All Global News on One Page

By Gabor Rona, International Legal Director
In the last few days we’ve seen several knee jerk “I told you so” reactions to the recent decision of a federal judge to exclude torture-based evidence from terrorism suspect Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani’s trial. You’d be forgiven for thinking that the “told you so” is “this is what happens when you torture people to get evidence.” Instead, some, such as Liz Cheney, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy, and former Department of Justice official Jack Goldsmith have come to the misguided conclusion that “this is what happens when you put suspected terrorists on trial rather than simply detain them without charge or trial.”
Here’s the proof that their view is flawed: approximately 400 terrorism cases have been successfully handled by our regular federal courts since the 9/11 attacks. True, these 400 cases have not involved Guantanamo detainees. This one case does involve a former Guantanamo detainee, allegedly held in secret CIA detention where he was mistreated in interrogation. Still, it would be premature to conclude that the criminal case is doomed or that former Guantanamo detainees must be detained without trial. There is, for example, much evidence of criminal conduct of the so-called 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, that is not derived from water board-induced confessions or other forms of abuse.
Here’s another reason their view is wrong: it projects into the future the problems of our past. The Bush Administration left a legacy of arbitrary detention, torture and failures to gather proper evidence from the dark post-9/11 days when it was banking on no rules, no law, and no courts. That has all changed. In addition, the extraterritorial reach of US criminal law concerning terrorism is also, now, well established. Our intelligence, law enforcement and even military personnel are becoming increasingly cognizant of the need to gather admissible evidence to support criminal charges and trials. The FBI has clearly stated that application of Miranda warnings, a cause clbre for those critical of using civilian justice, is not an issue. Once we’re done swallowing the consequences of the Bush administration’s atrocious judgments and conduct that compromised, rather than protected national security, we should have very few, if any, cases in which persons must be detained but cannot be tried.
Detention without charge or trial is recognized and legitimate under narrow conditions applicable in armed conflict. But expanding our concept of war to cover the entire planet, without any reasonable expectation of how to define victory against an amorphous enemy in order to justify application of exceptional detention powers is exactly the wrong thing to do. We cannot solve the problems created by an administration that trashed our historic commitment to due process of law by now further trashing our historic commitment to due process of law. Detention without charge or trial is not only a ‘solution’ that merely compounds a problem, it’s one that undermines the values by which we define our society – values which, not coincidentally, enhance our security in a world where our departures from the rule of law play right into the hands of those who seek to harm us.

Follow Human Rights First on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/HumanRights1st

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Before jewelry designer Kathy Rose appeared on Bravo’s reality show competition Launch My Line, she along with her boutique, Roseark, were household names in Los Angeles among celebrities and Saudi princesses. After winning the show, Kathy’s extraordinary talent as a designer caught a lot of people’s attention.
I recently caught up with Kathy to see how life has been post the show, what new designs we can expect from her jewelry line, and how she balances it all as a designer, boutique owner, wife, and mom.
Nick Thomas: It’s been about eight months since you won Bravo’s reality show, Launch my Line. What was that experience like and what made you want to do it?
Kathy Rose: I was asked to do it by my PR, Truth Be Told PR. I felt really grateful that I was able to go on the audition, and then I was grateful that I got it, and then I was grateful that I won. I just couldn’t believe it. The whole thing was really surreal but I feel the whole lesson through it was that I kept my integrity and was like no matter what, I’m still going to be myself. I told myself that I’m not going to be somebody else and I’m not going to change my designs or anything like that and it translated. And I got really lucky with a great partner, Emil Gampe. We have his couture line, exclusive at the store.
NT: What is your current relationship with Emil Gampe? Are you working together?
KR: We’re really close and I carry his line, that’s it. We don’t do a line together but hopefully soon, we will one day.
NT: What was that moment like when your line Native Rose, went on sale on Rue La La?
KR: It was so incredible and such a dream come true. It (Native Rose) was sold out twice. It was great to have that on Rue La La.
NT: Now I read your Facebook wall that many people are trying to find out where they can buy clothes from your line. Is Native Rose something you plan on continuing to do?
KR: No, I will not be continuing Native Rose because it is something that I did with Bravo. But I have clothing from Idol Radec, which I love. We’re just getting a lot of clothing designers right now that are incredible.
NT: Why thank you. We love having Idol Radec at your store! So let’s talk about your first love, jewelry. What jewelry designs are you currently working on?
KR: So right now I’m working on an antelope series, anything that has to do with antelopes and their horns. I also have a series of emeralds, turquoise, pearls and raw diamonds set in to tribal designs.
Kathy and Rick Rose
NT: You and your husband, Rick Rose, own the exclusive boutique, Roseark, featuring your line, Kathy Rose for Roseark, as well as lines from other designers. Everyone that walks into your store, say it’s a piece of art in itself and that you have a rotating gallery. Can you tell us more about your store’s concept?
KR: It’s basically fine jewelry and fine art. It’s all mixed with all the different things that we love. All the designers are from around the world. We have, I feel, the best jewelry and the best couture gowns. And the art is incredible. The art has been something that we just really love, the fine art. Right now we’re showing Manfred Menz through December. He’s an incredible photographer, beautiful clean work. And we show Robbie Conal, who is a huge political artist with a big following. And Alison Van Pelt is great. She does a lot of blurred oil paintings.
NT: Do you and Rick personally pick each artist to exhibit?
KR: Yes, we curate the shows ourselves, we pick the artist ourselves and sometimes it will be one or the other.
Alison Van Pelt, Frida. Oil on Canvas Courtesy of Roseark
NT: You and Rick also just opened up a second Roseark boutique in Santa Monica this past summer. Why the second boutique and does this store differ in anyway from your West Hollywood location?
KR: For the second boutique, we wanted to open something for our Westside (Los Angeles) clients and it’s basically something that’s close to the beach and it’s a space that opened up and we felt like it was perfect.
NT: What has been the biggest lesson you’ve learned so far in your career?
KR: I’ve learned to keep moving forward even if the times get tough. I’ve learned that integrity and heart is everything in design. I thank my past and I’m grateful for this moment. I’ve also learned to trust my intuition. And finally, I’ve learned to let it all go and to keep moving forward.
NT: With all these various projects you’re working on, how to balance it all while being a mom and wife?
KR: I just like taking hikes and spending time with my family. That’s the biggest balance. Good therapy and just stopping to smell the roses and breathing. Just breathing. It’s an ongoing thing, just day by day really and I’m forever learning.
NT: What’s next for you and Rick?
KR: Right now we have a few film projects that are in the works. We have a separate jewelry line for Roseark happening, we’re expanding my Kathy Rose for Roseark.
NT: With launching your jewelry line, and boutique, what advice would you give to people who are considering launching their own line whether it is fashion, jewelry or anything else?
KR: Let the ego go. So many people come from ego. Learn first and it takes a lot of time. It’s not like anyone with money or anyone without money, or anyone and their mom can just do it. Learn and get inspired. Don’t copy other people. Do things from your heart that moves you and things that have meaning and intention.
NT: How would you describe your personal style?
KR: Elegance with a dash of warrior.
NT: At what point in your life did you know you wanted to be a jewelry designer?
KR: I would say when I was nine. I always liked reading through encyclopedias. I loved the G, reading about gems and garnets. The properties of stones always really moved me. Always touching the stones, they’re like talismans jewelry. So it think just that.
NT: What has been your favorite piece of jewelry you designed so far?
KR: The snake, for sure, my snake. It’s elegant, it’s sleek, it’s simple, it’s so great next to a Cartier bangle or next to your own bangle. It’s great talisman jewelry, it symbolizes change and growth and you can engrave and they’re timeless. They’re really meant to live on you.
NT: You were born in Iran. At what age did you move to the states?
KR: I was conceived in America, born in Iran and left in 1975 I would say, and just went back and forth because my dad was teaching there but have lived here [Los Angeles] since ’78.
NT: Have you been back at all?
KR: I’m so inspired by the place that I hope one day eventually, yes!
NT: What’s it like working with your husband?
KR: It is hard working with your husband and sometimes a challenge with our differences, but we make it happen. Lots of vacations! [Laughs]

Follow Nick Thomas on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/idolradec

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Assessing Barack Obama is a political Rorschach Test. If the Left sees
a man wary of rocking the boat, the Right sees a fellow who’s capsizing it.
The President is inherently centrist and non-confrontational, former
supporters contend. A cipher, going back to his Harvard Law Review
days — he’s all things to all people. Inspired on the campaign trail, he lacks
the spine to lead. Belatedly dropping a futile quest for bi-partisanship, he’s
been navigating the waters — not parting them.
Politics overwhelmed principle, these critics suggest, once reality
set in. He opposed an immediate end to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the
ban on openly gay service members, contending it would hamper
military readiness. Early in the health care battle, he bailed out on the
critical “public option” — getting nothing in return. Appointing Social Security
foe Alan Simpson to co-chair the deficit reduction committee, they say, is
asking the fox to guard the hen-house. And the financial team was packed
with one-time deregulation advocates who helped to create the crisis.
Obama was dealt the worst hand ever, his defenders maintain. Give
the man a chance. It took years to get us into this mess and will take time
to get us out. Undeterred by two wars and the Great Recession, the Chief
Executive continued to think big. He came out on top of the decades-old
push for health care reform, saved the nation from economic collapse, and
regulated fiscal predators. He also lifted the ban on stem cell research,
signed a nuclear treaty with the Soviet Union, and mandated equal pay for
women.
The Great Communicator, however, has failed to deliver the
message. Hard-fought legislative victories — monumental, if flawed –
have been painted as the excesses of Big Government. The President’s
enemies have framed the debate, transforming his “accomplishments”
into his “agenda.” The cool, cerebral leader, they charge, is out-of-touch
and elitist. Bill Clinton, no slouch in the sales department, offered some
marketing advice: Be more aggressive in telling your “story” he said.
Put “jobs” center-stage. People can’t “give credit” until they’re feeling
better.
Tapping into the fear and rage, the anti-spending Tea Party has emerged from the fringe to become a potent political force. Barreling
ahead with his “socialist” vision, Teabaggers contend, Obama is
eviscerating the Constitution. Twenty states filed suits challenging the
legality of the health care overhaul. Unemployment assistance, minimum
wage, Medicare and even the 1964 Civil Rights Act have also been called
into question.
The explosion of the radical right has less to do with the economy than
with changing demographics, says Mark Potok, Director of the Southern
Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Project. In 1970, one in five Americans
was non-white — a figure that has jumped to a third.
“While the Tea Party isn’t uniformly racist, there are, certainly, racist
strains,” Potok says. “By 2050, whites will be in the minority … not the
nation envisioned by their Christian forefathers. Obama — a black guy with
his kids — is the apotheosis of this. It’s a loss of ownership.”
It’s also the ascension of the “exotic” — the loss of traditional values.
Obama can only be understood, former Speaker of the House Newt
Gingrich said, “if you understand Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.” David
Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, predicted that the nation’s
first black president would be “a visual aid” for his ranks. More than one
million people signed a Facebook page praying for Obama’s death. Anti-
government “patriot” groups spiked 244% between 2008 and 2009.
“We the people will have our voices heard in Washington, D.C. once
again,” said Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell, whose upset win in
Delaware’s Republican primary undermined efforts to re-gain the Senate.
Scoring well in the general election, already tough, will be complicated by
old Politically Incorrect clips aired by host Bill Maher. O’Donnell admits to
being a witch, in her college days, and getting pregnant so she could sell
stem cells.
The one-time abstinence counselor was endorsed by former Vice
presidential candidate Sarah Palin, a populist powerhouse with an
impassioned following and an eye on 2012. Her picks are the most
extreme he’s seen — well to the right of Bush/Cheney, said former
Democratic Committee Chairman and Presidential candidate Howard
Dean. No matter how damaging to their long-term health, few Republicans
have taken her on.
Buoyed by the Supreme Court “Citizens United” case, corporations,
too, are coming on strong. A cadre of business interests and wealthy
individuals is legally channeling unlimited sums into electoral campaigns–
far more than their Democratic counterparts.
Sal Russo, founder of the Sacramento-based Tea Party Express,
poured more than $250,000 into O’Donnell’s media buys and raised over
$5 million for other races. The billionaire Koch brothers, Charles and
David, are, purportedly, the fiscal backbone of the Tea Party and a number
of conservative causes. And money talks. Just ask Michael Bloomberg,
who spent his way to a third term as New York City Mayor. Or ex-eBay
CEO Meg Whitman, who wrote checks for a record $119 million, running in
the California gubernatorial race.
Whatever his missteps, he’s on the right track, fans of Obama contend.
Much smarter than the opposition (and, certainly, his predecessor), he’s
making course corrections. When it comes to disenchantment, they add,
Progressives must share the blame. As star-struck as the 20-somethings,
they set themselves up for a fall. Pinning their hopes on a charismatic
newcomer, they underestimated the intransigence of Washington.
Climbing on the anti-Obama bandwagon is counterproductive, they insist.
The President may not be the dream deferred but the landscape has,
certainly, changed.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Sometimes I think the planet would be much better off without us. At least it would be much healthier.
Last week, I was eating a nice cup of New England clam chowder for lunch when a journal article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) came across my desk about a new study by Stony Brook University researchers Stephanie Talmage and Christopher Gobler.
The pair looked at how predicted increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere affect shellfish development, growth and survival. They also looked at levels that were around in preindustrial times and those we are experiencing today. What they found out was not good for the shellfish.
Suddenly my bowl of chowder took on new meaning.
The researchers used the Northern quahog, or hard clam, and the Atlantic bay scallop, two economically- and ecologically-significant shellfish. As the photos indicate, those clams and scallops that were grown in pre-industrial conditions displayed significantly faster growth and development and had higher survival rates compared to those grown in today’s conditions. In addition, the shells of “tomorrow’s shellfish” (those grown under conditions scientists predict we’ll encounter later this century) were malformed and eroded.
Clams
Scallops
But wait, there’s more! Scientists call acidification of the oceans the hidden partner of climate change. As CO2 levels rise, the water becomes more acidic and the amount of carbonate (needed to make calcium carbonate — the compound that most shellfish and corals use to build their shells and skeletons) decreases. Eventually there is so little carbonate that shells or skeletons don’t form properly or can’t form at all. Talmage and Gobler’s results suggest that current CO2 levels, which are already increasing the acidity of ocean water, may be contributing to the global decline of some shellfish.
To those who dismiss the impacts of carbon dioxide on our planet, think again. According to Gobler:
I read the study on the heels of participating in the New Green City Fair at Union Square, where some colleagues and I handed out educational materials and talked to people about our programs, which advocate a conservation ethic. At one point a guy came up to the table and tried very diligently to dismiss every point we had to make. He was much more concerned about the efficiency of production and cost effectiveness of our current industrial systems than with any sense of a need to conserve. With regards to our campaign to get power plants to update their cooling systems, he said that it really doesn’t matter if the fish around power plant water intake structures are sucked into or otherwise maimed or killed by those structures and that their impacts will be minimal on the surrounding ecosystem. As for eating less meat, he was certain that there should be a hamburger on every table and asked, if we’re so concerned about saving water what would happen to everyone’s hamburger, and besides why should anyone in New York City bother to conserve water anyway?
What???
I sighed, probably a little too audibly, reluctantly climbed up onto my soap box and told him all about how ecosystems are connected and how we get our water from a system that is up in the mountains far away from the city and how any place is subject to water shortages and droughts at any time and really, why wouldn’t you want to develop a conservation ethic? He didn’t say much, just sort of muttered, “Yeah, well, I uh… ” and wandered away.
I think the guy doesn’t like being told what to do, and he perceived that we were there to take away his personal freedoms. Thankfully, most people at the fair were more receptive, but it was a frustrating discussion to have, mostly because while he was arguing for personal freedom, he was also arguing for keeping his head in the sand (which works well for clams but not so much for people). There is just no denying that conditions on the planet are changing, and it stands to reason that many of those changes will eventually impact us, just as they do other species.
On a personal level, I’m not ready to give up chowder. Are you?
So what do we do? Scientists say that a CO2 level of 350 parts per million (ppm) is the upper limit of what is considered safe (as of August 2010 we were just below 390 ppm), where we can stabilize the planet and prevent disaster. Bill McKibben, the mastermind behind the 350 campaign, is demanding that our political leaders first acknowledge that climate change is happening, and then take actions that will bring atmospheric CO2 levels back to 350ppm, and McKibben has thousands, maybe millions, of people behind him.
Check out 350 for a list of actions you can take at the local level. In fact, Global Work Party Action Day is coming up on October 10 (10/10/10!). Check it out and find out what you can do to reduce CO2 and save the shellfish and, well, us. Because what’s good for the clams is good for the planet.

Follow Robin Madel on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/http://twitter.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

If anyone should be considered the American dean of indie animators, it would the New York-based master artist Bill Plympton. When we first met years ago, he was the political cartoonist of the Soho Weekly News — their alternative to the Village Voice’s Jules Feiffer. Once the News disappeared into the trash bin of history, Plympton applied his remarkable penciling skills to making wacky short films that, over the years, have accrued him various critical accolades, awards, nominations and the headache of being a defiantly indie spirit.
Born in Portland, Oregon, he attended the State University from ’64 to ’68, was a member of the film society and worked on the yearbook. He then transferred to the School of Visual Arts in New York City.
Plympton’s illustrations and cartoons have been in The New York Times and the weekly The Village Voice, as well as in Vogue, Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, Penthouse, and National Lampoon. His cartoon strip Plympton, which began in ’75 in the Soho Weekly News, eventually was syndicated and appeared in over 20 newspapers. His distinctive style is thoroughly recognized.
Not liking his time spent as a wage slave, Plympton has chosen to go strictly on his own, only working with others on his own terms. And with that in mind, he has been incredibly successful, garnering two short animation Oscar noms (for his 1987 animated short Your Face and a second Academy Award nom for 2005′s Guard Dog) numerous other awards, a successful self distribution business and great Chelsea-based office.When Disney came to him with an offer to work on some of their productions, he realized they would the rights to his ideas and turned them down.
Now Plympton is releasing his latest feature film, the wordless Idiots and Angels, nationally with a run in the IFC Theater here in NYC, then Los Angeles, in order to stimulate Oscar consideration after a year’s long passage through the festival circuit. It will then have national distribution and be viewable in tandem with a coffee table book of his work to come out later this year.
Q: With Idiots and Angels you’ve chosen not to apply computer animation or to slicken it up. Do you think it’s retro? Why do you continue to work with this pencil style, with this rawness? Your artwork consistently harkens back to a certain era; there’s a certain elegance to it.
BP: This is a style that I’ve been doing all my life, quite frankly. Ever since I was five years old I was always doing pencil-on-paper, and I like the cross-hatching, I like the smudging, I like the building up of the dark surfaces. So it’s really nothing revolutionary or even retro; it’s just a style that’s sort of been synonymous with Billy Plympton for a long time.
If you look at my illustrations, in that book that we’re doing you can see my illustrations in college and high school and you’ll see a lot of the similarities. It’s just a continuum of my drawing style. The pencil-on-paper I feel very comfortable with. If I was to do computer animation I would not feel comfortable. It just feels right for me, it just feels natural, and I like the way it looks. It’s different, it’s fresh, it’s evocative — I can really draw the characters out like that, and it just seems like if I tried to do another style it wouldn’t be very good.
Q: It’s almost absurd to ask what you’re trying to get across in Idiots… because it’s open-ended. Things upend each other and then there are violent reactions to that. How do you see your work evolving in both storytelling and message. What’s the continuity, and where have you gone in different directions?
BP: I think that this film in particular, Idiots and Angels, is a real departure. Most of my films are sex and violence and gags, and this film has a lot more sensitivity. It’s more psychological, it’s a lot more character driven, it’s a lot more plot driven, and there are some serious moments in there.
There are some very magical, spiritual moments, and my mother, who saw the film, who doesn’t generally like my films, was moved by it. She thought it was very religious. I’m not a religious guy but this film has some moments that are quite religious in terms of being born again and rising up to heaven and everything. Very Joseph Campbell kind of stuff.
Q: I would say you’re standing religion and philosophy on their head.
BP: I do, yeah. I try to put some humor in there. But I think that’s what’s going on. You asked about my progression – that’s what’s going on, is that I started out doing wacky gag stuff and feature films I feel are a lot more emotional and lot more personal, a lot more soulful. I think there’s a lot more depth to my films now, and that’s where I’m going. I’m starting another film right now that’s even more personality-driven and is deeper storytelling.
Q: Does it work against you to not have any dialog?
BP: No, I think it helps. For sales overseas I don’t have to do dubbing and subtitling. It’s quicker, I don’t have to do the lip sync, which is really time consuming. And also I just don’t think I’m a very good writer of dialog. I prefer to tell a story with visuals, with gestures and actions and responses and close-ups of the face. You can get a lot of information that way.
Q: You’re the dean of American independent animation.
BP: What’s interesting is that now you’re seeing a lot of people in the States looking at my films and saying, “I can do that too.” They’re inspired by my record. And so a lot of it, like Sita Sings the Blues, My Dog Tulip, Queer Duck, now these are people who are making their films on their own.
Q: Or even on a European level, like The Triplets of Belleville (from 2003, directed by Sylvain Chomet — which was nominated for an Oscar). And Persepolis (directed by Marjane Satrapi, released in 2007, and was nominated for an Academy Award). I mean there are a lot of films now. So it’s not such a weird thought to be qualifying for an Oscar.
BP: No. Well last year The Secret of the Kells got nominated. So I figure if The Secret of the Kells can get in, maybe I have a shot.
Q: How many feature-length films have you made?
BP: I’ve made nine. Six animated and three live-action.
Q: What did you do that was live-action?
BP: I did J. Lyle, back in 1993, I believe. I did Guns on the Clackamas, which just came out on DVD, and that’s a really good film. That’s getting really good reviews. And then I did a documentary on Walt Curtis. So three live-action films. None of them did very well. I think the Walt Curtis film may break even. That’s about it.
Q: I guess it was the logical decision to go from paper to computer.
BP: Well no, it’s still on paper.
Q: But it’s all digitally projected…
BP: The big switch over was from Hair High, for which I did the drawings on paper. We Xeroxed the drawings onto cells, and then painted the cells. Now I do the drawings on paper, same old way I did it before; then we scan them and then we color them on computer rather than cells.
Q: Is it that much faster?
BP: It’s faster, more versatile, and cheaper. And it looks better too, it looks better than shooting it on Xeroxed copies. So I’m very happy with it. The cost of Hair High was about $400,000; the cost of this film was about $130,000.
Q: How many drawings do you actually make?
BP: Well around 30,000 for Idiots and Angels. It’s about a hundred drawings a day, which is not so bad.
Q: You don’t get carpel tunnel?
BP: Oh no it’s very relaxing. It’s therapeutic.
Q: Do you think you’re a little crazy?
BP: No I’m very normal actually. Boringly normal.
Q: And you’re not a bit of a risqu — at least with your work?
BP: No. Nope.
Q: You’ve almost become insufferably normal?
BP: The films manifest my weirdness. In my real life I’m pretty normal.
Q: Have you ever thought to collaborate with anyone?
BP: No. I’ve always had trouble with that because people don’t generally understand my kind of humor and my kind of storytelling. I think what I’m doing is kind of unique, and if I could find somebody who would do it, they would probably charge a lot of money for it, and I just don’t have money to pay people.
Q: I would love to see you with Jonathan Lethem or David Sedaris.
BP: Well they have agents, and their agents would want a big chunk of the finished film. Actually quite frankly, I’m very happy working the way I am. I like making the films on my own progress without a lot of pressure or a lot of people changing my ideas. Certainly they’re not big blockbusters — they’re not Pixar films — but for me it’s a wonderful exercise.
Q: Whom do you think of as your influences?
BP: First of all, let’s talk about Walt Disney. Windsor McCay, Tex Avery, Bob Clampett, Charles Adams, R. Crumb, Milton Glazer, Roland Topor, A.B. Frost, Peter de Seve, Tomi Ungerer — I could go on and on.
Q: What about writers?
BP: Hunter Thompson, I guess. That’s about it. A lot of filmmakers; Frank Capra of course, Elia Kazan. It’s always befuddled me how a lot of people really hate Elia Kazan because of his political stance, but what he did was really courageous. I think that Communism is a bad thing, and I think if someone was a Communist it’s to their benefit to get out of being Communist. And for Elia Kazan to get all this heap of hatred because he exposed Communism; what’s so bad about that?
Q: That wasn’t exactly it.
BP: Communism in the ’30s and ’40s, they knew what was going on; they knew that Stalin was killing masses of people and it was not a fair system. All this bullshit about equality and everything like that; it was bullshit and these people still were Communists. And I think Elia Kazan was very noble to stand up to these people.
Q: I wouldn’t think of you as right wing.
BP: Oh no, I’m not. I just have more important issues to deal with than reading up on politics all the time. In fact, all my friends who were in political cartoons or in illustration are dying. There’s no magazine work.
Q: Which filmmakers do you like?
BP: Well I like Terry Gilliam, I think Terry Gilliam’s great. Quentin Tarantino is wonderful.
Q: And you’ve met Terry Gilliam — he is listed as presenting this film.
BP: Terry and I are old friends. I met him back in the mid-’90s, and we sort of connected. He lives in England, so I don’t really run into him that much, but I recently ran into him at the Dubai Film Festival.
I happened to have my portfolio of drawings because I was showing them around, and he said, “Let me look at them.” So he started looking at them, and he flipped out. He freaked; he thought they were so great. And his agent was saying, “Terry, we have an interview with BBC. Come on, you’ve got go.” “Ah, fuck you! I want to look at Bill’s drawings.” And he stayed there for half an hour looking at every drawing, asking me about how I did this and everything. So I said, “Terry, you know you’re a really great guy, can you help me with my film?” He said, “Yeah. Anything you want.” So I said, “Well, would you like to present the film?” He said, “Yeah, I’ll put my name on it.” And he did a wonderful introduction for a documentary that Alexia’s making about me, called Adventures in Plymptoons, and Terry did a wonderful introduction for the film.
Q: Does it feel weird to have a doc made about you? You’re not dead. Did he know you?
BP: Yeah, it’s a woman who goes to a lot of the Comic-Cons, Alexia Anastasio. She’s been an acquaintance of mine for a long time. So two years ago she said, “I’d love to make a documentary about you.” She worked hard. Boy, she interviewed it must be a hundred people. She went to Oregon and interviewed my family and my college and my high school friends…(and to) Los Angeles to interview Matt Groening and people like that.
Q: Did she get a lot of the Soho Weekly News people?
BP: Ooh, I don’t think so.
Q: That is one of your defining periods.
BP: Well I don’t think so. I thought that was a path that went nowhere.
Q: Wasn’t that period the first time that you were really exposed as a personality?
BP: Yeah, but I should have been doing animation at that point. First of all, I wasn’t crazy about politics. It was hard work; I had to read up on all the magazines and newspapers
Q: Really? I thought that was when you jumped out in the world. That was where your first flag was planted.
BP: Yeah but you know I regret that because if I had a chance to do it again I would start doing animation right out of college.
Q: I also think that’s where you came into your own.
BP: Well I did develop a style.
Q: But we were also running around in the scene, part of an historical moment.
BP: Yeah, you’re right, you’re right.
Q: You’re part of a generation, and you reflect this generation. We were this transitional generation between the bohemian culture, the previous being the printed word, sort of the pre-digital age into the digital age.
BP: I suppose. I never thought of it, but you’re right.
Q: What do you think about running a business?
BP: I have to do it. I don’t like doing it; I don’t like doing the contracts, I don’t like doing the phone calls and the business meetings. I just want to draw, like most artists. But if I want to retain ownership of the film and I want to retain copyright I have to do that; that’s part of the deal.
Q: You’re sort of an accidental entrepreneur. I do think you should exploit it further.
BP: I could. People say I should do dolls, I should do calendars and all this bullshit. I just don’t have time to do it. Maybe at some point when I get enough money. I’m running a pretty tight ship here, the recession was not so easy, so sometimes I’ve had trouble making payroll. If I ever did get a big fat contract then I would bring in more marketing people, maybe David Sedaris, people like that. But I have no money now. But I like my own stories, that’s the thing. I really like my own stories, they’re fun to write.
Q: You look like some of your drawings…
BP: People say that.
Q: Have you done self-portraits?
BP: I do it constantly; I’m always doing drawings of myself.
Q: Do you feel you’re able to convey some of what you are?
BP: Well that’s what Idiots and Angels is all about. It’s me sort of talking about my feelings about being an asshole or being an angel. That’s what I think the film covers; control of your soul. I don’t mean to get heavy and I don’t want to be moralistic. Also I want to make people laugh and I feel that laughter is the essence of life.
In fact, as Charlie Chaplin once said, “A day without laughter is a wasted day,” and I agree with that. There should be a Nobel Humor Prize. I think that humor, especially in a world like today with so much fucked up stuff going on, people have got to laugh, people have got to enjoy life, people have to laugh at life.
Q: Conveying humor through a drawing is one of the toughest things in the world, much tougher than doing stand-up.
BP: I don’t think it’s particularly though but I think it’s important. I think it’s very valuable; it’s very beneficial to society.
Q: Who are your favorites in single panel cartoons?
BP: Charles Schultz I suppose and “Calvin and Hobbes.” Gary Larson was a big influence, of course. I don’t look at political cartoonists anymore.
Q: Why didn’t you ever do comic books — you did a graphic novel?
BP: Comic books are not as satisfying as film. You never get to hear people laugh when they see the comic book. It doesn’t movie, it doesn’t have sound.
Q: You don’t think it might have a different kind of reach?
BP: Well comic books are really kind of a dead end anyway. They don’t sell that well unless you’re doing Batman or Robin or something like that.
Q: Do you think of your work as laugh-out-loud, or snicker?
BP: Well I hope it’s laugh-out-loud. I appreciate laugh-out-loud, but the cow film doesn’t get a lot of big laughs, yet still people love it a lot. So I think there’s a little more substance in there, a little more heart than my usual stuff. But I think eventually I’ll go back and still do those crazy sex and violence kind of films. I always love that stuff.
Q: How do people respond to your work, say, at a forum like Comic-Con?
BP: The thing is they saw it when they were kids on MTV or the Tournee of Animation, or Spike & Mike, and that’s where most people have seen it. They have fond memories of it. Some of them it twisted their minds a little bit, but they have positive attitudes.
Q: The number of awards you received is amazing. How did it happen that you got these Oscar nominations?
BP: The first film I think was sent in by the distributor. So they knew if they got an Oscar nomination it would help their chances. This was Your Face, which was 1987. And then the second one was Guard Dog, which we sent it to the Academy.
You have to answer certain qualifications, such as you have to play in LA for a week or you have to win a certain award. We sent it in to (a cinema) and it played for a week there and that qualified it. So also we’re doing Idiots and Angels and The Cow Who Wanted to be a Hamburger.
We do have a distributor for Idiots and Angels. Passion River, they’re out of New Jersey and they’re lining up all these art houses and college universities. We’ll get good distribution; we’ll get like a hundred cinemas, maybe more. Especially if New York and LA do well we’ll get a lot of distribution.
Q: From your early Portland days to now, do you step back and say, “Jesus, how did I get here? I guess I’m doing pretty good for myself.”?
BP: No I do. I look back and say, “Yeah; I turned out okay.” Things are going well, I get invited everywhere around the world and I have to turn them all down because I’m just so busy. I feel like I’m in a nice position.
For more stories by Brad Balfour go to: filmfestivaltraveler.com

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Forget Jessica Simpson’s gas attacks or the Kardashian sisters’ obsessions with ‘lube’ and bikini waxing. Duke university grad Karen Owen has become an overnight celebrity for her detailed PowerPoint of 13 of her lovers’ social skills.
This 22-year-old wrote a personal “senior honors thesis” on her sexual flings and binges with 13 of Duke University’s most desirable men, mostly well-built male athletes.
Now, Karen Owen didn’t just describe her sexual encounters, she named the men, used their photos and then ruthlessly evaluated their sexual techniques and equipment (or lack thereof) in highly specific detail.
She grades each of her “subjects” on physical attractiveness, “size” (as in the penile variety), talents, creativity, aggressiveness (which she likes), entertainment, athletic ability and “bonus.”
Bonus points were given for “extraneous” factors such as the presence of an Australian accent and points were deducted for “rudeness of being Canadian.” Wow, does that mean that being Canadian, in bed, is just plain rude? Warning to Justin Bieber especially: DO NOT have relations with Karen Owen.
Now, Karen Owen — who was a biological anthropology major — perhaps thought her opus sexual critique was a positive expression of her course of study. She now claims it was all a joke. At least that’s what she told some of the press.
What it tells me is that biological anthropology was clearly not that demanding a course of study, and that she had a HUGE amount of time on her hands. She spent countless hours in local bar Shooters drinking endlessly and picking up her subjects, then bedding them and finally documenting in explicit detail the memorable moment of their hot (and not) hookups.
It’s TMI time of epic proportions: From their pillow talk to positions, to her preferences for violent sex! TMI, TMI, TMI.
What all this also tells me about Karen Owens is that she is self-absorbed and evilly passive-aggressive, despite her protests now that she only intended the PowerPoint sex critique to go to three friends and that “I regret it with all my heart. I would never intentionally hurt the people that are mentioned on that.”
Click to read why Karen Owen is REALLY going to regret her PowerPoint presentation!
EXCLUSIVE: Scott Disick Gets Into A Fight At NYC Club!
PHOTOS: Check Out Kelly Osbourne’s Beauty Transformation!
PHOTOS: ‘Teen Moms’ Go From Frumpy To Sexy!

Follow Bonnie Fuller on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/bonniefuller

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Pat Craig is the aunt of Ryan Clark, a wonderful 22-year-old who was killed in the Virginia Tech Massacre on April 16, 2007. She recently sent a message to elected officials in a video. “Being in a leadership position is an awesome responsibility,” she said. “But when you stand up to say ‘I will,’ then those of us who put you there expect you ‘to do.’ ”
Craig, an outspoken Brady Campaign supporter, continued, “If you’re unsure of what it is you can do, should do – ask any of the victims…”
Craig appealed to elected officials to talk to gun violence victims because she understands that, too often, our lawmakers forget about the struggles of the people who put them in office. Her appeal resonates especially now as we reflect on the troubling trend of the “guns everywhere” lobby to force loaded guns into more and more places. Four states that passed laws this year allowing people to carry loaded, concealed firearms into bars and restaurants provide a fresh example.
Most Americans don’t want to eat, drink, or socialize next to people packing heat. Surveys indicate that 70 percent are unnerved by this reckless idea. Restaurant and bar owners, as well as their employees, are opposed as well. A waiter in Tennessee recently sued the state for creating an occupational safety hazard with its new law agreeing to guns in bars.
And yet, Arizona, Georgia, and Virginia lawmakers also ignored their constituents’ concerns, along with the objections of our law enforcement professionals, and sanctioned the carrying of concealed guns in places that serve alcohol. The requirements that have to be met to carry a gun vary widely among states. Some demand hours of face-to-face training. Others don’t. No state requires passing a Brady criminal background check to obtain a concealed carry permit, and sadly, it is all too easy for a gun to be sold legally without doing a Brady background check.
What’s also fairly consistent is that gun carriers are forbidden from drinking alcohol. (Georgia is one exception.) But that caveat seems to have been added with a wink and a nod. Just weeks after Virginia’s law took effect, a Lynchburg man went into a bar and ordered a mug of beer. His hidden gun fell and discharged, accidentally shooting him in the leg. Luckily, no one was killed. But hardly a day goes by in America without some “law-abiding,” gun-toting citizen breaking the law and snuffing out lives.
Richard Poplawski, a white supremacist armed with an AK-47, was arrested for murdering three Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania police officers in April last year on his front porch. He was a concealed carry permit-holder.
Michael McLendon was the “suicide shooter” who went on a rampage through the small towns of Kinson and Samson, Alabama in March of 2008, murdering 10 people before killing himself. He, too, was a concealed carry permit-holder.
We’ve also seen that what happens in the states doesn’t always stay in the states. In July 2009, Congress took up a vote on the so-called Respecting States’ Rights and Concealed Reciprocity Act. It would have let people from states with the weakest gun laws carry hidden, loaded weapons in states with much stronger gun laws. When it comes to who is too dangerous to legally carry a gun, it seems as if state decisions on the matter got no respect.
Sen. John Thune of South Dakota brought us this mind-boggling legislation, known as the Thune Amendment. It was attached to the Department of Defense appropriations authorization bill. We thank the many senators, including Richard Durbin of Illinois, Dianne Feinstein of California, Charles Schumer of New York and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, and our supporters, who helped block it.
But senseless bills like this are pressed repeatedly in Congress by lobbyists for the gun-pushers. Granting untrained, under-trained, emotionally unstable or impulsive people permission to carry loaded handguns in public jeopardizes our safety. It also makes it harder for law enforcement to do their jobs – and I.D. the real perpetrators during a shooting.
More guns in more places mean more gun violence. As the former mayor of Fort Wayne, Indiana, I enthusiastically join Pat Craig’s plea to elected officials on the Hill, and at every level, to consider the awesome responsibility of the jobs they’ve been entrusted to do. Talk to victims, survivors, and law enforcement about the all too pervasive and underreported tragedy of gun violence. And then do something, something meaningful, to halt it. The Brady Campaign and the American people are here to help you get started.
Paul Helmke is president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Follow the Brady Campaign on Facebook and Twitter.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The invasion of Afghanistan’s ninth anniversary passed in DC this week with hardly a notice.
Media desperate to illustrate the story flocked to a small demonstration of less than two dozen veterans of the so-called global wars on terror. A rag-tag group of angry, disillusioned and, most of all, disappointed gathered in front of Walter Reed Army Medical Center where thousands upon thousands of service members have returned from war to treat their wounds. The veterans there for the demonstration held a ceremony at the gates of the iconic hospital and placed nine yellow roses–one for each year of the war in Afghanistan–with almost military precision, the occasional salute replaced with a peace sign, before setting off on a six-mile march to Capitol Hill.
The occasion marked the first salvo in Operation Recovery, an effort by the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Against the War to urge the United States to stop redeploying soldiers who have been identified as suffering trauma–either post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, military sexual trauma, among others.
It’s a sensitive topic for the military these days as five soldiers are on trial at Fort Lewis, Washington, for being part of what many are calling a hit squad that killed Afghans for sport. One of the soldiers, whose confession tape was leaked to the media, was prescribed and presumably taking a cocktail of psyhotrophic drugs for repeated concussions at the time of the alleged murders.
“This is what happens to the traumatized soldiers have gone on multiple deployments. We send them to Afghanistan, into the same environment that traumatized them to begin with; place them on psychotropic drugs; hand them a weapon; and turn them loose on the streets. What do you expect?” said Ethan McCord, who served in Iraq in 2007. McCord was famously captured in a video released by Wikileaks earlier this year trying to rescue two children from a van which had been struck by a missile from a US helicopter. Also during his tour his spine was shattered by an IED.
He bears the physical and emotional scars of the war with metal rods in his back and a sorrowful gaze in his eyes. He was discharged from the military without benefits because they determined his medical condition was pre-existing; in other words, the military’s official position is that he somehow went to bootcamp and made it through infantry school with a shattered lower spine. It’s a jaw-dropping declaration for which, as McCord explained, there is no appeals process. So McCord receives no medical coverage from the military for the injuries that rendered him unable to walk with the others to the Capitol.
While it was disheartening to hear McCord’s story, and those of his comrades, saddest of all is that no one, save the handful of reporters looking for a story on the anniversary of the war, was there to listen. That is, except for the Capitol Police who threatened to arrest the veterans as they stood on the steps of the Russell Senate Office Building. Not that any senators were present as congress is in recess.
As a female marine stepped to the mic and began a slow and painful account of how the military treated her after she was raped by a fellow marine in Iraq, Officer Dan Turner of the Capitol Police was busy threatening representatives from the group that he was about to arrest everyone, including the media.
Turner, who refused to comment for this piece, told organizers that a gathering of more than 20 people on Capitol grounds constitutes a demonstration and the group lacked the proper permit to demonstrate. Pleas from the veterans that their gathering consisted of a mere 15 members on the steps did little to change Turner’s mind as a police paddy wagon pulled up to the sidewalk. It seems he considered media as part of the demonstration. This inclusion was shocking and went a long way toward explaining why he was so hostile at my request for a statement. Turner’s threats to arrest reporters for standing on a public sidewalk observing and recording the incident felt like a shortsighted attempt to halt coverage of an unsightly event for the US.
I contacted the U.S. Capitol Police in an effort to seek clarity on their demonstration policy. Turner was correct, a permit is required for groups of 20 or more; however, the woman I spoke with explained that reporters are not included in the headcount unless they become actively involved in the event. I would love to share her name with you as a source, but she refused to give it.
The disappointing dissolution of this gathering of veterans seemed almost fated. No one really wanted to hear what they had to say. Their proclamations were meant for a crowd that wasn’t there. The enormous throng of the fed-up and angry that filled the National Mall to hear Glen Beck was missing on this occasion. Passersby kept passing by, no one lingered. And all too quietly Capitol Police marked the solemn anniversary by shoeing the vets from the very steps of the government they volunteered to serve.

Follow Josh Rushing on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/joshrushing

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The literature of Mario Vargas Llosa has been the source of several key turning points in my life. The first was 17 years ago, during a summer marked by blackouts and the economic crisis. With the intention of borrowing The War of the End of the World, I approached a journalist expelled from his profession for ideological problems, with whom I still share my days. I keep that copy, with its cracked cover and yellowed pages, as dozens of readers have found their way with it to this Peruvian author banned in the official bookstores.
Then came the university and while I was preparing my thesis on the literature of the dictatorship in Latin America, he published his novel The Feast of the Goat. My including an analysis of his text on Trujillo gave no pleasure to the panel that evaluated me. Nor did they like the fact that of the characteristic of the American caudillos, I highlighted only those displayed by “our own” Maximum Leader. Thus, the second time a book by today’s winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature marked my life, because it made me realize how frustrating it was to be a philologist in Cuba. Why do I need a title — he told me — that announces I am a specialist in language and words, when I may not even freely assemble sentences.
So Vargas Llosa and his literature are responsible, in a direct and “premeditated” way, for much of who I am today: for my matrimonial happiness and my aversion to totalitarianism, for my betrayal of philology and approach to journalism.
I am preparing myself now, because I fear that the next time a book of his falls into my hands its effect will last another 17 years, and once again slam the door on my profession.
Yoani’s blog, Generation Y, can be read here in English translation.
Translating Cuba is a new compilation blog with Yoani and other Cuban bloggers in English.

Follow Yoani Sanchez on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/yoanisanchez

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

I don’t bring up Social Security much around my friends, probably because it’s not exactly the most riveting topic, but mainly because I know most of us in our twenties haven’t given our retirement much thought. In fact, when I finally did bring it up, it soon became clear that 1) almost nobody knew the basics, and 2) just about everybody thought Social Security wasn’t going to be around when they got older.
Unfortunately, my friends aren’t alone on this one. In fact, they’re pretty typical. As highlighted in Retirement USA’s Wake Up, Washington! initiative to increase awareness of Social Security among youth and other affected groups, AARP released a survey this year, showing that while 9 in 10 young adults (18-29 year-olds) believe that Social Security is an important program, only a third (33%) are confident that Social Security has a future. We don’t think Social Security is going to be there for our retirement – and yet as far as I know, there isn’t a large unit of concerned young adults mobilizing under the flag “Young People to Save Social Security!”
This wouldn’t concern me so much if Social Security wasn’t becoming a prime target for deficit hawks and special interest groups, who claim that Social Security is a drain on government funds (despite having funded itself through a dedicated payroll tax for 75 years). Our “vote of no confidence” in Social Security only adds fuel to policies for benefit cuts, retirement age increases (also a benefit cut), or even long-run privatization of the entire system. It’s easier to chip away at the program when an entire generation of voters grew up believing that the program was never going to make it anyway.
This might all be solved if we ever bothered to educate ourselves beyond what we “think” we know about one of the country’s oldest and most successful programs. Try to remember why you first thought Social Security wasn’t going to make it by the time you retire. Then do yourself a favor and find out for yourself. If you, did you might find out that Social Security is not in crisis, that the Social Security Administration already planned for the baby boomer retirees in 1983, or that Social Security’s long-run shortfall is very small and easily manageable with reform. In a nutshell: an easy fix.
This is why the current state of pessimism (or apathy) is not only depressing, it’s downright unacceptable. Why don’t we care more? Don’t we know what we’d be losing? Maybe we don’t realize that the people who are going to feel the effects of a cut in Social Security benefits – or a cut in the entire program – are us. It’s difficult for most of us to understand how important Social Security is because most of us have yet to receive benefits from the program. But I know that I, personally, don’t want somebody else to take it away because it provides such important protection against the curveballs life could throw at you. I want the privilege of learning about how important it is the way everybody else learned about it – when they got their first check because they were disabled, when the breadwinner in their family died, or when they finally reached retirement. So that when I get older I can look back and see that when I needed it, it was there – not that when I needed it, it wasn’t.
Social Security represents the very best of what a government program can be. But more than that, it’s a program that we may not fully understand yet, but that we’ll definitely need in the future.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

CU’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication is currently processing the applications for admittance to the school.
Applications for spring 2011 were due Oct. 1 in the Armory, and advisers are now sifting through them, determining who will be enrolled in the school.
The school has been making headlines recently concerning its future, and it was a possibility that the uncertainty and upcoming changes could affect students’ decisions to apply.
Jeanne Brown, a pre-journalism adviser for SJMC, said that there were some inquires and doubt.
“I had some new freshman who expressed some concern about their major,” Brown said. “To my knowledge, we didn’t have anybody pull out of school.”
She said that when the news first came about the set up of a discontinuance committee, both students and parents were upset, but the advisers were able to provide information and assure people.
“Susan [Avilla, a fellow adviser] and I went to the principles of journalism and principles of advertising classes and explained what was going on,” she said. “We answered a lot of questions about this application cycle, and we stressed that whoever comes in this year is going to get their degrees and have a full battery of classes to take.”
Despite the statements made by university officials and the assurance of advisers, the news that there may not be a journalism school to attend in a couple of years made some prospective students question if they should even apply.
Jennifer Brady, a 19-year-old sophomore pre-journalism major who applied for spring 2011, said the news made her reconsider.
“It definitely made me think twice about it,” Brady said. “It made me wonder if I should wait it out.”
Though she had her doubts, she said she thought the changes could be a good step for the school.
“I think it’ll be a lot different,” she said. “It is headed toward technology, which is good because I think journalism is headed that way.”
Melody Siefken, a 19-year-old sophomore pre-journalism major, said she decided to wait to apply.
“I am waiting and applying in the spring,” Siefken said. “By then, they will have a game plan with what they are going to do.”
Daniel Edwards, a junior pre-journalism major, said he isn’t sure if he is going to apply anymore, and the announcements caused him to question his original plans.
“Their rhetoric kept changing with every statement they would make,” Edwards said. “The uncertainty affected what I was thinking about doing.”
Trepidation aside, it turns out that the number of applications submitted was about the same as past years.
“We had 206 applications which was down very slightly from last fall, which was 213,” Brown said. “There is a fairly substantial decrease in news-editorial and a fairly substantial increase in advertising applications. But other than that, the applications seem to be about the same.”
She also said that all of what has been going on this semester will not be affecting how this round of applications are processed. But, she said, the spring round may see some slight changes.
“There are possible changes for spring, not in terms of the essays or how we review them, but we may be more flexible about how many hours we take,” she said.
Instead of requiring 30 hours, the advisers are contemplating admitting students with 25 hours or more instead to make sure all the freshman that qualify can be admitted in case any drastic changes do take place in the coming years, she said.
She said that within the journalism school, some changes are already taking place.
“We did design a new curriculum that was approved by the faculty last January, and about 80 percent of that new curriculum is in place,” she said. “The idea of the new curriculum was to break down some of the barriers that exist between the different majors, and I think that is going to continue.”
She said that these changes are not going to create issues, but will be beneficial for students.
“All the students we have now will be able to keep going,” she said. “We’ll be able to teach them, and everything will be fine. I think everybody who is currently in there is going to be in great shape.”
The CU Independent</a is the official University of Colorado – Boulder student news source.
Contact CU Independent Staff Writer Isa Jones at Alexandra.i.jones@colorado.edu.

Follow CU Independent on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/cuindependent

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Why should you have great time management skills?
Effective time management is an essential skill for creatives. Artists need to work smarter when times are tough. Those who manage their time and get organized are some of the top achievers in any field, and the arts are no exception. It becomes ever more important when you are under many deadlines and pressure to get things done in a timely manner. It will help with your stress level as well. So jump right in and see if these suggestions will work for you.
Being an artist is not only creating the work itself, but managing your own career. Even if you have a gallery (or other support structure), you should keep track of everything yourself. You never know when a gallery will close and you may never see the paperwork on your own collectors. Or a natural or man made disaster might destroy your files as well as your artwork. So take steps to get your archives in order and save everything to a disc and put it in a safety deposit box at least once a year.
What is the First Step?
Evaluate. Take stock of your current situation and how you manage your time. What resources do you have (or should you have) in order to keep track of all the things that you need to do. Do you feel like you are running out of time to do your projects? Then get organized.
Evaluate your current situation. Answer the following questions.
1. When do you most often work on the highest priority items on your list? During the day? In the evening?
2. Are you finding yourself finishing things at the last moment? Do you put off activities until you are in crisis mode?
3. Do you set aside time to plan ahead and create a time line for your projects?
4. Do you know how much time you are spending on various activities? Making your artwork? Working on business aspects of your career such as updating your mailing list?
5. Do you get interrupted often when you are working?
6. Do you set goals in order to determine which activities are the most important?
7. Do you leave time for the unexpected? Do you panic when something unexpected comes up?
8. Do you rank your to-do list based on what is high, medium or low priority? Do you rank each new item when you start a new project?
9. Do you find yourself stressed over deadlines and commitments? Do you ever miss a deadline?
10. Before you take on a task, do you evaluate it in terms of the rewards you will get from the task?
OK, now evaluate your answers and figure out what steps you need to take. Either you are managing your time quite well, or your a just getting by, or your management skills are a disaster. The good news is there is help for all three.
Tools That Will Help You
Set up your office or workspace so that you can find what you need. There are a number of solutions to this if you own a computer. You should either create your own tracking system, or invest in software that keeps track of all your work as well as your art business matters.
Use a calendar for everything. Link your calendars together if you use Google, ical or an iphone or equivalent.
Figure out what distracts you from your work. See if you can rearrange your working life so that those distractions are less interruptive. If you are a procrastinator, then see that section later.
Staff Meetings
Every business or organization has staff meetings, usually once a week, in order to communicate what is taking place, and what needs to be done. Just because you are a single artist working in your studio, does not mean that you should have a staff meeting with YOURSELF! Schedule one once a week at least.
Goals
Use software, or use paper, but make a list of those things that you need to do. Setting Goals
is very important. How do you know what to do unless you create a goal for yourself? Then prioritize those goals into sections that are a HIGH, MED and LOW priority. Artists tend to neglect goal setting because it requires time and effort. What they fail to consider is that a little time and effort put in now saves an enormous amount of time, effort and frustration in the future.
If you have not done so already, consider writing your own obituary or late in life roast. Think specifically what you want to accomplish in your life. What is it that you really want? Not what others want of you, or what you think the art world wants, but what YOU want. Be honest.
Personal goal setting will actually invigorate and motivate you to get cracking! It gives you short and long term vision on your practice, and helps to prioritize what is important. I will also give you focus, instead of all those ideas spinning in your brain and help you concentrate on the resources you need to accomplish your tasks.
By setting sharp, clearly defined goals, you can measure and take pride in the achievement of those goals. You can see forward progress in what might previously have seemed a long pointless grind. By setting goals, you will also raise your self-confidence, as you recognize your ability and competence in achieving the goals that you have set. This really works. You check more things off of your to-do list and it makes you happy.
You should have goals for:
three months
six months
one year
three years
five years
ten years
and lifetime goals
Keep in mind that the world is rapidly changing, so you should let your goals change, and your experiences help in those decisions. 10% of the jobs we will have in the next 10 years have not even been invented yet.
Some things to think about: (realistic answers are the best)
What are your artistic goals?
Is there any part of your attitude which is setting you back or keeping you for pursuing your dreams?
What level do you want to reach in your career?
Do you need education about how things work or certain topics in order to get your sh*t together?
Do you have or want a family?
What are your financial goals? And when do you want to get there?
What pleasurable activities are in your goal set? Are you allowing time for vacations or other life events?
Do you want to participate in activist activities or make the world a better place?
Do you want to start your own business or work for someone else?
Are all your goals really big? If so, you might create a larger number of goals that don’t seem so daunting.
Your goals and plans can change. That is the beauty of this strategy. You may learn a new skills or come up with a great business idea and it might change the course of your career. Allow these things to happen, and then rewrite down your new goals.
SMART Goals:
A useful way of making goals more powerful is to use the SMART mnemonic. While there are plenty of variants, SMART usually stands for:
S Specific
M Measurable
A Attainable
R Relevant
T Time-bound
For example, instead of having “to sell 6 artworks” as a goal, it is more powerful to say “To have completed 6 sales of my work by December 31, 2015.” Obviously, this will only be attainable if a lot of preparation has been completed beforehand!
Enjoy it when you accomplish a goal. You deserve it.
Procrastination
OK, so you are a procrastinator. You put things off until the last minute, and then kill yourself to get the job done. This can be a big time waster and a career derailed. So you don’t feel like working on something, and rather do something you enjoy more? Consider turning it around. Get the thing done that you are not so happy about doing, and then do something you enjoy. You might find that you actually have more time to really enjoy your other activities, instead of worrying while you procrastinate.
Do you feel overwhelmed by the task? Usually that means the tasks you have created are too large. Break them up into smaller sections. Then do one section at a time. Your sense of accomplishment at getting to check off all those items will help your self esteem. Come up with a great reward for yourself, such as a nice long coffee break, or a trip to the gallery. With the experience of having achieved this goal, review the rest of your goal plans:
If you achieved the goal too easily, make your next goals harder.
If the goal took a dispiriting length of time to achieve, make the next goals a little easier.
If you learned something that would lead you to change other goals, do so.
If you noticed a deficit in your skills despite achieving the goal, decide whether to set goals to fix this.
Consider hiring someone to help you complete tasks, especially if they are things you don’t know how to do. Don’t know how to build a website? Find another artist who does know these things and either pay them or work out a barter.
Activity Logs
If you are having trouble getting things done, keep a record of what you do when (including the times you take a break to eat that bowl of ice cream, or the time you take to text a friend, or you spend on face book). At the end of the week, you may be surprised at just how much time you spend on certain activities. Prioritize.
Scheduling
Scheduling is the process by which you look at the time available to you, and plan how you will use it to achieve the goals you have identified. By using a schedule properly, you can:
Understand what you can realistically achieve with your time;
Plan to make the best use of the time available;
Leave enough time for things you absolutely must do;
Preserve contingency time to handle ‘the unexpected’; and
Minimize stress by avoiding over-commitment to others.
A well thought-through schedule allows you to manage your commitments, while still leaving you time to do the things that are important to you. It is therefore your most important weapon for beating work overload.
The Art of Filing Stuff
You not only need to manage your time, but you need to manage your stuff. Have you ever desperately searched for a document you needed right then? Not only do you waste your own time, but you may also be wasting the time of others. (This goes for showing up on time for meetings as well).
On a typical work day, we deal with many documents, presentations, graphics, and other files. There’s a flurry of data pouring in from all directions that we need to process and, usually, store to retrieve later. We want to be able to lay our hands on the information we need — at the right moment, when we need it — so it can be used for further analysis or report writing, or perhaps for creating a presentation.
So, consider a filing strategy and set it up. Here are some pointers:
Avoid saving unnecessary documents. Don’t save it unless you think you may need it in the future. Or, if you can get the information on the web easily.
Name your files and folders in a way that gives you an idea of just what is in there. Both on your computer and in your hard copy files. Store related documents together.
If you have finished a project, take it out of the current set of files and put it in another place of completed projects. You can always go back and refer to an older file, but don’t clutter up your workspace with things you no longer need right away.
Don’t overfill your folders. Just like a goal, make a few folders for separate activities on a project.
Install organizing software on your computer.
Back up your sh*t!
Emails
If you write a lot of emails, be sure to address one subject per email. When you cover too many things in an email, you will often not get a response back on all the items you addressed. Label each email clearly with the subject at hand. If you are going to use the word also, check yourself. Be very clear about what you are asking or the information you are delivering. Make sure to specify what you want from the email, such as a follow up phone call, an email reply or specific information.
Internal emails, just like other emails, should not be too informal. Remember, these are written forms of communication that can be printed out and viewed by people other than those for whom they were originally intended! Always use your spell checker, and avoid slang.
Conclusion
There are many more strategies for time management, but this will at least get you started. Search the web or more details and information. But whatever you do, get yourself organized.

Follow Karen Atkinson on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/GYSTInk

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The New York Times began an extraordinary front-screen political memo yesterday with the following:
Of course, the memo is referring to Bill Clinton.
The Times devotes much of the article to explaining that Clinton’s “moderate” policy record is a key reason that the GOP feels such nostalgia for him and represents a sharp contrast with the presumably orthodox liberal Obama.
But consider:
1. The article makes much of Clinton’s support for “free” trade and NAFTA, in particular. But notwithstanding a campaign controversy concerning Obama’s position on “free” trade, the evidence strongly suggests that Obama has adopted the standard US position on trade over the past two decades, broadly supportive of trade agreements. More specifically, like Clinton, Obama generally supports trade pacts as long as they are accompanied by “side” agreements that address labor and environmental concerns (whether these agreements have teeth is a separate matter).
2. Significant health care reform passed on Obama’s watch. But Clinton tried to do something very similar. That he failed is no indication that he differed significantly in intent on this matter from Obama.
3. Obama’s position on the death penalty is, in essence, the same as Clinton’s.
4. Obama named Clinton’s final Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, as his top economic policy adviser. Like Clinton’s, Obama’s economic team has been influenced heavily by individuals with strong ties to Goldman Sachs and the financial sector more broadly.
5. To put it mildly, there is nothing in Obama’s record so far that could be construed as less inclined to perpetuate US militarism than was the case under Clinton.
6. Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican, is quoted in the memo as saying that, were it not for Monica Lewinsky, Social Security would be “straightened out” by now (by which he means “cut”). This may be true. But Obama’s bi-partisan deficit commission, scheduled to issue recommendations to be voted on in Congress after the mid-terms, may well end up “straightening out” the program in similar terms.
7. Clinton’s nominees to the Supreme Court are ideologically very similar to Obama’s. In fact, one could certainly argue that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is generally more liberal than Sotomayor or Kagan.
Of course, it’s an obvious absurdity to hear Republicans lamenting a lack of bi-partisanship and a nostalgia for a president whose character they assassinated in the most vicious terms possible (remember — he and his wife were murderers).
But what’s truly amazing about this article is not the way it tries to sell obviously overstated policy differences between Clinton and Obama. Instead, it’s the author’s failure to consider, for even a single, solitary moment, that the GOP’s nostalgia for Clinton might have something do with factors unrelated to those obviously overstated differences.
Is it simply out-of-bounds to contemplate whether the GOP’s animus toward Obama and, therefore, its new-found fondness for a man it absolutely loathed during the 1990s is, at least in part, a consequence of the fact that Bill Clinton has at least one significant, redeeming feature lacking in Obama? Or, I should say, that Obama carries with him one significant feature that makes him immediately suspect — a feature that Clinton lacks?
“Chemistry,” indeed.

Follow Jonathan Weiler on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/jonweiler

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Last February, 18 year old Constance McMillen made national headlines when the Itawamba County school board refused to allow her to wear a tuxedo and bring her lesbian partner to the Itawamba County Agricultural High School prom. McMillen brought in the ACLU to fight back and the board canceled the prom. Constance was subjected to intense bullying at the school and on Facebook from students, parents and hordes of antigay attackers outside the small Mississippi town, about 20 miles east of Tupelo.
Despite fears of retribution, the young lesbian stuck by her right to freedom of expression and became a reluctant hero. “My daddy told me that I needed to show them that I’m still proud of who I am,” McMillen said at one point. “The fact that this will help people later on, that’s what’s helping me to go on.”
When openly gay Storyline Entertainment producing partners Craig Zadan and Neil Meron heard the story, they knew they had to try to make into a TV movie — as McMillen said — to hopefully help young people.
The producing team has a solid track record of going to the heart of a civil rights issue and changing hearts and minds by telling a story, including Serving in Silence: The Margarethe Cammermeyer Story, the gays-in-the-military story co-produced with Barbra Streisand and starring Glenn Close and Judy Davis; What Makes A Family, starring Brooke Shields and Cherry Jones about lesbian child custody; Wedding Wars, starring John Stamos, the first film about same sex marriage; Hairspray, the John Waters civil rights/integration story made into a musical starring John Travolta in the character made famous by Divine; and Cinderella, the TV retelling of the old favorite with African American singer Brandy as Cinderella, heading an intentionally racially diverse cast.
I spoke with Craig Zadan by phone late Thursday about the news that he and Meron are producing the McMillen story. He was on the Atlanta set of yet another civil rights movie, Footloose, a re-make of the popular 1984 movie about youth culture confronting staid small town religion. We talked about the timing of this TV movie for ABC Family — in which McMillen triumphs — at a time when gay teen bullying has become an epidemic.
When McMillen’s story first made news in February, Zadan said, “we started seeing reports on CNN and reading about it in the newspapers. Neil and I said this seemed like a very, very important subject to tackle and we went after it.” Told there were other producers vying to option the story, they said they really wanted an opportunity to “audition” for it.
Here’s Craig Zadan on how and why they came to the acquire the rights to the story:
Zadan is also excited that the story of how Constance McMillen stood up for herself in her small town in Mississippi will inspire other LGBT youth at a time when gay teen suicide seems to be an epidemic.
Zadan said he and Meron are keenly aware of how the power of television can save lives.
“We’re honored she chose us to do it and thrilled we’re able to make something so important to us and hopefully to a lot of people. What we showed with Serving in Silence and What Makes a Family and Wedding Wars is that there’s nothing like going into people’s living rooms and having them see this on TV. That changes minds and really makes people look at things differently.
After we aired Serving in Silence, Greta Cammermeyer went out on a speaking tour and she was in Oklahoma and she called from the road. She said that after each speaking engagement, everyone would leave but there would there would be a handful of people who stayed behind who would want to shake her hand and meet her. She said this one teenage boy went up to her said to her, ‘I just want you to know that I just saw your movie on NBC and recently I had realized that I was gay – and I had decided to commit suicide. And when I saw the movie, I decided I didn’t have to.’ She said the kid collapsed in her arms and they both were crying.
So we thought – if that happened to one teenage kid, how many did we not know about who had that experience by watching the movie? So for us, we’re getting an opportunity, once again, to do something with Constance that hopefully will have the same effect on teenagers all across America.”
Zadan said they expect to provide resource-links to one or several helpful organizations at the end of the TV movie.
Zadan also noted that the Cinderella TV movie in 1997 starring Brandy and Whitney Houston:
“…was the first time that multicultural casting had ever been done that to that extent on a broadcast network. It was really unique and unusual and people were so surprised and I think that the reason we reached 60 million viewers — we got the highest rating that any movie on ABC had gotten in 14 years — was because we were inclusive. White people and Latinos, and African Americans and Asians — everybody could watch the movie and see themselves in the film.”
Zadan said that Footloose will wrap early in November and will open in movie theaters on April 1. “It’s going really, really well and Paramount loves it. They’re so excited about it.”
Another Zadan and Meron endeavor — Promises, Promises on Broadway — has been a “smash” since they opened, Zadan said, landing in the top five grossing shows each week – despite the economy. Though Zadan didn’t mention the Newsweek article questioning whether audiences would accept gay Sean Hayes playing straight, but the push-back implication was implicit.
“The show’s success, Zadan said, is “a tribute to Sean Hayes and Kristin Chenoweth. I think people have fallen in love with them as a couple in the show. We’re really excited because Molly Shannon goes into the show next week in one of the other roles.”
Also in the works is a Broadway revival in the Spring of How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, starring Daniel Radcliffe and directed and choreographed by Rob Ashford.
Radcliffe, a strong advocate for LGBT rights who is best known for his Harry Potter character, told MTV that he is “heartbroken” over the epidemic of gay teen suicides:
These young people were bullied and tormented by people that should have been their friends. We have a responsibility to be better to each other, and accept each others’ differences regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, race, ability, or religion and stand up for someone when they’re bullied. When a friend is feeling depressed or says they’re thinking of killing themselves, we must take it seriously and get them help.
Radcliffe made a PSA for LGBT helpline, The Trevor Project:

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

In ordinary human interaction, when almost everyone agrees on something, except for one part, you implement the parts everyone agrees on and discuss the remaining part until it is resolved. In the tortured, hyperbolic echo chamber we call the nation’s capitol, no such logic prevails. Such is the case with the so-called debate on what to do about the Bush era tax cuts, which expire on December 31, 2010.
I say “so-called debate” because a “debate” assumes that both sides listen and respond to each other. Republicans took a stand based on their leaders’ perception of the tactical interests of their party, and now in the election season, Democrats respond in kind. It may be a validly political process, but it insults the integrity of the English language to call it a debate.
The tax cut bills passed during the last presidency went through the Senate by “reconciliation” rules of procedure. Under these arcane Senate rules, the normal need to get 60 votes for cloture (the process that brings a bill to the floor for a vote) do not apply: the bill can advance by simple majority vote. However, the bill moved under reconciliation procedures must be only a fiscal (spending and revenue) measure, and must be deficit-neutral over 10 years.
Of course, there is no way a permanent tax rate reduction can be deficit-neutral. Therefore, the bill had to be written as a temporary rate change, with an expiration date. The promoters of the bill assumed that their party would still be in power when the expiration date approached, and could extend the cuts using the same procedures that were used to first enact it. If the promoters’ party loses power, then the expiration creates what the British call a “sticky wicket” for the opposition, now the party in power. And so it goes.
In a common sense world, the Senate would pass the Obama administration proposal to keep the Bush tax cuts for all but the highest income taxpayers. After all, hardly anyone opposes that step. Then one could have an actual, real debate on the merits of letting the cut for the highest income group expire, or not. According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, common sense is now scheduled to break out in the lame-duck session after the elections and before the new Congress is seated in January, 2011.
But suppose it doesn’t. Suppose that the same political calculus that prevailed for the last 18 months continues after the election — unlikely as that may seem. The new tax cut bill would remain stalled, and would procedurally die with the waning session of Congress. The tax cuts would then expire on New Year’s Eve, and we would enter 2011 with Clinton-era tax rates.
What would happen? If you listen to the inside-the-Beltway hyperbole, all hell would break loose. But what would happen on planet Earth, in the actual United States of America?
To get a handle on this, I start with something my tax accountant told me. His clients are, for the most part, relatively wealthy people. They own their own businesses, are senior corporate executives, or are retired with substantial investments to manage. In other words, top bracket folks. Their dirty secret? Year in, year out, despite the ongoing flood of new tax rules, procedures, forms, and rates, they actually pay about 25% of their gross to Uncle Sam. How does this work? Well, he explains, his job is to advise his clients so that they can utilize the deductions, rules, and programs to their best advantage, while still fully complying with the law.
So what would you do in this situation if your nominal tax rate goes up? A lot of things, it turns out. You may put more into tax-deferred vehicles, or arrange your income to come as capital gains (lower rates).
If you don’t have time to do the year-plus ahead planning for those strategies, the simplest thing is to spend more on things that generate deductions. Give more to charity. Buy a new computer. Do more business travel: go more often, stay longer, upgrade accommodations. When it comes to spending a bit more, creativity is easy.
The result is that even though the rules changed, the check to Uncle will remain about the same. And while I have described the behavior changes of the highest income taxpayers, other taxpayers can employ similar strategies. They do not have as much discretion to implement them, but they also would have a lower tax rate increase to try to offset.
In other words, Americans will do what they always have done since the Sixteenth Amendment went into effect in 1913: curse and scream — then quietly adapt. Who knows, they might actually boost the economy by spending more in certain areas (deductible, of course).
That may explain, at least in part, the disparity between common political wisdom about tax cuts, particularly for the wealthy, and actual economic performance. A higher marginal tax rate can actually encourage spending, where a lower marginal tax rate can encourage saving. This seems to be the opposite of common sense, but it is the logic for people who are rich. In this context, “rich” simply means having sufficient resources to meet one’s actual, minimal, immediate needs — by this definition, a majority of Americans are at least somewhat rich.
Finally, if the Bush era tax cuts expired, the Obama administration would then be free to devise a tax rate policy proposal not constrained by the policy of the prior administration. Political common sense would seem to say that not only would they, but they would be very motivated to pass it early in 2011 and make it retroactive to New Year’s Day.
All this will most probably turn out to be idle speculation on a sunny Friday in October. But if Harry Reid is wrong about common sense erupting in the Senate, remember — you read it here first.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The story “Melrose Avenue loses trend-setting cachet” in last month’s LA Times business section presented a pretty bleak picture of the current state of Melrose Avenue business. The storyline: empty storefronts lead to fewer customers, which lead to more empty storefronts. Set that spiral against the backdrop of a prolonged economic downturn and it’s got all the makings of a real tragedy. And so the curtain falls on the Times story with a decidedly un-Hollywood ending. Local ABC and NBC news stations followed suit.
Of course the story doesn’t actually end here. The historical narrative of Melrose has always been one of adaptation, reinvention, and evolution. For more than three decades, Melrose has demonstrated an extraordinary ability to transform itself anew for every generation of Angelenos. It has done so by welcoming the original, supporting the independent, and offering exciting alternatives to the corporate-owned chains and the monotony of the shopping malls. As a merchant district, Melrose Avenue grew from the dreams of ambitious entrepreneurs.
Today, Melrose Avenue stands as one of the longest and most famous stretches of independently owned and operated retailers in the world. Consequently, it does not weather the regular economic downturn of the business cycle in the same way commercial enterprises such as The Grove, The Beverly Center or Third Street Promenade do, nor does it adapt as quickly as smaller independent shopping areas like West Third Street, Los Feliz or Abbot Kinney.
Look beyond the “For Lease” signs and you will discover that the newest evolution of Melrose is already under way. Long-term stakeholders like The Groundlings, l.a.Eyeworks, Angeli Caffe and Sportie LA have shown continued dedication to the ebb and flow of Melrose Avenue since the 1980′s. These and other seed businesses have inspired a number of exciting new businesses to set up shop on the centrally located, world-renowned, historic core of Melrose Avenue.
The entrepreneurial spirit can be found right now, and stories of success can be told today on Melrose Avenue between Fairfax and La Brea. Today’s representatives of the original Melrose spirit are made up of vintage clothing store owners, local and international designers, accessory makers, collectible shop owners, hair salons, tattoo studios, and a custom motorcycle builder. Add to this diverse and eclectic mix a recent surge of community supported, locally driven restaurants and cafes, and what you begin to see emerging is a more complete picture of what Melrose Avenue is all about: original, independent, alternative.
For many years Melrose Avenue has enjoyed the fame and fortune that comes with being one of the brightest stars in this city. The Times’ cursory glance-over and ominous forecast for the avenue suggests that suddenly and inexplicably that star has fallen from the sky. We would suggest that the brightest star is in fact still shining around the temporary eclipse of “For Lease” signs featured in the news of late. We are steadfast that these empty storefronts will fill again and that the next era of Melrose merchants will join the current thriving business core to make the avenue and the community an even greater place to live, work and play. And if you are an ambitious, forward-thinking, ‘glass half-full’ kind of entrepreneur and you’re ready to convert your passion in to a business opportunity, then come to Melrose and shape the future of our beloved destination.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Not long ago, if you were an investor seeking beat a financial scam you stood little, if any chance, of gaining justice. But the outright inquisition of scammed investors may end with a pilot program now being expanded by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA).
Begun after the 2008 market meltdown, the program overturns brokerage industry rules that forced investors to settle disputes through FINRA arbitration which consisted of a panel of industry insiders. Aggrieved investors were compelled to face a panel of biased industry insiders who made sure investors walked away either empty handed or with just pennies on the dollar. FINRA arbitration was a notorious one-way street where complaints went to die.
If the new FINRA proposal is approved, it will allow investors to select a three-person panel of non-industry judges to hear charges of fraud and malfeasance. The rule will apply to investor disputes against any financial services firm or individual brokers.
At present, most arbitration panels are composed of two “public” arbitrators and one industry representative. Despite the move to allow investors to select outsiders to hear their complaints, the arbitration process remains somewhat veiled. For example, the new setup does not place a fiduciary duty on arbitrators; they have no obligation to take into account the best interests of investors. Neither are they bound to produce written an explanation of the panel’s decisions. In addition, unfavorable decisions can’t be taken to a higher court. The panel’s decision is the end of the road.
“Even with an all-public panel, arbitration is still an opaque process,” according to a source inside FINRA, the brokerage industry’s bought-and-paid-for “overseer.”
Still, Pat Huddleston, chief executive of Investor’s Watchdog, says the all-public panel is a “good step” but doesn’t go far enough to protect investors. “Nobody but the parties understands what happens in that arbitration room,” Mr. Huddleston says.
The proposal allowing all-public panels will be filed in November and must be approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
“Giving each individual investor the option of an all-public panel will enhance confidence in and increase the perception of fairness in the arbitration process,” says Richard Ketchum, FINRA chairman and CEO. Mr. Ketchum’s use of the word “perception” has caused some investors to express skepticism.
“What does ‘perception’ have to do with it,” said one investor preparing for arbitration. He made his remarks anonymously for fear of prejudicing the FINRA panel before which he is scheduled to appear. “Perception is a murky term of art,” he added. “It doesn’t always add up to reality.”
The current pilot program involves 14 firms that agreed to examine a number of investor cases that did not involve individual brokers. Under the new proposal, however, investors will be able to file complaints against any firm or individual broker. It will not apply to disputes involving only industry parties.
Since the Public Arbitration Pilot Program began in 2008, slightly more than 60 percent of investors opted in, resulting in 560 cases to date. Given the power to eliminate all non-public arbitrators, investors still chose to have one non-public arbitrator on their panel about half the time. If the new proposal is approved by the SEC, the program will be extended for one year.
Currently, there are 6,200 FINRA arbitrators — 2,700 are non-public and 3,500 public.
“This is a wait-and-see process,” Arnold Ripkin, an independent day trader who is suspicious of FINRA’s motives. “People and organizations don’t change overnight,” he said. “FINRA has a long history as a bad actor, especially under (former FINRA chief) Mary Schapiro.”
It was recently reported that Ms. Schapiro walked away from the organization with a $10 million golden parachute, despite having missed the $65 billion Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme and the investigation of R. Alan Stanford’s alleged $7 billion Ponzi operation. Ms. Schapiro now heads the SEC and was named the seventeenth most powerful woman in the country by Forbes, a notch below former Alaska Governor Sara Palin.

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Dear Dr. Pat,
I’m 49 years old and had a diagnosis of HPV–human papilloma virus–four years ago, and my first abnormal pap smear at the same time. I had just ended a six-month relationship, and we didn’t use condoms. My partner and I were both tested for sexually transmitted diseases before we had sex, and I had no HPV then. He told me that his doctor said he had no diseases, and he didn’t want to use condoms.
After the diagnosis of high-risk HPV and the abnormal pap smear, my gynecologist did a colposcopic exam [which allows the genital tissue to be evaluated through a magnification lens -Ed.]. This showed that I needed a larger part of the cervix taken out, to remove and diagnose the extent of the abnormal cells that had developed because of the HPV infection.
I had an uneventful LEEP cone biopsy in her office. [The LEEP procedure uses electrical current transmitted through tiny wires in a loop that removes the cone-shaped tissue from the cervix and cauterize the tissue left behind to control bleeding.] The pathology report showed only mild cell abnormalities (mild dysplasia), and also showed that the margins of the tissue were free of all precancerous cells–which my doctor said was very important.
For almost four years afterward, my Pap smears were normal, even though I was still HPV-positive. Three months ago, I had another mildly abnormal pap smear. The gynecologist said to repeat it in 10 weeks. That pap smear was slightly more abnormal. The doctor explained that, in order of severity, cervical dysplasia is mild, moderate and severe, followed by carcinoma in situ [early cancer that had broken through the cell walls], and then invasive cancer. At that point, I had CIN2, moderate dysplasia. The colposcopic exam was repeated and the biopsy report from the outside of the cervix showed moderate dysplasia. The biopsy from the endocervical canal [the passage leading from the cervical canal into the body of the uterus] was normal.
The gynecologist recommended that I have a hysterectomy to remove the entire uterus and cervix, leaving my ovaries in place. She stressed that the HPV that I have is high-risk and that removing the cervix with a hysterectomy would prevent me from developing cancer of the cervix. She pointed out that by doing this, I could forgo all the future cone biopsies that I will most likely need.
I don’t want a hysterectomy, and all the risks of the surgery, when the LEEP cone biopsy was so easy and it did remove the abnormal tissue for four years. I understand that this virus can cause cancer of the cervix, but it doesn’t always. What are the risks of just having another cone biopsy at this time? What else can I do to be proactive in finding abnormal cells before cancer develops, without having a hysterectomy?
Margaret
Dear Margaret,
You are certainly an informed patient and you ask very important questions. Communication between a patient and her doctor are crucial to the choice of surgical procedures. It is part of our informed consent process.
Colposcopy is done to improve the diagnosis and to help the surgeon create a treatment plan. When the pap smear is abnormal on more than one occasion, with a positive test for high-risk HPV, and the colposcopic exam is either normal or inadequate (where not all of the areas of the at-risk zone of the cervix are visualized), then a cone biopsy is the next diagnostic step. Patients need to understand that the cone biopsy is nearly always diagnostic, and hopefully therapeutic. By that, I mean that the abnormal cells are microscopic, and the surgeon has a general idea of how much of the cervix to remove during the performance of a cone biopsy, but sometimes the margins are not free of dysplasia. There is no way to prevent this.
In your case, the cone biopsy done by the LEEP method, which uses cautery to cut out the tissue, showed normal margins, free of abnormal cells. This was the right procedure for the mild dysplasia that you had at the time. If you now choose to have a second cone biopsy instead of a hysterectomy, do discuss the option of having the cone biopsy performed with a scapel instead of a LEEP procedure. This surgery is performed in an operating room, not a doctor’s office.
Gynecologists call this procedure a cold knife cone biopsy to differentiate it from a LEEP cone biopsy. The margins of the surgically removed cervical tissue are easier for the pathologist to evaluate, because the cautery used in a LEEP procedure literally fries the tissue at the place where the tissue is cut away. The cold knife cone biopsy procedure is not done as often now, unless a decision to forgo a hysterectomy is to be based on careful pathology review of the tissue, or if there’s evidence of cervical dysplasia inside the endocervical canal.
If you choose to have a cone biopsy, it will be important that the pathologist reports that there is no early cancer and that all the margins of the removed cervical tissue are free of abnormal cells. If either of these conditions exist, then you will need more extensive surgery. If the cervical margins are free and you have only cervical dysplasia, you should have a pap smear every three months for the next year, as long as all of those pap smears are normal. At that point, your gynecologist may suggest a pap smear every six months.
HPV under a microscope
As long as you remain HPV-positive you have an increased risk for more than cervical cancer. You are also at risk for vulvar cancer, which includes the labia and perineum (the area between the vaginal opening and the anus), and peri-anal, anal and vaginal cancer. There is growing awareness of some kind of association of the human papilloma virus and mouth, tongue and throat cancer. At this point there are no recommendations for HPV screening of the oral cavity for any woman who has HPV of the genital or anal area. However, it seems prudent for all women who have persistent high-risk HPV to ask their dentists to evaluate their mouths carefully at each visit. In addition, women with HPV should be aware of the need to have further evaluation of the oral cavity if there is a persistent growth anywhere in mouth or throat, new and persistent hoarseness, or difficulty swallowing. Speak to your gynecologist about whether you should have both an anal HPV test and an evaluation of the anus for areas of abnormal cells.
Even when a hysterectomy is performed and the cervix is removed, the HPV remains in the body, unless the immune system can clear the infection. You will need pap smears of the vagina every six months, even when the cervix has been completely removed.
Certainly, you need to be a responsible patient. Never miss a pap smear. Always get the report and discuss it with your doctor. And do discuss with your gynecologist these suggestions for monitoring other areas of the body where HPV can cause cancer.
Your story points out the dangers of not using condoms in any new relationship. Men are not tested for HPV as part of general STD testing. The general way that a man finds out that he may be infected with this virus is when he is told that a woman with whom he has had sexual contact has developed this infection. And he may never tell another potential partner.
Best,
Dr. Pat
Patricia Yarberry Allen, director of the New York Menopause Center, is a gynecologist affiliated with New York-Presbyterian Hospital and a board-certified fellow of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. She is a spokesperson on women’s health, and the publisher of Women’s Voices for Change.
Also posted at Women’s Voices For Change.

Follow Patricia Yarberry Allen on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/drpatallen

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

– Meena Keshwar Kamal – (1956-1987)
“If elected I will face up to the old men with guns that destroyed our country. Now it is our turn to fight with them.” — Sabrina Sagheb – age 25
Sabrina Sagheb represents the sleeping lion now awaking for a fight throughout Afghanistan. This 25-year-old parliamentary candidate is campaigning on a platform of liberal reform and gender equality, with a campaign poster that has raised more than a few eyebrows across Kabul. The term “charm offensive” sums it up best. A beautiful and modern young woman, educated in Iran, she hopes to make the wearing of the burkha a matter of choice for all women and advocates an end to forced marriages.
In a time where female candidates, activists, and leaders are routinely targeted, attacked, and assassination, its hard to not swell with pride when young women like Sabrina stand up and publicly voice their dissent. When conservative critics voice their disgust with her campaign and call her ‘un-Islamic’ in hopes of getting her to back down, she calmly replies, “If you are not happy with me, then don’t vote for me.”
But there are men that will be. Young men like Muhammad Naseen, who are ready for a change, regardless of gender. “We have already voted in a lot of men. Now it is time for change.”
Change like that of another candidate in Herat, Nahid Ahmadi Farid, a young lioness of one, who enters the fray armed with a political science degree from George Washington University in Washington, D.C.
“We don’t want regrets and we don’t want to suffer another five years. We don’t want the same problems again,” Farid says. “I have stood up because of the problems Afghan women are facing. We have been behind walls for the past 30 years and no one was listening to our voice.
These women, and others like them across the country are taking enormous risks to themselves and their families to fight for equality and a brighter future for their country. They fight against the decades of oppression forced upon them during the Soviet and Taliban times. They fight against the corruption and abuse in the current government that only last year signed into law a bill that essentially legalized marital rape.
They have a role model in Meena Keshwar Kamal, the passionate founder of RAWA, Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, assassinated in 1987. She was an outspoken activist and feminist that founded the organization in 1977 when she was still a student at Kabul University. RAWA’s manifesto is to promote equality and education for women and strive to “give voice to the deprived and silenced women of Afghanistan.” The organization still operates today, underground, under great risk, but also with great success, running orphanages and schools under different names to avoid attack. Meetings are held in secret locations, always changing, to continue the work Meena started, despite the risks.
Meena’s assassination at only 30 years old, did not deter RAWA, and their statement regarding her death demonstrates that her warrior spirit lives on. “The enemy was rightly shivering with fear by the love and respect that Meena was creating within the hearts of our people. They knew that within the fire of her fights all the enemies of freedom, democracy and women would be turned to ashes.”
That fire is sparking again after the Taliban systemically fought to repress it and the Karzai government refuses to enforce the constitutional rights afforded them since their defeat. Women activists are breathing life into the dormant coals and finding that there are others ready to fight alongside them. It is up to all of us to not just encourage that fight, but to take up arms alongside them.

Follow Shannon Galpin on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/sgalpin

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

The Yankees will try to sweep the Twins out of the American League Division Series tonight in New York and by the fifth inning most normal fans will be asleep. The other group, commonly known as baseball degenerates, will stay up and come to work the next morning trying to explain that although they may look it, they aren’t hungover, just tired. But for every sane fan or fan under the age of twelve, they will have to wait to see if their hearts have been broken or if their dreams have come true over a soggy bowl of Cheerios and an ESPN update.
Why? Well, for the past two decades, the broadcasting companies, in this year’s case TBS, have to a large degree dictated the pace and watchability of MLB playoff games. The same is true of most professional sports during playoff time but this point is particularly excruciating in what would euphemistically be called a “methodical” game such as baseball.
There is no clock in baseball and for anyone preparing to watch an American League playoff games on TBS you might as well go Christmas shopping beforehand because the game might end in December. The Philadelphia Phillies and San Francisco Giants proved the only way a game will end in two and a half hours is if no-hitter or fourteen strike-out game is recorded and even then you could see Roy Halladay and Tim Lincecum on the mound waiting for the umpire to signal that TBS was back from ad break. There is no reason an East Coast game should start past 8pm on a weeknight. It is bad for the fan base and bad for the sport. Frankly, no matter how exciting a game is, after midnight everything is boring to a ten year old fan especially when they have a report due on a Triceratops or Christopher Columbus the next morning. In fact, job productivity must be down amongst baseball fans due to the playoffs. What’s your 2:30pm feeling? If you watched the playoffs it’s looking like Mickey Rourke and feeling like Robert Downey Jr. circa 1992.
But, if you’re not part of the solution than you’re part of the problem so here are a few suggestions.
1. START THE GAME EARLIER: It won’t kill your ratings TBS. You already settled that when you allowed Frank Caliendo to have his own show.
2. SHORTEN THE AD BREAKS: We get that the Nissan Juke can get you to a donut shop and back to th eoffice in time for a slow motion jump through the air. Consequently, and very paradoxically, we need more Conan blimp spots.
3. SWITCH THE ANNOUNCERS: Whoever the team is, have their everday announcer do the play-by-play. They know the team and unlike football where you have a week for a national play-by-play to get to know the players, you only have a day in baseball. The former Atlanta Braves announcer Ernie Johnson, a very good anchor and fine sports man, is calling the Twins and Yankees games, which is about as enjoyable as trying to eat two pieces of white bread in under a minute without water.
4. STOP THE GRAPHICS OVERLOAD: Showing where the pitch landed within the strike zone on every pitch is borderline okay. But, having a birds’ eye view of what side of the plate it crosses is redundant. Most people can see what side it crossed and, really, it’s just a graphic of a yellow line across a plate anyway. The whole thing looks like something out of the original TRON movie.
5. PUT THE FANS FIRST: This is a rule of thumb that should go for any broadcast company, not just TBS, which repeatedly misses pitches to squeeze in another Cialis commercial or schedules games in the ambivalent “prime time” zone. It’s a multi-hour game, guys. The probability is that some of the innings will fall during prime time no matter when it starts and those innings might just be the late innings to an exciting game.

Follow Colin Barnicle on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/colinbarnicle

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Canadian officials are investigating whether a another ship is attempting to ferry Tamil migrants from Sri Lanka to Canada.
Authorities are using satellites to determine the location of the ship, the Toronto Sun newspaper reported.
In August, officials detained 492 Tamil migrants who arrived on board the MV Sun Sea from Sri Lanka.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has announced Canada will unveil a new law to deter illegal migrants.

Jim Baldauf, president of a cutting-edge energy group, began its briefing at the National Press Club Oct. 7 by citing the BP Gulf oil disaster, drought in Russia at up to 130 degrees, and massive flood-devastation in Pakistan as evidence that this is the worst year for the environment in recent history.
“I would submit,” he said, “that all of these tragedies are due to Peak Oil. Peak Oil will affect every aspect of our life.”
Baldauf, above, is a Texas-based oil executive, lifelong environmentalist and leader of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas, USA (ASPO). The group argues that after 150 years of oil extraction most major oil exporting nations are well past their supply peaks, defined by scientists as “Peak Oil.”
Baldauf is also one of the headliners at ASPO’s sixth convention, which continues through Saturday with economists, energy and human rights experts as the group brings its important message for the first time to opinion-leaders in Washington, DC.
Among the headline speakers are former Nixon and Ford Administation Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger, who was also the nation’s first Secretary of Energy under the Carter Administration. Ralph Nader and Bianca Jagger are among others, most of whom are prominent in energy, economics and academia.
Their thesis demands attention even from those inclined to skepticism or indifference. We risk losing big with the wrong choice. This is the game theory suggested by the Renaissance mathemetician-philosopher Blais Pascal, portrayed below, who famously posed “Pascal’s Wager,” with the conclusion that our best bet is to live God-fearing and otherwise righteously.
On a more pedestrian scale, why is oil production relevant to the mission of the legal reform Justice Integrity Project that I lead?
Most important: A steep decline in the U.S. economy would affect pretty much all of us, and further test our legal system.
Our research reveals direct ties between energy industry issues and the complexities of the justice system. The Justice Department’s high-profile announcement that it will seek criminal charges because of the BP Gulf volcano (which was far from a “spill” and “leak”) raises obvious questions:
Will the investigation unfairly scapegoat some defendants? Will it whitewash others? Despite the government bluster about the vigor of its crackdown, we all saw that the Coast Guard and law enforcement helped unduly restrict news and other public access to evidence of the vast damage.
We see many relationships between the energy and justice system that merit much closer examination.
For example, the DOJ has maintained that no one should further review its 2006 federal corruption conviction of former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, 64, in the nation’s most notorious political prosecution of the decade. But we documented in the Huffington Post last year the Democratic defendant’s trial judge, Mark Fuller, held a disturbing controlling interest in the closely held Doss Aviation, Inc., which enriches the judge by its federal contracts to refuel Air Force planes.
Such apologists for the judge as the DOJ and former Bush White House advisor Karl Rove say the judge is entitled to own stock, even a controlling share in a company with $300 million in recent Bush-era federal contracts, most related to refueling. But this puts the regionally powerful chief federal judge in the energy business, in effect, with scant apparent concern by DOJ about fairness or even more serious allegations where key witnesses have never been questioned.
With litigation over Gulf health, jobs and liability issues almost certain to explode in all manner of cases, now is precisely the time when the public needs more confidence, not less, in federal civil and criminal decision-making.
Regarding the business of oil extraction itself, Baldauf says, “The era of low-cost, easy-to-get oil has come to an end, a moment of historic significance and one fraught with danger. The Gulf of Mexico disaster occurred because the quest for new supplies requires that we drill miles beneath the ocean surface.”
Peak-oil advocates are eager to work on solutions, especially because they believe the U.S. economy is already is already poised for significant new declines soon until public awareness and mitigation measures increase.
Dr. Roger Bezdek, a former U.S. energy delegate to NATO who briefed the staffs of both 2008 presidential nominees during their campaigns, told the Press Club audience this week that mitigation of both supply and demand issues can take years, if not decades. Trucks have a 25-year average projected use, he noted this week, and even if nuclear plants are again allowed they would take many years to plan and build. A U.S. Joint Forces command study predicts worldwide peak oil in 2015.
Scott Daughon, founder of the My Technology Lawyer radio network and my co-host for four years on our weekly “Washington Update” series, is a skeptic of peak oil scenarios, with a free-market proponent’s confidence that cost-effective solutions arise to meet our needs. Nonetheless, he welcomed discussion of the issue our shows this week and for the one scheduled next week.
Baldauf, pointing to his group’s site for further information, says:
In the spirit of our first known cosmic odds-maker, Blais Pascal, let’s wager that Baldauf’s bet is worth examining — not for his sake but for ours.

Follow Andrew Kreig on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/AndrewKreig

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

A job-less recovery, ballooning deficits, fraudulent foreclosures, middle class anxiety — let’s face it, we are feeling the mother of all hang-overs from the Great Recession.
But there is one major catalyst, an economic engine that we’ve ignored, for igniting robust, sustainable economic growth that will lift all boats: comprehensive immigration reform that brings 12 million undocumented immigrants fully into the economy.
Call it the “12 million people stimulus bill” project.
As Americans, we need to be strategists that are thinking about the next 100 years of American global leadership. Comprehensive immigration reform, if the law is intelligently conceived and executed, will be a significant step in increasing our global competitiveness. Its passage will spark economic growth across broad sectors of the American economy, from manufacturing to retail.
Fully integrated into the economy, immigrants will add to both the financial and human capital of the country. New businesses will be created by these immigrants, their kids will be able to plan college educations, money now squirreled away will be invested in productive activities, the tax base will expand. In fact, several studies have projected a more rapid growth in GDP because of the effect of immigration.
According to the Center for American Progress report “Raising the Floor for American Workers: The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform”:
Objective economic evidence strongly suggest that immigration in not only needed for the long-term economic health of the United States, it is in fact today an important driver of growth in the overall American economic pie. This is growth, moreover, to the benefit of all Americans.
Getting this part of our national strategy is critical. A recent study undertaken for the Federal Reserve showed the net positive effect of immigration for native-born American workers. As the study states:
Sadly, this is an issue that has become violently partisan. The Arizona anti-immigrant law, for example, was passed on a straight party vote.
It is a fundamental mistake to filter immigration reform through a partisan lenses. I think a more accurate context through which to view immigration is as a national security issue. America must look forward to a changing world and be sure that we will have the human resources needed to maintain our economic and military supremacy. Our global competitors are not sitting still — we should not either.
As history has shown us, countries that have failed to keep these factors in balance tend to fade as global powers. The Chinese Empire, Spain, France and Britain are just some of the examples of former world powers brought low by bad policy decisions. We should not join them.
If this issue is properly and responsibly handled by political leaders — leaders that transcend petty party concerns to become statesmen and stateswomen — it is an opportunity to bring the country together with a smart, strategic reform that is pro-economic growth.
Leaders of both parties must rise to the occasion — America needs you to do the right thing. America needs a “12 million people stimulus bill” now.

Follow Fernando Espuelas on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/fespuelas

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com

Silda Wall Spitzer and Eliot Spitzer
Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures
Eliot Spitzer — a member of the pantheon of fallen political gods, Clinton, Gingrich, Sanford, Ensign, Hyde, Helms, Mills, Eisenhower, Roosevelt and even Jefferson who couldn’t keep it zipped — is the subject of a new documentary that explodes the myths surrounding his case.
The biggest myth is that he and Ashley Dupre were engaged in non-stop, horizontal bop. In fact, he only slept with her once. Recognizing a good career move when she saw one, Ashley stepped into the limelight when Spitzer’s regular escort decided to duck the media storm after his carousing became public.
“She (Dupre) was very clever. She did nothing to disabuse anyone of that notion,” said Alex Gibney, the writer, director and producer of Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer.
It’s fitting that so many myths surround this story. Even Spitzer likens himself to Icarus, a mainstay of Greek mythology.
For those of you who don’t have your copy of Edith Hamilton’s Mythology nearby, Icarus ignored his father’s warnings about the fragility of the wax-covered wings he strapped on in order to escape the confines of the labyrinth where they were imprisoned. He flew so high and close to the sun his wings melted, and down he went, plummeting to his death. The take away from his aborted flight has been that arrogance, or hubris, will lead humans to crash and burn.
Eliot Spitzer’s career is a model for this lesson. The “Luv Gov” resigned from office in April 2008 when the New York Times revealed Governor Spitzer, who was seen as a candidate to be the first Jewish President, had developed a taste for illicit sexual encounters with prostitutes. A few months before his fall, he uttered this prophetic observation to a luncheon crowd at the New York State School Board Association, “hubris is terminal.”
Alex Gibney, director of CLIENT 9: THE RISE AND FALL OF ELIOT SPITZER, Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures
“You can’t make that stuff up,” said Gibney, whose film lays out how Spitzer’s drive to root out corruption on Wall Street and in New York’s State capital created enemies that coalesced to “take him out of Albany.”
“I don’t condone what he did,” said Gibney. Nor does Spitzer, who appears in the film to explain how his career-ending dalliances provided the ammunition his foes needed to bring him down.
We meet a colorful array of characters who’d been stung by Spitzer’s relentless, hard charging prosecutorial ways. We’re reminded that he sued out-of-state coal fired power plants for causing acid rain in New York and took on General Electric for dumping PCB’s in the Hudson River.
But it’s his battles with Wall Street that may have sealed his fate. Spitzer pursued two analysts, Henry Blodget and Hank Grubman, who were accused of misleading the public about the value of investments they knew were, in Blodget’s terms (POS) or, “pieces of shit.” Both were banned from their profession for life. Of course, they were given multi-million dollar severance packages.
Maurice “Hank” Greenberg
Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures
He took on the CEO of insurance giant AIG, Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, who’d engineered a scheme to artificially pump up the value of his company. Spitzer kicked over a hornets’ nest when his gaze landed on one of the richest men in America, investor Ken Langone and his pal, Dick Grasso, the head of the New York Stock Exchange, who Spitzer sued over a $187 million pay package.
“There were a lot of people who wanted him gone,” said Gibney. “He wanted systemic change.”
The press had dubbed him “The Sheriff of Wall Street” but his declaration of “war” didn’t earn him any supporters in Albany on either side of the aisle when he became governor.
He took his attack dog approach to public service into the Governor’s office where he tangled with the rough and tumble entrenched interests in the State house. Gibney interviews Senate leader Joe Bruno who became Spitzer’s main foe.
“I’ve been threatened by hoods and gangsters my whole life. If you think you’re going to bother me, don’t,” said Bruno, a former professional boxer, who says this is what he told the Governor. Spitzer does get under his skin and Bruno meets with Greenberg.
Roger Stone
Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.
He also hires a private detective Roger Stone, a political trickster who’s known for his wild sexcapades as a swinger and likes to dress up like James Bond.
“Sometimes the stories are just too good,” said Gibney. “The glory of non-fiction is running across characters like this.”
Spitzer came to town with the campaign promise to, “Bring some passion back to Albany.” His constituents would soon find out exactly what that meant.
After the government gets wind of Spitzer’s encounters, the Department of Justice (DOJ) begins to close in and his fear, “if we stumble they will kick us in the nuts,” comes true said Gibney.
The twists and turns of why the DOJ was involved, how they traced Spitzer’s transactions, the identity of his frequent escort, the names of the cabal that had it in for him and how the Feds manipulated the press to break the story and the fact that he was never charged with any crime, are part of this riveting, feature length documentary.
Eliot Spitzer
Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures.
Greek mythology wasn’t about redemption but it’s clear that Eliot Spitzer is attempting a comeback. He’s taught college classes and now has a talk show on CNN. Will he be able to wax up those wings and set flight again?
“I disagree with Fitzgerald who said there are no second acts in America,” said Gibney. “This country loves second acts.”
I suspect Spitzer has one but what that is remains to be seen.
The film is being released by Magnolia Pictures (www.magpictures.com) the theatrical and home entertainment distribution branch of the company co-owned by Todd Wagner and Mark Cuban. It opens in New York November 5 and in Los Angels on November 12.
Where to see Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer
11/5/2010
New York, NY: Lincoln Plaza
New York, NY: Angelika Film Center
11/12/2010
Encino, CA: Town Center 5
Pasadena, CA: Playhouse 7 Cinemas
West Hollywood, CA: Sunset 5
Cambridge, MA: Kendall Square Cinema
Philadelphia, PA: Ritz at the Bourse
Washington, DC: E Street Cinema
Santa Ana, CA: South Coast Village 3
11/19/2010
Palm Desert, CA: Cinemas Palme D’Or 7
Santa Cruz, CA: Nickelodeon Theatres
New Haven, CT: Criterion Cinemas 7
Albany, NY: Spectrum
11/26/2010
Boca Raton, FL: Living Room Cinema 4
1/16/2011
Permbroke HM19, BM: Tradewinds Auditorium at the Bermuda Underwater
The film is also available on major cable system nationally, iTunes, Amazon, Xbox live, hotels, etc.
It will continue to be available for two months after the theatrical release date, and will come down prior to the DVD release.
For more information: http://www.client9themovie.com/

Follow Michael Rose on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/MichaellRose

Source:www.huffingtonpost.com