Delhi govt asks DMs to review court tribunal cases on fortnightly basis

first_imgNew Delhi: To streamline processing of court and tribunal cases, the Delhi government’s revenue department has issued guidelines, asking all district magistrates to review cases on a fortnightly basis and send a report.The department warned of disciplinary action against erring officers for any lapse in compliance of guidelines.The additional district magistrates will be the reviewing officer and an officer not below the rank of the tehsildar will be the nodal officer-legal-cum-parivi officer for all cases involving revenue districts, according to the the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP). Also Read – After eight years, businessman arrested for kidnap & murderThe nodal officer-legal will maintain the complete record of all court and tribunal cases in electronic module with fortnightly printout of same to be kept on record.”The district magistrates shall also review the court/tribunal cases on a fortnightly basis and send a report to the Legal Branch HQ (headquarters) in the prescribed format…,” the guidelines stated.The district magistrates may also bring to the notice of divisional commissioner (headquarters-II) the matters for escalating to appropriate level if any lapse on the part of government counsel is observed.last_img read more

Alberta changing craft beer subsidy plan after trade ruling

first_imgEDMONTON – Alberta’s finance minister says the province will abide by a free trade ruling against its craft beer subsidies, but says the program will be replaced with something else.Joe Ceci says the province is committed to helping its craft brewing industry grow, especially given it faces stiff protectionist measures in other provinces.Ceci wouldn’t say what the changes will be.A three-member appeal panel upheld an earlier ruling that Alberta’s subsidy plan contravenes the Agreement on Internal Trade.For two years, Alberta has been taxing all beer producers at the same rate, but also giving grants to Alberta brewers.Artisan Ales, a Calgary-based importer, challenged the program, saying it was unfair and cut deeply into its sales.last_img

Lanka President Sirisena promises hoteliers maximum financial help to revive tourism

first_imgColombo: Sri Lankan President Maithripala Sirisena has assured hoteliers that the government will give them maximum financial relief to revive the lucrative tourism industry hit by the country’s worst terror attack on Easter Sunday that killed 253 people, including 42 foreigners. Tourism accounts for about five per cent of Sri Lanka’s economy, with India, Britain and China being the main markets. India is the largest source market for Sri Lanka, which received 2.3 million tourists from around the world in 2018. Also Read – Saudi Crown Prince Salman ‘snubbed’ Pak PM Imran, recalled his private jet from US: ReportAround 450,000 Indian tourists visited Sri Lanka last year and the island nation was expecting the total Indian tourist arrivals to cross one million in 2019. President Sirisena acknowledged during his meeting on Monday with the country’s hoteliers that the tourism and hotel industries were worst hit after the string of powerful blasts ripped through three churches and as many luxury hotels on Easter Sunday, killing 253 people and injuring more than 500 others. Also Read – Iraq military admits ‘excessive force’ used in deadly protestsThe bombs tore through three five-star hotels in Colombo: the Cinnamon Grand, the Shangri La and the Kingsbury. Forty two foreigners, including 11 Indian nationals, died in the attacks. Sirisena requested Central Bank Governor Indrajit Coomaraswamy to provide “maximum financial relief” immediately to the hoteliers, Sunday Times reported. Hotels Association President Sanath Ukwatte said hoteliers had invested large sums of money in the development of the hotels and requested the government to provide a moratorium or waiver on the capital and interest for a period of at least two years. During the meeting, the hoteliers also asked the government to hire the services of a professional public relations and communications unit to send out one message to the world. President Sirisena agreed to appoint a Cabinet sub-committee to look into the requirements of the hoteliers, the report said.last_img read more

Laughter is not Medicine Study

first_imgEl Jaddida – A new scholarly review conducted by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) affirms the various risks of laughter on people.“Laughter is Medicine” has been around for a long time until researches carried by the BMJ unveiled the hidden drawbacks of laughter.According to the same study, laughter may cause jaws to dislocate, hernia to pop out, asthma attacks, headaches, cardiac arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat or abnormal heart rhythm), ribs to break if laughter is fierce and urinary tract problems when laughter is suppressed. However, despite the erstwhile drawbacks, doctors do not deny the advantages of laughter.For instance, it can reduce anger, anxiety and stress.It can also reduce cardiovascular tension, blood glucose concentration and risk of myocardial infarction.In short, before you decide to put a frown on your face, a nice smile is the best gift to give people around you. Smile and the world will smile back to you.last_img read more

In Cooperstown a Crowded Waiting Room

Jessie Schwartz for The New York Times Baseball writers elected no one to the Hall of Fame on Wednesday, despite what might have been the deepest ballot in years.The failure of the writers to pick Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens was not a surprise given the low vote totals received in the past by Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, other players associated with the use performance-enhancing drugs. But the vote totals for Bonds and Clemens, just 36 and 38 percent, were lower than expected.Craig Biggio, who received 68.2 percent of the vote in his first year of eligibility, will almost certainly make it into the Hall of Fame someday. Still, his profile is quite similar to Robin Yount and Roberto Alomar, two players who did better in their first year on the ballot. (Yount got 77.5 percent of the vote in his first year on the ballot in 1999, while Alomar got 73.7 percent of the vote in 2010 and made it in the next year.)Perhaps the clearest effect of the crowded ballot, however, was realized among candidates who were returning to the ballot from last year. Of the 13 players who carried over from the 2012 ballot, nine received a lower share of the vote, including Lee Smith, Alan Trammell, Fred McGriff, Don Mattingly and Bernie Williams.This is atypical; instead, players usually add votes with each additional year they spend on the ballot. Since 1967, when the Hall of Fame adopted balloting rules similar to the ones it uses now, about two-thirds of holdover players gained ground from their prior year’s vote percentage.It is possible to be a bit more precise about this pattern. Based on an analysis of Hall of Fame voting between 1967 and 2011, I found that the increase in a player’s vote total is typically proportional to his percentage from the previous year. In his second year on the ballot, for example, the typical player’s vote share increases by a multiple of about 1.1.Thus, a player who received 10 percent of the vote in his first year would be expected to receive about 11 percent on his second try, while a player who got 50 percent of the vote would go up to 55 percent.The pace of improvement is typically highest in the first several years that a player spends on the ballot, slowing down once he has been eligible five or six times. (The exception is in a player’s 15 and final year of eligibility, when he may receive a fairly large boost.) But these small percentage gains can add up, something like the way in which interest compounds over time. For example, as shown in the chart below, a player who gets just 30 percent of the vote in his first year on the ballot would be projected to make it in on his 14th year of eligibility if he follows the formula each year.In practice, the growth in a player’s vote share is rarely this smooth — and you should not necessarily expect the pattern to hold for Bonds and Clemens. (Instructively, the vote shares for McGwire and Palmeiro have actually been declining.) Nonetheless, Hall of Fame candidates typically have a tailwind as time passes.This year, however, veterans on the Hall of Fame ballot faced a headwind instead. The next chart compares the actual vote that each player received against that projected by the historical formula. Actual results in 2013 compared to projections based on historical patterns.Twelve of the 13 players underperformed their projection; the exception was Dale Murphy, who got a larger-than-average boost in his final year of eligibility, but still came nowhere close to winning election.Even some players who gained ground did not necessarily help their chances. Jack Morris went from 66.7 percent of the vote to 67.7 percent, below his projection of 69.4 percent. The small difference could be important because next year will be Morris’s final year of eligibility, and he projects to be very close to the 75 percent threshold for election. (Perhaps the player who had the best year, instead, was Tim Raines, whose vote share grew to 52.2 percent from 48.7 percent, and who is now a clear favorite to be elected someday by the writers.)Most other players lost ground outright. Trammell, in his 12th year of eligibility, declined to 33.6 percent from 36.8 percent of the vote. He was an underdog to make it in before, but now he seems to have very little chance. The same also holds for Smith, who lost most of what he gained last year after years of stagnant vote totals.McGriff, as Joe Posnanski writes, seemed to be a plausible candidate to gain ground this year as writers sought out players who were perceived as clean, as opposed to known or suspected of steroid use. Instead, his vote share declined to 20.7 percent from 23.9 percent. Williams had received just under 10 percent of the vote in his first year of eligibility, but his case was not entirely hopeless; players like Bob Lemon and Carl Hubbell were eventually selected by the writers with a similar vote total in their first year.Instead, Williams fell below the 5 percent threshold required for a player to stay on the ballot.The crowded and confusing ballot may be affecting these players in several ways. The most obvious is that the writers are limited to voting for a maximum of 10 players. This year, according to the sample of ballots collected by the Twitter user @leokitty, 24 percent of writers used all 10 of their picks. That compares with 12 percent in 2011, and just 4 percent in 2012.Did the 10-vote limit keep Biggio and Morris out of the Hall of Fame, perhaps along with other players?Actually, it was almost certainly not responsible all by itself. Of the 24 percent of writers who used all 10 ballot slots, 90 percent did name Biggio, meaning 10 percent did not. At best, therefore, if all writers who exhausted their ballots would also have named Biggio if they had unlimited votes, he would have gotten only 10 percent of the 24 percent, adding only 2.4 percentage points to his overall vote total.The logic here is that it’s hard to make a case that Biggio was only the 11th or 12th best player on the ballot. Instead, most of the writers who left him out were probably more like Jon Heyman of CBS Sports. Heyman wrote that he saw Biggio as the eighth best player on the ballot — but he also thought that only six were worthy of inclusion. Most of the writers who left Biggio out, in other words, were those who take a conservative overall approach to how many players they want in the Hall of Fame, and not those who ran out of ballot positions.Morris is a more debatable case. If all writers who maxed out their ballot slots had included him, he would have come very close to 75 percent of the vote. However, Morris is also a highly polarizing candidate. Those writers who included him often thought he was among the very best players on the ballot; on several ballots, in fact, Morris was the only player named. But other writers think he falls fall short of Hall of Fame standards and would not have picked him no matter how many votes they had to spare.Nor, obviously, were Bonds’s and Clemens’s totals affected to any material degree by the 10-player limit. Nobody left Bonds off their ballots because they thought he had only the 11th-best statistical record; they did so because they don’t think steroids users should be in the Hall of Fame. (In fact, most of the writers who maxed out their ballot slots included Bonds and Clemens; the writers who are willing to consider performance-enhancing drug users have much more crowded ballots than those who are not.)Instead, players like McGriff, Trammell, Williams and Edgar Martinez were probably most affected by the 10-player limit. The logic for McGriff, for example, is very close of the opposite of that which might be applied to Biggio. It’s fairly hard to sustain a case that McGriff was one of the best six or seven players on the ballot this year. But you might credibly argue that there is a glut of a dozen or so qualified players, McGriff among them, and you had to leave McGriff out because of the ballot limit.However, the players are not only being affected by those writers who ran out of ballot slots. There were a higher-than-average number of writers this year who listed very few players, or even none at all. Some 10 percent of voters named two or fewer players this year, according to Leokitty’s spreadsheet. That is lower than in 2012, an underwhelming year on the ballot, when 16 percent of voters did so.But it is less than 2009, 2010 or 2011, when between 3 and 8 percent of writers listed so few players. Some writers are deliberately listing very few players as a protest vote, whether against the steroids era or the Hall of Fame balloting process.Between the protest voters on the one hand, and the maxed-out voters on the other, the players are being squeezed at both ends.Finally, some players may be harmed by the psychology of the ballot. If Clemens were not on the ballot, for example, then you could credibly make a case that Curt Schilling was the best pitcher on the ballot (if you don’t think that Morris is). But Schilling’s accomplishments look poor by comparison to Clemens’s, as do those of almost any pitcher — even if you aren’t willing to vote for Clemens because of his steroids use. The same holds for outfielders whose statistics might be compared with Barry Bonds’s.There is even something to be said for the so-called “paradox of choice”: that when presented with too many options, we may be overwhelmed with information and have trouble making any decisions at all.Hall of Fame voting is ultimately designed to be a consensus process. One reason that players tend to gain votes over time is because the writers are looking at what their peers are doing and value the endorsements of their colleagues. Moreover, because they have as many as 15 chances to elect a player, many writers tend toward conservatism initially. There is no way to remove a player from the Hall of Fame once he has been elected, but you can change your mind to include him later. When a writer initially votes “no” on a player, it really means “wait and see” in many cases.But consensus is harder to achieve when members of a group have divergent values and ideologies. Instead of the typical friendly arguments about how a player’s lifetime accomplishments might be weighed against how dominant he was in his best seasons, or how to compare players at different positions, the writers are now spending most of their time arguing about who used steroids and when, and how this should affect Hall of Fame consideration. Many have passionate beliefs about this, whichever side of the argument they take. An increasing number of writers would like to elect a dozen or more players; an increasing number would like to lose the whole “steroids era” to history. Good-natured debates may be replaced by tactical considerations, as voters make guesses about who everyone else might vote for, or where their ballots might be wasted.Next year will place even more pressure on the voters, when Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas and Mike Mussina are added to the list of candidates. Those who apply little discount for steroids use may credibly claim to identify 15 or more qualified candidates, and even those who do not may have to drop one or two names that they otherwise see as worthy. The New York Times will probably not have to publish a blank page again, but no one but Maddux seems sure to make it in.,Jessie Schwartz for The New York Times Baseball writers elected no one to the Hall of Fame on Wednesday, despite what might have been the deepest ballot in years.The failure of the writers to pick Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens was not a surprise given the low vote totals received in the past by Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, other players associated with the use performance-enhancing drugs. But the vote totals for Bonds and Clemens, just 36 and 38 percent, were lower than expected.Craig Biggio, who received 68.2 percent of the vote in his first year of eligibility, will almost certainly make it into the Hall of Fame someday. Still, his profile is quite similar to Robin Yount and Roberto Alomar, two players who did better in their first year on the ballot. (Yount got 77.5 percent of the vote in his first year on the ballot in 1999, while Alomar got 73.7 percent of the vote in 2010 and made it in the next year.)Perhaps the clearest effect of the crowded ballot, however, was realized among candidates who were returning to the ballot from last year. Of the 13 players who carried over from the 2012 ballot, nine received a lower share of the vote, including Lee Smith, Alan Trammell, Fred McGriff, Don Mattingly and Bernie Williams.This is atypical; instead, players usually add votes with each additional year they spend on the ballot. Since 1967, when the Hall of Fame adopted balloting rules similar to the ones it uses now, about two-thirds of holdover players gained ground from their prior year’s vote percentage.It is possible to be a bit more precise about this pattern. Based on an analysis of Hall of Fame voting between 1967 and 2011, I found that the increase in a player’s vote total is typically proportional to his percentage from the previous year. In his second year on the ballot, for example, the typical player’s vote share increases by a multiple of about 1.1.Thus, a player who received 10 percent of the vote in his first year would be expected to receive about 11 percent on his second try, while a player who got 50 percent of the vote would go up to 55 percent.The pace of improvement is typically highest in the first several years that a player spends on the ballot, slowing down once he has been eligible five or six times. (The exception is in a player’s 15 and final year of eligibility, when he may receive a fairly large boost.) But these small percentage gains can add up, something like the way in which interest compounds over time. For example, as shown in the chart below, a player who gets just 30 percent of the vote in his first year on the ballot would be projected to make it in on his 14th year of eligibility if he follows the formula each year.In practice, the growth in a player’s vote share is rarely this smooth — and you should not necessarily expect the pattern to hold for Bonds and Clemens. (Instructively, the vote shares for McGwire and Palmeiro have actually been declining.) Nonetheless, Hall of Fame candidates typically have a tailwind as time passes.This year, however, veterans on the Hall of Fame ballot faced a headwind instead. The next chart compares the actual vote that each player received against that projected by the historical formula. Actual results in 2013 compared to projections based on historical patterns.Twelve of the 13 players underperformed their projection; the exception was Dale Murphy, who got a larger-than-average boost in his final year of eligibility, but still came nowhere close to winning election.Even some players who gained ground did not necessarily help their chances. Jack Morris went from 66.7 percent of the vote to 67.7 percent, below his projection of 69.4 percent. The small difference could be important because next year will be Morris’s final year of eligibility, and he projects to be very close to the 75 percent threshold for election. (Perhaps the player who had the best year, instead, was Tim Raines, whose vote share grew to 52.2 percent from 48.7 percent, and who is now a clear favorite to be elected someday by the writers.)Most other players lost ground outright. Trammell, in his 12th year of eligibility, declined to 33.6 percent from 36.8 percent of the vote. He was an underdog to make it in before, but now he seems to have very little chance. The same also holds for Smith, who lost most of what he gained last year after years of stagnant vote totals.McGriff, as Joe Posnanski writes, seemed to be a plausible candidate to gain ground this year as writers sought out players who were perceived as clean, as opposed to known or suspected of steroid use. Instead, his vote share declined to 20.7 percent from 23.9 percent. Williams had received just under 10 percent of the vote in his first year of eligibility, but his case was not entirely hopeless; players like Bob Lemon and Carl Hubbell were eventually selected by the writers with a similar vote total in their first year.Instead, Williams fell below the 5 percent threshold required for a player to stay on the ballot.The crowded and confusing ballot may be affecting these players in several ways. The most obvious is that the writers are limited to voting for a maximum of 10 players. This year, according to the sample of ballots collected by the Twitter user @leokitty, 24 percent of writers used all 10 of their picks. That compares with 12 percent in 2011, and just 4 percent in 2012.Did the 10-vote limit keep Biggio and Morris out of the Hall of Fame, perhaps along with other players?Actually, it was almost certainly not responsible all by itself. Of the 24 percent of writers who used all 10 ballot slots, 90 percent did name Biggio, meaning 10 percent did not. At best, therefore, if all writers who exhausted their ballots would also have named Biggio if they had unlimited votes, he would have gotten only 10 percent of the 24 percent, adding only 2.4 percentage points to his overall vote total.The logic here is that it’s hard to make a case that Biggio was only the 11th or 12th best player on the ballot. Instead, most of the writers who left him out were probably more like Jon Heyman of CBS Sports. Heyman wrote that he saw Biggio as the eighth best player on the ballot — but he also thought that only six were worthy of inclusion. Most of the writers who left Biggio out, in other words, were those who take a conservative overall approach to how many players they want in the Hall of Fame, and not those who ran out of ballot positions.Morris is a more debatable case. If all writers who maxed out their ballot slots had included him, he would have come very close to 75 percent of the vote. However, Morris is also a highly polarizing candidate. Those writers who included him often thought he was among the very best players on the ballot; on several ballots, in fact, Morris was the only player named. But other writers think he falls fall short of Hall of Fame standards and would not have picked him no matter how many votes they had to spare.Nor, obviously, were Bonds’s and Clemens’s totals affected to any material degree by the 10-player limit. Nobody left Bonds off their ballots because they thought he had only the 11th-best statistical record; they did so because they don’t think steroids users should be in the Hall of Fame. (In fact, most of the writers who maxed out their ballot slots included Bonds and Clemens; the writers who are willing to consider performance-enhancing drug users have much more crowded ballots than those who are not.)Instead, players like McGriff, Trammell, Williams and Edgar Martinez were probably most affected by the 10-player limit. The logic for McGriff, for example, is very close of the opposite of that which might be applied to Biggio. It’s fairly hard to sustain a case that McGriff was one of the best six or seven players on the ballot this year. But you might credibly argue that there is a glut of a dozen or so qualified players, McGriff among them, and you had to leave McGriff out because of the ballot limit.However, the players are not only being affected by those writers who ran out of ballot slots. There were a higher-than-average number of writers this year who listed very few players, or even none at all. Some 10 percent of voters named two or fewer players this year, according to Leokitty’s spreadsheet. That is lower than in 2012, an underwhelming year on the ballot, when 16 percent of voters did so.But it is less than 2009, 2010 or 2011, when between 3 and 8 percent of writers listed so few players. Some writers are deliberately listing very few players as a protest vote, whether against the steroids era or the Hall of Fame balloting process.Between the protest voters on the one hand, and the maxed-out voters on the other, the players are being squeezed at both ends.Finally, some players may be harmed by the psychology of the ballot. If Clemens were not on the ballot, for example, then you could credibly make a case that Curt Schilling was the best pitcher on the ballot (if you don’t think that Morris is). But Schilling’s accomplishments look poor by comparison to Clemens’s, as do those of almost any pitcher — even if you aren’t willing to vote for Clemens because of his steroids use. The same holds for outfielders whose statistics might be compared with Barry Bonds’s.There is even something to be said for the so-called “paradox of choice”: that when presented with too many options, we may be overwhelmed with information and have trouble making any decisions at all.Hall of Fame voting is ultimately designed to be a consensus process. One reason that players tend to gain votes over time is because the writers are looking at what their peers are doing and value the endorsements of their colleagues. Moreover, because they have as many as 15 chances to elect a player, many writers tend toward conservatism initially. There is no way to remove a player from the Hall of Fame once he has been elected, but you can change your mind to include him later. When a writer initially votes “no” on a player, it really means “wait and see” in many cases.But consensus is harder to achieve when members of a group have divergent values and ideologies. Instead of the typical friendly arguments about how a player’s lifetime accomplishments might be weighed against how dominant he was in his best seasons, or how to compare players at different positions, the writers are now spending most of their time arguing about who used steroids and when, and how this should affect Hall of Fame consideration. Many have passionate beliefs about this, whichever side of the argument they take. An increasing number of writers would like to elect a dozen or more players; an increasing number would like to lose the whole “steroids era” to history. Good-natured debates may be replaced by tactical considerations, as voters make guesses about who everyone else might vote for, or where their ballots might be wasted.Next year will place even more pressure on the voters, when Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas and Mike Mussina are added to the list of candidates. Those who apply little discount for steroids use may credibly claim to identify 15 or more qualified candidates, and even those who do not may have to drop one or two names that they otherwise see as worthy. The New York Times will probably not have to publish a blank page again, but no one but Maddux seems sure to make it in. read more

Mens hockey Late goals provided momentum in Game One against Michigan

Ohio State players celebrate after a goal by junior forward Kevin Miller. Credit: Nick Clarkson | Lantern reporterGoals within the final minute of periods have the ability to build momentum, and Ohio State took advantage by netting two of them.On Friday night, the Buckeyes (17-8-6, 8-6-1-1) defeated the Michigan Wolverines (9-17-3, 2-11-2-2) by a score of 4-2. While the Wolverines took the early lead, it was a breakthrough by OSU senior forward David Gust that swung the momentum of the game in favor of the Buckeyes.An interference penalty late in the first period on Michigan defenseman Joseph Cecconi provided the first of the influential power play goals.Sophomore forward Dakota Joshua attacked the net with a powerful wrist shot that deflected off of Michigan goalie Jack Lafontaine. Simultaneously, Gust set himself up in front of goal to put in the rebound with a backhand shot with less than a second left in the first period.In the second period, a late power-play goal by senior forward Nick Schilkey increased the Buckeyes’ lead to two goals. Schilkey set himself up for a rebound similar to Gust and put the puck in net with six seconds left. His 24th goal of the season turned out to be the final tally in the game.Coaches preach to their players that the final two minutes of every period are the most crucial times in a game, and OSU’s Steve Rohlik reaffirmed that message.“It was a difference in the game,” he said. “You score with 0.1 and six seconds left, it’s a heartbreaker for the other team.”The momentum these types of goals create were evident in the flow of the game. Following Gust’s tally, the Buckeyes picked up two quick second-period goals from junior forward Kevin Miller.“Getting (Gust’s late goal) gets us back in the hockey game and you want to build off of late goals like that one,” Joshua said. “We most certainly did coming out and getting those two goals in the second period.”Miller did not focus on his two quick goals, but rather the momentum Gust’s goal had heading into the first break.“You see it all the time in hockey. If there’s a late goal in a period, it really has some momentum heading into the intermission,” said Miller.For the team, OSU will look to carry the momentum gained from Friday’s game into Saturday’s rematch with Michigan. Puck drop is at 5 p.m. for their final regular season matchup with the Wolverines. read more

Ohio State mens tennis team seeks 1st NCAA championship

The Ohio State men’s tennis team will begin NCAA Tournament action at home Friday. The Buckeyes are going into the tournament as the No. 4 seed, and they will look to bring home their first-ever national title. Sixty-four teams from around the nation were selected May 3 to be part of the 2011 NCAA Championship Tournament. The Buckeyes were one of 31 teams that automatically qualified for the tournament by winning their conference championship. OSU earned that bid May 1, when it clinched its sixth consecutive Big Ten Tournament title in Madison, Wis. OSU will begin the NCAA Tournament with home-field advantage. The team will host Notre Dame, East Tennessee State and Ball State for the first two rounds of the six-round tournament Friday and Saturday. “It’s always much easier to win at home than on the road,” said coach Ty Tucker of the advantage. OSU (30-2) opens the NCAA Tournament against Ball State (15-14). The last time the Buckeyes played the Cardinals was during the 1994–95 season. Overall, OSU is 9-3 against Ball State. “After two weeks off, you have to establish in the first round that you’re ready to play,” Tucker said of the Friday match. If the team advances past the first two rounds, the Buckeyes will travel to Stanford, Calif., to compete. “We need to focus on the first two rounds,” senior co-captain Balazs Novak said. The biggest competitors the Buckeyes could face throughout the tournament are Virginia and USC, Tucker said. OSU lost to Virginia once already this season, 4-1, in February. “There are a lot of good teams,” senior co-captain Matt Allare said. “Virginia hasn’t been beaten at all, and USC are the back-to-back champions.” The last time the Buckeyes made it to the NCAA Tournament finals was in 2009, when they fell to USC, the reigning national champion. “We’re No. 4 in the nation, but you look at other teams and they’re so good,” senior co-captain Shuhei Uzawa said. “We just need to give it everything we’ve got.” Despite the tough competition, OSU’s ultimate goal is to bring home the national title. “That’s one of the three or four goals every year,” Tucker said. “I think that has to be the goal.” Novak said winning the championship title would be a great achievement for the team and that it would mean everything. The first match in Columbus will be between Notre Dame and East Tennessee State at 10 a.m. Friday at the Stickney Tennis Center. read more

Football DreMont Jones selected No 71 overall by Denver in 2019 NFL

Ohio State redshirt junior defensive lineman Dre’Mont Jones (86) leads the Buckeyes out on the field to start the 2018 Spring Game on April 14, 2018. Credit: Jack Westerheide | Managing Editor for DesignOhio State produced its fifth defensive line prospect in two years Friday, when former defensive tackle Dre’Mont Jones heard his name called as the No. 71 selection by the Denver Broncos in the 2019 NFL Draft.Jones finished his Ohio State career with 114 tackles (22 TFL), 9.5 sacks, three fumble recoveries and a pick-six this past season against TCU.The former Buckeye earned third-team all-Big Ten honors at defensive tackle in 2017, followed by first-team all-Big Ten honors in 2018.Jones’ redshirt junior season was arguably his best, as he finished with career-highs in tackles for loss (13) and sacks (8.5).The St. Ignatius product declared for the NFL Draft in the weeks prior to Ohio State’s contest against Washington in the Rose Bowl, but still participated in the game. read more

Pep Guardiola wants John Stones in midfield

first_imgManchester City manager Pep Guardiola is considering a midfield role for defender John Stones.John Stones made a brief cameo in an advanced midfield role on Sunday as Manchester City defeated Chelsea in the Community Shield match at Wembley.When captain Vincent Kompany came on as a late substitute in the 2-0 Community Shield win over Chelsea, Stones briefly moved up the field.Pep Guardiola was happy with what he saw and hinted at possible playing time in midfield for the Manchester City defender this season. FourFourTwo reports.“John made an excellent World Cup and showed again his personality,” Guardiola said.“I was happy to see him in the last 10 or 15 minutes like a holding midfielder. John maybe can play there. We will see what’s going on in the future.”Premier LeaguePremier League Betting: Match-day 5 Stuart Heath – September 14, 2019 Going into the Premier League’s match-day five with a gap already beginning to form at the top of the league. We will take a…“In the Premier League, there are a huge amount of games and everybody will be involved.”When asked if John Stones will get regular playing time this season, Guardiola said.“John has to know he has to play at a good level because Vincent and Nico [Nicolas Otamendi] are there, and they are going to play.”“Then, they have to play good. In the higher teams in the top tier, when they play in all competitions, you need this kind of competition.”Manchester City remain favourite to win the league. Their league title defence starts away to Arsenal this weekend.last_img read more

Martinez talks about Henry new Monaco job

first_imgThe Belgium national team manager believes his former assistant will do well in the French Ligue 1 with club MonacoFormer Belgium national team assistant coach Thierry Henry was appointed this weekend as French Ligue 1 club Monaco’s new head coach.And his former boss, Belgium’s manager Roberto Martinez, believes the Frenchman will do great things in his first adventure as a boss.“I don’t think it is a loss. The initial approach and initial project was to have Thierry’s experience preparing the group for the World Cup and we achieved that and also [got] the results,” Martinez told Sky Sports.PSG, Neymar, Ligue 1PSG ultras sent a warning letter to Neymar Manuel R. Medina – September 14, 2019 Brazilian superstar Neymar might play today his first game of the season for Paris Saint-Germain and the team’s ultras have warned him.“That has been the focus behind it and there has been a full commitment from every part.”“After that, it has been great just to have Thierry as part of the national team until the natural move would appear. It wasn’t a case of leaving for the sake of leaving or trying to force a move,” he added.“We are all supportive of Thierry’s move because Monaco is his home, it is where he started as a player and it is a natural way for him to start his coaching career.”“He will be a top coach, there is no doubt about it. He has an obsession for the game, he has experience and know-how but we hope he also gets a little bit of luck.”last_img read more

Best Way To Save Wildlife Babies Leave Them Alone

first_img“Newborn moose calves aren’t able to run from pets or people on bicycles,” Battle said. “Mothers are likely to stand their ground, even when they hear you coming.” Facebook0TwitterEmailPrintFriendly分享The Alaska Department of Fish and Game is reminding residents of one important thing, a newborn animal found alone in the woods – or even in your backyard – can appear helpless and abandoned. But don’t be fooled. Destitute as those big-eyed babies may seem, a protective mother is almost always nearby. If a moose calf or bear cub is encountered without its mother immediately in view, be alert in case you’ve walked between them. The best course of action is usually to back away and leave from the direction you came. Also, do not assume young animals found alone are orphaned. Mother moose and bears frequently walk out of sight, cache their young, or become separated from them by fences or roads. Sow bears often send cubs up trees to wait before leaving to find food. In nearly all cases, the mothers return to their young. Bicyclists and runners should be especially alert as they can swiftly top hills or round corners and run into moose, bears and other wildlife. Making noise to alert wildlife to your presence is always a good precaution, but may not be enough to avoid clashes with moose cows with calves. Wildlife Biologist Dave Battle says attacks on people and pets by cows aggressively defending calves are reported each spring: “You’ll want to give moose calves plenty of space.” If you observe a young animal that appears to have been left alone for more than 48 hours, contact the nearest Alaska Department of Fish and Game office during regular business hours, or use the department’s smartphone-friendly link to file a report online by visiting http://www.adfg.alaska.gov and clicking the “Report a Wildlife Encounter” button.last_img read more

Coast Guard Members Bracing for More Missed Pay

first_imgSeparate bills in the House and Senate would cover Coast Guard payroll costs even if the partial government shutdown continues, but there has been little progress.More than 40,000 Coast Guard members have been working without pay since the end of the year, along with 10,000 other Coast Guard personnel. The next scheduled pay date is Jan. 30.Some Coast Guard families lobbied lawmakers Tuesday to find a fix.“I have full faith in the Coast Guard,” Petty Officer First Class Ryan Mleziva told Military Times. “I just hope our elected representatives show faith in us too.”Senate leaders blocked an attempt by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) to temporarily re-fund the Department of Homeland Security, including Coast Guard payroll, according to The Hill.About 50,000 Coast Guard retirees could also miss out on their next benefits check at the beginning of the month, Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association President Jon Ostrowski told Military Times.“People are starting to get worried,” he said.Coast Guard photo by Lt. J.G. Kiana Kekoa ADC AUTHORlast_img read more

STATE REP RACE QA Judy OConnell Discusses What Shell Do To Support

first_imgWILMINGTON, MA — Wilmington Apple is asking weekly questions to the seven candidates running in contested primaries for the Wilmington/Tewksbury State Representative seat (19th Middlesex).Below, in her own words, are the responses to this week’s questions from candidate Judy O’Connell (D-Wilmington).#15) What you will do at the State House to ensure that our local police and fire departments have what they need to adequately protect us? Do you support a fire substation in North Wilmington? Did you/do you support the construction of the new center fire station in Tewksbury that was approved last year?I have and continue to be supportive of our local police and fire departments. As a taxpayer and prior member of the Wilmington Board of Selectmen, I have supported collective bargaining contracts, capital improvement expenditures and training for both departments throughout the years. As a future State Representative, I will continue to support the public safety officials of the 19th Middlesex District in any manner possible through state funding and programs that will ensure at the end of their shifts our public safety officials have the greatest chance of going home to their families safely. It has been an absolute travesty regarding the increase in police officers being shot and injured and in some cases killed. I would support state legislation that is focused on protecting the men and women who serve and protect us every day in our communities. For both police and fire, I would be open and supportive of state training initiatives that focus on the training, health and welfare of our public safety officials.Regarding the North Wilmington substation, I truly believe one is necessary more now than ever. The growth and development in Wilmington continues and there is a definite need in the north side of town especially with the train tracks near Elia’s and off of Salem Street. I fully recognize this substation will come with some upfront costs relative to the build and an increase in staffing, capital equipment, potential overtime costs, etc. However, I think this substation is vital and frankly long overdue. As a State Representative, I will be open and supportive of a project such as this assuming it is well planned out with fiscal responsibility and present and future needs in mind. As a State Representative, I would also be committed to seeking any available state funding sources to assist with this project.Additionally, I would support a new center fire station in Tewksbury that was approved last year. The people of the community have spoken and this project is coming forward because there is a need. Once again, I am very receptive and supportive of doing what is necessary for our 19th Middlesex District public safety. If this is a need and the current infrastructure will not be sustainable for the foreseeable future, I believe it makes sense to consider construction now as construction costs, financing options, etc. continue to be on the rise. Therefore, the project you don’t do today will definitely cost you more tomorrow. In closing, I will say that the police and fire departments of both communities within the 19th Middlesex District are the life line for all of us to turn to in a time of need. These fine men and women deserve our respect and our attention in ensuring they all have what they need to do their jobs to ensure our continued public safety as well as their own.#16) The Vietnam War Moving Wall recently visited Wilmington. It was a sobering reminder of what the men and women in our armed forces are willing to sacrifice to preserve our freedom. What will you do at the State House to support our local veterans and veterans statewide? What, if anything, have you done as a private citizen and/or locally elected official that shows a commitment to veterans? Do you personally have any family that serves/served?As a patriotic person and as a prior Selectman for the Town of Wilmington, I have always been supportive of our Veterans. As you have stated, these men and women in our armed forces have and continue to be willing to sacrifice to preserve our freedom. These people are the true heroes among us and they deserve to be respected and cared for in the most appropriate manners possible.As a State Representative, I will continue to support the Veterans’ programs throughout the state from VA services, to state hospital services, to Veterans’ housing initiatives, to social and emotional programs and funding and the list goes on. The needs for our Veterans is ever changing and spans across many subject areas. These brave men and women are often called upon to “unplug” from their current lives inclusive of their family and friends and go to foreign lands to serve and protect the American freedoms so many of us enjoy. It’s important as a society and for the next State Representative for the 19th Middlesex District to be cognizant of these facts and help these community heroes integrate back into their daily routine upon their return right here at home. This is not always an easy process as there are often health care needs and costs, mental health needs, etc. that our Veterans need help with as part of this re-integration and it’s imperative that local cities and towns and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts continue to provide assistance across all these matters. The incidence of PTSD and suicide among Veterans is continuing to drastically rise and as a state and within our local communities we need to continue our care and concerns for these most deserving people who truly need our help. I am committed to this personally and as a future State Representative for many reasons and simply stated because it’s the right thing to do!As a prior elected official for some time I have always supported any Veterans’ related matter that came before the Board of Selectmen such as discussions about a Veteran’s related event and the list goes on. I can say that all of my colleagues on the Board of Selectmen have and continue to support our Veterans and the Veterans’ Services provided by Lou Cimaglia and his team in Wilmington. As a private citizen, I have attended fundraisers for Veterans, I have supported the Disabled Veterans and I have provided transportation for a friend and family to the various VA facilities when called upon. I have also been a supporter of the Wilmington Local Heroes and iPods for Wounded Veterans as I proudly wear my red, white and blue bracelet that was made for me and purchased at the Wilmington Senior Center a few months ago. Also, I was happy to volunteer for the Vietnam War Moving Wall that was just here last week. I attended multiple nights of ceremonies and I was truly moved by the whole experience. As Lou Cimaglia said it best, “the attendance during the time the wall was here shows that Wilmington doesn’t forget and will never forget our Veterans and more specifically our Vietnam Veterans.”Regarding family members who have served in the military, I have many who have served and also have been residents of the 19th Middlesex District. I am so proud of their service to our country and they will forever have my respect and admiration for wearing a military uniform. My great grandparents, grandparents, cousins and brother have all served in the armed forces. Also, I have step parents and in-laws who have also served in the military. My father-in-law from Tewksbury was a soldier and part of the 1st Cavalry Division in Vietnam who I respect tremendously as a human being, a family man, a friend and for his service to our country. He is also my personal historian who shared the facts about this war and history in general which I have so much appreciated throughout the years. In closing, I want to once again express my unwavering support for our Veterans and my commitment to advocating for as much funding, benefits and support as possible for the brave men and women of our armed forces both past and present who serve our country.(NOTE: Do you have a question for the candidates? Email wilmingtonapple@gmail.com and it may be asked in a future Q&A or in a debate.)Like Wilmington Apple on Facebook. Follow Wilmington Apple on Twitter. Follow Wilmington Apple on Instagram. Subscribe to Wilmington Apple’s daily email newsletter HERE. Got a comment, question, photo, press release, or news tip? Email wilmingtonapple@gmail.com.Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading… RelatedSTATE REP RACE: Judy O’Connell Addresses Allegations Of Federal Tax Liens On Her HomeIn “Government”STATE REP RACE Q&A: Judy O’Connell Discusses State Rep Pay, Environmental IssuesIn “Government”STATE REP RACE Q&A: Pina Prinzivalli Discusses What She’ll Do To Support Police, Fire & Veterans If ElectedIn “Government”last_img read more

Porn star sues Trump over hush deal

first_imgDonald TrumpA porn star sued President Donald Trump on Tuesday to declare a “hush agreement” over their alleged affair invalid because he never signed it, documents say.Los Angeles lawyer Michael Avenatti posted on his Twitter account a copy of what appears to be the suit filed on behalf of the porn star who goes by the name Stormy Daniels. Her real name is Stephanie Clifford.The hush agreement does “not exist, because, among other things, Mr Trump never signed” the document with a Superior Court of California stamp, the suit says.It alleges she had an intimate relationship with Trump from 2006 to 2007, which she sought to reveal after Trump won the Republican Party nomination for president and other women claimed to have had sexual encounters with him.With help from his lawyer Michael Cohen, Trump then sought to “aggressively… silence Ms Clifford as part of an effort to avoid her telling the truth, thus helping to ensure he won the presidential election,” the document says.Cohen prepared a non-disclosure agreement, a copy of which is attached to the lawsuit and which required a $130,000 payment to be wired from a company known as Essential Consultants LLC to Clifford in return for her silence, according to the documents.Using the pseudonyms Peggy Peterson and David Dennison, Clifford and Trump were to sign the agreement, along with Essential Consultants.Days before the November 2016 presidential election which Trump won, Clifford put her name to the document, as did Cohen for Essential Consultants, it says.“Mr. Trump, however, did not sign the agreement, thus rendering it legally null and void and of no consequence,” the document adds.Cohen told US media last month that he paid Clifford $130,000, prompting her manager to suggest a non-disclosure agreement had been broken.Cohen declined to give details such as why he made the payment, or if Trump was aware of it at the time.“Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly,” Cohen said, according to the New York Times.Trump declined to comment on the issue. The White House has dodged questions about whether allegations of an affair are true, claiming the matter was dealt with during the campaign.Cohen’s comments came after the watchdog group Common Cause filed a federal complaint in January arguing that the payout may have violated campaign finance rules.last_img read more

Inside the progressive movement roiling Democratic Party

first_imgDemocratic Party logoIn another year, Donna Shalala might have had an easy ride to Washington.Running to become a first-time congresswoman in a Miami seat at age 77, Shalala has long been a member of the Democratic Party elite, with a deep resume that includes supervising US health policy for former president Bill Clinton. Her slogan, printed on the back of her staff’s t-shirts, could have come from Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign playbook: “Ready on Day One.”But this season, Shalala’s record has put her at odds with the surging progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Once derided as the most liberal member of the Clinton administration, Shalala now faces attacks from challengers who contend she is not nearly progressive enough.Taking nothing for granted, Shalala delivered hot dogs to voters at a campaign barbeque on a recent steamy Saturday. “I’m running like I’m 20 points behind,” she said.Less than three months before the midterm elections, a rising progressive movement is roiling the Democratic Party – fueled by fury at Republican president Donald Trump’s administration, a growing populism among voters impatient for seismic change, and resentment of party leaders who have presided over a losing streak in national elections.Republicans disparage Democratic progressives as wild-eyed radicals led by a 28-year-old political neophyte, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose take-down of senior Democratic leader and 10-term incumbent Congressman Joe Crowley in a June 26 New York contest rocked Washington.“We have a Democratic party that’s lurching far to the left,” said Representative Steve Stivers, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Michael Byerly, a spokesman for the Congressional Leadership Fund, another Republican group, predicted Democrats’ “ultra-progressive views” will be a hard sell with middle-class voters.Yet Ocasio-Cortez is only the most visible symbol of a grassroots insurgency that has sprung up across the country, including in spots far from deep-blue Democratic strongholds. Most embracing the progressive label share a disdain for corporate money in politics and favor more government-run healthcare, subsidies for college tuition and wage hikes for laborers.Progressives have a mixed record in early nominating contests, more often than not losing to more mainstream Democrats.But they have moved the party sharply to the left, particularly on expanding the government role in healthcare, a Reuters review of Democratic positions in the most competitive congressional races found.Across 41 battleground House of Representatives districts, two-thirds of Democratic nominees want to expand the government’s role in healthcare, the review shows. About a dozen support “Medicare for All,” for many a reference to a single-payer system that would largely replace private insurance. In Congress, most House Democrats support a Medicare for All bill, with six members of the Blue Dog caucus of fiscally conservative Democrats signing on as co-sponsors.Much of the progressive movement has its roots in the nationwide volunteer network built by Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential run. Several groups that sprang from the failed Sanders campaign are now pushing for progressive candidates in the midterms – including Brand New Congress, formed two years ago on the dream of running hundreds of progressive political newcomers to oust establishment incumbents, Democrats and Republicans alike.In some ways, the splintering in the Democratic Party is simply a new round in the 2016 fight between Clinton and Sanders supporters. Progressive insurgents believe Clinton’s defeat, on top of losing control of Congress and most state governments, proved them right. They aspire to overthrow conventional wisdom that Democrats must stay safely in the middle to compete.“Democrats have been fixated for 20 years on this elusive, independent, mythical middle of the road voter that did not exist,” said Crystal Rhoades, head of the Democratic Party in Nebraska’s Douglas County, where a progressive candidate, Kara Eastman, is trying to wrest a competitive congressional district from a Republican.“We’re going to try bold ideas.”THE MOVEMENT’S BEGINNINGSThe push for a progressive takeover of Congress began long before Trump won office.One audacious plan began to take hold in early 2016, as a crew of organizers for Sanders’ presidential campaign traveled the country, staging revival-style rallies.The crew included Zack Exley, a veteran political and tech consultant who cut his teeth as an organizer in union fights in Detroit; Saikat Chakrabarti, a technology consultant who started as a volunteer in an online group called Coders for Sanders; Alexandra Rojas, a just-turned 21-year-old college student who was working three jobs; and Corbin Trent, who was selling gourmet burgers in Morristown, Tennessee.“I asked the wife if I could sell the food truck and go to work for Bernie,” Trent said. A month and a half later, he was hired on.When it became clear Sanders would lose, supporters shifted to a new mission. “What if we could do exactly the same thing, not only for president, but Congress, all at once?” asked Chakrabarti.Brand New Congress was launched in April 2016 with a goal of recruiting 400 candidates, all political outsiders with a record of community activism who would run on a single populist platform. Scornful of the Democratic Party hierarchy and the influence of big-money donors, the founders vowed to stay independent of any party – even if it meant finding progressives willing to run as Republicans.“We have to think big or go home,” said Isra Allison, a Sanders volunteer from Charlotte, North Carolina.They toured the country and put out a call for nominations of candidates; more than 10,000 poured in.One name that surfaced: Ocasio-Cortez, a bartender from the Bronx nominated by her brother. Allison called her the day after Christmas, and a couple months later Exley and Chakrabarti met the fledgling candidate over a Thai dinner in lower Manhattan.“I wasn’t sure what to make of her,” Chakrabarti said. “She was too articulate, I think is exactly what I told Zack.” But the advocates quickly realized they were sharing a meal with a potential game-changer.They looked for others. At weekend “boot camps,” candidates were coached in the basics of electioneering, and thrashed out a platform including Medicare for All, a $15 per hour minimum wage and free college tuition. Another bold idea, to abolish US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, surfaced at a Brand New Congress event in 2017.Soon the group was swamped by the challenge of vetting so many candidates – and convincing promising aspirants they could win.There were other problems. After Trump’s polarizing election, the notion that progressives could transcend partisan politics faded, and Brand New Congress began to struggle with fundraising. The group was told it couldn’t use ActBlue, the popular Democratic fundraising platform, if it backed candidates running as Republicans, Trent said.“It was like pushing a rock up a hill,” Trent said.Many of the original BNC people, including Exley, Trent, Chakrabarti and Rojas, abandoned the nonpartisan idea to join Justice Democrats, formed in early 2017 with a mission to rebuild the party to align with a progressive agenda. Others stayed behind at the BNC. “I didn’t want to work with any organization that had a political affiliation,” said Allison.The two organizations tried sharing a political action committee, but separated entirely last October. Trent and Chakrabarti now work for Ocasio-Cortez’ campaign.Overall, Justice Democrats endorsed 68 House candidates, including some originally recruited by the BNC: 21 won primaries or made it to the general election, 37 lost, two dropped out and eight are in races yet to be decided.Still, the BNC founders cite the Ocasio-Cortez breakthrough as a sign of what is possible.“I think now when we approach people for 2020, they’re going to think we’re a little less nuts,” Trent said.MULTIPLE MOVEMENTSBrand New Congress and Justice Democrats are just two players in a movement where different groups with different agendas jostle for donations and influence in the midterms. Some, like Democracy for America and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, were in place years before the Sanders campaign.California billionaire Tom Steyer, the Democrats’ largest donor, has spent millions of his own money on NextGen America, a group that aims to mobilize young voters. The hedge-fund manager turned activist vows to build the largest progressive operation in America.“The overwhelming number of people whatever their particular affiliation – whether Republican or Democrat or independent – feel as if the political establishment is not hearing them,” he said. The result, he says, is low turnout – particularly by young people who lean toward Democrats.With his fiery calls to impeach Trump, Steyer is among the progressives butting heads with leaders of the Democratic Party’s establishment, who fear turning off moderate voters.This year, progressives have complained about the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which recruits candidates, fundraises and helps plan campaigns for Democrats vying for House seats. In some competitive districts, the DCCC has intervened to back more centrist candidates, ones they consider more electable.The DCCC focuses on finding candidates with records that fit their districts, a spokeswoman said. “The DCCC has long valued the unprecedented influence that the grassroots have in these races,” said communications director Meredith Kelly.Leon Panetta, who served 16 years in Congress and then as a top official in the Clinton and Obama administrations, said Democrats are “going through turmoil” trying to settle on a vision.“Very frankly, it’s a party of a lot of very different voices right now,” Panetta said.Others downplay the notion of a civil war. Elaine Kamarck, among the founders of the New Democrat movement that helped move the party away from liberal policies in the 1990s, now analyzes the midterms as a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. She found most primaries in competitive districts were captured by centrist candidates.Kamarck, who also served as a super delegate for Clinton in 2016, says Democrats need to appeal to moderate voters if they hope to retake Congress. She calls the idea that unabashed progressivism can win in Republican-tilting districts the political equivalent of “repealing the laws of physics.”“I find myself doing a lot of eye-rolling,” she said. “There’s always the argument in the Democratic Party, if only we had really liberal candidates, we would do better. It has never been true before.”Could this year be different? “We’ll see.”THE RACE IN NEBRASKAOne race that may help answer the question is in Omaha, where Eastman will try to unseat a Republican incumbent, Don Bacon, in a district with 13,000 more Republicans than Democrats.Unlike the rest of deeply Republican Nebraska, though, Democrats have been able to win in this district, which stretches from the gentrifying neighborhoods of Omaha, now attracting a surge of millennials, to conservative-leaning suburban neighborhoods near Offutt Air Force Base, where Bacon once served as commanding officer. Obama narrowly won the district in 2008; Trump took it by two points in 2016.Eastman, a nonprofit executive, was considered by the party establishment as far too liberal for Nebraska. She supported a single-payer healthcare system that would replace private insurance, and a list of other progressive causes: tough gun rules, support for abortion rights, a $15 minimum wage.Democratic state and national party leaders mostly lined up behind Brad Ashford, a moderate one-time Republican who already represented the district for one term. Thanks in part to backing from the DCCC and other national groups, Ashford had far more money.The Eastman campaign said it knocked on 60,000 doors. On 15 May, she won by 3 percentage points. After the primary, the DCCC added her to its “Red to Blue” list, along with other progressives who beat establishment candidates.Seeking to pummel Eastman, the Congressional Leadership Fund, a group working in swing districts to protect the GOP majority, has opened a field office in Omaha and already purchased $1.6 million worth of ads, while the Republican National Committee calls her an “out of touch, single-payer touting radical.” One CLF ad chides Eastman for her teenage membership in a band with an obscene name – Pieces of Fuck.Eastman’s positions “might work in some districts in California, but it’s not representative of Nebraska 2,” said Courtney Alexander, CLF communications director.Eastman says Omaha voters are not scared by “pragmatic and common-sense” ideas to remake the healthcare system. She believes the key to winning districts like hers is inspiring more Democrats to turn out – not running as a “Republican-light” moderate.“When they lose, we say, ‘See? Democrats can’t win here,’ ” she said. “We have to get people inspired to vote, and just running against Donald Trump is not enough.”THE FIGHT IN MIAMIThe same debate is playing out this summer in South Florida, where the progressive insurgency has touched off a raucous fight between Democratic hopefuls in Florida’s Congressional District 27, which includes trendy Miami Beach, affluent Coral Gables and Little Havana’s Hispanic immigrants.Represented for three decades by a retiring Cuban-American Republican, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the district favored Hillary Clinton by nearly 20 percentage points in 2016. It’s considered perhaps the easiest takeover target for Democrats in the country, though nine Republicans are running, including former Miami-Dade County Commissioner Bruno Barreiro and television journalist Maria Elvira Salazar.Four Democrats have challenged Shalala in the August 28 primary. One, David Richardson, has attacked Shalala as a “corporate” Democrat who “sold out progressive values,” running ads slamming her for serving on the board of UnitedHealth Group and for once telling a comedian she opposed universal healthcare. Shalala says it was a joke.A state representative, Richardson has won the endorsement of progressive groups including Our Revolution 305 in Miami and the Congressional Progressive Caucus – caucus co-chair Wisconsin Representative Mark Pocan campaigned with him Friday – and boasts of raising more than $900,000 in small-dollar donations. Progressive support has helped him match Shalala in fundraising – although both are wealthy and each pumped $500,000 into their campaigns.Matt Haggman, a former Miami Herald reporter who also is running, broadcast a TV commercial calling for the abolishment of ICE, the federal agency under fire for separating immigrant children from their parents on the US-Mexico border. “This is a moment when our politics are fundamentally broken, and this must be a moment of renewal,” he said.That idea has begun to catch on with Democratic voters across the country, who are now evenly split on whether to abolish the border control agency formed after the September 11, 2001, attacks, a Reuters/Ipsos poll found. The same poll shows how the idea of expanding Medicare has won wide support among Democratic voters – and even many Republicans.The Democrats’ best-known contender is Shalala, the former University of Miami president who once ran the Clinton Foundation. Some voters say they view her establishment ties with suspicion.“I am definitely looking for more of a new guard,” said Scott Silverman, a 37-year-old actuary who met Haggman during a canvassing session in Palmetto Bay, a neighborhood of spacious ranch homes with lush yards and the occasional peacock in the road.Silverman blames the party’s leaders for Trump. “The fact that they couldn’t beat him says something about the establishment of the Democratic Party.”The first Democrat to enter the race was Michael Hepburn, another of the original candidates recruited by Brand New Congress. Hepburn left his job as a college adviser to campaign full time. He hoped to raise money together with his fellow candidates, but that idea didn’t work out, and his latest campaign report showed him down to his last $434. Most days, he takes public transportation to working-class neighborhoods to knock on doors. During a recent debate, he donned boxing gloves.“Everybody sounds bold. Everybody sounds progressive now,” Hepburn said.Even Shalala is claiming the label, calling herself a “pragmatic progressive.” She said she supports a version of “Medicare for All,” allowing people of all ages the option to buy into an improved model of the government program currently available to older Americans, or keep private insurance. The idea would have seemed a liberal pipe dream in the 1990s, when she helped lead Clinton’s doomed effort to pass healthcare reform.“I’m just pragmatic, because I have run a health care system and because I have seen politics at the national level,” she said. “It doesn’t mean that I am not a progressive or don’t want to see the system evolve. … But we have to get there.”last_img read more

50yrold man rapes minor girl

first_imgA minor girl was allegedly raped by a neighbour at Hugulia village in Daudkandi upazila on Sunday, reports UNB.The alleged rapist was identified as Sheikh Farid, 50, son of late Fazar Ali of Hugulia village.Officer-in-charge of Daudkandi police station Md Rafiqul Islam said Farid picked up the victim from their courtyard and took her to an isolated place where he raped her.Locals rescued the victim after hearing her screams and informed police. She was taken to Comilla Medical College Hospital for medical test, he said, adding that they were trying to arrest the alleged rapist.last_img

Corning VP says Gorilla Glass headed for automobiles

first_img This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only. Gorilla Glass is currently estimated to be in use by over a billion and a half devices the world over, and has become a household name. Its strength and resistance to scratching in addition to its very low weight has made it an ideal candidate for touch-screen devices. Corning makes the glass using a propriety chemical process that causes more than the normal number of ions to be introduced into the glass, adding to its strength and reducing the likelihood of cracking. Also, like the glass currently used in automobiles, it’s more likely to crack than shatter when subjected to extreme stress or impact.Evenson told those in attendance at the Summit that using Gorilla Glass in a car would cut down on the weight of the vehicle. Also, engineers could distribute the weight reduction in a way that would slightly alter the car’s center of gravity. Together, he explained, that would help cars with the new window glass gain a few extra miles out of each gallon of fuel. He also noted that because of the unique nature of Gorilla Glass, cars that used it as a replacement for current glass would be much quieter inside the cabin.Evenson also suggested that he expects at least one high-end car maker to begin using Gorilla Glass in at least some of its vehicles as early as next year, though he wouldn’t say which it was. He also briefly spoke about progress being made on a project he called microbiological glass, which he said, would kill bacteria on contact. He followed that by discussing another new product the company is working on called Willow Glass—a bendable type of glass that he said is currently about as thick as a dollar bill. He said its introduction will likely lead to the creation of hundreds of new devices. (Phys.org) —Corning Senior Vice President, Jeffrey Evenson told audience members at this year’s MIT Technology Review’s Mobile Summit, that its Gorilla Glass will very soon be used in automobiles. Currently, Gorilla Glass is used as part of a touch-screen for hand-held devices—from phones to tablet computers. Using the glass in automobiles Evenson said, would allow for better gas mileage and noise suppression. ‘Gorilla Glass’ maker looks beyond smartphones Citation: Corning VP says Gorilla Glass headed for automobiles (2013, June 12) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2013-06-corning-vp-gorilla-glass-automobiles.htmlcenter_img © 2013 Phys.org Explore further More information: via MIT Tech Reviewlast_img read more

Too weird for Wall Street Broadcoms value drops after purchasing CA Technologies

first_imgThe tech world has spent the last 24 hours or so pretty confused at semiconductor manufacturer Broadcom’s purchase software company CA Technologies. The deal, which Broadcom sealed with $18.9 billion in cash, was, according to the company, a way of adding to its portfolio “mission critical technology businesses.” However, it seems the deal was just a little too left-field. Yesterday (Thursday 12 July), Broadcom’s shares dropped 13.8%. This equates to a drop of $14.5 billion. Why did Broadcom purchase CA Technologies? This is the question that everyone seems to be asking. Ostensibly, the move is really about consolidating and driving Broadcom’s position in the tech space forward. However, as The Register pointed out, a quarterly review between executives in June made no mention of an acquisition. It certainly didn’t mention CA Technologies. Speaking to Bloomberg, Cody Acree said “It’s the lack of obvious connection between the two businesses. What does Broadcom know about improving CA’s efficiencies?” However, there may be some method in Broadcom’s apparent madness, even if investors don’t see it. Broadcom’s business in semiconductors – Silicon chips – is more unstable than the type of software solutions offered by CA Technologies. The semiconductor market depends a lot on fluctuations in the consumer gadget market. However, even if this makes sense to the Broadcom excecutives, communicating this strategy would surely be absolutely essential. Surprising feints might look good in the long run but they can spook investors. A tale of two markets: consumer tech and software solutions It will take some time to see if Broadcom’s move actually does work out. But it demonstrates the vast difference between the consumer and B2B markets in technology. It doesn’t seem outrageous to suggest that at the very least Broadcom feels anxious about the volatility of its core market at the moment; its acquisition of CA Technologies might be the insurance policy it has been searching for.last_img read more

With the FOMC minutes out on Wednesday it was a f

first_imgWith the FOMC minutes out on Wednesday, it was a fairly wild day in US markets. First, the S&P 500 jumped to 1,687, only to retreat to the 1,654 territory by the close. The headlines were almost comical throughout the day. In the first half, they announced, “Stocks Rise on Fed Comments.” By the end of the day, the same news sources proclaimed, “Stocks Fall on Fed Comments.” So what did the Fed minutes actually say? Apparently a lot of people are confused out there. There’s good reason for the confusion. Essentially, the Fed said that it will continue to play things by ear. If the economy starts doing better, it will start to scale back on the stimulus. If it gets worse, the stimulus will continue. In a way, that statement bolsters any point of view. If one sees the glass as half full, then this means the Fed could stop the stimulus early, as things are going pretty well. If one sees the glass as half empty, it means the Fed will keep stimulating the economy. Here’s a key part of the FOMC minutes: “A number of participants expressed willingness to adjust the flow of purchases downward as early as the June meeting if the economic information received by that time showed evidence of sufficiently strong and sustained growth; however, views differed about what evidence would be necessary and the likelihood of that outcome. One participant preferred to begin decreasing the rate of purchases immediately, while another participant preferred to add more monetary accommodation at the current meeting …. Most participants emphasized that it was important for the Committee to be prepared to adjust the pace of its purchases up or down as needed.” Notice the lack of a clear message here. Some members suggested pulling back in June. One person says to add more stimulus now, but another says to stop it immediately, while others can’t agree on the evidence necessary to make a decision. The market is confused, but can you really blame traders with a Fed statement like that? Your reaction to the Fed minutes depends more on whether you’re an optimist or pessimist, rather than the language itself. Let’s take a look at a few more parts of the FOMC minutes worth noting. Again, there were issues involving a bond bubble: “At this meeting, a few participants expressed concern that conditions in certain U.S. financial markets were becoming too buoyant, pointing to the elevated issuance of bonds by lower-credit-quality firms or of bonds with fewer restrictions on collateral and payment terms (so-called covenant-lite bonds). One participant cautioned that the emergence of financial imbalances could prove difficult for regulators to identify and address, and that it would be appropriate to adjust monetary policy to help guard against risks to financial stability.” What does the Fed mean here? First, consider the problem at hand. As the minutes note, this is a situation where regulators have difficulty addressing the issue, and monetary policy could provide assistance. If I’m offering a junk bond for a very low yield, regulators can’t really do anything about that. Prices are set by markets, which are heavily influenced by the Fed’s low rate policy. As yield seekers search for yield in this environment, they’re taking more risks with junk bonds but are getting less compensation and safeguards through lower yields and weaker bond covenants. What the minutes are saying is that maybe the Fed should start raising interest rates to deter investors from those bonds. Obviously, regulators can’t force rates up nor encourage more prudence with junk bonds – only the Fed can influence markets in such a direct manner. While on the subject of low interest rates and yield seekers, the FOMC members also had a debate sure to infuriate anyone collecting ultra-low yields at the moment. See their view on inflation (all emphasis mine): “Accordingly, participants generally continued to expect that inflation would move closer to the 2 percent objective over the medium run. Nonetheless, a number of participants expressed concern that inflation was below the Committee’s target and stressed that future price developments bore careful watching. … A couple of participants expressed the view that an additional monetary policy response might be warranted should inflation fall further. It was also pointed out that, even absent further disinflation, continued low inflation might pose a threat to the economic recovery by, for example, raising debt burdens.“ In short, some of the participants think that inflation should be higher. In fact, they wouldn’t mind further monetary expansion to make it so. And if inflation rises while yields remain low, savers basically get creamed. But who cares about savers, right? Certainly not the Fed – but it does care about debtors. The minutes note that low inflation poses a threat by “raising debt burdens.” Since higher inflation helps consumers and businesses inflate away their debts, the Fed essentially wants to help debtors at the expense of savors, which seems the opposite of common sense: one should be rewarded for saving and thrift, rather than spending and debt. In summary, these weren’t the most earth-shattering FOMC minutes in the world. We basically received more affirmation of what was already known – the Fed will play it by ear and at this point, it’s willing to either push for more stimulus or withdraw it. The ultimate outcome depends on an uncertain future.last_img read more

For many breast cancer patients one of the most d

first_imgFor many breast cancer patients, one of the most difficult treatment decisions is whether or not to go through chemotherapy.Now, the choice is getting easier for some patients. A study published Sunday finds that many women with early-stage invasive breast cancer could safely forgo chemotherapy, if they score in the midrange or lower for risk that their cancer will recur, as measured by a commonly used genomic testThe study, published Sunday in the New England Journal of Medicine, finds that patients who fall in the intermediate risk zone do as well with hormone therapy alone as with chemo plus hormone therapy after surgery. “[The findings] are both important and significant, and also practice-changing,” says, Dr. José Baselga, a medical oncologist and physician in chief at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York, who was not involved with this research. “Basically, it’s going to spare a lot of unnecessary chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer.”The genomic test for this type of breast cancer, called Oncotype DX, measures the expression of 21 genes in tumor tissue removed at the time of surgery and predicts risk of recurrence on a scale of 0 to 100.Oncotype DX first hit the market in 2004. Earlier research found that a patient with a high-risk case, or score of 26-100, would benefit from chemotherapy, while a patient at the lower end with a score of 10 and under would not. This left a lot of women, an estimated 65,000 in the U.S. each year, in a gray zone, unsure if they would benefit from chemo.The new study, called TAILORx, is a large, randomized trial involving thousands of patients. It found that for patients in the middle, with scores between 11 and 25, there is a similar rate of cancer-free survival for those who had chemo combined with hormone therapy, and those who had hormone therapy alone, after nine years. Women younger than 50 still saw some benefit from chemotherapy, especially with scores between 21-25.This means in practice doctors can tell 70 percent of these patients they don’t need to agonize over whether to get chemo, says study co-author Dr. Kathy Albain, a hematology and oncology professor at Loyola University Medical Center in Illinois. “Our uncertainty is over,” she says.In the trial, researchers gene tested more than 10,000 patients across six countries with the most common form of early breast cancer, hormone-receptor positive, HER-2 negative breast cancer that hadn’t spread to the lymph nodes. Nearly 7,000 patients’ scores fell into the middle range, between 11 and 25.This researchers split the middle-scoring group into two randomized subgroups: one treated solely with estrogen-blocking hormone therapy, and one with chemo combined with hormone therapy. The researchers tracked the patients’ health outcomes over nine years.In the U.S., the most recent data shows around 135,000 new cases yearly of the specific breast cancer studied, says Dr. Joseph Sparano, an oncologist at Montefiore Medical Center, a professor of medicine at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the lead author of the study. Twenty-five percent of those patients won’t qualify for chemotherapy because of age or medical problems.Out of the 100,000 or so patients who could take the gene test to help make a decision about chemotherapy, he says at least two-thirds fall into the middle range that can benefit from the study findings.”This information really addresses a major unmet medical need to have a very high level of evidence to make potentially life-saving decisions,” Sparano says. “This has very important public health implications. It helps direct patients to the right therapy, so that we’re treating the right people with the right therapy at the right time.”This research, sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, comes at a time when rates of chemotherapy for breast cancer are already decreasing. A 2017 study showed that for breast cancer that hasn’t spread to the lymph nodes, the rate of chemotherapy has dropped from around 27 percent in 2013 to 14 percent in 2015.This decline likely came about thanks to earlier research into gene testing, showing that chemo wasn’t helpful for low-risk patients and of marginal benefits for others, says Baselga.All the same, he says, the message of the new study isn’t that chemotherapy is irrelevant.”Chemotherapy has saved a tremendous amount of lives, and will continue to do so,” Baselga says. “But we need to be precise on when to use it and who to recommend it to. The era of one- size-fits-all is basically coming to an end, which is great news.”These results provide assurance that getting gene tested is a valuable first step for patients with this type of breast cancer.Knowing a patient’s recurrence risk can spare them from enduring chemotherapy, but also can direct them towards it if they discover that they are at a higher risk, Sparano says.The Oncotype DX test costs $4,600 and is typically reimbursed by insurance, according to Dr. Steven Shak, chief medical officer of Genomic Health, the maker of Oncotype DX. Currently only about 60 percent of U.S. patients who could potentially benefit from it are taking the gene test, he says.These gene tests are only applicable to patients with early-stage invasive breast cancer, Loyola’s Albain says. Chemotherapy could still be on the table for people who fall outside of this group.Albain is excited to share the study results with her clients in her practice. One of them, a 59-year-old woman came to her office recently with a recurrence score of 17, and was seriously considering chemotherapy.”My first clinic when I get back, she’s on my schedule and it’s going to be fun showing her this,” she says.Women can have the tendency to turn towards chemo, even if the results have a relatively small benefit, Albain says. A little boost can outweigh the risks of the treatment for these patients. “Now, we’re not going to have to have that long discussion,” she says.Looking ahead, Sparano hopes to see if this research could be applied to patients whose cancer has already spread to the lymph nodes, which is prognostic for a higher rate of recurrence. Further research could mean sparing some higher-risk patients from chemotherapy.Sara Kiley Watson is NPR’s Science Desk intern. Her Twitter handle is @SaraKileyWatson. Copyright 2018 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.last_img read more