What Adam Curry is reading

Health Board Approves Bloomberg's Soda Ban
  Link to Article
  Source: NYT > Home Page
  Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:42
  Ruth Fremson/The New York Times
  A woman drinking a large sweetened iced tea in Bryant Park this August.
  Seeking to combat rising obesity rates, the New York City Board of Health approved on Thursday a ban on the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, street carts and movie theaters, enacting the first restriction of its kind in the country.
  The measure, unless blocked by a judge, will take effect in six months. The health board vote was the only regulatory approval needed to become binding in the city, but the American soft-drink industry has strongly opposed the plan and vowed this week to try to fight the measure by other means, possibly in the courts.
  The plan is a marquee initiative of the Bloomberg administration, which is known for introducing ambitious '' and, some say, overreaching '' public health policies, including a ban on smoking in bars and the posting of calorie counts on chain restaurant menus.
  The soda measure would bar the sale of sweetened drinks in containers larger than 16 ounces, smaller than the size of a common soda bottle. It would affect a range of popular sweetened beverages, including energy drinks, presweetened iced teas and common brands of nondiet soda.
  The restrictions would not affect fruit juices, dairy-based drinks like milkshakes, or alcoholic beverages; no-calorie diet sodas would not be affected, but establishments with self-service drink fountains, like many fast-food restaurants, would not be allowed to stock cups larger than 16 ounces.
  Only establishments that receive inspection grades from the health department would have to obey the rules, a group that includes movie theaters and stadium concession stands. Convenience stores, including 7-Eleven and its king-size ''Big Gulp'' drinks, would be exempt, along with vending machines and some newsstands.
  Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg has said the plan does not limit consumers' choices, since customers can still purchase as many 16-ounce drinks as they would like. The soft-drink industry, which has spent more $1 million on a public-relations campaign opposing the plan, argues that the policy restricts consumers' freedom to buy beverages as they see fit.
  Six in 10 residents said they thought the plan was a bad idea in a recent poll by The New York Times. But the measure easily earned the approval of the health board, whose members were appointed by the mayor. The board voted eight to zero, with one abstention, to approve the measure just after 11 a.m. Thursday.
  Mr. Bloomberg has made curbing obesity a top goal for his administration, citing higher rates of diabetes and fatalities among the city's more overweight neighborhoods. More than half of adult New Yorkers are obese or overweight, according to the city's health department.
  Opinion among other city lawmakers is mixed. Several City Council members, including many members of the council's minority caucus, said the plan would adversely affect small businesses, particularly in poorer neighborhoods. A resolution against the plan has been circulated in the City Council, but the speaker, Christine C. Quinn, has not put the measure to a vote.
  The plan has generated widespread interest in the topic of obesity and soft drinks. The mayor has been pilloried in some quarters as Nanny Bloomberg, with critics saying the soda plan is another example of social engineering by the government. Supporters, including many prominent academics and scientists who study nutrition, say the policy could help reduce the amount of calories consumed by city residents.
Was Photo of Dead Ambassador Acceptable?
  Link to Article
  Source: Dave Winer's linkblog feed
  Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:40
  Where is the line between good taste and important journalism? And did The Times cross it when it used, in a Wednesday afternoon online photo gallery, an image of an unconscious J. Christopher Stevens, the ambassador, who was killed in an attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya?
  One reader, Catherine Ehr, was appalled, as she was a few weeks ago when The Times used a photograph of a bloodied man who died in the shooting at the Empire State Building. She expressed the views of many readers when she wrote to me:
  For the second time in a few weeks, in the wake of a horrific event, the NY Times has stepped beyond the boundaries of good taste in publishing photos. First, there was the photo of a man bleeding/dying on the sidewalk after his former co-worker shot him in NYC which precipitated a police shootout that injured 9. Now, there's the photo of a man identified as Christopher Stevens, unconscious and clearly shortly before his death.
  If either of those men were your friend, or your family member, how would seeing those images make you feel? The other images that accompany the articles or appear in slide shows are enough to give the reader/viewer a clear idea of what happened. Showing identifiable photos of people dead or dying, and identifying the people in them, is disgusting and unnecessary.
  I hope The Times steps back from this and does a more rigorous job of editing/choosing the photos it publishes. Where is the common decency?
  Ian Fisher, the associate managing editor who runs The Times's Web site during the day, said the decision was a carefully considered one by the paper's top editors who met in the morning to discuss it.
  They chose to use the Agence France-Presse photograph in question, he said, because of its journalistic significance.
  ''It's horrifying but there is a journalistic imperative,'' he said. ''It's news.''
  It's notable that the caption stopped short of saying it was a photo of Mr. Stevens's dead body. The caption reads, ''A man, reportedly unconscious, identified as Mr. Stevens.''
  Mr. Fisher added: ''We don't hesitate to run pictures of Iraqis, Syrians and Qaddafi dead. We've been at war for years. We've shown a lot of bodies.''
  But he realized why the reaction was so fast and harsh to this photograph.
  ''I can understand why people feel it's more disturbing to see a photo of an American, particularly an American diplomat,'' he said.
  For that reason, he said, editors chose a relatively distant image of Mr. Stevens, and placed it in the last position in the frequently updated gallery, where it would be less prominent. If only an extremely graphic photograph had been available, it might not have been used, Mr. Fisher said.
  Other major newspapers, including The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal, were not using similar photographs by midafternoon. At this writing, The Times had not made a decision about whether to use the photograph of Mr. Stevens in its print edition on Thursday.
  Who's right '' the readers who are protesting, or the editors? It's a tough call, and it's an area in which sensibilities have changed over the years.
  But if you accept the idea that each human life has the same value and dignity, and there is no consistent objection to seeing images of the dead from other countries, it's hard to mount a reasonable argument against what editors here chose to do. To put it clearly: They made the right call.
  Having said that, I would not want to see a similar photograph on the front page of Thursday's print edition, where its prominence and permanence would give it a different weight.
Oops! 'Newsroom' Star Alison Pill Accidentally Tweets Topless Photo
  Link to Article
  Source: Radar Online
  Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:31
  Twitter
  By Radar Staff
  Alison Pill made somewhat of a boob of herself Wednesday.
  The perky actress of HBO's The Newsroom fame tweeted a topless self-shot lying in bed, but to her credit, quickly owned her digital D'oh! And deleted the photo with an apology.
  "Yep. That picture happened," the 26-year-old Canada native wrote. "Ugh. My tech issues have now reached new heights, apparently. How a deletion turned into a tweet... Apologies."
  PHOTOS: Celebs Who Have Done Nude Scenes
  Pill's fianc(C), actor Jay Baruchel, called his fianc(C)e a "hilarious dork" in the blunder, adding that "Smartphones will get ya."
  Last November, Dean McDermott accidentally tweeted a topless pic of wife Tori Spelling.
  RELATED STORIES:
  PHOTOS: Top Twelve Actresses Who Have Posed Nude
  PHOTOS: Hottest Gals Who Have Never Posed Nude!
  Teen Mom Nude Photo Scandal: Jenelle Evans Posed Naked After Boob Job, See The Pics!
  Tallulah Willis Dodges Major Embarrassment: Nude Photos Will Not Be Published
  TODAY Show Disaster Continues: NBC President Offers Weak Apology For 9/11 'Moment Of Silence' FiascoKate Middleton Gives Hopeful Speech In Malaysia: 'Lives Can Be Transformed'
US Ambassador was lynched by mob Gaddafi killing-style
  Link to Article
  Source: the tap
  Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:28
  Attack on U.S. Consulate illustrates disastrous outcome of Obama's ''humanitarian'' intervention in LibyaBy Paul Joseph WatsonInfowars.comWednesday, September 12, 2012Despite initial reports suggesting he died in a rocket attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, photos appear to indicate that U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was killed by a lynch mob, illustrating the disastrous consequences of the Obama administration's military intervention in Libya '' arming some of the very same men who carried out today's attack.''The US ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens, has been killed in a rocket attack in the eastern city of Benghazi along with three other embassy staff, the White House confirmed on Wednesday,'' reports France 24.However, images released in the hours after the attack show Stevens' body being paraded around by a mob. The body appears to show signs of torture.Subsequent reports speculated that Stevens' car was attacked as he and the three other personnel attempted to escape from the Consulate.The other embassy staff were shot while Stevens' died of ''suffocation,'' suggesting he was lynched and physically attacked by the mob.The incident is being portrayed by the establishment media as a reaction to a film produced in the United States that purportedly ridicules Islam's Prophet Mohammed.However, the wider issue of how the 2011 bombardment of Libya paved the way for gangs of militant Islamic extremists, once backed by NATO powers with heavy weapons, to fill the power vacuum left by Colonel Gaddafi, has been largely ignored.Indeed, it's a horrific irony that Hillary Clinton's infamous gloating about Gaddafi's execution - ''We came, we saw, he died'' - has now come full circle, with Stevens paying for such despicable arrogance with his life.A February 2012 report by Amnesty International found that Libya's militias are ''largely out of control'' and that ''Thousands of detainees are being held in various prisons across the country'' and are being ''tortured to death.''The country's NATO-installed rulers have proven themselves unwilling to prevent widespread abuse.The assault on Libya was carried out with absolutely zero constitutional authorization.In June last year, President Obama arrogantly expressed his hostility to the rule of law when he dismissed the need to get congressional authorization to commit the United States to a military intervention in Libya, churlishly dismissing criticism and remarking, ''I don't even have to get to the Constitutional question.''Obama tried to legitimize his failure to obtain Congressional approval for military involvement by sending a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner in which he said the military assault was ''authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council.''Today's attack on the U.S. Consulate serves as another reminder that the military-industrial complex's new paradigm of ''humanitarian intervention'' '' a scam they hope to repeat in Syria '' has nothing to do with humanitarianism in that it only results in more bloodshed and more instability.*********************Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.
Verenice Gutierrez Claims PB&J Could Hold Racist Connotations | Portland
  Link to Article
  Thu, 13 Sep 2012 12:42
  Photo Credit: FILE
  Are peanut butter and jelly sandwiches racist? A bizarre question, to say the least, but one that at least one school administrator is asking out in Portland, Oregon. Verenice Gutierrez, principal at Harvey Scott K-8 School, seems to believe that there are racial connotations associated with the common lunch-time meal.
  According to Gutierrez, using the example of a peanut butter sandwich in classroom lessons is technically a problematic and discriminatory move '-- one that was made by a teacher in her building last school year. While such a notion may bring out laughs among those who find it absurd, the principal explains her logic.
  ''What about Somali or Hispanic students, who might not eat sandwiches?,'' she said. ''Another way would be to say: 'Americans eat peanut butter and jelly, do you have anything like that?' Let them tell you. Maybe they eat torta. Or pita.''
  Somehow, by mentioning a food that the majority culture regularly eats without also discussing other meal options, the teacher was purportedly violating discrimination standards. So, to combat any additional PB&J-related offenses, the principal is treading carefully. And she's not alone.
  Photo Credit: AP
  Portland Public Schools is in the process of integrating ''Courageous Conversations,'' an equity training that has been coming in phases over the past few years. The Portland Tribune explains the district's intentions, in detail:
  Through intensive staff trainings, frequent staff meetings, classroom observations and other initiatives, the premise is that if educators can understand their own ''white privilege,'' then they can change their teaching practices to boost minority students' performance.
  Last Wednesday, the first day of the school year for staff, for example, the first item of business for teachers at Scott School was to have a Courageous Conversation '-- to examine a news article and discuss the ''white privilege'' it conveys.
  The demographics that are present in the district have apparently led leaders to tackle this purported ''white privilege'' issue head-on. Currently, 50 percent of students at Scott K-8 are Hispanic, 15 percent are black and nine percent are Asian.
  Naturally, there's some controversy, especially considering the subject at hand. One parent, in particular, as the Tribune notes, has railed against a lunch-time drum class for black and Hispanic boys at the school (the parent believes it discriminates against women, girls, Asians, whites and Native Americans).
  Gutierrez, though, claims children weren't turned away and denies that offering a minority-specific class amounts to discrimination.
  ''When white people do it, it is not a problem, but if it's for kids of color, then it's a problem?,'' she said. ''Break it down for me. That's your white privilege, and your whiteness.''
  Photo Credit: Getty
  The Tribune has more about the principal and the district's program that she's seeking to utilize in the school:
  Like many if not all of PPS' leaders, Gutierrez has gone through California-based consultant Glenn Singleton's ''Coaching for Educational Equity,'' a weeklong seminar on race and how it affects life; she's also become an ''affiliate,'' certified to teach the equity curriculum; and she serves on the district's administrative committee to address systematic racism, a group that meets every other week.
  ''Our focus school and our Superintendent's mandate that we improve education for students of color, particularly Black and Brown boys, will provide us with many opportunities to use the protocols of Courageous Conversations in data teams, team meetings, staff meetings, and conversations amongst one another,'' Guitierrez' letter to staff reads.
  Read more about this story over at The Portland Tribune.
Family Security Matters
  Link to Article
  Thu, 13 Sep 2012 12:19
  Come and Get It, Hillaryby EDWARD CLINESeptember 13, 2012It's much like the alignment of the planets to produce some catastrophic force, or the convergence of two storm systems: The U.S. remembers 9/11. On 9/11/2012, Muslim mobs assault the U.S. embassy in Cairo, hauling down the U.S. flag and raising the black flag of jihad. In Benghazi, Libya, hours later, another mob launches a military-style attack on the U.S. consulate, killing the U.S. ambassador and staff members, including two Marines, and burning the place to the ground.
  Over what?
  A satiric movie about Mohammad and the poisonous fraud of Islam that few Americans even knew about? Or was it about the death by drone of a Libyan Al-Qada leader?
  Who knows? Who cares? This is Islam at its best. This is Islam and Muslims shining through. Muslims don't need an excuse. The Koran tells them so.
  Trying to sift through the multifaceted motives for the attacks in Cairo and Benghazi is as pointless as sorting through the ruins of the World Trade Center on 9/11, 2001 searching for the identities of the plane hijackers. Once it was known who supported, funded, recruited, and triggered the attacks, why waste any time trying to identify the expendable "martyrs"?
  It was the ideology that launched the attacks, in 2001 and in 2012. It was the ideology that has launched such attacks ever since the plane hijackings of the 1970's. It was behind the Munich massacre and every casualty-strewn bombing and murder spree committed in the name of Islam for the last five decades.
  Can anyone with a handful of scruples buy the phony piety and condolences of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton? The New York Times quotes them both:
  "These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity," Mr. Obama said in a televised statement from the White House Rose Garden, where he stood with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. "Make no mistake: we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people."
  The Washington Post reports:
  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemned the attack "in the strongest terms," adding that while the United States "deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others ... there is never any justification for violent acts of this kind." Wednesday morning, Obama released his own statement condemning "the outrageous attack."
  During the protest in Cairo but hours before the attacks in Libya, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo issued a statement saying that it condemns "the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims - as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions." An administration official later told ABC News that "no one in Washington approved that statement before it was released and it doesn't reflect the views of the U.S. government." The statement still appears on the embassy website, but not on the homepage. (Italics mine)
  Come again? What else has been the U.S. government's view since 2008 but to excoriate and threaten anyone with the courage to brand Islam as a murderous, looting, pedophilic, misogynist, slave-thirsty ideology?
  On the other hand, the New York Times mulls over this explanation:
  About 24 hours before the consulate attack, however, Al Qaeda posted to militant forums on the Web a video in which its leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, acknowledged the death in an American drone strike in June of his Libyan deputy, Abu Yahya al-Libi, and called on Libyans to avenge the death.
  Walid Shoebat, a former Muslim Brotherhood member who knows the Islamic supremacist mind intimately, dismisses the movie as the chief reason for the Cairo attack. He pins the motive to a consolidation of power by Egyptian Salafist activists. Citing communications between the Nour Party and other Party members, he concludes:
  It had no reference to the current movie, which means that they simply searched for anything to use as an excuse. They could find nothing major except a satirical video. Of course, you have daily satires in the United States about Muhammad that technically should be considered far worse.
  So, the cause was immaterial. This was just Islam doing what it does best: killing and destroying.
  The movie, "Innocence of Muslims," was shown once, the Associated Press reports, in Hollywood to a mostly empty theater. It was cited as the reason that Muslims attacked the embassy in Cairo and launched a military type assault on the consulate in Benghazi. Or it might have been about the Danish cartoons.
  Still, "Innocence of Muslims" is the kind of film that has not been produced by Hollywood ever since 9/11. Sam Bacile, an Israeli filmmaker, has shown more courage than any multi-millionaire director, producer, or actor. Hollywood has churned out many films judgmental of the U.S. and not of its enemies. Bacile remains undaunted by the outrages committed in Cairo and Benghazi. The Washington Post reported an Associated Press interview of Bacile. However, the Washington Post and the Associated Press took down that full-length article. Most of it can be found here:
  The California-based property developer said to be responsible for the film "Innocence of Muslims," Sam Bacile, insists that his 2-hour movie is an accurate portrayal of the life and values of the prophet Muhammad. "Islam is a cancer," Bacile was quoted by the Associated Press as saying.
  It is obvious to everyone but State Department wonks, The New York Times, and every other venue of the MSM that the twin attacks were intended as a middle finger shoved up the U.S.'s nose. There was nothing spontaneous about either attack. They were planned.
  Planned and known to the Islamic supremacist governments of Egypt and Libya, both of which the Obama administration had a direct hand in establishing, in the name of "democracy."
  So, who tipped off the savages about a movie no one had even heard of? Is it beyond credibility that members of the Nour Party and their counterparts in Libya were offered the movie as bait? By whom? We've seen the duplicity of the Obama administration at work before.
  More importantly than any of these ruminations about how and why the attacks occurred, is how the stress on Bacile's movie comports perfectly with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's hand-holding with the Organization of Islamic Cooperation's campaign to globalize the criminalization of any and all forms of criticism of Islam. Many observers, columnists and pundits have been wondering for months just what the Obama administration was planning as a reelection-salvaging event. Most hypothesized that it would a Syrian intervention.
  Surprise. It is a doubling down on the "necessity" of censorship to prevent more "violence." Pamela Geller reported in 2011 in American Thinker:
  Today the Islamized State Department will be meeting with the Islamic supremacist Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to discuss strategies and develop action plans in which to impose the restriction of free speech (or blasphemy, as truthful speech about Islam is considered in Islamic law) under the Sharia here in America.
  Geller quotes Clinton on the occasion of the State Department hosting an OIC conference on how to silence critics of Islam:
  "We also understand that, for 235 years, freedom of expression has been a universal right at the core of our democracy. So we are focused on promoting interfaith education and collaboration, enforcing antidiscrimination laws, protecting the rights of all people to worship as they choose, and to use some old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don't feel that they have the support to do what we abhor."
  Geller notes:
  "Peer pressure and shaming." That is exactly what these useful idiots try to do with anyone and everyone who tells the truth about Islam and jihad: me, Robert Spencer, Wafa Sultan, Nonie Darwish, and more.
  The Cairo and Benghazi attacks, pegged to the excuse of the Danish Mohammad cartoons and the Bacile movie, comprise a part of that strategy and action plan. The Eurasia Review reports on a recent meeting of the OIC.
  They would also be deliberating on challenges faced by 1.5 billion Muslims; more importantly lack of unity among the Muslim States, Islam phobia campaign and linking terrorism with Islam, disturbances in some Muslim states and other unpalatable problems facing the Muslim ummah (nation) on political, social, economic, educational and development fronts. (Italics mine)
  The 57-member Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) headquarters in Jeddah has announced that it will hold the 4th "extraordinary" two-day session of the Islamic Summit Conference in Makkah from August 14 (26th Ramadan) called for by King Abdullah "to examine the situation in many countries of the Islamic world, intensify efforts to confront this situation, address the sources of discord and division therein, reunify the Islamic Ummah and promote Islamic solidarity."
  I would not call Clinton et al. "useful idiots." That is a generous assessment of her character and the willingly dhimmi behavior of the State Department and of the Obama administration. That estimate implies that Clinton especially is utterly clueless about the nature of Islam. She knows. Obama knows. Our greatest "Islamic" enemy is not any Muslim, but our own leaders.
  So, I say to Hillary, and Huma Abedin, and General Dempsey, and all the other compromisers and haters of freedom of speech: Bring it on. Come and get it. Just try to muzzle me. You'll have a fight you never counted on, and I won't be alone. I will mock, criticize, and condemn Islam to my heart's content. Just try shutting me up. I'm calling you out.
  Edward Cline is the author of the Sparrowhawk novels set in England and Virginia in the pre-Revolutionary period, of several detective and suspense novels, and three collections of his commentaries and columns, all available on Amazon Books. His essays, book reviews, and other articles have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Journal of Information Ethics and other publications. He is a frequent contributor to Rule of Reason, Family Security Matters, Capitalism Magazine and other Web publications.
PM vote to go ahead as planned
  Link to Article
  Thu, 13 Sep 2012 06:08
  By Umar Khan.
  Tripoli, 12 September:
  The vote to elect the next prime minister of Libya by the General National Congress is to go ahead as scheduled according to the head of the GNC, Mohamed Magarief. There were concerns that the vote will be postponed after it was reported that the American Ambassador Chris Stevens was killed along with three other staff members when the US mission was attacked by armed men last night.
  The GNC will now be holding the vote in a session that is scheduled to start later today. The GNC members will chose from the eight nominees, in a series of rounds, and the winner will be elected by clear majority. The main competition is said to be between Mahmoud Jibril, Awad Barassi and Mustafa Abushagur. All three have been part of the transitional government system set up after the formation of the NTC in one position or the other.
  The names will be put to vote and if no one wins a clear majority, a further round of voting will be done between the leading contestants. It is not clear who will make it to the second round just yet. However, after last night's attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, there is a chance of some last minute changes to the blocs and established positions of different candidates given the nature and sensitivity of the Benghazi incident.
After a Fashion: Too Much F*cking Glamour
  Link to Article
  Source: Google Alerts - adam+curry
  Thu, 13 Sep 2012 05:51
  Bad JohnPaul Wilson's photo of Eva Strangelove in my silk and fur trench coat for fall/winter 2012-13.
  Courtesy of Bad John Paul Photography
  It's hard to remember everything that's happened in the past month, from the overload of creativity and frantic sewing that preceded my fall/winter preview at the Cattivo show, to the show itself, and the compliments, congratulations, and good reviews that followed. Barely able to take a breath, I spent several days getting ready for a photo shoot in which I was posing before the glorious Micky Hoogendijk's camera. Exquisite hair and makeup by Cat Lane, styling by Jonathan Shakarisaz, accessories by Kristin Bunyard of Ossuaria Jewelry, as well as the Sugar Factory (and a few of my own favorite pieces) ... the elements came together to create dreamy and outrageous portraits in the way I always wanted to look. Never before had I posed for such darkly glamorous photos with such a master behind the lens. I've posted many of the photos on my Facebook page, and they are also available at www.mickysees.com. Spending the day at Micky's (and her husband Adam Curry's) home was delightful '' Adam being such a great host that when Micky shot me wearing my fur coat in their pool, Adam jumped in fully clothed to hold the reflector in the right place to light the photo. Jon Jon and I sat mesmerized while Adam told us stories that left us laughing hysterically and shrieking in delighted shock and awe. Meanwhile, Micky had begun to look at the photos, and when I glimpsed her work, I could hardly close my mouth, much less speak.
  High on that glamour, Jon Jon and I were already making plans for Micky and Adam to be among the models to shoot my existing fall collection the next weekend. Bad JohnPaul Wilson was at the helm for this photo shoot that included not only Micky and Adam, but my gorgeous dear friend Eva Strangelove; Austin's hardest working and most beautiful model, Madison Paige; the exquisite rising star of modeling, Sydney Hancock; flame-haired Nicole Marie Verschoor; and Lucy Secord, who modeled much of my men's collection. I became possessed with making more clothes for the models to wear, and even made some of the finale pieces for my show in November.
  It was a circus when we arrived '' JohnPaul was already shooting another designers' work, so we hid out in one of the multiple bedroom suites of our hostess Lara Semmelmann's fabulous Westlake mansion. Makeup artist Jay Woods began painting faces, while wigmaker Allison Lowery began distributing wigs. Jewelry again by Ossuaria Jewelry and the Sugar Factory, and styling by Jon Jon Shakarisaz (who made so many trips up and down Lara's gracious but lengthy marble staircase that he should be in fabulous shape now). ... This time we used fiercely redesigned shoes from Roosevelt Cevallos (see his Facebook page Queen, Ro's Shoes for Gerlz) that amped up the photo shoot another notch. JohnPaul's shots were the stuff of dreams '' like the high-glam photo spreads that the big couture houses use. I was delirious.
  The following night, we celebrated Adam's birthday, all of us glammed out in my collection, in a night on the town. Of course, the best-laid plans can often go astray, as they did with us, but we survived it all, being primarily entertained at Elysium by owner John Wickham and his go-to guy Neil Diaz. Private seating for Elysium's Regression 80s Night party turned into a mob scene when it was announced that Adam Curry was in the house. This is the generation that was raised watching Adam's Headbangers Ball on MTV, and his fans at Elysium were legion. Soon we were overwhelmed by the attention and left for quieter quarters, which turned out to be the W ... just before they closed. Returning to Lara's house, we stayed up gossiping and ruminating over the recent events until exhaustion took over and we all retired to our separate suites. With too little sleep, packing up the horrendous mess we'd made the day before was a chore, and somehow, the glamour had grown a little gritty. I was ready for a real break ... which I'm taking now. Then it's back to the studio for a somewhat more peaceful continuation of designing my fall collection.