For a full list of youth services at Carlisle Barracks, visit www.carlislemwr.com.Child Development CentersThe post’s two Child Development Centers provide full-time and hourly care for children 6 weeks to 5 years of age. The CDC’s caring, knowledgeable professionals plan developmentally appropriate programs that are responsive to the unique needs, abilities and interests of your children. Fees are based on total family income. For more information on the post’s centers, visit www.carlislemwr.com/child-and-youth-services/moore-cdc or www.carlislemwr.com/child-and-youth-services/tieman-cdc-letterkenny.Family Child CareFamily Child Care homes offer child care services in a home environment. Typically, FCC homes can provide hours of operation that are more flexible than those at the CDCs. The FCC program also offers an opportunity for spouses to contribute to the family income while caring for their own children. All caregivers must meet rigid training, health and safety standards, and are subject to unannounced inspections. For more information, visit www.carlislemwr.com/child-and-youth-services/family-child-care.Middle School and Teen ProgramThe Carlisle Barracks Middle School & Teen program serves youth in grades 6 through 12 by fusing education and recreation through clubs, events and sports. The program partners with the Boys & Girls Club of America, 4-H and Character Counts. The activities and events offered by the MST program focus on the following basic service areas:Sports, fitness and health.Life skills, citizenship and leadership.Arts, recreation and leisure.Mentoring, intervention and academic support.The program held is in the McConnell Youth Center at 459 Bouquet Road, which features a rock climbing wall, a full-size gymnasium with basketball courts, an outdoor recreation area, a video game room, an art room, a technology lab and more. For more information, call 717-245-4555 or visit www.carlislemwr.com/child-and-youth-services/middle-school-teens.School Age CenterThe Carlisle Barracks School Age Center provides care before and after school and during school closures for children in grades K-5. Programs and resources include a wide range of physical activities, arts and crafts, homework assistance, a computer lab, character building, 4-H and Boys & Girls Club of America activities, field trips, summer camp and more. The center is at 459 Bouquet Road. Call 717-245-4555 or visit www.carlislemwr.com/child-and-youth-services/school-age-care for more information.School Support ServicesSchool Support Services provides Army school-aged youth with educational opportunities, resources and information necessary to achieve academic success. School Support Services is home to the School Liaison Office, where school liaison officers help deliver the best educational resources and information for your children. School liaison officers specialize in education transitions, and make sure incoming and exiting families have information about local schools, graduation requirements, after-school services and programs, youth sponsorship programs and home schooling.School Support Services is at 459 Bouquet Road. For more information, call 717-245-4555/4638 or visit www.carlislemwr.com/child-and-youth-services/school-liaison-local-school-info.TutoringStudy Strong provides 24/7 online tutoring for Army-affiliated students. After registering online, students are connected to a tutor in an online classroom. Online classrooms use controlled chat and an interactive white board. Students can send computer files, such as essays, to the tutor for review and assistance. Educational support is available for kindergarten through 12th grade and college prep. Preparations for career transitions, writing resumes and studying for exams are available for adults.Tutors are certified teachers, college professors, professional tutors or graduate school students from across the country who have been hired by Tutor.com, the provider of the Live Homework Help program. Tutors with expertise in math (including algebra, geometry and calculus), science (including earth science, biology, chemistry and physics), social studies and English composition are available. Visit www.myarmyonesource.com/ChildYouthandSchoolServices/CYSServicesOnlineTutoring for more information.Youth Sports and FitnessYouth sports and fitness programs for children ages 3-18 are available at Carlisle Barracks. Coaches are trained and certified by the National Alliance of Youth Sports. Registration and annual sports physicals are required for participation. For more information, call 717-245-3354 or visit www.carlislemwr.com/child-and-youth-services/youth-sports-fitness.
Tom Ritchey and Dustin Klein of Cadence have done a number of collaborations together, from limited edition stems to completely one-off hand painted mountain bike bars. This time they come together for a limited edition C220 Stem and Evocurve handlebar set, with more standard options than they’ve done before. And to add a little backstory they’ve put together a short video talking about how their polar opposite left and right brain approaches to cycling components make them ideal partners in developing products to make cyclists happy.Click through across the jump for the video, plus more shots of the bar and stem and pricing… The C220 stem is the popular 1 1/18″ 84/6° WCS standard from Ritchey (that we reviewed this past winter) and is available for $120 in 90-130mm lengths in this special edition.The matching bar is Ritchey’s short, shallow, smooth bend Alloy Evocurve available in 40, 42 & 44cm widths for $150. The right/left collaboration gives us the new Cadence x Ritchey Keta bar and stem, with a textile-inspired graphic treatment by Klein on the all-around performers from Ritchey. Both Ritchey WCS components start off with a standard Wet White finish and then get the black and white Cadence Keta design treatment with its Keep Going mantra. There is even an option to buy both with bar tape from Cadence for just $200 total, making it a pretty affordable setup for the limited edition components. Both individual components and the bundle are up on Cadence’s website, so feel free to go buy something pretty before they are gone.CadenceCollection.com
ABOUT TWO DOZEN children of Supreme Court and Office of the State Court Administrator employees participated in this year’s ”Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day” in Tallahassee. The kids learned about what their parents do at work, toured the Supreme Court building, and participated in mock oral arguments in the courtroom with the students playing the roles of the lawyers and the justices. The older students reargued the famous 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines case in which students were suspended for wearing peace-sign adorned black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War that resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court holding that “students do not shed their constitutional rights at the school house gates.” The younger students debated a case involving the banning of books in a school library. Justice Barbara Pariente welcomed the students to the court and helped lead them through the oral arguments. May 15, 2013 Regular News SC hosts Take Our Daughters and Sons to Work Day
In his first year with Minnesota, Sean Russell has taken charge as a leaderIn his first year, Russell is exceeding expectations for the Gophers wrestling team.Jasmin KempSean Russell takes Steve Polakowski at Maturi Pavilion on Sunday, Feb. 3 in Minneapolis. David MullenFebruary 7, 2019Jump to CommentsShare on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via EmailPrintIt is not often that one of the newest additions to a collegiate athletics team is someone who has four-years of prior experience.Sean Russell (19-3), the No. 6 wrestler in the 125-weight class is just that. Although it’s his first year in with the Gophers, some say it’s hard to tell.“The one thing that I think is unique about [Russell] is that this is his senior year, his first year at the University of Minnesota, and you’d honestly think the guy’s been here for five years,” head coach Brandon Eggum said. However, Russell said the differences between Edinboro University, a small public university in Pennsylvania, and Minnesota are huge, especially the resources.“It’s hard to fail here — they don’t let you fail. And they help you out a lot and have a lot of cool stuff,” Russell said. He added that differences in nutrition programs, training programs and training facilities, among other things, contribute to the team’s success.Even though Russell said the University set him up for success, other key contributors are the wrestlers he practices with every day.“I have the best room in the country for 125-pounders, maybe even the world,” Russell said. He added that he knew prior to committing to Minnesota about the 125-pounders on the team, but his expectations have been surpassed. Russell, out of Collins Hill High School near Atlanta, chose Edinboro over Minnesota originally. But when he found out their head coach, the man who recruited him, was leaving Edinboro for a job at West Virginia , he decided to transfer. “There’d be a new coaching staff coming into Edinboro, and because of that [Russell] decided he wanted to go where he thought he had the best opportunity,” Eggum said. On top of believing that Minnesota gave him the best chance, he also knew about the unavoidable winters. “It’s crazy, it’s been terrible these last few days. … I knew coming to Minneapolis that it would be like this sometimes,” Russell said on Jan. 31, a day after one of the coldest days in Minneapolis in over two decades. While Russell’s final year of eligibility is nearing the end, he says there’s only one thing on his mind.“There’s no reason why I can’t be a national champ this year. … I’ve taken some losses to the top guys, but [not by] more than two or three points,” Russell said. “We’ve been working on areas I need to work on, and I’m fully confident that I can win a title this year.”The Gophers will be back in action Friday in Lincoln, Nebraska when they match up against the Cornhuskers.
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Pinterest Email LinkedIn Learning to speed read seems like an obvious strategy for making quick work of all the emails, reports, and other pieces of text we encounter every day, but a new report shows that the claims put forth by many speed reading programs and tools are probably too good to be true. Examining decades’ worth of research on the science of reading, a team of psychological scientists finds little evidence to support speed reading as a shortcut to understanding and remembering large volumes of written content in a short period of time.“Speed reading training courses have been around for decades, and there has been a recent surge in the number of speed reading technologies that have been introduced to the consumer market,” says Elizabeth Schotter, a psychological scientist at the University of California, San Diego and one of the authors of the report. “We wanted to take a close look at the science behind reading to help people make informed decisions about whether to believe the claims put forth by companies promoting speed reading technologies and training courses.”The report, published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, shows that that there are no magic shortcuts when it comes to reading more quickly while still fully understanding what we’ve read. Share “The available scientific evidence demonstrates that there is a trade-off between speed and accuracy — as readers spend less time on the material, they necessarily will have a poorer understanding of it,” explains Schotter.Reading is a complex dance among various visual and mental processes, and research shows that skilled readers already read quickly, averaging 200 to 400 words per minute. Some speed reading technologies claim to offer an additional boost by eliminating the need to make eye movements by presenting words rapidly in the center of a computer screen or mobile device, with each new word replacing the previous word. The problem, Schotter and colleagues find, is that eye movements account for no more than 10% of the overall time we spend reading, and eliminating the ability to go back and reread previous words and sentences tends to make overall comprehension worse, not better.The biggest obstacle, science shows, isn’t our vision but rather our ability to recognize words and process how they combine to make meaningful sentences.“So-called solutions that emphasize speeding up the input without making the language easier to understand will have limited efficacy,” says Schotter.While some may claim prodigious speed reading skills, these claims typically don’t hold up when put to the test. Investigations show that these individuals generally already know a lot about the topic or content of what they have supposedly speed-read. Without such knowledge, they often don’t remember much of what they’ve read and aren’t able to answer substantive questions about the text.This doesn’t mean that we’re necessarily stuck reading at the same speed all the time, however. Research does show that effective skimming – prioritizing more informative parts of a text while glossing over others — can be effective when we’re only interested in getting the gist of what we’re reading, instead of a deeper, more comprehensive understanding.In fact, data suggest that the most effective “speed readers” are actually effective skimmers who already have considerable familiarity with the topic at hand and are thus able to pick out key points quickly.The one thing that can help boost overall reading ability, science shows, is practicing reading for comprehension. Greater exposure to writing in all its different forms provides us with a larger and richer vocabulary, as well as the contextual experience that can help us anticipate upcoming words and make inferences regarding the meaning of words or phrases we don’t immediately recognize.Ultimately, there is no one ability or strategy that will enable us to zip through a novel in one sitting or process an inbox full of emails over the course of a lunch break.“There’s no quick fix,” says Schotter. “We urge people to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism and ask for supporting scientific evidence when someone proposes a speed reading method that will double or triple their reading speed without sacrificing a complete understanding.”
Subscribe 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.
The last week has doubtless been a tiring one for legal aid minister Jonathan Djanogly (pictured), as he prepares to wade his way through the hefty 5,000 responses the Ministry of Justice received to its legal aid consultation. This must surely be the only explanation for the minister’s two recent parliamentary blunders. The first came in the House of Commons last week, when Djanogly was asked what progress had been made on recouping the whopping £1.3bn in court fines that remains uncollected. Djanogly’s response was impressively defiant and detailed, but unfortunately it was all about legal aid, and nothing to do with unpaid court fines. This prompted shouts from the chamber and a call for order before the Speaker cuttingly alerted Djanogly to his error: ‘The minister delivered his answer with admirable force and self-confidence, but I think it suffered from being the wrong answer,’ he sniped. The next day, Djanogly found himself before the House of Commons’ Justice Committee, where he faced some pretty feeble questioning from MPs. His performance was faltering and characterised by an unwillingness to deal with any specifics. But there was one accidental moment of candour. Labour MP for Islwyn, Chris Evans, asked if Djanogly agreed with the Legal Action Group’s assertion that the cuts would mean legal aid ceased to be a viable national service. ‘Absolutely’, was the minister’s confident reply. Again, Djanogly did not register his error, and it was left to the committee chair, Sir Alan Beith, to suggest that the minister’s answer ought to have been ‘absolutely not’. Obiter hopes the legal aid minister will get his act together in time to prepare an error-free response to his consultation; otherwise, as Beith pointed out, he could end up being judicially reviewed by people funded by legal aid.
A network of worldwide Islamic finance lawyers is to launch next week. Luxembourg-based Islamic Finance Lawyers (ISFIN) said it is looking to recruit more lawyers to provide Sharia-compliant investment advice worldwide. The network aims to bring together specialist lawyers from member law firms to advise Islamic banks, sovereign funds, and private and public investors from asset-rich Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Oman and Bahrain. The lawyers will advise on investments in developing nations, including India, China and Brazil, and also on tax structuring in offshore territories, such as Jersey, Guernsey, British Virgin Islands and elsewhere. ISFIN chief executive Laurent Marliere said: ‘We are seeking and cherry-picking the best Islamic finance legal teams in the market. ‘High energy prices and the fact that Islamic banks have been protected from the credit crunch due to their (Sharia) ethical approach has provided Islamic investors with huge liquidities of around £55bn. This capital now needs to be invested.’ ISFIN’s initial meeting will take place on 12 May at the Islamic Finance Service Board summit in Luxembourg. Membership is restricted to one firm per jurisdiction. The network aims to have 50 members in time for the ISFIN meeting at the International Bar Association conference in Dubai in November.
The House of Lords debate which took place on 30 January revealed divided opinion on key issues in the proposed legislation in Part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill. We now know the changes will be delayed. And emphasis was placed on the fact that the reforms are not actually ‘pure Jackson’ but only embody selected parts of Lord Justice Jackson’s report. For example, consider the replacement of after-the-event legal expenses insurance by ‘qualified one-way costs shifting’ (QOCS). Liberal Democrat Lord Thomas of Gresford made a damning attack on exclusion of QOCS from the bill in favour of its introduction via the Civil Procedure Rules. He said ‘…The Civil Procedure Rules will come out of the air from somewhere and will not have any proper parliamentary scrutiny. They will have been drawn up as a result of discussion between the Executive and the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, which is entirely made up of judges and lawyers. I would have thought that there would be a constitutional position. It is more serious than anything else in the bill.’ Crossbench peer Baroness Butler-Sloss agreed, saying: ‘Perhaps the minister will not mind if I add a very few words. I had not intended to intervene but, as a former chairman of a rules committee, I have to say that I have considerable faith in the good sense of the way in which it does its work. But the points that have been made are extremely relevant. It is not really the business of a rules committee to change something so dramatic.’ Lord Beecham pointedly said to Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who was representing the government: ‘Perhaps, as he develops his reply, he would deal with the point of restricting this significant change to personal injury cases when Lord Justice Jackson advocated it across the piece.’ This raises clear professional conduct issues for the lawyer members of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. If the Ministry of Justice provides notice under the Civil Procedure Act 1997 that rules be put in place, then the committee is required to do so. On the other hand, if there is a risk that it is being asked to breach constitutional law by exceeding its legal powers, then it has an impossible conflict of interest. Clearly there is little likelihood that any civil procedure rules will be drafted until this issue has been decisively resolved. The Civil Justice Council confirmed to me by email on 31 January: ‘The Council was asked by the Ministry to come up with practical proposals on implementing QOCS (Part 36 and Proportionality). A working party was set up chaired by Alistair Kinley to look at these issues. The subsequent report was handed over to the Department in October; a workshop was convened to discuss the report attended by Departmental officials. The Council has had not been asked to carry out any further work since then’. Lord Prescott meanwhile, the former deputy prime minister, focused on the role and impact of the press and media in bringing about the reforms. He said: ‘A survey has just come out – I do not know whether members have seen it – of 16 press organisations. It was conducted by the MoJ. Question one was: “Do you agree that CFA success fees should not longer be recoverable from the losing party in any case?”. ‘The answer was: “Yes, for the reasons set out in the response enclosed. UK law also needs to be amended to comply with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights” – and that is quite apart from being shattered from our people claiming the human rights when they are spending most of the time trying to defeat it. But the point is that there are 16 identical replies – every one of the replies from television, radio, the Guardian, the Mail, Sky, BBC, was exactly the same, to all 60 questions. All of a sudden, when they are usually divided about many issues, when it comes down to money, all 60 answers are that they should keep their position. Even the good old liberal Guardian sided with Dacre, for God’s sake – that takes a bit of thinking about. ‘They are now agreed that they should be able to keep more of their money, even though they are the ones that transgressed in this situation. ‘For those 16 to get together-some lawyer has written the answer to every one of them. If a trade union did that, we would be in trouble. It would be all over the front pages: “60 identical replies, it must be a conspiracy”. Of course it is a damn conspiracy. That they have come together in this survey to give exactly the same answers is perhaps not a crime, but it is near to it. They have the power for to do it.’ He went on to say: ‘Believe me, this press is not going to go away; it is still going to be committing the same offences. We have a Press Complaints Commission that is particularly useless and will continue to be unless we make fundamental changes. Anyone listening to the Leveson inquiry must hear that the press has not changed its mind; it is still going to go ahead and do the same things because that is how it sells newspapers.’ In what seemed to be a significant Conservative ‘about-turn’ Lord McNally replied: ‘We have to await the outcome of the Leveson inquiry.’ Alluding to the encouragement of ‘professional rogues’, Lord Bach observed: ‘It is only common sense that we should not seek to legislate for a system of litigation that allows professional people to prey on their impecunious and weak clients. The Committee today is full of professional people of one sort or another and the House is even more full of them when it is sitting. ‘As we all know, being in a profession is a privilege. When a professional takes on contractual fiduciary and moral duties to do their best to help their clients, they take on an important responsibility. We have professions in our society because we need experts who specialise, whether it is expertise in finance, in my example, the law, engineering or medicine. ‘They should know that society takes seriously if and when they act negligently, with malice, or breach their duty of care. Should we make it so difficult for the individual to take action and claim back their damages in full? Would that not have a corrosive impact on trust in the professions and their regulation, which is something that professions and the professionals themselves should not and do not welcome. ‘We think that the answer to this dilemma is to listen to what Lord Justice Jackson said and extend one-way costs shifting to all litigation, not just keep it to personal injury.’ He continued: ‘Should we fail to do this, and leave the bill unamended, the perpetrators of the Payment Protection Insurance mis-selling scandal – the mortgage mis-selling scandal of the 1980s and 1990s which noble Lords will remember – and thousands of other instances when rogue professionals have abused their position of trust, will go unpunished and unheard. ‘Their victims will multiply in a system where those who have been wronged are dissuaded from taking action against rogues, knowing that parliament will have legislated to substantially limit their rights to redress. It would be something of a rogues’ charter. ‘I end what I have to say about this amendment by citing the views of the president of the Professional Negligence Lawyers Association, who said that many litigants face the dilemma of having had their trust betrayed by one professional adviser and that their only redress by way of litigation is to risk remaining assets and perhaps insolvency by trusting another – meaning another professional adviser – to win their case. That is not a satisfactory position and we ask the government to think again.’ The government has already conceded that personal injury claims including claims against medical professionals will have the benefit of qualified one way costs shifting. However, the justification to sweep away recoverable success fees and ATE premiums from every other category of civil litigation without even providing ‘qualified one way costs shifting’ in their place is becoming harder and harder to understand. The legal aid cuts in Part I were all justified by the government’s need to cut the costs to the tax payer. The inability of the Conservatives to justify Part 2 (as seen above there is a clear difference in the Liberal Democrat position in the Lords) by reference to any savings to the taxpayer leaves open to speculation the question of they wish to bring about these reforms at all. Lord Prescott is the only one who seems to have an explanation. If he is right, then these reforms are being implemented for reasons of political expediency for which ordinary people – like us – are expected to sacrifice our ability to enforce our civil rights. It is perhaps mischievous to suggest that if the Conservatives would go this far – would they go one step further and reintroduce slavery? Katy Manley, is president of the Professional Negligence Lawyers Association
Get your free guest access SIGN UP TODAY Subscribe now for unlimited access To continue enjoying Building.co.uk, sign up for free guest accessExisting subscriber? LOGIN Subscribe to Building today and you will benefit from:Unlimited access to all stories including expert analysis and comment from industry leadersOur league tables, cost models and economics dataOur online archive of over 10,000 articlesBuilding magazine digital editionsBuilding magazine print editionsPrinted/digital supplementsSubscribe now for unlimited access.View our subscription options and join our community Stay at the forefront of thought leadership with news and analysis from award-winning journalists. Enjoy company features, CEO interviews, architectural reviews, technical project know-how and the latest innovations.Limited access to building.co.ukBreaking industry news as it happensBreaking, daily and weekly e-newsletters