Arsenal boss Wenger ‘planning west London summer raid’

first_imgThe People say Arsenal boss Arsene Wenger is planning what it calls a ‘west London summer raid’ for Chelsea’s Daniel Sturridge and Fulham’s Moussa Dembele.Sturridge, who wants a new deal at Stamford Bridge, has been linked with the Gunners previously, while several clubs are reported to have shown an interest in Dembele.The People also suggest that interim boss Roberto Di Matteo will be given an interview for the Chelsea manager’s job if they overcome Barcelona in the Champions League.Roman Abramovich is ready to pay whatever it takes to get Jose Mourinho back at Chelsea after settling his differences with the Real Madrid manager, according to The Mail on Sunday.The Russian owner and Mourinho parted on bad terms in 2007 but it is claimed that wages of more than £9m a year – after tax – and a compensation bill from Madrid of £25m would be sanctioned by Abramovich.A Chelsea source is quoted as saying: “Such is Roman’s determination to bring back Mourinho that he is prepared to top Jose’s Madrid wages and pay compensation to buy out the remaining two years of his contract.”Mourinho is said to be Abramovich’s first choice but France coach Laurent Blanc, Marseille manager Didier Deschamps and Zenit St Petersburg’s Luciano Spalletti are apparently in the frame in case the Real boss cannot be persuaded to return to Stamford Bridge.Meanwhile, former Chelsea man Ruud Gullit has insisted that Di Matteo should be given the job.“Roberto must be appointed as manager of Chelsea ­permanently,” Gullit told The Sunday Mirror.“What is stopping Chelsea’s board to carry on with Di Matteo when he has got the team performing so well? He deserves all the compliments for what he has done so far.”Advertising on West London Sport Follow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebooklast_img read more

More Evidence You Can’t Trust Evolutionist Logic

first_imgThe leftist agenda of most science journalists forces them to oppose conservatism, no matter how twisted their logic becomes. Why would anyone trust them about Darwinism?As everyone knows, President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accords on June 1. It’s a political story, not a scientific one, except for its dependence on a scientific ‘consensus’ (an oxymoron) that humans are guilty of warming the planet. The president listed various reasons for his decision: (1) it was not a treaty passed by Congress, it was a one-man executive order by the previous administration, so it is non-binding; (2) it punishes Americans, making the USA alone pay up billions of dollars while major polluters (including India and China) have no obligations till 2030; (3) nations taking the US money via carbon credits would have no obligation to prove it will be used for climate mitigation; most likely, the money would end up lining the pockets of dictators, providing no help to the third-world poor; (4) US free-market efforts have strongly decreased pollution over the past years without the need for this accord; (5) the Paris accord would accomplish nothing, because under the most optimistic projections, it would decrease global temperatures by less than two tenths of one degree by 2100. To this he could add that pulling out simply returns America to status quo ante 2016. As such, the decision keeps America in basically the same position it was for most of the Obama administration.Basically, Trump pulled out because it is a one-sided punishment of America that would cost thousands of jobs, it is a scheme for redistribution of wealth, and it would accomplish nothing. Nevertheless, the president expressed his deep concern for the environment, saying he was willing to renegotiate a deal if it could be made fair. After his speech, though, heads exploded all over the media. One would think Trump had committed the unpardonable sin.Left-leaning reporters ignored his arguments and focused instead on whether Trump and his EPA secretary Scott Pruitt “believe” in global warming. Ostensibly if Trump expressed doubt about it, they could pounce and call him a “denier” of climate change – a phrase with nefarious overtones like “Holocaust denier.” Logically, though, the president’s agreement or non-agreement about human responsibility for climate change is not the issue. The author of The Art of the Deal could be a complete believer in global warming as strongly as Al Gore and still conclude that the Paris accord was a bad deal. Or, he could have taken the Constitutional strategy and relegated such decisions to Congress. (Commentators seem fairly certain if President Obama had tried that, it would never have passed.) Or, he could believe the globe is warming, but be uncertain about the causes, and have voted in favor of staying in. In many ways, then, President Trump’s decision seems perfectly logical. It’s doubtful any of these options would have satisfied the “believers” in anthropogenic climate change, though. Taking the word “anthropogenic” out commits the unpardonable sin just as much, making one a “denier.”Now let’s look at a couple of reactions from “science reporters” that are well-known for treating Darwinian evolution as unassailable fact.Unimpeachable logic says Trump shouldn’t quit Paris climate pact (New Scientist). Before the decision to pull out had even been aired, Owen Gaffney claimed the logical high ground against it. (Gaffney should not have used the word “unimpeachable” about his logic, because it invites us to try to impeach it.) It’s not for him to decide if his case is unimpeachable. It’s for the fair-minded reader to evaluate his evidence and his reasoning.“Leaving would be an illogical act of self-harm,” Gaffney says, a curious claim in light of all the jobs it would cost Americans suffering from an overwhelming debt from the past administration. So what evidence does Gaffney present? He says, first, that it might lead other nations to bolt from the accord. How that causes self-harm to America is not exactly clear. Gaffney further says that some of the leftist activist groups and funds might lose out. Again, how that is an illogical act of self-harm is not apparent. Third, Gaffney flat-out says that denying climate change is illogical. That’s an assertion, not an argument.Of all Trump’s policy choices, his attitude on climate ranks among the most illogical – and competition in this space is fierce. By leaving the Paris deal, he’ll change little and risk missing out on the economic gains of an energy revolution.His ‘logic’ is purely hypothetical and politically biased. Gaffney does not consider whether market forces could take care of energy production in a smarter way – a position conservative and libertarian economists argue with historical case studies and laws of supply and demand. They would certainly welcome a chance to impeach his logic. In addition, Gaffney fails to answer any of the president’s specific claims about the flaws in the Paris deal. If indeed the best case scenario shows the accord will accomplish no significant climate mitigation, why would anyone consider it logical to stay in? In short, nowhere in the article does Gaffney present unimpeachable logic. He just boasts about it.Want to Really Boost the Economy? Stay in the Paris Agreement (Live Science). Tia Ghose is another perennial Darwin loyalist in her leftist media outlet, but even here, it seems she is out of her element trying to report about climate policy. She tries to take a more friendly, positive approach. Rather than calling the president illogical, she proposes that it would be in America’s best interest to stay in the unconstitutional executive order (which, as we stated, is not a treaty approved by the people’s representatives, but more like a king’s decree). To shield her own bias, she calls on an expert to speak for her:But the idea that the Paris Agreement will harm the economy is nonsensical, said Jonathan Koomey, a lecturer in Earth Systems at the School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences at Stanford University. For one, the agreed-upon emissions cuts are nonbinding; the only legal obligation is that the United States report its carbon emissions. So if the required cuts are too damaging to the economy, the United States is free to revise its emissions goals, he said.“You can’t have nonbinding standards that are draconian,” Koomey told Live Science.Beyond that, most economic analyses suggest that environmental regulations may actually boost the economy, both because they spur innovation and because they prevent harm, Koomey said.Here, she lets Koomey call President Trump’s decision “nonsensical,” which is equivalent to illogical. But in what way is it nonsensical? Her expert claims that the USA could revise its emissions goals. In other words, the USA could lie. It could state emissions goals at the outset, but then fail to keep them, saying, On second thought, we don’t like that promise, so we’re going to lower the standards. Think about this argument. If the USA could do that, so could any other party to the accord. What’s logical to expect is that nobody would keep their promises once economic pains set in, and no climate mitigation would result.She also plays the “most doctors agree” trick (bandwagon) — “most economic analyses suggest” (OK, name one; probably not by Adam Smith or Friedrich Hayek) “that environmental regulations” (how about the ones that declare a puddle on private property ‘wetlands’ forbidding a landowner from planting?) “may” (hypothetical) “actually boost the economy” (non-specific), “both because they spur innovation and because they prevent harm” (glittering generalities). This paragraph is followed by a rash of statistics from leftist-only sources geared to make Obama look good – you remember, the president who lost more jobs, created more dependency, and increased the national debt more than all previous presidents combined. The statistics commit the fallacies of card stacking, either-or, and non-sequitur, even if they had something to do with the Paris accord. We suspect the Heritage Foundation would love the opportunity to make their case with other statistics.Ghose’s other point is, like Gaffney’s, hypothetical: environmental regulations “may” boost the economy. How exactly government regulations spur innovation and prevent harm is not exactly clear. She and her expert Koomey point to past instances of regulations that helped clean the air and spurred innovation (in their version of the story). Sure; with some card-stacking, half-truths and hypotheticals, one could employ propaganda tactics to promote the big-government liberal view, but that would ignore numerous recent stories of real harm to American families, communities and whole cities destroyed by burdensome regulations (think Detroit). It also ignores whether free-market policies might achieve the same green-energy innovation without government regulation. And it has absolutely nothing to do with the Paris Climate Accord! In fact, all the innovation that has occurred in the USA and other countries took place before Paris, and is likely to continue, Paris or not. So who is being nonsensical here?The fact is, both New Scientist and Live Science are so committed to big-government, globalist, leftist thinking, they have abandoned logic and any sense of journalistic fairness. Their agenda is to defend their political bias, no matter what. Calling anyone they disagree with illogical or nonsensical is not an argument. It is not journalism. It is not science, which should welcome openness and lively debate.Readers wary of our reporting here may claim we have a bias, too. That’s right. Everybody has a bias. But a journalist can choose to be fair about their bias, strive for transparency, and work hard to give both sides of an argument a fair hearing in their coverage. We can guarantee you that neither New Scientist nor Live Science will link to our article! Our attitude? We link to the original sources. Go ahead–read their articles. Have at it. Come back and evaluate our response. May the best case win! We’re not afraid for our readers to look into the very best arguments of those with other positions. We try to persuade with logic and evidence a different perspective in the news that is rarely heard in the secular media.If you decide our coverage is more fair, then consider: the leftist reporters who constantly bash President Trump and all conservative positions are the same ones praising Darwin every chance they get. Do you expect them to give a fair hearing to creation or intelligent design? Ha! That would be most illogical, Spock would say. (Visited 494 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

South Africa plans memorial to banished chieftainess

first_img28 August 2015A memorial site in honour of the first African woman to be banished by the apartheid regime would be unveiled on 31 August at the Bakone Traditional Council in Limpopo, announced the Department of Arts and Culture.In partnership with the South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA), a burial and memorial site will be created in honour of the late chieftainess, Makwena Matlala, to mark her contribution to the apartheid struggle.The theme for the event is “Remembering the forgotten, honouring victims of political banishment in South Africa”.Arts and Culture Deputy Minister Rejoice Mabudafhasi said banishment was one of many methods used by the colonial and apartheid governments to silence opponents who were opposed to their policies under the Bantu Authorities Act in 1951.“Given her prominence as the first known African woman to be banished by the apartheid regime, unveiling and commemoration of the burial and memorial site of this unsung heroine is a fitting tribute as it culminates Women’s Month,” Mabudafhasi said.Matlala’s fightAs chieftainess, Matlala refused to accept the government’s policies. In response, in 1949, the Native Affairs Department deposed her.“The actual [banishment] order of 7 March 1950 accused Matlala of causing ‘dispute and friction’, of refusing to stop her ‘agitation’, of being ‘a cause of internal unrest,’” explains South African History Online.“It stated her ‘presence in the area (was) inimical to the peace, order and good government of the Natives’ and that it was ‘in the general public interest’ that she should be banished.”She was banished to Temba in Hammanskraal, in what is today Gauteng, then to King William’s Town in Eastern Cape. Upon hearing the news, she stated: “I, Makwena, will not go and stay in a house that I did not build, a house that I did not labour on. and I will not leave my own house. Above all I do not intend to move from my home, as I have never been out of Matlala’s Reserve before.”In 1962, anti-apartheid activist Helen Joseph visited Matlala in King William’s Town and described her as a “heavily built but erect” woman who “bore herself with dignity”. She was “still a chieftainess despite her simple clothing and her life of ‘poverty’ in a ‘scantily furnished tiny room’”, notes South Africa History Online.“Her banishment sparked a revolt among other local people,” said the Department of Arts and Culture. “Subsequently, the apartheid government removed and banished over 50 people who were identified as supporters of Matlala in an attempt to quell the rising tide of discontent.”She and her son, the chief-elect, were permitted to return in 1965 and her banishment order was withdrawn on 9 February 1966.Source: SAnews.gov and SAinfo reporterlast_img read more

Child-like enthusiasm secret of Sachin’s longevity: Dravid

first_imgA child-like enthusiasm for the game is the reason why Sachin Tendulkar has completed over two decades in international cricket despite the pounding that his body has taken, feels his long-time team-mate Rahul Dravid.”Sachin’s longevity comes down to the joy that he still gets from playing. After 20 years of international cricket he still has a child-like enthusiasm. That’s not an easy thing to do when you have been travelling and playing so much and your body has taken a pounding,” Dravid said in the latest edition of Wisden Cricketer magazine.”He is great at preparing for games. Not only in terms of his skills but also getting his mind right. What he has achieved is mind-boggling. He is constantly setting the boundaries for the future generations. His batting has changed with time — with his body and age.”That’s the beauty of it. The game has changed, the bowlers have changed and he has changed along with that.Everytime he has changed he has been successful. He hasn’t seen too many bad patches in his career,” he added.Dravid was not the only one paying tribute to the 38-year-old batting icon, who is just one short of his 100th international ton.Five former England captains, including the Ashes-winning Michael Vaughan, revealed how the diminutive right-hander tormented and mesmerised them in equal measure in the same magazine.Nasser Hussain, who captained England in the 2001-02 series against India, said Tendulkar has made some adjustments to his strategy over the years. .advertisement”Technically and mentally Sachin has changed little over the years but he has changed his game plan. He began as flamboyant, extravagant stroke-maker who had all the shots and simply loved the game. Once the records and the hundreds started to be racked up, he turned into a run-machine,” Hussain said.”There are two types of cricketers; there are guys like myself and Mike Atherton who played the game because that’s what we did; there are players like Graham Gooch and Alec Stewart who have the game in their blood, who would be lost without the game.”Sachin is in the second group and i suspect the dip in form he had a few years ago was because he became fearful of life after cricket. He is not driven by money, he is driven by batting,” he added.Hussain recollected the incident when Tendulkar called him up to get advice on his tennis elbow problem.”It was bizarre; what was arguably the greatest batsman of all time ringing me about?”Another former England captain Michael Vaughan said Tendulkar has become more aggressive in his approach.”Sachin is a different player now from 2007. The best players in the world change little things about themselves to keep themselves in the game. In the last two years, he has become more aggressive, he’s gone back to his old way of trying to score when for a period he tried to survive.”(Chris) Tremlett bowled well against him in 2007 and he is a miles better bowler now. But Sachin doesn’t have any weaknesses although every batsman is vulnerable on and around the off stump early on. England might go aggressive at him, test him with a few short balls — I have seen people do that over the last few years and it hasn’t affected him,” he said.Andrew Flintoff, the talismanic all-rounder who was instrumental in guiding England to the Ashes title in 2005, said he craved for Tendulkar’s respect whenever he bowled at him.”…with Tendulkar, when I bowled to him, I actually wanted him to respect me. I hold him in such high esteem and he is such a good player, I want to make it hard for him. I want him to walk off that field thinking that Flintoff is a good player, he can bowl. I want to impress him,” he said.Graham Gooch, who captained England in the series against India in 1990 and 1992-93, said even at the start of his career, Tendulkar came across as a seasoned player.”No one had ever seen him in 1990. As a 17-year-old it was evident that the lad had great skill, great balance, great timing, an eye for the ball. You could see he had all the attributes to make a top player,” he said.”For one so young he had a poise and composure about his batting. You don’t often get that in young players; you get the talent and the stroke-making but poise, authority and composure normally come later. He has the ability, like all great players to adapt to the conditions. That’s the skill of a batsman. You don’t play the same way every time,” he added.advertisementAnother former England captain Mike Atherton said Tendulkar’s impeccable technique has remained the same over the years.”One of the most remarkable things is that he has hardly changed at all — exactly the same set-up. He has trusted in his technique and power all this time. He has stayed true to his game.”- With inputs from PTIlast_img read more