News article:

American grafting leaders SuperNaturals Grafted Vegetables, LLC (creators of the Mighty ‘Mato brand) have brought Burbank’s vision to reality with the release of Ketchup ‘n’ Fries by TomTato®. For the first time, specialty hand-grafted plants are being offered to American gardeners in the 2015 growing season! This recent effort has been in the works for over 15 years in Europe was released into the British market as TomTato® in 2014. Plug Connection in San Diego County holds the exclusive production rights for starter plants that will be shipped to growers all over North America. Look for Ketchup ‘n’ Fries™ at GardenAmerica, Territorial and garden centers this spring.

 Read all about this amazing new plant in our Press Releases (SuperNaturals and Territorial); or watch the Colbert video:

 And this clip is from Good Morning America: ||||| An Oregon seed company is unveiling a new nightshade to accompany your summer barbecues.

 The "Ketchup 'n' Fries" is a hybrid of tomato and potato plants. The roots of the TomTato are thin-skinned white potatoes attached to a vine of red cherry tomatoes. The plant was released in the United Kingdom this year.

 The Territorial Seed Company in Cottage Grove is selling the TomTato in its 2015 seed catalog as a way for home gardeners to maximize use of limited space. Instead of planting potatoes and tomatoes in separate areas, the company's literature for the TomTato advises that the plant can grow in a 10-gallon container.

 The plant was created by SuperNaturals Grafted Vegetables using grafting -- not to be confusing with genetic engineering. The tomatoes were chosen for the qualities the breeders wanted and then spliced onto potato rootstock. Since both potatoes and tomatoes are fairly closely related, they graft well together.

 Now, if only somehow they could incorporate the hamburger patties...

 -- Molly Harbarger ||||| >> Stephen: WELCOME BACK,EVERYBODY.

 NATION, NATION, I DON'TTRUST VEGETABLES.

 YOU ALWAYS SEE THEM GROWINGBUT YOU NEVER SEE THEM EAT.

 WHAT'S UP.

 SO WHEN I CARVE PUMPKINSIT'S NOT FOR HALLOWEEN, IT'S

 A WARNING.

 THIS IS WHAT I DO TO YOU.

 AND THIS VEGE-TERROR IS ONLYGETTING WORSE BECAUSE THERE

 A NEW CROP OUT OF ENGLANDAND IT MIGHT BE THE CRAZIEST

 [BLEEP] THING I'VE EVERHEARD.

 >> WARNING, FOLKS, WHAT YOUARE ABOUT TO SEE MAY CAUSE

 YOU TO BURGLARIZE YOURPANTS.

 JIM.

 >> IT'S A PLANT WHICHPRODUCES BOTH TOMATOES AND

 POTATO.

 >> ABOVE THE GROUND YOU CANHARVEST UP TO 500 CHEREE

 SIZED TOMATOES BUT THAT'SNOT ALL.

 BELOW THE GROUND YOU CANHARVEST YOUR OWN CROP OF

 DELICIOUS WHITE POTATOES.

 >> Stephen: THAT'S UNNATURAL.

 THE ONLY TIME TOMATOES ANDPOTATO SHOULD MEET IS AT THE

 BOTTOM OF A STYROFOAM CLAMSHELL.

 BESIDES IT'S DISGUSTING.

 WITHOUT WOULD WANT A POTATOTHAT COMES OUT OF THE GROUND,

 IT'S FILTHY.

 AND VEGETABLES SHOULD NOT BEMATING WITH OTHER SPECIES.

 THIS IS MIS-VEG NATION, IT'SADAM AND EVE, NOT ADAM AND

 ENDIVE.

 AND JUST LISTEN, LISTEN HOWTHESE MAD BOT ANNISES

 CREATED THEIR VEGETABLEMEDLEY.

 >> THE INVENTOR PLANT ISBEING CREATED USING A

 GRAFTING PROCESS, BY TAPINGTHE ENDS OF TWO PLANTSING

 TO.

 IT WORKED IN THIS CASEBECAUSE TOMATOES ARE MEMBERS

 OF THE POTATO FAMILY, SOTHEY ARE NATURALLY

 COMPATIBLE.

 >> TOMATO AND POTATO PLANTSTAPED END-TO-END.

 THROW A TURN I IN THERE ANDYOU CAN STITCH TOGETHER THE

 VEGETABLE CENTIPEDE.

 AND THE NAME, WAIT A SECOND,TOM-TATO, WHERE DID THEY GET

 THAT NAME, IT'S HALF POTATOAND HALF TOMATO, IT SHOULD

 BE CALLED THE POTE-AT THATTIMEO.

 WHATEVER, YOU SAY POTATO ASAY TOE MATHO.

 >> YOU SAY TOMORROW-TOMTATO.

 THAT'S THE CRAZIEST [BLEEP]THING I'VE EVER HEARD. ||||| What is a Grafted Plant?

 Grafted vegetables are created when the top part of one plant (the scion) is attached to the root system of a separate plant (the rootstock). The rootstock contributes vigor and disease resistance while the scion is chosen for fruit flavor and quality. Grafting has been used in agriculture for centuries to improve plant health and yield (fruit trees and grape vines are two familiar examples). Grafted vegetables are currently widespread in Asia and Europe among produce growers and are gaining popularity in the US, especially with organic farmers. Our plants are grafted by hand in a unique, carefully controlled environment using innovative methods recently developed here in Oregon.

 Grafted vegetables help solve common garden problems. Vigorous rootstock enables more effective uptake of water and nutrients, and increases plants' resistance to pests or disease and tolerance to temperature extremes and drought. This allows commercial growers — and now home gardeners — to plant earlier and harvest longer. Healthier, stronger plants also mean greatly reduced pesticide use and more yield. With grafted tomato plants, even gardeners in challenging climates can enjoy ample harvests of America's favorite garden crop.

 Grafted plants are drop-dead gorgeous

 Statuesque, strong, and loaded with flowers and fruit, they remain beautifully healthy and disease-resistant when the same non-grafted varieties oftentimes struggle.

 Benefits of Grafted plants over non-grafted plants

 • Better quality crops and increased fruit production

 • Increased water and nutrient uptake

 • Extended harvests

 • Increased disease resistance including resistance to early and late blight and blossom end rot in tomatoes

 • Increased overall plant vigor

 • Increased tolerance to environmental stresses (extremes in heat and cold, salinity, etc.)

 Our plants are available individually in 2 1/4 inch pots! At Territorial you don't have to buy 6 plants of each variety. You can mix and match your plants just the way you want.

 When you order our transplants, you will receive the same quality and selection that our customers have learned to expect at our retail store. For gardeners who are pressed for time or prefer to have Territorial start their plants, our selection of vegetables, flowers, and herbs is an easy and economical way to fill your garden with summer goodness. Plants are available individually. For the best shipping value, order any combination of 6 plants.

 Ship Codes

 (A) Ships first half of April-Order Must Be Received By: March 1

 (B) Ships last half of April-Order Must Be Received By: March 15

 (C) Ships first half of May-Order Must Be Received By: April 1

 (D) Ships last half of May-Order Must Be Received By: May 1

 • We reserve the right to alter the shipping dates due to weather.

 • Remember, plants are living things and don't always follow schedules!

 • We do our best to ship strong, healthy plants right to your door on time.

 Perfect Delivery Guarantee

 • We guarantee your plants will arrive in perfect condition at the physical street address given on your order. Sorry, we cannot guarantee orders for which we are given an incorrect address.

 • Plants are shipped Monday through Wednesday and arrive at your door Thursday or Friday of the same week. They are not scheduled for transit over a weekend.

 Important Reminders When Ordering Plants From the Catalog

 • Use the Plant Order Form located in the center of the catalog

 • Choose a Ship Code

 • Include a physical street address because plants are shipped Fedex

 • Plants are available only within the contiguous US

 Before shipping, each transplant is hardened-off in the crisp night air of our short season farm. When they arrive at your door, they're ready for your garden. One plant per pot.

 Be sure to open your box immediately upon receipt

 Upon opening the box you may notice that some of the plants appear wilted. This should not harm the plants. Water the pots and place them in a partially sunny location. If you can't plant them outside immediately, you may want to pot them into a larger container.

 Because of the different growth rates of some of the varieties, you may see a difference in sizes.

 Plants are shipped Monday through Wednesday and arrive at your door Thursday, Friday, or Saturday of the same week. If the box arrives after the weekend or is damaged, please call Customer Service immediately at: 800-626-0866.

 If your shipment is not complete, please refer to your invoice for information regarding backorders or product that is sold out for the season.

 Write a Review

 Great tomatoes-no potatoes Jan 20, 2018 | By Tom Grudowski Ugh Aug 7, 2016 | By Don cousin vinnie says May 31, 2016 | By vincent ragucci Worth every penny Apr 7, 2016 | By Maureen Don't buy Mar 10, 2016 | By Ellen Kennedy No Potatoes Jan 25, 2016 | By Meghan ketchup and fries Jan 4, 2016 | By jim docktor Disappointing Jan 3, 2016 | By Kelli Ketchup and fries Nov 1, 2015 | By Marci Fun in the Garden Oct 9, 2015 | By Melissa Gimicky, not worth the $$ Oct 2, 2015 | By Kim Produces Overtime Aug 20, 2015 | By Michele Machholz WooHoo Aug 5, 2015 | By Carol Weinstock WOW Jul 14, 2015 | By pam Overall Rating: ||||| Thompson & Morgan

 A Western Oregon mail order company has begun selling what might become the No. 1 conversation starter of Northwest garden parties this summer.

 It’s a grafted vegetable plant that produces potatoes and tomatoes at the same time.

 Cottage Grove, Oregon-based wholesale nursery Log House Plants licensed the dual tomato-potato from Europe. It is distributing to independent garden centers and through the Territorial Seed Company mail order firm. A video shows how the combo plant yields cherry tomatoes above ground and spuds below ground.

 “Each plant is grafted by hand to ensure that unique double cropping,” the narrator says in the video.

 So it’s not a miracle of genetic engineering, but rather a simple graft of the top of one plant onto the rootstock of the other one.

 The reason this works is that potatoes and tomatoes are closely related. The grafted plant first yields lots of cherry tomatoes and when that winds down, puts its energy into maturing its potatoes.

 Grafting can be done at home, but requires skill and practice. In this case, the tomato stem and potato stem need to have the same thickness. The graft entails making a clean cut of both plant stems and then taping two ends together until they heal.

 The British mail order nursery that commercialized the combo plant dubbed it the TomTato, also known as “Ketchup ‘n’ Fries.” An imitator in New Zealand called its version the Potato Tom.

 “People have been grafting tomatoes and potatoes for a while, but mostly as a novelty,” said Territorial Seed Company marketing director Tim Russell. Prior to commercialization, he said research was needed “to find a variety of potato and tomato that complement each other well.”

 Russell said the unusual combo plant generated “lots of comments and buzz” almost from the moment it appeared in his company’s 2015 catalog and was promoted via Facebook. “People are excited,” Russell observed. |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– Tomatoes and potatoes go together like, well, ketchup and fries—so why not grow them together? A hybrid plant known as the "TomTato" or, yes, "Ketchup 'n' Fries," allows you to do just that, and it's now available in the US after first being released in the UK. The plant combines a vine growing cherry tomatoes with roots growing white potatoes—but it's not genetically engineered. Rather, it's created by grafting, in which the tomatoes are "spliced onto potato rootstock," the Oregonian explains, noting the process works well for tomatoes and potatoes because they are closely related. Technically, you could try to do it at home, but it requires the plant stems you're joining be the same thickness. SuperNaturals Grafted Vegetables is the company handling the grafting process in the US, and home gardeners can purchase the non-GMO plant in a 2.5-inch pot from the Territorial Seed Company. "People have been grafting tomatoes and potatoes for a while, but mostly as a novelty," Territorial's marketing director tells OPB, noting that before this plant was commercialized, it was necessary to research varieties to find ones that "complement each other well." Now, purchasers can expect to harvest some 500 red cherry tomatoes and 4.5 pounds of potatoes from each plant. Back in 2013 when the plant was only available in the UK, Stephen Colbert featured it on his "The Craziest F#?ing Thing I've Ever Heard" segment, calling it "unnatural" and noting, "The only time tomatoes and potatoes should meet is at the bottom of a Styrofoam clamshell." (Read about a tree that grows 40 different fruits.)


News article:

Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Footage shows the aftermath of the turbulence which threw passengers into the aisles

 At least 27 people were hurt when an Aeroflot flight from Moscow to Bangkok hit a patch of severe turbulence.

 No injuries were life-threatening, but several passengers suffered broken bones and three needed surgery, Russian officials said.

 A passenger described being "hurled" up to the ceiling, trying to cling on amid shaking which "wouldn't stop".

 The turbulence occurred in clear skies, which meant the crew were not able to warn passengers, the airline said.

 "The reasons behind the injures were that some of the passengers had not had their seatbelts fastened," Aeroflot said in a statement.

 Image copyright Reuters Image caption The plane was a Boeing 777, carrying 313 passengers

 'Impossible to predict'

 Mobile phone footage of the aftermath of the incident showed injured people lying in the aisles, with packets of food and other items scattered on the floor.

 "We were hurled up into the roof of the plane, it was practically impossible to hold on," a passenger who gave her first name as Yevgenia told Rossiya 24 by phone.

 "It felt like the shaking wouldn't stop, that we would just crash," she added.

 The pilot, Aleksandr Ruzov, said the turbulence was "impossible to predict", in an interview with the Russia 24 news channel.

 He said the worst effects were felt at the back of the plane.

 What is Clear Air Turbulence?

 CAT - clear air turbulence - is turbulence that occurs in otherwise calm, clear blue skies, without any visual indication such as clouds.

 It is caused when masses of air moving at different speeds meet, and can't be identified by the naked eye or conventional radar.

 Pilots use reports from other aircraft, passed on via air traffic control, to keep track of patches of clear air turbulence.

 Why is in-flight turbulence so unpredictable?

 Atlantic turbulence 'to hit flights', climate scientists say

 The incident took place about 40 minutes before the Boeing 777 carrying 313 passengers was due to land in Bangkok.

 Twenty-four of those injured were Russians while the other three were Thai, the Russian embassy in Thailand said.

 Fifteen people, including one child, were admitted to hospitals in Bangkok, a health ministry spokesman told the Russian news agency Interfax.

 Three people needed surgery, two for multiple leg fractures and one for broken ribs, he said.

 By early evening on Monday, 14 passengers remained in hospital, according to Aeroflot, which has said it will pay the medical costs of the injured.

 The airline said the pilot's experience amounted to more than 23,000 flight hours and that about 750 cases of clear-air turbulence are recorded in civil aviation every year. ||||| Flight from Moscow hit pocket of ‘clear air’, throwing passengers into the ceiling and leaving some with broken bones

 Severe turbulence has injured 27 people on an Aeroflot flight from Moscow to Bangkok, with passengers thrown into the aircraft’s ceiling, leaving some with broken bones.

 The Boeing 777 hit a pocket of “clear air” turbulence – where there is no telltale cloud pattern or radar presence to warn pilots of the change in air pressure – as the flight prepared to land in Bangkok, shortly after midnight on Monday.

 Denis Antonyuk, an official at Russia’s embassy in Bangkok said 24 Russian nationals and three Thai citizens were injured on flight SU270.

 “Fifteen Russians and two Thais are still in hospital,” he told AFP, adding the rest had been discharged.

 Aeroflot said none of the passengers were in a serious condition, and although several had broken bones, none had suffered spinal compression fractures, as had been reported earlier on Monday.

 The turbulence hit about 40 minutes before the aircraft was due to land, and was “impossible to foresee”, with the crew unable to warn passengers to return to their seats and buckle their seatbelts, Aeroflot said. The flight was operated by an experienced crew, it added, including a pilot who had logged more than 23,000 flight hours.

 The Russian embassy in Bangkok told Reuters: “The reason behind the injuries was that some of the passengers had not had their seatbelts fastened.”

 Images taken by a passenger and posted on Instagram showed the aircraft’s cabin in disarray, with passengers lying in the aisles and items scattered on the floor in the galleys.

 Facebook Twitter Pinterest Passengers lying on floor after Aeroflot flight encountered severe turbulence. Photograph: Reuters

 “We were hurled up into the roof of the plane, it was practically impossible to hold on,” a passenger, who gave her first name Yevgenia, told Rossiya 24 by phone. “It felt like the shaking wouldn’t stop, that we would just crash.”

 During the Soviet era, Aeroflot had an appalling safety record, with 27 accidents killing 780 people in 1973 alone. It had 721 accidents in 44 years, though Aeroflot was the largest airline in the world at the time, carrying many times more passengers than its international rivals.

 The airline’s safety record has improved since the collapse of the Soviet Union, although 88 passengers and crew were killed in 2008 when a plane crashed preparing to land in Perm, Russia.

 The airline is ranked 37 out of 60 in the 2017 airline safety rankings compiled by the Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Center, above Alitalia and Air France. |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– Some passengers were hurled to the ceiling Monday when an Aeroflot flight from Moscow to Bangkok hit a patch of turbulence so severe that dozens of passengers were injured. The Boeing 777 hit what's known as "clear air turbulence" around 40 minutes before landing in Bangkok, where 27 passengers were hospitalized, some with broken bones, the Guardian reports. The airline is paying for their treatment, though it says the injuries were definitely not its fault. "The reasons behind the injures were that some of the passengers had not had their seatbelts fastened," Aeroflot said in a statement. Passenger Rostik Rusev tells CNN that it lasted for 10 terrifying seconds. "There was blood on the ceiling, people with broken noses, babies who were hurt. It was horrible. It came out of nowhere. It was like driving a car and a tire suddenly bursts," Rusev says, adding: "The aircraft personnel couldn't have been more professional and courageous. They were heroes in everything they were doing." There are hundreds of cases every year—usually milder ones—of aircraft encountering clear air turbulence, which is caused when masses of air moving at different speeds meet, the BBC reports. Pilots rely on each other to report turbulence pockets they encounter in skies that appear clear and calm.


Write an article based on this summary:

– The US men's soccer team stunned Mexico Wednesday night by beating them on their home turf for the first time. Going into the game at Mexico City's Estadio Azteca, one of the game's most intimidating and highest-altitude arenas, America's record against Mexico in 75 years of games was 23 losses, one tie, and zero wins. The Americans were dominated by Mexico for most of the game but won the friendly 1-0 with a late goal from Michael Orozco Fiscal, the AP reports. Mexico scrambled to get back in the game but were defeated by a pair of remarkable saves from goalkeeper Tim Howard. "The goal was for the US fans and the whole US. We made history," said Orosco Fizcal, a defender from Orange, California. "It's important to us to understand that we can compete with big teams at their stadiums," US coach Jurgen Klinsmann told Sports Illustrated. "With Azteca it's like when you play at Wembley in England or the Stade de France or in Berlin. Those are very special locations, and I want the players to appreciate that. I want the players to understand and take it all in, because you never know if you'll get another occasion like that. We told the players: You have nothing to lose here. Give it all you have." The team is back in action for a pair of World Cup qualifiers against Jamaica next month.

The United States ended 75 years of frustration in Mexico, winning at its southern neighbor and regional rival for the first time Wednesday night when Michael Orozco Fiscal's goal in the 80th minute and Tim Howard's late sprawling saves provided a 1-0 victory.

 U.S Michael Orozco celebrates after scoring during a friendly soccer game against Mexico in Mexico City, Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2012. (AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo) (Associated Press)

 U.S Michael Orozco, front, celebrates after scoring during a friendly soccer game against Mexico in Mexico City, Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2012. (AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo) (Associated Press)

 U.S. Michael Orozco celebrates with teammates after scoring during a friendly soccer game against Mexico in Mexico City, Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2012. (AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo) (Associated Press)

 U.S Michael Orozco, right, celebrates with teammate Terrence Boyd after scoring after scoring during a friendly soccer game against Mexico in Mexico City, Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2012. (AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo) (Associated Press)

 Dominated for most of the night, the Americans went ahead on a move created by a trio of second-half substitutes.

 Brek Shea cut inside Severo Meza on the left flank and crossed to Terrence Boyd at the top of the 6-yard box. With his back to the goal, Boyd took a touch with his left foot and with his right made a quick backheel pass to Orozco Fiscal, who with his left foot poked it from 3 yards past goalkeeper Guillermo Ochoa and defender Jorge Torres Nilo for his first international goal.

 "The goal was for the U.S. fans and the whole U.S. We made history," said Orosco Fizcal, a 26-year-old defender from Orange, Calif., who plays in Mexico for San Luis.

 He entered in the 77th minute for his fifth international appearance and first since October. Shea, back with the team for the first time since February following a season of turmoil in Major League Soccer, came on a minute later. Boyd had entered to start the second half.

 "Just happy we won and made history," Shea said. "It's something we haven't done in a long time. Just to be on the roster is cool."

 Howard preserved the lead, changing directions to stop a deflected shot by Javier Hernandez in the 85th, then pawing away a 4-yard downward header by Chicharito in the 89th.

 "I think it's huge. It's huge for I think all American fans, it's huge for the team, and it's historic," U.S. coach Jurgen Klinsmann said. "We were very well aware that we've never won here at the Azteca Stadium. This is an amazing experience for the all the players. We told them before the game: This moment is for you, go and grab it. We are all aware that it was a lot, a lot of work."

 The U.S. had been 0-23-1 against El Tri in 75 years of games at Mexico, including 0-19-1 in the thin air at altitude in Mexico City _ where they had been outscored 81-14.

 "Tim Howard kept us in the game I don't know how many times," said Klinsmann, who has been trying to change the defensive mindset the American had at times under Bob Bradley. "It's a mental aspect of it. Eventually, you need a little bit of luck, too, and I think in some instances we were lucky tonight."

 Mexico outshot the U.S. 15-6 and had a 10-0 advantage in corner kicks. But the Americans came away with their second big win this year, following February's first-ever victory over Italy, in a friendly at Genoa.

 With the European clubs seasons getting under way, the U.S. used a half-strength roster and a makeshift central defense.

 Mexico also was below strength following the Olympics _ Carlos Salcido, its regular left back, started in Sunday's win over Brazil in the gold-medal game. El Tri dominated possession but failed to connect on several open shots as the Americans paired Maurice Edu and Geoff Cameron in the center of their back line.

 The game marked the start of the Americans' second year under Klinsmann, who replaced Bradley last summer after Mexico overcame a two-goal deficit to win the CONCACAF Gold Cup final 4-2.

 The U.S. figures to have a lineup closer to full strength for a pair of World Cup qualifiers against Jamaica next month, on the road on Sept. 7 and at Columbus, Ohio, four days later. Mexico plays Costa Rica on those same days.

 "We know we have to improve in many, many elements," Klinsmann said. "We have to keep the ball longer. We have to create more chances. We have to do a lot of work still. But I think this gives us a lot of confidence."

 Landon Donovan, searching for his 50th international goal, left at the start of the second half because of a tight hamstring and DaMarcus Beasley came in for his 97th international appearance. Boyd came in at the same time to replace an ineffective Jose Torres.

 Cameron got his head on a cross from Elias Hernandez in the 56th minute, preventing Hernandez from an open shot in front. A minute later, Jesus Zavala put an open header over the crossbar.

 With Ochoa off his line, Kyle Beckerman put a long, sliding shot just over the crossbar in the 60th.

 Andres Guardado hooked a free kick just wide to Howard's right post in the 65th after Cameron fouled Hernandez just outside the penalty area. Hernandez then sent an open header wide in the 76th off a cross from Hernandez.

 "It was very difficult in high altitude, with many of them flying in from Europe two days ago," Klinsmann said. "But we had a plan, and we tried to execute that plan and getting that win here, I mean it's quite enjoyable." ||||| Javier Hernandez (left) was stuffed twice by Tim Howard in the final minutes. Roberto Maya/AFP/Getty Images United States 1 Mexico 0 Final :: Mexico City Orozco Fiscal 80'

 MEXICO CITY -- On the night the U.S. made history, goalkeeper Tim Howard walked slowly up the tunnel of the Estadio Azteca, one of the most famous stadiums in sports and a house of horrors for U.S. Soccer from the time it was built more than 40 years ago.

 As he moved forward, Howard passed by all the signs that have been posted on the tunnel walls, one per country, showing the all-time records of Mexico against its international opponents.

 Howard was headed toward the U.S. bus, but he decided to stop at the sign bearing the Stars and Stripes flag, "Estados Unidos," and a string of misery in the form of U.S. results here over the decades. U.S. kit man Jesse Bignami pulled out his cell phone and snapped a picture of Howard in a triumphant pose next to an artifact that was no longer accurate.

 "Time to change the sign," Howard said, wearing a proud smile. "Time to change the sign."

 CREDITOR: U.S. player ratings

 Until Wednesday, the U.S. had never beaten Mexico in Mexico in 24 games over 75 years going back to 1937. Until Wednesday, the U.S. tally read 23 losses, one tie and zero victories. Until Wednesday, the thought of this U.S. team finally winning in Mexico seemed close to impossible, not least because so many regulars were missing from the quickly assembled squad: Clint Dempsey, Carlos Bocanegra, Steve Cherundolo, Jozy Altidore.

 And let's be honest: For most of Wednesday's game, it seemed likely that the U.S. would go home on the losing end again. Mexico dominated possession, spent most of its time in the U.S. end and forced the U.S. back line into a near-constant protect-and-defend mode. But the U.S. held firm, absorbing the pressure, with center back Geoff Cameron in particular having a standout game shutting down Mexican star Javier (Chicharito) Hernández.

 In just his sixth U.S. appearance, Cameron played like taking on Mexico in the Azteca was no big deal.

 "I tried not to think about it much, because the more you think about it the more worried and nervous you get," said Cameron, who just joined Stoke City of the English Premier League from Houston. "I was sweating profusely coming into the game, but I just tried to focus on myself and do the things I know how to do well."

 As the second half progressed and the score remained 0-0, Howard thought maybe, just maybe, the U.S. could hold on for a tie.

 "I was saying to myself at 75 minutes: If someone wants to stop the game, we'll take it," he said.

 WAHL: U.S.' defensive stand, more post-match thoughts

 But everything changed in the 80th minute. After a U.S. throw-in, Kyle Beckerman passed to Brek Shea on the left wing. After a breakout year in 2011, Shea had fallen back to earth hard in 2012, so much so that he was a surprise pick to even be on this U.S. squad. When he's on his game, though, Shea runs right at defenders like a Texas-bred running back, and that's exactly what he did, nutmegging Mexico's Severo Meza, barreling into the box and firing a pass to fellow substitute Terrence Boyd.

 Boyd, a supremely confident German-American, surprised the Mexicans with an audacious back heel in the box that found Michael Orozco Fiscal free in space. It's fair to say that Orozco Fiscal had dropped off the U.S. radar even more than Shea had, and it's likely he was selected for this team mainly because he plays in Mexico. Orozco Fiscal had come upfield for the throw-in, and even though he's a defender, he stuck around in the Mexican penalty area.

 "Shea took him one-v-one," said Orozco Fiscal, "and I was like, 'I'm gonna stay here and see what happens.'"

 His first-time shot beat Mexican goalie Guillermo Ochoa, sparking a raucous U.S. celebration at the corner flag.

 Mexico 0, United States 1.

 The Mexicans staged a mad scramble to come back. Yet Howard ended those hopes with two remarkable saves on Hernández, including a point-blank header.

 "I just tried to get a full hand on it, and it ended up hitting the top of my thumb, which gave it spin," Howard said. "I thought, 'Here we go again.' But we deserved a little bit of luck."

 The ball stayed out of the U.S. net.

 For years we wondered: What would the scene be like in the Azteca when the U.S. finally won a game here? When the whistle blew, we finally knew. The restless murmurs in the gigantic thunderdome dissipated into an eerie quiet. Some areas of the stadium turned angry, hurling projectiles onto a small U.S. fan section until police had to evacuate the American supporters. But outside the stadium the majority of Mexican fans merely set about going home. The general anger would likely have been higher had it been a World Cup qualifier instead of an exhibition game.

 Years from now, though, people won't remember that Mexico had more possession in this game, or that it was "just a friendly." They'll remember one thing: on Aug. 15, 2012, the U.S. beat Mexico on Mexican soil for the first time in 25 tries. There's value in that for coach Jurgen Klinsmann as he tries to build a team that can compete at World Cup 2014, not just when it comes to playing good soccer but also when it comes to having the mentality to win difficult games.

 "It's important to us to understand that we can compete with big teams at their stadiums," Klinsmann said. "With Azteca it's like when you play at Wembley in England or the Stade de France or in Berlin. Those are very special locations, and I want the players to appreciate that. I want the players to understand and take it all in, because you never know if you'll get another occasion like that. We told the players: You have nothing to lose here. Give it all you have."

 In March, Klinsmann's U.S. men pulled off a 1-0 victory against Italy in Genoa, a historic result in a tough environment. And on Wednesday they did it again in the Azteca. Next year, results willing, the U.S. will return to the Estadio Azteca for a World Cup qualifier, and things will be different as a result of this memorable night -- on the field, in the players' minds and, not least, on a specific piece of printed posterboard in the stadium tunnel.

 It's time to change the sign. |||||


Article:

Food-safety bill clears key Senate hurdle

 By J. Taylor Rushing -

 After a year of waiting in line, legislation to promote food safety on Wednesday moved toward passage during the Senate’s lame-duck session.

 Almost a year to the day after a unanimous committee vote, the long-stalled food-safety bill by Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) passed on a 74-25 procedural vote.

 The Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee passed the legislation on Nov. 18, 2009, in a 16-0 bipartisan vote. The measure was forced onto the back burner while the upper chamber grappled with healthcare and financial regulation reforms.

 The House passed its version of the bill in July 2009 by a vote of 283-142.

 The bill would require more frequent inspections at food-processing plants and would give the government more authority in food-recall cases. The measure is being pushed by Durbin, HELP Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), and organizations such as The Pew Charitable Trusts.

 “Senators often talk about the importance of addressing so-called ‘kitchen table issues’ — the practical, everyday concerns of working Americans. Well, food safety is literally a ‘kitchen table’ issue,” Harkin said in a floor speech just before the vote. “And it couldn’t be more urgent or absurdly overdue. It is shocking to think that the last comprehensive overhaul of America’s food-safety system was in 1938 — more than seven decades ago.”

 Sandra Eskin, director of Pew’s food-safety campaign, had been promoting the bill for more than a year.

 “I’ve always been taught that patience is a virtue. We’re thrilled and we’re hopeful that we’ll get the bill to the floor soon,” Eskin said after the vote.

 Democratic leaders mindful of bipartisan support were cautiously optimistic about Wednesday’s vote. One senior Democratic aide said leaders are hopeful a final vote can happen later Wednesday or on Thursday, or else a weekend session is possible.

 “It all depends on the Republicans and what they’ll agree to,” the aide said.

 The bill has 20 co-sponsors, of which eight are Republicans, including Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (Tenn.). Other Republicans such as Sen. Tom Coburn (Okla.), however, are opposed.

 Coburn told The Hill that the food-safety bill "doesn't fix the real problems," but rather compounds them by adding more responsibilities to the Food and Drug Administration or Department of Agriculture, which he said have erred too often in the past when responding to outbreaks.

 "Fixing the real problems is about making the bureaucracy work right, not adding more layers and rules and bureaucracy," Coburn said. "I want us to have food safety, but for every dollar additionally spent, how much can you really improve? We have the safest food in the world, but you can't get to 100 percent. So at what point do you stop spending additional dollars? It's like homeland security. Can we ever spend enough money to be absolutely sure nothing happens? No, we can't."

 The Senate bill is considered less controversial than the House version. Some of the more contentious issues, such as imposing fees on food facilities to help finance the Food and Drug Administration's food-safety inspection efforts, were not included in the version that passed through the HELP committee.

 Among other provisions, the legislation would do the following:

 • Attempt to prevent food-borne illnesses from reaching the population by requiring food-processing plants to upgrade the frequency and thoroughness of their safety inspections;

 • Require the Health and Human Services (HHS) Department and Agriculture Department to jointly develop a national plan to improve food safety, as well as an HHS requirement for a national system to better prevent problems in the food supply;

 • Grant HHS greater authority to order recalls of suspected tainted food;

 • Improve inspections of foreign food imported into the United States. ||||| The Senate today approved a cloture motion for the long-awaited FDA Food Safety Modernization Act, or S. 510. The cloture vote, which eliminates the threat of filibuster by limiting debate, is a key step forward for the beleaguered bill.

 Late last night staffers worked to iron out language and try to broker deals on the Tester and bisphenol A amendments. Both have become controversial speed bumps for the slow-moving bipartisan bill, which among other things would give the FDA more authority in testing for food pathogens, tracing outbreaks, ordering recalls and penalizing companies that sell contaminated food.

 The Tester provision, introduced by Jon Tester (D-MT) and supported by Kay Hagan (D-NC) aims to exempt small farmers and producers from major food safety regulation. The BPA amendment is Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) attempt to place federal limits on the use of the chemical in food and beverage containers. It focuses especially on products used by infants and small children.

 Interest groups on all sides of the legislation and the amendments are working diligently behind the scenes.

 Food Democracy Now!, an Iowa-based sustainable agriculture advocacy organization, told Food Safety News that more than 2,000 of its members have made phone calls on behalf of the Tester amendment.

 “This is an important test to see if Democrats and Republican senators representing farm states will stand up for small farmers or cave to special interests and agribusiness,” said Dave Murphy, founder and executive director of the organization. “It could be the first lesson the food movement gets on how the new Congress will respond during the 2012 Farm Bill.”

 “The behind-the-scenes efforts to kill any provisions that protect family farmers from burdensome regulations has been intense, but efforts by real farm groups and sustainable ag organizations may have turned the tide,” added Murphy.

 As Food Safety News reported yesterday, large food and agriculture interest groups, including the American Meat Institute, the United Fresh Produce Association, and the United Egg Producers, sent a letter to committee staff Monday asking that the Tester amendment be excluded from the bill.

 Popular authors and food policy gurus, Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan, issued a joint statement Tuesday, through Tester’s office, stating their support of the senator’s amendment and the food safety legislation.

 “S 510 is the most important food safety legislation in a generation,” they said. “The Tester amendment will make it even more effective, strengthening food safety rules while protecting small farmers and producers. We both think this is the right thing to do.”

 Sen. Tester has said in the past that he believes he has ample support for his amendment, but with the late-in-the game lobbying the outlook is less certain.

 The BPA amendment is also in flux. Ami Gadhia, policy counsel for Consumers Union, who has been working on the issue, said he remains optimistic that in the final stretch an agreement will be reached.

 “[Senator Feinstein] has tried really hard to meet industry halfway,” said Gadhia. “We’re still hopeful.”

 © Food Safety News ||||| The Senate has voted to move forward on a far-reaching food safety bill that would give the Food and Drug Administration more power to prevent foodborne illnesses.

 The Senate voted 74-25 to proceed with the bill. Supporters needed 60 votes because Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., had objected, saying the legislation's $1.4 billion cost isn't paid for.

 The bill would give the FDA more authority to recall tainted products, increase inspections of food processors and require producers to follow stricter standards for keeping food safe in the wake of outbreaks of contaminated peanuts, eggs and produce that have sickened hundreds.

 Also on Wednesday, the Senate blocked a measure designed to reduce wage disparities between men and women. The 58-41 vote to take up the Paycheck Fairness Act fell short of the 60 needed to overcome GOP opposition.

 Civil rights groups, labor leaders and the Obama administration all supported the bill, which would make employers prove that any disparities in wages are job-related and not sex-based. Republicans and business groups said the bill would expose employers to more litigation by removing limits on punitive and compensatory damage awards.

 Whether the food safety bill could make it to the president's desk during the brief lame-duck congressional session is unclear since the House passed a different version of the legislation in 2009. Even if the Senate passes the bill, the two pieces of legislation would have to be quickly reconciled before the end of this session sometime after Thanksgiving.

 Supporters are still negotiating with two senators expected to offer amendments to the bill _ Sen. Jon Tester, D. Mont., who is concerned the legislation will be burdensome on small farms, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who plans to offer an amendment to limit the use of the plastics chemical bisphenol-A.

 Tester's amendment, which would exempt some smaller farms from the bill's requirements, has gained support among grassroots advocates for buying food produced locally. While the bill is designed to give the Food and Drug Administration greater authority over the nation's food supply, supporters of the Tester amendment say it could bankrupt some small farms that don't have the means to comply with new standards the bill would impose.

 Those standards could include registering food safety plans with the FDA and documenting efforts to show food is not contaminated as it is produced.

 Food safety advocates have objected to some of the exemptions, saying Tester's concerns are overblown and the size of the farm is not as important as the safety of the food.

 Feinstein's amendment would ban BPA, a chemical used to harden plastics in some food containers and hundreds of other household items, from some products. Some scientists and activists who oppose the use of the chemical have said it can interfere with development and possibly cause cancer.

 Feinstein has insisted on offering the amendment to the bill, and negotiations on the issue have been ongoing for months. She issued a statement Wednesday saying the faces opposition from industry.

 "We are still trying to work out details of an agreement, but chemical industry lobbyists are doing everything in their power to block any progress on the issue," Feinstein said.

 President Barack Obama issued a statement in support of the Senate food safety bill Tuesday, saying the legislation would address "long-standing challenges" of the FDA by helping producers prevent foodborne outbreaks and giving the government more tools to keep food safe.

 Recent outbreaks have exposed a lack of resources and authority at the FDA as the embattled agency has struggled to contain and trace contaminated products.

 Currently, the FDA does not have the authority to order a recall and must negotiate recalls with the affected producers. The agency rarely inspects many food facilities and farms, visiting some every decade or so and others not at all.

 ___

 Associated Press writer Sam Hananel contributed to this report. |||||
What is a summary?

– A major food safety bill cleared a Senate hurdle today, but it's getting friction from a group you might not expect: locavores. They want small family farms to be exempt from the sweeping new regulations and are pushing for an amendment to that effect from Montana Democrat Jon Tester. Two high-profile names from the food world are on board, notes Food Safety News: Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser. "S 510 is the most important food safety legislation in a generation," they said in a joint statement. "The Tester amendment will make it even more effective, strengthening food safety rules while protecting small farmers and producers. We both think this is the right thing to do." Another potential holdup is an amendment from Dianne Feinstein to put limits on the use of the plastics chemical bisphenol-A in food and beverage containers, notes the AP. Negotiations with both senators continue as the Senate proceeds with the bill, which would still have to be reconciled with a House version from last year. Time is running out to get that down in the lame-duck session. The Hill has more details on the proposed new FDA powers.


News article:

Brad Pitt Further Clarifies Jen Aniston Remarks

 The night was devoted to unveiling his latest movie, the based-on-fact baseball movie Moneyball, but Brad Pitt still found a moment to clarify comments he made last week regarding his marriage to Jennifer Aniston "That was never my intention for it to be spun that way," he said of those who interpreted his remarks to be critical of his former mate. "People read things into it that just weren't there."At the Oakland Coliseum, where the movie premiered and much of Moneyball takes place, Pitt, 47, said the role of Oakland Athletics manager Billy Beane offered him a unique behind-the-scenes perspective of America's favorite pastime. (The film is based on nonfiction author Michael Lewis's Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game.)"Getting into the Oakland Coliseum and being inside the baseball world is something you just don't get to do every day," he said. "When you are a spectator, you are left behind the gate, so to speak. So getting inside was a real privilege."But while Pitt, 47, never played baseball himself, it's likely he'll one day be watching son Maddox swing for the fences."My son is a big baseball fan," he said. " We went to a Yankees game and we were sitting next to the dugout. [Derek] Jeter offered him a cracked bat, and he said, 'It's broken!' " ||||| Although Brad Pitt has "Moneyball," one of his most-buzzed about films in recent memory set to release, comments he made to Parade magazine involving his ex Jennifer Aniston remain top of mind.

 Pitt spoke to Matt Lauer in an interview to air Thursday on TODAY, and clarified some of those remarks, saying that his point was lost in the controversy. "I don't know what was pieced together or put together. All I know is that my point was, the best thing I'd done as a father is be sure that my kids have a good mother," Pitt said. "That's all I was, or am, trying to say. It has no reference to the past. And I think it's a shame that I can't say something nice about Angie without Jen being drug in. You know, she doesn't deserve it."

 Pitt told Lauer that although he chooses to "live outside all that," i.e., the rumors that constantly swirl around his relationships with current partner Angelina Jolie or Aniston, he had to attempt to clarify what he meant to say. "I don't want them to say anything bad like that about Jen. She's a dear friend of mine," he said, adding that Aniston did not reach out to him after the Parade quotes were published.

 But back to the driving force behind Pitt's interview: "Moneyball." Although there's already Oscar talk surrounding the baseball pic, Pitt says he's distancing himself from that for now. "It remains a great piece of material for me that I got to take on. And, we're all -- it's too early to talk about all that other stuff," Pitt told Lauer. "It's all good fun if your number comes up, and it's even more fun when your friend's number comes up."

 Tune in Thursday for the complete interview on TODAY.

 Related content: ||||| Whatddya know? The Brad Pitt/Jennifer Aniston bash-fest plot thickens. The latest piece of succulent gossip to drip from the ripe, fruit-bearing tree? It's two-fold, actually. One part says that Jennifer Aniston's team "went ballistic" when they got wind of Pitt's asinine comments; the other part says that Pitt's asinine comments actually came from a place of jealousy. As in Brad, although blissfully in love with Angelina Jolie, is actually jealous that Jennifer's so in love.

 Hmm ... did Jennifer's team actually go ballistic? And are they the savviest people in the whole wide world, spinning the jealousy angle? Or is it true, Brad really is jealous?

 Of course, no one will ever know for sure, as, well, everything in Hollywood needs to be taken with a heaping spoonful of salt, but it does make for an interesting discussion. Shall we?

 First, let's start with the deets. Apparently after the rude comments Pitt made to Parade magazine -- and Team Aniston's going ballistic -- they reached out to Brad's camp and "read him the riot act." Then, a short while later, Brad gave his jank explanation, saying that what he said was taken out of context, Jennifer's a wonderful woman, blah blah blah yawn lies. Now here comes the interesting part. That same source who leaked this information to the press is saying that the real reason for Pitt's comments is because he's jealous of Justin Theroux. Hmph.

 Here's what I believe. Well, a little of all of it, actually. I don't doubt for a second that Jen's team went bonkers after getting wind of the news -- and that's natural; their job is to protect her. I also believe that they "read him the riot act," which, in turn, made him apologize, which, in turn, makes him an even bigger jerk since everything he said after the fact was disingenuous poppycock. I also kind of believe that he is, in fact, a little bit jealous that Jen's really happy with Justin. That's natural, too. They were married, after all, and human beings will be human beings. Where this whole "jealousy" thing is coming from, though? Eh, not really going to chalk that one up as a fact. In other words, I certainly don't think Brad ever overtly expressed anything like that. I think it's just something Jennifer Aniston's "people" are saying to make him look bad.

 And it's kind of genius. 'Cause it's totally working.

 What do you believe?

 Image via chris_natt/Flickr ||||| Cover Story: Jen Aniston's Team "Went Ballistic" After Brad Pitt Insult

 Brad Pitt made a big-time boo-boo.

 He's garnering Oscar buzz for his role in Moneyball, but Angelina Jolie's man sparked a public relations catastrophe last week -- all for a Parade interview in which he casually slammed his five-year marriage to Jennifer Aniston, which ended in 2005.

 PHOTOS: Brad and Jen, the way they were

 (In the interview released Sept. 15, Pitt, 47, sniffed that he "wasn't living an interesting life" before Jolie, and that he was "trying to pretend my marriage was something that it wasn't.")

 And, yes, his 42-year-old ex-wife got wind of the catty comment. "She was annoyed," a pal close to the Horrible Bosses actress tells the new Us Weekly, out now. "She thought it was rude and inappropriate."

 Team Aniston -- her agent and publicists -- "went ballistic," a Pitt insider reveals, and angrily reached out to Pitt's camp.

 PHOTOS: When exes attack

 "They got his team involved and Brad was read the riot act -- the only way you can read the riot act to Brad Pitt," the source says.

 Within 24 hours, Pitt had surprisingly released a statement lamenting that his words were misinterpreted, and that his former love "is an incredibly giving, loving and hilarious woman."

 PHOTOS: Justin Theroux, Angelina Jolie -- separated at birth?

 Still, the Pitt source says, "no one believes his words were taken out of context -- he said what he said. I do hear that he's remorseful."

 And although Pitt is clearly blissed out with Jolie, 36, and their six kids, "We think he's jealous she's in love," the source says.

 PHOTOS: Jen's hottest bikini shots

 Indeed, Aniston hasn't let her ex's harsh words get in the way of her hot romance with Justin Theroux, with whom she's now spending time with in NYC. "Justin's The One!" an Aniston pal says.

 For much more on Pitt and Aniston's unexpected new war -- and how Pitt and Jolie "make fun of" her -- pick up the new Us Weekly, out now! |||||
What is a shorter version of the above article?

– Brad Pitt is trying to promote Moneyball, his film coming out tomorrow, but everyone keeps insisting on asking him about his Jennifer Aniston non-slam from last week. The whole thing was made into something it wasn’t by the tabloid press, Pitt tells Matt Lauer in a Today interview this morning (watch at left). “My point was, the best thing I'd done as a father is be sure that my kids have a good mother,” he says. “That's all I was, or am, trying to say. It has no reference to the past. And I think it's a shame that I can't say something nice about Angie without Jen being drug in. You know, she doesn't deserve it.” He also calls Aniston “good people,” a “valuable person,” and a “dear friend." Earlier this week, he had already clarified his comments to People, saying it “was never my intention for it to be spun” as a diss. “People read things into it that just weren't there." An Aniston friend tells Us that Jen was “annoyed” by Pitt’s comments and found them “rude and inappropriate,” and a Pitt source says her team “went ballistic” and called Pitt to “read [him] the riot act” before he released his first clarification. But another Jen source tells E! that story “is complete crap,” and that “Jennifer does not want to continue any of this nonsense." Click for more on Pitt’s Today interview, or check out one take on why Pitt’s apology is “totally bogus.”


Lindsay Lohan scrambles to meet courtroom requirements as prosecutors aim to toss her in jail

 Valerie Macon/Getty Lindsay Lohan attempts to clean up her act one day before her courtroom appearance.

 LOS ANGELES – Lindsay Lohan has been cramming for her courtroom cameo Wednesday and hopes a favorable probation report will keep her out of jail.

 Prosecutors, meanwhile, want the starlet's no-nonsense judge to toss her in the pokey for violating court orders in her complicated necklace theft and DUI case.

 "We will be seeking jail time," Frank Mateljan, a spokesman for the Los Angeles City Attorney, told the Daily News.

 The new probation report, which Judge Stephanie Sautner will review at the progress report hearing Wednesday morning, found the starlet in "substantial compliance" with the terms of her sentence, sources said.

 Mateljan said his office reviewed the report but still considers her missteps egregious enough to yank her freedom.

 "One of the terms was that (Lohan) serve her community service at the Downtown Women's Center, and she's subsequently been terminated," Mateljan said. "The judge said she needed to complete the program there, at that particular location."

 Lohan, 25, got dumped by the center for habitually missing appointments, he confirmed.

 Lohan's publicist wouldn't discuss the Wednesday hearing but said LiLo completed her court-ordered shoplifting course, switched her community service gig to the Red Cross and has been working with a psychologist, per the judge's orders.

 "She performed community service at the Red Cross pretty much every day last week, and she's been actively going to therapy," her spokesman Steve Honig told the Daily News. "She's very focused on meeting her court-ordered obligations."

 It's not clear how she handled her once-a-week therapy requirement while she traveled to New York and Europe for fashion shows and a modeling gig.

 Sautner already lectured Lohan in July, telling the slacking starlet to get serious about her 480 hours of community service.

 "I think the judge will give her another stern warning, but I wouldn't be surprised if she followed the strict letter of her ruling and put Lindsay in jail," celebrity defense lawyer Trent Copeland, who is not connected to the case, told the Daily News.

 "It all depends on how Judge Sautner defines substantial, because Lindsay was not ordered to be sort of in compliance or kind of in compliance, she was ordered to be in full compliance," Copeland said.

 Lohan spent two weeks in jail for violating probation in 2010 and a month under house arrest for swiping the necklace earlier this year.

 Even if she's tossed in jail Wednesday, she'll most likely bail out immediately pending a probation violation hearing.

 ndillon@nydailynews.com ||||| Los Angeles city prosecutors will ask a judge to send Lindsay Lohan back to jail after she violated the terms of her probation.

 Lohan was kicked out of a program at the Downtown Women's Center, where she was instructed by a judge to do community service for a necklace theft conviction.

 L.A. County Superior Court Judge Stephanie Sautner on Wednesday will review Lohan's probation progress as part of a sentence stemming from probation in a 2007 drunk-driving conviction and a May misdemeanor theft conviction. The judge could be satisfied with Lohan's progress or set a hearing to decide whether her behavior amounts to a violation of her probation and requires she be jailed.

 The actress rarely appeared at a women's shelter for 350 hours of required service and never shown up at the coroner's office, where she was supposed to do another 120 hours of community service. She is now seeking to complete the women's shelter hours at the American Red Cross, according to authorities.

 "She was terminated from the women's center program for failing to show up. This was one of the terms of her probation. So we will seek jail time for her," said Frank Mateljan, a spokesman for the city attorney.

 Lohan was ordered in May to have her 480 hours of community service completed by April 2012.

 As of last week, Lohan had completed 21 of 360 hours required at the skid row shelter for women, according to law enforcement sources. Jane Robison, a district attorney's office spokeswoman, confirmed that because she failed to keep appointments at the women's center, she was transferred to the American Red Cross for those community service hours.

 A spokesman for the actress acknowledged last week that she transferred to the Red Cross.

 In a posting on her Twitter account last week, Lohan defended herself. "I am not to be made an example of anymore. I am working hard and fulfilling my obligations every single day, to the court as well as myself," she wrote. "If I travel, its for work and its been approved. As is anything I do when I leave the state. I'd appreciate it if people will just let me do what is asked of me, so that I can get my life back. Please ignore the reports which have no truth to them. Thank you." |||||

Write a summary.

– Prosecutors are out to put Lindsay Lohan back behind bars after she blew off her community service. Lohan has never shown up at an LA coroner's office, where she was supposed to work 120 hours, and rarely appeared at a women's shelter, where she was required to put in 360 hours. The time was mandated as part of Lohan's probation on a drunken driving and theft charge. "She was terminated from the women's center program for failing to show up. This was one of the terms of her probation. So we will seek jail time for her," a spokesman for the city attorney told the Los Angeles Times. As of last week, she has worked only 12 of the mandated 480 hours, according to a spokeswoman. Lohan arranged to switch her shelter service to the Red Cross and she performed community service there "pretty much every day last week," her publicist explained to the New York Daily News. Lohan tweeted just days ago: "I am working hard and fulfilling my obligations every single day, to the court as well as myself. If I travel, it's for work and it's been approved. I'd appreciate it if people will just let me do what is asked of me, so that I can get my life back." Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Stephanie Sautner today reviews Lohan's probation progress.


Write an article based on this summary:

– Emma Watson didn't even take her top all the way off, and people are freaking out. The Beauty and the Beast star posed for Vanity Fair wearing a sheer top that bared part of her breasts, and as Sky News reports, the backlash was swift. "Emma Watson: 'Feminism, feminism... gender wage gap... why oh why am I not taken seriously... feminism... oh, and here are my t--s!'" tweeted Daily Mail columnist Julia Hartley-Brewer in a typical example of the criticism that arose. In response to Hartley-Brewer's tweet, Times editor Giles Coren wrote (but has apparently since deleted), "That dim-witted, attention-seeking hoyden doesn't just give feminists a bad name, she gives THE HUMAN RACE a bad name." But others were quick to defend Watson. "Your mole would like to point out the irony in attempting to undermine the actor’s feminist credentials by OBJECTIFYING HER BODY AND CRITICISING HER CHOICES," the New Statesman's Media Mole blog states. "As if we needed any further proof of the need for feminism." Over at Metro, Olivia Waring does have a problem with Watson, but it has nothing to do with her choice of attire: "Walt Disney was famously conservative and actually pretty archaic in his views of what women should do with their lives, which was reflected in all of the traditional fairytales his company made." Not much has changed recently, she writes, so if we're going to criticize Watson about anything related to her feminist credentials, it should be her choice to work with Disney. (Here's why Watson won't take selfies with fans.)

If Emma Watson actually wanted to help women she wouldn’t have agreed to be a Disney princess

 opinion If Emma Watson actually wanted to help women she wouldn’t have agreed to be a Disney princess

 Emma Watson’s latest Vanity Fair shoot has the world aghast at the idea that the Beauty And The Beast star has breasts.

 Whether or not she should show them off when she counts herself a feminist and a UN ambassador for women is a long discussion by itself.

 But Emma’s magazine work is not the real issue I have with her being feted Western feminist icon for our age.

 The simple fact is that Disney doesn’t do women justice.

 Imagine. Emma is one of the most famous, sought-after actresses in the world, worth an estimated £57million, and an icon for so many kids and 20-somethings who grew up with Hermione Granger.

 Notwithstanding Emma’s recent effort to spread the act of reading, her #HeForShe campaign and the speeches she’s made about feminism to various important people, working with Disney on their new live action remake was a serious mistake.

 Walt Disney was famously conservative and actually pretty archaic in his views of what women should do with their lives, which was reflected in all of the traditional fairytales his company made.

 His own grandniece, when facing the question, wrote of the man: ‘Misogynist? OF COURSE!!’

 Maturing from Hermione to Belle in @beautyandthebeast is a true coming-of-age story for @EmmaWatson: "I couldn't care less if I won an Oscar or not if the movie didn’t say something that I felt was important for people to hear." Read the full cover story at the link in bio. Photograph by Tim Walker. A post shared by Vanity Fair (@vanityfair) on Feb 28, 2017 at 10:02am PST

 Her unparalleled level of influence on Hollywood means she could have picked a role in a whole crop of movies that weren’t made by Disney.

 So what made her cave?

 Well, I’m scratching my head.

 And not just because the BATB remake seems like another painfully obvious attempt to reinforce the legacy of the Disney brand rather than risk doing something more interesting.

 The Disney story always is girl (usually princess) meets bloke (usually prince), falls in love, someone tries to get in their way, bloke sorts it out, they get married. The end.

 And that’s Beauty And The Beast in a nutshell, too — a story that’s being pushed in our face again, with the caveat that Belle is now supposedly an ‘inventor’ who doesn’t wear a corset. What a revolutionary step forward in the 21st century.

 Emma would argue, and has argued, that Disney’s becoming more progressive.

 Watson said of the ‘new’ princess she plays:

 In the animated movie, it’s her father who is the inventor, and we actually co-opted that for Belle…. We created a backstory for her, which was that she had invented a kind of washing machine, so that, instead of doing laundry, she could sit and use that time to read instead.

 Again, Belle is clearly light years ahead. Cue derisive snort.

 Disney is clearly trying to rebrand itself with movies like Tangled, Brave and Frozen, neatly editing the word ‘princess’ out of the titles while placing a female character in the main role.

 But nothing has actually changed. The princesses are still rakishly thin, with pixie-like faces that stretch wider than their waists.

 Call that a normal-sized waist, Moana? (Picture: Disney)

 The women still play second fiddle to their more active, assertive male counterparts (particularly the hero Flynn Rider in Tangled).

 They speak far, far less than them, too (the two female protagonists and other women characters in Frozen spoke less than half the dialogue).

 Women actually speak LESS now in Disney cartoons than they did between 1930 and 1960 — plus there’s also the fact that the three blockbusters with the least female dialogue from 2016 were made by Disney.

 Percentage of female dialogue in female-led Disney movies Brave (2012) 74 Sleeping Beauty (1959) 71 Cinderella (1950) 60 Tangled (2010) 52 Snow White (1937) 50 Frozen (2013) 41 The Little Mermaid (1989) 32 Beauty And The Beast (1991) 29 Princess And The Frog (2009) 25 Pochahontas (1995) 24 Mulan (1998) 23 Share

 Frozen is Disney’s most popular princess-led movie of late, boasting two sister lead characters, but if that’s a pro-women film then I’m the bloomin’ Pope.

 Putting on heels and a sparkly dress (or a gold one *cough, Emma*) and sashaying through a glass palace as Frozen’s Elsa does doesn’t make you a powerful woman, nor does falling in love with a beast as Belle does.

 Anyone who buys this rubbish about Emma Watson influencing Disney to make a more feminist movie needs their head examining.

 She’ll still be sharing a True Love’s Kiss™ with the Beast who’s been lusting after her for an hour and a half, as has Gaston, because she’s so hot.

 No, it’s not the actress’s fault she’s the perfect casting for a princess.

 But if Emma wanted little girls to stop buying dolls and start taking control of their lives, she wouldn’t have signed up for a Disney movie. Full stop.

 Ms Watson, if anyone can make an original movie where you play a badass who helps smash the patriarchy, it’s you.

 So why don’t you?

 We think this is a dazzling story and so do you! Like Metro Entertainment on Facebook for more of this on your news feed. ||||| Emma Watson is facing an online backlash after appearing "topless" in a photo shoot for Vanity Fair magazine.

 The Harry Potter star posed in a white open top for photographer Tim Walker, partly exposing her chest, prompting some Twitter users to question Watson's feminist stance.

 The 26-year-old has been a vocal advocate for women's rights and helped launch the UN Women campaign HeForShe, calling on men to advocate gender equality.

 Feminist: Page 3 girls? Topless? Ban them! Emma Watson topless? Brave and Stunning! #doublethink #hypocrisy — brett caton (@bcaton2) March 1, 2017

 One Twitter user wrote: "Feminist: Page 3 girls? Topless? Ban them! Emma Watson topless? Brave and Stunning! #hypocrisy".

 Daily Mail columnist Julia Hartley-Brewer wrote: "Feminism, feminism... gender wage gap... why oh why am I not taken seriously... feminism... oh, and here are my t***."

 Maturing from Hermione to Belle in @beautyandthebeast is a true coming-of-age story for @EmmaWatson: "I couldn't care less if I won an Oscar or not if the movie didn’t say something that I felt was important for people to hear." Read the full cover story at the link in bio. Photograph by Tim Walker. Uma publicação partilhada por Vanity Fair (@vanityfair) a Fev 28, 2017 às 10:02 PST

 Others defended the actress, with one tweeter arguing "feminism is about giving women free choice" and another saying "being sexual does not distract from the amazing work that (Watson) does".

 In her interview with Vanity Fair, Watson talks about privacy and refuses to reveal details of her private life in order to be "consistent".

 @JuliaHB1 I don't always agree with her, but does exposing a body part really contradict feminist points? — Ryan Brown (@Toadsanime) March 1, 2017

 "I can't talk about my boyfriend in an interview and then expect people not to take paparazzi pictures of me walking around outside my home. You can't have it both ways," she said.

 She added: "I used to be scared of words like 'feminism,' 'patriarchy,' 'imperialist.' But I'm not anymore."

 Watson's new film, The Beauty And The Beast, is a live-action remake of the Disney classic with a twist.

 "Belle is absolutely a Disney princess," Watson said.

 "But she's not a passive character - she's in charge of her own destiny." ||||| Yes, it’s Incident #9486538476538 in the “BUT FEMINISTS CAN’T LOOK NICE?!” (ie. Women Are Not Allowed To Make Decisions About Their Own Bodies) log.

 The actor Emma Watson has done an interview with Vanity Fair, illustrated with a photoshoot of her in designer versions of theatrical costumes: a Shakespearean ruff, various floor-length gowns, a baggy checked double-breasted jacket, a fencing uniform.

 The Sun being The Sun picked out the shot where she is the least covered-up (a kind of white thick netted bolero thingy) for a puff piece about the interview. A photo that is not really representative of the rather classical shoot, which features a far-less-dressed male model in pictures alongside Watson.

 But that didn’t stop the broadcaster and titfinder-general Julia Hartley-Brewer taking issue with the Vanity Fair shoot. Well, two parts of it:

 Emma Watson: "Feminism, feminism... gender wage gap... why oh why am I not taken seriously... feminism... oh, and here are my tits!" pic.twitter.com/gb7OvxzRH9 — Julia Hartley-Brewer (@JuliaHB1) March 1, 2017

 “Emma Watson: ‘Feminism, feminism... gender wage gap... why oh why am I not taken seriously... feminism... oh, and here are my tits!’” tweeted Hartley-Brewer, ever vocally offended by people she accuses of being oversensitive.

 Enter Times journalist and Britain’s most enraged attender of restaurants Giles Coren, who retweeted the comment and replied: “That dim-witted, attention-seeking hoyden doesn't just give feminists a bad name, she gives THE HUMAN RACE a bad name.”

 This descended into a bizarre public rating of the actor’s breasts:

 Your mole would like to point out the irony in attempting to undermine the actor’s feminist credentials by OBJECTIFYING HER BODY AND CRITICISING HER CHOICES. As if we needed any further proof of the need for feminism.

 Read more: It's great that Emma Watson is standing up for feminism - but #HeforShe is the wrong approach ||||| You're walking down the street and unexpectedly see Emma Watson. What do you do? Well, apparently, the very last thing you should do is ask her for a picture.

 While most people are still drooling over the 26-year-old star's sexy Vanity Fair photos (the underboob is REAL), some fans are stuck on one little detail from her interview with the magazine.

 It turns out the "Beauty and the Beast" star isn't big on taking selfies with her fans. I know that seems like a pretty rude stance to have when it comes to showing your loyal supporters some love.

 When Justin Bieber voiced a similar message to his fans, they weren't happy at all.

 Unlike JB, Emma Watson actually has a pretty good reason for why she doesn't enjoy granting the many fan photo requests that come her way.

 In the new interview, Watson reveals,

 For me, it's the difference between being able to have a life and not. If someone takes a photograph of me and posts it, within two seconds they've created a marker of exactly where I am within 10 meters. They can see what I'm wearing and who I'm with. I just can't give that tracking data.

 Can you even blame her? People are crazy AF these days. Just ask Kendall Jenner's stalker.

 But don't worry, Emma doesn't brush passed her fans and disappear into thin air. She's not mean, she's just protective of herself. The star says she tries to please her fans in other ways despite not giving them the photo they wanted.

 Watson continued,

 I'll say, 'I will sit here and answer every single Harry Potter fandom question you have, but I just can't do a picture.' I have to carefully pick and choose my moment to interact.

 She does make one exception, though, and it's for the little people.

 When am I a celebrity sighting versus when am I going to make someone's freakin' week? Children I don't say no to, for example.

 Ah, I see. So, it's just big losers like you and me whot aren't allowed to ask Ms. Watson for a selfie to spice up our own Instagram feeds (insert crying emoji here).

 You can catch Emma Watson in the live-action remake of "Beauty and the Beast," which hits theaters March 17.

 Citations: Emma Watson Refuses To Take Selfies With Fans And Her Reason Why Actually Makes A Lot Of Sense (BroBible) |||||


Summarize this article:

TODAY we unveil the diet that lets you have burgers, curries, treats and alcohol, and still lose weight. Stick to the simple plan and lose a stone in six weeks ||||| After announcing her split from husband of 18 days, Barry Herridge, on Monday, Sinead O'Connor isn't doing herself any favors when it comes to staying out of the headlines. The singer came to the door of her Ireland home yesterday to speak to journalists about her short-lived marriage -- only problem is, she forgot to put on clothes! O'Connor answered the door sporting nothing other than her signature tattoos and a towel.

 O'Connor said "I do" to Herridge in Las Vegas last month, just over two weeks before she put the kabbash on what was her fourth marriage. The crooner took to her website to share the news of the dissolution of their vows.

 "He is a wonderful man. I love him very much. I'm sorry I'm not a more regular woman. I truly believe though it is painful to admit, we made a mistake rushing into getting married, for altruistic reasons, and weren't aware or prepared for the consequences on my husband's life and the lives of those close to him. He has been terribly unhappy and I have therefore ended the marriage. I think he is too nice to do so. And too nice to trap."

 This is one marriage that previous 72-day record holder Kim Kardashian has beat -- not to mention quite a few other celebrity scandals and successes that lasted more than 18 days.

 And is it just us or is Sinead's home still sporting some spooky Halloween decorations? Check out the singer's towel talk below:

 Check out Sinead and Barry on their wedding day below:

  |||||

– Sinead O'Connor married on Dec. 8 and announced the end of said marriage to the world 18 days later—so what the heck happened? Well, things may not have gotten off to a great start when she spent their wedding night on a desperate hunt for cannabis, especially considering then-hubby Barry Herridge is a drug counselor. "We ended up in a cab in some place that was quite dangerous," she tells the Sun. "Then I was handed a load of crack. Barry was very frightened—that kind of messed everything up a bit really." "I wasn't scared—but he's a drugs counselor. What was I thinking?" she continues. But apparently she wasn't happy either, adding that the marriage "felt like I was living in a coffin. It was going to be a coffin for both of us and I saw him crushed. The whole reason I ended it was out of respect and love for the man." She says she's now sworn off marriage forever, and adds, "I don't think I will even date anyone." (At one point post-split, O'Connor talked to the media—but forgot to get dressed first. Click to see the pictures of her in a towel, or here to see O'Connor's truck-humping ad, to which Herridge responded.)