NewzIntel.com

Category: Education

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: expert reaction to study looking at the association between prolonged use of progestogen contraceptive pill (desogestrel) and risk of brain tumour

    Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments

    A study published in The BMJ looks at the use of the progesterone contraceptive pill and brain tumour risk. 

    Dr Karen Noble, Director of Research, Policy and Innovation at Brain Tumour Research, said:

    “This study adds to the growing body of evidence around hormone-related risk factors for brain tumours. While it identifies a small increased risk of intracranial meningioma associated with long-term use of desogestrel oral contraceptives, it’s vital to stress that this is a correlation, not proof of causation. Most women taking desogestrel will not develop a brain tumour, and the overall risk remains low. However, the findings do reinforce the critical importance of sustained investment in research into brain tumours, which historically has received just 1% of the national spend on cancer research since records began in 2002.”

    Dr Mangesh Thorat, Honorary Reader in Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London and Consultant Breast Surgeon, Homerton University Hospital, said:

    “This large study using French national database is second in the series of studies by the same group, addressing some of the limitations of their previous study published last year. It shows association between taking a certain progestogen (desogestrel) continuously for more than five years and meningioma risk, however, the magnitude of increase in the risk is small, and short-term use is not associated with increased risk and that the excess risk ceases to exist once the use is stopped for more than a year. These results however do not give any reasons for women using progestogens to panic.”

    What are progestogens?

    “Progestogens are medicinal analogues of naturally produced female hormone progesterone. These are a common component of contraceptive agents, hormone replacement therapy and other hormonal treatments. Two important things to know about these are: first, effects of different formulations vary sometimes substantially and second, the effect of individual drug varies on different organs within our body. Therefore, it is important to consider which specific drug is being used by an individual.”

    What is meningioma?

    “Meningioma is a tumour of coverings of our brain and more than 90% of these are not cancerous. This is a rare tumour, for example, breast cancer is 10-times more common and it is even rarer in young individuals. A proportion of these need to be treated surgically as they increase pressure on the brain and / or nerves. The most common symptoms are persistent headache, and feeling sick all the time often with drowsiness.”

    How much of the risk is attributable to these drugs?

    “Recent studies and a similar study by the same group last year showed that 6 out of more than a dozen progestogen formulations to be associated with significant increase in the risk of developing meningioma. However, these 6 drugs put together account for just over 10% of all meningiomas in women. This study shows that 1 additional drug to be associated with meningioma risk, but the magnitude of increase in the risk is much smaller. In other words, a vast majority of meningioma would occur without use of such drugs.

    “Importantly, this study also shows that many progestogens, for example commonly used tablets like Microgynon or the morning after pill to be completely safe, without any increase in the risk of meningioma.”

    What should individuals using progestogens do?

    “Talk to your healthcare provider regarding the drug you are using. If it is associated with an increased risk of meningioma, this can be changed to a safer alternative. There is no reason to panic as the risk is very small and even in those who developed meningioma, stopping the specific drug has shown to cause regression in the size of meningioma.”

    More research is needed:

    “Although this is a large study, all studies have limitations. This study could not investigate the over-the-counter use of contraceptives. Furthermore, the study cannot provide information on the formulations not commonly used in France but used in other countries. This therefore underscores the need for further research using similar databases in other nations.”

    ‘Oral contraceptives with progestogens desogestrel or levonorgestrel and risk of intracranial meningioma: national case-control study’ by Noémie Roland et al. was published in The BMJ at 23:30 hours UK time Wednesday 11 June 2025.

    DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2024-083981

    Declared interests

    Dr Mangesh Thorat: No conflicts.

    For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Pacific Partnership 2025 Conducts Mission Stop in Suva, Fiji, June 9, 2025 [Image 4 of 13]

    Source: United States Navy (Logistics Group Western Pacific)

    Issued by: on

    SUVA, Fiji (June 9, 2025) Engineering Aide 2nd Class Jordanne Jones, left, and Construction Electrician 2nd Class Connor Croissant, both assigned to Amphibious Construction Battalion 1, conduct construction repairs at Waiqanake School during Pacific Partnership 2025 in Suva, Fiji, June 9, 2025. Now in its 21st iteration, the Pacific Partnership series is the largest annual multinational humanitarian assistance and disaster management preparedness mission conducted in the Indo-Pacific. Pacific Partnership works collaboratively with host and partner nations to enhance regional interoperability and disaster response capabilities, increase security and stability in the region, and foster new and enduring friendships in the Indo-Pacific. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Moises Sandoval/Released)

    Date Taken: 06.09.2025
    Date Posted: 06.11.2025 18:07
    Photo ID: 9104598
    VIRIN: 250609-N-ED646-7596
    Resolution: 7731×5158
    Size: 7.19 MB
    Location: SUVA, FJ
    Web Views: 2
    Downloads: 0

    PUBLIC DOMAIN  

    This work, Pacific Partnership 2025 Conducts Mission Stop in Suva, Fiji, June 9, 2025 [Image 13 of 13], by PO2 Moises Sandoval, identified by DVIDS, must comply with the restrictions shown on https://www.dvidshub.net/about/copyright.

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Collins Speaks at 2025 Alzheimer’s Impact Movement Advocacy Forum

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Maine Susan Collins
    Published: June 11, 2025

    Click HERE to watch and HERE to download video from the event.
    Click HERE, HERE, and HERE for individual photos
    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Susan Collins, Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and a senior member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, delivered remarks at the 2025 Alzheimer’s Impact Movement (AIM) Advocacy Forum in Washington. Maine Alzheimer’s advocates Mary Dysart Hartt and her husband Mike introduced Senator Collins at the event. Mary and Mike live in Hampden, and Mary has been a tireless advocate on behalf of Mainers living with Alzheimer’s—like Mike—and their caregivers.
    “When I first joined the Senate, there wasn’t really much of a focus in Washington on brain health. Neurodegenerative diseases were thought of as just part of growing old,” said Senator Collins. “But, working with incredible partners like the Alzheimer’s Association, we have raised awareness and put a federal focus on this disease. For myself and members of the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer’s I lead, this fight is both a personal cause and a matter of crafting effective policy. We must not let Alzheimer’s be one of the defining diseases of our children’s generation as it has ours.”
    In her remarks, Senator Collins also highlighted her successful legislative efforts to advance Alzheimer’s research, prevention, and treatment. In the 118th Congress, there were 1,868 standalone health care bills introduced in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives. Of those bills, only 15 passed both chambers and were signed into law. U.S. Senator Susan Collins led or co-led 5 of those 15 bills to passage with strong bipartisan support, and 3 of those 5 bills dealt directly with brain health. Those bills were the National Alzheimer’s Project Act (NAPA), the Building Our Largest Dementia (BOLD) Infrastructure for Alzheimer’s Act, and the Alzheimer’s Accountability and Investment Act.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Goodbye to all that? Rethinking Australia’s alliance with Trump’s America

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Mark Beeson, Adjunct professor, Australia-China Relations Institute, University of Technology Sydney

    Even the most ardent supporters of the alliance with the United States – the notional foundation of Australian security for more than 70 years – must be having some misgivings about the second coming of Donald Trump.

    If they’re not, they ought to read the two essays under review here. They offer a host of compelling reasons why a reassessment of the costs, benefits and possible future trajectory of the alliance is long overdue.

    Review: After America: Australia and the new world order – Emma Shortis (Australia Institute Press), Hard New World: Our Post-American Future; Quarterly Essay 98 – Hugh White (Black Inc)

    And yet, notwithstanding the cogency and timeliness of the critiques offered by Emma Shortis and Hugh White, it seems unlikely either of these will be read, much less acted upon, by those Shortis describes as the “mostly men in suits or uniforms, with no democratic accountability” who make security policy on our behalf.

    White, emeritus professor of strategic studies at the ANU, was the principal author of Australia’s Defence White Paper in 2000. Despite having been a prominent member of the defence establishment, it is unlikely even his observations will prove any more palatable to its current incumbents.

    Shortis, an historian and writer, is director of the Australia Institute’s International & Security Affairs Program. She is also a young woman, and while this shouldn’t matter, I suspect it does; at least to the “mostly men” who guard the nation from a host of improbable threats while ignoring what is arguably the most likely and important one: climate change.

    The age of insecurity

    To Shortis’s great credit, she begins her essay with a discussion of a “world on fire” in which the Trump administration is “locking in a bleaker future”.

    This matters for both generational and geographical reasons. While we live in what is arguably the safest place on the planet, the country has the rare distinction of regularly experiencing once-in-100-year floods and droughts, sometimes simultaneously.

    If that’s not a threat to security, especially of the young, it’s hard to know what is. It’s not one the current government or any other in this country has ever taken seriously enough.

    White gives a rather perfunctory acknowledgement of this reality, reflecting an essentially traditional understanding of security – even if some of his conclusions will induce conniptions in Canberra.

    While suggesting Trump is “the most prodigious liar in history”, White thinks he’s done Australia a favour by “puncturing the complacency” surrounding the alliance and our unwillingness to contemplate a world in which the US is not the reliable bedrock of security.

    Shortis doubts the US ever was a trustworthy or reliable ally. This helps explain what she calls the “strategy of pre-emptive capitulation”, in which Australian policymakers fall over themselves to appear useful and supportive to their “great and powerful friend”. Former prime minister John Howard’s activation of the ANZUS alliance in the wake of September 11 and the disastrous decision to take part in the war in Iraq is perhaps the most egregious example of this unfortunate national proclivity.

    White reminds us that all alliances are always transactional. Despite talk of a “history of mateship”, it’s vital to recognise if the great power doesn’t think something is in its “national interest”, it won’t be doing favours for allies. No matter how ingratiating and obliging they may be. While such observations may be unwelcome in Canberra, hopefully they won’t come as a revelation.

    Although White is one of Australia’s most astute critics of the conventional wisdom, sceptics and aspiring peace-builders will find little to cheer in his analysis.

    A good deal of his essay is taken up with the strategic situations in Europe and Asia. The discussion offers a penetrating, but rather despair-inducing insight into humanity’s collective predicament: only by credibly threatening our notional foes with nuclear Armageddon can we hope to keep the peace.

    The problem we now face, White argues, is the likes of Russia and China are beginning to doubt America’s part in the “balance of resolve”. During the Cold War both sides were confident about the other side’s ability and willingness to blow them to pieces.

    Now mutual destruction is less assured. While some of us might think this was a cause for cautious celebration, White suggests it fatally undermines the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons.

    Even before Trump reappeared, this was a source of angst and/or uncertainty for strategists around the world. The principle underpinning international order in a world in which nuclear weapons exist, according to White, is that

    a nuclear power can be stopped, but only by an unambiguous demonstration of willingness to fight a nuclear war to stop it.

    Trump represents a suitably existential threat to this cheery doctrine. Europeans have belatedly recognised the US is no longer reliable and they are responsible for their own security.

    Likewise, an ageing Xi Jinping may want to assure his position in China’s pantheon of great leaders by forcibly returning Taiwan to the motherland. It would be an enormous gamble, of course, but given Trump’s admiration for Xi, and Trump’s apparent willingness to see the world carved up into 19th century-style spheres of influence, it can’t be ruled out.

    Australia’s options

    If there’s one thing both authors agree on it’s that the AUKUS nuclear submarine project, the notional centrepiece of Australia’s future security is vastly overrated. It’s either a “disaster” (Shortis) or “insignificant” (White).

    Likewise, they agree the US is only going to help Australia if it’s judged to be in America’s interest to do so. Recognising quite what an ill-conceived, ludicrously expensive, uncertain project AUKUS is, and just how unreliable a partner the US has become under Trump, might be a useful step on the path to national strategic self-awareness.

    Shortis thinks some members of the Trump administration appear to be “aligned with Russia”. Tying ourselves closer to the US, she writes, “does not make us safer”. A major rethink of, and debate about, Australia’s security policy is clearly necessary.

    Policymakers also ought to take seriously White’s arguments about the need to reconfigure the armed forces to defend Australia independently in an increasingly uncertain international environment.

    Perhaps the hardest idea for Australia’s unimaginative strategic elites to grasp is that, as White points out,

    Asia’s future, and Australia’s, will not be decided in Washington. It will be decided in Asia.

    Former prime minister Paul Keating’s famous remark “Australia needs to seek its security in Asia rather than from Asia” remains largely unheeded. Despite plausible suggestions about developing closer strategic ties with Indonesia and even cooperating with China to offer leadership on climate change, some ideas remain sacrosanct and alternatives remain literally inconceivable.

    Even if we take a narrow view of the nature of security – one revolving around possible military threats to Australia – US Defence Secretary Pete Hesgeth’s demands for greater defence spending on our part confirm White’s point that,

    it is classic Trump to expect more and more from allies while he offers them less and less. This is the dead end into which our “America First” defence policy has led us.

    Quite so.

    Australia’s strategic elites have locked us into the foreign and strategic policies of an increasingly polarised, authoritarian and unpredictable regime.

    But as Shortis observes, we cannot be confident about our ability, or the world’s for that matter, to “just ride Trump out”, and hope everything will return to normal afterwards.

    It is entirely possible the international situation may get worse – possibly much worse – with or without Trump in the White House.

    The reality is American democracy may not survive another four years of Trump and the coterie of startlingly ill-qualified, inhumane, self-promoting chancers who make up much of his administration.

    A much-needed national debate

    Both authors think attempts to “smother” a serious national debate about defence policy in Australia (White), and the security establishment’s obsession with secrecy (Shortis), are the exact opposite of what this country needs at this historical juncture. They’re right.

    Several senior members of Australia’s security community have assured me if I only knew what they did I’d feel very differently about our strategic circumstances.

    Really? One thing I do know is that we’re spending far too much time – and money! – acting on what Shortis describes as a “shallow and ungenerous understanding of what ‘security’ really is”.

    We really could stop the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza if Xi had a word with Putin and the US stopped supplying Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the weapons and money to slaughter women and children. But climate change would still be coming to get us.

    More importantly, global warming will get worse before it gets better, even in the unlikely event that the “international community” (whoever that may be) agrees on meaningful collective action tomorrow.

    You may not agree with all of the ideas and suggestions contained in these essays, but in their different ways they are vital contributions to a much-needed national debate.

    An informed and engaged public is a potential asset, not something to be frightened of, after all. Who knows, it may be possible to come up with some genuinely progressive, innovative ideas about what sort of domestic and international policies might be appropriate for an astonishingly fortunate country with no enemies.

    Perhaps Australia could even offer an example of the sort of creative, independent middle power diplomacy a troubled world might appreciate and even emulate.

    But given our political and strategic elites can’t free themselves from the past, it is difficult to see them dealing imaginatively with the threat of what Shortis calls the looming “environmental catastrophe”.

    No wonder so many of the young despair and have little confidence in democracy’s ability to fix what ails us.

    Mark Beeson 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. Goodbye to all that? Rethinking Australia’s alliance with Trump’s America – https://theconversation.com/goodbye-to-all-that-rethinking-australias-alliance-with-trumps-america-258066

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: 201 ways to say ‘fuck’: what 1.7 billion words of online text shows about how the world swears

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Martin Schweinberger, Lecturer in Applied Linguistics, The University of Queensland

    Our brains swear for good reasons: to vent, cope, boost our grit and feel closer to those around us. Swear words can act as social glue and play meaningful roles in how people communicate, connect and express themselves – both in person, and online.

    In our new research published in Lingua, we analysed more than 1.7 billion words of online language across 20 English-speaking regions. We identified 597 different swear word forms – from standard words, to creative spellings like “4rseholes”, to acronyms like “wtf”.

    The findings challenge a familiar stereotype. Australians – often thought of as prolific swearers – are actually outdone by Americans and Brits, both in how often they swear, and in how many users swear online.

    Facts and figures

    Our study focused on publicly available web data (such as news articles, organisational websites, government or institutional publications, and blogs – but excluding social media and private messaging). We found vulgar words made up 0.036% of all words in the dataset from the United States, followed by 0.025% in the British data and 0.022% in the Australian data.

    Although vulgar language is relatively rare in terms of overall word frequency, it was used by a significant number of individuals.

    Between 12% and 13.3% of Americans, around 10% of Brits, and 9.4% of Australians used at least one vulgar word in their data. Overall, the most frequent vulgar word was “fuck” – with all its variants, it amounted to a stunning 201 different forms.

    We focused on online language that didn’t include social media, because large-scale comparisons need robust, purpose-built datasets. In our case, we used the Global Web-Based English (GloWbE) corpus, which was specifically designed to compare how English is used across different regions online.

    So how much were our findings influenced by the online data we used?

    Telling results come from research happening at the same time as ours. One study analysed the use of “fuck” in social networks on X, examining how network size and strength influence swearing in the UK, US and Australia.

    It used data from 5,660 networks with more than 435,000 users and 7.8 billion words and found what we did. Americans use “fuck” most frequently, while Australians use it the least, but with the most creative spelling variations (some comfort for anyone feeling let down by our online swearing stats).

    Teasing apart cultural differences

    Americans hold relatively conservative attitudes toward public morality, and their high swearing rates are surprising. The cultural contradiction may reflect the country’s strong individualistic culture. Americans often value personal expression – especially in private or anonymous settings like the internet.

    Meanwhile, public displays of swearing are often frowned upon in the US. This is partly due to the lingering influence of religious norms, which frame swearing – particularly religious-based profanity – as a violation of moral decency.

    Significantly, the only religious-based swear word in our dataset, “damn”, was used most frequently by Americans.

    Research suggests swearing is more acceptable in Australian public discourse. Certainly, Australia’s public airing of swear words often takes visitors by surprise. The long-running road safety slogan “If you drink, then drive, you’re a bloody idiot” is striking – such language is rare in official messaging elsewhere.

    Australians may be comfortable swearing in person, but our findings indicate they dial it back online – surprising for a nation so fond of its vernacular.

    In terms of preferences for specific forms of vulgarity, Americans showed a strong preference for variations of “ass(hole)”, the Irish favored “feck”, the British preferred “cunt”, and Pakistanis leaned toward “butt(hole)”.

    The only statistically significant aversion we found was among Americans, who tended to avoid the word “bloody” (folk wisdom claims the word is blasphemous).

    Being fluent in swearing

    People from countries where English is the dominant language – such as the US, Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Ireland – tend to swear more frequently and with more lexical variety than people in regions where English is less dominant like India, Pakistan, Hong Kong, Ghana or the Philippines. This pattern holds for both frequency and creativity in swearing.

    But Singapore ranked fourth in terms of frequency of swearing in our study, just behind Australia and ahead of New Zealand, Ireland and Canada. English in Singapore is increasingly seen not as a second language, but as a native language, and as a tool for identity, belonging and creativity. Young Singaporeans use social swearing to push back against authority, especially given the government’s strict rules on public language.

    One possible reason we saw less swearing among non-native English speakers is that it is rarely taught. Despite its frequency and social utility, swearing – alongside humour and informal speech – is often left out of language education.

    Cursing comes naturally

    Cultural, social and technological shifts are reshaping linguistic norms, blurring the already blurry lines between informal and formal, private and public language. Just consider the Aussie contributions to the July Oxford English Dictionary updates: expressions like “to strain the potatoes” (to urinate), “no wuckers” and “no wucking furries” (from “no fucking worries”).

    Swearing and vulgarity aren’t just crass or abusive. While they can be used harmfully, research consistently shows they serve important communicative functions – colourful language builds rapport, expresses humour and emotion, signals solidarity and eases tension.

    It’s clear that swearing isn’t just a bad habit that can be easily kicked, like nail-biting or smoking indoors. Besides, history shows that telling people not to swear is one of the best ways to keep swearing alive and well.

    Martin Schweinberger has received funding from from the Centre for Digital Cultures and Society and the School of Languages and Cultures at the University of Queensland. He is currently funded by the Language Data Commons of Australia, which has received investment from the Australian Research Data Commons, funded by the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy.

    Kate Burridge 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. 201 ways to say ‘fuck’: what 1.7 billion words of online text shows about how the world swears – https://theconversation.com/201-ways-to-say-fuck-what-1-7-billion-words-of-online-text-shows-about-how-the-world-swears-257815

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Extreme weather could send milk prices soaring, deepening challenges for the dairy industry

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Milena Bojovic, Lecturer, Sustainability and Environment, University of Technology Sydney

    Australia’s dairy industry is in the middle of a crisis, fuelled by an almost perfect storm of challenges.

    Climate change and extreme weather have been battering farmlands and impacting animal productivity, creating mounting financial strains and mental health struggles for many farmers.

    Meanwhile, beyond the farm gate, consumer tastes are shifting to a range of dairy substitutes. Interest and investment in alternative dairy proteins is accelerating.

    Earlier this month, industry figures warned consumers to prepare for price rises amid expected shortages of milk, butter and cheese. Already mired in uncertainty, the dairy industry is now being forced to confront some tough questions about its future head on.

    Dairy under pressure

    Dairy is Australia’s third-largest rural industry. It produces more than A$6 billion worth of milk each year, and directly employs more than 30,000 people.

    But the sector has been under sustained pressure. This year alone, repeated extreme weather events have affected key dairy-producing regions in southern and eastern parts of Australia.

    In New South Wales, dairy farmers face increased pressure from floods. In May, many regions had their monthly rainfall records broken – some by huge margins.

    In Victoria, drought and water shortages are worsening. Tasmania, too, continues to endure some of the driest conditions in more than a century.

    Conditions have prompted many farmers to sell down their cattle numbers to conserve feed and water.

    All of this heavily impacts farm productivity. Agriculture has long been predicated on our ability to predict climate conditions and grow food or rear animals according to the cycles of nature.

    As climate change disrupts weather patterns, this makes both short and long-term planning for the sector a growing challenge.

    High costs, low profits

    Climate change isn’t the only test. The industry has also been grappling with productivity and profitability concerns.

    At the farm level, dairy farmers are feeling the impacts of high operating costs. Compared to other types of farming (such as sheep or beef), dairy farms require more plant, machinery and equipment capital, mostly in the form of specialised milking machinery.

    The price of milk also has many farmers concerned. The modest increase in farmgate milk prices – just announced by dairy companies for the start of the next financial year – left many farmers disappointed. Some say the increase isn’t enough to cover rising operating costs.

    Zooming out, there are concerns about a lack of family succession planning for dairy farms. Many young people are wary of taking on such burdens, and the total number of Australian dairy farms has been in steady decline – from more than 6,000 in 2015 to just 4,163 in 2023.

    What’s the solution?

    Is there a way to make the dairy industry more productive, profitable and sustainable? Australian Dairy Farmers is the national policy and advocacy group supporting the profitability and sustainability of the sector.

    In the lead up to this year’s federal election, the group called for $399 million in government investment to address what it said were key priorities. These included:

    • investment in on-farm technologies to improve efficiencies
    • funding for water security
    • upskilling programs for farmers
    • support for succession planning.
    Industry figures have warned consumers to brace for possible increases in the cost of dairy products.
    wisely/Shutterstock

    However, as the industry struggles to grapple with a changing climate, financial strain and mental health pressures, there should also be pathways for incumbent farmers to transition, either to farming dairy differently (such as by reducing herd sizes) or exiting out of dairy farming and into something else.

    Dairy without the cows

    The push to make dairy production more sustainable and efficient faces its own competition. A number of techniques in development promise dairy products without the cows, through cellular agriculture – and more specifically, “precision fermentation”.

    Australian company Eden Brew, in partnership with dairy giant Norco, has plans to produce and commercialise precision fermentation dairy proteins.

    And last year, Australian company All G secured approval to sell precision fermentation lactoferrin (a key dairy ingredient in baby formula) in China – another animal-free milk product.

    It is important to note that cost and scalability for cellular agriculture remains a challenge.

    Nonetheless, Australia’s rapidly growing non-dairy milk market – soy, oat, and so on – is now worth over $600 million annually. This reflects the global shift towards plant-based options driven by health, environmental, and ethical concerns.

    Is there a win-win outcome?

    Is there a possible future where more funding is given to produce milk at scale through precision fermentation while we also look after incumbent dairy workers, farms and the rural sector at large to diversify or leave the sector altogether?

    Some believe this future is possible. This is what researchers call “protein pluralism” – a market where traditional and alternative proteins coexist. Long-term planning from both the dairy industry and government would be needed.

    Remember, while techniques like precision fermentation offer the promise of animal-free dairy products, their benefits are largely yet to materialise. How they will ultimately benefit the whole of society remains speculative.

    What we can do now

    For this reason, some scholars have argued we should prioritise actions that can be taken now. This includes support for practices such as agroecology, which seek to address injustice and inequity in food systems to help empower primary food producers.

    A recent study found Australian dairy farmers were interested in financial and technical advice to make decisions about where they take their business in future.

    Despite growing recognition of the challenges facing the dairy sector, responses from government and alternative dairy remain uneven. A more coordinated approach is needed for affected farmers, helping them adapt or diversify with guidance from government and industry experts.

    Milena Bojovic volunteers with Farm Transitions Australia, a registered charity which helps Australian dairy and beef farmers facing hardship and seeking a transition from the industry. She is affiliated with ARC Centre for Excellence in Synthetic Biology.

    – ref. Extreme weather could send milk prices soaring, deepening challenges for the dairy industry – https://theconversation.com/extreme-weather-could-send-milk-prices-soaring-deepening-challenges-for-the-dairy-industry-258175

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘Hard to measure and difficult to shift’: the government’s big productivity challenge

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Stephen Bartos, Professor of Economics, University of Canberra

    Higher productivity has quickly emerged as an economic reform priority for Labor’s second term.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has laid down some markers for a productivity round table in August, saying he wants it to build the “broadest possible base” for further economic reform.

    The government is right to focus on productivity. Improving economic efficiency will increase real wages, help bring down inflation and interest rates, and improve living standards.

    Treasurer Jim Chalmers is flagging a broad productivity agenda, but acknowledges the rewards will take time to percolate through the economy:

    Human capital, competition policy, technology, energy, the care economy – these are where we are going to find the productivity gains, and not quickly, but over the medium term.

    Making the economy operate more efficiently is simple in concept. But Albanese and Chalmers would be well aware productivity is hard to measure, and even more difficult to shift.

    The numbers are fraught

    What do we mean by productivity growth? And how will it help lift the economy? The authors of the bestselling new book Abundance offer this neat explanation:

    People need to think up new ideas. Factories need to innovate new processes. These new ideas and new processes must be encoded into new technologies. All this is grouped under the sterile label of productivity: How much more can we produce with the same number of people and resources?

    At its most basic, productivity measures outputs divided by inputs – what we produce compared to the resources such as labour and capital used to produce it.

    But large parts of the “non-market” economy including the public service, health care and education are excluded from the official productivity figures.

    The Australian Bureau of Statistics is working to address the gap in the data. For example, it is developing “experimental estimates” for the health sector, which suggests hospital productivity has fallen.

    However measurement is fraught. If a nurse, for instance, who previously cared for four patients now looks after eight, is that a productivity improvement? Or a drop in standard of care?

    Flatlining productivity

    Australian productivity growth has averaged just 0.4% a year since 2015 – the lowest rate in 60 years.

    The exception was during COVID, when industries with low productivity, such as accommodation and food, were shut down and those with high productivity – such as IT and communications – thrived.

    The objective must be to return to, or even surpass, historical levels of productivity. However, it won’t be easy given economists have no clear idea why productivity growth has fallen in Australia and overseas.

    Theories include:

    • measurement problems
    • new industries
    • decline in business investment in equipment and technology
    • more service industries, where productivity is lower
    • the easy reforms have all been done.

    No shortage of advice

    Productivity is multidimensional, with an absurd number of moving parts. It depends on skills, technology, investment, knowledge, management, and a host of other factors. Like the movie, it’s “everything, everywhere all at once”.

    The government has a plethora of advice on how to improve productivity. Scientists argue for more scientific research; business lobbies for more investment breaks;
    innovators for more technological advances.

    This poses a dilemma for the Treasurer. Most suggestions on their own would make some difference. Doing all of them would make a huge difference. Alas, government cannot do everything. It must choose where to apply its limited resources.

    Beyond money and time, the government must also have appetite for the fight.

    Interest groups typically support productivity reforms in principle, but resist them if they are directly affected. Every inefficient regulation or program has a supporter somewhere.

    Five pillars

    Jim Chalmers does not need another shopping list. He needs help to sort through options and set priorities for which fights to pick. To this end, in December year he tasked the Productivity Commission with new inquiries into the five main drivers – “pillars” – of higher productivity.



    Read more:
    Labor says its second term will be about productivity reform. These ideas could help shift the dial

    Yet the Albanese government has already been handed a comprehensive blueprint for productivity reform.

    In March 2023, the Productivity Commission released the Advancing Prosperity report, which it described as a “road map”.

    However, it had more of a shopping list feel, incorporating 71 recommendations and 29 “reform directives”. Many were of the “should” variety, lacking a detailed plan of how to do them.

    Roughly speaking, any government only has bandwidth for one big and a few small reforms a term. It cannot implement more than 70, even if that’s ideal.

    Productivity reform will succeed if it involves only a few changes – preferably those that deliver the most improvement for the least complaint.

    Some proposed measures are desirable but controversial. The tax system, for example, is crying out for improvement, but the government is unlikely to take it on.

    Reforming occupational licences to make it easier for tradies to move states is a more modest aim. It would not generate the same productivity gains, but politically would be simpler to implement.

    Nothing to fear

    Finally, some words of caution.

    Productivity is not code for exploiting workers. As The Guardian recently noted:

    When most people hear the word ‘productivity’ they think of their boss wanting them to take on more duties for the same pay. That’s not the case. It’s about getting more out of the hours you work.

    Working harder to get the same result is in fact a drop in productivity. Working shorter hours for the same outputs is productivity growth, with the benefits seen in better work-life balance.

    Nor is productivity just about producing more outputs. Who needs more useless stuff?

    And statistics can mislead, because they measure the value of production, not the quality. A broader accounting for production, incorporating society and the environment, would help the productivity debate avoid this trap.

    Albanese and Chalmers readily acknowledge the government can do more on productivity. Anyone with an interest in driving a more efficient economy, higher real wages and better living standards will hold them to their word.

    This article is part of The Conversation’s series examining the productivity dilemma.

    Stephen Bartos 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. ‘Hard to measure and difficult to shift’: the government’s big productivity challenge – https://theconversation.com/hard-to-measure-and-difficult-to-shift-the-governments-big-productivity-challenge-257968

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: A reversal in US climate policy will send renewables investors packing – and Australia can reap the benefits

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christian Downie, Professor, Australian National University

    President Donald Trump is trying to unravel the signature climate policy of his predecessor Joe Biden, the Inflation Reduction Act, as part of a sweeping bid to dismantle the United States’ climate ambition.

    The Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, is a A$530 billion suite of measures that aims to turbocharge clean energy investment and slash emissions in the US. Once hailed as a game-changer for the global clean energy transition, it set in train a fierce international competition for renewable energy investment.

    But the policy is now hanging by a thread, after the US House of Representatives last month narrowly passed a bill to repeal many of its clean energy measures.

    Should the bill pass the Senate, billions of dollars in renewables investment once destined for the US could be looking for a new home. Now is the time for the Albanese government to woo investors with a bolder program of climate action in Australia.

    The Trump administration is seeking to wind back Biden’s signature climate policy.
    Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Climate Power 2020

    What is the Inflation Reduction Act?

    The Inflation Reduction Act passed US Congress in 2022. It legislated billions of dollars in tax credits for solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and geothermal plants, among other technologies.

    It included around A$13 billion in rebates for Americans to electrify their homes, tax credits of almost A$11,000 to electrify their cars, and billions more to establish a “green bank” and target agricultural emissions.

    The money flowed. Last year, almost A$420 billion was invested in the manufacture and deployment of clean energy – double that in 2021, the year before the legislation passed.

    Even in the first quarter of this year, under a Trump presidency, A$103 billion was invested in clean energy tech – an increase on the first quarter results of 2024. Electric vehicle manufacturing projects, especially batteries, were standout performers.

    Then US president Joe Biden in August 2023, celebrating the first anniversary of the Inflation Reduction Act. The policy aimed to turbocharge the clean energy transition.
    Win McNamee/Getty Images

    But then came the proposed repeal. The Trump administration wants to gut tax credits for clean energy technologies. The measures passed the House of Representatives and must now clear the US Senate, where the Republicans have a margin of three votes.

    Initial modelling suggests the bill, if passed, could derail clean energy manufacturing in the US – including in Republican states where new projects were planned.

    The potential economic damage has sparked concern even among Trump’s own troops. Some Republicans last week reportedly urged the scaling back of the cuts, despite voting for the bill in the House.

    Opportunities for Australia

    After the IRA was enacted, many countries followed the US’ lead – including Australia’s Albanese government, which legislated the A$22.7 billion Future Made in Australia package.

    So how will Trump’s unravelling of the policy affect the rest of the world?

    The economic impacts are still being modelled. Some studies suggest the US could cede A$123 billion in investment to other countries.

    The US axing of tax credits for battery and solar technology paves the way for nations such as China and South Korea to capitalise – given, for example, they already dominate battery manufacturing.

    Australia should be doing its utmost to attract investors that no longer see the US as an option. Our existing policies are a start, but they are not sufficient.

    In February this year, Labor increased the investment capacity of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation – Australia’s “green bank” – by A$2 billion. But more will be needed if the government is serious about crowding-in private investment in low-emission technologies exiting the US.

    The government would also be wise to remove incentives that increase fossil fuel use. This includes the diesel fuel rebate, which encourages the use of diesel-powered trucks on mine sites. Fortescue Metals this week announced a push for the subsidy to be wound back – potentially providing the political opening Labor needs.

    What about nuclear?

    Trump has also promised a “nuclear renaissance”, signing four executive orders designed to reinvigorate the US nuclear energy industry.

    But those measures are likely to fail, just as Trump’s 2016 promise to revive the coal industry never eventuated.

    In fact, his cuts to the Loan Programs Office – which helps finance new energy projects including nuclear – threaten to undermine the viability of new nuclear plants. The office has been the guarantor for every new US nuclear plant this century, bar one.

    If the US is struggling to scale up its existing nuclear industry, this does not bode well for the technology’s hopes in Australia. Here, the prospect of a nuclear energy policy still appears alive in the Coalition party room, even though the technology remains politically unpopular, and the economics don’t stack up.

    What’s next?

    Predicting US climate and energy policy is a fool’s errand, given the potential IRA repeal, flip-flopping tariff announcements and daily social media tirades from Trump, including a social media bust-up with former ally Elon Musk over the merits of the repeal itself.

    Stepping back from the politics, we cannot ignore the climate harms flowing from a walk-back on US climate action.

    The US is the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases. As climate change reaches new extremes, the policy vacuum created by Donald Trump must urgently be filled by the rest of the world.

    Christian Downie receives funding from the Australian Research Council

    – ref. A reversal in US climate policy will send renewables investors packing – and Australia can reap the benefits – https://theconversation.com/a-reversal-in-us-climate-policy-will-send-renewables-investors-packing-and-australia-can-reap-the-benefits-258388

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Russia: The final of the national stage of the “Chinese Language is a Bridge” competition was held in Armenia

    Translation. Region: Russian Federal

    Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –

    Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News

    Yerevan, June 11 (Xinhua) — The final of the national stage of the World Chinese Language Proficiency Contest among students and secondary school pupils “Chinese is a Bridge” was held in the capital of Armenia on Wednesday. It was jointly organized by the Chinese Embassy in Armenia and the Confucius Institute of the Yerevan State University of Foreign Languages named after Valery Bryusov.

    Five students from the country’s leading universities and 10 schoolchildren from different grades from three cities took part in the competition. They delivered welcoming speeches, recited poems, sang songs and performed short stage productions in Chinese.

    Welcoming the participants, Chinese Ambassador to Armenia Li Xinwei noted that even the simplest communication clearly highlights the important role of language as an intercultural bridge and reflects the sincere friendship between the peoples of China and Armenia.

    “Learning Chinese helps people gain a deeper understanding of the rich Chinese culture, penetrate the spiritual world of the Chinese people, and become ambassadors of people-to-people exchanges between our countries. It also creates a solid foundation for cultural exchanges and mutual learning between China and Armenia,” Li Xinwei said.

    Rector of Yerevan State University of Foreign Languages named after V. Bryusov David Gyurjinyan admitted that he was impressed by the results of the competition.

    The winners of the competition were Yerevan State University student Laura Arakelyan, Gyumri Academic College student Sos Vardanyan and Nor Hachin school student Robert Zakharyan. They will travel to China to participate in the global stage of the “Chinese Language is a Bridge” competition. –0–

    MIL OSI Russia News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Attorney General Bonta Files Amicus Brief Supporting Challenge to the Trump Administration’s Unlawful Freeze to Federal Research Funding for Harvard

    Source: US State of California

    OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta this week, as part of a coalition of 21 attorneys general, filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in support of Harvard University’s motion for summary judgment in President and Fellows of Harvard College v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s freeze of federal funding for research grants at Harvard University. In their brief, the attorneys general argue that the freezing and termination of Harvard’s research grants would pose an existential threat to universities, disrupt state’s economies, public health efforts, and the pipeline for the next generation of researchers. 

    “The Trump Administration is going after Harvard because it refused to bend to its unprecedented – and blatantly unlawful – demands,” said Attorney General Bonta. “In California, we remain committed to upholding and protecting the constitutional and civil rights of our educational institutions and their students. I’m proud to stand with Harvard in ensuring that we continue to protect our students, their wellbeing, and their freedom of speech.”

    In April 2025, Harvard filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts arguing that the Trump Administration exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority and violated the First Amendment in freezing, terminating, and refusing to issue or continue research and other grants in retaliation for Harvard’s refusal to restructure its internal governance, change its hiring and admissions practices, and modify what it teaches its students to align with the government’s views.

    In the amicus brief, the coalition urges the court to grant Harvard’s motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Trump Administration’s unlawful freeze of federal funding poses an existential threat to the university which will (1) impact the state’s economy, (2) threaten current jobs and businesses, (3) halt career development for promising new scientists debilitating the pipeline for future innovators, and (4) prevent research for lifesaving medicines and transformative technologies with the potential to improve the health and lives of residents.

    Harvard’s contributions to Massachusetts are a prime example of the significant impact research universities can have. Since its founding in 1636, Harvard has been critical to Massachusetts’s flourishing, directing billions of dollars to the state’s businesses and organizations and driving countless of innovations in medicine and technology. In addition, Harvard is one of Massachusetts’s largest employers and frequently collaborates with state and local partners on initiatives that support the local economy.

    In filing the amicus brief, Attorney General Bonta joins the attorneys generals of Massachusetts, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.

    A copy of the amicus brief can be found here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Public can share opinions at open house on two projects coming to SR 155 in Omak

    Source: Washington State News 2

    OMAK – It is once again time for voices to be heard, a road to be paved and a bridge to be built.

    Omak residents will have a chance to give feedback on projects planned for two locations on State Route 155 during an open house at Omak City Hall Monday, June 16.

    During the projects, contractor crews working for the Washington State Department of Transportation will replace a bridge on SR 155 Spur over the Okanogan River. As part of a Complete Streets and paving project near East Omak Elementary, crews will also pave sections of the highway and improve bicycle and pedestrian facilities within city limits.

    These projects are scheduled for construction in 2026 and 2028.

    At the open house, WSDOT project staff will be available to share details of the project and receive feedback. Those unable to attend the in-person meeting can participate through an online open house. 

    SR 155 and SR 155 Spur projects open house

    When:  5–7 p.m. Monday, June 16

    Where:  Omak City Hall, 2 Ash St. N.

    Details:  Project team members will be available to explain the project, answer questions and take comments. A translator fluent in Spanish will be present. There is no formal presentation. Attendees are welcome to drop by anytime during the two-hour event. 

    Free internet access
    Free, temporary internet access is available to those who do not have broadband service in locations throughout in the area, including: 

    • Omak Community Library, 30 Ash St. N.
    • Wenatchee Valley College – Omak, 116 Apple Ave. W.
    • Omak School District, 619 W. Bartlett Ave.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: COLUMN: Walker: Your Money, Your Future: Delivering Real Tax Relief

    Source: US State of Georgia

    By: Sen. Larry Walker, III (R–Perry)

    Across Middle Georgia, folks are working hard to provide for their families, and every dollar matters. Whether you’re filling up your gas tank, checking out at the grocery store, or trying to cover your utility bill, the cost of living has gone up. I’ve heard it from farmers in Pulaski County, parents in Houston County, and retirees in Laurens and Dooly…Georgians are stretched thin.

    This year, we delivered real relief. I’m proud to report that the General Assembly passed two crucial measures, House Bills 111 and 112, to put more money back in your pocket and help ease the strain on household budgets.

    HB 111 reduces Georgia’s personal income tax rate from 5.39 percent to 5.19 percent, with a plan to reduce it even further to 4.99 percent in the coming years. While that may sound like a small number, it adds up in a big way for working families. Those savings will show up in take-home pay across our state, giving folks more flexibility to cover everyday costs.

    We know that when government takes in more than it needs, it should return the surplus to the people who earned it, not spend it on bureaucracy or pet projects. That’s why we also passed HB 112, which sends a one-time refund to Georgia taxpayers. The Department of Revenue is now issuing these checks. If you filed both your 2023 and 2024 tax returns on time and have no outstanding debt to the state, you can expect to receive a refund of $250 if you filed as a single taxpayer, $375 if you filed as head of household or $500 if you filed jointly as a married couple. It’s a direct result of responsible, conservative budgeting and the third year in a row we’ve been able to return excess revenue to Georgia families.

    We’re doing all this while still fully funding critical priorities. Our budget includes investments in school safety, teacher pay raises, mental health services, and rural healthcare infrastructure. We’ve supported hurricane recovery efforts and made sure our rural communities aren’t left behind. In fact, our state’s economy remains strong. Georgia’s net tax collections for May were up more than nine percent from last year, thanks in part to strong individual and corporate income tax returns. That’s not just good news for the state, it’s proof that our conservative approach is working.

    To my constituents in the 20th District, these policies were written with you in mind. Whether you’re running a small business in Eastman, tending a family farm in Cochran or living on a fixed income in Hawkinsville, this tax relief matters. It means fewer hard choices at the end of the month. It means peace of mind when planning for the future.

    I’ve always believed that Georgians know how to spend their money better than the government does. As Chairman of the Senate Insurance and Labor Committee and a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I take that belief seriously. It’s my job to protect your hard-earned income and ensure the state lives within its means.

    Georgia didn’t become the best state to do business by accident. We got here through discipline, smart policy and a deep respect for the taxpayer. This year’s tax relief package is just the latest chapter in that story, and I’ll keep fighting to make sure it’s not the last.

    If you have questions about your rebate or how these changes might affect your family or your business, please don’t hesitate to reach out to my office. It’s an honor to serve you, and I remain committed to building a stronger, more affordable Georgia—one that works for every family in our part of the state.

    # # # #

    Sen. Larry Walker serves as Secretary of the Majority Caucus and Chairman of the Senate Committee on Insurance and Labor. He represents the 20th Senate District, which includes Bleckley, Dodge, Dooly, Laurens, Treutlen, Pulaski and Wilcox counties, as well as portions of Houston County.  He may be reached by phone at (404) 656-0095 or by email at Larry.Walker@senate.ga.gov.

    For all media inquiries, please reach out to SenatePressInquiries@senate.ga.gov.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: The leading risk factor for cancer isn’t what you think

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kristen Haase, Associate Professor, Nursing, University of British Columbia

    International guidelines say that all older adults should have a geriatric assessment prior to making a decision about their cancer treatment. (Shutterstock)

    If you were to ask most people what causes cancer, the answer would probably be smoking, alcohol, the sun, hair dye or some other avoidable element. But the most important risk factor for cancer is something else: aging. That’s right, the factor most associated with cancer is unavoidable — and a condition that we will all experience.

    Why is this important? Older adults are the fastest growing population in Canada and globally. By 2068, approximately 29 per cent of Canadians will be over age 65. With cancer being one of the most common diseases in older adults and one of the most common diseases in Canada, it means we need to think about how to provide the best cancer care for older adults.

    Demographic shift

    So how are we doing so far? The answer is: not great. This may be surprising, but we also have a great opportunity to innovate and prepare for this demographic shift in cancer care.

    International guidelines — including those from the American Society of Clinical Oncology — say that all older adults should have a geriatric assessment prior to making a decision about their cancer treatment. The most widely used models of geriatric assessment involve a geriatrician.

    With cancer being one of the most common diseases in older adults and one of the most common diseases in Canada, it means we need to think about how to provide the best cancer care for older adults.
    (Shutterstock)

    Consultation with a geriatrician for an older adult allows the oncologist and older adult to engage in a conversation about cancer treatment armed with information. Things like how treatment might affect their cognition, their function, their existing illnesses (which most older adults have when they are diagnosed with cancer), and the years of remaining life.

    Importantly, geriatricians centre their assessment on what matters most to patients. This approach anchors any decision about cancer around the wishes of older adults and their support system. When diagnosed with cancer, older adults undergo many tests and measures of function, but the evidence supports that these are not as accurate as geriatric assessment for identifying problems that may be below the surface.

    Care in Canada

    In Canada, there are currently only a handful of specialized geriatric oncology clinics. The oldest clinic is in Montréal at the Jewish General Hospital, followed closely by the Older Adult with Cancer Clinic at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, led by Shabbir Alibhai, one of the authors of this story. As researchers, we are in touch with clinics in Ontario and Alberta that have told us they have geriatric oncology services under development, so we hope to see new programs soon.

    These clinics aren’t just good for patients. In fact, a study led by Shabbir Alibhai demonstrated a cost savings of approximately $7,000 per older adult seen in these clinics. If we map this onto the number of older adults diagnosed with cancer in Canada every year, this represents a huge cost savings for our public health system. Despite this overwhelming evidence, this is still not routine care.

    In Canada, there are currently only a handful of specialized geriatric oncology clinics.
    (Shutterstock)

    In British Columbia, there are currently no specialized services for older adults with cancer. Over the last five years, Kristen Haase — also an author of this story — has been working with colleagues to understand whether these services are needed and how they could help older adults with cancer in B.C.

    This work involved conversations with more than 100 members of the cancer community. The research team spoke with older adults undergoing cancer treatment, who sometimes had to relocate for cancer treatment. Other participants included caregivers who cared for elderly family members during their cancer treatment and described numerous challenges they faced, and volunteers who ran a free transportation service — a service also mostly staffed by older adult volunteers.

    The research team also heard from health-care professionals: oncologists, nurses, physiotherapists and social workers. The latter group coalesced around the need for additional supports within the cancer care system so they could do their job well, and best support older adults.

    The results indicate that both those working in the system and those using the system want and need better support.

    Barriers to care

    So where are we now and why don’t we have these services across Canada?

    Cost is obviously a barrier to any health-care service. But with evidence that any costs will be offset by demonstrated cost savings, this is a non-starter.

    Health human resources are one huge restriction. Geriatricians are in high demand and there is low supply. However, nurse-led models have also been shown to be successful. With the expanding role of nurse practitioners across Canada, this option has huge potential to innovate care, and at a lower cost.

    There is an opportunity to innovate models of care that are targeted to those who need services the most: those who are most frail, are most likely to benefit from tailored care, and will reap the most benefit in terms of quality of life.
    (Shutterstock)

    Another reason is good old inertia. Our clinical care model in oncology has remained mostly intact for over three decades. It is primarily a single physician-driven model. Although modern therapies for cancer have emerged at a breathtaking pace and have been introduced into clinical practice, it is much harder to change the model of care, particularly for strategies such as geriatric assessment that are harder to implement than a new drug or surgical/radiation technique.

    The last, and perhaps the most difficult to pin down of all potential reasons for the absence of specialized cancer services for older adults, is agism. Agism is discrimination based on age. It is one of the most common forms of discrimination and it is deeply embedded in many of our systems. Imagine a scenario where children diagnosed with cancer couldn’t access a pediatrician. We would collectively be outraged. Yet somehow, we accept this for older adults.

    Due to the overwhelming number of older adults who are and will be diagnosed with cancer in the coming years, it will never be possible for all of them to receive specialized geriatric services. But there is an opportunity to innovate models of care that are targeted to those who need services the most: those who are most frail, are most likely to benefit from tailored care, and will reap the most benefit in terms of quality of life.

    Stratifying these programs around those who need them the most will also have the greatest financial impact. And if personal stories of improving quality of life for older adults with cancer or international guidelines don’t move decision-makers, hopefully cost savings will.

    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. The leading risk factor for cancer isn’t what you think – https://theconversation.com/the-leading-risk-factor-for-cancer-isnt-what-you-think-253834

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Sanctuary cities can’t protect people from ICE immigration raids − but they don’t actually violate federal law

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Benjamin Gonzalez O’Brien, Professor of Political Science, San Diego State University

    While sanctuary policies for immigrants have grown in the U.S. since the 1980s, the Trump administration is the first to challenge them. Marcos Silva/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    The Trump administration plans to send special response teams of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to conduct immigration raids in four cities run by Democratic mayors, NBC news reported on June 11, 2025, citing two unnamed sources familiar with the planning process.

    NBC reports that New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago and Seattle are four of the five places that would be affected by this deployment, as well as northern Virginia. These cities are also among the other major metropolitan hubs – as well as more than 200 small towns and counties and a dozen states – that over the past 40 years have adopted what are often known as sanctuary policies.

    Special response teams are tactical units under ICE that are trained to respond to extreme situations such as drug and arms smugglers. These units have been used to respond to recent immigration protests in Los Angeles in response to ICE raids. President Donald Trump has also deployed 4,000 National Guard troops, as well as about 700 Marines, to quell protests in that city. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and California Gov. Gavin Newsom have said the presence of troops is exacerbating the situation and are challenging the legality of these deployments in court.

    While sanctuary policies often prohibit local participation in immigration enforcement or cooperation with ICE, if large-scale raids take place in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Seattle, their designation as sanctuary cities offers little protection to immigrants living without legal authorization from deportation.

    There is not a single definition of a sanctuary policy. But it often involves local authorities not asking about a resident’s immigration status, or not sharing that personal information with federal immigration authorities.

    So when a San Francisco police officer pulls someone over for a traffic violation, the officer will not ask if the person is living in the country legally.

    American presidents, from Ronald Reagan to Joe Biden, have chosen to leave sanctuary policies largely unchallenged since different places first adopted them in the 1970s. This changed in 2017, when President Donald Trump first tried to cut federal funding to sanctuary places, claiming that their policies “willfully violate Federal law.” Legal challenges during his first term stopped him from actually withholding the money.

    At the start of his second term, Trump signed two executive orders in January and April 2025 which again state that his administration will withhold federal money from areas with sanctuary policies.

    “Working on papers to withhold all Federal Funding for any City or State that allows these Death Traps to exist!!!” Trump said, according to an April White House statement. This statement was immediately followed by his April executive order.

    These two executive orders task the attorney general and secretary of homeland security with publishing a list of all sanctuary places and notifying local and state officials of “non-compliance, providing an opportunity to correct it.” Those that do not comply with federal law, according to the orders, may lose federal funding.

    San Francisco and 14 other sanctuary cities, including New Haven, Connecticut, and Portland, Oregon, sued the Trump administration in February on the grounds that it was illegally trying to coerce cities to comply with its policies. A U.S. district court judge in California issued an injunction on April 24 preventing the administration – at least for the time being – from cutting funding from places with sanctuary policies.

    However, as researchers who have studied sanctuary policies for over a decade, we know that Trump’s claim that sanctuary policies violate federal immigration law is not correct.

    It’s true that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over immigration. Yet there is no federal requirement that state or local governments participate or cooperate in federal immigration enforcement, which would require an act of Congress.

    A sign is seen at the Nogales, Ariz., and Mariposa, Mexico, border crossing.
    Jan Sonnenmair/Getty Images

    What’s behind sanctuary policies

    In 1979, the Los Angeles Police Department was the first to announce a prohibition on local officials asking about a resident’s immigration status.

    However, it was not until the 1980s that the sanctuary movement took off, when hundreds of thousands of Salvadorans, Guatemalans and Nicaraguans fled civil war and violence in their home countries and migrated to the U.S. This prompted a number of cities to declare solidarity with the faith-based sanctuary movement that offered refuge to Salvadoran, Guatemalan and Nicaraguan asylum seekers facing deportation.

    In 1985, Berkeley, Calif., and San Francisco pledged that city officials, including police officers, would not report Central Americans to immigration authorities as long as they were law abiding.

    Berkeley also banned officials from using local money to work with federal immigration authorities.

    “We are not asking anyone to do anything illegal,” Nancy Walker, a supervisor for San Francisco, said in 1985, according to The New York Times. “We have got to extend our hand to these people. If these people go home, they die. They are asking us to let them stay.”

    Today, there are hundreds of sanctuary cities, towns, counties and states across the country that all have a variation of policies that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

    Sometimes – but not always – places with sanctuary policies bar local law enforcement agencies from working with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the country’s main immigration enforcement agency.

    A large part of ICE’s work is identifying, arresting and deporting immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. In order to carry out this work, ICE issues what is known as “detainer requests” to local law enforcement authorities. A detainer request asks local law enforcement to hold a specific arrested person already being held by police until that person can be transferred to ICE, which can then take steps to deport them.

    While places without sanctuary policies tend to comply with these requests, some sanctuary jurisdictions, like the state of California, only do so in the cases of particular violent criminal offenses.

    Yet local officials in sanctuary places cannot legally block ICE from arresting local residents who are living in the country illegally, or from carrying out any other parts of its work.

    Can Trump withhold federal funding?

    Trump claimed in 2017 that sanctuary policies violated federal law, and he issued an executive order that tried to rescind federal grants that these jurisdictions received.

    However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a 2018 case involving San Francisco and Santa Clara County, California, that the president could not refuse to “disperse the federal grants in question without congressional authorization.”

    Federal courts, meanwhile, split over whether Trump could freeze funding attached to a specific federal program called the Edward Byrne Memorial Assistance Grant Program, which provides about US$250 million in annual funding to state and local law enforcement.

    These cases were in the process of being appealed to the Supreme Court when the Department of Justice, under Biden, asked that they be dismissed.

    Other Supreme Court rulings also suggest that the Trump administration’s claim that it can withhold federal funding from sanctuary places rests on shaky legal ground.

    The Supreme Court ruled in 1992 and again in 1997 that the federal government could not coerce state or local governments to use their resources to enforce a federal regulatory program, or compel them to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.

    Under pressure

    The first Trump administration was not generally successful, with the exception of the split over the Edward Byrne Memorial Assistance Grant Program, at stripping funding from sanctuary places. But cutting federal funding – even if it happens temporarily – can be economically damaging to cities and counties while they challenge the decision in court.

    Local officials also face other kinds of political pressure to comply with the Trump administration’s demands.

    A legal group founded by Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff in the Trump administration, for example, sent letters to dozens of local officials in January threatening criminal prosecution for their sanctuary policies.

    Michelle Wu, the mayor of Boston, a sanctuary city, testifies during a House committee hearing on sanctuary city mayors on March 5, 2025, in Washington.
    Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images

    The real effects of sanctuary policies

    One part of Trump’s argument against sanctuary policies is that places with these policies have more crime than those that do not.

    But there is no established relationship between sanctuary status and crime rates.

    There is, however, evidence that when local law enforcement and ICE work together, it reduces the likelihood of immigrant and Latino communities to report crimes, likely for fear of being arrested by federal immigration authorities.

    Sanctuary policies are certainly worthy of debate, but this requires an accurate representation of what they are, what they do, and the effects they have.

    This is an updated version of a story originally published on May 28, 2025.

    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. Sanctuary cities can’t protect people from ICE immigration raids − but they don’t actually violate federal law – https://theconversation.com/sanctuary-cities-cant-protect-people-from-ice-immigration-raids-but-they-dont-actually-violate-federal-law-255831

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Labonte named Associate Vice President for University Safety

    Source: US State of Connecticut

    Dear Colleagues,

    I’m pleased to announce that I have appointed UConn Police Chief Gene Labonte to the position of Associate Vice President for University Safety following a national search. Gene has served as our Chief of Police since July 2023, and going forward he will serve as both police chief and AVP.

    At UConn, those who have had the opportunity to work with Chief Labonte know that his service to the university in this critical role is defined by integrity, professionalism, and outstanding leadership.

    As chief, he brings a thoughtful, well-informed approach to his work reflecting his decades-long experience in law enforcement matched with a thorough understanding of the complexities and nuances involved in overseeing a police department at a large public research university with campuses throughout the state.

    Chief Gene Labonte (contributed photo).

    One of the many reasons he was an exceptional candidate for AVP is because of that understanding, which allows him to see the university not through the lens of law enforcement alone, but also through the larger and more expansive lens of “public safety” more generally, a strength that is essential to being effective in both of these positions.

    In addition, Chief Labonte’s open, transparent style of communication, collegiality, and responsiveness are highly valued by his colleagues throughout the institution.

    Prior to his arrival at UConn, Chief Labonte served as Associate Vice President for Public Safety and Risk Management/Chief of Police and Salem State University in Salem, Mass., which is part of the commonwealth’s public university system. He began his law enforcement career in 1990 with the Connecticut State Police, serving until 2012 and departing at the rank of Lieutenant Colonel.

    He succeeds Hans Rhynhart, who is retiring after more than three decades at UConn that included rising from a police officer to Chief of Police and later AVP for University Safety. His last day at UConn is June 30.

    I would like to thank the search committee, which was chaired by Vice President for Diversity and Inclusion Jeffrey Hines. It also included Mansfield Town Manager Ryan Aylesworth, Assistant Vice President for Student Life Cyndi Costanzo, Deputy General Counsel Nathan LaVallee, UConn Health Chief of Staff Andrea Keilty, interim Vice President for Communications Mike Kirk, African American Cultural Center Director Alicia McKenzie, Hartford Campus Dean Mark Overmyer-Velazquez, Vice President for Quality and Patient Care Services/Chief Nursing Officer/JDH Chief Operating Officer Caryl Ryan, Vice Provost Dan Schwartz, and Director of Business Services for University Safety Darshana Sonpal.

    Thanks also to Maryann Markowski from the President’s Office and Michelle Fournier from Human Resources for supporting the search committee and search process.

    Please join me in congratulating and thanking Chief Labonte for his willingness to step into this additional role and in offering thanks, gratitude, and our very best wishes to Hans for his long and dedicated service to UConn.

    Sincerely,
    Radenka Maric
    UConn President

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ‘Microaggressions’ can fly under the radar in schools. Here’s how to spot them and respond

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Leslie, Lecturer in Curriculum and Pedagogy with a focus on Educational Psychology, University of Southern Queensland

    Klaus Vedfelt/ Getty Images

    Bullying is sadly a common experience for Australian children and teenagers. It is estimated at least 25% experience bullying at some point in their schooling.

    The impacts can be far-reaching and include depression and anxiety, poorer school performance, and poorer connection to school.

    The federal government is currently doing a “rapid review” of how to better prevent bullying in schools. This do this, we need a clear understanding of the full spectrum of aggressive behaviours that occur in schools.

    We already know bullying can be physical, verbal and social, and can occur in person and online. But there is less awareness among educators and policymakers of “microaggressions”. These can be more subtle but are nonetheless very damaging.



    Read more:
    With a government review underway, we have to ask why children bully other kids

    What’s the difference between bullying and microaggressions?

    Bullying is unwanted aggressive behaviour by a person or group against a targeted victim, with the intent to harm. The behaviour is repeated and there is a power imbalance between the perpetrator and victim.

    Microaggressions are a form of aggression that communicate a person is less valued because of a particular attribute – for example, their race, gender or disability.

    Microaggressions are repeated, cumulative and reflect power imbalances between social groups. A key difference with traditional bullying is microaggressions are often unconscious on the part of the perpetrator – and can be perpetrated with no ill intent.

    For example, traditional bullying could include a child always excluding another child from the group, always pushing them when they walk past them, or calling them a rude name.

    Microaggressions could include:

    • saying “you don’t look disabled” to a student with an invisible disability

    • mispronouncing a student’s name with no attempt to correct the pronunciation

    • saying to a student of colour, “wow, you’re so articulate”, implying surprise at their language skills

    • minimising a student with disability’s experience by saying “it can’t be that difficult. Just try harder.”

    We don’t have specific statistics on prevalence within Australia, although there is ample research to say those from minority groups frequently experience microaggressions.

    For example, studies of young people in the United States found incidents of microaggressions, often focused on racism, homophobia, transphobia and fat stigma. Students who held more than one identity (for example, a minority race and sexual orientation), were more likely to be targets.

    Microaggressions in schools

    My 2025 research on microaggressions towards dyslexic students in Australia found both students and parents can be on the receiving end. Teachers, school support officers and other students could be perpetrators.

    These interactions minimised the students’ experiences of dyslexia and made them feel like second class students compared to their peers.

    Some of the children reported comments from peers such as “oh yeah, reading, writing is hard already” which minimised the difficulties caused by dyslexia. Another student recalled how a peer had corrected her spelling “by snatching my book and re-writing it”, assuming she couldn’t do it herself. One student was made to feel bad for using a laptop in class as “someone said it was cheating”.

    The impact of microaggressions

    Schools where microaggressions occur are not safe spaces for all students.

    This can have serious implications for students’ school attendance, harm their mental health and ability to learn and socialise.

    Research on US university students, showed students may also become hypervigilant waiting for future microaggressions to occur.

    One Australian study found microaggressions can be so bad for some school students, they change schools in search of environments where staff and peers are more accepting.

    How to address microaggressions

    Research suggests addressing microaggressions can work as a prevention strategy to reduce other forms of bullying before it starts.

    Studies also show teacher awareness of microaggressions is key to preventing and addressing incidents.

    So a first step step is to make sure schools, teachers and students are aware of microagressions. Teachers should be educated about the relationship between microaggressions and bullying.

    Schools need to create environments where microaggressions are understood, recognised and addressed. All students need to be taught how to respond appropriately as bystanders if they see microaggressions happening in the classroom, playground or online.

    If a student feels that they or a friend has been made to feel less because of their identity, then they should be encouraged to seek help from an appropriate adult.

    Schools also need proactive programs to foster inclusion in schools. Research shows school psychologists can help by delivering programs in mental health and social and emotional development.

    Just as schools, teachers and school psychologists can be proactive in addressing microaggressions, so too can the federal government – by including microaggressions in its anti-bullying review.

    If this article has raised issues for you, or if you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800.

    Rachel Leslie is a committee member for the Australian Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools association.

    – ref. ‘Microaggressions’ can fly under the radar in schools. Here’s how to spot them and respond – https://theconversation.com/microaggressions-can-fly-under-the-radar-in-schools-heres-how-to-spot-them-and-respond-258684

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Medical scans are big business and investors are circling. Here are 3 reasons to be concerned

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sean Docking, Research Fellow, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University

    wedmoments.stock/Shutterstock

    Timely access to high-quality medical imaging can be lifesaving and life-altering. Radiology can confirm a fractured bone, give us an early glimpse of our baby or detect cancer.

    But behind the x-ray, ultrasound, CT and MRI machines is a growing, highly profitable industry worth almost A$6 billion a year.

    Corporate ownership dominates the sector. In our new study, we show how for-profit corporations own about three in every five private radiology clinics.

    As radiology becomes an increasingly attractive target for investors, are we letting business interests reshape a key part of our health-care system?

    30 million scans and counting

    In 2023–24, two in five Australians had an x-ray, ultrasound, CT scan or MRI. That’s about 30.8 million scans in total (individuals may have two or more scans).

    Medicare funds most of this imaging. In fact, imaging is now Medicare’s second-largest area of spending, behind only GP visits.

    But a growing number of scans are not bulk billed and patients are out of pocket on average about $125 per scan. An estimated 274,000 Australians are delaying or forgoing scans each year because of the cost.

    There have also been dramatic changes behind the scenes. Since the early 2000s, for-profit corporations have been buying small radiologist-owned clinics.

    Today, 65% of private radiology practices are owned by publicly listed shareholders or private investors, including private equity firms. This marks a significant shift from clinician-led to investor-driven health care.

    Need an ultrasound? You may end up at a private radiology clinic.
    Inside Creative House/Shutterstock

    Why should we care?

    Advocates of corporate ownership suggest this business-focused approach can make the system more efficient through economies of scale. They say this allows consolidation of administration tasks and a reduction in overheads.

    Easy access to finance can help buy expensive imaging machines. It can also provide investment towards new technologies, such as artificial intelligence.

    Yet, there are three main reasons why corporate ownership of the radiology sector may be cause for concern.

    1. It reduces competition

    Large corporations buying up a bunch of smaller practices ultimately leads to less competition. In Tasmania, for example, 11 of the 17 private radiology clinics are owned by one company, significantly limiting patient choice.

    We also found limited competition among radiology providers in South Australia, the Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory.

    When a single company dominates a local market, it creates the conditions for higher fees and reduced incentives to bulk bill. However, objective data on the impact of reduced competition on the affordability of scans is scarce.

    2. It may lead to too many expensive scans

    High-cost scans, such as MRIs and CTs, are lucrative. Medicare expenditure on MRI scans alone has doubled since 2012.

    This may reflect improved access and a recommended shift towards more sensitive tests for some conditions. However, for-profit corporations now own about 76% of MRI machines in private clinics. These corporations may be financially incentivised to offer more costly imaging over equally effective, lower-cost options.

    With profits tied to the number of scans, there’s growing unease financial motives may be influencing when and how often these scans are used.

    While radiology corporations are not the ones requesting scans, there is little incentive for them to address overuse of radiology services, an issue for high-income countries such as Australia.

    Low-value imaging may also generate overdiagnosis (when something shows up on imaging but will never cause the patient any health issues, for example). It can lead to unnecessarily exposing patients to radiation and cause unwarranted patient (and doctor) anxiety. This can ultimately lead to more tests and unnecessary treatment.

    Is an MRI scan really necessary? Sometimes cheaper imaging is best.
    illustrissima/Shutterstock

    3. Radiology clinics become an asset

    Private equity firms view radiology clinics as a commodity to be bought, their value increased, then sold over a relatively short time frame (typically three to seven years).

    These firms generate profit not from delivering care, but from boosting the clinic’s value and charging them annual “management fees”.

    A prime example is unfolding. I-MED, Australia’s largest radiology provider, is considering listing the business on the Australian Stock Exchange after failing to sell at a reported $3 billion. Its UK private equity owner bought I-MED for about $1.26 billion in 2018. If sold, this would be the latest of multiple owners since delisting from the stock exchange in 2006.

    If there are debts, health-care companies can collapse, as we’ve seen recently with hospital chain Healthscope, which is owned by a Canadian-based private equity firm.

    Experience of private equity’s role in health care in the United States also offers a cautionary tale. Reductions in the quality of care, asset stripping and ultimately the closure and bankruptcy of vital health-care providers have prompted Congressional investigations. The state of Oregon is on the verge of blocking private equity firms from controlling health-care providers.

    What next?

    As radiology becomes an increasingly attractive target for investors, questions are mounting about whether this profit-driven model can coexist with the public’s need for affordable, accessible health care.

    Medicare was designed to guarantee affordable access to quality health care for all Australians, not guarantee revenue for corporations.

    While unwinding corporate participation in the radiology sector is near impossible, there is still time to implement safeguards that prevent wealthy investors from prioritising financial gain over Australians’ health and wellbeing.

    Stronger oversight and greater transparency from these corporations are needed to ensure Medicare dollars deliver real value for patients and the public.

    We would like to acknowledge Jenn Lacy-Nichols (University of Melbourne) and Martin Hensher (University of Tasmania) who co-authored the paper mentioned in this article.

    Sean Docking is a member of UniSuper (Industry Super Holdings Pty Ltd) as part of his superannuation; Unisuper is an investor in PRP Diagnostic Imaging. He has no direct investments in any diagnostic imaging companies.

    Rachelle Buchbinder has received grant funding from NHMRC, MRFF, Arthritis Australia and HCF Foundation. She receives royalties from UpToDate for writing and editing ‘Plantar fasciitis’. She also receives royalties for her book entitled ‘Hippocrasy: How doctors are betraying their oath’. She has not received funding from for-profit industry, including from radiology companies.

    – ref. Medical scans are big business and investors are circling. Here are 3 reasons to be concerned – https://theconversation.com/medical-scans-are-big-business-and-investors-are-circling-here-are-3-reasons-to-be-concerned-257820

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Were the first kings of Poland actually from Scotland? New DNA evidence unsettles a nation’s founding myth

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Darius von Guttner Sporzynski, Historian, Australian Catholic University

    An illustration from a 15th-century manuscript showing the coronation of the first king of Poland, Boleslaw I. Chronica Polonorum by Mathiae de Mechovia

    For two centuries, scholars have sparred over the roots of the Piasts, Poland’s first documented royal house, who reigned from the 10th to the 14th centuries.

    Were they local Slavic nobles, Moravian exiles, or warriors from Scandinavia?

    Since 2023, a series of genetic and environmental studies led by molecular biologist Marek Figlerowicz at the Poznań University of Technology has delivered a stream of direct evidence about these enigmatic rulers, bringing the debate onto firmer ground.

    Digging up the dynasty

    Field teams have now opened more than a dozen crypts from the Piast era. The largest single haul came from Płock Cathedral in what is now central Poland.

    The exhumed bones were dated between 1100 and 1495, matching written records. Genetic analysis showed several individuals were close relatives.

    “There is no doubt we are dealing with genuine Piasts,” Figlerowicz told a May 2025 conference.

    The Poznań group isolated readable DNA from 33 individuals (30 men and three women) believed to span the dynasty’s full timeline.

    Surprise on the Y chromosome

    The male skeletons almost all carry a single, rare group of genetic variants on the Y chromosome (which is only carried and passed down by males). This group is today found mainly in Britain. The closest known match belongs to a Pict buried in eastern Scotland in the 5th or 6th century.

    These results imply that the dynasty’s paternal line arrived from the vicinity of the North Atlantic, not nearby.

    Mieszko I, the first Piast ruler documented in written sources.
    Jan Matejko, c. 1893 (via Wikimedia)

    The date of that arrival is still open: the founding clan could have migrated centuries before the first known Piast, Mieszko I (who died in 992), or perhaps only a generation earlier through a dynastic marriage. Either way, the new data kill the notion of an unbroken local male lineage.

    Yet genetics also shows deep local continuity in the wider population. A separate survey of Iron Age cemeteries across Poland, published in Scientific Reports, revealed that people living 2,000 years ago already shared the genetic makeup seen in early Piast subjects.

    Another project that sequenced pre-Piast burials drew the same conclusion: local Poles were part of the broader continental gene pool stretching from Denmark to France.

    In short, even if the Piasts were exotic rulers, they governed a long-established community.

    A swamp tells its tale

    While the DNA work progressed, another Poznań team dug into the history of the local environment via samples from the peaty floor of Lake Lednica near Poznań, the island-ringed stronghold often dubbed the cradle of the Piast realm.

    Their study of buried pollen, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows an abrupt switch in the 9th century: oak and lime pollen plummet, while cereal and pasture indicators soar. Traces of charcoal and soot point to widespread fires.

    The authors call the shift an “ecological revolution”, driven by slash-and-burn agriculture and the need to feed concentrated garrisons of soldiers guarding local trade routes carrying amber and slaves.

    Modelling boom and bust

    Using this environmental data, historians and complexity scientists constructed a feedback model of population, silver paid as tribute to rulers, and fort-building. As fields expanded, tributes rose; as tributes rose, chiefs could hire more labour to clear more forest and build forts.

    The model reproduces the startling build-out of ramparts at Poznań, Giecz and Gniezno around 990. It also predicts collapse once the silver stopped flowing.

    Pollen data indeed show the woodlands recovered to some extent after 1070, while archaeological surveys record abandoned hamlets and shrinking garrisons.

    The early Piast state rode a resource boom as the Piasts controlled part of the amber and slave trade routes that linked the shores of the Baltic Sea to Rome.

    The impact of Mieszko’s conversion to Christianity on that lucrative trade remains subject to scholarly debate.

    Reconciling foreigners and locals

    How do these strands fit together? Evidence of a Scottish man in the Piast paternal line does not necessarily imply a foreign conquest. Dynasties spread by marriages as well as by swords.

    For example, Świętosława (the sister of the first Piast king, Bolesław the Brave), married the kings of both Denmark and Sweden, and her descendants ruled England for a time. The networks of Europe’s nobility were highly mobile.

    Conversely, the stable genetic profile of ordinary folk suggests that, whoever sat on the ducal bench, most people remained where their grandparents had farmed.

    The broader research engine

    None of this work happens in isolation. Poland’s National Science Centre has bankrolled a 24-person team across archaeology, palaeoecology and bioinformatics since 2014, generating 16 peer-reviewed papers and a public database of ancient genomes.

    Conferences at Lednica and Dziekanowice now bring historians and molecular biologists to the same table. The methodological pay-off is clear: Polish labs can now process their own ancient DNA rather than exporting it to Copenhagen or Leipzig.

    What still puzzles researchers

    Three questions remain. First, does that British-leaning male line really start with a Pict? The closest known match to the Piasts may change as new burials are sequenced.

    Second, how many commoners carried the same genetic variant? Spot samples from Kowalewko and Brzeg hint that it was rare among locals, but the data set is small.

    Third, why did the silver dry up so fast? Numismatists suspect a shift in Viking routes after 1000 AD, yet the matter is far from settled.

    A balanced verdict

    Taken together, the evidence paints a nuanced picture. The Piasts were probably not ethnic Slavs in the strict paternal sense, yet they ruled, and soon resembled, an overwhelmingly Slavic realm.

    Their meteoric rise owed less to outsider brilliance than to the chance alignment of fertile soils, cheap labour, and an export boom in amber and captives.

    As geneticists conduct more DNA sequencing of remains, such as those of princes in crypts at Kraków’s Wawel castle, and palaeoecologists push their lakebed pollen samples back to 7th century, we can expect further surprises.

    Darius von Guttner Sporzynski receives funding from the National Science Centre, Poland as a partner investigator in the grant ‘The “Chronicle of the Poles” by Bishop Vincentius of Cracow also known as Kadłubek. First critical Latin-English Edition.’ (2022/47/B/HS3/00931).

    – ref. Were the first kings of Poland actually from Scotland? New DNA evidence unsettles a nation’s founding myth – https://theconversation.com/were-the-first-kings-of-poland-actually-from-scotland-new-dna-evidence-unsettles-a-nations-founding-myth-258579

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Ohio Man Pleads Guilty to Federal Swatting Charges

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Baltimore, Maryland – Today, Brayden Grace, 19, of Columbus, Ohio, pled guilty to conspiracy, cyberstalking, interstate threatening communications, and threats to damage or destroy by means of fire and explosives. 

    Kelly O. Hayes, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, announced the guilty plea with Acting Special Agent in Charge Amanda M. Koldjeski, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) – Baltimore Field Office.

    According to the guilty plea, Grace helped create an online group known as “Purgatory.”  The group used multiple online social-media platforms, including Telegram and Instagram, to coordinate and plan swatting and doxxing activities and to announce and brag about swats that they conducted.  

    “Grace and his co-conspirators threatened and terrorized others throughout the country, and then bragged about it online.  Make no mistake: swatting and doxxing are not pranks—they are dangerous and illegal acts that put lives at risk and drain critical law enforcement resources,” Hayes said. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to relentlessly pursuing those who seek to gain notoriety by abusing our emergency services and striking fear in others. Such unlawful actions will not be tolerated.”

    “Brayden Grace admitted he engaged in swatting and doxxing to strike out at perceived rivals, gain online notoriety, attempt to make money, and for enjoyment. May his guilty plea make clear that the FBI and our partners take these threats seriously,” Koldjeski said. “Together, we will make sure offenders do not remain anonymous and face justice for their crimes which drain vital public safety resources, cause undue fear, and put innocent lives at risk.”

    “Swatting” is a term used to describe or refer to a criminal incident in which an individual contacts emergency services and falsely reports an emergency, often involving an act of violence that reportedly has or will occur at a particular location to elicit an armed law enforcement response to that location.  “Doxxing” is a term used to describe the practice of searching for and publishing on the Internet personal, private, or identifying information about an individual with malicious intent, such as providing the information for the purpose of swatting the individual.

    From December 10, 2023, through January 18, 2024, Grace and his co-conspirators placed swatting calls to police and other emergency departments. One or more of the conspirators falsely reported an emergency in the form of a violent act at a particular location to cause an armed law enforcement response with the intent to threaten, intimidate, and harass individuals and entities.

    Grace and his co-conspirators often used shared scripts to plan and coordinate their conduct and used Voice over Internet Protocol services to obscure their phone numbers and identities.

    As part of this scheme, the co-conspirators called the Houston County Sheriff’s Office (Dothan, Alabama). The co-conspirators threatened to burn down part of a residential trailer park and kill any law-enforcement officers who arrived to respond to the threat.

    Additionally, as part of the scheme, a Purgatory conspirator called the Newark Delaware Police Department falsely claiming that he heard a man firing shots in a Newark High School hallway. Moments later, a conspirator called the department again, threatening to shoot a specific Newark High School teacher and to kill unnamed students. As a result of this call, which occurred in the middle of the school day, authorities placed the school on lockdown and police officers responded to the scene. Later the same day, Grace agreed to post content from the incident, including images from news coverage of the incident, onto the group’s social media accounts.

    Grace also posted the address of the Hollywood Casino in Columbus, Ohio, the non-emergency telephone number for Columbus Police Department, and the name of a specific doxxing victim. Purgatory conspirators called the Columbus Police Department that day and threatened to “start shooting,” “kill everyone here,” and blow up the Hollywood Casino.

    Additionally, Purgatory conspirators called the Albany Police Department (Albany, New York), threatening the use of firearms and explosives at the airport.  Police units then rushed to respond to the threats.  On the same day, Grace bragged on a Purgatory group website about the group threatening the airport.

    Grace faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in federal prison for each count of threatening to damage or destroy by fire or explosive and a maximum sentence of five years in federal prison for conspiracy, cyberstalking, and interstate threats. 

    Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties.  A federal district court judge determines sentencing after taking into account the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. Sentencing is scheduled for Thursday, August 14, at 10 a.m.

    U.S. Attorney Hayes commended the FBI for its work in the investigation.  Additionally, Ms. Hayes praised the Joint Terrorism Task Force, Columbus; Ohio Police Department; Newark, Delaware Police Department; Lenoir City, Tennessee Police Department; Albany, New York Police Department; Albany County, New York Sheriff’s Office; Fairburn City, Georgia Police Department; Bethel Park, Pennsylvania Police Department; Giles County, Virginia Sheriff’s Office; Blue Springs, Missouri Police Department; Tarboro, North Carolina Police Department; Boston, Massachusetts Police Department; Dodge County, Georgia Sheriff’s Office; Houston County, Alabama Sheriff’s Office; and the FBI’s Mobile, Richmond, Boston, Charlotte, and Cincinnati Field Offices for their valuable assistance. Ms. Hayes also thanked Assistant U.S. Attorneys Robert I. Goldaris and Patricia C. McLane who are prosecuting the case.

    For more information about the Maryland U.S. Attorney’s Office, its priorities, and resources available to help the community, visit justice.gov/usao-md and justice.gov/usao-md/community-outreach.

    # # #

     

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: IADC Suez University Chapter Hosts Milestone Technical Gathering

    Source: International Association of Drilling Contractors – IADC

    Headline: IADC Suez University Chapter Hosts Milestone Technical Gathering

    The IADC Suez University Student Chapter, in collaboration with fellow faculty student chapters and the Faculty of Petroleum and Mining Engineering, Suez University, proudly hosted the Third Student Conference of the Faculty of Petroleum and Mining Engineering and the Second IADC Suez Technical Exhibition!

    Throughout the conference, industry professionals and academic experts shared invaluable perspectives on emerging trends, challenges, and innovations in the oil and gas sector. Their contributions inspired meaningful dialogue and forward-thinking ideas.

    The Second IADC Suez Technical Exhibition featured impressive student projects, groundbreaking research, and cutting-edge technology, reinforcing the innovative spirit of the student community.

    Dynamic competitions pushed participants to demonstrate their technical expertise, creativity, and teamwork. Congratulations to all the winners for their outstanding performances!

    The event welcomed enthusiastic students from universities across Egypt, creating an enriching environment of collaboration, networking, and shared learning.

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: University of Louisiana at Lafayette Student Chapter Participates in Petroleum Engineering Crawfish Boil

    Source: International Association of Drilling Contractors – IADC

    Headline: University of Louisiana at Lafayette Student Chapter Participates in Petroleum Engineering Crawfish Boil

    The IADC University of Louisiana at Lafayette (ULL) Student Chapter recently participated in the ULL Petroleum Engineering Crawfish Boil. It was a beautiful day with great weather and an excellent turnout. Events like this provide a wonderful opportunity for networking in a laid back environment. 

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI Economics: University of North Dakota Student Chapter Hosts Lunch & Learn with IADC Rep Mike Harris

    Source: International Association of Drilling Contractors – IADC

    Headline: University of North Dakota Student Chapter Hosts Lunch & Learn with IADC Rep Mike Harris

    The IADC University of North Dakota Student Chapter recently welcomed IADC representative Mike Harris to campus. With over 50 years of experience in the oil and gas industry, Mike shared valuable insights on the roles of operators, contractors, and service companies, as well as the different types of drilling contracts and the bidding process. 

    His visit included a tour of the UND petroleum engineering labs, a Lunch & Learn with students and faculty, and a visit to the Wilson M. Laird Core & Sample Library—one of the nation’s premier geological archives, housing over 485,000 feet (92 miles) of core samples from the Williston Basin.

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: What family firms like Rothschild can teach Canadian businesses about resilience

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Liena Kano, Professor, Haskayne School of Business, University of Calgary

    The Gunnersbury Estate, which was purchased by merchant and financier Nathan Mayer Rothschild in 1835, is seen in London in 2022. (Shutterstock)

    Family businesses constitute a vital component of Canada’s economic landscape. They make up 63 per cent of privately held firms, employ nearly seven million people and generate about $575 billion a year.

    While Canadian family-run businesses express international ambitions, their overseas engagement tends to be more conservative compared to their non-family counterparts.

    In today’s turbulent economic environment — marked by geopolitical tensions, technological disruption and shifting trade patterns — international competitiveness is more important than ever.

    Around the world, family firms have shown remarkable resilience in the face of external shocks. Some of the world’s longest-standing corporations are family-owned, having endured world wars, revolutions, natural disasters and pandemics. For Canadian family firms aspiring to expand abroad, such examples offer both inspiration and insight.

    Among such long-standing multinationals is Rothschild, a centuries-old European family-run investment bank. Our case study of Rothschild, based on historical analysis, highlights how the family’s enduring relationships, reliable routines and long-term goals gave it significant advantages in international business.

    At the same time, however, families can contribute unique biases, especially “bifurcation bias” — a tendency to favour family resources over equally or more valuable non-family ones. Our study reveals that bifurcation bias can compromise a firm’s international trajectory, especially in distant and complex markets.

    A brief history of Rothschild

    Mayer Amschel Rothschild was a German-Jewish banker and the founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty.
    (Wikimedia Commons)

    Initially a merchant business, the firm was founded in the late 18th century by Mayer Amschel Rothschild, a Frankfurt Jew.

    Rothschild and his wife, Guttle, had 10 children, including five sons: Amschel, Salomon, Nathan, Carl and James.

    In 1798, Rothschild sent Nathan to Manchester, England, which initiated the firm’s growth in that country and a transition from merchant operations to financial transactions.

    By the 1820s, Rothschild became a multinational bank, with Amschel, Salomon, Nathan, Carl and James leading banking houses in Frankfurt, Vienna, London, Naples and Paris, respectively.

    Bonuses and burdens of family bonds

    Nathan Mayer Rothschild was sent to Manchester in 1798.
    (Wikimedia Commons)

    In the 19th century, the Rothschild’s strategy of relying on family members initially worked well for the firm.

    The five Rothschild brothers corresponded in a coded language and shared a common pool of resources at a time when shared balance sheets were uncommon in international banking.

    Their close familial bonds allowed the brothers to move information, money and goods across international borders with a speed and reach that wasn’t accessible to competitors. Rivals, by contrast, had to worry about protecting sensitive information and enforcing commitments.

    This internal cohesiveness safeguarded the Rothschild’s business, facilitated transactions and allowed them to maintain resilience through the periods of significant political upheaval: the Napoleonic wars, revolutions and, ultimately, the First World War, which interrupted economic and social progress in Europe.

    However, this same over-reliance on family became a disadvantage when Rothschild expanded into the United States.

    Missed opportunity and bifurcation bias

    The Rothschilds showed an interest in the American market as early as the 1820s. However, their repeated attempts to send family members to the U.S to expand operations failed, as none were willing to stay, preferring the comforts of European life.

    August Belmont was a German-Jewish immigrant to New York City in 1837 as an agent of the Rothschild bank in Frankfurt.
    (Shutterstock)

    Since they were unable to establish a family-based anchor in the country, the Rothschilds appointed an agent, August Belmont, to run the U.S. operations on their behalf in 1837.

    However, Belmont wasn’t given the authority to exercise entrepreneurial judgment, make investments or enter into deals. He also didn’t have unrestricted access to capital, was never entrusted with an official Rothschild mandate or acknowledged as a full-fledged partner.

    The Rothschilds were unwilling to delegate such decisions to someone who was not a direct male descendant of the founder, Mayer Amschel Rothschild.

    This failure to use Belmont as a link between the family — with its successful experiences, capabilities, routines and connections in Europe — and the American market — with its growing opportunities and the valuable networks Belmont had begun to develop — ultimately prevented Rothschild from replicating its success in the U.S.

    The Rothschilds were eventually eclipsed by the Barings and JP Morgan banks in America. Both competitors followed a different path in the market by opening full-fledged U.S. subsidiaries under their corporate brands with significant funds and decision-making autonomy.

    Escaping the trap of bifurcation bias

    Bifurcation bias does not always have an immediate negative impact. In fact, biased governance practices remained inconsequential for the Rothschilds — as long as there were enough capable family heirs available to lead the bank’s dispersed operations.

    In the short- to medium-term, the family’s connections, time-tested routines and mutual reliability built a well of resilience that sustained the bank through the 19th century, one of the most volatile political periods in European history.

    But as a firm’s international ambitions outgrow the size of the family, bifurcation bias can damage competitiveness, both in international markets and at home.

    At some point, family firms must shift from emotional, biased decision-making to efficient governance systems, which may involve incorporating non-family managers and selecting resources, locations and projects that do not carry emotional significance.

    A Cargill factory building in Wroclaw, Poland in 2020. American business executive William Wallace Cargill founded the Cargill company as an Iowa grain storage business in 1865.
    (Shutterstock)

    Many successful family firms implement tools in their governance systems to detect and eliminate biased behaviour. For instance, family-owned multinationals such as Merck (Germany), Cargill (U.S.) and Tata Group (India) have checks and balances that prevent decision-makers from thinking only in family terms.

    The most successful strategies to safeguard against bifurcation bias invite outside scrutiny into corporate decision-making: appointing non-family CEOs, establishing independent boards, hiring consultants and granting partners decision-making powers.

    Lessons for family firms

    Today, as the global business environment faces arguably unprecedented volatility, firms are seeking to build resilience to survive the turbulence.

    While multi-generational family firms must learn to guard against bifurcation bias to thrive in international markets, their demonstrated ability to withstand external shocks offers valuable lessons for other companies.

    How can non-family firms emulate the Rothschild’s success and longevity? The Rothschild case teaches us the value of having a shared organizational language, setting long-term goals, maintaining stable routines and placing a strong emphasis on brand reputation.

    These strategies can help any company, family-owned or not, build resilience during volatile times.

    Liena Kano receives funding from SSHRC.

    Alain Verbeke receives funding from SSHRC.

    Luciano Ciravegna receives funding from INCAE Business School, where he leads the Steve Aronson Endowed Chair.

    Andrew Kent Johnston 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. What family firms like Rothschild can teach Canadian businesses about resilience – https://theconversation.com/what-family-firms-like-rothschild-can-teach-canadian-businesses-about-resilience-254279

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Council Leader welcomes Government’s Spending Review

    Source: City of Manchester

    Statement from Council Leader in response to the Government’s Spending Review

    Statement from Council Leader in response to the Government’s Spending Review:

    Cllr Bev Craig, Leader of Manchester City Council, said: “Manchester is leading the way in building homes, creating jobs, growing the economy inclusively and supporting our residents. The announcements in today’s Spending Review will do much to help maintain that positive momentum.

    “We particularly welcome the announcement of £39 billion extra funding nationally for council, social and other genuinely affordable homes. We’re already delivering more affordable homes than at any time in the last 15 years and the availability of very significant extra funding will allow us to go even further in delivering this generational increase. It’s welcome to have an increase in spending for local councils, and I will look forward to the local government settlement to see what this means for places like Manchester who had our budgets cut heavily by Governments since 2010.

    “Following last week’s transport news, we also welcome the commitment to investing in our railways and other infrastructure – the sort of long-term strategic thinking which is vital to address years of underinvestment. Improved rail connections will help us power our aspirations for the city and its people and we look forward to the detail.

    “This Spending Review was delivered in challenging circumstances but there is still much in there which is encouraging as we await the detail in the coming days.

    “I welcome the largest investment in social and affordable housing in 50 years, alongside the record investment to rebuild the NHS. This alongside the expansion of Free School Meals, and investment in public transport address issues that really matter to Manchester people.” 

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Labor Agreement Reached With SUNY Graduate Student Union

    Source: US State of New York

    overnor Kathy Hochul today announced the ratification of a three-year labor contract agreement with the Communications Workers of America/Graduate Student Employees Union, Local 1104 (GSEU). The GSEU includes more than 4,500 teaching assistants and graduate assistants who are pursuing advanced degrees at campuses within the State University of New York (SUNY) system. Members of the GSEU are employed assisting SUNY faculty and administrators in a variety of teaching, research and administrative activities. The agreement, which runs until July 1, 2026, won the overwhelming approval of members who cast ballots.

    “This labor agreement with the Communications Workers of America and the Graduate Student Employees Union reflects our commitment to affordability and higher education,” Governor Hochul said. “I appreciate the partnership of the union leadership throughout negotiations and thank its membership for their commitment to furthering the educational experience at our SUNY campuses across New York State.”

    The ratified contract includes compensation increases in each year of the agreement, as well as increases to the minimum stipend paid to unit members. In addition, the contract includes a lump sum bonus in the last year of the agreement and increases to labor/management funds for each year as well.

    Communications Workers of America Union 1104 Executive Vice President for Education Andrew Dobbyn said, “GSEU is pleased to reach this agreement with Governor Hochul’s administration. This contract will improve the lives of thousands of Graduate Assistants, both economically and non-economically, who provide the vital instruction and research that makes SUNY run.”

    SUNY Chancellor John B. King Jr. said, “SUNY’s graduate student employees serve our campuses through teaching, research, and so much more as they earn their degrees, and this contract is a well-deserved and responsible reflection of the important role graduate student employees play. We are grateful for the commitment of the Governor’s office, the NYS Office of Employee Relations, and the Graduate Student Employees Union to work together toward this agreement.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Canada: Prime Minister Carney announces a change in the leadership of the public service

    Source: Government of Canada – Prime Minister

    Today, the Prime Minister, Mark Carney, announced his intention to name Michael Sabia as Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet, effective July 7, 2025.

    Mr. Sabia brings over three decades of expertise across the public and private sectors, including as President and CEO of Hydro-Québec, President and CEO of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (CDPQ), Canada’s Deputy Minister of Finance, and Director of the Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy. He has also held senior roles at Bell Canada Enterprises, as President and CEO, at Canadian National Railway, and in the Privy Council Office. In recognition of his leadership across business, finance, and public service, Mr. Sabia was named an Officer of the Order of Canada.

    As Canada’s new government builds the strongest economy in the G7, Mr. Sabia’s leadership will be key to this mission. Canada’s exemplary public service – with Mr. Sabia at the helm – will advance nation-building projects, catalyze enormous private investment to drive growth, and deliver the change Canadians want and deserve. 

    The Prime Minister thanked John Hannaford for his service as Clerk of the Privy Council and congratulated him on his upcoming retirement. Mr. Hannaford joined the federal public service in 1995 and has served in a number of senior roles, including as Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, Deputy Minister of International Trade, and Foreign and Defence Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister. From 2009 to 2012, he was Ambassador of Canada to Norway.

    Mr. Hannaford’s leadership has helped guide Canada’s response to a wide array of new trade and security challenges, and supported Canada’s new government in passing a middle-class tax cut, introducing stronger border security measures, and tabling legislation to build one Canadian economy. His expertise during the new government’s transition period has been invaluable. As Head of the Public Service, he also led a renewed dialogue on values and ethics to guide public servants as they deliver results for Canadians during these extraordinary times. To recognize his contributions to public service, Mr. Hannaford will be appointed as a member of the King’s Privy Council for Canada prior to his retirement.

    The Prime Minister also thanked the public service for their unwavering dedication at this important moment for Canada’s future.

    Quote

    “As Canada’s new government moves with focus and determination to build the strongest economy in the G7, bring down costs for Canadians, and keep communities safe, Mr. Sabia will help us deliver on this mandate and our government’s disciplined focus on core priorities. I congratulate Mr. Hannaford on his retirement as the Clerk of the Privy Council and for his steadfast dedication and service to Canada.”

    Quick Fact

    • The role of the Clerk of the Privy Council is to advise the Prime Minister and elected government officials in managing the country, from an objective, non-partisan, public policy perspective. The Clerk also ensures Canada’s federal public service is managed effectively and follows a code of value and ethics in its work to design and deliver high-quality services and programs for Canadians.

    Biographical Note

    MIL OSI Canada News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Castor, Evans, Baldwin and Shaheen Intro Bill to Reverse Trump’s Cuts to Key ACA Program That Helps More Americans Sign Up for Health Insurance

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Reprepsentative Kathy Castor (FL14)

    As President Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans work to gut the Affordable Care Act (ACA), U.S. Representatives Kathy Castor (FL-14) and Dwight Evans (PA-03) and U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (WI) and Jeanne Shaheen (NH) introduced legislation today in the House and Senate to restore a key initiative of the health care law that helps American families navigate the ACA marketplace and connect them with high quality, affordable health care plans. The Expand Navigators’ Resources for Outreach, Learning and Longevity (ENROLL) Act would ensure the Navigator program, established under the ACA to help Americans navigate, shop and enroll in affordable health care plans, will continue despite the Trump Administration cutting funding by 90 percent in February. 

    “Florida families value and appreciate affordable health coverage.  In fact, over 4.7 million Floridians selected an affordable marketplace plan for 2025—almost one-fifth of the nation’s 24.2 million enrollees. Robust outreach and assistance by Navigators is vital to families so they can evaluate options and choose a health plan that is right for them.  Unfortunately, the Trump Administration has slashed Navigator support and complicated the lives of families who need advice on lifesaving health coverage,” said Representative Castor. “President Trump and Congressional Republicans appear dead set on making Affordable Care Act coverage more expensive, driving up premiums and putting hardworking families at risk. I am proud to work with Senators Baldwin and Shaheen and Representative Evans to protect American’s health, well-being and pocketbooks by ensuring Navigators stay on the job.”

    “The Affordable Care Act Navigators program provides free, objective, expert advice and information to Americans in red, purple and blue states alike to help them find affordable health coverage that meets their needs. A similar cut to the program in President Trump’s first term resulted in more people being uninsured, and letting his new cut stand is likely to raise costs for working-class Americans at a time when the cost of living is already high,” said Representative Evans. “One of the ways the Navigators program has helped American families is by helping hundreds of thousands of eligible consumers in Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) coverage. President Trump recently promised not to touch Medicaid, and keeping people who qualify for Medicaid from getting covered breaks that promise, as far as I’m concerned.”

    “We have seen this movie before: when he doesn’t get his way to fully repeal it, Donald Trump tries every which way to chip away at the Affordable Care Act and kick Wisconsin families off their health care, and sadly, it works. At a time when Wisconsinites are worried their care is on the chopping block under Republicans’ plan to give tax breaks to the wealthy, the Trump Administration is also gutting a key program that helps our neighbors find health care coverage that they can afford,” said Senator Baldwin. “Wisconsin’s Navigator has connected thousands of families with good health care coverage, ensuring more Wisconsinites can access the care and treatment they need to stay healthy. We should be investing in bringing the cost of care down for Wisconsinites, not jacking up costs and eliminating proven resources that connect more families with affordable insurance.” 

    “We’ve seen this before: When the first Trump administration slashed funding for the Navigator program, ACA health care enrollment shrank by more than 2.5 million – and when that funding was restored, enrollment rose and reached historic levels. Despite the hard facts that it helps everyday Americans access critical health care, the administration is gutting the Navigator program again and leaving Granite Staters in rural and underserved areas behind,” said Senator Shaheen. “Our ENROLL Act is urgently needed to restore this funding so Granite Staters—and all Americans—have access to the help they need to make informed decisions about their health insurance coverage.”

    In 2017 and 2018, the first Trump Administration cut funding for the Navigator program by 84 percent, contributing to 2.5 million fewer people accessing healthcare through the ACA Marketplace over the course of the first Trump Administration. Navigator funding was restored in 2021, and enrollment reached historic levels for the 2025 plan year. In February 2025, the Trump Administration slashed nearly 90 percent of funding for the Navigator program, threatening to leave millions of Americans without critical assistance to access health insurance at a time of increased uncertainty due to Congressional Republicans’ sabotage of the ACA. 

    The ENROLL Act would:

    • Ensure that Navigators have the resources they need to assist Americans in finding affordable health care coverage by restoring funding for the program to $100 million annually;
    • Promote public education and assistance that helps consumers, including those who may need extra help signing up, find coverage rather than prioritizing application numbers;
    • Clarify that Navigator responsibilities include enrolling consumers in lifesaving Medicaid and CHIP coverage;
    • Provide Americans with information on comprehensive health insurance that protects individuals with pre-existing conditions.

    The ENROLL Act is supported by the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Federation of Teachers American Heart Association, American Public Health Association, Community Catalyst, Epilepsy Foundation MomsRising, National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), National Bleeding Disorders Foundation, National Health Council, National Immigration Law Center, National Kidney Foundation, National Multiple Sclerosis Society, National Psoriasis Foundation and Young Invincibles.

    “Marketplace Navigators are a crucial resource for the more than 24 million people who access their health coverage through the ACA Marketplace and anyone who has questions about their coverage options. Appropriately funding health care Navigators is essential for making sure consumers—especially those with complex medical conditions like cancer—can get access to the most appropriate health insurance coverage that will meet their needs. We commend Senator Baldwin, Senator Shaheen, and Representative Castor for acting to reverse the significant and damaging funding cuts that were enacted earlier this year and urge the Senate and House to pass this legislation quickly,” said Lisa Lacasse, President of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

    “At a time when health care is under relentless attack, advancing the ENROLL Act is a clear signal that there are leaders in Congress committed to putting people over profit. The current administration has gutted funding for Navigators, trusted community members who guide people through the daunting, complex process of enrolling in coverage. Restoring that funding is essential to ensuring everyone, especially those facing the greatest barriers, can enroll in the most affordable, comprehensive options for their families. We thank Senator Baldwin and Representative Castor for their leadership and for standing with communities who depend on this trusted, unbiased help,” said Mona Shah, Senior Director of Policy and Strategy, Community Catalyst.

    A one-pager on this legislation is available here. Full bill text of this legislation is available

    here.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: More free school meals is a start – here’s what would really address child poverty

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Will Baker, Associate Professor of Sociology and Education, University of Bristol

    victoriyasmail/Shutterstock

    All children in England living in households claiming universal credit will soon be eligible for free school meals, the UK government has announced. This will improve the lives of 500,000 more children and save their families £500 per year.

    This will reduce hunger at school. But it will not solve the UK’s child poverty crisis.

    In her spending review on 11 June, Chancellor Rachel Reeves described the move – as well as investment in education – as “a downpayment ahead of publication of the Child Poverty Strategy in the autumn”. However, the two-child benefit cap, which the government is considering scrapping, and challenging school budgets, remain major barriers to addressing child poverty and food insecurity.

    According to analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the new free school meals policy will ultimately lift 100,000 children out of poverty and cost £1 billion a year. Under the current system, only families in receipt of universal credit and earning below £7,400 a year qualify for free school meals. This incredibly low threshold has excluded a huge number of children living in poverty from getting a good meal at school.

    Reactions have been justifiably positive. Nick Harrison, CEO of social mobility charity the Sutton Trust, has called the move “a significant step towards taking hunger out of the classroom”.

    The Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out, however, that the implied poverty reducing benefits of the policy will only be realised in the long term.

    Eligibility for free school meals had temporarily widened during the roll out of universal credit.
    Juice Flair/Shutterstock

    This is partly because, since 2018, the eligibility for free school meals has been temporarily widened to mitigate the impact of changes in the welfare system (the roll out of universal credit) on families. During this period, which ended in April this year, children still received free school meals even if family entitlements to universal credit changed.

    This means that many children made eligible for free school meals under the new policy are already receiving them. And far fewer than 100,000 children will immediately be “lifted out of poverty”, as the government had claimed.

    A mission against child poverty?

    The education secretary, Bridget Phillipson, called the new school meals entitlement part of “the moral mission of this government to tackle the stain of child poverty”. She said: “Today this government takes a giant step towards ending it with targeted support that puts money back in parents’ pockets.”

    Such forceful language almost does justice to the scale of the problem. In the UK, 4.45 million children live in poverty. One in five children live in food insecure households – meaning their families struggle to put food on the table.

    My own research shows that a fifth of all schools now run a food bank. Extending free school meals is an undoubtedly positive step but it will only scratch the surface of these much deeper problems.

    Given the depths of child poverty in the UK, the government must build on this development if it really wants to tackle the problem. Firstly, the government must commit to removing the two-child benefit cap, which limits benefits paid for children to the first two children in a family. Doing so would lift 350,000 children out of poverty immediately and reduce the number of children turning up to school too hungry to learn.

    Extending free schools meal coverage is the less contentious policy option. There is, rightly or wrongly, public support for the two-child limit.

    But it is also the comparatively less ambitious and effective one. Lifting the two child benefit cap would help more children at a lower cost per child.

    Secondly, too often the government asks schools to meet essential costs, duties and innovations out of their existing budgets. In the long run, this disadvantages all children and particularly those living in poverty. This needs to change.

    For example, the government currently only funds 75% of the costs of the new national school breakfast clubs. Next year schools will have to find £400 million from their existing budgets to fund pay rises for teachers. This figure dwarfs the amount schools will receive next year for extending free school meals.

    Finally, we need to tackle the root causes of poverty and build viable pathways out of it. This cannot be achieved by largely focusing on education and providing more funding to schools – important as this is.

    Child poverty is shaped by how our welfare and benefits system is organised, insecure and low-paid work, the high costs of housing and bills, and the absence of high-quality services and community resources that help children thrive. Only by tackling all of these issues in a coordinated and progressive way will be able to make child hunger and poverty things of the past, which is where they belong.

    Will Baker 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. More free school meals is a start – here’s what would really address child poverty – https://theconversation.com/more-free-school-meals-is-a-start-heres-what-would-really-address-child-poverty-258509

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Case Opposed Proposed Funding Bill That Shortchanges Critical Military Infrastructure Needs In Hawaii, The Indo-Pacific and NATO

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Ed Case (Hawai‘i – District 1)

    (Washington, DC) – U.S. Congressman Ed Case (HI-01), a member of the House Appropriations Committee, early this morning voted against the proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations funding measure.

    The measure (MILCON-VA) would fund worldwide military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and various small agencies and programs supporting our nation’s some 19 million veterans, including some 112,000 throughout Hawai‘i, and their families.

    The bill is the first of twelve separate bills developed by the Appropriations Committee that would fund the federal government at some $1.6 trillion for FY 2026 commencing October 1st of this year.

    “While the measure does have positive provisions including funding for essential veterans programs, I regrettably had to vote against it because it kicks critical military infrastructure projects down the road yet again, pursues the Project 2025 goal of privatizing VA medical care, shortchanges dedicated funding for Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) cleanup, eliminates climate resiliency efforts and excludes important VA infrastructure funding,” said Case, who is in his seventh year on Appropriations and previously served on the Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs for four years. He currently serves on its Subcommittees on Defense and Homeland Security. 

    Case spoke to his Appropriations Committee colleagues on the serious deficiencies in the bill that fail to address critical military infrastructure needs throughout the Indo-Pacific (speech here). He stated that only one milcon project is located in the Indo-Pacific despite critical needs in meeting the challenge of the People’s Republic of China. The bill also fails to provide funding for infrastructure in Europe to support U.S. servicemembers working to bolster NATO and deter Russia.

    Case further said that the funding measure specifically advances the privatization of veterans health care by proposing vastly larger increases for medical care provided in private sector compared to shorfunding the government’s VA healthcare system, a key goal of the Project 2025 plan being followed by the Trump administration. By vast margins, veterans oppose privatizing the VA and want to receive their medical care at VA clinics and hospitals with a direct mission to care for veterans and their families as opposed to the private sector.

    Despite these and other significant problems with the bill, Case highlighted positive provisions he requested, including fully funding the budget request for veterans’ medical care at $131.4 billion and for veterans’ toxic exposures-related needs under the PACT Act.

    It also includes $1.3 billion for specific care for women veterans, and supports the Office of Women’s Health, including its childcare initiative. These funds will allow the VA to continue hiring women primary care providers and to increase the number of peer support specialists for women veterans. These efforts have become even more critical as the number of female veterans using VA health care services has increased.  

    “Women veterans often require specialized care due to unique health needs stemming from their military service and gender,” said Case. “With sustained support from my Committee over multiple years, Congress is working to ensure the VA set the standard for women veterans care, ensuring consistent, high-quality services across all facilities.” 

    The measure also continues support as Case requested for the VA Center for Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander and United States-affiliated Pacific Islander (NHPIUSAPI) Veterans. The center’s doctors and scientists coordinate research from all over the Pacific Islands and the United States to specifically address veterans’ healthcare in the Hawaiian Islands and throughout the Pacific. The center works with the University of Hawai‘i, and the bill encourages the VA to continue partnering with universities in the Pacific region focusing on issues unique to the NHPIUSAPI community. 

    Further details follow: 

    Veterans-Related Programs 

    The bill provides $133.7 billion in discretionary spending for veterans-related programs, an increase of $4.7 billion above the FY 2025 enacted level 

    “Our Hawai‘i veterans and their families make up one of the largest percentages of any state in our nation including in such key areas like women and minority veterans. I continued to focus especially on the often unique challenges of delivering full veterans’ health and other benefits in a diverse island state,” said Case.

    Specific veterans-related programs and provisions requested and secured by Case include:

    ·        $12 million for the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Program, which is $6 million above the FY 2025 level. 

    ·        Contracting preferences for Native Hawaiian owned business that work with the VA. 

    ·        Directing the VA to continue supporting the VA Center for NHPIUSAPI Veterans.

    ·         $1.5 million for a pilot project using the most advanced technology to identify the remains of unidentified fallen servicemembers buried at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific.  

    ·        Directing the VA to develop a plan for more fully providing VA benefits for veterans living in the Freely Associated States. 

    ·         $106 million for the American Battle Monument Commission, which manages the Honolulu Memorial at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific. 

    ·        $60 million for the VA Grants for the Construction of Veterans Cemeteries Program, which regularly provides fundings to support Hawaii’s state cemeteries. 

    ·        $233 million for substance-use disorder (SUD) efforts to ensure veterans can receive timely SUD specialty services. 

    ·        $3.4 billion for the Veterans’ Homelessness Program Resources Account for our nation’s veterans. This funding will enhance homeless veterans service providers ability to provide high demand care such as health services, substance use disorder programs, compensated work therapy and other supportive services.   

    ·        $342 million for Rural Health Initiatives, $5 million above FY 2025 level. This will improve access and quality of care for the more than 3 million enrolled veterans residing in highly rural areas.  

    Military Construction 

    The bill provides $453.6 billion for Department of Defense (DoD) military construction and family housing, $480 million above the FY 2025 enacted level.  

    Specific military construction programs and provisions requested and secured by Case critical to Hawai‘i include:  

    ·          $634 million for the Energy Resiliency and Conservation Investment Program, which funds projects that save energy and water, reduce DoD energy costs and improve energy resilience. 

    ·         Directing the DoD to identify the Army’s investment needs in order to support the wildland firefighters located on Schofield Barracks.   

    ·         Directing the DoD to provide a report on Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam infrastructure development plan, to address ongoing concerns of the aging water and wastewater facilities on the installation. 

    ·          Directing the DoD to assess the aging infrastructure that houses the headquarters of the Marine Corps, Space Force and Special Operations Commands on O‘ahu. 

    ·         Directing the DoD to assess the requirement for a floating drydock at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and Intermediate Maintenance Facility.

    ·         Directing the DoD to assess the capacity for battle damage repair of all public shipyards and how to prepare these shipyards for conflict requirements under the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program (SIOP). SIOP is a multi-billion multi-year effort to upgrade the Navy’s four public shipyards, including Pearl Harbor. 

    ·         Directing the DoD to assess the infrastructure needs and shortfalls for 3rd Marine Littoral Regiment on Marine Corps Base Hawai‘i.  

    ·         Directing the DoD to study the impacts of unexploded ordnance on military construction sites in Guam. 

    ·         Directing the DoD to study the necessary steps and what actions would be required to begin construction on port improvements on Tinian Island. 

    ·         Directing the DoD to study the necessity and feasibility of establishing a biosecurity inspection facility to combat invasive species on the Northern Mariana Islands. 

    ·         Directing the DoD to study the impact and develop a plan to address growing solid waste management issues on Tinian Island.  

    The bill now moves to the full House of Representatives for its consideration.  

    A summary of the VA-MilCon funding bill is available here. The committee report explaining the full bill in detail is available here. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Durbin, Waters Introduce CLASS Act To Give Students Cheated By For-Profit Colleges Their Day In Court

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Illinois Dick Durbin
    June 11, 2025
    WASHINGTON – U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) and U.S. Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA-43) today reintroduced bicameral legislation designed to strengthen students’ ability to hold for-profit colleges accountable in court for their misconduct.  The Court Legal Access and Student Support (CLASS) Act would enhance accountability for for-profit colleges and safeguard taxpayer dollars by prohibiting an institution of higher education from receiving Title IV federal student aid if the school’s enrollment agreement requires mandatory arbitration or otherwise restricts students’ ability to pursue claims against the school in court.
      
    “For decades, for-profit colleges have used the fine print in student enrollment agreements to force students to give up their rights to go to court over the predatory behavior of these institutions,” said Durbin.  “Students should have the right to hold for-profit colleges responsible for defrauding them in court.  I’m reintroducing the CLASS Act with Congresswoman Waters to end the for-profit college industry’s ability to use this shady practice to evade accountability.”
    “I am proud to reintroduce the CLASS Act with Senator Durbin to hold predatory for-profit colleges accountable when they defraud students,” said Waters, the Ranking Member of the Financial Services Committee.  “The for-profit college industry is rife with bad actors that lure potential students into expensive academic programs, while knowingly and fraudulently misrepresenting the quality of the programs.  These unscrupulous schools then use mandatory arbitration clauses to prevent students from taking them to court, thereby shielding themselves from being held responsible for wrongdoing.  Our legislation will ensure that defrauded students retain the right to sue predatory schools and have their day in court.”
    Specifically, the CLASS Act would enhance the accountability of for-profit colleges and safeguard taxpayer dollars by:
    Prohibiting an institution of higher education from receiving federal student aid if the school’s enrollment agreement requires mandatory arbitration or restricts students’ ability to pursue claims against the school in court;
    Ensuring that the Federal Arbitration Act, which governs the enforcement of arbitration proceedings, would not apply to student enrollment agreements;
    Taking effect one year after enactment to allow schools to make any necessary changes; and
    Exempting legitimate non-profit colleges and universities because these institutions do not include mandatory arbitration clauses in their enrollment agreements.  The CLASS Act thus squarely focuses on schools that might seek to profit off of students while hiding from accountability in a court of law.
    Along with Durbin, the CLASS Act is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Jack Reed (D-RI), Ed Markey (D-MA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), John Fetterman (D-PA), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY). 
    The bill has earned the endorsement of Consumer Action; The Institute for College Access and Success; National Consumer Law Center (on behalf of its low income clients); National Association forCollege Admission Counseling; Veterans Education Success; National Association of Consumer Advocates; American Association for Justice; Center for Justice and Democracy; Woodstock Institute; Public Justice; Earthjustice; Public Citizen; The National Employment Lawyers Association; Americans for Financial Reform; National Consumers League; Consumer Federation of America; Young Invincibles; and Center for Responsible Lending.
    -30-

    MIL OSI USA News –