Former Red Sox First Baseman Bill Buckner Dies At 69

Boston Red Sox first baseman Bill Buckner is shown in March 1986.
AP
hide caption
toggle caption
AP
Being remembered for a mistake is hard. Being the living symbol of 86 years of futility is just about impossible.
But that’s exactly what Bill Buckner was to Boston Red Sox fans for nearly 20 years.
Buckner, an All-Star and Gold Glove baseball player who played in the major leagues for 22 years, died Monday. He was 69.
“After battling the disease of Lewy Body Dementia, Bill Buckner passed away early the morning of May 27th surrounded by his family,” according to a statement from his family shared by the Red Sox. “Bill fought with courage and grit as he did all things in life. Our hearts are broken but we are at peace knowing he is in the arms of his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”
Buckner built up an impressive record as a player, with more than 1,000 runs scored during his career. He was an All-Star in 1981 while playing for the Chicago Cubs. But Buckner found it hard to shake a mistake he made during game six of the 1986 World Series against the New York Mets.
The Sox had a two-run lead, and were one strike away from winning their first World Series championship since 1918. But the Mets clawed back from the brink to tie the game in the 10th inning. With a runner on second base, a base hit would give the Mets the win and force a game seven.
It turns out they only needed the most famous error in baseball history.
YouTube
Mets player Mookie Wilson hit a grounder toward first base — as the announcer called it, “a little roller up along first.” Buckner ran toward the ball, took a wide stance, reached down to scoop it up — and the ball rolled right between his legs.
“It gets through Buckner!” the announcer says, shocked, as a Met crosses home plate. “The Mets win it!”
The error forced a game seven, which the Mets won. And the error turned Bill Buckner into New England’s scapegoat.
“People always ask me what I thought about when I missed the ground ball,” he told NPR in 2011. “My first thought was, ‘Wow, we get to play in the seventh game of the World Series … We’ll get ’em tomorrow.’ “
Buckner played for a few more years, retiring in 1990 and moving his family to Meridian, Idaho — where most people hadn’t heard of him, or his World Series gaffe. It wasn’t until 2004 that Buckner finally found redemption, once the Red Sox finally won their first World Series in 86 years.
Time and winning heal all sports wounds — and the fans and media were no longer so angry at Buckner. When Buckner returned to Fenway Park for the 2008 Red Sox home opener, he was greeted with open arms — and a two-minute ovation.
“It was awesome,” Buckner told NPR. “The real cool thing about it was the fans … were sincere,” he said. “I think they understood all the crap I went through, and they were always good to me.”
Perhaps the fans’ sentiment was best summed up by the the next day’s cover headline in the Boston Herald: “All is Forgiven.”
‘American Soil’ Is Increasingly Foreign Owned

A loaded combine during a late corn harvest in Hamilton, Ohio.
John Minchillo/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
John Minchillo/AP
American soil.
Those are two words that are commonly used to stir up patriotic feelings. They are also words that can’t be be taken for granted, because today nearly 30 million acres of U.S. farmland are held by foreign investors. That number has doubled in the past two decades, which is raising alarm bells in farming communities.
When the stock market tanked during the last recession, foreign investors began buying up big swaths of U.S. farmland. And because there are no federal restrictions on the amount of land that can be foreign-owned, it’s been left up to individual states to decide on any limitations.
It’s likely that even more American land will end up in foreign hands, especially in states with no restrictions on ownership. With the median age of U.S. farmers at 55, many face retirement with no prospect of family members willing to take over. The National Young Farmers Coalition anticipates that two-thirds of the nation’s farmland will change hands in the next few decades.
“Texas is kind of a free-for-all, so they don’t have a limit on how much land can be owned,” say’s Ohio Farm Bureau’s Ty Higgins, “You look at Iowa and they restrict it — no land in Iowa is owned by a foreign entity.”
Ohio, like Texas, also has no restrictions, and nearly half a million acres of prime farmland are held by foreign-owned entities. In the northwestern corner of the state, below Toledo, companies from the Netherlands alone have purchased 64,000 acres for wind farms.
There are two counties in this region with the highest concentration of foreign-owned farmland — more than 41,000 acres each. One of those is Paulding County, where three wind farms straddle the Ohio-Indiana line.
Higgins says that this kind of consumption of farmland by foreign entities is starting to cause concern. “One of the main reasons that we’re watching this … is because once a foreign entity buys up however many acres they want, Americans might never be able to secure that land again. So, once we lose it, we may lose it for good.”
His other concern is that every acre of productive farmland that is converted over to something other than agriculture, is an acre of land that no longer produces food. That loss is felt from the state level all the way down to rural communities, where one in six Ohioans has ties to agriculture.
Angela Huffman is a 6th-generation farmer in Wyandot County, which, along with Paulding County, has over 41,000 acres of foreign-owned farmland. Her modest, two-story white farmhouse has been in her family for almost 200 years. Her grandfather was the last person to actively farm the land here. When he got out of of farming due to declining markets, none of his five children wanted to take over, and the cropland is now leased.
But Huffman, a young millennial who lives here with her mother, wants to try to keep the farm going and revive her family heritage.
Walking out to the barn, a huge white Great Pyrenees dog watches over a small flock of sheep. Huffman says she’s worried about the effects of foreign land ownership on her rural community — which she describes as similar to Walmart pushing local businesses out of the market.
“Right out my back door here, Chinese-owned Smithfield Foods, the largest pork producer in the world, has recently bought out a couple grain elevators,” Huffman says, pointing across the field behind her house, “basically extracting the wealth out of the community.”
To be fair, U.S. farmers and corporations also invest in overseas agriculture, owning billions of dollars of farmland from Australia to Brazil, but the Smithfield Food buyout has really raised concerns with American farmers. As part of that 2013 sale, a Chinese company now owns 146,000 acres of prime U.S. farmland.
Back in the Huffman farmhouse, Joe Maxwell is typing on a laptop at the kitchen table. Maxwell is a fourth generation farmer from Missouri. He and Huffman are part of the Organization for Competitive Markets, an advocacy group of farmers and ranchers across the nation.
Maxwell points to the Smithfield Foods elevators across the field: “The money that those elevators used to make stayed within the community. Today the money those elevators make, will go into the pocket of someone thousands of thousands of miles away. This is going on across America.”
Maxwell is concerned that, as other states put restrictions on foreign purchases in place, Ohio in particular is being targeted. “So when they’re looking for investments in the U.S. and agriculture,” he says, “Ohio’s a great ag state and you don’t have any restrictions like other states.”
Nationwide, Canadian investors own the most farmland. In Ohio, it’s Germany, with 71,000 acres.
On the southern central part of the state, John Trimmer manages 30,000 acres of corn and soybeans for German investors. He’s been working with German families that have wanted to get into U.S. agriculture since the 1980s. “They started to buy land in Iowa and Minnesota,” Trimmer explains, “but right when they started, [Iowa and Minnesota] passed state laws which restricted foreign ownership.”
“None of them have an interest in the farm.”
Instead, the Germans turned to Ohio.
But, Trimmer says, there is a misconception about about foreign owners — that they aren’t good neighbors or good stewards of the land. What he sees is a growing divide between older family members who still live on the farm, and their children who have no interest in the family business and want to cash out the land.
“The last two farms we bought here, through an owner, her and her brothers and sisters inherited it from their mother, and none of them wanted to farm. None of them have an interest in the farm.” Trimmer explains that his German clients have established a reputation in the community for letting the tenants — often aging parents or grown children — continue to live in the houses on the farms they buy.
Sellers work directly with his German clients — instead of putting the property up on the market, the sale ensures that family members can live out their lives in the family homestead, while still getting cash value for the farmland.
Tylenol For Infants And Children Is The Same. Why Does 1 Cost 3 Times More?

Infants’ Tylenol comes with a dosing syringe, while Children’s Tylenol has a plastic cup. Both contain the same concentration of the active ingredient, acetaminophen.
Ryan Kellman/NPR
hide caption
toggle caption
Ryan Kellman/NPR
If you’ve ever had a little one at home with a fever, you might have noticed two options for Tylenol at the store.
There’s one for infants and one for children. They contain the same amount of medicine — 160 milligrams of acetaminophen per 5 milliliters of liquid — but the infant version costs three times more.
What gives? It turns out, there’s a backstory.
For decades, Infants’ Tylenol was stronger than the children’s version. The thinking was that you don’t want to give babies lots of liquid medicine to bring down a fever — so you can give them less if it’s stronger.
“It was three times more concentrated,” says Inma Hernandez of the University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy. Since it contained more acetaminophen, the active ingredient, she says, it made sense that it was also more expensive. “The price per milliliter was five times higher,” Hernandez says.
But there was a problem: Parents were making mistakes with dosing. Babies got sick — some even died. So in 2011, at the urging of the Food and Drug Administration, the maker of brand-name Tylenol, Johnson & Johnson, announced a change: Infants’ Tylenol would be the same concentration as Children’s Tylenol.
Now it’s the same medicine, but the price is still different.
A quick search online shows 4 ounces of Children’s Tylenol selling for $5.99, and Infants’ Tylenol also selling for $5.99, but for only 1 ounce of medicine. With many store brands of acetaminophen, it’s the same story: The infant version is generally three times more expensive than the one for children.
Kim Montagnino of Johnson & Johnson said in a statement to NPR that Infants’ Tylenol is more expensive because the bottle is more sturdy and it includes a dosing syringe, instead of a plastic cup. “These safety features of Infants’ Tylenol (dosing syringe, rigid bottle) are more expensive to manufacture than the dosing cup and bottle for Children’s Tylenol,” Montagnino wrote.
Hernandez doesn’t buy it.
“The cup versus the syringe doesn’t really explain the price difference in my opinion,” Hernandez says. “They’re really cheap because they’re just plastic. When we think of what’s expensive in a drug, it’s actually the active ingredient, and the preparation of that active ingredient in the formulation, not the plastic cup or the syringe.”
But Johnson & Johnson’s explanation makes sense to Edgar Dworsky, a consumer advocate and founder of the website Consumer World. “There’s an extra thing in the box, and extra things usually cost money,” he says.
“Think of a spray cleaner. You can buy the spray cleaner in the spray bottle, and that costs a little more money. Or you can buy the refill that gives you more ounces but it doesn’t have the sprayer on top — it’s kind of the same concept.”
But this, of course, is not a spray cleaner. It’s medicine. And parents are sensitive to marketing because the stakes are so high.
“I would certainly imagine that product-makers know that parents want to be very cautious when buying products for their kids,” Dworsky says. “Really, the lesson is — read the label. See what you’re getting for your money.”
Pediatrician Ankoor Shah at Children’s National Health System in Washington, D.C., knows how confusing all of this is for parents because he gets tons of questions from them about over-the-counter medications.
“The packaging and the dosing is not easy, it’s not simple and — personal opinion — it’s not parent-friendly,” Shah says.
For instance, Infants’ Tylenol doesn’t say on the label what the correct dosing is for a baby under age 2. It just says “ask a doctor.” Shah says he still uses a calculator to figure out how much to give a child, based on their weight, and gives slips to parents at kids’ well visits. You can also find the information from reputable sources online.
He says whether you opt for the Children’s or Infants’ bottle of acetaminophen at the store, the most important thing is to get the dosing right.
“When you start giving more acetaminophen than recommended, there are serious side effects that could happen,” he says.
The bottom line is: Know what you need. And if you need to spend that extra couple of dollars for the syringe and the special bottle to get the dosing just right, maybe the markup is worth it.
If you think you might have inadvertently overdosed a child, contact your doctor or call your local poison control center. There are 55 poison control centers across the U.S.; all of them can be reached at the same hotline number: 1-800-222-1222.