'TSU students conducted themselves in a professional manner'

Feeding blueberries to babies may reduce allergy symptoms and improve their gut health, according to new research. The ground-breaking clinical trial shows consuming the fruit early in life can improve immunity and support long-term health. Feeding blueberries to babies as one of their first solid foods may help strengthen their immune systems, reduce allergy symptoms […] The post Feeding Blueberries to Babies May Reduce Allergy Symptoms and Improve Gut Health appeared first on Good News Network.

Books romance On Writing Romance as Hard Science Fiction More stories should dig into the chemistry, biology, and physics of falling in love. By James Davis Nicoll | Published on September 25, 2025 Photo by Rakesh Morpheus [via Unsplash] Comment 0 Share New Share Photo by Rakesh Morpheus [via Unsplash] One of the sillier pastimes seen amongst various speculative fiction aficionados is the dispute over whose favorite genre is a really just a subordinate subgroup of someone else’s favorite genre. Is fantasy a specific case of science fiction or vice versa? Are both to pulp fiction as Lystrosaurus was to Permian era therapsids? The whole thing seems to be some sort of irresolvable dominance game. However, a hill I am happy for other people to die on is that romance is clearly hard science fiction. Or at least, it can be approached from that angle. As you know1, one definition for hard science fiction is: “a category of science fiction characterized by concern for scientific accuracy and logic.”2 Traditionally3, stories that were recognized as hard science fiction of this type focused on physics or chemistry. Why? The same reason that drunk people look for their lost keys near streetlights: those are the easiest fields around which to construct unambiguously hard SF stories. Physics and chemistry lend themselves to a straightforward reductive approach, at least until you get into organic chemistry4. You can wrap a story around an interesting, potentially counterintuitive, physical or chemical phenomenon and be confident you’ll be able to convey the phenomena to readers in a manner that is believable, comprehensible, and fits into your allotted word count. Who knows? You might even get the details right5. Biology, now, biology is intrinsically messy. Biology involves the behavior and interaction between organisms that are the products of billions of years of variation and selection, which are half-assed processes that don’t optimize so much as settle for good enough. Biochemical kludges abound; features are repurposed for tasks entirely unlike their original function. Frankly, it’s a little surprising we don’t collapse into organic foam every time we sneeze. However, the upside of this, at least for the authors not dissolving as they suddenly grasp the existential horror of their essential biochemical absurdity, is that this messy complexity means biology offers a vast story space. Authors in need of interesting but counterintuitive phenomena around which to accrete a story have an ally in biology. Still, while biology is complex, and it is not possible for any one person to predict every possible outcome, it’s not terribly wrong to think of most living entities as intricate automata whirring along according to the laws of physics (of which chemistry is just a specific application). Sure, that’s enough to get you from a single cell in the ocean to a former quadruped tottering around on two legs while focusing sound with what used to be gills. But we can do better. If you really, really want a vast potential story space, what you want to do is to add the capacity for learned behavior. Once organisms can integrate observations about the world around them into their responses, once they develop means to convey learned behavior to other organisms, the number of possible permutations becomes vast indeed. Which gets us back to romance. Any romance involves an insanely complex interaction between a bewildering number of factors, from basic physics6 to biochemical quirks to cultural values, to the unique qualities of the individuals involved. The capacity for astonishing outcomes is almost impossible to quantify or constrain7. Even better, because the readers are themselves the product of such phenomena and in some cases may have a personal interest in participating in such things themselves, there is a good chance readers will be highly invested in the outcome of your scenario. All of which is why any science fiction author seeking the highest possible bar for hard SF, and the greatest possible range of stories, should seriously consider penning romance. I am sure the results will be memorable![end-mark] Bob. ︎To be honest, I suspect “technology” should be in there somewhere. ︎He said with a confidence matched only by his lack of citations. ︎That said, in the old days, a good way to get rid of grad students you didn’t like was to assign them the task of making aerogels, which involved at the time a finicky and failure-prone process ideal for inducing nervous collapse. ︎Or educationally wrong. ︎You can’t have Romeo and Juliet if the fine structure constant is very different. Also, if you really understand physics, it is much less likely that when you twirl an earbud in an attempt to catch the attention of the person across the table from you, that earbud will hit you in the eye. ︎I know this because my favored bus route passes near a junior high whose bus-riding students combine a keen interest in socio-romantic field research with dismal success rates. One would expect billions of years of natural selection to have conferred on humans an innate knack for solving this specific set of problems. The fact that it hasn’t suggests that the phenomena are inherently difficult to model. ︎The post On Writing Romance as Hard Science Fiction appeared first on Reactor.

A recent congressional hearing has highlighted the concerning role of the Chinese Communist Party in America’s drug supply chain.  The House Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations, and Accountability organized the hearing on Sept. 18, titled “Invasion of the Homeland: How China is Using Illegal Marijuana to Build a Criminal Network Across America.” The witnesses who testified included current and former law enforcement officials and a legal scholar.   Witness testimonies reveal three crucial points. First, Chinese transnational criminal organizations have seized control of marijuana cultivation and distribution across the U.S., from California to Oklahoma to Maine. They exploit lax regulations and bypass residency requirements through fraud and straw man ownership. This surge in Chinese transnational organizations has not only fueled a troubling rise in violent crimes in those states, including human trafficking and money laundering, but it also poses significant national security risks, as some of these Chinese-operated marijuana facilities are situated near critical infrastructure and U.S. military installations.  Second, Chinese nationals involved in illegal marijuana operations rely on WeChat for communication and financial transactions. WeChat is an encrypted Chinese messaging app, owned by Tencent—a company closely linked to the Chinese Communist Party. Unlike domestic platforms, WeChat’s foreign location complicates U.S. law enforcement’s legal processes and electronic surveillance. Chris Urben, a former DEA agent, warned lawmakers, “No other global crime network has access to a state-protected, trusted communications system like that. We must disrupt WeChat.”  Third, witnesses unanimously confirmed the troubling connection between Chinese transnational criminal organizations and the support they receive from the CCP. Donnie Anderson, director of the Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control, emphasized this point in his testimony, stating, “It is undeniable that the Chinese government has taken a keen interest in Oklahoma’s marijuana industry. We have evidence of financial transfers to the Bank of China and ties to Chinese state-owned enterprises.” Moreover, Anderson asserted that “the CCP exerts control over criminal marijuana operations, particularly through its tactic of managing expatriates via so-called ‘police stations.’”  Anderson’s warning was no exaggeration. A 2024 Pro-Republica investigative report unveiled concerning evidence of the Chinese government officials’ collusion with Chinese criminal organizations. The report highlights a mutually beneficial relationship where “[Chinese] mobsters openly support pro-Beijing initiatives and discreetly offer services abroad: engaging in political influence, shifting illicit funds for the Chinese elite, and assisting in the persecution of dissidents.” In return, Chinese officials not only tolerate but often endorse these illegal activities.  This state backing sets Chinese criminal enterprises apart from typical criminal organizations. While many in the American public may be shocked by these revelations, veteran observers of the CCP recognize its long history of partnering with criminal gangs in places such as Hong Kong to intimidate critics and create chaos. Understanding this collaboration is vital to grasping the national security threats that Chinese transnational criminal organizations pose.   The recent Congressional hearing has revived concerns about whether the CCP is intentionally waging a “reverse opium war” against the United States.  Historically, in the 19th century, China’s Manchu government fought against the Western powers in two Opium Wars, aiming to halt the illegal opium trade that weakened the Chinese population and drained the nation’s treasury. According to the CCP’s historical narratives, China’s defeat in the Opium Wars and the “unequal treaties” imposed upon it marked the beginning of the century of humiliation, which only ended when the CCP-led People’s Liberation Army expelled foreign invaders. This narrative is central to the CCP’s claims of legitimacy and plays a crucial role in shaping its policies toward the West. Additionally, this narrative is ingrained in China’s patriotic education, fueling rising nationalism and anti-West sentiment among its citizens.  Nowadays, China is being accused of waging a “reverse opium war” against the United States, because Chinese criminal organizations dominate the black-market marijuana industry in America, while the China is the largest global supplier of fentanyl precursor chemicals, fueling America’s opioid crisis. Additionally, China has substantial influence over other aspects of the global drug supply chain, including money laundering. A U.S. Department of the Treasury report found that Chinese money laundering networks, involving state-owned banks, handled approximately $312 billion worldwide from 2020 to 2024.  Despite U.S. government complaints and a promise from Chinese Communist Party leader Xi Jinping, a 2024 congressional report reveals that Beijing continues to subsidize companies manufacturing fentanyl precursors and synthetic narcotics, providing tax rebates for exports outside China. This has sparked concerns that the CCP might be intentionally flooding the U.S. market with drugs like fentanyl and marijuana as a strategy to destabilize America and use the resulting crisis to gain concessions on key issues.  While there are no direct CCP policies explicitly declaring a “reverse opium war” against the U.S., it is undeniable that the CCP is at least passively complicit in America’s escalating drug crisis. Having established one of the most powerful police states in the world, equipped with extensive surveillance capabilities, the CCP has both the means and the authority to halt the supply of precursor chemicals to drug cartels and help American law enforcement dismantle the illicit drug networks operated by Chinese transnational criminal organizations in America. The CCP’s choice to remain inactive in this matter raises serious questions about its intentions and complicity in exacerbating America’s drug problem.  For too long, the U.S. government has viewed the illicit drug trade as simply a law enforcement issue. However, with the CCP’s subsidies of Chinese chemical companies and tacit support of criminal organizations, illicit drug trade must be recognized as a national security issue.   The Trump administration seems to be moving in this direction, taking on two of China’s close allies—Mexico and Venezuela—by designating Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and deploying the U.S. military to destroy Venezuelan drug vessels.   Nevertheless, the Trump administration must do more to raise public awareness about this national security threat. It is essential to lead a coordinated effort among local, state, and federal agencies. Only through a comprehensive government response can we hope to win the war on drugs and safeguard our nation.  We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Is the CCP Waging a “Reverse Opium War” on America? appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Too Fun to Check: Dead Heat in NJ Gubernatorial Race?

There are many natural agents that would gladly take care of our corpses. Why don’t we let them?

The ongoing dry spell is the worst in at least 1,300 years.

ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel welcomed actor Ethan Hawke to his Wednesday show to promote his new TV show, The Lowdown. However, before that, Hawke compared Kimmel’s recent suspension to being sent to a Russian gulag. Kimmel agreed with the sentiment, claiming it is “hard to tell the difference” between the gulag and the United States. After some joking about how Kimmel is taking the show to Brooklyn next week and the Brooklyn-based Hawke flew out to Los Angeles for this interview, Hawke recalled he was supposed to do it earlier, “Then there was, like, some weird delay. I didn't get to go on when I was supposed to go on… I don’t watch the news much. I don't know what that was about.” Kimmel replied, “Yeah, you were a victim of the preemption. Well, I’m glad to have you out here.”     That’s when Hawke made his analogy, “Well, I'm glad to have you back in the United States of America… I was told you were sent to a Russian gulag, but luckily, you're back.” An appreciative Kimmel concurred, “Thank you. I appreciate that. It's hard to tell the difference now between the gulags and the United States.” Hawke then had some final bits of praise, “But last night was amazing. And we're all really proud of you.” Kimmel was suspended for his remarks that MAGA was "desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them.” That is a conspiracy theory that Kimmel still hasn’t addressed, and no serious discussion about President Trump or FCC Chairman Brendan Carr’s role in this story can occur until that point is made. Ultimately, Kimmel was suspended because of his actions and returned a week later. He’s not exactly Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Here is a transcript for the September 24 show: ABC Jimmy Kimmel Live! 9/24/2025 11:56 PM ET JIMMY KIMMEL: You live in Brooklyn, right? ETHAN HAWKE: I live in—when you just said that, I’m like “why didn't you have me on then? It would have saved me the flight.” KIMMEL: It's really bad planning because you did fly out here for this. HAWKE: Yeah, and then there was, like, some weird delay. I didn't get to go on when I was supposed to go on. KIMMEL: Oh, that’s right. HAWKE: I don't know, I don’t watch the news much. I don't know what that was about. KIMMEL: Yeah, you were a victim of the preemption. Well, I’m glad to have you out here. HAWKE: Well, I'm glad to have you back in the United States of America. KIMMEL: You were told that I left? HAWKE: I was told you were sent to a Russian gulag, but luckily, you're back. KIMMEL: Thank you. I appreciate that. It's hard to tell the difference now between the gulags and the United States. HAWKE: But last night was amazing. And we're all really proud of you. KIMMEL: Oh, that’s nice.

​​​​​​As expected, President Donald Trump’s rebuke of the climate change hysteria in front of the pious apparatchiks at the United Nations sent the media into a tailspin, with The New York Times leading the pack. Times climate reporters Somini Sengupta and Lisa Friedman snorted at Trump following his September 23 speech at the U.N. for alleging that the so-called “scientific consensus on global warming was created by ‘stupid people’” and having “lashed out at wind turbines, environmentalists and allies around the world while dismissing the dangers of climate change.” Sengupta and Friedman railed that Trump’s remarks were “an extraordinary diatribe that ignored the human suffering exacted by the heat waves, wildfires and deadly floods that are aggravated by the burning of fossil fuels and, at the same time, stood at odds with the rapid expansion of renewable energy all over the world.”  JunkScience.com founder Steve Milloy blasted The Times over its self-inflicted conniption in comments to MRC Business: The New York Times says there is an ‘overwhelming scientific consensus’ on climate. President Trump says climate science is from ‘stupid people.’ I hope we can get together and compromise on there being a ‘stupid people consensus?’  Milloy right. The Times once again whipped out the tired old environmentalist drum that there is somehow "overwhelming" scientific consensus that “the burning of coal, oil and gas has raised the average global temperature by well over 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, compared to the preindustrial era, and has exacerbated deadly heat, fires and floods.” But as meteorologist Dr. Roy Spencer retorted in July 2025, “one looks at rainfall statistics across the U.S. extending back to the mid- to late-1800s, there is little evidence for anything that might be considered related to human-caused climate change.” In fact, wrote Spencer, “For flooding, the most recent IPCC report (AR6) said there is ‘low confidence for observed changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods at the global scale.’” Spencer concluded in effect that “[t]he public has been misled on climate science, and we are trying to set the record straight.” One would think that the so-called “paper of record” would “set the record straight,” but The Times has proven over the years that it is more willing to bend the record into a pretzel to fit its climate buffoonery rather than straighten out anything. Sengupta and Friedman even tried fact-checking Trump for assailing “environmentalists for wanting to ‘kill all the cows,’ a claim for which there is no evidence. Cattle produce methane emissions, a potent greenhouse gas, and for that and other reasons, some environmentalists have urged people to eat less meat.” Talk about gaslighting: no pun intended. The environmentalists over at Scientific American explicitly flirted with that very idea in a November 7, 2023, story headlined, “Quitting Cows Could Have Big Environmental Impacts, but It’s Harder Than It Sounds.” In that piece, co-authored by food and sustainability writer Naoki Nitta and the notorious eco-extremist nonprofit Grist, the writers played footsy with the idea of an “animal-free agricultural system” in the U.S., of which the modest corresponding decrease of carbon emissions would be “noteworthy” apart from the obvious drawbacks. In addition, Nitta and Grist wrote, “Eliminating the nation’s cattle and replacing feed production with food crops would create more food, White said, resulting in a caloric surplus of 25 percent.” Also, in 2023, the European Parliament celebrated how “Ireland’s Department of Agriculture has proposed to kill 200 000 cows to combat climate change and meet the EU’s climate objectives.” In essence, Trump was hovering over the target with his usual embellished banter, while Sengupta and Friedman were just spewing hot air that would give the emissions of cow farts a run for their money.