#pre-toll artificer

[kedakirahei]

PRE-EVENT ARTI MY BELOVED

SHE IS JUST SO PRECIOUS I LOVE HER...

i even named the pups!!!!!! The blue one is Cryia and the teal(?) one is Tamari... theyre just so adorable... i wish they were alive </3 I like to imagine Arti had a different name before she was, well, yknow, what we know now. like, Pepper. So, its Pepper, Cryia and Tamari!!

i just love her camapign in general

Theres not much else to say, so,

Byebye and have a good day/night!!!

[themetaisfutile]

What's your most favourite class and race to play? Why? Least favourite? Why?

This answer is long so buckle up! Each TMiF member got to answer this!

CptTritium: My favorite is Pathfinder Paladin. I liked Paladins pre-3.5e because I like playing with restrictions, because paladins in pre-3.5e you had to be lawful good and live under the pact of a higher power which is really important considering the historical meaning behind the term. I like the idea of a holy warrior. I'm tempted to say gnome is my favorite race because… Well (group laughter). Honestly though all my favorite races and classes are the ones in the SRD, because I like playing in those constraints. Least favorite: (thinking) They all have their place, but I don't know, insert College of Creation Bard here? (laughter) For context the first time we played Curse of Strahd, Jade played a Creation Bard and killed Strahd with a bunch of books. Oh you know my least favorite race? The Ardlings from D&DOne or whatever they're calling it. Just make Aasimar better, don't just give them animal heads. I don't actually have super strong feelings about it though.

RosexKnight: My favorite class is Warlock, even though I'm not playing many in our games because I was trying to avoid doing my whole thing! (laughs) And the only one I WAS playing, died! Hilariously enough my favorite race is tieflings. I just really like them for their diversity in appearance. Least favorite: My least favorite subclass is the alchemist artificer because it could have been SO MUCH BETTER! And it's not! Compared to the other artificer subclasses. It's a decent enough support class becase you get some bonuses to healing, or when you do damage that's fire, acid, or poison.

Jademod: Favorite: Fighters and Rogues are both good for multiclassing, that's why I like them. One or two levels gives some fun variety and they have a good variety of subclasses if you go three levels. I'd thought wizard was my most played class but both times I've played wizard with this group it was a wizard/fighter because I'm a sucker for melee-based casters! (laughs) Least favorite: That's… A hard one. Maybe druid? I dunno I think they're cool, and I've played them and I will play them, but it depends. And (sorry Zen but) Ranger? I don't think they're bad I just don't like a lot of the ranger spells as much as other classes' spells. I don't DISlike the class it's just not my favorite class. I have played and will play ranger!

Ry: I gotta say my favorite race has gotta be dragonborn, because I'm playing Dungeons&DRAGONS and there's going to be an effing DRAGON. They're just fun because breath weapons are dope; you can have a direct line of fire or a giant cone. You turn your breath into a public service announcement! Class is where it gets tricky, because there's a lot of really interesting capabilities. Bard is a fantastic class because you can get really creative. But there's something about Barbarians, I've come to find, as a phenomenally fun class to run solo or mix in. No spells or anything, I just get mad and swing my axe or sword and it's that easy. But I am having fun playing warlock; get to use the best cantrip in the world, Toll the Dead! Eldritch blast is great but Toll the Dead has been fantastic. Least favorite: Monk. It's a good class, but for a class that's just for punching things it's just way too complex. It's just the one I like least. It's the getting going with them, and there's so much to manage.

Bluebrush09: I have mostly rogues, fighters, and wizards, and mostly humans for played characters. But I don't branch out much 'cause I don't really look at builds to play. Just go with whatever is character-fitting since most of mine are pre-existing.

ZenAquaria: My favorite class is the Cleric! Partially because that's the class I started with in the first CoS run with Spooks, my little grave cleric! I am a support player by nature, and the cleric has a lot to offer in that regard. Depending on your domain, you can be a frontliner, a back-of-the-pack support, a healer, crowd control; there's a lot of options. And I really enjoy multiclassing the cleric! Because they really can! (laughter) When it comes to race I don't really have a favorite either, that I've played? Which means I don't have a least fave either! But if you were to look at my collection of characters I've not yet run, that answer would lie with the drow, just by virtue of most numerous. I do really love the owlin though, because heyo, Spooks! Least favorite: As far as least favorite class goes, Iiiii… have not played the same subclass twice so that's really hard for me to pick because I haven't found one I just, did not like. I will say I do not appreciate how they have shorted the Beastmaster Ranger in costing them their action to command their pet, unless you have the Primal Spirit companion from Tasha's.

[maxwellyjordan]

Symposium: Criminal remedies for political misconduct

Randall D. Eliason teaches white-collar criminal law at The George Washington University Law School and is a contributing columnist at the Washington Post.

The line between political mischief and criminal corruption can be blurry. It’s a treacherous area, because criminal prosecution can easily become a weapon wielded against political opponents. In part to minimize such dangers, the Supreme Court has repeatedly pushed back against federal prosecutors seeking to use expansive legal theories to prosecute political misdeeds. In Kelly v. United States, the “Bridgegate” appeal, the court appears poised to do so once again.

In September 2013 the petitioners, Bridget Anne Kelly and William Baroni, participated in a scheme to reduce the inbound lanes on the George Washington Bridge devoted to local traffic from Fort Lee, New Jersey, from three to one. This resulted in four days of massive traffic gridlock in Fort Lee. The petitioners claimed they had changed the lane configuration in order to conduct a traffic study. In fact, the evidence established they did it to punish the mayor of Fort Lee for his refusal to endorse New Jersey Governor Chris Christie for re-election.

There was no law or regulation that required three lanes to be reserved for the Fort Lee traffic; that configuration was itself the product of an earlier political deal. Baroni, a senior Port Authority official, had the authority to order the lane shift. The petitioners didn’t personally profit from the scheme. In short, they took an action that was within the scope of their authority and was otherwise lawful, but lied to conceal their true political motivation.

A jury convicted the petitioners of conspiracy, wire fraud and theft from a federally funded entity. Prosecutors argued that they deprived the Port Authority of property, primarily in the form of the salaries paid to the Port Authority employees who carried out the lane closures and traffic study. And this was fraud, the prosecutors claimed, because the petitioners deceived their superiors and the public about the reason for their actions.

Bridgegate is just the latest installment in a long-running tug of war between the Supreme Court and prosecutors pursuing public corruption. In the post-Watergate era, prosecutors increasingly relied on honest services mail or wire fraud, charging those who abused their public positions with defrauding the public of its intangible right to the official’s fair and honest services. But “honest services” was not clearly defined, leaving prosecutors free to criminalize a wide range of political misdeeds that could be deemed “dishonest” or contrary to the public interest.

The Supreme Court struck its first blow against this trend in the landmark 1987 case of McNally v. United States. Several Kentucky officials were convicted of honest services fraud for engaging in a scheme to share in the commissions earned by insurance companies that sold policies to the commonwealth. Although the defendants profited from the scheme, there was no evidence that Kentucky lost any money or that the arrangement violated Kentucky law. The court reversed their convictions and struck down the honest services fraud theory, holding that the law of fraud does not create an intangible right “to have public officials perform their duties honestly.” Honest services prosecutions, the court said, impermissibly involve the federal government in “setting standards of disclosure and good government for state and local officials.” The court held that unless and until Congress specifies otherwise, fraud was “limited in scope to the protection of property rights.”

Congress responded to McNally the following year by enacting 18 U.S.C. 1346, which expressly provides that fraud can include a “scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” But Congress failed to define that term. This led to another two decades of what Justice Antonin Scalia once characterized as “chaos,” with prosecutors continuing to use honest services fraud to prosecute a wide variety of breaches of the public trust.

The court finally stepped in again in the 2010 case of Skilling v. United States. Facing another vagueness challenge to the honest services theory, the court this time declined to strike down the law altogether. Instead, it held that honest services fraud must be confined to core corruption: cases involving bribery and kickbacks, in which officials enrich themselves through abuse of their position. Lesser political misdeeds, however deplorable, may not be charged as honest services fraud.

Cases involving other statutes further illustrate the court’s insistence that corruption statutes be narrowly construed. For example, in the 1991 case of McCormick v. United States the court held that a state legislator could not be convicted of Hobbs Act extortion merely for taking actions that benefited a group that had contributed to his re-election. Such conduct, the court held, may appear unsavory but has never been considered unlawful and in fact is “unavoidable” so long as we have privately financed campaigns. In the 2016 case of McDonnell v. United States, the court adopted an extremely narrow view of what constitutes an “official act” that will support a conviction under federal bribery law, concerned that a broader interpretation would “cast a pall of potential prosecution” over routine interactions and favors that are an inherent part of politics.

That brings us to Bridgegate. Prosecutors couldn’t charge honest services fraud because the case does not involve bribes or kickbacks. Accordingly, the petitioners argue, prosecutors took what would have been an honest services case in pre-Skilling days and tried to dress it up as a property fraud case by claiming that the petitioners defrauded the Port Authority of the salaries of the employees who executed the scheme – including Baroni himself.

(Prosecutors have an alternative property theory mentioned but not relied upon by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit – that the petitioners deprived the Port Authority of the “right to control” the bridge lanes and toll booths. If the court addresses that at all, it will almost certainly hold this is merely a government regulatory interest, not a property right, relying on Cleveland v. United States.)

Agreeing with this fraud theory, the court of appeals repeatedly characterized the petitioners as misappropriating or converting the labor of Port Authority employees to carry out their scheme. But the cases the court cited for support all involved officials who enriched themselves by conscripting public employees to perform personal tasks, such as working for the official’s private company.

The Bridgegate employees, by contrast, were still doing Port Authority work when they carried out the lane realignment and traffic study. The petitioners did not line their own pockets by converting the public employees’ labor to their private use. There was nothing inherently improper about the work that was done; the only improper thing was the petitioners’ motive for ordering it.

A supervisor cannot be said to “defraud” the government of employee salaries when those employees are not personally enriching the supervisor and are still doing the work they were hired to do, even if they have been directed to act for a secret and improper political reason. As the petitioners point out, nearly every case of political misconduct will involve the use of some government resources or employee time. That’s particularly true if, as the government alleges here, the salary paid to the misbehaving employees themselves can be part of the calculation. If that amounts to criminal fraud, the limitations the Supreme Court imposed in Skilling and other cases will become a dead letter.

Consider two recent examples, both highlighted in the petitioners’ briefs. In the dispute over adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census, the Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the Commerce Secretary’s proffered reason for the question appeared to be “contrived.” No doubt Commerce Department personnel spent a great deal of time working to implement that question and justify adding it to the census. The theory adopted in the Bridgegate case would mean that an incoming Democratic administration in 2021 potentially could indict the secretary for fraud for converting the salaries of those employees to his own use while lying about the true reason for the question to conceal his political motives.

In its early days the Trump administration also faced multiple lawsuits over the so-called ���travel ban.” Opponents alleged that the true reason for the ban was not national security, as the administration claimed, but anti-Muslim bias. Again, the same theory would allow the responsible officials to be indicted for fraud for using the labor of administration employees to implement the ban while providing a false rationale for the ban itself.

For better or worse, politicians routinely act for political reasons while purporting to be acting in the public interest. They distribute pork, exchange political favors, settle scores, pursue political agendas and engage in spin. Those political acts will sometimes cost the government money, and some may not in fact be in the public interest at all. But just as the court noted in McCormick, given the nature of politics – and the nature of politicians – some such conduct is likely unavoidable. However unseemly, it has never been thought of as criminal. The remedy for such misdeeds should be at the ballot box, not in the jury box.

As a result of Bridgegate, Baroni and Kelly lost their jobs and Christie’s political career took a nosedive. Those are the appropriate types of sanctions for such political mischief. By trying to shoehorn this case into a traditional money- or property-fraud theory, the government has sought to use criminal law to enforce an intangible right to good and honest government – the same criminal theory the Supreme Court rejected in McNally more than 30 years ago. In Kelly, the court is likely to reject it once again.

The post Symposium: Criminal remedies for political misconduct appeared first on SCOTUSblog.

from Law https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/09/symposium-criminal-remedies-for-political-misconduct/ via http://www.rssmix.com/

[kartiavelino]

Boy George has a new album — and a zen take on his crazy life

Boy George flaunts mermaid make-up and vixen eyebrows, however you’ll by no means catch him with a trout pout. Regardless of his apparent love of artifice, the pop star frowns on overfilled lips and eerily frozen foreheads. “I’m horrified on the manner gorgeous, lovely persons are disfiguring themselves to allow them to appear to be another person,” the gregarious 57-year-old Tradition Membership frontman tells Alexa, backstage earlier than a packed live performance outdoors Chicago on the band’s world reunion tour. “After I consider all of the laborious work I’ve accomplished to get individuals to be people — and now all people desires to have this bizarre look that’s simply boring. And sure, I’m making a judgment!” he proclaims, bursting into boisterous laughter. “There was a image of [Lady] Gaga the opposite day actually trying fishy and I made a remark on Twitter. It wasn’t essentially about her, I simply assume that persons are attention-grabbing due to their defects and their facial character.” As the primary multi-racial band with an overtly homosexual singer, Tradition Membership has at all times serenaded self-acceptance. Now, because the multi-platinum British band prepares to drop its first album in almost 20 years subsequent month (referred to as “Life”), that ethos nonetheless resonates. “Our message has at all times been: For those who really feel disenfranchised or left of middle, we’re the one-stop store for that,” says the “Karma Chameleon” and “Do You Actually Need to Damage Me” crooner, whose shiny crimson and black stage eye shadow makes him appear to be he went a few rounds with Tyson Fury. “You don’t should be completely different to be attention-grabbing, however there’s nothing unsuitable with being completely different. Being completely different is a reward.” Clothes: Boy George’s artwork work was translated into customized seems to be by costume makers in London; Hats: A Little one Of The Jago; Footwear: Alexander McQueenRankin As nonconformist as George has at all times been, he stays true to his sound. “It wasn’t the intention to write down a pop document, however I believe we simply can’t assist it,” he says, referring to Tradition Membership’s catchy new tracks, just like the reggae-inflected “Let Anyone Love You.” “It’s simply in our nature: We like melodic songs and we would like them to get to the purpose as rapidly as attainable.” George Alan O’Dowd (as he was born), grew up in southeast London, the third of six youngsters in a noisy, working-class Irish Catholic clan. “I attempted in useless to be like different youngsters,” he writes in “Take It Like A Man,” his dishy 1995 memoir. “I couldn’t disguise my female nature.” The self-described “pink sheep of the household” was expelled from college at 15 for truancy. By then, the David Bowie and Marc Bolan fan had bleached his spiky hair white and was decked out in paint-spattered togs strewn with chains, pins and padlocks. Within the early 1980s, George shaped Tradition Membership with Jon Moss (drums), Mikey Craig (bass) and Roy Hay (guitar-keyboards). His proto-punk look advanced into a freewheeling androgynous model: Cleopatra make-up, pirate garments and ribbon-tied dreadlocks topped with giant, colourful hats. The soul-meets-reggae-plus-funk-and-country band went on to promote greater than 100 million singles and 50 million albums, successful the 1984 Grammy for Finest New Artist. At its peak, a sighting of the long-lasting group and its flamboyant diva may trigger a close to riot. ‘There was a level in my earlier life after I undoubtedly felt tremendous trapped by who I used to be. I bought bored of that, so I modified.’ However inside a few years, the pressures of fame had taken a toll. Riven by character clashes and the top of George’s secret love affair with Moss, the band broke up in 1986. As soon as a leisure drug consumer, the singer grew to become a full-fledged heroin addict. Though he went on to turn out to be a profitable solo artist, DJ and co-creator of the West Finish and Broadway musical “Taboo,” through which he had a position, his profession was stymied by a number of arrests, group service and jail time (for assault and false imprisonment). However on March 2, 2008, he lastly bought clear. Right now, he’s a Buddhist who doesn’t eat meat and avoids sugar and strife. “I’m a excellent particular person! I dwell on macadamia nuts and kale!” jokes the performer, who co-authored the 2001 macrobiotic “Karma Cookbook.” “I eat very clear. I’m at all times experimenting with fasting, and attempting one meal a day, extra to see if it impacts my normal equilibrium.” His legendary snark has even subsided. Up to now, the word-slinger shaded Madonna and dissed George Michael. Right now, he praises Prince. The reformed George is chatty, self-aware, surprisingly cautious to not be catty and virtually — however not fairly — earnest. “After I was youthful, being bitchy was about defending myself,” he explains. “I’m quippy, fairly than bitchy. If I’m tweeting one thing, I don’t need to be merciless.” Aware George can be a lot kinder to himself. Whereas within the ’80s he may need gone clubbing after a live performance or closed down a lodge bar, the older and wiser George works out and rests up. He describes his pre-show routine as “fitness center, hang around, yoga, watch crap TV, watch issues on the web. Strive and see town if it feels acceptable.” Clothes: Boy George’s artwork work was translated into customized seems to be by costume makers in London; Hats: A Little one Of The Jago; Footwear: Alexander McQueen.Rankin At dwelling in London, he can hop on the bus or take the tube incognito, which fits him. “As soon as I’ve bought the glad rags off and a pair of sun shades on, I’m just about not bothered,” says the hit-maker, who’s draped in free black layers. “You get the odd one who will clock you — my voice provides me away and my eyes undoubtedly give me away. Generally I believe I ought to be extra mysterious, but it surely’s simply not the street I’ve taken.” It’s a distinction from the raucous ’80s. “Again then, you have been kind of a prisoner of your movie star,” he remembers. “I didn’t like all that screaming and operating after you. If someone was a mad, marauding fan, they might discover a manner of attending to you. There’s a little extra calmness now. “I’ve sort of been on a actual journey with the entire fame factor,” he provides. “There was a level in my earlier life after I undoubtedly felt tremendous trapped by who I used to be. I bought bored of that, so I modified. I’m far more comfy with being a figment of different individuals’s creativeness!” Though he’s seen as swaggy, George swears he’s not a slave to luxurious labels. “I’ve been sporting a lot of my very own artwork on my garments and portray stuff,” he says, holding up a black shirt with childlike drawings on it — much like the customized items he rocks on this picture shoot. “I don’t care about garments, however I additionally love them. That’s fairly Gemini, isn’t it? “Loads of excessive style is about sporting cash,” says the sometime-designer, who based his B-Impolite line in 2005 and modeled for Dior final 12 months. “It’s about saying, ‘Look how costly I’m, I’ve bought this purse!’ I’m not that sort of shopper. I believe that individuals can get fairly judgmental. Particularly in style, the unsuitable earrings can topple an empire.” Feels like a pair he’d need to put on. Photographs: Rankin; Clothes: Boy George’s artwork work was translated into customized seems to be by costume makers in London; Hats: A Little one Of The Jago; Footwear: Alexander McQueen. Share this: https://nypost.com/2018/09/11/boy-george-calls-out-plastic-surgery-fans-who-disfigure-themselves/ The post Boy George has a new album — and a zen take on his crazy life appeared first on My style by Kartia. https://www.kartiavelino.com/2018/09/boy-george-has-a-new-album-and-a-zen-take-on-his-crazy-life.html

[havinganaffairwithmywife-blog]

Representation in Film: Let's Talk About Prisoners with Tamara Perkins

Welcome to the first post in our little series where we highlight important issues in new, upcoming indiefilms by interviewing film creators! We met Tamara Perkins on Twitter, where we spoke about recidivism amongst prisoners. This is something very near and dear to my heart because of the homeless population we've worked with here in Puerto Rico: unemployment remains a huge barrier to their rehabilitation, but it's almost impossible for any of those with a criminal record to find jobs. This Catch-22 pits our street team's measly hot dogs and hugs against a completely unassailable hopelessness: there's literally no way out for these guys. With no way to get a job to get back on their feet, what's to stop them from just committing crimes again? As a victim of crime, and the family member of an incarcerated person, Tamara is intimately familiar with these issues in the mainland United States, and she's made a film about that.

About Tamara

Tamara, you mentioned you survived a crime, and had a family member facing life. Would you mind talking a little more about those situations? I think I was referring to a specific incident when I was 17, and I was picking up my sister. While waiting for her at the apartment she was staying at, a young man (also 17) made a physical pass at me and when I rebuked him put a gun to my head. Thankfully my sister's boyfriend was there and was able to deescalate the situation so that I could leave. It breaks my heart to say that that young man is in prison for murder now. Unfortunately, this was only one of the four times that I have had a gun to my head. Though the others seem more random (robbery, etc.) and less personal, since this incident happened in a place I felt safe. I think I also changed a little after that incident; I have always been fiercely independent, assertive, and proud, but my responses are a little more measured now. I assess danger more regularly, and am not sure I have the same sense of ease I had previously. It also opened my mind to questions about how that young man got to a point where he had a gun, and when made uncomfortable was immediately drawn to use it. That doesn't just happen. Something happened to him. Of course, this was a long time ago, but I would argue the seed for making Life After Life was sown then.   It was actually pretty soon after I had started the film that my nephew was first arrested for something minor as a young juvenile. Since I had started a yoga program in the juvenile hall I knew the superintendent, chief probation officer, and even some of the judges, but I couldn't do anything besides get my sister a visit right away. I want to be clear that what happened that night could have been handled by calling his mom to come pick him up, and if he had been white I feel pretty certain that would have been the case, instead he received a misdemeanor and a long juvenile hall stay. I can't really express how damaging this is for kids. He was 14 and isolated, given psychotropic drugs to deal with his depression and insomnia, a reasonable reaction to being locked up as a sensitive young kid. This isn't a unique situation, but it changed that way I saw everything. I won't go into the details but being under the scrutiny of the probation system took a toll on my nephew and at 17 he was facing life, charged as an adult. He was lucky to be given a second chance and after serving a handful of years is home. At this point we're all just incredibly grateful, but I can't help being angry at a system which takes aim at black and brown boys beginning in elementary school and even as now has been proven through the schools in preschool. What pulled you through those difficult experiences? Family, loved ones, and an incredible and supportive community. And I guess also pouring myself into the film and my activism work. It helps to feel like you might be doing something to help the next kid, and possible make a dent in changing, and in some cases dismantling the system. Of course, self-care is key. For me, yoga, meditation, and bicycling were my touchstones. They have always helped me to ground myself and process both what my family and I were dealing with as well as the stories I was holding for the men. More recently I also got involved with Essie Justice Group for women with incarcerated loved ones, which was a big support.

The Film

What does your film have in common with your experiences?  For each of the men in the film there was something that happened in their early lives that took away a bit of their innocence, and often several several traumas that they never received help to address. It's hepful to understand that nothing happens in a vacuum. We are all the sum of our lived experience, and yet these men are seen only for their worst act. My nephew is a wonderful young man with a sensitive soul, but some would only see him in this same light. And I cannot sit back and let that be. The film, Life After Life, shares the experience of 3 men coming home from San Quentin State Prison, but it also shares the lives and experiences of their families who shared in their incarceration for 10, 20, and 30 years. Anyone with an incarcerated loved one understands what I mean. You can see the trailer for Life After Life here and you can see a related TEDx talk I gave here: Life After: Embracing our Common Humanity. What other lessons did you learn from your experiences? So much humility... I'm still learning as I try to honor and pay homage to the incredible sacrifice that the men, women, and families I followed made in order to make this film. This is a raw and honest film and it would not have been made without their dedication to the project, and vulnerability in opening up their lives and family to me on camera. I have such incredible respect for each of them. And I know that this is part of their redemption story. Was there anything that people did that helped you out? Everything! This film was a complete community effort from the beginning. Colleagues in Alameda County Public Health first invited me to teach Yoga at San Quentin State Prison where I met the men who asked me to tell their story, then later vouched for me with the warden in order to have access to make the film. My co-producer and cinematographer Jesse Dana (@jessedana), who signed on from the start, brought his prowess with the camera to bring an unparalleled beauty to the imagery, and without whom there would be no film. Also, our editor Kevin Jones (@kingjones9000) brought a poetic view of the subjects and story along with incredible skill. Simron Gill (@simrongill) took a year off before going to law school to help us get the film off the ground. Jeanine Rodgers (@j9rodgers) brought her business acumen to the team to help us fund our efforts. And countless others over the years made sure that we were moving forward and making a beautiful and meaningful piece.

What can people do--what kind of call to action is there--for people who want to help those whose family members are in prison?

How can individuals help incarcerated folks to rehabilitate? And how can we help crime survivors, and step up to the plate to help you out? The prison system in the US is growing at epidemic proportions and primarily targeting people and communities of color. More than 60% of the people in prison today are people of color. Black men are nearly six times as likely to be incarcerated as white men and Hispanic men are 2.3 times as likely. For black men in their thirties, 1 in every 10 is in prison or jail on any given day. The roots of what is often termed the “school-to-prison pipeline” often begins as early as pre-school when, according to recent data from the U.S. Department of Education, black children are 3.6 times more likely to be suspended from preschool than white children. These trends continue through high school and especially for older students, trouble at school can lead to their first contact with the criminal justice system. And in many cases, schools themselves are the ones pushing students into the juvenile justice system — often by having students arrested at school. Those realities coupled with a lack of support services both inside prison and upon release perpetuate a growing cycle of recidivism. As this cycle grows and perpetuates itself the health and wellbeing of more and more Americans is at risk. At the same time media representations of incarcerated men and women have dehumanized and alienated them to such a degree that there is little public connection to the problem. This lack of public empathy is the largest hurdle to reform across the prison system. It will take a decisive and concerted action to steer our culture away from the stereotypical fear and anger that dominate public perceptions of incarcerated people and their families. Our goals for this film stem from the very reasons we became filmmakers. We want to create transformative experiences that reframe the way people see the world delving into often untouchable subjects and presenting them from the inside out. Through making this film we have become adept at embedding ourselves within communities and cultures in a way that supports the voice of our subjects. We filmed our subjects over many years in their own environments, striving always to remove artifice from the process, and going so far as to put cameras in our subjects hands letting them lead a thread of their own story. We, along with the audience, are in the moment with our subjects connecting through common experiences; we feel what they feel, establishing a tangible connection, witnessing as the events in their lives radiate out into their family, and into our community. As their paths to a new life are revealed—often measured in small, awkward steps over weeks, months and years—the precarious nature of freedom after incarceration in America is revealed. Our film comes at a time when -- although we had begun to rethink our criminal justice system and the pipelines that feed it -- we now face incredible uncertainty with the current administration. We are preparing for local and national screenings of the film and will be promoting the film as an educational and advocacy tool. In California we are working with advocacy agencies to educate the community on the effect of Prop 57. Other campaigns are working to eliminate Cash Bail, and ensure that families are able to visit their loved ones in person and not just through a computer screen. People can help by staying informed and voting for and supporting policies that uplift and empower people. But mostly, pay attention, and do your best to see people, engage in meaningful conversation, learn and share. You can help the film and this movement by talking about and sharing the film, and hosting a screening and conversation at your university, policy or advocacy agency, or in your community. You can also check our site for upcoming screenings and events. Upcoming screenings and panel discussions include: UC Berkeley, School of Law, Berkeley, CA – Monday, March 20 @ 6pm (Reserve your spot here! http://evite.me/MmDm1Xcc9Y) Indiana Theater, Terre Haute, IN – Sunday, April 9 @ 2pm New Parkway Theater, Oakland, CA – Tuesday, June 6 @ 7pm @TPerkinsFilm @LifeAfter_movie www.lifeafterlifemovie.com Click to Post

[kartiavelino]

Boy George calls out plastic surgery fans who ‘disfigure’ themselves

Boy George flaunts mermaid make-up and vixen eyebrows, however you’ll by no means catch him with a trout pout. Regardless of his apparent love of artifice, the pop star frowns on overfilled lips and eerily frozen foreheads. “I’m horrified on the approach gorgeous, lovely persons are disfiguring themselves to allow them to seem like another person,” the gregarious 57-year-old Tradition Membership frontman tells Alexa, backstage earlier than a packed live performance exterior Chicago on the band’s world reunion tour. “Once I consider all of the exhausting work I’ve performed to get individuals to be people — and now everyone desires to have this bizarre look that’s simply boring. And sure, I’m making a judgment!” he proclaims, bursting into boisterous laughter. “There was an image of [Lady] Gaga the opposite day actually trying fishy and I made a touch upon Twitter. It wasn’t essentially about her, I simply assume that persons are fascinating due to their defects and their facial character.” As the primary multi-racial band with an brazenly homosexual singer, Tradition Membership has at all times serenaded self-acceptance. Now, because the multi-platinum British band prepares to drop its first album in almost 20 years subsequent month (known as “Life”), that ethos nonetheless resonates. “Our message has at all times been: In case you really feel disenfranchised or left of middle, we’re the one-stop store for that,” says the “Karma Chameleon” and “Do You Actually Need to Damage Me” crooner, whose shiny pink and black stage eye shadow makes him seem like he went just a few rounds with Tyson Fury. “You don’t must be totally different to be fascinating, however there’s nothing improper with being totally different. Being totally different is a present.” Clothes: Boy George’s artwork work was translated into customized appears to be like by costume makers in London; Hats: A Youngster Of The Jago; Sneakers: Alexander McQueenRankin As nonconformist as George has at all times been, he stays true to his sound. “It wasn’t the intention to put in writing a pop document, however I believe we simply can’t assist it,” he says, referring to Tradition Membership’s catchy new tracks, just like the reggae-inflected “Let Any person Love You.” “It’s simply in our nature: We like melodic songs and we would like them to get to the purpose as shortly as potential.” George Alan O’Dowd (as he was born), grew up in southeast London, the third of six kids in a loud, working-class Irish Catholic clan. “I attempted in useless to be like different youngsters,” he writes in “Take It Like A Man,” his dishy 1995 memoir. “I couldn’t cover my female nature.” The self-described “pink sheep of the household” was expelled from college at 15 for truancy. By then, the David Bowie and Marc Bolan fan had bleached his spiky hair white and was decked out in paint-spattered togs strewn with chains, pins and padlocks. Within the early 1980s, George shaped Tradition Membership with Jon Moss (drums), Mikey Craig (bass) and Roy Hay (guitar-keyboards). His proto-punk look advanced right into a freewheeling androgynous model: Cleopatra make-up, pirate garments and ribbon-tied dreadlocks topped with massive, colourful hats. The soul-meets-reggae-plus-funk-and-country band went on to promote greater than 100 million singles and 50 million albums, successful the 1984 Grammy for Greatest New Artist. At its peak, a sighting of the enduring group and its flamboyant diva may trigger a close to riot. ‘There was some extent in my earlier life once I positively felt tremendous trapped by who I used to be. I obtained bored of that, so I modified.’ However inside just a few years, the pressures of fame had taken a toll. Riven by character clashes and the tip of George’s secret love affair with Moss, the band broke up in 1986. As soon as a leisure drug person, the singer grew to become a full-fledged heroin addict. Though he went on to grow to be a profitable solo artist, DJ and co-creator of the West Finish and Broadway musical “Taboo,” by which he had a job, his profession was stymied by a number of arrests, neighborhood service and jail time (for assault and false imprisonment). However on March 2, 2008, he lastly obtained clear. At the moment, he’s a Buddhist who doesn’t eat meat and avoids sugar and strife. “I’m an ideal individual! I stay on macadamia nuts and kale!” jokes the performer, who co-authored the 2001 macrobiotic “Karma Cookbook.” “I eat very clear. I’m at all times experimenting with fasting, and making an attempt one meal a day, extra to see if it impacts my basic equilibrium.” His legendary snark has even subsided. Up to now, the word-slinger shaded Madonna and dissed George Michael. At the moment, he praises Prince. The reformed George is chatty, self-aware, surprisingly cautious to not be catty and virtually — however not fairly — earnest. “Once I was youthful, being bitchy was about defending myself,” he explains. “I’m quippy, moderately than bitchy. If I’m tweeting one thing, I don’t wish to be merciless.” Aware George can also be a lot kinder to himself. Whereas within the ’80s he might need gone clubbing after a live performance or closed down a resort bar, the older and wiser George works out and rests up. He describes his pre-show routine as “gymnasium, hold out, yoga, watch crap TV, watch issues on the Web. Try to see town if it feels applicable.” Clothes: Boy George’s artwork work was translated into customized appears to be like by costume makers in London; Hats: A Youngster Of The Jago; Sneakers: Alexander McQueen.Rankin At house in London, he can hop on the bus or take the tube incognito, which fits him. “As soon as I’ve obtained the glad rags off and a pair of sun shades on, I’m just about not bothered,” says the hit-maker, who is draped in free black layers. “You get the odd individual who will clock you — my voice provides me away and my eyes positively give me away. Typically I believe I must be extra mysterious, nevertheless it’s simply not the highway I’ve taken.” It’s a distinction from the raucous ’80s. “Again then, you had been type of a prisoner of your movie star,” he recollects. “I didn’t like all that screaming and working after you. If any person was a mad, marauding fan, they’d discover a approach of attending to you. There’s slightly extra calmness now. “I’ve sort of been on an actual journey with the entire fame factor,” he provides. “There was some extent in my earlier life once I positively felt tremendous trapped by who I used to be. I obtained bored of that, so I modified. I’m rather more snug with being a figment of different individuals’s creativeness!” Though he’s seen as swaggy, George swears he’s not a slave to luxurious labels. “I’ve been sporting numerous my very own artwork on my garments and portray stuff,” he says, holding up a black shirt with childlike drawings on it — much like the customized items he rocks on this photograph shoot. “I don’t care about garments, however I additionally love them. That’s fairly Gemini, isn’t it? “Lots of excessive style is about sporting cash,” says the sometime-designer, who based his B-Impolite line in 2005 and modeled for Dior final 12 months. “It’s about saying, ‘Look how costly I’m, I’ve obtained this purse!’ I’m not that sort of shopper. I believe that folks can get fairly judgmental. Particularly in style, the improper earrings can topple an empire.” Appears like a pair he’d wish to put on. Photographs: Rankin; Clothes: Boy George’s artwork work was translated into customized appears to be like by costume makers in London; Hats: A Youngster Of The Jago; Sneakers: Alexander McQueen. Share this: https://nypost.com/2018/09/11/boy-george-calls-out-plastic-surgery-fans-who-disfigure-themselves/ The post Boy George calls out plastic surgery fans who ‘disfigure’ themselves appeared first on My style by Kartia. https://www.kartiavelino.com/2018/09/boy-george-calls-out-plastic-surgery-fans-who-disfigure-themselves.html

[havinganaffairwithmywife-blog]

Representation in Film: Let's Talk About Prisoners with Tamara Perkins

Welcome to the first post in our little series where we highlight important issues in new, upcoming indiefilms by interviewing film creators! We met Tamara Perkins on Twitter, where we spoke about recidivism amongst prisoners. This is something very near and dear to my heart because of the homeless population we've worked with here in Puerto Rico: unemployment remains a huge barrier to their rehabilitation, but it's almost impossible for any of those with a criminal record to find jobs. This Catch-22 pits our street team's measly hot dogs and hugs against a completely unassailable hopelessness: there's literally no way out for these guys. With no way to get a job to get back on their feet, what's to stop them from just committing crimes again? As a victim of crime, and the family member of an incarcerated person, Tamara is intimately familiar with these issues in the mainland United States, and she's made a film about that. Tamara, you mentioned you survived a crime, and had a family member facing life. Would you mind talking a little more about those situations? I think I was referring to a specific incident when I was 17, and I was picking up my sister. While waiting for her at the apartment she was staying at, a young man (also 17) made a physical pass at me and when I rebuked him put a gun to my head. Thankfully my sister's boyfriend was there and was able to deescalate the situation so that I could leave. It breaks my heart to say that that young man is in prison for murder now. Unfortunately, this was only one of the four times that I have had a gun to my head. Though the others seem more random (robbery, etc.) and less personal, since this incident happened in a place I felt safe. I think I also changed a little after that incident. I have always been fiercely independent, assertive, and proud, but my responses are a little more measured now. I assess danger more regularly, and am not sure I have the same sense of ease I had previously. It also opened my mind to questions about how that young man got to a point where he had a gun, and when made uncomfortable was immediately drawn to use it. That doesn't just happen. Something happened to him. Of course, this was a long time ago, but I would argue the seed for making Life After Life was sown then. It was actually pretty soon after I had started the film that my nephew was first arrested for something minor as a young juvenile. Since I had started a yoga program in the juvenile hall I knew the superintendent, chief probation officer, and even some of the judges, but I couldn't do anything besides get my sister a visit right away. I want to be clear that what happened that night could have been handled by calling his mom to come pick him up, and if he had been white I feel pretty certain that would have been the case, instead he received a misdemeanor and a long juvenile hall stay. I can't really express how damaging this is for kids. He was 14 and isolated, given psychotropic drugs to deal with his depression and insomnia, a reasonable reaction to being locked up as a sensitive young kid. This isn't a unique situation, but it changed that way I saw everything. I won't go into the details but being under the scrutiny of the probation system took a toll on my nephew and at 17 he was facing life, charged as an adult. He was lucky to be given a second chance and after serving a handful of years is home. At this point we're all just incredibly grateful, but I can't help being angry at a system which takes aim at black and brown boys beginning in elementary school and even as now has been proven through the schools in preschool. What pulled you through those difficult experiences? Family, loved ones, and an incredible and supportive community. And I guess also pouring myself into the film and my activism work. It helps to feel like you might be doing something to help the next kid, and possible make a dent in changing, and in some cases dismantling the system. Of course, self-care is key. For me, yoga, meditation, and bicycling were my touchstones. They have always helped me to ground myself and process both what my family and I were dealing with as well as the stories I was holding for the men. More recently I also got involved with Essie Justice Group for women with incarcerated loved ones, which was a big support. What does your film have in common with your experiences?  For each of the men in the film there was something that happened in their early lives that took away a bit of their innocence, and often several several traumas that they never received help to address. It's hepful to understand that nothing happens in a vacuum. We are all the sum of our lived experience, and yet these men are seen only for their worst act. My nephew is a wonderful young man with a sensitive soul, but some would only see him in this same light. And I cannot sit back and let that be. The film, Life After Life, shares the experience of 3 men coming home from San Quentin State Prison, but it also shares the lives and experiences of their families who shared in their incarceration for 10, 20, and 30 years. Anyone with an incarcerated loved one understands what I mean. You can see the trailer for Life After Life here and you can see a related TEDx talk I gave here: Life After: Embracing our Common Humanity. What other lessons did you learn from your experiences? So much humility... I'm still learning as I try to honor and pay homage to the incredible sacrifice that the men, women, and families I followed made in order to make this film. This is a raw and honest film and it would not have been made without their dedication to the project, and vulnerability in opening up their lives and family to me on camera. I have such incredible respect for each of them. And I know that this is part of their redemption story. Was there anything that people did that helped you out? Everything! This film was a complete community effort from the beginning. Colleagues in Alameda County Public Health first invited me to teach Yoga at San Quentin State Prison where I met the men who asked me to tell their story, then later vouched for me with the warden in order to have access to make the film. My co-producer and cinematographer Jesse Dana (@jessedana), who signed on from the start, brought his prowess with the camera to bring an unparalleled beauty to the imagery, and without whom there would be no film. Also, our editor Kevin Jones (@kingjones9000) brought a poetic view of the subjects and story along with incredible skill. Simron Gill (@simrongill) took a year off before going to law school to help us get the film off the ground. Jeanine Rodgers (@j9rodgers) brought her business acumen to the team to help us fund our efforts. And countless others over the years made sure that we were moving forward and making a beautiful and meaningful piece. What can people do--what kind of call to action is there--for people who want to help those whose family members are in prison? How can individuals help incarcerated folks to rehabilitate? And how can we help crime survivors, and step up to the plate to help you out? The prison system in the US is growing at epidemic proportions and primarily targeting people and communities of color. More than 60% of the people in prison today are people of color. Black men are nearly six times as likely to be incarcerated as white men and Hispanic men are 2.3 times as likely. For black men in their thirties, 1 in every 10 is in prison or jail on any given day.1 The roots of what is often termed the “school-to-prison pipeline” often begins as early as pre-school when, according to recent data from the U.S. Department of Education, black children are 3.6 times more likely to be suspended from preschool than white children. These trends continue through high school and especially for older students, trouble at school can lead to their first contact with the criminal justice system. And in many cases, schools themselves are the ones pushing students into the juvenile justice system — often by having students arrested at school. Those realities coupled with a lack of support services both inside prison and upon release perpetuate a growing cycle of recidivism. As this cycle grows and perpetuates itself the health and wellbeing of more and more Americans is at risk. At the same time media representations of incarcerated men and women have dehumanized and alienated them to such a degree that there is little public connection to the problem. This lack of public empathy is the largest hurdle to reform across the prison system. It will take a decisive and concerted action to steer our culture away from the stereotypical fear and anger that dominate public perceptions of incarcerated people and their families. Our goals for this film stem from the very reasons we became filmmakers. We want to create transformative experiences that reframe the way people see the world delving into often untouchable subjects and presenting them from the inside out. Through making this film we have become adept at embedding ourselves within communities and cultures in a way that supports the voice of our subjects. We filmed our subjects over many years in their own environments, striving always to remove artifice from the process, and going so far as to put cameras in our subjects hands letting them lead a thread of their own story. We, along with the audience, are in the moment with our subjects connecting through common experiences. We feel what they feel, establishing a tangible connection, witnessing as the events in their lives radiate out into their family, and into our community. As their paths to a new life are revealed—often measured in small, awkward steps over weeks, months and years—the precarious nature of freedom after incarceration in America is revealed. Our film comes at a time when -- although we had begun to rethink our criminal justice system and the pipelines that feed it -- we now face incredible uncertainty with the current administration. We are preparing for local and national screenings of the film and will be promoting the film as an educational and advocacy tool. In California we are working with advocacy agencies to educate the community on the effect of Prop 57. Other campaigns are working to eliminate Cash Bail, and ensure that families are able to visit their loved ones in person and not just through a computer screen. People can help by staying informed and voting for and supporting policies that uplift and empower people. But mostly, pay attention, and do your best to see people, engage in meaningful conversation, learn and share. You can help the film and this movement by talking about and sharing the film, and hosting a screening and conversation at your university, policy or advocacy agency, or in your community. You can also check our site for upcoming screenings and events. Upcoming screenings and panel discussions include: UC Berkeley, School of Law, Berkeley, CA – Monday, March 20 @ 6pm (Reserve your spot here! http://evite.me/MmDm1Xcc9Y) Indiana Theater, Terre Haute, IN – Sunday, April 9 @ 2pm New Parkway Theater, Oakland, CA – Tuesday, June 6 @ 7pm @TPerkinsFilm @LifeAfter_movie www.lifeafterlifemovie.com #film #indiefilm #representationmatters #shortfilm #set #setlife #bts #behindthescenes #filmmaking #contrast #silouette #style #cinematography #cinemagraph #cinema #stories #filmwe #ishootfilm #filmtune #production #filmlove #keepfilmalive Click to Post