This editorial seeks to provide a background to the decision of Justice Ian Chang in the case of Cedric Richardson v the Attorney General of Guyana and the Speaker of the National Assembly, which the Chancellor of the Judiciary is reviewing on appeal from the present AG of Guyana. It does not comment on the merits or demerits of the ruling.The Plaintiff, Richardson, essentially sought to determine the extent and nature of the power of Parliament to amend the Constitution of Guyana. While he conceded the Guyana Constitution, like all modern constitutions, made provisions for amendments (here by Art 164 (2)), if the change sought alters the fundamental structure of the Constitution, this must be approved by the people through a referendum rather than the 2/3 vote of their representatives as stipulated by the Constitution.While Guyana acknowledges the Constitution as the “Supreme Law” of the land, ultimate sovereignty still resides with the people, and even the Constitution cannot abridge this. Richardson contended that Act 17 of 2001 placed restrictions on their right to choose specific candidates and such a restriction on their freedom to choose could only be approved by the people themselves.What must be made clear from the onset is, contrary to what the media insists on labelling the “Third Term” appeal, the judgement includes three other restraints that the objected-to constitutional change of 2001 placed on the republican rights of Guyanese citizens to vote for a candidate of their choice. These were succinctly spelled out as follows by Justice Chang:“The purported alteration of Article 90 by Act No 17 of 2001, in substance and effect, undoubtedly diminishes the democratic rights of the electorate in electing a person of their own choice as President, by excluding from presidential candidature(1) Citizens of Guyana not resident in Guyana on Nomination Day.(2) Citizens of Guyana resident in Guyana on Nomination Day but who have not been continuously resident in Guyana for seven years prior to that date.(3) Citizens of Guyana by registration.(4) Citizens of Guyana who have served for two terms as President.As such, the purported alteration by Act No 17 of 2001 purports to curtail the people’s electoral democratic choices and to offend the declaration in Article 1 that Guyana is a democratic state – in which the sovereignty resides in the people (Article 9). This is precisely why, for the purpose of any alteration of Articles 1 and 9, the voice of 2/3 of the elected members of the National Assembly is not the voice of the people.”Justice Chang’s interpretation of the constitutional provision rested on “normative” substantive republican values rather than the older, procedurally-driven Liberal view of Constitutions as merely “descriptive”. While he cited two cases – the Belize case Bowen v The Attorney General BZ 2001 SC 2, and the Indian case Kesavananda Bharati v the State of Kerala (1974) 1 SCC (Jour) 3to support his ruling, it appears there was a refusal by his critics to deconstruct the difference between the two approaches and to accept as the Indian Supreme Court did, “while there was no implied limit to constitutional amendment, the very nature of the word “amend” meant that Parliament could not abrogate or destroy the foundation or the basic structure of the Constitution.”In the Liberal procedurally-driven perspective on Constitutions, the protection of the negative freedom of the citizens, adumbrated as “fundamental rights”, against the Leviathan state, is paramount, But as stated by the theorist Jurgen Habermas, in the substantive republican view, “…the state’s raison d’être does not lie primarily in the protection of equal private rights but in the guarantee of an inclusive opinion- and will-formation in which free and equal citizens reach an understanding on which goals and norms lie in the equal interest of all.”It is this insistence that the will of the people must be untrammelled in the exercise of their positive freedom, that Justice Chang’s ruling rests. Ultimately, the ruling asserts: “Power to the people.”
However, a Kisumu court put on hold the execution of the same after a petition by Muhoroni and Sofapaka fans over their demotion on club licensing grounds, but the same was thrown out after the orders were vacated.But KPL have said they have not received the vacating orders from the court.“As up to now, we have not been served with the orders to release fixtures. We can only do so when we receive the relevant documents,” KPL CEO Jack Oguda told Capital Sport.Football Kenya Federation president in an earlier interview had said they had written to KPL asking them to release the fixtures. The Sofapaka and Muhoroni case will be heard at the Sports Tribunal on Thursday afternoon.Nairobi City Stars players walk off after their match in a past SPL/PHOTO/Raymond MakhayaMeanwhile, attention will be on the National Super League which will have 19 teams with one, Oserian having been demoted on club licensing ground. The released fixtures have also included two extra slots which will be filled once the case at the tribunal is determined.Nairobi City Stars will start their life in the second tier in Mombasa when they play Modern Coast Rangers at the Mbaraki Complex. The Kawangware based side, demoted last season from the top tier have enlisted an experienced technical bench as they look to make a swift return to the KPL.The coaching team will be led by immediate former Ulinzi Stars head coach Robert Matano, deputized by two former Ulinzi Stars players Tom Ogweno and Hussein Mohammed.Chairman Peter Jabuya is confident the team will return to top flight in 2018.“We have put together a very strong technical bench and an equally strong playing unit so I am very confident that next season we will be back to the league,” Jabuya said.Ushuru who were relegated alongside City Stars will have to wait until March 11 for their first match of the season when they will host newly promoted Administration Police FC at the Camp Toyoyo Ground.NSL Weekend Fixtures:Saturday: Nakuru All Stars v Kibera Black Stars (Afraha Stadium), Administration Police FC v Bidco United (Kenyatta Stadium, Machakos), Agro Chemical v Kenya Police (Kisumu), Isibania v Team X (Awendo)Sunday: GFE 105 v Team Y (Kip Keino), Nairobi Stima v Mosca, Wazito v Talanta (Camp Toyoyo), St Josephs v Palos (Afraha), Modern Coast v Nairobi City Stars (Mbaraki Complex).0Shares0000(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today) 0Shares0000Nzoia United’s Kalistus Machasio closely guards KCB winger Benjamin Chaka.PHOTO/Timothy Olobulu.NAIROBI, Kenya, Mar 1 – The second tier National Super League will kick-off this weekend with nine matches on the cards, even as the country continues to wait for the release of the Kenyan Premier League fixtures.The Sports Disputes Tribunal had earlier directed the KPL to release a 16-team fixture without neither Muhoroni Youth and Sofapaka nor Vihiga United and KCB who are fighting for the two slots to the top tier.
Plans for a memorial service in the Bay Area were pending. JOSHUA TREE – Jeff Getty, a prominent AIDS activist who made history in 1995 when he underwent a controversial transplant of baboon bone marrow to treat the disease, has died. He was 49. Getty died Monday of heart failure, following treatment for cancer and a long struggle with AIDS, at the High Desert Medical Center in Joshua Tree, where he moved from the San Francisco Bay Area in 2002, said Ken Klueh, his partner of 26 years. Before antiviral drug combinations were used successfully by AIDS patients, Getty grabbed headlines in December 1995 for becoming the first person ever to receive a bone marrow cell transfusion from one species to another. His transplant at San Francisco General Hospital used cells taken from a baboon, with the hope that the primate’s natural AIDS resistance would take root in his own system. The procedure, ultimately unsuccessful, sparked furious debate over the moral and medical implications of cross-species transplants. 160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set!
Julia Sowders Possession of Methamphetamine, Level 6 FelonyPossession of Drug Paraphernalia, C Misdemeanor Two from Owenburg were arrested for dealing meth during a recent traffic stop.Arrested were:Victor J. Roberts Dealing Methamphetamine, Level 4 FelonyPossession of Methamphetamine, Level 6 FelonyPossession of Drug Paraphernalia, C Misdemeanor On July 10th, Indiana State Trooper Caleb Garvin and Sgt. Greg Day, both of the ISP Bloomington District A.C.E.S. were conducting a traffic stop along SR 54 just west of Avoca on a 2007 Kia passenger car.The driver was identified as Victor J. Roberts, 32, of Owensburg, IN and the female passenger was identified as Julia (Jacobs) Sowders, 39, also of Owensburg.Troopers immediately detected indicators of criminal activity.While Trooper Garvin was speaking to Roberts on the driver’s side of the Kia, Sgt. Day observed Sowders reach in to her pants and attempt to hide a fairly large bag. Sgt. Day then opened the passenger door and asked Sowders to produce the bag.Sowders complied and when she did so, Sgt. Day observed a smaller plastic baggie with a crystal like substance sticking out of it.Further investigation revealed approximately 5 grams of methamphetamine packaged in baggies for sale, items of drug paraphernalia, digital scales, and several empty smaller baggies commonly used for drug packaging.Both Roberts and Sowders were arrested and incarcerated at the Lawrence County Jail.Anyone with information regarding illegal drug activity is encouraged to contact the Indiana State Police Bloomington District at 812-332-4411.All Suspects Are Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty in a Court of Law
frederic lardinois The Dos and Don’ts of Brand Awareness Videos A Comprehensive Guide to a Content Audit Tags:#news#twitter#web Facebook is Becoming Less Personal and More Pro… Guide to Performing Bulk Email Verification According to a group of researchers at Korea’s Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Twitter is not a very social network. After analyzing over 41 million user profiles and 1.47 billion follower/following relationships, the researchers concluded that only 22% of all connections on Twitter are reciprocal. On Flickr, this number is closer to 68% and on Yahoo 360 it’s 84%. The large majority (78%) of connections between users on Twitter are one-way relationships.What’s even more interesting than the small number of user pairs is that 68% of all Twitter users aren’t followed by a single person they are following. As the researchers rightly note, this makes Twitter more like a broadcast medium than a social network. Given that Twitter was set up for these kinds of non-reciprocal follower/following relationships, it doesn’t come as a surprise that many users would use Twitter to follow breaking news channels and celebrities. The fact that almost 80% of these relationships are one-way relationships, however, does come as a surprise and hints at how Twitter’s mainstream users use the service more as a news medium than as a social network.What is Twitter, a Social Network or a News Media? Get the Raw DataIf you would like to analyze this data yourself, but don’t want to crawl 41 million Twitter accounts yourself, the Korean team also created two torrent files: one (very) large file that includes all the 41 million accounts and connections and a second file that only includes the data for Twitter users with over 10,000 followers. Related Posts
CCH Tax Day ReportWolters Kluwer is hosting a live two-hour webinar, Manufacturers: Sales and Use Tax Issues, on Wednesday, September 28, 2016, at 1 p.m. Eastern; noon Central; 11 a.m. Mountain; 10 a.m. Pacific. Led by Michigan-based state and local tax practitioner Michael Bannasch, CPA, M.S.T., this insightful session will explore the complex issues and problems that sales and use taxes pose for manufacturers doing business in a multistate or single state tax environment. You will receive practical tips and insights from a veteran practitioner to help you handle some of the vexing sales and use tax problems encountered by manufacturers. Time will be provided for you to ask questions to our presenter during the presentation.Program topics include the following:– Theoretical concept of sales/use tax input exemptions– States that are more liberal or more restrictive with their manufacturing exemptions– When the manufacturing process begins and ends– Exemptions for raw materials– Exemptions for equipment, supplies and consumables– Exemptions for utilities consumed by a manufacturer– Whether the exemption can extend to vendors/suppliers doing business with the manufacturer– Audit trendsThe learning objectives include the following:– Apply specific sales and use tax issues to taxpayers in the manufacturing industry– Describe special situations and areas that can potentially trigger problems– Identify potential opportunities manufacturers can consider to reduce sales and use tax liabilitiesRegistration can be completed online at http://www.cchwebinars.com or by calling 1-800-775-7654. The fee is $129 for a single user. Each registered user for this webinar also receives a complimentary issue of CCH’s Journal of State Taxation in electronic format.
The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment More than 150 prominent scientists and 75 scientific groups from around the world today took a stand against using impact factors, a measure of how often a journal is cited, to gauge the quality of an individual’s work. They say researchers should be judged by the content of their papers, not where the studies are published. Journal impact factors, calculated by the company Thomson Reuters, were first developed in the 1950s to help libraries decide which journals to order. Yet, impact factors are now widely used to assess the performance of individuals and research institutions. The metric “has become an obsession” that “warp[s] the way that research is conducted, reported, and funded,” said a group of scientists organized by the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) in a press release. Particularly in China and India, they say, postdocs think that they should try to publish their work in only journals with high impact factors. The problem, the scientists say, is that the impact factor is flawed. For example, it doesn’t distinguish primary research from reviews; it can be skewed by a few highly cited papers; and it dissuades journals from publishing papers in fields such as ecology that are cited less often than, say, biomedical studies. Sign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*) In what they’ve dubbed the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA)—a document drafted last December at the annual ASCB meeting and posted online today—the scientists write: “It is … imperative that scientific output is measured accurately and evaluated wisely.” Their 18 recommendations urge the research community to “eliminate” the use of journal impact factors in funding, hiring, and promotion decisions. Signatories include Science Editor-in-Chief Bruce Alberts (see his editorial); AAAS, Science’s publisher; dozens of other editors, journals, and societies; as well as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Wellcome Trust, which are major research charities. “I see this as an insurrection. We don’t want to be at the mercy of this anymore,” says ASCB Executive Director Stefano Bertuzzi. He adds that the scientists aren’t criticizing Thomson Reuters. “We’re not attacking them in any way,” he says. Instead, the resolution puts the blame on the research community for “the misuse of impact factors.” Bertuzzi says that his group realizes they won’t change things overnight: “I see this as the beginning of a conversation.” Still, he says, there are already signs of change. For example, National Cancer Institute Director Harold Varmus is planning a pilot test that will ask researchers submitting biosketches with their grant proposals to describe their most important work instead of simply listing their key papers. Varmus said recently that he wants researchers to stop thinking that they must publish in only “certain hyper-prestigious journals.” (In a similar move, the National Science Foundation recently changed its biosketch guidelines to emphasize “products” such as data sets, not just papers.) Thomson Reuters did not respond to a request for comment. *Update, 11:05 a.m., 17 May: Thomson Reuters responded to the DORA in this statement, agreeing that: “No one metric can fully capture the complex contributions scholars make to their disciplines, and many forms of scholarly achievement should be considered.” The company notes that the impact factor “is singled-out in the Declaration not for how it is calculated, but for how it is used.”
AdvertisementProtea left-arm pacer Beuran Hendricks and skipper Quinton de Kock helped South Africa draw level with a nine-wicket win at the M Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru. Hendricks in particular, as his tight spell of 2-14 didn’t let the hosts take a handful of runs. Quinton de Kock led with example with his unbeaten 79 and Temba Bavuma (27*) wrapped up the match with 4.1 overs still left to play.Surprisingly India chose to bat, something no other team did in six previous T20Is at this ground. But it was a calculated risk because Virat Kohli said during the toss that, they wanted to improve on their weaker suit which is setting targets and defending.However, dew played a huge role as batting during the second innings became easier. de Kock an expert on these conditions through club cricket was in terrific form as he finished on 79 off 52 balls.Earlier, India tried to make an excellent start, with Rohit Sharma punishing Rabada in the second over while Shikhar Dhawan stepped up to increase the speed of the game during the Powerplay restrictions. Dhawan then fell for 36 in the eighth over and his partner Rohit had been dismissed before that by Beuran Hendricks for the third time in T20 cricket. With India at 63 for 2 the middle-order of Kohli, Rishabh Pant, Shreyas Iyer, the Pandya brothers, and Ravindra Jadeja just managed 70 from 85 balls. Spinners Tabraiz Shamsi and Bjorn Fortuin disturbed the Indian batting through serious tight bowling, and the seamers Rabada and Hendricks began to vary with their pace regularly as scoring runs became a problem for India who struggled to 134 for 9 in their innings.The teams will now begin the tests series at Pune on 2nd October.Advertisement
Rishabh Pant grabbed the Emerging Player of the Tournament award at the Indian Premier League 2018 for his sensational batting performance in the season.Pant was the star of the tournament. He was retained by Delhi Daredevils for a fee of Rs 8 crore and for that, he had some great stats to his name.Pant finished the season at second place with 684 runs from 14 matches at an average of 52.61. Each of his run cost DD Rs 1.16 lakh. Sunrisers Hyderabad skipper Kane Williamson top the batting charts with 735 runs to win the Orange Cap.”I enjoyed the whole tournament; but it didn’t go well for the team though. When you play a lot of matches you get confidence and that helps me and the team. Last year I was trying to hit a lot of sixes, but in this season I’ve stopped my instincts from taking over,” Pant said after receiving the award. Rishabh Pant received the award for the Emerging Player of the IPL 2018 season. (Photo: BCCI)Also read – DD paid Pant Rs 1.10 lakh per run, RR shelled out Rs 6.37 lakh for StokesPant smashed a century and five fifties in the XIth edition but that was not enough as his franchise finished at the bottom of the eight-team points table.Delhi managed to win only 5 of their 14 matches to accumulate 10 points.The 20-year-old had earlier became the first batsman to score more than 100 boundaries in this year’s IPL.Also read – IPL 2018: Rishabh Pant bosses dominating show by Indian wicketkeepersadvertisementPant finished the season with 37 sixes and 68 fours as his tally of runs is also the most by a Delhi batsman this season. He has also hit five fifties at an average of 52.61.The 20-year-old also became the highest scoring Indian in the history of the IPL when he struck an unbeaten 128 off 63 balls vs SRH earlier this season.Also read – Rishabh Pant finishes with 684 runs, smashes IPL recordsThis is also the most runs scored by a wicket-keeper in any edition of the IPL so far. The second highest was by Robin Uthappa with 660 runs for Kolkata Knight Riders in 2014.KL Rahul of Kings XI Punjab scored 659 runs from 14 games this season while Jos Buttler and Dinesh Karthik have 548 and 510 runs for Rajasthan Royals (2018) and Mumbai Indians (2013) respectively.