text:
COOPERSTOWN, N.Y. -- Shortly after Tony La Russa took his first minor league managing job, a veteran team executive warned: "When you manage, you'll never have a completely happy day."
Maybe not. But Sunday came pretty close.
Surrounded on stage by 49 living Hall of Famers, the longtime A's manager stood under sweltering gray afternoon skies and paid tribute to those who got him here. In an enshrinement speech heavy on self-depreciation and long on thank-yous, La Russa stepped into the Baseball Hall of Fame as the 23rd manager to earn the game's highest individual honor.
Frank Thomas, pitchers Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux and managers Bobby Cox and Joe Torre joined La Russa in the baseball shrine Sunday.
Commissioner Bud Selig introduced La Russa by reading the words engraved on La Russa's plaque. The inscription calls him "a master of managing lineups and managing bullpens."
Still, even this wasn't a completely happy day.
"There's no way to mention everybody," La Russa said on stage. "And that bothers me."
La Russa, stoic as ever, never showed a fraction of the emotion of fellow inductee Thomas, who fought off tears start to finish of his oration. Instead, the former lawyer methodically ran through those who helped his teams -- and shaped his managing style -- over the course of 33 years.
The only crack in his demeanor was a nod to how nervous he was after taking a bus to the event with the likes of Sandy Koufax, Hank Aaron and Ernie Banks and arriving to see a crowd estimated at more than 48,000 -- "like the greatest rock concert you've ever been to," he said.
When it was over, in a smaller gathering away from the stage, La Russa said there was a phrase he wrote down but forgot to say. He meant to say that he was "at peace." He said he was still uncomfortable with being a Hall of Famer, because he considered himself "just kind of a grinder" in a sea of greatness.
But he decided to embrace the idea of going in on behalf of those who helped along the way.
"I'm more at peace thinking that it's the White Sox, A's and Cardinals and all the teachers that I had, and that we're all in this together," he said. "I'm really happy to represent them."
La Russa managed the A's from 1986-95, the middle stop of a career that would end with 2,728 wins, the third-most all-time behind Connie Mack (3,731) and John McGraw (2,763).
He also had notable tenures with the Chicago White Sox and St. Louis Cardinals and had time Sunday to touch only briefly on each stop. Of the A's, who won three consecutive American League pennants during his stay, La Russa said those teams had "a lot of flash and dash and bash. But we also played hard."
La Russa turned behind him during his speech to salute fellow Hall of Famers Rickey Henderson and Dennis Eckersley. Other notable Oakland connections in the crowd included players La Russa called his clubhouse leaders -- Carney Lansford, Dave Henderson and Dave Stewart. Former owner Wally Haas, former A's general manager Sandy Alderson and Roland Hemond, La Russa's first G.M. from his White Sox days, were also in attendance.
Dave Duncan, the longtime pitching coach, helped introduce La Russa with a video introduction that focused on the manager's legendary preparation.
"It seemed like nothing in the game surprised him," Duncan said. "And his intensity was there for nine innings."
Duncan recalled hearing on the car radio in the summer of 1986 that the A's had fired their manager. He recalled telling La Russa, "This is a perfect situation for us."
La Russa stepped in for fired Jackie Moore and quickly transformed the dormant franchise into a powerhouse. The A's won the World Series in 1989, and lost it in '88 and '90.
In his Hall of Fame speech, though, the manager focused more on the smaller moments along the way. That included a yarn about being introduced at a chamber of commerce meeting before his first minor league managing job, in 1978, when he took over the Double-A Knoxville Sox.
La Russa was an unknown at the time, having batted only. 199 with zero home runs over 176 career at-bats. Paul Richards, a White Sox executive, told the crowd: "If it's true that the worst players make the best managers, this young man is going to be an outstanding manager."
La Russa went on to go 2,728-2,365 (.536) and win four manager of the year awards. In all, he captured 12 division titles, six pennants, three World Series titles -- and, he joked, zero happy days.
As he left the scene Sunday, he was already sweating over one last Hall of Fame ritual, a dinner that features only those who have bronze plaques -- no family, no friends allowed.
La Russa heard it's a tough night for the rookie inductees.
"My understanding is that you should wear an armored vest, because they're going jab you, stab you, and everything else that causes blood," he said. "I'm looking forward to that more than I was the speech."
Follow Daniel Brown on Twitter at twitter.com/mercbrownie.
Frank Thomas, left, steals show with emotional induction speech. PAGE 6
La Russa tells newspaper he suspected A's were using steroids. PAGE 6


text:
As board member Jon Miller forecasted a few months ago, streaming video powerhouse Hulu plans to start charging for content soon. Subscription-based? Pay per use? Nobody knows. What we do know is that the Consumerist community wasn't fond of the idea back in June. [Entertainment Weekly]
Hulu Will Start Charging For Content Soon
Do not want…
said site just went from HuLu to 'Who Lou?'
I move to second TopcatF14B's motion
Yeah, i am not sure this will go over so well. Will they stop playing commercials then? I guess then they would be more related to netflix, but most of the allure of the site was the price, or lack therefore of.
@skizsrodt: You really think they are gonna stop paying for commercials? dude they are gonna be just like cable tv. You pay for TV but you still have a buttload of commercials. on some tv services, when your viewing the program guide, they also display banner ad's. They are out to make money. I bet commercials will still be there.
@SuperRad: Yes, but cable TV at least has better quality.
Most of the shows that they had were available on the content provider websites (i.e. nbc.com) — I wonder if these will continue to be free.
@SuperRad: Precisely, we already have swallowed the fee-plus-commercial model, no way are they retreating on that front.
@skizsrodt: I still have a HULU account but we have never actually watched anything on it. Most of the content was a duplication of shows the various networks already had for free on their websites.
There is no way I would pay for it.
And people will just go back to torrenting. Good stuff, Hulu.
@G.O.B.: Come on!: Hulu NEEDs to make money. Streaming video costs money and Ad revenue for the site probabaly isnt that great, so charging for content is the next step.
Most likely, they will do a free membership which offers some stuff, and a premier membership that offers everything.
The way I assumed they would do it is the free membership can watch the shows they have currently, but they only have access to say two of the last episodes, but not the most recent episode (so if episode 10 shows today, they will have access to ep. 9 and 8) the most recent episode will be delayed a week. And Premier members will have access to ALL episodes of a season.
There will likely be select shows that are members only (becasue some shows just dont generate the profit needed to pay for their bandwidth).
@xtc46 – thinksmarter on twitter: Hulu needs to make money. No one is refuting this. But Hulu is a supplement to these provider's regular broadcasts (with a few exceptions, like Dr. Horrible). They already make a profit via the regular airings.
Besides, people are freaking out about the cost of streaming, which breaks down to pennies per view/user. If it cost more than that, the model simply wouldn't be viable. It's not like they're hosting it on a shared GoDaddy server and paying $2/TB.
@xtc46 – thinksmarter on twitter: I'm not sure if you've visited Hulu lately, but a lot of the shows they feature on there now are only available in limited quantities. For instance, a previous season of one show may be incomplete, compelling you to buy the DVD set to watch the missing episodes and defeating the entire purpose of the site. Another example would be a show like SNL, where they don't post full episodes, but instead post "clips." These clips cannot be put together into full episodes even if you wanted to.
NBC et al is forgetting all the reasons why they launched Hulu; no one was watching their shows on TV, they were downloading shows they were interested in from bittorrent, and people who did watch on TV were using DVRs to skip commercials. Hulu owners need to remember Napster and how when people had something for free and then were charged for it, they completely rejected it. History repeats itself; I'm not sure why Hulu thinks it will be the exception to the rule.
@karmaghost: Just FYI, SNL started posting full episodes this season.
@pharmacyfires: They're not exactly full episodes of SNL. They're missing some things, such as this past Saturday's show with Gerard Butler, there was no monologue because Butler was singing Music of the Night from Phantom. NBC/SNL probably doesn't have any distribution rights to the song, so the had to cut it. I didn't see Shakira's performance watching it, either, so I don't think the music guests are in any of the 'net showings, either.
@G.O.B.: Come on!: yeah, my thought was "aaand hulu is now dead."
@gStein_has joined the star bandwagon:
Hulu was dead from day 1. Any internet service that doesn't realize the internet doesn't have borders is dead. Ask someone from outside the US how much they enjoy Pandora, for example.
@G.O.B.: Come on!: The majority of people who watch stuff on Hulu probably don't torrent. If Hulu starts charging money, and it was worth it, I would pay, but I would never torrent.
@pecan 3.14159265: What are you basing that on? I think people use hulu because it's easier than torrenting. But if they went to charging, people would just go back to torrents.
@Illusio26: I think the problem here is that the people who torrent regularly or used to are a subset of the larger entertainment demographic. I don't know the numbers as to how many torrenters watch Hulu, but I think there are risks in assuming that most people watch Hulu in lieu of torrenting when it's very possible that a significant amount of people (possibly the majority) don't torrent at all.
We get stuck in our tech bubbles and when we're surrounded by people who know the same things we do, we assume that everyone does the same thing. I was surprised that about 10% of people still have dial-up internet – but then again, everyone around me has had high speed internet for the past ten years. I eventually just start assuming that nearly everyone had it, and it was very common.
Exactly correct. Hulu is the main reason I stopped torrenting (except for the shows that I can't get throught Hulu), and if they start charging, I will just go back to downloading them. It's only slightly less convenient, and they will get zero ad revenue.
Torrents or newsgroups. Hulu is now officially a POS.
@G.O.B.: Come on!:
Hit the nail on the head.
if they can turn a profit via hulu without charging money, they should. the viewership will plummet if they start to charge (unless it is something very reasonable, like $5/month maybe), which will no doubt impact ad revenue.
@G.O.B.: Come on!: I don't torrent, but I do like to stream video since my schedule is such that I miss a lot of prime time TV when it's on (and I'm one of the last people on earth to not have Tivo). Personally I love that the major networks seem to be making full episodes available online through Hulu or their website with limited commercials. I choose to watch on the legitimate sites when what I want to watch is available, even though there's limited commercials. But hell, if they're going to charge me for it, I'm following sketchy links to megavideo and they can say goodbye to their online ad revenue. Stupid business, really.
@lmarconi: I don't have Tivo either; we actually only just got basic cable a few months ago. I used to torrent, but only if I had missed several episodes of a show so I could download them all at once. I still use torrents to get Law and Order: SVU though, since they don't even have those episodes on the NBC website. I'll probably stop watching a lot of shows rather than pay for Hulu.
I am going to miss their format. I signed on last Christmas and I felt like I was the only one watching Hulu at the time. It was cool to be a beginner for this service and in fact, there was only one commercial and it got played to the point that it drove me nuts. It was that "inventor's" commerical. The next commercial that got aired was "feed the pig".
@LeChiffre: Correction. I think that "inventor's" comm was for another site because it went on too long, but the "feed the pig" comm was hilarious to me.
@LeChiffre: Then tell the site you dislike the ad. If you mouse over the left hand side while an ad is on you can see a thumbs up and thumbs down button.
@LeChiffre: The commercial that annoys the hell out of me right now is the "Asics" commercial, which shows a jogger running on clouds of liquid fat, and it's more like a drug trip than anything.
That's the ONLY commercial that they currently play for me, too.
All I ever remembering seeing from Hulu was a bunch of 2 minute clips from episodes. nothing worth paying for
@AppleAlex: Besides clips they have full episodes/movies.
I've got mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I like how Hulu operates right now. I've ditched cable entirely. I get my TV through sites like Hulu, and certainly don't miss the gratuitous commercials. I can deal with the tiny amount of commercials for the free on-demand shows and movies. If they want to start charging for the content, then it's back to finding other various (unmentionable) means for getting the TV shows.
But, I could see why they wanted to offer some sort of premium service. Maybe charging a couple bucks a month for access without any commercials at all. But if they're going to do that, then they'd better do away with their "We can only show five rolling episodes" restrictions. And expand their line-up. If they play their cards right, keep the costs down, and offer next-day TV shows, I could see them competing with Netflix and other similar pay services. (But I'd still want to see them release the TV shows for free, maybe on a week delay or something.)
@destynova: If any of you want foreign TV, try this site: [beelinetv.com]
I kind of know French, so I like to watch the French sports channel to bone up on my language skills because it is better than a classroom. And this is real French so you learn the real language, not the book kind. Anyway, it's cool to surf also especially if you have your pc hook up to a tv. You can find almost any kind of foreign tv that you want.
@LeChiffre: If the BBC made all of their channels of content that are on the web in the UK available for a fee in the US, that is about the only one I would pay for. Trying to find a proxy to get into it is a total pain.
@bohemian: I would pony up for an overseas subscription in a minute–just the iPlayer service would be fine. (In case you didn't know, you can do the Listen Again for the radio stuff, at least.) Would the licensing really be that hard to work out? Come on, BBC!
@bohemian: Agreed. I'd pay for BBC but I won't pay for Hulu. I've already got Netflix so why should I pay for two different services?
Also I have a DVR with my cable subscription, and free on demand, so why do I really need to pay for Hulu?
Their content is 90% junk. Almost the entire movie section is movies no one watches.
The only shows worth watching are new episodes and those are all on torrents too.
If they want people to pay they need to kill the "last 5 only" or "one week later" limits and
change from streaming to saved downloads. Their site skips really bad at times which is only worth free.
@flyingember: Can't expect much more since it's run by the networks. They are experts in turning crap into gold, and then rolling the gold in crap
The only shows worth watching are new episodes
@flyingember: FALSE
(But I agree with the rest)
Those limits were added in the last month or so. I remember the full two seasons of Eureka on there, as well as the 3rd season. Then with-in the last month, they limited to the newest 5 crap.
There is no way to avoid this. Hosting streaming media is expensive, you need tons of storage space, TONS of bandwidth, servers to host it all, and people to maintian it all. Ad revenue for specific shows is not going to be good sinec the demographic most likely to watch streaming video online is also the group that typically doesnt click on Ad (since they are so used to them) That is changing, but for now, to be profiable they need to sell the content.
@xtc46 – thinksmarter on twitter: But with Hulu ads, the advertiser knows that the viewer is watching (it is hard to get up and take a bathroom break during a single 30 second commercial), and if Hulu were realy smart, they could target the ads to the particular viewer, and therefore charge much more for the ad.
Because of the feedback that it offers, online adverising will soon be worth more than traditional television advertisements.
@xtc46 – thinksmarter on twitter: My argument is this: if you cannot support your business with your product, then your business will fail. So, if Hulu cannot maintain a website where they stream network shows supplemented with commercials and must charge their viewers, that's fine with me. They must, then, be prepared for utter failure, which is almost assured given what little we now know.
Google has no problem maintaining a massive streaming website like YouTube, so such an enterprise isn't impossible. I just don't understand why NBC thinks it's a good idea to take a previously free service and start charging users for its content.
YouTube doesn't have to pay for content. I think you're forgetting that these shows cost money (lots of it) to produce and there are royalties and residuals that have to be paid to the actors, etc. YouTube is much easier to operate because it's based almost solely on user-submissions.
@Esquire99: Hulu doesn't pay for content either, they have a owned by the content providers
"Hulu is a joint venture of NBC Universal (GE), Fox Entertainment Group (News Corp) and ABC Inc. (The Walt Disney Company)[2], with funding by Providence Equity Partners, which made a US$100 million equity investment and holds a 19% stake.[3]"
I do not understand why people believe they should be entitled to FREE content WITHOUT having to put up with ads. In the case of a TV show especially, it's the ads that pay for the content.
You should be able to either pay and get it without ads or watch ads and get it free, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.
Who said they expected free content without ads?
The closest thing I see to that is people saying that if they pay they don't want ads. Many people are perfectly fine with ads included in free content.
And while you say we can't have our cake and eat it too, isn't that what companies have been doing for years? You pay to get channels with tons of ads?
@drizzt380: exactly… companies treat consumers worse that most people treat soap scum.
I will either pay a fee for a subscription service with no ads, or I will watch for free and sit through ads.
I don't think paying customers should also have to watch ads–that's why I ditched cable. If Hulu starts charging AND requiring you to sit through ads I will ditch them too. There are other ways to get free TV, though I would rather stay legit.
@Esquire99: But that doesn't really apply to the original posters comment, which he was replying too. People are arguing the bandwidth/storage argument, and I don't think it's as valid as it was 5 years ago.
In my view it's along the same lines of movie theatres that charge you for a ticket then make you watch 8 minutes of ads before the movie previews start.
Yes, Hulu does get some money from ads, but not enough to be financially viable. In order for them to be viable, it's more than likely that you will have to deal with a paid subscription and ads, although I suppose this would be entirely dependent on the number of people who do pay.
I'm sure Hulu is also aware that by going to a free service to a paid service there will be a loss of customers. This should have been factored into to any "paid model" business plan they came up with. It's naive to think if they switch to a pay model that everyone who visits now will just dutifully pony up the bucks to keep watching.
@karmaghost: Uh, Google is losing about $1.65 million on YouTube every day because YouTube can't turn a profit. [news.slashdot.org]
@xtc46 – thinksmarter on twitter: The practice of charging for content will definitely spread. Newsday has announced a $5/month charge for online access. Others will probably follow. If a site can't make it financially using advertising, they'll have to charge and, of course, that will reduce their "viewership" so they'll eventually reduce content, and so on. There was a time when standard cable was almost all commercial free. Heck, there was a time when FM radio was almost all commercial free.
One of the big tests will be whether or not the aggregators (Drudge Report, Huffington Post and the like) will be required to pay copyright fees for content. Pretty soon, only the browsers will be free, and they used to be pretty expensive.
@xtc46 – thinksmarter on twitter: Hulu ads aren't clickable anyway, are they? I know some ads on ABC's site are.
@Rectilinear Propagation: Yeah, they're clickable. I've clicked them accidentally and they launch in a new tab and pause the video.
This is horrible, horrible, horrible news. I love hulu. If they were just going to do tiered memberships, offering paid people something awesome, then great. But I suspect they're going to gut their own product in order to save it.
I would watch 8 minutes of commercials like regular tv.
I too would prefer to do things the legit way, but if you make it impossible for me, then… well… I guess there's fancast and the individual network and show sites, for now.
I love hulu, but I'm not paying to watch old 21 Jump Street re-runs.
If it's cheap enough and they improve their player, it's worth it. They have a TON of shows, and several you can watch new episodes the day after broadcast. If it's not very cheap, you might as well just stick with cable.
This is compounded by the fact that your cable internet company may be throttling your traffic to them anyway…
I'm really sorry to hear this =[
I guess this means no more late night Hulu watching in my room before I go to bed. It was nice being able to watch shows that I normally aren't able to catch…guess i'm going to have to start using my DVR more =/
I guess we'll just have to see if they go through with it this time..
Whatever the reason they are changing it, it appears that I'm still going to drop them from my viewing habits.
they will go out of business if they do this.
It is very easy for people to download tv shows for free and with out the ads. but they move to hulu because it is free but ad supported but instant on demand.
I pay for cable tv and have DVR and get the same shows on the DVR the only problem is I like watching tv while using the computer and I like all of the sound to come through my headphones. with hulu I can do this which is more convenient, but I have no problem with grabbign a small snack then taking some time off to sit in front of the tv and watch the recorded tv show on the dvr (with the added benefit of the content not being a week behind like hulu in many cases and I can skip commercials)
compared to what I have, hulu is not worth it.
there online and there many sites offering free viewing of tv shows. you cant charge for tv shows and not even give the quality and promptness of the free services. if you want to charge for something, it has to be better than the free stuff
a week late and 480p is not value when there charging for the service. especially when many other sites and tv groups are offering the same shows commercial free and 1080I (which is encoded in 1080p to get rid of the interlacing, and ready for watching within an hour of the show on tv ending)
if hulu wants to charge then they need to increase their quality to at least 720P and have the shows available for watching the moment they become available on tv and also keep all episodes up (because their current assholeness is removing the shows after a few weeks so if you want to get into a new show, you cant, for example there many shows that I want to start watching but I cant because hulu only has like 5-10 episode of the show that has over 70 episodes
hulu is just becoming greedy.
a better option will be a subscription where you pay a monthly fee and get to watch the shows with no ads
I dropped cable years ago due to the spam AKA commercials. I already paid for the episodes and movies, I did NOT pay for the spam. Why pay the cable scum for a DVR rental, when they should NOT be shoving spam down your throat in the first place?
newsgroups for the win. Cable companies lost monies, so did the greedy MPAA. If they don't like it, they should think with their brains, not their wallet.
@Razor512: "hulu is just becoming greedy."
Nah. The 'content providers' are greedy, and are just dragging Hulu down into their depths.
"hulu is just becoming greedy."
Ah, the old "we're no longer getting something for free, so they're just being greedy" trope.
I think their concept is wrong and doomed to fail, but I don't begrudge them for trying to make a profit. I have no right to get free stuff from them. but, at the same time, I have no need to pay for their product either.
Call me a pessimist but why do I have the feeling that the first thing that Hulu is going to do after starting to charge is try to hunt down alternate websites to protect its territory. The biggest thing that Itunes has going for it is the comparative ease and safety. If it gets too difficult to hunt down other mediums, people will forget that they were pissed. They will grumble and then they will pay.
That's what happened with Itunes. People got scared of illegal downloading, and the less risky, easier to find websites started to dry up. That really sucks.
I would be fine with paying an affordable price for content. I want to pay for what I consume. But first off, I will not support Hulu if they make like the movie theaters and up ticket prices while they subject me to advertisements before the movie starts. If Hulu charges, there MUST NOT be advertisements, and there cannot be DRM. You can only inconvenience me in one way. I only have so many holes.
They need to understand that the success of Hulu is NOT access, but convenience. There is no longer a reason to tether consumers to a timeslot. Once Hulu becomes sufficiently inconvenient or pricey, the cost-benefit analysis drives users to buy a TV Tuner card or cave to the temptation of torrents et al.
Hulu needs to understand that most of its users are already paying for cable tv. Most internet monopolies (TimeWarner, Comcast) only offer high speed internet as part of a digital cable package. Therefore, Hulu is just a competitor for TiVo and OnDemand, not my cable tv provider. The fees need to be competitive with these services both in terms of cost and control over content. Otherwise, they will be replaced.
@OrsonBarracuda: Yep. I will EITHER watch commercials OR pay, but I will not do both.
I like Hulu because it's easy to use and it's a legit way to watch shows where someone gets compensated.
If they make it hard (weird plug-ins, stuttering loads), or force me to pay, I just won't watch anymore. I don't have cable, I won't do torrents, I'll just quit watching entirely. It turns out to not be the end of the world.
This makes me a sad panda. I love Hulu as it is, but if this is what they feel they need to do to succeed, I wish them luck. I will miss them though.
I understand the need to be profitable. Let's not forget though, in order to be profitable you also need to actually sell something people want to buy. If I'm paying for Hulu, I have several demands that I'm suddenly entitled to make (with some limited compromise between them):
1. I expect more popular shows- like "Top Chef", none of this nonsense about "Only one episode from Bravo is available every month". This goes as far as a much greater selection than stuff I can get on antenna as well.
2. I expect no ads. Ever. This was the promise of cable television and this was quickly broken. This was also the model of newspapers for the longest time- look where it's gotten them.
3. A la carte won't work for television. You can offer program selection and bundle offers, but the moment it's pay per episode you're competing with the iTunes Store- good luck with that.
4. You don't have to come to my house and hook things up to a massive local cable infrastructure. I expect it to be cheaper than cable.
5. I expect live streaming news channels to be on offer (even if I have to pay extra). CNN, Fox, Al-Jazeerah English (Comcast won't give it to me and they're the only game in town), and MSNBC.
6. You have to let me use your website when I'm overseas. If I have to pay a monthly fee, I want it to work every month I'm paying.
Like I said, I'm willing to compromise on any of these to some degree in favor of the others, but profitability is no excuse to offer unsaleable product that cannot compete with other alternatives. They have a good thing going, and I predict they will ruin it.
@ChemicallyInert: 1. That's more Bravo's fault than Hulu's though it'll be up to Hulu to make them stop being stupid.
2. Agreed
3. AGREED. In fact, non-negotiable. I'm not paying for the sci-fi channel on Hulu and then the animation channel separately.
4. Agreed
5. I hadn't even thought of this but they've had live events on Hulu before so I suppose it's possible
6. Agreed
Oh well no big loss. Back to Torrents and Netflix.
It's just like a drug dealer: You get a taste for free but then you got to pay… this time it just happened to be nineteen months of free internet crack. Then paying.
I suggest the people of Hulu read the book Free by Chris Anderson. If they start charging, their viewership will drop so dramatically that they won't know what hit them, and they will find themselves in a heap of trouble. With the free model, you can't just jump from free to paid, people won't stand for it. A freemium model works ok, but if you start with ad supported, you'd better stick with that, otherwise you're going to go into a sinkhole.
@mewyn dyner: Yes, "Free", written by someone who charges a subscription for his product.
I will not pay for Hulu. Period.
Do the Hulu people not know about Limewire and whatnot?
Seriously, they have their ads throughout the shows. Maybe if they dropped some of the crap from their site it would cost less to operate.
Do people really watch the movies on there? I alway just watch the TV shows.
@ein727: I've watched a few. When I'm just sort-of browsing for something to watch, I'll sometimes come across a movie I haven't seen (or haven't seen in 10 years) and I'll give it a shot while I grade papers or do light housework.
But, obviously, I'm not nearly committed enough to the movies to pay for them. It's just background noise, I could probably turn on the radio and get the same effect.
@ein727: Limewire? What is this 2003? Fire up Bearshare while your at it.
@fatetwister64: You guys are walking into a trap. Limewire, bearshare ,all of em are riddled with virus' and corporate snoops.
Its either DirectConnect, IRC or torrents if you really want to play it safe.
Or join the usenet club. *sigh* I already broke the first rule of usenet club. I suck.
@fatetwister64: …see it's been a long time since I've had to download things. If this Hulu thing happens I'll have to see what the shiny new program out there is.
BTW, I limewired some stuff about 2 years ago or so and it was clean. Like anything, you just have to watch what you're doing.
@ein727: Most people don't want to resort to illegal means for some TV. I really don't understand why people keep screaming that P2P or torrenting is the answer. When will you all get it through your skulls that there are people who aren't as glib about downloading illegally and won't do it because …gasp..it's illegal!
@pecan 3.14159265: Plus with hulu there's no blurred out bug in the corner, no worries about if it's pr0n or infected or compatible with your system. The credits aren't clipped off. There's no waiting, no searching, no Chinese subtitles. It's great quality.
@pecan 3.14159265: As great as the view must be from your high horse, I don't think the majority of the people in the US care that much. Especially for content they are used to getting for free (like TV shows)
@Illusio26: What's so "high horse" about not doing things illegally? Why is TV so important that you feel like you have to download it illegally?
Most people don't want to resort to illegal means for some TV.
I don't think the majority of the people in the US care that much.
@Illusio26, @pecan 3.14159265: OK, do either of you have surveys you can cite or something?
I will welcome Bit Torrent back into my family with open arms.
One step forward; two steps back.
@ElizabethD: …we come together cause opposites attract?
once again, the ads aren't enough money for them, and they get greedy. I mean.. if that's all people are willing to do (watch ads), then that's all you can charge. I doubt it will last long once they start charging. Netflix is much better, and worth the price, and downloading is always there as well..
I'd pay for Hulu if it provided live streaming CNN. I gotta have my Nancy Grace. Yelling at her frightening program helps me get my rage out.
So dumb. I wonder if the people involved in this decision remember Napster.
I love being able to watch streaming content on my computer & TV, but I'm not spending a penny on Hulu. I already pay around $1,200 a year for cable, TiVo and Netflix. I'll go back to bit torrent in no time.
Well, looks like it's back to the bittorrents for me!
The only reason I ever used Hulu was because it was easy, and because my queue automatically filled up with stuff I wanted to watch. Looks like it's back to downloading.
The reaction around the internet to this has been kind of short-sighted. To me it seems logical that they would offer older episodes of hit shows, and popular movies, for a premium. Current episodes and low-demand shows/movies will continue to be free and advertiser-based. Meaning, 90% of what you watch on Hulu now will remain free; the paid content will be additive. If the model ends up being any different than this, I'll be very surprised.
@halsnook: That was my assumption as well. However, they really ought to have said so when announcing this especially since the last time this came up one of their board members said they thought having tiers or bundles is the best way to go.
I think most people (the Internet in general, not Consumerist) are assuming that 1) there won't be a free version of Hulu and 2) there won't be more content available. But there pretty much has to be a free version of Hulu as long as the individual network sites are also free. I don't know how long that will last once a paid version of Hulu gets going but we'll see.
You're all dirty dirty pirates! How dare you mention BitTorrent! [/end sarcasm]
Fare thee well Hulu. I wish you well in your venture into pay-based service and losing much of your user-base. I for one will resort back to "alternative means" of watching my favorite shows.
I've grown to like Hulu a lot, and I would probably be willing to pay something to use it. But I would hope that paying customers wouldn't have to sit through commercials anymore (probably wishful thinking, I know).
that will be less time I spend on hulu…. now I have no excuse not to use my trx
It ain't THAT good to make me pay for it…maybe they'll still have free episodes of stuff like aqua teen and family guy?!? (here's to hoping)
That site was such a tool. It only had stuff that was freely available on the networks' own websites, anyway. It only existed to make people feel like they were doing something non mainstream by going to hulu instead of fox.com.
@BytheSea: I could never get Fox's player to freaking work right.
They do have more shows than what's available on network sites though. Cartoon Network doesn't put any episodes of Bleach online for example.
Ok i LOVE hulu in its curint incarnation .. i rarly even kick in the dvr prefering to stream it on my pc wich is my home entertainment system.
oh i still use the dvr for shows on on hulu and frankly i skip the adds on it as fast as i can.
hulu with only one cirmishel per brake i can live with. (note i sed ONE not FIVE).
BUT Hulu if your going to start charging me i may as well go back to netflix and never order any dvd's
Does that mean they'll no longer show commercials?
No? Hmmmmm Bye bye hulu!
Youtube.com/shows is still free. ;-)
I don't watch Hulu now, but if they begin charging and lift the restrictions on what shows you can watch as a paid subscriber, and either limit or eliminate the commercials, I might actually be willing to pay for it. As it is now, the restrictions AND the commercials and the fact that it runs like crap on my computer leave me entirely uninterested. I can deal with the crappy performance and would even pay for the service if they allow access to all shows and go commercial-free.
Well, since most of the programming they offer comes into my house for free over the airwaves, I guess I'll just go get a $10 VCR and record whatever I miss.
Are there any digital VCRs? I have a VCR that I never used, and now it's only good for playing back already recorded stuff since it can only record analog.
@wrjohnston91283: Recording analog works just fine. It's channel-changing that can't really be handled, so you have to record the channel you set. Therefore the "watch one, record another" approach doesn't really work, but it's just fine for recording a single program (or Daily/Colbert after you go to bed, if you're me).
I'm the person who generally yells the loudest that I won't pay for online content – but I'm going to play wait and see on this one. If Hulu, for example, can start providing entire seasons of beloved old shows, in competition with "Buy Season X of YOUR FAVE SHOW on DVD! for only $39.95", it's something I might consider. But I'm dubious the studios would cut a deal with Hulu when they didn't with Netflix.
The thing is, you can watch CBS, Syfy, MSNBC, USA, and other content direct from the networks. Hulu is just a convenient interface. So either Hulu has it's sights set on getting the networks online with a PPV type deal (really? When Hulu is owned by Fox and what other network?) – or somebody else will come up with a decent free replacement for Hulu. Media can fight it, but they had better realize that the online audience is not the passive "get hooked and stay stuck" cable audience.
It's funny people are just claiming "we'll go to Limewire."
Makes sense. Let's steal something because I don't want to pay for it.
I stopped bittorrenting shows like the Office, Fringe, etc, because I started using Hulu. Score one for the studios, a genius idea to get me to watch commercials that I previously wouldn't have watched. I started using it before I even saw it advertised or talked about anywhere. The only way I would pay for Hulu is if they supplied first run movies that were still in the theaters. Even charging me a penny a month for a subscription is a pain in the ass to keep up with in my account for something that was free for almost two years now. I would bet that within 6 months of them charging, they will lose 90 percent of their current user base. If they were smart they would be using ads targeted to what type of show you were watching and even tie them into the content. But as usual, it's just the networks doing what they do, shooting themselves in the foot.
Doesn't affect me in the slightest. To me, Hulu has always been the standard in protectionist bullshit. Live outside the US? No Hulu for you! As far as I am concerned, Hulu can die in a fire and I could not possibly care less.
So all the articles about ditching your cable for hulu?
@jkinatl2: Still valid if your cable company sucks, IMO.
Though you might want to wait a couple of months to see how they're actually going to implement this.
I was a beta test user and have been using the program for a while now. What I find hard about this issue is the fact that there is content on the site that you can not get other places, other than p2p. Shows that may not be on the air anymore, that you wish to watch just because you like them. I think this is a bad move for HULU, but they need to bring in revenue somehow and as I last checked the commercials that have been provided have not been cutting the costs of production so far. It is sad but I think people may turn back to torrenting.
Maybe closer to two steps forward, one step back.
One step for free TV shows and one step for newer TV shows not locked into a timeslot you must watch it at.
Then one step back for losing the free part.
Soooo… then all those ads I willingly sit through simply isn't enough for the media moguls?
Putting it plain and simple, if Hulu starts charging for access, Hulu will fall. End of discussion.
(That said… maybe that's what News Corp. would love to have happen…)
Back to torrents!
Hulu doesn't replace cable because it doesn't have all the shows, so it should not be priced as if it was a cable replacement (e.g. not $50 a month). I think of it more as a Tivo replacement, it lets me delay my watching to when I have time, and since the user provides his own hardware and bandwidth (and since bandwidth caps are probably coming), the cost of Hulu should be less than Tivo. Tivo is $13 a month, so Hulu should be less than that. And considering a paid-Hulu will be in competition with Netflix, it needs to be priced competitively with Netflix (which is $8.99 for a plan that includes streaming), so a basic paid subscription for Hulu should be around that price. Personally I would not pay more than $5 a month for Hulu. Perhaps I would pay more (up to $8 total) if I could get HBO and Showtime. And the paid service needs to do away with the episode limitations – if I am paying I want access to all episodes of the shows, not just the most recent.
Of course all of this is moot, because I can watch all the shows I want on the network sites instead of Hulu. All Hulu does is make what I can already do a little more convenient.
I've never been able to get on the Hulu bandwagon. "Watch your favorites. Anytime. For free." is more like "Watch stuff that you have a vague interest in, because we don't have anything you really like. Sometimes. The free part's right though. For now."
We watch a lot of shows at the channel's websites, instead of Hulu. 1. They stream better. 2. There's just as many/few commercials. 3. There's more of the shows, sometimes.
Also, how many different websites out there will stream the show you missed that isn't on the websites for free anyway? No need to torrent, even. I found one that has the entire True Blood in both SD and HD streaming for free. All the seasons of it, too. There's other websites out there for different shows, too.
Hulu is vastly mistaken if they think what they offer is worth paying for.
But will they release the last half of Season 5 of Lost before they start charging me?!?!?!? (Because it's all about me.)
Good luck charging for something you can get for free elsewhere…full episodes on official websites and clips and others from youtube.
My husband and I are talking about ditching cable and the god-awful DVR provided by TWC to a PC/Hulu/P2P type thing. Honestly, we only keep cable around for Noggin/Nick Jr (and now that my kids are old enough to understand how to play videos on the internet, we don't even need that). I've used Hulu a lot – when traveling, when the aforementioned DVR up and decides it doesn't feel like recording something, or just when I'm feeling lazy and want to watch something in bed.
I would pay if:
1. NO ads. That eyelash enhancer commercial makes me want to stab things.
2. HD. None of this 420p stuff.
3. Convince other stations to expand content. Hello, CBS/Bravo/CN – talking to you.
4. I would LOVE to see a situation like Netflix, where it would work on my Xbox. Or the PS3 – I don't really care which. Just make it easy to get this stuff on my tv.
5. Remove the limitations on "last 5 episodes", or "we'll post it a week after it airs". I understand that's got more to do with the studios and stations, but this is the kind of thing people expect from a subscription service. So find some kid with a shiny new MBA or JD who can't get a job elsewhere in this economy, and sic him on the people who make those decisions.
I feel like most people are able to bit torrent to their heart's content. The second they start charging they'll lose whatever small group can't and choose to watch the limited episode choices on hulu.
RIP Hulu. It was nice knowing you.
Too bad they are so afraid of what Hulu is for many people (and what the people obviously want): a la carte TV. I guess they aren't ready to open those floodgates just yet.
I hardly ever watch any TV as it is — especially "news" — and haven't for nigh on twenty years. This past week was the first time in a dog's age that I actually made a point of being in front of the TV set for anything, as it was the six-part Monty Python documentary on IFC.
If the TV is on at all, it's usually to watch any one out of a pile of VHS cassettes I have of old movies taped off of TCM, old cartoons, old Larry Sanders episodes, or BBC America's Monty Python Marathon.
So, while in principle I'm down on Hulu for charging us to watch crap on the 'Net when we could watch the same crap on our TV sets for free, my "real" reaction has to be "M'eh; I don't watch TV enough to make any difference."
@pecan 3.14159265: or not…..
In fact, with YouTube's help, Google is now responsible for at least 6 percent of the internet's traffic, and likely more – and may not be paying an ISP at all to serve up all that content and attached ads.
Credit Suisse made headlines this summer when it estimated that YouTube was binging on bandwidth, losing Google a half a billion dollars in 2009 as it streams 75 billion videos. But a new report from Arbor Networks suggests that Google's traffic is approaching 10 percent of the net's traffic, and that it's got so much fiber optic cable, it is simply trading traffic, with no payment involved, with the net's largest ISPs.
"I think Google's transit costs are close to zero," said Craig Labovitz, the chief scientist for Arbor Networks and a longtime internet researcher. Arbor Networks, which sells network monitoring equipment used by about 70 percent of the net's ISPs, likely knows more about the net's ebbs and flows than anyone outside of the National Security Agency.
The only way I would pay for it, is if.
There are no ads.
Every tv show that they have up there, they should have all of the episodes, not just 1 or 2 seasons, like I want every episode from every season of house on there.
And more shows.
More movies, and newer movies.
Every show that is available in HD, show it in HD.
Then that will only be like $10 I'll be willing to pay.
And this is all speculation.
I agree with many of the changes people have said they should make but I think they'll make at least a few of those up front. I remain optimistic that they will not immediately make paying for Hulu too sucky to tolerate.
This is probably stupid, but oh well…
I wonder if this might finally mark the beginning of the collapse of ad sponsored content. In general I think the ad revenue model can work, especially for sites with lower costs, but not at the current volume. We've saturated the ad market beyond the breaking point and customers are not only over exposed to ads, they are turning against them entirely (note how many people use Adblockers online and skip commercials with their DVRs.)
So on that note, I'm glad to see services like Hulu looking for more sustainable revenue solutions, they just need to be very careful how they act. People are too acclimated to free online content for Hulu to simply cut them off and ask for cash upfront. Ideally Hulu will offer a premium service (that improves overtime) while slowly downgrading the free service to more of a demo/catchup service. Slowly and kindly turn "free" customers into paying ones and leave some free for the light users and potential new ones.
In the long run I still think services like Hulu will be the future of TV, so it does seem ridiculous to expect that the same service that currently costs $50-100 (depending on package) can be delivered with only a few 30 second ads online. (Not that cable shouldn't be less expensive…)
I'm honestly not sure if this is going to be the Hulu-killing move that the majority seems to think it will be. Streaming doesn't cost all too much – especially since Hulu doesn't do user-submitted content like YouTube – and Hulu's pretty popular. Even if a good 75% of their user base leaves over this, the subscription fees (or whatever) from the remaining 25% would likely still fund Hulu and then some, plus I'd say it's almost guaranteed that there will still be ads so they'll still get the revenue from that. I'm not an economist but this seems like a pretty solid move for Hulu, if not for the people who use Hulu.
I wonder how much they will charge? Will we still get ads? Will entire seasons be available rather then just a few episodes per show?
Depending on the answers to these questions I might be willing to pay. If the only difference is you now to pay then forget it. I wonder if the streaming video sites I visited before Hulu still exist, I can always go back to them true the quality is a bit lower but I don't mind that much
I think that hulu could make this work for them — or it could be a complete disaster.
The way they could make it work: Leave all content that is available for free now, completely free. IE – keep doing the 5 episode rotation for currently airing shows, keep some classic shows available online for free, enticing some using to swap to a monthly subscription by teasing old pilots or episodes of old shows. – meanwhile, negotiate agreements with entertainment powerhouses to put their full archives online for a monthly subscription fee. Then sell customized subscriptions – ie. Once price for Television online, another price for Movies only, etc.
If they kill their current content it will destroy the original purpose of hulu – a promotional site to drive people back to network shows. However, people might be willing to pay a subscription to get access to the entire archives of Quantum Leap, instead of just the first two seasons, or the entire series of Gilmore Girls. — Or people might be willing to pay for premium hulu content and interviews with cast and crew on their favorite shows that they would not be able to get elsewhere.
The way to kill the site in 6 months or less: Lock down all current content and charge for everything. People will go back to torrenting so fast it'll make your head spin.
If they kill their current content it will destroy the original purpose of hulu- a promotional site to drive people back to network shows.
@AshleyKeen: Or was it? I think that they always intended to turn this into a service where people paid for the content. It is, after all, owned by NBC. Why the heck should NBC care if people go back to watch a show on ABC or Fox the night it airs? The only reason it's been free this long is that they've been working out the kinks and probably working on getting the content.
I'm a huge fan of Hulu. I JUST finished watching 30 Rock, Community, It's Always Sunny and Parks and Rec. Basically I just pretend they are on Friday mornings instead of Thursday night. I also occasionally watch Conan, Colbert, Daily Show, and every once in awhile I go through the whole series of Strangers with Candy. I don't have a TV anymore, just internet. I'm also (and I'll wait for the annoying arguments) not a fan of not paying for something I like. If I like a product, like a TV show, I will usually watch it and buy the dvds. Torrenting because you think it should be free is ludicrous. That's why I put up with ads, because HOPEFULLY someone involved with the show is getting something. Now, if I am paying Hulu for a service AND watching ads, I'll be a little upset, but no more upset then the people who are currently paying for cable and have the worse ads (Hulu ads are great, usually short and sometimes none at all). Basically, if I have to pay $5 month (and no higher then that) to watch the only few shows that I actually watch (TV is terrible….) I can live with that. That's $60 a year for TV that I will actually watch and on-demand. That's not bad. Now, with ads, it would be very annoying, but I would be fine with it. Also, they better unveil some new perks to paying customers, such as maybe having auto downloads of shows to my hub or something that I can then make either a playlist/tv schedule for myself. Like maybe every Wednesday at 9pm I can just sign on and have my own little night of TV from the previous weeks shows without clicking all over the place. Something to that effect. Also, not just have 4-5 trailing episodes, have the whole season for the year it is on, just like if you had dvr. I'm getting really sick of people just wanting things for free anymore. Get over yourselves like you deserve it. Shows just don't appear from nowhere, they cost money. I am annoyed that there are ads that you think would pay for the show, but it might not pay for everything, like your convenience of watching whenever, the quality of the broadcast as a download, the fact that none of the shows are taking up your hard-drive, etc. I knew this would happen eventually and I'm not that upset. It seemed to good to be free in the first place.
I think they'll find their traffic decreases significantly.
Is there a reason they don't just post full episodes with full commercials for free? This seems like such a sensible model that there must be a big catch.
@NobleCrayfish: They know no one is going to sit through 5 minute commercial breaks while watching something online. That's one of the problems with TV now: 30 minute shows where 15 minutes is just commercials.
If the issue is profit margins or overhead costs, charge the sponsors more money for commercial space or have more/longer commercials. Clearly, if it's so popular they can't meet demand without charging, then it's popular enough to charge sponsors more money. But if they charge customers money, many will go elsewhere for this content, and we'll see how that helps their profit margin.
I pay for cable tv.
I pay for high-speed internet.
Why would I pay again to watch cable tv on my high-speed internet?
It's not going to happen Hulu. I would stop using almost anything online if I had to pay for it.
Apparently they've never heard of the history of AdCritic.com
@LVP: Or Heavy.com either.
If hulu can get to the point of showing all the major networks, it could charge for subscription I think… as a cable-replacement. But it lacks enough content to substitute for cable right now. Hulu as it stands is not something i'd be willing to pay for, but here's hoping it evolves into something better.
And I will stop watching Hulu right after.
Looks like I'll get my free TV viewing elsewhere. C ya Hulu.
Hulu is all the crap no one wanted to watch on TV, why would any one pay to see it on Hulu. Makes no sense at all. I will never pay to watch Hulu.
There are several shows I watch through Hulu, but half the time I end up watching them elsewhere because Hulu won't buffer the entire show at once, and it ends up stopping and starting! I don't mind the commercials, but I certainly won't pay for that kind of service.
Time to check out fancast.com.
Why in the world would I PAY for Hulu? Everything I've ever watched on there was from broadcast TV! Sure, I was able to catch up on a whole season of "Lost" – but I could have done so with far less annoyance by borrowing the season on DVD from a friend. The last thing I wanted to watch was the most recent episode of House, M.D. due to the baseball game previous to it running into OT and screwing up my recording. The episode wasn't going to be available for several more days, after the NEXT episode had already aired on TV, which meant I'd have to record that episode, watch the one on Hulu, then come back and still be behind everyone else.
…Which is owned by Comcast. That's the real answer. On one side you have a partnership of two networks (Or a network parent co, Newscorp, and ABC) to see if there's a way to make money with online shows, and then the big cable conglomerate on the other side seeing what angle they can play.
The FCC backed up net neutrality because every network and content provider out there is afraid of being shaken down (or blocked) by the cable/satellite providers. So make of Fancast what you will — this is a cutthroat battle, and as a consumer, I figure our best bet is to be fickle and unwilling to get to attached to any particular way of getting our shows. (And this is just the "little" test, with only a small % of viewers online yet anways.)
Umm, yeahhhh. Great idea. As if you're not getting a butt load of dough from the friggin advertisements – let's stick it to the consumer too! Are they aware they're not the only one's offering free tv shows for streaming? Well, until they start charging, that is. Idiots.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Major works
A House of My Own: Stories from My Life
From the beloved author of The House on Mango Street: a richly illustrated compilation of true stories and nonfiction pieces that, taken together, form a jigsaw autobiography: an intimate album of a literary legend's life and career.
"Cisneros, author of The House on Mango Street and Caramelo, has here written what may well be the best memoir of the year thus far. She seamlessly weaves 'memories' from her life from 1984 through 2014 (some written for specific audiences and expanded in this volume). As in her fiction and poetry, Cisneros blends family stories from Chicago and Mexico with lively storytelling, rich details, and good humor. The result is a fierce portrait of an artist and her quest, and the roads taken and not taken to find a home of her own. All readers who are interested in creative writing, memoir, American literature, and Chicana literature will appreciate. Verdict: This memoir deserves to find the broad and wide readership of Cisneros' earlier books." (Library Journal starred review)
"With this collection — spanning nearly three decades, and including never-before-published work — Cisneros has come home at last. Ranging from the private (her parents' loving and tempestuous marriage) to the political (a rallying cry for one woman's liberty in Sarajevo) to the literary (a tribute to Marguerite Duras), and written with her trademark sensitivity and honesty, these poignant, unforgettable pieces give us not only her most transformative memories but also a revelation of her artistic and intellectual influences."
"A charming, tender memoir from an acclaimed Mexican-American author." (Kirkus Reviews)
"An extraordinary and magical journey. Sandra Cisneros makes me so happy that I am a reader, so joyful that she is a writer, and even more exhilarated that she is part of our world. Read this book and laugh, cry, and rejoice!" (Edwidge Danticat)
Have You Seen Marie?
The internationally acclaimed author of The House on Mango Street gives us a deeply moving tale of loss, grief, and healing: a lyrically told, richly illustrated fable for grown-ups about a woman's search for a cat who goes missing in the wake of her mother's death.
The word "orphan" might not seem to apply to a fifty-three-year-old woman. Yet this is exactly how Sandra feels as she finds herself motherless, alone like "a glove left behind at the bus station." What just might save her is her search for someone else gone missing: Marie, the black-and-white cat of her friend, Roz, who ran off the day they arrived from Tacoma. As Sandra and Roz scour the streets of San Antonio, posting flyers and asking everywhere, "Have you seen Marie?" the pursuit of this one small creature takes on unexpected urgency and meaning. With full-color illustrations that bring this transformative quest to vivid life, Have You Seen Marie? showcases a beloved author's storytelling magic, in a tale that reminds us how love, even when it goes astray, does not stay lost forever.
"Best-selling Cisneros chronicles a search for a runaway cat that turns into a way to work through grief and discover community... The deliberately informal, rough-edged illustrations give a nice sense of Cisneros' multicultural, bohemian neighborhood... [T]his warmhearted tale offers comfort to anyone coping with the loss of a loved one." (Kirkus)
Bravo Bruno!
In Rome, on a perfect sunny day, Bruno the poodle feels he must find something. But what? In Italian, for readers age 6 and up.
Vintage Cisneros
Vintage Readers are a perfect introduction to some of the great modern writers presented in attractive, accessible paperback editions.
A winner of the PEN Center West Award for Best Fiction and the prestigious MacArthur Fellowship, Sandra Cisneros evokes working-class Latino experience with an irresistible mix of realism and lyrical exuberance
Vintage Cisneros features an excerpt from her bestselling novel The House on Mango Street, which has become a favorite in school classrooms across the country. Also included are a chapter from her new novel, Caramelo; a generous selection of poems from My Wicked Wicked Ways and Loose Woman; and seven stories from her award-winning collection Woman Hollering Creek.
"Sandra Cisneros knows both that the heart can be broken and that it can rise and soar like a bird. Whatever story she chooses to tell, we should be listening for a long time to come." (The Washington Post Book World)
My Name
Our Good Day
Those Who Don't
Darius & the Clouds
The Family of Little Feet
Elenita, Cards, Palm, Water
Four Skinny Trees
No Speak English
A House of My Own
Abuelito Who
My Wicked Wicked Ways
Peaches - Six in a Tin Bowl, Sarajevo
14 de Julio
Salvador Late or Early
Never Marry a Mexican
Eyes of Zapata
Little Miracles, Kept Promises
You Bring Out the Mexican in Me
You Like to Give and Watch Me My Pleasure
Love Poem for a Non-Believer
I Am So Depressed I Feel Like Jumping in the River Behind My House But Won't Because I'm Thirty-Eight and Not Eighteen
Night Madness Poem
I Am on My Way to Oklahoma to Bury the Man I Nearly Left My Husband for
Tu Que Sabes de Amor
Mexicans in France
Loose Woman
Verde, Blanco, y Colorado
Mexico Next Right
So Here My History Begins for Your Good Understanding and My Poor Telling
Spic Spanish?
All Parts from Mexico, Assembled in the U.S.A. or I Am Born
The Vogue
Someday My Prince Popocatepetl Will Come
The celebrated author of The House on Mango Street gives us an extraordinary new novel, told in language of blazing originality: a multigenerational story of a Mexican-American family whose voices create a dazzling weave of humor, passion, and poignancy -- the very stuff of life.
Every year, Ceyala "Lala" Reyes' family -- aunts, uncles, mothers, fathers, and Lala's six older brothers--packs up three cars and, in a wild ride, drive from Chicago to the Little Grandfather and Awful Grandmother's house in Mexico City for the summer. Struggling to find a voice above the boom of her brothers and to understand her place on this side of the border and that, Lala is a shrewd observer of family life. But when she starts telling the Awful Grandmother's life story, seeking clues to how she got to be so awful, grandmother accuses Lala of exaggerating. Soon, a multigenerational family narrative turns into a whirlwind exploration of storytelling, lies, and life. Like the cherished rebozo, or shawl, that has been passed down through generations of Reyes women, Caramelo is alive with the vibrations of history, family, and love.
Caramelo is a romantic tale of homelands, sometimes real, sometimes imagined. Vivid, funny, intimate, historical, it is a brilliant work destined to become a classic: a major novel from one of our country's most beloved storytellers.
"All the energy of a riotous family fiesta... Cisneros is undeniably at her peak." (The Washington Post)
"A glorious book, Caramelo is crowded with the souvenirs and memories of the dramas of everyday life?like an oversized family album, intimate as well as universal." (The Philadelphia Inquirer)
"A joyful, fizzy American novel... Soulful, sophisticated and skeptical, full of great one-liners, it is one of those novels that blithely leap across the border between literary and popular fiction." (New York Times Book Review)
"Like Eduardo Galeano, John Dos Passos and John Steinbeck, Cisneros writes along the borders where the novel and social history intersect. In this lovingly told and poetic novel, she uses the storytelling art to give the voiceless ones a voice, and to find the border to the past, imbuing the struggles of her family and her countries with the richness of myth." (Los Angeles Times)
"A wonderful book ... evoking life?s absurdity and possibility, tragedy and transcendence... Combines the thematic richness of the most ambitious literature with the delight in character and plot of the most engrossing page-turner." (Chicago Sun-Times)
"Cisneros is a writer for all people. This is a novel of families, home life and finding yourself in the world?s greater landscape." (USA Today)
"A sprawling, exuberant hopscotch through a century of family history... Cisneros seduces us with her knitted tales, great and small, and her message is all the more powerful for its shimmering clarity." (Time Out New York)
"Cisneros has a great eye for detail, a good ear for dialogue and a marvelous sense of humor... Caramelo is a tour de force?rich in its use of language, breathtaking in scope." (St. Louis Post-Dispatch)
"Lovingly, passionately woven from dust and glory... A sweeping family history that somehow manages to interlace not just the Reyeses -- those conjurers, enticers and troublemakers -- but also all the rest of us, the good and bad together, the bitter and, of course, the sweet." (Miami Herald)
"Sprawling, spirited... Vibrant and big-hearted." (Elle)
"Cisneros?s exuberant prose tickles the senses... A warm and generous story to wrap yourself up in." (St. Petersburg Times)
"A sweet gift from the universe, a reminder of the ancient, deep, noble, and sad sources of the human heart... sometimes heartbreaking, sometimes transcendent." (San Antonio Express)
"Cisneros is a virtuoso... [Caramelo] is rich in character and action, people and passions." (Houston Chronicle)
"Remarkable... Caramelo is a book to read slowly and savor and if you can find a listener, to read out loud." (Santa Fe New Mexican)
"Cisneros is such an imaginative storyteller... Caramelo engages in a kind of playfulness that is utterly bewitching." (Entertainment Weekly)
"Spellbinding... A richly satisfying novel." (People)
"There should be a brand-new language to describe the ways in which [Cisneros] has imbued the ancient art of story-telling with her trademark organization, characterization, evocation of time and place, portrayal of a particular culture, and visionary wisdom...You must read this book for yourself, two or three times." (The Women?s Review of Books)
"Cisneros is a wonderful cultural translator, writing English dialogue so saturated with Mexican-Spanish idioms and constructions that you feel like you?ve been magically empowered to eavesdrop in another language." (The Oregonian)
Hairs / Pelitos
This jewel-like vignette from Sandra Cisneros's best-selling The House on Mango Street shows, through simple, intimate portraits, the diversity among us.
"Everybody in our family has different hair"/ "Todos en nuestra familia tenemos pelo diferente," begins this rhythmic, bilingual picture book taken from acclaimed novelist/short-story writer Cisneros's The House on Mango Street. Ybanez expands upon the diversity theme by rendering the family members in a variety of unusual skin tones as well as with distinctive hairstyles. Purple-faced Papa has hair "like a broom,/ all up in the air," while Nettie's "slippery" orange hair contrasts vividly with her blue skin. The narrator waxes lyrical on the subject of Mama's hair: "sweet to put your nose into when she is holding you, holding you and you feel safe, [it] is the warm smell of bread before you bake it." Each spread is framed by bright borders ornamented with everyday objects-shoes and bikes; steaming cups of coffee; dice, jacks and jumpropes. Inside, the characters seem to float across swirling blocks of color. A spirited and buoyant celebration of individuality and of the bonds within families. Ages 4-8. (Publisher Weekly)
Loose Woman
A candid, sexy and wonderfully mood-strewn collection of poetry that celebrates the female aspects of love, from the reflective to the overtly erotic. "Poignant, sexy... lyrical, passionate... cool and delicate... hot as a chili pepper." (Boston Globe)
"You bring out the Mexican in me./The hunkered thick dark spiral./The core of a heart howl./The bitter bile./The tequila lagrimas on Saturday all/through next weekend Sunday." In this typically direct, sensual, and bitingly colloquial poem, Cisneros is addressing a lover, but she might as well be addressing the act of writing itself, which clearly brings out the best in her, along with the passion she associates with her Mexican roots. As in Woman Hollering Creek and Other Stories, one of Library Journal's Best Books of 1991, Cisneros deftly explores the consequences of being Hispanic and a woman-in particular, being the tough, independent free-spirited "loose woman" of her title. The poems that result are brilliant and shimmering and sharp-tongued and just occasionally a little too similar. Highly recommended where good poetry is read and essential for all Hispanic collections. (Library Journal)
Little Clown, My Heart
You Bring Out the Mexican in Me
Original Sin
Old Maids
I Let Him Take Me
Extreme Unction
A Few Items to Consider
I Am So in Love I Grow a New Hymen
Your Name Is Mine
Something Like Rivers Ran
You My Saltwater Pearl
You Like to Give and Watch Me My Pleasure
Christ You Delight Me
En Route to My Lover I Am Detained by Too Many Cities and Human Frailty
You Called Me Corazon
Love Poem for a Non-Believer
The Heart Rounds Up the Usual Suspects
Waiting for a Lover
Well, If You Insist
Pumpkin Eater
I Am So Depressed I Feel Like Jumping in the River Behind My House but Won't Because I'm Thirty-Eight and Not Eighteen
Bay Poem from Berkeley
After Everything
I Want to Be a Father Like the Men
El Alacran Guero
Thing in My Shoe
Night Madness Poem
I Don't Like Being in Love
Amorcito Corazon
A Little Grief Like Gouache
Full Moon and You're Not Here
My Friend Turns Beautiful Before My Eyes
Unos Cuantos Piquetitos
With Lorenzo at the Center of the Universe, el Zocalo, Mexico City
I Awake in the Middle of the Night and Wonder If You've Been Taken
Small Madness
Heart, My Lovely Hobo
I Am on My Way to Oklahoma to Bury the Man I Nearly Left My Husband For
Tu Que Sabes de Amor
Once Again I Prove the Theory of Relativity
Fan of a Floating Woman
That Beautiful Boy Who Lives Across from the Handy Andy
Black Lace Bra Kind of Woman
Down There
Los Desnudos: A Triptych
Mexicans in France
My Nemesis Arrives After a Long Hiatus
A Man in My Bed Like Cracker Crumbs
Bienvenido Poem for Sophie
Arturito the Amazing Baby Olmec Who Is Mine by Way of Water
Jumping off Roofs
Why I Didn't
Las Girlfriends
Champagne Poem for La Josie
Still Life with Potatoes, Pearls, Raw Meat, Rhinestones, Lard, and Horse Hooves
Vino Tinto
Loose Woman
Woman Hollering Creek
A collection of stories whose characters give voice to the vibrant and varied life on both sides of the Mexican border. The women in these stories offer tales of pure discovery, filled with moments of infinite and intimate wisdom.
A little girl revealing secrets as only a child can; a witch flies at dawn over a small town -- these are just two of the scenarios presented by Cisneros in this collection of short stories. A writer of vivid imagination, with a very acute sense of mysticism and a witty poetic style, Cisneros not only entertains but leaves a lasting impression. A key work from a major Hispanic American writer; recommended for public libraries. (Library Journal)
In this collection of Mexican-American stories, Cisneros addresses the reader in a voice that is alternately buoyant, strong, funny, and sad. The brief vignettes of the opening piece, "My Lucy Friend Who Smells Like Corn," are tiles in a mosaic. Taken together, these vignettes give a vivid, colorful picture of life on the Texas/Mexico border. Family ties are strong: aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents are all present. The stories are often about the romantic dreams of young girls longing to escape stifling small-town life who discover that things are not much different on the other side of the border. Cisneros has an acute eye for the telling detail that reveals the secrets and the dreams of her characters. She writes with humor and love about people she knows intimately. (Library Journal)
Ranging from prose lyrics of less than a page to much lengthier (but still lyrical) fictions, these stories are eloquent testimonials to the status of Mexican-American women. Cisneros introduces a cast of Chicanas from the environs of San Antonio, Tex., letting us eavesdrop on a series of interior monologues as well crafted as they are expressive. She begins with the self-conscious yet spontaneous effusions of young girls ("You laughing something into my ear that tickles, and me going Ha Ha Ha Ha"), then turns to preadolescents and young women; her speakers evince a shared, uneasy awareness that their self-worth depends on a loyalty to Mexico strained, all the same, by the realities of their lives up North. The restless vamp of "Never Marry a Mexican" feels "ridiculous" as "a Mexican girl who couldn't even speak Spanish," and cultivates a contempt for her white lover ("nude as a pearl. You've lost your train of smoke") and his wife ("alive under the flannel and down, and smelling like milk and hand cream") -- but she is not sure just what she is envying. In this sensitively structured suite of sketches, however, Cisneros's irony defers to her powers of observation, so that feminism and cultural imperialism, while important issues here, do not overwhelm the narrative.
My Wicked Wicked Ways
Hailed as "not only a gifted writer, but an absolutely essential one" (The New York Times Book Review), Sandra Cisneros has firmly established herself as an author of electrifying talent. Here are verses, comic and sad, radiantly pure and plainspoken, that reveal why her stories have been praised for their precision and musicality of language.
This collection reveals the same affinity for distilled phrasing and surprise, both in language and dramatic development, found in Cisneros's volumes of short stories, Woman Hollering Creek and The House on Mango Street. -- Publisher Weekly
Sir James South Side
South Sangamon
Abuelito Who
Arturo Burro
Mexican Hat Dance
Good Hotdogs
Muddy Kid Comes Home
I Told Susan Reyna
Twister Hits Houston
My Wicked Wicked Ways
Six Brothers
Josie Bliss
I the Woman
Something Crazy
In a redneck bar down the street
Love Poem #1
The blue dress
The Poet Reflects on Her Solitary Fate
His Story
Letter to Ilona from the South of France
Ladies, South of France - Vence
December 24th, Paris - Notre-Dame
Beautiful Man - France
Postcard to the Lace Man - The Old Market, Antibes
Letter to Jahn Franco - Venice
To Cesare, Goodbye
Trieste - Ciao to Italy
Peaches - Six in a Tin Bowl, Sarajevo
Hydra Night - House on Fire
Hydra Coming Down in Rain
Fishing Calamari by Moon
Moon in Hydra
One Last Poem for Richard
For a Southern Man
A woman cutting celery
Sensuality Plunging Barefoot Into Thorns
I understand it as a kiss
For All Tuesday Travelers
No Mercy
The world without Rodrigo
Rodrigo Returns to the Land and Linen Celebrates
Rodrigo de Barro
Rodrigo in the Dark
The So-and-So's
Monsieur Mon Ami
By Way of Explanation
Ame, Amo, Amare
Men Asleep
New Year's Eve
14 de julio
Tantas Cosas Asustan, Tantas
The House on Mango Street
Told in a series of vignettes stunning for their eloquence, The House on Mango Street is Sandra Cisneros's greatly admired novel of a young girl growing up in the Latino section of Chicago. Acclaimed by critics, beloved by children, their parents and grandparents, taught everywhere from inner-city grade schools to universities across the country, and translated all over the world, it has entered the canon of coming-of-age classics.
Sometimes heartbreaking, sometimes deeply joyous, The House on Mango Street tells the story of Esperanza Cordero, whose neighborhood is one of harsh realities and harsh beauty. Esperanza doesn't want to belong -- not to her rundown neighborhood, and not to the low expectations the world has for her. Esperanza's story is that of a young girl coming into her power, and inventing for herself what she will become.
"A classic. . . . This little book has made a great space for itself on the shelf of American literature." (Julia Alvarez)
"Afortunado! Lucky! Lucky the generation who grew up with Esperanza and The House on Mango Street. And lucky future readers. This funny, beautiful book will always be with us." (Maxine Hong Kingston)
"Cisneros draws on her rich [Latino] heritage... nd seduces with precise, spare prose, creat[ing] unforgettable characters we want to lift off the page. She is not only a gifted writer, but an absolutely essential one." (Bebe Moore Campbell, The New York Times Book Review)
"Marvelous... spare yet luminous. The subtle power of Cisneros's storytelling is evident. She communicates all the rapture and rage of growing up in a modern world." (San Francisco Cronicle)
"A deeply moving novel... delightful and poignant.... Like the best of poetry, it opens the windows of the heart without a wasted word." (Miami Herald)
"Sandra Cisneros is one of the most brillant of today's young writers. Her work is sensitive, alert, nuanceful... rich with music and picture." (Gwendolyn Books)
Bad Boys
"Sandra Cisneros' 1980 chapbook Bad Boys (Mango Chicano Chapbook Series #8), for many readers, was their introduction to the great writer. Mango Publications was also in its infancy, being founded by Lorna Dee Cervantes, either one or two years before, publishing their first chapbook Speedway by Orlando Ramirez in 1979.
"Bad Boys is small, even for chapbooks, containing seven poems. Cisneros was no newcomer though. She had been published in many journals before the publication of Bad Boys, which in some ways became her forgotten child." -- Octavio Romano Pluma Fronteriza blog


text:
The National Zoo is home to hundreds of birds from all over the world. Since birds are an integral part of virtually every ecosystem, it's not surprising that birds are all over the Zoo, too, as residents and visitors.
The majority of the Zoo's birds live in the beautiful, sanctuary-like Bird House but birds are also scattered throughout other exhibits.
Many wild birds also call the Zoo home, find out which wild birds have been seen at the National Zoo.


text:
Since 1955, blue-winged teal populations have ranged from 2.8 million to 8.9 million. Generally, numbers have increased in recent years, due to favorable prairie wetland conditions. This has resulted in an average population of 6 million during the past 10 years (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009).
2012: 9.242 million +3% from 2011
2011: 8.948 million
% Change from long-term average: +94%
Learn more about blue-winged teal in our waterfowl identification gallery.
need help logging in?
My DU is your personal portal to the hunting, conservation and local DU information that you care about the most. Learn how it works.
Create your free My DU account today!
*Note: If you have a member login from the previous website, you may enter it here to access your My DU account. Visit our FAQ page for more details.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the Migratory Bird Hunting and Conservation Stamp Act into law.
First duck stamp, designed by Pulitzer-prize winning editorial cartoonist, Jay N. "Ding" Darling, issued.
Prairie drought peaks.


text:
Words like "plotting" and "epidemic" usually have negative connotations. However, the members of the Summit County Youth program are working to change that. What these youth are plotting are acts of kindness and generosity, and the epidemic they're spreading is goodness.
SCY director Phil Gallagher introduced the idea for the GOODness Epidemic two years ago, hoping to inspire the students involved while helping out the community at the same time.
"Honestly, the students inspired it," he said of the project. "We ask students to live a story that is compelling; that's what you're supposed to do with your life."
Summit County Youth is divided into three age groups, grade school, middle school and high school, each of which meets every week at Breckenridge Christian Ministries. There the students can do projects, hold discussions or simply hang out with their friends, as well as participate in the occasional camping trip. The program has been around for more than 30 years, but as the GOODness Epidemic shows, is continually looking for ways to involve youth in positive practices.
The GOODness Epidemic is a weeklong project during which the students think of and execute various ways to spread goodness and brighten the lives of the people around them.
"It's what we're telling them all year long - plot goodness in the world, be about goodness, make these kind of things happen," Gallagher said. "You hope that it spills over into their lives and they continue to do good things on a normal basis, because the small things count and matter."
Each day of the GOODness week, which starts Sunday and runs until March 16, has a suggested theme for the type of good deeds to be done. "Freebie Monday," for example, suggests that students do something for someone else that would typically cost them money, such as walk a dog, babysit, shovel or deliver baked goods for free. "Two Tuesday" suggests putting others before yourself by opening doors and letting others be first in line. Other suggestions throughout the week include giving hugs to people on the street, donating clothing, writing thank you cards and meeting new friends.
"We're asking them to really plot goodness to be intentional," Gallagher said. "We talked about the idea like, you should do something that requires something of you, something that takes planning, something that takes preparation, something other than spontaneous, something you set out to do - you actually plot goodness and make it happen."
Last year, high school student Dominick DeLillo and his friends baked cookies and brownies and brought them to the local police and fire departments.
"Their reactions were very nice," he said. "They help people all over the county, obviously, but some people overlook them, so it was good to give back to them."
Davis Gidney remembered buying smiley face balloons at City Market and handing them out to employees around the store.
"They were so surprised. Like, pleasantly surprised," she said, laughing at the memory.
John Ransberger's favorite experience was spending time at the Laundromat and paying for people's laundry loads. He remembers two girls in particular who were so pleased that they asked if they could do something in return.
"What we said is, 'go pass it on, do something nice for someone else.' I like that," he said. "I've seen that - it will spread to more people."
Though they were nervous about performing public deeds at first, such as approaching strangers for hugs or handing out free food and gift cards, the students said they quickly got used to it and eventually began to enjoy themselves and watching other people's reactions.
"Once you get over that initial tension, you just kind of let go of your feelings. I'm not doing this for me, I'm doing this to make other people's day," Melina Mueller said. "I think even brightening somebody's day can be a huge impact, because you don't know what they're going through or where their heart's at and just a simple smile or hug can totally change their mindset."
When her classmates at the high school noticed, at first they thought it was strange, she said, but eventually their curiosity got the better of them and soon they were asking if they could help too.
"You think, wow, people are going to be so judgmental, but no, they're going to be like, 'wow, this is awesome,'" she said. "I feel like the whole general thing is, people forget that doing good things is free, and that it doesn't, you know, take a lot of effort, so it's not a hard thing to go out and be nice to people. People just make it hard and make it a bigger deal than it is."
"I agree," John said. "It's really easy to do small things. A lot of things we do are just small, but they help and they brighten someone's day a lot."
"It's just like an everyday thing - approach your day without going out of your way to help people and when you do, it's so surprising," said Davis Gidney. "A part of the goal, I think, is to catch people off guard and set examples and change the normal, everyday mindset."
It's easy to get Melina, John, Davis and their group members to talk about their plans for the GOODness Epidemic and what it's like watching people react to the things they do. And while they're looking forward to their deeds next week, they said they see the effects spilling into their overall lives as well.
"Goodness shouldn't be contained to one week," Melina said.
Gallagher laughed and jumped in. "It should be an epidemic."


text:
Nike Shox BB4 Men's Basketball Shoes
Buy Online & Pick Up In-Store
The Nike Shox BB4 Men's Running Shoes could easily be called one of the best performance basketball shoes based on their responsiveness. Incorporating new Shox technology, the shoes absorb the heel strike impact and transfer it to the forefoot for explosive foot movements. You may remember the impressive jump Vince Carter made in the Shox BB4 in the Olympics.


text:
Dec 20, 2012
CORPUS CHRISTI – The latest edition of Islanders Insider – Episode 8 – is now available online. In this week's edition, host Steven King talks with student-athletes from the men's and women's basketball teams and we feature the outstanding athletics facilities at the Island University.
Click here or check out the new episode below.


text:
View Comment
Posted at 6:55 AM on April 24, 2016
Ian and Nikki are the most beautiful and loving couple ever, it seems they are both blessed with finding their soul mates, when they look at each other it looks like heaven streaming out of their eyes to each other.
Please start having babies, Ian and Nikki are both in control of their Feminine AND Masculine side, they seem to be perfectly balanced in every way. I so love both of them together!
Posted at 7:21 PM on September 15, 2015
gemem jamoh
Posted at 1:08 AM on July 18, 2015
Posted at 2:10 PM on June 15, 2015
Gemem jamoh
Posted at 3:50 AM on June 13, 2015
iam a vampire diaries fan but I watch it only for Damon Salvatore(ian somerhalder)..iam so much happy seeing both of them together…but I don't like Nikki that much..ian seems so happy with her so iam happy…they both really make a romantic and sweet couple together…he seems to be a true husband..so handsome and breathtaking…
Posted at 12:57 PM on May 27, 2015
gemem jamoh
Posted at 1:11 AM on July 18, 2015
Becky g
Posted at 10:54 PM on April 29, 2015


text:
Category:Parsons, Albert Ross/Arranger
Free public domain sheet music from IMSLP / Petrucci Music Library
(The following text was automatically transcluded from Category:Parsons, Albert Ross.)
Albert Ross Parsons(16 September 1847 — 14 June 1933)
→Table of Contents: Top - A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z - Chart
xShow works by type/instrument
External links
- Detailed biography: Bach Cantatas ; A Biographical Dictionary of Musicians by Theodore Baker, 3rd Edition of 1919, page 684.
- Recordings: None given
See also
Pages in category "Parsons, Albert Ross/Arranger"
The following 2 pages are in this category, out of 2 total.


text:
BEAVER CREEK - Really?
And we mean that in a good way.
We are getting spoiled here at Beaver Creek with Ted Ligety going off like this.
Think about how much can go wrong in two runs of giant slalom - hooking a gate, hitting a small patch of ice or the tiniest build-up of snow. You don't feel well or right on a particular day. (Ligety only has one chance each year on home snow.)
You can lose a race by 1-hundredth of a second - Teddy did so here in 2008 to Austria's Benni Raich.
Ligety's painting like an artist right now, and so is Lindsey Vonn.
In our annual Birds of Prey look northward to Lake Louise, Alberta, where the women always race on this weekend, the roar that first came in the media cabin when then-Kildow won has been replaced by a clap and laugh.
Like Ligety in a GS, Vonn's just expected to crush it, and she did Sunday ... again. As brilliant as her record is at Lake Lindsey - seven wins in her last seven starts and 14 World Cup wins there - this sort of thing just shouldn't be taken for granted. (By the way, 14 wins would be a terrific career for most, much less being just Vonn's record at one site.)
This is not as easy as Ted makes it look in GS and Vonn in the speed events. Appreciate this, people. There are really good racers out there, trying to chase them. Savor it. These types of performances don't come along often.
Seen and heard from the weekend up in Red Tail:
• Here's a cool Ligety stat, courtesy of The Denver Post's John Meyer. This is Ligety's 31st podium on tour. He also has 13 fourth-place finishes. A 10th of a second here or a few hundreds there and that podium number is even more impressive. This is fine line that elite ski racers walk/swoosh, and it makes athletes like Ligety and Vonn all the more amazing.
• Oh, no, they're getting closer: Ligety won in Soelden, Austria, by 2.75 seconds in October. He won Sunday's GS by "only" 1.78 seconds. First off, one reporter asked a question starting with the phrase, "You're winning by an average of 2.25 seconds." This is like a guy who homers three times on baseball's opening day and then some guy on ESPN announces that so-and-so is on a pace to hit 486 dingers this season.
Ligety replied by joking that, at his current pace, he'll be down by 0.2 seconds two giant slaloms from now. According to this math, Ted is done for in Alta Badia, Italy, in two weeks.
• Overall for Teddy? The jury is out. Ligety says that Aksel Lund Svindal is the favorite the way the Norwegian is racing right now. I agree completely. My two cents is that Ligety needs to get his slalom going before he can start thinking overall - not that he shouldn't have big goals. Austria's Marcel Hirscher was the exception to the rule in winning the overall with primarily two disciplines (GS and slalom). You need three and some points from the combined like, say, Svindal (downhill, super-G and GS).
Regardless of his fourth places in super-Gs so far this season, Ligety was 15th in slalom last year, and the math doesn't work with that finish.
• An example of this was Vonn last season. She was second in GS. Honestly, that's just silly. By the way, Vonn's thrown her hat into the ring for another women's overall. She's at 310 points behind Tina Maze (397) and Maria Hoefl-Riesch (319).
• Anyone ready to see Lindsey here next year? Thought so.
• How's this for a highly-qualified forerunner? The last person down before Ligety took off was none other than Vail's Mikaela Shiffrin.
"I did it last year, so I knew kind of what to expect," she said. "It was so much fun. It's my favorite course."
The 17-year-old rising star finished third in the Levi, Finland, slalom and had two top-10s last week in Aspen. She picked up two more Nor-Am wins earlier this week and stopped over here before she heads to St. Moritz, Switzerland, for her next set of tech events. In the meantime, there is no looking ahead as far as Beaver Creek 2015.
"Oh, no. I have to live in the moment right now," she said. "I'm having such a good time, but I have to stay focused. If I think about anything a week in the future, I'm going to get lost in it. I have to take it day by day."
• Life-changing moment: Most of the American crowd probably shrugged its shoulders when Matteo Marsaglia won Saturday's super-G. But for Marsaglia, wow. He became a hero back home. With the intensity and passion with which the central European nations follow ski racing, Marsaglia's life has changed forever.
• Stock rising: Travis Ganong. He appears dialed in with downhill. There will be some bumps along the road this season no doubt, but he's going to be on the podium soon.
• Stock rising, part II: Andrew Weibrecht. Yes, it was a disappointing DNF in Saturday's super-G, but the Lake Placid, N.Y., native seems to be on his way back from assorted shoulder and ankle injuries. Weibrecht did some serious bib-hopping this week in training and in Friday's downhill from dreadful bib numbers. He will punch a few through, and improve his start position.
• Americans in the points Sunday: Tommy Ford was 26th in his first outing since a hip injury, while Tim Jitloff was 27th.
Sports Editor Chris Freud can be reached at 970-748-2934 or firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
"If you journey to the light in a rapid pace, you are eventually going to hit your head against the light, breaking it, and leave you standing in the dark with your nose burned. Instead, use the light to look what lies in the shadows, as light was intended to do."
Frederik Kerling
Contributed by: Domus Ulixes
Copyright © 2016 Gaiam, Inc.


text:
Skiers and riders, now is your moment. Most lifts start running at 9 a.m. and a layer of powder awaits. Today is the first significant snowfall of December, following a mostly dry November.
To the delight of local ski areas, snowmaking efforts this weekend are complimented by a piling of natural snow - 5-8 inches were forecasted overnight for Breckenridge, Copper Mountain, Keystone and Arapahoe Basin.
"Sunday is going to be a great day to be out on the mountain," said Joel Gratz, a meteorologist reporting for Open Snow.
Breckenridge Ski Resort opens Bonanza to the Cashier trail to Lower American on Peak 9 today with access from the Beaver Run SuperChair. The ski area has six lifts running, with eight trails open - a total of 186 acres of skiable terrain.
Breck officials said with additional snowfall and snowmaking efforts, more terrain will open soon.
Keystone Resort is planning to opening North Peak before Christmas. However, the date has yet to be determined and will largely depend on the amount of natural snow in the county leading up to the holiday.
The resort leads the county with the most terrain available. Night skiing and tubing are also up and running. The Keystone A51 Terrain Park has beginner boxes on Scout Trail, intermediate to advanced jibs in The Alley and jumps on Park Lane.
Ice skating at Dercum Square and the Lakeside Ice Rink are open. Ski area officials said the resort's snowmaking efforts will continue throughout this weekend's storm.
Copper Mountain offers 240 skiable acres this weekend. The ski area is also the only mountain in the county with a 22' superpipe feature. Throughout the weekend, riders and skiers can join ski area staff to celebrate Copper's 40th anniversary.
"Based on skier visits, (Saturday) has been our busiest day so far this season," said Katherine Bush, spokeswoman for Copper Mountain. "We don't have any new terrain scheduled to open (Sunday), but the snow will certainly help Copper open terrain over the coming weeks."
Arapahoe Basin reported 4 inches of snowfall by Saturday afternoon. The ski area has 100 skiable acres and seven trails open.
"It just feels good," said Alan Henceroth, chief operating officer of the ski area.
"This skiing (Saturday) was excellent, soft and fluffy," Henceroth said. "We had a good night of snowmaking last night and are making headway on opening Lower Sundance."
Loveland Ski Area officials reported an accumulation of 8 inches of new snow from the storm.
"More snow is on the way," said Dustin Schaefer, from Loveland's marketing department. "Think snow."
With most of the county set to receive up to 8 inches by Sunday, more snow is forecasted, calling for up to 4 additional inches possible at high elevations.
After a break in snowfall Sunday night, more snow will hit the northern half of the state on Monday and Tuesday morning, Gratz said.
"Expect just a few inches total from this storm, though a few areas along the northern Continental Divide north of Interstate 70 could see more significant snow," Gratz said.
Tuesday afternoon through Thursday morning will be dry, but another storm is forecasted to hit the High Country Thursday afternoon through Friday.
"This storm will likely favor the southern San Juans - they need it - but all mountains in the northern part of the state will see snow," Gratz said.
Beyond Friday, only time will tell but the forecast is steering clear of sunny conditions with high temperatures ranging from 30 degrees down to the low 20s for the next week.
"The weather pattern beyond next week looks stormy, so hopefully your emotions are in a much better spot now than they were a week ago," Gratz said.


text:
Drinking, driving, and prom night...it's a yearly worry for a lot of parents.
So Glascock County Schools showed kids a real example of the worst-case scenario.
They got student volunteers to work with emergency responders and showed the student body how quick a fatal accident can happen.
The scenario: students are drag racing and drinking, crash, and have to be pried from the car with the Jaws of Life. One student, Thomas Davis, doesn't make it.
The simulation was emotional to watch for Davis' mother.
"It's kind of eerie seeing your son play a position where it could actually happen," said Wanda Davis.
In the scenario, Davis died, and the two other passengers lived. One was airlifted by helicopter.
The entire accident was narrated down to the last detail. The overall message? Injuries take only a second, but the consequences can last a lifetime.