The Beauty Products Amy Schumer Can’t Live Without Are . . . Secret Deodorant and Toilet Paper

first_imgAMY SCHUMER talked about her beauty “regimen” in a new interview with “In Style” magazine.Here are her six best quotes . . .1.  She wears normal-person deodorant.  Quote, “I use Secret.  I tried the natural ones, but my body was just like, ‘Stop all that.  Just die early and don’t smell like a foot.”2.  She also said the one “beauty product” that she can’t live without is . . . toilet paper.  She didn’t name a brand, but she’s pretty down-to-Earth, so it probably isn’t any of that posh, aloe-infused, eight-ply, perforated by hand, fair trade, gluten-free nonsense.  (???)3.  She doesn’t know if she’ll get Botox or filler.  Quote, “I’m not against it.  I’m pretty sure I’ll never get any sort of surgery, but no proclamations.“I cannot imagine a moment when I’ll need filler for my face, as if it needs to be filled.  Can we un-fill this?  Let’s get an emptier.”4.  Her parents raised her to be confident.  Quote, “My parents made me think I was a genius supermodel, and it was kind of too late when I found out that they’d been lying.”5.  But her confidence has been challenged by fame.  Quote, “I’m also realistic because if I look my absolute best and go to an awards thing, I’m still going to be seated next to Blake Lively or Emily Ratajkowski.  So, that can break your heart or you can be like, ‘This is pretty good.  I’ll take this level.’”6.  She’s been with her boyfriend Ben for almost a year and a half, but they can’t ALWAYS be together.  Quote, “I need a lot of alone time.  Right now, I’m getting my period, and I just don’t like him, you know?  My PMS is no joke.”For what it’s worth, Amy is on the cover of the magazine, wearing a one-piece bathing suit.  It’s low-cut, and she looks great.  But of course, that didn’t stop the trolling.A woman named Dana Duggan who owns a company called South Shore Swimwear made this hurtful comment . . .  Quote, “Come on now!  You couldn’t find anyone better for this cover?  Not everyone should be in a swimsuit . . . I don’t think it’s an attractive photo.”last_img read more

PHOTOS: Dok-Ondar’s Den of Antiquities

first_imgMounted Beasts Dok Ondar Holocrons Share This!Dok-Ondar’s Den of Antiquities is a gift shop located in the Black Spire Outpost area of Star Wars: Galaxy’s Edge. Here, you can purchase both Jedi and Sith artifacts, holocrons, statues and other unique items.To see photos of this peculiar shop, scroll down!Sith Statues Dejarik FigurinesWhat do you think of the store? Anything special catch your eye?last_img

Disneyland News — Week of November 30, 2019

first_imgPricePEAKPEAKREGREGREGREGPEAK For the most up-to-date numbers, check out our Crowd Calendar.WeatherCool, wetter weather continues this week. In fact, only one day is predicted to reach 70, and there is at least a chance of rain every day. Make sure you dress for the weather! ShowSatSunMonTueWedThuFri As always, it’s wise to double check the weather as the day of your visit approaches. Check out the most up-to-date forecast here.ShowsFrom an entertainment standpoint, the main attractions are Disneyland’s holiday shows, like the new Mickey’s Happy Holidays parade at Disney’s California Adventure and Disneyland Park’s A Christmas Fantasy Parade and Believe… In Holiday Magic fireworks. Detailed show schedules, including smaller diversions like The Disneyland Band, can be found here. SatSunMonTuesWedThurFri World of Color2211112 Disneyland8-128-128-108-108-108-108-12 SL SL Admission and HoursFor those of you buying tickets as day guests, single-day tickets during the week are Peak pricing ($149/$141) on the weekends (including Friday) and Regular Price ($129/$122) the remaining days. Regular park hours are as follows this week: A Christmas Fantasy Parade2222222 DisneylandSL SC DX FXSL SCcenter_img California Adventure8-108-108-98-98-98-98-10 Fantasmic!2200002 For early admission, the parks will open one hour early for eligible guests at Disneyland Park Saturday, Tuesday, and Thursday, and at Disney California Adventure Sunday, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Resort guests can take advantage of these hours every day of their stay for Extra Magic Hours, while guests eligible for Magic Mornings can use that benefit one day at Disneyland Park only. Full park hours can be found by clicking on each date in the Crowd Calendar.Passholder blockouts ease off a bit this week. Flex reservations are required on Saturday, Sundays and Friday, and are unavailable for Saturday as this goes to press; check here for the most up-to-date information. Share This!With Thanksgiving in the rear view mirror, you can look forward to low crowds (and, sadly, rain) at Disneyland Resort this week. Read on to find out about this and more in this week’s Disneyland news.Special Events and NotesWe are in the thick of the holiday season now, highlighted at Disneyland by the Festival of Holidays at Disney California Adventure, which is a celebration of holiday-themed food, drink, and entertainment! New this year is Mickey’s Happy Holidays, a twice daily parade/dance party of characters. Over at Disneyland Park, in addition to holiday decor galore, A Christmas Fantasy Parade and Believe… In Holiday Magic fireworks are now running nightly, and holiday merchandise is available for sale in the parks as well. In addition to the Festival and the special holiday shows, make sure you check out the ¡Viva Navidad! celebration featuring traditional costumes, music, and entertainment, and a street party with the Three Caballeros. Some attractions are also getting into the holiday spirit — in addition to Haunted Mansion Holiday, which continues, Cars Land favorites transform to Luigi’s Joy to the Whirl and Mater’s Jingle Jamboree, and its a small world gets its annual holiday overlay. Finally, there’s a new Let It Glow tree display distributed throughout the Downtown Disney District. You can find more information about all of the holiday offerings here.Frozen is now in theaters, but guests experiencing Frozen — Live at the Hyperion will still have an opportunity to check out a sneak peek of Frozen 2.CrowdsCrowds dip noticeably as compared to last week, as kids are back in school until winter break. Only Saturday is predicted to have crowds of any consequence. California AdventureSL SC DX FXSL SC Believe… Holiday Fireworks1111111 SatSunMonTuesWedThurFri Mickey’s Happy Holidays2222222 Early EntryDLDCADCADLDCADLDCA Key: SL: Southern California Select Annual Passport; SC: Southern California Annual Passport; DX: Deluxe Annual Passport; SG: Signature Annual Passport: FX: FlexRefurbishmentsEverything is showing open this week at Disneyland Park. Over at California Adventure, the Red Car Trolley remains dark until next spring. As always, however, refurbishments can pop up unexpectedly, so check out our refurbishments page to make sure your favorite ride is still running, and for details on exactly what will be down and for how long.That should do it for this week’s news. Check back next week and every week to find out what’s coming down the pike. Got questions? Aware of anything else that prospective guests should know about? Let us know in the comments.last_img read more

Leakage of my letter to PM should be treated as high treason: Army chief

first_imgFacing demands for his dismissal, Indian Army Chief General V.K. Singh on Thursday said the leak of his letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh presenting a grim picture of the force’s defence preparedness should be treated as “high treason” and the source of leakage dealt with “ruthlessly”.The assertion by the General to trace the source of the leak came even as Defence sources said that Intelligence Bureau has been asked to inquire into leakage of the letter to the media.As tensions between him and the government escalated over the leak of his official letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Gen Singh hit back saying a “cynical approach” to tarnish his reputation should stop.In a brief statement released by Army Headquarters, Gen Singh, who is currently in Jammu and Kashmir, further said his official communication with the Prime Minister and Defence Minister A.K. Antony is “privileged” communication.”The leakage of the letter should be treated as high treason. Cynical approach to tarnish my reputation should stop. Sources of the leakage should be found and dealt with ruthlessly,” said Singh, who is due to retire on May 31.Singh’s leaked letter led to demands by political parties — Samajwadi Party, Janata Dal (United) and Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) — for his dismissal on Wednesday even as government and Opposition were agreed his concerns should not have come out in the open.There was a strong demand to launch a probe how the letter was leaked to the media. It was also felt that the Army chief should have first raised his concerns on the risk to the country’s security directly with the Defence Minister. The General was also accused of breach of discipline.The media leak of the letter came on top of an acrimony between the Army chief and the government since early this week over his media interview in which he had claimed that he was offered a bribe of Rs 14 crore by a retired Lt Gen for swinging a sub-standard defence deal.”I have made serious note of the observations. After consulting the prime minister and colleagues, we will take appropriate action,” Antony said in Rajya Sabha on Wednesday after members expressed serious concerns over issues of national security.advertisementlast_img read more

India vs Australia: Youth cuts tongue for India’s victory

first_imgCricket is a funny game and its fans are a crazy lot. A cricket frenzy in Tamil Nadu cut his tongue on Thursday during the World Cup semifinal match between India and Australia.  According to a TOI report, Sudhakar of Ponneri in Vellore district, sought the ‘intervention of gods’ to make India win. He was apparantely sad after Australia amassed 328 runs batting first against India in the semifinal. Eventually, India lost the match.Desperation drove the youth to act in a reckless manner and he cut his tongue with a knife at his residence, the Jolarpet police said. On his hearing Sudhakar’s cries, his relatives and neighbours came to his rescue. They rushed him to Adukkamparai government general hospital.India were bowled out for 233 runs while chasing the mammoth total of 328 runs against Australia at the Sydney Cricket Ground. India started their tour in early December with a loss to Australia and finish their tour with a loss against the same opposition. In between, they beat all opponents, barring Australia and England.What MS Dhoni said after India lost”I think they played good cricket. Over 300 is a difficult score to chase, but it was just above par. They looked like getting 350 at one stage we came back well. The fast bowlers could have done better. When you come to the knockout stages, you have to lift your game. We got off to a good start. Shikhar’s dismissal was soft. There is a pressure when you are chasing 320. I don’t think our lower-order can contribute much in these conditions. I am not sure about it. I am 33, I’m still running and maybe next year, close to the World T20 I will decide whether I want to play the next World Cup or not. Looks like these are the players who will continue forward. Thanks to both the Aussie and Indian fans. It’s a bit disappointing for the Indian fans, but in the end only one team can win.”advertisementlast_img read more

In Cooperstown a Crowded Waiting Room

Jessie Schwartz for The New York Times Baseball writers elected no one to the Hall of Fame on Wednesday, despite what might have been the deepest ballot in years.The failure of the writers to pick Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens was not a surprise given the low vote totals received in the past by Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, other players associated with the use performance-enhancing drugs. But the vote totals for Bonds and Clemens, just 36 and 38 percent, were lower than expected.Craig Biggio, who received 68.2 percent of the vote in his first year of eligibility, will almost certainly make it into the Hall of Fame someday. Still, his profile is quite similar to Robin Yount and Roberto Alomar, two players who did better in their first year on the ballot. (Yount got 77.5 percent of the vote in his first year on the ballot in 1999, while Alomar got 73.7 percent of the vote in 2010 and made it in the next year.)Perhaps the clearest effect of the crowded ballot, however, was realized among candidates who were returning to the ballot from last year. Of the 13 players who carried over from the 2012 ballot, nine received a lower share of the vote, including Lee Smith, Alan Trammell, Fred McGriff, Don Mattingly and Bernie Williams.This is atypical; instead, players usually add votes with each additional year they spend on the ballot. Since 1967, when the Hall of Fame adopted balloting rules similar to the ones it uses now, about two-thirds of holdover players gained ground from their prior year’s vote percentage.It is possible to be a bit more precise about this pattern. Based on an analysis of Hall of Fame voting between 1967 and 2011, I found that the increase in a player’s vote total is typically proportional to his percentage from the previous year. In his second year on the ballot, for example, the typical player’s vote share increases by a multiple of about 1.1.Thus, a player who received 10 percent of the vote in his first year would be expected to receive about 11 percent on his second try, while a player who got 50 percent of the vote would go up to 55 percent.The pace of improvement is typically highest in the first several years that a player spends on the ballot, slowing down once he has been eligible five or six times. (The exception is in a player’s 15 and final year of eligibility, when he may receive a fairly large boost.) But these small percentage gains can add up, something like the way in which interest compounds over time. For example, as shown in the chart below, a player who gets just 30 percent of the vote in his first year on the ballot would be projected to make it in on his 14th year of eligibility if he follows the formula each year.In practice, the growth in a player’s vote share is rarely this smooth — and you should not necessarily expect the pattern to hold for Bonds and Clemens. (Instructively, the vote shares for McGwire and Palmeiro have actually been declining.) Nonetheless, Hall of Fame candidates typically have a tailwind as time passes.This year, however, veterans on the Hall of Fame ballot faced a headwind instead. The next chart compares the actual vote that each player received against that projected by the historical formula. Actual results in 2013 compared to projections based on historical patterns.Twelve of the 13 players underperformed their projection; the exception was Dale Murphy, who got a larger-than-average boost in his final year of eligibility, but still came nowhere close to winning election.Even some players who gained ground did not necessarily help their chances. Jack Morris went from 66.7 percent of the vote to 67.7 percent, below his projection of 69.4 percent. The small difference could be important because next year will be Morris’s final year of eligibility, and he projects to be very close to the 75 percent threshold for election. (Perhaps the player who had the best year, instead, was Tim Raines, whose vote share grew to 52.2 percent from 48.7 percent, and who is now a clear favorite to be elected someday by the writers.)Most other players lost ground outright. Trammell, in his 12th year of eligibility, declined to 33.6 percent from 36.8 percent of the vote. He was an underdog to make it in before, but now he seems to have very little chance. The same also holds for Smith, who lost most of what he gained last year after years of stagnant vote totals.McGriff, as Joe Posnanski writes, seemed to be a plausible candidate to gain ground this year as writers sought out players who were perceived as clean, as opposed to known or suspected of steroid use. Instead, his vote share declined to 20.7 percent from 23.9 percent. Williams had received just under 10 percent of the vote in his first year of eligibility, but his case was not entirely hopeless; players like Bob Lemon and Carl Hubbell were eventually selected by the writers with a similar vote total in their first year.Instead, Williams fell below the 5 percent threshold required for a player to stay on the ballot.The crowded and confusing ballot may be affecting these players in several ways. The most obvious is that the writers are limited to voting for a maximum of 10 players. This year, according to the sample of ballots collected by the Twitter user @leokitty, 24 percent of writers used all 10 of their picks. That compares with 12 percent in 2011, and just 4 percent in 2012.Did the 10-vote limit keep Biggio and Morris out of the Hall of Fame, perhaps along with other players?Actually, it was almost certainly not responsible all by itself. Of the 24 percent of writers who used all 10 ballot slots, 90 percent did name Biggio, meaning 10 percent did not. At best, therefore, if all writers who exhausted their ballots would also have named Biggio if they had unlimited votes, he would have gotten only 10 percent of the 24 percent, adding only 2.4 percentage points to his overall vote total.The logic here is that it’s hard to make a case that Biggio was only the 11th or 12th best player on the ballot. Instead, most of the writers who left him out were probably more like Jon Heyman of CBS Sports. Heyman wrote that he saw Biggio as the eighth best player on the ballot — but he also thought that only six were worthy of inclusion. Most of the writers who left Biggio out, in other words, were those who take a conservative overall approach to how many players they want in the Hall of Fame, and not those who ran out of ballot positions.Morris is a more debatable case. If all writers who maxed out their ballot slots had included him, he would have come very close to 75 percent of the vote. However, Morris is also a highly polarizing candidate. Those writers who included him often thought he was among the very best players on the ballot; on several ballots, in fact, Morris was the only player named. But other writers think he falls fall short of Hall of Fame standards and would not have picked him no matter how many votes they had to spare.Nor, obviously, were Bonds’s and Clemens’s totals affected to any material degree by the 10-player limit. Nobody left Bonds off their ballots because they thought he had only the 11th-best statistical record; they did so because they don’t think steroids users should be in the Hall of Fame. (In fact, most of the writers who maxed out their ballot slots included Bonds and Clemens; the writers who are willing to consider performance-enhancing drug users have much more crowded ballots than those who are not.)Instead, players like McGriff, Trammell, Williams and Edgar Martinez were probably most affected by the 10-player limit. The logic for McGriff, for example, is very close of the opposite of that which might be applied to Biggio. It’s fairly hard to sustain a case that McGriff was one of the best six or seven players on the ballot this year. But you might credibly argue that there is a glut of a dozen or so qualified players, McGriff among them, and you had to leave McGriff out because of the ballot limit.However, the players are not only being affected by those writers who ran out of ballot slots. There were a higher-than-average number of writers this year who listed very few players, or even none at all. Some 10 percent of voters named two or fewer players this year, according to Leokitty’s spreadsheet. That is lower than in 2012, an underwhelming year on the ballot, when 16 percent of voters did so.But it is less than 2009, 2010 or 2011, when between 3 and 8 percent of writers listed so few players. Some writers are deliberately listing very few players as a protest vote, whether against the steroids era or the Hall of Fame balloting process.Between the protest voters on the one hand, and the maxed-out voters on the other, the players are being squeezed at both ends.Finally, some players may be harmed by the psychology of the ballot. If Clemens were not on the ballot, for example, then you could credibly make a case that Curt Schilling was the best pitcher on the ballot (if you don’t think that Morris is). But Schilling’s accomplishments look poor by comparison to Clemens’s, as do those of almost any pitcher — even if you aren’t willing to vote for Clemens because of his steroids use. The same holds for outfielders whose statistics might be compared with Barry Bonds’s.There is even something to be said for the so-called “paradox of choice”: that when presented with too many options, we may be overwhelmed with information and have trouble making any decisions at all.Hall of Fame voting is ultimately designed to be a consensus process. One reason that players tend to gain votes over time is because the writers are looking at what their peers are doing and value the endorsements of their colleagues. Moreover, because they have as many as 15 chances to elect a player, many writers tend toward conservatism initially. There is no way to remove a player from the Hall of Fame once he has been elected, but you can change your mind to include him later. When a writer initially votes “no” on a player, it really means “wait and see” in many cases.But consensus is harder to achieve when members of a group have divergent values and ideologies. Instead of the typical friendly arguments about how a player’s lifetime accomplishments might be weighed against how dominant he was in his best seasons, or how to compare players at different positions, the writers are now spending most of their time arguing about who used steroids and when, and how this should affect Hall of Fame consideration. Many have passionate beliefs about this, whichever side of the argument they take. An increasing number of writers would like to elect a dozen or more players; an increasing number would like to lose the whole “steroids era” to history. Good-natured debates may be replaced by tactical considerations, as voters make guesses about who everyone else might vote for, or where their ballots might be wasted.Next year will place even more pressure on the voters, when Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas and Mike Mussina are added to the list of candidates. Those who apply little discount for steroids use may credibly claim to identify 15 or more qualified candidates, and even those who do not may have to drop one or two names that they otherwise see as worthy. The New York Times will probably not have to publish a blank page again, but no one but Maddux seems sure to make it in.,Jessie Schwartz for The New York Times Baseball writers elected no one to the Hall of Fame on Wednesday, despite what might have been the deepest ballot in years.The failure of the writers to pick Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens was not a surprise given the low vote totals received in the past by Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, other players associated with the use performance-enhancing drugs. But the vote totals for Bonds and Clemens, just 36 and 38 percent, were lower than expected.Craig Biggio, who received 68.2 percent of the vote in his first year of eligibility, will almost certainly make it into the Hall of Fame someday. Still, his profile is quite similar to Robin Yount and Roberto Alomar, two players who did better in their first year on the ballot. (Yount got 77.5 percent of the vote in his first year on the ballot in 1999, while Alomar got 73.7 percent of the vote in 2010 and made it in the next year.)Perhaps the clearest effect of the crowded ballot, however, was realized among candidates who were returning to the ballot from last year. Of the 13 players who carried over from the 2012 ballot, nine received a lower share of the vote, including Lee Smith, Alan Trammell, Fred McGriff, Don Mattingly and Bernie Williams.This is atypical; instead, players usually add votes with each additional year they spend on the ballot. Since 1967, when the Hall of Fame adopted balloting rules similar to the ones it uses now, about two-thirds of holdover players gained ground from their prior year’s vote percentage.It is possible to be a bit more precise about this pattern. Based on an analysis of Hall of Fame voting between 1967 and 2011, I found that the increase in a player’s vote total is typically proportional to his percentage from the previous year. In his second year on the ballot, for example, the typical player’s vote share increases by a multiple of about 1.1.Thus, a player who received 10 percent of the vote in his first year would be expected to receive about 11 percent on his second try, while a player who got 50 percent of the vote would go up to 55 percent.The pace of improvement is typically highest in the first several years that a player spends on the ballot, slowing down once he has been eligible five or six times. (The exception is in a player’s 15 and final year of eligibility, when he may receive a fairly large boost.) But these small percentage gains can add up, something like the way in which interest compounds over time. For example, as shown in the chart below, a player who gets just 30 percent of the vote in his first year on the ballot would be projected to make it in on his 14th year of eligibility if he follows the formula each year.In practice, the growth in a player’s vote share is rarely this smooth — and you should not necessarily expect the pattern to hold for Bonds and Clemens. (Instructively, the vote shares for McGwire and Palmeiro have actually been declining.) Nonetheless, Hall of Fame candidates typically have a tailwind as time passes.This year, however, veterans on the Hall of Fame ballot faced a headwind instead. The next chart compares the actual vote that each player received against that projected by the historical formula. Actual results in 2013 compared to projections based on historical patterns.Twelve of the 13 players underperformed their projection; the exception was Dale Murphy, who got a larger-than-average boost in his final year of eligibility, but still came nowhere close to winning election.Even some players who gained ground did not necessarily help their chances. Jack Morris went from 66.7 percent of the vote to 67.7 percent, below his projection of 69.4 percent. The small difference could be important because next year will be Morris’s final year of eligibility, and he projects to be very close to the 75 percent threshold for election. (Perhaps the player who had the best year, instead, was Tim Raines, whose vote share grew to 52.2 percent from 48.7 percent, and who is now a clear favorite to be elected someday by the writers.)Most other players lost ground outright. Trammell, in his 12th year of eligibility, declined to 33.6 percent from 36.8 percent of the vote. He was an underdog to make it in before, but now he seems to have very little chance. The same also holds for Smith, who lost most of what he gained last year after years of stagnant vote totals.McGriff, as Joe Posnanski writes, seemed to be a plausible candidate to gain ground this year as writers sought out players who were perceived as clean, as opposed to known or suspected of steroid use. Instead, his vote share declined to 20.7 percent from 23.9 percent. Williams had received just under 10 percent of the vote in his first year of eligibility, but his case was not entirely hopeless; players like Bob Lemon and Carl Hubbell were eventually selected by the writers with a similar vote total in their first year.Instead, Williams fell below the 5 percent threshold required for a player to stay on the ballot.The crowded and confusing ballot may be affecting these players in several ways. The most obvious is that the writers are limited to voting for a maximum of 10 players. This year, according to the sample of ballots collected by the Twitter user @leokitty, 24 percent of writers used all 10 of their picks. That compares with 12 percent in 2011, and just 4 percent in 2012.Did the 10-vote limit keep Biggio and Morris out of the Hall of Fame, perhaps along with other players?Actually, it was almost certainly not responsible all by itself. Of the 24 percent of writers who used all 10 ballot slots, 90 percent did name Biggio, meaning 10 percent did not. At best, therefore, if all writers who exhausted their ballots would also have named Biggio if they had unlimited votes, he would have gotten only 10 percent of the 24 percent, adding only 2.4 percentage points to his overall vote total.The logic here is that it’s hard to make a case that Biggio was only the 11th or 12th best player on the ballot. Instead, most of the writers who left him out were probably more like Jon Heyman of CBS Sports. Heyman wrote that he saw Biggio as the eighth best player on the ballot — but he also thought that only six were worthy of inclusion. Most of the writers who left Biggio out, in other words, were those who take a conservative overall approach to how many players they want in the Hall of Fame, and not those who ran out of ballot positions.Morris is a more debatable case. If all writers who maxed out their ballot slots had included him, he would have come very close to 75 percent of the vote. However, Morris is also a highly polarizing candidate. Those writers who included him often thought he was among the very best players on the ballot; on several ballots, in fact, Morris was the only player named. But other writers think he falls fall short of Hall of Fame standards and would not have picked him no matter how many votes they had to spare.Nor, obviously, were Bonds’s and Clemens’s totals affected to any material degree by the 10-player limit. Nobody left Bonds off their ballots because they thought he had only the 11th-best statistical record; they did so because they don’t think steroids users should be in the Hall of Fame. (In fact, most of the writers who maxed out their ballot slots included Bonds and Clemens; the writers who are willing to consider performance-enhancing drug users have much more crowded ballots than those who are not.)Instead, players like McGriff, Trammell, Williams and Edgar Martinez were probably most affected by the 10-player limit. The logic for McGriff, for example, is very close of the opposite of that which might be applied to Biggio. It’s fairly hard to sustain a case that McGriff was one of the best six or seven players on the ballot this year. But you might credibly argue that there is a glut of a dozen or so qualified players, McGriff among them, and you had to leave McGriff out because of the ballot limit.However, the players are not only being affected by those writers who ran out of ballot slots. There were a higher-than-average number of writers this year who listed very few players, or even none at all. Some 10 percent of voters named two or fewer players this year, according to Leokitty’s spreadsheet. That is lower than in 2012, an underwhelming year on the ballot, when 16 percent of voters did so.But it is less than 2009, 2010 or 2011, when between 3 and 8 percent of writers listed so few players. Some writers are deliberately listing very few players as a protest vote, whether against the steroids era or the Hall of Fame balloting process.Between the protest voters on the one hand, and the maxed-out voters on the other, the players are being squeezed at both ends.Finally, some players may be harmed by the psychology of the ballot. If Clemens were not on the ballot, for example, then you could credibly make a case that Curt Schilling was the best pitcher on the ballot (if you don’t think that Morris is). But Schilling’s accomplishments look poor by comparison to Clemens’s, as do those of almost any pitcher — even if you aren’t willing to vote for Clemens because of his steroids use. The same holds for outfielders whose statistics might be compared with Barry Bonds’s.There is even something to be said for the so-called “paradox of choice”: that when presented with too many options, we may be overwhelmed with information and have trouble making any decisions at all.Hall of Fame voting is ultimately designed to be a consensus process. One reason that players tend to gain votes over time is because the writers are looking at what their peers are doing and value the endorsements of their colleagues. Moreover, because they have as many as 15 chances to elect a player, many writers tend toward conservatism initially. There is no way to remove a player from the Hall of Fame once he has been elected, but you can change your mind to include him later. When a writer initially votes “no” on a player, it really means “wait and see” in many cases.But consensus is harder to achieve when members of a group have divergent values and ideologies. Instead of the typical friendly arguments about how a player’s lifetime accomplishments might be weighed against how dominant he was in his best seasons, or how to compare players at different positions, the writers are now spending most of their time arguing about who used steroids and when, and how this should affect Hall of Fame consideration. Many have passionate beliefs about this, whichever side of the argument they take. An increasing number of writers would like to elect a dozen or more players; an increasing number would like to lose the whole “steroids era” to history. Good-natured debates may be replaced by tactical considerations, as voters make guesses about who everyone else might vote for, or where their ballots might be wasted.Next year will place even more pressure on the voters, when Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas and Mike Mussina are added to the list of candidates. Those who apply little discount for steroids use may credibly claim to identify 15 or more qualified candidates, and even those who do not may have to drop one or two names that they otherwise see as worthy. The New York Times will probably not have to publish a blank page again, but no one but Maddux seems sure to make it in. read more

Rangers youngster wants to be in the starting eleven

first_imgFor Jordan Rossiter, the game against Kilmarnock on Wednesday could be an opportunity to start in the Scottish Premier LeagueIn 2016, English midfielder Jordan Rossiter was bought by Scottish Premier League team Rangers.Before that, he spent two years in Liverpool in the English Premier League, but only played once.And now with the Scottish giants, he has only played in six games but expects a change to be in the starting eleven for the first time this season.“We all know how disappointing Sunday was and as the gaffer said we have a great group of lads here,” Rossiter told the club’s official website.Mikey Johnston, CelticJohnston is disappointed after being injured Manuel R. Medina – September 11, 2019 Celtic winger Mikey Johnston was disappointed to miss Scotland Under 21 national team’s victories over San Marino and Croatia, and he hopes he can return to play soon.“We just have to go out tomorrow and take it out on Kilmarnock and hopefully go and get the three points.”“It has been a long road back to full recovery but it has been brilliant just to be back in with the lads and involved again on Sunday,” he added.“It was great to be out there on a big occasion but I know I have a long way to go myself to get back to my full match sharpness.”“There is no hiding it I have had a lot of setbacks in the few years I have been at Rangers but I am in a really good place now, physically and mentally,” he commented.“I just have to keep doing the right things on the pitch, as well as off it to make sure I stay available for the gaffer.”last_img read more

BSE closes points 10472 down on Dec 8

first_imgBSE closes points 104.72 down on Dec 83.8K views00:00 / 00:00- 00:00:0000:00BSE closes points 104.72 down on Dec 83.8K viewsBusinessNew Delhi, Dec 8 (ANI): Trading at the Bombay Stock Exchange today closed 104.72 points down to stand at 28,458.10. At the National Stock Exchange the Nifty closed 26.10 points down to stand at 8,538.30. PIIND and NCC were among the top gainers of Group A with an increase of 15.56% and 12.67% along with PIPAVAVDOC and MONSANTO INDIA LTD. with an increase of 9.99% and 7.12% respectively, while the top losers of Group A include SIEMENS and RTNPOWER with a decrease 5.15% and 4.56% along with IDEA and SUZLON with a decrease of 4.25% and 4.20% at the close of the markets. The Auto sector is down 13.35 points at 19,350.30 while the banking sector is down 19.87 points at 21,481.61 and the reality sector is up 19.71 points at 1,712.20. The Indian currency is up 0.07% at Rs 61.88 per dollar.Ventuno Web Player 4.50New Delhi, Dec 8 (ANI): Trading at the Bombay Stock Exchange today closed 104.72 points down to stand at 28,458.10. At the National Stock Exchange the Nifty closed 26.10 points down to stand at 8,538.30. PIIND and NCC were among the top gainers of Group A with an increase of 15.56% and 12.67% along with PIPAVAVDOC and MONSANTO INDIA LTD. with an increase of 9.99% and 7.12% respectively, while the top losers of Group A include SIEMENS and RTNPOWER with a decrease 5.15% and 4.56% along with IDEA and SUZLON with a decrease of 4.25% and 4.20% at the close of the markets. The Auto sector is down 13.35 points at 19,350.30 while the banking sector is down 19.87 points at 21,481.61 and the reality sector is up 19.71 points at 1,712.20. The Indian currency is up 0.07% at Rs 61.88 per dollar.last_img read more

Highprofile Los Cabos resort getting new branding with Waldorf Astoria

first_img<< Previous PostNext Post >> High-profile Los Cabos resort getting new branding with Waldorf Astoria Thursday, June 27, 2019 LOS CABOS — Waldorf Astoria Hotels & Resorts is taking over The Resort at Pedregal and rebranding it as Waldorf Astoria Los Cabos Pedregal.Recently acquired by affiliates of Walton Street Capital Mexico, the luxury resort is set on 24 acres of mountainous beachfront near the Land’s End rock formations and Cabo Marina. The rebranded resort will welcome guests with ‘True Waldorf Service’ starting in Q4 2019.“As the brand’s first property to debut in Mexico, Waldorf Astoria Los Cabos Pedregal showcases the brand’s commitment to expanding our luxury portfolio to some of the world’s most sought after destinations,” said Dino Michael, global head, Waldorf Astoria Hotels & Resorts. “We look forward to combining the resort’s exclusive environment and guest-focused comforts with the brand’s unparalleled commitment to personal service, and together, ensuring our guests have the experience of a lifetime.”Tunnel entrance to The Resort at PedregalInfinity poolAll 115 guestrooms and suites provide ocean views, private plunge pools, and a refined, upscale design inspired by the surrounding area’s natural elements, he adds. The resort features three swimming pools, including an infinity pool flowing into the horizon of the Pacific Ocean, a salt water pool and a children’s pool.At Luna y Mar Spa, guests can select from a variety of organic treatments including herbal detoxes and rose-crystal lymphatic facials. The spa also offers a wellness grotto with local herbal remedies, steam rooms, saunas, ice rooms, whirlpools and a salt-water meditation pool. Fitness classes include Pilates and yoga, all with an oceanfront view.More news:  Kory Sterling is TL Network Canada’s new Sales Manager CanadaFor dining, the resort’s signature restaurant, Don Manuel’s, uses ingredients sourced locally and regionally to serve up authentic dishes within a Mexican hacienda. The Cliffside El Farallon offers an ocean-to-table menu developed by a culinary team that guides foodies in selecting side dish and wine pairings against the sound of crashing waves. Crudo, in the centre of the pool bar, incorporates local flavors into casual fare including a variety of fresh ceviche and sushi for light midday meals. There’s also the Beach Club, popular for its freshly caught fish and crisps, spiced pork belly buns and braised Angus brisket tacos.Guests can also arrange for a private chef in the comfort of their suites for personalized meals on their terraces or indulge in handcrafted cocktails from one of the resort’s on-demand cocktail carts available throughout the property.Aerial view of The Resort at PedregalThe resort celebrates its 10th anniversary this year.“We are incredibly excited to partner with Walton Street Capital Mexico to bring the first Waldorf Astoria to Mexico,” said Juan Corvinos, VP, development, Latin America and the Caribbean, Hilton. “Los Cabos – a vibrant, dynamic and truly luxury destination that draws travelers from all over the world – is the perfect market for our iconic Waldorf Astoria brand, and will be a significant addition to the nearly 70 Hilton properties already in Mexico.”More news:  Marriott Int’l announces 5 new all-inclusive resorts in D.R. & MexicoCelebrating its 100th anniversary this year, Hilton currently has a portfolio of nearly 150 hotels and resorts across 25 countries in the Caribbean and Latin America, including nearly 70 in Mexico. The company is actively pursuing additional growth opportunities in the Caribbean and Latin America, and has a robust pipeline of nearly 90 hotels throughout the region, including 30 projects in Mexico.“We are proud to own one of Mexico’s most iconic luxury resorts and look forward to uniting this stunning hotel with Waldorf Astoria’s intuitive service culture and unforgettable experiences,” said Federico Martin del Campo, CEO of Walton Street Capital Mexico. “Our guests have come to expect the very best from our properties and we are delighted to join with Waldorf Astoria to implement their unique standards of luxury service. Along with the Conrad Punta de Mita (opening 2020) and the Hilton Los Cabos Beach & Golf Resort, this represents our third resort project in Mexico with Hilton, further solidifying our partnership with Hilton for many years to come.” Sharecenter_img Travelweek Group Tags: Los Cabos, Pedregal Waldorf Astoria Posted bylast_img read more