The Intelligent Design movement took another lashing by the journal Science,1 in the form of three book reviews by Steve Olson, a Washington DC area science writer. Olsen reviewed one pro-ID book, Darwin, Design and Public Education by John Angus Campbell and Stephen C. Meyer, and two anti-ID books, God, the Devil and Darwin by Niall Shanks, and Creationism’s Trojan Horse by Barbara Forrest and Paul R. Gross. A flavor of Olson’s rhetoric: “Shanks… deftly skewers the scientific pretensions of intelligent design creationists. He is particularly effective in demolishing the claims of creationist William Dembski….” Olson calls the faithful to holy war:Resistance to the teaching of evolution is not going to fade away. On the contrary, creationism appears again to be in a period of ascendancy. Science educators must try to understand and come to terms with the viewpoints and passions of those who feel threatened by the teaching of evolution in public schools. They also must be well informed to continue to resist the inclusion of religiously motivated ideas in science curricula.1Steve Olson, “Evolution and Creationism: Shapes of a Wedge,” Science Vol 304, Issue 5672, 825-826, 7 May 2004, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1097382].Saddam Hussein talked tough when he had the power to torture any opponent, but when he met his match, he cowered in a hole. Evolutionists are such cowards. If you thought for a moment they were interested in the truth, then why don’t they invite Dembski to review the anti-ID books? It’s always loyal D.P. (Darwin Party) comrades who get to pummel the straw men when reviewing pro-ID books, and cheer their champions when reviewing anti-ID books. Science, when touching on these subjects, is the Al Jazeera of Charlie worship. It broadcasts the weaknesses of its enemies, but hides the genocides of its imams. It rallies jihad against anyone who questions their sacred dogmas or threatens their pantheistic worldview. Dembski can take care of himself. The master swordsman in The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design (IVP, 2004) and previous books, he deftly parries the “skewering” that Shanks and Olson bluff about, and doesn’t need our help, nor do Meyer and the other ID leaders. Their arguments are weightier and better stated than our few responses here. Olson launches the usual stereotypes. It gets so tiring when they won’t listen. All the usual tactics, the usual fear-mongering, the usual loaded words, the usual hidden agendas, the usual guilt by association rhetoric must be swept aside when looking for any argument of merit. Strangely, Olson accuses ID of being aligned with radical deconstructionists. What? If anyone is removed from the demands of evidence, it is the Darwinists, whose flexible just-so storytelling method of science can explain away any problem. Olson faintly admires Campbell’s “fine rhetorical flourish” and “the sophistication of those opposed to the teaching of evolution,” but only in the sense of watching a good actor, not admiring the substance of his arguments. But he cannot help but admit that “The volume’s legal, pedagogical, and social arguments–in contrast to much of its scientific discussion–are nuanced and informed.” How to respond to this artful rhetoric, he asks, which he fears will “play well with legislators and school board members”?Scientists face a dilemma in deciding how to respond to anti-evolutionists. Demonstrating the scientific errors committed by creationists requires a thorough familiarity with their claims. But studying intelligent design hypotheses can be frustrating because they seem so obviously inspired by nonscientific considerations. When rebutted, intelligent design theorists tend to ignore the objections, claim that all will be revealed in the future [sic; Dembski’s detailed response has been in print three months now, with years of responses by all ID leaders in print, on tape, on film, on radio, and on the web], or rework their arguments to draw the same conclusions in a slightly different way [Darwinists, of course, never do this]. Essentially, the worldviews of scientists and intelligent design theorists fail to intersect. Scientists seek to explain the natural world, whereas creationists seek to find unexplainable mysteries in the natural world. Sometimes, scientists may be tempted simply to ignore the entire affair.Stop right there. This is so lame and so hypocritical. It has all the flavor of the Pharisees discussing among themselves how to respond to Jesus’ clever “render unto Caesar” answer – “if we say this, he’ll say that, if we say that, he’ll say this, but if we say nothing, the people will stone us. I wish he would just go away.” Not feeling that “science” (read: the priesthood of Darwin) is yet threatened, Olson is just annoyed at these pesky neighborhood brats, the “creationists” that keep coming back and disturbing his tea, not listening to them trying to warn him his house is on fire. He’s right about the worldview differences; trouble is, he equates (that is, equivocates) “science” with naturalistic philosophy. “Scientists seek to explain the natural world,” he claims (as if creationists and design theorists do not, forgetting that Kepler, Newton, Maxwell and so many other great scientists were design theorists), but he means they restrict themselves to natural causes (chance and necessity) and rule out, a priori, intelligent causes. The claim that “creationists seek to find unexplainable mysteries in the natural world” is a bald lie cloaked in loaded words. Intelligent causes are the only explanation for coded messaging and complex specified information. That is no mystery. It is already a practical truth in forensics, cryptography, archeology and SETI. That lie is only superseded by this one: “Advocates of intelligent design have produced no evidence that anything other than naturally occurring mechanisms is responsible for the empirically observed world.” Anybody home? Watch this film… again. Since we know Olson is already cheering for Shanks, it is a bit surprising to see him worried that his Goliath is ignoring the sling. He asserts without elaboration that Shanks has skewered Dembski’s law of “conservation of information,” but then sees his champion’s forehead unprotected: “However, Shanks offers relatively little advice about how to respond to the demand that science educators ‘teach the controversy.’ In fact, by focusing on the more extreme social ambitions of creationists, he sometimes overlooks their less divisive and therefore stronger arguments.” He must have read something that bothered him. Most of Olson’s bluff consists of unmasking the hidden agenda of creationists, as if the D.P. motives are pure as the new fallen snow. He delights in Forrest and Gross holding up all the evidence of subversive religious public relations activity by the ID conspirators. What if they’re onto something? We’d like to hear more about those ”less divisive and therefore stronger arguments.” After all, they don’t want to conquer the D.P. regime with weapons of mass destruction; they just want to teach the controversy, to get the scientific evidence out into the open marketplace of ideas for discussion. They want to show the captives, who have heard only the party line about the usual icons (Haeckel’s embryos, melanism, the origin of life, the Cambrian explosion–items which Olson lists), the rest of the story: the facts admitted in the scientific journals but carefully filtered for mass consumption. Olson can’t allow that: he knows exactly what will happen:According to polls (which are themselves controversial in this area), relatively few people in the United States believe that God played no role in the evolution of human beings from other life forms. Fortunately, many Americans are adept at recognizing a material and a nonmaterial dimension to life, and usually they succeed in keeping the two domains separate. But when individuals are forced to choose, such as through a ballot initiative, science [read: the Darwin Party line] almost invariably suffers.Since the pigs at the Darwinian Animal Farm control the media and train the dogs, you have to attend the private councils with the other animals to know what’s really going on. Don’t despair over the power of the regime. Since the incessant news about molecular motors, biological codes and sudden appearance of complex organisms is screaming in their ears, it will only be a matter of time before their Dagon falls over face-first toward the ark of evidence.(Visited 14 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Is evolution good for anything? There’s no question it keeps a lot of scientists busy, but has it helped the proverbial man on the street? Here are two perspectives. Michael LePage hit the sales beat for evolution on New Scientist this week: Evolution is a beautiful theory. It explains everything from why some birds lose the ability to fly, to the bizarre meandering path of the vagus nerve in our bodies. Sure, evolution makes sense of the extraordinary diversity of life on Earth, but can it actually be put to practical use? The answer is: it can and it should.His argument was that evolutionary theory can help explain the rise of “superbugs” that race right past our antibiotics. The death toll, he said, provides “an example of what happens when we don’t apply evolutionary theory.” He didn’t say just how a doctor or pharmacist would apply it, though. Would it have changed FDA policies, even if doctors knew “it has only recently become clear just how fast evolution can produce change”? LePage implied that evolution has application to a broad range of disciplines, “from cancer to conservation.” This begs the question whether evolutionary theory is the only point of view with such a broad range. Creationists might also want to throw their hat in that ring. LePage’s preface was the build-up to an announcement of a new journal called Evolutionary Applications. He continued with more examples of how evolutionary theory might inform policy on HIV, bird flu and global warming. He tied this to a theological issue. Quoting journal editor Rudolph Nesse, he said, “many medics still think of the body as a machine designed by an engineer, when in fact it is a “bundle of compromises … designed to maximise reproduction, not health”. LePage ended, “There is no question about the importance of applied evolution.” If this is so, why is Systems Biology the hottest new trend in the life sciences? Systems Biology looks at the entire organism as a well-structured and interrelated system. Technology Review interviewed Leroy Hood, a former Caltech professor, who left the prestigious university to co-found Applied Biosystems.Traditional biology tends to study one gene or protein or process at a time. Systems biology takes a cue from engineering and treats organisms as complex systems. Systems biologists, often using computer models, try to understand how genes, proteins, cells, and tissues interact to create complex organisms. By mapping out, rather than reducing, biological complexity, systems biologists hope to reach a new understanding of the fundamental processes of life, from embryonic development to normal metabolism to the emergence of diseases like cancer.This approach, in other words, makes just as many claims to revolutionize biology and help mankind that evolutionary theory ever did, but it treats organic systems as if they had been engineered. It is not necessary for the scientist to assume God is the engineer. This is clear from Leroy Hood’s assertion on page 2:Evolution has had four billion years to figure out really clever solutions for new materials, new chemistries, new types of molecular machines, even new approaches to computing. I think by studying living organisms and deducing the mechanisms that underlie these evolutionarily sculpted solutions to complexity, those solutions can be applied to other fields. A classic example is materials science. The spectrum of different materials that organisms have evolved to make is enormous.So what’s the difference? Both LePage and Hood believe in evolution. The difference is that LePage claims we need to focus on the evolutionary process, whereas Hood thinks we just need to understand the finished product. The process of evolution, therefore, is incidental and inconsequential in systems biology. One can believe evolution did the engineering, or that God did the engineering. The approach one uses to do the work – to understand and apply the solutions – is an engineering approach. Just like one would reverse-engineer an operating system to imitate it, systems biology reverse-engineers life to understand and apply it. Darwin’s theory need not even enter the discussion.Sure, evolutionary theory is good – good for nothing. Its recklessness and death and chance are beautiful. Just lovely, isn’t it? Let’s turn loose the systems biologists and biomimetics engineers. Let’s give them a chance to revolutionize biology and bring wonderful new technologies inspired by nature’s engineering. The last thing anyone should hope for is “applied evolution.” Isn’t that exactly what Darwin’s disciples already tried? They applied evolution, all right – eugenics, social Darwinism and Darwinian utopian regimes that murdered millions. Scream and run when you hear a Darwinist wanting to apply evolution! On what moral basis could LePage argue it will help people? The ethics of Malthus? of Marx? It might just be that if systems biology becomes the new paradigm, Darwin and his myths will just slip unnoticed into the history books while people enjoy longer, happier lives. Slowly, without a war, scientists might warm up to the language of intelligent design. It will be perfectly natural. They will have been thinking like engineers instead of like selfish genes. One can even imagine that Darwinian stories will eventually sound so, well, so last-century.(Visited 9 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
3 May 2013 The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has announced plans, including incentives for manufacturers and possible tax incentives for consumers, aimed at establishing an electric vehicle industry in South Africa. Speaking at the launch of the Electric Vehicle Industry Roadmap in Johannesburg on Thursday, Trade and Industry Minister Rob Davies said that South Africa should not be “left behind” in greening technologies and inititiatives, adding that there was an overwhelming case for the transport industry to reduce its carbon footprint. “We are well aware that as development takes place, transportation demand will grow. What is absolutely evident is that vehicle manufacturing must adopt new technology [for lesser emissions],” Davies said. South Africa is the 13th largest global emitter of carbon dioxide. The automotive sector is one of SA’s most carbon-intensive, accounting for approximately 20% of emissions; it is also the third-largest contributor to air pollution in the country. The DTI believes a local electric vehicle industry would help mitigate the impact of harmful gases on the environment while promoting investment and job creation in the automotive industry.‘A very generous quota for manufacturing’ The roadmap proposes an incentive package, to be incorporated within the Automotive Production Development Programme (APDP), for manufacturers that produce electric vehicles. The APDP aims to raise the volume of cars manufactured in South Africa to 1.2-million annually by 2020 as well as to diversify the automotive components chain. “The proposal is that we will incentivise the automotive sector to manufacture electric vehicles in South Africa by introducing a very generous quota for manufacturing under the APDP to benefit from the overall incentive scheme,” Davies said. Manufacturers who produced 5 000 electric vehicles annually would qualify for the incentive, with the government reimbursing them for 35% of their production costs over three years, according to the roadmap. The DTI said it was also looking at various possible tax incentives to encourage South Africans to buy electric vehicles.Manufacturers welcome the plan The roadmap was developed with input from the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) and the Department of Science and Technology. In June, the DTI will engage industry stakeholders, including the National Association of Automobile Manufacturers of SA and National Union of Metalworkers of SA, on the road map, as well as invite public comment on the plan, before taking it to the Cabinet in September. Davies said the roadmap would be constantly monitored and reviewed as the industry was experiencing rapid technological advancement that would need to be taken into consideration. Nissan South Africa CEO Mike Whitfield, Toyota SA CEO Johan van Zyl and BMW CEO Bodo Donauer, who were all present at Thursday’s launch, were unanimous in welcoming the initiative. “It”s a tremendous initiative and a good start to working with all stakeholders. We will fully support it,” Whitfield said, adding that cooperation between the government and industry was important, not only for the legislative framework but also for public awareness. Van Zyl said the roadmap was “a long term plan. It is a process whereby we have to work together to first of all establish the infrastructure. “From the motor industry side, the technology has already been developed and is available, whether it’s electric or hybrids. In the future, [most] vehicles will use alternative technology,” Van Zyl said. “This is the right time to start. If we don’t start sometime, we will be left behind.” SAinfo reporter and SAnews.gov.za
If workers don’t qualify, income-wise, for either a tax-deductible Traditional IRA or a Roth IRA, they can still fund a non-deductible Traditional IRA and later convert it to a Roth IRA, if desired. If a worker has an employer retirement plan, income limits apply to qualify to deduct a contribution to a Traditional IRA. The phase-out AGI ranges for 2015 income taxes are $61,000 for single taxpayers and heads of household and $98,000 to $118,000 for married couples filing jointly. The maximum contribution allowed by law for IRAs (Roth and/or Traditional) in both 2015 and 2016 is $5,500 for workers under age 50 and $6,500, with an additional $1,000 catch-up contribution, for workers age 50 and older. These numbers assume an earned income equal to these amounts. Workers can contribute the smaller of the annual limit allowed by tax law or their taxable compensation during the calendar year. If one spouse in a married couple filing jointly has an employer retirement savings plan and the other does not, the tax-deductibility of a Traditional IRA contribution phases out between an AGI of $183,000 and $193,000 in 2015. See https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/2015-IRA-Deduction-Limits-Effect-of-Modified-AGI-on-Deduction-if-You-Are-NOT-Covered-by-a-Retirement-Plan-at-Work. Workers can’t make contributions to a Traditional IRA once they reach age 70½. However, they can still contribute to a Roth IRA, provided that they have earned income (e.g., salary from a job or net earnings from a small business or freelance work).For more information about IRAs, visit this IRS page with frequently asked questions (FAQs): https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Retirement-Plans-FAQs-regarding-IRAs-Contributions When workers qualify by income for a partial Roth IRA contribution, they can put the remaining amount of the contribution limit into a Traditional IRA (e.g., $2,500 Roth IRA and $3,000 Traditional IRA in 2015). By Barbara O’Neill, Ph.D., CFP®, Rutgers Cooperative Extension, [email protected]’s “crunch time” for federal income taxes. While the tax filing deadline is usually April 15, it is April 18 this year due to a Washington D.C. holiday called Emancipation Day. Bottom line: taxpayers, including most military families, have an extra weekend to prepare their taxes. That’s the good news. The bad news is there is not much you can do now to lower your tax bill. Opportunities, such as charitable donations and Thrift Savings Plan contributions, and capital losses on investments, all went out the window at midnight last New Year’s Eve.U.S. Army photos by Pfc. Ma, Jae-sangThe only way that taxpayers may be able to save money on taxes now is to contribute to a tax-deferred individual retirement account (IRA). The deadline for deposits to 2015 traditional and Roth IRAs and SEP IRAs for self-employed workers is also April 18, 2016 (see https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Traditional-and-Roth-IRAs). Below are some key points to know about IRAs and the tax savings that they can provide:There are many types of IRAs: Roth, Traditional, Rollover, and Spousal, to name a few. Not every IRA provides an initial tax deduction, but they all provide tax-deferred growth on both the amount contributed (saved) and earnings on that money. Roth IRAs also provide the potential for tax-free growth. Income limits apply to qualify to contribute to Roth IRAs. For 2015 income taxes, the adjusted gross income (AGI) phase-out range for taxpayers making contributions to a Roth IRA was $116,000 to $131,000 for single taxpayers and heads of household and $183,000 to $193,000 for married couples filing jointly. If single workers, or both spouses in a married couple filing jointly, are not covered by an employer’s retirement plan, Traditional IRA contributions are deductible regardless of income.
- No Comments on Dabholkar murder case: CBI files supplementary charge sheet against two
- Posted on
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Wednesday filed a supplementary charge sheet against right-wing lawyer Sanjeev Punalekar and Sanatan Sanstha member Vikram Bhave in connection with the 2013 murder of rationalist Dr. Narendra Dabholkar.The CBI, through special public prosecutor Prakash Suryawanshi, filed the charge sheet in the court of additional sessions judge S.R. Navandar.While Mr. Bhave is currently lodged in Yerawada Central Jail, Mr. Punalekar was granted bail by a special court in July.The two were arrested by the CBI on May 25 after the agency alleged that the duo had participated in the conspiracy to murder Dabholkar. Mr. Punalekar was charged with destruction of evidence and for allegedly advising Sharad Kalaskar — named by the agencies as one of Dabholkar’s killers — to destroy the murder weapon.The CBI had strongly urged against granting bail to the lawyer on grounds that he could tamper with evidence. At the time, Mr. Punalekar’s defence counsel had argued that there was nothing in the CBI’s investigations to incriminate him in Dabholkar’s murder.After Mr. Punalekar had spent two custodial spells with the CBI, the court on June 20 had acceded to the agency’s request seeking his custody for a third time. The agency had sought the extension on grounds that it needed to interrogate him regarding allegedly incriminating documents and files seized from his laptop.On June 23, the CBI told the court that it did not require any further custody of Mr. Punalekar, following which the judge sent him back to judicial remand.In his statement to the CBI last year, Mr. Kalaskar had allegedly said Mr. Punalekar had asked him to destroy the weapons. According to the CBI, he had further revealed that Mr. Bhave had planned the reconnaissance and pointed out Dr. Dabholkar to the assailants. The agency claimed Mr. Bhave had even planned the getaway route for the shooters after the crime.Dr. Dabholkar was shot dead while on a morning stroll on Pune’s Omkareshwar Bridge on August 20, 2013.
2 ‘newbie’ drug pushers fall in Lucena sting AFP official booed out of forum NEXT BLOCK ASIA 2.0 introduces GURUS AWARDS to recognize and reward industry influencers The Altas halted the Bombers’ two-game run to tie their victims at 2-1. —RANDOLPH B. LEONGSON, INQUIRER.NET Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. Trending Articles PLAY LIST 00:50Trending Articles00:50Trending Articles00:50Trending Articles01:29Police teams find crossbows, bows in HK university01:35Panelo suggests discounted SEA Games tickets for students02:49Robredo: True leaders perform well despite having ‘uninspiring’ boss02:42PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games01:44Philippines marks anniversary of massacre with calls for justice01:19Fire erupts in Barangay Tatalon in Quezon City Mike Nzeusseu paced Zark’s-Lyceum, which rose to4-1, with 27 points and 11 rebounds while reigning NCAA Most Valuable Player CJ Perez added 18 points.“Wangs wanted to win as badly,” said coach Topex Robinson as he took responsibility for the near-collapse. “I wanted to give others a chance to play and it almost turned into a loss.”FEATURED STORIESSPORTSWATCH: Drones light up sky in final leg of SEA Games torch runSPORTSLillard, Anthony lead Blazers over ThunderSPORTSMalditas save PH from shutoutLater, Prince Eze recorded a rare triple-double to power Perpetual Help to an 88-72 rout of Jose Rizal University.Eze dominated with 24 points, 20 rebounds and a record-setting 11 blocks to become just the fifth player in D-League history to achieve the feat. View comments Zark’s Burger-Lyceum overcame a late challenge by Wangs Basketball-Letran to escape with a 95-93 win and its fourth straight victory in the 2018 PBA D-League Aspirants’ Cup Monday at Pasig Sports Center.Jaycee Marcelino scored the deciding basket with 1:03, nailing a floater off an assist from MJ Ayaay.The Jawbreakers’ defense stood its ground in the return play, thwarting numerous attempts from the Couriers, the last of which was a fadeaway from Bonbon Batiller.ADVERTISEMENT LATEST STORIES Globe Business launches leading cloud-enabled and hardware-agnostic conferencing platform in PH Ricci Rivero participates in Gilas practice Brace for potentially devastating typhoon approaching PH – NDRRMC Read Next Typhoon Kammuri accelerates, gains strength en route to PH Slow and steady hope for near-extinct Bangladesh tortoises John Lloyd Cruz a dashing guest at Vhong Navarro’s wedding MOST READ
- No Comments on Canelo Alvarez stops Rocky Fielding in 3rd round for 3rd division title
- Posted on
Lacson: 2019 budget delay due to P75-B House ‘insertion’ Sports Related Videospowered by AdSparcRead Next Hotel management clarifies SEAG footballers’ kikiam breakfast issue Private companies step in to help SEA Games hosting On the undercard, Tevin Farmer started fast, then coasted to a unanimous decision over Francisco Fonseca to hold onto his IBF super featherweight belt.Farmer lost to Kenichi Ogawa for the IBF title last year, but Ogawa then failed a drug test and the bout was declared a no contest. He outpointed Billy Dib in August for the belt, then defended by stopping James Tennyson in October.He won 117-111 on all three judges’ cards.“Nowadays, I really have a lot of anger built up, good anger though,” he said, “and I just want to hurt everybody when I’m in the ring. I don’t have no sympathy.”Farmer is 28-4-1, while Fonseca is 22-2-1. Costa Rican Fonseca’s other loss came in his only previous title fight, to Gervonta Davis for the same crown in 2017.Katie Taylor of Ireland won a lopsided 10-round decision over Finland’s Eva Wahlstrom to keep her IBF and WBA lightweight championships. She is now 12-0, while Wahlstrom lost for the first time in 24 fights.Super featherweight Lamont Roach Jr. easily outpointed Alberto Mercado, running his record to 18-0-1. Roach controlled the fight from the outset and took it easy late, which nearly cost him when Mercado (15-2-1) nailed him with several hard shots in the final round.Rising lightweight Ryan Garcia had no trouble running his record to 17-0 with 15 knockouts by stopping Braulio Rodriguez in the fifth round. Rodriguez’s repertoire included more clowning and low blows than fighting, and Garcia ended it with a sharp right, followed by a series of head shots. “Canelo will fight whoever is the best, no doubt about it,” said his promoter, Oscar De La Hoya.If this was a one-off at 168 pounds, it was quite a show in his debut at Madison Square Garden.“My goal is to make good fights for the people, for the public, and to make sure the name of Canelo Álvarez and of Mexico is held up high,” Alvarez said.Fielding, 31, won the WBA crown in July when he knocked out Tyron Zeuge in Germany in the fifth round. But the Englishman had never faced anyone close to Canelo’s class, and it showed.“I never shied away from the challenge,” Fielding said. “I lived the dream, I’ll come back.ADVERTISEMENT PH underwater hockey team aims to make waves in SEA Games PLAY LIST 02:42PH 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 LOOK: Joyce Pring goes public with engagement to Juancho Triviño Coming off his close decision against Gennady Golovkin three months ago to take the WBA and WBC middleweight titles, Alvarez could hear chants of “Canelo! Canelo!” long before he entered the Madison Square Garden ring for the first time. Throughout a lengthy undercard, it was clear who the sellout crowd of 20,112 came to see and cheer.He delivered with power and precision, landing 73 punches, 35 to the body.FEATURED STORIESSPORTSPrivate companies step in to help SEA Games hostingSPORTSSEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completionSPORTSUrgent reply from Philippine football chief“That was the plan in the gym, to hit the body and then move up, and that’s the result,” Alvarez said through an interpreter. “You see the result here.”Only eight other Mexican fighters have held three division titles. And Alvarez, 28, says he is headed back to the 160-pound class he rules, with possibly a third go with Golovkin in 2019. The next fight, opponent unknown, is set for Las Vegas in early May. LATEST STORIES TS Kammuri to enter PAR possibly a day after SEA Games opening MOST READ SEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completion Don’t miss out on the latest news and information. “He is strong and all that. It was the body shots, the wind he took away. He placed the shots well and he caught me. I stood too long to try to mix it with him when I shouldn’t have.“The better man won tonight.”The fight ended with 22 seconds remaining in the third after two knockdowns in the round.Fielding came to fight, but was outmanned from the outset. He couldn’t block the bevy of body punches launched by Alvarez, who floored Fielding with a left in the first round.Alvarez did it again with a right to the head and a left to the body late in the second round, and that brought down Fielding’s hands enough to expose the head.So Alvarez used a huge right lead to knock down Fielding in the third round, and soon after finished it with a series of blows.It really was no contest.“What I always want to do is to make the best fight whether they’re for world titles or not,” Alvarez said, then turned his attention to the Garden scene.“I’m happy and I’m grateful to be here. I hope this is the first of many.”The fight card was streamed on DAZN, a service that paid Alvarez $365 million for 11 fights. This was quite a selling point for the red-headed Mexican. Is Luis Manzano planning to propose to Jessy Mendiola? View comments Pistons end Boston’s 8-game run, beat Celtics SEA Games: Biñan football stadium stands out in preparedness, completion Mexico’s Canelo Alvarez celebrates after a WBA super middleweight championship boxing match against England’s Rocky Fielding Sunday, Dec. 16, 2018, in New York. Alvarez stopped Fielding in the third round. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II)NEW YORK — Canelo Alvarez threw a Garden party Saturday night. A short and powerful fiesta.Alvarez landed dozens of body punches, knocking down Rocky Fielding four times and stopping him in the third round to earn his third weight class title, taking the WBA super middleweight belt.ADVERTISEMENT
- No Comments on Bengal Opposition leaders candidates willing to join Trinamool Suvendu
- Posted on
Kolkata: Bengal Transport Minister Suvendu Adhikari on Tuesday claimed there would be no political Opposition in the state in the coming days with many Opposition candidates who won in the recent rural body elections willing to join the ruling Trinamool Congress.He said many prominent opposition leaders have also got in touch with him stating that they want to be a part of Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee’s developmental drive.”Trinamool will emerge victorious on all fronts. No one else will be there. Not only the winners of Panchayat election but also a lot of prominent people’s representatives want to join Mamata Banerjee. Also Read – Heavy rain hits traffic, flights”They want to be a part of Trinamool Congress’ drive for development. Many of them have already contacted me,” Adhikari told reporters at a party event in Malda district.The minister, who is also his party’s observer in Malda, said the party will get more than 55 percent votes in the district and capture both the Lok Sabha constituencies there in the 2019 general election. “Trinamool Congress will emerge victorious here. Congress-CPI-M and BJP would sit and fix amongst themselves who would come second or third,” he added.
It’s that time of the year which stands for lights, sweets and lots of fun with family and friends. Also known as the festival of lights, India decks up in its best finery as the firecrackers light up the sky. But this is also a time when one has to be careful about keeping one’s eyes safe. Dr Soham Basask, Consultant, Cornea Department at Disha Eye Hospitals shares a few handy tips for you.4If a splinter or something that’s hot and burning gets into the eyes immediately wash with lots of clean water; tap water, drinking water, any clean water will do. You can also apply some ice or cold compress if possible. The best thing is to go to the nearest doctor. Many eye hospitals keep special night and emergency facilities on Diwali open. Also Read – Add new books to your shelf4Wearing plain spectacles goes a long way in protecting your eyes. Many accidents happen while a person tries to be adventurous by bursting crackers in dangerous ways. We commonly receive patients with injuries from bombs which are lit under some earthen pots and burst. Another common cause is when a cracker fails to lights up the first time and then someone tries to blow on it or light it for the second time it bursts on the face of the person. Such activities need to be strictly prohibited. Also Read – Over 2 hours screen time daily will make your kids impulsive4Do not cover crackers with glass bottles, tins, boxes or earthen pots for sound effects. They can burst into tiny pieces and damage your eyes forever. Also, do not go near crackers that have failed to explode.4If you are a contact lens wearer, it is advisable not to wear them while watching or bursting crackers. Contact lenses may cause irritation to the eyes if exposed to high heat for a long time.4In the event of an eye injury, do not rub your eyes or use local remedies like turmeric powder, coconut oil, etc. If there are any particles inside your eyes, it may worsen the injury. Instead, wash your eyes with clean water for about 10 minutes and after that consult an eye specialist at the earliest. 4Make sure you wash your hands properly after making a rangoli or handling fireworks, and before you touch your eyes. The coloured powder, chalk powder and chemicals from the crackers may cause eye irritation and itchiness and in certain cases, irreparable damage.4Even though fireworks may be pretty and bright, it is best to stay away from them. Do not let children light crackers. If they are bursting crackers, there should always be adult supervision.