Don't freak out about the fiscal cliff, financial experts say

11 hrs.

Deborah Caldwell , CNBC.com

Eleanor Blayney is telling her clients not to freak out about the fiscal cliff. "We're not talking about the failure of the banking system ?we're not talking about fraud or a housing crisis," said Blayney, president of Directions for Women and consumer advocate for the professional Certified Financial Planner Board.

"I'm actually telling people they should worry about the (Dec. 21) Mayan new year if they really want to worry about something scary," she said.

Blayney said she reminds clients that the dynamics of today's financial environment are nowhere near as dire as the 2008 financial crisis. "That did seem to be the end of civilization as we know it," she said.

The fiscal cliff crisis, she said, is more like the rollercoaster of August 2011, when the United States lost its AAA rating. "That was very short-term. And we've gone on and had a relatively strong equity performance this year," she said.

Blayney is a lot more sanguine ? and light-hearted -- than many financial experts. But make no mistake, the fiscal cliff-- the package of tax hikes and deep spending cuts set to kick in automatically on Jan. 1 if Congress can't reach a deal -- will almost definitely impact you.The question is how much, and how can you minimize damage to your finances? We asked financial advisers for their advice. Here are the questions they're sifting through with their clients.

Will my taxes go up?
Probably. And they may go up a lot.

"We're looking at higher tax rates for a number of years," said Michael Amato, president of Independent Tax and Financial Planners in Holland, Pa. "People don't realize that rates were once much higher than they are today."

From the 1950s to the 1960s, he said, the rate on the highest earners was 90 percent. From the late 1960s the early 1980s, the highest rate was 70 percent.The rate didn't lower to 50 percent until the late 1980s. Starting in the early 1990s, the rate dropped to 39.6 percent.

Today, the top tax rate is 35 percent ? but it's probably going up to 39.6 percent next year for the highest earners. And if you are married and filing jointly ($200,000 for single filers) and your income is over $250,000, you may be looking at additional taxes.

First, 0.9 percent of your wages above $250,000 will go toward an extra Medicare tax. Second, to the extent your income is above $250,000, you may also pay an additional 3.8 percent for unearned income such as interest, dividends and capital gains.

Which means that if you earn more than $250,000, and you have interest and dividend income, you will be paying 43.4 percent. (The rate is derived this way: If you are in the 39.6 percent tax bracket and your income is above $250,000, you'll also pay the 3.8 percent tax on interest, dividends, and capital gains.)

You should pay attention to capital gains because those are going to be taxed quite a bit higher. This year, if you sell a stock, your capital gains tax rate is 15 percent. Next year you'll probably pay 20 percent ? and if you are subject to the 3.8 percent tax, you could be paying as high as 23.8 percent.

"I think we're locked into the 20 percent," Amato said.

How can I shelter income to keep my tax bracket lower?
Amato suggested that if you expect a bonus, take it in 2012, not 2013. In the old days, advisers always told clients to defer income. But now, the tax rate on a bonus is probably discounted from what it will be next year. "The blue light special is on, and it may be a sale that's going away," he said.

You also may want to wait until Jan. 1 to make charitable contributions, since those deductions will reduce your taxable income in 2013. If you have deductible expenses such as your real estate taxes or the cost of buying a business computer, wait until 2013. But be careful: there is some discussion about capping certain deductions.

You should also increase your savings through your retirement plans.

"You'll immediately reduce your pretax income," said Joel Redmond, a financial planner and vice president at Key Private Bank in Syracuse."So if conditions are lousy to earn and spend, you can save and defer the income."

Redmond also suggested shifting investments to tax-free bonds if you have a portfolio of dividend-paying bonds. "Municipal bonds are becoming more attractive because of the tax threat," Redmond said.

Another somewhat trickier move, Redmond said, is to start a business. "Clever people might consider starting a business because of the increased benefit in reducing the amount of income subject to tax," he said.

He also suggested that higher earners, such as physicians, create defined benefit plans for themselves or for their business, which could potentially shelter $250,000 annually. Redmond said this is a complicated and expensive move that requires an actuary. "Even if it takes you four months to set it up, it would save on the second half of next year's income, and that's probably worth it for some people," Redmond said.

So what can I do to prepare?
First of all, Amato said, "Don't make the tax tail wag the investment dog." In other words, don't freak out and move your investments around just because you're worried about higher taxes.

"From an investment perspective, we're not changing people's portfolios just because there may be a tough time in the near future," he said.

That said, he said there are moves you can make in the next couple weeks to get ready.

Know that tax rates across the board could be higher. Be aware that certain dividend income could be taxed at a higher rate, from 15 percent to as high as 39.6 plus 3.8 percent. Amato advised talking to your broker about how to handle your dividend-oriented stocks and mutual funds because the dividends will be taxed at a higher rate.

You might want to talk to your broker about buying municipal bonds as an investment if you expect your tax rate is increasing to around 40 percent because the after-tax return for municipal bonds may be more favorable.

You can also convert a traditional IRA to a Roth IRA this month, Amato said. You'll be able to accelerate the income now if you think the discounted tax rate of today will be better than your expected tax rate at retirement.

"With the prospect of higher tax rates, Roth IRAs can provide an excellent shelter from taxes in the future," Amato said.

Amato is a fan of Roth IRAs because all the potential future growth from a Roth is sheltered from taxation; in addition, a Roth can be inherited and the future growth can go to heirs without incometaxation. It's also a form of tax diversification at retirement, Amato said, because a retiree can take a chunk of money out of a Roth (which is untaxed) and a chunk of money out of a traditional IRA (which is taxed) to take advantage of his or her tax position in a particular year.

If you own a business, you can accelerate billings and slow down expenses. Don't pay any unnecessary expenses until January.

Before the gift and estate tax exclusion decreases in 2013, you can gift up to $5 million this year. You can also set up a trust ? though that takes time and legal assistance. But if you have $25 million or more, the time and trouble is worth it from a tax perspective, according to Redmond. But you should talk to a competent estate planner before you take any action.

CNBC: Next Battle on the 'Cliff's' Edge: Estate Taxes

Will the fiscal cliff impact my retirement?
"People are reacting like they should move their whole retirement account into cash," Blayney said. "It's war fatigue, especially for those nearing retirement because 2008 took the stuffing out of people. They ran and didn't come back and didn't recover."

Every financial planner said that the best thing you can do ? for the near and longer-term future ? is contribute more to your retirement funds.

"I've had a lot of people increasing the amount they are contributing to their 401(k) in 2013 as a way to get their income under $250,000 (or $200,000 for singles)," Amato said.

The extra money socked away in savings reduces taxable income when tax rates likely go up next year, and has the added bonus of increasing the amount you have available for retirement.

Amato said clients are also funding their IRAs, 403(b)s and annuities to shelter income in the future.

How will the economy react?
If the cliff isn't quickly resolved, the country may slip into recession. So Blayney said she is suggesting clients make sure they have an emergency fund to cushion them if they lose their job. She's also recommending clients polish their resumes, particularly if they have any fear of job loss.

"This is like having soup in the pantry," she said.

If the economy goes into a recession, stocks may take a beating ? which is another reason to consider selling stocks.

But she said that's not a hard and fast piece of advice. Why?

"There is so much of a potential for a huge rally in stocks if some of this gets sorted out because corporations have huge amounts of cash, and individuals have more cash than is appropriate for their financial planning," Blayney said. "So if there is some resolution, we have just as big a possible upside in stocks if people unlock some of the stuff they've buried under the mattress."

Source: http://www.nbcnews.com/business/dont-freak-out-about-fiscal-cliff-financial-experts-say-1C7529988

neville george lucas numerology the game new hampshire primary hue jackson coachella 2012 line up

Video: Hugh Jackman: We sang 12 hours a day for ?Les Mis?

Sorry, Readability was unable to parse this page for content.

Source: http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50144624/

bankofamerica revolution rosh hashanah rosh hashanah boardwalk empire iOS 6 Release Date Canelo Alvarez

Porcupine Quills Inspire Better Needles

The barbs on porcupine quill tips let them penetrate flesh with less force and hold on with more force than a barbless needle. Sophie Bushwick reports.

More 60-Second Science

Subscribe via iTunes

Porcupines sport some 30,000 quills, which easily penetrate flesh?and then stay stuck in it. Now, scientists have analyzed the shape of individual quills to discover what makes them so effective?and how we can harness their power for medical devices. The study is in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. [Woo Kyung Cho et al, Microstructured barbs on the North American porcupine quill enable easy tissue penetration and difficult removal]

The black tip of each quill features backward-facing barbs. These barbs are tiny: a row of two hundred of them would be short of an inch long. The barbs help a quill penetrate flesh more easily than a hypodermic needle of about the same diameter, and using only half the force required to push a barb-free quill through tissue. Once the quill is in, the barbs then greatly increase what force would be needed to pull it back out again.

The researchers think understanding porcupine quill properties can help them make less painful needles, because of the lower force needed for penetration. Also stickier adhesives, because of the greater force needed for removal. And the study reminds us that you really, really don't want to mess with a porcupine.

?Sophie Bushwick

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast]

Source: http://rss.sciam.com/click.phdo?i=41fcc160ef1c05ff024ae7369045e025

Microsoft Tropical Storm Isaac amber portwood Phyllis Diller Darla Moore newsweek Tony Scott

Fiscal cliff talks picking up pace

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House and House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner's office held more negotiations on Monday on ways to break the stalemate over the "fiscal cliff," steep tax hikes and budget cuts set to start kicking in next month.

Neither side gave any public signs that they were ready to give ground. And a House Republican leadership aide said, "There is no deal or anything like it" on resolving fiscal cliff issues.

On Capitol Hill, however, there were indications that preparations were under way for quick legislative consideration of a deal if one is reached soon.

The most discussed scenario - which remains nothing more substantial than that - has Democrats getting the tax increases on high earners they favor in exchange for significant concessions that would help reduce the costs of Medicare, the government healthcare program for seniors.

Democrats and Republicans next year would also work together on comprehensive tax reform aimed at bringing in more revenues to the government, in part by eliminating some tax breaks.

As similar deficit reduction talks between Boehner and President Barack Obama in 2011 showed, negotiations that seem promising one day can fall apart the next.

And if Obama and Boehner were to tentatively agree on such a package, the two would have to sell the plan to Democratic and Republican lawmakers in the Senate and House.

According to one senior Democratic aide, the two sides also are talking about including an increase in U.S. borrowing authority, which Obama wants before Congress wraps up for the year.

Without such authority, the Treasury is likely to hit its $16.4 trillion borrowing limit by year's end and run out of creative steps to stave off default as soon as mid-February.

Another sign of potential progress was a conciliatory opinion article published late Monday in The Wall Street Journal by Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio.

Portman, a former top budget official in the administration of President George W. Bush, wrote that while he disagrees with Obama's desire to raise taxes on high earners, "negotiations require give and take."

Portman urged Obama to offer up proposals to cut entitlements such as Medicare and reform the tax code, suggesting that if he did, Republicans would be "eager to work with him" to avert the cliff.

Portman joins a growing chorus of Republicans, particularly in the Senate, who have signaled flexibility.

The talks gained urgency after Republican Boehner met at the White House with Obama on Sunday, raising hopes of progress in averting the cliff.

But while striking a more conciliatory tone, both sides kept to a familiar public script in the weeks-long standoff. Obama renewed his call for higher tax rates for the richest Americans, which most Republicans oppose, while Republican leaders urged Obama to submit a new offer with specific spending cuts he would back.

Economists say going over the fiscal cliff could throw the U.S. economy back into a recession.

On a road trip to Michigan to drum up support for his stance, Obama said he was willing to compromise on some things but not on his demand that Republicans support an increase in tax rates for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans.

"What you need is a package that keeps taxes where they are for middle-class families, we make some tough spending cuts on things that we don't need, and then we ask the wealthiest Americans to pay a slightly higher tax rate, and that's a principle I won't compromise on," Obama said during a visit to an auto plant in Redford, Michigan.

Early on Monday, Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said Republicans were still waiting for the president to make a new offer that identifies the spending cuts he will make in the deficit-reduction negotiations.

"The Republican offer made last week remains the Republican offer," Steel said, adding the two sides were holding staff-level talks on Monday.

Boehner and the House Republican leadership submitted their terms for a deal to the White House last week, after Obama presented his opening proposal. Both sides seek to cut budget deficits by more than $4 trillion over the next 10 years but differ drastically on how to get there.

Boehner and Republicans oppose letting any tax rates increase and prefer to find new revenues by closing loopholes and limiting deductions. Republicans also want deeper spending cuts than Obama has offered in entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid, the healthcare program for the poor and disabled.

Democrats have insisted that tax rates for the richest must be nailed down before negotiating further on how to proceed with tax reform efforts or new spending cuts in entitlement programs.

'A DEAL IS POSSIBLE'

"I can only say that the president believes that a deal is possible," White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters on the flight to Michigan. "But it requires acceptance and acknowledgement in a concrete way by Republicans that the top 2 percent will see an increase in their rates."

Polling shows most Americans would blame Republicans if the country goes over the cliff, and pressure has been building from some Republicans for Boehner to get an agreement quickly, even if it means tax hikes on the wealthiest.

U.S. stocks edged higher on Monday but moves remained muted as investors looked for any signs of movement on the fiscal cliff front.

The S&P 500 index has nearly retraced the 5.3 percent slide it suffered in the first seven sessions after the November 6 presidential election.

"The sentiment has definitely changed," said Andrew Wilkinson, chief economic strategist at Miller Tabak & Co in New York. "The market has become somewhat desensitized to headlines out of Washington because the fear of the economy hitting a wall in 2013 if we don't get a deal done has diminished."

(Additional reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa, Steve Holland, Jeff Mason, Thomas Ferraro, Susan Heavey and Franklin Paul; Writing by John Whitesides; Editing by Alistair Bell and Eric Walsh)

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/neither-side-giving-ground-u-fiscal-cliff-talks-000625082--business.html

seabiscuit dingo nba all star weekend malin akerman jeff carter chomp national enquirer

Gay weddings: Will they be legal in June?

The Supreme Court on Friday set in motion its constitutional machinery on the issue of same-sex marriage, probably producing a result in June, the most popular month for weddings. Friday thus marked a bold beginning, especially in the face of the reality that the court could have chosen to stay away from the issue altogether, but deliberately chose not to do so.

350px-Supreme_Court_US_2010But the path from this beginning to the June outcome will be, for the justices, more like finding their way through a garden maze: the end at times will seem quite elusive. And, in this instance, the end might not be a clearly defined one: either that gay weddings will be made legal nationwide, or that states will remain free to ban them if that is their choice.

Between now and one of those clear results, there is a daunting series of turns.? Too much can be made of that fact, though, and that would take away from the historic importance of what the court has begun. Aside from a fleeting look 40 years ago at a legally forlorn plea to allow a Minnesota gay couple to marry, the court until now had never seriously pondered the question.

In the lawyers? coming written arguments, and in the arguments that will unfold in the court?s chamber in March, there will be serious and even profound give-and-take about whether same-sex marriage is or is not constitutionally protected. That is what will hold the attention of most of the public: that?s the issue that the people have been debating for at least a generation, and on which the country?s attitude may be changing, as recent election gains for same-sex marriage have shown after a string of defeats at the polls in all parts of the country.

The court thus will enter the national conversation, and do so at the most fundamental level: What does America?s founding and enduring charter say, or at least what can it be interpreted to mean, on this issue? Those core questions had been laid before the court by the lawyers, and the court said Friday it would consider them.

Still, it is well to remember that what are before the court are court cases, not political conversations or the neighbor?s comments, and those cases have to play out under rules and procedures that are, in fact, constitutionally required.

And when the justices announced their first reaction to the new cases, half of what their orders said told the lawyers to come prepared to argue that the ultimate question is beyond the justices? reach, that it may not have the authority to rule now. To some, that may seem quite baffling: a court this powerful, with almost complete discretion about what it will decide, might not be able to decide at all?

The answer can be found in these words of the Constitution?s Article III: ?The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases?(and) Controversies?? From President George Washington?s time, when the Supreme Court advised him that the court has no power to give advisory opinions, those words have been understood to mean that the justices can only rule on real, live legal controversies, with two sides that have what the Supreme Court has called ?a direct stake? in the dispute.

The theory behind it is that the meaning of law will develop better in a system of courtly confrontation, what lawyers call an ?adversarial? process. With something real at stake, rather than a merely abstract question, genuine law will get made by the courts.

Here is why that comes into play in the same-sex marriage cases that the court will be reviewing: The justices are not sure that the parties bringing the cases to them have ?a direct stake? in the outcome. They surely have an interest, but is that enough?

In the California case, the constitutionality of the state?s ?Proposition 8? withdrawal of the right of gays and lesbians to marry was an issue taken to the court by the sponsors of that ballot measure.

In agreeing to take on that plea, the court?s order told lawyers to add to what they say on the constitutional issue their competing views on whether referenda sponsors can show that they will suffer legal harm if their measure is struck down, and that a victory in court will actually remedy that harm. The court, in a 1997 decision, raised ?grave doubt? that sponsors can be in court to defend their measure.

Thus, if the sponsors are not the right party to raise the constitutional issue, there is no one in court to defend ?Proposition 8,? so the court can?t decide it.

In the separate federal lawsuit, the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act?s limitation of marital benefits to unions of a man and a woman was a question taken to the court by the Obama administration (the executive branch) and by the Republican leaders of the House of Representatives. The executive branch no longer defends the act, and so the GOP leaders of the House have taken up that cause.

In agreeing to take on that case, the justices said they wanted to hear arguments on whether they can decide the case at the request of the executive branch, because it won what it sought in a lower court decision striking down the marriage benefits restriction.? And they called for arguments on whether the House Republican leaders have a direct stake that justified their coming to court to defend the act.

If neither the government nor the lawmakers are properly before the court, it would seem, that particular DOMA case could be out of judicial reach.

The fact that the justices asked those up-front questions does not mean, of course, that they will rule in the end that they cannot rule. But it does set the stage for an inquiry that is likely to say something of real importance about judicial power under Article III.

At some point, it remains a strong likelihood that there will be same-sex marriage cases that, in fact, the court can decide. That just may not be in the term that runs through June. But, in the meantime, there will have been a kind of judicial seminar on the constitutional issues surrounding same-sex marriage, contributing to the national dialogue.

Lyle Denniston is the National Constitution Center?s Adviser on Constitutional Literacy. He has reported on the Supreme Court for 54 years, currently covering it for SCOTUSblog, an online clearinghouse of information about the Supreme Court?s work.

Recent Constitution Daily Stories

Court to rule on same-sex marriage: What?s at stake
Developing: Supreme Court will consider same-sex marriage cases
Constitution Check: Will the politics of 2012 influence the constitutionality of gay marriage?

Also Read

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/gay-weddings-legal-june-151410747--politics.html

jerry angelo work it amy chua iowa gop meteor shower tonight annie oakley edc

Deadline 'Moguls Panel': Video & Transcript - Deadline.com

Deadline Hollywood?s 2nd annual event?THE CONTENDERS?about the movie awards season was held November 10th at LA?s Landmark Theatre for invited Academy Of Motion Picture Arts & Science and Guild voters. Watch the?video of its marquee event: The ?Deadline Moguls Panel??composed of Warner Bros? Jeff Robinov, Twentieth Century Fox?s Jim Gianopulos, Sony Pictures Entertainment?s Amy Pascal, Paramount?s Rob Moore, Universal?s Adam Fogelson, Summit/Lionsgate?s Rob Friedman, and DreamWorks? Stacey Snider who all discussed the challenges of this movie awards season. It was an insightful and ?fascinating discussion moderated by Deadline Awards Columnist Pete Hammond and Film/NY Editor Mike Fleming.?A?transcript follows the video below:

Transcript:??Deadline Moguls Panel? at The Contenders?November 10th:

DEADLINE?S PETE HAMMOND: We have an incredible panel once again this year:?the heads of the studios, the distributors, that are very involved in this?year?s Oscar race and turning out the movies that you see.?So let me introduce them here. To my right is?Chairman and CEO of Twentieth Century Fox Jim Gianopulos. To his right,?the Vice Chairman of Paramount Pictures Rob Moore.?The President of the Warner Bros Picture?Group [and one of the triumvirate making up the Warner Bros Office Of The President]?Jeff Robinov. Having a very good?weekend with the new James Bond, the Chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment?Amy Pascal. The Chairman of Universal Pictures, Adam Fogelson. The Co-Chairman?of the Lionsgate Motion Pictures Group, Rob Friedman. And partner & Co-Chairman?& CEO of DreamWorks Studios, Stacey Snider. And my colleague Mike Fleming. I?do want to say that Harvey Weinstein, who was listed, could not be here due to?personal family matters at the last minute.?[Because] he?s not here, I?ll feel free to?start with this question: how are you moguls going to make sure that Harvey?doesn?t make it three-in-a-row this year? OK, actually before we start,?Harvey did write a note, of course, so let me read this:

?I unfortunately couldn?t make it today to The Contenders?event as I have a family emergency back in New York. Many people have asked ?What?is the secret to an awards campaign?? and the answer is always the same: Seeing?the movies themselves. It is those behind, in front, and around the camera who?are the most important part of this process and it is my job to make sure that?as many voters as possible see these films in a theater and, of course, if they?can send in three or four ballots for my movies that doesn?t hurt.?Congratulations to all of today?s contenders and my fellow panelists?including Amy, Stacey, Jim, Adam, Jeff and the Robs. And once again I apologize?for not being able to make it. There?s nothing I?d rather be discussing, but?the only contenders I won?t take on when they put up a fight are my four?daughters.?

So, it?s an interesting question ? the indies have won the Best Picture Oscar in the last few years, not just The Weinstein Co, but Slumdog Millionaire and The Hurt Locker. (Rob Friedman?s right there). Is that a fair thing? The Academy changed the rules,?the playing field, to make 10 movies. And I think it was inspired by the fact?that The Dark Knight didn?t get a?nomination, and many people felt it should. You know, Amy, let me ask you [since]?you?re new to the panel this year: do you think that?s?fair?
AMY PASCAL: I have to go first?
HAMMOND: You?ve got a big James Bond movie out now. It?s gotten?superlative reviews, the kind of reviews that any Oscar-movie might get.?Will The Academy take it seriously? Do they?take big blockbusters seriously when it comes time for Oscars?
AMY PASCAL:?Well, I think?The Academy should take big blockbusters seriously. I think The Academy should?take any movie seriously. That is the best version of itself.?I think a movie like Argo that is the best version of itself ? Flight ? (those are the only two movies I?ve seen so far), they are?the best version of itself. And those?are genre films just like the James Bond movie. Just like Dark Knight. I think we all got in this business because of big?American movies that we fell in love with, not because of small indie?films. And I don?t think we should relegate the power that we have as?filmmakers and Academy members to the French, or the English, or the?indies.?This is what we do. We should?own it.

DEADLINE?S MIKE FLEMING: You mention Argo and you mention Flight. These?were two studio films that were made at a price that are working at the?box office and creating Oscar buzz. Do you guys consider these to be anomalies? Or maybe is this telling you something about making challenging adult films?and maybe this should be more of a studio priority?
ROB MOORE: Well, I think the big change that?s seen is the?flexibility between agents, studio, and talent. It used to be only indies got?that price break if you?re doing material that?s really challenging. Now?everybody understands. It doesn?t matter if you?re Warner Bros or Paramount or?Sony. That if the material is complicated risky material, then everyone has to?pitch in unfortunately. With us on Flight,?Bob Zemeckis and Denzel?were so inspired by the script they?were willing to do it for a different price and hope that the execution of that?script would be fantastic. But that is a dynamic that?s been changing. Where?everybody, if they have a great piece of material, make a different deal so?that the economics make sense.
STACEY SNIDER: I would add to that: while I?m thrilled about?the deals, and I hope that they don?t change, what?s encouraging is that there?s?box office to follow.?There really is an?adult audience out there ? an audience in general, one that?s interested in?serious provocative movies.

FLEMING: Rob [Moore], what you just mentioned. I thought The Fighter was a watershed film because?it was put together as a studio film. Then it was kicked to the curb because it?was too expensive. And it came back as a movie that was half or a third of the?price. And you still distributed the film. Is that going to happen more and?more for the studios?
ROB MOORE: Well, I think the opposite is happening now. Which is?people are willing to make that?accommodation where it?s once a studio film. The budget, as you said,?was?two, two and a half?times, what it ended up being made for. Once it was?independently financed, everyone was willing to change the model. Now I think?people also accept that studios have the ability to really engage with that?material and act like independents and?not be overly bureaucratic and not dictate to filmmakers. But if Bob Zemeckis?comes in and will make a movie at a price point, then you eventually give him?the creative freedom to make the movie that he wants to make. And that?s a?big?change that?s happened over the last couple?of years.

HAMMOND: Jim, you have a movie that?s coming out this month, The Life Of Pi, which is not a sure?thing obviously with what?s thought of as?box?office blockbusters or safe bets. But it?s an extraordinary?movie that has a chance to change the way we?look at the movie business. It?s so sophisticated.
JIM GIANOPULOS: Well, some movies will themselves to be.?This is a movie that?s gestated for 10 years.?Several filmmakers tried it, but then Ang Lee came aboard. Then there?comes a point where you say ?OK, there?s no way to make this movie. There?s no?way to do a CG tiger that dominates most of the film, that doesn?t cost you?enormous amounts of money. And do you really want to walk away from that?opportunity? So some movies just will themselves to be, and you?re part of the?process that sometimes enables it. We say, ?Let?s just go with it, and let?s see?what happens.? Unfortunately, a movie that?s that?execution dependent, inarguably, takes balls to?execute. But we?re proud to be part of it. But we couldn?t not make it.

HAMMOND: Jeff, what about you? Your slate is a mix of things.?Argo wasn?t an easy thing on?paper.?I don?t think you looked at this?and said, ?This movie is going to make $100 million.? Or maybe you did. You have?all these different kinds of movies: you have The Hobbit, The Dark Knight Rises, and you have Argo. What do you look for when you?re?putting out a slate? Do you know it?s going to be an Oscar movie or the best?quality movie no matter how it comes?
JEFF ROBINOV: We do it like everybody else here:?we respond?to the script, the complete package. Getting back to your original question, in?terms of where The Academy is at and how they?re looking at some of these?movies, what I think what?s missing is?great storytelling. It?s obviously great storytelling. But there?s a?change in the way that movies are being made, and technology is a big part of?it. To overlook a movie because of the technological aspect really doesn?t?give them credit.?You look at a movie?like Inception with its layered?storytelling, the performances, and having to also add in technical challenges. Or?what happened with you guys [Fox] on Avatar?isn?t really fair. It?s a new age of filmmaking, and new age of how movies are?being made.?And The Academy needs to?broaden its view of films that they?re analyzing and the complications involved?in the execution of that.
AMY PASCAL: Can I just say -?I would take what happened to him?[Jim Gianopulos] on Avatar.

HAMMOND: Would you rather have a movie that won Best Picture?and made $14M-$15M at the box office? Or would you rather have an Avatar that?s the biggest movie of all-time? What do you want on your resume?
JIM GIANOPULOS: You can?t have both??We?re happy with Avatar, surprised at the outcome of the movie. But what you want on?your resume is enabling great filmmakers and great films. So, whether they win?or by accident of fate or the nature in that year, there?ve been many years where great films or?great filmmakers and talent didn?t get it that year because it was someone else?s turn. Or it just worked out that way. But that doesn?t diminish the quality?of the work regardless what it did at the box office. In fact, all this?process ?- we?ll separate process and?purpose ? the process is arduous, complicated. It?s expensive, it?s long, it?s?a pain in the ass. But the purpose is to celebrate great film, film art, and?great filmmaking and to introduce people to those films who might not have otherwise?gone to them. Beasts Of The Southern Wild?is [a] small, little film which could easily get lost. But people started talking?about it.?Whatever happens at the?awards, more people become aware of them or any of the great films represented?up here. People do notice it, regardless of whether it wins.

FLEMING: I remember seeing The Dark Knight Rises on IMAX before it opened and saying to my?son, ?I?ve been doing this forever [and] it?s so nice to see when a fully realized?movie like this just knocks your socks off?. And, obviously, the tragedy happened?in Aurora and [npw] you don?t hear that much [Oscar] buzz about this movie. When people, I?would think, would be looking at it like the last Lord Of The Rings. What do you intend to do to make sure that?movie gets its due?
JEFF ROBINOV: We really believe in the movie, and obviously Chris?[Nolan] as a filmmaker, and have a more aggressive plan to reintroduce the movie?and go after it. It was incredibly well-reviewed. Obviously it?s a movie that?has a combination of great reviews and big box office. And, again, I think it?s?one of those things that falls victim to its genre and the technological?aspects of the movie. So our job is to really get out there ? talk about the?storytelling, the execution, the design, all the complications that made such a?movie.

HAMMOND: Let me ask about the major studios this year. I get?the feeling that, this year even more than in past years, that you?re very?energized about the Oscar race. You think that this is going to be a good year??Each one of you has a main horse and maybe some others. Jim, you have Life Of Pi for sure, and all the Fox?Searchlight films as well. Rob [Moore], you mentioned Flight which I think is definitely up The Academy?s alley. I think?we can see some stuff there. Jeff, you have a lot ? obviously, Argo. Amy, you have Zero Dark Thirty and other films. And?you Adam have Les Mis which?everyone is afraid to see because it might be really really good.?And Rob [Friedman], you have? an amazing?film The Impossible, Juan Antonio?Bayona?s film. Stacey, you have Lincoln.?I joked about in the beginning, about Harvey going for a three-peat, but are you?guys going to put a big campaign behind all of these? And more than what you?did in the past?
JEFF ROBINOV: First, we plan to kidnap Harvey??This is an exciting time for all of us. It?s great to have movies that?are being considered. And it?s great that they?re coming out of the studio?system.
ROB MOORE: I think the big change with studios, and certainly the?folks I?ve been in business while at Paramount, the cultures have changed at?the studios because of the changing economics. Filmmakers are getting more?comfortable.?You can have that same?level of independence and support from a major studio. But with the support?mechanism that the studio has to offer, that didn?t feel like this five years?ago, in terms of the freedom people could give you. With these changing?dynamics, folks are bringing in, and willing to do, more interesting material. I?think that?s why you see an interesting array of movies from the majors this?year is how things have changed.

HAMMOND: Amy, you are shaking your head.
AMY PASCAL: I?ll be honest with you. Wow, I?was just going to?say that it?s incredibly exciting for all of us, and exciting for all of you as?Academy members, it is our responsibility to promote films that are?historically and culturally relevant and to make sure what we?re telling people?what will stand the test of time.?And I?think what?s great about all the movies, and I haven?t seen all of them but?all of them sound pretty good, is that they?re all movies about something. Movies that are trying to say something. And movies trying to make us understand?the world we live in. And I think what?s great about The Academy, and great?about the opportunity?that we have here, is that everyone has made these?incredibly commercial movies that are the kind of movies that we got in the?business to make. And I think that?s pretty unusual.
ROB FRIEDMAN: We also have to look through a lot of films that?could work on an annual basis. And many of them come to the surface as high?quality entertainment. So it gives us the benefit of having multiple films?so we can push for this process at the end of the year.?Perks?Of Being A Wallflower is another great film that we have. We?re excited?about?the lineup that we have.
STACEY SNIDER: I think what we all want also is to have all our?films just to be seen as much as possible. If we can ensure that our films can?get seen on the big screen as much as possible, and enjoy the way they were?intended to be enjoyed. Not that we won?t be sending out the screeners. We?amongst ourselves know to campaign [that] it really comes down to making sure people?see the movies the way they were intended to be seen.
ADAM FOGELSON: I also think it?s great that the intersection of?quality and commerce has never been greater than it is now. Not to say that?there aren?t movies that critics don?t enjoy, or that full audiences will see. But, by and large, movies that are really popping are successfully satisfying?both more now than ever.?Someone who?knows about virtually every movie we all make [is] the?industry -?talking about?what scripts we?re looking at, what movies we?re greenlighting, whom we?re?thinking of casting [or]?people?tell you whom we?re thinking of casting. The process?is so transparent. And people can communicate with each other so quickly about?the product they?re seeing. Even?a commercial product in a movie like Bridesmaids last year (people haven?t?seen This Is 40 yet) ??any movie in?any genre needs to be discussed [so] it needs to be good. And it needs to be?satisfying. And to be commercially successful. Then having it talked about in?the awards conversation is great. But I think it?s in all?our interests, and the?interests of the business, to be making great film.

HAMMOND: Then why are we waiting until the last three months?to see these films?
ADAM FOGELSON: That?s a?fallacy. That?s a largely self-created fallacy. We all have films [seen].??Hurt Locker was June, Erin Brockovich was March, Seabiscuit was summer, The Help was summer, Gladiator was? May.

HAMMOND: So there?s your answer: we?re seeing them all year-round. Well, maybe not this year.
JEFF ROBINOV: It?s a well-guarded secret that our jobs are dependent?on whether or not we actually make money for the studio.?For us,?it?s about balancing commerce and art. So as you look at these bigger films?? someone just mentioned Gladiator in?May or you go back to Ben Hur ? those?are commercial, successful, big studio films. We make both. We make Argo-size films, we make Flight-size films, and we make big, big?movies. And there?s no reason that the big movies?
AMY PASCAL: ? Can?t be good.
JEFF ROBINOV: ? Yeah, can?t be quality. You always try to make a?quality film.?Obviously, as my dentist? will tell you, we don?t always do it.?But the goal is to make great movies.
JIM GIANOPULOS: We think of awards celebrating, recognizing, and?acknowledging great filmmakers. It also does provide those of us who have to?make these decisions, when there are those tough decisions, [with] the hope of an?award [that] is much more than anyone?s ego. But it is a hope that, while recognizing a?film during awards season and post-awards season, it will take it commercially?beyond what it might otherwise do. And that might give you that extra bit of?courage to say, ?OK, let?s do it.? And I think, for that purpose, it serves all?of us. It serves our industry, especially the audience, to see movies get made?that are, to some degree, a business potential.

HAMMOND:? I should add?that, on this panel, we have two members of The Academy?s Board Of Governors:?that?s Jim [Gianopulos] and also Rob Friedman there.?And they?ve made some significant changes this year to try to get people?to see these [films] based on their awards success. One, is that there?s a longer period?of time after the nominations come out on January 10th all the way?to February 24 -?six weeks instead of four -?which enables the audience out there as well?as Academy members to catch up with these movies and to have a really interesting?Academy Awards.
JIM GIANOPULOS: That was the purpose of it. Part of the fact is?that, with electronic voting, you gain seven days of snail mail that was an?unnecessary part of the process. So, you know, people can get their nominations?in early. We?ve heard the excuses ? ?I?m on vacation?, ?I?m in Hawaii?. You know,?when you look at the work we do, the job we have, and the job of most people on?the planet, when it?s our job to see great movies, to take the time to at?least nominate those that we think are worthy, that?s not such a bad job. It?s?not that difficult. I think we owe it to ourselves, to the filmmakers and?whatever organization we?re voting for, to make that time. And then, to really?be able to evaluate, to consider, to have that period ? like others have said up?here ? to see it on the big screen. You can?t see Life Of Pi on an iPhone! You could, theoretically,?but it?s stupid.
STACEY SNIDER: The longer period of time is also great for the?audience, so that it doesn?t feel like a party just for the industry. It?s?great to enable The Academy member more time to see the film and to consider?their votes. But it?s great to know that people around the country and around?the world [have] more time to see the films that might be in limited release and?rolling out more slowly. So they can participate in the fun and suspense of the?evening?s telecast.
ROB FRIEDMAN: The Academy isn?t an anomaly. They don?t vote for?specific movies in a group. They?re made up of individuals who are creators and?vote for their categories. So whatever we can do to allow them to have the time?to view the films in their natural state whenever possible, and to think about?the process and to execute the process, is what we try to do.

HAMMOND: Adam, I?m just wondering how Les Miserables moved from December 14 to December 25? That same day?that the Academy announced that they were having a shorter period for the?nominations. Voting starts December 17 and?goes to January?3rd, so this?opens nationally right in the middle of all this.? Did that give you pause moving to that day? Or do you think it?s affected at all?
ADAM FOGELSON: We don?t seem to be having trouble getting people?to pay attention to it. And the reality is we?re going to screen this movie like?nobody?s business the minute it?s ready and would have regardless. Its delivery?date was not impacted. That was a commercial decision based on when we thought?was a perfect moment to release the film. We?ll start screening the movie the?day after Thanksgiving, and are going to screen it pretty much nonstop from?there until time of release. So, between the screening program, its commercial?availability beginning Christmas Day, and for those who get the screeners, we?think there?s abundant opportunity. I think for some of the smaller films, I?think, the challenge will be for those films that may have been 10th, 12th,?20th, timing on the smaller films are more complicated. But for any?of the films here which are on everybody?s list, I don?t think it?s going to?create a challenge.

HAMMOND: It doesn?t matter to put the screeners out before?the film has actually been released? Do you have a policy to send screeners out?until that time?
ROB FRIEDMAN: We sent our screeners out.?In fact, most of you?received them yesterday. We think it?s important, again, because of the crunch?of time, to have it there available.?Obviously, we?re screening the movies multiple times in theaters across?the country, around the world, to try and get people into theaters. No, we have?screeners for movies that won?t be out until December.

FLEMING: I?ve got a two-parter for Jim G who I promised some?chin music here. Jim, you make this?movie Life Of Pi and, really, when you?see it in 3D, it?s like Avatar in a?lifeboat.?You send out these screeners. Basically you know that there are some voters who are evaluating it on an?iPhone. 1) How much does that bother you? And 2) Should Oscar voters actually?be required to see these on the big screen if they?re actually going to cast a?vote?
JIM GIANOPULOS: That would be ideal. But, given the number of films, it?s logistically?very difficult. That would be ideal. Yeah, it breaks my heart to put out a?screener. But it?s part, as I was saying before, about process and purpose. And,?sometimes, process has to yield to purpose.?Life Of Pi we debuted in New?York at the end of September, and it has been screening everywhere since and has?been very well received. But you at least want people to have some access to?it. If they can?t get to a screening, or choose not to, it?s worth it to have?that working knowledge. Then you hope that what they see, even if it?s on a?screener ? again not preferred ? that they?ll return and see the film in its?proper place.

FLEMING: All of you make large canvas movies that it?s hard?to really get a sense of what you?re seeing. If I saw Lincoln on an iPad, it wouldn?t be the same [as] if I saw it on the big?screen.?It?s a privilege to vote for the?Oscars. Shouldn?t voters be required to show up for the nominated films if they?want to cast a ballot and decide the Best Picture of the year?
ROB FRIEDMAN: First of all, you can?t require people to do that.?Their membership doesn?t stipulate that. Second of all, people are working all?around the world. You would be surprised how many Academy members do want to?see it on the big screen. They do everything in their power to see it on the?big screen. They?re screening constantly at Academy facilities around the?world. So, whenever the studios make the films available, they?re immediately available?to Academy membership, and those screenings are usually full. By and large, they?do try to see it on the big screen.
JEFF ROBINOV: I think that Jim?s point ? that obviously the best?version is to see it on the big screen. Because that?s what we are making it?for. It?s better to see the movie than to not see the movie at all.
JIM GIANOPULOS: It?s also an egalitarian thing. The purpose of?banning screeners a few years ago was a noble one. It was just that many?people, filmmakers, and companies felt disadvantaged because they didn?t have?the resources to screen on the same level as others, and therefore didn?t have?the same access to voters. So that created other difficulties because it?disenfranchises films that, what for the lack of multiple screenings on the day?you?re opening, wouldn?t be seen. So there are issues to it.
STACEY SNIDER: Hopefully Academy voters understand they get enough?information about where they can catch them. I know, for me last year, I?wouldn?t even watch The Artist at home?on a big screen because I knew if I watched a silent movie by myself I wasn?t?going to have the benefit. I was probably going to struggle. But, when you see?it at the Second Street Theatre with a whole group of people, it comes?to life. Pi will come to life in 3D.?For Lincoln, we just watched a clip?here that had two or three belly laughs. It?s hard to imagine a period?procedural having so much entertainment value unless you?re enjoying it with a?big audience.?So hopefully we can convey?that to Academy members, and they?ll not want to lose out on the experiences.

HAMMOND: Should we use the Academy Awards for other purposes?too? There?s such a platform there. There?s 24 categories ? live action short [and]?a lot of categories that people aren?t invested in.? Is there an idea that maybe you can have a?section of the show devoted to some upcoming blockbuster movies that aren?t?nominated or maybe coming out in the next year? You can use that platform for?the industry and energize moviegoers?
JIM GIANOPULOS: That will be this year?s five-hour version of?the show.
AMY PASCAL: I think that little guy that? No, I think that should?be a sacred thing that we take really seriously. I don?t think it should be?exploited for anything more than the greatest achievement for what our business? does. And we should hold that dear.?I?don?t think we should sell anything with it. I think it should represent the?best thing that all of us do. It should honor films like Batman and James Bond and?all kinds of movies.?(I got that in there!?Stacey did that and slipped Lincoln in!)

FLEMING: How does Seth MacFarlane, who is now a movie star?based on a film about a cussing R-rated bear, how does he fit into that?pristine??
AMY PASCAL: Well, I came here to talk about?Zero?Dark Thirty.
ROB MOORE: On that point, fact is you do have to have a balance?in the show-?that it needs to be entertaining and it needs to honor the best?movies. And that?s the balance you?re looking for. You?re not looking to go to?the extremes of saying, ?This is no longer about honoring the greatest?filmmaking.? That?s the key to what the awards show is. And what we?re talking?about is great filmmakers telling great stories. That?s what gets us all?excited about the job we do. To then deliver that in an entertaining fun way-?that?s the balance you?re hoping to find in the show that gets the most people?to watch in honoring the greatest filmmakers.
ADAM FOGELSON: I think that?s exactly what Seth did. That?s about?as good filmmaking as you?re gonna get. A cussing Teddy Bear doing that kind of?business.
JEFF ROBINOV: Do you think you could broaden the scope with the?types of the films that are included in The Academy? Sure.

FLEMING: Well, let?s [just] say?I live on the East Coast [and] I think?I should get some kind of an award if I stay awake until the end of the Oscars.?So, Jeff, given what you just said, what changes can be made? Maybe there can be?Best Comedy? Best Ensemble? Or, again, is that treading on hallow ground?
JEFF ROBINOV: No, those are two legitimate categories.? If you can look at a film ? we?ll plug ours, Argo. There?s 170-plus speaking parts, a?number of different characters. It?s really an ensemble film. If you nominate?the film, you feel like you should recognize that portion of it.

HAMMOND: OK, look at everybody else on the panel and tell me?which film one of you made that you would have liked to have made yourself?
JIM GIANOPULOS: Mine is easy: Skyfall.

HAMMOND: When you?re making these films are there regrets?like, ?I could have had the Best Picture Oscar??
ROB MOORE:?Hard to know what would have happened. But, ultimately you?ll always have movies you didn?t make. Is that the same movie you would have made? Ultimately, it?s an intimate?process when you?re in these movies with a filmmaker.?So a movie that Bob Zemeckis made working?with Brad Grey and Adam Goodman at Paramount isn?t necessarily the same movie?he would make for someone else. At some point you have to accept each of the movies that?inspired you. It was a great script, a great team, and therefore you made the?best movie from it. It?s hard to then decide what we would have done if we made?Argo versus how great a movie Bob?Zemeckis made working with us on Flight. That?s what you can focus on.
AMY PASCAL: I?m going to speak for all of us who make mistakes?for a living. It is what we do: we make lots of mistakes. Lots of things we?don?t do, other people go on to do very well. But we have to make lots of decisions all the time. And I think the best thing to do is to focus on things?that we did do, be they the right things or the wrong things. If we spend too?much time doing what you asked us to do, we would be in bed with the covers?over our head and never speak again.

FLEMING: Amy, a question for you on Zero Dark Thirty. How surprised were you to find that movie became?sort of a political hot button over the idea that the filmmakers got?cooperation from the Obama Administration that delved into classified material.?And do you think ? let?s face it, this Oscar stuff gets into, you know, these?campaigns are aggressive and rugged ? do you fear that might be an issue?
AMY PASCAL: I would never be surprised by anything the?Republicans would do to win.

FLEMING: I?m sure there are Republican Academy voters.
AMY PASCAL: You know, Mark [Boal] ? is an excellent journalist and?one of the things that Kathryn [Bigelow] and Mark do, and set out to do, is make?living history. They don?t wait for people. They don?t wait for books or?articles or anything else to tell us how to feel about an event. They don?t?wait for time or interpretation. What they?re doing with this movie is delving?into something that is happening, that is in our hearts right now today and?making us a part of it. It?s not that much of a political film as it is an?emotional film, and a film about the greatest manhunt in the world, and a film?about the unsung heroes.?I think it will?surprise everybody when you see it, to see it?s about the decent people in this?country who no one ever knows, who protect us every day, who give their lives?for absolutely no money, no recognition, who are the true superheroes of our?time. They never get anything. I think they make movies about something that no?one is making movies about, and I am not one bit worried.

FLEMING: Stacey, you?ve been kind of quiet, so let me ask?you this [because] Harvey?s not here to answer the question: Joaquin Phoenix was wonderful?in The Master, but he certainly?doesn?t help his chances by basically disparaging the awards season process,?basically calling it ?total utter bullshit?. If that was your movie, your?actor, what would you say to him? Let?s face it, this isn?t just based on?merit. You have to get out there.?When?Meryl Streep got out there, she won the Oscar. When she didn?t for Julie & Julia, she didn?t win the?Oscar.?What?s the sensitive care and?feeding of these stars on the awards circuit?
STACEY SNIDER: Oh, gosh, the care and feeding of movie stars in?general ? I don?t think we have enough time. I think everyone here on this?panel, certainly I can speak for DreamWorks, we?re true believers. We really do?think that movies can change the conversation. And so, when we?re presenting?movies that rise to that, we?re expecting that everybody feels the same way?that we do. I can speak to the people who were involved on Lincoln. It was a sacred endeavor. It?s not pretentious to say it. You felt that everyone was bringing their very best game. So for us it?s?implicit and intuitive to find a way to present our movie, without being gross?about it, without feeling that we?re pandering. So certainly, if someone was?disparaging The Academy, it wouldn?t comport with who we are. But, by the same?token, our goal is to present the movie and to be appropriate about it.
ADAM FOGELSON: I would just say ? and I don?t know if this is true?for everybody else?- but we?re rarely surprised by what happens. You generally?know whom you?re getting in business with. Not to disparage Joaquin, and he?s?brilliant, but most of the time, the people you decide to work with you have?some understanding of how they?re likely to handle the process. Those are parts?of the decisions you make.? You know the?people who enjoy getting out there and want to do it and whose schedules are?being protected to make that possible. You know the people who don?t like to do?it. So, there may very well be surprises others have had here, but I find we?had very few.

FLEMING: Would you make that a factor??Let?s say you have two?great actors:?would you give that role to that guy who could disparage the?whole thing?
JEFF ROBINOV: You?ve got to go for the best movie, the best?performance.
JIM GIANOPULOS: I think disparage and unavailability are two?different things.?Anthony Hopkins is Alfred Hitchcock in this movie and he?s making two films at the same time in London.?And so [the actor says] ?I commit myself to these filmmakers, and made that?movie, and proud of that movie, but I can?t leave now.? That?s not missing the?process. That?s respecting the work that they?re doing.
ROB?FRIEDMAN: It?s true, Anthony is workin. One of those films?is mine.?I know we always experience the same thing. It?s a?juggling match, not just for the actors, but the directors, writers and other?creative talent involved. Not only in the process, but the process of?recognition for these films. But, by and large, 99% of the time, they want to?jump in. People need to work and, by and large, they?re all supportive of the?process.
HAMMOND: Well, I will leave you two to negotiate Anthony?Hopkins? free time.

Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.

Get Deadline news and alerts FREE to your inbox...

Source: http://www.deadline.com/2012/12/deadline-moguls-panel-video-transcript/

Kanye West sex tape emmys emmys torrey smith torrey smith oakland raiders Jessica Lange

Impact of Sustainability on Profits in the Asia-Pacific Construction ...

Aarkstore.com announces, a new market research report is available in its vast collection:

Impact of Sustainability on Profits in the Asia-Pacific Construction Industry: Survey Snapshot

http://www.aarkstore.com/reports/Impact-of-Sustainability-on-Profits-in-the-Asia-Pacific-Construction-Industry-Survey-Snapshot-237446.html

Synopsis

? The report is based on primary surveys conducted by Timetric accessing its B2B panels comprised of senior business decision makers from the Asia-Pacific construction industry. The opinions and forward looking statements on sustainability management of 81 industry executives are captured in our in-depth survey

? The geographical scope of the research is Asia-Pacific ? drawing on the activity and expectations of leading industry players across the region

? The report analyzes the impact of sustainability on profits in the Asia-Pacific construction industry

Summary

?Impact of Sustainability on Profits in the Asia-Pacific Construction Industry: Survey Snapshot? is the result of an extensive survey drawn from Timetric?s exclusive panel of leading construction industry companies. As sustainability emerges as a strong theme in the business environment, this report provides the reader with a definitive analysis of impact of sustainability on profits in the Asia-Pacific construction industry 2012-2013.

Scope

The report features the opinions of Asia-Pacific construction industry respondents related to the following:

? Impact of sustainability on profits

Reasons To Buy

? Understand the impact of sustainability on profits in the Asia-Pacific construction industry

Table of Contents :

1 Introduction

1.1 What is this Report About?

1.2 Definitions

1.3 Methodology

1.4 Profile of Asia-Pacific Construction Industry Survey Respondents

More Related Reports :

Perception of Sustainability in the European Construction Industry: Survey Snapshot

Sustainability in Business Functions in the European Construction Industry: Survey Snapshot

Key Drivers of Sustainability in the European Construction Industry: Survey Snapshot

Major Barriers to Sustainability in the European Construction Industry: Survey Snapshot

Key Markets for Growth in the European Construction Industry: Survey Snapshot

Organizational Pre-requisites for Sustainability in the European Construction Industry: Survey Snapshot

Implementation of Sustainable Measures in the European Construction Industry: Survey Snapshot

Key Energy Efficiency Measures in the European Construction Industry: Survey Snapshot

Effective Monitoring Tools of Sustainability in the European Construction Industry: Survey Snapshot

Cost Saving Expectations by Sustainability in the European Construction Industry: Survey Snapshot

Impact of Sustainability on Profits in the European Construction Industry: Survey Snapshot

Expected Change in Sustainability Budgets in 2013 in the European Construction Industry: Survey Snapshot

Critical Factors for Supplier Selection in the European Construction Industry: Survey Snapshot

For More details about above & other Reports plz contact :

Vina

Aarkstore.com

Contact: Marketing team

Mob.No.918149852585

Email: enquiry@aarkstore.com

URL: http://www.aarkstore.com/

http://in.linkedin.com/in/aarkstore

http://www.facebook.com/aarkstore

You can also request for sample page of above mention reports on sample@aarkstore.com

Source: http://www.briefingwire.com/pr/impact-of-sustainability-on-profits-in-the-asia-pacific-construction-industry-survey-snapshot

nfl hall of fame 2012 ufc diaz vs condit super bowl start time target jason wu gi joe jason wu for target collection jason wu

Australian Police Warn Against Apple Maps, Citing ?Potentially Life Threatening? Misdirection

Police in Victoria have urged motorists to avoid the use of Apple Maps, warning that faulty directions on the much-criticized app has left motorists stranded in the Australian outback for up to 24 hours without food or water.

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/xEHaqJ9nYcg/

tony stewart kurt busch kurt busch nba dunk contest 2012 act of valor woody guthrie benson henderson

Holiday Party Custody Battles

Today?s blog post is unusual in that we get to read both sides of this dilemma at the same time.?? I did edit these two submissions to change the names of all involved for consistency between the two.

Story one:

I met Phil about 9 years ago when I started working at my current job. He works in a different department and is older than me but was good friends with my cube-mate and I thought he was funny. We became really good friends over the years and, when his wife divorced him our friendship grew even more and we are now engaged to be married. Because of how some people think that our relationship started, which isn?t true, we?ve lost some friends but gained some other really good ones.

Phil?s ex and I do not speak, at all, unless we have to. She calls me as ?the mistress? in conversation with Phil, just to get him upset. I will admit that she doesn?t say anything bad about us to their two kids, so that?s something. And she and Phil work very hard to be friendly when the kids are around, which is something else.

Two weeks ago, really good friends of ours had a holiday party. They wanted to have it early enough that people would be able to come, so they scheduled it for the weekend after Thanksgiving. Phil and I had custody of his two kids that weekend and our friends told us to bring them, so we did.

We had been there for a while and the kids were playing in another room when Phil?s ex-wife walked into the house!!!! It turns out that she is dating our friend?s step-brother and he brought her with him to meet the family. The kids knew, IMMEDIATELY, that their mother was there and kept making comments about how nice it was that all of us were in the same place for once, which was cute and sort of painful, at the same time. The ex said hello to Phil and I when she walked in, even taking the time to hug my fiance. Then she obviously avoided talking to us from that point forward, moving from room to room to stay away from us. It was awkward and awful when it should have been fun just because she was there.

After everyone ate, I went in to help my friend with the dishes only to find the ex standing at the sink, chatting with some people in the kitchen, including her new boyfriend. I went over and offered to help, instead, thinking that I would get to spend some time with my friends, finally, as she was sure to leave the room. Instead, she sat down at the table and continued to talk to them all while I stood at the sink washing dishes.

Then, our youngest child came into the kitchen and he was excited. He ran past me and to his mother, saying something about his older brother and trying to pull her out of the room. While I tried to get him to calm down and tell me what was going on, the ex snuck out a different door and down the hall to where the kids were to find out for herself. The older boy had cut his arm on a toy and needed a band-aid, but she looked so panicked that Phil went with her while I held onto the younger child, Little Guy. Then, Little Guy decided to throw a tantrum, probably because his mother was there, and Phil had to come help me calm him down. Once he got a band-aid, the older child decided to come out and do a bit of yelling, as well, and then finally Mommy swooped in like a hero, calmed everyone down and then refused to speak to me, at all. She and her date left right after that.

After that, the kids were cranky, and the party was sort of over, so Phil and I packed up and left, too. I felt so bad for my friends that their party was ruined! After discussing it, Phil and I decided that he needed to stand up to her and explain that the polite thing would have been for her to have left, once she realized that we were already there as invited guests, to avoid the sort of mess that happened. Of course, when he did that, she told him that I was the one that was immature and impolite and refused to acknowledge that he was right.

In the future, any gatherings that we have with that particular couple, I am going to ask first if his brother and the ex are going to be there and, if they are, I?m going to sadly decline the invitation or ask them to only invite us to things where they won?t be.

(You might get a letter from the ex, too. Phil told her that I was going to ask you for your opinion and she said she couldn?t wait to see it and that she might give you her version, too, so that you could ?properly decide?.) ? 1204-12

And now the ex wife?s side of the story:

Background: My ex, Phil, and I have been divorced for more than 3 years. He has been in a relationship with another woman, Melanie, for 6 years. Yes, there is some causality there.

Our relationship is civil, even friendly, when dealing with matters relating to our two beautiful children. Melanie does not speak to me, at all, and Phil does an admirable job of never putting us on the same patch of land if it can be avoided. Of course, the 2 or 3 times that it couldn?t be avoided, she dedicated herself to the task of making sure that everyone in the room, including the kids, knew that he belongs to HER, now, which is silly and defensive and completely understandable. Trust issues abound.

In the years since our divorce, Phil has explained our split to family and friends as me being ?controlling? because I wanted to ?choose his friends?, notably, Melanie. The list of things that he says that I am guilty of is long and odd and has no actual basis in reality and all serve as an excuse, in his eyes, for him to have engaged in his extramarital ?friendship?. His family, of whom I was and am very fond, were initially stuck in the middle but, over time have, of course, stayed on his side of the ?fence?, so to speak, which is also completely understandable. When I see them, we are all very cordial with one another but there is no communication outside of the occasional holiday drop off or chance meeting in the grocery store. I have no idea what they ACTUALLY think of the whole situation and tend to think that they believe him, which is out of my control.

End of background.

I recently began dating an extremely lovely gentleman by the name of Richard Irish (his last name becomes important later). Richard, himself, comes from a blended family, twice over, and has sisters and brothers and step-brothers and a half sister. He speaks of them all often and glowingly and I had been looking forward to meeting them. Initially, as we are both divorced, we took things quite slowly and spent our limited time together getting to know one another and adventuring together, just the two of us. Last month, we decided to take the ?this is getting serious? plunge and introduce one another to our children, which went better than we could have even hoped for. The kids are all similar ages and had a great time playing games, running around and telling stories about Mom and Dad.

With the holidays upon us, we each have a bunch of invitations to answer both personally and professionally. The weekend after Thanksgiving, he had been invited to one of his brothers? homes for a family get together and asked me if I would join him which, of course, I did. We arrived at his brother?s house at the same time as his sister and another brother and introductions were made in front of the house. His brother is employed in sales and is one of those fellows that immediately offers his hand and full name in greeting. Upon hearing his (step)brother?s name, John Italian, I had a little mental start as his last name is not only not the same as Richard?s, which was to be expected, but it?s also not a very common name and one I know well as a good friend and colleague of Phil and Melanie?s has the same, uncommon last name.

I shrugged the possibility off as both unlikely and unimportant and we continued into the house to meet the rest of Richard?s large family. Coats and hellos and the dog barking as we walked in and suddenly there was a small person wrapped around my legs. My younger son, 8 years old, was there!! I turned around, baffled, and came face to face with my older son, 10 years old, as well! Richard looked as confused as I did, until I saw that his (step)brother, John Italian was, indeed, the same person who is close, personal friends with my ex-husband and his fianc?. This party was at John?s house and he had invited Phil and Melanie and the kids, not knowing, at all, that there was any connection between them and Richard?s new girlfriend.

We said our hellos and Phil and I exchanged an ironic look and an awkward hug and then endeavored to give each other a wide berth for the remainder of the afternoon. I asked Richard, early on, if I should, perhaps, bow out and he wouldn?t hear of it. I had a lovely time with Richard?s entire family and loved the fact that my own kids were there, as well, to show them off a little bit. John and I ended up in the kitchen for a bit, talking, as he had some concerns about me dating his brother considering some of the things that he had heard about me from Melanie. I told him that there were three sides to every story and that I would be happy to talk to him about anything that he wanted to talk about, but I wondered if that moment was the right one and he agreed so we made a date for coffee later in the week. Shortly thereafter, Melanie came into the kitchen to get something and saw me helping John?s wife do the dishes while a few of us chatted. She came over to the sink and, without a word, took the sponge from my hand and told me that it was ?her turn? to hang with her ?dearest friends on the planet?. Not wanting to cause a scene, I wiped my hands, backed away from the sink and started to leave the room. John and Richard, sitting at the table, immediately made room for me there and asked me to sit down with them so that they could finish their story, so I did. Several times, Melanie went out of her way to lean over or around me, awkwardly. I said nothing about it, made no faces ? I HATE scenes and I ESPECIALLY hated the idea of THIS scene in THIS place with THESE people.

My little guy came running breathlessly into the kitchen at this point yelling, ?Mommy! Mommy!? I stood up and he started to speak at warp speed about his brother and a cut while pulling me out of the kitchen. As he passed behind Melanie, she stepped back from the sink, grabbed his hand from mine and told me, ?I?ll take care of it, they?re on my time, now. Sit.? He told her that he wanted Mommy to fix it and tried to pull away from her. She knelt down and started to give him a speech about the difference between ?Mommy Time? and ?Daddy and Melanie Time?, while all that I could think about was ?his brother and a cut? so I stepped out of the kitchen through another door and went in search of my older son. As I passed by Phil, he saw the look on my face and asked what was wrong and I told him and we both ventured to the playroom where the kids were playing games to find Big Guy sitting there with a fairly large cut on his forearm, bleeding heavily, having fallen back on a toy with a sharp edge. At this point, I could hear Little Guy having a meltdown in the kitchen and, as Big Guy wanted me to fix his cut, Phil squeezed my arm and told me that he would handle Little Guy and left the room.

There was quite a brouhaha in the kitchen while I was in the bathroom and John?s wife came in to check on us, practically in tears about the wound. I told her to please not worry about the cut, it happens, little boys roughhouse, it wasn?t mortal and she shouldn?t feel so bad. Upon finishing up in the bathroom, though, she wouldn?t let me leave as we could still hear raised voices in the kitchen. Melanie, evidently, insisted to Little Guy that when he?s on ?Daddy and Melanie Time? that he can ONLY ask them for help, no matter who else is around and he has to let only them handle it. Little Guy told her that he wanted Mommy to help because Mommy was the best at fixing cuts. They both insisted on their own point of view and Richard, John and Phil all had to get involved to convince Melanie to back off and let Little Guy go. The continued raised voices in the kitchen were, evidently, a new tirade about the inappropriateness of me being present at the party, me butting in on her and Phil?s time, me swooping in to rescue a situation that they were perfectly capable of handling, etc. I stood patiently in the bathroom with John?s wife, waiting for the argument to end. It was the first time that I heard, first hand, exactly how awful and horrible a person I am and have been for years and years. I was hoping against hope that my kids were too engaged, again, to be listening to it, in any case. John?s wife just held my hand and patted my arm and apologized every few minutes.

And then Big Guy was heard, in the kitchen, telling Melanie that if she didn?t have anything nice to say that she shouldn?t say anything at all and that she absolutely wasn?t allowed to say bad things about Mommy when Mommy didn?t do anything wrong. Little Guy followed that up with, ?You?re a bad, bad lady!?

I finally exited the bathroom, at that point, against John?s wife?s protest. I sat down on the floor between my two boys and did my best to explain that everyone just wants to take care of them and do the best thing for them and we were scared about Big Guy?s cut so everyone got a little bit crazy and we needed to calm down, say we?re sorry and move on. I was SEETHING inside but letting the boys know that wasn?t going to help anything, at all, at that point. Phil pushed Melanie to apologize and I encouraged the boys to accept it and everyone moved off into their own corners, not feeling at all better but having given it a go.

I looked at Richard and asked him if we could leave and he went to gather our coats. Phil was murmuring to Melanie and she finally looked at me to say something. I put my hand up and told her that I was meeting all of these folks for the first time and my kids were there and I did not trust myself not to make a scene right then and there, so I would prefer to leave without any further conversation between us. She responded that they were her kids, too, now and I was going to have to learn to deal with that. Richard wrapped my coat around my shoulders, turned me around and we left before I tried to kill her or said another word.

The next evening, when bringing the boys back to me, Phil asked why I had stayed when I knew that it would cause so much turmoil. I told him that I stayed because I was hoping that my relationship with this man who was actually RELATED to the other people at the party was actually going somewhere and because I presumed, 3-6 years later, that the three of us could be adults and there would be no turmoil and because, once I walked in, had I walked back out, the boys would have been disappointed and asked a thousand questions that no one wants to answer yet. He told me that it would have been easier if I had just left and let Richard enjoy the party with them. I told him that he was entitled to his opinion.

This is long enough, so suffice it to say that there has been more discussion about it, since then, with the boys and while they are still a bit cool to Melanie, they are no longer demanding that she not be around. Richard and I are doing well and John and I had a lovely coffee.

Should I have left as soon as I realized the awkward circumstances? Phil still insists that that?s the only way to avoid this situation in the future, should it ever come up again. I told him that I left HIM for that reason and that his fianc?e needs to grow up. 1204-12

Isn?t it fascinating to actually hear both sides of a dilemma?? This unique situation did confirm to me that it is possible to get to the nitty gritty issues without ever hearing the other side,? however.? I had already reached conclusions and my opinion based solely on the first submission I had received which was the stepmom, Melanie?s story.?? Receiving the ex-wife?s submission merely confirmed my initial thoughts.?? So here goes?.

There are three major rules in play in this situation.

1.? Children are never, ever, EVER to be used as pawns in adult games and conflicts.? There are no caveats to this, no exemptions.? You don?t hide behind the children, don?t use them to be your mouthpiece, don?t manipulate them in order to achieve control over another adult, you don?t draw them into the fray as an ally, and the list goes on.?? Children should never be used as the ?battleground? over which adults choose to fight.

2.? One question often repeated by me on this site and one I believe everyone should be use to assess motivations is, ?Who is being served by this??? A lot of etiquette dilemmas could be avoided if people thought to ask this question of themselves.? If you are serving your own agendas, you are probably wading into dire Etiquette Hell straits and need to back out before you really screw it up.

3.?? The third rule deals specifically with hospitality so I?ll save that for a little later.

Stepmom Melanie admits that Ex-wife/Mom, ?doesn?t say anything bad about us to their two kids?, which is far more decent than most divorced parents.? Ex-wife/Mom is serving her kids, and indirectly her ex-husband and his fiancee, by not poisoning their minds to serve her own agenda.? Whether they trust and fall in love with their soon-to-be step mom will rise or fall solely on Stepmom?s own behavior.

The children became the battleground when Stepmom Melanie initiated an ?avoidable mess? regarding the ADULT issue of how children are to be shared by literally restraining Little Guy from getting help from his primary caregiver, his mother.?? Moms in general are the more nurturing parent and it stands to reason that if something is amiss, a child will go to the parent that has the most input in their lives which in this case is Ex-wife/Mom.? If we ask the question, ?Who is being served??, of this situation, clearly the child is being served when he seeks comfort and help from his primary parent.?? Stepmom Melanie betrayed her own agenda to serve herself when she turned a minor crisis into an opportunity to enforce her fiance?s custody of his children.? If you had backed away and let Mom and Dad handle the problem, all would have been over within 10 minutes with peace reigning in the host?s house. ? There was a whole lot of adult drama and angst about a few minutes of parental custody ?vagueness? in the midst of a minor emergency that was completely unnecessary.

I am somewhat baffled as to how Stepmom/Melanie can call Little Guy and Big Guy ?ours? when it is highly unlikely the judge awarded shared custody to a mother and father and his fiancee.?? Bearing the title of ?fiancee? or even ?wife? does not bestow upon a person the rights and privileges of having a child?s trust and affection.? It is completely unrealistic to believe that a child, in a situation he considers an emergency, should not go directly to his mother but rather mentally remember which parent has legal custody at the moment and choose that parent.? In other words Melanie, you took up your fiance?s offense about custody issues and in the world of etiquette there isn?t a whole lot of grace extended to you.?? You will have a happier future marriage and relationship with your stepkids and even their mother if you fade into the background on these matters.? If Phil is not willing to address custody issues he may have with his wife or chooses to not address it in the midst of a crisis, you are not helping matters being his mouthpiece.?? Step back and think, ?Who is being served??, and if the answer is, ?The children are best being serving?, you won?t go wrong.

A warning to Ex-wife/Mom.? I noticed how, in this story, you used the children as your mouthpiece to really drive home the point of how poorly you view Melanie.?? The kids may have said as you reported and believe Melanie to be a wicked witch but they are still too young to understand the consequences of their words and you reporting their behavior to others exposes their indiscretions and does plant in listeners? minds a picture that you may think is unflattering to Melanie but I would also council is unflattering to your kids and you.?? I sincerely hope you are not doing this in real life as this would be an example of misusing children as allies in an adult conflict.

And finally, to the issue of hospitality and shared custody?

A host decides who he or she would like to invite into their home or wedding or any other function they happen to be hosting.? A guest has no business whatsoever influencing the guest list or adding to it or working surreptitiously behind the scenes to discourage other guests from attending.?? If you feel you cannot be civil for a few hours, then by all means YOU decline the invitation.?? Here on Ehell, we are all about taking responsibility for your own actions since one cannot be responsible nor change the actions of others.? Calling the host to imply an ultimatum that its either you or the other guest is beyond rude and again, serves who??? You!?? You?ve put the host in the incredibly awkward position of having to take sides in your stupid divorce wars all because you cannot grow up and learn to act like civil adults.?? The host?s home, or where it is they have chosen to host their shindig, is neutral ground in the personal wars.?? Truces must be made and kept, peace accords honored on neutral ground.? That means you learn to act like civil, decent, respectable guests in your host?s home.? There is a time and place for serious discussions and a holiday party is not one of them.

My father divorced my mother long after the kids had grown and left home but he was a true gentleman who behaved with utmost decorum and civility on the occasions where he and Mom were in attendance at family functions.?? I still remember with fondness the memory of he and Mom dancing together at my niece?s wedding as they both put aside any differences they had to make the wedding all about their granddaughter.? They talked pleasantly and even laughed a few times during the dance and afterwards went to their separate tables.?? My Dad never behaved in a way that encouraged the taking of sides in the divorce and to this day, I consider that a gift.? What is the legacy you are leaving your children? What memories are you giving your children?

Should Ex-Wife have left when she realized her ex-husband and his fiancee were also at the party??? Hospitality is not a game wherein the first guest to arrive stakes out his/her territory and the spouse that arrives later loses and must leave.?? Again, this is using the host?s home as a battleground and what will result is a perpetual contest to see who can get to a party first.??? The decision as to whether to stay or leave lies solely with the person who believes he/she themselves cannot or will not behave civilly.?? There are always caveats to certain rules and I can imagine there are situations where the other guest will, no doubt, make a scene thus compelling you to leave for the peace of all.? But if one acts with maturity, civility and graciousness in these situations, it becomes glaringly obvious which guest is the real troublemaking dramatist and one has to believe that their invitations will dry up while yours increase.?? As a frequent hostess, you best believe I would ?catch on? as to who was actually the instigator of the drama and boot them from future guests lists.

So, Phil, if you believe you or your fiancee cannot behave in a civil, respectful manner in your host?s home while your ex-wife is in attendance, then by all means please decline the invitation or leave.? It is completely unacceptable to suggest that Ex-wife?s date, Richard, can stay at the party while she must depart.? Why not you stay and Melanie goes home?? ? Both women have acknowledged that you and Ex-wife work hard to be civil for the sake of the children and the logical conclusion I reach is that Melanie is the dramatic fly in the ointment. ?? I?m going to be even harsher than your ex-wife and counsel you to consider whether you are concerned by the fact that your youngest son got used in some stupid tug of war over custody by Melanie that had more to do about her insecurities than concern for the child.?? I have no idea if this has been a pattern of behavior or if it is the first time but if this type of behavior continues, you have a serious dilemma on your hands.?? Because your children?s wellbeing and their relationships with you may be sacrificed on the altar of someone else?s agendas, ego and self-esteem and that would be a tragedy.

Btw, the commentary section of this blog post will not be used as another battleground between the two parties.

Tagged as: Divorce

Source: http://www.etiquettehell.com/?p=3586

whitney houston autopsy results obama trayvon jim yong kim michael bush the host trailer whitney houston cause of death marquette university