Using nothing other than light, Canadian scientists have developed an organic smart material that can either soak spilled oil out of water, or repel it. The material can be used in this way like a sponge to quickly clean up marine oil spills before the oil reaches the shoreline and mixes with or poisons sand, […] The post Researchers Unveil Reusable ‘Sponge’ for Soaking Up Marine Oil Spills–Even in Frigid Waters appeared first on Good News Network.

News Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery The Latest Actor Cast in Wake Up Dead Man Might Hint at an Extra Glass Onion Connection Halle Berry! That has a kick! By Molly Templeton | Published on May 30, 2024 Screenshot: Marvel Studios Comment 0 Share New Share Screenshot: Marvel Studios A new day, a new bit of casting news about Wake Up Dead Man: A Knives Out Mystery, the upcoming Rian Johnson film in which Daniel Craig will, for the third time, play detective Benoit Blanc. As of Tuesday, the film’s lineup (of suspects?) included Andrew Scott (Ripley), Josh O’Connor (Challengers), and Cailee Spaeny (Priscilla). Now we’ve got three more actors to peer closely at, looking for clues. Kerry Washington (Scandal), Glenn Close (Damages), and Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye, pictured above) are the latest trio to join Johnson’s next murder mystery. Deadline exclusively reported the news on Washington and Renner, noting, of course, that this is Renner’s first feature film role since his early-2023 snowplow accident. But there’s another notable thing about Renner joining the cast of this particular film. In the second Knives Out mystery, Glass Onion, a particular hot sauce serves as a running gag. Or perhaps I should say a Renning gag, given that said (fictional) hot sauce is Jeremy Renner’s Renning Hot. Jeremy Renner does not, in real life, have a hot sauce brand. (He did have an app. And also Rennervations.) But one does have to wonder whether, in the upcoming trip to the Knives Out Cinematic Universe, he will be playing the fictional creator of the previously appearing fictional hot sauce, or if his character will be something else entire. No one is saying; all plot and character details are still top secret. Wake Up Dead Man is expected to arrive on Netflix in 2025.[end-mark] The post The Latest Actor Cast in <i>Wake Up Dead Man</i> Might Hint at an Extra <i>Glass Onion</i> Connection appeared first on Reactor.

Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee are touting provisions to the annual defense spending bill that would remove several left-wing policies and initiatives, according to a memo on the bill’s provisions obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation. The Armed Services Committee passed on May 22 the draft of the National Defense Authorization Act, an $883 billion bill to set the Department of Defense’s 2025 spending budget. The memo touted several new provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act draft, including barring the Biden administration’s Pentagon from implementing or maintaining diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and climate change programs in the military. The National Defense Authorization Act would bar the Defense Department from running committees or programs responsible for helping implement DEI policies at Department of Defense Education Activity schools worldwide. Pentagon internal documents previously obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation outlined millions in budget allocations from the Biden administration for DEI infinitives at DODEA schools. “The FY25 NDAA builds upon our efforts last year to restore the focus of our military on lethality,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, R-Ala., told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “By requiring merit-based promotions, ending affirmative action at service academies, and prohibiting climate change nonsense, the FY25 NDAA makes it clear that the military is no place for President Joe Biden’s far-left politics.” The document promoted a provision in the House Armed Services Committee’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would require the Department of Defense to make all promotional and command decisions based on “individual merit and demonstrated performance, rather than political affiliation, race, sex, ethnicity, or religion.” In doing so, the bill would also end affirmative action programs at service academies, including the Naval Academy, the Air Force Academy, and West Point, which would be consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling that high academic institutions cannot factor race into admission selections. The National Defense Authorization Act would also ban the implementation of any new climate change policies in the military, including Defense Department policies to pursue defense operations with “lower climate impacts” or implement greenhouse gas regulations on military initiatives. The bill would further require the Pentagon to release a report on how strict climate rules hinder the military’s capabilities and increase defense costs on the taxpayer’s dime. The memo notes that the fiscal year 2025 National Defense Authorization Act will build on the accomplishments from the 2024 version of the bill, including provisions that halted the Pentagon’s DEI hiring program and capped out the pay of existing DEI hires, and prohibited funding for the Pentagon’s counterextremism program that targeted what it defined as “extremist” ideologies, a program that has found little evidence of such extremism and may have created feelings of alienation with the military. The National Defense Authorization Act draft, having passed the House Armed Services Committee last week, now moves to the full House for consideration and vote. Members will have the ability to suggest and make alterations before it is passed to the Senate, where upper chamber members will vote on whether to pass it for Biden’s signature. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation The post House Armed Services Panel Touts Removal of Leftist Policies From Defense Spending Bill appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The U.S. economy grew less than previously thought in the first quarter of 2024 amid a slowdown in consumer spending, the Bureau of Economic Analysis announced Thursday. Gross domestic product was revised down in the first quarter from 1.6% to 1.3% year-over-year in a sign that the economy is not as strong as initial estimates indicated, according to a release from the BEA. Economists originally expected growth in the first quarter to be around 2.2%, more in line with the above trend growth seen in the third and fourth quarters of 2023, which were 4.9% and 3.4%, respectively. The revision was due to new information that shows that consumer spending, private inventory investment, and federal government spending were lower than initial estimates, while state and local government spending, nonresidential and residential fixed investment, and exports were slightly greater than original tallies, according to the BEA. Current-dollar GDP was also revised down to 4.3% from 4.8%, and real gross domestic income totaled just 1.5% in an initial estimate from the BEA. Disappointing GDP reports have spurred fears that the economy is entering a period of stagflation marked by slow economic growth and high inflation. Inflation measured at 3.4% year-over-year in April, staying stubbornly above 3% since it peaked under President Joe Biden at 9% in June 2022. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell pushed back against speculation that the economy is undergoing stagflation following the Fed’s May meeting, pointing to low unemployment and decelerating inflation. Biden has also tried to downplay the state of the economy, particularly inflation, blaming corporate greed on rising prices, prompting the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco to disprove that claim by comparing historical trends. Gross domestic income continues to lag far behind gross domestic product, and the latter is below its pre-pandemic trend despite being fueled by a debt binge for the last several years; seems less likely that GDI catches up and more likely that GDP catches down… pic.twitter.com/mzyx2a76CC— E.J. Antoni, Ph.D. (@RealEJAntoni) May 30, 2024 In an attempt to bring inflation back down to around 2%, the Fed has placed its federal funds rate in a range of 5.25% and 5.50%, a 23-year high, which has put pressure on consumers and businesses to slow spending. The hike in the federal funds rate has increased the cost of credit across the board, making it more expensive to take out debt, such as through credit cards. The cumulative amount of debt held by Americans totaled $17.69 trillion in the first quarter, with $1.12 trillion of that being on credit cards. The share of people who were behind 90 days or more on their credit card payments in the quarter jumped to 10.7%, outdoing the pandemic high of 10% in the first quarter of 2021. Job growth has also slowed as of late, with the U.S. adding just 175,000 nonfarm payroll jobs in April, far lower than the 242,000 that were expected, while the unemployment rate ticked up slightly to 3.9%. In April, there were fewer gains in government jobs than in previous months, contributing largely to the slowdown, with March adding 303,000 new jobs. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation The post US Economic Growth in First Quarter Was Even Worse Than Previously Thought appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The Supreme Court has paved the way for the National Rifle Association (NRA) to pursue a lawsuit against a former New York state official, asserting that their free-speech rights were infringed upon. The NRA’s lawsuit claims that following the tragic Parkland, Florida school shooting in 2018, which resulted in 17 deaths, Vullo coerced banks and insurance companies into severing ties with the NRA, raising First Amendment concerns. We obtained a copy of the opinion for you here. Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the NRA contends that Vullo’s actions amounted to an unconstitutional suppression of their free speech. The NCLA also filed an amicus curiae brief in this case. The court ruled 9-0. On May 30, the Court’s unanimous ruling overturned a previous lower court’s dismissal of the NRA’s lawsuit against Maria Vullo, the former Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services. The ruling underscores that while advocacy groups are not exempt from regulation, governmental actions to suppress speech must adhere to First Amendment protections. Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized, “Ultimately, the critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries.” Maria Vullo defended her actions by stating that her investigation into NRA-endorsed insurance policies, often criticized as “murder insurance,” was justified. She acknowledged expressing concerns about the risks of doing business with gun groups but denied exerting undue pressure, alleging that many companies were independently distancing themselves from the NRA. The NRA argued that Vullo misused a state investigation into the legality of its insurance products as leverage, allegedly offering leniency to companies that withdrew support from the organization. These insurance policies, which provided coverage for losses related to firearms, including intentional harm, were deemed illegal under state law. This investigation, which began prior to the Parkland shooting, culminated in substantial fines for the insurance providers involved. Additionally, Vullo issued guidance letters to financial institutions, highlighting the “reputational risks” of associating with the NRA. The NRA maintains that these letters, given Vullo’s authoritative position, significantly influenced several companies’ decisions to cut ties, leading to substantial financial losses for the organization. “The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision today was a crucial reaffirmation of fundamental First Amendment principles: that the government cannot coerce private parties to suppress disfavored viewpoints,” said NCLA counsel Jenin Younes in a statement to Reclaim The Net. “We hope that the Court also remembers that the First Amendment prohibits government from abridging freedom of speech— through coercion, collusion, or any other means— when it issues its decision in Murthy v. Missouri in upcoming weeks.” The Supreme Court’s decision thus reaffirms the principle that government officials must not misuse their regulatory power to selectively silence speech, reinforcing the robust protections afforded by the First Amendment. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post NRA Triumphs in Free Speech Battle with Former NY Regulator appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The EU’s European Commission (EC) appears to be preparing to include “hate speech” among the list of most serious criminal offenses and regulate its investigation and prosecution across the bloc. Whether this type of proposal is cropping up now because of the upcoming EU elections or if the initiative has legs will become obvious in time, but for now, the plans are supported by several EC commissioners. The idea stems from the European Citizens’ Panel on Tackling Hatred in Society, one of several panels (ECPs) established to help EC President Ursula von der Leyen with her (campaign?) promise of ushering in a democracy in the EU that is “fit for the future.” That could mean anything, and the vagueness by no means stops there: the very “hate speech,” despite the gravity of the proposals to classify it as a serious crime, is not even well defined, observers are warning. Despite that, the recommendations contained in a report produced by the panel have been backed by EC’s Vice-President for Values and Transparency Vera Jourova as well as Vice President for Democracy and Demography Dubravka Suica. According to Jourova, the panel’s recommendations on how to deal with “hate speech” are “clear and ambitious” – although, as noted, a clear definition of that type of speech is still be lacking. This is the wording the report went for: any speech that is “incompatible with the values of human dignity, freedom, democracy, the rule of law, and respect of human rights” should be considered as “hate speech.” Critics of this take issue with going for, in essence, subjective, not to mention vague expressions like “values of human dignity” considering that even in Europe, speech can still be lawful even if individuals or groups perceive it as offensive or upsetting. Since there is also hate speech that is already illegal in the EU, the panel wants it to receive a new definition, and the goal, the report reads, is to “ensure that all forms of hate speech are uniformly recognized and penalized, reinforcing our commitment to a more inclusive and respectful society.” If the EU decides to add hate speech to its list of crimes, the panel’s report added, this will allow for the protection of marginalized communities, and “uphold human dignity.” Noteworthy is that the effort seems coordinated, even as far as the wording goes, as media reports note that the recommendation “adopts exactly the same terminology as an EC proposal that was recently endorsed by the European Parliament to extend the list of EU-wide crimes to include ‘hate speech’.” If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post The EU is on the Brink off Making “Hate Speech” a Serious Crime appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Student Protesters Should Expect to Pay a Price for Disrupting the System

EXCLUSIVE OFFER: 60% Off VIP Membership. Today Only!

A bipartisan Texas Senate committee just unanimously voted to subpoena Big Tech companies and force them to answer for their election-interfering censorship efforts. After a hearing that MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider testified at on Wednesday, May 29, the Texas Senate Committee on State Affairs voted unanimously to authorize subpoenas to Big Tech companies. “There is strong evidence that big tech imposes their own biases to manipulate and stifle dissenting voices, undermining election integrity. Texas will not stand for that,” Committee Chair Sen. Bryan Hughes (R) wrote in an X post. The authorization document that Hughes posted calls upon Alphabet, the parent company of Google and YouTube, Meta Platforms Inc., the parent company of Facebook, Instagram and Threads, TikTok and X.  Today the Senate Committee on State Affairs voted unanimously to authorize subpoenas to big tech firms like Facebook and Google. There is strong evidence that big tech imposes their own biases to manipulate and stifle dissenting voices, undermining election integrity. Texas… pic.twitter.com/osOfyBbTzr — Senator Bryan Hughes (@SenBryanHughes) May 29, 2024 Committee Vice Chair Sen. Angela Paxton (R) celebrated the move in an X post. “Senate State Affairs just unanimously voted to issue subpoenas to Alphabet, Meta, TikTok & others in regards to ways to identify & neutralize threats to Texas’s security,” she said. “We are standing up to big tech to ensure the safety & privacy of our children & all Texans!” UPDATE: Senate State Affairs just unanimously voted to issue subpoenas to Alphabet, Meta, TikTok & others in regards to ways to identify & neutralize threats to Texas’s security. We are standing up to big tech to ensure the safety & privacy of our children & all Texans! #txlege pic.twitter.com/e6SMAyRP8H — Senator Angela Paxton (@AngelaPaxtonTX) May 29, 2024 Democrats and Republicans of this committee united on the issue of free speech after holding a hearing on Big Tech censorship. The hearing featured testimony from MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider, Google whistleblower Zac Vorhies, Facebook whistleblower Ryan Hartwig and research psychologist Robert Epstein who has conducted many studies on how Google Search impacts how people vote. Bombshell testimony in the Senate State Affairs Committee from @Schneider_DC , whistleblower Zach Vorhies of @Google and Ryan Hartwig of @facebook regarding big tech interference in our elections. #txlege @Project_Veritas pic.twitter.com/TmAVdfaHqY — Senator Bryan Hughes (@SenBryanHughes) May 29, 2024 During the hearing, Schneider spoke to the urgency of defending free speech. “[W]e are at risk of losing the First Amendment entirely,” he said. “The Google/Facebook attorney has argued that our individual rights to free speech are nothing compared to the government’s right to free speech to coordinate with Big Tech to silence individuals, which of course turns the First Amendment upside down.” He also stressed that social media companies are not merely infringing upon users' rights to free speech but other First Amendment rights as well. “It’s important for you all to know that Google and Facebook, and these other Big Tech firms, they’ve resurrected the Plessy v. Ferguson standard,” Schneider said. “They believe that not only can they discriminate against people based on political viewpoint, they can, and in fact do, discriminate against people based on race and religion,” he added referring to a case in which Facebook argued that it could discriminate against a Sikh religious group. The infamous Plessy v. Ferguson decision – sometimes referred to as the "separate but equal" case – empowered racial discrimination by common carriers. Discredited by history, Plessy was rightfully overturned by the unanimous Brown v. Board of Education decision. MRC Business and Free Speech America Staff Writer Tom Olohan contributed to this report. Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency and an equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us at the Media Research Center contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

On the front page of Sunday’s New York Times, congressional correspondent Annie Karni sympathized with recent criticism of Pennsylvania’s freshman Democratic senior, John Fetterman - once mocked in Republican circles for his Senate floor fashion sense but now reviled by the left for his support of Israel and other iconoclastic positions - in “Fetterman, Flashing a Sharper Edge, Keeps Picking Fights With the Left.” Karni led off with an anecdote to make the left’s case of Fetterman, a Democratic mental health hero turned cranky troglodyte: Senator John Fetterman was hard to miss, lumbering down an empty hallway in a Senate office building dressed in his signature baggy gym shorts and a black hoodie. So when Stevie O’Hanlon, an environmentalist and organizer from Chester County, Pa., spotted him recently, she took the opportunity to question her home-state senator about a pipeline in her community. Mr. Fetterman’s reaction was surprisingly hostile. Raising his phone to capture the confrontation on video, the senator began ridiculing her. “I didn’t expect this!” Mr. Fetterman said, feigning excitement. “Oh my gosh!” As Ms. O’Hanlon politely pressed him on what she called his “change of heart” on the issue of the local pipeline, which he had previously opposed, Mr. Fetterman pulled faces of faux concern until he stepped onto an elevator and let the closing door end the interaction. Ms. O’Hanlon, a co-founder of the progressive Sunrise Movement, was stunned. “I’ve talked to Republicans who are much friendlier than that,” she said in an interview, after a clip of the interaction circulated widely on social media. “The person that we voted for is not the person who mocks constituents when they bring up concerns.” What kind of monster is this? Ms. O’Hanlon is not the only one wondering who Mr. Fetterman has become. Since last fall, the first-term Democratic senator from Pennsylvania has undergone a significant change in political persona. He routinely takes aim at the left wing of his party that he once courted -- and appears to enjoy the spasms of anger he produces because of it, as well as the strange new respect he commands from right-wing media outlets that once dismissed him as a vegetable and lobbed sexist attacks at his wife. Mr. Fetterman’s sharpest break with the left has been on the Israel-Hamas War. A firm backer of Israel before the war, he decided early in the conflict that he would offer unconditional support for Israel and its prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. He has relentlessly hewed to that stance, at times provocatively. Fetterman was fine until he started leaning rightward, apparently. The hostile characterizations continued: But those who have observed his recent transformation also describe a shift in demeanor by Mr. Fetterman, who has begun to express himself in more caustic, sometimes hostile ways. She blamed Fox News and the New York Post for creating this Frankenstein Fetterman: Former staff members and supporters suggest there is more at play, both personally and politically. Mr. Fetterman, who swore off social media, and news in general, after his hospitalization for depression, for a time relied on staff to curate a package of clips that kept him up to speed on what he needed to know. But his return to work and sharp break with the left has coincided with a distinct shift to the right in his media diet; he sometimes appears sucked into a vortex dominated by social media, The New York Post and Fox News, where for the first time in his political career, he is receiving approving coverage. Karni admitted Fetterman's "repudiation of the left" has helped him in Pennsylvania polling. But now that he supports Benjamin Netanyahu’s “far right government” in Israel, it’s suddenly important that Times readers know “he lacks a deep familiarity with the region.” (This after the Times fiercely defended Fetterman from Republican attacks on his mental capability after his hospitalization for depression.) Karni was far more supportive of Fetterman in 2023, when “hard-right” Republicans targeted him for his slobby attire on the Senate floor in defiance of Senate rules.