The leak furor will fade but not JD Vance’s contempt for allies.
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-defends-signal-app-amid-war-texts-backlash-2050394
President Donald Trump said Tuesday that Signal, the app in which his top national security officials discussed war plans in a text group that included a journalist, was "the best technology for the moment."
"Sometimes you have to move very quickly," Trump said, "and there are other devices that are very good, but they are very, very cumbersome, and you're not able to use them...from a practical standpoint. So, all we can do is find out the best we can do with modern technology. They'll probably get better over the years."
Trump noted during the media availability that the Singal app was "the best technology for the moment.
https://www.newsweek.com/microplastics-chewing-gum-mouth-saliva-pollution-health-2049922
Chewing a single piece of gum can release hundreds to thousands of pieces of microplastic into the saliva in your mouth—likely to go on to be swallowed.
This is the warning of researchers from the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) who experimented to see how many microplastics the polymer-based treats might let out.
Microplastic (smaller than 5 millimeters in size) and nanoplastic (under 0.001 millimeters) particles have become ubiquitous in the environment and can get into the very food we eat.
These particles have been found in various bodily organs—including the brain, kidney, liver, placenta and testes—with scientists estimating that humans may consume as many as tens of thousands of microplastic pieces each year.
Scientists are concerned about the impact of microplastics on health; with studies on animals and human cells suggesting that microplastic particles could be causing us harm.
"Our goal is not to alarm anybody," said paper author and engineer Professor Sanjay Mohanty. "Scientists don't know if microplastics are unsafe to us or not.
"There are no human trials. But we know we are exposed to plastics in everyday life—and that's what we wanted to examine here."
Igros Moshe (E H I #96) Question A person who had been viewed as a ben Torah for many years who is a musician who has composed songs based on holy verses for weddings and these songs are commonly sung by religious Jews at simchos of mitzva but now bad rumors are spreading saying that he sings before mixed audiences of unmarried men and women. Is it now permitted to continue to sing the songs that he composed when he was viewed as a good Jew? Answer In my humble opinion, I don’t see that there is anything prohibited in this since they were clearly composed when he was considered a good Jew. Proof supporting this is we find that the decrees made by the high priest Yochanan that are said in his name is said by some to be the one described as faithfully serving this position for 80 years and then becoming a heretic. Even after he became a wicked sinner, his decrees that he had made as a good Jew were not invalidated and were still ascribed to him. We find something similar with Elisha ben Abuya. It would seem that the only reason to prohibit is the Rambam’s ruling that a sefer Torah that was written by a heretic should be burned in order not to have a monument to the heretic. However that clearly refers to a Torah written by a heretic but if he wrote it as a good Jew it is not burned. Consequently those songs written when he was a good Jew there is no reason to prohibit them now even for bnei Torah and baalei nefesh there is no reason to be strict .Furthermore I am even uncertain about the songs that were composed after his reputation became bad, whether these are prohibited if there is nothing objectionable in their content. It would seem that only holy things such as a sefer Torah are prohibited. It is obviously permitted to use and call medical treatments or machines by the name of their inventor even if he is a heretic. So it seems it is only an issue for holy things to be associated with a heretic but not secular things. Songs are viewed as secular things since they are not inherently holy. Consequently even those songs he wrote after his reputation became bad, I am inclined to say they are also not forbidden to sing but nevertheless not by bnei Torah or baalei nefesh. In addition the bad rumors are not that he is a heretic but are issues of levity and relaxed standards of modesty in that he is singing to a mixed audience of young men and ladies For such there is no obligation to avoid leaving a monument to him in fact if he wrote a sefer Torah it would be valid and surely the songs he composed. In sum there is no need to be strict in this case even for bnei Torah and baalei nefesh. If in fact the rumors are also about heresy than the distinction as to when the songs were composed applies and the eaely songs there is no reason at all to be strict while the more recent compositions are not reasonably considered prohibited since they are not holy like a Torah however in the latter case bnei Torah and baalei nefesh it is best to be strict.
I had two encounters with him. The first was at a Chanukah party made by his devoted followers. One of them was a young lady that someone suggested as a shidduch for me . She had introduced me to him as a student of Rabbi Freifeld. At the end he went around the room giving a hug o everyone including the young ladies. When he attempted to hug my date I objected that he shouldn’t do it. He replied casually “but Rabbi Freifeld knows about this.” With the clear implication that he was defending himself by claiming that Rabbi Freifeld approved this behavior. Later I had a chance to meet with Rabbi Freifeld and I told him what happened. His sole response to me was that I had done the right thing.
The second occurred in Toronto airport when I went in a failed effort to raise money for my index to the Mishneh Berura that I was working on after I published Yad Moshe to the Igros Moshe. As I got off the plane I heard people shouting and I found that he had also been on that flight. We ended up standing together in line for customs. I mentioned to him that there was a tshuva in the Igros about him. He first became very agitated and replied that he knew about it. Then he added that he was on very good terms with Rav Moshe and that Rav Moshe liked him. He was clearly being defensive.
In sum, the above tshuva did not address his problematic behavior nor did Rav Moshe seem to be well informed. On the other hand my observation is that he himself realized that his behavior was problematic and crossed too many red lines.
Igros Moshe (YD II #104) The common minhag is not to buy an esrog and lulav for a child.
Igros Moshe (OC III #95) Question Concerning the obligation of chinuch for the mitzva of lulav and esrog. The gemora (Sukkah 46b) says not to buy 4 species and give them as a present to a child for the first day of Sukkos even after he has used it on the first day of Sukkos since that makes it the possession of the child and he is required to be the owner of the lulav and esrog the next day to say the beracha because of the uncertainty of the status of the day. A child can acquire but not transfer ownership to others. Now, there is a dispute on this issue. Some say that one can give the lulav and etrog to the child without transferring ownership, and that this suffices to satisfy one’s obligation of chinuch. This is so even though the child performs no mitzvah and actually makes an unnecessary blessing; since for the sake of chinuch it does not matter whether the mitzvah has actually been fulfilled by the child. It is sufficient that the child thinks they are performing a mitzvah. Others such as the Magen Avraham says this is not sufficient and he must actually do the correct mitzva. The Mishna Berura says that according to the latter view the Shulchan Aruch says that a parent should hold the four specied together with his son to enable the parent to say a beracha the next day. However in such a cse the child has not done the mitzva since he didn’t own the lulav and esrog and the father did not do the mitzva of chinuch. Nevertheless many other Achronim hold this way. It appears that Shulchan Aruch agrees with this too. Since he says that the father is required to buy an esrog and lulav for his child. The reason that in Europe they were lenient was because of the poverty which prevented the purchase of an esrog anf lulav for every child. It was not possible even for most adults to have their own esrog and lulav, and instead they took turns using the community’s esrog and lulav and reciting the blessing over it, and were not able themselves to do the wavings of the lulav during hallel either . In fact it is best to be strict in this matter and especially since in America it it possible to acquire them cheaply everyone should buy a set for each child.
I have never seen a breach quite like this. It is not uncommon for national-security officials to communicate on Signal. But the app is used primarily for meeting planning and other logistical matters—not for detailed and highly confidential discussions of a pending military action. And, of course, I’ve never heard of an instance in which a journalist has been invited to such a discussion.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5211761-us-government-group-chat/
Democrats, who have often charged that Trump lacks basic competence, seized on the story.
Trump himself pleaded ignorance.
Asked about it by reporters on Monday afternoon, he responded, “I don’t know anything about it. I’m not aIt’s difficult to imagine any high-ranking national security official in a more conventional administration still having a job if they did what Waltz did.
But the Trump White House is like no other, and the president swiftly released a statement of support.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement that Trump “continues to have the utmost confidence in his national security team, including National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.” big fan of The Atlantic. … You’re telling me about it for the first time.”++
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-joins-musk-to-poke-fun-at-massive-war-plan-leak/
The president and his “first buddy” appeared unbothered by the shocking leak of confidential military plans.
More specifically, the official doing the texting of the war plans to a journalist appears to be Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, who was confirmed by the Senate despite serious questions about his lack of official experience – Hegseth’s most recent job before taking charge of the US military was as a Fox News host.
The story features all of the bold-faced names in charge of national security for Trump.
Somehow, Goldberg appears to have been added by national security adviser Mike Waltz to a group chat on the private, encrypted messaging platform Signal.
The group included profiles that seemed to be associated with Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Hegseth, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, White House adviser Stephen Miller, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and others.
A spokesman for the National Security Council later confirmed that the message chain appeared to be real and said they were investigating how Goldberg’s number was added.
Senior Trump administration national-security officials held detailed discussions of highly classified U.S. plans to launch airstrikes against Yemen’s Houthi militants using a nongovernment messaging service and mistakenly included a journalist in the conversation, U.S. officials said Monday.
President Trump claims to run the most transparent Administration in history, but maybe not like this. His team somehow added a journalist to a high-level Yemen war-planning chat conducted over Signal, the commercial messaging app, with operational details about targets, weapons and attack sequencing.
A National Security Council spokesman confirmed the accuracy of the story in the Atlantic on Monday: “This appears to be an authentic message chain, and we are reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain.”
The news is that the characters played to their public type. National-security adviser Mike Waltz was a voice for U.S. leadership—and for carrying out the President’s policy. Vice President JD Vance was a voice for U.S. retreat even when Mr. Trump directed otherwise.
