Search headlines

Note to Colorado lawmakers — parents protecting kids isn’t abuse, it’s their job

By Matt Sharp and Sharon Supp During the last few years, the U.S. Supreme Court has made at least one thing clear: Colorado is consistently overreaching to apply its laws in unconstitutional ways. Colorado treated a cake artist with hostility because of his religious beliefs in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The state […]

Apr 10 • 2:45 AM EDT • Politics • coloradopolitics.com

A Look At AMC Entertainment Holdings (AMC) Valuation After Record Easter Weekend Box Office Momentum

AMC Entertainment Holdings (AMC) is back in focus after reporting record Easter weekend results, with more than 6 million guests and strong food, beverage, and merchandise revenue tied to The Super Mario Galaxy Movie. See our latest analysis for AMC Entertainment Holdings. The record Easter weekend has arrived alongside a sharp short term rebound, with a 7 day share price return of 30.1% and 1 month share price return of 18.6%. However, this sits against a 1 year total shareholder return...

Apr 8 • 10:44 PM EDT • Entertainment • simplywall.st

MAGA Is Winning Its War Against U.S. Science

Source: NBER With all the other terrible news right now, you may not have noticed that Donald Trump is in the process of killing American science. OK, that’s an exaggeration — but not that much of an exaggeration. The Trump administration’s latest budget proposal calls for a gigantic increase in military spending combined with severe cuts to social programs. But as the chart above shows, it also calls for debilitating reductions in research funding. Furthermore, Trump appointees have already been strangling science by sharply reducing the rate at which research grants are approved. Here, for example, is the number of new grants approved by the National Science Foundation: Source: Nature Large numbers of existing grants have also been frozen or terminated, especially in the study of infectious diseases. Add to this a sharp drop in visas issued to foreign students, who often play a direct role in research and who help support academic departments that do research: Put all of this together, and much U.S. scientific research is set to come to a screeching halt — not a few years from now, but over the course of the next year or two. This new assault on U.S. science is taking place at a time when the role of American science in the world has already been greatly eroded. The chart below, based on research recently reported by the National Bureau of Economic Research, measures national strength in science by the share of publications in highly ranked journals. In the 1990s the United States had more such publications than the rest of the world combined. Since then we’ve dropped into third place — well behind China and slightly below the European Union. And this was before the Trump administration’s attack on science had time to take its full effect. Source Some erosion in U.S. scientific preeminence was inevitable given China’s growing sophistication and wealth. But we’ve also fallen behind Europe, even though everyone says that Europe is lagging economically and technologically. Claims about Europe’s underperformance are, in fact, dubious if one looks hard at the data. But it’s still striking to see America lagging. What’s going on? There are presumably multiple factors behind America’s scientific lag. But even before Trump II the growing hostility of the U.S. right to science surely had some negative effect. And since the rise of MAGA G.O.P. attitudes toward science in general have become overwhelmingly hostile. This is true even for the Republican rank and file: And while I haven’t been able to find good survey data, it’s obvious that the anti-science turn has been even more pronounced — and began earlier — among the Republican political elite. Chris Mooney published The Republican War on Science in 2005, and even then was describing a longstanding trend. Why have Republicans turned so anti-science? Part of the answer is that they believe that scientists don’t support them. And they’re right! A study of who scientists give money to shows that only a small percentage gave money to Republicans even 20 years ago, and that almost none of them donate to Republicans now: Social scientists have always been strongly pro-Democratic, while there used to be a significant number of physical, “hard” scientists supporting the GOP. But these days physicists are almost as uniformly Democratic, or at least non-Republican, as sociologists. Why are there almost no Republican scientists? It’s not a mystery. GOP political orthodoxy includes positions that are at odds with the scientific consensus on multiple issues, ranging from the validity of the theory of evolution, to the reality of climate change, to the efficacy and safety of vaccines. In each case the scientific consensus is solidly grounded in evidence. But even before the rise of MAGA the U.S. right was increasingly hostile to evidence-based policymaking — especially, of course, where the evidence is unfavorable to fossil fuel interests or quack medicine, both financial mainstays of right-wing politics. So scientists don’t support Republicans, and the feeling is mutual. Today’s Republican Party doesn’t like science or scientists. It doesn’t like having its preconceived views challenged by appeals to evidence. It knows that very few scientists are on its side electorally. In general, it sees scientific research as a threat to its grasp on political power. Add in MAGA’s combination of rabid anti-intellectualism and allergy to any hint of criticism, and one has the makings of a drastic anti-science turn in policy. “Ignorance is strength” might was well be an official MAGA motto. And as I said, we aren’t talking about something that will happen over the course of multiple years: The U.S. scientific enterprise is threatened with severe damage, even collapse, over just the next year. There are many reasons to find this prospect horrifying: Think of all the beneficial advances, affecting almost every part of life, that won’t happen because U.S. science — still crucial to the world — has been eviscerated. But think, also, of America’s international standing. Can a nation that has forfeited its role as a leader, or even a contender, in global science, still be a Great Power? No. MUSICAL CODA

Apr 7 • 6:31 AM EDT • Science • paulkrugman.substack.com

Hingham Schools Eye Business Curriculum Expansion as Class Size Concerns Mount

HINGHAM - March 23, 2026 - The Hingham School Committee moved to modernize its high school offerings Monday night, reviewing a comprehensive plan to expand the “small but mighty” Business Department while simultaneously grappling with data that places Hingham as an outlier in elementary class sizes. Director of Social Studies Andy Hoey presented a two-year program review that highlighted the department’s success in community partnerships but warned that high student demand is testing current staffing limits. Meanwhile, committee Chair Jen Benham presented independent research showing Hingham is the only benchmark district with second-grade classes hitting a 25-student cap, sparking a directive for the Policy Subcommittee to review class-size standards. Editors note: South Shore News is going paid in April, subscribe now to make sure you don’t miss a story. Reach out for group or organizational pricing. Subscribe The Full Story The meeting opened with a look into the future of Hingham High School’s (HHS) curriculum. Andy Hoey, who oversees the Business Department, presented the first formal program review for the department since 2009. [15:09] Hoey characterized the department as a vital elective hub that currently serves between 14% and 27% of the HHS student body in any given year. [31:31] “We are very proud of our business department here at Hingham High School... while we’re very proud of it, we are always striving to make improvements and enhancements.” [15:55] — Andy Hoey, Director of Social Studies A key highlight of the presentation was the announcement of a new AP Business with Personal Finance course launching next year, pending enrollment. [20:08] The review team found that while the program is “well-aligned” to national standards, it remains a high-school-only offering. Hoey outlined an action plan to explore “vertical articulation,” potentially introducing business or financial literacy units at the middle school level to fill a “gap” identified between fifth and eighth grade. [41:48] However, the department faces “smoke and mirrors” regarding student GPA, according to Hoey. Currently, most business courses are “unleveled” and do not count toward a student’s GPA, which survey data suggests may deter some students from enrolling. [28:15] The committee discussed the possibility of offering Honors or College Prep (CP) credit for advanced courses, such as investing or marketing, to better reflect their academic rigor. [38:27] The discussion took a sharp turn toward elementary education during an enrollment update. Superintendent Dr. Katie Roberts noted a net gain of four students mid-year, but it was Jen Benham’s “rabbit hole” data analysis that caught the committee’s attention. [50:35] Benham researched 13 benchmark towns—representing 34 elementary schools—and found that Hingham was the only district with a second-grade section reaching 25 students this year. [51:36] Benham’s findings suggested that while many districts lack formal class-size policies, Hingham’s current cap of 25 for second grade may be too high. “I think if we could at least have 23 at a cap for grade two,” Benham suggested, noting the importance of that grade level for literacy development. [53:09], [54:55] Dr. Roberts cautioned that smaller classes require more staff, which is a significant hurdle following a budget season where nine general education positions were cut across the district. [55:56] The committee also finalized the 2025 Town Report, which was updated to be more “student-centered” and highlight staff early in the document. [11:12] Additionally, a series of food service policies were approved to align with Massachusetts’ universal free school meal mandate, including new protocols for meal modifications due to allergies or religious needs. [59:23] Share Why It Matters The meeting underscored a tension between Hingham’s desire to offer elite, specialized programming and the foundational pressure of class sizes. The expansion of the Business Department—including potential Microsoft certifications and AP courses—aims to prepare students for a “real world” where credit scores and financial literacy are paramount. [46:20] However, the revelation that Hingham’s second-grade classes are larger than those in all neighboring benchmark towns suggests a potential strain on early education that could impact long-term student performance if not addressed by the Policy Subcommittee. Official Minutes & Data Key Motions & Votes Motion: To approve the Hingham Public Schools 2025 Town Report. [13:16] Vote: Unanimous (7-0) ([01:13:28]) Motion: To approve the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for summer counselor work regarding course placement. [57:33] Vote: Unanimous (7-0) ([57:50]) Motion: To approve Policy EFBA (School Food and Nutrition/Meal Modifications). [01:00:32] Vote: Unanimous (7-0) ([01:00:44]) Motion: To approve Policy EFC (Universal Free School Meals). [01:00:54] Vote: Unanimous (7-0) ([01:01:07]) Public Comment No members of the public spoke during the meeting or via the remote link. [01:02:30] What’s Next The Policy Subcommittee will take up the review of elementary class-size caps over the next year to determine if the Grade 2 limit should be lowered from 25 to 23. [52:18] The Business Department will monitor enrollment for the new AP Business course and continue exploring dual-enrollment partnerships with Quincy College. [38:13] Source Video: Harbor Media South Shore News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Subscribe

Mar 29 • 7:03 AM EDT • Business • southshore.news

US democracy has settled into diminished state, experts find

Bright Line Watch researchers see stabilization in democratic health but at lower levels after sharp decline

Mar 24 • 7:00 AM EDT • Politics • theguardian.com

USA vs. Venezuela live updates: Venezuela retakes lead in 9th inning after Bryce Harper's game-tying homer

Mar 17 • 10:38 PM EDT • Sports • sports.yahoo.com

Partisanship and science

I recently participated in a symposium of the Denver-based Institute for Science & Policy, during which I had a “fireside chat” with Tony Mills of the American Enterprise Institute. Mills has written extensively on the politicization of science, and the two of us had a very enjoyable hour-long conversation on the topic. You can watch it below. The main questions we dealt with are why there is such a vast partisan gap in trust of science, and to what extent this is a unique moment. Mills helpfully brings a good deal of data to the discussion, as he did in this useful piece at Issues in Science & Technology. Tusk depends on reader support. To support this work, please become a paid subscriber. Subscribe Note this graph, drawing on a range of survey data to demonstrate partisan attitudes toward science since 1970s. As it demonstrates, there’s been a very sharp partisan divergence in confidence in science during the Trump Era, starting prior to the Covid pandemic. At least in part, we can attribute this to a rise in populist anti-science rhetoric embraced by Trump, his appointees, and those in his media orbit. But as the graph also shows, the partisan divide has existed in the past, and it’s not always in the same direction. The largest divergence in party views toward science prior to 2016 was in the 1970s, when liberals equated scientific achievement with the military-industrial complex and thus trusted it less. That era of scientific mistrust is often overlooked. Indeed, as Mills notes, the Moon landings (1969-72), which today are considered one of the last great moments of national unity, were experienced nothing like that at the time. There was sharp debate back then over whether the Apollo missions were worth the vast expenditures when the country had so much else to deal with. It’s outside the dataset, and we don’t have the partisanship lens for it, but the 1950s was another deeply anti-science decade, with critics of intellectuals and college professors alleging their ties to communism and their lack of commitment to basic American moral beliefs. This was the subject of Richard Hofstadter’s 1962 book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, in which he quotes religious leaders like Franklin Graham: [In place of the Bible] we substituted reason, rationalism, mind culture, science worship, the working power of government, Freudianism, naturalism, humanism, behaviorism, positivism, materialism, and idealism. [This is the work of] so-called intellectuals. Thousands of these “intellectuals” have publicly stated that morality is relative—that there is no norm or absolute standard.… This fervor was heavily whipped up by Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-Wisconsin), although it’s clear that not all his fellow Republicans were on board with his red-baiting. What ended that era? The simple answer is the 1957 launch of Sputnik. Americans became afraid that they were losing to Soviet scientists, and suddenly university researchers and government projects were awash with funding. In our conversation, I asked Mills about the possibility of us having a Sputnik moment again that would rally the American public in favor of science today. Mills argued that the COVID-19 pandemic was essentially a Sputnik moment — a terrifying threat to all Americans that required scientific advances to address. But thanks in part to political polarization and the populist and conspiratorial leanings of Donald Trump, we got the opposite of a unifying moment. Many Americans turned against science, despite science actually stepping up in that moment. As we discussed in the chat, it’s not clear what scientists could or should be doing in this moment to increase faith in their work. As Mills notes, one of the chief complaints against scientists and professors is that they’ve become too political; scholars becoming even more political might not help them achieve their goals. This (mainly Republican-driven) anti-science era will end, of course, but it’s not clear what event will bring that about. Share

Mar 16 • 9:13 AM EDT • Science • smotus.substack.com