Tag: 上海后花园论坛

Forum Newspaper allowed to reopen its offices

first_img LiberiaAfrica to go further LiberiaAfrica Follow the news on Liberia Help by sharing this information Monrovia court officials finally ordered that the offices of the independent weekly Forum Newspaper could reopen on 15 March despite managing editor Augustus Fallah’s refusal to pay a supplementary fine of 500 Liberian dollars (10 US dollars). Fallah refused on the grounds that, in his view, the court officials were just solliciting a “bribe.”The reopening had originally been due to take place on 11 March, after the newspaper paid a fine of 200 US dollars. But the court then delayed it while trying to get Fallah to pay the additional sum. The newspaper reappeared in news stands on 16 March. March 24, 2005 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Forum Newspaper allowed to reopen its offices News December 16, 2020 Find out more Reports RSF urges Liberian authorities to investigate threats against journalistscenter_img Receive email alerts News RSF_en Organisation News November 27, 2020 Find out more The 2020 pandemic has challenged press freedom in Africa June 12, 2020 Find out more Covid-19 emergency laws spell disaster for press freedomlast_img read more


June 12, 2021 0

Three’s company: With Johnson, Rautins gone, SU looks for new 3-point threat

first_imgAsk Andy Rautins. He knows how important the 3-point shot is for any basketball team. How it can mount a comeback ever so quickly. How it can turn a four- or five-point advantage into a more sizeable lead. And specifically, how it can extend a game, like his barrage of 3s did, to force a fourth overtime in the epic six-overtime Big East tournament game against Connecticut. ‘You just get on a roll and keep it going when you’re making 3s,’ Rautins said. ‘It’s definitely a huge asset. It’s a big weapon to have.’ Then ask Jim Boeheim about the current state of his team, 3-point shooting-wise. With Rautins and Wes Johnson gone, who can provide that spark for a comeback? That game-clinching shot? Or that game-extending shot? ‘I’m pretty comfortable with myself,’ Boeheim quipped at the Syracuse men’s basketball team’s annual media day last Friday. ‘I think I can make some if I get open. But the rest is up in the air.’ When SU hits the court Nov. 12 in its first game against Northern Iowa, its current ensemble of players chucking those 3-pointers will be one of Boeheim’s biggest concerns. Rautins and Johnson combined to shoot 364 attempts from beyond the 3-point arc last season. They made 149 of them, good for about 41 percent.AdvertisementThis is placeholder text Those two are gone. And so is the certainty of a consistent 3-point threat going into the season. But Rautins, for one, isn’t worried like Boeheim. ‘I think that us leaving, it won’t affect them too much,’ Rautins said. ‘I know they have a hardworking bunch. They’re going to do their best to fill that void.’ One of the players who could step in to fill that void is Mookie Jones. A sniper in limited action last season, Jones shot 44.6 percent from beyond the arc in 56 attempts. He and James Southerland, who shot just 7-of-24 from 3 last season, are two who Rautins sees as dark horse threats to take over that void. But first, they both have to get on the court. Jones struggled to get much playing time last year, only averaging 10.5 minutes per game. In Big East contests, that number was even lower. Southerland only managed 7.5 minutes per game last season. But now, with Johnson and Rautins gone, the opportunity is there. And to Boeheim, it’s up to them whether or not they take it. ‘They both have great opportunities, and they have to take advantage of them,’ Boeheim said. ‘They’re going to get a great opportunity. We lost two perimeter guys who played 35 minutes a game last year, so there is a large amount of playing time there. I certainly think they are two guys who have improved a lot and should be ready to play.’ Jones knows the opportunity is there. He said sometimes during the summer, he would show up at the Carmelo K. Anthony Basketball Center, dead tired at 3 a.m., and shoot the ball hundreds of times, many of which would come from beyond the arc. And those early shootarounds have gotten him to a point at which he is comfortable trying to fill the void of the two most consistent 3-point shooters last year for the Orange. ‘I would work on it every day,’ Jones said of his offseason shooting work. ‘I’m comfortable with the way I’ve been shooting lately. But even though it feels good, I want to be better. I want to be more consistent. I want to be Andy Rautins consistent.’ SU also has two presumable starting guards who each shot at least 39 percent on 3-point attempts last season — Brandon Triche and Scoop Jardine. But the question is whether they can both extend that to a full season’s work. Whether they can become the options in that facet of the game, rather than just options. ‘It changes a little bit,’ Triche said. ‘We have to adapt to the situation and get better. Transform into a little bit of Andy, try to get some shots up. I’m not as great a shooter as Andy, but I’m going to try to make my own way.’ But until Triche — or Jardine or Jones or Southerland — has completely transformed into Rautins, Boeheim won’t be comfortable. Until then, those four are just part-time 3-point shooters. Kris Joseph, another player Boeheim singled out, is just a player who made some in practice but could never translate that into games. Until then, Boeheim will still only feel comfortable with himself. ‘One of the question marks is going to be how well we can shoot the ball from the perimeter with those guys,’ Boeheim said. ‘James and Mookie are very good 3-point shooters. Dion is a good shooter. I think we have more guys who can shoot them. ‘We just have to find out if we have guys who can make them.’ Schedule maker Boeheim quipped in his opening press conference at SU’s media day that he could not have come up with the Orange’s non-conference schedule. One by one, he listed off why each out-of-conference opponent would be tougher than the last. Georgia Tech will be good. Michigan is on the upswing. UTEP has four returning starters. North Carolina State will have almost everyone coming back. And Michigan State will be No. 1 or No. 2 in the nation. ‘It’s much more difficult than what we’d like to see,’ Boeheim said. ‘Pretty much go down our schedule, and it’s very challenging. The non-conference schedule is good, and hopefully that will help us for the conference schedule.’ Boeheim, of course, is the Orange’s schedule maker. And he thinks this year, both in and out of conference, will be SU’s toughest one in years. Syracuse’s head coach also thinks the Orange’s Big East slate is the toughest it has had to face in a ‘long time.’ SU will play Georgetown and Villanova in home-and-home contests this season, two squads Boeheim said will be in the top four of the league. ‘It’s the best conference in the nation, and it is going to be tough again this year,’ Triche said of the Big East. ‘We play against the best teams. … There are going to be battles every game, but this is what America wants to see — great basketball.’ [email protected] Facebook Twitter Google+ Commentscenter_img Published on October 19, 2010 at 12:00 pmlast_img read more


September 17, 2020 0

Gallery: No. 5 Syracuse improves to 2-0 with 16-7 win over No. 12 Albany

first_imgComments Related Stories No. 5 Syracuse rides balanced attack to 16-7 win over No. 12 AlbanyBen Williams dominates No. 12 Albany at the face-off X in Syracuse’s 16-7 winInjury update: Nick Piroli ‘week-to-week,’ Tim Barber’s status uncertain Published on February 21, 2016 at 10:52 pmcenter_img Facebook Twitter Google+last_img


September 16, 2020 0

Relief for Oldtown residents and businesses as traffic lights to be removed

first_imgThe Oldtown area of Letterkenny will be back to normal traffic flow tomorrow (Wednesday) as two-way traffic is reinstated and the lights are removed.The Letterkenny Chamber of Commerce has welcomed the news that the works will be altered by Wednesday morning at the latest.Motorists have experienced regular delays in the area this summer as Irish Water carry out sewer upgrade works to stop the overflow of raw sewage into the River Swilly. This work is part of a major investment in water and sewerage in Letterkenny and the wider county. Irish water contractors have been in the area from May and there has been severe disruption over the ensuing weeks. Unfortunately customers have been avoiding the area and finding alternative routes which of course has an effect on the businesses in the area.The Letterkenny Chamber and the businesses in the area want to clearly get out a message that the area is fully open for business.A temporary working area has been set up inside Dunnes Stores Car Park to facilitate the construction of the sewer pipe along Oldtown road providing much relief to the businesses, customers and car users.Letterkenny Chamber President, Leonard Watson, is encouraging customers to go back to support the businesses in the area “This has been a very tough summer for Oldtown, each and every business directly affected has tried all they can to keep and serve their loyal customers, however there has been a drastic reduction in footfall and passing trade. “We would like to thank Dunnes Stores in particular for allowing the contractor to use their site. This was a very important move to ensure the next phase of the work allows a much better traffic flow. This was crucial to give some relief to everyone using this area.”Leonard went on to say “More than ever we want to encourage customers to support their local businesses. These businesses provide jobs for the local community and keep our town centre vibrant and attractive. Letterkenny is the centre of shopping in Donegal and we want to ensure that everyone knows that the Town is open for business as usual. The businesses in Oldtown, Pearse Road and those in the middle of the works are open and ready to welcome all new and old customers and thank everyone for their patience and custom.”Relief for Oldtown residents and businesses as traffic lights to be removed was last modified: September 11th, 2019 by Rachel McLaughlinShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)last_img read more


December 21, 2019 0

Astrobiology Ten Years Later: Can It Justify Its Funding?

first_imgAstrobiology just turned ten years old, but is experiencing growing pains, partly due to a starvation diet.  This “science without a subject” (as George Gaylord Simpson quipped about its predecessor, exobiology) is struggling to justify itself at the Congressional feeding trough.  Proponents tout it as the most important subject in the universe.  Why, then, is Congress cutting back its rations?    Astrobiology was born virtually in a day.  When a NASA press conference in 1996 announced the possibility of fossil organisms in a Martian meteorite, the media fervor launched speculation into action.  President Clinton appointed Vice President Al Gore to hold a space conference to discuss its implications.  A preliminary astrobiology study group was formed at NASA-Ames Research Center, which became formalized as the NASA Astrobiology Institute in 1998 (see NAI Timeline).  Grants were awarded to 11 research centers for research into “the scientific study of life in the universe – its origin, evolution, distribution, and future” (see NAI).  As funding for this new science continued, astrobiology websites, magazines, TV programs, conferences and projects have kept this new field in the public awareness.  In a sense, this was a pragmatic move to ride a wave of public interest and centralize existing but disparate programs.  Nature1 said, “the field was cooked up, in part, out of political necessity, as a means of bundling together research programmes on exobiology, other life sciences and planetary science” (emphasis added in all quotes).    Following a late 20th century trend for scientists to collaborate in cross-disciplinary endeavors, astrobiology became an umbrella term for chemists, biologists, astronomers and physicists interested in exploring possibilities of life beyond earth.  The fact that no life has been found yet is only incidental to the story.  To astrobiologists, the field encompasses stellar evolution, planet formation, the search for water on other worlds, chemical evolution, hydrothermal vents, extremophiles, life detection methods, detection of extrasolar planets, and much more – even the birth and eventual fate of the universe, subjects once the domain of philosophy and religion.  Though SETI was specifically excluded from government funding (it continues through private sources), any research program tied into astrobiology goals, even in a peripheral way, could apply for the grant money.    This year, NASA threatened to cut the $65 million astrobiology budget in half.  In a nation overspent on hurricane relief and the war on terror, NASA director Michael Griffin faced hard choices.  Squeezed by the cost of the International Space Station, recovery of the Shuttle program after the Columbia disaster and the pressure for a new human launch vehicle (the CEV), he distributed much of the pain to the NASA science budget, with astrobiology low on the priority list.  The response was swift and strident.  Scientific institutions, academics, and even private space advocacy groups like the Planetary Society and the SETI Institute joined in condemning the reductions.  Tempers eased slightly when NASA restored half the projected cuts, but new astrobiology projects are likely to be unfunded.  Scientists are still irate and demanding their money back.    Meanwhile, some of the findings discussed at the NASA Astrobiology Conference March 26-30 in Washington, DC were not all that encouraging.  The media had made a big deal about possible water on Enceladus last year.  The L word (life) was usually not far behind.  As reported by Richard A. Kerr in Science,2 however, the just-add-hot-water recipe may be unrealistic.  “George Cody warned that deep-sea hot springs couldn’t have produced all of the necessary components,” Kerr reported.  “Instead, the final assembly [sic; implies design] of molecules leading to life [sic; implies progress] must have happened somewhere between deep-sea vents, warm little ponds [an allusion to Darwin], and any number of other chemical stew pots.”  Cody found that, while some ingredients might be catalyzed by hydrothermal vents, the rest of the cooking had to happen elsewhere: “Worst of all, important sugars and nucleobases fall apart under hydrothermal conditions.”  Astrobiologists are trying a new approach: think globally, act locally –Submarine hot springs no doubt could have played a role in brewing the primordial soup that gave rise to life [sic], Cody said, but other environments must have contributed too.  “If I said it all happened in hydrothermal vents, that won’t move this field ahead,” he says.  “Thinking more globally could open up something.”  Perhaps the real action came along continental margins, he said.  There, prebiotic compounds from deep-sea vents rose to meet drainage from the land’s warm little ponds and fallout from atmospheric reactions triggered by lightning and sunlight.  “This is a very good [sic] approach, quite novel,” says organic chemist Vera Kolb of the University of Wisconsin, Parkside.  “People get bogged down with the particular conditions they’re studying, but he wasn’t pushing his own work.”    Such a “global origin” scenario, however, would make it less likely that life arose elsewhere in the solar system, Cody says.  The subsurface oceans on the icy moons Europa and Enceladus might not have offered the required diversity of environments.  And Mars may not have had even a short-lived ocean.Since Europa and Enceladus were both recently advertised as targets for life detection, it may not be politically opportune at this time to mention such things to Congress.1Editorial, “Astrobiology at Ten,” Nature 440, 582 (30 March 2006) | doi:10.1038/440582a.2Richard A. Kerr, “ASTROBIOLOGY SCIENCE CONFERENCE 2006: Diversity Before Life,” Science, 14 April 2006: Vol. 312. no. 5771, p. 179; DOI: 10.1126/science.312.5771.179b.There is nothing wrong with asking big questions.  What is life?  What are the requirements for life?  How can we detect life?  When asking big questions, it makes good sense to get input from a variety of disciplines.  Astrobiology, however, has big problems passing itself off as science that deserves public funding.    For one, it assumes evolution before allowing the evidence to speak.  If there is water, there must be life.  If there are organic compounds, they must evolve into more complex ones.  While it may be true that a substantial number of stars have planets, and that some of those will fall within the temperature range where water can exist as a liquid, thinking that life will necessarily emerge has no scientific support.  (Claiming it evolved here is circular reasoning since the alternative is that it was designed.)  Asking big questions and taking a position without scientific support is tantamount to religion, and imposes a state-funded religious view on a public, the majority of which does not accept evolution.    Another problem is that astro- has nothing to do with -biology.  Astrobiology is a made-up term, a chimera, a bizarre juxtaposition of concepts like decadent fudge or sexy V6 that is more marketing than substance.  Invent a racy term like “astrobiology,” and you instantly convey images about things of which we have no knowledge, and that may not exist.  Yet it gives artists fodder for portraying DNA molecules unwinding out of Hubble astrophotos.  One might retort that we have astrochemistry and astrophysics – but these are natural subjects for lifeless stars.  We have biochemistry and biophysics, but these are natural to Earth, the one place we know has life.  So far as we know, biology and astronomy have no necessary or demonstrable connection.  There are organic molecules in space, and there are planets, and there is probably water, but none of these conditions are sufficient for life.  Put a planet together with water and carbon, and you may get only dark mud.    But, someone will object, how can we find out, unless we search?  OK, get in line.  Make a presentation, show your criteria, provide a budget and time limit, and make your case to Congress through elected representatives.  Perhaps you can sell the public on funding it for a little while, subject to other funding priorities.  But astrobiology has become an open-ended program that could never be exhausted, no matter how many targets are investigated.  If we don’t find it on Mars, let’s look on Europa, then Titan, then Enceladus, then other stars, and on and on forever.  Worse, astrobiology was launched on news of possible life in a Martian meteorite that, in retrospect, looks deeply flawed.  Some get the impression the announcement had ulterior motives.  Now that the search is on, though, what are the criteria for failure?  Would committed astrobiologists ever admit defeat?  If not, then it is religion, not science.    The scientific elite want complete independence from political influence on their spending habits, and become irate when the president or Congress dictate scientific priorities.  They think they alone know what is good for science.  But just like all citizens, scientists need accountability.  As Steven L. Goldman (Lehigh U) said in a lecture series on 20th century science for The Teaching Company,Science has definitively lost its innocence.  The claim that “we are generating value-neutral, objective knowledge” is hollow.  Scientists may continue to believe it, but from a social perspective, the pursuit of knowledge – even of abstract scientific knowledge – is firmly embedded in social institutions and social expectations.  Science has been delighted to take this public support (and especially the public funding) and the organization of public institutions to allow scientists to do research – take that money and support, because the public perceives that science is a source of technological blessing.  But the flip side is that when there are curses, science is going to have to suffer that as well.(Lecture 36, excerpt)Another problem with astrobiology is the implied expectation that the public should fund it.  Why?  What national interest is served?  The public has a right to expect that either national security, health, prosperity or international prestige will be enhanced by the expenditure of its tax dollars.  Unquestionably, astrobiology is driving some interesting technology, such as miniaturization of biological detectors.  Astrobiologists can tout any number of spin-off technologies from its projects, but these beg the question whether those same technologies would not have emerged from other programs, such as medical or military research, or even from private enterprise.  Not every interesting question has the expectation of public funding.  For better or worse, Congress in 1994 decided that a superconducting supercollider was not worth $10 billion just because some particle physicists were interested to find out if the Higgs boson exists (as required by current big bang models).  The existence of life is arguably a more entrancing question, but it does not follow that the public should pay to answer it.    A rejoinder might be that such projects cost too much for anything but the government largesse.  (This forgets that government is of, by, and for the people.)  Why so?  The Mt. Wilson and Palomar telescopes were privately funded, and so is SETI (once Proxmire laughed it out of Congress; in fact, SETI has rather flourished under private sponsorship).  There are billionaires like Paul Allen, who just funded the Allen Telescope Array for the SETI Institute, and there are corporations, foundations and university alumni that can pitch in if scientists can sell them on the need for their particular astrobiology projects.  If this is not satisfactory, let them think creatively; sell Congress on a Mars or Europa mission for other priorities, and let private sources fund the astrobiology investigations as ride-alongs.  Or, build better life detectors for use on the battlefield, and adapt them for use in space.    Did you know that federal funding for US science is a relatively recent phenomenon?  In the 19th century, the government steadfastly refused to pay a dime for the AAAS, the NSF, the Smithsonian and other science organizations – they had to solicit funds from donors.  In Britain, also, members of the Royal Society and Royal Institution both had to pay their own way via sponsorships and special public events.  France had its crown-funded Academy of Sciences, but the elite scientists were subject to the king’s bidding.  Only after World War II, largely through the efforts of Vannevar Bush convincing the federal government that it needed technology for national defense, did federal funding of basic research become the norm.  Still, each expenditure needs to be justified to the people who pay the bills.  How will astrobiology aid the poor family on the farm in Arkansas, or victims of the latest natural disaster?  How will it protect our freedoms?  Furthermore, as we have seen with the National Endowment for the Arts, FEMA, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, public funding does not always produce excellence.  Maybe private funding would stimulate higher standards for astrobiology.  These considerations undercut the alarms raised by scientists that funding cuts to astrobiology will necessarily reduce US scientific leadership in the world.    Of course, it is demoralizing and counterproductive for government to cut back on already-approved programs.  Congress should keep its word.  Once a program starts, it involves careers and livelihoods and plans for potentially many people.  Finishing a job usually provides more knowledge than cancelling one program for something better.  That alone, however, does not justify an endless funding stream.  Each program needs to earn its wings every day.  The public has a right to know what they are getting for their dollars, even when, like with NASA science, the outlays are a small fraction of the federal budget.    Justifications for research programs do not need to be merely pragmatic.  The Apollo program, for instance, was immensely rewarding for national prestige during the cold war, and contributed to world peace when Americans and Russians collaborated on Skylab.  Space exploration continues to uphold America’s image of scientific leadership in the world (e.g., Mars rovers, Cassini).  What, though, is astrobiology’s marketing line?  Finding the answer to big questions like the presence of life in space would be no doubt interesting for philosophy, but how does one justify public funds in addressing the question?  Think of great conceptual leaps that were made without government funding: relativity, the expansion of the universe, MRI – the list would be long.  Why should not astrobiology, like SETI, pay its own way?  Why does it have to cost tens of millions of dollars?  We have material from space sitting at our feet waiting to be examined – meteorites from Mars even – and plenty of environments on Earth where scientists could get assistance from universities, corporations and foundations.  Existing telescopes are well equipped for much of the needed research.  Scientists throughout history have been inventive and productive without “banging their crutches on the trough of public funding” (09/09/2005).    Until and unless astronomy and biology get married, the folks at home don’t have to keep funding the wedding plans year after year – especially when they are not convinced the two were made for each other.(Visited 51 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more


December 19, 2019 0

Funds fuel SA film studio’s imagination

first_img19 November 2013Riding on the success of their first two features, Adventures in Zambezia and Khumba, Cape Town animation studio Triggerfish has secured funding to start developing its next five films.The company is also exploring other financing options, which includes the possible sale of a stake to a strategic partner, according to the National Film and Video Foundation (NFVF).The studio has begun work on a variety of new titles, including Here be Monsters and Seal Team.“We’re particularly excited by these two highly original and exciting high-concept stories,” Anthony Silverston, head of development, told the NFVF this week. “And although both stories have an ocean setting, they couldn’t be more different.”Here Be Monsters, which was selected for the creative focus pitch at the Annecy International Animated Film Festival earlier this year, is an original story from writer Raffaella Delle Donne, who worked on both of Triggerfish’s previous films. The film tells the story of a boy and a sea monster and will be the company’s first attempt at animating human characters.Seal Team is an action comedy that sees a group of Cape fur seals pitted against their natural enemies: the great white sharks of South Africa. The script is being written by Brian and Jason Cleveland of CMG, who handled world sales on Triggerfish’s previous films.“We had a good working relationship with the Clevelands on Zambezia and were impressed by their passion for the medium and for great stories,” said Stuart Forrest, a producer at Triggerfish. “It was great when they came with this concept that is so close to home for us. Our first reaction was, ‘Why didn’t we think of that?’”Universal messageTriggerfish aims to release one film a year from 2016. Although the stories have all been set in Africa so far, the company has a global vision to create animated films with universal messages for all ages.The development funding was secured from Business Partners’ Venture Fund, a specialist risk finance company for formal small- to medium-enterprises in South Africa and select African countries.The funds will be used towards developing Triggerfish’s slate of five animated feature films and to expand the studio’s digital department, building on existing properties and exploring new ideas with apps and games.Khumba is currently on circuit in South Africa, where it has held the number 1 spot for two weeks. It will be released in the rest of the world in 2014.Source: National Film and Video Foundationlast_img read more


December 18, 2019 0

Rain plays spoilsport in SL vs Aus World Cup tie

first_imgThe content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.last_img


November 28, 2019 0

North Queensland Championships

first_imgThe 40th annual North Queensland Touch Football Championships were held last weekend in Townsville with 42 teams from across the region taking part. Ten divisions were contested under idyllic conditions. Congratulations to the winners, runner ups and finals referees:Men’s Open Tier 1Townsville Blue 8 defeated Townsville Green 7 Player of the Final – Andrew Searle (Townsville Blue) Referees – Michael Littlefield, Jason Miller, Paul EdmondsonMen’s Open Tier 2 Atherton 12 defeated Hughenden 5 Player of the Final – Cameron Glaspy (Atherton)Women’s Open Tier 1Townsville 8 defeated Cairns 4 Player of the Final – Toni Daisy (Townsville) Referees – Kerrod Hall, Mitch McKenzie, Chris Benstead Women’s Open Tier 2Burdekin 10 defeated Atherton 1 Player of the Final – Martina Monday (Burdekin) Referees – Damin Johnston, Jordan Rafter, Dean RamsayMen’s 49’sTownsville 5 defeated Cairns 4 Player of the Final – Tony Parsons (Townsville) Referees – Darryl Lyon, Danny Dong, Allan CampMen’s 39’sTownsville 9 defeated Cairns 2 Player of the Final – Damien Logan (Townsville) Referees – John Viklund, Shane Murell, Rob McKayMen’s 27’s Townsville 10 defeated Cairns 6 Player of the Final – Damon Townsend (Townsville) Referees – Scott Marsh, Marcus Muller, Denise WeierMen’s 19’s Townsville 5 defeated Mackay 4 Player of the Final – Jamaiah Hutchinson (Mackay) Referees – Roderick Mundraby, Hayden Smith, Justin HillWomen’s 39’s Townsville 11 defeated Gordonvale 4 Player of the Final – Julie Style (Townsville) Referees – Clive Grossman, Dean Saunders, Noel LongWomen’s 26’s Cairns 5 defeated Townsville 2 Player of the Final – Jeda Nash (Cairns) Referees – Fiona Quinn, Alison Watters, Regan Cheetham Women’s 19’sMackay 12 defeated Townsville 1 Player of the Final – Tayla McGuire (Mackay) Referees – Krista Field, Cara Symons, Karli ReisenPhotos from the weekend can be found here: http://on.fb.me/1Mn9n3c Related Links2015 NQ Champslast_img read more


November 7, 2019 0

Ohio Lawmakers Stash 5M in Budget Bill to Support Military Infrastructure

first_imgOhio would have $5 million to invest in infrastructure at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and other installations in the state, under an earmark included in a budget bill under consideration by the Ohio House.The earmark would create an Ohio Military Facilities Commission which would be responsible for positioning the state’s installation to survive a future BRAC round, said House Speaker Cliff Rosenberger (R), who added the provision to the budget bill.“This is sorely needed, especially when there are fiscal constraints on the federal level to support our military facilities,” said U.S. Rep. Mike Turner (R), reported Dayton Daily News. He said the legislation is urgent because federal rules prohibit states from spending on base infrastructure during a BRAC process.“It is a game that must be completed before BRAC commences and that’s why it’s so important that this be done now,” said Turner, chairman of the House Armed Services’ Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee.Rosenberger announced the legislation at the National Aviation Hall of Fame inside the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force at Wright-Patterson. “At the end of the day, what this comes down to is about securing jobs and securing, really, America’s future because … Wright-Patterson Air Force Base is the pointy spear of our military,” he said.Rosenberger said he would like to double the set aside to $10 million, according to the story. Dan Cohen AUTHORlast_img read more


September 13, 2019 0