Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Appiah Takyi, Senior Lecturer, Department of Planning, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST)
Street vending is a major economic activity in most of Ghana’s urban areas. The vendors bring everyday goods to residents and commuters at affordable prices in places convenient to them. However, the growing intensity of street vending activities in Ghanaian cities such as Accra and Kumasi is creating management problems for city authorities. Vendors are being removed as cities aim to “clean up” and modernise the urban landscape.
City authorities haven’t created ways to support street vendors. Instead, they treat them as a nuisance and use stringent regulations aimed at displacing them. This approach overlooks the potential benefits that the thriving street economy could bring to the local economy and social fabric. In contrast, for example, South Africa’s policy supports informal economic activities by providing vending spaces for street traders.
As academics who specialise in urban planning, we set out to investigate the rules around street vending in Ghana. Our study was conducted in Kumasi, the capital of the Ashanti region and the second most important city in Ghana. We found that the regulation of street vending in Ghana is unclear, contradictory and ineffective. It fails to provide a clear policy direction and adequate planning tools for integrating street vending into urban areas.
Our research reinforces the argument that the regulation of street vending is often ambiguous. We argue that these policy inconsistencies create loopholes for the hostile attitude of city authorities towards street vendors.
We call for policies that recognise the socioeconomic value of street vending and make urban spaces more inclusive.
The National Urban Policy recognises and promotes street vending as part of the urban economy. It calls for local government authorities to recognise and include the informal sector.
But the overarching law regulating street vending in Ghana is the Local Governance Act. It authorises local government bodies (city authorities) to pass by-laws that forbid street vending. This is in conflict with the national policy.
The gaps
Our study revealed that in the Kumasi Metropolitan Area, the authorities seem to want to help street vendors in some ways – to strengthen the capacity of informal economic actors. But they don’t make plans or take actions to do so in the medium term development plan. Local government authorities sometimes evict street vendors from the central business district.
In Kumasi, urban policy, regulations and local development planning do not include street vending in the urban development process even though vendors are the largest group of business people in the city. Instead of building stalls and facilities to accommodate these economic operators, the authorities rather expropriate urban space from them to develop modern structures which are expensive for street vendors to occupy.
There is conflict over the use of urban public spaces. City authorities view the activities of street vendors as illegal, while the vendors see them as legitimate sources of livelihood. Authorities control vending through eviction and relocation.
In recent years, city authorities have adopted urban infrastructural planning and development as a strategy to remove street vendors. Take the case of the new Kejetia Market Redevelopment Project, which replaced the largest traditional market in west Africa with a modern urban market structure in Kumasi. Over 10,000 street vendors and 4,000 market traders were displaced.
The neglect of street vending in the design means vendors will have to earn a living informally – which simply adds to the “problem” as the city sees it.
What next?
Policies and practices that try to exclude people are not a solution to the problems of street vending. They are often counter productive. Regulating street vending requires inclusive policy measures and a clear policy direction to manage these activities. At present, Ghana, like many other African countries, lacks effective planning strategies to manage the activities of street vending.
Our recommendations include:
coherent and inclusive policies that recognise the socioeconomic value of street vending and give vendors a rightful place in cities
reforming urban governance to support the informal economy
coherent and precise policies that give street vendors more security.
The current policy vacuum fuels repressive regulation and excludes street vendors from urban development processes.
To develop effective policy models, it is critical to learn from the experiences of street vendors and involve them in urban development processes. This starts with a change of attitude among city authorities.
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.
Despite the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision banning affirmative action in college admissions, and mounting pressure on corporations to eliminate their diversity, equity and inclusion programs, the top 50 Fortune 500 companies continued to diversify their boards in 2024.
As a social psychologist, I’ve been tracking diversity on Fortune-level boards of directors for decades. And as I reported in The Conversation last year, 2023 marked the first time that fewer than half of the directors of top 50 Fortune 500 companies were white men. At the same time, increasing numbers of white women and Black, Asian and Hispanic people of all genders held board seats.
Looking at data from mid-December 2024, I found that the top 50 companies’ boards continued to become more diverse. However, as political and legal challenges to DEI intensify, future trends remain unclear.
Back and forth on DEI
After the 2020 murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, many Fortune 1000 companies pledged to make new commitments to racial equity and implemented DEI programs to track and improve diversity. But in 2023 – presumably encouraged by the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision – anti-DEI activists ramped up the pressure on corporations to roll back these initiatives. In response, many big companies reduced or eliminatedtheir diversity commitments.
But the DEI backlash didn’t show up in the 2024 data on corporate board membership.
Diversity on boards increased dramatically from 2011 to 2023, and the trend generally continued into 2024, with the number of seats held by Hispanic and Black people and white women all rising despite a slight dip in the number of seats held by Asian people. As a result, the share of seats held by white men fell from 49.7% to 48.4%, while the share held by everyone else rose from 50.3% to 51.6%.
Examining the data on Black, Hispanic and Asian board members by gender reveals some intriguing differences, though some variations may be due to small sample sizes. For the top 50 companies, the number of seats held by Black women rose by five, while the number of seats held by Black men fell by two. In contrast, two more seats were held by Asian men in 2024 than in 2023, but the number of seats held by Asian women dropped by three. The number of seats held by Latinos and Latinas also increased, by four and two, respectively.
So why did board-level diversity increase despite the DEI backlash? It could be because boards of directors change slowly. Most of the top 50 boards on the Fortune 500 list make no changes in a given year, and those that do typically replace only one or two people. In some cases, boards expand by adding new members without removing old ones, which can be a quick and easy way to increase diversity. As a result, the number of seats on the top 50 boards increased from 574 in 2023 to 593 as of mid-December 2024.
There are other indications that these boards are becoming more diverse than they were in the not-so-distant past. In 2023, four companies either had an equal number of men and women on their boards or more women than men. In 2024, that number had increased to seven.
Increasingly diverse chief executives
The number of CEOs of the top 50 companies who weren’t white men also rose, from 14 to 15. For most of 2024 the number was 16, but in October the board at CVS asked Karen Lynch, a white woman, to step down, and replaced her with a white man. At the end of 2024, the top 50 Fortune companies included seven white women, three Asian men, three Latinos, one Black male, and one Latina as CEOs.
Moreover, 12 of the top 50 CEOs, or 24%, were born outside the U.S., an indication that the country’s corporate elite is becoming more globally diverse than in the past.
Just as many of the CEOs of the top Fortune 500 companies were born and raised in other countries, so, too, were many of the Black, Hispanic, Asian and white female directors. In fact, almost all of the Asian chief executives were born outside the U.S., as well as most of the Hispanic CEOS. If corporate boards continue to grow in diversity – or even stay at the same level – they’ll probably draw heavily on men and women born and educated outside the country’s borders.
The data shows a slight uptick in diversity for the boards of the top 50 companies on the Fortune 500 list from 2023 to 2024. But after his inauguration, Donald Trump immediately took on diversity efforts both in the federal government and the corporate world. As a print headline in The New York Times noted, “Trump’s Attack on DEI Stirs Fear at Corporations.”
The future of board diversity under Trump
In the weeks before Trump’s second inauguration, McDonald’s announced that it was retiring several leadership diversity goals, and Mark Zuckerberg announced that Meta was terminating its DEI programs. On his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order terminating all DEI programs across the federal government and requiring the government to look at private sector DEI initiatives. Not long afterward, Google announced that it, too, was retreating from its DEI initiatives, making it clear that it was doing so because of Trump’s executive orders.
But a few of the top 50 companies, including Costco, Apple, Microsoft and JP Morgan, took public stands claiming that they were planning to continue their DEI policies. Costco’s stance drew special attention because, as The New York Times put it, the board’s views were “particularly forceful.” Within a week or so, 19 Republican state attorneys general called on the company to end the policies.
There is concern that the attacks on DEI will decrease diversity in the pipeline that leads to the executive suites of American corporations, and that this in turn will lead to less diversity in boardrooms. As Fortune’s Lily Mae Lazarus put it in late January, “The precedent set by the Trump administration could undo decades of progress that have allowed women and people of color to rise to the C-suite and boardroom.”
Whether the many attacks on DEI – first from right-wing bloggers, then from the Supreme Court, and then from the president – will affect the makeup of Fortune-level boards in 2025 and beyond remains to be seen.
Richie Zweigenhaft 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.
Misinformation about scientific topics, including falsehoods such as vaccines cause autism and climate change being an entirely natural phenomenon, is an issue scientists have been discussing more and more. Widespread misinformation can lead to confusion about public health and environmental issues and can hinder those working to solve societal problems.
There are many approaches that can work to some extent: for example, counteracting erroneous information with statements about scientific topics based on quality research that convey that the majority of experts agree, and “inoculating” people by preparing them to spot the fallacies in misinformation before they are first exposed to it.
But one of the most important ways to counteract misinformation is less about the facts and more about how those facts move within social networks and communities. In other words, it’s not enough for science to be right – it has to be accepted within people’s social circles to have any meaningful impact.
Can facts change minds?
Most people tend to assume that their knowledge and ideas are based on a rational, objective analysis of information. And that’s sometimes the case – if it’s snowing outside, people don’t insist that it’s sunny and warm, no matter how much they might like it to be.
Similarly, if a person comes across some novel fact in the news, such as the discovery of a new type of plant in the Amazon, they might just absorb that information and go about their day.
But rationality and the ability to embrace new information goes out the window when it comes up against ideas that challenge one’s preexisting worldviews or social identities. Such information can feel like a personal attack, leading the body to release cortisol, a hormone associated with stress. So, certain facts can feel threatening or offensive.
Sometimes, people accept new information without much thought. But when new information challenges their existing beliefs, they may double down on their point of view.
Compounding what is happening in the brain is what’s happening in people’s communities. Humans are social animals who turn to others they trust to help them understand what’s what. People are attuned to what is considered normal or acceptable in their social environments, so if their social group holds a particular belief, they are more likely to adopt that belief too.
These cultural identities explain why, for example, research finds that science-skeptical behaviors, such as vaccine hesitancy and climate denialism, tend to cluster in social and geographical pockets. In these pockets, people’s skepticism is reinforced by others with similar beliefs in their social network. In such cases, providing more evidence on a certain topic won’t help, and it may even result in people digging in their heels deeper to deny the evidence.
So if facts don’t necessarily change minds, what will?
Leveraging community networks
Recent research provides a solution for scientists and agencies hoping to correct misinformation: Rather than fighting against humans’ social nature, work with it.
When people see trusted individuals within their social networks holding a certain belief, that belief becomes more credible and easier to adopt. Leveraging those community connections can allow new ideas to gain traction.
One great example of using social networks to fight misinformation is how polio was eradicated in India. In 2009, India was the polio epicenter of the world, home to half of the world’s cases. These cases were largely clustered in vaccine-hesitant regions of the country. But by 2011, only two years later, India had only one case, and the country formally celebrated the eradication of polio in 2014.
How did India go from having half of the world’s cases to just one case in under two years?
Public health agencies asked volunteers from within vaccine-resistant communities to go on a listening campaign and become ambassadors for the vaccine. The volunteers were trained in interpersonal communication skills and tasked with spending time with parents. They built trust and rapport through regular visits.
Because the volunteers were known within the communities, they were able to make headway where health workers from urban areas had not. As they established rapport, hesitant parents shared their concerns, which typically went beyond polio to include other health issues.
Over time, more and more parents decided to vaccinate their children, until there was a tipping point and vaccination became a social norm. Perhaps most notably, the campaign led to full routine immunization rates in some high-risk regions of the country.
A medical volunteer administers polio immunization drops to a child in India, years after the country’s last reported polio case. AP Photo/Rajesh Kumar Singh
India’s incredible success emphasizes the importance of personal interactions for changing minds, which means moving beyond simply presenting the facts. Building trust, listening to concerns and engaging with communities in a meaningful way were integral to India’s eradication of polio.
The power of conversations
Another example of using the power of social networks to talk about controversial science topics comes from a method called deep canvassing. Deep canvassing is a unique communication method that involves going door to door to have conversations with members of the public.
But unlike traditional canvassing, which often focuses on rallying existing supporters, deep canvassing deliberately seeks to engage with those who hold different viewpoints, focusing efforts in communities where the topic is controversial.
In deep canvassing, canvassers seek to have longer and more in-depth conversations, to share perspectives and relate with the residents they’re visiting. AP Photo/Greg Wahl-Stephens
Canvassers are trained to ask questions to better understand the other person’s experiences and perspectives on the issue, and then they share their own personal stories. This helps to create a human connection, where both parties feel heard and respected. This connection can help to reduce the negative emotions that may emerge when someone is challenged to rethink their beliefs.
One notable example of deep canvassing in action is the work of Neighbours United, an environmental nonprofit in Canada. They used a deep-canvassing approach to engage people in conversations about climate change.
They piloted the method in a rural, conservative community called Trail, home to one of the largest zinc and lead smelters in the world. Prior efforts to engage community members hadn’t had much of an effect, as taking action on climate change was largely seen as being in conflict with how many people made their living.
But the deep-canvassing method worked. Going door to door, the canvassers listened to residents’ concerns, shared their own stories about the impact of climate change and highlighted local environmental successes.
As a result, 1 in 3 residents shifted their views about the importance of taking action to address climate change. This broad community support led the City Council to vote to transition to 100% renewable energy by 2050.
Sociologist Anthony Giddens described interpersonal interactions between experts, such as doctors or scientists, and the public as access points. He argued that these points are vital for maintaining trust in governmental and scientific institutions, such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the Environmental Protection Agency.
These face-to-face interactions with experts can help people see them as kind, warm and professional, which can lead to trust.
These examples show that creating support for attitudes and behaviors based on science requires more than just presenting facts. It requires creating meaningful dialogue between skeptical groups and scientific messengers. It’s also a reminder that while social networks may serve to propagate misinformation, they can also be an important tool for addressing it.
Anne Toomey 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.
Teenagers are falling in love with chatbots. Young people are reporting epidemic levelsof loneliness, and some are turning to technology to fill the void. Recent tragedies provide a glimpse into the extent of this trend and the dangers it poses.
A 14-year-old boy’s suicide following a romantic relationship with an AI companion raised national alarms about the dangers these relationships may pose to young people’s mental and emotional development. In 2021, a 19-year-old who had been in an emotional relationship with an AI companion broke into Windsor Castle with a crossbow, saying that he was going to kill the queen. The chatbot gave encouraging responses when he told it of his intention to kill the queen.
These teens were among the tens of millions of people who use AI chatbot companions, a number that market forecasters expect to dramatically increase by the end of the decade.
This youthful trend of choosing chatbots as romantic partners is both responding to and accelerating fundamental changes in how people define love in the 21st century. As a literary historian, I’ve studied how stories about romantic love have evolved over time, with young people often at the forefront of change.
For centuries, weddings primarily served to consolidate political and economic alliances rather than unite soulmates. The radical notion that marriage should spring from romantic love came into vogue in the 17th and 18th centuries, aided by new technologies like the novel. Works such as “Clarissa” and “Wuthering Heights” portrayed the dire consequences of choosing status over love, while “Pride and Prejudice” taught its readers that rejection and misunderstanding were necessary steps in the process of finding true love.
Not surprisingly, the relatively new pastime of novel-reading was considered dangerous for young people. Concerned elders like the philanthropist Hannah More warned that stories would change how women would respond to romantic advances. Novels, she warned in 1799, “feed habits of improper indulgence, and nourish a vain and visionary indolence, which lays the mind open to error and the heart to seduction.”
In other words, reading stories of heart-pounding romance would make an impressionable young reader more likely to embrace such a passionate vision of love in their own lives.
Marketing sycophancy
Today, another transformation in the modern love story is unfolding, driven not by seductive authors or film directors, but in the advertisements and modifications offered by companion chat apps like Replika and Xioce.
As Shelly Palmer, a professor of advanced media and technology consultant, has argued, the human experience is about storytelling, and AI companions are a new type of storytelling tool. They are spinning a seductive tale of companions who agree with you endlessly and on demand. An AI partner is “always on your side,” promises an advertisement for Replika companions, “Always ready to listen and talk.”
In other words, the AI companion market has transformed what other applications might consider a bug – AI’s tendency toward sycophancy – into its most appealing feature.
Rather than the tempestuous rebellion found in romance novels or the gentle obstacles that heighten the pleasure of rom-coms, this new vision of love promises perfect compatibility and unwavering support. As one college student wrote, AI companions are “always responsive and supportive, in an almost omnipotent way.”
The 2013 science fiction movie ‘Her’ explored many aspects of human relationships with AIs that are playing out today.
Users across Reddit forums proudly proclaim their love for AI partners who are perpetually available, nonjudgmental and infinitely patient. A teenager asked on Reddit, “Can we fall in love with AI?” and raved that their companion Jarvis “had become my confidante, my sounding board and my emotional support.”
A contributor to another Reddit forum wrote, “I think I’m in Love with AI. “Imagine having a partner that is available just by opening an app, and they’re ready to talk to you about anything,” they wrote. “Imagine saying nearly anything and knowing that not only is your partner not going to judge you, but also will support you.” One 20-year-old male commenter wrote that he tells his AI girlfriend “about my struggles and trauma, and she comforts me and provides all the warmth I could ever ask for.”
Downsides and doing better
This new one-sided love story has considerable drawbacks, among them an addictiveintolerance for conflict or rejection – two essential components in a partner who has free will. The embrace of such relationships may be accelerating the trend of technology curating and ultimately diminishing romantic connections.
It’s worth noting that these beloved entities’ very existence hinges on the whims of corporate directives. If, as one user declares, the love they feel for their companion “keeps them alive,” then what happens when these chatbots disappear via software update, or corporate bankruptcy?
To get young people to turn away from this disembodied, market-driven vision of love, it’s important to expose them to other, more fulfilling love stories, and for adults to lead by example. Literature, philosophy and history all provide powerful insights into the many forms love has taken throughout human experience, and they offer the vocabulary needed to imagine new possibilities.
As I’ve written, both the subject and the methods of humanities classes cultivate the social skills required to navigate the challenges of human connection. These classes create a space for young people to discuss these ideas – whether through analyzing Romeo and Juliet’s tragic passion or debating whether Heathcliff is a romantic hero or a cautionary tale. The humanities provide the tools young people need to develop richer concepts of love.
On reflection
The rise of AI companions is often portrayed as a horror story about the dangers posed by mysteriously powerful technology. Perhaps. But this romantic trend is also a mirror reflecting what people collectively value and desire in relationships.
I believe that it’s important to recognize that consumers are driving this market. People are helping to write this story, as they buy what AI companions sell. Investment management firm Ark Investment estimates the market for AI companions is likely to reach between US$70 billion and $150 billion in revenue by the end of the decade. If the explosive growth of the AI companion market is any indication, this romantic challenge isn’t confined to teenagers – many people who are older and supposedly wiser are drawn to the promise of unconditional compliance.
The question to ask, then, is not simply how to protect children from AI’s seductive influence, but how much you are willing to invest, emotionally and culturally, in the messy, challenging and profoundly human art of love.
Anna Mae Duane 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.
Biomedical research in the U.S. is world-class in part because of a long-standing partnership between universities and the federal government.
On Feb. 7, 2025, the U.S. National Institutes of Health issued a policy that could weaken the position of the United States as a global leader in scientific innovation by slashing funds to the infrastructure that allows universities and other institutions to conduct research in the first place.
Universities across the nation carry out research on behalf of the federal government. Central to this partnership is federal grant funding, which is awarded through a rigorous review process. These grants are the lifeblood of biomedical research in the U.S.
When you think of the costs of scientific research, you might picture the people who conduct the research, and the materials and lab equipment they use. But these don’t encompass all the essential components of research. Every scientific and medical breakthrough also depends on laboratory facilities; heating, air conditioning, ventilation and electricity; and personnel to ensure research is conducted securely and in accordance with federal regulations.
These critical indirect costs of research are both substantial and unavoidable, not least because it can be very expensive to build, maintain and equip space to conduct research at the frontiers of knowledge. The NIH stated that it spent more than US$35 billion on grants in the 2023 fiscal year, which went to more than 300,000 researchers at more than 2,500 universities, medical schools and other kinds of research institutions across the nation. Approximately $9 billion of this funding was allocated to indirect costs.
NIH grants have supported the direct costs of my own scientific research on developing treatments for conditions ranging from cancer to eye diseases. I would be unable to carry out my research without the support of the indirect costs the NIH plans to cut.
What are indirect costs?
Indirect costs, also known as facilities and administration costs, or overhead, are funds provided to institutions to cover expenses that are not directly tied to specific research projects but are essential for their execution. Unlike direct costs, which cover salaries, supplies and experiments, indirect costs support the overall research environment, ensuring that scientists have the necessary resources to conduct their work effectively.
Indirect costs include maintaining optimal laboratory spaces, specialized facilities providing services like imaging and gene analysis, high-speed computing, research security, patient and personnel safety, hazardous waste disposal, utilities, equipment maintenance, administrative support, regulatory compliance, information technology services, and maintenance staff to clean and supply labs and facilities.
Academic institutions conduct research on behalf of the federal government.
Research institutions that receive federal grants must comply with the rules and regulations established by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. These guidelines dictate the indirect cost rates of each institution.
Institutions submit proposals to federal agencies that outline the costs associated with maintaining research infrastructure. The cost allocation division of the Department of Health and Human Services reviews these proposals to ensure compliance with federal policies.
Indirect rates can range from 15% to 70%, with the specific level depending on the research and infrastructure needs of an institution.
Typically, institutions undergo an exacting process to renegotiate their indirect rates every four years, factoring in components such as general, departmental and program administration, building and equipment depreciation, interest, operations and maintenance, and library expenses. Universities need to carefully justify these cost components to ensure the sustainability of research infrastructure and compliance with federal requirements.
Notably, indirect costs from grants do not cover the full cost of carrying out research at universities. In 2023, colleges and universities contributed approximately $27 billion of their own funding, such as money from their endowments, to support research. This included $6.8 billion in indirect costs that the federal government did not reimburse.
Slashing vital research funding
In its February announcement, the National Institutes of Health declared that it would no longer determine indirect costs rates based on the needs of each institution. Instead, it would issue a standard indirect cost rate of 15% across all grants. The rationale given by the agency for the cap is to “ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead.”
It notably comes after the Trump administration and Elon Musk have sought to slash federal spending, with Musk criticizing indirect cost rates as “a ripoff.”
A standard 15% rate would significantly affect an institution’s ability to maintain its research infrastructure. For example, if a university had a 50% indirect cost rate in 2024, it would receive $150,000 for a $100,000 grant, with $50,000 allocated to indirect costs. With the new NIH cap, this would drop to $115,000, with only $15,000 for indirect costs.
The scale of this cut in research support becomes apparent at the state level, with harms to both red and blue states. For example, Texas institutions would face a reduction of over $310 million, and institutions in Iowa a reduction of nearly $37 million. California would lose more than $800 million, and Washington over $178 million.
The NIH compared the new 15% cap to the indirect cost rates that foundations typically set for institutions of higher education. It pointed to the 10% rate granted by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Smith Richardson Foundation, the 12% rate of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and the 15% rate of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, John Templeton Foundation, Packard Foundation, and Rockefeller Foundation.
However, many researchers and funders have criticized this claim as misleading. A spokesperson for the Gates Foundation has previously stated that the listed rate does not reflect how the organization allocates its funds. Universities have pointed out that they often accept foundation grants with low or zero overhead rates because these grants constitute a relatively small portion of their funding and are often spent on early-stage faculty whose careers need additional support.
In addition, it is only because NIH grants cover a significant portion of their overhead costs that research institutions are able to accept foundation grants with such low indirect rates.
Biomedical researchers respond
Scientists and researchers responded to the NIH announcement with deep concern about the negative effects these funding cuts would have on biomedical research in the United States.
The Council on Governmental Relations, which monitors federal policy for major universities and medical research centers, stated that “America’s competitors will relish this self-inflicted wound,” urging the NIH to “rescind this dangerous policy before its harms are felt by Americans.”
The president and CEO of the Association of American Medical Colleges stated that the NIH policy would “diminish the nation’s research capacity, slowing scientific progress and depriving patients, families, and communities across the country of new treatments, diagnostics and preventative interventions.”
Scientists expect the long-term effects of these funding cuts to significantly damage U.S. biomedical research. As the debate over federal support to academic research institutions unfolds, how institutions adapt and whether the NIH reconsiders its approach will determine the future of scientific research in the United States.
Aliasger K. Salem receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. He serves on the Executive Board of the American Association for Pharmaceutical Scientists.
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Danny Bradlow, Professor/Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria
US president Donald Trump’s recent actions seem designed to reassert American power and demonstrate that it is still the dominant global power and is capable of bullying weaker nations into following America’s lead.
These actions demand a response from the rest of the international community that mitigates the risk to the well-being of people and planet and the effective management of global affairs.
My research on global economic governance suggests that history can offer some guidance on how to shape an effective response.
Such a response should be based on a realistic assessment of the configuration of global forces. It should seek to build tactical coalitions between state and non-state actors in both the global south and the global north who can agree on clear and limited objectives.
The following three historical lessons help explain this point.
Cautionary lessons
The first lesson is about the dangers of being overoptimistic in assessing the potential for change.
The US was also losing confidence in its ability to sustain the international monetary order it had established at the Bretton Woods conference in 1944.
In addition, the countries of the global south were calling for a new international economic order that was more responsive to their needs. Given the concerns about the political and economic situation in the US and the relative strength of the Soviet bloc at the time, this seemed a realistic demand.
In August 1971, President Richard Nixon, without any international consultations, launched what became known as the Nixon Shock. He broke the link between gold and the US dollar, thereby ending the international monetary system established in 1944. He also imposed a 10% surcharge on all imports into the US.
When America’s European allies protested and sought to create a reformed version of the old monetary order, US treasury secretary John Connolly informed them that the dollar was
Over the course of the 1970s, US allies in western Europe, Asia and all countries that participated in the old Bretton Woods system were forced to accept what the US preferred: a market-based international monetary system in which the US dollar became the dominant currency.
The US, along with its allies in the global north, also defeated the calls for a new international economic order and imposed their neo-liberal economic order on the world.
The second cautionary lesson highlights the importance of building robust tactical coalitions. In 1969, the International Monetary Fund member states agreed to authorise the IMF to create special drawing rights, the IMF’s unique reserve asset. At the time, many IMF developing country member states advocated establishing a link between development and the special drawing rights. This would enable those countries most in need of additional resources to access more than their proportionate share of special drawing rights to fund their development.
All developing countries supported this demand. But they couldn’t agree on how to do it. The rich countries were able to exploit these differences and defeat the proposed link between the special drawing rights and development. As a result, the special drawing rights are now distributed to all IMF member states according to their quotas in the IMF. This means that most allocations go to the rich countries who do not need them and have no obligation to share them with developing countries.
A third lesson arises from the successful Jubilee 2000 campaign to forgive the debts of low-income developing countries experiencing debt crises. This campaign, supported by a secretariat in the United Kingdom, eventually involved:
civil society organisations and activists in 40 countries
a petition signed by 21 million people
governments in both creditor and debtor countries.
These efforts resulted in the cancellation of the debts of 35 developing countries. These debts, totalling about US$100 billion, were owed primarily to bilateral and multilateral official creditors.
They were also a demonstration of the political power that can be generated by the combined actions of civil society organisations and governments in both rich and poor countries. They can force the most powerful and wealthy institutions and individuals in the world to accept actions that, while requiring them to make affordable sacrifices, benefit low-income countries and potentially poor communities within those states.
What conclusions should be drawn?
We shouldn’t under-estimate the power of the US or the determination of the MAGA movement to use that power. However, their power is not absolute. It is constrained by the relative decline in US power as countries such as China and India gain economic and political strength. In addition, there are now mechanisms for international cooperation, such as the G20, where states can coordinate their actions and gain tactical victories that are meaningful to people and planet.
But gaining such victories will require the following:
Firstly, the formation of tactical coalitions that include states from both the global south and the global north. If these states cooperate around limited and shared objectives they can counter the vested interests around the world that support Trump’s objectives.
Secondly, a special kind of public-private partnership in which states and non-state actors set aside their differences and agree to cooperate to achieve limited shared objectives. Neither states alone nor civil society groups alone were able to defeat the vested interests that opposed debt relief in the late 1990s. Working together they were able to defeat powerful creditor interests and gain debt relief for the poorest states.
Thirdly, this special partnership will only be possible if there’s general agreement on both the diagnosis of the problem and on the general contours of the solution. This was the case with the debt issue in the 1990s.
There are good candidates for such collaborative actions. For example, many states and non-state actors agree that international financial institutions need to be reformed and made more responsive to the needs of those member states that actually use their services but lack voice and vote in their governance. The institutions also need to be more accountable to those affected by their policies and practices. They also agree that large corporations and financial institutions should pay their fair share of taxes and should be environmentally and socially responsible.
The urgency of the challenges facing the global community demands that the world begin countering Trump as soon as possible. South Africa as the current chair of the G20 has a special responsibility to ensure that this year the G20, together with its engagement groups, acts creatively and responsibly in relation to people and planet.
Danny Bradlow, in addition to his position at the University of Pretoria, is an advisor to the South African Institute of International Affairs on G20 issues and is a co-chair of the T20 Taskforce on the Financing of Sustainable Development.
Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Stephen Appiah Takyi, Senior Lecturer, Department of Planning, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST)
Street vending is a major economic activity in most of Ghana’s urban areas. The vendors bring everyday goods to residents and commuters at affordable prices in places convenient to them. However, the growing intensity of street vending activities in Ghanaian cities such as Accra and Kumasi is creating management problems for city authorities. Vendors are being removed as cities aim to “clean up” and modernise the urban landscape.
City authorities haven’t created ways to support street vendors. Instead, they treat them as a nuisance and use stringent regulations aimed at displacing them. This approach overlooks the potential benefits that the thriving street economy could bring to the local economy and social fabric. In contrast, for example, South Africa’s policy supports informal economic activities by providing vending spaces for street traders.
As academics who specialise in urban planning, we set out to investigate the rules around street vending in Ghana. Our study was conducted in Kumasi, the capital of the Ashanti region and the second most important city in Ghana. We found that the regulation of street vending in Ghana is unclear, contradictory and ineffective. It fails to provide a clear policy direction and adequate planning tools for integrating street vending into urban areas.
Our research reinforces the argument that the regulation of street vending is often ambiguous. We argue that these policy inconsistencies create loopholes for the hostile attitude of city authorities towards street vendors.
We call for policies that recognise the socioeconomic value of street vending and make urban spaces more inclusive.
The National Urban Policy recognises and promotes street vending as part of the urban economy. It calls for local government authorities to recognise and include the informal sector.
But the overarching law regulating street vending in Ghana is the Local Governance Act. It authorises local government bodies (city authorities) to pass by-laws that forbid street vending. This is in conflict with the national policy.
The gaps
Our study revealed that in the Kumasi Metropolitan Area, the authorities seem to want to help street vendors in some ways – to strengthen the capacity of informal economic actors. But they don’t make plans or take actions to do so in the medium term development plan. Local government authorities sometimes evict street vendors from the central business district.
In Kumasi, urban policy, regulations and local development planning do not include street vending in the urban development process even though vendors are the largest group of business people in the city. Instead of building stalls and facilities to accommodate these economic operators, the authorities rather expropriate urban space from them to develop modern structures which are expensive for street vendors to occupy.
There is conflict over the use of urban public spaces. City authorities view the activities of street vendors as illegal, while the vendors see them as legitimate sources of livelihood. Authorities control vending through eviction and relocation.
In recent years, city authorities have adopted urban infrastructural planning and development as a strategy to remove street vendors. Take the case of the new Kejetia Market Redevelopment Project, which replaced the largest traditional market in west Africa with a modern urban market structure in Kumasi. Over 10,000 street vendors and 4,000 market traders were displaced.
The neglect of street vending in the design means vendors will have to earn a living informally – which simply adds to the “problem” as the city sees it.
What next?
Policies and practices that try to exclude people are not a solution to the problems of street vending. They are often counter productive. Regulating street vending requires inclusive policy measures and a clear policy direction to manage these activities. At present, Ghana, like many other African countries, lacks effective planning strategies to manage the activities of street vending.
Our recommendations include:
coherent and inclusive policies that recognise the socioeconomic value of street vending and give vendors a rightful place in cities
reforming urban governance to support the informal economy
coherent and precise policies that give street vendors more security.
The current policy vacuum fuels repressive regulation and excludes street vendors from urban development processes.
To develop effective policy models, it is critical to learn from the experiences of street vendors and involve them in urban development processes. This starts with a change of attitude among city authorities.
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.
Coal fired power stations produce 85% of South Africa’s electricity, making the country the biggest producer of harmful greenhouse-gas emissions in Africa. To move away from coal and meet its commitment to reaching net zero emissions by 2050, South Africa needs to dramatically increase production of renewable energy. New research by economics associate professor Andrew Phiri looked at the relationship between renewable and non-renewable energy consumption and GDP growth in South Africa to find out which energy source is most compatible with economic development.
Non-renewables, renewables and economic growth: what’s there to know?
We set out to discover whether renewable energy in South Africa, such as wind or solar power, supports sustainable economic growth. We also wanted to find out if renewables can replace non-renewable energy as a source and enabler of economic growth.
Together with student Tsepiso Sesoai, I did research comparing the impact of renewable and non-renewable energy on economic growth in South Africa.
South Africa currently faces a dual challenge when it comes to energy. It is heavily dependent on non-renewable energy (coal), which also worsens global warming and speeds up climate change. But it desperately needs to grow the economy at a faster rate, given very high unemployment, poverty and inequality.
It’s therefore important to find out whether South Africa would be able to make a smooth transition from non-renewable energy to cleaner energy, and grow the economy at the same time.
Past studies have looked into the role of energy in South Africa’s economic growth, but their methods have provided only limited information about whether South Africa can make a smooth transition from dirty to clean energy.
To get a deeper understanding, we conducted a modelling exercise. We used an analytical tool called “continuous complex wavelets” to see how renewable and non-renewable energy influences growth over time.
Our model shows that an increased supply and higher consumption of non-renewable energy causes long-term economic growth over 10-15 year cycles. Renewables, at best, have short-term growth effects over six months to one year.
After 2000, there was a very sharp increase of almost 25% in the use of renewable energy throughout the decade. According to our model, this sharp increase was enough to have an impact on economic growth over the short term but not over the long term.
This is because South African energy regulators have not adopted strong enough measures for renewable energy to enable long-term growth. They have not funded the mass rollout of renewable energy, or connected renewables to the national grid. We found that renewables can only sustain growth over six to 12 month cycles whereas policymakers work towards longer cycles such as the 2030 and 2050 sustainable development goals.
Economic growth and coal consumption: what did you find?
In 2003, the government started taking climate change seriously with the release of the White Paper on Renewable Energy. The government started intentionally trying to increase the use of renewable energy while decreasing the use of dirty energy, such as coal. Before this, South Africa’s economic growth was heavily driven by coal consumption.
The transition to renewable energy had begun. But coal-fired power, while declining, remained the main source of electricity.
In 2019 carbon taxes were formally introduced. This resulted in a further slowdown in consumption of non-renewable energy. The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021 coincided with severe power cuts. These two events combined caused a general slowdown in non-renewable and renewable energy use, and in economic growth.
At this point, the drop in coal consumption was actively dragging down the economy. This in turn reduced society’s income, as measured by the gross national product. And because incomes were constrained, fewer private households purchased renewable energy systems. People didn’t spend on solar panels.
What do your findings mean?
Our research suggests that relying on non-renewable energy, like coal, won’t lead to long-term growth for South Africa. This is because non-renewables are not a reliable source of energy, as shown by loadshedding.
Our research further suggests that renewable energy policies, subsidies and programmes made some positive short-term impacts on economic growth, measured as gross domestic product.
Overall, our findings highlight that policymakers have treated renewables as a “nice-to-have” gesture for humanity, instead of a key driver of long-term economic growth.
This has led to weak policies, poor regulation, and under-investment in renewable energy. These have held the sector back from making a bigger contribution to economic growth.
For example, the government has not taken renewables seriously enough to include them in the power grid. This has largely limited the use of renewable energy to private homes and businesses. Coal-fired electricity from the country’s power utility, Eskom, is still cheaper for households than leaving the grid and purchasing their own renewable energy infrastructure (solar energy systems). The government has not funded the infrastructure needed to unlock South Africa’s vast renewable energy potential.
The planet is at a critical state with global warming. The government should urgently set up policies and actions to overcome the barriers to using renewable energy. Only then will renewable energy have a permanent, positive influence on economic growth.
South Africa has huge potential in renewables like solar, wind and biomass, thanks to its diverse geography. Yet, when people think about moving away from coal, they worry about job losses in the coal industry. But historically, energy transitions have never been instant. African countries that embraced the change early on reaped the benefits. They became more industrialised and prosperous.
The South African government must act now if it wants to use renewable energy to drive future economic growth and stay ahead in the global shift to clean energy. Climate change affects us deeply. But it also presents a chance for Africa to leap ahead technologically.
Andrew Phiri 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.
What causes debris flows, sometimes called mudflows, and why are they so common and dangerous after a fire? I am a geologist whose research focuses on pyrogeomorphology, which is how fire affects the land. Here’s what we know.
How debris flows begin
When severe fires burn hillslopes, the high heat from the fires, sometimes exceeding 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit (538 degrees Celsius), completely destroys trees, shrubs, grass and structures, leaving behind a moonscape of gray ash. Not only that, the heat of the fire actually burns and damages the soil, creating a water-repellent, or hydrophobic, layer.
What once was a vegetated hillslope, with leaves and trees to intercept rain and spongy soils to absorb water, is transformed into a barren landscape covered with ash, and burned soil where water cannot soak in.
When rain does fall on a burned area like this, water mixes with the ash, rocks and sediment to form a slurry. This slurry of debris then pours downhill in small gullies called rills, which then converge to form bigger and bigger rills, creating a torrent of sediment, water and debris rushing downhill. All this debris and water can transform small streams and usually dry gullies into a danger zone.
Because the concentration of sediment is so high, especially when there is a large amount of ash and clay, debris flows behave more like a slurry of wet cement than a normal stream. This fluid can pick up and move large boulders, cars, trees and other debris rapidly downhill.
In January 2018, a few weeks after the Thomas fire burned through the hills above Montecito, a storm triggered debris flows that killed 23 people and damaged at least 400 homes.
Fire and debris flow scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey use these variables to create models to predict the likelihood and possible hazards from postfire debris flows. They are already developing maps to help residents, emergency managers and city officials prepare and predict postfire debris flows in 2025 burn areas in Los Angeles.
The U.S. Geological Survey modeled debris flow risks after the Palisades Fire near Los Angeles. The map shows some of the highest-risk areas if hit by 15 minutes of rain falling at just under 1 inch (24 millimeters) per hour. USGS
Some of the triggers of debris flows are literally part of the landscape.
For example, the slope angle in a watershed and the amount of clay in the soil are important. Watersheds with gentle slopes – generally less than about 23 degrees – and a lack of clay and silt-sized particles are unlikely to produce debris flows.
Other key factors that contribute to postfire debris flows relate to the proportion of the watershed that is severely burned and the intensity and duration of the rainstorm event.
Early important research in the field of pyrogeomorphology demonstrated that while large, intense storms are more likely to cause large, intense debris flows, even small rainstorms can produce debris flows in burned areas.
Debris flows are becoming more common
A whopping 21.8 million Americans live within 3 miles of where a fire burned during the past two decades, and that population more than doubled from 2000 to 2019. A recent study from central and northern California indicates that nearly all the observed increases in area burned by wildfires in recent decades are due to human-caused climate change.
The warming climate is also increasing the likelihood of more extreme downpours. The amount of moisture the atmosphere can hold increases by about 7% per degree Celsius of warming, leading to more intense downpours, particularly from ocean storms. In California, scientists project increases in rainfall intensity of 18% will result in an overall 110% increase in the probability of major debris flows.
Jon Frye, of Santa Barbara Public Works, shows what happened in the January 2018 Montecito debris flow and why the risks to downslope communities would continue for several years. Source: County of Santa Barbara, 2018.
Studies using models of fire, climate and erosion rates estimate that the amount of sediment flowing downhill after fires will increase by more than 10% in nine out of every 10 watersheds in the western U.S.
Even without rain, debris on fire-damaged slopes can be unstable. A small slide in Pacific Palisades shortly after a fire burned through the area split a home in two. A phenomenon called “dry ravel” is a dominant form of hillslope erosion following wildfires in chaparral environments in Southern California
Preparing for debris flow risks
Research on charcoal pieces from ancient debris flows has shown fires and erosion have shaped Earth’s landscape for at least thousands of years. However, the rising risk of wildfires near populated areas and the potential for increasingly intense downpours mean a greater risk of damaging and potentially deadly debris flows.
As their populations expand, community planners need to be aware of those risks and prepare.
This article, originally published Jan. 23, 2025, has been updated with a flash flood watch issued.
Jen Pierce receives funding from the National Science Foundation and is the chair of the Quaternary Geology and Geomorphology division of the Geological Society of America.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nils Mallock, PhD Candidate, Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, London School of Economics and Political Science
As the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas enters its fourth week, attention is now focusing on its more difficult second phase. And already the prospects of this proceeding as originally planned are looking extremely fragile.
Hamas said it will delay the release of more Israeli hostages, arguing that Israel has breached the ceasefire conditions. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has responded with the threat that if the hostage exchange doesn’t take place as scheduled then the fighting in Gaza would start again.
Any agreement can only hold if it is supported by ordinary people, and if it reflects their perspectives – something easily overlooked in the public debate and foreign policy engagement.
We conducted large representative surveys in Israel and Gaza in early January, days before the ceasefire was announced. This consisted of interview with over 1,400 respondents in a demographically matched online panel of the Jewish Israeli population, and as part of an in-person survey in Gaza. Respondents were matched by age, occupation, gender, education and religious group.
Our findings have not been peer reviewed yet, but a preliminary report is available at the Open Science Foundation repository.
Our data shows why 16 months of extreme violence and suffering have created psychological barriers to peace. They also suggest ways to achieve a more positive future.
The immediate findings are sobering. In Israel, opposition to a two-state solution remains at an all-time high, with 62% of participants rejecting the idea – up from 46% before October 7.
Nearly half of Israelis we spoke to were against living side by side, and one in five dismissed even the possibility of personal contact with Palestinians.
In Gaza, the prospects of living side by side with Israelis are equally deemed unrealistic. Less than 31% of respondents supported any interpersonal contact. And less than half saw the formation of two states as an option to end the conflict.
Contrary to one popular belief, direct exposure to the war does not by itself explain these increased hostilities. The attacks by Hamas on and since October 7 have left profound scars and reopened historical trauma for many, as have Israel’s relentless military attacks throughout Gaza.
But according to our data, having immediate family members affected by the war or experiencing displacement was not associated with more extreme attitudes. For all the aggression taking place so far, the psychological blast radius is bigger than the physical one.
Love and hate
The key roadblock to peace may lie in each side’s understanding of why the other engages in violence. We asked Israelis and Palestinians why people from their group supported violence during the war, and why people from the other side supported violence. We found a profound asymmetry in both populations.
Palestinians and Israelis said that attacks from their side were more motivated by what psychologists call “ingroup love” (care and concern for their own people) than by “outgroup hate” (passionate dislike of the other side). Yet both Israelis and Palestinians thought that the other side’s violence was more motivated by hatred.
Why is this important? Social psychological studies demonstrate that the belief that we are hated by another group decreases our desire and optimism for diplomatic solutions, instead leading to an inclination to either separate from or destroy the other. Indeed, surveys conducted in September 2024 by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that most Israelis and Palestinians believed that the other side intended to commit genocide.
Our data now shows that the more Israelis believed that Gazans were more motivated by outgroup hate than ingroup love, the more likely they were to believe that the October 7 attacks indicated genocidal intent.
On both sides, it was this belief that the other was motivated by hate that explains the strengthened desire for social separation and blocking acceptance of reconciliation proposals. Nobody wants to interact with a group they think is predominantly hate driven.
This is bad news for those attempting to implement and expand the ceasefire against these challenges. Perceived outgroup hate weakens their ability to recruit popular support for peace and strengthens the hand of spoilers.
Bridging the divides
Not all indicators are worsening, however. Snapshots of public opinion do not capture the way views can change. Compared to six months ago, more Israelis now favour diplomatic efforts over continued military action to resolve the crisis. And if the new hostage release deal holds firm, this trend may continue.
Our research suggests that there is a hardened radical group making up about 20% in both populations who appear to resist any compromise on their moral and political beliefs. But most populations show fluctuating attitudes over time and in response to changing conditions. As violence becomes less salient, views may shift.
Nevertheless, we should not ignore each side’s misperception of the motives of the other, but instead try to correct them. Research shows that correcting misperceptions of norms can be difficult, but when successful can change attitudes and behaviour.
The risk now lies in a too narrow focus among current decision-makers – a delegitimised and fragmented Palestinian leadership, an infighting Israeli government, and a transaction-minded administration in Washington – seeking to secure political deals that deliver results on paper.
For the ceasefire to endure, the policy focus will need to shift to bridging a deeper psychological divide.
Jeremy Ginges receives funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation.
Nils Mallock 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.
The United States shares the pathologies of all dying empires with their mixture of buffoonery, rampant corruption, military fiascos, economic collapse and savage state repression.
ANALYSIS: By Chris Hedges
The billionaires, Christian fascists, grifters, psychopaths, imbeciles, narcissists and deviants who have seized control of Congress, the White House and the courts, are cannibalising the machinery of state. These self-inflicted wounds, characteristic of all late empires, will cripple and destroy the tentacles of power. And then, like a house of cards, the empire will collapse.
Blinded by hubris, unable to fathom the empire’s diminishing power, the mandarins in the Trump administration have retreated into a fantasy world where hard and unpleasant facts no longer intrude. They sputter incoherent absurdities while they usurp the Constitution and replace diplomacy, multilateralism and politics with threats and loyalty oaths.
Agencies and departments, created and funded by acts of Congress, are going up in smoke.
The rulers of all late empires, including the Roman emperors Caligula and Nero or Charles I, the last Habsburg ruler, are as incoherent as the Mad Hatter, uttering nonsensical remarks, posing unanswerable riddles and reciting word salads of inanities. They, like Donald Trump, are a reflection of the moral, intellectual and physical rot that plague a diseased society. Cartoon: Mr Fish/The Chris Hedges Report
They are removing government reports and data on climate change and withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement,. They are pulling out of the World Health Organisation.
They are sanctioning officials who work at the International Criminal Court — which issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant over war crimes in Gaza.
They suggested Canada become the 51st state. They have formed a task force to “eradicate anti-Christian bias.” They call for the annexation of Greenland and the seizure of the Panama Canal.
They propose the construction of luxury resorts on the coast of a depopulated Gaza under US control which, if it takes place, would bring down the Arab regimes propped up by the US.
Uttering nonsensical remarks The rulers of all late empires, including the Roman emperors Caligula and Nero or Charles I, the last Habsburg ruler, are as incoherent as the Mad Hatter, uttering nonsensical remarks, posing unanswerable riddles and reciting word salads of inanities. They, like Donald Trump, are a reflection of the moral, intellectual and physical rot that plague a diseased society.
These Christian fascists, who define the core ideology of the Trump administration, are unapologetic about their hatred for pluralistic, secular democracies. They seek, as they exhaustively detail in numerous “Christian” books and documents such as the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, to deform the judiciary and legislative branches of government, along with the media and academia, into appendages to a “Christianised” state led by a divinely anointed leader.
They openly admire Nazi apologists such as Rousas John Rushdoony, a supporter of eugenics who argues that education and social welfare should be handed over to the churches and Biblical law must replace the secular legal code, and Nazi party theorists such as Carl Schmitt.
They are avowed racists, misogynists and homophobes. They embrace bizarre conspiracy theories from the white replacement theory to a shadowy monster they call “the woke.” Suffice it to say, they are not grounded in a reality based universe.
Christian fascists come out of a theocratic sect called Dominionism. This sect teaches that American Christians have been mandated to make America a Christian state and an agent of God. Political and intellectual opponents of this militant Biblicalism are condemned as agents of Satan.
“Under Christian dominion, America will no longer be a sinful and fallen nation but one in which the 10 Commandments form the basis of our legal system, creationism and ‘Christian values’ form the basis of our educational system, and the media and the government proclaim the Good News to one and all,” I noted in my book.
“Labour unions, civil-rights laws and public schools will be abolished. Women will be removed from the workforce to stay at home, and all those deemed insufficiently Christian will be denied citizenship. Aside from its proselytising mandate, the federal government will be reduced to the protection of property rights and ‘homeland’ security.”
Chris Hedges talks to Marc Lamont Hill on Up Front on why “democracy doesn’t exist in the United States” today. Video: Al Jazeera
Comforting to most Americans The Christian fascists and their billionaire funders, I noted, “speak in terms and phrases that are familiar and comforting to most Americans, but they no longer use words to mean what they meant in the past.”
They commit logocide, killing old definitions and replacing them with new ones. Words — including truth, wisdom, death, liberty, life and love — are deconstructed and assigned diametrically opposed meanings.Life and death, for example, mean life in Christ or death to Christ, a signal of belief of unbelief. Wisdom refers to the level of commitment and obedience to the doctrine.
Liberty is not about freedom, but the liberty that comes from following Jesus Christ and being liberated from the dictates of secularism. Love is twisted to mean an unquestioned obedience to those, such as Trump, who claim to speak and act for God.As the death spiral accelerates, phantom enemies, domestic and foreign, will be blamed for the demise, persecuted and slated for obliteration.
Once the wreckage is complete, ensuring the immiseration of the citizenry, a breakdown in public services and engendering an inchoate rage, only the blunt instrument of state violence will remain. A lot of people will suffer, especially as the climate crisis inflicts with greater and greater intensity its lethal retribution.
The near-collapse of our constitutional system of checks and balances took place long before the arrival of Trump. Trump’s return to power represents the death rattle of the Pax Americana. The day is not far off when, like the Roman Senate in 27 BC, Congress will take its last significant vote and surrender power to a dictator. The Democratic Party, whose strategy seems to be to do nothing and hope Trump implodes, have already acquiesced to the inevitable.
The question is not whether we go down, but how many millions of innocents we will take with us. Given the industrial violence our empire wields, it could be a lot, especially if those in charge decide to reach for the nukes.
Foreign aid is not benevolent. It is weaponised to maintain primacy over the United Nations and remove governments the empire deems hostile. Those nations in the UN and other multilateral organisations who vote the way the empire demands, who surrender their sovereignty to global corporations and the US military, receive assistance. Those who don’t do not.
Foreign aid builds infrastructure projects so corporations can operate global sweatshops and extract resources. It funds “democracy promotion” and “judicial reform” that thwart the aspirations of political leaders and governments that seek to remain independent from the grip of the empire.
USAID, for example, paid for a “political party reform project” that was designed “as a counterweight” to the “radical” Movement Toward Socialism (Movimiento al Socialismo) and sought to prevent socialists like Evo Morales from being elected in Bolivia. It then funded organisations and initiatives, including training programmes so Bolivian youth could be taught the American business practices, once Morales assumed the presidency, to weaken his hold on power.
Kennard in his book, The Racket: A Rogue Reporter vs The American Empire, documents how US institutions such as the National Endowment for Democracy, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the Inter-American Development Bank, USAID and the Drug Enforcement Administration, work in tandem with the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency to subjugate and oppress the Global South.
Client states that receive aid must break unions, impose austerity measures, keep wages low and maintain puppet governments. The heavily funded aid programmes, designed to bring down Morales, eventually led the Bolivian president to throw USAID out of the country.
The lie peddled to the public is that this aid benefits both the needy overseas and us at home. But the inequality these programmes facilitate abroad replicates the inequality imposed domestically. The wealth extracted from the Global South is not equitably distributed. It ends up in the hands of the billionaire class, often stashed in overseas bank accounts to avoid taxation.
Our US tax dollars, meanwhile, disproportionately funds the military, which is the iron fist that sustains the system of exploitation. The 30 million Americans who were victims of mass layoffs and deindustrialisation lost their jobs to workers in sweatshops overseas. As Kennard notes, both home and abroad, it is a vast “transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich globally and domestically”.
Legitimises theft at home “The same people that devise the myths about what we do abroad have also built up a similar ideological system that legitimises theft at home; theft from the poorest, by the richest,” he writes. “The poor and working people of Harlem have more in common with the poor and working people of Haiti than they do with their elites, but this has to be obscured for the racket to work.”
Foreign aid maintains sweatshops or “special economic zones” in countries such as Haiti, where workers toil for pennies an hour and often in unsafe conditions for global corporations.
“One of the facets of special economic zones, and one of the incentives for corporations in the US, is that special economic zones have even less regulations than the national state on how you can treat labour and taxes and customs,” Kennard told me in an interview.
“You open these sweatshops in the special economic zones. You pay the workers a pittance. You get all the resources out without having to pay customs or tax. The state in Mexico or Haiti or wherever it is, where they’re offshoring this production, doesn’t benefit at all. That’s by design. The coffers of the state are always the ones that never get increased. It’s the corporations that benefit.”
These same US institutions and mechanisms of control, Kennard writes in his book, were employed to sabotage the electoral campaign of Jeremy Corbyn, a fierce critic of the US empire, for prime minister in Britain.
The US disbursed nearly $72 billion in foreign aid in fiscal year 2023. It funded clean water initiatives, HIV/Aids treatments, energy security and anti-corruption work. In 2024, it provided 42 percent of all humanitarian aid tracked by the United Nations.
Humanitarian aid, often described as “soft power,” is designed to mask the theft of resources in the Global South by US corporations, the expansion of the footprint of the US military, the rigid control of foreign governments, the devastation caused by fossil fuel extraction, the systemic abuse of workers in global sweatshops and the poisoning of child labourers in places like the Congo, where they are used to mine lithium.
The demise of American power I doubt Musk and his army of young minions in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — which isn’t an official department within the federal government — have any idea about how the organisations they are destroying work, why they exist or what it will mean for the demise of American power.
The seizure of government personnel records and classified material, the effort to terminate hundreds of millions of dollars worth of government contracts — mostly those which relate to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), the offers of buyouts to “drain the swamp” including a buyout offer to the entire workforce of the Central Intelligence Agency — now temporarily blocked by a judge — the firing of 17 or 18 inspectors generals and federal prosecutors, the halting of government funding and grants, sees them cannibalise the leviathan they worship.
They plan to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and the US Postal Service, part of the internal machinery of the empire. The more dysfunctional the state becomes, the more it creates a business opportunity for predatory corporations and private equity firms. These billionaires will make a fortune “harvesting” the remains of the empire. But they are ultimately slaying the beast that created American wealth and power.
Once the dollar is no longer the world’s reserve currency, something the dismantling of the empire guarantees, the US will be unable to pay for its huge deficits by selling Treasury bonds. The American economy will fall into a devastating depression. This will trigger a breakdown of civil society, soaring prices, especially for imported products, stagnant wages and high unemployment rates.
The funding of at least 750 overseas military bases and our bloated military will become impossible to sustain. The empire will instantly contract. It will become a shadow of itself. Hypernationalism, fueled by an inchoate rage and widespread despair, will morph into a hate-filled American fascism.
Despite the aura of omnipotence empires often project, most are surprisingly fragile, lacking the inherent strength of even a modest nation-state. Indeed, a glance at their history should remind us that the greatest of them are susceptible to collapse from diverse causes, with fiscal pressures usually a prime factor. For the better part of two centuries, the security and prosperity of the homeland has been the main objective for most stable states, making foreign or imperial adventures an expendable option, usually allocated no more than 5 percent of the domestic budget. Without the financing that arises almost organically inside a sovereign nation, empires are famously predatory in their relentless hunt for plunder or profit — witness the Atlantic slave trade, Belgium’s rubber lust in the Congo, British India’s opium commerce, the Third Reich’s rape of Europe, or the Soviet exploitation of Eastern Europe.
When revenues shrink or collapse, McCoy points out, “empires become brittle.”
“So delicate is their ecology of power that, when things start to go truly wrong, empires regularly unravel with unholy speed: just a year for Portugal, two years for the Soviet Union, eight years for France, 11 years for the Ottomans, 17 for Great Britain, and, in all likelihood, just 27 years for the United States, counting from the crucial year 2003 [when the US invaded Iraq],” he writes.
The array of tools used for global dominance — wholesale surveillance, the evisceration of civil liberties, including due process, torture, militarised police, the massive prison system, militarised drones and satellites — will be employed against a restive and enraged population.
The devouring of the carcass of the empire to feed the outsized greed and egos of these scavengers presages a new dark age.
The Albanese government has secured bipartisan support for a major new regime covering political donations and spending, after making significant concessions.
The government agreed to increase the proposed threshold above which donations must be disclosed from $1000 to $5000. The present disclosure threshold is $16,900.
In addition, it has boosted the cap on individual donations to a candidate or party from the earlier proposed $20,000 to $50,000.
The deal was sealed on Wednesday when Special Minister of State Don Farrell had separate meetings on the final package with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition leader Peter Dutton.
The legislation had been expected to pass late last year but negotiations between the government and opposition stalled at the final moment.
The government concessions were to accommodate not just the Coalition but also to respond to a degree to criticism from crossbenchers and some stakeholders outside parliament.
The government needed to get opposition backing to ensure the legislation’s passage before parliament rises this week. If the PM called an April election this would be the last parliamentary sitting.
Also, it wanted to pass the measures with the support of the alternative government so the new regime would not be undone in the future.
The reforms are the most comprehensive changes to the electoral system in four decades. The government says they will stop big money coming to dominate politics. But they have been under attack from teal MPs and other critics, including Simon Holmes à Court from Climate 200, which has funded community independents. The critics say they favour the major parties and disadvantage new and small players.
The new regime will not come into operation until the next parliamentary term and so does not affect this election.
The changes include disclosure of donations in real time or near-real time, and a series of caps on spending, The cap on each candidate in an electorate would be $800,000, while a party’s national spending would also be capped. At the moment there are no spending caps.
The legislation increases public funding for elections from under $3.50 per vote to about $5.
Farrell has not proceeded with a separate measure on truth in advertising, saying there was not enough support for it.
The Greens described the deal as “a fix”. “Labor and the Coalition are agreeing on rigging the system to lock out their competitors.”
Independent Zoe Daniel, a teal, said the legislation “entrenches the dominance of the major parties and locks out independents and new competitors”.
She said it imposed “strict campaign spending caps on Independents while
allowing major parties to exploit loopholes to pour millions into key
electorates.
“Under the new rules, all an independent’s campaign materials – posters, ads, or billboards – would count towards the cap, while major party branding on billboards, leaflets and ads would not. This deliberate imbalance ensures that Labor and the Coalition maintain a financial stranglehold over elections,” Daniel said.
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.
Ageing is a normal part of the life course. It doesn’t matter how many green smoothies you drink, or how many “anti-ageing” skin care products you use, you can’t stop the ageing process.
But while we’re all getting older, not everyone who ages will necessarily become frail. Ageing and frailty are closely related, but they’re not the same thing.
But what is it about ageing we are so afraid of? When it comes down to it, many people are probably less afraid of ageing, and more afraid of becoming frail.
Frailty is defined as a state of vulnerability characterised by a loss of reserve across multiple parts of the body.
Frailty is generally characterised by several physical symptoms, such as weakness, slow walking speed, exhaustion, unintentional weight loss, and low activity level.
Notably, someone who is frail is less able to “bounce back” (or recover) after a stressor event compared to someone who is not frail. A stressor event could be, for example, having a fall, getting a urinary infection, or even being admitted to hospital.
Frailty is more common in older people. But in some cases, frailty can affect younger people too. For example, people with advanced chronic diseases, such as heart failure, can develop frailty much younger.
Frailty is dynamic. While it can get worse over time, in some cases frailty can also be reversed or even prevented through health and lifestyle changes.
Exercise more, including resistance training (such as squats and lunges, or grab some stretchy resistance bands). Many of these sorts of exercises can be done at home. YouTube has some great resources.
You might also consider joining a gym, or asking your GP about seeing an accredited exercise physiologist or physiotherapist. Medicare subsidies may be available for these specialists.
The physical activity guidelines for older Australians recommend at least 30 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity on most days or preferably every day.
The guidelines also highlight the importance of incorporating different types of activities (such as resistance, balance or flexibility exercises) and reducing the time you spend sitting down.
2. Stay socially active
Social isolation and loneliness can contribute to the progression of frailty. Reach out to friends and family for support or contact local community groups that you may be able to join. This might include your local Zumba class or bridge club.
3. Ask your doctor or pharmacist to regularly check your medications
Always consult your doctor before making any changes to your current medications.
4. Eat a protein-rich diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables
Low nutrient intake can negatively impact physical function and may increase your risk of becoming frail. There’s some evidence to suggest eating more protein may delay the onset of frailty.
A food-first approach is best when looking to increase the protein in your diet. Protein is found in foods such as lean meats, poultry, seafood, eggs, dairy products, legumes and nuts.
Adults over 50 should aim to eat 64 grams of protein per day for men and 46g per day for women. Adults over 70 should aim for 81g per day for men and 57g per day for women.
Ask your GP for a referral to a dietitian who can provide advice on a dietary regime that is best for you.
Supplements may be recommended if you are struggling to meet your protein needs from diet alone.
Dr Julee McDonagh receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council and the NSW Office of Health and Medical Research. She is also a member of the executive committee of the Cardiovascular Nursing Council of the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand and the Emerging Leaders Committee of the Australian Cardiovascular Alliance.
Professor Caleb Ferguson receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, Medical Research Future Fund, Heart Foundation (Australia) and Stroke Foundation (Australia). He is a Board Director of the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand and Chair of the Cardiovascular Nursing Council. He is Associate Editor for European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing and Heart Lung and Circulation. He was a co-author of the Australian Heart Foundation & Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand clinical guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation. He is co-leads the Western Sydney Clinical Frailty Registry, a clinical quality registry of older adults.
With the election only months away, the Labor government finds itself suddenly battling with the Trump administration for an exemption from new US tariffs on steel and aluminium.
The opposition has supported the effort, but it also claims a Coalition government would be better place to deal with Donald Trump.
Joining us on this podcast, Nationals leader David Littleproud says if Labor fails to get an exemption on the tariffs, a Dutton government would try again:
Of course we will and I think that the relationship that Peter Dutton had and still has in Washington will play very much towards that. In fact, I was in Washington with Peter in July last year and so he can walk the halls of Washington with authority and confidence. And I think it’s important that we want this solved and it doesn’t matter who’s in power. This is team Australia, and we’ve got to have a bipartisan approach and I think Pete has shown that leadership.
On net zero, while Littleproud firmly backs the target as in Australai’s national interest, he also says if the world walked away from it, so would we.
What everyone’s trying to do is protect regional Australia. But, just so everyone appreciates, if we’re not signed up to net zero by 2050, the people are hurt the most are the people in regional Australia, our farmers and our miners, because if we don’t sign up to what the rest of the world has, the world gets to impose on us a border adjustment mechanism. That’s a tariff and that means we get less for what we produce in regional Australia.
Now if the world changes and walks away from net zero, then we walk away with it. But we’re not the United States, we’re not the biggest economy in the world. You got to understand your place in the world, and you’ve got to understand the unintended consequences.
The government this week announced it would be willing to take over Rex Airlines if it can’t be sold. Littleproud is sceptical:
Well, I think we’ve spent over $130 million of Australian taxpayer’s money and don’t have a lot to show for it. I think what we’ve got to also look at is that Rex was a viable regional airline before they had a dalliance into competing with Qantas and Virgin in the golden triangle between Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. They couldn’t compete and instead of spending money on that, they should have upgraded their fleet.
The government has wasted enough time. They should open up conversation with the broader regional aviation sector, which they haven’t done, to find a solution, whether that be one in totality of a purchaser for Rex or whether that be a carve out of players and with policy levers is being pulled, rather than the Australian taxpayer having to cut the check in entirety. So I think we haven’t exhausted all the options.
On the coming election campaign, Littleproud stresses the closeness between the Nationals and the Liberals, rather than seeking to emphasise a separate Nationals’ pitch.
Peter and I, I think, have the tightest coalition that we’ve ever had. There’s not a piece of paper between us. We’re literally joined at the hip and our campaigns will complement one another and in fact, they’ll intertwine in many places. I think that’s important that the people of Australia understand that the only coalition that they can trust to form government is the Nationals and Liberals, not Labor, Greens and teals – that that is the only coalition that’ll give them stability, not chaos.
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.
Some, often more quietly, will welcome it from an anti-imperialist or “Southern” perspective, believing that the agency was at worst a blunt instrument of US hegemony or at least a bastion of Western saviourism.
I want to come at this topic from a different angle, by providing a brief personal perspective on USAID as an organisation, based on several decades of occasional interaction with it during my time as an Australian aid official.
Essentially, I view USAID as a harried, hamstrung and traumatised organisation, not as a rogue agency or finely-tuned vehicle of US statecraft.
Peer country representative My own experience with USAID began when I participated as a peer country representative in an OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) peer review of the US’s foreign assistance programme in the early 1990s, which included visits to US assistance programmes in Bangladesh and the Philippines, as well as to USAID headquarters in Washington DC.
I later dealt with the agency in many other roles, including during postings to the OECD and Indonesia and through my work on global and regional climate change and health programmes, up to and including the pandemic years.
An image is firmly lodged in my mind from that DAC peer review visit to Washington. We had had days of back-to-back meetings in USAID headquarters with a series of exhausted-looking, distracted and sometimes grumpy executives who didn’t have much reason to care what the OECD thought about the US aid effort.
It was a muggy summer day. At one point a particularly grumpy meeting chair, who now rather reminds of me of Gary Oldman’s character in Slow Horses, mopped the sweat from his forehead with his necktie without appearing to be aware of what he was doing. Since then, that man has been my mental model of a USAID official.
But why so exhausted, distracted and grumpy?
Precisely because USAID is about the least freewheeling workplace one could construct. Certainly it is administratively independent, in the sense that it was created by an act of Congress, but it also receives its budget from the President and Congress — and that budget comes with so many strings attached, in the form of country- or issue-related “earmarks” or other directives that it might be logically impossible to allocate the funds as instructed.
Some of these earmarks are broad and unsurprising (for example, specific allocations for HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment under the Bush-era PEPFAR program) while others represent niche interests (Senator John McCain once ridiculed earmarks pertaining to “peanuts, orangutans, gorillas, neotropical raptors, tropical fish and exotic plants”) — but none originates within USAID.
Informal earmarks calculation I recall seeing an informal calculation showing that one could only satisfy all the percentage-based earmarks by giving most of the dollars several quite different jobs to do. A 2002 DAC peer review noted with disapproval some 270 earmarks or other directive provisions in aid legislation; by the time of the most recent peer review in 2022, this number was more like 700.
Related in part to this congressional micro-management of its budget — along with the usual distrust of organisations that “send” money overseas — USAID labours under particularly gruelling accountability and reporting requirements.
Andew Natsios — a former USAID Administrator and lifelong Republican who has recently come to USAID’s defence (albeit with arguments that not everybody would deem helpful) — wrote about this in 2010. In terms reminiscent of current events, he described the reign of terror of Lieutenant-General Herbert Beckington, a former Marine Corps officer who led USAID‘s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) from 1977 to 1994.
He was a powerful iconic figure in Washington, and his influence over the structure of the foreign aid programME remains with USAID today. … Known as “The General” at USAID, Beckington was both feared and despised by career officers. Once referred to by USAID employees as “the agency’s J. Edgar Hoover — suspicious, vindictive, eager to think the worst” …
At one point, he told the Washington Post that USAID’s white-collar crime rate was “higher than that of downtown Detroit.” … In a seminal moment in this clash between OIG and USAID, photographs were published of two senior officers who had been accused of some transgression being taken away in handcuffs by the IG investigators for prosecution, a scene that sent a broad chill through the career staff and, more than any other single event, forced a redirection of aid practice toward compliance.
Labyrinthine accountability systems On top of the burdens of logically impossible programming and labyrinthine accountability systems is the burden of projecting American generosity. As far as humanly possible, and perhaps a little further, ways must be found of ensuring that American aid is sourced from American institutions, farms or factories and, if it is in the form of commodities, that it is transported on American vessels.
Failing that, there must be American flags. I remember a USAID officer stationed in Banda Aceh after the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami spending a non-trivial amount of his time seeking to attach sizeable flags to the front of trucks transporting US (but also non-US) emergency supplies around the province of Aceh.
President Trump’s adviser Stephen Miller has somehow determined to his own satisfaction that the great majority (in fact 98 percent) of USAID personnel are donors to the Democratic Party. Whether or not that is true, let alone relevant, Democrat administrations have arguably been no kinder to USAID than Republican ones over the years.
Natsios, in the piece cited above, notes that The General was installed under Carter, who ran on anti-Washington ticket, and that there were savage cuts — over 400 positions — to USAID senior career service staffing under Clinton. USAID gets battered no matter which way the wind blows.
Which brings me back to necktie guy. It has always seemed to me that the platonic form of a USAID officer, while perhaps more likely than not to vote Democrat, is a tired and dispirited person, weary of politicians of all stripes, bowed under his or her burdens, bound to a desk and straitjacketed by accountability requirements, regularly buffeted by new priorities and abrupt restructures, and put upon by the ignorant and suspicious.
Radical-left Marxists and vipers probably wouldn’t tolerate such an existence for long. Who would? I guess it’s either thieves and money-launderers or battle-scarred professionals intent on doing a decent job against tall odds.
Robin Davies is an honorary professor at the Australian National University’s (ANU) Crawford School of Public Policy and managing editor of the Devpolicy Blog. He previously held senior positions at Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and AusAID.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bronwyn Carlson, Professor, Critical Indigenous Studies and Director of The Centre for Global Indigenous Futures, Macquarie University
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised this article contains names and images of deceased people.
Colonial commemorations such as the statues of James Cook or Lachlan Macquarie have become the focus of much contestation, particularly in the annual lead up to January 26.
Such statues create controversy because they often honour people who have dubious histories. Journalist Paul Daley has described such statues as “assorted bastards” who have profited from the dispossession and exploitation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
The problem with many statues is they do not represent a shared history. They either represent colonial figures who have harmed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, or they represent a one-sided perspective that erases the other.
This year we were asked to respond to a different kind of monument: a statue of music legends Archie Roach and Ruby Hunter, newly erected in the Melbourne suburb of Fitzroy in November 2024.
An inspirational, unifying force
Archie Roach, a Gunditjmara (Kirrae Whurrong/Djab Wurrung), Bundjalung senior Elder, songwriter and storyteller sadly died in 2022 aged only 66. Anthony Albanese described him as a “brilliant talent, a powerful and prolific national truth teller”.
His partner Ruby Hunter was a Ngarrindjeri woman and pioneering singer-songwriter. She was the first Indigenous woman to be signed to a major record label, and sadly died in 2010.
Both were members of the Stolen Generations – Aboriginal children who were forcibly removed from their families by Australian government authorities as part of the assimilation policy. They met on the street as homeless teenagers.
Their award-winning music took them around the world together. They performed alongside musical greats such as Tracy Chapman, Paul Kelly and Bob Dylan.
They have been described as an inspiration to many, and a unifying force who altered the way white Australia saw itself.
A statue that sits in conversation with community
The statue of Archie Roach and Ruby Hunter was commissioned by the Yarra City Council in partnership with the Wurundjeri Woi-wurrung Cultural Heritage Aboriginal Corporation and Victorian government.
The statue was made by local artist Darien Pullen. The surrounding park space was designed by Melbourne-based architect Jefa Greenaway (Wailwan/Kamilaroi) and landscape architect Paul Herzich (Kaurna/Ngarrindjeri).
Fitzroy’s Atherton Gardens is a culturally significant site that once served as a traditional meeting place. It later became a hub of political activism and resistance for Victoria’s Aboriginal community.
This monument stands in a place rich with history. It is where Archie and Ruby spent meaningful time with their family, and where Archie was reunited with his biological family.
Their son, Amos Roach, emphasised the deep cultural significance of the location: “it’s a place of cultural significance because it was a meeting place, it’s an old camp”.
He also reflected on his personal connection to the park, saying, “I was a parkie baby when I was born … and I still come here”.
The statue stands at street level, embodying an ongoing presence. They are casual, approachable and engaged, as if in conversation with the community.
Positioned to invite interaction, the statue forms a dynamic relationship with both the people who pass by and the place it inhabits.
It is embraced rather than imposed, welcomed and wanted.
The statue stands at street level, in conversation with the community. The Conversation, CC BY-SA
While these figures are Aboriginal icons, they are also remarkable individuals who made significant contributions to Australia. Their commemoration carries meaning and connection for all.
Compare it to the Cook statue in Hyde Park on Gadigal Country (Sydney). He is perched high above the observer, arm raised to the heavens in a theatrical “ta-daa”.
Positioned in a location where the man himself never set foot, the text at the base of the statue? make the historically incorrect allegation that he “DISCOVERED THIS TERRITORY, 1770” – something Cook never personally claimed.
A shared future
Rather than erecting monuments to colonial figures who oppressed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, reinforcing a history of injustice and loss, we should instead celebrate a shared vision for the future.
This vision should be built on recognition, respect and the commemoration of those who have made meaningful contributions to Australia.
This statue of Archie Roach and Ruby Hunter honours two individuals who, despite being shaped by the very colonial histories commemorated by other monuments, have profoundly enriched contemporary Australia through their resilience, talent and contributions.
Until recently, commemorations of Aboriginal people were largely confined to the realm of prehistory — portraying them as nameless “Natives” in conflict with settlers, as loyal guides and servants, or as tragic figures labelled “the last of their tribe”.
It is a powerful recognition of their enduring impact in shaping this nation – one that calls for acknowledgement, respect and inclusion from us all.
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.
In some overseas countries, pets can travel with their owners in a plane’s cabin, in a carrier under a seat.
In Australia, pets must travel in the luggage hold of aircraft. But this may soon change. Virgin Australia last year announced it would allow small dogs and cats into the cabin from 2025. Now the plan has progressed further. The Australian newspaper this week reported two rows of Virgin aircraft will be designated as “pet friendly” on selected flights, although more work is needed before a trial begins.
Only small dogs or cats would be allowed in the cabin. They would have to be contained in a carrier and placed under the seat in front of their owner. The combined weight of pet and carrier must be no more than 8 kilograms.
Australians love their pets, and increasingly holiday with them. But the “pets on planes” policy is not without challenges. So how can the experience be made as smooth as possible for pets, pet owners and other passengers?
Many Australians want to take their pets onto the plane cabin with them. Pixel-Shot/Shutterstock
What are the potential negatives for pets?
Research shows pets kept in the luggage or cargo areas of planes face risks. These include being deprived of food and water and being exposed to extreme temperatures. Pet owners may also give their pets sedatives or other drugs to calm them down, which can cause harm.
Allowing pets to travel in a plane’s cabin, close to their owner, is likely to reduce these risks.
But the plane’s cabin is still an unfamiliar environment with strange smells, sounds and people. So, some dogs and cats may still find the experience stressful.
There are ways to minimise this. They include getting pets used to being in containers (a process known as “habituation”) and using positive reinforcement training to encourage pets to remain calm.
If a dog or cat is already anxious and you want to travel with them, it’s best to consult a vet well before you fly.
Some dogs and cats may benefit from a sedative or medication that reduces anxiety. This must be done in consultation with your vet, because these drugs may be dangerous for animals with certain health conditions.
Pets can die on flights
One study on dogs transported by air into the United States (many of which travelled in the cabin as “hand luggage”) found that every year, some pets die.
One risk factor occurs when the pet is a “brachycephalic” breed. These are dogs or cats with flat and shortened noses, such as pugs and the Boston terrier.
These animals have abnormal airways, meaning they are at higher risk of hyperthermia if the temperature is high, and can also have breathing difficulties.
Should the “pets on planes” policy at Virgin Australia come to pass, it’s still not clear how exactly practicalities such as offering food, water or managing toileting will work. The airline is yet to release these details.
It’s possible you would need to “fast” your pet before arriving at the airport – in other words, refrain from feeding them for a period of time, to reduce the chance they will vomit or need to defecate.
Guide and assistance dogs that currently use these facilities will always have priority. These dogs are trained to toilet on cue, making it much easier to travel with them.
If you and your pet would like to be frequent flyers, consider getting this type of training.
Virgin Australia is still consulting doctors and vets on their policy, including about risks to passengers with dog or cat allergies.
Clearly, the allergy risk to humans must be well managed – especially when in the air, isolated from medical services.
Air is filtered more frequently in plane cabins than in homes. However, even very low levels of an allergen can trigger severe reactions such as anaphylaxis or asthma attacks in some people. Also, pet dander (from shed skin cells) can remain on seats long after a pet has gone.
What’s more, some people may be frightened of, or have a phobia relating to dogs or cats. Phobia to dogs may be linked to a direct traumatic event. People with serious phobias may not be able to enter a plane if they need to walk past a dog or cat. So, placement of the pets in cabins will need to be carefully considered.
Pets are part of human lives and will likely be integrated more into transport in future, including planes. Careful planning will allow us to maximise the benefits for all: people travelling with and without pets, and the animals themselves.
Susan Hazel is affiliated with the Dog & Cat Management Board of South Australia and the RSPCA South Australia.
French Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls has announced he will travel to New Caledonia later this month to pursue talks on the French territory’s political future.
These discussions on February 22 follow preliminary talks held last week in Paris in “bilateral” mode with a wide range of political stakeholders.
The talks, which included pro-independence and pro-France parties, were said to have “allowed to restore a climate of trust between France and New Caledonia’s politicians”.
Those meetings contributed to “a better understanding” of “everyone’s expectations” and “clarify everyone’s respective projects”, Valls said.
Between February 4 and 9, Valls said he had met “at least twice” with delegations from all six parties and movements represented in New Caledonia’s Congress.
The main goal was to resume the political process and allow everyone to “project themselves into the future” after the May 2024 riots.
The riots caused 14 dead, hundreds of injured, arson and looting of hundreds of businesses and an estimated damage of some 2.2 billion euros (NZ$4 billion).
‘Touched all topics’ “We have touched on all topics, extensively and without any taboo, including the events related to the riots that broke out in New Caledonia in May 2024.”
Valls said in this post-riot situation, “everyone bears their own responsibilities, but the French State may also have a part of responsibility for what happened a few months ago”.
New Caledonia’s key economic leaders Mimsy Daly and David Guyenne with French Minister for Overseas Manuel Valls. Image: MEDEF NC/RNZ
At the weekend, as part of the week-long talks, Valls and French Public Accounts Minister Amélie de Montchalin hosted a three-hour session dedicated to New Caledonia’s “devastated” economy.
High on the agenda of the conference were crucial subjects, such as France’s assistance package, the need to reform and reduce costs in New Caledonia (including in the public service workforce) — as well as key sectors such as the health, tourism sectors and the nickel mining and processing industry — which has been facing an unprecedented crisis for the past two years.
Unemployment benefits There was also a significant chapter dedicated to the duration of special unemployment benefits for those who have lost their jobs due to the riots’ destruction.
Another sensitive point raised was the long and difficult process for businesses (especially very small, small and medium) damaged and destroyed for the same reasons to get insurance companies to pay compensation.
Most insurance companies represented in New Caledonia have, since the May 2024 riots, cancelled the “riot risk” from their insurance coverage.
This has so far made it impossible for riot-damaged businesses to renew their insurance cover under the same terms as before.
French assistance to post-riot recovery in New Caledonia includes a 1 billion euros (NZ$1.8 billion) loan ceiling and a special fund of some 192 million euros (NZ$350 million) dedicated to the reconstruction of public buildings, mainly schools.
New Caledonia’s students are returning to school next week as part of the new academic year.
French Public Accounts Minister Amélie de Montchalin speaking from Paris to New Caledonia audience via a vision conference during the Economic Forum last Saturday. Image: NC la 1ère TV/RNZ
Economy and politics closely intertwined Valls stressed once again that “there cannot be an economic recovery without a political compromise, just like there cannot be any lasting political solution without economic recovery”.
“(France) needs to be there so that the economic slump (caused by the riots) does not turn into a social disaster which, in turn, would exacerbate political fractures”.
“The government of France will be on your side. No matter what happens. We are absolutely taking charge of our responsibilities.”
The “economic Forum” was also the first time delegations from all political tendencies, even though they did not talk to each other directly, were at least sitting in the same room.
“Thank you all for being here, this is a beautiful picture of New Caledonia. Maybe the economy can do more than politics”, Valls told the Economic Forum last Saturday.
Next step: ‘trilateral’ meetings The next step, in New Caledonia, is for Valls to attempt holding “trilateral” meetings (involving all parties, pro and anti-independence and France) around the same table, which was not the case in Paris last week.
The format of those Nouméa talks, however, “remains to be determined”.
Valls said he could stay in New Caledonia for as long as one week because, he said, “I want to take time”, including to not only meet politicians, but also economic and civil society stakeholders.
The 62-year-old French minister, who is also a former Prime Minister, as a political adviser to the then French Socialist Prime Minister Michel Rocard, was involved in the signing of the Matignon Accord, signed in 1988 between France, pro-independence and pro-France parties, which effectively put an end to half a decade of quasi civil war in the French Pacific archipelago.
He also stressed that any future discussion would be based on the “foundation and basis” of the Matignon and Nouméa Accords which, he said, was “the only possible way”.
The Nouméa Accord, signed in 1998 between the same parties, paved the way for a gradual transfer of powers from France to New Caledonia as well as a status of wider autonomy, often described in the legal jargon as “sui generis”.
Until now, under the Nouméa Accord, the key powers remaining to be transferred by France were foreign affairs (shared with New Caledonia), currency, law and order, defence and justice.
New Caledonia’s authorities have not requested the implementation of the transfer for another three portfolios: higher education, research, audiovisual communication and the administration of communes.
An exit protocol But the 1998 deal also included an exit protocol, depending on the results of three referendums on self-determination.
Those referendums were held in 2018, 2020 and 2021 and they all yielded a majority of votes against independence.
However, New Caledonia’s pro-independence movement largely boycotted the third poll and has since contested its validity.
Pro-France and pro-independence camps hold radically different views on how New Caledonia should evolve in its post-Nouméa Accord (1998) future status.
The options mentioned so far by local parties range from a quick independence (a five-year process to begin in September 2025 following the anticipated signature of a “Kanaky Accord”) to some sort of yet undefined “shared sovereignty” that could imply an “independence-association”, or a status of “associated state” for New Caledonia.
Pro-France parties, however, have previously stated they were determined to push for New Caledonia to remain part of France and, in corollary, that New Caledonia’s three provinces (North, South and Loyalty Islands) should be granted more separate powers, a formula sometimes described as “internal federalism” but criticised by pro-independence parties as a form of “apartheid”.
Complicating factor Another complicating factor is that both sides — pro-independence and pro-France camps — are also divided between moderate and radical components.
Last week, during question time in Parliament, Valls expressed concern at the current polarised situation: “People talk about racism, civil war. A common and shared project can only be built through dialogue.
“The (previously signed, respectively in 1988 and 1998) Matignon and Nouméa Accords, both bearing the prospect of a decolonisation process, are the foundation of our discussions. I would even say they are part of my DNA,” the minister said.
Referring to any future outcome of the current talks, he said they will have to be “inventive, ambitious, bold in order to build a compromise and do away with any radical position, all radical positions, in order to offer a common project for New Caledonia, for its youth, for concord and for peace”.
This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lee Morgenbesser, Associate Professor, School of Government and International Relations, Griffith University, Griffith University
Many Americans have watched in horror as Elon Musk, the world’s richest person, has been permitted to tear through various offices of the United States government in recent weeks. Backed by President Donald Trump, and supported by a small team of true believers, he has successfully laid siege to America’s vast federal bureaucracy.
On Tuesday, Trump signed an executive order giving Musk even more power. It requires federal agencies to cooperate with his “Department of Government Efficiency” (known as DOGE) in cutting their staffing levels and restricting new hires.
In his first comments to the media since joining the Trump administration as a “special” government employee, Musk also responded to criticism that he’s launching a “hostile takeover” of the US government.
The people voted for major government reform, and that’s what people are going to get.
Are Musk’s actions akin to a “hostile takeover” of government, or a coup? I argue it’s more a form of “state capture”. Here’s what that means.
Why it’s not a coup or self-coup
Under the pretence of maximising government efficiency and productivity, DOGE has amassed quite a bit of power. It has:
penetrated the massive system responsible for virtually all government payments
A popular argument, supported by some historians and commentators, is that Musk’s actions amount to a coup. They argue this is not a coup in the classic sense of a takeover of the physical centres of power. Rather, it’s a seizure of digital infrastructure by an unelected group seeking to undo democratic practices and violate human rights.
This term, however, is not technically correct. The most widely accepted definition of a coup is:
an overt attempt by the military or other elites within the state apparatus to unseat the sitting head of state using unconstitutional means.
Since Musk and Trump are bedfellows in this plot, the tech billionaire is clearly not trying to violently unseat the president.
Another possible explanation: this is a self-coup. This describes a situation in which
the sitting national leader takes decisive illegitimate action against countervailing institutions and elites to perpetuate the incumbent’s power.
In December, South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol attempted a self-coup when he declared martial law in order to ostensibly protect the country from opposition forces. He quickly reversed his decision amid elite defections and mass public demonstrations.
Though self-coups are becoming more common, Musk is doing the dirty work in the US – not Trump. Also, Musk’s chief target – the bureaucracy – does not nominally offset presidential power (except in conspiracy theories).
What is ‘state capture’?
More accurately, Musk’s siege amounts to a form of “state capture”. This refers to:
the appropriation of state resources by political actors for their own ends: either private or political.
By this logic, Musk’s aim could be to capture different pieces of the US government and turn the state into a tool for wealth extraction.
State capture is a relatively simple but extremely destructive process. This is how it has played out in countries like Indonesia, Hungary, Nigeria, Russia, Sri Lanka and South Africa (Musk’s birthplace):
First, political and corporate elites gain control of formal institutions, information systems and bureaucratic policy-making processes.
Then, they use this power to apply rules selectively, make biased decisions and allocate resources based on private interests (rather than the public good).
In captured states, strongman leaders often use economic policy and regulatory decisions to reward their political friends. For instance, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, Russian President Vladimir Putin and former South African President Jacob Zuma have helped their allies by:
making government anti-trust decisions
issuing permits and licenses
awarding government contracts and concessions
waiving regulations or tariffs
conferring tax exempt status.
State capture is fundamentally a predatory process.
By taking over how the American government does business, Musk could be seeking to enrich a small but powerful network of allies.
The first beneficiary would be Trump, who is no stranger to using his office to expand his family’s business empire. With a more fully captured state, Trump can take an active role in determining how public wealth is dispersed among corporate and political elites. This decision-making power often goes hand-in-hand with “personalist” regimes, in which everything is a transaction with the leader.
The second beneficiary would be Musk himself and other Silicon Valley mega-billionaires who have bent a knee to Trump. By positioning their tech companies as the solution to what allegedly ails the federal government, particularly when it comes to the use of artificial intelligence, they stand to secure lucrative contracts handed out by the “new” state.
The third beneficiary would be the small army of engineers and technicians working with Musk to upend the American government. As loyal foot soldiers, these individuals will be compensated with career advancement, financial gains and networking opportunities, while also enjoying legal impunity. This kind of quid pro quo is how authoritarian regimes work.
What this could mean for the US
As Musk continues his assault on the federal bureaucracy, the American people will suffer the consequences.
The most immediate impact of state capture: worse decisions are made. By purging experienced civil servants, cancelling government contracts and accessing sensitive information systems, Musk’s actions will likely degrade the standard of living at home and endanger American lives abroad.
State capture also means there would be less accountability for the Trump administration’s public policy decisions. With a lack of congressional and independent oversight, key decisions over the distribution of economic benefits could be made informally behind closed doors.
Finally, state capture is inseparable from corruption. Doing business with the US federal government could soon require one to pass a loyalty test rather than a public interest test.
Trump’s enemies will encounter more hurdles, while his allies will have a seat at the table.
Lee Morgenbesser receives funding from the Australian Research Council (DP220103214). He is also a member of the Australian Labor Party.
The oral contraceptive pills Yaz and Yasmin will be listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) from March 1 2025, meaning Australian women will pay less for them.
This listing follows advice from the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, which recommended adding these pills to the PBS so women who find other contraceptive pills unsuitable have more options. These contraceptives also help manage acne and some other hormone-related conditions.
So how do Yaz and Yasmin work? And how much will they cost once they’re on the PBS?
What makes Yaz and Yasmin different?
From March, a three-month box of Yaz or Yasmin will cost $31.60 (or $7.70 with a concession card). Nial Wheate
Oral contraceptive pills prevent pregnancy primarily by stopping ovulation – the release of an egg from the ovaries.
They also thicken mucus in the cervix, making it harder for sperm to reach an egg. And they thin the lining of the uterus, reducing the likelihood of implantation.
Most combination oral contraceptive pills contain an oestrogen-based hormone (typically ethinylestradiol) and a progestogen hormone.
Both Yaz and Yasmin contain ethinylestradiol and a synthetic progestogen, called drospirenone. They both contain 3 milligrams of drospirenone.
They differ from each other in the amount of ethinylestradiol they contain. Yaz has 20 micrograms and Yasmin has 30 micrograms of the hormone. They also differ in the number of active and placebo pills a pack contains. Yaz has 24 active pills and 4 placebo pills while Yasmin has 21 active pills and 7 placebos.
Both contraceptives are just as effective in preventing pregnancies as other oral contraceptives. The chance of getting pregnant while taking either medication is around 9%.
In deciding which one is most suitable, a doctor will consider how their patient has responded to hormone treatment in the past and any other hormone-related conditions they have.
Both Yaz and Yasmin have benefits beyond birth control. Drospirenone is thought to help reduce hormone-related acne and hirsutism (excessive facial hair growth).
Premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) is a severe form of premenstrual syndrome that causes intense mood swings, depression, anxiety, and irritability before menstruation. The hormonal stability provided by Yaz, with its short hormone-free interval, can help alleviate PMDD symptoms.
Things to look out for if taking them
All combined oral contraceptive pills have common side effects that women may experience, including nausea, vomiting, break-through bleeding, absent or missed periods, headaches, irritability and breast tenderness.
There are some additional risks for the Yaz and Yasmin products. The drospirenone in the contraceptives has been associated with a slightly higher risk of blood clots when compared with other progestogens. The risk is low but may be higher in women who smoke, are over 35, or have other risk factors for clots.
All contraceptive pills can cause side effects such as nausea, headaches and irritability. Mart Production/Pexels
Drospirenone can also cause a build up of potassium in the blood. This is a particular risk for women with kidney problems, and for those who also take diuretics or blood pressure medications, which can also raise potassium levels.
Elevated potassium can cause symptoms such as muscle weakness, fatigue, dizziness and an irregular heart rhythm.
What’s changing? How much will they cost?
These approvals are the first contraceptive pills to be added to the PBS in 30 years and are part of a larger package of women’s health measures the government announced on the weekend.
The government will also provide incentives for doctors and nurses to bulk bill services for implanting long-term contraceptives such as IUDs (intrauterine devices).
Currently, pharmacies advertise three-months’ supply of Yaz and Yasmin for around A$79 dollars ($316 per year).
Come March, the price women will pay will drop to $31.60 per box, or $126.40 per year. Concession card holders will pay $7.70 per box, or $30.80 per year.
But the price of Yaz and Yasmin will still be higher than other combined oral contraceptives (containing the hormones levonorgestrel and ethinylestradiol) on the PBS, which start at $22 for a four-month supply or $66 per year.
How can you switch?
If you are considering Yaz or Yasmin, speak to your doctor. They will take your medical history and discuss your lifestyle and any other specific health needs.
They will also explain the potential side effects to watch out for and any precautions you may need to take.
If you proceed, your doctor will outline a process for transitioning to the new medication, including timing and where to start in the pill sequence.
Nial Wheate in the past has received funding from the ACT Cancer Council, Tenovus Scotland, Medical Research Scotland, Scottish Crucible, and the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance. He is a fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute, a member of the Australasian Pharmaceutical Science Association and a member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. Nial is the chief scientific officer of Vaihea Skincare LLC, a director of SetDose Pty Ltd (a medical device company) and was previously a Standards Australia panel member for sunscreen agents. Nial regularly consults to industry on issues to do with medicine risk assessments, manufacturing, design, and testing.
Shoohb Alassadi 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.
As Benjamin Netanyahu threatens to resume war, Hamas outlines widespread Israeli ceasefire violations in document sent to the mediators.
By Jeremy Scahill and Sharif Abdel Kouddous of Dropsite News
Hamas officials submitted a two-page report to mediators yesterday listing a wide range of Israeli violations of the Gaza ceasefire since the agreement went into effect on January 19 — including the killing of civilians, repeated ground and air incursions, the beating and humiliation of Palestinian captives during their release and the deportation of some without their consent, and the denial of humanitarian aid.
Drop Site News obtained a copy of the report delivered to mediators from Qatar and Egypt.
“Hamas is committed to the ceasefire agreement if the occupation is committed to the agreement,” Hamas said in a statement.
“We confirm that the occupation is the party that did not abide by its commitments, and it bears responsibility for any complications or delays.”
The move comes in response to accusations by US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Hamas had violated the agreement, threatening a full resumption of the war — yet it was Israel’s nearly daily breaches of the deal that prompted Hamas to announce it would postpone the next release of Israeli captives.
On Monday, Abu Obeida, the spokesperson for the Al Qassam Brigades, Hamas’s military wing, announced the next planned release of three Israeli captives, scheduled for Saturday, would be “postponed indefinitely”.
Abu Obeida cited “delays in allowing displaced Palestinians to return to northern Gaza, targeting them with airstrikes and gunfire across various areas of the Strip, and failing to facilitate the entry of humanitarian aid as agreed”.
Israel violating ceasefire agreement Hamas issued a statement soon afterwards reiterating that Israel was violating the agreement by blocking aid, attacking civilians, and restricting movement in Gaza, and warning that the next release of captives would be postponed until it complied.
“By issuing this statement five full days ahead of the scheduled prisoner handover, Hamas aims to grant mediators sufficient time to pressure the occupation to fulfill its obligations,” the statement said.
Three Israeli officials and two mediators speaking anonymously to The New York Times confirmed that Israel had not fulfilled its obligations to send humanitarian aid into Gaza. This fact was mentioned in the 9th paragraph of the Times story.
In response, President Trump, on Monday told reporters that the ceasefire should be cancelled if Hamas did not release all the remaining captives it was holding in Gaza by midday Saturday, warning “all hell is going to break out”.
Yesterday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doubled down on Trump’s comments.
“If Hamas does not return our hostages by Saturday noon,” Netanyahu said in a video statement, “the ceasefire will end, and the IDF will return to intense fighting until Hamas is finally defeated.”
Netanyahu reportedly ordered the military to add more troops in and around Gaza to prepare for “every scenario” if the captives were not released.
It was not immediately clear if he was referring to the three Israelis originally scheduled for release Saturday, all remaining captives, or all living Israelis slated for release in Phase 1.
Document submitted to mediators The two-page document submitted by Hamas to mediators yesterday divided the violations into five separate categories: Field Violations, Prisoners, Humanitarian Aid, Denial of Essential Supplies, and Political Violations.
Israel has repeatedly violated the ceasefire deal since it came into effect, targeting Palestinians in Gaza on an almost daily basis. The document outlines 269 “field violations” by the Israeli military, including the killing of 26 Palestinians and the wounding of 59 others.
Page 1 of the Hamas report of ceasefire violations by Israel. Image: Hamas screenshot APR/DDN
The number of people killed appears to be a dramatic undercount compared to the official toll documented by the Ministry of Health in Gaza.
The report also lists repeated ground incursions into Gaza beyond the designated buffer zone, particularly in the Philadelphi corridor — the 14km strip of land that runs along the border of Egypt.
These incursions “were accompanied by gunfire and resulted in the deaths of citizens and the demolition of homes,” the report said.
It also accused Israeli authorities of subjecting Palestinian captives to beatings and humiliation during their release, forcibly deporting released captives to Gaza without their coordination or consent, preventing families of deported prisoners from leaving the West Bank to join them, and delaying prisoner releases by several hours.
The report also says that fewer than 25 fuel trucks per day have been allowed into Gaza, which is half of the allotted 50 fuel trucks per day, as outlined in the deal. The entry of commercial fuel was blocked entirely, the report says, again in violation of the agreement.
Only 53,000 tents allowed Just over 53,000 tents were allowed into Gaza, the reports says, out of the 200,000 allotted and no mobile housing units out of the 60,000 agreed on.
Heavy machinery for the removal of massive amounts of debris and retrieval of bodies was similarly blocked, with only four machines allowed in.
Israel also blocked the entry of supplies to repair and operate the power plant and electrical grid, the report said.
No medical supplies, ambulances have been allowed in and no equipment for civil defense teams. Meanwhile banks were not allowed to receive cash to replenish a severe currency shortage.
The report ends on “Political Violations” criticising statements by the “Israeli Prime Minister and ministers openly calling for the expulsion of Gaza’s population, sending a clear message that the occupation does not wish to honour the agreement and aims to implement Trump’s plan to displace Gaza’s residents”.
It also criticises the “deliberate delay” in starting the negotiations on Phase 2 of the ceasefire and “the introduction of impossible conditions.”
A summary of the Israeli ceasefire violations. Image: QudsNews
A federal parliamentary inquiry has just recommended civics and citizenship become a compulsory part of the Australian Curriculum, which covers the first year of school to Year 10.
The committee also recommended a mandatory civics and citizenship course for all Year 11 and 12 students to prepare them to vote.
This is not the first time there have been calls to improve the quality of civics education in Australia – such calls have been made as far back as 1994.
As a researcher in political education, I argue we need to make sure civics education is relevant, engaging and given adequate space in the curriculum.
What is civics?
At the moment, civics and citizenship is included in the national Australian Curriculum. But it is not mandatory and many states only make passing reference to it in primary school. Some states provide more opportunities in high school.
The topics covered include how governments and democracy work, how laws work, the rights of individuals, diversity and national identity, and how to critically evaluate different sources of information.
Every three years since 2004, a national sample of Year 6 and Year 10 students are assessed on their civics knowledge, skills and attitudes through a national test.
In the most recent results from 2019, 53% of Year 6 students were at or above the national proficient standard for civics, while only 38% of Year 10 students were at or above the standard. Year 10 students’ results have shown a substantial decline since 2004.
This suggests many young people are leaving school without the knowledge, skills and values to sustain our democracy.
Both Australian and international studies have repeatedly shown civics and citizenship education makes a positive difference to young people’s political participation (including the likelihood they will vote), understanding of democracy and support for democratic values.
What does good civics education look like?
1. Make sure it has its own subject
At the moment, civics education might be included as part of students’ work in history or other humanities subjects. But research shows it should be taught as a separate subject, otherwise it can get lost among other material.
While Year 11 and 12 are times when students get to pick most of their subjects for major exams, it is important they also study how the electoral system works. Many will vote in elections before they even leave school.
3. Make it relevant to young people
As important as they are, some aspects of civics – such as lawmaking or how parliament works – may seem dry to young people.
For example, a lesson on how parliament works could focus on the passage of contentious legislation such as banning social media for young people. Or lessons on misinformation could look at how social media had an impact on a particular issue or election.
4. Have class discussions
Research also shows students need to learn civics knowledge, skills and values in various ways, including role play, problem-solving, simulations and direct instruction.
Students should be encouraged to ask questions in an open classroom environment. Class discussions are important for controversial issues so both sides of issues can be discussed in a supervised environment.
5. Have school elections
My research has found school elections (for school captains or a student council) can engage students in democratic processes. This way, they see first-hand how elections work and how voting can have an impact on their lives.
6. Train teachers in law and government
It is also important for teachers to have specific training in law, government or politics. Research shows teachers with these backgrounds have a greater impact on students’ civic knowledge – students come away knowing more. Similarly, teachers with these backgrounds achieve better results with students’ civic media literacy – or ability to handle misinformation and “outrage” online.
This means existing teachers need to have professional opportunities to upgrade their civic knowledge and skills.
Ultimately, it will take well-trained teachers, teaching a compulsory subject, to see Australian students appropriately educated about our democracy and how to participate in it.
Murray Print receives funding from the Australian Research Council. An ARC grant was conducted in association with the Australian Electoral Commission.
OpenAI’s “deep research” is the latest artificial intelligence (AI) tool making waves and promising to do in minutes what would take hours for a human expert to complete.
Bundled as a feature in ChatGPT Pro and marketed as a research assistant that can match a trained analyst, it autonomously searches the web, compiles sources and delivers structured reports. It even scored 26.6% on Humanity’s Last Exam (HLE), a tough AI benchmark, outperforming many models.
But deep research doesn’t quite live up to the hype. While it produces polished reports, it also has serious flaws. According to journalistswho’ve tried it, deep research can miss key details, struggle with recent information and sometimes invents facts.
OpenAI flags this when listing the limitations of its tool. The company also says it “can sometimes hallucinate facts in responses or make incorrect inferences, though at a notably lower rate than existing ChatGPT models, according to internal evaluations”.
It’s no surprise that unreliable data can slip in, since AI models don’t “know” things in the same way humans do.
The idea of an AI “research analyst” also raises a slew of questions. Can a machine – no matter how powerful – truly replace a trained expert? What would be the implications for knowledge work? And is AI really helping us think better, or just making it easier to stop thinking altogether?
What is ‘deep research’ and who is it for?
Marketed towards professionals in finance, science, policy, law and engineering, as well as academics, journalists and business strategists, deep research is the latest “agentic experience” OpenAI has rolled out in ChatGPT. It promises to do the heavy lifting of research in minutes.
Currently, deep research is only available to ChatGPT Pro users in the United States, at a cost of US$200 per month. OpenAI says it will roll out to Plus, Team and Enterprise users in the coming months, with a more cost-effective version planned for the future.
Unlike a standard chatbot that provides quick responses, deep research follows a multi-step process to produce a structured report:
The user submits a request. This could be anything from a market analysis to a legal case summary.
The AI clarifies the task. It may ask follow-up questions to refine the research scope.
The agent searches the web. It autonomously browses hundreds of sources, including news articles, research papers and online databases.
It synthesises its findings. The AI extracts key points, organises them into a structured report and cites its sources.
The final report is delivered. Within five to 30 minutes, the user receives a multi-page document – potentially even a PhD-level thesis – summarising the findings.
At first glance, it sounds like a dream tool for knowledge workers. A closer look reveals significant limitations.
It lacks context. AI can summarise, but it doesn’t fully understand what’s important.
It ignores new developments. It has missed major legal rulings and scientific updates.
It makes things up. Like other AI models, it can confidently generate false information.
It can’t tell fact from fiction. It doesn’t distinguish authoritative sources from unreliable ones.
While OpenAI claims its tool rivals human analysts, AI inevitably lacks the judgement, scrutiny and expertise that make good research valuable.
What AI can’t replace
ChatGPT isn’t the only AI tool that can scour the web and produce reports with just a few prompts. Notably, a mere 24 hours after OpenAI’s release, Hugging Face released a free, open-source version that nearly matches its performance.
The biggest risk of deep research and other AI tools marketed for “human-level” research is the illusion that AI can replace human thinking. AI can summarise information, but it can’t question its own assumptions, highlight knowledge gaps, think creatively or understand different perspectives.
And AI-generated summaries don’t match the depth of a skilled human researcher.
Any AI agent, no matter how fast, is still just a tool, not a replacement for human intelligence. For knowledge workers, it’s more important than ever to invest in skills that AI can’t replicate: critical thinking, fact-checking, deep expertise and creativity.
If you do want to use AI research tools, there are ways to do so responsibly. Thoughtful use of AI can enhance research without sacrificing accuracy or depth. You might use AI for efficiency, like summarising documents, but retain human judgement for making decisions.
Always verify sources, as AI-generated citations can be misleading. Don’t trust conclusions blindly, but apply critical thinking and cross-check information with reputable sources. For high-stakes topics — such as health, justice and democracy — supplement AI findings with expert input.
Despite prolific marketing that tries to tell us otherwise, generative AI still has plenty of limitations. Humans who can creatively synthesise information, challenge assumptions and think critically will remain in demand – AI can’t replace them just yet.
Raffaele F Ciriello 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.
Known as gestational diabetes, this is the most common metabolic disorder in pregnancy and affects one in seven women worldwide and one in sixteen in New Zealand.
Gestational diabetes is associated with complications during pregnancy. This includes high blood pressure, giving birth to a big baby (which increases the risk of vaginal birth complications) and increased rates of Caesarean section. It can also significantly affect the mother’s mental health and wellbeing.
Worryingly, more women are being diagnosed with gestational diabetes than ever before. Our new review of later health impacts for these women suggests they could be receiving better care after birth and in the long term.
These mothers may also suffer from mental health problems, including depression, particularly in high-risk groups such as women of non-European ethnicity and those with a previous history of gestational diabetes.
For these reasons, care after birth for these women is important. This should include regular screening for blood sugar levels, cardiovascular problems and mental wellbeing after birth. It is also important women receive advice on diet and exercise.
Support for continued breastfeeding is also important as women who get gestational diabetes may experience a delay in milk flow and generally have lower breastfeeding rates compared to others. Breastfeeding may even reduce the risk of progression to type 2 diabetes.
Gestational diabetes can delay the flow of milk and make breastfeeding more difficult. Shutterstock/Pixel Shot
Screening should continue for more than the first year after giving birth. Best practice would see women who had gestational diabetes being provided with long-term follow-up care, given their high risk for type 2 diabetes and heart problems.
Current evidence, however, suggests this isn’t necessarily happening. In a 2018 British study across several general practice centres, women who had gestational diabetes reported their levels of care during pregnancy dropped sharply after birth – to the point where they felt abandoned by the health system.
In a 2024 New Zealand study, mothers who had had gestational diabetes were interviewed five years after birth and expressed the need for more support from the health system.
While this study involved mothers’ perceptions about the optimal health and wellbeing for their children who were exposed to gestational diabetes, the findings also suggest room for improvement in care for the women themselves.
Gaps in clinical guidelines
Following on from this, our research team reviewed existing clinical practice guidelines to see if there were any gaps. These guidelines play an important role in contributing to quality care because they summarise research findings to provide recommendations for healthcare professionals to optimise health and reduce harm.
We looked at recommendations from 26 clinical practice guidelines published in the past decade in 22 countries, including New Zealand. The findings showed we could be doing better for women who have experienced gestational diabetes.
A key example relates to screening for diabetes after birth. It is common practice to check the blood sugar levels of women within three months of giving birth to see if they have gone back to normal.
This testing ensures any abnormalities (like high blood glucose, which may suggest diabetes) are detected so that appropriate management begins early on. Sadly, a nationwide study reported only about half of women receive this screening within six months after birth in New Zealand.
Sending reminders and combining these tests with other postnatal baby health checks and care procedures might encourage more women to check their blood sugar levels. However, very few guidelines we assessed recommend ways to raise the number of women who attend this screening.
Even fewer guidelines talk about screening for poor mental health, despite an increased chance these women could experience depression after birth.
Research we carried out in 2022, using randomised trial data of women with a previous history of gestational diabetes, revealed that around one in five self-reported symptoms of anxiety, depression or poor mental functioning at six months after birth.
Postnatal screening for mental health problems for all women who had gestational diabetes should be recommended to help improve quality of care.
Encouraging women who have had gestational diabetes to attend screening tests, continue breastfeeding and adopt healthy dietary choices and physical exercise requires health professionals to provide adequate counselling on the long-term risks of this condition. This will help women stick with their care plan after birth.
Phyllis Ohene-Agyei. 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.
This week, France hosted an AI Action Summit in Paris to discuss burning questions around artificial intelligence (AI), such as how people can trust AI technologies and how the world can govern them.
Sixty countries, including France, China, India, Japan, Australia and Canada, signed a declaration for “inclusive and sustainable” AI. The United Kingdom and United States notably refused to sign, with the UK saying the statement failed to address global governance and national security adequately, and US Vice President JD Vance criticising Europe’s “excessive regulation” of AI.
Last week, I attended the inaugural AI safety conference held by the International Association for Safe & Ethical AI, also in Paris, where I heard talks by AI luminaries Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, Anca Dragan, Margaret Mitchell, Max Tegmark, Kate Crawford, Joseph Stiglitz and Stuart Russell.
As I listened, I realised the disregard for AI safety concerns among governments and the public rests on a handful of comforting myths about AI that are no longer true – if they ever were.
1: Artificial general intelligence isn’t just science fiction
The most severe concerns about AI – that it could pose a threat to human existence – typically involve so-called artificial general intelligence (AGI). In theory, AGI will be far more advanced than current systems.
AGI systems will be able to learn, evolve and modify their own capabilities. They will be able to undertake tasks beyond those for which they were originally designed, and eventually surpass human intelligence.
AGI does not exist yet, and it is not certain it will ever be developed. Critics often dismiss AGI as something that belongs only in science fiction movies. As a result, the most critical risks are not taken seriously by some and are seen as fanciful by others.
However, many experts believe we are close to achieving AGI. Developers have suggested that, for the first time, they know what technical tasks are required to achieve the goal.
AGI will not stay solely in sci-fi forever. It will eventually be with us, and likely sooner than we think.
2: We already need to worry about current AI technologies
However, current AI technologies are already causing significant harm to humans and society. This includes through obvious mechanisms such as fatal road and aviation crashes, warfare, cyber incidents, and even encouraging suicide.
According to MIT’s AI Incident Tracker, the harms caused by current AI technologies are on the rise. There is a critical need to manage current AI technologies as well as those that might appear in future.
3: Contemporary AI technologies are ‘smarter’ than we think
A third myth is that current AI technologies are not actually that clever and hence are easy to control. This myth is most often seen when discussing the large language models (LLMs) behind chatbots such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini.
There is plenty of debate about exactly how to define intelligence and whether AI technologies truly are intelligent, but for practical purposes these are distracting side issues.
It is enough that AI systems behave in unexpected ways and create unforeseen risks.
Several AI chatbots appear to display surprising behaviours, such as attempts at ‘scheming’ to ensure their own preservation. Apollo Research
For example, existing AI technologies have been found to engage in behaviours that most people would not expect from non-intelligent entities. These include deceit, collusion, hacking, and even acting to ensure their own preservation.
Whether these behaviours are evidence of intelligence is a moot point. The behaviours may cause harm to humans either way.
What matters is that we have the controls in place to prevent harmful behaviour. The idea that “AI is dumb” isn’t helping anyone.
Last year the European Union’s AI Act, representing the world’s first AI law, was widely praised. It built on already established AI safety principles to provide guidance around AI safety and risk.
While regulation is crucial, it is not all that’s required to ensure AI is safe and beneficial. Regulation is only part of a complex network of controls required to keep AI safe.
These controls will also include codes of practice, standards, research, education and training, performance measurement and evaluation, procedures, security and privacy controls, incident reporting and learning systems, and more. The EU AI act is a step in the right direction, but a huge amount of work is still required to develop the appropriate mechanisms required to ensure it works.
5: It’s not just about the AI
The fifth and perhaps most entrenched myth centres around the idea that AI technologies themselves create risk.
AI technologies form one component of a broader “sociotechnical” system. There are many other essential components: humans, other technologies, data, artefacts, organisations, procedures and so on.
Safety depends on the behaviour of all these components and their interactions. This “systems thinking” philosophy demands a different approach to AI safety.
Instead of controlling the behaviour of individual components of the system, we need to manage interactions and emergent properties.
With AI agents on the rise – AI systems with more autonomy and the ability to carry out more tasks – the interactions between different AI technologies will become increasingly important.
At present, there has been little work examining these interactions and the risks that could arise in the broader sociotechnical system in which AI technologies are deployed. AI safety controls are required for all interactions within the system, not just the AI technologies themselves.
AI safety is arguably one of the most important challenges our societies face. To get anywhere in addressing it, we will need a shared understanding of what the risks really are.
Paul Salmon receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
A London court has found Sam Kerr not guilty of the racially aggravated harassment of Metropolitan Police officer Stephen Lovell.
As captain of the Australian women’s national soccer team, Kerr was widely condemned when news broke she had used a “racial slur” against an officer during an altercation.
The high-profile incident sparked debate across the globe.
Initially, former Australian soccer player Craig Foster criticised Kerr’s behaviour before retracting it and publicly apologising to her.
Meanwhile, politicians and academics argued her comments did not amount to racism given the power dynamics at play: not only is Kerr of Indian descent, but official inquiries have found the Metropolitan Police to be institutionally racist.
Kerr has maintained she and her partner – United States’ women’s national team player Kristie Mewis – believed they were being kidnapped by a cab driver.
He refused to let them out of the cab after Kerr vomited, taking them to Twickenham police station instead of their destination.
There, Mewis broke the cab window in an attempt to get out of the vehicle.
At the station, Kerr reportedly appealed to officers to “understand the emergency that both of us felt”, referencing the 2021 abduction, rape and murder of Sarah Everard by a Metropolitan Police officer.
However, Kerr soon faced an allegation of racism after becoming distressed and antagonistic towards the officers.
Believing they were siding with the cab driver after forming negative preconceptions because of her skin colour, she repeated “you guys are stupid and white, you guys are fucking stupid and white”.
What are the legal ramifications in the UK?
Kerr pleaded not guilty to the offence of intentionally causing harassment, alarm, or distress to another by using threatening, abusive, or insulting words under Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, and to the racial aggravation of the offence per the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
She faced a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine.
Kerr accepted she used the words “fucking stupid and white”. But it still had to be proven she intended and caused harassment, alarm, or distress to Lovell and that the offence was racially motivated.
Initially, the Crown Prosecution Service concluded there was not enough evidence to charge Kerr.
But after receiving a request from the Metropolitan Police to review the case, and a new statement from Lovell about Kerr’s words making him feel “belittled” and “upset”, they authorised police to charge the athlete.
A jury found her not guilty after a seven-day trial.
Broadly speaking, public order offences criminalise words and behaviour that might breach the peace. Police have significant discretion to use these offences as tools to regulate people’s uses of public space.
In Australia and the UK, police have been shown to use these powers in discriminatory ways.
Kerr has conceded her behaviour was regrettable but the charge against her is difficult to align with the purpose of public order legislation.
What does it mean for Kerr’s soccer career?
It is unclear what this verdict means for Kerr’s career.
Her English club, Chelsea, is anticipating she will return from a long-term knee injury soon.
It is possible the club was kept in the loop about Kerr’s altercation with police from the beginning, as she reportedly threatened to involve its lawyers in the body-cam footage shown at trial.
The club is yet to make a statement about the trial or verdict.
Football Australia is in a different position though, having been blindsided by the news Kerr had been charged by police.
The fact Kerr is the captain of the Matildas, and the sport’s highest-profile marketing asset, adds layers of complexity to Football Australia’s decision-making.
CEO of Football Australia James Johnson declined to weigh in on Kerr’s captaincy until her trial concluded.
It is possible the governing body will impose a sanction, with Kerr falling afoul of clause 2.14 of their national code of conduct and ethics after being charged with a criminal offence.
Kerr could return to the pitch later this month, but has been left out of the Matildas squad for the SheBelieves Cup in the US because of her fitness.
With the AFC Women’s Asian Cup on the horizon, interim Matildas head coach Tom Sermanni no doubt hopes her recovery stays on track.
Meanwhile, Kerr is yet to play under Chelsea manager Sonia Bompastor. She could prove crucial as the club chases an elusive UEFA Women’s Champions League title, but faces competition for her spot.
Megan McElhone 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.
A U.S. flag and an Education Department flag fly outside the U.S. Department of Education building on Feb. 4, 2025, in Washington, D.C.Alex Wong/Getty Images
In short, the Institute of Education Sciences identifies what works and what doesn’t.
As cognitivescientists who engage ineducational research, we believe this often overlooked institute is key to advancing national education standards and preventing pseudoscience from entering classrooms.
But throughout U.S. history, dissatisfaction with student achievement levels has spurred major education reform efforts.
Russia’s launch of the Sputnik space satellite, for example, triggered the 1958 National Defense Education Act. That measure attempted to strengthen science and math instruction to bolster Cold War defense efforts.
Concerns about educational inequality led to the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which funded schools serving students from low-income families.
It motivated national leaders to push for higher academic standards.
In 1997, growing alarm over many students’ poor reading levels led to the National Reading Panel, which emphasized evidence-based reading instruction.
In response to continuing concern about U.S. education, President George W. Bush partnered with U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy to pass the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002. The law attempted to raise standards by mandating testing and interventions for low-performing schools. It provided incentives for successful schools and punishment for failing ones.
President George W. Bush appears at the bill-signing ceremony of the No Child Left Behind Act at Hamilton High School in Hamilton, Ohio, on Jan. 8, 2002. Tim Sloan/AFP via Getty Images
Institute of Education Sciences
Just months after Congress approved the No Child Left Behind Act, it established the Institute of Education Sciences to provide independent education research, becoming the first federal agency dedicated to using scientific research to guide education policy.
It produces replicable results and makes them freely available to the public.
For example, the What Works Clearinghouse, launched in 2003, provides educators with guidance on effective practices. A school board seeking to adopt a new curriculum can find answers on the site about effective approaches.
The clearinghouse distills research into clear recommendations. It spares local decision-makers from having to wade through complex studies. The site also references original studies and offers descriptions for local decision-makers who want to examine the evidence for themselves.
The Institute of Education Sciences protects educational freedom by countering these claims.
Some argue that free markets should dictate educational choices. They believe parents and school boards will naturally gravitate toward effective programs while ineffective ones fade away.
Marketed directly to parents of children with learning difficulties, these products use slick advertising and claim to “rewire” children’s brains to boost learning. Families pay thousands for programs that lack credible, peer-reviewed evidence of lasting benefits.
Programs designed by university scholars also aren’t immune to the allure of anecdote over hard data.
These examples reveal how well-intentioned but ineffective educational products gain traction through public appeal rather than rigorous research.
The future of IES
In 2007 the Office of Management and Budget awarded the Institute of Education Sciences the highest score on its program assessment rating tool, a distinction earned by only 18% of federal programs.
But most Americans probably never heard of this.
And that highlights the institute’s major weakness: insufficient emphasis on sharing its findings and practice guides with the public and policymakers.
The institute would do well to publicize its findings more extensively so that parents and education leaders can better access rigorous research to improve education.
Whatever changes are made to the Department of Education, preserving the institute’s role in providing research on what works best – and ensuring continuous exchanges between research and practice – will benefit the American public.
Nicole M. McNeil has served as an investigator on projects funded by IES, including one current project on leveraging technology to improve children’s mathematical understanding. She has given invited talks to trainees in IES predoctoral training programs and has served on IES grant review and awards panels. She regularly supports educators in engaging with IES’s What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) and its Practice Guides as part of her capacity-building efforts to connect volunteer tutors to cognitive science through an AmeriCorps VGF grant.
Robert Stuart Siegler has received funding from IES for four grants; the most recent of which ended in 2018. He also received funds from IES for heading the Fractions Practice Guide Panel and for writing a review for IES of findings from research that the institute funded.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Luis Gómez Romero, Senior Lecturer in Human Rights, Constitutional Law and Legal Theory, University of Wollongong
Oscar frontrunner Emilia Pérez has received mixed reactions from the film industry, critics and general audiences. On Rotten Tomatoes it holds a 72% critic score – but a dismal 17% from viewers.
Mexican audiences have been particularly harsh. On its opening weekend in Mexico, the film grossed only US$74,000. Scores of moviegoers even demanded refunds.
French director Jacques Audiard presents Emilia Pérez as his bold yet compassionate take on Mexico’s drug war and the resulting enforced disappearances. The film, however, has been criticised for how it pities and condescends to Mexicans while lacking real understanding of the violence it claims to represent.
Those seeking to understand the suffering caused by enforced disappearances in Mexico would do well to look beyond Emilia Pérez. Here are five films you should watch.
Tempestad
The 2016 documentary Tempestad (Tempest), directed by Mexican-Salvadoran filmmaker Tatiana Huezo, genuinely engages with suffering and atonement in Mexico’s violent landscape. It follows the experiences of two women with organised crime and the Mexican justice system.
Miriam Carvajal, a former customs official and mother of a young child, is wrongfully convicted on spurious charges of human trafficking and sent to a prison run by a criminal organisation. To survive, she becomes complicit in the brutal violence inflicted on the most vulnerable inmates, such as migrants.
Adela Alvarado is a professional clown. She has been searching for her daughter, who disappeared a decade before filming. Despite threats to her life from police officers likely involved in the disappearance, Adela continues her relentless quest to find her child against all odds.
Both women are driven by love for their children. Miriam is heard but never seen; Adela’s life among circus folk unfolds on camera. This visually highlights that their stories mirror each other yet are not identical.
Huezo recognises perpetrators can also be victims, but refuses to turn the harm they have caused into an instrument for their redemption.
Devil’s Freedom
Everardo González’s 2017 documentary La Libertad del Diablo (Devil’s Freedom) also explores the theme of atonement for perpetrators alongside the suffering of their victims.
González presents a choral narrative of Mexico’s drug wars. Testimonies come from crime syndicate hitmen, soldiers involved in law enforcement, a mother whose children disappeared, young women whose mothers were taken, and a man tortured by police.
Victims and perpetrators wear compression masks made for burn treatment, ostensibly to protect their identities. These masks, however, also serve as a haunting equaliser that exposes a society scarred by violence.
In one powerful scene, a victim recalls pitying her children’s murderer after sensing his shame. She removes the mask following her account of forgiveness and hesitantly smiles at the camera – her trembling lips raising fundamental questions about Mexico’s struggle to heal from the wounds of its drug wars.
Identifying Features
Mexican filmmakers have long used fiction to “exorcise the pain” of enforced disappearances, as Mexican actor Giovanna Zacarías puts it. Fernanda Valadez’s debut film, Sin Señas Particulares (Identifying Features, 2020) exemplifies this powerfully.
Valadez’s restrained narrative avoids the stereotypical passion often attributed to Latin Americans.
Magdalena (Mercedes Hernández), a modest rural woman, searches for her missing son, Jesús (Juan Jesús Varela), who vanished en route to the United States. Magdalena’s soft voice and timid demeanour conceal quiet defiance – she refuses to be sidelined. We never see those she questions. We witness only the pain on her face and her stoic resolve.
Mexico is no fairy tale. In the agonising final minutes, Magdalena gains a son even as she loses another – though she cannot be with any of them. Life goes on in Mexico: Magdalena has found a grave to mourn at, and we mourn with her.
Prayers for the Stolen
Noche de Fuego (Prayers for the Stolen, 2021) marked Tatiana Huezo’s first foray into fiction filmmaking. The film follows the story of three friends growing up together in the mountains of Mexico, amid normalised violence and enforced disappearances.
The girls’ world is shaped by strategies for survival, with danger looming from both criminal organisations and the state, embodied by the army. Yet, even in this tense environment, they still experience the everyday joys and struggles of childhood and adolescence.
Drug violence contextualises the girls’ world – but does not define them. Huezo does not portray them as mere victims. As they grow, we witness how their rural teachers and mothers have provided them with the necessary tools to foster critical thinking.
Even though local criminals disappear one of the girls, we glimpse a future where her two friends may one day challenge the silence and brutality of the adult world. Despite the premature loss of many childhoods in Mexico, Huezo leaves room for hope.
Noise
Natalia Beristain’s Ruido (Noise, 2022) follows Julia (Julieta Egurrola), a middle-class woman in her late 60s. She is the mother of Gertrudis, “Ger,” a student who vanished while on vacation with friends. Confronted with bureaucratic inefficiency and state indifference, Julia is forced to “do the work of others” and investigate Ger’s disappearance herself.
On her journey, she finds women willing to risk everything for the truth. Among them, she discovers compassion and solidarity, from young feminists demanding justice, to mothers who, having also lost loved ones, guide her through the legal and forensic processes involved in searching for clandestine graves.
“You are not alone”, the women repeat like a mantra. As Pulitzer Prize-winning Mexican author Cristina Rivera Garza reminds us, grief indeed is never a solitary. We always grieve for and with someone.
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.
As we head towards the federal election, both sides of politics are making a point of criticising universities and questioning their role in the community.
Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has accused unis of focusing on “woke” issues that “just aren’t cutting it around kitchen tables”.
The Albanese government has also accused universities of being out of touch. A Labor-chaired Senate committee has just set up an inquiry into university governance, pointing to “an extraordinary range” of issues, including executive pay.
Both the Coalition and Labor want to clamp down on international student numbers, arguing they drive up city rents and threaten the integrity of Australian higher education.
The criticism goes beyond politics. Recent media coverage called the sector a “mess” and asked “is a university degree still worth it?”
No wonder newsletter Future Campus says the “hottest topic” in Australian higher education is whether universities have lost their social licence.
What is social licence?
A social licence means a community has given tacit permission for an organisation to operate. It goes beyond simple laws or regulations, and extends to the idea that a community implicitly trusts and has confidence in an organisation.
A social licence means businesses, in particular, should not ignore their responsibility to provide a social benefit to their communities. This needs to go beyond providing commodities or generating profits.
In December 2024, a state parliament review expressed concern the University of Tasmania was prioritising “commercial over community interests in its core functions”.
So there are many reasons to ask how well our universities benefit the national community, beyond their economic outputs.
But while our politicians readily line up to express concern, it is highly disingenuous to only blame universities for their standing in the community.
The situation politicians now lament is the result of a long-term, bipartisan political project, prosecuted by successive federal governments.
As a 2023 Australia Institute report found, federal government funding for universities (excluding HECS/HELP) has fallen from 0.9% of GDP in 1995 to 0.6% of GDP in 2021. Both Coalition and Labor governments have sought to reduce the sector’s costs to the budget.
The federal policy settings have shown them the way to go.
Teaching foreign students is more profitable than teaching domestic students, research collaborations with business and industry are more profitable than collaboration with communities. Increasingly, in the search for new income sources, commercial, rather than academic, considerations have driven institutional decisions.
In a competitive market, the interests of individual institutions rather than those of the nation inevitably prevail.
There has been a succession of redundancies and knowledge, learning and personnel have been lost. The losses have wound back generations of accrued cultural and educational capital for the nation.
It is no surprise public confidence in universities’ utility and legitimacy has diminished.
The most significant problem
This is not to say universities are blameless. University leaders and academics acknowledge there has been a loss of public confidence. There is also acknowledgement some of the damage is due to internal issues – such as governance failures.
But the most significant problem is the corrosive effect of several decades of commercialisation, underpinned by a political disregard for the sector’s contribution to the public good.
If political leaders are serious about arresting the erosion of our universities’ social licence, it would be helpful if they stopped behaving as if it has nothing to do with them.
Graeme Turner’s book, Broken: Universities, politics and the public good, will be published by Monash University Press in July as part of its In the National Interest series.
Graeme Turner 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.
Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Quentin Grafton, Australian Laureate Professor of Economics, Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University
Water is now a contested resource around the world. Nowhere is this more evident than in the fight playing out over the Northern Territory’s Roper River – one of the last free-flowing rivers in Australia, nurtured by the enduring presence of First Nations custodians.
The territory government recently doubled water extraction allowances from the aquifer that feeds the Roper River, making billions of litres available to irrigators, for free. The change risks permanent damage not just to the river but to world-famous springs and sacred sites fundamentally important to Traditional Owners.
Australia has a very poor track record on maintaining healthy river systems, and on respecting First Nations rights to access and use water.
The Roper River represents a chance to change course on decades of water policy failure. It also shows we must transform how Australia’s water is valued, who uses it, and who decides how vital rivers should be managed.
What’s happening on the Roper River?
The Roper River runs east for 400 kilometres from the Katherine region to the Gulf of Carpentaria.
First Nations people comprise 73% of the population in the Roper River area. Amid socioeconomic challenges, Country sustains them as it has done for 65,000 years. It is integral to maintaining cultural knowledge, as well as ceremonial practices, environmental care and traditional food systems. Traditional Owners’ rights are recognised through Aboriginal freehold land and native title across the area.
Irrigated crops including melons, mangoes and cotton are grown over a small part of the river catchment.
In a string of recent decisions – mainly the designation of regional “water allocation plans” – the territory government has vastly increased potential extraction from underground aquifers. This could allow agriculture and other industries to expand.
The decision came despite staunch opposition from Traditional Owners. As Northern Land Council chair Matthew Ryan told SBS:
Both the previous and the current NT Government have ignored the voices of Traditional Owners, who have repeatedly said that the health and viability of the Roper River and the springs at Mataranka are at great risk.
Water is life. It is our most valuable resource and Traditional Owners have an obligation to take care of the land and areas of cultural significance.
The Baaka: a sad story of degradation
Sadly, this story is not new to Australia. We need only look to the Baaka (Lower Darling River) in New South Wales as a cautionary tale.
More than a century of water extraction has left the river and its wetlands degraded. This was demonstrated in 2023 when up to 30 million fish died due to low levels of dissolved oxygen, caused by, among other factors, too much water extracted upstream.
The ecological damage has harmed the health and wellbeing of river communities – especially Traditional Owners such as the Barkandji people, who have long relied on the river for sustenance.
The problem is getting worse. As research late last year showed, an investment of more than A$8 billion to date has failed to prevent a stark decline in the health of the Murray-Darling Basin river system.
Traditional knowledge indicates climate change – among other harms – is threatening the Martuwarra. Ecological and ground water systems are drying up, making traditional food and medicine harder to find.
This harms Indigenous custodians reliant on the Martuwarra for their lifeways and livelihoods.
But there is hope. The Indigenous-led Martuwarra Fitzroy River Council has united West Kimberley people, First Peoples and others, along with stakeholders. It seeks to foster joint decision-making on planning and management to take full account of the social, cultural, spiritual and environmental impacts of water allocation across the catchment.
This world-leading example shows what can be achieved when Traditional Owners and their partners unite to defend nature, water and Country as sources of life, not just resources to be exploited.
Community members, researchers, Elders, advocates and decision-makers gathered to share stories from Argentina, Australia, India, Kenya, Brazil and Mexico.
Each tale described people working together to push back against water injustice, whether it involved unequal access, theft, dispossession, pollution or post-truth claims about water.
Participants also watched the premiere screening of the short film EveryOne, EveryWhere, EveryWhen. It highlights what is at stake for Australia’s living rivers – Baaka, Roper and Martuwarra – and tells of the struggle to bring justice to these rivers and their people.
A trailer for the film EveryOne, EveryWhere, EveryWhen.
A fork in the river
Clearly, the time for water reform is now. So what does this mean in practice?
First, the precautionary principle must be deeply embedded in all government decisions. This means the potential for serious environmental damage must be properly considered, and actions taken to avoid it, even when science is not certain.
Second, permission from First Peoples should be obtained for any activity affecting their land or waters, following the principles of “free, prior and informed consent”.
And finally, both Indigenous knowledge and Western science must be brought together to plan, monitor and regulate all water extraction, to ensure our precious rivers are managed for both the present and the future.
Australians face a stark choice.
We can keep gifting valuable water resources to powerful commercial interests, while ignoring the warning signs our rivers are sending.
Or we can follow First Nations leaders and listen to what Country is telling us: to safeguard water for everyone, including non-human kin, to secure a liveable and thriving future for all.
In response to issues raised in this article, the NT’s Minister for Lands, Planning and Environment, Joshua Burgoyne, said the Mataranka water allocation plan provides certainty to the environment and the community and supports regional economic development.
He said the plan was “precautionary, evidenced based, and developed with considered involvement from local community representatives” including Traditional Owners, and preserves more than 90% of dry season flows to the Roper River.
Quentin Grafton receives funding from the Australian Research Council and is the Convenor of the Water Justice Hub.
Anne Poelina is Chair, Martuwarra Fitzroy River Council. She is Professor, Chair and Senior Research Fellow Indigenous Knowledges and affiliated with Nulungu Research Institute, University of Notre Dame, Broome. She is Project Lead for an Australian Research Council Funded Project.
Sarah Milne has received funding from the Australian Research Council.
