Brown historian Mack Scott seeks elusive truth about the history of blacks and indigenous people in New England

With Charlestown and Narragansett Tribal roots, he describes himself as an “actualist” (as in, “Actually, this is what happened.”)

By Kristen Curry

Historian Mack Scott ’02 describes himself as an “actualist.”
His varied research interests share a common thread—mending
ruptures in the fabric of dominant historical narratives through
stories that have been neglected or erased. His goal is a more
complete history—one that strives to document what actually happened.

Mack Scott III ’02 didn’t come to URI planning to teach.

After graduating from Chariho High School in Richmond, R.I., Scott came to URI on a football scholarship. He recalls appreciating history professor Robert Weisbord’s African American history course, even if a comment from the professor rankled some of the other football players in the class.

“If you’re at this school to play in the NFL,” Weisbord told them, “you need to take your studies seriously.”

“We were a little offended,” Scott recalls, laughing.

Later, that advice proved prophetic. Scott suffered an injury and realized he needed to reevaluate his plans. “I realized my college studies needed to be important,” he says. “This work did matter.”

Around that time, a conversation with Sharon Forleo ’72, M.A. ’94, who was then the assistant director of URI’s Talent Development (TD) program, pointed him toward a new major: education.

“Mack had, and still has, a steady, thoughtful responsiveness to things,” says Forleo, who retired from her position with TD in 2016. “He listened, and that’s an unusual youthful quality. Mack’s way of thinking and communicating is what led me to ask him about teaching.”

Scott says Forleo’s suggestion was a good one—education was a great fit for him. He enjoyed the courses and practicum, as well as the other students in the program: “I benefited as much from the students I was with as from my professors,” he notes.

New at the Trump Smithsonian

Back to school sale

The Orwellian echoes in Trump’s push for ‘Americanism’ at the Smithsonian

Trump claims it's "Woke" for the Smithsonian describe "how bad slavery was"

Laura Beers, American University

When people use the term “Orwellian,” it’s not a good sign.

It usually characterizes an action, an individual or a society that is suppressing freedom, particularly the freedom of expression. It can also describe something perverted by tyrannical power.

It’s a term used primarily to describe the present, but whose implications inevitably connect to both the future and the past.

In his second term, Donald Trump has revealed his ambitions to rewrite America’s official history to, in the words of the Organization of American Historians, “reflect a glorified narrative … while suppressing the voices of historically excluded groups.”

This ambition was manifested in efforts by the Department of Education to eradicate a “DEI agenda” from school curricula. It also included a high-profile assault on what detractors saw as “woke” universities, which culminated in Columbia University’s agreement to submit to a review of the faculty and curriculum of its Middle Eastern Studies department, with the aim of eradicating alleged pro-Palestinian bias.

Now, the administration has shifted its sights from formal educational institutions to one of the key sites of public history-making: the Smithsonian, a collection of 21 museums, the National Zoo and associated research centers, principally centered on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

On Aug. 12, 2025, the Smithsonian’s director, Lonnie Bunch III, received a letter from the White House announcing its intent to carry out a systematic review of the institution’s holdings and exhibitions in the advance of the nation’s 250th anniversary in 2026.

The review’s stated aim is to ensure that museum content adequately reflects “Americanism” through a commitment to “celebrate American exceptionalism, [and] remove divisive or partisan narratives.”

On Aug. 19, 2025, Trump escalated his attack on the Smithsonian. “The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was…” he wrote in a Truth Social post. “Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future. We are not going to allow this to happen.”

Such ambitions may sound benign, but they are deeply Orwellian. Here’s how.

Couldn't be better

Westerly School Committee weighs whether to follow Trump or the RI Education Department

Westerly School Committeemember advocates defying RIDE guidance of transgender student athletes

Steve Ahlquist

Yeah, follow Trump's orders

“At the last meeting,” said Westerly School Committee Attorney William Nardone on Wednesday, “there was a suggestion that I give a ‘presentation’ on executive orders. I’ve decided not to do that. I’m going to give you a general overview of what executive orders are and what they’re not, what the process is, and what the effect is.”

Attorney Nardone then launched into a simplified explanation of executive orders. What Attorney Nardone did not say, but was on the minds of the six school committee members in the room, was that the question he was answering in general terms was particularly about Donald Trump’s executive order banning trans children and young people from participating in sports in alignment with their gender identity.

Attorney Nardone’s presentation was extremely basic. For example:

“The first presidential executive order was issued by George Washington, so it’s been around a long time,” said Attorney Nardone. “Typically, executive orders are issued by the head of the executive branch of the government, whether that government is the United States, the State of Rhode Island, or the Town of Westerly… An executive order is a way for the [chief executive] to sidestep the legislative branch of the government. You’ve got three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial…”

Because it is important to the following discussion, I will note that Attorney Nardone also said, “Executive orders cannot create new law or amend or repeal current laws.”

I’m placing the rest of Attorney Nardone’s presentation in this footnote.¹

The school committee had a brief discussion after Attorney Nardon’s presentation:

RI Public radio and TV cutting staff after federal funding cut

RI PBS, The Public’s Radio offer buyouts, warn of layoffs due to federal defunding

By Nancy Lavin, Rhode Island Current

Support Rhode Island PBS/The Public’s Radio

 A 501(c)(3) non-profit organization 

(Federal Tax ID: 22-2859005).

DONATE NOW

Staring down an estimated $1.1 million budget gap resulting from congressional defunding, Rhode Island’s recently merged public media entity is cutting staff — first on a volunteer basis, and later, potentially through layoffs.

Pam Johnston, CEO of Rhode Island PBS and The Public’s Radio, notified employees of cuts in a staff meeting Wednesday. The internal announcement was followed up with a statement published on the company’s website shortly after. 

Citing the “significant and painful cut” prompted by the federal rescission package, which eliminated federal support for public broadcasting, Johnston said the company will be offering voluntary buyouts to “most” staff members. If not enough workers take the offer by the Sept. 5 deadline, the next step is organization wide layoffs, according to the email.

Who needs Colbert?

The environmental toll of artificial intelligence

Trump AI plan would “ramp up exploitation” of people and the environment, advocates warn

Shannon Kelleher 

The Trump administration this week released a plan to fast-track the growth of artificial intelligence (AI) in the US, delighting tech groups while alarming environmental advocates who point to the industry’s toxic emissions, high water usage and heavy reliance on fossil fuels.

The “AI action plan,” released July 23 by the White House, calls for the development of new AI data centers – huge facilities that house AI computing infrastructure – to be waived from typical assessment requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act, which determine a project’s environmental impact.

The plan also proposes expediting environmental permitting for such data centers by streamlining or reducing regulations under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws, and calls on agencies to make federal lands available for constructing data centers and their power generation infrastructure.

In accordance with the Trump Administration’s AI plan, the US Department of Energy today announced four sites across the country selected to invite private sector partners to develop AI data centers and energy generation projects – a “bold step” that will “accelerate the next Manhattan Project,” said Energy Secretary Chris Wright in a statement.

Brown University explains why it caved in to Trump extortion

A "voluntary agreement" that would make Neville Chamberlain proud 

Brown University

Donald Trump gloats

On Wednesday, July 30, Brown University reached a voluntary agreement with the federal government to restore funding for the University's federally sponsored medical and health sciences research and resolve three open reviews assessing Brown’s compliance with federal nondiscrimination obligations. 

The agreement will reinstate payments for active research grants and restore Brown's ability to compete for new federal grants and contracts, while also meeting Brown’s core imperative of preserving the ability for its students and scholars to teach and learn without government intrusion.

Brown President Christina H. Paxson shared details on the agreement in a letter to the Brown community.

“The University's foremost priority throughout discussions with the government was remaining true to our academic mission, our core values and who we are as a community at Brown,” Paxson wrote. “This is reflected in key provisions of the resolution agreement preserving our academic independence, as well as a commitment to pay $50 million in grants over 10 years to workforce development organizations in Rhode Island, which is aligned with our service and community engagement mission.”

Since early this year, Paxson has publicly asserted Brown's commitment to meeting its obligations to follow the law, as well as the University’s willingness to understand any valid concerns the government may have about the ways in which the University fulfills those legal obligations. 

Paxson stated in a March communication that was broadly circulated publicly that Brown should uphold its ethical and legal obligations while also steadfastly defending academic freedom and freedom of expression, for both the University as an institution and for individual members of the Brown community.

“By voluntarily entering this agreement, we meet those dual obligations,” Paxson wrote to the campus. “We stand solidly behind commitments we repeatedly have affirmed to protect all members of our community from harassment and discrimination, [and] we protect the ability of our faculty and students to study and learn academic subjects of their choosing.” 

She added, “We applaud the agreement’s unequivocal assertion that the agreement does not give the government the ‘authority to dictate Brown’s curriculum or the content of academic speech.’”   

The full text of Paxson’s letter is included below.

Brown continues some health research without federal funding

$1.3 million grant to Brown to expand research on the role of blood-brain barrier in decision making

By Nicole Maranhas, Associate Director of Strategic Communications for the Carney Institute for Brain Science, Brown University

A $1.3 million grant from the W.M. Keck Foundation to Brown University will fund research on how brain blood vessels relay real-time signals across the blood-brain barrier directly to the brain.

The research, which aims to shed light on the potential role of the blood-brain barrier in decision making, may provide valuable insights into treating brain diseases and disorders and reveal ways that the protective barrier is more dynamic than currently understood. 

Led by Professor of Brain Science Christopher Moore, associate director of the Carney Institute for Brain Science at Brown University, the research team has found that blood vessels send signals through “plume events” that allow flashes of permeability across the otherwise highly restrictive barrier, which blocks toxins and harmful molecules from entering the brain.

“These moments when the blood-brain barrier opens allow the blood vessels to send signals where they are needed, and only when the risk is worth the reward,” Moore said.

The new grant-funded research will build on emerging knowledge that cell types beyond neurons — including endothelial cells that line blood vessels — contribute to brain function.

“Mammalian brains evolved to make complex choices,” Moore said. “The blood carries a rich range of signals from the body, so it makes sense that your brain might sample this information during moments of learning and choice in order to make those computations.” 

Prior to the team’s research, it was unclear how the blood-brain barrier — thought to be mostly restrictive and only capable of slow, delayed transmissions — could relay signals in real time for decision making. According to Moore, plume events resolve this paradox.

EDITOR'S NOTE: While this $1.3 million grant from a private foundation is no doubt welcome, Donald Trump has refused to pay more than $45 million for work already performed by Brown researchers from federal grants that have already been awarded. Trump has also cancelled at least $8 million in grants and is either delaying or not renewing millions more. Despite Brown's extensive resources, these cuts exceed the university's ability to absorb and will harm vital health research in service of Trump's culture war against American education.   - Will Collette

A racial slur exposes the deep divisions in Westerly's political culture

Culture war divides Town Council

Steve Ahlquist

Town Council, left to right: William Aiello, Michael Niemeyer, Alexandra Healy, Council President Christopher Duhamel, Council Vice President Mary Scialabba, Dylan LaPietra, and Rose Van Dover.

During a one-on-one interview for her reappointment to Westerly’s Multicultural Committee, April Dinwoodie was asked inappropriate questions about her race, and then referred to “using a term rooted in slavery and racial classification” by Town Councilor Rose Van Dover. (The Town Council established the Multicultural Committee to promote diversity and link the many different cultures in the town.) Though there is apparently no recording of the conversation, Dinwoodie and Van Dover agree that this happened, and Councilor Van Dover apologized.

But the exchange exposed the deep rifts in Westerly on issues of race, DEI, and the current polarized political climate rooted in Christian Nationalism. People on both sides of the issue packed the Town Council chamber to express their support for Dinwoodie and/or Van Dover. This raises the question: Why are there two sides to this issue?

The issue above was not the only thing occupying the town council’s attention on Monday. They were also dealing with shoreline access, Westerly Police assisting ICE, and the possibility that short-term rentals are making home ownership increasingly impossible. The Town Council took no action on any of these issues.

The transcript has been edited for clarity:

April Dinwoodie: I recently served as the Chair of the Multicultural Committee. A couple of weeks ago, I was interviewed for reappointment to the Multicultural Committee. At the beginning of that conversation, I was asked about my racial identity and referred to using a term rooted in slavery and racial classification. It had no place in an interview for public service. 

Questions about the actual work of the committee came only after I had to explain why the term used was problematic and after unsolicited reflections about the racial identities of students this councilor grew up with, as well as her family structure and Christian values. I felt this was disconnected from the role and responsibilities of serving with the Multicultural Committee, and it raised concerns about what interviews are conducted, who gets asked what, and the power of elected officials.

After sharing what occurred in the interview with the Town Council, I received a message from Councilor Rose Van Dover that read, in part, “I did not know the word I used was offensive, and I appreciate you bringing it to my attention. Your explanation made me think about my grandchildren who are multiracial. I will do better in the future.” I appreciate that Town Councilor Van Dover responded, but from apology must also come accountability, and from accountability, action.

Putting the word aside, it was about the interview’s structure, tone, and content. Only after Councillor Van Dover repeatedly asked or said, “I don’t want any of that..."

Councilor William Aiello: Point of order, Mr. President. The only thing listed on the agenda is a review of appointments, not the content of one-on-one conversations or emails about the appointments. I think this is a bridge too far. This could align with the second citizen comments, but not the first, for agenda items only.

Council President Christopher Duhamel: I’ll defer to our solicitor. The Item concerns the liaison appointments and how they are conducted.

Attorney William Connelly: It’s up to the chair to rule on the point of order, and it can be challenged, as always, and put to a vote.

Council President Duhamel: The chair votes that this is part of the agenda. The agenda set the meeting to allow this incident to be discussed, so the chair votes not in favor of the point.

Councillor Aiello: I appeal that decision because what you discussed in the agenda-setting meeting is not what’s on the agenda. The agenda is a review of liaison appointments. I’m not saying Ms. Dinwoodie can’t speak, or anybody else can’t speak, but at the second citizen’s comments section, where it’s open to more things.

Council President Duhamel: Understood. I already ruled on this. Did you want to appeal it?

Councilor Aiello: Yeah.

Councilor Dylan LaPietra: I second it, and I want to discuss it. As usual, you don’t have a clue how to write an agenda, but putting your incompetence aside, why don’t we get this out of the way, rather than have everybody sit around and wait for the second citizen’s comment section?

Council President Duhamel: Mr. LaPietra, you don’t have to be insulting. I know you’re good at it, but you don’t have to be insulting.

Evolution in action

What’s Driving the Republican Party to Climate Murder-Suicide?

At what point will the body count become intolerable for them?

William Debuys for TomDispatch

In the annals of national suicide, the present dismantling of the American state will surely rank high. It may not reach the apogee attained by Russia in its final Tsarist days or by Louis XVI in the run-up to the French Revolution, but Great Britain’s Brexit hardly smolders compared to the anti-democratic dumpster fire of the Trump regime. 

Countless governmental, scientific, educational, medical, and cultural institutions have been targeted for demolition. The problem for the rest of the world is that the behavior of Trumpian America is more than suicidal—it’s murderous.

The deaths are mounting. By one accounting, the disruption of overseas food and drug shipments from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), including life-saving HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria treatments, has already caused nearly 350,000 deaths (and they continue at an estimated rate of 103 per hour). 

Here at home, cuts to Medicaid, as contemplated in the absurdly named “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” would lead to more than 21,600 avoidable deaths annually. And those numbers pale next to the levels of mortality expected to arise from the effects of climate change—a worsening catastrophe that the Trump regime is dead set against doing anything about. Indeed, with an array of policies under the rubric “Drill, baby, drill,” President Donald Trump and his officials seem intent on worsening matters as quickly as possible.

Worrying about how future generations will cope with a savagely inhospitable climate is for losers.

If the World Economic Forum is to be believed, deaths from flood, famine, disease, and other nonmilitary consequences of a hotter, more violent global climate might reach 580,000 per year, or 14.5 million by 2050. And that may be a lowball estimate, according to the American Security Project. Its models assert that warming-induced fatalities are already running at 400,000 annually and are heading for 700,000.

Any way you cut it, that’s a lot of misery. Given that the Trump regime is opening new areas for drilling; aggressively curtailing funding for climate-related programs; purging mention of climate change from government websites and publications; and disassembling the government’s capacity to track, let alone predict climate-change impacts, it makes sense to wonder WHY?

Cats among five major wins from Rhode Island’s 2025 legislative session

Rhode Island cats celebrate new ban on de-clawing

By Nancy Lavin and Christopher Shea, Rhode Island Current

Photo by Will Collette

The race to the legislative finish line this year was every bit as drama-filled and frenzied as expected. Restrictions on assault weapons got top billing, including on the eight-and-a-half hour marathon that marked the final day of the session, but there was plenty more to crow about and criticize during the jam-packed final weeks.

Here are five wins you might have missed from the 2025 Rhode Island General Assembly. Stay tuned for the losses, coming Friday.

1. Shekarchi zones in on housing

House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi succeeded in his push to boost housing production in Rhode Island for a third consecutive year, with 10 of the 12 bills of his legislative package clearing the Senate in the final days of the session. (All 12 had already secured approval in the lower chamber.)

That includes two bills sponsored by Shekarchi: one to expand electronic permitting and another to amend the state’s building code by centralizing the responsibilities of various officials, commissions, and boards involved in building and fire code permitting.

Other bills passed include measures to allow townhouses wherever duplexes are permitted, require mixed-use zoning in every community, and promote the conversion of vacant or underused commercial buildings into housing.

“Rhode Island’s housing crisis was decades in the making and is taking a sustained effort, over the course of years, to address,” Shekarchi said in a statement Monday.  “I am so appreciative of all of the partners who work with me to address our housing shortage, and this progress is the result of our collaborative efforts.”

Legislation that would have allowed development of vacant state-owned land did not make it across the finish line. Shekarchi described the bill as in need of some “fine-tuning,” pledging to work with the Senate on it again next year.  

Also left hanging by the Senate was legislation that would have eased local restrictions on subdividing large parcels of land, despite having passed in the House on May 15. However, Shekarchi noted that elements of the stalled bill were addressed in one of the successful 10 bills, which sought to eliminate unnecessary red tape and delays in local land subdivision more broadly.

Senate President Valarie Lawson said while there were concerns with the bill, she intends to continue to work with Shekarchi and other lawmakers to encourage further housing development.

2. All rise for AG Neronha

Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha’s skilled litigation style persuaded lawmakers to his side on a host of policy changes and added funding for his office for new hires.

Neronha initially sought 13 more staffers for his office, asking for $1.7 million to fund the hires in his fiscal 2026 budget request to Gov. Dan McKee. McKee’s proposed spending plan did not offer any of the money, or additional employees.

Neronha subsequently revised his request, asking lawmakers in the House Committee on Finance for four, rather than 13, hires, funded by settlements his office had won for the states. Lawmakers included an $848,000 allocation of state settlement money for the extra AG staffers in the final fiscal 2026 budget.

Neronha thanked lawmakers for funding the hires in a statement Tuesday.

“The people of my Office show up to work every day with one goal: improve the lives of Rhode Islanders,” Neronha said. “These four additional attorneys will share in that goal, and deliver for the residents of our state.”

Neronha scored wins on several policy changes, too, including a change to state procurement to ban “bid-rigging” by public officials. The Neronha-backed legislation taking aim at McKee’s involvement in “steering” a state education contract to the ILO Group in 2021, passed unanimously in the Senate on the final night of the session, having already secured approval by a strong majority of the House. 

Lawmakers also signed on to versions of some of Neronha’s proposed remedies for the health care crisis, such as using Medicare reimbursement rates as the standard by which to hike corresponding Medicaid payments to primary care providers, and doing away with cumbersome and time-consuming pre-authorization requirements for primary care providers.

Finally, the AG’s office staved off an eleventh hour challenge by House Republicans to his authority over state settlements. GOP lawmakers unsuccessfully attempted during the House budget vote on June 17 to siphon $11 million from the AG’s fiscal 2026 funding as a quid pro quo for what they argued was an unconstitutional overstep of his authority. Neronha had already set in motion a plan to spend the $11 million state settlement from the Route 6/10 contamination lawsuit on pediatric dental care in Providence. 

Speaking to reporters after the June 17 House budget vote, Shekarchi affirmed Neronha’s authority over the state settlement funds.

“If this particular settlement was unfair, the solution is to appeal that,” Shekarchi said. “What we’re doing with the money is helping underprivileged children with health care and dental care is a good thing and I will never be against that.”

3. Republicans at the ready for 2026

RI Republicans outraged at infringement
of this guy's 2nd Amendment rights

The most high-profile victory of the session belongs to those who supported a state ban on assault-style weapons — even if the final legislation did not go as far as some had hoped. 

But state Republicans wasted little time turning “L” on what they say is a matter of Constitutional rights into a potential win for the party and its candidates in the 2026 election cycle.

GOP Chairman Joe Powers initiated the call to action Friday night, declaring it was actively recruiting candidates to challenge the “anti-Constitution, anti-liberty legislators” who voted to limit assault-style weapons in the state.

“We now have a clear, targeted list of every legislator who voted to betray their oath — and their time is running out,” Powers said in a statement. “To every Rhode Islander who still believes in the Constitution — we’re not going to fix this by posting memes or yelling at the TV. We fix it by running for office, knocking doors, and taking back this state seat by seat.”

His call to action has already been met with a flurry of responses — a few dozen potential candidates have reached out to the Republican Party in just the last four days, Powers said Tuesday night.

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Jessica de la Cruz of North Smithfield debuted a new “Keeping the Spirit of 1776 Alive” fundraising campaign Tuesday morning, seeking support and donations to retain and boost the Republican’s 14-person presence on Smith Hill.

It’s no secret that state and local Republican party committees have struggled to recruit candidates for state and local office, diminishing their voice in a solidly blue state. Could the contested ban on assault weapons sales change the tides in their favor?

Guns kill more U.S. children than other causes, but state policies can help, study finds

Data shows gun laws have already save Rhode Island kids' lives

By Nada Hassanein, Rhode Island Current

More American children and teens die from firearms than any other cause, but there are more deaths — and wider racial disparities — in states with more permissive gun policies, according to a new study.

The study, published in the medical journal JAMA Pediatrics last week, analyzes trends in state firearm policies and kids’ deaths since 2010, after the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago. The ruling struck down the city’s handgun ban, clearing the way for many states to make it easier for people to buy and carry guns.

The study authors split states into three groups: “most permissive,” “permissive” and “strict,” based on the stringency of their firearm policies. Those policies include safe storage laws, background checks and so-called Stand Your Ground laws. The researchers analyzed homicide and suicide rates and the children’s race.

Using statistical methods, the researchers calculated 6,029 excess deaths in the most permissive states between 2011 and 2023, compared with the number of deaths that would have been expected under the states’ pre-McDonald rules. There were 1,424 excess deaths in the states in the middle category.

Rhode Island House Minority Leader Chippendale spews venom on partial Assault Weapons Ban

And I refute his bogus claims

By Will Collette

Mike Chippendale issued the news release below blasting the General Assembly for its passage of a much-watered down assault weapons ban. But he’s not concerned that it’s weak – my point of view – but that no legislation restricting any gun rights whatsoever should be enacted into law.

I think he’s wrong and I have taken the editorial prerogative to add my rebuttal to the RI Repubican Party’s news release, printed in full below.

My comments appear in bold red after each of Chipper’s claims.

State House, Providence, RI – Rhode Island House Minority Leader Michael W. Chippendale offers the following statement in regard to the Assault Weapons Ban legislation:

The passage of the amended Assault Weapons Ban marks a dark day for constitutional governance in Rhode Island. What was once presented as a public safety measure has now been fully unmasked as nothing more than a political trophy - an opportunistic maneuver by a handful of ambitious politicians desperate to elevate their public profiles and position themselves for higher office.

“Dark day for constitutional governance?” Really? The Supreme Court has upheld the right of states to regulate automatic weapons and rejected a Rhode Island lawsuit that tried to stop passage of this bill.

These are the very same lawmakers who, just weeks ago, decried administrative pay increases of $80,000 as irresponsible during a time of budget crisis. And yet, with full knowledge that this bill will trigger immediate and expensive legal challenges, they voted to expose our already strained state budget to the guaranteed costs of defending an unconstitutional law in court. The price tag? Hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of taxpayer dollars. Their hypocrisy is staggering.

I guess Republicans now understand the best way to communicate with the public is to engage in what Trump calls “riffing.” That’s going off the point into tangents that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. What the hell do administrative pay hikes have to do with banning weapons of mass death?

Let’s call it what it is: political theater, funded by the citizens of Rhode Island. These politicians are not standing on principle - they are using this bill as a weapon in their own political campaigns. Whether it's an attempt to deny the Governor a policy victory or to bolster their own bid for Attorney General, their actions are driven not by public safety, but by personal ambition.

Well, yeah Mike. Politics is mainly theatre. Your own remarks on the assault weapons ban are nothing more than that.

Worse still is the blatant disregard for the Constitution. These elected officials - who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution - have shredded that oath for the sake of a headline and a talking point. They know this bill flies in the face of the Second Amendment and recent Supreme Court precedent in Heller and Bruen. They know it targets law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to disarm criminals. And they know it will fail in court. Yet they voted for it anyway.

When there's "no school Foster-Glocester," watch out for Mike
exercising his 2nd Amendment rights 

Again, Mike, the Supreme Court has already ruled on states’ rights to ban or control a wide range of weapons. That’s why you are not allowed to own nuclear weapons or to mount a machine gun on your truck to handle the commute from Foster to Providence. You can’t have a rocket launcher either. Simply put, the Second Amendment is not absolute.

This legislation is nothing more than an insult to the law-abiding firearm owners in Rhode Island. It criminalizes the continued lawful purchase of firearms that are legal, stored safely, and used responsibly. It also undermines our eligibility for vital federal conservation funds, jeopardizing public land maintenance and our outdoor recreation economy. It will harm Rhode Island businesses, cost us jobs, and decrease revenue - all in the name of political ambition. And just as the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban – it will not stop a single crime, as criminals simply don’t follow the laws of our state and nation. To believe this ban will have any different result is naïve at best, and dishonest as worst.

I think what worries most reasonable people is the fact that military-style automatic weapons are designed to give the owner the ability to kill a lot of people very quickly. They are not for hunting or self-defense, with the possible exception of a zombie apocalypse.

In my opinion, the bill does not go far enough. In an attempt to placate gun people, the provision to ban the possession of these weapons was taken out of the bill. That was a mistake since it is demonstrably impossible to placate gun people.

Let’s also not forget the deceptive tactics employed to manufacture support for this bill. National groups like Everytown deliberately manipulated our public input process, misleading both the public and this legislative body. Their email campaigns were engineered to trick gun rights supporters into submitting pro-ban messages. These dishonest tactics further erode any credibility the supporters of this bill claim to have.

The truth is evident: this legislation is legally vulnerable, fiscally irresponsible, economically damaging, and wildly unpopular with the people of Rhode Island. Opposition at the State House outnumbered supporters by an overwhelming margin. The public testimony was clear. The emails to legislators have been unmistakable.

Of course there will be lawsuits. There always are. But the chances this ban will hold are very good.

Will it hurt the economy? Selling guns in Rhode Island is not exactly a key to economic growth and prosperity. How much is it worth to prevent a major massacre in a school, shopping center, beach or church?

And Mike, you are a liar to claim that banning assault weapons is “wildly unpopular” with Rhode Islanders when poll after poll show strong support for a ban and for additional sensible gun control measures. Even among gun owners. The most recent poll shows 64% of Rhode Islanders support the assault weapons ban. Counting yellow shirts in the peanut gallery at the State House is not a legitimate measure of public sentiment.

What just passed was not a thoughtful policy - it was a campaign stunt. And the people of Rhode Island will be the ones who pay the price.

Like most Rhode Islanders, whatever that price should be, I am more than willing to pay.

I remain committed to protecting the constitutional rights of Rhode Islanders and will oppose every attempt to erode them in the name of political ambition.

‘Who controls the present controls the past’: What Orwell’s ‘1984’ explains about the twisting of history to control the public

Trump attacks on history are part of the brainwashing of America

Laura Beers, American University

When people use the term “Orwellian,” it’s not a good sign.

It usually characterizes an action, an individual or a society that is suppressing freedom, particularly the freedom of expression. It can also describe something perverted by tyrannical power.

It’s a term used primarily to describe the present, but whose implications inevitably connect to both the future and the past.

In his second term, President Donald Trump has revealed his ambitions to rewrite America’s official history to, in the words of the Organization of American Historians, “reflect a glorified narrative … while suppressing the voices of historically excluded groups.”

Such ambitions are deeply Orwellian. Here’s how.

Author George Orwell believed in objective, historical truth. Writing in 1946, he attributed his youthful desire to become an author in part to a “historical impulse,” or “the desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.”

But while Orwell believed in the existence of an objective truth about history, he did not necessarily believe that truth would prevail.

New mRNA vaccine is more effective and less costly to develop

Source of life-saving COVID vaccine could do more...if Republicans don't ban it

University of Pittsburgh

A new type of mRNA vaccine is more scalable and adaptable to continuously evolving viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 and H5N1, according to a study by researchers at University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health and the Pennsylvania State University. The study was published today in npj Vaccines.

Though highly effective at inducing an immune response, current mRNA vaccines, such as those used to prevent COVID-19, present two significant challenges: the high amount of mRNA needed to produce them and the constantly evolving nature of the pathogen.

"The virus changes, moving the goal post, and updating the vaccine takes some time," said senior author Suresh Kuchipudi, Ph.D., chair of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology at Pitt Public Health.

To address these challenges, the researchers created a proof-of-concept COVID-19 vaccine using what's known as a "trans-amplifying" mRNA platform. EDITOR'S NOTE: Could this be the reason why MAGAs hate mRNA vaccines?  - W. Collette

Lunacy!

 Trump plans to distribute kits to convert military-style assault weapons into machine guns