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

Klopp Out of form Firmino doesnt need a break

first_imgLiverpool boss Jurgen Klopp insists there are no concerns over Roberto Firmino ahead of tonight’s Champions League game at Red Star BelgradeThe Brazilian striker has only found the net once in nine games, amid suggestions that he could be in need of a rest.Aside from playing more Premier League games than any other player since the start of last season, Firmino had been actively involved in Liverpool’s run to the Champions League final.He also represented Brazil at the 2018 World Cup in Russia.But Klopp remains unconcerned over Firmino and claims that he remains a key member of the squad regardless of his lack of goals.divock origi, liverpoolReport: Origi cause Klopp injury concerns George Patchias – September 14, 2019 Divock Origi injury in today’s game against Newcastle is a cause for concern for Jurgen Klopp.Perhaps with one eye on Tuesday’s trip to Italy…“No. He’s hard-working, sometimes better, sometimes a bit less, but good. That’s how it is,” Klopp told reporters on YouTube.“It will be all fine for sure. If he didn’t score in the last few games then… one in nine? All competitions? Didn’t he score against Red Star? That was the one goal he scored? Okay, good.“I am not concerned. Things like this happen. He is a very important player for us. I was not really happy with our defending first half in London and he was involved in that. That’s what I’m talking about.“In the end, everything will be fine. We know about these situations. Sometimes it is clicking easier than in other moments, that’s all. There are no concerns.”The Group C game between Red Star and Liverpool will begin at 18:55 (CEST).last_img read more

NOW HIRING 10 New Job Openings In Wilmington

first_imgWILMINGTON, MA — Below are some of the newest job openings in Wilmington:Full-Time Route Delivery Driver at New England Ice Cream CorporationFull-Time Route Sales Relief Associate at AramarkPart-Time Overnight Associate at Cumberland FarmsFull-Time Packager at Stuffed FoodsFull-Time Warehouse/Delivery Assistant at Kyocera Document Solutions New EnglandFull-Time Groundperson at Asplundh Tree ExpertFull-Time Project Sales Representative (Contract) at Limbach Facility ServicesFull-Time Junior Bookkeeper at New England Carpenters Benefit FundsFull-Time Manufacturing Technician/Inspector at AMETEKPart-Time Preschool Teacher at Mill Brook County Day School(NOTE: Wilmington businesses — Feel free to send me your job postings at wilmingtonapple@gmail.com.)Like Wilmington Apple on Facebook. Follow Wilmington Apple on Twitter. Follow Wilmington Apple on Instagram. Subscribe to Wilmington Apple’s daily email newsletter HERE. Got a comment, question, photo, press release, or news tip? Email wilmingtonapple@gmail.com.Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:Like Loading… RelatedNOW HIRING: 10 New Job Openings In WilmingtonIn “Business”NOW HIRING: 60 New Job Openings In Wilmington (Week of July 7, 2019)In “Business”NOW HIRING: 60 New Job Openings In Wilmington (Week of July 14, 2019)In “Business”last_img read more

Pet Sematary 2019 remake deliciously digs up Stephen King shocks

first_img 0 Jason Clarke as Louis in Pet Sematary. Kerry Hayes/Paramount Pictures Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today to honor the memory of the 1983 Stephen King novel Pet Sematary, but what’s this? It’s clawing out of the grave and lurching back to life!King’s chilling novel made it into theaters in 1989, and it’s back for a 2019 remake. This new version is also part of the resurrection of King’s stories on the big screen, as his much-loved horror best-sellers get a second go-round of movie adaptations following the success of It.Grief, loss and resurrection are at the heart of Pet Sematary, as an ordinary family wrestles with the dilemma of bringing back their loved ones, whatever the price.Jason Clarke and Amy Seimetz are the parents who relocate to the countryside for a bit of peace and quiet. It’s the oldest setup in the book: a family with a troubled past moves to an isolated house that harbors secrets of its own. There’s a creepy neighbor, a creepy basement, a creepy forest — everything but the creepy kitchen sink.Creepiest of all is the family cat, who becomes a disheveled but sinister presence in the family home. The audience is pretty much ahead of the story for the first half, but it’s still an effective horror slow-burn. Things get spooky as next-door neighbor John Lithgow, alternating between avuncular and unsettling, reluctantly gives a glimpse into the nature of the horror. Small tests and small sacrifices lead to bigger tests — and more extreme sacrifice.What makes the story stick is the killer premise. Even if you haven’t read the book or seen the previous film version — which I haven’t — you can still see what’s coming. A terrible decision lies in wait for the family, and that horrifying temptation, that grim inevitability, irresistibly draws the characters and audience to peer into the shadows.When the characters do embrace the darkness, the film becomes like a fever dream shot in entertainingly delirious style. And then the next day dawns, and everyone has to live with the consequences.pet-sematary-1 Paramount The first half does such a great job of building a sense of dread that once it passes the point of no return the film doesn’t seem to know where to go. When it descends into the nightmare, the film promises a deliciously macabre second half in which the family members have to live with their terrible decision. But instead it fizzles out, separating the characters and diluting the tension before a strangely undramatic final conflict.As much as it’s updated with cell phones and laptops, Pet Sematary still has an old-school feel. The vaguely retro atmosphere even extends to the dark place looking like a soundstage shrouded in dry ice and littered with polystyrene rocks. There’s also a slow-motion window smash that’s straight out of the VHS era.Not all of the retro-ness works quite so well. There’s a flashback-based subplot that looks oddly dated, even if it does provide a few shocks.The film is also littered with little details that demand your attention and then lead nowhere. Are they red herrings? Are they Stephen King Easter eggs? Are they carelessly forgotten plot threads? The answer will be different for each viewer. In fact, there are so many odd little things left hanging it almost feels like a choose-your-own-adventure story, like next time you watch the ending will be different. Maybe next time the ending will be less of an anticlimax.The resolution may not live up to the promise of the earlier dread and horror, but this revived Pet Sematary is well worth digging up. Movie reviews Originally published April 4.  Share your voice Tagscenter_img 77 Photos Post a comment TV and Movies 2019 movies to geek out overlast_img read more

Quader says BNP has no chance to go to power normally

first_imgBangladesh Awami League general secretary Obaidul Quader. File PhotoRuling Bangladesh Awami League (AL) general secretary Obaidul Quader on Friday said the BNP has sensed that they have no scope to go to power normally.That is why they along with their fundamentalist ally are planning to topple the government, he added, reports BSS.“They (BNP) should keep in mind that it is not 2014, it is 2018. The people of the country will give befitting reply to the BNP if they want to create anarchy centering the forthcoming parliamentary polls,” he told newsmen after attending a mass-contact programme of AL in city’s Gabtoli area.Earlier, Quader, also road transport and bridges minister, distributed leaflets in the area on the fifth day of AL’s week-long mass contact programme for showcasing the development works by the government and highlighting acts of terrorism and violence of the BNP and its ally Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami.He said the BNP is pursuing dirty politics over the health issue of its chief Khaleda Zia.Quader also said the Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University is the right place for the treatment of Khaleda Zia.The court has also given the directive to this end, he said, adding the government is not doing any dirty politics on Khaleda Zia’s health issue.But, Quader said, the leaders of the BNP are indulged in nasty politics on Begum Zia’s treatment.The ruling party general secretary said, “I didn’t tell any party to make unity with us. I said that the left-leaning parties believe in the spirit of the liberation war and they respect father of the nation Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman.”“I urged them to be united. We want unity against fundamentalist evil forces, against the dirty politics and against the enemies of the liberation war.”About the use Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs), Quader said his party wants the EVMs to be used in a limited scale in the upcoming national polls. AL also made a demand for using EVM to the election commission (EC), he added.last_img read more

Galveston Firm To Build Section Of Border Wall New SelenaThemed Shopping Bags

first_imgGalveston company tapped to build section of border wall Mani Albrecht/CBP Media RelationsGround views of different border wall prototypes as they take shape during the Wall Prototype Construction Project near the Otay Mesa Port of Entry on the U.S./Mexico border south of San Diego, California.U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has selected a Galveston-based construction company to build part of the wall between the United States and Mexico. The company, identified as Slsco Ltd by CBP, also known as SLS Construction, is contracted at $145 million to build a six-mile-long levee wall in the Rio Grande Valley. CBP says construction will begin in February. Monday, November 5, 2018Final early voting turnout highAlvaro ‘Al’ Ortiz/Houston Public MediaElection signs at an early voting location at Spring First Church, in Spring –a suburb north of Houston– on October 28, 2018.855,711 people in Harris County voted early in the midterms, including both in-person and mail-in ballots. By Thursday last week, turnout surpassed the entire number of votes cast in the 2014 midterms.This year’s turnout broke records and approached totals from early voting in the 2016 presidential election.Election day is Tuesday, November 6. News 88.7 will have live coverage of the results starting at 7 p.m.  HEB bringing back Selena-themed shopping bagsSan Antonio-based grocer HEB announced a new run of reusable grocery bags featuring the Tejano singer Selena.Last time the store released Selena-themed bags, they reportedly sold out in minutes, and some re-sold on online for up to $50.  We heard our fans – on #SelenaDay, we’re pleased to announce that we will have a new, limited-edition @SelenaLaLeyenda #SelenayHEB bag for sale, targeted to arrive in December. Sign up to be the first to know when it’s in stores & online at https://t.co/0cqiwd5RPX. pic.twitter.com/Tplb21dlz9— H-E-B (@HEB) November 3, 2018HEB says the new bags will go on sale in December. New animal shelter expected to double county’s capacityHarris County breaks ground on a new animal shelter Monday.The county announced the new 48,000 square foot facility will double its capacity to care for the 18,000 animals it receives each year. The facility will be built on existing county property and expand by 7.9 acres.The campus will include a medical clinic, cat and dog housing, a walking trail, and four large dog parks.center_img Ahead of election day, Paxton holds lead on NelsonPaxton photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP – Nelson photo: Justin Nelson campaignAttorney General Ken Paxton appears to hold a firm lead over his Democratic challenger, Justin Nelson. That’s despite the fact that Paxton is under indictment for state securities fraud charges.The latest UT/Texas Tribune poll gives Paxton a 12-point advantage over Nelson. That’s tighter than Governor Greg Abbott’s lead over former Dallas County Sheriff Lupe Valdez or Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick’s over businessman Mike Collier. But it suggests statewide Republican support for the incumbent AG is holding strong, despite a well-funded advertising blitz by Nelson. Sharelast_img read more

Splash up some fun

first_imgWhen monsoon hits in, its prudent to take care of your swimming pools for your health.Though a proper circulation will ensure cleanliness by default, one may have to make just a bit of an extra effort to continue the delightful swimming experience during the monsoons. Vivek Mishra, MD of Premium Pools suggests some ways to go about it.When it rains, the pH levels of the water in the pool needs to be monitored all the more as the first rain at times is acidic, can play havoc in addition to getting dirty and contaminated water. It can get dangerous as well since harmful and toxic substances from the atmosphere may get mixed with the pool water. Also Read – ‘Playing Jojo was emotionally exhausting’So overall, the imbalance in the chemical composition of the pool water may rise. The rains will also bring along a lot of organic materials like pollen etc that gets accumulated in the pool. Within hours of the first shower of the monsoon, a significant variation in pool’s water quality can easily be noticed. For extreme weather conditions including monsoons, one can go for a pool enclosures or covers to eliminate any kind of water contamination.   Also Read – Leslie doing new comedy special with NetflixA few more things can be done on an ad-hoc basis:Brushing the pool walls : this helps in eliminating the wild shrubs that might grow within the wall tiles. Also, this would help remove any fungal growth on the tiles surrounding the pool even deck area.   Regular Chlorination : Adding chlorine tablets will help in preventing the growth of bacteria and even algae. Although the main cause of algae is stagnant water, routine chlorination would help prevent against health hazards like ear infections, athlete’s foot, skin rashes etc which become quite common with bacterial growth in water.  Filtration : running the filters to clean the water on a daily basis is a good practice during rains. This way the debris and dirt can be completely cleared. Also, filtration helps in circulating the fresh water added to the pool as well. the said filter should also be regularly cleaned by the maintenance personnel.last_img read more

Garnishes Galore

first_imgHave you ever wondered if that lemon twist on top of your martini or a dollop of cream on the ‘daal makhani’ is anything more than a quirk? Celebrity Chef Vikas Kumar delves deeper into the world of garnishes and shares his insights.CHERRY ON TOP So really, why are we discussing garnishes, I mean aren’t there more pertinent culinary topics that need more focus and attention? Sure there might be, but for the moment, let me tell you a story. Once when I was working for a certain organisation as a Galley Chef, I was asked if I’d want to be the ‘garnish man’. And I was like, sure! It’s just garnish, like a cherry on the cake, right? Wrong. So the job of the garnish man was to prepare all the garnishes of all the dishes across the sections – we are talking about some 3000 meals, almost 20 dishes, all intricately prepared and the garnish was, well,’the cherry on the cake’ and had to be just perfect since it was the first visual that the guest will get of the dish and will make up his own judgements before actually tasting (or not tasting) the dish. Apparently, the garnish man himself had to be the proverbial cherry just discussed, and in terms of skills and speed had to be second to none in the kitchen. Also Read – Add new books to your shelfSo let’s then discuss the ubiquitous crowning glory of the food dishes, the garnish. WHY GARNISH Why indeed? To put it anecdotally, well why do we wear jewellery/ make up? To look good, complete in a way perhaps. I’d say, same with food. If good food is the foundation of genuine happiness, the garnish on that food is what entices you towards it, makes you want it more and provides the visual stimulus to appreciate a food prior to sinking your teeth in. Garnishes are usually in colours opposite to the colour of the main dish, and to that extent provide a burst of colour and liveliness to the food dish. Imagine a plate of pasta in white sauce, white cheese and cream sitting in front of you. Now imagine it with a bright green sprig of parsley, some bright red cherry tomato and a splash of gorgeous light green olive oil. Imagine the difference. Get it? Also Read – Over 2 hours screen time daily will make your kids impulsiveThe second and a very important reason for food garnishing is that the garnishes always enhance the flavour of the main dish and complements it in the overall taste profile. Think about lemon with fish, birista (deep fried onion) on top of biryani, pistachio on Gajar Halva or a drizzle of balsamic vinegar on a salad, all these enhance the flavour of the main dish and make it taste better. Another reason for food garnishing is for the purpose of identification of the ingredients of the dishes. You will find, at most times the garnish tells more about the dish. For example, garnishing a pineapple pastry with pineapple and cherry, a dollop of cream on a cream soup, some makkhan on daal makkhani,…well you get the idea. Stop salivating! Filling up a plate or a serving dish is also quite functional of garnishes and many times garnishes are used to make the dishes look more full and complete. This is specially true for dishes that are served in a buffet or on a dinner table. A pertinent example will be a Christmas Turkey which has so many garnish components that it makes the dish look really fancy and celebratory, ditto for a salad or a dessert. Indian Food Garnishes Well from our childhoods we have seen all our food dishes integrated with their garnishes to an extent that we have always considered them to be a part of the dish itself. Think our dals without the garlic and cumin tempering, our Halvas without the tiny sprinkling of crushed cardamom seeds or a plate of chholey without the chopped dhania or the ginger juliennes. I have always maintained that Indian food is by far the most advanced, balanced and varied of all culinary styles of the world and has always been ahead of its times. Let me give you some examples of how the food garnishes have become integral to our food culture that we don’t really think much of them but they do indeed tick all boxes to be a worthy garnish and serves its full purpose. So there obviously are millions of Indian dishes that I could table here but will stick to the best known and easily relatable by all. First, the very popular Pao Bhaji – do you realize that a dollop of half melted butter, the chopped onions and coriander, tomato, lemon all are essentially garnishes and yet you will find at least all these in all pao bhajis served anywhere in the country or the world. In Bengal they serve ‘Masala Muri’ a more pungent and humble cousin of the bhelpuri and you will almost always find it garnished with some peanuts, a slice of coconut and some sprouts, nobody really thinks much but classic garnishes look good, taste good and provide an interesting contrast to the main food item. Similarly, almost all Indian food items have inherent garnishing that gives the food complexity, texture and colour. The case in point is the huge Indian Thalis that are served with a multitude of dishes in small bowls or saucers, yet all these will almost always have their individual garnishes, often different from each other. RECIPE So I have been scratching my head as to which recipe to give that will do justice to a topic such as this. Obviously, I had to find a recipe where the garnish is highlighted and stands out. To that extent, I am giving the recipe for a French dish. In French cuisine, there are many dishes that are known by their garnishes and are distinguishable only based on that. The name of the dish is ‘French Onion Soup’ and is always served with a rather discernible garnish which is a large bread and cheese crouton. FRENCH ONION SOUPIngredients 100 g Butter 30 ml Olive oil 450 g Sliced onions 500ml Chicken/Beef /Vegetable stock 30 ml Red wine (optional) 1 g Dried thyme Salt and pepper to taste For the toast 2 slices French bread 2 slices cheddar cheese 20 g Grated Parmesan cheese Method Melt butter with olive oil in a stock pot on medium heat. Add onions, and cook on a medium flame until tender and translucent. Do not brown the onions. Add the stock, wine and thyme. Season with salt and pepper, and simmer for 30 minutes. Layer each slice of bread with a slice of cheese, and 1 tablespoon Parmesan cheese. Ladle the soup in warm bowls. Just before serving, place the toast on the soup and put under a hot salamander/grill until the cheese melts and bread turns toasty. Serve immediately.last_img read more

Hackers Threaten to Leak Ashley Madisons 37 Million Clients

first_img Enroll Now for Free 2 min read This hands-on workshop will give you the tools to authentically connect with an increasingly skeptical online audience. This story originally appeared on Reuters July 20, 2015 Hackers claim to have personal details of more than 37 million cheating spouses on dating website Ashley Madison and have threatened to release nude photos and sexual fantasies of the site’s clients unless it is shut down, blog KrebsOnSecurity reported.Ashley Madison’s Canadian parent, Avid Life Media, confirmed the breach on its systems and said it had since secured its site and was working with law enforcement agencies to try to trace those behind the attack.The hackers, who call themselves The Impact Team, leaked snippets of the compromised data online and warned they would release customers’ real names, profiles, nude photos, credit card details and “secret sexual fantasies” unless their demands were met, Krebs said.Avid Life did not disclose what information was stolen.The hackers demanded the closure of another of Avid Life Media’s sites, sugar-daddy site “Established Men”, but did not target the company’s “CougarLife” site, which caters for women members looking for “a young stud”.Ashley Madison, which uses the slogan “Life is short. Have an affair”, has been planning to raise up to $200 million through an initial public offering on the London Stock Exchange.”We apologize for this unprovoked and criminal intrusion into our customers’ information,” Avid Life said, adding that the hackers left behind posts and images on the website detailing their demands. The unauthorized posts have since been removed.The breach comes about two months after dating site Adult FriendFinder was compromised. That site has an estimated 64 million members.The Impact Team, in a screengrab showing on the Krebs blog, say it had taken over Avid Media systems including customer databases, source code, financial records and emails.”Shutting down AM (Ashley Madison) and EM (Established Men) will cost you, but non-compliance will cost you more,” the hackers said.They said users who had paid a fee to Avid Life to have their personal data permanently deleted had been lied to and the company had retained records, including credit card information.(Reporting by Abhiram Nandakumar in Bengaluru; Editing by Rodney Joyce) Free Workshop | August 28: Get Better Engagement and Build Trust With Customers Nowlast_img read more