NewzIntel.com

Category: Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Global: How Canada and the U.S. can still tackle climate change in a second Trump era

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Andy Hira, Professor of Political Science, Simon Fraser University

    U.S. President Donald Trump has once again withdrawn the United States from the Paris agreement on climate change.

    There is a palpable sense of fear among environmentalists and those concerned about climate change following Trump’s re-election. His “drill baby drill” support for fossil fuels in the U.S. and frequent criticisms of renewable energy suggest that the world can expect to see a U.S. government that is far less interested in addressing climate change.

    In addition to leaving the Paris deal, Trump is likely to peel back the climate change elements of former president Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and disempower the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Trump’s nominee to head the EPA, Lee Zeldin, has promised to “pursue energy dominance.” Meanwhile, Chris Wright, Trump’s choice for energy secretary, is the CEO of Liberty Energy, a fracking company.

    While a majority of Americans recognize the dangers of climate change, how they prioritize action to address it tends to fall along partisan lines, with Republican voters seeing a trade-off with economic growth.

    Despite the challenges a second Trump administration is likely to bring, Canada can continue to address climate change by working with sub-national leadership in the U.S.

    Donald Trump signs an executive order withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement.

    U.S. states still making progress

    There are clear indications that Trump will move to dismantle key environmental policies. A dominant Trump adviser, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, has indicated his support for removing US$7,500 tax credits for the purchase of electric vehicles (EVs), apparently viewing it as a way to undermine Tesla competitors.

    But this move is opposed by other automakers that have invested billions into developing new supply chains.

    Furthermore, dismantling the IRA could undermine Trump’s broader economic agenda. Chinese companies have already leapfrogged their U.S. competitors when it comes to EVs. Biden’s tariffs on Chinese EVs and his promotion of battery supply chains are perfectly compatible with Trump’s own desire to bolster American manufacturing.

    However, despite the negative outlook on climate policy at the federal level, several U.S. states have made significant progress. Many American states already have significant and rapidly growing contributions from renewable energy, including Republican-led states such as Iowa and Texas, which generated respectively 60 and 20 per cent of its electricity from wind in 2024.

    In addition, 24 American states are projected to reduce net carbon emissions by 27 to 39 per cent by 2030, and 45 states and the District of Columbia have EV support policies. Meanwhile, California and 11 other states have EV mandates.

    Globally, solar and offshore wind costs have declined dramatically since 2010 by 89 per cent and 68 per cent, respectively. According to the 2024 levelized cost of energy estimates by financial advisory firm Lazard, onshore wind in the U.S. is fully competitive with natural gas. Utility-level solar is also within the cost range of natural gas.

    California’s decision to ban gas cars by 2035 has been supported by automakers, though the deadline remains hotly contested. California has offered the same EV tax credit if the federal one is eliminated.

    What Canada should do

    Canada must accelerate its own transition to a low-carbon economy by supporting renewable energy initiatives in engineering, construction, transportation and carbon sequestration.

    Renewable energy opportunities that align with U.S. interests exist, and can be pursued irrespective of Trump’s policies. For example, Canada has an opportunity, jointly with the U.S., to expand our mutual critical mineral industry.

    Electrification is set to proceed apace regardless of the political leanings of governments, and the transformation of transportation from fossil fuels to electricity and battery power will require vast amounts of lithium, a mineral Canada has in large quantities. It will also require large investments in cutting-edge battery technology, which is a key limitation to green electrification.

    Canada can play a crucial role in the U.S. critical strategic minerals program. Canada is a critical source of such minerals, and can play a significant role in developing North American EV and battery supply chains.

    Considering both the need for these minerals and how tightly integrated the auto industry is in North America, such integration of supply chains fits within Trump’s general goal of reducing reliance on China. Canada can leverage this role to try to ensure it captures key portions of the supply chain that will create good jobs, particularly as oil demand inevitably winds down.

    Canada could also be a key partner in expanding nuclear energy production. We understand the resistance many have to this suggestion, but it’s worth reconsidering given the intermittency of renewable energy such as wind and solar.



    Read more:
    With nuclear power on the rise, reducing conspiracies and increasing public education is key

    Canada is the second-largest producer of uranium in the world. It has experience developing safe nuclear reactors, and technological advances have improved reactive safety and performance in recent decades.

    As part of reconciliation efforts, Canada must engage Indigenous Peoples in renewable energy discussions and actions on their own lands. Canadian governments should partner with Indigenous communities to provide them opportunities to ensure that investments in green energy are made appropriately and the benefits are shared fairly.

    Lastly, Canada should assist low-income countries to develop appropriate technologies to advance their adoption of renewable energy — think something like a federal renewable energy outreach program.

    By taking these steps, Canada could make significant contributions to helping tackle climate change both in North America and around the world.

    Andy Hira is the Director of the Clean Energy Research Group based at Simon Fraser University. The group has received funding from the Willow Grove Foundation and SFU.

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

    – ref. How Canada and the U.S. can still tackle climate change in a second Trump era – https://theconversation.com/how-canada-and-the-u-s-can-still-tackle-climate-change-in-a-second-trump-era-246290

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Mark Carney might have the edge as potential Liberal leader, but still faces major obstacles

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Sam Routley, PhD Candidate, Political Science, Western University

    In the weeks following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation announcement, the race to name his successor seems to have become a two-person contest between former Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland and Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England.

    As is the usual practice in leadership bids, each has sought to advance competing visions tied to their personal credentials and desirability as candidates.

    Emphasizing her extensive cabinet experience, for example, Freeland’s pitch has so far focused on the claim that she is best equipped to handle the “existential threat” posed by the second Donald Trump administration in the United States.

    In contrast, Carney has framed himself as a pragmatic outsider. To his supporters, his monetary management of both Brexit and the 2008 financial crisis shows he can effectively address Canada’s economic challenges while remaining above the apparent politicking, ideological excesses and questionable policy decisions of the Trudeau years.

    The importance of the ground game

    It’s difficult to say for certain who is most likely to prevail. Most polls suggest many Liberals are still undecided, although Carney and Freeland are at the same level of support among Canadian voters at large.

    The incredibly short timeline for the race — voters need to be registered as Liberals by the end of today to vote for a leader — does not provide enough time for discernible trends to emerge. Despite the focus on the personality of the candidates, the Liberal leadership will be won or lost on the basis of “ground-game” organization — that is, who can identify, register and mobilize the greatest number of supporters.

    At this point, however, it’s safe to say that Carney has an advantage. Compared to Freeland, he has secured the endorsements of most senior cabinet ministers, including Francois-Philippe Champagne, Melanie Joly, Steven Guilbeault, Harjit Sajjan and Jonathan Wilkinson. This provides not only legitimacy but, far more importantly, greater organizational prowess.

    Also important is the fact that, in an environment of anti-Trudeau sentiment, he has much more — though not complete — distance from the incumbent government. It’s difficult to see how Freeland, regardless of her experience, can effectively avoid associations with the consequences of the past or existing policies that she herself was instrumental in bringing about.

    Of course, Carney has his own challenges. He will likely have to clarify his relationship with the departing Trudeau government. Since 2020, the precise nature of his role as an informal policy adviser to the prime minister — including as the chair of a task force on economic growth — remains a mystery.

    And for all of his emphasis on the importance of good policy, the substance of his actual, announced policy proposals are thin, including an ambiguous stance on the carbon tax.

    Impressive resumé

    Nonetheless, Carney simply has far more flexibility and potential than the more rigid limitations of Freeland’s candidacy. When compared to Freeland, Carney’s pitch to Canadians seems, at least on paper, to be a much smarter response to Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives.

    His impressive resumé has the potential to be a strong, substantive contrast to the sloganeering that has so far been offered by the Conservatives. Carney could represent a reasonable alternative to voters who, while desiring change, aren’t sold on Poilievre.

    But can Carney really reverse the fortunes of the Liberal Party? Although the next leader of the party is guaranteed to be Canada’s 24th prime minister, they face near Herculean odds in establishing a term that will last more than a couple of weeks due the near certainty of a non-confidence vote in Parliament after it resumes on March 24, 15 days after the Liberal convention.

    Poilievre’s Conservatives are well over 20 points ahead in public opinion polls as they benefit from an anti-incumbent sentiment that, although commonly expressed in a personal dislike for Trudeau, is really about a deeper discontent with Canada’s structural and economic challenges.

    And, unless the NDP reverses its refusal to support the government, a federal election is likely to be held by May.

    While Carney’s outsider status may inspire the Liberal faithful, his electoral performance is more likely to highlight the drawbacks of political inexperience. Although he has potential in terms of political skills, he may not have the time to realize that potential.

    Past Liberal leaders

    Historically, and to a greater degree than the Conservatives, the Liberals have been successful at recruiting leaders with accomplishments outside of partisan electoral politics.

    William Lyon Mackenzie King made his name in labour relations, while Lester B. Pearson had an incredibly successful career as a diplomat.

    Pierre Trudeau, furthermore, was not a supporter of the Liberal Party until 1965, becoming leader only three years after entering politics. In this vein, Carney — until this stage in his career a largely non-political and accomplished central banker — is a return to form.

    The difference, however, is that — with the exception of academic Michael Ignatieff in 2011 — each of these former leaders had some, albeit limited, experience. They may have been recruited for their potential as future prime ministerial candidates, but each accumulated the requisite political experience.

    Mackenzie King had served as labour minister under Wilfrid Laurier, and Pearson had been external affairs minister for nearly a decade. Pierre Trudeau’s rise to national prominence owed a large part to his provocative legislative reforms as Pearson’s attorney general.

    Carney, on the other hand, has never run for office nor made any public interjections into partisan conflicts.

    Special skill set

    Electoral politics requires a special skill set that, unless it comes naturally, can only be learned through experience. It requires a unique combination of policy aptitude, communication ability, emotional intelligence, coalition-building and raw instinct.

    Those qualities are honed with frequent exposure to voters, whether through stump speeches, stakeholder meetings or community barbecues. Carney simply does not have these experiences.

    And faced with an anti-incumbent mood, his administrative experience may be casting him not as an interesting outsider, but as a technocratic voice of the very economic, political and cultural elite who Canadians are upset with.

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

    – ref. Mark Carney might have the edge as potential Liberal leader, but still faces major obstacles – https://theconversation.com/mark-carney-might-have-the-edge-as-potential-liberal-leader-but-still-faces-major-obstacles-247979

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: For tennis star Destanee Aiava, borderline personality disorder felt like ‘a death sentence’ – and a relief. What is it?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jayashri Kulkarni, Professor of Psychiatry, Monash University

    Last week, Australian Open player Destanee Aiava revealed she had struggled with borderline personality disorder.

    The tennis player said a formal diagnosis, after suicidal behaviour and severe panic attacks, “was a relief”. But “it also felt like a death sentence because it’s something that I have to live with my whole life”.

    A diagnosis is often associated with therapeutic nihilism. This means it’s viewed as impossible to treat, and can leave clinicians and people with the condition in despair.

    In fact, people with this disorder can and do recover with adequate support. Understanding it is caused by trauma is fundamental to effectively treat this complex and poorly understood mental illness.

    A stigmatising diagnosis

    The name “borderline personality disorder” is confusing and adds greatly to the stigma around it.

    Doctors first used “borderline” to describe a condition they believed was in-between two others: neurosis and psychosis.

    But this implies the condition is not real in itself, and can invalidate the suffering and distress the person and their loved ones experience.

    “Personality disorder” is a judgemental term that describes the very essence of a person – their personality – as flawed.

    What is borderline personality disorder?

    People with the disorder can express a range of symptoms, but high levels of anxiety – including panic attacks – are usually constant.

    Symptoms cluster around four main areas:

    • high impulsivity (leading to suicidal thoughts and behaviour, self-harm and other risky behaviours)

    • unstable or poor sense of self (including low self-esteem)

    • mood disturbances (including intense, inappropriate anger, episodic depression or mania)

    • problems in relationships.

    People with the disorder greatly fear being abandoned and as a result, commonly have distressing difficulties in interpersonal relationships.

    This creates a “push-pull” dynamic with loved ones, as people with borderline personality disorder seek closeness, but push away those they love to test the strength of the relationship.

    For example, they may escalate a small issue into a major disagreement to see if the loved one will “stick with them” and reinforce their love.

    Conversely, if a loved one appears distant or fed up – for example, is thinking about ending the relationship – the person with borderline personality disorder will make major efforts to “pull” them back. This might look like a flurry of messages, expressions of despair, or even suicidal behaviours.

    People with borderline personality disorder greatly fear being abandoned, making relationship issues common.
    Drazen Zigic/Shutterstock

    Who does it affect?

    The disorder affects one in 100 Australians, although this is likely a conservative estimate, as diagnosis is based on the most severe symptoms.

    Women are much more likely to be diagnosed with it than men – but why this is so remains a major debate, with political and sociological factors playing a role in making psychiatric diagnoses. Symptoms usually begin in the mid to late teens.

    While an initial response to receiving a diagnosis can be comforting for some, it is commonly seen as a chronic, relapsing condition, meaning symptoms can return after a period of improvement.

    Borderline personality disorder can fluctuate in intensity and mimic other conditions such as major depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders and psychosis.

    Estimates suggest 26% of presentations at emergency departments for mental health issues are by people diagnosed with personality disorders, particularly borderline personality disorder.

    What causes it?

    The main cause for borderline personality disorder appears to be trauma in early life, compounded by repeated traumas later.

    Early life trauma can lead to biological changes in the brain that cause behavioural, emotional or cognitive shifts, leading to social and relationship issues. This is known as complex post-traumatic stress disorder.

    Aiava has acknowledged the disorder is “mainly from childhood trauma”, although she has not given details about her specific experiences.

    People with borderline personality disorder usually have complex post-traumatic stress disorder. But complex post-traumatic stress disorder doesn’t always result in a borderline personality disorder diagnosis.

    Although the two disorders are not identical, they share many similarities, in particular that they are both caused by complex and repeated trauma.

    However those with borderline personality disorder tend to experience more rage, emotional disturbances and have a greater fear of abandonment.

    They also face greater stigma, whereas the term “complex post-traumatic stress disorder” doesn’t carry the same negative connotations and focuses on the cause of the condition – trauma – rather than “personality”, leading to better treatment options.

    The recognition of the major role of trauma in borderline personality disorder is an important step forward in treating the disorder. But because of the stigma associated with it, using the diagnosis of complex post-traumatic stress disorder maybe a better step forward in the future.

    Can it be treated?

    There are many effective psychological therapies and other treatments for people with borderline personality disorder or complex post-traumatic stress disorder.

    For example, dialectical behavioural therapy is a type of cognitive therapy that helps people learn skills such as tolerating distress, managing relationships, regulating emotions and practising mindfulness.

    The treatment of people with post-traumatic stress disorder, including victims of war and rape, has taught us a lot about how to treat complex, underlying trauma. For example, with trauma-focused psychological therapies.

    Other new treatments, such as eye movement desensitisation and reprogramming, have also shown to be effective.

    Many people with borderline personality disorder who receive treatment and have supportive relationships are able to “outgrow” the condition. Others may need to continue to manage symptoms while pursuing a good quality of life.

    Treating trauma, not personality

    Rethinking borderline personality disorder as a trauma disorder enables a more effective and understanding approach for those with it.

    Understanding what trauma does to the brain means newer, targeted medications can also be used.

    For example, our research has shown how the brain’s glutamate system – the chemicals responsible for learning and making sense of one’s environment – is overactive in people with complex post-traumtic stress disorder. Medications that work on the glutumate system may therefore help alleviate borderline personality disorder symptoms.

    Educating partners and families about borderline personality disorder, providing them support and co-designing crisis strategies are also important parts of total care. Preventing early life trauma is also critical.

    If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.

    Jayashri Kulkarni receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and educational plus clinical trial grants from pharmaceutical companies that manufacture psychotropic medications.

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

    – ref. For tennis star Destanee Aiava, borderline personality disorder felt like ‘a death sentence’ – and a relief. What is it? – https://theconversation.com/for-tennis-star-destanee-aiava-borderline-personality-disorder-felt-like-a-death-sentence-and-a-relief-what-is-it-247451

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Murdoch’s UK newspapers have apologised to Prince Harry. Where does it leave the legally embattled media empire?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Communication, Deakin University

    This week Prince Harry achieved something few before him have: an admission of guilt and unlawful behaviour from the Murdoch media organisation. But he also fell short of his long-stated goal of holding the Murdochs to account in a public trial.

    The Duke of Sussex, along with Tom Watson, the Labour MP who had led the charge against the Murdochs’ News Group Newspapers (NGN) in the United Kingdom during the 2011–12 phone hacking scandal, are the last to settle their claims against News over their privacy being invaded by phone hacking or through the use of private investigators.

    They join a list of around 1,300 people, including celebrities such as Hugh Grant and Sienna Miller, who have already settled their claims against The Sun newspaper at an estimated cost to Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch’s company of more than £1 billion (almost A$2 billion).

    This one is significant because unlike previous settlements, it came with an admission of wrongdoing and an apology, as well as the perfunctory wheelbarrow full of cash.

    Until now, The Sun has simply refused to say sorry or admit liability. But that stance has become increasingly absurd.

    As Grant posted on X last year when he settled his claim:

    News Group are claiming they are entirely innocent of the things I had accused The Sun of doing. As is common with entirely innocent people, they are offering me an enormous sum of money to keep this matter out of court.

    Prince Harry wrung from News considerably more. In a statement released after the case was settled on Wednesday morning in London, NGN said:

    NGN offers a full and unequivocal apology to the Duke of Sussex for the serious intrusion by The Sun between 1996 and 2011 into his private life, including incidents of unlawful activities carried out by private investigators working for The Sun.

    It went on:

    NGN also offers a full and unequivocal apology to the Duke of Sussex for the phone hacking, surveillance and misuse of private information by journalists and private investigators instructed by them at the News of the World. NGN further apologises to the Duke for the impact on him of the extensive coverage and serious intrusion into his private life as well as the private life of Diana, Princess of Wales, his late mother, in particular during his younger years. We acknowledge and apologise for the distress caused to the Duke, and the damage inflicted on relationships, friendships and family, and have agreed to pay him substantial damages. It is also acknowledged, without any admission of illegality, that NGN’s response to the 2006 arrests and subsequent actions were regrettable.

    Let’s break down what this is actually saying, and what it isn’t.

    Carefully crafted wording

    First, it is undoubtedly a significant admission that in pursuit of stories, The Sun engaged in unlawful activity. That is a big step up (or down, depending on your point of view) from previous settlement statements.

    Note, though, it carefully pins the unlawful activity on private investigators working for The Sun rather than on journalists and, more importantly, editors. The word “incidents” is doing a lot of work here: “widespread” and “industrial-strength” come to mind as more appropriate.

    Harry’s lawyer, David Sherborne, said immediately after the settlement was reached that “NGN unlawfully engaged more than 100 private investigators over at least 16 years on more than 35,000 occasions”.

    He continued: “this happened as much at The Sun as it did at the News of the World with the knowledge of all the Editors and executives, going to the very top of the company.”

    NGN’s statement, then, continues to assert phone hacking did not happen at The Sun but in a roundabout way, somehow, the newspaper benefited from it. Sort of.

    Dancing to avoid perjury

    The company has been engaged in this kind of casuistry ever since 2006 when it said the journalist and private investigator who were found guilty of phone hacking (Clive Goodman and Glen Mulcaire, respectively) were just two bad apples in an otherwise orchard-kissed media basket.

    The hundreds of people who have received payments because their phones were hacked know this only too well, but there is an important reason NGN feels it still has to maintain this charade. To do otherwise would be an admission that it has perjured itself in courts and before inquiries.

    The Murdochs’ company can hardly deny that journalists at the newspaper it was forced to close over phone hacking – The News of the World – were engaged in the practice. Several of them were jailed over it, most notably former editor Andy Coulson.

    As one of Coulson’s former reporters, Dan Evans, testified at his editor’s trial in 2014, “even the office cat knew” phone hacking was happening at the newspaper.

    The newspaper was closed, in large part, to try and persuade the public that the problem of unethical reporters was confined to that newspaper alone.

    They weren’t expected to notice that months later, News set up a Sunday edition of The Sun that continues to be published.

    The legal war continues

    For Prince Harry, this has been a deeply personal campaign, especially as News has admitted seriously intruding into his private life since he was 12, and into his mother’s too, for many years.

    NGN also acknowledged, without any admission of illegality, that its response to the 2006 arrests and its subsequent actions were “regrettable”. This is PR-speak for when you can’t bring yourself to actually apologise.

    Harry’s lawyer went on the attack over these evasions and euphemisms:

    there was an extensive conspiracy to cover up what really had been going on and who knew about it. Senior executives deliberately obstructed justice by deleting over 30 million emails, destroying back-up tapes, and making false denials – all in the face of an ongoing police investigation. They then repeatedly lied under oath to cover their tracks – both in Court and at the Leveson Public Inquiry.

    Beneath the duelling statements, though, is the sense that this settlement, important though it is, may not be the end of the saga.

    It seems clear those backing and advising Prince Harry see the settlement as an important step in pursuing criminal charges against NGN executives, as well as winning a personal apology from Rupert Murdoch himself.

    Will that actually happen? We do know that in Murdoch’s long history in the media, apologies are vanishingly rare.

    We also know that the second part of the Leveson inquiry was shelved by the former Conservative government. The recently elected Labour government has been under pressure from Hacked Off, the public interest group that has been advocating for victims of media intrusion and for reform of media laws ever since the phone hacking came to light in 2011.

    Will Britain’s police and government build on NGN’s partial admissions and apologies? Will they investigate News executives, therefore fulfilling what was meant to occur in the second stage of the Leveson inquiry, whose terms of reference singled out News’s activities as a company?

    Or will they take the cautious view that this rare settlement means justice has now been served and hope, like Murdoch and many of his senior executives, this long-running issue will now just quietly go away?

    It is too early to tell. What we do know is that in recent years, the Murdochs’ once brilliant batting average has dropped like a stone. First, there was the historically high payout in the Dominion lawsuit, then the failed attempt to revoke an irrevocable trust that is tearing apart the family, and now the settlement with Prince Harry.

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

    – ref. Murdoch’s UK newspapers have apologised to Prince Harry. Where does it leave the legally embattled media empire? – https://theconversation.com/murdochs-uk-newspapers-have-apologised-to-prince-harry-where-does-it-leave-the-legally-embattled-media-empire-248110

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Elon Musk now has an office in the White House. What’s his political game plan?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Henry Maher, Lecturer in Politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

    Shutterstock/The Conversation

    Elon Musk has emerged as one of the most influential and controversial powerbrokers in the new Trump administration. He spent at least US$277 million (about A$360 million) of his own money to help Donald Trump win re-election, campaigning alongside him around the country.

    This significant investment of time and money raises the question of what the world’s wealthiest person hopes to receive in return. Critics have wondered whether Musk’s support for Trump is just a straightforward commercial transaction, with Musk expecting to receive political favours.

    Or does it reflect Musk’s own genuinely held political views, and perhaps personal political ambition?

    From left to alt-right

    Decoding Musk’s political views and tracking how they have changed over time is a complex exercise. He’s hard to pin down, largely by design.

    Musk’s current X feed, for example, is a bewildering mix of far-right conspiracy theories about immigration, clips of neoliberal economist Milton Friedman warning about the dangers of inflation, and advertisements for Tesla.

    Historically, Musk professes to have been a left libertarian. He says he voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020.

    Musk claims that over time, the Democratic party has moved further to the left, leaving him feeling closer politically to the Republican party.

    Key to Musk’s political shift, at least by his own account, is his estrangement from his transgender daughter, Vivian Jenna Wilson.

    After Vivian’s transition, Musk claimed she was “dead, killed by the woke mind virus”. She is very much alive.

    He’s since repeatedly signalled his opposition to transgender rights and gender-affirming care, and diversity, equity and inclusion policies more broadly.

    However, if the mere existence of a trans person in his family was enough to cause a political meltdown, Musk was clearly already on a trajectory towards far-right politics.

    Rather than responding to a shift in the Democratic Party, it makes more sense to understand Musk’s changing politics as part of a much broader recent phenomenon known as as “the libertarian to alt-right pipeline”.

    The political science, explained

    Libertarianism has historically tended to be divided between left-wing and right-wing forms.

    Left libertarians support economic policies of limited government, such as cutting taxes and social spending, and deregulation more broadly. This is combined with progressive social policies, such as marriage equality and drug decriminalisation.

    By contrast, right libertarians support the same set of economic policies, but hold conservative social views, such as opposing abortion rights and celebrating patriotism.

    Historically, the Libertarian Party in the United States adopted an awkward middle ground between the two poles.

    The past decade, though, has seen the Libertarian Party, and libertarianism more generally, move strongly to the right. In particular, many libertarians have played leading roles in the alt-right movement.

    The alt-right or “alternative right” refers to the recent resurgence of far-right political movements opposing multiculturalism, gender equality and diversity, and supporting white nationalism.

    The alt-right is a very online movement, with its leading activists renowned for internet trolling and “edgelording” – that is, the posting of controversial and confronting content to deliberately stoke controversy and attract attention.

    Though some libertarians have resisted the pull of the alt-right, many have been swept along the pipeline, including prominent leaders in the movement.

    Making sense of Musk

    While this discussion of theory may seem abstract, it helps to understand what Musk’s values are (beneath the chaotic tweets and Nazi salutes).

    In economic terms, Musk remains a limited-government libertarian. He advocates cutting government spending, reducing taxes and repealing regulation – especially regulations that put limits on his businesses.

    His formal role in the Trump administration as head of the “Department of Government Efficiency”, also known as DOGE, is targeted at these goals.

    Musk has suggested that in cutting government spending, he will particularly target diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. This is the alt-right influence on display.

    Alt-right sensibilities are most evident, however, in Musk’s online persona.

    On X, Musk has deliberately stoked controversy by boosting and engaging with white nationalists and racist conspiracy theories.

    For example, he has favourably engaged with far-right politicians advocating for the antisemitic “Great Replacement theory”. This theory claims Jews are encouraging mass migration to the global north as part of a deliberate plot to eliminate the white race.

    More recently, Musk has endorsed the far-right in Germany. He’s also shared videos from known white supremacists outlining the racist “Muslim grooming gangs” conspiracy theory in the United Kingdom.

    Whether Musk actually believes these outlandish racist conspiracy theories is, in many ways, irrelevant.

    Rather, Musk’s public statements are better understood as reflecting philosopher Harry Frankfurt’s famous definition of “bullshit”. For Frankfurt, “bullshit” refers to statements made to impress or provoke in which the speaker is simply not concerned with whether the statement is actually true.

    Much of Musk’s online persona is part of a deliberate alt-right populist strategy to stoke controversy, upset “the left”, and then claim to be a persecuted victim when criticised.

    Theory vs practice

    Though Musk’s public statements might fit nicely into contemporary libertarianism, there are always contradictions when putting ideology into practice.

    For example, despite Musk’s oft-stated preference for limited government, it’s well documented that his companies have received extensive subsidies and support from various governments.

    Musk will expect this special treatment to continue under a quintessentially transactional president such as Trump.

    The vexed issue of immigration also presents some contradictions.

    Across the campaign, both Musk and Trump repeatedly criticised immigration to the US. Reprising the themes of the far-right Great Replacement theory, Musk claimed illegal immigration was a deliberate plot by Democrats to “replace” the existing electorate with “compliant illegals”.

    However, after the election Musk has argued Trump should preserve categories of skilled migration such as the H1-B visas. This angered more explicit white supremacists, such as Trump advisor Laura Loomer.

    Musk’s motives in arguing for the visas are not humanitarian. H1-B visas allow temporary workers to enter the country for up to six years, making them entirely dependent on the sponsoring company. It’s a situation some have called “indentured servitude”.

    These visas have been used heavily in the technology sector, including in companies owned by both Musk and Trump.

    An unsteady alliance

    So what might we expect from Musk now that he has both political office and influence?

    Musk’s stated aim of using DOGE to cut $2 trillion from the US budget would represent an unprecedented transformation of government. It also seems highly unlikely.

    Instead, expect Musk to focus on creating controversy by cutting DEI initiatives and other politically sensitive programs, such as support for women’s reproductive rights.

    Musk will clearly use his political influence to look after the interests of his companies. Shares in Tesla surged to record highs following Trump’s re-election, suggesting investors believe Musk will be a major financial beneficiary of the second Trump administration.

    Finally, Musk will undoubtedly use his new position to remain in the public eye. This last part might lead Musk into conflict with another expert in shaping the media cycle – Trump himself.

    Musk has already reportedly fallen out with Vivek Ramaswamy, who will now no longer co-lead DOGE with Musk.

    Exactly how stable the alliance between Trump and Musk is, and whether the egos and interests of the two billionaires can continue to coexist, remains to be seen.

    If the alliance persists, it will be a key factor in shaping what many are terming the emergence of a “new gilded age” of political corruption and soaring inequality.

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

    – ref. Elon Musk now has an office in the White House. What’s his political game plan? – https://theconversation.com/elon-musk-now-has-an-office-in-the-white-house-whats-his-political-game-plan-248011

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: College course teaches Philly students to appreciate beer − whether they’re tailgating or fine dining

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Paul O’Neill, Assistant Clinical Professor of Food and Hospitality Management, Drexel University

    The Philadelphia region is home to over 90 craft breweries. sutiporn somnam/Moment Collection via Getty Images

    Uncommon Courses is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.

    Title of course:

    The Fundamentals of Beer

    What prompted the idea for the course?

    After 25 years of working in professional kitchens and as a server in fine dining, I became an adjunct professor and then director of special projects in the Food and Hospitality Management department at Drexel University. Lynn Hoffman, the founder of the school’s culinary program and the author of “The Short Course in Beer,” suggested we create a 10-week beer course.

    It seemed like a no-brainer, given beer’s popularity with college students. But it was also an opportunity to help our students appreciate beer’s dizzying array of styles, as well as its deep cultural and historical significance – including right here in Philadelphia.

    What does the course explore?

    The course explores the history of brewing and how different societies – specifically Sumerian, German, English and Belgian – influenced the ingredients and brewing techniques used to make different styles of beers.

    Some styles are named after their city of origin – for example, pilsners originated in Pilzen, Czech Republic. Others are derived from the brewing procedure. “Lager,” for example, is German for “to stock or store.” These beers are stored at refrigerated temperatures for months after they’re brewed in order for residual flavors to subside, making way for a cleaner, crisper and more refreshing profile. Meanwhile, “porters” are named after the London working-class longshoremen – those who loaded and unloaded cargo at ports – who commonly consumed them.

    After studying the foundational aspects of beer, students learn about its evolution in America, with a focus on the Philadelphia region.

    For example, Yuengling, originally named Eagle Brewery, was established in 1829 in Pottsville, Pennsylvania, about 100 miles outside Philadelphia, and is credited with being America’s oldest continuously operating brewery. And in the city itself, local brewer Robert Hare Jr. made what George Washington referred to as “the best porter in Philadelphia,” just down the street from where America’s first lager was purportedly brewed by Bavarian expat John Wagner around 1840.

    We also discuss current Philadelphia-area brewers such as the Philadelphia Brewing Company, Dock Street and Yards, and their impact on the city’s craft beer industry.

    Why is this course relevant now?

    Beer and other alcoholic beverages have a significant financial impact on the restaurant industry, where many businesses operate on thin margins. Restaurants can attract diners with a dynamic beverage offering. A good beer program requires an informed staff, locally brewed options and an array of diverse styles. They might showcase classic lagers and ales alongside popular contemporary favorites such as New England IPAs and Italian pilsners, and off-the-wall experiments like Fruity Pebbles kettle sour ales.

    What’s a critical lesson from the course?

    Beer appreciation is not inebriation.

    There is a proper way to analyze beer through sight, aroma, palate texture and flavor. We use a tasting grid to guide students through this process. First we assess the beer’s color, clarity and foam, which gives us our initial ideas regarding the beer’s character. We then evaluate the beer’s aroma, which is derived from the grains, hops and fermentation. Then we sip and focus on the texture of the beer to determine the weight of it on the palate, the quality of the carbonation and the mouthfeel – whether it is thin, full or silky. Last, we assess the flavor profile.

    Students get the opportunity to distinguish the various malt and hop characters present in many popular beer styles – from the crisp, biscuit or cracker flavor and light green bitterness of a pilsner, to the dried fruit and dark caramel-laden quality of doppelbocks, to the cold-brew coffee style of dry stouts.

    “Tasting” and not simply “drinking” beer enables students to understand and appreciate what is in their glass. It is also important to note that when analyzing a beer, the glass must be clean, clear and of a certain shape – tulip. Having a globe to swirl the beer allows tasters to judge the viscosity, test the carbonation and open up the aromas.

    What materials does the course feature?

    • Lynn Hoffman’s “Short Course in Beer” offers a digestible summation of beer styles, history and how beer can be enjoyed in settings ranging from tailgates to fine dining.

    • Joshua Bernstein’s “The Complete Beer Course” illustrates the beer family tree in great detail, includes interviews with prominent brewers and provides textbook examples of various beer styles.

    • The Brewers Association’s Style Guidelines
      and Tasting Grid are go-to guides for how beer styles are delineated using a scale of color, bitterness and flavor attributes.

    • Six 1-oz. weekly samples allow students to taste historical representations and current iterations of a particular beer style, such as Bohemian pilsners, German hefeweizens, English bitters and Belgian tripels.

    • We also do a guided tour and tasting at one of Philadelphia’s larger independent craft beer brewers, Yards brewery.

    What will the course prepare students to do?

    Students learn about the history of beer production and its cultural relevance, and develop an understanding of tasting notes and profiles for various beer styles so they can distinguish between ale and lager family styles. By the end of the course, they should also be able to design their own beer menu for a restaurant.

    Paul O’Neill does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. College course teaches Philly students to appreciate beer − whether they’re tailgating or fine dining – https://theconversation.com/college-course-teaches-philly-students-to-appreciate-beer-whether-theyre-tailgating-or-fine-dining-244476

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Trump’s tariffs can’t solve America’s fentanyl crisis

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Rodney Coates, Professor of Critical Race and Ethnic Studies, Miami University

    Americans consume more illicit drugs per capita than anyone else in the world; about 6% of the U.S. population uses them regularly.

    One such drug, fentanyl – a synthetic opioid that’s 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine – is the leading reason U.S. overdose deaths have surged in recent years. While the rate of fentanyl overdose deaths has dipped a bit recently, it’s still vastly higher than it was just five years ago.

    Ending the fentanyl crisis won’t be easy. The U.S. has an addiction problem that spans decades – long predating the rise of fentanyl – and countless attempts to regulate, legislate and incarcerate have done little to reduce drug consumption. Meanwhile, the opioid crisis alone costs Americans tens of billions of dollars each year.

    With past policies having failed to curb fentanyl deaths, President Donald Trump now looks set to turn to another tool to fight America’s drug problem: trade policy.

    During his presidential campaign, Trump pledged to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico if they don’t halt the flow of drugs across U.S. borders. Trump also promised to impose a new set of tariffs against China if it doesn’t do more to crack down on the production of chemicals used to make fentanyl. He reiterated his plan on his first day back in office, saying to reporters, “We’re thinking in terms of 25% on Mexico and Canada because they’re allowing … fentanyl to come in.”

    Speaking as a professor who studies social policy, I think both fentanyl and the proposed import taxes represent significant threats to the U.S. While the human toll of fentanyl is undeniable, the real question is whether tariffs will work – or worsen what’s already a crisis.

    Fentanyl: The ‘single greatest challenge’

    In 2021, more than 107,000 Americans died from overdoses – the most ever recorded – and nearly seven out of 10 deaths involved fentanyl or similar synthetic opioids. In 2022, fentanyl was killing an average of 200 people each day. And while fentanyl deaths declined slightly in 2023, nearly 75,000 Americans still died from synthetic opioids that year. In March of that year – the most recent for which full-year data on overdose deaths is available – the then-secretary of homeland security declared fentanyl to be “the single greatest challenge we face as a country.”

    But history shows that government efforts to curb drug use often have little success.

    The first real attempt to regulate drugs in the U.S. occurred in 1890, when, amid rampant drug abuse, Congress enacted a law taxing morphine and opium. In the years that followed, cocaine use skyrocketed, rising 700% between 1890 and 1902. Cocaine was so popular, it was even found in drinks such as Coca-Cola, from which it got its name.

    This was followed by a 1909 act banning the smoking of opium, and, in 1937, the “Marihuana Tax Act.” The most comprehensive package of laws was instituted with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which classified drugs into five categories based on their medical uses and potential for abuse or dependence. A year later, then-President Richard Nixon launched the “War on Drugs” and declared drug abuse as “public enemy No. 1.” And in 1986, Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, directing US$1.7 billion for drug enforcement and control.

    President Richard Nixon declared drug abuse “Public enemy No. 1” at this 1971 press conference.

    These policies have generally failed to curb drug supply and use, while also causing significant harm to people and communities of color. For example, between 1980 and 1997, the number of incarcerations for nonviolent drug offenses went from 50,000 to 400,000. But these policies hardly put a dent in consumption. The share of high school seniors using drugs dipped only slightly over the same period, from 65% in 1980 to 58% in 1997.

    In short, past U.S. efforts to reduce illegal drug use haven’t been especially effective. Now, it looks like the U.S. is shifting toward using tariffs – but research suggests that those will not lead to better outcomes either, and could actually cause considerable harm.

    Why tariffs won’t work

    America’s experiments with tariffs can be traced back to the founding era with the passage of the Tariff Act of 1789. This long history has shown that tariffs, industrial subsidies and protectionist policies don’t do much to stimulate broad economic growth at home – but they raise prices for consumers and can even lead to global economic instability. History also shows that tariffs don’t work especially well as negotiating tools, failing to effect significant policy changes in target countries. Economists generally agree that the costs of tariffs outweigh the benefits.

    Over the course of Trump’s first term, the average effective tariff rate on Chinese imports went from 3% to 11%. But while imports from China fell slightly, the overall trade relationship didn’t change much: China remains the second-largest supplier of goods to the U.S.

    The tariffs did have some benefit – for Vietnam and other nearby countries with relatively low labor costs. Essentially, the tariffs on China caused production to shift, with global companies investing billions of dollars in competitor nations.

    This isn’t the first time Trump has used trade policy to pressure China on fentanyl – he did so in his first term. But while China made some policy changes in response, such as adding fentanyl to its controlled substances list in 2019, fentanyl deaths in the U.S. continued to rise. Currently, China still ranks as the No. 1 producer of fentanyl precursors, or chemicals used to produce illicit fentanyl. And there are others in the business: India, over that same period, has become a major producer of fentanyl.

    A question of supply and demand

    Drugs have been pervasive throughout U.S. history. And when you investigate this history and look at how other nations are dealing with this problem rather than criminalization, the Swiss and French have approached it as an addiction problem that could be treated. They realized that demand is what fuels the illicit market. And as any economist will tell you, supply will find a way if you don’t limit the demand. That’s why treatment works and bans don’t.

    The U.S. government’s ability to control the production of these drugs is limited at best. The problem is that new chemical products will continually be produced. Essentially, failure to restrict demand only places bandages on hemorrhaging wounds. What the U.S. needs is a more systematic approach to deal with the demand that’s fueling the drug crisis.

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

    – ref. Why Trump’s tariffs can’t solve America’s fentanyl crisis – https://theconversation.com/why-trumps-tariffs-cant-solve-americas-fentanyl-crisis-245978

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Norovirus, aka the winter vomiting bug, is on the rise – an infectious disease expert explains the best ways to stay safe

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By William Schaffner, Professor of preventive medicine, health policy, infectious diseses, Vanderbilt University

    Norovirus is accompanied by abdominal pain, diarrhea and explosive vomiting. Alla Bielikova/Moment via Getty Images

    The highly contagious norovirus – popularly known as “stomach flu” or the “winter vomiting bug” – is now surging through the U.S.. The number of outbreaks is up significantly over previous years, possibly due in part to a new strain of the virus. Outbreaks can occur after direct contact with someone who is infected. Food and household surfaces can also become contaminated.

    William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, discusses the symptoms of norovirus, how best to treat it, and the populations most vulnerable to this illness.

    Dr. William Schaffner discusses the norovirus.

    The Conversation has collaborated with SciLine to bring you highlights from the discussion that have been edited for brevity and clarity.

    What are the symptoms of a norovirus infection?

    William Schaffner: Norovirus is an intestinal virus that can make you very, very sick. It is indelicately called winter vomiting disease, and it begins suddenly, often with an explosive vomit that then repeats itself.

    Norovirus can cause abdominal pain and diarrhea at the same time, along with a fever. It will probably make you feel miserable for two or three days – but then everybody pretty much recovers.

    How should norovirus be treated?

    William Schaffner: The major problem norovirus causes is dehydration from all that vomiting and diarrhea. So you have to stay hydrated. Do this with little sips of clear liquids, because if you take too much, it’ll come right back up. Sports drinks are very good.

    Most people who get into trouble are either very young or older and more frail. They may have to go to the hospital to get rehydrated with an IV. When the occasional death occurs due to this dehydrating infection, it’s in those vulnerable populations.

    Why does norovirus tend to surge during the winter?

    William Schaffner: You can get it any time of the year, but there is a seasonal increase in the winter for reasons that scientists are not quite sure of. But people spend a lot of time indoors with each other in wintertime, so that makes it easier for the virus to get from one place to another. All that travel over the holidays, as well as family gatherings and parties, can spread the virus.

    How can people protect themselves from the norovirus?

    William Schaffner: The most important thing is good hand hygiene. Washing with soap and water works the best. Those hand hygiene gels and wipes – the hand sanitizers – that people tend to use aren’t as effective against norovirus, so just wash frequently with good old soap and water. And then, of course, avoid people who are sick.

    Also, remember that the virus can survive on environmental surfaces, like counters, doorknobs and tables. You don’t want to pick up those viruses on your fingers. If you get a little bit of virus on your fingertips and then touch your lips, you can get an infection because it just takes a small dose of the virus to make you sick.

    Who’s particularly vulnerable to norovirus?

    William Schaffner: The people who are more susceptible to catching it are those living in semi-enclosed or enclosed populations. For example, people in nursing homes, schools and prisons – essentially any circumstance where people are together for a long period of time.

    Another place where the virus can spread is cruise ships, which is why norovirus is also called the cruise ship virus. When people are confined on a ship for days and days, these outbreaks can run through most of the passengers.

    Interestingly enough – and this has never been well explained – the crew is usually less affected.

    But again, the most serious illness occurs in older, frail and immune-compromised people, or in the very young, where dehydration can be more serious.

    Where’s the research on developing a norovirus vaccine?

    William Schaffner: Norovirus has presented some scientific challenges. It’s actually rather difficult to grow in the laboratory, and so that has delayed the development of a vaccine. But researchers are working on it.

    Are there other infectious diseases going around right now?

    William Schaffner: Along with norovirus, respiratory viruses are still out there: influenza, COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV. They’re all perking up at the same time. It looks as though we’re having a very brisk winter viral season.

    Watch the full interview to hear more.

    SciLine is a free service based at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a nonprofit that helps journalists include scientific evidence and experts in their news stories.

    William Schaffner receives funding from the CDC-sponsored Emerging Infections Program Collaborative Agreement.

    – ref. Norovirus, aka the winter vomiting bug, is on the rise – an infectious disease expert explains the best ways to stay safe – https://theconversation.com/norovirus-aka-the-winter-vomiting-bug-is-on-the-rise-an-infectious-disease-expert-explains-the-best-ways-to-stay-safe-247667

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why does it hurt when you get a scrape? A neuroscientist explains the science of pain

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Yenisel Cruz-Almeida, Associate Professor & Associate Director, Pain Research & Intervention Center Of Excellence, University of Florida

    Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskidsus@theconversation.com.

    “How come you feel pain when you fall and get a scrape?” – Tillman, age 9, Asheville, North Carolina

    Nobody likes to feel pain, but it’s something every person will experience at some point in their life.

    But why is that?

    I am a neuroscientist, and my job is to research why and how people feel pain in order to help doctors understand how to treat it better.

    What is pain?

    To understand why people feel pain, it helps first to understand what pain is. Pain is the unpleasant sensation you feel when your body is experiencing harm, or thinks it is.

    Not everyone experiences pain the same way. Pain is a highly personal experience influenced by a variety of biological, psychological and social factors. For example, research has shown differences in the pain experiences of women and men, young and older people, and even across people from different cultures.

    It’s important for kids to communicate with a trusted adult if they’re experiencing pain.

    Danger signals

    A network of nerves similar to wires runs all through the human body, from the tips of your fingers and toes, through your back inside the spinal cord and up to your brain. Specialized pain receptors called nociceptors can be found at the end of the nerves on your skin, muscles, joints and internal organs.

    Each nociceptor is designed to activate its nerve if it detects a danger signal. One way scientists classify nociceptors is based on the type of danger signal that activates them.

    Mechanical nociceptors respond to physical damage, such as cuts or pressure, while thermal nociceptors react to extreme temperatures. Chemical nociceptors are triggered by chemicals that the body’s own tissues release when they are damaged. These receptors may also be triggered by external irritants, such as the chemical capsaicin, which gives chili peppers their heat. This is why eating spicy food can cause you pain.

    Finally, there are the nociceptors that are activated by a combination of various triggers. For example, one of these receptors in your skin could be activated by the poke of a sharp object, the cold of an ice pack, the heat from a mug of cocoa, a chemical burn from household bleach, or a combination of all three kinds of stimulation.

    Nerves run from various parts of the body through the spinal cord and up into the brain.
    Sebastian Kaulitzki/Science Photo Library via Getty Images

    How pain travels though the body

    When you fall and get a scrape, the mechanical nociceptors in your skin spring into action. As soon as you hit the ground, they activate an electrical signal that travels through the nearby nerves to the spinal cord and up to your brain. Your brain interprets these signals to locate the place in your body that is hurting and determine how intense the pain is.

    Your brain knows that a pain signal is an SOS message from your body that something isn’t right. So it activates multiple systems all at once to get you out of danger and help you survive.

    Your brain may call on other parts of your nervous system to release chemicals called endorphins that will reduce your pain. It may tell your endocrine system to release hormones that prepare your body to handle the stress of your fall by increasing your heart rate, for example. And it may order your immune system to send special immune cells to the site of your scrape to help manage swelling and heal your skin.

    As all of this is happening, your brain takes in information about where you are in the world so that you can respond accordingly. Do you need to move away from something hurting you? Did you fall in the middle of the road and now need to get out of the way of moving cars?

    Not only is your brain working to keep you safe in the moments after your fall, it also is looking ahead to how it can prevent this scenario from happening again. The pain signals from your fall activate parts of your brain called the hippocampus and anterior cingulate cortex that process memory and emotions. They will help you remember how bad falling made you feel so that you will learn how to avoid it in the future.

    But why do we need to feel pain?

    As this example shows, pain is like a warning signal from your body. It helps protect you by telling you when something is wrong so that you can stop doing it and avoid getting hurt more.

    In fact, it’s a problem if you can’t feel pain. Some people have a genetic mutation that changes the way their nociceptors function and do not feel pain at all. This can be very dangerous, because they won’t know when they’re hurt.

    Ultimately, feeling that scrape and the pain sensation from it helps keep you safe from harm.

    Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

    And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

    Yenisel Cruz-Almeida receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. She is an Associate Editor at the Journal of Pain and serves as Treasurer on the US Association for the Study of Pain.

    – ref. Why does it hurt when you get a scrape? A neuroscientist explains the science of pain – https://theconversation.com/why-does-it-hurt-when-you-get-a-scrape-a-neuroscientist-explains-the-science-of-pain-238499

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why government can’t make America ‘healthier’ by micromanaging groceries purchased with SNAP benefits

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Benjamin Chrisinger, Assistant Professor of Community Health, Tufts University

    More than 41 million Americans use SNAP benefits to buy groceries. Brandon Bell/Getty Images

    President Donald Trump’s pick for director of the Health and Human Services Department, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has announced a bold plan. He wants to “Make America Healthy Again.”

    Kennedy’s strategy has gotten a lot of attention for its oddities, such as his opposition to vaccine mandates and support for raw milk. But it includes some concepts that many public health experts consider sensible, such as calling for a stronger focus on chronic disease prevention and seeking more restrictions on prescription drug advertising aimed at consumers.

    But he’s also demanding a ban on junk food from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Banning junk food from SNAP is something that has divided public health experts for years.

    As public health researchers, we’ve devoted our careers to helping reduce chronic diseases. We agree with Kennedy that a healthy diet and sound nutrition are important ways to improve the nation’s health. We also know from our own research that safety net programs, including SNAP benefits – which are still sometimes called food stamps – are staving off hunger and food insecurity for millions of Americans.

    And we’re certain that adding to the restrictions that already limit access to SNAP benefits do little to make Americans healthier.

    What is SNAP?

    Over 42.1 million Americans, about 13% of all families, receive SNAP benefits. More than 1 in 4 of the households enrolled in the program include someone who is earning at least some income.

    More than 4 in 5 families getting SNAP benefits include a child, someone over 65 or someone with a disability. These benefits are distributed on a monthly basis through an electronic benefits transfer card that looks and works like a credit or debit card and can be used at supermarkets and other approved retailers. The federal government has spent more than US$110 billion annually on this program in recent years.

    Benefits help get food on the table but typically don’t cover everything a family needs to eat. The average monthly benefit is $195 per person.

    Americans who earn less than 130% of the poverty line are eligible for SNAP. In the 2025 fiscal year, a family of three can’t make more than $2,152 a month in net income or have assets of more than $4,500 if a household includes someone over 60, and $3,000 if it doesn’t.

    Adults without children or disabilities can’t get these benefits for more than three months every three years unless they meet the program’s work requirements by being employed or spending at least 20 hours weekly in a training program. People who are on strike and foreigners living in the U.S. without authorization are ineligible. People with prior drug-related felony convictions are federally banned from SNAP for life, but states can waive this rule. This program is federally funded but administered by the states, which have some leeway in determining eligibility.

    People enrolled in SNAP already face some restrictions on what they can buy with their benefits. They can’t use SNAP to purchase premade or restaurant meals, alcohol, tobacco, or things such as diapers, vitamins and toilet paper.

    Why restrict SNAP?

    Since SNAP is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Kennedy would have very little power to change SNAP’s rules should the Senate approve his nomination following the controversial politician’s upcoming confirmation hearing on Jan. 29, 2025.

    Still, we’re concerned that his support for new restrictions could help sway the authorities who would be responsible for such a policy change.

    Proposals to ban particular foods from SNAP have been floated many times by state legislators and members of Congress over the years.

    These bills have generally been designed to exclude supposedly luxury items, such as steak and seafood, or aimed at barring purchases from a different supermarket aisle: candy, soda and other junk foods.

    States can’t make this kind of modification without the USDA’s authorization. And so far, the USDA has rebuffed calls for it to allow such measures. Even without the agency’s support, Congress can make changes to these policies in the Farm Bill, which could in the future force the USDA to allow these restrictions in states that ask for them.

    The Trump administration, including Kennedy, has signaled its interest in these kinds of restrictions.

    Why SNAP restrictions won’t make America healthier

    While improving the American diet is a worthy goal, research that we and other scholars have done makes it clear that adding new restrictions to SNAP will do little to help us become a healthier nation.

    First, many studies have found that nearly all Americans could eat healthier.

    The rich and the poor alike consume unhealthy food in the U.S.

    Studies show that while lower-income Americans often spend more of their food budget on unhealthy stuff than more affluent people do, families in the middle and at the top of the income ladder still purchase lots of junk food.

    Unsurprisingly, those purchases reflect what we’re eating: Americans at all income levels have diets that don’t satisfy federal dietary guidelines. Spotlighting the poor food choices of SNAP participants would be a distraction from these facts and would risk further stigmatizing a successful anti-hunger program.

    Maintaining a good diet is not cheap or straightforward, especially on a low income. The poorest communities have far more inexpensive fast-food chains and dollar stores than their wealthier neighbors, as well as more ads for unhealthy products. Even when they get SNAP benefits, many Americans still struggle to make ends meet, and studies show how this negatively affects the quality of their diets.

    Another reason SNAP restrictions wouldn’t make America healthier is that diet is just one of many contributors to chronic diseases. Your level of physical activity, exposure to pollution, stress and genetics, among other things, shape your risk of getting heart disease, diabetes or other chronic diseases.

    Flexible but don’t cover all needs

    SNAP benefits are fairly flexible, covering just about anything people might want to eat, even if they have dietary restrictions due to their culture or health conditions. The program helps Americans afford most of their basic necessities, although it fails to pay for all the groceries most people who rely on the program need to buy in the course of a month.

    SNAP’s main function is preventing the worst effects of hunger and food insecurity for the more than 41 million people relying on it.

    There are other ways for the government to help make Americans healthier besides the imposition of stigmatizing restrictions on SNAP. For example, it can create matching programs for SNAP dollars spent on fruits and vegetables, which would give retailers incentives to offer more produce and make it easier for people who get SNAP benefits to buy more healthy food. The USDA has begun to support this kind of effort in several states.

    Benjamin Chrisinger receives funding from The Research Innovation and Development Grants in Economics (RIDGE) Partnership.

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

    – ref. Why government can’t make America ‘healthier’ by micromanaging groceries purchased with SNAP benefits – https://theconversation.com/why-government-cant-make-america-healthier-by-micromanaging-groceries-purchased-with-snap-benefits-246462

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why neglecting your brain health can make it harder to achieve physical goals

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Barbara Jacquelyn Sahakian, Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology, University of Cambridge

    SofikoS/Shutterstock

    Our cognition and mental wellbeing are crucial factors for our quality of life and put us in a good position to contribute to society. Ultimately, it can be near impossible to achieve physical goals and demanding life challenges if our brain health is not optimal.

    Yet most of us appear to be more concerned with physical health than brain health. According to the YouGov website the most popular New Year’s resolutions in the UK in 2024 were doing more exercise, saving money, losing weight and dieting – with about 20% reporting they were failing some resolutions only just six days into the year. A large study of approximately 1,000 participants showed that mental health only featured in about 5% of resolutions.

    It’s easy to monitor your physical health using mobile devices and wearable technology to preserve physical health throughout your life. It may be more unclear, however, how to improve and monitor brain health and mental wellbeing. In our new book Brain Boost: Healthy Habits for a Happier Life, we draw on research to offer practical tips.

    A number of factors contribute to our happiness in life, including genetics, our social and physical environment, cognition and our behaviour, such as lifestyle choices. Studies have shown that good cognitive function is related to better wellbeing and happiness.

    Interestingly, according to the 2024 World Happiness Report all five Nordic countries – Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden – are in the top 10 happiest countries. The UK and the US, however, do not feature in the top 10.

    In the UK, the YouGov website has been tracking mood states and while it reports that happiness is the most commonly expressed emotion, only 45% of people feel it. Ideally this number should be much higher.

    In addition, feeling stressed and frustrated are the next top emotions with 40% and 35% of people having these feelings respectively. Disappointingly, optimism is also low, for example, only 23% of 18-24 year-olds and over 75-year-olds feel optimistic on average, and 17% of 45-54 year-olds.

    Happiness and wellbeing in general reduces the effects of stress and promotes health and longevity.

    Nurturing your brain

    In our book, we draw on the latest scientific evidence, including our own, to highlight seven essential lifestyle factors that improve our brain health, cognition and wellbeing. We demonstrate how simple — and often surprising —adjustments to our daily habits can enhance brain fitness, boost cognition, and promote overall wellbeing.

    We suggest small incremental steps to improving lifestyle habits and ensuring these fit within our daily activities, as well as being enjoyable and pleasurable. In this way, we can ensure, that unlike New Year’s resolutions that we give up within six days, we can maintain these throughout life. This puts us in a better position to achieve physical challenges in the future.

    These lifestyle factors include exercise, diet, sleep, social interactions, kindness, mindfulness and learning, and knowing how to get the best out of work. For example, exercise is an “all-rounder”, as it can boost our physical health but also our brain health, cognition and mood. In fact, studies have shown that exercise can increase the size of our hippocampus, which is critical for learning and memory.

    Similarly, sleeping the optimal number of hours each night can improve our immune system, brain structure and mental wellbeing. Our own study showed that sleeping 7-8 hours per night in middle to older adulthood was associated with better brain structure, cognition, such as processing speed and memory, and mental health.

    Staying socially connected also plays an important role in our brain health. We have shown that being socially isolated in older adults is associated with a 26% increased risk of dementia. Whereas, having the optimal number of friends in adolescence, about five, is linked with better brain structure, cognition, educational attainment and wellbeing.

    Learning new things is also essential to keep the neural circuits in our brain functioning at their best level for as long as possible. We need to challenge ourselves mentally to keep our brains active – just as we need to do physical exercise to keep our bodies fit.

    This builds cognitive reserve and helps us in times of stress. We can also keep our brains active in a number of ways, for example, by learning a new language or how to play a musical instrument or you can read an educational book about something that interests you.

    Keeping our bodies healthy is incredibly important. But we need to also nurture our brains if we want to be happy, mentally sharp and well protected against diseases such as dementia.

    Embracing these simple strategies to prioritise our brain health and wellbeing is essential for a happier and more fulfilling life. Ultimately, lifestyle choices play a significant role in reducing stress and promoting resilience, creativity and overall quality of life.

    Barbara Jacquelyn Sahakian receives funding from the Wellcome Trust and the Lundbeck Foundation. Her research work is conducted within the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) Mental Health and Neurodegeneration Themes. She consults for Cambridge Cognition.

    Christelle Langley receives funding from the Wellcome Trust. Her research work is conducted within the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) Mental Health and Neurodegeneration Themes.

    – ref. Why neglecting your brain health can make it harder to achieve physical goals – https://theconversation.com/why-neglecting-your-brain-health-can-make-it-harder-to-achieve-physical-goals-248043

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Understanding paranormal beliefs and conspiracy theories isn’t just about misinformation – this course unpacks the history

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jeb Card, Associate Teaching Professor of Anthropology, Miami University

    The ‘black mailbox’ along Highway 375 near Rachel, Nev., a traditional spot for UFO hunters to meet and search the skies near Area 51. AP Photo/John Locher

    Uncommon Courses is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.

    Title of course:

    “Investigating the Paranormal”

    What prompted the idea for the course?

    My training and professional work have been in Mesoamerican archaeology, but I’ve had a lifelong fascination with paranormal concepts. In fact, I considered studying the UFO community for my doctoral research in cultural anthropology.

    I eventually fused these two interests in my book “Spooky Archaeology: Myth and the Science of the Past,” which examines why archaeology shows up so much in ideas about the mysterious and weird. Most people are familiar with pop culture characters like Indiana Jones seeking magical artifacts. Perhaps less immediately obvious is just how common archaeological topics are in paranormal and conspiracy culture.

    The popularity of paranormal ideas – from television shows and thousands of podcasts to UFOs on the front page of The New York Times and in government investigations – made it clear that a course on paranormal culture would be an excellent way for students to get a taste of social science research.

    What does the course explore?

    The material begins with premodern ideas of magic, myth and metaphysics. The narrative that “Western” societies tell of the development of the modern world is that the Enlightenment cast off supernatural thinking in favor of science. The historical reality, however, is not so simple.

    As science based on observation of material evidence emerged in the 17th through 19th centuries, so did a paranormal worldview: theories about a nonmaterial or hidden reality beyond the mundane, from monsters to psychic powers. Some of these ideas were tied to older religious notions of the sacred or strange but not divine phenomena. Others were new – particularly those suggesting the hidden existence of prehistoric extinct creatures or lost cities.

    In either case, the key element was that proponents of these ideas often tried to support their existence with the kind of evidence used in science, though their “proofs” fell short of scientific standards. In other words, the paranormal is in conflict with the knowledge and worldview of modernity but also attempts to use the concepts of modernity to oppose it.

    The class examines how this tension produced 20th century “-ologies” like parapsychology, which examines evidence for consciousness beyond matter, and cryptozoology, which searches the ends of the Earth for creatures tied to the mythic past. We also learn about UFOlogy, whose proponents have collected alleged contacts with technology and beings from beyond this world ever since the Cold War, as great earthly powers filled the skies with secretive hi-tech aircraft and spaceships.

    As the class concludes, we examine how the “-ologies” declined after the Cold War, alongside the cultural capital of science, whose height of public respect was in the mid-20th century. Since then, proving the existence of paranormal things to institutional scientists has become less important in paranormal communities than promoting them to a broader public.

    Why is this course relevant now?

    Beyond public interest in paranormal topics, the paranormal is entwined with sociocultural forces that have dramatically increased the role of conspiracy rhetoric in the United States and elsewhere. At their core, both types of belief claim to have figured out some kind of supposedly hidden knowledge.

    Furthermore, the conspiracy theories that are now commonplace in American political discourse are more rooted in paranormal ideas than in previous decades. Conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination or even 9/11 were still largely within the materialist realm. People argued that “the truth” had been covered up, but their arguments did not rely on metaphysical ideas. Today, major conspiracy theories involve secret cabals, mystical symbols and code words, demonic forces and extraterrestrial entities.

    What’s a critical lesson from the course?

    Evidence must be interrogated on its own, regardless of whether it fits your perspective. I find time and again that students have a hard time approaching evidence without bias, whether that bias is conscious or not: “knowing” that something must be true, or must be absurd.

    One person apparently makes a death bed confession of faking a famous Loch Ness Monster photo, pleasing skeptics. Another claims to have seen a Bigfoot at close range, pleasing believers. Without further evidence, both are stories: no more, no less.

    The issue isn’t to draw an equivalence between the bigger concepts. Not all narratives are equally well-founded. But students learn how to collect evidence, rather than simply rely on their gut sense of what is plausible or not.

    What will the course prepare students to do?

    This course is meant to help students discern useful and reliable information about claims and events, separating them from irrelevant or inaccurate narratives or sources. The goal is not just “critical thinking” aimed at combating disinformation, though that is part of what they should learn. Students practice evaluating evidence but also develop an approach for analyzing and understanding phenomena behind it: how factors like history, culture and institutions of authority, such as science and government, shape what people trust and what they believe.

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

    – ref. Understanding paranormal beliefs and conspiracy theories isn’t just about misinformation – this course unpacks the history – https://theconversation.com/understanding-paranormal-beliefs-and-conspiracy-theories-isnt-just-about-misinformation-this-course-unpacks-the-history-242007

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Assad’s fall opens window for Syrian refugees to head home − but for many, it won’t be an easy decision

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kelsey Norman, Fellow for the Middle East, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University

    For more than a decade, Syrians have been the world’s largest refugee population.

    More than 6 million Syrians have fled the country since 2011, when an uprising against the regime of Bashar Assad transformed into a 13-year civil war. Most ended up in neighboring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt, while a sizable minority wound up in Europe. But the overthrow of the Assad regime in late 2024 by opposition forces led by the Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has seemingly opened a window for their return, and tens of thousands of former refugees have since made the decision to go back to their homeland.

    How many and who decides to go back, and the circumstances under which they reintegrate into Syrian society, will have enormous implications for both Syria and the countries they resettled in. It also provides an opportunity for migration scholars like ourselves to better understand what happens when refugees finally return home.

    Previous research has shown that Syrian refugees who are trying to decide whether to return are motivated more by conditions in Syria than by policy decisions where they’ve resettled. But individual experiences also play an important role. Counterintuitively, refugees who have been exposed to violence during the Syrian civil war are actually more tolerant of and better at assessing the risk of returning to Syria, research has shown.

    But such research was conducted while Assad was still in power, and it has only been several weeks since Assad fell. As a result, it’s unclear how many Syrians will decide to go back. After all, the current government is transitional, and the country is not fully unified.

    The risk of return

    In the month after Assad’s fall, about 125,000 Syrians headed home, primarily from Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. But for the majority of those yet to return, important questions and considerations remain.

    First and foremost, what will governance look like under the transitional government? So far, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s rule under Ahmed al-Sharaa has suggested the group will embrace inclusivity toward Syria’s diverse array of ethnic and religious minorities. Even so, some observers worry about the group’s prior connections to militant Islamist groups, including al-Qaida.

    Similarly, initial fears about restrictions on women’s participation in public life have mostly been assuaged, despite the transitional government appointing only two women to office.

    Syrians debating whether to return home must also confront the economic devastation wrought by years of war, government mismanagement and corruption, and international sanctions placed on the Assad regime.

    Sanctions blocking the entry of medications and equipment, along with Assad’s bombing of infrastructure throughout the war, have crippled the country’s medical system.

    In 2024, 16.7 million Syrians – more than half the country’s population – were in need of essential humanitarian assistance, even as very little was available. In early 2025, the U.S. announced that it was extending a partial, six-month reprieve of sanctions to allow humanitarian groups to provide basic services such as water, sanitation and electricity.

    But rebuilding the country’s infrastructure will take much longer, and Syrian refugees will have to weigh whether they are better off remaining in their host countries. This is especially true for those who have worked to build new lives over a long period in exile from Syria.

    The caretaker Syrian government will also have to address the issue of property restitution. Many individuals may want to return home only if they indeed have a home to return to. And the policy of forced property transfers and the settlement by Alawite and minority groups allied to the Assad regime in former Sunni areas vacated during the war complicates the issue.

    Continued welcome in Europe?

    Since the start of the civil war, approximately 1.3 million Syrians have sought protection in Europe, the majority of them arriving in 2015 and 2016 and settling in countries such as Germany and Sweden. As of December 2023, 780,000 individuals still held refugee status and subsidiary protection – an additional form of international protection – with the remainder having received either long-term residency or citizenship.

    Syria’s 13-year civil war reduced many homes to rubble.
    Ercin Erturk/Anadolu via Getty Images

    Subsidiary protection was granted to those who didn’t meet the stringent requirements for refugee status under the Geneva Conventions – which requires a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group – but “would face a real risk of suffering serious harm” if returned to their countries of origin.

    Recognition rates for Syrians have remained consistently high between 2015 and 2023, but the breakdown between subsidiary protection and refugee status has fluctuated over the years, with 81% receiving refugee status in 2015 versus 68% receiving subsidiary protection in 2023.

    For Syrians in the EU who hold refugee status or subsidiary protection, as well as for those with pending asylum claims, the future is very uncertain. In accordance with the Geneva Conventions, EU law allows governments to revoke, end or refuse to renew their status if the reason to offer protection has ceased, which many countries believe is the case after Assad’s fall.

    Since then, at least 12 European countries have suspended asylum applications of Syrian nationals. Some nations, such as Austria, have threatened to implement a program of “orderly return and deportation.”

    Conditions in Turkey and Lebanon

    A much larger number of Syrians obtained protection in neighboring countries, namely Turkey (2.9 million), Lebanon (755,000) and Jordan (611,000), though estimates of unregistered Syrians are much higher. In Turkey, which hosts the largest number of Syrian refugees, Syrians are afforded only temporary protection status.

    In theory, this status allows them access to work, health care and education. But in practice, Syrian refugees in Turkey have not always been able to enjoy these rights. Coupled with anti-immigrant sentiments worsened by the 2023 earthquake and presidential election, life has remained difficult for many.

    And while Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has publicly stated that Syrians should return home according to their own timeline, his previous scapegoating of the refugee population indicates that he may ultimately like to see them returned – especially as many in Turkey now believe Syrian refugees have no reason to stay in the country.

    Syrians in Lebanon, which hosts the largest number of Syrian refugees per capita, face even greater economic and legal challenges. The country is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, and its stringent domestic asylum law has granted residency to only 17% of the more than a million Syrians who live in the country.

    Lebanon has been pressuring Syrian refugees to leave the country for years through policies of marginalization and forced deportation, which have intensified in recent months with a government scheme to deport Syrians not registered with the United Nations. As of 2023, 84% of Syrian families were living in extreme poverty. Their vulnerability was exacerbated by the recent conflict between Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon, which led 425,000 Syrians to escape war once again and return to Syria even though conditions at the time were not safe.

    Testing the water

    Offering go-and-see visits – whereby one member of a family is allowed to return to a home country to evaluate the situation and subsequently permitted to reenter the host country without losing their legal status – is the norm in many refugee situations. The policy is being used at present for Ukrainians in Europe and was used in the past for Bosnian and South Sudanese refugees.

    The same policy could serve Syrian refugees now – indeed, Turkey recently implemented such a plan. But above all, we believe returns to Syria should be voluntary, not forced. Getting the conditions right for returning refugees will have enormous implications for rebuilding the country and keeping the peace – or not – in the years to come.

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

    – ref. Assad’s fall opens window for Syrian refugees to head home − but for many, it won’t be an easy decision – https://theconversation.com/assads-fall-opens-window-for-syrian-refugees-to-head-home-but-for-many-it-wont-be-an-easy-decision-247051

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: I study democracy worldwide − here’s how Texas is eroding human rights, free expression and civil liberties

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Katie Scofield, Assistant Instructional Professor in Political Science, Texas A&M University-San Antonio

    Everything is bigger in Texas, except maybe its democracy. Luis Diaz Devesa/Moment via Getty

    While concerns about the future of American democracy dominate headlines worldwide, millions of Texans are already seeing a rapid decline in democratic standards.

    In December 2024, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued a New York doctor for prescribing abortion-inducing medications to a woman in Collin County, Texas, alleging that the shipment violated Texas’ near-total ban on abortion.

    Two months earlier, Paxton’s office had sued to block a federal rule protecting women’s out-of-state medical records from criminal investigation. And in 2022, it sued the Biden administration over federal guidelines requiring doctors to perform abortions in emergency situations.

    Paxton’s lawsuits – alongside the state’s restrictive abortion policies – raise troubling questions about individual privacy and women’s bodily autonomy in Texas, where I live and teach. And they’re indicative of a broader problem. As my research on democracy and human rights shows, the state government is becoming increasingly antidemocratic.

    Scholars examine a number of factors to determine the health of a democracy. Elections must be free and fair. There should be freedom of expression and belief, multiple competitive political parties and minimal corruption. A democratic government must also respect individual freedom.

    On many of these metrics, I believe Texas falls short.

    Are Texas elections free and fair?

    Texas has some of the most restrictive voting laws in the United States, including strict voter ID laws, stringent limits on mail-in and absentee ballots and no online voter registration.

    Republicans, who passed each of these policies, claim their concern is a democratic one – election integrity. Yet, when Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick offered a US$25,000 reward to anyone who could prove voter fraud in the 2020 election, it led to just one arrest.

    The Texas Legislature nonetheless pledged to pass an even more restrictive voting bill in 2021, referencing “purity of the ballot box,” an old Jim Crow phrase. Democratic lawmakers ended up fleeing the state to paralyze the state assembly and keep the most egregious parts of the bill from passing.

    Healthy democracies also have robust competition between multiple parties so that voters have real choices at the polls.

    Yet since its current constitution was written in 1876, Texas has effectively been a one-party state governed by conservatives. No Democrat has won statewide office since 1994 – the longest Democrats have been locked out of statewide office in any state.

    Money in politics

    Texas puts no limits on individual campaign contributions to the governor, one of just 12 U.S. states that lacks this common anti-corruption measure.

    This has allowed Texas’ current governor, Greg Abbott, who has been in office since 2015, to raise vast sums of money. In the 2022 Texas gubernatorial race – the most expensive in the state’s history at $212 million – Abbott outspent his Democratic opponent by almost $50 million. In 2018, he had 90 times more cash on hand than his Democratic opponent.

    Texas’ lack of effective campaign finance regulations has given big donors access to power in the form of gubernatorial appointments.

    An in-depth investigation by The Texas Tribune in 2022 revealed that 27 of the 41 members of the governor’s COVID-19 task force were campaign donors who had collectively paid $6 million toward the governor’s reelection. Many were business owners who had a vested interest in reopening the state.

    Freedom of expression

    Texas is also at the center of a national struggle over academic freedom, a key component of free expression.

    Texas passed a law in 2023 requiring public universities to close their diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, offices, depriving the most vulnerable student communities of resources such as scholarships, mental health programs and career workshops.

    The Texas Senate is considering expanding this legislation to prohibit “DEI curriculum and course content.”

    The mere threat appears to be squelching freedom of thought and intellectual exploration in Texas universities already. The University of North Texas in November started editing course titles and syllabi to remove identity-based topics.

    On Jan. 14, Abbott threatened to fire the president of Texas A&M University – a part of my university system – if faculty attended an academic conference showcasing the work of Black, Latino and Indigenous scholars.

    Human rights at the border

    Abbott’s campaign to control the U.S.-Mexico border has raised concerns among human rights groups about civil rights in the state.

    In March of 2021, Abbott declared a state of emergency in counties on the Texas border, allowing him to deploy the Texas National Guard there. The initiative, Operation Lone Star, was supposed to stop migrants from crossing the border outside official government checkpoints.

    Since border enforcement is a federal authority, however, the troops have mostly enforced state laws on trespassing or drugs and weapons possession. Guardsmen have also participated in busing migrants to Democratic-run cities such as New York and Chicago and built razor-wire barriers in the Rio Grande.

    The result is an $11 billion policing program that has largely targeted Latino American citizens – not immigrants. Fully 96% of those arrested on trespassing charges are Latino, and 75% of those facing court proceedings for that and other crimes as a result of Operation Lone Star are U.S. citizens.

    Gov. Greg Abbott, left, and Donald Trump greet Texas National Guard troops in Edinburg, Texas, on Nov. 19, 2023.
    Michael Gonzalez/Getty Images

    Women’s freedoms

    Finally, women’s right to bodily autonomy is under threat in Texas, which has one of the country’s most restrictive abortion laws.

    At least three women have died as a result of doctors being afraid to treat their miscarriages. Overall, maternal mortality rates have increased by 56% since the ban was imposed in 2021. Scary statistics haven’t stopped the state’s plans to tighten its ban.

    The 2025 Texas legislative session began with Republican legislators having prefiled several bills aimed at ending abortion by mail services, including one that would reclassify common abortion pills as controlled substances like Valium or Ambien. Doctors warn that this reclassification could also make it harder for them to disperse these medications quickly in life-threatening emergencies.

    And a handful of rural Texas counties have made it illegal to transport women seeking out-of-state abortions on their roads.

    As Texas goes, so goes the nation?

    The question of whether a government is democratic is often not black or white. It should be viewed on a sliding scale.

    Freedom House, a nonpartisan international democracy watchdog, ranks countries on a 100-point scale based on the factors I mentioned earlier, among others, and labels countries as “free,” “partly-free” and “not free.”

    The freest country in 2024, Finland, had a score of 100. The U.S. has been sliding down the rankings, receiving a score of 83 in 2024 – down from 94 in 2010. It’s still solidly in the “free” category, but U.S. democracy looks less like Germany’s and more like Romania’s. The antidemocratic policy changes made in Texas and a handful of other states contribute to this slide.

    Freedom House doesn’t rank states, but if it did, Texas would likely still rate as a “free” democracy. There is space for dissent, opposition and free speech. Democratic politicians have occasional political victories.

    But Texas is decidedly less democratic than the U.S. at large. Democracy here is not lost, but I fear Texas is in danger of becoming only “partly-free.”

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

    – ref. I study democracy worldwide − here’s how Texas is eroding human rights, free expression and civil liberties – https://theconversation.com/i-study-democracy-worldwide-heres-how-texas-is-eroding-human-rights-free-expression-and-civil-liberties-246936

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘Sorry, I didn’t get that’: AI misunderstands some people’s words more than others

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Roberto Rey Agudo, Research Assistant Professor of Spanish and Portuguese, Dartmouth College

    Speech recognition systems are less accurate for women and Black people, among other demographics. Jacob Wackerhausen/iStock via Getty Images

    The idea of a humanlike artificial intelligence assistant that you can speak with has been alive in many people’s imaginations since the release of “Her,” Spike Jonze’s 2013 film about a man who falls in love with a Siri-like AI named Samantha. Over the course of the film, the protagonist grapples with the ways in which Samantha, real as she may seem, is not and never will be human.

    Twelve years on, this is no longer the stuff of science fiction. Generative AI tools like ChatGPT and digital assistants like Apple’s Siri and Amazon’s Alexa help people get driving directions, make grocery lists, and plenty else. But just like Samantha, automatic speech recognition systems still cannot do everything that a human listener can.

    You have probably had the frustrating experience of calling your bank or utility company and needing to repeat yourself so that the digital customer service bot on the other line can understand you. Maybe you’ve dictated a note on your phone, only to spend time editing garbled words.

    Linguistics and computer science researchers have shown that these systems work worse for some people than for others. They tend to make more errors if you have a non-native or a regional accent, are Black, speak in African American Vernacular English, code-switch, if you are a woman, are old, are too young or have a speech impediment.

    Tin ear

    Unlike you or me, automatic speech recognition systems are not what researchers call “sympathetic listeners.” Instead of trying to understand you by taking in other useful clues like intonation or facial gestures, they simply give up. Or they take a probabilistic guess, a move that can sometimes result in an error.

    As companies and public agencies increasingly adopt automatic speech recognition tools in order to cut costs, people have little choice but to interact with them. But the more that these systems come into use in critical fields, ranging from emergency first responders and health care to education and law enforcement, the more likely there will be grave consequences when they fail to recognize what people say.

    Imagine sometime in the near future you’ve been hurt in a car crash. You dial 911 to call for help, but instead of being connected to a human dispatcher, you get a bot that’s designed to weed out nonemergency calls. It takes you several rounds to be understood, wasting time and raising your anxiety level at the worst moment.

    What causes this kind of error to occur? Some of the inequalities that result from these systems are baked into the reams of linguistic data that developers use to build large language models. Developers train artificial intelligence systems to understand and mimic human language by feeding them vast quantities of text and audio files containing real human speech. But whose speech are they feeding them?

    If a system scores high accuracy rates when speaking with affluent white Americans in their mid-30s, it is reasonable to guess that it was trained using plenty of audio recordings of people who fit this profile.

    With rigorous data collection from a diverse range of sources, AI developers could reduce these errors. But to build AI systems that can understand the infinite variations in human speech arising from things like gender, age, race, first vs. second language, socioeconomic status, ability and plenty else, requires significant resources and time.

    ‘Proper’ English

    For people who do not speak English – which is to say, most people around the world – the challenges are even greater. Most of the world’s largest generative AI systems were built in English, and they work far better in English than in any other language. On paper, AI has lots of civic potential for translation and increasing people’s access to information in different languages, but for now, most languages have a smaller digital footprint, making it difficult for them to power large language models.

    Even within languages well-served by large language models, like English and Spanish, your experience varies depending on which dialect of the language you speak.

    Right now, most speech recognition systems and generative AI chatbots reflect the linguistic biases of the datasets they are trained on. They echo prescriptive, sometimes prejudiced notions of “correctness” in speech.

    In fact, AI has been proved to “flatten” linguistic diversity. There are now AI startup companies that offer to erase the accents of their users, drawing on the assumption that their primary clientele would be customer service providers with call centers in foreign countries like India or the Philippines. The offering perpetuates the notion that some accents are less valid than others.

    Human connection

    AI will presumably get better at processing language, accounting for variables like accents, code-switching and the like. In the U.S., public services are obligated under federal law to guarantee equitable access to services regardless of what language a person speaks. But it is not clear whether that alone will be enough incentive for the tech industry to move toward eliminating linguistic inequities.

    Many people might prefer to talk to a real person when asking questions about a bill or medical issue, or at least to have the ability to opt out of interacting with automated systems when seeking key services. That is not to say that miscommunication never happens in interpersonal communication, but when you speak to a real person, they are primed to be a sympathetic listener.

    With AI, at least for now, it either works or it doesn’t. If the system can process what you say, you are good to go. If it cannot, the onus is on you to make yourself understood.

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

    – ref. ‘Sorry, I didn’t get that’: AI misunderstands some people’s words more than others – https://theconversation.com/sorry-i-didnt-get-that-ai-misunderstands-some-peoples-words-more-than-others-239281

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How does raw water compare to tap water? A microbiologist explains why the risks outweigh the benefits

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Bill Sullivan, Professor of Microbiology and Immunology, Indiana University

    Water that comes straight from natural sources, dubbed “raw water,” is gaining popularity. Raw water advocates reject public water supplies, including tap water, because they don’t enjoy the taste or believe it’s unsafe and depleted of vital minerals.

    On the surface, raw water might seem alluring – the natural surroundings may look beautiful, and the water may look clean and taste refreshing. But unlike tap or commercially bottled water, raw water is not evaluated for safety. This leaves the people who drink it vulnerable to infectious microbes or potentially other toxic contaminants.

    I’m a microbiology researcher studying infectious diseases. From a public health perspective, clarifying misconceptions about tap water and the health hazards of raw water can protect consumers and curtail the spread of infectious diseases.

    A short history of public drinking water

    Archaeological evidence suggests that humans have long associated dirty water with negative health outcomes. As early as 1500 BCE, ancient Egyptians added a binding agent to their water to clump contaminants together for easy removal.

    Two major developments in the mid-1800s showed why impure water is dangerous. First, physician John Snow traced a deadly cholera outbreak to contaminated water from London’s Broad Street pump. Second, Louis Pasteur advanced the germ theory of disease, which postulated that microbes can cause illness. Pasteur established that consumable liquids like raw water and milk can harbor disease-causing pathogens.

    Physician John Snow’s 1854 map of cholera cases in London, highlighted in black, clustered around a contaminated pump.
    John Snow/Wellcome Collection

    These discoveries paved the way for large-scale infrastructure projects in the 20th century to ensure the public water supply is safe.

    Today, the process of cleaning water begins with the same steps employed by the ancient Egyptians, followed by extensive filtration to get rid of debris as well as most germs and chemicals. Chlorine is added to kill lingering pathogens, including those that may reside in the service pipes carrying the water to the faucet. Beginning in the 1940s, a small amount of fluoride was added as an inexpensive, safe and effective means to improve dental health.

    The cleanliness and fluoridation of the water supply has dramatically reduced infectious disease and cavities, and has been heralded as one of the 20th century’s greatest public health achievements.

    Is raw water healthier than tap water?

    People who champion raw water claim it has health benefits, such as essential minerals and beneficial bacteria called probiotics, that are stripped from tap water. Let’s unpack each of these claims.

    Water dissolves bits of soil and rock at its source; therefore, its mineral content depends on the local geology. Areas with a lot of limestone, like the Midwest, have water that is higher in calcium. Water from deeper in the ground may have higher mineral content since it passes through more rock on its way to the surface.

    The mineral content of water largely depends on its source and location.
    Sergii Zyskо/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    The idea that tap water is depleted of essential minerals is not true, as these nutrients are too small to be excluded by the filtration process. Test kits can determine the mineral content of your water, and if you find it lacking, mineral supplements can be added. Experts suggest, however, that most minerals you need come from your diet, not water.

    Some also claim that raw water contains probiotics that are removed from tap water. The amount of probiotics in water would also vary by location, and the notion that health-promoting bacteria reside in raw water has not been proved.

    There are no studies associating raw water with any health benefit. Anecdotal claims about smoother skin or increased energy are likely to be placebo effects. Even the idea that raw water tastes better might be more psychological than physiological – a 2018 study showed that most people preferred tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test.

    Risks of drinking raw water

    Raw water carries the risk of serious gastrointestinal infection from a wide variety of pathogens.

    Water-borne viruses include rotavirus and norovirus, which cause rapid-onset diarrhea and vomiting, and hepatitis A, which infects the liver. Bacteria such as E. coli and Salmonella, or parasites like Cryptosporidium and Giardia, also cause severe diarrhea that can lead to dangerous levels of dehydration. Toxoplasma gondii can also lurk in raw water and can cause miscarriage or birth defects if consumed during pregnancy.

    Tap water undergoes several treatment steps before it reaches your faucet.
    CDC

    Carriers of diarrheal infections can transmit them to others if they swim in public pools or fail to properly wash their hands before touching others or preparing food. Norovirus is particularly durable and can survive on surfaces for days, increasing chances of it infecting someone else.

    Raw water can also contain algae that release toxins causing abdominal issues and damage to the brain and nervous system.

    Cholera, dysentery and typhoid fever are no longer health burdens in the U.S. thanks to a robust water treatment system. But areas of the world lacking this privilege suffer high child mortality and widespread diarrheal diseases.

    How safe is tap water in the US?

    Tap water in the U.S. is among the safest to drink in the world. The Biden administration took steps to further improve it, including funding to replace lead pipes and new rules to monitor forever chemicals like perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, which have been linked to cancer and developmental disorders.

    Importantly, raw water is not necessarily free from lead, arsenic, pesticides or industrial contaminants. Raw water sources are not reliably monitored by experts, so it is difficult to say which ones pose less risk. In addition, the water may be acceptably safe one day, but not on another. For example, soil runoff from a storm could introduce new germs or pollutants into the area.

    The Environmental Protection Agency routinely screens for nearly 100 contaminants to ensure tap water is safe. In contrast, raw water remains untested, unregulated and untreated, leaving its safety to drink in question. In terms of risks and benefits, there are no demonstrated health benefits from drinking raw water, but clear evidence that you may be exposing yourself to harmful infectious and toxic contaminants.

    Bill Sullivan receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.

    – ref. How does raw water compare to tap water? A microbiologist explains why the risks outweigh the benefits – https://theconversation.com/how-does-raw-water-compare-to-tap-water-a-microbiologist-explains-why-the-risks-outweigh-the-benefits-246866

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump has rejected the Paris agreement again, but game theory shows how other countries can still lead by example

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Renaud Foucart, Senior Lecturer in Economics, Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster University

    petrmalinak/Shutterstock

    It came as a surprise to nobody that one of Donald Trump’s first acts on his return to the White House was to sign an executive order withdrawing the US from the Paris agreement on climate change.

    Almost 200 other countries will remain part of the deal designed to stem global warming. So how will they fare without the participation of one of the biggest polluters on the planet?

    The exit of the US encapsulates a tricky issue when it comes to international efforts to tackle climate change. Any effort to decrease the use of fossil fuels is individual, while any benefits are universal.

    And since 1997, the main approach to tackle climate change multilaterally has been through UN-backed summits known as “Cops” (Conference of the Parties) where countries gather and promise each other to cut their emissions.

    Richer countries, which polluted more in the past and created most of the accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere, have also committed to helping poorer countries develop economically while emitting less, to the tune of US$300 billion (£244 billion) a year by 2035.

    But while plenty of effort goes in to organising the largest possible coalition of countries, in the end, everything is based on good faith and promises. There is no mechanism by which countries which fail to live up to agreements are punished.

    So when national politics or budgetary constraints come into play, climate commitments can be left by the wayside. A project to tax pollution may be cancelled or campaigners may succeed in blocking plans.

    Yet there are benefits to be had from leading by example and cutting emissions without any guarantee that others will do the same. This is partly because humans have a tendency towards what’s known as “conditional cooperation”. People who fail to cooperate when they have to do it at the same time as others are much more likely to join in if they observe previous cooperation.

    For this reason, research I recently published with colleagues on game theory (the mathematical study of strategic interactions), suggests that the best thing for advanced economies to do is keep on cutting their own emissions.

    Because without efforts from rich countries to pursue a path towards mitigating global warming, there is no hope the others will follow. In that case, even a small wealthy country (like the UK) matters in demonstrating an unambiguous commitment to tackling climate change.

    Carbon cooperation

    Beyond encouraging further cooperation, a strong climate policy in the form of carbon taxes is also the most powerful way to punish those who do not take part in the global effort.

    Both the US (under Biden) and the EU have developed their own versions of a tool called a “carbon border adjustment mechanism” which means exporters from countries that do not tax emissions (or tax them less less heavily) need to pay the domestic carbon tax instead.

    Consider for instance a Chinese company exporting a container to the UK. If Chinese manufacturers have already paid a carbon tax worth £100 to the Chinese government for the product in the container, but the UK’s carbon tax would have been £200, the border tax is the difference between the two, £100.

    But if the Chinese government increases its domestic carbon tax to the UK level or above, the tax from the border adjustment mechanism drops to zero.

    This approach has influenced many countries to start their own carbon tax, because it is better to get tax receipts at home than to send them elsewhere. But again, it helps to lead by example. To influence others with border taxes, you need to implement your own system first.

    Cop out?

    Despite all of this apparent cooperation, and widespread concern about the impact of climate change, the latest Cop summit in Azerbaijan, held in November 2024, was considered by many to be a disappointment.

    But there is also some good news, which suggests that efforts are heading in the right direction. The latest data for example, shows that the EU is not far away from its 2030 target. Greenhouse gas emissions are already 37% below what they were in 1990 level. In the UK, the figure is 42%.

    In China, emissions might have apparently already peaked, earlier than expected. Even in the US, emissions are decreasing.

    Looking back at the scenarios that led to the first UN climate summit in Kyoto, not everything is bright. The world is unlikely to avoid global temperatures raising to more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.

    So maybe we shouldn’t rely too much on future summits to make the next environmental breakthrough. The path forward could be more likely to come from technical solutions like carbon taxes and border adjustment mechanisms. And perhaps the best way to convince the rest of the world to cut their emissions is not to give them lectures and conferences – but to lead by example.

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

    – ref. Trump has rejected the Paris agreement again, but game theory shows how other countries can still lead by example – https://theconversation.com/trump-has-rejected-the-paris-agreement-again-but-game-theory-shows-how-other-countries-can-still-lead-by-example-246818

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Exercise does increase calorie burn – but probably not as much as you might hope

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dylan Thompson, Professor of Human Physiology, University of Bath

    Exercise can still be a benefit if you’re trying to lose weight or get fit. Green Elk/ Shutterstock

    It’s generally accepted that exercise is a key element of losing weight. But this long-held view has been called into question in recent years – with no shortage of articles and podcasts claiming it’s a myth that exercise increases your metabolism and helps you burn calories after you work out.

    The central tenet of these reports is that the amount of calories we burn each day is somehow constrained. This hypothesis was first proposed in 2012 by the evolutionary anthropologist Herman Pontzer. He posited that as you increase your daily energy expenditure (calories burned) through physical activity, your body will find ways to cut back on energy expended on other biological processes – such as your resting metabolism. This leaves your overall daily energy expenditure unchanged.

    This theory has since been popularised in Pontzer’s 2021 book Burn, in which he theorises that “we burn calories within a very narrow range: nearly 3,000 calories per day, no matter our activity level”.

    Building on this, Pontzer suggests that, “The bottom line is that your daily (physical) activity levels have almost no bearing on the number of calories that you burn each day.”

    But before you pack away your running shoes, let’s look at what the research shows us. The most rigorous and robust evidence available on the topic actually shows that exercise does increase energy expenditure – though perhaps not as much as we might expect.

    Exercise and energy expenditure

    The evidence Pontzer used to support his hypothesis came from observational studies that compared energy expenditure in different populations around the world. In an observational study, researchers only take measurements and make comparisons between groups without actually introducing any changes.

    The most eye-catching of the studies Pontzer used to support his hypothesis was research on the Hadza tribe – one of the last remaining hunter-gatherer groups in Africa. Hunter-gatherers are assumed to be highly active in order to survive. But the study observed that the Hadza expended no more energy than the average Westerner did each day.

    We reviewed the constrained energy expenditure hypothesis in 2023. We concluded that Pontzer’s theory raises some interesting questions. However, it’s generally not very convincing due to flaws in the nature of the evidence.

    Indeed, Pontzer’s own observational data shows that daily energy expenditure can vary by more than 1,000 calories per day in a group of older people. This directly contradicts his suggestion that it’s fixed at 3,000 calories a day for everyone.

    The effects of exercise on calorie burn may be more modest than we might hope, however.
    Dean Drobot/ Shutterstock

    When we look at data from randomised controlled trials, we can clearly see that exercise does have an effect on energy expenditure.

    Randomised controlled trials allow researchers to establish cause and effect from a specific treatment or intervention. They allow groups of people to be fairly compared with just one variable manipulated at a time.

    Trials show that a structured, supervised exercise programme done up to five times a week for six and ten months increases daily energy expenditure. These effects were shown in both young and middle-aged men and women.

    This research clearly shows that physical activity does increase how many calories you burn each day.

    Modest increase

    It’s important to note that these trials do report, however, that the increases in daily energy expenditure were not always as big as expected. Put simply, burning 600 calories in the gym will not necessarily increase your daily energy expenditure by the same amount.

    However, a more-modest-than-expected increase in energy expenditure is a far cry from bold statements that exercise does not increase daily energy expenditure at all. The exact number is difficult to estimate though, as it varies a lot between people.

    As we discuss in our review, there are many possible reasons why exercise does not increase energy expenditure by as much as would be expected. Some factors might include physical activity substitution (when your new workout substitutes for physical activity you would normally have done at that time – so you might only end up burning a few calories more than you normally would have) and behavioural compensation (doing less activity later in the day after a morning workout).

    This also highlights a common misunderstanding about the magnitude of exercise’s effects. Exercise can feel hard – so people might reasonably expect a large return on their investment. But five hours of exercise a week is only about 4% of our typical waking time. So this will only go so far in shifting the dial upwards in terms of how many calories we burn through physical activity.

    Part of the misunderstanding about changes in energy expenditure and potential weight loss through exercise is perhaps related to unrealistic expectations about how many calories we burn when working out.

    So, despite what you might have heard or read, the strongest evidence from robust trials clearly demonstrates that exercise can increase daily energy expenditure. Though this might not be as much as you expect or hope.

    Dylan Thompson receives funding from BBSRC, NIHR, and Heart Research UK. He has previously had funding from MRC, BHF, and Unilever. He is a Fellow of The Physiological Society and the British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences.

    Javier Gonzalez receives funding from BSRC, MRC, British Heart Foundation, Clasado Biosciences, Lucozade Ribena Suntory, ARLA Foods Ingredients, Cosun Nutrition Center, Innocent Drinks and the Fruit Juice Science Centre; is a (non-exec) scientific advisory board member to ZOE; and has completed paid consultancy for 6d Sports Nutrition, Science in Sport, The Dairy Council, PepsiCo, Violicom Medical, Tour Racing Ltd., and SVGC. For a full list of disclosures see https://gonzalezjt1.wordpress.com/2024/03/.

    – ref. Exercise does increase calorie burn – but probably not as much as you might hope – https://theconversation.com/exercise-does-increase-calorie-burn-but-probably-not-as-much-as-you-might-hope-247720

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Compendium of the Occult by Liz Williams is a rich and appealing history

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Martha McGill, Honorary Research Fellow, Historian of Supernatural Beliefs, University of Warwick

    In the fourth century BC, an unknown – but clearly disgruntled – schemer from the Greek city of Antioch had a curse tablet made. Inscribed on a thin piece of lead and deposited in a well, the tablet called for a “thunder-and-lightning-hurling” god to “strike, bind, bind together Babylas the greengrocer”.

    Around 1,400 years later, an Anglo-Saxon charm advised on how to protect a field. The secret was to take a piece of turf from each corner and anoint it with a mixture of oil, honey, yeast, milk from the animals on the land, pieces of the trees and plants on the land, and water consecrated to the god Thunor.

    In 17th-century England, the antiquarian Elias Ashmole hoped an astrological talisman would expel vermin from his house. Meanwhile, the diarist Samuel Pepys cured his upset stomach by purchasing a new hare’s foot. In 19th-century New Orleans, the Louisiana Creole woman Marie Laveau became famous for her healing, clairvoyance and work as a voodoo priestess, which she displayed in public gatherings at Congo Square.

    These are among the many fascinating snippets discussed in Liz Williams’s new book, Compendium of the Occult: Arcane Artefacts, Magic Rituals and Sacred Symbolism. Looking at western occult traditions from ancient times to the present day, the book explores how human societies have sought power, protection and insight from gods and stars, spells and amulets, sacred places and seductively enigmatic organisations.

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    The book is made up of 65 short articles, grouped into six sections: the origins of western occultism; divination, rituals and rites; charms and talismans; curses and hexes; secret societies; and sites of significance.

    Many of the articles cover several centuries, meaning there is no scope for detailed analysis. However, Williams strikes an effective balance between general overview and colourful examples. She is sensitive to differences in perspective, noting the competing explanations for phenomena such as dowsing or Ouija boards.

    She also acknowledges the complexities of reconstructing past beliefs and practices from imperfect surviving evidence, although occasionally unreliable source material is not sufficiently interrogated. The book accepts too readily, for example, the questionable story that Louis XIV’s mistress Madame de Montespan arranged “black masses” in which she used the blood of babies to summon the devil.

    Magic and maladies

    Compendium of the Occult is handsomely bound, pleasingly laid out and beautifully illustrated. There are images of ancient clay tablets crisscrossed with incantations, witch bottles stuffed with nails and urine, voodoo dolls, mummies, skulls, books, statues, artworks and protective amulets in the shape of jaunty phalluses.

    The book accepts too readily that Louis XIV’s mistress Madame de Montespan used the blood of babies to summon the devil.
    Wiki Commons

    Some of the printing causes confusion, however. “Gold dots” on the timelines are difficult to see, as is the introduction’s small white text on black pages. The dating of some entries lacks obvious logic: “palmistry” is dated from the 5th to the 1st century BC, even though the article stretches to the 20th century, and other practices get the vaguer label “ancient times to the present day”. But these are minor quibbles.

    More significantly, the book’s geographical remit is limited. The introduction refers to occult traditions in “the west”, but Britain is a particular focal point. Williams discusses eight “sites of significance”, of which three (Glastonbury, Avebury and Stonehenge) can be found within a 75-mile span in England.

    She does cover ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia; there is an entry on voodoo; there are references to the influences of Arabic astrologers, and occasional mentions of practices in east Asia. But more engagement with occult traditions from beyond Europe, particularly in modern times, would have enhanced the volume and better justified the ambitious title.

    A 1660 illustration of Claudius Ptolemy’s geocentric model of the Universe, from Compendium of the Occult.
    Wikimedia Commons

    All the same, this is a rich and appealing book. Humankind’s inventiveness in conceptualising the workings of the world emerges with force. Much magic is underpinned by a belief that the everything is interwoven: the earth corresponds to the skies, the microcosm of the human body to the macrocosm of the universe.

    Williams quotes the physician and polymath Cornelius Agrippa (1486-1535), who described how a square inscribed with numbers, stamped on a silver plate at the right hour, could call on Jupiter to bring the owner wealth and peace. If printed on coral, it could destroy evil spells.

    Material objects, plants, numbers and heavenly bodies are drawn into a symbiotic relationship, and invested with the power to reshape human lives. Agrippa’s plates reflect an enduring desire to situate humankind in relation to the environment, and impose meaning and harmony on a chaotic cosmos.

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

    – ref. Compendium of the Occult by Liz Williams is a rich and appealing history – https://theconversation.com/compendium-of-the-occult-by-liz-williams-is-a-rich-and-appealing-history-246925

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Think your efforts to help the climate don’t matter? African philosophers disagree

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Patrick Effiong Ben, Doctoral Researcher in Applied Ethics and African Philosophy, University of Manchester

    PBXStudio/Shutterstock

    When I drive my car on weekends, I emit greenhouse gases – but not enough to change the global climate on my own. But when I, my neighbours and hundreds of millions of other people drive, fly, eat meat and embark on countless other activities that generate greenhouse gas emissions, we raise the Earth’s temperature.

    This is what we might call a collective harm problem, where the acts of many together lead to harmful outcomes, but no discrete act by any one person can solve it. Debates on how to fight climate change generally settle on the need for collective action ~ but does that make personal efforts inconsequential, even pointless?

    If a single pro-environment lifestyle change – like one person giving up their SUV or cutting out meat in favour of plant-based foods – will not turn the tide of global climate change on its own, it’s reasonable to feel there is little that “doing your bit” can achieve. This mindset is disempowering.

    Fortunately, it is not the only way of responding to the challenge. African philosophers have a different way of looking at it.

    Individual contributions are not pointless

    Studies assessing public willingness to contribute to climate action show that people will act even at a personal cost, given the right motivations. The urgent task for philosophers and environmentalists is to provide them with those motivations. This is where African philosophy is helpful.

    By African philosophy, I mean critical reflections on basic questions about the world – spanning the nature of knowledge, existence, morality, meaning and truth, from the perspective of African philosophers.

    I am a philosopher who studies the problem of what appear to be collectively insignificant individual actions. There is a concept from African philosophy that I think is helpful to understand this: “complementarity”.

    Complementarity denotes a relationship of interdependence among all entities – plants, animals, rivers, humans – in an interconnected community of living and non-living things. As a framework for understanding the world, it holds that everything within the human and non-human environment exists in a relationship of mutual dependence. Everything is connected to everything else. No entity can exist and flourish in isolation.

    Our meal choices don’t just affect us.
    Aleksandar Malivuk/Shutterstock

    To that extent, the flourishing of one person depends on and influences the flourishing of other things in the world – including other people and animals as companions, the plants and soil which provide food for survival, rivers and oceans that are a source of water, and the Sun which gives the energy that sustains life on Earth.

    Complementarity has been used by African philosophers like Jonathan Chimakonam, Aïda Terblanché-Greeff, Diana-Abasi Ibanga and Kevin Gary Behrens to develop environmental philosophies based on shared relationships. According to these philosophers, a view of the world based on complementarity neither foregrounds nor diminishes humans. Rather, it sketches a relationship of equals defined by the mutual participation of all.

    This thinking is averse to hierarchy. No individual can claim to have more value than another. Anything that exists serves as an important part of the environment and matters equally, whether alone or collectively. Complementarity holds that the relationships that unite individual things can extend to prove the value of every contribution, no matter its size.

    And so, complementarity rejects the argument that anything you do to help the climate is pointless. Driving my car is not an action that exists in isolation. My emissions are interconnected with other aspects of the environment.

    Similarly, individual climate-positive actions occur in relation to others taken globally, so it is a mistake to assume such actions are pointless. Rather, their relation to other actions makes them not just practically useful but necessary, to make a difference at the level of communities and globally.

    According to this African concept, the race to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a complementary effort. And so, do not be discouraged from taking your own step in this direction.

    Patrick Effiong Ben receives funding from the AHRC North West Consortium Doctoral Training Partnership (NWCDTP).

    – ref. Think your efforts to help the climate don’t matter? African philosophers disagree – https://theconversation.com/think-your-efforts-to-help-the-climate-dont-matter-african-philosophers-disagree-247042

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: England’s maths teacher recruitment problem is set to worsen

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Neil Saunders, Senior Lecturer in Mathematics, City St George’s, University of London

    Ground Picture/Shutterstock

    Everyone should leave school with a solid understanding of maths. Decent mathematics literacy is a hugely important skill in many aspects of life. We need it when budgeting for a weekly shop, asking for a pay rise and completing a tax return.

    An interest and enjoyment in maths fostered at school can lead people to study the subject further. Mathematics graduates go on to professions in government, industry, software development and financial analytics, as well as many genres of engineering.

    In total, 13% of all employment in the UK is in professions that depend on mathematical sciences. A workforce that has been well taught in maths is crucial to a society’s prosperity.

    Building a workforce skilled in mathematics in England, however, will be difficult when there are not enough people qualified to teach the subject at school. Mathematics is a technical discipline. Quality teaching relies on its educators to have specific training: a university degree in maths.

    Research published in 2019 in Australia found that secondary school students achieved noticeably higher results when they were taught maths by teachers with a university degree majoring in maths than those “out-of-field” teachers.

    But in England, the Department of Education has an ongoing problem of under-recruitment of maths teachers. In the year 2023-24, recruitment in initial trainee maths teaching reached only 63% of its target. Research from 2018 found that less than half of maths teachers in state schools have a mathematics or other relevant degree.

    And maths achievement is declining. In the OECD’s programme for international student assessment (Pisa) tests, introduced in the year 2000, 15 year-olds in the UK are recording their lowest maths results since 2006.

    The longstanding failure to recruit enough maths graduates to become teachers is now set to be exacerbated by the changes in maths provision at universities. Maths degrees are becoming less accessible to the people who are likely to go on to become teachers.

    University options

    Over the previous decade, but particularly since the pandemic, Russell Group universities – research-intensive institutions that take students with the highest A-level grades — have increased their intake of students taking maths degrees.

    On the other hand, maths options are declining at lower-tariff universities and those that offer flexible study options.

    Birkbeck, University of London, no longer offers undergraduate degrees in maths as a single subject. Birkbeck is renowned for its provision of evening and part-time degree courses, which offers flexibility for students who may not be able to attend a traditional course or need to work while studying.

    Huddersfield has also discontinued its mathematics courses after reviewing its provision, and many other institutions are considering further cuts and redundancies.

    In 2011, lower-tariff institutions accounted for 13% of the market share of the intake of mathematics students. This dropped to just 4.5% in 2021, putting such institutions under severe pressure.

    Graduates of post-92 universities – former polytechnics and other recently established institutions, which often require lower grades for entry – are much more likely than their Russell Group counterparts to go into school teaching. A recent report by Professor Paul Wakeling, which was commissioned by the Campaign for Mathematical Sciences, analysed outcomes of mathematical degrees in the UK across the period 2017-18 to 2020-21.

    Over that period, it found that 17.4% of graduates from post-92 institutions went into the secondary teaching, compared with around 5.6% from Russell group universities.

    The accessibility of a degree will affect who enrols.
    VesnaArt/Shutterstock

    The closure of mathematics departments causes the phenomenon of “maths deserts”: large swaths of the country where access to mathematics degree study is limited. This particularly affects students from poorer backgrounds, who are more likely to be living at home during their degree and will attend their local university.

    This also affects the provision of school maths teachers. Graduates in mathematics from more disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds are more likely to go into school teaching than graduates from more wealthy backgrounds.

    The decline in the availability of maths degrees at lower-tariff institutions is likely to be reducing the number of potential maths teachers – as well as severely reducing the diversity of people going into maths.

    The chronic shortage of specialist maths teachers is set to worsen. Universities around the country are under severe financial pressure, which is likely to lead to further cutting of courses and staff.

    This will only exacerbate the problem of teacher shortages – which is turn will lead to declining mathematical literacy in the community, as well as a lack of diversity in mathematics.

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

    – ref. England’s maths teacher recruitment problem is set to worsen – https://theconversation.com/englands-maths-teacher-recruitment-problem-is-set-to-worsen-246351

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s plan to eliminate FEMA is a very bad idea

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jack L. Rozdilsky, Associate Professor of Disaster and Emergency Management, York University, Canada

    A symbolic visit by an American president to a disaster site can be constructive. Former President Joe Biden’s presence at areas in the United States affected by various disasters allowed him to both show leadership and offer comfort in moments of national tragedy.

    In contrast, a bombastic President Donald Trump used his first domestic trip on Jan. 24 to tour disaster sites in North Carolina and Los Angeles while promoting his litany of grievances and rambling about his dislike of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

    It takes a perverse set of skills for a president to act in a way that squanders the opportunity to genuinely exhibit compassion for disaster victims while also lowering the morale of emergency workers at the same time.

    Trump’s announcement to overhaul or eliminate FEMA — especially in the midst of an ongoing disaster — is unreasonable and foolish.

    Trump’s criticisms

    In a Fox News interview on Jan. 22, Trump suggested that FEMA would be facing a reckoning.

    The president echoed Republican criticisms of the Hurricane Helene disaster response last September. During Hurricane Helene, Trump has used his bully pulpit to endorse or invent false or unsubstantiated claims. The federal government was also falsely accused of a lack of response following Helene.

    While touring hurricane damage in North Carolina on Jan. 24, Trump remarked:

    “Well, I’ll also be signing an executive order to begin the process of fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA or maybe getting rid of FEMA. I think, frankly, FEMA is not good.”

    Trump indicated he would like to see state governments respond to disasters.

    The White House later clarified that an upcoming executive order would direct a council of FEMA advisers to examine the agency and come up with proposals for reform.

    Turning back the clock

    If Trump gets rid of FEMA, he’ll be turning back the clock 50 years. It is illogical to call for a return to a time with a weak and disorganized system of disaster management.

    In the 1970s, states were responsible for managing their own disasters. More than 100 different federal agencies could become involved in relief efforts. The system was reactionary and responded on a need basis, with no clear pathways for federal disaster assistance to states.

    State governors became increasingly concerned about the lack of a comprehensive national emergency policy. The dispersion of federal disaster management responsibilities among numerous federal agencies was viewed as impeding states’ own ability to manage disaster situations.

    In advocating for better disaster management, a National Association of Governors’ report entitled 1978 Emergency Preparedness Project made the case for a centralized emergency management system in the U.S.

    President Jimmy Carter acted on the recommendations of the governors with Executive Order 12127 to create FEMA in 1979. It was a cabinet-level agency until 2003, when it was merged into the Department of Homeland Security.



    Read more:
    Jimmy Carter’s death invites us to consider his legacy of nuclear emergency response and disaster management

    Duties enshrined in law

    When a large-scale disaster stretches the ability of an American city to help its citizens, a formal process exists to request aid. As a local disaster expands in size and scope, requests for more assistance can go up to higher levels of administration, from the state governor and ultimately to the president. In this process, FEMA reports to local governments.

    A presidential disaster declaration can open up access to an array of federal programs managed by FEMA to assist with response and recovery.

    FEMA was created by President Jimmy Carter in 1979.
    (J. Rozdilsky), CC BY

    The role of FEMA in supporting the declaration process are defined in provisions in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. The Stafford Act also provides for the statutory authority guiding FEMA programs like individual assistance.

    While Trump sits at the top of the executive branch, he can engage in a variety of political shenanigans to undermine FEMA, but he cannot unilaterally abolish the agency. As the agency’s duties are enshrined in law, only an act of the legislative branch can terminate FEMA.

    A turbulent history

    FEMA has existed for 46 years and faced turbulent times due to the poor decision-making by past Republican presidents. In 1980, Reagan appointed agency directors with conservative philosophies who emphasized downsizing. Under George W. Bush’s presidency, among the flurry of reactions to Sept. 11, 2001, FEMA was eviscerated and relegated from a top-level cabinet level agency to a position buried deep in the Homeland Security organizational chart.

    Trump’s aggressive posture in trying to remake government involves creating diversions, sowing chaos and overloading people with lies. Taking a cue from his former White House strategist Steve Bannon on how to deal with the media, Trump’s statements about FEMA have worked to “flood the zone with shit.”

    As with many functions of American government, emergency management is just the latest target of disorientation tactics intended to paralyze government operations.

    Jack L. Rozdilsky receives support for research communication and public scholarship from York University. He also has received research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

    – ref. Trump’s plan to eliminate FEMA is a very bad idea – https://theconversation.com/trumps-plan-to-eliminate-fema-is-a-very-bad-idea-248293

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump’s ‘ethnic cleansing’ Gaza idea dismissed by analysts – rejected by Jordan, Egypt on ‘Day of Return’

    Asia Pacific Report

    UN President Donald Trump’s idea of mass expulsion of Palestinians in Gaza to Jordan and Egypt has been dismissed by analysts as unaccepable “ethnic cleansing” and rejected by the governments of both neigbouring countries.

    Middle East analyst Mouin Rabbani, a nonresident research fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs and commentator specialising in Palestinian affairs and the Arab-Israeli conflict, said the US and Israel would “fail” over such a plan.

    President Trump’s suggestion had been to “clean out” Gaza and move 1.5 million Palestinians to Jordan and Egypt.

    “Even if [President Trump] applies pressure on Jordan and Egypt, I think their leaderships will recognise the price of going along with Trump is going to be much greater than the price of resisting him — in terms of the survival of their leaderships for participating in something like this,” Rabbani told Al Jazeera, referring to Trump’s plan as “ethnic cleansing”.

    The rebuttals to the Trump idea came as Gaza experienced an historic day with jubilant scenes as tens of thousands of Palestinians crossed the so-called Netzarim Corridor to return home in the north showing their determination to survive under the 15-month onslaught by Israel’s military.

    Al Jazeera journalist Tamer al-Misshal said it was a “significant and historic moment” for the Palestinians.

    “It’s the first time since 1948 those who have been forced out of their homes and land managed to get back — despite the destruction and despite the genocide,” he said.

    He quoted one Palestinian man who returned as saying he would erect a tent on his destroyed home, “which is much better than being forcibly displaced from Gaza”.

    Al-Misshal noted Hamas recently said 18 more Israeli captives were alive and would be returned each Saturday in exchange for Palestinian prisoners over the next few weeks.

    He said the next main step was to get the Rafah land crossing opened so aid could flow and thousands of badly wounded Palestinians could get medical treatment abroad.

    ‘Blanket refusal’

    Analyst Mouin Rabbani . . . “Israel is not going to succeed in ethnically cleansing the Gaza Strip after a war.” Image: Middle East Council on Global Affairs

    Analyst Mouin Rabbani told Al Jazeera about the Trump displacement idea: “This isn’t going to happen because Israel is not going to succeed in ethnically cleansing the Gaza Strip after a war, after having failed to do so during a war.”

    When former US Secretary of State Antony Blinken went on a tour of Arab states to promote this idea late last year, he had been met with a “blanket refusal”, Rabbani added.

    Meanwhile, in Tel Aviv Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was feeling the heat from his coalition partners over the ceasefire deal who view the Israeli leader as succumbing to US demands, the analyst said.

    “I think there’s a kind of a mix of personal, political and ideological factors at play,” Rabbani said.

    “Day of victory” . . . How Al Jazeera reported the return of Palestinians to north Gaza today. Image: AJ screenshot APR

    “But ultimately, I think the key relationship to look at here is not that between Netanyahu and his coalition partners, or between Israelis and Palestinians, but between Washington and Israel — because Washington is the one calling the shots, and Israel has no choice but to comply.”

    A senior Hamas official, Basem Naim, has described the “return” day as “the most important day in the current history of this conflict”.

    He said that Israel was “for the first time” obliged to allow Palestinians to return to their houses after being forced “by the resistance”, in a similar way that it was “forced to release” Palestinian prisoners.

    Al Jazeera’s Hani Mahmoud reporting on the “Day of Return” for Palestinians going back to north Gaza. Image: AJ screenshot APR

    ‘Very symbolic day’ in conflict
    “This is, I think, a very symbolic day,” he said. “This is a very important day in how to approach this conflict with the Israelis, which language they understand.”

    Naim also reaffirmed Hamas’s commitment to the ceasefire agreement and said the group was “ready to do the maximum to give this deal a chance to succeed”.

    He also accused Netanyahu and the Israeli government of playing “dirty games” in a bid to “sabotage the deal”.

    Jordanian officials have rejected President Trump’s “clean out” Gaza suggestion with
    Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi saying that all talk about an alternative homeland for the Palestinians was rejected and “we will not accept it”.

    Al Jazeera’s Tareq Abu Azzoum reports from Salah al-Din Road, Gaza. Image: AJ screenshot APR

    He said any attempt to displace Palestinians from their land would not bring security to the region.

    The Jordanian House of Representatives said: “The absurdity and denial of Palestinian rights will keep the region on a simmering and boiling plate.”

    Jordan would not be an alternative homeland for displacement attempts against “the patient Palestinian people”.

    In Cairo, the Foreign Ministry reaffirmed in a statement Egypt’s “continued support for the steadfastness of the Palestinian people on their land.”

    It “rejected any infringement on those inalienable rights, whether by settlement or annexation of land, or by the depopulation of that land of its people through displacement, encouraged transfer or the uprooting of Palestinians from their land, whether temporarily or long-term.”

    The 1948 Nakba . . . more than 750,000 Palestinians were forced to leave their homeland and become exiles in neighbouring states and in Gaza. Many dream of their UN-recognised right to return. Image: Wikipedia

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: NZ aid for Kiribati under review after meeting cancelled with Peters

    RNZ Pacific

    Foreign Minister Winston Peters has confirmed New Zealand’s aid for Kiribati is being reviewed after its President and Foreign Minister cancelled a meeting with him last week.

    Terms of Reference for the review are still being finalised, and it remains unclear whether or not funding will be cut or projects already under way would be affected, with Peters’ office saying no decisions would be made until the review was complete.

    His office said Kiribati remained part of the RSE scheme and its eligibility for the Pacific Access Category was unaffected — for now.

    Peters had been due to meet with President Taneti Maamau last Tuesday and Wednesday, in what was to be the first trip by a New Zealand foreign minister to Kiribati in five years, and part of his effort to visit every Pacific country early in the government’s term.

    Kiribati has been receiving increased aid from China in recent years.

    In a statement, a spokesperson for Peters said he was informed about a week before the trip President Maamau would no longer be available.

    “Around a week prior to our arrival in Tarawa, we were advised that the President and Foreign Minister of Kiribati, Taneti Maamau, was no longer available to receive Mr Peters and his delegation,” the statement said.

    ‘Especially disappointing’
    “This was especially disappointing because the visit was to be the first in over five years by a New Zealand Minister to Kiribati — and was the result of a months-long effort to travel there.”

    The spokesperson said the development programme was being reviewed as a result.

    “New Zealand has been a long-standing partner to Kiribati. The lack of political-level contact makes it very difficult for us to agree joint priorities for our development programme, and to ensure that it is well targeted and delivers good value for money.

    “That’s important for both the people of Kiribati and for the New Zealand taxpayer. For this reason, we are reviewing our development programme in Kiribati. The outcomes of that review will be announced in due course.

    “Other aspects of the bilateral relationship may also be impacted.”

    New Zealand spent $102 million on the development cooperation programme with Kiribati between 2021 and 2024, including on health, education, fisheries, economic development, and climate resilience.

    Peters’ office said New Zealand deeply valued the contribution Recognised Seasonal Employer workers made to the country, and was committed to working alongside Pacific partners to ensure the scheme led to positive outcomes for all parties.

    Committed to positive outcomes
     “However, without open dialogue it is difficult to meet this commitment.”

    They also said New Zealand was committed to working alongside our Pacific partners to ensure that the Pacific Access Category leads to positive outcomes for all parties, but again this would be difficult without open dialogue.

    The spokesperson said the Kiribati people’s wellbeing was of paramount importance and the terms of reference would reflect this.

    New Zealand stood ready “as we always have, to engage with Kiribati at a high level”.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Caitlin Johnstone: Where does the aggression really begin?

    Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. –

    COMMENTARY: By Caitlin Johnstone

    New York prosecutors have charged Luigi Mangione with “murder as an act of terrorism” in his alleged shooting of health insurance CEO Brian Thompson earlier this month.

    This news comes out at the same time as a Haaretz report titled “‘No Civilians. Everyone’s a Terrorist’: IDF Soldiers Expose Arbitrary Killings and Rampant Lawlessness in Gaza’s Netzarim Corridor.”

    The report contains testimony from Israeli troops that civilians are being murdered in Gaza and are then being retroactively designated as terrorists to justify their execution.

    “We’re killing civilians there who are then counted as terrorists,” a recently discharged officer told Haaretz.

    These two stories together say so much about the way the label “terrorist” is used under the US-centralised power umbrella.

    The guy who shot the health insurance CEO is a terrorist, but the people systematically slaughtering civilians in Gaza are not terrorists. The people fighting against those who are slaughtering the civilians are terrorists, and noncombatants are being categorized as belonging to this terrorist organisation in order to justify killing them. The al-Qaeda affiliates in Syria were terrorists, but now they’re a US puppet regime so soon they won’t be terrorists  —  but they need to be designated terrorists for a little while longer because the claim that Syria is crawling with terrorists is Israel’s justification for its recent land grabs there. The Uyghur militant group ETIM used to be a terrorist group, but now they’re not a terrorist group because they can be used to help carve up Syria and maybe fight China later on. The IRGC is a military wing of a sovereign nation, but it counts as a terrorist group because of vibes or something.

    Is that clear enough?

    Really the label “terrorist” is nothing more than a tool of imperial narrative control which gets moved around based on whether or not someone’s use of violence is deemed legitimate by the managers of the empire. Because Mangione’s alleged crime has ignited a public interest in class warfare, the label “terrorism” is being used to frame it as an especially heinous act of evil against an innocent member of the public.

    The empire’s favourite trick is to begin the historical record at the moment its enemies retaliate against its abuses. Oh no, a health insurance CEO was victimised by an evil act of terrorism. Oh no, Israel was just innocently minding its own business when it was viciously attacked by Hamas. Oh no, Iran attacked Israel completely out of the blue and now Israel must retaliate. Oh no, Russia just launched an entirely unprovoked war on Ukraine.

    Everything that led up to the unauthorised act of violence is erased from the record, because all of the violence, provocation and abuse which gave rise to the unauthorised act of violence were authorized by the empire. Authorised aggression doesn’t count as aggression.

    Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. If you control the narrative you can control not only when the historical record of violence begins but what kinds of violence qualify as violence. Killing people by depriving them of healthcare because denying healthcare services is how your company increases its profit margins? That’s not violence. Inflicting tyranny and abuse upon a deliberately marginalised ethnic group in an apartheid state? That’s not violence. Violence is when you respond to those forceful aggressions with forceful aggressions of your own.

    If we are to become a healthy society, we’re going to have to stop allowing some forms of violence, aggression and abuse to be redacted from the official records while others are listed and condemned. Those who care about truth and justice account for all forms of violence, aggression and abuse, not only those which inconvenience the rich and powerful.

    It is an act of aggression to do things which sicken and impoverish others in order to advance your own wealth.

    It is an act of aggression to pollute the biosphere we all depend on for survival in order to increase your profit margins.

    It is an act of aggression to use your wealth to manipulate your nation’s politics in ways which exacerbate inequality and injustice.

    It is an act of aggression to maintain an apartheid state which cannot exist without nonstop violence.

    It is an act of aggression to surround the earth with military bases and encircle nations which disobey your dictates.

    It is an act of aggression to try to rule the world using military violence, proxy conflicts, staged coups, threats, starvation sanctions, and financial and economic coercion.

    These are all acts of aggression, and any retaliation against them will never be an unprovoked attack. As we move into the future while these abuses exacerbate, it’s going to become very important to maintain an acute awareness of this.

    Caitlin Johnstone is an Australian independent journalist and poet. Her articles include The UN Torture Report On Assange Is An Indictment Of Our Entire Society. She publishes a website and Caitlin’s Newsletter. This article is republished with permission.

    This article was first published on Café Pacific.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: NZ govt plans to make ‘heavy handed’ change to free speech rules for universities

    The New Zealand government coalition is tweaking university regulations to curb what it says is an increasingly “risk-averse approach” to free speech.

    The proposed changes will set clear expectations on how universities should approach freedom of speech issues.

    Each university will then have to adopt a “freedom of speech statement” consistent with the central government’s expectations.

    The changes will also prohibit tertiary institutions from adopting positions on issues that do not relate to their core functions.

    Associate Education Minister David Seymour said fostering students’ ability to debate ideas is an essential part of universities’ educational mission.

    “Despite being required by the Education Act and the Bill of Rights Act to uphold academic freedom and freedom of expression, there is a growing trend of universities deplatforming speakers and cancelling events where they might be perceived as controversial or offensive,” he said.

    “That’s why the National/ACT coalition agreement committed to introduce protections for academic freedom and freedom of speech to ensure universities perform their role as the critic and conscience of society.”

    Minister for Tertiary Education and Skills Penny Simmonds said freedom of speech was fundamental to the concept of academic freedom.

    “Universities should promote diversity of opinion and encourage students to explore new ideas and perspectives. This includes enabling them to hear from invited speakers with a range of viewpoints.”

    It is expected the changes will take effect by the end of next year, after which universities will have six months to develop a statement and get it approved.

    Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington said the important issue of free speech had been a dominant topic throughout the year.

    It believed a policy it had come up with would align with the intent of the criteria laid out by the government today.

    However, the Greens are among critics, saying the government’s changes will add fuel to the political fires of disinformation, and put teachers and students in the firing line.

    Labour says universities should be left to make decisions on free speech themselves.

    ‘A heavy-handed approach’
     The Tertiary Education Union (TEU) said proposed rules could do more harm than good.

    They have been been welcomed by the Free Speech Union, which said academic freedom was “under threat”, but the TEU said there was no problem to solve.

    TEU president Sandra Grey said the move seemed to be aimed at ensuring people could spread disinformation on university campuses.

    “I think one of the major concerns is that you might get universities opening up the space that is for academic and rigorous debate and saying it’s okay we can have climate deniers, we can have people who believe in creationism coming into our campuses and speaking about it as though it were scientific, as though it was rigorously defendable when in fact we know some of these questions . . .  have been settled,” she said.

    Grey said academics who expressed views on campus could expect them to be debated, but that was part and parcel of working at a university and not an attack on their freedom of speech.

    “There isn’t actually a problem. I do think universities, all the staff who work there, the students, understand that they’re covered by all of their requirements for freedom of speech that other citizens are.

    “So it feels like we’ve got a heavy-handed approach from a government that apparently is anti-regulation but is now going to put in place the whole lot of requirements on a community that just doesn’t need it.”

    Some topics ‘suppressed’

    Free Speech Union chief executive Jonathan Ayling . . . some academics are afraid to express their views and there is also a problem with “compelled speech”. Image: VNP/Phil Smith/RNZ News

    Free Speech Union chief executive Jonathan Ayling said freedom of speech was under threat in universities.

    “We’ve supported academics . . .  where they feel that they have been unfairly disadvantaged simply for holding a different opinion to some of their peers. Of course, that is also an addition to the explicit calls for people to be cancelled, to be unemployed,” he said.

    Ayling said some academics were afraid to express their views and there was also a problem with “compelled speech”.

    “Forcing certain references on particularly ideological issues. There’s questions around race, gender, international conflicts, covid-19, these are all questions that we’ve found have been suppressed and also there’s the aspect of self-censorship,” he said.

    “As we have and alongside partners looked into this more and more, it seems that many people in the academy exist in a culture of fear.”

    University committed to differing viewpoints
     Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington is committed to hearing a range of different viewpoints on its campuses, vice-chancellor Professor Nic Smith says.

    Free speech had been an important issue during 2024, and the university had arrived at a policy that covered both freedom of speech and academic freedom.

    By consulting widely, there was now a shared understanding of “foundational principles”, and its policy would be in place early in the new year.

    “We believe this policy aligns with the intent of the criteria [from the government] as we understand them. It recognises the strength of our diverse university community and affirms that this diversity makes us stronger,” Professor Smith said.

    “At the same time, it acknowledges that within any diverse community, individuals will inevitably encounter ideas they disagree with-sometimes strongly.

    “Finding value in these disagreements is something universities are very good at: listening to different points of view in the spirit of advancing understanding and learning that can ultimately help us live and work better together.”

    The university believed in hearing a range of views from staff, rather than adopting a single institutional position.

    “The only exception to this principle is on matters that directly affect our core functions as a university.”

    ‘Stoking fear and division’

    The Green Party’s spokesperson for Tertiary Education, Francisco Hernadez . . . this new policy has nothing to do with free speech. Image: VNP/Phil Smith/RNZ News

    Green Party’s spokesperson for Tertiary Education, Francisco Hernadez, said the new policy had nothing to do with free speech.

    “This is about polluting our public discourse for political gain.”

    Universities played a critical role, providing a platform for informed and reasoned debate.

    “Our universities should be able to decide who is given a platform on their campuses, not David Seymour. These changes risk turning our universities into hostile environments unsafe for marginalised communities.

    “Misinformation, disinformation, and rhetoric that inflames hatred towards certain groups has no place in our society, let alone our universities. Freedom of speech is fundamental, but it is not a licence to harm.”

    Hernandez said universities should be trusted to ensure the balance was struck between academic freedom and a duty of care.

    “Today’s announcement has also come with a high dose of unintended irony.

    “David Seymour is speaking out of both sides of his mouth by on the one hand claiming to support freedom of speech, but on the other looking to limit the ability universities have to take stances on issues, like the war in Gaza for example.

    “This is an Orwellian attempt to limit discourse to the confines of the government’s agenda. This is about stoking fear and division for political gain.”

    Labour’s Associate Education (Tertiary) spokesperson Deborah Russell responded: “One of the core legislated functions of universities in this country is to be a critic and conscience of society. That means continuing to speak truth to power, even if those in power don’t like it.”

    “Nowhere should be a platform for hate speech. I am certain universities can make these decisions themselves.”

    ‘Expectations clarified’ – university
     The University of Auckland said in a statement the announcement of planned legislation changes would help “to clarify government expectations in this area”.

    “The university has a longstanding commitment to maintaining freedom of expression and academic freedom on our campuses, and in recent years has worked closely with [the university’s] senate and council to review, revise and consult on an updated Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom Policy.

    “This is expected to return to senate and council for further discussion in early 2025 and will take into account the proposed new legislation.”

    The university described the nature of the work as “complex”.

    “While New Zealand universities have obligations under law to protect freedom of expression, academic freedom and their role as ‘critic and conscience of society’, as the proposed legislation appreciates, this is balanced against other important policies and codes.”

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Israeli-American historian describes attacks on Gaza as ‘war of annihilation’

    Asia Pacific Report

    “It looks like Hiroshima. It looks like Germany at the end of World War Two,” says an Israeli-American historian and professor of holocaust and genocide studies at Brown University about the horrifying reality of Gaza.

    Professor Omer Bartov, has described Israel’s ongoing war on Gaza as an “act of annihilation” of the Palestinian people, reports Middle East Eye.

    Dr Bartov said that not only had Israeli forces been moving displaced Palestinians around the Gaza Strip but they had also been strategically bombing mosques, museums, hospitals, and anything that served the health or culture of a people — in an attempt to cleanse the entire area of Palestinians.

    Al Jazeera reports that an Israeli drone attack on the Shati refugee camp in northern Gaza targeted a group of people gathered at a phone charging and internet distribution point, killing three people.

    According to a witness, this was the only point in the refugee camp where people trapped in the area charge their phones and connect to the internet to be in touch with family members who are displaced in the central and southern parts of the Gaza Strip.

    This was not the first time that the Israeli military has carried out deliberate attacks on such connectivity points.

    Houthis ballistic missile wounds 14
    Meanwhile, a ballistic missile launched by the Houthis from Yemen has broken through Israeli defences above and below the Earth’s atmosphere before slamming into Tel Aviv, reports Israel’s public broadcaster Kan.

    It said interceptors from the Arrow missile defence system were launched into the upper atmosphere after detecting the missile, but missed the target and failed to stop it before it entered Israeli territory.

    As captured in numerous videos, two more interceptors were then fired in the lower atmosphere, also failing to shoot down the missile.

    At least 14 people were wounded after a failed interception of the ballistic missile.

    This was the third incident of its kind just this week. The Israeli army says it was now investigating why it was not intercepted and why this was such a significant failure.

    Since the start of the war, the Houthis have launched more than 200 missiles, and more than 170 drones in support of the Palestinians in Gaza. The Houthis have said they would continue the attacks until Israel ends its war in the besieged enclave.

    In July, there was a drone that evaded all Israeli air defences, no siren sounded, and it was able to detonate in the middle of Tel Aviv and kill one person.

    This time, it was just one minute from the time the sirens rang until the moment of impact.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Indonesia’s BRICS agenda: 2 reasons Prabowo’s foreign policy contrasts with Jokowi’s

    Source: The Conversation – Indonesia – By Aswin Ariyanto Azis, Head of department of Politics, Government, and International Relations of Universitas Brawijaya, Universitas Brawijaya

    Ilustrasi-ilustrasi bendera negara anggota BRICS dan mitra. justit/Shutterstock

    Indonesia’s decision to pursue membership in BRICS – an emerging economy bloc comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa – signals that President Prabowo Subianto is steering foreign policy in a direction contrasting with his predecessors.

    During Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s two-term administration, then-former Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi led efforts to integrate Indonesia’s economy with Western institutions by working to secure membership with the OECD.

    Since BRICS is an alternative to Western-dominated organisations, many observers scrutinised and questioned Indonesia’s nonalignment commitment. However, Foreign Minister Sugiono argued that BRICS aligns with Indonesia’s ‘free and active’ foreign policy, allowing Indonesia to collaborate widely without aligning too closely with any single bloc.

    For Sugiono, joining BRICS means paving the way to advance the new government’s goals of food security, energy independence, poverty alleviation, and human capital development. The bloc offers access to funding, technology, and trade opportunities to tackle key challenges in those sectors. BRICS, with its emphasis on fairness and cooperation, supports Indonesia’s vision for a more inclusive and sustainable future.

    The shift from Retno’s OECD focus to Sugiono’s BRICS approach reflects at least two visions. First, Indonesia seeks to reassess its strategic position as the leading economy in Southeast Asia. Second, the country seeks to switch from its nonalignment stance to multi-alignment. The later will help navigate partnerships with both developed and emerging economies, balancing traditional alliances with new opportunities.

    Joining BRICS can amplify Indonesia’s influence in its already strong ties with each of the member countries and unlock opportunities beyond one-on-one partnerships.

    Fear of missing out

    Indonesia’s pivot to BRICS reflects both its relationship with major powers, such as China and the US, and regional pressures.

    Neighbouring countries Malaysia and Thailand have recently expressed interest in BRICS, creating a sense of competition within Southeast Asia. Both countries joining the bloc could erode Indonesia’s leadership and influence in the region, especially in affecting global affairs.

    Through ASEAN, Indonesia has sought to act as a regional stabiliser and mediator amid rising polarisation between the West and China.

    As its de facto leader, Indonesia has historically championed initiatives like the South China Sea Code of Conduct and Myanmar’s peace process. Its G20 presidency further underscored its role as a mediator between global powers.

    This ‘fear of missing out’ has spurred Indonesia’s interest in BRICS.

    Joining BRICS ahead of its regional peers ensures that Indonesia maintains its leadership position in ASEAN. For Prabowo’s administration, BRICS offers a platform to advance Indonesia’s interests in maritime security, economic growth, and global governance. It is a strategic move beyond an economic decision to amplify its voice on global issues and prevent fellow Southeast Asian countries from overtaking it in shaping the bloc’s agenda.

    Bold (but not one) direction

    Indonesia’s BRICS membership announcement highlights the new administration’s foreign policy ambitions, centred on two key shifts: adopting a multi-alignment strategy and strengthening its ‘good neighbour’ policy.

    Prabowo envisions engaging with all nations, fostering friendly relations while opposing oppression. This approach resonates with Indonesia’s historical commitment to sovereignty and equality in international relations.

    Indonesia has traditionally adhered to a nonalignment principle. This virtue has aided the country navigating major power blocs without binding itself to any single alliance. However, the current geopolitical climate – marked by intensifying tensions between global powers, regional conflicts, and intricate challenges – demands a more flexible and strategic approach.

    By joining BRICS, Indonesia avoids taking sides and instead diversifies its partnerships to maximise benefits. This multi-aligned approach enables active participation in BRICS discussions on multilateral reform.

    Prabowo’s ‘good neighbour policy’ further underscores the importance of maintaining positive relations with all countries. It empowers developing nations and advocates for a more equitable global order and economic system. This strategy also facilitates Indonesia’s resilience by fostering partnerships in food and energy security, poverty alleviation, and human capital development.

    Such collaborations reduce reliance on Western financial systems and enhance Indonesia’s autonomy. Ultimately, these strategic directions position Indonesia as a sovereign and dynamic player capable of balancing global relationships while advancing its own priorities.

    What about the OECD?

    This move does not mean the OECD is off the table for Indonesia. Instead, Prabowo’s approach reflects a dual-track strategy that values both alliances for their respective benefits.

    The OECD remains a long-term objective to enhance Indonesia’s economic governance and regulatory standards. It serves the goal of providing the country with stable relationships within the Western economic framework. Meanwhile, BRICS offers an immediate avenue for Indonesia to deepen ties with equivalent economies and actively shape policies that impact the Global South.

    Sugiono’s statement in Kazan emphasised Indonesia’s commitment to engaging in other forums, including the G20 and OECD discussions. It highlighted the country’s flexibility in international alliances.

    This dual-track strategy reinforces Indonesia’s role as a bridge between developed and developing nations, maximising the benefits of both alliances without sacrificing its autonomy.

    What’s next for Indonesia?

    Indonesia’s decision to join BRICS marks a significant evolution in its foreign policy. By participating in BRICS, Indonesia positions itself as a critical player in global discussions on economic reform and development, asserting its voice within a multi-polar world order.

    Indonesia is charting a path that balances traditional alliances with emerging opportunities, reinforcing its role as a dynamic, independent player on the world stage.

    Aswin Ariyanto Azis tidak bekerja, menjadi konsultan, memiliki saham, atau menerima dana dari perusahaan atau organisasi mana pun yang akan mengambil untung dari artikel ini, dan telah mengungkapkan bahwa ia tidak memiliki afiliasi selain yang telah disebut di atas.

    – ref. Indonesia’s BRICS agenda: 2 reasons Prabowo’s foreign policy contrasts with Jokowi’s – https://theconversation.com/indonesias-brics-agenda-2-reasons-prabowos-foreign-policy-contrasts-with-jokowis-242920

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Vanuatu quake: Warnings as bad weather threat looms for Port Vila

    By Koroi Hawkins, RNZ Pacific editor

    New Zealand’s Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) says impending bad weather for Port Vila is now the most significant post-quake hazard.

    A tropical low in the Coral Sea is expected to move into Vanuatu waters, bringing heavy rainfall.

    Authorities have issued warnings to people living near landslide-prone areas around the Vanuatu capital.

    People living near low lying areas or rivers have also been told to move, should water levels rise.

    The heavy rain may also cause flash flooding.

    USAR team leader Ken Cooper said last Tuesday’s 7.3 earthquake caused significant landslides.

    “With the weather system that’s coming in, there is a high likelihood that the landslides continue and we need to ensure that there’s no life risks if those landslides should move further,” Cooper said.

    Death toll now 12
    Aftershocks have continued, and early this morning, the US Geological Survey recorded a magnitude 6.1 quake, at a depth of 40km west of Port Vila.

    New Zealand and Vanuatu engineers were assessing prioritised areas in the capital, and a decision would then be made as to whether a community needed to be evacuated, Cooper said.

    Since the team had been in Vanuatu, it had taken damage assessments of buildings and infrastructure, with the Vanuatu government, allowing them to prioritise the biggest risks and to assist the community in recovering more quickly, he said.

    The official death toll from Vanuatu’s 7.3 magnitude quake is now 12 according to the Vanuatu Disaster Management office.

    This has been confirmed by the Vila Central Hospital.

    The deployment lead for New Zealand in Vanuatu praised the resilience of the ni-Vanuatu people following the 7.3 earthquake. Image: MFAT/RNZ Pacific

    Earlier unofficial reports had placed the death toll at 16.

    The team had completed almost 1000 assessments, alongside the Australia USAR team, which was a significant task, Cooper said.

    Both teams shared common tools and practices, which had allowed them to work simultaneously and helped the teams to quickly carry out the assessments, he said.

    “When we undertake the assessments that really gives us a clear picture of what should be prioritised and we work with the [Vanuatu] government and their infrastructure cluster, and some of the priorities we have looked at are bridges, [the] airport, the port, and also landslides,” he said.

    Resilience shown by locals
     The deployment lead for New Zealand in Vanuatu praised the resilience of the Ni-Vanuatu people following the 7.3 earthquake.

    Thousands of people had been affected by the disaster but the response effort was being hampered by damage to core infrastructure including the country’s telecommunications network.

    Emma Dunlop-Bennett said the New Zealand teams on the ground were working in partnership with the Vanuatu government.

    She said she was in awe of the strength of locals after the disaster.

    “As we go out into communities, working . . .  with the government, people are out there, getting up and doing what they can to get themselves into business as usual, life as usual. I am really in awe and humbled.

    The purpose of the New Zealand team being in Vanuatu was three-fold: To provide urgent and critical humanitarian assistance, a response for consular need to New Zealanders, and to support a smooth transition from relief, response to recovery, Dunlop-Bennett said.

    Then to business as usual, working along side the priority need identified by the Vanuatu government, she added.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Women having surgery to treat pelvic organ prolapse don’t always need a hysterectomy

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Erin A. Brennand, Gynecologist & Associate Professor, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary

    For decades, the standard surgical approach for treating pelvic organ prolapse has generally included a hysterectomy, or removal of the uterus. (Shutterstock)

    Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) affects up to half of all women during their lifetime, and one in eight will have surgery to treat it by the age of 85. Yet, despite how common POP is, the public’s awareness and understanding of this condition remains limited.

    Most people are unfamiliar with POP until they are personally affected, and even then, are often unaware of the different surgical options available to manage it. Our team of medical professionals and health researchers aims to change this.

    POP occurs when pelvic organs, like the uterus, vagina, bladder or bowel, shift downward and sag into, or even through, the vaginal canal. This condition can lead to a range of physical symptoms, with pelvic pressure, urinary incontinence and a vaginal bulge being some of the most common complaints.

    POP can be physically uncomfortable and disruptive to a woman’s quality of life, and the emotional and social impact can be profound. Many affected women report lowered self-esteem, avoidance of intimacy, and heightened anxiety or depression due to the persistent, painful and often stigmatized nature of the condition.

    Hysterectomy is the default

    For decades, the standard surgical approach for treating POP has generally included a hysterectomy, or removal of the uterus. In many cases, the uterus itself is not part of the prolapse, but removing it allows surgeons to access pelvic ligaments and tissues for securing the vaginal walls. Almost one in three Canadian women aged 60 and older have had their uterus removed to treat a number of gynecologic conditions, including POP.

    POP can be physically uncomfortable and disruptive to a woman’s quality of life, and the emotional and social impact can be profound.
    (Shutterstock)

    This surgery is deeply embedded in medical practice with the long-standing belief that removing the uterus is necessary to achieve durable repair of POP, and that the surgery has minimal impact on women’s overall health.

    Newer evidence, including recent systematic reviews, questions whether hysterectomy is the only effective approach for treating POP in women. Studies have shown that uterine-preserving procedures carry lower surgical risks compared to hysterectomy surgeries, while providing similar effectiveness in reducing prolapse symptoms.

    Adding to this body of evidence, our team of urogynecologists and health researchers developed the Hysterectomy vs. Uterine Preserving Prolapse Surgery (HUPPS) study to generate real-world evidence about outcomes after POP surgery.

    Over three years, we enrolled 321 women with POP affecting the top of their vagina who lived in Calgary and surrounding areas of Alberta. Importantly, each woman was free to consider minimally invasive hysterectomy or uterine-preserving POP surgery, based on their own values, preferences and consideration of the evidence. Almost half (47 per cent) chose the uterine-preserving route, which demonstrated substantial interest among Canadian women to keep their uterus when given the option.

    However, in many hospitals in Canada, hysterectomy remains the primary approach for surgical treatment of POP, partly due to historical and educational clinical practices.

    Surgical outcomes

    At one year post-surgery, we found that 17.2 per cent of women who received a hysterectomy surgery experienced recurrence of POP, compared to only 7.5 per cent of women who received a uterine-preserving (UP) surgery. We then statistically accounted for patient differences such as age, body weight and the initial severity of their POP, and found that women who had uterine-preserving surgery indeed experienced approximately half the risk of POP recurrence than the women who had a hysterectomy.

    Our data also showed other benefits of uterine-preserving surgery, including shorter operating time, shorter hospital stay, less post-operative opioid pain relief and fewer complications overall.

    Why preserve the uterus?

    Some women want to avoid hysterectomy due to personal or cultural beliefs about removing their uterus, while others are concerned about the potential long-term effects on their health.
    (Shutterstock)

    Emerging research suggests there can be long-term effects of hysterectomy. For example, hysterectomy may be associated with elevated risk of chronic health issues such as cardiovascular disease and neurological disorders. These risks are higher for people who undergo hysterectomy at younger ages.

    However, there can be instances where patients may want to consider hysterectomy as part of their POP repair. These include a history of repeated abnormal pap smears signalling a higher risk of developing cervical cancer in the future, or in cases where it is strongly recommended to them by a surgeon, such as when precancerous cells have been determined by a biopsy of the uterus.

    For people without these conditions, there is no medical need to remove the uterus.

    However, the historical hysterectomy-based approach to POP assumes that all women want the same approach to their POP treatment. However, during the past five years, our team has noticed growing inquiries from patients around keeping their uterus, and questions about the risks and benefits of a hysterectomy.

    Some women want to avoid hysterectomy due to personal or cultural beliefs about removing their uterus, while others are concerned about the potential long-term effects on their health. The International Urogynecological Association has a helpful pamphlet with more information on this topic.

    The importance of patient-centred care

    Our research findings, combined with growing evidence on surgical treatment of POP, encourage an essential shift in the field of gynecological surgery towards an approach that offers all women a greater sense of autonomy.

    The HUPPS study demonstrates that when people are presented with evidence-based information on the risks and benefits, they can choose the option that aligns with their personal values and long-term health goals and still achieve a good surgical outcome.

    For women in Canada who are affected by POP, this means ensuring that two options are offered and accessible to them: both hysterectomy and uterine-preserving surgeries. If we can achieve a permanent shift in the medical landscape towards more informed, personalized and patient-centred care, it will change women’s lives for the better.

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

    – ref. Women having surgery to treat pelvic organ prolapse don’t always need a hysterectomy – https://theconversation.com/women-having-surgery-to-treat-pelvic-organ-prolapse-dont-always-need-a-hysterectomy-241755

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –