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

Joe Silveira's Instagram Phone Photography Turns the Mundane Into the Mindbending

$
0
0

In this day and age, if someone tells you that the internet is a "new" thing for them, you tend to put them in the same camp as the insufferable "I don't own a TV" humblebraggarts of yore unless they're from an extremely remote part of the world. But for Toronto based artist Joe Silveira (who just received internet service at home last year), it's the truth. After he got his first iPhone a year ago, Joe—a quiet and reclusive graphic designer by day—began sharing his pictures of abstract objects and scenery he discovered while walking around the city. His photos deftly revealed strange connections between things most people would ignore unless they were looking for a place to pee after the bar—fences that appear to contemplate what they enclose, gas pipes become frames, and for a moment, you wonder if the angle on a set of stairs really can feel. Well, maybe the pictures don't take it that far, but they sure are nice to look at. After thousands of followers started to notice his work, so did Toronto based publishing house Colour Code Printing, who have saved everyone money on their data bills by compiling his Instagram pictures into the book So So Tired

We met up with Joe to discuss his unusual second career path, making new friends through the internet, and the pressures of maintaining a popular Instagram account.

VICE: How did the book come about?
Joe Silveira
: Colour Code Printing approached me. They had followed me on Instagram and I guess they liked what they were seeing, so it was their idea. It was very unexpected. When they first reached out to me, I met up with the publisher, Jenny, and we talked about a book idea and I was like 'sure.' Then I immediately changed my mind and said 'No, I don't feel comfortable doing this.'  

What made you uncomfortable with the idea?
I think attaching my name to something, which is something I've never really done before. Any of the work I've done before has been under a design studio name. I just didn’t think that the book would work out for the publishers. I thought they were taking too much of a risk by putting together a book of no ones photos. It was a combination of those things which made me say no. Then Jenny put together the first galley of the book based on the design direction we'd talked about and it looked great. She understood it and did such a good job that it convinced me to do it.

Did she name it or did you?
I did. At first it was going to be called So So Sorry, when all those photographs were being taken, I was going through a difficult time in my life. I ended up with So So Tired which works, since it's essentially photos of nothing.

And it's collected entirely from your Instagram?
Yeah, there's maybe one or two that didn’t make it onto Instagram, but overall they're Instagram shots.

How did the publishers discover you?
Just instagram. We just followed each other. Up until that point I hadn’t really done anything. I've been taking pictures for a long time, but always just kept them to myself. I used to borrow a digital camera from the studio I used to work at, I've been shooting digitally for years, just with other people's cameras.

Had you ever compiled any of that work or shot with the idea of showing it?
No, never. I mean some of those images I've used in my graphic design work, but it's just a situation where a client purchases an image so my name isn’t attached to them, they own them.

How long have you had instagram for?
A year. I've only had an iPhone for a year and the internet at home for a year.

Really? Did you just have no interest in it?
No, no interest in it. I mean, I got the internet because I got the phone.




Portrait of Joe Silveira by the author.
What about emails and talking to clients? You must've used internet for that.
Well I had the internet at work, so I'd manage all that stuff when I was there, and then at home it would be a break from it. I actually kind of miss not having it. It's too late now. I do a lot more freelance work than I used to, so I need the internet more, but I miss going home and not thinking about any of that stuff.

I take it you're more distracted than ever.
Yeah, 100 percent. I read less, I watch less movies as a result. I feel like my attention span has changed. But so many good things have happened because of it. It's amazing. But there are times when I just need to take breaks. Like, right now I'm not Instagramming. Sometimes I just let my phone die and I can focus again.

With all the things to explore on the internet, what lured you to instagram?
When I first got my phone all my friends were like 'You would love Instagram,' and I wasn't really sure. I actually had it for about two weeks intiially, then I deleted it. Pretty soon after that I was like, Oh, I actually really liked that and got it back. My work is image based and a lot of my process as a graphic designer is image heavy. My friends knew I loved image based work so they knew I would I love Instagram—and they were right. I love it, as much as it exhausts me sometimes. Out of all that social media stuff, it's the only one I really enjoy.

What was your reaction to having a bunch of strangers suddenly following your work?
It was totally the weirdest, most unexpected thing. I went into it just posting pictures of stuff I liked, with only friends that were following me. It's still overwhelming, like it's hard to wrap my head around the fact that it's something that's happened. Half the time I don't get it. People are really unbelievably nice and it's really encouraging. There's a great support system on instagram in a weird way.

Have you made new friends through it?
Oh yeah! So many friends. It's insane. It's actually made me re-appreciate the city in a weird way. I felt really outside of it before, but I've met so many new people through Instagram. Most of the people I've met in the past year have been through it.

What's your take on something as contemporary as 'phone photography'?
I feel like people will downplay it as like 'it's just instagram photos' which is interesting because people won't take it as seriously because of that. But then there's other people who take it very seriously and really respect it. I don't see a difference between that and traditional photography personally, and I'm not just saying that because my book is phone photos. I think both could be really shitty or really great, it just depends if you shoot stuff properly.

Do you think about taking the work beyond Instagram?
I have this idea for doing an installation based on one of the photos that I've taken. They're like architecture, which is one of the things I'm inspired by, so i want to try and recreate some of them in an interior space. I like the idea of challenging people with what an art show should be or what an acceptable art space should be. These photos have got thinking about that in a way that I don't think I would have otherwise.

Are you at the point where you're walking around the city more to find subjects?
No, I mean I always walk a lot anyway. Nothing has changed in that way. I've never really gone exploring anywhere different, these are just the things I walk by everyday, or that I work by. I haven’t gone out of way, I'm just lucky. I become aware though if like the lighting's really good, I'll go a bit slower and look around.

Since becoming known for Instagramming, do you feel pressure now before you upload something?
I think about it way more. I never used to think about something, I would just post it. Now I second guess myself way more. There are times when I'll post something, then delete it. It's the anxiety of the book, I feel like I have to censor myself in a way. And now there's people that I really respect who follow me, so I worry about those people seeing my photos and making a fool of myself. That shouldn’t be how I approach it though, I'm embarrassed to admit it. I just start thinking that I'm posting something too weird or too abstract, that comes into question a lot. I have to remind myself that this whole thing came about from just going with my gut, so I just have to stick with that. But I'm more self conscious about it.

Hence the no selfies.
Oh, never. When I first started there was like me in reflections and stuff, but that was closest I ever got. That stuff comes down fast, no one needs to see pictures of me. I like other people's faces, but I just don't think mine fits in with my very random pictures.

Looking back on this past year, how do you feel instagram has changed you?
It's just made me feel more connected. It's helped me think about things differently and the way I approach my work has improved. I'm more susceptible to noticing things that I might have not before. It has helped me appreciate Toronto more. I felt outside of things before and I was comfortable with that, but this has let me be a part of something from a distance, and I really like that.


Training Burmese Refugees for Western Living

$
0
0

Thailand’s largest refugee camp, Mae La, is a dense, overcrowded city of over 43,000 people on the country’s border with Burma. Bamboo huts sprawl over hills, their dirt-floor interiors containing few possessions beyond NGO-issued goods like bags of rice and toothbrushes. Most refugees subsist on rice and pungent fish paste, but with declining concern from international donors over the civil war in Burma, the food rations in the camps have recently been cut, causing several riots. It’s the kind of place you only want to live in if you’re on your way to someplace better.

On one hill sits a hut that doesn’t quite fit in. Its roof, like the thousands around it, is made of thatched grasses and leaves, but its walls are gray-painted wood. Inside is what looks like a small but tidy bachelor pad that could be in London or Berlin or Milwaukee: appliances, an oven, a window, a bathroom, a fridge full of fruits, vegetables, and eggs. But the food is all plastic, and the toilet doesn’t work, and no one is really supposed to live here—it’s a simulator apartment, designed to get Mae La refugees accustomed to the modern-day amenities of Western living before they finally immigrate to any of a dozen countries that take in people fleeing Myanmar, including the US, Australia, Denmark, and Canada.

My guide to the apartment was a man I’ll call Saw Norman*, a 52-year-old Karen refugee who’s a member of one of the many ethnic groups whose rebel fighters spent decades at war with the government in Burma. Norman has been fleeing the conflict since he was eight—his parents moved from region to region, town to town. In 2006, by then with a family of his own, he braved the jungles and the minefields and fled across the border into Thailand. He's lived in Mae La ever since.

Norman moved around the simulator pointing out the different devices and how they work. For the tour, he was dressed in his finest; standing in the small kitchen in his crisp pink shirt, you'd never guess he was a refugee. But back at his bamboo hut, Norman and his family cook over an outdoor fire, fueling it with wood or charcoal; among their cooking staples are NGO-issue rice and fish paste.

“We call this a 'sink,' to wash the plates and then after we wash the plates, we dry the plates and we arrange them on the plate shelf,” he told me.

Despite his enthusiasm, Norman has never used many of the apartment’s devices in real life, and likely won’t get a chance to. Despite his English skills and a strong desire to move his family to a country where his children can get a good education, Norman won’t be eligible for resettlement in the foreseeable future. The year before he arrived in Mae La, the Thai government largely stopped registering any new arrivals from Burma, and registration is a prerequisite for resettlement.

Sally Thompson, the head of the Border Consortium, an NGO that supports refugees in the nine camps along the Thailand-Burma border, told me that Thailand has been generous with the hundreds of thousands of refugees it has taken in over the decades from Burma, Cambodia and Vietnam. But she added that leaving people like Norman and his family unregistered makes their situation all the more precarious.

“Any new arrival who came into the camps since 2005 is not even registered in a database with the Thai government,” she said. Refugees like Norman have no legal status and, as nonpersons, are much more likely to be deported back to Burma. The Thai government can get away with not registering refugees because it never signed the United Nations Refugee Convention.

Walking through camp away from the simulator apartment, Norman and I met another Karen refugee, Saw Wah*, who's on track for resettlement. Wah has family in Winnipeg, Canada, and he's waiting expectantly for his resettlement application to work its way through both the Thai and Canadian bureaucracies. If he's lucky, he'll soon begin prepping for life in Canada. He may even get a training session in the simulator apartment.

As Norman listened, I wondered how hard it is for him to bear the other man's enthusiasm for the future. The only hope for Norman's family to get out of Mae La safely would be the end of Burma’s civil war, which has been raging for more than 60 years. The government and the rebels are currently holding complex ceasefire talks, but there is still fighting in some parts of the country, and the Burmese army remains deployed in the southeast of the country, in and around many Karen villages. Thompson told me that until the troops withdraw the refugees won’t feel safe enough to return to their homeland.

Even if Norman had the choice, he wouldn't return to Burma anyway. If he could, he'd move to the West so his three children could get a good education. But for now, Mae La is home, and the simulated apartment is just a fantasy.

As he walks me toward the entrance of the camp, where I will leave him behind the barbed wire, we pass the apartment again. I ask Norman how he feels when he sees it. “It makes us sad,” he says. “Because our life, to have a chance like that, we dream of that.”

*Names of refugees in this article have been changed at their request.

Unholy Alliance

$
0
0

Photo by Tim Freccia

In September 1983, Riek Machar and his associates discovered a powerful ally: Muammar Qaddafi. Over the course of his rule, Qaddafi, a die-hard nationalist, supported numerous rebel groups across Africa. Earlier that year, President Ronald Reagan of the US had called Qaddafi “the mad dog of the Middle East,” but he was a mad dog with billions in oil revenue to play with. Even the regime-happy Russians were hesitant to get too involved with the quirky leader of Libya.

Qaddafi flew Machar and his tiny Sudan Revolutionary Congress to Addis Ababa to hammer out, among a team of advisers, plans for an organized campaign against the north. Through financial promises and moral encouragement, the gathering persuaded Machar to unite with John Garang. This was the impetus for the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, a nationalist resistance group complete with a military wing. To back them, a strange mix of dark angels assembled: Qaddafi, Ethiopia’s Marxist Mengistu Haile Mariam, representatives of Israel (who wanted to unload tons of weapons captured in its wars against Egypt), and a collection of renegade private investors. This arrangement quickly led to an unspoken purpose: a pan-tribal southern war on Sudan’s Arab rule, with the goal of disrupting and usurping the north’s control of newly discovered central and southern oil reserves.

That same year, before the Addis Ababa meeting, Garang had persuaded his 105th Battalion—a primarily Dinka group of soldiers, based in Bor, under the command of the Sudanese government—to mutiny against the north and organize a rebellion based in Ethiopia. Mutineers took the name Anyanya II and moved to Ethiopia, the home of the original Anyanya fighters during the First Sudanese Civil War. In Ethiopia, Mengistu liked Garang’s Marxist politics and saw him as way to control Nuer aspirations to independence in western Ethiopia, around Gambella. He sheltered Garang and allowed him to base his forces there.

Armed with Russian weapons and trained in Ethiopia, Garang and his men then took the fight back home, moving into eastern Equatoria. The conflict spread from the east into the center of Sudan, with a tactical focus on the oil fields in Nuer territory. As long as the south could control this area, the rebels figured, it had a bargaining chip with Khartoum—and anyone else who coveted black gold.

In 1985, after they joined forces, Garang sent Machar to Gambella to study advanced military tactics. By the end of his training, Machar commanded a force of 3,000 troops. He and his men marched from Gambella through the rugged wilderness of Kordofan, Sudan, with the Nuba tribe in tow. The Nuba were at odds with the Arab Bagga-ra raiders who had infiltrated the area. After his arrival in the region, Machar had quickly earned the Nuba’s trust due to mutual interests: Khartoum had armed the Bagga-ra raiders who were persecuting the Nuba in hopes of stoking a proxy war to thwart the rebels’ advance.

In the meantime, Chevron’s oil discoveries continued to enrich the nation of Sudan. The petroleum juggernaut had set up a large compound not too far from Machar’s hometown of Leer. On February 2, 1984, an Anyanya II battalion attacked Chevron’s base camp in Yoinyang, killing three expatriate workers and injuring others. The company suspended its operations. A month later, after receiving assurances from the Sudanese government that the area was safe, Chevron resumed some of its activities. But the government was very wrong in its assessment. By 1986 Machar had taken control of the oil areas, including Leer, and negotiated a truce with the Bagga-ra militia, effectively preventing Chevron and Khartoum from exploiting the oil.

Desperate, President Gaafar Muhammad al Nimeiry of Sudan recruited Saudi businessman and arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi to revive the abandoned oil exploration. Nimeiry offered him a significant stake if he would set up a national oil company and get things moving. Khashoggi was a famous middleman for the US and Europe, and he eventually led Nimeiry to controversial German-British financier and mining magnate Roland “Tiny” Rowland. Rowland had worked with Khashoggi on deals in Africa and was notorious for wanting a seat at the table with any emerging group, rebel or otherwise.

By this point, Rowland’s résumé included transforming a Rhodesian tobacco company, the London and Rhodesian Mining and Land Company, and the Observer newspaper into a multibillion-dollar empire with investments stretching across Africa. (Also worth nothing is his onetime membership in the Hitler Youth.)

Rowland’s father had arranged for his son’s education in Hampshire, England, and Tiny became a British soldier who ironically spent time in a British POW camp because he’d gone AWOL to free his Dutch and German parents from a British internment camp. Later, he applied to become a spy for MI6 but was turned down. By the time Nimiery came knocking, Rowland was a 70-year-old who had exploited his support of emerging African leaders and rebel forces to great economic advantage.

Rowland, who once referred to Muammar Qaddafi as a “super good friend,” became chums with the Libyan dictator when CIA officers Edwin Wilson and Frank Terpil tapped Rowland’s Tradewinds subsidiary to arm and modernize the Libyan military. Rowland provided Qaddafi entrée to a number of young African revolutionaries—Jomo Kenyatta, Robert Mugabe, and Jonas Savimbi, among others—whom Rowland was bankrolling. Rowland would also get involved in weapons smuggling, regime change, and a host of shadowy political affairs, including the Iran-Contra scandal.

Libyan political and military leader Muammar Qaddafi, who helped organize the campaign against the north. Keystone/Getty Images

No one could argue that Rowland wasn’t pragmatic, tuned in, and switched on. He knew that Sudan, as a simple bottom-line matter, would eventually be forced to resolve local grievances in the oil regions. This would require outside financing. It was, to use more modern business jargon, the ultimate start-up. By getting in on the ground floor by dropping $20,000 in a rebel leader’s pocket, he created opportunities for much bigger payoffs down the road.

At the request of Nimeiry, Rowland tried to persuade Garang to assemble a mercenary army to protect the oil. Nimeiry even asked Rowland to offer Garang the post of vice president if he would halt his war. Garang refused. He and Machar had their own plans, and the SPLM was mobilizing.

Among the rebels, Machar and his wife, Angelina Teny, were young, smart, and eloquent and exuded leadership. Machar provided the calm but fuzzy intellectual balance to Garang’s staunch, bearded Marxism. Although their ideas were too Western for many of the traditional Nuer chiefs, they appealed to the outsider’s view of an Africa desperately in need of transition from tribal warfare and infighting to a more stable, democratic system. And perhaps more important, the new generation of educated southern Sudanese like Machar and Garang were people the West could do business with. Garang had an agriculture degree (his thesis was on the massive Jonglei Canal project), which, combined with Machar’s solid grasp of business principles and engineering, made them the kind of leaders international entrepreneurs wanted to approach.

Machar and Teny made the case for southern independence in various articles, speeches, and meetings. The couple soon attracted the attention of Rowland. Intrigued by Machar, he bankrolled the SPLM with a budget alleged to be anywhere from the tens of thousands to the tens of millions. Rowland simultaneously positioned himself as a neutral peacemaker between the north and the south, offering his personal jet to transport leaders meetings to patch up squabbles.

A great deal of intrigue swirls around Rowland’s connections to rebel groups, Qaddafi, and British and US intelligence agencies; whatever the nature of these relationships, Rowland certainly played a major part in the formation of modern Africa. In addition to his active role in funding rebel groups, it is alleged that he used a number of his conglomerate’s 800 or so companies to execute foreign policy on behalf of foreign governments, his shareholders, and his own agenda.

Rowland was the archetype of what the government of Sudan knew it needed: a man who could navigate boardrooms and battlefields, separating the ugly business of revolution from the uglier business of investment and exploitation. What is not known is whether Rowland was working on behalf of the United States (as he did in providing the training for Qaddafi’s bodyguards, and later, during his involvement with the Iran-Contra affair) or whether he was acting on his own whims. As American journalist Rory Nugent, who knew Rowland, has described his motivation, “Tiny just wanted a seat at every poker game. If it got too rich he folded, but he never wanted to miss a bet.”

But then the careful machinations of Rowland, Qaddafi, Khashoggi, Machar, and Garang to play Khartoum and its oil were destroyed in one fell swoop. In April 1985, while on a visit to the United States, Nimeiry was overthrown by Islamic fundamentalists. The ensuing election was by religious scholar Al Sadiq al Mahdi, great-grandson of the Mahdi, who had years before ousted George Gordon, Britain’s colonial governor general, and brought Islamic rule and slavery back to the country. (Sadiq’s brother-in-law Hassan al Turabi would later restore Sharia law and Arab dominance in Sudan.)

Wary of the deteriorating political conditions and the growing influence of the National Islamic Front (NIF), by 1988 Chevron had decided to get out of Sudan completely; in the early 90s its assets were reallocated to a Khartoum-based oil company for $23 million. The artful thrust and parry of north against south was replaced with draconian measures. The Sudanese government decided to ethnically cleanse the Nuer from oil-rich regions. Then Ethiopia, the main backer of the SPLM/A, abruptly stopped funding the revolt. In 1989, Sudan also lost the largesse of Saudi Arabia, which, under the guidance of US and UK advisers, was training jihadists for the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The disappearing support put a damper on the relationship between Garang and Machar, who had never really seen eye-to-eye (Garang favored a Khartoum-based federal system; Machar wanted independence). The schisms among the various groups widened, resulting in a seismic shift among the rebels of the south.

Nothing could save Sudan.

June 30, 1989, brought yet another coup backed by the NIF, this one led by Field Marshal Omar al Bashir and Turabi, who overthrew the ineffective Sadiq and his civilian government. International sanctions soon applied pressure for Bashir to come to terms with the south, and he did so in the most authoritative way possible. Under the flag of Islam, his military press-ganged more than 150,000 young men into a new Islamic self-defense militia.

A hodgepodge of rapidly devolving rebel groups controlled most of the south until 1991, with the fall of the Soviet Union and resultant ousting of rebel supporter Mengistu from Ethiopia. The playing field had changed dramatically.

The rebels’ coffers dwindled until they were empty, and it only took a month. By June the north had the upper hand and gained control of the south’s oil-producing areas. Khartoum was winning.

German-British financier and mining magnate Roland “Tiny” Rowland. Frank Tewkesbury/Evening Standard/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

It was around this time that a dour and tall young Saudi began flying into Khartoum in his Gulfstream jet. The first sightings of this spoiled son of a construction magnate came around 1989. Osama bin Laden was heard taking credit for booting the Soviets from Afghanistan. With Sudan under new leadership, he was invited to Khartoum, along with a number of other violent Islamist groups.

Following his success with the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, Bin Laden had been disowned by the Saudis after they rebuffed his offer of support from his network of fighters and instead aligned with US forces to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait during the Gulf War. Appreciating the new Muslim-led government and the fact that much wasn’t going on there besides chaos and war, he invested in Sudan.

In December 1991, Bin Laden had moved his family, advisers, and security from Pakistan to a pink, three-story house on Al Mashtal Street in Khartoum’s upscale Al Riyadh neighborhood. While his homeland no longer wanted him, Bin Laden, as it turned out, was exactly what the new government in Khartoum was looking for.

The frugal but effective military strategies that the lanky Saudi had developed in Afghanistan relied on conscripting cheap, untrained masses of men willing to fight for an ideology. His business and technical background as one of the sons of a Saudi Arabian mogul was also of interest to Sudan’s leadership. Bin Laden saw lots of potential in his cash-strapped but theologically friendly hosts.

Through a series of donations and political payoffs, the Sudanese provided Bin Laden with passports and safe passage for the stream of Islamist combatants he began importing and training in approximately 20 camps around Khartoum. Bin Laden also got to work building a road from Khartoum to Port Sudan. Things were finally getting done. The Saudi’s investment company employed 400 Sudanese, his construction company employed another 600, and his enterprises soon included a trading company, a bank, and agricultural projects. Estimates put Bin Laden’s total investment in infrastructure at anywhere from $20 to $50 million. The calculating Turabi fostered a cross-pollination between al Qaeda, Abu Nidal, Carlos the Jackal, and Hezbollah, all of whom contributed to Sudan’s reputation as terror central.

After Bin Laden had imported his mujahedeen from Pakistan and Afghanistan, he sent them to the south to fight the Nuer and Dinka. When I was on the battlefields with Nuer fighters in 1996, the ground was still littered with hundreds of bleached skeletons, decorated with Kandahari caps, toothbrushes, and Qur’ans. This concept of using an armed, largely untrained, suicidal rabble bothered the Dinka and Nuer because there was no political discourse, only large-scale bloodshed.

At the time of Bin Laden’s arrival, things were already turning sour between Garang and Machar. The seizure of oil by Khartoum, and the disappearance of Soviet money from backers like Ethiopia, meant the revolution would soon be over if they didn’t find another way to fund it. Garang’s socialist manifesto sounded hollow without the military success to back it up. In a decision that would echo his actions two decades later, Machar decided to strike out on his own.

Adding to Machar’s problems, not long before Bin Laden became a resident of Sudan, Machar had made what may have been one of the biggest mistakes of his career: He took up with Emma McCune, a chain-smoking British art student who had been inspired by the sudden vogue of saving Africa. She had watched the Live Aid videos and concerts of the mid 80s and desperately wanted to get involved in charity work. Working for an NGO, she sought out Machar at a conference in Nairobi in 1990, intending to chastise him for using refugee camps to recruit child soldiers. Instead, somehow, they spent the night together and became inseparable.

And as Machar was falling in love with his exotic white girlfriend, he was falling out of love with Garang. At the time Garang was insisting that the SPLM join with Khartoum and allow the south to become an autonomous, self-governed region. Machar was not going to fight a war to end up taking orders from Arab minders. The problem was a dynamic that once provided the duo with their power: Garang was a military man, and Machar was an academic. The costs of running a war without a backer would plunge both sides into a brutal spree of ethnic killing, and the starvation that McCune had sought to fight would soon be used by her as an ugly weapon in that internecine war.

On August 28, 1991, Machar and two other Nuer commanders published a pamphlet railing against Garang’s leadership. Machar staged a coup using words instead of bullets.

The Nasir Declaration, as it came to be known, accused Garang of being dictatorial and called for self-determination for South Sudan. These sentiments resonated with Nuer leaders, who felt marginalized by Garang’s primarily Dinka cadre. The pamphlet was written in a style that was antithetical to Machar’s usually soft-spoken nature, and rumors began flying that it may have been partly authored by a young white woman who had been living with Machar while he was planning his takeover in Nasir—McCune. Believing that Machar lacked the teeth to realize his threatened coup, Garang made the tactical error of largely ignoring his political posturing. But Garang’s second-in-command and successor, Salva Kiir, was wary and never forgot Machar’s betrayal and stinging statements.

Not getting much traction from the manifesto among the local populace or international media, Machar and two of his loyal commanders realized they needed a PR boost. So they called up the BBC from their headquarters in Nasir to declare that they had taken control of the SPLA. This was news to Garang, who was suddenly forced to take his former ally and his newly formed SPLA-Nasir splinter faction seriously.

Some South Sudanese still blame McCune’s influence on Machar for the surprise split and the bloody events that followed, such as the Bor Massacre, which, according to Amnesty International, resulted in the deaths of some 2,000 Dinka at the hands of Machar’s Nuer loyalists. Others blame Garang’s decision to purge Nuer commanders in the SPLA by assassination. It seemed that McCune had cast such a spell on Machar that Garang’s followers began to describe the split and resulting violence as “Emma’s War.”

Photo by Tim Freccia

The public’s first view of the young McCune was a documentary aired in the UK by ITV Yorkshire. It depicted McCune, wan and sticklike, strolling through the bush in her oversize, floppy Paddington Bear hat and chic Western ensemble. In the shadows lurked “the warlord” Machar, his eyes and white teeth glowing under a red beret. What was once a fierce rebel cause had been reduced to a bizarre fantasy romance. In the background was brewing the worst humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan’s history—a famine of proportions that would dwarf the hunger crises in Somalia and Ethiopia.

In the fall of 1992, Sudan was paralyzed by rampant warfare, ethnic killing, and mass internal displacement. Crops had not been planted earlier in the year, and hundreds of thousands of people were sustaining themselves soley on what was flown in by aid organizations. In total, 8 million Sudanese would be affected by the drought, and more than 150,000 would starve to death. Or at least that was what was guessed—no one really knows how many people died in Sudan.

McCune, who had had come to Africa inspired by Band Aid’s song (which itself was inspired by a BBC report on Ethiopia) and the ensuing social interest in saving Africa, devised a way to get attention on television.

The term “CNN Effect” was in vogue at the time—the idea being that a simple story broadcast repeatedly on TV would incite government action, much like the documentary on Ethiopia that had inspired Bob Geldof almost a decade earlier. The media’s coverage of Somalia had been effective, with the US government threatening to send troops to Mogadishu to confront bickering warlords and get aid into the most remote and hapless areas. So when McCune learned that CNN was flying in a correspondent to Waat to cover the conflict that she’d helped stir, she hatched a plan. She would tell the emaciated locals that the plane carried food. She would get her media moment. Or at least she thought so, despite her actions being the epitome of hypocrisy, given her reasons for coming to Africa in the first place.

In the end, despite her cruelly tricking the locals, the CNN report made little impact.

In the spring of 1993, Garang’s forces went on a mission to hunt down Machar and kill him, believing that his SPLA-Nasir faction would crumble in his absence. Still smarting from Machar’s Nuer-led slaughter of Dinka in Bor in 1991, Garang’s Dinka forces murdered, burned, looted, and killed the Nuer indiscriminately.

One journalist who decided to enter southern Sudan at this time was Rory Nugent. Nugent saw a one-inch item in the New York Times on the bottom of page 13: “85,000 dead in the last two months in southern Sudan.” Nugent was perplexed: “The UN could accurately estimate deaths in Somalia,” he said, “but they barely could figure out what was happening in Sudan.”
During dinner in New York, a friend suggested he look up Emma McCune. No number, no address.

In Nairobi he tracked her down and was surprised to learn she was the official press secretary for the faction. “Nobody had written about her then,” he told me. “Here is this white plantation daughter who marries a warlord with a big cock and says, ‘The sex is great.’” Yet McCune asked him not to write about her. Nugent agreed. “She wasn’t part of the story. That was too easy.”
Nugent said she was “passionate about the cause. Half romantic, half pragmatic. She was a girl from convent caught up in the fervor of the times.” And she had been barred from taking UN flights because she was caught smuggling guns.

“When I went to Nairobi I found out that hacks didn’t go to Sudan because you had to pay for a plane,” he recalled. Nugent persuaded six other journalists to charter a plane for two grand, and he put down a $500 deposit. “It crashed, we were told. They had to leave it in southern Sudan.” He found out that the Cessna Caravan was being delivered to a new owner and the pilot was going to pocket the money.

In Sudan, Nugent had found the apocalypse. “It was a totally fucked-up scene. Forget uniforms. Half the army didn’t have clothes. Naked Nuer with giant dicks wearing only bandoliers of ammo. Holy fuck, I thought.”

Soon after he got in, the UN security chief told the journalists to leave. Nugent refused and stayed for six weeks. His timing was perfect: Garang had ordered Kiir to launch an attack on Machar the day before.

At that time, Nugent said, Garang was throwing back a bottle of whiskey a day. The Dinka leader had become paranoid and isolated. The Nuer held a conference at Kongor to convince the Dinka to abandon Kiir and Garang and join Machar. They declared Machar’s faction the official SPLA.

Enraged by the media attention Machar was receiving, Garang put a price on the “American journalist.” Nugent recalled, “I was worth about 25 bucks. Machar was worth ten times more.”

SPLA soldiers pose with artillery on November 13, 1993, in southern Sudan. Photo by Scott Peterson/Liaison

By the summer of 1993, McCune was pregnant with Machar’s child, and the danger became too great. She was told to move to Nairobi to a house that Rowland had rented. Then, on November 24, at the age of 29, she was broadsided in her Land Rover by a speeding matatu bus. She and her unborn baby died in the hospital, and her body was buried in Machar’s home village of Leer.

It was during this dark period in southern Sudan’s history that Machar harnessed the violent Nuer mob known as the Jiech-Mabor, or White Army. The disorderly and largely decentralized White Army, christened as such for their practice of smearing white ash on their bodies to repel insects, was formed (a term used graciously here) around 1991 with the ostensible purpose of fighting off cattle raids from the Dinka and Murlee. Instead Machar used the White Army to sweep through Dinka-controlled areas and indiscriminately kill women and children, the elderly and the infirm.

Machar’s empty promises of democracy and human rights had been negated by the trail of bloated corpses he’d left to rot in the sun. Like Bin Laden, his strategy was one of manipulating large mobs of uneducated armed volunteers to fight a war that did nothing to advance anyone’s cause but his own. And like Bin Laden and his Islamic mujahedeen, Machar had done this by exploiting the religious fears and beliefs of the populace.

Once their dirty work was done, the White Army disappeared, disavowed by Machar and his sympathizers as being a separate, self-directed, civilian-led force that had been wholly unrelated to the more organized SPLM-Nasir. In the background, Machar was allegedly negotiating the sharing of future oil revenues with Khartoum in exchange for his unchallenged control over the region.

At the behest of the Khartoum government, Rowland reentered the picture in the fall in an attempt to broker peace between Garang and Machar. Rowland even publicly declared his long-standing membership in the SPLM. He flew on DIY diplomatic missions between Tehran, London, Nairobi, Khartoum, southern Sudan, Nigeria, and Libya, doing his best to get all sides to agree to a framework for peace in the greater region. Eventually things got so bad that the US, which was now fully embroiled and overextended in its Somalia mission, invited Machar to Atlanta, but it was unsuccessful in forging an agreement.

Machar was losing. Kiir kept pushing until Machar was up against the Ethiopian border in Akobo. “That’s when things changed,” Nugent said. “In late April of 1993 planes would arrive and supplies would appear. Trucks from Malakal sent from Khartoum began running.”

Running out of money and options, Machar was forced to either surrender to Garang or side with Khartoum. The Second Sudanese Civil had dragged on for ten years. Machar had lost Garang, McCune, their unborn baby, the moral high ground, and any control over his country. Even the Ethiopians sent a brigade to prevent Machar’s rebels from crossing the border. Two million Sudanese had died, and there was little hope for the future. His back against the wall, in Akobo, Machar secretly cut a deal with Khartoum to secure money, weapons, and training for his Nuer faction. Within days supplies began to flow from the Sudanese Army garrison in Malakal.

For Westerners, events in southern Sudan were eclipsed by the 1993 disaster of the downed Black Hawk helicopter in Somalia, but the region delivered some of the most brutally devastating images of starvation and horror ever captured on film. In March 1993, South African photographer Kevin Carter took arguably the single most iconic picture of famine in history. He and a group of photographers were brought into southern Sudan on a UN relief plane that was to drop food to starving families. They landed in Ayod, Jonglei, and were given 30 minutes to photograph the surroundings—the time it would take for relief workers to hand out the food—and Carter’s resulting shot of a young boy collapsed facedown at a feeding center while a vulture stalks him in the background was printed in publications around the world.

Deeply haunted by his time in southern Sudan, Carter committed suicide in July 1994, three months after the photo won the Pulitzer Prize. There was no concert or hit song—or retribution—for the estimated 300,000 civilians who had died that year in southern Sudan, just this photo and others like it.

Carter’s suicide note, in part, read: “I’m really, really sorry. The pain of life overrides the joy to the point that joy does not exist... depressed... I am haunted by the vivid memories of killings and corpses and anger and pain... of starving or wounded children, of trigger-happy madmen, often police, of killer executioners.”

Nugent remembers those times: “The war was brutal. I personally saw 20,000 people die. Garang attacked the UN compound in Ayot, burning it to the ground… with screaming Nuer refugees inside. The smell of 3,500 of burning bodies sticks with you.”

I thought, This is horror.

Previous Chapter | Table of Contents | Next Chapter

I Was Sexually Assaulted in Palestine and Israel

$
0
0

The author in Israel in 2011

In the summer of 2011, as a 20-year-old working for a Palestinian news agency, I went to see one of the famous protests at the small village of Bil’in. These demonstrations, which continue today, are held every Friday against the euphemistically named “security fence” that Israel began building across the Palestinian Territories in 2002, supposedly to protect its citizens from terrorism. That “fence” is now a 25-foot tall concrete wall that has expropriated huge swaths of Palestinian land, and Palestinians and their allies have been holding weekly marches from Bil’in to the barrier since 2005; over the years both villagers and soldiers have been seriously injured, and two Palestinians have been killed.

So on the day in question I marched into the hills with the locals and international activists, right up to the wall itself, where Israeli soldiers were waiting. Before long, some kid landed a stone on the roof of an army jeep. Within seconds it was a violent scene, another Friday of clashes and arrests, most of them invisible in the mist of tear gas.

Most Western visitors to Israel and Palestine—conflict junkies, more often than not—get their fill at these demonstrations and learn a bit about occupation, resistance movements, and so on. My own education in the dynamics of power was far more personal, and it occurred at the hands of two very different men in two very different circumstances.

A 2006 protest against the barrier in Bil’in. Photo via Flickr user michael loadenthal

By the afternoon the action in Bil’in was winding down: The children and the elderly were being carried back to the village to shower off the gas, while a few dedicated young men continued to antagonize the remaining soldiers back at the wall. I smelled of sweat and chloride and  needed a taxi to Ramallah, about ten miles to the east. And right there was a cabbie, a scruffy, skinny middle-aged man with thinning hair. He leaned on the hood of his shuttle and told me he was headed to Ramallah. I moved to get into the backseat, but he blurted, “No, the front, the front’s good.” I shrugged and sat in front.

From the start this guy was chatty, even though his English was as bad as my Arabic. But after the usual small talk, his questions took a turn:

“You Muslim, or Christian?”

“Christian,” I replied, for the sake of simplicity.

“Ah, Christian. So, so...” His English at a dead end, he went into Arabic, waving his hands around. I simply didn’t follow. Was he about to start proselytizing? Was he trying to figure out my politics, whether I was pro-Hamas? We continued to talk past each other as the cab emerged from the green hills outside the village into a barren stretch of open highway.

Suddenly I got a sinking feeling as one of his gestures became clear to me: He was moving his hand like a pair of scissors. Snipping. Ah, Christ, I realized. He’s asking whether I’m circumcised.

I’m old-fashioned; this wasn’t a topic I was interested in discussing with my cabbie. I shifted in my seat and looked out my window, hoping he’d drop the subject, but he kept at it, even after I stuck my headphones in to drown him out. I still didn’t understand why he was asking—then he held up his hand, as if to say, "Hold on a sec."

With one hand on the steering wheel, he brought the other down to free his cock from his pants. In disbelief, with nowhere to move, I stared straight ahead. Suddenly his right hand settled on my leg. I recoiled and shoved it off, but it returned, with a tighter grip. As long seconds passed I looked around, ahead, out my window. Mile after mile of indistinguishable dirt was going by. I realized that I didn’t have fucking clue where we were. Was this even the route I took to get to Bil’in the day before?

Suddenly his hand was behind my neck. I felt him start to pull my head toward him, lower, into his seat. I walloped his neck with a closed fist; he grunted and flipped his head to the side.

The cab had been going around 80 miles per hour, but we were rapidly slowing down, as my attacker was having trouble multitasking. By then, I had fully accepted that my driver was trying to rape me, but I also had to worry about whether our struggle would run the van off the road. I shouted for him to pull over, but he was beyond caring about what I wanted. He tried to calm me down and reached for my shoulder again. "NO!” I barked.

My fears multiplied: Are the doors locked? Am I going to be trapped in this car? Does he have a knife in a compartment somewhere? I glanced ahead through the windshield and saw a rest stop in the distance, a speck in the endless orange landscape.

In a moment of clarity, I realized I had only one option: I grabbed the handle of the door and pushed it open. The wind hit my face—we must have been going 25 or 30 miles per hour. The cabbie hollered as I clenched my bag tight and leapt out of the van.

I’m not sure how many times I rolled after I hit the dirt, but when I finally came to a stop, I lay there for what seemed like ten minutes, head buzzing. I stumbled to my feet and saw the van in the distance—it was turning back, heading my way.

I sprinted toward the rest stop, the cab in pursuit, its open passenger door still flailing. Wheezing my way within sight of the building, I spotted three figures standing out front: young men, all in suits, one in a wheelchair.

“Need a cab! Cab to Ramallah!” I shouted. The tallest guy nodded, confused but obliging, and pulled out his phone. I turn around to see the van rattle past us, down the highway, back whence it came.

It was only then that I felt gashes on my arms and legs from my fall. I waited for my ride, hands on my knees, alternatively breathing deeply and laughing hysterically.

Graffiti on a wall separating Israel from the Palestinian Territories. Photo by the author

Two weeks later, over the border at Israel’s Ben-Gurion Airport, I was lying to a steely-eyed security officer who was my last barrier before I could fly back home to London. I gave him the same line I always did when visiting the region: I’d been in Tel Aviv with my Jewish girlfriend the entire time, with no visits to those Palestinian territories, thank you very much. No dice—my interrogator sniffed me out, and after some tense questioning he sent me into a cell where I met his associate, a pale, round-faced inspector, ready to give me a cavity search.

Immediately I began to feel a familiar nausea. I’d gone through a strip search at Ben-Gurion before, and this was not that. He very quickly went beyond the acceptable boundaries, and with some horror I realized I was once again trapped in a confined space with a predator. This one had me all to himself for about 20 minutes. First a brush between my legs here or there as he patted down my waist and groin, then a barely disguised stroke. Then came longer, deliberate grips.

I made a kind of discovery that day about two kinds of harassment—you could call it the difference between harassing “down” and harassing “up.” I don’t forgive either man for what he did, but the cab driver was a random, desperate guy who had power only because I was briefly trapped in his car; the inspector, regardless of his pay grade or rank, groped me with the authority of the state behind him.

This wasn’t just a sequel to my nightmare taxi ride—it was a sequel to the protest I covered at Bil’in, an echo of the routine security measures that add a level of danger and paranoia to anyone living under an occupation: the checkpoints, the night raids, the curfews. It was a glimpse into the ugliest side of one individual, and the ugliest side of a system that empowered him.

Unlike in the cab, I didn’t fight back. It would have been useless—my plane was leaving in a matter of minutes, and the harassment was subtle enough that security would claim I was simply overreacting to a thorough search. There was nowhere to jump this time. They had my phone, my laptop; they were in charge. I remembered stories from friends of nine-hour detentions, of endless interrogations. So I closed my eyes and remained silent until I was allowed to go home.

Sitting on the plane, I felt the same shiver of relief that I did standing in front of the rest stop outside Ramallah. But this time I didn’t laugh. I just took deep breaths.

Brendan James is the front page editor at Talking Points Memo and is aware that death approaches.

Is New York Serious This Time About Legalizing Medical Marijuana?

$
0
0

A recent pro-legalization event in Union Square, Manhattan. Photo via Flickr user Joe Mazzola

New Yorkers think of themselves as the most socially tolerant, forward-thinking people on Earth, but when it comes to marijuana laws, the Empire State is running decades behind schedule. The pernicious Rockefeller Drug Laws that imposed brutal mandatory minimum prison sentences for traffickers, passed during the white-panic days of the 1970s, weren't repealed until 2009. Stop-and-frisk policies embraced by the New York Police Department have made New York City the world capital of racially biased weed arrests—and even though new mayor Bill de Blasio campaigned against the city's clampdown on black and brown pot smokers, very little has changed since he took office.

On Tuesday, the State Assembly in Albany easily passed a bill that would establish a "seed to sale" regime of medical marijuana in New York. It's the fifth time the Assembly has passed some kind of pot decriminalization measure in the past seven years only to see it die each time in the Senate. Medical marijuana would not solve the glaring problem of young black and Hispanic men being singled out for arrest by reactionary cops, but legalization advocates will take what they can get. So is New York actually ready to take the leap into the 21st century, where pot isn't all that big of a deal and in fact might benefit everyone from cancer and AIDS patients to veterans suffering from PTSD?

"Drugs has always been a very hot potato for people in politics, and that has really slowed things down in New York," State Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, the sponsor of the bill that just passed and a perennial advocate, told me. "It does seem like the Senate Republican leadership is heading toward wanting to do a bill. If that's where they are, I'm confident we can negotiate something that is acceptable to all sides."

Advocates and lobbyists in Albany are cautiously optimistic, in part because Andrew Cuomo—the governor who runs Albany with the support of Wall Street and the local business community—is up for re-election in the fall. Typically, elections make Democrats skittish about staking out controversial positions lest they be savaged by conservatives, and sure enough, Cuomo has worked overtime the past year to block new taxes on the wealthy (proposed by de Blasio to pay for universal pre-K) and make sure his constituents in the 1 percent are satiated. But all that palling around with the rich has come at a price: Cuomo is massively unpopular among many progressive Democrats and the left, raising the question of whether the Working Families Party (WFP, a third-party alternative supported by labor unions) might rescind its support for Cuomo and run someone against him. That would probably fail to prevent Cuomo from securing another term, but it would almost certainly cut into his margin of victory.

Given the deep skepticism about Cuomo within his own party, signing even a modest pro-marijuana measure might help his popularity with the left. And it would be consistent with his worldview, in which meager advances on social policy are offered up to appease the dirty hippies while economic redistribution is never seriously considered. Cuomo steered same-sex marriage through the legislature three years ago, winning national headlines and progressive adulation even though the victory was due mostly to Wall Street cash. Then again, the WFP is more focused on economic inequality (its big issue right now is public financing of state elections), and a move on drug legalization might strike members as the worst kind of election-year cynicism—a twisted appeal to the youth vote that fails to address their material needs.

Where does all of this shady behind-the-scenes jockeying leave us? Republicans and Democrats aligned with Cuomo—including State Senator Diane Savino, who sponsored the upper chamber's version of medical marijuana legislation, which just cleared the health committee—control the balance of power. Were the governor to offer up some fresh indication of support, GOP legislators might be tempted to follow along. After all, their party's brand has been in tatters in New York and nationally for years, and libertarians are gaining currency in the broader conservative reform project.

"The longer that this sits and lingers, the more it hurts the Republicans," said Evan Nison, director of the New York Cannabis alliance and executive director of NORML-New Jersey, both pro-legalization groups. "The difference this time is Cuomo jumpstarting it" by floating a logistically implausible medical marijuana scheme run out of hospitals in his January state-of-the-state address. The current legislative session will continue through mid June, giving supporters a couple weeks to work the phones and prod the powers that be.

One thing that might make medical marijuana irresistible to Cuomo and Republicans is the money that can be made from it. Already, businesses in weed-friendly Colorado are lobbying in Albany for access to New York's massive market, and the party that claims to champion entrepreneurs could have a hard time justifying a policy thet lets all that investment and potential tax revenue go elsewhere. Also changing the debate has been outrage at the scourge of prescription-drug and opiate addiction among white youth in the Northeast, which has made the war on drugs suddenly relevant to a wider swath of the political class than ever before. In the same vein, it doesn't hurt the cause that Hudson Valley Republican Assemblyman Steve Katz, who was arrested for speeding while in possession of a small bag of marijuana last year, is now a fierce advocate for decriminalization and the financial promise of a local pot industry.

"It didn't get our attention until it hit communities that had a certain amount of prosperity about them," an extremely confident Savino told me of her fellow members of the state legislature, practically daring Cuomo to stand in the way. "I cannot imagine a scenario where he would veto the bill."

Follow Matt Taylor on Twitter.

RIP, Phrosties

$
0
0

Chuck "Buzzkill" Schumer's crusade against Phrosties has already driven the underground slushy delivery service out of business. Photo via Flickr user maisa_nyc 

First he came for our Four Loko, and we said nothing. Then he came for our powdered alcohol. Now New York Senator Chuck Schumer is coming for our Phrosties, the clandestine alcoholic-slushy delivery service that has taken off across the five boroughs over the past few months.

“A 12-year-old can probably buy these ‘sloshies’ online, get it, and enjoy it because it’s filled with fruit juice and fruit punch and all the things that taste sweet and nice,” Schumer said at a press conference Monday. “A few weeks ago, I talked about powdered alcohol. I’m making an effort to prevent that from being sold. I would like to see the same thing happen to these ‘sloshies’” if they’re not regulated.

The remarks, coupled with the news that the New York State Liquor Authority is investigating the “unregulated and unlicensed” slushy merchants, has scared the creators of Phrostie out of business, or at least driven them deeper underground. By Tuesday, the Phrostie Instagram account had been scrubbed clean, its delivery contact details replaced by the warning “WE DO NOT DELIVER.” After that, my texts to the previously listed phone numbers went unanswered, until Wednesday night, when I got a reply from the Brooklyn delivery service saying that if I wanted any more Phrosties, I would have to order “ASAP.”

Twenty minutes later, a delivery guy showed up and handed me a black grocery bag full of slushies. “That’s it for the Phrosties,” he sighed. The service, he explained, was selling the last of its inventory and closing up shop, thanks to “Schumer and the regulations, I guess.”

“It’s all just political propaganda bullshit,” he added, with a wave that was both a farewell and a summary dismissal of the crushing regulatory burden of the nanny state.

It’s a predictable end to New York’s latest summer liquor fad. For starters, Phrosties were never all that secret. To order, customers simply had to text the number posted on Instagram, and an anonymous delivery person would deliver the $10 frozen rotgut to their door. The whole operation worked sort of like a drug deal, except none of the Phrostie purveyors seem particularly concerned about masking the exchange. The business existed under the radar for nearly a year, but once the media caught on this spring, it wasn’t hard for the Man to shut them down.

Photo by Bobby Viteri

This is not the first time that Schumer has tried to stifle boozy innovation. Despite having his hands full with issues like immigration reform and extending unemployment insurance, the third-ranking Senate Democrat has made a special issue out of weird alcohol trends, devoting a surprising amount of effort toward putting modern-day bootleggers out of business. In 2010, Schumer led the assault against the original Four Loko, effectively banning the delicious but potentially life-ruining matrimony of caffeine and malt liquor. Earlier this month, Schumer demanded that the FDA ban Palcohol before the freeze-dried packages of powdered alcohol hits the shelves. In the interim, he’s tried to take down bath salts, molly, and even inhalable caffeine,  not to mention BitCoin and the Silk Road.

(I called Schumer’s office Wednesday to see if I could find out more about his beef with Phrosties, and also to ask why he’s determined to be such a buzzkill, but so far no one has gotten back to me. The New York State Liquor Authority has similarly not responded to my requests for comment.)

In all of his campaigns against fun, Schumer’s primary concern seems to be all of the “children” who will inevitably mistake boozy gimmicks for candy and juice, overrunning the country with tiny, hopped-up alkies. It’s paternalistic, sure, but in the case of Phrosties, he may have a point. The potent multicolored slushies, which have names like Blue Hawaiian, Dragonberry Colada, and Sugar Rush Margarita, are perfectly engineered for teen binge drinking. The fact that service also delivered in suburban Westchester County seems to indicate that this was at least part of their strategy—hell, for all we know, the whole Phrostie enterprise could have been run out of some 16-year-old’s bedroom. In any event, Phrostie dealers never seemed particularly worried about checking IDs. 

Aside from this obvious problem, there are a million reasons why buying unmarked bottles of liquor from an Igloo cooler in the back of a stranger’s sedan isn’t a good idea. No one will say what the drinks were actually made with, but judging by taste, it’s some kind of frozen combination of bottom-shelf liquor and Kool-Aid doused in Everclear. I got through about a third of a bottle before I started to lose my fine motor skills. A few sips later, talking became kind of a struggle, and I settled into a kind of hazy, stupid moonshine drunk that can only end in teary gibberish and vague, lingering shame.

But none of that actually matters because drinking is fun, and an underground, 24/7 slushy-delivery service can only make it better. In fact, any novelty liquor trend is worth trying once, regardless of how painful the results. Until that changes—which is to say, never—Schumer will be trapped in an endless Whac-a-Mole to try to stamp out alcoholic disruptions. In the meantime, any Phrostie copycats should send their stuff my way.  

The VICE Guide to Raving

$
0
0

Photo by Alex Patterson

Everyone's a raver now. “Guitar music is dead” is the kind of thing your dad says—that’s how dead it is. Now, it’s all beats and bells and whistles. The future you glimpsed in 90s movies, when everyone's into techno and has slime-green hair, is upon us. 

But while so many of us go raving, the vast majority get it wrong. Be it the drugs, the joy, the communal toilets, or the pressure not to look like a dick, we often end up looking like dicks. We eyeball the DJ, we pump our fists, we kiss Europeans, and we piss our paychecks away on booze and drugs only to throw it all up later that night. 

So treat this as Raving for Dummies: a kind of self-help manual for people who can deal with week-long comedowns. Maybe it seems fascistic to tell people how to behave at an event that's supposed to be about hedonistic release, but watch this video and you’ll understand that perhaps the new graduating class of rave enthusiants could use a bit of guidance.

GETTING READY
This is imperative. Looking good is one of the fundamental cornerstones of youth culture; however, that's not really the case when opting for board shorts and rape-culture-slogan T-shirts. Remember, this all-important sense of aesthetic belonging is what all great cultural movements were built upon.

Except now it isn't. Some people still make a valiant effort, but really, how long can you spend angling your Night Slugs fitted cap? You aren't Michael Alig or Sting in Quadrophenia; you're just one of those guys who gets his fade shaped up once a week. The days of people doing their hair with eggs and glue, ironing their Mohair jackets, or pouring blue paint over their heads are consigned to the past. 

Modern club fashion is, by and large, cozily utilitarian—easy to wear, machine-washable, and unlikely to get you attacked at Sunday recovery brunch session. Sure, it'd be great if someone did push the boat out a bit, but in what direction? People standing near repetitive beats have a shameful sartorial history of bleached dreadlocks and furry, flourescent legwarmers; if fashion had a Hague, everyone at Electric Daisy Carnival would stand trial for war crimes. So maybe it's best to stick with the streetwear.

Photo by Marco Tulio Valencia

DRUG DEALERS
Sorry to break it to you, but they’re all awful and they're all bastards. By now, every dealer realized that cutting corners isn't going to put a dent in their customer base. Especially not when that same customer base strictly buys drugs when they're drunk and happy to shell out $100 for some mix of boric acid, levamisole, and a cursory dose of whatever it is that they actually want to buy.

Which is why the current attitude seems to be: Just choose your poison, and if it doesn't work, take more. Eventually something will happen. It could be good, or it could be very, very bad. Just don't believe for one second that Rico, AJ, Taz, or whatever stupid name your dealer goes by is actually your friend, or that he gives a flying fuck about you or your vital organs. He thinks you’re a chump and is probably laughing at you as soon as the car door's shut.

PUBLIC TRANSIT ETIQUETTE
You’re going home. Home to whatever ramshackle is proudly yours. You're not in Ibiza. Not everyone is living for the party. This isn't one nation, there isn't one drug, and there's certainly not one wavelength. In this day and age, having a good time can often be treated as an act of disrespect. There is no reason for you to believe that your fellow passengers (or your cab driver, for that matter) are in solidarity with your night out. They have jobs, children, spouses, lives to live—and let's face it, if you're raving with any regularity, you probably don't. That's not a bad thing per se, but it most certainly is when you put it on display.

You don't have to swing on rails or ledges, and there's almost never any reason to shoot the shit with strangers. If someone broke these rules while you were on your way to a long, lonely night shift, or home to look after your sickly child, you'd probably think they were a cunt.

Photo by Kieran Cudlip

DEALING WITH BOUNCERS
Unless you're Prince, they're just something you have to deal with. Stay calm, breathe normally, and don't play tough guy when they go through your belongings.

GUEST LISTS ARE WEIRD; RESPECT THAT
By virtue of not being Moscow, where going out on a Friday night is basically like finding yourself trapped in a disco caste system, or Berlin, where the bouncers are taught to just scream the word "NO" in your face over and over again, clubbing almost anywhere else is a fairly democratic experience.

You're on the list—we get it. You’re also broke and just want a good time, but there’s a fine art to getting in for free without being a prick. If the venue is run by a faceless promotional entity, then by all means own it. Or email them a couple days prior and say that you “run a blog”; it works more often that you’d think. The delusions of grandeur inherent to corporate club promotion deserve to be feasted upon, so milk your shame threshold for all it's worth.

But if the door charge for a local club is less than $10, just don’t fucking ask. If you begrudge handing over a $10 bill but routinely spend half the night calling around for overpriced coke, you’re missing the point. The less often you pay to get in, the less great a night at smaller clubs that cater to your niche EDM sensibilities will be had, and the more you’ll end up staying in and watching Boiler Room. In short, unless it’s your good friend’s night and they’re cool with you being a semipermanent plus-one, pay up or go home.

Photo by Jake Lewis

AT THE BAR
Don't buy drinks for your wasted bros. Don't do rounds. Don't engage the bar staff in conversation. Don't order anything that clearly isn't fucking there. This is a club, not a microbrewery. Just stand patiently, order quickly, and try not to spit at the bar staff when they purposely forget to give you back your change.

COKE IS OVERRATED
I don’t know why anyone under 30 takes coke. Most of us just about make a living wage, and we’re snorting so much of it that "cocaine in the water" is now rooted in more than just an outlandish Rick Ross lyric. It’s not exactly an instant club-aid like pills or acid, either. Once you’re in the club, 90 percent of your night will be spent calling for, collecting, dishing out, asking around for, and talking about coke. Then, if it’s not gone, the after-parties turn into cotton-mouthed mothers' meetings when we’re supposed to be, you know, having a laugh. Oh, and there's always that dick who pockets the communal dollar straw.

BUT KETAMINE IS WORSE
The only party drug that is worse than coke is ketamine. Ketamine is weed’s sociopath cousin—an unforgiving bastard without any of the familial benefits. No hunger, no happiness, no sleepiness, no desire to listen to anything loudly—just semi-paralysis and a burning streak of piss once you’re mobile enough to drink again.

The appeal of ingesting animal tranquilizers in organized social situations still ranks as one of life's greatest mysteries, but for some reason it's gone from being the preserve of the dubstep heads, who could sort of get away with it given their sheer lack of motion, to being the drug of choice for your garden-variety straw-hat deep-house momo. I mean, most people are terrible as it is on ketamine, let alone people who are already terrible.

Plus, as far as disco injuries go, having doctors cut out your bladder is definitely the most embarrassing.

Photo by Daniel Leinweber

ON THE FLOOR
Stop staring at the DJs. They’ll still look like someone bent over some electronic gizmos no matter your vantage point, or how unrelenting your gaze is.

PUT YOUR FUCKING PHONE AWAY
Clubbing should be sacred. It should be immersive, life-changing, and totally defy shareable documentation. So don’t video it.

At Berlin’s Watergate, there is some fucking hero whose primary role is to confiscate phones from people who are taking photos, Shazam-ing tracks, or both. “You can pick your phone up after ze club, or you can leave with your phone,” I’ve overheard more than once. Brutal, Germanic efficiency has never been so appealing.

If you really want your photo taken in a club, go to a Top 40 R&B night downtown. They're teeming with student photographers, who’ll gladly indulge your narcissistic tendencies. It’s estimated that 10 percent of all photos taken in human history were taken in 2012 alone, and 10 percent of those were of you gritting your teeth.

FUCKBOYS 
Alas, there will always be a gaggle of dickheads trying to turn Corsica into Roskilde 2000—it's just one of those sad parts of the nightlife experience, and one you might have to just allow. If they did it a bar, or at a bus stop, or a family wedding, you'd be well within your rights to end them. But in a club it’s cramped, and frankly being a dick to some people for having more fun than you sucks. Unless it’s this next group, of course…



Photo by Jake Lewis

PART-TIMERS
Those people that go raving once a year. The weekend warriors, the stragglers, the civilians in sunglasses, cardboard-box-dancing straight out of a 90s workout routine.

Don't give them any space or time. There's only one way they'll learn: pure fucking animosity. This isn't the summer of love any more; electronic music is now basically the only music and you're gonna have to fight for your territory. Clubs need to regain exclusivity; otherwise they might as well be another local radio music festival.

SPACE COWBOYS 
They’re old, throwing Tai Chi moves, staring at the ceiling, wearing sandals and those graphic-equalizer T-shirts, but don’t let it irk you. Give them space and let them be and have some respect for an old rave soldier. You wouldn't piss on a war memorial, so no need to take selfies with the scene's 'Nam veterans.

Photo by Jake Lewis

SMOKING AREA
They used to have chill-out rooms; now you have these. Give people cigarettes, but don’t ask for too many. Smoke weed, but don’t be too obvious. 

People who force themselves into your smoking cypher are the worst. This isn't a Grateful Dead show. Under no circumstances are you to give a stranger a pull off your joint. Would you go up to someone inside and ask for a sip of their drink? Would you ask a stranger for a drag on a cigarette? It’s the same principle. People who just want a lick are all Part-Timers (see Part-Timers). 

PICK YOUR AFTERPARTY WISELY
There are two types of rave afterparty: the one that the DJs go to, and the one that the ravers go to. If you can, try to get yourself into the DJ one, as there will be way more booze and drugs (this will be easier for the ladies to achieve, but remember girls: You don't have to sleep with that wrinkly Dutch producer if you don’t want to).

If you don’t fancy the intimidating debauchery of a DJ's hotel room, then why not try someone’s loft in your respective town or city? They’ll be cool, right? It definitely won’t be full of people playing a game of Spotify Monopoly will it? Oh, God. It will.

Your best option for an afterparty depends on how you prepare beforehand. Don’t do all your drugs, don’t spend all your money, leave little reserves, little pools of both before the rave is up, and just head back to whichever friend has the best speakers at home. That way you don’t have to deal with a bunch of people trying to impress/bang a DJ, and you also don’t have to deal with a group of strangers being total cunts.

Photo by Maggie Lee

KNOWING WHEN TO CALL IT A DAY
There's nothing better than going out. And there's nothing worse than staying out too long. You can pull it off very occassionally (but seriously, very occasionally). Like, maybe twice in your life. Mostly you just end up with a bottle of something you’d never choose to drink, waiting for the tide to wash you out.

The good thing about nights out is that they're infinite. Your 20s aren’t going to go up in flames because no one dropped a big tune in the club, or you didn’t get some, or the vibe isn’t right. Use your senses, cut your losses, and make up for it next time. More often than not, that moment on the rooftop swimming pool as the sun comes up ain't gonna happen.

COMEDOWNS
There’s no real advice for this. Maybe watch some TV, or try to sleep loads? You should probably try to avoid speaking to your parents, I guess. Whatever you do do, though, it’s nicer to do it with someone else.

Frankly, you're not going to avoid it, and you're certainly not going to escape it; you've put your body through a lot, and now it needs some downtime. Some real fucking downtime. No amount of Valium or bacon is going to stop you from feeling like Flight MH370.

Just remind yourself that everything you're feeling is your fault. Not Taz's, not Rico's, not AJ's. Not the fault of your pals who egged you on, not the promoter's, not the DJ's—yours. Just yours. It's an oddly comforting admission of shame, and one that'll help you see your comedown on its own terms, rather than as part of some bullshit narrative about your "needing to blow off some steam." Just ride the wave through the tunnel and into the light. Be an adult and take responsibility for your actions.

In Defense of Chain Restaurants

$
0
0

My intense love of chain restaurants comes from a pure place, wholly devoid of irony. Some of my happiest childhood memories are of patronizing the Red Lobster in the parking lot of the Salinas, California, mall where people had a proclivity for getting stabbed. (What can I say? My childhood was fairly bleak.) Some of my happiest adult memories are of drinking frozen margaritas, stuffed with more sugar than alcohol, on wasted weekday afternoons. (What can I say? My adulthood has been fairly bleak.)  

I have memories of road trips through God’s America, that endless expanse of natural beauty punctuated by strip malls that runs between the coasts, where the dining options are as limited as the radio options. Memories of my former roommate and I driving, through snowstorms, to Buca di Beppo, where we’d drink multiple Long Island iced teas and fishtail home. As a matter of fact, the staff there became so used to our presence that one magical evening our waitress leaned down and, with a glimmer in her eye, told us, “This meal’s on the wait staff, 'cause you guys are such great regulars.” (OK, maybe that anecdote is more depressing than happy. But it’s not entirely unhappy. Do you know how much I drank that night? For free?)

Many of my peers, however, don’t view these establishments with the same reverence as I. They look down their non-prescription horn-rimmed glasses, mouths filled with locally sourced eggs Benedict, as I scrape the last remnants of marinara sauce out of the ramekin. Fools, the lot of them. They have much to learn. Allow me to take them (and, by proxy you) to school. I will do so via an attention-span friendly list, so as to make it easier for you to read in between bites of chicken fingers.

They Are Comforting in Their Universality and Mediocrity

There is a comfort in familiarity, which is why we crave it. It’s why we watch the same films over and over. It's why we have a favorite pair of pants, and why we continue to fuck our wives, instead of cum-crazy coeds that do more than just lie there and get pounded (Would it kill you to at least pretend to be excited, Denise?). The universality of chain restaurants caters to this particular module of our lizard brains. No matter which one you patronize, there you are—vacantly staring at SportsCenter while eating those sliders you’ve come to tolerate so much.

They Have Fun Things to Look at on the Wall

Patronizing a chain restaurant is like visiting a museum… for free! Granted, it’s a museum filled with the previous generation’s garbage, but still, aren’t all museums? That Rembrandt fellow may have been the Thomas Kinkade of his day. You don’t know. Enjoy the “art”; just don’t make the same mistake I did and start thinking about the lives of the now-deceased human subjects of the ancient portraits hanging on that Cracker Barrel wall. It will fill you with ineffable sadness, which will prevent you from finishing your biscuits and gravy.

They Have All the Dipping Sauces You Could Possibly Ask For

In America, dipping sauces are worth more than their weight in liquid gold. They are, for better or worse, currency. We would sell Manhattan for a few beads of ranch. In a way, we already have. Thanks, Giuliani.

They Reward You For Your Patronage

Lemme get this straight, TGI Friday’s. You’re gonna give me free TGI Friday’s… just for eating at TGI Friday’s? This gout pays for itself! When I die, the only form of identification on my person will be a Give Me More Stripes rewards card, because it’s the most precious, rewarding thing I had going for me in this world.

They Possess No Pretense About Their Unethicality

Everything, up to and including the artisanal offerings at your favorite organic bistro, is unethical in some fashion. Unless you kill or pick what you eat yourself, you have no idea where it came from—that being the case, it probably evolved from horrific origins. Being a vegetarian is all well and good, but migrant farm workers are still treated like shit. So get off your high horse and eat some farm-raised tilapia. You can’t win, so why try?

They Have Bottomless Refills

The only thing better than a 200-calorie soft drink is five 200-calorie soft drinks, consumed in quick succession. Unless, of course, they’re Pepsi products. At the risk of alienating the Pepsi Generation, I must say Things Go Better with Coke.

They Have Killer Happy Hours

Happy hours are perfect rewards for people who shouldn’t be rewarded, i.e., people who have literally nothing else to do but drink at 4 PM on a Wednesday. Some chains even have two happy hours, so you can take a nap you didn’t earn between them.

They Allow You to Feel the Smug Satisfaction of Seeing Your High School Bully Still Working There Every Time You Come Back to Your Hometown to Visit Your Parents

Fuck you, Stephanie. That’s what you get for calling me a dyke ten years ago. (Although, in your defense, I’m still at least 55 percent dyke.)

When You Talk Shit About Them, You’re Just Being Classist

Listen­, just because you can afford to eat organic doesn’t mean those good Chrstian folks in America’s Heartland shouldn’t be able to enjoy a 2 for $20 meal of colon-crushing steak. Your money doesn’t make you better than them! Your politics does.

If You Claim to Dislike the Taste of Fried, You’re Only Lying to Yourself

Take a bite of that app, big boy, and get a hot, greasy, borderline painful explosion of oil in your mouth. Pretty decadent, eh? Your new nickname is Bacchus. You'vw earned it.

They Have Reasonable Prices

Um, we’re in a recession here, sheeple. So don’t come crying to me when you overdraw on your bank account at brunch. You could have spent half as much on four times as much food.

They Give You Free Shit on Your “Birthday”

Lie about your birthdate at a chain restaurant and prepare yourself to acquire all the sombreros your garage, and all the cheesecake your colon, can hold. Which, in fairness, isn’t much, but is free.

They Have Incredible Variety

Your average chain restaurant takes on over a dozen variations of cuisine… and masters them all, which means everyone’s happy, up to and including Mama! And you know how hard Mama is to please, what with her fictional gluten allergy and all.

They’re a Great Morale Booster

Plunk your ass down at a chain restaurant and look around. Chances are, you’re doing better than anyone else, when it comes to both life and aesthetics. Mmm… sweet schadenfreude. The only thing sweeter is those Chocolate Explosion Dunkers you’re about to treat yourself with. Because you’re a perfect fucking ten. Comparatively, I mean.

They Don’t Care Whether You’re Drunk

Regardless of how intoxicated you are, you aren’t, in spite of yourself, the worst the staff has ever seen. All you have to do is tip them somewhat kindly and they’re cool with the fact that you fell down on the way to the bathroom.

Follow Megan Koester on Twitter.


Remembering Lac-Mégantic Before the Blast

$
0
0



A graveyard roughly one kilometer north west of the contamination zone. There were several graves buried in 2013, though none made mention of the train derailment. From the graveyard the blast zone wasn't visible though a faint smell of oil floated on the spring breeze. All photos via the author.
Unleashed by the train crash, flaming bitumen oil spread into every fissure, every crack. Waves of fire flowed through the streets and people, who just minutes before were carelessly enjoying a quiet summer night. They had no escape. The residents of Lac-Mégantic were trapped, even if they hadn’t realized it yet. Some ran toward the lake thinking the water would quench the fire, that if only they could make it, they would be saved. But the oil spill had already ignited the surface of the lake and it burned with the same intensity as the scene they sought to escape. The oil had found its way into the sewers and down into the rainwater drainage pipes that split off in a V-like shape, and empty directly into the lake. The burning oil spread out across the water’s surface, the heat so intense it cracked rocks on the shoreline. Millions of liters were spilled from the 72 derailed oil tankers, most of it burned off in the ensuing inferno but hundreds of thousands of litres flowed freely and coated the streets, lake, and river. Those who didn’t die instantly in the explosion were trapped; behind them was the blast zone inferno of the derailed oil-cars and before them a lake of flames like an ocean of napalm.

It was a dark topic for dinner conversation, but after a sort of guided tour led by my uncle in his truck, all our minds were firmly fixed on the events of nine months earlier. My uncle, Claude Turcotte, lives in a house just outside the evacuation zone. He’s been there forever—at least it seems that way to me. I played in that backyard as a small child. I ran carefree across that same grass. In the winter I stacked mounds of snow to defend against snowball fusillade launched by my siblings. It wasn’t until the town was wracked by disaster that I even realized I had fond memories of the place.

It never seemed to change. It was a fixed point in time and history to me. I couldn’t imagine anything capable of reshaping Lac-Mégantic. It would always be the same bucolic Quebecois town, sandwiched between lake and forest, and similar to so many of the small villages and hamlets all across Canada. It had a tranquility that removed it from the world and I took it for granted. I think a lot of us did.

The town was too small and idyllic. Like so many towns in Canada, it was a safe place for young families and for the retired. It was part of the tacit Canadian promise, a fate secured from the contingency of life. A place outside the existential threat of war, famine, anarchy, and destruction. There are no drones flying overhead, no marauding juntas or fundamentalist terrorism. The water is clean and so is the air. Sure, life can never be guaranteed, but Lac-Mégantic was as close as you could get.



Two people stand at the edge of the quarantine zone on what is left of Rue Frontenac. The train derailed to the left of this picture and the fire and oil spread to the lake at the right. Forty buildings were destroyed in the blast and ensuing fire and more than 500,000 tons of oil contaminated dirt had to be removed.
On the night of the train wreck, Claude was safely beyond the reach of the spilling oil and spreading inferno. But Lac-Mégantic is small—so all of the townspeople lost a friend or family member in that fire. Some lost a lot more than just one. Claude told me about a cab driver who left his home, his wife, and his children to drive a fare. He’d done that a hundred times before. But while he was away, the oil tank cars were barreling downhill—gliding down iron rails. The train drove directly into the heart of the town. He never saw his family again.

While I surveyed the blast zone I imagined the 40 buildings that once stood. Two and three-storey low-rises with ground floor businesses and apartments above flanked the road’s sides. Downtown Lac-Mégantic is mostly centred around Rue Frontenac, one long straight road that, if you’re standing by the railroad tracks, leads into a grassy hill and tree line. Now it was mostly loose dirt, peppered with stacks of shattered cement and random debris. Only the train tracks were left, dividing the crater into off-kilter hemispheres of destruction. It’s poetic in a way; the town’s centre was destroyed, but the train tracks remain.

It felt like walking through a fetid scab; the area was cleaned up, but it was nowhere near healed. Loose, oil-reeking mud was surrounded by 12-foot fences. A small guard post stood in the road that cut through the middle of the disaster zone. That road used to be lined with buildings, businesses, and homes. Now it’s barren. There are soot murals painted on brick walls—walls that have been freshly exposed to air and sunshine after their neighbours fell to the fire. The dirt had barely settled around parts of the railroad. Mud grabbed at my boots as I made my way towards the blast’s epicentre. I’d bet that after a good day of rain, I would sink right to my calves in that sludge. Even after removing the contaminated soil, something that totaled around 126,000 cubic metres of dirt, the air was redolent of oil. Every breath carried faint flavours of car tires and dirtied rags. It wasn’t oppressive but it wasn’t escapable either, even the spring breeze was slicked with oil.

The damage remains, but the (irr)responsible rail company, Montreal Maine and Atlantic Railway (MMA), has since vanished. MMA filed for bankruptcy protection on August 9, 2013 to protect its creditors and less than a year later the company was sold. The railway is now named Central Main and Quebec Railway and is owned by Railroad Acquisition Holdings, LLC, a subsidiary of Fortress Investment Group, LLC. The sale of MMA’s American assets has already been solidified and its Canadian assets are expected to follow shortly. The new railway company intends to resume oil shipments in 18 months, and they tried to soothe anxiety over the announcement with a promise to invest $10 million into improving rail safety


The railroad tracks' location remains unchanged from its original path. The dirt beneath has been replaced and a locomotive with a long line of railcars travels at a snail's pace over ground zero.
The new owners promise a host of improvements, including the abolition of single-man crews, which has been widely reported to be a key factor in the train’s derailment. At this point I’m not even sure what I want to see happen. It would be nice to see Ed Burkhardt—the man in charge of MMA when that train exploded—chased through the streets along with the board of directors from the defunct MMA railway, but it wouldn’t solve anything. No lives will be brought back through scapegoating or mob retribution. There’s a pang of impotence and futility when I think about what should be done. Oil transport by railway has exponentially increased in recent years, and volcanic derailments have followed suit. When nothing substantial changes in the face of a failure as great as this—if in the moment of crisis we still can’t change our direction—what hope is there?

On my walk back to my uncle’s I stopped by the cemetery. I’m not sure why exactly. Maybe I wanted to find the graves of the 47 who died in the fire or maybe I was just feeling morbid after walking through a disaster zone. I found a couple fresh graves but none of them made mention of the train derailment. I guess once you’re buried it doesn’t really matter why. It was a quiet space—clean and presentable—but haunted, and surprisingly similar to the fenced-off wreckage of downtown Lac-Mégantic. Tombstones were decorated with flowers and pillowy clouds hung in the sky above. I was just a short distance from ground zero, but the wreckage was completely gone from sight. It was like it didn’t exist, save for the faint taste of oil in the air. Life moves on, and though the clean up will stretch on for years to come, it’s not as if all of Lac-Mégantic was erased in a fireball.

The loss of Lac-Mégantic, and the spills that continue to crop up around Canada, are a heavy price to pay as the tar sands continue to ship oil. Oil is an old technology, and the pollution from it is killing our planet. Over and over again we commit ourselves to a product that is leading us to doom. We’re captured by comfort and counseled against change—without the oil sands Canada’s economy would lose an estimated $2.1 trillion in “economic benefits,” according to Deloitte, over the next 25 years. 

While government officials love to tout GDP increases as evidence of the benefits the tar sands offer, a significant chunk of that will go to cleaning up environmental disasters like Lac-Megantic. And while hundreds of millions of dollars will be spent to remove the toxic mess, no amount of GDP can ever return Lac-Mégantic to what it once was: an idyllic, peaceful town like so many in rural Canada. Even if the town is physically rebuilt, the emotional scars of its residents and nightmarish memories of that horrible night in July remain, leaving yet another casualty in our seemingly unending thirst for oil. 

Canadians Are Doing Very Cool Shit to Save the Lives of Moms and Babies Around the World

$
0
0



Photo via Flickr user gchallenges.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s three-day global summit on maternal and newborn health, which kicked off yesterday in Toronto, is bringing together major players in the field of international development—from the Aga Khan to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon—to figure out how to save more mothers, babies, and children in poor countries.

Seems like an admirable goal, but it’s received a ton of criticism from United Nations officials, journalists, non-governmental organizations, politicians, and think-tanks. They say the funds aren’t transparent, that Harper doesn’t truly care about maternal health, and that his policy is flawed because it doesn’t include access to safe abortions. This isn't surprising given the Harper government’s refusal to launch an inquiry into the 1,181 missing and murdered aboriginal women within Canada itself.

Still, the situation is an undeniable mess. Each day that goes by, 800 women die from preventable complications related to pregnancy and childbirth.

One thing that folks might be able to agree on, however, is that Canadians are coming up with amazing technologies and ideas to save the lives of mothers and babies around the world.

Even though Harper ended up banning journalists from most of the summit yesterday, we snagged a few interviews with some very impressive Canadians, some of whom showcased their work to global leaders yesterday.

They’ve all gotten funding from Grand Challenges Canada, a government project started in 2008 to find innovative ways to prevent and treat pregnant women and children in poor and isolated communities.

Here’s a sampler of their up-and-coming projects, some of which you can check out this afternoon between 3-5 p.m. at a showcase at Dundas Square downtown Toronto.

An HIV self-test platform

Imagine a world in which someone at risk could test themselves for HIV anywhere they wanted—in their office, at home, on the road… Well, Dr. Nikki Pai from McGill University has designed an online and mobile app that helps South Africans do exactly that. 

With 5.6 million people living with HIV/AIDS in 2011, South Africa has the highest number of people with HIV/AIDS in the world. Even so, many locals who might have it don’t get HIV tests. They stay away because they’re scared of stigma and discrimination, Dr. Pai explained. They also don’t like waiting hours in line.

But now, people at risk don’t have to wait in public for a test. Using Dr. Pai’s app, they can find out how use self-test kits for HIV, including ones that detect HIV on saliva, how to interpret the results, and where to get local treatment.

“It gives them convenience and portability,” she explained. When her team tested the project in South Africaeach person who self-tested positive for HIV was connected to a treatment option within 48 hours.

“And the upside about offering it to pregnant women or women with reproductive potential is that you save two lives,” she said.

The fish that stops anemia

“Lucky Iron Fish,” a tiny metal fish designed by University of Guelph researchers, is Cambodia’s latest lucky charm. Designed to fight iron deficiency in Cambodia, where six in 10 women are anemic, the $5 fish-shaped piece of iron is placed in a pot when cooking meals. It provides 75 percent of a person’s daily iron requirement for a lifespan of three years.

As it releases iron into every meal, it saves lives. Anemia—caused by a lack of iron in the blood—can lead to premature births, hemorrhaging during childbirth, and slow brain development in babies.

Gavin Armstrong, PhD candidate and project leader, told us they originally tried a plain iron disc, but people didn’t care for it.

“It didn’t make any sense, culturally. We discovered that the shape of a fish was a symbol of luck and prosperity in Cambodia. And people thought it would bring their family luck if they used it… people started feeling healthier, and they attributed that to the luck of the fish.”

In the test areas, anemia has pretty much disappeared.



Photo via Flickr user gchallenges.
The hand-powered heart monitor

Monitoring a baby’s heartbeat while it’s still inside its mom is pretty important. A wonky beat is a warning sign that something is wrong. In poor countries, there aren’t many ways to do this effectively.

Community health workers in Uganda have been relying on a pinard, a type of wooden tube used to listen to the baby’s heartbeat by placing one end on the mother’s stomach and the other at the listener’s ear. Since it requires a lot of skill, workers miss opportunities to save lives because they don’t catch abnormal heartbeats.

Until now, the only alternatives have been impractical, electricity-hungry machines that cost thousands of dollars, and are difficult to repair when they break down. That’s where Diego Bassani, a scientist at SickKids Toronto, comes in.

Bassani just finished testing out a hand-powered fetal heart monitor on 2,000 women in Uganda. One minute of winding a wheel gives the monitor 10 minutes of power. And it’s six times better at catching abnormalities than a Pinard. That equals more lives saved. He hopes it will save many of the 1.2 million babies who die each year in “fresh stillbirths”—deaths caused by problems during delivery.

Baby delivery in a box

Over the last 10 to 15 years, the world has made big progress in reducing childhood deaths. But the deaths of newborns, more than 3 million of whom die every year, hasn’t gone down.

Many of these lives could be saved if mothers in poor, rural areas with limited healthcare could access basic tools that would help them prevent infections and hypothermia in their newborns during the first few weeks of life.

And everything they need could come in a small box at a price tag of less than $5, said Dr. Shaun Morris from SickKids. He’s designed a clean delivery kit he believes could save as many as half the babies in poor, remote areas. It’s going to be tested in Pakistan and Kenya.

It includes a clean plastic mat, sterile umbilical cord clamps and a blade to cut the umbilical cord so that the mother doesn't have to use stones and other unsterile objects around the house. Chlorahexadine (an antiseptic) and sunflower oil help protect the baby’s skin and keep it infection-free; a thermostat sticker for the mother keeps track of the baby’s temperature and catches early signs of hypothermia or fever; and a mylar blanket and non-electric heater keep the baby warm.

Most important of all, it’s easy to use.

“You don’t have to get the baby to the hospital. The mum can do it herself,” Morris said.  

An app for measuring blood oxygen

You probably haven’t considered measuring your blood oxygen levels, but if you want to, there’s an app for that. Vancouver-based social enterprise, LionsGate Technologies, has received a $1-million Grand Challenges grant to scale up the Phone Oximeter, their mobile app that can indicate when a pregnant woman is at risk of complications from high blood pressure, known as preeclampsia.

The Phone Oximeter connects the audio port in a cell phone, laptop, or tablet to a low-cost sensor that shines a light through the mother’s finger, revealing blood colour. The redder the better because the redder it is, the more oxygen there is.

It can also measure low oxygen levels in patients with pneumonia, which kills more than one million children a year. The team is about to study how well the app works in India, Pakistan, Mozambique, and Nigeria.

But innovation isn’t all about success. We spoke to Peter Singer, CEO of Grand Challenges Canada, who said many great ideas don’t work out when they’re tested on the ground: “Failure is an inevitable part of innovation. Our job is to fail as quickly and cheaply as possible,” he said.

Taking risks is necessary to find the best affordable innovations that can save and improve lives, he explained, adding that Canada has taken a lead on the issue by being the first country to have a national program of its kind.

 “If you just look at the numbers of women and children dying, it’s like 12,000 jumbo jets crashing every year. That’s obviously an intolerable situation,” he said. “Most of those jets we can help to land safely—that’s what Canada is doing.”


@rp_browne & @alia_d

VICE Premiere: World's Fair Drops the New Track "Uh Huh" and Hits the Road with Two-9

$
0
0

Considering how ill they are, the dudes of the Queens hip-hop collective World's Fair are very down-to-Earth. They show love to all their fans no matter the time or day and break bread with anyone who's cool. The fact that they are so approachable always surprised us, because if we made anything as awesome as Children of the Night's low key classic Queens... Revisited or the collective's collaborative Fool's Gold debut, Bastards of the Party, we'd start talking in the third person, make fans lick-clean our sneakers, and have a dude follow us around with a mirror like Morris Day in Purple Rain

But even though they are nice guys, don't ever try to front on their mic skills. We found this out the other day when we asked World's Fair's Prince SAMO about their new track "Uh Huh." The message he sent back was loud and clear. Speaking to all the would-be MCs out there, he said "We rap better than you—since we were sneaking bottles into Fat Baby or pushing a champagne colored Benz at 18. We've always rapped better than you. We'll rap circles around you rap dummies. We're cash money. We're nice. No matter what. Niggas can't fuck with us... Not on no rapping shit, I can tell you that much." 

So there you have it. World's Fair are some super cool dudes. But when it comes to this music—they'll diarrhea allover you. Check out the new track "Uh Huh," which features Prince SAMO and Cody B. Ware, and catch them on their 15-date Cross Faded tour next month with Atlanta's rowdiest rap collective, Two-9

Legendary Journalist Sebastian Junger Is (Almost) Done Covering Wars

$
0
0

Sebastian Junger in Korengal. Photo by Tim Hetherington

Sebastian Junger knows what war is. The journalist, who rose to fame in 1997 with his best-selling book The Perfect Storm, spent months in Afghanistan’s hostile Korengal valley in 2007 and 2008. There, with photojournalist Tim Hetherington, Junger chronicled a platoon’s efforts to defend an embattled and isolated outpost in what was commonly referred to as the "deadliest place on earth." Toward the end of 2007, a fifth of all combat in Afghanistan was taking place here—50 American soldiers died in this valley. Time magazine named War, Junger’s book about the experience, one of the best nonfiction books of 2010; Restrepo, the film he directed and produced with Hetherington about their experience, was nominated for an Academy Award.

He also knows war’s costs. In 2011, Hetherington was killed in a mortar attack in Misrata, Libya, while covering the revolution. Last year, Junger made a film to memorialize the life and work of his friend, called Which Way Is the Front Line from Here?

I spoke to Junger on the eve of that film’s premiere. "Within about an hour of getting news that Tim was killed," Junger told me, "I decided to stop covering wars." The cost was too high, the risk was too extreme, and he had a family to think of.

But with Korengal, premiering this Friday, Junger revisits the horror, angst, and boredom of war one last time. Not exactly a sequel to Restrepo so much as an alternate cut, Korengal explores the psychic impact of war on those who wage it, using hours of previously unseen on-the-ground footage and interviews. Soldiers wrestle with the morality of murder and while away the dull, disappointing hours between firefights. Korengal Valley is hell, but as one soldier put it after his return from deployment, "I’d rather be there than here. I’d go back right now to Korengal."

Earlier this week I sat down with Junger at the Half King, a New York pub of which he’s part owner. Junger ordered gazpacho and a quesadilla; we both drank coffee. Over lunch, we talked about why it’s safer not to have a gun in a firefight, why he’s been bumming around train tracks, and why it’s so hard to finally walk away from war, for soldiers and journalists alike.

VICE: How did Korengal come about so many years after Restrepo?
Sebastian Junger: When Tim and I finished Restrepo, there was just an enormous amount of great material left over. Every filmmaker has that particular pain, you know, like, Oh my God, there are all these amazing scenes that we couldn’t put in the film. We tried to sell it as a three-part TV series to Nat Geo, but they didn’t go for it.  So we dropped the idea, and then Tim died. 

In January 2013 we got together with the editor from Restrepo, Michael Levine, and started talking about it in completely different terms. Michael said, "Why don’t we structure it loosely the way [War] is structured?" My book is divided into three sections: fear, killing, and love. I said, "As long as we don’t have cards that say that, it’s actually kind of an interesting way to divide the material."

It’s been seven or eight years since you filmed that footage. Were there any moments that you ran across that you’d forgotten about?
There was a very funny scene that Tim had filmed of me.  We didn’t turn the cameras on each other very often. It was before patrol, and we were all geared up, waiting to go out. It was towards the end of they year, and I knew the guys extremely well at that point.

I can hear Tim’s voice laughing, and I’m joking with the guys. They were giving me shit because I didn’t have a weapon. I was like, "Well, I’m actually so badass I don’t need a weapon. The journalist thing is just a cover—I’m actually CIA, and they sent me out here to babysit you guys, make sure you didn’t get in trouble."

And the guys were really laughing. Tim was laughing. It was just a wonderful moment, you know? It brought back a lot of good memories. I really miss that time. It was an amazing experience, and I miss those guys. I miss who I was out there. I miss the whole damn things in a lot of ways. So do a lot of them.

You hear Tim’s voice a couple of times in this film. I wonder if putting this together was a means of continuing to work with him.
I think that was a sort of unintended result more than a motivation. Frankly, I can't wait to get clear of the whole war thing. I really am done with it. 

Watching both Korengal and Restrepo, you can’t help thinking about the danger that both Tim and you put yourselves in. VICE recently had a reporter detained in Ukraine. Where should journalists draw the line when putting themselves in harm’s way?
Every society depends on, among other things, great press and free access to information. Someone’s got to do it somewhere. Or we’ll slide into a kind of Dark Age of oppression. The free press is one of the only things keeping us from that. Wars that go unreported—like Rwanda—tend to be way, way worse than the wars that get very reported. Someone has to do it.

In the 1860s, when the only way to get mail across the country was the Pony Express, they had posters advertising work with the Pony Express. You had to be an expert rider, an expert shot, etc. And you had to be an orphan, or orphans were preferred. The risks were enormous, and if an orphan got killed, it affected other people less than if a guy with three kids and a family got killed. It’s some equivalent of that. It’s like, you're 24, not married, and you don’t have kids. I mean, it’s going to suck for your parents if you get killed, but at least that’s all. By the time you’ve got a family and stuff, the calculation starts to change about what risks you're willing to run. And the more people you're going to affect with your death, the smaller the risk should be.

So does the motivation behind throwing yourself into something like Korengal come from a journalistic duty, or from a personal urge to get into the thick of it, to be part of the action?
I think it’s both. Firemen love being firemen, right? I think they also have some sense that someone’s got to do this and that it’s an honorable job, but they also fucking love it. I think it’s a little bit the same. There's not a journalist out there who’s doing war reporting strictly out of a sense of duty to humanity and who doesn’t love it. I’m sorry. It’s just not happening. They're all getting something out of it, as well they should.

Being a journalist in a wa rzone without a weapon—are you in more peril than the soldiers you’re embedded with?
You have to understand how combat works: The risk isn’t individual. They're shooting from 500 meters at a group of men. It’s not a gunfight in a room where if you're the only guy without a gun, you're fucked. They're shooting automatic weapons at a quarter mile in your general direction.

If I jumped on to the field during an NFL game, I wouldn’t add much to the team that’s running the play. I’m five foot eight, and I don’t know how to play football. Combat is a lot like football—it’s very formulaic. If you don’t know the plays, with or without a gun, you're not going to help much.

Whether you're carrying a gun or not doesn’t affect whether a bullet hits you. Now, the only difference I can say is that if you have a gun, you really are morally obligated to fire in defense of the group. You can't fire a gun without exposing yourself to the guy that’s firing at you. I mean, if we’re behind a boulder, you have to at least peak out from behind the boulder to shoot effectively at the guy shooting at you, and you're now exposed. If you don’t have a gun, you don’t have to do that. In that sense, having a gun actually puts you in more risk. 

The release of your film comes a week after Memorial Day, and it also happens to coincide with the VA scandal that’s unfolding. You’re close with a lot of the veterans you covered in this film—what is it about American society that we treat veterans as though they’re completely disposable?
Our society has a big problem with that. Low-wage earners are seen as disposable in this society. Coal miners, oil-rig workers, fishermen—you know what I mean? All the people we depend on for society to function are seen as disposable. And soldiers are part of that. Like, the more essential and necessary a person’s job is, the less their value, you know?

We actually don’t need hedge-fund managers. We would survive fine without them, or celebrities—and those people are admired. It’s this inverse relationship between the people we need the most, we value the least, and the people we need the least, we value the most. I don’t know why this society does that. It’s insane. Healthy societies don’t do that, but we do.

I studied anthropology in college. If you're a Cheyenne fighter in the 1850s fighting white encroachment into Colorado and Wyoming, your tribe values you. They get it. They understand what you're doing, they value your courage, and they honor your death. It’s been like that for 50,000 years for human beings. Now all of a sudden, the people that this society depends on to survive get very, very little respect and appreciation. Societies that operate that way aren’t going to survive very long.

Photo courtesy of Outpost Films

Now that you’ve left war behind, what’s next?
I just finished another film called The Last Patrol. I noticed going down to DC with Tim once that almost for the entire Amtrak line down to DC, there's a way to walk along the tracks: service roads, dirt bike trails, corn fields. The tracks themselves went right through the ghetto in Baltimore, right through the farms, right through the swamps, the woods, and the suburbs. You're really seeing America from the inside out.  I said to Tim, "Listen, we should walk that sometime—DC to New York, along the railroad lines, carrying everything we need; do a sort of high-speed vagrancy up the East Coast from DC to New York."

And then Tim got killed. So I got two combat vets from Restrepo and my new friend, Guillermo Cervera—who was with Tim when he died—and the four of us set out from DC. We did it over the course of a year. We bought our food as we went; we swam in rivers and got our water out of creeks; we slept in the woods, or under bridges, or in abandoned buildings. We cooked over fires. I brought my dog, Daisy. It was 15 degrees in the winter, and 100 degrees in the summer. We walked through everything. We asked people as we went what they thought of America. Like, How’s America doing? What do you like best about this country? What do you dislike the most? We had long conversations around campfires.

One of the takeaways from Korengal, as well as Restrepo, is how hard it is for veterans to reenter everyday life, how hard it is to function in a mundane environment after you’ve been in life-or-death scenarios. It seems like that’s as true for soldiers as it is for conflict reporters. It sounds like The Last Patrol was a way to inject some adventure into the dullness of life.
Normal life is dull; you just don’t realize it. It’s not without its merits, but it’s dull. I mean, the opposite of dull is something happening that has huge consequences, right? There's consequences on the one side, and dullness on the other side. And the more consequences there are, the less dull things become. And the ultimate consequences are life and death, right? That really gets your attention—it’s the opposite of dull.  We’ve made society in such a way that consequences are kept to a minimum for almost everything.

So how do you find pleasure and excitement in a life that’s admittedly dull?
I think it’s very hard. Young men really seek excitement—I think they're neurologically wired for it. They seek closeness, and they seek excitement, and they get both in combat. And then they come back, and there's no excitement, and there's no closeness. It’s a very alienating, isolating society we live in. And there's no danger, right? So they're dosed up on adrenaline and closeness for a year, and they come back here, and they flat-line, because there isn’t any of either. It’s tremendously hard for them. I think there are little tricks, like The Last Patrol, that give you some of that feeling of closeness.

Now that you’ve left war reporting behind, do you see yourself reporting on veteran issues?
No, I don’t think so. After The Last Patrol comes out, I’ll have moved on to other things. 

So The Last Patrol is a farewell to war for you as well as the veterans that you walked with.
Yeah. I mean, we’re still doing it—still walking the rail lines—we’re just not filming it anymore. We just like it. All of us at the beginning said that we were never going back to war again. Now Guillermo’s in Ukraine, and Dave went back to Afghanistan. Two out of four relapsed. Our casualty rate was 50 percent—half of the group failed to stay away from it.

Why take the train tracks and not a hiking trail?
Woods are easy to figure out—I could live in the woods indefinitely. No problem. What’s hard to figure out is navigating through ghettos, and suburbs, and dealing with society. You're not in the wilderness; you're in the margins of society. You need just enough woods for concealment and cover, so people don’t spot you when you're asleep. But you also need access—you have to buy food as you go. You need to get water. It’s a very complicated problem. You're dodging the police, the Amtrak police. Anyone can hike the Appalachian Trail. It’s easy, and you're supposed to do it.

You encounter people on the tracks. Last time I was out there with a couple friends, we saw this guy walking along the track by himself. There's, like, five of us, and he saw us coming. He stopped, got a pistol out of his bag, and put it in his back pocket. That made us think, you know? He was cool, but he didn’t know if we were cool. There was this very edgy conversation, and then we kept going. Everything was all right. The Appalachian Trail is lovely, but it’s been preserved and set aside for people to do one thing, which is appreciate nature. We’re trying to understand our own society. You're not going to do that on the Appalachian Trail.

So you skirt society.
We’re making ourselves intentionally marginal. When you do that, you understand yourself better, and you understand the things that you're marginal to better. If you want to be marginal, all you have to do is leave your home and not go home that night. Walk out the door, don’t go home that night, and you're marginal.

It’s amazing. It’s incredible how fast you feel that way. You're not part of society anymore. If you're walking around looking for a place to sleep, you're marginal. Wondering where you can get water? You're marginal. Am I safe here, under this bridge? Are there local guys who are going to roll up in a pickup truck and beat me up? You're marginal. And all you have to do is not come home, and you're there.  

So where will the last patrol end?
The Pacific. A couple hundred miles a year. I figure I’ll be at the Pacific in my 70s.

It’ll take a while.
It’ll take a while, I know. But I have a while, hopefully.

Follow Michael Zelenko on Twitter.

A Few Impressions: My Friend, Jonah

$
0
0

I speak of the Apocalypse of Jonah Hill. It’s one that is particularly enjoyable.

Jonah is a person who is so damn entertaining, a lovable mensch who embodies so much and has so much more to give. So much potential. I, too, am an entertainer, though one clothed in much different skin.

I, James Franco, going by looks only, read as the A+ Caucasian—currently defined in the Blue Book of Executive Producers, Casting Directors, and Studios as:

Caucasian, supporting or leading in dramas, Bromance, stoner flicks, Broadway, and weird indie shit: Slightly ethnic in the East Coast way—a space that 70 years ago would have been filled by the likes of Clark Gable or Cary Grant—one further progressed by the earnest and category-defying dedication of full-blooded Italians like 70s-era DeNiro and Pacino, and tough-and/or-sensitive-Jewish-guy performances by Dustin Hoffman.

Early on in his career, however, Jonah was hired as someone to fill Seth Rogen's "Likable Jew with a Fresh Mouth" bucket—a more relatable, more affable, less drug-addled form of John Belushi (or James Belushi, according to Rogen) and his pop-inflected descendant, Chris Farley.

Then it changed, culminating in the commercially-and-critically-lauded locus with The Wolf of Wall Street. It is now apparent that Jonah has traversed a much different road than expected, one that is quickly veering toward Total Greatness.

I have a friend in Palo Alto who is a doctor by trade, one who spent his 30s and 40s as the Grateful Dead’s private physician. He’s Jewish and has Jonah’s (and, in fact, Seth Rogen’s) squat frame. Their same curly hair and sanguine demeanor. Stoned and complacent and selfishly lazy until he’s not, all the time. He is a man who now, as a drug-free crusader for various charities, is, in my mind, a strange barometer of the attractiveness of Jonah Hill as a public persona.

Strangely, this physician—a guy who babysat Jerry Garcia while he drifted through cosmic orbits and listened to “Friend of the Devil” amid thousands upon thousands of people high out of their goddamn mind—has made it very apparent to me over the years that he did not like Seth Rogen’s work. From the highfalutin days of Pineapple Express to our current collaborations on This Is the End, Comedy Central’s roast of me, and the yet-to-be released The Interview.

This same man who hates Seth Rogen with all of his being, a man who is presumably sworn to the Hippocratic Oath, holds Jonah Hill in highest regard. “He comes off very well on those talk shows,” the good doctor once said to me.

The genre that Seth and Judd Apatow arguably created, and to some extent I participated in—The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Superbad, Pineapple Express, Knocked Up—the Bromance-plus genre that includes the crucial ingredient of actual emotional underpinnings so that comedy doesn’t override the integrity of the characters, so that you care about them.

On the other hand, Jonah is the younger version of Seth who rode into the consciousness of the youth market on the magic carpet of Superbad—a vehicle that Seth had actually written for himself, with his ever-present creative partner, Evan Goldberg, back when the two were in junior high. When it finally got green-lit and made, Seth was too old for the role. While on the set of Knocked Up, everyone realized that the fill-in for Seth’s part in Superbad was right under their noses. A quick reading in the producers’ trailer convinced all involved that Jonah was going to kill it as the loudmouthed high school schlub, desperate to get laid.

And kill it he did. Jonah is so fucking good in Superbad that wordsmiths of the likes of Eminem have memorized his every line. The issue of improvisation is a tricky one, and in this case one where Jonah’s contribution to the film cannot be overstated. The discussion of who deserves credit for what line on these kinds of movies always descends into murky areas, because these are living and breathing comedies made with the best people in the business. On all movies—especially movies of this nature, where most scenes are created in front of the camera through spur-of-the-moment discoveries—putting labels on who did what is a fruitless exercise because they are true collective efforts.

Nonetheless, whether Jonah contributed 10 or 90 percent the lines in the version of Superbad that screened in theaters and was beloved by millions, he was turned into a comedy superstar overnight. Jonah has said he can trace it to the precise moment the billboard went up over Canter’s Deli on Fairfax near his house: Before the billboard, he was just a hip nerd hanging out in Canter’s on a given night. After the billboard, he couldn’t eat his matzo ball soup in peace and would end up signing autographs all night.

Recently, in the aftermath of Jonah's becoming a two-time Oscar nominee destined for bona fide Hollywood greatness, I tried to explain to the Seth-hating physician that he should like Seth because he embodies the kind of counterculture figure that the physician admired in the Dead. Seth is someone who makes movies his own way, and successfully—one who doesn’t bow to accepted formulas of filmmaking and, in fact, plowed the way for performers like Jonah as the lovable, straight-talking anti-leading man. The good doctor laughed: “Well, I’m just going by what I see in the movies and on talk shows,” he said. “You know them both personally, so you have a better idea of what they’re really like. I just don’t like that stoner persona of Seth’s.”

Now, what of this need for this abstract concept of “respect” as it pertains to Hollywood? And when we say “respect,” what does it mean? In the world of film—particularly film actors—and celebrity, this need comes in many different variations. In many cases, no matter what the outer shell (slightly ethnic conventional leading man and unconventional crossover from comedy to drama alike), this desire for respect seems to boil down to wanting to be fully dimensional.

What is my motive for writing about Jonah? Is it not to use him as a reflection of myself and, by extension, all actors in this crazy business? To extrapolate even further, all people in this crazy world? In his latest venture, Jonah plays a rapacious sidekick to Leo’s Wall Street wolf. As Jonah said to me, when it meant that The Wolf of Wall Street would delay the filming of our yet-to-be-released film, True Story: “James, you have to let me do [Wolf]. It’s everything I got into acting for: Scorsese, the Pesci character to Leo’s DeNiro. I mean, it’s the best!” And Jonah is damn good in the film. Is it a harbinger of all the great work that he will now do outside of straight comedy? Only time will tell.

Jonah’s true, personal character was belied during my roast on Comedy Central. I may have been the nominal roastee, but I purposefully didn’t watch any of the previous roasts beforehand, in order to remain blissfully ignorant of what was going to happen. I was under the misconception that I alone would be roasted by the other eight members of the panel for several hours—which is why I had no problem asking friends to participate.

Little did I know that everyone would be blasting one another as much as me. I know that Jonah knew this beforehand, and yet he still agreed to do the roast. If he did nothing else for me, it’s his participation in the roast that showed his loyalty and friendship. In many ways, it turned into the roast of Jonah Hill, and he must have known it was coming. All the jokes and criticism that he feared and had avoided in This Is the End came at him full-force at the roast. And he survived.

I think Jonah came out of that experience a better person because he faced his fears, and in such a public way. From this point on his career and life choices can be made from a centered place, because he has accepted who he is: a talented young nebbish who can swing both ways (comedy and drama) better than anyone.

Does Anyone Care That One Direction Was Caught Smoking Weed?

$
0
0

Photo by Jake Lewis

Shock isn't the currency it used to be. There was a time when it was involuntary, like bruising after getting punched; you saw something shocking and you were shocked—it was reactionary, unbiased and apolitical. But not any more; now, it's arbitrary and targeted. The British Prime Minister calls someone a twat, he's off the hook. One of his ministers calls a pig a pleb, he's sacked. The media picks and chooses its bastards and its heroes with the arbitrary calculation of a freeway sniper. And because of this it's become very difficult to gauge what's going to rile people.

This week, One Direction—the North and South of the Ask.FM generation—discovered that not even the most time-tested display of rebellion can wind people up any more. New footage has emerged of Zayn and Louis smoking a "cannabis cigarette" in a car, in Peru. It's an age-old trope, a rite of passage. These are young guys, in a band, bored, in South America. Let's face it, it could have been a lot worse. But it's still made the news and inspired reactions that range from the indignant to the preachy to the staggeringly unfunny.

The vid itself is a strange one, and after watching it several times I can't quite work out the true intentions that lay behind not only filming it, but the seemingly all-too-easy leaking of it.

Is it an orchestrated attempt to give the rest of the band a bit of notoriety while Harry Styles carries on cuckolding the planet like the ASOS Byron he so wishes to be? Or is it an unintentionally leaked, primary document of the One Direction experience? The closest representation we'll see until Simon Cowell ghost-writes their version of The Dirt 30 years from now?

It's hard to say, really. On one hand the act doesn't seem forced or faked. But, then again, why are they filming it so brazenly? After all, nothing really happens in it—it's a shitty video. And how did it leak when they're only really surrounded by their own people? Something fishy is afoot, and I think the motivations lay somewhere between scandal and accident. It seems like they want to get caught, like they're wilfully creating negative publicity.

Even if Zayn and Louis are trying to establish some kind of bad-boy status, in actuality they come off more like the stars of a dated anti-drugs video you might have seen in a 9th grade health class lesson. Normal lads who think it's OK to smoke a bit of weed, only to find themselves selling their bodies for doobies a week later. The sort of thing some fat cop would come into your school and show you, before explaining that it's only a matter of time before the nuggets turn into needles.

Getting caught with weed is not just a long-established trope of British popular culture, but a rite of passage for boy bands. In fact, it's practically a cliche. It started with the Stones and The Beatles, who were caught unawares and probably regarded to be quite subversive at the time, then actually got in trouble with the law.

But then it quickly descended into a series of PR-managed wrist-slaps for any pop groups needing an extra press-push at the turn of the millennium. S Club 7, for example, were caught stinking of sticky green in Covent Garden at 4:30 PM—an act of public blazing so flagrant that even guys I know who wake 'n' bake on Christmas morning probably wouldn't risk it.

Then came Birmingham bad-boys 5ive, who controversially told Sky Magazine in 2000 that "It grows, it's natural. And if you believe in God, how can anything that grows be illegal?" For that brief moment, they were British pop music's answer to Bill Hicks, had he believed in God and shaved lines into his eyebrows. 

It was an era when smoking weed still was pretty shocking to the masses, as unlikely teen hearthrob Mikey Graham from Boyzone found out when he was dropped as the face of ASDA grocery stores for merely suggesting that the herb be legalized. But is that still the case in 2014?

The media seems to be unimpressed and relatively un-shocked, yet still aware that drugs and rock and roll are two of the three things most likely to sell papers—and, as such, are happy to plaster it across their pages. Still, the tone of judgment has shifted, and smoking weed now seems to be regarded in the same way that being a bit of a ladies' man always has been: cheekily, with eyebrows raised. (At least Peter Hitchens is keeping it real.) 

From Miley Cyrus to Wiz Khalifa, through Rihanna, Bieber, and Snoop, smoking weed is still viewed as a way to set yourself aside from the suits and Scientology crowd. But why? Because it's illegal? Piers Morgan got done for speeding, nobody thinks he's cool. 

Smoking weed just isn't very dangerous any more—I mean, it's practically legal in America. It's permeated culture so deeply—from the pop stars trying to get caught to the Prime Minister boasting of "perfectly normal university experiences"—that it seems bizarre how it can still raise any kind of scandal at all. Barack Obama admits he was in some weird Hawaiian version of a stoner gang and we're still supposed to be surprised that two guys in a boy band are smoking? Unless you've got some kind of Kyuss-hating Eliot Ness on your case, the police don't even really care that much.

In a world where the “legalize it" debate still rages, watching the media reaction is an interesting way to gauge the moral stance on the leaf. And looking at the reception to Zayn and Louis’ Harold and Kumar moment, it seems like most outlets are almost proud of the naughty young men these boys are becoming, giving their tacit approval with a wink and awful jokes like: "Looks like the only direction they’re going is higher." 

The odd evangelical 1D fan aside, it’s clear that most people are a long way from being shocked by weed. I have my own reservations about the realities of a world where weed is sold illicitly in dingy liquor stores, but smoking it is now just part of our shared culture. It's an utterly predictable teenage rite of passage—something that we think is cool for a bit, before realizing it’s not. So not unlike One Direction, really.

Follow Clive Martin on Twitter.

VICE News: The Rise of Sweden's Far-Left Militants

$
0
0

Ultra-nationalist political parties scored unprecedented victories at the European elections, making the rise of the far right in Europe impossible to ignore. Many of these groups, some of which are openly neo-Nazi, are gaining strength everywhere.

In Sweden, there's been a sharp rise in political violence in the country, with crimes carried out by radical groups making headlines. However, what's unusual is that one of the most violent extremist organizations in Sweden aligns itself not with Nazism and the far right but with anti-fascism and the far-left.

Known as the Revolutionary Front, this group of militant socialists aims to crush fascism by any means necessary. VICE News set out to find the Revolutionary Front and to understand the unlikely rise of the militant far left in Sweden.


What Happens When a Men’s Rights Organization Throws a Music Festival in Toronto? It Gets Cancelled

$
0
0

Never underestimate the ignorance of men’s rights-types.

When I asked Toronto musician and recording studio owner Gene Hughes, organizer of the freshly canceled Equality Day music festival at Toronto Island—organized in conjunction with the Canadian Association For Equality, an “equality” (read: men’s rights) group we’ve written about previously—if it’s in poor taste to host a men’s rights event in light of the “events of the past week” (read: Elliot Rodger’s misogyny-fuelled spree killing and the resultant anti-women fallout), he says he has no idea what I’m talking about.

“To tell you the truth, I’ve been living this festival 24/7. You’re referring to events in the US?” asks Hughes. “Was it over a divorce?”

On Sunday, June 1, Artscape Gibraltar Point on Toronto Island was supposed to host E-Day Island Fest, a daytime concert headlined by Ron Hawkins and Do Good Assassins and Spookey Ruben (best known for the 1995 yodel-pop single “These Days Are Old”). Artscape, the proprietors of the island venue, has since backed out as a host, noting in a Facebook post that the event’s political nature “contravenes our policy.”

VICE reached out to Spookey Ruben’s management to ask if their team understood E-Day was actually a men’s rights event. We were told flatly that they had no idea. Likewise, BlogTO had credited E-Day as one of the top events of the weekend—until they presumably realized the event’s political agenda, and deleted their post.

The festival was meant to celebrate the first annual Equality Day, a made-up holiday that doesn’t (and shouldn’t) exist, given the organizer’s dubious activist bona fides and their loaded used of the word “equality.” Hughes told me that all the artists scheduled to perform at the concert are “on board” with the sorta-secret agenda, provided they read the event description. But a quick scan of the Canadian Association For Equality (CAFE) website reveals a program that’s oriented more around a specific type of “equality.”

CAFE’s mandate starts out innocently—even promisingly—enough, laying out the association’s commitment to “achieving equality for all Canadians, regardless of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, family status, race, ethnicity, creed, age or disability.” But before long, like an innocuous backrub edging into full-on creepy territory, the rhetoric turns, stressing CAFE’s “current focus on the status, health and well-being of boys and men.” Among CAFE’s imagined “Areas of Concern” are father’s rights, legal biases against men, the “Boys Crises” (good name for a shitty oi! band) and, naturally, misandry (not a thing), described as “hatred and contempt for men.” They’re even spearheading, as one of their “tangibles,” an International Day Against Misandry.

CAFE seems pretty careful when it comes to phrasing. There’s no mention of feminism. And the softer “men’s issues” stands in for the more common (and loaded, and ludicrous) “men’s rights.” But their backhandedness is even more disingenuous, with the warm-fuzzy concept of “equality” serving as shorthand for “increased equality for men.”

The E-Day website makes further attempts to cloak CAFE’s pro-men chest-beating, writing that Equality Day (which “falls neatly right between Mother’s day and Father’s day”). It also states support for Bill C560, a private member’s bill introduced by Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott—known for his rampant championing of the pro-life movement—meant to revise Canada’s divorce laws to grant equal parenting rights. The bill has been criticized for privileging the rights of parents over those of children. It was defeated in Parliament on Wednesday. Hughes didn’t know this either. “Again, my head is in the sand,” he confesses. “But that’s not shocking to me. We need more time.” (Hughes was drawn to CAFE following his own court battle, where he vied for the right to see his children following a separation with their mother).

While there may be legitimate criticism about the Canadian Family Court system, gussying up what’s essentially a men’s rights (or “men’s issues”) shindig as an “Equality Day” skirts that line between the laughable and the totally sinister. The bogus, newspeakish oratory about “equality for all” is precisely the sort of misleading, deceitful rhetoric that has consolidated the power, privilege, rights, experience, and issues of men. But Hughes seems to view even acknowledging the structural differences in gender and identity as mere “genderism” (also not a thing, at least not in the way he’s implying). And despite it not even being a real idea, he regards genderism as being “as bad as racism.”

“I don’t like hanging out with people who are angry and have an axe to grind about a particular race, or a particular sexual orientation, or a particular gender,” he says. “Because it’s bullshit. Any intelligent person knows that.”

It’s telling that he mentions gender after race and sexual orientation, as if the concept of gendered oppression against men can somehow acquire residual voltage from association with legitimate concerns like racism and homophobia. It’s as revealing as CAFE’s play for continued men’s superiority as a form of “equality.” Like most of these men’s rights-types, it’s like they want everything and the grievance of not having enough.

It’s not long before Hughes’ ostensibly well-meaning agenda of just wanting to see his kids explodes into the kind of delusional grandiloquence that typifies so much of the men’s rights movement and adjacent strains of activism.

“When you’re on the vanguard of any kind of social movement, there’s always going to people that say ‘you don’t have rights, how dare you stand up!’” he says. “That’s specific to any angle or any group. People said that about blacks, they said that about Jews, gays, whatever.”

Yes. “Whatever.”

__

†:Incidentally, I’m a little troubled to find out that the version of Microsoft Word I’m typing in, like, right now no longer flags “misandry” as a non-word, despite it referring only to an imagined, made up concept. So I guess I’m forced to accept that misandry is, if only technically, a thing; though only in the same way that “unicorn” or “jackalope” are things—referring the things spilling out of the hazy ether of imagination.


@johnsemley3000

Canada’s Refusal to Allow Ugandan LGBT Activists into the Country Speaks to a Wider Hypocrisy

$
0
0



Photo via WikiMedia Commons.
A contingent of Ugandan LGBT activists were recently denied visitor visas to attend World Pride 2014, which will be held in Toronto this summer. The move comes as a surprise given the Canadian government’s strong, condemnatory stance on Uganda’s repressive regime criminalizing homosexuality.

The contingent of activists—comprised of ten men and women who are all currently risking their lives in the fight for LGBT rights on the ground in Uganda—were invited to a human rights conference at the University of Toronto taking place June 25-27. Just one member of the contingent, keynote speaker Dr. Frank Mugisha, a highly prominent advocate and a 2014 nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, is able to come to Canada on a multiple-entry visa he had been issued for previous travels.

Brenda Cossman, conference co-chair, told the Toronto Star that it remains critical to the global solidarity movement that the contingent be able to attend the World Pride human rights conference. The conference wants to hear from the delegation so that effective allyship is possible from abroad.

“We are at risk of losing their voices,” said Cossman.

Dr. Mugisha is a lawyer and the executive director of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG), an umbrella NGO that describes itself as aiming “to liberate LGBT in Uganda.” SMUG is a network of organizations serving LGBT people across Uganda that came about in 2004, including smaller organizations like Icebreakers Uganda (serves LGBT Ugandans who are in the process of coming out), Spectrum Uganda (focuses on the health and well being of LGBT Ugandans), and the Transgender Initiative Uganda.

Mugisha was close friends and colleagues with the former advocacy officer at SMUG, David Kato. Kato, considered a father of the Ugandan LGBT rights movement and “Uganda’s first openly gay man” was murdered in January 2011 shortly after successfully suing a tabloid for publishing the names, photos, and addresses of 100 suspected LGBT Ugandans with the order to “hang them.” Several people on the list were viciously attacked, and many went into hiding afterwards.

Mugisha is himself the plaintiff in a lawsuit brought by SMUG and supported by the Centre for Constitutional Rights, against American evangelical Scott Lively and Abiding Truth Ministries (considered a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center) for his work on the Anti-Homosexuality Act and in cultivating a culture of homophobic populism in Uganda. Lively has personally endorsed the death penalty for LGBT individuals.

What’s worse, The Fellowship Foundation or “The Family”—the same US religious group that organizes the National Prayer Breakfast at the White House—also provided “a base of inspiration and technical support” for the Anti-Homosexuality legislation in Uganda.

Since the bill was signed into law in February 2014, SMUG reports that anti-gay attacks have increased ten-fold, including lynchings, mob violence, evictions, arson, blackmail, firings, and arrests. Within days of the legislation going into effect, another list of 200 alleged homosexuals was printed in a newspaper. Dr. Mugisha’s name was on it.  

Uganda has made life hell for LGBT people.

John Baird, Canada’s foreign minister, took a strong stance against the legislation in February, antagonizing Ugandan politicians who frame their virulent legislation as anti-colonial. “This act is a serious setback for human rights, dignity and fundamental freedoms, and deserves to be widely condemned,” he said at the time, “Canada will speak out.”

Baird went on to invoke the legacy of David Kato, who was bludgeoned to death with a hammer in his own Ugandan home.

Why, then, has Canada denied 9/10 visas to a contingent that includes Kato’s friends and colleagues, who are currently fighting for LGBT rights on the ground in Uganda? The hypocrisy is stunning. The applications were rejected due to a combination of reasons. It appears the government is concerned the ten would seek asylum in Canada, a worry that is deeply disappointing, especially in light of Baird’s comments. Other official reasons for their refusal into Canada include: lack of previous travel history, lack of family ties in Canada (really?), andinsufficient funds for the trip. Read: too poor.

Hardcore evangelical Americans are not alone in providing material support for the Anti-Homosexuality Act on the ground. Previously, Ottawa provided nearly half a million dollars in funding to an anti-gay religious group to do development work in Uganda. When taken with the backstory of Canada quietly bankrolling groups that support homophobic legislation and denying visas to LGBT Ugandans, Minister Baird’s condemnations of Uganda carry little weight. For that matter, so do President Obama’s. Until Western governments admit their complicity in both colonialism and in fueling supposedly anti-colonial homophobic populism, indictments of Uganda ring hollow.

In a piece recently written for the Guardian, Mugisha explains the paradox succinctly, “I want my fellow Ugandans to understand that homosexuality is not a western import and our friends in the developed world to recognise that the current trend of homophobia is.”

VICE reached out to Baird’s office for comment and was referred instead to Minister Chris Alexander’s office at Citizenship and Immigration which is currently working with MP Craig Scott to try to expedite the reapplication process and reverse the decision:

"Our Conservative government was among the first to speak out against state-sponsored homophobia in Russia. We welcome resettled gay refugees from Iran and around the world. We have led the international response to repression of the LGBT community in Uganda and elsewhere in Africa. Citizenship and Immigration Canada will continue to do everything it can, under our immigration laws, to make this conference a success. Under Canadian law, decisions on individual visa applications are made by highly-trained public servants," a spokesperson said.

MP Craig Scott has said he expects “the right thing” to be done in the end. With the conference set for the end of June, the clock is ticking to process the applications which will be resubmitted this week, according to Cossman. It seems, however, that the story of Canada’s role in supporting (or undermining) LGBT rights in Uganda goes beyond issuing ten temporary visas—and that’s a larger conversation we haven’t had yet.  


@muna_mire

California Has Realized That Sex Offender Registries Don't Work

$
0
0

Photo via Flickr User Paul Bonke Justesen

The California Sex Offender Management Board, which oversees California's sex offender registration laws announced last week that the database is too big, and that it's not helpful in its current form. The San Francisco Chronicle reported on Sunday that the board is recommending to the state legislature that only violent offenders, such as kidnappers and sexual predators be compelled to register for life. The overhaul would be a far cry from abolishing "Santa's Naughty List" completely.

All states must have sex offender registries, but California's is the weightiest, with over 100,000 lucky members, 900 of whom have been molestation-free for 55 years or more. 

This is partly because the state is the most populous, but moreover, all California sex offenders, no matter their offense, have to stay registered for life, including public urinators, underage sexters, and women who flash their tits at concerts.

The last of these leads to "hilarious" articles like this one featuring lists of babealicious babes who are sex offenders! I wouldn't mind one of them molesting me! It's funny because sex offender registries are a waste of public funds, and do nothing except punish sex offenders for life with unnecessary inconvenience and bureaucracy! LOL.

And consequently the sex offenders themselves have been lobbying for a change like this. Last year, the New York Times reported on the Herculean task of standing up for your rights, such as they are, when you're among what is unquestionably the most hated category of Americans. “I find it very offensive that registered sex offenders are trying to defeat the measures we have put in place to protect children,” an activist lawyer named Nina Solerno told the Times. “They created their own issues. In trying to find sympathy, they’re forgetting that somebody was assaulted, in many cases a child." Touché.

Jim Nielsen, who doesn't believe we should "intellectualize" these things. Screencapped from his site

But momentarily taking it for granted that sex offender registries work (They don't), there's a line where fairness ends, and needless torment begins, isn't there? It would be wrong to, say, let them become middle school gym teachers. Conversely it would be wrong to give them all lobotomies. I'm not saying either extreme is being argued for, but I am saying there's an argument over where the line is, and for the time being we've settled on sex offender registries, because they seem practical, not just punitive. 

But as I've hinted, California's registry isn't practical. Amanda Agan, a postdoctoral fellow in economics at Princeton studied sex offender registries at The University of Chicago. She explained her findings to NPR's On the Media in 2011. She compared multiple studies, across multiple types of registries, including ones like California's, and found that when the information is public, the patten of recidivism (which means committing a crime again) was discouraging.

When they were in a public registry there was "a slight increase in how much they recidivated," although "a slight deterrent effect for first-time offenders. But as the registry size grows, it seems like that recidivism effects swamps the first-time registrant effect. And so, we get kind of an overall increase in sex crimes." Are you getting this? Sex crimes increased.

One possible reason she cites is opportunity cost. Good citizens who don't commit sex crimes have a lot to lose. Registered sex offenders on the other hand, "are somewhat more isolated from society, and that may make it so if they are thinking about committing a crime, the costs that we may think of—the cost that we may lose our job, that we may lose the ties to our families—those costs don’t exist for them anymore."

But not all sex offender registries are like this. Some states only register sex criminals for ten years. Some states only register violent offenders. California's policies have created the world's largest registry, and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger added massive and expensive measures to make it even more unlivable if you're on the list, like GPS monitoring for life, despite 95 percent of sex crimes being committed by people who weren't in the registry. 

That the board that oversees the registry itself is now calling for a change is an indication that they may have finally noticed the problem. The steps they're proposing would bring California's sex offender registry down to the relative sanity of most other states, i.e. from draconian to just useless. Nancy O'Malley, who chairs the board assured the Chronicle "What we are proposing won't jeopardize public safety or unleash sex offenders who are dangerous in the community," "If done correctly and if done in a way that isn't so broad that no one is held accountable, then the public doesn't have to fear about their safety or their children's safety." It has a nice, reasonable sound to it.

But legislators won't listen to reason. They literally said they won't. One particular California state assemblyman named Jim Nielsen, from Yolo County, said, "I'm willing to work in a responsible way on legislation that builds in the highest level of protections for the public. This proposal concerns me enormously. I think the risks are too great to try to intellectualize this stuff."

Follow Mike Pearl on Twitter.

Cry-Baby of the Week

$
0
0

It's time, once again, to marvel at some idiots who don't know how to handle the world:

Cry-Baby #1:Tatyana Granada

Screencaps via CTV Calgary

The incident: A woman was sent to prison for three years after being caught putting needles in the bread at her local supermarket.

The appropriate response: Being thankful that you weren't imprisoned for longer. 

The actual response: She is suing the supermarket as she claims that being sent to prison has ruined her life. 

Back in 2012, Calgary resident Tatyana Granada (pictured above) was sent to prison for placing pins, needles, and "other objects" into bakery and dairy items in her local Co-Op.

During the trial, she confessed that she'd tampered with the food to get back at the store, as they had previously banned her for shoplifting.

She was sentenced to three years in prison, but ended up being released on parole in March of this year.

Now, according to CTV Calgary, Tatyana has launched a $7.3 million defamation lawsuit against Co-Op, claiming that being convicted of the crimes led to emotional distress and material loss.

She claims that being arrested caused her "loss of family honor," which led to her husband taking his own life.

She also claims that the negative attention she received from the media and online as a result of her food-tampering has affected her ability to get a job. This is something that, presumably, will not be helped by launching a frivolous lawsuit against the victims of her crime. 

Tatyana intends to represent herself in court. Probably best not to waste money on a lawyer for this one, eh?

Cry-Baby #2: Leah Mackay

The incident: A woman was asked to calm down after shouting obscenities on a bus. 

The appropriate response: Realizing you're being a dick and shutting up.

The actual response: She attacked three small children.

On Thursday of last week, 44-year-old Leah Mackay boarded a bus in Langley, Canada.

Leah allegedly got into an argument with the bus driver after refusing to pay her fare. According to onlookers, she was swearing and shouting.

An unnamed mother of three reportedly stepped in and asked Leah to calm down. 

Leah opted not to take the mother's advice, and decided instead to (allegedly) say, "I don't give a fuck about your kids, I'm going to kill them and kill you and spit on their graves." Which is the exact opposite of calming down.

According to one witness, Leah then threw a cup of coffee at the woman's youngest child, which is less than one year old. 

In video of what happened next (which is embedded above) the mother of the children can be seen repeatedly punching the coffee-thrower in the face while screaming "DON'T FUCKING TOUCH MY KIDS!"—which may be the first time an appropriate reaction has ever been featured in this column.

The mother is reported to have exited the bus with Leah following her. 

According to police, Leah then took out a knife before shoving the woman's four-year-old daughter and kicking her two-year-old daughter in the back. 

Police were notified and arrested Leah at her home. She is being held on multiple charges. None of the children she allegedly attacked were seriously injured. 

Which of these Canadian ladies is the bigger cry-baby? Let us know in this poll right here:

Previously: A woman who called in a bomb threat so she wouldn't get caught lying Vs. a woman who threatened to shoot up a Burger King over a Cinnabon

Winner: The bomb threat girl!!!

Follow Jamie Lee Curtis Taete on Twitter

Maya Angelou Is the Reason We Need International Whores’ Day

$
0
0

Photo via Flickr user LynRDavis

Maya Angelou was a prostitute, and no one talks about it. Angelou, who died Wednesday at age 86, is most famous for her memoirs, poetry, and contributions to the Civil Rights movement.  She was also a Tony-nominated stage actor, San Francisco’s first black female streetcar conductor, and, in her younger days, a prostitute and brothel manager.

Angelou was always forthcoming about her sex work, both in interviews and in her second autobiography, Gather Together in My Name. Media outlets who reported on her- both during her life and after her death- were not as candid about the subject. The articles that mention Angelou’s sex work make a point to describe it as “brief” or a “short-lived stint.” Many other articles omit it completely.

It’s true that Angelou’s sex work days were fairly short, and it’s easy to argue that her sex work was far outshone by her many accomplishments in literature, theater progressive politics, and, pretty much every other category in the entire world. I’m willing to bet she was an astronaut at some point. But no one is arguing that “Maya Angelou Was a Prostitute” should be the headline of her every obituary- just that her sex work should be acknowledged in a less perfunctory way.

Some sex work activists argue that the media’s evasiveness of the subject contributes to the stigma around sex work. To gloss over a part of her life that Angelou spoke openly about suggests that the subject is too shameful to speak about, which is, of course, a commonly held belief. People don’t like to utter the words “beloved author” and “sex worker” in the same sentence. Angelou’s sex work, when it’s acknowledged at all, is framed as a piece of juicy gossip. 

“Why are you still talking about recently deceased author Maya Angelou? Isn’t this article about International Whores’ Day?” Yes, it is. This article is so topical it is borderline illegal.

Prostitutes in Barcelona. Photo via Flickr user Sergio Uceda

International Whores’ Day, also known as International Sex Workers’ Day, is the most necessary holiday you’ve never heard of. It aims to remove the stigma around sex work, and to promote the basic rights of sex workers. Those goals sound simple enough, but sex work activists are up against centuries of stigma, which has a habit of sticking around.

Celebrated on June 2nd, International Whores’ Day began in France in 1975, the result of French sex workers’ anger at a government that at best failed to protect them and at worst actively worked to oppress them. For centuries, prostitution itself was not illegal in France, but “surrounding activities,” like pimping or owning a brothel, were. (This is the case once again in present-day France, though politicians take steps toward abolishing prostitution altogether every so often.)

Officially, France became an “abolitionist” state in 1960, when it ratified the UN Convention on the Suppression of Trafficking and the Exploitation of Prostitution. Though enforcement was spotty, abolitionism brought harsher police crackdowns upon French sex workers and left them with no government protections, metaphorically or literally. In 1975, after two prostitutes were murdered in Lyon and the French government did virtually nothing about it, sex workers staged a protest, occupying the Saint-Nizier church for eight days. The banner they hung on the church’s door read “nos enfants ne veulent pas leur mère en prison”—“our children do not want their mothers in prison.”

International Whores’ Day soon spread, well, internationally, although the United States is doing a crappy job of even knowing it exists. To the great surprise of everyone, France wasn’t the only country that could stand to learn how to respect its sex workers. (A “sex worker,” by the way, isn’t necessarily a prostitute—“sex workers” is a broader category that includes prostitutes, exotic dancers, porn actors, and many other professions.) 

A Syrian Brothel. Photo by Falko Siewert

But most importantly, why does this holiday have the word “whore” in it? Is it too offensive to be put in the same headline as "Maya Angelou," or is it badass?

Jessie Nicole has worked in the sex industries for roughly seven years, is the former director of the LA chapter of the Sex Workers Outreach Project, and considers herself an active member of sex work communities. “In most sex work communities,” Nicole says, “‘whore’ or ‘hooker’ are used as terms we're reclaiming for ourselves, but are still derogatory when used by people outside of that reclamation project.” Think of it like the word “queer,” which was originally a derogatory term (and still can be), but has been reclaimed by people in LGBT communities and now has an entirely different meaning. In other words, don’t go shouting it from your car, but know that it has a different meaning when used by someone in within the community in question.

As I mentioned before, International Whores’ Day is not well-known in the United States. Even sex workers who are aware of the holiday, Jessie Nicole says, “tend to be already connected to activist communities.” It’s something of a chicken-and-egg problem: the goal of holidays like this is to change cultural values, but it’s difficult to get a culture to accept such a holiday in the first place. Also, I’ve never successfully explained the concept of word reclamation to anyone over age 30. But that’s exactly why we need holidays like International Whores’ Day: to humanize a group who have had the word “whore” spat at them for centuries.

It’s a day to listen to the needs of people who are denied the privilege of speaking about their work without shame. And to accept that “beloved author” and “sex worker” are not mutually exclusive.

Follow Allegra Ringo on Twitter

Viewing all 38002 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images