Sunday, August 30, 2009

Y! Alert: The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Yahoo! Alerts
My Alerts

The latest from The Full Feed from HuffingtonPost.com

Ben Stiller: Two Young (-ish, at the Time) Punks Attempt to Re-Write Schulberg Top
I guess you could say that our relationship with Budd Schulberg was typical Hollywood: we met him, we liked each other, and in the end, we kind of broke his heart. But that didn't mean we didn't stay friends. In Hollywood, nobody will hurt you like your friends. It's a given. Sometimes it's intentional, Sammy Glick-style, but it's worse when it isn't. Which doesn't make it any easier to write about. We both ended up loving Budd and, given the shot, like many others before us, we couldn't get the movie of his classic, What Makes Sammy Run? , made. Why us? Why did we think we could do what others had not done for 60 years? Why not us, we thought at the time. Of course, here we are 13 years later, and not quite there. Okay, nowhere. And Budd, rest his soul, was a lot more gracious about our failure than his indelible Sammy would have been. As Al Manheim, Sammy's Boswell put it: "Sammy always made you feel that any confession of failure was on level with admitting that you had a yen for nothing but female dogs and ten-year-old corpses..." Recently we sat down to fake interview ourselves about how it all didn't happen, or maybe just to commiserate -- not as much about not getting the movie made, but about how we had finally lost an unlikely friend. BEN: In '96 I got a new agent right before The Cable Guy bombed. His first piece of advice was not to do anything for six months. He said I was in "movie jail." I had time to read. Billy Gerber and Gene Kirkwood, at Warner Brothers, somehow got the idea to give me a shot at greatness. They said why don't you direct and act in Sammy . I read the book and loved it. Sounded like a good idea to me, especially considering my incarceration. The financing for the movie I was waiting to play Jerry Stahl in -- Permanent Midnight -- was taking a while to come through (if ever, according to my agent/jailer), so I asked Jerry if he wanted to work on re-writing Budd's script with me in the meantime. Why did I ask Jerry? I knew he was a good writer and I was scared out of my mind to try to do it alone. JERRY: Ben Stiller, fresh off Cable Guy , Jerry Stahl, fresh off a park bench in MacArthur Park. In retrospect, I can imagine how thrilled Budd Schulberg, the man who wrote On The Waterfront , must have been to have a couple of giants adapting the greatest work of his lifetime. It was not like we were the first to tackle Sammy . The book has already shown up as a live television drama on Philco Television Playhouse in '49. It was revived in 1959 as a two-parter on NBC, with future Dynasty giant John Forsythe as Al Manheim and Larry Blyden as Sammy. Steve Lawrence starred in a Broadway musical version in 1964. (Weirdly, three years before Hair .) BEN: In the nine months it took to get the financing for Permanent Midnight , we re-wrote Schulberg. Our idea was that there be might be a way to contemporize the story, without re-setting it in the present. Keep the flavor of the era, but give it a little more "edge"... We even started writing in a suite at the Chateau Marmont. I seem to remember a bit of Musso & Frank's time, as well. Just to get that deep "Old Hollywood" feel. When we were done we had a great (or so we thought) script. We sent it to everyone and came to our first meeting -- thought we didn't know Budd was going to be there. JERRY: We met around a tanker-sized mahogany table at Warner Bros. that might have been put there in the thirties. Budd came in: a shock of white hair, pink-cheeks, his blue eyes slightly watery but almost supernaturally piercing. He took us in, stayed quiet for a moment, and then spoke up in his trademark soft, susurrus stutter, and let us have it. With good reason. Whoever had typed up the title page left off "based on the novel by Budd Schulberg." (I blamed Ben. Ben blamed an assistant.) When Budd brought that up, out of the gate, I kind of loved him for it. He might have been an Oscar®-winning, two-legged incarnation of Hollywood History, but he was pissed, the way any writer would be pissed. And he let us know. Once he took us to school for our heinous faux pas, however, he relaxed and voiced only mild objections to our stab at rendering his classic for the screen. Not surprisingly, Budd had actually adapted Sammy for the screen before we ever rolled in. But nobody wanted to make his, either. Which may be one explanation of why he never leapt out of his chair screaming at the fact that he, the grand master, had to sit there and let two little pischers make carnival with his masterpiece. He was a gentleman. There are good projects that don't get made all the time. Most aren't famous for not getting made. And most aren't written by an author who is Hollywood incarnate history, who literally penned one of the most quoted lines in Hollywood history, "I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody, instead of a bum, which is what I am..." And which was what we felt like, after a while, for never being able to deliver what we knew would mean so much to Budd. BEN: But still, we stayed in touch, years after there was any real talk of mounting the movie. Whenever I'd re-connect with Budd, he'd look at me with those alarmingly blue eyes, "Well...?" And I'd just sigh ... "Not yet, Budd, not yet." I had to get over the feeling that every time we saw each other we were both reminding ourselves of the unfinished business between us, and the frustration we both felt. I don't know if I ever did. I gave him an award a couple of years back at some make shift film festival in Culver City. I dropped it off the podium, of course, and Budd just laughed. At some point he really could have just said, "Enough of you, Stiller, and your pseudo- Sammy crusade. You had my baby, and you didn't get it done." It would have been easy, even expected. But he didn't. Never. He always asked how my dad was, or how the project I was working on was going. The last time I saw him was with his family at a little restaurant on the upper west side, a breakfast place. He looked dapper, as always. I could tell he was feeling a bit under the weather, a little rundown. He had a surgery, and was recuperating. We didn't discuss Sammy that last time. JERRY: The last time I saw him, a week before his death, was in Mt. Sinai Hospital in New York. He had collapsed that morning and lost a lot of blood. But his eyes were just as intensely blue -- his cheeks still rosy. He seemed serene -- even as a frenetic parade of nurses, family and occasionally, an actual doctor stepped in to check him. I mentioned that I happened to be working on something about Hemingway, and at the sound of his name, Budd perked up. "He was a b-b-b-b-bully." Apparently the great man began to push and taunt young Budd from the moment they were introduced. "So, you think you're a writer, huh?" Eventually, Papa was unlucky enough to suggest a boxing match. He threw a punch at Budd. And Budd -- no stranger to the ring -- threw one back. That was that. "He didn't like it when you fought back," Budd said. Everyone in the room listened with rapt fascination. It was a hell of a story.
 
D. Brad Wright: Bob Collier Is The New Joe The Plumber Top
You're probably asking "Who is Bob Collier?" Before last Tuesday, he was just a "regular joe" from southwest Georgia. Thanks to a New York Times article from Kevin Sack, Collier could become the next "Joe the Plumber" if he's not careful. There are plenty of people who could fill that role, but for some reason Sack chose to write about Collier. As a fellow Georgian (I'm from the southeast part of the state), I couldn't resist sharing Collier's story. In brief, Collier and his wife are your traditional, hard-working, salt-of-the-earth, conservative southerners. I know that might conjure up a negative stereotype for a lot of you, but these aren't bad people. I should know. Most of my family could be described the same way. But even good people, like Mr. Collier, can hold misguided views. In the article, Collier is quoted as saying the following: "This is about the future of our country as we know it, and may mean the end of our country as we know it....We've got to do something about those people who can't get insurance. There has to be a safety net there. But I don't want that safety net to catch too many people....I think you're going to have all the efficiency of the post office with the compassion of the I.R.S....[and] lazy and irresponsible people who play the system." From his own words, you can tell that Collier believes in helping those who really need it, but he also believes in hard work and shuns what he perceives as laziness. Obviously, the line dividing "justified" assistance from "unjustified" assistance is very difficult to draw. Most people living in unfortunate circumstances are not there because they are lazy. There are just far too many factors involved for such a simple label to make sense. Honestly, I can remember being told frequently when I was growing up just how lazy I was. And if I'm being honest with myself, I'd still much rather watch football on TV than go for a run. Doesn't that mean I'm lazy? But, I'm doing pretty well for myself. Maybe it's only certain kinds of laziness that lead to the sort of personal decline folks like Collier like to refer to. The point is, I think most Americans feel the way Collier does. They believe in deserving and undeserving poor. Conservatives may think most of the poor are lazy and undeserving, while progressives may not like to blame the poor for their predicament, but I genuinely believe that everyone has some concept of folks who need help and those who abuse the system. In the last election, Republicans used Joe the Plumber for political gain, but I think Democrats could have done the same if they had framed things differently and been quicker on the draw. The same is true now. Bob Collier is about the best example of "everyman" you can find in this country. There's just one problem: He and his wife have voted Republican consistently since 1980. That fact alone probably prevents most Democrats from seeing the value in making an example out of Bob Collier. Some are even criticizing the Times for profiling a person so unrepresentative of the public's views on health reform. But they ought to take a second look. Health reform would help Collier--even he admits "I know we need some reform"--but he has to be shown how he and his wife would benefit. Progressives are often criticized for being out of touch with the people. This is a chance for them to change that image, win the hearts and minds of the American people, and win big politically, by giving the country the health reform it so desperately needs. _______________________________________ Read or Subscribe to Wright on Health to find out Why Malpractice Reform Isn't Enough , How Henry Waxman Plans To Blow The Whistle On Health Insurers , and Whether There Is Any Hope For Social Justice In America. And, hey, while you're at it, why don't you become my fan on HuffPo? More on Health Care
 
Roger Hickey: Let's Pass Ted Kennedy's Health Plan Top
Let’s get a few things straight:    Until last year, Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s health care bill (co-authored with with Cong. John Dingell) was a bill known as Medicare for All .   Not expensive private insurance for some, but Medicare [a public insurance plan] for All . Senator Kennedy encouraged candidate and then President Obama to make health care for all his first priority -- during the campaign and as he took office.  And Ted Kennedy remained in charge as his HELP (Health, Education and Labor and Pension) Committee wrote -- and then passed -- a new health care bill with a strong public insurance option for those who want it.  I feel the need to remind people of all this because conservatives and especially Republican Senators are trying to promote the idea that if only Ted Kennedy were still actively involved in the health care reform effort, he could have gotten the Democrats to fold and embrace a weakened “bi-partisan” compromised health reform strategy.  And some are urging that the best tribute we could construct to the great man’s memory is to pass such a watered-down health bill that could win the support of a large number of conservative Republicans.  Media Matters has done a good job of tracking and responding to the crocodile tears of Republicans, keying off of a Politico obituary that repeats the conservative spin that “without Kennedy, Democrats were less willing to make the concessions needed for true [health care] compromise.”  But whatever Politico’s role, their journalism certainly picked up on the boldly outrageous statements of important conservatives.  One by one, Media Matters’ quotes Republicans from Orin Hatch to John McCain, lamenting that Kennedy’s passing has deprived them all of a “reasonable” Democrat who would have won Republican votes by getting rid of the public plan or making the cost of “reform” dramatically smaller. Let’s get another thing clear:     Republicans don’t want a deal.  They want to kill health reform. Democrats, especially a few in the Senate Finance committee, have for months been reaching out to Republicans with the hand of hopeful bi-partisanship.  And in recent months, conservative Republicans have made it clear that if Democrats (like Finance Committee Chair, Max Baucus) are going to continue to reach out the hand of compromise, they are ready to bite it off.   As cable television covered this weekend’s memorials to Ted Kennedy, when the talk got around to health care, there was almost always one pundit (usually one without much expertise about health care), who could be counted on to repeat the conservative talking points:  “It will take somebody with a liberal reputation like Teddy Kennedy to negotiate a deal with Republicans -- and convince the liberals to accept the compromise.”    When someone occasionally reminds the discussants that even the Finance Committee Republicans, like Grassley and Enzi are refusing to make a deal -- as pollster Geoff Garin did in Sunday’s Washington Post -- one of these all-purpose pundits, like Cokie Roberts, quickly shift the arguments from Republicans to conservative Democrats.  Newsweek ’s Jonathan Alter , who professes to personally support single-payer heath care, has regularly gone on MSNBC programs to tell liberals they need to give up on the public insurance option if they want to get the support of enough Democrats to pass health reform without Republican support.  The generic pundit argument is that liberals need to learn to compromise -- by cutting back the total cost of the package and ditching the public option in order to get the insurance reforms -- like requiring insurance companies to cover all applicants -- and the great step forward of requiring everyone to have insurance.  Let’s get a few more things straight: The public insurance option is consistently very popular in every poll, including the most recent ones, when you ask if people should have the option of choosing a public plan which competes with private insurance companies (which are very un popular). The public insurance option is popular even among the supporters of conservative Democrats. The House will pass a very progressive health plan -- with a strong public option and enough funding to make health insurance affordable for most Americans. Support for a public plan is growing, not shrinking, in the US Senate.  Most Democratic Senators, including members of the Finance Committee -- like Baucus (yes, see his White Paper), Bingaman, and two of the strongest supporters of the public option, Rockefeller and Schumer -- have already endorsed a strong public plan.  Additional Senators would not vote against it.  And Baucus and the rest of the Finance Committee Dems are about to acknowledge the reality that the Republicans have rejected bi-partisanship.  That means Democrats can pass a bill like Kennedy’s HELP bill. OK, but aren’t conservative Democrats worried about the high cost of health reform -- and won’t they demand a smaller, cheaper bill?  And won’t they oppose a public plan? Let’s get a few MORE things straight: Individual mandates are the key demand of the insurance companies. Without that part of the deal, they will fiercely oppose the insurance reforms the pundits say are easy to pass -- the prohibitions against discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions, for example.  But without subsidies that make insurance policies affordable – for middle class voters as well as the poor -- Democrats (even conservative Democrats) don’t want to require their voters to buy health insurance if those policies are not affordable.   Without that part of the package likely to disappear if the whole package is cut -- everybody involved in passing health reform will suffer voter backlash.  Once fiscally responsible Democrats realize they don’t want to make large cuts in the size of the program, they start to understand that the public insurance option is their best tool for keeping the total costs of the program under control.  Blue Dog Democrats in the House have already made a deal that accepts a pretty large health reform plan – and a public option.  Senate Democrats are coming together around a health reform program that is big enough to do the job.  And they are embracing a public insurance plan that controls costs -- and keeps the private insurance industry honest.  In other words, Democrats are coming together around the kind of health reform very much like Senator Ted Kennedy’s HELP bill.  Additional Resources Glenn Greenwald : Bill Moyers on the health care debate, Democrats, and Afghanistan Saturday Aug. 29, 2009 09:30 EDT http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/29/moyers/index.html   From the Institute for America’s Future: Got to our latest report page:  www.ourfuture.org/Jost , and check out the background links.     More on Health Care
 
Heath Slocum Wins Barclays, Was Seeded 124 Out Of 125 Top
JERSEY CITY, N.J. — Heath Slocum might have been the one player no one expected to win The Barclays. He was locked in a tense battle over the final hour Sunday at Liberty National with some of the biggest names in golf – Tiger Woods, Steve Stricker, Padraig Harrington and Ernie Els. Even more incredible is that a week ago, Slocum was not even sure he would make it to the opening event of the PGA Tour Playoffs. Having missed the cut, he had to wait until the tournament was over to learn that by the slimmest of margins – two points – he was the No. 124 seed out of the 125 players who qualified. "My fate was not in my own hands," Slocum said. He had his hands around that putter on the 18th green, however, and delivered the biggest shot of his life. On the same green where Woods stunned the crowd by missing from 7 feet, Slocum knocked in a 20-foot par for a one-shot victory at The Barclays to get this FedEx Cup bonanza off to a compelling start. Slocum closed with a 4-under 67 to win for the third time in his career, and first time in four years. The victory, worth $1.35 million, moved him from No. 124 to No. 3 in the FedEx Cup standings, giving him a shot at the $10 million prize next month in Atlanta. "It was an incredible day, incredible experience," Slocum said. "I was just kind of lucky to come out on top. A lot of good players. At the end of the day, that putt on the last was magical. I'll remember that for the rest of my life." It was another finish Woods would like to forget. In his first tournament since losing a two-shot lead to unheralded Y.E. Yang in the PGA Championship, the putter again cost Woods a chance to win – not only the final round, but all week on greens he could never trust. Woods rimmed out a 3-foot par putt early in the round. He twice missed from inside 10 feet on par 5s. And after another clutch shot on the 18th hole, this one a 6-iron from 189 yards to 7 feet with a chance to tie for the lead, the birdie putt slid by on the left. "It happens," said Woods, who shot a 67. "Not too many golf courses that you misread putts that badly. This golf course is one." The drama unfolded even after some of the stars had left the course. Els finished his bogey-free 66 and had his clubs in the trunk of his car when he heard the loud cheer from the 18th green after Woods stuffed his 6-iron close. Then came a groan after the missed putt. Els had his golf shoes in a plastic bag when he was told that Slocum and Stricker, tied for the lead at 9 under had driven into fairway bunkers on the 18th. He quickly changed shoes and headed to the range. Stricker caught the lip of the bunker, which left him short of the green, and hit wedge to 10 feet. Slocum also came up short, as did his wedge, leaving him 20 feet from the top of the ridge. Slocum raised both arms in the air when his par putt broke gently back to the left and disappeared into the cup. Stricker's putt to force a two-way playoff caught the left lip of the cup. In the third year of these playoffs, the FedEx Cup finally has a winner that resembles a real underdog. "That's what it's all about," Slocum said. "I was sweating it out last week. I didn't even know if I'd be here. I came in here with the attitude that I had nothing to lose." He turned into a huge winner. Slocum, who came into The Barclays at No. 197 in the world ranking, finished at 9-under 275 for the biggest win of his career. His other two victories were opposite-field events, when the best players in the world were competing elsewhere. He faced an All-Star cast across the Hudson River from Manhattan, and Slocum shined. The 35-year-old knocked in a 25-foot birdie at No. 2, the toughest par 3 at Liberty National, then surged into a share of the lead by holing out from 157 yards with a 7-iron for eagle on No. 5. He was steady the rest of the way, especially on the 18th. "Anybody here in this field has the potential to win the tournament," Stricker said. "Heath is a very steady player. He's a very good player. I don't think we should be surprised that he won." The surprise came from Woods. The world's No. 1 player was lurking most of the day, unable to get any traction while missing so many putts. A 3-footer for par rimmed around the cup at No. 4, and he failed to convert birdie putts on two of the par 5s from inside 10 feet. Down the stretch, everything changed. He made a 10-foot birdie on the 14th, saved par with a 15-foot putt on the next hole, and got in range with pitch to 2 feet for birdie on the 16th. And with everything riding on one shot, he nailed his 6-iron to birdie range. Any other week, any other course, Woods making that putt was practically a given. This one never had a chance. "Usually, he makes it," Slocum said. "Ho-hum for him. I guess you can't make 'em all." Els played bogey-free and pulled into a tie for the lead with a birdie on the par-3 14th. He might have been hurt using a new driver, after discovering a crack in his other one on Saturday. Els felt his tee shots were getting away to the right, and he didn't want to risk such a mistake on the par-4 16th, which played only 287 yards in the final round. He laid up and made par. "From where I've come from, where my game has been, where my confidence has been, this is moving in the right direction," said Els, who has not won since March 2008 at the Honda Classic. Harrington continued his solid form, getting into the mix for the third straight tournament. He finished with four birdies over the final seven holes, making a long birdie at the 18th. The final round featured endless possibilities, except for the guys atop the leaderboard. Steve Marino and Paul Goydos, tied for the lead at 9 under to start the final round, and Webb Simpson and Fredrik Jacobson, both two shots behind, combined to go 11-over par. Marino shot 77, while Goydos made only one birdie in his round of 75.
 
Saad Khan, Pakistan Reality TV Contestant, Drowns In Challenge Top
ISLAMABAD — A contestant on a Pakistani reality TV show drowned while performing a challenge for the program, a spokeswoman for the show's sponsor said Sunday. Pakistani contestant Saad Khan, 32, was swimming across a lake while wearing a 15-pound (7-kilogram) backpack when he called out for help and then disappeared underwater, according to Fareshte Aslam, information officer for Unilever Pakistan, the show's sponsor. Horrified co-contestants and crew rushed to try to save him but could not find him in the murky waters of the lake in the Thai capital of Bangkok, where the show was being filmed, according to Aslam, who was recounting reports of those on the scene. Divers later recovered the body of Khan, she said. The death came during filming of the show's 10th episode on Aug. 19, but it was not publicized until Khan's body was returned home to the southern Pakistani city of Karachi. Thai police were investigating to determine whether the death was an accident or caused by negligence, Bangkok's Kom Chad Luek newspaper reported earlier this month. Police could not be contacted Sunday to say if the investigation had been completed. Unilever Pakistan accepts no liability for Khan's death, Aslam said, but added that the company is in discussions to provide for Khan's wife and four children "out of rightness." A close friend of Khan's, Babar Jumani, said by telephone that the family was not ready to talk to the media, and he declined to comment further. Khan had already been eliminated in the as-yet-unnamed show's previous rounds, but had returned for a special challenge to earn a spot in the finals. Plans to air the reality show – intended as a promotional tie for Unilever's Clear shampoo – were on hold. Aslam said Unilever Pakistan, a division of the multinational soap and cosmetics maker, was not involved in the production of the show, which was handled by a director and crew from the Indian entertainment capital of Mumbai. Reality television shows often subject contenders to harsh physical challenges. In May, a contestant of the Bulgarian version of "Survivor" died of a heart attack while filming on an island in the Philippines. Noncho Vodenicharov, 53, collapsed after finishing an unspecified activity for the contest, Philippine police said. ___ Associated Press Writer Ashraf Khan in Karachi contributed to this report. More on Pakistan
 
Madonna (AKA Esther) Brings Her Jesus To Jerusalem Holy Sites Top
JERUSALEM — The Material Girl has opened a visit to the Holy Land with a spiritual touch. Madonna headed to Jerusalem's Old City late Sunday where she toured an ancient tunnel near the Western Wall – the holiest site where Jews can pray. The 51-year-old pop star arrived in a black Mercedes van and was escorted into the tunnel by police. She made no comment to reporters and was whisked away about a half hour later. Madonna isn't Jewish, but she's a follower of Jewish mysticism and has even taken the Hebrew name Esther. She arrived early Sunday for a pair of concerts this week. It will be her first performance in Israel since 1993, though she came on private pilgrimages in 2004 and 2007. Madonna is also set to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday. THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below. JERUSALEM (AP) – The Material Girl has opened a visit to the Holy Land with a spiritual touch. Madonna headed to Jerusalem's Old City late Sunday where she toured an ancient tunnel near the Western Wall – the holiest site where Jews can pray. The 50-year-old pop star arrived in a black Mercedes van and was escorted into the tunnel by police. She made no comment to reporters and was whisked away about a half hour later. Madonna isn't Jewish, but she's a follower of Jewish mysticism and has even taken the Hebrew name Esther. She arrived early Sunday for a pair of concerts this week. It will be her first performance in Israel since 1993, though she came on private pilgrimages in 2004 and 2007. Madonna is also set to meet Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Friday. (This version CORRECTS Madonna's age to '51' sted' '50.') More on Madonna
 
Alvaro Uribe, Colombian President, Has Swine Flu Top
BOGOTA — President Alvaro Uribe has the swine flu and officials are contacting other South American governments whose leaders attended a summit last week with the Colombian leader, authorities said Sunday. The 57-year-old Uribe began feeling symptoms Friday, the same day as a meeting of South American presidents in Bariloche, Argentina, and he was confirmed to have swine flu after returning home, Social Protection Minister Diego Palacio said. "This isn't something that has us scared," Palacio said at a news conference. Uribe, a key U.S. ally in Latin America, is not considered a high-risk patient and will continue working from his computer, officials said. Public health director Gilberto Alvarez said in a telephone interview that there was no need to put the president in isolation and that his condition would monitored for three days to a week. No family members or close associates of Uribe have shown swine flu symptoms, officials said. During a Union of South American Nations summit of the region's presidents Friday, Uribe spent hours defending his plan to give U.S. troops more access to Colombian bases as part of his government's fight against drug traffickers and leftist rebels. Many of his colleagues have voiced concerns about the idea. Palacio said Colombia's foreign ministry was informing governments whose leaders may have come in contact with Uribe. No governments immediately reported cases of sick officials. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who attended Friday's summit, said he felt fine and had recently been tested. "I regret this and hope there are no repercussions for the president's health and that nobody else has caught the disease," said the socialist Chavez, who has had strained relations with Uribe, a conservative. Dr. Alberto Cortez, an infectious disease specialist at Colombia's Universidad Nacional, said it is possible the disease could have been passed on to other leaders at the summit. But he added it needs to be established when Uribe became sick to determine whether he picked up the virus in Argentina – where there are many cases – or if he arrived there with the disease. Uribe is the second Latin American leader to come down with the swine flu. On Aug. 11, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias announced he had swine flu and was being quarantined at his home. The 69-year-old leader, who won the 1987 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in ending Central America's civil wars, has recovered. Colombia's presidential office released a brief statement Sunday saying the country's National Health Institute confirmed that Uribe had swine flu. It said his case was "developing satisfactorily." National Health Institute director, Juan Gonzalo Lopez, said Uribe's case was confirmed on Sunday and that he had complained of body pains and general discomfort. Local media said the president appeared congested and was sneezing during a meeting with regional officials Saturday. Cesar Mauricio Velasquez, spokesman for Uribe, said Uribe planned to handle his duties while recovering. "The president will continue doing his work by computer," Velasquez said. Colombia has reported 621 confirmed cases of swine flu, including Uribe's. There have been 34 deaths from the illness, the government says. More on Swine Flu
 
Roger I. Abrams: Kill the Wave Top
Readers of this blog know that I am an ardent sports fan. I love the games. Sometimes, however, the people who attend the games just annoy me. Maybe it is because it rained so much this summer or that I am not ready for the academic year to begin once again, but let me catalog just a few of my pet peeves about baseball fans. (Fans of other sports might also qualify for censure, but let's pick the sports apart one by one.) 1. I really get annoyed by the "wave" at baseball games. Are the spectators so bored that they must entertain themselves with displays of rhythmic undulation? I particularly get annoyed when this happens in a 1-0 game in the eighth inning with runners on base. Just go home if you have had enough of the national pastime. They don't lock the gates. It is unclear who first devised the wave for sporting events. Reports on the web indicate that it might have been started at a hockey game in 1980 or at a University of Washington football game in 1981 or an Oakland A's game the same year. (I figured Charlie Finley had something to do with this travesty; he also concocted the designated hitter rule.) In any case, the wave gained great international exposure as a result of the 1986 World Cup in Mexico. (How come we flock to the wave, but not to soccer?) In Fenway Park, the wave always starts out in the deepest reaches of centerfield. Perhaps they are so far from home plate that they think the game is over, the Sox won and it is time to celebrate. Dr. Tamas Vicsek, a physics professor at Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest, Hungary, studied the wave and found that 20 or 30 fans can get the whole stadium moving. The typical wave is 15 seats wide, travels about 40 feet per second, and always moves in a clockwise direction. His article appeared in 2002 in the British journal Nature. Vicsek has studied "collective phenomena in biological systems -- flocking, oscillations, and crowds." I guess we are just like the birds. Now if we can get him to focus on how we stop it! 2. At any time he sees fit, some guy in the stands who sits in front of me arises and announces to his fellow fanatics: "Everyone up!" His exhortation is delivered with mucho decibels. Our self-appointed, natural leader has decided that the home team needs the standing support of the faithful at that moment. For some fans who do not have the dexterity of the spontaneous cheerleader, standing up is not that easy. For others who came to watch the game and not the backsides of the people in the front rows, this obnoxious fellow should sit on it. Of course, any sensible suggestion to that effect is answered simply: "You must be one of those Yankees fans ..." 3. Speaking of the Yankees, who are enjoying a spectacular year in the impossible American League East, they are subject to abuse by Boston fans even if they are nowhere near the Fenway. At any given time during a home game against the Rays or the Orioles, a cadre of Boston rooters will announce: "Yankees suck." This, in fact, is not true this year and has not been for a long time. Their epithet, however, is not intended as a commentary on the baseball play of the men who wear the pinstripes. It is hurled at the entire metropolis on the Hudson. There is much to criticize about "the City." It is noisy, friendless, rushed and discourteous. It is dirty, polluted, clogged and obnoxious. The City and its baseball team, however, do not "suck." (The Mets, on the other hand, do "suck.") 4. Beer has long been a major reason why folks attend baseball games. Baseball is the largest outdoor summer beer fest. (Football takes over in the fall.) The National League in the nineteenth century banned those clubs that sold beer to patrons, starting with Cincinnati. They thought it would attract the wrong kind of customers. Almost immediately, a rival league -- the American Association -- was formed with beer brewers at the core of the club owners. Beer and baseball have forever after gone hand in hand (except during Prohibition). I like a beer at the games. My peeve is with those who carry two 16-ounce cups of brew back to their seats. As the game progresses along with their inebriation, those cups tend to spill on their return trips to the seats. If you want to get sloshed, that is fine, but don't slosh it my way. 5. The cell phone has created a major new distraction for baseball fans. Folks talk on those phones as if it is a primitive technology that requires that they shout into the receiver. Once again, boredom must be the cause, because the conversations tend to last for a couple of innings. Parks banned smoking; now if we only get an official study that proves that cell phone use is carcinogenic to those who are seated near the offender. This is an unusual amount of spleen to spill at one sitting. Despite all of this, I still love the games and the fans. Now, if we can just figure out a way to get more tickets! More on Baseball
 

CREATE MORE ALERTS:

Auctions - Find out when new auctions are posted

Horoscopes - Receive your daily horoscope

Music - Get the newest Album Releases, Playlists and more

News - Only the news you want, delivered!

Stocks - Stay connected to the market with price quotes and more

Weather - Get today's weather conditions




You received this email because you subscribed to Yahoo! Alerts. Use this link to unsubscribe from this alert. To change your communications preferences for other Yahoo! business lines, please visit your Marketing Preferences. To learn more about Yahoo!'s use of personal information, including the use of web beacons in HTML-based email, please read our Privacy Policy. Yahoo! is located at 701 First Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA 94089.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)