Some things you can't unsee

And here's a real shot:

Who's your friend?

September 10: kick-off meeting of Charlestown Climate Resilience Commission

URI biologist to lead $4 million NSF grant to advance wetland restoration in Rhode Island and Louisiana

Funding supports Ying Zhang’s project to advance wetland resilience across U.S. coastal systems

Kristen Curry 

Students in Ying Zhang’s lab conduct field
sampling at Succotash Marsh in South Kingstown
this summer, part of the groundwork
assessing biomarkers in marsh
monitoring. (URI Photo / Y. Zhang)

Ying Zhang, professor of cell and molecular biology at the University of Rhode Island, recently received a $4 million grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation to co-lead a collaboration with Louisiana State University to improve coastal wetland management in both states.

A computational biologist, Zhang, of South Kingstown, brings to the project a background that includes computer science and expertise in microbial diversity and molecular ecology. 

Now she’ll bring that interdisciplinary background to lead this new project at URI, with Hui Zhou in URI’s Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, Erin Peck in URI’s Graduate School of Oceanography, and colleagues at the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management and Roger Williams University. 

Zhang’s diverse training gives her a unique perspective on solving problems across traditional disciplinary boundaries, she said.

The Ecological-Economic Collaboratory for Advancing coastal wetland REstoration and REsilience (EcoCARE) project addresses the need for expanded research on coastal wetland restoration in both regions. A team of scientists, practitioners, policy experts, and stakeholders from Rhode Island and Louisiana will develop innovative methods in AI-enhanced modeling, wetland valuation, molecular biomonitoring, and restoration financing.

Although Zhang has led previous NSF grant-funded initiatives, including a CAREER award and an EPSCoR fellowship, she is now leading the multi-institutional EPSCoR project for the first time under the Focused Collaborations Program. She has been meeting with the team since last fall and is looking forward to the work getting underway.

Almost All Plant-Based Meat Alternatives Contain Mycotoxins

Risks attached to meat substitutes

By Cranfield University

Plant-based meats and drinks are often marketed as modern alternatives to traditional animal products, but many still rely on ingredients that face an age-old food safety problem: mold. A new study found naturally occurring fungal toxins known as mycotoxins in every one of 212 plant-based products tested in the UK.

Researchers detected 19 different mycotoxins across plant-based meat alternatives and beverages, with some products containing several at once. The study, led by the University of Parma in Italy and coauthored by Cranfield University, examined everything from vegan burgers, sausages, and chicken-style pieces to oat, almond, and soy drinks.

Mycotoxin exposure can lead to health concerns

Mycotoxins are especially common in foods made from plants because their raw ingredients, including grains, legumes, and seeds, can be exposed to mold during growing, harvesting, or storage.

The research team found that mycotoxin levels in the UK products they tested were below recommended EU guideline levels, a sign of the strong quality standards used by the UK food industry.

However, previous studies have shown that frequent consumption of even low levels of mycotoxins can increase overall exposure over time and may raise health concerns. Eating these products individually is unlikely to cause problems, but a diet based entirely on foods made from plants could lead to cumulative mycotoxin exposure if not properly managed. In very serious cases, exposure to mycotoxins can contribute to health problems such as liver and kidney damage, immune system suppression, and cancer.

Trump screws Rhode Island again by denying FEMA funding to cover state costs for historic blizzard

McKee calls FEMA’s denial of Rhode Island’s blizzard relief request ‘a new low’

By Christopher Shea, Rhode Island Current

Gov. Dan McKee and Rhode Island’s congressional delegation are blasting the Trump administration after the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) again rejected the state’s request for $19 million to cover recovery costs associated with February’s historic blizzard.

McKee’s office appealed FEMA’s initial denial of the state’s April request for funding relief  under the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act on July 15. The law allows governors to either request support for disasters caused by severe weather or if “the situation is beyond the capability of the state.”

In a letter to McKee on Wednesday, FEMA Administrator Cameron Hamilton wrote the agency reviewed Rhode Island’s initial request and appeal only to determine financial aid was not warranted for the hurricane-strength blizzard that buried the state in over 3 feet of snow.

Hamilton’s letter did not explain why Rhode Island failed to meet the criteria for federal aid. But in a post on X around 5 p.m. Wednesday, he elaborated on the denial, which also applied to similar requests from New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

“Winter weather is not new to the Northeast,” Hamilton wrote. “Federal disaster aid is not a backstop for routine state & local budgeting.”

South County Democrats: Beware of DINOs on the Sept. 9 Primary ballot

The League of RI Businesses is a wolf in sheep’s clothing

An oped from Bill Ibelle

There’s a new, big-money player on the Rhode Island political stage that’s targeting many of our finest environmental legislators because they also support gun control.

The League of RI Businesses is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, posing as a moderate, bipartisan, pro-business organization, when in fact, it was created last year specifically to knock off legislators who voted for a ban on assault weapons.

So if you feel safer knowing the guy down the street has an assault rifle hanging in his living room gun rack, then by all means, vote for a League-endorsed candidate. (listed below).

The League’s founder, David Levesque, knows that most Rhode Islanders don’t believe a deer hunter needs to pump out 60 rounds a minute to bag a doe. 

So Levesque and his cohorts rarely mention assault weapons when explaining why the League has targeted so many fine legislators. Instead, in an interview with Ocean State Media, he said that the League is merely targeting legislators who “fail to support the Constitution.” Only when pressed repeatedly by an interviewer does he concede that he’s referring exclusively to the Second Amendment—the right to bear arms.

Apparently, the League believes that James Madison had assault weapons in mind when he introduced the amendment to Congress in 1789. Never mind that an assault rifle, at that time, was a musket, a ramrod, a powder pouch, and a lead ball that took nearly a minute to load and, because it had no rifling, had the accuracy of a pea shooter.

He’s also against renewable energy because it’s unprofitable, doesn’t work, and has driven up electric rates by 27 percent — all untrue. What is true is that he revealed his true colors when he claimed that if we eliminated all state wind and solar programs, “we could literally put almost $30 million a month back in the hands of Rhode Island businesses.” Translation: The heck with our children’s future, we want bigger profits now.

Levesque insists that his group wants “middle-of-the-road, common-sense people” in office. This seems just a wee bit hard to believe, given that Levesque is a vocal Trump supporter who, when asked by the Providence Journal about our president’s second term, said, “I think it’s going awesome.”

So if ICE raids make you feel safer; if you think the war with Iran is the best use of $37 billion in taxpayer money; if you believe the skyrocketing price of oil is the path to affordability; and if you thrill at the grade-school insults our leader routinely hurls at our foreign allies—then by all means, take the League’s advice on who to vote for.

If you’re still not convinced that this organization is poison, consider the League’s subversion of the state’s campaign finance laws. To get around the state’s $2,000 limit on individual donations, they formed 40 separate Political Action Committees (PACs). In an interview with Channel 12, Levesque boasted that “What we did is extraordinary. It’s never been done before. We opened more PACs than anybody’s ever done [in Rhode Island]. This will allow us to give $80,000 to an individual candidate. There’s no other organization in the state of Rhode Island that can put that kind of money into a candidate’s hands.”

Just to be clear, the state donation limit is $2,000 and the League says its armada of 40 PACs makes it legal to give $80,000.

If you would like to reduce the influence of money in state politics, you might want to vote against the candidates the League is financing.

Here is a list of incumbents the League has targeted and the candidates it is backing to unseat them:

The League also endorsed nine incumbents: John Brien, Elaine Morgan, Leonidas Raptiakis, Patrick Maloney, Gregory Constantino, Marie Hopkins, Paul Santucci, Stephano Famiglietti, and six candidates running for open seats:

 

New names for things under Donald Trump's renaming things campaign

How journalism should work

COVID Infections Are Surging Again

Vaccines and prudent action still the best response

By Nick Landekic, contributing writer, RINewsToday

Yes, COVID is still a thing. As expected, we are experiencing the now predictable summer wave, the 13^th surge since the start of the pandemic. Right now it’s estimated 3.4 million people are becoming infected every week and 800 to 1,500 are dying of COVID every week, and infections are climbing fast. The National Wastewater Scan shows high and growing levels of COVID in every participating state.

What’s been happening with COVID?

COVID has fallen into a now more-or-less predictable pattern of surging twice a year, in the summer and winter.

Republican Primary pits two Muy MAGA dudes against each other for the chance to challenge Rep. Seth Magaziner

Insurrectionist versus anti-vaxxer? What a choice!

By Alexander Castro, Rhode Island Current

WJAR NBC 10’s Gene Valicenti, left, moderates the
 first and last debate between the two Republican
candidates in the 2nd Congressional District race on
Friday at the station’s Cranston studio. At center is
Dr. Stephen Skoly. At right is Vic Mellor.
(Photo courtesy of WJAR NBC10)

With just days to go before the September 9 primary, the two Republican candidates hoping to seize Rhode Island’s 2nd Congressional District seat in November met for their first, and last, debate at WJAR NBC 10’s Cranston studio on Friday afternoon.

Vic Mellor, 56, and Dr. Stephen Skoly, 70, joined moderator Gene Valicenti to tape a roughly half-hour debate that saw them mostly abstain from the acrimony that has characterized the race over the summer.

They instead focused on policy.

Skoly, an oral surgeon who lives in East Greenwich, and Mellor, a Warwick entrepreneur and former Marine, overlapped on numerous points, including their mutual distaste for the socialist influence both framed as pervading the Democratic party.

They divided along a simple line: Who better embodies MAGA, and who can better wield its principles to electoral success in Rhode Island?

Valicenti asked Mellor, who has acknowledged his participation in the Jan. 6 march on the Capitol, “You’re an unabashed MAGA supporter. So is Dr. Skoly not MAGA enough for you?”

“No, he’s not MAGA enough for me,” Mellor replied.

“I voted for Trump three times. I’m a Republican,” Skoly said. “I agree with a lot of his concepts and a lot of his policies.”

Donald Trump was elected to “secure our borders, to strengthen our military, to have the rule of law, and have law and order restored,” Skoly said.

“And what was he not elected to do?” Valicenti asked. “Destroy parts of the White House, build a ballroom, put up a ceremonial arch, put his name on the Kennedy Center? What do you disagree with?

“I don’t have enough information on that,” Skoly said.

“On those three? You read the news,” Valicenti replied.

Real men don't bike

How cars became the symbol of American manhood

Jessica Kutz

This story was originally reported by Jessica Kutz of The 19th. Meet Jessica and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.

“Freedom doesn’t ring, it revs!” 

That was the tagline of the first-ever IndyCar street race held in Washington, D.C., over the weekend.

From UFC fighters knocking each other out on the White House lawn to ongoing fitness face-offs between Cabinet leaders, the Freedom 250 Grand Prix represents the latest high-profile political theater celebrating a pastime associated with a very specific type of masculinity. 

While Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have become the agency heads most known for extolling a macho-man image, it’s Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy — a participant in the “Pete and Bobby [push-up and pull-up] challenge” at an airport — who played a key role in bringing the grand prix to D.C. 

Whether turning the National Mall into a race track or announcing plans to defund “DEI bike lanes,” Duffy has leaned into a nostalgia-fueled lens of masculinity via car culture.  

In some ways, this is nothing new. Since cars were invented, they’ve been designed with men in mind, according to Nicole Roach, co-founder of Women in Urbanism, Canada. Even the way cars have been tested for safety has centered on men.

Since the 1960s, car companies, particularly those promoting fast cars or big trucks, have tailored their advertising to the male ego, according to Roach. “They’ve really used the messaging of freedom, domination over the environment, strength, power, speed,” to appeal to men, she said. 

Stephen Miller Embodies the Dark Fascist Heart of Trump’s White House

Trump's Goebbels

Arnold R. Isaacs for Common Dreams   

The video is not long, just 16 minutes and 25 seconds. But in that short time it provides a remarkable capsule of the Trump administration’s ongoing crusade against its critics. In one chilling moment after another, it captures the mentality of that campaign; its content, tone, and style; and its complete disregard for factual accuracy.

The video, taped on July 16, records the words of Stephen Miller, President Donald Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy and Homeland Security adviser, addressing a multinational audience assembled at the State Department for the opening session of meeting convened by Secretary of State Marco Rubio under the title “Ministerial on the Resurgence of Political Terrorism.” In his welcoming address, Rubio defined the meeting’s focus: “far-left political terrorism” that he declared has been a “blind spot” in US counterterrorism doctrine, but would now be directly in the government’s sights.

Following Rubio to the podium, Miller delivered various—and sometimes unsettling—amplifications on that theme. 

After an opening passage declaring that under President Trump’s leadership, “We have taken the necessary and essential action of formally recognizing left-wing violence as a form of political terrorism that is a direct threat to our national security and the survival of our republican form of government,” Miller went on to proclaim that “for the first time in American history,” all US law enforcement and intelligence agencies are working together “to disrupt, identify, defund, debank, arrest, and prosecute these political terrorists that are operating in our country.” 

Then, in one of many questionable passages, he went on with an implied suggestion that the authorities should reject suspected terrorists’ claims of their legal rights. Miller put it this way:

One of the hallmarks of left-wing violence and terrorism is its completely pretextual and disingenuous appeal to civil liberties in an effort to shield its own violence. This is the tactic that the left always uses to try to protect itself from facing criminal punishment. It is essential that we are wise enough and strong enough to understand that these appeals must fall on deaf ears. When the leftist, who does not believe in freedom, who does not believe in civil rights, who does not believe in any ordered notion of justice, protests that we are violating his rights, understand that he is lying to try to persuade people who are not closely following the political scene that some injustice has been perpetrated against him.

Trump finds new enemy to attack: cherry trees in Washington, DC

 

And at the Kennedy Center: 

A real and very chilling post from the US Department of Homeland Security