Girls from the St Eunan’s and Buncrana U-12 squadsTHE Steelstown Brian Ogs GAA club in Derry hosted a very successful U-12 girls blitz on Sunday to finish off a great season with two Donegal teams taking part.The hosts fielded two teams – as Steelstown and Brian Ogs – and played a number of games against clubs visiting from St Eunan’s GAA club Letterkenny, Buncrana GAA club and Claudy GAA club.The Derry City club were once again superb hosts throughout the day and girls from each time competed well with some excellent performances throughout all the teams. Hosts Brian Ogs with the Eunan’s teamsLADIES FOOTBALL: DONEGAL CLUBS COMPETE AT DERRY U-12 BLITZ was last modified: October 20th, 2013 by John2Share 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:buncranaLADIES FOOTBALL: DONEGAL CLUBS COMPETE AT DERRY U-12 BLITZSt Eunans
Science has a historical and cultural character that cannot be extricated from its current consensus.The history of science (meaning, the influence of history and culture on scientific conclusions) is a relatively recent branch of philosophy of science. In courses such as Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It from the Teaching Company, professor Steven Goldman emphasizes the historical character of science with many examples, showing that scientific “truths” evolve over time. As such, they can never be trusted as “true with a capital T”—as genuine cases of knowledge about reality (with a capital R). Let’s see how this works out in two recent articles from the science news.Evolving SETICalla Cofield, writing for Space.com, reported on a recent conference in Salt Lake City about SETI. Looking past the flashy infographics and usual arguments why aliens should exist, we find ways that SETI thinking itself has evolved. Speaking of the famous Drake Equation that launched whole books to calculate the probability of finding alien intelligence, she says:When Drake wrote his equation in the 1960s, the value for L was thought of as the time between when a civilization discovered atomic energy and when that society managed to destroy itself through nuclear annihilation, Stanley said.“That’s a totally reasonable way to think about the length of time of a civilization at the height of the Cold War,” he said. “But there’s been recent work … arguing that we shouldn’t think about ‘L’ in terms of nuclear war. We should think about it in terms of environmental destruction. … That is, it’s the time between the discovery of a steam engine and catastrophic climate change.“Another term in the equation has also evolved:The equation also includes the variable fc, which represents the fraction of alien civilizations that “develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence” (such as radio communications or television broadcast signals sprayed out into space), the SETI Institute said.Today, however, many of Earth’s communications no longer leak out into space, but are instead passed neatly between ground sources and satellites. There are still projects searching for leaky alien communications, and some scientists have proposed that humans should look for focused, laser-based systems used by alien civilizations to communicate between multiple planets or even multiple star systems. But Stanley’s larger point is that to some extent, humanity can only look for alien civilizations that bear some resemblance to our own.But since our civilization has changed in these fundamental ways, the concept of an alien civilization has also evolved. SETI enthusiasts in the 1960s knew about TV and radio broadcasts; they could not have foreseen internet radio and video streaming. What forthcoming changes to culture and technology will require potentially major changes to the Drake Equation – not only the estimates for each term, but wholesale removal of terms or addition of terms? There’s no way to know. Matthew Stanley, a historian of science from New York University, embraced these changes as good things:It may be impossible for humans to be purely objective in their speculation about life the universe, Stanley said. He added that he thinks personal bias and human experiences will always infuse science, but that those things can also help lead to successes in science. Having different perspectives helps people look at things in new ways, which can lead to breakthroughs, he said. That’s why, he said, it’s actually a good idea for scientists to “talk to people outside your field … listen to marginal people. Get a diversity of people, people from different backgrounds, different genders [and] different kinds of cultures.“I think it’s actually helpful to embrace the fact that this is always how science is done,” he said. “And to accept that everybody’s different, everybody has weird ideas, and that’s actually a source of strength rather than weakness.”Would Stanley welcome input from PhD scientists in the intelligent design camp? According to what he just said, he should. Taken to the extreme, he would have to embrace weird ideas of witch doctors or psychopaths, and incorporate their beliefs into science to make it stronger! Science already embraces weird ideas, like quantum mechanics. Some think SETI is weird. Could there be a weirder concept than the multiverse, which some cosmologists already embrace? The take-home point is in the first sentence: it is impossible to be objective, because personal bias and human experiences will always infuse science. Science evolves.Evolving ChemistryOn The Conversation, Vanessa Seifert introduces listeners to the “Philosophy of Chemistry.” The phrase seems odd to students raised on triumphal scientism (the march of progress); chemistry is hard science. How can you philosophize about reality?Philosophy asks some fundamental and probing questions of itself. What is it? Why do we do it? What can it achieve? As a starting point, the word “philosophy” comes from the Greek words meaning a love of wisdom. And anyone who does it is trying to make sense of the world around them. In that way, philosophers are a bit like scientists.But science is a big enough subject in itself, so warrants its very own branch of philosophy [i.e., the philosophy of science]. And if we can break scientific inquiry down into various subjects, why not do the same with its philosophy? This is what has happened with the development of the Philosophy of Chemistry, a relatively young and niche field of philosophical investigation. It poses unique and interesting questions concerning both the kind of knowledge acquired in science, and the understanding of nature itself.This raises an interesting question; did the Philosophy of Chemistry exist before its “development”? The answer is yes; but it was just assumed, not explored with “fundamental and probing questions.” It’s like the assertion that everyone does philosophy, but not all do it well. Everyone has assumptions about the nature of reality. That applies to even a hard science like chemistry.The philosophy of science is a broad, controversial field of erudite scholarship, investigating questions about “explanation, laws of nature, and realism” among other things (for a superb introduction, take Dr. Jeffrey Kasser’s Philosophy of Science course at the Teaching Company). Seifert indicates that students cannot take for granted they know what is meant by a chemical bond or a molecule. Consider also that quantum mechanics changed our understanding of chemistry in fundamental ways less than a century ago. How is chemistry distinct from physics? How did its nomenclature develop over time? What is the meaning of the Periodic Table? Do the methods of chemists produce a different “kind” of knowledge than those of other sciences? Can chemistry be “reduced” to physics? These are big questions. The field is in a state of ferment:Just as individuals that are composed of millions of cells exhibit unique features and properties as a whole, molecules and chemical bonds are real entities that deserve a separate investigation from the electrons and nuclei of which they are composed. These are issues that create heated debates among philosophers of chemistry and which have important implications for our view of the significance of the sciences, and on our view of nature.Seifert then brings in the historical development of chemistry to support our theme that science evolves:The historical investigation of how such classifications changed over time and what kind of discoveries contributed to these changes, plays an important part in these discussions.In fact, it would be wrong to ignore the importance of the history of chemistry to the current philosophical investigations within the field. The perception of chemical concepts, such as the atom, has significantly changed since antiquity with the progress both in chemical experimentation and in physics.“Progress” is a philosophical word deserving its own “fundamental and probing questions.” At the level of discovery, scientists have clearly made monumental progress because of technological advances: we have seen the landforms on Pluto and Mercury, we know that atoms are not hard balls but composed of numerous subatomic particles, and we know the spectra of quasars. Scientific explanation and understanding, though, evolve over time – as can be seen by historical examples even in the hard sciences. Scarcely any scientific concept trusted as fact in Victorian Europe has survived unscathed to the present day, whether in geology, chemistry, astronomy, physics, biology, or genetics. It’s a different world, a different universe now.Given the record of history, we cannot boast that “now we know” or have confidence that scientific revolutions to come will leave our dearly-held concepts unmodified, perhaps drastically. Seifert, Stanley and the profs at the Teaching Company remind us that historical and cultural movements can make our most cherished beliefs “subject to change without notice.”We pointed out yesterday (5/13/16) that the theory of evolution is evolving. New ideas are nearly 180 degrees out of phase with neo-Darwinism (which evolved from old Darwinism). Logically, this means that the theory of evolution itself could go on the chopping block at any time (indeed, many believe that it already has). Despite the screaming from its devotees, evolution is not a fact (unless one defines it as “change over time,” the Stuff Happens Law, which is meaningless). Science can only offer tentative ideas. One may call them the best theories we have, but according to the Best-in-Field Fallacy, they could be the best of the worst. Like the only lame horse able to waddle forward at the gate, it’s not the best in any objective sense. We can never know any of our contenders will reach the finish line.The only things that must not evolve are our concepts of truth and morality. If those evolve, science becomes impossible. If truth today evolves into tomorrow’s lie, it was never true to begin with. If honesty today is tomorrow’s evil, it was never honest. Yet Darwinism would predict those things evolve, too. Unchanging pole stars are needed for truth and morality. This puts them outside the realm of the physical. Those who love science, therefore, are supernaturalists (trusting in realities “beyond natural”) in spite of any claims otherwise. Think about it.By thinking about it, you just assumed the existence of a conceptual realm outside of nature that cannot evolve, whether or not your finite mind can apprehend it. Since the constancy of truth and morality must be assumed to have science, embrace them. Then seek a worldview that can justify those two assumptions. You’ll be happier if they are not a leap in the dark, but come from a Cause necessary and sufficient to account for them. (Visited 54 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Few things are more scientifically obvious than biological sex, but Nature would rather please the politically correct crowd.The editors of Nature in the UK have long had bitter animosity to conservatives. It pops up repeatedly in attacks on President Donald Trump in the USA, and now is also aimed at Brazil’s new president, Jair Bolsonaro, whom they mock as “Tropical Trump” (Nature). Look at the fear in their eyes that yet another conservative would win popular election and stand in the way of global leftism:‘Tropical Trump’ victory in Brazil stuns scientistsJair Bolsonaro will be the country’s next president, leaving researchers worried about the future of science, the environment and democracy.In its editorial this week, Nature blew off all their fellow human beings who classify their kind as male and female, boys and girls, men and women. It’s hard to tell which animosity is the main motivation for their biological revisionism: Trump hatred, or the desire to please the LGBTQ crowd by following the bandwagon over what is politically correct (PC) these days. In a knee-jerk conditioned response, they kick. If Trump proposes something, whatever it is, they are agin’ it. So committed are they, they wish to stand out in front of the transgender bandwagon with mace in a firm grip, pumping the band to play its Anti-Trump Fight Song louder .US proposal for defining gender has no basis in scienceA move to classify people on the basis of anatomy or genetics should be abandoned.They do have a few scientific cards to play. In very rare occasions, babies are hard to tell apart.Furthermore, biology is not as straightforward as the proposal suggests. By some estimates, as many as one in 100 people have differences or disorders of sex development, such as hormonal conditions, genetic changes or anatomical ambiguities, some of which mean that their genitalia cannot clearly be classified as male or female. For most of the twentieth century, doctors would often surgically alter an infant’s ambiguous genitals to match whichever sex was easier, and expect the child to adapt. Frequently, they were wrong. A 2004 study tracked 14 genetically male children given female genitalia; 8 ended up identifying as male, and the surgical intervention caused them great distress (W. G. Reiner and J. P. Gearhart N. Engl. J. Med. 350, 333–341; 2004).These facts should not be surprising, because almost everything in biology has rare exceptions. By their own admission, though, at least 99% of human beings do have straightforward biological sexual characteristics. Simple solution: accommodate the rare exceptions with sensitivity and respect, considering the laws of the land and the wishes of the parents and doctors. If a mistake is made, reverse it. For those who are gender-confused, educate them out of their confusion with some straightforward human anatomy and physiology. It’s not that confusing. Confusion comes from refusing to face reality. Teach them to enjoy the blessings of their biology; both sexes have their joys and advantages. Humans are equal in value and opportunity. Teach them to embrace their biological destiny. Envy is a sin, isn’t it?The exceptions could be more rare than Nature indicates, because the editors have lumped three problems into one: “hormonal conditions, genetic changes or anatomical ambiguities.” Each of these, furthermore, could fall into ranges of abnormality. The number of truly ambiguous cases could be a tiny fraction of 1%.Like most PC leftists, though (totalitarians that they are), Nature wants to punish the majority to accommodate the minority. They do this by creating a new victim class of the oppressed: the transgenders, who gained the national media stage not long ago as the new oppressed class. Solution: if 1% experience “great distress,” then 100% must share great distress, too. That will eliminate “discrimination” and achieve “equality”— and on this point, the editors reveal their true stripes. Their concern is not about biology. They care about leading the LGBTQ bandwagon, running its wheels over the feet of the crowd in order to punish them and their president, Donald Trump.The proposal — on which HHS officials have refused to comment — is a terrible idea that should be killed off. It has no foundation in science and would undo decades of progress on understanding sex — a classification based on internal and external bodily characteristics — and gender, a social construct related to biological differences but also rooted in culture, societal norms and individual behaviour. Worse, it would undermine efforts to reduce discrimination against transgender people and those who do not fall into the binary categories of male or female.No foundation in science? Tell that to human beings covering thousands of years (millions of Darwin Years, in Nature‘s view), for whom biological sex and corresponding gender was never an issue – till political correctness, a form of Marxism, grabbed the word “gender” to use as a tool for global revolution.This is not to say that there are not ranges of masculinity and femininity that have never been noticed before. Every generation has its tomboys and girly-men. Joan of Arc, dressing as a male soldier and leading the troops into battle, was not quite the Princess and the Pea. Men range from weightlifters at the World’s Strongest Man competition to sensitive interpreters of Chopin at the keyboard. Loving husbands might be lumberjacks during the day and yet at night, try to reach out to their “feminine side” to understand their wives in conversation on the sofa. Tender women might flex their muscles in wartime and adorn posters with “We Can Do It!” That’s understandable. Men and women, also, vary in their hormone levels; some men have more testosterone; some women, more estrogen.Credit: Chip Box, posted on World Magazine.These long-recognized realities do not require a wholesale revision of terms like sex and gender. Culture has come a long way since World War II in providing traditionally-male jobs to women, and traditionally-female jobs to men. We are all human beings, after all, members of one species. But must every bathroom in the country be renovated? Must vocabulary be radically revised? Must hairy-chested, bearded guys be allowed in girls’ shower rooms, scaring the daylights out of girls just because a man (probably with dishonorable motives) declares himself a woman that day? Must boys be allowed to compete in girls’ sports, and feminists be prohibited from complaining about it? Must men now be the ones giving birth? Must a psychologist not be laughed at for proclaiming that some women have a penis? (It happened in a science article: see 13 Sept 2018). Is this the world that Nature wants?Political attempts to pigeonhole people have nothing to do with science and everything to do with stripping away rights and recognition from those whose identity does not correspond with outdated ideas of sex and gender. It is an easy way for the Trump administration to rally its supporters, many of whom oppose equality for people from sexual and gender minorities. It is unsurprising that it appeared just weeks before the midterm elections.Nothing political about this editorial, right, Editors? On and on the Trump-bashing goes, faking tender affection for the new victim class Trump is making feel great distress.Tell the world, Nature, what other organism will you treat this way? Will it be a crime to say state the difference between a lion and a lioness, a silverback gorilla and its harem, a male peacock spider and the larger female watching its performance? Will there be no permitted distinction between peacock and peahen? You might as well throw out Darwin’s sexual selection theory, the term “sexual dimorphism,” and “sex chromosomes” while you’re at it. Let the drab bird ofparadise put on its show to the male. Let the female deer bash heads with the three-point buck. Must not discriminate, now! Or are you finally admitting in a back-handed way that humans are exceptional beings, with moral qualities needing to be respected? If not, then please give equal reproductive rights to men, and allow them to decide whether to have an abortion or not. That will be the day.It’s not just in Nature. Look at this article in Medical Xpress, kowtowing to the gender-fluidity trend: “‘Man’, ‘woman’ and ‘other’: research explores gender diversity.” Notice the scare-quotes around man and woman, a prelude to the coming redefinitions:A growing number of people in Australia no longer see themselves as fitting into the traditional boxes of ‘man’ or ‘woman’, with more than 30 gender options available to choose from on some social media platforms and within government institutions.The article pussyfoots around the biology in order not to offend the PC crowd while it clutches its Darwin doll:“The study is a great example of how behavioural economics, evolutionary biology and psychology can all provide relevant insight into human decision making, as well as the societal influences and pressures that shape what we think gender is in modern society.“Once again, this quote would make no sense without presupposing human exceptionalism. Try to restate this quote, using birds instead of humans, without laughing out loud. With “evolutionary biology” there is no need for consistency. Perhaps the authors are employing a form of Mullerian mimicry to deceive their predators.The Australian prime minister has had enough of this ‘nonsense,’ reports WND.Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said he has had enough transgender “nonsense,” refusing to capitulate to the movement’s demands for the government to create “non-binary” government documents for transgender people.The Labor Party in Australia is trying to force the government to issue gender-neutral passports.“The proposal says that “gender-confused Australians” will not attain “equal enjoyment of human rights without discrimination” unless the government gives them “autonomy regarding sex/gender markers, and obtain identification options that match their sex characteristics and/or gender identities, as preferred.”Morrison is not taking their bluff. “Get real,” he declared boldly to the promoters of that proposal, saying the government would never “cave” to this demand. Few government leaders have the guts to stand up to the PC crowd and endure the wrathful accusations that will come their way. Trump is one of them, and Nature hates him for not knuckling under their “scientific consensus.”But science is not about consensus. It’s about searching for truth. The battle is engaged. It will be interesting to see who wins.Update 11/03/18: Will the LGBT movement implode? The Telegraph reports that a gay sauna booted a transgender “man” (a physical female calling itself a man). They complained that “he” was a “female,” and they didn’t want a woman in their “male space.” The owners were forced to apologize to the “man” with a female body. Presumably, this means that a transgender “woman” with male genitalia and a beard could work his way into a “female space” and expect non-discriminatory acceptance by the women there. Beyond that, what are these kinds of spaces going to do with the “30 gender options available to choose from” of their patrons? This is what happens when culture opens the door to fake reality. It is unsustainable, and everybody pays the consequences, including those who pushed it in the first place.The Bible says, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). He made them to multiply and fill the earth. That required distinct sexual anatomies and distinct sexual roles, but did not imply inequality of value. How far into absurdity mankind sinks when denying their Creator and His word!Nature, and the rest of the leftist PC crowd, scoff at the Bible, and will not listen to you if you quote it. So take Solomon’s advice: “Answer a fool according to his folly” (Proverbs 26:4-5), but not in such a way as to be a fool yourself. One way is Greg Koukl’s method of “taking the roof off” – meaning, force the opponent to face the consequences of his argument. A good example of this can be seen in a YouTube stunt where a tall interviewer of college students asked if he could declare himself to be a five-foot Asian girl. He actually got several to agree that he had that right, and should be treated that way if that was how he felt. It was funny, but he could have gone even further. He could have said, “Right now I feel myself to a member of the Taliban that thinks women are property and should be available for men to fulfill their lusts on. Will you let me do that?” If she objects, accuse her of discrimination, and say her attitude is causing him great distress. You get the point; you can imagine worse examples. Do this with tough love in order to force the opponent to agree that there are limits to this kind of PC thinking. Most likely the opponent will stand on some kind of moral foundation, saying you “should not” be allowed to do that. That’s a door opening. Ask “Why not?” Press on; “I thought you believe that people should be able to respected for their feelings of who they want to be. I want to be a terrorist and remove all evolutionists and PC types. Why won’t you let me fulfill the destiny I set for myself? Are you a hater or something? I feel discriminated against!” Lay it on thick till you get a change of heart, but with a smile of evident sarcasm so the person knows you don’t mean it, but are making a debate point. “I feel like a bird today. I think I will land on your head and leave a deposit. No; actually, I feel like a poisonous snake and my fangs are itching to bite someone. I declare myself a Mack truck and you’re in my lane.” Back off once the person cries uncle, and then have a polite discussion about worldview. “You know, what you are admitting is that the world is what it is, not what we declare it to be. And we, as human beings, have responsibilities that are not culturally defined, but are part of our nature. The Bible says that’s because we were created in God’s image as male and female. Shouldn’t our Maker be allowed to make the rules about sex and gender? Look what can happen if you leave it up to the whims of human opinion.”Exercise: Use Koukl’s “taking the roof off” method on the Nature editorial cited above. (Visited 510 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest 1 CommentThe Ohio Farm Bureau Federation board of trustees has announced the organization’s opposition to State Issue 1, misleadingly called the Neighborhood Safety, Drug Treatment and Rehabilitation Amendment. Farm Bureau, Ohio’s largest organization for farm, food and rural interests, believes Issue 1 is not a viable approach to the state’s opioid crisis. “Our state and county Farm Bureaus have been at the forefront of drug abuse prevention in rural Ohio,” said Frank Burkett III, a dairy farmer and president of Ohio Farm Bureau. “We’ve dug deeply into understanding Ohio’s massive drug problems. Issue 1 runs counter to much of what our members believe are effective steps to reducing the impact of drugs on our communities.”The organization also believes that a constitutional amendment is not the best mechanism for addressing Ohio’s addiction and drug trafficking problems, especially when the initiative is funded by large out-of-state interests. Farm Bureau trustees also were concerned that Issue 1 would harm the Ohio court system’s ability to effectively deal with illegal drugs. Further, Issue 1 could be a heavy burden on Ohio taxpayers with few assurances of positive results. Other concerns include negative impacts on crime rates and on the availability of a reliable workforce.“Farm Bureau joins with law enforcement, judges and prosecutors, prevention agencies, business groups, elected officials, leading editorial boards and others to encourage Ohioans to vote no on State Issue 1,” Burkett said. “We need solutions to the drug crisis, but Issue 1 is not the answer.” This is a news release for use by journalists. Questions should be directed to Joe Cornely, 614-246-8230. 1 Comment
This image (ID: 890115440) was purchased by MFLNMC from iStock.com under member ID 8085767. Return to article. Long DescriptionIt will be the Holidays soon. Many of you might have plans to spend the time with extended family or members you don’t see often. Do you worry about your child’s disabilities and “explaining” why you might have to care for your child with special needs differently? Below we have some suggestions on how you might make the communication journey easier for all concerned.(1). It is important at this time to consider if you want to tell your child about his or her disability, particularly if the extended family visit is a new situation for them. It is best to not wait when discussing disability with your child. Additionally, empower them to explain about their disability themselves – an extended family setting would be a good opportunity for your child to practice self-advocacy.(2). Consider describing your child’s habits, routines or needs without labeling the diagnosis (using the word “autism” for instance). For instance, “________ just needs to not be in such a noisy place right now, I am going to put these headphones on and that will help.”(3). As much as possible, include your child in the discussion with your family members. For instance, ask child to explain why they need to put headphones now.(4). Think about explaining that your child is “different” – for e.g. “_________ really loves presents but you will notice that he/she will not open them right away – he/she likes to put them aside and will open them later.”(5). Do you need to disclose at all? It may be that the disabling conditions are not visible or evident enough to warrant a discussion. However, if you do need to disclose, disclose to the right person, someone you can be certain would understand and can step in and help if you need to disclose to additional family members.(6). Remind family members that your expectations of your child’s behavior are the same as other children. The disability will not serve as an excuse for bad behavior. Consequences will be meted out in the same manner as other children.(7). Overall when you talk to your family, present your child’s challenges as similar to how tall they are or the color of their eyes. The overarching message to your family should be that the disability is just a part of your child and does not define themMake a Checklist!The checklist below can serve as a reminder for parents/guardians of individuals with special health care needs on: (1) how to start a conversation with extended family, when necessary and (2) what else may need to be done to improve the Holiday experience. Simply click the picture to download the PDF. Checklist created in InDesign by MFLN Military Caregiving. Return to article. Long Description Additional References:6 Gifts I Would like to Get as a Parent of a Child on the Autism SpectrumTelling Classmates About Your Child’s Disability May Foster AcceptanceWhat to SayFAMILY EXPERIENCES: Ways to Lead Change Through Telling Your Story
Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. McGregor, speaking ahead of the Dublin premiere of “Conor McGregor: Notorious” — a documentary about the fighter — said his next fight would be to defend his Ultimate Fighting Championship (UFC) lightweight title.“Right now I am focused on my world, the world of true fighting,” he told the BBC.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSWATCH: Drones light up sky in final leg of SEA Games torch runSPORTSSEA Games: Philippines picks up 1st win in men’s water poloSPORTSMalditas save PH from shutout“Ideally I would like to take one of the boxers into an MMA bout — someone come into my world now.“I went into their platform and faced the so-called best-of-the-best and I handled him pretty easily in the early rounds, before I got fatigued and got stopped.” CPP denies ‘Ka Diego’ arrest caused ‘mass panic’ among S. Tagalog NPA “My sparring in the lead-up to the camp was always against fast-twitch, light-on-their-toes opponents. I was never against forward pressure because he (Mayweather) had never fought like that. That took us by surprise and I got beat.“But if we had a rematch I would correct that and beat him.”Referring to a possible Mayweather rematch, he added: “He’s retired. I will not call him out. I respect what he has done.”Asked if he would get back in a boxing ring, McGregor replied: “Of course. Boxing is certainly an interest of mine. But the next fight will be to defend my UFC lightweight belt.” Stronger peso trims PH debt value to P7.9 trillion QC cops nab robbery gang leader, cohort Kammuri turning to super typhoon less likely but possible — Pagasa MOST READ Japan ex-PM Nakasone who boosted ties with US dies at 101 Read Next Typhoon Kammuri accelerates, gains strength en route to PH Kyrie Irving to ’flat Earth’ theory doubters: ‘Do your own research’ Pacquiao to Mayweather: Want fans to stop asking for rematch? Then fight me again PLAY LIST 01:49Pacquiao to Mayweather: Want fans to stop asking for rematch? Then fight me again00:44Manny Pacquiao on Floyd Mayweather: Let him enjoy retirement01:52UFC: McGregor set for Nurmagomedov showdown01:37Protesters burn down Iran consulate in Najaf01:47Panelo casts doubts on Robredo’s drug war ‘discoveries’01:29Police teams find crossbows, bows in HK university01:35Panelo suggests discounted SEA Games tickets for students02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games Brace for potentially devastating typhoon approaching PH – NDRRMC LATEST STORIES Conor McGregor stands on stage during a weigh-in Friday, Aug. 25, 2017, in Las Vegas. McGregor is scheduled to fight Floyd Mayweather Jr. in a boxing bout Saturday. (AP Photo/John Locher)Mixed martial arts star Conor McGregor says he wants a boxer to “come into his world”, insisting he would beat Floyd Mayweather in a rematch, the BBC reported Wednesday.The 29-year-old Irishman lost to ex-welterweight champion Mayweather in Las Vegas in August in one of the richest boxing bouts of all time.ADVERTISEMENT John Lloyd Cruz a dashing guest at Vhong Navarro’s wedding Mayweather, who returned after two years of retirement to take on the Irish mixed martial arts star, bided his time before exerting his superiority from the middle rounds onwards at the T-Mobile Arena.The match ended with a 10th-round stoppage as Mayweather ended his career with a perfect 50-0 record.But McGregor, nicknamed “The Notorious”, said he would beat the 40-year-old American in a rematch by changing his training regime.“He (Mayweather) was a tactical genius in there. He changed his gameplan three times and that is the sign of a true champion,” said McGregor.“If it happened in a rematch, it’s a simple adjustment of me having a heavier sparring partner coming in the later rounds, leaning on me and walking me down.ADVERTISEMENT View comments
TagsTransfersAbout the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say Galatasaray, Marseille join battle for Tottenham striker Llorenteby Paul Vegas10 months agoSend to a friendShare the loveThe race for Tottenham striker Fernando Llorente is heating up.Llorente is prepared to leave Spurs next month after being restricted to a bit-part role this season.The centre-forward has talked up a return to former club Athletic Bilbao, however they’re not alone in their interest.Fotomac says Galatasaray and Marseille are also interested in Llorente.The 33 year-old’s contract runs out at the end of this season.
“We are just about complete with the sub-base and base works and the curb and sidewalk installation along Chesterfield Drive itself; we are about 90 per cent complete with those. We are scheduled to begin pavement works in the upcoming week and an additional two weeks for completion from today, that’s what our target is,” she told JIS News.Ms. Lawson told JIS News that heavy rains had delayed work on the project, which was originally scheduled to be delivered a month after the start date of September 17.“It was a time when we had significant rainfall in that area, and so this project was being implemented in the height of one of our rainiest periods, and that affected works there,” she pointed out.The road is being built alongside the existing rail line that runs between the Caymanas area and Marcus Garvey Drive. It will create a dedicated access route to Marcus Garvey Drive for traffic coming from the Mandela Highway.The US$1-million project is being funded under the Major Infrastructure Development Programme (MIDP) and is being built by China Harbour Engineering Company Limited (CHEC).The Three Miles area has been closed to vehicular traffic to facilitate continued road-improvement works. The new US$1-million bypass for Three Miles in St. Andrew that is being constructed to help ease traffic congestion in the Corporate Area should be completed within the next two weeks.The two-lane 1.5-kilometres roadway is part of the Government’s overall road development and traffic management programme and will link Chesterfield Drive, off Spanish Town Road, to Marcus Garvey Drive.Senior Communications and Customer Services Officer at the National Works Agency (NWA), Ramona Lawson, told JIS News in an interview on Friday (November 9) that the project is about 68 per cent complete.“Based on where we are now, and barring any unforeseen circumstances, such as rain, for example, we should be delivering that in another two weeks,” she said.Ms. Lawson noted that several aspects of the project, including the drainage improvement works, culvert installation and construction of two bailey bridges, have been completed.Work is steadily progressing on a section of the new US$1-million bypass for Three Miles in St. Andrew. The road will link Chesterfield Drive, off Spanish Town Road to Marcus Garvey Drive. The US$1-million project is being funded under the Major Infrastructure Development Programme (MIDP) and is being built by China Harbour Engineering Company Limited (CHEC).
WASHINGTON – Canada’s economy would lose less than one percentage point if President Donald Trump makes good on his threat to rip up the North American Free Trade Agreement, say two new studies that suggest ending the trade treaty would do minor damage.The total impact of ending NAFTA and reinstating tariffs would trim 0.7 to 1 per cent off Canada’s GDP according to a Bank of Montreal study, while another study by the former head of computer modeling for Canada’s foreign-affairs ministry puts the damage at 0.55 per cent.Both studies’ authors agree these findings carry a lesson for Canadian negotiators: they can bargain with confidence and not feel pressured to sign a bad deal, because the end of NAFTA is far from a total scare scenario.The damage would be much smaller than the financial crisis of 2008; smaller even than the impact of the soaring loonie of the late 2000s; and would be roughly comparable to the national effect of the 2015 oil-price plunge, says BMO’s chief economist.”It’s an important risk to the outlook. It would be a fundamental change in the trading relationship. But I happen to believe we’ve dealt with much bigger challenges before, in the last 20 years,” said BMO’s Douglas Porter.”It’s a serious risk — but it’s a manageable risk.”His research finds the hardest-hit area would be Ontario and the auto sector. It finds that other provinces have more diverse trade, like B.C. with Asia and Quebec with Europe; while provinces reliant on oil and gas would get a reprieve from lower tariffs on those products.The paper also assumes the Canadian dollar would drop five cents, lowering the cost of investment in Canada.But Porter cautions that his paper only addresses the second-most-dramatic scenario: that’s NAFTA ending without the original 1987 Canada-U.S. trade agreement being reinstated, and with the U.S. reimposing tariffs.It doesn’t map out what-if outcomes for the most dramatic scenario, one Porter sees as unrealistically remote — that’s Trump entirely scrapping international trade norms, bypassing the World Trade Organization and reimposing tariffs beyond the current international rates.He still says ending NAFTA would hurt all three countries unnecessarily: ”I don’t mean to dismiss it. One per cent of GDP is still serious stuff… And it’s totally unnecessary… Normally policy-makers bend over backwards (to increase GDP).”The author of the other study uses a metaphor to describe the effect: he compares it to erecting a wall down the centre of Toronto, on Yonge Street. He says people would find workarounds and, after the initial disruption, the economy would grow again — but it would produce a permanent nuisance.”You would create a dead-weight cost, an inefficiency,” said Dan Ciuriak, a former federal official who now runs a consultancy, in an interview about his just-completed paper for the C.D. Howe think-tank.”There would be a permanent reduction in the efficiency of the economy.”Ciuriak found that the end of NAFTA would shave 0.55 per cent off Canada’s GDP, push 25,000-50,000 Canadians out of the workforce and reduce exports by 2.8 per cent. The damage predicted in his report is far less than the 2.5 per cent GDP loss he said he was expecting to find when he was interviewed as he began his work last month.The damage would be almost completely offset if Trump were to allow the reinstatement of the original 1987 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, Ciuriak said. It would barely be offset if Canada and Mexico remained in NAFTA alone, which he said would soften the 0.55 per cent GDP loss by a mere 0.08 per cent.Ciuriak did not analyze how currency reactions might soften the blow. He merely looked at the direct effect of a NAFTA cancellation, and plugged tariff rates into computer models to assess how the new costs would affect trade.What he found was not so striking.”In a good growth year (a 0.55 per cent downturn)… it’s not (enough to cause) a recession,” he said.”It is fairly modest. That means Canada’s negotiators do have this luxury, if you will. Accepting a bad deal is not necessary. A bad deal may be worse than no deal at all. That’s … where this (research) is taking us.”