NewzIntel.com

Category: Universities

  • MIL-OSI Economics: Alkaline ionized water increases green tea polyphenols by up to 2.8 times

    Source: Panasonic

    Headline: Alkaline ionized water increases green tea polyphenols by up to 2.8 times

    Osaka, Japan, April 3, 2025 – Panasonic Corporation today announced that its Living Appliances and Solutions Company (Panasonic) has confirmed that green tea made with alkaline ionized water contains up to 2.8 times more polyphenols than green tea made with natural drinking water. This was achieved through joint research with Panasonic Appliances (China) Co., Ltd., Panasonic R&D Center Suzhou Co., Ltd., and Bei Wang, a professor at the School of Food and Health, Beijing Technology and Business University.
    In recent years, the number of people regularly drinking water has been increasing due to heightened health awareness, leading to a growing demand for safe and healthy water. The government is also considering strengthening the legal regulations related to water quality and reviewing the standards for water quality. Furthermore, many people use water purifiers to filter water before drinking it.
    Under such circumstances, as part of the personal care business, Panasonic recognized the potential of green tea,*1, *2 which is frequently consumed and offers various health benefits from its polyphenol content. Panasonic conducted joint research with Professor Bei Wang, a food science specialist in China, the world’s largest producer of green tea. A verification using alkaline ionized water with different pH values showed that the amount of polyphenols contained in green tea is greater when using alkaline ionized water than natural drinking water, and the higher the alkalinity, the higher the polyphenol content. It is hoped that this will enable tea to contain abundant polyphenols derived from green tea when brewed with alkaline ionized water. Please note that these are the results of the verification test described later and do not guarantee the effects in the actual usage environment or when drinking.
    With the aim of contributing to society by providing safe and secure drinking water, Panasonic will continue improving water purification and conditioning technology while pursuing its potential.

    Comments from Professor Bei Wang*3

    Tea polyphenols are essential components that determine the color, aroma, taste, and efficacy of tea leaves. They are also among the most important functional components of green tea, which has numerous health benefits, such as oxidation resistance, blood lipid adjustment, virus resistance, antibacterial effects, tumor resistance, and neuroprotection. The results of an omnibus experiment conducted at a laboratory in Beijing Technology and Business University revealed that green tea made with alkaline ionized water (pH values 8.14, 8.79, and 9.19) produced by Panasonic’s alkaline water ionizer contains more tea polyphenols than green tea made with unprocessed natural drinking water. This discovery not only provides valuable experiences to tea lovers, but it has also successfully harmonized modern science and technology with traditional food culture.

    Profile

    Bei Wang: Professor, Doctor Supervisor, and Assistant Dean of School of Food and Health, Beijing Technology and Business University. Professor Wang has extensively conducted big data research on food flavor and sensory omics and has been involved in more than 40 projects related to the food flavor and nutrition science, some of which were supported both by National Natural Science Foundation of China, . She has also published more than 100 high-level SCI research papers and obtained nearly 20 invention patents in China, as well as two USA patents and three software copy right. In addition, she has won first prize at the Shanghai Science and Technology progress Awards, first prize of China Business Federation Science and Technology Progress Award, and First Prize of the State Administration for Market Regulation Research Achievement Award for Market Regulation of China.

    ■What is alkaline ionized water?

    Figure 3 Generation of alkaline ionized water using electrolysis technology

    Alkaline ionized water is generated by electrolyzing filtered, purified water in an electrolytic cell. The cathode (negatively charged electrode) attracts hydroxide ions and hydrogen, generating alkaline ionized water, while the anode (positively charged electrode) attracts hydrogen ions and oxygen, generating mildly acidic water (Figure 3).

    Notes:
    *1 Reference: Saori Nakagawa, Takahiro Hoshi, Atsushi Kubo, and Susumu Yamato, “Determination of Tea Polyphenols in Bottled Japanese Tea Drinks and Differences in Polyphenol Content in Tea Leaves from Different Variety,” BUNSEKI KAGAKU, vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 51-55, 2013
    *2 Reference: Hirofumi Tachibana, “Molecular Nutritional Study on the Bioregulatory Effects of Green Tea Polyphenols,” Journal of Japan Society of Nutrition and Food Science, vol. 72, No. 5, pp. 205-210, 2019
    *3 Panasonic asked Professor Wang for comments and edited them for publication.

    Media Contact:

    Living Appliances and Solutions Company, Panasonic CorporationPublic Relations, Corporate Policy Department, Corporate Planning CenterEmail: las-pr@gg.jp.panasonic.com

    About Panasonic Corporation
    Panasonic Corporation offers products and services for a variety of living environments, ranging from homes to stores to offices and cities. There are five businesses at the core of Panasonic Corporation: Living Appliances and Solutions Company, Heating & Ventilation A/C Company, Cold Chain Solutions Company, Electric Works Company and China and Northeast Asia Company. The operating company reported consolidated net sales of 3,494.4 billion yen for the year ended March 31, 2024. Panasonic Corporation is committed to fulfilling the mission of Life Tech & Ideas: For the wellbeing of people, society and the planet, and embraces the vision of becoming the best partner of your life with human-centric technology and innovation. Learn more about Panasonic: https://www.panasonic.com/global/about/

    MIL OSI Economics –

  • MIL-OSI Global: New modelling reveals full impact of Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs – with the US hit hardest

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Niven Winchester, Professor of Economics, Auckland University of Technology

    Getty Images

    We now have a clearer picture of Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and how they will affect other trading nations, including the United States itself.

    The US administration claims these tariffs on imports will reduce the US trade deficit and address what it views as unfair and non-reciprocal trade practices. Trump said this would

    forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America’s destiny was reclaimed.

    The “reciprocal” tariffs are designed to impose charges on other countries equivalent to half the costs they supposedly inflict on US exporters through tariffs, currency manipulation and non-tariff barriers levied on US goods.

    Each nation received a tariff number that will apply to most goods. Notable sectors exempt include steel, aluminium and motor vehicles, which are already subject to new tariffs.

    The minimum baseline tariff for each country is 10%. But many countries received higher numbers, including Vietnam (46%), Thailand (36%), China (34%), Indonesia (32%), Taiwan (32%) and Switzerland (31%).

    The tariff number for China is in addition to an existing 20% tariff, so the total tariff applied to Chinese imports is 54%. Countries assigned 10% tariffs include Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

    Canada and Mexico are exempt from the reciprocal tariffs, for now, but goods from those nations are subject to a 25% tariff under a separate executive order.

    Although some countries do charge higher tariffs on US goods than the US imposes on their exports, and the “Liberation Day” tariffs are allegedly only half the full reciprocal rate, the calculations behind them are open to challenge.

    For example, non-tariff measures are notoriously difficult to estimate and “subject to much uncertainty”, according to one recent study.

    GDP impacts with retaliation

    Other countries are now likely to respond with retaliatory tariffs on US imports. Canada (the largest destination for US exports), the EU and China have all said they will respond in kind.

    To estimate the impacts of this tit-for-tat trade standoff, I use a global model of the production, trade and consumption of goods and services. Similar simulation tools – known as “computable general equilibrium models” – are widely used by governments, academics and consultancies to evaluate policy changes.

    The first model simulates a scenario in which the US imposes reciprocal and other new tariffs, and other countries respond with equivalent tariffs on US goods. Estimated changes in GDP due to US reciprocal tariffs and retaliatory tariffs by other nations are shown in the table below.

    The tariffs decrease US GDP by US$438.4 billion (1.45%). Divided among the nation’s 126 million households, GDP per household decreases by $3,487 per year. That is larger than the corresponding decreases in any other country. (All figures are in US dollars.)

    Proportional GDP decreases are largest in Mexico (2.24%) and Canada (1.65%) as these nations ship more than 75% of their exports to the US. Mexican households are worse off by $1,192 per year and Canadian households by $2,467.

    Other nations that experience relatively large decreases in GDP include Vietnam (0.99%) and Switzerland (0.32%).

    Some nations gain from the trade war. Typically, these face relatively low US tariffs (and consequently also impose relatively low tariffs on US goods). New Zealand (0.29%) and Brazil (0.28%) experience the largest increases in GDP. New Zealand households are better off by $397 per year.

    Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world (all nations except the US) decreases by $62 billion.

    At the global level, GDP decreases by $500 billion (0.43%). This result confirms the well-known rule that trade wars shrink the global economy.

    GDP impacts without retaliation

    In the second scenario, the modelling depicts what happens if other nations do not react to the US tariffs. The changes in the GDP of selected countries are presented in the table below.

    Countries that face relatively high US tariffs and ship a large proportion of their exports to the US experience the largest proportional decreases in GDP. These include Canada, Mexico, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan, Switzerland, South Korea and China.

    Countries that face relatively low new tariffs gain, with the UK experiencing the largest GDP increase.

    The tariffs decrease US GDP by $149 billion (0.49%) because the tariffs increase production costs and consumer prices in the US.

    Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world decreases by $155 billion, more than twice the corresponding decrease when there was retaliation. This indicates that the rest of the world can reduce losses by retaliating. At the same time, retaliation leads to a worse outcome for the US.

    Previous tariff announcements by the Trump administration dropped sand into the cogs of international trade. The reciprocal tariffs throw a spanner into the works. Ultimately, the US may face the largest damages.

    Niven Winchester has previously received funding from the Productivity Commission and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to estimate the impacts of potential trade policies. He is affiliated with Motu Economic & Public Policy Research.

    – ref. New modelling reveals full impact of Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs – with the US hit hardest – https://theconversation.com/new-modelling-reveals-full-impact-of-trumps-liberation-day-tariffs-with-the-us-hit-hardest-253320

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: New modelling reveals full impact of Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs – with the US hit hardest

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Niven Winchester, Professor of Economics, Auckland University of Technology

    Getty Images

    We now have a clearer picture of Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs and how they will affect other trading nations, including the United States itself.

    The US administration claims these tariffs on imports will reduce the US trade deficit and address what it views as unfair and non-reciprocal trade practices. Trump said this would

    forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America’s destiny was reclaimed.

    The “reciprocal” tariffs are designed to impose charges on other countries equivalent to half the costs they supposedly inflict on US exporters through tariffs, currency manipulation and non-tariff barriers levied on US goods.

    Each nation received a tariff number that will apply to most goods. Notable sectors exempt include steel, aluminium and motor vehicles, which are already subject to new tariffs.

    The minimum baseline tariff for each country is 10%. But many countries received higher numbers, including Vietnam (46%), Thailand (36%), China (34%), Indonesia (32%), Taiwan (32%) and Switzerland (31%).

    The tariff number for China is in addition to an existing 20% tariff, so the total tariff applied to Chinese imports is 54%. Countries assigned 10% tariffs include Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

    Canada and Mexico are exempt from the reciprocal tariffs, for now, but goods from those nations are subject to a 25% tariff under a separate executive order.

    Although some countries do charge higher tariffs on US goods than the US imposes on their exports, and the “Liberation Day” tariffs are allegedly only half the full reciprocal rate, the calculations behind them are open to challenge.

    For example, non-tariff measures are notoriously difficult to estimate and “subject to much uncertainty”, according to one recent study.

    GDP impacts with retaliation

    Other countries are now likely to respond with retaliatory tariffs on US imports. Canada (the largest destination for US exports), the EU and China have all said they will respond in kind.

    To estimate the impacts of this tit-for-tat trade standoff, I use a global model of the production, trade and consumption of goods and services. Similar simulation tools – known as “computable general equilibrium models” – are widely used by governments, academics and consultancies to evaluate policy changes.

    The first model simulates a scenario in which the US imposes reciprocal and other new tariffs, and other countries respond with equivalent tariffs on US goods. Estimated changes in GDP due to US reciprocal tariffs and retaliatory tariffs by other nations are shown in the table below.

    The tariffs decrease US GDP by US$438.4 billion (1.45%). Divided among the nation’s 126 million households, GDP per household decreases by $3,487 per year. That is larger than the corresponding decreases in any other country. (All figures are in US dollars.)

    Proportional GDP decreases are largest in Mexico (2.24%) and Canada (1.65%) as these nations ship more than 75% of their exports to the US. Mexican households are worse off by $1,192 per year and Canadian households by $2,467.

    Other nations that experience relatively large decreases in GDP include Vietnam (0.99%) and Switzerland (0.32%).

    Some nations gain from the trade war. Typically, these face relatively low US tariffs (and consequently also impose relatively low tariffs on US goods). New Zealand (0.29%) and Brazil (0.28%) experience the largest increases in GDP. New Zealand households are better off by $397 per year.

    Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world (all nations except the US) decreases by $62 billion.

    At the global level, GDP decreases by $500 billion (0.43%). This result confirms the well-known rule that trade wars shrink the global economy.

    GDP impacts without retaliation

    In the second scenario, the modelling depicts what happens if other nations do not react to the US tariffs. The changes in the GDP of selected countries are presented in the table below.

    Countries that face relatively high US tariffs and ship a large proportion of their exports to the US experience the largest proportional decreases in GDP. These include Canada, Mexico, Vietnam, Thailand, Taiwan, Switzerland, South Korea and China.

    Countries that face relatively low new tariffs gain, with the UK experiencing the largest GDP increase.

    The tariffs decrease US GDP by $149 billion (0.49%) because the tariffs increase production costs and consumer prices in the US.

    Aggregate GDP for the rest of the world decreases by $155 billion, more than twice the corresponding decrease when there was retaliation. This indicates that the rest of the world can reduce losses by retaliating. At the same time, retaliation leads to a worse outcome for the US.

    Previous tariff announcements by the Trump administration dropped sand into the cogs of international trade. The reciprocal tariffs throw a spanner into the works. Ultimately, the US may face the largest damages.

    Niven Winchester has previously received funding from the Productivity Commission and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to estimate the impacts of potential trade policies. He is affiliated with Motu Economic & Public Policy Research.

    – ref. New modelling reveals full impact of Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs – with the US hit hardest – https://theconversation.com/new-modelling-reveals-full-impact-of-trumps-liberation-day-tariffs-with-the-us-hit-hardest-253320

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI China: Vice premier stresses boosting employment for college graduates

    Source: China State Council Information Office 2

    Job seekers talk with employers at a job fair held for the 2025 graduates of the Heilongjiang University in Harbin, northeast China’s Heilongjiang province, Dec. 23, 2024. [Photo/Xinhua]
    Chinese Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang on Wednesday called for efforts to increase employment and entrepreneurship opportunities for college graduates and young people in a bid to keep the country’s youth employment at a stable level.
    Ding, also a member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China Central Committee, made the remarks at a teleconference on the matter.
    Ding urged authorities to treat youth employment as a top priority, calling it a crucial matter that affects millions of households.
    All-out efforts should be made to increase high-quality job opportunities by tapping into key fields and industries, while fostering new employment growth points through industrial upgrades, Ding said.
    The vice premier called for outlining more favorable policies to support graduates who are willing to start up businesses.
    Ding also called for improved career services for graduates, and greater support for struggling jobseekers to ease their transition from campus to workplace.

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Scientists worked with Warlpiri to track down bilby poo – and uncover clues to help conserve these iconic animals

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hayley Geyle, Ecologist, Charles Darwin University

    Sarah Maclagan/Author provided

    The greater bilby (Macrotis lagotis) is one of Australia’s most iconic yet at-risk animals — and the last surviving bilby species. Once found across 70% of Australia, its range has contracted by more than 80% since European colonisation.

    Today, these nocturnal marsupials, still culturally significant to many Indigenous peoples, are restricted to remote deserts. They face an ongoing threat of extinction.

    Local elders, Indigenous rangers and scientists hold valuable knowledge about bilby populations, the threats they face, and strategies needed to sustain them into the future.

    Our new study, published today in Conservation Science and Practice, reveals how collaboration between scientists and Indigenous land managers can help yield new and vital information.

    In the field, we used two methods – one based on Warlpiri knowledge and one based on standard scientific protocols – to locate bilbies and collect scat (poo) samples in the North Tanami Indigenous Protected Area in the Northern Territory.

    By drawing on Warlpiri tracking expertise and Western scientific methods, we uncovered crucial information on bilby populations that could help conserve these rare creatures.

    The greater bilby is one of Australia’s most iconic yet at-risk animals.
    Ken Griffiths/Shutterstock

    Understanding bilby numbers is important – but hard

    Bilbies turn over tonnes of soil each year, helping to improve soil health, help seeds germinate and enhance water infiltration. Their deep, complex burrows also provide shelter for other species.

    They’re crucial to the health of desert ecosystems; protecting bilbies means protecting the web of life they support.

    To do this, we need to know more about:

    • how many bilbies there are
    • how they respond to land management techniques such as planned burning
    • how they respond to threats such as feral predators.

    Yet, bilbies are notoriously difficult to monitor directly via live capture. They’re nocturnal, shy and solitary. And they inhabit vast landscapes, making it very hard to estimate population numbers.

    Bilby tracks North Tanami (pen for scale).
    Hayley Geyle/Author Provided

    Luckily, the tracks, diggings and scats bilbies leave behind provide ample clues. DNA from scat (if it can be found) can be used to estimate how many bilbies are present in a particular area.

    Systematic ecological surveys, often used to monitor wildlife, can be rigid and expensive, especially in remote regions.

    We need flexible methods that align with local knowledge and the practical realities of monitoring bilbies on Country.

    A new approach to monitor and manage bilbies

    We tested two methods of locating bilby scat for DNA analysis.

    The first was systematic sampling. This is a standard scientific approach where fixed lengths of land were walked multiple times to collect scat.

    This ensures sampling effort is even over the search area and comparable across sites. However, like most species, bilby distribution is patchy, and this approach can lead to researchers missing important signs.

    The second method was targeted sampling, guided by Warlpiri knowledge, to search in areas most likely to yield results.

    This allowed the search team to focus on areas where bilbies were active or predicted to be active based on knowledge of their habits and food sources.

    Altogether, we collected more than 1,000 scat samples. In the lab, we extracted DNA from these samples to identify individual bilbies. These data, combined with the location of samples, allowed us to estimate the size of the bilby population.

    We then compared estimates that would have been derived if we had only done systematic or targeted sampling, or both, to assess their strengths and limitations for monitoring bilby populations.

    The deep, complex burrows of bilbies also provide shelter for other species.
    Kelly Dixon/Author provided

    What we found

    We identified 20 bilbies from the scats collected during systematic surveys and 26 – six more – from targeted surveys. At least 16 individual bilbies were detected by both methods. In total, we confirmed 32 unique bilbies in the study area.

    When it came to population estimates – which consider how many repeat captures occur and where – combining data from both types of surveys produced the most accurate estimates with the least effort.

    Targeted sampling tended to overestimate population size because it focused on areas of high activity. Systematic sampling was more precise but required greater effort.

    Combining both approaches provided the most reliable estimates while saving time.

    In the lab, we extracted DNA from bilby scat samples to identify individual bilbies.
    Hayley Geyle/Author provided

    What this means for conservation

    Our research highlights how collaboration that includes different ways of knowing can improve conservation.

    By adapting standard on-ground survey techniques to include Warlpiri methods for tracking bilbies, we produced better data and supported local capacity for bilby monitoring.

    Elders also had opportunities to share tracking skills with younger people, helping keep cultural knowledge alive.

    Conservation programs often rely on standardised ecological monitoring protocols – in other words, doing things much the same way no matter where you’re working.

    While these protocols provide consistency, they are rigid and don’t always yield the best results. They also fail to incorporate local knowledge crucial for managing species like the bilby.

    Our approach shows how integrating diverse ways of working can deliver more inclusive and effective outcomes, without compromising data reliability.

    A path forward

    Bilbies face ongoing threats including:

    • introduced predators (particularly foxes)
    • habitat degradation and
    • inappropriate fire regimes.

    Their future depends on collaborative efforts that draw on scientific and Indigenous and local knowledges.

    This study provides an example of how such partnerships can work – not just for bilbies, but for other species and ecosystems.

    As Australia confronts biodiversity loss, this research underscores the importance of listening to those who know Country best.

    By valuing and respecting local expertise, we can build a stronger future for bilbies and the landscapes that are their home.

    Hayley Geyle is employed by Territory NRM, who receives funding for threatened species projects from the Australian government through the Natural Heritage Trust. She also works on the Digital Women Ranger project. She is affiliated with Territory NRM and the Northern Institute (Charles Darwin University).

    Cathy Robinson is employed at CSIRO and is Group Leader in the Agriculture and Food Sustainability Program and Research lead for the Digital Women Ranger Program which is supported by the Telstra Foundation. Cathy is also an Adjunct Professor at Charles Darwin University, Chair of IUCN Australian Expert Advisory Panel for the Green List, and Executive Advisor for the Liveris Academy for Innovation and Leadership at the University of Queensland.

    Christine Schlesinger 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.

    Helen Wilson 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. Scientists worked with Warlpiri to track down bilby poo – and uncover clues to help conserve these iconic animals – https://theconversation.com/scientists-worked-with-warlpiri-to-track-down-bilby-poo-and-uncover-clues-to-help-conserve-these-iconic-animals-245153

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI China: Capital flows from listed banks demonstrate China’s economic dynamism

    Source: China State Council Information Office

    The recently released 2024 annual reports of China’s listed banks highlight the diverse dynamics of China’s economic development, as banks, serving as the primary channels for corporate and household financing, in their capital underscore the economy’s growth momentum.

    Key sectors in focus: tech firms attracting major capital

    Data from annual reports indicate that over the past year, listed banks have continued to expand credit issuance to support the real economy. In 2024, China’s four major state-owned banks, which include Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), Agricultural Bank of China (ABC), Bank of China (BOC), and China Construction Bank (CCB), collectively issued more than 8 trillion yuan (about 1.11 trillion U.S. dollars) in new loans.

    ICBC and ABC each saw loan increases exceeding 2 trillion yuan.

    Strategic national initiatives and key industries remained top priorities for credit allocation, the reports showed, and banks reported notable growth in loans directed toward manufacturing, strategic emerging industries, and elderly care services.

    By the end of 2024, ICBC’s outstanding loans to strategic emerging industries had exceeded 3.1 trillion yuan, while BOC’s lending to these industries had grown by 26.31 percent year on year.

    CCB’s loans to the manufacturing sector totaled 3.04 trillion yuan, and the medium-to-long-term loans to the manufacturing industry by ABC saw a 20.2-percent year-on-year increase.

    Technology-driven enterprises also gained traction. CCB’s loans to science and technology-related industries topped 3.5 trillion yuan by the end of 2024, while ICBC’s loans to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that are specialized, refined, distinctive and innovative rose over 54 percent from the start of the year. China Everbright Bank also reported a 42.1-percent year-on-year increase in loans to tech firms.

    Behind the figures, banks have been accelerating the establishment of financial mechanisms that align with technological innovation. ICBC has set up 25 regional technology finance centers nationwide, ABC expanded its network of tech-focused branches to nearly 300, and BOC launched a dedicated science and technology innovation fund.

    However, many SMEs in the tech field still face financing challenges. At their earnings briefings, multiple banks pledged to deepen integrated equity-loan-bond-insurance financial services and tailor products to meet diverse innovation needs.

    Boosting consumption, demand: consumer loans surging

    Consumer credit has emerged as a catalyst for domestic spending. Banks actively promoted traditional sectors like automobiles and home appliances while cultivating new consumption scenarios in tourism, elderly care, and other services.

    By end-2024, Bank of Communications saw personal consumer loans jump 90.44 percent year on year, adding 156.8 billion yuan. ABC’s consumer loans grew 28.3 percent, that of CCB rose 25.21 percent, and China Merchants Bank’s consumer loan balance hit 396.16 billion yuan, up 31.38 percent year on year.

    CCB also reported over 1 trillion yuan in credit card loans.

    At the same time, banks have focused on meeting residents’ essential and improved housing needs by maintaining stable personal mortgage lending. By the end of 2024, CCB’s personal mortgage clients had surpassed 15 million, with outstanding mortgage loans totaling 6.19 trillion yuan. China CITIC Bank’s mortgage loan balance increased by 61.41 billion yuan, ranking among the highest in the industry.

    Since the fourth quarter of last year, China’s housing market has shown positive changes following the implementation of a series of policy measures, which was also reflected in the financial sector.

    According to CCB vice president Ji Zhihong, the bank’s daily average mortgage loan applications in Q4 2024 rose by 73 percent quarter-on-quarter and 35 percent year-on-year, with early repayments declining further in Q1 2025.

    With additional policies aimed at boosting consumption on the horizon, the consumer finance market is poised for new growth opportunities. Dong Qingma, deputy dean of the Institute of Chinese Financial Studies at Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, stated that financial institutions will continue to ramp up support for consumption through fiscal incentives, interest subsidies, and tax reductions, injecting more capital into the economy.

    While CMB’s annual report highlighted plans to tap into consumption scenarios encouraged by national policies, including high-end and comprehensive household spending. ICBC announced that it will actively engage with emerging economic models such as the ice and snow economy and the silver economy to further unleash consumption potential and enhance economic circulation.

    Unlocking credit growth: fueling real economy

    Multiple banks have signaled their commitment to maintaining stable credit growth, ensuring strong, sustained financial support for the real economy.

    ICBC pledged over 6 trillion yuan in financing to private enterprises over the next three years. ABC aims to exceed 7.5 trillion yuan in loans to private firms by 2025, with inclusive finance loans growing faster than average.

    A review of various banks’ strategic directions suggests that credit allocation priorities for 2025 are becoming clearer. Bank of Communications plans to issue 480 billion yuan in corporate loans, targeting major infrastructure projects, manufacturing, rural revitalization, and strategic emerging industries aligned with government policies.

    CCB plans to further expand its retail credit and focus on green finance in key sectors such as energy, industry, and transportation, while continuing to support major infrastructure projects. China Everbright Bank will allocate over 70 percent of its corporate credit growth to tech, green, and inclusive sectors.

    “The implementation of a more proactive fiscal policy and a moderately loose monetary policy this year will provide a favorable macroeconomic environment for the banking industry,” said ABC president Wang Zhiheng, adding that in 2025, the bank will seize strategic opportunities in rural development, industrial upgrades, and green transitions, among others.

    Experts believe that as banks align their strategies with macroeconomic priorities, they will continue to identify and meet effective credit demand, enhancing the precision and adaptability of financial services, thus, continuing to channel high-quality funding to sustain the real economy’s growth. 

    MIL OSI China News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: US tariffs will upend global trade. This is how Australia can respond

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Felicity Deane, Professor of Trade Law, Taxation and Climate Change, Queensland University of Technology

    US President Donald Trump has imposed a range of tariffs on all products entering the US market, with Australian exports set to face a 10% tariff, effective April 5.

    These import taxes will be charged by US customs on each imported item. The punitive tariffs on 60 countries range as high as 34% on imports from China and 46% on Vietnam, and exceed the rates agreed between the United States and other global trade partners.

    “For decades, our country has been looted, pillaged, raped and plundered by nations near and far, both friend and foe alike,” Trump said.

    The impact on Australian industries will be both direct and indirect. The largest Australian export to the US is meat products, totalling A$4 billion in 2024, and our farmers may divert some product to other nations.

    Direct and indirect impacts

    The larger economic risk is to our regional trading partners.

    While Australia faces only 10% tariffs, our major trading partners China, Japan and South Korea all face much higher US tariffs under the new regime. So the risk of a manufacturing slowdown in those countries could dampen demand for Australia’s much larger exports – iron ore, coal and gas.

    Australian investors reacted swiftly, wiping 2.1% off the main stock market index, the S&P/ASX 200, in the first hour of trade.

    Another problem will be the disruption to global supply chains. It is not just finished products impacted. For instance, the 25% automobile tariff will be extended to auto parts on May 3. This means even if a car is entirely built in the US, it will still be more expensive because many components are imported.



    Read more:
    What are tariffs?

    What sectors has the US complained about?

    On April 1, the US released an annual trade report that identifies what it describes as “foreign trade barriers”. There was a long list of grievances with both tariff and non-tariff barriers identified.

    The report identified Australia’s biosecurity restrictions on meat, apples and pears. The Australian biosecurity rules do not directly ban any products, although in practice raw beef products are excluded.

    Trump singled out Australian beef in his speech. “They won’t take any of our beef,” he claimed.

    In a speech riddled with inaccuracies and falsehoods, this was one of them. Australia take shelf-stable US products, but not raw products for which consumer safety can not be assured.

    The US cited two other main Australian trade barriers. US drug companies have criticised the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme approvals processes. The Albanese government’s plan to strengthen the News Media Bargaining Code that requires tech companies to pay for news published on their platforms was also targeted.

    How can Australia respond?

    Both Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Opposition Leader Peter Dutton are in agreement over what we should do in response. They say Australian law and policy is not up for sale. We don’t negotiate on biosecurity, we don’t negotiate on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme process, and our local news media deserves protection from Big Tech.

    1. All avenues start with negotiations

    The preferred option is for a negotiation with the US to secure an exemption.

    A dispute at the World Trade Organization (WTO) sends a strong message to our trading partners and will also mean there’s an expert adjudication on this unprecedented move.

    However, the US has sidelined the WTO in recent years and Albanese has ruled out this route.

    2. Consultation

    The second potential action is to initiate consultations under the Australia–US Free Trade Agreement. There is a formal process identified in the agreement to which Albanese referred, with a threat of “dispute resolution mechanisms”.

    Albanese has ruled out imposing “reciprocal tariffs” on US imports, noting this would only push up prices for Australian consumers.

    3. Find new markets

    Third, we can find other markets. Australian agricultural products are some of the most desirable in the world. Australian producers will have other options. Indeed, the latest data for beef exports showed exports to China jumped 43% from January, to Japan up 27%, and to South Korea up 60% from the previous month.

    What has the government said?

    Albanese announced a response package, including $50 million to help pursue new markets. He said the tariff announcement was “not the act of a friend” and had “no basis in logic”:

    It is the American people who will pay the biggest price for these unjustified tariffs. This is why our government will not be seeking to impose reciprocal tariffs.

    Albanese’s response contains only one direct trade measure. That is the plan to strengthen anti-dumping provisions on steel, aluminium and other manufacturing. This means countries looking to sell their products too cheaply in Australia will face countervailing duties. It is a measure that aligns with trade rules.

    The decision by the US to impose tariffs in this way shows complete disregard for the world trade order established after World War II.

    The rules that have existed since this time aimed to limit trade barriers (such as tariffs). They also recognised the importance of supporting developing countries to be part of the world economy.

    Some of the biggest US tariffs are to hit some of the lowest-income countries. This will impact their economies badly and disadvantage people already living in poverty.



    Read more:
    Why developing countries must unite to protect the WTO’s dispute settlement system

    Felicity Deane 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. US tariffs will upend global trade. This is how Australia can respond – https://theconversation.com/us-tariffs-will-upend-global-trade-this-is-how-australia-can-respond-253621

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cole Mourns the Passing of Wes Watkins

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Tom Cole (OK-04)

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE | CONTACT: Olivia Porcaro 202-225-6165

    Washington, D.C. – Congressman Tom Cole (OK-04) released the following statement after hearing about the passing of Wes Watkins: 

    “I was deeply saddened to learn of the sudden and unexpected passing of my dear friend and distinguished public servant, Wes Watkins of Stillwater, Oklahoma.

    “Wes was a remarkable man and had a brilliant career in Congress, serving on two of the House’s most powerful committees, the Appropriations Committee and the Ways and Means Committee. Amazingly, he did so first as a Democrat (1977-1991) and then as a Republican (1997-2003). Wes also served as a State Senator in the 1970s and twice ran for Governor of Oklahoma (1990 and 1994), first as a Democrat and then as an Independent.

    “Even though they ran against one another in a three-way race, former Governor Frank Keating nominated Wes for a cabinet level position in his first Administration. However, the Democratic dominated State Senate of that era refused to confirm his nomination – but Wes had the last laugh the next year when he reclaimed his old congressional seat as a Republican.

    “Wes was the only person in Oklahoma history to carry a congressional seat as a Democrat, as an Independent in his 1994 Governor’s race, and finally as a Republican. No politician was ever as popular in the historic Third District, also known as Little Dixie. Wes Watkins’ remarkable electoral journey both symbolized and propelled Oklahoma’s own political transformation.

    “I was privileged to serve as Wes’ lead political consultant in his final three congressional campaigns. I never worked for a more popular figure in a congressional district or a harder working man or a more energetic and effective campaigner than Wes. He was an institution in southeast Oklahoma, serving his constituents ably, honorably, and tirelessly throughout his political career.

    “Wes Watkins may have changed political parties, but he never changed his political principles. He also never lost his passion for public service or let down the people he worked so hard to represent.

    “Wes Watkins loved three things above all else – his family, the people of Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State University. He served all of them with love, dedication, and genuine distinction.

    “The soulmate and cherished partner of Wes Watkins’ life was his beloved wife, Lou. You literally cannot think of one without thinking of the other. Their marriage was truly a match made in heaven.

    “I will miss my friend Wes. The people of Oklahoma will miss him more. As one of his television ads once claimed, there simply was ‘no better man.’

    “I extend my deepest sympathies to Lou, Wes’ children and grandchildren, and to all of Wes Watkins’ countless friends, former staffers, and admirers. Oklahoma has lost one of its favorite sons, most distinguished public servants, and ardent champions,” said Congressman Cole.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Press Releases Cracking down on antisemitism March 14, 2025

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Jason Smith (8th District of Missouri)

    Like so many Americans, I’ve been alarmed by the rise in antisemitism we’ve seen ever since Hamas’ October 7 terror attack against Israel. That’s especially true when it comes to what’s been going on at so many colleges, where radical pro-Hamas protestors have attacked Jewish students, caused colleges to cancel classes, set up tent cities on campus, and destroyed public property. In far too many cases, colleges stood idly by and refused to punish those who are causing Jewish students to live in fear every time they walk to class, go to the cafeteria, or head to the library. Fortunately, thanks to President Donald Trump, these colleges and pro-Hamas students are finally being held accountable.

    Shortly after taking office, President Trump signed an executive order that takes unprecedented steps to combat the unacceptable explosion of antisemitism on campus. He called on federal agencies to investigate colleges that turned a blind eye to these hate-filled rallies and refused to take necessary actions to protect Jewish students. In his executive order, President Trump also stated, “To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you. I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before.”

    On March 10, President Donald Trump announced that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents apprehended anti-Israel activist Mahmoud Khalil – and warned that other terrorist sympathizers would meet a similar fate. Khalil, a Palestinian raised in Syria, served as a senior leader for the Columbia University Apartheid Divest student organization, which has called for the “total eradication of Western civilization” and played a key role in the hate-filled rallies on Columbia’s campus that caused multiple injuries, significant property damage, and harassment of Jewish students. I’m glad that the Trump administration is holding accountable individuals who sympathize with terror groups and pose a threat to our national security.

    Recently, the Trump administration announced that it will rescind more than $400 million in federal grants to Columbia University due to the school’s failure to address antisemitism on campus. In addition, his administration is conducting a wide-ranging review of more than $5 billion in federal grant funding that goes to Columbia. But that’s not all: The Department of Education put 60 universities on notice that there will be significant consequences if they continue to allow discrimination and harassment against Jewish students to run rampant on their campuses, which would directly violate the Civil Rights Act.

    As Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which has jurisdiction over the tax code, I’ve been leading Congress’s investigation into the rise in antisemitism on the campuses of tax-exempt universities. The significant benefits these universities receive from the American taxpayer are not a blank check. By failing to ensure a safe learning environment – including protecting Jewish students from harassment and violence – they are putting their taxpayer benefits and federal grants at risk.

    It is my hope that under President Trump, Jewish students will finally be able to step foot on campus without having to fear for their safety. I’m incredibly grateful that he’s also making it clear that colleges will be held accountable if they fail to protect their students. In Washington, I will continue working with him to accomplish our shared goal of rooting out the antisemitism that’s plaguing our great nation.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: Regional tourism to benefit from $2.45 million boost

    Source: New Zealand Government

    Tourism and Hospitality Minister Louise Upston says opening a second multi-million dollar funding round for regional tourism will drive economic growth.

    “We know a successful tourism and hospitality sector is crucial for growing our economy,” Louise Upston says. 

    “Tourism is a crucial part of this Government’s focus on economic growth, with domestic and international tourism expenditure at almost $38 billion and supporting nearly 200,000 jobs

    “We also know we need to see visitors in regions outside our main cities, and outside peak periods. Hosting exciting local events is one of the best ways we can do this.

    “Today I’m pleased to be announcing that regional tourism organisations will have a pool of $2.45 million to pitch to from the Regional Events Promotion Fund. 

    “Regions with big ideas can reach out straight away. As Minister, I’m always looking forward to working closely with the sector to help maximise the benefits of tourism and hospitality and support the workforce to grow.

    “All ideas are up for discussion, as we reinforce the message that New Zealand is open for business and ready to welcome visitors from home and overseas.

    “In this second round, I’m particularly keen to encourage regions which might not traditionally have seen a high volume of domestic tourists to host events which will drive spending and activity in their communities.

    “This is the latest in our push to support the tourism sector, including:

    • $500,000 for marketing New Zealand as the ‘go now’ destination for Australians
    • $30 million to support conservation visitor related experiences
    • $9 million for Great Rides cycle infrastructure
    • $3 million from the International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy to secure more business events for New Zealand

    “2025 is our chance to reinforce the value of tourism and show what our humming, vibrant country has on show. New Zealand tourism is open for business,” Louise Upston said during comments to the University of Otago Tourism Policy School in Queenstown.

    The first round of funding for the Regional Events Promotion Fund saw 132 events approved, with $2.375 million allocated. 

    Applications for the second round of funding are open now with decisions expected to be made in May 2025.

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Scientists worked with Walpiri to track down bilby poo – and uncover clues to help conserve these iconic animals

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Hayley Geyle, Ecologist, Charles Darwin University

    Sarah Maclagan/Author provided

    The greater bilby (Macrotis lagotis) is one of Australia’s most iconic yet at-risk animals — and the last surviving bilby species. Once found across 70% of Australia, its range has contracted by more than 80% since European colonisation.

    Today, these nocturnal marsupials, still culturally significant to many Indigenous peoples, are restricted to remote deserts. They face an ongoing threat of extinction.

    Local elders, Indigenous rangers and scientists hold valuable knowledge about bilby populations, the threats they face, and strategies needed to sustain them into the future.

    Our new study, published today in Conservation Science and Practice, reveals how collaboration between scientists and Indigenous land managers can help yield new and vital information.

    In the field, we used two methods – one based on Walpiri knowledge and one based on standard scientific protocols – to locate bilbies and collect scat (poo) samples in the North Tanami Indigenous Protected Area in the Northern Territory.

    By drawing on Warlpiri tracking expertise and Western scientific methods, we uncovered crucial information on bilby populations that could help conserve these rare creatures.

    The greater bilby is one of Australia’s most iconic yet at-risk animals.
    Ken Griffiths/Shutterstock

    Understanding bilby numbers is important – but hard

    Bilbies turn over tonnes of soil each year, helping to improve soil health, help seeds germinate and enhance water infiltration. Their deep, complex burrows also provide shelter for other species.

    They’re crucial to the health of desert ecosystems; protecting bilbies means protecting the web of life they support.

    To do this, we need to know more about:

    • how many bilbies there are
    • how they respond to land management techniques such as planned burning
    • how they respond to threats such as feral predators.

    Yet, bilbies are notoriously difficult to monitor directly via live capture. They’re nocturnal, shy and solitary. And they inhabit vast landscapes, making it very hard to estimate population numbers.

    Bilby tracks North Tanami (pen for scale).
    Hayley Geyle/Author Provided

    Luckily, the tracks, diggings and scats bilbies leave behind provide ample clues. DNA from scat (if it can be found) can be used to estimate how many bilbies are present in a particular area.

    Systematic ecological surveys, often used to monitor wildlife, can be rigid and expensive, especially in remote regions.

    We need flexible methods that align with local knowledge and the practical realities of monitoring bilbies on Country.

    A new approach to monitor and manage bilbies

    We tested two methods of locating bilby scat for DNA analysis.

    The first was systematic sampling. This is a standard scientific approach where fixed lengths of land were walked multiple times to collect scat.

    This ensures sampling effort is even over the search area and comparable across sites. However, like most species, bilby distribution is patchy, and this approach can lead to researchers missing important signs.

    The second method was targeted sampling, guided by Warlpiri knowledge, to search in areas most likely to yield results.

    This allowed the search team to focus on areas where bilbies were active or predicted to be active based on knowledge of their habits and food sources.

    Altogether, we collected more than 1,000 scat samples. In the lab, we extracted DNA from these samples to identify individual bilbies. These data, combined with the location of samples, allowed us to estimate the size of the bilby population.

    We then compared estimates that would have been derived if we had only done systematic or targeted sampling, or both, to assess their strengths and limitations for monitoring bilby populations.

    The deep, complex burrows of bilbies also provide shelter for other species.
    Kelly Dixon/Author provided

    What we found

    We identified 20 bilbies from the scats collected during systematic surveys and 26 – six more – from targeted surveys. At least 16 individual bilbies were detected by both methods. In total, we confirmed 32 unique bilbies in the study area.

    When it came to population estimates – which consider how many repeat captures occur and where – combining data from both types of surveys produced the most accurate estimates with the least effort.

    Targeted sampling tended to overestimate population size because it focused on areas of high activity. Systematic sampling was more precise but required greater effort.

    Combining both approaches provided the most reliable estimates while saving time.

    In the lab, we extracted DNA from bilby scat samples to identify individual bilbies.
    Hayley Geyle/Author provided

    What this means for conservation

    Our research highlights how collaboration that includes different ways of knowing can improve conservation.

    By adapting standard on-ground survey techniques to include Warlpiri methods for tracking bilbies, we produced better data and supported local capacity for bilby monitoring.

    Elders also had opportunities to share tracking skills with younger people, helping keep cultural knowledge alive.

    Conservation programs often rely on standardised ecological monitoring protocols – in other words, doing things much the same way no matter where you’re working.

    While these protocols provide consistency, they are rigid and don’t always yield the best results. They also fail to incorporate local knowledge crucial for managing species like the bilby.

    Our approach shows how integrating diverse ways of working can deliver more inclusive and effective outcomes, without compromising data reliability.

    A path forward

    Bilbies face ongoing threats including:

    • introduced predators (particularly foxes)
    • habitat degradation and
    • inappropriate fire regimes.

    Their future depends on collaborative efforts that draw on scientific and Indigenous and local knowledges.

    This study provides an example of how such partnerships can work – not just for bilbies, but for other species and ecosystems.

    As Australia confronts biodiversity loss, this research underscores the importance of listening to those who know Country best.

    By valuing and respecting local expertise, we can build a stronger future for bilbies and the landscapes that are their home.

    Hayley Geyle is employed by Territory NRM, who receives funding for threatened species projects from the Australian government through the Natural Heritage Trust. She also works on the Digital Women Ranger project. She is affiliated with Territory NRM and the Northern Institute (Charles Darwin University).

    Cathy Robinson is employed at CSIRO and is Group Leader in the Agriculture and Food Sustainability Program and Research lead for the Digital Women Ranger Program which is supported by the Telstra Foundation. Cathy is also an Adjunct Professor at Charles Darwin University, Chair of IUCN Australian Expert Advisory Panel for the Green List, and Executive Advisor for the Liveris Academy for Innovation and Leadership at the University of Queensland.

    Christine Schlesinger 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.

    Helen Wilson 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. Scientists worked with Walpiri to track down bilby poo – and uncover clues to help conserve these iconic animals – https://theconversation.com/scientists-worked-with-walpiri-to-track-down-bilby-poo-and-uncover-clues-to-help-conserve-these-iconic-animals-245153

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump highlights Australian beef in ‘Liberation Day’ trade crackdown

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

    US President Donald Trump singled out Australia’s beef trade for special mention in his announcement that the United States would impose a 10% global tariff as well as “reciprocal tariffs” on many countries.

    In a long speech in the White House Rose Garden, Trump said: “Australia bans – and they’re wonderful people and wonderful everything – but they ban American beef.

    “Yet we imported US$3 billion of Australian beef from them just last year alone.

    “They won’t take any of our beef. They don’t want it because they don’t want it to affect their farmers and you know, I don’t blame them but we’re doing the same thing right now starting at midnight tonight, I would say.”

    Australia bans US fresh beef imports because of biosecurity concerns. The US just-released Foreign Trade Barriers report says, “the United States continues to seek full market access for fresh US beef and beef products”.

    Trump announced a “minimum baseline tariff” of 10%, which would apply to Australia as well as to all other countries.

    Initially, given Trump’s language, there was confusion about what will happen with beef but later it was clarified it would face the basic 10% general tariff, and nothing more.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese condemned the new US trade regime and said Australia would continue to try to get exemptions for Australia.

    The trade decision was “not unexpected” but had “no basis in logic” and “was not the act of a friend”.

    Albanese announced a response package, but flagged the government did not want to take the US to the World Trade Organisation. The package includes:

    • strenghening anti-dumping provisions

    • providing A$50 million to affected sectors to secure and pursue new markets

    • sending five missions abroad to develop other markets

    • setting up a new resilience program, involving $1 billion in loans to capitalise on new investment opportunities

    • putting Australian businesses at “the front of the queue” in a “buy Australian” policy in government procurement

    • setting up a strategic reserve for Australian critical minerals.

    Albanese re-emphasised Australia would make no changes to the country’s biosecurity rules.

    Under Trump’s announcement, varying “reciprocal” rates are being imposed on individual countries according to the barriers they impose on American items.

    The president described this as “one of the most important days in American history”, saying it represented a “declaration of economic independence”.

    China will face a 34% tariff, while there will be a 25% global tariff on cars imported into the US. Imports from the European Union will have a 20% tariff imposed.

    There will be 25% on imports from South Korea, as well as 24% on imports from Japan and 32% on those from Taiwan.

    Trump’s message to countries seeking special treatment could not have been blunter.

    “To all of the foreign presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, ambassadors, and everyone else, who will soon be calling to ask for exemptions from these tariffs, I say, terminate your own tariffs, drop your barriers, don’t manipulate here your currencies – they manipulate their currencies, like, nobody can even believe, when it’s a bad, bad thing, and very devastating to us.

    “And start buying tens of billions of dollars of American goods.

    “Tariffs give us protection against those looking to do us economic harm.”

    He said the new US trade regime would raise trillions of dollars that would reduce American taxes and pay down its debt.

    Opposition campaign spokesman James Paterson described the announcement as “disappointing”, He said Australia should work “calmly and directly” with the US administration to get a better deal.

    Nationals leader David Littleproud said action against beef would mean the price of Big Mac burgers would go up for American consumers. Australian beef exported to the US is especially for burgers.

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

    – ref. Trump highlights Australian beef in ‘Liberation Day’ trade crackdown – https://theconversation.com/trump-highlights-australian-beef-in-liberation-day-trade-crackdown-253111

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Why do women get ‘reassurance scans’ during pregnancy? And how can you spot a dodgy provider?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christopher Rudge, Law lecturer, University of Sydney

    Shutterstock

    Recent media coverage in the Nine newspapers highlights a surge in non-medical ultrasound providers offering “reassurance ultrasounds” to expectant parents.

    The service has resulted in serious harms, such as misdiagnosed ectopic pregnancies and undetected fetal abnormalities, according to the reports.

    So why do some women choose additional ultrasounds? And how can you tell if you should trust the person providing your ultrasound?

    What are reassurance scans?

    Reassurance scans are a type of non-medical elective or “entertainment” ultrasound some women seek in addition to their routine first- and second-trimester scans.

    Reassurance scans are marketed as a way to “give you peace of mind” about your baby’s development, or to assure you “everything is progressing as it should” if you’re not due for a routine scan.

    They’re also called souvenir, boutique or keepsake ultrasounds, because these business typically sell memento packages. These often include so-called 4D images: renderings combined with the fourth dimension of time to show movement.

    Some businesses offer gender identification information, sometimes with “gender-reveal” party accessories, as well as audio recordings of the fetal heartbeat.

    Why do women get them?

    Detailed interview studies have explored why ultrasound images beyond the routine scans are so popular.

    Many expecting parents want to learn the fetal sex as early as possible, seek reassurance, see the facial features of their future child and acquire keepsake images.

    Others find the routine scans too rushed and impersonal, turning to commercial providers as a more ceremonious and fulfilling ritual.

    Some women feel rushed during routine scans.
    Jordi Mora/Shutterstock

    Health sociologists have emphasised the positive health impacts of non-medical ultrasound, which can help expecting mothers and fathers bond with their baby.

    Some feminists in the 20th century criticised the medicalisation of pregnancy for devaluing “lived experience”. But recent feminist accounts have re-framed non-medical scans as a way for women to get health care that goes beyond clinical utility.

    Rather than trivialising the “entertainment” value of these services, some argue obstetricians could learn from the service, thus improving patient satisfaction during obstetric imaging.

    What are the risks of these services?

    In recent years, the technology to provide detailed scans has become more portable, with handheld, smartphone-compatible ultrasound devices now available.

    This, along with the normalisation of sharing ultrasound images on social media, has likely led to more commercial businesses offering these services.

    Yet the service is considered fraught with unmanageable psychological and social risk. Providers are usually not trained to counsel mothers or families should a fetal anomaly be suspected.

    Professional organisations have denounced these businesses for misleading consumers with false reassurances. As these scans aren’t checked by a clinician, these operators cannot give reliable assurances.

    The World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology and similar bodies disapprove of souvenir ultrasounds on safety grounds. So too does the Australian Sonographers Association, which represents about 70% of sonographers.

    No substantive restrictions on ultrasound devices

    Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration regulates the supply of medical devices. It registers them, classifies them according to their risk and sometimes attaches conditions to their use.

    However, some portable ultrasound scanners approved as low-risk devices carry no specific conditions. Lay consumers could theoretically purchase them, including through the personal importation scheme.

    Last year, the TGA de-registered several handheld devices used to detect fetal heartbeats during pregnancy without health practitioner supervision.

    The decision followed a post-market review that found expectant parents had been falsely reassured by the devices themselves or by untrained people using them in home settings.

    However, no such review has been conducted for portable ultrasound devices.

    While removing devices from the register in this manner may limit consumer access, it is not a “product recall” and would not prevent the continued sale of second-hand devices.

    These days it’s normal to share ultrasound images on social media.
    fizkes/Shutterstock

    Who can perform ultrasounds?

    While some specialist health practitioners may perform ultrasounds (such as obstetricians holding a relevant certificate), most diagnostic imaging specialists are sonographers.

    To perform medical ultrasounds that are eligible for a Medicare rebate, sonographers must be trained and accredited.

    But there is no sonography registration board to receive complaints about sonographers or take disciplinary action against them. This sets sonographers apart from registered health practitioners such as doctors, nurses and pharmacists.

    The Australian Sonographers Association has argued sonographers should be regulated by a registration board.

    This could make sonographers more clearly identifiable through title protections, ensure poorly performing sonographers are disciplined and allow for consistent national standards.

    However, it would not stop unregistered people from providing non-medical ultrasounds.

    So how can you tell if your provider is a sonographer?

    One clear signal that a provider is offering a non-diagnostic ultrasound is that no Medicare subsidy is on offer.

    Australian providers conducting imaging without accreditation must inform consumers of their non-accredited status and confirm no Medicare benefit is payable.

    Not doing so would amount to an offence.

    How can you report a dodgy provider?

    You can make complaints to state-based health complaints bodies. The Health Care Complaints Commission in New South Wales, for example, can investigate complaints about sonographers as non-registered health practitioners and consider the relevant code of conduct.

    When a sonographer is found to have acted improperly, or to pose a health or safety risk, these complaints bodies may issue orders prohibiting the sonographer from providing any health services for a specified period.

    Australian consumer law is another way authorities may crack down on unscrupulous providers. In 2015, a person was prosecuted in Western Australia after selling identical images to six women who received non-medical ultrasounds in their homes.

    Her offences involved making false or misleading claims and accepting money for services not provided.

    If non-medical imaging providers make misleading claims, including about the level of clinical reassurance a non-diagnostic scan can provide, you can report them to the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission.

    The author was employed as a research officer at the Medical Council of New South Wales in 2018.

    – ref. Why do women get ‘reassurance scans’ during pregnancy? And how can you spot a dodgy provider? – https://theconversation.com/why-do-women-get-reassurance-scans-during-pregnancy-and-how-can-you-spot-a-dodgy-provider-253544

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australian beef highlighted by Donald Trump in ‘Liberation Day’ trade crackdown

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

    US President Donald Trump singled out Australia’s beef trade for special mention in his announcement that the United States would impose a 10% global tariff as well as “reciprocal tariffs” on many countries.

    In a long speech in the White House Rose Garden, Trump said: “Australia bans – and they’re wonderful people and wonderful everything – but they ban American beef.

    “Yet we imported US$3 billion of Australian beef from them just last year alone.

    “They won’t take any of our beef. They don’t want it because they don’t want it to affect their farmers and you know, I don’t blame them but we’re doing the same thing right now starting at midnight tonight, I would say.”

    Australia bans US fresh beef imports because of biosecurity concerns. The US just-released Foreign Trade Barriers report says, “the United States continues to seek full market access for fresh US beef and beef products”.

    Trump announced a “minimum baseline tariff” of 10%, which would apply to Australia as well as to all other countries.

    Initially, given Trump’s language, there was confusion about what will happen with beef but later it was clarified it would face the basic 10% general tariff, and nothing more.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese condemned the new US trade regime and said Australia would continue to try to get exemptions for Australia.

    The trade decision was “not unexpected” but had “no basis in logic” and “was not the act of a friend”.

    Albanese announced a response package, but flagged the government did not want to take the US to the World Trade Organisation. The package includes:

    • strenghening anti-dumping provisions

    • providing A$50 million to affected sectors to secure and pursue new markets

    • sending five missions abroad to develop other markets

    • setting up a new resilience program, involving $1 billion in loans to capitalise on new investment opportunities

    • putting Australian businesses at “the front of the queue” in a “buy Australian” policy in government procurement

    • setting up a strategic reserve for Australian critical minerals.

    Albanese re-emphasised Australia would make no changes to the country’s biosecurity rules.

    Under Trump’s announcement, varying “reciprocal” rates are being imposed on individual countries according to the barriers they impose on American items.

    The president described this as “one of the most important days in American history”, saying it represented a “declaration of economic independence”.

    China will face a 34% tariff, while there will be a 25% global tariff on cars imported into the US. Imports from the European Union will have a 20% tariff imposed.

    There will be 25% on imports from South Korea, as well as 24% on imports from Japan and 32% on those from Taiwan.

    Trump’s message to countries seeking special treatment could not have been blunter.

    “To all of the foreign presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, ambassadors, and everyone else, who will soon be calling to ask for exemptions from these tariffs, I say, terminate your own tariffs, drop your barriers, don’t manipulate here your currencies – they manipulate their currencies, like, nobody can even believe, when it’s a bad, bad thing, and very devastating to us.

    “And start buying tens of billions of dollars of American goods.

    “Tariffs give us protection against those looking to do us economic harm.”

    He said the new US trade regime would raise trillions of dollars that would reduce American taxes and pay down its debt.

    Opposition campaign spokesman James Paterson described the announcement as “disappointing”, He said Australia should work “calmly and directly” with the US administration to get a better deal.

    Nationals leader David Littleproud said action against beef would mean the price of Big Mac burgers would go up for American consumers. Australian beef exported to the US is especially for burgers.

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

    – ref. Australian beef highlighted by Donald Trump in ‘Liberation Day’ trade crackdown – https://theconversation.com/australian-beef-highlighted-by-donald-trump-in-liberation-day-trade-crackdown-253111

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Graves Named “Most Effective Legislator of 118th Congress”

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Sam Graves (6th District of Missouri)

    WASHINGTON, DC – The Center for Effective Lawmaking (CEL) at the University of Virginia announced yesterday the release of their Legislative Effectiveness Scores for the 118th Congress (2023-2024). The group announced that Congressman Sam Graves (MO-06) topped their list this year with a Legislative Effectiveness Score seven times higher than the average member of the House. 

    “Our analysis found that Representative Graves ranked as the most effective Republican House Member in the last Congress. In addition, he ranked as one of the most effective Representatives in terms of having their sponsored standalone bills substantially incorporated into the laws of other members of Congress. We congratulate the Representative for his hard work and setting an example for promoting the importance of effective lawmaking,” according to the Center for Effective Lawmaking.

    Legislative Effectiveness Scores are based on “the bills that each member of Congress sponsors, how far they move through the lawmaking process, and how substantial their policy proposals are.” Graves sponsored 17 bills in the last Congress, 8 of which passed the House, and 4 of which became law as stand-alone measures.

    “I have always strived to get things done for Missouri in Congress. You can accomplish a lot by working hard to push legislation forward. That’s why it is an absolute honor to be recognized as the most effective lawmaker of the 118th Congress by the Center for Effective Lawmaking,” said Rep. Graves. “It’s an honor to work for the people of North Missouri and I look forward to getting more accomplished this year!” 

    Major bills from the 118th Congress sponsored by Graves and signed into law, whether as stand-alone measures or as part of other bills, included the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, the Water Resources Development Act of 2024, the E-BRIDGE Act, and the Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2023. 

    Graves serves as Chair of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and also sits on the House Armed Services Committee. 

    You can learn more about the Legislative Effectiveness Scores here.

     

     

    ###

     

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Australian beef targeted by Donald Trump in ‘Liberation Day’ trade crackdown

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

    US President Donald Trump singled out Australia’s beef trade for special mention in his announcement that the United States would impose a 10% global tariff as well as “reciprocal tariffs” on many countries.

    In a long speech in the White House Rose Garden, Trump said: “Australia bans – and they’re wonderful people and wonderful everything – but they ban American beef.

    “Yet we imported US$3 billion of Australian beef from them just last year alone.

    “They won’t take any of our beef. They don’t want it because they don’t want it to affect their farmers and you know, I don’t blame them but we’re doing the same thing right now starting at midnight tonight, I would say.”

    Australia bans US beef imports because of biosecurity concerns. The US just-released Foreign Trade Barriers report says, “the United States continues to seek full market access for fresh US beef and beef products”.

    While exactly what will happen with beef is unclear, Trump announced a “minimum baseline tariff” of 10%, which would apply to Australia as well as to all other countries.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese condemned the new US trade regime, and said Australia would continue to try to get exemptions for Australia.

    The trade decision was “not unexpected” but had “no basis in logic” and “was not the act of a friend”.

    Albanese announced a response package, but
    flagged the government did not want to take the US to the World Trade Organisation. The package includes:

    • strenghening anti-dumping provisions

    • providing A$50 million to affected sectors to secure and pursue new markets

    • sending five missions abroad to develop other markets

    • setting up a new resilience program, involving $1 billion in loans to capitalise on new investment opportunities

    • putting Australian businesses at “the front of the queue” in a “buy Australian” policy in government procurement

    • setting up a strategic reserve for Australian critical minerals.

    Albanese re-emphasised Australia would make no changes to the country’s biosecurity rules.

    Under Trump’s announcement, varying “reciprocal” rates are being imposed on individual countries according to the barriers they impose on American items.

    The president described this as “one of the most important days in American history”, saying it represented a “declaration of economic independence”.

    China will face a 34% tariff, while there will be a 25% global tariff on cars imported into the US. Imports from the European Union will have a 20% tariff imposed.

    There will be 25% on imports from South Korea, as well as 24% on imports from Japan and 32% on those from Taiwan.

    Trump’s message to countries seeking special treatment could not have been blunter.

    “To all of the foreign presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, ambassadors, and everyone else, who will soon be calling to ask for exemptions from these tariffs, I say, terminate your own tariffs, drop your barriers, don’t manipulate here your currencies – they manipulate their currencies, like, nobody can even believe, when it’s a bad, bad thing, and very devastating to us.

    “And start buying tens of billions of dollars of American goods.

    “Tariffs give us protection against those looking to do us economic harm.”

    He said the new US trade regime would raise trillions of dollars that would reduce American taxes and pay down its debt.

    Opposition campaign spokesman James Paterson described the announcement as “disappointing”, He said Australia should work “calmly and directly” with the US administration to get a better deal.

    Nationals leader David Littleproud said action against beef would mean the price of Big Mac burgers would go up for American consumers. Australian beef exported to the US is especially for burgers.

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

    – ref. Australian beef targeted by Donald Trump in ‘Liberation Day’ trade crackdown – https://theconversation.com/australian-beef-targeted-by-donald-trump-in-liberation-day-trade-crackdown-253111

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: New research reveals chemical secrets of Earth’s crust 4.5 billion years ago

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Simon Turner, Professor, School of Natural Sciences, Macquarie University

    The Eurasian and North American tectonic plates in Thingvellir National Park, Iceland. Nido Huebl/Shutterstock

    Earth is the only known planet which has plate tectonics today. The constant movement of these giant slabs of rock over the planet’s magma creates continents – and may have even helped create life.

    In a new paper published in Nature today, colleagues and I reveal secrets of Earth’s crust 4.5 billion years ago. In the process, we also provide a new way to approach one of the biggest enduring scientific mysteries: when did plate tectonics begin?

    Intimately connected to the development of life

    Earth is roughly 4.5 billion years old. Some scientists argue that in its early form, the planet lacked plate tectonics and may have instead been characterised by a stagnant crust (imagine a fixed lid) – similar to the one on Mars.

    Others say it may have been characterised by episodic, stop-start tectonics. The latter might have been triggered by major meteorite impacts that were common early on, but declined in number over time.

    Plate tectonics is intimately linked to the composition of the oceans and atmosphere because the constant movement of the plates also moves carbon and other elements around. It’s also closely linked to how heat is released from Earth’s interior.

    Because of this, plate tectonics is also thought to be intimately connected to the development of life on Earth.

    One of the biggest enduring scientific mysteries is when plate tectonics began.
    Kolonko/Shutterstock

    A distinctive chemical fingerprint

    The movement of tectonic plates produces volcanic activity at their boundaries. But at island arcs, such as the so-called Ring of Fire which encircles the Pacific Ocean, this volcanism has a distinctive chemical fingerprint nearly identical to that of today’s average continental crust. For example, there is a depletion of the element niobium relative to the rare earth elements.

    Because of this, scientists have long thought that the key to determining when plate tectonics began is to find the first appearance of this fingerprint in ancient rocks.

    Unfortunately, the actions of plate tectonics also compress, melt and reprocess the rocks of the Earth’s crust. As a result, ancient rocks are very rare and there are probably none now remaining from the Hadean eon (4.5–4 billion years ago).

    Interestingly, despite much effort over many decades, the results of such attempts to determine the timing of the onset of plate tectonics have resulted in age estimates ranging from 800 million to 4.5 billion years.

    Such a large range suggests a major problem in the approach.

    A new approach

    Beginning in early 2024, the research team I led tried a new approach. The team was made up of four other researchers from the University of Oxford, Curtin University, the University of Technology Queensland and the University of Lyon.

    We used mathematical models to simulate the period of time when Earth’s core was still forming and its surface comprised an ocean of bubbling, molten rock. Specifically, we investigated the degree of melting of Earth’s early mantle – and the behaviour of chemical elements during this process.

    Our results showed Earth’s earliest crust – known as the protocrust – that formed during the Hadean eon, would have a chemical composition identical to that of the modern average continental crust.

    For example, niobium becomes extracted into metal and removed into Earth’s core, whereas the rare earth elements rise to the surface in the magmas that crystallise to form the crust.

    The movement of tectonic plates produces volcanic activity at their boundaries.
    Allen.G/Shutterstock

    The chemical fingerprint was always there

    This discovery has major implications for how we think about Earth’s earliest history. It means the distinctive chemical fingerprint of the continental crust was always there – and only recycled at island arcs ever since.

    It follows that this signature cannot be used to determine when plate tectonics began, explaining why previous studies could not reach any consensus.

    Although major meteorite impacts would have led to melting and reprocessing of the earliest crust, such processes would only have recycled the continental chemical fingerprint, not created it.

    Some of these early large impacts may have also initiated periodic subduction – the downward and sideways movement – of tectonic plates that eventually fell into the continuous, self-sustaining pattern we observe today. However, our study shows that determining when this transition occurred is more complex than long thought and will require new research methods.

    Further modelling of the geodynamics of Earth’s early crust is needed to better understand when it became unstable and started to subduct. So too is a reappraisal of the implications of this for the evolution of the Earth and the ultimate development of life.

    This work also gives us a new way to think about how continents and life might form on other rocky planets.

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

    – ref. New research reveals chemical secrets of Earth’s crust 4.5 billion years ago – https://theconversation.com/new-research-reveals-chemical-secrets-of-earths-crust-4-5-billion-years-ago-253543

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’: why the US is on a war footing over tariffs and mass deportations

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By David Smith, Associate Professor in American Politics and Foreign Policy, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney

    US President Donald Trump’s foreign policy is doing little to enhance his country’s standing abroad. But it is helping to reinforce his political authority at home.

    Congress and the courts are typically deferential to the president on foreign policy – and, in particular, issues related to national security. By putting most of his agenda under the banner of foreign policy, Trump is now taking advantage of that deference to minimise challenges to his power.

    Trump has claimed for decades that US domestic problems can be solved with a more aggressive foreign policy.

    This focus certainly helps him deal with his political problems, allowing him to attack his enemies and evade accountability under the guise of “saving the country”.

    Trump has even gone so far as to call April 2 – when sweeping new tariffs are imposed on foreign goods – “Liberation Day”.

    This is a term usually used to celebrate the end of long wars rather than the beginning of them.

    Congress ceded its foreign policy powers

    We are used to thinking of the US president as having almost unlimited power over US foreign policy. But the Constitution actually gives a lot of that power to Congress.

    For example, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to declare war. It also gives Congress the power to “collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises”, which include tariffs.

    Given these shared responsibilities, the legal scholar Edward Corwin described the Constitution as “an invitation to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy.”

    Since at least the Second World War, the president has been decisively winning that struggle. Or more accurately, Congress has been declining invitations to use its power.

    For example, American wars no longer begin with declarations. The US has not declared war since 1941, even though the country has been at war almost every year since then. Presidents instead initiate and escalate military conflict in other ways, nearly always with Congressional approval. That approval usually remains in place until a war goes badly wrong.

    Congress also passed legislation in 1934 giving the president power to negotiate trade agreements and adjust tariffs. That power expanded significantly with an act in 1962 that authorised the president to impose tariffs if imports threaten “national security”.

    Although Trump claims tariffs will bring economic prosperity back to the US by reviving manufacturing, his administration justifies them on national security grounds. For example, it is currently using another federal act passed in 1977 that allows tariffs in response to an international emergency as justification for its tariffs on Canada and Mexico.

    Given the dubiousness of these justifications and the economic damage tariffs might do, Congress could try to reassert its constitutional power to set tariffs.

    But this isn’t likely to happen soon, given the loyalty of Republicans to Trump. Members of Congress are also reluctant to be seen standing in the way of the president if national security is at stake.

    One revelation of “Signalgate” was the fact the US bombed Yemen without even the pretext of an urgent national security reason. But the Congressional grilling of Trump’s intelligence leaders, predictably, did not address this.

    The courts are no better

    The courts are supposed to review the constitutionality of government actions. But on foreign policy, the courts have been deferential to the president even longer than Congress.

    In a sweeping judgement in 1918, the Supreme Court wrote that foreign relations counted as a “political power” of the executive and legislative branches, not subject to judicial review.

    The Supreme Court has rarely ruled on foreign policy questions since then. When it does, it nearly always supports the president against anyone challenging his right to make foreign policy, including Congress.

    A federal judge recently complained the Trump administration ignored his order blocking deportation flights of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador.

    Trump invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify deporting the Venezuelans, even though some have no criminal record.
    And Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued the deportations were a “foreign policy matter”, and “we can’t have the judges running foreign policy”.

    Mass deportation is one of Trump’s most popular policies. If he is going to pick fights with the judiciary, it makes political sense to do it on an issue where public opinion is on his side – even if the law is not.

    Rubio’s comment is also a likely preview of the arguments Trump’s lawyers will make when cases about immigration reach the Supreme Court.

    Similarly, the Trump’s administration is relying on the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act to deport protesters who have committed no crimes. This law allows the secretary of state to deport non-citizens if their presence in the US has “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences”.

    Deportations under both acts are going to face legal challenges. But the Trump administration is betting the Supreme Court will take Trump’s side, given its conservative members generally hold an expansive view of executive power.

    A Supreme Court win would be a major political victory for Trump. It would encourage him to focus even more on using deportation as a political weapon, and making foreign policy justifications for legally dubious acts.

    War as a political tool

    Trump is effectively putting the US on a war footing. He is justifying his executive actions by recasting allies as enemies who menace national security with everything from illegal drugs to unfair subsidies, and by labelling millions of foreign nationals as “invaders”.

    Many Americans don’t believe him. But as long as he can make threatening foreigners the main focus of American politics, he can find political and legal support for almost anything he wants to do.

    David Smith 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’s ‘Liberation Day’: why the US is on a war footing over tariffs and mass deportations – https://theconversation.com/trumps-liberation-day-why-the-us-is-on-a-war-footing-over-tariffs-and-mass-deportations-252808

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Cotton, Colleagues Introduce Stephen Hacala Poppy Seed Safety Act

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Arkansas Tom Cotton

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    Contact: Caroline Tabler or Patrick McCann (202) 224-2353
    April 2, 2025

    Cotton, Colleagues Introduce Stephen Hacala Poppy Seed Safety Act

    Washington, D.C. — Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), along with Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) and John Boozman (R-Arkansas), today introduced the Stephen Hacala Poppy Seed Safety Act. The legislation would prohibit the sale of poppy seeds that contain a harmful level of opiates and require the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to issue regulations that establish a maximum level of contamination.

    Congressman Steve Womack (Arkansas-03) is leading companion legislation in the House. Representatives Rick Crawford (Arkansas-01), Rosa DeLauro (Connecticut-03), French Hill (Arkansas-02), and Bruce Westerman (Arkansas-04) are cosponsoring the legislation in the House.

    “Stephen Hacala, Jr. died from an opioid overdose because of a dangerous gap in our nation’s drug laws. Despite government warnings, unwashed poppy seeds, which can contain lethal doses of morphine, are still entering our food supply. It’s time for the FDA to act so that no other families experience the pain the Hacala family has endured,” said Senator Cotton. 

    “This measure would close loopholes that have allowed dangerous and deadly opiates to be sold online. Unwashed poppy seeds available for sale online can contain deadly levels of morphine and have killed tens of Americans. Our bill would ensure stricter FDA regulations and prohibit unwashed poppy seeds from being sold to unwitting consumers,” said Senator Blumenthal.

    “The sale of unwashed poppy seeds is a threat to the safety of Arkansans and all Americans. This legislation honors Stephen Hacala Jr.’s memory by protecting other consumers from falling victim to dangerous, toxin-laced poppy seeds sold online and families from experiencing the loss of a loved one from similar circumstances,” said Senator Boozman.

    “I am proud to join my Arkansas colleagues in supporting this legislation and I hope it makes the changes necessary to protect individuals in the future from harm,” said Congressman Crawford. 

    “Because of negligent practices among poppy seed distributors, the Hacala family now grieves the loss of a loved one. Congress must act to ensure that the Food and Drug Administration issues the appropriate regulations to correctly warn the public on the level of opiates that could be consumed through contaminated poppy seeds. I’m proud to support this legislation alongside my fellow Arkansans and House Republicans to prevent other families from enduring the same loss the Hacala family is unfortunately all too familiar with,” said Congressman Westerman.

    “The Hacala family of Rogers tragically lost their son, Stephen, because lethal substances find their way into our food supply through contaminated poppy seeds. In Stephen’s memory, my colleagues and I have created a solution to close an FDA loophole and ensure that only safe products are available for consumption. This bill can save lives and prevent another family from experiencing an unimaginable loss like the Hacalas,” said Congressman Womack.

    Text of the legislation may be found here.

    Background:

    • While most poppy seeds are harmless, some manufacturers sell seeds laced with morphine at a cost far higher than normal seeds. These seeds can contain more than 20 times the therapeutic dosage of morphine.
    • On April 3, 2016, Stephen Hacala of Fayetteville, Arkansas, died from morphine intoxication caused by morphine-laced poppy seeds purchased from Amazon. As many as 20 other Americans reportedly have died from overdoses caused by morphine-laced poppy seeds sold directly to consumers.
    • A research team led by Dr. Madeleine Swortwood, assistant professor of forensic science at Sam Houston State University, studied the morphine content in different bags of poppy seeds. The researchers found that some bags of poppy seeds contained morphine levels many times higher than a fatal dose.
    • In February 2023, the Department of Defense warned service members to avoid poppy seed products due to contamination and risk of failing drug tests.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Security: Attorney Stephen L. Snyder Sentenced for Attempted Extortion

    Source: Office of United States Attorneys

    Baltimore, Maryland – Today, U.S. District Judge Deborah L. Boardman sentenced Stephen L. Snyder, 77, of Baltimore, Maryland, to three years of probation with six months of home confinement, for one count of attempted extortion and seven counts of the Travel Act. A federal jury found Snyder guilty back on November 22, 2024, after a nine-day trial.

    Kelly O. Hayes, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, announced the sentence with Special Agent in Charge William J. DelBagno of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) – Baltimore Field Office.

    According to the evidence at trial, Snyder, a plaintiffs medical malpractice attorney in the Baltimore area, represented two medical malpractice claimants who allegedly experienced injury following organ transplants at the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC). From January 2018 through September 2018, Snyder attempted to extort the University of Maryland Medical System (UMMS) by threatening to “destroy” the UMMC transplant department unless UMMS paid him $25 million personally and separate from any settlement with his client.

    Specifically, Snyder threatened to launch a public-relations campaign that would falsely accuse UMMC of tricking unsophisticated patients into accepting diseased organs. He claimed that he would run a front-page ad in The Baltimore Sun, hold a press conference, and create an internet advertisement directing anyone searching for the UMMC transplant program to his law firm’s website. Snyder also threatened to create commercials conveying his false message and accusing UMMC of putting “profits over safety.” Snyder played these commercials during meetings with attorneys representing UMMS. Snyder claimed that the parties could enter into a sham consulting agreement that would provide cover for the $25 million payment.

    Snyder made his extortionate demands and threats over a series of meetings and phone calls with attorneys for UMMS in 2018. One of those meetings, which occurred on August 23, 2018, was recorded by Federal law enforcement using hidden video cameras.

    U.S. Attorney Hayes commended the FBI for their work in the investigation. Ms. Hayes also thanked Assistant U.S. Attorneys Matthew P. Phelps and Evelyn L. Cusson who prosecuted the federal case.

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

    # # #

    MIL Security OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Supreme Court considers whether states may prevent people covered by Medicaid from choosing Planned Parenthood as their health care provider

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Naomi Cahn, Professor of Law, University of Virginia

    Planned Parenthood clinics, like this one in Los Angeles, are located across the United States. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

    Having the freedom to choose your own health care provider is something many Americans take for granted. But the Supreme Court is weighing whether people who rely on Medicaid for their health insurance have that right, and if they do – is it enforceable by law?

    That’s the key question at the heart of a case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, that began during President Donald Trump’s first term in office.

    “There’s a right, and the right is the right to choose your doctor,” said Justice Elena Kagan on April 2, 2025, during oral arguments on the case. John J. Bursch, the Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer who is representing South Carolina Director of Health and Human Services Eunice Medina, countered that none of the words in the underlying statute had what he called a “rights-creating pedigree.”

    As law professors who teach courses about health and poverty law as well as reproductive justice, we think this case could affect access to health care for 72 million Americans, including low-income people and their children and people with disabilities.

    Excluding Planned Parenthood

    The case started with Julie Edwards, who is enrolled in Medicaid and lives in South Carolina. After she struggled to get contraceptive services, she was able to receive care from a Planned Parenthood South Atlantic clinic in Columbia, South Carolina.

    Planned Parenthood, an array of nonprofits with roots that date back more than a century, is among the nation’s top providers of reproductive services. It operates two clinics in South Carolina, where Medicaid patients can get physical exams, cancer screenings, contraception and other services. It also provides same-day appointments and keeps long hours.

    In July 2018, however, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster issued an executive order that barred health care providers in South Carolina that offer abortions from reimbursement through Medicaid.

    That meant Planned Parenthood, a longtime target of conservatives’ ire, would no longer be reimbursed for any type of care for Medicaid patients, preventing Edwards from transferring all her gynecological care to that office as she had hoped to do.

    Planned Parenthood and Edwards sued South Carolina, claiming that the state was violating the federal Medicare and Medicaid Act, which Congress passed in 1965, by not letting Edwards obtain care from the provider of her choice.

    A ‘free-choice-of-provider’ requirement

    Medicaid operates as a partnership between the federal government and the states. Congress passed the law that led to its creation based on its power under the Constitution’s spending clause, which allows Congress to subject federal funds to certain requirements.

    Two years later, due to concerns that states were restricting which providers Medicaid recipients could choose, Congress added a “free-choice-of-provider” requirement to the program. It states that people enrolled in Medicaid “may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or services required.”

    This provision is at the core of this case. At issue is whether a civil rights statute provides a right for Medicaid beneficiaries to sue a state when their federal rights have been violated. Known as Section 1983, it was enacted in 1871.

    Bursch, backed by the Trump administration, argued before the court that the absence of words like “right” in the Medicaid provision that requires states to provide a free choice of provider means that neither Edwards nor Planned Parenthood has the authority to file a lawsuit to enforce this aspect of the Medicaid statute.

    Nicole A. Saharsky, Planned Parenthood’s lawyer, argued that the creation of a right shouldn’t depend on “some kind of magic words test.” Instead, she said it was clear that the Medicaid statute created “a right to choose their own doctor” because “it’s mandatory” that the state provide this option to everyone with health insurance through Medicaid.

    She also emphasized that Congress wanted to protect “an intensely personal right” to be able “to choose your doctor, the person that you see when you’re at your most vulnerable, facing … some of the most significant … challenges to your life and your health.”

    Restricting Medicaid funds

    Through a federal law known as the Hyde Amendment, Medicaid cannot reimburse health care providers for the cost of abortions, with a few exceptions: when a patient’s life is at risk or her pregnancy is due to rape or incest. Some states do cover abortion when their laws allow it, without using any federal funds.

    Therefore, Planned Parenthood only gets federal Medicaid funds for abortions in those limited circumstances.

    McMaster explained that he removed “abortion clinics,” including Planned Parenthood, from the South Carolina Medicaid Program because he didn’t want state funds to indirectly subsidize abortions.

    South Carolina “decided that Planned Parenthood was unqualified for many reasons, chiefly because they’re the nation’s largest abortion provider,” Bursch told the Supreme Court.

    But only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services nationwide last year were related to abortion. Its most common service is testing for sexually transmitted diseases. Across the nation, Planned Parenthood provides health care to more than 2 million patients per year, most of whom have low incomes.

    South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster speaks to a crowd during an election night party on Nov. 3, 2020, in Columbia.
    Photo by Sean Rayford/Getty Images

    Section 1983

    Because the Medicaid statute itself does not allow an individual to sue, Edwards and Planned Parenthood are relying on Section 1983.

    Lower courts have repeatedly upheld that the Medicaid statute provides Edwards with the right to obtain Medicaid-funded health care at her local Planned Parenthood clinic.

    And the Supreme Court has long recognized that Section 1983 protects an individual’s ability to sue when their rights under a federal statute have been violated.

    In 2023, for example, the court found such a right under the Medicaid Nursing Home Reform Act. The court held that Section 1983 confers the right to sue when a statute’s provisions “unambiguously confer individual federal rights.”

    Consequences beyond South Carolina

    The court’s decision in the Medina case on whether Medicaid patients can choose their own health care provider could have consequences far beyond South Carolina. Arkansas, Missouri and Texas have already barred Planned Parenthood from getting reimbursed by Medicaid for any kind of health care. More states could follow suit.

    In addition, given Planned Parenthood’s role in providing expansive contraceptive care, disqualifying it from Medicaid could harm access to health care and increase the already-high unintended pregnancy rate in America.

    The ramifications, likewise, could extend beyond the finances of Planned Parenthood.

    If the court rules in South Carolina’s favor, states could also try to exclude providers based on other characteristics, such as whether their employees belong to unions or if they provide their patients with gender-affirming care, further restricting patients’ choices.

    Or, as Kagan observed, states could go the opposite direction and exclude providers that don’t provide abortions and so forth. What’s really at stake, she said, is whether a patient is “entitled to see” the provider they choose regardless of what their state happens to “think about contraception or abortion or gender transition treatment.”

    If the Supreme Court rules that Edwards does have a right to get health care at a Planned Parenthood clinic, the controversy would not be over. The lower courts would then have to decide whether South Carolina appropriately removed Planned Parenthood from Medicaid as an “unqualified provider.”

    And if the Supreme Court rules in favor of South Carolina, then Planned Parenthood could still sue South Carolina over its decision to find them to be unqualified.

    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. Supreme Court considers whether states may prevent people covered by Medicaid from choosing Planned Parenthood as their health care provider – https://theconversation.com/supreme-court-considers-whether-states-may-prevent-people-covered-by-medicaid-from-choosing-planned-parenthood-as-their-health-care-provider-253509

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Strong Leads Unmanned Aircraft Systems Hearing, Leveraging Huntsville Capabilities and Expertise

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Dale Strong (Alabama)

    WASHINGTON— This week, Chairman Dale W. Strong invited unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) subject matter experts and industry leaders from Huntsville to testify before the Committee on Homeland Security on the use of UAS in support of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) mission.  

    “Huntsville, Alabama, is renowned for its leadership in cutting-edge research and development. As home to Redstone Arsenal, the nation’s second-largest research park, and several universities, Huntsville is a thriving hub for American innovation. I am pleased that Alabama’s fifth district is well represented on the witness panel,” said Chairman Dale Strong. 

    The joint hearing, entitled, “Exploring the Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems Across the DHS Enterprise” was led by Representative Dale Strong (AL-05), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Emergency Management and Technology, and Representative Michael Guest (MS-03), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.

    The hearing examined the Department of Homeland Security’s use of UAS for purposes such as disaster mitigation, emergency management, border protection, and drug interdiction.

    “Emerging technologies like UAS are reshaping the way we respond to disasters. Drones enable the protection of emergency management personnel in high-risk situations, while at the same time increase the effectiveness of the work they do.

    “DHS also utilizes UAS to safeguard our borders. They leverage this technology to protect our homeland from illegal crossings and combat illicit activities such as human and drug smuggling. Customs and Border Protection face tremendous challenges, from dangerous environments and a broadening mission set to adversaries that continue to evolve their tactics and capabilities,” said Chairman Strong.  

    Two witnesses from Huntsville— Dr. Michael Ledbetter, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, of COLSA Corporation, and Jerry Hendrix, Executive Director of Rotorcraft Systems Engineering and Simulation Center, the University of Alabama in Huntsville— shared the work they are doing in this space.

    “COLSA has designed and developed highly reliable and resilient UAS, and manufactured thousands of units currently deployed worldwide. We also developed software to coordinate UAS swarming. COLSA is now a leading provider of low-cost, non-developmental, deployable Group 1 and Group 2 Swarm UAS. As the Prime contractor, the primary objective of drone program is to provide realistic responses to emerging battlespace threats from UAS by rapidly designing, manufacturing, producing, and delivering representative threat capabilities,” said Dr. Michael Ledbetter.

    The hearing also examined the Department’s efforts to develop these systems by collaborating with academia and industry to integrate emerging technologies into the DHS mission.

    “UAH is part of a tier 1 research university that ranks 6th in federal investment in aeronautical and aerospace engineering research. The center specializes in autonomous research focusing on uncrewed systems and counter-uncrewed systems. Our unmanned aircraft system (UAS) disaster research has been recognized nationally by the Commercial Drone Alliance in testimony to the House Space, Science, and Technology Committee in 2023. UAH’s research was specified as one of the top 8 UAS programs to ‘Bring benefit to the American People,’” said Jerry Hendrix.

    ###

    The full hearing can be watched HERE. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI New Zealand: 3 April 2025 Te is a creative force in her community Since moving into Kāinga Ora apartment complex Te Mātāwai, Te has become known for her creativity and leadership skills.

    Source: New Zealand Government Kainga Ora

    Naturally artistic, Te can lend her hand to most arts and crafts. She crochets, and her new favourite past times are photography and print making.

    These are skills she’s put to great use in the Te Mātāwai community, contributing work to an onsite art exhibition, assisting with photography projects, taking photos at events, selling her arts and crafts offsite and helping to plan activities for the onsite youth group.

    “When I moved in 18 months ago, I got involved in art classes which led to exhibiting one of my artworks. Then I helped with costumes and a lot of the paperwork for two photography projects involving tenants with artist and lecturer Dieneke Jansen from Auckland University of Technology.

    “I was very excited when Dieneke then invited me to assist on a film and photography project outside Te Mātāwai, it’s a big opportunity for me.”

    Dayne, the Community Development Manager at Te Mātāwai, says Te is a gifted creative and her sense of humour shines through in everything that she does.

    “Te’s worked with us on several projects and events that have benefitted from her creativity and clever thinking, with heaps of laughs along the way. She’s a doer and a leader, and the skills she’s shared with our community have led to new opportunities for her which is awesome. We’re really grateful for all of Te’s contributions to the Te Mātāwai community.”

    Te’s new ventures are part of the upward trajectory her life has taken since moving into Te Mātāwai. The central Auckland complex with 200 apartments for social housing tenants and 24/7 on-site support is a place where lives change.

    “I’d been living in backpacker hostels and boarding houses for years because I couldn’t afford anything more, but it wasn’t very healthy for me.”

    With long-term health problems, Te often felt trapped in her room as she wasn’t well enough to use communal spaces.

    “Now I have my own studio apartment, I can cook and do laundry without having to risk my health. And when I’m well, I can join all the activities going on here.

    “There are so many programmes on offer and there are a lot of nice people around. Everything I need is either here or very nearby which makes life easier.”

    With a place to call her own, improved health and a supportive community, Te says her next goal is to find part-time work, preferably in a reception or administration role. “I like organising other people,” she laughs, another talent that has come to the fore at Te Mātāwai.

    Page updated: 3 April 2025

    MIL OSI New Zealand News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Coons, colleagues introduce bipartisan, bicameral bill to create foundation supporting American leadership in emerging technology

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Delaware Christopher Coons

    WASHINGTON – Yesterday, U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), and Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) introduced a bill to establish a nonprofit foundation that would support the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) by bolstering public-private collaboration on U.S. technological innovation and competitiveness. This bill was initially introduced in the 118th Congress. Representatives Haley Stevens (D-Mich.) and Jay Obernolte (R-Calif.) introduced a companion bill in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    The Expanding Partnerships for Innovation and Competitiveness (EPIC) Act would establish a foundation to help NIST achieve its goal of promoting U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness in science and technology. Congress has established similar foundations to support the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of Energy, and other federal agencies. In Delaware, NIST supports the National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals (NIIMBL), a public-private partnership on the University of Delaware’s campus focused on advancing biopharmaceutical production and developing Delaware’s workforce for the future.  

    “America’s economic strength depends on technological leadership, and NIST has long been an engine of innovation for our country,” said Senator Coons. “The EPIC Act reflects our ongoing commitment to creating a nonprofit foundation that will mobilize resources to support U.S. leadership on emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, biotech, and quantum computing. With strong bipartisan support across both chambers, this legislation represents a critical investment in America’s technological future.”

    “Maintaining and encouraging research and development in the U.S. is critical to winning the technological race against China and other adversaries,” said Senator Young. “Our bipartisan legislation will support these efforts by establishing an independent foundation to identify and foster innovative public-private partnerships across the country and strengthen the American economy.”

    “Whether it’s AI or quantum computing, the United States is pushing the boundaries of technological innovation on all fronts,” said Senator Hickenlooper. “There are no second chances with technologies this powerful; NIST needs every tool at its disposal to ensure responsible R&D from the start.”

    “Our nation’s technological innovation is what keeps us globally competitive,” said Senator Fischer. “To stay ahead of our rapidly advancing adversaries, we must invest in emerging technologies and the metrics that underpin them. The EPIC Act is an effective, bipartisan way to help us generate more resources to do so without additional taxpayer costs.”

    “Now more than ever, our federal science agencies need every tool to drive U.S. technology leadership,” said Representative Stevens. “The reintroduction of the EPIC Act ensures that NIST—a vital agency in emerging technology, standards, and manufacturing—has the resources to secure American leadership in the mid-21st century. By establishing the Foundation for Standards and Metrology, this bill will accelerate technology commercialization, strengthen international collaborations, and support NIST’s world-class workforce. I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this bipartisan, bicameral bill and unleash American innovation.”

    “It is vital that America maintains its position as the world leader in science and technology,” said Representative Obernolte. “The creation of the Foundation for Standards and Metrology will assist in ensuring industry, non-profits, and academia receive the resources that they need to establish cutting-edge standards that enhances the economic security and prosperity of the U.S., which is why I’m proud to be a Republican co-lead on this critical legislation.”

    Specifically, the EPIC Act would establish a nonprofit Foundation for Standards and Metrology, enabling NIST to: 

    • Mobilize private and philanthropic funding to support critical scientific and technical initiatives.
    • Collaborate more closely with the private sector, nonprofit organizations, and institutions of higher education.
    • Train the emerging technology workforce of the future and retain top talent at the institute.

    The EPIC Act is endorsed by four former directors of NIST, as well as SEMI Americas, the Semiconductor Industry Association, NIST Coalition, SPIE, SeedAI, Institute for Progress, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Center for AI Policy, Telecommunications Industry Association, Institute for AI Policy and Strategy, Carnegie Mellon University, University of Colorado Boulder, Americans for Responsible Innovation, Chainguard, CJW Quantum Consulting, American Physical Society, ACT | The App Association, CivAI, SandboxAQ, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Google, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, SC Quantum, Software Information Industry Association, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 5 Lakes Institute, and the APA Services, Inc.

    The full text of the bill is available here. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rahul Varma Named Acting Director of CFTC Division of Market Oversight

    Source: US Commodity Futures Trading Commission

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Commodity Futures Trading Commission Acting Chairman Caroline D. Pham today announced Rahul Varma will serve as the Acting Director of the Division of Market Oversight.
    “Rahul has ably served the CFTC for more than a decade and brings a wealth of knowledge and experience to this new role,” Pham said. “I thank Rahul for his continued leadership in DMO.”
    Varma joined the CFTC in 2013 as an Associate Director for Market Surveillance in DMO, with responsibility for energy, metals, agricultural, and softs markets. In 2017, he helped start the Market Intelligence Branch in DMO and served as its Acting Deputy Director. In 2024, he took on the role of Deputy Director for the combined Market Intelligence and Product Review branches.
    Prior to joining CFTC, Varma held risk management and consulting roles in the private sector. He also worked at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in the Office of Market Oversight and Investigations (predecessor of Office of Enforcement). 
    Varma has a BTech from IIT Delhi, a master’s degree from Case Western Reserve University, and an MBA from George Washington University.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Stuck in the past: Trump tariffs and other policies are dragging the U.S. back to the 19th century

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Eric Strikwerda, Associate Professor, History, Athabasca University

    During Donald Trump’s first term as president, the United States lurched from the absurdity of his lies to the use of his office for personal financial gain, his schoolyard insults and his utter contempt for critics. His term ended with his irresponsible and dangerous incitement of the assault on the Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021.

    This time around, Trump is replying on outdated tools — tariffs, small government, territorial expansion and nationalism — to solve modern problems of globalization, wealth disparities, the decline of manufacturing jobs and exploitative capitalism.

    On April 2, he announced a baseline tariff of 10 per cent on all countries that import goods to the U.S., including Canada. Canada has also been hit with a 25 per cent levy on Canadian-made automobiles.

    The Trump administration’s current use of 19th-century tools to solve 20th-century problems that are wholly inappropriate for the 21st century threatens to take America back to the 19th century. This is an incredibly dangerous road for the U.S to take.

    The rise of the nation state

    The 19th century was marked by the rise of the nation-state — a single political entity united by geography, culture and language.

    This was, in many respects, the result of the rapidly industrializing world shifting away from monarchical rule and mercantile economics toward limited democratic rule and free-market capitalism.

    It was a time of tariffs, small government, territorial expansion and nationalism. It was also a time of mass migration from Europe to North America, where rampant nativism, colonialism and unchecked and exploitative capitalism shaped the landscape.

    The prevailing belief at the time was that nation-states should use tariffs, adopt isolationist policies to cut off the outside world and seize territory where possible. These measures, it was thought, would foster national unity and allow capitalism to thrive by letting the “invisible hand” of the marketplace work its magic.

    Protective tariffs promised to grow domestic industries, but the economic benefits were not evenly distributed. Wealth disparities grew wider as millions of immigrants arrived on North American shores, only to find deplorable living conditions in the cities and hardscrabble farmland out in the country.

    Some newcomers prospered, of course, but they tended to be those who arrived with money already in their pockets. And they fast learned how to exploit the lack of state-directed regulation, patches of corruption amid rapid western expansion and growing nativism and poverty to their own benefit.

    Many of the 20th century’s problems flowed from these 19th-century trends.

    The economic fallout of tariffs

    Following the financial Panic of 1873 and its ensuing economic depression in both Europe and North America, nation-states unleashed tariffs to protect their domestic economies. It was the wrong strategy to pursue, as it slowed trade even more by limiting the free flow of goods and capital. Money, as is now well-known, needs to move to grow.

    Working families chafed at the lack of labour protections like bargaining rights, health and safety measures, unemployment insurance and sick benefits. In response, they formed unions and initiated waves of strikes throughout the western industrialized world.

    Western North American farmers were furious that tariffs forced them to buy on protected markets while selling on unprotected ones subject to international market prices. They organized, too, by forming farmer co-operatives and backing movements like the Granger movement, populism and progressivism to protect their interests.

    Nation-states, warmed by rising nationalist fires, formed military-defence alliances across Europe and its colonial and former colonial holdings, including Canada. In 1914, these alliances led to the First World War, a global and industrial war the likes of which the world had never seen.

    The Great Depression

    By the 1930s, unrestricted and largely unregulated capitalism, together with astonishing wealth disparities and monopolistic tendencies, plunged the world into the decade-long Great Depression.

    Many governments’ initial response was to impose tariffs once again, and just as in 1873, they only made the problem worse. The simultaneous rise of fascism, which was largely nationalism run amok, brought the world to war again at the end of the decade, to devastating consequence.

    The post-war years saw a concerted international effort at using the nation-state to regulate domestic economies by investing in social services and programs and to rein in runaway capital when its excesses threatened stability.

    International bodies like the World Bank, the United Nations and the International Court of Justice were created to promote peace and stability. This new approach wasn’t always successful in its goals, but so far the world hasn’t seen any global hot wars or massive economic depressions.

    The end of history

    In 1992, historian Frances Fukuyama infamously declared that the world had reached “the end of history.”

    He didn’t mean that time stopped, of course. Instead, he was arguing that the liberal nation-state represented “the end-point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”

    In his view, the western industrialized world had reached the pinnacle of successful governance and unlimited prosperity.

    Yet, even as western liberal democracy was congratulating itself on its own success, these same nation-states, in conjunction with large corporations, were seeking out lower labour costs and greater profit in the developing world.

    The result was a hollowing-out of North America’s industrial heartlands, along with rampant exploitation of vulnerable labour in places like Asia, South Asia and South Central America. Once mighty American cities declined. Wages failed to keep up with inflation. Farm debt soared.

    This is where the Trump administration re-enters the story — tapping into the frustration and disillusionment of frustrated Americans by promising to restore a “golden age” that never was.

    Trump’s 19th-century playbook

    Despite his promises, Trump’s tariffs are unlikely to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. As history has shown, tariffs do not revive industries that are already gone; instead, they will only make Americans pay more for the things they need.

    A return to small government won’t “make America great again,” either. Instead, it risks repeating the 19th-century pattern of making the rich richer and gutting the very social programs millions of people rely on. The Trump administration’s massive and ongoing cuts to the Social Security Administration are already well under way.

    Trump’s rhetoric about territorial expansion, including threats to annex Greenland and Canada, won’t make the U.S. more secure. It will just exacerbate the sort of international tensions the world saw in 1914 and 1939.

    And with limited resources left to exploit, it’s becoming harder for capital to sustain itself, even as it seeks to wrest whatever is left from our planet, the realities of environmental catastrophe be damned.

    Nationalism, meanwhile, won’t foster a sense of national unity. It will only deepen existing divisions based on race and class. And if history is any guide, the consequences could be even more dire this time around, even pushing the world toward a global conflict unlike anything seen before.

    Eric Strikwerda 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. Stuck in the past: Trump tariffs and other policies are dragging the U.S. back to the 19th century – https://theconversation.com/stuck-in-the-past-trump-tariffs-and-other-policies-are-dragging-the-u-s-back-to-the-19th-century-253106

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI United Nations: New Permanent Representative of Pakistan Presents Credentials

    Source: United Nations 4

    (Based on information provided by the Protocol and Liaison Service)

    The new Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations, Asim Iftikhar Ahmad, presented his credentials to UN Secretary-General António Guterres today.

    Prior to his appointment, Mr. Ahmad served as his country’s ambassador to France and Monaco and as Permanent Delegate to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) from November 2022 to December 2024.

    Before holding several positions in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Islamabad, Mr. Ahmad served as Pakistan’s ambassador to Thailand and Permanent Representative to the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) from 2017 to 2021.

    His work with the United Nations in New York and Geneva includes serving as a member of the country’s delegation to the Security Council in 2003-2004 and in 2012-2013, when he also served as Pakistan’s political coordinator in the Council.  He has represented Pakistan at the Human Rights Council and the review of Pakistan’s reports to the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee against Torture.  He also served as the Deputy Chef de Cabinet to the General Assembly President from 2009-2010.

    Mr. Ahmad holds a degree in electrical engineering from the University of Engineering and Technology, and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of the Punjab, both in Lahore, Pakistan.

    MIL OSI United Nations News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Pueblo and Southern Colorado Leaders Discuss Region’s Workforce and Broadband Needs

    Source: US State of Colorado

    PUEBLO – Today, the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT) and Southern Colorado Economic Development District (SCEDD) hosted a Regional Talent Summit at the Pueblo Convention Center to convene industry and community leaders, discuss much needed career pathway solutions and begin developing tactical workforce plans to ensure that Colorado workers develop the skills employers need.

    “As Colorado’s economy grows, we’re making sure local workforces are ready to support the industries driving Colorado’s future. These important regional conversations are helping to ensure Coloradans are equipped to thrive in good-paying jobs and businesses have the skills needed to succeed in our state,” said Gov. Polis.

    Today’s summit focused on the advanced manufacturing, construction, and technology industries in Baca, Bent, Chaffee, Crowley, Custer, Fremont, Huerfano, Kiowa, Lake, Las Animas, Otero, Prowers and Pueblo counties. The roundtable discussions and industry breakout sessions will inform the creation of tactical plans to develop industry-specific career pathways that connect Coloradans to good-paying jobs, meet the needs of the region’s employers and support broadband expansion within the region.

    “As a state, we are doubling down on workforce development to connect Coloradans to good-paying jobs while supporting regional economic development goals. Today’s Regional Talent Summit will result in a tactical action plan developed by community and business leaders from Pueblo and across Southern Colorado to meet the region’s unique goals and needs,” said Eve Lieberman, OEDIT Executive Director.

    “Economic development is a team sport. It takes everybody—public, private, and nonprofit sectors—working together to create opportunities for businesses, workers, and residents. A common refrain I’ve heard from all sectors is the need for a trained and dependable workforce throughout our region,” said Leslie Mastroianni, SCEDD Executive Director. “This need became apparent through the development of the region’s Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) and more recently since SCEDD was awarded over $28 million in broadband funds. Today’s conversations will contribute to local workforce solutions and provide valuable input as we work on a grant application to provide training and job placement for unemployed and underemployed people in our region.”

    Today’s event was the third of seven Regional Talent Summits taking place across the state. Established by HB24-1365, these summits build on the impact of the Opportunity Now grant program which has, to date, distributed nearly $90 million to 89 grant recipients to launch and expand innovative talent development programs across the state. Within the 13-county region represented at today’s Regional Talent Summit, notable grant recipients include:

    • Colorado State University-Pueblo (CSU-Pueblo) – $1.4 million to collaborate with Southern Colorado Partners Leading Advancement in Nursing Track (PLANT) to train nurses to work in local communities. Serving 15 counties in Southern Colorado, CSU-Pueblo’s goal is to reduce the infant mortality rate and improve the quality of care for Coloradans over the age of 65 who are most in-need of services.
    • Emergent Campus – Trinidad – $3.5 million to broaden economic opportunities in tech, with a special focus on rural Colorado. This funding is expected to support the growth of more than 155 tech jobs and over 50 paid internships in Fremont County, with an anticipated annual economic impact of more than $25 million. In collaboration with Trinidad State College, these on-the-job and work-based learning opportunities are intended to support business relocation and expansion.
    • Servicios de la Raza – Pueblo – $900,000 to work with education and industry partners to address talent shortages in transportation, infrastructure, warehousing, construction and skilled trades. Focusing on credentialing and skill development, Servicios de la Raza offers training and ongoing wraparound support to place hundreds of Coloradans into jobs.

    Grant recipients from CSU-Pueblo, Emergent Campus, Servicios de la Raza and Skill Distillery participated in today’s summit.

    “The Regional Talent Summit held today is an important milestone for workforce development in Pueblo and southern Colorado. We have an opportunity to help working Coloradans develop and maintain skill sets that are in demand through the entire duration of their careers, and I look forward to working alongside regional partners to implement the resulting action plan,” said Senate Majority Whip, Nick Hinrichsen.

    “Pueblo and southern Colorado are home to hardworking families ready to take on new jobs, contribute to a strong economy and maintain our tightknit communities. Today’s summit is just one way state and local leaders are working together to ensure more Coloradans in our region develop the skills to access today’s and tomorrow’s new jobs,” said Sen. Rod Pelton.

    “Access to quality education in southern Colorado is a necessity to ensure our residents have the skills they need for good paying jobs. When both business and community leaders collaborate to ensure our region has the education opportunities for individuals to support their families, this is what continues to make headway for work force development in House District 47,” said House Assistant Minority Leader, Ty Winter.

    “Today’s regional workforce summit and the resulting action plan will help ensure that hardworking Coloradans in Pueblo and the region have the skills to access good-paying jobs in advanced manufacturing, construction, and technology, while improving broadband. That’s a win for our regional economy and our communities,” said Rep. Tisha Mauro

    Four more summits will take place across the state between now and June 2025, and each region’s tactical workforce plans will be published in the 2025 Colorado Talent Pipeline report, with annual progress reports being published through 2030. The next summits will take place May 12 in Grand Junction, focusing on construction, early childhood education and healthcare; and May 16 in Durango, with a focus on construction, early childhood education and healthcare.  

    About the Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade

    The Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade (OEDIT) works to empower all to thrive in Colorado’s economy. Under the leadership of the Governor and in collaboration with economic development partners across the state, we foster a thriving business environment through funding and financial programs, training, consulting and informational resources across industries and regions. We promote economic growth and long-term job creation by recruiting, retaining, and expanding Colorado businesses and providing programs that support entrepreneurs and businesses of all sizes at every stage of growth. Our goal is to protect what makes our state a great place to live, work, start a business, raise a family, visit and retire—and make it accessible to everyone. Learn more about OEDIT.

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-Evening Report: With its executive order targeting the Smithsonian, the Trump administration opens up a new front in the history wars

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jennifer Tucker, Professor of History, Wesleyan University

    A portrait of President Donald Trump in the ‘America’s Presidents’ exhibition at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Portrait Gallery. Win McNamee/Getty Images

    I teach history in Connecticut, but I grew up in Oklahoma and Kansas, where my interest in the subject was sparked by visits to local museums.

    I fondly remember trips to the Fellow-Reeves Museum in Wichita, Kansas, and the National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum in Oklahoma City. A 1908 photograph of my great-grandparents picking cotton has been used as a poster by the Oklahoma Historical Society.

    This love of learning history continued into my years as a graduate student of history, when I would spend hours at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum learning about the history of human flight and ballooning. As a professor, I’ve integrated the institution’s exhibits into my history courses.

    The Trump administration, however, is not happy with the way the Smithsonian Institution and other U.S. museums are portraying history.

    On March 27, 2025, the president issued an executive order, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” which asserted, “Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation’s history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth. Under this historical revision, our Nation’s unparalleled legacy of advancing liberty, individual rights, and human happiness is reconstructed as inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed.”

    Trump singled out a few museums, including the Smithsonian, dedicating a whole section of the order on “saving” the institution from “divisive, race-centered ideology.”

    Of course, history is contested. There will always be a variety of views about what should be included and excluded from America’s story. For example, in my own research, I found that Prohibition-era school boards in the 1920s argued over whether it was appropriate for history textbooks to include pictures of soldiers drinking to illustrate the 1791 Whiskey Rebellion.

    But most recent debates center on how much attention should be given to the history of the nation’s accomplishments over its darker chapters. The Smithsonian, as a national institution that receives most of its funds from the federal government, has sometimes found itself in the crosshairs.

    America’s historical repository

    The Smithsonian Institution was founded in 1846 thanks to its namesake, British chemist James Smithson.

    Smithson willed his estate to his nephew and stated that if his nephew died without an heir, the money – roughly US$15 million in today’s dollars – would be donated to the U.S. to found “an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge.”

    The idea of a national institution dedicated to history, science and learning was contentious from the start.

    An 1816 portrait of British chemist James Smithson.
    Heritage Art/Heritage Images via Getty Images

    In her book “The Stranger and the Statesman,” historian Nina Burleigh shows how Smithson’s bequest was nearly lost due to battles between competing interests.

    Southern plantation owners and western frontiersmen, including President Andrew Jackson, saw the establishment of a national museum as an unnecessary assertion of federal power. They also challenged the very idea of accepting a gift from a non-American and thought that it was beneath the dignity of the government to confer immortality on someone simply because of a large donation.

    In the end, a group led by congressman and former president John Quincy Adams ensured Smithson’s vision was realized. Adams felt that the country was failing to live up to its early promise. He thought a national museum was an important way to burnish the ideals of the young republic and educate the public.

    Today the Smithsonian runs 14 education and research centers, the National Zoo and 21 museums, including the National Portrait Gallery and the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which was created with bipartisan support during President George W. Bush’s administration.

    In the introduction to his book “Smithsonian’s History of America in 101 Objects,” cultural anthropologist Richard Kurin talks about how the institution has also supported hundreds of small and large institutions outside of the nation’s capital.

    In 2024, the Smithsonian sent over 2 million artifacts on loan to museums in 52 U.S. states and territories and 33 foreign countries. It also partners with over 200 affiliate museums. YouGov has periodically tracked Americans’ approval of the Smithsonian, which has held steady at roughly 68% approval and 2% disapproval since 2020.

    Smithsonian in the crosshairs

    Precursors to the Trump administration’s efforts to reshape the Smithsonian took place in the 1990s.

    In 1991, the Smithsonian American Art Museum, which was then known as the National Museum of American Art, created an exhibition titled “The West as America, Reinterpreting Images of the Frontier, 1820-1920.” Conservatives complained that the museum portrayed western expansion as a tale of conquest and destruction, rather than one of progress and nation-building. The Wall Street Journal editorialized that the exhibit represented “an entirely hostile ideological assault on the nation’s founding and history.”

    The exhibition proved popular: Attendance to the National Museum of American Art was 60% higher than it had been during the same period the year prior. But the debate raised questions about whether public museums were able to express ideas that are critical of the U.S. without risk of censorship.

    In 1994, controversy again erupted, this time at the National Air and Space Museum over a forthcoming exhibition centered on the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima 50 years prior.

    Should the exhibition explore the loss of Japanese lives? Or emphasize the U.S. war victory?

    Veterans groups insisted that the atomic bomb ended the war and saved 1 million American lives, and demanded the removal of photographs of the destruction and a melted Japanese school lunch box from the exhibit. Meanwhile, other activists protested the exhibition by arguing that a symbol of human destruction shouldn’t be commemorated at an institution that’s supposed to celebrate human achievement.

    Protesters demonstrate against the opening of the Enola Gay exhibit outside the Smithsonian Institution’s National Air and Space Museum in 1995.
    Joyce Naltchayan/AFP via Getty Images

    Republicans won the House in 1994 and threatened cuts to the Smithsonian’s budget over the Enola Gay exhibition, compelling curators to walk a tightrope. In the end, the fuselage of the Enola Gay was displayed in the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum. But the exhibit would not tell the full story of the plane’s role in the war from a myriad of perspectives.

    Trump enters the fray

    In 2019, The New York Times launched the 1619 project, which aimed to reframe the country’s history by placing slavery and its consequences at its very center. The first Trump administration quickly responded by forming its 1776 commission. In January 2021, it produced a report critiquing the 1619 project, claiming that an emphasis on the country’s history of racism and slavery was counterproductive to promoting “patriotic education.”

    That same year, Trump pledged to build “a vast outdoor park that will feature the statues of the greatest Americans to ever live,” with 250 statues to mark the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.

    President Joe Biden rescinded the order in 2021. Trump reissued it after retaking the White House, and pointed to figures he’d like to see included, such as Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Betsy Ross, Sitting Bull, Bob Hope, Thurgood Marshall and Whitney Houston.

    I don’t think there is anything wrong with honoring Americans, though I think a focus on celebrities and major figures clouds the fascinating histories of ordinary Americans. I also find it troubling that there seems to be such a concerted effort to so forcefully shape the teaching and understanding of history via threats and bullying. Yale historian Jason Stanley has written about how aspiring authoritarian governments seek to control historical narratives and discourage an exploration of the complexities of the past.

    Historical scholarship requires an openness to debate and a willingness to embrace new findings and perspectives. It also involves the humility to accept that no one – least of all the government – has a monopoly on the truth.

    In his executive order, Trump noted that “Museums in our Nation’s capital should be places where individuals go to learn.” I share that view. Doing so, however, means not dismantling history, but instead complicating the story – in all its messy glory.

    The Conversation U.S. receives funding from the Smithsonian Institution.

    Jennifer Tucker 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. With its executive order targeting the Smithsonian, the Trump administration opens up a new front in the history wars – https://theconversation.com/with-its-executive-order-targeting-the-smithsonian-the-trump-administration-opens-up-a-new-front-in-the-history-wars-253397

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Adolescence in schools: TV show’s portrayal of one boyhood may do more harm than good when used as a teaching tool

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Sophie King-Hill, Associate Professor at the Health Services Management Centre, University of Birmingham

    Netflix television series Adolescence follows a 13-year-old boy accused of the murder of his female classmate. It touches upon incel online hate groups, toxic influencers and the misogynistic online spaces of the manosphere.

    Keir Starmer, the UK prime minister, has backed a move for Adolescence to be shown in schools, and Netflix has now made the series available to be shown for free in classrooms through charity Into Film+, which has also produced a guide for teachers. Resources for teachers and parents will also be produced by relationships charity Tender.

    Adolescence is a drama and deserves the praise it has attracted. But it wasn’t developed as an educational resource, the kind that is produced in consultation with young people and schools and should be underpinned by robust research and well planned evaluations.

    The series shows an extreme example of one teenager drawn into the world of the manosphere. Not all boys will see themselves reflected in this portrayal. And as a researcher working on masculinity and misogyny, my concern is that showing the series in schools may lead boys to think that they are all perceived as potential threats.

    Showing the series as a teaching tool risks framing boyhood as monolithic, with one particular – and problematic – way of being a boy.

    Already, a broad-brush, blame-heavy approach is often taken to boys in response to issues relating to sexual harassment and violence. “We may have a problem with boys and young men that we need to address”, Keir Starmer has said.

    Boys dealing with blame

    In research I have carried out for a forthcoming book on boys and masculinity, I worked with young men and boys aged 13 to 19. One 15-year-old boy said that “I am always told that I am part of the problem but never allowed to be part of the solution”. I also found that this broad blame culture leads to feelings of worthlessness in young men and boys, which shuts down vital dialogue and also may lead them to resort to looking for direction from negative spaces such as the manosphere.

    It is evident from reports and evidence that young men and boys do carry out a large amount of reported sexual harassment and harms against young women and girls. This can be seen in the 2021 Ofsted report into sexual harassment in schools in England, for example. The 2025 2000 Women report states that, in the UK, a woman is killed by a man every three days.

    There is evidently a serious, endemic and complex problem. The misogyny that can be popularised by toxic influencers online also needs urgently addressing.

    But a “one-size-fits-all” approach to tackle “boys’ issues” may result in making things worse, not better, due to the lack of recognition of the intersectionality of boyhood. Other aspects of identity, such as race, age, class, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, sexuality and physical and mental health will have implications for the approaches that need to be taken.



    Read more:
    How to talk to boys about misogyny

    My ongoing research has demonstrated that boyhood means differing things to different boys. In steering groups with young men and boys from various ethnicities and differing social classes, a consistent theme emerged. This was a conflict between the internal and external self that the boys felt that they had to portray. This was also highlighted in a further 16 focus groups carried out on the project, again with a range of boys.

    The internal self refers to who the boys actually are, including other identity traits such as race and class, and all the other intersecting aspects of their identity. The external self is what they felt they should show as a boys to fit into the hierarchy of masculinity and how they should portray themselves to fit within the social expectations of being a boy. This causes a conflict of external and internal self.

    Efforts to help boys deal with issues such as the messages of the manosphere need to be attuned to the nuance of their internal selves. Generalising boys does not account for the individual identities that they bring to the issues that affect them.

    Boys as individuals

    The monolithic perspective of “boys” and the ensuing group blame oversimplifies complex issues, resulting in less than effective solutions and interventions that do not acknowledge or account for the nuances and complexities that surround individual boys.

    This approach ignores diversities and intersecting identities and steers societal thinking about boys as a set group. It risks stereotyping them and causing prejudicial approaches. When boys are stigmatised in such a way, it compounds issues across genders, breaks down valuable communication and can also cause resentment and hostility.

    One of the key voices and valuable perspectives that is missing from this debate is that of young men and boys themselves. We need to truly listen to their perspectives and their needs and build upon these as they are the experts in the world they are experiencing. Good practice accounts for and builds upon these experiences, with young people.

    My research has demonstrated that young people want to be a part of these discussions rather than having things decided for them. It also shows that, quite often, we are teaching them what they already know and providing support and education that is too little, too late. We need to move away from the broad brush blaming of boys and young men and begin to approach them based upon their own individual identities – of which gender is only a part.

    Sophie King-Hill receives funding from ESRC.

    – ref. Adolescence in schools: TV show’s portrayal of one boyhood may do more harm than good when used as a teaching tool – https://theconversation.com/adolescence-in-schools-tv-shows-portrayal-of-one-boyhood-may-do-more-harm-than-good-when-used-as-a-teaching-tool-253158

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –