It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Sunday, February 16, 2020
Canadian Soldiers Are in Iraq, But Their Mission Is Uncertain Amid Iran-US Conflict
Iraq has requested that the U.S. remove its troops from the country; what that means for the Canadian troops deployed in a training capacity remains to be seen.
By Mack Lamoureux Jan 6 2020,
The future of Canadian military members in Iraq is unclear as the fallout from the U.S. assassination of a top Iranian military official continues.
Last week, the growing tension between Iran and the United States reached a fever pitch when the U.S. killed Qassem Soleimani, one of Iran’s top generals, with an airstrike in Iraq. This came less than a week after an attack by an Iranian-backed militia on a U.S. military location left one American contractor dead. Iran has vowed to retaliate against the United States for the killing of Soleimani.
Over the weekend, Iraqi lawmakers voted on a recommendation that all foreign troops should be removed by the country. The recommendation originally came from the country’s interim prime minister, hasn't been formally requested and is, at this stage, non-binding. U.S. President Donald Trump has already refused to pull out the American troops in Iraq and has threatened “very big sanctions” on the country.
Canada did not participate in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but has participated in several training missions. These missions include a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) mission led by Major-General Jennie Carignan of the Canadian Armed Forces and Operation Impact, which is led by the United States. The exact number of Canadian military members active in Iraq isn’t public, but it is believed to be in the hundreds. In March 2015 Canadian serviceman Sergeant Andrew Joseph Doiron was killed by friendly fire.
Todd Lane, a spokesman for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, told VICE in a statement that “Canada continues to monitor and evaluate the situation.”
“Our goal, as a Coalition, remains a united and stable Iraq, and preventing the re-emergence of Daesh [ISIS],” said Lane. “The NATO mission and Operation Impact's mandate remain the same, but all training activities in Iraq are suspended temporarily as we continue to monitor the security environment.”
Right now, the keyword regarding everything involved in the conflict—including Canada—is uncertainty. The international partners involved in the NATO mission elected to hold an emergency meeting on Monday to debate the future of the suspended mission. Thomas Juneau, a University of Ottawa professor specializing in the Middle East and former analyst for the Defence Department, said that on every side—Iraqi, Iranian, and American—the next move is unknown.
“We are in uncharted territory,” said Juneau. “There is a huge amount of uncertainty right now as to the way ahead. On every level.”
Representatives from 29 allied countries involved in the NATO mission met in Brussels Monday and agreed to temporarily suspend the NATO mission in Iraq. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said the organization is resolute in their support of the United States and urged for de-escalation.
The role that Canada plays within the Iran/U.S. is inconsequential at best, according to Juneau.
“We are just not important enough to play a role. In terms of shaping the overall evolution of the dispute. We don't have a role,” he said. “I mean, yes, in backchannels, Canada will talk to the players and so on, the diplomats will do what they do. We don't fundamentally have a role in this dispute.”
Beyond calling for de-escalation last week, Canada’s response to the conflict has remained low-key. The government has updated its travel advisory for several countries in the Middle East, including Iraq, advising its citizens to avoid the nations due to heightened tensions.
But with Canadian forces still stationed in Iraq, the possibility of Canada becoming involved isn’t zero. The odds of that happening, and what it would or could look like, remains to be seen.
“If the situation escalates and violence flares up in Iraq between Iran and the U.S., or between the U.S. and Iraq and their allies on the ground—we're there,” said Juneau. “We have hundreds of troops there, including some that are co-located or located not far from potential targets.”
“So there is a risk. That being said, as much as I don't want to minimize that risk, I don't want to overplay it in the sense that right now, for me, the most plausible scenario in the short term is not escalation.”
People Keep Getting Killed in El Salvador After They're Deported From the U.S.
At least 138 people deported from the U.S. have been subsequently murdered in El Salvador.
By Paul Blest Feb 5 2020
At least 138 people deported from the United States to El Salvador since 2013 have subsequently been murdered, according to a Human Rights Watch report released Wednesday.
Over 200,000 people were deported from the United States and Mexico to El Salvador between 2014 and 2018, according to the report. And although the level of violence due to gang activity has resulted in asylum recognition rates as high as 75 percent in other Central American countries, the U.S. granted asylum to just 18 percent of El Salvadorans who applied for it from 2014 to 2018, the report said.
In addition to the 138 confirmed cases of murder, the report also identified over 70 cases in which deportees were “subjected to sexual violence, torture, and other harm,” or who simply went missing when they returned to the country. Human Rights Watch stressed there was no official tally of those killed or injured, however, and said that the actual casualty toll is “likely greater.”
READ: El Salvador just elected a 37-year-old populist as its next president
“U.S. authorities have knowingly put Salvadorans in harm’s way by sending them to face murder and attacks on their safety,” HRW’s Alison Parker, a co-author of the report, said in a statement. “Salvadorans are facing murder, rape, and other violence after deportation in shockingly high numbers, while the U.S. government narrows Salvadorans’ access to asylum and turns a blind eye to the deadly results of its callous policies.”
El Salvador has had some of the highest homicide rates in the world in recent years, although the Central American nation saw a promising drop in 2019. Much of the violence is the result of gang activity, on behalf of groups such as MS-13 and Barrio 18.
HRW estimates that of the 1.2 million Salvadorans currently living in the United States, as many as three-quarters are undocumented or have a just temporary authorization to live here.
The Trump administration previously tried to end Salvadorans’ participation in the program, and in 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions ruled out domestic abuse and gang violence as legitimate causes to grant asylum.
Last year, the U.S. and El Salvador signed an agreement in which the U.S. vowed to help El Salvador improve its security and anti-gang efforts in exchange for requiring asylum seekers passing through El Salvador to seek asylum in that country first. As part of the deal, the U.S. also extended the temporary protected status of Salvadorans through the end of 2020.
READ: Trump is in complete control of GOP immigration policy
The HRW recommended that the Trump administration reverse some of its most far-reaching immigration restrictions, such as the Migration Protection Protocols, the “asylum bans,” and the aforementioned Asylum Cooperation Agreements, which were also signed with Guatemala and Honduras.
The group also urged Congress to make protections for TPS and DACA recipients permanent, and to freeze funding for DHS, ICE, and CBP “unless and until abusive policies and practices that separate families, employ unnecessary detention, violate due process rights, and violate the right to seek asylum are stopped.”
“Instead of closing the door to the thousands of Salvadorans fleeing their homeland, the United States should provide them with full and fair asylum procedures and dignified treatment,” Parker said. “Before deporting Salvadorans, U.S. authorities should take into account the extraordinary risks of harm they may face upon return.”
Cover: A group of Salvadoran migrants start their journey towards the United States in San Salvador, on January 20, 2020. (Photo: MARVIN RECINOS/AFP via Getty Images)
At least 138 people deported from the U.S. have been subsequently murdered in El Salvador.
By Paul Blest Feb 5 2020
At least 138 people deported from the United States to El Salvador since 2013 have subsequently been murdered, according to a Human Rights Watch report released Wednesday.
Over 200,000 people were deported from the United States and Mexico to El Salvador between 2014 and 2018, according to the report. And although the level of violence due to gang activity has resulted in asylum recognition rates as high as 75 percent in other Central American countries, the U.S. granted asylum to just 18 percent of El Salvadorans who applied for it from 2014 to 2018, the report said.
In addition to the 138 confirmed cases of murder, the report also identified over 70 cases in which deportees were “subjected to sexual violence, torture, and other harm,” or who simply went missing when they returned to the country. Human Rights Watch stressed there was no official tally of those killed or injured, however, and said that the actual casualty toll is “likely greater.”
READ: El Salvador just elected a 37-year-old populist as its next president
“U.S. authorities have knowingly put Salvadorans in harm’s way by sending them to face murder and attacks on their safety,” HRW’s Alison Parker, a co-author of the report, said in a statement. “Salvadorans are facing murder, rape, and other violence after deportation in shockingly high numbers, while the U.S. government narrows Salvadorans’ access to asylum and turns a blind eye to the deadly results of its callous policies.”
El Salvador has had some of the highest homicide rates in the world in recent years, although the Central American nation saw a promising drop in 2019. Much of the violence is the result of gang activity, on behalf of groups such as MS-13 and Barrio 18.
HRW estimates that of the 1.2 million Salvadorans currently living in the United States, as many as three-quarters are undocumented or have a just temporary authorization to live here.
The Trump administration previously tried to end Salvadorans’ participation in the program, and in 2018, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions ruled out domestic abuse and gang violence as legitimate causes to grant asylum.
Last year, the U.S. and El Salvador signed an agreement in which the U.S. vowed to help El Salvador improve its security and anti-gang efforts in exchange for requiring asylum seekers passing through El Salvador to seek asylum in that country first. As part of the deal, the U.S. also extended the temporary protected status of Salvadorans through the end of 2020.
READ: Trump is in complete control of GOP immigration policy
The HRW recommended that the Trump administration reverse some of its most far-reaching immigration restrictions, such as the Migration Protection Protocols, the “asylum bans,” and the aforementioned Asylum Cooperation Agreements, which were also signed with Guatemala and Honduras.
The group also urged Congress to make protections for TPS and DACA recipients permanent, and to freeze funding for DHS, ICE, and CBP “unless and until abusive policies and practices that separate families, employ unnecessary detention, violate due process rights, and violate the right to seek asylum are stopped.”
“Instead of closing the door to the thousands of Salvadorans fleeing their homeland, the United States should provide them with full and fair asylum procedures and dignified treatment,” Parker said. “Before deporting Salvadorans, U.S. authorities should take into account the extraordinary risks of harm they may face upon return.”
Cover: A group of Salvadoran migrants start their journey towards the United States in San Salvador, on January 20, 2020. (Photo: MARVIN RECINOS/AFP via Getty Images)
Trump Held a Pep Rally for Border Patrol Agents and They Chanted ‘Four More Years’
'Keep America Great' hats for everybody!
By Alex Lubben Feb 14 2020,
THEY OWE HIM THEIR JOBS
President Donald Trump worked a crowd of border patrol agents on Friday, touting all that he’d done for them during his term. And the crowd, the members of the National Border Patrol Council, a union that represents Border Patrol agents, ate it up.
He took the stage to chants of “four more years!” and was applauded for mentioning how much he’d done for border patrol agents. His aides handed out Trump’s signature red “Keep America Great” hats to the crowd as he spoke.
“In my State of the Union address, I shared the story of Maria Fuertes, the 92-year-old great-grandmother who was allegedly raped, beaten, and murdered by a criminal illegal alien in New York City,” Trump read from his prepared remarks. Then he went off-script.
“I’ll take the word ‘allegedly’ out, do you mind if I do that?” he said. “The lawyers put it in. If you don’t mind I’ll take it out. She was raped, beaten, and murdered.”
The person charged with Fuertes murder has not been convicted.
A STACK OF "KEEP AMERICA GREAT" HATS IS CARRIED OUT BEFORE U.S. PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP SPEAKS TO MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL IN THE SOUTH COURT AUDITORIUM IN THE EISENHOWER EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING FEBRUARY 14, 2020 IN WASHINGTON, DC. (PHOTO BY CHIP SOMODEVILLA/GETTY IMAGES)
Trump also held up pictures of different sections of the wall and bragged about the advanced engineering that’s gone into its construction. The wall’s got anti-climbing tech, which he said has led to firefighters having to pull people off the wall who attempt to climb it and get stuck.
It’s see-through, because near sections of the wall that were opaque, the president said that Border Patrol agents were literally getting hit over the head when traffickers were launching their 150-pound bags of drugs over the wall with catapults.
He’d wanted an imposing concrete wall, but the drug-projectiles are what convinced him it had to be see-through. “As soon as they said that, that was the thing that got me. I said, ‘You’re right, you gotta be able to see what’s on the other side,’” the president said.
The wall’s even got some high-tech black paint to heat it up and make it more difficult to climb.
“We’re going to spray paint it black,” he said. “The black makes it extraordinarily hot, especially in areas along the Mexican border. It’s not known for cold weather, it’s known for quite hot weather. You don’t have too much snow in this area, right.”
“In fact, if you had any, that would be called climate change, right?” he added, to laughter from the crowd. “When they do that, I’m there, I’m a believer.”
He also touted Republican-introduced legislation that would allow victims of crimes perpetrated by undocumented immigrants to sue sanctuary cities for damages.
And as Trump was on stage Friday, the New York Times reported that the agency would be moving specially trained forces away from the border to sanctuary cities.
In cities like Chicago and New York, those agents will crackdown on illegal immigration inside the country, rather than at the border.
Cover: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to members of the National Border Patrol Council in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Friday, Feb. 14, 2020. (Photo: Oliver Contreras/SIPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
This article originally appeared on VICE US.
He also touted Republican-introduced legislation that would allow victims of crimes perpetrated by undocumented immigrants to sue sanctuary cities for damages.
And as Trump was on stage Friday, the New York Times reported that the agency would be moving specially trained forces away from the border to sanctuary cities.
In cities like Chicago and New York, those agents will crackdown on illegal immigration inside the country, rather than at the border.
Cover: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to members of the National Border Patrol Council in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Friday, Feb. 14, 2020. (Photo: Oliver Contreras/SIPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
This article originally appeared on VICE US.
WOMEN ALLOWED TO SMOKE IN PUBLIC IN SAUDI ARABIA
Ivanka Trump praises Saudi Arabia for gender equality progress at Global Women’s Forum
Kingdom and four other countries lauded by speakers at Global Women’s Forum in Dubai
Ivanka Trump praises Saudi Arabia for gender equality progress at Global Women’s Forum
Kingdom and four other countries lauded by speakers at Global Women’s Forum in Dubai
US president’s adviser Ivanka Trump and heads of World Bank and IMF among those
BY CALINE MALEK · 16 February 2020 ARAB NEWS, SAUDI ARABIA
Ivanka Trump, advisor to US President Donald Trump, congratulated the Kingdom and four other countries in the MENA region for instituting significant reforms over the past two years. (AFP)
attending gathering
BY CALINE MALEK · 16 February 2020 ARAB NEWS, SAUDI ARABIA
Ivanka Trump, advisor to US President Donald Trump, congratulated the Kingdom and four other countries in the MENA region for instituting significant reforms over the past two years. (AFP)
WHERE IS HER HIJAB/NIQAB
Kingdom and four other countries lauded by speakers at Global Women’s Forum in Dubai
US president’s adviser Ivanka Trump and heads of World Bank and IMF among those attending gathering
DUBAI: Ivanka Trump has commended Saudi Arabia for its efforts in empowering women by changing laws to respect women’s freedom of movement and access to credit and financial services.
Speaking on the first day of the Global Women’s Forum, organized by the Dubai Women Establishment, in Dubai on Sunday, Trump, advisor to US President Donald Trump, congratulated the Kingdom and four other countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region for instituting significant reforms over the past two years.
“Progress ultimately builds upon progress,” she said. “Bahrain has introduced legislation to prevent discrimination in the workplace; Jordan eliminated legal restrictions on women’s ability to work at night; Morocco expanded women’s land rights; and Tunisia introduced critical laws to combat domestic violence.
“We all need to applaud these achievements and advancements. And yet, we won’t grow complacent because there is still so much more work to be done.”
Trump said too many women continue to face obstacles to entering the workforce, starting their own businesses, reaching their full potential and charting their own future.
In the region, on average, women have only half the legal rights of men, yet their economic equality has the potential to add $600 billion to the global annual GDP by 2025.
“This number represents far more than an economic boom,” she said. “It represents millions of lives full of promise, mothers who can provide for their children, daughters who could be the first to graduate high school, and young women who could start businesses and become job creators. This is the future that we can and must achieve together.”
She lauded the courage to shatter the barriers of inequality and blaze a new path of opportunity that gives hope to millions.
White House economists have found that if nations address the five legal barriers, namely accessing institutions, building credit, owning and managing property, traveling freely and restrictions on women’s employment, women’s economic activity could increase the annual global GDP by around $7.7 trillion.
“Imagine the lives transformed, the cities that would be built, the new schools that would open their doors, the children that could be helped, if we could come together and make these reforms a part of our future,” Trump said.
“Every woman here today has an incredible story, from brave innovators to bold entrepreneurs that are bringing greater opportunity to their home countries. You are the women who are going to imagine new industries, discover new cures, create works of beauty and improve lives around the world.”
She asked nations in the region to come together to continue to work as a whole to break new ground, to institute changes, legally and culturally, that will give every woman a chance to determine her own destiny and bring greater peace and prosperity to this region and to the world.
And, although slow, progress is happening. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the gender gap dropped to 20 percent in 2018 compared to 27 percent in 1990.
“I’m convinced the tide is turning,” said Kristalina Georgieva, the IMF managing director.
“We are finally seeing women stepping up and men supporting that because gender equality is morally right but, beyond that, it’s great economics.”
She praised women entrepreneurs, especially in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), that are now categorically proven to be better than men. “If we want the economy to prosper, we have to create space,” she said.
“Knowing that 40 countries are growing five percent or more, but the rest of the world is sluggish, we need the boost that women can provide.”
A world with 100 percent gender equality would add $172 trillion to global wealth, according to the most recent data. “We would be a much richer world,” Georgieva said.
“The time for women is turning in the Middle East. If we are to just bring the MENA to par with the more advanced economies, over the (coming) years, there would be $1 trillion more in output for everybody to share. So, we are talking about very significant improvements.”
Beyond economic impact, women create a more diverse workplace and boardrooms, while ultimately “making better decisions. We know that what women often bring more of is consensus orientation,” she said.
“When women are engaged, then we have more peace on the planet, it’s a proven fact. So, for the wellbeing of our societies, the advancement of women is a fabulous gift.”
Furthermore, the World Bank estimates that increasing female labor force participation in the region to the levels of men could boost regional GDP by 47 percent.
“Currently, $575 billion in regional income is lost because of gender-based discrimination in laws, social norms and practices that constrain women’s rights and opportunities,” said David Malpass, president of the World Bank Group.
“Fortunately, more countries recognize that their economies can only reach their full potential with full participation of both women and men. We are focusing on helping countries achieve good development outcomes.”
Malpass mentioned two key areas where the bank has been working hard, namely laws and regulation and broadening of access to finance. He said, historically, the region has had the lowest score in its “Women, Business and the Law” (WBL) report but, this year, it made the most progress.
“Jordan, Lebanon, Algeria and Bahrain made many reforms,” he said.
“The UAE, and Saudi Arabia in particular, made the most reforms. The UAE has pushed for legislative reforms, including equal pay and female representation in corporate boardrooms, while, in the Kingdom, laws were changed to protect women from employment discrimination and to prohibit employers from dismissing women during pregnancy and maternity leave. And there’s room for every country to improve.”
In the report, Saudi Arabia was ranked 70.6 out of 100 – a 38.8 jump since its last ranking – placing it first among GCC countries and second in the Arab world. “We have committed to double our corporate sourcing for women-owned firms by 2023,” Malpass said.
“We are helping unlock constraints faced by women. There’s still much to do and everyone can play a role.”
'Happy I can choose': New era sees Saudi women light up in public
Haitham EL-TABEI,
AFP•February 16, 2020
Some Saudi women are embracing cigarettes, shisha pipes or vaping as a symbol of emancipation (AFP Photo/FAYEZ NURELDINE)
Riyadh (AFP) - Rima settles in a chair at an upscale Riyadh cafe, looks around carefully and, seeing no one she recognises, drags on her electronic cigarette before exhaling a cloud of smoke.
"I feel that smoking in public is a part of exercising my newly won freedoms. I am happy that now I can choose," the 27-year-old Saudi who works for a private company in the capital told AFP.
Like Western feminists of the early 20th century, in an era of social change in Saudi Arabia some women are embracing cigarettes, shisha pipes or vaping as a symbol of emancipation.
The sight of women smoking in public has become much more common in recent months, an unthinkable prospect before the introduction of sweeping reforms in the ultra-conservative kingdom
The kingdom's ambitious de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has rolled out an array of economic and social innovations to project a moderate, business-friendly image.
Women are now allowed to drive, attend public sporting events and concerts, or obtain passports without the approval of a male guardian.
Rima, who started smoking two years ago, dismisses concerns about the harmful effects of tobacco, but is worried her family will find out.
She says she is prepared for a showdown.
"I won't tell them that this is about my personal liberty, because they won't understand that women are free to smoke like men," said Rima, dressed in a traditional black abaya with gold embroidery matching the hijab that covered her hair.
Najla, 26, who like Rima asked to use a pseudonym, said that despite the rapid social changes, double standards still existed, and that it was still considered a "scandal and disgrace" if women smoked.
The only woman lighting up amid several tables of male smokers, she said she intended to "challenge society" and ignore the occasional dirty looks.
"My rights will be fully respected when my family accepts me as a smoker," she said, recalling that a friend was sent to an addiction clinic when her parents found out about her smoking.
Najla started smoking while still a school student and, like her, up to 65 percent of female Saudi high schoolers light up secretly, according to a 2015 study by the medical faculty at King Abdulaziz University cited by Arab News.
- 'Everything is allowed' -
Despite the limitations, in a country where until just a few years ago religious police would chase and hit women for infractions like wearing nail polish or allowing a strand of hair to escape from their hijab, the changes have been head-spinning.
"Most of our women clients order shisha. It's something that was totally unimaginable just three months ago," a Lebanese waiter told AFP at an up-market cafe in north Riyadh.
Heba, a 36-year-old longtime smoker who sat at a table nearby, described growing up in a closed country where "everything was forbidden to women".
"I never imagined I would be able to smoke shisha in public next to men," she told AFP.
"Now, everything is allowed. Women venture out without hijab, without abaya and they even smoke publicly."
But even as the kingdom has introduced reforms, it has attracted condemnation for a heavy-handed crackdown on dissidents including intellectuals, clerics and female activists.
In 2018, authorities arrested at least a dozen women activists just before the historic lifting of the decades-long ban on female motorists.
Many of the detained have accused interrogators of sexual harassment and torture. Saudi authorities reject the accusations.
"There is no doubt that at the persona level there is more freedom," said Walid al-Hathloul, whose sister Loujain is on trial over allegations of having contacts with foreign media and diplomats.
"But the reforms in favour of women are part of a public relations campaign to improve the kingdom's human rights record," he told AFP.
"The arrest and demonisation of women activists is proof of this -- it's designed so that the reforms will not be credited to the activists."
Kingdom and four other countries lauded by speakers at Global Women’s Forum in Dubai
US president’s adviser Ivanka Trump and heads of World Bank and IMF among those attending gathering
DUBAI: Ivanka Trump has commended Saudi Arabia for its efforts in empowering women by changing laws to respect women’s freedom of movement and access to credit and financial services.
Speaking on the first day of the Global Women’s Forum, organized by the Dubai Women Establishment, in Dubai on Sunday, Trump, advisor to US President Donald Trump, congratulated the Kingdom and four other countries in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region for instituting significant reforms over the past two years.
“Progress ultimately builds upon progress,” she said. “Bahrain has introduced legislation to prevent discrimination in the workplace; Jordan eliminated legal restrictions on women’s ability to work at night; Morocco expanded women’s land rights; and Tunisia introduced critical laws to combat domestic violence.
“We all need to applaud these achievements and advancements. And yet, we won’t grow complacent because there is still so much more work to be done.”
Trump said too many women continue to face obstacles to entering the workforce, starting their own businesses, reaching their full potential and charting their own future.
In the region, on average, women have only half the legal rights of men, yet their economic equality has the potential to add $600 billion to the global annual GDP by 2025.
“This number represents far more than an economic boom,” she said. “It represents millions of lives full of promise, mothers who can provide for their children, daughters who could be the first to graduate high school, and young women who could start businesses and become job creators. This is the future that we can and must achieve together.”
She lauded the courage to shatter the barriers of inequality and blaze a new path of opportunity that gives hope to millions.
White House economists have found that if nations address the five legal barriers, namely accessing institutions, building credit, owning and managing property, traveling freely and restrictions on women’s employment, women’s economic activity could increase the annual global GDP by around $7.7 trillion.
“Imagine the lives transformed, the cities that would be built, the new schools that would open their doors, the children that could be helped, if we could come together and make these reforms a part of our future,” Trump said.
“Every woman here today has an incredible story, from brave innovators to bold entrepreneurs that are bringing greater opportunity to their home countries. You are the women who are going to imagine new industries, discover new cures, create works of beauty and improve lives around the world.”
She asked nations in the region to come together to continue to work as a whole to break new ground, to institute changes, legally and culturally, that will give every woman a chance to determine her own destiny and bring greater peace and prosperity to this region and to the world.
And, although slow, progress is happening. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the gender gap dropped to 20 percent in 2018 compared to 27 percent in 1990.
“I’m convinced the tide is turning,” said Kristalina Georgieva, the IMF managing director.
“We are finally seeing women stepping up and men supporting that because gender equality is morally right but, beyond that, it’s great economics.”
She praised women entrepreneurs, especially in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), that are now categorically proven to be better than men. “If we want the economy to prosper, we have to create space,” she said.
“Knowing that 40 countries are growing five percent or more, but the rest of the world is sluggish, we need the boost that women can provide.”
A world with 100 percent gender equality would add $172 trillion to global wealth, according to the most recent data. “We would be a much richer world,” Georgieva said.
“The time for women is turning in the Middle East. If we are to just bring the MENA to par with the more advanced economies, over the (coming) years, there would be $1 trillion more in output for everybody to share. So, we are talking about very significant improvements.”
Beyond economic impact, women create a more diverse workplace and boardrooms, while ultimately “making better decisions. We know that what women often bring more of is consensus orientation,” she said.
“When women are engaged, then we have more peace on the planet, it’s a proven fact. So, for the wellbeing of our societies, the advancement of women is a fabulous gift.”
Furthermore, the World Bank estimates that increasing female labor force participation in the region to the levels of men could boost regional GDP by 47 percent.
“Currently, $575 billion in regional income is lost because of gender-based discrimination in laws, social norms and practices that constrain women’s rights and opportunities,” said David Malpass, president of the World Bank Group.
“Fortunately, more countries recognize that their economies can only reach their full potential with full participation of both women and men. We are focusing on helping countries achieve good development outcomes.”
Malpass mentioned two key areas where the bank has been working hard, namely laws and regulation and broadening of access to finance. He said, historically, the region has had the lowest score in its “Women, Business and the Law” (WBL) report but, this year, it made the most progress.
“Jordan, Lebanon, Algeria and Bahrain made many reforms,” he said.
“The UAE, and Saudi Arabia in particular, made the most reforms. The UAE has pushed for legislative reforms, including equal pay and female representation in corporate boardrooms, while, in the Kingdom, laws were changed to protect women from employment discrimination and to prohibit employers from dismissing women during pregnancy and maternity leave. And there’s room for every country to improve.”
In the report, Saudi Arabia was ranked 70.6 out of 100 – a 38.8 jump since its last ranking – placing it first among GCC countries and second in the Arab world. “We have committed to double our corporate sourcing for women-owned firms by 2023,” Malpass said.
“We are helping unlock constraints faced by women. There’s still much to do and everyone can play a role.”
'Happy I can choose': New era sees Saudi women light up in public
Haitham EL-TABEI,
AFP•February 16, 2020
Some Saudi women are embracing cigarettes, shisha pipes or vaping as a symbol of emancipation (AFP Photo/FAYEZ NURELDINE)
Riyadh (AFP) - Rima settles in a chair at an upscale Riyadh cafe, looks around carefully and, seeing no one she recognises, drags on her electronic cigarette before exhaling a cloud of smoke.
"I feel that smoking in public is a part of exercising my newly won freedoms. I am happy that now I can choose," the 27-year-old Saudi who works for a private company in the capital told AFP.
Like Western feminists of the early 20th century, in an era of social change in Saudi Arabia some women are embracing cigarettes, shisha pipes or vaping as a symbol of emancipation.
The sight of women smoking in public has become much more common in recent months, an unthinkable prospect before the introduction of sweeping reforms in the ultra-conservative kingdom
The kingdom's ambitious de facto ruler, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, has rolled out an array of economic and social innovations to project a moderate, business-friendly image.
Women are now allowed to drive, attend public sporting events and concerts, or obtain passports without the approval of a male guardian.
Rima, who started smoking two years ago, dismisses concerns about the harmful effects of tobacco, but is worried her family will find out.
She says she is prepared for a showdown.
"I won't tell them that this is about my personal liberty, because they won't understand that women are free to smoke like men," said Rima, dressed in a traditional black abaya with gold embroidery matching the hijab that covered her hair.
Najla, 26, who like Rima asked to use a pseudonym, said that despite the rapid social changes, double standards still existed, and that it was still considered a "scandal and disgrace" if women smoked.
The only woman lighting up amid several tables of male smokers, she said she intended to "challenge society" and ignore the occasional dirty looks.
"My rights will be fully respected when my family accepts me as a smoker," she said, recalling that a friend was sent to an addiction clinic when her parents found out about her smoking.
Najla started smoking while still a school student and, like her, up to 65 percent of female Saudi high schoolers light up secretly, according to a 2015 study by the medical faculty at King Abdulaziz University cited by Arab News.
- 'Everything is allowed' -
Despite the limitations, in a country where until just a few years ago religious police would chase and hit women for infractions like wearing nail polish or allowing a strand of hair to escape from their hijab, the changes have been head-spinning.
"Most of our women clients order shisha. It's something that was totally unimaginable just three months ago," a Lebanese waiter told AFP at an up-market cafe in north Riyadh.
Heba, a 36-year-old longtime smoker who sat at a table nearby, described growing up in a closed country where "everything was forbidden to women".
"I never imagined I would be able to smoke shisha in public next to men," she told AFP.
"Now, everything is allowed. Women venture out without hijab, without abaya and they even smoke publicly."
But even as the kingdom has introduced reforms, it has attracted condemnation for a heavy-handed crackdown on dissidents including intellectuals, clerics and female activists.
In 2018, authorities arrested at least a dozen women activists just before the historic lifting of the decades-long ban on female motorists.
Many of the detained have accused interrogators of sexual harassment and torture. Saudi authorities reject the accusations.
"There is no doubt that at the persona level there is more freedom," said Walid al-Hathloul, whose sister Loujain is on trial over allegations of having contacts with foreign media and diplomats.
"But the reforms in favour of women are part of a public relations campaign to improve the kingdom's human rights record," he told AFP.
"The arrest and demonisation of women activists is proof of this -- it's designed so that the reforms will not be credited to the activists."
The Untold Story of How Trump’s Fixers Silenced Stormy Daniels Just Days Before the 2016 Election
DIRTY DEALS
A new book exposes for the first time the extraordinary efforts by Michael Cohen, David Pecker, and others to hush up a porn star about her sexual fling with the future president.
Joe Palazzolo Michael Rothfeld Updated Jan. 14, 2020
Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast/Getty
The Access Hollywood video changed the math for Stormy Daniels as well as for Donald Trump.
Before it emerged, reporters had already focused on allegations of Trump making unwanted sexual advances and objectifying women. Afterward, more women came forward with stories about the Republican candidate’s bad behavior.
They told of incidents that could have been charted on a map like stops on a cross-country trip spanning the decades; women spoke of unpleasant and unwelcome encounters with Trump at the U.S. Open tennis tournament, at Mar-a-Lago, on the set of The Apprentice, at beauty pageants, during a flight, in a nightclub, and on and on, all consonant with the Access Hollywood revelation.
Trump denied all the accusations but issued a videotaped apology for the explosive report, saying that the words he had spoken on the tape “don’t reflect who I am.”
“I’ve said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more-than-a-decade-old video are one of them,” he said. “I said it. I was wrong. And I apologize.”
How the Stormy Daniels Story Almost Got Out in 2016
SQUEEZE PLAY
Adam Rawnsley
All of Donald Trump’s Accusers: A Timeline
SERIOUS STUFF
Olivia Messer
The media frenzy breathed oxygen into Daniels’s flagging efforts to sell the story of her own Trump tryst. Extramarital sex with a porn star, even one who’d slept with Trump willingly, would still damage his fading chances. Her agent, Gina Rodriguez, had already begun talks about Daniels with Good Morning America. They weren’t advanced, but they were a card Rodriguez could now play.
On Saturday, October 8, following the worst day of Trump’s campaign, Rodriguez, Dylan Howard, then the editor of American Media’s National Enquirer, and lawyer Keith Davidson began a series of conversations about Stormy Daniels that would last into the night. They realized her story was more marketable now than it had been when Rodriguez first pitched Howard in April, before the Access Hollywood tape placed Trump’s treatment of women in the national spotlight.
“Trump is fucked,” Davidson texted Howard that afternoon. The editor agreed: “Wave the white flag. It’s over people!”
A few hours later, Davidson emailed Rodriguez: “Have you heard from Stormy lately?” Howard followed up with her about a half hour later. He asked Daniels’s manager to send him a pitch so he could elevate it to his boss, David Pecker.
“He likely will pay,” Howard texted.
Rodriguez emailed him a brief description of her client’s claims:
Donald Trump had sex with Stormy Daniels while his current wife was pregnant.
He flew Stormy to his Pageant and told her he would get her on Celebrity Apprentice which he never did.
She met him while at a celebrity golf tournament and The Wicked girls were at the event.
Stormy will take a lie detector and go on the record.
RELATED IN POLITICS
Adulterer-in-Chief Throws Red Meat to His Evangelical Base
The GOP’s DGAF Defense
There’s No Defending Trump, So His Team Will Try the Bidens
As the discussions about Daniels took shape, Michael Cohen was visiting his daughter in London, where she had enrolled in a study-abroad program for college. He hadn’t been in regular touch with Trump or Hope Hicks, the candidate’s spokeswoman, in recent weeks. But now they sought him out as the Access Hollywood scandal roiled the campaign.
“Hicks had heard from another campaign aide that a rumor was circulating of another tape, this one of Trump cavorting with prostitutes in Moscow during a trip there for the Miss Universe pageant in 2013.”
On that Saturday night in London, Cohen had a conference call with Hicks and Trump, followed by a call with Hicks alone. Hicks had heard from another campaign aide that a rumor was circulating of another tape, this one of Trump cavorting with prostitutes in Moscow during a trip there for the Miss Universe pageant in 2013.
Hicks had been told that TMZ might have access to the tape, and she knew that Cohen was close to Harvey Levin, the gossip outlet’s founder. Hicks asked Cohen to let her know if he heard anything from Levin. She also impressed on him, in the event he spoke to any reporters, that the campaign’s messaging was that Trump’s remarks on the Access Hollywood recording were merely “locker room talk.”
The Moscow tape was bad, but it was just a rumor. Cohen had a more immediate problem. He learned from Pecker and Howard that Daniels was still shopping her story. Cohen, Pecker, and Howard exchanged a series of calls after Cohen got off the phone with Hicks.
Cohen lobbied Pecker to buy Daniels’s story, and for a brief time that Saturday night it seemed as if American Media might repeat the favor the publisher had done for Trump in a “catch and kill” deal by locking up Karen McDougal’s story.
Less than an hour after receiving the pitch from Rodriguez that Howard had requested, he texted her to set a price.
“How much for Stormy?” Howard wrote.
“250k,” Rodriguez replied.
She told Howard that Good Morning America and the British tabloid the Daily Mail were both hot for the story. The ABC show had expressed some interest but didn’t pay sources. Rodriguez had fabricated the $250,000 offer from the Daily Mail, hoping to goad American Media into buying.
“Well I will buy it but I ain’t got 250K! Lol. GMA can’t pay her—they can license pix etc. I will tie it up ASAP if we can get a realistic price,” Howard texted.
He told Rodriguez he could get her $100,000 for the story, an offer she rejected with an “Lol,” before starting a rapid-fire negotiation by text.
“Ok what about 150k,” Rodriguez countered.
“110,” Howard replied.
“125k,” Rodriguez responded.
“120,” Howard hit back.
“Sold,” Rodriguez wrote.
But it wasn’t sold. Howard still needed approval from Pecker to buy the story. He told Rodriguez he’d be back in touch by the following morning.
“Woman wants 120k. Has offers from Mail and GMA want her to talk and do lie detector live. I know the denials were made in the past—but this story is true.”
Minutes after signing off with Rodriguez, Howard texted his boss.
“Woman wants 120k. Has offers from Mail and GMA want her to talk and do lie detector live. I know the denials were made in the past—but this story is true. I can lock it on publication now to shut down the media chatter and we can assess next steps thereafter. Ok?”
“We can’t pay 120k,” Pecker texted back.
Howard realized that Daniels would be Cohen and Trump’s problem now.
“Ok. They’d need to handle. Perhaps I call Michael and advise him and he can take it from there, and handle,” Howard said.
“Yes a good idea,” Pecker texted.
After speaking with Howard once more, Cohen was ready to do a deal, but he didn’t have anyone to deal with.
Gina Rodriguez wasn’t a lawyer, and anyway Cohen had already threatened to end her career and sue her and Daniels into oblivion. She wasn’t going to negotiate with him directly.
Howard, now the middleman, turned to Davidson, a friend with whom he shared celebrity gossip, but Davidson was still wary of Cohen. When Davidson had tested the idea of a deal for Daniels’s story in September, Cohen responded with fury and threats.
That Time Michael Cohen Threatened The Daily Beast
DARK TOWER
Brandy Zadrozny,
Tim Mak
Davidson needed convincing that Cohen was willing to negotiate in good faith. Howard agreed to contact Cohen (again) to vouch for Davidson and to get Cohen’s assurances that he wouldn’t try to ambush Davidson. When they spoke, Howard told Cohen that Davidson was a friend. Be nice, he said.
Davidson soon relented and agreed to negotiate with Cohen. Howard, having brokered the peace, first texted Pecker to let him know that Cohen had agreed to handle the story and leave American out of it. “Spoke to MC. All sorted. Now removed. No fingerprints. I’ll recap with you face to face,” Howard said. “Great work Thx,” Pecker replied.
Howard then texted Cohen to let him know Davidson had come around. “Keith will do it. Let’s reconvene tomorrow,” Howard said in a text to Cohen. Cohen, for whom it was past 2 a.m., texted back after waking up. “Thank you,” he replied. He texted again a few minutes later to give Howard the name of his shell company, Resolution Consultants, which Cohen planned to use to funnel the money to Davidson.
Rodriguez kept up the pressure on October 9, telling Howard that she had another offer for Daniels’s story, this one for $200,000, a lie meant to prod the deal along. After waking up the next morning, a Monday, Howard checked in with Rodriguez and linked Cohen and Davidson via text, using coded language.
“Keith/Michael: connecting you both in regards to that business opportunity. Spoke to the client this AM and they’re confirmed to proceed with the opportunity. Thanks. Dylan. Over to you two.”
Davidson texted Cohen about an hour and a half later. “Michael—if we are ever going to close this deal—In my opinion, it needs to be today. Keith.”
The two lawyers soon got on a call. Cohen wanted to buy the story, but he balked at Daniels’s six-figure demand.
“You forget what I do. I know everybody in this business. This story isn’t worth shit,” Cohen said.
“Spoke to the client this AM and they’re confirmed to proceed with the opportunity. Thanks. Dylan. Over to you two.”
Davidson said $130,000 was as low as Rodriguez and Daniels were willing to go. Daniels wanted to get at least $100,000. After Rodriguez’s commission and Davidson’s $10,000 fee, she would get around $96,000—close enough.
“That’s the drop-dead number,” Davidson told Cohen.
He told Cohen that Daniels had a competing offer from a media company. Cohen pressed Davidson for details, but he pleaded ignorance. It was Rodriguez’s deal, he said. Davidson told Cohen he knew only that the company had offered $130,000.
In fact, Rodriguez had no offer. She had invented it to use as leverage with Cohen, just as she had concocted the other offers she used to try to entice Howard. It worked.
Three days after a video of Trump talking about grabbing women by their genitals entered the public domain, Cohen and Davidson had a deal. Cohen reluctantly agreed to match the offer he believed Daniels had from another company, and, in return, Daniels would sign a contract barring her from discussing her alleged one-night stand with Trump.
Davidson drafted the contract and used pseudonyms to conceal the names of the parties, a typical practice in deals of this kind. Trump was identified as David Dennison and Daniels was described as Peggy Peterson. Davidson had borrowed the name David Dennison from a guy he knew in high school; Peggy Peterson was also his creation. In the contract, the names were shortened to the initials “DD” and “PP,” indicating that Trump was the defendant and Daniels was the plaintiff.
American Media’s payment to Karen McDougal and involvement in the Stormy Daniels deal would bring the publisher to the brink of criminal prosecution by federal authorities in Manhattan. But Pecker, Howard and American Media avoided charges by cooperating with the federal prosecutors, who used their information against Michael Cohen.
Howard acknowledged the personal risk he had taken in helping Trump, in a series of previously unreported text messages sent on election night.
“Jesus. He’s in with a massive chance,” Howard wrote in a 10:20 p.m. text to his relative in Australia, where it was already the afternoon of the next day. The Enquirer’s editor’s family members didn’t like Trump.
“Oh no. When will we know,” came the reply from the family member.
“Probably an hour or so. But he’s flipped states no one expected him to do. Or they’re neck and neck,” Howard messaged, before offering a bit of gallows humor.
“At least if he wins, I’ll be pardoned for electoral fraud,” Howard wrote.
The Daily Beast also asked the authors of The Fixers for their thoughts on Trump’s key fixers:
Roy Cohn
The First Fixer, Roy Cohn shepherded young Donald Trump through the Manhattan scene of the 1970s, introducing him to Cohn’s famous friends and to New York politicians who could help Trump’s business. Cohn’s work for Trump including acting as a bridge between Trump and organized criminals who dominated the construction industry; lying about Trump’s net worth to improve his client’s standing on the Forbes 400; and helping Trump obtain a 40-year tax abatement, the longest in city history, for his Grand Hyatt Hotel in Manhattan.
Michael Cohen
Michael Cohen, a personal injury lawyer and taxi medallion owner, went to work for the Trump Organization in 2007, the year after he helped Trump defeat a condo board uprising at one of his buildings. Cohen, who wore a pistol in an ankle holster, used threats to kill negative media stories, including about alleged affairs involving Stormy Daniels and Trump, and Donald Trump Jr. and Aubrey O’Day. Before the 2016 presidential campaign, Cohen tried to rig online polls in Trump’s favor. In 2016, he paid Daniels $130,000 for her silence and helped orchestrate a $150,000 payment by the National Enquirer’s publisher to former Playmate Karen McDougal to buy her story of an affair with Trump. After Cohen was investigated for those payments and other crimes, he pleaded guilty, pointed his finger at Trump, and was given a three-year prison term.
David Pecker
Pecker used his National Enquirer and other tabloids to boost political Trump ambitions in 1999, 2011, and 2015-16, while attacking his opponents. He suppressed negative stories about Trump over the years, while puffing up Trump in his pages with labels like “ga-jillionaire.” In 2015, his company paid $30,000 to a former Trump doorman who was peddling a rumor about a Trump love child, suppressing the story. The next year, Pecker authorized the “catch and kill” contract with McDougal and helped broker the Stormy Daniels deal with Cohen. He used his publications to help other powerful associates, including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ron Perelman.
Rudy Giuliani
While Giuliani was U.S. attorney in Manhattan in the late 1980s, Giuliani’s office interviewed Trump in an inquiry into his possible money-laundering involving a Trump Tower real-estate deal. The matter was dropped without becoming a formal investigation. Around that time, Trump became co-chairman of Giuliani’s losing 1989 New York City mayoral campaign. In 2016, Giuliani backed Trump for president. He joined Trump’s legal team in 2018, to fight the Mueller investigation into Russian interference and potential obstruction by Trump. Giuliani attacked Cohen in the media after he turned against Trump. In 2019, Giuliani pressed authorities in Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and Biden’s son, and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. He also helped engineer the firing of Marie Yovanovitch, the American ambassador to Ukraine, whom he saw as unfavorable to Trump’s interests.
William Barr
Before he was confirmed attorney general of the United States, William Barr sent an unsolicited 19-page page memo to the Justice Department describing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s obstruction investigation of Trump as “fatally misconceived.” Once in office, Barr determined, with his deputy, that Mueller had gathered insufficient evidence to establish obstruction. More recently, Barr has been supervising an investigation of the origins of the FBI’s probe into links between the Trump campaign and Russia. He and the federal prosecutor leading the investigation have disputed a finding by the Justice Department’s watchdog that the FBI was justified in opening the counterintelligence investigation in 2016. In congressional testimony, Barr characterized the covert investigation as "spying."
The Fixers
Buy on Amazon$28
DIRTY DEALS
A new book exposes for the first time the extraordinary efforts by Michael Cohen, David Pecker, and others to hush up a porn star about her sexual fling with the future president.
Joe Palazzolo Michael Rothfeld Updated Jan. 14, 2020
Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast/Getty
This is an adapted excerpt from The Fixers: The Bottom-Feeders, Crooked Lawyers, Gossipmongers, and Porn Stars Who Created the 45th President, by Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporters Joe Palazzolo and Michael Rothfeld, to be published Tuesday by Random House.
The Access Hollywood video changed the math for Stormy Daniels as well as for Donald Trump.
Before it emerged, reporters had already focused on allegations of Trump making unwanted sexual advances and objectifying women. Afterward, more women came forward with stories about the Republican candidate’s bad behavior.
They told of incidents that could have been charted on a map like stops on a cross-country trip spanning the decades; women spoke of unpleasant and unwelcome encounters with Trump at the U.S. Open tennis tournament, at Mar-a-Lago, on the set of The Apprentice, at beauty pageants, during a flight, in a nightclub, and on and on, all consonant with the Access Hollywood revelation.
Trump denied all the accusations but issued a videotaped apology for the explosive report, saying that the words he had spoken on the tape “don’t reflect who I am.”
“I’ve said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more-than-a-decade-old video are one of them,” he said. “I said it. I was wrong. And I apologize.”
How the Stormy Daniels Story Almost Got Out in 2016
SQUEEZE PLAY
Adam Rawnsley
All of Donald Trump’s Accusers: A Timeline
SERIOUS STUFF
Olivia Messer
The media frenzy breathed oxygen into Daniels’s flagging efforts to sell the story of her own Trump tryst. Extramarital sex with a porn star, even one who’d slept with Trump willingly, would still damage his fading chances. Her agent, Gina Rodriguez, had already begun talks about Daniels with Good Morning America. They weren’t advanced, but they were a card Rodriguez could now play.
On Saturday, October 8, following the worst day of Trump’s campaign, Rodriguez, Dylan Howard, then the editor of American Media’s National Enquirer, and lawyer Keith Davidson began a series of conversations about Stormy Daniels that would last into the night. They realized her story was more marketable now than it had been when Rodriguez first pitched Howard in April, before the Access Hollywood tape placed Trump’s treatment of women in the national spotlight.
“Trump is fucked,” Davidson texted Howard that afternoon. The editor agreed: “Wave the white flag. It’s over people!”
A few hours later, Davidson emailed Rodriguez: “Have you heard from Stormy lately?” Howard followed up with her about a half hour later. He asked Daniels’s manager to send him a pitch so he could elevate it to his boss, David Pecker.
“He likely will pay,” Howard texted.
Rodriguez emailed him a brief description of her client’s claims:
Donald Trump had sex with Stormy Daniels while his current wife was pregnant.
He flew Stormy to his Pageant and told her he would get her on Celebrity Apprentice which he never did.
She met him while at a celebrity golf tournament and The Wicked girls were at the event.
Stormy will take a lie detector and go on the record.
RELATED IN POLITICS
Adulterer-in-Chief Throws Red Meat to His Evangelical Base
The GOP’s DGAF Defense
There’s No Defending Trump, So His Team Will Try the Bidens
As the discussions about Daniels took shape, Michael Cohen was visiting his daughter in London, where she had enrolled in a study-abroad program for college. He hadn’t been in regular touch with Trump or Hope Hicks, the candidate’s spokeswoman, in recent weeks. But now they sought him out as the Access Hollywood scandal roiled the campaign.
“Hicks had heard from another campaign aide that a rumor was circulating of another tape, this one of Trump cavorting with prostitutes in Moscow during a trip there for the Miss Universe pageant in 2013.”
On that Saturday night in London, Cohen had a conference call with Hicks and Trump, followed by a call with Hicks alone. Hicks had heard from another campaign aide that a rumor was circulating of another tape, this one of Trump cavorting with prostitutes in Moscow during a trip there for the Miss Universe pageant in 2013.
Hicks had been told that TMZ might have access to the tape, and she knew that Cohen was close to Harvey Levin, the gossip outlet’s founder. Hicks asked Cohen to let her know if he heard anything from Levin. She also impressed on him, in the event he spoke to any reporters, that the campaign’s messaging was that Trump’s remarks on the Access Hollywood recording were merely “locker room talk.”
The Moscow tape was bad, but it was just a rumor. Cohen had a more immediate problem. He learned from Pecker and Howard that Daniels was still shopping her story. Cohen, Pecker, and Howard exchanged a series of calls after Cohen got off the phone with Hicks.
Cohen lobbied Pecker to buy Daniels’s story, and for a brief time that Saturday night it seemed as if American Media might repeat the favor the publisher had done for Trump in a “catch and kill” deal by locking up Karen McDougal’s story.
Less than an hour after receiving the pitch from Rodriguez that Howard had requested, he texted her to set a price.
“How much for Stormy?” Howard wrote.
“250k,” Rodriguez replied.
She told Howard that Good Morning America and the British tabloid the Daily Mail were both hot for the story. The ABC show had expressed some interest but didn’t pay sources. Rodriguez had fabricated the $250,000 offer from the Daily Mail, hoping to goad American Media into buying.
“Well I will buy it but I ain’t got 250K! Lol. GMA can’t pay her—they can license pix etc. I will tie it up ASAP if we can get a realistic price,” Howard texted.
He told Rodriguez he could get her $100,000 for the story, an offer she rejected with an “Lol,” before starting a rapid-fire negotiation by text.
“Ok what about 150k,” Rodriguez countered.
“110,” Howard replied.
“125k,” Rodriguez responded.
“120,” Howard hit back.
“Sold,” Rodriguez wrote.
But it wasn’t sold. Howard still needed approval from Pecker to buy the story. He told Rodriguez he’d be back in touch by the following morning.
“Woman wants 120k. Has offers from Mail and GMA want her to talk and do lie detector live. I know the denials were made in the past—but this story is true.”
Minutes after signing off with Rodriguez, Howard texted his boss.
“Woman wants 120k. Has offers from Mail and GMA want her to talk and do lie detector live. I know the denials were made in the past—but this story is true. I can lock it on publication now to shut down the media chatter and we can assess next steps thereafter. Ok?”
“We can’t pay 120k,” Pecker texted back.
Howard realized that Daniels would be Cohen and Trump’s problem now.
“Ok. They’d need to handle. Perhaps I call Michael and advise him and he can take it from there, and handle,” Howard said.
“Yes a good idea,” Pecker texted.
After speaking with Howard once more, Cohen was ready to do a deal, but he didn’t have anyone to deal with.
Gina Rodriguez wasn’t a lawyer, and anyway Cohen had already threatened to end her career and sue her and Daniels into oblivion. She wasn’t going to negotiate with him directly.
Howard, now the middleman, turned to Davidson, a friend with whom he shared celebrity gossip, but Davidson was still wary of Cohen. When Davidson had tested the idea of a deal for Daniels’s story in September, Cohen responded with fury and threats.
That Time Michael Cohen Threatened The Daily Beast
DARK TOWER
Brandy Zadrozny,
Tim Mak
Davidson needed convincing that Cohen was willing to negotiate in good faith. Howard agreed to contact Cohen (again) to vouch for Davidson and to get Cohen’s assurances that he wouldn’t try to ambush Davidson. When they spoke, Howard told Cohen that Davidson was a friend. Be nice, he said.
Davidson soon relented and agreed to negotiate with Cohen. Howard, having brokered the peace, first texted Pecker to let him know that Cohen had agreed to handle the story and leave American out of it. “Spoke to MC. All sorted. Now removed. No fingerprints. I’ll recap with you face to face,” Howard said. “Great work Thx,” Pecker replied.
Howard then texted Cohen to let him know Davidson had come around. “Keith will do it. Let’s reconvene tomorrow,” Howard said in a text to Cohen. Cohen, for whom it was past 2 a.m., texted back after waking up. “Thank you,” he replied. He texted again a few minutes later to give Howard the name of his shell company, Resolution Consultants, which Cohen planned to use to funnel the money to Davidson.
Rodriguez kept up the pressure on October 9, telling Howard that she had another offer for Daniels’s story, this one for $200,000, a lie meant to prod the deal along. After waking up the next morning, a Monday, Howard checked in with Rodriguez and linked Cohen and Davidson via text, using coded language.
“Keith/Michael: connecting you both in regards to that business opportunity. Spoke to the client this AM and they’re confirmed to proceed with the opportunity. Thanks. Dylan. Over to you two.”
Davidson texted Cohen about an hour and a half later. “Michael—if we are ever going to close this deal—In my opinion, it needs to be today. Keith.”
The two lawyers soon got on a call. Cohen wanted to buy the story, but he balked at Daniels’s six-figure demand.
“You forget what I do. I know everybody in this business. This story isn’t worth shit,” Cohen said.
“Spoke to the client this AM and they’re confirmed to proceed with the opportunity. Thanks. Dylan. Over to you two.”
Davidson said $130,000 was as low as Rodriguez and Daniels were willing to go. Daniels wanted to get at least $100,000. After Rodriguez’s commission and Davidson’s $10,000 fee, she would get around $96,000—close enough.
“That’s the drop-dead number,” Davidson told Cohen.
He told Cohen that Daniels had a competing offer from a media company. Cohen pressed Davidson for details, but he pleaded ignorance. It was Rodriguez’s deal, he said. Davidson told Cohen he knew only that the company had offered $130,000.
In fact, Rodriguez had no offer. She had invented it to use as leverage with Cohen, just as she had concocted the other offers she used to try to entice Howard. It worked.
Three days after a video of Trump talking about grabbing women by their genitals entered the public domain, Cohen and Davidson had a deal. Cohen reluctantly agreed to match the offer he believed Daniels had from another company, and, in return, Daniels would sign a contract barring her from discussing her alleged one-night stand with Trump.
Davidson drafted the contract and used pseudonyms to conceal the names of the parties, a typical practice in deals of this kind. Trump was identified as David Dennison and Daniels was described as Peggy Peterson. Davidson had borrowed the name David Dennison from a guy he knew in high school; Peggy Peterson was also his creation. In the contract, the names were shortened to the initials “DD” and “PP,” indicating that Trump was the defendant and Daniels was the plaintiff.
American Media’s payment to Karen McDougal and involvement in the Stormy Daniels deal would bring the publisher to the brink of criminal prosecution by federal authorities in Manhattan. But Pecker, Howard and American Media avoided charges by cooperating with the federal prosecutors, who used their information against Michael Cohen.
Howard acknowledged the personal risk he had taken in helping Trump, in a series of previously unreported text messages sent on election night.
“Jesus. He’s in with a massive chance,” Howard wrote in a 10:20 p.m. text to his relative in Australia, where it was already the afternoon of the next day. The Enquirer’s editor’s family members didn’t like Trump.
“Oh no. When will we know,” came the reply from the family member.
“Probably an hour or so. But he’s flipped states no one expected him to do. Or they’re neck and neck,” Howard messaged, before offering a bit of gallows humor.
“At least if he wins, I’ll be pardoned for electoral fraud,” Howard wrote.
The Daily Beast also asked the authors of The Fixers for their thoughts on Trump’s key fixers:
Roy Cohn
The First Fixer, Roy Cohn shepherded young Donald Trump through the Manhattan scene of the 1970s, introducing him to Cohn’s famous friends and to New York politicians who could help Trump’s business. Cohn’s work for Trump including acting as a bridge between Trump and organized criminals who dominated the construction industry; lying about Trump’s net worth to improve his client’s standing on the Forbes 400; and helping Trump obtain a 40-year tax abatement, the longest in city history, for his Grand Hyatt Hotel in Manhattan.
Michael Cohen
Michael Cohen, a personal injury lawyer and taxi medallion owner, went to work for the Trump Organization in 2007, the year after he helped Trump defeat a condo board uprising at one of his buildings. Cohen, who wore a pistol in an ankle holster, used threats to kill negative media stories, including about alleged affairs involving Stormy Daniels and Trump, and Donald Trump Jr. and Aubrey O’Day. Before the 2016 presidential campaign, Cohen tried to rig online polls in Trump’s favor. In 2016, he paid Daniels $130,000 for her silence and helped orchestrate a $150,000 payment by the National Enquirer’s publisher to former Playmate Karen McDougal to buy her story of an affair with Trump. After Cohen was investigated for those payments and other crimes, he pleaded guilty, pointed his finger at Trump, and was given a three-year prison term.
David Pecker
Pecker used his National Enquirer and other tabloids to boost political Trump ambitions in 1999, 2011, and 2015-16, while attacking his opponents. He suppressed negative stories about Trump over the years, while puffing up Trump in his pages with labels like “ga-jillionaire.” In 2015, his company paid $30,000 to a former Trump doorman who was peddling a rumor about a Trump love child, suppressing the story. The next year, Pecker authorized the “catch and kill” contract with McDougal and helped broker the Stormy Daniels deal with Cohen. He used his publications to help other powerful associates, including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ron Perelman.
Rudy Giuliani
While Giuliani was U.S. attorney in Manhattan in the late 1980s, Giuliani’s office interviewed Trump in an inquiry into his possible money-laundering involving a Trump Tower real-estate deal. The matter was dropped without becoming a formal investigation. Around that time, Trump became co-chairman of Giuliani’s losing 1989 New York City mayoral campaign. In 2016, Giuliani backed Trump for president. He joined Trump’s legal team in 2018, to fight the Mueller investigation into Russian interference and potential obstruction by Trump. Giuliani attacked Cohen in the media after he turned against Trump. In 2019, Giuliani pressed authorities in Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and Biden’s son, and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. He also helped engineer the firing of Marie Yovanovitch, the American ambassador to Ukraine, whom he saw as unfavorable to Trump’s interests.
William Barr
Before he was confirmed attorney general of the United States, William Barr sent an unsolicited 19-page page memo to the Justice Department describing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s obstruction investigation of Trump as “fatally misconceived.” Once in office, Barr determined, with his deputy, that Mueller had gathered insufficient evidence to establish obstruction. More recently, Barr has been supervising an investigation of the origins of the FBI’s probe into links between the Trump campaign and Russia. He and the federal prosecutor leading the investigation have disputed a finding by the Justice Department’s watchdog that the FBI was justified in opening the counterintelligence investigation in 2016. In congressional testimony, Barr characterized the covert investigation as "spying."
The Fixers
Buy on Amazon$28
‘Chinatown’: The Twisted Characters Behind a Hollywood Masterpiece
CAN'T FORGET IT
It is perhaps the darkest movie to ever come out of Hollywood. Sam Wasson talked to The Daily Beast about his new book profiling the film’s collaborators.
Nathan S. Webster Updated Feb. 16, 2020
Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast/GettyThe Daily Beast
What makes a movie like Chinatown break a heart? What desperation did Sam Wasson try to touch, as he wrote The Big Goodbye, about Chinatown’s creation during the long-gone ’70s filmmaking era?
Roman Polanski gave Wasson the answer: talking about watching Of Mice and Men as a teenage boy and leaving a Warsaw theater with Lenny’s death in the forefront of his mind. Wasson wrote, “it was unlikely Polanski would still be thinking about the ending… if it hadn’t hurt as it had.
“What made him remember, years later, the film with love, was the tragedy.”
The power of pain and failure had a disciple in Chinatown’s screenwriter Robert Towne. Early in the absorbing and gossipy The Big Goodbye, Wasson captures Towne’s creation of the narrative arc of his private detective Jake Gittes, who “would only think he knew the world.”
Towne knew that, “By the end of the story, Gittes would capitulate to a new and terrible awareness of corruption… all his venality, his air of self-possession would come crashing down.”
To create Gittes, Towne channeled the most extreme aspects of his close friend Jack Nicholson’s self-admiring personality, writing the part with Nicholson always in mind. Gittes became a glib, cocky “popinjay” who, as Wasson puts it, “would mind his hair, his fresh-pressed suits, his Venetian blinds. He would be class-conscious, maybe a little Hollywood… Towne’s hero would do it for the money.”
The Man Who Almost Drowned LA
WATER WIZARD
Jon Wilkman
And then, “The detective would lose the case, the woman, himself. He would lose, Towne came to realize, everything.”
Wasson’s motivation to explore Chinatown, the noir classic of corruption’s triumph, came from our era’s “Chinatown-ization of Hollywood and America—my own Chinatown-ization of loss and futility,” Wasson told The Daily Beast.
“What’s the precedent for this emotional component in the movies? The cinematic myth… for this corrupt force?” he said. Just as Polanski saw the enduring memory of tragedy and betrayal from Of Mice and Men, Wasson saw in Chinatown an answer for his own question. “If I was Greek, it would have led me to Greek tragedy. I write about film, so it led me to Chinatown.”
The Big Goodbye recreates the early-’70s partnership of Towne, director Polanski, Nicholson, and producer Robert Evans, creative talents at their most towering, visionary, flawed, far-reaching and often petty. The book works as eulogy or valediction. Both words mean the same thing; it’s a choice of how to see a life.
Chinatown’s throwback opening credits and Jerry Goldsmith’s score establish the ’30s mood of the movie’s plot, creating that world right from the typeface. Nicholson’s first appearance frames him at his desk in perfect lighting, making a practiced spin to a liquor cabinet, pouring cuckold Burt Young a shot of whiskey. Each of them acts with an almost affected sense of performance, aware they are moving, speaking ingredients of a larger whole.
Wasson showcases Polanski the director within the creative process of the film set. Polanski’s vision smoothed out Chinatown with color and light, shadow and framing—a Los Angeles of style and California cool, hiding the irredeemable rot of a villain like Noah Cross; by the uncharitable, the comparison could be considered subtext for Polanski himself.
“'Chinatown' is an ugly movie. You can’t make a movie like that if you haven’t suffered under corruption, if you don’t know what evil is.”
— Sam Wasson
“I knew the Polanski of it all would be a challenge for some people,” said Wasson, “but that inspired me, because I’m all about what’s on the screen.
“Chinatown is an ugly movie. You can’t make a movie like that if you haven’t suffered under corruption, if you don’t know what evil is.”
That doesn’t mean the movie is ever visually ugly. Polanski’s films are “full of elements for the eye to enjoy; those inner contradictors and complexity make the movies so good,” Wasson told The Daily Beast. “The work itself is often very funny. Horror doesn’t walk in the door looking like a bad guy.”
Wasson was referring to demonic Ruth Gordon from Polanski’s earlier Rosemary’s Baby, but it applies to John Huston’s avuncular Noah Cross. After all, the incestuous Cross’ worst on-screen act is only mispronouncing Gittes’ name with a bemused contempt.
As Wasson writes, that lack of obvious threat can apply to Polanski in 1977, presenting a 13-year-old girl with a bottle of champagne: “Should I open it?” And suggesting to her, “Let’s take some photos in the Jacuzzi.”
It’s easy, with such a history, to see Polanski as only another Noah Cross deserving no redemption or empathy. Getting away with it.
Thirty-six years before Polanski had access to Jacuzzis in mansions on Mulholland Drive, Wasson writes that Roman’s father “Ryszard hugged and held [Roman] with unsettling intensity… on Podgorze Bridge, returning to the Warsaw ghetto, he was weeping uncontrollably: ‘They took your mother…’” Bula Polanski, taken by the Nazis to her death, was pregnant at the time.
In August 1969, Polanski was in England where he took a call from his agent Bill Tennant: “There was a disaster in the house.”
Polanski “heard the words, but he did not understand, because the words were not true. They just had spoken.”
Sharon Tate was eight months pregnant when she was murdered. The deaths, the manhunt, the trials, the notoriety, the war, the Holocaust, the camps, all inescapable, a drumbeat of memory without respite.
“You have to show violence the way it is,” Polanski would say. “If you don’t upset people, then that’s obscenity.”
In Chinatown, Polanski used himself to play the Cross henchman who slashed Nicholson’s nose, filming take after take with a dangerous spring-loaded knife.
He posed and reposed the prone actress playing a murdered woman for a five-second scene: “‘And the leg’—he bent the leg unnaturally and stood up to assess the results—‘it is right.’”
“Everyone thought Roman was replaying the death of his wife,” the actress, Diane Ladd, told Wasson. “It was a very scary day.”
Wasson does not use the term Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He provides examples of behavior by a man who lost his pregnant mother and pregnant wife to violence.
“'Between takes, Dunaway would look over to her director,' Wasson writes. 'She thought, he’s enjoying this moment far too much.'”
“All I could do is tell a story that unfolds like a Greek tragedy,” Wasson said. “Roman’s not the only person who survived the Holocaust. I’m not inclined to say X caused Y. I’m in the grey. Bad things happened to him, and he did bad things.”
Within that gray is the art of Chinatown made by people with self-destructive flaws, some risen to crimes like Polanski’s, others melancholy like Jack Nicholson’s star-crossed love and infidelity toward Angelica Huston, or producer Robert Evans’ cocaine habit and the slow-slipping loss of his magic touch, and Towne’s awful behavior toward his ex-wife and unshared credit with a hidden writing partner. After the picture wrapped, they all slouch toward private Bethlehems of their futures.
Nicholson comes off the best, despite any number of personal mistakes.
“Writing about Jack, who’s had a career this long, I got to see what’s consistent, going back to before he was famous,” Wasson said. “It was nice to really walk around in those shoes.”
Nicholson wasn’t interviewed for the book, though Wasson mined numerous articles for Nicholson’s previous commentary. One has to think Nicholson is content with society’s current memory of him and his career.
As recapped by Wasson, Chinatown’s final scene provides that insight into how audiences choose what to remember—or what version of a tragedy sticks in the heart. As they filmed the movie’s violent climax, Polanski’s focus was Nicholson’s final line, “as little as possible,” murmured by Jake Gittes, staring at Evelyn Mulwray’s corpse in the car, shot through the eye. The line reprises an earlier moment in the film when the cynically confident Gittes is telling Mulwray about his time as a police detective in Chinatown: “What were you doing there?” Faye Dunaway’s Mulwray asks. “As little as possible,” Gittes says.
Wasson recapped, “Now, in the ending,” which Polanski insisted be literally “set in Chinatown, the line would reappear, echoing a note of terrible irony.”
Despite Polanski’s intent, “As little as possible” is not what’s remembered, nor even the defeat it represents. Instead, “Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown” became that moment, a shrugging passivity its lasting advice. Best to just fly away.
The movie’s denouement took place on a real-life Chinatown street. Polanski crafted his ending shot as a crane pull-up that climbed above the scene, the little people and their fates: “a sweeping flourish, rising as it does from the ground level of Gittes’ devastation to a more godly vantage point, from despair to a kind of cinema majesty.”
In the narrative of Hollywood, that crane-up provides a perfect segue—that last, big goodbye that Wasson promised.
“Though it offers no hope or resolution,” he wrote, “ending Chinatown with a grand crane-up evokes a lost Hollywood… imbuing the wreckage with a shiver of romantic awe, not just in the movement itself, the feeling of sudden floating, but in a kind of longing for tradition that might be called classical.”
What comes next are movies like Jaws and Star Wars, of course, the summer blockbusters that changed the game as far as movie production--but Billy Jack, a low-budget populist action pic came first. Opened simultaneously in 60 L.A. theaters, Billy Jack made a million dollars in six days, and $32 million overall; Wasson writes that when Warners applied the same “four-walling” strategy, opening simultaneously in as many theaters as possible, to The Exorcist, it grossed $160 million.
As recaptured by Wasson, Chinatown feels apart from that drive for profit; a stately pace, only short splashes of action, and a menacing silence characterize the film. The ugliness succeeds through captivation. Like the California dam disaster that is part of the movie’s water-related plot, the pressure builds quietly, then all at once. A metaphor for 1973 Hollywood.
Wasson writes: “When he heard about [The Exorcist] gross, Warners executive Dick Lederer walked into executive Barry Beckerman’s office and threw The Exorcist numbers down in front of him.
“Kid, the fun is over,” Lederer announced. “We’ve been having a good time out here and been very successful, but it’s gonna get real serious after this.”
“'That look on Jack’s face at the end, he looks lobotomized. It’s not an accident,' Wasson said.”
Chinatown’s first location shoot was Oct. 15, 1973, the chase in the orchard. On Oct. 26, Martin Scorsese’s Mean Streets opened in Los Angeles. A banner blurb on its full-page ad in The Los Angeles Times said the movie “doesn’t just explode—it erupts with volcanic force.” The writer was the same Jon Landau who would call Bruce Springsteen the future of rock ’n’ roll.
Mean Streets opens with natural street lighting, a jerky camera filming Harvey Keitel waking from a nightmare, bathed in blue neon. Ronnie Spector’s “Be My Baby” pounds into the speakers, the opening credits a montage of cuts and sound—a Wall of Sound, just like Phil Spector intended.
Chinatown cinematographer John Alonzo was unimpressed with Polanski’s ending crane shot: “Roman, you’re contriving a shot. You’re contriving it because you don’t know how to end the picture. You’re performing cinematic gymnastics.” He couldn’t see a point in an affected flourish.
What would Alonzo have said to Scorsese? Mean Streets used tracking shots from just over Keitel’s head as he strolls through a strip club; Robert DeNiro enters a scene to the Rolling Stones “Jumping Jack Flash;” the camera pans half-speed down a bar. In 1973, it must have felt unrecognizable.
After Mean Streets came The Exorcist, Dog Day Afternoon, Saturday Night Fever, Network; character and plot, but also action, frenzy, movement, motion, sound, all in a rush.
Single moments might seem quaint. Polanski filmed the famous “my sister, my daughter” scene, and the impact sharpens because overt violence is uncommon in the film. Gittes loses his cool, slapping Dunaway’s Evelyn Mulwray across her face, again and again. Nicholson felt nervous about the scene, didn’t want to hit a woman, showing it with his ice-cold expression. Unlike Mean Streets, with flourishes and spins and sounds in every scene, Polanski frames Nicholson’s cold stare, Dunaway’s unhinged eyes, and the horror of two shattered people meant to blow up on a 60-foot screen. It’s personal.
“Between takes, Dunaway would look over to her director,” Wasson writes. “She thought, he’s enjoying this moment far too much. The young girls, his sarcasm and needless cruelty, directing movies. It was about power for him. All of it. Her face burned where Jack’s slaps had landed… her neck ached.
“‘Once more please, fellows,’ her director said. ‘Once more…’”
Chinatown the movie ends with the crane lifting away from Gittes failure, Mulwray’s corpse, and Noah Cross’ triumph—in real life, that climb kept going, above the finale’s defeat and cynicism: “The only place left to go was up, to The Sting, to Happy Days, to ‘a mix of nostalgia and parody,’ the mass denial of the terrible truths Gittes was powerless to undo,” Wasson writes.
“That look on Jack’s face at the end, he looks lobotomized. It’s not an accident,” Wasson told the Beast, how Nicholson’s performance captures the devastation of calling every shot wrong, of being on the wrong side. It’s finally too hard to keep looking—“forget it, Jake,” indeed.
Producer Robert Evans died late last year; his interviews were with Wasson, “hours and hours” of storytelling, looking back, about long ago. Evans and Wasson explain the creation of Chinatown’s score, composed by Jerry Goldsmith, notable for Uan Rasey’s melancholy trumpet. Goldsmith narrates California, connecting sound with sight, a mournful sound for bleak scenes.
Wasson told the Beast his book is also an attempt at connection, a message in a bottle: “What’s the purpose of biography, of art? To get close to these things, to greatness and to danger, to understand what makes these things happen. I like to be around people who will teach me.”
Evans told Wasson about hearing Goldsmith’s score: “It was out of the darkness, a faith. The ache, the longing, dying but sweetly pleading, like a happy memory drowning in truth.”
Why read The Big Goodbye, about Chinatown’s creation by flawed visionaries? Why remember?
“The sound stunned Evans. Like Polanski’s crane, a lift, redemption, grace. The feeling was that word he lost so much trying to find and hold on to—‘romance.’” Star-crossed, I’m sure he meant, the wistful kind of sorrow.
CAN'T FORGET IT
It is perhaps the darkest movie to ever come out of Hollywood. Sam Wasson talked to The Daily Beast about his new book profiling the film’s collaborators.
Nathan S. Webster Updated Feb. 16, 2020
Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast/GettyThe Daily Beast
What makes a movie like Chinatown break a heart? What desperation did Sam Wasson try to touch, as he wrote The Big Goodbye, about Chinatown’s creation during the long-gone ’70s filmmaking era?
Roman Polanski gave Wasson the answer: talking about watching Of Mice and Men as a teenage boy and leaving a Warsaw theater with Lenny’s death in the forefront of his mind. Wasson wrote, “it was unlikely Polanski would still be thinking about the ending… if it hadn’t hurt as it had.
“What made him remember, years later, the film with love, was the tragedy.”
The power of pain and failure had a disciple in Chinatown’s screenwriter Robert Towne. Early in the absorbing and gossipy The Big Goodbye, Wasson captures Towne’s creation of the narrative arc of his private detective Jake Gittes, who “would only think he knew the world.”
Towne knew that, “By the end of the story, Gittes would capitulate to a new and terrible awareness of corruption… all his venality, his air of self-possession would come crashing down.”
To create Gittes, Towne channeled the most extreme aspects of his close friend Jack Nicholson’s self-admiring personality, writing the part with Nicholson always in mind. Gittes became a glib, cocky “popinjay” who, as Wasson puts it, “would mind his hair, his fresh-pressed suits, his Venetian blinds. He would be class-conscious, maybe a little Hollywood… Towne’s hero would do it for the money.”
The Man Who Almost Drowned LA
WATER WIZARD
Jon Wilkman
And then, “The detective would lose the case, the woman, himself. He would lose, Towne came to realize, everything.”
Wasson’s motivation to explore Chinatown, the noir classic of corruption’s triumph, came from our era’s “Chinatown-ization of Hollywood and America—my own Chinatown-ization of loss and futility,” Wasson told The Daily Beast.
“What’s the precedent for this emotional component in the movies? The cinematic myth… for this corrupt force?” he said. Just as Polanski saw the enduring memory of tragedy and betrayal from Of Mice and Men, Wasson saw in Chinatown an answer for his own question. “If I was Greek, it would have led me to Greek tragedy. I write about film, so it led me to Chinatown.”
The Big Goodbye recreates the early-’70s partnership of Towne, director Polanski, Nicholson, and producer Robert Evans, creative talents at their most towering, visionary, flawed, far-reaching and often petty. The book works as eulogy or valediction. Both words mean the same thing; it’s a choice of how to see a life.
Chinatown’s throwback opening credits and Jerry Goldsmith’s score establish the ’30s mood of the movie’s plot, creating that world right from the typeface. Nicholson’s first appearance frames him at his desk in perfect lighting, making a practiced spin to a liquor cabinet, pouring cuckold Burt Young a shot of whiskey. Each of them acts with an almost affected sense of performance, aware they are moving, speaking ingredients of a larger whole.
Wasson showcases Polanski the director within the creative process of the film set. Polanski’s vision smoothed out Chinatown with color and light, shadow and framing—a Los Angeles of style and California cool, hiding the irredeemable rot of a villain like Noah Cross; by the uncharitable, the comparison could be considered subtext for Polanski himself.
“'Chinatown' is an ugly movie. You can’t make a movie like that if you haven’t suffered under corruption, if you don’t know what evil is.”
— Sam Wasson
“I knew the Polanski of it all would be a challenge for some people,” said Wasson, “but that inspired me, because I’m all about what’s on the screen.
“Chinatown is an ugly movie. You can’t make a movie like that if you haven’t suffered under corruption, if you don’t know what evil is.”
That doesn’t mean the movie is ever visually ugly. Polanski’s films are “full of elements for the eye to enjoy; those inner contradictors and complexity make the movies so good,” Wasson told The Daily Beast. “The work itself is often very funny. Horror doesn’t walk in the door looking like a bad guy.”
Wasson was referring to demonic Ruth Gordon from Polanski’s earlier Rosemary’s Baby, but it applies to John Huston’s avuncular Noah Cross. After all, the incestuous Cross’ worst on-screen act is only mispronouncing Gittes’ name with a bemused contempt.
As Wasson writes, that lack of obvious threat can apply to Polanski in 1977, presenting a 13-year-old girl with a bottle of champagne: “Should I open it?” And suggesting to her, “Let’s take some photos in the Jacuzzi.”
It’s easy, with such a history, to see Polanski as only another Noah Cross deserving no redemption or empathy. Getting away with it.
Thirty-six years before Polanski had access to Jacuzzis in mansions on Mulholland Drive, Wasson writes that Roman’s father “Ryszard hugged and held [Roman] with unsettling intensity… on Podgorze Bridge, returning to the Warsaw ghetto, he was weeping uncontrollably: ‘They took your mother…’” Bula Polanski, taken by the Nazis to her death, was pregnant at the time.
In August 1969, Polanski was in England where he took a call from his agent Bill Tennant: “There was a disaster in the house.”
Polanski “heard the words, but he did not understand, because the words were not true. They just had spoken.”
Sharon Tate was eight months pregnant when she was murdered. The deaths, the manhunt, the trials, the notoriety, the war, the Holocaust, the camps, all inescapable, a drumbeat of memory without respite.
“You have to show violence the way it is,” Polanski would say. “If you don’t upset people, then that’s obscenity.”
In Chinatown, Polanski used himself to play the Cross henchman who slashed Nicholson’s nose, filming take after take with a dangerous spring-loaded knife.
He posed and reposed the prone actress playing a murdered woman for a five-second scene: “‘And the leg’—he bent the leg unnaturally and stood up to assess the results—‘it is right.’”
“Everyone thought Roman was replaying the death of his wife,” the actress, Diane Ladd, told Wasson. “It was a very scary day.”
Wasson does not use the term Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He provides examples of behavior by a man who lost his pregnant mother and pregnant wife to violence.
“'Between takes, Dunaway would look over to her director,' Wasson writes. 'She thought, he’s enjoying this moment far too much.'”
“All I could do is tell a story that unfolds like a Greek tragedy,” Wasson said. “Roman’s not the only person who survived the Holocaust. I’m not inclined to say X caused Y. I’m in the grey. Bad things happened to him, and he did bad things.”
Within that gray is the art of Chinatown made by people with self-destructive flaws, some risen to crimes like Polanski’s, others melancholy like Jack Nicholson’s star-crossed love and infidelity toward Angelica Huston, or producer Robert Evans’ cocaine habit and the slow-slipping loss of his magic touch, and Towne’s awful behavior toward his ex-wife and unshared credit with a hidden writing partner. After the picture wrapped, they all slouch toward private Bethlehems of their futures.
Nicholson comes off the best, despite any number of personal mistakes.
“Writing about Jack, who’s had a career this long, I got to see what’s consistent, going back to before he was famous,” Wasson said. “It was nice to really walk around in those shoes.”
Nicholson wasn’t interviewed for the book, though Wasson mined numerous articles for Nicholson’s previous commentary. One has to think Nicholson is content with society’s current memory of him and his career.
As recapped by Wasson, Chinatown’s final scene provides that insight into how audiences choose what to remember—or what version of a tragedy sticks in the heart. As they filmed the movie’s violent climax, Polanski’s focus was Nicholson’s final line, “as little as possible,” murmured by Jake Gittes, staring at Evelyn Mulwray’s corpse in the car, shot through the eye. The line reprises an earlier moment in the film when the cynically confident Gittes is telling Mulwray about his time as a police detective in Chinatown: “What were you doing there?” Faye Dunaway’s Mulwray asks. “As little as possible,” Gittes says.
Wasson recapped, “Now, in the ending,” which Polanski insisted be literally “set in Chinatown, the line would reappear, echoing a note of terrible irony.”
Despite Polanski’s intent, “As little as possible” is not what’s remembered, nor even the defeat it represents. Instead, “Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown” became that moment, a shrugging passivity its lasting advice. Best to just fly away.
The movie’s denouement took place on a real-life Chinatown street. Polanski crafted his ending shot as a crane pull-up that climbed above the scene, the little people and their fates: “a sweeping flourish, rising as it does from the ground level of Gittes’ devastation to a more godly vantage point, from despair to a kind of cinema majesty.”
In the narrative of Hollywood, that crane-up provides a perfect segue—that last, big goodbye that Wasson promised.
“Though it offers no hope or resolution,” he wrote, “ending Chinatown with a grand crane-up evokes a lost Hollywood… imbuing the wreckage with a shiver of romantic awe, not just in the movement itself, the feeling of sudden floating, but in a kind of longing for tradition that might be called classical.”
What comes next are movies like Jaws and Star Wars, of course, the summer blockbusters that changed the game as far as movie production--but Billy Jack, a low-budget populist action pic came first. Opened simultaneously in 60 L.A. theaters, Billy Jack made a million dollars in six days, and $32 million overall; Wasson writes that when Warners applied the same “four-walling” strategy, opening simultaneously in as many theaters as possible, to The Exorcist, it grossed $160 million.
As recaptured by Wasson, Chinatown feels apart from that drive for profit; a stately pace, only short splashes of action, and a menacing silence characterize the film. The ugliness succeeds through captivation. Like the California dam disaster that is part of the movie’s water-related plot, the pressure builds quietly, then all at once. A metaphor for 1973 Hollywood.
Wasson writes: “When he heard about [The Exorcist] gross, Warners executive Dick Lederer walked into executive Barry Beckerman’s office and threw The Exorcist numbers down in front of him.
“Kid, the fun is over,” Lederer announced. “We’ve been having a good time out here and been very successful, but it’s gonna get real serious after this.”
“'That look on Jack’s face at the end, he looks lobotomized. It’s not an accident,' Wasson said.”
Chinatown’s first location shoot was Oct. 15, 1973, the chase in the orchard. On Oct. 26, Martin Scorsese’s Mean Streets opened in Los Angeles. A banner blurb on its full-page ad in The Los Angeles Times said the movie “doesn’t just explode—it erupts with volcanic force.” The writer was the same Jon Landau who would call Bruce Springsteen the future of rock ’n’ roll.
Mean Streets opens with natural street lighting, a jerky camera filming Harvey Keitel waking from a nightmare, bathed in blue neon. Ronnie Spector’s “Be My Baby” pounds into the speakers, the opening credits a montage of cuts and sound—a Wall of Sound, just like Phil Spector intended.
Chinatown cinematographer John Alonzo was unimpressed with Polanski’s ending crane shot: “Roman, you’re contriving a shot. You’re contriving it because you don’t know how to end the picture. You’re performing cinematic gymnastics.” He couldn’t see a point in an affected flourish.
What would Alonzo have said to Scorsese? Mean Streets used tracking shots from just over Keitel’s head as he strolls through a strip club; Robert DeNiro enters a scene to the Rolling Stones “Jumping Jack Flash;” the camera pans half-speed down a bar. In 1973, it must have felt unrecognizable.
After Mean Streets came The Exorcist, Dog Day Afternoon, Saturday Night Fever, Network; character and plot, but also action, frenzy, movement, motion, sound, all in a rush.
Single moments might seem quaint. Polanski filmed the famous “my sister, my daughter” scene, and the impact sharpens because overt violence is uncommon in the film. Gittes loses his cool, slapping Dunaway’s Evelyn Mulwray across her face, again and again. Nicholson felt nervous about the scene, didn’t want to hit a woman, showing it with his ice-cold expression. Unlike Mean Streets, with flourishes and spins and sounds in every scene, Polanski frames Nicholson’s cold stare, Dunaway’s unhinged eyes, and the horror of two shattered people meant to blow up on a 60-foot screen. It’s personal.
“Between takes, Dunaway would look over to her director,” Wasson writes. “She thought, he’s enjoying this moment far too much. The young girls, his sarcasm and needless cruelty, directing movies. It was about power for him. All of it. Her face burned where Jack’s slaps had landed… her neck ached.
“‘Once more please, fellows,’ her director said. ‘Once more…’”
Chinatown the movie ends with the crane lifting away from Gittes failure, Mulwray’s corpse, and Noah Cross’ triumph—in real life, that climb kept going, above the finale’s defeat and cynicism: “The only place left to go was up, to The Sting, to Happy Days, to ‘a mix of nostalgia and parody,’ the mass denial of the terrible truths Gittes was powerless to undo,” Wasson writes.
“That look on Jack’s face at the end, he looks lobotomized. It’s not an accident,” Wasson told the Beast, how Nicholson’s performance captures the devastation of calling every shot wrong, of being on the wrong side. It’s finally too hard to keep looking—“forget it, Jake,” indeed.
Producer Robert Evans died late last year; his interviews were with Wasson, “hours and hours” of storytelling, looking back, about long ago. Evans and Wasson explain the creation of Chinatown’s score, composed by Jerry Goldsmith, notable for Uan Rasey’s melancholy trumpet. Goldsmith narrates California, connecting sound with sight, a mournful sound for bleak scenes.
Wasson told the Beast his book is also an attempt at connection, a message in a bottle: “What’s the purpose of biography, of art? To get close to these things, to greatness and to danger, to understand what makes these things happen. I like to be around people who will teach me.”
Evans told Wasson about hearing Goldsmith’s score: “It was out of the darkness, a faith. The ache, the longing, dying but sweetly pleading, like a happy memory drowning in truth.”
Why read The Big Goodbye, about Chinatown’s creation by flawed visionaries? Why remember?
“The sound stunned Evans. Like Polanski’s crane, a lift, redemption, grace. The feeling was that word he lost so much trying to find and hold on to—‘romance.’” Star-crossed, I’m sure he meant, the wistful kind of sorrow.
The Hole in the Wall, The Dead Curator’s Diary, and the Strange Case of the Missing Masterpiece
HOLE IN THE WALL GANG
The truth about why Klimt’s 1917 “Portrait of a Lady” was found hidden in a museum wall in Italy may lie in the dead curator’s secret diaries.
Barbie Latza Nadeau Correspondent-At-Large Feb. 16, 2020
Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast/Getty/Gustav Klimt
ROME—In late 1997, just a few days after thieves allegedly fished Gustav Klimt’s Portrait of a Lady through a skylight just days before it was to be exhibited at the Ricci Oddi Modern Art Gallery, Stefano Fugazza wrote a strange passage in his diary.
The world’s attention was on the little museum Piacenza, Italy, after the audacious heist, and Fugazza, who was curator at the time, clearly needed to put his thoughts in order. “I wondered what could be done to give the exhibition some notoriety, to ensure an audience success like never before,” he wrote in black pen. “And the idea that came to me was to organize, from the inside together with police, a theft of the Klimt, just before the show, for the work to then be rediscovered after the show began.” In parentheses he adds, “Exactly, my God, what happened.”
The Craziest Twist Yet in the Saga of a Stolen Masterpiece
ART OF THE STEAL
Barbie Latza Nadeau
Fugazza then outlined the various stages of the investigation, essentially a tick-tock of what it was like to wade through the labyrinth of murky bureaucracy that often comes with Italian police investigations. Police say they would have never agreed to a hoax such as Fugazza suggested in his journal. He ended the passage with something that slaloms the line between confession and astonishment. “But now The Lady has gone for good, and damned be the day I even thought of such a foolish and childish thing.”
Throughout the years, the mystery of the painting became an obsession for Ermanno Mariani, who has written a book about the disappearance and has always harbored a suspicion that Fugazza knew more than he let on. “It just can’t be that the thieves acted alone,” he told The Daily Beast. “Whoever took The Lady had free reign inside the museum, that is for sure.”
In early December last year, the $65 million painting was found hidden in a utility box in an exterior wall of the museum. It is not yet clear whether someone tipped a worker to where it might be hidden under a thick growth of ivy.
A month later, in January, guilty thieves wrote to Mariani and confessed in large block print that they had placed it there out of moral duty—and to bargain a lighter sentence on another theft. Mariani turned the letter over to police, who have since questioned the thieves.
But prosecutors in Piacenza aren’t buying the story and have placed Fugazza’s widow Rossella Tiadina under formal investigation after her husband’s diaries were entered into evidence. Police tell The Daily Beast that they don’t necessarily think Tiadina was in on the mysterious theft, but they do want to know if her husband had hidden the painting in the family home. If she had lived in a house with stolen goods for 23 years, she could be found complicit in a coverup of the crime. Unless, of course, she cooperates with investigators.
The painting is now safely back in the hands of Italy’s culture ministry, where it has gone through a series of checks by experts who have confirmed its authenticity. One of the reasons the work was so highly celebrated—and easy to authenticate—is that it is actually a “double” painting. For years, art collectors thought that an earlier work by the Viennese artist called Portrait of a Young Lady had been stolen, but a young restorer discovered that it was actually painted over to create Portrait of a Lady. The earlier painting is thought to be of Klimt’s young lover, who died suddenly.
But experts are also studying how the painting was housed for more than two decades. Was it kept in an unsafe environment, such as one might expect from career thieves like the men who confessed? Or was it carefully wrapped up and preserved in a hermetically sealed environment, which is what someone in charge of a museum would be more inclined to do? This, they say, is key to determining whether Fugazza’s diary entry was actually a confession.
Police also are looking closely at the financial dealings of Fugazza and Tiadina. There is some credible speculation that Fugazza may have indeed commissioned the thieves to steal the painting to drum up interest in an upcoming exhibit. As Fugazza’s diary suggests, the plan would have been for them to return it, perhaps even put it in a hole in the museum wall, right before the exhibit was set to open.
But that did not happen. So investigators wonder if the thieves then came up with a plan of their own and blackmailed the curator for all these years. Once he and his wife were out of money, they may have been decided once again to return the painting to the museum, almost as if it never left in the first place.
HOLE IN THE WALL GANG
The truth about why Klimt’s 1917 “Portrait of a Lady” was found hidden in a museum wall in Italy may lie in the dead curator’s secret diaries.
Barbie Latza Nadeau Correspondent-At-Large Feb. 16, 2020
Photo Illustration by Elizabeth Brockway/The Daily Beast/Getty/Gustav Klimt
ROME—In late 1997, just a few days after thieves allegedly fished Gustav Klimt’s Portrait of a Lady through a skylight just days before it was to be exhibited at the Ricci Oddi Modern Art Gallery, Stefano Fugazza wrote a strange passage in his diary.
The world’s attention was on the little museum Piacenza, Italy, after the audacious heist, and Fugazza, who was curator at the time, clearly needed to put his thoughts in order. “I wondered what could be done to give the exhibition some notoriety, to ensure an audience success like never before,” he wrote in black pen. “And the idea that came to me was to organize, from the inside together with police, a theft of the Klimt, just before the show, for the work to then be rediscovered after the show began.” In parentheses he adds, “Exactly, my God, what happened.”
The Craziest Twist Yet in the Saga of a Stolen Masterpiece
ART OF THE STEAL
Barbie Latza Nadeau
Fugazza then outlined the various stages of the investigation, essentially a tick-tock of what it was like to wade through the labyrinth of murky bureaucracy that often comes with Italian police investigations. Police say they would have never agreed to a hoax such as Fugazza suggested in his journal. He ended the passage with something that slaloms the line between confession and astonishment. “But now The Lady has gone for good, and damned be the day I even thought of such a foolish and childish thing.”
Throughout the years, the mystery of the painting became an obsession for Ermanno Mariani, who has written a book about the disappearance and has always harbored a suspicion that Fugazza knew more than he let on. “It just can’t be that the thieves acted alone,” he told The Daily Beast. “Whoever took The Lady had free reign inside the museum, that is for sure.”
In early December last year, the $65 million painting was found hidden in a utility box in an exterior wall of the museum. It is not yet clear whether someone tipped a worker to where it might be hidden under a thick growth of ivy.
A month later, in January, guilty thieves wrote to Mariani and confessed in large block print that they had placed it there out of moral duty—and to bargain a lighter sentence on another theft. Mariani turned the letter over to police, who have since questioned the thieves.
But prosecutors in Piacenza aren’t buying the story and have placed Fugazza’s widow Rossella Tiadina under formal investigation after her husband’s diaries were entered into evidence. Police tell The Daily Beast that they don’t necessarily think Tiadina was in on the mysterious theft, but they do want to know if her husband had hidden the painting in the family home. If she had lived in a house with stolen goods for 23 years, she could be found complicit in a coverup of the crime. Unless, of course, she cooperates with investigators.
The painting is now safely back in the hands of Italy’s culture ministry, where it has gone through a series of checks by experts who have confirmed its authenticity. One of the reasons the work was so highly celebrated—and easy to authenticate—is that it is actually a “double” painting. For years, art collectors thought that an earlier work by the Viennese artist called Portrait of a Young Lady had been stolen, but a young restorer discovered that it was actually painted over to create Portrait of a Lady. The earlier painting is thought to be of Klimt’s young lover, who died suddenly.
But experts are also studying how the painting was housed for more than two decades. Was it kept in an unsafe environment, such as one might expect from career thieves like the men who confessed? Or was it carefully wrapped up and preserved in a hermetically sealed environment, which is what someone in charge of a museum would be more inclined to do? This, they say, is key to determining whether Fugazza’s diary entry was actually a confession.
Police also are looking closely at the financial dealings of Fugazza and Tiadina. There is some credible speculation that Fugazza may have indeed commissioned the thieves to steal the painting to drum up interest in an upcoming exhibit. As Fugazza’s diary suggests, the plan would have been for them to return it, perhaps even put it in a hole in the museum wall, right before the exhibit was set to open.
But that did not happen. So investigators wonder if the thieves then came up with a plan of their own and blackmailed the curator for all these years. Once he and his wife were out of money, they may have been decided once again to return the painting to the museum, almost as if it never left in the first place.
---30---
Disney Sued by Labor Union for Failing to Pay Living Wage: Employees Have to ‘Live in Their Cars’
MOUSE HOUSE Photo Illustration by The Daily Beast/Getty/George Rose
“A lot of [workers] have to live in their cars, on people’s couches, because they can’t afford the rent on that wage in the City of Anaheim.”
Tarpley Hitt Reporter
Published Dec. 11, 2019
There’s an old Walt Disney quote, a favorite of workplace morale posters and business self-help books, that goes: “You can design and create, and build the most wonderful place in the world. But it takes people to make the dream a reality.” These days, there are a lot of people making the Disney dream a reality—a study of the Disneyland Resorts last year found that 27.2 million people visited the California theme park in 2016 alone, thanks to the 30,000 workers who keep the place up and running.
But a new class action lawsuit, filed Friday in California Superior Court and announced in a press advisory Monday, argues that the Walt Disney Company, worth approximately $130 billion as of this year, failed to pay hundreds of those workers a living wage. The complaint was filed by five Disney employees on behalf of more than 400 hospitality workers, accusing the Walt Disney Company and several affiliates (Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S. Inc., Sodexo Inc., SodexoMagic, LLC, and 100 unnamed Does) of “unlawful conduct and unfair business practices.” The plaintiffs are asking for back wages, restitution, and damages, which their attorney, Randy Renick, said may be significant. “With the back pay,” Renick said, “we’re talking millions of dollars.”
“A lot of [workers] have to live in their cars, or on people’s couches, because they can’t afford the rent on that wage in the City of Anaheim,” said Kathleen Grace, a plaintiff in the case and a Starbucks barista employed by Sodexo, which Disney contracts to operate its backstage food and beverage services. “It’s really sad to see. A lot of times, they’re choosing to feed their families or put gas in their car to come to work.”
The L.A. Hotel Where Workers Wade Through Literal Sh*t
LABOR PRACTICES
Tarpley Hitt
Why Martin Scorsese’s War on Marvel Actually Matters
TRUTH TO POWER
Cassie Da Costa
The case concerns an initiative called Measure L, which Anaheim voters passed in November of 2018. The ballot measure requires resort employers that received tax rebates from the city to pay their employees a $15 living wage. The new wage was supposed to go into effect Jan. 1, 2019, and increase by one dollar each year until Jan. 1, 2022. By 2023, the code states, the wage increases would change to reflect rising costs of living. The ballot measure was backed by the Coalition of Resort Labor Unions, a group of 11 local unions representing 17,000 workers, or more than half of Disney employees. In a press advisory Monday, the CRLU came out in support of the workers’ class-action case.
The complaint argues that Disney and its contractors took “massive” subsidies from the City of Anaheim, but did not alter their wages or overtime pay to reflect the new law. Grace, who came out of retirement in August of 2016 to work for Sodexo, said she makes $14.25 an hour. Many of her co-workers, including food servers, banquet servers, bellhops, and doormen at the three Disney hotels, earn as little as $12 an hour. Other plaintiffs in the case include Thomas Bray, a bell person at the Disneyland Hotel, who earns $12.25 an hour; Regina Delgado, a cashier at the Plaza Inn restaurant inside the Disneyland theme park who made $12 an hour until October; Alicia Grijalva, a make-up stylist at the park who earned $12 an hour until July; and Javier Terrazas, a banquet event server who makes $12 an hour.
“We shouldn’t have to struggle living paycheck to paycheck,” Grace said. “We all are trying to pay our rent, feed our families, get gas to drive here and there. We shouldn’t have to make the choice between putting gas in our car to get to work and feeding our family.”
We shouldn’t have to struggle living paycheck to paycheck. We all are trying to pay our rent, feed our families, get gas to drive here and there. We shouldn’t have to make the choice between putting gas in our car to get to work and feeding our family.
When Measure L was first drafted, Disneyland Resort fell squarely among the employers it would affect. At the time, Disney had two deals with the City of Anaheim which would have qualified them for the living wage law: a $267 million tax rebate to build an additional luxury hotel; and a 30-year entertainment tax break in exchange for investing $1 billion into their existing resorts. Just one month before the measure passed, however, Disney terminated both agreements, leaving their status under Measure L uncertain. At the time, the Los Angeles Times noted that the last-minute pull-out effectively ensured the billion-dollar corporation would not have to pay workers a living wage.
But those weren’t the only deals Disney has made involving public money. A Los Angeles Times investigation from 2017 found that the company had secured rebates and other incentives from the city worth more than $1 billion (Disney disputed the estimate). In the lawsuit, the workers specifically point to a subsidy from 1996, when Disney received over $500 million in tax rebates from Anaheim to help build California Adventure, the second Disney-owned theme park after the original Disneyland. The bulk of that money came in the form of municipal bonds, borrowed from the Anaheim Finance Authority, which were used to construct a $108 million parking facility. Since its construction, Disney has kept all the revenue from the garage, which low estimates put at around $35 million annually, but leases the garage from the city for just one dollar a year. “Disney got a rebate of the best kind,” the complaint states. “It got its taxes back before it paid them.”
Disneyland park in Anaheim, California
Paul Hiffmeyer/Getty
Still, the case hinges on the definition of “rebate.” In a report from October 2018, the Anaheim City Attorney argued that “rebate”—though not defined in Measure L or set at a fixed legal definition—meant “discount.” Under that definition, he wrote, the 1996 transaction did not qualify, rendering Disneyland exempt from paying a living wage. Disneyland spokesperson Liz Jaeger echoed the findings in a statement: “The union coalition is well aware that the City Attorney has previously looked at this issue,” Jaeger wrote, “and clearly stated that Measure L does not apply to the Disneyland Resort."
The theme park also alleged that all non-tipped workers already earn a minimum of $15 an hour and can get overtime pay. Grace and Renick disputed that claim, pointing out that two of the plaintiffs made just $12 an hour, and that many workers who make less than $15 an hour do not receive tips. “We are not tipped employees,” Grace said. “Sodexo doesn’t allow tips. I was told that was a Disney policy, but I’m not clear. We do not receive tips.”
“It’s important to know that the law doesn’t distinguish [between tipped or non-tipped employees],” Renick said. “You have to pay the minimum wage, or in this case the living wage, to all employees—whether tipped or not. California Constitution actually requires that… There are quite a number of folks in the class who are not tipped employees who are making less than $15 an hour.”
The 2018 survey of Disneyland Resort workers, or “cast members” as they’re called, found that 73 percent of employees “do not earn enough money to cover basic expenses every month.” Conducted by the Occidental College Urban & Environmental Policy Institute and underwritten by the CRLU, the report surveyed more than 5,000 Disney Resort employees. More than half reported concerns of being evicted from their homes or apartments; two-thirds said they were food insecure; and 11 percent said they had been homeless in the past two years. In the latter category, 13 percent were living with young children.
The Scandal Rocking California’s Weed Industry
Chris Roberts,
The Daily Beast•February 15, 2020
Chris Roberts,
The Daily Beast•February 15, 2020
Photo Illustration by Sarah Rogers/The Daily Beast /Photos Getty
Sometime in 2018, a Chicago-area union honcho named Joseph Senese started showing up at cannabis industry mixers in California.
Senese represented himself as a leader of the National Production Workers Union, an Illinois-based outfit. As he put it to curious cannabis business owners and consultants, the union was getting into weed with a new California-based local called “ProTech Local 33.” The idea was to help West Coast cannabis businesses fulfill a labor-friendly licensing requirement necessary for them to obtain a state permit and open up shop.
To Johnny Delaplane—an Illinois native and partner in Berner’s on Haight, the first legal weed store in San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury—ProTech Local 33 sounded great. Or at least a fine option to satisfy local authorities with what’s called a “labor peace agreement” (LPA), essentially a promise between management and a union to not sabotage organizing efforts.
But when Delaplane and his partners submitted their signed LPA to the San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development for final approval, there was a problem: Their new union partner, according to the city’s workforce development director, might not actually be a union.
Not only had nobody heard of ProTech Local 33—the group is not a member of state or local labor councils or federations—but it didn’t appear to have any members. Even worse, the office found “several articles and court cases” suggesting ProTech was a “company union,” a so-called labor outfit actually controlled by employers. For these reasons, MOEWD Workforce Director Joshua Arce wrote in a December email obtained by The Daily Beast, ProTech had not cleared the threshold of being a “Bona Fide Labor Organization.”
A Drop of Cannabis Oil Could Land This Pennsylvania Woman in Jail
The episode has touched off a furor in California labor and in the larger cannabis industry—which, with more than 250,000 workers nationwide, most of whom are engaged in low-wage retail or agricultural work, represents a potential bonanza for organizers. So far, however, with the exception of some limited wins by the United Food and Commercial Workers and the Teamsters, organized labor has failed to make many inroads into cannabis, much as it has struggled to make much major headway organizing skilled workers at Silicon Valley powerhouses like Google and Facebook.
The strange saga of a weed labor organizer from the Midwest poking around the local scene doesn’t seem to be making it any easier.
When things went wrong for ProTech in San Francisco, Senese struck back. In a blistering letter obtained by The Daily Beast, he suggested ProTech’s rejection was made at the behest of other existing labor organizations incensed at a newcomer encroaching on their turf. “This smacks of collusion,” he wrote, insisting the Production Workers had been operating in San Francisco and in California “for over 20 years.”
But while ProTech Local 33’s website lists a phone number and an address at an office park in Bakersfield, a hardscrabble city in that state’s Central Valley, several calls over a period of days to a number listed on the website were not returned. That’s because that office has been closed, Senese explained to The Daily Beast in a telephone interview Thursday from Illinois, where he said he orchestrates West Coast organizing efforts.
Those efforts are on the up-and-up, he insisted.
In addition to the dispensary in San Francisco, ProTech has signed “close to 100” LPAs with other California cannabis businesses and has actually organized workers at five shops, Senese said, including distribution and processing centers. (“Don’t hold me to that number,” he cautioned of the “100” figure.)
The fact that none of ProTech’s members appear in any labor filings reviewed by San Francisco regulators can be explained by the fact that the union was only chartered a year ago, in January 2019, and none of that data has been reported yet, he added.
Asked to name any of the outfits he’d organized, Senese declined. “That’s not something most unions talk about,” he told The Daily Beast. (Most other unions, for what it’s worth, do talk about organizing victories, extremely publicly.)
Nor would he name any other cannabis businesses with whom his shop had signed labor-peace agreements, except to say that ProTech Local 33 was active “from San Diego to Sonoma” County, north of San Francisco. Senese specifically claimed to have signed other LPAs with San Francisco-based cannabis businesses.
The Daily Beast struggled mightily to verify these claims. Labor organizations in Los Angeles and San Francisco, the state’s two most prominent cities with thriving cannabis industries, did not appear to be familiar with ProTech. “We have not heard about any union called ProTech,” Christian Castro, a spokesman for the Los Angeles Labor Federation, told The Daily Beast in an email. “They are not affiliated with us or the AFL-CIO.” Rudy Gonzalez, executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council, likewise said he’d never heard of ProTech Local 33.
In California’s state Capitol of Sacramento, Jerome Parra, a spokesman for Assemblymember Rob Bonta, who authored the cannabis regulation bill that contains the labor-peace language, said he was also not familiar with the organization.
The union was news to cannabis regulators in other cities, too. Rayna Plummer, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles Department of Cannabis Regulation, said her office had never heard of ProTech—and that it did not have any LPAs on file for any of the city’s hundreds of permitted cannabis operations. (In an email, Alex Traverso, a spokesman for the state Bureau of Cannabis Control, said any information his agency might have about ProTech would be in pending license applications, and thus not subject to open-records laws.)
For his part, Delaplane, who runs the San Francisco Cannabis Retail Alliance, a network of weed sales permit-holders and permit-seekers in that city, said he “did not know” of any other LPAs signed with ProTech among his members.
ProTech also departs from typical union tradition with its membership in a trade group representing business owners. ProTech is the only labor outfit that’s a member of the California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA)—Senese even ran for a position on its board, and lost—which recently circulated a white paper instructing owners on how to sign business-friendly labor peace agreements.
Disney Sued by Labor Union for Failing to Pay Living Wage: Employees Have to ‘Live in Their Cars’
Josh Drayton, a spokesman for the CCIA, declined to discuss ProTech, including whether the association vetted it before accepting payment for the union’s membership, and similarly declined to discuss the memo aside from denying engaging in any union-busting activities. ProTech had been a member of the National Cannabis Industry Association, spokesman Morgan Fox confirmed, but the organization’s membership lapsed in September.
Privately, labor officials have suggested National Production Workers, and, by extension, ProTech, is a business-friendly front meant to help companies meet state labor requirements without ever intending to allow workers to organize. Indeed, ProTech appeared to dance very close to the definition of “a company union”—ersatz worker organizations set up by management to crush organizing efforts before they can begin—which have been banned under federal labor law since the 1930s.
“This ‘union,’ and you can put that in quotes, does not look on the face of it to be a ‘bona fide labor organization,’” said Ken Jacobs, director of the University of California-Berkeley Labor Center.
“You’ve got a union that doesn’t appear to have many, or any members, is offering a labor-peace agreement that is extremely favorable to companies, and matches the criteria put forward in an anti-union memo from the industry association,” said Jacobs, who added that ProTech appears to be following a well-established pattern of anti-organizing behavior.
“It looks to me like San Francisco made the right call,” he added.
Senese defended his reputation and National Production Workers. “This union has never ever been found guilty of anything,” he said Thursday. San Francisco “was throwing the whole kitchen sink at us” in an effort to reject the LPA, he added.
For now, he said, he would let the matter sit. But “if another one of my peace agreements gets rejected,” Senese vowed, “I will take legal action.”
Read more at The Daily Beast.
Sometime in 2018, a Chicago-area union honcho named Joseph Senese started showing up at cannabis industry mixers in California.
Senese represented himself as a leader of the National Production Workers Union, an Illinois-based outfit. As he put it to curious cannabis business owners and consultants, the union was getting into weed with a new California-based local called “ProTech Local 33.” The idea was to help West Coast cannabis businesses fulfill a labor-friendly licensing requirement necessary for them to obtain a state permit and open up shop.
To Johnny Delaplane—an Illinois native and partner in Berner’s on Haight, the first legal weed store in San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury—ProTech Local 33 sounded great. Or at least a fine option to satisfy local authorities with what’s called a “labor peace agreement” (LPA), essentially a promise between management and a union to not sabotage organizing efforts.
But when Delaplane and his partners submitted their signed LPA to the San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Economic and Workforce Development for final approval, there was a problem: Their new union partner, according to the city’s workforce development director, might not actually be a union.
Not only had nobody heard of ProTech Local 33—the group is not a member of state or local labor councils or federations—but it didn’t appear to have any members. Even worse, the office found “several articles and court cases” suggesting ProTech was a “company union,” a so-called labor outfit actually controlled by employers. For these reasons, MOEWD Workforce Director Joshua Arce wrote in a December email obtained by The Daily Beast, ProTech had not cleared the threshold of being a “Bona Fide Labor Organization.”
A Drop of Cannabis Oil Could Land This Pennsylvania Woman in Jail
The episode has touched off a furor in California labor and in the larger cannabis industry—which, with more than 250,000 workers nationwide, most of whom are engaged in low-wage retail or agricultural work, represents a potential bonanza for organizers. So far, however, with the exception of some limited wins by the United Food and Commercial Workers and the Teamsters, organized labor has failed to make many inroads into cannabis, much as it has struggled to make much major headway organizing skilled workers at Silicon Valley powerhouses like Google and Facebook.
The strange saga of a weed labor organizer from the Midwest poking around the local scene doesn’t seem to be making it any easier.
When things went wrong for ProTech in San Francisco, Senese struck back. In a blistering letter obtained by The Daily Beast, he suggested ProTech’s rejection was made at the behest of other existing labor organizations incensed at a newcomer encroaching on their turf. “This smacks of collusion,” he wrote, insisting the Production Workers had been operating in San Francisco and in California “for over 20 years.”
But while ProTech Local 33’s website lists a phone number and an address at an office park in Bakersfield, a hardscrabble city in that state’s Central Valley, several calls over a period of days to a number listed on the website were not returned. That’s because that office has been closed, Senese explained to The Daily Beast in a telephone interview Thursday from Illinois, where he said he orchestrates West Coast organizing efforts.
Those efforts are on the up-and-up, he insisted.
In addition to the dispensary in San Francisco, ProTech has signed “close to 100” LPAs with other California cannabis businesses and has actually organized workers at five shops, Senese said, including distribution and processing centers. (“Don’t hold me to that number,” he cautioned of the “100” figure.)
The fact that none of ProTech’s members appear in any labor filings reviewed by San Francisco regulators can be explained by the fact that the union was only chartered a year ago, in January 2019, and none of that data has been reported yet, he added.
Asked to name any of the outfits he’d organized, Senese declined. “That’s not something most unions talk about,” he told The Daily Beast. (Most other unions, for what it’s worth, do talk about organizing victories, extremely publicly.)
Nor would he name any other cannabis businesses with whom his shop had signed labor-peace agreements, except to say that ProTech Local 33 was active “from San Diego to Sonoma” County, north of San Francisco. Senese specifically claimed to have signed other LPAs with San Francisco-based cannabis businesses.
The Daily Beast struggled mightily to verify these claims. Labor organizations in Los Angeles and San Francisco, the state’s two most prominent cities with thriving cannabis industries, did not appear to be familiar with ProTech. “We have not heard about any union called ProTech,” Christian Castro, a spokesman for the Los Angeles Labor Federation, told The Daily Beast in an email. “They are not affiliated with us or the AFL-CIO.” Rudy Gonzalez, executive director of the San Francisco Labor Council, likewise said he’d never heard of ProTech Local 33.
In California’s state Capitol of Sacramento, Jerome Parra, a spokesman for Assemblymember Rob Bonta, who authored the cannabis regulation bill that contains the labor-peace language, said he was also not familiar with the organization.
The union was news to cannabis regulators in other cities, too. Rayna Plummer, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles Department of Cannabis Regulation, said her office had never heard of ProTech—and that it did not have any LPAs on file for any of the city’s hundreds of permitted cannabis operations. (In an email, Alex Traverso, a spokesman for the state Bureau of Cannabis Control, said any information his agency might have about ProTech would be in pending license applications, and thus not subject to open-records laws.)
For his part, Delaplane, who runs the San Francisco Cannabis Retail Alliance, a network of weed sales permit-holders and permit-seekers in that city, said he “did not know” of any other LPAs signed with ProTech among his members.
ProTech also departs from typical union tradition with its membership in a trade group representing business owners. ProTech is the only labor outfit that’s a member of the California Cannabis Industry Association (CCIA)—Senese even ran for a position on its board, and lost—which recently circulated a white paper instructing owners on how to sign business-friendly labor peace agreements.
Disney Sued by Labor Union for Failing to Pay Living Wage: Employees Have to ‘Live in Their Cars’
Josh Drayton, a spokesman for the CCIA, declined to discuss ProTech, including whether the association vetted it before accepting payment for the union’s membership, and similarly declined to discuss the memo aside from denying engaging in any union-busting activities. ProTech had been a member of the National Cannabis Industry Association, spokesman Morgan Fox confirmed, but the organization’s membership lapsed in September.
Privately, labor officials have suggested National Production Workers, and, by extension, ProTech, is a business-friendly front meant to help companies meet state labor requirements without ever intending to allow workers to organize. Indeed, ProTech appeared to dance very close to the definition of “a company union”—ersatz worker organizations set up by management to crush organizing efforts before they can begin—which have been banned under federal labor law since the 1930s.
“This ‘union,’ and you can put that in quotes, does not look on the face of it to be a ‘bona fide labor organization,’” said Ken Jacobs, director of the University of California-Berkeley Labor Center.
“You’ve got a union that doesn’t appear to have many, or any members, is offering a labor-peace agreement that is extremely favorable to companies, and matches the criteria put forward in an anti-union memo from the industry association,” said Jacobs, who added that ProTech appears to be following a well-established pattern of anti-organizing behavior.
“It looks to me like San Francisco made the right call,” he added.
Senese defended his reputation and National Production Workers. “This union has never ever been found guilty of anything,” he said Thursday. San Francisco “was throwing the whole kitchen sink at us” in an effort to reject the LPA, he added.
For now, he said, he would let the matter sit. But “if another one of my peace agreements gets rejected,” Senese vowed, “I will take legal action.”
Read more at The Daily Beast.
Disease found in 66-million-year-old dinosaur tail that still affects humans today
Israeli researcher says find is a world first
‘This is the first time this disease has been identified in a dinosaur,’ said lecturer Dr Hila May ( SWNS )
Israeli researcher says find is a world first
‘This is the first time this disease has been identified in a dinosaur,’ said lecturer Dr Hila May ( SWNS )
A disease which still affects people today has been discovered in the fossilised tail of a dinosaur that lived over 66 million years ago.
The discovery came after a tumour was found in the vertebrae of a young dinosaur which had been unearthed in Alberta, Canada.
Following a micro-CT scan of the tail in Tel Aviv, Israeli researchers created a reconstruction of the tumour.
They identified the disease as Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH), which is a rare condition that is sometimes classified as a cancer.According to the NHS, LCH is an “unusual condition” which displays “some characteristics of cancer.”
It is also recognised as a cancer by the National Cancer Institute, a US government agency.
Dr Hila May, a lecturer in anatomy and anthropology at Tel Aviv University, said large cavities in two sections of the dinosaur’s vertebrae were “extremely similar” to those produced by LCH.
The discovery came after a tumour was found in the vertebrae of a young dinosaur which had been unearthed in Alberta, Canada.
Following a micro-CT scan of the tail in Tel Aviv, Israeli researchers created a reconstruction of the tumour.
They identified the disease as Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH), which is a rare condition that is sometimes classified as a cancer.According to the NHS, LCH is an “unusual condition” which displays “some characteristics of cancer.”
It is also recognised as a cancer by the National Cancer Institute, a US government agency.
Dr Hila May, a lecturer in anatomy and anthropology at Tel Aviv University, said large cavities in two sections of the dinosaur’s vertebrae were “extremely similar” to those produced by LCH.
Dr May said that further analyses confirmed it was LCH, adding: “This is the first time this disease has been identified in a dinosaur.”
The researchers think their findings could help the study of evolutionary medicine, which looks at the behaviour and development of diseases over time.
Israel Hershkovitz, also of Tel Aviv University, said: “We are trying to understand why certain diseases survive evolution with an eye to deciphering what causes them in order to develop new and effective ways of treating them.”
The researchers think their findings could help the study of evolutionary medicine, which looks at the behaviour and development of diseases over time.
Israel Hershkovitz, also of Tel Aviv University, said: “We are trying to understand why certain diseases survive evolution with an eye to deciphering what causes them in order to develop new and effective ways of treating them.”
---30---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)