Foundations
Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
What is 7-OH and Why Did the FDA Seize This Potentially Life-saving Substance?
LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 3 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary:* * *
What is 7-OH and why did the FDA seize this potentially life-saving substance?
There's no real basis to conclude that the products are dangerous. In fact, there's far more evidence that they may help people overcome opioid addiction.
By Geoffrey Lawrence
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enlisted the Justice Department to execute a seizure on Dec. 2 of approximately 73,000 units of 7-OH products, an element of kratom, that were held in three Kansas City-area warehouses. The FDA claims ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 3 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary: * * * What is 7-OH and why did the FDA seize this potentially life-saving substance? There's no real basis to conclude that the products are dangerous. In fact, there's far more evidence that they may help people overcome opioid addiction. By Geoffrey Lawrence The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enlisted the Justice Department to execute a seizure on Dec. 2 of approximately 73,000 units of 7-OH products, an element of kratom, that were held in three Kansas City-area warehouses. The FDA claimsthese products are illegal even though they are not controlled substances under federal law, asserting that they violate the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act and could be dangerous. However, there's no real basis to conclude that the products are dangerous. In fact, there's far more evidence that they may help people overcome opioid addiction.
7-OH is the active alkaloid in kratom--a tree native to Southeast Asia with leaves that have been used for centuries as an herbal remedy, especially as a substitute for opium or morphine. That's because 7-OH is a partial opioid agonist, meaning it temporarily binds to the body's opioid receptors, but higher doses do not cause greater opioid-like symptoms. That means key risks from opioids, like respiratory depression and abuse, are minimized.
The most prevalent FDA-approved treatment for opioid addiction--buprenorphine--works similarly to 7-OH. It's also a partial opioid agonist and accounts for three-quarters of the market for addiction treatments because it's generally regarded as safer than full-agonist alternatives like methadone.
So why is the FDA seizing these products? According to a warning letter the FDA sent one of the manufacturers prior to the seizure, the agency claims the products are "adulterated dietary supplements" because they contain a "new dietary ingredient"--7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) --that the agency hasn't approved. This invokes the agency's authority to prevent products from coming to market that haven't received pre-market approval under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act. The manufacturer, American Shaman, claims they submitted a 100-page response to the agency's warning letter in August but never received any return response prior to the raid.
The process of registering a new dietary ingredient is normally straightforward. The manufacturer must inform the FDA what the ingredient is, how it will be produced, and any information, such as published journal articles, demonstrating the ingredient is reasonably safe for public consumption. The FDA then has 75 days to dispute the research presented or the ingredient is automatically approved.
Although manufacturers have attempted to comply with this process for 7-OH products, the FDA has argued that the research they've presented is unconvincing and denied the applications. The FDA has even gone further by recommending that 7-OH be listed as a controlled substance federally. But the FDA's own database of adverse event reporting for consumer products shows there have been zero fatalities and only three serious adverse events from 7-OH use in isolation.
Of course, a handful of deaths have occurred when 7-OH is mixed with more dangerous substances like cocaine, but polysubstance use is always dangerous. The FDA responds to that real-world evidence by saying, "Although FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) has documented cases reporting adverse events (13 cases, including two deaths) suspected to involve 7-OH, ambiguity about the contributory role of 7-OH from uncharacterized products or concomitant medications and underlying disease limits interpretation." In other words, the agency acknowledges 7-OH wasn't the likely cause of these outcomes.
According to a survey of nearly 3,000 kratom users published in a peer-reviewed journal, nearly half of users say they use it to manage the cravings of opioid addiction. Meanwhile, 91% of users say they use it to manage chronic pain, indicating a clear overlap between these subgroups. That's telling because chronic pain was the key condition for which prescription opioids became prevalent, and users are clearly indicating they see kratom or 7-OH products as a substitute. More than one-third of survey respondents who say they use kratom to manage opioid addiction have been able to continuously abstain from opioids for a full year. That's higher than the success rate of current FDA-approved treatments for opioid addiction like methadone and buprenorphine. This has led noted pharmacologists in recent years to suggest that 7-OH might play an important role in combating opioid addiction.
One reason it may be easier for users to adhere to a kratom, or 7-OH regimen is precisely because of its availability. Methadone patients, for instance, must go to a clinic each day to receive a single dose, and their course of treatment could last about two years if they can maintain the schedule. Dropout rates are high because it's difficult for recovering opioid addicts--who may not have reliable transportation--to adhere to this regimen. Moreover, patients may face stigma that discourages them from even entering a treatment program. Kratom and 7-OH products, by contrast, are readily and inexpensively available in many corner stores around the country.
It's puzzling why the FDA would become so hostile to a class of products that holds such obvious promise as a tool for fighting opioid addiction and for treating chronic pain without opioids. The unprecedented scope of the opioid epidemic cries out for more--not fewer--tools to address the issue.
* * *
Geoffrey Lawrence is research director at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/what-is-7-oh-and-why-did-the-fda-seize-this-potentially-life-saving-substance/
Housing Instability is Driving Child Welfare Involvement
LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 3 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary:* * *
Housing instability is driving child welfare involvement
To improve child safety outcomes, eviction and homelessness should not be treated as proxies for parental failure.
By Layal Bou Harfouch and Christina Mojica
Across the country, housing instability places families with children in frequent contact with the child welfare system, even in the absence of abuse or intentional neglect. Families who are homeless, temporarily sharing housing with relatives or friends because they cannot secure stable, ... Show Full Article LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 3 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary: * * * Housing instability is driving child welfare involvement To improve child safety outcomes, eviction and homelessness should not be treated as proxies for parental failure. By Layal Bou Harfouch and Christina Mojica Across the country, housing instability places families with children in frequent contact with the child welfare system, even in the absence of abuse or intentional neglect. Families who are homeless, temporarily sharing housing with relatives or friends because they cannot secure stable,independent housing, or living in unsafe or temporary conditions are more likely to be reported to child protective services (CPS) because their living situations are visible, precarious, and closely scrutinized. In many cases, the concern triggering intervention is not parental behavior but the lack of adequate housing itself. Although most states formally prohibit removing a child solely due to homelessness or poverty, nearly every state still treats inadequate shelter as a form of neglect, creating a pathway for housing instability to draw families into the child welfare system despite the absence of abuse.
Child welfare involvement carries lifelong consequences. Before turning 18, an estimated 37% of all children will be subjected to a CPS investigation. If children are separated from their families, they often experience instability through multiple placements, disruptions in schooling and health care, and worse long-term outcomes in education, employment, and mental health. The trauma associated with family separation is well-documented across child welfare research, and it raises particular concern in cases where children are removed due to circumstances such as housing instability rather than abuse or neglect.
Social workers and child welfare professionals understand how central housing is to a child's well-being. When families bounce between shelters, motels, and doubled-up arrangements, children struggle in school, lose access to consistent health care, and experience chronic stress that undermines mental health. More than 171,000 people in families with children experienced homelessness in 2023, which represents a 14% increase from the previous year. Family homelessness is closely associated with overcrowding, high rent burdens, eviction risk, and a limited supply of affordable units. These structural conditions are often misinterpreted as parental failure, when in fact they are symptoms of a constrained housing market.
Paradoxically, this recognition of the importance of housing often leads agencies to remove children when parents cannot secure a stable place to live, rather than treating housing itself as the problem to be solved. In many cases, the very fact that housing is foundational to safety should be the reason to get parents immediate housing support, not the reason to separate families who are otherwise supportive and non-abusive.
A harm reduction framework for child welfare
Recognizing this mismatch between structural housing conditions and punitive system responses requires a different way of thinking about child welfare. A harm reduction framework offers that lens.
A harm reduction approach to child welfare is not about demanding perfection from families. It focuses instead on ensuring that their challenges do not escalate into unwarranted removals. Chronic social crises like homelessness rarely result from a single factor and require more than a single intervention. A broader harm reduction framework recognizes that crises like homelessness emerge from interacting systems, not isolated challenges, where overlapping failures across housing, health, justice, transportation, and economic conditions can combine to push families into instability.
Better policies exist that could prevent housing loss and safely preserve families. A harm reduction response recognizes that punitive measures intensify avoidable harm, create expensive ripple effects across systems, and impose consequences that are disproportionate to the underlying issue. Instead of promoting isolated and simplistic policies that overlook the problem's complexity, solutions must be equally detailed. They should prioritize establishing accountability within the systems that affect family stability. This approach minimizes the excessive and avoidable harm frequently caused by child removal, provides supportive services that genuinely enhance family welfare, and achieves sustained cost efficiencies.
Wisconsin shows what harm reduction can look like in practice
There is strong evidence that when families maintain stable housing, unnecessary child removals decline. In 2020, the federal government's emergency response to the COVID-19 pandemic included a temporary halt on evictions. Although this was designed as a public health measure rather than a child welfare intervention, it created a rare opportunity to observe how reductions in housing instability affect system involvement. In Wisconsin, child removals tied to housing problems fell by 33% during this period, and this decline occurred without any change in parental behavior. The experience illustrates how directly addressing housing instability can prevent removals and keep families safely together. While moratoriums on evictions are not the right approach, policies that provide timely rental assistance, expand access to vouchers, or give local agencies flexible funds to stabilize housing can reduce system involvement while preserving family unity.
Wisconsin leaned into this finding by establishing the Family Keys Pilot Program, a housing-stabilization initiative designed to test whether addressing families' housing needs could prevent unnecessary child removals. The program was built around the state's "Putting Families First" framework, which emphasizes solving concrete barriers that place families at risk rather than defaulting to surveillance and separation. Counties received flexible funds and the authority to act quickly, allowing caseworkers to pay overdue rent, cover security deposits, assist families in securing new units after an eviction, and coordinate directly with landlords to keep families housed. Across pilot sites, the program helped reunify families separated solely because they lacked housing and supported 77% of participating families in maintaining stable housing after exit, while Marathon County alone saved more than $250,000 in avoided foster care costs over two years by keeping children safely with their parents.
National policy tools that prevent unnecessary removals
Vouchers are among the strongest tools for preventing unnecessary removals. The federal Family Unification Program (FUP) was created to keep families together when housing instability is the only barrier. Through partnerships between public housing authorities and child welfare agencies, FUP provides housing assistance to families whose children are at risk of entering foster care or who cannot reunify because of inadequate housing. It also serves youth aging out of foster care who face a high risk of homelessness. Evidence shows these vouchers work and save public resources. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimates that keeping a family in foster care costs more than $48,000 per year, while stabilizing that same family's housing through FUP averages about $15,000, resulting in more than $134 million in savings for every $20 million invested.
The broader Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program also plays a critical role in promoting family stability. Yet despite its effectiveness, voucher utilization remains low. Nationally, only one in four eligible households receives rental assistance. Many housing authorities face administrative burdens, limited staff capacity, and tight rental markets, making it challenging to place families even when vouchers are available. In cities with low vacancy rates, families often cannot find an eligible unit before their voucher expires. As rental vacancy rates fall to historic lows, rents continue to climb faster than incomes, and many landlords withdraw from voucher programs. These conditions leave low- and moderate-income families with few viable options, increasing the risk that temporary housing instability turns into a crisis.
The effectiveness of both FUP and HCV is ultimately constrained by the severe shortage of homes that families can actually rent. Nationally, 10.9 million extremely low-income renter households compete for only 3.8 million affordable and available rental homes, a shortfall of 7.1 million units. Put differently, there are only 35 affordable and available homes for every 100 extremely low-income renters. As a result, 87% of extremely low-income renters are cost-burdened, and 75% are severely cost-burdened, often spending so much on rent that they cannot reliably afford food, health care, transportation, or child care. In this environment, FUP and HCV are asked to operate in a market where scarcity is built into the system.
Caseworkers can issue vouchers, but families struggle to find any unit that will accept them or meet program standards. The same zoning rules, permitting delays, and land use restrictions that limit overall housing construction squeeze voucher holders most of all, because they have the least ability to compete for scarce units. Until communities increase the supply of homes by removing barriers to building, vouchers alone cannot reliably prevent removals or stabilize families.
Recent state-level trends further demonstrate the limits of voucher-based interventions in a constrained housing market. Even as states dramatically expand spending on homelessness, outcomes diverge sharply depending on whether they allow more housing to be built. The comparison below shows that states with strict land use rules saw homelessness rise despite massive investment, while states that reformed zoning and permitting experienced measurable declines.
[View table in the link at bottom.]
These patterns reinforce a central point that is essential to understanding why vouchers cannot succeed without more housing. States that restrict new construction through zoning and permitting limits tend to spend more and still experience rising homelessness, while states that allow more-flexible development see better outcomes. California and New York have invested billions of dollars over the past 15 years, yet both recorded significant increases in homelessness during the same period. By contrast, Texas and Florida expanded housing more quickly through permitting and zoning reforms, and both saw declines in homelessness even with far lower spending per person. The comparison helps illustrate how supply constraints undermine the effectiveness of every housing intervention, including FUP and HCV.
A harm reduction approach that supports family stability
Family homelessness illustrates the scale and consequences of these pressures. More than 64% of families with children experiencing homelessness reside in shelters, while the remaining third live in cars, motels, or other unsafe or unstable locations. Most of these households are headed by single mothers who face severe rent burdens, limited access to child care, and unstable employment. These structural pressures intersect directly with child welfare involvement. When families are priced out of stable housing, the risk of child welfare agency involvement increases even when there is no allegation of abuse. While the child welfare system is designed to protect children, housing instability can function as a proxy for risk, increasing the likelihood of intervention and family separation. In these cases, the trauma and long-term costs of separation often far exceed the cost of providing housing assistance that could stabilize the family and preserve the child's well-being.
A child welfare approach based on harm reduction acknowledges that when housing instability is the core challenge for a family, the appropriate intervention is to restore stability, not remove children. The Wisconsin Family Keys pilot offers a practical example of this principle. By quickly and directly addressing housing barriers, counties were able to keep families together, minimize trauma, and realize significant cost savings compared to the expense of foster care.
To improve child safety outcomes, eviction and homelessness should not be treated as proxies for parental failure. Stable housing is not a secondary concern but a foundational condition for family stability and child well-being. When families secure stable housing, children are more likely to remain safely in their homes, child welfare systems avoid unnecessary interventions, and communities reduce the fiscal and social costs associated with family separation. If the core objective is child safety, policy should prioritize measures that establish stability upstream rather than escalating surveillance or interventions that increase the risk of removal.
* * *
Layal Bou Harfouch is a drug policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
Christina Mojica is a senior policy analyst at Reason Foundation.
* * *
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/housing-instability-is-driving-child-welfare-involvement/
Where Did Capitalism Really Begin?
DETROIT, Michigan, Jan. 2 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary:* * *
Where Did Capitalism Really Begin?
Merchants' mundane activities led to qualitatively new, emergent abilities.
By Sven Beckert
It is impossible to pinpoint an exact place or moment when capitalism began. Capitalism is a process, not a discrete historical event with a beginning and an end, and it did not drop fully formed into a particular location. Even today, no society is organised along fully capitalist lines, and some have argued that a fully capitalist world is a theoretical impossibility. ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Jan. 2 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary: * * * Where Did Capitalism Really Begin? Merchants' mundane activities led to qualitatively new, emergent abilities. By Sven Beckert It is impossible to pinpoint an exact place or moment when capitalism began. Capitalism is a process, not a discrete historical event with a beginning and an end, and it did not drop fully formed into a particular location. Even today, no society is organised along fully capitalist lines, and some have argued that a fully capitalist world is a theoretical impossibility.Efforts to isolate one patch of soil as capitalism's place of originFlorence, Barbados, Amsterdam, Baghdad, the southern English countryside, or Manchester, for examplehave all proved insufficient. That is because the capitalist revolution had always been a process that drew energy from myriad sources. The first springs fed into rivulets that over time became meandering and ever more powerful streams. As these streams moved through time and space, they encountered a world often hostile to their further developmentrivulets dried out; brooks met sandbanks and evaporated; and even the mightiest streams encountered mountain ranges that stopped their flow and forced them to take on new contours. Shape-shifting through the centuries, and against all odds, this novel logic of economic lifeone that centred less on markets as such and more on the growth of capital, that is, money and goods dedicated to the production of more money and thus more capitalgained power.
Given capitalism's winding course, one reasonable place to start is with the first capitalistsmerchantswho played a critical role in propelling capital's revolutionary recasting of economic life on Earth and personified its logic. While we do not know precisely when and where merchants of this particular bent emerged first, there surely was an unusually vibrant and early community of traders who, in the twelfth century, plied their business in the port of Aden, a port that became, according to its most important historian, Roxani Margariti, the heart of Indian Ocean trade. Capitalism did not "break out" in Aden in 1150, but the city was one among a number of notable places that linked together to form the stream that became the river and ultimately the flood.
Its merchants sent ships to distant ports across dangerous oceans, brought the riches of Asia, Africa, Arabia and Europe back to their storage sheds, then distributed them to the far reaches of the known world, buying low and selling dear, providing shipping services, exchanging currencies, offering credit and sometimes financing and even organising the production of agricultural commodities and manufactured goods.
Linking the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean (and beyond) by sea and land, Aden was a world city constructed by people whose mundane activities, majestic in their sheer scale, included assembling cargoes, inspecting wares, haggling over prices, supervising the construction of ships, observing remote markets, gathering information and, not least, raising capital. As unlikely as it may seem, these banal activities, performed intensively, showed qualitatively new, emergent abilitiesearly, scattered sparks of the revolution to come.
This is an edited extract from Sven Beckert's new book Capitalism: A Global History, published by Penguin.
This article originally appeared at CapX.
* * *
Sven Beckert is Laird Bell Professor of History at Harvard University, where he teaches the history of the United States in the nineteenth century, and global history.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/where-did-capitalism-really-begin/
OMRF receives $3.4 million to explore genetic links to lupus
OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, Jan. 2 -- The Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation posted the following news:* * *
OMRF receives $3.4 million to explore genetic links to lupus
*
An Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation scientist has received $3.4 million grant from the National Institutes of Health to investigate genetic changes believed to be catalysts for the autoimmune disease lupus.
With the four-year federal grant, scientist Swapan Nath, Ph.D., hopes to identify DNA errors that disrupt a routine biological clean-up process called autophagy. In this continual process, cells recycle old parts ... Show Full Article OKLAHOMA CITY, Oklahoma, Jan. 2 -- The Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation posted the following news: * * * OMRF receives $3.4 million to explore genetic links to lupus * An Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation scientist has received $3.4 million grant from the National Institutes of Health to investigate genetic changes believed to be catalysts for the autoimmune disease lupus. With the four-year federal grant, scientist Swapan Nath, Ph.D., hopes to identify DNA errors that disrupt a routine biological clean-up process called autophagy. In this continual process, cells recycle old partsand discard faulty parts.
"Problems with autophagy in immune cells and kidney cells seem to be closely linked to lupus," said Nath, who holds the William H. & Rita Bell Chair in Biomedical Research at OMRF. "Our lab and others have found that when autophagy goes wrong, immune cells release too many inflammatory signals, and kidney cells become damaged and leak protein, which ultimately can lead to kidney failure."
Nath has spent his career trying to identify specific genetic changes, or variants, associated with lupus - a challenging task since the body has more than 3 million genetic variants spread across about 20,000 different genes.
Lupus is a chronic illness that can cause widespread inflammation and organ damage. It affects more than 200,000 Americans, about 90% of whom are female. Existing treatments mainly focus on managing symptoms and preventing flares of the disease. There is no cure.
Scientists have long known lupus has a strong genetic component, but environmental triggers like sunlight, cigarette smoke, stress and viruses are also necessary to activate the disease.
Through previous work, Nath's lab analyzed large genetic datasets to identify regions of the genome associated with lupus risk. The data came from samples housed at OMRF and donated by thousands of lupus patients and healthy controls through the Lupus Family Registry and Repository and the Oklahoma Cohort of Rheumatic Diseases.
"The challenge is narrowing down which specific genetic variants are causing the problem and which gene they affect," Nath said. "We do this through statistical analysis and then testing in the lab."
With this grant, Nath's lab hopes to further narrow the list of potential genes associated with lupus by looking specifically for variants in genes of kidney cells. Ultimately, his work could help lupus scientists and physicians better understand the biological mechanism that links genetic disease risk to cell dysfunction and organ damage.
"This could lead to new drug targets, better risk prediction, and perhaps even cell-based therapies in the future," said OMRF Executive Vice President and Chief Medical Officer Judith James, M.D., Ph.D. "That would be a huge advancement, as it could mean earlier intervention and the prevention of organ damage for our patients."
Nath's grant, No. R01AI191517-01A1, was awarded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of the NIH. He previously received funding from the Presbyterian Health Foundation and from the Oklahoma Center for Adult Stem Cell Research, part of the Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust, for preliminary research.
***
Original text here: https://omrf.org/2026/01/02/omrf-receives-3-4-million-to-explore-genetic-links-to-lupus/
Wisconsin Funeral Home Workers Win Freedom from Teamsters Local 344
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Dec. 31 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:* * *
Wisconsin Funeral Home Workers Win Freedom from Teamsters Local 344
*
Teamsters abandon legal effort to block worker-backed union removal petition
Milwaukee, WI (December 31, 2025) - Employees of Krause Funeral Home & Cremation Services have freed themselves from the unwanted "representation" of Teamsters Local 344 union officials. The workers' victory comes after Krause management withdrew recognition of the Teamsters based on an employee-backed petition showing that ... Show Full Article SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Dec. 31 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release: * * * Wisconsin Funeral Home Workers Win Freedom from Teamsters Local 344 * Teamsters abandon legal effort to block worker-backed union removal petition Milwaukee, WI (December 31, 2025) - Employees of Krause Funeral Home & Cremation Services have freed themselves from the unwanted "representation" of Teamsters Local 344 union officials. The workers' victory comes after Krause management withdrew recognition of the Teamsters based on an employee-backed petition showing thatthe union had lost majority support.
While Teamsters union bosses initially tried to block the ouster, claiming Krause committed an unfair labor practice by withdrawing recognition, union officials quickly backed down after National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys filed a Motion to Intervene with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) on behalf of Krause employee Noah Watry.
In October, Watry submitted a "decertification petition" to the NLRB, in which he and his coworkers requested that the NLRB hold a vote to remove the Teamsters union. That petition contained more than enough signatures from employees in his work unit (which includes funeral directors, embalmers, and apprentices at Krause's facilities in Milwaukee, Brookfield, and New Berlin) to trigger a decertification election under NLRB rules.
Watry shared a copy of this employee petition with Krause officials, who, following the NLRB's Levitz Furn iture Co. precedent, withdrew recognition from the union after seeing that the petition signers also requested that their employer withdraw recognition.
Teamsters union agents sought to block the employee petition and the employer's withdrawal by filing unfair labor practice charges against Krause with the NLRB, alleging that it had withdrawn recognition illicitly. Even though Krause had followed NLRB case law in withdrawing, an NLRB Regional Office issued a complaint against the funeral home company. Watry defended the withdrawal that he and his coworkers had requested by filing a Motion to Intervene.
NLRB Region 18 eventually referred the case to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which set the stage for a hearing on the union's legal claims. However, before the ALJ could move forward with the proceedings, Teamsters lawyers withdrew all charges against Krause, likely knowing that a hearing would reveal the meritless nature of union officials' unfair labor practice charges. This effectively laid to rest the Teamsters presence in Krause's facilities.
Wisconsin is one of 26 states with Right to Work safeguards that protect workers by making union affiliation and dues payment strictly voluntary. Yet, even in Right to Work states, union officials can impose exclusive bargaining control upon all workers in a workplace, even those who oppose the union.
"This case illustrates clearly the lengths that union officials will go in order to hold on to power in a workplace where workers would prefer to be independent," commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "The Foundation is pleased to have been able to aid Mr. Watry and his colleagues in navigating the convoluted federal labor bureaucracy that places hardworking Americans like them at a disadvantage whenever they seek to exercise their rights.
"While this case worked out in Mr. Watry's favor, it's important to remember that he and his coworkers have the benefit of Right to Work and could not be forced to subsidize the same Teamsters union that was trying to trap them," Mix added. "That is why every American deserves Right to Work protections, and even in states where Right to Work exists, it must be defended."
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in about 200 cases nationwide per year.
***
Original text here: https://www.nrtw.org/news/krause-workers-remove-teamsters-12312025/
Foundation for Economic Education Posts Commentary: Systems of Trust
DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 30 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary:* * *
Systems of Trust
What sheepdogs teach us about liberty.
By Benjamin BH Ko
On the Isle of Lewis, crofters still work the old way: one man, two dogs, a flock and the Atlantic wind. Watching Leslie and his collies, Bruce and Jude, round up sheep across the moor, I was struck by how little command was needed. After a whistle and a word, Bruce and Jude's instincts took care of the rest. It was order without control, and freedom within purpose. This is liberty properly understood.
Lewis ... Show Full Article DETROIT, Michigan, Dec. 30 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following commentary: * * * Systems of Trust What sheepdogs teach us about liberty. By Benjamin BH Ko On the Isle of Lewis, crofters still work the old way: one man, two dogs, a flock and the Atlantic wind. Watching Leslie and his collies, Bruce and Jude, round up sheep across the moor, I was struck by how little command was needed. After a whistle and a word, Bruce and Jude's instincts took care of the rest. It was order without control, and freedom within purpose. This is liberty properly understood. Lewisis home to many traditional industries: crofting, tweed weaving and fishing. It is a place where life still depends on skill, community and respect for the elements. When Leslie led his dogs up the slope, the scene felt timeless - as if little had changed in hundreds of years. Yet what struck me most was not nostalgia, but what this simple working relationship revealed about freedom, trust and the limits of control.
Bruce and Jude know exactly what to do when faced with a stubborn or stray sheep. Leslie doesn't bark a dozen new commands; he trusts their judgement. They read the terrain, sense the flock's movement, and decide how best to bring order. It's a partnership built on mutual understanding. The dogs aren't free in the sense of doing whatever they please. Instead, they're free within the bounds of purpose and discipline. Their obedience doesn't crush their independence; it makes their independence possible.
That relationship holds a lesson far beyond the croft. Today, governments too often resemble over-anxious shepherds, issuing endless directives in an attempt to control every variable. If Leslie tried to script each move Bruce and Jude made, chaos would follow. They'd be confused, hesitant and paralysed by instruction. The croft would fall apart under the weight of micromanagement. The same is true in governance: when the state presumes it must command every detail of life, initiative disappears, trust erodes and competence declines.
The partnership between crofter and dog is a vivid example of order emerging from freedom, not imposed from above but grown from within. The dogs act through local knowledge: they understand their environment, the flock and the subtle cues of their master. They don't need constant direction because the system they're part of already carries shared norms and mutual trust. That is how real cooperation happens, not through regulation, but through relationship.
Liberty isn't lawlessness. Bruce and Jude don't dash off into the heather the moment Leslie's whistle falls silent. Their freedom is earnedrooted in discipline, skill and trust. The same kind of freedom sustains the island itself. Across Lewis, you'll find honesty boxes beside country roads, where locals leave fresh eggs, freshly baked goods and even second-hand tweed clothing with only a tin for payment. There's no CCTV or bureaucracy, just trust that people will do the right thing. In addition, if a crofter falls ill, a neighbour will tend their flock. Responsibility here is personal, not outsourced to an agency or committee.
Life on the island runs on initiative and mutual respect, not official instruction. No one decreed that honesty boxes must exist, or that crofters must help one another. These customs endure because it worked in the past and still does now. That's what gives Lewis its quiet strength: a sense that freedom is not a problem to be solved, but a condition to be sustained.
Compare that with the modern political impulse to regulate everything from speech to stove tops. Too often, policymakers assume that order must come from above - from central planners in Whitehall or Holyrood. Yet on the boggy hills of Lewis, order arises naturally from trust and shared purpose. The dogs don't need a policy paper to know what to do. They need training, trust and space to act. The same is true for free people.
Freedom doesn't mean chaos; it means responsibility and room to exercise it. The moors of Lewis quietly remind us that systems built on trust work better than those built on control. The more power that drifts upward to the state, the weaker those local bonds become. Freedom, once replaced by bureaucracy, rarely returns.
Watching Leslie, Bruce and Jude herd sheep against the Atlantic wind, it was easy to see why this relationship has endured for centuries. It's efficient, humane and rooted in mutual understanding; a living metaphor for liberty. The crofter doesn't need to dominate his dogs. Instead, he trusts them to do their work. That trust, once earned, becomes the foundation of order. And whether on the hillside or in society at large, that's what freedom really should be: not the absence of structure, but the presence of trust.
This article originally ran at CapX.
* * *
Benjamin BH Ko
Benjamin B.H. Ko is a Masters student at the University of St Andrews and an intern at the Institute of Economic Affairs in London.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/systems-of-trust/
"What I had was an awareness": Allan Houston on early detection and a family fight against prostate cancer
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, Dec. 30 -- The Prevent Cancer Foundation issued the following news:* * *
"What I had was an awareness": Allan Houston on early detection and a family fight against prostate cancer
*
Allan Houston understands the power of early detection on a deeply personal level. The former New York Knicks standout, two-time NBA All-Star and Olympic gold medalist watched his father fight and survive cancerand then faced the very same diagnosis 13 years later.
Wade Houston, the former head men's basketball coach at the University of Tennessee, the first African American head coach in ... Show Full Article ALEXANDRIA, Virginia, Dec. 30 -- The Prevent Cancer Foundation issued the following news: * * * "What I had was an awareness": Allan Houston on early detection and a family fight against prostate cancer * Allan Houston understands the power of early detection on a deeply personal level. The former New York Knicks standout, two-time NBA All-Star and Olympic gold medalist watched his father fight and survive cancerand then faced the very same diagnosis 13 years later. Wade Houston, the former head men's basketball coach at the University of Tennessee, the first African American head coach inthe SEC and father to Allan Houston, beat his prostate cancer diagnosis in 2010.
Prostate cancer remains the most commonly diagnosed cancer among Black men in the United Statesand Black men are twice as likely to die from prostate cancer compared to white men. Black men and men who have a first-degree relativesuch as a parent, child or siblingwho has been diagnosed with prostate cancer before age 65 also have a higher risk of developing it. Allan fits into both of these categories.
Read more: How genetics affects your cancer riskand what you can do about it
Competing for their health
Since his son faced a significantly higher cancer risk, Wade understood that sharing his experience with him wasn't just helpful, it was essentialand that made all the difference for Allen.
"What I had was an awareness," Allan said. "I knew that it had been running through my familymy father had gone through itso the minute he had gone through it, I was already on alert, and I was already going twice a year to get checked."
He began screening through prostate-specific antigen testing (PSA), a test that measures the level of PSA protein in the blood. (Higher PSA levels can potentially indicate cancer.) In 2023, Allen was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
As a lifelong athlete, Allan is familiar with competition, but cancer brought a different kind of challengeone that tested him mentally, emotionally and spiritually. Throughout his own journey, Allan reflected on his father's determination to stay healthy for his family, which he now carries forward for his own seven children.
"I have to be there for them, and take that competitive spirit to [my] health," Allan said.
Talking about it
Allan highlighted how many men remain hesitant to speak openly about their experiences, especially with prostate cancer, but that his father was different in this regard.
"He was very open and willing to do whatever it took," Allan said. Wade was determined to do everything possible to remain present for his family and support their legacy.
That same determination now resonates with Allan. Fortunately, Allan was already aware of his cancer risk early on because of his father's diagnosis.
Though a family history of prostate cancer can increase your risk, it's important to know that only approximately 10% of cancer cases are hereditary. Most cancers are diagnosed in people with no family history of the disease, which is why it's important for everyone to get their routine cancer screenings.
Prostate cancer doesn't typically present with symptoms in the early stages, so those routine screenings can be critical in detecting it early for better health outcomes.
Read also: Should I get screened for prostate cancer?
Current screening guidelines recommend talking to your health care provider about prostate cancer screening if you are age 40+ and have a strong family history, age 45+ and are Black OR have a family history, and age 50+ if you're at average risk. You and your provider can discuss the pros and cons of screening to make the best decision for you.
Allan's cancer prevention message
Allan committed fully to doing whatever was necessary to become cancer-free and has since become an advocate for men's health and early detection.
"We're protectors, we're providers and we're survivors, and I think you have to take that same mindset into preventive care," Allan said on his message to men.
He attended the NBA Total Health Fair in Las Vegas, Nevada, presented by Evernorth health services in December 2025. The fair was hosted in partnership with the Prevent Cancer Foundation, Nevada Cancer Coalition, Goodr and the Bill & Lillie Heinrich YMCA. He also serves on the board of directors for ZERO Prostate Cancer.
"You just have to eliminate the temporary discomfort of fear for what's going to be better in the long term," Allan said.
For more information on prostate cancer screenings, what they entail and who they're for, visit preventcancer.org/prostate.
***
Original text here: https://preventcancer.org/article/what-i-had-was-an-awareness-allan-houston-on-early-detection-and-a-family-fight-against-prostate-cancer/