A little-noticed presidential national security directive is now the legal engine behind a wave of terrorism prosecutions against left-wing protesters.

That domestic campaign now has an international dimension, one that American officials had been planning for months, culminating on July 16, 2026, when Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism drew representatives from more than 65 countries to Washington. The gathering was informally called the “Antifa summit.”

Rubio described antifa-aligned networks as sharing infrastructure across borders and accused Iran and Cuba of helping bankroll the movement, without offering evidence. The White House declared the summit the start of an “unprecedented global offensive” against what it calls “radical left terrorism.”

This offensive is built on the same domestic legal architecture that has now sent American activists to prison for decades.

That architecture is National Security Presidential Memorandum/NSPM-7, issued on Sept. 25, 2025, which for the first time appeared to authorize preemptive law enforcement measures against Americans based not on whether they are planning to commit violence but for their political or ideological beliefs.

Nearly a year later, that blueprint has moved from paper into practice.

The Justice Department has built task forces staffed by counterterrorism prosecutors. The FBI has set up its own NSPM-7 mission center to oversee investigations into left-wing movements, including a joint effort with the IRS to investigate nonprofit groups.

The Justice Department has used this machinery to convict activists and send some of them to prison for decades.

NSPM-7 was not passed by Congress. It’s a lesser-known tool of executive power: a presidential memorandum.

As an international relations scholar who has studied U.S. foreign policy decision-making and national security legislation, I recognize that presidents can take several types of executive actions without legislative involvement: executive orders, memoranda and proclamations.

This structure allows the president to direct law enforcement and national security agencies, with little opportunity for congressional oversight.

Presidential national security powers

Executive memorandums direct agencies to prepare reports, implement policies or align programs with the administration’s priorities. Unlike executive orders, they aren’t required to be published. When they relate to national security, like NSPM-7, they’re called national security directives – many of which stay classified and may not be declassified for years or decades.

The stated purpose of NSPM-7 is to counter domestic terrorism and organized political violence, focusing mainly on perceived threats from the political left. The memorandum identifies “anti-Christian,” “anti-capitalism” or “anti-American” views as potential indicators that a group or person will commit domestic terrorism.

The memorandum claims that political violence originates with “anti-fascist” groups that hold the following views: “support for the overthrow of the United States Government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”

The strategy includes preemptive measures to disrupt groups before they engage in violent political acts, empowering multiagency task forces to investigate potential federal crimes related to radicalization and the groups’ funders. Former Attorney General Pam Bondi’s December 2025 implementation memo went further, ordering a five-year review of agency files on antifa. A task force staffed with counterterrorism and organized-crime prosecutors is carrying out these investigations.

‘Domestic terrorist organizations’

The memorandum directs the Department of Justice to focus FBI resources from approximately 200 Joint Terrorism Task Forces on investigating “acts of recruiting or radicalizing persons” for the purpose of “political violence, terrorism, or conspiracy against rights; and the violent deprivation of any citizen’s rights.”

NSPM-7 also allows the attorney general to propose groups for designation as “domestic terrorist organizations.” That includes groups that engage in “organized doxxing campaigns, swatting, rioting, looting, trespass, assault, destruction of property, threats of violence, and civil disorder.”

Existing laws allow the secretary of state to designate groups as “foreign terrorist organizations” that are then subject to financial sanctions.

But these laws do not permit the president to label domestic groups this way.

That gap hasn’t stopped prosecutions. In Texas, eight defendants tied to a “North Texas Antifa Cell” were sentenced in June 2026 for a 2025 armed confrontation at the Prairieland immigration detention center. One man received 100 years, and others who never fired a weapon still drew decades in prison under terrorism sentencing guidelines.

In Minnesota, 15 members and associates of a group called Direct Action Minnesota were indicted in June 2026 on conspiracy and assault charges. A 94-page indictment cited behavior such as wearing an “I’m Antifa!” sweatshirt, possessing a bullhorn or including a devil emoji in a Signal message.

Defining terrorism

NSPM-7 marks a major conceptual shift in U.S. counterterrorism policy, departing from approaches that primarily targeted foreign threats.

Earlier directives, dating to Ronald Reagan’s presidency, treated terrorism as a global menace countered through military power and diplomacy. In the 1990s, the Clinton administration reframed it as a domestic challenge after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

After 9/11, the Bush administration fused counterterrorism with national defense through the global war on terrorism. The Obama administration later tried to narrow those powers, asking whether targeted individuals “pose a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons” — a standard focused on tactics and capture feasibility, not ideology.

The first Trump administration used a “travel ban” against several “terror-prone” countries, while President Joe Biden redirected focus toward weapons of mass destruction.

Notably, the “domestic terrorist” label itself has rarely produced actual charges. The State Department designated four antifa-aligned groups as foreign terrorist organizations. But antifa is a decentralized movement, not a formal group with a roster.

This designation lacks any real legal weight because U.S. law has no formal domestic terrorist organization category. Creating one risks infringing on First Amendment protected speech. Domestic terrorism itself is not a chargeable offense.

Prosecutors have instead leaned on older statutes such as material support for terrorism and conspiracy laws, tools originally built for cases like the ones above, not protest movements.

First Amendment rights at risk

There is no single official definition of terrorism in U.S. law; definitions vary by purpose – criminal law, intelligence collection, civil liability.

Definitions in all those areas typically focus on identifying violent or dangerous acts done with the intent to intimidate or coerce civilians or influence government policy.

But more than redefining terrorism, NSPM-7 reorients the machinery of national security toward the policing of belief.

The First Amendment generally prevents the government from punishing people for unpopular opinions. It also protects the ability for people to associate to advance public and private ideas in pursuit of political, economic, religious or cultural goals.

The directive’s emphasis on ideological orientations – “anti-Christianity,” “anti-capitalism” and “anti-American” views – as indicators of domestic terrorism potentially jeopardizes First Amendment rights.

Thirty-one members of Congress sent a letter to Trump in October 2025 expressing “serious concerns” about NSPM-7, warning that it poses “serious constitutional, statutory and civil liberties risks, especially if used to target political dissent, protest or ideological speech.”

As the ACLU warns, any definition of terrorism that includes ideological components risks criminalizing people or groups based on belief rather than based on violence or other criminal conduct.

Congress has declined to create a domestic complement to the foreign terrorist designation in large part because of the potential for impinging on First Amendment–protected association and speech.

But I fear that chilling speech may be the point.

Silencing dissent

NSPM-7 does not criminalize previously legal conduct.

Rather, it states that the Trump administration will focus investigations around the identity and ideology of supposed perpetrators. Prioritizing investigations into this broad swath of ideologies serves to instill fear, silencing anti-fascist and other messages in opposition to the Trump administration.

Law professor Steve Vladeck frames this chill as “obeying in advance,” in which organizations self-censor rather than risk investigation, prosecution or defending against the “domestic terrorist” label. Federal judges in the Prairieland case have shown little sympathy for that distinction: One judge described the protest itself as “an assault on democracy,” even for defendants who never touched a weapon.

Although left-wing violence has risen in the past decade, empirical evidence shows it remains far below historical levels of right-wing or jihadist violence.

Most domestic terrorists in the U.S. are politically on the right, accounting for the vast majority of domestic terrorism fatalities.

Yet NSPM-7 focuses disproportionately on left-wing ideologies. NSPM-7 departs from prior U.S. counterterrorism frameworks by prioritizing the suppression of ideologically motivated dissent, even where, as in Minnesota, judges have already dismissed roughly half of similar federal cases for lack of evidence.

This is an updated version of a story originally published December 3, 2025.

Melinda Haas 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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/17/rubios-international-antifa-summit-takes-place-after-trumps-national-security-policy-has-already-sent-left-wing-us-activists-to-prison-for-decades/

If you or someone you know has a baby or a child under 18, you’re likely wondering if they should get a “Trump Account.”

The U.S. government started giving babies born during President Donald Trump’s second term a US$1,000 gift on July 4, 2026. This money goes into the accounts, which are named after the president. To get the free money, the babies’ parents or guardians just have to submit the required paperwork.

I am a business school professor who studies wealth, savings and spending. Additionally, I am expecting another grandchild soon. While other members of our family are picking out decorations for the baby’s room, my task is deciphering Trump Accounts.

While these accounts clearly could help boost savings, they come with many restrictions that limit their usefulness for important expenses young Americans incur, such as paying for college and buying their first home.

IRAs for jobless babies

Trump Accounts are a traditional individual retirement account, or IRA, for children. Currently, all money deposited in these savings vehicles will be invested in State Street Bank’s SPDR Portfolio – which mirrors the S&P 500 stock index.

They will function somewhat like traditional IRAs for grownups, for which contributions can be deducted from your taxable income in the year they’re made. However, withdrawals before or after retirement are taxed.

These new accounts come with three small twists:

First, the government is kicking in $1,000 for babies born in calendar years 2025 through 2028. Congressional funding for this gift expires Sept. 30, 2034, so procrastinators have six years beyond 2028 to create an account for their kids.

Second, some states, big companies and foundations are pledging extra money to the accounts. Additional contributions from, say, a child’s grandfather, are limited to $5,000 a year; the employer of a child’s parent and charities may kick in up to $2,500 annually.

To be clear, not all recipients of this money have to be babies. For example, tech executive Michael Dell and his wife, Susan Dell, are providing $250 for the first 25 million kids under age 10 who sign up for Trump Accounts and live in middle-to-lower-income neighborhoods.

Third, to contribute to these new plans, a child does not have to earn money from working, which is required for traditional and Roth IRAs.

Many people and media outlets are comparing and contrasting 529 college savings plans and Trump Accounts, However, Congress designed these plans with different goals.

These new accounts are really not designed to help families save for college costs. Instead, they are supposed to give children an early head start on saving for their retirement.

How much they could grow

A big idea behind Trump Accounts is that a small sum can turn into a big one, if left alone in an investment account with no withdrawals for a long time.

The main website for the accounts, trumpaccounts.gov, highlights the magic of compounding. While you may be mainly familiar with compound interest, compounding refers to anything growing over time.

The website estimates if the government’s $1,000 is left untouched with no further contributions, then by the time a child with a Trump Account turns 18, it would be worth $6,000. At age 27, their account would be worth $15,000, and at age 55, it would be worth $243,000.

Many financial planners do not believe that these simulations, which assume the stock market’s value increases by more than 10% a year, are realistic – even if past performance suggests this is reasonable to expect. That quarter-million dollars turns into a bit less than $9,000 if stock prices only grow by 4% annually over the next half-century or so.

That’s why there is a disclaimer in tiny type below the eye-popping numbers. It reads: “Actual results may differ and are not guaranteed.”

Trump Accounts also have another important limitation.

The only option available at this point is a fund that owns shares in the 500 largest U.S. publicly traded companies. Currently, this means about one-fifth of this money will be invested in Nvidia, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon since they’re the most valuable publicly traded companies today. In the future, there will be other options, but like the current choice, they mirror the stock market’s overall performance.

These accounts will support and boost the value of U.S. stocks, since a growing number of people – well, children – will be putting significant sums of money into the market that won’t be easy or cost-free to withdraw.

I believe that accounts like these are needed because they’ll boost Americans’ saving rate.

In 1975, Americans were saving over 13% of their disposable income, but by 2025, it was under 4%. This reduction in the savings rate means many Americans don’t have enough to cover emergencies, pay for a child’s college education or be ready for retirement.

5 downsides

Although Trump Accounts may help boost saving, they have some downsides.

First, no money can be taken out until the child turns at least 18, even with a penalty. After that point, the accounts can be rolled into another IRA.

Second, unless the account holder is withdrawing their money to help pay for their education, to buy a home or deal with disaster recovery, any withdrawals are subject to ordinary income tax rates.

Third, while traditional IRA contributions reduce your taxable income, any contributions you, your relatives or others make to Trump accounts do not. So they are not a way to reduce your tax bill.

Fourth, at age 18, all parental oversight disappears and the child has complete control of the money. Not all parents believe their child is capable of responsibly handling large amounts of money at that age.

Last, the accounts are not opened automatically. Parents or guardians have to request an account by dealing with the IRS.

Where Trump Accounts come from

The idea for these accounts did not come out of thin air.

In 1991, social scientist Michael Sherraden wrote a book proposing Individual Development Accounts. They offered a model for today’s Trump Accounts.

His idea: Provide low-income people with some assets – especially when they were young. These accounts were designed to boost people out of poverty by helping them afford a college education, buy a home and save for retirement. A variety of Individual Development Account programs were funded as pilot projects by states and foundations.

While the scope of these experiments were limited, evaluations of those pilot programs showed that providing funds early boosted home ownership and increased participants’ savings years later. These positive outcomes made it seem worth expanding what Sherradan and his team tried on a much larger scale.

Unfortunately, it’s also clear that attaching Trump’s name to the concept is rendering it less popular than it might have otherwise been.

However, there’s a clear precedent for this. Roth IRAs, after all, are named after Sen. William Roth Jr.. Roth, a Delaware Republican, championed the creation of retirement accounts when he served in Congress. Roth IRAs are the opposite of traditional IRAs. You can deposit some of your income after paying taxes on it into a Roth IRA and then take money out tax-free later.

As for me, I still don’t know how the new baby’s room will be decorated. However, I do know that creating an account is a smart idea, since it will give this child a financial boost down the line. I’ll even kick in extra money during the account’s first year to ensure the baby gets a bigger boost.

Jay L. Zagorsky 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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/17/what-are-trump-accounts-for-they-are-more-likely-to-help-newborns-start-building-nest-eggs-than-help-pay-for-their-college-education/

The impacts of a strengthening El Niño and the lingering effects of the war in Iran highlight two separate and seemingly unrelated global hazards. But in the Greater Horn of Africa, an area already beset by prolonged crisis and conflict, these factors are combining with others to potentially create a major, multicountry polycrisis.

As experts in famine, conflict and humanitarian crises, our concerns about such a grave risk for the region in the second half of 2026 and into 2027 are based on a series of overlapping trends that include El Niño, the broader effects on food prices and fertilizer of the Iran war, internal conflicts and other localized factors. We fear the consequences could be catastrophic.

Several factors underpin this risk.

First, the short rains in the eastern Greater Horn of Africa – parts of Somalia, eastern Kenya, eastern Ethiopia – were well below average in the fall of 2025. The long rains in March to May of 2026 were also well below normal for much of that area, affecting both crops production and grazing and water for livestock, deepening the crisis of rural livelihoods.

The regional forecast for the northern Horn of Africa, where for the most part there is only one rainy season per year, is also projected to be below average. This includes the heavily populated highlands of Ethiopia, much of South Sudan and Sudan.

The super El Niño now forming could cause both drought and extensive flooding in parts of the Greater Horn of Africa, causing population displacement and tremendous loss of livelihoods.

Second, an unpredictable variant of the Ebola virus has taken hold in Congo and Uganda. Although it hasn’t yet spread to the rest of the region, the concern is that if Ebola spreads across the border to South Sudan, it will not only add a major epidemic risk but will also render the response to other shocks more difficult.

Third is the fact that all of the countries in the Greater Horn, with the exception of Kenya, are experiencing protracted, violent conflicts, with multiple parties jockeying for power and military advantage. This makes the task of dealing with the impact of climate, health and price shocks that much harder and risks further exacerbating or accelerating individual drivers.

Regional analysts have warned of an uptick in violence for Ethiopia and South Sudan. Violent conflict is a common denominator of contemporary famine, and famine or the risk of famine has already been noted in several countries in the region.

Conflict outside the region is also complicating matters. The war in Iran has already led to significant increases in transportation and food costs in the short term. But potentially more concerning is the fertilizer shortage caused by the war, which is projected to reduce harvests later in the year. If this happens, food prices will remain high long after the active conflict ends.

The Horn of Africa will be doubly affected by the fertilizer bottleneck – local production will be reduced, and global food prices will be higher. The bottleneck affects regional surplus-producing areas that might normally help to even out availability and prices in areas that do not produce enough to feed themselves. The El Niño effects, in combination with the high fertilizer costs, will likely reduce opportunities for agricultural work while also increasing the amount that food laborers – among the poorest people – have to spend on produce.

This combination of climatic, conflict, market and epidemic shocks are not simply additive but multiplicative, with each intensifying the other. Climate and epidemic shocks almost inevitably exacerbate conflict and encourage crackdowns on population movements.

A devastating aid cliff

To make matters worse, there are reasons to believe that the region will be less prepared to cope with the looming crisis than during previous El Niño years.

In the background is the deliberate gutting of much of the global humanitarian response infrastructure that people would have relied on in the past to mitigate the impacts of such a crisis.

In particular, the closure of USAID and the major cuts in spending on foreign aid – not only by the U.S. but by most Western nations – has undermined much of the international system’s capacity to respond to major shocks. Combined with longer-term political and governance challenges in eastern Africa, this conjunction of existing and anticipated factors in the Horn of Africa risks both further displacement and a rise in mortality.

There have already been calls by aid groups and regional bodies for higher levels of funding to be allocated through what remains of the international system.

But by itself, more money cannot solve this problem. Humanitarian programs have been shut down, staff have been laid off and infrastructure sold. Government-led programs in epidemic tracking and the provision of healthcare and other areas have likewise been curtailed.

Washington has recently increased its level of funding slightly, but U.S. humanitarian assistance is now more politicized and transactional, less sufficient and limited in its support of effective local systems and responses.

Local efforts addressing the problem

With the international humanitarian system compromised by funding cuts, the onus will be more heavily on governments, civil society and local communities in the Horn to mitigate anticipated shocks and their fallout.

The first responders in any crisis are usually next of kin, neighbors and local mutual aid groups. Since the collapse of the international aid system a year ago, long-standing efforts by local communities and organizations have ramped up significantly and effectively. These local mutual aid efforts are typically self-managed and financed through their own networks and diaspora remittances. But given the size of budget cuts in the formal humanitarian response system, these local initiatives can be better supported with complementary funding. Several intermediary organizations have recently emerged to support this effort.

Local mutual aid efforts can also be supported through more flexible public policies, for example, by easing restrictions on banking transfers to enable more effective diaspora support. Donors and the U.N. can also ensure that greater proportions of funding in the formal global humanitarian system go to local initiatives

Fundamentally, however, the most worrisome driver behind this polycrisis is violent conflict – wars in this region and elsewhere. In addition to the impacts of the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, civil wars and ongoing insurgencies in Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia and Somalia have also been dragging on for years and in some cases have drawn in more countries – either directly through financial support and weapons sales or indirectly through political support.

Not only does violent conflict complicate any response to crisis, it also raises the risk of starvation being used as a weapon of war – something already alleged in Sudan and the Tigray region of Ethiopia. But for the most part, the international community has been unwilling to hold warring parties and their foreign supporters accountable for intentionally starving parts of their populations.

Finally, data and monitoring systems have also been significantly crippled by aid cuts and misinformation, making it difficult to understand the gravity of these crises or to keep actors accountable. Improved monitoring and evidence, including evidence of atrocities and the use of starvation as a weapon, need to be supported if there is to be effective assistance and accountability.

The conjunction of so many potential hazards has all the hallmarks of the proverbial perfect storm. Not only will people’s access to adequate food be devastated, it will also affect civilian protection, access and mobility. Without immediate prevention measures, the looming polycrisis will have widespread impacts on basic health, nutrition and water services – and the potential for mass mortality and displacement.

Daniel Maxwell is a member of the IPC Famine Review Committee, hosted by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization.

Though now a Professor Emeritus, Daniel Maxwell was employed by Tufts university for 20 years and had numerous research grants from USAID.

Luka Kuol is affiliated with the University of Juba, South Sudan, as a professor, and the Sudd Institute, a national think tank in South Sudan, as a senior research fellow. He is also a member of the IPC Global Famine Review Committee.

Member of Famine Review Committee.

Alex de Waal and Merry Fitzpatrick 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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/16/africas-greater-horn-region-is-facing-a-looming-polycrisis-fueled-by-conflict-prices-climate-and-disease/

Jon Ronson’s book Them: Adventures with Extremists launched him to worldwide fame – and more dubiously, launched conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. Though Jones has been deplatformed, his influence lingers: just this week, it was reported that Australia’s far-right One Nation senator Malcolm Roberts praised Jones in 2024 as “a beacon of hope around the world”.

Researched and written in the years preceding September 11, and published in April 2001, Them – which Ronson described in a preface to its second edition as “a snapshot of life in the Western world on 10 September 2001” – is turning 25.

Ronson’s original plan was to spend time with people who’d been described as “the extremist monsters of the Western world” as they went about their everyday lives. They included neo-Nazis, militias and Omar Bakri, a UK Islamic fundamentalist who called himself “Osama Bin Laden’s man in London”, and whom Ronson shadowed for a year in 1996 for a documentary.

Among other things, Ronson recorded the “clownish” Bakri watching the Lion King with a baby on his knee, and asking him to guard the money he’d been collecting for Hamas in giant Coca Cola bottles, while he retrieved a coat – which he agonised over as a Jewish person, but did (seemingly to avoid awkwardness).

Bakri, who told the Daily Mail the September 11 attacks were “exciting”, was barred from the United Kingdom after leaving in 2005. In 2010, he was arrested in Lebanon and sentenced to life in prison after a terrorism trial. Released pending retrial, he was sentenced again in 2015 to six years hard labour.

“I thought that perhaps an interesting way to look at our world would be to move into theirs and stand alongside them while they glared back at ours,” Ronson writes. But what started as a series of profiles of extremist leaders “quickly became something stranger”, when he realised the very different people he was following all shared a belief in the New World Order: a conspiracy theory that imagines “a tiny elite rules the world from inside a secret room”.

This tyrannical, shadowy elite, Ronson soon discovered, was said to launch wars and wield almost unimaginable power. It has the ability to, among other things, “select and cast out the heads of state, control Hollywood and the markets and the flow of capital, operate a harem of under-age kidnapped sex slaves”.

If there was any truth to the theory, Ronson reasoned, there must be an actual secret room, and it had to be located somewhere. So he resolved to find it.

At various points, he found himself chased by men in dark glasses and surveilled from behind trees. He also managed to witness robed international chief executives participate in a bizarre effigy-burning ritual in the forests of northern California – an experience he shared with Jones, then a harmless-seeming regional radio crank, based in Texas.

Now, 25 years on, that worldview has arguably become easier to sustain than Ronson could have imagined. Revelations surrounding figures such as Jeffrey Epstein – who did operate a network of underage girls he coerced into sexually servicing powerful men – have shown the wealthy and powerful can and do conceal serious and shocking crimes through networks of influence and privilege.

But rather than confirming the existence of a secret cabal directing world events, such scandals have often been absorbed into far broader conspiracy narratives – from QAnon to claims about bloodthirsty global elites harvesting adrenochrome from children – further blurring sometimes porous lines between fact and fiction.

Genuine curiosity and refusing caricature

The book helped to establish Ronson’s distinctive investigative approach: an interest in the fringe and the unusual, approached with a genuine sense of curiosity and a refusal of easy caricature.

This sensibility has run through his work since, from The Men Who Stared at Goats (looking at bizarre, fringe tactics adopted by the US army) and You’ve Been Publicly Shamed (an early critique of social media shaming) to his culture war conspiracy theories podcast series, Things Fell Apart.

But Them also propelled Jones into the mainstream – which Ronson has publicly regretted. When Ronson got to know him, “Alex was hollering his powerful apocalyptic vision down an ISDN line from a child’s bedroom in his house, with choo-choo train wallpaper and an Empire Strikes Back poster pinned on the wall”.

Since then, Jones has been “successfully sued” and has filed for bankruptcy after being found liable for defamation for his claims that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was staged and “no one died”.

Sadly, what once seemed extreme and marginal – the circulation of conspiracy theories and the associated peddling of prejudice and hate – now feels depressingly routine.

Just as it inadvertently captured the historical moment about to erupt with the September 11 attacks and their aftermath, Them anticipated the mainstreaming of conspiratorial thinking, which would become a defining feature of our misinformation-ridden historical moment.

Paranoia as the new common sense

“Paranoia was the new common sense,” writes columnist John Ganz in When the Clock Broke: Con Men, Conspiracists, and How America Cracked Up in the Early 1990s. “The country seemed to be seeking something new, a break with the exhausted possibilities of the past but also a restoration, a way to recover what had been lost.”

At the end of the 1980s, the Berlin Wall had been reduced to rubble and the communist bloc was crumbling. Excitable liberals were wittering on about the end of history. America stood triumphant, seemingly without rival. And yet something felt off.

Ganz argues appearances were deceptive. “America felt itself to be losing out: losing its dominant place in the world, losing the basis of its security and wealth, and losing its sense of itself.”

There had to be an explanation. And there had to be someone to blame.

This bled through in the culture of the early 1990s. “Just because you’re paranoid, don’t mean they’re not after you,” sang Kurt Cobain, capturing the zeitgeist on Nevermind (1991). It was the time of Oliver Stone’s JFK (1991) and The X-Files (1993). The truth, we were told, was out there. Trust no one – especially anyone in a position of authority.

Ruby Ridge: ground zero?

This atmosphere permeates Them’s second chapter, on the bloody Ruby Ridge standoff in regional Idaho in August 1992. Also permeating the chapter – and the book – are Ronson’s stated aims of painting people “as complicated grey areas, rather than magnificent heroes or sickening villains” and sticking “to the nuanced truth, rather than flattening it to make ideological points”.

Randy and Vicki Weaver were among the first Americans to articulate fears about the New World Order. In the 1980s, they moved from Iowa to a plywood cabin without electricity, high in the Idaho ranges. There, they home-schooled their children, living among bears and mountain lions.

Randy felt the need, Ronson tells us, to socialise from time to time. He made friends within the nearby Aryan Nations community and attended their summer camps with his children four times – though he told Ronson he wasn’t personally a white supremacist, but a “separatist”.

One such friend was an undercover agent, who asked Randy to sell him two illegal sawn-off shotguns. Once arrested, Randy was offered a choice: spy on Aryan Nations for the government or face time behind bars for illicit gun running. He went with the second option. Warned they could lose their house and convinced the New World Order was monitoring them (which was not untrue now), the Weavers stopped showing up to court.

In August 1992, US marshals hiding in the bushes shot the Weavers’ barking family dog as it came too close. Ronson reports that Weaver’s teenage son Sammy fired random shots in response, and was shot and killed. A marshal was killed too. Hundreds of federal agents descended, martial law was declared, and residents emerged from their homes bearing placards denouncing the New World Order. Vicki was shot and killed while holding her infant daughter.

Media coverage recast the human tragedy as a national psychodrama about extremism, government overreach and the collapse of public trust.

In the following months, militia movements expanded rapidly across the US. The infamous siege in Waco, Texas, where David Koresh’s Branch Davidians clashed with federal agents, ending with 75 members dead, unfolded in Texas less than a year later.

For many in the American far right, the ruined Weaver cabin became a symbol of resistance and martyrdom, assuming a quasi-mythic status. One pilgrim who visited was Timothy McVeigh, later responsible for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, which killed 168 people and injured close to 700.

Bilderberg: a secret society running the world?

Ronson soon realised the same name was on the lips of the various militia members and anti-government activists he spoke to: the Bilderberg Group. These are the people who actually run the world, they believed. Bilderberg was described as “the Roman Senate” or “a pyramid”.

Jones explained: “They’re way up there. Below them you’ve the IMF, the World Bank, the United Nations, then you’ve got us down here, the cattle, the human resources.” At the time, he was funding efforts to rebuild the Branch Davidian church.

Ronson first encountered Jones while interviewing Randy Weaver, who considered the then regional radio host “a true and tirelesss warrior”. Jones explained the Bilderbergers were orchestrating world decline from the behind the scenes. As with many conspiracy theories, the line between fantasy and reality was not always easy to discern.

The Bilderberg Group is real. It even has its own website. Established in the wake of World War II, it consists of annual private meetings attended by political and industrial leaders, financiers, media executives and royalty. It is, without doubt, a highly secretive organisation – which has intensified the suspicion around it.

Interestingly, UK politician Peter Mandelson, former US ambassador and friend of Epstein even after his conviction, is named in the book as a Bilderberg attendee.

This explains how Ronson eventually found himself sneaking into Bohemian Grove, the annual retreat (since 1878) of a secretive, elite club whose attendees “read much like a Bilderberg roll-call”, alongside Jones.

There, hidden among the redwoods of northern California, wealthy and politically connected men, many of them drunk, gathered for an elaborate ceremony centred on burning an effigy before a giant owl statue. Harmless elite play-acting, or dastardly occult ritual conducted by the secret rulers of the world? Ronson saw the former, Jones the latter.

In his short book on Donald Trump’s first presidential campaign, The Elephant in the Room (2026), Ronson describes watching the alt-right move steadily closer to political power, propelled in part by “leading voice” Jones – who reportedly received a swift call from a newly elected Trump, thanking him for his support.

Despite a lingering “personal” fondness for his fellow Bohemian Grove crasher, Ronson calls him “basically the most irresponsible man I have ever met”, who “uses his powers to inflame paranoia” and “boldly makes stuff up to suit his weird agenda”.

Lizard people

I first became aware of David Icke, former semi-professional footballer and respected sports journalist, now a believer in giant lizards, in April 1991. I was at home, watching TV, not yet ten years old.

Icke was being interviewed live on a prime-time UK talk show, wearing an eye-wateringly lurid turquoise tracksuit. He had recently started to refer to himself as the “Son of the Godhead”. On air, he made a series of predictions about imminent and devastating natural catastrophes. The audience, not knowing what to make of it all, laughed.

Ronson describes the moment:

He said this with such ferocity, such conviction, that the audience stopped laughing for a moment […] You could feel it sweep across the television studio, sweep across the land, a stirring of some primordial paranoia. Could David Icke actually be a soothsayer?

But in fact, ridicule and opprobrium followed the segment. In the period after his very public shaming, Ronson records, Icke came to believe his mockery had been orchestrated by shadowy elites. He immersed himself in conspiracy literature, including on the Bilderberg Group.

Icke became convinced the global elite were not merely corrupt politicians or financiers, but something much stranger: shape-shifting reptilian beings manipulating humans across millennia. Ancient civilisations, occult rituals and modern political institutions were all folded into a single explanatory system.

The reptilian invaders, he concluded, were the secret rulers of the world.

Critics have long argued his talk of secret reptilian elites functions as a coded form of antisemitism, echoing older conspiratorial myths – including ideas traceable to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Yet Ronson suggests Icke genuinely believes the world is controlled by interdimensional lizard people.

The promise of hidden forces

This creates a puzzle. If someone claims giant lizards secretly control the planet, are we dealing with metaphor, coded prejudice, mental instability, opportunity or sincere belief? Increasingly, it seems the answer may be some unstable combination of them all.

Part of what makes Them feel so relevant now is that Ronson rejects the reassuring assumption that extremist or conspiratorial thinking falls outside the bounds of ordinary life.

Long before social media turned paranoia into a viable business model, he grasped that bizarre ideas do not emerge from nowhere. Rather, they are shaped by spectacle, distrust, insecurity and the seductive promise that hidden forces can explain an increasingly bewildering world – often with disastrous consequences.

Given Ronson’s record of books on topics just hitting (or about to explode into) the mainstream, the topic of his forthcoming one, to be published in August, is unsurprising: the masculinity crisis.

Alexander Howard 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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/16/them-at-25-jon-ronsons-adventures-with-extremists-made-him-famous-and-alex-jones-too/

Over the last decade, blue carbon ecosystems, such as mangroves and seagrasses, have taken centre stage in global discussions on tackling climate change, and Indonesia — home to 17 per cent of the world’s mangroves and seagrasses — has become a key actor in this agenda.

Yet, while global attention often centres on restoration targets, carbon markets, and blue finance, far less discussion has focused on a more fundamental question: who will actually deliver this transition?

A recent study shows that blue carbon is not merely about quantifying how much carbon these ecosystems store, capture and release, a process called ecosystem carbon accounting.

It also deeply involves valuing co-benefits and addressing trade-offs across governance, finance, policy, and on-the-ground practice. Consequently, successful implementation depends not only on policy and investment, but also on supporting people and developing their unique skill sets to implement a more holistic approach to blue carbon.

Yet, workforce readiness may be one of the most overlooked enabling conditions for building a sustainable blue economy.

As a key global player in the blue carbon transition, Indonesia has the opportunity to successfully drive this work by developing competency standards across skills ranging from monitoring and accounting to inclusive engagement with coastal communities.

Baca juga:
Indonesia’s ‘blue carbon credits’ are crucial for global climate mitigation. Here’s how to help them flourish

Who will deliver the blue carbon transition?

“Blue carbon” refers to the capacity of coastal and marine ecosystems to absorb carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere and store it for long periods of time.

For Indonesia to successfully drive sustainable blue initiatives, it will require expertise across numerous fields—not only scientists who study coastal ecosystems, but also restoration practitioners, policymakers, financing experts, and community facilitators.

In practice, many practitioners work across these overlapping spaces — for instance, a marine biologist can also work with community engagement to design sustainable and responsive blue carbon projects that meet local needs.

These practical applications highlight the crucial role of cross-disciplinary collaboration in defining what blue carbon work actually means in practice.

However, only a handful of studies have explored practitioners’ perspectives on blue Nature-based Solutions (NbS) initiatives, leaving a major gap in our understanding of the skill sets required for the future.

While the existing blue carbon literature heavily focuses on ecological processes, it rarely addresses the complex social and economic challenges on the ground.

Baca juga:
Indonesia’s ‘blue carbon credits’ are crucial for global climate mitigation. Here’s how to help them flourish

Beyond technical skills

Competency standards are widely used across sectors to clarify the knowledge, technical skills, and professional capabilities associated with specific areas of practice. It serves as a framework providing guidance on what a person needs to learn and master in order to work professionally.

In the context of blue carbon, competency standards can help establish clearer training pathways, improve project consistency, strengthen professional development, and progressively increase the quality and integrity of implementation.

Indonesia already has a number of guidelines. For example, the Mangrove Blue Carbon Measurement Manual and existing SKKNI (Indonesian National Occupational Competency Standards) for specific areas of work (e.g. mangrove monitoring and forest carbon inventory).

However, they often work in silos. As a result, there’s currently a lack of a comprehensive policy tool that integrates and further develops these existing resources into a consolidated framework.

Blue carbon projects demand interdisciplinary competencies. Practitioners technical expertise, such as monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) to generate robust carbon data, alongside strong interpersonal skills for meaningful community engagement on the ground.

Baca juga:
Sea of opportunity: protecting mangroves and seagrass could boost Indonesia’s new climate targets

Technical expertise alone is rarely enough for effective blue carbon implementation. Because blue carbon ecosystems are deeply intertwined with local livelihoods and cultural values, community engagement work is critical to ensure sustainability, equity, and inclusivity considerations are brought to the forefront.

The future blue carbon workforce will likely be required to possess not only scientific and technical competencies but also strong public participation skills.

The latter plays a key role in determining the success of blue carbon projects by enabling equitable benefit-sharing, securing a social license to operate, and ensuring long-term sustainability.

Baca juga:
Sea of opportunity: protecting mangroves and seagrass could boost Indonesia’s new climate targets

Building a future-ready blue carbon workforce

Indonesia’s push for an ocean-climate agenda is just one part of its broader shift toward a sustainable blue economy — a journey that will inevitably bring new challenges.

But with these challenges comes an opportunity to pave the way for more interconnected career paths, targeted training, and widespread capacity building.

How can workforce development keep pace with shifting ocean-climate priorities? Which skills will take center stage over the next ten years? And how do we keep future competency standards flexible without sacrificing quality and credibility?

These are crucial conversations worth starting today among the diverse stakeholders involved in implementing blue carbon projects.

Indonesia already boasts a strong network of practitioners on the ground. The next step is investing in the people and skill sets needed to turn ambition into action. Inclusive and adaptive competency development can play a vital role in building a sustainable blue economy.

Ultimately, this development is just one part of a much larger, more complex process. It should not be viewed as a prescriptive solution, but rather as an enabling mechanism that fosters a capable, interdisciplinary, and future-ready workforce for Indonesia’s evolving blue economy.

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

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/17/building-indonesias-blue-carbon-workforce/

Under the Morrison government’s Job-ready Graduates scheme, the price of arts degrees more than doubled to over A$50,000.

But while attention has understandably been focused on undergraduate degrees, what has happened at the postgraduate level?

In a new research paper we explore how the scheme slashed study costs for many postgraduate students, especially in nursing.

‘Full-fee’ versus ‘student contribution’ places

Since the late 1980s, universities have offered domestic students full-fee places in postgraduate courses. Full-fee places receive no government subsidy, and universities set the fees.

In 2024, the average university revenue per full-fee student place was $33,000 a year. Students can finance these fees with a FEE-HELP loan.

Full-fee places exist alongside postgraduate government-subsidised “Commonwealth supported places” (which are also used for undergraduates). For these places, the government provides a subsidy and students pay a price-capped student contribution.

These contributions are high – currently $17,399 a year in arts, business and law – but much less than the average full-fee rate.

Fixed numbers of subsidised postgraduate places

Before Job-ready Graduates, universities could offer postgraduate students Commonwealth supported places. But for each university the government capped numbers in total and by discipline.

By contrast, there were no restrictions around full-fee postgraduate places. As the chart shows, enrolments in full-fee places grew in most, although not all, years up to the mid-2010s.

The two largest postgraduate fields are teaching and business.

This reflected more people seeking to advance their careers through postgraduate study, as well as postgraduate degrees becoming a possible or required entry point for some professions such as psychology.

The cheaper Commonwealth supported places saved students money over full-fee courses, but produced anomalies across the system. Some universities were allocated thousands of places but others only dozens. Frustrated universities complained some competitors had Commonwealth supported places while they could only offer full-fee places in the same course.

Job-ready Graduates and student places

Job-ready Graduates, which was announced in 2020 and started in 2021, changed this situation. Instead of specifically allocating postgraduate Commonwealth supported places, the government put funding into a single, flexible grant shared with undergraduate courses.

For universities and their students this created new opportunities, but also new trade-offs: between undergraduate and postgraduate places, and between subsidised and full-fee postgraduate places.

Framing it differently, universities faced potential choices between opportunities for first and second-time students for government-subsidised higher education, and between lower and higher total revenue per student.

Increased postgraduate Commonwealth supported places was not an inevitable outcome, but it happened.

Between 2019 (the old system’s last normal year) and 2024, the number of postgraduate Commonwealth supported places increased by a third to more than 57,000. By contrast the number of full-fee postgraduate places at public universities fell by 11%, to about 41,000 places.

Which courses benefited?

Growth in postgraduate Commonwealth supported places occurred across many courses. But nursing was a standout, more than doubling to nearly 8,000 places. Specialities such as critical care and mental health nursing showed large increases.

Price differences between subsidised and full-fee places are very large in these fields. For example, for a Graduate Certificate of Critical Care Nursing at Deakin University a full-fee place costs $14,700 in 2026, while a Commonwealth supported place costs just $2,639. The University of Newcastle markets its Master of Mental Health Nursing as up to 75% cheaper, costing $5,117 with Commonwealth support.

Job-ready Graduates cut nursing student contributions to boost demand. While undergraduate nursing demand did increase, a discount was never likely attract students without prior healthcare interests. But for someone who is already a nurse, a cheap Commonwealth supported place could make a big difference to their decision to pursue postgraduate study.

University reasoning

Students prefer lower fees, but this still leaves the question of why universities offered more nursing places.

Our analysis of postgraduate enrolment trends was part of a broader project exploring university decision-making around Commonwealth supported places. As part of this project, we interviewed university leaders and officials.

A consistent theme was they wanted to prioritise postgraduate Commonwealth supported places in social service occupations with relatively low wages, such as nursing, teaching and social work.

Look at undergrad demand

While universities had social service reasons for offering more postgraduate places in certain fields, another important factor affected decision-making under Job-ready Graduates.

This was a major decline in domestic undergraduate demand. Fewer Year 12 students and more people choosing work over study in a strong labour market were both factors.

For many universities, this abolished the trade-off between undergraduate and postgraduate places. They had more funding for Commonwealth supported places than they could use.

Our interview research found universities placed a high priority on fully utilising their government funding. They saw this as a government expectation. They feared that consistent failure to use funding would see it cut. Offering additional postgraduate places was one way to use more government funding.

Can this last?

The social service reasons for offering postgraduate Commonwealth supported places will remain. But with undergraduate demand now recovering, boosted by renewed growth in Year 12 enrolments, the trade-offs with postgraduate places are returning.

At the same time, the government has introduced legislation putting tougher caps on how many Commonwealth supported students universities can take. This will see some universities need to reduce their Commonwealth supported student intake.

We cannot predict exactly how universities will navigate this changed environment. But postgraduate Commonwealth supported places have probably reached their peak as priorities are likely to move back to undergraduate education.

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

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/16/beyond-50k-arts-degrees-what-has-job-ready-graduates-done-to-postgrad-study/

Warm sticky nights are becoming more and more common in the UK.

Climate change is raising temperatures, but one factor that adds to that is often ignored. Walk down a city street and you see what would have been front gardens a decade or so ago have now been tarmacked over and turned into driveways.

Individually these changes might seem small, but as more and more gardens disappear this increase in hard driveways can alter the way neighbourhoods heat up during the day and cool down at night. It’s an issue that is suddenly on more people’s minds this summer as they struggle to sleep.

According to a UK’s Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) report in 2025, 42% of domestic garden space is now paved over, including 55% of front garden space.

In 2005, only about 8% of UK front gardens were fully paved. By 2015, that figure had tripled to roughly 24%.

Estimates from the RHS suggest there are 20.6 million domestic gardens (front and back) in the UK, covering around 502,757 hectares. The UK’s domestic gardens together cover an area around three times larger than all national nature reserves combined, giving them enormous potential to support wildlife.

Replacing vegetation with hard surfaces also shrinks habitat for plants and wildlife while increasing surface runoff and the risk of flooding.

The desire for more off-street parking may have contributed to this trend. The shift to electric vehicles could have created another incentive to pave front gardens, as goverment grants helped households finance home-charging points.

How paving stokes heat

Impervious surfaces including asphalt (which many driveways are made of) absorbs heat, raising ground and air temperatures. They both absorb up to 95% of incoming solar radiation during the day, reaching surface temperatures of 50-55°C, compared to 27-32°C for grass or tree-covered areas.

During the day, this heat is stored and slowly released after sunset. This is known as the urban heat island effect. The result is warmer night-time air temperatures, particularly during heatwaves. Unlike vegetation, these hard materials have little capacity to cool themselves through evaporation, and are making cities hotter.

This heat island effect can raise cities’ temperatures by 1-3°C compared to surrounding countryside. That’s why it always feels hotter in the city on summer nights.

Read more:
Heatwaves: how to close the UK’s cooling divide

And the result can also cause health problems. The 2018 summer heatwave saw an estimated 399 (of 785) heat-related deaths in the Greater London area attributable to this night-time effect.

Paved front gardens eliminate evaporative cooling (the process by which plants release water vapour), which lowers air temperatures. Plants and trees provide cooling through shading and evapotranspiration (defined as the combined loss of water to the atmosphere through two processes: evaporation and transpiration). In urban environments, green spaces release moisture into the air, which humidifies the atmosphere and significantly reduces air temperature, a mechanism entirely absent in paved areas.

What needs to change?

Changing front driveways back to grass can reduce daytime surface temperatures by 1.5-2.0°C and nighttime temperatures by 0.3-0.5°C. Adding trees doubles the benefit: daytime cooling of 2.0-3.0°C and nighttime reductions of 0.5-1.0°C. Therefore, increasing urban greenery by 10% – particularly planting trees – can lower average air temperatures by around 0.5°C.

Front gardens with plants rather than driveways can also reduce flood risk by absorbing rain, filter air pollutants, support biodiversity and improve mental wellbeing. The RHS estimates that restoring plant cover in one million front gardens could save millions of litres of stormwater run-off annually.

But there are ways to have a driveway that doesn’t create so much heat. London’s De-pave Your Garden campaign offers guidance on replacing concrete with permeable paving, gravel or planting strips, an approach that has since been promoted by London boroughs including Lambeth and Ealing.

Leeds City Council’s front garden design guide encourages householders to retain at least 30% green space.

Other things could help change people’s attitudes to front gardens and their value. Financial incentives, such as council tax rebates for depaving or grants for rain gardens, could accelerate change.

In the future, public policy must recognise private gardens as green infrastructure, not merely private amenities. Updating planning permission rules to encourage a mix of plants and gravel, for instance, would help.

The United Nations identifies urban greenery as a key way to reduce heat in cities. The benefits extend beyond gardens: green roofs and balcony gardens can lower indoor temperatures by up to 11°C.

No single garden will transform a city’s climate, but when thousands of gardens are protected and restored across neighbourhoods, the combined cooling effect would become significant.

As climate projections show more frequent, longer and hotter summers, every square metre of restored vegetation matters. Domestic gardens are frontline defences against intensifying heatwaves.

By not opting for a tarmacked driveway or replanting the existing one, households can help cool their streets, protect vulnerable neighbours and reclaim a piece of Britain’s vanishing green heritage.

Karina Corada-Pérez 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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/16/how-the-trend-for-turning-front-gardens-into-driveways-is-adding-to-night-time-heat/

Pollsters recently asked a sample of adults in Britain who they would prefer to win the byelection in Clacton. The rather surprising answers showed that 33% favoured “comedy” candidate Count Binface, compared to just 21% who would back Reform UK leader Nigel Farage.

The resignation earlier this month of Farage as MP for the Essex seat triggered the byelection on August 13. According to the Ipsos poll, Count Binface (writer and comedian Jon Harvey is the man under the bin) has nearly a 60% advantage over Farage. But more to the point, 45% of the respondents either want neither candidate to win or don’t know who they prefer.

A separate question asked about satisfaction with the performance of various political leaders. Farage turned out to be rather unpopular. He came second behind Keir Starmer as the most unpopular leader, with 26% of respondents satisfied and 63% dissatisfied with his leadership.

In relation to voting intentions, the Ipsos survey shows that Reform is on 26%, two points ahead of Labour on 24% and eight points ahead of the Conservatives on 18%. The survey also asked about Andy Burnham – 30% thought he would make the best prime minister, while 16% thought this about Farage and 13% about the Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch.

Comparing these ratings with those from another Ipsos survey conducted in June 2025 shows a dip in support for Reform. At that time, Farage scored 34% satisfied and 49% dissatisfied on the leadership question. And the party scored 34% in voting intentions, with Labour on 25% and the Conservatives on 15%.

So it looks like Burnham could put Labour in prime position in voting intentions when he enters Downing Street. But what might be responsible for this decline in support for Reform?

Four reasons for the Reform slide

Some key issues stand out when it comes to explaining why Reform and its leader are losing support. First, there is the scandal over the party’s finances. The party has received large donations from Bitcoin billionaire Christopher Harborne, who lives in Thailand, including £5 million given to Farage personally. He failed to report the latter to the parliamentary watchdog when he won the Clacton seat in 2024. Farage has stated that it was a personal gift and therefore did not need to be declared.

The regulations state that new MPs “must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election”.

This has undoubtedly damaged the party and its leader. It is a stretch to imagine that working-class voters in the north of England who voted for Reform in the general election will sympathise with a party leader who accepts large sums of money from such sources.

A second problem is that Reform’s narrative that it opposes the “crooked” establishment is looking threadbare. According to the Ipsos poll on Clacton, the party is seen by many voters as being part of the establishment rather than an alternative to it. The poll asked: “Do you think the following political parties are more on the side of the people or more on the side of the establishment?”

Looking at respondents who thought that parties were on the side of the people, 27% thought this about Labour, 13% about the Conservatives, 33% for the Liberal Democrats, 39% for the Greens and 28% for Reform. In contrast, 36% thought that Reform was on the side of the establishment. The party does better than its main rival, the Conservatives, but it is seen as being similar to Labour and more part of the establishment than either the Liberal Democrats or the Greens.

The third reason for Reform’s decline is Farage’s mistake in triggering the byelection in the first place. Voters were asked about this, and altogether 16% thought he was right to resign as an MP and to stand in the contest. But while a further 16% thought he should not have called it, 54% thought he should have resigned and left parliament.

Farage has been accused of calling the byelection to halt the parliamentary investigation into his undeclared gifts. Farage has said it is because he wants the people of Clacton to judge him.

In the survey, respondents were asked if the parliamentary standards committee should investigate whether he broke rules by not declaring the £5 million gift. A total of 74% thought the investigation should continue, with only 14% opposing this.

Finally, there is Farage’s miscalculation about what the other mainstream parties would do in the byelection. From his point of view, the best outcome would have been for them to stand and for Reform to defeat them all. This would have allowed him to argue that the “people” support him even if the “establishment” does not. But the fact that the mainstream parties withdrew, leaving Reform up against what the Telegraph newspaper has called “joke parties” is embarrassing, particularly if they do well.

There is a long history of eccentric candidates standing in byelections as a joke. They differ from small parties and independents by making fun of the whole exercise while seeking publicity. In the 2024 general election Count Binface got 308 votes in the Richmond and Northallerton constituency when he stood as a candidate. He is likely to do better in Clacton and may even win – although this is a long shot, despite Farage’s woes.

The leader of the Official Monster Raving Loony party, Howling Laud Hope, also plans to stand. His party is much older than the Binface party and fielded 22 candidates, winning nearly 6,000 votes in the 2024 general election. It will be interesting to see if he wins more votes than Count Binface.

Politics is no joke, but the participation of these candidates in elections adds to the gaiety. When Reform – which has its sights set on winning the next general election – loses votes to them it suggests that the party is on the slide.

Paul Whiteley has received funding from the British Academy and the ESRC.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/16/could-count-binface-actually-win/

In January 1924, two young women on a Toronto Queen St. streetcar caught sight of Ernest Hemingway’s battered green hat.

They giggled among themselves that he might be Red Ryan, the city’s fugitive bank robber.

So reported John Hadley in the Toronto Star story “The Freiburg Fedora: Must Wear Hats Like Other Folks If You Live in Toronto” on Jan. 19, 1924. Hadley was Hemingway’s wife’s name, and John, the name of their infant son.
Today, it’s clear that Hemingway wrote the story. Journalist and literary historian William White first collected many of Hemingway’s Toronto Star pieces in Dateline: Toronto (1985).

Journalist William Burrill, author of Hemingway: The Toronto Years (1994), later uncovered some 30 additional long-lost stories, including several written under pseudonyms like John Hadley or Peter Jackson. By cross-referencing Hemingway’s papers at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Burrill demonstrated that “The Freiburg Fedora” was indeed Hemingway’s.

As Burrill notes, Hemingway adopted pseudonyms after reaching his quota with the Star, allowing him to sell additional stories and earn much-needed income for his young family. He first used the John Hadley signature only weeks after the birth of his first son.

With scholars gathering in Toronto in July 2026 to re-examine Hemingway’s Canadian years, “The Freiburg Fedora” offers a compelling opportunity to revisit a neglected moment in Hemingway’s literary development.

Evolution of fiction strategies

The significance of “The Freiburg Fedora” extends beyond its authorship.

Under the guise of Hadley, Hemingway was able to explore the less appealing aspects of himself. The sketch captures him at a pivotal moment when newspaper reporting begins to evolve into literary self-fashioning, anticipating themes and narrative strategies that would later define his fiction.

Although researchers established Hemingway’s authorship of the story decades ago, it has received remarkably little literary attention. During the July 2026 Toronto Hemingway conference, visitors to the Toronto Reference Library (where the Toronto Star collections are held), can see the original newspaper story on display.

The making of an outsider

Hemingway had covered Red Ryan’s escape for the Toronto Star, making the comparison he explored in “The Freiburg Fedora” especially apt. Contemporary newspaper photographs of Ryan wearing a fedora bear a striking resemblance to the young Hemingway.

The “Freiburg Fedora” opens with the wry observation: “There is one thing Toronto demands in clothes. That thing is conformation.” This first-person piece goes on to see “John Hadley” narrate Hemingway’s irritation in being mocked by the two women. Where another traveller might have laughed at the comparison, Hemingway’s alter ego begins to prepare a counterattack.

The story quickly becomes a satire of Toronto itself. On the eve of his return to Paris, Hemingway used the protection of a pseudonym to mock what he presents as the city’s social conformity and provincialism.

The hat is pivotal in this transformation. “John Hadley” never defends its appearance. Instead, he recounts its travels. It has weathered “the hot sun of the Thracian desert,” been worn beneath heavy snow glasses and even landed in “the sunbaked sand of the bull ring.”

The hat becomes almost a passport, bearing the marks of experience rather than fashion. What the Toronto passengers dismiss as an oddity, Hemingway presents as the visible trace of an adventurous life deliberately lived beyond convention. The battered fedora embodies the identity of a young writer consciously fashioning himself as an outsider character.

From streetcar quarrel to literary technique

Recent scholarship has increasingly emphasized the continuities between Hemingway’s journalism and fiction. Marcos Todeschin, for example, argued in his doctoral thesis that Hemingway’s newspaper writing and fiction should be understood as part of the same evolving literary practice. “The Freiburg Fedora” offers one of the clearest examples of that transition.

The fedora story reveals a characteristic that would recur throughout Hemingway’s fiction: the tendency to transform minor social encounters into contests of will. Rather than inviting sympathy, the Hemingway character steadily escalates the exchange through increasingly extravagant claims. He depicts himself as a provocateur who seems almost compelled to intensify the conflict.

He insists the hat was a gift from the late Emperor Charles of Austria, provoking fellow passengers by invoking the recently defeated First World War enemy who had died in exile. This prompts a male passenger to threaten him with “a sock on the jaw.”

At the height of the “Freiburg Fedora” confrontation, Hemingway steps off the streetcar at Queen and Bay streets, announcing that he has “an appointment with the new mayor.” Toronto readers would immediately have recognized the reference. Mayor William Wesley Hiltz had taken office only days earlier.

Whether Hemingway, as a reporter, had business at Old City Hall or simply fashioned a theatrical exit for his first-person narrator is impossible to know. Either way, he leaves the streetcar, and the argument, entirely on his own terms.

From journalism to fiction

“The Freiburg Fedora” introduces a narrative pattern that would become central to Hemingway’s later fiction. Social encounters become tests of will.

“The Freiburg Fedora” displays the irony, character construction and carefully controlled endings that would later distinguish Hemingway’s fiction. The newspaper story begins to assume the shape of literature while Hemingway simultaneously turns himself into an anti-hero of his own autobiographical narrative.

It also overturns the Toronto Star Weekly’s carefully cultivated public image of Hemingway. A staff profile published on May 6, 1922, presented him as a medal-decorated war veteran, who was “tall, dark, of distinguished appearance” and “a general favourite by his ability and his bonhomie.”

A strikingly different self-portrait emerges. Here, Hemingway depicts himself as quarrelsome, provocative and quick to escalate conflict rather than defuse it. Instead of reassuring readers, he leaves confusion in his wake.

Toronto’s lasting legacy

“The Freiburg Fedora” also reshapes understanding of Toronto’s place in literary development.

During his four years with the Toronto Star, Hemingway produced nearly 200 pieces, 170 under his own name plus around 30 with verified pseudonym bylines. These satirical pieces and literary reportage, including many short, character-driven autobiographical sketches, reveal a writer already experimenting with narrative voice, characterization and dramatic conflict.

On the pages of the Toronto Star Weekly, Hemingway also reflected on William Butler Yeats’s Nobel Prize in Literature. In a Nov. 24, 1923, column, he lamented that his literary hero, Joseph Conrad, had not received the honour and observed that “no American author has won the Nobel Prize.”

Three decades later, in 1954, Hemingway himself received it. The Nobel Committee praised him “for his mastery of the art of narrative” and for “the influence that he has exerted on contemporary style.”

The foundation for that mastery was laid not only in Paris but also in Toronto.

“The Freiburg Fedora” deserves to be read not simply as an amusing newspaper sketch but as one of the earliest literary examples of Hemingway beginning to invent the writer he would become.

Irene Gammel 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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/16/how-a-forgotten-toronto-story-shows-hemingway-beginning-to-invent-himself-as-a-fiction-writer/

Mindfulness meditation has become increasingly popular in the United States and around the world in recent decades. Apps such as Headspace, Calm and Plum Village – inspired by the Vietnamese Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh – are helping people build a steady practice, reduce stress and improve sleep.

The practice, which involves paying attention to present-moment experience with openness and awareness, is also taught in public schools and workplaces in the United States. In addition, evidence-based mindfulness programs are frequently used in U.S. hospitals and clinics. Legendary former NBA coach Phil Jackson, has even encouraged practicing mindfulness on the basketball court.

The benefits of mindfulness in reducing stress, anxiety and depression have been widely documented. However, mindfulness does not affect everyone in the same way. A growing body of research points to unwanted or adverse effects in some people. These include anxiety, emotional distress, resurfacing of painful memories and dissociation – feeling detached from oneself or one’s surroundings.

Most people do not experience these lasting problems, but researchers are increasingly trying to understand why they occur in a minority of practitioners.

As a scholar of Buddhism, I have studied traditional contemplative practices and also followed the growing scientific research on their effects. I believe some of the confusion arises because Buddhist traditions have long expected that meditation can sometimes be difficult, whereas mindfulness is often presented primarily as a way to reduce stress and promote relaxation. In many Buddhist traditions, meditation is learned from experienced teachers who can guide the practitioner and help manage difficult experiences that might arise.

The scientific debate

Scientists do not always agree on what counts as an adverse effect of mindfulness. Some make a distinction between temporary discomfort – such as anxiety or difficult emotions during meditation – and lasting harm, such as worsening mental health symptoms. Others take a broader approach, measuring a wider range of difficult experiences that occur during or after meditation practice, including intrusive memories and lasting emotional distress.

A 2017 survey of meditation practitioners found that about 25% reported unwanted effects, such as anxiety, fear or unsettling thoughts. Most, however, said these were temporary and did not require medical attention.

Other studies have identified more serious effects. In another widely cited study from 2017, researchers interviewed 60 experienced Buddhist meditation practitioners who had reported challenges that they associated with their meditation practice. These included severe anxiety, traumatic memories, altered perceptions and difficulties functioning in everyday life.

A 2021 study of meditators in the United Kingdom found that lasting effects, such as feeling constantly on edge or detached from oneself or one’s surroundings, occurred in roughly 6%–14% of participants.

Some participants viewed these experiences as valuable parts of their meditation practice. Others found them to be distressing and disruptive.

Estimates of how many practitioners are affected vary widely across studies, but evidence suggests they affect only a minority.

The Buddhist perspective

Many people today turn to mindfulness expecting stress reduction and relaxation. In Buddhist traditions, however, meditation serves other purposes. Buddhist texts often present meditation as a way of confronting uncertainty, grief, mortality and impermanence.

In the Pali canon, the earliest collection of Buddhist texts, the “Maraṇasati Sutta” teaches practitioners to reflect on the certainty and unpredictability of death. Another text in the Pali canon, the “Upajjhatthana Sutta,” guides readers to reflect on aging, illness and death, and to take responsibility for one’s actions.

Meditation is often used to face the realities of human existence. Difficult emotions may arise, and they are not always seen as signs that something is wrong. The texts speak of approaching these reflections with “fearlessness.”

Understanding difficult experiences

Why do some people experience meditation-related difficulties, while others do not? One important factor may be the context in which it is practiced.

In clinical settings where mindfulness is used as part of treatment, some difficult experiences, such as temporary sadness or anxiety, may simply be part of working through difficult emotions rather than signs of harm.

Clinical psychologist Willoughby Britton distinguishes between temporary distress and experiences that negatively affect daily functioning. Temporary distress is part of the treatment, but it may be considered an adverse effect if it persists, worsens or significantly impairs functioning.

Other researchers compare mindfulness with psychotherapy, exercise and medication and argue that soreness after exercise, while unpleasant, is not necessarily evidence of harm.

Why guidance matters

This distinction between expected discomfort and lasting harm echoes long-standing features of Buddhist traditions. Difficult experiences are not always seen as signs that something has gone wrong. They may instead be understood as part of the process of learning through meditation.

Buddhism assumes that meditation is learned from experienced teachers. Practice frequently occurs within a monastic or lay community. Training typically proceeds step by step, beginning with living ethically, then learning to focus the mind and finally gaining deeper understanding.

Modern mindfulness often presents meditation as something people can learn on their own, whereas Buddhist traditions emphasize learning meditation from experienced teachers and practicing within a community. Research also suggests that support may influence how difficult experiences are interpreted and managed.

Researchers have also found that “influencing factors” such as relationships with teachers, meditation instructions and support from one’s meditation community play a role. The same experience could be disruptive for one practitioner but manageable for another, depending on how it was interpreted and supported.

What scientists are learning and why

The question is no longer “Does mindfulness work?” Scientists now ask: “For whom does it work?” “Under what conditions?” “What kinds of support are needed?” To answer these, there is growing interest in screening, safety protocols and individualized approaches.

For example, some programs now ask about trauma or mental health history before beginning mindfulness training. Others encourage participants to work with a trained instructor and adjust or stop practices if they become overwhelming.

It has become clear that mindfulness is neither a cure-all nor inherently dangerous. It remains beneficial for most people. Difficult experiences should neither be ignored nor automatically treated as failure.

For many people, mindfulness apps and self-guided practice work well. Some who experience problems may benefit from working with a trained instructor or in a structured program.

Ronald S. Green 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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/16/mindfulness-is-often-presented-as-a-path-to-calm-but-its-buddhist-roots-explain-why-it-can-also-bring-difficulties/

The parades, reenactments and fireworks are over. And in the aftermath of Americans’ celebration of the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it is important to recognize that the declaration was only the first step in making a unified country.

Many of the founders argued that the country needed a remodeled government. They asked whether it was possible to design a government for the new country that ensured liberty in the face of the inherent flaws of human nature.

Revolution’s aftermath

In the aftermath of the American Revolutionary War, the national government remained a loose confederation of state governments. While effective in winning the war, the new government faced social and political fissures in the postwar period.

The war left the new republic with extensive debts shared unevenly between the states. Common farmers, including many Revolutionary War veterans, rebelled in opposition to postwar taxation policies. Rather than a cohesive national unit, Americans faced a loose, tense and combative set of state and local interests.

The Second Continental Congress in 1777 produced the first constitution of the United States, the Articles of Confederation. However, differing interests between state governments, including the management of western territory and public finance, slowed ratification. Only in 1781, as the Revolutionary War was entering its final stage, did all of the states finally agree to ratify the articles.

Both the terms of ratification and the text of the Articles of Confederation reflected a suspicion between the state governments, each of which wanted to protect their own local interests rather than cede authority to the national government.

Lumbering system

The limited powers that the articles granted to the national government reflected the lack of consensus between states. The government designed in the articles lacked any strong executive authority and did not have a national judiciary.

Additionally, the national legislature, which the articles referred to as a “league of friendship,” functioned less like a representative organ of the people at large than a council of state governments.

The articles created a single-chamber Congress in which each state cast one vote. Major legislation required a supermajority, and amendments required unanimity.

To many, such a slow-moving, restrictive system was preferable, particularly with the memory of the abuses of the British government still in recent memory.

However, the 1780s saw a series of contentious events – a barely thwarted uprising of frustrated soldiers called the Newburgh Conspiracy, interstate trade disputes, an economic depression and a rural tax rebellion that prompted many American leaders to reconceptualize the role and structure of American government around a more unified, national and interventionist model.

Competing visions

The nationalists were members of the Constitutional Convention that met in Philadelphia in the Summer of 1787 to draft the successor to the articles, the United States Constitution. This group included Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. These three men sought to convey that the proper role of government is to protect people from themselves.

The nationalists believed in a more centralized national union that balanced competing interests in the new republic. They sought to eliminate friction between the states by eliminating interstate trade barriers, consolidating state debts and creating a stronger central administrative body under a strong executive.

Furthermore, they sought to create a balance of power by creating a three-part federal government consisting of a two-chamber legislature, an executive branch and a national judiciary. Each would have expanded powers.

In contrast to the articles, the proposed Constitution included uniform national commercial regulation, monetary controls such as the exclusive right of the national government to issue legal tender, augmented executive powers to determine foreign policy and an overarching federal court structure. It also included an explicit national power to suppress uprisings.

The representatives to the convention, which also included prominent figures such as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, considered the federal government’s ability to deal with uprisings and fiscal policy to be particularly important. It was also topical: A tax imposed on cash-poor farmers to pay down the public war debt had just prompted a rebellion in western Massachusetts led by Revolutionary veteran Daniel Shays.

Many rebels believed the burden of repaying the public debt fell disproportionately on common people while benefiting elites. Nationalist political theorists such as Hamilton, Madison and Jay saw such revolts against national authority as the product of demagogues instigating unrestrained urges into social movements they referred to as “factions.”

Initially, the terms of the new Constitution received substantial opposition from prominent political writers later known as the Anti-Federalists. These often anonymous authors began publishing criticisms of the yet unratified Constitution as an unwarranted accumulation of federal power that would endanger the hard-won liberties secured by the Revolutionary War.

This is where the document that has become known as the Federalist Papers comes in.

‘If men were angels …’

Hamilton, Madison and Jay responded to these criticisms as a group. Adopting the pen name Publius, they published 85 essays in New York newspapers supporting ratification. In defense of the Constitution’s proposal to increase the powers of the proposed national government, these authors turned to some of the most basic philosophical questions about humanity.

Each argued that the inherent flaws of human nature necessitated a strong government to check political abuse, self-interest and even violence that they saw as inherent in the fabric of human society. They rallied around the position reflected in Madison’s famous statement in the essay known as Federalist 51 that “if men were angels, no government would be necessary.”

The Federalist Papers include proposals for institutional solutions that sought to redirect the destructive drives of individuals toward positive social ends. To the authors, a new constitutional government that controlled both the impulses of the masses and the abuses of their leaders would serve as the means through which the new United States government could accomplish this task.

Each saw human nature as susceptible to corruption by base impulses and self-interest.

In Federalist 10, Madison argued that faction is “sown in the nature of man.”

Similarly, in Federalist 6, Hamilton rejected the commonly held idea that republics were automatically peaceful. Instead, he argued, political leaders and states were driven by ambitions and jealousies, which he saw as a characteristic shortcoming of the government under the Articles of Confederation as well as a law of nature governing relations between nations.

Hamilton wrote that if the states remained disunited, then “the subdivisions into which they might be thrown would have frequent and violent contests with each other.” To argue otherwise, he wrote, would be “to forget that men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious.”

Consequently, as Hamilton asserted in Federalist 15, governments must have effective coercive authority to enforce laws because they cannot rely solely on the goodwill and civic virtue of their citizens: “If there be no penalty annexed to disobedience, the resolutions or commands which pretend to be laws will, in fact, amount to nothing more than advice or recommendation.”

Ultimately, the defense of the Constitution provided by the Federalist Papers sought to frame the new government in terms of a skeptical view of humanity that recognized what Madison called “a degree of depravity in mankind.”

They also asserted that constitutional design and balanced government could control these dangerous impulses. As Madison added, “There are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence.”

Donovan Fifield receives funding from the European Research Council.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/16/after-1776-the-founders-designed-a-government-that-accounts-for-a-degree-of-depravity-in-mankind/

Older people are being left out of decisions about how artificial intelligence is being built.

Many older adults are highly skilled, curious about emerging technologies and keen to learn about AI; they’re interested in its potential for our society. However, research shows that many employers still assume older employees are less tech-savvy.

Consequently, older adults often miss out on job opportunities or are passed over for promotions, even when they have the skills, training and expertise required.

The AI industry is a case in point. Rather than reflecting the full range of possible users, its workforce is largely made up of young men and runs the risk of developing apps and tools that reproduce these gender and age biases.

In fact, a growing body of research shows that older adults are consistently under-represented in the development of AI models. This makes those systems less accurate when it comes to recognizing and responding to the needs or preferences of older users.

For example, a study of AI-generated images found that pictures of older people are consistently and systematically less bright and less sharp than images of younger people.

This article is part of our ongoing series The Grey Revolution. The Conversation Canada and La Conversation are exploring the impact of the aging boomer generation on Canadian society, including housing, working, culture, nutrition, travelling and health care. The series explores the upheavals already underway and those looming ahead.

Lived experiences of aging

At Concordia University, we’ve just completed a year-long community engagement project to gather perspectives and insights from older people about the future of aging alongside AI. This project is part of a larger interdisciplinary research collaborative in the AI space at Concordia.

Our preliminary findings show older people worry that AI tools framed around aging — such as fall detection or cognitive monitoring tools — are being designed by young developers who approach growing older as something to treat, manage or even prevent.

The health and wellness industry in particular is building new AI applications and tools at unprecedented rates — and these tools are increasingly designed for older people, older bodies and caregivers. While many of these tools offer up benefits like early disease diagnosis, symptom tracking and health promotion, they are not without their practical and ethical downsides.

Quality of care and transparency are paramount. A recent study of AI in health-care decision-making found some older adults are skeptical about AI’s ability to understand complex care needs, and generally preferred human interaction over AI engagement.

Older participants in this study also felt strongly that AI usage must be transparent and involve informed consent. In other words, older adults wanted to determine when and where they engage with AI.

Participants in our community engagement project echoed similar concerns. Several older community members discussed the importance of transparency in all things AI. Some even shared examples of times when they had interacted with AI chatbots for things like online banking support, and thought they were chatting with a real person.

They believe their lived experiences of aging, and their unique perspectives, are not being captured in the data training these new AI tools. Nor are they being used to determine what sorts of AI tools are getting built in the first place.

These concerns beg the question: Who is making decisions about AI, and for whom?

AI scams target older adults

Many of our participants raised fraud as a great example of this mismatch.

AI-enabled scams often target older adults, in part because they are seen as more trusting than younger adults.

Recently, for example, a fake CBC article began circulating on social media that showed Canadian journalist Adrienne Arsenault interviewing grocery tycoon Galen Weston Jr., who appeared to storm out part way through the interview. The event never happened. The images were AI-generated and the article was designed to scam people by promoting a fake investment platform.

Some participants in our dialogue suggested that AI itself could be built to help people spot this kind of fraud before it happens. They felt no one has asked them to provide input on how to combat fraud, despite being the prime targets of it.

Build with, not for, older adults

What older adults are asking for isn’t complicated. They want a say in what AI gets built, what data trains it and how it’s governed.

They want accessible ways to learn AI skills, ideally through institutions they already trust, like community organizations and schools. Several participants suggested short, library-based courses rather than more apps to download, feeling in-person learning would be most effective.

Several public libraries, including the Toronto Public Library, do already run AI literacy programming alongside their traditional digital skills classes.

Older adults also expressed unease and concern for others: concern for artists losing control over their work to generative AI, and a wish that people of all ages (not just older adults) could just “stay analog” sometimes.

None of this is really about whether older adults can keep up with AI. Many of them are trying to. It’s about whether the people designing, training and governing these systems are willing to build them with older adults in the room, rather than building for them.

Older adults want a say in where AI is going next.

Rachel Weldrick receives funding from the Applied AI Institute at Concordia University.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/16/wherever-ai-is-heading-next-older-people-want-a-say/

As he surveys the degraded and demoralised Liberal Party he presides over, Angus Taylor has two major problems – and that’s leaving aside One Nation.

The first is that his own performance is often cack-handed. The second is he is not, as the saying goes, meeting the voters where they are. He should – in theory – be able to tackle the former. The latter is more fundamental.

It always surprises how often Taylor comes out with the wrong line, or is caught out without an answer to an obvious question. Like, after his robust attack last week on One Nation, saying this week that he’d made it “with a heavy heart”. Or recently when, quizzed to the point of embarrassment, he couldn’t say whether he embraced multiculturalism. (Obvious answer: yes, but I want to improve it.)

Taylor struggles to engage properly in media encounters, appearing to think his “lines”, often slogans or cliches, will get him through. (Contrast NSW Premier Chris Minns, or Liberal senator James Paterson, who engage with questions, answer directly where they can, or make it clear if they won’t.)

But Taylor is also trying not to say anything that will put him further offside with the “base”, and that leads him into verbal mazes.

He should be able to be fully prepped and prepared for media appearances. That’s what staff are for. Those around him remark on his intelligence, and despair of his lack of political deftness.

The mismatch between where the public are and what the Liberals are expounding is a much deeper challenge – a gulf perhaps unable to be bridged, at least in the short term.

This came through in Taylor’s major economic address last week that, in addition to its attack on One Nation, critiqued Labor and set out the opposition’s alternative in broad terms. It was traditional Liberal fare of smaller government, lower taxes, and “empowering” people, and reflected the hand of respected economist Steven Hamilton, now on Taylor’s staff.

But the trouble for the Liberals is that these days the public want more from government than they did a few decades ago. They want activist government to find ways to make their lives better. They are not preoccupied with getting government out of their lives. COVID changed thinking about government spending. The threat posed by debt and deficits doesn’t strike the chord it once did. People are preoccupied with their own circumstances, rather than the bigger picture.

Read more:
Friday essay: how hard is it to govern?

Election campaigns always contained promises, but now they are, at least partly, auctions. This is not just tax cuts but big spending, such as the promises in 2025 on student debt relief and Medicare. It’s notable Peter Dutton felt the need to match much of Labor’s 2025 spending.

It’s hard to see the Liberals’ more austere pitch about economic responsibility going down well, especially in such harsh times. People will take a lot of persuading, and the Liberals are not strong on persuasion.

They are very good at talking endlessly about themselves. Paul Keating would call it dogs returning to their vomit. They’ve this week put out publicly a discussion paper from one of their reviews. It’s full of useful statistics (mostly presenting problems for the Liberals) and common sense.

Trouble is, we’ve heard it all before and it just sets off a fresh round of public navel-gazing. Predictably, another squabble about female quotas erupted. The Liberal Party has spent more than a year pondering
itself, to no useful effect (and it’s not finished yet).

Taylor in coming months will have to reshuffle his frontbench. It’s a team that has been repeatedly shaken up and moved around since the election. Such instability fractures continuity, both in drawing up policy and selling it.

But Jonno Duniam, home affairs spokesman and one of the better opposition performers, is quitting parliament when he finishes the immigration policy, so changes are unavoidable.

Before this, a stand-in shadow finance minister must be appointed because Claire Chandler is off on maternity leave. Finance is a key area and Chandler has been much less seen and heard than her predecessor James Paterson. Paterson should never have been moved but he was one of those instrumental in Taylor’s rise to the leadership and so could not be denied the defence post he craved.

The Liberals’ economic team in general needs to greatly improve its performance. Tim Wilson might require more time to find his feet as shadow treasurer, but should have learned that playing the jokester doesn’t work in this role. Jacinta Nampijinpa Price has a high profile – but not as small business spokeswoman. Small business is core to the Liberal constituency; the position needs someone more suited to it.

On Wednesday Taylor was glib in his first response about Albanese’s announcement of an Office of AI, located in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Just more bureaucracy, he said dismissively. He should be careful: this is a huge policy area and one the opposition should be leaning into in a very considered way.

Taylor is not just looking across the centre right spectrum at the Liberals’ rival, One Nation. He is also looking over his shoulder at leadership aspirant Andrew Hastie.

Some argue that if the Liberals are still floundering at New Year, Hastie should (or will) replace Taylor.

There is little doubt about Hastie’s ambition.

But, muses one Liberal greybeard, would that be very sensible – from Hastie’s point of view? It’s about as safe a bet as you’ll get that the Coalition won’t win the next election. Indeed, given the uncertainty created by One Nation, the map of the centre right after that election could be all over the place.

If Hastie stepped up before the election and had a bad loss, that would burn him for the next term (assuming he held off One Nation in his own seat). It would be better for Hastie, on the greybeard’s reckoning, to leave the 2028 election to Taylor and then take over as opposition leader – provided there’s still a viable Coalition opposition to take over.

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.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/16/grattan-on-friday-the-zeitgeist-doesnt-suit-angus-taylor-but-he-could-do-more-to-help-himself/

The spidery wattle (Acacia araneosa) is a national treasure.

This plant is named for its spidery, leaf-like phyllodes and shares the same iconic golden flowers as Australia’s floral emblem, the golden wattle (Acacia pycnantha).

The spidery wattle is extremely rare, found only in a tiny area of South Australia’s Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary and Vulkathunha-Gammon Ranges National Park. This, alongside its unusual appearance, makes it a distinctive and beloved part of the landscape.

But this local icon is under threat. In the late 1830s, the first pastoral leases – which allowed livestock grazing on government land – were granted in South Australia. This significantly reshaped the state’s landscapes and ecosystems.

Our new study shows since that period, the spidery wattle population has drastically shrunk by about 98%. If this trend continues, the future of this unique species looks grim.

Thankfully, we can do something about it.

A perplexing plant

The spidery wattle has long puzzled scientists.

For years, researchers studying this unassuming plant noticed seed from the spidery wattle would sometimes “revert” to the form of another common wattle species, the silver wattle (Acacia rivalis). The silver wattle is a more widespread species than the spidery wattle, but grows in the same area.

This phenomenon could be explained by phenotypic plasticity — the ability of an organism to modify its physical traits or behaviour in response to environmental changes. This is fairly common in the plant world, with one example being Hydrangea flowers that change colour depending on soil pH levels.

These observations raised a crucial question: are spidery wattles just silver wattles that have changed form to suit local conditions?

It can be difficult to get funding for conservation efforts, so if we are to protect a plant or animal, it better be a “real” species!

Our latest research reveals, for the first time, the spidery wattle and silver wattle are indeed two distinct species. But we found these plants can hybridise in the wild, meaning the “reverted” seeds scientists observed were very likely hybrid seeds.

Why genes matter

We know of only two small spidery wattle populations, growing very close together on the hills of the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary. Data from the mid-1990s suggests there were about 1,000 individual plants in total. This figure has almost certainly decreased since.

Despite being within shouting distance of each other, these two populations are genetically distinct. This is concerning because when populations shrink, they can rapidly lose genetic diversity. This is due to a process known as “genetic drift”, where the number of different genes in a small population randomly fluctuates.

It’s also more likely that individual plants with similar genes will interbreed. This means two small populations of 50 individuals are more vulnerable to pests, disease and environmental change, compared to a single population of 100.

This was the case with the Florida panther, a species once found across the south-eastern United States. In the 1980s, this panther population rapidly shrank, leading to inbreeding and the birth of many unhealthy kittens.

Worryingly, our research suggests the two remaining spidery wattle populations are already showing signs of being less genetically diverse.

A species under threat

Local observations suggest adult spidery wattles cope reasonably well in hot and dry conditions. However, their tiny seedlings are extremely vulnerable to drought and introduced herbivores such as rabbits, goats and sheep.

Over the past few millenia, Australia’s weather has become more dry and unpredictable. Our research shows these climatic changes have had a marked impact on the spidery wattle. This is because seedlings struggle to reach maturity in drought conditions, affecting the overall health of the spidery wattle population.

We found the species started declining roughly 3,300 years ago. Other research shows the now-extinct Tasmanian tiger disappeared from mainland Australia at this time, due to the same climatic changes.

However, the spidery wattle population started declining much faster once humans settled in South Australia and started farming from 1836 onwards. In the intervening years, the spidery wattle population has shrunk by roughly 98%.

So, what can we do?

Together, these factors mean the spidery wattle is now on the brink of extinction. However, work is already underway to ensure this unique species survives.

A passionate group of South Australian conservationists are spearheading efforts to set up exclusion fences, which stop herbivores from grazing spidery wattle seedlings. Through restoration planting, they have also grown and planted seedlings to boost the size of existing populations.

Importantly, about 2,000 spidery wattle seeds are being preserved in South Australia’s Botanic Gardens and the United Kingdom’s Millennium Seed Bank.

But there is still more we can do.

Currently, the spidery wattle is listed as a “Vulnerable” species federally, and “Endangered” at a state level. Given the two remaining populations are still at risk, it’s time we recognise it as a “Critically Endangered” species in Australia.

The spidery wattle should also be added to the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List. These listings would support conservationists and policymakers to secure the funding needed to protect this iconic species.

We dedicate this work to the memory of Martin O‘Leary of the South Australian Herbarium, whose contribution to this study was crucial. A leading plant taxonomist in South Australia, Martin brought warmth and enthusiasm to his work, with a particular kindness to students. We are grateful for the privilege of working with him.

Brittany Hogben receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with Adelaide University, as well as other not-for-profit and professional associations including the Biology Society of South Australia and Society for Wildlife Forensic Science.

Andrew Lowe receives funding from the Australian Research Council and other Australian government sources. This work was supported by a grant from the Threatened Species Initiative of BioPlatforms Australia. He is a board member of Landscape South Australia – Hills and Fleurieu.

During this work, Colette Blyth was affiliated with Adelaide University and the University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna. Funding for this project is from the Threatened Species Initiative via Bioplatforms Australia.

James B. Dorey is affiliated with the University of Wollongong and Flinders University. He is also affiliated with other professional associations including the Australian Native Bee Association, Australian Entomological Society and Australian Ecological Society.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/16/this-rare-australian-wattle-is-on-the-brink-of-extinction-new-research/

ANALYSIS: By Peter Greste

One of the oldest tropes in journalism is that it should be balanced; that journalists have a responsibility to present all sides of a given issue with equal weight. This view also holds that appearing to be critical of one side and sympathetic to another amounts to “bias”.

That notion of balance sounds ideal. After all, journalists should be neutral observers who favour nobody, so if anybody feels as though their side is not presented with equal measure, the journalist has somehow failed.

That failure was what Jillian Segal accused the ABC of in her evidence to the Royal Commission into Antisemitism and Social Cohesion last week. In her evidence, the antisemitism envoy lamented that the ABC’s reporting on Gaza “created an impression of great negativity about Israel”.

• READ MORE: Antisemitism envoy Segal slams ABC, SBS ‘Israel bias’, wants to vet media
• The problem of false balance when reporting on science
• Other Gaza media coverage reports

“It’s the perception of the Jewish community feeling constantly that they are being faced with reporting about the Middle East, about Gaza, and about Israel in a way that paints Israel constantly in a negative light,” she said.

For the country’s supporters, that is understandable. As Segal went on to point out, there has been a “disproportionate” number of stories critical of Israel.

And Liberal MP and prominent member of the Jewish community Julian Leeser told ABC Radio National:

I think the public broadcasters actually have to be prepared to address systemic bias against Israel in their reporting, and I think they need to subject themselves to greater transparency mechanisms as outlined by the envoy.

But the term “balance” implies finding equivalence between the two competing positions. Sometimes journalists cover stories where achieving balance amounts to a serious distortion of what is actually taking place.

Jillian Segal wants ‘independent group’ to examine ABC’s Israel coverage  Video: Guardian Australia

The pitfalls of both-sideism
A standard, if lazy, tactic for avoiding accusations of bias is to give equal space to opponents in an issue, presenting them as equally valid.

If you give five minutes to a vaccine researcher, you must give the same time to a sceptic. It is something journalists sometimes dub “both-sideism”.

The media grappled with that challenge in covering climate change. In the early heated stages of the debate, news organisations would often place a climate sceptic next to a climate scientist in the name of “balance”.

By 2018, the BBC’s news director Fran Unsworth had had enough. She circulated a briefing note that acknowledged, “Climate change has been a difficult subject for the BBC, and we get coverage of it wrong too often”.

The briefing went on to say, “Manmade climate change exists: if the science proves it we should report it.” And in a section on balance, the note said:

to achieve impartiality, you do not need to include outright deniers of climate change in BBC coverage, in the same way you would not have someone denying that Manchester United won 2-0 last Saturday. The referee has spoken.“

As journalism academic Jonathan Foster of Sheffield University used to tell his students, “If someone tells you it’s raining and another tells you it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. It’s your job to look out the f—ing window and find out which is true.”

Who has the power?
The conflicts between Israel and its neighbours (in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Iran) are not football matches, and journalists are not referees.

But any journalist thinking about how to fairly cover the crises is likely to spend far more time looking at the human cost of Israeli bombs and tanks, than the impact on Israeli civilians.

That is simply because the greater impact of the conflict is felt outside Israel’s borders.

Any reporting that suggests an equivalence of experience between Israelis suffering Hamas rockets, and the Palestinians in Gaza bearing the weight of the Israeli military assault would be plainly disingenuous. Hardliners on both sides are calling for annihilation of the other, but only one side has tanks, fighter jets and control of food, water and medical supplies over the border.

That raises another journalistic cliche: “holding power to account”. It is rooted in the idea that the media’s job is to expose the impact of power on those who have none.

Israel has indisputably been projecting its might well beyond its borders, and correspondents in the region who failed to cover the consequences on ordinary civilians would be rightly criticised.

None of this is to suggest the experience of Israelis or the government’s arguments should be ignored.

But in a world of competing perspectives, the job of journalists is not to make everyone happy. Their job is to accurately and fairly represent the views of everyone involved and on that score, the ABC has been succeeding.

Imperfect, but largely accurate
The national broadcaster has not been perfect of course. The ombudsman found five breaches of editorial standards (out of more than seven thousand complaints).

Its own editorial director Gavin Fang acknowledged they were far too slow to correct a United Nations report that falsely claimed 14,000 children could die of starvation in Gaza within two days.

In her testimony to the Royal Commission, Jillian Segal conceded the government’s broadcast regulator, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, had not “found a great deal of inaccuracy” in the ABC’s reporting.

But she argued she’s trying to achieve “the more complex, nuanced issues of prioritisation, impartiality and objectivity and balance”.

“They could run positive stories about other things Israel is doing,” she said. “The amazing startup nation, things like that. They very rarely do that. There is no attempt at that part of the agenda.”

Perhaps she is right. But positive stories explicitly designed to cancel out the negative start to look like propaganda. And that is something journalists should never accept.

Peter Greste is professor of journalism at Macquarie University and the executive director for the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom. He also serves as an independent journalist on the Australian Press Council. This article was first published by The Conversation and is republished under Creative Commons.

The post It’s the ABC’s job to be accurate and fair, not to chase the dangerous fallacy of ‘balance’ appeared first on Café Pacific | David Robie.

Original source: https://analysis1.mil-osi.com/2026/07/17/its-the-abcs-job-to-be-accurate-and-fair-not-to-chase-the-dangerous-fallacy-of-balance-2/