Dailysun | KwaZulu-Natal pupils win International Science Awards in Tunisia for Eco-Bricks and AI Road Maintenance Projects

Hamzah Ismail and Vibhav Ramdas flew Mzansi’s flag high in Mahdia, Tunisia.

KZN pupils win awards at international science festival.Two grade 12 pupils from St Dominic’s Newcastle School in KZN have earned international recognition at the prestigious International Festival of Engineering, Science and Technology (I-FEST²) held in Tunisia.Hamzah Ismail and Vibhav Ramdas showcased Mzansi’s emerging scientific talent during the event, which took place from 21 to 27 March 2025 in Mahdia, Tunisia.Bronze medal for sustainable construction solutionIsmail was awarded a bronze medal in the Environmental Science category for his research on Developing Eco-friendly, Fire-retardant Plastic Bricks as an Alternative in Modern Construction. His sustainable solution impressed judges amid tough competition.”The competition was tough, with talented scientists from around the world, so receiving this recognition is an incredible honour. “It reminds me that hard work and perseverance truly pay off. This experience motivates me to continue my scientific journey,” said Ismail.Computer science project earns honourbale awardRamdas received an Honorable Award in the Computer Science category for his project “Using Object Detection to Improve Road Maintenance,” showcasing artificial intelligence’s practical applications in infrastructure.”When I heard my name called at the awards ceremony, I felt a rush of excitement,” said Ramdas.”It felt amazing to represent my family and country. Hard work really does lead to success, and I’m inspired to keep pushing forward.”Eskom expo supports young scientists Together, young innovators from around the world were offered opportunities to showcase their work, exchange ideas, and engage in cultural experiences.Mologadi Motshele, Acting CEO of the Eskom Development Foundation, praised the students’ achievements.”Their innovation and dedication are inspiring. Eskom is committed to empowering South Africa’s youth through initiatives like the Eskom Expo for Young Scientists, which fosters skills in science and technology, ensuring the next generation can drive technological advancements and contribute to a sustainable future.”Eskom Expo Executive Director Parthy Chetty said: “Your success shows that with passion and perseverance, anything is possible. To all Eskom Expo learners, let this inspire you to dream big, work hard, and push boundaries.”Registration for Eskom Expo 2025 remains open for aspiring young scientists.For more news and entertainment in the palm of your hand, follow our WhatsApp Channel via this link 

They’ve Got Him Now! Almost 2,000 Scientists Sign Petition to Stop Trump’s ‘Assault’ on Their Grant Money

They’ve got him now, ladies and gentlemen!Some 2,000 scientists, engineers, and researchers have signed a petition, asking President Trump to stop his ‘assault’ on science.

Advertisement

This writer is going to hazard a guess they do not mean the ‘assault’ of saying gender is fluid, or that climate change is settled, or anything having to do with COVID.But she digresses.Nearly 2,000 scientists, engineers and researchers penned an open letter this week to President Trump’s administration, calling for a stop to its “assault” on science. https://t.co/0afnqM484x— ABC News (@ABC) April 2, 2025Here’s more from ABC News:Nearly 2,000 scientists, engineers and researchers penned an open letter this week to President Donald Trump’s administration, calling for a stop to its ‘assault’ on science.The letter was signed by elected members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, a congressional chartered organization that provides independent analysis and helps inform public policy decisions.The group made clear the signatories are expressing their own views and not those of the National Academies or their home institutions.’We are speaking out as individuals. We see real danger in this moment,’ the letter said, in part. ‘We hold diverse political beliefs, but we are united as researchers in wanting to protect independent scientific inquiry. We are sending this SOS to sound a clear warning: the nation’s scientific enterprise is being decimated.’

Recommended

Advertisement

There is no danger.There is no assault on science.Are these guys friends with the 50 Intelligence Community guys who told us the Hunter Laptop story was Russian disinformation?— The **shi**t** Post-See Pinned Post (@dying_democracy) April 2, 2025Probably.Do these scientists believe that humans can magically morph into the opposite sex?— XX=Female 🩷 (@xxwoman471377) April 2, 2025Would any of us be surprised if they did?Nope.*their funding— Richard DeCamp (@richdecamp) April 2, 2025Nailed it.That’s exactly what this is about.Not science.Money.Woke “Science” isn’t science.It’s pandering for grant dollars.— Populo Iratus (@astronomy89) April 2, 2025Exactly.The science that dictated grocery store aisles be one way, and a fresh air hike without a mask would kill you? Or the science that says there are 76 genders and that men can get pregnant?— Lili von Shtupp (@LvS_Redux) April 2, 2025Yeah. We’re gonna need a clearer definition of science before we get worked up about this.It’s fun to go through the signatures on this letter.Dr. Salim Abdool Karim signed it. He and his wifeQuarraisha have received over $60 million from US taxpayers for just one project, all sent to South Africa.Omg stop this assault on SCIENCE!!! https://t.co/U3R11wPFr2 pic.twitter.com/LCEFxj6hUc— Oilfield Rando (@Oilfield_Rando) April 2, 2025

Advertisement

Just incredible.They have no shame.They’re not mad because it’s an “assault on science.” They’re made because it’s an assault of grift. Some people are allergic to common sense, but their egos insist on wrapping it around “you wouldn’t understand” arrogance. Book smart, street stupid. https://t.co/Ls3ZBAKxut— BostonWriter (@bostonwriter) April 2, 2025They think they are our moral and intellectual superiors.Maybe stop wasting millions in tax dollars on transing mice https://t.co/dRgyJp9njf— The Dank Knight 🦇 (@capeandcowell) April 2, 2025That’s a good suggestion.How do you know Trump is on the right path?When Covid quacks oppose it. https://t.co/56sunMWyLj— john jackson (@pvtjokerus) April 2, 2025He’s right over the target.The basics of science is that it constantly must be assaulted. There’s no such thing as “settled science.” https://t.co/jFu2IgeB1l— JoeVento🇺🇸 (@Vento_Const) April 2, 2025Nope, and anyone who says the science is ‘settled’ is lying.

Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to deflect, gaslight, spin, and lie. Help us continue exposing their grift by reading news you can trust. Join Twitchy VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.

The Washington Consensus Could Not Hold

Gabrielle SIERRA: So Shannon, friend of the pod, welcome back to Why It Matters. Before you came on, we were talking about how Washington Consensus sounds like a cocktail. So if it was a cocktail, what would it be for you?

Shannon K. O’NEIL: Ooh, if the Washington Consensus was a cocktail, it would be like a negroni.

SIERRA: Ooh. Okay. Because you love negronis or because you feel like it’s a perfect analogy?

O’NEIL: Because I don’t mind negronis, but it’s a little bit bitter, but it gives you a little bit of a kick too.

SIERRA: Love it, great.

The Washington Consensus is actually a list of ten commandments – ten widely agreed-upon U.S. policy standards crafted in 1989 to guide the improvement of economic performance. That really does feel like another era, in which the prosperous United States was at the helm of global economic and political affairs and one of the lead champions of trade. But at the start of 2025, trade is sizing up to be an arena of confrontation and anything but consensus, and is even raising concerns that a new protectionist era could spur a recession.

I’m Gabrielle Sierra and this is Why It Matters. Today, how can we agree on the rules of trade when the rules no longer apply?

SIERRA: So last episode, we talked to your colleague and mine, Ted Alden, about the history of our trade policy, the 101 for this season about trade, but now we need your help to bridge us to today. How much of our trade history or former trade policy is still relevant today? 

O’NEIL: Both much of it and none of it. 

This is Shannon O’Neil. She is the director of studies for CFR and a leading authority on global trade and supply chains.

O’NEIL: We have seen a huge shift in just a couple of months in the way the U.S. government thinks about trade. That said, lots of the tools that are being used today have been around for decades, if not centuries. Things like tariffs, things like what wonky trade people call non-tariff barriers, so subsidies or other kinds of rules and regulations that make it harder to trade between countries, those things have been around forever. But how they’re being used is really different than it was over the last several decades, probably since World War II.

SIERRA: When you Google Washington Consensus, if you ever have, but if you do, countless economic institutions and think tanks have articles analyzing it, and it actually has its own Wikipedia page. So clearly it seems more complicated than I thought. So let’s start with the basics then. What the heck is it?

O’NEIL: Well, you found so many articles about the Washington Consensus because people don’t actually agree. There’s really no consensus about the Washington Consensus. The story is that it came out of this article that a guy named John Williamson wrote.

John Williamson was an economist and he served in many high-level positions including as chief economist for South Asia at the World Bank from 1996 to 1999 and he was project director for the UN panel on Financing for Development in 2001. 

In 1989, he coined the term “Washington Consensus” to refer to the policy reforms promoted by the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and U.S. Treasury for emerging-market economies.

O’NEIL: And it was this idea that to have a functioning economy in the world and be part of the global economy, you needed to do certain things. You needed to open up your economy to trading goods and services. You needed to potentially open up your economy to the movement, the flow of capital, so allowing money to come back and forth, making your exchange rate easier to exchange and the like. And you needed to reform your government so it wasn’t so big, it wasn’t such a big part of the economy. So that might’ve been privatizing all kinds of companies, like privatizing the airline or privatizing your energy…

https://youtu.be/CeeYhhMXHJE?feature=shared&t=1335 

One of the first was Omig, a maker of electronic components… As a private company Omig could operate more efficiently.

https://youtu.be/CeeYhhMXHJE?feature=shared&t=535 

The government also privatized hundreds of other companies from sugar mills to steel mills to the telephone company.

O’NEIL: It then got taken and it became sort of a mantra for lots of policies that were beginning to be pushed by places like the IMF, the International Monetary Fund, or the World Bank, when they would give loans, particularly to emerging economies. And it was a lot of the changes that they wanted in economies in order to give money to those various places. So starting in the 1990s, the 2000s and on. The Washington Consensus was sort of a shorthand for lots of the opening up and reform that was being asked of countries around the world from international financial institutions.

This new approach flipped the old one on its head, saying economic growth was too important to leave in the hands of bureaucrats—and that the only way to thrive was by letting the free markets do their thing.

But even from the jump these ten points were reinterpreted and perhaps misinterpreted. What went on to be known as the Washington Consensus was not Williamson’s idea. He may have coined the term, yes, but the Washington Consensus he wrote was actually a baseline for Latin American reform – a set of ten economic policies that he felt most officials in Washington already agreed upon.

Unfortunately for Williamson, once the term made the rounds it was too late and the Washington Consensus stuck in its reinterpreted form—a rigid set of policy prescriptions seized on by everyone from free-market advocates to anti-globalists.

SIERRA: Why was it so important for us to sort of be at the helm, the top dog economy in the world? Why did these economic ideas come in large part from Washington?

O’NEIL: So it got associated with the United States because in the 1990s, when these ideas came out and were being put in place around the world, the United States was really the sole superpower.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDDuMUgt-og 

Bill CLINTON: We gathered to celebrate a great victory, a moment when our country has chosen to take the lead in shaping a new world of expanded trade and expanded opportunity…

The 90’s – the era of President Bill Clinton, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the rise of the personal computer. During this time the U.S. was a global powerhouse, heading up the World Bank and holding a very influential position at the IMF. And what began as Washington’s advice for Latin America’s development, had become a worldwide consensus by the mid-1990s. 

O’NEIL: And the United States was, at the time, asking countries to open up their economies, to trade more, to lower those trade barriers and tariffs. So we saw that with what had been, it was called the GATT, which was a bunch of countries together that had trade arrangements. That became the WTO, the World Trade Organization during the 1990s, led by the United States and many other nations. And it had more powers, it could punish people who didn’t behave in terms of tariffs as well, which was something that the previous organization had not been able to do. There was no other major power, other country out there that could rival the United States, whether militarily or economically or diplomatically, the changes of the 1990s were really associated with the United States, even if it wasn’t just the United States pushing for these sorts of things.

SIERRA: All right, so then the question, does the Washington Consensus from the turn of the century, as you describe it, still stand today at all?

O’NEIL: It no longer has the aura of success that it had.

Takeaway 1: The Washington consensus of the past no longer exists. 

Many of the policies supported by international development organizations, like open trade and free markets, have lost their credibility. And today, there is no baseline consensus among our elected officials on what economic reforms are needed to protect American workers and maintain U.S. leadership in the global economy.

O’NEIL: For advanced manufacturing economies like the United States or like Europe the ideas of the Washington Consensus, the privatization, the opening of the economy, it didn’t deal with some of the problems that public and politics cares about today. It didn’t deal with inequalities within countries. It didn’t deal with jobs lost when trade or technology came to various communities. It didn’t deal with the kinds of stuff that people care about and that people vote on, sort of pocketbook issues in lots and lots of communities. So for the United States, for Europe, the Washington Consensus didn’t answer the questions that politicians really need to answer today if they want to get reelected. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNSUO0vkrzg&t=63s 

It’s bad out here, dude. Rent is really bad.

$300 electric bill? This is what has been going on in America.

O’NEIL: For emerging economies, for countries that are beginning to develop or sort of ascending that scale and trying to become high income countries, the Washington Consensus didn’t always help them. So countries that went by the Washington Consensus, countries that really did open up their economies, they did become free trading nations, some of them benefited, but they didn’t grow as quickly or become as wealthy as countries that protected their economies, countries like China or countries even like Korea and places like that, that put in what people call industrial policy. They spent lots of government money to make sure they could build ships or they could have other big industries and increasingly things like semiconductors and the like. Some of the most successful stories of economic growth and success, Taiwan or South Korea or China, they didn’t follow the Washington Consensus. So that’s another reason why it hasn’t been as popular, is countries that have grown more didn’t follow the mandates of it.

China, now a manufacturing powerhouse and the world’s second-largest economy, thrived by ignoring many Washington Consensus principles in the 90s and early 2000s. It was absent from international institutions supporting those ideas, rejected market reforms, and increased state control over its economy. China focused on domestic development, infrastructure, and poverty reduction. And guess what? Its economy continues to grow rapidly today.

China’s success story challenges longstanding assumptions about free-market economies and proved that developing countries could get ahead without following the advice of the Washington Consensus.

O’NEIL: So I think where we went wrong a bit was the other countries that don’t play by the rules, they can get advantage, and that’s what happened to some of those places.

SIERRA: So the promises of growth and wealth didn’t really pan out for everyone. And others who might’ve seen growth and wealth didn’t necessarily follow this model. 

O’NEIL: Exactly. Sort of those who thought about the Washington Consensus or those who believed and followed the words of the Washington Consensus weren’t the biggest performers in terms of economics over the recent years, and so there’s real questions about it.

In countries that hopped on the Washington Consensus bandwagon, economic growth was a bit of a rollercoaster.

Take Latin America. After seven years of solid growth in the early ’90s, things came to a screeching halt with seven years of stagnation and recession. In the end, growth under the Washington Consensus was half of what it had been in the 1950s to 1970s, and even in places where it looked like the Washington Consensus was sparking growth, poverty didn’t really diminish.

SIERRA: Is this a hot take? Is this sort of like a really edgy thing to acknowledge that it’s not working and we need something brand new? 

O’NEIL: I think the challenge here is that many of the ideas in the Washington Consensus are actually very sound ideas. The idea that countries can trade with each other, they can get cheaper consumer goods on one side, that they can join the global economy and make things for places beyond just their local village, brings incredible productivity, brings knowledge transfers, brings their ability to climb technological skills. This has changed the world fundamentally for the better.

SIERRA: So I’m a lawmaker in the U.S., you caught me in an elevator. Tell me what are the key takeaways when it comes to what Washington should change and what you think the new consensus should be? What are your recommendations for me?

O’NEIL: So a new Washington Consensus should start at home and it should provide supports for people who have to make job transitions. So that means healthcare, that means education, that means unemployment insurance and other things to make it easier for people to find new jobs and move to where those new jobs are. That’s one side. The other side, since I have you in this elevator, the other side is that you should help Americans and American-based businesses sell to the rest of the world. So that means helping support exporters. It also means tying U.S. production to production in other countries so that the United States can benefit from and prosper from being part of global supply chains, which is really where the global action is today. The way we make things today, the way trade really occurs today is in what economists call intermediate goods. So the pieces and parts that come together to make your iPhone, to make your car, to make your blender, to make your, since we’re doing a podcast, your microphone, those come from lots of different countries. And for the United States, it would be great to have our factories, our workers making some of those pieces and parts, not just buying that final product.

Takeaway 2: Creating a safety net at home to deal with changes in the global economy doesn’t mean that we have to pull out of our trade partnerships. Both can exist simultaneously and both should be invested in. 

SIERRA: So it doesn’t necessarily mean moving away from globalization, it’s just adjustments maybe to be made at home.

O’NEIL: That is a big part of it. The other part, I would say for the United States in particular, if we’re searching for solutions, is that the United States is the largest consumer economy in the world, it’s a huge percentage of global GDP, but we’re only 4 percent of the globe’s population. So if we want to grow our economy, we should try to target those other 96 percent of the global population that’s out there, the billions and billions of people that aren’t within our shores. The next billion middle-class people, coming to the middle-class, are going to be in Asia, they’re not going to be in the United States.

In the 2010s, East Asia, particularly China, helped grow the number of people in the middle class around the world to almost 4 billion. This meant more people were able to spend money buying things, which boosted international markets. Now, it’s South Asia’s turn. 

Over the next decade, countries like India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh will see a major middle-class boom, contributing 40 percent of the new global consumer class by 2030. With 1 billion new consumers entering the market, the U.S. needs to tap into this rapidly growing base to stay competitive—especially as these regions are projected to drive a huge chunk of global demand in the coming years.

O’NEIL: So as we think about it, yes, we need to provide greater protections here at home for people, give them healthcare, give them childcare, give them a social safety net, unemployment insurance and education, and ways to make a transition. But two, we should also set up policies and economies that allow us to sell products globally into lots of other places because that too is a way of creating prosperity and wealth.

SIERRA: You’ve convinced me. That’s it, that’s all I took. Let’s get up and we’re going to do it. We’re going to change everything done.

O’NEIL: We’re done here.

SIERRA: Together!

O’NEIL: Okay, you go to Congress and you figure it out.

SIERRA: So who are the big players involved in forming a new Washington Consensus that we should be following? Who are the decision makers here?

O’NEIL: So in the United States, the president is a really big decision maker, and we’ve seen that over just the last number of weeks, because the president has a lot of powers to set the rules of global trade, or at least trade with the United States. We have seen in the last several weeks lots of tariffs. That has been the biggest tool that the Trump administration has been using.

https://youtu.be/N7eEVC_wY5o?feature=shared&t=78 

Donald TRUMP: I say the most beautiful word in the entire dictionary of words is the word tariff, I love tariff.

O’NEIL: And that is resetting relationships with other countries. It’s making it harder for other countries to import things to the United States, making it more expensive for them to bring products here. It is also, especially when there’s retaliatory tariffs, so other countries put tariffs on us because we put tariffs on them. It’s U.S. products that we want to sell to their consumers in other countries, it’s making those products more expensive. There are other decision makers, and I would say there Congress is a big part of this and there where Congress really has influence. Congress too can set tariffs if they want to, or sanctions or other kinds of punitive measures, sticks to hit others who are trading with us. Congress also has the carrot of creating free trade agreements. The president negotiates them, but Congress has to approve them. The question here is really who’s guiding the trade policy? And here, so far it has been President Trump. He’s really setting the tone and he’s asking the trade representative and others within his administration to implement that. 

https://youtu.be/wh8Jry3hUAA?si=wPjmY0SZMdXnUiZy&t=51 

Donald TRUMP: This is the beginning of liberation day in America. We’re going to charge countries for doing business in our country and taking our jobs, taking our wealth…

ONEIL: So, so far, that has been putting tariffs on or getting ready to put tariffs on lots of countries and lots of different sectors. It may also be putting other kinds of sanctions or limits or quotas or negotiating agreements around currencies and their levels, vis-a-vis the dollar. All of those things are really in the purview of those working around Trump, and so the trade representative is a big part of that whole process.

Trump isn’t the first president to enact trade policy without consulting Congress. Jimmy Carter imposed sanctions on Iran in 1979 during the hostage crisis. George W. Bush and later Barack Obama imposed unilateral sanctions on North Korea in response to its nuclear weapons program.

But under Trump, a lot remains unprecedented, especially when punitive measures are directed at U.S. allies. And this makes it really confusing to know how much leverage Congress even has, and who’s actually steering the ship when it comes to making these big economic decisions.

To find out more we turned back to Ted Alden, the CFR trade expert you heard in our first episode. 

Edward ALDEN: I mean, it’s quite interesting. Trump wrote in a book 25 years ago now, that if he was ever elected, he was going to name himself as his own U.S. trade representative. The USTR is the official who’s supposed to be responsible for things like putting tariffs in place. Trump said, “I’ll be my own USTR.” He said, “I’ve looked at it, my lawyers have looked at it, and I can do that.” Well, that’s effectively what he’s done. He’s in his first 30 days or whatever in office, he basically remade American trade rules.

SIERRA: But he didn’t actually literally take the job, right. There is a U.S. trade rep right. What’s his deal?

ALDEN: So Jamieson Greer, who’s the new trade representative, was a protege of Robert Lighthizer, who was Trump’s first term USTR. Bob Lighthizer himself was a big departure. All of the trade representatives going back a long time, basically believed in the WTO, believed in NAFTA, believed in the rules-based system. It’s not that they didn’t have conflicts with other countries, they certainly did, but by and large, they believed in the system. Lighthizer from day one hated the idea of the WTO. He was very much in line with Trump in thinking the United States was being screwed by these arrangements. 

https://youtu.be/XqsRUM-pRa8?si=vpM6kCBjSnyOpcuA&t=7 

Robert LIGHTHIZER: There is nothing conservative about free trade. What exactly are these people conserving?…No country ever became great by consuming. They became great by producing. 

ALDEN: But he’s also a trade professional, he’s worked his whole life as a trade lawyer, and everything he did in the first term was by the book. He was much more aggressive than previous U.S. trade representatives had been. Everybody, me included, I wrote as much, thought he was coming back in this term, probably as Commerce Secretary, maybe as Treasury Secretary. Trump didn’t invite him back. And the only little bit of reporting we got on it is that Trump didn’t think he was tough enough, didn’t think he was willing to do the things they were called for. So even though Lighthizer was by far the most aggressive U.S. trade representative of the last 75 years, Trump didn’t think he was tough enough and left him on the side. So Jamieson Greer worked for Trump in the first term, but you have to think he’s basically there to carry out the wishes of the President. That will be his role.

Takeaway 3: When it comes to the future of U.S. trade and consensus in Washington, Trump has set himself up to call all the shots.

With a rookie as the new U.S. trade representative and a mix of trade hawks and old-school Republicans in senior economic positions, Trump has the unwavering support, and leverage, to be more unpredictable than his first term in office. He’s hitting our allies Mexico and Canada with tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles and has planned reciprocal tariffs on dozens of other nations including China. But the end goal of these actions…still remains unclear.

SIERRA: Okay so Trump doesn’t think his former Trade Rep was tough enough and brought in a new guy but is also simultaneously sort of doing it all himself. What does he ultimately want this term?

ALDEN: What does he want? I mean, he’ll tell you that he thinks the United States has been taken advantage of, that other countries have gotten the better of this rules-based system that was built by his predecessors, and he’s going to turn it on his head. And he has one big piece of leverage, he actually probably has more. But the biggest piece of leverage he has is the U.S.’s huge market. And every country in the world wants to sell to us because we’re a rich country and we buy lots of stuff. So by threatening to cut that off, by threatening to say, “I’m going to put a 25 or a 50 or 100 percent tax on your exports, you’re going to have a really hard time selling in the United States.” That gives him huge leverage. The question is, what does he want to use it for? And we don’t exactly know yet. I mean, he talks about other countries may be lowering their tariffs. Here in North America, he’s using it to try to deal with drug smuggling across the border and illegal migration. From there, it gets even more confusing. He’s talked a lot about revenue.

Fun fact, the first form of revenue the U.S. ever had was a tariff. In 1789, the Hamilton Tariff put a 5 percent tax on imported goods to offset a young America’s trade imbalance with England.

ALDEN: The tariff was an important source of revenue for American governments after the revolution into the 19th century. Hasn’t been for more than a century. He’s talking about raising revenue from these tariffs that maybe offset the tax cuts he wants to do. So that’s in there somewhere as well. And there’s something of a national security dimension. Here, he’s kind of consistent with President Biden and even going back to President Obama, that there’s certain things, particularly we don’t want to sell to the Chinese, trade with the Chinese because we see them as a strategic adversary, and we’re worried about that dimension. So some combination of those three things. But your listeners all know the way our current president operates. He says a whole bunch of stuff, and then all of us sit here on the podcast trying to make sense of it. And it’s not clear to me that he has a thought through strategy. He’s got a lot of impulses that go in a lot of different directions, and we’re going to have to see where it all lands.

SIERRA: If President Trump is sort of deciding and leading all things trade, what role does that leave for congress?

O’NEIL: I would go back to history, and you don’t have to go back to far history, you just go back to the history of 2019 and 2020 when the previous Trump administration renegotiated the USMCA, so the relationship with Canada and Mexico. And what we saw there is this was a Trump-led initiative. He had very strong feelings about the previous agreement, NAFTA, and wanted a change. So he and his administration negotiated, but then Congress got involved. And that was an example when a bipartisan group, and dare I say, consensus, came together to pass a new free trade agreement with the United States’ two neighbors. And here, Congress plays an important role, one, because they, in the Constitution, have the power of the purse. They have the power over tariffs and free trade agreements. They have to sign on for these things, so that’s important. But two is Congress is made up of members from all over the United States. And particularly with Mexico and Canada, these two countries, lots of districts, many states have really deep trading relationships with these two countries. In fact, the majority of states have really deep relationships. So it’s members of Congress and senators who see in their districts the big exporters. They see the factories, they see the service providers, they see the logistics companies, they see the truck drivers, they see the people who benefit from trade with our neighbors and trade more broadly. So what are the role here? What’s the solution? I think the solution here is actually to get Congress involved because they’ll hear from their constituencies, from their business leaders, from their workers in their states, in their districts, in their cities, in their towns, what they need and where they see the ability to be profitable and to grow. And for many of them, it’s going to be international trade.

SIERRA: Ultimately, your solutions of course make sense – it’s just logical. Provide a social safety net at home through reform by helping people who lost their jobs find new ones, lowering the barrier for selling abroad, and looping in Congress as representatives of the people. All things that make sense. But we also know that in our current political climate things, even if they make sense, do not always come true. They are very polarized. So how do we get leaders to take this advice? 

O’NEIL: This has always been a really hard issue here in the United States is putting this forward, and we have a system that is very different. We have seen advances. Under the Obama administration, we did see some advances in healthcare for those people who didn’t have healthcare with their jobs or didn’t have a job. So we can get there in different places. And we see examples of healthcare in other countries where they’re able to do this. So is it hard to do? Of course it’s hard to do. Lots of things are really hard to do. But if we want to get past a place where America first means closing off America to the rest of the world, which will be costly for lots of those people that we’re worried about, who are worried about their jobs, these are some of the elements that we’re going to have to deal with.

In order to come to new consensus, we have to involve the people that these policies directly affect. And how do that? Well, we ask them of course. That’s why next time on Why It Matters, we’re talking to local business owners and manufacturers around the country and diving into tariffs with CFR’s senior fellow Matt Goodman.

Matt GOODMAN: There’s a lot of uncertainty that’s been created here that is making it hard for business owners all across the country. If you can’t know whether these tariffs are going to stay in place or not, it’s very hard to make business plans that you can confidently rely on. So, whether it’s American importers and consumers who are paying these higher prices or not able to enjoy the benefits of those products from abroad, or U.S. business owners who may suffer under those tariffs and now has this uncertainty about what’s coming next.

Who pays in a trade war? And how are Americans reacting to Trump’s tariffs? More on that in two weeks.

For resources used in this episode and more information, visit CFR.org/whyitmatters and take a look at the show notes. If you ever have any questions or suggestions or just want to chat with us, seriously, email at [email protected] or you can hit us up on X at @CFR_org.

Why It Matters is a production of the Council on Foreign Relations. The opinions expressed on the show are solely that of the guests, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

This episode was produced by Molly McAnany, and me, Gabrielle Sierra. Our sound designer is Markus Zakaria. Our interns this semester are Isabella Hussar and Jo Strogatz. Robert McMahon is our Managing Editor. Our theme music is composed by Ceiri Torjussen.

For Why It Matters this is Gabrielle Sierra signing off. See you soon!

‘Banger’ Movie Ending Explained & Summary: What Happens To Scorpex?

Netflix’s Banger is a comedy thriller film centered around a has-been DJ, Scorpex, whose mundane life took a drastic turn when he was approached by the National Intelligence specializing in drug trafficking. While people barely recognized Scorpex, he took pride in his past glory. He was envious of Vestax, a young, popular DJ he felt lacked originality. Scorpex had not produced music for a long while, and the public had pretty much erased him from their memories. Scorpex had made peace with the fact that his glory days were over, and playing a brief set before Vestax got on stage was the only gig he would get. One day at a record store, Scorpex crossed paths with a woman who completely changed his life. 

Spoiler Alert

Why was Scorpex hired by the National Intelligence?

Scorpex came across an enthusiastic fan at the record store who later turned out to be a secret agent named Rose. She wanted Scorpex to work for them because she believed he had an incentive to serve their purpose. According to Rose, Vestax owed his popularity to a criminal gang; they financed everything for him, from his music videos to his PR and even his music lyrics. Scorpex was not surprised; he expected no better from the talentless youngster. But Vestax was not the man the National Intelligence was after. They wanted Scorpex to hang out with Vestax and gather intel to help the national intelligence expose the criminal organization he worked for. Vestax was close to Molotov, the second most important person in the gang, and that was why Rose believed that Vestax also had a connection with the leader, Dricus Mascarilla. The National Intelligence had lost track of him after he underwent  facial reconstruction surgery post a poisoning attempt that left him with scars all over his face and body. Dricus was investing in a backup plan with his new identity. According to the information they had, he’d put money into legal businesses, particularly fashion, and they were convinced that he had a stake in the brand, Van Straat. Since Vestax idolized Scorpex, Rose was convinced that he would not struggle to befriend the gangsters. Rose wanted Scorpex to be Vestax’s new best friend and help her team apprehend Dricus Mascarilla. Such an unbelievable life twist was not something Scorpex had predicted, but the possibility of helping the authorities nab a criminal by just being himself felt like quite an honor to him. Bonding with the incompetent DJ did not come naturally to Scorpex, but he had a job to do, and he was ready to fake his way through. Also, the success of the plan guarantee the fall of Vestax, and that was something Scorpex looked forward to.

Why was Toni disappointed in her father?

Scorpex’s daughter, Toni, had moved in with him to spend some time together. While he was glad to have her by his side, he also struggled to keep the truth from her. There were days when he wanted to discuss the secret mission he was on, but he had to control himself. Toni was a jack of all trades, and she was trying to figure out if she could master one. She had inherited her father’s love for music and had been working on her own track. The more Scorpex got involved with the gang, the more he feared for the safety of his daughter. After he mistook a gang member for Dricus, the gangsters became extremely suspicious of the people they were dealing with. Scorpex had convinced Toni to spend 24×7 at his studio so that she could complete the track she was working on, also hoping to keep her away from the gangsters in the process. But unfortunately, Molotov had tracked Scorpex’s studio and found Toni there. As soon as Scorpex realized that Toni was not safe with him, he requested her to leave. Toni had hoped that one day she and her father would create music together, and perhaps Scorpex too wanted to do the same, but he had too much on his plate, and it resulted in a misunderstanding between the father and daughter. Scorpex and Vestax had to compose a track for the Van Straat fashion show, but Molotov rejected every option they came up with. Scorpex had to offer up something completely new, and he turned to the track Toni created. 

Was Scorpex Successful In Executing The Mission?

This was Scorpex’s only chance to redeem himself, and he was hellbent on making it work. When Vestax mentioned that the big boss would risk his life to attend the Van Straat show, Scorpex knew he had to come up with a banger track. When all options failed, he decided to ignore Vestax and directly approach the designer behind the brand, Tabitha. Since the brand was clearly very dear to Dricus, Scorpex thought that the only way to make sure that his track got approved was by incorporating Tabitha’s vocals. He requested Tabitha to come along with him to his studio and just record the thoughts and ideas that she believed the brand stood for. Tabitha refused to record unless Scorpex provided a background track. As luck would have it, Tabitha loved the track that Toni had created. Even though Scorpex knew that using his daughter’s music without her permission was unfair, he didn’t have a choice. The recording went smoothly, and the track was selected for the ramp walk. Vestax, unfortunately, didn’t make the cut as the sound designer, and Scorpex finally got the opportunity to soak in the fame. He had informed Rose that the boss would attend the show, and she had her team ready to track him down. The show was significant for Scorpex because it was his chance to reclaim the title of the best DJ in town, and also help the secret intelligence nab a notorious criminal.

Tabitha’s support system and an important member behind the brand, Capitani, thanked Scorpex for coming up with a brilliant track at the very last minute. He was in charge of the execution of the show, and he’d arranged a glamorous DJ booth for Scorpex. He guided Scorpex to the backstage, where the models were getting dressed for the event. Tabitha wanted everyone to sport Van Straat clothing, and Scorpex too was handed the clothes she’d selected for him. 

During Banger’s ending, when Scorpex entered the changing room, he noticed Capitani in the adjacent room removing his shirt, and that was when Scorpex realized that he’d been interacting with the big boss all along. As it turned out, Capitani was Dricus, and while he’d changed his face, his body scars confirmed that he was the same man. Rose had arranged for an earpiece that Scorpex could use to connect with her. He used it to inform her that Dricus was Capitani before the show began. To make matters worse, Scorpex discovered that his daughter was one of the models on the show. He was about to use her music without her permission, and he felt extremely guilty about it. Scorpex apologized to his daughter even though she didn’t know why yet. When the show began, Toni figured out what her father was talking about, and she didn’t know how to react. She kept a straight face while walking the ramp.

In Banger’s ending, a cat-and-mouse chase ensued. Dricus figured something was up when his men stormed the backstage. He tried to escape, and he stabbed whoever came in his way. Meanwhile, Scorpex was trying to explain himself to his daughter when he noticed Dricus walking in their direction with a dagger in his hand. He threw himself on the floor to protect Toni, and in the process, Dricus tripped and fell. Rose and the team handcuffed Dricus; the plan was a success, all thanks to the DJ. Toni embraced her father; she finally realized everything he’d told her was the truth, and that he would risk his life to protect her. She needed that reassurance, and she was glad that even though it was not the kind of collaboration she’d hoped for, unknowingly she and her father had created quite an impressive track. The final scene suggests that Scorpex chose spending time with his daughter over fame. Rose called him to inform him that she was about to start the debrief, and she hoped that he would attend the meeting. But Scorpex was a free spirit; he’d helped the National Intelligence, and he would perhaps continue supporting them in any way he could, but he didn’t care about recognition. He was already in another country with his daughter, playing music for a group of strangers. This had always been the life he’d envisioned, and he was glad that he could share it with Toni. Also, did Rose and Scorpex grow romantically fond of each other? Possibly so!

Related

Crisis-Proofing Your Business: Tips For Managing Risk

Thursday, 3 April 2025, 12:09 pmArticle: Hugh Grant

Do you own or run
a business in Australia or New Zealand? It can be
incredibly rewarding, both on a personal and financial
level. Unlike being employed, your earning potential can be
without limits, provided that you manage your business
successfully. Part of running a successful business is
planning and preparing for the future. It also includes
crisis-proofing your business and managing risk, including
risk preparation and mitigation strategies. This informative
article will share key tips for managing business risk so
that you can be more prepared for any events that may befall
your business. Continue reading to learn more.(Photo/Supplied)What
is Crisis-Proofing?Crisis-proofing
your business means implementing strategies and measures
to ensure business resilience and stability in the face of
unexpected challenges or events. It means that you’re
prepared for any outcome that could have a negative impact
on your business. A crisis is a single event or ongoing set
of circumstances that could have an adverse effect on your
business. It could include cash flow issues, employee or
customer injury, legal issues, problems with supply chains
or stock level problems. It is vital to be prepared for any
crisis events if you own or run a business in
Australia.Types of Risks

Advertisement – scroll to continue reading

Now, we’ll outline
a few types of risks that a business needs to be prepared
for. We’ll cover financial, operational, reputational, and
legal risks.Financial RisksThere are a few
different financial risks a business can prepare for.
One major one is cash flow shortages, which can occur from
delayed payments from clients or customers, unexpected
expenses popping up, or poor financial planning and
decision-making. This can lead to an inability for your
business to cover its operational costs. Also, market
fluctuations, such as changing consumer demand, economic
downturns or recession, and shifts in sector trends can all
impact a business’s revenue and profitability. Events such
as interest rate changes can impact business loan repayments
and borrowing expenses, making it more expensive for the
business to finance its operations or any planned
expansions.Operational RisksOperational
risks for businesses can arise from issues such as staff
inefficiencies, business disruptions, and key failures in
internal processes, staff actions, and business systems.
Human errors, such as critical mistakes in financial
management and reporting, mismanagement, or inadequate staff
training, can lead to costly consequences for your
business.Supply
chain disruptions, caused by armed conflict, shipping
crises, natural disasters, overseas political instability,
or wholesaler and supplier failures, can delay the
production of goods that you sell and impact customer
satisfaction due to stock shortages. Technology risks,
including software malfunctions or outages, cyberattacks,
and outdated or inefficient software systems, can halt your
business operations and compromise sensitive customer data,
leading to loss and reputational damage. In addition,
workplace safety hazards, such as insufficient or poor risk
management, issues with compliance with health and safety
regulations, or crucial equipment failures, can lead to
pauses in operations or even the closure of your
business.Legal RisksA business can face
legal risks when it finds itself in hot water legally due to
incidents or issues with the business. Unexpected
incidents—like a customer slipping on your premises or
damage caused by your services—can lead to costly legal
battles. That’s why public
liability insurance is a must-have for businesses of all
sizes. It covers you against claims of injury or damage to
third parties, helping you avoid financial strain in the
event of a lawsuit. Having the right insurance in place is a
key part of any solid risk management plan.(Photo/Supplied)How
to Conduct a Risk AssessmentWhen it comes to
mindful, proactive risk management techniques for
businesses, choosing the correct risk assessment approach is
an essential step in ensuring their success and mitigating
key risks.Qualitative
risk assessment means assigning subjective values to the
chance and impact of risks. It’s a quick and smooth way to
prioritise risks and implement mitigations for
them.Quantitative risk assessment, on the other hand,
is a more numerical or mathematical approach that involves
data analysis and modelling to help determine risk
probabilities and impacts.Business analysts and data
scientists can be hired to help with this approach, and they
are worth their weight in gold.Your choice between
these two risk assessment approaches will depend on the
specific needs of your business. For instance, qualitative
assessments can provide a rapid and pragmatic method of
prioritising risks based on subjective inputs. In contrast,
quantitative assessments offer a more exact, data-driven
analysis of probabilities and their associated impacts. The
size and scope of your business might play into which risk
assessment method you choose.Tools & Frameworks
for Risk AssessmentsThere are several tools and
frameworks at your disposal for accurately assessing risk.
We’ll share two of them here:SWOTA SWOT
analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats) is a risk management framework used to evaluate a
company’s competitive position and to develop strategic
planning to assess and mitigate risk. SWOT analysis assesses
various internal and external factors, as well as current
and future potential for the business. A SWOT analysis is
designed to facilitate a facts-based, realistic, data-driven
look at the strengths and weaknesses of a company, business
initiatives, or place within its
industry.PESTELA PESTEL
risk assessment is a tool used to analyse certain types
of risks for a business.The acronym stands for the
following:Political risksEconomic
risksSocio-cultural risksTechnological
risksEnvironmental risksLegal
risksBy considering and assessing these
different types of risks, a business can plan and prepare
for most potential outcomes, protecting its revenue and
profitability.This helpful article has shared about
crisis-proofing your business and how you can proactively
plan, prepare, manage and mitigate various risks. We’ve
shared key types of risk, as well as two risk assessment
tools that you can use to plan and prepare for
risk.

© Scoop Media

TSTC graduate unlocks his love of learning with automation and controls technology

Intrigued by his brother’s achievements at Texas State Technical College’s Marshall campus, Taylor Nealy enrolled in the automation and controls technology program there.“I wanted to learn everything about (the program),” Nealy said.Nealy said his enthusiasm was matched by a variety of in-depth, hands-on lessons, taught by TSTC instructors who loved the subjects. His instructors even recommended him for a part-time position at the Longview location of E Tech Group, an industrial automation contractor, where he worked for one and 1/2 semesters as a manufacturing technician.#placement_588539_0_i{width:100%;margin:0 auto;}“The instructors covered a big, broad basis just to make sure you were prepared for wherever you went,” he said.Nealy received his associate degree from TSTC in 2024. He had already begun working as an electronics technician for his current employer, Norris Cylinder, a manufacturer of high-pressure steel and acetylene cylinders.Nealy continues to maintain his love of learning, taking classes offered through his employer.“I want to rack up as many certificates as I can to build my resume up,” he said. “There’s a lot to learn, and I’m excited to learn it all.”Jose Rocha, a fellow TSTC graduate and electronics technician for Norris Cylinder, said Nealy is always trying to learn whatever he does not know.“At a young age, he’s come so far in this company, and in life too,” Rocha said. Nealy described technical colleges as the backbone of the United States.“If we didn’t have technical schools like TSTC, then this country wouldn’t run,” Nealy said. “TSTC is a place where people go to start their future.”According to onetonline.org, electro-mechanical and mechatronics technologists and technicians earn an average of $59,940 per year in Texas, where the number of such jobs was projected to increase 12% from 2020 to 2030.TSTC’s automation and controls technology program is featured exclusively at the Marshall campus and offers an associate of applied science degree.For more information on TSTC, go to tstc.edu.

Republicans Praise Trump for Liberation Day, Reciprocal Tariffs: U.S. Is ‘Being Respected Again’

Republican lawmakers praised President Donald Trump for announcing that foreign countries would be hit with reciprocal tariffs and that there would be a 25 percent tariff imposed on foreign-made vehicles. Rep. Tim Moore (R-NC), Rep. Addison McDowell (R-NC), Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL), Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX), and Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) were among the Republicans…

A Bonkers New Trailer Asks: What If Jurassic Park Was A Vietnam War Movie?

[embedded content]

Have you ever wondered what it would be like if someone decided to make a Vietnam War movie that had dinosaurs in it? If you have, today is your lucky day. Even if you haven’t, today is also your lucky day because this concept is being introduced to you in the form of the first teaser trailer for “Primitive War.” This is a very real movie that is coming out this year that is based on a very real book. Check it out for yourself above and marvel at what’s coming.
Advertisement

There’s a lot to discuss here. There are lots of dinosaur movies that aren’t “Jurassic Park.” Everything from “The Land Before Time” to “The VelociPastor.” But in the realm of blockbuster entertainment, the “Jurassic” franchise has had a stranglehold on the genre for decades. While “Primitive War” is probably closer to a mockbuster, it does look pretty darn good, even though the budget is clearly not huge. The special effects are largely impressive. The movie didn’t skimp on the dinosaurs. The action set pieces look rad. In other words, this looks like it might be the best kind of bats**t crazy movie.
Directed by Luke Sparke, this one is expected to arrive sometime this summer. Perhaps not coincidentally, Universal is also releasing “Jurassic World Rebirth” in July. It’s shaping up to be a dino-filled year, it seems, with two very different dinosaur movies on offer. The synopsis for “Primitive War” reads as follows:
Advertisement

Set in Vietnam in 1968, the Primitive War movie will follow a search and rescue team known as Vulture Squad sent to an isolated jungle valley to reveal the fate of a missing Green Beret platoon. As they hunt through the primordial depths of the valley and the casualties mount, the Vulture Squad members must embrace their savage instincts to survive the horrors they face, including the ultimate Apex predators, dinosaurs.

Primitive War is giving Jurassic World some competition

Sparke Films

The film is based on author Ethan Pettus’ book “Primitive War: Opiate Undertow.” I first wrote about the movie adaptation of “Primitive War” back in 2022 when Sparke Films secured the rights. Oftentimes, the rights will lapse and a movie won’t actually get made. In this case, Sparke managed to get this one across the finish line.
Advertisement

“Dinosaurs in the Vietnam war? What’s not to love about that concept?!” Sparke said when the project was first announced in 2022. “When I first heard about the books, I loved the ideas and concepts Ethan brought into them, and we’re shaping our film version into an exciting survival-horror film.”
The cast is led by the likes of Jeremy Piven (“Entourage”), Tricia Helfer (“Battlestar Galactica”), Ryan Kwanten (“True Blood”), Nick Wechsler (“This is Us”), Anthony Ingruber (“Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny”), Aaron Glenane (“Snowpiercer”), and Jake Ryan (“Home and Away”).
Currently, it’s unclear if this one is going to get a theatrical release or if it will go straight to VOD/streaming. Look, if a mockbuster like “Top Gunner: Danger Zone” got its day in theaters, surely a dinosaur movie that is also a Vietnam War movie deserves the same. Here’s hoping, but we’ll have to see how it shakes out in the coming months.
Advertisement

“Primitive War” is due to arrive later this year but no specific release date has been set. Stay tuned.

A Bonkers New Trailer Asks: What If Jurassic Park Was A Vietnam War Movie?

[embedded content]

Have you ever wondered what it would be like if someone decided to make a Vietnam War movie that had dinosaurs in it? If you have, today is your lucky day. Even if you haven’t, today is also your lucky day because this concept is being introduced to you in the form of the first teaser trailer for “Primitive War.” This is a very real movie that is coming out this year that is based on a very real book. Check it out for yourself above and marvel at what’s coming.
Advertisement

There’s a lot to discuss here. There are lots of dinosaur movies that aren’t “Jurassic Park.” Everything from “The Land Before Time” to “The VelociPastor.” But in the realm of blockbuster entertainment, the “Jurassic” franchise has had a stranglehold on the genre for decades. While “Primitive War” is probably closer to a mockbuster, it does look pretty darn good, even though the budget is clearly not huge. The special effects are largely impressive. The movie didn’t skimp on the dinosaurs. The action set pieces look rad. In other words, this looks like it might be the best kind of bats**t crazy movie.
Directed by Luke Sparke, this one is expected to arrive sometime this summer. Perhaps not coincidentally, Universal is also releasing “Jurassic World Rebirth” in July. It’s shaping up to be a dino-filled year, it seems, with two very different dinosaur movies on offer. The synopsis for “Primitive War” reads as follows:
Advertisement

Set in Vietnam in 1968, the Primitive War movie will follow a search and rescue team known as Vulture Squad sent to an isolated jungle valley to reveal the fate of a missing Green Beret platoon. As they hunt through the primordial depths of the valley and the casualties mount, the Vulture Squad members must embrace their savage instincts to survive the horrors they face, including the ultimate Apex predators, dinosaurs.

Primitive War is giving Jurassic World some competition

Sparke Films

The film is based on author Ethan Pettus’ book “Primitive War: Opiate Undertow.” I first wrote about the movie adaptation of “Primitive War” back in 2022 when Sparke Films secured the rights. Oftentimes, the rights will lapse and a movie won’t actually get made. In this case, Sparke managed to get this one across the finish line.
Advertisement

“Dinosaurs in the Vietnam war? What’s not to love about that concept?!” Sparke said when the project was first announced in 2022. “When I first heard about the books, I loved the ideas and concepts Ethan brought into them, and we’re shaping our film version into an exciting survival-horror film.”
The cast is led by the likes of Jeremy Piven (“Entourage”), Tricia Helfer (“Battlestar Galactica”), Ryan Kwanten (“True Blood”), Nick Wechsler (“This is Us”), Anthony Ingruber (“Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny”), Aaron Glenane (“Snowpiercer”), and Jake Ryan (“Home and Away”).
Currently, it’s unclear if this one is going to get a theatrical release or if it will go straight to VOD/streaming. Look, if a mockbuster like “Top Gunner: Danger Zone” got its day in theaters, surely a dinosaur movie that is also a Vietnam War movie deserves the same. Here’s hoping, but we’ll have to see how it shakes out in the coming months.
Advertisement

“Primitive War” is due to arrive later this year but no specific release date has been set. Stay tuned.