NewzIntel.com

Category: Global

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump threats: Is foreign policy the biggest issue for Canadian voters this election?

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Adam Chapnick, Professor of Defence Studies, Royal Military College of Canada

    Canadians are heading once again to the polls on April 28 to vote in a federal election.

    This election will offer voters competing visions of Canada’s future at a time when it has become all but impossible to separate foreign policy from domestic politics.

    There’s no question much of the conversation during the campaign will centre on how the next government will deal with United States President Donald Trump amid his continuing threats to Canadian sovereignty.

    But even though the Trump administration has undermined the liberal democratic world order in which Canada has prospered for close to a century, it’s unclear whether threats of a global tariff war, an ongoing divisive conflict in the Middle East and continued Russian aggression in Ukraine will directly affect how Canadians cast their votes.

    Most political scientists have traditionally argued that foreign policy does not matter to Canadians at the voting booth.

    But a recent book by historian Patrice Dutil has claimed that “at least half of Canada’s national elections featured substantive discussions of Canada’s place in the world.”

    So who’s right?

    Foreign policy as an issue

    My new report, “Foreign Policy and Canadian Elections: A Review,” finds truth on both sides.

    Foreign policy is what people who study elections call an “issue,” just like the economy, national security or health care.

    Issues compete with many other considerations — like ideology, perceptions of leadership and the need for change — to determine a voter’s ultimate decision.

    Local candidates can affect how people vote, as can party affiliation. If you live in a riding where your preferred candidate is unlikely to win, you might vote strategically.

    According to Canadian political scientist Elizabeth Gidengil, for an issue like foreign policy to really matter in an election, it must satisfy three conditions:

    • Political parties must position themselves on opposite sides of it;
    • Voters must be aware of the differences between the parties’ views;
    • The balance of opinion on the issue must clearly favour one side over the other.

    That rarely happens in relation to Canadian foreign policy. Our political parties don’t typically differ significantly on world affairs. When they do disagree, it’s unusual for the public to overwhelmingly support one side over the other.



    Read more:
    Trump’s potential embrace of ‘continentalist geopolitics’ poses grave risks to Canada

    Handling the Trump threat

    There are no real divisions between the election’s front-runners — Liberal Mark Carney and Conservative Pierre Poilievre — over how to deal with Trump.

    Both have pledged that Canada will never become the 51st state and have promised to strike back at American tariffs with economic measures of their own.

    Poilievre says he’ll manage Canada-U.S. relations more effectively than the Liberals would, but he has not proposed any different tactics to do so.

    On the other hand, Poilievre was clearly onto something in his endless quest to make the election all about the Justin Trudeau government’s carbon tax and rebate.

    Until Carney replaced Trudeau, the differences between the Conservatives and the Liberals on carbon pricing were stark. Thanks to an extraordinary Conservative marketing campaign, the Canadian public was well aware of those differences — and a significant majority of Canadians sided with Poilievre.

    Now that Carney has axed the tax himself, those differences have become much less significant.

    Domestic politics aside, Trump will still loom large throughout the next five weeks.

    But international and domestic issues have been, and remain, sufficiently interconnected that it’s hard to discuss one to the exclusion of the other.

    Free trade with the United States was a key topic of debate during four election campaigns — 1891, 1911, 1935, 1988 — because of its impact on Canadians’ sense of independence.

    Canadians were divided over conscription during the 1917 election campaign. They differed over support for Britain during the 1956 Suez crisis and throughout the election the following year.

    Just as the American invasion of Iraq split the Liberals and the Canadian Alliance during the election of 2003, so did attitudes towards increased defence spending in 2000. Canadian support for Syrian refugees came up regularly during the 2015 election campaign.

    Still, it’s not clear if these differences affected more than a small number of individual Canadians when they marked their ballots.

    Voters tend to cast their ballots emotionally, and even though Trump is preoccupying the national consciousness at the moment, the leading political parties have not offered us specific policy alternatives to deal with him.

    What’s ahead this election campaign

    Over the next five weeks, Canadians should expect to learn about the leading political parties’ views on relations with the U.S., the situations in the Middle East and Ukraine, foreign interference in the affairs of state and Canada’s global defence.

    Voters can and should demand that those who wish to lead the country are thoughtful and literate on these and other international issues.

    As then Prime Minister Stephen Harper reflected in 2011:

    “Since coming to office — in fact, since becoming prime minister [in 2006] — the thing that’s probably struck me the most in terms of my previous expectations … is not just how important foreign affairs/foreign relations is, but in fact that it’s become almost everything. There’s hardly anything today of any significance that doesn’t have a huge international dimension to it.”

    But expecting party views on foreign policy to shape the election’s outcome is probably unrealistic.

    When we head to the voting booths, most Canadians will likely just listen to their gut.

    Exactly how Carney or Poilievre promises to deal with Trump probably won’t matter nearly as much as who they simply feel will do a better job on a host of issues.

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

    – ref. Trump threats: Is foreign policy the biggest issue for Canadian voters this election? – https://theconversation.com/trump-threats-is-foreign-policy-the-biggest-issue-for-canadian-voters-this-election-247065

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Can Mark Carney truly connect with Canadian voters? Canada will now find out

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Kevin Quigley, Scholarly Director of the MacEachen Institute for Public Policy and Governance, Dalhousie University

    After a busy two weeks as prime minister, Mark Carney has called an election for April 28.

    As the first in Canadian history to be named prime minister without ever having held public office, Carney is hoping he can win the trust of Canadians. He’ll run for a seat in the Ottawa riding of Nepean.

    Trustworthiness is awarded to those who are at least perceived as knowledgeable, transparent and concerned. Can Carney pull it off?

    When it comes to economics, Carney is among the most knowledgeable in the country. After obtaining a PhD at the University of Oxford, Carney has had a distinguished public service career in the Canadian Department of Finance, the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England.

    With such a high level of economic uncertainty today in the face of repeated threats from United States President Donald Trump, his supporters say he’s the right person to lead Canada. His chief rival, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, was first elected to the House of Commons at the age of 25 and has quite a different CV.

    Is Carney empathetic?

    Carney, however, might struggle more with the other characteristics of trustworthiness — seeming open and showing concern.

    The Conservatives have criticized Carney for not being more transparent about his private financial interests. While Carney is following disclosure rules, the Conservatives argue Canadians need to know more about whether he’s in a conflict of interest when he makes decisions in government.

    Carney’s answers to questions about his time at Brookfield Asset Management have on occasion been unsteady.

    On the surface, this is about transparency, but in fact it’s just as much about empathy and whether Carney can relate to working-class voters. By alluding to Carney’s wealth and connections, the Conservatives are implying that Carney is an out-of-touch elite who doesn’t share the concerns of average Canadians.

    Some of the early visuals of Carney can cut both ways.

    His recent chummy embrace at the Élysée with French President Emmanuel Macron exemplifies how immediately comfortable he is with world leaders. Some will find this reassuring, given the state of geopolitics; others might find it privileged and off-putting. Even his hockey skills, which were part of a recent photo-op in Edmonton when he practised with the Oilers, were acquired partly during his time at Harvard University, an institution among the most elite in the world.

    Empathy, instinct

    Can Carney connect with people?

    Arguably, he needs work on this front. He might consider some of his Liberal predecessors.

    Former prime minister Justin Trudeau could certainly rally a crowd. Trudeau became a motivational speaker in the 2000s and used opportunities like the WE Charity to practise public speaking to what would become an important constituency for him — young voters — when he led the Liberals to victory in 2015.

    Not everything can be taught at school. Political instinct is also crucial. It requires reconciling the knowledge of experts with the concerns of everyday citizens. There is no formula for this balance sheet.

    Here again, Trudeau had insight. Bill Morneau, a corporate executive himself and the former federal finance minister, noted after the COVID-19 pandemic that government payouts had been too generous and driven more by Trudeau’s view of the politics of the moment than by the economic analysis provided to him by the Finance Department.

    This may be so, but most would say Trudeau handled the early stages of the pandemic deftly.

    Chretien’s skills

    It was interesting that at the recent Liberal convention confirming Carney as leader, delegates gushed over former prime minister Jean Chretien, far from an elitist. A winner of three consecutive majorities, Chretien delivered a speech that went over at least as well with delegates as Carney’s.

    Chretien had unparalleled political instincts. When Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney rolled out the GST in 1991, it was deeply unpopular. Despite Chretien later famously backtracking on his original opposition to the GST, the Liberal Party under his stewardship used the issue to exact maximum damage on the Progressive Conservatives, delivering them a near-fatal blow.

    Chretien’s killer instincts trumped expert knowledge. While the Progressive Conservatives paid a heavy price for adopting the GST, the policy was largely advocated and shaped by business and economic elites, including in the Department of Finance. Good economics does not always make for good politics.

    Emotions to run high

    If the 1988 federal election that focused almost exclusively on free trade with the U.S. is any indication of what the next few weeks will look like in Canada, the election campaign is going to get heated quickly. Arguments may be more emotional than sensible.

    The fact that Carney dropped the carbon tax and capital gains tax was an early sign that he’s not an economist anymore, he’s a politician.

    The challenge for Carney — and for any politician in the heat of an election campaign battle — will be to find the sweet spot that reconciles expert opinion with public concerns and to articulate policies in a manner that voters will understand and support.

    Kevin Quigley receives funding from SSHRC.

    – ref. Can Mark Carney truly connect with Canadian voters? Canada will now find out – https://theconversation.com/can-mark-carney-truly-connect-with-canadian-voters-canada-will-now-find-out-252365

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump threats: Is foreign policy really the biggest issue for Canadian voters this election?

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Adam Chapnick, Professor of Defence Studies, Royal Military College of Canada

    Canadians are heading once again to the polls on April 28 to vote in a federal election.

    This election will offer voters competing visions of Canada’s future at a time when it has become all but impossible to separate foreign policy from domestic politics.

    There’s no question much of the conversation during the campaign will centre on how the next government will deal with United States President Donald Trump amid his continuing threats to Canadian sovereignty.

    But even though the Trump administration has undermined the liberal democratic world order in which Canada has prospered for close to a century, it’s unclear whether threats of a global tariff war, an ongoing divisive conflict in the Middle East and continued Russian aggression in Ukraine will directly affect how Canadians cast their votes.

    Most political scientists have traditionally argued that foreign policy does not matter to Canadians at the voting booth.

    But a recent book by historian Patrice Dutil has claimed that “at least half of Canada’s national elections featured substantive discussions of Canada’s place in the world.”

    So who’s right?

    Foreign policy as an issue

    My new report, “Foreign Policy and Canadian Elections: A Review,” finds truth on both sides.

    Foreign policy is what people who study elections call an “issue,” just like the economy, national security or health care.

    Issues compete with many other considerations — like ideology, perceptions of leadership and the need for change — to determine a voter’s ultimate decision.

    Local candidates can affect how people vote, as can party affiliation. If you live in a riding where your preferred candidate is unlikely to win, you might vote strategically.

    According to Canadian political scientist Elizabeth Gidengil, for an issue like foreign policy to really matter in an election, it must satisfy three conditions:

    • Political parties must position themselves on opposite sides of it;
    • Voters must be aware of the differences between the parties’ views;
    • The balance of opinion on the issue must clearly favour one side over the other.

    That rarely happens in relation to Canadian foreign policy. Our political parties don’t typically differ significantly on world affairs. When they do disagree, it’s unusual for the public to overwhelmingly support one side over the other.



    Read more:
    Trump’s potential embrace of ‘continentalist geopolitics’ poses grave risks to Canada

    Handling the Trump threat

    There are no real divisions between the election’s front-runners — Liberal Mark Carney and Conservative Pierre Poilievre — over how to deal with Trump.

    Both have pledged that Canada will never become the 51st state and have promised to strike back at American tariffs with economic measures of their own.

    Poilievre says he’ll manage Canada-U.S. relations more effectively than the Liberals would, but he has not proposed any different tactics to do so.

    On the other hand, Poilievre was clearly onto something in his endless quest to make the election all about the Justin Trudeau government’s carbon tax and rebate.

    Until Carney replaced Trudeau, the differences between the Conservatives and the Liberals on carbon pricing were stark. Thanks to an extraordinary Conservative marketing campaign, the Canadian public was well aware of those differences — and a significant majority of Canadians sided with Poilievre.

    Now that Carney has axed the tax himself, those differences have become much less significant.

    Domestic politics aside, Trump will still loom large throughout the next five weeks.

    But international and domestic issues have been, and remain, sufficiently interconnected that it’s hard to discuss one to the exclusion of the other.

    Free trade with the United States was a key topic of debate during four election campaigns — 1891, 1911, 1935, 1988 — because of its impact on Canadians’ sense of independence.

    Canadians were divided over conscription during the 1917 election campaign. They differed over support for Britain during the 1956 Suez crisis and throughout the election the following year.

    Just as the American invasion of Iraq split the Liberals and the Canadian Alliance during the election of 2003, so did attitudes towards increased defence spending in 2000. Canadian support for Syrian refugees came up regularly during the 2015 election campaign.

    Still, it’s not clear if these differences affected more than a small number of individual Canadians when they marked their ballots.

    Voters tend to cast their ballots emotionally, and even though Trump is preoccupying the national consciousness at the moment, the leading political parties have not offered us specific policy alternatives to deal with him.

    What’s ahead this election campaign

    Over the next five weeks, Canadians should expect to learn about the leading political parties’ views on relations with the U.S., the situations in the Middle East and Ukraine, foreign interference in the affairs of state and Canada’s global defence.

    Voters can and should demand that those who wish to lead the country are thoughtful and literate on these and other international issues.

    As then Prime Minister Stephen Harper reflected in 2011:

    “Since coming to office — in fact, since becoming prime minister [in 2006] — the thing that’s probably struck me the most in terms of my previous expectations … is not just how important foreign affairs/foreign relations is, but in fact that it’s become almost everything. There’s hardly anything today of any significance that doesn’t have a huge international dimension to it.”

    But expecting party views on foreign policy to shape the election’s outcome is probably unrealistic.

    When we head to the voting booths, most Canadians will likely just listen to their gut.

    Exactly how Carney or Poilievre promises to deal with Trump probably won’t matter nearly as much as who they simply feel will do a better job on a host of issues.

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

    – ref. Trump threats: Is foreign policy really the biggest issue for Canadian voters this election? – https://theconversation.com/trump-threats-is-foreign-policy-really-the-biggest-issue-for-canadian-voters-this-election-247065

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How political leaders communicate climate policy will be a defining factor this election

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Andrew Heffernan, Climate Associate at the Information Integrity Lab and Adjunct Professor in Political Studies, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa

    Prime Minister Mark Carney has called an April 28 federal election, setting the stage for a campaign where climate policy could be a central issue.

    The current iteration of Canada’s consumer carbon rebate is dead — which many view as a casualty of effective communication — yet climate policy remains a pressing topic for voters and a major battleground for political leaders.



    Read more:
    The Canada Carbon Rebate is still widely misunderstood — here’s why

    As Canada grapples with intensifying climate-related challenges, the next government will not only need to implement evidence-based policies to meet international climate commitments, but also effectively communicate its vision to voters.

    The public remains concerned about environmental issues, yet many are worried that bold climate policies have damaged the economy. This tension between environmental responsibility and economic growth will shape how each party formulates and communicates their climate policies in the upcoming campaign.

    The Liberals: Navigating the middle ground

    For Carney and the Liberal Party, the challenge is twofold. First, the Liberals must present a new climate plan after the collapse of the consumer carbon rebate, which has faced widespread public opposition in recent years.

    While the new Liberal leader has already terminated the the carbon rebate, it still remains unclear what exactly his comprehensive climate plan will look like. Carney’s website states that his strategy will: “Provide incentives for consumers. Put more of the burden on big polluters. And help us build the strongest economy in the G7.”



    Read more:
    Big government, big trouble? Defending the future of Canada’s climate policy

    This suggests his climate policy will hinge more on positive incentives for consumers to invest in sustainable approaches rather than putting a cost on polluting.

    While the carbon rebate initially enjoyed broad support as a key tool for reducing emissions, it has become a lightning rod for political controversy.

    Climate change is no longer just an environmental issue; it’s increasingly seen as a matter of economic survival, with green energy jobs and clean technologies representing an opportunity for Canada to position itself as a global leader in the sector.

    Carney will have to make a convincing case that his policy will create jobs, stimulate innovation and provide a clear path toward a greener, more sustainable economy.

    Failing to do so could lead to the loss of centrist and moderate voters, some of whom are wary of the perceived economic risks of aggressive climate action.

    The Conservatives: Axing the rebate isn’t enough

    On the opposite end of the political spectrum, federal Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has made axing the carbon rebate a central part of his platform.

    Framing the carbon rebate as an economic penalty, Poilievre has played into populist sentiments by promising to “axe the tax” and relieve financial pressures on Canadian families and businesses.

    However, even if the Conservatives are successful in eliminating the carbon rebate, they still face the challenge of needing a comprehensive climate policy that lowers emissions and meets Canada’s Paris Agreement targets. Poilievre has said he would not withdraw Canada from the accord, but he hasn’t addressed how he would meet Canada’s commitments.

    Poilievre’s populist rhetoric may resonate with voters who feel economically squeezed, but it’s unlikely to be enough to win over voters concerned about the climate crisis — especially as he has voted against environmental and climate action in Parliament over 400 times in his career, a point his opponents will be sure to raise repeatedly.

    For the Conservatives, the real challenge will be how to present a climate policy that appeals to both economic conservatives, who prioritize fiscal responsibility, and environmental conservatives, who are concerned about the future of the planet.

    Poilievre will need to clearly articulate how his policies will preserve Canada’s environmental future without stifling economic growth or inflating costs for the average Canadian.

    NDP and Green Party

    A key piece of the future of climate policy in Canada will be the NDP and Green Party, who are generally considered left-of-centre parties alongside the governing Liberals.

    The NDP, which can siphon progressive votes away from the Liberals — which sometimes benefits Conservatives — have been clear as mud when it comes to their climate policy for the next election.

    NDP leader Jagmeet Singh rescinded his party’s long-standing support for the Liberal carbon rebate in April 2024, but has not yet said what his party would put in its place.

    Meanwhile, the Green Party, which has historically played a less significant role in electoral outcomes in terms of vote splitting, has generally maintained its support for the carbon rebate. Its website suggests the party supports the polluter-pays principle. However, the Greens have yet to take a clear stance on the shifting climate grounds on which this election could partially be fought.

    Political communication the key to success

    In the coming years, the future of climate policy in Canada will be less about crafting the perfect policy and more about crafting a message that addresses how people are feeling.

    The Liberal Party has been open about the demise of the carbon rebate being a combination of a lack of their own effective communication strategy, mixed with harmful disinformation campaigns that led to the demise of their signature climate policy.

    For the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and Greens alike, the road to effective climate policy will lie in this communication. Political leaders will need to balance ambition and pragmatism, ensuring their policies align with Canadians’ economic interests.

    With 71 per cent of Canadians suggesting they want the next government to do more to address climate change, leaders who can articulate a vision for a sustainable, prosperous future while addressing the immediate concerns of Canadians will be the ones who have the best chance of winning the public’s trust — and the next election.

    Andrew Heffernan is affiliated with the Liberal Party of Canada.

    – ref. How political leaders communicate climate policy will be a defining factor this election – https://theconversation.com/how-political-leaders-communicate-climate-policy-will-be-a-defining-factor-this-election-251990

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Could bullying be an evolutionary trait?

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Tony Volk, Professor, Child and Youth Studies, Brock University

    Given the seriousness of the consequences of bullying for its victims, it behooves us all to take a good, hard look at why so many people continue to bully. (Shutterstock)

    Bullying is a serious problem that impacts hundreds of millions of young people across the world each year. Defined as the goal-directed, harmful abuse of a power imbalance, bullying can cause serious, long-term physical and mental health outcomes for victims.

    As a result, countries around the world have mobilized anti-bullying efforts. Unfortunately, these efforts have had relatively little impact on bullying worldwide.

    Why? One reason might be that bullying is, at least in part, an evolutionary adaptation that offers adolescent perpetrators benefits, like popularity, resources and even dates and sex.

    But do these benefits extend beyond adolescence? This is what we set out to test at Brock University’s Research on Aggression and Victimization Experiences group. In particular, we wanted to know if the earlier and more frequent dating and sex that adolescent bullies experienced translated into having more children in later life.

    Children of bullies may learn how to be bullies themselves, through directly experiencing bullying from their parents or through indirectly watching their parents bully others.
    (Shutterstock)

    An evolutionary trait?

    There is very little data on whether bullying benefits like popularity or sex extend beyond adolescence, but early data suggested that might be the case. We sought to replicate that research using two studies.

    The first was a longitudinal study of adolescents: approximately 600 Canadian boys and girls from age 14 until their mid-20s. The second was a retrospective study of more than 500 North American adults ages 18-35. We found that adolescents who bullied others reported having children earlier and having more children in total, compared to adolescents who did not engage in bullying.

    While we note that a complete study should entail following adults into their mid-40s (the very end of most child births), we wanted to compile data now rather than waiting another 15-20 years for our longitudinal sample to mature. That means that while we can’t rule out that non-bullies might catch up with later reproduction, the data clearly shows that onset of reproduction is tied closely to total reproduction.

    Is having children early, and more often, a good thing? Given that bullying does appear to be partly due to evolved genetics (with the environment still playing a pivotal role in its expression), reproduction is the ultimate currency of evolution. Passing on genes is, quite literally, the biological meaning of life. So this is strong evidence for the theory that bullying is, at least in part, an evolutionarily successful strategy in some contexts.

    Socially, bullies are also more likely to be in the romantic relationship that is typically required to have children. We believe this is because bully’s power is related to potentially positive attributes, like attractiveness, strength and even social skills.

    Our yet-to-be published data also indicates that former bullies end up investing more energy into their children than average parents. Think of the hockey or soccer parents yelling on the sidelines, bullying their child’s coach, referees or other players in order to benefit their own child. Bullying’s links with parenting go beyond purely quantitative considerations and impact both mating success and parental effort.

    If bullying offers benefits, we want to reduce, replace and redirect those benefits.
    (Shutterstock)

    Why does this matter?

    It matters because it helps explain why bullying is so ubiquitous and hard to prevent. Bullying appears to offer meaningful benefits to those who use it and that’s critical information if parents, teachers, schools and governments want to come up with strategies for preventing it.

    What might some of those strategies look like? If bullying offers benefits, we want to reduce, replace and redirect those benefits. We can do so by getting peers to not reward bullies with the attention and popularity that they desire. We can replace benefits with costs by pointing out that while bullies gain popularity, they lose likeability. People might fear the bully’s power, but they generally don’t like them.

    Finally, we can try to teach adolescents to replace bullying with more prosocial behaviour that might have equal or better outcomes with respect to peer support.

    This also matters because our data shows bullying as a potentially intergenerational problem. We know that violence can be transmitted from parents to their children. It is possible that children of bullies will learn how to be bullies themselves, through directly experiencing bullying from their parents or through indirectly watching their parents bully others.

    This generational transmission might very well be another reason why bullying is so hard to prevent — because it starts in the home. Given the seriousness of the consequences of bullying for its victims, we must all to take a good, hard look at why so many people continue to bully, or support bullies, so that we can understand how we to best stop this toxic and damaging pattern of behaviour.

    Tony Volk receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    – ref. Could bullying be an evolutionary trait? – https://theconversation.com/could-bullying-be-an-evolutionary-trait-251237

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Asteroid 2024 YR may not hit Earth in 2032, but it — and others — will keep coming back

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Martin Connors, Professor of Astronomy, Mathematics, and Physics, Athabasca University

    A double plume created by the Chelyabinsk meteor that flew over Russia on Feb. 15, 2013. The shock wave caused damage and a small meteorite dropped. (Shutterstock)

    In late 2024, astronomers spotted asteroid 2024 YR4 on a trajectory that could potentially threaten Earth. This observation triggered a fervid series of observations of the object — possibly as big as a football field — to determine that it will not hit. However, an impact on the moon cannot be ruled out.



    Read more:
    What are the chances an asteroid will impact Earth in 2032?

    Then in January of this year, the near approach of an asteroid perhaps a million times more massive went almost unnoticed.

    Asteroid 2024 YR4 has a diameter between 40 to 90 metres and was referred to as a “city-killer” capable of causing regional damage and affecting the climate; the larger asteroid, 887 Alinda, is over four kilometres in diameter and could cause a global extinction event.

    A radar image of asteroid Alinda taken in January 2024. The rectangular region is about three kilometres a side.
    (NASA/JPL)

    Alinda remains just outside Earth’s orbit, while 2024 YR4 does cross our orbit and still could impact Earth; however, this won’t occur in the foreseeable future.

    Asteroid orbits

    Both 887 Alinda and 2024 YR4 orbit the sun three times for every time the massive planet Jupiter goes around once. Since Jupiter’s orbit takes 12 years, the asteroids will take four years to be back on similar paths in 2028. These special kinds of asteroids are dangerous, since they come back regularly.

    Alinda was discovered in 1918 and has made several sequences of near passes at four-year intervals. 2024 YR4 has made what NASA considers close passes every four years since 1948, but was only recently noticed.

    Not since the 1970s has so much attention been paid to asteroids with a three-to-one relation to Jupiter. Such relationships had already been noted as a curiosity by American astronomer Daniel Kirkwood in the late 1800s. Working with very sparse data since few asteroids were known at the time, he noted none went around the sun twice for each Jupiter orbit, nor three times, nor in more complex ratios like seven-to-three or five-to-two.

    These so-called Kirkwood gaps are not obvious since they show up only in plots of the average distance of asteroids from the sun. The gaps remained a mere curiosity of the solar system for about 100 years.

    Numbers of asteroids by averaged distance from the sun, showing the Kirkwood gaps. The gap labelled 3:1 harbors both Alinda and 2024 YR4, located at an average distance 2.5 times Earth’s orbit radius from the sun.
    (NASA/JPL)

    The employment of new computer technologies to calculate orbits revealed the effects of resonance to scientists in the 1970s. Resonance occurs when asteroids appear to move at the same, or a multiple of, the orbit speed of another external object — in this case, Jupiter.

    The Kirkwood gaps are explained by asteroids similarly interacting with Jupiter to leave the asteroid belt, even while their average distance from the sun does not change. By dipping into the inner solar system, these asteroids are often removed from the gaps in a very simple way: by hitting an inner planet like Mars, Venus or Earth.

    Scientists also found that these gaps were not completely empty; Alinda, for example, was in the three-to-one gap. Many more such asteroids have been found, and they are generically named “Alindas,” after the prototypical first discovery whose name origin is a bit obscure.

    Return of the asteroids

    If the bad news is that Kirkwood gaps are due to asteroids hitting inner planets, including Earth, can it get much worse? For Alinda-class asteroids it does. Alindas follow their pumped-up orbit every four years, so properly aligned Alindas get a chance to hit Earth about that often.

    Near passes of these asteroids tend to happen spaced by longer intervals, but when aligned, they come back several times with four-year spacing. A limiting factor is how tilted their orbits are: if they are quite tilted, they are not often at a “height” matching Earth’s, so are less likely to hit.

    The bad news about that is that both Alinda and 2024 YR4 are very nearly in the plane of Earth’s orbit, and are not tilted much, so are more likely to hit.

    The resonant “pumping” stretching the orbit both inward and outward from the asteroid belt has already made 2024 YR4 cross Earth’s orbit, giving it a chance to impact. The much more dangerous Alinda is still being pumped: in about 1,000 years, it may be poised to hit Earth.

    One piece of good news is that 2024 YR4 will miss in 2032, but by coming close it will be kicked out of its Alinda orbit. It will no longer come back every four years.

    However, getting an orbital kick from Earth, its orbit will still cross ours, just not as often. The current orbit shows a somewhat close approach (farther than the moon) in 2052, and beyond that, calculations are not very accurate.

    Other asteroids

    Although Earth is a small target in a big solar system, it does get hit.

    If 2024 YR4 managed to sneak up on us in 2024, can other asteroids also surprise us? The last damaging one to do so appeared undetected on Feb. 15, 2013, over Chelyabinsk, Russia, injuring many people when its shock wave shattered glass in buildings.

    In 1908, a larger explosion took place over Tunguska, Russian Siberia, a remote region where huge areas of forest were devastated but few people injured.

    Part of the huge region of Siberian forest blown down by the Tunguska meteor explosion of 1908; this photograph was taken in 1929.
    (Leonid Kulik)

    Keeping watch

    While astronomers work diligently to survey the night sky from Earth’s surface, space-based surveys like the upcoming Near-Earth Object (NEO) surveyor can be very efficient in detecting asteroids. They do so by their heat (infrared) radiation and, being in space, can also study the daytime sky.

    According to Amy Mainzer, lead on the NEO surveyor, “we know of only roughly 40 per cent of the asteroids that are both large enough to cause severe regional damage and closely approach Earth’s orbit.” Once launched in late 2027, NEO will “find, track and characterize the most hazardous asteroids and comets,” eventually meeting the U.S. Congress-mandated goal of knowing of 90 cent of them.

    Among asteroids, we must pay special attention to resonant ones, such as 2024 YR4, because eventually, they’ll be back.

    Martin Connors has received funding from NSERC and the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and the Canadian Space Agency. He is currently a self-funded academic visitor at UCLA.

    – ref. Asteroid 2024 YR may not hit Earth in 2032, but it — and others — will keep coming back – https://theconversation.com/asteroid-2024-yr-may-not-hit-earth-in-2032-but-it-and-others-will-keep-coming-back-250958

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Pharmacare is now law in Canada, but negotiations with provinces could slow progress

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jane Fletcher, PhD Candidate in Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary

    Ensuring people have coverage for essential medications is crucial. (Shutterstock)

    Despite Canada’s commitment to universal health care, one in 20 Canadians cannot afford their prescribed medications, with people from Alberta, New Brunswick and British Columbia being the most likely to say they’re missing doses due to costs.

    When people skip medications, it leads to more emergency room visits, costly hospital stays and worse health.

    Ensuring people have coverage for essential medications is crucial. In October 2024, Canada took a step forward when Bill C-64, or the Pharmacare Act, received royal assent and became law.

    The act will cover contraceptives for nine million Canadians, helping with family planning and managing conditions like endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome.



    Read more:
    Pharmacare’s design could further fragment and politicize Canada’s health system

    It will also cover diabetes medications for the 3.7 million Canadians living with the disease — critical for managing blood sugars and preventing complications like blindness, kidney failure, heart attacks and strokes.

    Despite this historic passage of pharmacare legislation, its rollout remains uncertain. The government’s next steps are complicated by the Constitution Act of 1867, which gave provinces jurisdiction over health care.

    The federal government must now negotiate agreements with each province to implement the plan — a task made more difficult because medication coverage varies widely across Canada. Without full co-operation, pharmacare’s impact could be limited, with coverage gaps persisting for millions of Canadians.

    Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has also said he’ll scrap pharmacare.

    Coverage differs among provinces

    In many provinces — including B.C., Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland and Labrador — pharmacare coverage is provided universally with income-based deductibles. This means provincial coverage only kicks in after an individual reaches a spending threshold on medications. This threshold varies by age and income level.

    Alberta and New Brunswick use premium-based systems, requiring monthly membership fees.

    Most provinces also use co-payments, meaning people must cover part of the cost of each prescription — for example, 20 to 30 per cent of the full cost, or a flat fee of $5 to $10. Only Québec mandates prescription insurance coverage, either privately or through its public plan.

    Currently, a major driver of how much Canadians pay for their medications is arbitrary — it’s about where one lives. For example, a young Albertan living with diabetes and heart disease who earns $14,000 would need to pay $1,000 annually for medications. In Ontario, that same person would pay just $100.

    Such differences can influence where people choose to live and can hinder interprovincial labour mobility. It’s a driving force behind the push for pharmacare — to ensure free access to the most important medications, regardless of where someone lives.

    An opportunity for national pharmacare

    Pharmacare could have been implemented nationally, like it was for the Canadian Dental Care Plan, offering federal coverage for essential medications like contraceptives and diabetes medications, while insurers and provincial plans cover the rest.

    This would have been a simple approach that would have allowed for future changes, and could have been implemented by provinces much like vaccines are — paid for using people’s provincial health numbers, sidestepping the difficulty of enrolling people in a new plan.

    But in the waning days of the current Liberal federal government, it appears the chosen direction has been to negotiate separate agreements with each province and territory to establish a minimum standard.

    Movement in this direction has already been seen in B.C., Manitoba and P.E.I. where deals have already been made with the federal government, while other provinces remain in talks.

    The pace of these agreements remains uncertain, and it’s unclear when — or if — all the provinces and territories will sign on.

    The fight for pharmacare isn’t over

    As Canada takes its first steps toward pharmacare, many questions remain. For provinces with income-based deductibles, would the deductible simply shift to other drugs, meaning people with other health conditions won’t really save on their overall medication costs each year?

    For those with premium-based coverage, how would those who don’t enrol in the public plan access coverage? How would this be rolled out in Québec where some form of medication coverage is already mandatory?

    The push for universal drug coverage in Canada dates back decades. When medicare was first recommended in 1964 by the Hall Commission, it included a proposal for universal drug coverage that was ultimately never implemented.

    Over the decades, multiple reports, including the 1999 Kirby Report and the 2019 Pharmacare For All Report, have called for its implementation.

    Organizations like the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nursing Association have similarly stressed its importance. Yet, despite decades of advocacy, Canada has remained the only country with a universal health-care system that doesn’t provide comprehensive drug coverage.

    With negotiations on pharmacare officially underway, its success will depend on federal-provincial co-operation, which has been increasingly strained in recent years. Advancing pharmacare is in Canadians’ best interest — especially for the 7.5 million people who cannot afford the medications their doctor prescribes.

    The question now is whether governments will act swiftly to implement pharmacare, or if political roadblocks will delay access to life-saving medications even further.

    Jane Fletcher receives funding from CANTRAIN (Canadian Institutes of Health Research) and Alberta Innovates.

    David Campbell receives funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Diabetes Canada, and Alberta Innovates.

    Braden Manns and Reed F Beall 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. Pharmacare is now law in Canada, but negotiations with provinces could slow progress – https://theconversation.com/pharmacare-is-now-law-in-canada-but-negotiations-with-provinces-could-slow-progress-250888

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: African safaris and colonial nightmares: a visit to artist Roger Ballen’s latest show

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Tinashe Mushakavanhu, Research Associate, University of Oxford

    Born in the US, Roger Ballen, the internationally renowned photographer, has lived in South Africa since the 1970s.

    He gained a cult following for his grotesque, surreal images of white poverty, captured on the rural fringes during apartheid. His work exposed not only the exploitation and marginalisation of his subjects but also the reality of apartheid’s failure to uplift even its privileged white minority.

    Over time, Ballen’s practice has expanded beyond photography into a hybrid realm of exhibition, installation and performance. His new Johannesburg space, the Inside Out Centre for the Arts, serves as a theatre for this experimentation.

    The name itself, Inside Out, is typically “Ballenesque”, evoking the psychological effect he seeks to instil in viewers: a blurring of perception and reality. His exhibition, End of the Game, is an arresting debut for the centre.

    Ballen is committed to challenging perspectives on African narratives. Designed as a platform for thought-provoking exhibitions and educational programmes, Inside Out supports a range of artistic practices, including photography, painting, sculpture, installation, drawing and film.

    On a recent visit to the centre, Ballen walks me through the exhibition. As a scholar of literature and visual cultures, I am fascinated with this epic engagement with colonial archives and the history of big game hunting in Africa since the 1700s.

    Even though the show’s been up for over a year, there’s no rush to close it, Ballen tells me. It’s become the backdrop of many eclectic events at the centre – live tattooing, poetry performances, curatorial talks, music workshops, film screenings, panel discussions. The centre is also proving popular for school group visits.



    Read more:
    The real Johannesburg: 6 powerful photos from a gritty new book on the city

    End of the Game is a visual and psychological exploration of the African safari – an experience long entwined with adventure, exploration, and the exploitative legacies of colonialism. It delves into humanity’s deep-seated drive to control and assert dominance over nature and wildlife.

    A call to action

    Entering End of the Game, visitors are greeted by Tarzan posters and a room filled with photos, books and documentary material on colonial hunting. But down the stairs, the experience shifts dramatically.

    Here, Ballen’s images merge with eerie, mechanised sculptures of taxidermied (stuffed) creatures and unsettling painted tableaus. It feels like a horror-infused natural history museum.

    Ballen blurs the line between documentary and constructed imagery, creating existential psychological dramas within haunting interiors.

    Through his depictions of people and animals on the fringes of existence, he invites us to confront both our own alienation from the natural world and also the devastating consequences of our destructive behaviour.

    Over the years, the scenes in Ballen’s photography have become increasingly elaborate and theatrical. His props, masks, drawings and sculptures have come to feature more prominently than people. The results often look more like mixed media collages than photographs.

    Some of these elements are present in End of the Game. It assembles historical artefacts, paintings, colonial and contemporary photographs, as well as carefully staged objects. The result is a critical interrogation of the ecological crisis to which we have contributed. In the context of climate change, the show stands as both a stark indictment and an urgent call to action.

    Beyond photography

    The impulse to compose images beyond the medium of the photograph is what leads Ballen to collect found objects. He explains the process this way:

    I am always trying to find things that don’t necessarily belong together and in making them belong together in a new way … It takes the spectator’s mind on a journey in another direction, which is important in art.

    Nothing is static. Everything is in constant motion. The exhibition is immersive. The viewer and the objects are circling each other. Walking through it feels like entering a jungle, the taxidermied animals look poised for confrontation.

    For Ballen, this encounter is both physical and psychological – are animals enemies or figures of beauty? Perhaps coexistence is the question at the work’s core. As he explains it:

    A central challenge in my career has been to locate the animal in the human being and the human being in the animal.

    As the Tarzan posters make clear from the beginning, the idea of Africa has been hyped through Hollywood clichés. The image of it as a wild continent to be tamed and conquered, an unspoiled paradise, or a playground, has persisted. The romance of the African bush has filled the imagination of many foreign writers.

    Kenyan writer Binyavanga Wainaina, in his essay How to Write About Africa, satirised this:

    Always use the word ‘Africa’ or ‘Darkness’ or ‘Safari’ in your title.

    Here, safari embodies the enduring thrill of conquest.

    In the screen room, a collaged film is shown, made up of old hunting expedition clips found on YouTube. It is travel propaganda of famous hunting expeditions, led by colonialists and influential western figures.

    Ballen, a US-trained geologist, was drawn to South Africa to study and work in the mineral extraction field. His deep engagement with the earth’s structure, materials and processes conceptually frames this exhibition, blending the scientific with the surreal.

    The show sparks critical conversations on wildlife conservation, responsible tourism and environmental stewardship.

    Inside Out

    Inside Out was originally intended to be a photography centre, but during construction Ballen started imagining broader possibilities. It evolved into a multi-purpose venue that is a gallery, a theatre and an exhibition space, all in one.

    However, the photography centre remains part of the plan. Ballen has bought the property next door, where the photography centre will now be established. Set to open in the last quarter of 2025, the centre will host photography exhibitions, talks and a bookstore, making it one of Africa’s few dedicated photography centres.

    Tinashe Mushakavanhu 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. African safaris and colonial nightmares: a visit to artist Roger Ballen’s latest show – https://theconversation.com/african-safaris-and-colonial-nightmares-a-visit-to-artist-roger-ballens-latest-show-251302

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Wealthy Africans often don’t pay tax: the answer lies in smarter collection – expert

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Giovanni Occhiali, Research Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies, Institute of Development Studies

    Faced with some of the worse debt levels in over a decade, African countries are struggling to find ways to balance their books. Increasing revenue sources from their citizens is an obvious place to look.

    A good starting point for African countries would be to focus on the tax contribution of wealthy citizens. This is because the most under performing taxes across the African continent are those bearing on the income of wealthy individuals, namely personal income and property taxes.

    The reasons for this are two fold: People who are better off in some countries often remain invisible to tax authorities. This is even though they have higher tax liabilities. Compare this with citizens who have formal labour contracts. Think of public school teachers or supermarket clerks. Their taxes are withheld by their employers. This makes tax evasion impossible. Most taxes on personal income in Africa are paid by citizens in these forms of employment.

    In contrast, prior to 2015, only one of the top 71 Ugandan government officials and 17 of the country 60 most successful lawyers paid any personal income tax. Similarly, only 16% of all landlords identified in Freetown, the capital of Sierra Leone, during a registration drive in 2021 had registered for taxes.

    This shows that wealthy Africans face lower effective tax rates than average citizens, replicating a trend already demonstrated for the relative tax burden of small and large companies.

    This situation is disheartening. But there are immediate steps that African revenue authorities can take to address this unfairness.

    Research led by the International Centre for Tax and Development, to which I have contributed, shows that revenue increases from wealthy citizens can be obtained by focusing on better enforcement of existing taxes rather than by introducing new ones or hiking tax rates.

    An effective approach to increase wealthy citizens tax contribution relies on three strategies:

    • their identification

    • a simplification of tax compliance processes, and

    • the effective enforcement of existing taxes.

    While these suggestions might seem banal, they can lead to some quick revenue gains: as much as US$5.5 million in Uganda or US$900,000 in a single Nigerian state in one year, or tripling property tax revenue collection in Sierra Leone.

    But these improvements require changes in the way African revenue authorities operate.

    Tax collection services need change of focus

    Revenue services in all African countries need to be better resourced. A typical tax officer on the continent might be responsible for as many as 10 times the number of taxpayers than a tax officer in the Global North.

    First, their efforts need to be redirected away from the registration of small informal businesses. These efforts have been shown to contribute little revenue in countries as diverse as South Africa and Sierra Leone.

    Instead their efforts should be directed a developing a definition of high-net-worth individual appropriate for their domestic context. In Uganda this includes criteria such as having performed land transactions of approximately US$300,000 over five years, or earning approximately US$150,000 in rental income in any given year.

    Due to its federal structure, criteria in Nigeria vary across states, for example including an yearly income above Naira 2 million in Borno and Kano state, with the threshold raising to Naira 15 million in Imo state, Naira 20 million in Niger state and Naira 25 million in Lagos state.

    However, in both countries criteria also cover less directly measurable assets, such as owning high-value commercial forestry or animal ranches in Uganda, or having received contracts from the government in Nigeria’s Kaduna state.

    Property taxes are especially important. Research in Ethiopia and Rwanda shows that investing in real estate represents one of the main strategies to store wealth when inflation and foreign exchange fluctuation make bank deposits unattractive.

    These properties then contribute to increasing the income of wealthy citizens who rent them out or resell them for profit. While we lack granular data on capital gains or rental income taxes, there are good reasons to think they are also significantly underperforming. Capital gains refers to the additional value which an investor accrues when disposing of assets such as houses or companies share previously bought at a lower price.

    Second, this should be followed by the creation of an office to follow the affairs of high net-worth individuals. This already happens for large taxpayers. Most countries, including the majority of anglophone African countries, have a dedicated office following the tax affairs of large companies active in their territory.

    Having dedicated resources for high net-worth individuals would be useful because using the international definition (a net worth of US$1 million) might be hard to operationalise. The reason for this is that most revenue authorities lack detailed data on assets owned by their taxpayers. Even when they know some information, such as the number of houses, estimates of their market value might be lacking.

    African countries are better off relying on data already in their possession as they seek to collect further useful information on their taxpayers. This allows the establishment of a set of multiple core and non-core criteria.

    Third, high-net worth individual units require substantial backing. In the first instance from revenue authorities’ senior management, who in turn needs to have the support of the government in pursuing often well-connected individuals. This backing is needed for actions as apparently easy as obtaining data from other government agencies, without which identification efforts could be quickly thwarted, and becomes crucial when its time to move to enforcement.

    However, a cooperative approach should be the initial choice. One approach is voluntary disclosure programmes with associated tax amnesties. These are useful to obtain information about the assets of wealthy citizens. Additionally, they contribute substantial revenue – as much as US$296 million in South Africa and US$192 million in Nigeria.

    Fourth, requiring candidates running for public office to obtain tax clearance certificates can also be an important source of information and revenue. This has been shown to work in both Uganda and Nigeria.

    This set of actions represents an optimal starting point for African countries looking to improve the tax contribution of wealthy citizens.

    Efforts to produce suitable guidance for wealth taxation for low-income countries by the United Nations, or to introduce a global wealth tax on billionaire by the Brazilian G20, are important to highlight the role of fiscal redistribution in addressing inequality. But many African countries are better off by first being bold about the basics of their tax systems, which can already make them more effective and progressive.

    The International Centre for Tax and Development, where Dr Giovanni Occhiali works, receives funding from the United Kingdom Foregin, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), the Gates Foundation, and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (Norad).

    – ref. Wealthy Africans often don’t pay tax: the answer lies in smarter collection – expert – https://theconversation.com/wealthy-africans-often-dont-pay-tax-the-answer-lies-in-smarter-collection-expert-252437

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Green Party’s Swarbrick calls for urgent NZ action over Israel’s ‘crazy’ Gaza slaughter

    Asia Pacific Report

    Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick called on New Zealand government MPs today to support her Member’s Bill to sanction Israel over its “crazy slaughter” of Palestinians in Gaza.

    Speaking at a large pro-Palestinian solidarity rally in the heart of New Zealand’s largest city Auckland, she said Aotearoa New Zealand could no longer “remain a bystander to the slaughter of innocent people in Gaza”.

    In the fifth day since Israel broke the two-month-old ceasefire and refused to begin negotiations on phase two of the truce — which was supposed to lead to a complete withdrawal of Israeli troops from the besieged enclave and an exchange of hostages — health officials reported that the death toll had risen above 630, mostly children and women.

    Five children were killed in a major overnight air attack on Gaza City and at least eight members of the family remained trapped under the rubble as Israeli attacks continued in the holy fasting month of Ramadan.

    Confirmed casualty figures in Gaza since October 7, 2023, now stand at 49,747 with 113,213 wounded, the Gaza Health Ministry said.

    For more than two weeks, Israel has sealed off border crossings and barred food, water and electricity and today it blew up the Turkish-Palestinian Friendship Hospital, the only medical institution in Gaza able to provide cancer treatment.

    “The research has said it from libraries, libraries and libraries. And what is it doing in Gaza?” said Swarbrick.

    ‘Ethnic cleansing . . . on livestream’
    “It is ethnic cleansing. It is apartheid. It is genocide. And we have that delivered to us by  livestream to each one of us every single day on our cellphones,” she said.

    “That is crazy. It is crazy to wake up every single day to that.”

    Swarbrick said Aotearoa New Zealand must act now to sanction Israel for its crimes — “just like we did with Russia for its illegal action in Ukraine.”

    She said that with the Green Party, Te Pāti Māori and Labour’s committed support, they now needed just six of the 68 government MPs to “pass my Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill into law”.

    “There’s no more time for talk. If we stand for human rights and peace and justice, our Parliament must act,” she said.

    “Action for Gaza Now” banner heads a march protesting against Israel’s resumed attacks on the besieged Strip in Auckland today. Image: APR

    In September, Aotearoa had joined 123 UN member states to support a resolution calling for sanctions against those responsible for Israel’s “unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in relation to settler violence”.

    “Our government has since done nothing to fulfil that commitment. Our Unlawful Occupation of Palestine Sanctions Bill starts that very basic process.

    “No party leader or whip can stop a Member of Parliament exercising their democratic right to vote how they know they need to on this Bill,” she said to resounding cheers.

    ‘No hiding behind party lines’
    “There is no more hiding behind party lines. All 123 Members of Parliament are each individually, personally responsible.”

    Several Palestinian women spoke of the terror with the new wave of Israeli bombings and of their families’ personal connections with the suffering in Gaza, saying it was vitally important to “hear our stories”. Some spoke of the New Zealand government’s “cowardice” for not speaking out in opposition like many other countries.

    About 1000 people took part in the protest in a part of Britomart’s Te Komititanga Square in a section now popularly known as “Palestine Corner”.

    Amid a sea of banners and Palestinian flags there were placards declaring “Stop the genocide”, “Jews for tangata whenua from Aotearoa to Palestine”, “Hands off West Bank End the occupation” , “The people united will never be defeated”, “Decolonise your mind, stand with Palestine,” “Genocide — made in USA”, and “Toitū Te Tiriti Free Palestine”.

    “Genocide – Made in USA” poster at today’s Palestinian solidarity rally. Image: APR

    The ceasefire-breaking Israeli attacks on Gaza have shocked the world and led to three UN General Assembly debates this week on the Middle East.

    France, Germany and Britain are among the latest countries to condemn Israel for breaching the ceasefire — describing it as a “dramatic step backwards”, and France has told the UN that it is opposed to any form of annexation by Israel of any Palestinian territory.

    Meanwhile, Sultan Barakat, a professor at Hamad Bin Khalifa University in Qatar, told Al Jazeera in an interview that the more atrocities Israel committed in Gaza, the more young Palestinian men and women would join Hamas.

    “So it’s not going to disappear any time soon,” he said.

    With Israel killing more than 630 people in five days and cutting off all aid to the Strip for weeks, there was no trust on the part of Hamas to restart the ceasefire, Professor Barakat said.

    “Jews for tangata whenua from Aotearoa to Palestine” . . . a decolonisation placard at today’s Palestine solidarity rally in Auckland. Image: APR

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Killers with severe mental health issues are perceived as monsters – a terrible failure of academics like me

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paul Crawford, Professor of Health Humanities, University of Nottingham

    According to an investigation by Hundred Families, a charity that supports and advocates for families affected by mental health homicides, each year an average of 65 mentally ill people carry out killings. Between 2018-2023, 390 mental health patients in England committed, or were suspected of, murder or manslaughter.

    The findings come after an independent report exposed a series of NHS failures in the treatment of Valdo Calocane, a man with schizophrenia who killed three people in Nottingham in 2023.

    The cases of killers Calocane and Axel Rudakubana – who stabbed three small girls to death and attempted to kill several others in Southport in 2024 when he was 17 years-old – have sparked fierce debate over the place within wider society of people with severe mental health issues. According to many, it appears they don’t have one.

    Calocane and Rudakubana were labelled “evil”, “sadistic” and “cowardly”, amid renewed calls for the reinstatement of the death penalty.

    When sentencing Rudakubana to a minimum term of 52 years in January 2025, Mr Justice Goose said: “Many who have heard the evidence might describe what he did as evil, who could dispute it?”

    Public opinion on the likes of Calocane and Rudakubana seems clear: they are monsters, capable only of inflicting misery on others. At best, they don’t deserve to live among right-minded people. At worst, they don’t deserve to live at all.

    It’s now known that both Calocane and Rudakubana had received treatment for severe mental health issues but stopped engaging with health services before committing their crimes. In the eyes of many – including media commentators, politicians and sizeable swaths of the public – suffering severe mental health illness doesn’t affect someone’s responsibility for their actions.

    As a human being, I regard the prevailing narrative around stories such as Calocane’s and Rudakubana’s with a tremendous sense of sadness. As an academic specialising in social and cultural perspectives of mental health, I regard it with a profound sense of frustration – and maybe even failure. Let me try to explain why.

    A question of accountability

    A key reason why those with severe mental health issues are customarily condemned as wicked and irredeemable is that we continue to believe that a person should invariably be held accountable for their own actions. This is a damagingly simplistic view.

    Media coverage of Rudakubana often described him as ‘evil’

    Anyone who has worked in the field of mental health knows there are many cases in which people’s minds, to all intents and purposes, aren’t their own. Those, like Calocane, suffering from an overwhelming condition such as schizophrenia, for example, frequently have no grasp of reality and have hampered moral reasoning.

    It’s reasonable to say some people with severe mental health issues can represent a danger to themselves and others. But this doesn’t mean they should be abandoned or “locked up”. What they need is support from mental health systems that are genuinely integrated, effective and reliable.

    Calocane and Rudakubana’s victims, their families and all those cruelly affected by their crimes were catastrophically let down in this respect. But so were Calocane and Rudakubana. The notion that the pair “stopped engaging” is a poor excuse for the cataclysmic shortcomings of a system that should be rooted in diligence, outreach and persistent follow-ups.

    However uncomfortable the idea, much of the accountability here lies not with the killers – and that, of course, is what they are – but with those who left them unsupported and in a position to devastate others’ lives and their own. Ultimately, it’s the system itself that disengages – sometimes with the most appalling consequences.

    When findings alone aren’t enough

    Numerous studies have shown how those in the grip of psychosis and similar illnesses don’t choose to be “evil”. They don’t choose to experience horrific delusions about the world around them. They don’t choose to endure hallucinations that tell them to carry out terrible acts.

    Yet the broader public seems to have little or no interest in such findings. Alarmingly, the same might be said of many policymakers. Their knowledge and opinions are instead more likely to be shaped by rhetoric and knee-jerk denunciation.

    This goes to the heart of a major challenge for academics in my own field and for the research community as a whole: how best to communicate our work and make it truly accessible. We need to accept that research alone is often woefully insufficient.

    A few years ago, in collaboration with Aardman Animations, the studio behind household names such as Wallace and Gromit and Shaun the Sheep, I produced a series of short films highlighting young people’s mental health. In months, these films reached an audience of more than 17 million. More recently, in another effort to spread the word, I wrote The Wonders of Doctor Bent, a novel that explores society’s lingering propensity to treat isolated and tormented people with the utmost contempt.

    None of this is to say research is pointless – yet it’s surely of limited value if the insights it delivers remain largely unacknowledged, especially where matters of the most extraordinary significance are concerned.

    As the unhelpful clamour around mental health and “monsters” drags on, the lesson is both clear and familiar: the best way of having conversations about stigma, responsibility and the cost of abdicating our social obligations to those suffering from severe mental illness is to involve the whole of society. Not just the mental health community, police and the justice system, but the general public as well.

    Paul Crawford receives funding from UK Research and Innovation including Arts and Humanities Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, UKRI Cross Council, The Leverhulme Trust, The British Academy

    – ref. Killers with severe mental health issues are perceived as monsters – a terrible failure of academics like me – https://theconversation.com/killers-with-severe-mental-health-issues-are-perceived-as-monsters-a-terrible-failure-of-academics-like-me-252053

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Top Pacific diplomats ready for direct talks on Bougainville independence

    By Leah Lowonbu, Stefan Armbruster and Harlyne Joku of BenarNews

    The Pacific’s peak diplomatic bodies have signalled they are ready to engage with Papua New Guinea’s Autonomous Government of Bougainville as mediation begins on the delayed ratification of its successful 2019 independence referendum.

    PNG and Bougainville’s leaders met in the capital Port Moresby this week with a moderator to start negotiations on the implementation of the UN-supervised Bougainville Peace Agreement and referendum.

    Ahead of the talks, ABG’s President Ishmael Toroama moved to sideline a key sticking point over PNG parliamentary ratification of the vote, with the announcement last week that Bougainville would unilaterally declare independence on September 1, 2027.

    The region’s two leading intergovernmental organisations — Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) — have traditionally deferred to member state PNG on discussion of Bougainville independence as an internal matter.

    But as a declaration of nationhood becomes increasingly likely and near, there has been a subtle shift.

    “It’s their [PNG’s] prerogative but if this matter were raised formally, even by Bougainville themselves, we can start discussion on that,” PIF Secretary-General Baron Waqa told a press briefing at its headquarters in Fiji on Monday.

    “Whatever happens, I think the issue would have to be decided by our leaders later this year,” he said of the annual PIF meeting to be held in Solomon Islands in September.

    Marked peace deal
    The last time the Pacific’s leaders included discussion of Bougainville in their official communique was in 2004 to mark the disarmament of the island under the peace deal.

    Waqa said Bougainville had made no formal approach to PIF — a grouping of 18 Pacific states and territories — but it was closely monitoring developments on what could eventually lead to the creation of a new member state.

    PNG Prime Minister James Marape (second from left) and Bougainville President Ishmael Toroama (right) during mediation in the capital Port Moresby this week. Image: Autonomous Government of Bougainville/BenarNews

    In 2024, Toroama told BenarNews he would be seeking observer status at the subregional MSG — grouping PNG, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and New Caledonia’s FLNKS — as Bougainville’s first diplomatic foray.

    No application has been made yet but MSG acting Director-General Ilan Kiloe told BenarNews they were also keeping a close watch.

    “Our rules and regulations require that we engage through PNG and we will take our cue from them,” Kiloe said, adding while the MSG respects the sovereignty of its members, “if requested, we will provide assistance” to Bougainville.

    “The purpose and reason the MSG was established initially was to advance the collective interests of the Melanesian countries, in particular, to assist those yet to attain independence,” he said. “And to provide support towards their aim of becoming independent countries.”

    Map showing Papua New Guinea, its neighboring countries and the Autonomous Region of Bougainville. Map: BenarNews

    The 2001 peace agreement ended more than a decade of bloody conflict  known as the Bougainville crisis, that resulted in the deaths of up to 15,000 people, and laid out a roadmap for disarmament and the referendum in 2019.

    ‘We need support’
    Under the agreement, PNG retains responsibility for foreign affairs but allows for the ABG to engage externally for trade and with “regional organisations.”

    “We need countries to support us, we need to talk to those countries [ahead of independence],” Toroama told BenarNews last September.

    The referendum on independence was supported by 97.7 percent of Bougainvillians and the outcome was due to be ratified by PNG’s Parliament in 2020, but was deferred because of the covid-19 pandemic.

    Discussions by the two parties since on whether a simple or two-thirds majority vote by parliamentarians was required has further delayed the process.

    Toroama stood firm on the issue of ratification on the first day of discussions moderated by New Zealand’s Sir Jerry Mataparae, saying his people voted for independence and the talks were to define the “new relationship” between two independent states.

    Last week, the 15 members of the Bougainville Leaders Independence Consultation Forum issued a statement declaring PNG had no authority to veto the referendum result and recommended September 1, 2027 as the declaration date.

    Bougainville Leaders Consultation Forum declaration setting September 1, 2027, as the date for their independence declaration. Image: AGB/BenarNews

    “As far as I am concerned, the process of negotiating independence was concluded with the referendum,” Toroama said.

    Implementation moderation
    “My understanding is that this moderation is about reaching agreement on implementing the referendum result of independence.”

    He told Marape “to take ownership and endorse independence in this 11th Parliament.”

    PNG’s prime minister responded by praising the 25 years of peace “without a single bullet fired” but warned Bougainville was not ready for independence.

    “Economic independence must precede political independence,” Marape said. “The long-term sustainability of Bougainville must be factored into these discussions.”

    “About 95 percent of Bougainville’s budget is currently reliant on external support, including funding from the PNG government and international donors.”

    Proposals to reopen Rio Tinto’s former Panguna gold and copper mine in Bougainville, that sparked its civil conflict, is a regular feature of debate about its economic future.

    Front page of the Post-Courier newspaper after the first day of mediation on Bougainville’s independence this week. Image: Post-Courier/BenarNews

    Marape also suggested people may be secretly harbouring weapons in breach of the peace agreement and called on the UN to clarify the outcome of the disarmament process it supervised.

    “Headlines have come out that guns remain in Bougainville. United Nations, how come guns remain in Bougainville?” Marape asked on Monday.

    “You need to tell me. This is something you know. I thought all guns were removed from Bougainville.”

    PNG relies on aid
    By comparison, PNG has heavily relied on foreign financial assistance since independence, currently receiving at about US$320 million (1.3 billion kina) a year in budgetary support from Australia, and suffers regular tribal violence and massacres involving firearms including assault rifles.

    Bougainville Vice-President Patrick Nisira rejected Marape’s concerns about weapons, the Post-Courier newspaper reported.

    “The usage of those guns, there is no evidence of that and if you look at the data on Bougainville where [there are] incidents of guns, it is actually very low,” he said.

    Further talks are planned and are due to produce a report for the national Parliament by mid-2025, ahead of elections in Bougainville and PNG’s 50th anniversary celebrations in September.

    Republished from BenarNews with permission.

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: From hempseed gruel to CBD: the curious history of cannabis as a health product

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lauren Alex O’Hagan, Research Fellow, School of Languages and Applied Linguistics, The Open University

    H_Ko/Shutterstock

    The cannabis-derived product CBD has been hailed “the wonder drug of our age”, offering potential health benefits without the high. From juices and coffee to truffles and ice cream, CBD products have flooded the market for consumers looking for an answer to health problems from anxiety to insomnia.

    But with CBD products in the UK and EU falling under “novel foods” regulations rather than pharmaceutical standards, they aren’t subjected to the same rigorous safety and quality controls as drugs. The UK’s Committee on Toxicology has even flagged potential health risks, such as liver injury, leading the Food Standards Agency to issue safety guidance.

    The regulatory gaps and health concerns of today reflect those of the 19th century when cannabis products were commercialised by the food industry.

    In the 1830s, William Brooke O’Shaughnessy, an Irish doctor, discovered that cannabis was effective in treating muscle spasms and stomach cramps. French psychiatrist Jacques-Joseph Moreau later explored its potential for mental illness. This led many 19th-century doctors to champion cannabis as a cure-all.

    It wasn’t long before patent medicine manufacturers began using cannabis as a common ingredient in their formulas. But soon, cannabis wasn’t just in pharmacies – it was in food.

    Surprisingly, this shift was not driven by the food industry, but by the free church environment in Sweden as part of efforts to combat tuberculosis – a leading cause of death across all social classes in the country at the time.

    Paul Petter Waldenström, leader of the Swedish Mission Covenant, wrote a letter to Svenska Morgonbladet about a woman reportedly cured of tuberculosis by a homebrewed gruel made with hempseed, rye flour and milk. His endorsement helped popularise the remedy and many started making their own “Waldenström gruel”, as it became known.

    Sensing a business opportunity, entrepreneur J. Barthelson developed a powdered commercial version with the elegant French name Extrait Cannabis. He marketed it as a dietary remedy for tuberculosis, chest diseases and low energy. As demand grew, competitors quickly jumped on the bandwagon, using fearmongering tactics to persuade consumers that they were putting their lives at risk without it.

    The rise and fall of Maltos-Cannabis

    The most striking cannabis-infused product of the era came from the Red Cross Technical Factory. Their “health drink”, Maltos-Cannabis, was a maltose and cannabis blend marketed as both nutritious and delicious, especially when mixed with cocoa.

    With an aggressive advertising campaign, the company raked in nearly SEK 290,000 a year (around £775,000 in modern money), opening factories in Chicago, Helsinki, Brussels and Utrecht.

    A particularly dramatic advertisement depicted the Grim Reaper fleeing from the light of science, shining from a lighthouse. Meanwhile, a mother and daughter raised their arms triumphantly, symbolising victory over death thanks to Maltos-Cannabis. The tagline boldly claimed that the product had “a big future”.

    Maltos-Cannabis advertisement, Hälsovännen, 1 February 1894.
    Wikimedia Commons

    However, questions swirled about its legitimacy. Newspapers debated whether the product was a groundbreaking remedy or “a pure scam product”. While some critics called the craze an “epidemic”, others argued coffee was more harmful – a hot topic in Sweden’s parliament at the time.

    In response, Red Cross published a half-page rebuttal signed by its executives, defending the product’s credibility. But scepticism persisted. After various lawsuits and growing concerns over its effectiveness and safety, sales of Maltos-Cannabis began to decline. By the 1930s, the product had disappeared entirely.

    History repeats itself?

    The 19th-century commercial cannabis market was able to thrive due to the absence of marketing regulations for both food and pharmaceutical products. Manufacturers freely advertised their products using pseudo-scientific claims and buzzword-heavy marketing – strategies we’re seeing again today in the thriving CBD industry.

    This is because CBD is a “borderline” product, existing in a regulatory grey area that allows for marketing strategies to flourish without stringent oversight. Much like in the past, brands tap into consumers’ health anxieties with promises of a wellness revolution. Most worryingly, social media influencers are being used to endorse CBD, making it particularly appealing for younger audiences.

    With the global CBD market valued at US$19 billion in 2023 and projected to grow by 16% annually until 2030, looking back at the broader, problematic history of commercial cannabis should serve as a cautionary tale.

    Lauren Alex O’Hagan 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. From hempseed gruel to CBD: the curious history of cannabis as a health product – https://theconversation.com/from-hempseed-gruel-to-cbd-the-curious-history-of-cannabis-as-a-health-product-251967

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s executive order to dismantle the Education Department was inspired by the Heritage Foundation’s decades-long disapproval of the agency

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Fred L. Pincus, Emeritus Professor of Sociology, University of Maryland, Baltimore County

    The Heritage Foundation flag flies over its building on July 30, 2024, in Washington, D.C. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    President Donald Trump issued an executive order on March 20, 2025, that calls for closing the U.S. Department of Education.

    The president needs congressional approval to shutter the department. The order, however, directs Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”

    The executive order reflects many recommendations from the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a conservative political initiative to revamp the federal government. But it’s worth noting that the foundation’s attempt to abolish the Education Department goes back more than 40 years.

    The think tank first called for limiting the federal role in education in 1981. That’s when it issued its first Mandate for Leadership, a book offering conservative policy recommendations.

    As a sociology professor focused on diversity and social inequality, I’ve followed the Heritage Foundation’s efforts to eliminate the Department of Education since 1981. Although the idea didn’t garner enough support 44 years ago, the current political climate makes conditions more favorable.

    Mandate 1981

    In its 1981 mandate, the Heritage Foundation struck now-familiar themes.

    Its education policy recommendations included closing the Department of Education and “reducing its controls over American education.”

    Additionally, the think tank called on lawmakers to repeal the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provides federal funding for disadvantaged students in K-12, so that “the department’s influence on state and local education policy and practice through discretionary grant authority would disappear.”

    And the Heritage Foundation called for ending federal support for programs it claimed were designed to “turn elementary- and secondary-school classrooms into vehicles for liberal-left social and political change …”

    The Heritage Foundation building is seen on July 30, 2024, in Washington, D.C.
    Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    Education experts disputed these proposed reforms just a few years later.

    Four educational task forces, composed mainly of educators, corporate executives and politicians, published reports on education in 1983. All four reports were critical of the more liberal education policies of the 1960s and 1970s – such as an emphasis on student feelings about race, for example, rather than a focus on basic skills.

    But they all saw the need for a strong federal role in education.

    The four reports blamed the U.S. educational system for losing ground to Japan and Western Europe. And all called for more required courses rather than the “curriculum smorgasbord” that had become the norm in many public schools. They all wanted longer school days, longer school years and better-trained teachers.

    Nevertheless, President Ronald Reagan tried unsuccessfully to abolish the Department of Education in 1983.

    Project 2025

    Jumping ahead more than 40 years, Project 2025 reflects many of the main themes the Heritage Foundation addressed in the 1981 mandate. The first line of Project 2025’s chapter on education states: “Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the federal Department of Education should be eliminated.”

    The charges of leftist indoctrination have expanded. Now, conservative advocates are calling to eliminate anything that has to do with diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI.

    Other executive orders that Trump has signed reflect these attitudes.

    For example, they call for defending women from “gender ideology extremism” and eliminating “radical” DEI policies.

    According to Project 2025, school choice – which gives students the freedom to choose schools that best fit their needs – should be promoted through tuition tax credits and vouchers that provide students with public funds to attend private school. And federal education programs should either be dismantled or moved to other federal departments.

    Current political climate

    In the 1980s, the Heritage Foundation was seen as part of the New Right, a coalition that opposed issues such as abortion, homosexuality and affirmative action. The GOP’s alliance with conservative evangelical Christians, mobilized by advocacy groups such as Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority, was picking up steam, but it was still seen as marginal.

    By 2025, things have moved significantly to the right.

    Conservative Republicans in Congress view the Heritage Foundation as an important voice in educational politics.

    The far right is emboldened by Trump after his Cabinet appointments and pardons of Jan. 6 rioters.

    And Christian Nationalism – the belief that the United States is defined by Christianity – has grown.

    Paul Dans, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, speaks at the National Conservative Conference in Washington, D.C., on July 10, 2024.
    Dominic Gwinn/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

    Trump’s executive order does not abolish the Education Department. He needs congressional approval to do that.

    But he has already weakened it. His administration recently canceled nearly $900 million in contracts at the Institute of Education Sciences, the independent research arm of the Education Department.

    Despite public reluctance to eliminate the department – in February, 63% of U.S. residents said they opposed its elimination – it looks like Heritage Foundation influence could cause significant damage, with the additional firing of staff members and the reduced distribution of funds.

    McMahon sent a directive to department employees in early March calling the dismantling of their agency a “final mission.”

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

    – ref. Trump’s executive order to dismantle the Education Department was inspired by the Heritage Foundation’s decades-long disapproval of the agency – https://theconversation.com/trumps-executive-order-to-dismantle-the-education-department-was-inspired-by-the-heritage-foundations-decades-long-disapproval-of-the-agency-250605

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: A series that’s got parliament talking and an artist who influenced the civil service – what you should watch, see and play this week

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Naomi Joseph, Arts + Culture Editor

    The “manosphere” is an online realm comprising social media accounts, websites and blogs. It’s a place where innocuous advice around men’s issues like health and fitness sits alongside violent and dangerous misogynistic rhetoric. It’s where “incels” were born and where Andrew Tate became a household name. The effect of this side of the internet on young men is becoming an increasingly worrying and urgent issue, one which has been powerfully explored in the Netflix series, Adolescence.

    It follows 13-year-old Jamie Miller and his family after he is arrested on suspicion of the murder of a girl from his history class. Over its four episodes, it explores the rise of toxic masculinity, incel culture and the UK’s youth justice system.

    It’s a harrowing show that its writer and star Stephen Graham and co-writer Jack Thorne hope “causes discussion and makes change”. I’d say it’s been pretty successful in that aim as it’s already been talked about by politicians who have called for it to be aired in parliament and schools. Our reviewer Megan Smith-Dobric, an expert in the treatment of young offenders, found it to be a deeply affecting drama that challenged the stereotypes of young offenders and exposed the broken youth justice system.



    Read more:
    I research the dehumanising treatment of young offenders – Netflix’s Adolescence gets it spot on

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

    Art in Oxford, theatre in Bristol

    Art and culture can influence real-world change. Just look at the impact of Mr Bates vs The Post Office. The artist Barbara Steveni (1928 to 2020) harnessed the power of creativity when she set up the Artists Placement Group in 1966. This initiative sought to place artists in unlikely industries and institutions, like the civil service, with the idea that they could help solve problems and inform decisions from an outsider’s perspective.

    A new exhibition at Modern Art Oxford, Barbara Steveni: I Find Myself, explores the impact of such an approach to art and social activism in Steveni’s work and life. It features collaborative works, pieces where human interaction is key and an archive that spans her 70-year career. Our reviewer Martin Lang, an expert in visual art, found it to be a thought-proving show exploring her pioneering contributions and her lasting impact on the art world.

    Barbara Steveni: I Find Myself is on at Modern Art Oxford till June 8 2025



    Read more:
    Barbara Steveni: I Find Myself – a pioneering artist who influenced the civil service

    If you’re in Bristol or plan on visiting in the next week, why not spend a night at the theatre watching the Bard’s tragi-comedy A Winter’s Tale at The Tobacco Factory? It seems an opportune moment to see this play about the healing power of time, nature and the turn of the seasons, as we start to experience the first few moments of spring.

    Our reviewer Jo Lindsay Walton, a research fellow in arts, climate and technology, loves the original text but was relieved to find that theatre director and writer Robin Belfield had made some judicious cuts to some of the slower pastoral scenes. All in all, Walton found it to be a “secure, energetic, and richly nuanced” production.

    A Winter’s Tale is on at The Tobacco Factory in Bristol until March 29 2025



    Read more:
    The Winter’s Tale at The Tobacco Factory, Bristol – a marvellous production with much to say about the modern world

    Samurai and demons

    If you want to travel further afield, without leaving your home, can we suggest Assasin’s Creed Shadows?

    This new instalment takes on the Japanese civil war (1477 to 1600), where samurai and ninjas (known as shinobi) were fighting each other, the warlord Oda Nobunaga (aka “Demon King of the Sixth Heaven”) dominated and Japan as a whole was changing quickly. This provides for some truly sensational historical fiction and some wonderful wandering opportunities in the beautifully rendered world.

    However, not everyone has been happy. The creators’ choice to make a protagonist of Yasuke, a slave turned samurai under Nobunaga, has garnered criticism from those who see his presence as a black man in the period as historically inaccurate. Fynn Holm, an expert in Japanese studies, writes that Sasuke existed and such criticisms ignore evidence of foreign influence in 16th-century Japan.



    Read more:
    Assassin’s Creed Shadows introduces a black samurai – that’s not as unprecedented as critics claim

    If you and the family want to do something together, the record-breaking animated film Ne Zha 2 is finally hitting UK and Irish cinemas today. The film is about a legendary child warrior from Chinese mythology. Ne Zha was born a demon and is doomed to only to live three years. In this film, Ne Zha and squire Ao Bing must rebuild their souls after the epic events of the first film. However, before they can recover, a demon attacks their town.

    This tale of a feisty demon child has taken the box office by storm, becoming the highest-grossing animated film of all time. Ming Gao grew up with the tales of Ne Zha. He writes about the Chinese-language film as a showcase of the country’s ambitions to expand its soft power while growing economic and strategic influence.

    Ne Zha 2 is in cinemas now



    Read more:
    Ne Zha 2: the record-breaking Chinese animated film showcases China’s ambition on the global stage

    – ref. A series that’s got parliament talking and an artist who influenced the civil service – what you should watch, see and play this week – https://theconversation.com/a-series-thats-got-parliament-talking-and-an-artist-who-influenced-the-civil-service-what-you-should-watch-see-and-play-this-week-252763

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Heathrow closure: what caused the fire and why did it bring down the whole airport? Expert panel

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kirk Chang, Professor of Management and Technology, University of East London

    Heathrow Airport, the busiest airport in Europe, was shut down following a fire at a single electricity sub-station on the night of March 20. The fire at the North Hyde substation in Hayes, about 1.5 miles from Heathrow, seriously disrupted the local area’s power supply, including that of the airport.

    The closure has caused chaos, leaving thousands of passengers stranded. More than 1,300 flights have been affected, according to the plane tracking website Flightradar24. About 120 of these were already in the air.

    Below, a panel of experts offer their insights – and consider the implications of such a major incident. (Elements of this panel were sourced by the Science Media Centre, which published a version here.)

    Power in west London is highly constrained

    Barry Hayes, associate professor in electrical power systems, University College Cork

    It appears that a transformer fire in the North Hyde 275kV substation caused the power outage (videos from the scene clearly show one of the large power transformers ablaze). This is a large electrical substation which supplies the area to the northeast of Heathrow airport as well as the Heathrow airport site. Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, the local electricity distributor, said 67,000 homes and businesses in the area were cut off overnight as a result of this issue.

    While the North Hyde substation is a very important part of the west London electricity grid, it is generally not expected that this would cause such a big impact at Heathrow airport. There are also dedicated supplies to other parts of the airport site.

    Typically, a critical electricity load such as Heathrow would be served from multiple supply points in the electricity grid, and therefore there would be an option to feed the loads at Heathrow from an alternative supply point. There are some reports that parts of the airport (for example, Terminal 5) have power.

    The exact reasons for such a big impact are unclear at this point, but we do know the North Hyde substation is in a highly constrained area of the UK electricity grid – an area where there has been “a steep increase in the number of new electricity connection requests across west London, driven by new housing developments, commercial investment and datacentres”.

    The UK power grid (as in many developed countries) is generally old or outdated, with many of its components at the end of their anticipated service lifetime and in urgent need of modernisation. These issues may be a factor in the power outage affecting Heathrow. However, it will take some time before the exact causes of this incident are established.

    Weather, ageing equipment or malicious attacks could be to blame

    Chenghong Gu, professor in smart energy systems, University of Bath

    This is a very rare event. Substations are built and operated according to very strict standards, and they are monitored 24/7. There are also many automatic devices in substations like this one to deal with faults.

    A substation has many components including transformers, circuit breakers, an isolator, busbars and measuring equipment. Transformers are the most vulnerable to fire. There is insulation oil in them and in high-temperature, high-pressure situations, they can explode – meaning the insulation oil leaks and can catch fire.

    However, it is very unusual for big substations like this to catch fire. One cause can be extreme weather such as lightning strikes, which could cause extreme high voltage on the equipment. Extreme hot weather together with high demand can also cause transformers to become overheated, thus leading to faults.

    Another factor is the ageing of transformers. The insulation gas can degrade, which could cause an explosion inside a transformer. Or there could be a malfunction of other auxiliary devices such as the insulator, switch gears or circuit breakers inside the substation.

    Other possible causes include a malicious attack on the substation – someone setting fire to it deliberately, for example. Cyber-attacks on IT systems can also cause a malfunction of devices in the substation, leading to fire.

    Serious questions about Heathrow’s back-ups

    Kirk Chang, professor of management and technology, University of East London

    The airport lost power because of the fire – we understand that. But the back-up system didn’t work. It’s difficult to understand how that could happen.

    There are two things we need to look at. Number one is the technical part. Why did the back-up machines not work? Maybe the machines did not have sufficient fuel, or for some reason the system was not linked to the grid. The backup should kick in immediately.

    The second point is more the human side. Who is responsible for the power management, and what intervention strategies were attempted? I would assume they would need a second back-up system if the first fails. It’s very unusual to see both Plan A (the back-up) and Plan B (the back-up to the back-up) not working.

    Usually, a main back-up (Plan A) will supply about 90% of the power the facility usually receives. Whereas Plan B will usually only supply a fraction of the power – maybe 50% or 30%. The reason is that Plan B is usually expensive to maintain all the time. It may be outsourced to a third party – either the power company or a software company which manages their power distribution network.

    Critical infrastructure arguably needs more security

    Paul Cuffe, assistant professor, School of Electrical & Electronic Engineering, University College Dublin

    An airport like Heathrow requires a lot of electricity to operate, equivalent to a large town. As such, it would be typical for it to be given a dedicated connection from the substation at Hayes.

    There is likely a dedicated power line and transformer there that connects the airport to the wider grid. When a major fire severs that link, it will no longer be possible to bring bulk electricity to the airport.

    I would anticipate that a major airport like Heathrow would have some on-site emergency capability to ride through a grid disturbance. I would hope the traffic control tower and runway lights weren’t totally plunged into darkness!

    However, processing planeloads of passengers requires Heathrow in its totality to consume a town’s worth of electricity, and the inability to meet this requirement is probably why the flights had to be cancelled.

    The failure is not overtly abnormal. We can anticipate that, from time to time, substation equipment will fail and downstream power outages will result. But one could argue that a critical piece of national infrastructure like Heathrow deserves special grid connection arrangements to secure its supply of electricity further. For instance, sometimes critical loads like this are fed from two separate substations to provide redundancy when outages happen.

    It is ultimately a political and economic question to determine the right level of capital investment into grid infrastructure to avoid the problems that outages like this cause. Redundant power supplies for an airport the size of Heathrow do not come free.

    Climate change means the grid will face more threats like this

    Hayley J. Fowler, professor of climate change impacts;
    Colin Manning, postdoctoral research associate in climate science; and
    Sean Wilkinson, professor of structural engineering, Newcastle University

    The closure of one of the world’s largest airports due to a failure of just one electricity substation underlines how important it is that critical national energy infrastructure – pylons, substations and so on – keeps functioning. This is only becoming more important as demand for electricity increases, thanks to transport and domestic heating switching to lower-carbon electrified alternatives – notably electric cars and heat pumps.

    Yet the UK’s energy system is facing growing threats from unprecedented risks. We still don’t know what caused the Heathrow fire, but it appears to be unusual in this regard, as threats to energy systems come mainly from extreme weather. In the UK, that tends to mean windstorms, flooding, heatwaves and associated wildfires, and cold spells.

    2024 was the warmest calendar year on record, and the “fingerprints” of climate change are increasingly evident in more intense and frequent extreme weather events. It is crucial to ensure the energy network can handle this weather.

    Gas and electricity operators in the UK have established protocols for managing networks in adverse weather, investing large amounts to protect critical assets. But recent events have exposed vulnerabilities. The storms Arwen and Éowyn left thousands without power for days, underscoring the previous UK government’s admission that the country is underprepared for extreme weather events.



    Read more:
    Heathrow fire shows just how vulnerable UK energy infrastructure is – we’ve simulated the major climate-related risks

    Barry Hayes has an active research collaboration with ESB Networks, and is an academic member of ESB Networks’ Innovation Stakeholder Panel.

    Colin Manning receives funding from UKRI.

    Hayley J. Fowler receives funding from UKRI, NERC, EPSRC, and the EU Horizon 2020 Programme. She is a member of the UK Climate Change Committee and was a member of the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero Science Expert Group (E-SEG) from 2021 to 2025. This article represents her own work and views, not the position of either of these organisations.

    Paul Cuffe has no direct links with the electricity industry in the UK. As an Irish academic, he has had occasional collaborations with Eirgrid, the transmission system operator, and ESB Networks, the distribution network operator. He has received funding as part the ESIPP and NexSys projects; these were co-funded by stakeholders in the Irish energy sector.

    Sean Wilkinson receives funding from EPSRC and DESNZ.

    Chenghong Gu and Kirk Chang 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. Heathrow closure: what caused the fire and why did it bring down the whole airport? Expert panel – https://theconversation.com/heathrow-closure-what-caused-the-fire-and-why-did-it-bring-down-the-whole-airport-expert-panel-252834

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Avoiding your neighbor because of how they voted? Democracy needs you to talk to them instead

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Betsy Sinclair, Professor and Chair of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis

    As Americans’ social worlds grow further apart, stereotypes intensify – driving an even deeper wedge between red and blue America. wildpixel/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Are you angry about politics right now? Seething? You’re not alone. According to the Mood of the Nation Poll by researchers at Penn State, 9 in 10 Americans can name a recent news event or something about American politics that made them angry.

    Political scientists Steven Webster, Elizabeth Connors and I have investigated what happens to people’s social networks – their friends, family and neighbors – when partisan anger takes over. For example, suppose your neighbor is a member of the opposite political party. You’ve always watered their plants when they go on vacation. Given the news these days and how angry you’re feeling, what will you say when they ask for help during their next trip?

    We found that when someone is angry with the opposite party, they avoid people with those views. That can include not assisting neighbors with various tasks, avoiding social gatherings attended by people from the other side, and refusing to date people who vote differently. It means being disappointed if your son or daughter marries a supporter of the opposing party, and even severing close friendships or distancing yourself from close relatives.

    We see that political anger disrupts ordinary life – coffee with a friend – as well as more major life decisions. Political anger breaks our social networks.

    People rely on their relationships to understand our world – and to vote. The more we isolate ourselves from people who see things differently, the easier it is to misunderstand them, pushing us to separate even more.

    Stereotype vs. reality

    During the Obama administration, my collaborators and I asked a nationally representative sample of voters to describe their stereotypes about the opposite party. Our questions were intended to tap into perceptions of the other side’s lifestyles and cultural values, in addition to policy attitudes.

    First, we wanted to establish each side’s actual views. Our 2012-2016 study asked around 1,300 Americans whether they agreed with statements that are often associated with one party or the other – including creationism, guns, taxes and eco-friendliness.

    For example, 42.5% of all Republicans we surveyed agreed with the statement that “this country would be safer if every law-abiding citizen possessed a firearm,” versus 25.1% of independents and 14.2% of Democrats. Meanwhile, 38.7% of Democrats agreed that “this country would be better if every citizen drove an electric car,” compared with 22% of independents and 11.4% of Republicans.

    Which party do you associate with these cars?
    3alexd/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Two months later, we went back to the same voters and asked them a different question: What percentage of Democrats and Republicans did they think would agree with these statements?

    We saw dramatic evidence of stereotypes. For example, only 19% of Democrats agreed that all Americans should pay more taxes, but more than 80% of Republicans believed the percentage to be higher. The same pattern occurred with electric cars and firearms. Just over 42% of Republicans agreed that all “law-abiding” citizens should have a gun, but the typical Democrat believed the percentage to be 60%-80%.

    Americans do not understand each other across the red-blue divide. Importantly, respondents with more ideologically extreme views themselves had less accurate perceptions of the other party.

    Avoiding the Joneses

    The more extreme our beliefs become, the harder it will be to understand our neighbors.

    Suppose you are a Republican. You learn that your Democratic neighbors believe that everyone should drive an electric car, marijuana should be legal in all states, and universal health care should be available to all citizens. Or suppose you are a Democrat, and you learn that your Republican neighbors believe that humans and dinosaurs walked the Earth at the same time, that elementary school students should be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning, and that a fence should be built between the U.S. and Mexico.

    Would you want to be friends?

    These hypothetical neighbors have stereotypical beliefs – and most Americans say they do not want those neighbors in their social networks. Specifically, according to our 2023 study, they reported not wanting to become friends, not having this neighbor over for a family meal, and not feeling comfortable allowing their children to play with the neighbor’s kids, among other activities.

    Stereotypes don’t just drive individual people and families apart; they make neighborhoods less cohesive. We ascribe stereotypical beliefs to people who are members of the opposite party – and then we react to these stereotypes, not to our neighbors themselves.

    You’re still neighbors, no matter how you vote.
    monkeybusinessimages/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Social citizens

    Cutting off those in-person relationships isn’t just a problem for safety and friendliness around the block. It’s a problem for democracy because Americans need relationships with people whose politics are different than their own.

    A majority of Americans have social circles that are politically homogeneous. Even in 2020, 53% of Republicans said that their network was exclusively composed of Donald Trump supporters, and 55% of Democrats said that their network was exclusively composed of Joe Biden supporters.

    In her book “Through the Grapevine,” political scientist Taylor Carlson documents that approximately 1 in 3 American voters mostly learn about politics from socially transmitted information: news they get from talking with friends or scrolling on social media. Relying on these sources is particularly problematic in social networks that are homogeneous, as exposure to information from someone in your own party can lead people to have more extreme positions. Carlson’s work highlights that voters who rely on friends to shape their views rely upon a resource that is heavily biased.

    In my own book “The Social Citizen,” I investigated the influence peers have on political decisions, from voting and donating to identifying with a political party. For example, if a neighbor knocks on your door and asks you to turn out to vote, you are 4%-11% more likely to go cast a ballot than if a stranger knocked on your door.

    Democracy in action

    What can we do to remedy the fractures? We need to understand each other.

    The U.S. has a long tradition of political dialogue. Indeed, after a brutal election tested their friendship, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson did not exchange letters for 11 years. But the pair resumed their correspondence in 1812 with Adams’ statement – later echoed by Jefferson – “You and I, ought not to die, before We have explained ourselves to each other.”

    What Adams and Jefferson understood in the 19th century still applies to the divisions in American society today: Reconciliation requires understanding. These conversations are frequently painful and hard; data scientists have noted that Thanksgiving dinners with guests who cross party lines are frequently shorter. But as my own research shows, we are most able to persuade people with whom we have the closest ties.

    Democracy challenges us to participate in more ways than simply by voting. It challenges everyone to understand those around us and seek what is in the collective best interest.

    And we have the most influence over people in our social networks. So that friend you’re really angry with about their politics? It’s time to give them a call and have a conversation.

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

    – ref. Avoiding your neighbor because of how they voted? Democracy needs you to talk to them instead – https://theconversation.com/avoiding-your-neighbor-because-of-how-they-voted-democracy-needs-you-to-talk-to-them-instead-250376

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How to write your own physics poem

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sam Illingworth, Professor of Creative Pedagogies, Edinburgh Napier University

    NASA images/Shutterstock

    Physics and poetry might seem like an unlikely pair, but both are rooted in structure, rhythm and precision. Both rely on clarity – distilling complex ideas into their simplest, most elegant form. And, as I explore in my latest book The Poetry of Physics, both seek to capture something fundamental about the universe.

    Some physicists have embraced this connection. James Clerk Maxwell, the Scottish physicist and mathematician behind the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, wrote verse about atoms, thermodynamics and imposter syndrome. Rebecca Elson, an astrophysicist studying dark matter, wrote poems that fused cosmic exploration with human fragility. Their work reminds us that physics is not just about numbers – it is about patterns, motion and meaning.

    Writing poetry about science can seem daunting. But structure helps. Just as scientific experiments follow a method, poetic forms can provide a scaffold that can shape your ideas and guide your writing, giving you boundaries within which to explore.

    Form matters. The structure of a poem can mirror the scientific idea it describes, making both the form and the content work together. A nonnet, for example, is a perfect choice for writing about loss, decay, or transformation.

    A nonnet is a nine-line poem that starts with a line of nine syllables and decreases by one syllable per line, ending with a single-syllable word. This structure creates a natural sense of diminishing, making it ideal for exploring physical processes like entropy, energy loss, or the melting of sea ice. The shrinking lines do not just tell the story – they embody it, visually and rhythmically reinforcing the concept.

    Take entropy for example. Entropy is a measure of disorder or randomness within a system. A system with high entropy is more chaotic, while a system with low entropy is more structured. According to the second law of thermodynamics, the total entropy of an isolated system can only increase or remain constant – it never decreases. This natural progression toward disorder can be creatively captured through a nonnet, a poetic form that mirrors the gradual decline of structure.

    The tea cools, spreading its warmth outward

    Molecules slow, drift apart, fade

    Heat unwinds in quiet waves

    Order gives way to chance

    Each moment less still

    Motion dissolves

    Atoms hum

    Time flows

    Gone

    The structure mirrors the process it describes – just as the syllables fall away, so too does energy, dissipating into the surroundings. The poem does not just explain entropy; it makes you feel it.

    Writing your own physics poem

    To start, choose a scientific concept with a natural progression – something that grows, collapses, fades or transforms. A black hole swallowing light. The cooling of a neutron star. The flickering of a quantum state.

    Once you have your subject, let the structure guide you. The longest line should introduce the concept, setting up the movement that follows. Each line should shrink not just in syllables but in intensity, following the physical process you are describing. Keep the language clear and simple – both physics and poetry thrive on precision.

    Most importantly, let the poem take its time. Writing is like experimentation – your first attempt is rarely your final result. Refine, adjust and revise until the form and meaning align.

    Once you have experimented with a nonnet, you may want to explore other poetic forms. Different structures can emphasise different aspects of physics, shaping the way the subject is presented and experienced. Perhaps a haiku, a villanelle, or maybe even a sestina?

    Eventually, as in physics, structure should not confine you. It should empower you. Just as quantum mechanics could only emerge after centuries of classical physics, free verse poetry becomes most effective once you understand the forms it is breaking away from. Poetic structure teaches control, rhythm and precision. It helps you learn how to balance content and form, just as classical mechanics teaches foundational principles that underpin later discoveries.

    Once you are comfortable with structured poetry, try letting go. Write about physics with no predetermined form. Let the language shape itself. See where the words take you.

    And when you have something you are happy with, why not share it? The Brilliant Poetry Competition 2025 invites writers from around the world to explore the connections between science and poetry. This year’s competition is themed around UNESCO’s international year of quantum science and technology, with prizes of up to £1,000 and entries accepted in English, French and Spanish.

    Physics is already rich with poetry. Its rhythms are found in the orbits of planets, its symmetry is woven into the fabric of the universe, its surprises are hidden in the flicker of quantum states. Writing a physics poem is not about forcing science into art but about recognising the poetry that is already there. The universe is waiting. Now, all you need to do is write.

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

    – ref. How to write your own physics poem – https://theconversation.com/how-to-write-your-own-physics-poem-252647

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: From hempseed gruel to CBD: the curious history of cannabis as health product

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lauren Alex O’Hagan, Research Fellow, School of Languages and Applied Linguistics, The Open University

    H_Ko/Shutterstock

    The cannabis-derived product CBD has been hailed “the wonder drug of our age”, offering potential health benefits without the high. From juices and coffee to truffles and ice cream, CBD products have flooded the market for consumers looking for an answer to health problems from anxiety to insomnia.

    But with CBD products in the UK and EU falling under “novel foods” regulations rather than pharmaceutical standards, they aren’t subjected to the same rigorous safety and quality controls as drugs. The UK’s Committee on Toxicology has even flagged potential health risks, such as liver injury, leading the Food Standards Agency to issue safety guidance.

    The regulatory gaps and health concerns of today reflect those of the 19th century when cannabis products were commercialised by the food industry.

    In the 1830s, William Brooke O’Shaughnessy, an Irish doctor, discovered that cannabis was effective in treating muscle spasms and stomach cramps. French psychiatrist Jacques-Joseph Moreau later explored its potential for mental illness. This led many 19th-century doctors to champion cannabis as a cure-all.

    It wasn’t long before patent medicine manufacturers began using cannabis as a common ingredient in their formulas. But soon, cannabis wasn’t just in pharmacies – it was in food.

    Surprisingly, this shift was not driven by the food industry, but by the free church environment in Sweden as part of efforts to combat tuberculosis – a leading cause of death across all social classes in the country at the time.

    Paul Petter Waldenström, leader of the Swedish Mission Covenant, wrote a letter to Svenska Morgonbladet about a woman reportedly cured of tuberculosis by a homebrewed gruel made with hempseed, rye flour and milk. His endorsement helped popularise the remedy and many started making their own “Waldenström gruel”, as it became known.

    Sensing a business opportunity, entrepreneur J. Barthelson developed a powdered commercial version with the elegant French name Extrait Cannabis. He marketed it as a dietary remedy for tuberculosis, chest diseases and low energy. As demand grew, competitors quickly jumped on the bandwagon, using fearmongering tactics to persuade consumers that they were putting their lives at risk without it.

    The rise and fall of Maltos-Cannabis

    The most striking cannabis-infused product of the era came from the Red Cross Technical Factory. Their “health drink”, Maltos-Cannabis, was a maltose and cannabis blend marketed as both nutritious and delicious, especially when mixed with cocoa.

    With an aggressive advertising campaign, the company raked in nearly SEK 290,000 a year (around £775,000 in modern money), opening factories in Chicago, Helsinki, Brussels and Utrecht.

    A particularly dramatic advertisement depicted the Grim Reaper fleeing from the light of science, shining from a lighthouse. Meanwhile, a mother and daughter raised their arms triumphantly, symbolising victory over death thanks to Maltos-Cannabis. The tagline boldly claimed that the product had “a big future”.

    Maltos-Cannabis advertisement, Hälsovännen, 1 February 1894.
    Wikimedia Commons

    However, questions swirled about its legitimacy. Newspapers debated whether the product was a groundbreaking remedy or “a pure scam product”. While some critics called the craze an “epidemic”, others argued coffee was more harmful – a hot topic in Sweden’s parliament at the time.

    In response, Red Cross published a half-page rebuttal signed by its executives, defending the product’s credibility. But scepticism persisted. After various lawsuits and growing concerns over its effectiveness and safety, sales of Maltos-Cannabis began to decline. By the 1930s, the product had disappeared entirely.

    History repeats itself?

    The 19th-century commercial cannabis market was able to thrive due to the absence of marketing regulations for both food and pharmaceutical products. Manufacturers freely advertised their products using pseudo-scientific claims and buzzword-heavy marketing – strategies we’re seeing again today in the thriving CBD industry.

    This is because CBD is a “borderline” product, existing in a regulatory grey area that allows for marketing strategies to flourish without stringent oversight. Much like in the past, brands tap into consumers’ health anxieties with promises of a wellness revolution. Most worryingly, social media influencers are being used to endorse CBD, making it particularly appealing for younger audiences.

    With the global CBD market valued at US$19 billion in 2023 and projected to grow by 16% annually until 2030, looking back at the broader, problematic history of commercial cannabis should serve as a cautionary tale.

    Lauren Alex O’Hagan 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. From hempseed gruel to CBD: the curious history of cannabis as health product – https://theconversation.com/from-hempseed-gruel-to-cbd-the-curious-history-of-cannabis-as-health-product-251967

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Chinese anger at sale of Panama Canal ports to US investor highlights tensions between the two superpowers

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Maria Ryan, Associate Professor in US History, University of Nottingham

    When Hong Kong-listed conglomerate CK Hutchison announced it was selling its two port concessions on the Panama Canal to a US consortium led by New York-based giant BlackRock, the Chinese government issued a strongly worded rebuke.

    Through government-backed newspaper Ta Kung Pao, Beijing accused the US of forcing the deal “through despicable means”, and claimed that if this was completed: “The United States will definitely use it for political purposes … China’s shipping and trade there will inevitably be subject to the United States.”

    CK Hutchison’s decision to sell its ports, which it has operated since 1997, to a US-led buyer came after the US president, Donald Trump, criticised Chinese influence over this strategically vital waterway. In his inaugural address, Trump claimed, falsely, that “China is operating the Panama Canal” and vowed “we’re taking it back”. In fact, data shows that the majority of traffic through the canal goes to or from the US.

    This has stoked fears in Beijing that US companies operating ports on the canal will do Washington’s bidding and potentially seek to restrict China’s access. Beijing’s angry response indicates the rivalry between the two great powers is deep and ongoing.

    While it is likely that this rivalry will continue to intensify under Trump, the president is unpredictable. Indeed, he sees unpredictability as a virtue – a way to keep advisers and foreign leaders on their toes.

    When asked last year whether he would support Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion, Trump gave his own twist on the longstanding US policy of “strategic ambiguity”, saying: “I don’t want to reveal my cards … I wouldn’t want to give away any negotiating abilities by giving information like that to any reporter.”

    This means there are multiple plausible outcomes for the US-China relationship in the second Trump administration.

    On the one hand, there is a very strong, bipartisan consensus in Washington that China poses a systemic, generational challenge to American power. Whereas Russia is viewed as a disruptor, China is a potential peer competitor that could build a new international order based on Beijing’s preferences and interests.

    Since Trump’s first term in office, the US has been aggressively waging a “tech war” on China to limit its technological and military development, by cutting off access to high-end semiconductors designed by US companies.

    This was intensified in the Biden years with new sanctions on Chinese tech companies, and the passage of the Chips and Science Act, designed to encourage the return of semiconductor manufacturing to the US. Defensive weapons sales to Taiwan had already been increased in Trump’s first term – and remained at high levels under Joe Biden.

    What Biden called “extreme competition” with China has become the main organising principle of US foreign policy. While Republican lawmakers have, so far, been willing to go along with Trump’s diplomacy when it comes to Russia, there is likely to be less tolerance of a similar approach to China.

    Unlike other US presidents, Trump does not seem to believe that alliances extend American power in the world – although he does still want the US to be the undisputed number one. In his second inaugural address, he vowed to “build the strongest military the world has ever seen”.

    Trump sees China as an economic adversary, one of the reasons for imposing punitive tariffs of 20% on all incoming goods. China has retaliated with tariffs of its own and and has proposed more restrictions on exports of rare earth minerals. These are vital components of semiconductors, electric batteries and many weapons – and the global market is dominated by China.

    Policy shift?

    The US State Department recently signalled a possible shift in policy towards Taiwan, removing the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” from its fact sheet on Taiwan in February. This irritated Beijing, which sees the island as an integral part of China.

    This subtle move away from the US’s longstanding “One China” policy – along with the tariffs and Trump’s hostility to alleged Chinese influence over the Panama Canal – suggests the continuation of a hostile, competitive approach to China.

    That said, as Trump’s recent diplomacy with Russia and his comments about absorbing Greenland showed, he is not afraid to upend the established norms of US foreign policy. He enjoys provoking the “globalist” foreign policy establishment. He lauds his own deal-making abilities, and would not want to fight a war with China over Taiwan.

    Trump is attracted to “strongman” leaders and claims to have “a great relationship with President Xi”. He achieves his goals by taking maximalist positions (for example, the punitive tariffs) which he uses to extract concessions. At a recent press conference, Trump stated: “I see so many things saying we don’t want China in this country. That’s not right. We want them to invest in the United States. That’s good. That’s a lot of money coming in.”

    Trump is well aware the US is heavily dependent on imported semiconductors from the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (TSMC) – the world’s leading chip manufacturer – and has repeatedly accused Taiwan of “stealing” the US semiconductor industry. He recently took credit for TSMC’s announcement that it would invest a further US$100 billion (£77 billion) in three chip factories in Arizona, declaring that production of vital semiconductors inside the US was “a matter of national security”.

    But it will take years for TSMC’s investments to come to fruition in terms of aiding US self-sufficiency in chip manufacture. In the meantime, it is not out of the question that Trump could seek a deal with China that guarantees US access to imported chips from Taiwan, in return for China absorbing the island peacefully. Given the historic importance of Taiwan to Beijing, this could appeal.

    Avoiding war could also be popular with Trump voters who want to put “America first” without getting embroiled in foreign wars. Although the hawkish China consensus is firmly embedded in Washington, its continuation is not guaranteed while the mercurial Trump is at the helm.

    Maria Ryan has received funding from the British Academy.

    – ref. Chinese anger at sale of Panama Canal ports to US investor highlights tensions between the two superpowers – https://theconversation.com/chinese-anger-at-sale-of-panama-canal-ports-to-us-investor-highlights-tensions-between-the-two-superpowers-252418

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: The pandemic badly affected young people’s mental health – but also showed what they need now to thrive

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jilly Gibson-Miller, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of Sheffield

    Motortion Films/Shutterstock

    The common narrative around teenage behaviour in the UK sets parents up for a fairly sustained period of turbulence and unpleasantness.

    But as I navigate the teenage years with my oldest daughter, now 16, my whole outlook on adolescence has undergone a meteoric transformation. I now hold supremely compassionate explanations for the unusual behaviour, mood swings and bad choices that appear to be abundant features of the adolescent years – and especially so for those who were growing up during the pandemic.

    During the COVID pandemic, teens should have been busy cultivating independence, nurturing friendships and moulding their identities. Instead, they lived through a global public health crisis that resulted in not only catastrophic health and economic consequences, but also extreme disruptions in vital educational, social and family interactions over a sustained lockdown.



    Read more:
    Sending nudes but no first kisses: teenagers’ relationships during the pandemic

    This has left a lasting legacy for the lives of young people and has potentially reshaped the landscape of their social and emotional development.

    During the pandemic, I immersed myself in data – taken from research I was working on with a team of researchers who were monitoring the mental health of the UK population.

    Mental health decline

    In the early days, teens were – as they often do – getting bad press. They were “superspreaders”, they were breaking the rules, they were instructed by the then health secretary, Matt Hancock, not to “kill your gran”. They were, essentially, accused of spreading the virus through irresponsible behaviour.

    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

    Some of these perspectives were borne out in our data. Young men aged 19-25, for example, were more likely than any other age group to be arrested for breaking social distancing rules. This reflects the inherent teenage drive to seek social connection, even if it means taking risks.

    However, as we listened to the voices of young people in our research, the data began to tell us a more complex story. In a world where teens are already misunderstood, the pandemic actually seemed to be making all the existing struggles that young people face today worse, including loneliness, anxiety and depression.

    Teens experienced uncertainty about the future and pressure around school, career and finances, resulting in a perceived lack of a sense of control over their lives.

    We became very concerned about the increasing levels of distress that certain groups of young people were experiencing. This was particularly worrying when you bear in mind that adolescence is a critical period for developing mental health issues.

    Our research showed that during the pandemic, around 30% of teens surveyed met the criteria for suffering from clinical levels of anxiety and depression. Over half – 53% – met the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder related to COVID.

    Teens’ mental health suffered during the pandemic.
    SynthEx/Shutterstock

    Other data shows that teens are suffering increasing mental health disorders and eating disorders. Mental health issues are affecting sleep and school attendance.

    After the school years, the number of young people out of work due to ill health has more than doubled in the last decade, with mental health issues a significant driver.

    These figures plainly present the extent of the challenge we face today in improving teenagers’ mental health and wellbeing. Underlying these figures are enduring struggles around loneliness and social connection, family functioning, anxiety and fear about unpredictable events, and learning to cope with adversity, especially in younger teens and those already disadvantaged through poverty and other social factors.

    Feeling connected

    However, and importantly, not all teens experienced lasting poorer mental wellbeing as a consequence of COVID. Some actually experienced positive wellbeing.

    Our research found that young people who had the ability to tolerate uncertainty, had a sense of control over their lives, felt socially connected and had positive and quality relationships with family and friends were better able to adapt to the pandemic restrictions.

    The crisis in young people’s mental health means securing a healthy, thriving adult population in the future becomes less certain. If young people cannot navigate the transition into adulthood successfully, this has huge implications for the next generation and whether they can contribute in positive ways, socially and economically, to society.

    But there are lessons from the pandemic that can shine a light on the tools young people need to thrive. Young people received blame during the pandemic. Today, gen Z (those born between 1980 and 1994) have been given the derogatory label of the “snowflake generation” from a perception of their over-sensitivity and lack of resilience. But rather than being castigated, young people need support and connection. This helped them get through the pandemic, and it can help them now.

    This means helping teens to combat loneliness, develop resilience and build functional, good quality relationships. It means helping them to increase their self-esteem and regain a sense of control. Crucially, the family remains a key source of support and guidance for young people.

    Adolescence is a key transitional window during which young people can learn adaptive skills they will take with them into adulthood. Having the skills to build connections, resilience and self-esteem will help them address the challenges of this post-pandemic era.

    Jilly Gibson-Miller receives funding from ESRC, Triumph and UK Research and Innovation funds.

    – ref. The pandemic badly affected young people’s mental health – but also showed what they need now to thrive – https://theconversation.com/the-pandemic-badly-affected-young-peoples-mental-health-but-also-showed-what-they-need-now-to-thrive-250968

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How AI can (and can’t) help lighten your load at work

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Akhil Bhardwaj, Associate Professor (Strategy and Organisation), School of Management, University of Bath

    SObeR 9426/Shutterstock

    Legend has it that William Tell shot an apple from his young son’s head. While there are many interpretations of the tale, from the perspective of the theory of technology, a few are especially salient.

    First, Tell was an expert marksman. Second, he knew his bow was reliable but understood it was just a tool with no independent agency. Third, Tell chose the target.

    What does all this have to do with artificial intelligence? Metaphorically, AI (think large language models or LLMs, such as ChatGPT) can be thought of as a bow, the user is the archer, and the apple represents the user’s goal. Viewed this way, it’s easier to work out how AI can be used effectively in the workplace.

    To that end, it’s helpful to consider what is known about the limitations of AI before working out where it can – and can’t – help with efficiency and productivity.

    First, LLMs tend to create outcomes that are not tethered in reality. A recent study showed that as much as 60% of their answers can be incorrect. Premium versions even incorrectly answer questions more confidently than their free counterparts.

    Second, some LLMs are closed systems – that is, they do not update their “beliefs”. In a mutable world that is constantly changing, the static nature of such LLMs can be misleading. In this sense, they drift away from reality and may not be reliable.

    What’s more, there is some evidence that interactions with users lead to a degradation in performance. For example, researchers have found that LLMs become more covertly racist over time. Consequently, their output is not predictable.

    Third, LLMs have no goals and are not capable of independently discovering the world. They are, at best, just tools to which a user can outsource their exploration of the world.

    Finally, LLMs do not – to borrow a term from the 1960s sci-fi novel Stranger in a Strange Land – “grok” (understand) the world they are embedded in. They are far more like jabbering parrots that give the impression of being smart.

    Think of the ability of LLMs to mine data and consider statistical associations between words, which they use to mimic human speech. The AI does not know what statistical association between words mean. It does not know that the crowing of the rooster does not lead to a sunrise, for example.

    Of course, an LLM’s ability to mimic speech is impressive. But the ability to mimic something does not mean it has the attributes of the original.

    Lightening the workload

    So how can you use AI more effectively? One thing it can be useful for is critiquing ideas. Very often, people prefer not to hear criticism and feel a loss of face when their ideas are criticised – especially when it happens in public.

    But LLM-generated critiques are private matters and can be useful. I have done so for a recent essay and found the critique reasonable. Pre-testing ideas can also help avoid blind spots and obvious errors.

    Second, you can use AI to crystallise your understanding of the world. What does this mean? Well, because AI does not understand the causes of events, asking it questions can force you to engage in sense-making. For example, I asked an LLM about whether my university (Bath) should widely adopt the use of AI.

    While the LLM pointed to efficiency advantages, it clearly did not understand how resource are allocated. For example, administrative staff who are freed up cannot be redeployed to make high-level strategic decisions or teach courses. AI has no experience in the world to understand that.

    Third, AI can be used to complement mundane tasks such as editing and writing emails. But here, of course, lies a danger – users will use LLMs to write emails at one end and summarise emails at the other.

    You should consider when a clumsily written personal email might be a better option (especially if you need to persuade someone about something). Authenticity is likely to start counting more as the use of LLMs becomes more widespread. A personal email that uses the right language and appeals to shared values is more likely to resonate.

    Fourth, AI is best used for low-stakes tasks where there is no liability. For example, it could be used to summarise a lengthy customer review, answer customer questions that are not related to policy or finance, generate social media posts, or help with employee inductions.

    Where decisions might have serious consequences, human input is better.
    M Stocker/Shutterstock

    Consider the opposite case. In 2022, an LLM used by Air Canada misinformed a passenger about a fee – and the passenger sued. The judge held the airline liable for the bad advice. So always think about liability issues.

    Fans of AI often advocate it for everything under the sun. Yet frequently, AI comes across as a solution looking for a problem. The trick is to consider very carefully if there is a case for using AI and what the costs involved might be.

    Chances are, the more creative your task is, or the more unique it is, and the more understanding it requires of how the world works, the less likely it is that AI will be useful. In fact, outsourcing creative work to AI can take away some of the “magic”. AI can mimic humans – but only humans “grok” what it is to be human.

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

    – ref. How AI can (and can’t) help lighten your load at work – https://theconversation.com/how-ai-can-and-cant-help-lighten-your-load-at-work-252663

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Defending humanitarian aid in terms of national security obscures its real purpose

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Chen Reis, Associate Clinical Professor, Director, Humanitarian Assistance Program, & Director, Human Rights MA, University of Denver

    A woman scoops up portions of wheat to be allocated to each waiting family after it was distributed in the Tigray region of northern Ethiopia in 2021. AP Photo/Ben Curtis

    More than 305 million people require lifesaving humanitarian aid today. Most of them live in areas wracked by conflict, such as Sudan, Gaza, Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

    By many estimates, there is more need than ever for this assistance – and the need is growing. But humanitarian funding, which is primarily provided by governments, is declining. The Trump administration stopped disbursing nearly all U.S. humanitarian aid on Jan. 20, 2025. It made these cuts at a time when the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, Belgium and other wealthy countries are slashing their own aid spending.

    Judges have ruled that the U.S. government must rehire aid workers and make overdue payments for aid already delivered by nongovernmental companies, international agencies and private contractors. While legal disputes wend through the courts, these cuts are already having disastrous consequences for people in Afghanistan, Sudan and other places facing crises.

    As scholars who study humanitarian aid, we are seeing not just a crisis of funding but also one that jeopardizes the credibility of the entire global system that provides this lifesaving assistance.

    When conflict breaks out or a disaster like an earthquake strikes, people require emergency medical care, temporary shelter, food and water. In countries where the government is unable or unwilling to provide these services, humanitarian organizations and international agencies step in to fill the gaps. Humanitarian aid is based on empathy and the recognition that everyone has a right to live with dignity.

    When discussing the impacts of its aid freeze and challenging the Trump administration’s misinformation about the U.S. Agency for International Development, many NGOs and experts on humanitarian assistance have not focused on empathy and rights.

    They have in their defense of the agency responsible until now for most of the foreign aid the U.S. provides instead relied on arguments that appeal to U.S. national security, soft power and economic interests.

    Sen. Chris Coons, a Connecticut Democrat, has warned that China will benefit from the U.S. aid cutoff.

    “Our biggest global competitor and adversary is delighted that we’ve handed them an opportunity to say to communities and countries around the world that we are not a reliable partner,” Coons said.

    By highlighting geopolitical, security and economic arguments for humanitarian aid, in our view, they risk further hurting the sector’s legitimacy.

    Protesters rally in support of USAID in Washington on Feb. 5, 2025.
    Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images

    A ‘seismic shock’

    Tom Fletcher, who leads the United Nations’ humanitarian efforts, has called the Trump administration’s aid reduction “a seismic shock to the sector.” But the latest cuts are part of a longer-term trend.

    While needs have increased, humanitarian funding has been flat or declining for years, leaving millions of people who need food, health care, shelter and protection without the assistance they need.

    Every year, the U.N. assesses humanitarian need for the coming year and issues what amounts to a global budget request to meet those needs. Government donors commit funds toward that budget request, and those funds are then distributed to U.N. agencies and NGOs that implement humanitarian programming.

    Since 2016, the gap between funding requirements and funding commitments has grown. In 2024, the U.N. requested US$49.5 billion in humanitarian funding and received less than half, or $23.9 billion, with the U.S. contributing 41% of that amount.

    Until January 2025, the U.S. accounted for 35%-46% of total annual global humanitarian funding. The abrupt cutoff of funds has led to a scramble to pay for food for malnourished children in Sudan, health care for refugees from Myanmar, and maternal health services in Yemen.

    Without U.S. funding, the humanitarian work of the United Nations agencies and NGOs that deliver humanitarian aid in part funded by governments is in jeopardy.

    Because of the cuts, Catholic Relief Services and the International Rescue Committee, for example, have laid off staff and shuttered health clinics that prevent or treat infectious diseases like malaria and HIV/AIDS. They can no longer provide access to clean water and sanitation services or other lifesaving aid in many places where they work.

    Core principles violated

    Humanitarian groups have historically embraced a set of core principles that emphasize the alleviation of human suffering wherever it may occur while remaining independent, neutral and impartial.

    In conflict zones, these principles are essential for gaining access to people who need help. Aid workers build trust and acceptance by not picking sides in a conflict and providing aid based on need.

    Focusing on what benefits donor countries instead of what serves humanitarian needs in areas experiencing famine, disasters or conflicts is at odds with these principles. However, in January, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that U.S. interests would decide how aid is allocated.

    “Every dollar we spend, every program we fund and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions,” Rubio said. “Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?”

    Since late January, the Trump administration has cut 83% of USAID’s programs, according to recent reports.

    Transactional arguments

    In March, the State Department sent a questionnaire to nongovernmental organizations and U.N. agencies asking how they will conform to President Donald Trump’s “America First” policy and distribute aid in alignment with foreign policy goals.

    Governments always consider their own interests as one factor when making decisions about humanitarian aid. But, we are concerned that humanitarian organizations and the public are not pushing back on these purely transactional arguments.

    Instead, some organizations seem to be falling in line.

    “This investment pays dividends by preventing humanitarian crises, containing disease outbreaks, and countering adversarial influence in vulnerable regions,” stated InterAction, an association of U.S.-based NGOs that distribute humanitarian aid and development assistance. “That’s why foreign aid has maintained decades of support across party lines — it is vital for U.S. security and international stability.”

    We also see in these comments signs that justifications for aid are changing.

    When former Secretary of State Colin Powell called nongovernmental organizations a “force multiplier” in 2001, it stirred controversy because he suggested that they were an extension of the government and a pillar of U.S. strategy. Even still, he acknowledged that NGOs required independence from government to do their essential work.

    An important choice

    Humanitarian organizations are grappling with the financial and operational consequences of their reliance on a small number of donor governments that have cut off or cut back aid. As they adjust to the new reality, we believe that they must make a choice.

    They can embrace the increasingly transactional agendas of the rich countries that have historically provided most humanitarian aid funding. Doing so may increase aid flows but compromise humanitarian neutrality and impartiality – potentially restricting their access to the places they need to go to do their work.

    Or they can focus on people affected by crises – as recipients of assistance and as agents of change. This option would likely mean operating on an even smaller budget at a time when needs are increasing.

    Either way, the decisions made today will have significant implications for the future of humanitarian action.

    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. Defending humanitarian aid in terms of national security obscures its real purpose – https://theconversation.com/defending-humanitarian-aid-in-terms-of-national-security-obscures-its-real-purpose-252246

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why the words in your job posting may attract rule-bending narcissists

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jonathan Gay, Assistant Professor of Accountancy, University of Mississippi

    Posting a job opening? Take a close look at the language. Ronnie Kaufman/The Image Bank via Getty Images

    When companies advertise job openings, they often use buzzwords like “ambitious” and “self-reliant” to describe their ideal candidate. These traits sound appealing — what hiring manager wouldn’t want a driven employee?

    But there’s a catch. In my latest study, published in the journal Management Science with co-authors Scott Jackson and Nick Seybert, I found that these terms may attract job applicants with more narcissistic tendencies.

    As behavioral researchers in accounting, we are interested in executives who bend the rules. We decided to study job postings after noticing that the language used to describe an “ideal candidate” often included traits linked to narcissism. For example, narcissists tend to see themselves as highly creative and persuasive. Prior research also shows that narcissistic employees are more innovative and willing to take risks to get the success and admiration they crave, even if it means bending the rules.

    Based on these observations, we compiled two sets of terms commonly used in job postings. We call the two sets “rule-follower” and “rule-bender” language.

    Some examples of rule-bender language include “develops creative and innovative solutions to problems,” “communicates in a tactical and persuasive manner” and “thinks outside the box.” In contrast, the rule-follower language includes terms like “relies on time-tested solutions to problems,” “communicates in a straightforward and accurate manner” and “thinks methodically.”

    Through a series of experiments, we found that rule-bender language attracts individuals with higher levels of narcissism for accounting-specific jobs, as well as other industries. To measure narcissism, we used a personality assessment that asks people to choose whether they identify more with more narcissistic statements like, “I always know what I am doing,” or less narcissistic statements like “Sometimes I am not sure of what I am doing.”

    We also found that recruiters are more likely to use rule-bender terms when hiring for highly innovative, high-growth companies. For accounting positions, recruiters are more likely to use such terms when aggressive financial reporting could benefit the firm.

    Why it matters

    Companies write job postings carefully in hopes of attracting the ideal candidate. However, they may unknowingly attract and select narcissistic candidates whose goals and ethics might not align with a company’s values or long-term success. Research shows that narcissistic employees are more likely to behave unethically, potentially leading to legal consequences.

    While narcissistic traits can lead to negative outcomes, we aren’t saying that companies should avoid attracting narcissistic applicants altogether. Consider a company hiring a salesperson. A firm can benefit from a salesperson who is persuasive, who “thinks outside the box” and who is “results-oriented.” In contrast, a company hiring an accountant or compliance officer would likely benefit from someone who “thinks methodically” and “communicates in a straightforward and accurate manner.”

    Bending the rules is of particular concern in accounting. A significant amount of research examines how accounting managers sometimes bend rules or massage the numbers to achieve earnings targets. This “earnings management” can misrepresent the company’s true financial position.

    In fact, my co-author Nick Seybert is currently working on a paper whose data suggests rule-bender language in accounting job postings predicts rule-bending in financial reporting.

    Our current findings shed light on the importance of carefully crafting job posting language. Recruiting professionals may instinctively use rule-bender language to try to attract someone who seems like a good fit. If companies are concerned about hiring narcissists, they may want to clearly communicate their ethical values and needs while crafting a job posting, or avoid rule-bender language entirely.

    What still isn’t known

    While we find that professional recruiters are using language that attracts narcissists, it is unclear whether this is intentional.

    Additionally, we are unsure what really drives rule-bending in a company. Rule-bending could happen due to attracting and hiring more narcissistic candidates, or it could be because of a company’s culture – or a combination of both.

    The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

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

    – ref. Why the words in your job posting may attract rule-bending narcissists – https://theconversation.com/why-the-words-in-your-job-posting-may-attract-rule-bending-narcissists-249933

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Avoiding your neighbor because of how they voted? Democracy needs to you talk to them instead

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Betsy Sinclair, Professor and Chair of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis

    As Americans’ social worlds grow further apart, stereotypes intensify – driving an even deeper wedge between red and blue America. wildpixel/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Are you angry about politics right now? Seething? You’re not alone. According to the Mood of the Nation Poll by researchers at Penn State, 9 in 10 Americans can name a recent news event or something about American politics that made them angry.

    Political scientists Steven Webster, Elizabeth Connors and I have investigated what happens to people’s social networks – their friends, family and neighbors – when partisan anger takes over. For example, suppose your neighbor is a member of the opposite political party. You’ve always watered their plants when they go on vacation. Given the news these days and how angry you’re feeling, what will you say when they ask for help during their next trip?

    We found that when someone is angry with the opposite party, they avoid people with those views. That can include not assisting neighbors with various tasks, avoiding social gatherings attended by people from the other side, and refusing to date people who vote differently. It means being disappointed if your son or daughter marries a supporter of the opposing party, and even severing close friendships or distancing yourself from close relatives.

    We see that political anger disrupts ordinary life – coffee with a friend – as well as more major life decisions. Political anger breaks our social networks.

    People rely on their relationships to understand our world – and to vote. The more we isolate ourselves from people who see things differently, the easier it is to misunderstand them, pushing us to separate even more.

    Stereotype vs. reality

    During the Obama administration, my collaborators and I asked a nationally representative sample of voters to describe their stereotypes about the opposite party. Our questions were intended to tap into perceptions of the other side’s lifestyles and cultural values, in addition to policy attitudes.

    First, we wanted to establish each side’s actual views. Our 2012-2016 study asked around 1,300 Americans whether they agreed with statements that are often associated with one party or the other – including creationism, guns, taxes and eco-friendliness.

    For example, 42.5% of all Republicans we surveyed agreed with the statement that “this country would be safer if every law-abiding citizen possessed a firearm,” versus 25.1% of independents and 14.2% of Democrats. Meanwhile, 38.7% of Democrats agreed that “this country would be better if every citizen drove an electric car,” compared with 22% of independents and 11.4% of Republicans.

    Which party do you associate with these cars?
    3alexd/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Two months later, we went back to the same voters and asked them a different question: What percentage of Democrats and Republicans did they think would agree with these statements?

    We saw dramatic evidence of stereotypes. For example, only 19% of Democrats agreed that all Americans should pay more taxes, but more than 80% of Republicans believed the percentage to be higher. The same pattern occurred with electric cars and firearms. Just over 42% of Republicans agreed that all “law-abiding” citizens should have a gun, but the typical Democrat believed the percentage to be 60%-80%.

    Americans do not understand each other across the red-blue divide. Importantly, respondents with more ideologically extreme views themselves had less accurate perceptions of the other party.

    Avoiding the Joneses

    The more extreme our beliefs become, the harder it will be to understand our neighbors.

    Suppose you are a Republican. You learn that your Democratic neighbors believe that everyone should drive an electric car, marijuana should be legal in all states, and universal health care should be available to all citizens. Or suppose you are a Democrat, and you learn that your Republican neighbors believe that humans and dinosaurs walked the Earth at the same time, that elementary school students should be required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning, and that a fence should be built between the U.S. and Mexico.

    Would you want to be friends?

    These hypothetical neighbors have stereotypical beliefs – and most Americans say they do not want those neighbors in their social networks. Specifically, according to our 2023 study, they reported not wanting to become friends, not having this neighbor over for a family meal, and not feeling comfortable allowing their children to play with the neighbor’s kids, among other activities.

    Stereotypes don’t just drive individual people and families apart; they make neighborhoods less cohesive. We ascribe stereotypical beliefs to people who are members of the opposite party – and then we react to these stereotypes, not to our neighbors themselves.

    You’re still neighbors, no matter how you vote.
    monkeybusinessimages/iStock via Getty Images Plus

    Social citizens

    Cutting off those in-person relationships isn’t just a problem for safety and friendliness around the block. It’s a problem for democracy because Americans need relationships with people whose politics are different than their own.

    A majority of Americans have social circles that are politically homogeneous. Even in 2020, 53% of Republicans said that their network was exclusively composed of Donald Trump supporters, and 55% of Democrats said that their network was exclusively composed of Joe Biden supporters.

    In her book “Through the Grapevine,” political scientist Taylor Carlson documents that approximately 1 in 3 American voters mostly learn about politics from socially transmitted information: news they get from talking with friends or scrolling on social media. Relying on these sources is particularly problematic in social networks that are homogeneous, as exposure to information from someone in your own party can lead people to have more extreme positions. Carlson’s work highlights that voters who rely on friends to shape their views rely upon a resource that is heavily biased.

    In my own book “The Social Citizen,” I investigated the influence peers have on political decisions, from voting and donating to identifying with a political party. For example, if a neighbor knocks on your door and asks you to turn out to vote, you are 4%-11% more likely to go cast a ballot than if a stranger knocked on your door.

    Democracy in action

    What can we do to remedy the fractures? We need to understand each other.

    The U.S. has a long tradition of political dialogue. Indeed, after a brutal election tested their friendship, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson did not exchange letters for 11 years. But the pair resumed their correspondence in 1812 with Adams’ statement – later echoed by Jefferson – “You and I, ought not to die, before We have explained ourselves to each other.”

    What Adams and Jefferson understood in the 19th century still applies to the divisions in American society today: Reconciliation requires understanding. These conversations are frequently painful and hard; data scientists have noted that Thanksgiving dinners with guests who cross party lines are frequently shorter. But as my own research shows, we are most able to persuade people with whom we have the closest ties.

    Democracy challenges us to participate in more ways than simply by voting. It challenges everyone to understand those around us and seek what is in the collective best interest.

    And we have the most influence over people in our social networks. So that friend you’re really angry with about their politics? It’s time to give them a call and have a conversation.

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

    – ref. Avoiding your neighbor because of how they voted? Democracy needs to you talk to them instead – https://theconversation.com/avoiding-your-neighbor-because-of-how-they-voted-democracy-needs-to-you-talk-to-them-instead-250376

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s firings of military leaders pose a crucial question to service members of all ranks

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Samuel C. Mahaney, Director, Missouri S&T Policy and Armed Forces Research and Development Institute; Lecturer of History, National Security, and Leadership, Missouri University of Science and Technology

    President Donald Trump gave no specific reason for firing Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff less than halfway through Brown’s four-year term in office.

    Nor did he give an explanation for similarly ousting other senior military leaders, including the only women ever to lead the Navy and the Coast Guard, as well as the military’s top three lawyers – the judge advocates general of the Army, Navy and Air Force.

    The president is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces. But since the days of George Washington, the military has been dedicated to serving the nation, not a specific person or political agenda. I know this because I served 36 years in the U.S. Air Force before retiring as a major general. Even now, as a lecturer in history, national security and constitutional law, I know that nonpartisanship is central to the military’s primary mission of defending the country.

    Trump’s actions could raise concerns about whether he is trying to change those centuries of precedent.

    If so, military personnel at all levels would face a crucial question: Would they stand up for the military’s independent role in maintaining the integrity and stability of American democracy or follow the president’s orders – even if those orders crossed a line that made them illegal or unconstitutional?

    After the American Revolution, George Washington resigned his military commission and returned to civilian life.
    Herman Bencke via Library of Congress

    Political neutrality from the start

    Washington and other U.S. founders were very aware that a powerful military could overthrow the government or be subjected to political whims as different parties or factions controlled the presidency or Congress, so they thought long and hard about the role of the militia and the use of military power.

    Julius Caesar, who used his army to seize power in ancient Rome, was a cautionary tale. So was Oliver Cromwell’s use of his military power in the English Civil War to execute King Charles I and rule England.

    One of Washington’s most significant contributions to the apolitical tradition of the military was his resignation as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army after the American Revolution officially ended, in 1783. By voluntarily giving up his military power and returning to civilian life, the man who would become the nation’s first president demonstrated his commitment to civilian control of a military grounded in allegiance to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, not allegiance to any one party, faction or person.

    Washington’s act set a powerful example for future generations. A few years later, the founders embedded civilian control over the military in the U.S. Constitution. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to declare war and fund armies, while Article II, Section 2 designates the president as the commander-in-chief of the military.

    This check and balance ensures the military remains neutral and subordinate to elected leaders. It also solidifies the allegiance of military leaders to a principled document, not to the ebbs and flows of politics.

    As part of their training, U.S. military members learn about their duty to obey lawful, constitutional orders.
    Michael S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    Training and response to orders

    Polling consistently shows that the American people trust the military more than any other element of the U.S. government. In part that trust comes from the military’s professional dedication to political neutrality, which includes training its personnel to uphold values like duty, honor and integrity.

    Military members up and down the ranks take their allegiance to the Constitution seriously. At the beginning of their service, at every reenlistment and usually during promotion ceremonies, all military members – officers and enlisted – swear to support and defend the Constitution. The enlisted oath also includes a promise to follow the lawful orders of the president and of the officers appointed above them.

    This foundational oath ensures that if members of the military receive orders that they believe are questionable, they will not follow those orders blindly. They are taught throughout their career – during basic training, officer candidate training and in recurring sessions through the years – to seek clarification. If necessary, they are told to challenge those orders through their chain of command, or through attorneys associated with their units, or by contacting their branch’s inspector general.

    Depending on their ranks, military members’ responses to questionable orders can vary. Senior officers, who have extensive experience and higher levels of responsibility, have the authority and the duty to ensure that any orders they follow or pass down are lawful and in line with the Constitution. When evaluating uncertain orders or navigating unclear situations, they often consult with legal advisers, discuss the implications with peers and thoroughly analyze the situation before taking action.

    Junior officers and senior enlisted personnel often find themselves in positions where they must make quick decisions based on the information available to them. While they are trained to follow orders, they are also encouraged to use their judgment and seek guidance when they believe an order to be unlawful – including getting advice from people with direct access to attorneys.

    Junior enlisted personnel, who make up more than 40% of the military force, are also taught the importance of the legality and constitutionality of orders. They have the right to seek clarification if they believe an order is unlawful.

    Even so, their training focuses heavily on discipline and obedience. This can make it challenging for them to question orders, especially in high-pressure situations.

    Members of the U.S. military swear an oath to the Constitution.
    Ethan Miller/Getty Images

    Ultimate responsibility

    The responsibility of scrutinizing orders falls on senior military leaders – admirals and generals, colonels and Navy captains. Junior officers and senior enlisted and junior enlisted personnel rely on their leaders to navigate the complexities of politics and ensure orders they receive are lawful and focused on national defense, not politics.

    If senior military leaders fail in their responsibility, chaos could ensue: Units may end up following conflicting orders or ignoring directives altogether. This can lead to a breakdown in command and control, with some units acting independently or based on politically motivated directives. This would be a dangerous shift, making the military extremely vulnerable to operational failures and enemy attack.

    President Lyndon Johnson, center, and Gen. William Westmoreland visit troops in South Vietnam in 1967.
    AP Photo

    Such a situation has never happened in the history of the U.S. military. But some events have come close to crossing the line. For instance, during the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson was determined to demonstrate American strength and resolve, famously stating, “I will not lose in Vietnam.” His pressure landed on the shoulders of Gen. William Westmoreland.

    Westmoreland responded by publicizing the numbers of enemy personnel killed in battle, attempting to show that U.S. efforts were reducing the size of opposing forces. But historians have found that this emphasis lacked clear military objectives, meaning troops faced confusion and contradictory orders. The price was a longer war, and more deaths for Americans and for Vietnamese civilians.

    Ultimately, Westmoreland was accused of manipulating enemy troop strength estimates to create an impression of progress – in service of Johnson’s political desire to avoid defeat. His decisions did not directly violate the Constitution or U.S. law, but they exemplify how political pressures can adversely influence military strategies, with devastating consequences.

    Unbiased sources of information

    In addition to senior military leaders’ responsibility to remain apolitical, leaders also have clear responsibilities to the civilians elected and appointed above them.

    For example, the president needs factual and unbiased information about the military’s capabilities from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, based on their experience and professional opinions. If advisers are hesitant to speak freely about what is and is not possible in any given situation, and about potential consequences both good and bad, the president will miss out on the kinds of critical insights that shape effective strategies.

    The bottom line is that when top military experts give advice and take action influenced by politics, they undermine the centuries-old system of military training and ethics. Some traditions are worth keeping.

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

    – ref. Trump’s firings of military leaders pose a crucial question to service members of all ranks – https://theconversation.com/trumps-firings-of-military-leaders-pose-a-crucial-question-to-service-members-of-all-ranks-247665

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Digital imperialism: How US social media firms are using American law to challenge global tech regulation

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Yasmin Curzi de Mendonça, Research associate, University of Virginia

    The CEOs of Meta, Amazon, Google and X — Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai and Elon Musk — attend the inauguration of Donald Trump on Jan. 20, 2025. Photo by Ricky Carioti – Pool/Getty Images

    Social media platforms tend not to be that bothered by national boundaries.

    Take X, for example. Users of what was once called Twitter span the globe, with its 600 millions-plus active accounts dotted across nearly every country. And each of those jurisdictions has its own laws.

    But the interests of national regulatory efforts and that of predominantly U.S.-based technology companies often don’t align. While many governments have sought to impose oversight mechanisms to address problems such as disinformation, online extremism and manipulation, these initiatives have been met with corporate resistance, political interference and legal challenges invoking free speech as a shield against regulation.

    What is brewing is a global struggle over digital platform governance. And in this battle, U.S. platforms are increasingly leaning on American laws to challenge other nation’s regulations. It is, we believe as experts on digital law – one an executive director of a forum monitoring how countries implement democratic principles – a form of digital imperialism.

    A rumble in the tech jungle

    The latest manifestation of this phenomenon occurred in February 2025, when new tensions emerged between Brazil’s judiciary and U.S.-based social media platforms.

    Trump Media & Technology Group and Rumble filed a lawsuit in the U.S. against Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, challenging his orders to suspend accounts on the two platforms linked to disinformation campaigns in Brazil.

    The case follows earlier unsuccessful efforts by Elon Musk’s X to resist similar Brazilian rulings.

    Together, the cases exemplify a growing trend in which U.S. political and corporate actors attempt to undermine foreign regulatory authority by pressing the case that domestic U.S. law and corporate protections should take precedence over sovereign policies globally.

    From corporate lobbying to lawfare

    At the core of the dispute is Allan dos Santos, a right-wing Brazilian influencer and fugitive from justice who fled to the U.S. in 2021 after De Moraes ordered his preventive arrest for allegedly coordinating disinformation networks and inciting violence.

    Dos Santos has continued his online activities abroad. Brazil’s extradition requests have gone unanswered due to claims by U.S. authorities that the case involves issues of free speech rather than criminal offenses.

    Trump Media and Rumble’s lawsuit attempts to do two things. First, it seeks to frame Brazil’s judicial actions as censorship rather than oversight. And second, it seeks to portray the Brazilian court action as territorial overreach.

    Their position is that as the target of the action was in the U.S., they are subject to U.S. free speech protections under the First Amendment. The fact that the subject of the ban was Brazilian and is accused of spreading disinformation and hate in Brazil should not, they argue, matter.

    For now, U.S. courts agree. In late February, a Florida-based judge ruled that Rumble and Trump Media need not comply with the Brazilian order.

    Big Tech pushback to regulation

    The case signals an important shift in the contest over platform accountability – a move from corporate lobbying and political pressure to direct legal intervention in foreign jurisdictions. U.S. courts are now being used to challenge overseas decisions regarding platform accountability.

    The outcome and the broader legal strategy behind the lawsuit could have far-reaching implications not only for Brazil but for any country or region – such as the European Union – attempting to regulate online spaces.

    The resistance against digital regulation predates the Trump administration.

    In Brazil, efforts to regulate social media platforms have long faced substantial opposition. Big Tech companies – including Google, Meta and X – have used their economic and political influence to lobby against tighter regulation, often framing such policies as a threat to free expression.

    In 2020, the Brazilian “Fake News Bill,” which sought to hold platforms accountable for the spread of disinformation, was met with strong opposition from these companies.

    Google and Meta launched high-profile campaigns to oppose the bill, warning it would “threaten free speech” and “harm small businesses.” Google placed banners on its Brazilian homepage urging users to reject the legislation, while Meta ran advertisements questioning its implications for the digital economy.

    These efforts, alongside lobbying and political resistance, were successful in helping to delay and weaken the regulatory framework.

    Mixing corporate and political power

    The difference now is that challenges are blurring the line between the corporate and the political.

    Trump Media was 53% owned by the U.S. president before he moved his stake into a revocable trust in December 2024. Elon Musk, the free speech fundamentalist owner of X, is a de facto member of the Trump administration.

    Their ascent to power has coincided with the First Amendment being wielded as a shield against foreign regulations on digital platforms.

    Free speech protections in the U.S. have been applied unequally, allowing authorities to suppress dissent in some cases while shielding hateful speech in others.

    This imbalance extends to corporate power, with decades of legal precedent expanding protections for private interests. The case law cemented corporate speech protections, a logic later extended to digital platforms.

    U.S. free speech advocates in Big Tech and the U.S. government are seemingly escalating this trend to an even more extreme interpretation: that American free speech arguments can be deployed to resist the regulation of other jurisdictions and challenge foreign legal frameworks.

    For instance, in response to the European Union’s Digital Services Act, U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, expressed concerns that the act could threaten American free speech principles.

    Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who has fought disinformation on tech platforms, attends a session of the country’s high court on Feb. 26.
    Ton Molina/NurPhoto via Getty Images

    Such an argument may have been fine if the same interpretation of free speech – and its appropriate protections – were universally accepted. But they are not.

    The concept of free speech varies significantly across nations and regions.

    Countries such as Brazil, Germany, France and others adopt what legal experts refer to as a proportionality-based approach to free speech, balancing it against other fundamental rights such as human dignity, democratic integrity and public order.

    Sovereign countries using this approach recognize freedom of expression as a fundamental and preferential right. But they also acknowledge that certain restrictions are necessary to protect democratic institutions, marginalized communities, public health and the informational ecosystem from harms.

    While the U.S. imposes some limits on speech – such as defamation laws and protection against incitement to imminent lawless action – the First Amendment is generally far more expansive than in other democracies.

    The future of digital governance

    The legal battle over platform regulation is not confined to the current battle between U.S.-based platforms and Brazil. The EU’s Digital Services Act and the Online Safety Act in the United Kingdom are other examples of governments trying to assert control over platforms operating within their borders.

    As such, the lawsuit by Trump Media and Rumble against the Brazilian Supreme Court signals a critical moment in global geopolitics.

    U.S. tech giants, such as Meta, are bending to the free speech winds coming out of the Trump administration. Musk, the owner of X, has given support to far-right groups overseas.

    And this overlap in the policy priorities of social media platforms and the political interests of the U.S. administration opens a new era in the deregulation debate in which U.S. free speech absolutists are seeking to establish legal precedents that might challenge the future of other nations’ regulatory efforts.

    As countries continue to develop regulatory frameworks for digital governance – for instance, AI regulation imposing stricter governance rules in Brazil and in the EU – the legal, economic and political strategies platforms employ to challenge oversight mechanisms will play a crucial role in determining the future balance between corporate influence and the rule of law.

    Camille Grenier is Executive Director at the Forum on Information and Democracy, a non-profit entity led by civil society organisations and mandated to implement democratic principles.

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

    – ref. Digital imperialism: How US social media firms are using American law to challenge global tech regulation – https://theconversation.com/digital-imperialism-how-us-social-media-firms-are-using-american-law-to-challenge-global-tech-regulation-252116

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Cuts to research into inequality, disparities and other DEIA topics harm science

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By H. Colleen Sinclair, Associate Research Professor of Social Psychology, Louisiana State University

    Scientists across the U.S. and in other countries have rallied in reaction to the Trump administration’s cuts to major science agencies. Mohamad Salaheldin Abdelg Alsayed/Anadolu via Getty Images

    When I taught research methods to undergraduates, I would start by asking whether anyone in the class had $20. Though harder to come by thanks to digital payment options, inevitably someone would produce a $20 bill. I would then ask whether they knew how the bill came to look the way it does. Students would take guesses – often rooted in history and counterfeiting concerns.

    While valid, the larger font and picture designs that came about in the 1990s and early 2000s were also the result of research intended to make the bills more accessible for the 3.5 million Americans with low vision. One of those Americans with low vision was a researcher on the team designing the new bill, experimental psychologist Gordon Legge.

    These changes made it easier for those low-vision Americans, their families and others around the world to read and use American dollars. In other countries, bills and coins come in different sizes that pertain to their value, making them much easier for people with low vision and the blind to use. Legge’s research saved Americans the cost of having to completely redesign the currency to come in different sizes.

    My goal in talking about the currency redesign with my students was to show them how research has shaped their lives, often in ways they didn’t even realize.

    Now, following President Donald Trump’s executive order on federal projects related to DEIA – diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility – many research initiatives similar to the bill redesign project will lose funding.

    As a social psychologist, some of the studies I’ve worked on would be considered DEIA work. Social psychology as a field grew, in part, during World War II as researchers tried to understand bias-motivated atrocities such as the Holocaust.

    DEIA initiatives are projects that seek to reduce discrimination and promote equal opportunities and equal access in multiple spaces such as school and workplaces, as well as in legal, housing and medical systems.

    While frequently focused on those who have faced long-standing barriers to these resources – for example, racial and ethnic minorities and people with disabilities – the results of research related to DEIA are often applied to help all people achieve their potential.

    The Trump administration’s list of DEIA-related terms is so broad that it’s flagging non-DEIA related work for potential termination. I’ve heard many scientists discuss how their programs of research have been wrongfully included in the anti-DEIA sweeps because they use terms such as “biodiversity.”

    However, research that would be considered DEIA work has made influential contributions to society over the past few decades – it raises the question of whether any flagging is actually right. The backlash to anti-DEIA research seems to have started with criticism of DEI-related human resources training in workplaces. But the word list goes well beyond what would appear in HR training.

    DEIA research identifies the problems and proposes the solutions. Solutions such as translation services for the hearing impaired, parental leave for mothers and fathers, pay equity, time off for religious holidays and lactation rooms for nursing mothers all stem from what could be labeled DEIA research and advocacy.

    For instance, lactation rooms came about based on research into what working mothers needed to ease their return to work after pregnancy. This included research into breast pumps and even architectural research on how to best design these rooms.

    DEIA contributions

    DEIA work is nothing new – just the label is. After all, it was DEIA research in the 1950s that psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Clark presented to the Supreme Court to argue that school segregation harmed children, leading to the banning of the policy.

    Kenneth and Mamie Clark, left, with their two children. Research by the Clarks led to desegregation policies in school.
    Charlotte Brooks for Look Magazine and Brooks Archive

    This work continues today as new DEIA research reveals that schools are often still racially homogenous. That means many American students still go to schools where the student bodies are primarily white or primarily racial minorities. However, the reasons for these divides are no longer due to segregation being the law.

    In the 1970s, it was DEIA research that inspired the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 and led to the creation of special education practices for neurodiverse students. These practices have improved educational outcomes for students with dyslexia, ADHD, autism and a variety of other neurodiversities.

    And DEIA research is continuing to review and improve these practices today.

    Starting in the 1980s, it was also DEIA research that led to HIV/AIDS, a virus disproportionately affecting the LGBTQ+ community, no longer being a death sentence. Doctors now have a drug that prevents HIV, including preventing the transmission of HIV from mother to infant.

    Just today, I received a news alert about scientific breakthroughs in the neurological study of postpartum depression. Because “women” and “pregnant people” are on the list of terms flagged as DEIA-related, studies on postpartum depression could be considered DEIA.

    DEIA science on DEIA science

    It is DEIA science that has demonstrated how diverse research teams promote innovative performance. This research would suggest that America’s diversity may very well be one of the key elements shaping its prosperity.

    Some might say “of course DEIA research will show DEIA works,” but it is also DEIA research that critiques the limitations of training to reduce bias – such as human resources workshops intended to teach workers about inclusive language, cultural sensitivity or implicit bias. Other non-DEIA HR training also faces criticism.

    Scientists discuss these limitations, and the scientific process is constantly self-correcting as researchers search for better solutions. Recommendations about better training are proposed based on new research.

    For instance, racial colorblindness is an ideology that grew out of the civil rights era and a desire to treat individuals equally regardless of race. However, it has led to some problems where people say they ignore race when really they don’t. For instance, in one study looking at race and dating preferences, white people endorsing a colorblind ideology were actually more likely to say they wouldn’t date a Black person than those who didn’t endorse colorblindness.

    Many experts say that colorblindness is a flawed approach to talking about and understanding race and discrimination.

    Colorblindness can also make people feel uncomfortable bringing up race in any context. One study shows how young people, who are not yet wary of identifying people by race, can outperform adults, who avoid race, during a game of Guess Who.

    These studies are just some examples of DEIA science that showed the colorblindness approach is a mixed bag at best. Other times, it is harmful for minority groups and majority groups alike, or even backfires, making people more, not less, discriminatory and uncomfortable.

    Alleged alternatives to DEIA

    Despite its shortcomings, many prominent figures in the anti-DEIA movement have seemingly endorsed colorblindness.

    For example, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott created executive order GA-55 to end DEIA policies and institute a “color-blind” approach instead. Texas public universities had to eliminate DEIA offices and practices but not legacy admissions and scholarships that studies show disproportionately benefit white students.

    In his second inaugural address, Trump promised that his administration would “forge a society that is colorblind and merit-based.” While a meritocracy may sound good on paper, DEIA research has suggested that meritocracies don’t work in the current society.

    Meritocracies assume a level playing field and can ignore disparities, such as wealth, that may afford some more opportunities than others – social mobility between income levels is rare and can take generations.

    Hard work or talent does not compensate for imbalances in society as much as many people would like to believe.

    Where we stand

    Despite the anti-DEIA rhetoric present in American discourse, most Americans do not have negative attitudes toward DEIA; 52% even still think DEIA in the workplace is good. Most Americans, including white people, men and Republicans, also do not report having been harmed by DEIA policies. Overall, studies report that Americans value inclusivity.

    Ultimately, blanket bans on anything remotely DEIA harm advancement across scientific disciplines. The disparities DEIA research examines still exist – in courts, in schools, in jobs, in health, in housing and in violent victimization rates.

    Stopping cancer research because cancer prevention training doesn’t always work and sometimes backfires won’t stop cancer. Ignoring disparities will not make them go away. DEIA-related science is an ingrained part of the scientific enterprise, and cutting its funding could mean missing out on important breakthroughs.

    H. Colleen Sinclair does not personally have any DEIA-related federal grants but she has received foundation research funding for math education research that includes looking at how to close disparities in achievement. The statements and opinions included in this The Conversation article are solely the author’s. Any statements and opinions included in these pages are not those of the Social Research and Evaluation Center, the College of Human Sciences & Education, the Louisiana State University, or the LSU Board of Supervisors.

    – ref. Cuts to research into inequality, disparities and other DEIA topics harm science – https://theconversation.com/cuts-to-research-into-inequality-disparities-and-other-deia-topics-harm-science-252241

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Helper bots in online communities diminish human interaction

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By John Lalor, Assistant Professor of IT, Analytics, and Operations, University of Notre Dame

    Bots can be helpful in online communities, but they can also come between people. mathisworks/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images

    When bots – automated agents that perform tasks on behalf of humans – become more active in online communities, it has profound effects on how humans interact with each other on those platforms. Bots designed to help users see more content increase the number of people users connect with but also decrease the interactions between people.

    In online communities, replies, likes and comments between users form a network of interactions. Analysis of these social networks shows patterns, such as who is connecting and who is popular or important in the community.

    My colleagues Nicholas Berente and Hani Safadi and I analyzed the network structure of communities on Reddit, called subreddits, that had seen increased use of bots from 2005 to 2019. Our goal was to see whether the presence of bots affected how the human community members interacted with each other.

    Based on recent research, we knew that we were looking for two types of bots: reflexive and supervisory bots.

    Reflexive bots are coded to plug into a community’s application programming interface. Based on how they are coded, they either post content based on specific rules or search for specific content and post a reply based on their preprogrammed rules. Supervisory bots have more permissions in the community and can delete or edit posts or even ban users based on preprogrammed community moderation rules.

    We found that when there is more reflexive bot activity in a community – more bots posting content – there are more human-to-human connections. This means that the reflexive bots posting content enable people to find novel content and engage with other users they otherwise would not have seen. However, this high bot activity leads to less back-and-forth discussion between users. If a user posts on a subreddit, it is more likely that a bot will reply or interject itself into the conversation instead of two human users engaging in a meaningful back-and-forth discussion.

    When there are supervisory bots moderating a community, we see less centralization in the human social network. This means that those key people who were important to the community have fewer connections than before. Without supervisory bots, these members would be the ones who establish and enforce community norms. With supervisory bots, this is less necessary, and those human members are less central to the community.

    Social media bots explained.

    Why it matters

    Bots are prevalent across online communities, and they can process vast amounts of data very quickly, which means they can react and respond to many more posts than humans can.

    What’s more, as generative AI improves, people could use it to create more and more sophisticated bot accounts, and the platforms could use it to coordinate content moderation. Tech companies investing heavily in generative AI technologies could also deploy generative AI bots to increase engagement on their platforms.

    Our study can help users and community leaders understand the impact of these bots on their communities. It can also help community moderators understand the impact of enabling automated moderation through supervisory bots.

    What’s next

    Bots are rigid because of their rules-based nature, but they are likely to become more advanced as they incorporate new technologies such as generative AI. More research will be needed to understand how complex generative AI bots affect human-to-human interactions in online communities.

    At the same time, automating platform moderation can lead to strange effects, because bots are more rigid in their enforcement and cannot deal with potential issues on a case-by-case basis. How generative AI changes moderator bots remains to be seen.

    The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

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

    – ref. Helper bots in online communities diminish human interaction – https://theconversation.com/helper-bots-in-online-communities-diminish-human-interaction-251795

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What are AI hallucinations? Why AIs sometimes make things up

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Anna Choi, Ph.D. Candidate in Information Science, Cornell University

    What springs from the ‘mind’ of an AI can sometimes be out of left field. gremlin/iStock via Getty Images

    When someone sees something that isn’t there, people often refer to the experience as a hallucination. Hallucinations occur when your sensory perception does not correspond to external stimuli.

    Technologies that rely on artificial intelligence can have hallucinations, too.

    When an algorithmic system generates information that seems plausible but is actually inaccurate or misleading, computer scientists call it an AI hallucination. Researchers have found these behaviors in different types of AI systems, from chatbots such as ChatGPT to image generators such as Dall-E to autonomous vehicles. We are information science researchers who have studied hallucinations in AI speech recognition systems.

    Wherever AI systems are used in daily life, their hallucinations can pose risks. Some may be minor – when a chatbot gives the wrong answer to a simple question, the user may end up ill-informed. But in other cases, the stakes are much higher. From courtrooms where AI software is used to make sentencing decisions to health insurance companies that use algorithms to determine a patient’s eligibility for coverage, AI hallucinations can have life-altering consequences. They can even be life-threatening: Autonomous vehicles use AI to detect obstacles, other vehicles and pedestrians.

    Making it up

    Hallucinations and their effects depend on the type of AI system. With large language models – the underlying technology of AI chatbots – hallucinations are pieces of information that sound convincing but are incorrect, made up or irrelevant. An AI chatbot might create a reference to a scientific article that doesn’t exist or provide a historical fact that is simply wrong, yet make it sound believable.

    In a 2023 court case, for example, a New York attorney submitted a legal brief that he had written with the help of ChatGPT. A discerning judge later noticed that the brief cited a case that ChatGPT had made up. This could lead to different outcomes in courtrooms if humans were not able to detect the hallucinated piece of information.

    With AI tools that can recognize objects in images, hallucinations occur when the AI generates captions that are not faithful to the provided image. Imagine asking a system to list objects in an image that only includes a woman from the chest up talking on a phone and receiving a response that says a woman talking on a phone while sitting on a bench. This inaccurate information could lead to different consequences in contexts where accuracy is critical.

    What causes hallucinations

    Engineers build AI systems by gathering massive amounts of data and feeding it into a computational system that detects patterns in the data. The system develops methods for responding to questions or performing tasks based on those patterns.

    Supply an AI system with 1,000 photos of different breeds of dogs, labeled accordingly, and the system will soon learn to detect the difference between a poodle and a golden retriever. But feed it a photo of a blueberry muffin and, as machine learning researchers have shown, it may tell you that the muffin is a chihuahua.

    Object recognition AIs can have trouble distinguishing between chihuahuas and blueberry muffins and between sheepdogs and mops.
    Shenkman et al, CC BY

    When a system doesn’t understand the question or the information that it is presented with, it may hallucinate. Hallucinations often occur when the model fills in gaps based on similar contexts from its training data, or when it is built using biased or incomplete training data. This leads to incorrect guesses, as in the case of the mislabeled blueberry muffin.

    It’s important to distinguish between AI hallucinations and intentionally creative AI outputs. When an AI system is asked to be creative – like when writing a story or generating artistic images – its novel outputs are expected and desired. Hallucinations, on the other hand, occur when an AI system is asked to provide factual information or perform specific tasks but instead generates incorrect or misleading content while presenting it as accurate.

    The key difference lies in the context and purpose: Creativity is appropriate for artistic tasks, while hallucinations are problematic when accuracy and reliability are required.

    To address these issues, companies have suggested using high-quality training data and limiting AI responses to follow certain guidelines. Nevertheless, these issues may persist in popular AI tools.

    Large language models hallucinate in several ways.

    What’s at risk

    The impact of an output such as calling a blueberry muffin a chihuahua may seem trivial, but consider the different kinds of technologies that use image recognition systems: An autonomous vehicle that fails to identify objects could lead to a fatal traffic accident. An autonomous military drone that misidentifies a target could put civilians’ lives in danger.

    For AI tools that provide automatic speech recognition, hallucinations are AI transcriptions that include words or phrases that were never actually spoken. This is more likely to occur in noisy environments, where an AI system may end up adding new or irrelevant words in an attempt to decipher background noise such as a passing truck or a crying infant.

    As these systems become more regularly integrated into health care, social service and legal settings, hallucinations in automatic speech recognition could lead to inaccurate clinical or legal outcomes that harm patients, criminal defendants or families in need of social support.

    Check AI’s work

    Regardless of AI companies’ efforts to mitigate hallucinations, users should stay vigilant and question AI outputs, especially when they are used in contexts that require precision and accuracy. Double-checking AI-generated information with trusted sources, consulting experts when necessary, and recognizing the limitations of these tools are essential steps for minimizing their risks.

    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. What are AI hallucinations? Why AIs sometimes make things up – https://theconversation.com/what-are-ai-hallucinations-why-ais-sometimes-make-things-up-242896

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –