Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
With South Carolina in the rear-view mirror, for most candidates seeking to represent the DNC this November – Tuesday is bottom of the 9th with the bases loaded. A home run means it is game over and the champion is crowned. A hit likely means you’ve survived to play another day. But for those who swing and miss … it’s a long walk to hang up the cleat and hit the political showers. There is a lot riding on Super Tuesday and odds are there will be a lot of people pontificating, pondering, and trying to predict what’s next for those left standing. And if you are a journalist covering the lead up and the aftermath to this high-stakes and heated race to lead the Democratic Party against President Donald Trump – let us help with your stories. Dr. Stephen Farnsworth is a sought-after political commentator on subjects ranging from presidential politics to the local Virginia congressional races. He has been widely featured in national media, including The Washington Post, Reuters, The Chicago Tribune and MSNBC. He is author or co-author of six books on presidential communication. His latest work, "Presidential Communication and Character: White House News Management from Clinton and Cable to Twitter and Trump," examines how the last four U.S. presidents sell themselves and their policies in an ever-expanding and sometimes precarious media environment. Dr. Farnsworth is available to speak with media and help with your coverage – simply click on his icon to arrange an interview today.
Truce with the Taliban - will it hold and is it possible?
It’s been nearly two decades of war that has taken thousands of lives and cost American taxpayers trillions of dollars. And late last week, a temporary truce with the Taliban was finally reached after 18 years of fighting and if that holds, a more permanent resolution is expected to be signed on February 29. If successfully implemented, the weeklong “reduction in violence” agreement, which came into force at midnight Friday local time (1930 GMT, 2:30 p.m. EST), will be followed by the signing of the peace accord on Feb. 29, wrapping up America's longest-running conflict and fulfilling one of President Donald Trump's main campaign promises. Friday's announcement of an agreement on terms for a peace deal follows months of negotiations between the two sides that have broken down before. Yet both parties have signaled a desire to halt the fighting that began with the U.S. invasion after the September 11, 2001, attacks by Osama bin Laden's Afghanistan-based al-Qaida network. Should the truce stand, the U.S.-Taliban deal would be followed within 10 days by the start of all-Afghan peace talks that could result in the formation of a new government in Kabul, a pledge from the Taliban not to allow terrorist groups to operate in the country, and the phased withdrawal of U.S. and other foreign troops over 18 months. February 21 – US News and World Report It’s a historic moment for all involved, but there’s a lot of questions to be asked. Does an agreement like this have a chance of succeeding? What will happen to the area once all U.S. and other troops finally withdraw? Is this potentially the first sign of peace in the region? What protection does Afghanistan’s fragile government have if left to stand on its own? There are a lot of scenarios to consider, and if you are a journalist covering this vent, that’s where our experts can help with your questions, stories and ongoing coverage. Dr. Craig Albert is a leading expert on war, terrorism and American politics and has testified to the U.S. Congress on Islamic Extremism. He is also the Director of the Master of Arts in Intelligence and Security Studies at Augusta University. He has experience with all forms of local and national news organizations and is available to speak to media regarding this latest development between America and the Talban. Simply click on Dr. Albert’s icon to arrange an interview or to learn more about his expertise.
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.
Unprecedented levels of partisanship vitriol threatens the health of democracy in U.S., globally
Voter-based political parties have played an integral role in American politics since their formation in the 1790s, yet it is difficult to remember any other time in history — other than perhaps the 1850s — when the level of divisiveness was this high and the polarity this profound between Republicans and Democrats. To add more fuel to the fire, the anti-democratic actions against the rule of law by President Donald Trump have become a primary threat to democracy in the U.S., said David Lynch, Ph.D., a professor of History and Social Sciences and Political Science program coordinator at Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota. The same action are also threatening how the government works and delegitimizing and undermining institutions that make and enforce laws,Lynch added. Those institutions include formal ones such as Congress and the political parties themselves, as well as less formal entities, such as the traditional news media. “You have to have free, fair, open media in order to have a democracy. If you do not have a free press, you do not have a democracy,” Dr. Lynch said. “And similarly, you need to have the rule of law where laws are carried out not for political ends, but based on the laws.” The recent impeachment proceedings were an attempt to curtail these actions, but the partisan response to the Senate’s impeachment trial allowed the violation of democratic norms to be rewarded, said Dr. Lynch. Furthermore, politicians who react strongly to anti-democratic actions threaten to further delegitimize the government, such as Trump’s refusal to shake the hand of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, at his most recent State of the Union address and her subsequent action of tearing up his speech. “That helps both sides reinforce their own position that the other side is less legitimate and that we shouldn't cooperate with somebody like that,” Dr. Lynch said. Dr. Lynch pointed to how the indices that measure the health of democracy both in the U.S. and abroad have all gone down since Trump won the 2016 election. In addition, the most recent Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index reflected the worst registered global democracy score since its inception in 2006. In that report, the U.S. received a score of “flawed democracy.” Traditionally, the U.S. democratic system has been able to regulate such extreme partisanship before election day by not nominating candidates that violate democratic norms or are far from the ideological center. On election day, overly partisan candidates are vulnerable in swing districts and swing states. That ability for the public to express its collective voice, though, has eroded over the years as the number of swing districts has dwindled. "When people view through a partisan lens, it changes the incentives that elected officials have because they may be rewarded for partisan but anti-democratic actions,” Dr. Lynch said. “It also changes how average people view this whole debate.” To demonstrate the current political scene in the U.S., Dr. Lynch alluded to a 2017 study conducted by a group of political scientists at Yale University in which experimental surveys were sent to Venezuelans to see to what degree they would be willing to accept a less democratic candidate if he or she was a member of the political party they affiliated themselves with. The answer was quite a large degree. “The big message here is you can't necessarily rely on the public just to vote out an anti-democratic candidate because they might get a partisan advantage from that anti-democrat,” Dr. Lynch said. Are you a journalist covering this topic and interested in an interview? That’s where we can help. David Lynch, Ph.D., professor of History and Social Sciences and Political Science program coordinator, has taught political science at Saint Mary’s University of Minnesota since 1996. Dr. Lynch has also written over a dozen chapters on international relations, international political economy, and American foreign policy, including the chapter on trade in the United Nations Association of the USA’s “A Global Agenda” from 1996 to 2005. Dr. Lynch is an expert in political science, political economies, and international relations. He is available to speak with the media. To arrange an interview with him, simply click on his photo below to access his contact information.
Harvey Weinstein Found Guilty. What's Next?
Harvey Weinstein was found guilty on two charges but acquitted on three of the more serious charges in a New York courtroom on February 23. He will be sentenced on March 11, facing five to 29 years in prison. He also awaits criminal charges of sexual assault in Los Angeles. Michelle Madden Dempsey, professor of law at Villanova University's Charles Widger School of Law, says there are three main takeaways from this verdict: Prosecutors were right to take this case to a jury, and even if the jury had acquitted, it still would've been an important "win" simply because it went to trial. The jury seems to have taken the case seriously and delivered a fair verdict. We can't read too much into this verdict (as far as #MeToo is concerned). When women and girls of color, socio-economically marginalized women and girls, prostituted people and others who lack relative structural power receive justice from the criminal legal system, then we can start to celebrate. That is to say, there's still a lot of work to be done before all sexual assaults are taken seriously in our criminal justice system. Prof. Dempsey also says we shouldn't be too quick to assume that a social movement is driving this verdict. "The social movement, I think, is driving prosecutors to take these cases to a jury—which is a good thing. But I think juries typically try to reach verdicts based on the fact and particular law of the jurisdiction in which the alleged offense occurred."
The coronavirus will impact these three things in a major way
The coronavirus has already sent ripple effects through the global economy, according to Michael Ehrlich, professor of finance at New Jersey Institute of Technology. Reports of Wall Street reacting, automakers scrambling to avoid major disruptions and the Mobile World Congress cancellation has demonstrated the effects of COVID-19. According to Ehrlich, some of the biggest indirect impacts of the virus will be felt in tourism and travel, supply chain disruption and the flight to quality. Airlines have begun to cut routes to destinations with high risk, and tourism in major European countries have forecasted a decline, as much as 30-40% in France according to a report in Forbes. "We're already seeing people decide to not go on cruise ships or not to travel on airplanes because of the coronavirus," said Ehrlich. Supply chains are being met with challenges due to China's factory shutdowns. "The real impact of where it's going to affect the economy is supply chain. China is the factory of the world, and those factories are being shut down in order to contain the virus and slow down the transmission of the virus," said Ehrlich. Finally, the third impact is a phenomenon called flight to quality. This is when investors move capital from risky investments to safer ones, a reaction when there is uncertainty in international markets. The move, according to Ehrlich, can see investors take up more U.S. stocks, bonds, and dollars that are viewed as more stable long term investments. The downstream effect could lead to a boost in the U.S. economy as it allows national manufacturing sectors to better compete in a marketplace where they are in higher demand. Michael Ehrlich is an expert on financial markets and institutions, with an emphasis on market failures. Simply click on the button below to arrange an interview.
Well it’s obvious now – the gloves are off. The Nevada debate on NBC was the closest thing to a prize fight the network has aired in decades. No punches were pulled, it got personal quick for newcomer Michael Bloomberg. In fact, if anyone thought that the contest to lead the Democrats against Donald Trump in November was going to be a polite conversation abut ideas and policy, was proven dead wrong. Here are just a few of the memorable moments captured by media: Warren labeled Bloomberg “a billionaire who calls people fat broads and horse-faced lesbians.” Sanders lashed out at Bloomberg’s policing policies as New York City mayor that he said targeted “African-American and Latinos in an outrageous way.” And former Vice President Joe Biden charged that Bloomberg’s “stop-and-frisk” policy ended up “throwing 5 million black men up against the wall.” Watching from afar, Trump joined the Bloomberg pile on. “I hear he’s getting pounded tonight, you know he’s in a debate,” Trump said at a rally in Phoenix. “I don’t think there’s any chance of the senator beating Donald Trump,” Bloomberg declared before noting Sanders’ rising wealth. “The best-known socialist in the country happens to be a millionaire with three houses!” And ongoing animosity flared between Buttigieg and Klobuchar when the former Indiana mayor slammed the three-term Minnesota senator for failing to answer questions in a recent interview about Mexican policy and forgetting the name of the Mexican president. Buttigieg noted that she’s on a committee that oversees trade issues in Mexico and she “was not able to speak to literally the first thing about the politics of the country.” She shot back: “Are you trying to say I’m dumb? Are you mocking me here?”Later in the night she lashed out at Buttigieg again: “I wish everyone else was as perfect as you, Pete.” February 19 – Associated Press There’s a long way to go, but the next couple of weeks could be crucial as Super Tuesday approaches. And if you are a journalist looking for a media-ready expert who can provide insight, perspective and objective opinions about who will win, who needs to drop out and who is the best possible challenger for the Whitehouse – let us help. Mark Caleb Smith is the Director of the Center for Political Studies at Cedarville University. Mark is available to speak with media regarding the DNC Primary and the upcoming election. Simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
New Data Protection Agency: Good or Bad? It Depends.
New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand has proposed legislation to create a new data protection agency. She cites the need as personal information is freely sold across the internet without users' knowledge. She specifically calls out Facebook and Google for their misuse of consumer information. Similar legislation has been proposed in California. But is this a good idea or a bad idea? Law professor and privacy expert Doris DelTosto Brogan says it ultimately depends. "It will depend on how well resourced the new agency is both in terms of human and financial resources, and whether it is truly independent," Prof. Brogan said. "The area is huge and complex and ever-changing. The problems are often under the radar until they explode, and the nature of the threats are often nuanced and subtle. So, a good idea to create a dedicated agency? Yes, to the extent the agency comes to the table with real independence, adequate resources and genuine expertise." But the answer isn't all that simple, she says. "In terms of expertise, the agency will need people who understand the threats, and the reality of how the organizations that are managing data work. It will also need the financial resources to pursue a broad range of matters across a wide landscape not only of subject areas (hotels, airlines, credit reporting agencies, social media, financial institutions, etc.) but also the technology of how data is obtained, and accumulated, stored, used, manipulated and 'shared' by the players. "One concern with a subject-specific agency is the tendency to become overly reliant on and enmeshed with the industry being regulated. This is always an issue (like the critiques of the FAA in the Boeing matter), but with the oversized influence of big tech, and the issues of understanding a dense, rapidly evolving, tech-heavy industry the risk is significant. "Finally, if we are going to take seriously an agency dedicated to protecting privacy, in addition to mastering the market and developing technical expertise the new agency, if it is truly privacy-focused, it will have to develop a robust understanding of privacy conceptually—that is, privacy as more than just a consequentialist understanding. "A dedicated agency, if properly created, will come to the task with a deep understanding of privacy beyond just the implications of my social security number being hacked—but rather an understanding of privacy as essential to humanness, to intimacy, to thought and to informed self-governance."
Does the height of a person really matter? In America, if you are running for office, it might. Augusta’s Dr. Gregg Murray was on CNN this weekend discussing how height can play an advantage in American politics. Murray does confirm how a candidate’s height (or perception of) does make a difference in the minds of voters. "Yes, there does seem to be some sort of relationship between an elected leader's height and how her or she is perceived, "says Murray. Here’s the segment: As the long road to November winds and weaves along the campaign trail, there are going to be many, many different factors that candidates look to capitalize on to gobble up every available vote. And if you are a journalist covering the election – that’s where our media-ready experts can help. Dr. Gregg R. Murray, professor of political science at Augusta University, is available to talk about the upcoming election and all aspects surrounding each campaign. Murray’s research focuses on political behavior and psychology with specific interests in voter mobilization and turnout. He is also executive director of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences.
After New Hampshire - What’s next for Bernie and is it time for Biden to bail?
As we all know, you can’t win a presidential primary with only two states, but you sure can lose one. And after a long summer and fall of campaigning, the results from Iowa and New Hampshire are revealing the frontrunners of who will most likely lead the Democrats in the quest to unseat President Donald Trump. Coming into the New Hampshire primary, Augusta’s Dr. Gregg Murray offered this insight, “It looks like Sanders is comfortably in the lead, which is not surprising given he comes from a neighboring state. Mayor Pete is surprisingly staying strong and Klobuchar is hanging in there. Other than Sanders, this is not the leader board that most people would have expected before the start of the primary season. Biden and Warren, who many people not too long ago would have thought would be making strong showings, are surprisingly a good distance back in the pack.” But now that the first crucial two states have been heard and the primaries shift focus toward South Carolina and Nevada – what’s next? Joe Biden is ‘all in’ on South Carolina, but after two abysmal showings, is it enough? Amy Klobuchar seems to be surging – can she capitalize on that momentum? And, Pete Buttigieg and Bernie Sanders are neck and neck – what will it take for one to emerge as the frontrunner? As the next phase of primaries approach – there’s a lot to cover, and that’s where our experts can help. Dr. Gregg R. Murray, professor of political science at Augusta University, is available to talk about the current race to lead the DNC. Murray’s research focuses on political behavior and psychology with specific interests in voter mobilization and turnout. He is also executive director of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences.