Quantcast
Channel: VICE CA
Viewing all 38002 articles
Browse latest View live

The Rise of Lip Fillers Gone Wrong

$
0
0

When I sat up on the beautician’s couch to look in the mirror, I cried. Not because I now had a Kardashian pout; these were tears of "what the fuck have I just done?". My top lip was swollen, bleeding and four times the size of my bottom one. I cried because I had to get the tube home like that. And I cried at the shame of becoming just another statistic in the ever-growing nightmare of botched lip filler.

It wasn’t the first time I’d had my lips "done". Mine have always been thin and undefined. My friend recommended someone to me – she’d done some of the girls from The Only Way Is Essex – so obviously I went. And I liked it. It looked natural and quietly made me feel better about myself.

Then last year I decided to try a new woman, one recommended by Ronseal-skinned celebs Katie Price and Megan McKenna. “If it’s good enough for them…” I thought as I scrolled through the company’s impressive Instagram pics. I checked the reviews on Facebook. All 5 stars and thousands of them. My appointment rolled around, and I met the woman at a rented therapy room in Wimpole Street. She had lips like a Bratz doll, too big for her face. She then proceeded to inject me with filler so thick I'd later find out it was not even meant for lips. “It’ll go down,” she said after. But I knew it wouldn’t. The next morning my lips were black and blue, my skin stretched so aggressively from the filler – concrete to the touch – that I genuinely thought they might explode.

Author's lips after her fillers (Photo by author)

There was zero aftercare. She told me I could pay to have it dissolved if I wasn’t happy, and when I left a negative Facebook review she replied calling me a liar. I left another one and she blocked me from her company’s page. That’s when I discovered dozens of other women who’d also had their lips butchered.

Jocelyn was one. She’d always craved bigger lips, and visited our tormentor at a hair salon. “I was looking at the hairdressers while I waited,” she remembers. “Some had had their lips done and they looked awful. I was like, ‘Well maybe it wasn’t by her…’ and then I was taken to a shed out the back, and thought, ‘This doesn’t look good at all…’”

But swayed by the amazing before and after pics of what was supposedly this woman’s work, Jocelyn went through with it. “When she pulled out the needle she was still injecting,” she explains. “And that created bubbles at the surface of my skin.”

“She offered to fix them free of charge, so I went back. She pricked my lips with a needle and started squeezing the filler out,” Jocelyn adds. “I was like, ‘What the hell are you doing?! Get off!’ and I left. I’ve now got scarring from the three massive lumps she’s made.”

According to numbers published by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS), more than 27,000 Americans had a lip augmentation in 2015. That’s one every 20 minutes. It'll be far, far more now. There are no stats for lip fillers in the UK, however, as we’re one of the few countries who don’t regulate non-surgical procedures – like fillers and Botox – usually reserved for doctors, dentists and nurses. That means anyone can book themselves onto a one-day filler course and start stabbing people in the face from the comfort of their own living room, and it’s completely legal. Alarmingly, there’s no minimum age limit for fillers, either – although some reputable establishments will insist on you being 18 or over without parent permission – meaning a therapist with questionable morals could be injecting teenagers not yet old enough to have sex, drink or smoke.

Those are facts most people considering treatment aren’t even aware of. Like Sophia, who wanted her lips balancing out, since the bottom was bigger than the top. She was duped by the same flashy and seemingly nonsense online marketing as me and Jocelyn.

“Alarm bells should have been ringing when I recognised she was a beauty therapist, not a qualified doctor,” recalls Sophia. “But there’s little guidance for the public who are seeking these treatments, as it’s not illegal for a beautician to administer fillers. I was left with a pouch of filler in my top lip that had been injected too close to the surface of the lip and it hung slightly.” She was forced to get it dissolved.

Lip filler correction by Dr. Tijion Esho (Photo via ESHO Clinic)

The man cleaning up the trail of devastation left behind by cowboy injectors is Dr. Tijion Esho, founder of the ESHO Clinic. Working seven days a week, he fixes two to five of these hack jobs a day at his Harley Street and Newcastle clinics.

Like Mother Teresa with a syringe he took pity on me and dissolved my filler for free. It’s something he does often under the ESHO Initiative, a charity programme that offers free repair work to those in need. “I’d get cases into my clinic where I got so upset, I was like, ‘I can’t charge this person,’” he explains.

Dr. Esho believes the mass availability of non-surgical aesthetics is why they’re so popular today. “Before, it was a treatment for the rich, but now it’s available to everybody,” he says. “Especially with payment plans – in the same way people can offset their furniture, they can offset their facial treatments…”

He also puts it down the susceptibility of millennials, who, he says, are obsessed with outside image and what they portray to their friends. “There’s an increased pressure to look a certain way,” he says. “If people stepped back and actually saw what people look like outside of the social platforms they would be much happier with themselves.”

Men aren’t immune to such pressures, either, with Dr. Esho estimating that out of 100 lip procedures, 5-10 of those are on men. “Some guys just feel like they have no lips. We have a mixture of gay and straight men and it tends to be the straight men that don’t let anyone know they’ve had it done.” Henry, who had his botched lips fixed on series one of E4’s Body Fixers – where Dr. Esho is the resident cosmetic surgeon – was certainly open about his lip fillers. “All my friends are strippers and they all have it,” he gushes. “One day I just thought, ‘Fuck it! I’m gonna get it done.’ There’s something so sexy about it!”

Henry's lips post-filler (Photo via Henry)

Henry admits he got addicted, and was going every 4-6 weeks, spending £250 a time. After several sessions with the same nurse, something went wrong and he developed an abscess. “I couldn’t talk and couldn’t touch it, so I went to the doctors and it literally just exploded, everywhere.”

After 21 weeks of being wrongly-prescribed antibiotics and two unsuccessful operations he visited Dr. Esho. “I was in a bad way,” recalls Henry. “Dr. Esho told me, ‘We need to do this now or you will lose your lip…’” Once the anaesthetic kicked in, Dr. Esho cut into Henry’s lip with scissors – yeah, scissors – drained the pus out and sewed him back up.

“I’m so lucky to look the way I do now ’cause I could have had my top lip cut off,” Henry told me.

That's the thing – what’s meant to be a temporary treatment can be permanently disfiguring when administered (or treated) by someone inexperienced, and instances of this happening have reached epidemic levels, which is why Dr. Esho is campaigning for some serious regulations to be put in place.

In late November he launched a government petition to make it illegal for under 18s to be treated with Botox and dermal fillers, and that month he wrote to Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt calling for such treatments to become prescription items that only medics can administer. “I explained that a growing number of botched cases are ending up in A&E or GP practices where they don’t have specialities in treating it,” Dr. Esho explains. “What was once thought to be a public sector problem has now become an NHS problem, which affects the tax payer and therefore the government should be looking at this.”

Dr. Esho’s main concern isn’t for the taxpayer. It’s for the Snapchat and Kylie Kardashian obsessed millennials who’re most likely to be affected by this obscene lack of regulation. The ones being bombarded with online ads from cosmetic companies with a known reputation in the industry for messing up hundreds, even thousands, of faces up and down the country.

“We’re supposed to be educating, protecting and informing this generation,” he surmises. “If we don’t, it becomes another lost generation that we failed to care for.”

@nyferjay


Obama Will Be the First Guest on Letterman's New Show

$
0
0

Along with the first trailer, Netflix has finally released the guest list for David Letterman's new interview series, My Next Guest Needs No Introduction, and the thing is completely stacked.

Way back in August, the streaming service announced that it was bringing Letterman and his glorious, Santa-like beard out of retirement for six hour-long episodes, but it wouldn't give specifics about what kind of "extraordinary" guests would be dropping by—until now.

In a new trailer, Netflix revealed that the debut episode of My Next Guest Needs No Introduction lands on the streaming service next week and features someone who definitely lives up to the show's title: President Barack Obama, in his first talk show appearance since handing the country over to Trump.

The rest of the season will be rounded out by interviews with everyone from George Clooney to JAY-Z to Malala Yousafzai to Tina Fey. Even Howard Stern will drop by for a chat.

While the show will center around one in-depth interview per episode, don't expect one continuous, 60-minute chat. Along with the interviews, each episode will reportedly feature "field segments" where Dave digs deeper "on a specific topic related to the iconic guest," according to a press release. Hopefully that means he'll get the scoop on Clooney's suitcases full of money or whatever.

Episodes of My Next Guest will roll out monthly on Netflix over the next six months, so don't expect to binge the whole thing all at once. Give the trailer a watch above before Obama's episode drops on January 12.

'Atlanta' Finally Has an Official Release Date

$
0
0

Somehow, between preparing for the Grammys, filming a Star Wars movie, and being a dad, Donald Glover has thankfully found some time to keep working on Atlanta. On Friday, FX announced that the show's second season would officially drop on March 1—nearly a year and half since the first season ended.

The show, which wasn't too big on playing it straight, also donned a snazzy new title for season two—Atlanta Robbin' Season, whatever that means. In a press release, FX didn't offer too much new information on what we can expect from the follow-up to the critically acclaimed, Emmy-winning show, but we know that it's going to feature a "sketchy mom" and some "white trash types" in there somewhere.

We've known for a while that Atlanta would have a 2018 return date, but the official news makes good on cast member Lakeith Stanfield's prediction that the show would be back early in the year. The March release date is also great news for those of us patiently awaiting the return of some of our favourite shows in 2019.

The second season will likely bring us back to the title city, where a young rapper named Paper Boi (Brian Tyree Henry) and his cousin and manager Earn (Donald Glover) have been navigating the local hip-hop scene. Last we left Earn, he was sleeping in some new digs after earning a little bit of cash, and Paper Boi had just been asked on tour. We'll have to wait until March to find out whether or not that's where the casting call's "VERY TAN" Floridians factor in.

Follow Drew Schwartz on Twitter.

'Crash' Director Paul Haggis Accused of Multiple Rapes

$
0
0

Four women have come forward to accuse Paul Haggis of sexual misconduct, including rape, according to the Associated Press. The 64-year-old, who wrote both Million Dollar Baby and Crash, was already being sued by a publicist for an alleged rape in 2013 when three more alleged victims came forward to say they had been abused by him as well.

The lawsuit filed on December 15 claims that Haggis offered then-28-year-old Haleigh Breest a ride home after a film premiere, then drove her back to his apartment in Manhattan. According to the complaint, he invited Breest up for a drink and then allegedly ripped her tights off, forced her to perform oral sex, and raped her as she said "No." Haggis has already countersued and said that victim's ask of $9 million amounted to extortion.

After hearing about the civil suit, three more women came forward to report similar abuse from Haggis to Breest's lawyer and recounted their experiences to the AP. One of the women interviewed said she was also a 28-year-old publicist who had been raped by Haggis. She claims that in 1996, she was working on one of his TV shows when he showed up to her office after hours one night and started forcibly kissing her.

"I just pulled away. He was just glaring at me and came at me again," she told the AP. "I was really resisting. He said to me, 'Do you really want to continue working?'"

She said he then made her perform oral sex before pushing her to the ground and raping her.

A third accuser said that in 2000 she went to pitch Haggis a television show at his office, when he started to talk about wanting to have extramarital affairs. She claims he then tried to kiss her before she could run away. A fourth woman said that in 2015, when she was in her late 20s, Haggis forcibly kissed her, jumped into the taxi she tried to escape in, and then harassed her with text messages for 24 hours after she got inside her house.

Haggis—who worked on films that won Best Picture at the Oscars in 2005 and 2006—has said through his lawyer that he "didn’t rape anybody." As the AP points out, he recently spoke to the Guardian about the #MeToo movement and Harvey Weinstein in favour of the so-called reckoning.

"A lot of people are compromised by Harvey’s alleged actions," he said in October. "Although everyone thinks it is vile behaviour, you have got to focus on those who may have colluded and protected him. For me, they are as guilty as he is and in some cases more so, if I can say that. I mean, he was a predator and a predator is a predator. But what about those who would rather look the other way?"

Follow Allie Conti on Twitter.

Choking Me During Sex Without Consent Is Assault

$
0
0

Here it is, plain and simple: I don’t want your cum on my face. I don’t want it on my tits, or anywhere else on my body for that matter. When it comes to sex, I don’t enjoy being demeaned. I don’t appreciate dirty talk that pins me as anything less than equal to you, and I definitely don’t appreciate the pleasure certain men have derived from knowing their dick bruised my cervix. I’m sick of feeling pressured to succumb to that kind of sexual dynamic. Or, equally frustrating, sick of feeling that when I do speak up about it, I’m branding myself a “boring” fuck.

If I’ve learned anything in the years I've been sexually active, it's that rough, male-dominated sex—the kind often depicted in mainstream pornography—has deeply permeated hookup culture. And studies have shown that porn consumption corresponds with aggressive sexual behavior in real-life settings. My experiences seem to confirm it: Throughout my early 20s, I found myself with guy after guy who thought it was no big deal to choke me, spank me, pull my hair, and/or jackhammer me with his dick, with no real regard as to whether or not I enjoyed his directionless convulsing. Maybe the latter was because penises are increasingly becoming numb, porn-warped nightmares these days, but that’s no excuse—all this stuff has been done to me by partners who didn’t seek my consent first. I was never asked if I felt comfortable or enjoyed this kind of sex. My partners were either too self-involved to think about my feelings or unaware that sex just isn’t what you see in porn, and made the terrible assumption that their behavior was just what women “like.”

For several years, I felt an unspoken pressure to adhere to those kinds of desires, sexual or otherwise. I found it so difficult to get commitment and affection out of the men in my life that I avoided expressing how I really felt, for fear of losing what relationships I did have. I was convinced that if I did, I’d quickly be abandoned for a woman who wasn’t as “fussy” or “high maintenance.” The worst part was that those fears were often proven true. Men have ignored my complaints and left me when I stood up for myself, completely validating the notion that an outspoken woman is a lonely one. Of course, I eventually learned to get over all that and not give a fuck. I know now that real, grown-ass men don’t act that way. But that’s something it took years to figure out—far too long, frankly, and only after kissing way too many frogs (who then forcibly moved my head in the direction of their dicks).

Too many heterosexual men make sex all about themselves. It’s time to end that once and for all and make it absolutely clear: Sexual acts performed without affirmative consent from your partner are a form of sexual assault.

I think back to the guy who wrapped his hand around my throat tightly, making it hard to breathe simply because that was something he was into. In what universe was that OK? It took him far too long to adhere to my plea for him to let go. And I still went on three more dates with him.

I think back to when I was 22, when the much older man I thought I was in love with forcibly flipped me over and pounded away without listening when I said that position hurt too much. That, in fact, only turned him on more. My ensuing silence was apparently some sort of permission to let him finish, but it felt like I had no choice in the matter.

I think back to the dozens and dozens of times things like that have happened to me—times that have left me with unwanted bruises or sore body parts. Even if I wasn’t physically harmed, those acts have often left me with an overwhelming feeling of dread. And even when sex wasn’t overtly rough, I’ve still felt demeaned and degraded when men did things that are now somehow considered standard fare: times I’ve been ejaculated on, spanked, and verbally humiliated.

My early 20s were a period rife with confusion and disappointment, and nearly every time I had sex, I remember thinking to myself, Isn’t this supposed to be fun? Isn’t sex supposed to end in smiles and euphoria? Shit, at the very least, aren’t we supposed to cuddle afterward?

All that said, there’s obviously nothing inherently wrong with rough sex or sexual submission, and I don’t mean to shame or other those who love it. Submission can be great! I know plenty of women who enjoy submissive sex in powerful, empowering ways. But women should never, ever be made to be submissive against their will. Men shouldn’t assume their “default” role in sex is to be dominant. And women shouldn’t be made to feel like their sexual prowess is ruined when they aren’t submissive. When our modern cultural discourse has qualified exciting sex as the kind where a girl chokes on his cock, that’s a huge problem.


Watch VICE News Tonight explore how the Weinstein scandal will change the reporting of sexual assault:


If that’s the case, then yeah, I’m boring as fuck. I’m as plain as they come with my preference for sex where I’m not subject to violence and physical boundaries are respected. And it’s not that I’m a bad fuck, at least in my own humble opinion. In fact, the more sex I had that wasn’t just about what the guy wanted, the more I loosened up and, you know, was able to ride a dick real good or whatever. If you think I don’t like sex after reading this, you’re so, so wrong and probably one of the dudes who ruined my 20s. The fact is, I’m one of the horniest people I know, and I genuinely love sex—when it’s done right, that is.

I’m a bit older now, and this kind of stuff happens far less than it used to. The men I started meeting got better. I somehow came to realize that not giving a fuck about "disappointing" them in bed is a beautiful thing (though it can be very, very hard to do at times). To the women out there who aren’t quite there yet, know that that’s OK—and, more important, that you absolutely can’t be afraid to say no when you’re not down with something a guy does during sex. Speak up and demand that you get the best sex possible, even if it doesn’t align with some guy’s terrifying Pornhub niche. At the end of the day, this isn’t about your orgasm—it’s about your agency.

And to the men who are realizing I’m talking about you, have some accountability for the way you fuck. Don’t shame women into feeling inept because we don’t want to choke on your dick. And don’t get defensive, either. Get empathetic. Get real. And get smarter.

Follow Alison Stevenson on Twitter.

The GOP Really Wants You to Sign Eric Trump's Birthday Card

$
0
0

It's Eric Trump's birthday on Saturday, a momentous occasion you probably would have forgotten about had the Republican National Committee not put out a sweet little reminder on its official Twitter account, asking everyone to send the private citizen some good vibes. He'll be 34!

The GOP included a link to Big E's very own birthday webpage, where you can "wish Eric Trump a very happy birthday by signing his OFFICIAL birthday card and adding your personal message"—along with requiring you to add your full name, email, and zip code. Trump doesn't have any sort of official role in the White House, or with the Republican Party, or in any sort of government arm at all, but it's a good chance to send the guy a personalized message, even if you inevitably get added to some MAGA email listserv.

If you're inclined to send Trump some good tidings, maybe you could thank him for exposing Ellen Degeneres as an agent of the deep state. He dragged her into some bizarre drama earlier this week after noticing Twitter's suggestions of "who to follow" paired the TV host with Barack Obama and Crooked Hillary—an obvious indication that she, too, was a major deep state player.

It's too bad there's no information on how to send a gift, considering his brother sure loved that cookie cake decorated with Obama's mug. We can only imagine that Eric, too, might get a kick out of one frosted with the face of one of his sworn enemies.

Unfortunately, all the GOP will give us is space for a few hundred characters to tell the president's son how we really feel. But if you find yourself with an outpouring of sentiments to share, and you'd rather not hand the GOP your email address, you can always find the birthday boy on Twitter—365 days a year.

Follow Drew Schwartz on Twitter.

It's Time for Democrats to Go All in on Weed

$
0
0

Old-school drug warrior Jeff Sessions ticked off 2018 with aplomb Thursday when he revoked Obama-era memos protecting state experimentation with legal weed. Federal prosecutors across the country now have more discretion to go after people who might be obeying local medical and recreational pot laws, which govern more than half the states in America. This is bad news for people who own pot businesses, the banks and financiers tempted to do business with them, and, to a lesser extent, individual pot users.

Sessions’s statement formalizing a version of a long-feared pot crackdown put the onus on lawmakers, however, citing “Congress’ determination that marijuana is a dangerous drug and that marijuana activity is a serious crime.” On that point, he’s actually totally correct. Pot is still officially a dangerous drug, on par with heroin, under the Controlled Substances Act. The Obama-era memos were always vulnerable to the whims of a future attorney general; they were never a solution for the war on drugs.



In other words, you can only legalize marijuana by actually legalizing marijuana, permanently, at the federal level. Which is to say Democrats should stop being so characteristically flimsy—and take full advantage of the Trump administration's potentially catastrophic political mistake—by vowing to legalize marijuana if and when they get back into power.

Too many Democrats, particularly the congressional leadership, have been weirdly passive in their reaction, grumbling that Sessions should put more effort and resources into other criminal prosecutions, while refusing to commit to fixing the problem legislatively. Lawmakers seem most angry about Sessions forcing them to have to take a stand on marijuana policy, instead of relying on a fragile non-prosecution agreement.

This Hamlet Act is at least a step up from President Obama’s dismissal of legalization advocacy as deeply unserious. Even as Obama moved from punitive crackdowns on pot growers in his first term to an uneasy peace in the second, in a 2015 VICE News interview, he warned young people, “You should be thinking about climate change, the economy, jobs, war and peace. Maybe, way at the bottom, you should be thinking about marijuana.”

Not only was this condescension unnecessary, it was wrong. Legalization is a public health issue—locking up people for nonviolent drug offenses is unconscionable, and there is lots of evidence that the pain-relief properties of marijuana can reduce the deadly reliance on opioids, the deadliest drug epidemic in US history. It’s a racial justice issue, given the disproportionate number of minorities arrested and imprisoned for marijuana use and possession. It’s a foreign policy issue—America spends unbelievable resources battling Latin American drug gangs, whose revenue would likely dry up under a legal regime. It’s increasingly a revenue-gainer for states. And passing laws that keep marijuana a small-craft business while preventing consolidation could make it a model for an economy where gains are broadly shared, a welcome contrast in an era of seemingly relentless march toward monopoly.

It’s easy for Democrats to make the cold political calculation that legalization is incredibly popular, especially among infrequent voters whose turnout is needed to take back Congress. But there’s a more elemental question here: What is an opposition party for other than drawing distinctions between its agenda and that of the party in power? Legalization is one of the least-polarizing issues out there—even Republican voters give it majority support in some national surveys.

Sessions's bonehead move puts the Trump administration squarely on the wrong side of history. Democrats need only stand with the people to reap the benefits.

Nobody has to reinvent the wheel here: there’s already legislation in Congress, with bipartisan support, that would make Sessions's decision irrelevant. Senator Cory Booker’s Marijuana Justice Act would remove pot from the list of controlled substances and expunge all marijuana-related federal convictions. There are two House versions of the bill: the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act, with 15 co-sponsors, five of them Republicans, and the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act (17 co-sponsors), which would let the Food and Drug Administration test pot for safety. A softer version, the Respect State Marijuana Laws Act, would exempt Controlled Substances Act regulation in any state where marijuana is legal. That has 24 co-sponsors, 12 Democrats and 12 Republicans. A bipartisan Congressional Cannabis Caucus could lead on any of these bills.

Even something as simple as the SAFE Banking Act would allow marijuana businesses to get a checking account and swipe debit cards without financial institutions who work with them fearing prosecution. This bid to end the incredibly unnecessary danger of all-cash marijuana businesses at risk of criminal targeting has 58 co-sponsors in the House.

So Democrats don’t even have to write new policy to meet the wishes of the public; they just have to support what already exists. To do that, though, they’ll need to understand the role of a political party in a democracy: identify ways to improve people’s lives, and then to actually commit to enacting them. If Democrats finally figure this out and support marijuana legalization, Republicans will have a choice, too: stick with Trump and Sessions and face the ire of the electorate, or join Democrats, at which point the public wins. Some Republicans, like Senator Cory Gardner of Colorado, are already rejecting Sessions's action; the issue has the potential to split the right.

It's not like some Democrats haven't been boldly fighting for legalization for some time. But the rest need to get over the party’s residual drug-warrior past and unite on a public-policy priority that would stabilize communities and save lives. Jeff Sessions does not actually have the power to dictate federal marijuana policy; Congress does. Democrats have to recognize that, and vow to do something revolutionary: use their own power.

Follow David Dayen on Twitter.

You Need to Watch the Golden Globes This Weekend

$
0
0

Looking for some stuff to catch up on this weekend? Whether it's TV, movies, books, or anything in between—VICE has you covered. Read on for our staff recommendations on what to take in during your downtime:

The Golden Globes

Hoo boy, this is gonna be something else, huh? Can you think of a year in which it'd be a worse idea for Hollywood to gather around and celebrate itself? Well, I think that could pretty much apply to every year, but regardless: The multiplexes are empty, there aren't any good albums out, and nothing's on TV to really binge hard on for at least a few more weeks. You have nothing better to do on Sunday night, and neither do I. —Larry Fitzmaurice, Senior Culture Editor, Digital

The Chi

Lena Waithe is really smart and cool. She wrote a celebrated episode of last season's Master of None, "Thanksgiving," which netted her an Emmy—and now she's created Showtime's first new show of 2018, The Chi, which zeroes in on life in Chicago's South Side neighborhoods. Waithe wrote the first episode, which airs this Sunday, directed by Rick Famuyiwa. He directed Dope, a movie I didn't see but my fiancée watched on an airplane once when we were sitting apart from each other. She said the movie's good. I believe her! So why not watch The Chi too? —LF

The West Wing

If you spent the week in the fetal position watching the president inch us ever closer to nuclear conflict, following his messy public breakup with Steve Bannon, or reading about chaotic White House affairs, I recommend you spend the weekend watching The West Wing. Looking back, Aaron Sorkin's seven-season TV drama is probably the furthest it gets from the political realities of today. It’s soothing—even hilarious—to see a press secretary get along with the press corps, staffers relieved that a damaging story was posted online and not in print, and a POTUS who can definitely read. Sometimes the best way to cope with the Trump administration is to enter into an alternate reality in which politicians don't have Twitter, and where they run the country with grace, competence, and a little integrity. —Lauren Messman, Associate Editor

Firefly

The silver lining to dark, frigid New York winters is that the weather gives you permission to be an absolute couch-slug without feeling bad about it. I like binging really old, but really great TV shows, sometimes stoned, in order to get through January/February. Last year it was Alias. This year it's Firefly. Literally the only drawback to this series is that it's so short—there's only one season to savor. But everything else is incredible: It's a sci-fi western by Joss Whedon with really badass women in complex, interesting roles. If you, like me, have somehow never seen it, get thee to your couch and watch it, posthaste! —Kara Weisenstein

Blade Runner: The Final Cut

© Warner Bros., courtesy Everett Collection

There's more than one way to skin a replicant, as the seven-or-so-odd versions of the original Blade Runner illustrate. Only one of them has director Ridley Scott's seal of approval, though: 2007's 117-minute The Final Cut, which runs this weekend at the Quad Cinema in Greenwich Village. It's part of the 45-year-old theater's ongoing series, The Way I See It: Directors’ Cuts, which presents films the ways their creators intended. See if you can watch the 219-minute version of Heaven's Gate in one sitting, hang with Kenneth Lonergan himself during a rare screening of Margaret, or come at me over the fact that I still don't think Deckard's a robot. (It's not that he is or he isn't—it's just not that easy!) —Emerson Rosenthal

Kathe Burkhart, From the Liz Taylor Series

Kathe Burkhart, Get the Fuck Out: From the Liz Taylor Series (Get the Fuck Out). 60” by 90” acrylic, mixed media/canvas. 2017. © Kathe Burkhart, courtesy Mary Boone Gallery, New York

Though temperatures are set to plummet in many parts of the country this weekend, Kathe Burkhart’s exhibition, featured at the Mary Boone Gallery in Manhattan, New York, is the kind of art that still manages to feel hot and alive, regardless of the weather. By utilizing Elizabeth Taylor as a feminist avatar, Burkhart toys with and renegotiates how we interact with the archetypes still foist on women in 2018. Be it the femme fatale, the proper lady, the damsel in distress, Burkhart effortlessly (and gleefully) subverts audience expectations by blurring the lines between the public and private, juxtaposing the pristine with the profane. The exhibition, curated by Piper Marshall, is on view through February 24. — Patrick Adcroft, Copy Editor/Writer, Snapchat


Seven Hidden Art Secrets That Were Uncovered With Technology

$
0
0

This article originally appeared on Creators.

Paintings by the masters da Vinci, Rembrandt, Goya, and Caravaggio are often accepted as absolute works. Today, we use mobile devices to capture these images, compressing them onto tiny screens, and remixing them into snapchats, selfies or light simulated paintings. But technology can also reveal the secrets that lie just beneath a work's surface. Using a variety of scientific techniques and advanced digital imaging, today's scientists and art historians can non-invasively probe artworks for the secrets to artists' lives and processes.

From underpaintings that reveal new insights about an artist's true feelings, to hidden details and even in-jokes, technology is rapidly changing the way we see art. Here we've collected seven fascinating and ground-breaking discoveries that were once shrouded from both art history and the visible world.

1. The Lady with an Ermine

Leonardo da Vinci's painting, The Lady with an Ermine, was reworked twice before its final composition. According to BBC News, French engineer Pascal Cotte discovered that da Vinci changed the position of the lady's forearm and only added her symbolic ermine to the third version of his work. Using the Layer Amplification Method (LAM), a technique he and his team invented, Cotte projected intense light onto the painting and measured its reflections with a multi-lens camera. "The LAM technique gives us the capability to peel the painting like an onion, removing the surface to see what's happening inside and behind the different layers of paint," explained Cotte to the BBC. The result? Turns out, da Vinci occasionally required a do-over. Or two.

2. Old Man in Military Costume

Image via Live Science

Through macro x-ray fluorescence analysis, a painting of a portrait of a woman was discovered underneath the 380-year-old Rembrandt, Old Man in Military Costume. Previously used infrared methods weren't strong enough to reveal the underlying image. Scientists reported this was due to Rembrandt using the same pigments for the "hidden" painting as he did in his final piece.

3. The Sacrifice to Vesta

Image via Technology Review

Goya's signature on The Sacrifice to Vesta was uncovered by scientists using terahertz radiation. Though the 240-year-old work did not include a true documentation of authorship, the painting marked a turning point in Goya's painting career. In May 2013, scientists at the University of Barcelona bounced terahertz waves off of the work and found a centuries-hidden signature beneath layers of paint on the bottom right hand corner.

4. Bacchus

Image via Telegraph

Using infrared technology, scientists discovered a small self-portrait of Caravaggio hidden in his portrait of Bacchus. In 1922, there was speculation that another image had snuck into the image. At the time, it was said that this was the result of poor restoration, and the lack of technology meant that the debate ended then and there. Thankfully, the interest was seeded, and while it wasn't until recently that scientists were able to use infrared reflectography to uncover a comical self-portrait of Caravaggio submersed in Bacchus' wine, we're already dreaming up the trailer for Honey, I Shrunk the Baroque Master.

5. The micro-positioning easel

Image via Phys.org

This revolutionary new easel, developed by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, captures high resolution images of works, allowing scientists the ability to examine the techniques of the artists and date works with precision. While it isn't a discovery in and of itself, the micro-positioning easel has opened up the opportunity for hyperspectral imaging and other types of research.

6. The Blue Room

Image via AP

Researchers used infrared image processing to discover a painting of a bearded man in a bow-tie underneath Pablo Picasso's 1901 painting, The Blue Room. An X-ray in the 1990s first picked up a blurry image lurking beneath the murky surface. Since 2008, Patricia Favero, a conservator at The Phillips Collection has been experimenting with infrared imaging processes to analyze the painting. Earlier this year, she shared the most crisp image of its underpainting to date. Now, using fluorescence spectroscopy, the team is working on detailing the pigments to digitally recreate the piece in full color.

7. Patch of Grass

In 2008, the research team at Delft University of Technology found a mysterious portrait of a woman hiding in Van Gogh's Patch of Grass. According to NPR, the team's discovery confirmed the suspicions of many art historians—that there was something beneath the Patch of Grass. By using an X-ray process that measured the chemical makeup of the pigments, researchers were able to pinpoint the portrait lurking underneath.

Familiar with more discoveries? Working on finding some of your own? Send your discoveries here.

Sometimes It Makes Sense to Make Less Money

$
0
0

When a producer at FOX News asked me if I wanted to be an on-air guest, I should have known better. It was the spring of 2014, and I was working at an alt-weekly, making very little money and desperate for an opportunity to advance both my career and lot in life. So I said yes, and later that day, a limo came and picked me up at my crumbling apartment and drove me to a local news station where I was made-up like a contestant in a child beauty pageant. I was on Greta Van Susteren's show to talk about a story I was chasing about a couple who pretended to be Scottish royalty, though they were actually living off of entitlement programs. I didn't initially question why FOX News was interested in my reporting, though when Greta asked me if I thought what the couple was doing was morally right, it became very obvious: I was there to bash welfare on cable news and provide millions of Middle Americans with a talking point that I didn't personally agree with.

That faux Scottish couple were grifters to be sure, and in no way emblematic of the millions of hardworking Americans who need a little help to get by. But after fighting back and heading home to that rundown apartment, I couldn't help but wonder: Was our entitlement system a bit wonky, even if it wasn't in the way that the FOX News crowd liked to pretend it was? For instance, in rare cases, could it theoretically make sense to refuse a raise because it might disqualify you for benefits that are technically "worth" more than the additional income? I'm always a little wary when my income goes up, because it just increases my student loan payments, too. I'm similarly afraid that I'll go into a different tax bracket and therefore fuck myself over.

When I called up Jesse Rothstein, a public policy professor and the director of the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment at the University of California Berkeley, he told me that I was right about the general idea, though I had the specifics wrong.

"People commonly think that what happens is you go from paying 10 percent tax on all of your income to paying 15 percent tax on all of your income," he said. "But that's not how it works. You pay 10 percent on your income up to that threshold, and then you pay 15 percent above that. I think of it as a sequence of buckets. You fill it up, and once that one's full, you move on to the next one. But it's not that all of a sudden everything gets dumped into a bigger bucket. That's what you would need to have happen to trigger any sort of negative effect."

Despite the fact that I called him and essentially asked him to defend a bad-faith argument beloved by conservative assholes, Rothstein copped to the fact that sometimes it does make sense to make less money. But of course, that doesn't mean poor people who make this calculation are lazy; it means our system is terribly, terribly broken. Here's how it all shakes out:

Healthcare

Rothstein explained that the term I was looking for was "subsidy cliff"—or the point at which a small raise in income changes the level of benefits you're eligible for.

"It's a pretty unusual circumstance where you literally get more back by reducing your earnings," he hedged. "It's more common that you get less back than the amount of the increase in earnings." The most common place it does seem to happen, though, is with health insurance.

The way Obamacare works is that people who don't have health insurance through their employer can buy it online through a number of state exchanges. The premiums are, in principle, supposed to be made affordable through a tax credit that applies to people who are making fewer than 400 percent of what's known as the federal poverty level, or the FPL. (For these purposes, income is considered gross pay minus above-the-line deductions like contributions to a retirement account, interest on student loans, moving expenses, and more, plus tax-exempt municipal bond interest, plus untaxed Social Security benefits.)

The Obamacare subsidy is meant to phase out and not really have a cliff, though a small one does exist. Here's an example based on the below three facts:

  • In 2017, for a family of one, the FPL times four was $47,520.
  • The subsidy is based on the cost of the second-lowest-cost "Silver" plan.
  • You'll never pay more than 9.5 percent of your income.

OK, so:

  • Say the cost of a Silver Plan under Obamacare in your state is: $9,500 a year.
  • And your hypothetical income is $45,000.
  • Take 9.5 percent of that income: $4,275.
  • And do some subtraction to find out your Obamacare subsidy: $9,500 - $4,275 = $5,225.

The subsidy cliff comes when your adjusted income is $1 more than 400 times the FPL. That's when you lose the tax credit. If the credit above amounts to $5,225, basically any raise that's less than that isn't worth it for our hypothetical worker. A small cost-of-living raise that would put the worker up to $48,000 would cost him or her an insurance credit worth more than $5,000.

Obviously, there's only a small sliver of people who are affected by this. However, things stand to get worse for them under Trump. "If those individual insurance markets in the exchanges get more and more broken at the end of the mandate, which is part of the tax bill, that raises the unsubsidized price of getting insurance," Rothstein told me. "But it doesn't raise the cost of insurance if you have subsidies. So that basically makes the cliff bigger."

The Trump administration's systematic dismantling of Obamacare means two things. First, the tax credits for Obamacare will go up, which means that people who make under four times the federal poverty level will pay even less for insurance. That's good! But the second thing that will happen—the corollary of that—is that people who already don't qualify for the credit right now will see their premiums soar. So, take our hypothetical person who might get a cost-of-living raise of a few hundred bucks that disqualifies them from the subsidy. If the cost of a Silver Plan goes up by 37 percent, as Reuters reported it will, and they have to pay the full price, the so-called subsidy cliff will go from being a slight drop to a header off a skyscraper.

Financial Aid

The Pell grant is the bedrock of the student financial aid system, and there are instances that it makes sense to quit your job so that you can collect one. Bear with me for what sounds like a PSAT math problem, albeit one that I answer for you.

Households making less than $50,000 a year during the 2016–2017 school year were eligible to receive a Pell grant of up to $5,815, though the majority of that money goes to students with household incomes of less than $20,000. Say you were a student working a part-time job about ten hours a week that paid $8.10 an hour—the minimum wage in Florida—and netted around $4,212 a year. You'd pay no federal income tax on the amount, but you would probably knock off a few hundred bucks between Social Security and state/local taxes to make your income right around $4,000. You live with your mom who makes $17,000 a year, so your household income is right on the cusp of $20,000, plus or minus a few bucks. You could not work and theoretically get a Pell grant that's worth more than your total income.

That scenario sounds a lot like a cliff to me. To find out if there was a version of the phenomenon in student aid, I called up Mark Kantrowitz—an author and member of the board of trustees for the Center for Excellence in Education, as well as one of the leading experts in student financial aid and scholarships.

Kantrowitz said that the scenario sounded plausible, though far from common. He confirmed my suspicion that I was onto something and gave me a ton of information on how aid is calculated. Basically, the formula is the maximum Pell grant amount for a given year minus expected family contribution (EFC), which is calculated by the FAFSA using a complicated formula based on the student and parent income, assets, family size, number of children in college, age of the older parent, and various other demographic factors.

If your EFC is 90 percent of what it costs for you to go to school or more, you get nothing from the federal government. Otherwise, you get the difference. This also means that someone who might get a lot of money to go to a private school that costs $70,000 a year would get nothing to go to a public in-state school. Attending a private school (and getting education that arguably has higher value due to a litany of factors) would create a greater difference between the two values.

The education expert also pointed to evidence that a cliff is widening under our current Congress. The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) set the maximum Pell grant from the year 2010 to the year 2020. Five of those years the maximum amount of the grant was supposed to increase with the inflation rate, and the other five years it wasn't supposed to increase at all. Congress could have chosen to keep it tied to inflation, though they didn't.

If the maximum Pell grant amount shrinks in real dollars because it's not going up with the cost of inflation, and the ETF goes up because it's tied to inflation, then according to the formula, the amount of money one would receive is less than it would be otherwise. If your family set aside enough money for you to have $4,000 per semester to go to school and the amount of the maximum Pell grant stagnates, your family is getting less bang for their buck.

To be clear, these scenarios only apply to a small group of people. And though it's absurd to suggest that anyone is purposefully making less money to reap governmental reward, it's plain to see that some would stand to benefit by doing so. But as Congress prepares to widen the gap between the rich and poor by redistributing even more wealth to the One Percent, it's worth looking at the middle-class people who will fall through the cracks. If the growing subsidy cliff makes the difference between someone having healthcare and not being able to pay for it, or going to an elite school or a public one, it should be talked about. If we're not prepared to make access to a doctor or higher education universal, it's worth wondering how we can abide by a system in which it sometimes makes sense to make less money.

Follow Allie Conti on Twitter.

Is Fake News Actually Not a Big Deal?

$
0
0

Welcome back to Can't Handle the Truth, our Saturday column looking at the past seven days of fake news and hoaxes that have spread thanks to the internet.

Ever since fake news became America's boogeyman in about the middle of November, 2016, academia has been trying document and quantify the causes and effects of the phenomenon. This week, a trio of political scientists published an analysis of news-consuming habits of voters in 2016. Some results were what you'd expect: "Almost 6 in 10 visits to fake news websites came from the 10% of Americans with the most conservative information diets."

One unusual observation in the study, though, is that "visits to fake news websites are highest among people who consume the most hard news and do not measurably decrease among the most politically knowledgeable individuals." In other words, whether you're a right- or left-winger, fake news is mostly consumed by voracious news junkies, and—perhaps more importantly—as just a small part of a balanced news diet with much healthier elements. Maybe that's why the New York Times ran a headline about the study acknowledged that fake news was widely consumed but had "little impact." That, however, is a pretty dubious takeaway.

If you're just talking about the 2016 election, it's possible to minimize the effects of fake news. But just look around and it's obvious something is seriously wrong: Flat Earthers seemed to be gaining momentum all last year, despite the earth being round. The Pizzagate crowd keeps finding new and exciting ways to harass public figures. There may not be an obvious causal thread between those phenomena to garbage fake news websites like The Last Line of Defense, which are the focus of the study, but that doesn't mean that they aren't related.

Like I said last week, the widespread existence of lies that flatter people's partisan beliefs seems to be a symptom of some larger problem (or constellation of problems) in the US. I wish I could be reassured by that study, but I'm not.

Anyway, here are some of this week's lies:

Chocolate is on the brink of extinction

According to an article this week from Business Insider, "Chocolate is on track to go extinct in 40 years." The story was viral dynamite (as was a similar story in the Washington Post three years ago), because chocolate is one of those foods like bacon that people feign an obsession with in order to seem funny or interesting. Fortunately, the Cathys of the world can reserve their outbursts of "Ack!" for scarier news. Chocolate is most likely here to stay.

In short, the piece is overstating the perils of climate change. It cites real (and totally scary) stories from a few years ago about tropical diseases that attack cacao and the ways that climate change is reducing the amount of land on which the crop can be cultivated. It's really just the headline misses the mark, and sometimes that's all that matters since people don't tend to read entire articles, or even click through to the actual story.


Cacao farmers do face climate change–related challenges, and as Business Insider noted, scientists are working with chocolate companies to overcome these difficulties. But as the 2014 Post piece about this problem noted, the problem is largely one of too much demand. "By 2020, the two chocolate-makers warn that [chocolate consumption] could swell to 1 million metric tons, a more than 14-fold increase; by 2030, they think the deficit could reach 2 million metric tons." While this brings to light serious questions about the long-term availability of cheap chocolate, there's absolutely no evidence anywhere to suggest that the world will actually run out of chocolate.

Trump craves televised gorilla fights

"The Gorilla Channel" is the latest creation from Pixelated Boat, a popular Twitter account probably best known for the Milkshake Duck meme. Boat created this fake book except on Thursday, and it's now a widespread (and probably permanent) Twitter meme. Here's the tweet:

Imagine! A whole channel of nothing but gorillas, and just for the president! Actually, thanks to my VICE News colleagues, you don't have to imagine it. It literally already exists now.

Obvious Twitter jokes that get mistaken for the truth can get you suspended, as happened with VICE contributor Krang T. Nelson, when that user pretended to be a violent leftist in the process of overthrowing the government. But as Boat has acknowledged, this is a somewhat lower-stakes joke format—it was around at least as far back as 2014, when writer and VICE contributor Kaleb Horton tweeted out a fake excerpt from Lena Dunham's book and right-wing Twitter users believed it was real.

The steps involved are all very familiar by now: 1) Come out on social media with some revelation so unbelievably silly that, come on, no reasonable person could ever possibly believe it, no way, not in a million years. 2) Have a good number of fans who read your posts and totally "get" you. 3) Have those fans distribute the hilarity to their followers (who, sadly, might not "get" you). 4) Some of those second-tier recipients of the jokelike Farhad Manjoo from the New York Times—will be confused because the post is getting a lot of shares, including some from people who think it's real. 5) Jackpot: the dum-dums believe your obvious joke and lose their shit. 6) LOL.

Some laugh. Others have their confused brains filled with still more internet bullshit. Is the world better because we dance this eternal dance? I leave that question to you, dear reader.

Trump doesn't know who John Boehner is

Pixelated Boat's fake excerpt was ostensibly pulled from the brand new Trump administration tell-all, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, by Michael Wolff. The book is full what appear to be candid opinions from insiders about the competence—or lack thereof—of the commander in chief. The revelations in Fire and Fury, which was published on Friday, were a big deal even before physical copies were in stores. Promotional excerpts were so incendiary that by the middle of the week, they'd already driven a wedge between Donald Trump and former White House advisor Steve Bannon.

Already, many journalists have pointed out mistakes in the book, some of them the obvious sorts of things any competent fact-checker would have flagged. And that was just after combing through the sections that had already been published ahead of the book's release. In one obvious example, Wolff claimed that Trump said he didn't know who former House Speaker John Boehner was—but Trump has golfed with Boehner. At least one source for Wolff's book has denied saying what Wolff reported he said.

Then again, people often claim they've been misquoted when the public reacts strongly to something they've apparently said. Wolff himself says the quotes in the book from major bigshots (like the president) will be backed up by audio recordings. Also, nonfiction books—including really important ones like the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association—sometimes go to press with errors that have to be corrected in later editions.

Trump and his allies would have called the book "fake news" regardless of its accuracy. And its worth noting that the book's broader thesis about an unprepared president who isn't trusted by his own staff is a story some of the most plugged-in people in DC acknowledge as true. At the same time, small but obvious mistakes in a work of journalism can lead people to distrust the larger conclusions. The book is clearly not 100 percent wrong, but in this case it seems hard to figure out which parts to take seriously but not literally.

Follow Mike Pearl on Twitter.

Here Are All the Winners of the 2018 Golden Globes

$
0
0

The 75th Golden Globe Awards went down last night, and if you didn't watch them for yourself, you're probably not aware of who won. Never fear! We've got you covered. Check out the full list of winners below:

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role in a Series, Limited Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Nicole Kidman, Big Little Lies

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

Sam Rockwell, Three BIllboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Best Performance by an Actress in a Television Series, Musical or Comedy

Rachel Brosnahan, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel

Best Performance by an Actress in a TV Series, Drama

Elisabeth Moss, The Handmaid’s Tale

Best Performance by an Actor in a TV Series, Drama

Sterling K. Brown, This Is Us

Best Television Series, Drama

The Handmaid’s Tale

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Series, Limited Series, or Motion Picture Made for Television

Alexander Skarsgård, Big Little Lies

Best Original Score, Motion Picture

The Shape of Water

Best Original Song, Motion Picture

"This is Me," The Greatest Showman

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture, Musical or Comedy

James Franco, The Disaster Artist

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Series, Limited Series, or Motion Picture Made for Television

Laura Dern, Big Little Lies

Best Motion Picture, Animated

Coco

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture

Allison Janney, I, Tonya

Best Screenplay, Motion Picture

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Best Motion Picture, Foreign Language

In the Fade

Best Performance by an Actor in a Limited Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Ewan McGregor, Fargo

Best Television Series, Musical or Comedy

The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel

Best Performance by an Actor in a Television Series, Musical, or Comedy

Aziz Ansari, Master of None

Best Director, Motion Picture

Guillermo del Toro, The Shape of Water

Best Television Limited Series or Motion Picture Made for Television

Big Little Lies, HBO

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture, Musical or Comedy

Saoirse Ronan, Lady Bird

Best Motion Picture, Musical or Comedy

Lady Bird

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture, Drama

Gary Oldman, Darkest Hour

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture, Drama

Frances McDormand, Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Best Motion Picture, Drama

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

Watch Oprah's Incredible Golden Globes Speech

$
0
0

Sunday's Golden Globes ceremony was a triumphant celebration for talented female artists. Nicole Kidman, Elisabeth Moss, Saoirse Ronan, Rachel Brosnahan, Frances McDormand, and Laura Dern all took home awards for their masterful portrayal of powerful, complex women—most while donning black to call attention to the #MeToo movement and sexual harassment in Hollywood. But it wasn't until Oprah Winfrey took the stage to accept the Cecil B. DeMille award for lifetime achievement that the tone of the night really hit home.

Winfrey absolutely stole the show Sunday night when she became the first black woman to accept the award. In a wide-ranging speech, she talked about being inspired by the award's first black recipient, Sidney Poitier, the importance of journalists who uncover "corruption and to injustice," and the story of Recy Taylor, a black woman who reported her rape case to the NAACP in 1944.

"Recy Taylor died ten days ago," Winfrey said. "She lived too many years in a culture broken by brutally powerful men. Women were not believed."

By including Taylor's story, a case that was investigated by Rosa Parks during the Jim Crow era, Winfrey elevated the importance of the #MeToo movement and the untold stories of assault and harassment women have faced for decades across all industries. At a time when women are demanding to be heard, in an era of fake news and bad apologies, she eloquently called attention to the need to speak "your truth," as well as the importance for people to listen.

"I'm especially proud and inspired by all the women who have felt strong enough and empowered enough to speak up and share their personal stories," she said. "Each of us in this room are celebrated because of the stories that we tell, and this year we became the story."

Give the whole thing a watch above and decide for yourself whether Winfrey is mulling a 2020 presidential run.

The VICE Morning Bulletin

$
0
0

Everything you need to know about the world this morning, curated by VICE.

US News

Celebs Embrace #MeToo at the Globes
High-profile winners like Laura Dern and Nicole Kidman spoke out against gender inequality and sexual violence at Sunday night’s 75th Golden Globes. Accepting the Cecil B. DeMille Award, Oprah Winfrey said she looked forward to the time “no one has to say ‘me too’ again.” Amid speculation Winfrey might consider running for President, her partner Stedman Graham said “she would absolutely do it.”—CBS News / VICE / Los Angeles Times

Kushner Company Took $30 Million from Israeli Investor
The real estate company owned by Jared Kushner’s family reportedly accepted $30 million from the Israeli investment company Menora Mivtachim prior to a trip Kushner and Ivanka Trump took to Israel in May of last year. Since becoming senior advisor to the president, Kushner has stepped back somewhat from his private-sector responsibilities, but like his wife and the president, he retains a major stake in his family business, raising glaring ethics concerns.—The New York Times

Stephen Miller Said to Be Escorted from CNN
President Trump’s senior advisor was reportedly escorted from the network’s set by security on Sunday after an ill-tempered interview with State of the Union host Jake Tapper. Miller apparently refused initial requests to leave after Tapper cut the interview short, saying Miller had “wasted enough of my viewers’ time.”—Business Insider

Flooding Wreaks Havoc at JFK Airport
More than 500 flights were canceled or delayed after a water pipe burst at the New York City airport this weekend. The spill flooded the arrivals area of Terminal 4, forcing it to close for four hours. Rick Cotton, executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said the incident was “totally unacceptable” and promised an investigation.—NBC News

International News

Oil Tanker Could Explode off Chinese Coast
A Panama-registered tanker that collided with a Chinese freighter in the East China sea on Saturday is said to be at risk of exploding and sinking. All 32 crew members declared missing after the accident—30 Iranians and two Bangladeshis—remained missing, despite search and rescue efforts by Chinese, South Korean, and US ships and aircraft. The tanker was reportedly carrying almost one million barrels of oil.—AP

At Least 25 Killed by Explosion in Syria
The blast took place in Idlib, a Syrian city still held by rebel forces, at the base of the Ajnad al-Qawqaz militant group, but it remained unclear whether it was caused by a car bomb or a drone strike or something else. The attack came as the Syrian military pushed to retake the region for the Assad regime.—BBC News

Philippines Vice President Condemns Plan to Scrap Mid-Terms
Vice President Leni Robredo has criticized as “self-serving” a potential plan to drop the coutnry's 2019 midterm elections as part of a tweak to the constitution. Robredo, who openly opposes President Rodrigo Duterte, said: “We are very much against this no-election proposal because holding elections sums up democracy.”—Reuters

Israel Hits NGOs with Travel Ban
Gilad Erdan, an Israeli government minister responsible for strategic affairs, published a list of 20 international organizations prohibited from making visits to the country. Erdan accused the groups, including the American Friends Service Committee, of spreading “incitement and lies” as part of the boycott, sanctions, and divestment (BDS) campaign against Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.—The Guardian

Everything Else

Sterling K. Brown and Aziz Ansari Achieve Firsts at Golden Globes
On Sunday, Brown became the first black actor to win best performance in a TV drama for his work in This Is Us. Ansari earned the honor of being the first Asian-American actor to pick up best lead in a comedy for his Netflix show Master of None.—CNN

‘Jumanji’ Ousts Star Wars as Box Office No. 1
Sony’s sequel Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle claimed the top spot after earning $36 million this past weekend in North American theaters. The $29.3 million debut of the horror movie Insidious: The Last Key pushed The Last Jedi into third place.—Variety

SpaceX Launches Secret Government Satellite
Elon Musk’s company successfully put the Zuma satellite into orbit Sunday evening, before the broadcast was cut off to protect the purpose of the mission. Zuma was contracted by Northrop Grumman on behalf of an unknown US government entity.—USA Today

Radiohead Said to Be Suing Lana Del Rey
The British band has reportedly launched legal action for copyright infringement after spotting an apparent similarity between their 90s hit “Creep” and Del Rey’s “Get Free.” The singer tweeted: “Their lawyers have been relentless, so we will deal with it in court.”—Noisey

Bannon Tries to Walk Back His Critique of Trump, His Son
After Trump attacked Bannon over quotes attributed to him in Michael Wolff’s new book, the president's former chief strategist accused Wolff of “inaccurate reporting” and insisted Donald Trump, Jr. was “both a patriot and a good man.”—VICE News

JAY-Z Drops Clip for Daughter’s Birthday
The rapper released an animated video for his 4:44 track “Blue’s Freestyle” to mark Blue Ivy Carter’s sixth birthday. “Caught in Their Eyes” is now the only song off the album without a music video.—Noisey

Make sure to check out the latest episode of VICE's daily podcast. Today, we hear from Noisey about the music industry’s favorite outsider, Jeff Rosenstock.

The Hits and Misses of the 2018 Golden Globes

$
0
0

For a ceremony that seemed prime to be celebrating breaking the culture of silence that enabled predators like Harvey Weinstein to get away with so much for so long, the 75th Golden Globe Awards were unusually silent. The red carpet started off hot, with Debra Messing calling out E! for paying their female co-hosts less than their male co-hosts while being interviewed by E!, but the actual awards show was mostly unremarkable, if not outright disappointing.

As host, Seth Meyers did about the best that he could, delivering a fairly tame opening monologue before essentially getting out of the way and letting the ceremony unfold. For the most part, presenters followed suit—with the exception of Geena Davis, who took a jab at the self-congratulatory attitude that awards shows can often take, sarcastically remarking, “I love that we fixed everything,” and Natalie Portman, who called out the fact that all of the motion picture best director nominees were male. All of the following reaction shots were nothing if not awkward, though Guillermo del Toro’s win for The Shape of Water (which also garnered an award for Alexandre Desplat's score) felt well deserved, as he defied being played off the stage and sung the praises of monsters, imperfection, and other-ness.

Unsurprisingly, though, it was Oprah who gave the most electrifying speech of the night. Accepting the Cecil B. DeMille Award, she spoke of the effect of seeing Sidney Poitier win the Oscar for Lilies of the Field, noting that she had “never seen a black man being celebrated like that.” She also spoke about the lives of Recy Taylor and Rosa Parks, making what was possibly the night’s only cogent call to the #MeToo movement: “[Taylor] lived, as we all have lived, in a culture broken by brutally powerful men. For too long, women have not been heard or believed if they dared to speak their truth to the power of those men, but their time is up.”

But change doesn’t happen overnight, and the Globes are no exception to the rule. Gary Oldman, who reportedly assaulted his ex-wife and gave an unpleasant, racist, and anti-Semitic interview to Playboy, took home the prize for Best Actor in a Drama for Darkest Hour; in the hours since James Franco’s win for Best Actor in a Musical or Comedy for The Disaster Artist, multiple accusations against him have begun cropping up on social media. Then there’s the fact that Kirk Douglas, who's in the past faced allegations of rape against actress Natalie Wood, was one of the presenters for Best Screenplay (won by Martin McDonagh for Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri) and received a standing ovation from the gathered crowd.

It all seems like a cosmic stroke of irony given that Big Little Lies—a series about women banding together against an abusive man—took home four awards, winning Best Miniseries or Television Film, with Nicole Kidman, Laura Dern, and Alexander Skarsgård winning in their respective acting categories. Of the four speeches, Dern’s was easily the best, as she called for the promotion of restorative justice as well as calling out the toxicity of a culture that would silence victims and prevent them from speaking up.

It was also strange to see that Lady Bird, which won Best Musical or Comedy and Best Actress in a Musical or Comedy (Saoirse Ronan), hadn’t garnered a Best Director nomination for Greta Gerwig, given the film’s other nominations. Even Barbra Streisand pointed out the metaphorical gap, noting that she's still the only woman to have won the Golden Globe for Best Director (for Yentl in 1984).

That sense of inequity persisted throughout the night, as most of the speeches made by men veered away from being remotely political—take Ewan McGregor’s acceptance speech for Fargo, for instance, or Sam Rockwell’s for Three Billboards—and The Greatest Showman, a facile offense in a progressive work’s clothing, took home the prize for Best Original Song. Even the acceptance speeches for Coco, which won for Best Animated Feature, and In the Fade, for Best Foreign Language Film, were fairly pedestrian.

Still, HFPA President Meher Tatna’s speech on the importance of journalism (and the announcement of two grants to fund and protect investigative journalists) was heartening, even more so as stories about women and diversity began to carry the day. The Handmaid’s Tale won for Best Actress in a TV Drama (Elizabeth Moss) as well as Best TV Drama, and The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel won the equivalent awards for TV Musical or Comedy (with Rachel Brosnahan winning for her performance as Mrs. Maisel herself). Allison Janney, with I, Tonya’s sole win, noted the movie’s message about class, as well as shouting out the real Tonya Harding, who was in attendance at the ceremony.

There were a few firsts over the course of the night, too. Aziz Ansari made history as the first Asian actor to win the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a TV Musical or Comedy, and Sterling K. Brown became the first black man to win the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a TV Drama. Sterling’s speech, in which he spoke about the importance of his role as having been written for him, and thereby allowing him to be seen, was particularly resonant in a room—and among nominations—that were predominantly white.

It feels like a relevant point for a ceremony in which Three Billboards dominated, winning in four out of the six categories it was nominated in, with Frances McDormand’s acting win and the prize for Best Drama rounding out its recognitions. The film is great in some regards and weak in others, specifically in its handling of race, which is a sticking point that has been—but should not be— overlooked in the struggle towards intersectional feminism and intersectionality as a whole. Get Out, for instance, was shut out despite being one of the best films of last year, as was Call Me By Your Name.

Oprah aside, this year’s Golden Globes were underwhelming, with most people still afraid to address the elephant in the room, and hypocrisy extended to some of the honors bestowed and the Time’s Up pin worn by artists who have collaborated with Woody Allen and Roman Polanski. But the show wasn’t entirely disappointing. People are speaking out, and the world has become all more eager to listen.


We Need to Talk About Black Mirror’s Obsession With Black Suffering

$
0
0

It goes without saying that Black Mirror is one of the most bewitching sci-fi thrillers we currently have.

Now in its fourth season, the show explores everything from Star Trek-inspired tech nerd revenge (“USS Callister”), the plight of overprotective mothers (“ArkAngel”), and the simulated fates of star-crossed lovers (“Hang the DJ”). But it’s the finale, “Black Museum,” that speaks the loudest.

Deemed the “White Christmas” episode of the season based on its multiple storyline formula, “Black Museum” is anything but. As Nish (played by Letitia Wright, Black Panther) roams through Rolo Haynes’ Black Museum during a three-hour futuristic pit stop, we almost immediately shuffle in our seats.

A dark-skinned black girl walking into an empty horror museum in the middle of the desert? What could possibly go wrong?

She’s met by Haynes himself who takes her on a tour through his haunted house of horrors. We, along with Nish, are walked through a series of now-illegal and ethically questionable objects on display: a borderline-BDSM neurological hat that allowed a doctor to overdose on sexual pleasure from his patient’s pain, a neurological device that evicts a person’s consciousness from their body to live rent-free in someone else’s mind, and finally, a digital hologram of an incarcerated black man in a cell. A literal shell of a man, we find that it’s none other than Clayton Leigh, a wrongfully-convicted murderer on death row whose consciousness is now etched in digital eternity. We’re told his story: that when Haynes worked as a business med-tech (whatever that is) he visited Clay in jail and offered him a way out of his execution by digitally immortalizing his essence into a permanent hologram in exchange for money for his family.

Clay becomes Haynes’ primary attraction, ringing in busloads of sick white people (and one random Asian guy) to pull a lever re-enacting Leigh’s electrocution. Now, all that remains are the vacuous crumbs of Leigh’s previous self.

This is the final straw for Nish, who reveals herself to be his daughter here on a redemptive mission to bring Haynes down.

Nish points out the protests after Clay’s sentencing and the museum closing down, except for a few racist, voyeuristic one-offs who paid extra to keep Haynes in business. Nish condemns him to an eternal life of electrocution (solidified via souvenir) by locking Hayne’s consciousness into Clay’s virtual one, and is finally to say her goodbyes.

Nish burns the museum down, and we find that her dead mother shares occupancy inside Nish’s mind, as well.

Nish is proof that not all heroines wear capes.

She reflects the unspoken grief that black people—particularly black women—carry. We’re often asked to bury deep emotional scars in our minds, hearts, and souls, and are almost never afforded the luxury of cerebral safety. We’re in constant fear of losing our loved ones; our sons, daughters, fathers, and brothers whose lives are unjustly snuffed out before their time.

Because of socio-economic access, we’re also left medically neglected, not always getting the treatment we need for better mental and physical health. We’re twice as likely to deal with anxiety or depression and have some of the highest breast cancer mortality rates.

We are emotional secret-keepers. Much like Nish’s undercover status, we’re asked to forego our feelings for the sake of “socially acceptability” (read: white fragility). We’re denied the full spectrum of our emotions in order to move through our daily professional (and sometimes personal) lives—even when flash anger is due.

Nish’s revenge is not only justified; it’s well-deserved.

As if operating in a parallel universe, Nish’s fictional character comes at a time when real-life 27-year-old Erica Garner (daughter of Eric Garner who died from a police chokehold in 2014) recently passed following a heart attack and months after giving birth. Erica became an activist in light of her father’s death and not only had to face the state’s glaring miscarriage of justice, but all the media discourse that also came with it.

Much like Nish and Clay, “Black Museum” also puts us face to face with past realities like the gynecological experimentation of enslaved Black women, the Tuskegee syphilis experiment in the 1930s, and the forced sterilization of Native American women in the 1970s and beyond.

It’s horror histories like these that make this episode so daunting.

In the past, racialized characters on Black Mirror (and many British shows for that matter) feel almost inadvertently present and largely ignored, leaving audiences to interpret racial subtext for themselves. Skins (considered the British Degrassi) barely acknowledges faith-based and racial differences. Race is almost entirely ignored in gritty supernatural drama Misfits to the point where it almost feels unnatural when Nathan acknowledges Curtis’ Blackness.

But it’s hard not to read into the corrective godlike punishment for Biblical transgressions in episodes like “White Bear” where Victoria (Lenora Crichlow), a Black woman, is repeatedly shocked out of her memory after participating in a child murder, later becoming a shamebot to be paraded through the streets in a Cersei-esque Walk-of-Shame.

It’s equally as difficult to turn a blind eye to Bing’s cog-in-the-machine breakdown in “Fifteen Million Merits” where Bing (Daniel Kaluuya) is a part of a simulated slave-like institution that requires its society to ride bikes to power their surroundings and earn “merits.” In a fight against the system that pressured his love into a life of pornography, Bing punches his screen, hides a piece of glass, gets his merits up, and manages to get back on the show to threaten to take his own life. But his protest is quickly turned to parody as he becomes a part of the show and is offered a weekly spot in exchange for a nicer pod—to which he accepts.

It, like “Black Museum,” is a painful episode about forcing the hands of the disenfranchised. Like Bing, Clay also isn’t left much of an option—either participate in a soul-sucking science project-like system and die (figuratively), or don’t participate and die at the hands of a system positioned against Black men anyway (literally).

Both episodes take advantage of marginalized persons wanting a better life. In “Fifteen Million Merits,” things couldn’t be any more clear: Bing’s struggle, though entertaining, is not meant to be taken seriously. And while Bing’s “rage” is contained through a system, Clay’s objections in “Black Museum” are to be contained in chains. In a cell. In the afterlife.

In both cases, both characters are reduced to—and only kept—for one thing: profit.

But “Black Museum” is the first time we see Black Mirror addressing race head-on. Does it do justice?

As progressive as the dystopic methods in each episode are, the age-old message remains ironically regressive; that Black pain, Black trauma, and Black bodies are meant to be on literal display for an audience’s enjoyment. In some ways, it feels like the torture porn that we’ve seen time and time again: a commodification of the Black struggle.

It’s a recurrent theme that leads one to ask, well, what is Charlie Brooker’s deal?

The aforementioned episodes all obsess over the plight of being trapped in an oppressive system designed to capitalize off of [Black] suffering. They break down the mind, preserve the body, and make a mockery of pain. They leave their victims with no choice but to participate until they’re nothing left but hollow, empty shells.

One can’t help but compare it to our current desensitized culture where Black deaths are widely spread across the internet like a Worldstar fight. Black people dying at the hands of injustice has become so commonplace that our world feels like simulated, too. Troy Anthony Davis. Eric Garner. Sandra Bland. Tamir Rice. Mike Brown. Trayvon Martin. The list is endless.

“Black Museum” also comes at an interesting time when Afrofuturism is finally starting to pick up steam. Sci-fi has historically been used to critique systemic regimes (e.g. X-Men or literally any Octavia Butler book), and with Afrofuturist movies like Black Panther and music videos like “Family Feud,” we’re only now exploring messages outside of blaxploitation within the (sub)genre. Films like Jordan Peele’s Get Out that explore the nuances of experimentation on Black bodies for white advancement are only the beginning.

But whether we’re romanticized for our sexual prowess, idolized for our artistic “eye”, or straight up demonized and locked away, make no mistake—”Black Museum” is an episode about mental incarceration. Perhaps what stings most are the ripples of a quadruple homicide effect: Clay’s unjust execution by the state, his digital remains in a continuous loop of torture, his wife’s overdose, and the annihilation of his mind. He can barely even recognize his own daughter by the end of it all, and who can blame him?

Nevertheless, there’s a tinge of hope by the episode’s end. Clay’s wife living on as an inhabitant of Nish’s consciousness is a powerful testament to the reclamation of the Black mind. For a show that has a proven obsession with Black suffering, it seems like a subtle step in the right direction.

Follow Lindsey on Twitter.

Here's Our First Look at the New Season of 'Atlanta'

$
0
0

The teaser trailer for Atlanta's new season dropped during the Golden Globes Sunday night, somewhere in between a brilliant speech from Oprah and a Tommy Wiseau appearance—giving us even more reason to be excited for the show's upcoming March premiere.

The minute-long teaser is just a single, sustained panning shot as Donald Glover and the show's stars pose in diners, driveways, and a club full of levitating strippers. There's also an alligator in there somewhere, but sadly no sign of the "VERY TAN caucasians" Glover was searching for to play "Floridians."

The whole thing is soundtracked by Sonder's "Too Fast" and is lit like Caravaggio was the DP. The teaser doesn't seem to give us a look at any actual footage from season two, but the minute-long clip perfectly captures Atlanta's strange, beautiful, and surreal tone.

It's only fitting that FX decided to premiere the season two teaser during the 2018 Golden Globes since the first season of Atlanta took home a pair of awards at last year's ceremony. But ultimately, the clip would be just as exciting if it was dumped on YouTube one day without any fanfare—it's just good to know we'll be getting more Atlanta soon.

The first episode of season two, called Atlanta: Robbin' Season, drops March 1 and the show's creators have promised that the new season will have a more cohesive, season-long arc, Vulture reports, inspired by, uh, the 1992 cartoon Tiny Toons: How I Spent My Summer Vacation.

"Tiny Toons Summer Vacation was broken up into a bunch of episodes, but if you watched them all together they were a movie," co-creator Stephen Glover said at a panel last week. "We took that idea. It’s a whole story, but told in a bunch of little parts."

Sunday's new trailer doesn't exactly give off the Tiny Toons vibe, what with all the chiaroscuro and lack of talking animals, but maybe season two will end with Earn enrolling at Acme Looniversity or something. We'll have to wait until March to see.

Parents Forced to Pay for Their Kids' Jail Time Are Getting Refunds

$
0
0

This article was published in partnership with the Marshall Project.

One California county is giving its citizens something that’s not typically on offer from the US justice system: a refund.

This week, the Contra Costa County probation department will begin notifying and mailing checks to families who, since 2010, were wrongfully billed for their children’s incarceration.

The county, located to the east of the Bay Area, will pay back a total of $136,000—with interest—to about 500 mostly low-income families. It has also wiped out more than $8.5 million of outstanding debt in about 11,000 other cases.



“It’s not easy for government to look at a practice, admit it was wrong, and make a refund, but it’s the right and moral thing to do,” said John M. Gioia, a member of the county’s Board of Supervisors, which made its decision on the issue in December.

Until last year, California state law allowed counties to bill parents for the cost of their children’s incarceration, a common policy nationwide that has recently come under wide criticism. The Marshall Project wrote about the practice in March, and in October, Democratic Governor Jerry Brown banned it statewide.

Even under the previous law, California parents were not supposed to be billed if their son or daughter was ultimately found not guilty. But most counties either did not know about the provision or did not follow it.

Billing parents for the cost of their children’s incarceration is rooted in a decades-old belief among policymakers that families are responsible for supporting their delinquent children and should not expect government to pick up the tab. But critics have challenged the policy around the country, arguing it is akin to taxing parents for a child’s loss of liberty.

In California, advocates began fighting the fee system locally in 2016, winning moratoriums in several counties, including Contra Costa. Philadelphia also stopped the practice last year, soon after The Marshall Project story.

Contra Costa appears to be the only California county to take the additional step of discharging all outstanding debt and repaying parents who had been improperly billed.

Probation officials there have spent the past several months going through more than 3,000 payment accounts, searching for parents who were billed even when their child was not guilty. They are now mailing form letters to the last known addresses of those families, notifying them of the refund effort.

There will also be a claims process for parents who believe they were unfairly assessed the fees earlier than 2010 or for reasons other than innocence. This could include cases in which indigent families were billed without an adequate way for them to demonstrate their income level, which was also required by the old law.

“You never like to lose revenue, but this was a real hardship for folks—and we’re able to absorb the cost of paying them back,” said Todd Billeci, the chief probation officer in Contra Costa.

Some activists, though, believe the Board of Supervisors has not gone far enough.

Rebecca Brown, director of Reentry Solutions Group, a criminal justice advocacy organization that spearheaded the effort to get the fees banned and the money paid back, says the county is getting off easy. She points out that only the “wrongfully” billed parents are getting repaid, even though California law now says the whole payment system is illegal. And the probation department is refunding accounts only going back to 2010, before which it says it does not have adequate records.

“The real reason that the county wants to claim the records don’t exist is that it opens the door to a) a lot of work and b) a much bigger pool of potential reimbursements,” Brown said. “The message is that justice reform isn’t that important in itself and shouldn’t actually cost the government anything.”

News of the refund was bittersweet for Mariana Cuevas, whose story The Marshall Project reported last year. Her son was imprisoned more than 300 days for a crime he did not commit, but she was nonetheless billed nearly $10,000 for his detention, most of which she was not able to pay.

Cuevas, a house cleaner in the city of Antioch, spoke at the county meeting in December when the decision to issue refunds was made.

“Money for people who are working to survive can never be too late,” she said in an interview.

But her son was still wrongfully jailed for all those months. “It doesn’t fix it,” she said.

A version of this article was originally published by the Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization that covers the US criminal justice system. Sign up for the newsletter, or follow the Marshall Project on Facebook or Twitter.

People Raised $175,000 for the Roy Moore Accuser Whose House Burned Down

$
0
0

Last week, the home of a woman who accused Roy Moore of groping her went up in flames in what police are now investigating as an arson. Now, just a few days after the devastating blaze destroyed everything in Tina Johnson's Alabama home, a GoFundMe campaign has raised more than $179,000 to help get her back on her feet.

Luckily no one was injured in the fire at the house in Gadsden on Wednesday, but it forced Johnson, her husband, and her grandson to move into a motel for the time being with "just the clothes on our backs," AL.com reports. Two days later, Katie Stanton—a former Obama staffer currently working at a San Francisco tech company—set up a fundraiser for Johnson, promising that every dollar donated would go to helping her rebuild.

"I don't know Tina Johnson. But I believe her," Stanton wrote on GoFundMe. "It has always been dangerous and risky for women (and men) to speak out against sexual harrasmment [sic]. Today, this danger reached a disturbing level. Tina's home burned down and she lost everything. An arson investigation is underway."

Natalie Barton, a public information officer for the Etowah County Sheriff's Department, told AL.com police don't believe there's a connection between Johnson's allegations and the fire. The cops have reportedly pinpointed a local man with a history of public drunkenness as a suspect in the case after he was spotted near the home on the day of the fire. He also allegedly asked a neighbour if she thought Johnson's house would burn down Wednesday, AL.com reports.

For her part, Johnson told AL.com she's grateful for the money coming her way, a sum Stanton said is made up of $5 to $1,000 donations from all 50 states.

"I just thank everyone all across America from the bottom of my heart," Johnson said. "I just cannot give them the proper words. God is good."

Like Stanton, Johnson said she thought there was a connection between the fire and her decision to publicly accuse Moore of sexual misconduct, telling AL.com that it was "too coincidental" for the two incidents not to be linked.

Regardless of what the police investigation turns up, the crowdfunding campaign for Johnson makes an explicitly political point—a trend that has been making a big splash on GoFundMe recently.

Follow Drew Schwartz on Twitter.

Instagays, Unfiltered

$
0
0

The other night, a stranger with an ambiguous-looking avatar and a private account DMed me on Instagram to tell me he was gay. He then asked how I reconcile my homosexuality with being Muslim (he'd likely just seen a video about my relationship with my Muslim father.)

It was late and I was sick; I didn’t want to respond. But I make a point to when the message is about coming out, which I’ve written about often, and I wanted to tell him that despite having a Muslim father, I've never identified as Muslim. We went back and forth briefly until I politely declined coffee, and suggested that finding someone in his life to talk to would be more fulfilling than a stranger on the Internet. I wished him luck and signed off, “Congrats, being gay is great.”

I have conversations like that on Twitter or Instagram almost weekly, but I have just a couple thousand followers on each. Meaning the inbox of a successful Instagay—the burgeoning cult of beautiful gay men on Instagram, with follower counts that reach into five or six digits—must be inundated.

Chances are, if you’re a gay man, you either follow or have encountered an Instagay online. They’re “different than your average hot selfie-taking guy or women on Instagram,” as New York Magazine once put it. “These men are more relentless and artful [...] their images as well-selected, aspirational, and powerfully seductive as an underwear or fragrance ad campaign.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Instagay phenomenon is often criticized for being vapid and misrepresenting modern gay life. It seems like many Instagays know each other, and so their world is unique. Through travelogues, lavish grooming routines, and daily appearances at Barry’s Bootcamp, one imagines endless disposable income (seemingly without real work to produce it).

Despite some ridicule, there’s no shortage of Instagays who have crossed the elusive 500,000 follower mark, from writer/director Max Emerson to Justin and Nick, a gay couple based in Pittsburgh. Ask a gay man to close his eyes and picture one, and he might see Charles-Laurent Marchand, a 26-year-old former runway model studying to be a pastry chef. Followers travel the world alongside him, often in first class; in one story, he stripped down to Versace briefs in a lie-flat bet. He broke 400,000 followers last October.

And not unlike his peers, brands familiar to any Instagay follower are peppered throughout Charles’ feed, from Daniel Wellington watches to the dating app Chappy. Many, unsurprisingly, are sponsored by protein powders or teeth whiteners. A recent Ad Week piece noted Instagram influencers with 100,000 followers can earn nearly $800 per post—ample incentive to keep those underwear pics coming.

Over the past few years, these men have captured a not-insignificant slice of the popular queer imagination. And while gay culture has always slavishly worshipped unrealistic ideas of beauty, from physique model magazines and the cult of Tom of Finland, Instagay culture may take this worship to a new level.

After all, Instagays are algorithmically-calibrated thirst traps, a new kind of social media star whose fame is predicated on a heady combination of sculpted abs and the lavish trappings of “influencer” culture. What if these are our new gay icons? And what happens when a new queer generation looks to them as role models and idols, people whose lives are their proof that it gets (much, much) better? Is the superficiality of Instagay culture really something they should look up to? How many of them are reaching out to Instagays for help through dark times, as they do to me? And how many of them have nowhere else to turn?

I sought to ask the Instagays directly. And if you’re looking for Instagays, there’s one surefire way to find them: On New York-based artist John MacConnell’s page, where he’s sketched hundreds of men, most of whom are Instagays, in their underwear or less.

After DMing John, 33, to talk about his experience, he invited me over to his Nolita apartment. By the time I climbed six flights to reach him, I had sweat through my white dress shirt, and no filter could glamorize me—I was the opposite of an Instagay. Nonetheless, he sketched me while I interviewed him, flicking on a spotlight and directing me towards a stool.

“It’s so hot,” I said as I fanned myself with my notebook.

“You could take some clothes off,” he smirked as he threw his sketchbook open.

I fixated on how I sat while John drew me, and I asked if his other subjects did, too. He quickly painted a picture of his most-followed models as illusionists. “They know their angles, they know exactly how to twist at the waist,” he said. Yet their conversations often betray insecurities lurking beneath. “The people who work out the hardest often are because they’re self-conscious,” he said. “And I don’t get the best drawing from the people with the best bodies, either.”

Still, it’s hard to find someone with a bad body on his feed. I ask if he thinks his work contributes to body dysmorphia in the gay community. His answer almost sounds media trained. “I’m drawing what I want to draw and people are choosing whether they want to consume it. I can’t speak to how they experience my work,” he replied. “People are selective about what they see.” He’s not defensive, but I realize I’ve put him in an unfair position. He’s an artist, this is his art, and the role—if any—that Instagays play in body dysmorphia within our community is almost impossible to parse.

He’s more comfortable talking about the good he’s seen from Instagram. He told me it’s elevated his profile as an artist, that he’s used it to sell countless works of art, make friends and raise thousands for charity.

After our interview, he shows me his sketch. I don’t think it looks much like me, no better, no worse—more angular, maybe. I wonder if I was too distracting with my questions or if John’s ballpoint pen often acts as a chisel.

The next night, I met Logan Fletcher, 26, for drinks in Hell’s Kitchen. He’s a frequent subject of John’s sketches; with 30,000 followers, he’s still building his base. His sponsored posts are infrequent and most often for The Underwear Expert, an “underwear of the month” club. “I just get free underwear,” he told me.

He looks like a Disney prince, blonde and tall; he brings up the fact that he’s 6’2” several times throughout our conversation, even when it’s irrelevant. And his personality matches his looks: he’s charming and refreshingly authentic, and over the course of a couple hours, he talks about everything from his ex to his obsession with drag queens.

He’s transparent enough to show me his DMs. They’re mostly compliments, and they’re pretty benign, though he does get messages from guys struggling to come out. And he responds.

He talks about his upbringing, and I’m surprised to learn he spent high school in gay conversion therapy, twice a week for three years. “I’ve been that kid in Middle America who had no one to talk to,” he said. “When I came out, my family took my phone and computer away so I couldn’t connect with other gay people. I’ve been that kid who feels like there’s nowhere to go, who looked to self-harm as a solution. I would hate for someone to feel like no one cared.” And he’s smart about how he replies. “I’m always very clear that I’m not a professional, and I might not have solid advice. I try to send them to other resources or organizations where I can.”

As we keep talking, I push back a little—his Instagram doesn’t talk much about where he’s from or reveal how layered he is. “You post with your shirt off more than on,” I told him.

“That’s accurate,” he said.

I ask if he feels a responsibility to speak out, to use his platform to share meaningful stories. As we talk it out, I wonder if I’m taking it all too seriously—I scroll through his feed while he talks, through dozens of photos of him playing with dogs and posing in the mirror. Maybe his feed—and maybe the Instagays—are more harmless than people think. Logan re-grounds the conversation. “I just post what I wanna post. Hopefully it helps someone out because I keep it positive,” he said. “Even if it’s me dressing up as a dog because I’m fucking stupid and silly, then cool—hopefully it helps someone out.”

He talks briefly about Instagays who are speaking out and cites examples of posts where they tell their coming out stories or support an initiative like GLAAD’s Spirit Day; he qualifies that the speaking out is something, even if it’s only “twenty percent of the time.” Then he nicely articulates what I already know. “To expect anyone to be on a mission [to do good] all of the time isn’t realistic.”

The next week I connected over the phone with Joshua Cummings, 26, a fitness model and aspiring actor and writer. As a person of color, I was curious to see how his experience with Instagram differed from John’s or Logan’s. I also wanted to know whether he approaches Instagram differently given his career (modeling and acting) is most directly impacted by it; John works as an art director and Logan works in sales.

Our early conversation was more aligned with my expectations of an Instagay—he possessed a confidence that bordered on arrogance, and threw around words like “my brand” and “my art” when referring to his feed and his body. His Instagram posts are primarily gym shots, and his stories comprise workouts, facials, haircuts, and other pampering treatments.

But as we talked, he revealed a vulnerability rooted in his upbringing not dissimilar to Logan’s, one that’s also wholly absent from his feed.

Joshua grew up in Omaha, Nebraska. He was one of eight children in a family that was “very much into the church.” He came out when he was fourteen; at the time, he was dating a guy six years his senior. His family didn’t take that, or his coming out, well, and he moved out when he was fifteen to live with the older man.

He came to New York alone when he was eighteen, and spent his first week there sleeping in Penn Station. Suddenly, his arrogance comes across as defiance, a relentless ambition to prove himself. “I told my mom I wanted to be a model when I was 15. She told me there was never gonna be someone like me on a magazine,” he said. “I sent her four magazines featuring me this year.”

Despite their complicated coming out stories, Joshua and Logan’s Instagram experiences differ in many key ways—namely, their DMs. While the compliments and flirtations in Logan’s inbox only occasionally go too far, the majority of Joshua’s DMs are explicit. “I’m objectified a lot,” he told me. “Many people, especially white gay men, treat me like an escort. They flat out offer me money, they ask to see my dick.”

Still, despite what may be constituted as harassment, he said that, largely thanks to Instagram, “I’ve come to understand who I am, what I want, and what I can do.”

When he poses for photographers, he tells me he aims to look “strong and sexual.” And he seeks out photographers who don’t typically shoot black men. “My Instagram is a showcase of what African-American men can do,” he told me—not a showcase of how he’s struggled. “I don’t want total strangers to know all of that. I tell my story and my life through the photographs I’m in; that gives hints of what I’ve been through.”


Watch therapist Zach Rawlings discuss body image issues in the gay community:


A couple of weeks after interviewing Logan, he referenced our conversation and posted with a lengthy caption about his coming out, conversion therapy and all. I’m struck that the deeply personal post, with 1,400 likes, isn’t more popular—a gym selfie on Logan’s feed can easy see over twice that number. But it's barely surprising, given the quick scroll nature of Instagram consumption.

If anything, Instagays are as flawed and complicated as the rest of us. But their feeds are filtered to make them appear simpler than they are, and if follows and likes are indication, that’s how we like it.

As I wrote this piece, friends asked if it would be an exposé. Ask a typical queer person, and you’ll get a slew of opinions. Shirtless pictures signal vapidity, they’ll say. If they have too many sponsored posts, they're greedy or inauthentic. (And it is astounding how creatively an Instagay can draw a connection to a brand.) Posts about mindfulness or inspirational advice that aren’t done right can come across as foolish.

It’s a vicious cycle: The more followers a guy gets for his sexy pics, the easier to becomes to monetize their feed and expand their "brand," and the more valid their clout and influence becomes. But that elevated profile only exposes them to more criticism. The validation begets vilification; like a Shakespearean drama, we build them up only to tear them down.

All the criticism reminds me of something both John and Logan said during our conversations—John when I asked about how contrived some of his posts were, and Logan when I prodded him on the logic behind those sexy dog costume shots. “It’s just Instagram,” they told me.

Well, it is. And it isn’t.

Follow Khalid el Khatib on Twitter.

Viewing all 38002 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images