Pro Photographer Takes Amazing Uncharted 4 Screenshots

uncharted_4_photo_modeIn case you didn’t know, there is a Photo Mode in Uncharted 4. Actually Naughty Dog’s The Last of Us Remastered also had that feature which basically allows gamers to tweak certain aspects of the game like depth of field, filters, and lighting to get an image that one would normally not get in the actual game itself.

That being said, real-life pro wedding photographer Ray Soemarsono recently took the game’s Photo Mode for a spin and the end results are amazing. This goes to show that sometimes it isn’t the camera that you use to take the photo with, but rather how good and well-trained your eye is in terms of being able to frame and compose a shot, and also understanding techniques like lighting, exposure, and so on.

According to Soemarsono, “This is by far, the most beautiful game I’ve ever played. The fact that Naughty Dog managed to put this into a console is nothing short of a technological marvel. The addition of the Photo Mode is a blessing for the photographer in me and a curse for the play time. I literally stopped every ten seconds or so to capture screenshots from the Prologue to Epilogue that it took me so long to Platinum this game.”

We opted not to include a gallery of the screenshots because a lot of them are probably considered spoilers for those who haven’t played the game, but if you’d like to check them out all the same, head on over to Soemarsono’s Flickr page for the rest of them.

Pro Photographer Takes Amazing Uncharted 4 Screenshots , original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

My Year-Long Quest To Uncover The Identity Of 'Ugly Naked Guy'

A little more than a year ago, I stumbled into what has since become the single most important investigative quest in my long career as an Internet content creator: finding the Ugly Naked Guy.

For those who don’t know, Ugly Naked Guy was a bit character on “Friends” who Chandler, Joey, Monica, Phoebe, Rachel and Ross all referenced many times. But the truth is, Ugly Naked Guy actually only appeared on the show twice, and his face was never revealed. 

His on-screen debut on the show occurred in the Season 3 episode “The One With The Giant Poking Device,” when the friends stabbed him with a long pole they had fashioned out of chopsticks, but all that could be seen of Ugly Naked Guy was his protruding belly. His second and final appearance on “Friends” occurred in the Season 5 episode “The One Where Everybody Finds Out,” when Ugly Naked Guy moves out of his apartment, and Ross gets the place after he strips and eats muffins with Ugly Naked Guy.

And then, he was gone. The show didn’t credit the actor who played Ugly Naked Guy in either episode, and the actor (or actors) never came forward in the almost two decades since the 1999 episode. Believe me when I say I know far too well that any and all guesses since then have turned out to be wrong.

As a viral content creator, I decided it was my calling to solve this heroically inane mystery. Along the way, I felt like the 2016 Internet equivalent of Herman Melville’s Captain Ahab, losing my mind as monomania overtook me bit by bit. But now, as Spring and new life is once again upon us all, my mind can rest with the knowledge that this quest didn’t swallow me whole. 

If you’ve ever wondered what Ugly Naked Guy (or UNG) looked like, or if he was actually even naked, may this story rest your soul as it has mine.

 

Our story starts with IMDb, Wikipedia, and the “Friends” Wikia, all of which have credited Michael Hagerty as UNG in the past.

It’s unclear how the idea that Hagerty played Ugly Naked Guy first started, but it seems to have first popped up on Wikipedia in 2014, according to the Wayback Machine archive.

Wikipedia still credited Hagerty up until at least April 2016, but the name is now absent from the page. Still, almost every month, someone tweets that Hagerty played both Mr. Treeger and Ugly Naked Guy. Feel free, however, to reply to those ill-informed people with this story and an all-caps: “WRONG.”

 

In April 2015, I reached out to Michael Hagerty, believing him to be UNG. But to my surprise, he swore it wasn’t him.

I assumed Hagerty was Ugly Naked Guy because the Internet told me so. But as the Internet so often is, it was wrong. 

“I never played the Ugly Naked Guy,” said Hagerty, who did play superintendent Mr. Treeger on the show. “IMDb, the information is close, but a lot of times it’s very, very, very wrong. And that said, I’d rather be known as Mr. Treeger than the Ugly Naked Guy anyways.”

Although I was surprised to not be talking to the real Ugly Naked Guy, we still ended up talking about his role as Treeger. Hagerty claimed he almost “broke Joey” by spinning Matt LeBlanc incorrectly during a scene which sent the actor through a prop door. As an Internet content creator, I ravenously welcomed the “Friends” trivia, but felt frustrated that I couldn’t figure out who actually played Ugly Naked Guy. My unrelenting obsession began.

 

Never one to pass on a mystery, I reached out to the casting director behind both UNG episodes. She pored through old boxes in her garage, but couldn’t find a clue.

Leslie Litt seemed like a logical enough place to start, since she was the Emmy-nominated “Friends” casting director for both Ugly Naked Guy appearances. So, I found her on Facebook and sent her a message pleading for help. Luckily enough, she responded. “I bet UNG was an extra but I MIGHT have paperwork in my garage and I can see if it’s there,” she wrote.

Her message seemed promising. In an excited furor, I messaged my editor: “the only records for who played ugly naked guy may be sitting in a household garage right now lol / the person is searching.”

But in another Facebook message a couple of days later, Litt gave me some bad news. “I can’t find anything on Ugly Naked Guy, he must have been an extra,” Litt wrote. She suggested reaching out to Central Casting as they probably oversaw the specific role. 

  

Central Casting, another agency that booked extras for the show, had a heated debate about the casting choice, but eventually told me the UNG issue “might be a cold case.”

TK TK gifs

From the start, Jennifer Bender of Central Casting was very cordial. Despite the ridiculousness of the ask, she told me she would look into the mystery.

But a few days after her initial email, I received a message from her. “Well this has become the hot topic of my office!  Unfortunately I cannot get confirmation on who this guy is,” she wrote. It is unclear exactly how the “hot topic” played out, but I’d like to imagine it was something like the animated image above, which was created by Vulture when they tried to recreate “Friends” in the video game “The Sims.”

In any case, Bender apologized, explaining that Central Casting even spent time reaching out to their relevant contacts, but found no answer.

I became disheartened. 

 

Throughout the year, HuffPost had various opportunities to interview people related to “Friends.” During an interview with the show’s creator, David Crane, one of my colleagues asked who played UNG. Crane said he had no idea.

Due to favorable placement in the Facebook algorithm that determines how much traffic a story can receive, Internet publications publish many, many stories about the show “Friends.” As such, the writers here often interview people who were involved with the show.

My co-worker, Sara Boboltz, got Crane on the phone and spent some time pushing him on Ugly Naked Guy details. He was able to confirm that Hagerty definitely did not play Ugly Naked Guy. But when asked if he knew who did, he responded, “Oh no, I don’t. I absolutely don’t.”

 

I also personally failed on two opportunities to ask David Schwimmer the all-important question. 

1. At a screening of the movie “Spotlight” in December 2015, I sat right in front of Schwimmer — the only actor to appear alongside Ugly Naked Guy in both of his scenes. Despite the movie focusing on a great journalistic feat, I wasn’t emboldened enough to bother the actor.

2. While interviewing Schwimmer about his new AMC show, “Feed the Beast,” I asked him a question about whether he thought Ross and Rachel were actually on a break. He wasn’t too happy about that, so I dropped the subject.

 

Still, the mystery gnawed at me, and I started spending far too much time sifting through social media in a feeble attempt to find the UNG. All I discovered was that liars are abundant in this world.

Various people have tweeted over the years that they played Ugly Naked Guy like this is some kind of joke. One Twitter user claimed he had added the job of playing Ugly Naked Guy to his resume. The user above — who tweeted “I played the ugly naked guy in F.R.I.E.N.D.S” — even went so far as to incorporate Ugly Naked Guy into her handle, @AAAUglyNakedGuy! But after closely comparing her avatar to the character on the show, I determined she must be lying. 

 

All over the Internet, curious folks were asking about the UNG. Who played him? But sadly, Reddit, Yahoo Answers, Angelfire and the YouTube comments section were no help.

Exchanges like the one above from Yahoo Answers permeate the Internet. Someone asks the great, important question, “Who played Ugly Naked Guy?” and someone else chimes in with some utter-nonsense. David Arquette — who was married to “Friends” actress Courteney Cox and appears to have never been the size of Ugly Naked Guy in his life — is definitely not the Ugly Naked Guy. 

I continued to dive deeper and deeper into the annals of the Internet.

I found an old Angelfire page that asked, “Do you have any pictures of Ugly Naked Guy? If so, I would be eternally grateful to you if you mailed them to me or gave me a site address I can get them from. Thank you!!!”

I emailed to see if anybody had sent pictures over the years.

No response.

 

I began reaching out to every crew member listed on IMDb that seemed remotely relevant to the case. Most people ignored me.

Search “ugly naked guy” in Google Images and you get an unpleasant result. Do the same thing with my inbox, and you’ll be similarly repulsed. Today, my email is littered with messages sent seeking the truth about Ugly Naked Guy, many of which never earned a response.

A few people did respond, including “Friends” costume designer Debra McGuire, who said, “I was there, of course, but would have to do some sleuthing.” But in spite of a few, new gumshoe soldiers offering to join me, the answer was still nowhere to be found. 

 

But there was one supervising producer that especially drew my attention. The producer, Todd Stevens, shared my first name, “Todd,” and my brother’s name, “Steven.” I thought to myself, this is fate, and sure enough …

As seen above, Stevens emailed me, “Please let me know when you want to discuss and a good number to teach [sic] you – I remember !”

The following week, I did. “Here’s what I remember,” Stevens, who was the line producer for the show at the time, told me. “It was an extra and we wanted it to fly under the radar because we didn’t want somebody, like, being Ugly Naked Guy.”

Explaining the casting process for the role, Stevens said, “We just had Central send a few people over. It was not somebody with a history on the show or anything.” He added that the casting was “done very last minute, both times [they filmed] Ugly Naked Guy.”

Alas, Stevens did not remember the actor’s name. “I wish I did remember,” Stevens said apologetically.

I pressed him for a facial description from his memory. “I’m sure if I was with a guy who [does] police drawings, I could come up with it. But he was a big dude. Slightly rounder nose, big cheeks and jowl. It was, you know, Ugly Naked Guy!” 

 

With information from Stevens, I wanted to produce a police sketch of the character.

Perhaps I’d never know the true identity of Ugly Naked Guy, but at least I’d get to see what he looked like.

I reached out to four artists on the cheap task request-site Fiverr in the hopes they could give the world at least some slight insight. The specialities of artists on Fiverr ranges quite a bit, but I tried to find a mix of people who could create something accurate as well as be willing to draw someone naked. I felt as if a pinup artist and an illustrator whose main picture featured a naked woman coming out of an eye pupil could be especially perfect for the job.  

 

Apparently, nobody wanted my $5 to draw UNG.

Not a single artist responded to my request to pay them for their listed job on the Fiverr service.

Maybe five dollars was simply not enough to go through the process of actualizing Ugly Naked Guy through art. It is also possible that because my Fiverr username is “Gossipgirllll,” the artists didn’t take me seriously.

If only they knew how serious I was about solving what Stevens reassuringly told me was a “great mystery.”

 

I started to worry that maybe UNG never even existed. The building the character lived in constantly changed throughout the series. Perhaps he was just a figment of the friends’ imagination.

Monica’s apartment is a shape-shifting mystery in itself. Not only does the size and shape of her windows and balcony morph multiple times over the course of the show, but you can see that the apartment buildings outside her window go through their own changes.

Perhaps Monica spent quite a bit of money reconstructing her own apartment to her weekly whim, but that doesn’t explain Ugly Naked Guy’s building. A company must have destroyed that apartment and reconstructed a replacement over and over again. It is unlikely that Ugly Naked Guy could or would even want to repeatedly gain another apartment in the same location. Why wouldn’t he just move to get away from all that chaos?

It was starting to make more and more sense to me that Ugly Naked Guy wasn’t even a real person. 

 

If the character wasn’t real, maybe there never was an actor. Was UNG just an optical illusion?

During the course of this investigation, a colleague shared a picture with me that was the most convincing photo of a ghost I had ever seen. Family friends of the colleague sat in a Gettysburg restaurant as a light glare hovered above them. The light glare looked unmistakably like a Civil War soldier, with a sash, belt and hat that all appeared to be of the period.

In light of this new light-based evidence, I found it plausible that nobody who worked on “Friends” could figure out who played Ugly Naked Guy because the “actor” was a ghost all along. No records existed because ghosts don’t need to get paid, instead finding the fear they instill in living humans to be compensation enough.

I came across an article titled “Favorite TV Characters That No One Ever Played.” Ugly Naked Guy topped the list. For the first time during this investigation, I felt afraid I was digging too deep. But I pressed on. 

 

Feeling as if I was at a dead end, I circled back to the initial contacts to see if they’d heard anything. 

TK TK gifs

Exactly a year after casting director Leslie Litt first responded to me, I was back to messaging her on Facebook, admitting I had still not solved the mystery. She told me she hadn’t heard anything on her end either. Decidedly unlit.

 

So I reached out to Central Casting again, and almost exactly a year after I began this quest, Central Casting sent me this email:

As the above email reads, “I have very good news for you.”

Bender told me she’d met Ugly Naked Guy and would ask if he was up for talking with me.

This memory of this moment is a blur, and like the many people who were clearly too awed by Ugly Naked Guy to remember any details about him, I do not remember exactly how I reacted when I got this email. That said, I believe a huge smile appeared across my face.

Bender got back to me again later that day, telling me Ugly Naked Guy was willing to speak with me.

In a month where I got to interview personal heroes such as Brian Wilson and Neil Young, there was still no question that I was about to conduct the most important interview of my life.

 

Finally, one year after my journey began, I got on the phone with the man of mystery. His name: Jon Haugen. This is what he looked like at the time. This is the true identity of UNG.

“You want to let the world know who the real Ugly Naked Guy is, huh?” Haugen asked me on the phone. I responded with perhaps the most emphatic answer in the affirmative of my life.

“There’s only one Ugly Naked Guy, man, and that was me,” Haugen told me on May 16, 2016, concluding the investigation that stretched over a year.

Haugen recalled actively applying for the role through Central Casting for the first appearance. Later, the show asked him to return for the character’s scene with Ross. Multiple crew members from the show and Central Casting have corroborated Haugen’s story, but as the reporting shows above, nobody remembers beyond a doubt.

Stevens said that he recognized Haugen, but had a recollection that a different actor may have played the part during the second appearance. That said, he also stressed how little he remembered given how much time had passed and how little effort the show put into casting the role. Stevens also admitted to having multiple, contradictory memories of how casting the second appearance came about and couldn’t rule out Haugen’s claim. 

Central Casting did not hold on to the records for the role, but still believe Haugen was the the right actor.

So, I looked into this mystery for over a year and became an Ugly Naked Guy scholar of sorts. Still, I am only fairly sure that Haugen played the part.

With that caveat, I pressed on for his recollection of the events. I asked Haugen the question I had been wondering about for so long: Why had he kept his identity a secret? “The reason I never came forward,” Haugen explained, “was because I was just keeping it mellow because Warner Brothers was keeping it mellow. They wanted everybody to have a guess who I was.” 

Bender from Central Casting had explained my long, long winding road in pursuit of the truth to Haugen, and so he decided to finally open up about his time as Ugly Naked Guy to me. Thank God.

 

Haugen, for the record, says he is glad he got to play the character and would like to do a reunion.

“I wasn’t really expecting them to call me back for me to do it again,” said Haugen, but he loved the character so much that he was hoping they would. “It was the best time in my life,” he said, adding, “I was the man.”

Haugen recalled that shooting his first appearance was difficult because he had to play dead while the friends poked him with a giant pole made of chopsticks. “It wasn’t painful. The hard part was holding my breath,” Haugen said. “It was, like, almost two o’clock in the morning when we were filming that part and I was real tired because we had rehearsed all day. It was the last scene and I had to make sure I was perfect to get everybody out of there to go home.”

Even after all this time, he wanted to play the character again. “I was hoping they would bring me back and we’d do some more. Maybe we can create a buzz and get everybody back together.” 

(If you are a cast member from the show “Friends” and would be interested in doing a reunion, please email me at todd.vanluling@huffingtonpost.com. I would love to set this up.)

 

For what it’s worth, Schwimmer and Haugen didn’t even get naked. And in a way, UNG was an optical illusion all along.

“I was in boxer shorts,” admitted Haugen. “At first I was feeling a little shy because I had about 500 people watching me in the audience besides the crew and everything. But after about two minutes went by, I was real comfortable and David Schwimmer was real comfortable. We were just in boxer shorts and they made it look like we were naked.”

Haugen also said that he bonded with Schwimmer on the set. “He made me feel like I was his brother.” he continued, “I’ve been on a lot of TV sitcoms and ‘Friends’ was my favorite. Everybody was fantastic. They treated me like I was family.”

On May 23, 2016, fellow HuffPost writer Bill Bradley tried to get Schwimmer’s recollection of the scene while doing another interview tied to his new series, “Feed the Beast.” Bradley even brought the picture of Haugen to show the actor, but Schwimmer’s publicist forbade Bradley from asking the question. “So lame,” Bradley texted me.

I had now failed to get Schwimmer’s account three times. As I learned the hard way from a particularly terrible and short-lived youth baseball career, “Three strikes and you’re out.” It was time to put Ugly Naked Guy to rest.

 

With the mystery solved, I triumphantly told my editor over Gchat what I had done. His response: “Cool.”

TK TK gifs

I had completed this mission as best as I ever would. Throughout it all, I had a sense I was doing something right, that I was winning some great content game. Now I was afraid I had created a hate-read.

I stared out past the tchotchkes on my desk — a wire sculpture of Kim Kardashian breaking the Internet with a sad Kanye West sitting at the base — and focused on nothing in particular amid the other desks in the office’s open floor plan.

I got up, went to the free things area and had a banana along with a bottled, unsweetened tea. Both free things had fueled this quest of madness. Why stop now?

Through the windows to the South, I could see only the buildings that blocked a view of the Statue of Liberty, the marker next to where my Irish ancestors once passed through to make a better life for themselves and subsequent generations of our family in this country.

If I had had a better view, I imagine I could have seen the high-watermark of a wave before it broke and rolled back toward the ocean.

I looked above me, not to the heavens, but to Facebook’s New York City headquarters just a few stories away.

All in a year’s work …I thought to myself (or potentially millions depending on how many people click on and share this post). “I hope I made you proud.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Miracle on the Potomac: The New Bipartisan Law Regulating Toxics

With Donald Trump pushing fossil fuels, misunderstanding the Paris climate accord, but still promising to tear it up if–or as he says, “when”–he becomes president, it is easy to be pessimistic about our environmental future. Fortunately, presidential preference polling varies throughout election year, Donald’s policy views are far from fixed, and last week Congress passed the first piece of major new environmental legislation in about a quarter century. A new law regulating toxic substances won huge bipartisan congressional majorities. Its passage reminded me of the 1970s and 1980s when bipartisan super majorities enacted most of our federal environmental policy framework.

The new law is far from perfect, but it is a major improvement over the ineffectual 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act. Under that law, only five of the over 80,000 chemicals now in use have been banned or substantially restricted in use. Not much action in four decades. Under the new law, EPA must review all chemicals now in commercial use. The law also allows EPA to require manufacturers to conduct tests of the chemicals without being required to first demonstrate that the chemical causes harm. This helps place the burden of proof on the chemical industry to demonstrate a chemical’s safety. Under the new law, EPA must prioritize the twenty riskiest chemicals in use and must complete their study of any chemical under review in less than seven years. This means that the riskiest chemicals can now be regulated. In return, the chemical industry achieved their goal of federal preemption of new state toxic chemical laws. Currently many states have enacted more stringent toxic chemical rules than those enforced by the federal government. Under the new law, new state rules focused on the same chemicals under review by the feds would be preempted, although existing state laws could remain in place. The federal approach simplifies compliance with rules, since chemical companies need only comply with one rule rather than a wide variety of state regulations.

This law is a step forward, but it still does not adhere to the precautionary principle where new chemicals are tested before they are put in use. But it is significant because the chemical industry and the environmental community and legislators from both parties were able to work together and compromise. There was a time when such compromise was far from newsworthy, but in today’s hyper-partisan national government, it seems like a small miracle. It is a graphic demonstration of America’s shared belief in the importance of a safe, healthy environment. Polling has long demonstrated the wide consensus behind efforts to free our environment of toxics.

The new law is also a quiet recognition of the toxicity of the high tech environment we live in. Early in the industrial age, our homes, clothing, tools, and other artifacts were largely made of materials that were biodegradable. Our homes were clad in wood and bricks, not vinyl. Our floors were made of materials like wood and stone and were not sealed in layers of plastic for protection. Our furniture was made of wood and cloth and our clothing was made of cotton, wool, silk, fur and other organic materials. Modern computers, smartphones, and home entertainment systems are all based on plastics and electronic elements that are either toxic or non-biodegradable. Today’s materials are less expensive, more durable, and more toxic. When the process of manufacturing, using and recycling these materials is well regulated and carefully managed, they can be kept from damaging natural systems. When they are developed with haste, without rules and without care, they can cause great damage to the planet’s air, water and land. In some cases they can also harm living creatures such as human beings.

When America first attempted to regulate toxic substances in 1976, the plastic and chemical-dominated economy was only a generation old. Forty years later, the chemicals have become more complex and their use more widespread. For example, marine debris is everywhere and fish sometimes confuse plastics for food, or find they are tangled in packaging and discarded toys never meant for disposal in the ocean. Far more dangerous is the release of the poisons that the new chemical control law is designed to regulate. These chemicals can enter our food chain and cause cancer, birth defects and can affect the health of many living beings.

While the new law is a significant move in the right direction, its scale is dwarfed by the chemical industry’s ability to invent and manufacture new combinations of chemicals for new industrial uses. This bill makes it possible to remove the most dangerous of these substances from the American economy. However, since we are now in a global economy, controlling the chemicals in America does not eliminate our exposure to their impact.

I have often observed that the challenge of addressing climate change has so dominated discussions of environmental policy, that the issue of toxics and ecosystem well-being have been relegated to the sidelines of political discourse. I do not see these as competing priorities and believe they should all be integrated into a single discussion of the challenge of global environmental and economic sustainability. Nearly all the economic growth of the past two centuries has been due to the development of technology. Our way of life depends on labor saving, transportation, information and communications technologies that have had the effect of reducing poverty and enhancing quality of life. The problem is that our species is so successful at developing technology that our technologies threaten the planet that we still require for sustenance.

The use of technology in our economic life must be tempered and managed to reduce its impact on natural ecological systems. The impact of greenhouse gases on climate is one of many human-made substances changing our biosphere. Many of the other 80,000 human-made chemical products we have concocted also damage the environment. We need to get all of them under control.

My view is that an appreciation of toxics and local air and water pollution can lead to a deeper understanding of the existential threat of climate change. Since the impact of some toxics is relatively immediate and because some of these pollutants are easy to see and smell, they are difficult to deny and have the ability to teach people about the impact of technology on human health. It is then a small leap to understanding the unseen impact of greenhouse gases on global climate.

The chemical companies came to the bargaining table on toxics regulation because they saw the growing grassroots support for chemical bans at the state and local level. They know that people are more aware of what they are putting in their bodies and what they are feeding their children. The focus on wellness, exercise and diet is a mass, broad phenomenon and these companies understand that they must be willing to manage and even police the most dangerous of the chemicals they have invented. The connection of pollution to public health is what built widespread support for environmental protection here in America. We see this starting in China and in other developing nations globally.

Speaking of the threat of a nuclear contaminated planet on June 10th, 1963, President John F. Kennedy connected the natural environment to our needs as living creatures when he said that:

…In the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal…

We are all air breathing, mortal beings who have an ethical responsibility to preserve the planet for our children. That is the story of the toxics compromise in Congress, and I believe that if somehow the Donald becomes the deal-maker-in- chief, he too will come to think about the health of his children and grandchildren when he makes environmental decisions. If for some reason he doesn’t, the courts, the congress, and America’s states and cities will make those decisions for him.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Tuesday's Morning Email: Afghan Refugee Crisis Worsens

morning email

afghanistan refugee

TOP STORIES

NUMBER OF AFGHANS DISPLACED BY VIOLENCE DOUBLES “The number of Afghans internally displaced by conflict has ‘dramatically’ doubled to 1.2 million in just three years, Amnesty International said on Tuesday, warning that a lack of basic services was putting people on the brink of survival. The rights group said that situation of people uprooted from their homes in Afghanistan has deteriorated in recent years as global attention and aid money have been diverted to other crises.” [Reuters]

YOU PROBABLY HAD A BETTER MEMORIAL DAY THAN THIS GUY “Here’s a different kind of holiday travel problem. A taxi jumped a curb and smashed into the glass at an entrance to Chicago O’Hare International Airport on Monday evening as Memorial Day travelers returned home. Images shared on social media by Daniel X. O’Neil show a Prius with markings of the Dispatch Taxi Affiliation in the entrance vestibule at the lower level of Terminal 3.” [HuffPost]

POLISH LAWMAKER PUSHES TO EXTRADITE POLANSKI “Poland’s justice minister on Tuesday revived an effort to have filmmaker Roman Polanski extradited to the U.S., where he is wanted in a nearly 40-year-old case involving sex with a minor. Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro’s office said he asked Poland’s Supreme Court to annul a ruling in October by a court in Krakow which found that Polish law forbids Polanski’s extradition.” [AP]

DONALD TRUMP DOESN’T ALWAYS BEAT CHINA… “‘I beat China all the time,’ Mr. Trump declared in a speech the day he announced his candidacy. “I own a big chunk of the Bank of America building at 1290 Avenue of the Americas that I got from China in a war. Very valuable.’ Mr. Trump does have an investment in the building, an office tower near Rockefeller Center. But court documents and interviews with people involved in the deal tell a very different story of how he ended up with it.” [NYT]

…BUT HE DOES BEAT AZERBAIJAN, THOUGH “Construction on the Trump International Hotel & Tower here in Azerbaijan’s capital stopped last year when the country’s oil-driven economy crashed amid plummeting oil prices. The local owner and developer, facing potentially huge losses, is scrambling to renegotiate contracts and get the building open … Critics say Trump, if elected, would face challenges here in drawing a distinction between the interests of his business and those of his country. Azerbaijan has been dominated for decades, stretching back to the 1960s Soviet Union era, by the Aliyev family, which, according to the State Department and human rights groups, has a poor record on human rights and free speech, including the jailing of journalists who investigate it.” [WaPo]

HOLDER: SNOWDEN PERFORMED ‘PUBLIC SERVICE’ “Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder says Edward Snowden performed a ‘public service’ by triggering a debate over surveillance techniques, but still must pay a penalty for illegally leaking a trove of classified intelligence documents. ‘We can certainly argue about the way in which Snowden did what he did, but I think that he actually performed a public service by raising the debate that we engaged in and by the changes that we made,” Holder told David Axelrod on ‘The Axe Files,’ a podcast produced by CNN and the University of Chicago Institute of Politics.” [CNN]

BIG BUSINESS TRYING TO SAVE GOP SENATE “The country’s biggest business lobby will launch an initiative Tuesday to deploy influential Republicans to raise funds for tight Senate races, hoping to keep the GOP from losing control of the chamber in November. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s ‘Save the Senate’ effort is being led by both Republicans who back the party’s presumptive presidential nominee, Donald Trump, and those who have balked at doing so, in a shared quest to retain the Senate majority.” [WSJ]

WHAT’S BREWING

THE GREAT BARRIER REEF IS DYING “The worst bleaching event ever seen on the Great Barrier Reef has killed more than a third of corals across wide swaths of the region, scientists announced on Sunday. Those numbers continue a streak of horrifically bad news for the largest living structure on the planet. Just a month ago, researchers said 93 percent of the reef had been affected by the mass bleaching event.” [HuffPost]

GOLDEN STATE HEAD TO THE FINALS “In a 336-minute, seven-game series, the Golden State Warriors needed less than 170 seconds in the third quarter to dismantle, dishearten and dispose of the Oklahoma City Thunder, doing what they do best and knocking down five treys in three minutes to earn their second consecutive berth in the NBA Finals with a 96-88 victory Monday night. Of course, it started and ended with Stephen Curry.” [HuffPost]

AD BLOCKING SOFTWARE HURTING ONLINE BUSINESSES “Many of the world’s largest Internet companies, like Google and Facebook, rely heavily on advertising to finance their online empires. But that business model is increasingly coming under threat, with one in five smartphone users, or almost 420 million people worldwide, blocking advertising when browsing the web on cellphones. That represents a 90 percent annual increase, according to a new report from PageFair, a start-up that helps to recoup some of this lost advertising revenue, and Priori Data, a company that tracks smartphone applications.” [NYT]

ELTON JOHN, MAN OF PEACE “British singer Elton John told a concert in Moscow he still wanted to meet President Vladimir Putin to discuss his concerns about gay rights and AIDS in Russia despite the Kremlin leader not having time to meet him this time round. John, performing at a luxury shopping and entertainment centre in the Russian capital on Monday night as part of a world tour, sounded disappointed about not getting to meet Putin, but said he would return to try to see him.” [Reuters]

For more from The Huffington Post, download our app for iOS or Android.

WHAT’S WORKING

FT GOES GREEN… SORT OF “The editorial board of the Financial Times isn’t exactly stacked with bleeding-hearted environmentalists. Just a month ago, the British paper defended ExxonMobil’s right to question climate change amid legal probes into whether the oil giant covered up evidence of global warming. But in an editorial published Saturday, the FT urged the oil industry to “face a future of slow and steady decline.”
[HuffPost]

For more, sign up for the What’s Working newsletter.

BEFORE YOU GO

~ DOD is finally getting rid of its floppy disks.

~ A look at China’s 20 largest companies.

~ How to uproot and retire in Spain.

~ Breaking down Bran’s visions from the latest episode of “Game of Thrones.”

~ In this week’s Candidate Confidential, Sam Stein and Jason Cherkis talk to the newly minted Libertarian Party presidential nominee, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson.

Send tips/quips/quotes/stories/photos/events/scoops to Lauren Weber at lauren.weber@huffingtonpost.com. Follow us on Twitter @LaurenWeberHP. And like what you’re reading? Sign up here to get The Morning Email delivered to you.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Donald Trump Is As Rich As He Says, If You Do The Accounting Wrong

Donald Trump claims a net worth of more than $10 billion and income of $557 million. But he appears to get there only by over-valuing properties and ignoring his expenses.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

'Nantucket Grand,' A Conversation with Steven Axelrod

2016-05-31-1464696957-4232348-StevenAxelrod.jpg

Photo: Steven Axelrod

Steven Axelrod lives on the island of Nantucket where he writes mystery novels and paints houses. He holds an MFA in writing from Vermont College of Fine Arts and is a member of the Writer’s Guild of America.

Nantucket Grand is the third mystery featuring Nantucket’s poetry-writing Police Chief, Henry Kennis. A series of incidents rocks the resort island. A man is shot in a suspicious hunting accident. Soon afterwards, a local teenager is murdered, and a family’s summer cottage burns down. Finally, there’s the discovery of a pornography ring. Are these events related? If so, what do they mean and who is behind them? Chief Kennis is faced with needing to solve this multi-faced mystery, one that could very well cost him his life.

Chief Henry Kennis is a fascinating character. Tell us a bit about him?
While on the police force in Los Angeles, he was involved in a case implicating a superior officer in an illegality. He wrote a book about it and was promptly fired. His wife hated L.A. and didn’t want to raise children there. Her family lived on Nantucket during the summer, and his firing gave her the leverage to convince him to move to the island. Once there, he applied for and was hired for the job of police chief, but not being a native of Nantucket, he sees some things from a different perspective than do most people who’ve always lived there. Although he’s not truly accepted, he’s the best thing that’s happened to the island in a very long time.

His family and personal life are complicated, as well.
In Nantucket Grand, he’s now divorced and his ex-wife lives on the island and is a real estate broker. She lives for real estate and is a person who would see Chernobyl as a great real estate opportunity. She would say, ‘You could pick it up for peanuts.’ [Laughter] He has two kids, a boy and a girl. I’m hoping as the books go on, to ferry them through adolescence. They’re close together in age–twelve and thirteen–just like my kids. There’s no point in making things up when I can draw directly from my own life.

With Henry divorced, there’s been a love interest in each book. In Nantucket Grand, I’ve introduced Jane Styles, a new romantic interest who writes cozy mysteries and views seemingly disparate events as being tied together. Her character allows me to make comments about cozy mysteries. It’s fun for her to watch Henry’s real life detective activities work the same way her books do. She’ll continue on in the series and they’ll solve mysteries together, sort of a Nick and Nora thing.

How do you go about constructing a mystery novel?
The plots of mysteries are fairly easy to write. Somebody gets killed and the question is ‘Who did it?’ What’s hard is coming up with clues. These stories pivot on clues. Basically, a clue is a situation I create that turns the story. It’s the infrastructure of the book.

There are two kinds of clues. The first is a spoken clue, which is when someone says something–usually inadvertently–that becomes key in solving the mystery.

Then, there’s the found clue. Let me give you an example of one.

While painting a house, I had to paint a pergola, which involved painting the top beams of the pergola. When we finished painting, I went into the house and looked through a second story window overlooking the pergola. I opened the Venetian blinds and checked below to make sure we’d painted the top beams. As I was leaving, someone told me I’d closed the blinds improperly–they should be closed with the slats facing down; I’d closed them slats-up. I realized that would be a perfect clue in a novel–slats closed the wrong way would mean someone was in the room looking out the window. Suddenly, I needed a character to look out a window which would provide a found clue. That minor discovery in my real life led to creating a found clue which changed the arc of the storyline.

It’s sort of like the tail wagging the dog, isn’t it?
Exactly. Once I’d inserted that small clue, I had to reconstruct an entire series of incidents around the clue. I think found clues make a book fresh because it’s nothing the reader expects.

I understand you worked and lived in Hollywood. What kind of writing did you do there?
My Dad was a prominent screenwriter and I made the mistake of thinking nepotism would smooth the way. I moved to L.A. when I was twenty-five and wrote screenplays. A number of them were optioned; I got re-write work, and had a development deal with the guy who created Barney Miller, but nothing really clicked.

What made you leave Hollywood and begin living and writing on Nantucket?
It’s sort of similar to Henry’s story. My wife hated L.A. Her family was similar to Henry’s in-laws and were fond of Nantucket. My wife said, ‘If you don’t make it in five years, we’re moving.’ Why make things up if you can take from your own life? [Laughter] I didn’t make it, and by that time she was pregnant. I was dragged to Nantucket, kicking and screaming.
And now?
That’s the funny thing. My wife and I are no longer married, and I wound up really loving Nantucket. House painting is actually a very good job for my writing. Much of painting is mindless work and it allows me to formulate plots and work things out in the novels while painting houses.

Speaking of thinking and writing, what do you read when you’re actively writing a novel?
Some writers have superstitions about that and don’t read when they’re writing. What I do is this: before starting a new book, I read at least five Michael Connelly novels. He’s the man. Before starting Nantucket Grand, I read all the Mickey Haller books.

Beyond that, I read Justin Cronin’s books, and Kate Atkinson’s novels–which are literary fiction with a mystery contained within. Except for the Michael Connelly books, my reading isn’t really related to writing mysteries.

Describe your writing journey leading to the Henry Kennis series.
In a sense, there are two of me: there’s Steve-One who writes semi-literary novels that haven’t sold as yet, and Steve-Two who writes mysteries published by Poison Pen Press.

After moving to the island, I began writing non-fiction sketches of Nantucket, which led to writing the first Henry Kennis mystery, Nantucket Sawbuck. One of my intentions, in addition to telling a good story, is to provide readers with a portrait of Nantucket over the course of the series.

Congratulations on penning Nantucket Grand, a multi-tiered mystery with a great sense of setting, and a fascinating protagonist, who along with a cast of characters, is as colorful as the island itself.

Mark Rubinstein’s latest novel, The Lovers’ Tango, received the Gold Medal for Popular Fiction in the 2016 Benjamin Franklin Awards

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Two Big Reasons Not to Vote for Trump

Nuclear proliferation and global warming are two big issues that Donald Trump is wrong about.  They’re also the two biggest threats to our planet.  Nuclear war followed by nuclear winter could end most life on earth within a matter of weeks or months.  Global warming/climate change, though not as immediate a threat as nuclear war and its fallout, is inexorably leading to a more dangerous and less hospitable planet for our children and their children.

What does “The Donald” believe?  On nuclear proliferation, which only makes nuclear war more likely, Trump is essentially agnostic and even in favor of other nations joining the nuclear club, nations like Japan, South Korea, even Saudi Arabia.  When all countries should be earnestly working to reduce and then eliminate nuclear stockpiles, Trump is advocating their expansion.  (An aside: recall in a previous debate that Trump had no idea what America’s nuclear triad is; add intellectual sloth to his many sins.)

On global warming, Trump is essentially a skeptic on whether it exists (“hoax” and “con job” are expressions of choice), even as he seeks to protect his resorts from its effects. Along with this rank hypocrisy, Trump is advocating an energy plan that is vintage 1980, calling for more burning of fossil fuels, more drilling and digging, more pipelines, as if fossil fuel consumption was totally benign to the environment and to human health.

Along with his tyrannical and fascist tendencies, Trump is wrong on two of the biggest issues facing our planet today.  His ignorance and recklessness render him totally unfit to be president.

A retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and history professor, Astore blogs at Bracing Views.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Laurie Anderson: Advice to the Young

“Be loose!” The legendary multimedia artist, musician and film director Laurie Anderson puts it as simply and clearly as that when she here advises artists to avoid being pressured into limiting themselves artistically.

Calling yourself something as “vague” as a multimedia artist – as Anderson does – gives you the freedom to do whatever you want, without having to worry about whether it fits a certain definition: “It’s so easy to get pigeonholed in the art world.” Anderson is aware that sales are a strong underlying factor – “I am a 21st century citizen in a highly corporate world” – but she nonetheless maintains that you should always follow your own interest and obsession: “Whatever makes you feel free and really good – that’s what to do. It’s really simple.”

Laurie Anderson (b. 1947) is an internationally renowned experimental performance artist, composer, musician and film director, based in New York. Initially trained as a sculptor, Anderson became widely known outside the art world with her single ‘O Superman’, which reached number two in the UK pop charts in 1981. She is considered a pioneer of electronic music and is praised for her unique spoken word albums and multimedia art pieces. Among her most recent work is the film ‘Heart of a Dog’ (2015). For more about Anderson see: www.laurieanderson.com/

Laurie Anderson was interviewed by Christian Lund at the Louisiana Museum of Modern Art, Denmark in May 2016.

Camera: Rasmus Quistgaard
Edited by: Klaus Elmer Madsen
Produced by: Christian Lund
Copyright: Louisiana Channel, Louisiana Museum of Modern Art

FOLLOW US HERE!
WebsiteFacebookInstagramYouTubeTwitter

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

'Human Catastrophe' Unfolds As Iraqi Army And ISIS Clash Outside Fallujah

Islamic State militants fought back vigorously overnight and parried an onslaught by the Iraqi army on a southern district of the city of Fallujah, the group’s bastion near Baghdad, officers said on Tuesday.

An aid official warned of a “human catastrophe” unfolding in the city, with residents unable to escape.

Soldiers from the elite Rapid Response Team stopped their advance overnight about 500 meters (yards) from the al-Shuhada district, the southeastern part of city’s main built-up area, an army commander and a police officer said.

“Our forces came under heavy fire, they are well dug in trenches and tunnels,” said the commander speaking in Camp Tariq, the rear army base south of Fallujah, 50 km (30 miles) west of Baghdad.

A staff member of Fallujah’s main hospital said they received reports of 32 civilians killed on Monday. Medical sources had reported that the death toll in the city stood at about 50, 30 civilians and 20 militants, during the first week the offensive which started on May 23.

Fallujah has been under siege for more than six months. Foreign aid organization are not present in the city, but are providing help to those who manage to exit and reach refugee camps.

The latest offensive is causing alarm among these organizations as more than 50,000 civilians remain trapped with limited access to water, food and health care.

“HUMAN CATASTROPHE”

“A human catastrophe is unfolding in Fallujah. Families are caught in the crossfire with no safe way out,” said Jan Egeland, Secretary General of the Norwegian Refugee Council, one of the organizations helping families displaced form the city.

“For nine days we have heard of only one single family managing to escape from inside the town,” he said in a statement on Tuesday. `Warring parties must guarantee civilians safe exit now, before it’s too late and more lives are lost.”

Fallujah is the second-largest Iraqi city still under control of the militants, after Mosul, their de facto capital in the north that had a pre-war population of about 2 million.

Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi announced the assault on Fallujah on May 22 after a spate of bombings that killed more than 150 people in one week in Baghdad, the worst death toll so far this year. A series of bombings claimed by Islamic State also hit Baghdad on Monday, killing over 20 people.

Fallujah has been a bastion of the Sunni insurgency that fought both the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the Shi’ite-led Baghdad government that took over after the fall of dictator Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, in 2003.

It was the first city to fall under Islamic State control, in January 2014.

It would be the third major city in Iraq recaptured by the government after Saddam’s home town Tikrit and Ramadi, the capital of Iraq’s vast western Anbar province.

Fallujah is also in Anbar, located between Ramadi and Baghdad. Capturing it would give the government control of the major population centers of the Euphrates River valley west of the capital for the first time in more than two years.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Catholic Church Spent Millions Lobbying To Block Child Sex Abuse Law

ALBANY — Not leaving it to divine chance, the state Catholic Conference has turned in recent years to some of Albany’s most well-connected and influential lobby firms to help block a bill that would make it easier for child sex abuse victims to seek justice.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.