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.
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.
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.
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 belittledprogressives 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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Do your elected officials support reproductive rights and
LGBTQ+ rights?
The Womex Project
The Bodily Freedom Forever Index (BFFI) is a voting guide to
provide transparency on where Rhode Island's political candidates stand on
issues of bodily freedom. Specifically, candidates were asked:
Do you
support reproductive rights?
Do you
support LGBT+ rights?
Local Races:
Key
FOR: The candidate believes in Bodily Freedom
Forever, including reproductive rights, the right to gender affirming care, and
the rights of LGBTQ+ people.
N/A: Information was not provided despite every
effort made.
MIXED: TWP Research Collective found conflicting
information and the candidate has not responded to the BFFI Survey to clarify.
AGAINST: The candidate does not believe in supporting
policy that recognizes the dignity of LGBTQ+ people and reproductive rights.
Want to feel happier? That “treat yourself” self-care
strategy may not help as much as you think. Happiness may be more about
connecting with other people.
“What a lot of research is now showing is that when we
orient ourselves outwards to other people, that leads to greater increases in
happiness,” says Katherine
Nelson-Coffey, an associate professor of psychology in the School of Social and Behavioral Sciences,
part of the New College of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences at Arizona State
University.
She says social connection is one of the strongest
predictors of happiness and well-being — in the moment and over time.
Activities that bring people together strengthen relationships and decrease
loneliness, which boosts well-being.
These findings come from a newer field called positive
psychology. Traditional psychology often focuses on overcoming problems such as
mental illness. But researchers like Nelson-Coffey and her husband, John Coffey, also an
associate professor of psychology at ASU, explore the other side of mental
health.
“There's a lot more to helping people than just getting them
back to a baseline, and that baseline does not constitute thriving,” Coffey
says.
Nelson-Coffey adds, “This is where positive psychology can
come in and offer insights for how we get people from that kind of zero point
(the absence of mental illness) to the thriving, flourishing good life.”
Coffey and Nelson-Coffey study people who are naturally very
happy and what they do. Then they assign groups of people to try those
activities and measure their emotions and well-being.
For this year's World Mental Health Day on Oct. 10, try out
five simple activities backed by positive psychology research to build more
happiness into your life.
1. Perform at least three small acts of kindness in one
day
Nelson-Coffey conducted a study that randomly assigned
people to do acts of kindness for others, the world or themselves, or do a
neutral control activity. She found that people who performed acts of kindness
for others or the world had a greater increase in positive emotions than those
who did acts for themselves or the neutral activity.
It’s been seven months since more than 30 leaders of the
“Make America Healthy Again” movement told the Trump
administration that they were losing patience, and demanded to see evidence
that the US Environmental
Protection Agency took seriously millions of Americans’ concerns about
toxic “forever
chemicals” and microplastics.
“MAHA is a mandate, not a marketing campaign,” the advocates
told EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, calling for an end to
both corporate-friendly loopholes in regulations and the “revolving door” that
saw chemical lobbyists hired by the agency tasked with regulating the industry.
But on Monday, the government watchdog Public Citizenrevealed
that 20 out of 21 environmental chemicals that the White House pledged to
address in its May 2025 “MAHA Report” have been subject to less, not more,
regulation under the Trump administration.
For nine of the chemicals, including the carcinogenic
herbicide atrazine,
mercury,
and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—often
called forever chemicals—President Donald Trump and his
top officials have loosened public health
regulations.
For 10 of them, the administration has taken none of the
action promised in the MAHA Report, and in the case of the cancer-causing
herbicide glyphosate,
Trump issued an executive order not only endorsing the use of the chemical but mandating
its production—a year after Bayer,
the parent company of the chemical firm that uses glyphosate in popular
weedkiller Roundup,
donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural campaign.
Public Citizen found just one substance, microplastics, for
which the administration has “taken any step toward regulation, and at best it
was a baby step”—announcing in April that microplastics may be considered for
regulation in the future and that the government would study measuring and
removing them from the human body.
