Trump sells out

Trump adds Norway to his enemies' list and wants to ban immigrants from Norway (around 400 a year)

Trump's new position on Norway:

Trump's former position on Norway:

My position on what Trump thinks:

Favorite No Kings rally sign

Scientists Say the Secret to a Happier, Healthier Society May Begin in Childhood

How children are raised may matter for social well-being worldwide

By University of Nottingham

Psychiatric professional Mary Trump, Donald Trump's
niece, blames Trump's father for son's mental problems

At home, a child seeking comfort depends on a caregiver’s response, while time for free play offers room to explore. A University of Nottingham-led study linked these experiences, along with a positive emotional atmosphere at home, to well-being years later. 

Positive childhood experiences were generally stronger predictors of adult well-being than the absence of negative ones, suggesting that avoiding harm captures only part of what matters.

Across the United Kingdom, the United States, and Japan, adults’ reports of supportive childhood experiences were associated with better health, greater happiness and life satisfaction, and lower anxiety. 

The connections extended to how people felt about those around them, including their satisfaction with social relationships, sense of belonging in their neighborhoods, and trust in others. Published in the Journal of Happiness Studies, the findings were consistent across substantial cultural differences and remained statistically significant after accounting for demographic factors such as income and education.

Plea from a father who lost his 5 year old daughter to flu

Sometimes it’s not ‘just the flu’

Zachary Yaksich

Alana Yaksich. Photo courtesy of JoAnna Yaksich

In 2003, my life was completely shattered. My daughter, Alana, was 5½ years old when she died from complications of influenza.

My family and children had received all of their childhood vaccinations on schedule and as recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), but in 2003, the age recommendation for influenza vaccination was 6 months through 59 months. 

Alana was older than that. She had not received a flu vaccine, nor had her pediatrician ever recommended one to us or explained the dangers that influenza could pose to a child.

Until Alana died, I had no idea that the flu could kill. Like so many people, I thought of influenza as a miserable but relatively routine illness—something that would make you feel awful for a few days and then eventually pass. I was wrong. It often is that way, but far too often for grieving parents and families, it can be much worse.

A new study changes the conversation

A recently published study in the American Academy of Pediatrics journal Pediatrics, titled “Influenza Vaccine Effectiveness Against Pediatric Death in the United States: 2016–2025,” provides some of the most compelling evidence yet about what influenza vaccination can mean for children.

Conducted by CDC researchers, the study examined pediatric influenza deaths in the United States over nearly a decade. Its conclusion deserves the attention of every parent: Influenza vaccination reduced the risk of fatal influenza among children with and without known underlying medical conditions. Influenza vaccine was 80% effective in preventing deaths overall, with 77% among children with underlying medical conditions and 87% among children without such conditions.

Why is this more important than ever?

The internet and social media have made it easy for misinformation to spread. People can find almost anything online to reinforce what they already believe, including information that contradicts decades of scientific evidence.

If these horrible billionaires control everything we see and hear in the media and on social media, they won’t have to spend a penny on elections to keep their candidates in power.

US Billionaires Compete for ‘Most Awful Human Being’ Award

Dean Baker in Beat the Press

Our billionaires seem to be in a competition for most awful human being alive. We have Larry Ellison, along with son, taking over CBS and immediately destroying its prized news show, 60 Minutes. They appointed Bari Weiss, a right-wing apparatchik, to oversee CBS’s entire news operation. She has immediately sought to make the news more Trump-friendly. 

This has led to many reporters being fired and threats to others to make their reporting toe the Trump line or risk being fired. Many of the network’s longest-serving reporters just quit.

The fun doesn’t stop here. The Ellison clique is also getting control of CNN through Paramount’s takeover of Warner Bros. Presumably we can look forward to more Trump-friendly reporting there also.

To be clear, neither of these networks was a paragon of objective reporting before the Ellison family takeover. Both networks regularly marginalized and belittled progressives in the US and around the world. But they did at least have an ostensible commitment to objectivity, unlike, say, Fox News.

Then we have Mark Zuckerberg, who seems to view the huge Meta social media platforms as important mechanisms for pushing his political agenda. Last Saturday, the Instagram site for the No Kings march went down for four hours, exactly when it was being most widely used. Meta claimed there was no political motive; it was just incompetence.

We might be more inclined to accept the incompetence story if there wasn’t a comparable picture in Brazil in the lead-up to its presidential election. Lula, the incumbent president, is locked in a tight race with Flavio Bolsanaro, a right-winger who is openly allied with Donald Trump. It seems that the sites of supporters of Lula and his supporters have repeatedly run into the same sort of technical difficulties with Meta.

Then we go to everyone’s favorite evil billionaire, Elon Musk. Musk bought Twitter with the explicit intention of using it as a vehicle to support his politics. He not only opened the gates to all sorts of racist, sexist, and harassing material; he has throttled the accounts of many progressives so that their comments are less widely viewed.

Trump says high prices for gas, diesel and heating oil are great because “We’re making a freaking fortune”

Question for Trump: who is this “We” you’re talking about?

Olivia Rosane for Common Dreams

Add "We're making a freakin' fortune" to this list

If there was any doubt, Donald Trump made it very clear Saturday evening that he cares more about wealthy oil and gas executives than ordinary people.

During a midterm campaign rally in Perry, Georgia, Trump acknowledged the high price of oil and gas, but said that the US fossil fuel industry was “making hundreds of billions of dollars.”

His advisers, he told the crowd, had instructed him not to mention this “because people are paying a little higher,” he said in a condescending voice. “That number’s going to come way down,” he continued, “but what we’ve done for this country, we’re making money like this country has never made before,” seemingly conflating the fortunes of wealthy oil and gas companies with the US as a whole.

“Trump to people who want lower gas prices: ‘Fuck you, I’m making money!’” Melanie D’Arrigo, the executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, posted on social media. “Just run this as an ad.”

Nation writer Jeet Heer made a similar point, saying that Trump’s remarks were an “amazing closing argument—for the Democrats. They just need to run this clip.”

Drop Site News reporter Ryan Grim noted the tone of Trump’s voice.

“Trump here does a widdle baby voice to mock people who are complaining about high gas prices, explaining that the oil and gas industry is making ‘hundreds of billions, trillions,’” Grim wrote on social media. “It’s never been clearer how much he hates the people who voted for him.”

Gas prices for Dummies

New data shows Charlestown is still unaffordable

You need an annual income of $216,356 to afford a median-priced single-family home

HousingWorksRI factbooks - CLICK HERE.

And there's this from GoLocal with a slightly higher median home price:

Researchers Discover What Reading for Pleasure May Be Doing to Your Brain

If you love to read, reading will love you back

By University of Cambridge

EDITOR'S NOTE: My favorite recent new
book read for pleasure. - Will Collette

Reading for pleasure may do far more than provide entertainment. A scientific review published in Psychological Medicine links the habit to better mental health, stronger cognitive abilities, and a lower risk of dementia. Research also suggests that reading is associated with measurable differences in brain structure, although scientists are still investigating whether reading directly causes these changes.

Researchers from the University of Cambridge and The Queen’s Reading Room examined evidence spanning childhood through old age. Their findings suggest that reading for enjoyment, whether alone or with others, may support brain health in several ways, with some benefits potentially appearing after just a few minutes.

Reading Early in Life Is Linked to Better Brain Development

Some of the strongest evidence comes from a study involving more than 10,000 young people. Children who began reading for pleasure at an early age tended to perform better on tests of attention, memory, and executive function, the mental abilities involved in planning, decision-making, and controlling behavior. They also showed stronger academic performance, fewer mental health problems, healthier sleep habits, and less screen time.

Reading is closely associated with literacy development, but its relationship with learning extends to mathematics. Both activities rely on overlapping cognitive processes, including working memory, language comprehension, and executive control. Despite these potential advantages, surveys indicate that recreational reading among children and teenagers has fallen to its lowest recorded levels, particularly among adolescent boys and children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Reading may also provide psychological benefits throughout adulthood. Surveys associate reading for enjoyment with lower stress, greater relaxation, stronger empathy, and more openness to different perspectives. In one survey, nearly two in five adults (38%) identified reading as their preferred way to unwind.

A neuroscience study commissioned by The Queen’s Reading Room in 2024 reported that just five minutes of reading fiction could reduce stress by up to 20%. The research also identified improvements in concentration and problem-solving, alongside reduced feelings of loneliness. These results suggest that even brief reading sessions may offer benefits, although the size and persistence of those effects require further investigation.

Head-to-head comparison of three mRNA vaccines reveals differences in their stability in human blood

mRNA vaccine development to fight cancer

By Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute

Edited by Sadie Harley, reviewed by Robert Egan

Photo by Spencer Davis on Unsplash

A study by Australian researchers compared three mRNA-LNP vaccine platforms in human blood samples, generating findings that could advance cancer treatment and vaccine design.

mRNA-lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) transformed the way that vaccines are delivered to humans when they became widely used during the COVID-19 pandemic.

mRNA-LNPs are tiny parcels, ~800 times smaller than the width of a human hair, made of fatty acids (lipids) and containing cargo (messenger RNA) that needs to be delivered inside the body to generate a treatment response (for example, immunity to a virus).

Today, researchers around the world are investigating mRNA-LNPs as candidates for "cancer vaccines" that would deliver mRNA cargo to boost the patient's immune system and empower it to kill cancer more effectively.

CVS workers protest in Wakefield against unsafe working conditions

“We’re SICK of CVS Executives!” As flu season hits, Rhode Island pharmacy professionals protest unsafe working conditions at CVS

Steve Ahlquist

As flu season develops, members of The Pharmacy Guild/IAM working at CVS Pharmacies in Rhode Island protested on October 23 outside the Wakefield CVS over unsafe working conditions. The action comes as CVS has repeatedly ignored frontline pharmacy professionals and refused to bargain in good faith over a first union contract.

Here’s the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=185siOaKnDM

“We’re here because we’re sick of CVS executives putting profits over people,” said Chris Eggeman, a Pharmacist at the Wakefield CVS. “We’re sick of our professional concerns being ignored while pharmacy professionals are expected to keep up with overwhelming workloads and too few resources. We’re sick of CVS executives trying to bust the union by failing to bargain in good faith and illegally withholding raises we’re entitled to.

“We have a message for CEO David Joyner and other CVS executives: bargain in good faith, and promptly settle a first contract that gives pharmacy professionals the resources we need.”

“I am a member of the bargaining committee. We’re here because we’re sick of CVS executives putting profits over people,” said Chris Desrochers, Pharmacy technician at the Wakefield CVS and a member of the Pharmacy Guild. “We’re sick of our professional concerns being ignored while pharmacy professionals are expected to keep up with overwhelming workloads with too few resources. Pharmacy professionals take our responsibilities seriously and work hard to support our patients and our pharmacies. But staffing is stretched, and workloads keep growing. Pharmacy professionals need the time, staffing, and resources to do their jobs well and meet the high standards they set for themselves.

“That’s why we’ve been speaking up about working conditions. CVS executives need to listen to the people who do this work every day and address our concerns.

Bonnita Van Slyke AND Ruth Platner should NOT be re-elected

The CCA’s Toxic Twins need to be retired from Charlestown politics

By Will Collette

Like I said, conjoined twins

The Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) paints itself as Charlestown’s savior and cites Town Council member Bonnita Van Slyke and Planning Commission commissar Ruth Platner as the real heroes. 

These conjoined toxic twins have been almost inseparable for the past ten years, though Platner is the dominant partner while Van Slyke’s served as Platner’s puppet.

Both are up for re-election on November 3 and hopefully both will lose their seats.

The CCA’s decade-long rule over Charlestown, ended in 2022 when they were trounced by the slate of candidates under the Charlestown Residents United (CRU), was marked by corrupt land deals, financial mismanagement, seemingly endless fake threats to the town’s existence, town government secrecy and cover-ups, and constant rancor.

Platner and her dog’s body Van Slyke were at the heart of just about all of Charlestown’s CCA-inflicted wounds.

This duo has been the driving force behind the CCA policies that voters finally repudiated in 2022. I compiled a list of articles (below, near the bottom) that gives you more detail on all the myriad reasons why the CCA, and Van Slyke and Platner in particular have been bad for Charlestown. 

I'm voting YES on Charlestown Question 7

But today, as many of you ponder early voting or mail-in ballot decisions or as you pore over contradictory mailers, here’s another reason to reject the CCA and its leaders Platner and Van Slyke.

That’s the CCA’s urgent plea to voters to reject Charlestown Question 7 which would change the staggered term of office for members of the Planning Commission from 6 years to 4. You might ask, “Who cares?”

Here’s why. Ever since Ruth Platner was named to the Planning Commission in 1997, she has campaigned to block virtually all home building in Charlestown. When she elbowed the respected late Bob Rohm out of the Planning Commission chair, she turned the Planning Commission into the place where projects go to die.

She did it by using the clock to kill projects. Now she desperately wants to maintain the six-year terms, explaining that “Long, staggered terms let the same commissioners review a large development through from start to finish” urging voters to vote NO to Charlestown Question 7. Naturally, I'm voting YES.

Platner expects commissioners to ponder development projects for as long as six years. No wonder so many projects go nowhere when the funding or investment disappears as Platner talks projects to death.

As one Planning Commission observer once told me, it’s remarkable that Platner and her Planning sidekick Frances Topping can talk for three hours straight at Commission meetings and say nothing.

Under Platner, any project applicant could look forward to years of hell and an ultimate denial, unless they acceded to Platner’s demands on matters as trivial as the color of roof shingles or switch plates on electrical outlets. It helped if the applicant made a substantial donation to one of Platner’s favored charities, such as the Charlestown Land Trust.

By 2000, Platner’s policies succeeded in causing Charlestown population to stagnate and, as she admits in the town Comprehensive Plan, even to decline, a pattern that continues today. She covered that up by cooking Census data to make the claim that growth in Charlestown actually exceeded the rest of Rhode Island, making it unfair for the state to insist the town build more affordable housing.

She cooked the data by choosing 1970 as the start date, which allowed her to use the period of 1970 to 1999 where population grew rapidly to offset the stagnant growth period of 2000 to the present brought about by her policies.

By 2023, alarm bells were sounding about Platner’s obstinate refusal to allow housing for families as reported by Alex Nunes on public radio: In Charlestown, limited progress and lots of discord on affordable housing - TPR: The Public's Radio.

We have no affordable housing for town employees, the children of existing residents or the people who come into town to work to clean our homes, mow the lawns, take out the trash, or change diapers. Those folks are expected to be out of town by sundown. Charlestown has become in the classic sense, a “Sundown Town.”

So, the Planning Commission needs six years to process an application. By sharp contrast, when Platner and Van Slyke want a project, whether its laying down tons of asphalt to build Faith LaBossiers’ ridiculous bike path in Ninigret Park or buying a piece of overpriced land from a CCA political donor or ally, they can operate at warp speed.

At last January 12’s Town Council meeting, we saw the CCA playbook for how to kill good projects.

Charlestown residents have long seen the derelict motel topping the moraine north of Route One just opposite the former Hitching Post, now Monahan's clam shack. It’s an eyesore as well as a waste of space, a tribute to the CCA’s anti-business attitudes.

Along comes the WARM Center, one of our area’s most venerable charities with a plan that would have warmed the heart of WARM’s founder, the late Rev. Jean Barry of Charlestown. (Jean and my wife Cathy served together for years on Charlestown’s Affordable Housing Commission.)

WARM wants to convert the derelict motel into affordable housing units by refurbishing the existing building, using the same footprint and making no additional demands on groundwater. They would continue helping residents with support services after they move in. By every measure, the perfect Smart Growth plan for affordable housing that even Ruth Platner should get behind.

Jean Barry’s successor Russ Partridge talked to Cathy and me about this project a few years ago and we loved it, becoming one of the first private major donors to the work.

All WARM asked for from Charlestown was a letter of support that they could use in their efforts to secure necessary state funding to make this important project happen.

Of course, Council President Deb Carney crafted such a letter and asked her colleagues to approve sending it. Given that this project really is a no-brainer on the facts and the merits, that letter should have immediately received unanimous approval.

But that’s not what happened. Council member Bonnie Van Slyke, clearly at the behest of her master Ruth Platner, raised issues with the letter of support. Van Slyke made a little speech where TWICE she voiced her support for the generic concept of affordable housing but questioned whether this project could get proper CRMC approval, implicitly challenging the competence of the WARM Center.

This is not WARM’s first rodeo – they’ve successfully carried out several major construction projects – and they know the steps that need to be done. Besides, the motion on the floor was a simple letter of support that highlighted Charlestown’s dire need for affordable housing not the details of the project.

But Van Slyke’s tactic of fogging the issue was enough to get Councilor Steve Stokes to decide to abstain even though he said he generally liked the project.

Van Slyke, despite her phony praise for affordable housing, voted NO. Deb and Craig Marr voted yes. Peter Slom recused himself and Stokes abstained. The motion to send the letter failed.

Van Slyke tried to pile on by insisting Ruth Platner be given the podium to speak to the issue, no doubt to raise even more phony issues about the project. Council President Carney slapped her down, noting that the motion had already been voted on, so discussion was over.

Under Robert’s Rules of Order, that meant that Platner needed to go back to her seat and STFU without being allowed to pile on or take a victory lap.

If you think I’m making this up, watch for yourself: here’s the LINK to the video of the meeting and the discussion starts about 90 minutes in.

But wait, there's more!

The letter of support story does have a happy end. Deb brought the letter back to the Council on January 26 where it was approved on a 3-1 vote. Van Slyke, implicitly on Platner's instructions, again voted NO to sending the letter of support for what is arguably a model for affordable housing. 

Van Slyke's claim of support for affordable housing is shown to be a lie. The Charlestown Citizens Alliance (CCA) remains unalterably opposed to affordable housing. Platner and the CCA paint this election as being about local control, but this incident shows what "local control" looks like under the CCA. More like Mississippi than Charlestown.

More reasons to oppose Platner, Van Slyke and the CCA slate

As promised, here’s that list of key reasons why you should not support the CCA and its candidates in this year’s General Election.

The CCA claims they cut Charlestown's property tax rate.
They lie. They controlled the Town Council from 2010 to 2022.
 See what happened in 2023 to the present after Charlestown
Residents United (CRU) kicked them out of office.
SOURCE: Charlestown Tax Assessor.

We’re still digging out from the CCA’s financial mess. Also click HERE to see how the new CRU Town Council started cleaning up this mess and HERE for a summary of the CCA’s financial messes.

Dirty Land Deals. Read about some of the worst – Tucker Estates, SPA-Gate, and Sawmill Pond.

They ran up the highest municipal government costs in the state: Progressive Charlestown: Charlestown has very high municipal costs, according to new report. The CRU fixed that.

They used secrecy in government to hide their incompetence

They regularly created fake emergencies to “prove” how good they were at protecting the town. For a list of those emeergencies, read THIS ARTICLE.

They favored rich, non-residents over full-time residents. Prime example: Blocking tax breaks for permanent residents

They banned residential wind power

The put out a deeply flawed and very late Comprehensive Plan: Platner submitted the plan to the state eight years late. It was full of weird ideas (e.g. Seniors should use Uber to overcome Charlestown’s lack of public transportation): Progressive Charlestown: Slyke of hand, Part 3: The Plan from Hell

The CCA consistently raised Charlestown’s tax rate, not lowered it as they claim: https://www.progressive-charlestown.com/2025/11/the-charlestown-town-council-december-2.html

CCA’s thoroughly compromised Town Administrator carried out the CCA's policies: Progressive Charlestown: CCA favorite, former Charlestown Town Administrator Mark Stankiewicz leaves the second job he’s held since leaving Charlestown in 2023.

Stanky made Van Slyke, Platner and the CCA look like idiots. They rose up to attack the Charlestown Residents United (CRU) newly elected Council majority for driving out such a talented guy. 

But, in fact, Stanky had already lined up the new job months before the election and didn't tell the CCA. He stuck around and milked the town for every last day of salary. Even after the details of Stanky's exit came out, Van Slyke still stuck to her story that he had been driven out. 

In case you’re wondering where Stankiewicz is, he’s back in his hometown of Stoughton where he’s doing weird YouTube appearances like this:

That's Stanky on the left. See if you can last through this entire video. I tried a few times but just couldn't stand it.

First Contact

Pete Hegseth is an idiot

They caved in the bottom so there's a hole where Antarctica used to be