Corrupt Bridgeport Mayoral Election to Be Run Again

A fresh look at an influential report from the 1970s has found that its predictions of global collapse within this century look worryingingly accurate.In 1972‚ a team of scientists from MIT used a computer model to look into the future of humanity after receiving a commission from the Club of Rome‚ an international group of leading academics‚ scientists‚ business leaders‚ and politicians. The report – The Limits to Growth – used a systematics dynamics model‚ known as World3‚ to look at the complex interactions between the human population‚ industrial output‚ pollution‚ food production‚ and Earth’s natural resources. It found that a “stabilized world” scenario – in which global collapse was avoided and living standards remained stable – could be possible‚ but dramatic shifts in priorities and societal values were required. If unfettered economic growth continued without regard for the environment‚ it could produce a global society racked by food shortages and plummeting human welfare.Ultimately‚ World3 showed that a “business as usual” scenario would most likely bring around the collapse of global society within the 21st century. Collapse‚ in this context‚ doesn’t mean humanity would be thrown into extinction like the dinosaurs – instead‚ it refers to the total stagnation of industrial growth and a significant decline in human welfare.The work attracted a bunch of criticisms and controversy‚ but another look at the data suggests that the model’s prediction‚ so far‚ has been surprisingly on track.As reported in the Journal of Industrial Ecology in November 2020‚ Gaya Herrington‚ a director for the accountancy firm KPMG‚ looked at how the empirical data over the past decades lined up with the report’s predictions. Using the new data‚ she looked at four different possible scenarios: two different “business as usual” scenarios‚ a “stabilized world‚” and “comprehensive technology‚” in which humanity is able to innovate its way out of environmental constraints using technological development.Both "business usual scenarios" sparked a global collapse within the 21st century‚ one through the depletion of natural resources and the other through pollution‚ climate change‚ and/or environmental devastation. Comprehensive technology was able to avoid a total collapse within the century‚ although eventually declines in human welfare were caused due to the rising cost of technology.The stabilized world scenario‚ in which the world has dramatically changed societal values and priorities‚ saw the human population stabilize by the end of the 21st century and living standards were maintained. Above all‚ Herrington's work affirms that the 50-year-old forecasts were surprisingly accurate‚ and it appears the world is still not on a path to a stable world. If there's one glimmer of hope‚ the work does suggest that a stabilized world and an optimistic future are still within our grasp. However‚ to achieve this‚ radical changes will be needed. “Hidden behind a seemingly ambiguous outcome of two best fit scenarios that marginally align closer than the other two‚ hails the message that it’s not yet too late for humankind to change course and alter the trajectory of future data points‚” Herrington wrote in a LinkedIn post describing her work.  “We have another choice. Although SW [stabilized world] tracks least closely‚ a deliberate trajectory change is still possible. That window of opportunity is closing fast."The findings are reported in the Journal of Industrial Ecology.An earlier version of this article was published in July 2021.

Whether it's in response to a chill in the air or an especially tasteful guitar solo‚ it's often thought that goosebumps are largely out of our conscious control — but that might not always be the case.Some people possess the unusual ability to control their goosebumps at will‚ flicking them on and off like a light switch. Perhaps most peculiar of all‚ early research has indicated that people with certain personality traits‚ namely a high level of openness‚ might be more likely to have goosebumps-on-command compared to others. Goosebumps are an evolutionary leftover from our ancestors. In a moment of flight or fight‚ tiny muscles around the hair follicle contract‚ causing the hair to rise and making the animal appear larger and more intimidating. For us largely hairless apes‚ however‚ it most often appears as little more than a few hairs sticking up and some goosebumps on the skin. This is often considered an involuntary reaction‚ controlled by nerves from the sympathetic nervous system that regulates the body's unconscious actions. So‚ given our current understanding‚ it should be physiologically impossible to control this action on cue. Nevertheless‚ it appears that some people do have conscious control of this action. In a 2018 study‚ published in the journal PeerJ‚ researchers from Northeastern University gathered 32 people who were able to demonstrate their voluntary control of piloerection‚ the scientific name for the contraction of small muscles at the base of hair follicles that cause goosebumps. Most of these participants explained that it was extremely easy for them to generate goosebumps at will. In fact‚ they were surprised that most people didn’t have this ability.“I think about goosebumps‚ they start to appear‚ I shudder/shiver‚ and there they are‚” one remarked.“I just think about the act of having goosebumps and focus a little on the nape of my neck‚” another said. As part of this study‚ the participants were asked to complete a survey about their personalities‚ as well as other questions about goosebumps. The team found that all of the people who could control their goosebumps display higher levels of openness. This is a personality trait that generally refers to a person’s tendency to have a greater receptivity to new ideas and new experiences. These people tend to be more creative‚ imaginative‚ and curious‚ as well as have a greater appreciation for art and beauty. The researchers note that there’s no way to explain why people with high levels of openness possess this skill. Since the study had a very small sample size‚ it may just be sheer chance that their participants all displayed higher levels of openness. To dive deeper into the mystery‚ the study authors expressed a desire to follow up their research with a larger study involving more people.An earlier version of this article was published in March 2021. 

Taxpayer-funded PBS and NPR loathe Fox News like all leftists do‚ and both promoted ex-CNN host Brian Stelter's second Fox-bashing book Network of Lies. On Thursday‚ PBS NewsHour anchor Amna Nawaz ran Stelter through his usual talking points about Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch‚ but concluded with the Big Picture‚ as reporters panic about how their coverage of Donald Trump won't prevent his re-election:  PBS promotes Brian Stelter's last anti-Trump/anti-Fox News book: "I think your segment earlier this week about autocratic behavior‚ about the language Trump is using is really important. We need to see that all across the American media‚ including in the right-wing media." pic.twitter.com/nOtPNi6uwE — Tim Graham (@TimJGraham) November 19‚ 2023 AMNA NAWAZ: When you step back and look at how we today‚ journalists today are covering this election‚ do you feel like we have learned lessons from the past? BRIAN STELTER: Well‚ I think your segment earlier this week about autocratic behavior‚ about the language Trump is using is really important. We need to see that all across the American media‚ including in the right-wing media. And that's where I doubt we're actually going to see the honest conversations that need to be had about the impact of Trump's rhetoric and his promises about a second term. But let's take the non-FOX media for a moment. Yes‚ we need fact-checking. We need more of that. But we also need history-checking. We need reality-checking. This is bigger than just facts at this point. This is about two different realities that are colliding‚ one that is much more tied to truth and the reality‚ and then this other story that Trump is selling about revenge‚ about grievance‚ about retribution. Stelter thinks there's someone out there who hasn't heard their incessant Trump warnings: "I would like to see the coverage amped up quite a bit on that front in order to help people who are not news junkies. I feel like I know what's going on‚ but most people are tuned out right now about the 2024 election. It's time to tune in." On Tuesday's Fresh Air talk show on NPR‚ Stelter blabbed for more than a half-hour on the same points. Host Terry Gross mocked Tucker Carlson's exit: "Well‚ if Lachlan is focused on advertising‚ I mean‚ Tucker Carlson's extremism cost the network a lot of money. A lot of the sponsors pulled out. They had to rely on My Pillow (laughter) for - as a primary sponsor."  As opposed to NPR‚ where we are the involuntary sponsors. It continued: GROSS: you just talked about how Tucker Carlson moved to Maine and Florida after an attempt to invade his home. And a lot of the things he said on the air led to attacks on other people‚ people who he considered villains. Their lives were at stake. Their families' lives were threatened. But when it happened to him‚ he got out of town. STELTER: That's right‚ he had the resources to up and leave. I do think the protest at his home [in D.C.] that night was a big deal. I also think he did exaggerate some elements of it. The police report does not match up with his version of events‚ but it did rattle him to have protesters at his door. And look‚ I get it. It's one thing for Tucker to send me a dozen donuts as a prank‚ as as he did one day. It's another thing when a right-wing activist shows up in your basement‚ as happened to me in New York City one day -- shows up in your basement with a camera and a microphone‚ pestering you with questions about some crazy conspiracy theory. It's funny sometimes that NPR people ask what Fox News shows are like‚ as if they have never seen it for a minute in their lives:  GROSS: So Jesse Watters replaced Tucker Carlson on the air. What is his show like? How does it compare to Tucker's show? STELTER: I would say Watters is more of a mainline Republican. He's not a part of the so-called new right the way that Carlson is. He's not as isolationist‚ for example‚ when it comes to U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine. So in some ways‚ Watters is a little bit more of a - I hate to use the word mainstream because I think it's not an appropriate word for the Republican Party in 2023‚ but he is somewhat more mainstream than Carlson was. That said‚ Watters has never met a conspiracy theory that he didn't like. He routinely assails Democrats as the enemy. He barely even refers to Biden by his last name. Of course‚ he prefers Joe - right? - as an insult. So you have that kind of -- what I think is a very extremist posture that's now just baked in and assumed to be the norm all across Fox. How is it "very extremist" to mock Joe Biden and "routinely assail Democrats as the enemy"? If that's true‚ then aren't all the leftist networks "very extremist" mocking Trump and routinely assailing Republicans as very dangerous?

This Sweet Potato Pie is easy to make and a wonderful addition to any holiday gathering! If you love this pie you may want to try out Maple Pecan Pumpkin Pie. It’s a combination of a pecan pie and a pumpkin pie and it’s delicious. ❤️WHY WE LOVE THIS RECIPE This pie is made with...

Arizona State University has apparently decided to cancel its event with U.S. Representative Rashida Tlaib‚ someone who has called for the complete annihilation of Israel. Tlaib has come under fire from colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives for suggesting that Hamas was right to launch the attack on October 7‚ and that the complete destruction of the Jewish state is a good thing. The New York Post reported that the now-canceled event was put on by the Arizona Palestine Network‚ which is not affiliated with the university.The event was apparently canceled because the group did not follow the appropriate procedures. Tlaib was supposed to speak on Friday about how the issue in Palestine is an American issue. The cancellation comes as several colleges and universities around the U.S. have been forced to address the ongoing conflict in the Middle East‚ as student-led groups and faculty have expressed anti-Semitic rhetoric in their support of Palestine.A spokesperson for the Arizona Palestine Network told Fox News Digital that "[t]he event featuring Congresswoman Tlaib was planned and produced by groups not affiliated with ASU and was organized outside of ASU policies and procedures. Accordingly‚ that event will not take place today on the ASU Tempe campus."However‚ the Arizona Palestine Network believed the university's decision to be unacceptable‚ claiming that "Rashida Tlaib must be heard on campus as the only Palestinian member of Congress who plans to speak on an American issue at this event.""ASU cannot claim to hold free speech as a principle while denying Palestinians their voices on campus. Cancelling this event puts the university in direct contradiction with its charter as a university ‘measured not by whom it excludes‚ but by whom it includes and how they succeed‚'" the group said. Blaze News reported earlier this week that Tlaib appears to have garnered steep disapproval of the Jewish community in Michigan's 13th Congressional District. And it does not appear she has made an effort to reach out to the Jewish community there.Since Hamas' brutal attack on Jewish civilians in early October‚ Tlaib has refused to condemn the attack‚ instead launching criticisms at Israel for its response to the attack.Rabbi Aaron Starr‚ who is the head of a prominent Jewish congregation in Tlaib's district‚ said that the congresswoman has failed to reach out‚ adding that "she has responded to my efforts to communicate with her with misleading form letters."Starr concluded that Tlaib "is siding with the terrorist organization Hamas."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

It was the year that many of the decade's musical trends began to solidify. Continue reading…

by Glenn Spitzer‚ American Thinker: Who are these “climate change deniers” we hear so much about? Does anyone really doubt the climate changes? Well‚ yes.  There are climate change deniers — a lot of them.  They live right under our noses‚ and they are celebrated.  Here’s a quote from one of the most famous climate change deniers: Our civilization […]

by Selwyn Duke‚ The New American: It’s called the breakdown of civil society. It’s also called something else: Having good people subsidize thieving miscreants through higher costs of goods and services. Call it the Lowlife Tax. Or the Irresponsibility Tax. Or‚ perhaps even more fittingly‚ the Electing the Wrong Politicians Tax. (Winner‚ winner‚ chicken dinner?) […]