Tag Archives: business

Morality Over Monsanto: Part 2: Are you ready to take action?

In covering the environmental abuses of Monsanto one who is cognizant of the special relationship we have with the Earth cannot help but be repulsed by them. There is not one redeeming quality about them. They are arrogant, heartless, greedy, manipulative power brokers that use people, governments, organizations, consumers, and anyone else who gets in their way of domination. It is a domination of the global seed and pesticide market that is now bringing our Earth to a biodiversity and pollution crisis and a climate change precipice. They have destroyed and defiled the environment with impunity, contaminated natural seeds with unstable toxic bacteria seeds, deforested our planet to make corn for gas tanks and GM soy that brings poverty and disease to places such as Paraguay, Argentina, Mexico, India, etc., (where farmers have been committing suicides in massive numbers due to economic ruin brought on by BT cotton.) They toxified our water with PCBS, Dioxin, and Round Up, strong armed organic farmers, deceived consumers through collusion with the FDA to keep our food with GMO ingredients unlabelled, intimidated scientists who sought answers and who disseminated the answers when they found about just what their GMOs are made of and their effects, and then claim to be part of the “sustainable agriculture” movement that is looking to feed the world. It is one of the greatest and most sinister hoaxes perpetrated upon the world. In the more than one hundred years they have been in business, Monsanto has not made one product that has benefitted the Earth. From saccharin, to aspartame, to Agent Orange, to PCBs, to genetically modified organisms, there has been one and only one motive: profit at any cost. And where we stand now that cost is the biodiversity of our planet and control of the very seeds and water that give us life. It is a control we cannot give up as it would then mean the loss not only of food sovereignty but our very freedom as human beings. But even in the midst of all of this there are some bright spots. A federal court in California upheld a ban on the planting of their GM alfalfa seeds due to its being deregulated by APHIS without a proper EIS, and the planting of BT brinjal in India was denied by their environmental minister. There have been other bright spots as well from Ireland, to Poland, to even Haiti, where a seed shipment sent by Monsanto was protested with a symbolic burning of their seeds taking place just this month. Farmers all over the globe have seen the empty promises, high costs, environmental effects and deceptions of Monsanto and GMOs and are now reacting. Even farmers in our own country are speaking out against their tactics and calling for a return to sustainable agriculture in response to a Department of Justice investigation of Monsanto and seed monopolies and their business practices. And yesterday, the USSC in a ruling being spun by Monsanto, while reversing the Federal court ban on GM alfalfa did uphold it could not be planted until deregulation and a full EIS was completed, and also acknowledged that farmers have the right to challenge “gene flow” (transgenic contamination) from GM crops to their organic crops if they can show harm. That is truly precedent setting. So the question is, will this set a precedent for review of their other “seeds” such as BT corn, GM soy, BT cotton, sugarbeets, canola, etc.? We can only hope. Hopeful signs that more are waking up to the deceptions and doing the necessary research to become aware of what they are eating and modifying their habits to be more healthy. The one organization that is helping tremendously in that is the Institute for Responsible Technology headed by Jeffrey Smith, a world renowned GMO activist. They have just put together a Non GMO website that gives you top information on how to avoid GMOs and eat more healthy thus perpetuating the 5% of American consumers it will take to get to a tipping point of awareness to begin turning the tide against Monsanto and all other companies using GMOs as a profit motive while compromising our food safety in the process. This is the one true way we can all be activists: through the wallet. http://www.responsibletechnology.org Of course, I have no illusions about the clout they carry as well regarding the DOJ investigation nor the court cases coming up involving Monsanto's link to PCB poisoning. A recent trial regarding PCB contamination of Anniston Alabama and the ensuing deaths and disease from it wound up in Monsanto's favor with those sickened left with little justice for their suffering. The major clout Monsanto carries with Washington DC even now under the Obama administration and the Vilsack USDA and their company's known methods of bribery leaves one wary of such attempts to hold them accountable for their many crimes against humanity and their agricultural and environmental terrorism. After all, it was the FDA under the auspices of the last four administrations that gave them free reign over our environment and health by determining that their organisms were the same (principle of substantial equivalence) as all other food in order for them to circumvent labeling, when as we now see that is far from the truth. It was the USSC that gave them the patent to life itself thus opening the door to Intellectual Property Rights that now challenge indigenous peoples and the natural breeding of seeds for climate change tolerance which they can now purchase in biopiracy scams. In simple terms, our planet has been sold to the highest bidder in determining what we will plant, and what we will eat without our consent. That is not only undemocratic, that is immoral and criminal. However, as with any crisis we are now in regarding our planet we have one hope: ourselves. Our consciences, our morals, our reasoning, our logic, our love for our families, our love for the Earth, our sense of justice, and yes, even our spirituality that tells us in line with the scientific facts as presented to us that we in large numbers have the ability to take back our food, our planet, and our futures. So even in the face of what Monsanto has been able to accomplish I remain hopeful of the global food movement having major victories in the coming year. But we must remain focused, cohesive, determined, and yes, even angry. We must remain so for the following: For the farmers of India and their families, especially the widows of those whose lives were cut short by BT cotton. For the American farmers whose farms and livelihoods are under threat from Monsanto's strong arm tactics in their desire to control all seed. For the deforested lands of South America stripped to create a monoculture that has left many poor farmers poorer and sicker in the wake of greed over sustainability, and exacerbated a climate crisis no cap and trade scheme can heal. For the soil of our Earth, its skin, that cries out for help to us as it is eroded, stripped, abused, and toxified for profit. For our water, polluted, toxic, acidic, filled with pesticides and run off as the cost of industrial agriculture. For our children, who deserve a cleaner, safer, more natural world to live in. Let this next year be the year to truly hold Monsanto as an example of all of those things to be the first step in our moral imperative to save this planet and in turn the human species and all others we have so cavalierly dismissed in our desire to be masters of the universe. More to come. added by: JanforGore

Daniel Radcliffe To Star In ‘All Quiet On The Western Front’

‘Harry Potter’ actor will play young German soldier fighting in World War I. By Adam Rosenberg Daniel Radcliffe Photo: Alberto E. Rodriguez/ Getty Images Daniel Radcliffe is set to move from the magical classrooms at Hogwarts to the mud-spattered trenches of World War I. The “Harry Potter” star, who only recently wrapped shooting on the two-part series conclusion of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” is looking at another literary adaptation for his next film: Erich Maria Remarque’s novel “All Quiet on the Western Front.” Variety reports that the “Potter” star will lead the “All Quiet” cast as Paul Baumer, a young German soldier who is sent with his friends to fight in the trenches. Unlike other popular war stories, Remarque’s book eschews themes of heroism and instead presents a bleak tale of young men whose daily lives vacillate between crushing boredom and mortal terror, examining the effects such an existence has on their psyches. “All Quiet on the Western Front” has been adapted for big screens before, as well as for television and radio. Indeed, Lewis Mileston’s 1930 version won an Oscar for Best Picture (becoming the first non-musical talkie to do so), leaving this latest attempt with quite a lot to live up to. Radcliffe comes to the project after falling for the script, which comes from Ian Stokell and Lesley Paterson, who are also producing under the Sliding Down Rainbows Entertainment banner. The “Potter” star is currently committed to performing on Broadway in “How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying”; “All Quiet” shooting will kick off in spring 2012, after Radcliffe finishes with his theater commitments in 2011. Radcliffe might be finished in front of the film cameras for “Deathly Hallows,” but he’ll spend the next year-plus posing for press photos as he promotes the two-part series closer. The first of the two films hits theaters this year, on November 19, and the conclusion follows months later, on July 15, 2011. Check out everything we’ve got on “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1.” For breaking news, celebrity columns, humor and more — updated around the clock — visit MTVMoviesBlog.com .

See more here:
Daniel Radcliffe To Star In ‘All Quiet On The Western Front’

Titans 1st Round Pick Derrick Morgan Arrested For Driving On Suspended License

Darron Cummings – AP View full size photo

See the rest here:
Titans 1st Round Pick Derrick Morgan Arrested For Driving On Suspended License

Magazine: The Nation’s Pitching Mounds: Are We Prepared If They Suddenly Erupt With Molten Lava?

The rest is here:
Magazine: The Nation’s Pitching Mounds: Are We Prepared If They Suddenly Erupt With Molten Lava?

WaPo Slams Rasmussen’s Professionalism, But Doesn’t Tell Readers His Critics Are Liberals

The Washington Post ran a story slamming pollster Scott Rasmussen on Thursday on the front page of the Style section. Political reporter Jason Horowitz earnestly channeled the Democratic spin from the story’s beginning: ASBURY PARK, N.J. — Here is a fun fact for those in the political polling orthodoxy who liken Scott Rasmussen to a conjurer of Republican-friendly numbers: He works above a paranormal bookstore crowded with Ouija boards and psychics on the Jersey Shore. Here’s the fact they find less amusing: From his unlikely outpost, Rasmussen has become a driving force in American politics. Democrats surely dislike how Rasmussen’s polls (like this week’s showing Harry Reid losing by 11 points) affect the optimism of their donors and activists. But are his numbers accurate? The Post wanted its readers to know this guy Rasmussen was a scary conservative: he played guitar in a band in high school in Massachusetts called “Rebel’s Confederacy” (racist?!) and he quotes the Bible: He graduated from DePauw University and moved to Charlotte. There he married, started a family and became a devout Methodist. He is given to quoting Scripture, including the principle: “Let every man be quick to listen, but slow to speak, and slow to anger.” (James 1:19.) In the mid-1990s, Rasmussen had discovered the business model of automated polling, and folks he polled heard a recording of his wife reading poll questions. In 1998, heavy traffic crashed his site when Rush Limbaugh unexpectedly told listeners to visit. Two years later, in August 2000, Bill O’Reilly invited him onto his show. He wrote columns for the conservative site WorldNetDaily in 2000. In 2001, he wrote a book advocating the privatization of Social Security. But are his numbers accurate? The pull quote in the story as it continued on page C-9 attacked his professionalism for his newer methods: “The firm manages to violate nearly everything I was taught what a good survey should do.” — Mark Blumenthal, a founder of Pollster.com, speaking about Rasmussen Reports Then there’s this hilarious attack from Daily Kos veteran Nate Silver, soon, a new hire of the New York Times: He “faults Rasmussen for polling only likely voters, which reduces the pool to ‘political junkies.'” Adds Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center in agreement: “It paints a picture of an electorate that is potentially madder than it really is…And potentially more conservative than it really is.” Would it be wiser for a political candidate to focus on wooing unlikely voters? Jason Horowitz is dishonest for suggesting it’s Rasmussen versus the professionals — and not disclosing that Mark Blumenthal is identified correctly in others stories as a “Democratic pollster,” and not disclosing Nate Silver came from the hard-left Daily Kos, and not even hinting that the Pew Research Center is deeply invested in a series of liberal causes, and whose newest poll (also out Thursday) coos that “The president gets an enthusiastic thumbs up from the world (with the notable exception of the U.S.) for how he has handled the economic crisis.” They can even admit Rasmussen’s critics are liberals in the headline on C-9: “For some, pollster Rasmussen is a minus man.” For some? GOP pollster Ed Goeas, identified as a “Republican pollster,” defends Rasmussen but suggests he take on a Democrat to “balance his analysis” (or to please The Washington Post?) Rasmussen has a “conservative constituency” of Fox, The Washington Times, and the Drudge Report, adds pollster John Zogby insists. No one in the Post is going to suggest that perhaps a pollster for The Washington Post or The New York Times is a “liberal constituency.” How transparently odd. Just like the liberal media elite on a daily basis. For them, the playing field cannot be described as conservative professionals vs. liberal professionals — it’s upstart conservative peasants with pitchforks versus the established objective professionals who define the standards for everyone. Of course, Horowitz left out of his Rasmussen profile his latest poll showing how angry the public is with the media , that two-thirds of respondents are angry and say reporters slant the news to favor candidates they want to win. Instead, we get leftists dismissing Rasmussen numbers as “sorcery” that leads to conservative media bias:   Rasmussen said he is simply a “scorekeeper,” but his spike in clout has sharpened skepticism about how he tracks the dip in Democratic fortunes. Frustrated liberals suspect sorcery. Markos Moulitsas, the creator of the Daily Kos blog, has accused the pollster of “setting the narrative that Democrats are doomed” with numbers that fuel hours of Republican-boosting on talk radio and cable. Pardon conservatives if they might find it laughable that Markos Moulitsas as a polling professional, considering he concocts smear polls of “self-identified Republicans.” But are Rasmussen’s numbers accurate? The caption beneath Rasmussen’s picture brings the disturbing news for liberals: “Scott Rasmussen’s polling detected the groundswell for Scott Brown, who won the special election in Massachusetts for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy, earlier than most competitors.” That’s what has them worried about his ability to be a “driving force.”

Go here to see the original:
WaPo Slams Rasmussen’s Professionalism, But Doesn’t Tell Readers His Critics Are Liberals

Perez Hilton to Joy Behar: I’m an Idiot, Miley Cyrus is an "Oversexualized Creature"

I used poor judgment and probably should not have posted the photo. That’s all Perez Hilton had to say about this week’s Miley Cyrus upskirt picture scandal, in which the blogger Tweeted an image that suggested the 17-year old singer wasn’t wearing underwear. Utter that one sentence and the controversy would go away. But this is Perez Hilton, of course. He craves controversy and the attention it brings. Therefore, during his appearance on The Joy Behar Show last night, he spent almost eight minutes defending his actions, saying of the pic: “It was showing Miley getting out of the car in an un-ladylike fashion. That was funny and keeping with her shocking behavior of late.” Perez Hilton Interview Perez went on to explain his side of the situation. He said: He did not pixelate or photoshop anything. He did not take the photo or even publish it originally. He simply linked to another website and that website was the one that took the picture down. He’d do it again and would publish the image on his blog right now if he had a deal with the agency that snapped it. It’s “insulting to children” to insinuate that a shot of Cyrus exiting a car, without any nudity actually depicted, would be considered child pornography. Hilton disagreed with Behar that the entire incident is “none of his business” because he said Miley was at a video shoot with paparazzi around and has “been around the block” often enough to understand what happens when cameras are around. As for the talk that he posted a picture of a 17-year old’s vagina, Perez scoffed: “I can’t help it if America has a dirty imagination.” Ironically, this comment makes him just like Cyrus. Both tease the public with sexual images and innuendo, and then play innocent when called out for it. They even turn into victims and blame us for making such supposedly wild assumptions. That’s exactly what Miley did HERE . In response to Miley’s assertion that Hilton is just some idiot , Perez agreed 100%. But said he’s having fun. He also referred to Cyrus as “oversexualized” and said she’s “turned herself into this creature,” bringing up her stage attire and recent incidents, such as Miley’s videotaped lap dance for Adam Shankman . Watch the video above and decide: Who is more annoying, Cyrus or Hilton? It’s a tough question, we know.

Go here to see the original:
Perez Hilton to Joy Behar: I’m an Idiot, Miley Cyrus is an "Oversexualized Creature"

Goooooooooaaaal!…Goal…goal…

Maybe he just doesn’t understand the object of the game.

Follow this link:
Goooooooooaaaal!…Goal…goal…

WaPo Slams Rasmussen’s Professionalism, But Doesn’t Tell Readers His Critics Are Liberals

The Washington Post ran a story slamming pollster Scott Rasmussen on Thursday on the front page of the Style section. Political reporter Jason Horowitz earnestly channeled the Democratic spin from the story’s beginning: ASBURY PARK, N.J. — Here is a fun fact for those in the political polling orthodoxy who liken Scott Rasmussen to a conjurer of Republican-friendly numbers: He works above a paranormal bookstore crowded with Ouija boards and psychics on the Jersey Shore. Here’s the fact they find less amusing: From his unlikely outpost, Rasmussen has become a driving force in American politics. Democrats surely dislike how Rasmussen’s polls (like this week’s showing Harry Reid losing by 11 points) affect the optimism of their donors and activists. But are his numbers accurate? The Post wanted its readers to know this guy Rasmussen was a scary conservative: he played guitar in a band in high school in Massachusetts called “Rebel’s Confederacy” (racist?!) and he quotes the Bible: He graduated from DePauw University and moved to Charlotte. There he married, started a family and became a devout Methodist. He is given to quoting Scripture, including the principle: “Let every man be quick to listen, but slow to speak, and slow to anger.” (James 1:19.) In the mid-1990s, Rasmussen had discovered the business model of automated polling, and folks he polled heard a recording of his wife reading poll questions. In 1998, heavy traffic crashed his site when Rush Limbaugh unexpectedly told listeners to visit. Two years later, in August 2000, Bill O’Reilly invited him onto his show. He wrote columns for the conservative site WorldNetDaily in 2000. In 2001, he wrote a book advocating the privatization of Social Security. But are his numbers accurate? The pull quote in the story as it continued on page C-9 attacked his professionalism for his newer methods: “The firm manages to violate nearly everything I was taught what a good survey should do.” — Mark Blumenthal, a founder of Pollster.com, speaking about Rasmussen Reports Then there’s this hilarious attack from Daily Kos veteran Nate Silver, soon, a new hire of the New York Times: He “faults Rasmussen for polling only likely voters, which reduces the pool to ‘political junkies.'” Adds Scott Keeter of the Pew Research Center in agreement: “It paints a picture of an electorate that is potentially madder than it really is…And potentially more conservative than it really is.” Would it be wiser for a political candidate to focus on wooing unlikely voters? Jason Horowitz is dishonest for suggesting it’s Rasmussen versus the professionals — and not disclosing that Mark Blumenthal is identified correctly in others stories as a “Democratic pollster,” and not disclosing Nate Silver came from the hard-left Daily Kos, and not even hinting that the Pew Research Center is deeply invested in a series of liberal causes, and whose newest poll (also out Thursday) coos that “The president gets an enthusiastic thumbs up from the world (with the notable exception of the U.S.) for how he has handled the economic crisis.” They can even admit Rasmussen’s critics are liberals in the headline on C-9: “For some, pollster Rasmussen is a minus man.” For some? GOP pollster Ed Goeas, identified as a “Republican pollster,” defends Rasmussen but suggests he take on a Democrat to “balance his analysis” (or to please The Washington Post?) Rasmussen has a “conservative constituency” of Fox, The Washington Times, and the Drudge Report, adds pollster John Zogby insists. No one in the Post is going to suggest that perhaps a pollster for The Washington Post or The New York Times is a “liberal constituency.” How transparently odd. Just like the liberal media elite on a daily basis. For them, the playing field cannot be described as conservative professionals vs. liberal professionals — it’s upstart conservative peasants with pitchforks versus the established objective professionals who define the standards for everyone. Of course, Horowitz left out of his Rasmussen profile his latest poll showing how angry the public is with the media , that two-thirds of respondents are angry and say reporters slant the news to favor candidates they want to win. Instead, we get leftists dismissing Rasmussen numbers as “sorcery” that leads to conservative media bias:   Rasmussen said he is simply a “scorekeeper,” but his spike in clout has sharpened skepticism about how he tracks the dip in Democratic fortunes. Frustrated liberals suspect sorcery. Markos Moulitsas, the creator of the Daily Kos blog, has accused the pollster of “setting the narrative that Democrats are doomed” with numbers that fuel hours of Republican-boosting on talk radio and cable. Pardon conservatives if they might find it laughable that Markos Moulitsas as a polling professional, considering he concocts smear polls of “self-identified Republicans.” But are Rasmussen’s numbers accurate? The caption beneath Rasmussen’s picture brings the disturbing news for liberals: “Scott Rasmussen’s polling detected the groundswell for Scott Brown, who won the special election in Massachusetts for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy, earlier than most competitors.” That’s what has them worried about his ability to be a “driving force.”

Read more here:
WaPo Slams Rasmussen’s Professionalism, But Doesn’t Tell Readers His Critics Are Liberals

Hanson Have Some Advice For Justin Bieber, Miley Cyrus

‘If you don’t define who you are … then that can take away from everything you do in the future,’ Zac Hanson tells MTV News. By Jocelyn Vena Hanson Photo: MTV News In the ’90s, boy bands like ‘NSYNC and Backstreet Boys and pop princesses like Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera ruled the charts. Hanson have managed to maintain a career long past that era and their breakout single, “MMMBop”; just last week, they released the new album Shout It Out. So do Hanson have any sage advice for the latest crop of pop stars, including Justin Bieber, the Jonas Brothers and Miley Cyrus? “I think the thing about all those artists is, the idea of defining who you really want to be and being that,” Zac Hanson told MTV News on Wednesday, just a day after their canceled show with Drake in New York. “In a lot of these cases, this whole idea of movies and music and TV shows and multimedia whatever, that’s great, but it can also be very confusing,” he continued. “And also, for your audience, if you don’t define who you are or what you represent pretty quickly, then that can take away from everything you do in the future and cheapen any real art or any real thing you want to say.” Taylor Hanson agreed with his little brother’s advice, adding, “Really for anybody, regardless of whether you start young or do pop or rock, surviving in the business of entertainment is difficult. I mean, 90 percent of people don’t succeed. You just have to identify what it is you do and know that you’re always going to be the one who cares the most.” That means you should trust yourself over label execs, the brothers say. “Record labels, producers, TV writers, the whole nine yards, they can go onto another projects, but it’s your life, it’s your name,” Isaac Hanson said. “So in 15 years from now, 20 years from now, it’s going to be on your record.” What do you think of Hanson’s advice for the pop up-and-comers? Let us know in the comments! Related Artists Hanson Miley Cyrus Justin Bieber

See more here:
Hanson Have Some Advice For Justin Bieber, Miley Cyrus

Laura Robson has attitude to excel at Wimbledon says Lindsay Davenport

• Laura Robson backed to rise above interview controversy • ‘I like her desire and her work ethic’ If anyone starts singing Tell Laura I Love Her in the women’s locker room at Wimbledon this year, it will be laced with sarcasm. Only her natural charm enabled Laura Robson, the 16-year-old Londoner, to limit the damage of her recent Vogue interview, in which she dismissed some of the girls on the circuit as “sluts” who “go with every guy”, a remark for which she apologised and insisted was taken out of context. The nudge-nudge sniggers doing the rounds in tennis subsequently questioned not the veracity of the allegation but why it was exclusively trained on heterosexual activity. Remarks such as, “Do you think we will have an all-lesbian final this summer?” raised the usual “fnah-fnah”. The tennis circuit may be marketed as a whistle-clean marketing opportunity, but it is as prone to human frailty, back-biting and hypocrisy as any other walk of life. Shenanigans aside, the substance of Robson’s observation revealed more about her own upright views and Home Counties upbringing than it did about her intended targets. It also showed a steeliness of character and independence that might stand her in good stead for as long as she lasts in the tournament – not to mention her career – against some of these flighty young things from backgrounds of lesser righteousness. Laura is a wild card here in more ways than one. Lindsay Davenport also brought with her to the imposing halls of Wimbledon the values and habits of a spotless middle-class background, winning the championship from nowhere and gracing the top of the game earlier this decade with the sort of low-key Californian charm that almost went unnoticed. “I’m not that interesting!” she insists. “I’m just very normal, on an even keel. I never had tons of friends on tour. I was quiet and went about my business. To be honest, it wasn’t a huge story to tell.” But Davenport, who just turned 34 and returns to Wimbledon this year in the mixed doubles with Bob Bryan, alongside her broadcasting duties with the BBC, recognises the pressures on young players and sounded a warning for Robson and the other “poppets”. “Some of them can’t handle the world in general. A great example is Nicole Vaidisova, such a great player. Whether it was the money or the lifestyle, she had a meltdown. It’s a shame she’s still not out there winning. There are a lot of components you have to be comfortable with: winning, losing, the media, travelling, the people around you. Not a lot of players have done it successfully for a long period of time.” The pressures on Robson, she says, are multiplied by the expectations of a nation, especially at Wimbledon. “I couldn’t imagine being from a country where all the pressure is on a particular player. I don’t know if I could have handled it, the way the media would have been so intense, especially on a teenage girl like Laura – and I also didn’t have people following me or reporting on my every move.” So, where did this nice, unblemished survivor of the system, a former world No1, think Robson’s tennis was at the moment? “Hmm … developing. She’s obviously got a pretty long way to go to get up to the top but, from everything I’ve heard about her, she works very hard. From what I’ve seen about her as a player, she’s trying to develop a bigger weapon – and it does take a certain amount of time to get comfortable on the tour – comfortable winning matches, managing your schedule. “But she’s great. I like her attitude, I like her desire and her work ethic. She also has to learn how to lose. Some times you lose more than you win. It’s about handling losses and trying to turn them into positives. You get out into the big leagues and there’s a period of adjustment to be made. You’ve got to handle it.” Davenport says, though, that the younger girls are finding it tougher than they used to – partly because older players are extending their careers, notably Justine Henin and Kim Clijsters, not to mention the Williams sisters. “I read a stat that [Caroline] Wozniacki is the only teenager in the top 25. We have a couple who just turned 20. In the history of women’s tennis, it never happened. There’s always been someone 16 or 17 that’s burst on to the scene and gone to the top. “The sport has become more athletic, so it favours some players later in their development. They’re stronger, faster, not just blessed with phenomenal skills. It’s nice to see some players in their 30s [doing well], because players I grew up with pretty much all retired in their 20s. It shows a lot of people in other sports that we can still play, even though we’re a little bit older.” And wiser, maybe. Laura Robson Wimbledon Tennis Kevin Mitchell guardian.co.uk

Originally posted here:
Laura Robson has attitude to excel at Wimbledon says Lindsay Davenport