Martes, Mayo 03 2011

Doug Flutie’s daughter will be a Patriots cheerleader

The daughter of Boston's favorite football son will be on the sidelines cheering on the hometown Pats this season.
Doug Flutie's daughter, Alexa, was recently selected to join the New England Patriots 2011 cheerleader team. The 23-year-old reigning Miss Massachusetts was one of 31 womento make the squad.
She'll join Tony La Russa's daughter as famous progeny on the NFL sidelines this year. Bianca La Russa, the daughter of the St. Louis Cardinals manager, will be an Oakland Raiders cheerleader in the upcoming (?) season.
If you want to maintain your youthful vigor for the day, I recommend skipping the next few sentences.
So, when reading this news my first thought was, "Doug Flutie has a 23-year-old daughter? He must have been real young when she was born." I then looked up Flutie's birth date to confirm my hunch.
Wrong.
Dude's going to be 50 next year! Five-zero. I know he was pretty old when he threw his last pass (or dropped his last kick, as it were) but that's old. He's so boyish! Chris Berman feels like it was just yesterday that he was throwing that pass at BC!
Flutie played for the Patriots in the late-'80s before embarking on a Hall of Fame career in the CFL. He eventually returned to the NFL and finished his career in New England, backing up Tom Brady(notes) and famously drop-kicking an extra point in his final regular-season game. It was the first such play since 1941.

Ownership of TV Sets Falls in U.S.

For the first time in 20 years, the number of homes in the United States with television sets has dropped.
The Nielsen Company, which takes TV set ownership into account when it produces ratings, will tell television networks and advertisers on Tuesday that 96.7 percent of American households now own sets, down from 98.9 percent previously.
There are two reasons for the decline, according to Nielsen. One is poverty: some low-income households no longer own TV sets, most likely because they cannot afford new digital sets and antennas.
The other is technological wizardry: young people who have grown up with laptops in their hands instead of remote controls are opting not to buy TV sets when they graduate from college or enter the work force, at least not at first. Instead, they are subsisting on a diet of television shows and movies from the Internet.
That second reason is prompting Nielsen to think about a redefinition of the term "television household" to include Internet video viewers.
"We've been having conversations with clients," said Pat McDonough, the senior vice president for insights and analysis at Nielsen. "That would be a big change for this industry, and we'd be doing it in consultation with clients if we do it."
Nielsen's household figures suggest that while the TV set is still firmly at the center of the average American's media life, a small minority of Americans are finding ways to live without it. The "persistently rocky economy" is "the driving factor," the company says in the report to be released Tuesday.
Similarly, the economy was the reason cited by Nielsen when the percentage of homes with sets declined in 1992. That decline, the company's report says, "also followed a prolonged recession and was reversed during the economic upswing of the mid-1990s." If the current decline persists, it will have profound implications for the networks, studios and distributors that are wedded, at least in part, to the current television ecosystem.
Nielsen's estimates incorporate the results of the 2010 census as well as the behavior of the approximately 50,000 Americans in the national sample that the company relies upon to make ratings projections. "One thing we are seeing in the Nielsen sample are fewer people owning TVs," Ms. McDonough said. It was first evident in the sample in late 2008, she said, during the worst of the financial crisis and the recession.
Nielsen's research into these newly TV-less households indicates that they generally have incomes under $20,000. "They are people at the bottom of the economic spectrum for whom, if the TV breaks, if the antenna blows off the roof, they have to think long and hard about what to do," Ms. McDonough said. Most of these households do not have Internet access either. Many live in rural areas.
The transition to digital broadcasting from analog in 2009 aggravated the hardship for some of these households. Some could not afford to upgrade, Nielsen surmised, though the government tried to provide subsidies in those situations.
And some in rural areas could not receive digital signals as effectively as analog signals for technical reasons. In those cases, "if you're an affluent household — or most middle-class households — you're going to get a satellite dish. If you're a struggling household, likely you're not going to be able to afford that option," Ms. McDonough said.
Then there are the tech-savvy Americans who once lived in a household with a television, but no longer do. These are either cord-cutters — a term that refers to people who stop paying for cable television — or people who never signed on for cable. Ms. McDonough suggested that these were younger Americans who were moving into new residences and deciding not to buy a TV for themselves, especially if they "don't have the financial means to get one immediately."
Nielsen has not yet assessed what proportion of the decline can be attributed to this behavior. But the decline in the percentage of homes with sets is sure to kick off another round of speculation about cord-cutting.
Sensitive to its clients' concerns, Nielsen explains the trend this way in the report: "While Nielsen data demonstrates that consumers are viewing more video content across all platforms — rather than replacing one medium with another — a small subset of younger, urban consumers seem to be going without paid TV subscriptions for the time being. The long-term effects of this are still unclear, as it is undetermined if this is also an economic issue that will see these individuals entering the TV marketplace once they have the means, or the beginning of a larger shift to online viewing."

Norway best for moms, Afghanistan worst

NEW YORK – The best place in the world to be a mom is Norway, where maternal and child mortality rates are low, women's life expectancy and years in school are high, and the average maternity leave is about one year, a new study measuring the well-being of mothers and babies shows.
Australia and Iceland join Norway at the top of Save the Children's 12th annual Mothers Index, released Tuesday. Afghanistan comes in last, and the United States places 31st.
Released every year in the days before Mother's Day, the international nonprofit group's ranking analyzes the maternal and child indicators and other published information of 164 countries.
The survey considers Afghanistan the worst place to be a mother, with women having a life expectancy of 45 years — the world's lowest — and one of every 11 women dying in childbirth. One of every five children in the country doesn't live to age 5.
By contrast, a typical Norwegian woman lives to be 83 years old, and just one in 175 will lose a child before his or her 5th birthday.
Skilled health personnel are present at virtually every birth in Norway, while only 14 percent of births are attended in Afghanistan. Eighty-two percent of women in Norway use modern contraception, contrasted with less than 16 percent of Afghan women.
"The human despair and lost opportunities represented in these numbers demand mothers everywhere be given the basic tools they need to break the cycle of poverty and improve the quality of life for themselves, their children, and for generations to come," the report said.
The U.S.-based Save the Children said governments and international agencies could help change the lot of women and girls in developing countries by improving their education, health care and economic opportunities.
It said the U.S. and other industrialized nations could do more to improve education and health care for their own disadvantaged mothers and children.
The survey noted that the United States came in at 31 mainly because its maternal mortality rate of 1 in 2,100 is among the highest of any industrialized nation.
As a result, a woman in the U.S. is seven times more likely than one in Italy or Ireland to die from pregnancy-related causes, and her risk of maternal death is 15 times that of a woman in Greece.
The United States also does not do as well as most other developed countries when it comes to mortality of children 5 and under. Eight of every 1,000 children born in the United States die before reaching their 5th birthday — a rate on par with Latvia.
Countries in sub-Saharan Africa scored among the lowest on the survey, with eight placing in the bottom 10.
But money isn't always the most important factor in improving the lives of mothers and their babies, said Save the Children, noting that Malawi has made notable progress in recent years.
Working with the U.S. Agency for International Development and other international partners, Malawi has developed a "homegrown" focus through which community health workers provide services in areas where doctors and nurses are unavailable.
In rural areas, people are now educated about infant and child health and offered de-worming, vaccinations, insecticide-treated mosquito nets and information about better sanitation habits.