Service Commission appointmentsOpposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo on Thursday informed President David Granger that he has reservations about Paul Slowe being appointed to head the Police Service Commission. He explained to the Head of State that Slowe has “baggage” which may cause him to be biased in carrying out his duties.This discussion took place between the two leaders when they met at State House to discuss the appointment of the Public and Police Service Commissions.Thursday’s meeting was the first set of “meaningful consultations” these two leaders had to discuss the appointment of the two constitutional bodies since the National Assembly approved the nominees last month.Updating the media after the meeting, Jagdeo said he explained to the President that, in addition to Slowe being politically affiliated with the A Partnership National Unity (APNU), for whom he had campaigned during the 2015 national elections, the former Assistant Commissioner of Police, who had been denied a promotion before his 2010 retirement, also brings issues within the Guyana Police Force.“Now that he is going to head the Police Service Commission, I think he will bring two sets of baggage with him. One, the political approach to the job; that is, judging people based on politics; and secondly, he has a lot of interpersonal problems with many members of the Police Force, and old scores, I believe, to settle; and therefore that could harm his judgement,” Jagdeo outlined.The Opposition Leader noted that President Granger indicated that he would speak with Slowe to ensure that he acts impartially, and not “bring baggage to the job”.Slowe returned to the limelight last year when he was handpicked by the Head of State to carry out a commission of inquiry (COI) on the GPF’s handling of allegations in relation to the existence of a plot to assassinate the President. In his report, Slowe had recommended major reshuffling of the Force’s hierarchy, as well as sanctions against several high level ranks.The life of the previous Police Service Commission ended last September, and there have since been calls for appointment of the new Commission to be expedited, since the Force has lost nearly a dozen senior ranks to retirement.Jagdeo went on to say that, during Thursday’s meeting, the President and he also had discussions about other issues, including the appointment of a Police Commissioner, on which the Head of State said they would have consultants at a subsequent meeting.The Opposition Leader has said he nevertheless mentioned how he had gone about as Head of State to appoint a Police Commissioner during his regime.“I pointed out the way I approached the selection of the Police Commissioner when we selected Felix; the open, transparent ways. We [had gotten] the four top officers, send them off for training, ranking them, and then [Winston] Felix came out number one in the ranking…” Jagdeo related.In regard to the Public Service Commission, the Opposition Leader said, he also raised concerns stakeholders have indicated about the nominees for the Public Service Commission. Last month, the National Assembly approved Vincent Bowman and Mortimer Livan as nominees for the Commission, which expired back in August last year.“Some people called me yesterday, since they found out who the nominees were, and they indicated that they had some issues with some of the nominees. I had an obligation to bring these issues to the attention of the President. Nevertheless, I pointed out to him it’s his call, because he has to fulfill the constitutional requirement of meaningful consultation,” Jagdeo posited.At Thursday’s meeting with the Opposition Leader, the President was joined by State Minister Joseph Harmon and the Legal Affairs Minister, Attorney General Basil Williams; while Opposition Chief Whip Gail Teixeira and Anil Nandlall accompanied the Opposition Leader to the meeting.
SOUTH EL MONTE – Already one of the area’s best pitchers, La Serna High School’s Holly Consterdine says she’s been working on the offensive part of her game. It paid off Monday afternoon in the first round of the 16th Annual Arroyo Invitational Softball Tournament at Whittier Narrows Park. Consterdine had three hits, including a triple, scored a run and drove in six to lead the Lancers to a 14-0 win over Montebello that was called after five innings because of the tournament’s 10-run rule. Consterdine, La Serna’s 5-foot-11 hard-throwing right-handed junior, wasn’t too shabby in the circle, either. She gave up one hit, struck out 11 and walked one in breezing to her third victory. La Serna improved to 6-0. “I love to hit,” Consterdine said. “I’ve been working on my hitting. A lot of pitchers just concentrate on throwing the ball. I like to hit it, too.” She received a lot of offensive help. La Serna scored two runs in the first inning on two walks, a fielder’s choice and Consterdine’s two-run single. When Montebello starter Jessica Martinez struggled with her control and walked four batters, three of them with the bases loaded, the Lancers widened the gap with a six-run second inning. Five of the runs came after two outs. Samantha Montiel relieved Martinez with the bases still loaded and Consterdine promptly belted the first pitch over the center-fielder’s head for a bases-clearing triple. Brandi Rummel then brought Consterdine home with the first of her three singles for an 8-0 lead. Montiel ended the inning with a strikeout, then fanned the first two batters in the third inning before giving up two runs and four hits, including RBI singles by Consterdine and Rummel, in the fourth inning. Appearing to be running out of energy in the fifth inning, she gave up two walks and then three RBI hits – singles by Katrina Castaneda and Ashley Holmes sandwiched around Ashley Ramirez’s two-run double – to complete the scoring. Ramirez had two hits, scored four runs and drove in three. firstname.lastname@example.org (5620 698-0955, Ext. 3046 160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set!
By assuming misbehavior evolves, some scientists become agents of evil, and Big Science institutions become their enablers.Take any behavior that the Bible condemns, and you will find a scientist saying it’s not so bad—maybe even good. Failing to find bad consequences in their research, they assume that engaging in certain evil deeds can be justifiable in some contexts. In other cases, they rationalize behaviors traditionally considered evil, thinking that humans are mere products of evolutionary heredity or environment.In their misguided belief that science can be morally neutral, they become Satan’s tools to corrupt society. Here are some recent examples.Polygamy: After homosexual activists gained national acceptance beyond their wildest dreams, conservatives worried that other sexually deviant groups, like polygamists, would push the envelope. “That will never happen,” defenders in the mainstream media reassured the worry warts. Well, check out this paper in PNAS: “No evidence that polygynous marriage is a harmful cultural practice in northern Tanzania.” The rationalization is that if nobody gets hurt, it must be OK. Why, it’s even good in some situations:These results support models of polygyny based on female choice and suggest that, in some contexts, prohibiting polygyny could be costly for women and children by restricting marital options. Our study highlights the dangers of naive analyses of aggregated population data and the importance of considering locally realizable alternatives and context dependency when considering the health implications of cultural practices.Satan could hardly have said it better. It follows his pattern when he tempted Eve; “you will not surely die,” he said; “your eyes will be opened.” Now he tempts moderns wanting multiple partners with the tool of evolutionary psychology. If it can be good in Tanzania, why not in France or America?Sadly, there are no science reporters expressing outrage or even doubt at this suggestion. Instead, they regurgitate “whatever science says” uncritically. PhysOrg reports, “Study suggests not all polygynous marriage is harmful to women or children.” Science Daily notes that even the UN Human Rights Committee decries the practice, along with other women’s rights organizations. Yet its headline reads, “Often decried, polygyny may sometimes have advantages.” And how, exactly, did the anthropologists at UC Davis justify that conclusion? Feminists, prepare to cringe:These findings support evolutionary anthropological accounts of marriage indicating that polygyny can be in a woman’s strategic interest when women depend on men for resources.Shacking up: The institution of traditional marriage is already in such shambles that attempts to restore its honor would take years. Leave it to scientists to help the rubble bounce with another nuclear family blast. Ohio State gives Science Daily this license for licentiousness: “Live together or get married? Study finds similar emotional benefits. Second unions also offer mental health boost.” They’re not only saying it’s OK; they’re actually encouraging it! Their study shows women doing just fine in cohabitation, and men actually experiencing “a drop in emotional distress” when they skip marriage and shack up. But of course! It’s stressful being responsible. Yielding to temptation is always the easier way. Listen to them preach:“At one time marriage may have been seen as the only way for young couples to get the social support and companionship that is important for emotional health,” Kamp Dush said.“It’s not that way anymore. We’re finding that marriage isn’t necessary to reap the benefits of living together, at least when it comes to emotional health.“What a concept: I can do whatever I feel like, if it gives me “emotional health.” Science has put its imprimatur on a subjective, nebulous, selfish feeling as a human’s overarching value in life. “Scientist” Kamp Dash, acting like a Priestess of the Church of Scientism, gives it her blessing. Stepping beyond objective research into outright advocacy, she says, “It’s not commonly known that couples can get emotional benefits from moving in together without being married. That’s something we should be talking about.”Pastors out of a job: “Should Families Going Through Divorce Have Court-Ordered Psychiatrists?” opens an Op-Ed on Live Science. With evident sincerely, divorce attorney David Mejias describes the gut-wrenching trauma divorce has on children, and considers what should be done about it. He thinks court-ordered psychiatrists would help. That may or may not work in specific cases, but what’s instructive about this article is that pastors or Bible counselors are completely ignored as an option. Society now has a new priesthood of authorized counselors: secular psychiatrists. Many of them are evolutionists, eschewing the Ten Commandments as having any authority whatsoever. They even propose to analyze “the science of giving” (Live Science), claiming that charity evolved, too—thus stripping it of its very soul. Although Mejia is a lawyer, he was granted a pulpit at Live “Science” as if his views are superior to those of Biblical counselors. Well, do secular psychiatrists and psychologists have a better empirical track record? See how well they’re doing in these previous entries: 5/10/13 and 3/20/14.Anti-choice: Regardless of how the reader feels about HPV vaccine, this headline in Nature must sound disturbing to lovers of individual liberty and personal responsibility: “The world must accept that the HPV vaccine is safe.” Why? Because “the science” says so. So much for a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body—or a man’s or child’s right, too. “The HPV vaccine carries unique challenges,” Heidi Ledford says. “Because the first thing it prevents is sexual transmission of HPV, use of the vaccine evokes moral judgements around sexual behaviour.” Well, those unscientific reactionaries who believe in morality just need to get with the program. “Some parents are anxious that the vaccine will make their daughters more promiscuous, even though multiple studies have found no such effect.” The world “must accept” what “the science” says. All will be assimilated. And how do we know that they “found no such effect”? Because scientists are always objective truth-tellers, never influenced by politics, peer pressure or funding. Scientists, we know, have an evolved trait called “research integrity” that just emerges in their physical brains (see PhysOrg).Go ahead, butcher babies for science: Breathes there a soul that was not appalled by CMP’s videos of Planned Parenthood officials selling baby body parts? (8/02/15) The answer is: yes. It’s the editors of Nature, the world’s leading Big Science journal, pretending to tell “The truth about fetal tissue research”. They could not deny the videos, but started their report by touting all the supposed benefits to science.Goldstein agreed to speak to Nature, he says, because “somebody has to speak up responsibly”. He stressed that he and his colleagues think hard about the ethics of their work. “We are not happy about how the material became available, but we would not be willing to see it wasted and just thrown away.”By creating a market for fetal tissue, scientists are accomplices to Planned Parenthood’s evil deeds. Goldstein might as well have used the same argument for human experimentation in Nazi Germany using the same rationale: “not happy about how the material became available… but… not willing to see it wasted”. The article goes on to repeat Planned Parenthood talking points in response to the outrage raised by the videos, worrying that the controversy might reduce the flow of baby body parts for “science”. This response is not unique to Nature (see 9/27/15, 9/20/15, 7/18/15). Finally, six months after the first video came out, Congress has crafted a bill to defund Planned Parenthood (but just for one year), knowing that the President who boasts about his support for Big Science and everything its consensus demands will undoubtedly veto it. See Family Research Council news about the bill.Update 12/10/15: Nature’s editors came out swinging to defend Planned Parenthood, scaring the Big Science community into thinking that fetal tissue research is “under threat” from Republicans who are making “repeated, inaccurate and inflammatory accusations.” Yet can those charges face up to the actual words on camera made by key Planned Parenthood officials exposed by CMP? Nature‘s editors worry that defunding Planned Parenthood would affect Big Science somehow. But that amounts to tacit admission that scientists are profiting from taxpayer funds for abortion. Otherwise, why would they care where Planned Parenthood’s money is coming from? If they argue that funding for sale of baby body parts is such a small “line item” for Planned Parenthood, why are they concerned about taxpayer funds at all? If abortion were so profitable or self-sustaining, it would seem government could keep completely out of it. Notice their complaint is not about women’s access to other health care services, but to scientists’ access to fetal tissue—the products of Planned Parenthood’s most controversial service.Nature shares the authors’ grave concerns, and joins the AAMC [Association of American Medical Colleges] in calling on US lawmakers to reject proposals that restrict access to fetal tissue.What Nature appears afraid of is more than just restrictions on fetal tissue research, but direct funding from the government for it—an even more horrific possibility. This suggests that the government is not only funding Planned Parenthood to conduct abortions, but is sending money to Big Science institutions that they are using to purchase the baby parts from Planned Parenthood. This possibility calls for some serious investigation, as it is supposed to be illegal to use aborted babies for “research”. Nature’s schizophrenic editors think the morality of abortion can be separated from research on its products. If that excuse didn’t work at the Nuremburg trials, it has no place in the modern debate.Scientific terrorism: The intrusion of scientism into society is no better illustrated than this piece in Nature: “Terrorism science: 5 insights into jihad in Europe.” Declan Butler treats this horrific subject involving good vs. evil as a matter that can be analyzed in a test tube.A mixture of sociologists, political scientists, anthropologists and psychologists, such researchers are drawing on information generated by police, judicial inquiries and the media, and, in some cases, on interviews. They also study factors at play in prisons and socially-deprived areas. Some of their insights are summarized here.Of course, the first finding is that “religion is not the trigger.” Naturally. It can’t be deliberate choice, or some other mindful cause stemming from intelligence and free will. No; it must be due to resentment, frustration and other aspects of poor emotional health, caused by low education and unemployment. With predictable political correctness, Butler warns against stigmatizing Islam. By implication, “terrorism science” is a scientific subject that should be analyzed by the recognized prophets of modern culture, the scientists. Of course, in any scientific analysis, there will always be a few outliers on the data spreadsheet. Osama Ben Laden was extremely wealthy, and the latest San Bernardino mass killer had a good paying job with co-workers who treated him respectfully, a wife and a 6-month old child. Their vicious hatred of Israel, devotion to their mosque and the Koran, and their pledge of allegiance to ISIS must have just been extraneous factors, unconnected to their actions, shooting 14 of his coworkers in cold blood at a Christmas party and building dozens of pipe bombs in their apartment.Conservatism in the test tube: Two recent papers illustrate the propensity of liberal scientists to treat their opponents as lab rats. “Conservatives negatively evaluate counter-stereotypical people to maintain a sense of certainty,” psychologists writing in PNAS conclude. In a similar vein, psychologists from Aarhus University chime, “Republicans prefer politicians with deep voices.” (Science Daily). Time to bring in the predictable authority, Charles Darwin, and follow their master’s method, the just-so story divination trance:Laustsen and Petersen’s research proceeds from the observations that in order to understand the behavior of modern humans, you need to look into the evolutionary history that has shaped the psychology producing this behavior. In prehistoric times when the ancestors of modern humans were roaming the East-African savannah in small groups, it made sense to support the strongest members of the tribe when confronted with danger. Psychological mechanisms which 30,000 years ago saved our ancestors from being devoured by saber-toothed tigers and other fierce animals continue to be at work today, explaining, among other things, why people vote as they do along the left-right continuum.“There are evolutionarily important reasons for the structure of our psychology. Our ancestors had to make a decision about which leader to follow, and it was crucial for their survival and reproduction that they picked the right one. As a species we are pre-programmed to think in a certain way about who we would like to be in charge. This affects choices that we make even today,” said Petersen.Two remarkable observations can be drawn from these examples. One is that the authors exhibit the Yoda Complex, not seeing themselves as products of evolutionary pre-programming. (That would, of course, undermine their own reasoning.) The other is that Big Science media outlets almost never print articles by conservatives analyzing liberals. One would think objective science would predict equal outcomes. There must be some reason for the asymmetry; perhaps it’s hidden in the dark matter.Secular science has completely lost its way. It has no moral compass left. It is floating on fumes from its Christian past, blown by the wind, like a hot air balloon with its burner shut off. If Islamic terrorists show up at an AAAS conference on evolutionary psychology some day, they won’t care a wooden shekel about scientific “insights” into the roots of their evolved behavior. The leaders of the Big Science institutions of power had better hope a Christian conservative with a concealed-carry permit is somewhere nearby. And if they survive, they should breathe a bit of thanks that they were not aborted for the sake of “science”. (Visited 51 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Sam Mensah found out that it is better to give than receive: in giving gifts he received success in return, after he saw the potential market for African garments and designs around the world. A significant element of the business is to present a more truthful picture of the continent. Kisua is an innovative digital platform that offers exclusive contemporary African fashion online, selling limited-run pieces and providing an exciting showcase for the continent’s best and brightest design talent. Sam Mensah, founder of Kisua, was announced Most Admired Emerging African Brand by Brand Africa 100 on 22 October 2015. Here Mensah gets his award from Brand Africa representative, Addis Alemayehou.(Image: Melissa Javan) Melissa JavanGhanaian Sam Mensah may be an economist by profession, but he is an entrepreneur by passion. He gave up his corporate job to start the online store, Kisua, even though his parents were not fond of the idea.More than a year later, Mensah is announced by Brand Africa 100 as the Most Admired Emerging African Brand. This event that took place on Thursday, 22 October 2015 in Sandton Convention Centre in Johannesburg, gave recognition to the continent’s best brands. Brand Africa 100 also awarded Swaady Martin of the tea and accessories brand Yswara, as the Most Admired Emerging African Brand.Mensah speaks about how, if he had not ignored his parents’ misgivings and taken the plunge, he would never have known what it was like to be rewarded the way he is today.“My madness is slowly making sense to them,” he says, laughing.“They used to think I was going through a mid-life crisis when I quit my job as an economist.”He sold everything he had to create the online portal, through which African garments are sold all over the world.And the product has been well received, with international celebrities like Beyoncé Knowles and Terry Pheto seen wearing the Kisua brand.Beyoncé graces African design by wearing Kisuahttp://t.co/f7uObpeExI #SunglassHutInnerCircle @KISUAonline pic.twitter.com/X3AydCXhqs— Sunglass Hut SA (@SunglassHutSA) January 8, 2015Obsessed with the range at the newly launched KISUA store in Melrose Arch #KisuaMelrose ?? https://t.co/7mXvV7Irok— SHASHI NAIDOO (@SHASHINAIDOO) March 31, 2015proverb wearing a jumpsuitCan’t wait to see the cover of @JoburgStyleMag featuring @ProVerbMusic wearing the famous #KISUA jumpsuit! pic.twitter.com/zHn8zyLtwH— KISUA (@KISUAonline) April 13, 2015 Sam Mensah quit his job and sold all his belongings to start the Kisua business.(Images: Kisua)The beginning of an ideaAs an economist working for an investment fund, Mensah would travel all over Africa visiting clients and business people. As a sign of friendship, he would bring gifts –usually artistic or cultural items. “Whenever I gave my friends things like bags and clothing, other people would see and offer me money. People starting approaching me with money, asking: ‘If you go to Senegal or Nigeria next time, bring me something.’ I turned their money down,” he says.But their requests sparked an idea: “I started to think about how I could make this work. How could I make a sustainable business out of this?”Then, at the end of 2013, Mensah began Kisua, which means “well-dressed person” in Swahili. It now has three distribution centres – in the United Kingdom, United States and South Africa, with its headquarters in Johannesburg.Kisua is an innovative digital platform that offers exclusive contemporary African fashion online, selling limited-run pieces. It is an “exciting showcase for the continent’s best and brightest design talent”, the company says.Not just anyone designs for Kisua. The 10 designers were selected carefully for their ability to make their mark.African designThe company has 10 designers from Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya and Democratic Republic of Congo. Mensah says it gets referrals constantly. “We have a fund that pays for the production of the garments that are made by designers, so we can be very selective about whom we bring in.“We believe the designs we are getting are interesting and that there is something unique about the styles of the designers,” he says, but adds, “even though the designs are unique, we do have a signature theme for Kisua.”KISUA | official opening ?????? @KISUAonline pic.twitter.com/qBCOKoeI2h— Zebra Square SA (@zebrasquaresa) March 31, 2015In the first week of April, Kisua opened a pop-up shop at Melrose Arch in Johannesburg. Women’s Wears Daily, an fashion mediahouse, reported guests at the opening included Shashi Naidoo and Lalla Hirayama. There was a “gifting suite” and they could change into Kisua clothing at the event. True to the pop-up shop ethos, it will only be open until the end of May.“We had a pop-up store in New York and London already. We created this to give people a retail experience. This is so that they can interact with the brand, touch and feel the products,” Mensah explains. “We are considering having more pop-up stores in South Africa in the near future.” Kisua has a fund for designers that pays for the production of their clothes.The future looks brightMensah says he hopes Kisua will reach its full potential and become a household name. “I would like everyone to recognise the brand and understand what it stands for.”Speaking to the Tutu Fellowship, he said he would like more people to visit Africa. “You must come and see for yourself. You might be surprised by what you find.”He wants to share Africa with outsiders so that they can also see what he sees: “There are a lot of misconceptions all over the world about Africa,” he explains. “They see war, poverty and corruption. I don’t see that. I want to share my Africa with them.”As a leader, he says entrepreneurship has an important role to play in developing the continent. His advice to young people is: “Go to school, learn as much as you can. Equip yourself with skills to participate in the economy. We just do not have enough qualified people [in Africa]. That is one of the problems we have.”Watch the Kisua Hariri Campaign:Watch Sam Mensah discuss leadership and entrepreneurship in Africa:
This may appear outlandish to a mother in China, but in Manipur, young mothers are winning prizes for having the most number of children. On September 7, Jamuna Khwairakpam of Bishnupur district, a mother of nine, won the first prize in a competition that drew enthusiastic crowds. The second prize went to Jina Elangbam, who has eight children, in Thoubal district. Memma Longjam of Imphal West took the third prize; she has six children. Consolation prizes were given away to 32 other young mothers.The contest was part of the fourth ‘foundation day’ celebration of the Indigenous Peoples Association of Kangleipak (IPAK). Losing numbersThe population of Manipur numbered less than 28 lakh in the 2011 census. Activists say the indigenous people constitute barely 8.5 lakh. So, in contrast with efforts at slowing population growth are initiatives by organisations such as the IPAK and the Iramdam Kunba Apunba Lup, which rewarded three mothers for bearing 10 children each with ₹10,000 in cash, and a shawl and certificate in June 2017. The State government has not intervened in the campaign, but has focussed on public health goals. The Department of Health and Family Welfare has stopped launching birth control initiatives.Campaigner M. Bikram says, “Manipuri women ought to be encouraged to have more children so that [the indigenous] population, identity and culture remain intact.”Also linked to this is the demand for the reintroduction of the Inner Line Permit System (ILPS), which was abolished in Manipur in 1950 (it went by a different name then). The ILPS is in force in Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Nagaland, in which the entry and stay of non-locals is strictly regulated.The IPAK’s third anniversary contest saw Akutpi Salam of Andro in Imphal East district, a mother of 13, stand first. The second prize went to Sorojini Huidrom of Imphal West district (nine children). The youngest participant was Pakpi Waikhom, 37, with seven children. Some women expect her to stand first in the coming years.IPAK’s president M.B. Khuman told The Hindu, “The fate of the indigenous peoples of Manipur is uncertain. Manipur has always been a destination for migrants as livelihood is easy to find. For example, one rumour goes that men in Bihar can easily find a bride if they go to work in Manipur.”There have been instances of non-locals entering Manipur without any resistance and being caught with forged or non-existent documents.Recently, Home Minister Rajnath Singh instructed the Manipur government to step-up patrolling along the Manipur-Assam border as people rejected by the National Register of Citizenship (NRC) could move into Manipur. M. Mobi, Superintendent of Police (SP), Jiribam district, which borders Assam, said that patrolling resulted in several arrests.Childcare centres have mushroomed to meet the needs of skilled and unskilled working mothers, but their services come at high cost. A doctor says there’s better awareness of family planning among the educated sections of Manipur society.Sarita Laishram, an office-goer, says, “Today, having more children is unaffordable. Gone are the days when parents could spend less on education or childcare. That was a time when almost all homes stored paddy and firewood, and kitchen gardens were full of vegetables.”