May 3, 2017

No Image

Today in Movie Culture: 'Star Wars' Meets 'Sgt. Pepper,' 'The Thing' Board Game and More

Here are a bunch of little bites to satisfy your hunger for movie culture:

Parody Album of the Day:

Every song from The Beatles’ Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band has been spoofed so it’s a plot song for Star Wars, and together they retell the whole movie. Start with “Princess Leia’s Stolen Death Star Plans”/”With Illicit Help From Your Friends” below (via Paste).

[embedded content]

Movie Franchise Parody of the Day:

Do the Fast and Furious movies all seem the same to you? Here’s an animated parody of the franchise explaining why:

[embedded content]

Board Game of the Day:

Here’s a look at the new The Thing board game Infection at Outpost 31 from Mondo and Project Raygun:

Cosplay of the Day:

The latest edition of Tyrants of Cosplay showcases an award-winning costume of Faun/Pan from Pan’s Labyrinth:

[embedded content]

Fan Theory of the Day:

Cracked presents a theory that makes The Dark Knight Rises better by arguing that Batman killed the Joker in The Dark Knight:

[embedded content]

Vintage Image of the Day:

Bing Crosby, who was born on this day in 1903, with director Frank Capra, co-star Jane Wyman and a birthday cake on the set of 1951’s Here Comes the Groom:

Movie Comparison of the Day:

There are some similarities between Guardians of the Galaxy and Suicide Squad, but here’s Couch Tomato with 24 ways they’re different:

[embedded content]

Actor in the Spotlight:

With Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 out this week, Burger Fiction chronicles the evolution of Chris Pratt’s career:

[embedded content]

Filmmaker in Focus:

Pratt is in Her, and speaking of Her, here’s a video by StudioBinder on how to make movies about loneliness like Spike Jonze does:

[embedded content]

Classic Trailer of the Day:

Today is the 15th anniversary of the release of Spider-Man, Sam Raimi’s first of three. Watch the original full trailer for the classic superhero movie below.

[embedded content]

and

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

The Daredevils Without Landlines — And Why Health Experts Are Tracking Them

For the first time in history, federal researchers report that a majority of U.S. homes rely only on cellphones for a telephone connection, without a landline.

The number of cellphone-only households predictably has been climbing over the years, surpassing the households with both a landline and a mobile phone and now reaching almost 51 percent. And it’s tracked by — of all agencies — the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics records all kinds of trends about the state of Americans’ health. One of its surveys traces the decline of landlines and what kinds of health habits are common to mobile-only homes. (Hint: the drinking and smoking kind.)

As a note, the CDC’s definition of a landline does account for Internet-connected phones — also known as Voice-over-IP or VoIP phones — because the question that is asked in the survey is, “Do you have a telephone in your home that is currently working and is not a cellphone?”

How did the CDC become the expert on the rise of cellphone use? In 2015, I spoke with Stephen Blumberg, who’s been leading this research. The interview below originally ran on Dec. 3, 2015, and had been edited for length and clarity.

So you’re the guy who’s basically monitoring the slow death of the landline.

Stephen Blumberg, associate director for science in the division of Health Interview Statistics at the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

hide caption

toggle caption

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

I guess I am.

Why does the CDC study this?

You’re definitely not the first one to ask that. Back in 2003, we recognized that the telephone-based surveys conducted by the CDC would be missing an ever-growing segment of the population (that didn’t have a landline phone). We looked to find a survey that would answer the questions about who this population is and what their health characteristics are.

The National Health Interview Survey is an in-person survey with more than 40,000 households annually. And because it’s conducted face-to-face by Census Bureau interviewers, it contacts landline households, wireless-only households, households that have no service at all. That made it an ideal vehicle for tracking the prevalence of the characteristics of the wireless-only population.

Since then, all of the major telephone surveys that CDC conducts now include cellphone numbers … but we’re the one survey in the federal statistical system that is tracking this estimate, and so we continue to do so.

In effect it started out of your own necessity?

That’s correct. For telephone surveys, at first we were able to make adjustments for the exclusion of the individuals, or what’s known as coverage bias — because we knew that they were younger, they were more likely to live in rented housing, they were more likely to be low-income. And so we could make adjustments.

What we started to recognize, however, fairly quickly, is that, in fact, their health characteristics were different, even when you controlled for all of those demographic differences. People who are wireless-only are more likely to smoke, they’re more likely to binge drink, they’re more likely to be uninsured. In effect, they are more likely to engage in risky behaviors.

(Editor’s Note: The latest report from May 2017 does, however, say that compared to adults in households with landlines, wireless-only adults were “more likely to have their health status described as excellent or very good.”)

All the daredevils are dropping their landlines!

You know, we can’t say for certain; perhaps at that time dropping the landline was in effect risky behavior.

It would make sense for it to be a factor of youth, no?

Well, except when we controlled for age, we still saw these differences. Essentially, if we just looked at young people, we still saw that those young people who were wireless-only were more likely to drink and more likely to smoke than young people who had landlines.

Somebody once suggested that it would be interesting to try to extend preventive health messages to wireless-only individuals and try to target them for health promotion activities, but I don’t know that anybody has actually done that.

So is it related to income?

We know that there’s an income effect; however, part of that, if not all of that, is a function of age and living status. So young adults living in rented housing are more likely to be wireless-only. Those people are also more likely to have lower incomes than older adults who own their home.

We certainly see that lower-income households are more likely to be wireless-only. We think that’s primarily the function of age and household tenure, but we also recognize that it costs money to have both a landline and a wireless phone, and those people who are looking to save money may recognize that a wireless phone gives them more functionality than a landline phone.

Are you still seeing that correlation with risky behavior, or are we maybe approaching a point where only having a cellphone is more of a factor of convenience?

We still see it in the general data, so if you take a look at the report, you can see that 29 percent of wireless-only adults are binge drinkers whereas only 18 percent of adults living in landline households drink heavily.

And what’s the value of this information to the CDC?

It’s a reminder to us that for our telephone surveys we still need to be vigilant to include proper proportions of wireless-only households. That’s the primary benefit at this point.

We continue to track (the information about wireless-only households) because it increases the accuracy of the health data we collect in our survey.

In the years that you’ve studied these households, has something about the data surprised you?

I don’t know that surprise is the word. But we’ve been tracking this for 12 years now. I think we had expected that by now we would see some leveling off in the prevalence of wireless-only households — we don’t see any evidence yet that that’s occurring.

So people are still dropping landlines?

That’s correct.

I would have actually thought that by now, we would only see a small percentage of people even having landlines.

I’m guessing you’re fairly young.

I haven’t had a landline in a very long time. Though I’m talking to you over a landline now.

And yet I’m talking to you on a cellphone!

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

House Republican Leaders Plan Vote On Revised Health Care Bill

House Republican leaders are planning a vote on the American Health Care Act on Thursday. The bill has been revised to provide options for states to opt out of some key Obamacare requirements.

ROBERT SIEGEL, HOST:

Republican leaders in the House of Representatives are planning a vote on their health care bill on Thursday. It’s been over a month since they abruptly pulled the original version of that bill from the House floor, which was a stark and early defeat for President Trump on one of his major campaign promises. NPR congressional correspondent Susan Davis joins us now from the Capitol. Hello, Sue.

SUSAN DAVIS, BYLINE: Hey, Robert.

SIEGEL: Speaker Paul Ryan has said that the Republicans wouldn’t bring this bill back until they had enough votes to pass it. Does that mean they have enough votes to pass it?

DAVIS: They believe they do. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy just a few moments ago told us that he believes they have the vote, and they will – they have the votes to pass it. And the vote will happen early tomorrow afternoon. It could be very close. They can only lose about 22 Republicans and still pass the bill because we know every Democrat’s going to go – going to vote against it.

And as of this evening, there had already been about 18 or 19 Republicans who were publicly against it and unexpected to change their positions. So that’s a really narrow margin, and it could be one of the toughest votes Republicans have faced since they won the majority back in 2010.

SIEGEL: What changes have been made to this bill in order to get more support for it?

DAVIS: The final push was an amendment by Fred Upton. He’s a Republican from Michigan, and he has a fair amount of health care expertise. He’s a former chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. And he was initially a no, and he got to yes because they’ve included a proposal of his that would add in another $8 billion in funding for states to create these things that are called high-risk pools to cover sick people.

There’s a lot we don’t know about how this proposal would specifically work. And in the past, high-risk pools have been very expensive, and they’ve not done a very good job of providing coverage for sick people. We also don’t know the economic impact of this bill at all. The House is going to vote on it without an official score from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office which weighs in on how much it’s going to cost and how many people it’s going to cover. So there’s a lot of questions we still have about the bill this evening, but we do know the vote will happen tomorrow.

SIEGEL: Sue, when the House Republicans walked away from the earlier version of the health care bill in March, Speaker Paul Ryan said that Obamacare was the law of the land for the foreseeable future. What kind of political pressure did they face to turn this around?

DAVIS: You know, that was part of the argument for this renewed push of it all – is it was the reminder that this was something that Republicans had campaigned on for the better part of the past decade. And there was increasingly a view that failing to not even have a vote on it really risked sort of depressing the party’s base. And there’s – one of the things they’re already talking about inside this building is the 2018 midterms and the need to keep the Republican base voter excited.

And I would also say that the president really engaged. In the – in this week, the president, Trump, and Vice President Mike Pence really decided they wanted this vote this week. The president was personally engaged in this. He was working the phones today. And they wanted a vote this week.

SIEGEL: Of course even if the House does approve this, Obamacare remains the law of the land because this bill would have to go to the Senate.

DAVIS: Right.

SIEGEL: What prospects would this have there?

DAVIS: Right. It’s always important remember that this is just one step of a process. They’re passing a bill tomorrow, not the law. And there is something in here for every senator to dislike. The House proposal is going to land with a bit of a thud on the Senate side. There’s conservative opposition to it over there. There’s a tremendous amount of skepticism among moderate senators like Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is going to face the same tricky balance that Speaker Paul Ryan did of trying to find a coalition of conservative and moderate Republicans who can vote for something. And we know every Democrat in the Senate’s going to vote against it. And Mitch McConnell has an even slimmer margin of error than the speaker does. He can only lose two Republicans and still pass a bill through the Senate.

SIEGEL: So even after tomorrow, we will not have heard the last of the debate over Obamacare and its future. That’s…

DAVIS: No, there’s a long way to go.

SIEGEL: …NPR’s Susan Davis with the news that House Republicans plan to vote on their health care bill tomorrow. Sue, thanks.

DAVIS: You bet.

Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)


No Image

WATCH: Orioles' Adam Jones Receives Ovation At Fenway After Alleged Epithets

Adam Jones walks off the field during Tuesday night’s game at Fenway Park.

Tim Bradbury/Getty Images

hide caption

toggle caption

Tim Bradbury/Getty Images

Baltimore Orioles player Adam Jones received an extended ovation from fans at Boston’s Fenway Park on Tuesday night, one day after he says he heard racists taunts from fans at the same park.

Jones, who is African-American, also said someone in the stands threw a bag of peanuts at him Monday night.

At Tuesday’s game, many fans applauded and stood up as Jones went to bat in the first inning. Boston pitcher Chris Sale stepped off the mound to let Jones relish the moment and some Red Sox players also applauded.

Adam Jones was given a standing ovation before his first at bat on Tuesday at Fenway. ??? pic.twitter.com/LsGr71JzYz

— TotalProSports (@TotalProSports) May 3, 2017

Before the game, Red Sox player Mookie Betts encouraged fans to stand up for Jones with a tweet. “Fact: I’m Black too,” he tweeted.

Fact: I’m Black too ??Literally stand up for @SimplyAJ10 tonight and say no to racism. We as @RedSox and @MLB fans are better than this.

— Mookie Betts (@mookiebetts) May 2, 2017

“I just appreciate what they did,” Jones told reporters just outside the visitor’s clubhouse after the game. “I’ve never on the road gotten any ovations or anything like that, so it just caught me off guard a little bit. … I just wanted to get in the box and get on with the game.”

Jones called the heckling one of the worst experiences of his 12-year major league career. It was an unusually raucous night at the game — 34 fans, including the one who allegedly threw peanuts at Jones, were ejected from the park.

The incidents prompted the Red Sox to quickly apologize. “We take Adam Jones at his word,” team president Sam Kennedy said. “That is unacceptable what happened and we’re going to take steps to address it.” It’s unclear exactly what steps the Red Sox will take, but the team is considering a possible lifetime ban for anyone caught making racist remarks at the ballpark.

“It just shows that people live in their own world,” Jones said. “They still have their own views, obviously, and some people like to express hatred toward another person.”

Jones is not the first black professional athlete to experience racism in Boston. Even professional athletes who have called Boston home have dealt with racism during their careers. And despite efforts to change that reputation, it persists.

Gov. Charlie Baker said he didn’t think the incidents reflect a wider issue in the state. “I’ve lived here my whole life,” he said. “I take tremendous pride in the fact that Massachusetts is a state and a community that welcomes diversity.”

But Boston NAACP President Tanisha Sullivan said what Jones experienced was “a reflection of the worst of the city of Boston.”

“It illuminates this subculture that exists here in and around the city of Boston, where someone would believe that they could go to Fenway park in a crowded stadium and use this racially charged language and not be held accountable,” she said.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)