It might not be entirely shocking that a gay man would learn of his love of dick while on a trip to San Francisco. The city is, after all, a famous queer enclave.

But when Francis Cassidy visited the city in 1979, the young gay Montrealer discovered a group of gay men who not only appreciated penises, they actually gathered regularly to worship them. In the late 70s, he placed an ad in the The Advocate in search of other men who craved cock.

When Cassidy, then starting his career as a social worker, first encountered the Temple Priapus, he learned that they weren't just all about dicks. "They were doing important community outreach, like helping homeless gay youth," he told VICE. "They were very effective in that."

But the San Francisco chapter didn't last, and Cassidy was inspired to start a Montreal chapter. Since initiating the Temple and giving it a home in his basement, Cassidy has travelled to other cities to march in Pride parades, and has helped others establish their own chapters. He is now the high priest of the international Temple, which has hundreds of members worldwide.

Now 72 and retired, Cassidy says the philosophy of the Temple is really very basic, stressing a connection between sexuality and spirituality. Having been brought up in a strict Catholic household in Quebec, he says he wasn't always sure how to connect with others who felt the same way he did. The friendships he has made in the Temple have brought him a great sense of meaning and connection.

The Temple borrows from many different faiths. "We trace much of our phallus worship back to traditions in India. Most of our members here are former Catholics, so that makes for different reference points." The group's namesake, Priapus himself, was a Greek god of fertility, son of Dionysus and Aphrodite, who "personified male procreative power," according to the Temple's web site.

From the 2018 perspective—and in light of the #metoo movement—worshipping dicks might seem somewhat antiquated. Not to mention a bit, you know, phallocentric and exclusionary. “We are about phallus worship, but there are other faiths that would include worship of women, and I have no problem with that. There have been heterosexual married couples who joined certain chapters of Priapus, but it is rare.”

When Cassidy launched the Temple in 1979, it was just he and two other members. Now he says there are about 20 in the group, with five or six hardcore members showing up for each monthly meeting.

His basement Temple boasts a giant cock sculpture (made by the late famous gay artist Peter Flinsch) and is decorated with what is perhaps best described as penis paraphernalia. There are candle holders, statues and cups, and of course photos and paintings of cocks. All in the cozy basement of a home in the rather whitebread Montreal suburb of NDG.

The Temple's penis-themed prayer includes the following words of worship: "I believe in You, beautiful Phallus, in your strength and your power, in your ability to bring ecstasy, when being sucked, licked, suckled or masturbated, all together. You offer me stiffness, beauty, the energy and your immaculate cum." The church also rejects all member prejudice, their basic belief being that all cocks are equal: "I believe in the equality of all cocks… black or white… large or small, without discrimination." The prayer also expresses a belief in "masturbating with fervor and piety. It is my way of praying and god loves to be glorified."A typical service, in which members gather to worship, means every member must remove all of their clothes, except the high priest (Cassidy, who wears a robe). A poem or hymn about Priapus or the cock is recited. Then members greet one another by grabbing each other's cocks and balls and then exchanging kisses. There is more reading and a sermon. A basket is passed around, much like in many churches, where people can make financial contributions to the running of the temple. The ceremony culminates with a "carnal communion," wherein "members give of their cum."

In order to join, one has to go through a screening process (this isn't just a society for cocksucking riffraff). "It's important for us that members feel safe, and that people are joining for spiritual reasons, not just sexual ones,” says Cassidy. “We are about connecting our spiritual selves, our meaning as people, to our phalluses."

While religious freedom is established in our constitution, it's hard not to think this all sounds suspiciously like an excuse for an orgy. "Actually, an orgy is an old term for a sacred spiritual get together," Cassidy points out. But he also stresses that "this really has to be spiritual, not just sexual. If people just want that, they can go to the bathhouse instead. If you're here only for sex, you're in the wrong place."

And the Temple Priapus does have standards. Its rules of order prohibit "overt drunkenness, fighting, hard drugs, disrespect for the High Priest or his designate, anal intercourse without a condom or the wearing of clothes." (Additional rules can and will be set by the "Board of Phallic Advisors.")

Cassidy believes that the Temple Priapus is a perfect fit for Montreal's laissez-faire culture and attitude. "To us, the cock is a path to truth and divine happiness. Everyone has a different path—this is ours."

The Sun have outdone themselves. The Sun – clearly short on dodgy sources that link Jeremy Corbyn to the Stasi, giving themselves a breather from the constant slew of caps-lock headlines describing Britain's RAGE at EU BUREAUCRATS – have pulled off an absolute worldie. The Sun have published this:

FLAKENSTEINS Snowflake students claim Frankenstein’s monster was ‘misunderstood’ — and is in fact a VICTIM

If you haven’t read Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel Frankenstein and would like a quick, bitesize low-down of the main themes in the book, I would refer you to the Sun headline quoted just above this paragraph. Frankenstein: a book about a monster who is misunderstood and, as a result of this, "murders his creator's brother, pal and bride", as The Sun puts it.

Yes, The Sun there, reporting on "snowflake students" literally understanding a book.

The report is reacting to Professor Nick Groom's comments in the Times about how attitudes towards the story have shifted over the years. In part, how students today tend to recognise how the story's monster was spurned by society – and how this ostracisation led him to violence. He also raises points about the monster as a sentient being, questioning whether or not the "creature" would be eligible for rights, being composed of both human and animal parts – another element of the story Groom says today's students are fascinated by, describing it as a novel "about medical ethics and the question of sentience". Or, in Sun language: "Bonkers Prof thinks millennials should cop off with monster Frank."

The Sun has since issued a statement about the article, claiming – unbelievably – that it was simply written to reflect how, over time, "more people have begun to see the character not as a terror to be feared but find his actions to be a result of the unimaginable horror from which he has been created".

The statement concludes: "If our story leads people to pick up the book one more time then we’re positively delighted."

But why stop there? This crusade to get the nation thumbing through those dusty, dog-eared editions can go so much further. "Snowflake students think Of Mice and Men PUPPY KILLER Lenny was Mentally Disadvantaged", maybe? Or, "Snowflake students think Kafka’s VILE BUG was Once a Man". How about: "Student snowflakes think Mockingbird’s WEIRD NONCE BOO RADLEY was actually AGORAPHOBIC".

Let’s get Britain reading again. The Sun, thank you.

@a_n_g_u_s

This article originally appeared on VICE UK.

This article originally appeared on VICE Netherlands

Waxing is an art form, and I can tell you from experience that it's a lot harder than it looks – especially when it comes to intimate areas. Genitals tend to be sensitive, precious body parts, and it can all go terribly wrong when a waxer makes a mistake. I've also heard plenty of horror stories from clients, usually involving waxing strips sticking to the skin, which means you need to wax the area again. That second waxing can give bruises or burns, or even tear the labia or ball sack.

Unfortunately, I once had to fire a young waxer who worked for me because she had gotten high on her lunch break. When she got back to work after her break, her clients complained about wax flying around the room and about her accidentally bruising and leaving burns on their vulvas.

WATCH:

Mind you, even when you're not high, when you're using all the right products and you have years of experience, things can still go horribly wrong. During winter, most people's skin is more coarse or dry, and prone to breaking easily. That is especially true of the skin around the penis, which is fairly loose and soft. The summer brings its own issues, since we get a ton of first-time clients who have no idea how painful waxing can be. Some just walk away after a few yanks because they're not prepared for how much it hurts – so please be aware of that before you get waxed for the first time.

Women who are about to get their period should also be more careful, since you're more sensitive around that time and the pain can be almost unbearable.

But the treatment is not just challenging for the waxee – it can be a trial for waxers, too. The situation around a client's genitals can get pretty disgusting; sometimes, while giving someone a Brazilian, I'll spot a bit of poo stuck to the hairs around their arse and have to use a piece of cloth to subtly remove it.

Recently, I had a customer who warned me in advance that they might be flatulent because they had just finished teaching a yoga class. When I was trying to wax her a few moments later, she just couldn't stop farting in my face. I'd had enough after a while, so I sent her to the bathroom to deal with it. Another client of mine is a rather large woman, and waxing her can be a hefty task – I sometimes need to use my elbows to push her belly away.

WATCH:

But I'd say the hardest challenge is waxing guys, because – being men – sometimes they get an erection. Several colleagues have told me about men accidentally coming all over their hands in the middle of a wax. I haven't had that experience myself, but I have been asked out on a date after waxing a guy who couldn't keep it down. With guys like that, I just pull off the waxing strip a little harder.

That's why my ex-boyfriend hated it when I waxed men: he really didn't like the idea of me dealing with another guy's penis. When I waxed my ex for the first and and only time, he started crying after just one strip and screamed at me to stop.

Even though disgusting stuff can happen and it doesn't always go exactly according to plan, I love the work itself. Clients ask for anything and everything – from a landing strip to a triangle, to going completely bald. For Valentine's Day, some clients ask us to style their pubes into a heart shape and dye them red. Sometimes we'll give them a little finishing touch with a diamond stud.

But the best part of my job is the special relationship I have with my clients. I see them every month in a very intimate way – and they share their deepest secrets with me. If you ask me, the bond between a waxer and a client is one of the strongest there is.

*The writer asked to remain anonymous to protect the privacy of her clients.

This article originally appeared on VICE NL.

"Oh FFS" is a new column picking out all the stuff you love most in life and looking at how it's destroying the planet. Enjoy!

What is it? Condoms.
What’s that? Thin layers of rubber you awkwardly thumb onto your penis before having sex to prevent you from having children or contracting any STIs, and also to absolutely stone-cold kill the mood.
Are they biodegradable? Technically, natural rubber is, but latex condoms are rarely ever 100 percent natural rubber, and so are never fully biodegradable.

How bad is the problem?

Humans are having sex all the time. Not all of them are having safe sex, of course, but in the time it took you to read that sentence we can assume – and this is a guess with absolutely zero evidence, but sounds about right – that at least 500 condoms were applied. The most straightforward and readily available form of contraception around, the humble latex condom is made chiefly out of rubber – so while we're using them to look after ourselves, with all that rubber being harvested and processed, are we looking after the world?

"With condoms, if you're looking too closely at their direct environmental impact then you’re missing the big picture," explains Andie Stephens, associate director of the corporate carbon footprint measuring company, Carbon Trust. "The production of raw materials, manufacturing and distribution will definitely have an impact, and rubber production can also be associated with tropical deforestation – but the really important point is the emissions they help to avoid."

That's right – even though condoms aren't recyclable, and even though we chop down a whole load of forest so we can plant the rubber trees needed to make them, those slippery little bastards still help the planet much more than they damage it.

"The footprint of an individual condom is going to be far, far lower than the footprint associated with the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases," Andie tells me. "There is some data available from the United Nations that suggests that every $1 spent on its HIV or AIDS work in Montenegro resulted in the equivalent of around 1kg of CO2, and for similar work in Tajikistan it was the equivalent of 2kg of CO2 per $1 spend."

When you consider that the cost of AIDS and HIV relief can run into millions of dollars a year, that's a lot of CO2 being produced – which condoms can help to prevent. And that's not all.

"Even more significantly, having ready access to contraception is a really important part of helping women to space and limit births," Andie continues. "In many ways, you can actually look at climate change and many other negative environmental impacts as being a direct factor of the number of people on the planet, multiplied by their level of consumption. So, anything that helps support better family planning is likely to be a huge net benefit in terms of greenhouse gases."

Is it a bit Elon Musk to celebrate the fact that condoms help the planet through essentially preventing more human life? Yes. Is it also true that, as a species, we are systematically destroying the planet via ruthless overconsumption, and that anything that helps to curb our insatiable hunger for natural resources will end up benefitting us all? Also yes. But that doesn't mean condom manufacturing is completely without environmental harms.

"It is worth noting that manufacturers are still working to reduce the carbon footprint of condoms," says Andie. "For example, Reckitt Benckiser – owner of the Durex brand – has committed to reducing the carbon footprint of its products by a third by 2020, from a 2012 baseline."

But ultimately, the reality is that whatever damage the manufacturing of condoms does to the environment, it pales in comparison to the benefit they provide by preventing humans from existing.

"In terms of consumption, an average individual in the UK today is probably responsible for over 10 tons of CO2 a year," says Andie. "In developing countries this is far lower, but growing rapidly as people are brought out of poverty and given access to energy, disposable incomes and western diets. If you multiply that annual impact across a lifetime, the carbon footprint of a condom will look minuscule and utterly insignificant."

So yes: condoms are sort of bad for the environment, but nowhere near as bad as the people using them.

@tom_usher_

Previously:

This Is How Bad Your Vinyl Obsession Is for the World

This article originally appeared on VICE UK.

1. Hello. Conor McGregor could kick my actual head off. The whole thing. You’re thinking: no. You're thinking: Joel, Conor McGregor could kick, like, the top 30 percent of your head off. But not the whole thing. Consider my head like a melon: you could kick a melon, couldn’t you, and sort of crush and mush the top bit of it, but you could not kick the thing into the next field. A head? Attached to a neck? And shoulders and a body? Kicked clean off? No. Absolutely not. Impossible.

But then consider: me, standing upright and a little dazed; and Conor McGregor, topless and pulsatingly sweating, his hands tied in tight little punching bandages, the tiger tattooed on his stomach, roaring; and he shuffles around to swing his kicking leg out behind him and then forward with the momentum and then— swush. Conor McGregor could kick my head clean off. If Conor McGregor kicks me in the head once I am dead. My head is bouncing away into a nearby car park. All of you come to my funeral and pay your respects to my two separate coffins – one small, microwave-sized, for the head; one more normal-sized, to encase the remaining 80 percent of my body, otherwise pristine and untouched – because there’s no way I’m getting up once Conor McGregor kicks me in the head. I’m not even twitching. And even with all of that said:

And I cannot believe I am swinging for one of the most dangerous men currently alive, here:

This Conor McGregor advert with Burger King is… something:

2. I'm going to need you to watch this again, because there’s a lot going on here. First off, between the two to three-second mark, where you can visibly see McGregor's will to live escape his body – somewhere between him saying "talk" and "swirling" – and then it coming back to him again, electric, when he remembers quite how much money he must be making from this:

How much money do you think he made from this? Consider reports that have him down as making $100 million from being punched until he was knackered by Floyd Mayweather last year. How much, if you already had $100 million, would it take to convince you to get on a private jet with an eerie emotionless burger monarch? $1 million, say? More?

Burger King have priors with boxing: the King himself walked out behind Mayweather before the Pacquaio fight in 2015, and here’s a video of Mayweather putting chapstick on and clanging into the worst microphone in recorded history and saying BK put up "some serious money… some heavy money. And I'm not talking about a million dollars" to be able to do that. So the question, again: you, the $100 million-having person; a private jet, a chicken sandwich, a silent totem of burger-frying capitalism; Floyd Mayweather, with his heavy BK money: what's your price? What’s your price to lock yourself in a jet with him and tell him his burger is good?

My price in this situation is $2 million.

Additional question: say Burger King gave you $2 million, to eat a burger, on a jet, locked on there with the eerie unblinking plastic eyes of a killer: when you eat that burger, would you eat it more convincingly than Conor McGregor does here, when he both manages to get mayo on his moustache and, possibly worst of all, keeps the damp brown burger-smelling paper bag on his lap throughout, like a drunk girl on the night bus?

Would you not ask for another take, on that one? Look:

My dude bites into a burger like Ozzy Osbourne trying to kill a bat—

There is a plate there right in front of him. With a gold napkin on it. Wipe your mayonnaise moustache.

3.

QUICK RANKING OF CONOR McGREGOR/BURGER KING PROMO SHOTS BASED ON HOW DEAD BEHIND THE EYES HE LOOKS IN EACH

4. What is Conor McGregor? There is something deep within the DNA of him that is deeply affecting to certain men (straight) (straight men). A powerful identification with him. It’s like he is the violence and the ego that is deep within all of us – even softbodied soy boys, even lads who never threw a punch in their life, the kids who read books – like all that primitive rage and anger, selectively bred out of us over generations but still dormant and waiting... it's like he's that, but made flesh. He’s very male, is what I’m saying, plus he’s astonishingly rich and drives around in sports cars with cool watches on, and wears suits like someone’s hard uncle at a wedding who’s had slightly too much champagne and now looks like he might burp so hard he explodes, the suit holding him upright, almost, with his big hard arms out to his side (Conor McGregor walks a bit like I imagine a snake would walk if it were very suddenly given four muscular limbs, confused but eerily confident with it, strutting with a bobbing neck). Every single lad who wears cutoff vests in the gym and takes "rise and grind" selfies follows him on Instagram, the adult equivalent of having a poster of him on your wall. Every single bloke who has ever won a fistfight they didn’t even start thinks he’s "sound" or "sound as fuck". If you have ever dropped more than £100 on wireless headphones to work out in, and have actually finished a tub of protein powder in your life, then you view Conor McGregor as something close to God.

5. And here’s another thing: he’s a completely self-made sporting superstar. You look at Cristiano Ronaldo, the high-gloss face of football, or Money Mayweather, who took boxing purses to the natural conclusion, and they both had established high glamour sports to springboard their personal brand off of. Conor McGregor is just a very hard lad whose fame came from UFC, which as everyone knows is a sport for boys with soiled duvet covers and unkempt neckbeards – and which, for many years, was essentially a collapsed governing body away from just being a sweaty basement Fight Club. There is an alternate timeline, parallel to ours, where UFC never became a thing and is just something we whisper about farmers doing in the dead months after harvest. Conor McGregor made millions from that.

6. So actually I have concluded that this advert – this devastatingly embarrassing advert – is actually Not That Bad. I think, you know, it’s because of the naked opportunism of it: McGregor, turning to the camera to spend a good 20 percent of the allotted advert boasting about how the money he was making from the advert would send his son to college, literally acknowledging how bad the advert is from inside the confines of the advert. That’s trash-talk on another level. That’s banter from space. Remember when he turned up to a press conference in a "FUCK YOU"-emblazoned suit? He has outperformed that stunt to one million degrees, here. He’s possibly the first athlete in history to perform meta-banter, out-trolling the trolls and getting paid for it. That, I think, is what saves this advert from being the worst ever made and turns it possibly into history’s best: Conor McGregor, perfect white teeth, thousands of dollars worth of teeth, perfect beard and custom-tailored suit, on a BK jet, just biting into a burger at me. Daring me not to like it. Conor McGregor has just checkmated me with banter. A fundamental part of my lizard brain can’t help but respect him for that.

CONCLUSION: I am sad to say that this terrible Conor McGregor/Burger King advert is: good

@joelgolby

This article originally appeared on VICE UK.

When asked last month what risks he was preparing for, Greg Pillay – head of disaster operations in Cape Town, South Africa – pulled no punches. "Water shortages, sanitation failures, disease outbreaks," he told the world’s media. "And anarchy."

His city is on the cusp of a much unwanted claim to fame: it will, this summer, become the world’s first ever major urban centre to run out of water. Three years of record low rainfall and political mismanagement means reservoir levels have plummeted to 13 percent capacity. Day Zero – the apocalyptic moment when the taps have to be switched off – is predicted for July.

If you're reading this in rain-lashed Britain, thinking it's a distant crisis for a distant land, it seems you're mistaken. Both water companies and emergency planners in the UK have long considered a Day Zero-style event a serious enough prospect to routinely plan out what would happen if it occurred. "A range of scenarios are regularly war-gamed to ensure all parties are aware of roles and responsibilities in any unlikely event," Miles Evans, Thames Water spokesman, tells me.

So, how exactly might this arise? Just what would happen if the taps did have to be switched off in a British city? And could we really see disease, anarchy and neighbourhood portaloos in our streets? "You’d like to think not," says Dr Lucy Easthope, a disaster response specialist with the Cabinet Office's Emergency Planning College. "But the thing disaster planning teaches you is that worst case scenarios do happen, and they happen fast."

1. The supply goes down

The UK is self-evidently a country with water: a land of rain surrounded by sea. As a nation, our go-to small-talk is about how it's pissing down outside – or expressing surprise that, for once, it isn’t. Summer here, noted King George II, is two fine days and a thunder storm.

Except, strictly speaking, it’s still not wet enough.

Population growth and climate change means demand for water is increasing just as supply is diminishing. In 2012, there was such concern that a hot summer could leave London facing shortages during the Olympics that a desalination plant was built in Beckton so salt water from the Thames Estuary could be purified in an emergency.

"Just three years of low rainfall would leave most British cities facing serious shortages," says Nick Walton, lead hydrogeochemist with The Institution of Environmental Sciences.

More pertinently, perhaps, it’s not just drought that could switch our taps off. Pipes damaged by freezing weather meant running water was stopped across Merseyside for more than a week in 1963, while this week thousands have been left with no water as a result of frozen pipes being damaged as they thawed out. Water companies are also a known target of terrorists seeking to destroy or poison supplies.

"People look out the window and it's chucking it down, and they don't equate that with lack of water," says Dr Easthope. "But we ignore the risk at our peril."

London looking hot as hell. Photo: Guy Corbishley / Alamy Stock Photo

2. The bans begin…

Unless there is what emergency planners call a "no-notice-big-bang" scenario (almost certainly, in this country, a terrorist attack), a water shortage won’t come out of nowhere. There will be warnings. Some minister will be skewered for incompetence on Radio 4 long before the taps give only fresh air.

At this lead-in stage, people will be asked to reduce consumption. A Temporary Use Ban would limit household rights. Washing cars and filling paddling pools would result in fines. A Local Resilience Forum will coordinate campaigns urging people to flush less and take showers instead of baths.

None of which is unchartered territory. Such bans have been intermittently used for decades, most famously during the scorching summer of 1976: "It became patriotic to have a dirty car," remembered the journalist Ian Herbert 30 years later.

3. Tankers on the roads, standpipes in the streets

For six weeks in 1995, some 1,000 tankers rolled across Yorkshire every single day in the biggest ever peace time mobilisation of lorries. Each carried water from the east of the county – which was flush – to reservoirs in the west, which was facing perhaps the severest localised shortage in modern British history.

The conveys were an unremitting environmental and economic disaster. But they did – just – keep the taps on.

Something similar would probably happen today, reckons Dr Easthope. "But using tankers to redistribute water like this – just like distributing bottled water to homes – is logistically unsustainable; it can't be kept going indefinitely."

What follows afterwards would be unpopular: a limiting of household tap water – perhaps a day with, followed by a day without – and the installing of standpipes and bowsers in the streets. Around this point, COBRA, the government’s highest-level emergency response committee, would be activated. Phrases like "national crisis" would start to get thrown around.

4. The dash for drink

If water supplies are disappearing without being replenished, limiting use of what’s left is no more than a delaying tactic. So, at some point, there will be a dash to find more.

Special licences would be granted to water companies – under and Emergency Drought Order – allowing them to rip up land and property while digging boreholes to access the UK’s huge underground water reserves, called aquafers. In coastal towns, desalination plants may be built to purify sea water for domestic use. In 1976, there was even a plan to seed clouds with rain-bursting chemicals.

Yet, none of these guarantee success.

Boreholes cost £500,000 a pop and could take a year from ground-breaking to connection to the water supply. For a city the size of London, dozens would be needed to even begin to meet demand. Pertinently, says Nick Walton, "The environmental damage of taking water from the earth in such quantity would be incalculable." Think rivers drying up, land turning arid and habitats being destroyed.

Desalination plants, on the other hand, could probably help make up water shortfalls – as long as said shortfalls were confined to coastal or estuary towns. The effectiveness of sucking rain from the clouds, meanwhile, remains unproven.

Photo: Jake Lewis

5. The New Three-Day Week (but full pub opening hours)

Much gaming out around a British city water shortage looks at how the 1973 Fuel Crisis played out.

Not an obvious comparison, perhaps, but during that – as during a drought – suddenly limited resources needed to be maintained and managed. "So, with our water crisis, you may see businesses limited – or self-limiting themselves – to a new Three-Day Week," says Dr Easthope.

Restaurants would be shut on hygiene grounds. Schools would close. Farms would likely see entire crop yields ruined; in 1976, some £500 million worth were lost in Dorset alone. An economic slowdown would be inevitable.

Not everywhere would see reduced hours, though. Certain red-stickered organisations would have water supplies maintained so they could continue as normal – the emergency services, public transport, utilities and care homes among them. And pubs too, apparently.

"Keeping the pubs open is something I fiercely advocate," says Dr Easthope, whose book The Recovery Myth sets out the best way for strategists to respond to emergencies. "They are one of the vital casual spaces of disaster recovery; places where people can go and talk and laugh together. Where they can be normal again."

6. Troops. Fire. Evacuation. Portaloos.

When defence analysts game out wars between major powers, they might end with nuclear Armageddon. When emergency planners game out water shortages, there are community portaloos haunting the final stages.

At some point, household taps would be completely shut off and people would be advised that instead of using their own un-flushable lavatories they should visit newly-installed neighbourhood portaloos. Or build their own compost toilets.

The resulting breakdown in hygiene would see hospitals inundated. Children and vulnerable people may be evacuated to coastal towns. Government-incentivised holiday schemes would encourage families to leave the area for a period. Troops would probably be placed on the streets to protect empty homes and standpipes.

From here, there's really not a great deal to be done other than – assuming the scenario has been caused by a drought – hope the rain comes soon.

And it probably will.

In a recent study, Water UK found there was a 5 percent chance of an unprecedented drought here in the next 25 years. But, as Nick Walton says: "This is England – any period of good weather always ends with a storm."

So next time you’re making small talk about the rain, maybe offer a silent thanks.

@colin_drury

This article originally appeared on VICE UK.

Friends, Romans, countrypersons: lend me your ears. I bring you glad tidings on the eve of the vernal equinox. Our emperor has returned from his pilgrimage to Hindustan, and the spring rites will soon begin. How joyous are our hearts! But before Persephone can be roused from her winter’s slumber, there must be a sacrifice. The fruits of prosperity won’t blossom without their yearly drop of blood.

This is admittedly a fanciful lede for a story about Parliamentary committees. But that’s the imagery that sprang to mind when I read Susan Delacourt story on how the Liberals have made a late-winter tradition of flouting committee reports about a major social policy.

In 2016, the federal government barrelled over the recommendations of a joint Commons-Senate committee formed to study assisted dying legislation. Last February, Justin Trudeau unceremoniously dumped his promise to bring in electoral reform—against recommendations from the all-party committee to either put it to a referendum soon or otherwise keep plugging away at it. Now the Liberals are poised to do it again—only this time with pharmacare.

Never mind that the Standing Committee on Health is about to release its report on pharmacare. We don’t know what they’re going to recommend and it doesn’t matter. The feds have decided to form a pharmacare advisory council chaired by former Ontario Health Minister Eric Hoskins, a winking deke to the left ahead of next year’s election. This is the group who will set the real contours for drug reform in Canada—which, conveniently, Finance Minister Bill Morneau has already declared will not be universal. Maybe expect a low-rent national mirror of the Ontario Liberals’ pharma plan, and try not to get sick after you turn 24.

Anyway, governments blowing off committees all the time seems bad, to me. It‘s a huge waste of time and money to have MPs put thousands of hours of labour into writing reports that no one will ever read or care about. That’s why we have universities.

It also undercuts one of the few genuinely democratic mechanisms in Parliament. Committees are where politicians from all parties discuss things with each other more or less like adults. They speak to experts and advisors about the policy areas they’re studying. Affected citizens get the chance to have their concerns and experiences and demands read into the official record. Our parliamentarians marshall all this information together and offer the closest approximation of fair, representative, democratic, and enlightened policy that our profoundly imperfect system can produce. Flouting their recommendations on major policy questions is not only grossly undemocratic, but it will result in comparatively sloppy, ineffective, and/or inequitable legislation. We will keep getting bad laws and shitty governance, driven by policy makers and private interests that can never be held accountable. The PMO may as well be a princely court, which I’m sure suits the prime minister’s aesthetic tastes just fine.

Not that shrugging off the tedium of parliamentary democracy is unique to Trudeau II. Donald Savoie has spend decades chronicling the PMO’s tendency to accumulate increasingly broad and kingly powers. The slow erosion of responsible government in Canada started long before Trudeau I sent soldiers into Montreal. Stephen Harper wasn’t super fussy about the democratic process either—you may recall that his MPs were given instructions on how to deliberately obstruct committee work. Loosening democratic constraints is the inclination of every prime minister who has wanted to “get things done” for good or for ill. The rules of Canadian parliamentary democracy are largely all unwritten, and unchecked executive power has a tendency to grow. More than anything, Justin Trudeau is just being pulled along by the inertia of a presidentialized PMO.

But this evolutionary stage in Canada’s institutions comes in a historical moment where political and social discourse is dominated by the language (and conceptual limits) of corporate branding. What is a brand? An empty signifier, a hieroglyphic of something real that you invest with feeling. It is an image, an emotional mirage. Brand loyalty is a psychological glitch subconsciously exploited by marketers from our first breath to our last. Branding is a magic trick meant to keep you buying Ibuprofen for a premium when a generic bottle will do. Everyone enthusing over politics as a “marketplace of ideas” forgot that real marketplaces are mad and chaotic, full of loud noises and bright colours and bold lies and the only concern is to make as much money as possible before someone dies of lead poisoning and the bubble finally bursts.

That’s the spectacular politics of late capitalism for you. While the most striking case of institutional degeneration is when an aggressively stupid reality TV star became King of America, bullshit finds a natural home in Canada’s House of Commons. Appearing as all things to all people is a structural necessity of electoral politics in a country as large and diverse as this one, and it has historically been the Liberals’ greatest power.

There are a thousand examples, like the aspirational “feminist” subsidies in Budget 2018 (instead of an a childcare program), or the straight-faced declaration that they can build more bitumen pipelines while at the same time meet their 2030 climate targets. They offer up the glimmering image of a thing as an object of conspicuous social consumption instead of a serious-minded attempt to comprehend and tackle policy problems. What you see is rarely what you actually get.

For a long time, Trudeau’s power was located precisely in the emptiness of his brand. You can make all kinds of things appear in an empty space. Because of his royal blood, he is a pure signifier of “Liberal”, which is in turn a signifier for “progressive” and “Canada” and whatever else the focus group suggests might work that week. But to paraphrase the great Canadian philosopher Neil Peart: eventually, the prime minister’s spacious personality starts coming off as merely spaced.

The year 2018 has not been a great one for the prime minister so far. The India trip looks more and more like it may have been the high water mark for his international celebrity politics schtick. He’ll survive, but it should be taken as a warning. The same thing can happen domestically, especially if the Liberals continue to very visibly break high-profile promises and drive Stephen Harper’s steamroller over parliamentary procedure.

Then again, Liberal strategists are probably banking that most Canadians don’t actually care: that no one pays attention to Parliament, that everyone already expects politicians to lie and break promises, and that in the final analysis, fear of Prime Minister Scheer and doubts about the NDP will keep Trudeau’s #RealChange coalition together for 2019. I’m not going to speculate about whether or not they’re right.

The emperor wears no clothes, folks—just a thin halo of Hope and Hard Work. Bow before his bare resplendent balls.

Follow Drew Brown on Twitter.

VICE Canada won three Canadian Screen Awards on Tuesday for its VICELAND programming.

VICELAND shows Terror, RISE, and Abandoned all took home wins last night at the Canadian Screen Awards ceremony in Toronto.

Terror won for best News or Information Program, beating out perennial favourites such as CBC's The Fifth Estate and Marketplace.

RISE took home the award for Best Documentary Program. In her acceptance speech, RISE director Michelle Latimer gave a stirring call to action to make space for Indigenous stories.

And the visually striking series Abandoned, in which skateboarder Rick McCrank explores forgotten urban spaces, won for Best Photography, Documentary or Factual.

The VICE team celebrates their wins at the CSAs last night. Photo via Michael Kronish

VICE Canada was nominated for 13 awards total this year for VICELAND programming at the Canadian Screen Awards. VICE Canada Reports has also been nominated under digital programming for Best Web Program or Series Non-Fiction at the awards. The CSA ceremonies continue this week, with Dead Set On Life, Nirvanna the Band the Show, and VICE Talks Weed with Justin Trudeau still up for awards.

Check out some of the award-winning content below:

Best News or Information Program: Terror

Best Documentary Program: RISE

Best Photography, Documentary or Factual: Abandoned

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

US News

North Korea Faces New American Sanctions Over Kim Jong Nam Killing
The US State Department announced the move after deciding last month that the North Korean government had Kim Jong Un’s half-brother Kim Jong Nam assassinated using a chemical weapon. The sanctions overlap with several the US and UN have already imposed. Two women are on trial in Malaysia for the murder, accused of covering Kim's face with a VX nerve agent at Kuala Lumpur airport. Pyongyang has denied involvement.—VICE News

Stormy Daniels Sues Trump
The porn star filed a lawsuit claiming a nondisclosure agreement fixed up by the president’s lawyer Michael Cohen was invalid because Donald Trump never actually signed it. Her suit asserts the “hush agreement” prevents her from talking about sexual relations with Trump and is “unenforceable.” She also alleged Cohen used “intimidation and coercive tactics."—VICE News

Feds Go After California's Sanctuary Policies
The Department of Justice filed suit against the state alleging three laws it passed recently to protect undocumented immigrants were unconstitutional. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra denied the claim, asserting states and localities should have “the right to determine which policies are best for their communities."—The Washington Post

Kush Heads to Mexico
The president’s senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner was joining a group of US officials to meet President Enrique Peña Nieto and Mexico’s foreign minister Luis Videgaray in Mexico City Wednesday for talks on trade and immigration. A White House meeting with the Mexican president was canceled last month after a phone call between Trump and Peña Nieto reportedly turned sour.—CBS News

International News

Russian Plane Crash in Syria Leaves 39 Dead
A military transport plane crashed near the Hemeimeem air base Tuesday, killing all service personnel and crew members on board. Russia's defense ministry said the crash was an accident. Meanwhile, at least nine more deaths were reported in Eastern Ghouta Tuesday, as Syrian government forces continued their ferocious campaign to retake the area from rebel fighters.—AP

Sri Lanka Suspends Facebook After Anti-Muslim Violence
The country imposed a 72-hour ban on Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, and Viber on Wednesday, with the government asserting Facebook had been used to call for attacks on the country’s Muslim minority during several days of violence between Buddhists and Muslims. The telecommunications minister went on to claim social media sites “have been used to destroy families, lives, and private property."—VICE News

Another Major Earthquake Rocks Papua New Guinea
A magnitude 6.7 quake killed or injured an estimated 18 people Wednesday. A week and a half ago, a magnitude 7.5 earthquake left more than 100 people dead, according to the Red Cross. “Our people are traumatized and finding it difficult to cope,” said the provincial governor.—The New York Times

Australia and East Timor Strike Maritime Border Deal
The two nations formally established each country’s rights to oil and gas fields in the Timor Sea. East Timor walked away with at least 70 percent of the most potentially lucrative oil field, Greater Sunrise, said to be worth roughly $40 billion.—BBC News

Everything Else

Migos Sued, Accused of Starting a Riot
Albany Basketball & Sports Corporation, owner of the Washington Avenue Armory, filed a lawsuit against the hip-hop stars over a huge brawl there in March 2015. The suit alleged the group “caused a riot” and “encouraged fans to fight."—The Alt

Weinstein Company Sale Falls Apart Again
A prominent investor group “decided to terminate” a tentative agreement to buy the film company co-founded by Harvey Weinstein. It was the second time a proposed deal had collapsed, forcing the company’s board to prepare for bankruptcy.—The Hollywood Reporter

Fred Durst Directing a Movie Starring John Travolta
The Limp Bizkit frontman is shooting a film about a man with an unhealthy fascination with an action movie star, with Travolta playing the fanatic. Called Moose, it's said to be based on Durst’s own experience with a stalker.—Variety

Beach House Drop More New Material
The band shared “Dive,” the second new song released this year after last month’s “Lemon Glow." The duo previously promised fans their seventh studio album would come out “later this spring.”—Noisey

David Lynch Festival Announced for NYC
The director is curating the Festival of Disruption at Williamsburg's Brooklyn Steel this May. Lynch’s three-day event, held in LA for the past two years, features performances by Animal Collective, Angel Olsen, and Flying Lotus.—i-D

New York Town Wants Temporary Ban on Bitcoin Mining
Plattsburgh Mayor Colin Read proposed an 18-month moratorium on all new digital currency mining after an old paper mill in the town was turned into a Bitcoin mine. The mayor was worried about the amount of electricity the operation absorbs.—Motherboard

Make sure to check out the latest episode of VICE's daily podcast. Today we’ll hear how one woman’s views on gun control shifted over time, and how she's navigating today’s divisive gun debate.

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

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

Sex is an act two or three adults do, sometimes four (when it gets to five it sort of stops being sex and becomes more of a frightening endurance sport, five people fucking is essentially a Tough Mudder with more crying and cum), where they intertwine their bodies and make them explode and tighten in orgasmic bliss. You have probably had it before in your life. You know it, right? The sex thing. When you came. That time you came and someone was there. That was sex.

The Royal Family are a British family, nominally, and they are sort of in charge of everything but also not. They have no true power but they are rich. They live in palaces and high castles but don’t, like, actually rule. Your nan really likes them and collects teacups with their faces on, and sometimes they go on TV and say in flat emotionless tones that they support charity and think it’s good, and sometimes they fly helicopters and pretend to do war, and sometimes they plot complex and intricate murders, but mostly they just wear suits and shift dresses and hats and wave at the poor as they adore them. That is the Royal Family.

Have you ever thought, though: damn, it would be good to combine my dual interests, royalty and being horny? Because, buddy:

(via)

Here are those souvenir condoms you asked for. You asked for these, right? The condoms that come in a box with Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's face on it. And the box plays a God Save the Queen/Star-Spangled Banner mash-up when you open it. That thing you asked for. Four commemorative condoms in a tasteful, royal-themed box. The thing you asked for and have now received. Here it is. It is from "Heritage Prophylactics, Ltd", which apparently also released a condom for the William/Kate marriage, and say they are real – but I very much do not believe they are real – but they say they are real and allege these condoms, RRP £11.50 for four, are real.

Here’s their definitely real spokesperson "Hugh Pomfret" talking to Metro about it: "Our prophylactics are designed as an heirloom product, we would encourage people to keep hold of them as a memento of a special national occasion." Here’s the answer from the FAQ page that asks, "Are these real?": "We are delighted to confirm that our fine prophylactic sheaths do indeed exist." OK.

Listen, irrelevant. I have been trying desperately to think of any single scenario where horniness might exceed logic and that you, frantic and gagging, would use a royal wedding-themed condom. Here they are:

ABSOLUTE, ABSOLUTE, FEVERISH DESPERATION

In this scenario you have started the process of having sex, commonly referred to as "foreplay", and you’ve both done, like, an extensive amount of hand stuff, and maybe some mouth stuff, I don’t know – I don’t know how you live – but everyone is writhing and covered in saliva and the window is all steamed up. It is Sex Time, is what I am saying, and then one of you does that incredibly inelegantly lean off the bed to where the condoms are stored in a drawer, that big reach where one of you goes "augh" with the strain of it, and there are no condoms left in the drawer, only empty foil wrappers and the Royal Sheath. And you say: "I mean, I could go out, to the shop." You go: "I could go pay £6 for a three-pack of Durex Extra Safe, the only condoms corner shops seem to have, ever. It is like corner shops very actively don't want me to feel pleasure, for some reason. But I could go there."

Only, you started all this foreplay stuff like three hours ago and darkness has fallen and the shops are all closed. You, in a tracksuit, up against the cage-like shutters of three separate corner stores. You, in an Uber, desperately riding to the nearby 24-hr Tesco Extra. You, in the bright blinding lights of the condom aisle, looking at all those empty shelves. You, back home to get horny, tail between your legs, sadly telling your partner: "Hey. I'm sorry. There’s no other way around it. We have to think about Prince Harry while we fuck."

YOU’RE REALLY, REALLY PUNCHING AND – SIDEBAR – THE PERSON YOU ARE PUNCHING WITH IS ALSO FIENDISHLY HORNY FOR THE MONARCHY

We have all punched, have we not (punching, v: to somehow convince someone several rungs up the accepted 10-scale attractiveness ladder that personality trumps aesthetics and yes, they should have sex w/ you)??? Have we not??? So imagine you are punching, and the date is going well – you, a lowly 6, making this absolute 10 laugh and holler and play footsie – and they purr, in that sexy way, "An Uber to mine, then?" and you are making out in the Uber – not your Uber rating being affected here, it's theirs, so you really don’t mind how frankly disgusting you’re making this Prius – and then you get back to theirs and fumble through the living room and down the hallway and in the direction of their bedroom and: oh, oh god. Everything is royal. Tea towels, Queen masks, Union Flags, glossy American magazines. A photo of them posing ecstatically at a Scottish primary school with Kate.

"Do you like royals?" they say, neatly undressing to unveil the most ten-on-ten body you’ve ever seen in your life. Start doing a bit of mouthy on you, which is also magnificent. "I like royals. It’s sort of my thing. My one major flaw, a lot of people say. That I am slightly too horny for the Queen."

There is something about that particular direct form of British randiness – Britons have two forms of being horny, the "shy and quite embarrassed about it" lot (90 percent of us) and those who approach being horny in the same way a robust mum approaches unplugging a toilet, with a sort of "well let’s get in done then, shall we, and try to make the best of it" hardiness (10 percent), and anyway this royal-lover is the latter – and they hold the cursed condom aloft and say: "There, either put that on or put that on me" (in this scenario it is very difficult to write catch-all horny dialogue). And you do it, you dog, don’t you? You absolutely do it.

YOU’RE… UM. ON A SHIP? IN THE MIDDLE OF THE OCEAN? AND… NO, RIGHT—

It’s actually quite tricky, this imagination exercise, isn’t it? Okay, so: you’re on an ocean liner. Turns out civilisation died halfway through your ocean crossing and so there are now no open ports to dock into (all of humanity on land is now plagued, or zombified, or something). Nightmare. And yet, a strange glimmer there, in the midst of your horror and grief: are you… slightly… horny? Yes: a strapping young deckhand, perfectly mute, has caught your eye. One night, down in the hold, by candlelight, the two of you start to fuck in holy silence. And literally the only condom on board is the Regal Prophylactic. Come on, man. You’re probably gonna die tomorrow. Use the Princely Rubber.

… SPACE?

You’re in space. And the scientists sending you up there were like, "Please don’t fuck in space. Please." They are like: "The juices gum up the delicate machinery. The cameras and devices we have monitoring you at all times will see. Plus, any babies you have up there will be monstrous, alien, anti-gravity, their bones all thin and weak, like a boiled chicken." And you tell the scientists: I will not fuck, boys. But then they send you up there with a single Royal Wedding condom and, like, Idris Elba. Idris Elba is the fellow astronaut with you. He keeps saying, "Norty, norty!", and come on. You’re only human. Come on. You use the condom.

EVERY OTHER CONDOM, ON EARTH, HAS SNAPPED ON YR PENIS WITH A CARTOON RUBBER-BAND-SNAP SOUND, SOMEHOW

Scenario: condoms don’t normally break, but they sometimes do, and that’s why they have a widely cited 2 to 3 percent fail rate. And normally that breakage is mid-intercourse – everyone has to stop and say "wow" and "so… uhhhh?" and kind of size up the person opposite them, kneeling on a wet duvet in the blue-black dark, trying to assess from their posture whether they have any STIs or have just suddenly and instantly gotten pregnant, a whole calamity for the two of you to now navigate, together, that so often ends in a bright-lights-and-early-morning visit to a pharmacy – but yes, anyway, sometimes they just snap right there on the dick before anything’s even kicked off yet. This happened to me twice in a row once, and my explaining how statistically anomalous this was actually really killed the mood, and we had to stop and just watch a movie instead.

Anyway, in this scenario the snapping has happened billions and billions of times, in a row, and the last remaining condom on Earth is the Royal Wedding condom. Like, one of you has been hard for years now. Decades. The penis that the condoms keep snapping on is raw and exhausted. The sex, when it happens, is going to be agonising and incredibly disappointing for both of you. But you do it anyway. "Let’s," you say, holding the Royal sheath aloft. "Let us get horny in the name of the King."

MORAL OF THE STORY

Practise safe sex whenever possible! Please! Even if Prince Harry’s face has to stare at you, blank-eyed, before you fuck!

@joelgolby

This article originally appeared on VICE UK.

Watching Growth by multimedia artist Felix Kalmenson feels like dropping acid and going to the movies. Colors bleed into one another in strange, vibrant patterns that seem to eat away at the footage flashing before your eyes. A familiar face or distorted limb appears onscreen for a moment, before blurring again into blotchy, dissolving orbs.

The short video was made by cultivating mold from rotting strawberries on film stock of the trailer for 2008's The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2. As the fungus grew, it degraded the film, leaving behind psychedelic patterns that look a little like oil slicks. If experimenting with the destructive power of mold feels a little like a science fair project, that's intentional. Growth reflects the growing trend of BioArt, or art made with live tissues, bacteria, or other living organisms.

Kalmanson is hardly the first to mix art and science. Artist Anicka Yi worked with a team of molecular biologists and forensic chemists for her 2017 exhibition, Life Is Cheap, at the Guggenheim. It featured two living dioramas: bacteria grown in agar sourced from Manhattan’s Chinatown and Koreatown, and a colony of ants exposed to a special scent museum visitors were also spritzed with, "creating the possibility of a shared psychic experience between ant and human," according to the show description. Other artists have used honey bees to repair damaged artifacts and cultivated colorful strains of bacteria to use as natural pigments.

Kalmenson’s foray into BioArt was the outgrowth of an open call to artists and filmmakers by the collective Exploding Motor Car in Toronto. “A huge pile of old film trailers were acquired by the group following the storage purges of a local cinema,” he told VICE. “Artists were invited to grab spools of film at random and alter them as they see fit.”

The artist was working at the National Film Board of Canada teaching early animation techniques and experimenting at home with novel methods to disrupt the filmic image at the time. And for this project, he said, “I experimented with different techniques but settled on coating the film emulsion with rotting strawberries and then sealing the individual strips of film in Tupperware. The combined heat and moisture and the acidic quality of the strawberries proved to be just the thing for inducing mold.”

The mold, said Kalmenson, took about two weeks to grow, but he saw results within the first week. After the growth was “to a satisfactory level,” he opened the containers, dried the fungus, and scraped it off, so as to allow light to pass through and for the film to be scanned. “The film was too chunky and foul-smelling for film labs to accept, because they worried about jamming their equipment, so I meticulously scanned each individual frame (and there were over a thousand) with a film scanner loaned by my generous friend and photographer Sarah Bodri, and then I stitched the images together digitally.”

The resultant patterns show us the footprint of the mold. The colors bleed, revealing the rainbow of accumulated color, and making the remarkably complex growth patterns of these fascinating and misunderstood organisms evident.

It might be fair to say you’ve never seen Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2 quite like this.

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

Follow Anna Marks on Twitter.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

Michael B. Jordan has proved time and time again that he's an incredible actor. At just 16, he made us cry as Wallace in The Wire and then again as Oscar Grant in Ryan Coogler's Fruitvale Station. But it was his turn as Erik Killmonger in Black Panther that really elicited some strong audience reactions. Take, for example, the young woman who got so worked up at Jordan's, uh, performance, she completely destroyed her retainer.

"It was the scene where Killmonger took his shirt off for the battle to become king of Wakanda," 18-year-old Sophia Robb told BuzzFeed. "I pressed my tongue against my permanent retainer and clenched my jaw so hard that the wire disconnected from my teeth."

Robb then had the unfortunate task of going into her orthodontist to explain how it was Michael B. Jordan's bare chest—not popcorn—that caused her dentistry malfunction. She said that she and the staff had a good laugh about it, but after her appointment, she made a horrifying discovery. Her orthodontist wrote about the whole thing on his Tumblr page to the joy of just about everyone else on the internet.

After seeing the post make the rounds online and realizing that the "tiny 17 year old girl thirsting so goddamn hard" was indeed her, she decided to come clean.

In exposing herself, Robb's highly relatable story got more than 129,000 retweets and racked up more than 500,000 likes. Not only that, but Michael B. Jordan himself—saint that he is—swooped in to take responsibility, offering to replace Robb's retainers for her.

Robb told BuzzFeed that she was "kinda losing it" after seeing Jordan tweet at her, so it's unclear if she's planning to take him up on the generous offer. And it doesn't seem like there are any hard feelings between her and the orthodontist, the grown man who still uses Tumblr. Robb tweeted that she's planning to go back to the guy, calling him "a real one."

As for the rest of us, let's treat Robb's story as a cautionary tale about the sheer strength of the jaw, the trust between orthodontists and patients, and most importantly, the power of Michael B. Jordan's physique. Don't worry, Sophia Robb, that girl is all of us.

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

Follow Lauren Messman on Twitter.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

If you are worried about the world becoming less and less stable with each passing month, about democracies around the world coming under assault from strongmen and would-be strongmen, about society succumbing to its worst impulses, do not read the new book from political scientist Yascha Mounk, The People Vs. Democracy. It will scare the hell out of you.

Mounk, who grew up in Germany in the 80s and 90s, attracted attention in late 2016 for co-authoring an article that found people in the West—and young people in particular—are less enamored with democracy and more open to autocracy than ever. Coverage of the study was criticized for being alarmist, but it is true that in countries ranging from Hungary to Poland to India liberal democratic institutions have come under attack; extremist right-wing parties have also come dangerously close to gaining power in places like Austria and France. And thanks to Donald Trump, Americans have reason to believe their own democracy could erode with frightening speed.

The People Vs. Democracy is obviously a book intended to alarm (its subtitle is “Why Our Freedom Is in Danger and How to Save It”) but it also offers a compelling way to look at several trends afflicting the world. The chief problem Mounk identifies is that “liberal democracy,” the system guaranteeing a wide range of individual rights as well as elected governments, seems to be splitting apart. On one hand, you have “rights without democracy,” situations where the rule of law is intact but the people are ruled by unelected bureaucrats and elites who aren’t in tune with the popular will (Mounk cites the EU as his prime example). On the other hand are “illiberal democracies,” where populist leaders take take advantage of anger and resentment to damage institutions and civil liberties, and even wind up establishing outright dictatorships. Mounk also delves into the causes of the West’s vulnerability to these demagogues—in his telling, decades of economic stagnation and relatively sudden demographic changes via immigration have made many people unhappy with their lot in life and prone to xenophobia. Meanwhile, social media provides fringe groups platforms that gatekeepers had once denied them.

In other words, society is fracturing along several axes at once and in ways that benefit strongmen, racists, and other forces that liberal democracy was supposed to keep at bay. Before the book dropped this week, I asked Mounk if there was anything we could do about it.

VICE: Is there an easy or succinct explanation for why so many people seem to be turning against liberalism?
Yascha Mounk: One way in which a lot of people are turning against liberalism is that they are frustrated with the constraint ­on the popular will, and that takes on a couple of forms. The first is that they feel like the political system hasn’t always been very good at listening to the people and translating popular views into public policy. And often, they’re right about that—there are ways in which our political system hasn’t been efficiently responsive. And that makes them quite open to politicians who say, “You know what, all of those things that are supposedly needed to guarantee the rule of law, to guarantee individual rights, really aren’t necessary. We should get rid of independent institutions like the FBI, we should get rid of courts that can meddle with our decisions. We don’t need to respect the rights of immigrants, refugees, or even citizens in our own country who hail from some kind of ethnic or religious minority.”

The other reason is that it’s always easier for countries to rule themselves collectively when they feel that they have a lot in common. In the history of democracies, most of them have been built in countries that are reasonably homogeneous. As countries have become more heterogeneous, there’s a lot of people who resent that, who say, "Why should I let these other people who are from a different ethnic group, who come from a different part of the world, who might have different religious ideas—why should I let them participate in the collective we?"

How much do you blame elites for the problems you discuss?
It’s quite clear to me, especially in the United States, that both the political and the financial elites have used their power to extract what political scientists and economists call rents. Which is to say, they rig the rules in such a way that they benefit while everybody else is harmed. I think one obvious example is that it used to be that capital income, from investments, for example, was taxed much more than active income from going to work and getting a paycheck. Now capital gains are taxed at a much, much lower rate than going to work for a living. And even if you have reasonably conservative values, even if you think that we shouldn’t do too much redistribution but we should reward people’s effort, that is a very strange system. Obviously this is only one small example of myriad ways in which we’ve set up the system in such a way that relatively few people manage to capture a vast share of the gains from economic growth.

To me a populist is somebody who doesn’t accept that people’s different political points of view are legitimate, who doesn’t accept that the world is complex.

I think we need to go beyond this as well, though. From 1985 to today, average incomes have been flat. Part of that is because so much more of recent economic gains have gone to the very top. But part of it is also because there have been fewer economic gains to go around. So to me, the fundamental question here is about whether the stable democracies that we’ve come to know and expect were dependent on economic background conditions that simply aren’t there anymore.

When you talk about the economic problems, it reminds me of things that left-wing economic populists say, and it made me wonder—I know there are some left-wing populist parties in Europe that have gained some power, but it seems that the far right is just way more powerful than the far left at the moment. Why do you think that is?
First of all, let me say a word about what I mean by “populism,” because it’s a word that’s confusing and lots of people use it in lots of different ways. To me a populist is somebody who doesn’t accept that people’s different political points of view are legitimate, who doesn’t accept that the world is complex. [Populists] claim that the only thing that we need to do in order to face up to the challenges we have today is to get somebody who has common sense—who channels the true nature of the people—in power and sweep aside all of the elite. Then everything will be great.

And of course what happens is that they can never actually deliver on those false promises, because the world is more complicated than that. So at that point, they start to blame everybody. They say, “The reason why I haven’t delivered is that the opposition are traitors. The reason why I haven’t delivered is that the press are enemies of the people.” And a lot of that rhetoric can consist of excluding and vilifying everybody who is Muslim, or black, from the “true people.”

It can direct itself from a political right against people who are un-American because they’re socialists who want to redistribute money. Or it can come from the left, as in Venezuela, and direct itself against capitalists. Now, why is it that left populists are often unsuccessful? There are some countries where they are pretty strong, where they might well take power in the coming years. But you’re right that certainly in North America, certainly in most parts of Northern Europe, certainly in Central and Eastern Europe, right-wing populists tend to be stronger. And I think that that is a) because immigration and fears about cultural change play in those countries, and b) because in the end, when you have a clash between left populism and right populism, I think right populism always has an easier time winning. It is easier to scapegoat foreigners, minorities, people of different religious beliefs, than it is to scapegoat corporations, or capitalism, or Wall Street, which are abstract concepts. Unfortunately, I think it’s much easier to incite hatred against people rather than a system.

What do you think people who do oppose right-wing populists can learn from how quickly their ideas have spread and how they’ve managed to gain a surprising amount of power?
One thing that I think we should learn is that we mustn’t cede ground, we mustn’t make some topics taboo in such a way that only the right gets to talk about it. So, for example, I’m Jewish, my grandparents survived the Holocaust, I grew up in Germany, and so to me it was always obvious that we should try and leave nationalism behind in the century that it so cruelly shaped. And 15 years ago, that didn’t seem to be such an unrealistic hope. But I fear that actually disengaging from the space of patriotism and nationalism has allowed the right to colonize it, to take it over, to say, “If you care about America, if you care about Germany, if you care about the national flag or the national anthem, then really, you’re with us.” And because nationalist sentiment and symbolism retains a very deep power, I think that that makes it much easier for them to win and exploit those symbols in the worst possible way.

I think of nationalism as a half-domesticated animal. I think what we need to do is try and domesticate it. And the way to do that is to emphasize that, yes, we are proud to be Americans, yes, it’s important to us to be a member of a nation—including all of the mutual solidarity that that entails, and also the mutual pride that it entails. And naturally, anybody who is a citizen, whether they are white, or brown, or black, or they are Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, or of no faith, or whatever, need to be valued equally as a member of our club. And by the way, people who may not have a US passport but are clearly American in every other sense because they were brought here as children and have never known any other country need to be treated as equals as well.

The most likely scenario is what I call the Roman scenario.

How do you think the anti-Trump resistance movement is doing in that respect?
I think there’s a big range there. There are people who speak very movingly, for example, about Dreamers as Americans, and I think that’s the right path to take. And then sometimes I see people saying the history of this country is so racist that there’s no aspect of it which we should claim and celebrate. I’m deeply aware of the deep injustice in our history and also in our present. I think that that’s the wrong path to take. I think what we should do is—as President Obama did, consistently and very powerfully—claim the best things in our history and use them in order to both acknowledge the ways in which we still fall short of those ideals and to motivate the fight for their realization.

In 50 years, do you think the US political system will be the same as it is today, or will it be drastically different?
I roughly think of it as three different scenarios to what might happen now. The first is that the United States turns out to be more similar to Hungary than we care to believe. Although it doesn’t look right now that Donald Trump is doing deep damage to our institutions in the United States 18 months in, the same was true for [Hungarian leader] Viktor Orban a year and a half into his time in office, the same was true of Vladimir Putin a year and a half into office, the same was true of Recep Erdogan in Turkey a year and a half into office. The process of dissolution of democracy is slow, and there’s no one single measure that looks like the obvious point of crossing the Rubicon. And so we need to stay very attentive. But I think it’s rather unlikely.

The second scenario is the optimistic one: that Donald Trump will mobilize such opposition and such a renewed commitment to our political system that when he leaves office in disgrace there will be such a moment of political reckoning that we can go forward with a new kind of political unity and fix our politics. There’s some reason for hope there—I don’t think that this is entirely unimaginable. But if you look at the fact that, as of the time of this conversation, Trump actually does have 42 percent of approval in the country, if you look at the depth of the reason for the populist rise, not just in the United States but around the world, if you look at the bitterness of our politics, it’s quite difficult for me to envisage the populist momentum simply evaporating and everything returning to normal.

And so I think the most likely scenario is what I call the Roman scenario. We might resemble the Roman Republic, where a populist by the name of Tiberius Gracchus won power late in the second century BC riding on a wave of discontent about economic stagnation and a rigged political system. He was eventually removed from office, violently as it happened, and for a few years things returned to normal. But then somebody else used the fact that the underlying problems hadn’t been resolved to gain office on a similar message. And conflict broke out again. There was a cycle of this, from high moments of political tension and drama to moments of relative normality for some 50, 100 years. And over time, the Roman Republic withered away. I could imagine that we are now at the beginning of a cycle, and 50 years from now we might be at any point of it, including the terminal one.

This interview has been lightly edited and condensed for clarity.

The People Vs. Democracy is out now from Harvard University Press.

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

Follow Harry Cheadle on Twitter.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

Most humans are powerless to resist the urge to poop. When duty calls, we're usually forced to drop a deuce at the closest place to squat, whether that's in some claustrophobic airplane bathroom, in the street, or, God forbid, in our pants. But faced with an intractable dilemma—either hold it in, or go to prison—one London man with a will and a colon of steel beat the odds, managing to avoid letting one go for 47 straight days, Metro reports.

The fecal fiasco started out back in January, when British police arrested 24-year-old Lamarr Chambers after he fled the cops in his car and allegedly swallowed drugs during the chase. They charged him with possession with intent to supply Class A drugs, tossed him in a cell, and waited for him to pass the evidence—but Chambers refused to poop.

The cops plied him with food and water, expecting his bowels to let up sometime, but as the days rolled by, he still wouldn't give in. What seemed like a joke at first escalated into an apparently deadly situation—one shit-free week snowballed into more than a month without a movement. While the cops updated the public on the latest developments in the #poowatch saga, Chambers's attorneys begged the court to let him go, claiming that there was "potential of something going seriously wrong," the Independent reports.

"We’re in an arena of risk of death," the attorneys reportedly said.

Finally, after Chambers went 47 days without pinching a loaf—breaking a British record for the most time spent in police custody without deucing—the cops caved. They stuck him in a squad car and rushed him to the hospital, where a team of medical professionals did whatever the hell you do to treat someone who hasn't pooped in six weeks.

Police rearrested Chambers on new, lesser drug charges, and he's since been released on bail. Though he might never be able to control his bowel movements again, against all odds, against all things decent and sane, he emerged from his self-imposed shit strike semi-victorious. To the police, perhaps, he's a villain—but to the everyday folks who have followed his saga since day one, he's kind of a hero.

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

Follow Drew Schwartz on Twitter.

Related: The Mad Pooper of Colorado Springs

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

A collection of documents from 1967 found in the national archives give us a hint into just how seriously the government used to take UFO sightings.

The documents outline how the government investigated UFOs—a process that most likely lasted for years afterwards—and breaks down six cases that are “of interest” to the government in detail. The investigations include a man burned by a UFO in Manitoba, some incredibly weird radar sightings by the Department of Defence, an RCMP officer in Nova Scotia who watched a UFO dive below the water and disappear, and a crop circle found in Alberta that was the first investigated by a government.

The documents were found in the national archive by Chris Rutkowski—a man that could probably be best described as Canada’s Fox Mulder—and recently posted to his Ufology blog. Rutowski routinely goes through Canada’s national archives looking for things like this and described the find as “a gem.”

"What we do have in here is rather interesting reports from qualified personnel and qualified sources and investigated by qualified investigators and still there is no explanation," Rutkowski told VICE. "What that tells me is that the UFO phenomena was taking quite seriously by them indeed."

The intro to the document. Photo via screenshot.

While the government has some of tUFO research readily available online in a database it is still relatively unknown—especially among the general public—how they actually investigated cases and what the bureaucracy was like. This, Rutkowski says, might be “our best snapshot” into this process.

"This is certainly an interesting snapshot because it does show what was happening before and how it was going to move forward and I think it set the stage for how the Canadian military and government were looking at UFOs from that point onward,” said Rutkowski.

The 27 page set of documents—which Rutkowski was kind enough to direct VICE towards—was prepared by Wing Commander Douglas Robertson (a Canadian Forces officer well-known in the UFO community) for someone we do not know in November of 1967. Rutkowski speculates it could’ve been for a newly-appointed Minister of Defence as “the infamous Paul Hellyer [one of the world’s highest ranking alien believers] had left the position a few months earlier.” At the time, as Robertson writes, the National Department of Defence was the body in charge of investigating UFO reports.

The briefing breaks down the seven military categories of UFOs which include hoaxes, mass hysteria, misinterpretations of natural events, advanced military technology, and psychological conditions. However, the seventh and final category is “unusual sightings which the viewer is unable to identify or explain, namely, UFOs.” Hell yeah.

The documents show that the investigation into UFOs was a little bit of a hot potato in Canada as in it was frequently handed off between departments. When a new report came in, researchers would first decide if the object was a meteor or fireball—if so it would be directed to the NRC. If it was something else it would then be put in one of three categories Class A: worthy of investigation Class B: interesting but you don’t need to look into it; and Class C: boring.

Photo via screenshot.

The investigations varied and could be as simple as an interview or as a complicated as getting several other agencies including the RCMP, NRC, Defence Research Board (DRB) or (weirdly) the Department of National Health and Welfare on board. In many of the cases, you can see that post-secondary institutions like the University of Toronto and the University of Manitoba would help out with analysis. The government would also send professionals to investigate the sites in-depth and if the case was intense enough, partner with the United States.

The document was written during an interesting time for UFOs in Canada. As Rutkowski puts it, 1967 was a high water mark for this type of activity in the Great White North. The briefing indicates there was a jump in reports from 1966 to 1967—from about 40 to 167. The case files showcase A) just how strange these occurrences were and B) just how seriously the government was taking the investigations.

Here are breakdowns of the case studies Robertson concludes “may be of interest” to whoever the intended reader of the briefing may be:

Falcon Lake

The first one outlines perhaps Canada’s most infamous “UFO encounter,” the Falcon Lake case. The case revolved around Steven Michalak, a Manitoba man, who says he encountered two UFOs 90 miles east of Winnipeg. While Michalak was analyzing a rock formation he said two flying saucers appeared before him. One flew off at high speed while other landed about 100 feet in front of him. When he reached out and touched the object with his gloved hand, it burned him immediately. The object took off and the exhaust fumes reportedly burned him as well. Michalak was hospitalized for several days as a result.

In the briefing, Robertson writes that soil samples at the site were “analyzed and found to be radioactive to a degree that the samples had to be safely disposed of.” In the briefing, Robertson admits that “neither the DND nor the RCMP investigative teams were able to provide evidence which could dispute Mr Michalak’s story.” Furthermore, the radiologist dispatched to the area was unable to explain why the area was contaminated with radiation. The section ends with “although the investigation has been completed, a satisfactory ending or conclusion is still lacking.”

Many, many things have been written about the Falcon Lake case, including a book Rutkowski wrote with Michalak's son.

Calgary UFO Photo

The second case, again made in 1967, revolves around a famous Canadian photograph taken of a UFO near Calgary. It tells the story of Warren Smith who was out for a hike near Nanton, Alberta.

“A UFO suddenly appeared outside of an area of trees a few hundred feet above the observers,” reads the briefing which goes on to explain how Smith was able to snap two photos of the objects. Smith made prints of these shots, which were then sent to the DND. “The prints were subjected to a detailed analysis by the Photo Intelligence Interpretation Centre. The Centre concluded its investigation by stating, assuming the photos by Mr Smith to be genuine, the UFO fit the description of the objects by Mr Smith.”

Clear Water Bay

The next case outlined in the briefing is focused on a family that was returning to their home in Clear Water Bay by boat when they encountered a UFO. According to the briefing the object appeared about 50 feet away from “Mr. Green” (how he is referred to in the document) and Green decided to investigate it. When he approached the object ripped towards Green and he “immediately retreated using maximum power.” Then the object returned to its original spot.

Green and his family docked the boat and ran to a nearby home to wake all the occupants so they could come and look at the object. They were able to do so for about 15 minutes until it took off. In a nearby home, a neighbour that was interviewed by the government said that while he didn’t see the object he was “listening to his radio at the time the UFO was sighted and received so much static he was forced to turn it off.”

A “detailed investigation conducted by the DND in cooperation with the RCMP” found that Green was a “reliable, competent, and sincere witness with no indulgence tendencies.” They also checked to see if alcohol was consumed at the time, found none, and tested Green’s eyes. Wilted leaves were found at the top of the trees near where the object was allegedly hovering and some were sent to the University of Manitoba for lab testing. The Department of Forestry also checked and found “that they are unable to explain the reason for the wilting.”

The section ends with “the investigation has been concluded without any fixed conclusions or findings being made.”

The RCMP’s Diving UFO

The next sighting was seen by an RCMP corporal out near Barrington Passage, Nova Scotia. The RCMP officer describes seeing an object about 60 feet in length with white lights flying over the water at a low altitude. The object started making a high pitched whistling sound and slammed into the water leaving only one white light visible. RCMP Cpl Wereisky approached the light by boat and it rapidly sank underneath him as he got close. The area was then searched by the Canadian Coast Guard and other boats but nothing was found.

The government conducted a rigorous investigation into this sighting which included an underwater search and wasn’t able to find anything. The government investigation ended, once again, “without finding any fixed findings.”

Department of Transportation Radar Sighting

The next investigation outlined in the briefing is one Rutkowski described as being “very unique.” In July of 1967, the Department of Transportation reported that “an unidentified radar target was tracked through seven sweeps of their radar, witnessed by three controllers, and two technicians some 70 miles east of Winnipeg.”

The target was ripping at intense rate. As outlined in the briefing, it increased from a speed of “720 knots [1,333 km per hour] to 3,600 knots [6,667 km per hour] in one minute and ten seconds.” The briefing explains that the five people who witnessed the radar object are “certain it was a radar target and not something associated with mechanical, electrical, or equipment faults.” On the same day in Kenora, Ontario, a similar object was picked up on the radar.

“The unknown object was under the positive radar for 29 minutes,” reads the briefing about the Kenora sighting. “The object followed Air Canada Flight 405 for a period before disappearing from scope. It reappeared and followed Air Canada Flight 927 for a period of time. DOT are unable to explain these radar returns.”

The DND again did an investigation into this and again were unable to find any conclusions.

Camrose Crop Circle

The final case outlined in the briefing is one in Alberta and, according to Rutowski, contrary to popular belief shows that it was in Canada, not Britain, where a government first investigated crop circles. It occurred outside of Camrose Alberta in August of 1967 when “several deep impressions were made in an unknown object in a pasture.”

The Department of Defence sent out a man who is referred to as “Dr. Jones” in the document to investigate and he found “no physical evidence of any damage to trees or shrubs in the field and no evidence to suggest a deliberate interference or involvement by a person.” Rutowski was able to find further documentation of Dr. Jones investigation and again was kind enough to share them with VICE. In the documents, you can see just how in depth the government got with their investigation.

In the documents, Jones said that he believed it could be a “deliberate hoax” but the hoaxers would “require some equipment and a great deal of determination.” He estimates that in order to do such spherical circles the hoaxers would need two wheels on a 30-foot axle that put pressure of three-quarters of a ton on a pasture. Next Jones has us “consider the UFO possibility” and he breaks down the math behind what size a flying vehicle would need to be in order to produce such marks and comes upon 135 tons.

“This load of 135 tons would be in the right ballpark for a large aircraft, or presumably, small space craft,” ends this section of Jones’ report.

Epilogue

After the case studies, Robertson uses the briefing to discuss possible future plans regarding UFO research in Canada and give several recommendations to our unknown reader. He proposes that the DND hands off the responsibility of investigating UFOs to the National Research Council and that the Director of Operations works as the coordinating agency between the DND units providing field investigations and the NRC.

“It is evident that from investigations conducted by the DND, and from the findings made by prominent and highly qualified personnel, that the primary interest of UFOs lies in the field of science, and to a lesser degree, to one that is associated with national security,” writes Robertson.

Robertson writes that the workload in 1967 regarding UFOs was so large that it was actually becoming detrimental to government workers as it took up so much time. He also writes that the government should be more open with the public about their work in UFOs. This is something Rutkowski—even over 51 years removed—still admittedly agrees with.

"By not being able to comment it made it look like there was something to hide. Of course, this document does show there was some very interesting conclusions, some unexplained cases that should have been made more public,” said Rutkowski. “But when a public relations officer just keeps saying no comment, no comment, it shows that perhaps there is something that is being hidden.

"My reading from this document is that the Canadian Forces didn't really know what to do with UFOs either. It's not that they were hiding everything they just didn't have the expertise in the field and the scientific community didn't want anything to do with it so they were kinda hung out to dry."

Follow Mack Lamoureux on Twitter.

For the past five years Murder by Death—a roots rock five piece known for their atmospheric tunes and narrative lyricism—have played an annual residency at The Stanley Hotel. Located an hour outside of Denver the hotel, which famously inspired Stephen King’s iconic horror novel The Shining, provides the perfect backdrop for the band’s moody brand of Americana.

“As a band we’ve played over 2,000 dates. It’s great but it can get repetitive. At some point I got to thinking: how can we take this beyond just a concert experience?” said Murder by Death frontman/guitarist Adam Turla. “For the Stanley we’ve tried to create a certain vibe, playing on the history of the location.”

From the onset of their residency the band set out to create a spooky ambiance, but The Stanley came with something Murder by Death were not expecting: actual ghosts.

While the hotel won’t officially comment on anything otherworldly, the location is famous among the paranormal community for being really, really, haunted. Below we talked to Murder by Death and some of their fans about their supernatural encounters in the hotel.

Photo by Lisa Siciliano.

Adam Turla, guitars/vocals Murder by Death

I was having dinner at the Stanley with Sarah (Murder by Death cello player) and our friend Jen. We were talking and Jen suddenly stopped mid-sentence. She went white and then exclaimed: who just touched my shoulder? We were staring right at her. There was nobody else in the room. The next day Jen left to fly back home. While going through airport security something went off. Jen looked at the x-ray image of herself. It showed a dark mark on her shoulder. Exactly where she had felt being touched.

That was last year. This year, our bass player Tyler was having a weird dream where he was fighting a man. The man was grappling him, wrapping his fingers around Tyler. He tried to throw him to the ground. This woke Tyler up but he could still see the man. He was being pinned down. He could still feel the man's arms around him, squeezing him. Tyler tried to get up out of bed and couldn't move. Finally he shook free, looked around, and...nothing. He was lying awake terrified for the rest of the night.

Laura Hill, Murder by Death fan

Seeing Murder By Death at The Stanley was incredible. They’re my favourite band and the atmosphere was surreal. I wanted to take photos but I forgot my phone in the room. Looking for my room I got lost. The Stanley is big and beautiful but when you’re full of whiskey everything starts looking the same. I’d wander down halls that would lead to other halls. I got completely turned around. That’s when I saw an old woman.

I didn’t have my glasses on, but she looked sort of fuzzy around the edges. Her fingers were longer than anyone’s fingers should be. Absurdly long. I went to ask her a question. She just looked at me and pointed at the staircase with her long, long, fingers. Then she made a low creaking noise with her mouth. I walked down the hall where, miraculously, my room was. I went inside to get my camera and when I got out the old lady was gone. Back at the concert I told my girlfriend about this and for the rest of the night she made me drink water.

Photo courtesy of the Stanley Hotel.

Daniel Lets, Murder by Death fan

I was in my room at the Stanley getting ready for the show. I’m in the shower when I start to hear this murmur, like a tone. At first I just ignored it. I figure maybe it’s something to do with the pipes. I turn the shower off and it gets louder. But whatever. I wipe off the mirror and start to shave. The sound keeps growing. I get freaked out. Is it the fire alarm? Warning siren? I go look in the hall. No one there. I’m about to call the front desk when the tone gets lower and shifts. It sounds like whispering. A lot of people whispering. I can’t make out what’s being said but there are all these voices. Then things just stop. Weirdest shit I’ve ever encountered in my life.

Sarah Balliet, cello Murder by Death

There is a rumour that a ghost protects the concert hall. He used to be the janitor at The Stanley. Apparently he gets pretty grumpy, especially if you're there too late at night. Our third year of the residency we decided to do a ghost hunt with some specialists. The majority of the hunt consisted of sitting in a quiet circle. It was dark and we huddled around this neat ghost detection device. We watched the meters go up and down and strained our ears and eyes for any possibility of spirit activity.

By the third or fourth hour of the ghost tour, I was ready to call it. Nothing was happening. Time to go to bed. Just as I started heading to my room there is this huge SLAM. We all ran to see what had made the noise. We didn’t find anything. Someone noticed that the fire door was closed. It had been open before, propped with a large heavy stone. The stone was moved to the side.

We were all kind of laughing, nervously. We tested theories, replaced the stone and kicked it out of the way. Would the door ever slam on its own? Make a noise like the one we heard? We concluded that someone would have had to push it HARD to make that sound. And, yeah, someone could've been messing with us. But there were no footsteps after the slam. The Janitor? Maybe.

These interviews have been edited for length. Some names have been changed.

Graham Isador is on twitter: @presgang

The Canadian government is considering bolstering background checks for potential firearms owners in order to better vet people who may have mental illness or other issues, according information obtained by the Canadian Press.

In a public safety memo, obtained by the CP, the government said it wants enhanced background checks for people who want to be allowed to own handguns and restricted firearms. The memo also said the government may have more measures for re-assessing existing firearms owners in case they want to revoke a license.

The proposed policies come in light of three consecutive years of increases in gun homicides in Canada. There were 223 gun homicides here in 2016—up 44 from 2015—112 of which were gang related.

But Rod Giltaca, executive director of the Canadian Coalition for Firearm Rights, told VICE the new measures won't target the real issue: gang violence. He said they will only punish law abiding gun owners.

“They want the public to believe that something is being done when it usually isn’t.”

Currently, people applying for a gun license have to disclose mental health issues and medications they've been on within the last five years. Giltaca said an enhanced background check will likely mean the government will extend that period of time. But seeing as it's all self-reported anyway, he said it's just as easy to lie.

As for checking on existing gun owners, he said their names are already run through the Canadian Police Information Centre, which keeps data on criminals. Therefore, if a gun owner had a brush with the law, authorities would be alerted.

“Other than installing a camera on my forehead to watch me 24/7, I’m not sure how you can do anything more than that,” Giltaca said.

Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale is currently hosting a Summit on Gun and Gang Violence in Ottawa with police, academics, and representatives from major cities in attendance. The purpose of the summit is to tackle gang violence in major cities, such as Ottawa and Toronto.

The conversation comes as the US is fiercely debating implementing stricter gun laws in the aftermath of the Parkland, Florida school shooting that left 17 students dead. Florida is considering raising the age required to purchase a gun from 18 to 21.

The federal government has earmarked $327 million over the next five years on curbing gun violence.

Follow Manisha Krishnan on Twitter.

Saskatchewan farmer Gerald Stanley’s acquittals for second-degree murder and manslaughter in the death of Cree man Colten Boushie will not be appealed.

Stanley, who shot and killed Boushie, 22, in August 2016, was acquitted last month. His lawyers argued his gun had misfired and he hadn’t intended to kill Boushie.

Saskatchewan’s public prosecutions office said Wednesday it will not be appealing the verdict, which was reached by an all-white jury. According to deputy attorney general Anthony Gerein, “there is no basis for concluding the judge said or did anything that would justify an appeal.”

He acknowledged that there is “much sadness” over the decision not to appeal but said an appeal would not be legally viable.

Boushie’s verdict sparked nationwide outrage and heightened racial tensions in the country, with many rural farmers and even police seemingly supportive of Stanley.

On the day Boushie was killed, he was in a van with his girlfriend and three other friends. They drove onto Stanley’s property. They said they needed help because of their flat tire. Stanley said he believed they were going to steal his ATV. He said he grabbed his pistol, fired two warning shots in the air and then continued to pull the trigger. He said he believed the gun was empty when he reached inside the van Boushie was sitting in to try and turn off the ignition. At that point, the gun was pointed at Boushie’s head and went off. Stanley’s defence argued it was a “hangfire” which happens when there’s a delay between the time the trigger and pulled and the time the round goes off. Gun experts have said that such a slow “hangfire” would be extremely rare.

Just a few weeks after Stanley’s not guilty verdict, Raymond Cormier was found not guilty of murdering Indigenous teenager Tina Fontaine, whose body was found in Winnipeg’s Red River wrapped in plastic.

Advocates are pointing to the two decisions as examples of how the justice system is failing Indigenous communities.

Follow Manisha Krishnan on Twitter.

With powerful images of workers from around the world, the exhibition Labor & Materials explores the evolution of work and industry in the 21st century. In art ranging from collage to photographs, the show examines how the scale and speed of technology impacts the production of goods and services. Its goal is to lift the veil on the inequalities that exist around the world in the production of modern conveniences like smartphones and computers.

The art featured in this multimedia exhibition hint at the contradictions of modernity and its expected efficiencies. And they raise the question, “At whose expense?”

Pieter Hugo, Abdulai Yahaya, Agbogbloshie Market, Accra, Ghana, 2010.

Through Labor & Materials, we see an intimate view of the living and working conditions captured by 15 international photographers. Among the diverse works are images by South Africa–based Pieter Hugo and Zanele Muhol, who offer photos that showcase the lives of workers who are often obscured or ignored. Additionally, Alejandro Cartagena’s photos hone in on the lack of a proper public transportation system in Monterrey, Mexico, with overhead pictures of carpoolers in the beds of pickup trucks. Pierre Gonnord focuses his lens on the miners from the Asturias region of Spain. And famed Beijing photographer Zhang Huan captures rural laborers in a poetic take on employment and the number of bodies that power an industry.

Pierre Gonnord, Miroslaw, 2009

Labor & Materials is on display at the 21c Museum Hotel in Bentonville, Arkansas—the home base of Walmart. The show’s focus on global mass industries raises questions as to what our future workforce might look like and implicates our very own consumption habits. Through email, we asked the curator, Alice Gray Stites, about the vision and timeliness of the show.

VICE: How did you select the photographers in the show?
Alice Gray Stites: The photographers featured in Labor & Materials, as with all the artists included in this exhibition, were selected because they are engaged in addressing the evolution of industry, technology, and working conditions today, during a time of rapid and profound global change.

Many of the works on display are iconic. Can you speak to the photos of Zhang Huan and Zanele Muholi in particular?
Zhang Huan, who left his rural home to pursue an education in Beijing, has gained international recognition for his demanding performance art that connects contemporary notions of identity with nature, history, politics, and labor. In To Raise the Water Level in a Fish Pond, performers connect intimately with the landscape, and engage in an ephemeral labor—adding enough bodies to a fish pond to raise the water level by one meter—that alludes to the time and effort needed to enact meaningful change.

In her Massa and Minah series, Zanele Muholi turns the camera on herself and her family history: “The project is based on the life and story of my mother. I draw from my own memories and pay tribute to her domesticated role as a worker for the same family for 42 years. The series is meant to acknowledge all domestic workers around the globe who continue to labor with dignity, while often facing physical, financial, and emotional abuses in their places of work.” Muholi’s series historicizes the labor of her mother and the labor of the many black women who were and continue to be trapped within a system that controls black female labor.

What makes this exhibit timely?
The imminent automation of the workforce worldwide is a topic of increasingly frequent discussion, as are concerns about access to jobs, goods, and services during a time of widening socioeconomic inequity. The scale, scope, and speed of technological innovation today heralds unprecedented changes in what, how, where, and by whom goods and services are produced and provided. Economists describe the explosion of radically new platforms and products emerging in the digital age—robots and other forms of automated labor, self-driving cars, three-dimensional printing, the explosion of bits and pixels transmitted across the internet, and the growing global network of trade driven by the shipping container—as an inflection point: a time in human history when how we live and work is utterly transformed. What does an inflection point look like? How will the widespread transformation of commerce and consumption affect access to goods and jobs, to information and infrastructure?

Zanele Muholi, Massa and Minah II, 2008

Zanele Muholi, Massa and Minah I, 2008

Alejandro Cartagena, Car Poolers #14, 2011–2012

Alejandro Cartagena, Car Poolers #26, 2011–2012

Purdy Eaton, American Habitat 2, 2009

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

Follow Marina Garcia-Vasquez on Twitter.

This article originally appeared on VICE US.

On Tuesday, the New York Times reported that Gary Cohn, the president's top economic adviser, will resign in the coming days. News of his exit comes on the coattails of White House Communications Director Hope Hicks announcing last week that she, too, will be stepping down in the near future. Cohn and Hicks join a fast-growing list of ex-Trump administration aides: Steve Bannon (former chief strategist), Mike Dubke (former communications director), Anthony "The Mooch" Scaramucci (also former communications director), Sean Spicer (former press secretary), Michael Flynn (former national security adviser), Sebastian Gorka (former adviser), Omarosa Manigault Newman (former communications official), Rob Porter (former staff secretary), Dina Powell (former deputy national security adviser), Reince Priebus (former chief of staff), Katie Walsh (former deputy chief of staff), Tom Price (former health secretary), Keith Schiller (former director of Oval Office operations), et al.

On Tuesday, Trump insisted that there were "many people wanting the job" Cohn no longer wants, and that "the new Fake News narrative that there is CHAOS in the White House [is] wrong." But it's safe to assume he's struggling to attract talent right now. Luckily for him, I've gone ahead and created a shortlist of viable candidates who just might love their president or hate themselves enough to accept the position.

President Trump, you're welcome.

1. Piers Morgan

Jim Spellman/WireImage via Getty Images

Having already won Celebrity Apprentice, and known for his own wild Twitter antics, British fuckwad Piers Morgan would fit right in at the Trump White House.

Plus, we know that Trump values fealty above all, and the fact that Morgan posted an illustration of him licking Trump's butt on his personal Twitter account three separate times proves his love for the president knows no bounds.

2. Hulk Hogan

Jeffrey Asher/Getty Images

Although having a cabinet member more orange than Trump might be considered some kind of threat, Hogan would infuse the Trump administration with the pro-wrestling edge it currently lacks.

3. Gary Busey

Stephen Lovekin/Getty Images

Omarosa's tenure in the White House didn't last long—although compared to Flynn and Scaramucci she lasted a lifetime—but that doesn't mean the president shouldn't try out another Celebrity Apprentice loser. Busey has been a Trump supporter since the beginning, endorsing his candidacy for president way back in 2011, and if Donald Trump needs anything, it's a friend.

4. Mike Tyson

Ron Galella/Wireimage via Getty

After Mike Tyson was convicted of rape in 1992, Donald Trump rushed to his defense. Now it's time for Mike to repay Donald for his support, and join his crumbling administration.

5. Jenny McCarthy

Paul Drinkwater/NBC/NBCU Photo Bank via Getty Images

Actress and notorious anti-vaccine activist Jenny McCarthy is another celeb who would be perfect for Trump's White House. After all, Trump's charity donated $10,000 to McCarthy's anti-vaccine nonprofit, and as the president once tweeted, "Healthy young child goes to doctor, gets pumped with massive shot of many vaccines, doesn't feel good and changes - AUTISM. Many such cases!"

6. Stephen Baldwin

Desiree Navarro/WireImage via Getty Images

Donald Trump has had less than kind words for Baldwin's brother Alec—"[his] dying mediocre career was saved by his terrible impersonation of me on SNL," the president tweeted—but that shouldn't discount Stephen! A notorious conservative who also competed on Celebrity Apprentice, he would make a great addition to the Trump administration simply because he may not have anything else going on.

7. A hot dog

Ron Galella/WireImage via Getty Images

Hot dog—just a hot dog. Hot dog has no politics. Hot dog will never leave. Unless he eat hot dog. But hot dog OK with that. Hot dog OK with whatever.

8. Shrek

Frazer Harrison/Getty Images | HT: Dave Itzkoff/Twitter

To quote a great poet, "Somebody once told me the world is gonna roll me / I ain't the sharpest tool in the shed / She was looking kind of dumb with her finger and her thumb / In the shape of an 'L' on her forehead / Well the years start coming and they don't stop coming / Fed to the rules and I hit the ground running / Didn't make sense not to live for fun / Your brain gets smart but your head gets dumb."

9. Barron Trump

Cheriss May/NurPhoto via Getty Images

The president likes his family, and it seems like Barron is the only Trump who would be able to get the security clearance needed to join the administration. Everybody wins.

10. A jackhammer

Rose Hartman/Getty Images

Might as well finish off the job and wreck it all.

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.