Pentagon Pete gives 30 minute lecture at the Naval War College in Newport

Hegseth attacks civilian-led education in Naval War College speech

By Christopher Shea, Rhode Island Current

Protesters assemble as the motorcade for Secretary of
Defense Pete Hegseth arrives in Newport.
(Photo by David Hansen/Rhode Island Current)

As calls for his resignation and impeachment grow in Washington, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth came to the U.S. Naval War College in Newport Monday, Nov. 9, to announce a sweeping effort to strip military education of what he called its overly civilian influences.

“This morning we strip away the comfortable veneer of academic tradition,” he told an audience of 672 military personnel, students, faculty and civilian instructors inside Spruance Hall. “The fundamental duty of the armed forces of the United States is to ensure victory in war — full stop.”

Laughing, talking, taking selfies - Hegseth has no
right to lecture anybody!

Hegseth set the curriculum overhaul in motion in March, ordering a 90-day review of the Pentagon’s six senior service colleges, including the war colleges for the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines and the National Defense University and National War College. 

The Pentagon established a task force to scrutinize their faculty and curriculum to ensure the schools were producing warfighters rather than “social justice warriors.”

The result: an eight-page memo dated Monday containing 33 directives Hegseth said would rid the colleges of “relics of 19th century academia” and better prepare officers for modern warfare.

“In the profession of arms, nostalgia is fatal,” he said. “When our war college graduates walk across the stage and take command, their minds cannot be anchored on the strategic consensus of a vanished world.”

Hegseth presented an outline on some of the new guidelines during his 30-minute speech after which he promptly left the auditorium. He allowed no time for questions and answers with faculty and students and did not take questions from local media. 

Under the new guidelines, the Pentagon will judge military education programs by a single standard: whether they produce leaders capable of winning wars. 

Trump made his Veterans Day speech at Arlington
Cemetery about himself and his vanity projects.
Hegseth gets it from his boss and...

The directives would make newly hired civilian faculty ineligible for lifetime tenure and emeritus status, instead putting them on renewable three-year contracts tied to teaching performance and national security research. They also call for new “warfighter chair” positions at senior service colleges, filled by high-performing colonels and lieutenant colonels who have held operational commands within the previous two years.

“Peace through strength is not achieved by comfortable consensus and business as usual approaches,” Hegseth said. “It is achieved by preparing our minds and our forces to wage war with such devastating speed, precision, and lethality that no adversary dares test American resolve — that’s deterrence.”

Hegseth’s central critique against America’s military colleges is that they have become too much like civilian universities, importing what he called the “worst pathologies” of higher education at the expense of their focus on victory in the battlefield.

...Role model for disgraceful conduct at Arlington Cemetery

He pointed to the Naval War College’s 12-year partnership with Brown University as an example, saying he directed the Pentagon to end the relationship last month.

“The only place more strikingly ideological in one direction — more than Columbia or Harvard — is Brown,” Hegseth, a graduate of Princeton and Harvard, said. “It was long past due to end that relationship.”

The partnership between the two schools dates to June 2014, when then-Naval War College President Rear Adm. Walter E. “Ted” Carter Jr. and Brown President Christina Paxson signed a research and education agreement with the university’s Watson Institute for International Studies. The agreement was intended to promote joint research and teaching, including programs in science-related fields tied to long-term national defense needs.

A spokesperson for Brown University did not immediately respond to request for comment on Hegseth’s statements.

Will Trump try to ban non-profit groups that oppose him?

Trump Weighing Executive Order to Label Disliked Nonprofits as ‘Terrorist’ Groups

Stephen Prager for Common Dreams

Donald Trump is reportedly considering a major escalation of his war against left-wing nonprofits with an executive order that would seek to suspend their tax-exempt status with the stroke of a pen.

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that the order plans to label some nonprofit groups as having “terrorist” ties—an act that would immediately suspend their tax-exempt status, dramatically imperiling their ability to operate and raise money.

According to the report, the administration is seeking to use a little-known provision in the federal tax code to strip nonprofits of their status without going through the normal Internal Revenue Service investigation and appeals process.

The law, signed in 2003 by then-President George W. Bush, allows the president to identify an organization in an executive order as supporting or engaging in terrorism. The law also prevents organizations from challenging designation or suspension in proceedings concerning federal tax liability.

It’s not clear yet which groups will be targeted, but the administration and its allies in Congress have already signaled their intent to go after left-leaning groups like George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Advice for Dems from Nobel laureate

What do we do now? Paul Krugman has some suggestions

by xaxnar, Daily Kos

Democrats look to have control of both houses of Congress come January, assuming no shenanigans keep that from happening. That’s huge, but not sufficient. Although they have historic margins, it’s still not enough to guarantee overriding presidential vetoes or getting around the filibuster. Trump still retains vast powers as the chief executive and commander in chief, not to mention the GOP control of the Supreme Court.

Nonetheless, Paul Krugman has some suggestions. There’s a lot that can be done by Democrats in Congress even so.

The American people have just delivered a stunning rebuke to Donald Trump. If we had a parliamentary system, the moving trucks would already be at the White House. 

As it is, however, an increasingly deranged and debilitated Trump will remain in control of foreign policy, national security, and many of the federal government’s domestic operations for two more years. He will also, as he made a point of emphasizing on Truth Social as the returns came in, retain the ability to veto legislation. And Democrats, despite their huge margins in both houses of Congress, won’t have enough votes to override his vetoes.

So what can Democrats do with their new majorities?

One important answer is that they will now hold committee gavels, hence the ability to conduct investigations and hearings backed by subpoena power. This matters more for the Trump gang than it would for a normal administration. 

Everyone paying attention knows that Trump and his cronies have been stealing billions, but many Americans probably don’t grasp the full extent of the corruption. Gaining the ability to bring this corruption into the sunlight is critical to rebuild Americans’ faith in the integrity of government, as well as to hold Trump and his vandals accountable. 

Moreover, knowing that his days are numbered, the Trump gang have every incentive to engage in a wholesale smash-and-grab spree.

And Democrats know it. On Tuesday night Rep. Robert Garcia — the probable chair of the House Oversight Committee — had a blunt message for everyone associated with Trump: “Lawyer up.”

Should have checked under the bed

The truth won't set him free

Trump administration continues to tear down the VA

His main goal is faster privatization of the nation’s largest public healthcare system.

Steve Early and Suzanne Gordon for Common Dreams

If any Trump appointees lose their posts, as part of a midterm cabinet reshuffling, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Doug Collins is not likely to be among them.

Unlike controversial former colleagues, already sacked as the heads of the Homeland Security, Justice, and Labor Departments—or Pete Hegseth, the next to go?—Collins keeps his own head down. He does the president’s bidding, without personal drama or political scandal.

This low-profile Air Force Reserve chaplain is a clean-living Southern Baptist minister, small-town lawyer, and former congressman from Georgia. When the Senate confirmed him last year, there was no need for a tie-breaking vote like the one JD Vance cast to push Pete across the finish line as secretary of defense.

VA defenders, inside and outside the Beltway, need a damage control agenda that will restrain—rather than enable—further White House attempts to defund and dismantle our best working model of socialized medicine.

The far more affable Collins won Senate approval with the bipartisan support of 22 Democrats! They included Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), a military veteran whose own son is a VA patient and, sadly, were joined by Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), former chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee (SVAC).

Expanded Outsourcing

Collins has proved to be Donald Trump’s worst VA Secretary ever; his main goal is faster privatization of the nation’s largest public healthcare system. The likelihood that he will control the third largest federal agency budget and second largest departmental workforce, for another two years, is not good news for 9 million VA patients.

By the time any Democrat replaces Trump in January, 2029, Collins will have diverted far more than $46 billion annually from the VA’s direct-care budget to a network of 1.7 million private sector providers and four healthcare companies who administer it.

Just two months ago, he awarded new contracts to the latter worth $1 trillion, over the next decade (if not cancelled or curtailed by a future administration). As a result, industry giants like United Healthcare and Humana will be profiting from further outsourcing of VA care that is costly, unnecessary, and not favored by veterans themselves.

VA defenders, inside and outside the Beltway, need a damage control agenda that will restrain—rather than enable—further White House attempts to defund and dismantle our best working model of socialized medicine. Otherwise, more VA staffing and budget cuts, plus facility closings, in the VA’s own system of 1,380 public hospitals and clinics around the country will be happening soon.

Marking November 11

In the United States:

In Canada...

And the United Kingdom...

COVID-19 vaccines generated trillions in benefits, far exceeding their estimated costs

Vaccination made good financial sense in addition to saving lives. 

Still does.

By New York University

Edited by Swati Mestri, reviewed by Robert Egan

Dr. Fauci was right

Every dollar spent on COVID-19 vaccine development and distribution generated an estimated $81 to $810 in economic value during the first year that vaccines were given, according to new research published in the journal PLOS Medicine.

The study—the first global analysis of the return on investment for COVID-19 vaccines—shows that vaccines not only averted severe illness and saved lives but were also a sound investment.

"Our study provides evidence that the unprecedented, rapid investments made into COVID-19 vaccines early in the pandemic paid off massively both in health and economic benefits," said study author Mark Jit, professor of global health at NYU School of Global Public Health. "Vaccine development, as well as equitable vaccine distribution globally, should be prioritized before and during global health crises."

Counting costs beyond vaccine purchases

Vaccines played a critical role during the COVID-19 pandemic, but their development required extraordinary effort—and spending—among governments, pharmaceutical companies and nonprofit organizations. The resulting vaccines were highly effective at preventing severe illness and death, with one study estimating that between 14 million and 20 million deaths were averted in the first year that vaccines were available.

Despite their health impact, the economic value of these vaccines has not been examined on a global scale. Moreover, most analyses of the cost-effectiveness of immunization look at the cost of purchasing the vaccine itself from its manufacturer, not the cost of developing it.

"With other vaccines, a company takes on the risk by investing its own money to develop a vaccine. But the COVID vaccine was not purely a private sector decision—the U.S., the European Union and other countries like China poured substantial funding into this to reduce the risk for vaccine companies," said Jit. "We wanted to understand how these costs compared to health and economic outcomes."

The Midterms Were a Populist Blowout

The miracle win

By Peter Certo

For years, Americans have been viciously divided according to race, religion, immigration status, and gender identity by politicians dead set on making us fight each other rather than them. In a year where real people’s struggles were impossible to ignore, that effort fell short.

It’s hard to overstate the scale of Democratic victories in this year’s midterm elections.

Voters broke for Democratic candidates by margins scarcely anticipated by even the party’s rosiest polls — often in deep red states and congressional districts that few seriously thought were competitive. Democrats will now control a commanding House majority and hold a significant edge in the Senate as well.

This was a decisive rejection of Trumpism — and it happened on a significantly tilted playing field.

Before the election, Trump-aligned justices on the Supreme Court gutted what remained of the Voting Rights Act, only the latest in a series of rulings limiting fair access to voting and representation. 

At Trump’s urging, Republican-led statehouses unleashed an unprecedented flurry of mid-decade gerrymanders designed to maximize their partisan advantage and disenfranchise their critics. Billionaires poured vast sums into races — and trillionaire Elon Musk spent over $400 million alone, more than George Soros has spent on elections his entire life.

And that’s not even getting into the concerns, often stoked by leading Republicans themselves, that the administration would try to cancel results, deploy National Guard or ICE agents to cities, or otherwise meddle in the election.

None of it was enough for voters who’ve spent years now watching events in their lives spin out of control.

Trump’s tariffs made life miserable for farmers, manufacturers, and consumers while his allies slashed safety net programs to fund tax breaks for billionaires. The war in Iran, which Trump launched shortly after promising no new wars, sent the price of fuel skyrocketing.

Lawless ICE agents terrorized immigrants and citizens alike and shocked the conscience of people across the political spectrum. And a data center boom spiked power bills and disrupted communities across the country, all to power a technology CEOs vowed to use for replacing people’s jobs and surveilling their day to day life.

In the races that mattered most, populist candidates spoke to these concerns directly.

Big mistake

Oh the horror!

The midterms’ most deserving losers

Not to gloat (much) but here are some that really deserved it

Tom Schaller

Donald Trump and his MAGA cult were the biggest losers in Tuesday’s midterm elections. 

The results delivered a stinging rebuke to a wide range of political actors in the conservative Republican universe, including people and institutions who never have and likely never will run for office: Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society, Fox News and the so-called “manosphere.”

But a number of notable Republicans — most but not all of them elected officials on the 2026 ballot — suffered epic, overdue, even karmic-level defeats.

The following list is hardly exhaustive. But the eight groups of losers categorized below are best described as the “Comeuppance Caucus”: Republicans who in 2026 got what was coming to them.

1. The Gerrymanderers

In 2025, state Republicans succumbed to Trump’s demands to redistrict US House maps in as many GOP-controlled states as possible. Much of the post-election attention this week has focused on House Republican defeats in the mid-decade redistricted states of Texas and Florida, especially in Latino-heavy districts. Governors Greg Abbott and Ron DeSantis deserve the lickings they took Tuesday night.

But North Carolina merits special attention as the Republican Party’s “dummymandering doomsday” state.

Last year, NC state Sen. Ralph Hise led the GOP-controlled legislature’s plan to further tinker with House districts that four years earlier had already been drawn to significantly favor Republicans. The GOP aimed to win 10, maybe 11, of the state’s 14 seats in 2026, specifically targeting for defeat moderate African American Democrat Don Davis’s rural NC-1 district. With NC’s own US Rep. Richard Hudson, chair of the Republican National Congressional Committee, at his side, Hise pushed through the new map.

How badly did this gambit backfire? Democrats so far have captured at least nine seats, including NC-1. They have a razor-thin lead in a tenth district (NC-5) and an outside shot of flipping two more seats once final ballots are tabulated. And — womp, womp — Hudson lost in NC-9 to Democrat Richard Ojeda. Yes, the House Republican chosen by his colleagues to elect or reelect House Republicans for the 2026 cycle lost his seat.

Mom who lost young daughter to flu hopes others choose vaccination

Don't let your kids die from preventable diseases

Meghan Holohan

Courtesy Jessica Richman

When Cayden Smith, age 3, developed a low-grade fever and congestion one Thursday evening in December 2014, her family first thought it was a cold. The following day, they visited an urgent-care center. 

“We did let them know that she had been scheduled to get a flu shot a couple weeks before, but she had an ear infection,” Jessica Richman, Cayden’s mom, 41, from Newport News, Virginia, told CIDRAP News. “She had a little fever at the time, so they said we needed to reschedule the flu shot.” 

Urgent care staff didn’t test Cayden for influenza; instead, they treated her cold symptoms and advised the family to return if the toddler didn’t improve. “We actually took her back three different times, because she was getting very progressively worse,” Richman recalled. 

From lack of concern to a 911 call

Cayden was Richman’s first child, born May 18, 2011. The outgoing, bubbly girl, who never met a person who would remain a stranger, loved the color pink and her 130-pound Bernese Mountain dog. “It was cute to see this tiny, small girl and this big, huge dog,” Richman said. “She had a great personality.” 

While Cayden had always received her vaccines, she missed her flu vaccine in 2014 because of that ear infection. At the time, Richman didn’t know how serious flu could be. “I didn’t realize it was super dangerous, so I didn’t urgently reschedule her flu shot,” she said. 

Each time the family took Cayden back to urgent care that December, they mentioned she had not received her flu shot. Still, staff never tested her for flu. “They just didn’t seem that concerned that that’s what it was,” Richman said. “I’m not sure why.” 

By Friday evening, Cayden’s breathing had become labored. She’d take deep breaths in but still didn’t seem to get much air. Unlike other times when she was sick, Cayden wasn’t playing with her toys and behaved lethargically. Finally, her dad called 911. 

“She was not moving, wasn’t asking for anything. She didn’t want to eat or drink,” Richman said. “We had first responders show up to the house. Unfortunately, she had passed at the house.” 

Democrats to RFK Jr.: Resign Now or Be Prepared to Testify Before Congress

End this menace to public health

By Mike Ludwig

This article was originally published by Truthout

During the 2024 election, when backlash to pandemic-era safety protocols was still percolating on right-wing and alternative health blogs, the notorious anti-vaccine celebrity Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement were critical to President Donald Trump’s winning coalition.

Now, speculation is swirling about Kennedy’s future as Trump’s health secretary as Democrats prepare to take control of the next Congress and the president and GOP search for scapegoats following heavy losses in this week’s midterm contests. Voters elected multiple doctors and medical professionals who ran both as Democrats and opponents of the Trump-Kennedy approach to public health.

Abdul El-Sayed, the progressive who won a Senate seat in Michigan, is an epidemiologist and served as public health director in both Detroit and Wayne County before running for office on a campaign promoting Medicare for All. In North Carolina, pediatrician Annie Andrews won an upset over Republican scion Darline Graham while campaigning on expanding access to health care, including reproductive care.

In Ohio, Amy Acton infamously overcame a vicious attack ad produced by her opponent’s campaign to become the next governor of Ohio. But before that, the state’s residents got to know Acton from her regular briefings while leading Ohio’s Covid-19 pandemic response. All three have regularly publicly condemned Kennedy’s leadership of U.S. public health infrastructure.

Meanwhile, MAHA is increasingly fractured, and Trump’s alliance with Kennedy is reportedly on the rocks after both men angered the movement’s fans by failing to deliver on key issues such as the regulation of toxic pesticides. As health care costs soar and the public contends with outbreaks of easily preventable diseases including measles and food-borne cyclospora, Democrats are calling on Kennedy to resign from his post or face lawmakers in hearings next year as voters hand them control of Congress.

“The time is now. RFK Jr. must resign or be fired. End of discussion,” said Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Maryland) in a social media post on Monday.

The time is now. RFK Jr. must resign or be fired. End of discussion.

— Senator Angela Alsobrooks (@Sen_Alsobrooks) November 4, 2026

Trump Makes His Chief Bigot His Chief of Staff

Not good news

Robert Reich

Anyone wondering how Trump will respond to the biggest repudiation a modern U.S. president has ever received from American voters need wonder no longer. Trump announced that Stephen Miller would become his chief of staff, replacing Susie Wiles.

In a Truth Social post, Trump called Miller one of his “most trusted” advisers and said he would be starting in the new role Monday.

Miller as chief of staff is not a positive development for anyone interested in mending our government or healing our nation.

As Trump’s attention recedes into his vanity projects — the ballroom, the arch, the heliport, the golf links, the gold-leaf makeovers — Miller is likely to become de facto president, manipulating an increasingly incoherent and cognitively impaired old man.

I expect Miller to conduct a scorched-earth campaign of retribution and legal harassment — a war against all perceived Trump enemies — while burning down everything in his way.

Let’s be clear. Miller is bigoted, xenophobic, and vicious — the architect and chief advocate of Trump’s loathsome immigration policy. He is perhaps the most venal of all the obsequious sycophants surrounding the mad king.

In one of his most bizarre claims, Miller has said immigrants to the United States bring problems that extend through generations. “Not only is the first generation unsuccessful,” Miller asserts. “You see persistent issues in every subsequent generation. So you see consistent high rates of welfare use, consistent high rates of criminal activity, consistent failures to assimilate.”

Rubbish. The children and grandchildren and great-grandchildren of most immigrants are models of upward mobility in America.

Researchers have found that immigrants today are no slower to move into the middle class than immigrants were a century ago. In fact, no matter when their parents came to the U.S. or what country they came from, children of immigrants have higher rates of upward mobility than their U.S.-born peers.