Lule is currently unemployed. (PHOTO/Courtesy)LUGOGO – Barely 24 hours after Proline FC head coaching role fell vacant, it has emerged that Matia Lule is favourite to take over.The Lugogo based side on Wednesday announced that head coach Shafiq Bisaso would be departing for Sweden to further his Coaching studies, leaving the role vacant.“This is to inform the public that our team manager, Shafick Bisaso will be leaving for further studies to upgrade his coaching level. This is a program that was arranged for him and funded by the club a few months ago but has come to fruition now.” Read part of a statement released by Proline on Wednesday.Proline also confirmed that they are already on the hunt for a replacement but reports coming from Lugogo indicate that the replacement will most likely be Lule.“Everyone was thinking that Baker Mbowa would take over but he (Mbowa) distanced himself from the role. With that said, Proline is now looking at Matia Lule as a replacement for Bisaso and if all goes well, he may be confirmed on the weekend. Narrated a source close to the club.Lule is currently unemployed after he was part of the Uganda Cranes technical team that was dissolved last month, following the departure of Sebastien Desabre.He has been away from club football for a while now with his last stint coming at Express FC.Lule who has also coached at Entebbe FC, KCCA FC and Stand United of Tanzania, turned down the head coaching role at Sunshine FC in June, before Moses Basena took over at the Rwandese side.If he indeed takes over at Proline, his first task will be ensuring that the Lugogo based side preserve their lead against Malawi’s Master Securities in the CAF Confederations Cup preliminary round.Proline are away in the second leg but hold a healthy 3-0 lead from the first leg played at the StarTimes Stadium in Lugogo, last Saturday. Ibrahim Bonyo scored all three goals.Comments Tags: matia luleproline fcSebastien DesabreShafiq BisasotopUganda Cranes
Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed has ranked #12 in documentaries after 3 weeks. It could easily rank much higher after the DVD comes out. Has the scientific community shown any signs of remorse over their treatment of individuals and groups who question Darwinism, as illustrated in the film?ICR expelled: On April 24, a week after Expelled hit the theaters, the Texas State Board of Education denied the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) the right to grant graduate degrees in the State. ICR, a privately-funded organization, had been granting Master’s degrees in California for 27 years. It appears that Commissioner Raymund Paredes made his recommendation to deny the authorization after consulting with an undisclosed group of educators in non-public meetings. It also appears that ICR’s well-known creationist position, not the academic standards of its Graduate School, was the reason for the decision. ICR, which had been expecting easy approval based on a positive recommendation from the Site Evaluation Team in December (see ICR press release), considers this a clear case of viewpoint discrimination and an abridgement of their academic freedom. Their statement includes a 371-page document that had been delivered to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Even some of the most liberal supporters of intelligent design, who disapprove of young-earth creationism, have expressed alarm at the decision because of what it portends for any viewpoint deemed to lie outside the scientific consensus. Paredes may have been influenced by a negative editorial that appeared in Nature February 28. The editorial revealed that concerted arm-twisting was going on behind the scenes: “High-powered scientists in Texas are already weighing in, asking board commissioner Raymund Paredes to deny accreditation,” it said, “And there are signs that the board is listening.” The editorial called ICR’s creationist position “anti-scientific” even though its professors have PhDs from secular institutions. It even accused the graduate school of dishonesty: “ICR has managed to con its way into the California educational system for decades. Texas must not succumb as well.” ICR has always been above board in its dealings with the states of California and Texas. They never pressured anyone to succumb to anything. They met all requirements and answered all questions. This amounts to libel, but ICR was never given an opportunity to respond. Naturally, Nature was delighted in its April 30 issue with the denial decision. They proudly quoted a compliant commissioner, who had learned his talking points well. “Religious belief is not science,” Paredes said. “Science and religious belief are surely reconcilable, but they are not the same thing.”Context is key: Nature took the following swipe at Ben Stein in its featurette Sidelines: Scribbles on the Margins of Science from May 7:“Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people.”Ben Stein, star of anti-evolution movie Expelled, adds his sensible and rational voice to the science-versus-religion debate, during an evangelical webcast.Stein’s comment was a summary statement at the end of a long discussion about Nazi science, not science in general. In the movie, Stein had made it clear he supported true science. His investigation was about the intolerance of Darwinists, whose leading spokespersons (Richard Dawkins, P. Z. Myers, William Provine, E. O. Wilson) are atheists, toward intelligent design. This out-of-context quote not only Nature’s complete denial of any culpability for fostering intolerance, but an attempt to tarnish the reputation of the whistleblower.Freedom is slavery: Scare tactics are often effective for avoiding rational discussion. A news story in Science took on the difficult task of explaining why it is important to oppose academic freedom legislation. Reporter Yudhijit Bhattacharjee set the tone of her investigation of Academic Freedom bills with a scary metaphor, “If creationism is a mutating virus, as many educators believe, then its latest guise is legislation to protect ’academic freedom.’” The scare quotes imply a conspiracy is lurking. Selling this line is a bit of an uphill battle, though. She quoted Barbara Forrest, activist against the bill in Florida, saying “It has been difficult to rally opposition.” Casey Luskin at Evolution News pointed out that Science quoted no proponents of the bill – only opponents. Bhattacharjee quoted evolution defender Eugenie Scott, for instance, claiming that Academic Freedom bills are essentially a “permission slip to teach creationism,” though there is nothing of the sort in the wording of the bills to suggest such a thing. Luskin used it as an illustration of “checkpoints” outlined in Expelled that guarantee the party line goes unchallenged. Incidentally, the Academic Freedom bill in Florida, which had looked set to pass earlier, got defeated by procedural derailments rather than debate, reported Robert Crowther for Evolution News.To revile or not to revile: Science on May 9 printed a pair of letters on the subject of whether to be considerate of creationists. (It should be noted that Darwinists lump creationism and intelligent design in the same category, despite volumes explaining the differences). They were responding to an earlier article that told, somewhat sympathetically, the story of one young scientist’s “traumatic” journey from evangelical belief in creationism to evolutionism. Craig Stevens (Oklahoma State) could not stomach the sympathy. “Science magazine is not the place to give even a hint of respectability to those who would deny the fundamental fact of evolution,” he said. “There is too much at stake, for our children and our society, to give any credence to those promoting unscientific nonsense (creationism or intelligent design) and justifying irrational beliefs under the guise of religion.” Andrew Whipple, biologist at Taylor University, had a more conciliatory tone. Based on his experience with students coming from a Biblical creationist background, he called for humility:We within the scientific community must continue to present the demonstrable evidence from the physical realm and clearly express how that evidence supports our current interpretations. This effort is not served well at all by dogmatic pronouncements such as “Evolution is fact,” even if such statements are accurate. Furthermore, for members of the scientific community to make theological statements in the name of science is philosophically illegitimate, and destructive in our truth-seeking efforts. In this short essay, Science has published the only example I have read in the leading scientific literature that takes the time and effort to understand and express what really drives the concerns of the majority of evangelicals, and does so in a manner that respects the integrity of both the scientific endeavor and the integrity of the faith commitments within the evangelical community. Allow me to suggest that this serves as a call to us in the sciences to be more humble as we interact with the faith community. We as scientists ought to be those most keenly aware of the tenuous and ever-changing nature of human knowledge, even as we build on that which has stood the test of time. We ought to behave as though the faith community poses no threat to the integrity of science, just as the faith community ought to behave as though science poses no threat to the integrity of faith…. Let us all humbly seek for truth as we respect one another’s efforts to do so.Even in this conciliatory letter, however, Whipple still implied that evolution is a fact because it has stood the test of time, which implies the dubious proposition that time is a measure of scientific validity (see best-in-field fallacy). He also drew an either-or distinction between the science community and the faith community. This fails to identify the faith involved in evolutionary theories. It also ignores the scientific evidence those with non-evolutionary theories employ in defense of their views. What may be most noteworthy, however, is his observation that the article was the “only example I have read in the leading scientific literature that takes the time and effort to understand” the concerns of the majority of evangelicals in a respectful tone.Beneath disdain: CMI published a response to a campaign by the Geological Society of London to fight creationism. (The quotes are from before the release of Expelled, but it is unlikely the film altered their attitude, based on condescending reviews in other pro-evolution journals.) In an editorial from the January issue of their magazine Geoscientist, Ted Nield not only conflated Intelligent Design with Young-Earth Creationism, he looked for space in the dungeon below contempt to find words to express the depth of his disdain. “Are Young Earth Creationists, Intelligent Designers and other adherents of long-exploded ideas even worth the expenditure of our contempt?” he asked.Some commentators have expressed alarm at the condescending tone that academics express to those outside their peer group. In a guest editorial for the UK Times Higher Education, Dennis Hayes exposed the disdain academics have for the general public. He found it ironic that academics are trying more to engage in public outreach while simultaneously treating the public as hapless, hopeless, ignorant and prejudiced. He pictured academics as out of touch – living in a closed society that generates misanthropic attitudes. Their own habits, though, provide a poor model for how one should behave like an intellectual: “At academic conferences, there is little discussion; there are hundreds of papers but few questions,” he accused. He warned that progress in understanding will only come when academics open themselves up to debate (cf. 04/09/2008). More focused on the issues brought up in Expelled was Ken Conner’s op-ed piece for Townhall.com. He alleged that modern academia is in a 1984 time warp, with its own thought police and revisionist policies. He alluded to the Orwellian turnabout wherein Academic Freedom bills are being opposed as “academic tyranny” by the very people who refuse to allow criticisms of their views. Conner juxtaposed the derisive comments of Darwinists against ID with some of their own irrational views expressed in Ben Stein’s documentary, such as life being seeded by space aliens or on crystals. “Intelligent Design,” he remarked, “seems eminently plausible compared to the ravings of these scientists who appear educated beyond their intelligence.” At issue, though, is the academy’s intolerance of contrary views. “These efforts to extinguish controversy and to mute dissenting voices are antithetical to traditional notions of academic freedom,” he ended. “But that doesn’t bother the scholars who are interviewed in the film. In the academy, it’s 1984 and, in their world, freedom is tyranny.”Poor, lovable old Ben Stein. Likeable, funny, common-sensical, soft-spoken, unflappable; a kinder, gentler celebrity one could hardly find, but now he has joined the Expelled. His reputation will be forever tarnished as one of “them.” All he wanted to do was open up the debate about Darwinism again. Such an innocent quest. In his droll, deadpan way, he interviewed the leading lights on both sides (and not a single young-earth creationist, by the way – those who have been so systematically marginalized that the mere mention of them brings a Pavlovian growl). Ben never raised his voice. His questions were the innocent, honest questions that a man on the street might ask. In a country that values academic freedom, what is it about this issue that gets scientists so upset?. In each interview, Stein sat there meekly without interrupting. He gave plenty of time for Dawkins, Myers and Ruse to explain what they meant. His producers sent them the types of questions that would be asked, paid them for their time, got their permission to use the footage, and followed standard documentary protocol. For this crime he has been viciously slandered by scientists and the secular media, who show absolutely no sense of remorse for their intolerance. They continue to illustrate the very point of Expelled: question Darwin and your career is over. If there is to be any revolution, any pressure to tear down the Berlin Wall that protects Darwinism from honest questions, it won’t be starting on the Darwin side. If anything, they are building it higher and thicker. Are you shocked by this? That academics, the ones historically the champions of academic freedom, have become some of its most vicious enemies? That the very ones who should be models of civility and rational discourse turn into sneering, snarling Dobermans at the mere sound of intelligent design? How could it be, when so many great scientists in history exalted the supreme architect of the universe in their work, and pointed to their admiration for God’s designs as motivation for doing science, that this could happen? It does happen, and it happens elsewhere, too: the very institutions set up to solve the problem wind up making it worse. Consider the following parallels. Recognizing that there are exceptions in each case, charges have been made repeatedly by numerous commentators that the following institutions do the opposite of what they were designed to do.Labor unions: Initially motivated to address real issues of worker rights and safety, unions and their bosses are almost synonymous with corruption. Workers refusing to join become targets of intimidation and physical violence. States have had to pass Right to Work laws (imagine that!) to protect workers from the very unions that were designed to help them. The unions, of course, spend their millions from the dues extracted by force from paychecks of common workers to lobby against such legislation, and routinely oppose any attempt to allow workers to designate whether they wish their dues to be spent on lobbying or not. To add insult to injury, labor unions pile on so much burden on corporations through exorbitant and unrealistic demands for pensions and benefits (enforced by threats of crippling strikes), they end up killing the goose that lays the golden egg – the employers who create jobs. The high cost of employment causes companies to go out of business or look overseas. Who loses? The laborer.The National Education Association has been called the most useless bureaucracy in Washington. One might think that it exists to help teachers and students. Instead, like the teachers’ unions, it defends and protects a top-sided bureaucracy bloated with administrators and office workers. Despite billions spent on education, student-teacher ratios continue to rise, test scores continue to plummet, American students continue to fall behind even many third-world countries, and some teachers have to spend their own money buying textbooks. Who loses? Public school students. Private schools and home schools, without NEA help or government funding, at a fraction of the cost, graduate students that score substantially higher on average.The National Endowment for the Arts exists, one would think, to uphold high standards of art appreciation and taste, to reward those with true talent, and to promote expressions of artistic excellence that bring national pride. How many new Mozarts or Raphaels can you name that thank this institution for their patronage? By contrast, how many news reports have you heard about “controversial” government-funded displays of a crucifix in urine, or a dung-splattered Madonna, or “artistic” exhibits of pig parts in formaldehyde?Racial organizations: Does any member of an ethnic minority really need an organization to speak for him? That’s an interesting question itself, because it would certainly backfire if some ethnic groups tried it. Regardless, certain black commentators (Bill Cosby, Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder, Juan Williams) have been pointing out for years that well-known black organizations and their high-profile leaders actually do more harm than good for black families. This is because creating an atmosphere of crisis is essential to their ongoing leadership. Actually solving problems would make them irrelevant. So while fatherless families, drug abuse and dropout rates never seem to improve, certain high-profile black leaders literally scream about racism in America with half truths, stoking the fires of racist conflict that keep them in the spotlight and create a cycle of self-fulfilling prophecy. Individuals who succeed and become integrated into the colorless society are accused of abandoning their roots; they are called awful names. The concentration on black identity works to perpetuate the very segregation that early civil rights leaders worked so hard to eliminate.The United Nations is perhaps the most egregious example of an institution becoming its own nemesis. What was the UN’s founding goal? World peace: to have nations work out their differences by diplomacy rather than war. There is arguably no war since its founding that the UN has successfully prevented, and oftentimes, it has made things worse. The same goes for its “humanitarian” causes. The world has known about the Sudan genocide for years; millions have died, and the UN has done worse than nothing: reports of UN workers raping the people they were sent to help have been scandalous. UN workers also stood idly by or fled during the Rwandan genocide. The UN was irrelevant in Cambodia, or in Iraq, or in any communist or radical-Islamic country you can name. The first relief workers on the ground after a disaster are usually privately funded Christian ministries like World Vision, Baptist World Alliance, Christian Freedom International and Gospel for Asia. The UN is so inefficient with relief, it sends supplies locals cannot use (condoms to families who are starving), or the food rots on the tarmac, or it is delivered into the hands of corrupt dictators instead of the suffering people. Imagine the craziness of sending relief to the Sudanese government, which uses it to buy weapons to attack Darfur! Millions of Africans die from malaria but the UN opposes spraying to kill the mosquitos that carry it. Millions die from AIDS but the UN opposes teaching people about the most effective prevention: abstinence. As for diplomacy, UN General Assembly meetings become soap boxes for the most radical countries to denounce the West. Since there are so many of small-country dictatorships, any voices of reason from democratic countries are often drowned out. The Security Council can never oppose totalitarian atrocities because one of the worst perpetrators, China, has veto power, as did communist Russia throughout the Cold War. The UN’s inability to act is legendary. Regardless of what you think about the Iraq war, President Bush’s coalition waited and waited for the UN to act on its own resolutions which mandated a military response to Saddam Hussein’s violations of UN rules. Coalition leaders pleaded with the UN to act on its own promises. The UN did nothing. Meanwhile, the magnitude of the scandals at the UN – oil-for-food being one of the worst in history – is breathtaking. Does anything change? Kofi Annan brought in Paul Volcker to investigate and propose reforms. Volcker found that oil-for-food was not unique, but endemic to the UN’s practices. He proposed sweeping reforms, including opportunities for outside audits. None of them were passed. After months of negotiations, the reforms were rejected by a margin of two to one! Endemic corruption has thus been validated as official UN policy. The world is now teetering under the threat of a nuclear Iran and North Korea, but the UN is essentially irrelevant, if not obstructionist in countering the threat. In sum, the greatest threat to world peace is now arguably the very institution chartered to safeguard it. For a depressing report on how bad things are in the UN, read an article by a man who knows, and who tried to fix it: former ambassador John Bolton. Writing for Imprimis April 2008, he said that any hopes that the UN could offer world peace have been completely dashed – and he gave plenty of stark examples.Yes, it is possible for institutions to become the worst enemies of the values they were created to protect. Don’t be surprised to see the defenders of Big Science behaving badly. When you see haughty, incorrigible, self-interested, dogmatic, irrational, corrupt, sneering hotheads claiming to speak for “science,” remember that other big institutions have called black white and white black. Other institutions have paid off the torturers with funds designated to help prisoners. Other institutions have poured gasoline on fires they were sent to quench, and killed the children they were sent to feed. Is there a common denominator to these reversals of values? As an exercise, check out how many are led by secular progressives embracing radical leftist ideology. At a more basic level, try human depravity. Give any depraved person or group power, and you know what power does. Each of the institutions listed above has some honest, hard-working individuals who don’t deserve the blame for what Headquarters is doing. Some of them decry the abuses but work within the institution either due to lack of alternatives or from sincere hopes to bring reform from within. A great many of the rank and file probably don’t even know what is going on. They assume an institution with a nice sounding name is doing its job, and they try to do theirs the best they know how. Maybe that’s the point. The best work is done by individuals. Science began with individuals. As an individual, you can make a difference. As an individual, you can change the world. (Visited 51 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Now that SciELO-SA is a full member of the global SciELO network, usage and citations of local published work is expected to rise. (Image: SciELO-SA) Journals are considered for inclusion in SciELO once they receive a favourable evaluation from ASSAf’s journal quality peer-review panel.(Image: Pretoria University) MEDIA CONTACTS • SciELO-SA Academy of Science of South Africa +27 12 349 6600 RELATED ARTICLES • Research output rises, papers double • Boost for knowledge economy • Tusker research goes social • Global award for SA business school • SA academic gets top science award Janine ErasmusSouth Africa’s minister of science and technology Derek Hanekom has launched the South African version of the Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO-SA). It’s a searchable full-text journal database that is completely open-access – that is, free to access and free to publish.SciELO is a boon for the local and international research community, and is expected to strengthen the scholarly journal evaluation, editing, publishing and accreditation systems in the country, according to the project’s website.The database comprises 26 peer-reviewed journals at the moment, but is expected to eventually feature at least 180 of South Africa’s 300 journals. It is part of the Brazilian SciELO project, which is driven by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (The Foundation for Research Support of the State of São Paulo, in partnership with the Latin American and Caribbean Centre on Health Sciences Information.The project is funded by the Department of Science and Technology, maintained by the Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf), and endorsed by the Department of Higher Education and Training.South Africa joined SciELO in 2009, becoming part of a group that includes Argentina, Venezuela, Portugal, Mexico, Spain, Cuba, Costa Rica, Colombia and Chile. The project is in development in Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia and Peru. Over 1 000 journals – that’s more than 433 000 articles – are available at the main SciELO portal.Each centre follows the same methodology and uses the same technology, which was developed by SciELO Brazil, the origin of the project. All sites, South Africa included, have a Portuguese, Spanish and English interface.In April 2013 SciELO-SA received certification as a fully operational collection indexed in the global SciELO portal.Over the past four years SciELO-SA had achieved the “mandatory quality criteria” needed to become a full member, said Susan Veldsman, director of ASSAf’s scholarly publishing unit.It complies with criteria such as publishing standards, periodicity, data curation and management, bandwidth and intellectual property rights, among others.Making research data more widely availableJournals are considered for inclusion in SciELO, according to the website, once they receive a favourable evaluation from ASSAf’s journal quality peer-review panel. For more information or to submit a journal for consideration, contact [email protected] Some of the publications freely accessible on SciELO-SA include Journal of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (25 issues); the Onderstepoort Journal of Veterinary Research (five issues); the South African Journal of Industrial Psychology (eight issues); the South African Journal of Science (36 issues); and Water SA (24 issues).The South African Journal of Science was the first journal to make its appearance on SciELO-SA, back in 2009. However, said Veldsman, other journals from around Africa could also be hosted on the platform, provided that they too receive a favourable evaluation from the panel.“This [platform] will result in much wider stakeholder usage and collaboration among the South African, regional and global scientific communities,” she said.Searching and sharingJournals may be searched or browsed via an alphabetic list of titles, a subject list or a search form by entering the title of the serial, publisher name, city of publication and/or subject.The interface also provides access to the full text of articles via author index or subject index, or by a search form for various elements such as author names, subject, words from the title, words from the full text, and publication year.Abstracts and full article text may be printed or shared. The sites provide usage statistics based on the number of article downloads, and impact indicators based on citations – this allows tracking of not only individual journals’ performance, but each collection as a whole. The information gathered from tracking will in turn improve the process of evaluating scholarly articles.SciELO provides dissemination tools such as the ability to send the article via email, or post a link to social media.
The Great Recession wiped out countless companies and startups, even some from the most seasoned business leaders. So why did some startups manage to not only survive, but also grow? And what business lessons have these entrepreneurs picked up along the way?Now that things are looking up again, we asked five successful entrepreneurs from the Young Entrepreneur Council (YEC) how their businesses overcame the economic low, how it’s impacted their prospects, and what lessons they gleaned from recovering.1. Move From Recovery to Expansion When we started the business in 2008, no one wanted to give us money given the economic environment and the risk of investing in a “China” business. At 26, I had two choices: Go pursue an MBA degree or push forward in starting the business.A high-quality MBA would cost more than $120,000, which was expensive given that I could start a business with less. So, with the help of friends and family, I was able to raise money to get the business off the ground.Now when we meet investors, they are much more comfortable investing with us. And not because the environment is better, but because we had four years of real-world experience and consistent growth—even though I didn’t have an MBA. —Derek Capo, Next Step China5. Have a Great Recession Operating Mentality Most of the investors I have pitched to have seen the value in the projects I am working on specifically because they see that my ideas require very little funding, have the opportunity for high returns and are very saleable.For example, Tunebash is a music app I am working on that will offer artists an intelligence platform to better connect with fans. The platform allows free streaming and targets large, untapped markets. My real estate software makes use of an antiquated real estate process of foreclosures and allows an investor to make smart decisions on the fly.If investors see you are solving a problem that would actually make money in a down economy and that you are passionate about it and know the space, then there is no reason not to invest. —Joseph Ricard, Tunebash3. Market More Strategically scott gerber AI Will Empower Leaders, Not Replace Them Yodle serves small businesses, many of whom were impacted by the recession. When the economy slows down, small business owners can struggle to keep the lights on, so affording online marketing can feel like a stretch.But as the economy recovers, consumers begin to search for more services online. This results in couple of things: better search results for small businesses and bigger advertising budgets.After the effects of the recession began to wane, Yodle saw an increase in the number of small business owners who wanted to invest in online marketing for the first time or increase their online marketing and advertising to capitalize on the larger consumer search volumes. Small businesses clearly began to focus on recovery and expansion. —Ben Rubenstein, Yodle2. Show You Can Thrive in Economic Lows Our business is providing financial support to early-stage startups. When startups are failing and new businesses aren’t being formed, that’s bad for our business.In a bit of bad timing, we started our business right after the Great Recession began, and so for the first two years, all we knew was how to operate within that environment.As time has gone by, the business environment has become less challenging. Many more companies are now looking for our services, and we are seeing a much larger number of potential clients. However, the operating mentality that we formed in the early days still exists, and the lessons we learned from that experience continue to serve as a huge benefit for us. —David Ehrenberg, Early Growth Financial Services The recession was actually was great for business in our industry. But things have changed quite a bit since then.Three or four years ago, it was a lot easier for us to make sales and cut through the clutter, and our market was eager to buy because our products help them grow their own revenues, which of course was something everyone wanted to do during the recession.Now, as things are looking better, more competition has popped up (while old competitors were filtered out by the recession), our marketing competes with more messages in more places, and our customer (small businesses) are kinda holding onto their pocketbooks because their confidence isn’t back up yet. So we’ve had to focus more on thinking smarter and being more strategic with our marketing. —Trevor Mauch, Automize4. Value Experience Over an MBA Tags:#startups Related Posts How to Cultivate the Skill of Being a Creative … How to Meet the Demands of the Socially Conscio… How Connected Communities Can Bolster Your Busi…
Burnley boss Dyche: Hendrick has much to offerby Paul Vegasa month agoSend to a friendShare the loveSean Dyche is pleased with the impact of Burnley midfielder Jeff Hendrick.The Burnley boss saw Hendrick’s late goal hand them a 1-1 draw at Brighton last time out. “I just think he can affect the game in so many different ways,” Dyche said of his midfielder.“Probably the biggest thing I’ve spoken to him about is scoring goals – adding to that side of the game.“He’s a big lad, he can head it, he can strike it as you’ve seen. He did very well.” About the authorPaul VegasShare the loveHave your say
chris daniels father upset with texasOn January 4, 2006, in one of college football’s most prestigious venues, Vince Young and the Texas Longhorns made sports history. UT’s national championship upset of Pete Carroll’s dynastic USC Trojans has been selected as the No. 34 best moment in sports history by Sports Illustrated. SI, on the epic win for the Longhorns:DATE / Jan 4, 2006 LOCATION / Rose Bowl | Pasadena, Calif.MOMENT / The 2006 BCS Championship featured a pair of unbeaten powerhouses, but in the end, it was Texas and QB Vince Young who stood tallest. Young, who accounted for a record 467 yards of offense, rushed in the game-winning score with 19 seconds remaining to lift the Longhorns over the USC Trojans 41-38. IMPACT / Players from this instant classic dominated the NFL draft, with four of them going in the top 10 (Young went No. 3). An NCAA investigation would eventually conclude USC’s Reggie Bush received illegal benefits while at the school, causing the Trojan to vacate their 12 wins from that season.Texas is one of eight college football moments included in SI’s Top 100 list. Only “The Play” from the 1982 Cal-Stanford game edges it out from the sport. We can’t argue with that. Vince Young’s performance was unforgettable.For the full list, click here.[Sports Illustrated]More: The 10 CFB Teams That Could Go Undefeated In 2016 >>>
The 2016 NCAA Tournament field was unveiled Sunday night, meaning that for the next three days, college basketball fans will be spending their time filling out brackets. We here at College Spun have a different kind of challenge for you, however. We want you to help us determine the most annoying person in sports media. We’ve gone ahead and nominated 64 different candidates.A few of the nominees – like Barstool Sports, Saturday Down South and SB Nation – are actually entities, rather than people. But you get the gist. We’ve also put ourselves on here, just in case you think that we’re actually the most annoying.Let’s get started. You can vote on the Clay Travis region below:The 64 Most Annoying People In Sports MediaVote On The Clay Travis Region Below1. Clay Travis vs. 16. Jim RomeRome isn’t burning anymore, but Clay’s hot takes do enough melting for this entire field. More Annoying: Clay Travis vs. Jim Rome?2. Dick Vitale vs. 15. Jim NantzImpossible to fall asleep when Vitale is on the broadcast. Impossible not to when it’s Nantz. More Annoying: Dick Vitale or Jim Nantz?3. Doug Gottlieb vs. 14. Ron JaworskiSyracuse fans, among others, can’t stand Gottlieb. Jaws’ shtick is played out too. More Annoying: Doug Gottlieb or Ron Jaworski?4. Keith Olbermann vs. 13. Chris ChaseOlbermann can’t figure out how to play nice in the sandbox. Chase is infamous for going against the grain. More Annoying: Keith Olbermann or Chris Chase?5. Erin Andrews vs. 12. Lee CorsoSome think Andrews looks annoyed all the time. Some don’t like Corso’s shenanigans each Saturday. More Annoying: Erin Andrews or Lee Corso?6. Kirk Herbstreit vs. 11. SB Nation’s Twitter MafiaHerbstreit gets it from basically every fan base, regardless of which teams he picks. Spencer Hall, Ryan Nanni, Jason Kirk and Rodger Sherman are basically all the same person. More Annoying: Kirk Herbstreit or SB Nation’s Twitter Mafia?7. Max Kellerman vs. 10. Barstool Sports GuysWe’re still not sure how Kellerman weaseled his way back onto ESPN. And you either love or hate Barstool. More Annoying: Max Kellerman or Barstool Sports?8. Rick Reilly vs. 9. Todd McShayReilly had it first on Twitter, we’re told. McShay’s back-and-forth with Kiper could be its own category. More Annoying: Rick Reilly or Todd McShay?Vote On The Stephen A. Smith Region Here >>>
OSU junior guard Ameryst Alston (14) goes up for a lay up during a game Nov. 16 against St. Francis at the Schottenstein Center. OSU won, 113-97. Credit: Tessa DiTirro / Lantern photographerAfter splitting the first two games of the season, the Ohio State women’s basketball team will look to gain momentum against a physical No. 24 Georgia team.After losing on the road to Virginia and beating St. Francis (Pa.) in a game where the Buckeyes scored 113 points, the Buckeyes are now focused on the visiting Bulldogs. Junior guard Ameryst Alston said she recognizes that the Bulldogs are a quality team.“Last year, I thought they were a pretty good team,” Alston said. “They have really good guard play and some pretty good post, so overall as a team, I think they’re pretty good.”OSU lost, 53-49, on the road last season to the Bulldogs. Coach Kevin McGuff said the team struggled offensively in that game and wasn’t able to make enough plays toward the end.“We had a hard time putting the ball in the basket,” McGuff said. “It was kind of an ugly game I think for both teams last year, and they made more plays down the stretch than we did, which is why they won and deserved to win.”The Buckeyes shot just 14.3 percent from the field in the second half of last year’s game and were six for 11 from the free throw line. Alston said she blames the loss on a lack of focus from the team.“It came down to a little mental toughness,” Alston said. “I think overall we played really well as a team, and it was just a couple missed assignments.”OSU will look to gain an advantage in the post against Georgia. Freshman forward Alexa Hart, who had eight blocks and 11 rebounds in the game against St. Francis, said she plans to use her agility to be a threat on defense.“From what the coaches have been saying, their post players are really physical,” Hart said. “I plan to use my speed to get around them and still be able to protect the basket at all times.”McGuff added that he’s been impressed with what he’s seen from Hart when she’s outside of the paint.“She’s done a little more away from the basket than I thought she’d be able to do,” McGuff said. “That’s what probably surprised me the most about her, but it’s great.”The Buckeyes will also look to redshirt-sophomore forward Kalpana Beach to provide help in the post. Beach, who returned to the team this year after suffering ACL injuries in each of the last two seasons, had 12 points and nine rebounds in the win against St. Francis.“I’m just really excited for her to be able to have the opportunity to be out on the court,” McGuff said. “She’s worked incredibly hard to put herself in this position so I’m just really happy for her that she’s out there and she’s contributing.”McGuff said he’s seen Beach work hard in the first games of the season and expects her to be back to her old self sooner than later.“You can’t really get that back until you do it in a game setting,” McGuff said. “Already since the scrimmage, the exhibition and the two regular season games, she’s made progress, and I think she’s really kind of on the fast track of getting back to 100 percent very quickly.”For the game against the Bulldogs, McGuff said the team will need to play tough if it wants to win.“They play really hard and they’re really physical so we’re going to have to bring our hard hats for 40 minutes to compete against them,” McGuff said.OSU is scheduled to play Georgia on Wednesday at 7 p.m. at the Schottenstein Center.
Related Items: Facebook Twitter Google+LinkedInPinterestWhatsApp#Bahamas, December 8, 2017 – Nassau – With two (2) days left before the registration process ends for the Citizen Security and Justice Programme (CSJP) Employability Survey, the Bahamas Department of Labour along with the Ministry of National Security makes final efforts to ensure that as many at-risk, unemployed youth between the ages of 16-29 years of age are able to fully embrace this opportunity for both soft skills and technical skills training and job placement.The launch of the programme signals a step in the right direction towards an alternate approach to crime reduction and employability, targeted specifically towards youth that fall in the requisite categories. The demographic of young persons (Bahamian or Permanent Residents) between the ages of 16-29 years old, who are currently unemployed and have not completed high school is the target grouping.Patricia Rolle, Department of Labour, Public Employment Services Officer noted that while the focus areas include Kemp Road, East Street, Englerston, Bain & Grants Town, Yellow Elder, Fox Hill, Nassau Village, and Centreville persons from all areas in New Providence are eligible to apply once they meet the criteria.Chet Pratt, Programme Consultant announced today that an online survey link is now accessible to the public who wish to register, but may not have the ability to physically visit the Department of Labour Offices at Rosetta Street or Robinson Road. The survey link is www.surveymonkey.com/r/csjpemployabilityThe Citizen Security and Justice Programme (CSJP), facilitated by the Ministry of National Security in partnership with the Department of Labour is funded by a $20 million loan from theInter-American Development Bank (IDB). The programme seeks to address four (4) major pillars which include Community Crime Prevention, Employability and Training of At-Risk Youth, Improving the Efficiency of the Court System and methods of reducing the recidivism rate through a parole system. Press Release: Ministry of Labour Facebook Twitter Google+LinkedInPinterestWhatsApp