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

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has announced a suite of legislative and other action to combat antisemitism including new measures against hate speech and extra power to reject visas.

The package, unveiled after a meeting of cabinet’s national security committee on Thursday morning, comes after days of anger in the Jewish community, where many people feel the government has not done enough against antisemitism since the October 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas.

The legislative measures include:

• an offence of aggravated hate speech for preachers and leaders who promote violence

• increased penalties for hate speech promoting violence

• making hate an aggravating factor in sentencing crimes for online threats and harassment

• developing a regime for listing organisations whose leaders engage in hate speech, promoting violence, or racial hatred

• developing a narrow federal offence for serious vilification based on race and/or advocating racial supremacy.

The Home Affairs Minister, Tony Burke, will be given stronger powers to cancel or reject visas for people who “spread hate and division” in Australia or who would do so if they were allowed to come to this country.

Albanese also said leading business figure David Gonski would lead a year-long taskforce “to ensure the Australian education system prevents, tackles and properly responds to antisemitism”. Gonski led the seminal schools inquiry that reported to the Gillard government.

Those also on the Gonski taskforce will include the government envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal.

Also, the eSafety commissioner Julie Inman Grant, Segal and the communications department are to provide online safety advice on addressing antisemitism.

Albanese’s news conference was also attended by Burke, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Krissy Barrett, Education Minister Jason Clare and Segal.

Albanese said the government had already implemented recommendations from the Segal report on combating antisemitism and “we’ll continue to work through the implementation of the 13 recommendations in consultation with the Jewish community and the envoy”.

Asked whether he regretted not acting earlier with more strength and conviction on antisemitism, and whether he would apologise to the Jewish community, Albanese said “My heart goes out to Jewish Australians. Is there more that can be done? There is always more that can be done. Always. And quite clearly, there’s more to do.”

Asked whether a statement of contrition from him or the broader community would help healing, he said, “I, of course, acknowledge that more could have been done, and I accept my responsibility for the part in that as prime minister of Australia.

“But what I also do is accept my responsibility to lead the nation and unite the nation. Because what people are looking for at this time isn’t more division. They are looking to come together,” he said.

He said he had “done my best to respond. Do I regret anything? Anyone in this position would regret not doing more, and any inadequacies which are there. But what we need to do is to move forward. We are taking action. We have taken action.”

Albanese rejected suggestions that he had not engaged face-to-face this week with the Jews at Bondi, saying he had been to homes in Bondi and met with families who were grieving, as well as meeting with the community leaders at an interfaith memorial service at St Mary’s Cathedral on Tuesday.

The funeral of 10-year-old victim Matilda was held on Thursday morning.

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. Albanese announces new crackdown on hate, in sweeping initiatives to combat antisemitism – https://theconversation.com/albanese-announces-new-crackdown-on-hate-in-sweeping-initiatives-to-combat-antisemitism-271948

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Katrina Raynor, Research associate, The University of Melbourne

Homelessness is a growing issue in Australia.

Data released last week by the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare show 350 requests for support go unmet every day due to a lack of resources. Most of those requests are from women and children fleeing family and domestic violence.

One in three people seeking crisis accommodation do not receive support, highlighting how damaging housing shortages can be.

It’s also a heath issue

Homelessness is also a health crisis.

The median age at death for Australians receiving homelessness services in the past decade was 55 years – 28 years below the Australian average life expectancy.

The figures are even worse for people sleeping rough (people living in improvised dwellings, tents, or sleeping outdoors). A 2024 Guardian investigation found an average age of death for rough sleepers of just 44.

Across Australia, the homelessness system is struggling to keep up.

It’s taking longer for people to receive help, and more are asking for support – including people who in the past would have found housing through the private rental market.

There are a range of reasons for this, including:

• rising housing and cost-of-living pressures
• decades of underfunded social housing
• social welfare payments that are placing recipients further below the poverty line.

How is homelessness tackled in Australia?

Homelessness services are mostly funded through the National Agreement on Social Housing and Homelessness, an agreement between the Australian, state and territory governments.

Homelessness expenditure by the South Australian and Western Australian governments rose by 21% in real (inflation-adjusted) terms over the four years to 2023-24, from $176 million to $213 million. But this has been insufficient to meet rising need.

The lack of available resources means Australia’s homelessness services are locked in “crisis mode” – responding to people only once they are in dire need of help and managing homelessness, rather than reducing or ending it.

Australia is one of many countries that has failed to stem the rise in homelessness in recent decades.

In contrast, the total number of people experiencing long-term homelessness in Finland decreased by 68% between 2008 and 2022.

This success is largely due to Finland’s commitment to “housing first” – a set of principles and a system for housing and supporting people who have experienced long-term and recurring homelessness.

What our research revealed

Our research in South Australia and Western Australia provides an evidence-based argument for “housing first” principles and the development of supportive housing (housing paired with wraparound support services targeted at people with a history of chronic homelessness).

In an Australian first, we estimated the number of homes required to end rough sleeping in Perth and Bunbury in Western Australia, and inner-city Adelaide in South Australia.

We found 1,300 units would be needed in Perth and Bunbury combined and 150 units in inner-city Adelaide. We estimate 90% of homes should be one-bedroom units with the remaining 10% delivered as two or three-bedroom units.

These figures are based on regional databases that allow services to coordinate support and track outcomes for each person.

To build these homes and support tenants with wraparound services, our research estimates it would cost $500 million over five years to build and operate 1,3000 homes in metro Perth and Bunbury, and $50 million to build and operate 156 homes in inner-city Adelaide.

While the Adelaide figures look substantially lower, this is mostly due to a smaller geography and smaller population.

This is a significant but achievable investment. For comparison, the WA and SA governments spent $452 million and $388 million respectively on homelessness services in the four years to 2023-24.

A health and economic boost

Providing housing to people sleeping rough is unsurprisingly highly effective at keeping people stably housed.

One systematic review showed when homeless people are supported by a “housing first” model, their chance of being stably housed 24 months later increases from 37% to 75%.

We also know “housing first” participants are healthier and happier: the same review found participants experience 37% fewer emergency department visits and 24% fewer hospitalisations compared to people without access to supportive housing. They are also more satisfied with their lives overall.

Supportive housing also saves the government money.

We estimated fully funding these programs would save the Western and South Australian governments $130 million over five years in reduced health and criminal justice costs.

In a 60-year time horizon, we estimate every dollar spent on delivering supportive housing would yield social benefits of $1.56 in SA and $1.23 in WA.

More work is needed

Our study needs to be replicated across Australia to better understand national levels of need and the cost of meeting it.

These evidence-based figures can help the homelessness sector be more specific when calling for better funding.

The work doesn’t stop there.

Understanding how much and for whom is important but political will and the dollars that follow it are essential to meaningful change.

Lucas Lewit-Mendes, research associate at Per Capita, contributed to this article.

Katrina Raynor is employed by Per Capita, a progressive think tank. Per Capita was commissioned by the Australian Alliance to End Homelessness to conduct a needs assessment for supportive housing.

– ref. How much does it cost to end rough sleeping? An Australian-first study may have just found out – https://theconversation.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-end-rough-sleeping-an-australian-first-study-may-have-just-found-out-271291

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Jacques Raubenheimer, Senior Research Fellow, Biostatistics, University of Sydney

In the wake of Sunday’s tragic Bondi shooting, conspiracy theories and deliberate misinformation have spread on social media.

One thing some people have latched onto is the idea Google Trends data show a spike in searches for “Naveed Akram” – the name of one of the attackers – from Tel Aviv (or other locations) before the shooting occurred. In a surprising lateral jump, this is taken to show Akram must be an Israeli agent.

Similar stories did the rounds when US right-wing activist Charlie Kirk was killed in September, and after an attack on US National Guard members in November.

So what’s going on here? Google told the ABC Google Trends may sometimes show searches when none actually happened due to “statistical noise”.

I have studied the mechanics of Google Trends extensively in my research, and I can confirm this is true – and the “noise” can lead to strange results, especially when looking at searches for unusual terms or coming from small areas.

How does Google Trends work?

Google Trends shows information about what users are searching for at different places and times. The data it uses are what statisticians call a “time series”, but they are unusual in a couple of ways.

First, you can very easily select different time scales, such as minute-by-minute and year-by-year.

Second is the fact the data are only a small sample of the true gigantic volume of Google searches. Time series normally contain all available data (such as these statistics on annual hospitalisations).

The Google Trends help page explains this as follows:

While only a sample of Google searches are used in Google Trends, this is sufficient because we handle billions of searches per day.

Statistical noise and rare searches

However, my research has shown that queries related to terms that are not widely searched (such as “Naveed Akram” before the shooting) or in small geographical regions (where there are fewer people doing searches) can display a wide variation of results from one sample to the next.

Many of the misleading social media posts show Trends results from a small region (such as only the city of Tel Aviv), which exacerbates the variation. The high variation causes a very distinct pattern of zero or near-zero values with some isolated big spikes, which is very evident in the post below.

These spikes are often caused by “statistical noise” in the data – small random fluctuations that are smoothed out when we look at a larger number of events. You can see this clearly when you compare with searches that have high volume.

How Google Trends results change over time

Another misconception about the data is related to time. Some posts mention how the displayed results seem to change from one view to the next. This is, in fact, exactly what to expect with Google Trends data.

This is a combination of the time scale used and the fact Google uses only a sample of the full data. To get accurate results, one has to aggregate many samples of Google Trends data.

However, this presents a new challenge. For short-term data (such as that typically used in these social media posts), Google continually updates results in real time. For longer-term data, Google only adds one new sample per day (though we have developed methods to get around this).

What the numbers in Google Trends really mean

A third misconception is that the numbers shown on Google Trends charts are the number of searches for a given term. However, the Google Trends help again explains that the values are “normalised to the time and location” and then “scaled on a range of 0 to 100”.

This means the time point in the series with the highest number of searches is set to 100, and all other points are scaled relative to that. So if the maximum number of searches was ten, it would show up as 100 – and if there were three searches at another time, this would show up as 30 (although Google does suppress very low-volume searches).

In a sense, the number for each time point represents the likelihood that a search containing the specified terms would occur in that place at that time.

So a post about search trends for the alleged killer of Charlie Kirk claiming there are “Less than 1 in 1 BILLION odds of it happening” is incorrect.

It is, in fact, highly probable: if “Tyler James Robinson” (Charlie Kirk’s alleged killer) had 30 searches, and “Lance Twiggs” (Robinson’s partner) had 40, one would see exactly this pattern (if 40 is scaled to 100; 30 is accordingly scaled to 75).

The power of common sense

Even without understanding all this information about Google Trends data, some common sense can also help. For example, there are many people named Naveed Akram, including a Pakistani footballer named Muhammad Naveed Akram.

That there might have been a few searches for “Naveed Akram” even before December 14 is therefore not surprising. (Google Trends returns any search containing the query, so “Naveed Akram” will also return “Muhammad Naveed Akram”.)

Google Trends data can be incredibly useful for understanding events in real time. For example, it has been used to predict — with a margin of error — the outcomes of elections and referendums.

However, to do so properly, and not perpetuate fiction, one has to understand the data and interpret the results properly. And Google Trends certainly does not tell us anything about Naveed Akram and the Bondi terror attack.

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

– ref. How misreading Google Trends is fuelling Bondi attack conspiracy theories – https://theconversation.com/how-misreading-google-trends-is-fuelling-bondi-attack-conspiracy-theories-272251

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Matthew Kearnes, Professor of Environment & Society, UNSW Sydney

Until recently, Australia’s efforts to tackle “forever chemical” pollution focused on highly polluted firefighting and defence sites.

But last year, elevated levels of some of these chemicals were detected in the untreated water supply for the Blue Mountains in New South Wales. Residents were understandably concerned.

Community groups threatened to launch a class action, while residents sought to have their blood tested. NSW Water Minister Rose Jackson moved to reassure residents their “water is safe”, and a Sydney Morning Herald editorial said the state government was blind to the risks.

Earlier this year, Australia banned three of these chemicals – PFOA, PFOS and PFHxS. PFOA is considered carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, while PFOS is considered possibly carcinogenic. But the environmental and health effects of forever chemical exposure remain a matter of debate, as the risk depends on concentration. In November, a Senate inquiry made dozens of recommendations to better regulate these chemicals.

All too often, authorities respond to legitimate community concerns by pointing to the low level of risk. But as these chemicals build up in drinking water, wastewater and farming soils, this trust-the-experts approach isn’t going to work.

Risks and concentration levels

Forever chemicals are properly known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). They’re used in products such as carpets, clothes, food packaging and paper, as well as firefighting foams, pesticides and stain repellents. They don’t break down easily, and steadily accumulate in soil, surface water and groundwater. Around 15,000 PFAS chemicals are now ubiquitous in the environment.

In highly contaminated sites such as firefighter training facilities or defence bases, the risk is clearer and responses can target specific facilities and geographic locations.

But the question of what to do becomes much harder when forever chemicals become widely distributed in drinking water and wastewater systems, generally at levels well below thresholds considered dangerous according to Australian standards.

In response to the Blue Mountains issue, Water NSW stopped two dams from supplying water as a precautionary measure. Sydney Water installed a new PFAS water treatment system.

Community backlash

Australian authorities began responding to PFAS contamination a decade ago. Since then, policymakers have restricted the import and manufacture of certain forever chemicals, banned some uses of PFAS-containing firefighting foams, developed a national plan to manage PFAS chemicals, officially set the levels of PFAS a person could safely consume in a day and developed guidelines for drinking water.

Even with such actions, authorities have been subject to sustained public criticism from community groups and the media over the speed, adequacy and level of protections compared to the more restrictive thresholds set by the United States and European Union.

At Williamtown in NSW, authorities were aware of the issue for three years before revealing it. Community groups lost faith in official responses, turning to external experts before ultimately launching a class action against the Department of Defence.

Some compensation flowed from this based on financial losses. But researchers have found compensation does little to actually address residents’ health and environment concerns.

Independent reviews have recommended official responses to PFAS should be more transparent. But little has changed. The same distrust is emerging in the Blue Mountains, while state and federal inquiries have raised questions over how PFAS risks are communicated and falling public trust in government agencies.

Better communication misses the point

Community backlash against issues such as PFAS contamination can often be framed as non-experts misunderstanding the science.

Authorities often think the answer is to communicate better and more clearly to fix the deficit. For instance, the national PFAS policy describes communication as essential:

if people affected by PFAS contamination cannot understand what governments are saying, they are more likely to view the information with scepticism or as a deliberate attempt to disguise the facts.

The risk here is that focusing on better official communication is still about speaking, rather than listening. The community can become a noisy stakeholder to be managed rather than an active collaborator. But people in these communities are legitimately worried. They want to speak and be heard as equal partners.

Is there a better way?

PFAS contamination isn’t just a technological or legal issue. It’s also a social issue – it affects communities.

When facing a pollution problem, affected communities often organise themselves and advocate for better outcomes. Community groups often commission independent research or conduct citizen science, while collaborating with scientists and engineers.

Officials and residents should collectively work through the options and costs associated, as well as discussing what level of risk different communities are willing to accept. Public forums aren’t enough, as these tend to put experts at the centre, answering questions.

The launch of the first community-based PFAS working group under the new PFAS National Coordinating Body is a positive initial step. Collaborative efforts like this are not easy. Authorities and community leaders can view each other with suspicion, and the unequal power dynamics play a role.

As NSW Information Commissioner Rosalind Croucher recently pointed out, making contamination data easily available to communities helps ensure management is “transparent, evidence-based, and accountable to the communities it affects”.

Hard but not impossible

Like forever chemicals themselves, the issue of PFAS pollution isn’t going away. Finding better ways of responding will be essential, as the issue can’t be solved by scientists, engineers and policymakers in a top-down approach. Communities who have to drink the water must be given the right to speak – and be heard.

Read more:
Living with PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ can be distressing. Not knowing if they’re making you sick is just the start

Matthew Kearnes receives funding from the Australian Research Council and Australian government under the National Environmental Science Program, through the Sustainable Communities and Waste Hub

Cameron Holley receives funding from an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant, partnering with the NSW Natural Resources Access Regulator. He is a Deputy Director of the UNSW Institute for Climate Risk and Response and a board member of the National Environmental Law Association (NELA).

Carley Bartlett receives funding from an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant, partnering with the NSW Natural Resources Access Regulator. Her PhD research was supported by an Australian government Research Training Program scholarship.

Patrick Bonney receives funding from an Australian Research Council Discovery Project on the governance of emerging contaminants.

Denis O’Carroll 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. Don’t talk – listen. Why communities affected by forever chemicals in water must be heard – https://theconversation.com/dont-talk-listen-why-communities-affected-by-forever-chemicals-in-water-must-be-heard-258062

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Isaac Gross, Lecturer in Economics, Monash University

After several years of steadily declining, the Australian dollar staged a meaningful recovery in 2025, culminating in a two-cent rally over the past month.

Since the start of the year, the value of the Australian dollar has risen by more than 6% against the US dollar, reversing a sizeable chunk of the falls that occurred through 2022–24.

But is the most recent jump the start of a new trend for 2026? Or just another blip?

Why US rate cuts move the Australian dollar

Last week the US central bank, the Federal Reserve, cut interest rates for the third time in a row – down by 0.25 percentage points to around 3.6%, its lowest level in nearly three years.

That decision came just after the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) kept rates on hold at 3.6%. The RBA governor, Michele Bullock, also signalled more rate cuts here are unlikely for “the foreseeable future”.

In the days immediately after the US Fed’s decision, the Australian dollar did what textbook economics would predict: it rose, briefly hitting a three-month high of around US$0.667.

The link between US monetary policy and the Australian dollar is often misunderstood.

A US rate cut does not directly make Australia richer or poorer. Instead, it alters global financial conditions in ways that matter for currencies.

The most straightforward way US decisions affect us here in Australia is with interest-rate differentials. That means when US interest rates fall relative to Australian rates, holding US dollar assets (such as US bonds) becomes slightly less attractive. That can reduce demand for the US dollar and support overseas currencies like ours.

There is also a broader “risk appetite” effect. When the Fed lowers its key interest rate, markets often interpret that as being supportive of global growth and financial conditions, at least initially. That can boost demand for riskier assets – including shares in Australian companies and the Australian dollar itself.

Finally, markets react not just to what the Fed does in a given meeting, but to what it signals about the future.

Last week’s rate cut came with a relatively cautious message about further rate reductions. That limited the downside for the US dollar and helps explain why the Australian dollar’s rally faded fairly quickly, rather than accelerating.

Pressure on the US Fed for more cuts

However, this outlook may change quickly after US President Donald Trump said he was close to appointing a new Federal Reserve chair. This looks likely to be announced unusually early in the new year.

Trump has been outspoken in calling on the Federal Reserve to cut rates more aggressively.

While presidents have occasionally expressed views about monetary policy, explicit pressure can affect market perceptions of central bank independence – and perceptions matter in currency markets.

If the next chair is less willing or able to resist political pressure and cuts rates further in the face of still-high inflation, that could weaken the US dollar further.

For the Australian dollar, this could cut both ways.

A weaker or more volatile US dollar could led to more support for the Australian dollar. But heightened global uncertainty can also trigger bouts of risk aversion that tend to hurt cyclical currencies such as Australia’s.

Read more:
Trump is close to naming the new Federal Reserve chief. His choice could raise the risk of stagflation

What will the RBA do if inflation persists?

Domestic monetary policy will also matter. The Reserve Bank influences the exchange rate primarily through expectations about future interest rates.

If inflation remains high and the RBA is forced to consider a rate increase, the interest rate differential would move in Australia’s favour. That would provide underlying support for the currency.

On the other hand, if growth slows and interest rates are lowered here, the support for the Australian dollar would erode, making it cheaper – especially if global economic conditions are also deteriorating.

Importantly, currency markets move on expectations, not decisions. Even small changes in how markets price the RBA’s likely path can have noticeable effects on the dollar.

Iron ore is still king

Finally, there is the price of iron ore. Despite the growing sophistication of Australia’s economy, iron ore prices remain a central driver of the country’s terms of trade – the prices we receive for exports relative to what we pay for imports.

When iron ore prices rise, export income increases, national income improves, and the Australian dollar tends to strengthen.

When prices fall, the reverse occurs, and a weaker exchange rate helps cushion the economy by making other exports more competitive.

If iron ore prices remain strong in 2026, they would reinforce the forces supporting the currency. If they decline sharply – for example, due to weaker Chinese demand – that would put downward pressure on the dollar, regardless of what central banks are doing.

The Australian dollar’s 2025 rebound reflects a confluence of factors: a softer US dollar, resilient domestic conditions, and relatively supportive commodity prices. Whether that recovery extends into 2026 will depend on how those forces evolve.

So keep an eye on US monetary policy, the RBA’s inflation challenge, and iron ore prices. Together, those three factors will determine the value of the Aussie dollar in the year ahead.

From 2011 to 2013, Isaac Gross worked as an economist for the Reserve Bank of Australia.

– ref. Will the Australian dollar keep rising in 2026? 3 factors to watch in the new year – https://theconversation.com/will-the-australian-dollar-keep-rising-in-2026-3-factors-to-watch-in-the-new-year-271833

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Charlotte Ganderton, Senior Lecturer (Physiotherapy), RMIT University

You can feel hip pain at any stage of life, including childhood, young adulthood and the middle years.

This can come as a surprise; many people associate hip pain with old age. It can strike fear into the hearts of those in their 40s or 50s, who may suddenly wonder if old age – or even a hip replacement – may be on the horizon much sooner than expected.

The good news is only a minority of people with hip pain will have something medically concerning or actually need surgery. Surgery should only be considered after doing a comprehensive rehabilitation exercise program.

There are lots of complex underlying reasons for hip pain, and there may be plenty you can do before you start jumping to conclusions about needing surgery.

The stiff hip vs. the overly mobile hip

In young boys and men, a condition known as femoroacetabular impingement syndrome is a common cause of hip pain. This is particularly true for those who play sports (such as football) where you need to change direction quickly and often.

This condition is caused by a bigger hip ball (also known as the femoral head) or the hip socket (the acetabulum).

This may cause pain at the front or side of the hip. The pain may get worse during movements that involve the knee coming towards the chest (such as a squat) or trending across the middle of the body (such as sitting cross-legged).

In young girls and women, hip dysplasia is particularly common.

This happens when the hip socket does not fully cover the ball of the joint. The hip can move too much, and may cause pain at the front, side or back of the hip.

However, excessive hip movement can also be caused when the connective tissue (such as the ligaments and hip capsule) get too elastic or stretchy.

Some people – such as performing artists, yogis and swimmers – may thrive on having more mobility for their artistry and sporting pursuits, but they need to be strong enough to control their excessive motion.

Because people with increased mobility are at risk of injury, it is important to maintain hip muscle strength to support the hip joint.

In middle-aged adults and older people, the most common causes of hip pain are osteoarthritis and gluteal tendinopathy.

People with osteoarthritis often experience hip pain and stiffness, and may find it hard to reach down and put on shoes and socks.

People with gluteal tendinopathy might experience pain on the outside of their hip and have problems with lying on their side, climbing stairs or standing on one leg.

My hip hurts. How worried should I be?

Well, it’s fundamentally about quality of life.

Does your hip pain make it hard to do social or community activities, perform daily tasks, or stay active? If so, then yes – you’re right to be concerned about your hip pain.

However, most hip conditions can be well managed with non-surgical treatments, such as exercises or stretches prescribed by a physiotherapist, doctor or other health-care professional. You may find you’re soon back to taking those long strolls in the park.

Whether your hip is too stiff or too mobile, start by seeking a thorough clinical examination from a trained and registered doctor or healthcare professional (such as a physiotherapist).

They may ask you to get some scans to help diagnose the cause of your hip pain. In most cases, an X-ray is used to understand the shape of the bones that form the hip joint and check for osteoarthritis. In some people, an MRI is ordered to get a more detailed understanding of the different components of the hip joint. However, it is important to remember something might show up on an MRI even in people without pain.

Treatment for hip pain

Hip pain can often be managed with or without surgery.

If you do end up needing surgery, it’s worth knowing there are lots of different types of surgical treatments. The most common are hip arthroscopy (keyhole surgery) and hip replacement. For many people, though, non-surgical treatments are effective.

These might include:

• adjusting how you exercise or do sport
• learning about how to manage symptoms
• muscle strengthening exercises.

In most cases, it’s recommended to try non-surgical treatments for at least three months to see if they help reduce pain and improve hip function before considering surgery.

Whatever you do, stay active. And remember strong bum muscles are important to maintaining healthy hips, so try to find ways to keep your glutes strong.

Charlotte Ganderton has received funding in the past from Arthritis Australia and the Physiotherapy Research Foundation.

Joshua Heerey receives has received funding in the past from Arthritis Foundation and the Physiotherapy Research Foundation.

– ref. Why does my hip hurt? Hip pain can have many causes and mostly doesn’t require surgery – https://theconversation.com/why-does-my-hip-hurt-hip-pain-can-have-many-causes-and-mostly-doesnt-require-surgery-265871

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Chris Ogden, Associate Professor in Global Studies, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau

At a major summit in Russia last year, a banknote was unveiled that carried more symbolism than monetary value.

It hinted at the growing ambitions of BRICS+ – a group of emerging economies anchored by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – to develop alternatives to the existing global financial system.

The banknote itself, ringed with national flags and multilingual text, was dubbed an R5: acknowledging the ruble, real, rupee, renminbi and rand of the bloc’s core members.

Now, there are moves to turn that symbolism into something more concrete. This December, speculation increased around plans for a new BRICS+ currency and payment system known as the UNIT.

Designed by the International Reserve and Investment Asset System, the UNIT is backed by a fixed reserve basket of 40% gold (by weight) and 60% in BRICS+ currencies. It would be delivered via a digital platform using transparent blockchain technology.

This combination of a stable asset with a set of diversified currencies reduces exposure to financial volatility and the targeting of single currencies by speculators, while building trust between UNIT users.

The growing weight of BRICS+

The development is significant because of the BRICS+ group’s scale and influence.

Formed in September 2006 by Brazil, Russia, India and China (the original BRIC), the bloc held its first annual summit in June 2009. South Africa joined in December 2010, creating BRICS.

In 2024, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates became members, with Indonesia joining in 2025 — hence the BRICS+ label.

Combined, these countries account for about 36% of the world’s territory and 48.5% of its population. Nearly 20 other countries have either formally applied for membership or been invited to participate as “partner countries”.

Driving the expansion is a collective desire for a multipolar international system not centred on Western control. And the bloc’s combined wealth is substantial, pooling 39% of global GDP (PPP), 78.2% of global coal production, 36% of natural gas production and 72% of rare earth mineral reserves.

A new threat to the almighty US dollar?

The UNIT would not be controlled by any single country or nation-based central bank, nor would it function as an everyday currency. According to economist and financial commentator Vince Lanci, it is intended to be:

a basket-backed, collateral-anchored settlement instrument intended specifically for wholesale, cross-border trade in a multipolar financial world.

The strategic logic is to reduce the group’s collective trade dependence on the US dollar, euro or yen. In particular, it would lower exchange costs by removing the need to convert local currencies to and from the US dollar.

It could also increase economic and financial interdependence between BRICS+ members, and potentially dampen economic shockwaves from the US and the West in the event of a recession – such as might occur if the current AI bubble were to burst.

Should the UNIT become an established trade currency, it could challenge the US dollar’s role as the world’s dominant reserve currency. In turn, that could reduce investment in US Treasury securities and other dollar-denominated assets.

More countries – especially from the Global South – would be tempted to join BRICS+ to use this alternative payment system. As a former White House economist put it::

It’d be like a new union of up-and-coming discontents who, on the scale of GDP, now collectively outweigh not only the reigning hegemon, the United States, but the entire G7 weight class put together.

Limits, risks and open questions

The United States is certainly not invulnerable. The US Dollar Index – which measures the dollar’s performance against a basket of other currencies – fell by about 8% in 2025.

In 2024, BRICS+ countries held around 6,143 tonnes of gold, compared with the US’s 8,134 tonnes, while China and India together accumulated an additional 572.5 tonnes between 2019 and 2024.

Even so, the success of the UNIT would depend on BRICS+ establishing a credible governance framework that clearly sets out the rules and practices governing its use.

Some progress has already been made. Work is under way on a common payments system known as BRICS Pay, while the BRICS+ New Development Bank could potentially issue UNITs.

The project would also require strong and sustained backing from all member states to build market confidence.

And it may also require a degree of political sacrifice and fortitude from BRICS+ countries if the US issues higher trade tariffs to UNIT users to counteract its own dollar’s decline.

Time will tell whether the UNIT becomes a functioning feature of the global financial system, or remains, as with that R5 banknote, more a symbol of ambition.

Chris Ogden is affiliated with the Foreign Policy Centre, London, as a Senior Research Fellow.

– ref. What is the BRICS ‘UNIT’ – and could it really challenge the US dollar? – https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-brics-unit-and-could-it-really-challenge-the-us-dollar-272163

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Laura Beers, Professor of History, American University

During a press conference on Dec. 11, 2025, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced there was good news on the state of the economy.

“Inflation as measured by the overall CPI has slowed to an average 2.5% pace,” she said, referring to the consumer price index. “Real wages are increasing roughly $1,200 dollars for the average worker.”

When CNN political correspondent Kaitlan Collins attempted to ask a follow-up question, Leavitt pivoted to an attack. Not on Collins, a frequent target of White House ire, but on Leavitt’s predecessor in the Biden White House, Democrat Jen Psaki.

Psaki, claimed Leavitt, stood at the same lectern a year before and told “utter lies.” In contrast, Leavitt insisted, “Everything I’m telling you is the truth backed by real, factual data, and you just don’t want to report on it ’cause you want to push untrue narratives about the president.”

The “real, factual data” that underpinned Leavitt’s statement was specious at best. The actual inflation rate for September was 3%, not the 2.5% figure cherry-picked from economic data. The rise in real wages? CNN business editor David Goldman writes that in the past year, U.S. workers have experienced “the lowest annual paycheck growth that Americans have had since May 2021.”

I’m a historian who has written about the enduring legacy of George Orwell’s ideas about truth and freedom. Listening to Leavitt assert a “truth” so obviously discordant with people’s lives, I was reminded of the repeated pronouncements from the Ministry of Plenty in Orwell’s “1984.”

“The fabulous statistics continued to pour out of the telescreen,” Orwell wrote. “As compared with last year there was more food, more clothes, more houses, more furniture, more cooking-pots, more fuel, more ships, more helicopters, more books, more babies — more of everything except disease, crime, and insanity. Year by year and minute by minute, everybody and everything was whizzing rapidly upwards.”

The novel’s doomed hero, Winston Smith, works in the Records Department that produces these fraudulent statistics – figures that are so far divorced from reality that they “had no connection with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connection that is contained in a direct lie.”

In the world of “1984,” not only are statistics invented, they are continually reinvented to serve the needs of Big Brother’s regime at any given moment: “All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.”

Transparency as doublespeak

The lack of transparency depicted in “1984” has an uncanny echo in our current political moment, despite Leavitt’s repeated assertions that President Donald Trump is the “most transparent president in history.”

Leavitt has made that claim countless times, including in her public defense of Trump’s “Quiet, Piggy!” dismissal of Bloomberg News journalist Catherine Lucey last month.

In Leavitt’s usage, “transparency” has become a form of Orwellian “doublespeak,” a word or phrase which through the process of “doublethink” had come to encompass its exact opposite meaning.

“Doublethink,” in Orwell’s writing, was the mechanism of thought manipulation that allowed someone “to know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them.”

Doublethink was the mechanism that enabled the citizens of Oceania, the Anglo-American superstate governed by Big Brother’s authoritarian regime, to accept that “WAR IS PEACE; FREEDOM IS SLAVERY; IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”

And it is the mechanism that allowed Leavitt to proclaim, in defending Trump’s unwillingness to release the Epstein files, “This administration has done more with respect to transparency when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein than any administration ever.” That claim was pronounced “fabulously audacious” by The Guardian’s Washington bureau chief, David Smith, in a story headlined “Nothing to see here: Trump press chief in full denial mode over Epstein.”

Making ‘lies sound truthful and murder respectable’

In his famous essay “Politics and the English Language,” Orwell wrote that “political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Over the past 10 months, Leavitt has, among other things, claimed that the now dismantled U.S. Agency for International Development – USAID – provided a grant of $32,000 for a “transgender comic book” in Peru. Not true. She has misrepresented the “One Big Beautiful Bill” as fully eliminating taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security. In reality, deductions for these are capped. She claimed that Trump coined the motto “peace through strength.” He didn’t. The phrase has been in circulation for decades, used most prominently by Ronald Reagan during his presidency.

And she recently sought to delegitimize U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly and colleagues’ plea to servicemen and women not to obey illegal orders by suggesting tautologically that “all lawful orders are presumed to be legal by our servicemembers,” and hence Kelly’s plea could only serve to provoke “disorder and chaos.”

All governments lie. But Leavitt has become a master of the art of political language, wielded to aggrandize her boss, belittle his opponents and deflect attention from administration scandals.

Laura Beers 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. Karoline Leavitt’s White House briefing doublethink is straight out of Orwell’s ‘1984’ – https://theconversation.com/karoline-leavitts-white-house-briefing-doublethink-is-straight-out-of-orwells-1984-270675

Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Arlene Stein, Distinguished Professor of Sociology, Rutgers University

Masked officers conduct immigration raids. National Guard troops patrol American cities, and protesters decry their presence as a “fascist takeover.” White supremacists openly proclaim racist and antisemitic views.

Is the United States sliding into fascism? It’s a question that divides a good portion of the country today.

Embracing a belief in American exceptionalism – the idea that America is a unique and morally superior country – some historians suggest that “it can’t happen here,” echoing the satirical title of Sinclair Lewis’ 1935 book about creeping fascism in America. The social conditions required for fascism to take root do not exist in the U.S., these historians say.

Still, while fascist ideas never found a foothold among the majority of Americans, they exerted considerable influence during the period between the first and second world wars. Extremist groups like the Silver Shirts, the Christian Front, the Black Legion and the Ku Klux Klan claimed hundreds of thousands of members. Together they glorified a white Christian nation purified of Jews, Black Americans, immigrants and communists.

During the 1930s and early ’40s, fascist ideas were promoted and cheered on American soil by groups such as the pro-Nazi German American Bund, which staged a mass rally at New York’s Madison Square Garden in February 1939, displaying George Washington’s portrait alongside swastikas.

The Bund also operated lodges, storefronts, summer camps, beer halls and newspapers across the country and denounced the “melting pot.” It encouraged boycotts and street brawls against Jews and leftists and forged links to Germany’s Nazi party.

Yet the Bund and other far-right groups have largely vanished from public memory, even in communities where they once enjoyed popularity. As a sociologist of collective memory and identity, I wanted to know why that is the case.

The Bund in New Jersey

My analysis of hundreds of oral histories of people who grew up in New Jersey in the 1930s and ’40s, where the German American Bund enjoyed a particularly strong presence, suggests that witnesses saw them as insignificant, “un-American” and unworthy of remembrance.

But the people who rallied with the Bund for a white, Christian nation were ordinary citizens. They were mechanics and shopkeepers, churchgoers and small businessmen, and sometimes elected officials. They frequented diners, led PTA meetings and went to church. They were American.

When they were interviewed decades later, many of those who had seen Bundists up close in their communities remembered the uniforms, the swastika armbands, the marching columns. They recalled the local butcher who quietly displayed sympathy for Nazism, the Bund’s boycotts of Jewish businesses, and the street brawls at Bund rallies.

German American interviewees, who remember firsthand the support the Bund enjoyed before the U.S. entered World War II, 50 years later laughed at family members and neighbors who once supported the organization. Even Jewish interviewees who recalled fearful encounters with Bundists during that period tended to minimize the threat in retrospect. Like their German American counterparts, they framed the Bund as deviant and ephemeral. Few believed the group, and the ideas for which it stood, were significant.

I believe the German Americans’ laughter decades after the war was over, and after the revelations of the mass murder of European Jews, may have been a way for them to distance themselves from feelings of shame or discomfort. As cognitive psychologists show, people tend to erase or minimize inconvenient or painful facts that may threaten their sense of self.

Collective memories are also highly selective. They are influenced by the groups – nation, community, family – in which they are members. In other words, the past is always shaped by the needs of the present.

After World War II, for example, some Americans reframed the major threat facing the U.S. as communism. They cast fascism as a defeated foreign evil, while elevating “reds” as the existential threat. Collectively, Americans preferred a simpler national tale: Fascism was “over there.” America was the bulwark of democracy “over here.” This is one way forgetting works.

Communities will remember what they have forgotten or minimized when history is taught, markers are erected, archives are preserved and commemorations are staged. The U.S. has done that for the Holocaust and for the Civil Rights Movement. But when it comes to the history of homegrown fascism, and local resistance to it, few communities have made efforts to preserve this history.

Remembering difficult pasts

At least one community has tried. In Southbury, Connecticut, community members erected a small plaque in 2022 to honor townspeople who in 1937 organized to keep the Bund from building a training camp there. The inscription is simple: “Southbury Stops Nazi Training Camp.”

The story it tells provides more than an example of local pride – it’s a template for how communities can commemorate the moments when ordinary citizens said “no.”

When Americans insist that “it can’t happen here,” they exempt themselves from vigilance. When they ignore or discount extremism, seeing it as “weird” or “foreign,” they miss how effectively such movements borrowed American idioms, such as patriotism, Christianity and law and order, to further hatred, violence and exclusion.

Research shows that some Americans have been drawn to movements that promise purity, unity and order at the expense of their neighbors’ rights. The point of remembering such histories is not to wallow in shame, nor to collapse every political dispute into “fascism.” It is to offer an accurate account of America’s democratic vulnerabilities.

Arlene Stein 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. America faced domestic fascists before and buried that history – https://theconversation.com/america-faced-domestic-fascists-before-and-buried-that-history-268978