CENTAL program manager, Gerald D. Yeakula. The Center for Transparency and Accountability in Liberia (CENTAL) has called on the Liberian Anti-Corruption Commission (LACC) to timely and independently verify and publish all declared assets, income and liabilities, including those of President George M. Weah.In a statement issued on Monday, CENTAL said it is glad to acknowledge receipt of reports of declaration of assets, income, and liabilities by President George Manneh Weah, which the General Auditing Commission (GAC) has confirmed.Although it is belated, CENTAL lauded President Weah for declaring his assets in compliance with chapter 10 of the 2014 Code of Conduct for Public officials that requires all public officials to declare their assets.“This is one of several steps that demonstrate concrete commitment and political will to set the necessary condition for a successful fight against corruption in Liberia,” the statement said.CENTAL has also called on the Vice President, members of the Senate and House of Representatives, Justices of the Supreme Court and other officials of government to do likewise.“We maintain that former officials accused of corrupt acts, especially those of the immediate past regime, must be investigated and if found guilty prosecuted in keeping with relevant Liberian Laws,” CENTAL said.CENTAL said former officials who refused to declare their assets while leaving power/government, should be compelled to do so or prosecuted, in keeping with relevant provisions of the Code of Conduct.Finally, “we would like to admonish President Weah against repeating mistakes of former President Sirleaf, when she, among other things, shielded her officials; ignored recommendations from independent committees established to probe corruption scandals as well as appointed persons with tainted records in key government positions.”Any anti-corruption effort that is not built on a strong prosecution and deterrent regime is bound to fail; this is the weak link in Liberia’s current anti-graft efforts, which must be addressed to decisively tackle corruption and bad governance in the country, the statement maintained.The statement further noted that continuous violation of the Code of Conduct does not augur well for the reputation of the government and its professed desire to address graft, arguably the biggest impediment to the success of the pro-poor agenda.Share this:Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
FRESNO – State regulators proposed new rules Friday to meet a court-ordered deadline for cutting air pollution from chemicals used to kill pests, weeds and diseases in some of the nation’s most productive farmland. The proposed rules make California the first state to dictate how and where several widely used fumigants can be applied on fields statewide, said Glenn Brank, spokesman for the state Department of Pesticide Regulation. The restrictions would require any grower who uses fumigants to hire licensed people to inject them at a cost of as much as $40 million a year. The use of certain chemicals would be capped in areas in Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley with especially dirty air. The directive, which the agency has the authority to set, centers on fumigants – gases that fruit and vegetable growers use to kill pests in the soil before planting. The chemicals have long been blamed for being part of the state’s air-pollution problem because they cause smog-forming gases when they evaporate from fields. In 1997, the state pesticide agency promised to adopt a plan for reducing fumigant emissions by 20 percent. The target went unmet, however, and several environmental groups sued in 2004, claiming the state violated national health standards for smog. Ruling in that case last year, a U.S. District Court judge in Sacramento made the voluntary reduction goal mandatory. The state has appealed the court order, but the regulations will go through with or without an appeal, Brank said. If they take effect as proposed, the required changes in their operations would cost growers $10 million to $40 million a year, making it the most costly pesticide regulation in state history, Brank said. The rules would hurt some growers more than others because some rely more heavily on fumigants. The additional costs could force the state’s strawberry growers – who provide about 88 percent of the nation’s strawberries – to take one-third of their land out of production, said Mary DeGroat, a spokeswoman for the 700-member California Strawberry Commission. “Air, water, soil – that’s our livelihood,” DeGroat said. “We’ve been trying our best to be responsible while still trying to make a living.” Many carrot, tomato and grape farmers also use the chemicals and would face high costs. Environmental groups objected Friday to a provision that would let chemical manufacturers monitor what they are supplying to the three restricted regions and allow the head of the state pesticide agency to let growers reduce emissions by methods besides the ones stipulated in the proposed rules, he said.160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set! Other industries, such as oil refineries, automakers and paint manufacturers, have limits on smog-making gases called volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, but this is the first time across-the-board limits were set for fumigant emissions, Brank said. The new rules would require farmers using fumigants to hire special commercial applicators and to incorporate low-emission techniques such as injecting the gases deeper into moist soil and covering fields with heavier tarps. The restrictions would also set caps on how much of the chemicals can be applied in the San Joaquin Valley, Ventura County and the Mojave Desert area – three of the growing regions with the worst air pollution. Nearly 36 million pounds of seven fumigants were used on California farms in 2005, according to the state. If adopted, the new regulations would reduce pesticide emissions by 30 percent to 40 percent, regulators said. They were immediately met with criticism both from growers, who said implementing them would cost them millions, and environmentalists, who said the rules are too lax.
The oxymoron “living fossil” is suggestive. Seeing a plant or animal come to life, when it was only known from fossils, might seem miraculous. Perhaps, though, the phrase was invented to rescue Darwinian theory from the vast ages it requires. Is it credible to believe the time gaps? Here are two recent stories about creatures long thought dead, only to be found doing “Quite well, thank you.” Tick talk. Researchers in South Africa were sure that the living fossil they found represented an “evolutionary missing link” that might help explain relationships between several lineages of arthropods that “evolved” the blood feeding trait independently. This led to queer sentences like this in their PLoS One paper.1 “Thus, even though blood-feeding evolved in the ancestral tick lineage, the adaptation to the mammalian and avian blood-feeding interfaces occurred independently in the soft and hard tick families.” It also seems weird for the ancestor of diverse lineages of ticks to be doing just fine in a living form, with no evolutionary change for many millions of years: In conclusion, phylogenetic analysis indicates that N. namaqua groups basal to both tick families and is the closest extant lineage to the last common ancestral tick lineage. Its argasid-like feeding behaviour and biology provides compelling evidence for the evolution of a blood-feeding lifestyle within the last common ancestral tick lineage. The semi-arid nature of the Northern Cape as found in Namaqualand and the Karoo has been maintained since Permian times. The partiality of N. namaqua for xeric environments and small reptiles could therefore be an indication of a lifestyle maintained for more than 250 million years. This would truly make this tick species a living fossil. Real eel: Another living fossil announced recently is a “primitive” looking eel found swimming in a cave on Palau that PhysOrg said is squirming into the record books. Why? “A new species of eel found in the gloom of an undersea cave is a ‘living fossil’ astonishingly similar to the first eels that swam some 200 million years ago, biologists reported on Wednesday.” The BBC News included a short video clip of the slick-looking swimmer. Going on about how “primitive” it looked (at first glance, it looks rather stylish), the article quoted the scientists giving their evaluation: “In some features it is more primitive than recent eels, and in others, even more primitive than the oldest known fossil eels, suggesting that it represents a ‘living fossil’ without a known fossil record.” This begs the question of why it survives intact to this day, unevolved. Even worse, the article put forth an apparent contradiction: “Their results suggest this new family has been evolving independently for the last 200m years, placing their origins in the early Mesozoic era, when dinosaurs were beginning their domination of the planet.” If it has been evolving for 200 million years, why does it look primitive? Why is it a living fossil? “The term “living fossil” was coined by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species,” the article on PhysOrg informed its readers. “It is used to describe species that have survived for millions of years, exploiting niches that are so stable that there is little pressure on them to evolve.” Of course, to evolve is an active verb infinitive that cannot be applied to dumb eels, as if they had any choice in the matter, environmental pressure or not. And if stable niches reduce the pressure on evolution, it would be surprising that anything in the ocean, one of the first stable habitats on earth, ever evolved as Darwinians claim they did. 1. Mans, de Klerk, Pienaar, and Latif, “Nuttalliella namaqua: A Living Fossil and Closest Relative to the Ancestral Tick Lineage: Implications for the Evolution of Blood-Feeding in Ticks,” Public Library of Science One, 6(8): e23675. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023675. Stop letting Darwinists get away with these word games. If their theory explains extreme diversification alongside extreme stasis, then it is explaining opposite things with equal ease. Therefore, “living fossil” explains nothing. As an oxymoron, it is all moron and no oxy. The evidence only makes sense without the millions of years. The living creatures resemble the fossil creatures because they are not separated by vast swaths of mythical time, but came from a created world with much more diversity than our impoverished remnant. Close the time gap. (This gives “Darwin-of-the-gaps” a new twist.)(Visited 44 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
Facebook Advertisement A Winnipeg man is asking for the public’s help after a precious family relic, a Juno award, was stolen from his van while he was in the process of moving.Travis MacLean, the son of Gary MacLean from the “toilet rock” musical-comedy duo MacLean & MacLean, told CBC’s Up To Speed host Ismaila Alfa, he noticed the award was gone Wednesday morning.“When I came downstairs this morning, I noticed there was a smashed window. Immediately my heart kind of sank and I started assessing everything that got stolen. Amongst the stuff that was stolen was that Juno award,” he explained. Advertisement Twitter Advertisement In 1984, the musical-comedy duo MacLean & MacLean were nominated for the Best Comedy Album Juno. When they lost, they were gifted this mock award. (Travis MacLean/Facebook) Login/Register With: LEAVE A REPLY Cancel replyLog in to leave a comment