PR in the Philippines

As a history professor at a university frequently targeted by the Trump Administration, and as a patriotic American, I feel compelled to address recent claims about the state of American history education. These two perspectives might seem at odds if one is unfamiliar with the evolution of American historical scholarship over the past half-century. President Trump has suggested that historians have replaced "objective facts" with a "distorted narrative driven by ideology." However, this assertion is inaccurate. While changes have occurred, they stem from new evidence, not ideological bias. Historical interpretations evolve, much like medical understanding advances through scientific research. The past is not static. In the mid-20th century, historians naturally highlighted America's role in defeating totalitarianism. Since the 1960s, movements like the Black freedom struggle and feminism have prompted historians to explore different aspects of our past. By combining established and innovative research methods, including previously undiscovered sources and statistical analysis, historians have revealed substantial evidence about both the expansion and denial of freedom for various groups of Americans. The experiences of enslaved Africans, women, indigenous peoples, soldiers, small business owners, and countless others have been brought to light through extensive research. Historians share these truths with the public to ensure a comprehensive understanding of our history. This knowledge, which is patriotic, forms a crucial foundation for discussions about current issues. While we should acknowledge American virtue and valor, presenting American history as solely a heroic narrative would be a disservice to the nation. Defining historical facts is complex. Sergeant Joe Friday's demand for "just the facts" represents one view of history – a simple chronicle of events. However, history is more intricate. Historians construct interpretations based on available evidence and established reasoning. Each generation of scholars is influenced by its own time, and recent upheavals have reshaped historical inquiries. Critically examining present and past biases is central to the historian's role. Historians have been working to provide fact-based knowledge, which the president's order incorrectly dismisses as biased. Maintaining the integrity of historical scholarship is vital in a democracy. Scholarly articles and books undergo rigorous, anonymous peer review to ensure the highest standards of evidence and reasoning. Debates within the historical profession are passionate, but evidence remains paramount. If there is a need to re-evaluate the balance between critique and acknowledgement of progress, it should be undertaken by dedicated scholars and teachers, not by political figures seeking to impose their views. The executive order argues that "revisionist" historians portray American history as "inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed." The historical profession challenges one-sided judgments, whether positive or negative. Errors and misjudgments should be corrected by scholars and teachers adhering to professional standards, not by government officials promoting a particular narrative. Historical facts require interpretation, and historians must balance their convictions and aspirations with the available evidence. While historians are entitled to their opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts. The notion that objective facts are nonexistent has gained traction recently. Our current president has been documented telling over 30,000 lies during his first term, and this trend continues. Historians must resist this approach to our nation's past. Political interference in publications, classrooms, and museums must be rejected. We must protect the integrity and independence of historical scholarship. Presenting only a selective, idealized version of American history is unacceptable to those who value our nation and its history. To do otherwise risks descending into a dystopian world where truth is dictated by those in power, reminiscent of Stalin's Soviet Union or Orwell's *1984*. Historians have a responsibility to create accounts of our nation’s past firmly grounded in evidence. Without reliable history, Americans cannot know that our Constitution, framed by a generation that fought a bloody war against monarchy 250 years ago, erected sturdy barriers protecting us against executive overreach. Without reliable history, Americans cannot know that the judiciary has a duty to protect those barriers at a time when the majority in Congress has abdicated its responsibility to rein in this president’s unconstitutional and illegal actions. The stories we tell ourselves as a nation must be consistent with objective facts, but they should also be consistent with our democratic ideals, our commitments not only to liberty and individual rights but also to equality and justice for all. ```

Graduation ceremonies are a time for reflection, often prompted by commencement speakers addressing the newly graduated. However, universities themselves should also consider the purpose and methods of education in this era of rapid technological advancement. As both a writer and educator, I find this question complex, much like the textile workers of the early 19th century facing the rise of industrial factories. It's evident that generative AI has created a new generation: Generation AI. ChatGPT's rapid growth has made it symbolic of the challenges posed by AI. Within two months of its release, a survey indicated that 90% of college students were using it for assignments. A recent comprehensive study by Anthropic, an AI company, confirms that students are using AI for complex cognitive tasks like creative thinking and analysis. This has led to concerns about the decline of traditional essays, frustration among writing instructors, and further challenges for the humanities. One undergraduate student remarked that college now revolves around effectively using ChatGPT, highlighting concerns about the value of tuition and associated costs. This presents a false dilemma: education must integrate and challenge AI, addressing the questions that arise from both approaches. One approach involves a return to traditional methods like blue books and oral exams. This approach draws parallels to the introduction of calculators, arguing that learning basic math principles remains essential. It emphasizes developing intellectual capabilities rather than allowing them to be diminished by AI. Some students believe that the final product, such as a paper, is the primary goal, due to the focus on high-stakes testing. However, the educational process and the lessons learned along the way are ultimately more important. AI disrupts this relationship by decoupling effort from outcome. How can educators better assess the learning process? Should students be required to record themselves for hours to prove they aren't using AI? This reflects the "work against AI" perspective, which seeks solutions in traditional practices, including the constraints that shaped the wisdom of the past. We have experience with disruptive technologies like the calculator. Alternatively, the "work with AI" advocates propose a different question: if reading and writing are delegated to machines, what should educators assign, evaluate, and value as indicators of thinking? Literacy has been crucial to human progress for 5,000 years. While Generation AI may be pioneering new ways of thinking rather than simply replacing it, this remains to be proven. Educators are right to be wary of AI, which presents both an epistemological challenge and a marketing strategy. Significant investments are being made in Silicon Valley, which depend on widespread AI adoption. This push begins early, with companies like OpenAI offering free access to their "Plus" tier during finals season. It's furthered by the persistent presence of AI assistants that offer to assist with reading and writing across various platforms, potentially leading to dependence and skill degradation. Tech companies are racing to dominate the AI space, aiming to become synonymous with AI, similar to Google's dominance in search or Amazon's in online retail. For OpenAI, valued at $300 billion but losing $5 billion annually, this is a high-stakes gamble. A common saying, often heard by indebted undergraduates, is that AI won't replace jobs, but those who know how to use AI will. This sounds like a corporate cost-cutting measure disguised as progress. No technology is inevitable, regardless of how fervently its proponents argue. Intellectual honesty requires a balanced approach to AI, as we cannot predict which technologies will succeed. Some become Facebook, while others fade away. While colleges determine the role of ChatGPT in education, they should prioritize providing Generation AI with the human experiences that machines cannot replicate. This includes experiential learning through volunteer service, immersing students in the lives of marginalized communities. It also involves fostering social connections on campus to combat feelings of isolation. However, college should not become merely a lifestyle project for social media. Ultimately, Generation AI needs more than just large language models: they need a space to disconnect, to reflect, to discover themselves, and to strengthen their focus. Your attention is your most valuable asset. It is a powerful expression of care. Don't waste it on anything undeserving, especially not a machine. ```

Elon Musk, the tech billionaire who was frequently seen around President Donald Trump in the early stages of his second term, has voiced his disapproval of Trump's key legislative initiative, a large tax and spending package known as the "Big, Beautiful Bill." Echoing concerns of some Republican legislators, Musk has criticized the bill for its potential to substantially increase the national debt. In a preview clip from an exclusive interview set to air on Sunday, Musk expressed his "disappointment" with the bill, stating that it "increases the budget deficit, not just decreases." He also commented that the bill "undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing." Musk spearheaded the Deficit and Overspending Government Elimination (DOGE) initiative, which led to widespread federal layoffs, agency closures, and the termination of government contracts, some of which are facing legal challenges. Musk promised that DOGE would save at least $1 trillion in federal spending, and the initiative allegedly has saved taxpayers around $175 billion to date, although critics and fact-checkers have questioned these figures. Trump's "big, beautiful bill" proposes increased spending in areas like defense and border security, along with the extension of his first-term tax cuts. It also includes restrictions and funding cuts for clean energy, Medicaid, and other programs, and would trigger significant reductions in Medicare. Nonpartisan groups estimate the bill would add trillions to the national debt. Despite opposition from fiscal conservatives, the bill passed the House last week and is now under consideration in the Senate, where Republicans also hold a majority. Amid pressure from investors to dedicate more time to his companies, Musk, who heads Tesla, SpaceX, and xAI, and owns the social media platform X, announced that he would reduce his "time allocation" to DOGE starting in May. He stated that "the large slug of work necessary to get the DOGE team in place and working in the government to get the financial house in order is mostly done." Musk has affirmed his commitment to his role as senior adviser to the President, stating on May 20 that his "rough plan on the White House is to be there for a couple days every few weeks...to be helpful where I can be helpful.” However, his appearances around Trump have become less frequent, leading to speculation of a disagreement with the President. Reports earlier this month noted that Trump, who previously posted about Musk almost daily on Truth Social, has not mentioned him at all in recent weeks. Also on May 20, Musk stated that he would scale back his political spending after investing over $250 million in Trump's 2024 campaign, stating that he believed he had "done enough." He added that if he sees a reason to engage in political spending in the future, he would consider it. The potential impact of Musk's recent comments on Trump's "big, beautiful bill" remains uncertain. Several Republican Senators have also expressed concerns about its financial implications. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin stated on Sunday that he believes there are enough Senators who can block the bill "until the President gets serious about spending reduction and reducing the deficit." That same day, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky remarked that while he supports spending cuts and considers those in the bill "wimpy and anemic," he would still support the bill if it wouldn't significantly increase the debt, stating that "the math doesn’t add up.” Musk summarized his "personal opinion" in the CBS interview clip, stating, "I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful. But I don’t know if it can be both.” ```

King Charles III, as the head of state for both the United Kingdom and 14 Commonwealth realms including Canada, recently made a significant visit to Canada, seemingly to convey a message to the United States. Prime Minister Mark Carney orchestrated Charles's participation in the Canadian throne speech, where the monarch reads a speech written by the leading politician in front of elected officials. Traditionally, the governor general of Canada, a Canadian representing the monarch, delivers the speech. Usually, Mary Simon, the first Indigenous governor general of Canada, would perform this duty with little public attention in the Senate. However, this occasion was different. Instead of Simon, Carney arranged for Charles and Queen Camilla to travel to Ottawa. They arrived at Parliament Hill in a horse-drawn carriage, escorted by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, creating a display of royal grandeur reminiscent of Queen Elizabeth's visit in 1977. While Charles has visited Canada 21 times, this was the first instance of him opening a parliamentary session with the throne speech. Despite a warm welcome from the crowd, monarchical enthusiasm remained largely within parliamentary circles. Many Canadians are indifferent or skeptical towards the monarchy, viewing it as disconnected from their evolving cultural ties with Britain. A recent poll indicated that 83% of Canadians are largely unconcerned about Charles’s visit. However, these constitutional frameworks proved valuable to the Canadian government. Amid concerns about President Donald Trump's past remarks regarding potentially annexing Canada, prompting anxiety and a desire to assert their independence, Canada sought support from the UK, its head of state's home. However, UK Prime Minister Kier Starmer faced criticism for not defending Canadian sovereignty. His ministers reportedly intervened with Canada to prevent Charles from jeopardizing relations with the UK. Nevertheless, as King of Canada, Charles's visit could not be prevented by Starmer. During Starmer's White House visit in February, he offered Trump an invitation from King Charles, whom Trump has praised. Recognizing Trump's affinity for royal symbols, Carney used Charles to send a message: the King stands with Canada. Charles, bound by constitutional restrictions on political commentary, consistently showed his support for Canada, culminating in his physical presence and direct message. Carney, speaking through Charles, acknowledged Canadians' anxieties about global instability. Through his visit, Charles emphasized Canada's distinct constitutional identity. Through his words, it was hoped that Trump would receive the intended message of reassurance. "We must be clear-eyed: the world is a more dangerous and  uncertain place than at any point since the Second World War," Charles stated, speaking in both English and French. "Canada is facing challenges that are unprecedented in our lifetimes." Following this, Carney's agenda was presented, including faster energy project approvals and a housing program, before returning to the main point: "As the anthem reminds us: The True North is indeed strong and free.” Though the words originated from Carney, the Canadian hope was that Trump understood their message: Canada does not wish to be annexed. Earlier in his second term, Trump seemed optimistic about annexationist sentiments in Canada. However, there are indications Trump is beginning to understand his northern neighbors prefer their traditions, including their monarchy, and their sovereignty. During Carney's visit to the Oval Office earlier this month, Carney stated that some properties are permanently off the market: "We’re sitting in one right now, Buckingham Palace that you visited, as well. And having met with the owners of Canada over the course of the campaign the last several months, it’s not for sale, it won’t be for sale, ever.” Trump's response was, "never say never." However, Pete Hoekstra, the new US ambassador to Ottawa, stated that annexation is not part of his mandate, suggesting Trump is moving on. Predicting Trump's reaction is difficult, but Canada and its monarch have made their stance on sovereignty clear to the American president. Canada already has a King, and it’s not Trump. ```

Germany has authorized Ukraine to use German-supplied long-range weapons to strike targets within Russia, a move indicating a stronger Western stance as the conflict continues. This decision, declared by Chancellor Merz, removes previous limitations on the range of German missiles and aligns Germany with allies like the UK and France. “We will do everything we can to keep supporting Ukraine,” Merz stated in a speech on Monday. While it's uncertain if Germany will provide Taurus missiles specifically, as Ukraine requested, Merz confirmed Ukrainian forces can now strike military positions in Russia using German systems. “Ukraine can now defend itself by attacking military positions in Russia,” the Chancellor stated. The Kremlin criticized the decision. Spokesperson Dmitry Peskov described it to state media as “a rather dangerous decision” and cautioned it would hinder efforts for a political resolution. “If such decisions are made, they will absolutely go against our aspirations to reach a political settlement and the efforts being made within the framework of the settlement,” he said. This shift contrasts with the approach of Merz’s predecessor, Olaf Scholz, who hesitated to send long-range weapons to Ukraine due to concerns about escalating tensions with Russia. During a visit to Kyiv last December, Scholz maintained his refusal, even while announcing a €650 million military aid package from Germany. In contrast, Merz emphasized the unity of Ukraine’s Western supporters. “There are no longer any range restrictions on weapons delivered to Ukraine, neither by the British nor by the French nor by us nor by the Americans,” the Chancellor emphasized at a press conference on Monday. A government official later clarified to Reuters that the announcement did not represent a policy change, as Merz’s administration, in power since May 6, had never enforced such limitations. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is scheduled to meet with Merz in Berlin on Wednesday, May 28. While Germany has shifted its position, the U.S. has yet to confirm whether it has removed all restrictions on long-range missile supplies to Ukraine. According to the Kyiv Post, unnamed senior officials stated that some restrictions remained in place but were under review by President Donald Trump, who "believes that the current status quo does not serve our common interests of bringing Russia to the [negotiation] table.” Former President Joe Biden had previously relaxed some restrictions on long-range missiles. In November 2024, shortly after losing the presidential election to Trump, Biden authorized the use of ATACMS missiles to strike targets within Russia. Ukraine has since employed these weapons to attack targets in the Bryansk region and other areas of western Russia. Chancellor Merz’s decision to remove similar restrictions could significantly enhance Ukraine’s capacity to strike deep within Russian territory. Last November, the Ukrainian military successfully employed British long-range Storm Shadow missiles. Military sources told Sky News that strikes using these missiles were “very successful,” hitting targets in the Kursk region. Merz’s announcement coincides with increased uncertainty regarding a potential ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. Last week, Zelensky spoke about the possibility of beginning immediate negotiations between the two countries. However, shortly after, Russia launched its largest attack on its neighbor since the war began, resulting in 12 deaths, including three children, in an attack involving 367 drones and missiles. Trump, in a TruthSocial post, described Zelensky’s comments as “needlessly killing a lot of people” and “absolutely crazy.” The President criticized Zelensky, stating that the Ukrainian President “is doing his country no favors by talking the way he does. Everything out of his mouth causes problems, I don’t like it, and it better stop.” ```

Americans are displaying increased optimism regarding the economy and job market compared to recent months. A report released Tuesday indicates that the U.S. consumer confidence index, a vital measure for predicting recessions, rose in May following a five-month decline. However, the figures suggest that a potential recession remains a possibility. The Conference Board reported a surge of over 12 points in its consumer confidence index this month, recovering from a five-year low in April. The expectations index, which reflects Americans' near-term perspectives on market conditions, also experienced a significant increase, though it remained below the critical threshold of 80, which signals a possible recession. Here's what you need to know about the uptick in consumer confidence. Why did consumer confidence improve? The agreement between the U.S. and China earlier in May to substantially lower tariffs on each other's goods for a 90-day period appears to have alleviated consumer worries about the economy. “The rebound was already visible before the May 12 US-China trade deal but gained momentum afterwards,” said Stephanie Guichard, the Conference Board’s senior economist for global indicators.  According to Tuesday's report, tariffs remain a primary concern for many consumers, with some expressing worries about rising prices. Several major retailers have reversed their commitment to avoid raising prices for consumers after reporting declines in their first-quarter earnings. On May 12, the Trump Administration announced that the U.S. and China would each reduce their tariffs on the other country by 115% for the 90-day period. This would reduce U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods to 30% and Chinese tariffs on American exports to 10%. This agreement was the second major step back from Trump's tariffs, following a previous pause on broad tariffs against most countries in April. Allies and other trading partners are working to ease some delayed import taxes as negotiations with the European Union continue ahead of a July 9 deadline. Despite ongoing concerns about the potential effects of tariffs, some consumers expressed hope regarding potential trade deals. Overall consumer confidence increased across all age groups, income levels, and political affiliations. What concerns remain? Economic sentiment among consumers across all age and income groups remains lower than it was six months ago, and the expectations index remains below the key recession indicator level after previous declines. While the report indicated a rise in consumer sentiment concerning various aspects of the economy, from the current situation to short-term employment and future income prospects, expectations for job availability also weakened for the fifth consecutive month. The U.S. unemployment rate is currently at 4.2%, consistent with its average over the past year, according to the U.S. Department of Labor's latest .