Peoria's DIGIM night honors student excellence at dinner event
PEORIA, Ill. (WMBD) –The DIGIM Night of Scholars Dinner May 8, at Distillery Labs, recognizes outstanding students.
According to author, and DIGIM Founder, Marc Supreme, 'DIGIM is an acronym for Dang, I Graduate in May'. Supreme, and Dr. Gregory Wilson, the DIGIM Vice President, stopped by WMBD This Morning to talk more about the May 8 dinner.
They'll be awarding 5 scholarships that evening to students to help students continue their educational journeys. Dr. Wilson said, 'it's one thing to get them ready for college, but it's another thing to help support them while they're in college.'
The evening is hosted by Stephen Graves and features Emmy Award winning investigative journalist, Justin Carter as a guest speaker.
Follow this link to get tickets in advance and learn more about the DIGIM Night of Scholars Dinner, May 8, 6:30 p.m. -9 p.m. at Distillery Labs, 201 SW Adams St, Peoria. The 40-dollar ticket price goes towards the ongoing scholarship effort.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to CIProud.com.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
HHS Journal Ban Won't Stop Corruption — It'll Make It Worse
Robert F. Kennedy Jr has threatened to bar federal scientists from publishing in top medical journals. This move risks backfiring on two major fronts. First, it will only accelerate private industry's sway over the scientific record. Second, launching new, government-run journals will demand vast resources and years of effort — and still won't earn the credibility of established publications. With nearly five decades in medical and scientific writing, editing, and publishing — across nonprofit and commercial organizations, legacy print and digital platforms, and both subscription-based and open-access models — I write from experience. To see the flaws in Kennedy's proposal, we need to understand what works and what doesn't in science publishing. Primary, peer-reviewed medical/scientific literature has evolved and thrived in a culture of self-criticism, through letters columns, corrections, retractions, and open debate. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) , The Lancet , and JAMA remain the gold standards in medical publishing because of their rigorous peer review, global reach, and editorial independence from government or corporate influence. Here's where RFK Jr's main objection with the current system seems to lie. The Secretary has portrayed medical journals as hopelessly corrupted by industry. Extensive firewalls, guidelines, and rules have been established to govern the relationship of industry to medical journals. They rest largely on honest disclosure with authors, editors, and readers paying attention. Cracks in those barriers are not unknown. But the solution lies in strengthening these firewalls, not sidelining them. A ban on government employees from submitting to NEJM , The Lancet , JAMA, and other top-tier titles will deliver more power — not less — to pharmaceutical, device, and biotech companies to set the scientific agenda. Far from reducing 'corruption,' such a misguided policy would magnify the role of the very stakeholders RFK Jr decries. And if federal grant support diminishes, the research that is published will become increasingly supported by industry, compounding the mistake. The notion of creating new government-owned medical journals from scratch is not an absurd idea. But Kennedy's illusion of fast-tracking NIH-affiliated "preeminent journals" that stamp federal‐funded work as unquestionably legitimate is a gargantuan endeavor. Building editorial boards, peer‐review standards, submission platforms, indexation in PubMed, and marketing to researchers worldwide takes years of work from countless individuals and would cost a substantial amount of money. Even then, a journal's reputation rests on trust and perceived independence. Readers judge not only the science but also the integrity of the editor–owner relationship. The hazard is that the owner (the government) would have to be trusted by the readers, or no one would bother reading these publications. A government 'house organ' would likely be viewed skeptically if the federal government can withdraw or prohibit publications at will. Banning federal scientists from submitting to journals the administration doesn't like does not cleanse the literature of industry influence — it deepens those ties. And while government-run journals might one day exist, they won't arrive fully baked, credible, or conflict-free. Better to invest in the proven mechanisms of editorial independence, enhanced peer review, and clearer disclosure than in a rushed, state-controlled alternative destined to struggle for trust and impact. If RFK Jr wants a better list of reforms, here's what I suggest: Take on predatory publishers and their fake journals, fake authors, and fabricated institutions and references — a threat that existed even before generative chat powered by artificial intelligence (AI). Take aim at rapacious mainstream publishers, whose excess profit margins and subscription price gouging represent a financial drain on researchers, readers, and academic libraries. Crack down on excessively large author fees to have an article considered/reviewed/published. Promote the publication of reproducibility studies. Raise the alarm about the use of AI in peer view and the creation of manuscripts — including the data in them. These steps aren't as sexy as proclaiming publishing bans for government scientist or launching new journals on whose mastheads you can put your own name. But they have the virtues of solving real problems and not making existing problems worse — which, as a physician, seems like something I've heard before somewhere …
Bloomberg
3 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Musk Is the $350 Billion Rocket Man Who Fell to Earth
The popcorn emoji is out in force as the world's richest person feuds with its most powerful leader. Even Thierry Breton, the European regulator who was a frequent target of Elon Musk's ire, is at it. Still, as entertaining as the billionaire's spat with Donald Trump may be, it also carries costly lessons for a $630 billion space economy dominated by Musk's Space Exploration Technologies Corp. — such is the danger of codependence between de facto monopolies and increasingly protectionist states. This danger wasn't high on the agenda at the peak of Trump's bromance with Musk, when the president-elect described SpaceX's reusable rocket revolution in the way a Renaissance monarch might have praised a successful colonial expedition — with a mix of national pride, geopolitical influence and financial potential: ' I called Elon. I said, 'Elon, was that [landing maneuver] you?' He said, 'Yes, it was.' I said, '...Can Russia do it?' 'No.' 'Can China do it?' 'No.' 'Can the United States do it, other than you?' 'No, nobody can do that.' 'That's why I love you, Elon.''
CBS News
4 hours ago
- CBS News
Sen. Warren asks for contingency plans on national security after Trump and Musk's social media fallout
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is asking Secretary of State Marco Rubio for information on the Trump administration's contingency plans if billionaire Elon Musk breaches his companies' current contracts with the U.S. amid the ongoing public fallout between him and President Trump. In a letter to Rubio as acting national security adviser and obtained by CBS News, Warren said Mr. Trump and Musk's public disagreements about the upcoming reconciliation bill that escalated into a public online spat could "have serious implications for U.S. national security." The Massachusetts Democrat mentioned Mr. Trump's proposal to terminate Musk's government contracts and subsidies, which the world's richest man followed with a threat that SpaceX would "begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately." Musk has since walked back his threat. "No petty social media fight between the president and a billionaire should jeopardize U.S. national security," Warren said. In addition to contingency plans for SpaceX, the senator asked for information regarding the impact on U.S. agencies' satellite communications if Musk's Starlink is turned off. Additionally, she asked Rubio to provide any analysis that the Trump administration has conducted "of its authorities and options under the Defense Production Act to address vendor lock, monopolies, or contractor refusal to meet national security needs." She asked to receive answers to her questions by June 14, whether through a classified briefing or preferably a public response that can be released to Congress and the public, the letter said. Warren has been a vocal opponent of Musk and his involvement in the Trump administration. Last week, she released a report that outlines instances her office has found of Musk benefiting from it. Musk's rocket company has received tens of billions of dollars from the federal government over the last decade, including $3.8 billion in the 2024 fiscal year alone, according to federal records. The bulk of those federal grants are from NASA, which has paid SpaceX billions over the last decade to ferry astronauts and supplies to and from the International Space Station. The agency has also awarded SpaceX upwards of $2 billion in recent years to design and build a lunar lander, as part of NASA's Artemis program, which aims to return humans to the moon for the first time in a half-century. While the public spat appears to have cooled somewhat, Mr. Trump told NBC News' Kristen Welker in a phone interview on Saturday that he has no plans to make up with the mega-billionaire. "I'm too busy doing other things," Trump continued. "You know, I won an election in a landslide. I gave him a lot of breaks, long before this happened, I gave him breaks in my first administration, and saved his life in my first administration, I have no intention of speaking to him." When asked by a reporter Friday if he's still considering rolling back subsidies to Musk as a money-saving move, Mr. Trump suggested he was open to it. "He's got a lot of money, he gets a lot of subsidy. So we'll take a look at that," the president said on Air Force One. "Only if it's fair for him and for the country. I would certainly think about it, but it has to be fair." This isn't the first time the president has needled Musk over his companies' federal subsidies. In a 2022 feud, Mr. Trump claimed Musk would be "worthless" without hefty subsidies for "electric cars that don't drive long enough" and "rocketships to nowhere." The two mended their relationship then and Musk spent hundreds of millions to help elect Mr. Trump in 2024. The billionaire went on to lead the Trump White House's cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency until last week. contributed to this report.
