Harv's Corner 

"So, the 'new' EPA has effectively decided we’re off the hook for climate change. It’s fascinating, isn't it? Apparently, a change in administration has the power to rewrite the laws of physics."

EPA removes wording about climate
Its website no longer cites human influence.
By SHANNON OSAKA The Washington Post

The Environmental Protection Agency has removed references to human-caused climate change from its website — tweaking some pages to focus on the "natural processes" driving climate change and wiping other pages from the internet.

In October, the EPA page on "Causes of Climate Change," for example, included a statement from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that noted, "It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land."

That clear statement has been deleted from the page, which now mentions only climate changes from natural sources, such as volcanic activity and variations in solar activity.

"This is, I think, one of the more dramatic scrubbings we've seen so far in the climate space," said Daniel Swain, a climate scientist with the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, in an online live chat with reporters and followers. "More and more pages have either been completely removed from the public internet — or perhaps worse, have been replaced with inaccurate information."

Another page, which once described the key indicators of a changing climate — such as rising seas and shrinking Arctic ice — has been deleted entirely.

"Unlike the previous administration, the Trump EPA is focused on protecting human health and the environment while Powering the Great American Comeback, not left-wing political agendas," Brigit Hirsch, EPA press secretary, wrote in an email. "As such, this agency no longer takes marching orders from the climate cult."

An earlier version of one page warned that the buildup of greenhouse gases had resulted in "dangerous effects" to human health and ecosystems. The current page says simply that the greenhouse effect "is natural and necessary to support life."

Harv's Corner

Panel nixes a vaccine for newborns
Hepatitis B shots have been routine for decades; new proposal recommends only if moms are infected or status is unknown.
By APOORVA MANDAVILLI The New York Times

A federal vaccine committee on Friday took a major step toward Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s goal of remaking the childhood vaccine schedule, voting to end a decades-long recommendation that all newborns be immunized at birth against hepatitis B, a highly infectious virus that can cause severe liver damage.

The divisiveness and dysfunction of the committee in making the decision, however, raised questions about the reliability of the advisory process and left at least one critic "very concerned about the future" of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The panel, called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, voted 8-3 that women who test negative for hepatitis B should consult with their health care provider and decide "when or if" their child will be vaccinated against the virus at birth. The committee did not change the recommendation that newborns of mothers known to be infected or whose status is unknown be immunized. The shift is not expected to affect insurance coverage of the shots.

The new recommendations will become official CDC guidance once Jim O'Neill, the agency's acting director, accepts them. More changes to vaccine policy are likely to follow in the coming months, as the committee goes on to review all childhood immunizations. The meeting's presenters and at least some of the panelists are known for their antivaccine views and are close associates of Kennedy.

Aaron Siri, a lawyer who for years joined with Kennedy in court battles over vaccines, talked at length later in the day about the evolution of the childhood schedule. Siri has petitioned the government to stop distribution of 13 vaccines, including polio vaccines.

The meeting dealt another blow to the CDC's standing as an authority that the nation and the world could look to for advice on issues of public health.
"Today is a defining moment for our country," said Michael Osterholm, a public health expert at the University of Minnesota.

"We can no longer trust federal health authorities when it comes to vaccines."

Dr. Debra Houry, who served as the CDC's chief medical officer before resigning in protest in August, said she found it "heartbreaking to see this science-driven agency turn into an ideological machine."

Political appointees, many of them vaccine skeptics, are now in high agency positions, she noted.

"I am very concerned about the future of CDC at this point," Houry said.
The votes on the hepatitis B shot were originally scheduled for the September meeting but were deferred twice because some members said there was insufficient data to make a decision.

The committee attempted the vote again Thursday but postponed it after some panelists questioned whether a change to the recommendation was warranted.

Some panelists noted that universal hepatitis B vaccination at birth had helped to nearly eliminate cases among newborns in the United States and that there was no evidence of harm from the shots at any age.

"We know it's safe, and we know it's very effective," Dr. Cody Meissner, a professor of pediatrics at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine, said during Friday's meeting.

He warned that if the proposal passed, "we will see more children and adolescents and adults infected with hepatitis B."

Kennedy and his associates have argued that hepatitis B is primarily a sexually transmitted disease and that babies do not need the protection unless their mothers are infected.

The risk of "infection throughout your early stage of life, and probably throughout most of your childhood, is extremely low," said Retsef Levi, a panelist and a professor of operations management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

"To quantify how low it is, it's probably 1 in several millions," he said.
But supporters of the vaccine note that the virus can be spread by people who do not know they have it, as well as by household objects like toothbrushes, razors or combs that are used by an infected person. Only about half of cases before 1991 were a result of transmission from an infected mother.

The CDC has recommended for almost 35 years th
at doctors administer the first dose of the hepatitis B vaccine within 12 hours of birth to infants whose mother is known to be infected, and within 24 hours for all other newborns.

The first dose is given on its own, but two later doses are often administered as combination products containing vaccines for other diseases, like diphtheria, tetanus and polio.

The panelists recommended that for infants born to mothers who test negative for the virus, parents should decide whether and when to immunize their babies in consultation with their health care providers.
Parents and their providers should "consider vaccine benefits, vaccine risks, and infection risks" and administer the shot "no earlier than 2 months of age," the committee's new recommendation says.

The panel also voted 6-4 to recommend that parents seek out antibody tests to evaluate the effectiveness of the vaccine, although there was disagreement about whether such tests were meaningful in determining how much protection the shots afforded. One panelist abstained from the vote. The vaccine panel does not typically make recommendations about testing.

In a third vote, the panel agreed to include the hepatitis B vaccine in the Vaccines for Children program, which provides shots free to about half of American children. But Dr. Robert Malone, the panel's vice chair, who ran the meeting, seemed unaware that a separate vote was required to ensure coverage of the vaccine.

Kennedy fired all 17 previous members of the vaccine panel in June, replacing them with people who largely share his skepticism about vaccines. Meetings of the new members, most of whom have no experience in vaccine research or clinical practice, have been marred by disorganization and intense disagreements, sometimes devolving into shouting matches.

Siri began his presentation with a long list of his conflicts of interest, which include dozens of lawsuits involving vaccines against federal agencies. He did not disclose that his law firm receives millions of dollars from ICAN, the Informed Consent Action Network, an anti-vaccine organization. The group's most recent financial filings report that it paid Siri $6 million.

Over more than 95 minutes, he said that the clinical trials that tested childhood vaccines were too small and that the study populations were not diverse enough, opinions shared by some vaccine experts.

But he also repeated his frequent and incorrect claim that "not one" of the shots administered to children had been compared against a placebo or an inert substance. He cited discredited studies as evidence of vaccine harm, and questioned studies that detailed the benefits of vaccination.

Malone said that the committee had invited Dr. Paul Offit and Dr. Peter Hotez, two prominent vaccine experts, to present at the meeting, and lamented the fact that both had declined.

Offit, a pediatrician at the University of Pennsylvania, said the panel was offering misleading information to parents
.
"This is a political group, not a scientific group," he said in a message. "I don't want any part of that."

Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, echoed that sentiment. "I declined because ACIP seems to have shifted its mission away from science and evidence based medicine,"

​he said in a message, referring to the vaccine committee. "I'm always happy to discuss the science of vaccines with individuals or groups who are committed to truth and genuine intellectual inquiry."

Harv's Corner

Does anyone else see something wrong with this?  Let's forget about supporting our country and build a ballroom.  Everyone knows we need one!

​East Wing ‘a loss for us as a nation’
Michelle Obama speaks on Trump’s demolition.
By BRIANNA TUCKER The Washington Post

Michelle Obama

Former First Lady Michelle Obama said she felt "a loss for us as a nation" regarding President Donald Trump's demolition of the East Wing for a massive new ballroom.

Obama, who was first lady during President Barack Obama's two terms from 2009 to 2017, shared her response to the removal of the century-old annex in an episode of Jamie Kern Lima's podcast Tuesday, saying her feelings stemmed from the country and its shared traditions, rather than a personal attachment to the space.

"I felt confusion because I'm like, who are we? What do we value? And who decides that?" Obama said. "That's the thing that's going through my head a lot lately. Who are we? What are the rules? Because I'm confused by what are our norms and our mores — not the laws — but how do we live together? That's the part of it that hurts."

"I think I felt a loss for us as a nation, but personally, you know ... that's not our house. That's the people's house," she added. The East Wing has typically housed the first lady's offi ce and staff, and served as a hub for her public initiatives.

In October, Trump tore down the East Wing of the White House to make room for a 90,000-square-foot ballroom building he estimates will cost $300 million.
​
The project is one of several transformations the Trump administration has pursued within the White House complex. Since returning to offi ce, he has paved the Rose Garden, erected a pair of 88-foottall flagpoles on the North and South lawns, covered the Lincoln Bathroom in marble and mused about potentially painting the Eisenhower Executive Office Building — saying the 137-year-old federal property "was always considered an ugly building."

In interviews and appearances this year, Obama has grown more vocal about her concerns over Trump's second term, explaining her decision to skip Trump's second inauguration in January, and warning that his approach to governing threatens the nation's values and identity.

Harv's Corner

​MANAGING HEATING COSTS
Story by ANN CARRNS • Illustration by TILL LAUER • The New York Times

Home heating costs are expected to outpace inflation this winter. Making matters worse for people who have trouble paying their utility bills, the government shutdown delayed federal assistance to them.

"Energy prices are going up, and it's probably going to be a cold winter," said Steve Baden, executive director of the Residential Energy Services Network, a nonprofit that promotes energy efficiency.

Home heating costs are estimated to rise nearly 8% over last winter on average, according to a forecast from the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, which assists states in securing federal funds to help low-income people pay their heating and cooling bills. The average heating bill for the season — October through March — is expected to rise to $976 from $907 last year, the association predicted.
Costs for heating with electricity, however, are expected to increase around 10%, the association's forecast said. That's mainly because of maintenance and upgrades to the energy transmission grid as well as the rising cost of natural gas, which powers much electricity generation, and the boom in large, energy-hungry data centers built to support artificial intelligence, the association said.

Some parts of the country, including the Midwest and the South, could see double-digit cost increases. The Northeast, however, where heating oil and propane are more common, may see a more muted increase — just under 3% — as costs for those fuels are expected to ease.

Higher winter utility costs are increasingly a worry for consumers, many of whom are also coping with higher food prices. The costs became an issue, for instance, in the recent governor's race in New Jersey.

The distribution of federal aid to states to help low-income people pay for heating typically occurs in late October but was delayed because of the government shutdown, said Mark Wolfe, executive director of the energy assistance association. Now that the government is reopening, he said, "my expectation is that funds will be released," although the timing remains uncertain. "Winter is starting," he added.

Here are some options to consider to manage energy costs and make your home more comfortable as temperatures drop.

Can I still get federal tax credits for energy updates to my home?

Yes, though you'll have to act fast. Two federal tax credits available for improvements to a home's energy efficiency expire after Dec. 31. The Bidenera credits were originally set to continue well into the 2030s, but the Trump administration sped up their expiration via the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

The energy-efficient home improvement credit provides savings of 30%, up to $3,200, for eligible items, including home energy audits, added insulation, replacement doors and windows, and more efficient water heaters, furnaces and boilers. In addition to the aggregate cap, limits on individual improvements apply. For instance, doors are eligible for a maximum credit of $250 per door, up to $500 total.

Another credit, the Residential Clean Energy Tax Credit, provides a credit of 30% of the total cost for installing renewable energy equipment like solar panels and solar-powered water heaters.

The tax credits aren't "refundable," meaning that they can reduce your tax bill to as low as zero, but you won't get any extra back as a refund.
The updates generally have to be installed by the end of the year to qualify for a credit on your 2025 taxes, said Amanda Hatherly, CEO of the Building Performance Institute, a group that develops standards for the energy efficiency and weatherization industry.

Do states and utilities offer financial incentives for home energy improvements?

Many do, but the programs aren't always heavily promoted, Wolfe of the energy assistance association said. So check with your utility or state energy office to see what's available in your area.
​
Can I shop around for cheaper energy?
Yes, Wolfe said. If you use heating oil or propane, it can pay to contact different providers and compare pricing. Some dealers may offer contracts that set a fixed price for the season, which can save money if prices rise (but you typically won't benefit if prices fall).

Many utilities let customers buy gas and electricity through an independent provider, but be careful, Wolfe said. Many offers come with "teaser" rates that rise after an introductory period and can carry high cancellation fees. But if you can stay on top of the bill, he said, you may save 5% to 10%.

What simple steps can I take to lower heating bills?
Do-it-yourself fixes that can help shave your energy costs include closing the damper on your fireplace when it's not in use. That can help save 10% to 20% on your energy bill, Wolfe said, depending on the type of fuel you use and your home's location.

Adding insulation is a step that offers a fairly rapid payoff in states offering financial incentives, Wolfe said. Depending on the rate you pay for heat, a $2,500 installation can be paid back in energy savings in less than two years, assuming a 75% rebate of the cost.

An easy step is to set your thermostat at 65 to 68 degrees when you're home and awake and lower it several degrees at night or when you're away, said Lizzie Rubado, director of innovation and development at Energy Trust of Oregon, a nonprofit that promotes energy efficiency. A "smart" or programmable thermostat can make the changes so you don't have to remember to do it. "Your heating system is the single biggest energy user in the winter," she said.

If you have an older hot water heater, drain it to remove sediment that can accumulate at its base and makes the unit use more energy to warm the water, Baden advised. Put a bucket under the tap at the unit's base, he said, and drain water out until the bucket is about half full.

If you have a forced-air heating system, clogged filters in your furnace can force it to work harder, using more energy, so replace them every few months.

To pinpoint where cold air is seeping into your house, consider a home energy audit. A technician will conduct a "blower door" test to identify leaky areas. The cost is typically less than $200, Baden said, and some utilities cover the entire cost to encourage customers to conserve energy.

Taping and insulating duct systems properly can also prevent wasted heat. Baden recalled an audit that found that a duct in the attic had become disconnected, so warm air wasn't making it into the main house. The homeowner joked that he "was heating his Christmas decorations," Baden said.

To find qualified energy auditors, you can contact your utility or search by location on the Building Performance Institute's website.
What if I can't afford my heating bill?
​
You can get help paying your heating bills from the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, known as LIHEAP, if your income and family size qualify. Funds are provided by the federal government and distributed by state agencies. The Energy Department offers a map showing contacts in each state.

Harv's Corner

Is everyone OK with this???   I'm not! What kind of government do we have?  What kind of ruthless person would do this?  Is this truly what America is about? I hope not! As of  this release, the government is back online and SNAP benefits are being restored. THE POINT REMAINS!

States told to stop full SNAP payments
​USDA threatens consequences if they don’t comply, including loss of federal funding.
By MARIANA ALFARO The Washington Post

​The Trump administration over the weekend ordered states to stop distributing full food assistance benefits for November to the 42 million low-income Americans at risk of food insecurity.

A memo from the Agriculture Department's Food and Nutrition Service tells states to "immediately undo any steps taken to issue" full payments to recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, often called food stamps.

Instead, the White House is demanding that states issue only partial payments of about 65% of a usual SNAP benefit.

The memo USDA issued late Saturday warns states that if they do not comply with the order, they will face consequences, including the cancellation of federal funding that states need to cover some administrative expenses.

The federal government pays for all SNAP benefits, but states administer the program to residents.

SNAP is a vital lifeline for millions of people — mostly children, the elderly and adults with disabilities — who rely on it to afford groceries. The funding holdup caused by the government shutdown has left families across the country in agonized uncertainty as they stretch budgets while waiting for aid.

On Thursday, a Rhode Island judge directed the Trump administration to release November SNAP benefits in full by Friday.

At first, the Trump administration said it was working to release the benefits to comply with the judge's order — suggesting that the money would indeed be disbursed. At the same time, the administration appealed that decision to the Supreme Court.

Late Friday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson temporarily blocked the Rhode Island judge's order to allow time for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit to issue its ruling on the lower court's order.

Some states, like Wisconsin and Maryland, had begun disbursing benefits Friday, after the Rhode Island ruling, leaving them scrambling to respond over the weekend.

In Wisconsin — where nearly 700,000 residents received their SNAP payments on Friday — Democratic Gov. Tony Evers said his state has "legally loaded benefits to cards."

"After we did so, the Trump Administration assured Wisconsin and other states that they were actively working to implement full SNAP benefits for November and would 'complete the processes necessary to make funds available.' They have failed to do so to date," Evers said in a statement Sunday.

Evers, along with several other governors and state attorneys general, are asking the appellate court to reject the administration's effort.

Soon after that letter was filed, USDA sent the states the latest memo ordering them to stop the disbursement of full SNAP payments.

"Our administration is actively in court fighting against the Trump Administration's efforts to yank food assistance away from Wisconsin's kids, families, and seniors, and we are eager for the court to resolve this issue by directing the Trump Administration to comply with court orders," Evers' statement said.

Carl Tobias, the Williams Chair in Law at the University of Richmond's law school, said it would not be "lawful" for USDA to claw back benefits that it had earlier provided without granting due process.

But Tobias acknowledged that the USDA memo could have a chilling effect on states' efforts to continue providing benefits to people in November.

In his Thursday order, the Rhode Island judge, John J. McConnell Jr., admonished the Trump administration for opting to make only partial SNAP payments, saying the administration knew this would only further delay getting aid to people. He ordered the administration to tap into a $23 billion fund for school lunch and child nutrition programs to pay for full SNAP benefits in November.

USDA, however, has repeatedly refused to tap into that money, arguing that it is separate from SNAP, and that the government does not have funds because of "congressional failure" to appropriate new money.

In court papers, the administration said it would not "raid an entirely different program" because it could lead to a shortfall in funding school meals.

Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, a Democrat, said in a statement Sunday that residents who have already received SNAP money on their cards "should continue to spend it on food." Those funds, she said, were following guidelines the administration issued after the Rhode Island court decision and before the Supreme Court order.

"If President Trump wants to penalize states for preventing Americans from going hungry, we will see him in court," Healey said.

The administration is "very carefully studying the law and trying to get as much money out the door as is legal," Kevin Hassett, Trump's longest-serving economic adviser, told CBS News' "Face the Nation" on Sunday.

"We are very glad that we found a way to get a lot of the SNAP money out, but it's really, really pushing the boundaries of the law, which is why the Supreme Court had to take that ruling from Rhode Island and put it on hold," Hassett said.
​
"The president's job, and all of our jobs, is to uphold the law."

Harv's Corner

​READ THIS FOR YOURSELVES. I AM WITHOUT WORDS!

​Hegseth purges with little explanation
Military officials say defense secretary’s moves create instability.
By GREG JAFFE, ERIC SCHMITT and HELENE COOPER The New York Times

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has fired or sidelined at least two dozen generals and admirals over the past nine months in a series of ousters that could reshape the U.S. military for years to come.

His actions, which are without precedent in recent decades, have come with little explanation.  In many cases, they have run counter to the advice of top military leaders who fought alongside the officers in combat, senior military officials said.

The utter unpredictability of Hegseth's moves, as described in interviews with 20 current and former military officials, has created an atmosphere of anxiety and mistrust that has forced senior officers to take sides and, at times, pitted them against one another.

Hegseth has delayed or canceled the promotions of at least four senior military officers because they previously worked for Gen. Mark Milley, a former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff whom President Donald Trump loathes and has repeatedly accused of disloyalty. One is Maj. Gen. James Patrick Work, who was expected to be the deputy commander at U.S. Central Command, which oversees troops in the Middle East, officials said.
​
Work, one of the Army's most combat-experienced officers, played a crucial role leading U.S. and Iraqi troops to victory over the Islamic State group in Mosul, Iraq, during the first Trump administration. He also served as Milley's executive officer in 2018, which might have led Hegseth to view him with skepticism, senior Army officials said.

Despite the strong backing of top Army leaders, Work remains in limbo, his future uncertain, senior military officials said.

Other officers fell out of favor after being targeted on social media by right-wing influencers or because they had voiced support years earlier for diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
​
Rear Adm. Milton Sands, the commander of the Navy SEALs, who pushed to have female instructors in SEAL training, was fired by Hegseth in August.
​
Some leaders were ousted for offering candid military assessments.

Hegseth soured on Adm. Alvin Holsey, the head of U.S. Southern Command, after he raised questions about deadly military strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea. The Trump administration has said, without offering detailed evidence, that the boats were traffi cking drugs.

Holsey abruptly announced last month that he was stepping down, less than one year into what is typically a three-year assignment.

Another senior officer, Lt. Gen. Jeffrey A. Kruse, a 35-year Air Force intelligence officer who led the Defense Intelligence Agency, was forced from his position after his agency cast doubt on Trump's assertion that U.S. airstrikes in June had "obliterated" Iran's nuclear program.

In his public appearances, Hegseth has stressed "unity" as a critical component of a lethal military. "Your strength is your shared purpose," he told several hundred troops recently on a trip to Asia. "Your strength is the unity of our mission."

But his actions have worked to undermine that critical asset, military officials said.

Hegseth, a former Fox News commentator and Army National Guard major, began his tenure by firing several highprofile military leaders, including Gen. CQ Brown Jr., the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Since then, the defense secretary has targeted an array of officers who seemed destined to ascend to four-star rank.

Sean Parnell, the Pentagon's top spokesperson, said in a statement that the "military has never been more unified" and cited Hegseth's work to dismantle the Biden administration's diversity, equity and inclusion agenda and restore the military's "warrior ethos."

"The department will continue to elevate those in our ranks who are committed to warfighting and meritocracy," the statement read.

A new administration has the right to choose military leaders it trusts, said Kori Schake, a defense specialist who served on the National Security Council in the administration of President George W. Bush. But she worried the Trump administration was "squandering an enormous amount of talent."

The scale of the firings also has alarmed some in Congress, like Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., who previously served as a CIA officer analyzing foreign militaries.

She recently described Hegseth's moves as a "purge."
"The places where we've looked at these kinds of things are places like China," she said.  "I used to work on Iraq. They would do the same thing."

Another concern: Hegseth's moves have fed the impression that there are pro-Trump and anti-Trump generals, officials said.
In a September speech attended by hundreds of senior officers from around the world, Hegseth singled out several recently retired four-star generals for scorn.

"The new compass heading is clear," Hegseth told the officers gathered at Quantico, Va.

"Out with the Chiarellis, the McKenzies and the Milleys." He was referring to Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the former Army vice chief of staff, and Gen. Kenneth F. McKenzie Jr., a former head of Central Command.
Several officers in the crowd that day had worked for the generals Hegseth disparaged and considered them mentors. So, too, had more junior officers.

"The message being sent to those younger soldiers and sailors and airmen and Marines is that politics can and should be part of your military service," said Rep. Jason Crow, D-Colo., a former Army Ranger. "It's a dangerous message."

Hegseth's personnel moves have hit several of the Army's most admired and combattested leaders. In late October, he forced Lt. Gen. J.P. McGee from his position as the director of strategy and war plans on the Joint Staff, military officials said.

The move was reported earlier by CNN.

McGee deployed 10 times to war zones, according to his military records. Work, who stepped down in August as the commander of the 82nd Airborne Division, spent nearly six years in combat zones over the course of his career.

Military officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal personnel matters at a time when the Pentagon's culture has become increasingly punitive.

Until recently, Work's promotion seemed like a certainty.  All 10 of the officers who commanded the 82nd Airborne before him were promoted to three-star rank. Nine made four-stars. It is still possible that Work will fight through Hegseth's doubts and earn a third star, senior Army officials said.

Most of the officers forced out by Hegseth are likely to land on their feet, hired by defense contractors, big companies or universities.
The biggest blow may be felt by those left behind.

Speaking to students at West Point in 2018, Work shared some of the lessons he learned from two decades of war.

"Understand who you're partnered with, understand who you're fighting," Work, then a colonel, told the cadets.  He talked about his efforts to bond with an Iraqi partner during the fight against the Islamic State in 2017.  "Fourteen years ago today, I set foot in Baghdad," Work recalled telling his Iraqi counterpart.

"Fourteen years ago, I was in the hospital because I had been wounded by you all at Haditha," the Iraqi soldier replied. The exchange, Work said, demonstrated one of the Army's hard-won lessons in Iraq and Afghanistan:  In long, complex wars, allegiances can shift.  Former enemies can become trusted allies.

Many of Hegseth's dismissals have left senior military leaders and even Trump administration officials puzzled and speculating about the cause.

Such was the case with Gen. James J. Mingus, the Army's vice chief of staff. Senior Army officials assumed that Mingus would stay in his position until at least next summer. The fourstar officer has played a critical role, alongside Gen. Randy George, the Army's chief of staff, in remaking the Army for highintensity combat and drone warfare in the Pacific.

Instead, his retirement was hastily announced Oct. 21 with little input from senior Army leaders or Army Secretary Daniel P. Driscoll, military officials said. No reason was given for Mingus' early dismissal or his replacement by Lt. Gen. Christopher C. LaNeve, who formerly led the 82nd Airborne Division.

In the case of Rear Adm. Michael Donnelly, the end came because of a 7-year-old story, recycled through the right-wing media. The Pentagon announced in June that Donnelly, the former commander of the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan, was being nominated to be vice admiral and commander of the Navy's largest overseas force, the 7th Fleet.
But in July, Hegseth withdrew the nomination after The Daily Wire reported that Donnelly had allowed drag performances on the aircraft carrier.

Navy officials said the article belied what had actually happened: One sailor in drag performed during a talent show on the carrier. Donnelly was in Singapore at the time.

In late September, Lt. Gen. Douglas A. Sims II's 34-year military career came to an abrupt end at a military base near the Pentagon.  On the day of his retirement, Sims marched past columns of soldiers in their dress uniforms who were awaiting his review.

Sims had been the Army's choice to run Forces Command, a four-star job focused on making sure that commanders around the world have trainedand-ready forces available to them. The command, while important, is rarely a source of controversy, and the choice of who will lead it is usually left to the Army.

But Hegseth blocked Sims' promotion because he was seen as too close to Milley, according to three people with knowledge of the matter.

Before he officially departed the Army, Sims recited the names of the five soldiers killed under his command. His last remarks in uniform focused on the values that hold an Army together through hard times — the same values many senior military officials worried were now under strain.
​
"Everything we do is about people," Sims reminded the crowd. "The military doesn't have a monopoly in this regard, but the stakes of what we do are just different."
Gen. Dan Caine, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, listened in the packed bleachers next to Brown, his predecessor, whom Hegseth had fired in February.

Harv's Corner

Harvey Mackay, I really love this guy!  He is a true business leader with suggestions for folks who are generally independent businessmen or sales people.  I read his column religiously and occasionally find a story that applies to all of us.  This is one of them.

​Do good, and it may help you one day
OUTSWIMMING THE SHARKS
By HARVEY MACKAY For the Minnesota Star Tribune

HARVEY McCAY

One day, a small mouse surfaced from his nest to find himself between the paws of a huge sleeping lion, which immediately awoke and seized him. The mouse pleaded with the fierce beast to be set free. The lion, being very noble and wise, and in no need of such small prey, agreed to let the mouse go on its way.

Some days later, in the same part of the forest, a hunter caught the lion in a trap. The lion sat there, trussed up in a strong net, waiting for the hunter to return. But the mouse came along and saw the lion in need of help. He promptly set about gnawing through the net, which soon began to unravel, setting the great lion free.

The moral of the story is, of course, that the good you do for others often comes back to help you.

English theologian John Wesley offered this advice: "Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can."

If that sounds like a tall order, I challenge you to give it a try and see how your own life improves, even if those favors are never returned.
Doing favors for people is a common theme in political and business circles. Politicians often build networks by doing favors for others. This strategy allows them to accumulate goodwill and support, which can be invaluable when they need backing for their initiatives or during elections.

This is also a powerful tool in business .
Doing favors can be strategically advantageous for several reasons: Building a network of goodwill: This network can be invaluable in business, as it often leads to reciprocal actions . By helping others, you establish a foundation of trust and mutual respect .

Strengthening relationships:
Offering assistance or favors without expecting immediate returns can strengthen relationships.

When you help someone, they are more likely to think positively of you and your business .

Creating leverage:
In negotiations or business dealings, doing favors can give you an edge when seeking support, advice or assistance in critical situations. People are more inclined to help when they feel they are returning a favor.

Encouraging a culture of reciprocity: By fostering a culture where favors are exchanged, you encourage a collaborative and supportive environment.

Ethical considerations:
While there are strategic advantages, it's essential to approach this dynamic ethically. The goal should be to build genuine relationships and offer help sincerely, rather than manipulating others for personal gain.

Mahatma Gandhi, whose life and actions were guided by a deep commitment to doing good and living ethically, had a philosophy centered on the principles of nonviolence, truth and social justice. He believed in the power of individual actions to bring about significant change, and he consistently practiced what he preached.

Gandhi's approach to life was encapsulated in his formula for achieving balance, which involved recognizing and avoiding the seven big sins of life: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice and politics without principle.

By adhering to these principles, Gandhi not only inspired millions but also led India to independence through peaceful means.
The true measure of a person's life is not in what they achieve for themselves, but in what they do for others.

Mackay's Moral: In business, the favors you give often come back to you in unexpected and beneficial ways. Build a network of goodwill, and it will serve you well.
​v
Harvey Mackay is a Minneapolis businessman. Contact him at 612-378- 6202 or email [email protected].

Well, well, isn't this an interesting situation.  
Agriculture suspended $500 million in food deliveries previously allocated under TEFAP as part of efforts by President Donald Trump's administration to reduce federal spending and people are scrambling for food!
​ My, my - could this be any more calllous? 

Trump wants DOJ to pay him $230M Taxpayer money would be diverted to him for his claims of violations of his rights during federal investigations. By DEVLIN BARRETT and TYLER PAGER • The New York Times

​
WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump is demanding that the Justice Department pay him about $230 million in compensation for the federal investigations into him, according to people familiar with the matter, who added that any settlement might ultimately be approved by senior department officials who defended him or those in his orbit.

The situation has no parallel in American history, as Trump, a presidential candidate, was pursued by federal law enforcement and eventually won the election, taking over the very government that must now review his claims. It is also the starkest example yet of potential ethical conflicts created by installing the president's former lawyers atop the Justice Department.

Trump submitted complaints through an administrative claim process that often is the precursor to lawsuits. The first claim, lodged in late 2023, seeks damages for a number of purported violations of his rights, including the FBI and special counsel investigation into Russian election tampering and possible connections to the 2016 Trump campaign, according to people familiar with the matter. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because the claim has not been made public.

The second complaint, filed in the summer of 2024, accuses the FBI of violating Trump's privacy by searching Mar-a-Lago, his club and residence in Florida, in 2022 for classified documents.

It also accuses the Justice Department of malicious prosecution in charging him with mishandling sensitive records after he left office.
Lawyers said the nature of the claims posed undeniable ethics challenges. "What a travesty," said Bennett L. Gershman, an ethics professor at Pace University.

"The ethical conflict is just so basic and fundamental, you don't need a law professor to explain it."

He added, "And then to have people in the Justice Department decide whether his claim should be successful or not, and these are the people who serve him deciding whether he wins or loses. It's bizarre and almost too outlandish to believe."

Even the president seemed to acknowledge that point in the Oval Office last week, when he alluded vaguely to the situation while standing next to FBI Director Kash Patel, Attorney General Pam Bondi and her deputy, Todd Blanche. According to Justice Department regulations, the deputy attorney general — in this case, Blanche — is one of two people eligible to sign off on such a settlement.

"I have a lawsuit that was doing very well, and when I became president, I said, I'm sort of suing myself. I don't know, how do you settle the lawsuit? I'll say give me X dollars, and I don't know what to do with the lawsuit," Trump said, adding, "It sort of looks bad, I'm suing myself, right? So I don't know. But that was a lawsuit that was very strong, very powerful."

Administrative claims are not technically lawsuits. Such complaints are submitted first to the Justice Department on what is called a Standard Form 95, to see if a settlement can be reached without a lawsuit in federal court. If the department formally rejects such a claim or declines to act on it, a person could then sue in court. Still, that is an unlikely outcome in this instance, given that Trump is already negotiating, in essence, with his subordinates.

Compensation is typically covered by taxpayers. Two people familiar with the president's legal claims said that he had not been paid by the federal government but that he expected to be.

The second claim accused Merrick Garland, then the attorney general; Christopher Wray, then the FBI director; and Jack Smith, the special counsel investigating Trump at the time, of "harassment" intended to sway the electoral outcome. "This malicious prosecution led President Trump to spend tens of millions of dollars defending the case and his reputation," the claim said.

According to the Justice Department manual, settlements of claims against the department for more than $4 million "must be approved by the deputy attorney general or associate attorney general," meaning the person who runs the agency's civil division.

The current deputy attorney general, Blanche, served as Trump's lead criminal defense lawyer and said at his confirmation hearing in February that his attorney-client relationship with the president continued. The chief of the department's civil division, Stanley Woodward Jr., represented Trump's co-defendant, Walt Nauta, in the classified documents case. Woodward has also represented a number of other Trump aides, including Patel, in investigations related to Trump or the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021.
A White House spokesperson referred questions to the Justice Department. Asked if either of those top officials would recuse or have been recused from overseeing the possible settlement with Trump, a Justice Department spokesperson, Chad Gilmartin, said, "In any circumstance, all officials at the Department of Justice follow the guidance of career ethics officials."
In July, Bondi fired the agency's top ethics adviser.

Trump famously hates recusals.
He complained bitterly after his first attorney general, Jeff Sessions, withdrew from overseeing the Russia investigation that is now the subject of one of his demands for money.

"The attorney general made a terrible mistake when he did this and when he recused himself," Trump said in 2018.

"He should have certainly let us know if he was going to recuse himself, and we would have used a — put a different attorney general in."

The Justice Department does not specifically require a public announcement of settlements made for administrative claims before they become lawsuits. If or when the Trump administration pays the president what could be hundreds of millions of dollars, there may be no immediate official declaration that it did so, according to current and former department officials.
​
Some former officials have privately expressed misgivings that the department's leaders did not reject Trump's legal claims in the waning days of the Biden administration. It has long been standard practice for civil litigation, including lawsuits against the government, to be paused until any criminal cases around the same facts have been resolved.

Harv's Corner

​Hate is a burden no one needs
OUTSWIMMING THE SHARKS
By HARVEY MACKAY For the Minnesota Star Tribune

​One day, a teacher told her students to bring a bag of potatoes to school. She said each potato should be given the name of a person the child hated. The more people the child hated, the more potatoes in his or her bag.

Some bags had just one or two potatoes, while other bags were almost full. The teacher then told her students they had to carry their bags with them everywhere they went for a full week.

After a while, the students started to complain. The bags were heavy and awkward to carry, plus the potatoes were starting to smell bad. They couldn't run or play games because they had to carry their sacks everywhere.

Finally, the teacher told her students they could put their sacks down. Then she told them the meaning of the assignment: "This is what happens when you carry hate for another person in your heart. You carry it everywhere, and it weighs you down.

The stench grows worse every day. The more hatred you carry, the heavier your burden. In the end, you can choose to set it down and be free."

This story is particularly appropriate for our times, as we see so much hatred and anger all around us. Hate blocks clarity, clouding our judgment and causing us to be more impulsive and aggressive. Anger can lead to unacceptable actions that we immediately regret. Rather than enabling us to see possible solutions, we become so entrenched in our own position that we become irrational.

In my view, hate is a destructive force that we should strive to let go of, replacing it with understanding and positive perspectives.

Just as hate can be taught, so can love, and it's important to focus on fostering flexibility of mind and body to counteract the negative effects of hatred.

Most of us have experienced feelings of hatred at one time or another.
Disarming hate in the workplace requires a thoughtful and strategic approach. Here are some steps you can consider: Foster open communication: Create a safe space for employees to express their concerns and feelings. Regular team meetings or one-on-one check-ins can be effective. Pay attention to what is being said and show empathy.

People just need to feel heard.
Lead by example:
Demonstrate the behavior you wish to see in others. Treat everyone with respect and kindness.

When you notice negative behavior, address it immediately.
Implement clear policies and ensure accountability: Make sure there are clear policies regarding acceptable behavior and the consequences of hate or discrimination. Hold individuals accountable for their actions.

Focus on solutions:
If conflicts persist, consider bringing in a mediator.
Here's a final story to illustrate my point. In a small village, two neighboring families had been feuding for generations.

The source of their animosity was long forgotten, but the hatred persisted, affecting everyone in the community.
​
One day, a wise elder visited the village and gathered both families together. He proposed a challenge: "Build a bridge over the river that divides your lands.

Work together, and you will find peace."
Reluctantly, the families agreed. As they worked side by side, they began to talk, share stories and learn about each other's lives. Slowly, the barriers of hate began to crumble, replaced by understanding and friendship.

When the bridge was finally completed, it stood not just as a physical structure but as a symbol of their newfound unity. The families realized that the effort to understand one another had transformed their hearts, and the feud was forgotten.

Mackay's Moral: Building bridges of understanding can transform hostility into harmony, creating pathways to peace and friendship.

Harvey Mackay is a Minneapolis businessman. Contact him at 612-378- 6202 or email [email protected].

Harv's Corner

YOU COULD BE COUGHT DEAD WITHOUT IT!

​The latest updated COVID-19 booster shot, the 2025-2026 formula, began rolling out to the public in September and October 2025. 

This new vaccine is designed to target the currently circulating variants of the virus, offering enhanced protection for the fall and winter respiratory virus season.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the updated formula from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna in late August 2025. Following the FDA's authorization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued its recommendations, paving the way for distribution to pharmacies and healthcare providers across the country. This rollout follows the availability of the 2024-2025 formula, which was released in the fall of 2024 and targeted the JN.1 lineage of the Omicron variant. The new 2025-2026 boosters are an updated formulation to better match the evolving virus.

Individuals seeking the latest booster should contact their local pharmacies or healthcare providers to confirm availability. Public health officials encourage eligible individuals to stay up-to-date with their COVID-19 vaccinations to protect themselves against severe illness, hospitalization, and death.

Get that booster! NOW!
​Harv