9月30日，赫格塞斯把全球美军将级军官统统召回，在匡提科的海军陆战队大学开会。这样的召集本来 就高度不寻常，后来又传出特朗普将亲自训话，外界就开始猜测美国国家安全战略要发生什么变化。 万斯指责媒体炒作，坚持认为国防部长发出这样的召集并没有什么特别，但现任北约军事委员会主席的 意大利海军上将朱塞佩·卡沃·德拉贡尼却说："在我49年的军事生涯里，还从没有见到过这样的事。" 最要紧的当然是赫格塞斯和特朗普的训话内容。赫格塞斯首先训话，特朗普接着训话。与外界猜测的国 家安全战略转向不同，赫格塞斯大谈的是"武士精神"（warrior ethos），特朗普大谈的是美军参与国内 镇暴。这些与赫格塞斯和特朗普上任以来一直鼓吹的东西相符，他们倒是不指东打西。 赫格塞斯首先强调军人的体能标准，尤其是"最高的男子汉标准"（highest male standard），即使把这部 分女子排除在外也在所不惜："标准必须一致、不分男女，标准必须很高"。他同时强调军人仪容的重要 性，大胖子军人必须整改，大胡子之类不再容许，匿名举报也将废除。 其次，赫格塞斯强调"武士精神"作为军人的灵魂，要从军中清除政治正确和"觉醒文化"。他要启动美军 的 ...

Group 1 - The article discusses the rapid consequences faced by educators in Texas following a controversial classroom discussion on gender issues, leading to firings and administrative resignations [1] - The incident has sparked a broader trend of conservative groups pushing for stricter regulations on educational content related to race and gender, resulting in numerous teacher dismissals across various states [1][3] - The aftermath of the incident has created a chilling effect among educators, with many fearing repercussions for discussing sensitive topics in the classroom [5][6] Group 2 - The case of Charlie Kirk's assassination has intensified scrutiny on educators, with several being fired or suspended for their comments regarding the incident, highlighting the political polarization surrounding free speech [3][4] - The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has been vocal in defending those claiming their speech is suppressed, emphasizing a perceived lack of understanding regarding the principles of free speech [4][5] - Texas lawmakers are actively encouraging the public to report educators who express "shameful and inappropriate content," further increasing the pressure on teachers to conform to conservative viewpoints [3][6]

Core Viewpoint - The controversy surrounding American Eagle's advertisement featuring Sydney Sweeney highlights the cultural divide in the U.S., where marketing strategies can provoke significant public discourse and backlash, reflecting broader societal tensions [4][5][9]. Group 1: Advertisement Details - The advertisement plays on the pun between "genes" and "jeans," which sparked debate over its implications regarding race and identity [4][5]. - Critics argue that linking superior genes to a white female celebrity suggests racial superiority, while supporters view it as a humorous take [4][5][10]. - American Eagle's response emphasized that the ad was about jeans and personal stories, aiming to deflect the controversy [5][10]. Group 2: Cultural Context - The advertisement exists within the context of the "woke" versus "anti-woke" cultural battleground, where brands navigate complex social issues [5][6][9]. - The "woke" culture advocates for awareness of social injustices, while the "anti-woke" camp criticizes perceived excesses of political correctness [6][9]. - American Eagle's choice of a traditionally attractive white female model and the controversial wording reflects a subtle stance in this cultural debate [9][10]. Group 3: Marketing Strategy - American Eagle's approach can be seen as a calculated risk, leveraging controversy to generate discussion and visibility, a tactic known as issue marketing [14][15]. - The ad's release led to a significant increase in social media mentions, with a reported 18-fold rise in engagement following the controversy [18][22]. - The brand's strategy appears to resonate with younger consumers, particularly Generation Z, who value authenticity and rebellion against conventional norms [19][20]. Group 4: Market Reaction - Following the controversy, American Eagle's stock price surged approximately 23%, indicating a positive market response [18]. - Internal polling revealed that 71% of respondents found the advertisement appealing, and third-party data showed a favorable sentiment ratio of 63.7% positive to 29.4% negative [13][18]. - The advertisement's success in generating sales and brand visibility suggests that the calculated risk paid off for American Eagle [23][28].

至于宗家闹得沸沸扬扬的家事，在我眼中比武大女更为可笑。 谁能想到，自诩"觉醒（Woke）"的互联网"女权"人士，居然想在2025年复兴嫡庶神教？ 尤其他们主张完全剥夺私生子的财产继承权这一点，甚至比一般的封建社会还原始。 要知道即使是封建王朝，都会为私生子保留一定的财产继承权，而当代互联网想要的却是直接从法律层 面将私生子开除人籍。 更有趣的是，若宗女士是个男人，用脚后跟都能想象这些人的主张又会变成什么样。 最近的互联网好不热闹，勾得我也心痒难耐，特此共襄盛举，就从武大事件开始好了。 武大这件事中，导致事情急速恶化的，也令很多人大惑不解的不是事件本身，而是杨姓女士极为嚣张的 态度。 她炫耀自己的策略，不加掩饰地展示给他人带来了怎样的伤害，甚至把威胁法院工作人员的聊天记录都 上传到了自己的社交媒体。自己把自己塑造成了一个纯粹的毒妇。 可是为什么？ 为什么在如今的互联网，那些自诩思想最为进步的群体，却总是以一种最狰狞、粗野的形象示人？ 为什么这些高举理性大旗的人，却不加掩饰地倾泻纯粹的恶意？ 因为他们所映照的，恰是后现代框架下，"觉醒文化"的通病，一种名为"进步"的"退化"。 觉醒？讨逆！ 觉醒人士往往认为自己的 ...

Group 1 - The atmosphere of "success being guilty" is dissipating, with a collective shift in the business world from moral judgment back to profit orientation, as indicated by Hollywood resuming comedy projects and tech companies reducing self-censorship [1] - Morgan Stanley has significantly increased its holdings in Bitcoin ETFs, with cryptocurrency assets soaring to $16.3 million, marking a shift in traditional financial institutions' approach to the crypto market [1] - BlackRock's CEO Larry Fink is orchestrating a strategic retreat from climate initiatives, withdrawing from the "Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative" and other climate projects, signaling a major shift in corporate climate commitments [3] Group 2 - A New York court overturned Nasdaq's requirement for companies to establish "diverse boards," allowing businesses to focus more on their products rather than identity labels [4] - Fink's withdrawal from climate initiatives is presented as not changing investment strategies, but it effectively removes clients' voting rights from ESG agendas, reflecting a nuanced retreat [5] - The Biden administration's withdrawal from international organizations, including UNESCO, and the focus on curbing "woke" AI development indicate a significant shift in U.S. global strategy and regulatory frameworks [5][7] Group 3 - Tech industry leaders, including Zuckerberg, are expressing optimism about the end of the past decade's struggles, with a growing sentiment that companies can operate without guilt [7] - The regulatory environment under the Biden administration is characterized as "soft authoritarianism," with decision-making processes requiring excessive approvals, which the Trump administration aims to dismantle [7] - The retreat from environmental commitments raises concerns about whether corporate environmental promises will become hollow in the absence of investment pressures related to carbon emissions [7]

当地时间7月22日，美国国务院宣布，由于美方认为联合国教科文组织存在"反以色列偏见"等原因，美 国将再次退出该组织，这距离美国上次重返教科文组织仅仅过去两年。 美国务院发言人塔米·布鲁斯称，美国此次退出也与教科文组织"推行分裂性的社会文化议题"有关。根 据程序，美国的退出决定将于2026年12月底正式生效。 当天，美国《纽约邮报》报道称，美国总统特朗普已决定让美国退出联合国教科文组织，所涉理由是该 组织存在所谓"反美国、反以色列、亲中国"等倾向以及推行多样性、公平性和包容性政策。 此前，美国已两次退出联合国教科文组织，上一次是在特朗普的第一任期。2017年10月，特朗普下 令"退群"，后来拜登政府又于2023年重新加入。 一位白宫官员告诉《纽约邮报》，"特朗普总统已决定让美国退出联合国教科文组织，因为该组织支持 觉醒文化和分裂性的社会文化议题，这些议题与美国人在去年11月投票支持的常识性政策完全背道而 驰。" 白宫副新闻秘书安娜·凯利声称，"本届总统始终把美国利益置于首位，并确保我们参与的所有国际组织 符合国家利益。" 联合国教 科文组织会议资料图。 联合国教科文组织网站 今年2月，特朗普下令对美国在教科文组 ...

Group 1 - The G20 finance ministers meeting in Durban, South Africa, is overshadowed by the absence of US Treasury Secretary Becerra, reflecting deteriorating US-South Africa relations under Trump's administration [1][3] - Trump's administration has threatened to impose high tariffs on South Africa, which has raised concerns about the future of G20 cooperation and the potential impact on global governance [3][4] - The absence of high-level US representation at the G20 raises questions about the long-term viability of the G20 as a platform for international cooperation [3] Group 2 - Since Trump's return to the White House, US-South Africa relations have sharply declined, with accusations of racial discrimination and economic sanctions from the US [4] - South Africa's economy could face severe repercussions, with estimates of up to 100,000 job losses in agriculture and automotive sectors due to US tariff policies [4] - South Africa's exports of automobiles to the US have plummeted by 80% since the imposition of tariffs in April [4]

Group 1 - The U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced the suspension of Harvard University's eligibility to enroll new international students, revoking its SEVP certification, which directly impacts the university's ability to provide I-20 forms and F-1 visa applications [1] - Harvard will not accept any foreign students holding F/J visas for the 2025-2026 academic year, and current international students must transfer to other certified institutions to maintain their legal status in the U.S. [1] - Harvard has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration regarding the international student ban, and a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order to maintain the status quo until a hearing [1][2] Group 2 - The incident reflects a broader struggle between populism and elitism in American society, highlighting deep-rooted issues such as political interference, structural conflicts among elites, and the politicization of higher education [2] - Trump's administration's actions against Harvard are seen as a political maneuver to appeal to his base, which is characterized by populist sentiments and anti-elitism [9][15] - The event underscores the tension between the elite institutions of higher education and the working-class sentiments, as many feel marginalized by the prevailing meritocratic system [6][8] Group 3 - The concept of meritocracy in the U.S. has been criticized for perpetuating inequality, as it often favors affluent families over middle-class children, leading to a perception that the system is rigged against the latter [7][11] - Trump's rise to power is attributed to his ability to channel public discontent with the meritocratic system, positioning himself as a voice for those who feel left behind [8][10] - The ongoing conflict between populism and elitism raises questions about the future of education as a tool for social mobility and its role in political power dynamics [16]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a legal battle between Harvard University and the Trump administration regarding the revocation of Harvard's international student enrollment status, highlighting the implications for academic freedom and government overreach in educational policies [1][2][8]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - A federal judge in Massachusetts, Allison Burroughs, indicated that a preliminary injunction will be issued to prevent the Trump administration from revoking Harvard's international student enrollment status [1]. - The Trump administration had previously notified Harvard that its "Student and Exchange Visitor Program" (SEVP) certification would be revoked, requiring international students to leave within 72 hours [2]. - The judge emphasized the need to maintain the status quo to protect Harvard and its international students until the administrative process is completed [3]. Group 2: Government Actions and Implications - The government altered its stance before the hearing, allowing Harvard 30 days to contest the revocation, but the judge deemed it necessary to protect the university's rights [3]. - If Harvard can provide evidence that the government's actions were motivated by dissatisfaction with its liberal stance, the court may rule that the government's actions violate constitutional rights, including the First Amendment (freedom of speech and academic freedom) and the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection) [5][21]. Group 3: Broader Context - The conflict represents a broader clash between liberal universities, exemplified by Harvard, and a conservative government, with Harvard symbolizing elite education and liberal values [9][10]. - The Trump administration's policies targeting higher education institutions aim to weaken the structural advantages of liberal universities in the U.S. discourse and knowledge systems [13][14]. - Harvard's financial dependence on federal funding for research and student loans complicates its autonomy, as federal funding constitutes approximately 11% of its total operating revenue [18][19]. Group 4: Future Legal Landscape - Harvard is also challenging the Trump administration's decision to freeze approximately $3 billion in federal research funding, with a hearing scheduled for July 2025 [17]. - The case is expected to progress through the U.S. federal court system, potentially reaching the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which is known for its liberal leanings [28][29]. - The outcome of this legal battle may have significant implications for the relationship between academic institutions and government policies, particularly regarding academic freedom and institutional autonomy [8][30].

Group 1 - The Democratic Party is currently facing significant internal divisions and challenges in responding to the Trump administration's policies, leading to a lack of unified strategy and direction [1][2][3] - There is a notable split within the Democratic Party regarding how to approach Trump, with some members advocating for compromise while others call for a clear opposition [2][3] - The party's internal conflicts are exacerbated by generational divides and differing ideologies, which hinder its ability to present a cohesive front [3][4] Group 2 - The expansion of presidential power under Trump has raised concerns about the balance of power in the U.S. government, with Trump utilizing executive orders to bypass Congress [5][6] - The Democratic Party's response to Trump's actions has been characterized by confusion and a lack of decisive action, leading to increased pressure from grassroots supporters for a stronger stance [6][10] - Recent grassroots movements and protests indicate a potential shift within the Democratic Party towards a more progressive and confrontational approach against Trump and his policies [10][11] Group 3 - The Democratic Party's historical ability to propose grand governance ideas is being challenged, as current internal divisions may lead to the emergence of more extreme factions within the party [9][10] - The upcoming midterm elections in 2026 are seen as a critical opportunity for the Democratic Party to regroup and potentially introduce new leadership to revitalize its platform [12]