Bucksport softball team off to 3-0 start

first_imgBUCKSPORT — The Bucksport softball team has kicked off its season with a 3-0 start, scoring double-digit runs in each of those games.Following their 16-4 season-opening win over Washington Academy (2-1), the Golden Bucks shut out both Dexter (1-2) and Mount Desert Island (0-2) in the past week.Bucksport 12, Dexter 0Bucksport’s Maggie Bires fired a three-hitter, striking out eight and walking two, to lead the Golden Bucks past Dexter in six innings on Saturday.This is placeholder textThis is placeholder textAlso for Bucksport, Julia Zavalza drove in three runs with a double and two singles. Makenzie Smith had three singles and an RBI, and Emily Hunt and Kaylee Grindle each had two singles and an RBI.Bucksport 14, MDI 0Katelin Saunders recorded a five-inning no-hitter to lead the Golden Bucks by MDI on Thursday.Saunders walked just one batter and struck out nine while Makenzie Smith doubled twice and drove in three runs. Emily Hunt and Kaylee Grindle each added two singles, and Hunt also drove in two runs. Julia Zavalza contributed a double and two RBIs.Hermon 13, Ellsworth 1Katelynn Bagley slammed a solo homer for Ellsworth (1-1) on Tuesday en route to its loss to Hermon (3-0).WA 7, GSA 2Washington Academy beat George Stevens Academy (1-2) on Saturday.Foxcroft 16, MDI 6Aubrey Boyce recorded a double and single for MDI in its loss to Foxcroft (3-0) on Saturday.Ellsworth 11, GSA 0Callie Hammer led Ellsworth (1-1) with two doubles, a single and three RBIs in the team’s season-opening win over GSA on Thursday.Also for Ellsworth, Leah Stevens hit two singles with two RBIs and scored three runs. Breann Cummings and Shelby Cote each singled and doubled with two RBIs. Pitcher Kate Whitney fired a two-hitter with 13 strikeouts and one walk.Olivia Stevenson singled twice for GSA.last_img read more

Read More →

Bigger forces amass grad student debt

first_imgFailed attempts at policy reform have led America to reach its tipping point. Too many ideas and too little time has caused the American people to solely rely on theory rather than applied practice, and millennials are set up to face the worst set of ramifications.Last month, the Center for American Progress released a study that found 20 universities to be responsible for the a fifth of all graduate school debt — with USC listed as No. 5, with students having amassed $460 million in graduate student loan debt.The exorbitant amount of borrowed money has contributed to the question many students, faculty, parents and bystanders have: Is USC irresponsible for steadily increasing tuition, and if so, why? But a deeper understanding of the interplay between federal and privatized loans and university tuition reveal a flawed system of increased demand and disproportionate tuition rates.For hundreds of years, America has prided itself on the concept of the American Dream. But with constant partisan divide stopping the effective execution of plans, Americans are no longer reaping success after years of hard work and are becoming less incentivized to do more with the American Dream out of reach.In the midst of the forthcoming presidential election, many candidates have promised policy reform for debt-free college programs by insinuating that Gen Y’ers will no longer be burdened by high college tuition. This is sadly false. In reality, doling out hollow promises for free education without feasible plans and with limited federal funding only allows the cycle of increased student debt to persist. And while this issue continues, millennials are precluded from fully contributing to American markets.College debt came under fire last year when Andrew Rossi released the documentary Ivory Tower,  explaining the businesslike nature of colleges. Though nothing has changed since, recently released staff reports from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York can help explain why both colleges and students are so caught up in the never-ending cycle of rising tuition and higher student debt.Over the past century, USC has steadily raised the cost of both undergraduate and graduate tuition, but much of the rhetoric behind this steady increase has to do with an interlinked relationship between higher tuition costs and increased loan demands.As explained in the Federal Reserve reports, higher tuition costs increase loan demand, but loan supply also affects tuition costs. This is can be explained through the pass-through effect, in which colleges adjust to the economic circumstance by counteracting increased costs and the increased availability of loans by raising tuition.“We find that institutions more exposed to changes in the subsidized federal loan program increased their tuition disproportionately around these policy changes, with a sizable pass-through effect on tuition of about 65 percent,” the June staff report stated.The more readily available loans are, the more college will cost and the more likely institutions are to increase tuition disproportionately. The report identifies a positive correlation between higher tuition and available student credit. The study finds that though it appears student loans would benefit students, they actually are detrimental because they create a ripple effect in incentivizing colleges to raise tuition repeatedly. The study also explains that Pell Grants specifically seem to have driven tuition higher because Pell Grants don’t require as much payment as other loans.The rhetoric and analytical data that the staff reports from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York may explain why students at USC and other colleges in the nation are struggling to pay tuition. The system is the law of supply and demand in reverse: Too much access to borrowed money equals higher tuition rates and less student enrollment.It isn’t really colleges that are responsible or the greater availability of loans. It’s an overall flawed approach to gearing millennials toward better jobs. Colleges and USC should not falter in these failed cycles of increasing student tuition. In an effort to help the millennials and the economy, universities should consider decreasing tuition so students are not trapped in the cycle of borrowed debt.last_img read more

Read More →

World Court to decide on jurisdiction after February 2019 – Greenidge

first_imgGuyana-Venezuela border controversy– Ministry launches PSAs to increase awareness The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will early next year make a determination on whether or not it is its jurisdiction to hear the matter relating to the Guyana-Venezuela border controversy.This was related by Foreign Affairs Minister Carl Greenidge who disclosed on Thursday that the delay was based by an objection by the Bolivarian Republic which said it “does not recognise” the ICJ’s jurisdiction.“It will be sometime after February next year that the court will decide on jurisdiction,” the Foreign Affairs Minister posited.Greenidge said after such time, the court will proceed with the substantive case which could be heard in two years’ time.In the meantime, the Foreign Affairs Ministry collaborated with the Education Ministry and launched two Public Service Announcements (PSAs) on the Guyana-Venezuela border controversy. This seeks to inform and update the public on the ongoing matter which is currently gaining the attention of the ICJ in Hague, The Netherlands. The PSAs are available on Facebook and YouTube and will soon be broadcast on television in the near future.Venezuela claims the entire Essequibo region but according to Guyana’s application to the World Court, for more than 60 years Venezuela had consistently recognised and respected the validity of the binding force of the 1899 Award and the 1905 map agreed by both sides in furtherance of the award.On March 29, 2018, Guyana filed an application requesting the World Court to confirm the legal validity and binding effect of the 1899 Arbitral Award regarding its boundary with Venezuela. This application followed a decision by the UN Secretary General earlier this year in choosing the ICJ as the next means of resolving the controversy that arose as a result of the Venezuelan contention that the Arbitral Award of 1899 about the frontier between British Guiana and Venezuela was null and void.The court documents noted that while Venezuela has never produced any evidence to justify its belated repudiation of the 1899 Award, the neighbouring country has used it as an excuse to occupy territory awarded to Guyana in 1899, to inhibit Guyana’s economic development, and to violate Guyana’s sovereignty and sovereign rights.In filing the application, Foreign Affairs Minister Carl Greenidge, who will serve as Guyana’s agent in the proceedings before the ICJ, said: “… Guyana has respected the Secretary General’s decision and placed its faith in the International Court of Justice to resolve the controversy in accordance with its statue and jurisprudence, based on the fundamental principles of international law, including the sanctity of treaties, the maintenance of settled boundaries and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of States.”On January 30, 2018, Secretary General Antonio Guterres, concluded that the Good Offices Process – which the parties had engaged in for almost 30 years, but failed to achieve a solution to the controversy – and chose the ICJ as the next means of settlement, for which Guyana has long been advocating. United States oil giant ExxonMobil had announced back in May 2015 that it had found oil offshore Guyana. Venezuela has staunchly been against oil exploration in Guyana’s Stabroek Block, where multiple oil deposits were found by ExxonMobil, and has since renewed claims to the Essequibo region. (Shemuel Fanfair)last_img read more

Read More →