0Shares0000Chelsea will face Southampton in the semisLEICESTER, United Kingdom, Mar 18 – Pedro Rodriguez came off the bench to halt Chelsea’s slide with an extra-time winner in a 2-1 victory at Leicester on Sunday to reach the FA Cup semi-finals.Chelsea will now face Southampton in the last four while Manchester United will take on Tottenham Hotspur in a mouth watering clash. Alvaro Morata’s first goal since Boxing Day on his return to the Chelsea starting line-up put the visitors on course to bounce back from their Champions League elimination at the hands of Barcelona in midweek.However, Jamie Vardy’s equaliser 15 minutes from time made them do it the hard way in an extra 30 minutes.Yet, for all Antonio Conte’s complaints this season about his side’s strength in depth, the Italian was able to call on Pedro to turn the game in Chelsea’s favour when he headed home former Leicester favourite N’Golo Kante’s cross.Chelsea had lost three of their past four matches to fall behind in the race for a top-four finish in the Premier League as well as their European exit.But victory does at least keep their chances of silverware to end the season alive.Chelsea will meet Southampton in the last four, while Manchester United face Tottenham Hotspur for a place in the final.Both Morata and Pedro had a point to prove after being left out of the Spain squad on Friday just three months ahead of the World Cup.Morata was recalled for just his second start since the sides last met in a 0-0 draw at Stamford Bridge back in January.And after a quiet start, Chelsea’s club record £70 million buy from Real Madrid was presented with his first big chance of the afternoon when he was brilliantly picked out by Marcos Alonso’s low cross, but his shot was far too close to Kasper Schmeichel.– Morata ends drought –Chelsea’s Alvaro MorataMorata headed another half-chance from a teasing Willian cross over and then hit the outside of the post from the narrowest of angles.The goal he craved finally arrived three minutes before half-time, but much of the credit must go to Willian who surged through the heart of the Leicester midfield on the counter-attack before feeding Morata.And Morata coolly clipped the ball beyond the advancing Schmeichel with an assuredness unbefitting of a striker who had gone 13 games without a goal.Despite going in front, Conte still withdrew Tiemoue Bakayoko at half-time after another awful 45 minutes for the Frenchman in a desperately disappointing debut season in English football following a £40 million move from Monaco.The visitors were happy to take their chances on the counter-attack in the second period as they began to feel the after-effects of their run around at Barcelona in midweek.Leicester’s search for an equaliser was largely laboured and, even when a big chance did arise, Vardy headed wastefully over when completely unmarked inside the area.However, the England international made amends 15 minutes from time when he forced the ball home at the third attempt after Vicente Iborra’s first two efforts were blocked and then saved by Willy Caballero.Only a fine low save from Caballero prevented Vardy from turning the tie completely around eight minutes later as both sides settled for extra time.Crucially, Conte was able to refresh his side as Pedro, Gary Cahill and Olivier Giroud were all introduced in the first half of extra time.And it was Pedro who proved the match winner in unfamiliar fashion as he rose to outjump Schmeichel and nod into an unguarded net.0Shares0000(Visited 1 times, 1 visits today)
The May 19 issue of Nature1 printed seven letters responding to its editorial about the intelligent design movement (see 04/27/2005 entry). They were all critical of ID. Not one even tolerated Nature’s suggestion that scientists try to help students integrate their faith with science. Apparently, last month’s editorial was not sufficiently vicious against ID, says Rob Crowther on Evolution News. Crowther knows that at least one letter favorable to ID was not printed: the one by Stephen Meyer, interviewed in the April 27 article, who wrote in to correct some misconceptions (see it at Discovery Institute).1Correspondence, Nature 435, 275 (19 May 2005) | doi: 10.1038/435275a.OK, since some readers are intimidated when Big Science raises its collective voice against anything, let’s examine this correspondence. First, we don’t know how many readers wrote responses, and of those, how many were pro vs. con. Since Nature was born as a pro-Darwin mouthpiece (see 03/04/2004 commentary), it is not surprising the editors would continue the propaganda campaign of associating Charlie with science and anything else with foolishness. Second, scientists are fallible. The majority has been wrong before, often strenuously, sometimes for long periods of time. Third, scientists can be woefully ignorant of issues outside their specialties; in fact, one of the writers (Roy, below) admits it. This means that a molecular biologist or geneticist may know a lot about a particular molecule or gene but very little about intelligent design theory and the history and philosophy of science except what his liberal Democrat ivory-tower colleagues in academia tell him or her (see 12/02/2004 entry). They may be oblivious to the fact that their work rests on the shoulders of centuries of creationists and believers in design (see online book). What onlookers must do is get past the hot air, bluffing and bandwagon tactics of these selectively-printed letters and evaluate the strength of the arguments. See if you are impressed with what any of these self-styled Darwin champions have to say:Jerry Coyne (U of Chicago) uses the word science or scientist 17 times in 3 paragraphs, but really means materialism. Substituting in the correct word makes his whole point fall apart, i.e., “scientists” have no duty to help “religious” people come to terms with “science” – recast as: materialists have no duty to help non-materialists come to terms with materialism. By perpetuating the either-or fallacy of science vs. religion, Coyne contributes nothing to the discussion. Remember how Coyne flip-flopped in the 07/05/2002 entry?David Leaf (Western Washington U): this letter is all about politics and strategy for fighting ID. He thinks high schoolers are too dumb to understand the controversy, because they are “just learning the basics of science” (read: materialism). He recommends waiting to allow students to think until they have been thoroughly indoctrinated by their junior or senior year of college. (In the film Icons of Evolution, a high school student takes offense at the suggestion they can’t handle the controversy. He points out that evolution is taught to kindergartners. “If we can’t handle it, we shouldn’t be in high school,” he quips.)Chris Miller (Brandeis U): no merit in this letter, either; he just perpetuates the dysteleology argument with a presumably witty remark about Tinkerbell in the kitchen, “Evolution is a short-order cook, not a watchmaker.” Read the 05/18/2005 entry again, and the 03/11/2005 commentary.Douglas Yu (East Anglia U): perpetuates the non-overlapping magisteria science vs. religion stereotype, making the odd claim that “ID actively undermines the basis of Christianity.” Presumably Darwinistic materialism does not. He defines all of Christianity in terms of the advice to doubting Thomas, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Talk about a quote out of context (see half truth). Jesus often urged his disciples to follow the evidence, not engage in blind faith (and especially not human tradition). Thomas should have followed all the overwhelming prior evidence he had rather than demanding more physical proof. Jesus meant that future disciples would not have the benefit of his bodily presence. It does not follow that they had no evidence or should have believed out of ignorance.Rustum Roy (Penn State) equates ID with the ignorance of different cultures or belief systems, and advocates a relax and stay-the-course strategy. “Ham-fisted efforts will simply alienate much larger numbers of people from the rest of science,” he says, so just treat ID like you would those who are ignorant or illiterate. Even for scientists, “amazing ignorance” of things outside their specialties does little harm, he argues. Maybe if they ignore ID it will go away. What if it doesn’t? Again, no effort to understand or answer the case for ID was offered.Michael Lynch (Indiana U) pounds the nail about ID being equivalent to intellectual laziness: i.e., just giving up and saying “the Designer made it that way.” That didn’t seem to be an obstacle for James Joule (see Joule’s own words) and many other great scientists (see also von Braun’s own words); on the contrary, their fascination with God’s design was their motivation to do good science. Lynch also tries to distance evolution from dependence only on natural selection – interesting admission that Charlie’s famous mechanism is not omnipotent, but then what naturalistic mechanism can produce a wing or an eye? (see 05/15/2005 attempt). Lastly, he repeats the faulty analogy that evolution is not just a theory, but a fact like respiration or digestion. Surprisingly, Lynch touts evolution as the most quantitative field in biology, and suggests that teaching evolution will help students gain the mathematical skills necessary to compete in our technical world. Is this a record for non-sequitur density per paragraph?Dan Graur (U of Houston) embarrassed himself with a senseless rant, equating ID with “flat-Earthers, tea-leaf readers, astrologers, geocentrists and phlogiston theorists” who, like ID (he thinks), “cannot publish their studies in respectable journals.” This guy is clueless; the egg is on Nature’s face for printing it, unless their intention was to make ID look good by contrast. Jonathan Wells on Discovery Institute shouldn’t have had to give it the dignity of a response.So thank you, Nature, for giving us a sample of your best and brightest Darwin defenders taking on intelligent design. If this collection of ridicule, straw man arguments, loaded words, false dichotomies, big lies, equivocation and pure ignorance of the issues is the best the Darwin Party can offer, then all ID must do is stand back and watch evolutionism implode. Just don’t let them try to delay the inevitable by letting their illogic and ignorance go unchallenged.Suggested reading: The Design Revolution by William Dembski. This 2-PhD mathematician/philosopher answers typical objections to intelligent design, including all those of the above challengers.(Visited 10 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest By Leisa Boley Hellwarth, a dairy farmer and attorney near CelinaOn Oct. 3, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments in New Prime v. Oliveira, No. 17-340. While this is not an agricultural case, it is an important matter that impacts all of us, whether it is through increased transportation costs (if Oliveira prevails) or costs society bears from poorly paid workers (if New Prime prevails). Oliveira is a long-haul trucker with New Prime, although the trucking company considers him an independent contractor not an employee. That means any issues regarding pay disputes must be handled by arbitration according to New Prime.Arbitration is favored by companies, including New Prime, as it is streamlined and less expensive than litigation. Plaintiffs like Oliveira, however, dislike the practice because it denies them their day in court, and arbitration is viewed as less impartial. Furthermore, arbitration may be much less convenient for the worker in terms of location and time.New Prime, Inc. is a national trucking company that recruits and trains new drivers through an apprenticeship program. Student apprentices participating in this program are unpaid, except during one phase of the program when they receive 14 cents per mile driven. New Prime waives the tuition of student apprentices who agree to work for New Prime for one year after completing the program.After Dominic Oliveira successfully completed the apprenticeship program, New Prime encouraged him to become an independent contractor and referred him to other entities with offices in the same building and owned by the same company as New Prime to help him form a limited liability company named Hallmark Trucking LLC and to secure a truck. Oliveira, through Hallmark, signed an Independent Contractor Agreement with New Prime. The contract specified that there was no employer-employee relationship between Oliveira and New Prime, and that Oliveira was an independent contractor. The contract also contained an arbitration clause.Oliveira alleges New Prime under paid him and exercised such control over him that he was unable to work for other companies. He stopped driving for New Prime as an independent contractor. He did, however, later rejoin New Prime as a company driver. Dissatisfied with the pay as a company driver as well, Oliveira sued New Prime in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a putative class action proceeding. Oliveira alleged that New Prime had failed to pay minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri minimum wage statute. He also claimed breach of contract or unjust enrichment.New Prime’s apprenticeship program enables the company to put two drivers in a truck, one unpaid, and allow New Prime’s trucks to remain on the road for longer periods of time. While the apprentice does gain new skills and knowledge as a truck driver, he also incurs liability for training and equipment that is only forgiven if he goes to work for the company. If he leaves the company as an unhappy contractor before the apprenticeship charges are fulfilled, New Prime will pursue him for thousands of dollars for training and New Prime will fight hard to prevent the case from getting to court in the first place, which is what transpired in this case and why the Supreme Court is now deciding the outcome.New Prime invoked the Federal Arbitration Act and insists that Oliveira is forced to arbitrate his claim. To date, Oliveira has mostly prevailed with his claims in the lower courts. The major issue seems to be the meaning of “contracts of employ” which is language from 1925 and the days of President Calvin Coolidge.On Oct. 3 when oral arguments were heard by the Supreme Court, only eight justices were on the Court, and since Oliveira prevailed in the lower court, he only needs four votes to tip the scales of justice in his favor.Trucking companies claim a decision in favor of Oliveira will lead to a significant increase in transportation costs. Those in support of Oliveira, however, claim this case is fundamentally about whether companies that routinely violate the law — in this case by underpaying their workers who are called “independent contractors” can use that law breaking to deny working people access to the courts.Independent contractor agreements are common in the agricultural industry, namely vertical integration grower contracts. Anyone signing an independent contractor agreement might want to watch for the Supreme Court’s decision in New Prime v. Oliveira.
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest Leave a CommentThe Ohio Farm Bureau Federation (OFBF) is seeking three individuals to serve as interns for the Ohio State Fair Land and Living Exhibit in 2019. The interns will assist OFBF in hiring and providing direction (with OFBF staff assistance) to State Fair ambassadors. All interns will be responsible for planning, executing and staffing the exhibit at the Ohio State Fair. This program provides the opportunity to interact with many leaders in Ohio agriculture and Ohio government.Intern ResponsibilitiesIn cooperation with the other interns:● Assist OFBF staff with Land and Living exhibit design and implementation. Work in conjunction with exhibit partners, contractors and Ohio Exposition Commission staff on the development of exhibit budget, educational components, construction timeline, and actual exhibit design. ● Coordinate construction efforts with Ohio Exposition Center staff and contractors. Assignments of specific responsibilities will be assigned to team members. ● Coordinate staffing of Land and Living during the Ohio State Fair. Staffing includes OFBF staff, allied industry groups, and volunteers. Includes scheduling and training of staff and the development of a daily procedure manual. ● Coordinate media relations with OFBF and Ohio Expositions Center staff. In conjunction with the OFBF Communications Department, develop media packets. Develop plan to leverage the educational components of Land and Living via media contacts and placement. ● Assist OFBF staff in development and implementation of a youth agriculture education program designed to complement the Land and Living exhibit. ● Ensure OFBF, Our Ohio and Ohio agriculture background policies and goals are well represented in the exhibit. Serve as an ambassador for Ohio agriculture to fair attendees. ● Assist OFBF with planning and implementation of summer educational programs. ● Other duties as assigned.Qualifications desired:● College sophomore standing or above ● Proven leadership ● Team player ● FlexibleInterns are expected to be at the Ohio State Fair for the duration July 24-Aug. 4, 2019Please send cover letter and resume by Nov. 16, 2018 to Ohio Farm Bureau Federation Attn: Susan Gaughan 280 North High Street, 6th Floor Columbus OH 43215[email protected] 614-246-8298Fax: 614-246-8698 Leave a Comment
Share Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest By Evin Bachelor, Law Fellow, Ohio State University Extension Agricultural & Resource Law ProgramHere’s our latest gathering of Ohio agricultural case law news that you may want to know.Plaintiff must prove that a defendant wedding barn operator’s breach of a duty caused her harmConrad Botzum Farmstead is a privately operated wedding and event barn located in the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area and on lease from the National Park Service. The plaintiff in the case was attending a wedding at the barn, where she broke her ankle while dancing on a wooden deck. The jury trial found that the barn operator was 51% at fault for her injuries, and awarded the plaintiff compensation. However, the barn operator appealed the decision and won. The Ohio Ninth District Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff did not introduce sufficient evidence to prove that any act or breach of duty by the barn operator actually or proximately caused the plaintiff to fall and break her ankle. The case raises standard questions of negligence, but it is worth noting in the Ag Law Blog because the court did not base its decision on Ohio’s agritourism immunity statute. The case is cited as Tyrrell v. Conrad Botzum Farmstead, 2019-Ohio-1874 (9th Dist.).Ohio History Connection can use eminent domain to cancel Moundbuilders Country Club’s lease. A Licking County judge ruled in early May that the Ohio History Connection, formerly the Ohio Historical Society, can reclaim full ownership of land that it had leased to a country club. The Moundbuilders County Club has operated a golf course around prehistoric Native American earthworks for decades under a long-term lease with the state. The Ohio History Connection sought to have the lease terminated in order to give the public full access to the earthworks as part of a World Heritage List nomination. The judge viewed the request as sufficiently in the public interest to apply Ohio’s eminent domain laws.