Canadian boxer Dave Leblond has set his sights on a possible rematch with Jamaican rival Tsetsi Davis. Leblond defeated professional debutant Nico Yeyo in what many described as a disappointing “hugging match” in their Wray and Nephew Contender Series bout last Wednesday and is now hoping to meet Davis by the luck of the draw in the next round. Leblond had lost controversially to Davis in the second match of the season and, after losing an “egregious judging” appeal, was recalled to the competition in place of countryman Ryan Wagner, who was not medically cleared to face Yeyo. His trainer, Patrice Trudeau, said that he believes the public would be interested in seeing a rematch with Davis. He said their first encounter felt similar to the events of the movie Rocky 4, where Rocky Balboa (played by Sylvester Stallone) was able to win over the support of hostile Russian fans who were cheering for the hometown favourite, Ivan Drago. Trudeau compared Leblond to Balboa. “We see it as a love story with the Jamaican fans,” Trudeau told The Gleaner. “Before the fight, we were live on Facebook telling Canadians that Tsetsi is a crowd favourite in Jamaica and we were comparing Rocky 4 with Tsetsi being Drago.” Trudeau said moments before the fight with Davis, they faced direct hostility from fans but said that had changed during the course of the match. “We had a guy come into the dressing room and tell Dave to his face: ‘You’re gonna get a whipping’, so we saw how much he was a favourite,” he said. “But in the live video, I said ‘You know what? We’re gonna do just like in Rocky 4. Maybe we’ll make people start cheering for the underdog, the guy that’s a new fighter and has the fire in him to prove he’s a good boxer.’ “It was an underdog story. People were cheering for Dave more than Tsetsi at the end of the fight. We’re blessed, we’re really loved.” The Gleaner reached out to Davis to get a response on how he would feel about a possible rematch, but he declined to speak. Leblond said that if he does not get to face Davis in the competition, he would still welcome a chance to have a match later this year, even in Canada. He continued that he hopes not to face another fighter like Yeyo, whom he described as “frustrating”, because of how much time he spent holding him to prevent being hit. “It was impossible to have a plan against Yeyo,” Leblond said through translator Trudeau. “Everything we had set up was impossible to do because that guy just held on. That threw us off and, of course, it was frustrating.” Trudeau said they have to now make a game plan in case they encounter another match like last week’s. “We’re gonna work on something else. This fight was harder than Tsetsi. Tsetsi knows how to fight. This guy (Yeyo) was very difficult and unorthodox because he’s a young boxer.” THE UNDERDOG
The PBS-Vulcan film Judgment Day just aired on national TV (see 10/12/2007) and is sure to represent a new rallying point for both sides of the ongoing controversy over Darwinian evolution that has raged for 148 years. For material on both sides, see the PBS website, which put Intelligent Design on trial, and the responses at the Discovery Institute’s Evolution News and Intelligent Design.org, which put Darwin on trial (per the title of Phillip Johnson’s influential ID book). Also see the DI’s new intelligent design central, Intelligent Design.org. For those who missed the show, the entire transcript and film will be available online November 16. The transcript of the entire interview with Phillip Johnson, of which only selected portions were shown on camera, is available on the PBS site. It is about the only ID-friendly material on the entire site except for some listings on the Resources page. The list of authors for every other pro-Darwin article or recording reads like a who’s who of lawyers, scientists, educators and activists who have made a career out of discrediting intelligent design. Phillip Johnson had some pre-game thoughts on the show and his involvement on the ID the Future podcast for November 12. Just as generations of students were exposed to Inherit the Wind in school, it is likely new generations will study Judgment Day as the definitive depiction of “intelligent design on trial.” The PBS website offers teachers a selection of resources for the classroom and encourages teachers to use the film as an instructional resource.We recommend readers become familiar with the best arguments on both sides and avoid caricatures and propaganda tricks, a number of which were clearly in use in the program. This film, indeed, could well be used as a case study in how to bias a controversy to favor one side. It would be worth watching it side by side with Unlocking the Mystery of Life, The Privileged Planet and Icons of Evolution. The key to understanding will be to discern what pieces of evidence are relevant to the central issue, and how they are portrayed. In the re-enactments, notice how the producer pretended to give an accurate portrayal of courtroom events but included subtleties that buttressed the anti-ID bias. Darwin propagandists undoubtedly learned their lesson from Inherit the Wind, which did not even pretend to be a factual reconstruction of the Scopes Trial and has been roundly criticized by secular historians as completely misleading regarding what really happened in Dayton in 1925. In Judgment Day, the producer tried to pick actors that resembled the main characters, and had them quote the transcript more-or-less verbatim, without overblown histrionics or garrish TV effects. It was evident, however, that the Ken Miller character was made to look very sure of himself and persuasive to the audience, whereas the Michael Behe character, through body language and facial expressions, was made to start out with a phony air of confidence that degenerated into uneasiness and doubt. You can be sure that the parts of the transcript quoted were carefully selected as well. The closing statements, similarly, contained the same subtle cues intended to reinforce the desired effect: that the anti-ID lawyers and witnesses were on the side of reason and science, and could see through the supposed duplicity of the other side with complete clarity, as if “come on, you guys, we know exactly what you are up to.” The pro-ID lawyers and witnesses were made to look like bumbling, ruffled, evasive, almost sinister advocates who were not very good at covering up their hidden agenda – especially the two pro-ID school board members, who were portrayed as criminal perjurers who belong on America’s Dumbest Criminals. The film was careful to quote enough of the opposition to sidestep charges that they were completely and utterly biased against ID – but in each case, either quoted them to knock down a straw man, or did not allow them to elaborate sufficiently to support their assertions. The Darwinists always got the last word. In evaluating this film, it is essential to first toss out the irrelevant material. There was a lot of that. Consider a short list of vignettes the film focused in on that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether Darwinism alone is science and deserves exclusive treatment in public education, or whether intelligent design can be treated apart from religious implications.The ineptitude of the Dover school board members. Irrelevant.The outrage of the science teachers, and their brave stand against the “conspiracy”. Irrelevant.The tragedy of a town embattled in controversy. Irrelevant.The fact that school board meetings “erupted in chaos.” Irrelevant. They erupt just as readily over Walmart.The tragedy of a reporter unable to reconcile with her Christian father. Irrelevant.The “smoking gun” evidence of clumsy editing changes to the book Of Pandas and People. Irrelevant.How hard Barbara Forrest had to work to find the “smoking gun.” Irrelevant.The glee the NCSE experienced over finding evidence that Pandas and People was construed as “creationist” before it used the term “intelligent design”. Irrelevant.The eagerness of the ACLU to help, and the prosecutors’ excitement over getting the case of a lifetime. Irrelevant.Whether the school board was religiously motivated. Relevant perhaps to this particular case and the interpretation of the Establishment Clause as recently given by the Supreme Court, but irrelevant to the validity of Darwinism or intelligent design, and irrelevant to the original intent of the Constitution; also, arguably false or impossible to know one’s true motives or whether religion was any more motivating than a common human desire for fairness. The policy statement made no reference to religion or to any particular church that would have been “established” had students been informed that alternatives to Darwinism exist (which is true). A statement should be judged on evidence for its veracity, not by what motivated it.Whether intelligent design can be construed as somehow violating separation of church and state. Irrelevant.Whether 1/3 to 1/2 of Americans doubt Darwinism. Irrelevant.Whether most creationists tend to be Christians. Irrelevant.Whether Christians usually feel the Designer is God. Irrelevant.Whether many creationists accept Genesis. Irrelevant. Whether some evolutionists are not atheists. Irrelevant.Whether Ken Miller is a practicing Catholic. Irrelevant.Whether Christians would like to see a renewal of culture they feel was ravaged by materialism, for which they feel Darwinism is largely responsible. An important issue, but irrelevant to the question of whether Darwinism deserves educational priority in science classrooms to the exclusion of anything else.That the Discovery Institute wrote a Wedge Document with broad goals seeking a renewal of science and culture. Irrelevant; the Discovery Institute was not on trial – in fact, they disagreed with the Dover policy. For rebuttal, and a discussion of how this line of motive-baiting can be turned just as easily against Darwinists (for instance, because of Eugenie Scott’s signing of the Humanist Manifesto III), see Evolution News.Whether Darwin’s finches are evidence for evolution. Irrelevant; even creationists accept microevolutionary change.Whether teaching ID would harm America’s future in science. Irrelevant and absurd.Whether minimizing Darwinism would hurt medicine or agriculture. Irrelevant and absurd; most medicine and agriculture was advanced by creationists (e.g., Pasteur, Mendel, Carver).Whether ID lacks a fully fleshed-out scientific approach, as Paul Nelson confessed. Irrelevant. Design-based science arguably does more real legwork in science than Darwinism does (e.g., biomimetics, archaeology, forensics, information technology); besides, Darwinism was little more than a suggestion in 1849, but that didn’t stop them. Read Dembski’s The Design Revolution for more answers to this type of criticism.Whether textbook writers have ever been afraid to present evolution in high school textbooks. Irrelevant. Whether Behe, Minnich, and the lawyers for the defense made a good case. Irrelevant; they are only human. Other witnesses said they did much better than this movie portrayed.Whether Behe was embarrassed by a pile of books and papers that claimed they explained the evolution of the immune system. Irrelevant. A detailed inspection of these publications would undoubtedly confirm the pattern reported in these pages, that evolutionists fill in the gaps with pure speculation in spite of evidence, based on an a priori commitment to naturalism.Whether the trial produced a flap of worldwide media coverage. Irrelevant.What Darwin’s great great great grandson thought of the trial. Irrelevant.Whether evolution critics understand what a “theory” is in science. Irrelevant. Look how some Darwinists exhibit their ignorance by comparing the theory of evolution to the law of gravity.Whether Michael Behe’s definition of science as presented at the trial was so loose so as to allow astrology. Irrelevant; as all philosophers of science know, there is no universal definition of science, nor is there a universal scientific method, nor any epistemic justification that even the most basic science preserves an accurate reflection of external reality, whether or not it proves useful. Definitions of science vary from extremes that it is The Truth to it is a socially-constructed set of cultural biases. As philosopher J. P. Moreland claims, hardly any working scientist has a clue what science is; it is not typically a part of their education. The definition of science is not science, it is a second-order claim of philosophy about science. It follows that Michael Behe can work as a scientist without being expected to define science in a courtroom in a way that will satisfy his critics.Whether the teachers and Judge Jones received hate mail and death threats. Tragic, but irrelevant. By the way, as if any readers here need to be reminded of the obvious, this is NO way to be effective for ANY point of view! It is harmful, wicked and criminal. If you are given to this tendency, repent.Whether David DeRosier, whom Behe quoted, believes in Darwinian evolution or not. Irrelevant.Whether Darwinists can say “evolution is science, ID is religion” with feeling (or with a straight face). Irrelevant.Whether Judge Jones ruled that teaching ID is unconstitutional. Irrelevant; he is just one unelected man who took on himself to decide issues far beyond what the case was about, and his decision is limited to the Dover area. It has no judicial weight outside that district, for whatever propaganda chaff the victors want to glean from it.Whether Darwinists were pleased that a judge decided what science was. Irrelevant and counter-productive. Scientists do not want to go to unelected judges to decide matters of science. What if some day a judge decides federal funding for science is unconstitutional?Now, we are not saying these elements of the movie were completely worthless. They had entertainment value. Like the mission statement in Paul Allen’s Vulcan film company stated, they wanted to engage in “elegant and compelling storytelling.” For that matter, Inherit the Wind and even Birth of a Nation succeeded at that, too, in a perverse way. The point is that none of this has anything to do with the truth claims or epistemic superiority of Darwinism. OK, we have just dispensed with about 75% of the program. Another 5% consisted of baseless, unsupported assertions, like Ken Miller blurting out “ID is a science stopper!” Sorry, unsupported assertions prove nothing. (These were used to good effect in the Scopes Trial by the Darwinists, too.) Another 5% consisted of card stacking, or selective evidence. For instance, Neil Shubin and Kevin Padian carried on and on about all the transitional forms, especially their star witness, the fish-o-pod Tiktaalik (see 04/06/2006, 05/03/2006, 10/20/2006), but said nothing about the Cambrian explosion, which makes Tiktaalik irrelevant because the Cambrian explosion falsifies Darwinism from the get-go. Noticeably absent was any discussion of the origin of life, other than Shubin’s passing comment, “Many scientists believe life began in the water,” as if anybody cares what many scientists believe. This is not supposed to be a matter of belief or faith, but science, remember? Many scientists believe in unobservable universes. Should they teach that in school? Another 5% consisted of wild extrapolations from these controversial examples to the claim that the entire fossil record is replete with transitional forms. Which brings us to the out-and-out lies, like asserting that Archaeopteryx represents a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds, or that the Establishment Clause teaches Separation of Church and State, or that ID consists entirely of negative arguments, or that creationism is an attack on all that Galileo and Newton tried to accomplish (ahem, they were creationists). (For more lies told in the film, see Evolution News). Then there were the half-truths, such as that the Discovery Institute would not agree to be interviewed because of their refusal to abide by “standard journalistic practice” (see EvolutionNews for their side of the story), or that their scientists “dropped off like flies” from testifying, without explaining that they had tried to get the Dover school board and the Thomas More Law Center to abandon the policy because they felt it was an ineffective approach that was legally doomed. Another half-truth: emphasizing the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the exclusion of the Free-Exercise Clause. Another 5% consisted of question-begging statements that assumed people know what science is, and that evolution is science, but ID is not. An unbiased presentation would have correctly explained that there is no universally-accepted definition of science, there are no demarcation criteria that can successfully keep the desired sciences in and the undesirable sciences (including astrology) out – so Michael Behe had a point, when understood this way: if you want to exclude astrology, then guess what! you are going to exclude Darwinism, too.Other questions begged in the movie:Whether the Arkansas ruling made any and every kind of teaching creationism unconstitutional.Whether creationism deserves to be regarded as a pariah.Whether ID should be expected to have some overlap with creationism or not.Whether discussions of ID must include the religious motivations of some of its proponents.Whether ID proponents must identify the Designer.Whether evolutionary explanations are any more successful at propelling science forward. Consider the Darwinists’ science-stopping explanations about vestigial organs and junk DNA, for instance.Whether all sciences are equally empirical, testable, falsifiable (consider political science, sociology vs the science used in space flight operations).Whether ability to make predictions defines something as scientific. Popper and other philosophers of science denied this. Even astrology made predictions that sometimes worked, and few practicing scientists abandon a theory over a failed prediction.Whether the ability to speculate on a possible gradualistic path to an irreducibly complex structure is equivalent to establishing that this is actually what happened. The plausibility criterion is insufficient to make a speculation scientific. Anybody can make up a story. Maybe a meatball traveled across the Atlantic and resulted in music (08/26/2003 commentary). It’s plausible, isn’t it? If I expect you to prove me wrong, I am shifting the burden of proof.Whether the rise of Darwinism was correlated with progress in science. A case could be made that it was anti-correlated; that it rode on the coat-tails of a scientific revolution that was happening anyway (e.g., because of the work of creationist physicists Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin). A strong case can be made that Darwinism actually was parasitic on scientific progress, borrowing from its prestige while generating disasters like eugenics and racist criminal theory.The worst example of question-begging of all was assuming that science cannot infer design because that requires a supernatural God. How convenient—that makes science materialistic by definition! Again, this is not a question science can address; it is a second-order claim about science. But with a sweep of the hand, with an arbitrary and philosophically-indefensible rule (not scientific evidence), they cleared the playing field of any contenders, such that something like Darwinism must be true, no matter how implausible, simply because it is materialistic. The film employed the either-or fallacy to make any references to so-called “supernatural” causes (should be intelligent causes) look as arbitrary as possible. Up to this point we have not addressed the few minutes of actual scientific evidence the film presented to support the dramatic claim that Darwinian evolution is so well supported, it deserves absolute supremacy in the classroom, to the exclusion of anything else. Here are the main three instances of empirical observations that were adduced to show support for Mr. Darwin’s grand tale:Tiktaalik: PBS clearly treated this as a showpiece in the film. Too bad it is irrelevant. See our earlier commentaries on this from 04/06/2006, 05/03/2006, and 10/20/2006. Also, Evolution News has a refutation of this fossil’s relevance to Darwinian evolution. Notice that Shubin bluffed that these rocks were from the “right age” for the fish-tetrapod transition, ignoring the fact that the dating of the strata was built on evolutionary assumptions. Let Shubin deal with the Cambrian explosion then we will listen to his fish-o-pod story – and yuck it up around the cave campfire, where Truth doesn’t exist anyway.The 4 other fossil transitions presented on the PBS website (not shown in the movie) are even less convincing. Notice how many times the feature uses the words “may have” and “probably” etc. The reptile-to-mammal sequence looks as ad-hoc as placing a lizard, a wolverine and a mouse in a line and calling it an evolutionary sequence. Look at the dates in the alleged dinosaur-to-bird transition; apparently they think evolution ran backwards in time here. The whale sequence relies little on bone, and heavily on artist imagination. The human evolution sequence is fraught with controversy among paleoanthropologists themselves, so this depiction is highly contrived. Each of these exhibits has more gap than data, and each relies heavily on inference from similarities. Have some fun; find evolutionary transitions among your garage tools.Flagellum and Type-III Secretion System (TTSS): The “co-option” argument for evolution was fully answered in the film Unlocking the Mystery of Life. In addition, many scientists now believe that the TTSS is a degenerate structure from the flagellum, not a transitional form. Furthermore, the use of a TTSS by disease organisms says nothing about whether they were designed or not, which is all ID tries to answer. If Darwinists want to argue that God would not have made such a thing, then they have left science and are now arguing theology, so they had better not bring that up in science class.Human chromosome #2 as a splice: Ken Miller gleefully showed evidence that humans have one less chromosome than great apes because sometime in human history two chromosomes were spliced together, and this proves evolution. It proves it only if you commit several logical fallacies. Notice that the splicing of a chromosome was not a prediction of evolution, but an observation, with a made-up evolutionary story after the fact. Miller committed the either-or fallacy by assuming that since he could not imagine God creating the chromosome this way, Darwinism is therefore established (this is also an example of the Argument from Personal Incredulity, one of his own favorite accusations in debate). Did Miller provide any evidence this change conferred fitness on evolving humans? No. Did he prove that this change occurred before humans came into existence? No. Did he establish a time frame for when it occurred? No. Did he rule out all other possible explanations, like a genetic bottleneck that might have occurred on Noah’s Ark or something? No. Does he or any other evolutionist have any explanation for the variety of chromosome numbers in animals, which seem to bear no correlation with fitness? No. It is a quirky observation that could lend itself to numerous explanations, none of which science has any way of establishing, so it is irrelevant to the film’s argument about why students should get only the Darwinian story. Do apes get along great with their 24 pairs of chromosomes? Do humans get along fine with 23 pairs? Sure; that’s about all that science can say. For more information on chromosome number variability, in answer to Miller’s claim, see Jean Lightner’s article on Answers in Genesis. Since everything else in the film was irrelevant, the entire weight of Darwin-Only Policy in Education (D.O.P.E.) must rest on these, their best examples of actual scientific evidence in support of the claim that 9th-grade students must be taught only the belief that humans had bacteria ancestors. You might have noticed that it was PBS that displayed the false dichotomy of Darwin vs Genesis. Don’t these same people squeal when we call evolution “Darwinism”? They had Charlie’s mug all over the screen, with his pet finches and Beagle and all. Clearly, they were equating Darwinism with evolution, so that’s why their critics do, too. A huge, underlying assumption that was downplayed was that Darwinists, and only Darwinists of the NCSE stripe, understand the nature of science and the nature of religion, including what constitutes the terms natural and supernatural. This was shamefully misunderstood and misconstrued by the entire pro-Darwin cast. Philosophers of science around the world should rise up in horror at the sophomoric definition of science that Judgment Day merely assumed was universally accepted and defensible. This film was a grandstand for the usual suspects, a certain cadre of Darwin Party Hacks who make a career out of protecting their idol from criticism. The names of these same People of Froth appear in just about every instance of an ID controversy. Take away their bullhorns and disarm their attack dogs at the ACLU, and most of the commotion over intelligent design would probably calm down into a nice, rational debate among reasonable people. While thinking about these issues, you might review yesterday’s entry (11/12/2007), since the film showed, over and over and over in Dover, a mesmerizing animation of their mystical icon, Darwin’s tree of life (see also the 10/08/2007 entry, with the remarks of Nick Matzke, one of the PBS heroes, worrying about what ID proponents would do with the clear evidence against Darwin’s tree). How can they reach a tree of life when they don’t even have knowledge of good and evil?(Visited 26 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
By Barbara O’Neill, Ph.D., CFP®, Rutgers Cooperative Extension, [email protected] Service members and their families make many financial sacrifices to serve their country. Many reservists and National Guard members, for example, find themselves living on a reduced military paycheck, compared to their civilian income, when they are deployed. There are also those expensive PCS moves between military installations, job transfers that military members can’t say “no” to like private sector workers sometimes can.U.S. Air Force photo by Airman 1st Class Areca t. Wilson/ReleasedFor military families, relocation is a way of life and the salaries of young military personnel are modest and, in some cases, even qualify families for food stamps and other public benefits. Another financial challenge is managing money from joint accounts when a deployed service member and spouse are in different locations.Below are nine military-specific financial tips to share with service members:Prepare for Deployment- Get your financial affairs in order. Suggested strategies include direct deposit of military pay and other regular income, automatic bill-paying, a review and update (if needed) of beneficiary designations on retirement savings plans and life insurance policies, and drafting or reviewing a will.Practice Living on a Reduced Income– Do this for two reasons: to prepare for reduced income following deployment and to build up emergency savings of three, and better still, six months expenses.Communicate about Money Matters– Make sure that your spouse knows the location of investments, insurance policies, and important financial records.Make it Easy to Manage Money– Use direct deposit and automatic bill payment. Deploying service members may also want a duplicate ATM card to make deposits and withdrawals anywhere they are stationed. Designate a trusted friend or family member to contact in case of a financial emergency.Get Help When Needed– Investigate services available from military family support groups and community agencies. National Guard members or Reservists should inquire if their employer will pay them anything during their deployment. While not required to, some employers continue deployed workers’ full pay or pay the difference between regular pay and military pay indefinitely or for a specified period.Save Voluntarily in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP)- Maximize savings opportunities in the TSP, which is the defined contribution retirement plan for service members. The longer contributions are made, the more time compound interest has to build up an account balance. Contribute $200 a month during 20 years of active duty pay status and you’ll accumulate almost $118,000, assuming an 8 percent average annual return.Know the TSP Rules- Set up TSP deposits via payroll deduction. Contributions are meant to be used for retirement so there is a 10% penalty for withdrawals before age 59 ½. Upon separation from military service, TSP accounts can be rolled over into an IRA or other tax-deferred retirement savings plan or left within the TSP to continue to earn interest until retirement.Learn About Military Retirement Plans– Know your rights to present and future benefits related to military service. All service members who entered the military after January 1, 2018 are automatically enrolled in the new military retirement plan, the Blended Retirement System (BRS).Avoid High-Cost Loans- Beware of high-cost loans offered by predatory lenders and other scams targeted toward service members or military veterans. If a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Check it out with a state securities regulator, consumer protection agency, or Better Business Bureau.Military Consumer Protection Day is held each July to highlight the financial stresses faced by military families. Visit https://www.militaryconsumer.gov/ to order free resources from the FTC and more than 35 federal, state and municipal agencies, consumer advocates, and military support groups.
Twitter/@BriceMarichMichigan quarterback commit Brandon Peters is one of the top passers in high school football, and the following highlight shows why. Peters, a four-star recruit out of Avon, Ind., finished with 381 yards and four touchdowns, none more impressive than his second.#Michigan commit, QB Brandon Peters throws his second TD pass to give Avon their first lead at 21-14 in the 2Q pic.twitter.com/pU5UIcLEsU— Brice Marich (@BriceMarich) August 28, 2015Peters’ three other scores showed his impressive touch near the end zone.Brandon Peters throws a beautiful pass for the TD. Avon now tied with Ben Davis 7-7 with 2:11 left in the 1st pic.twitter.com/o90TJx0yXz— Brice Marich (@BriceMarich) August 28, 2015#Michigan commit, QB Brandon Peters throws his third TD pass of the first half! Avon leads Ben Davis 28-21 pic.twitter.com/BK4GesEw6j— Brice Marich (@BriceMarich) August 29, 2015#Michigan commit, QB Brandon Peters scores his fourth TD of the game. Avon leads 35-28 with 9 minutes left pic.twitter.com/r6SvvKocgJ— Brice Marich (@BriceMarich) August 29, 2015#Michigan commit, Brandon Peters adds to his touchdown total throwing a great pass to give Avon the 35-28 lead pic.twitter.com/9sKHHHswLY— Brice Marich (@BriceMarich) August 29, 2015Ultimately, Peters and Avon were outlasted by Ben Davis, led by another Michigan commit, four-star running back Chris Evans, 49-42. The two repped their future school after the game.#Michigan commits, Brandon Peters and Chris Evans throwing up the pic.twitter.com/ziSRYnUoVP— Brice Marich (@BriceMarich) August 29, 2015Michigan fans have a lot to look forward to.
Beatrice Hunter (centre) and her son Scott Dicker (right) are among 14 Labrador land protectors who had criminal charges against them dropped this week. APTN file photo.Justin BrakeAPTN NewsThe Crown has dropped criminal charges against more than a dozen land protectors in Labrador who were involved with the occupation of the Muskrat Falls hydroelectric project site in 2016.The decision came on Wednesday, more than two and a half years after the event, when Innu, Inuit and settler Labradorians occupied the project site for four days in a last ditch effort to protect their traditional foods and way of life.Scientists and Indigenous leaders had warned that reservoir flooding at Muskrat Falls would lead to spikes in methylmercury in the aquatic food chain, including fish, seals and waterfowl.But the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and project proponent Nalcor Energy did not adequately respond to the warnings with mitigation efforts.Beatrice Hunter, an Inuk woman living in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, was one of several dozen land protectors who occupied the site.In the summer of 2017 she was jailed for 10 days in a maximum security men’s prison in St. John’s after she refused to promise Supreme Court Justice George Murphy that she would stay away from the project site.The experience has left her with PTSD and other health problems, she says.But Hunter doesn’t regret the occupation.“It was the first time in my 48 years I saw my fellow Labradorians fighting oppression [together], so I don’t regret it one bit,” she told APTN News Thursday.“I was a great moment. I was proud to be a part of it. I’m glad my son also witnessed it; I’m glad he was a part of it too,” she said.Hunter’s 25-year-old son, Scott Dicker, also had his criminal charges dropped.“For the last two and a half years, it wasn’t easy,” said Hunter. “But I guess doing the right thing, what you feel is right, isn’t easy anyway.”At least six other land protectors, including Inuk Tony Wolfrey of Rigolet, Nunatsiavut, still face criminal charges.The father and grandfather was one of eight individuals arrested on Oct. 17, 2016, several days before the occupation, for participating in a blockade of the project site’s main entrance.Wolfrey’s daughter, Emily, who is now 27, was violently arrested by RCMP officers moments after her father.She had been standing in what police called a “safe zone” during the blockade in the pre-dawn hours of Oct. 17.Despite obeying the police orders to stay away from the project site entrance, after yelling in distress over her father’s arrest Emily was handcuffed, arrested and charged.She filed a complaint with the RCMP over the arresting officer’s conduct, but that investigation found no wrongdoing on the federal police force’s part.“If I knew that she would be getting arrested, I wouldn’t have bothered,” Tony said of his role in the blockade.“You should have seen the bruises on her,” he added, referring to Emily’s arrest.Dozens of land protectors, including Innu, Inuit and settler Labradorians, occupied the Muskrat Falls site in 2016. Some still face criminal and civil charges. Photo courtesy TheIndependent.ca.Tony says he and Emily should not be facing criminal charges and have pleaded not-guilty.He says they will appear in provincial court again next month.“We had to bring attention to what happened, and is still happening, because they still never clearcut [the reservoir],” Tony added. “The only way to get attention was to get arrested, I think, and for people to see what was going on.”During the occupation provincial and Indigenous leaders agreed to create an Independent Expert Advisory Committee to study the methylmercury issue and make recommendations for mitigation.The committee filed its report to the government in April 2018 and recommended that more vegetation be cleared from the dam’s reservoir prior to the final stages of flooding.More than a year later, and despite pleas from Indigenous leaders and grassroots people in Labrador, the government still has not ordered Nalcor Energy, its own Crown energy corporation, to clear the reservoir.Nalcor has said the final stages of reservoir flooding will take place this [email protected]@justinbrakenews
OSU quarterbacks, redshirt sophomore J.T. Barrett (16) and redshirt junior Cardale Jones (12), and redshirt senior H-back Braxton Miller (1) participate in pregame warmups before OSU played Rutgers on Oct. 24 in Piscataway, New Jersey. OSU won, 49-7. Credit: Samantha Hollingshead | Photo EditorComing off a bye week, No. 3 Ohio State is set to get back in action against the visiting Minnesota Golden Gophers (4-4, 1-3) on Saturday. Here are five things The Lantern’s sports editors Ryan Cooper and Kevin Stankiewicz will be on the lookout for when the Buckeyes and Golden Gophers square off at 8 p.m. at Ohio Stadium.Will Cardale Jones take advantage?The entire college football universe will have its eyes fixated on OSU’s quarterback Cardale Jones on Saturday night. The redshirt junior is back in the starting role he occupied for the Buckeyes’ first seven games following a one-week hiatus after being benched for redshirt sophomore J.T. Barrett.But Barrett is suspended after being cited for operating a motor vehicle while being impaired on Halloween morning, so Jones, whose performance so far in 2015 has been more unpredictable than Ohio’s weather, has the reins to OSU’s offense for at least one more time.OSU coach Urban Meyer — who said a little tinkering with the offensive gameplan now that Jones is back at the helm has occurred — has reiterated his confidence in the Cleveland native all week long. Jones’ teammates have done so as well.However, the type of performance from Jones that emerges under the lights at Ohio Stadium against Minnesota remains to be seen. The last time Jones, who still boasts an unblemished 10-0 mark as OSU’s starter, played in primetime at the ‘Shoe, against Penn State, he was benched in the third quarter for Barrett, ultimately losing his job after Barrett played well.Jones’ season has not been a complete struggle — he threw for a career-high 291 yards against Maryland — but now, facing off against an inspired Minnesota team coming off a narrow loss against Michigan and the Golden Gophers’ No. 16 pass defense, he will have his hands full.The added fluidity that exists with Barrett in the lineup is noticeable, but for OSU to fend off Minnesota on Saturday, Jones will need to do his best replication of it.Braxton playing quarterbackMeyer said earlier in the week that redshirt senior quarterback-turned-H-back Braxton Miller will back up Jones on Saturday. The depth chart confirmed as much, as Miller was listed as the starter at H-back as well as the backup signal-caller.It will be interesting to see if the two-time Big Ten Offensive Player of the Year gets to relive his former days calling plays for any stretch of time.While Miller has lined up behind center in every game this season, it has been in running packages. The only throw Miller has attempted this season was a pitch only about a foot in front of him.Miller has said that this arm strength is back following last year’s shoulder surgery, and senior left tackle Taylor Decker said the same on Monday. If a game exists for Miller to showcase his abilities to throw the ball downfield, it could be Saturday’s.It is also possible that Meyer continues to only use Miller’s legs, but in an increased role, which brings up…Red zone efficiencyIn the seven games that Jones started before Barrett retook the job, one of his main shortcomings was his struggle to lead the offense in the red zone.In OSU’s sixth game, Meyer made the decision to use a two-quarterback system in which Barrett came off the bench to take over the offense near the 20-yard line.Meyer said Barrett’s skill set better suits the offense inside the red zone than Jones’ because of Barrett’s running ability. He said Jones’ 6-foot-5, 250-pound frame made it harder to find space to operate on the shrunken field.With Barrett sidelined for the game, it is very possible that it is Miller leading the offense in the red zone.Redshirt senior H-back Braxton Miller (1) carries the ball during a game against Maryland on Oct. 10 at Ohio Stadium. OSU won 49-28.Credit: Samantha Hollingshead / Photo EditorMeyer said on Monday that the coaches were “having those conversations now” about the possibility of using Miller in short-field situations, but no decision had been made at the time.If the ability to scramble is as important in Meyer’s red zone sets as he has said, it would make sense for the speedy Miller to take over with Jones watching from the sideline.Can Jack Willoughby be trusted?For the first time this season, redshirt senior kicker Jack Willoughby was listed as the sole starter on the depth chart. Up until this point, the transfer from Duke had an “or” behind his name, essentially listing him as the co-starter with sophomore Sean Nuernberger.Meyer said earlier in the year the player who kicked better during the week in practice would be the guy getting the nod come gameday. But with the depth charts being announced early in the week on Tuesday, the decision to drop the “or” this week must mean that Meyer has seen enough out of Willoughby to mint him the sole starter. Despite Meyer’s move, Willoughby has been far from a sure-fire kicker this season. The former kickoff specialist for Duke has not missed an extra point through eight games (41-of-41) but it’s on field goals that the redshirt senior has been struggling. Willoughby has split the uprights on seven of his 10 attempts for a .700 clip, which ranks in the bottom half of the country. All three of his misses have come from at least 40 yards out. But last season, Nuernberger wasn’t much better, converting on just 13 of his 20 attempts.Fortunately for the Buckeyes, they often find themselves getting into the end zone, which takes a little emphasis off the placekicker. But as the season progresses and the meat of the schedule arrives, it will be interesting to watch Willoughby’s success rate on field goals, namely those outside of chipshot range.If OSU would ever need a game-winning field goal, could it trust Willoughby knock it through?Can Webb rescue the depleted secondary?OSU’s secondary is in the cream of the crop nationally, sitting at No. 2 in the country behind San Jose State, allowing just 149 per game. The injury bug, however, has infiltrated the unit as of late. Two safeties — junior Cam Burrows and sophomore Erick Smith — are now lost for the season. But seemingly on cue, one of the secondary’s key contributors will be back in action on Saturday against Minnesota. Meyer announced on Tuesday that sophomore cornerback Damon Webb is back practicing with the team after a six-game absence for a foggy reason. Following fall camp, Webb was the team’s starting nickel corner and played well in the role against Virginia Tech and Hawaii, registering eight tackles. The defensive backfield was able to make due without the Detroit native during the six games he was out due to the play from Burrows and Smith. But now with the said duo sidelined, Webb should slide back into his old role, helping the secondary’s smothering season continue. Webb might not get that many snaps against the Golden Gophers because Meyer will probably want the 5-foot-11 sophomore to ease his way back into the flow of things, but also because Minnesota’s passing attack is nothing to write home about. Nevertheless, Webb will prove to be a boost for Meyer’s Buckeyes over course of the final four regular-season games.
Each commissioner and the secretary of Clark County Cemetery District No. 1 — known to most in the area as Fern Prairie Cemetery — wrote their choice for district chairman on torn pieces of notebook paper and threw them in a hat.They were tallied up. Will Zalpys won the chairmanship, though his victory was never really in doubt.“We just did the election, and unfortunately I’m it,” Zalpys joked in a deadpan tone.Zalpys has led the cemetery district in the outskirts of Camas since April 2002. The other commissioners laud him as the member with the most knowledge of the cemetery’s workings.Most of the district’s meetings are carried out with a deliberate impassiveness. It’s likely out of necessity, as many topics deal with death. There’s a need for a respectful routine, according to its members.The commissioners are Zalpys, Jeanette Jester and John Straub.Meetings, decisionsAt its January meeting, the group discussed lowering the price of its baby grave plots, designated to a small section of the cemetery marked off with a white picket fence. The baby section is about 1 year old and featured a handful of graves as of mid-March.That meeting took place at East County Fire and Rescue Station 91, just up the road from Fern Prairie, off Northeast Robinson Road.It costs $100 to bury a baby at the rural Clark County cemetery. That price and others are less expensive than options in the Vancouver-Portland area. In recent years, people have been choosing Fern Prairie for its affordability, Zalpys said.
Facebook0TwitterEmailPrintFriendly分享ENSTAR Natural Gas employees donated more than 2,000 books for local students and handed out more than 1,500 slices of pizza to students at Willow Crest Elementary in Anchorage and Mountain View Elementary in Kenai. Moira Smith with ENSTAR: “ENSTAR has three divisions: Anchorage, the Mat-Su Valley, and Kenai. We do a book drive at one school in each division, and have done so each year for the last four years or so. In Anchorage, we do it with our partner school, Willow Crest Elementary. In Kenai, it’s Mountain View. And in the Mat-Su, it’s Finger Lake Elementary.” The annual giving event typically takes place in December, closer to the holidays, but was postponed this school year due to the November 30 earthquake. Smith: “ENSTAR pays for the pizza for each school. We go to the school in the morning and set up the books on a table. The kids come in and pick out a book. They then return to their classes and a short while later, when lunchtime happens, ENSTAR employees serve the pizza to the kids. The kids just love getting a new book and having pizza. They are happy to have the injection of fun and the gift from their community gas company.” ENSTAR employees contribute the books for each division. According to Smith, there is a healthy competition among divisions and among employees for who donates the most — this year, the Mat-Su won.