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

You Know You're Gonna See 'Black Panther' 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, from the best movies and the best TV shows to the best music to listen to and the best art events happening across the US. Read on for our staff recommendations on what to take in during your downtime:

Black Panther

It's a Marvel movie, only good. Do you need another reason? —Larry Fitzmaurice, Senior Culture Editor, Digital

Early Man

Aardman Studios has a winner in this underdog story about an idyllic Stone Age tribe fighting for their land in a high stakes soccer (sorry—football) match against a Roman-style empire that represents the encroaching Bronze Age. The creators of Wallace and Gromit, are always good for a laugh, and their latest flick is no exception. Equal parts Gladiator and Bend It Like Beckham, Nick Park's newest is a fully stop-motion animated sports film—a rarity, in and of itself—with an enthusiastic cast that includes Eddie Redmayne, Maisie Williams, Tom Hiddleston, Timothy Spall, and Richard Ayoade. Park crams an unseemly number of gags into this one—unfortunately, the ending leaves a bitter aftertaste when you remember all the indigenous peoples who were not offered the chance to reclaim their stolen land with a bit of friendly sport. Still, it's fun for the whole family. —Beckett Mufson, Staff Writer

Western

The trick to Valeska Grisebach's slow-burn European drama about a group of German construction workers who take a job in the Bulgarian countryside is to watch it the way you would a Ford, Leone, or Peckinpah. That is to say, all the hypermasculine tension of every Henry Fonda who ever strolled into a saloon is here elevated into a harsh multicultural gumbo that congeals into the worn features of its hero, first-timer Meinhard Neumann. (Seriously, someone cast this guy as Vonnegut.) Fuck the other reviews: This is a Very Good Movie. Must-watch material for anyone with an itinerant interest in foreign film, the myth of the gunfighter, and the real issues facing contemporary rural Europe. —Emerson Rosenthal

Everything Sucks!

If the early reviews are to be believed, Everything Sucks!, the new Netflix series out today, resembles the adolescents it depicts in more ways than it may have originally intended to. Though charming and sincere from the get-go, the Freaks and Geeks meets Stranger Things mashup stumbles early on, awkwardly trying to be something it’s not. And yet, slowly but surely it finds its footing—much like Freaks and Geeks—becoming much more than a litany of references to Oasis and dial-up. Whether you were born in the 90s or not, there’s something in this show for you. —Patrick Adcroft, Writer/Copy Editor, Snapchat Discover

The Hours

Here I am recommending The Hours, the Academy Award-winning 2002 intergenerational drama starring Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore, and an unrecognizable Nicole Kidman as the author Virginia Woolf. Why? Because I finally saw it (it's currently on HBO Go) and I think it's time you should, too. Is there a single film that so honestly and empathetically addresses mental illness? Combine everything you liked about Adaptation, Magnolia, and, I don't know, Love Actually, and remove all the fluffy auteurial intrusion, and you have The Hours: a stark and shattering story about how there is absolutely nothing ordinary about a single, ordinary day. —ER

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.


The VICE Morning Bulletin

0
0

US News

FBI Was Told About Wannabe Shooter with Same Name As Florida's
Bureau agents were made aware that a YouTube poster under the handle "nikolas cruz" had threatened to commit a mass shooting several months before Wednesday’s massacre in Parkland. Ben Bennight drew their attention to a YouTube comment the actual shooter apparently posted in September, writing, “Im going to be a professional high school shooter.” Meanwhile, Cruz had shared photos of himself with guns on Instagram.—The Washington Post

Bannon Chatted with Mueller for Days
The former White House chief strategist reportedly appeared before Robert Mueller's special counsel team over the course of several days this week, providing around 20 hours of insight into what he knows. But Bannon was less cooperative with the House Intelligence Committee on Thursday, mostly just answering questions that had been vetted by the White House.—NBC News

Two Arrested After Alleged Bomb Plot Thwarted in NYC
Mayor Bill de Blasio said law enforcement officials prevented a possible terrorist attack in New York City after 27-year-old twins Christian and Tyler Toro were arrested. Bomb-making materials were found at their apartment in the Bronx, along with a note that read: “Under the full moon the small ones will know terror.” De Blasio said investigators had “likely saved many, many lives.”—The New York Times

EPA Chief Travels First Class Now to Avoid ‘Profanities’
Henry Barnet, director of criminal enforcement at the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), said agency boss Scott Pruitt was forced to fly first class because of the verbal abuse he received at airports. Barnet said Pruitt had experienced “profanities being yelled at him.” One passenger approached him and shouted: “Scott Pruitt, you’re fucking up the environment.”—Politico

International News

Turkey and US Talk Teaming Up Against Syria
US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson met leading Turkish officials including President Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara Friday in an effort to resolve their dispute over simultaneous military incursions in northern Syria. Turkey has reportedly suggested the two countries' forces could work together, so long as the US-backed YPG Kurdish fighters left the area.—Reuters

Norovirus Strikes at the Winter Olympics
Two Swiss skiers have been diagnosed with the contagious virus and isolated from the rest of the competitors in Pyeongchang, South Korea. More than 200 people are said to have caught the virus, which causes vomiting and diarrhea, and a group of 1,200 security officials were removed after some contracted it.—BBC News

Everything Else

Jeffrey Tambor Axed from ‘Transparent’
Amazon Studios fired the show’s star after investigating sexual harassment allegations against him. Tambor said he was “profoundly disappointed” by the decision and called the company’s inquiries “deeply flawed and biased.”—VICE / Hollywood Reporter

Lady Gaga Made $95 Million on Tour
Live Nation revealed the star sold almost 842,000 tickets to her Joanne World Tour, which was cut short when Gaga fell ill. The singer’s health problems may or may not stop her from going through with a residency in Las Vegas planned for the end of 2018.—Billboard

Run the Jewels Named Record Store Day Ambassadors
The hip-hop duo agreed to officially represent this year’s celebration of independent record stores on April 21. El-P and Killer Mike revealed their new role with a spoof news report about an alien invasion.—Rolling Stone

Kendrick Lamar Drops Another ‘Black Panther’ Video
"King's Dead," featuring Jay Rock and Future, is the latest cut from the Marvel movie soundtrack to get visual treatment. The artists perform on top of palm trees and offices in the clip.—Noisey

FCC Boss Investigated by His Own Agency
The FCC’s Inspector General has reportedly begun official inquiries into director Ajit Pai and whether he “improperly pushed” to gut media consolidation rules. Pai’s changes allowed a merger between Sinclair Broadcasting and Tribune Media.—Motherboard

Wes Anderson Says Studio Ghibli Inspired His New Movie
The US director said the films of Akira Kurosawa and legendary Japanese animator Hayao Miyazaki helped him create Isle of Dogs. “With Miyazaki you get nature and you get moments of peace,” said Anderson. “That inspired us quite a lot.”—i-D

Make sure to check out the latest episode of VICE's daily podcast. Today we hear from Ariell Johnson, the first and only black female comic book store owner on the East Coast.


Sign up for our newsletter
to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

If You Ask Takashi Murakami, You Don’t Have to Like Getting Older

0
0

There are few contemporary artists whose work is more recognizable than the work of Takashi Murakami. Well-known for is pop culture infiltrating work such as the 2004 album concept art for Kanye West’s Graduation and his mid-aughts it-bags for Louis Vuitton, Murakami’s work is as in-place on the shoulder of Paris Hilton as it is in the walls of an art gallery.

Murakami came to major prominence in the early 2000s with his world-touring exhibition Superflat, built around the artist’s theory of superflat—placing art historical, pop culture, and contemporary imagery onto a single visual plane. The effect is a visual cacophony, saturated with reference, equally banal and relevant.

Takashi Murakami: The Octopus Eats Its Own Leg sees its newest iteration (after showing at the Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago) at the Vancouver Art Gallery. The retrospective ranges from the artist’s early work including his playful Mr. Dob character which features prominently throughout his work, to new work made specifically for the installation in Vancouver.

We talked with the artist in Vancouver, confidently on his 56th birthday, about art, aging, and impending, inevitable death.

727, 1996, courtesy The Museum of Modern Art.

VICE: We’re in this room, surrounded by Mr. Dob. Can you tell me a bit about the origins of the character?
Takashi Murakami: Mr. Dob came from the Japanese slang phrase, dobojite. But I think when it debuted, the moment was a really serious moment—Barbara Kruger, Jenny Holzer with very serious messages—and Japanese artists were [interested in] their form, so I was making a parody. Much more nonsense, no meaning, just nonsense. So, that is my kind of message, my artwork is not serious, but this is my self portrait.

There are a lot of iterations of the character, are there some you find yourself more connected to at this point in your life?
Maybe this puking Dob. I’m making these puking Dobs a lot because, you know, I’m getting older and everyday is a struggle, I’m very tired [laughs].

Tan Tan Bo Puking, 2002, courtesy of Galerie Perrotin.

What does a birthday mean to you at this stage in your life?
Oh, my birthday means nothing, no meaning. I like that in Alice in Wonderland, the Madhatter says “unbirthday.” I love this message… getting older. Can’t move your body, health is bad. We die. Everything is disappointing.

When you look back at some of your seminal pieces you made when you were younger, thinking particularly of My Lonesome Cowboy , how do you feel about those works now?
When I see my earlier painting and sculpture I am so jealous, I was young, I had ideas. I had just the young kind of power. And now I have a lot of ideas and techniques but I can't get some of those kind of strange ideas to produce.

Release Chakra’s gate at this instant, 2008, courtesy private collection.

You’ve mentioned before a bit about getting older, not feeling as well. How do you think of your legacy now?
I was so moved when Mike Kelley died. When I started my career I imitated Kelley’s paintings because his message was life is serious, life has a darkside, but painting is very fluffy. So that really touched me when I was young, and then he was depressed, and then he was dead. But his work is still very alive and still a very strong message for us—mostly me. So that feeling is that if I can keep in my world, in my peace, this is my goal.

Can you tell me a bit about how a retrospective like this is cannibalistic, as you reference in the title?
I wasn't really thinking about it as a retrospective. For this show, Chicago, I have made new pieces so for me it’s what’s going on right now. So my newest painting is unsuccessful. So that’s why is an ironic situation, and I added the title, “The Octopus Eats Its Own Leg”—this is that. You know, I make a show, I want to be ambitious but I couldn't, but the theme is kind of the same every time: Mr Dob, puking, ugh.

Is this your birthday suit that you have on?
These are kind of a “Finding Nemo” colours, you know, in the sea.

And the hat, did you make that?
[Laughs] Exactly. You know, I have no confidence, that’s why I’m wearing the costume. Then people can understand that I’m not just negative, I want to present something positive as well. But whenever I start to make a comment, its really negative. That’s why I need a very positive outfit.

'Takashi Murakami: The Octopus Eats Its Own Leg' is at the Vancouver Art Gallery until May 6.

How The Media’s #MeToo Failings Hurt Victims

0
0

A few years ago Rolling Stone retracted a story about an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia that turned out to be false. The piece, called “A Rape on Campus,” was subject to an investigation by the Columbia Journalism Review, which delivered a scathing report on the magazine’s journalistic missteps.

The reporter was later found guilty of defaming a dean at the school, and the magazine was ordered to pay $1.65 million to the fraternity at the centre of its story.

Media types followed the incident with morbid fascination: It was every journalist’s worst nightmare. At the time I remember thinking it was a cautionary tale on the importance of meticulous reporting, even when the subject is sensitive and the questions we ask feel intrusive and uncomfortable. I also remember an occasionally sexist guy friend sending me a link about the controversy to back up his belief that false accusations are not that uncommon. (They are.)

Fast-forward to 2018, when stories exposing sexual predators are unfolding at break-neck speed. While much of the reporting has been excellent, it’s hard to deny that errors and a shifting, or arguable loosening, of standards are also becoming more common. And while getting things wrong is an issue for an outlet’s credibility, it’s really victims of sexual assault who suffer most from our carelessness, along with the #MeToo movement itself.

Recently, it seems CTV failed to corroborate a couple details in its investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against Patrick Brown, former leader of Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives.

The outlet initially reported in late January that one of Brown’s accusers was in high school and not of legal drinking age when she met Brown at a bar in Barrie, Ontario. The accuser said he took her and her friend back to his house, gave her alcohol, and asked her for oral sex. She said she briefly complied before leaving. On Wednesday, CTV said the accuser told them she was in fact an adult and not a minor in high school when the alleged incident took place a decade ago.

Brown lashed out on Facebook later that day, saying that CTV “fabricated a malicious and false report about me from two anonymous accusers. After a long three weeks, CTV News has now admitted that it got it wrong.”

Brown has repeatedly denied all of the allegations. He is threatening to sue CTV and in an interview with Global News, described the story as a “fabricated political assassination.” It’s worth noting his response has been bizarre from the get-go—from the tearful late-night presser on the night the allegations were made public, to his interview with Global, in which he said meeting with supporters in a hospital waiting room a week after CTV’s story broke is what prompted him to look at the allegations in detail. When he examined the allegations closely, he said he realized they were a “massive fabrication.” (It strikes me as odd that he had to look that closely into allegations against himself to discover that they were lies.)

Brown also claims a CTV reporter who worked on the misconduct story had a personal relationship with one of his accusers.

CTV says it stands by its reporting and that the core allegations are true, even if the accuser’s age was not what she initially told them. As of this writing, the outlet had not corrected its original story that said Brown’s accuser was in high school. In response to the conflict of interest charge, the broadcaster said it “took steps before publication and broadcast to ensure there was no previous contact with any of the journalists that would influence the reporting.” If the relationship existed, it probably should have been disclosed.

The significance of the age of Brown’s accuser at the time the alleged incident took place is up for debate. But unfortunately for some, the update, combined with reporting from CBC that also pokes holes in CTV’s original story, are reason enough to dismiss the allegations outright—even though Brown’s own stories surrounding his political career have been proven to be unreliable.

Another #MeToo media blunder that comes to mind was the unnecessary editorializing in Babe’s story about Aziz Ansari’s shitty date behaviour (the accuser’s outfit on their date was emphasized as was the fact that she didn’t get to choose what wine they drank). Additionally, the website reportedly only gave Ansari five hours to respond to the allegations, an inadequate period of time for a story of that magnitude. Afterwards, the woman who went on a date with Ansari was subjected to harsh criticism. Babe’s framing of certain parts of the story couldn’t have helped.

Vox’s investigation on New York Times Washington correspondent Glenn Thrush was written by reporter Laura McGann, who says Thrush once kissed her without consent.

“I was—and am—angry,” McGann wrote in the piece.

When I read it, I immediately thought, would it not make more sense for her to be a source instead of an author with a glaring conflict of interest? The story on Thrush also included an encounter that was consensual, according to the woman being interviewed, posing questions about why the anecdote was published at all.

Back in Canada, the Walrus recently published and then pulled a story on sexual harassment in CanLit because it hadn’t been thoroughly fact-checked. They’ve since re-published it, but the story was down for several days, leaving many speculating on Twitter about what exactly was inaccurate about the piece.

There are many more instances, but you get the idea.

While it may sound like I’m nitpicking, in the context of a society conditioned not to believe the "fake news" media or sex assault victims—only 10 percent of sex assault trials result in a conviction—it doesn’t take much to plant seeds of doubt. Even the fact that reporters use confidential, unnamed sources—sometimes absolutely necessary—is enough to cause skepticism.

Last year, sex assault survivor Roslyn Talusan said she told her story—that she’d been raped by a colleague—to a Toronto broadcaster. The piece said she was “dating” her colleague at the time the assault took place, something Talusan denies. While it seemed like a minor detail, it bothered her.

“If my rapist ever read that, he would’ve said ‘lol we weren’t dating and I made that clear, so obviously she’s a lying crazy fucking bitch,’” she told VICE.

She said the experience of talking about past assaults is re-traumatizing, especially when journalists get things wrong.

“Rape apologists have more reason to blame us, disbelieve us, and it makes it that much harder for advocates to affect change,” she said. “Reporters have the luxury of not having to give that much of a fuck in getting the details right or addressing the nuance.”

GS Potter, a rape survivor and US-based founder of the Strategic Institute for Intersectional Policy, told VICE she thinks news organizations have lowered the bar when it comes to exposing politicians. She said she’s angry over the sexual misconduct stories that resulted in Democratic Senator Al Franken’s resignation, which she doesn’t feel was necessary.

“As a survivor, it sickened me to see the real trauma that women go through being mocked for political gain." She said as human beings, we should believe survivors, but when it comes to stories involving politicians, the dynamics change and journalists have a responsibility to be discerning.

While these issues are important to discuss, the fact that media outlets are covering sexual assault and harassment with such frequency is undoubtedly a net gain.

“For me, the bottom line is that we’re in a vast moment of social change. It’s always messy, and there’s always roadkill,” Vanessa Grigoriadis, a contributing editor to the New York Times Magazine and author of Blurred Lines: Rethinking Sex, Power and Consent on Campus, told VICE.

“Mainstream media used to turn up its nose at reporting sexual misconduct that couldn’t be verified via police report because it was legally dicey, and also because sexual stuff was perceived as a ‘private matter.’ Now the private is public.”

She said the relatively new trend of journalists calling friends or family members of victims to verify that they told them about alleged assaults when they occurred is a good way to verify that something took place.

That being said, she acknowledges that mistakes will be made.

“I’d imagine there’s an innocent guy or two in the mix in the stories that have already been reported,” she said, noting that once the dust settles she expects rich and powerful men to file lawsuits in big numbers.

In journalism there’s a tremendous pressure to be first, but when the stakes are this high, it’s better to be careful. The worst-case outcome for sloppiness can be far more destructive than a lawsuit.

Follow Manisha Krishnan on Twitter.

The Long, Strange Conservative Obsession with Obama's Sexuality

0
0

I didn't expect the far right to like Barack Obama's official portrait, painted by the groundbreaking artist Kehinde Wiley, but I didn't expect the disdain for it to be so sexually charged, which is perhaps a testament how naïve I am. “Obama's portrait—a stark contrast to predecessors with inappropriate sexual innuendo,” Sean Hannity wrote on Tuesday in a now-deleted tweet that linked to an equally batshit article on his website.

Hannity's Obama official portrait sex blog, authored by "Hannity Staff," has since been removed, but lives on forever on the Internet Archive. Headlined "PORTRAIT PERVERSION: Obama Portrait Features ‘SECRET SPERM,’ Artist Joked About ‘Killing Whitey,’" the article suggested that Wiley included "secret sperm cells" in the presidential portrait, a conspiracy theory that unsurprisingly seems to have originated on 4chan. The "secret sperm" in question is actually just a depiction of a prominent vein the former president has on his forehead, although it is true that Wiley's past work has included sperm cells.

Hannity said in a statement, "Earlier today my web staff posted content that was not reviewed by me before publication. It does not reflect my voice and message and, therefore, I had it taken down." But he was not the only one in the conservative media to fixate on the alleged secret sexuality of Obama's official portrait.

The Daily Caller published an article headlined, "Obama’s Painter Has Long ‘Predatory,’ ‘Perverse’ History Of Sneaking Sperm Into Paintings." The libertarian-ish weirdo blog ZeroHedge mused, "Did The Bigot Who 'Painted' Obama's Portrait Stick A Giant Sperm On His Forehead?" Breitbart zeroed in Obama's comments about Michelle's portrait, headlining a post, "Obama Thanks Artist for Capturing Michelle’s ‘Hotness’ in Official Portrait." Not to be outdone, InfoWars ran a piece with the subheadline, "Obama bukkake: Artwork is symbolic of how world leaders treated former president."

Jerome Corsi, another InfoWarrior, had more to say about all the sex things he saw in Obama's official portrait. Buckle up:

It’s a reference to the loss of virginity in terms of a physical sense. It’s a very physical reference to loss of virginity… This whole elite globalist pedophilia is a major theme that Q [a random 8chan poster some on the right think is a Trump official] continues to remind us underlies a lot of these globalists that we are dealing with. The fact that they are sitting on flowers and the deflowering could be easily an image of the pedophilia that they’re engaging in or the slavery pedophilia, you know, tend your gardens everybody, their slave gardens.

You'd have to ask a psychologist about the impulse to see a painting of Obama and immediately think about jizz, pedophilia, and losing your virginity, but as ThinkProgress pointed out, "The suggestion that Obama’s portrait—a portrait of the first Black U.S. president—is somehow sexually perverse also plays on a racist trope that suggests Black men are naturally inclined to be sexual predators."



This certainly isn't first time we've seen the right-wing obsession with Obama's sexuality. Corsi, unsurprisingly, was one of the many right wingers who spread false rumors that Obama was gay during his presidency. Breitbart has claimed that the Obama administration thought ten-year-olds were "ready for sex," and Infowars has run multiple articles wondering whether Michelle Obama is secretly transgender. This genre of wild, unfounded conspiracy theory became such a meme that it became a joke: In 2012, FOX News host Greg Gutfeld cracked that "Obama is now out of the closet... he's officially gay for class warfare." As former Bush speechwriter David Frum explained at the time:

You cannot ‘get’ Gutfeld’s joke unless you ‘get’ that a large part of his audience ardently believes that Obama is in fact gay, that his marriage is a sham, and that Mrs. Obama leads a life of Marie Antoinette–like extravagance to compensate for her husband’s neglect while he disports himself with his personal aides.

Funnily enough, in 2016, Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council, accused Obama's administration of "interject[ing] sex into any and everything" (which was to blame, in his mind for government employees viewing child porn) but throughout his time in the Oval Office, it's pretty clear that his opponents were consumed with fantasies about Obama's sex life.

In 2009, FOX & Friends falsely accused Obama of ogling the backside of a 17-year-old girl. In 2011, WorldNetDaily columnist Jack Cashill suggested that in his youth, poet Frank Marshall Davis was "plying the underage Obama with alcohol and quite possibly sex." In 2015, WND also suggested that the Obamas faked their wedding and wondered why "no one who ever dated him has shown up."

"The charisma that caused women to be drawn to him so strongly during his campaign certainly would, in the normal course of events, lead some lady to come forward, if only to garner some attention for herself," Bradlee Dean wrote on WND in a 2015 article about Obama's secret life or whatever. "It’s so odd that not one lady has stepped up and said, 'He was soo shy' or 'What a great dancer.'"

The website Defend The Family penned a 2013 article headlined, "Obama was a ‘gay’ teen favored by older white sugar-daddies.” The same year, WND asked whether Obama wants to infect Americans with HIV. In 2014, a French newspaper alleged that Obama and Beyoncé were having a secret affair. Alex Jones has also claimed Obama's mother was a CIA "sex operative" and that Obama had homosexual relations with his former chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel.

In a sense, I empathize with the curiosity about Obama's sex life—as I've said before, he may be the hottest president of all time, so it's only natural to think about him in more intimate contexts. Near the beginning of his first term, the New York Times ran an opinion piece about the apparent trend among liberals of fantasizing about banging him, or just sort of being involved in the Obama family's life. But the right's enduring fixation on Obama and sex—its impulse to find the secret sexuality in innocuous things the former president does, the insistence that there's something wrong or hidden about his sexuality—is ironic considering the current president has allegedly had multiple extramarital affairs and been accused of sexually assaulting or harassing more than a dozen women.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Eve Peyser on Twitter.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

We Regret to Inform You That JNCO Is Going Out of Business

0
0

Are you tired of your constricting skinny jeans? Do your legs long for the freedom and comfort of flattering, wide-leg pants? Do you secretly wish you looked more like a Limp Bizkit album cover? Well, the time has come to either make a change or accept your tight-pant fate for good.

This week, JNCO, the 90s clothing company that turned a generation of disaffected youth into walking garbage zambonis, announced that it is officially closing for good, SFGate reports.

"Since the 1990s, JNCO jeans have been the premier denim brand of the counterculture," the company wrote in a farewell post on its website Thursday. "While we here at JNCO are so proud to have offered an outlet for voices often overlooked, we will soon be ending another chapter of JNCO history."

The company tried to make a comeback in 2015, but alas, it looks like the world wasn't ready for pants that could comfortably fit a pair of redwoods, no matter what GQ may have said. The blog post blamed the end of JNCO on "licensing issues," but judging by how few people are walking around in jeans with a 50-inch hem right now, it's likely that sales factored into the decision at some level.

JNCO has already halted production on new pairs of its iconic, windsock-shaped jeans, but worry not, JNCO fans—the company still has a stock of inventory that it is selling at cut-rate prices on its website, so there's still time to cop a lifetime supply before they disappear forever. Act fast, though, because supplies are "limited."

"While this is an end of an era for JNCO," the blog post continues, "what JNCO stands for will continue to live on in all of our customers and fans who will carry on the spirit of our brand and all it represents." For the record, JNCO stands for "Judge None, Choose One," but the company is likely speaking in a broader, metaphorical sense here.

So long, JNCO jeans. Your pants were too big for our modern hearts to take. May your cartoonishly-sized denim live on in the crowds at Papa Roach shows forever.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow VICE on Twitter.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

What It’s Like Studying In a Murder House

0
0

“This is a farmhouse, and there’s a lot of blood here, so... naturally you do get a lot of flies,” says Adrian Borlestean.

They’re clustered and crawling all over the outside of the second story window, trying to reach the blood that’s spattered across the walls and ceiling. Through the window there are snowy fields and bales of hay for as far as the eye can see. This house is a distance from its neighbours, and it’s dead quiet. We’re standing in a dusty, bloodstained bedroom with a hammer on the floor.

It may look like something out of Silence of the Lambs, but it’s actually a laboratory.

The bloodstains, bottles, discarded weaponry—it’s all Borlestean’s handiwork. He’s a lab facilitator at Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario.

“We actually use sheep’s blood for the spatters,” says Borlestean. “Which makes the walls a biohazard. Try not to touch anything.”

The crime scene house is located so far on the edge of campus it requires a special bus to reach it. The interior decorating gives off the distinct impression that time froze sometime in 1995. Old, quaint, surrounded by rolling fields and stands of trees, the building may not appear to be a part of the university at all. But this house is to the forensics department what the library is to the English department at Trent. It’s a place to put theory into practice.

Accountants or marketing students may leave lecture halls after graduating and feel ready for their first day of work, but when your new job is to show up and take hair samples after an axe murder, you might need a little hands-on preparation. And while the “crime scene house” trend appears to be catching on at other schools, Trent’s has been up and running for nearly a decade.

As soon as students arrive at the house, they suit up and prepare for gore. The mood is cheerful as they change into the faceless white suits familiar to anyone who’s watched CSI.

“I need some tape,” says teaching assistant Sumiko Polacco, pulling up the pants of her crime scene suit. “They’re one size fits all, so normally we hike the legs up a bit and tape around the knee. Otherwise, I mean, during the blood analysis lab you could be all...” she mimes slipping backwards into a puddle of fresh blood and laughs.

Polacco and the other lab assistants offer a tour of the crime scene house, starting in the cement cellar, which features a video camera, single chair, and rusty saw. Bullet holes puncture the walls of the dining room. Bits of hair and blood pools in the living room floor. A bloody handprint marks the wall by the stairs. A knife, a hammer, and yet more blood smears the walls of the bedrooms.

Each of these scenes is meant to equip students for the daily reality of working in forensics.

Are basement torture scenes common enough that it was necessary to include one in the house?

“Well, it’s not every day in forensics that you deal with crazy serial killers,” says former student Jill Barclay. “But it’s a scene you could very well come across, because people are twisted.”

Preparing for that twistedness is what’s key. Trent students, if they go on to work with the OPP, can expect to deal with cases like Bruce MacArthur—the alleged serial killer and former mall Santa accused of hiding the body parts of several men in planters during his time as a landscaper.

Dr. Mike Iles is a professor of Forensic Science at Trent and former Regional Manager of Forensic services for the Ontario Provincial Police. He has worked on a number of MacArthur-level cases, including a murder committed by the infamous Air Force Colonel Russell Williams.

“There have been experiences in my career where there’s an emotional toll... Where I’ve seen people be successful in the business is when they’re able to look at a scene scientifically, and that pushes the emotional side out. You’re here to do a job, and to use the science that applies to that job. And that helps when you have a really messy scene or a lot of people dead,” Dr. Iles says.

The Crime Scene House.

In the late 1960s, Trent acquired a tract of land that included an old abandoned farmhouse. The house had been rented out by families for decades before that. In 2008, the forensics department saw an opportunity. Dr. Iles and other professors decorated the house with their own old belongings and scavenged furniture from residence rooms.

In a 2016 study, Trent University found that after working at the crime scene house more than half the students reported the experience had a “major impact on their understanding,” and the final examination grade average went from a C+ to a B-.

“Instead of a pristine lab, we have this real opportunity for experiential learning,” says Dr. Theresa Stotesbury, a professor at Trent who’s famous for developing a creepily accurate blood synthetic. “Students are dealing with dust, dirt, the elements... that’s why this house is so great.”

Students are taught to form a hypothesis—say that a particular spattering of blood must be an impact pattern—and then use evidence to determine that probability. Essentially, they learn to treat the rooms like puzzles.

“You might walk into a crime scene where there are some cigarettes on the floor, some cups, a piece of rope, a few spots of blood, and an open window... and that’s it,” says Dr. Christopher Kyle, Chair of Forensics.

Dr. Kyle specializes in the lab side of the work. He explains that not all forensic work is criminal in nature: some supports civil or health-related cases, like a toxicology report or e-coli testing. Students also learn to analyze non-human DNA, which is useful in cases of suspected poaching or if a pit bull has been used as a weapon. There’s also forensic entomology: the study of insects found on cadavers.

Back at the farmhouse, teaching assistants Samantha Grant, Amanda Orr and Sumiko Polacco are swabbing beer bottles, collecting hair with tweezers, measuring the width of bullet holes and taking photos of bloodstains.

“There’s such a breadth of knowledge in forensics that you can really choose to specialize in whatever interests you,” says Grant through her mask.

According to Dr. Iles, those who become passionate about forensics often have a strong connection to social justice: “they’re there to help the victim, or help the family through a very difficult time—to help through science.”

All a laboratory is, at the end of the day, is a space to carry out tests in controlled conditions. The crime scene house helps students bring that sense of control to rooms where the strangest, most unpredictable parts of human nature have revealed themselves. Before long, students are able to view even the most intense crime scenes as simple problem-solving—just another set of opportunities to put their hard-earned skills into practice.

We Tested Drinks That Say They'll Help You Pass a Drug Test

0
0

When it comes to balancing a professional life with even a casual weed habit, American stoners have a delicate line to walk. Despite being recreationally legal in nine states and medicinally legal in 29, the federal ban on marijuana consumption means employers across the country have the right to refuse or terminate the employment of anyone who fails a drug test for THC.

While Jeff Sessions seems to believe otherwise, countless studies have shown marijuana to be significantly less dangerous than other Schedule I drugs like heroin and cocaine and much safer than legal substances like alcohol and tobacco. To add insult to injury, when it comes to pre- or post-employment drug testing—which most often takes the form of a urine test—marijuana is the substance that takes the longest to get out of your system.

According to a poll released by the Society for Human Resource Management, about 57 percent of American companies subject employees to drug tests. That’s down significantly from 81 percent in 1996, possibly because employers are finding it increasingly difficult to find quality candidates who are able to pass.

Luckily for them, and those of us who enjoy the occasional after-work blunt or who use marijuana to treat otherwise unmanageable chronic illnesses, there’s an entire industry devoted to beating the dreaded piss test. With enough advanced notice, there might be several ways you could go—quitting outright, subbing your dirty pee with a straight edge friend's. But if your boss springs the news on you with only hours to spare, you’ve got pretty much one viable option: the detox drink.

There are several of these on the market, “cleansing supplements” that, at a glance, seem to be nothing more than herbal energy drinks. On the back of each bottle, the language used is deliberately vague.

“Drink the entire bottle 60 to 90 minutes before your desired time.”

“Frequent urination indicates that you are experiencing optimal cleansing.”

These drinks can be expensive—up to $60 a pop—but that’s a small price to pay when your job may be on the line. They all offer the same thing: a same-day, temporary fix for your THC-tainted piss, so long as you use ‘em exactly as directed.

But do they actually, like, work? This is a question even the most diligent Googler is wont to find. As it stands, all the available information on these detox drinks seems to be either an obvious paid promotion for one brand or another, or come from anons with usernames like Stoner4Lyfe420 on eight-year old marijuana message board threads.

As such, we decided to put three brands to the test:

- Detoxify Xxtraclean Herbal Cleanse ($13.93)

- Rescue Detox Blueberry Ice Instant Cleansing Energy from Applied Sciences ($22.99)

- Stinger Detox ‘The Buzz’ Deep System Cleanser ($18)

Our test was simple. We ordered a 10-pack of THC pee tests from Amazon for $7.99, and recruited a regular recreational weed smoker—a 28-year-old woman we’ll call “Jolene”—to test out these drinks over the course of a week without altering her normal weed habits. She’d try out one drink every two days, and take a control test before starting each one to make sure she was still testing positive before drinking them. Then she’d follow the directions on each bottle and see whether she could piss herself clean.

Jolene’s pre-drink drug test came out very positive for THC. Photo via the author.

In the photo above you'll see Jolene's first pre-drink test. It is very positive. The C on the test stands for Control The line next to it appears whether the test is negative or positive. The T stands for Test. If a line appears in T, the test is negative. If no line appears, the test is positive. As you can see above, Jolene was not able to produce a T line because she is high af.

The drug tests we purchased are pretty standard pee tests. Basically you wee into a cup, take the cap off the drug test, then submerge the little rectangular piece at the end for about 10 seconds. Results take about five minutes. The test we bought for the purposes of this experiment are used specifically to detect THC and nothing else.

For context, Jolene’s marijuana consumption is probably slightly, but not much, below average for stoners. She smokes a bowl most days after work, and blazes up two to three times a day on the weekends. Occasionally she’ll have an edible or do a dab, but says she usually sticks to traditional smoking methods—bowls, bongs, and joints. Most of these drinks caution “heavy” users to double their dosage, or go with a more concentrated version, so if you smoke more or less than Jolene, you’re likely to have different results. And none of the results we got here should be considered scientific or at all conclusive.

TEST ONE: Rescue Detox Blueberry Ice Instant Cleansing Energy

First up we had Jolene try out a 17 ounce bottle of Rescue Detox. According to Karen, the very sweet Applied Sciences customer service lady we reached at the “LIVE SUPPORT” number listed at the bottom of the bottle, Jolene had to avoid eating for five hours before she did the cleanse. Luckily, it was Sunday, so Jolene had just woken up from a four and a half hour nap after spending the morning smoking and eating an entire large portion of Popeye’s mac and cheese, as one does.

Karen told her to drink Rescue an hour before “cleansing time,” then refill the bottle with water twice and drink that within 30 minutes. She was then supposed to pee three times, after which she should be good to go for three to five hours. Quite a lot of work!

The drink itself was a bright, neon yellow that looked slightly radioactive. Jolene said it tasted like synthetic blueberries and had a distinct aftertaste. She chugged it down over the course of 10 minutes, then refilled the bottle twice, choking down gulp after gulp of weird-tasting water until her stomach was bursting with 1.5 liters of liquid.

After three pees that, in Jolene’s words, “looked like I drank highlighter ink,” she took the test. It actually fucking worked. While the line was thin, it counted. Jolene tested negative for THC, despite having smoked several pre-noon bowls just hours before. We were both pretty shocked by this turn of events.

It’s a light line, but it’s there.

Final grade: B. If you follow the instructions, you might pass your test, but the extreme colour of your pee might raise some alarm bells in a clinical setting. Plus, the amount of water you need to drink is a little excessive.

TEST TWO: Detoxify Xxtraclean Herbal Cleanse

Two days and a positive drug test later, we circled back to try out the 20 ounce bottle of Detoxify Xxtraclean. We’d seen mixed reviews of this one online, and Jolene’s partner had tried it before without success, so neither of us had high hopes.

Unlike with the Rescue Detox, Jolene wasn’t instructed to abstain from eating, but was supposed to stop using marijuana for as long as possible beforehand. Instead, she decided to smoke a bowl while she drank. It should go without saying that this would be an inadvisable move for anyone whose job actually depended on passing a drug test.

This drink was “tropical flavoured” and a bright, syrupy red. Jolene drank the bottle down (“it tastes like Five Hour Energy mixed with fake blood.”), then refilled it—just once this time—and drank that 15 minutes after her initial chug.

According to Ben, the monotone host of Detoxify’s ‘Back2School’ YouTube series, which teaches viewers how to best utilize their products, after three to four initial pees, you should test clean for up to five hours. Jolene followed his instructions and peed (“a totally normal yellow colour!”) three times, and took the test.

Despite having smoked while trying to cleanse her body of weed… Jolene passed the test. No THC detected. The line was still light, but again, it was there.

Final grade: B+. You don’t have to drink as much water and your pee isn’t a suspicious colour, but it left Jo with a stomach ache that lasted a full day. Probably worth it?

TEST THREE: Stinger Detox ‘The Buzz’ Deep System Cleanser

The 8-oz bottle of Stinger proved much easier to get down. Jolene said it tasted like a flat, thick grape soda. This isn’t exactly a glowing review, but it was apparently the best of the bunch flavourwise. After quickly drinking the bottle, Jo had to fill it up with water four more times and chug that for a total of 40 ounces of liquid, then pee the standard three to four times before taking the test.

Apparently this lil guy is supposed to be five times stronger than Stinger Detox’s other products, and after taking the final pee test of this experiment, it seems that claim is well-founded. Where the other detox drinks presented barely-there negative results, Stinger’s delivered the first solid double red line of the game. Bra-fuckin-vo.

Final grade: A. Not only was this the most definitive negative result, it also tasted the best, included the least amount of chugging and came with zero intestinal issues or nausea.

Again, this obviously wasn't a scientific test, and someone with different smoking habits or who is bigger, smaller or more or less active than Jolene could achieve different results. These drinks work by diluting your urine to the point where THC won’t show up, then replacing the vitamins, minerals and colour that are also lost in the dilution process so it doesn’t raise any red flags. While drinking something like this should be relatively undetectable, it’s likely not a foolproof way to pass a drug test. But it's better than nothing! It's up to consumers whether or not losing the money you spend on them is a better option than potentially losing a job.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Caroline Thompson on Twitter.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.


Democrats Should Run on Gun Control All Over the Country

0
0

After every mass shooting, the obvious question emerges: Why hasn’t Congress done anything to keep extremely efficient killing machines out of the hands of murders? This is a problem that has been solved by most other rich countries; many blue states have adopted relatively strict gun control laws. Yet national Democrats running for office seem to cower in fear of the NRA and other pro-gun activists, worrying that support for even modest gun regulations can be used as a bludgeon in red districts. But is that fear based on reality, or could Democrats embrace gun control and still take the House?

The evidence suggests yes, even in the toughest districts that Democrats are contesting. National polls indicate strong and durable support for common-sense gun reforms such as banning assault rifles and closing the gun show loophole that allows some gun sales to be conducted without a background check. There is evidence that such laws might help stem mass shootings, though it’s clear that ending gun violence must be addressed by beyond those limited policies.

But national polling may not indicate much at the state or even congressional district level. To see what gun control polling looked like on a district-by-district basis, I asked political scientist Christopher Skovron for some help. Skovron is an expert in a modeling technique designed to estimate district-level opinion called multilevel regression and poststratification (MRP). That technique uses regression modeling that accounts for individual characteristics like race and gender as well as district characteristics like support for Trump.

Using the MRP estimates, I then analyzed support for ending the gun show loophole and banning assault weapons—policies often cited by gun control advocates—in the 98 Republican-held districts that Democrats are targeting. I find that in the average DCCC target district, support for closing the gun show loophole (“background checks for all sales, including at gun shows and over the internet” is how the question is worded) is a whopping 88 percent; support for an assault weapon ban (“ban assault weapons”) is 61 percent. The chart below shows the distribution of support for closing the gun show loophole (the three districts that stand out are Maine’s Second and the at-large districts for Montana and Alaska, all areas with strong gun cultures).

The chart below shows support for banning assault weapons. The only district where support is estimated to be lower than 50 percent are West Virginia’s Third, another place where anti–gun control views are no surprise. In Colorado’s Third and Montana’s at-large district, predicted support is almost exactly 50/50. But support an assault weapons ban dips below 55 percent in only 6 percent of DCCC target districts, suggesting that talking about a ban wouldn’t hurt a candidate.

So why don’t Democrats campaign more aggressively gun control? In a recent study co-authored with David Broockman, Skovron found that Democratic state legislators regularly underestimate the liberalism of their districts (as do Republicans, who believe they represent far more conservative districts than they actually do). The area where this gap is largest is gun control:

Politicians’ right-skewed misperceptions exceed 20 percentage points on issues such as gun control—where these misperceptions are the largest—and persist in states at every level of legislative professionalism, among both candidates and sitting officeholders, among politicians in very competitive districts, and when we compare politicians’ perceptions to voters’ opinions only.

In another paper, Skovron and Broockman surveyed county party chairs and found that while Democratic Party chairs favoured moderate candidates, viewing liberalism as an electoral liability, Republicans did not similarly favor centrists over conservatives. "Pro-gun interests have succeeded not just in pushing politicians to do what they want through donations, but by actually manipulating their perceptions of the electorate’s positions through using grassroots organizing by gun owners," Skovron told me. He cited Pew polling suggesting that 21 percent of gun owners have contacted public officials about gun policy, while only 12 percent of non-owners have done so.



Pundits often suggest that the problem is an intensity gap between pro-gun voters and gun control voters, which may well have been true in the past, but I find no evidence that it remains the case. The American National Election Studies 2016 survey asks respondents to rate the importance of gun access to them. The chart below shows that Democrats are just as likely to rate the issue as “extremely important.” I find that 37 percent of respondents both believe that it should be more difficult to buy guns and rate the issue as “extremely” (19 percent) or “very” (18) important. That compares to 5 percent of respondents who want to make it easier to buy guns and rate it “extremely” (3 percent) or “very” (2) important. Finally, 23 percent of respondents believe that access to guns should be kept the same and believe the issue to be “extremely” (11 percent) or “very” (12 percent) important.

There may have been a time in which gun owners were more concerned about the issue. But photos of Sandy Hook and social media posts from terrified high schoolers may have influenced that dynamic.

It’s important to note that this is generic opinion data, and the party should be agnostic as to how candidates message their support for gun control. For instance, red-state Democrats like Joe Manchin may want to boast about their pro-gun bona fides, which will actually give them more ability to push for gun control legislation because gun owners will feel less threatened. But there is little to be gained broadly by Democrats embracing guns. As Dan Friedman at the Trace has documented, the NRA no longer donates or endorses Democrats (with the exception of Henry Cuellar, the worst Democrat in Congress). Even if a Democrat is pro-gun, their Republican opponent will run to their right on the issue and collect gun lobby money and endorsements. And that position comes with a major downside: According to ANES, only 5 percent of Democrats support making it easier to buy a gun.

For too long Democrats have cowered in fear of the NRA, but there is little reason to believe they represent more than a small share of the population. For too long, Democrats have believed only pro-gun Blue Dogs can represent the districts they are targeting. In reality, Democrats can run on common-sense gun regulations and win, even in the reddest districts they need to win back the House.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Sean McElwee is a researcher and writer based in New York. Follow him on Twitter.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

Jagmeet Singh Needs to Spend the Weekend at Bernie’s

0
0

Are you still in the mood for some Valentine’s magic? Then you may enjoy the extremely Toronto Life profile of New Democratic Party leader Jagmeet Singh in this week’s Toronto Life. It’s a compelling look at Singh’s humble origins and his deeply-felt commitment to social justice and equitable representation in civic life. He’s an intensely charismatic figure who is still largely an unknown quantity in federal politics.

His post-Trudeauvian dreaminess plays well in the pages of lifestyle magazines, but we have yet to see him at work on the factory floor. Conveniently, there’s a party convention this weekend in Ottawa where we’ll get to see him strut his stuff.

In some ways, things have changed quite a bit since the NDP last met in Edmonton in April 2016. The seismic political upheavals of the last two years have transformed the discursive landscape. Full-blooded democratic socialism is blossoming in Britain and America, and the party’s left flank is invigorated. That didn’t quite pan out in last year’s leadership race, but it’s easier to sell people on changing party policy than their human figurehead. Advisors to both Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn are in town to coach the more militant grassroots on how to jumpstart the revolution.

In many more ways, though, not much as changed at all. The central torsions of the party exposed in Edmonton—establishment vs grassroots, Leap vs. oil workers, socialists vs social democrats vs left-liberals, Quebec vs everybody else—remain largely unresolved.

Those abstract concepts feel more concrete these days as the party meets now in the shadow of an interprovincial trade war between NDP governments. Rachel Notley was a fixture of the last convention, but this year she’s not attending. (Neither is John Horgan.) They’ll find out from a distance where the federal party stands on the Trans Mountain pipeline. Given that both have staked opposing sides on an existential question, it will be difficult for their federal leader to leave Ottawa this weekend without picking his favourite child.

There will be other major struggles on the convention floor. The party will look at formally adopting the Klein-Lewis Leap Manifesto, which will dovetail nicely into its soul-searching over the Alberta oil sands. They will also be pushed to take a stance on Canadian foreign policy toward the state of Israel. This has been a sore point in the party for some time —recall the way Team Mulcair scrubbed the party of pro-Palestine candidates in the lead-up to the 2015 election. (That said, I wouldn’t hold my breath for any dramatic upheavals.)

Into all this strides Jagmeet Singh, still on orientation for his five-month-old job as federal leader. He won the contest on the first-round ballot, and he did it thanks in large part to bringing new members into the party while his rivals spoke more directly to the base. They’re the ones he has to impress, and they’re the ones who will give him his first leadership review. It’s mostly symbolic, and it’s very unlikely he’ll fail. But a major criticism from some Dippers has been uncertainty about Singh’s leftist bona fides on pipelines and Palestine, so the judgment they pass will tell us a lot about how convincing he is as the Genuine Article.

Hey! Everything will probably be fine. I’m sure Jagmeet will have a fun weekend putting a happy face on his thankless job as the load-bearing wall in a dilapidated house.

Follow Drew Brown on Twitter.

Help! I Found an SSRI That Works, But Now I Can't Cum

0
0

Dear So Sad Today,

I’ve finally found an SSRI that seems to be working. It hasn’t cured me of depression completely or anything, but it makes the lows so much less lower. I find that I don’t get stuck there anymore, which is cool. It took me many different tries with many different medications to find one that worked, and I am relieved that at least something works for me. Finally!!

But here is the problem. I feel like one of the side effects of this medication is that it makes it really hard for me to cum with my partner (fyi, I’m a hetero cis woman). This happened to me with some of the other meds I’ve taken, but I didn’t care about going off of those, because they weren’t effective. But now I’m like: Fuck, what should I do? I really value my sex life. But I don’t want to stop taking a treatment that works. Also, weirdly, I can still cum when I’m by myself (it takes longer)—just not with my partner. Any advice?

Sincerely,

Challenged

Dear Challenged,

I totally feel you. Before I was on an SSRI, I was already slow to boil. But on SSRIs it’s like, OK, if you start going down on me now I might cum by next May.

I think part of this is due to what the SSRI does to my brain chemistry. But I’ve also noticed that I, like you, have a lot easier of a time masturbating to orgasm myself than having one with a partner. This leads me to believe that some of the problem is also a case of performance anxiety. Like, somewhere along the way, I internalized that it takes me a long time to have an orgasm and judged that as something terrible. And so, I feel stressed about it, rushed, pressured, as though I’m just going through the motions to see if I can. It’s not exactly a sexy feeling.

One thing that has helped is for me to let my partner know, in advance, that it might take me a while. Even before I took SSRIs, I was self-conscious of how long I took. As a teen I faked orgasms all the time. In my early 20s, I stopped faking, but I would always say, “Am I taking too long? Am I taking too long?” I had one partner say, “Do you want me to wear a visor while I’m down there that says, “You aren’t taking too long!” Actually? Yes! I find that once I have the assurance from my partner that I can take as much time as I need, I don’t feel so freaked out about the length of the journey. Not only is it easier for me to cum, but I actually enjoy the journey itself more.

Another thing that helps me is to incorporate vibrators into my sex life. Let’s be honest, no human flesh can replicate the speed, precision, or control with which one’s favorite vibrator does the job. I recently got the Womanizer, which I like, but my favorite is the Magic Wand. Is it huge? Yes. Unwieldy during sex? You bet. But do I cum every fucking time—a big, long, body-shaking orgasm? Uh huh. I call the Magic Wand “Mariano” after Mariano Rivera, the Yankees closing pitcher who could always be counted on to finish a game perfectly. Just knowing that Mariano will be coming in when I need him helps me feel much more relaxed about the whole experience.

Now, not everyone wants to use a giant vibrator during sex. Perhaps you’ll find that you prefer a pocket rocket. But calling in for reinforcement, knowing you have it ready in the bullpen, is never a bad idea. And if you feel weird bringing in a vibrator with a new partner, try masturbating to the brink of orgasm before you get together—and then have them be the closing pitcher.

xo

SST

Dear So Sad Today,

I feel like my therapist isn’t really helping me anymore. Actually I’m not sure if she was ever that good. But she is super nice, and I’m scared to break up with her. This sounds crazy, but I don’t want to hurt her feelings or for her to be mad at me. Also, I’m scared to be on my own. I know what I have to do. But how do I do it?

Thanks,

Perfect Patient

Dear Perfect Patient,

I totally identify. I once had a crappy therapist for seven years, because I was afraid to break up with her. She would literally say things like “what if you eat a hardboiled egg” and “put calamine lotion on the zit” when I tried to discuss my eating disorder and body dysmorphia. I wanted to be like, “Girl, it’s not about the zit—it’s about my feelings about myself as a grandiose reaction to the zit.” But I never did, because it seemed easier to just accept the bad help than confront her. In the end, I had to move 3,000 miles away just to make the final cut.

An interesting lesson in our reticence to break up with a therapist is that it often reflects the way we are in our other relationships. For me, it illustrates a fear of saying no, of not being liked, of scarcity (that if I say no or end something, there won’t be anyone else left for me and I’ll have regrets), of self-centeredness (as though I’m her only client and have that much impact on her life), and also, a fear of confrontation.

Also, I’m wondering if you have offered your therapist any feedback on your relationship. Have you given her a chance to do things differently? Sometimes I’ll just be smiling along and then, when I end things, the person is surprised, because I never spoke up.

If you have spoken up and nothing has changed, it’s time for the breakup. While the ideal breakup is clean, honest, and without “cheating,” let’s be real. It’s a lot easier to break up with someone when we’ve fallen for someone else. It might make you feel more comfortable to go “shopping” for a new therapist and see what’s out there before you make the final cut. A therapist (or partner) probably wouldn’t recommend this. But who of us is graceful in our exits all the time?

Also, remember that despite the relationship metaphor I’ve just used, your therapist is supposed to be a professional. The best therapists I’ve had understood this. They didn’t take an ending personally. They wished me well and left the door open. They wanted me to get my needs met. If she takes it personally, it’s likely more about her than it is about you.

It’s also important for you to remember that despite the emotional quality of the interaction, it’s ultimately medical care. If you were unhappy with your podiatrist and felt that you weren’t getting the care you needed, you’d find another one. Treat this like podiatry.

xo

SST

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Buy So Sad Today: Personal Essays on Amazon, and follow her on Twitter.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

Mexico's Cross-Country Skier Finishes Last, Wins Olympics

0
0

At the Olympics, feats of greatness aren't always measured in medals won. Take, for example, the 17-year-old kid who overslept after a night of Netflix, lost his coat, and still outperformed every other slopestyle snowboarder. Or the Norwegian curling team's colorful pants, elevating the standard of fashion in the sport and even inspiring their own Facebook page. They're the moments that we mere mortals can see ourselves in, and on Friday, that extended to the Mexican cross-country skier who finished dead last in his race.

According to the Huffington Post, first-time Olympian German Madrazo had never worn a pair of damn skis until last year, when the Ironman athlete decided throw caution to the wind and try to make it as a cross-country skier. He trained all year long with a few other novices, like that glistening Tongan flag bearer, and miraculously qualified for the 2018 games.

When it came time to race in Pyeongchang, Madrazo did his best, which, to be honest, was not very good. He wound up finishing about 26 minutes behind the gold medal-winner, but that didn't stop him from celebrating his dead-last finish in style—grabbing a Mexican flag from someone on the sidelines, hoisting it above his head, and striding toward the finish line like a regular Jean-Claude Killy, grinning from ear to ear.

Photo by Matthias Hangst/Getty Images

On the other side, skiers from other not particularly cold countries like Colombia, Tonga, Morocco, and Portugal—who'd all finished at the very back of the pack—cheered Madrazo on, running out to greet him as he finished the race. They even lifted him into the air once he'd finally made it, like the true champion that he is.

Photo by Dmitri Lovetsky/AP

The whole thing was, in two words, fucking awesome. Madrazo may not have been the best skier out there—in fact, he was quantifiably the worst—but he finished like a champ, just happy as hell to be there.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Drew Schwartz on Twitter.

Related: Hockey and the Winter Olympics

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

David Simon Wanted John C. Reilly to Play McNulty on 'The Wire'

0
0

All the Pieces Matter, the new oral history of HBO's seminal series The Wire, dropped this week, and the thing is a masterclass on how to craft a TV show. It's teeming with stories about the development and production, like how butthurt Martin O'Malley was about the character of Carcetti and an in-depth look at the making of that "fuck" scene.

But on Friday, AV Club uncovered one groundbreaking gem of information tucked in among the other Wire anecdotes, a gleaming nugget of news that stands above all the rest: John C. Reilly almost wound up playing Detective Jimmy McNulty. In GQ's recent excerpt from the book, Wire creator David Simon reveals that he initially wanted Steve Brule himself to play the season one protagonist-turned-boat guy-turned-drunken vigilante.

"I thought John C. Reilly could be a different McNulty," Simon says in All the Pieces Matter, "certainly not the same, but I thought he could carry all of the excesses and vices of McNulty in a different way."

According to Simon, he got as far as pitching the idea to Reilly over the phone in 2001, but alas, parenting got in the way.

"I was in a corn maze with my kid, Ethan, who would have been like seven, six," Simon recalls. "So, I'm trying to keep up with my kid, who's running around like a madman in this maze, and that's when John C. Reilly called me back... I talked to him for maybe five minutes, and I said, 'Hey, listen, can I call you back? I'm in a corn maze with my kid.' And he said, 'Yeah, yeah. Call me back.' In the time between when he called me and when I called him back, he stopped taking calls."

At the time, Reilly was fresh off a pair of dramatic roles in Magnolia and The Perfect Storm and had yet to find his way into the Tim and Eric orbit, so the idea of him landing a spot on The Wire in the early 2000s isn't completely out there. But still, can you imagine Reilly stoically sizing up Stringer Bell or quivering under the weight of Beadie's speech about family or drunkenly crashing his car twice into... Actually, Reilly probably could have pulled that scene off pretty well.

As Simon tells it, Reilly later explained that his wife vetoed the idea, telling him "We are not moving to Baltimore." Instead, Simon wound up casting Dominic West who—save for his inability to pronounce "Snotboogy"—brought something to the character of McNulty that was equal parts hard and fragile, and served as the magnetic center that held The Wire's early seasons together.

Reilly, for his part, went on to pull an Oscar nom for his supporting role in Chicago, and the rest is history. But, good lord, it would've been something to see him go on a bender with Bunk or whatever. Sheeeeeeut.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow VICE on Twitter.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

Something About These New Dick Pic Statistics Doesn't Add Up

0
0

Do you ever just look at a man and think: 'What's going on here, then?' Because you never really know, do you? I often see them walking about in public, with their T-shirts and their jeans, and it just seems stressful. Have you ever seen two men try to have a meaningful conversation? "So, how've you, uh... How's things since *cough* the breakup?" "Yeah, alright, yeah." It's wild.

What do they do when they're alone? What do they think about in those precious solitary moments before sleep? There must be so much that goes on in their heads that simply does not come out. What is it? Where does it all go? Yeah, they like The Wire and using 2-in-1 shampoo, but who are they? I don't know! I just don’t know.

Anyway, YouGov has produced some new data about dick pics and it turns out men are even more mysterious than previously thought.

Image: YouGov

As you can see, we're currently experiencing an enormous chasm in perspective between dick pic senders and receivers. We'll skip right past the bit where the vast majority of dick pics received were unsolicited, because obviously. More telling is that the percentage of women who claim to have received unsolicited dick pics dramatically outweighs the percentage of men who admit to having sent them. Of course, there are bound to be some discrepancies, but 41 percent to 5 percent? That seems… Well, I have some questions.

Initially, they were they same questions I always have whenever the subject of dick pics is raised: What is the artistic process of photographing your own penis? Does one consider lighting? Angles? Composition? Or does one simply grab one's log as if stopping to take a picture of a pasta sauce in Asda, before texting your mum "this??" What is the success rate? What is the best outcome that they, the dick havers, are hoping for? What's the standard reply to a dick pic that was actually requested? "Thanks"?

After texting as many of my straight male friends as possible, to a chorus of "FOR THE LAST TIME, EMMA", these questions remain unanswered. The thing is, if you ask any man over the age of 21 if they have sent a dick pic, they will either say "no" or "only for balance" and then quickly clarify their lack of enthusiasm about the situation because, aesthetically speaking, there’s really only so much you can do with a cock and balls. There’s no interesting ways to contort, no curves to arch or element of anticipation to invoke through subtle hand placements; just – yep, there it is. That is certainly a penis.

The Venn diagram of men who send unsolicited dick pics and the men who will lie / get really defensive when asked about it and blurt out something like "SHUT UP I DON'T EVEN HAVE A DICK" is essentially a perfect circle, so we will never truly know their thought process. What goes through a man's head when he's got his dick in one hand and his phone in the other will remain an enigma for the ages, and perhaps that's for the best.

Still, none of this really addresses the 41 percent to 5 percent issue. So in lieu of insight from the sort of men who could provide answers, here are some theories, from least to most likely:

i) There are a handful of prolific dick pic takers who are responsible for almost half of all dick pics.

While this seems unrealistic, it’s certainly not impossible when you consider *gestures broadly at everything*.

ii) Most of the men sending dick pics are old.

IDK. Bit dark, this.

iii) Everyone is lying.

Again, unrealistic, but there really is a much simpler solution to all this.

iv) Men are idiots.

And so we return to where we started: who are they? They are idiots. But, bless them, it’s not their fault. Unfortunately, men aren’t taught how to communicate. They especially aren’t taught how to communicate with women. Don’t get me wrong: there are absolutely loads of dicks flying about the place, apropos of previous communication, in some unfathomable act of dominance and aggression – but a lot of them are also desperate scrambles towards intimacy.

If a picture speaks a thousand words, unbidden dick pics are screaming: "I'd like to get to know you" and "I wish I had a better relationship with my dad" and "Hey!" It’s essentially a mirror of the ideal way men would like women to open conversations with them. 'Well, if I got sent tits, I'd be happy. Sooooo.' That’s the logic.

That’s why you can be sitting at home minding your own business on a Thursday evening, eating a shepherd’s pie in front of the telly, when your phone goes off and, hey, it’s a message from someone you matched with on Tinder because they also like Weezer and full communism and you’re not sure where it’s going, and suddenly: dick! You posted a selfie on Twitter and accidentally left your DMs open for whatever reason, and: dick! Someone you used to sleep with but haven’t spoken to in months has had precisely three beers and is feeling lucky on Instagram: dick! You said hi first, followed by a winking emoji, and she didn’t reply, so that’s as good as consent, right? Dick.

That’s why we have this discrepancy. Not because of a rogue pocket of horny monsters taking endless pictures of their dicks to terrorise strangers on Snapchat, but because men struggle so badly to connect their brain thoughts to their mouth words. So: dick.

Basically, what I'm saying is: are these statistics revealing? Yes. Are they surprising? They are not. But fucking hell, lads, stop sending women shots of your upsetting genitals unless specifically requested. Try a meme or a picture of a dog instead. Ask your dad how his day was. Acknowledge a feeling. It's fine.

@emmaggarland

This article originally appeared on VICE UK.

The Salon Owner Who Lived a Double Life as a Cocaine Boss

0
0

Little of note happens in the sleepy, picture-postcard village of Llanrug. But when a flashy "stand-out" Range Rover pulled up at The Glyntwrog Inn on a hazy Wednesday afternoon in spring of last year, locals drinking their pints outside knew this day would be unlike any other. From the car emerged a distinctive, electric-pink-haired woman and two men – one noticeably older, the other a lot younger.

The trio – Leanne Duffin, 31; her father Brian, 66; and their housemate, 19-year-old Jordan Whittle – sat at a table in the quaint country pub in the depths of north-west Wales and ordered lunch. But before their food could make it out of the kitchen, undercover police officers walked in and handcuffed all three. They were arrested for conspiracy to supply class A and B drugs.

"Leanne was gutted because the food in that pub was quite expensive, and she had literally just ordered it and we came along and arrested her," says Danielle Lilley, detective constable at Lancashire Police. "She was saying: 'I can’t believe it, I've just paid for food and now we’re not even going to get to eat it.' It caused a bit of a sting in the pub. The locals were all open-mouthed. They were approaching us afterwards, saying they knew something was up with them. One of the locals was an off-duty police officer, and even he said it was the most exciting thing that's ever happened round there."

The arrests might have amused the locals and scuppered Duffin's dinner plans, but they were a huge result for Lilley and her team. Apart from being "quite good fun", it was the culmination of more than a year of covert operations. As well as running a well-known tanning salon, Duffin – it transpired – was the head of one of the biggest drug dealing syndicates in the recent history of Chorley, a Lancashire market town less than an hour's drive from Manchester.


WATCH:


Police first received intelligence on the cocaine and weed racket operating across Preston, Chorley, Leyland and other parts of the Lancashire borough of South Ribble in early 2016, and a protracted investigation was undertaken to try to catch the group.

"Information was coming in from going out and speaking to local people, and we developed it from there," explains Detective Sergeant Keith Duckworth from the intelligence unit at Chorley Police. "We were getting snippets, and then there was enough weight to it to start the covert operation, with surveillance watching the group's movements."

Although the evidence was stacking up and reports were acted upon, they initially "never came to fruition", and Duffin's crew managed to avoid getting caught. Police believe the gang was getting to the stage where they thought they were "untouchable".

With Duffin at the helm, the ring continued to supply drugs to local users for many months while being watched by police. "This is one of the first [drug dealing cases] where we've had a daughter running the show with her dad on board as well," says Duckworth. "That is unusual. Telephony showed that Leanne was definitely the one who was in control. It’s more common for a male to be leading."

Lilley also says it's the first time she's come across a woman leading an organised crime group, and that nothing came out of the investigation to suggest an onward chain or pressure from above. "The experience I've had is that the person who's put in a leading role is usually a male," she explains. "Sometimes there’s a girlfriend involved, but she’s certainly not leading. This is a case of a female being a leader and directing those below her, definitely. I can’t explain why people would want to do that [deal] for her. She must be a good saleswoman to get people on board and sell jail time to them."

Duffin's salon, the neon pink and green-fronted Cosmopolitan in Leyland, was a key element in creating that successful businesswoman image – but, according to police, it was little more than a front to launder money. Although comments on a Chorley Police Facebook post featuring Duffin's mug shot – which is one of the page’s most shared and commented upon images – suggest the salon should have been named "Tan Lines", no evidence was found to suggest dealing was taking place there.

"It was where the money was cleaned up," says Lilley. "There were genuine customers of that business. We found the books as part of the search, and for a time the takings were being recorded, but they were meagre. The levels of income Leanne was claiming the tanning business was taking couldn't be proved by her, so it would appear that any money she's got is from drugs rather than from Cosmopolitan."

While writing this article I tried to contact Leanne for an interview multiple times via two solicitors and a police contact, but received no answer.

Police say they cannot be certain about how long Duffin had been supplying drugs, but they don't think the racket was something that just got set up in 2016. Over the 15-month period of the covert operation, it's estimated the group sold about 4kg of cocaine – which has a street value of around £200,000 – and 6kg of cannabis, worth about £60,000.

Duffin's "very substantial" assets – including her black Range Rover Sport – have been seized and will be discussed at a Proceeds of Crime Act hearing on the 30th of March, 2018. "There's no doubt in my mind that the car was bought with drug money," says Lilley.

Police also believe it would have been difficult for Cosmopolitan's customers not to have known about the salon's association with drug dealing, because – they say – many people in the area knew what was going on. But not everyone was aware of the business's links to crime. Employees of the neighbouring Rowlands Pharmacy knew of Duffin, but had no idea what was going on next door. "She came in the odd time, she was polite enough," one staff member says. "She always seemed polite to me."

Photo: VICE

Some Cosmopolitan customers were more shocked that they’d been sold sun bed minutes they now can't use because the business was closed when Duffin was arrested. "I guess I won’t be getting my money back," one customer – who had bought a course of sun bed sessions – says. "I can’t believe what she was up to. I never suspected a thing like that. I only used her shop because she had collagen therapy beds, which was the only cure for my psoriasis. The shop was a bit scruffy, with no lock on door, but Leanne was friendly. Quite eccentric. Had her own style."

It was her conspicuous image that police believe could have played a part in her downfall, making it impossible for her to go under the radar, especially in a small area where everyone knows each other and people talk. "Her appearance and reputation went before her," Lilley explains. "She’s out there. She's got a unique sense of style, wearing hot pants and crop-tops. You could see her from a mile off – she’s heavily tattooed... and the bright pink hair, bright white hair, the bubble-gum hair, always changing her appearance.

"She was very gregarious and extroverted. You can tell by the number of comments she generated on Facebook how many people knew about her. Her appearance and the way she is on social media can attract both positive and negative attention."

But when it came down to it, Duffin appeared to be just a regular woman, not the tough gang kingpin she has been hyped up to be by the tabloid press since her arrest. "When you speak to Leanne, she's just down to earth," says Lilley. "I was surprised about that. I expected her to be really wild and out there and loud, but actually she’s personable, chatty, she doesn’t think she’s above anyone. She’s just a normal person, really."

Perhaps it was Duffin's charisma that helped her to get people to work under her in the syndicate. Besides her father and Whittle – who police say didn't have a family and likely felt a sense of belonging in the gang – the group also included Geri Treadwell, 51, of Coppull, and Kevin Hewitt, 51, of Adlington. Whittle and Treadwell played the role of deliverymen, dropping off gear to customers and picking up the money, while Hewitt provided the safe house.

A search of that safe house in September of 2016 uncovered a locked suitcase, which contained a third of a kilo of the cutting agent benzocaine, a small amount of cocaine, cannabis, sim cards, mobile phone handsets and weighing scales. Forensics linked the suitcase to Duffin and her father, while a cheap throwaway Nokia – which contained texts featuring their trademark deal of one gram of coke for £40, three for £100 or nine for £200 – was also linked to the group.

Leanne Duffin and her beauty salon, Cosmopolitan

It would be another eight months before the successful strike day, when a mobile seized from Duffin used the same number as the burner phone found at the safe house – the same number that had been live at the start of the investigation.

On the day of the arrests in May of 2017, police had arrived at Duffin’s home address in Standish, Greater Manchester to find she wasn't there. They managed to locate her in Wales, where – as part of the trappings of her lifestyle – she had bought a caravan on a luxury five-star estate.

The park, Brynteg Holiday Homes, is promoted on its website as "nestled in the foothills of Snowdonia […] Leave the stresses of everyday life at home and enjoy your retreat […] Close enough for a spontaneous weekend break, yet far enough away to relax and unwind". Just not far enough, it turns out, to escape an investigative police unit. "Leanne said she couldn't believe we'd followed her all the way to Wales," says Lilley.

But there was no fight: Duffin went quietly, and even had a "girly chat" with officers on the long journey back to Lancashire. "We chatted about her life," says Lilley. "She was telling me about her dancing, because she’d previously been a dancer. She told me who she was going out with – you know, all those kinds of girly chats, clothes, etc. She told me about some relationship problems she’d had with a long-term boyfriend. She’d got with a lad and can’t seem to break away from him, and it probably isn’t the best of relationships, but they love each other. It was that sort of stuff – they were all things you’d hear from a hundred other girls."

Duffin, who police described as a "daddy’s girl", was also concerned and distressed about her father's arrest. "Her dad is everything to her," says Lilley. "She was so upset about him being arrested. She was saying, 'Please look after him, he’s got health problems, please can you get his medication, please make sure he's OK.'"

Duffin was remanded in custody from that day and was sentenced to eight years in prison. She will be eligible for parole in November of 2021. Her father was jailed for six years, and Whittle for three years and eight months. Treadwell was sentenced to four years and Hewitt got 12 months.

"You can’t escape the attention forever," says Lilley. "There will come a point where you get found out, and the police do actively look to put people who deal drugs in prison."

@emilysgoddard

More on VICE:

I Bummed a Cigarette at a Festival and Traded Up to Coke

This Is How Long It Takes to Get Cocaine Delivered in Cities Around the World

I Ran London's Secret Cocaine Speakeasy

This article originally appeared on VICE UK.


Brazil’s Biggest Afro-Brazilian Festival Celebrates a Sacred Sea Goddess

0
0

A version of this article originally appeared on VICE Brazil.

A warm and calming lavender scent filled the House of Iemanjá in Rio Vermelho, a neighborhood in the northern Brazilian city of Salvador. I arrived at the location, which was covered in photos of the Iemanjá, the queen of the sea, the day before the festival hosted in her honor. The orisha (a deity in Yoruba faith) is one of the most popular figures in Brazil. She's frequently characterized as "the mother whose children are fish" and is often depicted in the form of a beautiful, plus-size black woman.

Iemanjá Day is the biggest Afro-Brazilian celebration in Brazil. It is traditionally celebrated on February 2 in Rio Vermelho. The feast unites Catholics, tourists, and members of Candomblé and Umbanda, two Afro-Brazilian religions. It occurs simultaneously with the holy day of Our Lady of Navigators, a devotional title for the Virgin Mary, to whom Portuguese seafarers would pray for a safe return home. As such, Iémanja Day is a syncretism that unites Christianity with African religions. Participants honor the queen of the sea with offerings of flowers, costume jewelry, food, and vials of perfume, all of which are displayed along the neighborhood's beaches. Onlookers also throw wishful coins, representing offerings and gratitude towards the protective but severe deity.

By 6:00 AM on February 2, the beach in Rio Vermelho was already full of people bearing flowers and baskets full of offerings. The line of faithful believers waiting for a blessing curved through the streets. Images of Iemanjá and Catholic depictions of her were everywhere to be seen, along with rue branches, assorted grains, and other items used by the Afro-Brazilian religious leaders as they said "Axé" to passersby, a greeting that conveys positive energy to faithful believers. On the shore, worshippers gathered in circles to sing and dance, and a seemingly endless crowd threw offerings into the sea. I watched two women say goodbye to a little boat that floated away, bearing a picture of Iemanjá. They clapped their hands and sang respectfully, gratefully, and devoutly.

You can see more photos of the Iemanjá Day celebration below:
















This article originally appeared on VICE BR.

This article originally appeared on VICE BR.

Dreamy Photos of a Chinese Swimming Club on the North Korean Border

0
0

While on assignment in Dandong, China last December, photographer Elijah Hurwitz happened upon a group of swimmers who took their laps in unlikely waters: the Yalu River. It's a 500-mile long waterway that borders China’s Liaoning province on one side, and North Korea on the other. They call themselves the Yalu River Swimmer's Association, and some of them have been swimming together for 20 years or more.

“The stronger swimmers will sometimes cross the entire width and then rest in the shallows of Sinuiju, North Korea before swimming back, but nobody I spoke with has ever run into trouble with North Korean border guards,” Hurwitz said. “As long as they stay in the water they seem to be left alone.”

When Hurwitz first noticed people swimming in the river, it was about zero degrees Fahrenheit outside, cold enough that his camera batteries barely lasted. The swimmers, however, were doing laps in half-frozen water, many of them without wetsuits.

“Seeing their big smiles and gusto for life felt like a stark contrast to the barren landscape of North Korea on the opposite shore and the doomsday specter of nuclear war,” Hurwitz said.

Though many Chinese who live near the border were initially reluctant to speak with a foreigner about North Korea in these tense times, they gradually opened up to the photographer. “Of course the residents of Dandong share those fears,” Hurwitz explained. “They are close enough to North Korea that people here could feel the earthquake last year allegedly triggered by underground nuclear testing. But for people who live on the border, everyday life goes on, and the swimmers are undeterred. “

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

See more on Elijah Hurwitz's website.

Follow Tara Wray on Instagram.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

This Somali Culture Zine Looks Amazing

0
0

Safy Hallan Farah didn't think there were enough images of Somali people in media, so she took things into her own hands. In the summer of 2017, she conceived of the 1991 zine to "create the images" she wanted to see in the world. Farah, a writer who's been in published in The New York Times, Vogue, Nylon and Paper, will release the first issue of 1991 later this year. She co-founded 1991 with Mia Nguyen—"even though she's Vietnamese, she’s really passionate about the project," Harrah explained—and is working on the zine with former VICE writer Sarah Hagi, model Miski Muse, Hadiya Shirea, and other Somali writers and artists.

"1991 is a Somali culture zine," Farah told me in an email. "The name comes from how 1991 was the year the civil war broke out in Somalia, ushering a new beginning for Somalis everywhere. My collaborators and I would like to curate and edit work that plays with time and memory. From collage art that explores forgotten vestiges to writing by modern storytellers, 1991 will be at once a time capsule and an exploration of a Somali futurism that reconciles with the tumult of its past all while highlighting the creativity, style, resilience, and tenacity of Somali youth across the diaspora."

Safy Hallan Farah | Photo by Nancy Musingguzi

VICE caught up with Safy over the phone to talk about her inspirations, growing up Somali-American in Minnesota, and Somali futurism.

VICE: Why did you title the zine 1991?
Safy Hallan Farah: I didn’t want people to project onto the name. I also didn’t want to marginalize the project by giving it an obscure Somali word as the name. And I like numerals. When things are in order, they tend to come first. 1991 is a palindrome, so it’s very stylistically interesting to look at. I was keen on not having something look ugly on the magazine because I think some words are ugly, some words won’t look beautiful to the wrong audience, and we want to cultivate a diasporic audience that isn’t necessarily Somali. Having it be called 1991 would be an interesting way to get a message across and have people ask us [about it instead of asking], “What does that word mean?” They’ll ask, “What is the significance of 1991?”

What is the significance of 1991?
We had this dictator named Siad Barre and he was ousted by people who were really mad at him, for good reasons because he sucked a lot. Then a civil war broke out, and that’s why there are so many displaced Somali refugees in countries like the United States, England, Australia, and pretty much everywhere. Somalis are everywhere.

Why is it important for you to have a zine that represents Somali voices?
It’s about [Somali] images. There aren’t images of Somali people that I want out there in the world. A magazine project can help create the images I want to see. Something I’m always thinking is, “Where are the Somali photographers who shoot in the particular styles that I happen to gravitate toward?” Through 1991, I’ve been able to connect with really amazing photographers I didn’t know existed and models. I’m interested in putting more diverse images out there of Somali people, particularly women and youths.

Tell me a little about your personal journey. How did you reach the point where you decided to create 1991 and felt the need to boost the voices of other Somali writers and artists?
I always felt like it was in my best interest to keep my head down and do my work and not create anything of my own, and keep doing what I have been doing, which is publishing articles at different publications, mostly because I felt like I didn’t necessarily know if it was the right time in my life to helm a project like that. I was inspired by my friend Kinsi Abdulleh who runs an organization in London called NUMBI Arts. She started this amazing Somali zine in 2010 called Scarf and she gave me a bunch of issues when I met her in Wales in 2015. Had I not been introduced to her work, I would not be doing this kind of project. It really got me thinking about creating community and creating spaces for Somali people and through just thinking about that over the course of the last three, four years, it’s gotten to the point where I am now, where I can focus on a project like [ 1991].

Can you tell us about your upbringing as a Somali-American in Minnesota, your relationship with your ethnic identity throughout your life, and how it led you to creating this zine?
Fun fact: I didn’t really speak Somali until I was nine. That’s because I only spoke Somali as a kid and my parents didn’t teach me English, but they taught me how to read [in English] before I was four. When I started kindergarten, I actually realized, “Oh shit, people speak English, I’m a weirdo, I don’t know how to communicate with anyone.” So I learned English really quickly, and I graduated from ESL class after the first couple months of first grade, and then I didn’t speak Somali for years. I completely disassociated from speaking Somali. This is something that happens with a lot of immigrant kids. When I moved to Minneapolis [from San Jose] when I was nine-years-old, I learned Somali because Minneapolis has a huge Somali population. I was going to pretty much all-black, all-Somali schools, and then I learned how to speak and write in Somali. Now I speak pretty fluent Somali. I think my relationship with my culture changed when I started being around more Somali people.

Photo by Ikram Mohamed via 1991

Why did you gravitate toward the medium of collage?
There are going to be a lot of written pieces, but I just like the idea of having that DIY aesthetic that a lot of zines have with collage. But also being design-minded. I really love Apartmento Magazine and The Gentlewoman. I want to strike a balance between good design and DIY.

You’ve mentioned “Somali futurism” in your description of the project. Can you explain what that is?
I remember when I was a senior in high school—most of my friends were Somali and most of my classmates were Somali—and everyone would be like, “Well, I’m gonna study this because then I get to go back to Somalia and do this.” Everyone would say stuff like that. Even though a good chunk of those kids weren’t actually born in Somalia, but everyone was always thinking of Somalia’s future and what’s next for us and what we can do for Somalia. What really interests me is what kind of voices will emerge in the diaspora that will push toward more progressive politics, more interesting sounds and textures and visuals. I’m more interested in the ideas that are going to go back to Somalia, rather than the people and the jobs.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow 1991 on Twitter and Instagram.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

An Expert Explains Why Some Women Murder Their Children

0
0

This article first appeared on VICE Australia.

In April this year, 51-year old Brisbane woman Maree Crabtree will “vigorously fight” two counts of murder, one count of torture, and one count of grievous bodily harm. Her disabled daughter, Erin, 18, was found dead in 2012. Her disabled son, Jonathan, 26, was found last year. Crabtree’s children, police allege, were impaired by years of being administered prescription drugs by their mother.

It’s hard to imagine a more nonsensical or unrelatable crime than murdering your own child. But filicide is nothing new; history both ancient and modern is littered with it. Even Aristotle advocated for the death of disabled children and babies, declaring: "Let there be a law that no deformed child shall live.”

Filicide is also more common than many realise. The most recent data in Australia, drawn from the AIC National Homicide Monitoring Program, counts 30 cases between July 2012 and June 2014. Of the 32 child victims, six were aged 18 years and older. Analysis of the case studies found that filicidal fathers are more likely to perpetrate “accidental” filicide and have alcohol and drug problems, whereas filicidal mothers are more likely to commit “altruistic" or "neglectful” filicide and have mental health problems.

Meantime, in the US, a study published in 2014 used data from a 32-year period to conclude that American parents commit filicide about 500 times per year.

One of the world’s foremost maternal filicide experts, Dr. Cheryl Meyer, has interviewed dozens of women serving time for murdering their children (the basis of her books on the subject). VICE Skyped Meyer, a professor of psychology at Oho's Wright State University, to ask why women kill their children, and if they really are so different from the rest of us after all.

VICE: You started out by collecting data on women in the US who had killed their children, and found 1,000 cases over a 10-year span — about one filicide every three days. How did you then come to actually interview some of these women?
Cheryl Meyer: We went to the Ohio Reformatory for Women and asked, “How many inmates do you have here that are convicted of killing their children?” There were 1,800 women in the facility at that time and 80 of them were there for killing their children. That tells you it was a pretty good chunk who had committed filicide.

Overall, we interviewed 40 mothers. The other 40 didn’t participate — they were either [due for] release, or in appeal. A few of them said no, but not very many. With the interviews we tried to paint a picture [missing from] the data. The focus was more, “How is it that you actually got to this point where you killed your child, after a very typical and healthy childhood?” Or, “Maybe you didn’t have a good childhood. What was it about your childhood that led to killing your child?”

What did you learn about these women, as a person and not just a researcher? Was it a case of discovering they weren’t as monstrous as you expected?
That’s the first thing I would say: we went into this, like most people would, thinking that these women must be pariahs. And they weren't at all. After the very first interview, I thought to myself, ‘Wow, there but for the grace of God go I.’

The first interview was with a woman my age, and she was very articulate. She’d been raised in an upper middle class family; very smart, focused on education, very much like my own family. And at 16 she had sex with an older man in his 30s. She got pregnant and they married. Then she had three kids within a couple of years and her husband was relocated for work every year.

So she's like 19 years old with three kids and her husband is also abusive. They're traveling around the country; she can’t form any roots or establish any relationships, and there are lots of drugs and wife swapping. Finally, she gets out and goes back [home], starts working on her high school degree and gets a job. She and the three kids are living at her parents’ house, in their damp basement.

Anyway, at 19 she starts dating this guy. One day she's waiting for him to come home and his younger brother is there, who comes out with a gun and says, “I'm going to have sex with you, and if you don’t then I’m going to kill your three children in front of you.” He rapes her, and says, “If you tell anybody about this I'm going to say that you forced it on me and that it was statutory rape.”

She's humiliated and distraught, and she just decides life isn't worth it anymore. So she comes up with a plan to kill her children and kill herself. She successfully kills her children and attempts to kill herself but isn’t successful. She got three life sentences.

She said [to me], “You know, when I thought about dying, I couldn’t imagine myself in death without my children. It would be like trying to die but not bringing your arm with you. I mean, they are such an extension of me.” And so, she said "I had to kill them.” Plus, they would have gone to live with the father who was an abuser anyway.

And I just sat there and thought, ‘Oh my god — could any of this have happened to me? Yes, absolutely.’

Did you find yourself thinking often during the interviews?
Oh yeah. Even if their childhood wasn’t like my childhood, I was so grateful that it wasn't my childhood. They had just gotten the wrong parents: the first question we asked them would be, “What what was your childhood like?” And they would say things like, “Well, pretty normal, just like everybody else’s. I mean, I was sexually abused from the age of five until I left home. But other than that, everything was normal.”

We were like, “What? That's not normal.” But their lens was so different from ours. You know, aren’t we lucky we didn't have their lives. Had we had their lives, I’m not sure what my life would have turned out like.

Did a lot of the mothers build a narrative to help themselves cope with the remorse?
They did. There were some, not very many, who clearly had no remorse. But I would say the vast majority were very remorseful, and were trying to cope with it in whichever way they could. Like the first woman I spoke to, who I described earlier. Her quote ends our book:

The bad parts of me, I think I kind of suppress them so much that I don't need to hate myself. There's nothing exceptionally good, nothing exceptionally bad about me. I’m OK. I hate what I did, I accept that I can't change it. I try to go on, and I hope that I don't make a mockery of their deaths in the process.

And that's where she had moved to. The women were at different levels of reconciling [their actions] with themselves. She was very advanced in how she was handling it but some women were still kind of shocked. It's almost like stages; you can see them moving from one place to another.

Is that because there had been more time since her crime?
Yeah. She’d been in for 25 years. Early on when you first get in, you are either trying to get out or you’re denying it. She had tried to escape a couple of times. But then she was resigned to never getting out and prison became her home, her culture. She knew she was never going to leave.

What kinds of patterns, if any, did you notice in the mental states of women who had committed the crime more recently?
I think about this one woman who was probably in her 20s. She pretty much cried throughout the entire interview. She was just so, so sad and so upset. She wasn't denying that she did it, she was just really sad that she’d done it and that she would never see her son again.

But there are other phases too: there’s a phase where they’re just really angry with their trial and the system. And they’re not really even focusing on [the fact] that they did something really bad.

There’s this kind of sad irony: women whose children have died from neglect or assault — so they hit the child and the child falls into the wall and cracks his skull and dies, for example — tend to get shorter sentences but have the least remorse. I think it's because they didn't feel like they were responsible. You know, ‘My father whooped me and I whoop my kid and it was just an accident.’

You talk about remorse. What about grief?
I think it’s like that woman I mentioned who’d been in for 25 years: she's [already] gone through the grieving, and now she's just trying to reconcile this with herself. She said, “I hope I see them again when I die.” She was sorry she had done it, but I don’t think she was really grieving anymore. So I would definitely say that the grief probably comes first; they grieve, and then they’re able to experience remorse after that. Those were two very separate processes for her.

I imagine most people assume mothers who kill their children are sociopathic, but that’s clearly not the case.
So our two biggest groups were mothers who killed with intent and then mothers who killed through neglect.

Obviously, the neglectful mother did not intend to do it. That’s the 25-year-old mum who has five kids: she didn't finish high school, she doesn’t know how to parent; she wasn’t parented well herself, the father offers no support… Maybe one day the older kids are taking care of the younger kids and the mother goes to answer the phone and forgets the kid is in the bathtub, and the kid drowns.

Whereas, the mothers who kill with intent so frequently have mental illness that sometimes they can't even wrap their heads around [what they’ve done]. They're totally mentally ill. Sometimes that's a transient condition and sometimes it's not. If it's postpartum it's transient, and then when they don't have postpartum anymore they feel very sorry and sad. But they didn't at the time, because when they killed the child, [they believed] the child was the devil.

The women who killed with intent are very different to the other groups. They tend to be older. Many of them went to great lengths to adopt or to get pregnant. I mean, they’re often described as perfect parents. It's always stunning how afterwards, people are like: “I can’t believe she killed her kids. She was such a good parent."

So the mothers who kill with intent are often the most invested mothers. Before the murder, obviously. It seems so back-to-front.
Oh yeah. And you know, they tend to not kill just one; they kill them all. They tend to not use guns or knives; they use smothering or drowning or suffocating or poisoning or something like that. Occasionally I see a knife or a gun, but they don't do that very often.

A lot of mothers in the intent category have mental illness. Susan Smith, who drowned her two kids in the pond, wasn’t actively seeking a therapist, but she had a long history of really serious mental health issues: depression, suicide, sexual abuse as a child.

And Andrea Yates, the most famous case of filicide we’ve probably ever had in the US, was clearly mentally ill. She had stacks of medical records, which I reviewed. She had postpartum psychosis, and she was described as a wonderful mother. Always dedicated to her children. Everybody was surprised.

This article originally appeared on VICE AU.

This article originally appeared on VICE AU.

Rowdy Photos of the Surreal Party in New Orleans During Mardi Gras

0
0

New Orleans is a different place during the Carnival season. From the feast of Epiphany in early January through Fat Tuesday, brass bands and costumed revelers fill its colourful streets, and the city transforms into a living, breathing celebration. A million tourists flood the city below sea level, simultaneously disrupting daily life and fueling the party.

The celebration amplifies in the days leading up to Mardi Gras, which is French for "Fat Tuesday." Daily life begins to feel like a wild alternate reality. This wasn't my first time spending Carnival in New Orleans, but I've found that it feels different every year. It's an intoxicating atmosphere, and I spent this year's festivities marching in the streets alongside parading marching bands and scantily clad strangers. Here are some moments from my journey.

See more of Avery White's work on her Instagram.




Sign up for our newsletterto get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

Viewing all 38002 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images