Art therapy is a form of therapy that allows you to alleviate stress by making art. Usually, it means painting or creating other visual art forms, but it can be whatever you want it to be. Maybe for you it’s playing your guitar or writing angsty poetry or learning pottery. For me, it was making Tik Toks. The day I downloaded Tik Tok, a little part of my soul died. For as long as I could remember, I had been the person making fun of my friends for having Tik Tok, but two weeks into quarantine, my pride gave into boredom, and I watched the little circle fill up as the app loaded onto my phone. I clicked on the blue and red faded music note. Videos flooded my phone as I scrolled and scrolled and scrolled. Seasons changed outside my window. Pages flew off the calendar. Anna Velychko is a freshman writing about art and pop culture. Her column “Unquirky” runs every other Wednesday. As we embark on a new semester of Zoom University, we’re confronted with many of these same feelings. We’re forced to stay inside and stare at our computers all day long, and breakout rooms just don’t feel the same as in-person conversations used to. The viral video sharing app is increasing in popularity for many who seek a creative outlet (Photo from Creative Commons). OK, so maybe you don’t think of Tik Toks as art, but making them is definitely therapeutic. Something about the process was really soothing for me. First, I would figure out what I wanted the video to be. Then I would find a song, an outfit to wear and start filming. Afterwards, I would edit and post. That was the best part about Tik Tok — I could go all the way through with something without losing my mind. At a time when I barely had the motivation to get through a movie, the satisfaction of making something, from start to end, was everything. This semester is going to be hard. There’s no doubt about it. Zoom takes all the fun parts out of classes and leaves us with the hard part. You’re going to feel overwhelmed and lonely sometimes, and that’s OK you just have to find an outlet for all of that angst. And listen, it might not be Tik Tok. All I’m saying is it doesn’t hurt to try. Aside from being entertaining, Tik Tok is also extremely accessible. Other kinds of art therapy, such as painting or playing an instrument, require training and expensive supplies. To make a Tik Tok, you don’t have to buy a camera or expensive equipment. In fact, the most popular Tik Toks are often grainy and unprofessional. All you really need is your phone and your imagination. When quarantine started, a lot of us lost the things that used to make us happy. Those first couple of weeks were a difficult adjustment. We were trapped in our houses with pretty much nothing to do but to binge-watch television, and the fact that we couldn’t see our friends didn’t help. Many people felt bored and frustrated and helpless. I know I did. When I finally emerged from my Tik Tok spiral, my mind felt numb. I couldn’t remember a single video I had just watched. Everything was a blur of catchy songs and wild effects. It only got worse from there. Pretty much every day for the next month, I opened Tik Tok when I was feeling bored or lonely or overwhelmed and ended up wasting hours scrolling through countless videos. I felt subdued, but none of my stress was resolved. I’m not saying you have to go viral to be happy. You could make Tik Toks venting about your feelings or doing your makeup or parodying someone famous or even make your page entirely dedicated to zooming in on and editing random images until they look like the flag of Poland (as about 50 users do). The point is, it doesn’t really matter how you choose to express yourself as long as you are expressing yourself. You don’t even have to publish your Tik Toks. Just making them is therapeutic in itself, and it’s actually a lot of fun. You might just find that sharing how you feel with other people will make you feel a lot less alone.
Mark Robson 1 Aston Villa have confirmed the appointment of Mark Robson as first-team coach.The 45-year-old, who left the same role at Norwich in November, has been added to new manager Tim Sherwood’s backroom staff along with performance analyst Seamus Brady.Robson has vast experience in the game as a player and coach.A 12-year playing career saw him represent a host of clubs, including Tottenham, West Ham and Charlton.Since hanging up his boots, he has gone on to coach at Charlton, Gillingham, Peterborough and Norwich, while he also spent a brief spell as manager of Barnet.“Mark Robson has been named as first-team coach, while Seamus Brady joins the club as performance analyst,” a statement on Villa’s official website read.Sherwood will now turn his attention to bringing in an assistant boss.His number two during his brief reign as Spurs boss, Chris Ramsey, will not be joining him at Villa Park after being handed the managerial reins at QPR for the rest of the season.“I am still giving some thought to the assistant manager,” said Sherwood.“I won’t rush into that. I want to make sure that whoever I bring in is the right man for this football club and myself.”
Here are some headlines concerning early man and the ongoing struggle by humans to improve life.Throw the dog a bone: An extinct ape named Oreopithecus did not walk upright as earlier claimed, Science Daily admitted. Maybe they sat as they made little black cookies with white cream in the middle. “The study, published in a forthcoming issue of the Journal of Human Evolution, confirms that anatomical features related to habitual upright, two-legged walking remain exclusively associated with humans and their fossil ancestors.”Back in Liang Bua Cave: Whatever happened to The Hobbit? News about those little fossil people from Indonesia occasionally breaks above the din into the headlines. Latest claim: they looked like us but were not us. Science Daily reported, “3D-Comparative Analysis Confirms Status of Homo Floresiensis as Fossil Human Species.” A team from Stony Brook University claims that they were not victims of microcephaly. That keeps them in the genus Homo, but as a separate species – at least, until the next analysis contradicts it.Give peace a chance: Scientists are fighting over whether early humans were aggressive and warlike. Reviewing a paper in Science, Elizabeth Culotta, in her perspective article, announced, “Latest Skirmish Over Ancestral Violence Strikes Blow for Peace.” Early people were peacemakers. That’s the opinion of two Finns who published an article in Science about whether “lethal aggression” was dominant among mobile foraging bands. It has “implications for the origins of war,” they wrote. “But those on the other side of the debate” are fighting back, Culotta wrote; they “say that the paper lacks the numerical data to evaluate how common war and homicide actually are.” And how can there be a peace treaty if both sides can’t even define what war is? Darwin always wins, regardless. “If war is a common feature of the foraging way of life, then perhaps it was a driving force in human evolution,” Culotta said. Well, then, what “if” it wasn’t? Then, presumably, peace and cooperation were the driving forces in human evolution.Ancient mariners: Using traditional craft and no modern navigation aids, a Polynesian team completed a voyage from New Zealand to Easter Island and back, the BBC News reported. The feat revitalized natives to remember a skill that is rapidly being lost. For “over 3,000 years, John Pickford wrote, “the Polynesians had been using their great canoes, combined with near-miraculous navigation skills, to explore and settle a vast stretch of the Pacific.” Today’s islanders, want often to leave their paradise and get jobs on the mainland, it was a big morale booster. “They are a powerful reminder of a heroic age not so long ago when those mythic islands of the south seas were more connected and the ocean really was a highway rather than a barrier.”Crop rotation, good: Since the days the Jews were ordered to give their land a Sabbath rest, allowing native plants to grow back for a year, wise early farmers have learned that crop rotation increases productivity of the land. It’s a trick medieval farmers had to re-learn the hard way. Now, Science Daily claims to know why crop rotation works: it causes a shift in soil microbes. The microbes affixed to the roots of some plant species, like legumes, know how to fix nitrogen and fertilize the soil. Not only that, rotation has a “profound effect … on enriching soil with bacteria, fungi and protozoa,” researchers at the John Innes Centre found.Farm changer, world changer: Moving up to modern times, now, here’s a story to watch. Science Daily reported that a professor at the University of Nottingham has found a way to take nitrogen fertilizer from the air. No, he hasn’t invented a way to do it; he’s just borrowing the technology of nitrogen-fixing bacteria. Nitrogen is the most abundant molecule in the atmosphere, but its triple bonds make it hard to crack. Man’s methods of fixing nitrogen to produce fertilizer are costly and require heat. The press release could hardly contain the excitement:Professor Edward Cocking, Director of The University of Nottingham’s Centre for Crop Nitrogen Fixation, has developed a unique method of putting nitrogen-fixing bacteria into the cells of plant roots. His major breakthrough came when he found a specific strain of nitrogen-fixing bacteria in sugar-cane which he discovered could intracellularly colonise all major crop plants. This ground-breaking development potentially provides every cell in the plant with the ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen. The implications for agriculture are enormous as this new technology can provide much of the plant’s nitrogen needs.Turbocharging farms: Current Biology has another idea to increase farm productivity: genetically engineer crops to use C4 photosynthesis. 97% of plants use the C3 method, but a few species, particularly those in harsh environments like deserts, use C4. Now that humans have learned genetic engineering, could they use C4 to get more mileage out of crops? Elizabeth A. Kellogg thinks so:The number of humans on earth is increasing, generating concerns about food security and spurring efforts throughout the world to increase the productivity of crops. If a way could be found to increase the yield of crops by, say, 20%, it would have immense impact on global food supplies. Fortunately, evolution has already crafted such a mechanism, known as C4 photosynthesis. The C4 pathway is in effect a turbocharger for the more conventional C3 pathway. Just as a turbocharger improves performance of an engine by forcing more air into the manifold, C4 improves photosynthetic performance by forcing CO2 into the standard C3 photosynthetic apparatus. The added efficiency of this mechanism is obvious at a global level.In a sense, humans continue to use ingenuity (a.k.a., intelligent design) to improve their lot in life, using natural resources more and more efficiently. If modern humans have existed on this globe for at least 40,000 years (some evolutionists think Homo species were our equals two million years ago), would they not have invented seafaring and agriculture much earlier? (See 7/06/13, “Farming Came Too Late in the Evolutionary Timetable”.)Despite all the progress in agriculture, there are worries that humans are devolving, not evolving. Evidence was right here in the article: a retreat into pagan mysticism, as evident in Kellogg’s statement, “Fortunately, evolution has already crafted such a mechanism, known as C4 photosynthesis…in effect a turbocharger….” There’s not much hope for mankind with that kind of personification fallacy getting published in a major science journal. (Visited 13 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
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
9 May 2008The South African government has identified the Broadband Infraco-led African West Coast Cable (AWCC) project as a lead initiative to create a sustainable, competitive international bandwidth market in the country.This view emerged during a meeting held between the office of the Presidency, Public Enterprises Minister Alec Erwin and Communications Minister Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri over the weekend.“The decision is in line with President Thabo Mbeki’s statement in this year’s State of the Nation address to complete the licensing and the operationalisation of Infraco as well as the completion of the process to launch undersea cables in partnership with other governments on the continent and the private sector,” read a statement by the Department of Communications this week.The AWCC is a 3.8 terabit cable that will stretch from Melkbosstrand, outside Cape Town in the Western Cape province, to the United Kingdom with capacity terminating in London.The project, which is expected to be functioning in the middle of 2010, will have branching units to at least 10 countries along the west coast of Africa and have a design length of 13 000 kilometres.Costing about US$600-million (about R4.5-billion), the project has brought together 40 nations and some of the world’s most influential telecommunications players in a joint effort to use state-of-the-art technology in linking more people more efficiently than ever before.The project will also use revenue generated to spur economic development on Africa as a whole. As it lies between 1 000 and 8 000 metres below the ocean’s surface, the system will also be able to withstand bad weather and vandalism.“It is anticipated that the system will enter the service by mid 2010 in time to meet the bandwidth requirements for the 2010 Soccer World Cup,” the department said.The cable will also support South Africa’s science super-projects, such as the Square Kilometer Array Telescope, for which the country is competing against Australia to host it.The South African government created Broadband Infraco as a new state-owned enterprise to deliver affordable broadband to South Africans on an open access basis.The AWCC model will own 26% of the cable while a broad base of private sector participants, including incumbent communications operators, will own the remaining 74%.The project is reported to be well advancing, while a Memorandum of Understanding has been agreed upon with prospective private sector participants.Source: BuaNews
Gautam Gambhir will look to get Delhi Daredevils’ Indian Premier League 2018 campaign back on track when they face high-flying Kings XI Punjab at the Feroz Shah Kotla in New Delhi on Monday.KL Rahul’s fastest ever IPL fifty came against Delhi in their first leg meeting earlier this month and the ghosts of his magnificent knock will return to haunt Delhi bowlers when the two side face-off again.Delhi bowlers will also have to find a way through Chris Gayle, who has switched on his beast mode and recently smashed a record sixth IPL hundred.It will be Delhi’s first game at home this season and also Gambhir’s first in front of his home supporters since rejoining the franchise from Kolkata Knight Riders.Delhi, who languish at the bottom of the eight-team table, go into the game on the back of two successive defeats. The Gambhir-led side has won only one match while have lost four in five games played so far this season.Punjab meanwhile, are flying high with four wins in five games.In their last face-off with Delhi in the league which was also their campaign opener, the Ravichandran Ashwin-led side had thrashed Delhi by six wickets.They later lost to RCB in their second match but came back strongly to register a hat-trick of wins against Chennai Super Kings (CSK), Sunrisers Hyderabad (SRH) and Kolkata Knight Riders (KKR).Punjab’s in-form openers Gayle and Rahul have handed a desired start to their side and will again look to keep the momentum going. While Gayle has amassed 229 runs from three outings, Rahul has accumulated 213 runs from five games, averaging 42.60.advertisementAlso, Ashwin has proved handy with the bat but Yuvraj Singh’s lacklustre show could be a cause of concern for Punjab.The veteran left-hander has managed to gather just 36 runs from three outings.KXIP bowling will once again rely on Ashwin and Andrew Tye. While the Punjab skipper has taken five wickets, Tye has led from the front bagging seven wickets from five games, averaging 23.57.Despite the home advantage for Delhi, Punjab will be the favourites for Monday’s game in the wake of their fantastic form.What time is DD vs KXIP?The game starts on 8PM IST on April 23 at the Feroz Shah Kotla in Delhi.What TV channel and live stream is the IPL 2018 Live Streaming on?Star Sports 1, Star Sports 1 HD, Star Sports Select 1 SD, Star Sports Select 1 HD (English), Star Sports 1 Hindi, Star Sports 1 HD (Hindi), Star Sports 1 Tamil (Tamil), Suvarna Plus (Kannada), Jalsha Movies (Bengali), Maa Movies (Telegu). Live streaming will be available on hotstar.com.When is the IPL match Delhi Daredevils vs Kings XI Punjab?The 22nd match of the IPL will be played at the Feroz Shah Kotla in Delhi from 8PM IST.Where will the IPL 2018 match between Delhi Daredevils vs Kings XI Punjab be played?The Delhi Daredevils vs Kings XI Punjab match will be played at the Feroz Shah Kotla in Delhi from 8PM IST.Where can I watch the IPL 2018 match between Delhi Daredevils vs Kings XI Punjab live?The match will be shown in Star Sports network and can also be streamed on hotstar.com.Where can I check the online live updates of the IPL 2018 match between Delhi Daredevils vs Kings XI Punjab?You can follow our ball-by-ball-updates of the match between Rajasthan Royals vs Mumbai Indians from our live blog on indiatoday.in.How to watch IPL 2018 match between Delhi Daredevils vs Kings XI Punjab on Airtel TV and JioTV Apps?You have to download the applications and sign in and you can watch the matches for free.What are the team squads for the IPL 2018 match between Delhi Daredevils vs Kings XI Punjab?Delhi Daredevils: Jason Roy, Gautam Gambhir (C), Shreyas Iyer, Rishabh Pant (W), Glenn Maxwell, Rahul Tewatia, Chris Morris, Vijay Shankar, Shahbaz Nadeem, Harshal Patel, Trent Boult, Colin Munro, Mohammed Shami, Amit Mishra, Prithvi Shaw, Avesh Khan, Daniel Christian, Jayant Yadav, Gurkeerat Singh Mann, Manjot Kalra, Abhishek Sharma, Sandeep Lamichhane, Naman Ojha, Sayan Ghosh, Liam PlunkettKings XI Punjab: Lokesh Rahul (W), Chris Gayle, Mayank Agarwal, Karun Nair, Aaron Finch, Yuvraj Singh, Ravichandran Ashwin (C), Andrew Tye, Barinder Sran, Ankit Rajpoot, Mujeeb Ur Rahman, Axar Patel, David Miller, Marcus Stoinis, Manoj Tiwary, Mohit Sharma, Akshdeep Nath, Ben Dwarshuis, Pardeep Sahu, Mayank Dagar, Manzoor Dar
About the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say Brighton striker Murray: Potter system a huge learning curveby Paul Vegas24 days agoSend to a friendShare the loveBrighton striker Glenn Murray says the players are still adjusting to manager Graham Potter’s methods.He says there is still work to do to hone a playing style preferred by Potter.Murray told The Argus: “It is all a huge learning curve.“We have come so far in the three months the gaffer has been with us and we are going to have afternoons like this (the 2-0 defeat at Chelsea). But we will keep doing it our way and hopefully we have more successful afternoons than not.“It’s full focus on Tottenham. Looking towards picking some points up and then another international break, which is more time to learn the philosophy and get it right.“It is a constant learning curve. Obviously, opponents we come up against are different every week and there are different ways of trying to break them down and get possession of the ball and control the game.”
About the authorCarlos VolcanoShare the loveHave your say Real Madrid midfielder Fede Valverde ‘happy’ beating Granadaby Carlos Volcano20 days agoSend to a friendShare the loveReal Madrid midfielder Fede Valverde impressed again for the win over Granada at the Estadio Santiago Bernabeu.A tireless effort from the Uruguayan pleased Zinedine Zidane, and the midfielder says that he’ll always give everything when he plays.”Obviously I’m happy,” he said afterwards. “For the win more than anything.”It’s a plus to contribute what I can and I always try my best.”I’ll always run until my legs burst.”Today we played well and the coach gives me confidence and I feel calm and happy.”Real Madrid have been heavily criticised this year and haven’t always impressed, but Valverde doesn’t understand those who have been critical.”I don’t understand the criticism,” he said. “We lost in Paris, but we’re leaders in the league.”We still have games left in the Champions League and we’ll get better.”
EAST LANSING, MI – OCTOBER 29: Head coach Jim Harbaugh Michigan Wolverines shakes hands with head coach Mark Dantonio of the Michigan State Spartans after a 32-23 Michigan win at Spartan Stadium on October 29, 2016 in East Lansing, Michigan. (Photo by Gregory Shamus/Getty Images)What is better than re-watching the famous final play of the 2015 Michigan-Michigan State game? Re-watching it in the form of a Michigan-Michigan State LEGO recreation.Jared Jacobs, a 38-year-old man from Idaho, unveiled a Michigan-Michigan State LEGO recreation on his Instagram account this week. Jacobs’ miniature players re-enact the last play of the 2015 game, when Spartan DB Jalen Watts-Jackson picked up a muffed snap by Michigan punter Blake O’Neill and raced to the end zone for the win.“I wanted to make it really detailed, even down to the bricks in the background,” Jacobs told the Detroit Free-Press. “It took awhile to accumulate that much LEGO.”Here is the final result, which the Free-Press estimated took 40-50 hours to produce.:Since Jacobs debuted his recreation, it has gone viral. It even made an appearance on Sportscenter.He didn’t just recreate UM-MSU either. Jacobs also unveiled a LEGO rendition of BYU’s Hail Mary against Nebraska.Jacobs’ work contains amazing attention to detail. We can’t wait to see what the 2016 college football season has in store for him.
The Ministry of Labour and Social Security is resolute in its efforts to reduce the incidence of child labour in Jamaica, and has committed to raising public awareness on the matter.Data from the Statistical Institute of Jamaica (STATIN) indicates that more than 16,000 children across the island are engaging in child labour.Director of the Child Labour Unit in the Ministry, Marva Ximinnies has informed that while this figure is dated, as the last national survey on child labour was conducted in 2002, the data shows that the issue requires vigorous attention.Ms. Ximinnies, who was speaking to JIS News, following a capacity-building workshop held at the May Pen Police Station in Clarendon on October 31, said the Ministry is actively working on coordinating a second national survey in an effort to ascertain a more current figure.“We have been negotiating with our international partners, so we are hoping to see that happen early next year,” she informed.Ms. Ximinnies said the Ministry is extremely concerned with the issue of child labour, noting the practice is quite rampant right across the island.“I don’t think any parish is exempt. It is practiced right across the island, because there are certain cultural issues and cultural barriers that would impede the work that we do…fundamentally, as a society, I don’t think we see anything wrong with children working,” she lamented.She revealed that a dipstick survey conducted in the parishes of St. Catherine, Clarendon and St. James found that incidence of child labour was quite high in those regions. A total of 626 vulnerable children between the ages of five to 17 were surveyed.“In Clarendon, we found that there were a little over 200 children engaged in child labour. Of that number, 143 children were not attending school,” Ms. Ximinnies said.She informed that a large number of the children were engaged in domestic labour, while others were involved in agriculture, vending, and the sex industry. Clarendon showed the highest incidence of all the three parishes surveyed.Ms. Ximinnies said the Ministry is keen on tackling the growing problem by strengthening the enforcement capabilities of police officers throughout the country, as well as informing citizens of their responsibilities.“That is why we felt it was important that we move the capacity-building workshops that we have been doing in Kingston and St. Catherine to include the entire island,” she stated.The one-day seminar, which was attended by police officers from the parishes of Clarendon, Manchester and St. Elizabeth, was aimed at training members of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) on how to recognise and combat child labour and human trafficking.Similar workshops have been held in Kingston and St. Catherine, while upcoming seminars are scheduled for the parishes of Westmoreland, Hanover and St. James.The training is designed to build the knowledge-base of the police to understand the issue of child labour, as well as the supporting legislation to ensure greater enforcement.It is hoped that existing laws will be used more effectively to combat child labour and trafficking in persons.Child labour is defined by the (ILO) as work that deprives children of their childhood, their potential and their dignity, and that is harmful to physical and mental development.Global estimates suggest that 168 million children worldwide are engaged in child labour, accounting for almost 11 per cent of the child population as a whole. Story Highlights More than 16,000 children across the island are engaging in child labour. The Ministry is actively working on coordinating a second national survey in an effort to ascertain a more current figure. A dipstick survey conducted in the parishes of St. Catherine, Clarendon and St. James found that incidence of child labour was quite high in those regions.