NewzIntel.com

Category: Elon Musk

  • MIL-Evening Report: ER Report: A Roundup of Significant Articles on EveningReport.nz for July 15, 2025

    ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on July 15, 2025.

    A warning from the future: the risk if NZ gets climate adaptation policy wrong today
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tom Logan, Senior Lecturer Above the Bar, Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury Getty Images New Zealand 2050: On the morning of February 27, the sea surged through the dunes south of the small town of Te Taone, riding on the back of Cyclone Harita’s

    ABC’s and CBS’s settlements with Trump are a dangerous step toward the commander in chief becoming the editor-in-chief
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael J. Socolow, Professor of Communication and Journalism, University of Maine Will settlements by news companies with President Donald Trump turn journalists into puppets? MARHARYTA MARKO/iStock Getty Images Plus It was a surrender widely foreseen. For months, rumors abounded that Paramount would eventually settle the seemingly frivolous

    Is there any hope for the internet?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aarushi Bhandari, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Davidson College Hate and mental illness fester online because love and healing seem to be incompatible with profits. Ihor Lukianenko/iStock via Getty Images In 2001, social theorist bell hooks warned about the dangers of a loveless zeitgeist. In “All About Love:

    Hung parliament still likely outcome of Tasmanian election, with Liberals well ahead of Labor in new poll
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne A new Tasmanian DemosAU poll gives the Liberals a 34.9–24.7 statewide vote lead over Labor, implying the Liberals will win the most seats but be short of

    Luxon and Peters to miss Cook Islands’ 60th Constitution Day celebrations
    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist New Zealand will not send top government representation to the Cook Islands for its 60th Constitution Day celebrations in three weeks’ time. Instead, Governor-General Dame Cindy Kiro will represent Aotearoa in Rarotonga. On August 4, Cook Islands will mark 60 years of self-governance in free association with New Zealand.

    Keith Rankin Analysis – Reporting International Migration: Less than the Truth
    Analysis by Keith Rankin. Yesterday I listened to RNZ’s political commentators. The principal topic was an aspect of the recently released May 2025 international migration. Kathryn Ryan starts by reminding us of the “old saying, would the last person to leave New Zealand please turn out the lights” (a saying which has been used in

    Antisemitism plan fails on a number of fronts – a contentious definition of hate is just the start
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Louise Chappell, Scientia Professor, UNSW Sydney The antisemitism strategy presented to the Albanese government has attracted considerable – and wholly justifed – criticism. Produced by Jillian Segal, the special envoy to combat antisemitism, the blueprint falls short in a range of areas essential to good public policy.

    Do I have prostate cancer? Why a simple PSA blood test alone won’t give you the answer
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kevin M. Koo, NHMRC Emerging Leadership Fellow, The University of Queensland Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in Australia, with about 26,000 men diagnosed per year. The majority (more than 85%) are aged over 60. Prostate cancer kills around 3,900 Australians a year. Yet most prostate

    Many fish are social, but pesticides are pushing them apart
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kyle Morrison, PhD Candidate in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, UNSW Sydney Kazakov Maksim, Shutterstock Scientists have detected pesticides in rivers, lakes and oceans worldwide. So what are these pesticides doing to the fish? Long before pesticides reach lethal doses, they can disrupt hormones, impair brain function and

    Almost half of young workers expected to work unpaid overtime, while a quarter aren’t paid compulsory super
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Howe, Associate Dean (Research), Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne Anna Kraynova/Shutterstock A young person gets a job, excited to earn their first paycheck. Over time, they realise the hours are long and the payslips small. They are told to stay back to clean up

    Israeli settlers shoot, beat to death 2 Palestinians in latest lynchings
    BEARING WITNESS: By Cole Martin in occupied West Bank Two young Palestinians were shot and beaten to death on their land, and 30 injured, by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank on Saturday. A large group of settlers attacked the rural Palestinian village of Sinjil, in the Ramallah governorate, beating Sayfollah “Saif” Mussalet, 20,

    View from The Hill: Segal’s antisemitism plan gives government controversy, not clarity
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Prime Minister Anthony Albanese may be rueing what seemed a good idea at the time – the appointment of a special envoy to combat antisemitism (as well as an envoy to combat Islamophobia). Or perhaps Jillian Segal, a former president

    David Robie condemns ‘callous’ health legacy of French, US nuclear bomb tests in Pacific
    Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. – A journalist who was on the Rainbow Warrior voyage to Rongelap last night condemned France for its “callous” attack of an environmental ship, saying “we haven’t forgotten, or forgiven this outrage”. David Robie, the author of Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the

    Was the Air India crash caused by pilot error or technical fault? None of the theories holds up – yet
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Guido Carim Junior, Senior Lecturer in Aviation, Griffith University Over the weekend, the Indian Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau released a preliminary report on last month’s crash of Air India flight 171, which killed 260 people, 19 of them on the ground. The aim of a preliminary report

    Confusing for doctors, inequitable for patients: why Australia’s medicinal cannabis system needs urgent reform
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christine Mary Hallinan, Senior Research Fellow, Department of General Practice and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne Vanessa Nunes/Getty Images In 2024 alone, Australia’s medicines regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), authorised at least 979,000 prescription applications for medicinal cannabis

    Treasury warns the government it may not balance the budget or meet its housing targets
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Head, Canberra School of Government, University of Canberra Kokkai Ng/Getty In the runup to each election, federal treasury produces a “blue book” and a “red book”, with advice tailored to the priorities of the two alternative governments. One of these is given to the incoming

    UNESCO grants World Heritage status to Khmer Rouge atrocity sites – paving the way for other sites of conflict
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Hughes, Associate Professor of Geography, The University of Melbourne A series of atrocity sites of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia have been formally entered onto the World Heritage list, as part of the 47th session of the World Heritage Committee. This is not only important

    How do you stop an AI model turning Nazi? What the Grok drama reveals about AI training
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aaron J. Snoswell, Senior Research Fellow in AI Accountability, Queensland University of Technology Anne Fehres and Luke Conroy & AI4Media, CC BY Grok, the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot embedded in X (formerly Twitter) and built by Elon Musk’s company xAI, is back in the headlines after calling

    Author condemns ‘callous’ health legacy of French, US nuclear bomb tests in Pacific
    Asia Pacific Report A journalist who was on the Rainbow Warrior voyage to Rongelap last night condemned France for its “callous” attack of an environmental ship, saying “we haven’t forgotten, or forgiven this outrage”. David Robie, the author of Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior, said at the launch

    Washington’s war demands – Australia right to refuse committing to a hypothetical conflict with China over Taiwan
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Blaxland, Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University Andy. LIU/Shutterstock The United States can count on Australia as one of its closest allies. Dating back to the shared experiences in the second world war and the ANZUS Treaty signed in 1951, Australia has steadfastly

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: ER Report: A Roundup of Significant Articles on EveningReport.nz for July 15, 2025

    ER Report: Here is a summary of significant articles published on EveningReport.nz on July 15, 2025.

    A warning from the future: the risk if NZ gets climate adaptation policy wrong today
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Tom Logan, Senior Lecturer Above the Bar, Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury Getty Images New Zealand 2050: On the morning of February 27, the sea surged through the dunes south of the small town of Te Taone, riding on the back of Cyclone Harita’s

    ABC’s and CBS’s settlements with Trump are a dangerous step toward the commander in chief becoming the editor-in-chief
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michael J. Socolow, Professor of Communication and Journalism, University of Maine Will settlements by news companies with President Donald Trump turn journalists into puppets? MARHARYTA MARKO/iStock Getty Images Plus It was a surrender widely foreseen. For months, rumors abounded that Paramount would eventually settle the seemingly frivolous

    Is there any hope for the internet?
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aarushi Bhandari, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Davidson College Hate and mental illness fester online because love and healing seem to be incompatible with profits. Ihor Lukianenko/iStock via Getty Images In 2001, social theorist bell hooks warned about the dangers of a loveless zeitgeist. In “All About Love:

    Hung parliament still likely outcome of Tasmanian election, with Liberals well ahead of Labor in new poll
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne A new Tasmanian DemosAU poll gives the Liberals a 34.9–24.7 statewide vote lead over Labor, implying the Liberals will win the most seats but be short of

    Luxon and Peters to miss Cook Islands’ 60th Constitution Day celebrations
    By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist New Zealand will not send top government representation to the Cook Islands for its 60th Constitution Day celebrations in three weeks’ time. Instead, Governor-General Dame Cindy Kiro will represent Aotearoa in Rarotonga. On August 4, Cook Islands will mark 60 years of self-governance in free association with New Zealand.

    Keith Rankin Analysis – Reporting International Migration: Less than the Truth
    Analysis by Keith Rankin. Yesterday I listened to RNZ’s political commentators. The principal topic was an aspect of the recently released May 2025 international migration. Kathryn Ryan starts by reminding us of the “old saying, would the last person to leave New Zealand please turn out the lights” (a saying which has been used in

    Antisemitism plan fails on a number of fronts – a contentious definition of hate is just the start
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Louise Chappell, Scientia Professor, UNSW Sydney The antisemitism strategy presented to the Albanese government has attracted considerable – and wholly justifed – criticism. Produced by Jillian Segal, the special envoy to combat antisemitism, the blueprint falls short in a range of areas essential to good public policy.

    Do I have prostate cancer? Why a simple PSA blood test alone won’t give you the answer
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kevin M. Koo, NHMRC Emerging Leadership Fellow, The University of Queensland Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in Australia, with about 26,000 men diagnosed per year. The majority (more than 85%) are aged over 60. Prostate cancer kills around 3,900 Australians a year. Yet most prostate

    Many fish are social, but pesticides are pushing them apart
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Kyle Morrison, PhD Candidate in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, UNSW Sydney Kazakov Maksim, Shutterstock Scientists have detected pesticides in rivers, lakes and oceans worldwide. So what are these pesticides doing to the fish? Long before pesticides reach lethal doses, they can disrupt hormones, impair brain function and

    Almost half of young workers expected to work unpaid overtime, while a quarter aren’t paid compulsory super
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Howe, Associate Dean (Research), Melbourne Law School, The University of Melbourne Anna Kraynova/Shutterstock A young person gets a job, excited to earn their first paycheck. Over time, they realise the hours are long and the payslips small. They are told to stay back to clean up

    Israeli settlers shoot, beat to death 2 Palestinians in latest lynchings
    BEARING WITNESS: By Cole Martin in occupied West Bank Two young Palestinians were shot and beaten to death on their land, and 30 injured, by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank on Saturday. A large group of settlers attacked the rural Palestinian village of Sinjil, in the Ramallah governorate, beating Sayfollah “Saif” Mussalet, 20,

    View from The Hill: Segal’s antisemitism plan gives government controversy, not clarity
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra Prime Minister Anthony Albanese may be rueing what seemed a good idea at the time – the appointment of a special envoy to combat antisemitism (as well as an envoy to combat Islamophobia). Or perhaps Jillian Segal, a former president

    David Robie condemns ‘callous’ health legacy of French, US nuclear bomb tests in Pacific
    Report by Dr David Robie – Café Pacific. – A journalist who was on the Rainbow Warrior voyage to Rongelap last night condemned France for its “callous” attack of an environmental ship, saying “we haven’t forgotten, or forgiven this outrage”. David Robie, the author of Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the

    Was the Air India crash caused by pilot error or technical fault? None of the theories holds up – yet
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Guido Carim Junior, Senior Lecturer in Aviation, Griffith University Over the weekend, the Indian Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau released a preliminary report on last month’s crash of Air India flight 171, which killed 260 people, 19 of them on the ground. The aim of a preliminary report

    Confusing for doctors, inequitable for patients: why Australia’s medicinal cannabis system needs urgent reform
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Christine Mary Hallinan, Senior Research Fellow, Department of General Practice and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne Vanessa Nunes/Getty Images In 2024 alone, Australia’s medicines regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), authorised at least 979,000 prescription applications for medicinal cannabis

    Treasury warns the government it may not balance the budget or meet its housing targets
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Hawkins, Head, Canberra School of Government, University of Canberra Kokkai Ng/Getty In the runup to each election, federal treasury produces a “blue book” and a “red book”, with advice tailored to the priorities of the two alternative governments. One of these is given to the incoming

    UNESCO grants World Heritage status to Khmer Rouge atrocity sites – paving the way for other sites of conflict
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Rachel Hughes, Associate Professor of Geography, The University of Melbourne A series of atrocity sites of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia have been formally entered onto the World Heritage list, as part of the 47th session of the World Heritage Committee. This is not only important

    How do you stop an AI model turning Nazi? What the Grok drama reveals about AI training
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aaron J. Snoswell, Senior Research Fellow in AI Accountability, Queensland University of Technology Anne Fehres and Luke Conroy & AI4Media, CC BY Grok, the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot embedded in X (formerly Twitter) and built by Elon Musk’s company xAI, is back in the headlines after calling

    Author condemns ‘callous’ health legacy of French, US nuclear bomb tests in Pacific
    Asia Pacific Report A journalist who was on the Rainbow Warrior voyage to Rongelap last night condemned France for its “callous” attack of an environmental ship, saying “we haven’t forgotten, or forgiven this outrage”. David Robie, the author of Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage and Legacy of the Rainbow Warrior, said at the launch

    Washington’s war demands – Australia right to refuse committing to a hypothetical conflict with China over Taiwan
    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Blaxland, Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University Andy. LIU/Shutterstock The United States can count on Australia as one of its closest allies. Dating back to the shared experiences in the second world war and the ANZUS Treaty signed in 1951, Australia has steadfastly

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Hung parliament still likely outcome of Tasmanian election, with Liberals well ahead of Labor in new poll

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

    A new Tasmanian DemosAU poll gives the Liberals a 34.9–24.7 statewide vote lead over Labor, implying the Liberals will win the most seats but be short of a majority at this Saturday’s election. I also cover the Coalition’s vote was inefficiently distributed at the federal election, as well as US and UK politics.

    The Tasmanian state election will be held this Saturday. Tasmania uses the proportional Hare-Clark system for its lower house elections. The five Tasmanian seats used at federal elections each have seven members, for a total of 35 MPs. A quota for election is one-eighth of the vote, or 12.5%.

    A DemosAU poll for Pulse Tasmania, conducted July 6–10 from a sample of 3,421, gave the Liberals 34.9% of the vote (up 0.9 since the June 19–26 DemosAU poll), Labor 24.7% (down 2.6), the Greens 15.6% (up 0.5), the Nationals 2.7%, the Shooters 1.8% and independents 20.3% (up 1.0).

    The Nationals are only contesting Bass, Braddon and Lyons, and the poll would not have included them in the other two electorates of Clark and Franklin, so the Nationals’ vote in the electorates they are contesting would be higher than their statewide vote.

    With a total sample of over 3,400, the sample size per electorate would be over 680. Using the results in individual electorates, this poll has the Liberals on a total of 13–14 seats out of 35, Labor on 9–10, the Greens on 6–7, independents on 4–6 and both the Nationals and Shooters either winning zero or one seat.

    If the election results reflect this poll, the Liberals would easily be the largest party, but they would not win the 18 seats needed for a majority. There would probably be a majority for Labor, the Greens and left-wing independents, but Labor did not attempt to form government in a similar situation after the March 2024 election.

    It’s been 11 years since Labor last held government in Tasmania, with the Labor/Greens government at that time widely blamed for Labor’s heavy defeat in the March 2014 election. But with the continuing decline of the major parties, Labor may have to reach an agreement with the Greens if they want to form government again in Tasmania.

    Labor and the Liberals have both supported construction of a new AFL stadium. I believe this partly explains the drop in Labor’s vote, as many on the left would oppose this stadium. Labor’s refusal to attempt to form government after the March 2024 election probably also contributed to its low vote.

    Voters may also be blaming Labor for this early election, just 16 months after the previous Tasmanian election. This election is just over two months after the federal election.

    Federal election: Coalition’s vote inefficiently distributed

    Analyst Kevin Bonham has a pendulum of House of Representatives seats after the results of the May 3 federal election. There are likely to be federal redistributions from July 2026 in some states, so this won’t be the pendulum used at the next federal election.

    Labor won 94 of the 150 seats, the Coalition 43 and all Others 13, from a two-party vote of 55.2–44.8 to Labor. Assuming the Others are unchanged, Labor would need to lose 19 seats to drop below the 76 needed for a majority. On the pendulum, this occurs when the seat of Whitlam falls, but Labor won Whitlam by 56.3–43.7, more than 1% higher than their national vote.

    This means that, using a uniform swing on the actual results, Labor would have won a majority even if they had lost the national two-party vote by 51.0–49.0, despite 13 Other seats.

    Despite the electoral hammering, the Coalition retained many regional seats by large margins. This contributed to an inefficiently distributed vote. With voters in the cities making up a majority of all Australian voters, the Coalition can’t win by appealing just to voters in the regions.

    The Coalition would be the largest party if they won 26 seats from Labor. This happens when the Coalition gains Braddon, which Labor won by 57.2–42.8, so the Coalition would need a 51.9–48.1 national two-party margin. For a Coalition majority, they would need 33 gains, and need a 53.7–46.3 national two-party win.

    US and UK politics

    I wrote for The Poll Bludger on Saturday that United States President Donald Trump’s net approval was nearly unchanged at -6.7 after the passage of the “big beautiful bill” through Congress. I also covered Elon Musk’s new party and New York City mayoral general election polls.

    In the United Kingdom, a Labour MP has defected to a potential Jeremy Corbyn-led party. The far-right Reform has led Labour in UK national polls since the early May local elections. In a House of Commons vote on a welfare reform bill, 49 Labour MPs rebelled.

    Two Queensland poll give LNP big leads

    A Queensland state DemosAU poll, conducted July 4–9 from a sample of 1,027, gave the Liberal National Party a 55–45 lead (53.8–46.2 to the LNP at the October 2024 election). The Poll Bludger said this was a one-point gain for the LNP since a February DemosAU poll.

    Primary votes were 40% LNP (steady), 28% Labor (down two), 13% Greens (up one), 12% One Nation (up two) and 7% for all Others (down one). On the recent Queensland state budget, 24% thought it would be good for the Queensland economy, 19% bad and 57% were unsure. By 43–26, respondents thought Labor would not have delivered a better budget.

    A Queensland state Redbridge poll gave the LNP a 56–44 lead. Primary votes were 43% LNP, 29% Labor, 11% Greens and 17% for all Others (there was no One Nation breakdown).

    Queensland was the only state the Coalition won at the federal election, though only by 50.6–49.4. The state LNP is still benefiting from a honeymoon after ousting Labor at last year’s election.

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

    – ref. Hung parliament still likely outcome of Tasmanian election, with Liberals well ahead of Labor in new poll – https://theconversation.com/hung-parliament-still-likely-outcome-of-tasmanian-election-with-liberals-well-ahead-of-labor-in-new-poll-261073

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Hung parliament still likely outcome of Tasmanian election, with Liberals well ahead of Labor in new poll

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

    A new Tasmanian DemosAU poll gives the Liberals a 34.9–24.7 statewide vote lead over Labor, implying the Liberals will win the most seats but be short of a majority at this Saturday’s election. I also cover the Coalition’s vote was inefficiently distributed at the federal election, as well as US and UK politics.

    The Tasmanian state election will be held this Saturday. Tasmania uses the proportional Hare-Clark system for its lower house elections. The five Tasmanian seats used at federal elections each have seven members, for a total of 35 MPs. A quota for election is one-eighth of the vote, or 12.5%.

    A DemosAU poll for Pulse Tasmania, conducted July 6–10 from a sample of 3,421, gave the Liberals 34.9% of the vote (up 0.9 since the June 19–26 DemosAU poll), Labor 24.7% (down 2.6), the Greens 15.6% (up 0.5), the Nationals 2.7%, the Shooters 1.8% and independents 20.3% (up 1.0).

    The Nationals are only contesting Bass, Braddon and Lyons, and the poll would not have included them in the other two electorates of Clark and Franklin, so the Nationals’ vote in the electorates they are contesting would be higher than their statewide vote.

    With a total sample of over 3,400, the sample size per electorate would be over 680. Using the results in individual electorates, this poll has the Liberals on a total of 13–14 seats out of 35, Labor on 9–10, the Greens on 6–7, independents on 4–6 and both the Nationals and Shooters either winning zero or one seat.

    If the election results reflect this poll, the Liberals would easily be the largest party, but they would not win the 18 seats needed for a majority. There would probably be a majority for Labor, the Greens and left-wing independents, but Labor did not attempt to form government in a similar situation after the March 2024 election.

    It’s been 11 years since Labor last held government in Tasmania, with the Labor/Greens government at that time widely blamed for Labor’s heavy defeat in the March 2014 election. But with the continuing decline of the major parties, Labor may have to reach an agreement with the Greens if they want to form government again in Tasmania.

    Labor and the Liberals have both supported construction of a new AFL stadium. I believe this partly explains the drop in Labor’s vote, as many on the left would oppose this stadium. Labor’s refusal to attempt to form government after the March 2024 election probably also contributed to its low vote.

    Voters may also be blaming Labor for this early election, just 16 months after the previous Tasmanian election. This election is just over two months after the federal election.

    Federal election: Coalition’s vote inefficiently distributed

    Analyst Kevin Bonham has a pendulum of House of Representatives seats after the results of the May 3 federal election. There are likely to be federal redistributions from July 2026 in some states, so this won’t be the pendulum used at the next federal election.

    Labor won 94 of the 150 seats, the Coalition 43 and all Others 13, from a two-party vote of 55.2–44.8 to Labor. Assuming the Others are unchanged, Labor would need to lose 19 seats to drop below the 76 needed for a majority. On the pendulum, this occurs when the seat of Whitlam falls, but Labor won Whitlam by 56.3–43.7, more than 1% higher than their national vote.

    This means that, using a uniform swing on the actual results, Labor would have won a majority even if they had lost the national two-party vote by 51.0–49.0, despite 13 Other seats.

    Despite the electoral hammering, the Coalition retained many regional seats by large margins. This contributed to an inefficiently distributed vote. With voters in the cities making up a majority of all Australian voters, the Coalition can’t win by appealing just to voters in the regions.

    The Coalition would be the largest party if they won 26 seats from Labor. This happens when the Coalition gains Braddon, which Labor won by 57.2–42.8, so the Coalition would need a 51.9–48.1 national two-party margin. For a Coalition majority, they would need 33 gains, and need a 53.7–46.3 national two-party win.

    US and UK politics

    I wrote for The Poll Bludger on Saturday that United States President Donald Trump’s net approval was nearly unchanged at -6.7 after the passage of the “big beautiful bill” through Congress. I also covered Elon Musk’s new party and New York City mayoral general election polls.

    In the United Kingdom, a Labour MP has defected to a potential Jeremy Corbyn-led party. The far-right Reform has led Labour in UK national polls since the early May local elections. In a House of Commons vote on a welfare reform bill, 49 Labour MPs rebelled.

    Two Queensland poll give LNP big leads

    A Queensland state DemosAU poll, conducted July 4–9 from a sample of 1,027, gave the Liberal National Party a 55–45 lead (53.8–46.2 to the LNP at the October 2024 election). The Poll Bludger said this was a one-point gain for the LNP since a February DemosAU poll.

    Primary votes were 40% LNP (steady), 28% Labor (down two), 13% Greens (up one), 12% One Nation (up two) and 7% for all Others (down one). On the recent Queensland state budget, 24% thought it would be good for the Queensland economy, 19% bad and 57% were unsure. By 43–26, respondents thought Labor would not have delivered a better budget.

    A Queensland state Redbridge poll gave the LNP a 56–44 lead. Primary votes were 43% LNP, 29% Labor, 11% Greens and 17% for all Others (there was no One Nation breakdown).

    Queensland was the only state the Coalition won at the federal election, though only by 50.6–49.4. The state LNP is still benefiting from a honeymoon after ousting Labor at last year’s election.

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

    – ref. Hung parliament still likely outcome of Tasmanian election, with Liberals well ahead of Labor in new poll – https://theconversation.com/hung-parliament-still-likely-outcome-of-tasmanian-election-with-liberals-well-ahead-of-labor-in-new-poll-261073

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Warren, Wyden Press Social Security Commissioner on Broken Staffing Promises

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Massachusetts – Elizabeth Warren
    July 14, 2025
    After gutting the Social Security workforce, Bisignano drained understaffed field offices to hastily address DOGE-created phone line problems.
    “Your efforts to address the [phone] wait times…will almost certainly result in a terrible tradeoff, with longer wait times for in-person services, ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul.’”
    Text of Letter (PDF)
    Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, sent a letter to President Trump’s Social Security Commissioner, Frank Bisignano, demanding answers to reports that the Social Security Administration (SSA) is reassigning thousands of field office employees to staff a “pilot” phone program aimed at reducing hours-long phone wait times. After gutting the agency’s workforce, this move will further drain field offices, creating even more difficulties for Social Security recipients attempting to get in-person support.
    “This appears to be yet another indicator that you have broken the promise you made under oath to adequately staff the SSA — and just the latest of the Trump Administration’s DOGE-influenced actions that make it harder for Americans to access the Social Security benefits they have earned,” wrote the senators.
    Social Security has faced a customer service crisis since DOGE — initially led by the President’s then-close ally, Elon Musk — slashed the SSA workforce, closed offices, tampered with the phone service and website, and implemented burdensome new requirements that have degraded the Social Security program. The senators have previously written to SSA for answers on the various ways DOGE has taken a wrecking ball to the SSA — and how its efforts are effectively blocking people from accessing their earned Social Security benefits. 
    Instead of legitimately addressing these problems and reversing the cuts to the SSA workforce, it appears SSA is attempting to cover up its mess by shifting employees around for this new phone “pilot” program. The program will increase staff answering calls to the 1-800 number by reassigning frontline customer service representatives who directly assist recipients visiting offices. This will leave field offices short-staffed, and force backroom employees typically responsible for processing claims to take on in-person customer service tasks.
    “In a best-case scenario, your efforts to address the 1-800 wait times — even if they are successful — will almost certainly result in a terrible tradeoff, with longer wait times for in-person services, ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul,’” wrote the senators.
    The senators requested additional information about the degradation of SSA services under President Trump, SSA’s decision to reassign employees in the wake of these problems, and what steps SSA will take to reduce the staffing shortages and improve service. 
    Senate Dems’ Social Security War Room is a coordinated effort to fight back against the Trump administration’s attack on Americans’ Social Security. The War Room coordinates messaging across the Senate Democratic Caucus and external stakeholders; encourages grassroots engagement by providing opportunities for Americans to share what Social Security means to them; and educates Senate staff, the American public, and stakeholders about Republicans’ agenda and their continued cuts to Americans’ Social Security services and benefits.

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Katy Perry and her fellow space tourists weren’t exceptions – humanity has long cared about interplanetary style

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Berna Akcali Gur, Lecturer in Outer Space Law, Queen Mary University of London

    When pop star Katy Perry and five other women made a much-publicised trip to the edge of space earlier this year, they faced sharp criticism across both social and traditional media, with sceptics questioning multiple aspects of the mission.

    Much of the backlash centred on the emphasis the crew – which included broadcaster Gayle King and Jeff Bezos’s now-wife, journalist Lauren Sánchez – placed on glamour. Detractors saw their uniforms as at odds with the traditional image of astronauts as explorers, scientific pioneers and envoys of humankind venturing into space.

    The flight suits were designed by New York fashion house Monse Maison’s co-founders, Fernando Garcia and Laura Kim. They also created Sánchez’s 2024 Met Gala look.

    The celebrity crew were first revealed in a photo shared by Blue Origin on April 12, two days before the launch. The unveiling was followed by a series of pre-flight interviews that touched on topics such as makeup, lash extensions and hair styling.

    In one such segment, Perry quipped that the crew “put ass in astronaut”. It’s the type of comment that, while playful, reinforced the criticism that the flight prioritised spectacle over substance.

    Having previously conducted research on governance of space suit design and astronaut safety, I think much of the backlash targeting the crew’s emphasis on glamour is misplaced. Fashion and style has long played a role in space exploration, a defining feature of both science fiction and real-world missions.

    The all-women crew of Blue Origin, in their own way, carried forward this tradition, reinforcing the enduring connection between style symbolism, and space travel.

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    Space-faring nations spend millions getting both public and private companies to design suits for intravehicular activity (IVA suits) and extravehicular activities (EVA suits). The priority is not just functionality and safety, but also creating impressive designs.

    High fashion house Prada is currently collaborating with Axiom Inc. to design suits for the forthcoming Artemis Mission, a lunar exploration mission led by Nasa. Another Nasa next-generation spacesuit features an exterior cover designed by Esther M. Marquis, who was enlisted for the project after showcasing her visionary spacesuit designs in For All Mankind, an Apple TV Sci-Fi series.



    Read more:
    For All Mankind: space drama’s alternate history constructs a better vision of Nasa

    The European Space Agency (ESA), meanwhile, has contracted Maison Pierre Cardin to design the uniforms for training in its new lunar mission simulation facility, Luna, in Germany.

    These and many other similar collaborations represent a continuation of the longstanding interplay between art, fashion and space technology. Science fiction books and movies have both influenced and been influenced by advancements developed for space travel.

    Modern space fashion

    Photos and videos from inside the International Space Station (ISS) reveal that their intravehicular activity (IVA) suits are designed for functionality and comfort rather than style.

    It’s a sensible approach, as most crew stay there for extended periods to conduct scientific experiments. In contrast, two of the billionaires most associated with space tourism – Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson – take a different approach. In competing to promote their emerging space tourism ventures, their own trips to space have been carefully curated – with fashion playing a key role.

    From launch to landing, Bezos’ own suborbital space travel with Blue Origin in 2021 lasted 11 minutes, while Branson’s travel in Virgin Galactic’s VSS Unity lasted approximately 90 minutes, with four minutes of experience of weightlessness. However, they ensured that their “look” as they walked to their spacecraft would remain entrenched in our memories.

    Jimmy Fallon jokes about Bezos’s cowboy hat.

    Branson entrusted sports brand Under Armour to make a statement with a dark blue jumpsuit. Nine days later, Bezos appeared on the flight platform sporting a cowboy hat with his light blue flight suit.

    Branson’s crew won more fashion points with their sleek and streamlined suits – and he flew before Bezos – beating Blue Origin’s flight by nine days. Yet Bezos and his crew travelled to a higher altitude.

    As of the date of this article, Blue Origin has flown 58 people into space, whereas Virgin Galactic have flown 61 passengers, including crew. Space suits are an integral part of the experience. No less than a picture-perfect design will be expected for the high price tag.

    Elon Musk’s SpaceX, is the foremost private space enterprise of our time and arguably the one with the most political influence – although the effects of the recent fallout between SpaceX founder Elon Musk and the US president, Donald Trump, on the company remain uncertain.

    SpaceX has also stepped up its design efforts before the first-ever commercial astronaut spacewalk during the Polaris Dawn spaceflight, it unveiled its new EVA suit, dubbed the “space tuxedo”.

    SpaceX’s ‘space tuxedo’ suit reveal.

    During spacewalks, EVA suits are essential for keeping humans alive, making them a vital piece of wearable technology. The space tux was designed by Hollywood costume designer, Jose Fernandez, who also designed the suits for Iron Man and Captain America (an interesting twist given the film version of Iron Man’s alter ego, Tony Stark was reportedly partly inspired by Musk).

    Musk reportedly demanded both IVA and EVA suits to look “badass” while remaining practical. The mission was a success, as the four-member civilian team, led by billionaire Jared Isaacman, travelled further into space than any humans since the Apollo Missions to the moon.

    As we continue to explore the cosmos, fashion will continue to play a role in how we present ourselves to the universe. Whether for scientific missions or private ventures, how we dress for space will reflect our identity and aspirations as a species. This phenomenon did not begin with these glamorous star-studded women embarking on space ventures in their signature bold styles, nor will it end with the scrutiny and negative publicity they have faced.

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

    – ref. Katy Perry and her fellow space tourists weren’t exceptions – humanity has long cared about interplanetary style – https://theconversation.com/katy-perry-and-her-fellow-space-tourists-werent-exceptions-humanity-has-long-cared-about-interplanetary-style-256937

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Most Pennsylvania voters ignore judicial elections − a political scientist explains why they matter, especially in a battleground state

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Daniel J. Mallinson, Associate Professor of Public Policy and Administration, Penn State

    Three of the seven judges on PA’s state supreme court are up for retention votes in November 2025. AP Photo/Matt Rourke

    This November, there will be no candidate for president, governor, senator or even representative on the Pennsylvania ballot.

    Pennsylvanians will vote, however, on three members of their seven-member state Supreme Court.

    These are retention elections, which means that voters will decide whether to keep the current members of the court or remove them.

    The three seats up for grabs are three of the five Democrats that hold the majority on the court. They are Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht.

    While the typical voter may not think much about judicial elections, political operatives and political scientists, like me, know they have consequences.

    I think it’s important that voters understand what a retention election is and why state judicial elections are growing in political importance in the U.S.

    Retention elections

    Federal judges are appointed by the U.S. president, confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and can serve for the rest of their lives. State judges, however, are put in place in a variety of ways.

    The most powerful state courts are the so-called “courts of last resort.” These are essentially the supreme courts of each state. The method for selecting judges in these courts has varied over time and across the states. Currently, states use either gubernatorial appointment, legislative appointment, partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, or a merit process for selecting the judges of their highest courts.

    Pennsylvania has partisan elections, meaning judges run for office attached to political parties, just like a candidate would run for governor or president. However, it is only in their first race for office that a judge runs in a competitive partisan election. After they assume the bench, they participate in retention elections every 10 years. These retention elections are considered nonpartisan, since party labels do not appear on the ballot.

    Essentially, a retention election is an up or down vote. If more than 50% of voters cast a vote in opposition to a sitting judge, that judge will be out of the office at the end of their term. The governor, who is currently Democrat Josh Shapiro, then makes a temporary appointment to fill the seat with a special election held in the next odd year – in this case, 2027. But any appointments would need to be confirmed by the Republican-controlled state Senate, which may not confirm his picks.

    Politicization of the state courts

    Judges win retention elections over 90% of the time. So why should people bother to cast their vote?

    Courts, including state courts, have become highly politicized over the past several decades. A marked increase in politicization occurred for the U.S. Supreme Court after the failed nomination of Robert Bork in the 1980s.

    This politicization has since trickled down to lower federal courts and the states.

    State supreme courts have always made big decisions, but the nationalization of American politics – where national partisan politics drive voter behavior in local elections – has elevated the controversy over state supreme court decisions on issues such as reproductive rights, trans rights, COVID-19 restrictions, environmental protection and more.

    This issue became more acute when courts in battleground states were thrust to the center of adjudicating false claims of election fraud during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. And judges have faced increasing threats, particularly when opposing actions of the Trump administration, as President Donald Trump is prone to calling out specific judges in decisions that he does not like.

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has received additional attention, in part due to the outsized role it has played in recent redistricting. In 2018, the court threw out the congressional districts drawn by the General Assembly in 2011 and invited a new plan from the governor and General Assembly. The two came to a political loggerhead, so the Supreme Court ended up using its own map as a replacement.

    In 2022, the state Supreme Court once again took control of redistricting after Pennyslvania’s then-Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed the congressional district map approved by the General Assembly.

    Given the importance of state supreme courts, particularly in federal elections cases in battleground states like Pennsylvania, it is little wonder why their elections are gaining attention.

    The April 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race was the most expensive state judicial race in U.S. history, with $100 million in spending, including significant contributions from billionaires Elon Musk and George Soros.

    Former prosecutor Susan Crawford won the highly politicized race for Wisconsin Supreme Court justice in 2025. It was the most expensive state supreme court race in U.S. history.
    Scott Olson via Getty Images

    That was one seat.

    Pennsylvania has three up for grabs in November 2025, with the potential to swing the current Democratic majority.

    And retention elections are politically simple for opponents. As one Republican political consultant told investigative news outlet Spotlight PA: “This is a political consultant’s dream, because your message is just one thing, and that’s ‘No.’”

    This can give some advantage to Republicans in a state that Trump won in 2024 and in a low-turnout election. The question will be whether there is more energy motivating opponents to turn out against the Democratic majority or supporters seeking to maintain the status quo.

    The 2025 retention elections could change the balance of power in the court.
    AP Photo/Aimee Dilger

    The stakes for Pennsylvania in 2025

    Much is at stake for Pennsylvanians in the fall. Republicans see this as their best opportunity to break the firm 5-2 Democratic majority on the court. This would pave the way for very different judicial decisions. Many of the court’s recent election-related rulings were made on narrow 4-3 votes that could swing differently if the composition of the court changes.

    Republicans have had their power in Harrisburg diminished with Shapiro in the governor’s mansion and a one-seat Democratic majority in the state House of Representatives over the past two terms.

    A Republican majority on the court would significantly change the balance of power in Harrisburg.

    But it is important to focus not only on the top court. The state’s two appellate-level courts – one step below the state Supreme Court – also have two important races and two retention votes in November that will decide the judiciary’s relationship with the governor and General Assembly.

    Daniel J. Mallinson 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. Most Pennsylvania voters ignore judicial elections − a political scientist explains why they matter, especially in a battleground state – https://theconversation.com/most-pennsylvania-voters-ignore-judicial-elections-a-political-scientist-explains-why-they-matter-especially-in-a-battleground-state-259775

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Most Pennsylvania voters ignore judicial elections − a political scientist explains why they matter, especially in a battleground state

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Daniel J. Mallinson, Associate Professor of Public Policy and Administration, Penn State

    Three of the seven judges on PA’s state supreme court are up for retention votes in November 2025. AP Photo/Matt Rourke

    This November, there will be no candidate for president, governor, senator or even representative on the Pennsylvania ballot.

    Pennsylvanians will vote, however, on three members of their seven-member state Supreme Court.

    These are retention elections, which means that voters will decide whether to keep the current members of the court or remove them.

    The three seats up for grabs are three of the five Democrats that hold the majority on the court. They are Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht.

    While the typical voter may not think much about judicial elections, political operatives and political scientists, like me, know they have consequences.

    I think it’s important that voters understand what a retention election is and why state judicial elections are growing in political importance in the U.S.

    Retention elections

    Federal judges are appointed by the U.S. president, confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and can serve for the rest of their lives. State judges, however, are put in place in a variety of ways.

    The most powerful state courts are the so-called “courts of last resort.” These are essentially the supreme courts of each state. The method for selecting judges in these courts has varied over time and across the states. Currently, states use either gubernatorial appointment, legislative appointment, partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, or a merit process for selecting the judges of their highest courts.

    Pennsylvania has partisan elections, meaning judges run for office attached to political parties, just like a candidate would run for governor or president. However, it is only in their first race for office that a judge runs in a competitive partisan election. After they assume the bench, they participate in retention elections every 10 years. These retention elections are considered nonpartisan, since party labels do not appear on the ballot.

    Essentially, a retention election is an up or down vote. If more than 50% of voters cast a vote in opposition to a sitting judge, that judge will be out of the office at the end of their term. The governor, who is currently Democrat Josh Shapiro, then makes a temporary appointment to fill the seat with a special election held in the next odd year – in this case, 2027. But any appointments would need to be confirmed by the Republican-controlled state Senate, which may not confirm his picks.

    Politicization of the state courts

    Judges win retention elections over 90% of the time. So why should people bother to cast their vote?

    Courts, including state courts, have become highly politicized over the past several decades. A marked increase in politicization occurred for the U.S. Supreme Court after the failed nomination of Robert Bork in the 1980s.

    This politicization has since trickled down to lower federal courts and the states.

    State supreme courts have always made big decisions, but the nationalization of American politics – where national partisan politics drive voter behavior in local elections – has elevated the controversy over state supreme court decisions on issues such as reproductive rights, trans rights, COVID-19 restrictions, environmental protection and more.

    This issue became more acute when courts in battleground states were thrust to the center of adjudicating false claims of election fraud during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. And judges have faced increasing threats, particularly when opposing actions of the Trump administration, as President Donald Trump is prone to calling out specific judges in decisions that he does not like.

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has received additional attention, in part due to the outsized role it has played in recent redistricting. In 2018, the court threw out the congressional districts drawn by the General Assembly in 2011 and invited a new plan from the governor and General Assembly. The two came to a political loggerhead, so the Supreme Court ended up using its own map as a replacement.

    In 2022, the state Supreme Court once again took control of redistricting after Pennyslvania’s then-Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed the congressional district map approved by the General Assembly.

    Given the importance of state supreme courts, particularly in federal elections cases in battleground states like Pennsylvania, it is little wonder why their elections are gaining attention.

    The April 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race was the most expensive state judicial race in U.S. history, with $100 million in spending, including significant contributions from billionaires Elon Musk and George Soros.

    Former prosecutor Susan Crawford won the highly politicized race for Wisconsin Supreme Court justice in 2025. It was the most expensive state supreme court race in U.S. history.
    Scott Olson via Getty Images

    That was one seat.

    Pennsylvania has three up for grabs in November 2025, with the potential to swing the current Democratic majority.

    And retention elections are politically simple for opponents. As one Republican political consultant told investigative news outlet Spotlight PA: “This is a political consultant’s dream, because your message is just one thing, and that’s ‘No.’”

    This can give some advantage to Republicans in a state that Trump won in 2024 and in a low-turnout election. The question will be whether there is more energy motivating opponents to turn out against the Democratic majority or supporters seeking to maintain the status quo.

    The 2025 retention elections could change the balance of power in the court.
    AP Photo/Aimee Dilger

    The stakes for Pennsylvania in 2025

    Much is at stake for Pennsylvanians in the fall. Republicans see this as their best opportunity to break the firm 5-2 Democratic majority on the court. This would pave the way for very different judicial decisions. Many of the court’s recent election-related rulings were made on narrow 4-3 votes that could swing differently if the composition of the court changes.

    Republicans have had their power in Harrisburg diminished with Shapiro in the governor’s mansion and a one-seat Democratic majority in the state House of Representatives over the past two terms.

    A Republican majority on the court would significantly change the balance of power in Harrisburg.

    But it is important to focus not only on the top court. The state’s two appellate-level courts – one step below the state Supreme Court – also have two important races and two retention votes in November that will decide the judiciary’s relationship with the governor and General Assembly.

    Daniel J. Mallinson 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. Most Pennsylvania voters ignore judicial elections − a political scientist explains why they matter, especially in a battleground state – https://theconversation.com/most-pennsylvania-voters-ignore-judicial-elections-a-political-scientist-explains-why-they-matter-especially-in-a-battleground-state-259775

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Most Pennsylvania voters ignore judicial elections − a political scientist explains why they matter, especially in a battleground state

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Daniel J. Mallinson, Associate Professor of Public Policy and Administration, Penn State

    Three of the seven judges on PA’s state supreme court are up for retention votes in November 2025. AP Photo/Matt Rourke

    This November, there will be no candidate for president, governor, senator or even representative on the Pennsylvania ballot.

    Pennsylvanians will vote, however, on three members of their seven-member state Supreme Court.

    These are retention elections, which means that voters will decide whether to keep the current members of the court or remove them.

    The three seats up for grabs are three of the five Democrats that hold the majority on the court. They are Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht.

    While the typical voter may not think much about judicial elections, political operatives and political scientists, like me, know they have consequences.

    I think it’s important that voters understand what a retention election is and why state judicial elections are growing in political importance in the U.S.

    Retention elections

    Federal judges are appointed by the U.S. president, confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and can serve for the rest of their lives. State judges, however, are put in place in a variety of ways.

    The most powerful state courts are the so-called “courts of last resort.” These are essentially the supreme courts of each state. The method for selecting judges in these courts has varied over time and across the states. Currently, states use either gubernatorial appointment, legislative appointment, partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, or a merit process for selecting the judges of their highest courts.

    Pennsylvania has partisan elections, meaning judges run for office attached to political parties, just like a candidate would run for governor or president. However, it is only in their first race for office that a judge runs in a competitive partisan election. After they assume the bench, they participate in retention elections every 10 years. These retention elections are considered nonpartisan, since party labels do not appear on the ballot.

    Essentially, a retention election is an up or down vote. If more than 50% of voters cast a vote in opposition to a sitting judge, that judge will be out of the office at the end of their term. The governor, who is currently Democrat Josh Shapiro, then makes a temporary appointment to fill the seat with a special election held in the next odd year – in this case, 2027. But any appointments would need to be confirmed by the Republican-controlled state Senate, which may not confirm his picks.

    Politicization of the state courts

    Judges win retention elections over 90% of the time. So why should people bother to cast their vote?

    Courts, including state courts, have become highly politicized over the past several decades. A marked increase in politicization occurred for the U.S. Supreme Court after the failed nomination of Robert Bork in the 1980s.

    This politicization has since trickled down to lower federal courts and the states.

    State supreme courts have always made big decisions, but the nationalization of American politics – where national partisan politics drive voter behavior in local elections – has elevated the controversy over state supreme court decisions on issues such as reproductive rights, trans rights, COVID-19 restrictions, environmental protection and more.

    This issue became more acute when courts in battleground states were thrust to the center of adjudicating false claims of election fraud during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. And judges have faced increasing threats, particularly when opposing actions of the Trump administration, as President Donald Trump is prone to calling out specific judges in decisions that he does not like.

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has received additional attention, in part due to the outsized role it has played in recent redistricting. In 2018, the court threw out the congressional districts drawn by the General Assembly in 2011 and invited a new plan from the governor and General Assembly. The two came to a political loggerhead, so the Supreme Court ended up using its own map as a replacement.

    In 2022, the state Supreme Court once again took control of redistricting after Pennyslvania’s then-Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed the congressional district map approved by the General Assembly.

    Given the importance of state supreme courts, particularly in federal elections cases in battleground states like Pennsylvania, it is little wonder why their elections are gaining attention.

    The April 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race was the most expensive state judicial race in U.S. history, with $100 million in spending, including significant contributions from billionaires Elon Musk and George Soros.

    Former prosecutor Susan Crawford won the highly politicized race for Wisconsin Supreme Court justice in 2025. It was the most expensive state supreme court race in U.S. history.
    Scott Olson via Getty Images

    That was one seat.

    Pennsylvania has three up for grabs in November 2025, with the potential to swing the current Democratic majority.

    And retention elections are politically simple for opponents. As one Republican political consultant told investigative news outlet Spotlight PA: “This is a political consultant’s dream, because your message is just one thing, and that’s ‘No.’”

    This can give some advantage to Republicans in a state that Trump won in 2024 and in a low-turnout election. The question will be whether there is more energy motivating opponents to turn out against the Democratic majority or supporters seeking to maintain the status quo.

    The 2025 retention elections could change the balance of power in the court.
    AP Photo/Aimee Dilger

    The stakes for Pennsylvania in 2025

    Much is at stake for Pennsylvanians in the fall. Republicans see this as their best opportunity to break the firm 5-2 Democratic majority on the court. This would pave the way for very different judicial decisions. Many of the court’s recent election-related rulings were made on narrow 4-3 votes that could swing differently if the composition of the court changes.

    Republicans have had their power in Harrisburg diminished with Shapiro in the governor’s mansion and a one-seat Democratic majority in the state House of Representatives over the past two terms.

    A Republican majority on the court would significantly change the balance of power in Harrisburg.

    But it is important to focus not only on the top court. The state’s two appellate-level courts – one step below the state Supreme Court – also have two important races and two retention votes in November that will decide the judiciary’s relationship with the governor and General Assembly.

    Daniel J. Mallinson 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. Most Pennsylvania voters ignore judicial elections − a political scientist explains why they matter, especially in a battleground state – https://theconversation.com/most-pennsylvania-voters-ignore-judicial-elections-a-political-scientist-explains-why-they-matter-especially-in-a-battleground-state-259775

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Most Pennsylvania voters ignore judicial elections − a political scientist explains why they matter, especially in a battleground state

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Daniel J. Mallinson, Associate Professor of Public Policy and Administration, Penn State

    Three of the seven judges on PA’s state supreme court are up for retention votes in November 2025. AP Photo/Matt Rourke

    This November, there will be no candidate for president, governor, senator or even representative on the Pennsylvania ballot.

    Pennsylvanians will vote, however, on three members of their seven-member state Supreme Court.

    These are retention elections, which means that voters will decide whether to keep the current members of the court or remove them.

    The three seats up for grabs are three of the five Democrats that hold the majority on the court. They are Justices Christine Donohue, Kevin Dougherty and David Wecht.

    While the typical voter may not think much about judicial elections, political operatives and political scientists, like me, know they have consequences.

    I think it’s important that voters understand what a retention election is and why state judicial elections are growing in political importance in the U.S.

    Retention elections

    Federal judges are appointed by the U.S. president, confirmed by the U.S. Senate, and can serve for the rest of their lives. State judges, however, are put in place in a variety of ways.

    The most powerful state courts are the so-called “courts of last resort.” These are essentially the supreme courts of each state. The method for selecting judges in these courts has varied over time and across the states. Currently, states use either gubernatorial appointment, legislative appointment, partisan elections, nonpartisan elections, or a merit process for selecting the judges of their highest courts.

    Pennsylvania has partisan elections, meaning judges run for office attached to political parties, just like a candidate would run for governor or president. However, it is only in their first race for office that a judge runs in a competitive partisan election. After they assume the bench, they participate in retention elections every 10 years. These retention elections are considered nonpartisan, since party labels do not appear on the ballot.

    Essentially, a retention election is an up or down vote. If more than 50% of voters cast a vote in opposition to a sitting judge, that judge will be out of the office at the end of their term. The governor, who is currently Democrat Josh Shapiro, then makes a temporary appointment to fill the seat with a special election held in the next odd year – in this case, 2027. But any appointments would need to be confirmed by the Republican-controlled state Senate, which may not confirm his picks.

    Politicization of the state courts

    Judges win retention elections over 90% of the time. So why should people bother to cast their vote?

    Courts, including state courts, have become highly politicized over the past several decades. A marked increase in politicization occurred for the U.S. Supreme Court after the failed nomination of Robert Bork in the 1980s.

    This politicization has since trickled down to lower federal courts and the states.

    State supreme courts have always made big decisions, but the nationalization of American politics – where national partisan politics drive voter behavior in local elections – has elevated the controversy over state supreme court decisions on issues such as reproductive rights, trans rights, COVID-19 restrictions, environmental protection and more.

    This issue became more acute when courts in battleground states were thrust to the center of adjudicating false claims of election fraud during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. And judges have faced increasing threats, particularly when opposing actions of the Trump administration, as President Donald Trump is prone to calling out specific judges in decisions that he does not like.

    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has received additional attention, in part due to the outsized role it has played in recent redistricting. In 2018, the court threw out the congressional districts drawn by the General Assembly in 2011 and invited a new plan from the governor and General Assembly. The two came to a political loggerhead, so the Supreme Court ended up using its own map as a replacement.

    In 2022, the state Supreme Court once again took control of redistricting after Pennyslvania’s then-Gov. Tom Wolf vetoed the congressional district map approved by the General Assembly.

    Given the importance of state supreme courts, particularly in federal elections cases in battleground states like Pennsylvania, it is little wonder why their elections are gaining attention.

    The April 2025 Wisconsin Supreme Court race was the most expensive state judicial race in U.S. history, with $100 million in spending, including significant contributions from billionaires Elon Musk and George Soros.

    Former prosecutor Susan Crawford won the highly politicized race for Wisconsin Supreme Court justice in 2025. It was the most expensive state supreme court race in U.S. history.
    Scott Olson via Getty Images

    That was one seat.

    Pennsylvania has three up for grabs in November 2025, with the potential to swing the current Democratic majority.

    And retention elections are politically simple for opponents. As one Republican political consultant told investigative news outlet Spotlight PA: “This is a political consultant’s dream, because your message is just one thing, and that’s ‘No.’”

    This can give some advantage to Republicans in a state that Trump won in 2024 and in a low-turnout election. The question will be whether there is more energy motivating opponents to turn out against the Democratic majority or supporters seeking to maintain the status quo.

    The 2025 retention elections could change the balance of power in the court.
    AP Photo/Aimee Dilger

    The stakes for Pennsylvania in 2025

    Much is at stake for Pennsylvanians in the fall. Republicans see this as their best opportunity to break the firm 5-2 Democratic majority on the court. This would pave the way for very different judicial decisions. Many of the court’s recent election-related rulings were made on narrow 4-3 votes that could swing differently if the composition of the court changes.

    Republicans have had their power in Harrisburg diminished with Shapiro in the governor’s mansion and a one-seat Democratic majority in the state House of Representatives over the past two terms.

    A Republican majority on the court would significantly change the balance of power in Harrisburg.

    But it is important to focus not only on the top court. The state’s two appellate-level courts – one step below the state Supreme Court – also have two important races and two retention votes in November that will decide the judiciary’s relationship with the governor and General Assembly.

    Daniel J. Mallinson 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. Most Pennsylvania voters ignore judicial elections − a political scientist explains why they matter, especially in a battleground state – https://theconversation.com/most-pennsylvania-voters-ignore-judicial-elections-a-political-scientist-explains-why-they-matter-especially-in-a-battleground-state-259775

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI: Unlock the Next Bitcoin‑Scale Boom with ABQuant’s BTCQuant Platform

    Source: GlobeNewswire (MIL-OSI)

    Washington, D.C, July 14, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — As Bitcoin surged over 300% between 2020 and 2023, digital assets have moved from speculative bets to a central pillar of modern finance. Billionaires like Elon Musk and Michael Saylor, and institutions like BlackRock and Goldman Sachs, have publicly embraced cryptocurrencies—solidifying their long-term value and legitimacy.

    At the heart of this global shift is AB Quant, a next-generation quantitative trading and cloud mining platform. Designed for both new and experienced investors, AB Quant offers a seamless way to earn passive income from Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other digital assets—without the need for mining hardware, high energy bills, or technical skills.

    Why Investors Are Choosing BTC AB Quant

    AI-Powered Quantitative Trading

    Traditional crypto mining requires heavy upfront costs and technical expertise. BTC AB Quant replaces that with automated, algorithm-driven trading and cloud mining. Just choose your contract, and the system takes care of the rest—settling profits every 24 hours.

    Start Risk-Free with a $100 Trial

    New users receive a $100 free trial—no strings attached. Explore the platform, experience real earnings, and start building your crypto portfolio without financial risk.

    Flexible Investment Options

    Whether you’re targeting fast returns or steady, long-term gains, BTC AB Quant offers flexible contracts tailored to your personal investment goals. Its smart algorithms adapt to changing market conditions, helping optimize performance while reducing risk.

    Join the Crypto Revolution

    Crypto is no longer a niche—it’s a global movement. AB Quant offers a trusted, low-barrier entry point for anyone looking to profit from the future of finance. With intuitive design and powerful automation, it brings Wall Street-grade strategies to the average investor.

    Boost Your Earnings with Referrals
    Users can earn 7% on first-level referrals and 2% on second-level referrals, turning your network into a passive income stream. It’s a simple way to expand your earnings while helping others join the crypto ecosystem.

    About BTC AB Quant
    Founded in 2020, AB Quant is a technology-forward company specializing in AI-powered digital asset services. The company is committed to sustainable mining, operating facilities powered by renewable energy sources like solar and wind. By integrating green energy solutions and AI-driven algorithms, BTC AB Quant actively reduces carbon emissions and promotes environmentally responsible crypto investing.

    Contact Information

    Events: Performance Announcement

    Attachment

    The MIL Network –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How do you stop an AI model turning Nazi? What the Grok drama reveals about AI training

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aaron J. Snoswell, Senior Research Fellow in AI Accountability, Queensland University of Technology

    Anne Fehres and Luke Conroy & AI4Media, CC BY

    Grok, the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot embedded in X (formerly Twitter) and built by Elon Musk’s company xAI, is back in the headlines after calling itself “MechaHitler” and producing pro-Nazi remarks.

    The developers have apologised for the “inappropriate posts” and “taken action to ban hate speech” from Grok’s posts on X. Debates about AI bias have been revived too.

    But the latest Grok controversy is revealing not for the extremist outputs, but for how it exposes a fundamental dishonesty in AI development. Musk claims to be building a “truth-seeking” AI free from bias, yet the technical implementation reveals systemic ideological programming.

    This amounts to an accidental case study in how AI systems embed their creators’ values, with Musk’s unfiltered public presence making visible what other companies typically obscure.

    What is Grok?

    Grok is an AI chatbot with “a twist of humor and a dash of rebellion” developed by xAI, which also owns the X social media platform.

    The first version of Grok launched in 2023. Independent evaluations suggest the latest model, Grok 4, outpaces competitors on “intelligence” tests. The chatbot is available standalone and on X.

    xAI states “AI’s knowledge should be all-encompassing and as far-reaching as possible”. Musk has previously positioned Grok as a truth-telling alternative to chatbots accused of being “woke” by right-wing commentators.

    But beyond the latest Nazism scandal, Grok has made headlines for generating threats of sexual violence, bringing up “white genocide” in South Africa, and making insulting statements about politicians. The latter led to its ban in Turkey.

    So how do developers imbue an AI with such values and shape chatbot behaviour? Today’s chatbots are built using large language models (LLMs), which offer several levers developers can lean on.

    What makes an AI ‘behave’ this way?

    Pre-training

    First, developers curate the data used during pre-training – the first step in building a chatbot. This involves not just filtering unwanted content, but also emphasising desired material.

    GPT-3 was shown Wikipedia up to six times more than other datasets as OpenAI considered it higher quality. Grok is trained on various sources, including posts from X, which might explain why Grok has been reported to check Elon Musk’s opinion on controversial topics.

    Musk has shared that xAI curates Grok’s training data, for example to improve legal knowledge and to remove LLM-generated content for quality control. He also appealed to the X community for difficult “galaxy brain” problems and facts that are “politically incorrect, but nonetheless factually true”.

    We don’t know if these data were used, or what quality-control measures were applied.

    Fine-tuning

    The second step, fine-tuning, adjusts LLM behaviour using feedback. Developers create detailed manuals outlining their preferred ethical stances, which either human reviewers or AI systems then use as a rubric to evaluate and improve the chatbot’s responses, effectively coding these values into the machine.

    A Business Insider investigation revealed xAI’s instructions to human
    “AI tutors” instructed them to look for “woke ideology” and “cancel culture”. While the onboarding documents said Grok shouldn’t “impose an opinion that confirms or denies a user’s bias”, they also stated it should avoid responses that claim both sides of a debate have merit when they do not.

    System prompts

    The system prompt – instructions provided before every conversation – guides behaviour once the model is deployed.

    To its credit, xAI publishes Grok’s system prompts. Its instructions to “assume subjective viewpoints sourced from the media are biased” and “not shy away from making claims which are politically incorrect, as long as they are well substantiated” were likely key factors in the latest controversy.

    These prompts are being updated daily at the time of writing, and their evolution is a fascinating case study in itself.

    Guardrails

    Finally, developers can also add guardrails – filters that block certain requests or responses. OpenAI claims it doesn’t permit ChatGPT “to generate hateful, harassing, violent or adult content”. Meanwhile, the Chinese model DeepSeek censors discussion of Tianamen Square.

    Ad-hoc testing when writing this article suggests Grok is much less restrained in this regard than competitor products.

    The transparency paradox

    Grok’s Nazi controversy highlights a deeper ethical issue: would we prefer AI companies to be explicitly ideological and honest about it, or maintain the fiction of neutrality while secretly embedding their values?

    Every major AI system reflects its creator’s worldview – from Microsoft Copilot’s risk-averse corporate perspective to Anthropic Claude’s safety-focused ethos. The difference is transparency.

    Musk’s public statements make it easy to trace Grok’s behaviours back to Musk’s stated beliefs about “woke ideology” and media bias. Meanwhile, when other platforms misfire spectacularly, we’re left guessing whether this reflects leadership views, corporate risk aversion, regulatory pressure, or accident.

    This feels familiar. Grok resembles Microsoft’s 2016 hate-speech-spouting Tay chatbot, also trained on Twitter data and set loose on Twitter before being shut down.

    But there’s a crucial difference. Tay’s racism emerged from user manipulation and poor safeguards – an unintended consequence. Grok’s behaviour appears to stem at least partially from its design.

    The real lesson from Grok is about honesty in AI development. As these systems become more powerful and widespread (Grok support in Tesla vehicles was just announced), the question isn’t whether AI will reflect human values. It’s whether companies will be transparent about whose values they’re encoding and why.

    Musk’s approach is simultaneously more honest (we can see his influence) and more deceptive (claiming objectivity while programming subjectivity) than his competitors.

    In an industry built on the myth of neutral algorithms, Grok reveals what’s been true all along: there’s no such thing as unbiased AI – only AI whose biases we can see with varying degrees of clarity.

    Aaron J. Snoswell previously received research funding from OpenAI in 2024–2025 to develop new evaluation frameworks for measuring moral competence in AI agents.

    – ref. How do you stop an AI model turning Nazi? What the Grok drama reveals about AI training – https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-stop-an-ai-model-turning-nazi-what-the-grok-drama-reveals-about-ai-training-261001

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: How do you stop an AI model turning Nazi? What the Grok drama reveals about AI training

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Aaron J. Snoswell, Senior Research Fellow in AI Accountability, Queensland University of Technology

    Anne Fehres and Luke Conroy & AI4Media, CC BY

    Grok, the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot embedded in X (formerly Twitter) and built by Elon Musk’s company xAI, is back in the headlines after calling itself “MechaHitler” and producing pro-Nazi remarks.

    The developers have apologised for the “inappropriate posts” and “taken action to ban hate speech” from Grok’s posts on X. Debates about AI bias have been revived too.

    But the latest Grok controversy is revealing not for the extremist outputs, but for how it exposes a fundamental dishonesty in AI development. Musk claims to be building a “truth-seeking” AI free from bias, yet the technical implementation reveals systemic ideological programming.

    This amounts to an accidental case study in how AI systems embed their creators’ values, with Musk’s unfiltered public presence making visible what other companies typically obscure.

    What is Grok?

    Grok is an AI chatbot with “a twist of humor and a dash of rebellion” developed by xAI, which also owns the X social media platform.

    The first version of Grok launched in 2023. Independent evaluations suggest the latest model, Grok 4, outpaces competitors on “intelligence” tests. The chatbot is available standalone and on X.

    xAI states “AI’s knowledge should be all-encompassing and as far-reaching as possible”. Musk has previously positioned Grok as a truth-telling alternative to chatbots accused of being “woke” by right-wing commentators.

    But beyond the latest Nazism scandal, Grok has made headlines for generating threats of sexual violence, bringing up “white genocide” in South Africa, and making insulting statements about politicians. The latter led to its ban in Turkey.

    So how do developers imbue an AI with such values and shape chatbot behaviour? Today’s chatbots are built using large language models (LLMs), which offer several levers developers can lean on.

    What makes an AI ‘behave’ this way?

    Pre-training

    First, developers curate the data used during pre-training – the first step in building a chatbot. This involves not just filtering unwanted content, but also emphasising desired material.

    GPT-3 was shown Wikipedia up to six times more than other datasets as OpenAI considered it higher quality. Grok is trained on various sources, including posts from X, which might explain why Grok has been reported to check Elon Musk’s opinion on controversial topics.

    Musk has shared that xAI curates Grok’s training data, for example to improve legal knowledge and to remove LLM-generated content for quality control. He also appealed to the X community for difficult “galaxy brain” problems and facts that are “politically incorrect, but nonetheless factually true”.

    We don’t know if these data were used, or what quality-control measures were applied.

    Fine-tuning

    The second step, fine-tuning, adjusts LLM behaviour using feedback. Developers create detailed manuals outlining their preferred ethical stances, which either human reviewers or AI systems then use as a rubric to evaluate and improve the chatbot’s responses, effectively coding these values into the machine.

    A Business Insider investigation revealed xAI’s instructions to human
    “AI tutors” instructed them to look for “woke ideology” and “cancel culture”. While the onboarding documents said Grok shouldn’t “impose an opinion that confirms or denies a user’s bias”, they also stated it should avoid responses that claim both sides of a debate have merit when they do not.

    System prompts

    The system prompt – instructions provided before every conversation – guides behaviour once the model is deployed.

    To its credit, xAI publishes Grok’s system prompts. Its instructions to “assume subjective viewpoints sourced from the media are biased” and “not shy away from making claims which are politically incorrect, as long as they are well substantiated” were likely key factors in the latest controversy.

    These prompts are being updated daily at the time of writing, and their evolution is a fascinating case study in itself.

    Guardrails

    Finally, developers can also add guardrails – filters that block certain requests or responses. OpenAI claims it doesn’t permit ChatGPT “to generate hateful, harassing, violent or adult content”. Meanwhile, the Chinese model DeepSeek censors discussion of Tianamen Square.

    Ad-hoc testing when writing this article suggests Grok is much less restrained in this regard than competitor products.

    The transparency paradox

    Grok’s Nazi controversy highlights a deeper ethical issue: would we prefer AI companies to be explicitly ideological and honest about it, or maintain the fiction of neutrality while secretly embedding their values?

    Every major AI system reflects its creator’s worldview – from Microsoft Copilot’s risk-averse corporate perspective to Anthropic Claude’s safety-focused ethos. The difference is transparency.

    Musk’s public statements make it easy to trace Grok’s behaviours back to Musk’s stated beliefs about “woke ideology” and media bias. Meanwhile, when other platforms misfire spectacularly, we’re left guessing whether this reflects leadership views, corporate risk aversion, regulatory pressure, or accident.

    This feels familiar. Grok resembles Microsoft’s 2016 hate-speech-spouting Tay chatbot, also trained on Twitter data and set loose on Twitter before being shut down.

    But there’s a crucial difference. Tay’s racism emerged from user manipulation and poor safeguards – an unintended consequence. Grok’s behaviour appears to stem at least partially from its design.

    The real lesson from Grok is about honesty in AI development. As these systems become more powerful and widespread (Grok support in Tesla vehicles was just announced), the question isn’t whether AI will reflect human values. It’s whether companies will be transparent about whose values they’re encoding and why.

    Musk’s approach is simultaneously more honest (we can see his influence) and more deceptive (claiming objectivity while programming subjectivity) than his competitors.

    In an industry built on the myth of neutral algorithms, Grok reveals what’s been true all along: there’s no such thing as unbiased AI – only AI whose biases we can see with varying degrees of clarity.

    Aaron J. Snoswell previously received research funding from OpenAI in 2024–2025 to develop new evaluation frameworks for measuring moral competence in AI agents.

    – ref. How do you stop an AI model turning Nazi? What the Grok drama reveals about AI training – https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-stop-an-ai-model-turning-nazi-what-the-grok-drama-reveals-about-ai-training-261001

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: How do you stop an AI model turning Nazi? What the Grok drama reveals about AI training

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Aaron J. Snoswell, Senior Research Fellow in AI Accountability, Queensland University of Technology

    Anne Fehres and Luke Conroy & AI4Media, CC BY

    Grok, the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot embedded in X (formerly Twitter) and built by Elon Musk’s company xAI, is back in the headlines after calling itself “MechaHitler” and producing pro-Nazi remarks.

    The developers have apologised for the “inappropriate posts” and “taken action to ban hate speech” from Grok’s posts on X. Debates about AI bias have been revived too.

    But the latest Grok controversy is revealing not for the extremist outputs, but for how it exposes a fundamental dishonesty in AI development. Musk claims to be building a “truth-seeking” AI free from bias, yet the technical implementation reveals systemic ideological programming.

    This amounts to an accidental case study in how AI systems embed their creators’ values, with Musk’s unfiltered public presence making visible what other companies typically obscure.

    What is Grok?

    Grok is an AI chatbot with “a twist of humor and a dash of rebellion” developed by xAI, which also owns the X social media platform.

    The first version of Grok launched in 2023. Independent evaluations suggest the latest model, Grok 4, outpaces competitors on “intelligence” tests. The chatbot is available standalone and on X.

    xAI states “AI’s knowledge should be all-encompassing and as far-reaching as possible”. Musk has previously positioned Grok as a truth-telling alternative to chatbots accused of being “woke” by right-wing commentators.

    But beyond the latest Nazism scandal, Grok has made headlines for generating threats of sexual violence, bringing up “white genocide” in South Africa, and making insulting statements about politicians. The latter led to its ban in Turkey.

    So how do developers imbue an AI with such values and shape chatbot behaviour? Today’s chatbots are built using large language models (LLMs), which offer several levers developers can lean on.

    What makes an AI ‘behave’ this way?

    Pre-training

    First, developers curate the data used during pre-training – the first step in building a chatbot. This involves not just filtering unwanted content, but also emphasising desired material.

    GPT-3 was shown Wikipedia up to six times more than other datasets as OpenAI considered it higher quality. Grok is trained on various sources, including posts from X, which might explain why Grok has been reported to check Elon Musk’s opinion on controversial topics.

    Musk has shared that xAI curates Grok’s training data, for example to improve legal knowledge and to remove LLM-generated content for quality control. He also appealed to the X community for difficult “galaxy brain” problems and facts that are “politically incorrect, but nonetheless factually true”.

    We don’t know if these data were used, or what quality-control measures were applied.

    Fine-tuning

    The second step, fine-tuning, adjusts LLM behaviour using feedback. Developers create detailed manuals outlining their preferred ethical stances, which either human reviewers or AI systems then use as a rubric to evaluate and improve the chatbot’s responses, effectively coding these values into the machine.

    A Business Insider investigation revealed xAI’s instructions to human
    “AI tutors” instructed them to look for “woke ideology” and “cancel culture”. While the onboarding documents said Grok shouldn’t “impose an opinion that confirms or denies a user’s bias”, they also stated it should avoid responses that claim both sides of a debate have merit when they do not.

    System prompts

    The system prompt – instructions provided before every conversation – guides behaviour once the model is deployed.

    To its credit, xAI publishes Grok’s system prompts. Its instructions to “assume subjective viewpoints sourced from the media are biased” and “not shy away from making claims which are politically incorrect, as long as they are well substantiated” were likely key factors in the latest controversy.

    These prompts are being updated daily at the time of writing, and their evolution is a fascinating case study in itself.

    Guardrails

    Finally, developers can also add guardrails – filters that block certain requests or responses. OpenAI claims it doesn’t permit ChatGPT “to generate hateful, harassing, violent or adult content”. Meanwhile, the Chinese model DeepSeek censors discussion of Tianamen Square.

    Ad-hoc testing when writing this article suggests Grok is much less restrained in this regard than competitor products.

    The transparency paradox

    Grok’s Nazi controversy highlights a deeper ethical issue: would we prefer AI companies to be explicitly ideological and honest about it, or maintain the fiction of neutrality while secretly embedding their values?

    Every major AI system reflects its creator’s worldview – from Microsoft Copilot’s risk-averse corporate perspective to Anthropic Claude’s safety-focused ethos. The difference is transparency.

    Musk’s public statements make it easy to trace Grok’s behaviours back to Musk’s stated beliefs about “woke ideology” and media bias. Meanwhile, when other platforms misfire spectacularly, we’re left guessing whether this reflects leadership views, corporate risk aversion, regulatory pressure, or accident.

    This feels familiar. Grok resembles Microsoft’s 2016 hate-speech-spouting Tay chatbot, also trained on Twitter data and set loose on Twitter before being shut down.

    But there’s a crucial difference. Tay’s racism emerged from user manipulation and poor safeguards – an unintended consequence. Grok’s behaviour appears to stem at least partially from its design.

    The real lesson from Grok is about honesty in AI development. As these systems become more powerful and widespread (Grok support in Tesla vehicles was just announced), the question isn’t whether AI will reflect human values. It’s whether companies will be transparent about whose values they’re encoding and why.

    Musk’s approach is simultaneously more honest (we can see his influence) and more deceptive (claiming objectivity while programming subjectivity) than his competitors.

    In an industry built on the myth of neutral algorithms, Grok reveals what’s been true all along: there’s no such thing as unbiased AI – only AI whose biases we can see with varying degrees of clarity.

    Aaron J. Snoswell previously received research funding from OpenAI in 2024–2025 to develop new evaluation frameworks for measuring moral competence in AI agents.

    – ref. How do you stop an AI model turning Nazi? What the Grok drama reveals about AI training – https://theconversation.com/how-do-you-stop-an-ai-model-turning-nazi-what-the-grok-drama-reveals-about-ai-training-261001

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • SpaceX to invest $2 billion in Musk’s xAI startup, WSJ reports

    Source: Government of India

    Source: Government of India (4)

    SpaceX has committed $2 billion to xAI as part of a $5 billion equity round, deepening the ties between tech billionaire Elon Musk’s ventures as his artificial intelligence startup races to compete with rival OpenAI, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday.

    The investment follows xAI’s merger with X and values the combined company at $113 billion, with the Grok chatbot now powering Starlink support and eyed for future integration into Tesla’s Optimus robots, the report added.

    In response to a post on X about whether Tesla, could also invest in xAI, Elon Musk said on Sunday, “It would be great, but subject to board and shareholder approval,” without confirming or denying the Journal report on SpaceX’s investment plans in xAI.

    SpaceX, xAI and Tesla did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Reuters could not immediately confirm the WSJ report.

    Despite recent controversies involving Grok’s responses, Musk has called it “the smartest AI in the world,” and xAI continues to spend heavily on model training and infrastructure.

    (Reuters)

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. Chu Votes Against Trump’s One Big Ugly Bill

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Judy Chu (CA2-27)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1, the Big Ugly Bill, President Trump and Republicans’ budget reconciliation package, by a vote of 218-214. Rep. Judy Chu (CA-28) voted no and released the following statement: 

    “Today’s vote left no doubt about President Trump’s legacy. He is now responsible for the largest cut to health care in U.S. history that will kick 17 million Americans off their health care. He is responsible for taking food off the tables of children and Veterans, and for rigging our tax code so severely that the poorest families will see their tax bills go up while the top 0.1% get a $300,000 tax handout in one year alone. He will always be the President who, despite claiming to be “the best” for American women, defunded Planned Parenthood -a backdoor version of a nationwide abortion ban. He will be remembered as the President who sold off our country’s future by passing tax cuts for the rich that are so enormous they will explode our national debt by $4 trillion and severely inhibit our country’s ability to respond to a crisis, like a recession sparked by the President’s senseless trade war. Every single Republican who voted yes on this monstrous bill will share this legacy. 

    “When rural hospitals and nursing homes shut their doors, when health insurance premiums skyrocket, and when sick people die because they were kicked off of Medicaid, Americans will know that President Trump and Republicans chose to inflict this pain. When prices go up and their bank accounts shrink while billionaires get richer and richer, they will know whose fault it is. President Trump and Republicans in Congress knew the consequences, but believed it was an acceptable cost to give the ultra-wealthy, like President Trump himself and Elon Musk, trillions of dollars in tax giveaways.”   

    “Trump’s one big, ugly bill is a nightmare for American families, there is no excuse.” 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA:  Amo Led Discussion with Rhode Island Manufacturers Struggling because of Trump’s Erratic Trade Policy

    Source: US Congressman Gabe Amo (Rhode Island 1st District)

    85% of Rhode Island manufacturers say Trump’s tariffs are hurting their businesses in a new survey.

    PAWTUCKET, RI –  Monday, June 30th, Congressman Gabe Amo (D-RI) led a roundtable discussion with six small, local manufacturers from across Rhode Island’s First Congressional District about the impacts of Trump’s chaotic tariff policy. Business leaders from LNA Laser Technology (Pawtucket, RI), Katrinkles (Providence, RI), Beehive Handmade (Warren, RI), Ward’s Manufacturing (Warren, RI), and S.K. Grimes (Woonsocket, RI) voiced fears that Trump’s sweeping, chaotic tariffs would irreparably harm their companies. The leaders shared they were less likely to hire Rhode Island workers or invest in research and development due to these policies.

    “Rhode Island manufacturers, workers and consumers are paying the price for Trump’s tariff chaos,” said Congressman Gabe Amo (D-RI). “Thank you to the small businesses from across the First Congressional District who shared their stories at last week’s roundtable in Pawtucket. They made crystal clear Trump’s all-encompassing, volatile tariffs are having disastrous consequences on their companies – they can’t hire, invest, or plan for the future. Small businesses and their employees need clear, consistent policy to thrive. Republicans talk a big game about reshoring American manufacturing, but their extreme policies are undermining American job creators. I took these stories back to Washington to keep fighting for a commonsense trade policy that empowers Rhode Island workers and businesses.” 

    “It was an honor to meet with Congressman Amo at last week’s roundtable event, and to experience firsthand how hard he is working on behalf of Rhode Island’s manufacturers,” said Katy Westcott, owner of Katrinkles in Warren, RI. “At Katrinkles, we’re seeing customers now purchasing elsewhere to avoid extra fees, or avoiding ordering from the United States altogether. It was heartening to discuss the impact of tariffs on the industry at large, as well as effective strategies for response, with so many insightful fellow manufacturers.”

    “LNA Laser Technology supplies high quality lasers and systems for part identification and traceability to manufacturing industries across the country,” said Dan Gold, President and CEO of LNA Laser Technology in Pawtucket, RI. “Many components of our systems are sourced from abroad because they are not available domestically. The new tariff policies are driving the costs up significantly of critical components that ultimately gets passed on to the manufacturing end users. This not only impacts our ability to be competitive, it also punishes the US companies who are trying to invest in technology to improve and grow. My goal in talking with Congressman Amo was to share these real consequences and impacts so that he can hopefully work with his colleagues in Congress towards common sense exceptions in tariff policy that will promote investment in domestic manufacturing. If the goal is to help bring back manufacturing industries and jobs to the US, the current administration sweeping tariff policy is having the complete opposite effect.”

    “I’m grateful to Congressman Amo for taking the time to gather us, listen to our concerns, and genuinely engage on the challenges we face,” said Adam Dau, President of S.K. Grimes in Woonsocket, RI. “What struck me during the roundtable was that, despite the wide range of products, materials, and clientele we served, every business at the table was feeling the weight of a tariff system that is inconsistently applied—or in some cases, applied without clear rationale. That uncertainty makes it incredibly difficult to plan for the future or invest in growth. The current system stands in the way of continuing to strengthen Rhode Island’s already strong manufacturing base, and we’re encouraged by the Congressman’s efforts to change that.”

    “The tariffs are hurting American manufacturers at every level of the supply chain. Our material costs are increasing while our manufacturing customers are buying less,” said Kelly Ward, President of Ward’s Manufacturing in Warren, RI. “Businesses cannot make decisions when policies change every day and without warning. Many manufacturers are pausing projects until the federal government comes up with a definitive plan. The uncertainty is hurting the U.S. economy. My metal fabrication company, Ward’s Manufacturing LLC, has experienced a cost increase of up to 4x as a result of the tariffs. We have only two choices – either my company pays the tariff or the consumer pays the tariff. Either way, it’s Americans who pay.”

    “Rhode Island’s small manufacturing ecosystem is strong and vibrant,” said Matt Watson, Center Director of Polaris MEP, Rhode Island’s Manufacturing Extension Program. “We’re grateful to Congressman Amo for highlighting the real impacts these companies are facing and for exploring potential solutions to help ease future headwinds.”
     

    Background

    As Vice Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Congressman Amo, worked to force a voteto end the ‘so-called’ national emergency Trump is using to justify tariffs. If passed it would end reciprocal tariffs.

    In May 2025, Amo led 30 colleagues, alongside Congressman Greg Casar (D-TX) and Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), in calling on the Acting Inspector General of the State Department to review potential corruptionin trade negotiations with countries facing tariffs benefiting Elon Musk and Starlink.

    In April 2025, Amo signed an amicus brief in Oregon v. Trump supporting the argument that the Trump Administration abused emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to unlawfully impose reckless, across-the-board tariffs.

    He also joined Congressman Steve Horsford (D-NV) in April 2025 to express alarm that Trump may be using trade policy to enrich insiders with advanced knowledge of pending trade actions or inactions.

    Amo signed a letter led by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Congresswoman Judy Chu (D-CA), and Congresswoman Linda Sanchez (D-CA) in a April 2025 addressed to Secretary Lutnick, Secretary Bessent, and USTR Ambassador Greer expressing concern about the Trump Administration’s tariffs opening the door to corruption.

    In February 2025, Amo joined Congressman Jim Costa (D-CA) in urging Trump to reconsider the proposed 25% tariffson imported building materials from Canada and Mexico. 

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Rep. McCollum Joins Every Senate and House Democrat in Opposing the One Big Ugly Bill

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Betty McCollum (DFL-Minn)

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — As the House of Representatives awaits the vote on Donald Trump’s massive budget reconciliation bill (HR1), also known as the One Big Ugly Bill, Congresswoman McCollum issued the following statement: 

    “President Trump’s big shameful reconciliation bill is back on the House floor today, and it is even uglier and meaner than when House Republicans passed it in May. The Senate-amended One Big Ugly Bill strips away healthcare from more than 173,000 Minnesotans with disabilities, seniors, children, and working parents – that’s the equivalent of every resident of Woodbury, Maplewood, Stillwater, and Roseville losing their health care. 

    “The big ugly truth is that at least 32,000 Minnesotans will go hungry without the SNAP food assistance they rely on – the equivalent of everyone in New Brighton and Arden Hills going to bed hungry every day. Donald Trump and his Republican Congressional enablers are cutting healthcare and food access for the most vulnerable Minnesotans to give permanent tax breaks to billionaires like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. 

    “The One Big Ugly Bill is a handout for the wealthy. People who make over a million dollars a year, on average, will see a tax break of an additional $96,400 per year, or $264 per day. For those earning less than $50,000 per year, the average benefit is $0.68 per day. If that wasn’t bad enough, the Senate’s Big Ugly Bill raises the debt ceiling by $5 Trillion, 25% more than the $4 Trillion proposed in the House and hands out ridiculous tax breaks, like a $1.5 billion tax break on gun silencer purchases

    “As it was with the first vote on the Big Ugly Bill in May, I will vote NO! House Democrats just need four patriotic no votes from our Republican colleagues to kill this deadly bill. I will continue to lead with my Minnesota values and represent the voice of my community. I will always oppose any Republican efforts to cut Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Veterans’ benefits, and nutrition assistance for Minnesota families.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: MEGABILL: Harder Condemns Largest Health Care Cut in American History

    Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Josh Harder (CA-10)

    Rips health care away from nearly 50,000 San Joaquin County residents, lays off 3,000 health care workers 

    Finances trillions in handouts for billionaires like Elon Musk

    WASHINGTON – Today, following the U.S. House of Representatives’ passage of the largest health care cut in American history, Rep. Josh Harder (CA-09), who voted no, released the following statement condemning the bill:

    “I’m heartbroken for our community. This bill is cruel beyond words. It rips health care away from 50,000 people in San Joaquin County, shutters clinics, lays off thousands of health care workers, and sends premiums through the roof – all so billionaires like Elon Musk can get another handout. 

    “Thousands of working families will lose access to in-home care for aging parents. They’ll be forced to skip doctor’s appointments for their kids. They won’t be able to afford an emergency room visit if there’s an accident. This isn’t just politics, this is life and death.

    “Our families were already stretched thin – now they’re being kicked off their health care so the rich can get even richer. I’m heartbroken. I’m furious. I voted no, and I’ll do everything in my power to fight back against this heartless betrayal.”

    ###

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Murphy, Foreign Relations Democrats Release Statement on State Department Personnel Cuts

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Connecticut – Chris Murphy

    July 11, 2025

    WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, joined U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and all Democrats on the Committee in a statement on announced plans by the State Department to terminate more than 1,300 personnel.
    “As the U.S. retreats, our adversaries—like the People’s Republic of China—are expanding their diplomatic reach, making Americans less safe and less prosperous. If this administration is serious about putting ‘America first,’ it must invest in our diplomatic corps and national security experts—not erode the institutions that protect our interests, promote U.S. values and keep Americans abroad safe.
    “The Administration’s decision to fire hundreds of members of the Civil Service and Foreign Service at the Department of State undermines our national security. While there are targeted reforms that our government can pursue to maximize the impact of every tax dollar, that’s not what this is. Blanket and indiscriminate cuts—the legacy from Elon Musk’s failed DOGE effort—weaken our government’s ability to deliver for the American people in a cost-effective manner. There are active conflicts and humanitarian crises in Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, Haiti and Myanmar—to name a few. Now is the time to strengthen our diplomatic hand, not weaken it. From pursuing peaceful resolutions to out-competing China diplomatically and economically, we can’t afford to not have experienced diplomats at the table. 
    “We will continue to fight on behalf of the public servants and their families who now face job loss after careers spent advancing America’s interests and values in challenging and often high-risk environments. We call on Secretary Rubio to ensure that any proposed reorganization, including reductions in force, is carried out transparently and in full accordance with U.S. law.”
    The statement was signed by U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.).

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Ranking Members Schatz and Shaheen Introduce Legislation to Prevent Lifesaving U.S. Aid from Going to Waste

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Hawaii Brian Schatz
    WASHINGTON – This week, U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Brian Schatz (D-HI), Ranking Member of the Senate Subcommittee on Foreign Operation Appropriations, introduced the “Saving Lives and Taxpayer Dollars Act,” legislation to prevent the unnecessary destruction and waste of foreign assistance commodities—including food, medicine and medical devices—by ensuring that they are delivered to intended recipients before they spoil or expire. The bill would prohibit the destruction of any such commodities unless all efforts to sell or donate them have been exhausted and requires reporting to Congress on any destroyed goods. 
    Specifically, the “Saving Lives and Taxpayer Dollars Act” seeks to prevent the State Department’s planned destruction of $9.7 million in family planning commodities instead of donating them to intended beneficiaries. It would also impose requirements to prevent the imminent spoilage of emergency food commodities in warehouses, including a USAID warehouse in Houston, Texas. 
    “This bill will save lives and prevent the wasting of taxpayer dollars by ensuring that already paid-for life-saving commodities, like food and medicine, are delivered to people in need instead of being pointlessly trashed,” said Ranking Member Shaheen. “At a moment when the Trump Administration has made devastating cuts to foreign assistance it is disappointing that the State Department would sign off on spending money to actually destroy paid-for commodities that would save lives and are waiting to be deployed. Food and family planning commodities are desperately needed in conflict affected countries, like Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo where famine is taking hold. Women are at high risk for sexual violence in conflict settings. This is sadly yet another example of how Elon Musk and the DOGE boys have simultaneously managed to cost lives and undercut America’s influence abroad without saving the taxpayer a single cent.” 
    “Intentionally destroying health care products or letting food and medication that the United States government has already paid for as part of our foreign assistance efforts rot and expire in warehouses is absurd. It’s a total waste of taxpayer dollars and is needlessly costing lives around the world,” said Ranking Member Schatz. “Our bill requires the administration to follow common-sense and distribute foreign assistance commodities before they expire.” 
    Last week, Ranking Member Shaheen sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio urging him to reverse the State Department’s decision to destroy more than $9 million dollars in family planning commodities intended to support women in crisis settings globally. U.S. family planning assistance reaches 47.6 million women and couples every year, preventing 8.1 million unintended pregnancies, 5.2 million unsafe abortions and 34,000 maternal deaths. 
    Full text of the bill can be found HERE. 
    The “Saving Lives and Taxpayer Dollars Act” would:  
    Require that foreign assistance commodities, including food, medicine, and medical devices be made available to intended beneficiaries before the commodities spoil or expire.   
    Prevent the destruction of any commodity procured or held by the United States unless every effort has been made to sell or donate the commodity before the applicable spoilage or expiration date.   
    Require reporting to Congress on any destroyed commodities, including the market value of any product or commodity destroyed; and the cost incurred to destroy the commodity. 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Coons, Foreign Relation Democrats Statement on State Department Personnel Cuts

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Delaware Christopher Coons

    WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-DE), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD),Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Jacky Rosen (D-NV) released a statement on announced plans by the State Department to terminate personnel.

    “As the U.S. retreats, our adversaries—like the People’s Republic of China—are expanding their diplomatic reach, making Americans less safe and less prosperous. If this administration is serious about putting ‘America first,’ it must invest in our diplomatic corps and national security experts—not erode the institutions that protect our interests, promote U.S. values and keep Americans abroad safe.?? 

    “The Administration’s decision to fire hundreds of members of the Civil Service and Foreign Service at the Department of State undermines our national security. While there are targeted reforms that our government can pursue to maximize the impact of every tax dollar, that’s not what this is. Blanket and indiscriminate cuts—the legacy from Elon Musk’s failed DOGE effort—weaken our government’s ability to deliver for the American people in a cost-effective manner. There are active conflicts and humanitarian crises in Ukraine, Sudan, Gaza, Haiti and Myanmar—to name a few. Now is the time to strengthen our diplomatic hand, not weaken it. From pursuing peaceful resolutions to out-competing China diplomatically and economically, we can’t afford to not have experienced diplomats at the table. 

    “We will continue to fight on behalf of the public servants and their families who now face job loss after careers spent advancing America’s interests and values in challenging and often high-risk environments. We call on Secretary Rubio to ensure that any proposed reorganization, including reductions in force, is carried out transparently and in full accordance with U.S. law.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Inequality has risen from 1970 to Trump − that has 3 hidden costs that undermine democracy

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Nathan Meyers, Ph.D. candidate in sociology (September 2025 degree conferral), UMass Amherst

    Demonstrators march outside the U.S. Capitol during the Poor People’s Campaign rally at the National Mall in Washington on June 23, 2018. AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

    America has never been richer. But the gains are so lopsided that the top 10% controls 69% of all wealth in the country, while the bottom half controls just 3%. Meanwhile, surging corporate profits have mostly benefited investors, not the broader public.

    This divide is expected to widen after President Donald Trump’s sweeping new spending bill drastically cuts Medicaid and food aid, programs that stabilize the economy and subsidize low-wage employers.

    Moreover, the tax cuts at the heart of the bill will deliver tens of billions of dollars in benefits to the wealthiest households while disproportionately burdening low-income households, according to analyses by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation. By 2033, the bottom 20% will pay more in taxes while the top 0.1% receive $43 billion in cuts.

    I am a sociologist who studies economic inequality, and my research demonstrates that the class-based inequalities exacerbated by the Trump bill are not new. Rather, they are part of a 50-year trend linked to social cleavages, political corruption and a declining belief in the common good.

    The roots of class-based inequality

    The decades following World War II were broadly prosperous, but conditions began changing in the 1970s. Class inequality has increased enormously since then, according to government data, while income inequality has risen for five decades at the expense of workers.

    Economists usually gauge a country’s economic health by looking at its gross domestic product as measured through total spending on everything from groceries to patents.

    But another way to view GDP is by looking at whether the money goes to workers or business owners. This second method – the income approach – offers a clearer picture of who really benefits from economic growth.

    The money that goes to labor’s share of GDP, or workers, is represented by employee compensation, including wages, salaries and benefits. The money left over for businesses after paying for work and materials is called gross operating surplus, or business surplus.

    The share of GDP going to workers rose 12% from 1947 to 1970, then fell 14% between 1970 and 2023. The opposite happened with the business surplus, falling 18% in the early postwar decades before jumping 34% from 1970 to today.

    Meanwhile, corporate profits have outpaced economic growth by 193% since 1970. Within profits, shareholder dividends as a share of GDP grew 274%.

    As of 2023, labor had lost all of the economic gains made since 1947. Had workers kept their 1970 share of GDP, they would have earned $1.7 trillion more in 2023 alone. And no legislation or federal action since 1970 has reversed this half-century trend.

    When more of the economy goes to businesses instead of workers, that poses serious social problems. My research focuses on three that threaten democracy.

    1. Fraying social bonds and livelihoods

    Not just an issue of income and assets, growing class inequality represents the fraying of American society.

    For instance, inequality and the resulting hardship are linked to worse health outcomes. Americans die younger than their peers in other rich countries, and U.S. life expectancy has decreased, especially among the poor.

    Moreover, economic struggles contribute to mental health issues, deaths of despair and profound problems such as addiction, including tobacco, alcohol and opioid abuse.

    Inequality can disrupt families. Kids who experience the stresses of poverty can develop neurological and emotional problems, putting them at risk for drug use as adults. On the other hand, when minimum wages increase and people begin saving wealth, divorce risk falls.

    Research shows inequality has many other negative consequences, from reduced social mobility to lower social trust and even higher homicide rates.

    Together, these broad social consequences are linked to misery, political discontent and normlessness.

    2. Increasing corruption in politics

    Inequality is rising in the U.S. largely because business elites are exercising more influence over policy outcomes, research shows. My related work on privatization explains how 50 years of outsourcing public functions – through contracting, disinvestment and job cuts – threatens democratic accountability.

    Research across different countries has repeatedly found that higher income inequality increases political corruption. It does so by undermining trust in government and institutions, and enabling elites to dominate policymaking while weakening public oversight.

    Since 2010, weakened campaign finance laws driven by monied interests have sharply increased corruption risks. The Supreme Court ruled then in Citizens United to lift campaign finance restrictions, enabling unlimited political spending. It reached an apex in 2024, when Elon Musk spent $200 million to elect Trump before later installing his Starlink equipment onto Federal Aviation Administration systems in a reported takeover of a $2.4 billion contract with Verizon.

    Research shows that a large majority of Americans believe that the economy is rigged, suggesting everyday people sense the link between inequality and corruption.

    Demonstrators gather outside the Supreme Court in Washington as the court heard arguments on campaign finance in 2013.
    AP Photo/Susan Walsh

    3. Undermining belief in the common good

    National aspirations have emphasized the common good since America’s founding. The Declaration of Independence lists the king’s first offense as undermining the “public good” by subverting the rule of law. The Constitution’s preamble commits the government to promoting the general welfare and shared well-being.

    But higher inequality historically means the common good goes overlooked, according to research. Meanwhile, work has become more precarious, less unionized, more segmented and less geographically stable. Artificial intelligence may worsen these trends.

    This tends to coincide with a drop in voting and other forms of civic engagement.

    The government has fewer mechanisms for protecting community when rising inequality is paired with lower taxes for the wealthy and reduced public resources. My research finds that public sector unions especially bolster civic engagement in this environment.

    Given increasing workplace and social isolation, America’s loneliness epidemic is unsurprising, especially for low earners.

    All of these factors and their contribution to alienation can foster authoritarian beliefs and individualism. When people become cold and distrustful of one another, the notion of the common good collapses.

    Inequality as a policy outcome

    News coverage of the Trump bill and policy debate have largely centered on immediate gains and losses. But zoomed out, a clearer picture emerges of the long-term dismantling of foundations that once supported broad economic security. That, in turn, has enabled democratic decline.

    As labor’s share of the economy declined, so too did the institutional trust and shared social values that underpin democratic life. Among the many consequences are the political discontent and disillusionment shaping our current moment.

    Republicans hold both chambers of Congress through 2026, making significant policy changes unlikely in the short term. Democrats opposed the bill but are out of power. And their coalition is divided between a centrist establishment and an insurgent progressive wing with diverging priorities in addressing inequality.

    Yet democratic decline and inequality are not inevitable. If restoring broad prosperity and social stability are the goals, they may require revisiting the New Deal-style policies that produced labor’s peak economic share of 59% of GDP in 1970.

    Nathan Meyers 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. Inequality has risen from 1970 to Trump − that has 3 hidden costs that undermine democracy – https://theconversation.com/inequality-has-risen-from-1970-to-trump-that-has-3-hidden-costs-that-undermine-democracy-259104

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Crypto – Bitcoin hits all-time high as political will and institutional action accelerate – deVere Group

    Source: deVere Group

    July 10 2025 – Bitcoin surged above $112,000 this week for the first time, driven by mounting political momentum, regulatory repositioning, and strategic allocations from both corporations and sovereign entities, says deVere Group, one of the world’s largest independent financial advisory and asset management organizations.

    “The shift is clear and aggressive,” said Nigel Green, CEO of deVere Group. “Bitcoin is being pulled into the core of national economic thinking in the US – the world’s largest economy – and also corporate treasury policy, and institutional portfolios. This isn’t hype. This is capital following political will.”

    The Trump administration is sending unmistakable signals. Senior Treasury officials have confirmed internal reviews are underway on the potential inclusion of Bitcoin in US reserve strategy.

    Also committees continue to receive Bitcoin contributions, discussions between policymakers and digital asset custodians are ongoing, and new legislation supporting digital asset classification, custody, and tax treatment is gaining bipartisan support on Capitol Hill.

    “When a sitting administration is weighing Bitcoin as part of sovereign reserves, that reshapes the global risk framework,” said Nigel. “It doesn’t just legitimize Bitcoin, it forces others—institutions and governments alike—to act.”

    Elon Musk’s newly formed America Party has pushed Bitcoin further into the national conversation.

    In his Independence Day speech, Musk positioned Bitcoin as the foundation of economic resilience.

    This has reignited interest across retail platforms and triggered increased flows from politically aligned investor groups.

    “Musk is giving Bitcoin further ideological weight and policy relevance,” says the deVere CEO.

    “That moves markets. His reach is unmatched, and he’s aligning it with a monetary vision that resonates with a generation raised on decentralized tech.”

    At the regulatory level, the SEC has softened its stance. Several enforcement actions have been withdrawn, and spot Bitcoin ETFs are moving through review with renewed agency engagement. Regulators are now focused on operational safeguards and disclosure standards. “The era of blanket resistance appears to be over,” notes Nigel Green.

    “Regulatory friction held back institutional involvement for years. Now that it’s easing, we’re seeing fresh inflows from asset managers who were waiting for exactly this moment.”

    Corporates are moving aggressively. MicroStrategy added $2 billion in Bitcoin in June, pushing its total above 300,000 BTC. Seventeen publicly listed companies disclosed Bitcoin holdings in recent filings, with more deploying capital through custodial structures and ETFs. Firms are integrating it into liquidity and risk frameworks.

    “Boards are acting to preserve value through a cycle of rising debt and monetary uncertainty,” explains Nigel Green. “Bitcoin gives them optionality, mobility, and a non-correlated reserve that holds its form under stress.”

    Sovereign institutions are advancing too. Pakistan has begun holding state-mined Bitcoin through its central bank.

    The Czech National Bank is reviewing Bitcoin for potential inclusion in foreign reserves.

    Sovereign wealth funds across Southeast Asia and Latin America are now engaged in operational discussions with digital custodians. While not all activity is being publicized, it is being closely tracked by global capital.

    “These are central banks, state treasuries, and sovereign wealth funds treating Bitcoin as a strategic asset. They’re not chasing headlines. They’re preparing for what comes next.”

    Market data supports the shift. More than $340 million in short liquidations were triggered around the $112,000 breakout, according to data. Spot ETF inflows remain steady. Institutional buyers are dominating recent volume, with fewer retail-driven spikes and more structured accumulation.

     “Governments and political figures are reshaping the environment Bitcoin operates in, and institutions—including corporate treasuries—are responding with deliberate allocation,” concludes Nigel Green.

     “The new all-time highs are being powered by political and regulatory will that are unlocking new channels for capital, and by the growing acceptance that Bitcoin now plays a strategic role in global finance.”

    deVere Group is one of the world’s largest independent advisors of specialist global financial solutions to international, local mass affluent, and high-net-worth clients.  It has a network of offices around the world, more than 80,000 clients, and $14bn under advisement.

    MIL OSI – Submitted News –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Superman: James Gunn’s prolonged punch-fest falls flat

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Laura Crossley, Senior Lecturer in Film, Bournemouth University

    The first two superhero movies of the year examined the morality of power and politics (Captain America: Brave New World) and mental health and personal accountability (Thunderbolts*) in thoughtful and often nuanced ways. It is rather depressing, then, that the third act of Superman is largely a prolonged CGI punch-fest that lacks any narrative or visual vigour to make it interesting.

    There is a lot riding on the success of the DC Universe (DCU), now under the creative stewardship of director James Gunn and producer James Safran. After the varied fortunes of the DC Extended Universe (DCEU), this iteration of Superman marks a reboot of DC properties and is the introductory instalment of the first phase, or “chapter” as they are being called, with the subtitle Gods and Monsters.

    The films also marks a shift from the “Snyderverse” – the series of interconnected films made under the oversight of director Zack Snyder – which were characterised by the darkness of both their themes and their aesthetics.

    This darkness, and the attendant moral ambiguity, of the Snyderverse has been replaced by a more optimistic tone. This new Superman film is more simplistic and clear-cut, with good versus bad and a bright, comic-book design.

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    Anyone familiar with Gunn’s previous superhero offerings (The Guardians of the Galaxy trilogy; The Suicide Squad) will recognise much of the tone and the look. This is very much the Superman movie that Gunn wants to make. And therein lies part of the problem.

    As the opening film of chapter one, this effectively sets the tone for all that is to come across the DCU. But that raises the question of how Gunn’s overall approach will work with future properties that will have (or should have) very different styles, narrative themes and concerns.

    This film is deliberately not an origin story. We meet Superman (David Corenswet), bloodied and battered after having lost an off-screen fight. He’s already an established superhero in a world accustomed to them after approximately 300 years of “metahumans” – as the opening exposition dump helpfully informs us.

    Superman then returns to the icy Fortress of Solitude, complete with robot staff and adorable CGI super-dog, Krypto. We are, in effect, entering the middle of the story, with Superman’s dual identity as Clark Kent already known to his girlfriend Lois Lane (Rachel Brosnahan).

    The pair have a fun, palpable chemistry. In an early stand-out scene, Lois, in journalist mode, grills Clark/Superman on the finer points of superhero accountability and responsibility after he single-handedly – and without any form of legal jurisdiction – stops a war between the fictitious countries of Boravia (eastern European, evil) and Jahanipur (a south-east Asian/Middle Eastern mash-up in which the people are impoverished and entirely agency-free), just before the movie begins. Sadly, these valid and deeply relevant questions remain unexplored for the rest of the film.

    The trailer for Superman.

    Brosnahan is a spiky, intelligent and self-assured Lois Lane who is not given enough to do, partly because this “starting in the middle” approach robs her relationship with Clark/Superman of any real tension and complexity. But also because the film is so overstuffed that there is little room for any meaningful character development.

    What we do have is incoherent plotting, clunky dialogue and exposition and too many characters who are too thinly drawn.

    The gang’s back together

    Corenswet is a fine Superman, commandingly heroic and believably vulnerable when required. However, there is not much opportunity for him to explore his Clark Kent alter-ego before he is in full superhero mode, thereby denying the character time to establish the humanity that is core to Superman’s personality.

    Lex Luthor (Nicholas Holt), the quintessential Superman villain, is supposed to be brilliant but here is rendered more as an Elon Musk-like figure with hints of Trump. He’s a megalomaniac with a populist touch with motivations that are so unclear as to be nonsensical.

    We also get members of the Justice Gang, including a horribly bewigged Nathan Fillion as Green Lantern, Hawkgirl (Isabela Merced) and Mister Terrific (Edi Gathegi).

    Gathegi steals almost the entire movie with a charismatic, laid-back turn that is crying out for his own standalone entry. Mister Terrific gets the movie’s most fun set piece: a single-handed fight against multiple goons choreographed to an upbeat pop soundtrack that is straight out of the James Gunn playbook.

    As is the Justice Gang’s fight against an inter dimensional giant squid, which plays out as the comedic backdrop visible through a window during a pivotal scene with Lois Lane, and in which a depressed Superman takes no part. Any moments of seriousness are immediately undercut by on the nose and often cheap jokes.

    The lack of narrative focus and character development results in a story that does not give us any tangible reasons to care about these characters beyond the fact that they are already well-established cultural icons. The lack of scaffolding means that when we reach what should be the emotional turning points, there is no heft to these moments.

    The phoney war between Boravia and Jahanipur also provides problematic optics. The people of Jahanipur are an anonymous mass of peasants armed only with sticks who get a single word of dialogue shared between them (“Superman!”). They are at the mercy of their warlike neighbours in Boravia, whose evil is made evident through the grotesque physicality of their leader (Zlatko Buric).

    This plot device seems to be making a passing reference to both the war in Ukraine and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, without having anything of value to say about either. The situation is resolved by the arrival of the American Justice Gang (because all metahumans are exclusively based in America, apparently) and then we’re on to the next joke.

    In this Superman reboot, the humanity of the character is largely lost, something we are told about rather than see. This is ironic given that truth, justice and humanity are supposed to be the guiding principles of the Superman story.

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

    – ref. Superman: James Gunn’s prolonged punch-fest falls flat – https://theconversation.com/superman-james-gunns-prolonged-punch-fest-falls-flat-260940

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI Analysis: Trump’s budget cuts are adding to risk in life-threatening floods and emergencies

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Clodagh Harrington, Lecturer in American Politics, University College Cork

    Acclaimed author Michael Lewis wrote a book about the first Trump administration entitled The Fifth Risk, outlining the consequences when people who don’t understand how the government of a vast, complex and multifaceted nation works are put in charge of said government.

    The bestseller was more gripping and fascinating than any work of fiction. It outlined the realities that followed Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign promises to shrink the federal bureaucracy. In it, Lewis quotes lawyer Max Stier, who he describes as the American with the greatest understanding of how his nation’s government worked. Stier offers the truism that “the basic role of governments is to keep us safe.”

    You might deduce that this means those in charge during, and ahead of, emergencies should know what to do and how to do it. And, they have to want to do it. In the case of Trump term one, there was often evidence that some or all of these three elements were lacking. Evidently, planning for distant risk was not something that Trump and his team were interested in prioritising.

    Fast forward to July 2025, and US headlines are filled with images of devastating flash floods in which more than 100 Texans, many of them children, lost their lives. In Kerr County, outside of San Antonio, water levels of the Guadalupe River rose to what was considered a once in a “100-year catastrophe”. Nobody saw it coming, or at least not to the extent that it did. Despite official warnings, the result was one of the worst natural disasters ever faced by the state.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    Days earlier, Trump’s “big beautiful bill” was passed in the Senate with a tight 51:50 majority. Republican Texas senator Ted Cruz was among the supporters of a bill which will cut funding for the National Weather Service (NWS) by 6.7% in 2026. These come on the back of earlier resource reductions to the NWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA).

    Within days of the Texas floods, Democrats were calling for an investigation into whether previous budget cuts might have affected capacity for flood preparedness in Kerr County.



    Read more:
    How Donald Trump’s economic policies, including uncertainty around tariffs, are damaging the US economy

    For the bereaved, talk of culpability will hardly bring solace. And any immediate political blame game presents as unseemly in the middle of so much personal tragedy. But a New York Times article reported that “some experts say that staff shortages might have complicated forecasters’ ability to coordinate response”. Such speculative language does not offer clarity or reassurance, and even the often brash president has thus far refrained from finger pointing.

    Nonetheless, uncomfortable conversations are necessary, as it is clear that slashing federal funding does not serve the nation well. Trump already had budget cutting form, as his first-term efforts to slash NOAA and related programme funding demonstrated.

    In 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was also targeted for staff and funding reductions. This came along with the appointment of EPA chiefs who appeared uninterested in prioritising the climate crisis. More recently, the controversial spending cuts agency the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), headed by Elon Musk, included NOAA in its sights.



    Read more:
    Why Texas Hill Country, where a devastating flood killed dozens, is one of the deadliest places in the US for flash flooding

    Yale University’s Center for Environmental Communication said that while there was no clear evidence that budget cuts had affected weather forecasting in the Texas case, Trump’s planned additional cuts would affect some of NOAA’s key flash flood forecast tools. This includes the Flash project, which improves accuracy, timing and specificity of warnings, such as those that occurred in Texas on July 4. It also said that the weather service had lost many of its most senior staff, which would increase the risks associated with weather-related tragedies.

    Flood water in Texas rose spectacularly fast causing dozens of deaths.

    Cuts and the climate

    Across the board, Doge has targeted other agencies that the public rely on in a crisis, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema), where plans to reduce staffing by about 20% are currently coming into effect. With responsibility for managing natural and climate-fuelled disasters from hurricanes to floods, the agency has become busier in recent years as disasters have evolved from seasonal to perennial.

    Rob Moore, the director of flooding solutions at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an influential environmental body, argued that “America’s disaster safety net is unraveling.”

    There are likely to be more floods, and other nature-based catastrophes with multiple probable causes and features. While outright prevention may not always be possible, governmental risk and disaster management can help to preclude the devastation seen on July 4 in Texas.

    The problem with responding to long-term risk with short-term or inadequate solutions is that one day, an existential threat could arrive for which the US will not be ready. The danger may not even be as overwhelming as a global pandemic or nuclear threat. It could be as mundane as a local river overflowing. For those who lost their loved ones in Texas, there is nothing distant about their anguish.

    A country with the world’s largest economy does not have to cut federal bureaucracy corners. Wasting tax dollars is never a vote winner, but funding vital emergency services like Fema and the National Weather Service is a fundamental feature of an advanced democracy. As is investing in the technology and personnel to do all possible to predict flash floods. Trump would do well to remember this as he meets the bereaved in Kerr County.

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

    – ref. Trump’s budget cuts are adding to risk in life-threatening floods and emergencies – https://theconversation.com/trumps-budget-cuts-are-adding-to-risk-in-life-threatening-floods-and-emergencies-260710

    MIL OSI Analysis –

  • MIL-OSI USA: For Restoring Biodiversity Look for Help from the Humble, World-building Muskrat

    Source: US State of Connecticut

    In his speech for the College of Agriculture, Health and Natural Resources (CAHNR) this past spring, keynote speaker Rodney Butler ’99 (BUS), Chairman of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, told an abbreviated version of the Indigenous creation story of Skywoman. 

    “When the world was covered in water, Skywoman fell from an opening in the Skyworld and landed on the back of a giant turtle. Skywoman enlisted the help of many animals to dive deep to retrieve soil from the depths of the ocean in an effort to create land. Many animals attempted to grab the soil, but it was the unlikely muskrat, who was both humble and courageous, that was able to return the soil and place it on the back of the great turtle. As the mud is placed on the turtle’s back, it grows and expands, eventually forming the continents and life-sustaining world we know today.” 

    Butler spoke of how the story emphasizes the importance of working together and that we are all better when we work and learn together. There is also great strength in partnering Indigenous knowledge with science to build a sustainable future. 

    Associate Professor Beth Lawrence has a joint appointment with the Center for Environmental Science and Engineering and the Department of Natural Resources and the Environment in CAHNR, and her work adds to the time-honored appreciation of the courageous and humble muskrat. In research published in Freshwater Science, Lawrence and collaborators, including project lead Shane Lishawa and Andrew Monks from Loyola University, and Danielle Fegan and Eric Clark, who are biologists with the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, describe how muskrats engineer more biologically diverse marsh ecosystems. 

    The researchers study cattail-dominated marshes and strategies to create more varied, or heterogeneous, ecosystems using methods like mechanical harvesting or by applying herbicides. While out on field research, Lawrence says they made an intriguing observation.

    “We noticed in some years that muskrats were doing naturally what we were doing with our aquatic weed whackers and gas-powered equipment. We thought that maybe we should investigate how muskrats alter cattail and associated species,” says Lawrence. 

    The project focused on a marsh that connects the St. Mary’s River outlet of Lake Superior to Lake Michigan and Lake Huron. In vast marshes like this one, the non-native cattail species Typha can take over and make acres of marshland look similar to cornfields in terms of the lack of diversity, says Lawrence. These kinds of monocultures do not support biologically diverse ecosystems. 

    “It homogenizes the wetland, and is not an ideal habitat for birds, macro-invertebrates, fish, and native plants, so over the last 15 years we’ve been interested in how we can manage these invaded cattail marshes of the Great Lakes,” Lawrence says. 

    The researchers have tried a variety of methods to control the cattails, but they are most interested in using mechanical means, rather than chemical control measures. 

    “Cutting the cattail at different intensities and frequencies can reduce its abundance and promote native diversity and also open up habitat that creates heterogeneity in these monotypes. This promotes species diversity overall, and improves habitat for native fish and bird communities,” says Lawrence. 

    Muskrats are semi-aquatic rodents that naturally harvest cattails by cutting them below the water level. This is important because the stems of the plant act almost like a snorkel to provide oxygen to the roots. Cutting stems below the water essentially drowns the cattail by severing the connection between the oxygen-rich atmosphere and the anoxic sediment common to wetlands. The muskrats use the cattails to build their lodges, and the process creates openings that give other plant species a chance to grow. 

    “These important aquatic rodents transform habitats in many ways that some communities, like the Native Americans, have appreciated for 1000s of years, and Western science is just now discovering that importance.” (Adobe Stock)

    Using drones and aerial photography, the researchers identified several lodges and openings where they sampled the vegetation and water quality parameters. They also harvested cattails via mechanical methods or with herbicides to create muskrat disturbance analogs (MDAs) to simulate the muskrat openings. They compared these data with data collected from adjacent non-muskrat-impacted areas.  

    “Then we monitored the vegetation and water quality parameters for two growing seasons after that. We found there was greater biodiversity with the muskrat disturbances and the MDA treatments,” says Lawrence. 

    The muskrats and the MDA methods reduced the presence of the cattails as well as another invasive plant called European frogbit (Hydrocharis), therefore they helped promote more heterogenous communities and the authors note that efforts to increase muskrat populations should be taken as a management strategy in areas where these two invasive plant species dominate. 

    “Restoring biodiversity is critical to our future. Climate change is happening rapidly, and we’re rolling the dice. Maintaining and protecting a diversity of species is important because we don’t know which species will survive or thrive in different climate scenarios,” says Lawrence. “I think of Aldo Leopold’s quote about how an intelligent tinkerer always keeps all the parts. We want to keep all of the parts of the planet because we don’t know exactly what the future is going to look like.” 

    Lawrence also has projects focusing on beavers, which are also vital ecosystem engineers. Like muskrats, beavers transform habitats and act as keystone species that play an important role in creating wetland habitats, 

    “These important aquatic rodents transform habitats in many ways that some communities, like the Native Americans, have appreciated for 1000s of years, and Western science is just now discovering that importance. Beavers are resurging on the landscape after being almost extirpated in New England due to hunting. They were reintroduced after being essentially extinct in Connecticut about 200 years ago and then reintroduced about 100 years ago. Now, their populations are exploding, and they’re transforming our landscape again.”  

    Lawrence also reflects on the significance of teamwork in this project:

    “I think science takes a team. Our relationship with the tribe and across institutions is a big part of the importance of this paper and this project. It was a really satisfying project, both in terms of the relationships that have developed over the years, but also how we’ve gained a lot of insights by studying the system over decades.” 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Senator Marshall: Farm Security is National Security

    US Senate News:

    Source: United States Senator for Kansas Roger Marshall
    Senator Marshall Joins Vince Coglianese to Talk About the Trump Administration’s Action Plan to Ban U.S. Farmland Purchases by China
    Washington – On Wednesday, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-Kansas), joined Vince Coglianese on The VINCE Show to discuss the importance of protecting American farmland from hostile foreign nations, Joe Biden’s doctor being subpoenaed before the House Oversight Committee, and how the Senate will go after leftist institutional programs via the recissions package.
    Click HERE or on the image above to watch Senator Marshall’s full remarks.
    On China buying American farmland and the threat it poses:
    “… Farm security, food security, is national security – we take it for granted. China, their nationals, their people, have purchased only about 300,000 acres of land. It’s not the land, but it’s the location that matters. They have land right next to Whiteman Air Force Base. That’s where our B-2 bombers took off from for their mission to Iran. Back home, Fort Riley, Kansas, is near and dear to my heart – they have land close to that. So, it looks like they strategically purchased land next to military bases. So that in and of itself, they can keep track of what’s coming and going, what new drones do we have, all sorts of things, as you can imagine. So, it’s a national security issue.
    “But beyond that, let’s talk about the other pieces of national security when it comes to agriculture. It’s the food supply chain, so foreign nationals hold about 1/4 of the protein processing in America, pork processing, and beef processing, to be particular. They’re constantly stealing our intellectual property. We have Chinese nationals in our laboratories, at our universities, so they are a constant threat. The one that really scares me is bioterrorism. You know, the next COVID virus, the next thing that they make in a lab in China, you couldn’t imagine that you’d ever have a hot air balloon floating across America… that could be dropping some type of viral particles that would kill all the cattle in America. So that’s the big concern.”
    On the Biden Administration’s failure to act:
    “Let’s talk about why the Biden administration just ignored this. I begged them to make the Secretary of Agriculture part of CFIUS. That’s the committee that assesses foreign investments in the United States from a national security standpoint. Yesterday, President Trump made Secretary Rollins part of CFIUS so she can evaluate each one of these purchases on a case-by-case basis. You know who’s really purchasing the land, right? Is it some proxy, or are they really connected to a country of concern as well?
    “It is absolutely common sense. We brought this to the Biden Administration as we saw this acceleration of these land purchases. The President has the ability to appoint her, Congress can codify it, and we do have legislation that would codify that appointment, make it permanently legal, so that if, heaven forbid, we have another Joe Biden in office, that he wouldn’t take the Secretary of Agriculture off that off that post.”
    On how China has used the land they have purchased:
    “I don’t have any insider information, except to say obviously they’re spying on us. It’s an easy spy spot. But I think what’s more important is what the Trump Administration is going to do here. Basically, they’re going to have an executive order that says China, country of origin, cannot buy any further agricultural land in the United States, period. And they’re going to start a program to start taking land back from them. And you know, Governor Huckabee Sanders, down in Arkansas, has already done that. So, states can do things as well. The state laws, the state governors, can move a little bit more quickly on this. So, I would encourage them to get behind this situation as well. So, I think that the Trump administration is moving again, moving agriculture up to a level of national security.”
    On Secretary Rollins’ statements around ‘No Amnesty’:
    “No amnesty. Period, full stop, end of paragraph, end of sentence, no amnesty. The President made that very clear, and Secretary Rollins reiterated that five times yesterday. Republicans in the Senate are not in favor of amnesty.
    “But two points I’d like to make, though. Number one, we could not have ever even had this discussion until the border was secure. It’s amazing, the border is secure again, The One Big, Beautiful Bill is going to build 2000 miles of barrier, and it’s going to fund that border security for the next four years. Usually, we have to fight every year with the Democratic senators on funding that. But we’re going to double the number of ICE removal agents. I think what we heard Secretary Rollins say yesterday is that they’re going to continue to prioritize the 400,000 violent illegal criminals in this country. And that’s why, I think that’s why you saw DHS Secretary Noem there, and you know, all the different secretaries, the Attorney General, were there saying, look, this is all the above problem that we’re trying to solve. We want to make our farmland secure, and we want to make your family safer as well.
    On Joe Biden’s physician testifying about the former President’s mental decline:
    “You know, I’m a physician as well. I practiced obstetrics and gynecology for 25 years, and maybe I can share a couple analogies from there. Look, this doctor has a legal obligation to come and testify, just like if I had a legal obligation. Let’s say again, I’m an obstetrician. I see a patient in the morning, and she goes out and kills somebody that night. And I’m subpoenaed to the court to come and testify – they would ask me questions. What was her mental status? I’d be obligated to talk about that. Did she say anything that she was interested in killing somebody or herself? I would testify to that.
    “Now, if they ask me if she ever had herpes, has she ever had an STD, has she ever had a miscarriage, I would say, look, that’s patient doctor privilege. It has nothing to do with this case, right? But in this situation, this doctor has every obligation to come talk about the, you know, national security issues regarding the neurogenerative decline of one Joe Biden and how there was an abuse of power with the auto-pen. So, I think that’s fair game, that the law trumps his ethical obligation.
    On the obligation to know who was really in charge during the Biden-Harris Administration:
    “I want my good friend Jamie Comer to go through with this trial. I’m just telling us not to overplay our hand. We cannot stop talking about all the great victories under President Trump, that we’re doing as well. We cannot make this the focus of the Republican Party, but absolutely this doctor absolutely has an obligation to talk about the neurodegenerative decline of one Joe Biden… this is an impact on national security. I think that Congressman Comer is well within his constitutional rights to come in and say, did this President put us at some type of national security threat level? Who was really planned this Afghanistan evacuation debacle? Are there any types of notes? I want to see the notes as the auto pin signed all these pardons. Is there a discussion, you know, with the President that records some of those as well? That would be minimal that I would want to see. So, where there’s smoke, there’s fire, full speed ahead. But we got a great story to tell beyond just Joe Biden’s decline.”
    On the legislation to cut funding to PBS and NPR:
    “I think it’ll come to the floor next week, but I’m embarrassed to tell you that there’s people, Senate Republicans, that are having heartburn about it. Look to your point, $37 trillion of national debt, a trillion dollars a year on interest, and the Senate doesn’t have the kahones to cut $9 billion of total waste, fraud, and abuse. When I sat down with Elon Musk the first time, I gave him a list of the top 10 things that Doge should do, USAID was the top of it, and I put beside it, ‘burn it to the ground.’ Based upon my experiences traveling, seeing what USAID was doing, I knew that there was a lot of fraud and abuse going on with it.
    “And this is also going to defund National Public Radio, Television as well. Look, Kansans back home are tired of their taxpayer money being spent on basically one propaganda unit for the left, right. So, but, but it’s we’ve got some heartburn going on here. Hopefully, we can get it through.”
    On why it’s time to cut funding to USAID, NPR, and PBS:“For over 20 years, we have spent billions of dollars treating people for AIDS in Africa. And I’m so glad we got to do it, but do we need to keep spending a billion dollars a year on that? When does Africa take care of their own problems? When are they going to realize what’s causing AIDS, that there’s ways to prevent it, other than taking a medicine that costs tens of thousands of dollars a month as well. So that’s one piece, the humanitarian part of it as well.
    “And look, there are some moderates within the Republican Party that think National Public Radio should be funded by the government. I disagree. And with today’s media opportunities. I don’t see why the federal government needs to be subsidizing anybody out there in the media, let alone someone who’s so biased as NPR is.”

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI USA: Reps. Goldman, Raskin Lead Judiciary Democrats in Demanding AG Bondi Release Special Counsel Jack Smith’s Report on Trump’s Mishandling of Classified Documents, Epstein Files

    Source: US Congressman Dan Goldman (NY-10)

    AG Bondi’s Politicized DOJ Has Refused to Release Documents Containing Damaging Information on the President 

     

    Read the Letter Here 

    Washington, D.C. — Congressmen Dan Goldman (NY-10) and Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee Jamie Raskin (MD-08) led Committee Democrats in an oversight letter demanding Attorney General Pam Bondi release the entirety of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on President Donald Trump’s refusal to return classified documents after he left office, along with any evidence in the Epstein files mentioning Trump, that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) have withheld from the public. 

    “Five months ago, the Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissed the pending case against Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, depriving the American public of an opportunity to hear the evidence of how they conspired with Donald Trump to help him stash hundreds of highly classified records at his Mar-a-Lago Club, defy subpoenas, obstruct law enforcement, hide evidence, and lie about his continuing retention of these records. Since then, you have continued to conceal the evidence against Donald Trump and his co-conspirators by refusing to release the report of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into this matter. You have done so even as House Judiciary Committee Republicans continue to make baseless claims of bias and misconduct on the part of Special Counsel Smith and compel testimony from members of his team—all without a shred of evidence. Your conduct is particularly worrisome as it appears to be part of a pattern of using the DOJ to cover up evidence of criminal wrongdoing by President Trump, including information allegedly contained in the Epstein files. We write today to demand that you release the Smith report immediately, as well as any evidence mentioning or referencing Donald Trump in the Epstein files,” the Members wrote. 

    Volume I of the Special Counsel’s report was released publicly by Attorney General Merrick Garland in January, but DOJ did not release Volume II at that time due to a pending case against Trump co-defendants Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira. The case was dismissed in February after Trump’s DOJ moved to drop it, but Attorney General Bondi has sought to indefinitely block the disclosure of the remainer of the report. 

    While refusing to release the full report, DOJ is cooperating with House Republicans’ continued probe of Special Counsel Smith’s investigation and prosecution of President Trump in a desperate and failed effort to find evidence of bias or misconduct. DOJ has acquiesced to Chairman Jim Jordan’s requests for testimony of line-level prosecutors in Special Counsel Smith’s office, without objections or restrictions—a position at odds with the Department’s longstanding policy to protect line prosecutors and prosecutorial deliberations. 

    The Trump Administration has consistently hidden from the public materials and information that may be damaging to Trump. Earlier this month, former senior administration official Elon Musk posted on X that President Trump “is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.” 

    In February, DOJ and the FBI came under intense public criticism for releasing a “first phase” of the Epstein files that consisted largely of information that was already public. Despite reportedly ordering hundreds of agents to work marathon sessions in order to prepare more batches of records for public release, Attorney General Bondi has not released additional records. Just this week, the FBI stated that it has determined “no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.”   

    “The American people deserve uncensored answers and authentic transparency from this Administration and a full understanding of Mr. Trump’s actions. We call on you to stop protecting your boss and former client, release the Smith report in full without redactions immediately, and publicly release all documents in the Epstein files that mention or reference Donald Trump,” the Members concluded. 

    Today’s letter follows a months-long push by House Judiciary Democrats for the full public release of Special Counsel Smith’s report. In February, Congressman Goldman and Ranking Member Raskin led Democrats in a letter to Attorney General Bondi urging her to release Volume Two of Special Counsel Smith’s report. In January, Congressman Goldman and Ranking Member Raskin led House Judiciary Democrats in sending a letter to then-Attorney General Garland, urging him to take all necessary steps to ensure the reports’ release. 
    Read the letter here or below. 

    Dear Attorney General Bondi:

    Five months ago, the Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissed the pending case against Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, depriving the American public of an opportunity to hear the evidence of how they conspired with Donald Trump to help him stash hundreds of highly classified records at his Mar-a-Lago Club, defy subpoenas, obstruct law enforcement, hide evidence, and lie about his continuing retention of these records. Since then, you have continued to conceal the evidence against Donald Trump and his co-conspirators by refusing to release the report of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into this matter. You have done so even as House Judiciary Committee Republicans continue to make baseless claims of bias and misconduct on the part of Special Counsel Smith and compel testimony from members of his team—all without a shred of evidence. Your conduct is particularly worrisome as it appears to be part of a pattern of using the DOJ to cover up evidence of criminal wrongdoing by President Trump, including information allegedly contained in the Epstein files. We write today to demand that you release the Smith report immediately, as well as any evidence mentioning or referencing Donald Trump in the Epstein files.

    Attorney General Merrick Garland publicly released Volume I of Mr. Smith’s report in January, consistent with DOJ regulations, longstanding precedent, and the orders of both Judge Aileen Cannon and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. At that time, the DOJ did not publicly release Volume II of Special Counsel Smith’s report—regarding his investigation into Mr. Trump’s retention of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago Club after his first term in office—to avoid any prejudice to President Trump’s co-defendants, Waltine Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira, while the criminal case against them was still ongoing. The DOJ has since dropped the case against Mr. Nauta and Mr. De Oliveira, and their case was dismissed on February 11, 2025. Yet, according to DOJ’s court filing in March 2025, you have sought to indefinitely block the disclosure of the remainder of the report.

    This position is plainly impossible to reconcile with the Department’s regulations and longstanding practice of publicly releasing reports by special counsels. Your predecessor Attorney General Garland released, in full and without any redactions, three special counsel reports written during his tenure: Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report on President Joe Biden’s possession of classified documents, Special Counsel David Weiss’ report on Hunter Biden’s tax and gun offenses, and V olume One of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on President Trump’s efforts to remain in power after losing the 2020 presidential election. Attorney General Garland also released Special Counsel John Durham’s report on the origins of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) investigation of links between Russian officials and Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

    Your approach is also at odds with your decision to cooperate with House Republicans’ continued probe of Special Counsel Smith’s investigation and prosecution of President Trump in their failed effort to find any evidence of bias or misconduct. Thus far, Chairman Jordan has taken the deposition of Jay Bratt, Counselor to Special Counsel Smith, who asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege due to reasonable concerns that he was being targeted by the Trump Administration for doing his duty as a prosecutor. Committee Republicans have also requested and obtained the testimony of two additional former line-level prosecutors in Special Counsel Smith’s office, which Chairman Jordan baselessly accused of having “orchestrated a partisan and politically motivated prosecution of President Donald J. Trump and his co-defendants.” Your DOJ has acquiesced to these requests without objections or restrictions, taking a highly unusual position at odds with decades of longstanding DOJ policy to protect line prosecutors and prosecutorial deliberations.

     It is particularly instructive that you have apparently decided to allow prosecutors to testify about their years long investigation of President Trump, even as you refuse to release the fruit of that investigation, forcing the prosecutors to defend themselves essentially with hands tied behind their backs. DOJ officials have also repeatedly sought to disparage and discredit Special Counsel Smith’s investigation. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove —in his confirmation hearing for his nomination by President Trump to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals attacked Mr. Smith’s office as weaponized and falsely claimed that members of Mr. Smith’s team “act[ed] based on their political beliefs as opposed to the law.” Just as revealing, Chairman Jordan has refused to join our calls for the release of the full Smith report— presumably a key piece of evidence in his investigation—although he professed in his March 17, 2025, letter to you to “share your commitment to restoring accountability and transparency to the Department.”

     This Administration has repeatedly claimed that President Trump is “the most transparent and accessible president in American history.” So far, your DOJ has not only failed to live up to this promise, but you have also consistently hidden from the American public materials and information that may be damaging to President Trump. Earlier last month, Elon Musk, the former senior advisor to President Trump and head of the Department of Government Efficiency, posted on his social media website, X, that President Trump “is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.” His tweet, which has since been deleted, was clearly referring to records related to the investigation of Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender, in the possession of the FBI and DOJ.

    At his confirmation hearing, Director Patel vowed to release the Epstein files, stating that he would “make sure the American public knows the full weight of what happened.”17 In February 2025, you came under intense public criticism after releasing the “first phase” of roughly 200 pages of the Epstein files that consisted largely of information that was already public. Subsequently, you reportedly ordered hundreds of FBI agents, many of whom were usually focusing on national security matters, to review the Epstein files. Agents that were assigned for this review reportedly “clocked more than 100 hours of work over the most recent two-week pay period, including a marathon session last weekend, during which they slept on desks while waiting for new batches of Epstein records to process.” In April, you claimed the FBI was reviewing “tens of thousands of videos” of Mr. Epstein “with children or child porn.” Despite this immense effort, no additional Epstein records have been released, and just this week, the FBI stated that it has determined “no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.” This raises the question of whether the White House has moved to prevent the declassification and public release of the full Epstein files because they implicate President Trump, and whether these massive redaction efforts and the withholding of the files were intended to shield your boss from embarrassing revelations within those files.

    It is not a coincidence that President Trump installed his personal legal team to top positions at the DOJ, appointing you, Todd Blanche, Emil Bove who all served as his defense counsel at one time or another—to the three most senior positions at DOJ, and Stanley Woodward, defense counsel for Mr. Trump’s co-defendant Waltine Nauta in the classified documents case, as the Associate Attorney General, another top position at the DOJ. By doing so, DOJ has all but turned into President Trump’s personal law firm, ensuring that damaging information about him would remain hidden from public view. The American people deserve uncensored answers and authentic transparency from this Administration and a full understanding of Mr. Trump’s actions. We call on you to stop protecting your boss and former client, release the Smith report in full without redactions immediately, and publicly release all documents in the Epstein files that mention or reference Donald Trump. 

    ### 

    MIL OSI USA News –

  • MIL-OSI United Kingdom: Convicted criminal Trump should not be welcomed in Scotland

    Source: Scottish Greens

    09 Jul 2025 External Affairs

    Scotland must make it clear – Trump is not welcome here.

    More in External Affairs

    The President of the United States and convicted criminal Donald Trump is set to visit Scotland later this month, according to latest reports.

    The US President was found guilty of 34 felonies in 2023 relating to falsified business records, after he paid $130,000 in hush money to cover up an affair with an American porn star. Trump also has dozens of sexual assault allegations against him dating back to the 1970’s.

    The Scottish Greens have long called for an investigation into Donald Trump’s finances in Scotland through an Unexplained Wealth Order (UWO).

    A UWO is a power held by the Scottish Government to investigate the finances of politically active individuals who have gained wealth through suspicious means. Given Donald Trump’s Menie Estate golf course, which he is set to visit this month, was cited in one of his felony charges, it’s now clearer than ever that a UWO must be used.

    Scottish Greens Co-Leader Patrick Harvie MSP said:

    “There is no way that Donald Trump should be welcomed to Scotland. He is a convicted felon and political extremist who has shown a complete lack of respect for human rights and democracy in America and around the world.

    “His Vice President has attacked the democratic system of Scotland when he lied about a bill my colleague Gillian Mackay passed and his former billionaire bestie Elon Musk has spread misinformation about our country online, as well as other far right conspiracy theories.

    “At home, Donald Trump has sent troops onto the streets to threaten his own citizens, he is constructing a concentration camp in Florida and he has underfunded crucial services which have already cost the lives of working-class people.

    “Not to mention his contempt for international law by welcoming Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netenyahu to Washington D.C. – a man who has an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court for war crimes – and celebrating the collective punishment of innocent civilians in Gaza and the West Bank.

    “I am urging the SNP Government to make it clear that Trump is not welcome in Scotland. Because I am sure that on the streets of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and anywhere else he may go, the people of Scotland will make it clear that Donald Trump is not welcome here.”

    MIL OSI United Kingdom –