President Trump and Secretary of Defense Hegseth relieved the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, chief of Naval Operations, and vice chief of staff of the Air Force, along with the main service judge advocates, in a decision the media and political establishment decried as authoritarian and reckless. Even in April, Secretary Hegseth relieved Shoshana Chatfield, who exposed her own ideology by urging skepticism of American laws, given the density of white men serving in the U.S. Congress. Given the intense politicization of the military over the last many decades, these firings should be just the start to a total and critical reset of the military’s senior leadership class. The current crop of general and flag officers has been formed in a defense policy era defined by liberalism and the mandate that the military accommodate the politics and ideologies of civil society. The Biden administration was perhaps the final incarnation of the false and dangerous idea that the military could retain professional competence and respect while driving the cause of identity politics in America. (RELATED: Wokeness Is Responsible for the Military Recruitment Crisis) The American Principles Project conducted a survey that indicated a distrust of military leaders as the most-cited reason why Americans do not want their kids to join the military. Independent research published by the Center for Renewing America identified almost 90 generals and admirals who politicized their service to a compromising degree. This includes the likes of Vice Admiral Chatfield, but also Air Force Lieutenant General Tony Bauernfeind, who explicitly called for a tiered system of quotas and different standards to meet diversity demands. (RELATED: The Military Recruiting Crisis Starts With the Leadership) Perhaps the most concerning example is Lieutenant General Steven W. Gilland, who, as superintendent of West Point, vigorously supported Biden-era policies instituting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) quotas. In July 2023, in front of the House Armed Services Committee, Gilland publicly touted West Point’s race-based “admission goals.” An otherwise exemplary combat leader, Gilland typifies the modern senior military officer: square-jawed and qualified, but hopelessly compromised by the politics and DEI ideology. Yet he inexplicably remains in his role as superintendent of West Point. Less than 18 months after testifying in support of DEI initiatives, Gilland is now responsible for undoing the system he once so intensely supported. It’s unclear how the Trump administration could reasonably trust General Gilland to change an institution as important as West Point in the critical sphere of shaping future Army officers. These behaviors constitute fireable offenses because they erode the core principle of military neutrality — a foundational element of healthy civil-military relations emphasized in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, to those of history books written by the likes of Samuel P. Huntington. When senior military leaders embrace partisan ideological agendas, they fundamentally undermine the nonpartisan trust and professional integrity essential for the military to maintain professional competence and focus. The military’s exclusive purview is lethality and combat arms; it should have no relation to political projects of a given era. One cannot argue with the results, or lack thereof, of generations of senior military officers who have led our military into defeat and disarray. Many veterans of the war in Afghanistan, for example, would make it clear that the cause was built like a house of cards, primed for collapse and disarray. A machine gunner, or frontline platoon leader, could have described the lack of trust and competence in the Afghan military and government. Somehow, when four-star generals would testify for more money and troops back in Washington, D.C., these senior leaders would tell a very different story — that the war effort was always extraordinarily close to sustained victory. After the Afghan government and military we spent 20 years building collapsed over a long weekend, the cycle of incompetence and deceit was clear. (RELATED: The Bloated Bureaucratic Failure of Afghanistan) This should contextualize claims from the defense establishment and political Left that accountability for senior officers would represent some sort of destruction of a competent leadership class. The cause of military excellence is dire, and the leaders we trust with the most significant assignments deserve just scrutiny. The Trump administration should thus feel empowered — not intimidated — by the inevitable criticism as they act decisively to restore a professional and apolitical ethos within the armed forces. Removing generals and admirals who fail to uphold this standard is not only justified but essential. Restoring public trust demands swift accountability for senior leaders whose activism compromises the effectiveness and credibility of the United States military. This approach aligns directly with preserving civil–military relations, ensuring the armed forces remain fully dedicated to their true purpose: protecting and defending America. Will Thibeau is a veteran of the U.S. Army’s 75th Ranger Regiment and serves as director of the American Military Project at the Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life. He comments regularly on defense policy and has twice testified in front of the House of Representatives. READ MORE: Why the Marines Can’t Fix the Houthi Problem Generals Should Win Wars Before Declaring Victory The Marine Corps Has Gone Off the Rails The post The Uniform Is Not Invincible: Firing Generals Is Critical to Restoring Military Lethality appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

As I write this, I have no idea what the final structure of President Trump’s tariff policy will be. So far, it has been on-again, off-again. But some of the rhetoric of Mr. Trump and members of his administration has been misleading rather than enlightening, confusing rather than clear. Let’s take a closer look at some of the rhetorical errors and excesses and try to understand the economic realities of trade. (RELATED: Tariff Delay Opportunities and Risks) Team Trump talks in terms of “trade surpluses” and “trade deficits.” A so-called “surplus” occurs when people living in Country A export more to Country B than people living in Country A import from Country B. A “deficit” is the opposite: exports from A to B are less than imports from B to A. Incidentally, Team Trump has removed trade in services from the export/import tabulation. Since America has a trillion-dollar “surplus” in services alongside its “deficit” in goods, the omission of these transactions from the overall tabulation of trade inflates the overall trade “deficit.”  In the previous paragraph, I put quotation marks around “surplus” and “deficit” because, like many economists, I find those two terms misleading. Along with Trump’s dubious tendency to talk in terms of us “winning” at trade, these concepts are relics from the Age of Mercantilism (roughly from the time of Columbus to the birth of the USA). The grim mercantilist view of the world was that trade was a zero-sum proposition — that if one side to an exchange gained, then the other party must have lost. That is a fallacy. In everyday life, where economic exchanges (trades) are made voluntarily, both sides gain, or else one or the other party would have declined to make the trade. The trades are positive-sum, not zero-sum. Question: When both sides gain from a trade, there is no deficit, because both sides gain; mathematically, the deficit is zero. Now multiply that single mutually beneficial voluntary exchange by millions of such exchanges. I wasn’t a math major, but I believe that zero times millions still equals zero. A “trade deficit” is an accounting artifact. In an economic sense, there is no deficit or surplus, no winner or loser, as is believed to be the case in mercantilist mythology and the Trumpian worldview. (RELATED: The ‘Most Bad’ Option: Trump’s Tariff Uncertainties) Peaceful voluntary trade is not an adversarial act; rather, it is an act of reciprocal benefit. And yet, the president seems to view trade as not only adversarial but hostile. What is “hostile” about someone in one country producing something for the benefit or enjoyment of a person in another country? And yet Trump has gone so far as to charge that countries that have exported more to us than we have to them have “looted, pillaged, raped, and plundered” us. Question: Does that mean that we have “looted, pillaged, raped, and plundered” the countries to whom we have exported more goods than we imported from them? If so, then shouldn’t Trump be apologizing to Australia, Singapore, the United Kingdom, Brazil, and the Netherlands for the trade surpluses we have with them?  Trump speaks of it being a “privilege” for foreigners to access our markets. Why is it not also our privilege that foreigners produce things that we want and need? Team Trump blames trade deficits on nefarious, deliberate actions by foreign powers. That is partly accurate. Foreign tariffs and other non-tariff trade barriers do indeed reduce the amount of American goods being exported to particular countries. By those means, foreign governments limit their citizens’ access to desirable goods, thereby reducing (sometimes marginally, sometimes significantly) the standard of living of their own people. But there are several important counterpoints here: First, it is perfectly natural for Americans in aggregate to import more than we export for the simple reason that we are wealthier. We can afford a higher standard of living by consuming more goods than people from less-wealthy countries can afford. Second, it doesn’t make sense to retaliate against foreign tariffs that work against the economic welfare of its own people by making certain desired goods less available and/or more expensive to Americans. The logic is nonsensical: ”You are hurting your people, so we’re going to get back at you by hurting our people. Take that!” Third, when we import more than we export, we collectively improve our standards of living more than our trading partners do. In another throwback to disproven mercantilist dogma, Trump apparently believes that the country that exports more goods and, in return, amasses more money is the wealthier country. Adam Smith exposed that money fallacy, explaining that it is the population that has access to and consumes more goods that is, in fact, wealthier than the country that consumes less. It is a bit spooky to think that Mr. Trump prefers mercantilist myths to the time-tested economic wisdom of Adam Smith.  In global free trade, humanity wins to the extent that peaceful relations develop and the division of labor becomes more inclusive, hence more productive. However, let us be cautious about accepting as dogma the notion that trade is never fraught with dangers. When a hostile power like China seeks to assert hegemonic control over specific industries crucial to national defense, bold and even economically painful measures may be called for. That is where we are today. In an ideal world devoid of war and aggression, free trade makes sense. But today’s world is far from ideal. I don’t have a ready suggestion for how to most effectively take on the Chinese Communist Party, but I acknowledge that economic warfare seems unavoidable. My sense is that we should strive to maintain close ties with other countries for our side to have the best chance of winning (and in war, unlike voluntary trade, there are winners and losers — or at least, one side tends to lose less than the other). I wish President Trump every success as he confronts and challenges the Chinese threat. READ MORE from Mark W. Hendrickson: Confusion About Tariffs in the Trump Administration Will This Year’s NFL Playoffs Be Historic? Rickey Henderson, 1958-2024 The post Some Clarification About Tariffs appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

When New York Attorney General Letitia James managed to secure a guilty verdict against then-candidate Donald Trump in February of 2024 for allegedly inflating the value of the Trump Organization to secure better terms for loans, she wanted to let everyone know that -- despite the fact it was a...

BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM If you love seafood but worry about mercury, overfishing, or the environmental impact of your meal, there’s good news: Shellfish—especially bivalves like oysters, clams, mussels, and scallops—are both a nutritional powerhouse and an environmental success story. Whether you’re shopping at the fish counter or browsing a restaurant menu, these simple, savory mollusks offer impressive health benefits and are one of the most sustainable seafood choices available today. Shellfish are nutrient-dense and low in contaminants When it comes to healthy animal protein, few options are as nutrient-packed as bivalves. Christopher Golden, an expert in planetary health and aquatic foods at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, places mussels at the very top of the list. “A single serving holds all the vitamin B12 you need for a day,” Golden said. Mussels also deliver healthy doses of omega-3 fatty acids, zinc, and iron—all critical nutrients for energy, immunity, and brain health. Oysters, clams, and scallops also make the list, just slightly behind mussels in overall nutrient density. Bivalves are low in fat, high in protein, and unlike many other types of seafood, they are generally free of worrisome contaminants like mercury. That’s because they’re filter feeders at the bottom of the food chain and tend to have short lifespans, reducing their risk of accumulating harmful substances. That said, raw oysters can carry bacteria, and rare contamination events—such as algal blooms or sewage releases—can affect shellfish safety. But these are closely monitored in the United States, said Konstantine Rountos, a marine ecologist at St. Joseph’s University in New York. “Eastern oysters, for example, are particularly picky eaters,” he noted, meaning they may simply expel harmful microplastics instead of ingesting them. What about shellfish allergies? Shellfish allergies are something to be aware of, particularly among adults, with about three percent affected. Although bivalves are not closely related to crustaceans like shrimp or lobster, they do contain similar allergens, including the protein tropomyosin, which can trigger reactions in sensitive individuals. Bivalves are a sustainability win Beyond their health benefits, bivalves shine in terms of environmental impact. According to Dr. Golden, “shellfish are the most sustainably produced type of seafood” on a global scale. Around 90 percent of oysters, clams, and other bivalves sold today are farmed rather than wild-caught, which reduces reliance on more destructive fishing practices. These filter-feeding mollusks require no fertilizers, pesticides, or supplemental feed. In fact, they improve the water they live in by filtering out excess nutrients and pollutants. Clams and oysters can even help reduce carbon in aquatic environments by pulling it from the water. And it’s not just the shellfish doing good. Their farmers are often strong advocates for clean water, said Luke Gardner, an aquaculture expert with California Sea Grant. “You can’t farm in dirty water,” he explained. “Oyster farmers are environmentalists—at heart and for business.” Tips for choosing and enjoying shellfish When buying bivalves, a few simple rules can ensure a good experience. Dr. Gardner recommends choosing U.S.-sourced shellfish, as domestic aquaculture follows strict safety regulations. Fresh shellfish should be tightly closed before cooking—if they’re open, give them a tap. If they don’t close, skip them. And always use your nose. “If it smells bad, don’t eat it,” Gardner said. “Seafood should not smell bad.” Storage matters, too. Make sure your shellfish have been kept cold. “If you’re getting it from a friend out of the back of his trunk, don’t eat it,” he added with a laugh. For those who need shelf-stable options, canned shellfish can be a convenient choice. Dr. Rountos says they may be slightly lower in some nutrients but higher in others. The bigger concern is sourcing: it can be harder to trace the origin of canned products. “Nothing beats fresh local seafood from areas with good water quality,” Rountos said. Simple, delicious ways to enjoy more shellfish Because bivalves are so nutrient-dense, you don’t need a lot to make a satisfying, healthy meal. Their rich, briny flavors also go a long way in classic dishes like linguine with clam sauce or clam chowder—both of which work well with fresh or canned clams. Scallops are another delicious option. Slightly fattier and meatier than other bivalves, they have a flavor and texture reminiscent of prawns. Dr. Golden suggests swapping them into shrimp recipes to mix things up. When it comes to cooking styles, experts have their personal preferences. Dr. Rountos enjoys hard clams casino-style, while Dr. Gardner and Dr. Golden prefer simpler preparations that let the natural flavor shine. For those new to raw oysters, Dr. Gardner has advice: “Don’t look at it! Just gulp it down and eat it.” Whether you’re a seafood lover or just starting to explore the raw bar, shellfish are a smart, sustainable, and delicious choice for your plate—and the planet.The post The benefits of shellfish: why clams, oysters, and scallops are great for you and the planet first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

BY THE OPTIMIST DAILY EDITORIAL TEAM In the race to tackle climate change, cement has long been a stubborn problem. Responsible for about eight percent of global carbon dioxide emissions, it’s the fourth-largest source of CO2 pollution worldwide. But a team of researchers believes a new, unexpected ally could flip the script—seawater. Scientists at Northwestern University, working with the innovation branch of cement manufacturer Cemex in Switzerland, have unveiled a promising method to create sustainable, potentially carbon-negative cement using seawater electrolysis. Their findings, published in Advanced Sustainable Systems, offer a glimpse at how one of the world’s dirtiest industries might become part of the climate solution. The sea holds more than salt At the heart of this new approach is a process called seawater electrolysis. By passing an electric current through seawater, researchers can split its molecules into hydrogen, chlorine, and oxygen gases. But there’s another byproduct: minerals like calcium carbonate, the main ingredient in cement. In the past, these minerals were viewed as a nuisance. “Researchers who use seawater electrolysis for hydrogen gas production have found those precipitated minerals to be an annoyance,” said environmental engineer Alessandro Rotta Loria, who co-led the study. However, for sustainable cement development, those minerals might be just what the industry needs. Fine-tuning a sustainable recipe There’s a catch: the naturally slow pace of mineral formation through electrolysis doesn’t yet match the construction industry’s demand. To address this, the team experimented with how to accelerate and control mineral production in a lab setting. Using electrodes immersed in seawater, they manipulated several variables: voltage, pH levels, and even the rate at which they injected carbon dioxide into the water. These adjustments affected the volume, density, and crystal structure of the resulting minerals. Some were flaky, some denser, which is ideal for different construction uses like concrete, plaster, and even paint. “Our experiments suggest that it’s possible to tune the process to produce useful materials tailored to various industry needs,” the researchers noted. The carbon-negative potential The real game-changer? If powered by renewable electricity, this technique doesn’t just reduce emissions—it could actively pull carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. As the minerals form, they incorporate CO2, effectively locking it away for hundreds or even thousands of years. That makes the materials not just carbon-neutral but potentially carbon-negative, a rare and vital goal in climate mitigation efforts. “It’s about turning an existing problem into a solution,” said Rotta Loria. “Instead of mining limestone from mountains or seabeds—practices that damage ecosystems and release carbon—we can generate needed materials using resources already available in the ocean, while helping to clean the air.” From lab to construction site Of course, scaling up remains a challenge. The team acknowledges that the process isn’t yet ready for industrial production. But the insights gained from controlling and improving the mineral yields in the lab are crucial first steps. If successful, this could eventually reduce the construction industry’s reliance on carbon-intensive methods while opening the door to more environmentally conscious alternatives in everything from skyscrapers to sidewalks. A sustainable structure, built from sea and science This emerging approach underscores how rethinking waste and reimagining resources can lead to more circular, resilient solutions. As climate pressures mount, innovations like seawater-based cement production provide a hopeful blueprint for industries to transform themselves from polluters to protectors. Source study: Advanced Sustainable Systems— Electrodeposition of carbon-trapping minerals in seawater for variable electrochemical potentials and carbon dioxide injectionsThe post Splitting seawater could revolutionize cement into a carbon-negative material first appeared on The Optimist Daily: Making Solutions the News.

'What really matters, is these victims of Tren de Aragua and MS-13'

'Dignity at work, at school, in their communities'