Tag: 南京油坊桥400块3次

Arsenal outcast Mesut Ozil sends message to team-mates after FA Cup final win

Arsenal outcast Mesut Ozil sends message to team-mates after FA Cup final win

first_imgArsenal outcast Mesut Ozil sends message to team-mates after FA Cup final win He wasn’t in the stadium either but Arteta was not keen to discuss either’s future after the match. Asked if there was anything in them both being absent, Arteta replied: ‘Let’s enjoy the moment.’ He added: ‘We don’t have here Matteo and Mesut but they deserve credit as they played their part.’Should Arsenal sell Mesut Ozil?Yes0%No0%Share your resultsShare your resultsTweet your resultsFollow Metro Sport across our social channels, on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.For more stories like this, check our sport page. Advertisement Advertisement Metro Sport ReporterSaturday 1 Aug 2020 8:57 pmShare this article via facebookShare this article via twitterShare this article via messengerShare this with Share this article via emailShare this article via flipboardCopy link2kShares Comment Ozil was not involved (Picture: Getty)Mesut Ozil sent a message of congratulations to his Arsenal team-mates after being left out of their FA Cup final win over Chelsea. Ozil was not part of Mikel Arteta’s cup-winning side, in fact he wasn’t even in the country. He was in Turkey, with Arsenal’s permission. Despite being their best-paid player, the German World Cup winner has not played a single minute of football since football resumed and his absence from the FA Cup final squad suggests he is not a part of Arteta’s plans. The 31-year-old may not have got his hand on the trophy, but he did seem pleased to see his team-mates get the job done after Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang scored twice in a 2-1 win over Frank Lampard’s team.AdvertisementAdvertisementADVERTISEMENTOzil posted a picture of the Arsenal squad holding the FA Cup trophy aloft with the caption: ‘Great job my boys!!! 🏆👏🏼❤️ #LondonIsRed  🔴 #YaGunnersYa  #FACupWinners’He was not the only high-profile player left out of the side. Matteo Guendouzi, who hasn’t played since clashing with Brighton players in the second match of Project Restart, was also dumped from the final squad. last_img read more

Ed Trimmer: Was House Bill 2453 about religious freedom or discrimination?

Ed Trimmer: Was House Bill 2453 about religious freedom or discrimination?

first_imgIt has been noted, that the RPS may have saved utilities money because the amount of greenhouse gasses utilities are allowed to emit are based on total energy production including renewables. The standards require that utilities produce 20% of their energy by 2020 and they are already between 16 and 17%.  Utilities have indicated they will have no problem reaching the 20% by the target date. The legislature will have the week of March 17-21 for committee work and some debate on the floor.  On March 24th, 25th, and 26th the Legislature will be in full debate, before the April break.  The last few days of March and the first week of April will be devoted to conference committees and voting on any reports they might advance. The standards were not implemented until the Parkinson Administration. Renewable Portfolio StandardsA recent Americans for Prosperity ad, the funding for which they refuse to disclose, claims that because of the Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS), which they allege were adopted during the Sebelius Administration, your utility costs have increased by more than 50 percent.  As former Republican Senate President, Dave Kerr, pointed out, in an article in the Wichita Eagle on February 25th, the claims are “provably false.”  The following are some of the reasons for this claim: Spanking BillNot all of the legislation, which has received negative publicity was sponsored by ultra-conservative Republicans.  A bill to allow a child to be spanked up to ten times and to the point of allowing bruises, was introduced by a Democratic legislator.  I believe children need discipline, but striking them to the point of leaving bruises is overly abusive.  This bill did not get to the floor of the House, but if it had, I would have voted “No.” Opponents to renewables argue that these sources should not receive any kind of subsidy because it violates free market principals.  They forget that we have given hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry over the years, and that we have a Keystone pipeline running through Cowley County that will not pay a dime in property tax for 10 years, while receiving possibly $600 million in tax credits.center_img According to the Kansas Corporation Commission, which is the governing body that approves rate increases for utilities, only 1.6% of the increases in utility rates have been due to the RPS since its inception.  With so many different groups creating political spin about issues coming out of Topeka, I believe it is important to look at the entirety of an issue before making a decision about a piece of legislation.  Some groups are very skilled at giving bills titles that may not always represent what the bill stands for.  That is why I believe it is important for legislators and the public to read legislation and to know exactly what it does not just what someone tells you it does. Americans for Prosperity is but one of a number of political action groups founded by or financed by the KOCH brothers.  KOCH industries is primarily involved in oil production. Ed TrimmerThis is part two of my mid-point legislative update.  The following issues were some of the more controversial ones we have considered this session.Religious Freedom or Discrimination?Recently there has been a large amount of controversy over House Bill 2453.  The bill, titled “Religious Freedom”, extended the right of individuals, who work for government entities, to refuse goods, services, and information to other individuals whose gender or lifestyle violate their religious beliefs.  The bill was created by a national think tank and introduced in several states.The bill did make it to the Governor’s desk in Arizona where it was vetoed.  The Kansas House passed the bill, but the Speaker of the Kansas House called the move a mistake after significant public outcry.  The Senate has indicted they will not work the bill.  While I have supported religious freedom in the past, I voted against this bill because I believe it did not improve the protection of religious freedom, but instead legitimized discrimination.Proponents argued that, if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the Kansas constitutional provision that defines marriage as between one man and one woman, there would be a significant increase in lawsuits against businesses.  An example was a Colorado business that was sued because the owner refused to provide services for a wedding involving a gay couple.  In Kansas, gay people are not a protected class in our constitution, which would mean a similar suit would not have standing in this state.  Businesses can refuse to serve people as long as they do not use race, religion, or gender as a reason.HB 2453 went a step further and said that any individual in a business or government agency could refuse to serve an individual based on “marriage status or gender”.  Later in the bill the term “gender identity” was also included.  There was a clause that required government agencies to attempt to find someone to serve these individuals.  If, however the agency could not find an employee who would serve them, they could be exempted from this provision and would be allowed to refuse the goods or services.I found this problematic.  Many local agencies have only one worker in an office, and that could mean that an individual whose lifestyle violated someone’s religious beliefs would not be served.  That means the government could discriminate and deny an individual the right to license a car, pay taxes, or receive legal representation, to name just a few services that could be denied.Under the bill a teacher could even refuse to teach a gay student.  That could be a significant problem in small schools where there is one math, science, music, social science, or English teacher.  The bill would also allow discrimination if a person does not recognize a non-Christian marriage.  The bill further includes “gender” as a reason for refusal of service.  This would directly violate the Kansas constitutional protections for gender discrimination.According to most legal experts, the bill would actually increase the number of lawsuits in Kansas, not eliminate them because the bill could result in the violation of a number of individual rights.  Bills written by national groups frequently do not consider individual state laws or constitutions and run into trouble as a result.The carrier of the bill and others, who voted for it, admitted they had not read the legislation before they voted. Many felt they had been lied to about the impact of the bill.  I have learned to trust but verify when it comes to legislation.I recently heard another Kansas Legislator claim that if we don’t pass this law it could lead to taking away voting rights for women and minorities.  Even after 36 years of participating in competitive debate, I don’t begin to understand this line of logic.  I believe it would be exactly reverse because the bill institutionalizes discrimination.  Every weekday during the session, I say the flag salute in the House of Representatives.  At the end I say “…with liberty and justice for all”, not, “…with liberty and justice for those with whom I agree.”The Other Religious Freedom BillAnother bill regarding religious freedom was introduced on the floor of the House, but was referred back to committee.  I supported the motion to refer the bill back to committee because this bill actually took away religious freedom.  Part of a Presbyterian congregation in Johnson County wants to split away from the church.  According to church doctrine, the building belongs to the Presbytery, so the Presbytery would arbitrate the dispute and decide which congregation would own the church.  The bill would have removed the right of church governing bodies in cases like this and would put the dispute in the hands of a civil court.  The bill was opposed by several church governing bodies, including the Presbyterian, Methodist and Lutheran denominations.I found it interesting that many of the people, who voted for HB 2453 on the grounds it protected religious liberty, voted for this bill that would take away the liberty of church organizations to be self-determining. Close Forgot password? Please put in your email: Send me my password! Close message Login This blog post All blog posts Subscribe to this blog post’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Subscribe to this blog’s comments through… RSS Feed Subscribe via email Subscribe Follow the discussion Comments (3) Logging you in… Close Login to IntenseDebate Or create an account Username or Email: Password: Forgot login? Cancel Login Close WordPress.com Username or Email: Password: Lost your password? Cancel Login Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout Logged in as Admin Options Disable comments for this page Save Settings Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity Loading comments… You are about to flag this comment as being inappropriate. Please explain why you are flagging this comment in the text box below and submit your report. The blog admin will be notified. Thank you for your input. +3 Vote up Vote down guest · 334 weeks ago You talk about political spin, this entire article is nothing but your political spin, so hypocritical. Report Reply 0 replies · active 334 weeks ago +1 Vote up Vote down JustMe · 334 weeks ago Those evil, evil koch brothers buying the government. Lol http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-14/presenti… Report Reply 0 replies · active 334 weeks ago 0 Vote up Vote down MJE · 332 weeks ago Although I support the spirit of the bill, it was very problematic as written. Should a business owner have the right to refuse service to a customer or client because providing that service would violate one’s religious beliefs? Yes! There was a case in Canada where a Muslim barber refused to cut a woman’s hair, because his religion prohibited him from touching women other than his wife or other family members. This barber only served men. A woman who he had refused to serve filed a complaint against him and won. The issue goes beyond religious beliefs to freedom of expression in general. We don’t have true freedom of expression if an individual or business can be compelled to participate in or assist the expression of speech with which they disagree. Should a print shop have the right to refuse to print protest signs for Westboro Baptist Church or the KKK? I think so. What about refusing to print signs for a gay pride parade or programs for a homosexual wedding? We can’t pick and choose which speech is protected and which isn’t. Where my objections to this bill came in, though, were with extending those rights to individual employees without repercussion. As a business owner, I couldn’t afford to hire employees who might choose to refuse to serve customers that I want served! An employee who objects to part of his job duties on religious grounds needs to either find a different job, or the owner/manager can VOLUNTARILY choose to make accommodations, but the government should not compel employers to make those sorts of accommodations. If I run a day spa with a mostly female clientele, I’m not going to hire a male whose religion prevents him from serving female clients, but I may be willing to hire a female who doesn’t serve male clients, because of the needs of my business. If I run a grocery store, I’m not going to hire a Muslim or Jewish cashier who refuses to ring up or bag pork. They could work for me stocking produce, though. Report Reply 0 replies · active 332 weeks ago Post a new comment Enter text right here! Comment as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new comments Comments by IntenseDebate Enter text right here! Reply as a Guest, or login: Login to IntenseDebate Login to WordPress.com Login to Twitter Go back Tweet this comment Connected as (Logout) Email (optional) Not displayed publicly. Name Email Website (optional) Displayed next to your comments. Not displayed publicly. If you have a website, link to it here. Posting anonymously. Tweet this comment Cancel Submit Comment Subscribe to None Replies All new commentslast_img read more