Category: Americas

MIL-OSI Global: Why does it hurt when you get a scrape? A neuroscientist explains the science of pain

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Yenisel Cruz-Almeida, Associate Professor & Associate Director, Pain Research & Intervention Center Of Excellence, University of Florida

Curious Kids is a series for children of all ages. If you have a question you’d like an expert to answer, send it to curiouskidsus@theconversation.com.

“How come you feel pain when you fall and get a scrape?” – Tillman, age 9, Asheville, North Carolina

Nobody likes to feel pain, but it’s something every person will experience at some point in their life.

But why is that?

I am a neuroscientist, and my job is to research why and how people feel pain in order to help doctors understand how to treat it better.

What is pain?

To understand why people feel pain, it helps first to understand what pain is. Pain is the unpleasant sensation you feel when your body is experiencing harm, or thinks it is.

Not everyone experiences pain the same way. Pain is a highly personal experience influenced by a variety of biological, psychological and social factors. For example, research has shown differences in the pain experiences of women and men, young and older people, and even across people from different cultures.

It’s important for kids to communicate with a trusted adult if they’re experiencing pain.

Danger signals

A network of nerves similar to wires runs all through the human body, from the tips of your fingers and toes, through your back inside the spinal cord and up to your brain. Specialized pain receptors called nociceptors can be found at the end of the nerves on your skin, muscles, joints and internal organs.

Each nociceptor is designed to activate its nerve if it detects a danger signal. One way scientists classify nociceptors is based on the type of danger signal that activates them.

Mechanical nociceptors respond to physical damage, such as cuts or pressure, while thermal nociceptors react to extreme temperatures. Chemical nociceptors are triggered by chemicals that the body’s own tissues release when they are damaged. These receptors may also be triggered by external irritants, such as the chemical capsaicin, which gives chili peppers their heat. This is why eating spicy food can cause you pain.

Finally, there are the nociceptors that are activated by a combination of various triggers. For example, one of these receptors in your skin could be activated by the poke of a sharp object, the cold of an ice pack, the heat from a mug of cocoa, a chemical burn from household bleach, or a combination of all three kinds of stimulation.

Nerves run from various parts of the body through the spinal cord and up into the brain.
Sebastian Kaulitzki/Science Photo Library via Getty Images

How pain travels though the body

When you fall and get a scrape, the mechanical nociceptors in your skin spring into action. As soon as you hit the ground, they activate an electrical signal that travels through the nearby nerves to the spinal cord and up to your brain. Your brain interprets these signals to locate the place in your body that is hurting and determine how intense the pain is.

Your brain knows that a pain signal is an SOS message from your body that something isn’t right. So it activates multiple systems all at once to get you out of danger and help you survive.

Your brain may call on other parts of your nervous system to release chemicals called endorphins that will reduce your pain. It may tell your endocrine system to release hormones that prepare your body to handle the stress of your fall by increasing your heart rate, for example. And it may order your immune system to send special immune cells to the site of your scrape to help manage swelling and heal your skin.

As all of this is happening, your brain takes in information about where you are in the world so that you can respond accordingly. Do you need to move away from something hurting you? Did you fall in the middle of the road and now need to get out of the way of moving cars?

Not only is your brain working to keep you safe in the moments after your fall, it also is looking ahead to how it can prevent this scenario from happening again. The pain signals from your fall activate parts of your brain called the hippocampus and anterior cingulate cortex that process memory and emotions. They will help you remember how bad falling made you feel so that you will learn how to avoid it in the future.

But why do we need to feel pain?

As this example shows, pain is like a warning signal from your body. It helps protect you by telling you when something is wrong so that you can stop doing it and avoid getting hurt more.

In fact, it’s a problem if you can’t feel pain. Some people have a genetic mutation that changes the way their nociceptors function and do not feel pain at all. This can be very dangerous, because they won’t know when they’re hurt.

Ultimately, feeling that scrape and the pain sensation from it helps keep you safe from harm.

Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.

And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.

Yenisel Cruz-Almeida receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. She is an Associate Editor at the Journal of Pain and serves as Treasurer on the US Association for the Study of Pain.

– ref. Why does it hurt when you get a scrape? A neuroscientist explains the science of pain – https://theconversation.com/why-does-it-hurt-when-you-get-a-scrape-a-neuroscientist-explains-the-science-of-pain-238499

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI Global: Why government can’t make America ‘healthier’ by micromanaging groceries purchased with SNAP benefits

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Benjamin Chrisinger, Assistant Professor of Community Health, Tufts University

More than 41 million Americans use SNAP benefits to buy groceries. Brandon Bell/Getty Images

President Donald Trump’s pick for director of the Health and Human Services Department, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has announced a bold plan. He wants to “Make America Healthy Again.”

Kennedy’s strategy has gotten a lot of attention for its oddities, such as his opposition to vaccine mandates and support for raw milk. But it includes some concepts that many public health experts consider sensible, such as calling for a stronger focus on chronic disease prevention and seeking more restrictions on prescription drug advertising aimed at consumers.

But he’s also demanding a ban on junk food from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Banning junk food from SNAP is something that has divided public health experts for years.

As public health researchers, we’ve devoted our careers to helping reduce chronic diseases. We agree with Kennedy that a healthy diet and sound nutrition are important ways to improve the nation’s health. We also know from our own research that safety net programs, including SNAP benefits – which are still sometimes called food stamps – are staving off hunger and food insecurity for millions of Americans.

And we’re certain that adding to the restrictions that already limit access to SNAP benefits do little to make Americans healthier.

What is SNAP?

Over 42.1 million Americans, about 13% of all families, receive SNAP benefits. More than 1 in 4 of the households enrolled in the program include someone who is earning at least some income.

More than 4 in 5 families getting SNAP benefits include a child, someone over 65 or someone with a disability. These benefits are distributed on a monthly basis through an electronic benefits transfer card that looks and works like a credit or debit card and can be used at supermarkets and other approved retailers. The federal government has spent more than US$110 billion annually on this program in recent years.

Benefits help get food on the table but typically don’t cover everything a family needs to eat. The average monthly benefit is $195 per person.

Americans who earn less than 130% of the poverty line are eligible for SNAP. In the 2025 fiscal year, a family of three can’t make more than $2,152 a month in net income or have assets of more than $4,500 if a household includes someone over 60, and $3,000 if it doesn’t.

Adults without children or disabilities can’t get these benefits for more than three months every three years unless they meet the program’s work requirements by being employed or spending at least 20 hours weekly in a training program. People who are on strike and foreigners living in the U.S. without authorization are ineligible. People with prior drug-related felony convictions are federally banned from SNAP for life, but states can waive this rule. This program is federally funded but administered by the states, which have some leeway in determining eligibility.

People enrolled in SNAP already face some restrictions on what they can buy with their benefits. They can’t use SNAP to purchase premade or restaurant meals, alcohol, tobacco, or things such as diapers, vitamins and toilet paper.

Why restrict SNAP?

Since SNAP is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Kennedy would have very little power to change SNAP’s rules should the Senate approve his nomination following the controversial politician’s upcoming confirmation hearing on Jan. 29, 2025.

Still, we’re concerned that his support for new restrictions could help sway the authorities who would be responsible for such a policy change.

Proposals to ban particular foods from SNAP have been floated many times by state legislators and members of Congress over the years.

These bills have generally been designed to exclude supposedly luxury items, such as steak and seafood, or aimed at barring purchases from a different supermarket aisle: candy, soda and other junk foods.

States can’t make this kind of modification without the USDA’s authorization. And so far, the USDA has rebuffed calls for it to allow such measures. Even without the agency’s support, Congress can make changes to these policies in the Farm Bill, which could in the future force the USDA to allow these restrictions in states that ask for them.

The Trump administration, including Kennedy, has signaled its interest in these kinds of restrictions.

Why SNAP restrictions won’t make America healthier

While improving the American diet is a worthy goal, research that we and other scholars have done makes it clear that adding new restrictions to SNAP will do little to help us become a healthier nation.

First, many studies have found that nearly all Americans could eat healthier.

The rich and the poor alike consume unhealthy food in the U.S.

Studies show that while lower-income Americans often spend more of their food budget on unhealthy stuff than more affluent people do, families in the middle and at the top of the income ladder still purchase lots of junk food.

Unsurprisingly, those purchases reflect what we’re eating: Americans at all income levels have diets that don’t satisfy federal dietary guidelines. Spotlighting the poor food choices of SNAP participants would be a distraction from these facts and would risk further stigmatizing a successful anti-hunger program.

Maintaining a good diet is not cheap or straightforward, especially on a low income. The poorest communities have far more inexpensive fast-food chains and dollar stores than their wealthier neighbors, as well as more ads for unhealthy products. Even when they get SNAP benefits, many Americans still struggle to make ends meet, and studies show how this negatively affects the quality of their diets.

Another reason SNAP restrictions wouldn’t make America healthier is that diet is just one of many contributors to chronic diseases. Your level of physical activity, exposure to pollution, stress and genetics, among other things, shape your risk of getting heart disease, diabetes or other chronic diseases.

Flexible but don’t cover all needs

SNAP benefits are fairly flexible, covering just about anything people might want to eat, even if they have dietary restrictions due to their culture or health conditions. The program helps Americans afford most of their basic necessities, although it fails to pay for all the groceries most people who rely on the program need to buy in the course of a month.

SNAP’s main function is preventing the worst effects of hunger and food insecurity for the more than 41 million people relying on it.

There are other ways for the government to help make Americans healthier besides the imposition of stigmatizing restrictions on SNAP. For example, it can create matching programs for SNAP dollars spent on fruits and vegetables, which would give retailers incentives to offer more produce and make it easier for people who get SNAP benefits to buy more healthy food. The USDA has begun to support this kind of effort in several states.

Benjamin Chrisinger receives funding from The Research Innovation and Development Grants in Economics (RIDGE) Partnership.

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

– ref. Why government can’t make America ‘healthier’ by micromanaging groceries purchased with SNAP benefits – https://theconversation.com/why-government-cant-make-america-healthier-by-micromanaging-groceries-purchased-with-snap-benefits-246462

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: Minister for Foreign Affairs visits Colombia

Source: Government of Sweden

Minister for Foreign Affairs visits Colombia – Government.se

Press release from Ministry for Foreign Affairs

Published 27 January 2025

On 28–29 January, Minister for Foreign Affairs Maria Malmer Stenergard will visit Colombia. The visit will include meetings with Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro and Minister of Foreign Affairs Luis Gilberto Murillo. A business delegation comprising around 20 Swedish companies, with a focus on mining and energy, will take part in the visit.

“I look forward to deepening relations between our countries on this visit. Sweden and Colombia enjoy broad cooperation on green transition, gender equality and human rights. There is also extensive trade between our two countries, and strong Swedish business interests in areas including mining and energy,” says Ms Malmer Stenergard.

The visit to Colombia is a follow-up to President Petro’s visit to Sweden in mid-2024. As part of the trip, Ms Malmer Stenergard will visit the department of Chocó on Colombia’s Pacific coast, where she will meet with UN bodies, civil society organisations and public authorities working with peace issues, humanitarian assistance to victims of the armed conflict in Colombia, and women’s empowerment and participation in the peace process.

Press contact

MIL OSI Europe News –

January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI Canada: Province Reaches Deal with Crown Attorneys
Source: Government of Canada regional news

The Province has reached a new four-year agreement with the Nova Scotia Crown Attorneys’ Association, which represents 126 Crown attorneys working in the Nova Scotia Public Prosecution Service.

“I thank the association, the negotiating teams and all Crown attorneys for the important work they do every day on behalf of Nova Scotians,” said Justice Minister Becky Druhan. “We came to the table in good faith, and I am pleased that we were able to reach an agreement.”

The contract includes:
- economic increases of three per cent on April 1, 2023; 0.5 per cent on March 31, 2024; three per cent on April 1, 2024, two per cent on April 1, 2025, and two per cent on April 1, 2026
- a classification adjustment for all Crown attorneys
- an on-call compensation adjustment
- removing the restricted senior Crown counsel classification
- enhancements to equity, diversity, inclusion and accessibility language and efficiencies in the hiring process.
The contract runs from April 1, 2023, to March 31, 2027.

Quotes:

“The Nova Scotia Crown Attorneys’ Association welcomes this new employment agreement as an important investment in the province’s justice system. On behalf of all Nova Scotia’s Crown attorneys, who work every day to ensure justice for vulnerable victims of crime, I want to extend our appreciation to the Province for its commitment to recruiting and retaining the dedicated professionals Nova Scotians deserve.”
— Brian Cox, President, Nova Scotia Crown Attorneys’ Association

Quick Facts:
- including the Crown attorneys agreement, more than 300 settlements have been reached through the collective bargaining process since 2021
- the agreement was reached with the support of a conciliator
MIL OSI Canada News –
January 28, 2025

MIL-OSI: PSB Holdings, Inc. Reports Earnings of $0.73 Per Share for Q4 2024; Twelve Month 2024 Earnings up 10% to $2.37 per Share

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

WAUSAU, Wis., Jan. 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — PSB Holdings, Inc. (“PSB”) (OTCQX: PSBQ), the holding company for Peoples State Bank (“Peoples”) serving Northcentral and Southeastern Wisconsin reported fourth quarter earnings ending December 31, 2024 of $0.73 per common share on net income of $3.0 million, compared to $0.69 per common share on net income of $2.9 million during the third quarter ending September 30, 2024, and $0.55 per common share on net income of $2.3 million during the fourth quarter ending December 31, 2023. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, PSB reported earnings of $2.37 per common share on net income of $9.8 million compared to $2.16 per common share on earnings of $9.1 million for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2023.

PSB’s fourth quarter 2024 operating results reflected the following changes from the third quarter of 2024: (1) higher net interest income supported by a net interest margin increase of six basis points; (2) lower non-interest income due primarily to a loss on the sale of securities; (3) slightly lower non-interest expenses due to lower salaries and employee benefit expenses; and (4) loan growth of 2% during the quarter.

“We are pleased with our results for the fourth quarter and fiscal 2024. We continue to maintain strong asset quality and controlled expenses, and expect to see continued expansion in our net interest margin as loan products continue to reset to higher yields and funding costs stabilize or decline. Additionally, we expect to see stronger loan growth in fiscal 2025. We are focused on delivering strong returns to shareholders through capital growth, payment of dividends and supporting our stock price through stock repurchases, when economically appropriate,” stated Scott Cattanach, President and CEO.

December 31, 2024, Highlights:

Net interest income increased to $10.4 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, from $9.9 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2024. Asset and loan yields increased while funding costs declined slightly.
Noninterest income decreased $566,000 to $1.3 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to $1.8 million the prior quarter due primarily to a loss on the sale of securities.
Noninterest expenses decreased to $8.0 million during the quarter ended December 31, 2024 from $8.2 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2024, reflecting lower salary and benefit expenses.
Loans increased $20.2 million, or 2% in the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2024, to $1.08 billion largely due to new commercial real estate and construction and development loans. Allowance for credit losses was 1.13% of gross loans.
Non-performing assets remained unchanged at $10.4 million, or 0.71% of total assets at December 31, 2024 compared to the previous quarter.
Total deposits increased slightly to $1.15 billion at December 31, 2024 from $1.14 billion at September 30, 2024, with the increase largely consisting of interest-bearing demand and savings deposits.
Return on average tangible common equity was 11.07% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to 10.96% the prior quarter and 9.64% in the year ago quarter.
Tangible book value per common share was up 9.0% over the past year to $25.98 at December 31, 2024, compared to $23.84 at December 31, 2023. Additionally, PSB paid dividends totaling $0.64 per share during 2024, up 6.7% over the prior year.
On January 21, 2025, the Bank acquired Larson Financial Group, LLC, a financial advisory company based in Wausau, WI.

Balance Sheet and Asset Quality Review

Total assets decreased $10.0 million during the fourth quarter to $1.47 billion at December 31, 2024, compared to September 30, 2024. Cash and cash equivalents decreased $46.6 million to $40.5 million at December 31, 2024 from $87.1 million at September 30, 2024 as funds were used to originate new loans and pay down FHLB advances. Cash and cash equivalents increased $12.7 million from one year earlier. Investment securities available for sale increased $14.2 million to $189.1 million at December 31, 2024, from $174.9 million one quarter earlier. Total collateralized liquidity available to meet cash demands was approximately $349 million at December 31, 2024, with an additional $354 million that could be raised in a short time frame from the brokered CDs market.

Total loans receivable increased $20.2 million to $1.08 billion at December 31, 2024, compared to one quarter earlier, due primarily to increased commercial non-real estate, commercial real estate and construction lending. Commercial non-real estate loans increased $5.1 million to $144.2 million at December 31, 2024, from $139.0 million one quarter earlier. Commercial real estate loans increased $10.1 million to $551.6 million at December 31, 2024 and construction and development lending increased $18.4 million to $79.4 million at December 31, 2024, compared to one quarter earlier. Offsetting gross loan growth, loans in process of disbursement increased $10.0 million to $27.8 million as new construction and development loans have not been fully funded. Residential real estate loans decreased $3.9 million from the prior quarter to $337.5 million. The loan portfolio remains well diversified with commercial real estate and construction loans totaling 56.5% of gross loans, followed by residential real estate loans at 30.2% of gross loans, commercial non-real estate loans at 12.9% and consumer loans at 0.4%.

The allowance for credit losses decreased slightly to 1.13% of gross loans at December 31, 2024, from 1.18% the prior quarter. Annualized net charge-offs to average loans were 0.02% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024. Non-performing assets remained at 0.71% of total assets at December 31, 2024 and totaled $10.4 million. Approximately 71% of the non-performing assets consisted of three loan relationships. For the eighth consecutive quarter, the Bank did not own any foreclosed real estate.

Total deposits increased $8.2 million to $1.15 billion at December 31, 2024, from $1.14 billion at September 30, 2024. The increase in deposits reflects a $12.9 million increase in interest-bearing demand and savings deposits and a $3.3 million increase in retail and local time deposits greater than $250,000, offset by a $1.5 million decrease in money market deposits, a $5.6 million decrease in non-interest bearing deposits and a $0.9 million decrease in retail and local time deposits less than $250,000.

At December 31, 2024, non-interest bearing demand deposits decreased to 22.6% of total deposits from 23.3% the prior quarter, while interest-bearing demand and savings deposits increased to 29.4% of deposits, compared to 28.4% at September 30, 2024. Uninsured and uncollateralized deposits decreased to 21.6% of total deposits at December 31, 2024, from 21.7% of total deposits at September 30, 2024.

FHLB advances decreased $19.0 million to $162.3 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $181.3 million at September 30, 2024.

Tangible stockholder equity as a percent of total tangible assets was 7.76% at December 31, 2024, compared to 7.85% at September 30, 2024, and 7.49% at December 31, 2023.

Tangible net book value per common share increased $2.14 to $25.98, at December 31, 2024, compared to $23.84 one year earlier, an increase of 9.0% after dividends of $0.64 were paid to shareholders. Relative to the prior quarter’s tangible book value per common share of $26.41, tangible net book value per common share decreased primarily due to a fair market value decrease in the investment portfolios and payment of dividends. The accumulated other comprehensive loss on the investment portfolio was $19.3 million at December 31, 2024, compared to $15.8 million one quarter earlier.

Operations Review

Net interest income increased to $10.4 million (on a net margin of 2.96%) for the fourth quarter of 2024, from $9.9 million (on a net margin of 2.90%) for the third quarter of 2024, and $9.6 million (on a net margin of 2.88%) for the fourth quarter of 2023. Earning asset yields remained flat at 5.29% during the fourth quarter of 2024, while interest bearing deposit and borrowing costs decreased seven basis points to 3.06% compared to 3.13% during the third quarter of 2024. Relative to one year earlier, earning asset yields were up 30 basis points while interest bearing deposit and borrowing costs increased 27 basis points.

The increase in earning asset yields was primarily due to higher yields on loan originations and renewals. Loan yields increased during the fourth quarter of 2024 to 5.80% from 5.78% for the third quarter of 2024. Taxable security yields were 3.16% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to 3.01% for the quarter ended September 30, 2024, while tax-exempt security yields were flat at 3.31% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024. The increase in taxable security yields reflect the rise in interest rates and security restructuring activity from security sales.

The cost of all deposits declined to 2.08% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to 2.11% the prior quarter, while the overall cost of funds decreased seven basis points to 3.06% from 3.13% during the same time period. Deposit costs for all deposit categories decreased during the fourth quarter with time deposits decreasing two basis points to 4.02%, money market deposits decreasing 13 basis points to 2.56% and savings and demand deposits decreasing two basis points to 2.56%. FHLB advances also declined four basis points to 4.40% for the quarter ended December 31, 2024.

Total noninterest income decreased during the fourth quarter of 2024 to $1.28 million, from $1.84 million for the third quarter of 2024 due primarily to a net loss on sale of securities. Mortgage banking income decreased slightly to $414,000 in the fourth quarter from $433,000 the prior quarter while various decreases in nominal revenue sources accounted for the remaining decline in noninterest income. At December 31, 2024, the Bank serviced $373.5 million in secondary market residential mortgage loans for others which provide fee income.

Noninterest expenses decreased $149,000 to $8.0 million for the fourth quarter of 2024, compared to $8.2 million for the third quarter of 2024 and increased $644,000 from $7.4 million for the fourth quarter of 2023. Relative to one year earlier, salary and benefit cost increased $447,000, or 10.5% to $4.7 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, compared to $4.2 million for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2023.

Taxes decreased $69,000 during the fourth quarter to $524,000, from $593,000 one quarter earlier. The effective tax rate for the quarter ended December 31, 2024, was 14.4% compared to 16.6% for the third quarter ended September 30, 2024, and 26.7% for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2023.

About PSB Holdings, Inc.

PSB Holdings, Inc. is the parent company of Peoples State Bank. Peoples is a community bank headquartered in Wausau, Wisconsin, serving northcentral and southeastern Wisconsin from twelve full-service banking locations in Marathon, Oneida, Vilas, Portage, Milwaukee and Waukesha counties and a loan production office in Dane County. Peoples also provides investment and insurance products, along with retirement planning services, through Peoples Wealth Management, a division of Peoples. PSB Holdings, Inc. is traded under the stock symbol PSBQ on the OTCQX Market. More information about PSB, its management, and its financial performance may be found at www.psbholdingsinc.com.

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about PSB’s business based, in part, on assumptions made by management and include, without limitation, statements with respect to the potential growth of PSB, its future profits, expected stock repurchase levels, future dividend rates, future interest rates, and the adequacy of its capital position. Forward-looking statements can be affected by known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors, including, but not limited to, strength of the economy, the effects of government policies, including interest rate policies, risks associated with the execution of PSB’s vision and growth strategy, including with respect to current and future M&A activity, and risks associated with global economic instability. The forward-looking statements in this press release speak only as of the date on which they are made and PSB does not undertake any obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this release.



PSB Holdings, Inc.
Consolidated Balance Sheets
December 31, September 30, June 30, and March 31, 2024, unaudited, December 31, 2023 derived from audited financial statements

	Dec. 31,			Sep. 30,			Jun. 30,			Mar. 31,			Dec. 31,
(dollars in thousands, except per share data)		2024			2024			2024			2024			2023

Assets

Cash and due from banks	$	21,414		$	23,554		$	16,475		$	13,340		$	20,887
Interest-bearing deposits		3,724			5,126			251			105			1,431
Federal funds sold		15,360			58,434			69,249			2,439			5,462

Cash and cash equivalents		40,498			87,114			85,975			15,884			27,780
Securities available for sale (at fair value)		189,086			174,911			165,177			165,566			164,024
Securities held to maturity (fair values of $79,654, $82,389, $79,993, $81,234 and
$82,514 respectively)		86,748			86,847			86,825			87,104			87,081
Equity securities		2,782			1,752			1,661			1,474			1,474
Loans held for sale		217			–			2,268			865			230
Loans receivable, net (allowance for credit losses of $12,342, $12,598, $12,597,
$12,494 and $12,302 respectively)		1,078,204			1,057,974			1,074,844			1,081,394			1,078,475
Accrued interest receivable		5,042			4,837			5,046			5,467			5,136
Foreclosed assets		–			–			–			–			–
Premises and equipment, net		13,805			14,065			14,048			13,427			13,098
Mortgage servicing rights, net		1,742			1,727			1,688			1,657			1,664
Federal Home Loan Bank stock (at cost)		8,825			8,825			8,825			7,006			6,373
Cash surrender value of bank-owned life insurance		24,732			24,565			24,401			24,242			24,085
Core deposit intangible		195			212			229			249			273
Goodwill		2,541			2,541			2,541			2,541			2,541
Other assets		11,539			10,598			12,111			11,682			11,866

TOTAL ASSETS	$	1,465,956		$	1,475,968		$	1,485,639		$	1,418,558		$	1,424,100

Liabilities

Non-interest-bearing deposits	$	259,515		$	265,078		$	250,435		$	247,608		$	266,829
Interest-bearing deposits		887,834			874,035			901,886			865,744			874,973

Total deposits		1,147,349			1,139,113			1,152,321			1,113,352			1,141,802

Federal Home Loan Bank advances		162,250			181,250			184,900			158,250			134,000
Other borrowings		6,872			6,128			5,775			8,096			8,058
Senior subordinated notes		4,781			4,779			4,778			4,776			4,774
Junior subordinated debentures		13,023			12,998			12,972			12,947			12,921
Allowance for credit losses on unfunded commitments		672			477			477			477			577
Accrued expenses and other liabilities		14,723			12,850			13,069			10,247			12,681

Total liabilities		1,349,670			1,357,595			1,374,292			1,308,145			1,314,813

Stockholders’ equity

Preferred stock – no par value:
Authorized – 30,000 shares; no shares issued or outstanding
Outstanding – 7,200 shares, respectively		7,200			7,200			7,200			7,200			7,200
Common stock – no par value with a stated value of $1.00 per share:
Authorized – 18,000,000 shares; Issued – 5,490,798 shares
Outstanding – 4,092,977, 4,105,594, 4,128,382, 4,147,649 and
4,164,735 shares, respectively		1,830			1,830			1,830			1,830			1,830
Additional paid-in capital		8,610			8,567			8,527			8,466			8,460
Retained earnings		139,838			138,142			135,276			134,271			132,666
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax		(19,314	)		(15,814	)		(20,503	)		(20,775	)		(20,689	)
Treasury stock, at cost – 1,397,821, 1,385,204, 1,362,416, 1,343,149 and
1,326,063 shares, respectively		(21,878	)		(21,552	)		(20,983	)		(20,579	)		(20,180	)

Total stockholders’ equity		116,286			118,373			111,347			110,413			109,287

TOTAL LIABILITIES AND STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY	$	1,465,956		$	1,475,968		$	1,485,639		$	1,418,558		$	1,424,100

PSB Holdings, Inc.
Consolidated Statements of Income
	Quarter Ended													Years Ended
(dollars in thousands,	Dec. 31,			Sep. 30,		Jun. 30,		Mar. 31,			Dec. 31,			December
except per share data – unaudited)		2024			2024		2024		2024			2023			2024			2023

Interest and dividend income:
Loans, including fees	$	15,646		$	15,634	$	15,433	$	15,109		$	14,888		$	61,822		$	53,633
Securities:
Taxable		1,545			1,345		1,295		1,197			1,147			5,382			4,919
Tax-exempt		522			522		521		526			532			2,091			2,137
Other interest and dividends		948			699		265		343			320			2,255			851

Total interest and dividend income		18,661			18,200		17,514		17,175			16,887			71,550			61,540

Interest expense:
Deposits		6,027			5,905		5,838		6,082			5,526			23,852			16,993
FHLB advances		1,890			2,038		1,860		1,450			1,349			7,238			4,417
Other borrowings		57			57		58		60			54			232			215
Senior subordinated notes		59			59		58		59			59			235			238
Junior subordinated debentures		252			252		255		251			254			1,010			985

Total interest expense		8,285			8,311		8,069		7,902			7,242			32,567			22,848

Net interest income		10,376			9,889		9,445		9,273			9,645			38,983			38,692
Provision for credit losses		–			–		100		95			100			195			450

Net interest income after provision for credit losses		10,376			9,889		9,345		9,178			9,545			38,788			38,242

Noninterest income:
Service fees		362			367		350		336			360			1,415			1,448
Mortgage banking income		414			433		433		308			247			1,588			1,228
Investment and insurance sales commissions		226			230		222		121			100			799			910
Net loss on sale of securities		(511	)		–		–		(495	)		(297	)		(1,006	)		(576	)
Increase in cash surrender value of life insurance		166			165		159		157			154			647			615
Life insurance death benefit		–			–		–		–			–			–			533
Other noninterest income		620			648		742		617			540			2,627			2,562

Total noninterest income		1,277			1,843		1,906		1,044			1,104			6,070			6,720

Noninterest expense:
Salaries and employee benefits		4,691			4,771		5,167		5,123			4,244			19,752			18,648
Occupancy and facilities		691			757		733		721			675			2,902			2,761
Loss (gain) on foreclosed assets		–			1		–		–			1			1			(45	)
Data processing and other office operations		1,111			1,104		1,047		1,022			1,001			4,284			3,785
Advertising and promotion		141			164		171		129			244			605			733
Core deposit intangible amortization		17			17		20		24			24			78			109
Other noninterest expenses		1,351			1,337		1,257		1,306			1,169			5,251			4,557

Total noninterest expense		8,002			8,151		8,395		8,325			7,358			32,873			30,548

Income before provision for income taxes		3,651			3,581		2,856		1,897			3,291			11,985			14,414
Provision for income taxes		524			593		410		169			878			1,696			4,845

Net income	$	3,127		$	2,988	$	2,446	$	1,728		$	2,413		$	10,289		$	9,569
Preferred stock dividends declared	$	122		$	122	$	122	$	122		$	122		$	486		$	486

Net income available to common shareholders	$	3,005		$	2,866	$	2,324	$	1,606		$	2,291		$	9,803		$	9,083
Basic earnings per common share	$	0.73		$	0.69	$	0.56	$	0.39		$	0.55		$	2.37		$	2.16
Diluted earnings per common share	$	0.73		$	0.69	$	0.56	$	0.39		$	0.55		$	2.37		$	2.16

PSB Holdings, Inc.
Quarterly Financial Summary
(dollars in thousands, except per share data)		Quarter ended
		Dec. 31,			Sep. 30,			Jun. 30,			Mar. 31,			Dec. 31,
Earnings and dividends:			2024			2024			2024			2024			2023

	Interest income	$	18,661		$	18,200		$	17,514		$	17,175		$	16,887
	Interest expense	$	8,285		$	8,311		$	8,069		$	7,902		$	7,242
	Net interest income	$	10,376		$	9,889		$	9,445		$	9,273		$	9,645
	Provision for credit losses	$	–		$	–		$	100		$	95		$	100
	Other noninterest income	$	1,277		$	1,843		$	1,906		$	1,044		$	1,104
	Other noninterest expense	$	8,002		$	8,151		$	8,395		$	8,325		$	7,358
	Net income available to common shareholders	$	3,005		$	2,866		$	2,324		$	1,606		$	2,291

	Basic earnings per common share (3)	$	0.73		$	0.69		$	0.56		$	0.39		$	0.55
	Diluted earnings per common share (3)	$	0.73		$	0.69		$	0.56		$	0.39		$	0.55
	Dividends declared per common share (3)	$	0.32		$	–		$	0.32		$	–		$	0.30
	Tangible net book value per common share (4)	$	25.98		$	26.41		$	24.55		$	24.21		$	23.84

	Semi-annual dividend payout ratio		23.27	%		n/a			33.61	%		n/a			38.14	%
	Average common shares outstanding		4,094,360			4,132,218			4,139,456			4,154,702			4,168,924


Balance sheet – average balances:
	Loans receivable, net of allowances for credit loss	$	1,064,619		$	1,066,795		$	1,088,013		$	1,081,936		$	1,081,851
	Assets	$	1,479,812		$	1,445,613		$	1,433,749		$	1,429,437		$	1,424,240
	Deposits	$	1,151,450		$	1,110,854		$	1,111,240		$	1,138,010		$	1,148,399
	Stockholders’ equity	$	118,396		$	114,458		$	110,726		$	109,473		$	105,060


Performance ratios:
	Return on average assets (1)		0.84	%		0.82	%		0.69	%		0.49	%		0.67	%
	Return on average common stockholders’ equity (1)		10.75	%		10.63	%		9.03	%		6.32	%		9.29	%
	Return on average tangible common
	stockholders’ equity (1)(4)		11.07	%		10.96	%		9.34	%		6.57	%		9.64	%
	Net loan charge-offs to average loans (1)		0.02	%		0.00	%		0.00	%		0.00	%		0.00	%
	Nonperforming loans to gross loans		0.95	%		0.97	%		1.15	%		1.08	%		0.54	%
	Nonperforming assets to total assets		0.71	%		0.71	%		0.84	%		0.83	%		0.42	%
	Allowance for credit losses to gross loans		1.13	%		1.18	%		1.16	%		1.14	%		1.13	%
	Nonperforming assets to tangible equity
	plus the allowance for credit losses (4)		8.85	%		8.71	%		11.09	%		10.59	%		5.38	%
	Net interest rate margin (1)(2)		2.96	%		2.90	%		2.84	%		2.80	%		2.88	%
	Net interest rate spread (1)(2)		2.23	%		2.16	%		2.15	%		2.12	%		2.20	%
	Service fee revenue as a percent of
	average demand deposits (1)		0.53	%		0.56	%		0.56	%		0.54	%		0.52	%
	Noninterest income as a percent
	of gross revenue		6.40	%		9.20	%		9.81	%		5.73	%		6.14	%
	Efficiency ratio (2)		67.59	%		68.43	%		72.52	%		78.93	%		67.04	%
	Noninterest expenses to average assets (1)		2.15	%		2.24	%		2.35	%		2.34	%		2.05	%
	Average stockholders’ equity less accumulated
	other comprehensive income (loss) to
	average assets		9.08	%		9.06	%		9.03	%		8.98	%		8.88	%
	Tangible equity to tangible assets (4)		7.76	%		7.85	%		7.32	%		7.60	%		7.49	%

Stock price information:

	High	$	27.90		$	25.00		$	21.40		$	22.50		$	22.30
	Low	$	25.00		$	20.30		$	19.75		$	20.05		$	20.10
	Last trade value at quarter-end	$	26.50		$	25.00		$	20.40		$	21.25		$	22.11

(1) Annualized
(2) The yield on federally tax-exempt loans and securities is computed on a tax-equivalent basis using a federal tax rate of 21%.
(3) Due to rounding, cumulative quarterly per share performance may not equal annual per share totals.
(4) Tangible stockholders’ equity excludes goodwill and core deposit intangibles.


PSB Holdings, Inc.
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income

		Quarter Ended
		Dec. 31,			Sep. 30,			Jun. 30,			Mar. 31,			Dec. 31,
(dollars in thousands – unaudited)			2024			2024			2024			2024			2023

Net income		$	3,127		$	2,988		$	2,446		$	1,728		$	2,413

Other comprehensive income:

	Unrealized gain (loss) on securities available for sale, net of tax		(3,955	)		4,738			184			(615	)		5,278

	Reclassification adjustment for security loss included in net income, net of tax		404			–			–			391			280

	Accretion of unrealized loss included in net income on securities available for sale deferred tax adjustment for Wisconsin Act 19		(76	)		–			–			(35	)		–

	Amortization of unrealized loss included in net income on securities available for sale transferred to securities held to maturity, net of tax		90			90			89			91			91

	Unrealized gain (loss) on interest rate swap, net of tax		65			(101	)		39			122			(109	)

	Reclassification adjustment of interest rate swap settlements included in earnings, net of tax		(27	)		(38	)		(40	)		(41	)		(39	)


Other comprehensive income (loss)			(3,499	)		4,689			272			(87	)		5,501

Comprehensive income (loss)		$	(372	)	$	7,677		$	2,718		$	1,641		$	7,914

PSB Holdings, Inc.
Nonperforming Assets as of:
	Dec 31,			Sep 30,			Jun 30,			Mar 31,			Dec 31,
(dollars in thousands)		2024			2024			2024			2024			2023

Nonaccrual loans (excluding restructured loans)	$	10,109		$	10,116		$	12,184		$	11,498		$	5,596
Nonaccrual restructured loans		18			25			28			30			34
Restructured loans not on nonaccrual		286			292			299			304			310
Accruing loans past due 90 days or more		–			–			–			–			–

Total nonperforming loans		10,413			10,433			12,511			11,832			5,940
Other real estate owned		–			–			–			–			–

Total nonperforming assets	$	10,413		$	10,433		$	12,511		$	11,832		$	5,940

Nonperforming loans as a % of gross loans receivable		0.95	%		0.97	%		1.15	%		1.08	%		0.54	%
Total nonperforming assets as a % of total assets		0.71	%		0.71	%		0.84	%		0.83	%		0.42	%
Allowance for credit losses as a % of nonperforming loans		118.52	%		120.75	%		100.69	%		105.59	%		207.10	%

PSB Holdings, Inc.
Nonperforming Assets >= $500,000 net book value before specific reserves
At December 31, 2024
(dollars in thousands)
		Gross			Specific
Collateral Description	Asset Type	Principal			Reserves

Real estate – Recreational Facility	Nonaccrual	$	4,126		$	151
Real estate – Independent Auto Repair	Nonaccrual		538			–
Real estate – Dealership	Nonaccrual		2,708			560


Total listed nonperforming assets		$	7,372		$	711
Total bank wide nonperforming assets		$	10,413		$	1,043
Listed assets as a % of total nonperforming assets			71	%		68	%

PSB Holding, Inc.
Loan Composition by Collateral Type
Quarter-ended (dollars in thousands)	Dec 31, 2024			Sep 30, 2024			Jun 30, 2024			Mar 31, 2024			Dec 31, 2023

Commercial:
Commercial and industrial	$	116,864		$	115,234		$	125,508		$	118,821		$	117,207
Agriculture		11,568			11,203			11,480			12,081			12,304
Municipal		15,733			12,596			11,190			28,842			31,530

Total Commercial		144,165			139,033			148,178			159,744			161,041

Commercial Real Estate:
Commercial real estate		551,641			541,577			544,171			546,257			536,209
Construction and development		79,377			60,952			70,540			63,375			81,701

Total Commercial Real Estate		631,018			602,529			614,711			609,632			617,910

Residential real estate:
Residential		271,643			269,954			270,944			274,300			274,453
Construction and development		28,959			34,655			36,129			34,158			33,960
HELOC		36,887			36,734			33,838			31,357			29,766

Total Residential Real Estate		337,489			341,343			340,911			339,815			338,179

Consumer installment		5,060			4,770			4,423			4,867			4,357

Subtotals – Gross loans		1,117,732			1,087,675			1,108,223			1,114,058			1,121,487
Loans in process of disbursement		(27,791	)		(17,836	)		(21,484	)		(20,839	)		(31,359	)

Subtotals – Disbursed loans		1,089,941			1,069,839			1,086,739			1,093,219			1,090,128
Net deferred loan costs		605			733			702			669			649
Allowance for credit losses		(12,342	)		(12,598	)		(12,597	)		(12,494	)		(12,302	)

Total loans receivable	$	1,078,204		$	1,057,974		$	1,074,844		$	1,081,394		$	1,078,475

PSB Holding, Inc.
Selected Commercial Real Estate Loans by Purpose
	Dec 31,				Sept 30,				June 30,				Mar 31,				Dec 31,
(dollars in thousands)	2024				2024				2024				2024				2023

	Total Exposure		% of Portfolio (1)		Total Exposure		% of Portfolio (1)		Total Exposure		% of Portfolio (1)		Total Exposure		% of Portfolio (1)		Total Exposure		% of Portfolio (1)
Multi Family	$	140,087	14.0	%	$	140,307	14.7	%	$	146,873	15.2	%	$	142,001	14.4	%	$	132,386	13.2	%
Industrial and Warehousing		88,297	8.8			86,818	9.1			86,025	8.9			85,409	8.6			83,817	8.3
Retail		33,991	3.4			33,020	3.5			34,846	3.6			33,177	3.4			35,419	3.5
Hotels		31,101	3.1			31,611	3.3			34,613	3.6			35,105	3.6			36,100	3.6
Office		6,234	0.6			6,378	0.7			6,518	0.7			6,655	0.7			6,701	0.7

(1) Percentage of commercial and commercial real estate portfolio and commitments.

PSB Holdings, Inc.
Deposit Composition

Insured and Collateralized Deposits	December 31,				September 30,				June 30,				March 31,				December 31,
(dollars in thousands)		2024				2024				2024				2024				2023
	$		%		$		%		$		%		$		%		$		%

Non-interest bearing demand	$	204,167	17.8	%	$	210,534	18.5	%	$	202,343	17.5	%	$	199,076	17.8	%	$	197,571	17.3	%
Interest-bearing demand and savings		315,900	27.6	%		305,631	26.8	%		304,392	26.5	%		318,673	28.7	%		317,984	27.8	%
Money market deposits		141,024	12.3	%		138,376	12.2	%		137,637	12.0	%		143,167	12.9	%		142,887	12.5	%
Retail and local time deposits <= $250		155,099	13.5	%		155,988	13.7	%		149,298	13.0	%		148,404	13.3	%		149,145	13.1	%

Total core deposits		816,190	71.2	%		810,529	71.2	%		793,670	69.0	%		809,320	72.7	%		807,587	70.7	%
Retail and local time deposits > $250		25,500	2.2	%		23,500	2.1	%		22,500	2.0	%		24,508	2.3	%		23,000	2.0	%
Broker & national time deposits <= $250		1,241	0.1	%		1,241	0.1	%		1,490	0.1	%		2,229	0.2	%		3,470	0.3	%
Broker & national time deposits > $250		56,164	4.9	%		56,164	4.9	%		56,328	4.9	%		61,752	5.5	%		70,020	6.1	%

Totals	$	899,095	78.4	%	$	891,434	78.3	%	$	873,988	76.0	%	$	897,809	80.7	%	$	904,077	79.1	%

PSB Holdings, Inc.
Deposit Composition

Uninsured Deposits	December 31,				September 30,				June 30,				March 31,				December 31,
(dollars in thousands)		2024				2024				2024				2024				2023
	$		%		$		%		$		%		$		%		$		%

Non-interest bearing demand	$	55,348	4.8	%	$	54,544	4.8	%	$	48,092	4.1	%	$	48,532	4.4	%	$	69,258	6.1	%
Interest-bearing demand and savings		20,934	1.8	%		18,317	1.6	%		32,674	2.8	%		20,535	1.8	%		20,316	1.8	%
Money market deposits		153,334	13.4	%		157,489	13.8	%		177,954	15.4	%		124,766	11.2	%		124,518	10.9	%
Retail and local time deposits <= $250		–	0.0	%		–	0.0	%		–	0.0	%		–	0.0	%		–	0.0	%

Total core deposits		229,616	20.0	%		230,350	20.2	%		258,720	22.3	%		193,833	17.4	%		214,092	18.8	%
Retail and local time deposits > $250		18,638	1.6	%		17,329	1.5	%		19,613	1.7	%		21,710	1.9	%		23,633	2.1	%
Broker & national time deposits <= $250		–	0.0	%		–	0.0	%		–	0.0	%		–	0.0	%		–	0.0	%
Broker & national time deposits > $250		–	0.0	%		–	0.0	%		–	0.0	%		–	0.0	%		–	0.0	%

Totals	$	248,254	21.6	%	$	247,679	21.7	%	$	278,333	24.0	%	$	215,543	19.3	%	$	237,725	20.9	%


PSB Holdings, Inc.
Deposit Composition

Total Deposits	December 31,				September 30,				June 30,				March 31,				December 31,
(dollars in thousands)		2024				2024				2024				2024				2023
	$		%		$		%		$		%		$		%		$		%

Non-interest bearing demand	$	259,515	22.6	%	$	265,078	23.3	%	$	250,435	21.6	%	$	247,608	22.2	%	$	266,829	23.4	%
Interest-bearing demand and savings		336,834	29.4	%		323,948	28.4	%		337,066	29.3	%		339,208	30.5	%		338,300	29.6	%
Money market deposits		294,358	25.7	%		295,865	26.0	%		315,591	27.4	%		267,933	24.1	%		267,405	23.4	%
Retail and local time deposits <= $250		155,099	13.5	%		155,988	13.7	%		149,298	13.0	%		148,404	13.3	%		149,145	13.1	%

Total core deposits		1,045,806	91.2	%		1,040,879	91.4	%		1,052,390	91.3	%		1,003,153	90.1	%		1,021,679	89.5	%
Retail and local time deposits > $250		44,138	3.8	%		40,829	3.6	%		42,113	3.7	%		46,218	4.2	%		46,633	4.1	%
Broker & national time deposits <= $250		1,241	0.1	%		1,241	0.1	%		1,490	0.1	%		2,229	0.2	%		3,470	0.3	%
Broker & national time deposits > $250		56,164	4.9	%		56,164	4.9	%		56,328	4.9	%		61,752	5.5	%		70,020	6.1	%

Totals	$	1,147,349	100.0	%	$	1,139,113	100.0	%	$	1,152,321	100.0	%	$	1,113,352	100.0	%	$	1,141,802	100.0	%

PSB Holdings, Inc.
Average Balances ($000) and Interest Rates
(dollars in thousands)


	Quarter ended December 31, 2024							Quarter ended September 30, 2024							Quarter ended December 31, 2023
	Average					Yield /		Average					Yield /		Average					Yield /
	Balance			Interest		Rate		Balance			Interest		Rate		Balance			Interest		Rate
Assets
Interest-earning assets:
Loans (1)(2)	$	1,077,242		$	15,693	5.80	%	$	1,079,393		$	15,674	5.78	%	$	1,094,152		$	14,974	5.43	%
Taxable securities		194,272			1,545	3.16	%		177,520			1,345	3.01	%		167,366			1,147	2.72	%
Tax-exempt securities (2)		79,475			661	3.31	%		79,472			661	3.31	%		80,922			673	3.30	%
FHLB stock		8,825			227	10.23	%		8,825			176	7.93	%		6,373			158	9.84	%
Other		58,405			721	4.91	%		36,680			523	5.67	%		11,846			162	5.43	%

Total (2)		1,418,219			18,847	5.29	%		1,381,890			18,379	5.29	%		1,360,659			17,114	4.99	%

Non-interest-earning assets:
Cash and due from banks		15,500							17,162							16,243
Premises and equipment,
net		14,001							14,216							13,243
Cash surrender value ins		24,625							24,458							23,990
Other assets		20,090							20,485							22,406
Allowance for credit
losses		(12,623	)						(12,598	)						(12,301	)

Total	$	1,479,812						$	1,445,613						$	1,424,240

Liabilities & stockholders’ equity
Interest-bearing liabilities:
Savings and demand
deposits	$	319,777		$	1,479	1.84	%	$	323,841		$	1,515	1.86	%	$	327,036		$	1,296	1.57	%
Money market deposits		304,897			1,961	2.56	%		277,884			1,876	2.69	%		272,087			1,820	2.65	%
Time deposits		256,201			2,587	4.02	%		247,296			2,514	4.04	%		273,332			2,410	3.50	%
FHLB borrowings		170,701			1,890	4.40	%		182,414			2,038	4.44	%		133,560			1,349	4.01	%
Other borrowings		6,848			57	3.31	%		6,702			57	3.38	%		6,999			54	3.06	%
Senior sub. notes		4,780			59	4.91	%		4,779			59	4.91	%		4,773			59	4.90	%
Junior sub. debentures		13,011			252	7.71	%		12,985			252	7.72	%		12,909			254	7.81	%

Total		1,076,215			8,285	3.06	%		1,055,901			8,311	3.13	%		1,030,696			7,242	2.79	%

Non-interest-bearing liabilities:
Demand deposits		270,575							261,833							275,944
Other liabilities		14,626							13,421							12,540
Stockholders’ equity		118,396							114,458							105,060

Total	$	1,479,812						$	1,445,613						$	1,424,240

Net interest income				$	10,562						$	10,068						$	9,872
Rate spread						2.23	%						2.16	%						2.20	%
Net yield on interest-earning assets						2.96	%						2.90	%						2.88	%

(1) Nonaccrual loans are included in the daily average loan balances outstanding.
(2) The yield on federally tax-exempt loans and securities is computed on a tax-equivalent basis using a federal tax rate of 21%.

PSB Holdings, Inc.
Average Balances ($000) and Interest Rates
(dollars in thousands)
	Year ended December 31, 2024							Year ended December 31, 2023
	Average					Yield/		Average					Yield/
	Balance			Interest		Rate		Balance			Interest		Rate
Assets
Interest-earning assets:
Loans (1)(2)	$	1,087,816		$	62,085	5.71	%	$	1,043,144		$	53,824	5.16	%
Taxable securities		179,074			5,382	3.01	%		183,984			4,919	2.67	%
Tax-exempt securities (2)		79,735			2,647	3.32	%		81,481			2,705	3.32	%
FHLB stock		8,024			750	9.35	%		5,304			386	7.28	%
Other		29,153			1,505	5.16	%		9,073			465	5.13	%

Total (2)		1,383,802			72,369	5.23	%		1,322,986			62,299	4.71	%

Non-interest-earning assets:
Cash and due from banks		16,841							17,110
Premises and equipment, net		13,834							13,294
Cash surrender value ins		24,382							24,331
Other assets		20,911							23,136

Allowance for credit losses		(12,528	)						(12,079	)

Total	$	1,447,242						$	1,388,778

Liabilities & stockholders’ equity
Interest-bearing liabilities:
Savings and demand deposits	$	331,411		$	6,133	1.85	%	$	344,906		$	4,582	1.33	%
Money market deposits		281,828			7,569	2.69	%		249,079			5,328	2.14	%
Time deposits		256,265			10,150	3.96	%		261,595			7,083	2.71	%
FHLB borrowings		167,708			7,238	4.32	%		116,282			4,417	3.80	%
Other borrowings		7,241			232	3.20	%		7,061			215	3.04	%
Senior sub. notes		4,778			235	4.92	%		4,927			238	4.83	%
Junior sub. debentures		12,972			1,010	7.79	%		12,870			985	7.65	%

Total		1,062,203			32,567	3.07	%		996,720			22,848	2.29	%

Non-interest-bearing liabilities:
Demand deposits		258,173							274,273
Other liabilities		13,475							12,397
Stockholders’ equity		113,391							105,388

Total	$	1,447,242						$	1,388,778

Net interest income				$	39,802						$	39,451
Rate spread						2.16	%						2.42	%
Net yield on interest-earning assets						2.88	%						2.98	%

(1) Nonaccrual loans are included in the daily average loan balances outstanding.
(2) The yield on federally tax-exempt loans and securities is computed on a tax-equivalent basis using a federal tax rate of 21%.

Investor Relations Contact
PSB Holdings, Inc.
1905 Stewart Avenue
Wausau, WI 54401
888.929.9902
InvestorRelations@bankpeoples.com

The MIL Network –

January 28, 2025

MIL-OSI Global: Understanding paranormal beliefs and conspiracy theories isn’t just about misinformation – this course unpacks the history

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jeb Card, Associate Teaching Professor of Anthropology, Miami University

The ‘black mailbox’ along Highway 375 near Rachel, Nev., a traditional spot for UFO hunters to meet and search the skies near Area 51. AP Photo/John Locher

Uncommon Courses is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.

Title of course:

“Investigating the Paranormal”

What prompted the idea for the course?

My training and professional work have been in Mesoamerican archaeology, but I’ve had a lifelong fascination with paranormal concepts. In fact, I considered studying the UFO community for my doctoral research in cultural anthropology.

I eventually fused these two interests in my book “Spooky Archaeology: Myth and the Science of the Past,” which examines why archaeology shows up so much in ideas about the mysterious and weird. Most people are familiar with pop culture characters like Indiana Jones seeking magical artifacts. Perhaps less immediately obvious is just how common archaeological topics are in paranormal and conspiracy culture.

The popularity of paranormal ideas – from television shows and thousands of podcasts to UFOs on the front page of The New York Times and in government investigations – made it clear that a course on paranormal culture would be an excellent way for students to get a taste of social science research.

What does the course explore?

The material begins with premodern ideas of magic, myth and metaphysics. The narrative that “Western” societies tell of the development of the modern world is that the Enlightenment cast off supernatural thinking in favor of science. The historical reality, however, is not so simple.

As science based on observation of material evidence emerged in the 17th through 19th centuries, so did a paranormal worldview: theories about a nonmaterial or hidden reality beyond the mundane, from monsters to psychic powers. Some of these ideas were tied to older religious notions of the sacred or strange but not divine phenomena. Others were new – particularly those suggesting the hidden existence of prehistoric extinct creatures or lost cities.

In either case, the key element was that proponents of these ideas often tried to support their existence with the kind of evidence used in science, though their “proofs” fell short of scientific standards. In other words, the paranormal is in conflict with the knowledge and worldview of modernity but also attempts to use the concepts of modernity to oppose it.

The class examines how this tension produced 20th century “-ologies” like parapsychology, which examines evidence for consciousness beyond matter, and cryptozoology, which searches the ends of the Earth for creatures tied to the mythic past. We also learn about UFOlogy, whose proponents have collected alleged contacts with technology and beings from beyond this world ever since the Cold War, as great earthly powers filled the skies with secretive hi-tech aircraft and spaceships.

As the class concludes, we examine how the “-ologies” declined after the Cold War, alongside the cultural capital of science, whose height of public respect was in the mid-20th century. Since then, proving the existence of paranormal things to institutional scientists has become less important in paranormal communities than promoting them to a broader public.

Why is this course relevant now?

Beyond public interest in paranormal topics, the paranormal is entwined with sociocultural forces that have dramatically increased the role of conspiracy rhetoric in the United States and elsewhere. At their core, both types of belief claim to have figured out some kind of supposedly hidden knowledge.

Furthermore, the conspiracy theories that are now commonplace in American political discourse are more rooted in paranormal ideas than in previous decades. Conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination or even 9/11 were still largely within the materialist realm. People argued that “the truth” had been covered up, but their arguments did not rely on metaphysical ideas. Today, major conspiracy theories involve secret cabals, mystical symbols and code words, demonic forces and extraterrestrial entities.

What’s a critical lesson from the course?

Evidence must be interrogated on its own, regardless of whether it fits your perspective. I find time and again that students have a hard time approaching evidence without bias, whether that bias is conscious or not: “knowing” that something must be true, or must be absurd.

One person apparently makes a death bed confession of faking a famous Loch Ness Monster photo, pleasing skeptics. Another claims to have seen a Bigfoot at close range, pleasing believers. Without further evidence, both are stories: no more, no less.

The issue isn’t to draw an equivalence between the bigger concepts. Not all narratives are equally well-founded. But students learn how to collect evidence, rather than simply rely on their gut sense of what is plausible or not.

What will the course prepare students to do?

This course is meant to help students discern useful and reliable information about claims and events, separating them from irrelevant or inaccurate narratives or sources. The goal is not just “critical thinking” aimed at combating disinformation, though that is part of what they should learn. Students practice evaluating evidence but also develop an approach for analyzing and understanding phenomena behind it: how factors like history, culture and institutions of authority, such as science and government, shape what people trust and what they believe.

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

– ref. Understanding paranormal beliefs and conspiracy theories isn’t just about misinformation – this course unpacks the history – https://theconversation.com/understanding-paranormal-beliefs-and-conspiracy-theories-isnt-just-about-misinformation-this-course-unpacks-the-history-242007

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI Global: Assad’s fall opens window for Syrian refugees to head home − but for many, it won’t be an easy decision

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kelsey Norman, Fellow for the Middle East, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University

For more than a decade, Syrians have been the world’s largest refugee population.

More than 6 million Syrians have fled the country since 2011, when an uprising against the regime of Bashar Assad transformed into a 13-year civil war. Most ended up in neighboring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt, while a sizable minority wound up in Europe. But the overthrow of the Assad regime in late 2024 by opposition forces led by the Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has seemingly opened a window for their return, and tens of thousands of former refugees have since made the decision to go back to their homeland.

How many and who decides to go back, and the circumstances under which they reintegrate into Syrian society, will have enormous implications for both Syria and the countries they resettled in. It also provides an opportunity for migration scholars like ourselves to better understand what happens when refugees finally return home.

Previous research has shown that Syrian refugees who are trying to decide whether to return are motivated more by conditions in Syria than by policy decisions where they’ve resettled. But individual experiences also play an important role. Counterintuitively, refugees who have been exposed to violence during the Syrian civil war are actually more tolerant of and better at assessing the risk of returning to Syria, research has shown.

But such research was conducted while Assad was still in power, and it has only been several weeks since Assad fell. As a result, it’s unclear how many Syrians will decide to go back. After all, the current government is transitional, and the country is not fully unified.

The risk of return

In the month after Assad’s fall, about 125,000 Syrians headed home, primarily from Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. But for the majority of those yet to return, important questions and considerations remain.

First and foremost, what will governance look like under the transitional government? So far, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s rule under Ahmed al-Sharaa has suggested the group will embrace inclusivity toward Syria’s diverse array of ethnic and religious minorities. Even so, some observers worry about the group’s prior connections to militant Islamist groups, including al-Qaida.

Similarly, initial fears about restrictions on women’s participation in public life have mostly been assuaged, despite the transitional government appointing only two women to office.

Syrians debating whether to return home must also confront the economic devastation wrought by years of war, government mismanagement and corruption, and international sanctions placed on the Assad regime.

Sanctions blocking the entry of medications and equipment, along with Assad’s bombing of infrastructure throughout the war, have crippled the country’s medical system.

In 2024, 16.7 million Syrians – more than half the country’s population – were in need of essential humanitarian assistance, even as very little was available. In early 2025, the U.S. announced that it was extending a partial, six-month reprieve of sanctions to allow humanitarian groups to provide basic services such as water, sanitation and electricity.

But rebuilding the country’s infrastructure will take much longer, and Syrian refugees will have to weigh whether they are better off remaining in their host countries. This is especially true for those who have worked to build new lives over a long period in exile from Syria.

The caretaker Syrian government will also have to address the issue of property restitution. Many individuals may want to return home only if they indeed have a home to return to. And the policy of forced property transfers and the settlement by Alawite and minority groups allied to the Assad regime in former Sunni areas vacated during the war complicates the issue.

Continued welcome in Europe?

Since the start of the civil war, approximately 1.3 million Syrians have sought protection in Europe, the majority of them arriving in 2015 and 2016 and settling in countries such as Germany and Sweden. As of December 2023, 780,000 individuals still held refugee status and subsidiary protection – an additional form of international protection – with the remainder having received either long-term residency or citizenship.

Syria’s 13-year civil war reduced many homes to rubble.
Ercin Erturk/Anadolu via Getty Images

Subsidiary protection was granted to those who didn’t meet the stringent requirements for refugee status under the Geneva Conventions – which requires a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group – but “would face a real risk of suffering serious harm” if returned to their countries of origin.

Recognition rates for Syrians have remained consistently high between 2015 and 2023, but the breakdown between subsidiary protection and refugee status has fluctuated over the years, with 81% receiving refugee status in 2015 versus 68% receiving subsidiary protection in 2023.

For Syrians in the EU who hold refugee status or subsidiary protection, as well as for those with pending asylum claims, the future is very uncertain. In accordance with the Geneva Conventions, EU law allows governments to revoke, end or refuse to renew their status if the reason to offer protection has ceased, which many countries believe is the case after Assad’s fall.

Since then, at least 12 European countries have suspended asylum applications of Syrian nationals. Some nations, such as Austria, have threatened to implement a program of “orderly return and deportation.”

Conditions in Turkey and Lebanon

A much larger number of Syrians obtained protection in neighboring countries, namely Turkey (2.9 million), Lebanon (755,000) and Jordan (611,000), though estimates of unregistered Syrians are much higher. In Turkey, which hosts the largest number of Syrian refugees, Syrians are afforded only temporary protection status.

In theory, this status allows them access to work, health care and education. But in practice, Syrian refugees in Turkey have not always been able to enjoy these rights. Coupled with anti-immigrant sentiments worsened by the 2023 earthquake and presidential election, life has remained difficult for many.

And while Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has publicly stated that Syrians should return home according to their own timeline, his previous scapegoating of the refugee population indicates that he may ultimately like to see them returned – especially as many in Turkey now believe Syrian refugees have no reason to stay in the country.

Syrians in Lebanon, which hosts the largest number of Syrian refugees per capita, face even greater economic and legal challenges. The country is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, and its stringent domestic asylum law has granted residency to only 17% of the more than a million Syrians who live in the country.

Lebanon has been pressuring Syrian refugees to leave the country for years through policies of marginalization and forced deportation, which have intensified in recent months with a government scheme to deport Syrians not registered with the United Nations. As of 2023, 84% of Syrian families were living in extreme poverty. Their vulnerability was exacerbated by the recent conflict between Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon, which led 425,000 Syrians to escape war once again and return to Syria even though conditions at the time were not safe.

Testing the water

Offering go-and-see visits – whereby one member of a family is allowed to return to a home country to evaluate the situation and subsequently permitted to reenter the host country without losing their legal status – is the norm in many refugee situations. The policy is being used at present for Ukrainians in Europe and was used in the past for Bosnian and South Sudanese refugees.

The same policy could serve Syrian refugees now – indeed, Turkey recently implemented such a plan. But above all, we believe returns to Syria should be voluntary, not forced. Getting the conditions right for returning refugees will have enormous implications for rebuilding the country and keeping the peace – or not – in the years to come.

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

– ref. Assad’s fall opens window for Syrian refugees to head home − but for many, it won’t be an easy decision – https://theconversation.com/assads-fall-opens-window-for-syrian-refugees-to-head-home-but-for-many-it-wont-be-an-easy-decision-247051

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI Global: I study democracy worldwide − here’s how Texas is eroding human rights, free expression and civil liberties

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Katie Scofield, Assistant Instructional Professor in Political Science, Texas A&M University-San Antonio

Everything is bigger in Texas, except maybe its democracy. Luis Diaz Devesa/Moment via Getty

While concerns about the future of American democracy dominate headlines worldwide, millions of Texans are already seeing a rapid decline in democratic standards.

In December 2024, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued a New York doctor for prescribing abortion-inducing medications to a woman in Collin County, Texas, alleging that the shipment violated Texas’ near-total ban on abortion.

Two months earlier, Paxton’s office had sued to block a federal rule protecting women’s out-of-state medical records from criminal investigation. And in 2022, it sued the Biden administration over federal guidelines requiring doctors to perform abortions in emergency situations.

Paxton’s lawsuits – alongside the state’s restrictive abortion policies – raise troubling questions about individual privacy and women’s bodily autonomy in Texas, where I live and teach. And they’re indicative of a broader problem. As my research on democracy and human rights shows, the state government is becoming increasingly antidemocratic.

Scholars examine a number of factors to determine the health of a democracy. Elections must be free and fair. There should be freedom of expression and belief, multiple competitive political parties and minimal corruption. A democratic government must also respect individual freedom.

On many of these metrics, I believe Texas falls short.

Are Texas elections free and fair?

Texas has some of the most restrictive voting laws in the United States, including strict voter ID laws, stringent limits on mail-in and absentee ballots and no online voter registration.

Republicans, who passed each of these policies, claim their concern is a democratic one – election integrity. Yet, when Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick offered a US$25,000 reward to anyone who could prove voter fraud in the 2020 election, it led to just one arrest.

The Texas Legislature nonetheless pledged to pass an even more restrictive voting bill in 2021, referencing “purity of the ballot box,” an old Jim Crow phrase. Democratic lawmakers ended up fleeing the state to paralyze the state assembly and keep the most egregious parts of the bill from passing.

Healthy democracies also have robust competition between multiple parties so that voters have real choices at the polls.

Yet since its current constitution was written in 1876, Texas has effectively been a one-party state governed by conservatives. No Democrat has won statewide office since 1994 – the longest Democrats have been locked out of statewide office in any state.

Money in politics

Texas puts no limits on individual campaign contributions to the governor, one of just 12 U.S. states that lacks this common anti-corruption measure.

This has allowed Texas’ current governor, Greg Abbott, who has been in office since 2015, to raise vast sums of money. In the 2022 Texas gubernatorial race – the most expensive in the state’s history at $212 million – Abbott outspent his Democratic opponent by almost $50 million. In 2018, he had 90 times more cash on hand than his Democratic opponent.

Texas’ lack of effective campaign finance regulations has given big donors access to power in the form of gubernatorial appointments.

An in-depth investigation by The Texas Tribune in 2022 revealed that 27 of the 41 members of the governor’s COVID-19 task force were campaign donors who had collectively paid $6 million toward the governor’s reelection. Many were business owners who had a vested interest in reopening the state.

Freedom of expression

Texas is also at the center of a national struggle over academic freedom, a key component of free expression.

Texas passed a law in 2023 requiring public universities to close their diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, offices, depriving the most vulnerable student communities of resources such as scholarships, mental health programs and career workshops.

The Texas Senate is considering expanding this legislation to prohibit “DEI curriculum and course content.”

The mere threat appears to be squelching freedom of thought and intellectual exploration in Texas universities already. The University of North Texas in November started editing course titles and syllabi to remove identity-based topics.

On Jan. 14, Abbott threatened to fire the president of Texas A&M University – a part of my university system – if faculty attended an academic conference showcasing the work of Black, Latino and Indigenous scholars.

Human rights at the border

Abbott’s campaign to control the U.S.-Mexico border has raised concerns among human rights groups about civil rights in the state.

In March of 2021, Abbott declared a state of emergency in counties on the Texas border, allowing him to deploy the Texas National Guard there. The initiative, Operation Lone Star, was supposed to stop migrants from crossing the border outside official government checkpoints.

Since border enforcement is a federal authority, however, the troops have mostly enforced state laws on trespassing or drugs and weapons possession. Guardsmen have also participated in busing migrants to Democratic-run cities such as New York and Chicago and built razor-wire barriers in the Rio Grande.

The result is an $11 billion policing program that has largely targeted Latino American citizens – not immigrants. Fully 96% of those arrested on trespassing charges are Latino, and 75% of those facing court proceedings for that and other crimes as a result of Operation Lone Star are U.S. citizens.

Gov. Greg Abbott, left, and Donald Trump greet Texas National Guard troops in Edinburg, Texas, on Nov. 19, 2023.
Michael Gonzalez/Getty Images

Women’s freedoms

Finally, women’s right to bodily autonomy is under threat in Texas, which has one of the country’s most restrictive abortion laws.

At least three women have died as a result of doctors being afraid to treat their miscarriages. Overall, maternal mortality rates have increased by 56% since the ban was imposed in 2021. Scary statistics haven’t stopped the state’s plans to tighten its ban.

The 2025 Texas legislative session began with Republican legislators having prefiled several bills aimed at ending abortion by mail services, including one that would reclassify common abortion pills as controlled substances like Valium or Ambien. Doctors warn that this reclassification could also make it harder for them to disperse these medications quickly in life-threatening emergencies.

And a handful of rural Texas counties have made it illegal to transport women seeking out-of-state abortions on their roads.

As Texas goes, so goes the nation?

The question of whether a government is democratic is often not black or white. It should be viewed on a sliding scale.

Freedom House, a nonpartisan international democracy watchdog, ranks countries on a 100-point scale based on the factors I mentioned earlier, among others, and labels countries as “free,” “partly-free” and “not free.”

The freest country in 2024, Finland, had a score of 100. The U.S. has been sliding down the rankings, receiving a score of 83 in 2024 – down from 94 in 2010. It’s still solidly in the “free” category, but U.S. democracy looks less like Germany’s and more like Romania’s. The antidemocratic policy changes made in Texas and a handful of other states contribute to this slide.

Freedom House doesn’t rank states, but if it did, Texas would likely still rate as a “free” democracy. There is space for dissent, opposition and free speech. Democratic politicians have occasional political victories.

But Texas is decidedly less democratic than the U.S. at large. Democracy here is not lost, but I fear Texas is in danger of becoming only “partly-free.”

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

– ref. I study democracy worldwide − here’s how Texas is eroding human rights, free expression and civil liberties – https://theconversation.com/i-study-democracy-worldwide-heres-how-texas-is-eroding-human-rights-free-expression-and-civil-liberties-246936

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI Global: ‘Sorry, I didn’t get that’: AI misunderstands some people’s words more than others

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Roberto Rey Agudo, Research Assistant Professor of Spanish and Portuguese, Dartmouth College

Speech recognition systems are less accurate for women and Black people, among other demographics. Jacob Wackerhausen/iStock via Getty Images

The idea of a humanlike artificial intelligence assistant that you can speak with has been alive in many people’s imaginations since the release of “Her,” Spike Jonze’s 2013 film about a man who falls in love with a Siri-like AI named Samantha. Over the course of the film, the protagonist grapples with the ways in which Samantha, real as she may seem, is not and never will be human.

Twelve years on, this is no longer the stuff of science fiction. Generative AI tools like ChatGPT and digital assistants like Apple’s Siri and Amazon’s Alexa help people get driving directions, make grocery lists, and plenty else. But just like Samantha, automatic speech recognition systems still cannot do everything that a human listener can.

You have probably had the frustrating experience of calling your bank or utility company and needing to repeat yourself so that the digital customer service bot on the other line can understand you. Maybe you’ve dictated a note on your phone, only to spend time editing garbled words.

Linguistics and computer science researchers have shown that these systems work worse for some people than for others. They tend to make more errors if you have a non-native or a regional accent, are Black, speak in African American Vernacular English, code-switch, if you are a woman, are old, are too young or have a speech impediment.

Tin ear

Unlike you or me, automatic speech recognition systems are not what researchers call “sympathetic listeners.” Instead of trying to understand you by taking in other useful clues like intonation or facial gestures, they simply give up. Or they take a probabilistic guess, a move that can sometimes result in an error.

As companies and public agencies increasingly adopt automatic speech recognition tools in order to cut costs, people have little choice but to interact with them. But the more that these systems come into use in critical fields, ranging from emergency first responders and health care to education and law enforcement, the more likely there will be grave consequences when they fail to recognize what people say.

Imagine sometime in the near future you’ve been hurt in a car crash. You dial 911 to call for help, but instead of being connected to a human dispatcher, you get a bot that’s designed to weed out nonemergency calls. It takes you several rounds to be understood, wasting time and raising your anxiety level at the worst moment.

What causes this kind of error to occur? Some of the inequalities that result from these systems are baked into the reams of linguistic data that developers use to build large language models. Developers train artificial intelligence systems to understand and mimic human language by feeding them vast quantities of text and audio files containing real human speech. But whose speech are they feeding them?

If a system scores high accuracy rates when speaking with affluent white Americans in their mid-30s, it is reasonable to guess that it was trained using plenty of audio recordings of people who fit this profile.

With rigorous data collection from a diverse range of sources, AI developers could reduce these errors. But to build AI systems that can understand the infinite variations in human speech arising from things like gender, age, race, first vs. second language, socioeconomic status, ability and plenty else, requires significant resources and time.

‘Proper’ English

For people who do not speak English – which is to say, most people around the world – the challenges are even greater. Most of the world’s largest generative AI systems were built in English, and they work far better in English than in any other language. On paper, AI has lots of civic potential for translation and increasing people’s access to information in different languages, but for now, most languages have a smaller digital footprint, making it difficult for them to power large language models.

Even within languages well-served by large language models, like English and Spanish, your experience varies depending on which dialect of the language you speak.

Right now, most speech recognition systems and generative AI chatbots reflect the linguistic biases of the datasets they are trained on. They echo prescriptive, sometimes prejudiced notions of “correctness” in speech.

In fact, AI has been proved to “flatten” linguistic diversity. There are now AI startup companies that offer to erase the accents of their users, drawing on the assumption that their primary clientele would be customer service providers with call centers in foreign countries like India or the Philippines. The offering perpetuates the notion that some accents are less valid than others.

Human connection

AI will presumably get better at processing language, accounting for variables like accents, code-switching and the like. In the U.S., public services are obligated under federal law to guarantee equitable access to services regardless of what language a person speaks. But it is not clear whether that alone will be enough incentive for the tech industry to move toward eliminating linguistic inequities.

Many people might prefer to talk to a real person when asking questions about a bill or medical issue, or at least to have the ability to opt out of interacting with automated systems when seeking key services. That is not to say that miscommunication never happens in interpersonal communication, but when you speak to a real person, they are primed to be a sympathetic listener.

With AI, at least for now, it either works or it doesn’t. If the system can process what you say, you are good to go. If it cannot, the onus is on you to make yourself understood.

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

– ref. ‘Sorry, I didn’t get that’: AI misunderstands some people’s words more than others – https://theconversation.com/sorry-i-didnt-get-that-ai-misunderstands-some-peoples-words-more-than-others-239281

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI Global: How does raw water compare to tap water? A microbiologist explains why the risks outweigh the benefits

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Bill Sullivan, Professor of Microbiology and Immunology, Indiana University

Water that comes straight from natural sources, dubbed “raw water,” is gaining popularity. Raw water advocates reject public water supplies, including tap water, because they don’t enjoy the taste or believe it’s unsafe and depleted of vital minerals.

On the surface, raw water might seem alluring – the natural surroundings may look beautiful, and the water may look clean and taste refreshing. But unlike tap or commercially bottled water, raw water is not evaluated for safety. This leaves the people who drink it vulnerable to infectious microbes or potentially other toxic contaminants.

I’m a microbiology researcher studying infectious diseases. From a public health perspective, clarifying misconceptions about tap water and the health hazards of raw water can protect consumers and curtail the spread of infectious diseases.

A short history of public drinking water

Archaeological evidence suggests that humans have long associated dirty water with negative health outcomes. As early as 1500 BCE, ancient Egyptians added a binding agent to their water to clump contaminants together for easy removal.

Two major developments in the mid-1800s showed why impure water is dangerous. First, physician John Snow traced a deadly cholera outbreak to contaminated water from London’s Broad Street pump. Second, Louis Pasteur advanced the germ theory of disease, which postulated that microbes can cause illness. Pasteur established that consumable liquids like raw water and milk can harbor disease-causing pathogens.

Physician John Snow’s 1854 map of cholera cases in London, highlighted in black, clustered around a contaminated pump.
John Snow/Wellcome Collection

These discoveries paved the way for large-scale infrastructure projects in the 20th century to ensure the public water supply is safe.

Today, the process of cleaning water begins with the same steps employed by the ancient Egyptians, followed by extensive filtration to get rid of debris as well as most germs and chemicals. Chlorine is added to kill lingering pathogens, including those that may reside in the service pipes carrying the water to the faucet. Beginning in the 1940s, a small amount of fluoride was added as an inexpensive, safe and effective means to improve dental health.

The cleanliness and fluoridation of the water supply has dramatically reduced infectious disease and cavities, and has been heralded as one of the 20th century’s greatest public health achievements.

Is raw water healthier than tap water?

People who champion raw water claim it has health benefits, such as essential minerals and beneficial bacteria called probiotics, that are stripped from tap water. Let’s unpack each of these claims.

Water dissolves bits of soil and rock at its source; therefore, its mineral content depends on the local geology. Areas with a lot of limestone, like the Midwest, have water that is higher in calcium. Water from deeper in the ground may have higher mineral content since it passes through more rock on its way to the surface.

The mineral content of water largely depends on its source and location.
Sergii Zyskо/iStock via Getty Images Plus

The idea that tap water is depleted of essential minerals is not true, as these nutrients are too small to be excluded by the filtration process. Test kits can determine the mineral content of your water, and if you find it lacking, mineral supplements can be added. Experts suggest, however, that most minerals you need come from your diet, not water.

Some also claim that raw water contains probiotics that are removed from tap water. The amount of probiotics in water would also vary by location, and the notion that health-promoting bacteria reside in raw water has not been proved.

There are no studies associating raw water with any health benefit. Anecdotal claims about smoother skin or increased energy are likely to be placebo effects. Even the idea that raw water tastes better might be more psychological than physiological – a 2018 study showed that most people preferred tap water over bottled water in a blind taste test.

Risks of drinking raw water

Raw water carries the risk of serious gastrointestinal infection from a wide variety of pathogens.

Water-borne viruses include rotavirus and norovirus, which cause rapid-onset diarrhea and vomiting, and hepatitis A, which infects the liver. Bacteria such as E. coli and Salmonella, or parasites like Cryptosporidium and Giardia, also cause severe diarrhea that can lead to dangerous levels of dehydration. Toxoplasma gondii can also lurk in raw water and can cause miscarriage or birth defects if consumed during pregnancy.

Tap water undergoes several treatment steps before it reaches your faucet.
CDC

Carriers of diarrheal infections can transmit them to others if they swim in public pools or fail to properly wash their hands before touching others or preparing food. Norovirus is particularly durable and can survive on surfaces for days, increasing chances of it infecting someone else.

Raw water can also contain algae that release toxins causing abdominal issues and damage to the brain and nervous system.

Cholera, dysentery and typhoid fever are no longer health burdens in the U.S. thanks to a robust water treatment system. But areas of the world lacking this privilege suffer high child mortality and widespread diarrheal diseases.

How safe is tap water in the US?

Tap water in the U.S. is among the safest to drink in the world. The Biden administration took steps to further improve it, including funding to replace lead pipes and new rules to monitor forever chemicals like perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, which have been linked to cancer and developmental disorders.

Importantly, raw water is not necessarily free from lead, arsenic, pesticides or industrial contaminants. Raw water sources are not reliably monitored by experts, so it is difficult to say which ones pose less risk. In addition, the water may be acceptably safe one day, but not on another. For example, soil runoff from a storm could introduce new germs or pollutants into the area.

The Environmental Protection Agency routinely screens for nearly 100 contaminants to ensure tap water is safe. In contrast, raw water remains untested, unregulated and untreated, leaving its safety to drink in question. In terms of risks and benefits, there are no demonstrated health benefits from drinking raw water, but clear evidence that you may be exposing yourself to harmful infectious and toxic contaminants.

Bill Sullivan receives funding from the National Institutes of Health.

– ref. How does raw water compare to tap water? A microbiologist explains why the risks outweigh the benefits – https://theconversation.com/how-does-raw-water-compare-to-tap-water-a-microbiologist-explains-why-the-risks-outweigh-the-benefits-246866

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Murray, Schumer, Murphy, Kim Lead 46 Senators in Introducing Resolution Condemning Pardons of Individuals Found Guilty of Assaulting Capitol Police Officers
US Senate News:
Source: United States Senator for Washington State Patty Murray

Resolution comes after Trump pardons 1,500 Jan 6 insurrectionists—including those convicted of violently assaulted police officers

Murray will seek unanimous consent to pass the resolution this week

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Andy Kim (D-NJ) will lead a group of 46 senators in introducing a new resolution condemning the pardons of individuals who were found guilty of assaulting Capitol Police Officers. The resolution follows the move by President Trump, on the first day of his second term, to grant full, complete, and unconditional pardons to over 1,500 people charged with committing crimes in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, and to commute the sentences of 14 others, including leaders of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, far-right militias. Among those pardoned by Trump were 169 people who pled guilty to assaulting police officers on January 6^th.During the siege of the Capitol that day, over 80 U.S. Capitol Police Officers were assaulted, as well as over 60 officers from the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department.

The senators’ resolution, Condemning the pardons for individuals who were found guilty of assaulting Capitol Police Officers, simply states: “Resolved, That the Senate disapproves of any pardons for individuals who were found guilty of assaulting Capitol Police officers.” This week, Senator Murray will seek unanimous consent on the Senate floor to pass the resolution.

In addition to Murray, Schumer, Murphy, and Kim, Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Angus King (I-ME), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) also cosponsored the resolution. In total, 46 senators signed onto the resolution. A PDF of the resolution is HERE.

“I refuse to allow President Trump to rewrite what happened on January 6^th—armed insurrectionists, incited by Trump himself, broke into the U.S. Capitol and violently assaulted Capitol Police officers in their attempt to overthrow a free and fair election,” said Senator Murray. “Insurrectionists cracked the ribs of police officers and smashed spinal disks. Donald Trump’s pardons are a wholesale endorsement of political violence—as long as it serves Donald Trump. Affirming that U.S. Senators condemn unconditional pardons for people who were found guilty of violently assaulting Capitol Police officers should be the easiest thing in the world. If Republicans care even the tiniest bit about law enforcement, they should be outraged by these pardons. I hope and expect my Republican colleagues will allow this very simple resolution to pass as a show of support for the officers who put their lives on the line to keep senators safe.”

“The people who invaded the Capitol on January 6th, whether they committed violence or not, broke the law and attempted to thwart democracy. What they did is a serious crime. There’s no gray area here,” said Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer. “Donald Trump’s made it clear he’s more interested in rewarding lawbreakers and pardoning lawless rioters who attacked police officers and invaded the Capitol, than standing up for law and order. Senate Republicans who experienced the same mayhem on January 6 should join us in condemning this dangerous signal to lawbreakers, so we can make clear that political violence of any kind is unacceptable.”

“Trump’s pardons of January 6th rioters who viciously assaulted law enforcement officers send a dangerous message: if you’re willing to commit violence in his name, there are no consequences,” said Senator Murphy. “This endorsement of political violence not only undermines our justice system, but it also makes our nation less safe and emboldens those who would attack our democracy.”

“On January 6th 2021, we witnessed an attack against our sacred Capitol and a brutal assault on police officers upholding their sworn duty. It is shameful for President Trump to issue the pardons and exalt political violence. We all resoundingly condemned the assassination attempts on Trump only to see him bless the violence against a different branch of government. Never should political violence be acceptable,” said Senator Kim.

“President Trump’s blanket pardons of armed insurrectionists, who were convicted by juries of everyday Americans, is the ultimate disrespect for police officers who were brutally assaulted on January 6,” said Senator Blumenthal. “These sickening pardons are a clear endorsement of political violence and discredit justice and the rule of law. I urge my Republican colleagues who were protected that terrible day—and who now stay silent—to join in condemning the violence that occurred and standing with the officers who put their lives on the line for their safety.”

“By attacking law enforcement and trying to block the peaceful transfer of power, the people being pardoned did serious damage to our Capitol and democracy. Some of them attacked and hurt police officers, all received their day in court and were convicted of their crimes. These pardons are a mistake that I strongly disagree with,” said Senator Cantwell.

“By putting hundreds of violent criminals back on the streets as one of his first acts back in office, President Trump is sending a clear message: it’s open season on law enforcement officers, as long as you’re committing a crime he approves of,” said Senator Coons, co-chair of the Senate Law Enforcement Caucus. “I pray that none of these criminals go on to commit further acts of violence, but President Trump’s pardons have made our police officers and our streets less safe.”

“President Trump is pardoning violent criminals who assaulted police officers and attempted to overturn a fair and free election,” said Senator Cortez Masto. “This is an insult to law enforcement across the country and an endorsement of political violence. The very least my Republican colleagues can do to back law enforcement is to support this resolution.”

“On day one in office—after years of pushing the false narrative that Democrats are ‘soft on crime’ and Republicans truly ‘back the blue’— Donald Trump pardoned over 1,500 violent insurrectionists who assaulted law enforcement officers and stormed our nation’s Capitol in an effort to overturn a free and fair election,” said Senator Duckworth. “Not only are these pardons a gross endorsement of political violence, they’re also an insult to the heroic law enforcement officers who defended our democracy and those who died as a result of that fateful day. If Republicans really cared about upholding democracy and the rule of law, then they’d join us in supporting this simple resolution to condemn President Trump’s pardons.”

“On January 6, 2021, a mob of Trump-inspired insurrectionists descended on the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to overturn a free and fair election, wielding unspeakable violence against law enforcement officers. A ‘full, complete, and unconditional’ pardon dishonors the lives of the five law enforcement officers who died as a result of this day, as well as those who are left with life-altering injuries inflicted by these thugs,” said Senator Durbin. “This resolution ensures that what truly happened that day – the violent, egregious assault on law enforcement officers and the undermining of a Constitutional proceeding – will not be forgotten, even if President Trump has tried to absolve insurrectionists of their crimes.”

“I was on the House floor, preparing myself and my colleagues for the mob to overrun the Capitol. President Trump’s pardons of these rioters, many of whom attacked policemen—my friends—is a gross misuse of power,” said Senator Gallego. “We must support law enforcement, not the ones who attacked them and tried to take our democracy.”

“These criminals used flagpoles, fire extinguishers and bear spray to assault the police securing the Capitol on January 6. No one who assaults a police officer should be given a ‘get out of jail free card’ from the President,” said Senator Heinrich.

“Instead of focusing on steps to strengthen our economy, lower costs, or make communities safer, Donald Trump’s day one priority was pardoning over 1,500 people who stormed the Capitol on January 6, 2021 in an attempt to overturn an election, including those convicted of assaulting police officers,” said Senator Kaine. “These deeply offensive pardons are a slap in the face of the law enforcement community—including five Virginians who died after protecting the Capitol that day—the Constitution, the rule of law, and our democracy. I’m joining together with my colleagues to introduce legislation to formally condemn these shameful pardons.”

“We will never forget the truth of what happened on January 6: A violent mob attacked our democracy, our Capitol, and the brave men and women of the Capitol Police who were defending it, ” said Senator Klobuchar. “These officers deserve our respect, not the release and pardoning of those who assaulted them. Over the last four years, I have led hearings to examine the events leading up to the attack and have worked with Democrats and Republicans to ensure Capitol Police officers have our full support moving forward. The release of and pardons for those who assaulted them is simply wrong.”

“The pardons that President Trump granted to insurrectionists who desecrated our Capitol and threatened our democracy on January 6 are not only condemnable – they are disrespectful of the law enforcement who show up every day to protect and serve us. When Republicans say they ‘back the blue,’ they are lauding the very violent criminals who left our officers back and blue on that day. Anyone who supports these pardons is supporting crime and violence,” said Senator Markey.

“I condemn in the strongest terms President Trump’s disgraceful pardon of more than 1,000 criminals, many of them violent, who overran the U.S. Capitol, desecrated the seat of our democracy, and assaulted law enforcement in their failed attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power,” Senator Ossoff said.

“President Trump’s decision to pardon the people who attacked the U.S. Capitol and violently assaulted law enforcement officers, in an effort to overturn a free and fair election, is a clear abuse of power. A President’s allies should never receive special treatment when they’ve committed serious, violent crimes – crimes intended to undermine our democracy. To give these attackers a clean slate not only undermines the rule of law, it emboldens their extreme ideological views and it further erodes Americans’ trust in our government,” said Senator Peters.

“These pardons were a slap in the face of the Capitol Police who stand up everyday to protect members of Congress. They have our back; we should have theirs. Failing to condemn the pardons of the criminals who attacked the Capitol would be a shameful betrayal of these dedicated officers,” said Senator Reed.

“It’s unconscionable that one of President Trump’s first actions in office was to pardon criminals who violently attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6th, 2021,” said Senator Rosen. “A number of these convicted felons attacked police officers and injured them. It should not be a partisan issue to fully condemn these actions and President Trump’s pardons.”

“Pardoning those who were convicted of assaulting police officers who were doing their duty during the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol is reckless and dangerous,” said Senator Shaheen. “No elected official, especially the President of the United States, should ever do anything that would justify, condone or excuse politically motivated violence. I hope all my colleagues will join us in supporting this resolution to condemn pardons for those found guilty of assaulting police officers on January 6, 2021.”

“President Trump’s day one agenda was letting violent criminals who beat police officers out of prison. These are people who planned an insurrection, assaulted police officers with metal batons, fire extinguishers, wooden planks, and even admitted to these crimes and pled guilty in court. The brave Capitol Police officers who put themselves in danger to protect our democracy deserve better. We can’t let what actually happened on January 6th, 2021 be rewritten and whitewashed,” said Senator Smith.

“On January 6, many rioters attacked our Capitol and assaulted, bludgeoned, and bloodied Capitol Police officers and officers from the District of Columbia. Donald Trump’s pardons of these convicted criminals are sickening – they are a gross insult to the brave officers who did their duty and a betrayal of all of law enforcement. I urge our Republican colleagues to join us in sending a simple message: celebrating criminals convicted of beating police officers is unacceptable,” said Senator Van Hollen.

According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, approximately 1,572 defendants have been federally charged with crimes associated with the attack of the U.S. Capitol on January 6^th. This includes approximately 598 charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding law enforcement agents or officers or obstructing those officers during a civil disorder, including approximately 171 defendants charged with using a deadly or dangerous weapon or causing serious bodily injury to an officer. As proven in Court, the weapons used and carried on Capitol grounds during the January 6^th attack include firearms; OC spray; tasers; edged weapons, including a sword, axes, hatchets, and knives; and makeshift weapons, such as destroyed office furniture, fencing, bike racks, stolen riot shields, baseball bats, hockey sticks, flagpoles, PVC piping, and reinforced knuckle gloves.

Among others, the individuals who assaulted law enforcement officers and were granted full, unconditional pardons by President Trump this week include:
- Taylor James Johnatakis, of Kingston, Washington, was convicted of three felonies in November 2023, including assaulting officers. Prosecutors said that he “coordinated a violent assault on a line of police officers defending” the Capitol and that video shows he “used a metal barricade to attack officers head on and grabbed one officer to prevent him from defending himself against other attacking rioters.”
- Julian Khater, who assaulted a U.S. police office—Brian Sicknick—and later pled guilty to assaulting a police officer with a dangerous weapon.
- Robert Palmer, who attacked police with a fire extinguisher, a wooden plank, and a pole.
- Tyler Bradley Dykes of Bluffton, South Carolina, who was sentenced to 57 months in federal prison for stealing a police riot shield and twice using it against officers. He pleaded guilty to two felony counts of assaulting, resisting or impeding officers.
- Devlyn Thompson, who hit a police officer with a metal baton.
- Andrew Taake, of Houston, Texas, who was sentenced to a little more than six years for assaulting law enforcement officers with bear spray and a metal whip.
- Christopher Quaglin, who federal prosecutors said “viciously assaulted numerous officers” and was one of the most violent rioters, was sentenced to 12 years in federal prison.
- David Dempsey, who, according to prosecutors, “was one of the most violent rioters,” and received 20 years in prison. Prosecutors also said Dempsey had a “very significant history of arrests and convictions” prior to the January 6^th attack.
- Daniel Rodriguez, of Fontana, California, who plunged a stun gun into the neck of Washington Police Officer Michael Fanone multiple times.
- Ryan Nichols, of Longview, Texas, who assaulted officers with pepper spray, and later on Jan. 6, at his hotel room, he called for additional violence.
- Howard Richardson, of King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, who struck a police officer three times with a flagpole, hard enough to break the flagpole.
- Robert Sanford, from Chester, Pennsylvania, who hit two police officers in the head with a fire extinguisher and threw a traffic cone at another officer.
- Jonathan Munafo, of Albany, New York, who punched a police officer, stole the officer’s riot shield, and struck a Capitol office window with two poles.
MIL OSI USA News –
January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Warren, McGovern, Lawmakers Blast Trump’s Inaction on High Egg Prices

US Senate News:

Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren
January 27, 2025
Lawmakers lay out six executive actions that could lower costs.
“We urge you to make good on your campaign promise to lower food prices for American families.”
Text of Letter (PDF)
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Representative Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) led 19 of their colleagues, writing to President Donald Trump, pushing him to take meaningful steps to lower the prices of eggs and other groceries—a problem he largely ignored during his entire first week in office.
During his campaign for president, Mr. Trump repeatedly promised he would lower food prices “immediately” if elected. Trump even told the press, “I won on groceries.” But during his first week, he instead focused on attempting to end birthright citizenship, firing inspectors general, and pardoning January 6 attackers, including those who assaulted Capitol police officers.
“Your sole action on costs was an executive order that contained only the barest mention of food prices and not a single specific policy to reduce them,” wrote the lawmakers. “You have tools you can use to lower grocery costs and crack down on corporate profiteering, and we write to ask if you will commit to using those tools to make good on your promises to the American people.”
“To make food more affordable, you should look to the dominant food and grocery companies that have made record profits on the backs of working families who have had to pay higher prices,” continued the lawmakers.
For example, last year a Kroger executive admitted in federal court that the company raised the price of eggs and milk “significantly higher than the cost of inflation” in the years following the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2023, a federal court found that the country’s largest egg producers had engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy in the mid-2000s as well. Now, egg producers and grocery stores may leverage the current avian flu outbreak as an opportunity to further constrain supply or hike up egg prices to increase profits.
“If you are indeed committed to lowering food prices, we stand ready to work with you,” wrote the lawmakers.
The lawmakers laid out six recommendations for executive actions to lower prices by encouraging competition and fighting price-gouging at each level of the food supply chain:
Encourage the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to prohibit exclusionary contracting by dominant firms in the food industry, making it harder for major retailers and food brands to shut out smaller suppliers and drive up prices at smaller stores.
Encourage the FTC to issue guidance on potential violations of the Robinson Patman Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act within the food industry and take enforcement action where merited.
Work with the USDA to increase the number of government contract recipients that are very small businesses and to ensure that government contracting considers the long-term costs of food sector consolidation.
Help the Department of Justice (DOJ) and FTC scrutinize, and where appropriate, block mergers and acquisitions in the food and agricultural sectors.
Encourage the DOJ to prosecute actors in the agricultural and food sectors for price-fixing and other anticompetitive behavior.
Direct the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and FTC to form a joint task force to investigate food price manipulation throughout the supply chain.
“Americans are looking to you to lower food prices. Instead of working to lower their grocery bills, however, you have used the first week of your administration on attempting to end birthright citizenship, pardoning individuals who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, and renaming a mountain,” concluded the lawmakers. “We urge you to make good on your campaign promise to lower food prices for American families.”

MIL OSI USA News –

January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Municipal Roads Repaired with FEMA Funds

Source: US Federal Emergency Management Agency

Headline: Municipal Roads Repaired with FEMA Funds

Municipal Roads Repaired with FEMA Funds

Projects included flood, erosion, and hazard mitigation worksGuaynabo, PUERTO RICO — The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) allocated nearly $2.6 million to repair important roads and bridges in the municipalities of Barranquitas and Caguas after Hurricane María, helping to restore road infrastructure and reduce the risk of future damage in the area.“These bridge and road repairs strengthen the island’s resilience, allowing it to not only repair damage, but also increase its capacity to meet future challenges through federal FEMA assistance that includes measures to prevent future damage and protect critical infrastructure,” highlighted the Director of Public Assistance, Al Gómez Rivera.One of the projects in this obligation was the repair of the Maneco Bridge in the Cañabón neighborhood of Barranquitas, which consists of a road and a culvert built in 1960. The planned work had over $579,000 in funds and included the repair of the asphalt, base material and subbase of the road and the 27-foot-long corrugated metal pipe culvert.FEMA’s Public Assistance director, Al Gómez Rivera, explained that one of the main damages was to the sewer pipes through which the river basin passed. The funds for the project made it possible to widen the sewer to mitigate damage to the structure in the event of future rains.The bridge, which now bears the name of “Maneco” — as Manuel Colón Santos is affectionately known — benefits some 200 families. Maneco is a leader at the Cañabón neighborhood, known for the help he provides to his neighbors: his home was available to the community and was a space where food and other aid was offered after Hurricane María. Maneco also works with other residents to maintain the neighborhood’s community center, which serves as a shelter and a space for social events. “Our past perils are over; sometimes you would go to an event and, if it rained, you had to wait on the other side, spend two or three hours [waiting] for the river water to decrease to be able to go through. I am very grateful because it is good for the community and, not only for us, but also for many communities in particular,” Maneco said. Moreover, FEMA allocated over $2 million for repairs to the Los Ramos bridge in the Las Carolinas community in Caguas. This grant supported the construction of a new one-span concrete bridge with galvanized steel beams, as well as the installation of erosion protection in the river. The project also included repairs such as the removal of damaged sections of the bridge and the installation of a temporary asphalt surface while the new bridge is being built.To reduce the risk of future flooding, gabions were installed to protect the bank and bridge foundations from erosion. A geotextile fabric was also placed under the gabions to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion due to rainfall. Hazard mitigation funding includes an allocation of over $26,000 to reduce the risk of future damage. These include the installation of curbs and gutters, drainage ditches and a network to stabilize the road and prevent erosion. These works are expected to prevent long-term damage to the road and protect the environment.The measures also include planting vegetation and installing a netting to prevent bank erosion, which will help protect the area from future damage caused by heavy rains and flooding.FEMA has allocated nearly $34.9 billion for over 11,050 recovery projects following Hurricane María. Of this total funding, over $2.7 billion are earmarked for over 3,000 bridge and road projects across the island.For more information about Puerto Rico’s recovery, visit fema.gov/disaster/4339, fema.gov/disaster/4473 and recovery.pr. Follow us on our social media at Facebook.com/FEMAPuertoRico, Facebook.com/COR3pr and Twitter @COR3pr.
frances.acevedo-pico
Mon, 01/27/2025 – 12:30

MIL OSI USA News –

January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Forecast wholesale power prices and retail electricity prices rise modestly in 2025

Source: US Energy Information Administration

In-brief analysis

January 27, 2025

In our January Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), we expect that U.S. wholesale power prices will average slightly higher in 2025 in most U.S. regions than last year, except in Texas and in the Northwest. We forecast that the 11 wholesale prices we track in STEO will average $40 per megawatthour (MWh) in 2025 (weighted by demand), up 7% from 2024. We expect the 2025 average U.S. residential electricity price will be 2% higher than the 2024 average, though after accounting for inflation, our forecast for U.S. residential prices remains relatively unchanged from 2024.

Wholesale power prices are an indicator of the cost of generating power and are generally created on an hourly or daily basis in the United States. These prices reflect the operating and fuel costs of the most expensive unit that is needed for fulfilling electricity demand at a given point in time at a defined pricing point location within the power grid, along with any costs associated with transmission congestion into that area. The cost of natural gas is a primary driver of wholesale prices in many regions because the marginal generator is often one fueled by natural gas. We expect that the cost of natural gas delivered to U.S. power generators will average $3.37 per million British thermal units in 2025, which is up 24% from last year’s average but is about the same price as in 2023.

We expect that average wholesale power prices will range from about $30/MWh in the part of Texas where the grid is managed by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) to $55/MWh in the Northwest region. These two regions are the only ones in which we expect lower wholesale prices this year. The Northwest region is still experiencing drought conditions, but we expect conditions to improve slightly this year with 20% more hydropower generation. Increasing generation from solar power projects is contributing to lower wholesale prices in ERCOT.

Other regions of the country are likely to see higher wholesale prices over the next year as a result of higher costs for natural gas. We expect the largest increases (about 30%–35%) will occur in the Southwest and California regions. Forecast wholesale prices in the ISO New England region average $55/MWh in 2025, up 16% from 2024. Although we expect higher wholesale prices in 2025, they would still be lower than in 2022, when the composite average wholesale price reached $80/MWh.

Changes in the costs of supplying electricity can take time to affect retail electricity prices because retail rates are reviewed and approved by utility regulators in many areas of the country. We expect U.S. retail electricity prices for residential customers will average 16.8 cents per kilowatthour, which would be 2% more than in 2024. After accounting for inflation, forecast U.S. residential prices in 2025 are relatively unchanged from 2024.

Principal contributor: Tyler Hodge

MIL OSI USA News –

January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Moral Courage Network Founder to Visit UConn for Metanoia Program

Source: US State of Connecticut

UConn is embracing its tradition of Metanoia, entering the new semester with plans for thought-provoking events next week on how to listen deeply, build trust, and create pathways to civil discourse on divisive issues.

Professor Irshad Manji, founder and chief executive of the Moral Courage Network, will visit UConn Storrs for a series of teaching and training events on Feb. 5 and 6, including a keynote presentation that will be livestreamed for all UConn community members.

The organization seeks to unify people with the skills needed to communicate in a polarized world, which is among the areas of focus that prompted the University to launch its current Metanoia process.

Manji, who is a New York Times best-selling author, will introduce the UConn community to the five core skills of Moral Courage and teach participants how to use those skills to unify the University community.

Manji’s keynote presentation is planned for 7 p.m. on Wednesday, Feb. 5, in the Student Union Theater. A reception will be held after the keynote presentation to provide community members with more opportunities for discussion.

The event will then be followed with additional workshops on Thursday, Feb. 6, including a screening of the Oscar-shortlisted documentary “Mississippi Turning” and interactive sessions to practice the Moral Courage skills during difficult conversations.

Manji teaches with the Oxford Initiative for Global Ethics and Human Rights and was a prize-winning leadership professor at New York University for many years. Her latest book is “Don’t Label Me: How to Do Diversity Without Inflaming the Culture Wars.”

UConn observed its first Metanoia in 1970 and has convened more than a dozen in the years since then to examine issues of shared importance, often involving political or racial issues that have resulted in divisions on campus and throughout the nation.

This year’s Metanoia, which organizers announced in spring 2024, came out of a need for the UConn community to better foster an environment of equity, inclusion, and understanding when engaging in challenging conversations, organizers said.

Planning is currently underway for additional events and people are invited to suggest an event or program in keeping with the mission of creating pathways to productive and civil discourse.

Like other campuses nationwide, UConn has been home to a wide range of views on hotly disputed topics in recent months and years. Against that backdrop, the University Senate called for the Metanoia in spring 2024 with approval from President Radenka Maric and Provost Anne D’Alleva.

“This will be a time for the University to come together and delve deeply into important topics and concerns. It’s meant to be an intellectual spark for the entire university: for faculty, staff, and students,” Jennifer Lease Butts, one of the organizers, told the Board of Trustees in a presentation about the Metanoia.

Lease Butts, who is also director of the UConn Honors Program and is associate vice provost for enrichment programs, co-chairs the University’s Metanoia Committee with UConn President Emeritus Susan Herbst, who is also a professor of political science.

“The first Metanoia in 1970 was held during a period of great positive change in the United States, but it was also an era marked by violence, incivility, and fear,” Herbst said.

“UConn faculty and staff, who have always been outward-looking and intent on social justice, tackled those issues right here in Storrs, inspiring students – and each other – to discuss difficult issues as one community,” she added. “Let us carry on this tradition in 2025, another extraordinarily challenging year for American democracy and culture.”

The current Metanoia kicked off with a 2024 event, “Pathways to Productive Civil Discourse,” in which participants discussed ways to communicate across differences and listen with empathy, which will be underlying themes of events throughout the coming year.

The event was followed later in the day “UConn Strong: A Dialogue on Mental Health & Resilience,” a Democracy & Dialogues Initiative event hosted by the Gladstein Family Human Rights Institute, in which students led a discussion on the escalating importance of mental health on UConn’s campuses.

The previous events epitomized the kind of thoughtful give-and-take that the yearlong Metanoia seeks to foster and set the tone for planning future events to take place, and Metanoia committee members say they look forward to continuing this conversation with the UConn community this semester.

MIL OSI USA News –

January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Alum Hayley Segar Wows ‘Shark Tank’ Judges, Lands a Deal with Two of Them

Source: US State of Connecticut

UConn alum and swimsuit entrepreneur Hayley Segar ’17 (CLAS) impressed ABC’s “Shark Tank” judges, and left the entrepreneurship competition with a business deal with two of them.

Despite a case of nerves prior to the segment’s taping, Segar was confident and composed when describing onewith, a women’s swimsuit startup that eliminates seams and other uncomfortable features of swimwear. Segar has repeatedly described her business as a UConn-fueled company.

Veteran “Shark” Barbara Corcoran and newcomer Jamie Kern Lima offered Segar $200,000, and plenty of business expertise, in exchange for a 20% stake in the company. Segar enthusiastically accepted their offer.

Onewith has sold $2.3 million in product since its creation at the end of 2021. Following the “Shark Tank” broadcast Friday, 20,000 people visited the swimsuit website.

‘The Story of Every Entrepreneur’

Segar celebrated on Saturday night with a party for more than 100 friends, family members, and business mentors, at the Maritime Aquarium in Norwalk. The event featured live sharks circling a tank, dinner and a prosecco bar, bags of shark-shaped candy for guests, and an immeasurable amount of excitement.

“To be successful on ‘Shark Tank’ is so incredibly validating,’’ she said. “It feels crazy to have this out in the open now after keeping it in my mind and heart for so long.’’ A non-disclosure agreement prevented her from discussing her experience since the September taping.

Segar, a native of New London, told her guests that the joy and excitement depicted on TV is only one part of the entrepreneurship journey.

Segar makes her pitch (Disney/Christopher Willard)

“I’m a private person, I keep my head down and I work hard…this is about much more than getting on a show,’’ she said. “I’ve had to fight for every aspect of my business.’’

Becoming an entrepreneur requires sacrifices, grueling hours, and overcoming moments when all seems hopeless, she said.

She became emotional when she shared how “Shark Tank’s” Kevin O’Leary, often a vocal critic of new entrepreneurs, told her that her presentation was the best he had seen in his years on “Shark Tank.”

“That was the craziest moment for me. I left the tank feeling so proud and so happy,’’ she said.

Segar described “Shark Tank” as the best experience of her life and that having two powerful strategic advisers will allow her to reach a new audience and grow her business in exciting ways.

“With onewith, I knew instantly [that it was going to succeed]. It hit me like a freight train…it was the best possible feeling, and I hope everyone here gets to experience something like it,’’ she said. “I think this is the story of every entrepreneur who loves what they’re doing.’’

UConn Helped Segar Take Idea to Market

Segar came up with the idea after an exhausting search to find flattering swimsuit to bring on a vacation to Miami. She wanted something that felt “one with’’ her body. When she couldn’t find it, she created it herself.

Segar, who graduated from UConn in 2017 with a degree in English Language and Literature, worked in the bridal industry and as a social media influencer after college. But she returned to her alma mater to present her idea to the entrepreneurial community.

She was given an invitation to attend the highly selective Connecticut Center for Entrepreneurship & Innovation’s 2020 Summer Fellowship Accelerator, a part of the School of Business, and received advice, mentoring and a $15,000 in non-dilutive startup funding.

Through the experts at the accelerator, the UConn School of Law, and the Connecticut Small Business Development Center, she developed confidence in her abilities, as well as a network of business mentors and friends. Many of the UConn people who supported her startup attended the event on Saturday.

“I don’t know where I’d be without your guys, you solidified my belief in me,’’ said Segar, who returns often to coach those who follow in her footsteps. “So much of what I learned in Summer Fellowship stays with me today.’’

Hayley Segar is applauded by the guests at the celebration of her “Shark Tank” success in Norwalk (Courtesy of Hector Pachas)

“Hayley is the type of founder that we dream of working with. She’s always eager to learn something new, and thrives on being challenged,’’ says Michelle Cote, CCEI Director of Strategic partnerships and a longtime champion of Connecticut entrepreneurs. “Hayley puts new knowledge and resources into practice immediately. She has earned every milestone that she has reached with onewith, and I can’t wait to see where she goes next!”

‘Shark Tank’ Has Been on Segar’s Radar

“Shark Tank” has advanced the success of many startups, including Bambas socks, Scrub Daddy sponges, Kodiak pancakes and waffles, The Comfy, a hooded, wearable blanket, and Cousins Maine Lobster Food Trucks.

Corcoran, founder of a New York real estate brokerage company, is an original “shark’’ investor, who has made more than 130 deals on the show, including partnered with The Comfy and Cousins Maine Lobster Food Trucks.

Kern Lima is co-founder of IT Cosmetics, a makeup and skincare line, which she sold to L’Oreal for $1.2 billion in 2016, becoming the first women CEO of a L’Oreal brand. This is her debut season on “Shark Tank.”

“I always knew, from the time I was a little girl, that I would start a company…I felt I was on a path to build something of my own,’’ Segar has said. On Saturday, she said she envisions herself becoming a serial entrepreneur. “I can’t not build things, it’s so fun for me,’’ she said.

Segar’s late grandfather had encouraged her to consider appearing on “Shark Tank,” even before she had a business idea. In the final days of his life, she came up with her swimwear business concept and shared it with him in the hospital.

But he is not the only family member who shaped Segar’s success. She credited her mom, Dawn, for packing the swimsuit orders; her grandmother for processing returns; and her dad, Chip, who went to law school while serving as a deputy police chief, for showing her how much can be accomplished in a day.

Segar’s father wore a blazer to the party with the onewith logo printed across it; her mother, a 1989 alum of the School of Business, wore a sparkling silver jacket.

“All of this just feels surreal,’’ Dawn said, beaming. “It’s going to take a while to sink in. It’s a really big deal and we are incredibly proud of her.’’

MIL OSI USA News –

January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI: Forbion BioEconomy Fund I surpasses €150 million target, raising €164.5 million with strong institutional LP support
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
- Forbion’s BioEconomy Fund I has raised €164.5 million to date, exceeding its €150 million target in just over a year, since launching in November 2023.
- Institutional investors, include KfW Capital, Novo Holdings, Rentenbank, Aurae Impact and most recently ABN AMRO Bank and EIFO.
- The fund focuses on biotech-enabled, B2B solutions that deliver sustainability at price parity or better across Food, Agriculture, Materials, and Environmental Technologies.
NAARDEN, The Netherlands, Jan. 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Forbion, a leading venture capital firm with deep biotech expertise in Europe and the US, announces that its BioEconomy Fund I has raised €164.5 million. This exceeds the fund’s €150 million target, underscoring growing investor interest in the commercial potential of biotech innovations that address global sustainability challenges.

BioEconomy Fund I is supported by top-tier institutional investors, including KfW Capital, Novo Holdings, Rentenbank, and Aurae Impact, alongside new backers ABN AMRO Bank and EIFO. The BioEconomy Fund I anticipates a final close at or close to the hard cap of €200 million, demonstrating the growing confidence in biotech innovations that address global sustainability challenges.

Launched in November 2023, the Forbion BioEconomy Fund I is a planetary health fund that targets business-to-business (B2B) solutions that replace unsustainable products with scalable, cost-effective alternatives. A key pillar of the fund’s strategy is ensuring these innovations achieve price parity with incumbent solutions, enabling wide-scale adoption across the fund’s four target sectors: Food, Agriculture, Materials, and Environmental Technologies industries.

Sander Slootweg, Managing Partner and co-founder of Forbion, stated, “Exceeding €150 million in just over a year reflects the strength of our team and strategy and the confidence our investors have in our ability to execute. Their support for BioEconomy Fund I demonstrates the growing demand for scalable, cost-competitive biotech solutions that deliver both sustainability and strong returns.”

Alex Hoffmann, General Partner, added, “Investors recognize the transformative potential of scalable biotech solutions to meet the needs of industries seeking to adopt sustainable practices. Their support empowers us to help companies scale and deliver meaningful change.”

About Forbion BioEconomy Fund I
BioEconomy Fund I’s focus on using biotechnology and green chemistry to deliver sustainable B2B solutions in Food, Agriculture, Materials, and Environmental Technologies is best exemplified by its initial investments in Solasta Bio and Novameat. These portfolio companies illustrate Forbion’s commitment to scalable, biotech-enabled innovation. Solasta Bio develops sustainable insect control solutions as alternatives to chemical insecticides, while Novameat advances plant-based meat production with proprietary technology designed for scalability and high-quality texture. By building on Forbion’s expertise in biotechnology, the fund aligns its investments with UN Sustainable Development Goals, including SDG 9 (industry, innovation, and infrastructure), SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production), and SDG 13 (climate action). Forbion BioEconomy Fund I aims to deliver strong financial returns while driving impactful solutions to pressing planetary challenges. Forbion announced the first close of BioEconomy Fund I at €75 million on 20 June 2024.

About Forbion
Forbion is a leading global venture capital firm with deep expertise in Europe and the US with offices in Naarden, The Netherlands, Munich, Germany and Boston, USA. Forbion invests in innovative biotech companies, managing approximately €5 billion across multiple fund strategies that cover all stages of (bio-) pharmaceutical drug development. In addition, Forbion leverages its biotech expertise beyond human health to address ‘planetary health’ challenges through its BioEconomy fund strategy, which invests in companies developing sustainable solutions in food, agriculture, materials, and environmental technologies. Forbion’s team consists of over 30 investment professionals that have built an impressive performance track record since the late nineties with 128 investments across 11 funds. Forbion’s record of sourcing, building and guiding life sciences companies has resulted in many approved breakthrough therapies and valuable exits. Forbion typically selects impactful investments that will positively affect the health and well-being of people and the planet, as well as meet its financial return objectives. The firm is a signatory to the United Nations Principles for Responsible Investment. Forbion operates a joint venture with BGV, the manager of seed and early-stage funds, especially focused on Benelux and Germany.

For more information, please contact:

Forbion Investor Relations
Email: Robbert.van.de.Griendt@forbion.com
General Partner IR & Impact

Forbion Communications
Email: laura.asbjornsen@forbion.com
Head of Communications

The MIL Network –
January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI: Franklin Electric Declares Payment of Increased Quarterly Cash Dividend

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

FORT WAYNE, Ind., Jan. 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Franklin Electric Co., Inc. (NASDAQ: FELE) announced today that its Board of Directors declared a quarterly cash dividend of $0.265 per share payable February 20, 2025, to shareholders of record on February 6, 2025. This represents a 6 percent increase from the prior quarterly dividend. This dividend will mark the 33^rd consecutive year that Franklin Electric has increased its dividend, demonstrating its commitment to returning cash to shareholders and confidence in the outlook of the business.

About Franklin Electric
Franklin Electric is a global leader in the production and marketing of systems and components for the movement of water and energy. Recognized as a technical leader in its products and services, Franklin Electric serves customers around the world in residential, commercial, agricultural, industrial, municipal, and fueling applications. Franklin Electric is proud to be named in Newsweek’s lists of America’s Most Responsible Companies and Most Trustworthy Companies for 2024 and America’s Climate Leaders 2024 by USA Today.

“Safe Harbor” Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Any forward-looking statements contained herein, including those relating to market conditions or the Company’s financial results, costs, expenses or expense reductions, profit margins, inventory levels, foreign currency translation rates, liquidity expectations, business goals and sales growth, involve risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to, risks and uncertainties with respect to general economic and currency conditions, various conditions specific to the Company’s business and industry, weather conditions, new housing starts, market demand, competitive factors, changes in distribution channels, supply constraints, effect of price increases, raw material costs, technology factors, integration of acquisitions, litigation, government and regulatory actions, the Company’s accounting policies, future trends, epidemics and pandemics, and other risks which are detailed in the Company’s Securities and Exchange Commission filings, included in Item 1A of Part I of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2023, Exhibit 99.1 attached thereto and in Item 1A of Part II of the Company’s Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. These risks and uncertainties may cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated by the forward-looking statements. All forward-looking statements made herein are based on information currently available, and the Company assumes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements.

The MIL Network –

January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s plan to eliminate FEMA is a very bad idea

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Jack L. Rozdilsky, Associate Professor of Disaster and Emergency Management, York University, Canada

A symbolic visit by an American president to a disaster site can be constructive. Former President Joe Biden’s presence at areas in the United States affected by various disasters allowed him to both show leadership and offer comfort in moments of national tragedy.

In contrast, a bombastic President Donald Trump used his first domestic trip on Jan. 24 to tour disaster sites in North Carolina and Los Angeles while promoting his litany of grievances and rambling about his dislike of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

It takes a perverse set of skills for a president to act in a way that squanders the opportunity to genuinely exhibit compassion for disaster victims while also lowering the morale of emergency workers at the same time.

Trump’s announcement to overhaul or eliminate FEMA — especially in the midst of an ongoing disaster — is unreasonable and foolish.

Trump’s criticisms

In a Fox News interview on Jan. 22, Trump suggested that FEMA would be facing a reckoning.

The president echoed Republican criticisms of the Hurricane Helene disaster response last September. During Hurricane Helene, Trump has used his bully pulpit to endorse or invent false or unsubstantiated claims. The federal government was also falsely accused of a lack of response following Helene.

While touring hurricane damage in North Carolina on Jan. 24, Trump remarked:

“Well, I’ll also be signing an executive order to begin the process of fundamentally reforming and overhauling FEMA or maybe getting rid of FEMA. I think, frankly, FEMA is not good.”

Trump indicated he would like to see state governments respond to disasters.

The White House later clarified that an upcoming executive order would direct a council of FEMA advisers to examine the agency and come up with proposals for reform.

Turning back the clock

If Trump gets rid of FEMA, he’ll be turning back the clock 50 years. It is illogical to call for a return to a time with a weak and disorganized system of disaster management.

In the 1970s, states were responsible for managing their own disasters. More than 100 different federal agencies could become involved in relief efforts. The system was reactionary and responded on a need basis, with no clear pathways for federal disaster assistance to states.

State governors became increasingly concerned about the lack of a comprehensive national emergency policy. The dispersion of federal disaster management responsibilities among numerous federal agencies was viewed as impeding states’ own ability to manage disaster situations.

In advocating for better disaster management, a National Association of Governors’ report entitled 1978 Emergency Preparedness Project made the case for a centralized emergency management system in the U.S.

President Jimmy Carter acted on the recommendations of the governors with Executive Order 12127 to create FEMA in 1979. It was a cabinet-level agency until 2003, when it was merged into the Department of Homeland Security.

Read more:
Jimmy Carter’s death invites us to consider his legacy of nuclear emergency response and disaster management

Duties enshrined in law

When a large-scale disaster stretches the ability of an American city to help its citizens, a formal process exists to request aid. As a local disaster expands in size and scope, requests for more assistance can go up to higher levels of administration, from the state governor and ultimately to the president. In this process, FEMA reports to local governments.

A presidential disaster declaration can open up access to an array of federal programs managed by FEMA to assist with response and recovery.

FEMA was created by President Jimmy Carter in 1979.
(J. Rozdilsky), CC BY

The role of FEMA in supporting the declaration process are defined in provisions in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. The Stafford Act also provides for the statutory authority guiding FEMA programs like individual assistance.

While Trump sits at the top of the executive branch, he can engage in a variety of political shenanigans to undermine FEMA, but he cannot unilaterally abolish the agency. As the agency’s duties are enshrined in law, only an act of the legislative branch can terminate FEMA.

A turbulent history

FEMA has existed for 46 years and faced turbulent times due to the poor decision-making by past Republican presidents. In 1980, Reagan appointed agency directors with conservative philosophies who emphasized downsizing. Under George W. Bush’s presidency, among the flurry of reactions to Sept. 11, 2001, FEMA was eviscerated and relegated from a top-level cabinet level agency to a position buried deep in the Homeland Security organizational chart.

Trump’s aggressive posture in trying to remake government involves creating diversions, sowing chaos and overloading people with lies. Taking a cue from his former White House strategist Steve Bannon on how to deal with the media, Trump’s statements about FEMA have worked to “flood the zone with shit.”

As with many functions of American government, emergency management is just the latest target of disorientation tactics intended to paralyze government operations.

Jack L. Rozdilsky receives support for research communication and public scholarship from York University. He also has received research support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

– ref. Trump’s plan to eliminate FEMA is a very bad idea – https://theconversation.com/trumps-plan-to-eliminate-fema-is-a-very-bad-idea-248293

MIL OSI – Global Reports –

January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI Video: ‘I’m Going to Help You Fix It’: President Trump Fulfills Promise on California Wildfire Recovery

Source: United States of America – The White House (video statements)

On January 24, 2025, President Trump and First Lady Melania visited Los Angeles to survey wildfire damage, meet with first responders, and pledge federal support for recovery efforts, including plans to improve water access for firefighting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoZca8jIm1Q

MIL OSI Video –

January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: AFRICA/DR CONGO – M23 enters Goma

Source: Agenzia Fides – MIL OSI

Monday, 27 January 2025 war

Kinshasa (Agenzia Fides) – “It was a terrible night,” local sources told Fides from Goma, the capital of North Kivu, in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo, which was conquered today, January 27, by the rebels of the M23 movement. In the Munzenze prison, where about 3,000 prisoners are held, there were hellish scenes. “Throughout the night, as the rebels approached, the prisoners started a revolt. The guards shot indiscriminately. Around 8 in the morning, the prisoners began to jump from the roof of the prison and escape. All the prisoners escaped. We do not know if it was the officers themselves who opened the doors of the prison; the fact is that it is now empty” report our sources.“At dawn, M23 troops entered the city, and now the fighting is concentrated in the airport area,” Fides sources add. Congolese troops of the FARDC (Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of Congo) surrendered at dawn on January 27. The Congolese authorities have confirmed the death of the military governor of the province, Péter Cirimwami, after several contradictory reports on his fate (see Fides, 24/1/2025). The defeat of the FARDC also represents a failure for the international community, which had deployed in North Kivu the blue helmets of MONUSCO (UN Mission in the DRC) and soldiers from the force of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (SAMIDRC). At least nine South African soldiers from SAMIDRC, along with three Malawian and one Uruguayan MONUSCO blue helmets, have lost their lives in the fighting in recent hours. Some FARDC soldiers and pro-government militiamen from Wazalendo have surrendered to MONUSCO, complying with the demands of the M23, which claims to have control of traffic in Lake Kivu, thus blocking the possibility of escape through its waters. On the international level, while the Kinshasa government rejected the mediation proposed by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan (see Fides, 24/1/2025), Kenyan President William Ruto has announced an extraordinary summit of the East African Community (EAC) “in the next 48 hours”, with the participation of the Heads of State of the DRC and Rwanda, the latter indicated as a sponsor of the M23. (L.M.) (Agenzia Fides, 25/1/2025)
Share:

MIL OSI Europe News –

January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI Europe: VATICAN – Pope Francis: The Word of God always amazes us and calls us to be witnesses of the Gospel

Source: Agenzia Fides – MIL OSI

Sunday, 26 January 2025

Vatican Media

Vatican City (Agenzia Fides) – “The salvation Jesus bestows on us is not yet fully realized. We know this. Yet wars, injustice, pain and death will not have the final word. The Gospel never disappoints”.In St. Peter’s Basilica in the Vatican, Pope Francis presided over the Holy Mass on the occasion of the VI Sunday of the Word of God, established in 2019 by the Pontiff himself. The Celebration also marked the conclusion of the three-day event dedicated to the Jubilee of the world of Communication.When we hear the Gospel, the words of God, the Pope suggested, “it is not simply a matter of listening to or understanding them, no. They must reach our hearts and bring about what I said, “amazement”. The word of God always amazes us; it always renews us. It enters our hearts and always renews us”. In fact, “the whole Bible speaks of Christ and his work, which the Spirit makes present and active in our lives and in history. When we read the Scriptures, when we pray and study them, we do not simply receive information about God; we receive his Spirit, who reminds us of all that Jesus said and did. In this way, our hearts, inflamed by faith, wait in hope for the coming of God”.“Let us respond with ardor to the joyful announcement of Christ! The Lord, in fact, did not speak to us as silent listeners, but as witnesses, calling us to evangelize at all times and in all places”, concluded the Pope who then conferred the ministry of Lector to forty lay men and women, from various nations: 4 from Albania, 3 from Argentina, 5 from Austria, 1 from Bolivia, 4 from Brazil, 5 from the Philippines, 1 from Iceland, 6 from Italy, 5 from Mexico, 1 from Poland, 5 from Slovenia.According to the rite, each of them received a copy of the Nova Vulgata Bible: “We are grateful to them and we pray for them. We are all praying for you. Let us commit ourselves to bringing the good news to the poor, proclaiming release to captives and recovery of sight to the blind, letting the oppressed go free and announcing the year of the Lord’s favour”.After the celebration, the Pontiff appeared in St. Peter’s Square for the Angelus prayer. And on the eve of the International Day of Commemoration in memory of the victims of the Holocaust, which this year coincides with the 80th anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz concentration camp, Pope Francis recalled the horrors of the Shoah, during which “many Christians also died, including numerous martyrs. The horror of the extermination of millions of Jews and people of other faiths during those years can neither be forgotten nor denied”.The Pontiff then turned his thoughts to the ongoing conflict in Sudan, which “is causing the most serious humanitarian crisis in the world, with dramatic consequences in South Sudan too. I am close to the peoples of both countries and I invite them to fraternity, solidarity, to avoid any kind of violence and not to allow themselves to be exploited. I renew my appeal to those who are at war in Sudan for them to put an end to hostilities and to agree to sit at the negotiating table. I urge the international community to do all it can to get the necessary humanitarian aid to the displaced people and to help the belligerents find paths to peace soon”.The Pope also drew attention to the situation in Colombia, in particular in the Catatumbo region, “where clashes between armed groups have claimed many civilian lives and displaced more than thirty thousand people. I express my closeness to them and pray for them”, added the Bishop of Rome, who did not forget that today is World Leprosy Day: “I encourage all those who work on behalf of those afflicted by this disease to continue their efforts, also helping those who heal to be reintegrated into society. May they not be marginalized!” (F.B.) (Agenzia Fides, 26/1/2025)
Share:

MIL OSI Europe News –

January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI Video: ‘You Are Not Forgotten’: President Trump Delivers on North Carolina Recovery

Source: United States of America – The White House (video statements)

On January 24, 2025, President Trump and First Lady Melania visited North Carolina to assess hurricane recovery efforts, meet with officials and first responders, and pledge federal support for rebuilding initiatives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KnVL_kOLpM

MIL OSI Video –

January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI USA: Sustainable Plant and Soil Systems Major Becomes Plant Science in 2025

Source: US State of Connecticut

The sustainable plant and soil systems major offered by the College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources (CAHNR) will be renamed “plant science” beginning in the summer 2025 semester.

This change comes after an in-depth market analysis of employment opportunities, benchmarking against other universities and programs across the nation, and a survey of students, faculty, and staff in the Department of Plant Science and Landscape Architecture. These activities indicated a desire for a major name that was more aligned with industry needs and for better understanding by prospective students.

“There are a variety of career options when graduating with a degree in plant science,” says Sydney Everhart, department head. “Both the name and program were thoughtfully redesigned to enhance recognition of the degree by employers, prospective students, and those who might consider national rankings. This is an exciting time to be considering coming to UConn for plant science.”

A cornerstone of the plant science program is the opportunity to gain practical, hands-on experience through courses with labs, field studies, and internships. The degree prepares students to tackle real world challenges in plant systems, from topics like bioremediation, environmental restoration, and sustainable agricultural plant production practices in the greenhouse, field, and across landscapes.

The core focus of the degree will remain learning about plant science, plant production, biotechnology, and cultivation. Graduates will have a foundational understanding of plant biology and soil management, learning how to optimize plant growth and health in a variety of environments. The program emphasizes hands-on skills, teaching students how to identify and manage pests, diseases, and weeds, and apply sustainable practices to improve agricultural and horticultural systems.

Students in the renamed plant science major will continue to be able to take courses towards a concentration in environmental horticulture, sustainable agriculture, or turfgrass science.

Students with a plant science degree may also have an easier time navigating the post-graduation employment landscape, as this is a broad degree name that provides flexible alignment with a variety of plant science affiliated careers and fields.

“The move away from SPSS is going to be good for the department. Most students, including myself, find it hard to explain what SPSS is to people outside of the major,” says Robert Eselby ’25 (CAHNR). “This name change will help realign the identity of the major with the focuses of the students within it.”

This name change will also allow UConn’s program to be recognized in national rankings of plant science programs. This was not possible in the past as the unique major name did not allow UConn’s graduates to be included in elements necessary for the rankings.

Students currently enrolled in the sustainable plant and soil systems major will have the name of their degree updated for degrees awarded in fall 2025 and moving forward.

“After over 100 years with ‘plant science’ in the name of our department, it is exciting to have everything align – including the bachelor’s degree name, graduate program, and associate’s degree program,” says Everhart. “With many new faculty in our department, we have bold plans to offer new concentrations and courses in the next couple of years that will continue to provide graduates of our program with a strong foundation and cutting-edge skills to equip them to succeed in their careers.”

Follow UConn CAHNR on social media

MIL OSI USA News –

January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI: Greenbacker secures nearly $1 billion financing to support acquisition and construction of largest solar project in New York State
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)
- Greenbacker, together with Hecate Energy, has completed the development of its largest clean energy project to date. After acquiring the project from Hecate, Greenbacker closed on construction financing in conjunction with commencing construction.
- Greenbacker partnered with six of the world’s leading project finance banks and financial institutions to secure $869 million in construction-to-term, letter of credit, and tax equity bridge loan financing and with a global investment manager for an additional $81 million development loan facility.
- The 674 MWdc solar project is expected to power over 120,000 New York homes, support hundreds of green jobs.
NEW YORK, Jan. 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Greenbacker Renewable Energy Company LLC (“Greenbacker”), an independent power producer and energy transition-focused investment manager, today announced it has secured $950 million in aggregate financing to support the acquisition, construction, and operation of its largest clean energy project to date. When complete, the 674 MWdc / 500 MWac utility-scale solar farm (“Cider”) will be the largest solar project in the state of New York.

Greenbacker acquired Cider from Hecate Energy LLC (“Hecate”), one of the largest renewable energy developers in the US. The two companies initially entered into a development partnership in 2021 to bring the project through development, financing, and the commencement of construction.

Following the acquisition, Greenbacker closed on an $869 million financing composed of a construction-to-term loan, a tax equity bridge loan, and letters of credit. The financing was led collectively by six Coordinating Lead Arrangers: MUFG, KeyBanc Capital Markets, ING Capital LLC (“ING”), Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A., New York Branch (“Intesa Sanpaolo”), Societe Generale, and Wells Fargo. MUFG and KeyBanc Capital Markets served as the Co-Documentation Agents and Co-Administrative Agents; ING, Intesa Sanpaolo, and Societe Generale, served as Co-Syndication Agents; ING and Wells Fargo served as Co-Green Structuring Agents. ING, Intesa Sanpaolo, and Societe Generale acted as Bookrunners.

Greenbacker also successfully closed on an $81 million development loan with Voya Investment Management (“Voya IM”). The development loan with Voya IM was utilized to support Cider’s late-stage development, preliminary construction activities, and equipment procurement.

With committed funds totaling nearly $1 billion, Cider represents another milestone for Greenbacker—its largest project financing to date.

“Greenbacker has called New York home for 14 years, and we’re proud to be both the owner of the largest solar energy project in the state’s history and a driving force in accelerating its ambitious clean energy goals,” said Charles Wheeler, CEO of Greenbacker. “This substantial achievement—the result of successful collaboration across a group of top-tier institutions, including our long-time development partner Hecate—will create hundreds of green jobs, deliver affordable clean power, and help continue to build a sustainable future for New Yorkers.”

Cider also marks the third clean energy collaboration between Greenbacker and Hecate. Over the past several years, Greenbacker has acquired over 70 MWac of utility-scale solar in New York from the developer.

“Hecate is proud to once again partner with Greenbacker to complete the development of the Cider Project, which represents a landmark accomplishment for renewable energy development in the state,” said Nick Bullinger, Hecate’s Chief Operating Officer. “This project embodies Hecate’s mission to make impact at scale building out clean generation to power our future.”

“This is the latest in a long history of project financing transactions with Greenbacker, highlighting our ongoing commitment to deploying capital with high-quality partners to help grow the clean energy industry,” said Gregory Berman, Director KeyBanc Capital Markets.

“This transaction reflects our strong partnership with Greenbacker, belief in its sustainability mission, and commitment to advancing clean energy in New York and nationwide,” said Alberto Mihelcic Bazzana, Director at MUFG.

Cider will utilize approximately 2,500 acres of land in Genesee County, where it began construction in late 2024. The project is expected to generate enough annual clean electricity to power approximately 120,000 average New York households.¹

“Greenbacker’s successful closing on this development loan facility and the bank syndicate’s construction and long-term facility is a pivotal achievement for our organization,” said Carl Weatherley-White, Greenbacker’s Head of Capital Markets. “Finalizing $950 million in capital to build the largest solar project in New York is a testament to the deep expertise and dedication of all parties involved.”

Sheppard Mullin and Barclay Damon served as counsel for Greenbacker; Winston & Strawn LLP served as counsel for Hecate; Winston & Strawn LLP and Rath, Young, and Pignatelli, PC served as counsel for the bank syndicate; Latham & Watkins LLP served as counsel for Voya.

Greenbacker is committed to empowering a sustainable world by connecting individuals and institutions with investments in clean energy. As of September 30, 2024, the company’s fleet of clean energy projects have produced over 10 million MWh of clean energy since 2016, abating more than 7 million metric tons of carbon² and supporting thousands of green jobs.³

About Greenbacker Renewable Energy Company
Greenbacker Renewable Energy Company LLC is a publicly reporting, non-traded limited liability sustainable infrastructure company that both acquires and manages income-producing renewable energy and other energy-related businesses, including solar and wind farms, and provides asset management services to other renewable energy investment vehicles. We seek to acquire and operate high-quality projects that sell clean power under long-term contracts to high-creditworthy counterparties such as utilities, municipalities, and corporations. We are long-term owner-operators, who strive to be good stewards of the land and responsible members of the communities in which we operate. Greenbacker conducts its asset management business through its wholly owned subsidiary, Greenbacker Capital Management, LLC, an SEC-registered investment adviser. We believe our focus on power production and asset management creates value that we can then pass on to our shareholders—while facilitating the transition toward a clean energy future. For more information, please visit https://greenbackercapital.com.

About Hecate Energy
Hecate Energy was founded in 2012 by a team of energy industry veterans and has successfully developed 4.1 GWs of projects to construction or operations. Hecate believes in establishing beneficial, sustainable, and collaborative partnerships with the host communities where its projects are located and tailors each renewable energy project it develops to better meet the needs of project stakeholders.
Hecate Energy has entered over 6 GWac of renewable power purchase agreements (PPAs) across 55 PPAs with 24 counterparties as well as projects that are selling through merchant markets. Projects that Hecate has developed and that are constructed or are under construction include over 4 GWac of solar projects and 103 MWac of battery storage projects totaling over $6 billion in asset value. Hecate has an active development pipeline of over 43.7 GWac of renewable projects.

About MUFG and MUFG Americas
Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. (MUFG) is one of the world’s leading financial groups. Headquartered in Tokyo and with over 360 years of history, MUFG has a global network with approximately 2,100 locations in more than 50 countries. MUFG has nearly 160,000 employees and offers services including commercial banking, trust banking, securities, credit cards, consumer finance, asset management, and leasing. The Group aims to be “the world’s most trusted financial group” through close collaboration among our operating companies and flexibly respond to all the financial needs of our customers, serving society, and fostering shared and sustainable growth for a better world. MUFG’s shares trade on the Tokyo, Nagoya, and New York stock exchanges.

MUFG’s Americas operations, including its offices in the U.S., Latin America, and Canada, are primarily organized under MUFG Bank, Ltd. and subsidiaries, and are focused on Global Corporate and Investment Banking, Japanese Corporate Banking, and Global Markets. MUFG is one of the largest foreign banking organizations in the Americas. For locations, banking capabilities and services, career opportunities, and more, visit www.mufgamericas.com.

About Voya Investment Management
Voya Investment Management (IM) has approximately $392 billion in assets under management and administration as of Sept. 30, 2024, across public and private fixed income, equities, multi-asset solutions and alternative strategies for institutions, financial intermediaries and individual investors, drawing on a 50-year legacy of active investing and the expertise of 300+ investment professionals. Voya IM has cultivated a culture grounded in a commitment to understanding and anticipating clients’ needs, producing strong investment performance, and embedding diversity, equity and inclusion in its business.

Forward-Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results to differ materially from those anticipated at the time the forward-looking statements are made. Although Greenbacker believes the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are based upon reasonable assumptions, it can give no assurance that the expectations will be attained or that any deviation will not be material. Greenbacker undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statement contained herein to conform to actual results or changes in its expectations.

Greenbacker media contact
Chris Larson
Media Communications
646.569.9532
c.larson@greenbackercapital.com

MUFG media contact
Alicia Faugier
Corporate Communications
afaugier@mufg.jp

¹Governor Hochul Announces Siting Approval of New York’s Largest Solar Facility to Date, governor.ny.gov.
²EPA Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. September 30, 2024.
³ Data is as of September 30, 2024. Green jobs calculated using The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) State Clean Energy Employment Projection Support, nrel.gov.

The MIL Network –
January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI: Blackford Capital Acquires Ace Controls, Expanding PACIV, its Industrial Automation Platform

Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich., Jan. 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Blackford Capital (“Blackford”), a leading lower middle market private equity firm, announced today the acquisition of Ace Controls, a Houston, Texas-based company renowned for designing and building industrial control panels. This acquisition diversifies Blackford’s Industrial Automation Platform, PACIV, to service a broader range of customers. Terms of the transaction are not being disclosed.

Ace Controls is the third acquisition for the PACIV platform since its establishment in June 2023, following its add-on acquisitions of Data Science Automation in January 2024, and Eight12 Automation in May 2024. PACIV has already established a strong presence in the healthcare and life science industries, and the addition of Ace Controls brings a new focus on industrial applications in the water and wastewater industry, and also further expands the platform’s control panel capabilities. Ace Controls has a 95% repeat business rate from its customers, who represent the equipment manufacturing, electrical contracting, and general contracting sectors.

Martin Stein, Founder and Managing Director of Blackford Capital, said, “Entering an additional highly regulated, strict tolerance end market with high entry barriers will enable PACIV to scale and diversify its business. Our PACIV platform thesis is to be a multi-dimensional industrial automation enterprise catering to life sciences, food and beverage, and water and wastewater companies.”

Ace Controls President Agmed Aguirre founded the company in 2005 with a vision to serve the water and wastewater industries by building and distributing high-quality wholesale control panels designed with the end user in mind. Under his leadership over the past 20 years, Ace Controls has flourished, earning recognition as an industry leader. Agmed’s wife Lindsey Aguirre joined the business in 2006, playing a crucial role in administration and bookkeeping, which has helped to build a solid foundation for the company. The entire management team and all employees will remain with the PACIV platform post-acquisition.

“We are excited to join the PACIV platform and are eager to gain access to new customers, receive additional services, and collaboratively achieve significant growth,” said Mr. Aguirre.

Jeff Johnson, Managing Director and Chairman of the Board of PACIV, said, “We welcome the Ace Controls team to PACIV, who impressed us with their strong culture of continuous improvement, dedication to cost control, and customer service. We believe that by expanding PACIV’s control panel offerings we can achieve our ’one-stop’ goal for the platform and create a truly synergistic portfolio company.”

The platform is headquartered in San Juan, Puerto Rico with offices in Indiana, Pennsylvania, California, Ireland, and now Texas.

Generational Group served as exclusive financial advisor and Lancaster | Helling served as legal advisor to Ace Controls. Varnum LLP served as legal advisor and RSM US LLP served as the financial and tax advisor to Blackford and PACIV. Mercantile Bank provided debt financing, and Rush Street Capital provided financing advisory services in support of the transaction.

About Blackford Capital
Founded in 2010, Blackford Capital is a private equity investment firm headquartered in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Blackford acquires, manages, and builds founder and family-owned, lower middle-market companies, with a focus on the manufacturing, industrial and distribution industries. Blackford has a track record of exceptional returns, a disciplined and relentless approach to value creation, and a focus on operational excellence and a compelling culture. In 2023 and 2024, Blackford Capital was named to Inc’s list of Founder-Friendly Investors, was recognized by ACG Detroit with the 2023 M&A Dealmaker of the Year Award and awarded the 2023 Small Markets Deal of the Year award by both Buyouts Magazine and the Global M&A Network Atlas Awards. For more information, visit www.blackfordcapital.com.

About Ace Controls
Established in January 2005, Ace Controls leverages over 30 years of combined expertise in control panel design, fabrication, and integration to deliver reliable and cost-effective solutions. Serving the water and wastewater industries, as well as the oil and gas industries, Ace Controls caters to manufacturers of process equipment such as pumps, compressors, blowers, conveyors, mixers, and clarifiers, making Ace Controls a trusted partner in these critical sectors.

Media Contact:
Lambert by LLYC
Jennifer Hurson
(845) 729-3100
jhurson@lambert.com

Jackson Lin
(646) 717-4593
jlin@lambert.com

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/72daeb91-d04c-4f9e-a1d3-5374ce84b9fb

The MIL Network –

January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI: Gadfin Ltd. and Israel Acquisitions Corp. Announce Entry into Definitive Business Combination Agreement, Bringing the Unmanned Aerial Delivery Company to Nasdaq
Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

TEL-AVIV, Israel, Jan. 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Israel Acquisitions Corp. (NASDAQ: ISRL, ISRLU, ISRLW), (“ISRL”), a publicly-traded special purpose acquisition company, and Gadfin Ltd. (“Gadfin”), an Israeli technology company specializing in all-weather, long range, heavy-duty, drone delivery for essential cargo, today announced the entry into a definitive business combination agreement reflecting a total equity value of Gadfin of up to $200 million USD (the “Business Combination Agreement”). The combined company will trade on Nasdaq and leverage Gadfin’s innovative technology augmented with the expertise of the ISRL team.

Through Gadfin’s patented technology, its unmanned aerial vehicles which are powered by hydrogen fuel cells can deliver medical supplies and other heavy-duty cargo to long-range destinations and in harsh weather conditions. Gadfin’s technology makes it possible to significantly improve logistics delivery in both civil uses and combat zones. Gadfin is well-positioned to be a leading player in drone cargo delivery.

Upon completion of the transaction, Gadfin aims to achieve a great growth plan based on existing contracts and potential new wins.

Transaction Details:
- The Board of Directors of both ISRL and Gadfin have unanimously approved the Business Combination Agreement and signed voting support agreements in favor of the transaction.
- Minimum net cash condition precedent to closing of $15 million.
- The combined company’s staggered Board of Directors will initially be comprised of up to seven directors, of which one director will be nominated by ISRL and up to four directors will be nominated by Gadfin. Up to two additional directors will be mutually agreed. Existing Gadfin management will operate the combined company.
- The parties anticipate completing the business combination in the second half of 2025, contingent upon satisfying all closing conditions, including shareholder approvals, regulatory consents, and compliance with legal and tax requirements.
- Gadfin’s officers, directors, and >5% shareholders, as well as ISRL’s sponsor will enter into a 6-month lock-up agreement, followed by a gradual release mechanism, from the closing of the business combination.
- At the closing of the transaction, Gadfin will be listed on Nasdaq in the United States.
Izhar Shay, Chairman of ISRL’s Board of Directors: “This business combination agreement marks a significant milestone, aligning well with the vision we set forth when launching our SPAC. Gadfin’s innovative hydrogen-powered drones, capable of long-range, zero-emission deliveries, position the company to seize numerous growth opportunities in the drone logistics industry, both in the U.S. and globally. We believe this is an exceptional company to take to the Nasdaq.”

Eyal Regev, Gadfin’s Founder and CEO: “We are thrilled to announce this business combination, marking a pivotal milestone for Gadfin and underscoring the confidence placed in us by leaders in the hi-tech and financial sectors in Israel and the United States. We deeply appreciate the trust and business expertise of the ISRL team, particularly Ziv Elul and Izhar Shay, whose strategic guidance and proven ability to scale businesses will be invaluable in driving Gadfin’s growth. Together, we are committed to accelerating technological innovation and expanding Gadfin’s global presence. Our gratitude also extends to the dedicated teams at Gadfin and ISRL for their tireless efforts in advancing this merger.”

Advisors:

Tiberius Capital Markets, a division of Arcadia Securities is acting as financial advisor to Israel Acquisitions Corp, with Reed Smith LLP, and Stuarts Humpries acting as legal advisors.

Herzog, Fox, and Neeman is acting as legal advisor to Gadfin.

About Gadfin Ltd.:

Gadfin is a pioneering technology company revolutionizing the logistics and cargo delivery industry with its innovative hydrogen-powered drones. Specializing in long-range, heavy-duty, zero-emission aerial delivery, Gadfin provides cutting-edge solutions for time-critical, essential cargo transport, especially to less accessible areas. Gadfin’s proprietary technology is designed to address the evolving needs of sectors such as healthcare, logistics, and industrial supply chains, enabling efficient, sustainable, and reliable deliveries across urban and remote areas.

Led by Eyal Regev, one of the earliest pioneers of the vertical take-off and landing (“VTOL”) cargo delivery vision, Gadfin’s comprehensive approach includes innovative VTOL design, state-of-the-art drone manufacturing, advanced operational platforms, and tailored support services, ensuring seamless integration into its clients’ logistics frameworks. Headquartered in Israel, Gadfin is pioneering the way in transforming how goods are transported, helping its partners meet the demands of the modern world while reducing environmental impact. Backed by prominent investors, SIBF VC (www.sibf.vc) and Gehr Group (www.gehr.com), Gadfin is poised to lead the charge in sustainable and efficient logistics solutions.

About Israel Acquisitions Corp.:

Israel Acquisitions Corp is a Cayman Islands exempted company incorporated as a blank-check company. Formed for the purpose of entering into a merger, share exchange, asset acquisition, stock purchase, recapitalization, reorganization or similar business combination with one or more businesses or entities. The Company intends to focus on high-growth technology companies that are domiciled in Israel, and that either carry out all or a substantial portion of their activities in Israel or have some other significant Israeli connection. The management team is led by Chairman, Izhar Shay, Chief Executive Officer, Ziv Elul, and Chief Financial Officer, Sharon Barzik Cohen.

Forward-Looking Statements:

This press release contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. All statements, other than statements of present or historical fact included herein, regarding the proposed business combination ISRL and Gadfin, ISRL and Gadfin’s ability to consummate the transaction, the expected closing date for the transaction, the benefits of the transaction and the public company’s future financial performance following the transaction, as well as ISRL’s and Gadfin’s strategy, future operations, financial position, estimated revenues, and losses, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management are forward looking statements. When used herein, including any oral statements made in connection herewith, the words “anticipates,” “approximately,” “believes,” “continues,” “could,” “estimates,” “expects,” “forecast,” “future, ” “intends,” “may,” “outlook,” “plans,” “potential,” “predicts,” “propose,” “should,” “seeks,” “will,” or the negative of such terms and other similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain such identifying words. Such forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties, and other factors, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are based upon estimates and assumptions that, while considered reasonable by both ISRL and its management, and Gadfin and its management, as the case may be, are inherently uncertain. Except as otherwise required by applicable law, ISRL disclaims any duty to update any forward-looking statements, all of which are expressly qualified by the statements in this section, to reflect events or circumstances after the date hereof. ISRL cautions you that these forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, most of which are difficult to predict and many of which are beyond the control of ISRL. There may be additional risks that neither ISRL nor Gadfin presently know of or that ISRL or Gadfin currently believe are immaterial that could also cause actual results to differ from those contained in the forward-looking statements. Nothing in this communication should be regarded as a representation by any person that the forward-looking statements set forth herein will be achieved or that any of the contemplated results of such forward-looking statements will be achieved. You should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date they are made. Author and any of their affiliates, directors, officers and employees expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to disseminate any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which such statement is being made, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

Additional Information and Where to Find It:

Additional information about the proposed business combination, including a copy of the business combination agreement, is disclosed in the Current Report on Form 8-K that ISRL filed with the SEC on January 27, 2025 and is available at www.sec.gov. In connection with the proposed transaction, the Company intends to file a registration statement, which will include a preliminary proxy statement/prospectus with the SEC. The proxy statement/prospectus will be sent to the stockholders of the Company. The Company and Gadfin also will file other documents regarding the proposed transaction with the SEC. Before making any voting decision, investors and security holders of the Company are urged to read the proxy statement/prospectus and all other relevant documents filed or that will be filed with the SEC in connection with the proposed transaction as they become available because they will contain important information about the proposed transaction.

No Offer or Solicitation:

This communication is for informational purposes only and shall not constitute a solicitation of a proxy, consent or authorization with respect to any securities or in respect of the Business Combination. This communication shall also not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities, or a solicitation of any vote or approval, nor shall there be any sale of securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such jurisdiction. No offering of securities shall be made except by means of a prospectus meeting the requirements of Section 10 of the Securities Act, or an exemption therefrom.

Investor Contact:

contact@israelspac.com

The MIL Network –
January 28, 2025
MIL-OSI Economics: CBDC requires interoperability, privacy protection, robust infrastructure, and clear benefits of use to become currency in future, says GlobalData

Source: GlobalData

CBDC requires interoperability, privacy protection, robust infrastructure, and clear benefits of use to become currency in future, says GlobalData

Posted in Banking

Retail central bank digital currency (CBDC) development projects continue to face significant hurdles before achieving large-scale implementation. Key challenges include ensuring system interoperability with existing payment methods and currencies worldwide, addressing privacy concerns in advanced economies, and overcoming infrastructure limitations in emerging economies, according to GlobalData, a leading data and analytics company.

GlobalData’s latest report, “The State of Central Bank Digital Currencies in 2025 and Beyond,” highlights that retail CBDCs fail to address real consumer needs or pain points meaningfully. Furthermore, they offer no clear tangible benefits that would drive user adoption.

Blandina Szalay, Banking and Payments Analyst at GlobalData, comments: “The very limited uptake of CBDC in countries where it fully launched – in the Bahamas, Jamaica, the Eastern Caribbean Currency Union, and Nigeria – can be attributed to the lack of compelling incentives for consumers to switch to CBDCs from the payment methods they are already used to.”

With habit and convenience being the dominant factors influencing payment tool choices globally for both in-person and online payments, central banks will require either robust incentive schemes or mandates to achieve a widespread adoption of their digital currencies. In countries already operating CBDCs, consumers have expressed that using CBDCs and their associated wallets has introduced additional friction to existing payment processes without offering sufficient benefits. Critics from other CBDC-piloting countries echo these sentiments.

Szalay continues: “Achieving critical mass in CBDC adoption, however, will be necessary to reap any advantages initially proposed by central banks. These could include driving domestic payment system innovation, improving cross-border payment efficiencies, fostering financial inclusion, and newfound financial and monetary stability in emerging economies by formalizing their economies via CBDC.”

Most recently, the Bank of England (BoE) unveiled its digital pound lab, a testing sandbox aimed at addressing key challenges such as interoperability, or absence of clear use cases and lack of viable business models. These issues are set to be tackled throughout 2025, before the decision on a wider launch is made.

Szalay concludes: “As national governments keep allocating resources towards their ongoing CBDC projects, they should also consider the level of their citizens’ openness and willingness to use the central bank’s digital currency in their everyday lives. Should incentives prove insufficient, and governments have to turn to mandates, it will only reinforce critics’ concerns that CBDCs are a tool for asserting domestic and international control.”

MIL OSI Economics –

January 28, 2025

MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Change of His Majesty’s Ambassador to the Republic of Costa Rica and to the Republic of Nicaragua: Edward Roberts

Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments 3

Mr Edward Roberts has been appointed His Majesty’s Ambassador to the Republic of Costa Rica, and His Majesty’s non-resident Ambassador to the Republic of Nicaragua, in succession to Mr Ben Lyster-Binns.

Mr Roberts will take up his appointment during autumn 2025.

Curriculum vitae

Full name: Edward John Roberts

Year	Role
2025	Pre-posting training (including Spanish language training)
2023 to 2024	FCDO, Europe Group, Directorate Flexible Resource
2022 to 2023	College of Europe, Bruges, MA in EU International Relations and Diplomacy Studies
2019 to 2022	Kathmandu, Deputy Ambassador
2017 to 2019	Department for Exiting the European Union, Policy Manager, Security Partnership
2016 to 2017	Cabinet Office, Senior Policy Adviser, Migration and EU Asylum Cooperation
2013 to 2016	Kinshasa, Consul and Second Secretary Political and Prosperity
2011 to 2013	FCO, Desk Officer, EU Institutions and Treaty Change Bill
2010 to 2011	European Commission, Brussels, DG AIDCO, Seconded National Expert, Human Development and Migration
2009 to 2010	Department for Education, Policy Officer, Early Years Improvement Support
2008 to 2009	Brussels, European Commission, DG AIDCO, Stagiaire, Human Development and Migration
2007 to 2008	Department for Education, Policy Officer, Education and Skills Bill
2006 to 2007	Department for Education, Policy Officer, Strategy for Learners with Learning Difficulties
2006	Joined the Civil Service Fast Stream

Media enquiries

Email newsdesk@fcdo.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7008 3100

Contact the FCDO Communication Team via email (monitored 24 hours a day) in the first instance, and we will respond as soon as possible.

Published 24 January 2025

MIL OSI United Kingdom –

January 28, 2025

MIL-OSI Video: Secretary Pete Buttigieg delivers remarks on the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse in Baltimore.

Source: United States of America – Federal Government Departments (video statements)

Search and rescue operations continue following the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse. Our hearts go out to the families waiting for news, and our thanks go out to the extraordinary first responders on the scene. We will be with the people of Baltimore every step of the way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIdZJXSwHwI

MIL OSI Video –

January 28, 2025

Category: Americas

What is pain?

Danger signals

How pain travels though the body

But why do we need to feel pain?

What is SNAP?

Why restrict SNAP?

Why SNAP restrictions won’t make America healthier

Flexible but don’t cover all needs

Press contact

Quotes:

Quick Facts:

Title of course:

What prompted the idea for the course?

What does the course explore?

Why is this course relevant now?

What’s a critical lesson from the course?

What will the course prepare students to do?

The risk of return

Continued welcome in Europe?

Conditions in Turkey and Lebanon

Testing the water

Are Texas elections free and fair?

Money in politics

Freedom of expression

Human rights at the border

Women’s freedoms

As Texas goes, so goes the nation?

Tin ear

‘Proper’ English

Human connection

A short history of public drinking water

Is raw water healthier than tap water?

Risks of drinking raw water

How safe is tap water in the US?

Trump’s criticisms

Turning back the clock

Duties enshrined in law

A turbulent history

Curriculum vitae

Share this page

Updates to this page