St. Bonaventure professor announces congressional run for NY23 in 2026 election
Aaron Gies, of Olean, a current assistant professor of Theology and Franciscan Studies at St. Bonaventure, and leader of a non-profit organization, announced his bid for Congress on Tuesday, July 15.
Gies intends to challenge Nick Langworthy, emphasizing the need to elect leaders who listen to and lift up those they serve, according to his announcement.
Candidate for New York's 23rd Congressional District makes stop at Harris Hill
'We're in an affordability crisis in New York State,' Gies said, 'The American Dream is out of reach for most people. A government that favors those at the top isn't just wrong because it's unfair, it's wrong because it doesn't work,' he said. 'This crisis can only be solved by all of us together. Rural folks know how to take care of themselves. They need their government to support them, not sell them out to elite interests,' Gies said in his announcement.
Gies made claims in his announcement that Congressman Langworthy refuses to meet with his constituents, tariffs and high prices are ruining small businesses, while Langworthy rubber-stamps everything the Trump administration does, regardless of the issue.
Gies pointed out that these are some of the key issues why he is running for Congress.
Born in rural North Carolina, Gies now lives in Alleghany County and understands small-town life. He spends time as a bookkeeper and helps run a non-profit vegetable farm.
Gies now joins Kevin Stocker in the democratic race running against Langworthy.
18 News reached out to Congressman Langworthy's office for a statement on Wednesday. Langworthy said he will not comment on any campaign matters at this time.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
19 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Faith leaders hope bill will stop the loss of thousands of clergy from abroad serving US communities
Faith leaders say even a narrow fix will be enough to prevent damaging losses to congregations and to start planning for the future again. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Unless there is a change to current practice, our community is slowly being strangled,' said the Rev. Aaron Wessman, vicar general and director of formation for the Glenmary Home Missioners, a small Catholic order ministering in rural America. Advertisement 'I will weep with joy if this legislation passes,' he said. 'It means the world for our members who are living in the middle of uncertainty and for the people they'll be able to help.' Two thirds of Glenmary's priests and brothers under 50 years old are foreign-born — mostly from Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, and Uganda — and they are affected by the current immigration snag, Wessman added. So are thousands of others who serve the variety of faiths present in the United States, from Islam to Hinduism to evangelical Christianity, providing both pastoral care and social services. Advertisement No exact numbers exist, but it is estimated that there are thousands of religious workers who are now backlogged in the green card system and/or haven't been able to apply yet. Congregations bring to the United States religious workers under temporary visas called R-1, which allow them to work for up to five years. That used to be enough time for the congregations to petition for green cards under a special category called EB-4, which would allow the clergy to become permanent residents. Congress sets a quota of green cards available per year divided in categories, almost all based on types of employment or family relationships to US citizens. In most categories, the demand exceeds the annual quota. Citizens of countries with especially high demand get put in separate, often longer 'lines' — for several years, the most backlogged category has been that of married Mexican children of US citizens, where only applications filed more than 24 years ago are being processed. Also in a separate line were migrant children with 'Special Immigrant Juvenile Status' — neglected or abused minors — In March 2023, the State Department suddenly started adding the minors to the general green card queue with the clergy. That has created such a bottleneck that in April, only halfway through the current fiscal year, those green cards became unavailable. Advertisement And when they will become available in the new fiscal year starting in October, they are likely to be stuck in the six-year backlog they faced earlier this year — meaning religious workers with a pending application won't get their green cards before their five-year visas expire and they must leave the country. In a report released Thursday, US Citizenship and Immigration Services blamed the EB-4 backlogs on the surge in applications by minors from Central America, and said the agency found widespread fraud in that program. The Senate and House bills would allow the Department of Homeland Security to extend religious workers' visas as long as their green card application is pending. They would also prevent small job changes — such as moving up from associate to senior pastor, or being assigned to another parish in the same diocese — from invalidating the pending application. 'Even as immigration issues are controversial and sometimes they run afoul of partisan politics, we think this fix is narrow enough, and the stakeholder group we have is significant enough, that we're hoping we can get this done,' said Democratic Two of the last three priests there were foreign-born, he said, and earlier this month he was approached by a sister with the Comboni missionaries worried about her expiring visa. Kaine's two Republican cosponsors, Senators 'It adds to their quality of life. And there's no reason they shouldn't have the ability to have this,' Risch said. 'Religious beliefs spread way beyond borders, and it is helpful to have these people who … want to come here and want to associate with Americans of the same faith. And so anything we can do to make that easier, is what we want to do.' Advertisement Republican Representative Mike Carey of Ohio, with Republican and Democratic colleagues, introduced an identical bill in the House. Both bills are still in the respective judiciary committees. 'To be frank, I don't know what objections people could have,' said Lance Conklin, adding that the bill doesn't require more green cards, just a time extension on existing visas. Conklin cochairs the religious workers group of the American Immigration Lawyers Association and often represents evangelical pastors. Faith denominations from Buddhism to Judaism recruit foreign-born clergy who can minister to growing non-English-speaking congregations and often were educated at foreign institutions steeped in a religion's history. For many, it is also a necessity because of clergy shortages. The number of Catholic priests in the United States has declined by more than 40 percent since 1970, according to the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate, a research center affiliated with Georgetown University. Some dioceses, however, are experiencing Last summer, the Diocese of Paterson — serving 400,000 Catholics and 107 parishes in three New Jersey counties — and five of its affected priests sued the Department of State, Department of Homeland Security and the US Citizenship and Immigration Services. Advertisement Expecting some action on the legislative front, the parties agreed to stay the lawsuit, said Raymond Lahoud, the diocese's attorney. But because the bills weren't included in the nearly-900-page 'We just can't wait anymore,' he said.
Boston Globe
19 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's imaginary numbers, from $1.99 gas to 1,500 percent price cuts
Trump even congratulated Veterans Affairs Secretary Douglas A. Collins for having an approval rating of 92 percent. In this polarized moment, it is unlikely any US political figure enjoys a figure close to that, and the White House provided no source for the claim. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump is hardly the first politician to toss out figures that wilt under scrutiny. But he attaches precise numbers to his claims with unusual frequency, giving the assertions an air of authority and credibility - yet the numbers often end up being incorrect or not even plausible. The bogus statistics are part of Trump's long history of falsehoods and misleading claims, which numbered more than 30,000 in his first term alone. Advertisement 'He uses statistics less as a factual statement of, 'Here is what the best data says,' and more as rhetorical construct to sell an idea,' said Robert C. Rowland, professor of communication studies at the University of Kansas, who has studied Trump's rhetoric. 'I think he uses statistics as something to make whatever he is saying look better. He will choose a statistic based on what he thinks he can credibly say, and frankly, there are not strong limits on that.' Advertisement Trump has made little secret of his disdain for research and expertise. Yet he routinely reaches for numbers or statistics, often grandiose ones, when seeking to hammer home the failures of his adversaries, the grandeur of his accomplishments or the boldness of his promises. At the July 22 reception for GOP members of Congress, the president waxed expansive about his goals for the future, including a plan to cut drug prices. 'This is something that nobody else can do,' Trump said. 'We're going to get the drug prices down - not 30 or 40 percent, which would be great, not 50 or 60. No, we're going to get them down 1,000 percent, 600 percent, 500 percent, 1,500 percent.' At the same event, Trump mocked Democrats for claiming that consumer prices were rising when, he said, they were falling precipitously. 'Gasoline is … we hit $1.99 a gallon today in five different states,' Trump said, as the lawmakers applauded. 'We have gasoline that's going down to the low $2's, and in some cases even breaking that.' AAA maintains a website showing the average cost of gas in every state. None was significantly below $3 per gallon. The White House suggested that such numeric minutiae matter far less than Trump's sweeping accomplishments. 'The fact of the matter is that President Trump has delivered historic progress on America's economy, health care, foreign policy, and national security,' White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. 'He's right to tout these victories for the American people, and no amount of pointless nitpicking by the Fake News is going to change that.' Advertisement Trump tangled with numbers again last Thursday in an appearance with Federal Reserve chair Jerome H. Powell, whom he has hinted he might fire. The president complained that a renovation of two Fed headquarters buildings was expected to cost $3.1 billion, prompting Powell to shake his head and respond, 'I'm not aware of that.' Trump handed Powell a sheet of paper, saying the $3.1 billion figure number had just come out. 'You're including the Martin renovation,' Powell said, looking at the paper. 'You just added in a third building, is what that is.' Trump said, 'It's a building that's being built,' and Powell countered: 'No, it was built five years ago. We finished Martin five years ago.' Some analysts believe the misuse of numbers is growing, a reflection of an era when Americans increasingly inhabit separate realities. Ismar Volić, a mathematics professor at Wellesley College, said people often seize on numbers offered by politicians they trust as confirmation of their preexisting worldview. 'Trump is an egregious example, but it's not limited to him, nor did he invent this,' Volić said. 'It's like absolute, final, immutable truth - when you throw out a number or graph or chart statistic, people tend to believe it.' But those numbers often do not get the scrutiny they deserve, said Volić, who specializes in algebraic topology and wrote a book called 'Making Democracy Count: How Mathematics Improves Voting, Electoral Maps, and Representation.' Advertisement 'A consequence of bad math education is we are just scared of math, and therefore not in the habit of questioning it, scrutinizing it or looking at it critically,' Volić said. 'That makes it an effective tool, because anything that scares us can be used as a tactic of manipulation, and politicians absolutely know this.' Trump was also specific in the weeks before the July 3 passage of his sweeping budget bill, which extended tax cuts from his first term. If his bill did not pass, he warned on May 30: 'You'll have a 68 percent tax increase. That's a number nobody's ever heard of before. You'll have a massive tax increase.' Financial experts were predicting taxes would go up about 7.5 percent if the legislation failed - still a substantial hike but far from the 68 percent figure. The White House has declined to comment and several fact-checkers tried unsuccessfully to determine where Trump's number was coming from, speculating that Trump was conflating it with the proportion of Americans who would see their taxes go up. Republican pollster Whit Ayres said it is important to get numbers right, but that Trump is unique. 'In many ways, Donald Trump is sui generis in the way he uses numbers,' Ayres said. 'I don't think you can use the way he uses numbers as an example for how other politicians might effectively use numbers. I will simply say that accurate numbers are a lot more compelling than inaccurate numbers.' To Trump's critics, his looseness with numbers dates to his long career as a developer and real estate mogul, when he specialized in touting his properties and, they say, often exaggerating their value and features. Advertisement In February 2024, Trump was found guilty in a civil fraud case after the New York attorney general said he had inflated his net worth by as much as $2.2 billion annually. The judge found, for example, that Trump described his luxury apartment as being 30,000 square feet when it was actually 10,996. He has appealed the verdict. Other presidents, including Joe Biden, have also been less than precise with their math on occasion, though Biden's misstatements tended to involve his personal history rather than the country's condition. He said repeatedly that he had traveled 17,000 miles with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, for example; The Washington Post Fact Checker found that figure misleading at best. Most presidents have worried that tossing out demonstrably incorrect facts or figures would hurt their credibility, Rowland, the communications professor, said. 'I was reading Reagan's speeches where he personally made notations,' Rowland said. 'You will occasionally see him write in, 'Check this data.' That is the norm for presidents … That is the opposite of what is happening now.'
Forbes
35 minutes ago
- Forbes
OpenAI: ChatGPT Wants Legal Rights. You Need The Right To Be Forgotten.
As systems like ChatGPT move toward achieving legal privilege, the boundaries between identity, ... More memory, and control are being redefined, often without consent. When OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently stated that conversations with ChatGPT should one day enjoy legal privilege, similar to those between a patient and a doctor or a client and a lawyer, he wasn't just referring to privacy. He was pointing toward a redefinition of the relationship between people and machines. Legal privilege protects the confidentiality of certain relationships. What's said between a patient and physician, or a client and attorney, is shielded from subpoenas, court disclosures, and adversarial scrutiny. Extending that same protection to AI interactions means treating the machine not as a tool, but as a participant in a privileged exchange. This is more than a policy suggestion. It's a legal and philosophical shift with consequences no one has fully reckoned with. It also comes at a time when the legal system is already being tested. In The New York Times' lawsuit against OpenAI, the paper has asked courts to compel the company to preserve all user prompts, including those the company says are deleted after 30 days. That request is under appeal. Meanwhile, Altman's suggestion that AI chats deserve legal shielding raises the question: if they're protected like therapy sessions, what does that make the system listening on the other side? People are already treating AI like a confidant. According to Common Sense Media, three in four teens have used an AI chatbot, and over half say they trust the advice they receive at least somewhat. Many describe a growing reliance on these systems to process everything from school to relationships. Altman himself has called this emotional over-reliance 'really bad and dangerous.' But it's not just teens. AI is being integrated into therapeutic apps, career coaching tools, HR systems, and even spiritual guidance platforms. In some healthcare environments, AI is being used to draft communications and interpret lab data before a doctor even sees it. These systems are present in decision-making loops, and their presence is being normalized. This is how it begins. First, protect the conversation. Then, protect the system. What starts as a conversation about privacy quickly evolves into a framework centered on rights, autonomy, and standing. We've seen this play out before. In U.S. law, corporations were gradually granted legal personhood, not because they were considered people, but because they acted as consistent legal entities that required protection and responsibility under the law. Over time, personhood became a useful legal fiction. Something similar may now be unfolding with AI—not because it is sentient, but because it interacts with humans in ways that mimic protected relationships. The law adapts to behavior, not just biology. The Legal System Isn't Ready For What ChatGPT Is Proposing There is no global consensus on how to regulate AI memory, consent, or interaction logs. The EU's AI Act introduces transparency mandates, but memory rights are still undefined. In the U.S., state-level data laws conflict, and no federal policy yet addresses what it means to interact with a memory‑enabled AI. (See my recent Forbes piece on why AI regulation is effectively dead—and what businesses need to do instead.) The physical location of a server is not just a technical detail. It's a legal trigger. A conversation stored on a server in California is subject to U.S. law. If it's routed through Frankfurt, it becomes subject to GDPR. When AI systems retain memory, context, and inferred consent, the server location effectively defines sovereignty over the interaction. That has implications for litigation, subpoenas, discovery, and privacy. 'I almost wish they'd go ahead and grant these AI systems legal personhood, as if they were therapists or clergy,' says technology attorney John Kheit. 'Because if they are, then all this passive data collection starts to look a lot like an illegal wiretap, which would thereby give humans privacy rights/protections when interacting with AI. It would also, then, require AI providers to disclose 'other parties to the conversation', i.e., that the provider is a mining party reading the data, and if advertisers are getting at the private conversations.' Infrastructure choices are now geopolitical. They determine how AI systems behave under pressure and what recourse a user has when something goes wrong. And yet, underneath all of this is a deeper motive: monetization. But they won't be the only ones asking questions. Every conversation becomes a four-party exchange: the user, the model, the platform's internal optimization engine, and the advertiser paying for access. It's entirely plausible for a prompt about the Pittsburgh Steelers to return a response that subtly inserts 'Buy Coke' mid-paragraph. Not because it's relevant—but because it's profitable. Recent research shows users are significantly worse at detecting unlabeled advertising when it's embedded inside AI-generated content. Worse, these ads are initially rated as more trustworthy until users discover they are, in fact, ads. At that point, they're also rated as more manipulative. 'In experiential marketing, trust is everything,' says Jeff Boedges, Founder of Soho Experiential. 'You can't fake a relationship, and you can't exploit it without consequence. If AI systems are going to remember us, recommend things to us, or even influence us, we'd better know exactly what they remember and why. Otherwise, it's not personalization. It's manipulation.' Now consider what happens when advertisers gain access to psychographic modeling: 'Which users are most emotionally vulnerable to this type of message?' becomes a viable, queryable prompt. And AI systems don't need to hand over spreadsheets to be valuable. With retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), the model can shape language in real time based on prior sentiment, clickstream data, and fine-tuned advertiser objectives. This isn't hypothetical—it's how modern adtech already works. At that point, the chatbot isn't a chatbot. It's a simulation environment for influence. It is trained to build trust, then designed to monetize it. Your behavioral patterns become the product. Your emotional response becomes the target for optimization. The business model is clear: black-boxed behavioral insight at scale, delivered through helpful design, hidden from oversight, and nearly impossible to detect. We are entering a phase where machines will be granted protections without personhood, and influence without responsibility. If a user confesses to a crime during a legally privileged AI session, is the platform compelled to report it or remain silent? And who makes that decision? These are not edge cases. They are coming quickly. And they are coming at scale. Why ChatGPT Must Remain A Model—and Why Humans Must Regain Consent As generative AI systems evolve into persistent, adaptive participants in daily life, it becomes more important than ever to reassert a boundary: models must remain models. They cannot assume the legal, ethical, or sovereign status of a person quietly. And the humans generating the data that train these systems must retain explicit rights over their contributions. What we need is a standardized, enforceable system of data contracting, one that allows individuals to knowingly, transparently, and voluntarily contribute data for a limited, mutually agreed-upon window of use. This contract must be clear on scope, duration, value exchange, and termination. And it must treat data ownership as immutable, even during active use. That means: When a contract ends, or if a company violates its terms, the individual's data must, by law, be erased from the model, its training set, and any derivative products. 'Right to be forgotten' must mean what it says. But to be credible, this system must work both ways: This isn't just about ethics. It's about enforceable, mutual accountability. The user experience must be seamless and scalable. The legal backend must be secure. And the result should be a new economic compact—where humans know when they're participating in AI development, and models are kept in their place. ChatGPT Is Changing the Risk Surface. Here's How to Respond. The shift toward AI systems as quasi-participants—not just tools—will reshape legal exposure, data governance, product liability, and customer trust. Whether you're building AI, integrating it into your workflows, or using it to interface with customers, here are five things you should be doing immediately: ChatGPT May Get Privilege. You Should Get the Right to Be Forgotten. This moment isn't just about what AI can do. It's about what your business is letting it do, what it remembers, and who gets access to that memory. Ignore that, and you're not just risking privacy violations, you're risking long-term brand trust and regulatory blowback. At the very least, we need a legal framework that defines how AI memory is governed. Not as a priest, not as a doctor, and not as a partner, but perhaps as a witness. Something that stores information and can be examined when context demands it, with clear boundaries on access, deletion, and use. The public conversation remains focused on privacy. But the fundamental shift is about control. And unless the legal and regulatory frameworks evolve rapidly, the terms of engagement will be set, not by policy or users, but by whoever owns the box. Which is why, in the age of AI, the right to be forgotten may become the most valuable human right we have. Not just because your data could be used against you—but because your identity itself can now be captured, modeled, and monetized in ways that persist beyond your control. Your patterns, preferences, emotional triggers, and psychological fingerprints don't disappear when the session ends. They live on inside a system that never forgets, never sleeps, and never stops optimizing. Without the ability to revoke access to your data, you don't just lose privacy. You lose leverage. You lose the ability to opt out of prediction. You lose control over how you're remembered, represented, and replicated. The right to be forgotten isn't about hiding. It's about sovereignty. And in a world where AI systems like ChatGPT will increasingly shape our choices, our identities, and our outcomes, the ability to walk away may be the last form of freedom that still belongs to you.
