Adrian King’s 79th minute goal earned Boys’ Town a 1-1 draw with Rivoli United in their Red Stripe Premier League game at Barbican play field yesterday.Corey Burke had earlier fired the visitors ahead in the 51st minute with his league leading 11th goal of the season. However, minutes later, he wasted a great opportunity to add to his tally when he failed to convert a penalty.Yesterday’s point lifted Boys’ Town one place to seventh and Rivoli stayed tenth with 14 points after yesterday’s early match.King was disappointed that Boys’ Town did not go on to bag all three points after his equaliser.”We were a bit disappointing in the first-half and squandered a number of good chances,” he said.The former Bridgeport High Manning Cup player has become a fan favourite since joining the ‘Red Brigade’ this season and although he believes he should have scored more he is satisfied with his contribution.”I feel pleased within myself, I just want to continue the hard work so I can stand out in games,” King said. He has promised to improve on his accuracy in front of goal to pull Boys’ Town out of the bottom half of the table.”We are not pleased with the position that we are in. We should have been up more, but we need to score more,” he added.Boys’ Town were the better team in the first-half but wasted their chances. Six minutes into the second-half they were made to pay when Burke dribbled fired a low shot past goalkeeper Kirk Porter.With just over ten minutes to go King broke away and calmly slotted past Marlon Henry for the equaliser.Other results: UWI FC 1 (Deno Schaffe 38th) Waterhouse 0; Cavalier 2 (Donovan Alvaranga 33rd, Nicholas Hamilton 62nd) Portmore United 1 (Mallique Foster 80th).
WHAT’S THE CRAIC SPLAT?“Revenge is a dish best served cold”Little did Pat Spillane realise when he “dissed” the Donegal style last that he would end up making a good sum of money for a GAA fundraising event in West Donegal.Naomh Mhuire GAA Club, Kincasslagh, yesterday raised over €2000 in a fun day with Pat Spillane the main fundraiser. Young and Old queued up to throw wet sponges at the Kerry great’s image with local celebrities putting their face to the crowd. John Gillespie, event organiser said “Although Spillane has since come on-side…the comments from last year were enough to ensure the wet sponges were going well. It is all a bit of craic and maybe we’ll get Pat Spillane himself here in late September.” TAKE SPLAT! ‘SPILLANE’ FUNDRAISER IS A DONEGAL SUCCESS! was last modified: August 21st, 2012 by BrendaShare 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) Tags:TAKE SPLAT! ‘SPILLANE’ FUNDRAISER IS A DONEGAL SUCCESS!
(Visited 338 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 This entry continues listed examples of political bias in science, academia and secular media.Last week, we illustrated the disease of misconduct and unreliability in Big Science. And yet Big Science and Big Media continue their onslaught against Christian values, conservative politics, and Donald Trump. Here’s a rapid-fire list to prove it; these titanic conglomerates are juggernauts of leftism, not pure-hearted seekers of truth. They stray far outside their domain of natural knowledge into politics, ethics, and philosophy. Can anyone find any article in the major journals or secular science media that support conservative views? The following examples are not 100% wrong in everything they say, but they display an overwhelming bias against conservative ideas and a strong undertone of leftist ideas. There is one article supporting religious values in the list. See if you can find it.(Note: Articles from amalgamating news sites like Science Daily and Phys.org come originally from universities, labs and other academic science institutions.)Homosexuality: You can tell where Clayton Howard is headed with his headline on The Conversation: “The migration of same-sex couples to the suburbs is shaping the fight for LGBT equality.” First of all, is it science’s job to get involved in this “fight”? Second, define LGBT equality; they already get special treatment! The ones needing equality are those trying to defend their religious beliefs about marriage and gender.Guns and Health: PLoS Biology wants to get “science in the fight to uphold the rights of children.” About 80% of the goals of this paper are noble and uncontroversial (nutrition, vaccines, health care) but science is supposed to stick to natural knowledge, not fights and advocacy. Read further and you find the article includes oblique attacks on gun ownership, and expects governments to be the solution to everything. Those are leftist positions.Criminality: This article on Science Daily upholds the materialist view that criminals are products of their neurobiology, not sinners. By implication, treatment is a subject for neuroscience, not criminal justice. Another piece on Medical Xpress tries to explain altruism in psychological terms. Psychological science, you recall from previous CEH reports, is under scrutiny for non-reproducible results. Religious upbringing leads to better health and well-being in adults, Medical Xpress says. But Science Daily talks about the “evolution of psychiatric disorders,” making criminal behavior a matter of Darwinism, not personal responsibility.Gender confusion: There’s a new word for normal people: “cisgender” (as opposed to “transgender”). These are people who identify with their biological sex. In her “Explainer” at The Conversation, Joanna McIntyre decides the word is divisive, because it implies there are only two genders.Health care: This article on Medical Xpress about the opioid epidemic suggests that the problem derives partly from health care policies in the “era of Donald Trump.” Trump is not the cause of “deaths of despair in the era of Donald Trump,” conservatives would respond; he is working hard to solve it, but don’t expect secular media to give him any credit.Gender confusion: Medical Xpress notes that LGBT people have “poorer health outcomes” than normal people, but what’s the solution? Not to help them change, of course. The leftist position is to force insurance companies to take care of them.Abortion: This is an attack by New Scientist on the Trump administration and his nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. This leftist “science” rag is that they “might” limit the ability of women to kill their children, and also might limit “fetal research” – the sale of baby body parts. What a horror that would be!Homosexuality: Phys.org praises the teachers whose attitudes are becoming more accepting of LGBT students, in contrast to those nasty religious “fundamentalists” who “view homosexuality much more negatively than those with more progressive religious views.”Climate change: Rachel Nagelberg (Northwestern U) begins positively on Phys.org, suggesting there is “a bright side to those dire climate change reports.” And what could that be, Rachel? She grins, it’s the election of a bunch of new progressive Democrats in Congress that can stop Trump. “We’re going to need some pretty radical thinking and radical change,” she concludes. Science Daily rings the alarm, “Nations must triple efforts” to reach the U.N. climate goals – this despite the revelations of new natural sources of the potent greenhouse gas methane we reported (28 Nov 2018) that were not figured into their climate models.Corporal punishment: Medical Xpress concludes from a study of pediatricians that spanking is never right. But did the secular eggheads at Tufts University ask Dr. James Dobson? Did they ask Solomon? Are today’s scientists the only ones who have learned how to raise successful children with appropriate discipline? Parents have been having children since Adam and Eve, and quite a few turned out OK that were spanked. Some spanking can be abusive, but not all of it, if done sparingly and in love, Christians believe. Should science decide questions of right and wrong?Abortion: This piece on Medical Xpress is fairly balanced, but you see the bias in the headline: “the right to abortion is on the line.”Political bias: Nature writes, “Beware the rise of the radical right.” Is there no radical left? Surely there is, and it is dangerous. “Academic freedom is on the hit list when radical politicians gain office — as they have done in Europe,” the Editors say. Oh, my goodness. What we could say about academic freedom in the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cuba. Nature is blind to that, although they do qualify it somewhat, with no examples, “When parties of either the extreme right or extreme left take power, any one of democracy’s foundational pillars can be knocked away.” Their bogeymen are Brexits, patriots, and ones who don’t believe in man-caused global warming. Their utopia is “collective progressivism” (globalism).Advocacy: Nature advocates for advocacy: “Why graduate students should get involved in advocacy.” Advocacy for what, you ask? The usual leftist progressive stuff: diversity and inclusion, government funding, climate activism, etc. This helps grad students become “leaders.” Aren’t scientists supposed to be neutral, dispassionate, disinterested researchers about natural phenomena?Conclusion: Understanding “the myth of apolitical science” (Science). Are you surprised at learning about all this bias within academia? You shouldn’t be. In a book review of Freedom’s Laboratory: The Cold War Struggle for the Soul of Science by historian Audra J. Wolfe, reviewer Alex Wollerstein says that politics and science have a long history.“Science is apolitical” is a deeply political statement: One only feels the need to assert something like this in times when it is a hard case to make. That science exists within a political environment and participates in political activities should not be controversial. But it is, especially in the current moment, when it would be (politically) convenient to have something in our present world that felt devoid of politics.At times in the past, science leaned conservative. Now, it is overwhelmingly liberal. One reason for that is the extremely lopsided party affiliation in universities, especially in the sciences. Jerry Bergman shows how out of touch scientists are with the American public:In an examination of over 150 departments and upper-level administrations at 32 elite colleges, the Center for the Study of Popular Culture found that the ratio of registered Democrats to registered Republicans was more than 10 to 1 (1,397 Democrats compared to 134 Republicans). In the US, registered Democrats and Republicans are roughly equal in number, but not a single department at any of the 32 schools even remotely approaches parity between the two.The closest any school came was Northwestern University, where 80 percent of faculty were registered Democrats and 20 percent registered Republicans. At Brown University the ratio was 30 to 1. The researchers could not identify a single Republican on the faculty at Williams, Oberlin, MIT, or Haverford Colleges. The ratio of liberal to conservative professors has profoundly changed from 4 to 1 a few years ago to 17 to 1 today. A Center of Media and Public Affairs Study found that “American academia is overwhelmingly dominated by liberal secularists,” a fact that proves bias against conservatives and religious persons in hiring and promotion of faculty. According to Gallop Polls of the last 50 years, about 70 percent of Americans believe in some form of creationism in contrast to about 3 percent of leading science academics. Depending on how questions are asked, around 10 percent of American are atheists compared to 95 percent of leading science academics.With such a total imbalance in party affiliation and religious belief, we cannot expect their scientific research to be immune from political views. Perhaps the only quick solution would be a program of affirmative action for conservatives, with funding tied to the degree of parity on faculty.Not all these articles are 100% biased. Some say good things. Some report facts apparently with neutrality. Pervading them, though, you hear a leftist-progressive undertone, sometimes loud, sometimes soft. It’s everywhere, like a background buzz. You almost never hear a conservative refrain in the din. Why do you never hear reports like “Blacks make up 13.4% of the population, but 36% of abortions” except on conservative sites like CNS News? Why do only conservative news sites like Breitbart News talk about the human rights abuses in North Korea that have gotten worse since Kim Jong-un took power?Science doesn’t have to be that way. There is absolutely no reason for a leftist slant in science. Many of the founders of science were highly religious or conservative politically, and did great work. Those who are conservative today often have to keep quiet, lest the PC police end their careers.Note, please, that this commentary is not overturning the tables. It’s about balance. The situation would be just as bad if conservatives controlled Big Science and Big Media and persecuted its dissenters. Scientists should be free to vote Democrat if they want to, and believe in liberal views unrelated to their scientific work. But in the same way, conservatives should be allowed to work as scientists in a university or lab without fear of being shunned or dismissed, and reporters should be allowed to write about research that supports traditional values. Debate is essential for good science. The news is distorted without a conservative voice.The bias in science and media is a great evil that must be rectified. Most academics, studies have shown are Democrats who voted for Clinton and despise Trump. Some departments at universities are 100% Democrat, or even radical socialist. You know this is going to infect their research. The same bias pervades media, and it odorizes their reporting.The solution is balance. So let’s use a progressive tactic against the leftists: advocate for affirmative action for conservative scientists and reporters, until 50/50 parity is reached. Who would complain about that, except a totalitarian?
How to Cultivate the Skill of Being a Creative … When I was first designing TheBeautyBean.com, I chose to save money by working with a less expensive developer/designer. Big mistake! I ended up having to walk away from that deal and start all over again. Sure, saving money and finding cost-effective solutions is important in a startup, but make sure you’re not pinching pennies now in a way that will ultimately cost you more later. —Alexis Wolfer, The Beauty Bean7. Hiring Based on Previous Experience This is a fairly common mistake. I would be hard-pressed to find an entrepreneur who has never hired the wrong person.After I had established my personal brand and was beginning to see steady income from my efforts, I decided it might be time to bring in someone else to manage the day to day of things. Despite what I thought was excellent training, the individual simply did not have close to the passion I had for my platform and subsequently soured multiple relationships with organizations because of poor communication and a non-professional approach.In hindsight, I should have positioned more scenarios to potential hires during the interview process and tested their responses out to determine if they would have the handled situations in the way I wanted. —Michael Costigan, Youth Leadership Specialist6. Choosing Cheap In the early stages, I tried to get my CFOs to take an active business development role. I was looking to expand my business development capabilities and thought that having a team of professionals assisting in this effort would be helpful.It wasn’t. My CFOs are fantastically knowledgeable financial professionals; they are not salespeople. From this mistake, I realized that you can’t expect your team to take on roles and responsibilities that they are not well-suited for. Instead, I’ve had to take a fresh approach to business development. —David Ehrenberg, Early Growth Financial Services3. Pigeonholing My Demographic The single worst mistake I made with my startup was not knowing my market properly. While we had one demographic in one location, it changed in a new location. I didn’t adjust anything when moving; I just re-setup the same inventory and expected the same sales and profits. The same products that would sell well in the older location sat stagnant.Once I understood the reason behind the drop in sales, I had to mark the products down and clearance them, sometimes selling at a loss. It was costly learning the new market and providing customers with goods that they actually wanted and not what I thought they wanted. It was the single best lesson learned and stemmed from my worst business mistake: always know your market. —Jay Wu, Best Drug Rehabilitation4. Overvaluing Experience, Undervaluing Personality In the early days, I trusted an industry veteran’s advice to change our hiring profile from personality- and capability-based hiring to skill-based hiring. This led to a significant waste in resources and a negative change in culture, which slowed company growth.Once we recognized the issues with our hiring methods, we combined both strategies to better inform our hiring decisions going forward. —John Berkowitz, Yodle5. Hiring the Wrong Person scott gerber AI Will Empower Leaders, Not Replace Them How to Meet the Demands of the Socially Conscio… Tags:#startups I hired a top-shelf COO who took a company from 10 people to more than 600 in the course of eight years. I learned that pasts do not equal futures, and it’s much better to hire someone at a much lower salary who has most of the qualifications for the job and is eager to prove himself. If you nurture someone and help him grow in your organization, he will typically be loyal and dependable. —Ziver Birg, ZIVELO8. Picking the Wrong Partners Related Posts When you’re starting up, it’s only natural to seek out people who can join you along the journey. Ultimately, I found that I was better off on my own, though I’ve been lucky enough to find a few good people along the way. In other cases, I let people into the business a little too easily, making for a headache later when it didn’t work out.I implore entrepreneurs to first asses the value of any potential partner, ensure there are very clear expectations for what each partner is to deliver and to have an out if worse comes to worst. The business needs to always come first. If someone is not positively impacting the business, that needs to change or the person needs to go. —Andy Karuza, brandbuddeeLead image via Flickr user doobybrain, CC 2.0 Failure can be devastating, but business owners who dust themselves off after a decision gone awry are often better for it. Learning the hard way can lead to better processes, stronger hires and improved customer retention, to name a few upsides.We asked several successful entrepreneurs from the Young Entrepreneur Council (YEC) to share which decision of late had truly terrible consequences—and what they learned from it.1. Assuming I Knew What My Customers Wanted I made the mistake of putting time into a new feature that none of my customers liked. The new feature provided our customers with an RSS feed to read instead of delivering email alerts.I quickly realized that none of my customers used RSS readers, which was a surprise to me. Plus, the new feature we added crowded our user interface.We decided to hide the new feature, but it’s still available to anyone who requests it. Now we never spend time developing a new feature unless some of our customers find it valuable. —Lee McNiel, ReviewPush2. Miscalculating My Team’s Capabilities How Connected Communities Can Bolster Your Busi…
The history of sound design involves innovations from some of the biggest names in Hollywood. At the 2019 Tribeca Film festival, we heard their stories.Last week at the 2019 Tribeca Film Festival, Making Waves: The Art Of Cinematic Sound premiered after nine years in production. Director Midge Costin takes audiences on a journey from the era of silent films to today’s blockbusters, with a painstaking ear to shifts in sound design trends and the influence of developments in technology. Making Waves feels like a 90-minute deluxe Hollywood backlot tour led by the scientists of cinema. It begins with the notion that sound is the first sense humans develop in the womb and ends with an encyclopedic guide to each function of the sound design department. Making Waves was a showpiece of this year’s festival, and it’s sure to become a classroom staple.At pivotal points in cinema history, sound design pioneers Walter Murch (Apocalypse Now), Ben Burtt (Star Wars), and Gary Rydstrom (Jurassic Park) were artists with the passion and skills to move the medium forward, working against a studio system that did not value sound as a cornerstone worth funding or time. They and their contemporaries had to prove sound design’s worth by creating visceral experiences that could persuade even the most resistant gatekeepers. A handful of tricks disclosed in Making Waves changed the game forever.The Fantasy Creature QuestionMurray Spivack headed up the sound department at RKO Radio Pictures when the monster King Kong came across his desk. How could he create a roar that was believably animalistic yet somehow otherworldly, befitting the gigantic gorilla? Spivack ventured to Selig Zoo to make field recordings of a lion and a tiger. He used reverse playback and altered speeds, overlapping the sounds to make an ambiguous and terrifying sonic identity for the icon. King Kong (1933) was the first time sound effects were recorded specifically for a film in this way.Spivack’s mark is everywhere. Ben Burtt was charged with giving wookiees a sonic identity for Star Wars (1977) and took a similar route with field recordings. He made a map of Los Angeles documenting where he recorded source material for the sound in the film, including wookiee language: a combination of walrus, lion, rabbit, tiger, and badger.Jurassic Park needed this kind of magic, too. Gary Rydstrom employed animal noises he spent months recording to fashion the roars of the dinosaurs, which had to do justice to the sounds audiences were anticipating. Tortoises mating, horses breathing, geese screaming, a baby elephant’s sounds slowed-down — all these were original sources in the film’s sound design. There’s a thorough rundown of each Jurassic Park dinosaur species’ source sounds here.Stubborn Barbra StreisandBarbra Streisand in Funny Girl (Columbia).The advent of modern sound design may not have been possible without Barbra Streisand. Making Waves includes her account of a pivotal moment on the set of Funny Girl (1968), when the singer insisted she track an onstage vocal live rather than submit to a dubbed performance. Dubbing was the norm at the time, and Streisand was past that. Her understanding of sound as a masterful recording artist — and her influence as a superstar — made her the ideal figure to push sound design forward on set. But she also helped change how movies were played in theaters with the 1976 remake of A Star is Born. Before that film, moviegoers heard the sound from a single speaker behind the screen. Streisand knew about a new surround sound system designed by Dolby that was ripe for use in theaters. It was urgent, she thought, to unleash that technology on the cinema world. So she offered $1 million of her own money to prove what could happen if enough time and care went into the sound design before a revolutionary presentation of the film in surround sound. Warner Bros. was so thrilled with the soundwork effort that they ended up paying for it instead.American ZoetropeThe founding of American Zoetrope by Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas in 1969 cemented a formative alliance between the two directors and their close collaborators. Ultimately, American Zoetrope would produce films that established how important sound design was in the alchemy of a movie. THX 1138 and Apocalypse Now (1979) are two notable examples of experimental soundwork by Walter Murch, enabled by the bold directors of American Zoetrope, who banded together to make the kinds of films they wanted.In Making Waves, Murch explains that he was not inspired by the cookie-cutter films that overloaded cinema houses when he was a kid in the 1950s. Instead, he was obsessed with the radio, recording bits and pieces of programs and splicing them together in non-linear collages he discovered later were part of the musique concrète tradition. George Lucas later befriended Murch at the University of Southern California’s film school, and the rest was history. You can hear the audiophile’s deeply psychological sensibilities in The Godfather. Just before Michael murders Sollozzo, the character’s internal impulse enters the sound design: the “firing of his neurons as he makes the decision,” as Murch puts it.This was an early instance of POV-sound — sound design that gives exclusive insight into a character’s experience. The gruesome opening twenty minutes of Saving Private Ryan under Rydstrom is another storied example; The Pianist and Black Swan also feature killer instances of POV-sound ripe for study.Cover image via Making Waves.Looking for more coverage of the 2019 Tribeca Film Festival? Or more on the filmmaking industry? Check out these articles.Director Carine Bijlsma Got Personal With D’Angelo For “Devil’s Pie”These Tribeca Docs Will Renew Your Faith In The Power of The CameraBreakout Director Kat Candler on the Best Festivals for First-Time FilmmakersThe Cameras and Lenses Behind the Marvel Cinematic UniverseIndustry Insights: A Conversation with Actor and Director Melanie Mayron