More evidence that institutional scientists, journal editors and reporters live in an echo chamber that betrays their ideals of unbiased knowledge generation.There have been so many articles displaying worldview bias in Big Science that we couldn’t cover it all in our 12/23/16 article, “Big Science Blind to Its Bias.” Let’s turn to politics. Shouldn’t scientists be neutral when it comes to political parties and candidates? The evidence shows that scientific institutions are essentially a cheering section for the Democrats – so much so, that they don’t even need to explain why. It’s merely assumed that president-elect Donald Trump is evil and Republicans are a hate group. For a group of people assumed to respect evidence and logic, this attitude is highly unscientific and illogical – especially for Darwinians.To see why, consider Science Daily‘s article, “Hard-wired: The brain’s circuitry for political belief.” If the claims of psychologist Jonas Kaplan from USC in this article are to be believed, scientists simply follow the political beliefs in their social circles, which are hard-wired into them. It’s all just a matter of brain networks and neuronal responses going on in their amygdalas. If Darwinians accept the physicalist, irrational basis for their political beliefs, how can they be impartial? They become like the mindless sheep they assume characterize Republicans. Their own beliefs are equally unscientific and illogical. His Yoda Complex in high gear, Kaplan never turns his claim onto himself. If, as the article says, “The findings can apply to circumstances outside of politics, including how people respond to fake news stories,” he has no way to distinguish his theory from fake news. His own brain must be a victim of its peer group. On what basis could he claim otherwise?Anti-TrumpismBig Science’s knee-jerk hatred of Donald Trump and the conservative movement he represents provides a case in point of irrational, illogical groupthink. No matter what side one takes on the election, this response should be disturbing. What you find in the journals is a choir singing in unison: Trump is bad, populism is bad, nationalism is bad, conservatism is bad, everyone who voted for Trump is a stupid hater, and we should do everything to stop him, because his followers are ruining the climate and don’t like globalism. Is that what “science” should be saying?Researchers baffled by nationalist surge (Jeff Tollefson in Nature). In his opinion piece, Tollefson sounds like Clinton on the campaign trail, labeling Trump with xenophobia and other deplorable things, even playing the Nazi card. He witnesses the Trump phenomenon, the rise of Marine Le Pen in France, Brexit and other movements as an outsider. He doesn’t get it, nor do his friends; “researchers [i.e., his fellow leftists in Big Science] are struggling to understand why these disparate forces have combined to drive an unpredictable brand of populist politics.” A photo caption reads, “Donald Trump’s US election win stuns scientists.” Question: what does this reveal about their scientific credibility? They didn’t see any of this coming. They are out of touch with the feelings of hundreds of millions of people. Some scientists!Science advocacy: get involved (Chris Woolston in Nature). While this article doesn’t address Trump’s win specifically, Woolston interviews three science insiders telling their peers to become politically involved. Some of their “scientific” positions have merit (fighting pollution from microplastics), but the other leftist positions are merely assumed: fighting climate change, increasing funding to Big Science, etc. As shown in Part 1, these scientists are blind to their elitism. They don’t have a mind to listen and learn. Education must all go one way, from “scientists” to “people.” (Scientists aren’t people per se; they are Yoda clones on pedestals, dishing out wisdom from on high.)Simply studying populism is no longer enough (Matthijs Rooduijn in Nature). While Trump supporters rejoice in hope for economic vitality and a new birth of freedom, Nature lets this sociologist write about the “darkening political mood” his election brings. While Rooduijn allows some good in populism, his dark rhetoric sees evil coming in “nativism” and “right-wing politicians” that threaten liberalism, to the point he consciously abandons his impartiality. “So I have changed my mind and my approach,” he says. “I will remain as neutral as possible in my academic work, but I increasingly feel obliged to take part in the public debate about this topic, and to warn in the media of the increasing tension between populism and liberal democracy.” What disturbs him the most? The idea that countries should protect themselves from invasions by terrorists.Glee to gloom: Climate and the ‘Trump effect’ (Phys.org). The science media are all in for Obama, and all out to attack Donald Trump, this short article illustrates. Trump is bad simply because he dares to question global warming and might threaten to not go along with the globalist, internationalist, warmist conspirators at the Paris Accords. No debate here; the science is settled, according to the elitist insiders. Disputers are evil by definition. One whiner says, “Even if Trump doesn’t do a complete about face on climate, ‘we are likely to see a slowing down of progress compared to what would have happened if Clinton had been elected,’ said [Michael] Oppenheimer [Princeton].” Needless to say, “progress” is a loaded word.How Woody Guthrie can help us fight for science (Jacqueline M. Vadjunec in Nature). The bizarre headline reveals something of Vadjunec’s hippy roots. Notice the presumptive political elitism in the subheading: “After the election of Donald Trump, Jacqueline M. Vadjunec offers a message of resistance and hope from deep within the US Bible Belt.” Resistance? Yes, against the Trump voters. Hope? Yes, of winning the backwoods sheeple in Oklahoma over to leftism. “If Woody could use his voice to speak up, so can scientists,” she says. She is on a resistance campaign, fighting the “mood of anti-science” she feels in the Trump camp. It’s wonderful that Vadjunec wants to be nice in her indoctrination tactics. “We also need to accept different ways of knowing or even talking about climate change: ways that open doors to start a conversation; ways that are more context specific, culturally sensitive and nuanced than science in general might be comfortable with.” (Most scientists, this indicates, think they should be more pugnacious.)Donald Trump’s choice for head of the US environment agency is dismaying (Editorial in Nature). Any bipartisanship here? Any desire to reach out and cooperate with the new Trump administration and his cabinet pick Scott Pruitt? Any accommodation to readers who may not be leftist, globalist warmist alarmists? None. “The bad news just keeps on coming,” the editors say. They can count on their pessimism because they merely assume there aren’t any Republicans or conservatives among their readers. Trump represents their “worst fears” coming true: “at this stage it is getting harder to give Donald Trump the benefit of what little doubt remains about the kind of US president he will be.” It may well be that “Pruitt has demonstrated a wilful disregard for science, and has repeatedly put the interests of fossil-fuel companies ahead of those of his own constituents.” We don’t know. CEH doesn’t take a position on Pruitt. But what is clearly evident is Nature‘s flagrant political bias – its emotional outburst against Trump and his cabinet, coupled with a complete absence of any criticism of what the Democrats have done to America for eight years.Does it matter if Donald Trump has a science adviser? (Alexandra Witze in Nature). This article illustrates how Big Science acts like a special interest group with a leftist bent. Witze praises Democrat presidents who picked science advisers, but criticizes Republican presidents who were slow to pick them. She’s worried about funding. She criticizes President Bush who put a damper on funding for embryonic stem cell research, failing to mention anything about the ethical controversies involved.Is Donald Trump pushing more scientists towards political activism? (Emma Maris in Nature). Theme of this article: scientists are so “distraught” with Trump’s win, they are forging their scientific plowshores into swords to enjoin the fight against the conservatives. They call this the “Trump Effect.” To her credit, Marris gives one paragraph to someone who “thinks that researchers should offer to help Trump for the sake of society.” But then she quickly turns back to praising the ones fighting him.US earth scientists plan for uncertain future under Trump (Jeff Tollefson and Alexandra Witze in Nature). Do you get the picture that Big Science identifies as Democrat? That they are unified against Trump, Republicans and conservatives? That man-caused global warming is a given? Read this if unconvinced. Tollefson and Witze use bellicose rhetoric, seeing “science” doing battle with the new administration. “It feels like a war on science, and on climate science in particular,” says Alan Robock, a climatologist at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. “That’s very upsetting.” Maybe Tollefson and Witze will attempt some semblance of balance further down in the text. Nope. Considering who Trump will pick to run NASA, NOAA and the USGS, they say:“Those are places to insert a progressive agenda into an otherwise kind of ugly and cloudy landscape,” says Daniel Kammen, an energy researcher at the University of California, Berkeley.McNutt advises scientists to stay clear-eyed as they confront whatever challenges the Trump administration brings. “I see so many people in this country freaked out,” she says. “That is exactly what those who want to disrupt science are hoping to achieve.”Is it science’s job to “insert a progressive agenda” anywhere? Any mention of hundreds of millions of voters who turned away from the Clinton-Obama-Paris progressives? No; just the minority who were “freaked out” when Trump won. The New York Times posted a map of “change from 2012”, showing all the states that turned red (Republican) away from blue (Democrat). A larger mass movement could hardly be found. Some analysts noticed that all of Clinton’s popular vote majority came from one state: California. Big Science and its Big Media reporters, identifying with leftist liberal Clinton supporters, position themselves in opposition to a lot of people. That doesn’t make them wrong. It does, however, make them overtly partisan, contrary to the ideals of science. They are so partisan, they don’t even make any attempt to identify or seek the views of conservatives. How can that be scientific?Big Media’s Dirty HandsThese articles show Big Science Media running what amounts to campaign ads for Clinton.Pro-Trump bot activity ‘colonised’ pro-Clinton Twitter campaign: study (Phys.org). Well, if it’s a “study,” it must be true. This article pretends to find evidence that Trump rigged the election using automated Twitter accounts. The “study” was conducted in the halls of Big Science. Any word about the overt election fraud strategies of paid Democrat operatives revealed in undercover videos from Project Veritas? Crickets. Any mention that the recounts gave Trump more votes, or that Clinton lost more delegates to rogue electors in the Electoral College than Trump did? More crickets. The article seems geared to cast doubts on the legitimacy of the Trump campaign.Seizing environmental opportunities under a Trump presidency (Phys.org). This article takes the “glass half full” view, saying that it is “not all doom and gloom for the environmental community” after Trump’s “shock win” for president. How to seize the opportunity? Whatever you do, don’t help Trump! Instead, “forge ahead with implementing the climate treaty signed in Paris, irrespective of the US position.” It’s almost a call for civil disobedience. Question: why does the reporter think its readers will automatically view this as a good strategy?Congressional Tweet About ‘Disgraceful’ Article Ignores Science (Laura Geggel at Live Science). Geggel places all her bets on “climate scientists” who tell her not to trust anything coming from Congressional Republicans or her “far right” rival, Breitbart News. Her hero is Michael Mann, a climate activist. Her trusted advisers are Democrats. Don’t expect scientific objectivity in this hit piece. It would be nice if she made her political affiliations overt, but she presents herself as a neutral science reporter. Geggel’s article ends, “Live Science reached out to the committee for a comment on scientists’ criticism of the tweet, but did not hear back by press time.” Rather than delay press time till she got an answer, she printed it anyway. Hardly scientific.ACA repeal could cost California more than 200,000 jobs (Phys.org). It’s no secret that Trump and conservatives want to “repeal and replace Obamacare” which passed in 2009 without a single Republican vote, and with Obama personally making empty promises to the last Democrat holdouts in order to get their support. In order to salvage Obama’s legacy, articles like this scare readers into worrying about what might happen if Republicans get their way. This “study” comes out of UC Berkeley. It wouldn’t be so partisan if it presented both sides. But unscientifically, it mentions nothing about the millions of jobs lost because of Obamacare, when employers laid people off or reduced their work to part time to avoid the stiff costs of the ACA. Republicans point to Obamacare as one of the biggest job-killers in the country. You won’t hear that in this Phys.org piece.Take any Republican hot-button issue: abortion, free markets, religious liberty, whatever – and you will find Big Science and Big Media fighting it. They want unlimited money for unlimited research on embryonic stem cells, three-parent babies, aborted baby body parts – the whole works (see Science Magazine‘s tidbit about limitations on fetal tissue research from Planned Parenthood as one of the “Breakdowns of the Year”). Their positions mirror those of the Democrat party platform. They are all for imposing global restrictions on individual countries’ energy policies. They support things that have nothing to do with science, and even violate common sense, like open borders that invite terrorists and transgender rights that let men walk into women’s showers with videocams. They use Democrat/progressive buzzphrases with reckless abandon: marriage equality, denialist, reproductive health.Big Science and their lapdogs in Big Media have shamed themselves into becoming leftist/progressive arms of the Democrat party and the EU globalists. Fortunately, Big Science does not speak for individual scientists, a non-trivial minority of whom are conservative or Republican, but who dare not say so out loud in their peer group. If they had the freedom to speak out, science would benefit from the debate, and journalism would return to doing its job: reporting the news.Here at CEH, when we report on climate change, we analyze scientific papers that agree with human-caused global warming, not climate “skeptics” and “deniers.” We weigh their evidence. Live Science never takes seriously any critics of the Big Science consensus positions. Their writers serve the warmist alarmists as their press agents, showing little objectivity. The same is true for all the press departments of the ivory tower, whose job it is to make their leftist scientists look good. That material then feeds into the organs of dissemination of “science media,” like Phys.org, Science Daily and EurekAlert. It’s a big racket.The sources we cite above, from Nature on down to Phys.org, all operate within a leftist echo chamber. When talking about genes, molecular machines and birds and animals, much of what they say is good. But take any controversial topic with political overtones, and blue blood leaks out. We’re not against people taking positions, but Big Media and Big Science should admit their bias. For organizations whose ideals should reflect the public interest, and the taxpayer money that feeds science, they should at least try to make an attempt to be objective. Reporters should make an attempt to hold scientists’ feet to the fire and evaluate their claims critically. These self-serving, mutually reinforcing institutions do a great disservice to the public. To borrow a political phrase, it’s time to drain the swamp.Next, we will look at Big Science’s blindness to its philosophy of scientism and other self-refuting positions.(Visited 63 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
The notetaker device is the first invention of its kind in South Africa and was developed by Willem van der Walt, a blind researcher at the CSIR. (Image: CSIR) MEDIA CONTACTS • Nicki Koorbanally CSIR Meraka Institute +27 12 841 4532RELATED ARTICLES • New SA fingerprint tool a world first • SA academic gets top science award • Top award for local invasion biologist • Portable plant makes fuel from waste • SA mine detector gets top recognitionWilma den HartighA portable voice-based computer for the blind, developed by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), has been shortlisted in the South African Breweries (SAB) Foundation inaugural Innovation Awards.The notetaker device is the first invention of its kind in South Africa and was developed by Willem van der Walt, a blind researcher at the CSIR.Fellow researcher Gerhard van den Berg was also involved in the development of the product.Van der Walt is respected in the field of information and communication technologies (ICT) for disabilities.Rewarding innovationThe SAB Foundation Innovation Awards recognise individuals who have unique and practical ideas that can improve the lives of people living in low-income areas.The main award is a grant of R1-million (US$128 000) with two runner-up awards of R500 000 ($64 000) each.The notetaker is one of five recipients of a seed grant for further development. The grant includes funding for the commercialisation of the product, which will be supported by the SAB Foundation over a period of two years.The notetaker was shortlisted as one of 18 inventions, selected from more than 100 entries, for improving the lives of blind South Africans.According to 2009 statistics of the World Health Organisation, 314-million people worldwide live with some form of visual impairment. Of these, 45-million are blind, and 90% live in low-income countries. Cataracts remain the leading cause of blindness in middle- and low-income countries.About 2.6-million South Africans are disabled, of which 24% have visual disabilities.“As a blind programmer, I realised that a much more flexible, localised and cheaper machine could be built than other similar expensive accessibility devices for the blind, available from overseas,” Van der Walt says.Not your ordinary notebook computerThe notetaker is different from a standard notebook computer in that it does not have a screen and only uses speech as feedback to its user.The computer has a keyboard for input and a voice synthesiser for output.All its features are customised so that they can be used with a speech interface.The device provides support for multiple local languages, including English, Sepedi, Afrikaans, Setswana and an experimental isiZulu voice.Van der Walt says that finding a balance between cost and functionality was one of the biggest challenges of developing the notetaker.“Finding the suitable hardware for the software was challenging,” he explains. “For example, finding hardware with which one can make a good audio recording is not easy when cost, battery life and size is crucial.”The notetaker has been tested in the market at disability conferences and workshops, with successful results.It is also supported by the South African National Council for the Blind.The next phase of the project is to develop a production-ready prototype.Commercialising the product“I would like the notetaker to come into production and be available in the market through specialised companies such as those currently supplying accessibility technology to the blind,” he says.The customised computer device is easy to operate and can be used by young school children, university students and older people.There is a gap in the market for an affordable computer for the blind. He believes that the product has the potential to have an immediate impact in the educational and employment sectors.Blind people can use computers that are connected to Braille keyboards and screens, but the skill and technology is not widely available and is usually only imported.However, if the product is manufactured locally and is cost effective, it could change the lives of thousands of blind people.The National Accessibility ProgrammeVan der Walt’s research was part of the National Accessibility Programme.The main focus of the five-year research and innovation initiative is to help people with disabilities become more integrated into mainstream society, through the use of ICT.The project was developed by the CSIR Meraka Institute in partnership with a representative group of Disabled Persons’ Organisations and the former Office on the Status of Disabled Persons in the Presidency.The Meraka Institutes the largest group in South Africa dedicated to ICT research.
Panaji: The Congress in Goa on Thursday mockingly advised Tourism Minister Manohar Ajgaonkar, whose official tour to the US, along with four family members, has sparked a controversy, to at least call on Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar in hospital during his visit.“Since Mr. Ajgaonkar has gone on a junket to the US with family members along with some tourism ministry officials, he should at least call on our ailing Chief Minister Manohar Parrikar and enquire after his health, considering that no one in Goa has been formally informed about the state of health of our Chief Minister,” Congress spokesperson Urfan Mulla said at a press conference at the party headquarters on Thursday. Another Congress spokesperson Amarnath Panjikar said it was unfair that the minister travels to the US with family members, at a time when the state was reeling under a financial crisis, especially with the mining industry non-functional following directives from the Supreme Court since March.“The government should get reimbursement for the cost incurred on the travel and stay of the family members, once the minister returns,” Mr. Panjikar said. The State Tourism Ministry has said that the Minister is in the US to participate in tourism promotion road shows. Senior Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party(MGP) leader and Public Works Development minister Sudin Dhavalikar recently rushed to the rescue of his ministerial colleague and said that Mr. Ajgaonkar should pay for the cost incurred on the travel and stay of his relatives for the US trip. “There is nothing wrong with family travelling on such trips, as long as state funds are not used. The tourism department can recover the amount from the minister,” Mr. Dhavalikar responded to media reports recently.Mr. Ajgaonkar is one of the three MLAs of MGP, an alliance partner of BJP-led coalition in the State.
The number of potential opponents for Manny Pacquiao continues to dwindle. —AFPMANILA, Philippines—Manny Pacquiao’s promotion venture isn’t stopping any time soon.MP Promotions is off to its first co-promoted fight card with Singapore’s Ringstar Asia on March 23 at Resorts World Manila.ADVERTISEMENT LATEST STORIES Hong Kong tunnel reopens, campus siege nears end Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next 1 dead, 3 injured in Quezon road crash Private companies step in to help SEA Games hosting Lacson backs proposal to elect president and vice president in tandem SEA Games hosting troubles anger Duterte Urgent reply from Philippine football chief P2.5 B shabu seized in Makati sting, Chinese national nabbed Dasmariñas’ fight was initially set for Singapore but it was rescheduled for an earlier date as to solidify Ringstar’s partnership with MP Promotions.“I saw this as a great opportunity to launch the partnership between Ringstar and Manny Pacquiao Promotions,” said Farrell. “Who wouldn’t take the chance to launch a partnership with the one and only eight-division World champion and senator Manny Pacquiao?”Farrell added that he would have even set the fight in another planet just to strengthen his promotions’ company with Pacquiao’s.“I would have moved my event to an even earlier date, or to Mars if I had to,” said Farrell. “The man is a fighting legend and highly respected all over the world, and across all sports.”ADVERTISEMENT MOST READ Manny Pacquiao part of 2019 SEA Games opening ceremony PLAY LIST 00:36Manny Pacquiao part of 2019 SEA Games opening ceremony00:50Trending Articles00:50Trending Articles02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City01:07Trump talks impeachment while meeting NCAA athletes02:49World-class track facilities installed at NCC for SEA Games02:11Trump awards medals to Jon Voight, Alison Krauss ‘Fake’ coaches, fixers undermine China’s football ambitions Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. This venture comes less than three months after MP Promotions co-promoted the WBO World welterweight title fight between Manny Pacquiao and Adrien Broner with TGB Promotions and Mayweather Promotions.“I love your vision with Ringstar Asia, we are looking forward to working with you to build the next World champions in boxing,” said Pacquiao of Ringstar Asia Founder and CEO Scott Farrell in a video message.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSUrgent reply from Philippine football chiefSPORTSPalace wants Cayetano’s PHISGOC Foundation probed over corruption chargesMP Promotions’ partnership with Ringstar Asia was first reported on Forbes Magazine.IBO World bantamweight Michael “Gloves on Fire” Dasmariñas (28-2-1) will headline the nine-bout card in an IBF World title eliminator against fellow Filipino Kenny Demecillo (14-4-2). Trump campaign, GOP groups attack Google’s new ad policy View comments
Sania Mirza has conveyed her decision to AITA about her preferred mixed doubles partner for the upcoming Rio Olympics in August. In the 2012 Games, Sania had partnered Leander Paes.”I have already spoken to AITA and conveyed my decision on the Olympic issue. They have a meeting on the 11th (June) and let’s wait for that,” Sania told PTI.Asked if she could hint at what happened during the discussion with AITA members, Sania denied to give away any details.”No, I won’t,” was her reply. (Bopanna and I are best bet for India at Rio )Most likely, Sania and Rohan Bopanna could pair in mixed doubles, the category where India have the best chance of winning a medal.However Sania, has now shifted her focus to Wimbledon where she and Martina Hingis will be defending their women’s doubles title.”Winning every tournament is a difficult thing. But it’s a pleasure being defending champions and there is pressure also. There was pressure first time also and it will be no different. We will take one match at a time, ” said the world No. 1.The duo had a 41-match winning streak that was broken in February this year, but Sania is confident that they will be able to keep the level up.(with PTI inputs)
Oklahoma 11-1331100%99% ▲ 2142% Michigan St. 11-1541462%61% ▲ 217% Stanford 10-2761148%13% ▲ 212% TeamCFPEloFPIConf. TitlePlayoffNat. Title Alabama 11-121274%79% ▲ 2125% The top five teams were unchanged in Tuesday evening’s College Football Playoff committee rankings. Clemson, Alabama, Oklahoma, Iowa and Michigan State remain entrenched in the No. 1 to No. 5 spots, and all control their own destiny. So no news there. But shifts in the rankings of Stanford, Ohio State and North Carolina sent important signals as to how the committee thinks.First, though, the four major conference championship games must be played Saturday. And FiveThirtyEight is here to provide some probabilistic guidance, if not omniscient assurance, as to how the playoff picture will be affected come Saturday night. Here are our projections of which teams the committee will include in the playoff with its final rankings on Sunday: North Carolina 11-11091543%14% ▲ 212% Iowa 12-04122638%40% ▲ 213% College Football Playoff (CFP) rankings as of Dec. 1. Playoff probability changes are since Nov. 29; only changes greater than 5 percentage points are shown. Ohio State 11-16230%16% ▼ 6a4% The playoff picture is quite simple if Alabama and Clemson win the SEC and ACC titles, respectively. Both are locks for the playoff if that happens. So is the winner of the Big Ten championship game between Michigan State and Iowa; that game amounts to a quarterfinal. Oklahoma, which won the Big 12 championship and is done with its regular season, is a shoo-in, by our model’s estimation.But should either Alabama or Clemson (or both) lose on Saturday, it’s anyone’s guess who gets in.Ohio State, which moved up to No. 6 in the latest rankings, saw its playoff odds decline to 16 percent from 22 percent. (Our model has consistently liked the Buckeyes better than the committee has, in part because of their high Elo rating, so they’ve tended to fall slightly when new committee rankings are released.) Still, Ohio State remained ahead of Stanford in the committee standings.In theory, that would make Ohio State next in line in the event of a Clemson or Alabama loss.1Ohio State is ranked sixth, but either Iowa or Michigan State will lose next weekend, which would presumably move the Buckeyes up to No. 5. Thus, by this simplistic math, they’d be in the top four if Clemson or Alabama also lost. The problem is that other schools have more of an opportunity to impress the committee this weekend. Although our model gives Stanford a 13 percent shot at the playoff — slightly lower than Ohio State’s — that’s because the Cardinal face a tough opponent in USC for the Pac-12 championship. Stanford is more likely than Ohio State to make it in if it wins that game, however; another quality win plus a newly minted conference title would probably be enough for it to leapfrog the Buckeyes, according to the model.A trickier case is North Carolina, which is hanging around with a 14 percent shot. Even if the Tar Heels beat Clemson, they’re not assured of much; our model gives them only about a one-in-three shot at the playoff if they win the ACC title. UNC, ranked No. 8 in the AP poll, didn’t receive any favors from the committee, which slotted it in at No. 10 because of concerns over its weak schedule. The committee will have an opportunity to reconsider if the Tar Heels win, but the team may need to beat Clemson convincingly to up its odds.Finally, don’t write off Clemson — which could have an opportunity to make it in even with a loss. In the event that it falls to UNC, Clemson would have a résumé similar to Ohio State’s as a one-loss non-champion — but with a stronger schedule, an additional win (Clemson would be 12-1 to Ohio State’s 11-1), and victories over Notre Dame and Florida State.For those of you who want more nitty-gritty details about our projections, check out our original methodology manifesto, as well as last month’s methodology update. Clemson 12-015757%77% ▲ 2114% RankingProbability of … Florida 10-218222326%<1% ▲ 21<1%
Juventus boss Massimiliano Allegri was happy to see Paulo Dybala cap off his strong performance with a great goal in Friday’s 3-0 win over Frosinone.The Argentine forward ended his 11-match league goal drought in the sixth minute of the game against Frosinone after firing into the top corner of the net from Cristiano Ronaldo’s pass.It was only Dybala’s third goal in his 21 Serie A appearances this season for Juventus.But, for Allegri, the 25-year-old’s performances have been as solid as ever despite the lack of goals to his name.“I’m happy for him,” said Allegri on the club website.“He had a great performance and scored a great goal. The attackers live for this. Juventus needs a player like him, who is good on the lines.“This year the development of the game makes him find less space to score, but he is continuing to play very well.”Lukaku backed to beat Ronaldo in Serie A scoring charts Andrew Smyth – September 14, 2019 Former Inter Milan star Andy van der Meyde is confident Romelu Lukaku will outscore Cristiano Ronaldo in this season’s Serie A.Defender Leonardo Bonucci scored 11 minutes after Dybala’s opener at the Allianz Stadium with Ronaldo capping off a strong display from Juventus by netting his 19th league goal of the season.The result marked the Bianconeri’s second 3-0 win in a row and Allegri confirmed that his squad are in good shape ahead of Wednesday’s trip to Spain for the first leg of their last-16 Champions League clash with Atletico Madrid.“Yes, we are in a good condition,” said Allegri.“Apart from the setback against Parma we are doing well, and we are at a particularly important moment. The team’s effort has been good and from the individuals.”He added: “Let’s go to Madrid to score. Obviously, it will be a different game, but we are fine.“Training? I still have some doubts, the important thing is that the challenge is approached with the right attention.”Juventus are now 14 points ahead of second-place Napoli, who will play Torino on Sunday, at the top of the Serie A table.TURIN, ITALY – FEBRUARY 15: Paulo Dybala of Juventus celebrates after scoring the opening goal during the Serie A match between Juventus and Frosinone Calcio on February 15, 2019 in Turin, Italy. (Photo by Tullio M. Puglia/Getty Images)
Professor Muzaffer AhmedMuzaffar Ahmed, who was part of the wartime Bangladesh government in exile and a close friend of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, died at a hospital in the capital on Friday night.The 98-year-old was admitted to hospital recently with old age complications.The chief of National Awami Party (NAP) breathed his last around 7:50pm while being treated at the ICU of Apollo Hospital, his niece Anwara Begum said.Muzaffar, born on 14 April, 1922 in Debidwar upazila of Cumilla, taught at Dhaka College and Dhaka University. He took part in the 1952 Language Movement.He was one of the organisers of NAP, CPB and guerilla force of the student union. After the independence, he was elected an MP in 1979 and contested the 1981 presidential polls.Three years ago, he declined the government’s offer Swadhinata Padak, the highest civilian award.President, PM mourn deathPresident Md Abdul Hamid and prime minister Sheikh Hasina mourned the death of the veteran politician.In a message, the president prayed for the salvation of the departed soul and extended condolences to the bereaved family.Prime minister Hasina, in a separate message, expressed deep shock and sorrow at the death of Prof Mozaffar.She described his role in the Liberation War and various democratic movements of the country in his long political life.“The Nation will forever remember his contribution in the progressive politics of the country,” the prime minister said.Sheikh Hasina prayed for the eternal salvation of the departed soul and expressed sympathy to the bereaved family.
By Perry Green, AFRO Sports EditorIt looks like the NFL’s owners will be facing another grievance suit alleging collusion, this time filed by Colin Kaepernick’s former teammate Eric Reid.According to TMZ Sports, Reid has decided to follow Kaepernick’s lead in suing the league for alleged collusion, as both players remain unsigned following their decision to kneel during the playing of the National Anthem in protest of police brutality and racism in the U.S.Former NFL quarterback and social justice activist Colin Kaepernick receives the Amnesty International Ambassador of Conscience Award for 2018 from Amnesty International Secretary General Salil Shetty, and colleague Eric Reid, left, in Amsterdam, Saturday April 21, 2018. Kaepernick became a controversial figure when refusing to stand for the national anthem, instead he knelt to protest racial inequality and police brutality. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)Kaepernick first filed his suit against the NFL last year after going the entire 2017 season without being signed. Reid played for the San Francisco 49ers in 2017, but his contract expired after the season and he has yet to be signed despite being a Pro Bowl safety in the prime of his career at age 26. Bleacher Report ranked Reid as the 10th best safety in the entire league.Reid’s suit apparently cites President Donald Trump as being a motivating factor behind the league’s owners alleged collusion against him. Per TMZ, Reid claims that the owners were intimidated by Trump, who blasted the NFL for not penalizing players for kneeling. An audio recording of a private meeting between owners surfaced a week ago and may provide the evidence Reid needs to support his claim of Trump intimidation.“Our union is aware that Eric Reid and his legal representatives filed a collusion claim, which will be heard through the arbitration process as spelled out in our collective bargaining agreement,” the NFL Players Association said in a statement released to the media. “Our union supports Eric and we are considering other legal options to pursue.”