...
...
Read more https://www.foxnews.com/politics/social-security-pushes-warren-touts-transparency-service-trump
It was a play nearly two decades in the making.
With 6.1 seconds remaining and the score knotted at 82, the Seattle Storm[1] took a timeout. In the huddle, coach Noelle Quinn called a play for Skylar Diggins[2] to take the last shot.
But as the guard...
...
...
...
...
If you were lucky 74,000 years ago, you would have survived the Toba supereruption[1], one of the largest catastrophic events that Earth has seen in the past 2.5 million years.
While the volcano is located in what’s now Indonesia, living organisms across
For athletes across all sports, few experiences are as agonizing as being forced to leave competition with a sudden muscle cramp. These painful, uncontrolled spasms – formally known as exercise-associated muscle cramps[1] – have frustrated athletes, coaches
In “The Singularity is Nearer: When We Merge with AI[1],” the futurist Ray Kurzweil[2] imagines the point in 2045 when rapid technological progress crosses a threshold as humans merge with machines, an event he calls “the singularity.”
Although
Read more https://www.reutersagency.com/en/reutersbest/article/how-bond-vigilantes-could-check-trumps-power/
Associated Press | By Konstantin Toropin
Published
WASHINGTON – Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered that troops who need an exemption from shaving their facial hair for longer than a year should get kicked out of the service.
While commanders are still able to issue service members exemptions from shaving – a policy that has been in existence for decades – they will now have to come with a medical treatment plan, Hegseth said in an Aug. 20 memo made public Monday[1]. Troops who still need treatment after a year will be separated from service, the memo says.
“The Department must remain vigilant in maintaining the grooming standards which underpin the warrior ethos,” Hegseth wrote in his memo.
Read Next: Retired 4-Star Navy Admiral Sentenced to 6 Years in Prison for Bribery Plot[2]
The announcement applies to all the military services and is the latest in a series of restrictions after years of military services loosening the rules on how troops can look, often at the request of service members themselves.
Most shaving waivers are for troops diagnosed with pseudofolliculitis barbae, or PFB, a condition in which hair curls back into the skin after shaving and causes irritation. It is a condition that disproportionately affects Black men[3].
The memo is silent on what treatments the military would offer for troops affected by the new policy or if it will front the cost for those treatments. The document, which declares that “the grooming standard set by the U.S. military is to be clean shaven and neat in presentation," doesn't specify if service members will still be allowed to sport mustaches.
Read Next: Senate Democrats Raise Concerns over Pentagon Plan to Use Military Lawyers as Immigration Judges[4]
It is also unclear if policies like broad exemptions from shaving for special forces troops who are in operational settings or soldiers stationed in the Arctic climates of Alaska where shaving can pose a medical hazard in the extreme cold will be affected by the change.
The Army this week announced its own grooming standard update[5], which significantly changes acceptable appearance standards for soldiers, especially for women, including revisions for nails, hairstyles, earrings and makeup.
In January, the Air Force rolled out a new policy that significantly limits the kinds of nail polish those in the service could wear to just three – one of which is clear – reversing a previous rule that allowed 60 colors.
Related: Army Policy Severely Limiting Shaving Waivers Goes into Effect[6]
Military Headlines[7] Pete Hegseth[8] Pentagon[9] Department of Defense - DoD[10] Policy[11]
© Copyright 2025 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
WASHINGTON -- In just the past four fiscal years, Congress appropriated, with virtually no public debate, in excess of $100 billion more than any president sought for more than 2,000 weapons programs, according to a government watchdog group’s database and recent Pentagon reports.
And there is more on the way this year.
House and Senate Defense appropriators from both parties have proposed allocating, between their two fiscal 2026 spending bills, $52.2 billion for 1,403 “program increases” to the Pentagon’s weapons budget request, according to a previously unreleased database from Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that monitors government spending. That’s more than double the amount that was being proposed for such additions in the two bills combined at this stage of the process just two years ago.
Some of the proposed spending infusions pending this year may be jettisoned when lawmakers reconcile the two spending bills. But if only half of the $52.2 billion survives into law, the amount of money involved, while a fraction of the Pentagon budget, would still surpass the current funding of the Commerce, Interior or Treasury departments. And the $52.2 billion pending for fiscal 2026 would come on top of the $156.2 billion in additional defense spending appropriated this summer via reconciliation.
The Taxpayers for Common Sense database[1] and analysis[2] is the latest in an annual series of reports by the group that CQ Roll Call has analyzed and reported on.
That Congress adds defense dollars for programs that benefit constituents is hardly new. But the scale and expense of the phenomenon, which occurs mostly out of public view at the direction of anonymous lawmakers, is not well-known. And what the military is getting for these expenditures has not been demonstrated.
“Some of these increases may be worthy investments, but without justification requirements, how are we to know?” Gabe Murphy, policy analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense, said in an interview. “When lawmakers are allowed to anonymously direct funds to companies that contribute to their campaigns or that they hold stock in, abuse is inevitable. The solution is transparency.”
The $52.2 billion in weapons program increases under consideration in fiscal 2026 comprises the House bill’s proposed $19 billion for 779 different projects and the Senate measure’s proposed $33.2 billion for 624 initiatives.
For some of the items at issue, the proposed funding increase would boost spending for a program proposed by the Pentagon. But this year, as usual, most of the items, 75% in the fiscal 2026 proposals, weren’t requested at all.
In fact, with a handful of exceptions, 3% of the fiscal 2026 proposals, these programs aren’t even on the armed services’ annual lists of “unfunded priorities” that didn’t make the budget.
Rather, these funding hikes are driven by lawmakers, though for the most part the sponsors’ identities are not known. While members of Congress who sponsor earmarks for nonprofits and government entities must be listed in a table in reports accompanying spending bills, no such requirement for disclosure exists for the far costlier “program increases.”
The overwhelming majority of the programs that benefit from program increases are never discussed in open hearings or other public forums. Instead, they are merely inserted by the hundreds each year in tables accompanying spending bills.
The vast majority of these spending boosts are for mostly obscure military research and procurement programs -- not, for the most part, for high-profile jets, ships or combat vehicles. The boosts typically cost $30 million or less apiece in any given year’s bill.
Moreover, to the degree the topline spending allowed in the Defense bills is not sufficiently increased in any given year to accommodate these member priorities, appropriators must allocate less than the military sought for other programs.
The House added 274 program increases to its fiscal 2026 bill via floor amendments this year, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Each addition was offset by a subtraction to a Pentagon request for some other program.
Both chambers’ defense spending bills proposed billions of dollars less than the administration requested for operations and maintenance spending, even though the Defense Department had a backlog of $271 billion in deferred facilities maintenance and repair in 2024, according to an April 2025 study conducted by the Government Accountability Office. That proposed reduction in operations and maintenance spending in the fiscal 2026 Defense bills has enabled appropriators to recommend spending more on program increases, even though the bills, unlike floor amendments, do not identify one-to-one offsets.
Congress has a duty to shape, not just accept, a president’s budget request. And proponents of the surge in weapons program spending say it provides a way for small companies with promising technologies to see work flourish that might otherwise be neglected -- although sometimes the additions, particularly the costlier ones, go to the larger companies.
Often the money boosts are proposed by members of Congress who have a parochial interest in the factory that stands to get the contract. These politicians’ campaign political action committees in many cases receive contributions from the companies that benefit from the additional spending.
The typical program increase is listed in a funding table with only a few words of description, and its congressional author remains unmentioned. These line items include systems or technologies that perhaps only one company makes.
Three years ago, then- Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Jon Tester, D- Mont., issued a press release celebrating how the fiscal 2022 Defense spending bill “delivers” for Montana and is “making targeted investments” in the state.
He listed a half-dozen Montana businesses that would benefit -- even though the competitions had yet to be held, though in at least one case the funding was a follow-on to a competition held the previous year, as the increases sometimes continue from year to year.
The fiscal 2026 bills include page after page of program increases, many with inscrutable names, such as $5 million for “Thin Wing Actuation” and $7 million for “Layered Tanks.”
Other program increases go to more recognizable weapon names, and these generally require more funds than the smaller-scale initiatives.
In at least a few of these higher-profile cases, members publicly take credit for what some call a “win” in obtaining funding.
For example, Sen. Susan Collins, R- Maine, the Appropriations Committee chair, touted in a July press release how she had “secured significant funding and provisions for Maine” in the Defense bill.
These included $282.5 million not requested by the Defense Department for Pratt & Whitney’s F-35 jet engines, called F135s, made in the company’s facility in North Berwick, Maine. The company is a contributor to the campaign of Collins, among many others, according to OpenSecrets.org[3].
A Senate aide noted that multiple senators, not just Collins, have backed funding boosts for the engine.
Collins said in the July press release that she also was able to secure bill language prohibiting the consideration of any alternative engine for the F-35. Asked this month about the additional engine money, Collins defended its necessity in a statement and indicated she supports the program for national security reasons, not parochial or selfish ones.
“These investments are necessary to ensure America’s armed forces have the resources needed to counter threats from adversaries,” Collins said.
Another major contractor that has netted unrequested funds is Boeing. The company would receive, for instance, $360 million in the Senate’s fiscal 2026 funding bill for a dozen Apache helicopters that the Army has said it doesn’t want to procure.
The helicopters are built partly in Huntsville, Ala. Sen. Katie Britt, R- Ala., heralded the spending in a press release after the Appropriations Committee, of which she is a member, approved the bill, which the Senate has yet to debate.
Boeing contributes to the campaign and leadership political action committee of Britt, among others.
The fiscal generosity for weapons projects favored by Congress but not the Pentagon is a thoroughly bipartisan phenomenon.
Democratic Sens. Richard J. Durbin and Tammy Duckworth of Illinois issued a statement this year trumpeting their success in garnering $88.5 million that the Pentagon did not ask for to upgrade Humvees at the Rock Island Arsenal in their state.
Durbin is a member of the Appropriations Committee, while Duckworth serves on Armed Services.
The work is performed by AM General. The company has contributed to Durbin’s campaign and its parent company, KPS Capital Partners, to Duckworth’s.
Ben Gash Garmisa, a spokesperson for Duckworth, said the senator “has always supported and will continue to support Rock Island Arsenal, as well as programs that ensure our troops are best equipped to execute their missions.”
Garmisa said the Humvees at issue are “critical to several Army capabilities, including medical care and evacuation, that other tactical vehicles cannot perform and for which the Army has yet to identify a capable replacement.”
Much of this spending may be worthwhile -- but, if that is the case, it doesn’t appear that any disinterested observer can prove it.
The Government Accountability Office and the Defense Department Office of the Inspector General have confirmed they haven’t assessed the degree to which these scores of billions of dollars have led to useful weapons.
The appropriations measures say the contracts awarded with this funding must be put out for competition. But the audit agencies have also not reviewed how many of the hundreds of awards parceled out with the funding over the years have attracted more than one bid.
Competition can be legally waived if, for example, only one company is suited to build a certain product.
Moreover, lobbyists and aides have confirmed that, in many cases, the intended recipients of the funding are known from the start.
That is either because the process being funded is proprietary to one company, or the company is already an incumbent builder of the weapon, or the military services know which lawmaker proposed the funding and which entity is expected to receive the money and they tailor the competition’s terms accordingly. CQ Roll Call has reported on previous program increases for fiscal 2022, fiscal 2023, fiscal 2024 and fiscal 2025.
Still, for the most part, the identity of these programs’ champions in Congress and the justification for the spending for the overwhelming majority of these projects remains unknown to all but Appropriations Committee members and staff.
“Congress has made important strides to increase transparency over formal earmarks, but thanks to a technical distinction without a practical difference, backdoor earmarks in the Pentagon budget have been thriving in the shadows,” said Murphy of Taxpayers for Common Sense.
© 2025 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved.
Visit cqrollcall.com.[4]
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
© Copyright 2025 CQ-Roll Call. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
...
Ed Sheeran released his new album, Play and to celebrate the release, he
Fashion meets fitness! Celebrity trainer Harley Pasternak[1] sat down with ET to share simple ways to take your workouts to the next level, and surprisingly, it all starts with your outfit.
...
The fitness guru, whose star-studded roster includes Ariana Grande[2]
...
...
Read more https://www.foxnews.com/politics/social-security-pushes-warren-touts-transparency-service-trump
...
Read more https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg7dzmyjrjzo?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=rss
Young children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder often receive medication just after being diagnosed, which contravenes treatment guidelines endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, a Stanford Medicine-led study has found.
The finding, published on Aug. 29 in JAMA Network Open, highlights a gap in medical care for 4- and 5-year-olds with ADHD. Treatment guidelines recommend that these young children and their families try six months of behavior therapy before starting ADHD medication.
But pediatricians often prescribe medication immediately upon diagnosis, according to an analysis of medical records from nearly 10,000 young children with ADHD who received care in eight pediatric health networks in the United States.
"We found that many young children are being prescribed medications very soon after their diagnosis of ADHD is documented," said the study's lead author, Yair Bannett, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics. "That's concerning, because we know starting ADHD treatment with a behavioral approach is beneficial; it has a big positive effect on the child as well as on the family."
In addition, stimulant medications prescribed for the condition cause more side effects in young patients than they do in older children, Bannett said. Before age 6, children's bodies don't fully metabolize the drugs.
"We don't have concerns about the toxicity of the medications for 4- and 5-year-olds, but we do know that there is a high likelihood of treatment failure, because many families decide the side effects outweigh the benefits," he said. Stimulant medication can make young children more irritable, emotional and aggressive.
ADHD is a developmental disorder characterized by hyperactivity, difficulty paying attention and impulsive behavior.
"It's important to catch it early because we know these kids are at higher risk for having academic problems and not completing school," Bannett said. Early identification and effective treatment for ADHD improve children's academic performance. Research has shown that good treatment also helps prepare individuals with ADHD for many aspects of adulthood, such as maintaining employment, having successful relationships and avoiding trouble with the law.
Complementary treatments
Behavioral therapy and medication, the two mainstays of ADHD treatment, have different purposes.
"Behavioral treatment works on the child's surroundings: the parents' actions and the routine the child has," Bannett said. The therapy helps parents and kids build skills and establish habits compatible with how the child's brain works.
The evidence-based behavioral treatment recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics is called parent training in behavior management. The training helps parents build strong, positive relationships with their children; offers guidance in rewarding a child's good behaviors and ignoring negative behaviors; and recommends tools that help kids with ADHD, such as making visual schedules to help them stay organized.
In contrast, medication relieves ADHD symptoms such as hyperactivity and inattentiveness, with effects that wear off as the body breaks down each dose of the drug.
Both approaches are needed for most kids with ADHD to do well. But previous studies of preschoolers diagnosed at age 4 or 5 show that it's best to start with six months of behavioral treatment before prescribing any medication.
Rapid prescriptions
The researchers analyzed data from electronic health records for children seen at primary care practices affiliated with eight U.S. academic medical centers. They began with 712,478 records from children who were 3, 4 or 5 years old and were seen by their primary care physician at least twice, over a period of at least six months, between 2016 and 2023.
From these records, the scientists identified 9,708 children who received an ADHD diagnosis, representing 1.4% of the children in the initial sample. They found that 42.2% of these children -- more than 4,000 kids -- were prescribed medication within a month of their ADHD diagnosis. Only 14.1% of children with ADHD first received medication more than six months after diagnosis. The researchers did not have access to data on referrals to behavioral therapy, but since young children are supposed to try the therapy alone for six months before receiving medication, any who were prescribed medication sooner were likely not being treated according to academy guidelines. A smaller study of recommendations for behavior therapy, published in 2021, found only 11% of families got the therapy in line with guidelines.
Children who were initially given a formal diagnosis of ADHD were more likely to get medication within the first 30 days than those whose medical charts initially noted some ADHD symptoms, with a diagnosis at a later time. But even among preschoolers who did not initially meet full criteria for the condition, 22.9% received medication within 30 days.
Barriers to behavioral treatment?
Because the study was based on an analysis of electronic medical records, the researchers could not ask why physicians made the treatment decisions they did. However, Bannett's team had informal conversations with physicians, outside the scope of the study, in which they asked why they prescribed medication.
"One important point that always comes up is access to behavioral treatment," Bannett said. Some locales have few or no therapists who offer the treatment, or patients' insurance may not cover it. "Doctors tell us, 'We don't have anywhere to send these families for behavioral management training, so, weighing the benefits and risks, we think it's better to give medication than not to offer any treatment at all.'"
Bannett said he hopes to educate primary care pediatricians on how to bridge this gap. For example, free or low-cost online resources are available for parents who want to learn principles of the behavioral approach.
And while the study focused on the youngest ADHD patients, behavioral management therapy also helps older children with the diagnosis.
"For kids 6 and above, the recommendation is both treatments, because behavioral therapy teaches the child and family long-term skills that will help them in life," Bannett said. "Medication will not do that, so we never think of medication as the only solution for ADHD."
Researchers contributed to the study from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Nationwide Children's Hospital, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Texas Children's Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Ann and Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, the University of Colorado, and Nemours Children's Hospital. `
This work was supported by the Stanford Medicine Maternal and Child Health Research Institute; the National Institute of Mental Health (grant K23MH128455); and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (grant K23HL157615). The study was conducted using PEDSnet, A Pediatric Clinical Research Network. PEDSnet was developed with funding from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
Researchers at University of California San Diego School of Medicine have identified a new investigational drug that shows promise in treating metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH), a serious form of fatty liver disease linked to obesity and type 2 diabetes that can lead to cirrhosis, liver failure, and even liver cancer.
The study, published in the August 23, 2025 online edition of The Lancet, found that the medication, ION224, targets a liver enzyme called DGAT2, which plays a key role in how the liver produces and stores fat. By blocking this enzyme, the drug helps reduce fat buildup and inflammation, two major drivers of liver damage in MASH.
"This study marks a pivotal advance in the fight against MASH," said Rohit Loomba, MD, principal investigator of the study and chief of the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology at UC San Diego School of Medicine. "By blocking DGAT2, we're interrupting the disease process at its root cause, stopping fat accumulation and inflammation right in the liver."
The multicenter, Phase IIb clinical trial involved 160 adults with MASH and early to moderate fibrosis across the United States. Participants received monthly injections of the drug at different doses or a placebo over the course of one year. At the highest dose, 60% showed notable improvements in their liver health compared to the placebo group. These benefits occurred regardless of weight change, suggesting the drug could be used alongside other therapies. The medicine showed no serious side effects linked to the treatment.
MASH, formally known as nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), affects people with metabolic conditions like obesity and type 2 diabetes. It is often called a "silent" disease because it can progress for years without symptoms.
More than 100 million people have some form of fatty liver disease in the U.S. and as many as 1 in 4 adults worldwide may be affected, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. If left untreated, MASH can progress to liver failure and often may require a transplant.
"This is the first drug of its kind to show real biological impact in MASH," Loomba said. "If these findings are confirmed in Phase III trials, we may finally be able to offer patients a targeted therapy that halts and potentially reverses liver damage before it progresses to life-threatening stages."
Loomba, who is also director of the metabolic-dysfunction associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) research center at UC San Diego School of Medicine, and a gastroenterologist and hepatologist at UC San Diego Health, adds that for patients and families affected by this serious condition, these results bring new hope for better care and outcomes. He emphasizes that early intervention and targeted therapies may also help reduce the burden on health care systems by preventing costly and complex liver disease down the line.
Next steps include a larger clinical trial to move closer to making this treatment widely available.
Co-authors of the study include Erin Morgan, Keyvan Yousefi, Dan Li, Richard Geary, Sanjay Bhanot, all from Ionis Pharmaceuticals, and Naim Alkhouri, Arizona Liver Health.
Funding for this research came from Ionis Pharmaceuticals (ION224-CS2).
2025 MLS, Regular Season
14-7-6, 49 PTS
14-7-6, 49 PTS
Seattle Sounders FCSeattleSEA[2]
12-9-8, 45 PTS
1
12-9-8, 45 PTS
Jordi Alba - 12'
Lionel Messi - 41'
Ian Fray - 52'
Obed Vargas...
Read more https://www.espn.com/soccer/match/_/gameId/727247/seattle-sounders-fc-inter-miami-cf
The Big Dumper just left the yard again!
In what has become a regular occurrence during Cal Raleigh[1]'s incredible 2025 season, the Seattle Mariners[2] catcher added two more...
The New York Mets[1] had a special guest perform the national anthem on Tuesday against the San...
Employers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics – commonly called the STEM industries – continue to struggle to attract female applicants[1]. In its 2024 jobs report, the National Science Board found that men outnumber women[2] almost 3-to-1 in STEM jobs that require at least a bachelor’s degree and over 8-to-1 in STEM jobs...
The questions of how humankind came to be, and whether we are alone in the universe, have captured imaginations for millennia[1]. But to answer these questions, scientists must first understand life itself and how it could have arisen.
In our work as evolutionary biochemists[2] and protein historians[3], these core questions form the foundation...
"You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor." Exodus 20:1-17.
That is, just look at your own piece of the pie, not the other fellow’s. You will look at what you have, not what someone else has. You will not act upon a desire for something that belongs to someone else. What's your is yours, what's theirs is theirs. You will focus on your property, not their property. It is not about them and what they have; it is about you, your journey toward God, and what you have along the way.
Why would God require this?
Implementing this commandment yields a certain kind of social structure. Not following it creates another. And the social structure in which people grow up and live their lives affects how people are trained up for God.
What are the practical consequences of this?
The primitive hate on display in the streets around the globe cries out for a Final Solution to the Jewish Problem.
It is time to end the Jewish Problem once and for all.
Both the problem and solution are simple, and this instruction can be short.
The decision and responsibility for it are yours.
First one bank announced it will only accept digital currency.
Now the Reserve Bank of Australia has announced it is heading into digital currency.
As the moth is to the flame, so are the follies of man.
Artificial intelligence and the next level of quantum computing will render passwords and encryption efforts obsolete.
