Reduce emissions with the CGON ezero1

first_imgSubscribe Get instant access to must-read content today!To access hundreds of features, subscribe today! At a time when the world is forced to go digital more than ever before just to stay connected, discover the in-depth content our subscribers receive every month by subscribing to gasworld.Don’t just stay connected, stay at the forefront – join gasworld and become a subscriber to access all of our must-read content online from just $270.last_img

Red Sox Pound Blackburn, Twins 11-2

first_img 720p HD 1/1 360p Visit Advertiser website GO TO PAGE Skip About Connatix V56892 The Twins will play the next 2 games without Josh Willingham.  He will be away from the team on paternity leave.  His wife, Ginger is scheduled to give birth to their 3rd child today.  Ben Revere has been called up from triple-A Rochester to take Willingham’s spot on the active roster.  Willingham is expected back on Saturday.center_img About Connatix V56892 1080p HD Auto (360p) The Twins lost 11-2 at home to the Boston Red Sox Tuesday night.  Nick Blackburn returned to the starting rotation and was beaten badly.  He allowed 8 hits and 5 earned runs in 3 innings to take the loss and drop to 0-2.  Former Twin David Ortiz hit a long 2-run homerun off Blackburn in the 3rd inning and finished with 3 RBIs.  Josh Beckett threw 6 innings with 2 earned runs allowed to get the win for Boston.  Josh Willingham and 2 hits and 1 RBI and Denard Span was 2-4 for the Twins.Minnesota has lost 4 straight games and is 5-13 on the season.  The Twins try and salvage the final game of the 3-game series tonight at 7:10, pregame on WJON at 6:40.  Righthander Liam Hendriks (0-0) gets the start on the mound for the Twins and righthander Clay Buchholz (1-1) toes the rubber for the Red Sox.last_img read more

Desperately seeking loopholes

first_imgEveryone has recourse in the courts to seek justice, but it does appear to me that the PNC-led coalition is losing sight of the bigger picture in our fledgling democracy, as they flail around for a reason to have the no-confidence decision reversed. First they tried – and succeeded to a large extent – to tie the country into knots over the claim that in a finite set of 65 discrete variables (meaning things that couldn’t be individually divided – like people, in this instance) a subset of 33 of them (call them “yes”) was not larger than the remaining subset of 32 (call them “no”).Their “rationale” involved dividing the persons in halves, and then joining them back again to “round off” and  get the result they wanted – that only 34 is greater than 33. Now to “solve” this conundrum of the Government’s making, grown men sought high and low for what was the smallest child (or the village moron) intuitively knew. But it was painfully obvious to most Guyanese – even some of the Government’s supporters – that the Government was really stretching to not resign and call elections in three months.That this was a somersault from the position they took right after the vote – when they solicited and received kudos for allowing the “democratic rules” of our Constitution to work – is vitiating the spirit of the Constitution by attenuating its words, our highest law, into hot air. How will the youths of this country, who we are assured now constitute 60 per cent of our population, ever take these politicians seriously after witnessing their verbal gymnastics and contortions on TV? Sadly, they will probably extend their cynicism to the political system as a whole, on the assumption that it encourages behaviour shorn of guiding principles.Some honour was restored to the political system, however, when the Speaker refused to entertain the Government’s request to revise his ruling that 33 was greater than 32. He bluntly told them that they – and their partisans – had “provided no compelling evidence” for him to do so. That the Speaker had been previously criticised on several occasions for “taking the Government’s side”, made his refusal even more important in buttressing the parliamentary principle that his role was to be as impartial as possible: a good Speaker is one who is criticised by both sides.The Government did follow-up with their threat to go to the courts to have the no-confidence resolution reversed, but to everyone’s surprise they abandoned the “mathematical gambit” as their grounds for doing so. Instead, they claimed that since Charrandas Persaud held dual citizenship – and by implication had sworn allegiance to a foreign state, in his case Canada – his vote was invalid since Article 153 (1) disqualified him from being an MP.As a matter of fact, Article 153 (1) actually does say just that – “No person shall be qualified for election as a member of the National Assembly who – (a) is by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state…”. But it exposed the Government’s desperation in jumping from limb to legal limb. This will deepen the cynicism of our young populace – and hopefully the Government’s less reflexive partisans – especially when it is known this clause was inserted all the way back to 1980 when Burnham promulgated his Constitution and was never applied to disqualify any of the dozens and dozens of MP’s who held dual citizenship since then.Even more “bare-faced” was that the same Government which had just expelled Charrandas Persaud as an MP, replaced him with an old-line PNC member who is also a US citizen. Very dispiritingly, the PNC-led coalition is opening a Pandora’s Box for Guyana that goes beyond metastasising apathy in our political system. An eminent jurist informs us that presently, there are already 26 sitting MPs in our National Assembly. Are they all going to be expelled so that the Government is not accused of discriminatory behaviour or will use Article 155 (1) as a Sword of Damocles to dictate their consciences?Ironically, Canada allows dual citizens from any country in the world to become MPs. This Government should take a page from their book to encourage more of our Diaspora – like Charrandas Persaud – to return “home”. Or do they feel that “duty-free” cars compensate for being excluded in having an input in law making?last_img read more