Tag Archives: alliance

Canadians at Cannes May Talk to Kristen Stewart For the Low, Low Price of $1,293

It’s one thing for distribution deals to precede the Cannes Film Festival. It’s another thing altogether for the actual absurdity of the annual event to commence before anyone even sets foot on a red carpet. To wit, get a load of this Canadian company trying to sell press access to their stars Kristen Stewart and Brad Pitt. Tacky! Deadline relays the tale of Alliance Films’ junkets for On the Road and Killing Them Softly , where Canadian journalists are welcome to catch up with Stewart and Pitt one-on-one — for the low, low prices of $1,293 and $3,232 (respectively). Junketing on the Croisette is expensive, you see, and since Alliance says it intends to bring both actors to North America for, er, complimentary press days later this year, the film journalists of Canada can either wait or have the first crack by helping foot the bill to welcome the more crucial international crowd. On the one hand it makes sense: These films are likely Toronto Film Festival-bound in September, where many more local and American press will flock for coverage anyway. There’s no reason to squander your talent’s precious, limited time on press they’ll likely get in four months. It’s also not unprecedented; Harvey Weinstein famously tried to usurp $1,500 from journalists wanting to cover Death Proof at Cannes in 2007. On the other hand, come on , Alliance. There are classier ways to handle this dilemma: “Alliance decided not to partake in the Cannes junkets for Killing Them Softly and On the Road , however we wanted to provide Canadian journalists the opportunity to participate directly if they so choose,” a company spokesperson told Deadline . As an insider told Deadline: “Of course it looks bad. But with the company possibly for sale, there’s a lot of pressure to keep as many costs down as possible. A pricey Cannes junket for two American movies that are already coming here later seemed an obvious place to save money.” Totally agreed! But to turn around and offer the interviews anyway for a price? Who approved that ? Velvet Jones? Oh , Canada. Stay tuned to Movieline for more from the 2012 Cannes Film Festival, which commences May 16. Follow S.T. VanAirsdale on Twitter . Follow Movieline on Twitter .

Read the original post:
Canadians at Cannes May Talk to Kristen Stewart For the Low, Low Price of $1,293

‘Survivor: One World’ Is Kim’s Game To Lose

Troyzan goes and Kim falters in the latest episode, and MTV News is back with former player Rob Cesternino to recap it all. By Josh Wigler Kim Spradlin during the immunity challenge on “Survivor: One World” Photo: CBS Few people would have predicted Greg “Tarzan” Smith to be the last man standing on “Survivor: One World,” but that’s exactly what’s happened now that his similarly named competitor Troyzan is no longer in the game. After an astonishing drop in likability paired with an equally stunning win last week, Troyzan redeemed himself (to a degree) on a personal level in the latest episode, at the expense of his life in the game. Now, six women remain: wishy-washy Christina, foul-mouthed Alicia, dim-witted Kat, savvy Sabrina, the seemingly unbeatable Kim and her partner-in-crime Chelsea — with only Tarzan representing the men of “One World,” poop pants and all. As the season moves toward the end game, it’s bridal shop owner Kim who remains the player to beat. Not only the dominant strategist in her alliance, Kim also proved herself a serious challenge threat this week by winning both reward and immunity with little to no competition. Still, not even Kim is infallible: She made a controversial choice to share her reward with her clear-cut ally Chelsea, leaving another member of her alliance, Kat, feeling insecure about her place in the grand scheme of things. Will Kim’s biggest blunder to date come back to bite her down the line, or is it much ado about nothing? MTV News once again paired up with two-time “Survivor” contestant Rob Cesternino to cover the latest episode of “One World,” including the fall of Troyzan and Kim’s continued warpath. MTV : We were hard on Troyzan last week, understandably so. This week, even though he was voted off, I feel a lot better about the guy. He did what he could to survive without being overly obnoxious. What was your take on Troy this week? Rob Cesternino : He sort of went through the five stages of grief over the last two weeks. Last week was anger and denial. This week, he moved onto bargaining and acceptance. He had a really good week this week. I really wanted to believe — and maybe I’m like Kat, and I just want to believe — but I hoped that Troyzan would pull it off this week. But I kept doing the math in my head: He still needs one more vote. Who’s going to vote with him? The math just didn’t work out that way. MTV : Part of me thought that maybe, finally, Christina’s time was up. Somehow, she gets to survive another day. Cesternino : I don’t understand why people keep trying to take her out, though. Even for Troyzan, if he could have swung the vote against Christina, it wouldn’t have been a power move. It wouldn’t have changed anything. MTV : Well, in fairness, it would’ve changed a lot for Troyzan. Cesternino : Sure, for Troyzan, it’s important. But it’s basically just cutting the tail off the snake [for anybody else]. Nothing really fundamentally changes if she’s voted off. She’s not a part of anybody’s alliance, so getting rid of her wouldn’t have been a power move for anybody else in this game. I think she’s next though, and that’s good for Kim — it keeps up the status quo, and gives her another week before she has to start making hard decisions. It’s not looking good for Christina at all. MTV : Why Christina over Tarzan? He’s the last man on the beach, which makes him an easy vote. Cesternino : I don’t think they have a very strong preference either way between those two. They’re both pretty expendable to the overall plan. I actually think Tarzan has now become someone who could win the game, if you have a bitter jury of men saying, “Well, at least he has a penis!” MTV : Fair point! [Laughs] Sticking with Christina for a minute, I can’t believe Sabrina just flat-out told Christina that she was getting votes that night. Cesternino : It was so bizarre, Sabrina telling her, “We’re putting votes on Troyzan, and we’re also putting votes on you. Hope you’re on board with this plan!” And Christina was pretty much on board. And then she goes, “You know, I don’t know if I can trust the girls 100 percent.” Well, they just said they’re putting two votes on you! I don’t know what kind of wakeup call she really needs in this game, because, come on! MTV : You and I have been on the Kimsanity train for a while now, but she screwed up this week, picking Chelsea over Kat to come with her at the reward challenge. Cesternino : She really did make a big blunder. It reminded me of “Survivor: Nicaragua,” when Sash did the same thing with Fabio; he didn’t let Fabio see his mom. He got a very similar reaction. Also, for future reference, anytime they show you two people [striking a deal] before a reward challenge, you know that one of those two people is going to win, and they’re not going to do what they just said they’d do. It’s “Survivor” foreshadowing. MTV : How bad was Kim’s blunder? What kind of damage is that going to do down the line? Cesternino : On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being no big deal and 10 being Erik Reichenbach giving his immunity necklace away on “Fans vs. Favorites,” I’d give it about a 3. It’s not a big deal. Kat’s a little upset, but what’s Kat going to do? MTV : Kat was clearly very upset, though. Now she has those Russell seeds in there; she wants to be a power player. Cesternino : I think this whole episode was about perception and reality. For Kat, when she was confronted with what reality is and how different it is from what her perception of the game is — how people really see her — she really did need to wake up and smell the coffee. I don’t know which show Kat thinks she’s on, where she’s been the dominant player all season long, but I would like to watch that show. MTV : That show exists in the same universe where Kat has never failed at anything in her life. Cesternino : Right! [Laughs] This is so hard for her. She’s never failed at anything. It’s unfathomable! MTV : Troyzan tried to make it look like Kim, Chelsea and Alicia were the top dogs based on the results of the reward challenge. Do you think that’s the actual final three? Cesternino : With final threes instead of final twos now in place on “Survivor,” I think that everybody left really thinks that they’re in the final three with Kim. It’s like what Boston Rob was able to do a couple of seasons ago on “Redemption Island.” Alicia thinks she’s in the finals with Kim and Chelsea, Sabrina thinks she’s in the finals with Kim and Chelsea, and Kat thinks she’s in there too. We may not see how things really shake out until the final five, because you have all these people who think they’ll be in that third spot. Plus, somebody’s still working with Tarzan. Somebody’s telling him what he wants to hear to keep him from voting with Troyzan. And nobody tells Christina anything; she’ll vote however they want her to. But what’s going to happen is, these people on the bottom are going to scratch and claw their way for the top three. No one’s going to get together and take out Kim, saying, “We can be the new top three. Forget Kim and Chelsea.” If Alicia and Christina could just stop bickering with each other, they could do something. Troyzan laid it out so obviously: With seven people left in the game, it could very easily be Kat, Christina, Alicia and Tarzan as the final four of the game — but that’s not going to happen. MTV : Certainly not with Troyzan gone. Will you miss having him on the show? Cesternino : It’s sad to see him go, because it felt like he was the only one left who could give Kim a run for her money. It’s really just Kim and a bunch of also-rans now. We’ll see if a bitter jury just doesn’t give Kim her money. MTV : I would like to believe you’re right, because I want to see Kim win the game. But there’s an argument to be made for Chelsea, too. She’s playing a solid game: She’s vocal, she’s strong in challenges. I think Chelsea could beat Kim. Cesternino : Absolutely. Just like last season, where Coach dominated the game, brought his alliance to the finals, told everybody what they wanted to hear to get to that point, and the jury gave the money to Coach’s loyal sidekick who was more blunt, honest and won challenges. It could easily go down the same way. I think Kim is savvier about the game than Coach is, but you have a voting block on the jury of five guys who want to blame somebody for what happened to them. Will they blame Kim and not give her the win because they look at her as the person who engineered the idea to get the men out of the game? We’ll see. MTV : Kim said that winning the reward challenge was the worst thing to happen to her in the game so far. I have a feeling she’ll have worse days coming up. Cesternino : Wah, wah, wah. [Laughs] If your worst day on “Survivor,” you win a reward challenge and an immunity challenge, then you’re doing pretty damn good out there. Let’s start a new hashtag: #winnerproblems. Get more of Rob’s thoughts on “Survivor” by following him on Twitter . Previously on MTV’s “Survivor” coverage …

AUDIO: Christianist Haters Spew Bile At Colorado’s Civil Unions House Debate

http://www.youtube.com/v/my5Mt33JxO4

View original post here:

Igor Volsky reports at Wonk Room : Douglas Napier of the Alliance Defense Fund led the formal opposition against the bill and maintained that civil unions would likely lead to same-sex marriage, despite a 2006 voter-approved constitutional amendment that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The debate quickly disintegrated from there, as witnesses began quoting the Bible, regurgitating… Broadcasting platform : YouTube Source : Joe. My. God. Discovery Date : 01/04/2011 14:35 Number of articles : 3

AUDIO: Christianist Haters Spew Bile At Colorado’s Civil Unions House Debate

The Latest Animal Rights Cause in Wisconsin: ‘No Pig Wrestling’

My hometown of Viroqua, Wisconsin has become statewide news because a left-wing group called The Alliance for Animals is protesting the annual Wild West Days — in particular, its popular “Hog Wrasslin” contest. The LaCrosse Tribune had the story: VIROQUA — A Madison-based animal rights group has taken a public stand against one of the biggest attractions for Viroqua’s Wild West Days — pig wrestling. The Alliance for Animals wrote organizers of Wild West Days in late May, saying it had conferred with two attorneys who are of the opinion that pig wrestling “is in clear violation of the Wisconsin Statutes.” The Alliance notes in particular Chapter 951, titled “Crimes Against Animals,” which outlaws cockfighting, dogfighting and any other similar fighting between animals or animals and humans. Wild West Days organizer Jeffrey Menn said his group conferred with Vernon County District Attorney Tim Gaskell and officials from state and other groups to be certain the activities were legal. He said the 2010 “Hog Wrasslin’” competition, set for Aug. 21, will go on as scheduled. The Alliance for Animals is radical enough to insist on their website that human participants and spectators could be hurt: “We are deeply concerned about the illegality of these events and the threat they pose to animals, participants, and spectators.” They argue that not only are the wrestlers breaking the law, so are the spectators: Not only does the alliance believe those who operate or participate in pig wrestling competitions are breaking the law, it also claims anyone “being a spectator” of such an event  also is in violation of Chapter 951. Those prosecuted under Chapter 951 could face felony charges. “There’s no necessity to have a gladiatorial display of human brawn against an animal who doesn’t want to participate,” [the Alliance’s Lynn] Pauly said. “Our intent is always education. We believe that people are compassionate and moral and deep down, after thinking about it for a while, people will see (pig wrestling) is not right.” Liberals always define “education” as demonizing their enemies: “After our long cold winter we welcome the farmers’ markets, Brewers baseball games, family picnics, gardening, and sunshine. Unfortunately, summer in Wisconsin also means that the mean and stupid are bored, so local pig wrestling contests abound. Pig wrestling is cruel, embarrassing for most Wisconsinites, and against the law.” The Tribune story did not include the point that the animal is also not solicited for an opinion as to whether it wants to be pork chops and bacon. The D.A. was not impressed: Gaskell said he reviewed the letter from Alliance for Animals and spoke with Pauly. He said he disagrees with the legal position of Alliance for Animals. “When they specifically mention the examples, the intention is to maim or kill the animal,” Gaskell said. “With the pig wrestling,  there’s absolutely no intent to injure the animal. I would not prosecute the organizers, participants or the spectators.” Viroqua’s “hog wrasslin’” competition  draws more than 1,000 spectators and about 30 teams competing in men’s and women’s divisions. In the competition, a three-person team in a mud-filled pit attempts to grasp a pig and put it backside-first into a barrel. The team that gets the pig into the barrel the quickest wins. Rules prohibit grabbing a pig’s leg or snout and putting the pig under the mud. About two dozen pigs are placed in pens near the pig wrestling pit to be used in the competition. Sometimes fewer than a quarter of the teams get the pig in the barrel; some teams barely get a hand on the pig. Apparently, the Alliance for Animals would prefer a pig-massaging competition : People who run animal sanctuaries such as Pigs Peace Sanctuary describe pigs with human characteristics, because they’ve observed that, like us, they enjoy massages, listening to music, and playing.

Here is the original post:
The Latest Animal Rights Cause in Wisconsin: ‘No Pig Wrestling’

"no bad whores, just bad laws"

SEX workers have rallied in Sydney to demand an end to “whore-phobic” attitudes and greater protection under anti-discrimination laws. Chanting “sex worker rights are human rights” and “no bad whores, just bad laws”, dozens of protesters marched from the Opera House today in a bid to have their rights recognised. Many carried red umbrellas, a symbol of the global movement, while others made statements with T-shirts reading “whore power” and “sluts unite”. “We are human beings, we are people, we do a job and we are continually vilified for that job,” sex worker Julie Bates said, noting that little had changed in the way of community attitudes during her 30-year career. “So whilst we remained silenced, today is a chance for us to speak to the community, so we have a voice. “What we want society to see is that sex work is real damn hard work, and we provide a service like any other industry.” Organised by the Scarlet Alliance, a peak body representing the nation's estimated 20,000 sex workers, the event was one of several staged in capital cities across the country to commemorate International Whores Day. The alliance is using the occasion to lobby state governments for amendments to existing legislation that covers the industry. The campaign focuses on New South Wales, which has the highest concentration of sex workers – about 8000 – yet has inferior anti-discrimination laws compared with other parts of the nation. In the ACT, Queensland and Tasmania, legislation protects against discrimination based on legal sexual activity or occupation, essentially giving mistreated sex workers an avenue for recourse. The most common instances of discrimination reported to the alliance occur during applications for rental properties, bank loans and credit cards. Sex workers are also forced to pay up to five times more than other advertisers in newspapers, and encounter problems when dealing with police and the judicial system, the alliance said. It was often seen when women lost custody cases because of negative stereotypes associated with their jobs. Alliance president Elena Jeffreys said part of the problem stemmed from deep-rooted attitudes within government and mainstream institutions. “They think that sex workers are not part of the community,” she told AAP. “We are absolutely sick of whore-phobic attitudes. “Sex work is legalised, decriminalised, brothels are run in a professional and transparent manner, and sex workers are huge contributors to society, yet we face this discrimination every single day. “It's absolutely untenable and we demand that it be changed.” added by: diode