7 October 2016

HauntedHouse.com Releases 2016 Top Ten List of America's Best Haunts

by
Photo courtesy of 13th Floor Haunted House. (PRNewsFoto/HauntedHouse.com)
The calendar has made its ceremonial flip to October and that means fear seekers are descending upon haunted houses all across America. Each Halloween season, thousands of professional haunted house attractions gear up to deliver the latest and greatest in live horror entertainment. 
But this year, only 10 of them hit all the marks delivering thrilling entertainment worthy of being included on Hauntedhouse.com's list of "America's Best Haunts."
Curious to know where the nation's most feared haunted houses rank? Hauntedhouse.com, the nation's leading authority on haunted attractions, is pleased to unveil its 2016 list of America's Best Haunts. 
Each one of the haunted houses in America's Best Haunts showcases the very best in special effects, the most chilling and hair-raising themes, the most innovative design and the best overall scare factor. Every year haunted houses advance with changes in technology and special effects. America's Best Haunts are at the forefront of these advancements, while at the same time combining them with their advanced understanding of the psychology of fear.

The 2016 Winners of the "America's Best Haunts" title are:
1. 13th Floor Haunted House
Location (multiple): Denver, CO - San Antonio, TX - Phoenix, AZ - Chicago, IL    
Website: www.13thfloorhauntedhouses.com  
2. House of Torment
Location (multiple): Austin, TX - Chicago, IL   
Website: www.houseoftorment.com  
3. Netherworld Haunted House
Location: Atlanta, GA   
Website: www.fearworld.com  
4. The Asylum Haunted House
Location: Denver, CO   
Website: www.asylumdenver.com  
5. Haunted Overload
Location: Lee, NH   
Website: www.hauntedoverload.com  
6. Terror on the Fox
Location: Green Bay, WI  
Website: www.terroronthefox.com  
7. Fear Farm and Phoenix Haunted Hayride
Location: Phoenix, AZ  
Website: www.fearfarm.com  
8. Terror Behind the Walls
Location: Philadelphia, PA   
Website: www.terrorbehindthewalls.com  
9. The Darkness
Location: Saint Louis, MO  
Website: www.scarefest.com  
10. Edge of Hell
Location: Kansas City, MO   
Website: www.edgeofhell.com

ABOUT HAUNTEDHOUSE.COM'S "AMERICA'S BEST HAUNTS
Now in its tenth year, Hauntedhouse.com's list of America's Best Haunts was created in 2006 to become the premier source for valuable, credible information and rankings of the haunted house industry.  
The 2016 list was selected by a panel of judges with over 100 years of combined haunted-attractions industry experience.
For complete list of the winners and further information please visit: www.AmericasBestHaunts.com.  

 SOURCE: HauntedHouse.com

6 October 2016

What The Trump Foundation Controversies Reveal About The Candidate And His Business Acumen

by
To understand the Trump Foundation, reporters are following the money. Lucas Jackson/Reuters
By Philip Hackney, Louisiana State University and Brian Mittendorf, The Ohio State University

A surprising feature at the forefront of this year’s presidential election has been the philanthropic endeavors of the candidates.

The scrutiny of the Clinton Foundation is understandable given its large scale and worldwide focus. The attention surrounding Donald Trump’s charitable endeavors comes from different reasons: primarily a desire to examine his much-touted largesse and the rare public availability of financial statements that offer a window into his management approach.

Unlike Trump’s personal finances, piercing the veil surrounding his philanthropic activities has been more successful, in large part thanks to the one-person muckraking operation of the Washington Post’s David Fahrenthold. The reporting by him and others has followed three trajectories in questioning Trump’s charitable giving and his foundation: assessing its scale, examining funding sources and following the money. The critical coverage led the attorney general in Trump’s home state to open an inquiry and even put a halt to fundraising in New York. It’s also sown a lot of confusion about what it’s all about.

Relying on our experience with the accounting and regulatory rules for nonprofits, we’d like to clarify the Trump charity controversies and explain their potential significance.

How much does Trump actually give away?
The controversies surrounding Trump’s philanthropy begin with his repeated claims that he has been very charitable, giving more than US$100 million over the past five years.
To verify the scale of Trump’s giving, the natural starting point is to look at the private foundation he established, the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

Private foundations are charities typically established by wealthy individuals or families to coordinate their own personal giving. What is immediately apparent from Trump’s private foundation is that its size pales in comparison to those of other wealthy philanthropists.

The Trump Foundation had expenses of $5.3 million from 2010 to 2014. That may seem like a lot, but the Clinton family’s private foundation spent nearly twice as much in the same time frame, despite the Clintons having a fraction of Trump’s reported wealth. And Trump’s foundation looks even smaller when compared with other wealthy philanthropists such as Michael Bloomberg’s family foundation, which spent $279 million in 2014 alone. The foundations’ assets tell a similar story.

The recent revelation that a nearly $1 billion loss carryover in the 1990s likely allowed Trump to avoid paying federal income taxes for many years suggests that his foundation’s small size may be due in part to the absence of any tax benefits of such giving. In other words, since one of the incentives for charitable giving is the tax write-off, Trump would have had one less reason to give his own money away.

In any case, the foundation’s relatively small footprint led the Washington Post’s Fahrenthold to look elsewhere for evidence of Trump’s personal giving. After relentlessly calling charities with some affiliation to Trump, he ran into many “no comment” responses but found only one example of a cash gift (less than $10,000) during the period from 2008 to the launch of his campaign.

Instead, much of Trump’s charity has come from his companies in the form of free rounds of golf or other in-kind gifts such as, most notably, conservation easements. Conservation easements are commitments to set aside land with certain limits on development. Trump companies have reportedly given over $60 million worth of such easements over the years. But that’s hardly the same thing as giving away cash, and Trump continues to make money on at least some of those properties.

The search for Trump’s charitable largesse is far from conclusive given his tax returns remain unreleased, but the results so far suggest he has overstated his magnanimity. Efforts by campaign aides to back up his claims are actually what led to a second area of controversy for his foundation.

Trump presents a mock check – with his campaign slogan emblazoned on it – to members of the Puppy Jake Foundation in Davenport following his vets’ fundraiser. Rick Wilking/Reuters

Whose money is it?
Unlike most private foundations, the funding of Trump’s own charity doesn’t actually come from the candidate himself – at least not in recent years.

Over the last decade, the Trump Foundation has largely relied on donations from others to support its giving. In fact, since 2008, no money flowing into the foundation came from the candidate himself.

His supporters argue that many of the donors owed Trump money and were allowed to relieve the obligation by giving to the foundation instead. And for that reason, the donations should be viewed as the candidate’s. The Washington Post reported that about $2.3 million was donated this way.

This claim, however, has the potential to create tax problems for Trump. The assignment of income doctrine states that for tax purposes a person who directs amounts owed to him to another entity must reflect both the income and use of the funds on his personal tax return. Directing money to a charity does not avoid the assignment of income problem.

Because the Trump Foundation listed the payers of these amounts as its donors, many have questioned whether Trump properly claimed the income on his returns. While one may conclude it doesn’t matter because offsetting the income with the charitable contribution deduction should end in a wash, there are limits to the deduction and other categories of taxes are not offset by the deduction (Medicare, for instance).

Though the tax consequence of improper treatment of assigned income is unclear, the issue only adds to the case for releasing his tax returns. If his returns do reveal improper treatment, the consequences would most likely be that Trump would owe penalties and interest. But they could also include criminal penalties if he knowingly violated tax law.
A final controversy involving the foundation’s funding sources largely revolves around the impromptu fundraiser for veterans that Trump organized in Iowa during the presidential primary.

Recent news reports claim that the Trump Foundation conducted fundraising without proper registration, leading the New York attorney general to issue a cease-and-desist order.
However, improper solicitation registration turns out to be a somewhat common occurrence (in fact, the Clinton Foundation too has made registration mistakes). As such, absent other improprieties, such mistakes are often overlooked. Assuming this money is delivered to veterans organizations as promised, the violation seems to be primarily a foot fault.

Trump holds up a check to prove he sent the money he raised at a fundraiser to veterans organizations. Lucas Jackson/Reuters

How is the money being used
While the source of funds has received the most attention in recent weeks, it is their use that may actually be the most damaging. Congress subjects private foundations to strict rules by imposing excise taxes on certain improper use of charitable funds.

As Fahrenthold’s investigations have discovered, Trump’s grants risk being viewed as serving improper political or personal ends. For example, the foundation made a prohibited payment to a political group affiliated with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. Around the same time, Bondi’s office declined to pursue an investigation into Trump University, raising allegations of a connection.

The foundation defended the payment as a mistake, and Trump personally reimbursed the funds and paid a $2,500 tax to the IRS for violating the prohibition on political expenditures. It is not clear that the foundation has done all things necessary to correct this transaction.

The foundation flirted with political campaign violations again this year when it made payments to veterans charities at Donald Trump for President political rallies. It allowed the campaign to present large foundation checks emblazoned with the political campaign motto “Make America Great Again.” Since political activity by charities is prohibited, the foundation put its exempt status with the IRS at substantial risk.

A second source of spending controversies surrounds the issue of self-dealing. Private foundations are prohibited from engaging in activities that are for the benefit of their founder or other “disqualified persons,” such as directors and officers.

The most public of these are the instances in which the foundation purchased items at charity auctions, such as an autographed Tim Tebow football helmet and two separate paintings of Trump himself (one of which is on display in a Trump-owned resort). The acquisition of the paintings is not per se problematic, but using the paintings in Trump private businesses is. Perhaps even more concerning is that the foundation made payments of over $250,000 to charities in order to settle private lawsuits of Trump businesses.

If the IRS were to audit the foundation it could determine that these acts are taxable self-dealing transactions. The legal consequence would be that either Trump would owe a 10 percent self-dealing excise tax on the total amount of these transactions, or, more significantly, the foundation could lose its exempt status if it is determined they constitute a significant pattern of self dealing.

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi spoke in support of Trump at the Republican National Convention in July. Rick Wilking/Reuters

Full disclosure?
While there are certainly legal and compliance questions that surround these controversies, the arguably larger issue is their consequence for the public perception of the candidate himself.

Charities are normally viewed as behaving in good faith until there is strong evidence otherwise. The glue that holds this social contract together is the disclosure requirement: As part of their accountability, charities generally must make their financial statements available to the public for review.

It is this feature that has given the public a glimpse of the activities of the candidate. Barring a full release of his tax returns, this glimpse may be all the public has on which to gauge his business acumen as well.

For this reason, the controversies surrounding the campaign of Donald Trump are unlikely to go away in the last weeks of this campaign.

The Conversation
About Today's Contributors
Philip Hackney, James E. & Betty M. Phillips Associate Professor of Law, Louisiana State University and Brian Mittendorf, Fisher College of Business Distinguished Professor of Accounting, The Ohio State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation




More Donald Trump Related Stories:
Click here for more Donald Trump related stories...

5 October 2016

The Author of America Abandoned Says Democracy is Over in the U.S.

by
America Abandoned (PRNewsFoto/Jill Cody)
"It's Been Stolen and We've Been Robbed," Jill Cody Asserts
In her eye-opening new book America Abandoned: The Secret Velvet Coup That Cost Us Our Democracy, author and political activist Jill Cody minces no words about where the U.S. stands in 2016. "Our country, the alleged United States of America, is technically no longer a democracy. It has been abandoned to an oligarchy, defined as 'a government run by the few' and 'a government in which a small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes.'"
Cody, whose book was just published this month, explains how multibillionaires managed to take control of Congress, the Supreme Court and, thus the country in a Velvet Coup that few saw coming. She traces its origins to a 1971 memo written by Louis Powell called the Powell Memorandum. 
The confidential memo for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce laid out a road map to further the interests of the Chamber's version of free enterprise capitalism—a road map that was promoted by a parade of highly paid corporate lobbyists and Powell's eventual appointment to the Supreme Court.

As the presidential election looms, carrying with it the possibility of a billionaire making it to the White House, Cody can talk about:
  • 7 ways the Velvet Coup caused the abandonment of ordinary Americans.
  • Why government should not be run like a business and who benefits if it is.
  • What Living in the Black or Living in the Red means, and how our individual and organizational choices could either rescue or ruin America.
  • How we can boldly recapture our middle class and democracy with personal activism and heightened voter participation.

PRAISE FOR AMERICA ABANDONED
"From right wing conservatives to Wall Street fat cats, progressive writer Jill Cody delivers a no-holds-barred look at a country that's becoming politically, morally and financially bankrupt."
Thom Hartmann, nationally syndicated talk show host and bestselling author
Jill Cody (PRNewsFoto/Jill Cody)
ABOUT JILL CODY
America Abandoned is Jill Cody's first book. Her life-long passion for knowledge and desire to inspire change in politics, the environment, higher education and organizational development led her to pursue a 31-year career in public service. She was personally trained and authorized by Vice President Al Gore to share his presentation on An Inconvenient Truth. 
She has assisted in coordinating national and international strategic planning meetings on Information Literacy in Washington D.C.Prague and Egypt. Cody earned a master's degree in public administration from San Jose State University and devoted her career to public service.
SOURCE: Jill Cody

4 October 2016

USA: Chihuahua Predicts Election In New Book

by
"If I Were The President's Dog!" by The Fabulous Bookwormzillas (PRNewsFoto/The Fabulous Bookwormzillas)
A chihuahua named Rocko got the attention of his sitter, and what happened next can only be described as an astounding hoot!

IF I WERE THE PRESIDENT'S DOG! - Written by The Fabulous Bookwormzillas and Illustrated by Ashley Carey was telepathically transmitted by Rocko, a chihuahua - to his sitter, GoldenEagle. She shared Rocko's messages with her family, and her grandchildren began to create dialog and scenarios from the transmitted thoughts of the chihuahua. 
"We had no idea when we began writing in '08 that the winds would turn the political tides our way via the 'craziest election season ever!'" says GoldenEagle. "And when election results were predicted back then, I was blown away!
In the book IF I WERE THE PRESIDENT'S DOG! the reader has a front row seat into the mind of Rocko's pup-culture reverie! You are amused by his comedic imagination as he shares his personal thoughts and heart-felt dreams of becoming the first chihuahua to ever reside in the White House!  
As Rocko campaigns to be dubbed as the next DOTUS, he introduces you to his presidential amigos, UK Royals, pop-culture events, international peace solutions, presidential canine facts, celebrity friends, fashion perks, red carpet appearances, and a presidential prediction in the Rose Garden!  
Rocko's 'big dreaming' and winning attitude demonstrates his credo: "It's not the size of the dog in the dream, it's the size of the dream in the dog!"
Hunter, Cherokee Skye, Keagan, and Zyan Cunningham and Gabriella Nedelykovic wanted to share their love of reading and writing with other children. The Fabulous Bookwormzillas, Inc. a 501(c)(3) Children's Literary Arts/Writing Collaborative was then formed to facilitate their love of being ambassadors of literary cheer! 

  • They will write, publish, read and gift their books primarily to Children's Hospitals, and diverse community events. 
Tiara Starr English-Cunningham RN, (a pediatric nurse) and a parent/VP staff member is very pleased with the group's decision.
Due to the present turbulent political climate, Rocko wants to make the following statement:
"When adults become so emphatically engaged in their own particular causes, they sometime lose their sense of awareness and become self-serving; not understanding the unintended consequences of their words and actions. As a result, children and animals are inadvertently affected by the release of such tremendous negative energy! Hopefully, IF I WERE THE PRESIDENT'S DOG! will bring bi-partisan levity and a different perspective to the present political environment!
-Rocko-
DOTUS
>> The book trailer can be watched here: vimeo.com/182015970 <<

SOURCE: The Fabulous Bookwormzillas

Why Watching Westworld's Robots Should Make Us Question Ourselves

by

 By Tony Prescott, University of Sheffield

For a sci-fi fan like me, fascinated by the nature of human intelligence and the possibility of building life-like robots, it’s always interesting to find a new angle on these questions. As a re-imagining of the original 1970s science fiction film set in a cowboy-themed, hyper-real adult theme park populated by robots that look and act like people, Westworld does not disappoint.

Westworld challenges us to consider the difference between being human and being a robot. From the beginning of this new serialisation on HBO we are confronted with scenes of graphic human-on-robot violence. But the robots in Westworld have more than just human-like physical bodies, they display emotion including extreme pain, they see and recognise each other’s suffering, they bleed and even die. What makes this acceptable, at least within Westworld’s narrative, is that they are just extremely life-like human simulations; while their behaviour is realistically automated, there is “nobody home”.
But from the start, this notion that a machine of such complexity is still merely a machine is undermined by constant reminders that they are also so much like us. The disturbing message, echoing that of previous sci-fi classics such as Blade Runner and AI, is that machines could one day be so close to human as to be indistinguishable – not just in intellect and appearance, but also in moral terms.

At the same time, by presenting an alternate view of the human condition through the technological mirror of life-like robots, Westworld causes us to reflect that we are perhaps also just sophisticated machines, albeit of a biological kind – an idea that has been forcefully argued by the philosopher Daniel Dennett.

The unfortunate robots in Westworld have, at least initially, no insight into their existential plight. They enter into each new day programmed with enthusiasm and hope, oblivious to its pre-scripted violence and tragedy. We may pity these automatons their fate – but how closely does this blinkered ignorance, belief in convenient fictions, and misguided presumption of agency resemble our own human predicament?

Westworld arrives at a time when people are already worried about the real-world impact of advances in robotics and artificial intelligence. Physicist Stephen Hawking and technologist Elon Musk are among the powerful and respected voices to have expressed concern about allowing the AI genie to escape the bottle. Westworld’s contribution to the expanding canon of science fiction dystopias will do nothing to quell such fears. Channelling Shakespeare’s King Lear, a malfunctioning robot warns us in chilling terms: “I shall have such revenges on you both. The things I will do, what they are, yet I know not. But they will be the terrors of the Earth.”

But against these voices are other distinguished experts trying to quell the panic. For Noam Chomsky, the intellectual godfather of modern AI, all talk of matching human intelligence in the foreseeable future remains fiction, not science. One of the world’s best-known roboticists, Rodney Brooks has called on us to relax: AI is just a tool, not a threat.
As a neuroscientist and roboticist, I agree that we are far from being able to replicate human intelligence in robot form. Our current systems are too simple, probably by several orders of magnitude. Building human-level AI is extremely hard; as Brooks says, we are just at the beginning of a very long road. But I see the path along which we are developing AI as one of symbiosis, in which we can use robots to benefit society and exploit advances in artificial intelligence to boost our own biological intelligence.

More than just a tool
Nevertheless, in recent years the robots and AI are “just tools” line of argument has begun to frustrate me. Partly because it has failed to calm the disquiet around AI, and partly because there are good reasons why these technologies are different from others in the past.

Even if robots are just tools, people will see them as more than that. It seems natural for people to respond to robots – even some of the more simple, non-human robots we have today – as though they have goals and intentions. It may be an innate tendency of our profoundly social human minds to see entities that act intelligently in this way. More importantly, people may see robots as having psychological properties such as the ability to experience suffering.

Things will only get more complicated as robots look more life-like. Juxi
It may be difficult to persuade them to see otherwise, particularly if we continue to make robots more life-like. If so, we may have to adapt our ethical frameworks to take this into account. For instance, we might consider violence towards a robot as wrong, even though the suffering is imagined rather than real. Indeed, faced with violence towards a robot some people show this sort of ethical response spontaneously. We will have to deal with these issues as we learn to live with robots.

As AI and robot technology becomes more complex, robots may come to have interesting psychological properties that make them more than just tools. The fictional robots of Westworld are clearly in this category, but already real robots are being developed that have artificial drives and motivations, that are aware of their own bodies as distinct from the rest of the world, that are equipped with internal models of themselves and others as social entities, and that are able to think about their own past and future.

These are not properties that we find in drills and screwdrivers. They are embryonic psychological capacities that, so far, have only been found in living, sentient entities such as humans and animals. Stories such as Westworld remind us that as we progress toward ever more sophisticated AI, we should consider that this path might lead us both to machines that are more like us, and to seeing ourselves as more like machines.
The Conversation

About Today's Contributor:
Tony Prescott, Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience and Director of the Sheffield Centre for Robotics, University of Sheffield


This article was originally published on The Conversation

1 October 2016

Forests Ontario and Del Ridge Homes Continue Partnership to Restore Canada's Forests

by
GreenLife Del Ridge Homes, Forests Ontario, City of Markham, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and 45 community volunteers combined efforts to plant 1800 trees at Milne Dam Conservation Park. (CNW Group/Forests Ontario)
This Saturday, Forests Ontario, GreenLife Del Ridge Homes, the City of Markham, and 45 volunteers from the community came together at Milne Dam Conservation Park to plant 1800 trees. We were honoured to be joined by Mayor Frank Scarpitti of Markham who thanked everyone for the day's efforts.
The planting brought a close to a successful planting season in which Forests Ontario and GreenLife Del Ridge Homes worked together to plant 80,000 trees across Ontario.
These plantings are part of the GreenLife Woods initiative, launched by Forests Ontario and GreenLife Del Ridge Homes in April. GreenLife Woods will support the planting of 140,000 trees on behalf of GreenLife East Markham I and II, the latest Net Zero condominium development from GreenLife Del Ridge Homes.
GreenLife East Markham integrates technical innovations to produce more energy than it consumes, including onsite electricity generation through wind and solar sources. 
GreenLife Woods further complements GreenLife Del Ridge Homes' commitment to eco-friendly building.
"Del Ridge has shown incredible enthusiasm and commitment to this initiative," says Rob Keen, CEO of Forests Ontario. "Del Ridge is not just offsetting the impact of their new development, but contributing to a network of healthy forests that will serve as a major asset in addressing the challenge of climate change."
Dave de Sylva of GreenLife Del Ridge Homes notes, "To our knowledge, we are the first builder in Canada or even in North America to take such a proactive step to build responsibly. We are committed to the environment and we hope that GreenLife Woods will inspire other builders to join us and partner with organizations like Forests Ontario to secure the long term health of our natural ecosystems."
Forests Ontario would like to thank all the volunteers who joined us at Milne Dam Conservation Park and extends our gratitude to GreenLife Del Ridge Homes for their continued support of thriving forests across Canada. Forests Ontario and Del Ridge Homes look forward to continuing our partnership to restore Canada's forests in 2017.


30 September 2016

Anti-Trump TV Ad Claims Women Need to Drug Themselves in Order to Vote for Donald Trump

by
TV ad called "Republixan" (PRNewsFoto/Yakety-Yak PAC)
An anti-Trump Super PAC plans to air a 30-second TV ad called "Republixan" in selected battleground states. The ad was broadcast on CNN and Fox News during the Republican convention.
Yakety-Yak PAC, a newly formed, Washington, DC-based Super PAC that produced the ad, is targeting Republican women.
The ad is a parody of pharmaceutical commercials and urges Republican women to talk with their doctor about taking a drug called Republixan -- "a little red pill that relieves the stress, guilt and shame associated with voting for Donald Trump."
According to the PAC's director, Deno Seder"No rational, thinking woman would vote for Donald Trump unless she was drugged."
The ad's producer, Jeorge Seder, remarked, "This is a great ad, believe me, a great ad. An incredible ad. We're going to win so many voters, we're gonna get tired of winning, believe me. It'll make Trump start bleeding from his whatever."
In the ad, a narrator warns of harmful side effects such as "tax cuts for the rich; reduced benefits for women, veterans and minorities; cuts in Medicare and Medicaid; cuts in funding for education; a possible war with Iranand other side effects hazardous to the health of our nation."
This ad and other anti-Trump ads can be seen at www.yakety-yakpac.com.


More Donald Trump Related Stories:
Click here for more Donald Trump related stories...

27 September 2016

After 18 Years Of Near-Silence, Warren Beatty Opens Up In This Month's Issue Of AARP The Magazine

by
Warren Beatty on AARP The Magazine October/November 2016 Cover Issue
AARP The Magazine October/November 2016 Cover Issue (PRNewsFoto/AARP)
For much of the past two decades, Warren Beatty has kept himself out of the public eye. In an exclusive interview with AARP The Magazine (ATM), Beatty gives us a peek into what he's been doing these past years, and opens up about nearly every aspect of his life — from his humble beginnings to his reputation as a sex symbol on and off screen to his enduring marriage to Annette Bening.
The stories Beatty tells reveal the man he is today: a Hollywood playboy transformed into a dedicated family man...who's now re-entering the limelight as co-star, director, producer, and writer of the new romantic comedy-drama Rules Don't Apply, in which he plays Howard Hughes
Though Beatty and Hughes never met, some similarities are striking. Like Hughes, Beatty has charm, curiosity, and a self-confessed control-freak nature. And, like Hughes, Beatty met with success at a young age.
Beatty's success began with his first film role in 1961 when he co-starred with Natalie Wood in Splendor in the Grass. He's been a movie star ever since. Forty years in the movie industry have granted him the status of legend, with lead roles in such classics as Bonnie and ClydeShampoo, Dick Tracy, and Bugsy, and writer-actor-director credits for RedsHeaven Can Waitand Bulworth
Beatty may have left the limelight for a time, but as this interview shows, his star power hasn't dimmed. 
The following are excerpts from the October/November issue of the AARP The Magazine cover story featuring Warren Beatty, available in homes starting October 1st and available online now at aarp.org/magazine.

On his dating history in Hollywood
He insists there is wild hyperbole in his reputation as a man-slut and disputes the mathematics of the 12,775 women one of his biographers, Peter Biskind, has claimed for him. "Think about it, sleeping with 12,775 people," he says, not without a certain amount of glee. "That would mean not just that there were multiple people a day, but that there was no repetition."
So let's say for the sake of argument it wasn't 12,775. Let's say it was a few hundred…and why is it nobody seems mad at him…everyone wants to know the secret of bedding half of Hollywood and not having them want you dead. 
Beatty just blinks at me innocently, with a kind of guileless sincerity. "Look, I never misled anyone," he says. "And…and I'm a nice guy."
On maintaining an illusion of beauty and success in Hollywood
"You're participating in a profession that, for obvious reasons, needs to heighten elements of sexuality," especially "if you delay marriage for a long time."
He had often been involved with his leading ladies, but this was not the case when he worked with Bening in Bugsy. "During the making of the movie, there was no suggestion as to a future relationship," Beatty says. "I mean, there was in my head, but otherwise, no.
When filming started, he told her, "You don't have to worry about me." And she said, "Well, I didn't ask."
On his marriage of 24 years to Annette Bening
He sees a clear demarcation in his life – BA and AA, Before Annette and After Annette... "I waited a long time to be married," he continues. "When you don't get married until you're 54…well, as Arthur Miller said, 'it comes with the territory.'" He refers to a line in the playwright's Death of a Salesman. "A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory."
Annette Bening on her husband, Warren Beatty
"There's always a part of what he's doing that's private," Bening says, "but we talk a lot about everything. Some people pay lip service to listening to others and they're really not listening. He does. He loves actors, and while he's shooting he's always interested in what people are saying. He's a terrific audience."
Annette Bening on having Beatty around the house
After having him at home for almost two decades, it must have been difficult to have him focused on something other than their family. "Are you kidding?" she says, laughing. "I was like, 'I am ready to kill you. Just make the movie, please, please, please.' But like other people at his level of talent, he does it when he's ready. And no one's saying anything made a difference, including me."
His thoughts on becoming an actor
Beatty insists that for a long time, "I resisted knowing I was interested in acting. I guess the word you'd use would be 'shy.' I preferred sports."
On his film making process
"I have often compared making a movie to vomiting," Beatty says. "I don't like to vomit. But there are times I think, Maybe I'll just feel better if I go ahead and throw upSo then I make the movie."
On a Dick Tracy sequel
"I liked the original very much, and it was very profitable," he says. "Jeffrey Katzenberg once asked me to do a sequel. At the time, I thought sequels were beneath me. Now I realize how far below sequels I am."
On being a famous father
Being an older father doesn't seem to be an issue for him. Being a famous father does: "It's a burden to be the child of not only one famous parent, but two."
Beatty on the idea of living on through his children
"DNA becomes more relevant as we get older," he says. His four children – Stephen, 24 (who has cofounded Vetch, a poetry journal for transgender writers); Benjamin 22, an actor; Isabel, 19; and Ella, 16 – are "by far the best thing that happened to me."
"I always knew I wanted to have children," Beatty says. "I wanted to do it well, and I wanted to do it with someone who felt the same way."
Beatty on hobbies
"You know you're old when you're asked, 'do you have hobbies?'" he says, smiling. "No. It's a luxury to spend time with your family. And I was always mulling projects."     
Warren Beatty as Dick Tracy (1990)
Warren Beatty as Dick Tracy (1990)

About AARP The Magazine 
With nearly 36 million readers, AARP The Magazine is the world's largest circulation magazine and the definitive lifestyle publication for Americans 50+. 

AARP The Magazine delivers comprehensive content through health and fitness features, financial guidance, consumer interest information and tips, celebrity interviews, and book and movie reviews. 
AARP The Magazine was founded in 1958 and is published bimonthly in print and continually online. 
Learn more at aarp.org/magazine. Twitter: twitter.com/AARP

About AARP 
AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, with a membership of nearly 38 million that helps people turn their goals and dreams into 'Real Possibilities' by changing the way America defines aging. 
With staffed offices in all 50 states, the District of ColumbiaPuerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, AARP works to strengthen communities and promote the issues that matter most to families such as healthcare security, financial security and personal fulfillment. AARP also advocates for individuals in the marketplace by selecting products and services of high quality and value to carry the AARP name. 
As a trusted source for news and information, AARP produces the world's largest circulation magazine, AARP The Magazine and AARP Bulletin

AARP does not endorse candidates for public office or make contributions to political campaigns or candidates. .

SOURCE: AARP


You Might Also Like