Hasta La Gadget!

10 With Tom
10 questions in 10 minutes

Brad and his two new children’s books. Photos courtesy Brad Meltzer.

Brad Meltzer is a well known, best selling novelist who writes political thrillers and non-fiction. He’s also a comic book author, having written for DC Comics’ Green Arrow, also Superman/Batman, Justice League of America series, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and so many more. Brad is also well-known from his excellent TV shows, “Brad Meltzer’s Decoded” and “Brad Meltzer’s Lost History.”

He has two new children’s books out, “I am Jane Goodall,” and “I am George Washington,” also “The House of Secrets.”

I asked Brad the 10 With Tom questions. Here they are:

TOM: I see you were one of the entertainers at Barbara Bush’s 90th birthday party. What did you do to entertain the guests?
BRAD: The only thing I know how to do: Tell stories.

TOM: Who would you rather be Batman or Superman? Why?
BRAD: Batman. He’ll never win. He’ll never stop crime. He’ll never bring back his dead parents. But he’ll never stop fighting. Superman is who we wish we were, but Batman is who we know we really are. We all fight a losing battle every day. But we never stop.

TOM: I watch “Lost History,” your History H2 show. If only one piece of lost history could be found, which would you prefer it be?
BRAD: The 9/11 flag. That’s the one.

TOM: Favorite junk food?
BRAD: Ice cream. Scooped ice cream at Haagen Dazs for four years. Still never tire of it.

TOM: Which comic strip would you love to jump into and spend the day?
BRAD: Calvin & Hobbes.

TOM: Last show you binge watched?
BRAD: Stranger Things.

TOM: Word of the moment
BRAD: Sad.

TOM: I was hesitant to ask why.

TOM: If you could live anywhere in the world, where would it be?
BRAD: Hawaii.

TOM: Last book you read, other than your own.
BRAD: Southern Bastards by Jason Aaron.

TOM: What did you have for breakfast today?
BRAD: Blueberries and granola. But I tell my brain it’s Count Chokula.

Thanks, Brad!

— 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.

A few days ago Samsung confirmed that there’s a battery cell issue with the Galaxy Note 7 which is why it’s recalling all units of this smartphone so that they can be replaced. It made the move following reports that the Note 7’s battery was exploding during charging. A report out of Korea claims that one of the remedies that Samsung has come up with to address this issue involves dumping batteries produced by its subsidiary Samsung SDI.

Samsung has already stopped sales of the Galaxy Note 7 through its partners across the globe and the company promises that it will send out new inventory in about two weeks. Customers will then be able to exchange their existing Note 7 for a new unit.

The company’s battery-making subsidiary Samsung SDI supplied 70 percent of all batteries used in the new flagship smartphone while the rest were sourced from China’s ATL. Reports suggest that following detection of defects in some of the batteries, Samsung has decided to no longer source batteries for the Galaxy Note 7 from its own subsidiary.

If Samsung has indeed made this decision then this means that the company is going to increase supply from ATL. Samsung is yet to publicly confirm which battery supplier it’s going to dump because of the significant damage to Galaxy Note 7 sales and Samsung’s brand itself caused by these defective batteries.

Samsung May Stop Using Own Batteries For Galaxy Note 7 , original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

It took nearly two years and a Kickstarter campaign for Bragi to deliver its completely wireless smart earbuds that handle music, activity tracking and phone calls. Now the company is back with its second product: The Headphone. At first glance, Brag…

Shut it down.  Now.

From the Washington Post, to USA Today, to the Wall Street Journal, and more, that’s the mantra regarding the Clinton Foundation, these days.

The argument, as it goes, is that even if there is no impropriety, the Clinton Foundation just looks like a conduit for improper influence over a Clinton presidency.

It doesn’t matter, editorial boards argue, that Bill Clinton said he will step down from the Foundation, or that the Foundation will no longer take foreign donations, should Hillary Clinton be elected President.  

They say the mere existence of the Foundation ― right now, today ― as a Clinton operation does not allow the American people to have full confidence that foreign governments, and other moneyed interests, aren’t buying access and policy.

Let’s talk about the Trump Organization.

Shut it down?

Oh, there’s been nary a peep from our esteemed opinion pages regarding the flood of money from foreign entities into the Trump Organization.

Not one word about the impropriety of a candidate for President still operating a business that relies on deals in foreign lands, with foreign governments.

The New York Daily News, this past weekend, found that Donald Trump’s been doing a lot of big deals with the Saudi government, putting a lot of money into his pocket.

We know that the Trump Organization makes a lot of money off its resorts in Dubai and Bali, and has a big deal going on in Turkey and the Philippines.

We know that Donald Trump, Jr. said, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.”

How does all that money coming in give the American people the confidence that Donald Trump isn’t selling future access and policy, right now, in exchange for cash?

To his credit, like the Clintons, Donald Trump said he would disassociate himself from his business, if elected.

He’d just let his kids run it.

Now, if you believe that Donald Trump would have no idea who is and who isn’t investing in his namesake corporation while he is president, then I have a Trump University degree to sell you.

Of course there is one very key difference between money the Clinton Foundation may take, if Hillary Clinton is elected, versus money that the Trump Organization may take, if Trump is elected President.

The Trump Organization money would go directly into Donald Trump’s family’s bank account.  Clinton Foundation money has not yet, and would not in the future, make it into the Clinton’s wallets.

All while he is president, the Trump Organization would continue to make deals with foreign nationals, foreign governments, domestic governments, domestic developers, licencees, and more.  But, unlike the Clintons, Trump would stand to gain financially from such deals.

Conflict of interest much?

I’d say so.  

So, what say you, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, and everyone else calling for the Clinton Foundation to shut down, right now?  Time for a new editorial, on this?

How about you, punditry?  Do the “optics” look bad enough for you to say…. 

The Trump Organization:  Shut it down?

— 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.

For Guild Hall curator Christina Strassfield, a show on minimalism was a no brainer. Currently on view in two large galleries, stark works in sand colors, geometrics, in brown felt material, in bright neon, the exhibition displays art from the collection of Bridgehampton resident Leonard Ruggio, whose passion is minimalism, a midcentury movement that challenges our notions of the types of materials can be used in art, and in fact our traditional notions of beauty. Minimalism contrasts with the extravagant collages of the previous show featuring the photography of Peter Beard, and was historically a contrast to Abstract Expressionism and Pop Art, begging the question, is less more?

The Guild Hall show coincides with the current trend toward minimalism as a life choice, that is, in the parlance of the latest trends in austerity, a term for stripping away of possessions, freeing one self of objects. In a way, in art, you notice the lack of subjectivity, decoration, the absence of the human element. But says, Strassfield, of the artists shown–Gerhard Richter, Bridget Riley, Donald Judd, On Kawara, Blinky Palermo, Joseph Beuys, Andy Warhol, Agnes Martin–“Dan Flavin is the only artist from this exhibition that I had met. He was a very intelligent man who had many diverse interests and collected a variety of artworks: I remember he had an extensive collection of Chinese tea sets that were very dear to him. He also collected American Indian jewelry.”

The show’s opening was attended by many local artists: Cindy Sherman, Eric Fishl, Ralph Gibson, Chuck Close, Billy Sullivan, Gail Sheehy, Cornelia Foss, April Gornik, Mary Jane Marcasiano, Toni Ross, Robert Wilson, no one especially associated with minimalism, however respectful of the aesthetic.

What’s coming up for Guild Hall? Taryn Simon will be guest curator, looking at what others have in their houses, a big show of Lynda Benglis, and Elaine DeKooning’s portraits of JFK.

A version of this post also appears on Gossip Central.

— 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.