Hasta La Gadget!

Oh my, Chinese President Xi Jinping and that darned airstrike against Syria sure had all the members in a tizzy last week at Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump’s Florida pleasure dome.

Palm Beach Daily News society editor Shannon Donnelly breathlessly reported that for security reasons linked to Jinping’s visit, there was a no-cellphone policy and suspension of the usual prime rib buffet — the horror, the horror!

Donnelly continued, “Later, everybody would realize that the missile launch against Syria had transpired right under our very noses.” Can you just beat that? Luckily, things were soon back to normal for Mar-a-Lago’s privileged:

Less than 24 hours later, the vibe was completely different. Security was back at its usual level; staff members were more relaxed, and the inside bar was thankfully open and one of the first places POTUS stopped on his traditional dinnertime stroll. He stopped to chat with New England Patriots boss Bob Kraft, who was seated with an exceptionally beautiful (very) young woman named Jocelyn, and both joined POTUS for dinner on the terrace. Also there: Koch brothers, David and Bill and Bill’s wife, Bridget; Ike Perlmutter; Bruce Moskowitz; Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (who hands down has the best-looking Secret Service squad); Robin and Richard Bernstein; Sidney Kohl and Patricia Lebow.

I am not making this up. Thank goodness that inside bar reopened and the Sea Breezes could flow again. Crisis averted. And check out that guest list. For those without a scorecard, in addition to Bob Kraft and Jocelyn Who-Has-No-Last-Name-But-Is-Very-Young, the noisome Koch Brothers and Secretary of State Tillerson and his toothsome bodyguards, that fellow Ike Perlmutter is the CEO of Marvel Entertainment who donated a million bucks to Trump’s veterans fundraiser. Bruce Moskowitz is a Trump pal described as “the family physician emeritus of Palm Beach.” During the transition, he arranged a Mar-a-Lago meeting between Trump and health care executives.

Robin and Richard Bernstein own a Palm Beach insurance company. They’re founding members of Mar-a-Lago. She recently rhapsodized about Trump’s presidential time there as “almost a return to Camelot” and is believed to be his choice to be the next ambassador to the Dominican Republic.

Finally, Sidney Kohl is a commercial realty executive and chair of Alliant Capital and Patricia Lebow is a prominent Palm Beach attorney. Each has made contributions to many Democratic candidates, so one has to wonder how they manage to pass muster with Trump’s besotted true believers. Oh, right: Money talks.

That Trump seems to spend most of his weekends at one of his properties or another, generating profit and publicity, is bad enough. That he chose one of these venues of luxury as the launch pad for a decision as important as lobbing Tomahawk missiles at one of the world’s critical hot spots seems somehow tawdry. (And remember, each of those cruise missiles costs around $1.5 million, or seven and half annual club memberships at Mar-a-Lago.)

There’s no question that the fatal chemical weapon attack in northwest Syria’s Khan Sheikhoun was an abhorrent act of war; the photos of dead children were a shock to the world and clearly a large part of Trump’s motivation to retaliate against the Syrian government with a missile attack on its Shayrat airfield.

And yet, as Rep. Joseph Kennedy II (D-MA) said last week, “President Assad’s vicious brutality demands a response. But… any strategy that ignores the refugees fleeing this unimaginable terror is a half-step at best.” That on the one hand Donald Trump attacks an airbase because he was appalled by images of dead children but on the other deliberately keeps desperate Syrian families out of the United States is grossly hypocritical.

Inadvertently or not, and ineffective as many reports seem to indicate our missiles were — more photo op than strategic offensive — what Trump ordered can be construed as a moral act but in the manner of someone who blunders into a darkened room and accidentally stops a crime from taking place.

And after his immediate visceral response to the Khan Sheikhoun atrocity, what were his intentions, really? Was he once again trying to prove (perhaps only in his own mind) that he was more decisive and tough than Barack Obama? In the wake of Russian election interference and investigations of possible collusion between Russian intelligence and Trump associates, was he trying to prove that he could be defiant in the face of Russia’s alliance with Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, that he was in no way beholden to Vladimir Putin and instead ready to face him down?

Or was this response to one more tragedy in Syria simply another attempt to distract us from all his other troubles — just as the whole contretemps over Obama national security adviser Susan Rice doing her job and seeking names connected to the Russia/Trump probe is one more try at drawing our attention from the very real FBI and congressional investigations?

Does Trump also seek an international sleight-of-hand to keep us from being reminded time and again of his backstabbing staff, the legislative failure of health care, the botched travel ban, the inability to fill hundreds of positions of responsibility in government? (The confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court and Trump’s grim early success gutting regulations and citizen protections are exceptions to his administration’s overwhelming maladroitness.)

Defense Secretary Mattis and others in government described the missile attack on Syria as “a measured response,” and now have gone against previously stated policy and initiated moves against Russia and Syria in an attempt, they say, to remove Assad once and for all. They accuse Russia of participating with the Syrian regime in a cover-up of the chemical attack.

But their hastily-thrown-together new strategy, seemingly designed to give Trump’s Tomahawk launch decision more gravitas and logic than it deserves, reminded me of last week’s brief press conference with Trump and visiting Jordanian King Abdullah II. Abdullah, with Syria as his neighbor and the refugee situation in his country at high boil, was poised and articulate. Trump, publicly reacting to the gas attack for the first time was only somewhat coherent as he tried to verbalize his outrage. And yet, in the wake of his remarks, network analysts and commentators tried to weave his disjointed ramblings into rational thought.

We have a chief executive who orders a lethal missile strike as impulsively as he fires off an early morning tweet about Arnold Schwarzenegger. In truth, what the attack on that military base seems to reiterate most is the fatuousness of the Trump presidency, as frivolous and air headed as Palm Beach gossip.

— 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.

Stephen Wiltshire isn’t your average artist ― he can draw cityscapes entirely from memory. 

Wiltshire, who was diagnosed with autism at age 3, would sketch images of the wilderness and caricatures of his teachers as a young boy. After one teacher began to take notice of his capabilities, she entered his work in art competitions, which garnered him local recognition. At just 8 years old, he was commissioned by the British prime minister to draw the Salisbury Cathedral, according to a profile by National Geographic last week.

The London-based artist has since been recognized by neurologist Oliver Sacks ― whose entire home Wiltshire was able to draw after a quick visit ― and Prince Charles, who honored Wiltshire with the title of Member of the Order of the British Empire.

But the elite aren’t the only ones who have been following Wiltshire’s work. 

In October 2009, he completed a panoramic drawing of the New York City skyline on a 19-foot canvas in six days, after viewing the city for just 20 minutes during a helicopter ride. Segments of that process and a number of Wiltshire’s other panoramic drawings like those of Houston and Sydney are available as videos on his YouTube page and his website. 

His sister Annette Wiltshire told The New York Times that he delights in others’ enjoyment of his work.

“That he has a gift makes no sense at all to Stephen,” she told NYT in 2009. “He knows that he draws very well, but he picks that up from other people — he sees the warmth on their faces, they tell him how much they like his work, and that makes him very happy. He loves the attention.”

In July 2014, Singapore Press Holdings commissioned Wiltshire to draw a panorama of the city-state. The art was gifted to President Tony Tan Keng Yam for the 50th anniversary of Singapore. The time-lapse video of Wiltshire drawing a panoramic view of Singapore has received nearly 180,000 views on YouTube. Wiltshire’s most recent work was a drawing of Mexico City in October. 

Those looking to commission Wiltshire may be placed on a four- to eight-month waiting list. 

— 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.

This post contains some spoilers for Netflix’s “13 Reasons Why.”

Last week, the author of the YA-tear jerker 13 Reasons Why addressed one of the most controversial aspects of his book and the new Netflix show that it inspired: the raw depictions of rape and sexual assault. 

Published in 2007, Jay Asher’s 13 Reasons Why tells the story of Hannah Baker, a teenaged girl who commits suicide, leaving behind 13 cassette tapes which explain the motives behind her death. The TV adaptation, which debuted on Netflix on March 31, recreates rape and suicide scenes from the book in disturbing, graphic detail.

This choice once again begs the question that comes up whenever we talk about rape on TV: Is it necessary? Or is it simply gratuitous? 

“It’s uncomfortable, but that’s OK. It needs to be,” Asher told Buzzfeed News on April 7.

Asher acknowledged that some people have said that scenes are “too graphic,” but argued that rape shouldn’t be something that the viewer “can look away from.”

“You have to be uncomfortable when you’re watching it; otherwise you’re not in her mind,” the author explained. “In a way, it’s disrespectful if we say, ‘We know this stuff is happening, but we don’t want to be made uncomfortable by it.’”

The two episodes (9 and 12) where scenes of rape are shown come with trigger warnings, a rarity in the world of movies and television, where sexual violence is so often filmed through the male gaze. From movies like “Psycho” to shows like “Game of Thrones,” scenes of sexual violence are often shot from the offender’s point of view, with tantalizing and lingering shots of a woman’s body as it is violated.

To its credit, “13 Reasons Why” avoids this trope. In the scenes, the victims are mostly clothed, and the atmosphere is anything but tantalizing ― though that doesn’t make the scenes any less disturbing. In some ways, it makes them more so.

The show must also be commended for depicting the blurry gray area of “consent” ― in one of the rape scenes, the victim does not say “no,” and yet the horror of what happens to her is in no way ambiguous. Later, a high school counselor questions whether she protested the assault, once again emphasizing our shoddy definition of what does and doesn’t constitute consent. 

And yet, there’s a trend of men defending graphic rape scenes for the sake of “authenticity” that Asher is most definitely following. We’ve seen it most recently with shows like “Game of Thrones” and “Westworld” and “Poldark.” So often, the defense of these depictions is that what we’re seeing as viewers technically isn’t really rape (as in the case of Cersei Lannister’s assault in season 4 of “GoT”), or that the writers and showrunners are trying to force the audience to confront rape, to manufacture empathy by placing the viewer viscerally in the victim’s shoes.  

But awareness and empathy ― especially empathy for female characters ―shouldn’t require the audience to see a woman being assaulted. And often, these types of plotlines are little more than lazy storytelling. After all, there are ways to bring awareness to rape and sexual assault, and to call out the ills of rape culture and victim-blaming, without normalizing depictions of sexual violence against women. 

This isn’t to entirely denounce “13 Reasons Why” or other shows that depict rape and abuse. There are similar themes of rape and violence in “Big Little Lies.” But where that show differs from “13 Reasons Why” is that it is focused entirely on the perspective of the women who are abused. Yes, “13 Reasons Why” features Hannah telling her story posthumously, but it also spends a great deal of time dealing with the guilt and man-pain of the Gary Stu-like main character Clay (who ― spoiler! ― contributed to her suicide by being too good for her).

“13 Reasons Why” shouldn’t be discounted because of its more graphic scenes. But, in light of Asher’s defense and the defense of so many other men who tell stories about women who are assaulted, we still need to ask some hard questions: What does it mean if we can only connect with the pain of rape victims by watching that pain played out so? What do these scenes achieve that couldn’t be achieved with their absence? And why are men so often the gatekeepers of these stories? 

Need help? Visit RAINN’s National Sexual Assault Online Hotline or the National Sexual Violence Resource Center’s website.

— 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.

The history of sexual identity and orientation is a long and storied one. As societal understandings change, sexual identity follows suit. While we’re currently living in one of the most progressive periods of gender identity and politics, things are far from perfect.

Look, it’s important to recognize how far we’ve come, but we have further to go. Take a look at the above video from Psych IRL. It might teach you a thing or two about why things seem so broken in different parts of the country.

It seems that religion and bigotry have gone hand and hand throughout history. One look at the current map of the United States shows a strong correlation between religious belief and sexual repression. That’s no mistake. Throughout history, laws around sexuality have been made on religious grounds. Yes, that’s right. Psychiatry has almost nothing to do with it, at least in the beginning…

Once psychiatry comes along we get horrible “treatments” for homosexuality like ice-pick lobotomies, aversion therapy, and other awful conversion therapy methods. Up until 1973, homosexuality was included in the diagnostic and statistical manual of Psychology.

So while it may seem like we’re in our own private hell under President Trump, at least homosexuality is no longer considered a mental disorder. However, conversion therapy is still happening around the country. So yes, we’ve come far but we still have ways to go. Do yourself and others around you a favor: spread positivity and inclusiveness.

s around you a favor: spread positivity and inclusiveness.

— 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.

How much news can possibly happen in just over a week? Here’s an incomplete recap of very recent headlines, courtesy of Wired magazine:

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against civilians in an attack killed 80 people, many of them children, and President Trump ordered an airstrike in retaliation. Representative Devin Nunes recused himself from the House investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Presidential advisor Steve Bannon lost his seat on the National Security Council and presidential advisor Jared Kushner forgot to mention a meeting with the Russian ambassador. Senate Republicans nuked the filibuster to get Neil Gorsuch a seat on the Supreme Court. Twitter sued the government to protect the privacy of an anonymous account, and then the government caved. Oh, and Pepsi outraged everyone with a tone-deaf ad starring Kendall Jenner.

If all that seems like a lot to take in ― well, you’re in the minority, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov poll.

The idea that recent news cycles have become uniquely grueling has taken hold in much of the media. “It feels as if we are living in a Superconducting Super Collider of news, with information bombarding us at a head-spinning velocity,” The New York Times’ Christopher Mele wrote in February.

But among respondents who say they generally try to stay informed on what’s happening in politics, just 30 percent say that they feel political news is changing so quickly that they can’t keep up. Sixty percent say they don’t have any problems doing so.

A couple of caveats: One, respondents may feel it’s socially desirable to claim that they’re effortlessly well-informed. And two, even people who find it intellectually easy to keep up with what’s happening in the news may still feel an emotional toll from doing so.

Still, most people don’t see the current news environment as posing a special challenge. While 27 percent of those who follow the news say it’s harder to keep up with politics than in past years, a nearly equal share, 25 percent, say it’s gotten easier. Another 40 percent say they haven’t noticed much of a change.

Ann Crigler, a political science professor at the University of South California, suggested that the constant flow of news may actually make current events feel more accessible than ever, with Americans able to pick their own trusted media sources to follow along.

“While it may seem like it’s overwhelming and confusing, people tend to choose what they rely on,” she said.

Older Americans are less likely than younger ones to feel overwhelmed. Seventy percent of Americans over 65 who try to keep up with politics say they have no problems doing so, compared to just half of politically engaged Americans under age 45.

Being on the winning team also seems to help. Seventy-two percent of Trump voters who try to keep up with political news say they don’t have any problems doing so, compared to 58 percent of politically engaged Clinton voters and 48 percent of those who didn’t vote in the 2016 election.

— 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.