nonetheless, Mr. Trump continues to perform better in Florida than in national polls.” The survey was conducted Jan. 9-12 and polled 1,285 Florida registered voters. The survey has a margin of error of +/- 2.6 percentage points. The margin of error for both the Republican primary and the Democratic primary is +/- 4.4 percentage points. The data was weighted by ethnicity, age, education, party affiliation, region and gender based on a 2016 voter model. It is important to remember that subsets carry with them higher margins of error, as the sample size is reduced. Data was collected using both an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system of landlines and an online panel provided by Dynata. Are you a journalist covering the role Florida will play in the upcoming election? If so, let our experts help with your coverage. Kevin Wagner's research and teaching interests include presidential and judicial politics, political behavior and legislative behavior. Monica Escaleras is the Director of the Business and Economics Polling Initiative at Florida Atlantic University. Both experts are available to speak with reporters - simply click on either icon to arrange an interview.
Picking sides – Team Iran or Team America? Our expert can explain
Like America, the Middle East is divided, tense and the sands shift constantly between allies and enemies. And as the temperature rises and war looks more and more imminent – it might be time to find out who is on side with who are why? It seems obvious – with Iran would be Syria, Palestine and Iraq (a newer friend). Siding with America would be Saudi Arabia, Israel and likely Turkey. But what about the other world powers with investments in the region like France and Russia? It’s a powder keg, and it could likely blow – and if you are a reporter covering this topic, let our experts help with your coverage. Dr. Glen Duerr's research interests include domestic and international terrorism, comparative politics, and international relations theory. Glen is available to speak to media regarding this topic– simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.