Tuesday, December 9, 2025
Rep. Spears holds community meeting, December 13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why we believe in crazy stuff
Flat Earth, spirits and conspiracy theories – experience can shape even extraordinary beliefs
 |
| A belief in ghosts could be a way to explain a strange experience while asleep. 'The Nightmare' by Johann Heinrich Füssli/ Wikimedia Commons |
On Feb. 22, 2020, “Mad” Mike Hughes towed a homemade rocket to the Mojave Desert and launched himself into the sky. His goal? To view the flatness of the Earth from space. This was his third attempt, and tragically it was fatal. Hughes crashed shortly after takeoff and died.
Hughes’ nickname – Mad Mike – might strike you as apt. Is it not crazy to risk your life fighting for a theory that was disproven in ancient Greece?
But Hughes’ conviction, though striking, is not unique. Across all recorded cultures, people have held strong beliefs that seemed to lack evidence in their favor – one might refer to them as “extraordinary beliefs.”
For evolutionary anthropologists like me, the ubiquity of these kinds of beliefs is a puzzle. Human brains evolved to form accurate models of the world. Most of the time, we do a pretty good job. So why do people also often adopt and develop beliefs that lack strong supporting evidence?
In a new review in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences, I propose a simple answer. People come to believe in flat Earth, spirits and microchipped vaccines for the same reasons they come to believe in anything else. Their experiences lead them to think those beliefs are true.
A cure for cancer at hand...unless Trump and Bobby Jr. block it
Scientists Close In on a Universal Cancer Vaccine
By University of Massachusetts Amherst
“By engineering these nanoparticles to activate the immune
system via multi-pathway activation that combines with cancer-specific
antigens, we can prevent tumor growth with remarkable survival rates,” says
Prabhani Atukorale, assistant professor of biomedical engineering in the Riccio
College of Engineering at UMass Amherst and corresponding author on the paper.
Atukorale’s earlier
work found that her nanoparticle-based drug design could shrink or
eliminate existing tumors in mice. The new results reveal that the same
technology also works as a preventative strategy.
How to win elections and influence the State House? Right-wing League of RI Businesses has a plan.
Pro-gun business PAC targets local Dems Tina Spears and Alana DiMario
By Nancy Lavin, Rhode Island Current
 |
| The League of RI Businesses organized a fundraiser wine tasting at Gasbarro’s Wines on Federal Hill in Providence on Wednesday, Nov. 19, 2025. From left, John Loughlin, a Republican candidate for lieutenant governor; Laura Turini, a Democratic candidate for state Senate District 35; David Levesque, co-founder of The League; Leah Boisclair, a Democratic candidate for House District 36; and Mark Mesrobian, a Democratic candidate for Senate District 36. (Photo by Michael Salerno/Rhode Island Current) |
David Levesque took the message to heart.
“If it wasn’t for the Speaker sitting in that conference room six or seven months ago, telling us ‘you need to be organized, you need to do this for the long fight,’ we probably wouldn’t be here now,” Levesque, a Narragansett resident and owner of Brewed Awakenings coffee houses, said in a recent interview.
Levesque got to work. He revived a dormant political action committee started during the pandemic to “fight against all the ridiculous rules and laws.” He made a website, registered the 501(c)4 with the Rhode Island Department of State, held fundraisers, and started to recruit 2026 state legislative candidates.
The pièce de résistance: a string of 40 political action committees — one statewide and one for every city and town in Rhode Island — allowing The League of RI Businesses to circumvent the $2,000-per-candidate annual campaign donation limit set by state law.
“With 40 PACs aligned in mission, The League has the capacity to direct up to $1 million annually toward supporting new, common-sense candidates and challenging extremist incumbents,” the business group boasted in a Nov. 17 press release.
Monday, December 8, 2025
The Westerly School Committee is caught in a bigoted, Christian nationalist time loop
A small number of loud bigots (and at least one school committee member) pound away at the rights of transgender, gender-diverse, and transitioning students.
From the amount of time I spend attending and covering the Westerly School Committee and hearing the nonstop anti-transgender rhetoric, one might think that this is somehow a major issue in the town. The best I can tell? It’s not.
Instead, a small number of Christian nationalist bigots, chief among them Westerly resident Robert Chiaradio, cycle through the same litany of imagined grievances like a skipping record. Chiaradio, I think, gets so much airplay because one of the members of the Westerly School Committee, Lori Wycall, keeps adding agenda items to the meeting with the intent of somehow circumventing Rhode Island state law and opening the door to abusing the rights of transgender students.
To understand what follows, you need to know that at the
November 19 Westerly School Committee meeting, the minutes of the November 5
meeting were amended so that quotation marks were placed around the term
“biological males” as used by Robert Chiaradio during his comments. This was
done because the term is demeaning to trans people and has no scientific
meaning. [See this footnote.1] Chiaradio opposed the quotation marks.
Robert Chiaradio: A speaker asked this body to
amend the minutes of the November 5 meeting by placing quotation marks around
the term “biological male” as I used it at that meeting to describe males who
are confused about their sexual identities. The speaker deemed the term
derogatory.
I ask anyone in this room with a modicum of common sense,
what is derogatory about this term - “biological male” - as used in reference
to the above-mentioned population?
Is it unpopular with some people? Yes, it is.
Does it describe the group in a manner in which it doesn’t
wish to be described, or those who support it don’t wish it to be described?
Yes.
Does it belittle, diminish, or disparage anyone in the
group, or show a critical or disrespectful attitude toward anyone in this
group? No, it does not.
The term is truthful, honest, and sincere to all
populations. I submit to you that calling males identifying as females,
“females,” belittles and diminishes real, honest-to-goodness females and
disrespects them. That’s what gets lost in all of this. And your desire to
minimize and manipulate the truth. Not only are people like myself (who, like
it or not, are truth-tellers) disparaged, lied about, threatened, et
cetera (which I don’t care about), but our real females, Westerly’s
real girls, are diminished and marginalized, as was the case in 2024 … where a
“biological male” played against Westerly’s girls - an incident that this
superintendent and many in power continue to deny.
Later in the minutes of the November 19 meeting, during the
consent agenda, Mr. Killam, in true gutless fashion, I might add, made a motion
to amend the November 5 minutes to, as the speaker requested, place quotation
marks around the term “biological male.” Without Mrs. Wycall and Mr. Jackson,
the motion passed five-to-nothing.
Ms. Dunn even said, We will do our best not to reinforce
negative language.” Negative language? I ask you, what is negative, Ms. Dunn,
about the term “biological male” being used to describe males who are confused
with their sexual identities? Is it better to affirm a lie and call them
females? There is only one way to describe them, and that is the truthful way,
but the majority of this committee and its superintendent have an aversion to
truth, and have for at least the last five plus years. To you, it’s not the
truth that matters. It’s not the law that matters. It’s your agenda that
matters. I’m not surprised at Ms. Goathals or Ms. Dunn or even Mr. Ober, but
Mr. Nero, you’re just a flat-out disappointment who’s afraid to do the right
thing.
Mr. Killam, I cannot figure you out. I think your heart is
in the right place, but you lack courage. You’re a pleaser. You’re not a
leader. You actually amended the minutes because you didn’t want this committee
associated with a truthful term. What is derogatory about the truth? Truth is
not subjective; it is not malleable. Truth is not debatable. Truth is absolute.
It is objective. It is immutable and irrefutable. It’s not my truth or your
truth, but the truth. If you people up there on the dais care about the
population being discussed here, you will stop affirming this lie and help them
get the mental health counseling they need, like I am doing. You know what the
truth is, but the truth finishes a distant third with this crew, behind agenda
fulfillment and cowardice. Shame on those of you who perpetuate this lie. Thank
you.
Committee Chair Leslie Dunn: Is there anyone
else who would like to address the committee? Seeing none, I will ask if
committee members wish to respond.
Committeemember Timothy Killam: Okay, so first
of all, let’s talk a couple things... I made the motion to [put the term] in
quotes because it was [Robert Chiaradio’s] statement - that’s what the
discussion was.
If you’re going to ask me if I feel that the term
“biological male” or “biological female” is derogatory, my answer is “No, it is
not.” And if you actually dig deeper, as I did today, you kind of end up in a
rabbit hole. I went to the Rhode Island Department of Education (RIDE)’s
guidance on transgender and gender nonconforming students - I know that’s a
whole other battle - but in numerous places, RIDE lists students as “biological
male” or “biological female.” It’s just a term our department of ed uses, so I
don’t think it’s derogatory.
It may be used in a derogatory manner in some instances, but
the overall term “biological male or female,” no, I do not feel that it is
that.
I want to make it clear that this is not why I changed the
minutes, not at all. I changed them because it wasn’t clear what the statement
meant. But I can tell you that maybe I was wrong, because you could have just
watched the video and seen it for yourself. Very simple. Maybe that’s what we
need to do: start scaling back our minutes. [For example,] tonight, “Mr.
Chiaradio spoke, discussion ensued.” That’s all [the minutes] need to say. You
can watch it on video if you want to.
See suppressed, Oscar-winning documentary, December 13
| ||
|
Trump regime desperate to cancel wind projects
Trump Interior Dept. to consider revoking New England Wind 1 approval
By Anastasia E. Lennon, Rhode Island Current
The federal agency regulating offshore wind development asked a federal judge to allow it to reconsider a key approval — one the same agency granted just last year — for New England Wind 1, a project planned off the Massachusetts coast.
If the federal government’s request is granted, it would be a blow to the project, which plans to invest in New Bedford and use the city for long-term project operations. If the approval stands, the project could move toward construction once it secures a power purchase agreement with the commonwealth.
This is at least the third time the administration has sought a remand of an offshore wind project approval, the others being for SouthCoast Wind and Maryland’s US Wind. The permits give major infrastructure projects the certainty to secure financing and move forward with construction.
The filing comes more than two months after the federal government signaled it would take such action against this project. The remand request was expected sooner, but the weekslong government shutdown pushed the deadline.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management filed the motion as part of a lawsuit brought in May by offshore wind opposition group ACK for Whales and other parties, including the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head Aquinnah, against BOEM and the Interior Department’s approval of New England Wind 1.
This latest move illustrates how Donald Trump’s administration is using lawsuits brought by municipalities and activist groups as a tool to crack down on the industry. Of the more than 20 actions and orders issued since January, one directed federal attorneys to review pending litigation against projects and consider a remand of permits that the litigation contests.
Vaccine committee votes to scrap universal hepatitis B shots for newborns despite outcry from children’s health experts
Against medical advice and with no scientific evidence, Bobby Jr.'s hand-picked committee set course for increased Hepatitis B infections
The committee advising the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccine policy voted on Dec. 5, 2025, to stop recommending that all newborns be routinely vaccinated against the hepatitis B virus – undoing a 34-year prevention strategy that has nearly eliminated early childhood hepatitis B infections in the United States. 
Even in Texas, vaccination is recommended
Before the U.S. began vaccinating all infants at birth with the hepatitis B vaccine in 1991, around 18,000 children every year contracted the virus before their 10th birthday – about half of them at birth. About 90% of that subset developed a chronic infection.
In the U.S., 1 in 4 children chronically infected with hepatitis B will die prematurely from cirrhosis or liver cancer.
Today, fewer than 1,000 American children or adolescents contract the virus every year – a 95% drop. Fewer than 20 babies each year are reported infected at birth.
I am a pediatrician and preventive medicine specialist who studies vaccine delivery and policy. Vaccinating babies for hepatitis B at birth remains one of the clearest, most evidence-based ways to keep American children free of this lifelong, deadly infection.
What spurred the change?
In September 2025, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, an independent panel of experts that advises the CDC, debated changing the recommendation for a dose of the hepatitis B vaccine at birth, but ultimately delayed the vote.
This committee regularly reviews vaccine guidance. However, since Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. disbanded the entire committee and handpicked new members, its activity has drastically departed from business as usual. The committee has long-standing procedures for evaluating evidence on the risks and benefits of vaccines, but these procedures were not followed in the September meeting and were not followed for this most recent decision.
The committee’s new recommendation keeps the hepatitis B vaccine at birth for infants whose mothers test positive for the virus. But the committee now advises that infants whose mothers test negative should consult with their health care provider. Parents and health care providers are instructed to weigh vaccine benefits, vaccine risks and infection risks using “individual-based decision-making” or “shared clinical decision-making.”
Trump issues new official National Security Strategy that is Russia-friendly and anti-Europe
Russia applauds new strategy saying it is in line with Kremlin goals
 |
| BBC headline |
Some of the most inflammatory rhetoric in the document is
aimed at US-allied European countries that supposedly face “the real and more
stark prospect of civilizational erasure” within the next 20 years.
The document goes on to claim that “should present trends
continue, the continent will be unrecognizable in 20 years or less,” while
emphasizing that US policy is to help “Europe to remain European, to regain its
civilizational self-confidence, and to abandon its failed focus on regulatory
suffocation.”
Sunday, December 7, 2025
Rhode Island municipalities “Doing more with less” is a slogan, not a plan
No municipality can realistically make that happen every single year, for all time.
Tom Sgouros in
In the 1980s and 1990s, there was a movement in the plains and mountain states out west to establish a Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR). The idea was that property taxes should go up no faster than inflation plus population growth. Colorado passed a version of TABOR through a state referendum in 1992.
After a decade of experience -- watching the devastation
these tax limits caused to public schools, libraries, police forces, and pretty
much all other local services -- the bill was partially repealed in 2005, again
by referendum. After Colorado, despite billionaire-funded campaigns in around a
dozen states. No other state has passed TABOR.
Except in Rhode Island, where, in 2006, under the leadership of Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed and Governor Donald Carcieri, the state enacted a tax cap that was actually more restrictive than TABOR.
The new law lowered the limit on increases and changed it to apply
to the amount collected, rather than the tax rate. The number is written into
law, so a city or town can increase its tax revenue by no more than 4% in years
with zero inflation and in years with 4% inflation. And if the town grows by
5%, too bad, the limit is still 4%. If new construction increases the property
tax base, it’s too bad; the limit is still 4%, and any increase in tax revenue
above that must go toward lowering the tax rate rather than improving services.
This, of course, is crazy and a recipe for long-term municipal fiscal disaster, as cities and towns accumulate responsibilities and grow their populations while their overall budgets are strictly limited.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)