Signed, Sealed, Delivered! Clifton Oliver & Allison Semmes Will Star in the National Tour of Motown The Musical

first_img Motown The Musical features choreography by Patricia Wilcox and Warren Adams, scenic design by David Korins, costume design by Tony nominee ESosa, lighting design by Tony winner Natasha Katz, sound design by Tony nominee Peter Hylenski, projection design by Daniel Brodie and hair and wig design by Charles LaPointe. Directed by Charles Randolph-Wright, Motown The Musical is the true American dream story of Motown founder Berry Gordy’s journey from featherweight boxer to the heavyweight music mogul who launched the careers of Diana Ross, Michael Jackson, Stevie Wonder, Smokey Robinson, Marvin Gaye and so many more. Oliver (Berry Gordy) has performed in the Broadway productions of The Lion King, In The Heights and Wicked. His other stage credits include national tours of The Lion King, Rent and Ragtime. Semmes (Diana Ross) has appeared on Broadway in Motown The Musical and The Book of Mormon. Her other stage credits include the natioanl tour of The Color Purple, Dreamgirls, Bubbling Brown Sugar, The Wiz and Candide. Featuring more than 50 classic hits such as “My Girl” and “Ain’t No Mountain High Enough,” Motown The Musical tells the story behind the hits as Diana, Smokey, Berry and the whole Motown family fight against the odds to create the soundtrack of change in America. Motown shattered barriers, shaped our lives and made us all move to the same beat.center_img We heard it through the grapevine! Clifton Oliver and Allison Semmes have been cast as Berry Gordy and Diana Ross, respectively, in the first national tour of Motown The Musical. The foot-tapping and finger-snapping show is set to begin performances April 22 at the Oriental Theatre in Chicago before continuing to cities across the country. Additional casting will be announced soon. View Commentslast_img read more

Foss: Lowering the BAC a good idea

first_imgThe reason for this is simple: I don’t have to worry about how I’m going to get home, or wonder what my blood alcohol concentration is. I don’t have to call a taxi, or an Uber, or take the bus. In a perfect world, people intent on drinking alcohol wouldn’t drive to bars and restaurants. They’d use public transportation instead, or enlist a member of their party to serve as a designated driver, or be prepared to summon a driver. Perhaps they’d restrict their bar-hopping and dining to restaurants and bars in their neighborhood. We don’t live in a perfect world, which goes a long way toward explaining why more than 10,000 people are killed by alcohol-impaired drivers each year in the U.S. Despite countless campaigns highlighting the dangers of drinking and driving, a lot of people persist in getting behind the wheel when they’ve had a few too many. As a result, there’s now a movement to lower the blood alcohol level for drunk driving from .08 to .05. In New York, Assemblyman Felix Ortiz has introduced a bill that would make this lower BAC threshold the law of the land. Lowering the BAC isn’t popular — it faces fierce opposition from the alcohol, bar and restaurant industries, for one thing — but it’s a good idea that would save lives. At least, that’s what the National Traffic Safety Board and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine have concluded, and these conclusions are rooted in science.  Of course, it isn’t enough to lower the drunken driving threshold. If we’re serious about getting drunk drivers off the roads, we need to improve our public transportation networks and create walkable communities. We need to promote the idea that walking to a bar is normal, and that every drinker should have a way to get home that doesn’t involve driving themselves. In short, we need to make it easy for people to get where they want to go without using a car. In my experience, drinking is more fun when you take driving out of the equation.If we lower the BAC, I suspect more people will discover the joys of drinking and not driving. Reach Sara Foss at [email protected] Opinions expressed here are her own and not necessarily the newspaper’s.More from The Daily Gazette:Motorcyclist injured in Thursday afternoon Schenectady crashLow-income students and students of color twice as likely to attend school remotelySchenectady High School senior class leaders look to salvage sense of normalcySchenectady County warns of possible COVID-19 exposure at Schenectady restaurant, Rotterdam barCapital Region COVID-19 Tracker for Friday, Oct. 16, by county A number of studies have shown that an individual’s ability to operate a motor vehicle begins to deteriorate at lower levels of blood alcohol concentration. These drivers might not be as drunk as people who blow a .08 or higher on a breathalyzer test, but they can still cause problems on the road. According to a study on the effectiveness of a 0.05 BAC limit for driving from the National Center for Biotechnology Information, “The risk of being involved in a crash increases significantly at 0.05 BAC and above.” The study also notes that in most industrialized countries the BAC limit is 0.05, and that countries that lowered their illegal blood concentration limit from .08 to .05 saw a corresponding decline in traffic fatalities. Those opposed to lowering the legal believe it would unnecessarily punish casual drinkers who aren’t much of a risk, while doing nothing to crackdown on heavier drinkers who are far more dangerous. Unfortunately, the research suggests that these casual drinkers do pose a risk, and are much more likely to cause a crash than non-drinkers. According to the NCBI study, the “relative risk of being killed in a single-vehicle crash with BACs of 0.05-0.079 is seven to 21 times higher than for drivers with a BAC of zero.” center_img Categories: Opinion, Schenectady CountyMy favorite bars are the ones I can walk to. last_img read more

BPL Weekend matches

first_imgTHIS WEEK’S MATCHESSPORTSMAX 2SATURDAY7:45 a.m. WEST HAM VS SUNDERLAND12:30 p.m. WEST BROM VS CRYSTAL PALACE5 p.m. SOUTHAMPTON VS CHELSEA7 p.m. WATFORD VS BOURNEMOUTH10:45 p.m. STOKE VS ASTON VILLASUNDAYSPORTSMAX 29 a.m. MAN U VS ARSENALSPORTSMAX9 a.m. TOTTENHAM VS SWANSEAlast_img

WAKE UP TO DONEGAL ON RTE RADIO THIS SUNDAY MORNING

first_imgSome of the musicians and writers for Sunday Miscellany, Alan Mc Monagle , Marie Hannigan, Brian O’Sullivan, Martin McGinley, Moya Cannon, Pat Boran, Traolach O’Fionnain Arts Officer, Siobhan McNamara, Winifred McNulty ,Denise Blake, Cliodhna Ní Anluain producer, Geralyn Aspil broadcast co-ordinatorSunday Miscellany, the hugely popular RTE Radio 1 program, recently held another very successful recording during the Donegal Bay and Bluestacks festival. This recording was will be broadcast now as two programs on Sunday Oct 12th and Oct.19th.This Donegal themed show created a wonderful weave of writers and musicians under the guidance of producer, Cliodhna Ni Anluain.The writers for the event were; Moya Cannon, Pat Boran, Anthony Glavin, Marie Hannigan, Denise Blake, Winifred McNulty, Alan McMonagle, Siobhan McNamara, Kieran Kelly and Guy Le Jeune. The Donegal team for the RTE show.The wonderful music was performed by; Donegal Camerata String Ensemble, Mairead Ní Mhaonaigh, Martin McGinley, Brian O’Sullivan and Marie Askin.Sound engineer for the show was well-known local man Jimmy Breslin.Recent figures for Sunday Miscellany were 230,000 listeners which shows the unique opportunity it is for the broadcast to be made in County Donegal.For over four decades RTÉ Radio’s Sunday Miscellany has been at the heart of Sunday morning. This wonderful radio experience captures our ever-shifting moods, our obsessions and distractions, our dreams and fears and the intimate details of our lives. Its distinctive mix of brand new short essays and poetry presented on air by their authors and interspersed with music. Tune into RTE Radio one to hear the terrific selection of writers and musicians hosted by the programmes’s producer and editor, Clíodhna Ní Anluain. With thanks to The Sandhouse Hotel, Rossnowlagh. WAKE UP TO DONEGAL ON RTE RADIO THIS SUNDAY MORNING was last modified: October 10th, 2014 by StephenShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:donegalradioRTESunday Miscellanylast_img read more

Special teams charges Sharks win over the Penguins

first_imgPITTSBURGH — Micheal Haley’s return to the Sharks got overshadowed by an exceptional special teams night, Tomas Hertl’s two-goal game and a bounce-back performance from Martin Jones.The Sharks knocked off the Pittsburgh Penguins 4-0 on Thursday, earning their second win over the team that beat them in the 2016 Stanley Cup Final in less than six weeks, another sign that the team is a top contender heading toward the stretch run.Haley suited up for his first game since the Sharks plucked him …last_img read more

Five takeaways from Raiders OTAs

first_imgFive takeaways from the first Week of Raiders organized team activities (which included one day of media access):1. Darren Waller gets his shotThe Raiders’ biggest offseason loss was tight end Jared Cook, who signed with the New Orleans Saints in free agency. Cook caught 68 passes, tying Jalen Richard for the club lead, and led the Raiders with 896 receiving yards. Yet the Raiders made almost no effort to bring back Cook at age 32.Waller, 26, was a waiver claim last Nov. 27 season from the …last_img read more

Evolution 2.0: What’s in the Upgrade?

first_imgConsider Evolution 1.0.  That was the old biological, Darwinian stuff.  Now, there’s Evolution 2.0 – the evolution of technology.  W. Brian Arthur explained the upgrade package for New Scientist: “On the origin of technologies.”     Arthur is not the first to try to define a law of nature for the origin of technology.  He recognized, though, that prior attempts failed because some technologies do not fit the picture of an accumulation of small variations.  “The jet engine, for example, does not arise from the steady accumulation of changes in the piston engine, nor does the computer emerge from accumulated changes in electromechanical calculators,” he explained.  Therefore, “Darwin’s mechanism does not apply to technology.”  His new book The Nature of Technology tried to identify the laws of technological evolution.  He argued that new technologies do, indeed, derive from older ones, but not in a gradualistic way.  It’s more a combinatorial evolution, he said: “we need to tailor our thinking directly to technology, not borrow from biology.”     In order to think technologically instead of biologically, he said, “To start with, we can observe that all technologies have a purpose; all solve some problem.”  Then, “novel technologies form from combinations of existing ones, and in turn they become potential components for the construction of further technologies.”  As a result, a kind of tree of technology emerges: This mechanism, which I call combinatorial evolution, has an interesting consequence.  Because new technologies arise from existing ones, we can say the collective of technology creates itself out of itself.  In systems language, technology is autopoietic (from the Greek for “self-creating”).  Of course, technology doesn’t create itself from itself all on its own.  It creates itself with the agency of human beings, much as a coral reef creates itself from itself with the assistance of small organisms.     Autopoiesis tells us several things: that every technology stands atop a pyramid of ancestral ones that eventually made it possible; that all future technologies will derive from those now existing (though we cannot say exactly how); and that a novel technology’s value lies not just in what it does, but also in what further technologies it will lead to. Arthur tried to make tie-ins to Darwin wherever he could.  He has common ancestry, he has progress, he has a tree (or pyramid), he has building blocks, and he has emergence.  He even has digital organisms producing logic circuits in silico.  He fed a computer program a few simple logic circuits, some random mutations, and watched what emerged: Once we launched the experiment we found, unsurprisingly, that most new random combinations failed to meet any needs.  But after a few hundred steps, circuits started to appear that matched some elementary needs, and could be used as further building blocks.  From these, more sophisticated technologies evolved.  After about a quarter of a million steps, we found that the system had evolved quite complicated circuits: an 8-way-exclusive-OR, 8-way-AND, 4-bit-Equals – even an 8-bit adder, the basis of a simple calculator. He did admit, of course, that the emergence of these “technologies” was predicated on the fact that he had defined “needs” for the program.  These served as goals that could be rewarded.  “When we took away these simpler needs, these stepping-stone technologies did not emerge, and complex needs went unfulfilled.”     How does Evolution 2.0 differ from Darwin’s kind of evolution?  The primary difference is that combinatorial evolution is rare (but not absent) in biology.  Living organisms, he argued, evolve primarily through incremental changes and selection.  Technologies only emerge when pre-existing technologies combine in new ways.  “Darwinian variation and selection kick in only once a technology exists,” he said.  “For what really counts, the formation of new ‘species’ in technology, combinatorial evolution holds sway.”     One phrase notably missing from his theory is intelligent design.  It would seem ID would play heavily in any theory of technology, but references to human intelligence, goal-directed behavior, and purpose were referred to obliquely at best. It sometimes seems inconceivable that such shallow logic can pass for scholarship and scientific reasoning these days.  Someone needs to inform poor Dr. Arthur that he cannot derive Evolution 2.0 from Darwinism.  What he calls Ev 2.0 is nothing more than human intelligent design.  Humans are not omniscient.  They don’t create radar and iPhones ex nihilo.  But they learn, they create, and they choose.  They know what they want, and they can move mountains and organize materials to get it, once they find a method that works.  So yes, there will be elements of progress in human technology.  When the Sicilians invented the catapult, a way to inflict damage on an enemy city from a safe distance, the Romans were quick to improve on it.  These were all purposeful actions by intelligent beings capable of arranging materials for ends.  What on earth does that have to do with Darwinian mutation and selection?  Nothing.  Even the Victorian notion of progress in biology had a serious falling out in the 20th century.  Our perceptive readers surely noticed Arthur cheating in his software.  Just like the “digital evolution” charlatans, he held the strings of his marionettes so that they would do his own purposeful bidding.     That’s one of the fundamental errors in Arthur’s thinking.  He fails to constrain himself to the world of particles he describes.  He sits like Yoda, looking down on the world of nature, to explain it in a detached manner, like some disembodied sage on an alternate plane.  Once these guys understand that it is impossible to justify the Yoda Complex in a naturalistic world view, they will start understanding the scornful looks coming from the sentient designed beings around them.     So what’s in the Ev 2.0 upgrade?  Intelligent design – of an inferior kind from what came in its predecessor, life.  It’s a downgrade.  Unload your stock in Darwin & Co.  The smart money is on biomimetics – imitating the advanced technology found in the living world (e.g., AskNature.org).(Visited 37 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

China trade update

first_imgShare Facebook Twitter Google + LinkedIn Pinterest In late March, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin arrived in Beijing for two days of trade talks with Chinese officials. This was followed by another round of talks in Washington, D.C., in early April. They indicated that progress was being made.The U.S. Administration officials say they have seen progress in all areas from a month ago. Talks have shifted from a focus on Chinese purchases of U.S. goods to more structural issues with the trade agreement, giving hope that resolutions will come sooner rather than later. China indicated it wants the U.S. to lift tariffs as a part of the deal, but the U.S. is pushing back as a way of maintaining leverage to ensure Beijing follows through on any commitments it makes. Discussions on this area of the agreement could potentially push a resolution from April into May or June, according to Lighthizer.In addition, a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement panel found that China has provided trade distorting domestic support to its grain producers well in excess of its commitments under WTO rules. China’s market price support policy artificially raises Chinese prices for grains above market levels, creating incentives for increased Chinese production of agricultural products and reduced imports.This panel report is a significant victory for U.S. agriculture that will help American farmers compete on a more level playing field. This dispute is the first to challenge China’s agricultural policies that disregard WTO rules.last_img read more

Child Maltreatment Before and After Deployment

first_imgBy Rachel Dorman, MS & Heidi Radunovich, PhDFamily violence can have a devastating impact on everyone in the home, especially children. Children are vulnerable to being exposed to or experiencing violence in homes where family violence occurs. Thomsen, Rabenhorst, McCarthy, Milner, Travis, Foster, and Copeland (2014), sought to learn more about the relationship between frequency of child maltreatment and the offending parent’s stage of deployment.[Flickr, model: Jo by Deepjoy Tang, CC BY-ND 2.0] Retrieved on September 22, 2015Thomsen and colleagues (2014) examined incidents of child maltreatment that occurred during an 85 month period when the offending parent was an active duty United States Air Force member who had combat related deployment during Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom. The study accomplished this by merging two databases for analysis: the United States Air Force Family Advocacy System of Records and a deployment database. After merging the two databases, the study consisted of 2,287 children who had experienced maltreatment either pre-deployment or post-deployment from their USAF parent. Children were considered to be eligible for the study if they had experienced maltreatment from an active duty USAF parent, who was not married to another service member and had served in one or more combat-related deployments during OIF or OEF. The study reported 2,563 incidents of substantiated maltreatment in the 2,287 child victims. Researchers found that overall incidence of child maltreatment REDUCED after deployment. However, moderate to severe abuse was more likely after deployment, and use of alcohol further increased the likelihood of abuse. However, milder forms of child abuse were much more common prior to deployment.[Flickr, Plastered 20 365 by Rafiq Sarlie, CC BY-ND 2.0] Retrieved on September 17, 2015The researchers encourage future studies to examine what could account for the lower incidence of mild abuse after deployment. They hypothesize that stressors might be lower after deployment, or perhaps growth and maturity could occur over time to reduce the level of mild child maltreatment. Thomsen and colleagues (2014)recommend that clinicians be vigilant in the identification of moderate to severe child maltreatment in post-deployment homes, because children seem to be more at risk at that time. To learn more about child maltreatment please check out our previous blogs on the topic:Child Maltreatment PreventionMilitary Child Maltreatment, Deployment, and Future ResearchResource Discovery on child maltreatmentAlso, we have an archived webinar that explores attachment issues, neurology and interventions for children suffering from trauma.References[1] Thomsen, C., Rabenhorst, M., McCarthy, R., Milner, J., Travis, W., Foster, R., & Copeland, C. (2014). Child maltreatment before and after combat-related deployment among active-duty United States Air Force maltreating parents. Psychology of Violence, 4(2), p. 143 – 155. DOI: 10.1037/a0031766 This post was written by Rachel Dorman, M.S. and Heidi Radunovich, PhD, members of the MFLN Family Development (FD) team which aims to support the development of professionals working with military families. Find out more about the Military Families Learning Network FD concentration on our website, on Facebook, on Twitter, YouTube, and on LinkedIn.last_img read more