Four Donegal schools to benefit from Creative Schools initiative

first_img Important message for people attending LUH’s INR clinic The Arts Council led ‘Creative Schools’ initiative is to be rolled out at more schools across Donegal this year.The initiative was developed to help children and young people explore and develop their creative sides, and to link them with the arts and creative infrastructure in their local community and nationally.Four schools in Donegal are included this year, they are; Carndonagh Community School, Keadue National School, Rathdonnell National School and St. Cholmcille National School.Each school selected for 2019-20 will be provided with a package of support which includes funding and the expertise of a Creative Associate to work with them directly. RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR Facebook Pinterest Google+ WhatsApp By News Highland – September 11, 2019 Four Donegal schools to benefit from Creative Schools initiative Twitter Google+ Pinterestcenter_img Arranmore progress and potential flagged as population grows WhatsApp News, Sport and Obituaries on Monday May 24th Loganair’s new Derry – Liverpool air service takes off from CODA Previous articleBronze for Brian O’Domhaill at Euro MastersNext articleMain Evening News, Sport and Obituaries Wednesday September 11th News Highland Twitter Homepage BannerNews Nine til Noon Show – Listen back to Monday’s Programme Facebook Community Enhancement Programme open for applicationslast_img read more

Timing perfect for investors to strike a great deal

first_imgThe home at 11 Coriander Drive, Griffin.WITH property, great timing and the right buyer can make all the difference.That was certainly the case for 11 Coriander Drive, Griffin, which sold from one investor to another for $465,000 on August 2.According to LJ Hooker sales agent Chris Pascoe the tenant’s moving plans allowed the out-of-town owner to prepare for sale.“I’d been speaking to this seller for about six to eight months and when I saw the market improving, I knew he had time on his side so we just co-ordinated the sale with the end of the lease,” Mr Pascoe said.More from newsLand grab sees 12 Sandstone Lakes homesites sell in a week21 Jun 2020Tropical haven walking distance from the surf9 Oct 2019The outdoor area at 11 Coriander Drive, Griffin.He said the four-bedroom, two-bathroom home was in great condition, and the 639sq m site was a major selling point.“The street appeal, the location and also a big positive was the block size,” Mr Pascoe said.Mr Pascoe said the property proved its worth after another non-local investor looking for great returns snapped it up.“The rental range could be anywhere from $410 per week up to $440 per week,” Mr Pascoe said.He said the local property market was heating up. “I’ve been selling in Griffin for 10 years now, and the market currently is as good as it has ever been,” he said.last_img read more

Review:  Lehigh Prof Critiques ID Colleague in Science Wars

first_imgDr. Steven Goldman (Lehigh University) has produced a series of lectures for The Teaching Company entitled Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It.  CEH highly recommends this series for its wealth of historical background applied to an intriguing question: what is the nature of truth claims in science?  To what extent do scientific hypotheses and theories, built out of the particulars of our experience, apply to reality as it is, beyond our experience?  Goldman explains that many books on this history of science talk about what scientists know, but almost none talk about how they know what they know.    In this second of his lecture series for The Teaching Company, after the equally-informative Science in the 20th Century, Goldman does a superb job of developing this fascinating and important problem.  For 12 hours divided into 24 lectures, he brings in many important philosophers, thinkers and scientists from Socrates to the present to show the diversity of opinions on this controversy within science – a dispute that remains unresolved to this day.  Anyone afflicted with logical positivism, objectivism or naive realism will get a reality check from this series that shows how difficult it is to say with certainty that scientific theories are true to an external reality beyond our experience.  They may work; they may predict things; they may give us some control over nature, but to ask if a scientific theory is true with a capital T; i.e., whether it represents a reality beyond experience that is the cause of our experience, yielding knowledge that is timeless, universal, necessary and certain, is an entirely different question.    A colleague of Michael Behe, Goldman ends by discussing whether intelligent design is a scientific hypothesis.  Though he takes a strong position against it, he refrains from emotional arguments and does try to defend his position with arguments from history and logic.  Our analysis follows.Let’s see if any of the pillars of his argument are left standing after our critique of his critique.Intelligent Design is a second-generation version of creationism that has already lost several court rulings.  Actually, the controversy goes much further back, to the ancient Greeks at least.  Later, Goldman acknowledges that design arguments are ancient and that asking the question is an intelligent hypothesis (though, he says, not a scientific one) worth discussing, but then defends theistic evolution as a compromise: i.e., God as the ultimate designer, but evolution as the process.  These are incompatible positions (see David Klinghoffer op-ed) despite the ability of many schizophrenics to claim they can have it both ways.  We doubt, also, that Goldman seriously believes that politically-appointed judges should be the arbiters of what constitutes science.Who decides if a hypothesis is scientific, if not the community of scientists who deal in science?  Somebody has to decide, he argues, and who else but the very people doing the research in question?  This ignores the possibility that the entire community can become entrenched in a habit that excludes new ways of thinking and discourages asking new questions.  It also downplays the role of the maverick in science who bucks the establishment and turns out to be right.  Further, it fails to distinguish between the science communities of the past, who were often theologians working independently out of their own resources, and the Big Science establishments of today, whose motives are tainted by the need to keep government funds flowing.  (Elsewhere in the series, Goldman shows he is keenly aware of these issues.  He has a good treatment of Kuhn’s argument that science has a paradigmatic character.  He concludes that, with all its flaws, Kuhn’s critique cannot be entirely dismissed.)I.D. fails the minimum criteria of a scientific hypothesis.  Goldman hastens to explain that there are no ironclad formulas, or methodological rules to decide if a hypothesis is scientific, but argues that, at a minimum, it should include the following:Explanatory power:  He claims that a legacy of science from the earliest medieval philosophers is that scientific explanations for natural phenomena can only appeal to natural causes.  He argues that I.D. necessarily invokes a supranatural agent, and that this breaks the rules of the game (and only the scientific community can make the rules).  Further, he argues that without access to the Designer to interview, or without the blueprints of the design, pursuing a design explanation is vacuous.  What instruments do we build to detect the signals? he asks.  Radio telescopes?  he asks in an offhand way (though catching himself to remember that radio waves were discovered accidentally).    In answer, what if intelligent design is true?  What if there really is a Designer, a Creator, or God, that intentionally made the universe, the world and life?  A science committed to natural causes will never find the truth.  We believe that science should at least be a search for the truth about the world.  This cannot exclude a cause from the toolkit of science just because of a philosophical dislike for it.  A science restricted to natural causes when intelligent causes were responsible will degenerate into a false religion or cult, and that is what many in the ID movement believe has happened.    Goldman should recall his own sermon that science is not just a game, but that it has huge sociological implications: nuclear weapons, stem cells, health and safety, matters of life and death.  Science is much more serious in the 21st century than just making up a game as they go along.  In fact, Goldman’s whole series struggles with the truth claims of science and how they should be understood.  Why, he asks, is Darwinian evolution so threatening if it is just about method?  “Because the evolutionary explanation claims to be true.”  If evolutionists deny they are searching for at least a semblance of truth, and believe instead they are just playing a game, let them set up their own game clubs, like bingo or lotto, and not expect the citizens to pay for it and have it force-taught to their children.    The most serious flaw in this argument is that it does not address the capacity for Darwinists to trade in just-so stories in order to keep their pet paradigm going.  Busy-ness with all kinds of ecological, geological and biological storytelling does not justify evolutionary theory’s continuance, with its insatiable demand for public funding, when the facts keep stacking up against it (e.g., the Cambrian explosion, the fine-tuning of the universe, the molecular machinery in the cell).  Goldman also fails to recognize the sciences that already invest huge amounts of money on design-theoretic assumptions, such as SETI, cryptography, forensics, archaeology and information theory.  It’s ironic that he mentioned radio waves.  ID supporters have long pointed out that SETI proceeds on the assumption of intelligent design.  SETI presupposes that intelligence is detectable by the methods of science.Predictive success: while not necessary for a scientific hypothesis, this is at least valuable, Goldman argues; a good hypothesis predicts novel phenomena and makes startling predictions that at least give us confidence in the hypothesis.  Yet throughout the series, Goldman repeatedly pointed out the “fallacy of affirming the consequent” – i.e., just because a prediction comes true, this does not prove a hypothesis.  ID predicts that we will find large amounts of functional information in DNA and proteins, even if we don’t understand the function.  This prediction continues to bear fruit.Control over nature:  Though there are exceptions to this rule, like black hole theory and the big bang, a scientific hypothesis should produce a research program that gives us some degree of control over nature.  Without access to the design blueprints, Goldman claims, ID does not specify the kind of research a scientist would do, so what good is it?  Since the design scientist would end up doing the same kind of research as the evolutionist, ID is operationally vacuous, he claims.    Tell this to SETI, then.  Tell it to the FBI searching for patterns in noise.  They are spending an awful lot of money building elaborate detectors and computers on the assumption that intelligent design leaves footprints.  None of these and the other design sciences have the blueprints either, but they know that intelligently-caused patterns are detectable.  ID does have a criterion.  It is complex specified information (CSI), any effect that, as William Dembski argued exhaustively in The Design Inference and No Free Lunch allows us rule out chance as a cause, and infer intelligence as the cause.  As for control over nature, biomimetics (see below) is the most promising avenue today for such control.Testability and verifiability:  Goldman knows that these are sufficient criteria, but not necessary ones, for scientific hypotheses.  He fails to recognize that Darwinian evolution is so malleable that it bends itself to every anomaly, and therefore fails this test.  ID, by contrast, has an ironclad criterion: CSI.  Dembski granted an extremely generous universal probability bound of 10-150 before excluding chance and natural law and making a design inference.  ID can have false negatives – there may be cases where a designer hid his design from us, as in some modern art – but it does not generate false positives.  When CSI exists, it came from an intelligent cause.  That’s testability.Suggestive of a research program:  What experiments will a scientist do to research intelligent design? Goldman asks.  He repeats the common canard that ID brings explanation to a halt: “God did it–end of story.”  He says this should at least make us deeply suspicious about the ability of ID to satisfy the rules of scientific hypotheses.  Apply this rule to the Darwinists, then.  When they say “evolution did it,” or disguise that simplistic answer in phrases like “This represents a remarkable case of convergent evolution,” the playing field is level.  Darwinists brought the study of interesting biological phenomena to a halt by explaining away unknown biological phenomena as junk DNA or vestigial organs.    Goldman recalled Francis Bacon’s measure of good scientific hypotheses, “By their fruits ye shall know them” (three guesses where Bacon got that idea from).  So here is the fruit: design thinking is actually producing some of the most vibrant and cutting-edge research in the world today: biomimetics.  Whole multidisciplinary labs are springing up to mimic nature’s designs.  To do so, these designs must be understood – and science marches along. Irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance.  Goldman claims that ID cannot merely argue that Darwinian evolution is inadequate because it cannot explain the spontaneous emergence of complex biochemical systems (e.g., Behe’s mousetrap).  Debunking Theory A does not establish Theory B.  This is the “argument from ignorance,” he says, a logical fallacy.  Granted, but it does not follow that Darwinism must be taught as fact without debate, either: that would be the best-in-field fallacy.  Darwinists have an endless capacity to rationalize and tiptoe around the problems.  Refusing to let serious challenges be heard is not healthy for any scientific explanation.  That being understood, irreducible complexity is not merely an argument against Darwinian evolution, anyway.  It is a marker for CSI that allows one to discriminate intelligent causes from non-intelligent causes.Scientists are not convinced irreducible complexity is a challenge to evolutionary theory.  Maybe evolution cannot explain complex systems yet, he says, but the community of biologists does not seem worried about it.  This is a very weak response.  Maybe they should be worried about it.  Geologists weren’t worried about plate tectonics and catastrophic floods for decades, either, till they were forced to follow the evidence.  How the community of scientists feel about something is no measure of its validity or importance.  They’ve had 146 years to explain complex systems by unguided processes and are in worse shape now than in Darwin’s time.  How much longer do they get to filibuster?Self-organizing systems show promise for explaining irreducible complexity.  The new study of self-organizing systems shows that complex systems can emerge spontaneously, Goldman argues; ID needs to make sure self-organization is incapable of producing complex systems before reaching outside of nature to explain them.  Been there, done that.  Why is this a requirement?  Why is it better to follow blind alleys?  For how long should we take a wrong road before giving up?  We already know that intelligent causes are adequate to explain CSI.  The kind of complexity that self-organizing systems exhibit is very different from information, the hallmark of intelligent design.  Spilled ink might produce wave patterns if shaken or subjected to the wind, but it does not produce meaningful text.By analogy, technological systems do form spontaneously without planning.  Goldman argues that nobody followed a master plan that resulted in all the complex systems built around the automobile: the internal combustion engine, gasoline as fuel, highways, carburetors, filling stations–these were all co-opted after the fact without any top-down design.  The system emerged from the bottom-up emergence for self-interested reasons, so why not consider this as a model for how the biochemical world emerged?  (“I’m not saying it’s true,” he adds).  My dear Dr. Goldman, do you fail to realize that your analogy is irrelevant, because human beings are intelligent agents?Criticizing gaps in evolutionary theory misunderstands the nature of scientific theories.  ID focuses its criticisms on “Darwinian” evolution, but a lot has happened since Darwin.  Theories evolve.  Evolution is now woven into a web of correlated theories, which is a key test of a scientific theory.  Geology, ecology, molecular biology, and genetics have all incorporated Darwinism or some variation of evolution, though there is still a controversy whether natural selection is the only force acting.  These are lively controversies, he argues, but none of the combatants have raised intelligent design as the missing ingredient that stymies their progress.    Again, science is not just a game, and you cannot trust Big Science to set the rules of their game fairly when they have a great deal of self-interest to perpetuate their ideologies and exclude alternatives from consideration.  In the history of science, proponents of one view have failed to see the significance of gaps in their explanations even when face to face with contradictory evidence.  Sometimes they died maintaining their flawed theories.  No historian of science can claim that evolutionary theory is immune from a massive paradigm shift.  Its critics feel it is a monstrous house of cards on a shaky foundation and that the pressures of new discoveries are making it vulnerable to a collapse of historic proportions.    Goldman had argued forcefully in the earlier lectures that scientists cannot entirely dismiss the sociological and historical nature of their theories.  He illustrated this not only by quotes from the most eminent philosophers of science, but also with specific instances.  Our concepts of the universe, the earth, life and atoms have changed dramatically since 1900.  We have no guarantee there will not be similar radical transformations in the future.  That being understood, he cannot rule out that science is evolving again in the current controversy.  Biology of the future will include intelligent causes in its toolkit, while evolutionary theory may be on the way out.ID may be a legitimate support for believing in a Designer behind nature, but design is not a scientific hypothesis.  Goldman recognizes that the design argument has a long and venerable history.  Everyone knows that nature looks designed, he acknowledges.  So are we to throw out the evidence of our senses, and our common sense, and be forced to invoke uncaused, undesigned forces to explain the most elegant machinery we know?  Who decides?  Calling something a scientific hypothesis does not make it so, nor does the converse make it not so.  Since evolutionary theory fails all of Goldman’s own minimum criteria for scientific hypotheses, and ID does not, he cannot simply dismiss ID as a scientific hypothesis by a flat-out statement of his opinion.Attacking a theory because it threatens one’s religious convictions is not a scientific posture.  OK, so ID threatens materialism and atheism.  Let the Darwinists admit that, and let’s talk about the evidence.  Evolutionists continually attack ID and creation as being religiously motivated.  This rule cuts both ways; Dawkins said that evolution allows one to be an intellectually-fulfilled atheist.  Attacking one’s motives instead of his argument is the ad hominem strategy.  So evolutionists, stop attacking the motives of creationists, and focus on the evidence.Goldman noted that he only wished only to critique ID, not malign it.  We leave it to the reader to judge if any of the pillars of Goldman’s critique are left standing.  Though cogently argued, none of his points are new.  William Dembski has answered them all, and many more, in his book The Design Revolution, to which the interested reader is referred for more detail.    At the end of the lecture, Goldman acknowledged that “Imperial Science” misconstrues the debate as much as “Imperial Religion.”  He says that the defensiveness of the scientific community over the attacks by sociology, philosophy and religion “obscures the fundamental fact that we have learned in this course, namely, that no theory – no theory – can have the status of an empirical fact.”  It is a category error to claim that evolutionary theory or any other scientific theory is a fact, “contrary to the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times and various op-ed pieces opposing intelligent design,” he remarks.    Sounds like we have a legitimate controversy here.  Good; let’s teach it.(Visited 13 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Healing Africa’s broken hearts

first_imgFreedom fighter Albertina Sisulu celebrated her91st birthday and the opening of the Sheika AlJalila House in Johannesburg. (Image: http://www.wspcc.org.za/.) MEDIA CONTACTS • Lee-Ann Poon Walter Sisulu Paediatric Cardiac Centre for Africa +27 11 208 5500 RELATED ARTICLES •Zuma: a more prosperous nation •SA heritage comes home •Booster for child health in SA •Mandela’s African tales fight AidsNosimilo Ndlovu Africa’s young hearts celebrated life with freedom fighter Albertina Sisulu, at both her 91st birthday party and the opening of the Sheika Al Jalila House in Johannesburg.Mama Sisulu, as she is affectionately known in South Africa, celebrated her birthday on 21 October with family and young heart patients from poor areas of Africa. These youngsters have received life saving heart operations at the Walter Sisulu Paediatric Cardiac Centre for Africa (WSPCCA) in Sunninghill, north of Johannesburg, where the celebrations were held.WSPCCA, based at Netcare’s Sunninghill Hospital, is a 16-bed paediatric cardiac intensive care unit established in 2003 by Dr Robin Kinsley, head of cardiothoracic surgery at the Netcare Sunninghill Hospital. Kinsley is South Africa’s most experienced paediatric cardiac surgeon.The centre’s highly qualified and experienced paediatric cardiac team carries out corrective surgical and interventional procedures on babies and children – giving hope to thousands of neonates, infants and children who would otherwise not survive.Princess Haya Al Hussein of Jordan, a global patron of the centre, was also there to celebrate with the Sisulu family and to officiate at the opening of the Sheikha Al Jalila House, named after her daughter.Princess Haya and Lungi Sisulu, son of the veteran couple, officially opened the house, which stands across the road from the Netcare Sunninghill Hospital. This facility, the princess’s gift to Mama Sisulu, will accommodate parents of children receiving heart operations at the centre.These families sometimes travel across vast regions of the African continent to seek life-saving medical treatment. In the past, parents stayed in rented accommodation paid for by the WSPCCA.Princess Haya saw the need for a home away from home and donated money to the project, and now parents can stay at the hospital with their children for as long as they like and then simply walk across the road to rest.Freedom stalwartFormer president Nelson Mandela congratulated his long-time friend and fellow ANC stalwart on her 91st birthday.Although Mandela was not able to attend Sisulu’s birthday party, he sent her a personal note in which he praised her achievements. The note was read out by the centre’s president Lungi Sisulu during the celebrations.“Be assured that your role in our country’s struggle for freedom and your impact on so many lives will never be forgotten,” wrote Mandela. “There are very few people in the world as old as we are now – reaching your 91st is a singular achievement and we celebrate with you.”Ongoing legacyAt the funeral of anti-apartheid activist Walter Sisulu in May 2003, Mandela gave a heartfelt speech in which he described Sisulu as a great South African and champion of the youth. Mandela added that such a man needed a true living memory – not a statue, which is a piece of cement, but an ongoing legacy.Dr Kinsley felt that there could be no better way to commemorate Walter Sisulu than by treating the sick children of Africa and sending them back to their countries to fulfil their potential as leaders of tomorrow.He approached the Sisulu family and met with daughter Lindiwe, who toured the facility at a time when 10 babies, each from a different African country, were admitted.The family agreed that it would be very appropriate for the facility to carry Walter Sisulu’s name, and Mama Sisulu expressed the desire that Nelson Mandela open the centre as a tribute to his late friend. On 7 November 2003 the Nobel peace laureate did just that, and has since become the centre’s patron.As a retired nurse Mama Sisulu is extremely supportive and visits the centre regularly. At her request, many of the little patients return for a check-up 6-9 months after their discharge.House of HopeAccording to the WSPCCA, South Africa sees about 5 000 babies born each year with serious holes in their heart walls, defective heart valves or other congenital heart defects.About 95% of these defects can be corrected through surgery. But because of financial constraints and a lack of resources, only about 20% of these children get the surgery they need. The remaining 80% die.In the US, 1 222 patients per million of the population have open-heart surgery. In Africa only 19 people in each million have the benefit of such procedures, with the majority of these operations being performed in South Africa.When measured as cost per added year of life, paediatric cardiac surgery is amongst the most cost-effective forms of medical treatment. Fewer than 30% of South African children and less than 1% of children throughout Africa are able to undergo these life-saving operations. The rest die, despite the fact that 95% of heart defects in babies and young children can be successfully treated.The WSPCCA came into being to address this inequality and to give hope to the cardiac children in both South Africa and Africa at large.last_img read more

WND partners with Sigfox to supply UK with IoT network

first_imgWhy IoT Apps are Eating Device Interfaces Related Posts Internet of Things network operator Wireless Network Devices (WND) has announced a partnership with Sigfox to build a national UK IoT network by the end of 2018.Sigfox, the French IoT network supplier, switched from British telecommunications company Arqiva to WND earlier this week. The IoT network currently covers 30 percent of the population, mainly focused in 11 metropolitan areas.See Also: Sigfox collaborating with Microsoft’s Azure IoT HubWND will look to extend coverage to 95 percent of all the population by the end of next year and “plug the gaps” created by Arqiva’s deployment, according to Verdict.Sigfox and WND are both seasoned deployers of IoT networks, the former having launched in the Singapore, Taiwan, and the U.S. and the latter winning several contracts for IoT networks in Latin America. This should make the push from 30 percent to 95 percent not that difficult, especially with the lack of competition from mainstream wireless carriers.Both expect to see a surge in coverage over the next year and hopefully a similar surge in interest from the industry at large. There is also hope that the government will move from testing IoT networks to actually greenlighting and funding the commercialization of the low-power, wide-area networks.EE, the most popular wireless carrier in the U.K., has confirmed plans to trial an IoT upgrade to its 4G LTE network by the end of the year. The carrier definitely has the advantage when it comes to spectrum, but doesn’t seem to be in a rush to blanket the UK with networking. Internet of Things Makes it Easier to Steal You… Follow the Puckcenter_img Tags:#Britain#industry#Internet of Things#IoT#Sigfox#UK#WND David Curry Small Business Cybersecurity Threats and How to…last_img read more

Sarah Michelle Gellar Supports Unilevers Summer Sunlight Activities

first_imgThis summer, Unilever is challenging families to create a brighter future while having fun together.Taking a cue from the optimistic outlook children have on the world, an interactive series of “Summer Sunlight Activities” and a new short film, “The Way Kids See It,” are launching today to inspire families to create a brighter future by living more sustainably. These programs support Unilever Project Sunlight, a long-term initiative to make sustainable living commonplace.To kick off the summer season, Unilever Project Sunlight is encouraging families to partake in simple and fun sustainable-living focused projects, Summer Sunlight Activities. From greening the bathroom to finding fun, new uses for used shampoo bottles, these activities demonstrate the importance of small actions that together can add up to make a big impact.“Teaching the next generation to live sustainably is essential to ensuring our children and our children’s children thrive in a world with clean water and food on the table,” said Sarah Michelle Gellar, Unilever Project Sunlight Ambassador, actress and mother. “Whether it’s challenging their creativity to reimagine the use of a box, turning off the faucet while they brush their teeth or growing a summer garden, we can build a world where everyone lives well – if we all do our part.”The launch of the Summer Sunlight Activities series is the latest phase of Project Sunlight, an ongoing Unilever initiative that has seen millions of people pledge an ‘act of sunlight’: a promise to change their lifestyle to help preserve the planet for generations to come. The latest program launches with two activities, with additional ones rolling out throughout the summer:• Green Your Bathroom with its Own Recycling Bin – Nearly 40 percent of Americans toss plastic bottles from the bathroom in the trash, not realizing that along with cardboard product packaging and toilet paper spools, many bathroom toiletry bottles – including Dove and Suave shampoos and body washes – are recyclable. We’ll show you a fun DIY project to make bathroom recycling easier and more accessible. • One Ingredient, Five Ways – Empower the kids of the household to plan a menu for the week by thinking up five meals with one main ingredient. Making the most of the food we eat – and teaching the entire family that ingredients can go a long way – gets the family thinking about ingredient-sourcing and food waste. Challenge your children to get creative with their menu planning – there are plenty of recipes to choose from on www.knorr.com or www.hellmanns.com for inspiration.In addition to launching Summer Sunlight Activities, Unilever’s new documentary short film, “The Way Kids See It,” premieres in conjunction with International Family Day, and captures ideas and inspiration for creating a brighter future from children all over the world. Directed by Daniel Gordon, a BAFTA and British Independent Film Awards nominee, the film features children whose positive outlook inspired Project Sunlight, and highlights the hopes, dreams and plans that they have for a better world.“Through ‘The Way Kids See It,’ we’re really showcasing the inspiration that Unilever sees in the good that kids see in the world,” said Jonathan Atwood, Vice President, Sustainable Living and Corporate Communications at Unilever, North America. “The film, paired with the Summer Sunlight Activities that families can do together to make their households more sustainable, are truly the embodiment of Unilever Project Sunlight, which supports our mission to create a brighter future. We’re excited to see how these projects come to life this summer.”To take part in the Summer Sunlight Activities, there are three simple steps: • Visit www.projectsunlight.us to SEE “The Way Kids See It” film and read about the different activities available as part of the Summer Sunlight Activities; • ACT by choosing an activity to complete and, in doing so, take small, positive steps to a more sustainable lifestyle at home; and • JOIN a like-minded community of individuals sharing their personal stories and tips to inspire others to take part using #brightfuture.For further information, to view the documentary, and to take part in the Summer Sunlight Activities, people can visit www.projectsunlight.us or follow the conversation on Facebook and Twitter using #brightfuture.Source:PR Newswirelast_img read more

Magic Johnson and Isiah Thomas Mend Relationship After DecadesLong

“Let me apologize to you. If I hurt you. That we haven’t been together.”#PlayersOnlyMonthly pic.twitter.com/nDpfDfZek8— NBA TV (@NBATV) December 20, 2017The 25-year-old feud between Hall of Famers Irvin “Magic” Johnson and Isiah Thomas has come to an end. The pair appeared on NBATV’s special, “Players Only Monthly” Tuesday, Dec. 19 and the reunion was an emotional one.Johnson and Thomas’ strife began after the 1988 and 1989 NBA Finals where the Los Angeles Lakers faced the Detroit Pistons. By the time the 1992 Olympic Games rolled around, things had truly fallen apart. Johnson admitted in the 2009 book, “When the Game Was Ours” that he helped keep Thomas off the legendary Dream Team. Why? He believed Thomas was instrumental in spreading rumors that Johnson’s was gay or bisexual.Today, things have changed and the two tearfully hugged it out on-air.“You are my brother,” Johnson says. “Let me apologize if I hurt you, that we haven’t been together and God is good to bring us back together.”News About Magic JohnsonMagic Johnson Praises LaVar Ball for Being Involved with Basketball Star SonsHow Did Samuel L. Jackson and Magic Johnson Get Mistaken for Italian Migrants?Magic Johnson Brings Smiles to Over 12,000 Michigan Residents with Clothes, Food and Other GiftsThe emotions were high both on screen and off, as viewers tweeted about how the reunion affected them.Magic Johnson and Isaiah ThomasI’m not crying … you’re crying 😢(H/T @NBATV) pic.twitter.com/aTaV32iIit— Troy Hughes™ (@TommySledge) December 20, 2017 Just saw the clip of @MagicJohnson & @iamisiahthomas WOW! Them BROTHERS NEEDED THAT MOMENT! Isiah told us stories. And he really missed having Magic in his life. So happy for them FOR REAL.— al harrington (@cheddahcheese7) December 20, 2017 This may be the Greatest NBA … NO let me rephrase, TV specials I’ve ever seen. In this crazy world, to see a relationship healed and to see a man say “I’m sorry”. The world needs more. Thank You @MagicJohnson and @isaiahthomas is for letting world see what’s possible.— Chris Tabb (@christabbshow) December 20, 2017Whew that Magic Johnson and Isaiah Thomas sit down interview where Magic apologized after all them years of not talking😩. Had my eyes sweating and that pollen floating around HEAVY after that😩— MSU 8-4 ~ CANES 10-2 (@heen_Doggish) December 20, 2017 seeing someone own up to their actions and just simply apologizing for doing what they did could really go a long way.— Brehanna Daniels (@Mindless_BMD) December 20, 2017Spots stars chimed in with their thoughts, too.Grown men stuff right here https://t.co/c3xZLCdeGD— DWade (@DwyaneWade) December 20, 2017 The Magic/Zeke interview on NBA TV was awesome..2 of my heros..When the game stops, we should all cherish the friendships that we built..forever..— Chauncey Billups (@1MrBigShot) December 20, 2017 read more