NewzIntel.com

Category: Academic Analysis

  • MIL-Evening Report: Japanese encephalitis has claimed a second life in NSW and been detected in Brisbane. What is it?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Cameron Webb, Clinical Associate Professor and Principal Hospital Scientist, University of Sydney

    encierro/Shutterstock

    A second man has died from Japanese encephalitis virus in New South Wales on March 6, the state’s health authorities confirmed on Friday. Aged in his 70s, the man was infected while holidaying in the Murrumbidgee region.

    This follows the death of another man in his 70s in Sydney last month, after holidaying in the same region in January.

    Japanese encephalitis virus has also been detected for the first time in mosquitoes collected in Brisbane’s eastern suburbs, Queensland health authorities confirmed on Saturday.

    With mosquito activity expected to increase thanks to flooding rains brought by Ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred, it’s important to protect yourself from mosquito bites.

    What is Japanese encephalitis virus?

    Japanese encephalitis is one of the most serious diseases that spreads via mosquitoes, with around 68,000 cases annually across Southeast Asia and Western Pacific regions.

    The virus is thought to be maintained in a cycle between mosquitoes and waterbirds. Mosquitoes are infected when they feed from an infected waterbird. They then pass the virus to other waterbirds. Sometimes other animals, and people, can be infected.

    Pigs are also a host, and the virus has spread through commercial piggeries in Victoria, NSW and Queensland. (But it poses no food safety risk.)

    Feral pigs and other animals can also play a role in transmission cycles.

    What are the symptoms?

    Most people infected show no symptoms.

    People with mild cases may have a fever, headache and vomiting.

    In more serious cases – about one in 250 people infected – people may have neck stiffness, disorientation, drowsiness and seizures. Serious illness can have life-long neurological complications and, in some cases, the infection can be life-threatening.

    There’s no specific treatment for the disease.

    When did Japanese encephalitis get to Australia and why is it in Brisbane?

    Outbreaks of Japanese encephalitis had occurred in the Torres Strait during the 1990s. The virus was also detected in the Cape York Peninsula in 1998.

    There had been no evidence of activity on the mainland since 2004 but everything changed in the summer of 2021–22. Japanese encephalitis virus was detected in commercial piggeries in southeastern Australia during that summer.

    This prompted the declaration of a Communicable Disease Incident of National Significance. At the time, flooding accompanying the La Niña-dominated weather patterns and a resulting boom in mosquito numbers, and waterbird populations, was thought responsible.

    The virus has spread in subsequent years and has been detected in the mosquito and arbovirus surveillance programs as well as detection in feral pigs and commercial piggeries in most states and territories. Only Tasmania has remained free of Japanese encephalitis virus.

    Human cases of infection have also been reported. There were more than 50 cases of disease and seven deaths in 2022.

    Cases of Japanese encephalitis have already been reported from Queensland in 2025.

    Due to concern about Japanese encephalitis virus and other mosquito-borne pathogens, health authorities around Australia have expanded and enhanced their surveillance programs.

    In Queensland, this includes mosquito monitoring at a number of locations, including urban areas of southeast Queensland. Mosquitoes collected in this monitoring program tested positive for Japanese encephalitis virus, promoting the current health warnings.

    Why is its detection in Brisbane important?

    Up to now, scientists have thought the risk of Japanese encephalitis was likely greatest following seasons of above-average rainfall or flooding. This provides ideal conditions for waterbirds and mosquitoes.

    But the activity of Japanese encephalitis virus over the summer of 2024–25 has taken many scientists by surprise. Before Ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred arrived, there had been somewhat dry conditions with less waterbird activity and low mosquito numbers in many regions of eastern Australia.

    However there has still been widespread Japanese encephalitis virus activity in Victoria, NSW and Queensland.

    To date, Japanese encephalitis virus activity hasn’t extended to the coastal regions of southeast Queensland. The detection of the virus in suburban Brisbane may require authorities to rethink exactly where the virus may turn up next. Authorities are ramping up their surveillance to see just how widespread the virus is in the region.

    Health authorities and scientists are also trying to understand how the virus moved from western areas of the state to the coast and what drives virus transmission in different regions.

    There is currently no evidence the virus is active in coastal regions of northern NSW.

    Mosquitoes collected in Brisbane have tested positive for Japanese encephalitis virus.
    A/Prof Cameron Webb (NSW Health Pathology)

    What can people do to protect themselves?

    Avoiding mosquito bites is the best way to reduce the risk of Japanese encephalitis virus.

    Cover up with long-sleeved shirts and long pants for a physical barrier against mosquito bites.

    Use topical insect repellents containing DEET, picaridin, or oil of lemon eucalyptus. Be sure to apply an even coat on all exposed areas of skin for the longest-lasting protection.

    Ensure any insect screens on houses, tents and caravans are in good repair and reduce the amount of standing water in the backyard. The more water there is around your home, the more opportunities for mosquitoes there are.

    A safe and effective vaccine is available against Japanese encephalitis. Each state and territory health authority (for example Queensland, NSW, Victoria) have specific recommendations about access to vaccinations.

    It may take many weeks following vaccination to achieve sufficient protection, so prioritise reducing your exposure to bites in the meantime.

    Cameron Webb and the Department of Medical Entomology, NSW Health Pathology and University of Sydney, have been engaged by a wide range of insect repellent and insecticide manufacturers to provide testing of products and provide expert advice on medically important arthropods, including mosquitoes. Cameron has also received funding from local, state and federal agencies to undertake research into various aspects of management of various medically important arthropods.

    Andrew van den Hurk has received funding from local, state and federal agencies to study the ecology of mosquito-borne pathogens, and their surveillance and control. He is an employee of the Department of Health, Queensland government.

    – ref. Japanese encephalitis has claimed a second life in NSW and been detected in Brisbane. What is it? – https://theconversation.com/japanese-encephalitis-has-claimed-a-second-life-in-nsw-and-been-detected-in-brisbane-what-is-it-252373

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Non-compete agreements and other restraints can end up hurting Australian workers – and all of us pay the price

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Paula McDonald, Professor of Work and Organisation, Queensland University of Technology

    Twinsterphoto/Shutterstock

    Australian workers have to overcome some significant barriers in navigating their careers.

    Some may lack the training or work experience opportunities needed to make themselves stand out and take the next step. Others may be extensively qualified, but face limited new job or promotional opportunities relevant to their skill set.

    But there’s another common barrier that’s often overlooked: post-employment restraints. Among the most well-known are non-compete clauses, but these aren’t the only kind.

    These tools are designed to protect employer interests. But their widespread use has far-reaching consequences for job mobility, wages and innovation across Australia.

    Our new research, which was commissioned by the Department of Treasury and conducted by researchers at Queensland University of Technology, set out to examine how these agreements are impacting Australia’s workforce.

    We zeroed in on two very different occupational groups – hairdressers and IT professionals. Our findings point to an urgent need for regulatory reform in Australia. But we also offer solutions that could better balance business needs with worker rights.

    What are post-employment restraints?

    Post-employment restraints are contractual clauses that restrict what workers can do after leaving their jobs.

    One common type are non-compete clauses, which prevent workers from joining competitors or starting their own businesses, usually (though not always) in the same industry.

    Signing a non-compete agreement often prevents you from working for a competing business.
    G.Tbov/Shutterstock

    There are also non-solicitation agreements, which restrict them from approaching former clients or colleagues.

    And non-disclosure obligations can limit the use of confidential information concerning the employer’s business – even when created by workers themselves.

    Businesses argue these clauses help them safeguard their proprietary interests, such as hard-won client relationships, trade secrets and intellectual property.

    However, their application is not limited to high-level executives or sensitive roles. Such restraints are more common than many realise.

    Data cited in our report from businesses with 200 employees or less confirms previous Australian research: at least one in five businesses use non-compete, non-solicitation of clients and non-solicitation of co-workers clauses. The number is even higher if non-disclosure agreements are included in the list of restraints.

    Overall, half of all Australian workers are reported to have post-employment restraints – including many in low-paid jobs.

    As former Fair Work Commission President Iain Ross has pointed out, this raises critical questions about fairness and the broader impacts on the labour market.

    A tangle of restrictions in hairdressing

    Hairdressing is a predominantly female, low-wage profession. Our interviews with hairdressers reveal the outsized impact that post-employment restraints can have on vulnerable workers.

    Restrictions typically include bans on working within a certain radius of their former salon, taking clients to a new employer, or starting their own business.

    Many interviewees only learned about these restrictions after accepting a position or deciding to leave. Some reported being barred from telling clients of their departure or facing demands to pay penalties if clients followed them to a new salon.

    The personal relationships hairdressers form with their clients are central to their work and professional identity. However, these relationships often become battlegrounds when employment ends.

    Hairdressers explained the difficulties that often arose from becoming “friends” with clients. As one put it:

    As soon as you leave, it’s almost harder than a breakup.

    Client relationships are a prized asset in the hairdressing industry.
    MarijaBazarova/Shutterstock

    Chained to the chair

    Financially, these restrictions exacerbate the already precarious conditions in the hairdressing industry.

    With limited opportunities for wage growth, many hairdressers establish their own businesses or rent chairs in salons for greater independence.

    Yet, non-compete clauses often delay these plans. Hairdressers are then forced to accept lower-paying positions or leave the profession entirely.

    Social media has added a whole new layer of complexity. Hairdressers are often required to use their personal social media accounts to promote their employer’s business, only to have their posts deleted or accounts locked when they leave. This can erase years of professional work and connections.

    Many young hairdressers we spoke to expressed particular frustration that their social media presence, cultivated under the salon’s brand, could not be carried forward to new roles.

    Holding back innovation

    Our study found while hairdressers face restrictions on their mobility and client relationships, IT professionals face obstacles that limit their ability to innovate.

    IT professionals often develop new technologies, software or processes, sometimes in their own time. However, contracts often claim ownership of these innovations for the employer.

    We found non-disclosure agreements, non-compete clauses and intellectual property ownership terms are all common in the industry.

    This environment discourages entrepreneurial ventures and independent projects, even as the industry demands agility and creativity.

    As one participant explained:

    It’s made me pause multiple times, made me think about not developing a code that you’re interested in just for your own development.

    Professionals reported feeling “locked in” to roles, unable to pursue side projects or start their own businesses without risking legal action.

    Non-compete clauses in IT contracts also restrict job mobility when professionals cannot join competitor companies or use their expertise in new roles.

    This impacts not only individual workers but also the broader industry, as firms struggle to recruit skilled talent.

    Paradoxically, some employers actively poach talent from competitors while enforcing non-compete clauses against their own staff.

    Intellectual property restrictions can discourage IT professionals from working on their own innovative projects.
    Jacob Lund/Shutterstock

    The way forward

    By limiting job mobility, post-employment restraints contribute to wage stagnation and reduce workers’ bargaining power.

    Australia’s regulatory approach to this issue lags behind other countries. There are no formal limits on the length or breadth of restraints, just a vague test of “reasonableness” that makes it hard to know what is permissible, without costly litigation.

    In the United States, California has banned non-compete clauses outright, fostering a thriving tech industry. In Europe, companies like Germany impose strict limits on the duration of restraints and require employers to compensate workers during the restricted period.

    These models demonstrate that balancing employer interests with worker rights is possible and can yield positive outcomes.

    One option for policymakers in Australia would be to impose new restrictions on the scope and duration of restraints to ensure they serve legitimate business interests without unduly restricting workers.

    Employers could be required to provide plain-language explanations around these restrictions at the time of hiring and compensate workers for the duration of any restraint, as seen in some European models.

    Post-employment restraints are a double-edged sword. While they may protect legitimate business interests, their overuse undermines job mobility, innovation and worker wellbeing.



    Read more:
    Would a mandatory five-day working week solve construction’s work-life balance woes?

    Paula McDonald receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Commonwealth Department of Treasury.

    Andrew Stewart receives funding from Commonwealth Department of Treasury.

    – ref. Non-compete agreements and other restraints can end up hurting Australian workers – and all of us pay the price – https://theconversation.com/non-compete-agreements-and-other-restraints-can-end-up-hurting-australian-workers-and-all-of-us-pay-the-price-247449

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Coalition promises Australian version of United States’ RICO act to target CFMEU

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has announced a Coalition government would introduce legislation, based on an American law used to pursue the Mafia, to enable police to target the “kingpins” of criminal organisations such as outlaw motorcycle gangs.

    This follows new allegations by Nine newspapers and 60 Minutes about the rogue union the CFMEU. The allegations include “the employment of ‘baseball-twirling violent people’ on the [Victorian government’s] Big Build, where women have been bashed and then black-banned after they complained”.

    The Nine investigation further alleged that “gangland and bikie-linked figures are receiving large payments from companies on publicly funded projects looking to gain favour with union insiders, leaving state and federal taxpayers in effect underwriting payments to the underworld.”

    The Coalition said Monday the proposed new offences would “be based on the highly effective Mafia takedown laws in the US”. Dutton and shadow ministers Michaelia Cash and James Paterson said in a statement:

    By targeting groups that engage in a pattern of criminal behaviour, these offences will put police in the position where they can target the criminal organisation and its leadership.

    This  means the bosses and kingpins of groups such as outlaw motorcycle gangs can be jailed even if they distance themselves from the crimes their organisations commit.

    Dutton described the CFMEU as “a modern-day mafia operation”. He added:

    The culture of criminality and corruption is so entrenched, and it will never change – especially under the weak and incompetent Albanese Labor government.

    Dutton claimed the CFMEU affair was the “biggest corruption scandal in our country’s history”.

    The opposition said it would also set up an Australian Federal Police-led taskforce that would bring together federal law enforcement agencies and state and territory police forces to target criminal behaviour.

    After the latest revelation surfaced in Nine media at the weekend, Workplace Relations Minister Murray Watt said on social media he would refer the allegations to the police.

    On Monday, Watt condemned Dutton’s proposal for a new law.

    We don’t need to import an American racketeering law – we already have our own laws to go after ‘kingpins’, such as section 390.6 of the Criminal Code, which already deals with directing criminal organisation.

    He also condemned the opposition’s long-standing policy to deregister the union, saying this would mean there was no regulation.

    Peter Dutton’s reckless desire for a headline puts at risk the investigations and crime-fighting that the Coalition never bothered to commence in their decade in office.

    Victoria police is undertaking an investigation into the fresh allegations.

    The US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations (RICO) Act, dating from 1970, enables prosecutors to take down whole mob-related organisations rather than having only the power to deal with figures individually. It is intended to deal with mob bosses who could not be directly connected to the crimes.

    Its use, however, has extended well beyond mob prosecutions to a range of targets, from street gangs to politicians.

    US President Donald Trump was charged under Georgia’s RICO act for “knowingly and willfully joining a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the [2020] election”.

    The construction and general division of the CFMEU has been in administration since last August.

    The union’s national secretary, Zach Smith, said on Facebook: “We cannot  let our union or our industry be a safe haven for criminality of corruption”.

    He also said that “violence against women is completely unacceptable to our union”.

    Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Coalition promises Australian version of United States’ RICO act to target CFMEU – https://theconversation.com/coalition-promises-australian-version-of-united-states-rico-act-to-target-cfmeu-252172

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Many of history’s deadliest building fires have been in nightclubs. Here’s why they’re so dangerous

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milad Haghani, Associate Professor & Principal Fellow in Urban Risk & Resilience, The University of Melbourne

    A fire at a nightclub in North Macedonia has killed at least 59 people and injured more than 150. The blaze broke out at the Pulse nightclub in Kočani, where around 500 people were attending a concert.

    Witnesses reported that pyrotechnics used during the performance ignited the ceiling, causing flames to spread rapidly.

    Authorities have arrested 20 people so far, including the club’s manager. Investigations continue. The North Macedonian government has declared a seven-day mourning period.

    While building fires are not limited to nightclubs, many of the most devastating building fires in history have happened in nightclubs around the world. So why are nightclubs such a risky place for deadly fires?

    A long history of nightclub fires

    A look at past nightclub fires shows just how common and deadly they’ve been in the past 100 years. We identified at least 24 nightclub fires where ten or more people died since 1940.

    Collectively, these 24 incidents account for at least 2,800 deaths, with nearly 1,300 in the 21st century alone.

    The Cocoanut Grove fire (Boston, 1942) remains the deadliest on record, killing 492 people. The club’s flammable decorations and locked exits turned what should have been an ordinary night out into one of the worst fire disasters in history.

    In Argentina, the República Cromañón fire killed 194 people in 2004, caused by pyrotechnics igniting flammable materials inside the club.

    The Kiss nightclub fire in Brazil in 2013 was even deadlier, claiming 242 lives.

    More recently, Thailand’s Mountain B nightclub fire killed 23 people in 2022.

    And in 2023, 13 people died in a fire at the Fonda Milagros nightclub in Spain.

    Now, North Macedonia’s Pulse nightclub joins this long list.

    Why are nightclubs so risky for fires?

    A review of past nightclub fires we’ve collated in our database reveals common patterns. Two key factors have contributed to the frequency and severity of these fire disasters.

    1. Pyrotechnics, fireworks and flammable materials

    One of the most common causes of nightclub fires has been the use of pyrotechnics in enclosed spaces. Pyrotechnics are controlled chemical reactions designed to produce flames, smoke, or light effects.

    They have been involved in at least six of the deadliest nightclub fires, including the recent Pulse nightclub fire in North Macedonia, as well as The Station (United States, 2003), Kiss (Brazil, 2013), Colectiv (Romania, 2015), Lame Horse (Russia, 2009) and República Cromañón (Argentina, 2004).

    When used indoors, pyrotechnics can easily ignite flammable ceiling materials, acoustic foam, or decorations.

    In some cases, fireworks – which are different from stage pyrotechnics and sometimes illegally used indoors – have played a role. The Lame Horse nightclub fire, which killed 156 people in Russia in 2009, was caused by a spark from fireworks igniting a low ceiling covered in flammable plastic decorations.

    Even when fires don’t start from pyrotechnics or fireworks, the materials used in nightclub interiors can rapidly turn a small fire into a major disaster.

    Foam insulation, wooden panelling, plastic decorations and carpeted walls have all been key factors in past nightclub fires. In Cocoanut Grove (Boston, 1942), artificial palm trees and other flammable decorations accelerated the blaze.

    2. Overcrowding and blocked or insufficient exits

    Evacuation failures have been a factor in nearly every major nightclub fire.

    In some instances, crowds may not immediately recognise the severity of the situation, especially if they mistake alarms for false alarms or special effects (for example, smoke machines, loud music).

    Further, patrons could be intoxicated due alcohol or other drugs. Intoxication combined with potential disorientation due to dim lighting can further reduce judgement during an evacuation.

    Clearly, the best way to protect patrons is to prevent a fire from breaking out in the first place. But in settings where fire risks are inherently high, the ability to evacuate people swiftly is crucial.

    Nightclubs, however, have a poor track record when it comes to evacuation safety measures.

    Nightclubs are among the most crowded indoor spaces. While crowd density is part of a nightclub’s design and atmosphere, overcrowding beyond legal capacity is common.

    A crowd that has gradually gathered over several hours must suddenly evacuate in seconds or minutes to survive a fire. This is made more difficult by narrow hallways and limited exits, which quickly become bottlenecks when hundreds of people attempt to escape at once.

    What’s more, not all exits are always accessible during a fire. In several past nightclub disasters, locked or obstructed emergency exits have significantly worsened the death toll.

    Minimising the risks

    Nightclubs are uniquely vulnerable to fires due to a combination of structural risks, unsafe materials, overcrowding and regulatory failures.

    While human behaviour plays a role in how fires unfold in confined spaces such as nightclubs, people should be able to go for a night out and expect to come home safely.

    Regulatory oversight must ensure strict compliance with fire codes. Venues should have fire suppression systems (such as sprinklers, fire extinguishers and smoke detectors) to control or contain fires before they spread, and adequate exits.

    Nightclubs should ban indoor pyrotechnics and fireworks, as history has repeatedly shown their deadly consequences.

    Capacity limits must be enforced, and emergency exits should always be accessible.

    Australia has strict fire safety regulations for nightclubs, with venues required to have fire suppression systems, emergency exits and trained staff to manage fire risks.

    Public awareness is also key. Patrons need to understand the real risk of fires in nightclubs, and be prepared to evacuate swiftly but calmly if danger arises.

    Ruggiero Lovreglio receives funding from Royal Society Te Apārangi (NZ) and National Institute of Standards and Technology (USA).

    Milad Haghani does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Many of history’s deadliest building fires have been in nightclubs. Here’s why they’re so dangerous – https://theconversation.com/many-of-historys-deadliest-building-fires-have-been-in-nightclubs-heres-why-theyre-so-dangerous-252372

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Serwah Attafuah: a powerful and most welcome voice in contemporary Australian art

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dominic Redfern, Associate Professor, School of Art, RMIT University

    Serwah Attafuah, The Darkness Between The Stars, JOAN. Landscape still. Courtesy of the artist.

    Virtuosic digital artistry is on show in Serwah Attafuah’s installation The Darkness Between the Stars, currently showing at ACMI.

    The work fiercely challenges stereotypes of black femininity and draws upon the history and culture of the Ashanti people of modern-day Ghana, one of the countries most affected by the Atlantic slave trade and the site of remembrance and pilgrimage for many descendants of the people trafficked as slaves.

    Serewah is part of a generation of video artists like Melbourne’s Xanthe Dobbie, British artist Rachel Maclean, and Paris based, French Guianese artist Tabita Rezaire. These artists all channel the moving image culture of gaming and the internet, rather than the cinematic or televisual references of their forebears.

    Each of these artists uses exuberant humour and a tough-minded politic to challenge the reductive construction of female and queer identities.

    As we pass through the arch at the entry to the gallery, we are greeted by a 3D animation of an ocean reflecting a sky that cycles from starlit to slowly emerging dawn. We are told the arch references the entry to the Elmina castle built by the Portuguese: one of two major points from which enslaved African people were cast into the hell of the Atlantic passage and life in bonds.

    African warriors

    Beyond the entrance we are faced by a series of five screens in portrait format. Each shows short loops of African warriors, suggesting the idealised – and, here, heroic – forms of game avatars a la Fortnite.

    Each of the images is framed in gold e-waste. This brings to mind Congolese street art costumes, similarly made of waste which blend cultural traditions and an Afrofuturist resistance that dares to imagine a better future.

    The first portrait is a furred, horn helmeted, and neck ringed warrior woman. Armed with a laser and an automatic pistol, she has further weapons adorning her back ready to be deployed.

    Serwah Attafuah, The Darkness Between The Stars, ANANSI, 2025.
    Still courtesy of the artist

    Behind and around her are malfunctioning computer screens. One scrolls through an online dating text exchange which evokes the idealised and reductive self-curation of the online profile. This chat is between Jenny and Mark, a FIFO worker on an offshore oil rig in Western Australia. This ties to the images of oil rigs found elsewhere in the show, evoking the plundering of African resources: human and otherwise; historical and ongoing.

    The second screen pictures an armoured woman (or cyborg?) atop a rearing tiger. The tiger is an intriguing choice given it is an Asian animal but potentially points to a pan exoticism rooted in the confusion of cultures.

    She wields a curved blade amid a savannah populated with umbrella thorn acacia and what appear to be comfortingly homely (and amusing) ground-hugging waratahs in the foreground.

    Serwah Attafuah, The Darkness Between The Stars, JOAN, 2025.
    Still courtesy of the artist.

    Complicating fetishes

    Moving around the room, floating robots accompany another warrior who props against a sword supported by a fragmented classical column.

    She stands beneath an oversized moon, evoking an off-world setting, a reading compounded by her protective headwear.

    Alongside a writhing snake, we catch sight of her Betty Davis (no, the Black one) super heels: a clear link to the under-remembered pioneer of Afrofuturism.

    Serwah Attafuah, The Darkness Between The Stars, KING, 2025.
    Still courtesy of the artist.

    Continuing this play of sexual provocation and power is the addition of a techno tutu which further accentuates her already thrusting buttocks.

    The problematisation of sexualised imagery is one of the exhibition’s central themes. Attafuah toys with the Western fetishisation and fear of Black women’s sexuality.

    Occasionally borrowing cliches from the gaming and pornographic worlds, Attafuah forcefully complicates such fetishes by arming four of her five warriors to the teeth. They take aim at us, challenging their construction as passive objects for our visual consumption.

    A further figure, singularly unarmed apart from her thorny armbands, appears in the next frame. She runs through a series of coquettish modelling poses in her mesh bodysuit as she stands amid buzzing screens and computer detritus.

    In yet another confusingly (and amusingly) stereotyped African landscape she is pictured among palm trees and sand, in what I took to be an evocation of a North African environment complete with desert fortress, oil rig and passing container ship.

    In the final of the five portraits a young, braided, and fantastically eyelashed woman takes aim at us with a pistol straight from Star Wars (Rebel Alliance issue, naturally).

    Serwah Attafuah, The Darkness Between The Stars, VENUS, 2025.
    Still courtesy of the artist.

    She stands hip deep in a lagoon of water lilies and floating CDs. A futuristic city fills the background with a slowly turning wind turbine that sports yellow and black radiation colouring – yet another paradoxical meeting in an exhibition characterised by mixed messages that contradict easy readings.

    In The Darkness Between the Stars, Attafuah proves herself to be a powerful, uncompromising and most welcome voice in contemporary Australian art. She proves herself capable of generating sophisticated, nuanced and playful reflections on complex problems that we carry from past to present.

    Serwah Attafuah: The Darkness Between the Stars is at ACMI, Melbourne, until June 1.

    Dominic Redfern works at RMIT with, and previously taught, Xanthe Dobbie.

    – ref. Serwah Attafuah: a powerful and most welcome voice in contemporary Australian art – https://theconversation.com/serwah-attafuah-a-powerful-and-most-welcome-voice-in-contemporary-australian-art-250154

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump is surveying Australian academics about gender diversity and China – what does this mean for unis and their research?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Brendan Walker-Munro, Senior Lecturer (Law), Southern Cross University

    Shortly after taking office, US President Donald Trump issued executive orders banning federal funding on so-called “woke” research.

    This is part of his broader ban on all diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies, grants and programs in the US government.

    These orders are massive in scope, impacting studies as varied as stroke recovery, computing and ancient languages.

    The impact in the United States so far has been dramatic. Some universities are already cutting student admissions and looking at ways to shed academic staff and researchers.

    Now the ban has impacted Australian researchers who have links to US government-funded projects. The Trump Administration is asking for information on how their research fits in with US foreign and domestic policy.

    What has happened?

    The US government has sent a 36-point questionnaire to some Australian researchers who are working on joint projects with US colleagues.

    ABC Radio National reports at least eight Australian universities are involved. Their research areas include foreign aid, medicine, vaccines and defence. The New York Times reports a similar document has also been sent to other overseas organisations with US funding links.

    The questions are wide-ranging and cover academics’ links to China as well as their projects’ focus on topics such as diversity, inclusion and gender identity, as well as climate change.

    Some of the specific questions include:

    Can you confirm that your organisation has not received ANY funding from PRC People’s Republic of China, Russia, Cuba or Iran?

    Can you confirm that this is no DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] project or DEI elements of the project? [sic]

    Does this project take appropriate measures to protect women and to defend against gender ideology as defined in the below Executive Order?

    Can you confirm this is not a climate or “environmental justice” project or include such elements?

    The survey also covers issues such as secure borders with Mexico, ending government waste, terrorism, the war on opioids, and “eradicating anti-Christian bias”.

    Concern and anger

    In response, the Group of Eight (which represents Australia’s top research universities) and Australian Academy of Science have separately raised concerns with the Australian government about the survey and its impact on Australian research.

    The Group of Eight says the US has already suspended or terminated research grants with six of its eight member universities.

    The National Tertiary Education Union also labelled the survey “blatant foreign interference”.

    A spokesperson for Education Minister Jason Clare says Australia is
    “engaging with the US government to understand what these measures mean for future funding and collaboration”.

    Are Trump’s orders legal?

    Trump’s executive orders are currently the subject of numerous lawsuits in the US. Plaintiffs say Trump’s orders violate the First and Fifth Amendments – those dealing with protection of free speech, equal protection and “due process of law” when depriving a citizen of property.

    Whether Trump’s orders are legal or not is a tricky question, and will likely come down the judges hearing each case.

    In the meantime, US government agencies are withholding funding anyway. Reports also suggests Trump has instructed his administration to ignore court orders – hardly surprising, given Trump’s history of contempt of US courts.

    What does this mean for Australia?

    US involvement in Australian research is significant. According to the Academy of Science, US government research funding involving Australian research organisations was $A386 million in 2024.

    It is arguable Trump’s orders infringe Australian sovereignty. But the US has always had the capacity to interfere in Australian university research – it just hasn’t actually done it until now.

    Research contracts signed between universities and funding bodies can contain all kinds of requirements, so US law can end up applying to Australian researchers. When the AUKUS deal was announced in 2021, a huge question was how universities would comply with notoriously harsh US export control laws.

    The survey indicates it was issued by the US Office of Management and Budget and appears to be supported by the US CHIPS and Science Act (which authorises certain research investments) and National Science Foundation policies. So, while Australian researchers could potentially ignore these questionnaires, that would legally give a US funding body grounds to cancel the funding contract.

    Our foreign interference laws also weren’t designed for situations like this. Even if they did, Trump is the current head of the US government, and is likely to be immune from prosecution

    Statutory tests for foreign interference – including criteria that such acts are covert, and/or involve threats of harm – simply don’t apply to a US president like Trump.

    So legally, it doesn’t look like there is much Australia can do about Trump’s orders.

    What can Australia do?

    Some newly unemployed researchers are now poised to leave the US, taking their research with them. This poses a potential security risk, with countries such as China and Russia both keen to capitalise on Trump’s decisions.

    But other nations are also aware of the possibilities. The European Union has already offered displaced US scientists a more “sympathetic place to work”. South Korea and Canada are also marketing themselves as attractive options. Australia could follow suit.

    The federal government is currently doing a strategic review of Australia’s research and development system. This could make diversifying our research partners a national priority.

    This could include revisiting a 2023 decision, not to join Horizon Europe – the European Union’s key research fund.

    Either way, given such radical changes in the US, Australia needs to seriously reconsider how it is funding and structuring research.

    Brendan Walker-Munro has consulted for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, and is also an Adjunct Expert Associate of the National Security College. He has received funding from the Social Cyber Institute and Active Cyber Defence Alliance.

    – ref. Trump is surveying Australian academics about gender diversity and China – what does this mean for unis and their research? – https://theconversation.com/trump-is-surveying-australian-academics-about-gender-diversity-and-china-what-does-this-mean-for-unis-and-their-research-252282

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Hundreds of livestock breeds have gone extinct – but some Australian farmers are keeping endangered breeds alive

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Catie Gressier, Adjunct Research Fellow in Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia

    Berkshire pigs JWhitwell/Shutterstock

    It took thousands of years to develop the world’s extraordinary range of domesticated farm animals – an estimated 8,800 livestock breeds across 38 farmed species.

    But this diversity is dwindling fast. Advances in selective breeding and artificial insemination have fuelled the global spread of a small number of profitable livestock types. Their popularity has left ever more heritage breeds at risk of extinction.

    Why does this matter? Each breed represents vital genetic diversity for the livestock species on which we rely, known as agrobiodiversity. As the number of breeds shrink, we lose their genetics forever.

    There are bright spots amid the decline. Hundreds of passionate farmers are working hard to keep heritage breeds alive around Australia. As my new book shows, they do it primarily for love.

    Which livestock breeds are disappearing – and why?

    Cattle have experienced the highest number of extinctions, with at least 184 breeds lost globally.

    Of all chicken breeds, one in ten is now extinct, and a further 30% are endangered.

    Sheep are also rapidly losing diversity, with 160 breeds now extinct. The rise of synthetic materials has endangered the remaining breeds producing carpet wool in New Zealand and Australia, including the unique Tasmanian Elliottdale.

    The fleece of Elliotdale sheep has been used to make woollen carpets.
    Sue Curliss, CC BY-NC-ND

    Pigs fare little better. Australia’s 2.5 million pigs are predominantly Large White, Landrace and Duroc crossbreeds, while none of the eight remaining purebred pig breeds in Australia currently has more than 100 sows registered with the Rare Breeds Trust. While not all sows are registered, we know breeds such as Tamworths are at dangerously low numbers.

    How did this happen? Over the past century, the goal of animal husbandry has shifted from breeding hardy, multipurpose animals to increasing performance for economic gain. For livestock, performance means more of what humans value, such as pigs with extra ribs, prolific egg-laying hens and sheep with finer wool.

    Huge sums have been spent on selective breeding and artificial insemination technologies. This, in turn, has made it possible for a small number of profitable livestock types to be farmed globally.

    For instance, when you buy a roast chicken, it will likely be one of just two types of fast-growing broilers (meat chickens), the Ross or the Cobb. Their genetics are developed and trademarked by two multinational agribusinesses who dominate the global broiler market.

    Chicken breed numbers have shrunk too, risking rare breeds such as Transylvanian naked neck cockerel bantams.
    Scott Carter, CC BY-NC-ND

    It’s hard to overstate how big the increases in production have been from reproductive technologies. In the dairy industry, for instance, milk yield per cow has doubled in the past 40 years. These volumes are around six times greater now than a century ago.

    Holsteins, the top dairy breed, have become globally dominant. Almost 1.4 million of Australia’s 1.65 million dairy cows are Holsteins. But as Holstein numbers soar, other breeds dwindle. Many farmers have simply stopped rearing other breeds, leading to many becoming endangered or extinct.

    For Holsteins themselves, this has come with a cost. Selective breeding for high milk volume has meant Holsteins suffer more medical issues such as metabolic diseases and frequent mastitis. They also have reduced fertility and longevity.

    Researchers have found 99% of Holstein bulls produced by artificial insemination in the United States are descended from just two sires. This wide dissemination of limited bloodlines has led to the spread of genetic defects.

    Holstein cows produce much more milk – but there’s a cost.
    VanderWolf Images/Shutterstock

    What is at stake?

    Our food systems face growing threats. Genetic diversity provides a safeguard for livestock species against lethal animal diseases such as H5N1 bird flu and African swine fever.

    If we rely on just a few breeds, we risk a wipe out. The Irish potato famine is a catastrophic example. In the 1800s, Irish farmers took up the “lumper” variety of potatoes to feed a growing population. But when fungal rot struck in the 1840s, it turned most of the crop to mush – and led to mass starvation.

    Some breeds have very useful traits, such as resistance to particular pests and diseases.

    Chickens and other birds die in swathes if infected by Newcastle disease, one of the most serious bird viruses. But breeds such as the hardy Egyptian Fayoumi survive better, while the European Leghorn – whose genetics are used in commercial egg-laying breeds – is highly susceptible.

    Local breeds can also have better resistance to endemic pests. The Indian zebu humped cattle breed, for example, is less prone to tick infestation than crossbreeds.

    Climate change is also making life harder for livestock, and some breeds are better adapted to heat than others.

    For different cultural groups, local heritage breeds also have unique symbolic and culinary value.

    While it’s well-known eating less meat would benefit ecosystems, animal welfare and human health, eating meat remains entrenched in our diets and the economy. Pursuing more sustainable and higher-welfare approaches to livestock production is crucial.

    Some Aussie farmers love heritage breeds

    A cohort of Australian farmers is working hard to conserve dozens of endangered livestock breeds such as Large Black pigs, Shropshire sheep and Belted Galloway cattle.

    A rare Belted Galloway cow with a one week old calf.
    Scott Carter, CC BY-NC-ND

    But these farmers are hampered by our reluctance as consumers to pay more to cover the cost of raising slower-growing breeds in free-range environments. Not only that, but meat processors are increasingly closing their doors to small-scale producers.

    Why persevere? For four years, I’ve conducted ethnographic research with Australia’s heritage breed farmers. I found they were motivated by one of the most powerful conservation tools we have: love.

    Of his endangered English Leicester sheep, one farmer told me:

    I consider them to be family; they have been our family for over 150 years. I talk to them, and the rams in particular talk to me. Sorry if I sound like a silly old man, but you must talk to them. I gave myself a 60th birthday present by commissioning a large portrait of an English Leicester head, which hangs in our kitchen (I do not have a painting of my wife).

    Love doesn’t often feature in agricultural research. But it is an important force. We know from wildlife conservation that humans will act to save what they love. This holds for livestock, too.

    What can you do? If you eat meat or work with wool, seek out rare breeds and join organisations such as the Rare Breeds Trust of Australia and the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance who back farmers supporting breed diversity.

    Catie Gressier receives funding from the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Project scheme as well as the European Research Council. She is affiliated with the Rare Breeds Trust of Australia and the Australian Food Sovereignty Alliance.

    – ref. Hundreds of livestock breeds have gone extinct – but some Australian farmers are keeping endangered breeds alive – https://theconversation.com/hundreds-of-livestock-breeds-have-gone-extinct-but-some-australian-farmers-are-keeping-endangered-breeds-alive-250393

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Luxon meets Modi: why a ‘good’ NZ-India trade deal is preferable to a ‘perfect’ one

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Ogden, Associate Professor in Global Studies, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

    Some have said Christopher Luxon’s pledge to get a free trade deal between New Zealand and India over the line in his first term as prime minister was overly optimistic. But not all trade deals are the same, and Luxon may yet get to claim bragging rights.

    Already he is managing expectations, saying a “good” deal will be better than waiting a long time for a “perfect” one. And with formal negotiations confirmed not long after Luxon touched down in New Delhi, we can perhaps expect genuine movement.

    At the same time, India’s negotiating style is notoriously rigid, with its bilateral investment treaty model having proved a stumbling block to deals with many other nations or blocs, including the United Kingdom and European Union.

    New Zealand first held formal negotiations with India over a decade ago. But talks derailed in 2015 over the inclusion of dairy products in any agreement. We can be fairly sure this will be the compromise Luxon’s government is ready to make now.

    One model might be Australia’s Economic Cooperation and Trade Agreement, which leaves out dairy, too. And New Zealand was able to sign a free trade deal with China in 2008 that excluded diary, with those restrictions removed in a 2022 upgrade.

    Beyond the economic implications, of course, lie domestic political calculations. Luxon needs a win to counter flatlining poll numbers and speculation about his leadership future. Good news in India offers just that.

    Playing the Indo-Pacific card

    Using diplomatic language that plays up New Zealand being part of the Indo-Pacific region – rather than the traditional Western alliance – will be essential.

    New Zealand – despite its relatively small size – is still a significant regional player, with the Indo-Pacific’s fourth highest GDP per capita.

    In the context of an imminent “Asian Century”, and the region becoming a crucial zone for economic and military power, New Zealand also provides a strategic pathway into the Pacific, where India is becoming increasingly involved.

    All of this will influence Luxon’s keynote address today at the 10th Raisina Dialogue, India’s flagship multilateral conference on global politics and economics. He is the first leader not governing a European country to make such a speech, and is also the chief guest at the dialogue.

    Luxon is already on the record as saying New Zealand and India are “very aligned” on Indo-Pacific security and concerns over Chinese regional influence, with scope for more joint defence exercises. This linkage between security and trade mirrors Wellington’s recent relations with Beijing, which have become increasingly difficult to navigate.

    Solid foundations

    But there is a long way to go. In 2024, India-New Zealand trade was worth a combined NZ$3.14 billion – a fraction of the $208.46 billion generated by trade with China in the same year.

    Nevertheless, Luxon and his ministers have made undeniable progress. His “recalibration of a relationship that has long been neglected” bore fruit in October last year when he met Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the ASEAN summit, and the countries announced their intention to take the relationship to “greater heights”.

    The previous Labour government helped set the scene with a succession of high-level diplomatic visits and parliamentary exchanges. In 2023, the Indian government described relations with New Zealand as having “an upward trajectory”.

    And there are clearly good foundations to build on – especially the 292,000 people of Indian ethnicity in New Zealand, who contribute US$10 billion to the New Zealand economy.

    Great expectations

    Trade is ripe for expansion, too. New Zealand primarily exports wool, iron and steel, aluminium, fruits and nuts, wood pulp and recovered paper, and imports Indian pharmaceuticals, machinery, precious metals and stones, textiles, vehicles and clothing.

    There’s potential to grow trade with India in tourism (especially attractive to India’s growing middle class), and collaboration on space technology, renewable energy and agritech.

    There were 8,000 Indian students in New Zealand last year, a number that may well grow given a relative drop in student numbers from China. With the US and UK becoming more hostile to immigration, New Zealand can offer a relatively safe and tolerant alternative.

    In many ways, India is the new China. In 2023, India’s GDP was US$14.54 trillion, making it the world’s fourth largest economy. New Delhi is on the cusp of becoming a great power, and is being courted by all countries, big and small.

    As such, while Luxon has momentum on a trade deal, he is also part of a long queue. Given the relative power imbalance between the two countries, the weight of expectation sits squarely on his shoulders.

    Chris Ogden is a Senior Research Fellow with The Foreign Policy Centre, London.

    – ref. Luxon meets Modi: why a ‘good’ NZ-India trade deal is preferable to a ‘perfect’ one – https://theconversation.com/luxon-meets-modi-why-a-good-nz-india-trade-deal-is-preferable-to-a-perfect-one-252036

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Gains for Labor as they lead in three of last five polls

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

    A national Freshwater poll for The Financial Review, conducted March 13–15 from a sample of 1,051, gave the Coalition a 51–49 lead by respondent preferences, a one-point gain for Labor since the late February Freshwater poll.

    Primary votes were 39% Coalition (down two), 31% Labor (steady), 14% Greens (up one) and 16% for all Others (up one). By 2022 election preference flows, this would be about a 50–50 tie.

    Anthony Albanese’s net approval improved one point to -10, while Peter Dutton’s slid four points to -12. In the last two months, Albanese is up eight and Dutton down eight. It’s the first time since May 2024 that Albanese has had a better net approval than Dutton in this poll.

    Albanese led Dutton by 45.9–42.5 as preferred PM, his best lead in this poll since last September. By 42–40, respondents thought Dutton better suited to negotiate with US President Donald Trump than Albanese (47–36 in November).

    The Coalition leads on important issues, but Labor has gained seven points on economic management and three points on cost of living since February.

    There has been improvement for Labor across a range of polls in the last few weeks, and the graph below has Labor leads in three of the last five national polls (two YouGovs and a Morgan), with the Coalition still ahead in Newspoll and Freshwater.

    In analyst Kevin Bonham’s aggregate, Labor now leads by 50.5–49.5 using 2022 election flows, while it’s a 50–50 tie adjusting for a likely pro-Coalition shift in One Nation preferences.

    Last Wednesday Trump imposed 25% tariffs on steel and aluminium imports into the US, including on Australia. I believe this will assist Labor as the tariff imposition will appear unjustified to most Australians, and the Coalition is the more pro-Trump party. If the stock market continues to fall, this will undermine support for Trump’s economic agenda.

    Trump has been threatening Canada with tariffs for much longer than Australia, and the centre-left governing Liberals have surged back in the polls to a near-tie with the Conservatives from over 20 points behind, and have taken the lead since Mark Carney’s March 9 election as Liberal leader.

    Labor retains lead in YouGov

    A national YouGov poll, conducted March 7–13 from a sample of 1,526, gave Labor a 51–49 lead, unchanged from the February 28 to March 6 YouGov poll. YouGov is conducting weekly polls, and the previous poll was the first Labor lead in YouGov since July 2024.

    Primary votes were 36% Coalition (steady), 31% Labor (steady), 13.5% Greens (up 0.5), 7.5% One Nation (up 0.5), 1% Trumpet of Patriots (steady), 9% independents (down one) and 2% others (steady). YouGov is using weaker preference flows for Labor than occurred in 2022, and by 2022 flows Labor would have a lead above 52–48.

    Albanese’s net approval improved three points to -6, with 49% dissatisfied and 43% satisfied, while Dutton’s net approval slid two points to -6. Albanese led Dutton as better PM by an unchanged 45–39.

    Since the first weekly YouGov poll in late February, Albanese has gained six points on net approval while Dutton has slid four points. This is the first time Dutton has not had a better net approval than Albanese in YouGov since March 2024.

    On the ongoing conflict caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, 69% of Australians thought we should stand with Ukraine President Zelensky, while 31% wanted us to stand with Trump.

    Labor regains lead in Morgan poll

    A national Morgan poll, conducted March 3–9 from a sample of 1,719, gave Labor a 51.5–48.5 lead by headline respondent preferences, a two-point gain for Labor since the February 24 to March 2 poll. This is Labor’s second lead in the last three Morgan polls, after they had trailed in this poll since November.

    Primary votes were 37% Coalition (down three), 30% Labor (up 1.5), 13.5% Greens (steady), 5% One Nation (up one), 10.5% independents (steady) and 4% others (up 0.5). By 2022 election flows, Labor led by 52–48, a two-point gain for Labor.

    By 51.5–33, respondents said the country was going in the wrong direction (52–31.5 previously). Morgan’s consumer confidence index was down 0.8 points to 86.9.

    Poll of teal-held seats has the teals struggling

    Freshwater took a poll for the News Corporation tabloids of six seats held by teal independents. These are Curtin in WA, Goldstein and Kooyong in Victoria and Mackellar, Warringah and Wentworth in NSW. The poll was conducted March 5–7 from an overall sample of 830.

    Across the six seats polled, the Liberals had a 51–49 lead, representing a 5% swing to the Liberals since the 2022 election. On these figures, the Liberals would gain four of these teal seats (Curtin, Goldstein, Kooyong and Mackellar).

    Primary votes were 41% Liberals (up two since 2022), 33% teals (steady), 7% Labor (down six), 7% Greens (down two) and 12% others (up six). Albanese and Dutton were tied at 39–39 on better PM. By 47–42, respondents opposed their local MP backing an Albanese Labor minority government.

    The YouGov MRP poll that was conducted between late January and mid-February from a sample of over 40,000 had all the teals holding their seats. At the March 8 Western Australian election, swings to the Liberals were lowest in affluent Perth seats.

    WA election late counting

    With 70% of enrolled voters counted for the WA election, the ABC is calling 43 of the 59 lower house seats for Labor, six for the Liberals, four for the Nationals and six seats remain undecided. The Poll Bludger has Labor ahead in 47 seats, with the Liberals and Nationals ahead in six seats each.

    On election night, it had appeared likely that an independent would win Labor-held Fremantle. However, the independent has performed badly on absent and postal votes, and Labor will retain.

    In the upper house, all 37 seats are elected by statewide proportional representation with preferences, and a quota for election is just 2.63%. With 63% of enrolled counted, Labor has 15.8 quotas, the Liberals 10.5, the Greens 4.1, the Nationals 2.1, One Nation 1.35, Legalise Cannabis and the Australian Christians 1.0 each, an independent group 0.48 and Animal Justice 0.43.

    On current figures, Labor will win 16 seats, the Liberals ten, the Greens four, the Nationals two, One Nation, Legalise Cannabis and the Christians one each and two seats are unclear (Liberals, independent group and Animal Justice contesting). Counting of absents in the lower house has hurt the Liberals, so their vote is likely to drop further. Labor and the Greens will have a combined upper house majority.

    Liberals hold Port Macquarie at NSW byelection

    A byelection occurred on Saturday in the New South Wales Liberal-held state seat of Port Macquarie. Labor did not contest after finishing third behind the Nationals and Liberals at the 2023 NSW election with 19.2%.

    With 59% of enrolled counted, The Poll Bludger is projecting that the Liberals will defeat the Nationals by 52.8–47.2, a 7.9% swing to the Nationals since 2023. Current primary votes are 34.2% Liberals (down 4.1%), 31.2% Nationals (up 5.5%), 12.8% for an independent (new), 10.7% Greens (up 3.7%) and 7.9% Legalise Cannabis (up 3.4%).

    Adrian Beaumont does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Gains for Labor as they lead in three of last five polls – https://theconversation.com/gains-for-labor-as-they-lead-in-three-of-last-five-polls-252016

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Chinese only introduced a feminine pronoun in the 1920s. Now, it might adopt a gender-inclusive one

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Janet Davey, PhD Candidate, Australian Centre on China in the World, Australian National University

    Andra C Taylor Jr/Unsplash

    Including pronouns in introductions, your email signature or your social media bio may seem like a minor detail. Pronouns are just small words we use in place of names all the time. But, like names, pronouns have personal significance. They say something about who we are.

    Trans, nonbinary and gender-diverse people face many issues more pressing than pronouns, including health and educational disparities and disproportionately higher rates of abuse, violence and discrimination. Getting pronouns right is a simple thing everyone can do to show respect.

    Linguistic shifts towards gender inclusivity are occurring worldwide, and the use of gender-neutral or inclusive pronouns is not a new nor exclusively Western phenomenon.

    Chinese, one of the world’s oldest languages and spoken by more than one billion people, illustrates how languages adapt to reflect shifting understanding of gender. Its pronoun system may be on the cusp of significant change.

    Developing pronouns

    In my newly published research, I’ve explored what is happening with Chinese third-person pronouns.

    The modern Chinese pronoun system is fascinating for two reasons.

    First, gendered pronouns have only been part of the Chinese language for 100 years: the feminine pronoun 她 (she) was only adopted in the 1920s.

    Second, although there are now distinct Chinese characters for “he”, 他, and “she”, 她, these are both pronounced tā in Mandarin. You can have a whole conversation about someone without revealing their gender.

    The lack of gender-distinct pronouns in spoken Mandarin has prompted calls for written Chinese to follow suit. Queer Chinese speakers have proposed several gender-inclusive pronouns that would be pronounced tā, just like 他 (he) and 她 (she).

    Queer Chinese speakers have proposed several gender-inclusive pronouns.
    Mogome01/Shutterstock

    These include the romanised form “TA” and new Chinese characters 「⿰无也」 and 「⿰㐅也」. These new characters might look strange: they are written like this to clarify that they should be read as one Chinese character. Currently, they take up the space of two Chinese characters because they are not yet in Unicode and cannot be typed properly.

    Other people hope to see the now-masculine 他 regain its original function as an ungendered pronoun.

    What pronouns do queer Chinese speakers use?

    To understand how Chinese pronouns are changing, I surveyed more than 100 queer Chinese speakers across 12 countries. I asked survey respondents, a third of whom were nonbinary or otherwise gender-diverse, about their pronoun preferences and perceptions. I also analysed how pronouns are used in a large database of contemporary Chinese texts.

    My research found gender-inclusive pronouns accounted for about a quarter of first-choice pronouns, and nearly half of all pronouns used by survey respondents. TA was overwhelmingly preferred by gender-diverse individuals (70%), with the English “they” (20%) the next most popular option.

    While cisgender and transgender men almost exclusively used masculine pronouns, cis and trans women showed significant openness to using gender-inclusive pronouns alongside feminine ones. After 她 (she), TA was the second most common pronoun for women (40%) and second most common overall (17%).

    Notably, 他 (he) was not used by any women or gender-diverse people, except one who considered it gender-neutral. This suggests reviving its original ungendered usage may be difficult.

    Survey participants were overwhelmingly positive about TA.
    Chay_Tee/Shutterstock

    TA emerged as the most recognised gender-inclusive pronoun, with nearly all respondents (97%) familiar with it regardless of their age, gender, region or language background. In contrast, fewer than 8% had encountered the new character-based pronouns 「⿰无也」 or「⿰㐅也」 and no one reported using them.

    What makes TA so popular?

    Survey participants were overwhelmingly positive about TA, with 63% expressing favourable views. As one respondent explained:

    The look and feel is good, it suits people’s everyday pronunciation habits, and doesn’t create issues with having to specify someone’s gender.

    TA functions similarly to English singular “they”. It works in two ways: as a gender-neutral pronoun when gender is unknown (like saying “someone left their umbrella”), and as a gender-inclusive pronoun specifically including gender-diverse people.

    Many survey respondents called TA “respectful” and “inclusive” but also simply “convenient”.

    However, some respondents were concerned TA is “untraditional” and “pollutes the Chinese language”.

    Practical considerations for using emerging Chinese pronouns also extend to the technical challenges of typing new Chinese characters. Before a new character can be typed on computers or phones, it needs to be officially encoded in Unicode, the global standard for digital text.

    My research shows this requirement is strongly influencing which emerging Chinese pronouns can gain traction.

    While some survey respondents hoped to see a gender-inclusive Chinese character adopted, they weren’t optimistic about 「⿰无也」or 「⿰㐅也」 becoming mainstream.

    As one noted:

    「⿰无也」is good, but it’s hard to type and it takes a long time to explain.

    User-friendly and easily understandable

    TA is currently the most popular emerging Chinese gender-inclusive pronoun, crucially because it mimics how people use tā in spoken Mandarin.

    It is already part of people’s vocabulary, and already used (at least as a gender-neutral pronoun) by mainstream Chinese media and on online platforms.

    This 2023 TEDxSuzhouWomen talk is titled ‘We are all gender misfits’ (你我ta都是”性别酷儿)

    Unlike other recently proposed pronouns, TA is versatile, user-friendly and easily understandable for queer and non-queer Chinese speakers alike. This makes TA a strong contender for widespread adoption into contemporary Chinese.

    Like the introduction of a Chinese feminine pronoun 她 (she) in the 1920s, the emergence of TA as a gender-inclusive pronoun in the 2020s is about recognising a wider spectrum of identities.

    Pronouns are not a political statement, just a personal statement. When you use someone’s correct pronouns, you’re saying, “I see you, and I respect who you are”. That’s something worth talking about, in any language.

    Janet Davey is supported by an Australian Government Research Training Program (RTP) Scholarship.

    – ref. Chinese only introduced a feminine pronoun in the 1920s. Now, it might adopt a gender-inclusive one – https://theconversation.com/chinese-only-introduced-a-feminine-pronoun-in-the-1920s-now-it-might-adopt-a-gender-inclusive-one-221013

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Whatever happens to Star, the age of unfettered gambling revenue for casinos may have ended

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charles Livingstone, Associate Professor, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

    Casino operator Star Entertainment has been under financial pressure for some time. The company’s share price has tanked, and the business, with its three casino properties, has been bleeding money.

    Last year’s opening of a new riverside casino in Queen’s Wharf, Brisbane, was seen as a way to revitalise the business. But Star has swung from one lifeline to another.

    Just as it was set to run out of cash on Friday March 7, Star announced a last-minute rescue package. This centred on selling its 50% stake in the Queens Wharf casino to Hong-Kong-based joint venture partners for $53 million.

    Star has also started documentation for a $250 million bridging loan but still needs to finalise a proposal for long-term refinancing.

    All of this remains subject to details being finalised, and regulatory approvals. An alternative $250 million takeover offer from US casino operator Bally’s currently isn’t Star’s preference because it is considered too low.

    But Star is far from out of the woods yet. Whatever happens to it and its casino assets, there are bigger questions about whether the age of unfettered gambling revenue for casinos may have already ended.

    Elsewhere, gambling is booming

    If Australian casinos are struggling, it’s not because punters are giving up gambling. Whereas most of the gambling market recovered rapidly after the end of pandemic restrictions, casinos floundered.

    Between 2018–19 and 2022–23, before and after pandemic restrictions were in place, total Australian gambling expenditure (in other words, gamblers’ losses) grew by 6.8% in real terms (adjusted for inflation).

    Real wagering losses grew by 45%. This segment has clearly emerged as the second-biggest gambling market in the country, with gambling expenditure of $8.4 billion.

    But over the same period, expenditure at casinos declined by more than 35% nationally, and by 42% in New South Wales.



    Read more:
    The rate of sports betting has surged more than 57% – and younger people are betting more

    Do casinos have a viable business model?

    Both Star and Australia’s other major casino operator, Crown, have emerged from a range of high-profile scandals in recent years.

    Media reporting, inquiries, and royal commissions into Crown, and then Star, give some insight into how the casino business used to be run in Australia.

    Star’s (and Crown’s) business model appears to have previously relied on two major revenue streams: benefiting from the proceeds of crime (by operating as a cash laundry for organised criminal gangs), and exploiting every vulnerable person who walked onto their premises.

    Both casinos facilitated money laundering, particularly via junket operators, organisers of casino visits by high rollers. Unfortunately, many of these people had strong links to organised crime gangs keen to launder their illegally acquired money.

    Former Star executives and board members are now facing Federal Court proceedings brought by ASIC, with two already having been fined.



    Read more:
    ‘Multiple red flags’: ASIC’s court case against Star executives shows the risks of complacency

    Star and Crown preyed on addiction

    Both Star and Crown were also found to have encouraged significant expenditure by addicted gamblers.

    This wasn’t just high rollers. Ordinary people were also encouraged to use poker machines for hours without any attempt at encouraging a break, as mandated by “responsible gambling” codes.

    The Victorian Royal Commissioner, investigating Crown, regarded its “responsible gambling” failures as particularly heinous.

    The result was the turnover of the board and management, hundreds of millions of dollars in fines, and increased regulatory oversight.

    Although neither casino chain closed its doors, regulatory breaches led to appointment of special managers to oversee the business and hold the licences. Further change included beefing up regulators’ powers and resources.

    Turning a page

    Without significant funds from the proceeds of crime, or exploitation of the vulnerable, casinos are clearly struggling.

    In NSW and Victoria, the casinos have been required to introduce “cashless gaming” systems.

    This takes cash out of the system, deterring money launderers. Gamblers must also set a limit on their gambling spend, and adhere to it. The system is in the process of being introduced in Queensland.

    Certainly, overcapitalisation of new developments has played a part in casinos’ struggles. Crown Melbourne was effectively sold to Kerry Packer in 1998 on the back of its own financial issues. Overcapitalisation of the business was seen as an issue then.

    Stronger competition

    Competition from online wagering and pokie venues may also be playing a part. These businesses are not currently regulated as effectively as casinos.

    Precommitment systems for online wagering would be relatively easy to introduce. They would require punters to set a limit on deposits or bets, or indeed the time they spend gambling, and enforce these technically.

    Getting these in place, however, may be as formidable a task as getting gambling ads banned from sporting broadcasts, if not more so.

    The gambling industry understandably opposes this. After all, these measures would reduce the amount that people lose. From a public health perspective, however, they provide an effective system to prevent harm in the first place, rather than simply picking up the pieces.

    Without effective reform of local gambling venues and online wagering, casinos may try to mount an argument for less effective regulation. That would be an admission that their “tourism” attractiveness has waned. It’s also a powerful argument to speed up the transition of effective regulation to all gambling operators.

    Charles Livingstone has received funding from the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation, the (former) Victorian Gambling Research Panel, and the South Australian Independent Gambling Authority (the funds for which were derived from hypothecation of gambling tax revenue to research purposes), from the Australian and New Zealand School of Government and the Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education, and from non-government organisations for research into multiple aspects of poker machine gambling, including regulatory reform, existing harm minimisation practices, and technical characteristics of gambling forms. He has received travel and co-operation grants from the Alberta Problem Gambling Research Institute, the Finnish Institute for Public Health, the Finnish Alcohol Research Foundation, the Ontario Problem Gambling Research Committee, the Turkish Red Crescent Society, and the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand. He was a Chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council funded project researching mechanisms of influence on government by the tobacco, alcohol and gambling industries. He has undertaken consultancy research for local governments and non-government organisations in Australia and the UK seeking to restrict or reduce the concentration of poker machines and gambling impacts, and was a member of the Australian government’s Ministerial Expert Advisory Group on Gambling in 2010-11. He is a member of the Lancet Public Health Commission into gambling, and of the World Health Organisation expert group on gambling and gambling harm. He made a submission to and appeared before the HoR Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs inquiry into online gambling and its impacts on those experiencing gambling harm.

    – ref. Whatever happens to Star, the age of unfettered gambling revenue for casinos may have ended – https://theconversation.com/whatever-happens-to-star-the-age-of-unfettered-gambling-revenue-for-casinos-may-have-ended-251248

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How long will you live? New evidence says its much more about your choices than your genes

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hassan Vally, Associate Professor, Epidemiology, Deakin University

    Rawpixel.com/Shutterstock

    One of the most enduring questions humans have is how long we’re going to live. With this comes the question of how much of our lifespan is shaped by our environment and choices, and how much is predetermined by our genes.

    A study recently published in the prestigious journal Nature Medicine has attempted for the first time to quantify the relative contributions of our environment and lifestyle versus our genetics in how we age and how long we live.

    The findings were striking, suggesting our environment and lifestyle play a much greater role than our genes in determining our longevity.

    What the researchers did

    This study used data from the UK Biobank, a large database in the United Kingdom that contains in-depth health and lifestyle data from roughly 500,000 people. The data available include genetic information, medical records, imaging and information about lifestyle.

    A separate part of the study used data from a subset of more than 45,000 participants whose blood samples underwent something called “proteomic profiling”.

    Proteomic profiling is a relatively new technique that looks at how proteins in the body change over time to identify a person’s age at a molecular level. By using this method researchers were able to estimate how quickly an individual’s body was actually ageing. This is called their biological age, as opposed to their chronological age (or years lived).

    The researchers assessed 164 environmental exposures as well as participants’ genetic markers for disease. Environmental exposures included lifestyle choices (for example, smoking, physical activity), social factors (for example, living conditions, household income, employment status) and early life factors, such as body weight in childhood.

    They then looked for associations between genetics and environment and 22 major age-related diseases (such as coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes), mortality and biological ageing (as determined by the proteomic profiling).

    These analyses allowed the researchers to estimate the relative contributions of environmental factors and genetics to ageing and dying prematurely.

    What did they find?

    When it came to disease-related mortality, as we would expect, age and sex explained a significant amount (about half) of the variation in how long people lived. The key finding, however, was environmental factors collectively accounted for around 17% of the variation in lifespan, while genetic factors contributed less than 2%.

    This finding comes down very clearly on the nurture side in the “nature versus nurture” debate. It suggests environmental factors influence health and longevity to a far greater extent than genetics.

    Not unexpectedly, the study showed a different mix of environmental and genetic influences for different diseases. Environmental factors had the greatest impact on lung, heart and liver disease, while genetics played the biggest role in determining a person’s risk of breast, ovarian and prostate cancers, and dementia.

    The environmental factors that had the most influence on earlier death and biological ageing included smoking, socioeconomic status, physical activity levels and living conditions.

    Genetic factors affected the risk of some diseases more than others.
    Kleber Cordeiro/Shutterstock

    Interestingly, being taller at age ten was found to be associated with a shorter lifespan. Although this may seem surprising, and the reasons are not entirely clear, this aligns with previous research finding taller people are more likely to die earlier.

    Carrying more weight at age ten and maternal smoking (if your mother smoked in late pregnancy or when you were a newborn) were also found to shorten lifespan.

    Probably the most surprising finding in this study was a lack of association between diet and markers of biological ageing, as determined by the proteomic profiling. This flies in the face of the extensive body of evidence showing the crucial role of dietary patterns in chronic disease risk and longevity.

    But there are a number of plausible explanations for this. The first could be a lack of statistical power in the part of the study looking at biological ageing. That is, the number of people studied may have been too small to allow the researchers to see the true impact of diet on ageing.

    Second, the dietary data in this study, which was self-reported and only measured at one time point, is likely to have been of relatively poor quality, limiting the researchers’ ability to see associations. And third, as the relationship between diet and longevity is likely to be complex, disentangling dietary effects from other lifestyle factors may be difficult.

    So despite this finding, it’s still safe to say the food we eat is one of the most important pillars of health and longevity.

    What other limitations do we need to consider?

    Key exposures (such as diet) in this study were only measured at a single point in time, and not tracked over time, introducing potential errors into the results.

    Also, as this was an observational study, we can’t assume associations found represent causal relationships. For example, just because living with a partner correlated with a longer lifespan, it doesn’t mean this caused a person to live longer. There may be other factors which explain this association.

    Finally, it’s possible this study may have underestimated the role of genetics in longevity. It’s important to recognise genetics and environment don’t operate in isolation. Rather, health outcomes are shaped by their interplay, and this study may not have fully captured the complexity of these interactions.

    This study found environmental factors influence health and longevity to a far greater extent than genetics.
    Ground Picture/Shutterstock

    The future is (largely) in your hands

    It’s worth noting there were a number of factors such as household income, home ownership and employment status associated with diseases of ageing in this study that are not necessarily within a person’s control. This highlights the crucial role of addressing the social determinants of health to ensure everyone has the best possible chance of living a long and healthy life.

    At the same time, the results offer an empowering message that longevity is largely shaped by the choices we make. This is great news, unless you have good genes and were hoping they would do the heavy lifting.

    Ultimately, the results of this study reinforce the notion that while we may inherit certain genetic risks, how we eat, move and engage with the world seems to be more important in determining how healthy we are and how long we live.

    Hassan Vally does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. How long will you live? New evidence says its much more about your choices than your genes – https://theconversation.com/how-long-will-you-live-new-evidence-says-its-much-more-about-your-choices-than-your-genes-251054

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australia’s next government may well be in minority. Here’s how that can be a good outcome for the country

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Shamit Saggar, Executive Director, Australian Centre for Student Equity and Success and Professor of Public Policy, Curtin University

    Two months out from an Australian federal election, the polling is pointing to a very tight race between the two major parties. This means, if the polls are correct, neither party will likely win enough seats to command a parliamentary working majority.

    Australia’s most recent experience of a hung parliament was the Gillard-Rudd government of 2010–13. Many still see that as an unhappy era, with internal division within Labor’s party room in Canberra, and yet another leadership coup, as the lasting, bitter memory.

    So, it is time to reassess whether – or how well – Australia might be governed in similar circumstances.

    Building a stable coalition

    The answer depends on us being open to the meaning of a stable, inter-party coalition. This is particularly tricky in Australia for three reasons. First, although the political parties themselves are coalitions of philosophies and factions, this is often masked by high levels of party discipline. With very few exceptions, MPs elected through the major parties pretty much do as they are told when they go to Canberra.

    Second, the popular vote share that goes to the two major parties has been in long-term decline, from about 90% 40 years ago, to about 70% of late. The drift hasn’t just gone towards populist insurgents and protests, but increasingly to the benefit of the Greens and, more recently, the Teals. The national preferential voting system pushes candidates to compete in the traditional left-right middle ground. But this overlooks the fact that some voters’ sympathies lie in single-issue campaigns.

    Third, and most importantly, our model of minority government is conspicuously one-dimensional. For instance, party leaders and managers think purely in terms of confidence and supply agreements. These are important, of course, but they provide artificial stability by limiting disagreement in parliament that might bring down a government.

    One eye-catching proposition for stable minority government involves Labor and the Coalition coming together to agree not to topple the other for an arbitrary period of half a parliamentary term.

    There are several better options. The UK’s Conservatives and Liberal Democrats ran a joint government from 2010–15, with some distinction. A big party and small party formed a coalition, and once they had agreed to disagree, they ringfenced specific policy areas as belonging to one party and the other party signed up to it as a policy priority of the whole government. This resulted in the full implementation of their respectively most prized policies.

    And just two months ago, Ireland’s centre-right Fianna Fáil and Fine Gail parties, working with unaligned independents and a more formal Independent Ireland, came up with similar coalition agreement.

    The inference is that stable multi-party government involves a mature negotiation on the issues, priorities and policies that can unite across party lines. It also requires a readiness to prioritise policy issues within parties.

    Of course, this is an indirect way of asking if the Teals can and wish to operate as a de facto party. And while the Greens are a political party to begin with, the extent of their party discipline has not been tested to the full.

    Meanwhile, there is evidence of pressure to keep both the Teals and Greens at a distance from any such agreement, with reports that lobby groups for the hospitality and coal sectors respectively will fund major party candidates to help defeat hostile crossbenchers.

    As politicians mull these challenges, we should consider the likely “safe” issues – as against the “tricky” ones – in the coming parliament that a stable minority government or coalition would face. Their appetite to govern will be affected accordingly.

    ‘Safe’ and ‘tricky’ issues in a minority government

    From Labor’s perspective, the nucleus is around a disparate set of economic and social modernisation policies. Since many of these have begun in this parliament, the focus in the next will be on pursuing them to full implementation.

    For the Coalition, reshaping tax and spending, increasing housing affordability checking workplace employee rights and a bold nuclear power proposal sit at the core. This is accompanied by wariness of immigration and identity politics. Survey research points to its broad appeal certainly but less is known about the depth of this support.

    Finding a middle path on these issues that would satisfy enough crossbenchers to help one of the major parties form government will be the challenge. It is not necessarily a bad outcome for the nation. But it means all MPs will have to take into account the greatly enhanced premium on stable government before any serious horse-trading happens.

    Shamit Saggar does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Australia’s next government may well be in minority. Here’s how that can be a good outcome for the country – https://theconversation.com/australias-next-government-may-well-be-in-minority-heres-how-that-can-be-a-good-outcome-for-the-country-252162

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Three years after Russia’s invasion, a global online army is still fighting for Ukraine

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Olga Boichak, Senior Lecturer in Digital Cultures, Australian Research Council DECRA fellow, University of Sydney

    More than three years after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, a 30-day ceasefire between the two warring countries may be imminent. But much more needs to happen before a just and lasting peace is achieved.

    The Russian-Ukraine war is one of the most visible, analysed and documented wars in human history. Since the night of February 24 2022, millions of Ukrainian citizens, military personnel, journalists, officials and civil society activists have shared first-hand eyewitness accounts, updates, commentaries and opinions on the war.

    Around the world, many online communities have also sprung into action to counter Russian propaganda and raise awareness of what is happening inside Ukraine.

    We have been studying these communities for the past three years, conducting hours of interviews with members and observing their activity on social media. To conduct much of this research and connect with members, we had to join some of these communities – a common requirement for researchers working in online settings.

    Our work reveals a range of skills and strategies activists use in the online fight against Russia. More broadly, it shows how social media users can mobilise during times of war and other international crises and have a material impact offline.

    Russian war of disinformation

    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was accompanied by online disinformation and propaganda campaigns. The aims of these campaigns are to sow discord, distrust and dismay among both Ukrainian and international audiences by, for example, depicting Ukraine as a failed state ruled by Nazis.

    Ukraine responded by launching its own information operations to counter Russian propaganda, appeal for help from the world and maintain the security of its defensive operations.

    In some cases, social media platforms have aided the Russian cause. At the same time, they have suppressed evidence of war crimes.

    For example, in the first year of the Russian invasion, independent investigative journalism organisations such as Disclose documented thousands of war crimes committed by Russian soldiers against Ukrainian civilians. These crimes included murder, torture, physical and sexual violence, forced relocation, looting, and damage to civilian infrastructure such as schools and hospitals.

    Much of this content included graphic imagery, violence and offensive language. As a result, it was permanently removed from platforms such as Instagram and YouTube.

    On the other hand, content containing disinformation evaded moderation. For example, a 2023 investigation by the BBC revealed thousands of fake TikTok accounts created as part of a Russian propaganda campaign spreading lies about Ukrainian officials.

    This often led to a distorted information environment online. Russian disinformation was visible, while the true extent of Russian violence against Ukrainians was hidden.

    Boosting Ukrainian voices

    In this context, thousands of internet users formed online communities to creatively support Ukraine without attracting the attention of content moderators.

    This isn’t new or unique to the war in Ukraine. For example, in 2019, US TikToker Feroza Aziz shared a makeup tutorial in which she subtly raised awareness of China’s treatment of the Uyghurs – a topic that is often suppressed on the Chinese-owned platform.

    One of the most prominent and well-known online communities that emerged following Russia’s invasion was the North Atlantic Fella Organisation.

    It started in May 2022 when a young man with the online name Kama mashed up a Reddit meme of a Shiba Inu dog nicknamed Cheems and a picture of a dilapidated Russian tank. This was a celebration of a Ukrainian battlefront victory. It was only intended to mock Russia.

    But as Kama changed his profile picture to the meme, the trend started spreading quickly to his followers on X (formerly Twitter). They quickly grew into an online collective dedicated to fighting Russia online. Members – or “fellas”, as they are known – from many regions around the world were brought together by its rituals using internet and popular culture memes.

    Calls to action

    In many similar posts across Facebook, X and TikTok, users share selfies or other images to achieve high visibility while calling followers to action. In most cases, this involves raising funds for urgent military or humanitarian efforts to benefit Ukraine.

    Another common strategy is storytelling. Some users share amusing or ridiculous anecdotes from their lives before closing with a donation request.

    These requests often have a clear target and beneficiary. They are also often time-sensitive. For example, they may be aimed at purchasing a particular model of a drone for a particular brigade of Ukraine’s armed forces that will be delivered to the battlefront within days.

    Through collaborations with Ukraine’s official fundraising platform, the North Atlantic Fella Organisation has collected more than US$700,000 towards Ukraine’s defence.

    Combatting propaganda

    Members of the North Atlantic Fella Organisation also try to combat Russian propaganda and disinformation.

    Instead of arguing in good faith with highly visible disinformation-spreading accounts (often controlled by the Russian government), members try to derail the disinformation campaigns. They highlight their ridiculousness by responding with memes and jokes. They call this practice “shitposting”.

    People spreading Russian disinformation often find themselves annoyed by the swarms of “meme dogs” in their replies. This has led some to respond aggressively. In turn, this has allowed North Atlantic Fella Organisation members to report them for violation of X’s terms of service and have their accounts suspended, as our forthcoming research documents.

    However, from late 2022 onward, North Atlantic Fella Organisation members we interviewed as a part of our research reported decreased effectiveness of X’s response to problematic user conduct. This was soon after tech billionaire Elon Musk bought the social media platform.

    Despite this, members continue to support each other and develop playful tactics to ensure they remain visible on the platform.

    It seems war will continue online for as long as Russia wages its war on Ukraine’s territory.

    Olga Boichak has received funding from the Australian Research Council. She is a director of the Ukrainian Studies Foundation in Australia and an executive committee member of the Ukrainian Studies Association of Australia and New Zealand. She has been a member of the North Atlantic Fella Organisation since 2022 for research purposes.

    Kateryna Kasianenko has been a member of the North Atlantic Fella Organisation since 2022 for research purposes.

    – ref. Three years after Russia’s invasion, a global online army is still fighting for Ukraine – https://theconversation.com/three-years-after-russias-invasion-a-global-online-army-is-still-fighting-for-ukraine-251480

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: When is workplace chat ‘just gossip’ and when is it ‘sharing information’? It depends who’s doing it

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By James Greenslade-Yeats, Research Fellow in Management, Auckland University of Technology

    THEBILLJR/Shutterstock

    When two junior employees bump into each other in the corridor and start chatting about their manager’s overbearing manner, it’s typically considered gossip. But what about when two managers have an off-record catch-up to discuss an under-performing employee?

    Both scenarios meet traditional definitions of gossip – the information being shared is about other people, the people it’s about are absent, the information is shared in a way that casts judgement on those people, and it’s informal. Yet the two situations are viewed very differently.

    What counts as gossip is much more slippery than we might think. I reviewed 184 academic articles to understand what really constitutes workplace gossip.

    The key, I found, is not any set of objective criteria, but rather people’s shared agreement that a situation counts as gossip.

    This understanding of gossip helps us make sense of the “workplace gossip paradox” – the idea that gossip can be considered both a reliable source of social information (“the inside word”) and an unreliable information source (“just gossip”).

    My work also provides insights into how businesses can manage gossip before it becomes a scandal.

    Knowledge is power – but power controls knowledge

    How does recognising the slipperiness of gossip help us understand the workplace paradox? The answer has to do with the role of power in legitimising information.

    Leaders and managers need information to justify action. If a manager is going to investigate a sexual harassment claim, they can’t do so based solely on a hunch. They need to hear about from it someone.

    If the victim of sexual harassment complains directly to their manager, an investigation is automatically justified. But what if the manager hears about harassment indirectly and unofficially (for example, through “gossip”), with the added complication that the alleged perpetrator is another manager?

    If the manager does something about what they’ve heard and the source turns out to be unreliable, they could face negative consequences for acting on what was essentially “just gossip.” But if they don’t act, and the information turns out to be credible, they could face repercussions for ignoring the “inside word.”

    There is evidence that such paradoxical situations play out quite frequently in real-world workplaces. For example, inside information about negligence towards patient safety in healthcare settings has, in the past, been dismissed as “just gossip” until it provoked a public scandal.

    The same thing happened in a university where gossip shared through a “whisper network” was eventually corroborated by an independent inquiry. In this case, the inquiry also found official complaints had been ignored.

    One case study from the United States found managers tended to keep an ear out for information passing through the grapevine and selectively use it to further their own interests.

    If gossip threatened their power, they repressed it as “just gossip”. But if gossip provided “useful” information – ammunition against a subversive employee, for example – management legitimised gossip as “official information”.

    To avoid workplace scandals when gossip is ignored, managers should co-opt the information and make it safe to address anti-social behaviour.
    La Famiglia/Shutterstock

    How to manage the workplace gossip paradox

    To avoid scandals stemming from when gossip is ignored, managers might consider “co-opting” gossip, bringing it into official communication channels.

    But there’s a problem with this approach. Gossip gains its credibility as the inside word because it takes place outside official communication channels. Therefore, if managers try to co-opt gossip into formal management processes, it’s likely to have the unintended consequence of discrediting the shared information.

    Instead, “managing gossip” requires a better understanding of its functions and motivations.

    One function is to reduce uncertainty. Research suggests gossip often arises to fill information gaps. For example, people might speculate about a manager’s salary by gossiping about their expensive car or holiday.

    Such gossip is likely to be exaggerated and counterproductive. However, it could be managed simply by being transparent about staff salaries, filling the information gap before gossip does.

    Another key function of gossip is to warn against antisocial behaviours like bullying. But if employees feel comfortable speaking up about such behaviour — even when it’s perpetrated by those with official power – managers will not face the dilemma of whether to act on information that could turn out to be “just gossip.”

    Gossip is a slippery and paradoxical form of communication. Some would say it’s unmanageable. But what can be managed are the workplace behaviours and hierarchical relationships that gossip loves to sink its teeth into.

    The author would like to acknowledge Trish Corner, Helena Cooper-Thomas and Rachel Morrison for their contributions to developing this research.

    James Greenslade-Yeats does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. When is workplace chat ‘just gossip’ and when is it ‘sharing information’? It depends who’s doing it – https://theconversation.com/when-is-workplace-chat-just-gossip-and-when-is-it-sharing-information-it-depends-whos-doing-it-251242

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Email signatures are harming the planet and could cost people their lives — it’s time to stop using them

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Joshua M. Pearce, John M. Thompson Chair in Information Technology and Innovation and Professor, Western University

    A recent study has shown that the environmental and human mortality impacts of modern information technology — especially email infrastructure — are significant. (Shutterstock)

    The use of information technology (IT) has significant environmental and social impacts, including human mortality from climate change. One striking example is the carbon emissions and impacts associated with digital communication.

    To quantify the human cost of carbon-emitting technology, researchers use the 1,000-ton rule that estimates that for every 1,000 tons of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, one person dies prematurely.

    This rule is derived from the following calculation: burning one trillion ton of fossil carbon is likely to cause 2 C of anthropogenic global warming, which in turn is likely to cause about one billion premature deaths spread over the next century.

    This theory can be used as a decision-making framework for policymakers to compare the value of an activity to the cost of that activity in human lives.

    It’s also what I used in my recent study that analyzed how additional information in email signatures contributes to climate-related deaths in Canada.

    Email signatures causing emissions

    Sending emails is an everyday activity, but it comes with an environmental cost. Emails use energy, and that energy often comes from burning fossil fuels, which in turn, contribute to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.

    The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human activity is destabilizing the climate and is likely to cause irreversible damage to the global environment and humanity.

    My recent study explored the environmental impact of lengthening email signatures, focusing specifically on two types of information: gender pronouns and land acknowledgements because both are relatively new additions to email signatures.

    In both cases, the extra carbon emissions for each email for the extra characters is estimated and aggregated over the population that uses them.

    The environmental consequences of minor digital habits are often overlooked.
    (Shutterstock)

    The results showed that in Canada, where about 15 per cent of people include gender pronouns in emails, the resulting carbon emissions from this small change (three extra words) may contribute to the premature deaths of one person a year, according to the 1,000-ton rule.

    The environmental harm and human mortality caused by this seemingly minor digital habit is evident. Large blocks of text like legal disclaimers and land acknowledgements cause even more harm. Images and logos, which contain even larger amounts of data, cause more emissions and deaths still.

    Doing away with email signatures

    Most of the content in email signatures is redundant, as we tend to email the same people repeatedly. The environmental and human cost of using email signatures clearly outweighs the benefits. One solution to this issue is to replace email signatures with a hyperlinked name to additional information.

    Another simple way to increase efficiency and reduce emissions is by eliminating email signatures entirely, since emails already identify senders in the header. After all, we don’t sign our texts, so why do we feel the need to sign our emails?

    If you receive an email with a long signature, you might consider asking the sender to switch to a hyperlink instead, or eliminate their signature all together.

    Additionally, you can encourage others to use free, open-source ad blockers to reduce unnecessary data from ads while browsing or emailing. Ads, especially on websites, generate an enormous amount of unnecessary data and energy consumption.

    While these steps may seem small on their own, collectively, they can make a significant difference in reducing digital waste and unnecessary emissions.

    The hidden cost of spam emails

    The results of my recent study make it clear that Canada’s current IT and energy infrastructure are unsustainable. The study should serve as a wake-up call for the need to eliminate the use of fossil fuels from our energy systems entirely, particularly because it is already possible to displace fossil fuels with renewable energy with lower costs.

    It also gives pause for the far more damaging impacts of other forms of digital communications, particularly email spam.

    Already more than half of all emails are spam.
    (Shutterstock)

    Spam accounts for over half of all emails and, despite having lower carbon emissions per email (since many are deleted without being opened), spam accounts for far more emissions-producing data. Beyond its environmental toll, spam also wastes the time of every email user.

    In response, several proposals and laws have been put forward to reduce this digital waste, from including taxes on emails, opt-in or opt-out systems to even outlawing spam entirely. While these efforts are a step in the right direction, we all still suffer through an enormous amount of spam.

    The environmental impact of our online habits is far larger than most realize, and as digital communication continues to evolve, we must consider its long-term consequences on the environment and human life. We should take the easy steps of cutting wasteful energy use in our communications and it can start with eliminating email signatures.

    Joshua M. Pearce does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Email signatures are harming the planet and could cost people their lives — it’s time to stop using them – https://theconversation.com/email-signatures-are-harming-the-planet-and-could-cost-people-their-lives-its-time-to-stop-using-them-251215

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why some Canadians are in denial about Donald Trump

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Aisha Ahmad, Associate Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto

    Prime Minister Mark Carney has vowed Canada will never be a 51st American state and has called on Canada to present a united front to defend against United States President Donald Trump’s escalating attacks on Canada’s economy and sovereignty.

    Most Canadians are already on board. Provincial premiers have committed to defending against tariffs, and recent polling data shows 85 per cent of Canadians resolutely reject Trump’s threats of annexation.

    Yet, despite this widespread patriotism, some Canadians may have a relative or friend in the contrarian 10 per cent of citizens who welcome annexation.

    Why do these people support Trump?

    Psychology and security

    The answer has less to do with politics or economic frustration than it does psychology. The reason some Canadians are reacting positively to Trump’s threats is because cognitive biases often prevent human beings from accurately assessing shocks to their security environment.

    Psychological biases are well-researched in international security scholarship, and I have witnessed their consequences first-hand in my work in conflict zones.

    From peacekeepers to politicians to ordinary civilians, I have seen how cognitive biases can cause rational, intelligent people to ignore valuable evidence, even at great peril.

    Humans often react to unsettling evidence by denying, minimizing or re-interpreting the information to restore their cognitive ease. Everyone in a conflict-prone part of the world experiences cognitive distortions and denial at some point. Psychological security often overrides physical security.

    But these biases are dangerous. They undermine decision-making, slow down reaction times and cause people to believe dangerous things that make them unsafe.

    The tricky part is that challenging a person’s denial can provoke defensiveness, even rage. But allowing denial to persist leaves them dangerously unprepared to face real-world threats.

    On balance, the safer choice is to rip off these psychological Band-aids.

    Denial through confirmation bias

    Except for a small percentage of extremists, the 10 per cent who are in favour of American annexation are ordinary Canadians. What makes them different are two interrelated cognitive biases: confirmation bias and belief perseverance.

    For Canadians who hold Trump in high esteem, acknowledging his threats creates cognitive dissonance. Some people find dissonance so distressing that it feels easier to reject or reinterpret the contrary information in a way that protects prior-held ideas and restores cognitive ease.

    These confirmation biases allow the 10 per cent to redefine the word “annexation” to mean something else, such as peaceful political unification. That imagined definition turns Trump’s threat into a friendly proposal leading to greater prosperity and security.

    That reinterpretation may reduce psychological distress, but it’s delusional.

    Political unification is a non-coercive and consent-based process, wherein parties agree to incorporation through referendum, typically producing an all new government. Trump is proposing unilateral annexation, which is the hostile and illegal seizure of a sovereign state’s territory and the subjugation of its population.

    Annexation is not marriage. It’s rape.

    Unilateral annexation is so inherently violent that its prohibition in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter is considered the legal cornerstone of the post-Second World War international order.

    As Trump, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping each champion annexing nearby sovereign nations in the name of greatness, that international order is now crumbling. If the laws, norms and institutions preventing annexation collapse, it opens the door to invasions, insurgencies and even global war.



    Read more:
    Why annexing Canada would destroy the United States

    Many of the 10 per cent are simply unaware of what “annexation” truly means, and could rationally change their position once they understand the facts. But a smaller subset of that group may reject the evidence entirely.

    Belief perseverance causes some people to aggressively hold their original position, even when presented with disconfirming evidence.

    While denial helps them feel safe in the moment, it also makes them dangerously unprepared to deal with real threats.

    Denial through normalcy bias

    Patriotic “elbows up” Canadians must also be wary of denial. For them, the issue is not identifying the threats, but comprehending their full implications.

    Even among informed citizens, NATO, NORAD and the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance are not easy to relate to. Trade wars show up on grocery bills, but these defence organizations keep peace in the background, which is harder to notice.

    Canadians may intellectually understand that North American security is deteriorating, but that crisis may not seem as real as tariffs.

    This is called “normalcy bias,” a psychological tendency to minimize the probability of threats or the dangers they pose, which delays protective action. Normalcy and optimism biases are why many people fail to evacuate quickly when they are forewarned about wildfires, hurricanes, earthquakes and even wars.

    Slow reactions are not caused by stupidity or laziness. Research shows that the majority people respond inefficiently to warnings of forthcoming disasters. I have witnessed this bias in conflict zones and even experienced its effects myself. I can run 10 kilometres in about an hour, but when the Taliban attacked a bazaar less than 10 kilometres from my flat, it still felt far away.

    Why? Because security threats don’t feel close until your windows start to shake.

    While a military invasion is not imminent, Trump’s threats are so extreme that they warrant immediate action to improve Canadian defence. The time to take protective action is before windows start shaking.

    For the majority of Canadians who already take Trump’s threats seriously, the first step in countering the normalcy bias is to pay attention to new risks and fractures in existing security co-operation.

    With that evidence, they can initiate a national conversation about how to reduce vulnerabilities and improve resilience and defence.

    Acceptance and adaptation

    There is no time to argue with people who remain cognitively confused. The majority of Canadians are ready to have a laser-focused discussion about the real security challenges on the horizon.

    The good news is that Canada can fortify its security and deter threats in this perilous new world.

    The range of options may not be as comfortable as the bygone era of friendly alliances and NATO supremacy. But through intelligent debate, Canadians can develop realistic new approaches to national defence, and quickly.

    Acceptance and adaptation are the keys to survival.

    Aisha Ahmad receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    – ref. Why some Canadians are in denial about Donald Trump – https://theconversation.com/why-some-canadians-are-in-denial-about-donald-trump-251893

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Gordie Howe’s elbows are Canada’s answer to Donald Trump

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Stacy L. Lorenz, Vice Dean and Professor, Physical Education and History, Augustana Campus, University of Alberta

    When Canadian ice hockey centre Connor McDavid scored in overtime to lead Canada to victory over the United States in the National Hockey League’s 4 Nations Face-Off tournament in February, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau posted on social media, “You can’t take our country — and you can’t take our game.”

    Trudeau’s comment was a direct response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s repeated denigration of the prime minister as the “governor” of the “51st state.” It captured the escalating tensions between the two countries over trade, tariffs and Trump’s threats to annex Canada.

    Meanwhile, the tournament itself, which pitted the top Canadian and American players against one another for the first time in more than a decade, became a representation of these deepening political divisions and showed that hockey isn’t as politically neutral as is often suggested.

    Since the 4 Nations Face-Off ended, hockey analogies and imagery continue to dominate the conversation around Canada-U.S. relations. This time the focus is on Gordie Howe (or “Mr. Hockey” as he was widely known), whose strategic use of elbows on the ice has become a political rallying cry for Canadians.

    A CBC News report on ‘Elbows Up’ becoming a rallying cry against Trump.

    Canada is “elbows up”

    During his professional career from 1946 to 1980, Howe combined skill and scoring ability with toughness, physicality and a willingness to fight when necessary.

    In particular, Howe’s practice of keeping his “elbows up” in the corners to ward off belligerents on the opposing team has become a focal point for Canadians’ actions against Trump’s aggression.

    The hashtag #ElbowsUpCanada has been trending on social media. Howe’s guidance has been echoed by Canadian comedian Mike Myers on Saturday Night Live and by Trudeau at the Liberal leadership convention that marked the transition to Prime Minister Mark Carney.

    In his first speech as Liberal leader, Carney made another hockey reference when he said:

    “We didn’t ask for this fight, but Canadians are always ready when someone else drops the gloves. So the Americans, they should make no mistake: In trade, as in hockey, Canada will win.”

    While it may be surprising to see such enthusiasm for an “elbows up” approach and for “dropping the gloves” as one would in a hockey fight, this kind of strategic employment of violence fits perfectly with Howe’s longstanding brand of hockey manhood.

    “Mr. Elbows” and the “Bashful Basher”

    Although Howe’s early nickname of “Mr. Elbows” has received the bulk of the public’s attention recently, his other moniker used extensively by the Detroit media during his first season in the NHL — the “Bashful Basher” — captures even more effectively the style of masculinity that Canadians are currently calling upon in their clash with Trump.

    Writing in the Detroit Free Press in 1947, reporter Marshall Dann invited readers to “Meet Red Wings’ Bashful Basher.” Alongside a photo of a youthful Howe innocently sipping a milkshake through a pair of straws, Dann noted:

    “Howe not only had proven himself an exceptionally promising rookie, but he also had established the fact that while he might be a malted milk devotee off the ice, he positively was no milk-sop on a hockey rink.”

    Howe’s brand of violence was careful and calculated, rather than reckless or emotional. Even when he used his fists to batter an opponent — such as in his famous 1959 fight with New York Rangers enforcer Lou Fontinato — Howe presented himself as a reluctant and reasonable fighter who conformed to the idealized, manly “code” of hockey.

    He resorted to fighting only to defend smaller teammates and to deter even more harmful forms of violence, such as stick attacks or overly aggressive hits. Far from a wild brawler, Howe was a calm protector, governed by a sense of honest accountability for his actions.

    Author Don O’Reilly’s 1975 biography Mr. Hockey also highlights the image of “two Gordie Howes — quiet, unassuming, and bashful off the ice and aggressive and competitive on the ice.”

    O’Reilly contrasts “the mild-mannered, smiling, innocent-faced Howe, the clean-cut All-Canadian-American boy” with his more ruthless counterpart: “The guy who excels with his elbows as weapons, a man who, his opponents say, is skilled with the illegal high stick and so devious that the officials often fail to see the offense.”

    Likewise, a 1962 Time magazine profile quoted a rival coach as saying:

    “When Howe gets knocked down, he looks like he doesn’t care. But when he’s getting up, he looks for the other guy’s number. A little later, the guy will have four stitches in his head.”

    Mr. Hockey and Canadianness

    A combination of humble manliness and controlled violence firmly established Howe’s masculine credentials within the culture of hockey. More broadly, Mr. Hockey became an admirable embodiment of the most valued manly qualities of the postwar period in North America.

    Howe’s strategic use of fighting also normalized the high level of violence in hockey by showing that it could be measured and purposeful, in accordance with the informal code of expectations that governed the game.

    Although critics of fighting and violence have become more outspoken in recent years, these values remain integral to hockey culture at the highest level and an influential point of reference for what it means to be a “true” hockey fan and a patriotic Canadian.

    In the current political climate, it is perhaps the title of the story that appeared in Life magazine in 1959 that resonates most clearly: “Don’t mess around with Gordie. Hockey’s tough guy (Lou Fontinato) discovers that the game’s best player (Gordie Howe) is a rough man in a fight.”

    With their “elbows up,” Canadians are counting on a Gordie Howe-style response — rational, expert and effective — in a trade war with the United States that may just be getting started.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Why Gordie Howe’s elbows are Canada’s answer to Donald Trump – https://theconversation.com/why-gordie-howes-elbows-are-canadas-answer-to-donald-trump-252167

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s English language order upends America’s long multilingual history

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Mark Turin, Associate professor, Department of Anthropology, University of British Columbia

    Across its nearly 250-year history, the United States has never had an official language. On March 1, U.S. President Donald Trump changed that when he signed an executive order designating English as the country’s sole official language. The order marks a fundamental rupture from the American goverment’s long-standing approach to languages.

    “From the founding of our Republic, English has been used as our national language,” Trump’s order states. “It is in America’s best interest for the federal government to designate one — and only one — official language.”

    This new order also revokes a language-access provision contained in an earlier executive order from 2000 that aimed to improve access to services for people with limited English. Federal agencies now seem to have no obligation to provide vital information in other languages.

    Despite some reactions in the New York Times, Washington Post and elsewhere, it remains unclear whether Trump’s executive order will face legal or political challenges. Amid continual attacks from the Trump administration on established norms, this decree may pass with relatively little resistance, despite a deeper meaning that extends far beyond language.

    Multilingual realities and monolingual fantasies

    The U.S. has a long multilingual history, beginning with the hundreds of Indigenous languages indelibly linked to these lands. The secondary layer are colonial languages and their variants, including French in Louisiana and Spanish in the Southwest. In all historical periods, immigrant languages from around the world have added substantially to the linguistic mix that makes up the U.S.

    Today, New York is one of world’s most linguistically diverse cities, with other U.S. coastal cities not far behind. According to data from the Census Bureau, one-fifth of all Americans can speak two or more languages. The social, economic and cognitive benefits of bilingualism are well-established, and there is no data to support the assertion that speaking more than one language threatens the integrity of the nation state.

    A building in Jackson Heights, Queens, New York City, which hosts speakers of diverse South Asian languages and their associations, April 17, 2017.
    (Ross Perlin)

    English has long functioned as a pragmatic lingua franca for the U.S. Yet an American tendency towards ideological monolingualism is gathering momentum.

    The emergence of Spanish as the nation’s second language, with well over 40 million speakers, has generated a particular anxiety. During the last few decades, more than 30 American states have enshrined English as an official language.

    Linguistic insecurity

    The March 1 executive order is a crowning achievement for the “English-only movement.” Trump has tapped directly into this sentiment and its xenophobic preoccupations, rooted in white fragility and white supremacy.

    In 2015, during his first bid for the Oval Office, Trump reprimanded Jeb Bush, the bilingual former governor of Florida, during a televised debate, stating: “This is a country where we speak English, not Spanish.”

    Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February 2024, Trump gave voice to his own linguistic insecurity:

    “We have languages coming into our country. We don’t have one instructor in our entire nation that can speak that language…These are languages — it’s the craziest thing — they have languages that nobody in this country has ever heard of. It’s a very horrible thing.”

    Beyond the brazen untruths and intentional exaggerations, such statements only reflect weakness and fear. The March 1 executive order states that “a nationally designated language is at the core of a unified and cohesive society.”

    It is in fact a sign of strength that Americans have not needed such a mandate until now, effectively navigating their complex multilingual reality without top-down legislation.

    English around the world

    It’s instructive to compare the language policy of the U.S. with other settler colonial contexts where English is dominant.

    In neighbouring Canada, the 1969 Official Languages Act grants equal status to English and French — two languages that were brought European migrants — and requires all federal institutions to provide services in both languages on request. Revealingly, only 50 years later did Canada finally pass an Indigenous Languages Act granting modest recognition to the original languages of the land.

    While Australia’s constitution specifies no official language, the government promotes English as the “national language,” and then offers to translate some web pages into other languages.

    Navigating the distinction between de facto and de jure, New Zealand has taken a more considered approach. Recognizing that English is unthreatened and secure, even without legal backing, New Zealand legislators have focused their attention elsewhere. Te reo Māori was granted official language status in 1987, followed by New Zealand Sign Language in 2006.

    Even the colonial centre and origin point for the global spread of English, the United Kingdom assumes a nuanced position on language policy. Welsh and Irish have both received some official recognition, while in Scotland, the Bòrd na Gàidhlig continues to advocate for official recognition of Gaelic.

    Principle and practice

    Trump’s recent executive order is both practical and symbolic.

    Practically, it remains unclear what the order means for Spanish in Puerto Rico, the Indigenous languages of Hawaii and Alaska — which have received official recognition — for American Sign Language and for all the multilingual communities that make up the nation.

    Language access can be a matter of life or death.

    Interpretation in courts, hospitals and schools is a fundamental human right. No one should be barred from accessing vital services simply because they don’t speak English, whether that’s when dealing with a judge, a doctor or a teacher. The consequences of government agencies abandoning their already limited efforts at translation and interpretation could have huge ramifications.

    Symbolically, Trump’s order is red meat for his MAGA followers. Associating national integrity with the promotion of one language above others might seem to reflect American exceptionalism, but it in fact destroys the cultural and linguistic diversity that makes the U.S. exceptional.

    Ironically, this executive order brings the U.S. into alignment with most of the world’s other nation-states — albeit not the ones that speak English as their first language — which seek to impose the standardized language of an ethnic majority on all of their citizens. The consequences can be both polarizing and homogenizing.

    Most of the world’s people are resolutely multilingual and are only becoming more so. Americans will not stop speaking, writing and signing in languages other than English because of an executive order. The linguistic dynamism of the U.S. is essential to the country’s social fabric. It should be nurtured and defended.

    Mark Turin receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and Tokyo College, the University of Tokyo.

    Ross Perlin has received funding from the National Science Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

    – ref. Trump’s English language order upends America’s long multilingual history – https://theconversation.com/trumps-english-language-order-upends-americas-long-multilingual-history-252163

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Donald Trump thinks some accents are ‘beautiful,’ but what makes them so?

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Nicole Rosen, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Language Interactions, University of Manitoba

    United States President Donald Trump has recently been commenting on accents while meeting foreign leaders and taking questions from foreign journalists. Trump praised British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s “beautiful” accent, saying he would have been president 20 years ago if he’d had that accent.

    He didn’t answer an Afghan journalist’s question, saying her accent was “beautiful” but that he didn’t understand it, and he completely dismissed the question of a journalist from India during a joint news conference with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, saying he didn’t understand his accent before abruptly moving on.

    What is a “beautiful” accent, and what makes one hard to understand? There is much evidence showing that opinions on language are not based in any objective standards of beauty or aesthetics, but rather on our attitudes about the people speaking them.

    Accent attitudes reflect our biases

    Consider long-standing attitudes regarding the southern American accent. Some might automatically assess an accent from Tennessee or Kentucky as sounding less smart than one from Michigan or California. However, there is no scientific relationship between accent and intelligence; these stereotypes are learned behaviour.

    Research shows young children of about five or six, for example, do not discriminate between U.S. northern and southern accents. As they get older, they start to develop the same attitudes of the adults around them, and by age 10 they start to find that northern-accented speakers sound “smarter” and more “in charge” than southern-accented speakers.

    Many negative stereotypes about accents and the people who have them are often based in racism or classism. Take, for example, the following quote from American writer Edward Larocque Tinker’s 1935 essay on “Gombo,” the dialect of French spoken by the Black population in Louisiana:

    “French, which had taken centuries to develop into a most subtle intricate form — the height of sophistication — was far too complex for these simple savages to learn. So they did their poor, primitive best and contrived a queer, simplified ‘pidgin’ French dialect of their own.”

    It is quite clear this judgment is not based in scientific fact, but rather on racist attitudes toward Black people. Today, language attitudes may be more subtle in their racism or classism, but they persist, using our biases about a group of people to affect how we feel about their way of speaking.

    How people judge accents

    Studies show that speakers tend to rate their own dialects as very pleasant. Research also shows that when people are unfamiliar with accents, they tend to not discriminate between them. In other words, when unfamiliar listeners have no knowledge about an accent or its place of origin, they rate accents equally.

    When speakers are familiar with an accent or dialect, however, they use their social knowledge to make judgments about the esthetics, determining which is more pleasing than another. This means that it’s not always the actual phonetic aspects of the language that drive our preferences, but rather social knowledge about the people who speak with that accent that we are assessing.

    In terms of foreign accents in particular, our native language shapes the way we categorize the sounds of other languages. When languages have unfamiliar sounds, our brains need a little more time to process the correspondences between the foreign accent and our own so we can accurately categorize the sounds in the foreign-accented speech. Understanding different accents is a skill that develops over time, and greater exposure to speakers with a particular accent helps us understand that accent more easily.

    Processing accents is more demanding for the brain. For example, in a noisy room, our brains might have to work more than usual to separate out the sounds in order to hear. On the telephone or when the speaker is wearing a mask, the listener doesn’t have access to cues such as lip movements. Older adults with hearing loss also have a harder time understanding foreign accents, as do people with dementia.

    The attitude we have about foreign accents is affected by our social knowledge of a person, their accent and where they come from. Having more frequent and positive associations with people from a particular region will make us more likely to find the accent pleasing and worth deciphering. Our ability to understand reflects the cognitive load that our brain is put through in order to categorize the different sounds that we are hearing.

    Putting these two together, it is easy to see how the historical prestige associated with European accents, as well as the political power of leaders like Emmanuel Macron of France, Starmer from the United Kingdom or Modi of India would be reflected in Trump’s positive attitude towards them.

    Similarly, he might consider a foreign journalist’s position on the world stage to be far less worth doing the cognitive work necessary to understand them.

    Fundamentally, there is no objective criteria for determining the “beauty” of someone’s accent. Our attitudes towards particular accents are often much more rooted in our biases and how we see others in our world.

    Nicole Rosen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Donald Trump thinks some accents are ‘beautiful,’ but what makes them so? – https://theconversation.com/donald-trump-thinks-some-accents-are-beautiful-but-what-makes-them-so-251458

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Canadian-trained doctors should be allowed to practise anywhere in Canada without additional licensing

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Anthony Sanfilippo, Professor of Medicine (Cardiology), Queen’s University, Ontario

    Pan-Canadian licensing can improve health-care access in underserved areas and increase flexibility for physicians. (Shutterstock)

    While politicians tout the benefits of reducing interprovincial trade barriers to unlock prosperity amid escalating trade tensions, our most precious health-care resources — fully qualified doctors — remain shackled. Physicians face a maze of regulations when attempting to practise beyond their home province. We must break these chains.

    By 2026, 4.4 million Ontarians — one in four residents — will lack access to family doctors. The crisis extends nationwide, with projections showing 9.6 million Canadians could be without a family physician by 2034. And our existing doctors are stretched thin, with the average family physician seeing 18 per cent fewer patients annually compared to a decade ago.

    It’s mystifying why Canada still struggles with the question of whether a doctor licensed in one province should be automatically qualified to practice in others. In October 2023, federal, provincial and territorial health ministers committed to “advancing labour mobility” for health-care professionals.

    The Atlantic provinces launched a multi-jurisdictional licensing system in May 2023, allowing doctors to practice in all four Atlantic provinces for an additional annual fee. However, this licence is not accepted outside of Atlantic Canada, and no other provinces have such agreements: current legislation requires separate licensing in each province.

    This uncertainty persists despite the critical shortage of physician services, especially for emergency department coverage and unexpected practice vacancies.

    All medical schools and training programs are accredited by the same, pan-Canadian processes based on common, and extensive, criteria.
    (Shutterstock)

    Inter-provincial restrictions undermine the efforts of overworked physicians to arrange coverage for temporary leaves. Such breaks could significantly enhance doctors’ personal well-being and extend their longevity in practice, ultimately benefiting holistic patient care while boosting Canadians’ access to physicians.

    Is there a legitimate rationale, grounded in differences in training or competence, for inter-provincial barriers?

    Medical training in Canada

    Canada has 17 excellent medical schools with campuses in nine provinces (soon expanding to 20 covering all provinces). Although curricula and learning schemes vary according to individual philosophies and available resources, all are united by a shared vision. These institutions strive to equip students with a core set of physician competencies, ensuring graduates excel based on common educational objectives.

    Canadian medical schools are inter-connected and collaborative. They share their approaches, discuss educational innovations, and engage common challenges. Medical student societies participate in collaborative activities to support knowledge sharing in clinical education.

    Graduates of Canadian medical schools face the same qualifying examinations, established by the Medical Council of Canada. Success in these exams is required for entry to practice in all provinces and territories. Graduates apply to the same postgraduate residency programs, which are pan-Canadian. A graduate of an Ontario school interested in a career in family medicine, for example, is free to apply to training programs in any province without prejudice.

    Why are doctors with identical training and qualifications confined to practising in just one province or territory?
    (Shutterstock)

    Those training programs operate under the guidance of national colleges that set pan-Canadian standards for training. All programs are expected to deliver the same training and meet the same standards, regardless of location. All medical schools and training programs are accredited by the same, pan-Canadian processes based on common, and extensive, criteria.

    All this national commonality exists because (with some regional variability in prevalence) people are afflicted with similar medical problems wherever they reside. And so, the practice of medicine should be guided by consistent, high standards. Canadians, regardless of where they live in our country, deserve to be assured that their doctors are exceptionally well trained and qualified.

    Provincial barriers

    Why, then, are doctors with identical training and qualifications confined to practising in just one province or territory? The answer lies not in medical competence, but in bureaucracy. Despite national standards for training and qualification, the power to grant a licence rests with 13 separate provincial and territorial regulatory colleges. This fragmented system creates artificial barriers, limiting the mobility of our highly skilled physicians across Canada.

    This is not to dismiss the important work of these provincial and territorial colleges. They are responsible for ensuring that the doctors working within their jurisdictions have completed appropriate training, achieved qualifications and maintained competence. Importantly, they are also responsible for investigating and assessing any potential breaches of competence or professionalism.

    In calling for common pan-Canadian credentialing, the physician community is not suggesting the important role of provincial and territorial colleges be set aside or in any way diminished. Rather, those critical processes should be either centralized or shared reciprocally. Public protection from doctors who are disciplined or sanctioned can be accelerated through pan-Canadian licensure: the public could search physician sanctions through one online portal, not 13.

    Regulation must be assessed against its purpose. If the purpose is public protection and advancing a high quality and equitable health-care system, then a doctor in good standing who lives and practises in Ontario should be able to take up emergency room shifts or cover a colleague’s practice in Manitoba without having to restart and reinvest in another lengthy, time-consuming and expensive registration process.

    Pan-Canadian licensure can improve health-care access in underserved areas and increase flexibility for physicians. Canadian-trained doctors should be allowed to practice where they are qualified and needed, and that’s in Canada — all of it.

    Neil Seeman, co-founder of Sutherland House Experts, is the publisher of “The Doctors We Need: Imagining a New Path for Physician Recruitment, Training, and Support” by Dr. Anthony Sanfilippo.

    Anthony Sanfilippo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Why Canadian-trained doctors should be allowed to practise anywhere in Canada without additional licensing – https://theconversation.com/why-canadian-trained-doctors-should-be-allowed-to-practise-anywhere-in-canada-without-additional-licensing-251672

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Cyclone Alfred to cost budget $1.2 billion, hit growth and push up inflation: Chalmers

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    Cyclone Alfred will cost the March 25 budget at least A$1.2 billion, hit growth and put pressure on inflation, Treasurer Jim Chalmers says.

    In a Tuesday speech previewing the budget, Chalmers will also say that on preliminary estimates, the cyclone’s immediate hit to GDP is expected to be up to $1.2 billion, which could wipe a quarter of a percentage point off quarterly growth.

    “It could also lead to upward pressure on inflation. From building costs to damaged crops raising prices for staples like fruit and vegetables,” Chalmers says in the speech, an extract of which has been released ahead of delivery.

    The treasurer says the temporary shutting of businesses due to the cyclone lost about 12 million work hours.

    By last Thursday, 44,000 insurance claims had been lodged. Early modelling indicated losses covered by the Cyclone Reinsurance Pool were about $1.7 billion.

    The estimated costs to the budget, which are over the forward estimates period, are preliminary.

    The government has already co-sponsored with the states $30 million in support for immediate recovery costs, Chalmers says. Millions of dollars are being provided in hardship payments.

    “The budget will reflect some of those immediate costs and we’ll make sensible provisions for more to come,” he says.

    “I expect that these costs and these new provisions will be in the order of at least $1.2 billion […] and that means a big new pressure on the budget.”

    This is in addition to the already budgeted for disaster relief.

    “At MYEFO, we’d already booked $11.6 billion for disaster support nationally over the forward estimates.

    “With all of this extra funding we expect that to rise to at least $13.5 billion when accounting for our provisioning, social security costs and other disaster related support.”

    Chalmers will again argue in the speech his recent theme – that the economy has turned a corner. This is despite the global uncertainty that includes the Trump tariff policies, the full extent of which is yet to be spelled out.

    Australia is bracing for the possibility our beef export trade could be caught in a new tariff round to be unveiled early next month.

    Despite last week’s rebuff to its efforts to get an exemption from the aluminium and steel 25% tariffs, the government has vowed to fight on for a carve out from that, as well as trying to head off any further imposts on exports to the US.

    In seeking the exemption, Australia was unsuccessful in trying to leverage its abundance of critical minerals, which are much sought after by the US.

    Trade Minister Don Farrell told Sky on Sunday:

    What we need to do is find out what it is that the Americans want in terms of this relationship between Australia and the United States and then make President Trump an offer he can’t refuse.

    In Tuesday’s speech, Chalmers is expected to say the budget will contain fewer surprises than might be the case with other budgets.

    This is because this budget – which would have been avoided if the cyclone had not ruled out an April 12 election – comes after the flurry of announcements already made this year and before further announcements in the campaign for the May election.

    Those announcements already made include:

    • $8.5 billion to boost Medicare

    • $644 million for new Urgent Care Clinics

    • a multi-billion dollar package to save Whyalla Steelworks

    • $7.2 billion for the Bruce Highway and other infrastructure

    • funds for enhanced childcare and to provide some
      student debt relief

    • new and amended listings for contraception, endometriosis and IVF on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.



    Read more:
    Labor and the Coalition have pledged to raise GP bulk billing. Here’s what the Medicare boost means for patients

    Deloitte Access Economics in its budget monitor predicts the budget will have a deficit of $26.1 billion for 2024-25.

    Deloitte’s Stephen Smith said that although a $26.1 billion deficit was slightly smaller than forecast in the December budget update, the longer-term structural deterioration should be “a reality check for politicians wanting to announce election sweeteners in the weeks ahead”.

    Deloitte projects a deficit of nearly $50 billion in 2025-26.

    Open to a ‘small’ Ukraine peacekeeping role

    Over the weekend, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese took part in the “coalition of the willing” virtual meeting convened by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in support of Ukraine.

    The meeting also included Ukraine, France, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Greece, Italy, Poland, Bulgaria, the Scandinavian countries, Canada and New Zealand. The United States did not participate. President Donald Trump is trying to force an agreement between Ukraine and Russia to end the conflict.

    Albanese reiterated after the meeting: “Australia is open to considering any requests to contribute to a future peacekeeping effort in support of the just and lasting peace we all want to Ukraine”.

    He added the obvious point: “Of course, peacekeeping missions by definition require a precondition of peace”.

    Albanese said that any Australian contribution to a Ukraine peacekeeping force would be “small”.

    Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has opposed sending Australians to a peacekeeping force.



    Read more:
    Politics with Michelle Grattan: Peter Dutton on why he’s not Australia’s Trump – ‘I’m my own person’

    Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Cyclone Alfred to cost budget $1.2 billion, hit growth and push up inflation: Chalmers – https://theconversation.com/cyclone-alfred-to-cost-budget-1-2billion-hit-growth-and-push-up-inflation-chalmers-252171

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Ghana’s poor are the ones who suffer most from corruption: history offers some ideas about fighting back

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Ernest Harsch, Researcher, Institute of African Studies, Columbia University, Columbia University

    It didn’t take long for the new government of John Mahama in Ghana to find a dramatic way to highlight its commitment to combating corruption. On 12 February 2025 his special prosecutor declared the previous finance minister a “wanted fugitive” for going abroad to evade questioning for suspected financial irregularities, before later agreeing to schedule a return.

    In that one move, the government of Mahama’s National Democratic Congress sounded a couple of familiar notes from past campaigns. First, that the widespread graft so many Ghanaians bemoan was largely the fault of the other party, in this case the New Patriotic Party, voted out the previous December. And second, that dishonesty and misconduct are most damaging when they involve high public officials.

    The reality of corruption lived by ordinary Ghanaians is far more complicated than that. Across the past 30 years of electoral democracy, both parties have been tainted by scandal and malfeasance. And over the country’s much longer history, as I detail in a new book, Ghanaians have complained about a wide range of misdeeds by figures in both the public and private realms, in positions high and low.

    Ordinary people have often challenged abuses, misdeeds and outright theft by the wealthy and powerful. They did so well before the territory’s indigenous societies were subjugated by Britain and incorporated into its Gold Coast colony.

    Based on my research into corruption over Ghana’s centuries-long history, it’s clear to me that the effectiveness of any new initiatives depends as much on action from below as from above. Poor people feel the effects of corruption and exploitation more acutely than the better off. And if they are organised they can push the authorities to be more active in rooting out fraud and graft.

    Pre-colonial anticorruption actions

    The strongest precolonial society was Asante, an empire that ruled over a wide area of what is today Ghana. At times, the excesses and injustices of Asante’s monarchs provoked turmoil, fuelled by anger among elites and ordinary people alike.

    One, Kofi Kakari, was dethroned in 1874 after violating established norms by removing gold ornaments from a sacred mausoleum. His successor, Mensa Bonsu, prompted a popular insurgency and was finally overthrown in 1883 by an alliance of junior aristocrats and commoners.

    Meanwhile, the coastal areas populated by Fante developed a more institutionalised method of ensuring chiefly accountability. Commoner-led defence groups, known locally as asafo, which performed a range of civic functions, could depose unpopular chiefs. In some removal ceremonies asafo members seized a chief and bumped his buttocks on the ground three times.

    According to Ghanaian social anthropologist Maxwell Owusu, asafo companies

    had a sacred duty to safeguard the interests of the wider local community against rulers or leaders who misused or abused their power.

    The asafo remained active into the early colonial period. In the 1920s, however, the colonial administration curtailed their powers, to protect chiefs willing to implement colonial orders.

    Echoes of asafo could still be heard many decades later. Following a succession of postcolonial administrations, Ghana erupted in widespread mobilisations against corruption and injustice. The popular outpourings of 1979 and the early 1980s were set off by two lower-rank coups led by Flight Lieutenant Jerry Rawlings. Recalling past traditions of resistance, protesters sang asafo war songs, beat drums, and employed other popular rituals.

    Many of those activists regarded corruption not as a failing of individuals in high office, but as a problem rooted in Ghana’s class-divided society. As one leading figure of the new People’s Defence Committees put it in 1982:

    Corruption … is the product of a social system and enriches a minority of the people whilst having the opposite effect on the majority.

    Soon the Rawlings government moved towards accommodation with both western financial circles and domestic elites. The youth-led defence committees were purged and eventually abolished.

    The multiparty era

    Radical social perspectives persisted into the era of multiparty electoral democracy, though not in the two mainstream parties. Both say they are opposed to corruption. But according to critics like political scientist Kwame Ninsin, they in effect take turns at the helm to “control the state for private accumulation”.

    Most official anticorruption strategies tend to ignore political contention and social distinctions. And the standard international corruption ratings of Transparency International largely rely on external financial and investor assessments.

    Afrobarometer research surveys provide a more comprehensive view. In 2019, for example, Afrobarometer interviewers asked Ghanaians whether corruption had worsened over the previous year. Some 67% of those living in greater poverty said it had, while only 47% of the better off thought so. And although poor respondents also cited misdeeds by high officials, they often stressed more tangible aspects in their daily lives, such as having to pay bribes to local police or to obtain health or education services.

    Some corruption scholars see benefits to “frying big fish”, to publicly demonstrate their seriousness. Ghanaian governments have a long history of doing that, however, and face an increasingly sceptical public. To be more credible, anticorruption campaigns cannot target only the opposing party or just those at the heights of power.

    Strengths and weaknesses

    Ghana now has a range of laws and institutions to combat graft, fraud and other injustices. Some focus on exposure and punishment, both through the regular courts and through institutions such as the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice, which annually hears thousands of citizens’ complaints.

    Some official actions stress prevention. High office-holders have to declare their families’ assets, to make it harder to hide illegal wealth. Mahama made his own declaration of assets public, the first president ever to do so.

    Government anticorruption measures have improved over the years. But they still suffer from bureaucratic inertia and limited commitment. That’s why many activists argue against relying solely on politicians.

    The effectiveness of any new initiatives by Mahama or other officials depends as much on action from below as from above. After all, it’s ordinary Ghanaians who know where corruption pinches them the most.

    Ernest Harsch does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Ghana’s poor are the ones who suffer most from corruption: history offers some ideas about fighting back – https://theconversation.com/ghanas-poor-are-the-ones-who-suffer-most-from-corruption-history-offers-some-ideas-about-fighting-back-250821

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Middle Eastern monarchies in Sudan’s war: what’s driving their interests

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Federico Donelli, Assistant Professor of International Relations, University of Trieste

    The civil war in Sudan that began in April 2023 involves several external actors. The conflict pits the Sudanese Armed Forces against the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces in a quest for political and economic power. The situation has created one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. Various foreign states have picked a side to support. They include Chad, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

    In particular, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are providing financial and military support to the warring parties, although they have denied it. Political scientist Federico Donelli, who has studied the influence of these Gulf monarchies in Sudan, unpacks the implications of their intervention.

    How did the UAE and Saudi Arabia get involved in Sudan?

    Domestic factors within Sudan were the primary triggers for the outbreak of the civil war. Framing the Sudanese conflict as a proxy war may underestimate or overlook important internal variables.

    But it’s also important to highlight the indirect involvement of other states. In the Horn of Africa region, Sudan has interacted the most with Middle Eastern states over the past two decades. Among these states, two Gulf monarchies – Saudi Arabia and the UAE – stand out.

    Political relations between Saudi Arabia and Sudan date back to the independence of the Sudanese state in 1956. And people-to-people links have flourished over centuries. This is largely because Sudan is geographically close to Saudi and the two Muslim holy cities of Mecca (Makkah) and Medina.

    The case of the UAE is different. Since the beginning of the new millennium, the Emirates have expanded their economic and financial influence in Africa, investing in niche sectors such as port logistics. Sudan in particular came to the fore for the Emirates at the end of the 2010s when regional balances shifted before and after the Arab uprisings.

    Between 2014 and 2015, Saudi Arabia and UAE influence in Sudanese politics increased under President Omar al-Bashir. Both monarchies wanted to counter Iran’s ability to project power into the Red Sea and in Yemen. In 2015, after breaking off relations with Iran, Sudan contributed 10,000 troops to a Saudi-led military operation in Yemen to fight Houthi rebels. Both the Sudanese army and paramilitary forces took part, and personal links were forged.

    In the post-Bashir era that began in 2019, Saudi and UAE influence has continued to grow, thanks to those direct links.

    In general, both monarchies are status seekers. In a changing international context, Sudan is a testing ground for their ability to influence and shape future political settlements.

    Seeing the post-2019 transition as an opportunity to influence Sudan’s regional standing, the two monarchies chose to support different factions within Sudan’s security apparatus. This external support exacerbated internal competition.

    Riyadh, in conjunction with Egypt, maintained close ties with army leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. Abu Dhabi aligned itself with the head of the Rapid Support Forces, Mohamed Dagalo, or Hemedti.

    Since 2019, the relationship between the UAE and Saudi Arabia has changed. After more than a decade of strategic convergence, especially on regional issues, the two Gulf monarchies began to diverge on issues like their view on political Islam. This divergence has been evident in various crisis scenarios, including in Sudan.

    Although both countries jointly supported the initial Sudanese transition after Bashir’s ouster, the deterioration of relations between Hemedti and al-Burhan created conditions for a showdown between the two monarchies.

    However, the conflict in Sudan didn’t break out because of the rift between the UAE and Saudi Arabia. But Sudan’s local actors felt able to go to war because they were aware of external support. And once the conflict broke out, both monarchies were reluctant to withdraw local support lest they appear weak in the eyes of their regional counterpart.

    Why is Sudan important to these countries?

    My recent study with political scientist Abigail Kabandula shows that the UAE and Saudi Arabia gradually increased their presence in Sudan after the 2011 Arab uprisings. The fall of some regimes, including Egypt, made the two Gulf monarchies fear that instability could entangle them.

    Our analysis identifies two main reasons for the two countries’ influence in Sudan:

    • changes to the regional power structure

    • the strategic importance of the Horn of Africa.

    The US pivot to Asia – shifting resources from the Middle East to the Pacific – and the Arab Spring protests increased uncertainty among Gulf states. This led to a realignment of regional power dynamics and the formation of rival blocs. As a result, the UAE and Saudi Arabia sought closer ties with African countries. In Sudan, the relationship has developed through both military and political engagement.

    Our analysis shows an increase in both countries’ interest in Sudan between 2012 and 2020. However, our research also highlighted some key differences in their growing influence.

    In the early years after the Arab uprisings, the UAE’s influence grew rapidly, driven by concerns about the spread of protests. This was particularly important given Sudan’s proximity to Egypt.

    Saudi Arabia maintained a more stable level of influence from 2010 to 2020. This was despite Riyadh also initially fearing the spread of the protests.

    Both Gulf states were wary of al-Bashir’s growing ties with Turkey and Qatar, which they feared would strengthen a pro-Islamist bloc in the region. However, after Bashir’s overthrow in 2019, their approaches began to diverge.

    The two Gulf monarchies view Sudan as a key country because of its geographical location.

    Sudan is situated between two major regions – the Sahel and the Red Sea – characterised by instability and conflict. These regions face interconnected challenges: political instability, poverty, food insecurity, and internal and external wars. They also face population displacement, transnational crime and the threat of jihadist groups.

    Moreover, Sudan is an important link between the Mediterranean and sub-Saharan Africa. The country is a crossroads, influencing current and future geostrategic dynamics in the region.

    The Gulf monarchies, including Qatar, have also invested heavily – between US$1.5 billion and US$2 billion – in Sudan’s agri-food sector, which is vital to their food security. Sudan, with its abundant water resources, offers a large amount of fertile land, making it attractive to Gulf companies.

    What can we expect to see next?

    Similar to other current global crises – such as those in Ukraine, the Middle East and the Democratic Republic of Congo – the conflict in Sudan seems difficult to resolve through negotiations. Two main factors contribute to this difficulty.

    First, both parties see the victory of one side as entirely dependent on the defeat of the other. Such logic leaves no room for a win-win solution. Second, the current international context supports the continuation of hostilities. The global shifting balance of power provides both warring parties with opportunities for external support. This complicates efforts to find a peaceful solution.

    There are now two centres of power and governance in the country. It is likely that this division will become more pronounced.

    Federico Donelli is Senior Research Associate at the Istituto di Studi di Politica Internazionale, ISPI (Milan) and Non-Resident Fellow at the Orion Policy Institute, OPI (Washington, DC).

    – ref. Middle Eastern monarchies in Sudan’s war: what’s driving their interests – https://theconversation.com/middle-eastern-monarchies-in-sudans-war-whats-driving-their-interests-251825

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The first fossil thrips in Africa: this tiny insect pest met its end in a volcanic lake 90 million years ago

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Sandiso Mnguni, Honorary Research Associate, University of the Witwatersrand

    The fossil thrips discovered in the Orapa Diamond Mine. Dr Sandiso Mnguni, CC BY-NC-ND

    Thrips are tiny insects – their sizes range between 0.5mm and 15mm in length and many are shorter than 5mm. But the damage they cause to crops is anything but small. A 2021 research paper found that in Indonesia “the damage to red chilli plants caused by thrips infestation ranges now from 20% to 80%”. In India, various thrips infestations in the late 2010s and early 2020s “damaged 40%-85% of chilli pepper crops in Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana”.

    In Africa, a number of thrips species feed on sugarcane and have been known to damage nearly 30% of the crop in a single hectare of a farm. High rates of destruction have been recorded in Tanzania and Uganda on onion and tomato crops.

    Now it’s emerged that thrips are hardly new to the African continent and the southern hemisphere more broadly. South Africa’s first and only Black palaeoentomologist, Sandiso Mnguni, who studies fossil insects, recently described a fossil thrips from Orapa Diamond Mine in Botswana that’s more than 90 million years old. He discussed his unique fossil find with The Conversation Africa.

    What are thrips and how do they cause damage?

    Thrips, also known as thunderflies, thunderbugs or thunderblights, are small, slender and fragile insects. They can be identified by their typically narrow, strap-like, fringed and feathery wings. Over time, they have also evolved distinctive asymmetrical rasping-sucking mouthparts consisting of a labrum, labium, maxillary stylets and left mandible. Most species use these to feed primarily on fungi. Some feed on plants and eat the tender parts of certain crops like sugarcane, tomatoes, pepper, onions, avocado, legumes and citrus fruits, focusing on the buds, flowers and young leaves.

    This, along with their habit of accidentally distributing fungal spores while feeding or hunting, makes them destructive crop pests. They tend to feed as a group in large numbers, causing distinctive silver or bronze scarring on the surfaces of stems or leaves.

    However, not all thrips are harmful. A small fraction of the 6,500 species that have already been described so far are pollinators of flowering plants; and a handful are predators or natural enemies of moths and other smaller animals such as mites.

    Larva, pupa and adult Weeping fig thrips (Gynaikothrips uzeli)
    fcafotodigital

    Tell us about the fossil thrips you’ve discovered

    This is the first time that a fossil thrips has been recorded anywhere in Africa – or the entire southern hemisphere.

    The Orapa Diamond Mine in Botswana is one of the most important fossil deposits on the continent. It’s about 90 million years old, dating back to the Cretaceous period.



    Read more:
    Fossil beetles found in a Botswana diamond mine help us to reconstruct the distant past

    The deposit is situated 960 metres above sea level in the Kalahari Desert, about 250km due west of Francistown in Botswana, and 824km away from Johannesburg in South Africa. It was first discovered in 1967 and started producing carat diamonds in 1971.

    Roughly 90 million years go, steam and gas caused a double eruption of diamondiferous kimberlites. These are vertical, deep-source volcanic pipes that form when magma rapidly rises from the Earth’s mantle, carrying diamonds and other minerals up to the surface. They create a distinctive rock formation that gets studied by geologists. This explosive volcanic eruption formed a deep crater lake at the centre of the mine.

    Mining excavations during the 1980s and earlier uncovered and exposed fine-grained sedimentary rocks containing well preserved fossil plants and insects. These have already been studied by many researchers in the past. At the time, geology and palaeontology researchers from what was then the Bernard Price Institute, which has since been renamed the Evolutionary Studies Institute, at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, were invited to collect the fossil material.

    Although some of the material has been studied in the past, the fossil thrips hadn’t yet been put under the microscope. And that’s just what we did. By using its body characteristics and comparing it to living thrips, we can say for sure that it’s a thrips. But we didn’t give it a formal scientific name because it doesn’t have enough characteristics to classify it at the species level and describe it either as a new species or one that still exists today.

    We think that the thrips either flew into the palaeolake that was formed by the volcanic eruption or was transported there through grass from a bird’s nest.

    Why is this useful to know?

    This discovery sheds light on the biodiversity and biogeography of thrips and many other groups of insects during a time when we know flowering plants that heavily relied on insect pollination were rapidly diversifying. This plant-insect reciprocal interaction goes back to the Devonian period, a time when there was a large super-continent called Gondwana. That’s when the first land plants evolved and dominated the Earth, and inadvertently led to many groups of insects, including thrips, diversifying to keep up with drastic changes in their preferred plant diets and habitats due to the dramatic environmental and climatic changes.



    Read more:
    Fossil insects help to reconstruct the past: how I ended up studying them (and you can too)

    The fossil find also contributes to a more accurate documentation of life on Earth during the Cretaceous and helps scientists in reconstructing the past environment and climate in Botswana.

    Hopefully there are more fossil insects waiting to be discovered in Botswana and elsewhere in Africa, to keep improving our picture of this long-ago world, and preserve the heritage of our continent.

    Sandiso Mnguni receives funding from the GENUS: DSTI-NRF Centre of Excellence in Palaeosciences (Grant 86073). He is affiliated with the Agricultural Research Council Plant Health and Protection (ARC-PHP) and the Sophumelela Youth Development Programme (SYDP).

    – ref. The first fossil thrips in Africa: this tiny insect pest met its end in a volcanic lake 90 million years ago – https://theconversation.com/the-first-fossil-thrips-in-africa-this-tiny-insect-pest-met-its-end-in-a-volcanic-lake-90-million-years-ago-249077

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Who owns digital data about you? South African legal scholar weighs up property and privacy rights

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Donrich Thaldar, Professor, University of KwaZulu-Natal

    alexsl

    In the digital economy, data is more than just information – it is an asset with immense economic and strategic value. Yet, despite its significance, a fundamental legal question remains unresolved: Can data be owned? While privacy laws worldwide focus on protecting individuals’ rights over their personal data, they often sidestep the issue of ownership. This has led to legal uncertainty, particularly in South Africa, where the Protection of Personal Information Act (Popia) grants data subjects various rights over their personal information but does not explicitly address ownership.

    This gap in legal clarity raises pressing questions: If personal data – such as private health information – exists within a vast and ever-growing digital landscape, can it be owned? And if so, who holds the rightful claim?

    Legal academic Donrich Thaldar, whose research focuses on data governance, explores these questions in a recent academic article. He unpacks his findings for The Conversation Africa.

    Why does it matter who owns data?

    In today’s digital economy, data is the most valuable asset – it’s often referred to as “the new oil”. Whether in commerce, research, or social interactions, the ability to generate, use and trade with data is central to economic competitiveness.

    If data ownership is not clearly established, it could stifle innovation and investment. Companies require legal certainty to operate effectively in a knowledge-driven economy.

    Countries have taken different legal approaches to tackling the question of who owns data. China, for instance, formally recognises the proprietary rights of data generators, meaning that businesses and individuals who generate data have legally defined rights over its use and commercialisation. This provides legal support for the country’s digital industries.

    What does South African law say?

    In the past, the South African Information Regulator has taken the position that personal information is automatically owned by the data subject – the person to whom the data relates – rather than by the entity generating the data. In this view, the rights created by Popia imply that data subjects themselves are the owners of their personal data, and nobody else.

    I suggest that this stance is legally flawed, as it conflates two different branches of the law: privacy law and property law. Moreover, it could severely disrupt the digital economy. The digital economy depends on data as a tradeable asset – it must be capable of being sold, licensed and commercialised like any other economic object. If ownership must always be with data subjects, businesses face uncertainty in using and monetising data. Uncertainty stifles innovation, discourages investment, and undermines South Africa’s digital competitiveness.

    You applied property law to the question of data ownership. Why?

    Ownership is a concept in property law, not privacy law. Therefore, to answer the data ownership question, we need to look for answers in property law.

    Property law governs the relationship between subjects (legal persons) and objects (things external to the body, whether physical or not). Ownership is about the rights that a subject has over an object. For an object to be capable of being owned, it must be valuable, useful, and – importantly – capable of human control. A bottle of water meets these criteria, but the vast oceans do not, as they are not within human control.

    Personal data in the abstract is like the water in the ocean – vast, uncontained, and beyond individual control. However, a digital instance of personal data, such as a computer file, is more like a bottled version of that water – defined and subject to human control. Just like digital money and other valuable digital assets, a specific instance of personal data meets all the requirements under South African common law for private ownership. Thus, in this sense personal data can be owned.

    Is the data owner not the data subject?

    At first glance this might seem so, but no, not necessarily. The reason that it might seem so, is because some of the privacy rights created by Popia resemble ownership rights. For example, an owner’s agreement is required before someone else can use the owned object (e.g., loan for use and rent). Similarly, a data subject’s consent is in most cases required before personal data can be processed. Furthermore, the owner of a thing has the right to destroy it; similarly, a data subject typically has the right to have personal data deleted.

    Do these privacy rights mean that data subjects actually own their personal data? I suggest not. Wearing a feather in one’s hat does not make one a bird. In the same way, privacy rights that resemble ownership rights do not mean that they constitute ownership. Ownership is acquired by following the rules of property law.

    So who owns the data?

    Because a newly created personal data instance has no antecedent legal object – in other words, it is not created out of another legal object – it initially belongs to no one. It is res nullius. Ownership of res nullius is acquired through appropriation, which requires two elements: control and the intention to own.

    This means that the entity generating the data, such as a company or university collecting and recording it, is best positioned to acquire ownership. Since it already has control over the data, the only remaining requirement is simply the intention to be the owner.

    If an entity like a university generates data and intends to own it, then – provided it is in control of that data – it will legally become the owner. This in principle allows the entity to use, license and trade the data as an economic asset. Indeed, it is prudent for data-generating entities, such as universities, to explicitly assert ownership over the data they produce. This not only establishes their legal rights with clarity but also serves as a safeguard against unauthorised access and misuse by malicious actors.

    Doesn’t this compromise data privacy?

    No, it should not. Ownership is always limited by other legal rules. For example, while I might own a car, I cannot drive it in any way I like – I must obey the rules of the road. Similarly, ownership of personal data is subject to strict limitations, particularly the privacy rights of data subjects under Popia.

    However, it is also important to understand that privacy rights apply only to personal data. If personal data is de-identified, meaning that it can no longer be linked to the data subjects, privacy rights cease to apply. What remains are the ownership rights in the data itself. It can be a fully tradeable asset.

    Recognising that a digital instance of personal data can be owned – and that the rightful owner is typically the data generator – does not undermine the privacy protections of Popia. Rather, it clarifies the legal landscape, ensuring that the rights of both data subjects and data generators are recognised and protected.

    Donrich Thaldar receives funding from the NIH.

    – ref. Who owns digital data about you? South African legal scholar weighs up property and privacy rights – https://theconversation.com/who-owns-digital-data-about-you-south-african-legal-scholar-weighs-up-property-and-privacy-rights-249741

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Let juries judge disruptive protesters like Just Stop Oil on their integrity – expert view

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Graeme Hayes, Reader in Political Sociology, Aston University

    The UK Court of Appeal recently ruled on an appeal brought by 16 environmental activists serving prison sentences for planning or participating in a series of disruptive non-violent protests.

    The cases include the five-year term being served by Roger Hallam, co-founder of Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil, and the terms of two years and 20 months handed down to Phoebe Plummer and Anna Holland respectively, for throwing soup over Van Gogh’s Sunflowers while the painting was on display at the National Gallery in London.

    Some news reports emphasised the reduction of sentences for some of the defendants (Hallam’s term was reduced to four years, for example), but the court’s decision upheld most of the sentences. There were only minor sentence reductions where the court found the initial sentences to be “manifestly excessive”, while the appeals of ten activists were dismissed outright.

    In Holland and Plummer’s case, the court rejected original trial judge Christopher Hehir’s insistence that throwing soup over a painting was violent (equivalent to assaulting a person, Hehir had argued). Yet the court still upheld the lengthy prison sentences Hehir handed down, maintaining that the soup action was “disproportionate or extreme”.

    The defendants’ motives for such disproportionate actions – to raise awareness about climate change and pressure the UK government to issue no new licences for the exploration and production of fossil fuels – were not considered relevant by either Hehir or the Court of Appeal.

    Does this amount to a fair and appropriate hearing? In an article published in the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, we suggest that the cases of non-violent disruptive protesters should be governed by what we call “the integrity principle”. This would spur a radical rethink of how the courts approach the trials of such protesters.

    Integrity in protest trials

    The trials of protesters are different from most criminal trials. Just as legal philosopher Anthony Duff once argued, we consider that the purpose of all criminal trials is to “call the defendant to account”. Duff tells us that we can be held responsible as citizens, to the community, for our moral wrongs. A criminal trial is not just about deciding “did they do it”, but also about communicating what, as a society, is considered right and wrong. For that to happen, a trial must engage defendants in a discussion as to why they did what they did.

    It is here where the trials of non-violent protesters should be different from “ordinary” criminal trials. There are two reasons. First, unlike in most criminal trials, defendants prosecuted for staging disruptive protest rarely dispute the facts of what they did. Instead, they seek to explain why they did it.

    Second, they do so because their action is not intended for personal gain, but to improve the life of the community. Political philosophy tends to maintain that disobedient and disruptive actions can be morally justified if they are motivated by an attempt to uphold the fundamental rights of, or avoid harms caused to, others, or highlight injustices and the failures of political processes.

    In other words, these activists are seeking to act as citizens, and give a public account of their action as justified and proportionate. In Duff’s reasoning, this sort of accountability must be central to a criminal trial. But this depends on the defendants’ ability to explain their motives to a jury, in ways that are consistent with their beliefs and values. In short, the trial should allow defendants to demonstrate to the jury they had acted with integrity.

    If the trial is a site of moral communication that engages the sense of right and wrong of the community – and, like Duff, we argue it should be – then protest defendants should be able to offer a legally relevant account of their actions, and the jury should be able to decide whether they accept this account.

    Yet, as we have previously written, the law in England and Wales has been reframed over the past five years to reduce the defences that activists are able to rely upon. What protest defendants can say in court is inconsistently policed by judges. But in all cases, even where defendants can explain their motivations, they cannot now do so as part of a legal defence. Instead, they must rely on juries deciding (in rare cases) with their conscience rather than legal direction. This breaches the integrity principle, because juries are not able to decide, in law, whether they accept the account of action that might otherwise be put to them by the defence.



    Read more:
    Just Stop Oil’s harsh sentences are the logical outcome of Britain’s authoritarian turn against protest

    If the jury does decide to convict, we argue that the integrity principle must also apply to sentencing. Where they are found guilty, it is illogical that activists should be expected to express remorse for their actions. This would be to disavow their motives, moral consistency and public accountability. Rather than remorse, their the integrity of their intentions and the honesty of their explanation of them should be regarded as a mitigating factor.

    Integrity and democracy

    Disruptive protest directs our attention to the failure of the democratic process to properly address pressing social problems. For the courts to punish those who attempt to highlight this failure only exacerbates it. Crucially, it denies both the moral purpose of criminal law and the social function of juries. Yet this is exactly what is happening right now in British courts.

    We can see in the Court of Appeal’s judgment how the courts are failing to follow the integrity principle. Not only did the court sideline the motivations of the defendants, holding that the harm caused was too serious to take them into account, but it also acted to endorse more severe and deterrent sentences.

    If we reorganise the trials of activists to place their integrity at the heart of the process, enabling them to give a legally meaningful account of their action, the law would finally recognise that disruptive protest is not an irritant outside of the democratic process, but is integral to it.

    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 40,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    Graeme Hayes receives funding from the British Academy/Leverhulme Trust for the project ‘Justifying Protest in the Courts: Voice, Democracy, and the Law’

    Steven Cammiss receives funding from the British Academy/Leverhulme Trust.

    – ref. Let juries judge disruptive protesters like Just Stop Oil on their integrity – expert view – https://theconversation.com/let-juries-judge-disruptive-protesters-like-just-stop-oil-on-their-integrity-expert-view-251949

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: A letter from Kim Honey, The Conversation Canada’s new editor-in-chief and CEO

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kim Honey, CEO|Editor-in-Chief, The Conversation Canada

    It is my privilege to join The Conversation Canada as CEO and editor-in-chief at a time when the world needs fact-based journalism more than ever.

    Kim Honey, CEO and Editor-in-Chief.
    CC BY

    I have been reading The Conversation Canada since it launched in 2017, and I’m a big believer in its mission to tap the breadth and depth of knowledge of the country’s academic brain trust to provide timely, relevant and informative news and analyses.

    The Conversation Canada‘s talented editors bring the journalistic flair to the academic rigour, and I’m excited to help them support academics and researchers in sharing their knowledge and informing public debate. As democracy faces unprecedented threats, The Conversation Canada will continue to counteract misinformation, promote free speech and inform public discourse.

    I look forward to contributing to the valuable and increasingly vital work of The Conversation Canada and La Conversation Canada by developing and strengthening our partnerships with member universities.

    All the best,

    Kim Honey

    CEO|Editor-in-Chief, The Conversation Canada

    – ref. A letter from Kim Honey, The Conversation Canada’s new editor-in-chief and CEO – https://theconversation.com/a-letter-from-kim-honey-the-conversation-canadas-new-editor-in-chief-and-ceo-252353

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why was it hard for the GOP to pass its spending bill?

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Charlie Hunt, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Boise State University

    U.S. Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was one of 10 Democrats who voted to break the filibuster on the GOP funding bill. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

    Facing a threat of imminent government shutdown, nine Democrats joined GOP Senate colleagues to defeat a filibuster, moving a six-month government funding bill to final passage in a late-day vote on March 14, 2025.

    Since January 2025, Republicans in Washington have enjoyed what’s commonly known as a governing “trifecta”: control over the executive branch via the president, combined with majorities for their party in both the House and the Senate.

    You might think that a trifecta, which is also referred to as “unified government” by political scientists, is a clear recipe for easy legislative success. In theory, when political parties have unified control over the House, the Senate and the presidency, there should be less conflict between them. Because these politicians are part of the same political party and have the same broad goals, it seems like they should be able to get their agenda approved, and the opposing minority party can do little to stop them.

    But not all trifectas are created equal, and not all are dominant. And several weaknesses in the Republicans’ trifecta made passing their six-month stopgap spending bill so difficult, and they help explain why the federal government came so close to shutting down completely.

    Research shows that political gridlock can still happen even under a unified government for reasons that have been on display ever since Republicans assumed leadership of Congress and the presidency in January.

    With a slim majority, will GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson, left, be able to pass Donald Trump’s priorities?
    Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    Majority size matters

    A unified government clearly makes President Donald Trump’s ability to enact his agenda much easier than if, for example, Democrats controlled the U.S. House, as they did during the second half of his first term, from 2021-2022. But tight margins in both congressional chambers have meant that, even with a trifecta, it hasn’t been an easy.

    Trump was the sixth consecutive president with a trifecta on Day 1 of his second term. But history – and simple math – show that presidents with trifectas have an easier time passing partisan legislation with bigger majorities. Bigger majorities mean majority-party defections won’t easily sink controversial or partisan legislation. A bigger majority also means that individual members of Congress from either party have less leverage to water down the president’s policy requests.

    Trump also held a trifecta during the beginning of his first term in office; in particular, a big Republican majority in the House, which passed major legislation with relative ease and put pressure on Senate colleagues to comply. Trump signed a major tax reform package in 2017 that was the signature legislative achievement of his first term.

    But Trump has a much smaller advantage this time.

    Every president since Bill Clinton has entered office with a trifecta, but Trump’s seat advantage in the House on Day 1 of his second term was the smallest of all of them. This slim House margin meant that Republicans could afford to lose only a handful of their party’s votes on their spending bill in order for it to pass over unanimous Democratic opposition.

    And Trump’s relatively small advantage in the Senate meant that Republicans needed at least eight Democratic votes to break a filibuster. Nine Democrats ultimately voted to advance the bill to final passage.

    Majority party troubles

    In addition to opposition from Democrats in Congress, Trump and other Republican leaders have continued to confront internal divisions within their own party.

    In a closely divided House or Senate, there are plenty of tools that Democrats, even as the minority party, can use to stymie Trump’s agenda. This most notably includes the filibuster, which would have forced Republicans to garner 60 votes for their short-term spending bill. A small proportion of Democrats ultimately bailed out Senate Republicans in this case; but any major defections within the GOP would have required even more Democratic support, which Republicans were unlikely to get.

    Even dominant legislative trifectas, again like the one former President Barack Obama enjoyed when he took office in 2009, can’t prevent divisions within political parties, as different politicians jockey for control of the party’s agenda.

    Despite entering office with a 17-vote advantage in the Senate, 11 more than Trump enjoys now, Obama’s signature legislative achievement – the Affordable Care Act, also sometimes known as Obamacare – had to be watered down significantly to win a simple majority after backlash from conservative Democrats.

    Obama’s trifecta was bigger in size; but in a polarized America, a large majority also means an ideologically diverse one.

    Just as Republican leaders did in the last Congress, Trump has faced similar pushback behind the scenes and in public from members of his own party in his second term. For the past two years, the Republican-led House has been repeatedly riven by leadership struggles and an often aimless legislative agenda, thanks to a lack of cooperation from the the party’s far-right flank.

    This group of ideologically driven lawmakers remains large enough to stall any party-line vote that Speaker Mike Johnson hopes to pass, and the spending bill very nearly fell victim to this kind of defection.

    Even though the GOP squeaked out a win on this spending bill, the potential for continued chaos is monumental, especially if Trump pursues more major reform to policy areas such as immigration.

    Competing pressures

    Despite Congress’ reputation as a polarized partisan body, members of Congress ultimately serve multiple masters. The lingering Republican divisions that made it so difficult to pass this resolution reflect the competing pressures of national party leaders in Washington and the local politics of each member’s district, which often cut against what party leaders want.

    For example, some Republicans represent heavily Republican districts and will be happy to go along with Trump’s agenda, regardless of how extreme it is. Others represent districts won by Kamala Harris in 2024 and might be more inclined to moderate their positions to keep their seats in 2026 and beyond. There admittedly aren’t many of this latter group; but likely enough to sink any party-line legislation Speaker Johnson has in mind.

    What’s next?

    Republicans managed to pass a hurried, stopgap spending bill on March 14, 2025 only by the skin of their teeth. Failing to do so would have driven the federal government into shutdown mode. Small margins, internal divisions and conflicting electoral pressures will continue to make legislating difficult over the next two years or more.

    Thanks to these complications, it may be that congressional Republicans will continue to rely on the executive branch, including Elon Musk and the efforts at the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to do the policymaking for them, even if it means handing over their own legislative power to Trump.

    This is an updated version of a story first published on Nov. 19, 2024.

    Charlie Hunt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Why was it hard for the GOP to pass its spending bill? – https://theconversation.com/why-was-it-hard-for-the-gop-to-pass-its-spending-bill-252257

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why was it hard for the GOP – which controls Congress – to pass its spending bill?

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Charlie Hunt, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Boise State University

    U.S. Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania was one of 10 Democrats who voted to break the filibuster on the GOP funding bill. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

    Facing a threat of imminent government shutdown, nine Democrats joined GOP Senate colleagues to defeat a filibuster, moving the six-month government funding bill to final passage in a late-day vote on March 14, 2025.

    Since January 2025, Republicans in Washington have enjoyed what’s commonly known as a governing “trifecta”: control over the executive branch via the president, combined with majorities for their party in both the House and the Senate.

    You might think that a trifecta, which is also referred to as “unified government” by political scientists, is a clear recipe for easy legislative success. In theory, when political parties have unified control over the House, the Senate and the presidency, there should be less conflict between them. Because these politicians are part of the same political party and have the same broad goals, it seems like they should be able to get their agenda approved, and the opposing minority party can do little to stop them.

    But not all trifectas are created equal, and not all are dominant. And several weaknesses in the Republicans’ trifecta made passing their six-month stopgap spending bill so difficult, and they help explain why the federal government came so close to shutting down completely.

    Research shows that political gridlock can still happen even under a unified government for reasons that have been on display ever since Republicans assumed leadership of Congress and the presidency in January.

    With a slim majority, will GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson, left, be able to pass Donald Trump’s priorities?
    Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    Majority size matters

    A unified government clearly makes President Donald Trump’s ability to enact his agenda much easier than if, for example, Democrats controlled the U.S. House, as they did during the second half of his first term, from 2021-2022. But tight margins in both congressional chambers have meant that, even with a trifecta, it hasn’t been an easy.

    Trump was the sixth consecutive president with a trifecta on Day 1 of his second term. But history – and simple math – show that presidents with trifectas have an easier time passing partisan legislation with bigger majorities. Bigger majorities mean majority-party defections won’t easily sink controversial or partisan legislation. A bigger majority also means that individual members of Congress from either party have less leverage to water down the president’s policy requests.

    Trump also held a trifecta during the beginning of his first term in office; in particular, a big Republican majority in the House, which passed major legislation with relative ease and put pressure on Senate colleagues to comply. Trump signed a major tax reform package in 2017 that was the signature legislative achievement of his first term.

    But Trump has a much smaller advantage this time.

    Every president since Bill Clinton has entered office with a trifecta, but Trump’s seat advantage in the House on Day 1 of his second term was the smallest of all of them. This slim House margin meant that Republicans could afford to lose only a handful of their party’s votes on their spending bill in order for it to pass over unanimous Democratic opposition.

    And Trump’s relatively small advantage in the Senate meant that Republicans needed at least eight Democratic votes to break a filibuster. Nine Democrats ultimately voted to advance the bill to final passage.

    Majority party troubles

    In addition to opposition from Democrats in Congress, Trump and other Republican leaders have continued to confront internal divisions within their own party.

    In a closely divided House or Senate, there are plenty of tools that Democrats, even as the minority party, can use to stymie Trump’s agenda. This most notably includes the filibuster, which would have forced Republicans to garner 60 votes for their short-term spending bill. A small proportion of Democrats ultimately bailed out Senate Republicans in this case; but any major defections within the GOP would have required even more Democratic support, which Republicans were unlikely to get.

    Even dominant legislative trifectas, again like the one former President Barack Obama enjoyed when he took office in 2009, can’t prevent divisions within political parties, as different politicians jockey for control of the party’s agenda.

    Despite entering office with a 17-vote advantage in the Senate, 11 more than Trump enjoys now, Obama’s signature legislative achievement – the Affordable Care Act, also sometimes known as Obamacare – had to be watered down significantly to win a simple majority after backlash from conservative Democrats.

    Obama’s trifecta was bigger in size; but in a polarized America, a large majority also means an ideologically diverse one.

    Just as Republican leaders did in the last Congress, Trump has faced similar pushback behind the scenes and in public from members of his own party in his second term. For the past two years, the Republican-led House has been repeatedly riven by leadership struggles and an often aimless legislative agenda, thanks to a lack of cooperation from the the party’s far-right flank.

    This group of ideologically driven lawmakers remains large enough to stall any party-line vote that Speaker Mike Johnson hopes to pass, and the spending bill very nearly fell victim to this kind of defection.

    Even though the GOP squeaked out a win on this spending bill, the potential for continued chaos is monumental, especially if Trump pursues more major reform to policy areas such as immigration.

    Competing pressures

    Despite Congress’ reputation as a polarized partisan body, members of Congress ultimately serve multiple masters. The lingering Republican divisions that made it so difficult to pass this resolution reflect the competing pressures of national party leaders in Washington and the local politics of each member’s district, which often cut against what party leaders want.

    For example, some Republicans represent heavily Republican districts and will be happy to go along with Trump’s agenda, regardless of how extreme it is. Others represent districts won by Kamala Harris in 2024 and might be more inclined to moderate their positions to keep their seats in 2026 and beyond. There admittedly aren’t many of this latter group; but likely enough to sink any party-line legislation Speaker Johnson has in mind.

    What’s next?

    Republicans managed to pass a hurried, stopgap spending bill on March 14, 2025 only by the skin of their teeth. Failing to do so would have driven the federal government into shutdown mode. Small margins, internal divisions and conflicting electoral pressures will continue to make legislating difficult over the next two years or more.

    Thanks to these complications, it may be that congressional Republicans will continue to rely on the executive branch, including Elon Musk and the efforts at the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, to do the policymaking for them, even if it means handing over their own legislative power to Trump.

    This is an updated version of a story first published on Nov. 19, 2024.

    Charlie Hunt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Why was it hard for the GOP – which controls Congress – to pass its spending bill? – https://theconversation.com/why-was-it-hard-for-the-gop-which-controls-congress-to-pass-its-spending-bill-252257

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –