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

Is There Too Much THC in Colorado?

0
0

Photo via Flickr user MattysFlicks

Last week, a 62-year-old woman visited Colorado, bought some marijuana candy, ate it in her hotel room, got way too high as a result, and penned an account of the experience that captivated the nation, or at least the part of the nation that spends too much time giggling on Twitter.

“I felt a scary shudder go through my body and brain. I barely made it from the desk to the bed, where I lay curled up in a hallucinatory state for the next eight hours,” Maureen Dowd, the New York Times columnist and spiritual descendant of Hunter S. Thompson, wrote on June 3. “As my paranoia deepened, I became convinced that I had died and no one was telling me.”

The immediate response to Dowd’s bad trip was a shudder of not-undeserved gleeful cackling. “She largely suffered her fate due to an overdose of stupidity,” wrote VICE’s David Bienenstock, who scoffed at the columnist for apparently not doing any “research regarding a proper dosage of THC for a novice user, the amount of time the drug will take before you begin to feel its effects, or even the overall potency of the product she selected.”

Though Dowd did get warned that THC-infused edibles can really fuck you up if you can’t handle your bud (though probably not in those words), she “was focused more on the fun than the risks,” according to a statement she wrote in response to the post-column brouhaha. “In that sense, I’m probably like many other people descending on Denver.”

The longtime Times writer may be such a weed neophyte that she doesn’t know how to roll a joint, but she’s not wrong that the new regime in Colorado makes it easy for newbies to overdo it and end up tweaking out. The emerging legal weed industry in the state is still in an odd, transitional stage, and it can be downright unfriendly to casual tourists like Dowd who want to try this “marijuana” thing everyone seems to be talking about.

For starters, the bud sold in the state is the most powerful weed anyone has ever smoked. Pot potency has increased dramatically over the past two decades: According to Todd Ellison, the CEO of Weed Media, a Colorado-based marketing company, weed in the 70s contained about 14 or 15 percent THC, whereas today an average strain in Colorado will be 24 or 26 percent.

“Because of the environment you've created here, a lot of people have high tolerances,” Ellison told me over the phone. As it's the heavy users who buy the most pot, many dispensaries cater to these ounce-a-week connoisseurs by selling the most powerful weed they can get their hands on.

"Edibles are in the same environment,” added Ellison.“Because we've created these people with these high tolerances, we've also created the environment where 15 to 25 milligrams [of THC] is really not enough to break the ice for a lot of people."

This increase is potency is great for medical marijuana patients who need a strong dose to relieve their aches and pains and for proud potheads who smoke the most primo of the primo shit—but it’s bad news for out-of-staters who can’t toke like a Coloradan.

Statistics on people who’ve lost their shit after smoking some chronic or overdoing it on the edibles are understandably hard to come by, but there’s plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting not everyone can handle the THC-heavy products sold in many Colorado dispensaries. “Some hospital officials say they are treating growing numbers of children and adults sickened by potent doses of edible marijuana,” reported the New York Times in a recent article about the downsides of legalization in Colorado. And there have been a couple high-profile tragedies linked to edibles, including the time an African exchange student named Levy Thamba Pongi jumped off a balcony and died after eating a pot cookie that was much, much too strong for him.

You can blame the tourists themselves, if you like, for being uneducated or incautious about the drug they’re putting in their bodies, but some freak-outs are the result of marijuana merchants not properly informing their customers about what they’re getting themselves into. A couple weeks ago a friend of mine vacationing in Colorado bought two mints that each contained 30 milligrams of THC and was told at the dispensary that 25 mg was a standard dose. Though she is no more a stoner than Dowd, she naturally figured that she could handle a “standard dose” and ate the mints with her husband. For two hours, nothing happened. Then everything went to hell. As she later told me in a Facebook message:

I had the sensation that my life was running on two parallel tracks that were growing further and further apart with each passing second: On the inner orbit, where I was, everything was moving very slowly, and the outer orbit, which I could both see and feel just beyond [my husband], was populated with the faces and voices and activities of everyone I’d ever met and was a great, gibbering mass that moved at lightning speed past us in a deep, blue vortex.

[…]

I was certain we were going to die; I was certain something terrible was going to happen; I was certain I wasn’t going to be the same in the morning, that I would almost certainly be institutionalized because my mind was breaking.

Some marijuana brownies. Photo via Flickr user Dank Depot

The marijuana industry has given the state of Colorado $17.9 million in taxes and fees since January, and full legalization is also a boon for families of extremely sick children looking for non-psychoactive cannabis-derived medicine. But as great as legal recreational weed is, there are still some kinks in the system to be worked out, as even insiders and stoners will admit.

Edibles, which are particularly popular among tourists, often don’t contain the THC concentrations listed on their packaging. And the general trend toward making marijuana products as powerful as possible has made it more likely that first-timers like my friend and Dowd will have themselves a bad day.

“Are the edibles too strong? Yes,” VICE weed columnist T. Kid wrote in Paper magazine this week. “When you consume a lot of weed regularly, you lose track of how little it might take to ruin a novice's evening. A cookie probably shouldn't have six regular doses in it because, seriously, who the fuck eats a sixth of a cookie?”

In all likelihood, growers will find ways to make their crops even more potent in the future, and the THC-hungry crowd that makes use of intense techniques like dabbing will embrace the chance to get higher than ever before. But as the industry grows and more states fully legalize weed—pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point—chances are the pot industry will start to resemble other businesses. Edible makers will find a way to be more consistent with the amount of THC they include in each batch, and just as the most popular beers today are lighter lagers that go down easy and don’t get you too fucked up, a market will emerge for what Ellison has called “mid-grade” weed—a type of bud that's not high in THC but will be easy to grow in massive quantities and won’t give anyone the Fear. In other words, this fake article about Phillip Morris coming out with marijuana cigarettes will become a reality.

In the meantime, Ellison said, the edibles industry is reacting to the bad publicity it’s received lately by, for instance, selling six-packs of chocolate truffles where each one contains a single dose. Dispensaries should make it clear to the tourists that they shouldn’t be screwing around with the hard stuff, he added.

"I believe that the tourists should get the lesser grade [weed] that won't blow their minds right away,” Ellison told me. “Or be given the option to understand that 'here is the good stuff. And here—it's expensive, it's hard to get, it's limited in quantity—but here is the really, really, really potent Colorado-native stuff.' That would be a good paradigm."

Follow Harry Cheadle on Twitter.


Scientists Are Working Out Whether You Can Have a Baby with Yourself

0
0

(Photo via)

Are you disgusted by your peers but still eager to bring a child into the world they inhabit? A team of scientists at the University of Manchester might have your answer: “single parent reproduction.” Which is exactly what it sounds like—a very complicated scientific process that essentially involves taking one person’s stem cells, making one of them male and the other female, before splicing them together to make a child.

If you want to go the other way entirely, the paper that César Palacios-González, John Harris and Giuseppe Testa published in March states that, within the next two years, we could be producing babies genetically related to three parents—or “multiplex parenting,” as they’ve dubbed it. Although it still has to be subjected to extensive ethical and legal review, the technology could avoid mitochondrial diseases being inherited from a mother—which surely seems like a step forward.

However, all this sci-fi science hasn’t gone down particularly well with more conservative commentators; half of the world is still getting its head around same-sex parents, so it’s hardly surprising that people are freaking out about the prospect of multiple-biological-parent children. I called Palacios-González for his take on the reaction, and to speak about the ethics of what he and his team have proposed.

VICE: Can you explain, in the simplest possible terms, what new advancement prompted your paper?
César Palacios-González: Human gametes [sperm and eggs] are produced naturally. But recently, scientists have been able to produce them in the lab using embryonic stem cell lines and induced pluripotent stem cells. Part of what this means is that they have been able to turn male somatic stem cells into female gametes, which led to us writing our paper. 

Some of the stuff in there is bound to attract criticismfor instance, where you mention that lab-generated gametes represent the "most visible instance where biotechnological ingenuity could be used in pursuit of social experimentation.” Were you looking to stir up some controversy?

We weren't intentionally trying to stir up controversy; we simply presented arguments in favor of using in vitro-produced gametes for same-sex reproduction and what we call multiplex parenting—instances where a child would be genetically related to all the members of a polyamorous relation. Obviously this wasn't received with a standing ovation from the conservative sector.   

What advantages do you see there being to multiplex parenting?
I think that multiplex parenting would be beneficial for members of polyamorous relationships who want to have children that are genetically related to every member of the relation. Just as IVF can be used to help couples to have children that are genetically related to them, in vitro-produced gametes could be used in the same fashion by people in polyamorous relationships.

Brigitte Garozzo, spokesperson for the Polyamory Action Lobby (Photo via)

You mention the relatively recent emergence of our standard two-parent model. Did you have any specific culture's family dynamics in mind when you were writing the paper?
We weren't thinking of a particular culture, but we've looked extensively at all the archeological and anthropological evidence on polyandric [having more than one husband] and polygynic [having more than one wife] societies that have existed for centuries. I should be clear that we aren't saying that such cultures are perfect, or that we should imitate them. Each has its own advantages and problems, but they are proof that non-nuclear models exist and have existed for a very long time. Also, the natural world is full of instances where animals pool their resources for the upbringing of their own kin and others’ kin.

Can you explain how single parent reproduction is different from cloning?
In cloning you take the nucleus of a somatic cell and transfer it to an enucleated egg [a cell with the genetic material removed].  Next, the cell’s development is triggered and it's transferred into a womb. This process, if successful, creates a biological replica of the animal from which the cell nucleus was taken. In contrast, in single parent reproduction you have two gametes with different genetic information – as would happen with siblings—but both gametes are derived from the same individual. These are used to produce an embryo that could be implanted into a womb later on. This difference between using a somatic cell nucleus or gametes is important, because with the latter you would end up with someone who isn't an exact copy of the source of the gametes.

What are the possible benefits to this?
It would allow people to have children that are genetically related to them without having to resort to using someone else’s genes. However, this type of reproduction would increase the chance of producing children with ill health, even more than when first-degree cousins have children—so it's really just a hypothetical situation.

A human cell line colony being cloned in vitro (Photo via)

Critics have labeled this as mad science, saying it illustrates the "anything goes" mentality of modern science. What do you say to that?
I remember that someone labeled us as mad ethicists. I would ask them why they think that we're mad. Maybe they think we're mad for having started a new debate regarding reproductive technologies and reproductive freedom—you never know. But I'd say that they're wrong about the anything goes mentality – on the contrary; we thoroughly examine the ethical implications of these new technologies to make sure that anything doesn’t go. There are technological advances that are morally problematic, but in the paper we provided arguments to show that the moral obstacles to the use of in vitro derived gametes for same-sex reproduction and multiplex parenting are not insurmountable.

The actual motives for your work seem to be about equal opportunities. Do you see science as being a catalyst for improving tolerance in the future?
Yes, although science by itself does not improve tolerance. Certain advances in science and technology – for example, social media—facilitate public and academic discussion about tolerance and what it means to be tolerant. It's true that certain advances emphasize certain topics at certain times. For example, I think that this technology will bring more attention to the discussion about polyamory and same-sex relations.

You've said that this form of fertilization is no more synthetic how than wearing glasses is synthetically seeing. Do you think it’s rational that we tend to favor things we perceive as being “natural”?
I think that, in general, we have a bias towards favoring what's natural, but such prejudice can be modified when considering the benefits that using other “non-natural” things could bring about. Many times we tend to favor what is natural because it's what we know and because it's more ready available, but such facts don't tells us that what is natural is always better.

IVF in action (Photo via)

The UK Government was one of the first to back the mitochondrial replacement technique that's currently under review. Would you say Britain is particularly open minded about progressive science?
I wouldn't use those words. What I would say is that, in Britain, there's a more informed public debate around scientific ideas and their application, and also that there are more spaces for doing so. This favours critical thinking and helps when the government has to legislate scientific advances that could be considered by some as morally problematic.

I think the most valid concern is the possibility of designer babies. How would you address people’s worries about this?
Currently this is an important debate in applied ethics. I think that those against the so-called “designer babies” have failed to present conclusive arguments so far. And I also think that people shouldn't worry that Britain will move from mitochondrial replacement to “designer babies” just like that. Just as we saw a huge amount of public and academic debate on mitochondrial replacement, we will see another one about “designer babies” before something actually happens. 

Finally, in 2004, Pope John Paul II said practices like in vitro fertilization represent “a technology that wants to substitute true paternity and maternity, and therefore that does harm to the dignity of parents and children alike.” How would you describe Jesus’ family structure?
I'm not sure how I would describe Jesus’ family structure. What I know is that Catholics and other conservative groups have a limited notion of dignity that directly depends on a religious worldview, and they want to force a notion of dignity backed by religious beliefs into a secular debate. The same thing happens with the notions of “true paternity and maternity,” and it's worth saying that religious worldviews should not dictate what paternity and maternity mean in a secular world.

Thanks, Cesar.

Follow Alex Horne on Twitter

Here's Why You Should Be Glad Eric Cantor Lost His Primary

0
0

Screencap via YouTube User LSUDVM

For those of you who don’t know, Representative Eric Cantor, Majority Leader and second most powerful Republican in the House, has just fucked off into that good night at the behest of Virginia voters. If you feel like you hardly got a chance to know Cantor in the first place, that's because there's really nothing to know about him as a person. He's a politician who “reportedly has no hobbies, but enjoys James Bond movies.” Wow, what a personality. Gallons of ink will be spilled about his shocking upset, the more conservative dickwad that just took his job (assuming the Democrat doesn't win the general election), and what this means for the future of the Grand Old Party.

For now though, let's recap Cantor's monstrous time in power by shining a little light on some of the worst things he did while in office.

He Was In Bed With Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff

 

Former House Majority Leader Tom Delay was found guilty of money laundering and conspiracy to commit money laundering in 2010, but (of course) won an appeal after two Republican judges claimed there wasn’t enough evidence, even though a jury in fucking TEXAS of all places, disagreed. Jack Abramoff was the poster child for lobbyist influence in government with one notable exception, he was actually convicted of his crimes. He was the centerpiece of an historic corruption investigation, and his shady dealings with Indian casinos lead to him serving almost four years of a nine year prison sentence. In 2003, DeLay and Cantor signed a letter to protect the interests of one of Abramoff’s clients, you guessed it: an Indian Casino. Not even a year later, Abramoff hosted a hundreds-of-dollars-per-plate fundraiser for Cantor.

He Thought Science Research Money Was All Going To People Playing World of Warcraft.

Image via Flickr User Carl Johan Crawfoord

Eric Cantor isn’t an idiot, but he’s a dumbass. In 2013, Cantor blasted the National Science Foundation on twitter and his blog, using technology to lambast the scientists that created it. (Oh also, he’s probably gonna have to change his twitter handle soon, Republicans probably don’t want a loser to have the title of @GOPLeader)

He mistakenly thought a $1.2 million NSF grant was going to “pay seniors to play World of Warcraft.” While that would be rad, since seniors would finally have something to talk to their grandkids about at Thanksgiving, he was way off the mark. In an interview with the Daily Caller grant recipient and associate proffessor at NC State Jason Allaire said plainly “The NSF study has nothing to do with WoW.” Now, the money does have something to do with videogames, specifically “improvements in cognition due to playing digital games,” and that has drawn a lot of interest from Cantor’s buddies in the United States Military. After all, drones are basically the world’s most realistic first person shooters.

He Was One Of the Primary Players In Shutting Down the Government

Image via Flickr User Starbuck77

Starting back during the debt ceiling debacle in 2011, Cantor showed a personal vigor for being Obama’s nemesis. His work to interrupt the bi-partisan negotiations between Obama and Boehner is lauded by many, especially his eventual Brutus the Tea Party, as the reason there was no compromise.

However his most dastardly work came in the fall of 2013 where he passed a truly Orwelian resolution the night before the October shutdown.

House Resolution 368 amended the existing rules naming Eric Fucking Cantor as the only member of the House of Representatives that could call for a vote on anything that wasn’t agreed upon in congress. This being 2013, that meant anything, especially ending the government shutdown. Before he and his cronies got that resolution passed, any member of congress could bring anything to the floor for a vote, because they are in congress and that is their job. Multiple journalists and talking-heads remarked that this extended the disastrous shutdown because Cantor’s refusal to play ball went against the majority of congress’ desire to re-open the government. That’s right, because of Cantor’s dickishness, he stopped members of his own goddamned party from being able to vote. 

So, fuck off forever, Eric Cantor. I hope you enjoy the worst punishment any white male leader can get in America—being given millions of dollars to talk on TV about the country you helped fuck up. But hey, at least now you’ll have time to brush up on those James Bond movies, you boring piece of shit.

Follow Josh Androsky on Twitter

What’s Behind All the Right Wing Cop Shootings?

0
0

Jerad Miller, 31, and Amanda Miller, 22, shot and killed three people Sunday, including two police officers, in a politically-motivated ambush. Photo via Facebook 

On Sunday morning, Jerad and Amanda Miller left their two cats with their next-door neighbor, and left their Las Vegas apartment complex on foot, armed with a handgun, a shotgun, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Less than five hours later, the couple burst into a CiCi’s Pizza restaurant just northeast of the Strip, yelled “This is the start of the revolution,” and opened fire on two police officers, in what the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department called a “politically motivated ambush.” They then stripped the slain officers of their weapons and ammo, covered them with swastikas a “Don’t Tread On Me” flag, and headed to a nearby Walmart, where they fatally shot a bystander before Amanda turned the gun on her husband and then killed herself. Their plan, according to police, was to takeover a courthouse, execute public officials, and ultimately overthrow the government.

In the days since the shooting, the portrait of the Millers that has emerged in media reports and police statements, as well as from their social media accounts, reveals a young couple that had fallen deeply down the rabbit hole of right-wing conspiracy theories. Neighbors told the Las Vegas Sun that the Millers had a reputation for espousing racist, anti-government worldviews, and for bragging about their gun collection. On Facebook and in YouTube videos, posted under the username USATruePatriot, Jerad Miller identifies himself as a supporter of the Patriot Movement—an umbrella term that encompasses right-wing militias, white supremacists, and sovereign citizens—and talks regularly about chemtrails, tyranny, and overthrowing the federal government. This was his last Facebook post, published the day before the attack:

On Monday, one of Cliven Bundy’s sons confirmed that the couple had been present for the showdown between anti-government protesters and the BLM this spring, but that other militia members had asked the couple to leave because they were “very radical.” NBC Reno happened to interview Jerod Miller during the protests:

The Las Vegas shooting comes just days after Dennis Marx, a known sovereign citizen, attempted to gun down police officers at a Georgia courthouse, opening fire with an AR-15 and throwing homemade grenades and spike sticks. Like the Millers, his plan was to occupy the courthouse and attack law enforcement officials there, according to the Forsyth County sheriff’s department. (In the end, Marx was the only one who died in the attack.)

Taken together, the two incidents reveal the dark, tragic side of right-wing extremist movements. According to numbers from the Southern Poverty Law Center, the number of Patriot groups in the US has skyrocketed in recent years, jumping from 149 in 2008 to a peak of 1,360 in 2012, a time period that corresponds to both the economic downturn and the election of the nation’s first black president. (For more on the correlation between racism and resource scarcity, check out this new face-morphing study from social psychology researchers at NYU.)

“Unfortunately, I think these shootings are just the tip of the iceberg,” said Jack Kay, a professor of communications at Eastern Michigan University who has studied right-wing militia groups for 30 years. “I think we are going to see violence like this continue.”

“The background for all three of these shooters involved heavy rhetoric in the Patriot Movement,” Kay explained. “The ideology is a hatred of the federal government, a belief that the federal government is not legitimate and is there to oppress, and that they will eventually be taken over by a New World Order.”

Kay conceded that not everyone who hates Big Government and fears one-world government is going to start shooting random police officers or try to violently occupy their local courthouse. But, he said, the rhetoric of the anti-government movement—and, perhaps, of the right-wing in general—can “plant the seeds” of violence among more radicalized individuals. According to data from the New America Foundation, right-wing extremists killed 34 people between September 11, 2001 and March 2014—a number that jumps to 40 if you include the incidents that have taken place since then.

The attackers, Kay said, “are typically lone wolves.” “They believe that they are going to start the next revolution,” he explained. “It’s not a sane view—but these folks are so into the rhetoric, they start creating this fictional future where they see themselves as the starters of the next revolution.”

The isolated nature of these threats, Kay added, makes it difficult for law enforcement to stop attacks before they happen. On top of that, he said, the federal government’s intense focus on jihadist terrorist threats overseas since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks has meant that homegrown extremism goes largely unnoticed.

“I don’t think the feds have really taken this very seriously, or really tried to understand why there is so much hatred toward the federal government,” Kay said. “And now, it’s gone beyond the few lunatics that have always been in the movement, and it’s starting to impact every day citizens.”

Now, though, looks like the government is starting to take notice. Last Tuesday, days before Marx’s attempted attack, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice will revive its domestic terrorism task force, citing “escalating danger from individuals within our own borders.” While the impetus for the move was apparently the FBI’s failure to share information about Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and by the 2009 shooting at Fort Hood, Holder indicated that right-wing groups are also on the agency’s radar.

“We must also concern ourselves with the continued danger we face from individuals within our own borders who may be motivated by a variety of other causes from anti-government animus to racial prejudice,” Holder said in a statement last week.

On Tuesday, speaking just hours after another shooting incident killed a student and wounded a teacher at an Oregon high school, President Obama criticized the country's failure to pass tighter gun laws. "We’re the only developed country on Earth where this happens," he said during a White House Q&A with Tumblr CEO David Karp. "And it happens now once a week. And it’s a one-day story. There’s no place else like this."

Of course, blaming the Las Vegas shootings on right-wing groups, no matter how extreme, is a lot like blaming the Wisconsin stabbings on Slender Man or chalking the Columbine massacre up to the shooters’ addiction to violent video games. Aside from InfoWars fearmonger Alex Jones, who claims the whole thing was a government hoax, Patriot activists have been generally horrified by the Millers’ violence. “This whole thing has had my stomach in knots all day,” Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff who led some of the militia groups at Bundy Ranch, wrote in an email. 

“Any time there is senseless killing, that's wrong—I know that they're people that think that's a solution but I think they're nuts, quite frankly," said Alex Coffey, a spokesperson for Operation American Spring, a movement to overthrow President Obama and Congress that was among the groups Jerad Miller liked on Facebook. “I’m terribly sorry for the people who were lost in Las Vegas,” he added. “I’m even sorry for the shooters—they were lost souls.” 

Follow Grace Wyler on Twitter

The FCC Was Hacked After John Oliver Called for Net Neutrality Trolls

0
0
The FCC Was Hacked After John Oliver Called for Net Neutrality Trolls

Slaves in Thailand Are Helping Produce Your Store-Bought Shrimp

0
0
Slaves in Thailand Are Helping Produce Your Store-Bought Shrimp

The Strange Swiss Custom of Dressing Up as a Bush and Throwing Women in Wells

0
0

However you spent your weekend, it’s probably safe to say that it didn’t include disguising youself as a bush, sneaking up on unsuspecting women, and dunking them in a nearby well.

Unless you happen to live in the Swiss village of Ettingen, where people did exactly that. It’s all part of a fertility custom so quirky that even most Swiss people haven’t heard of it: Men cover their bodies in beech brushwood, simulating fauns and forest spirits, before chasing random women on the street, picking them up, and subsequently dipping them into fountain wells.

The ritual, called “Pfingstblüttlern” (don't ask me to translate, it doesn't make sense anyway) has its origins in the 19th century. “When exactly it emerged is unknown, though,” says Constantin Stöcklin from the Association of Cultural History in Ettingen. After a short-lived revival in the 1930s, the Association finally fully revitalized the custom in 1976.

Besides giving village women rape nightmares, the custom is also supposed to help them get pregnant. Let's not connect these dots.

Comics: Flowertown, USA - Part 7


Reno Is a Paradise

0
0

Reno is a Glitter Gulch—a 24-hour neon city hidden deep within Nevada’s vast mountainous desert. Once the gambling capital of the US, bursting with glitz and glamour that assured its prosperity and fortune, Reno has in later years suffered a downturn in the industry that once made its name.

Many of the historic downtown casinos were left for dead: Some demolished, while others were converted to condos that remain half-empty today. Despite this decline and dramatic effects of the recession, the original Sin City hasn't given up its taste for margaritas by the yard and $1.99 prime rib. For now, the locals' karaoke sessions go until 3AM and the Twisted Teas keep flowing all night.
 
I hope that my photographs reflect on the boom and bust the city has experienced over the last century, and that they'll give you an honest view of the overlooked culture that gives Reno its ludicrous character.

See more of Kelci's work here.

Does your town or city qualify for paradise status? Send your pitches to ukphotoblog@vice.com. Don't be shy.

The “Decline Your Vote” Campaign Is Probably Not an Evil Conservative Conspiracy

0
0


The Decline Your Vote banner, via Facebook.
As I mentioned in my article on Monday about Ontario’s thoroughly depressing election, there’s so much disdain surrounding this year’s race, that a movement to decline your vote has been gaining traction. If you’re not familiar with the concept, instead of spoiling your ballotby overlaying ‘BATMAN’ over Tim Hudak’s name in highlighteror in lieu of simply just staying home and avoiding the vote entirely, there’s a third option. Stare your voting officer in the eye and tell them you are declining your vote, IRL, like a boss (who doesn’t care about exercising their democratic right to participate in an election).

The “Decline Your Vote” movement has gained so much momentum, a man named Paul Synnott in Windsor started DeclineYourVote.ca to give people more information about the vote-declining process. Paul has worked in politics before, as a Research and Development agent for Campaign Research. He later attempted to start a “New Media Solutions company focusing on conservative Canadian Politics at the Municipal, Provincial and Federal levels” called Polisource, which never got off the ground. Currently, he co-hosts a political talk show in Windsor with members of the Liberals and the NDP.

Yesterday evening, however, Paul and his brand new website caught the ire of Reddit’s /r/Toronto and /r/Ontario communities, after a thread was posted by /u/bluesnoodler that accused Paul of being a war room strategist for the Conservatives. It’s somewhat understandable to connect the dots and presume that, because of Paul’s background as an active Conservative politician, with a history of working on digital campaign messaging, that he is by default a subversive Conservative strategist. But, as we should all know by now, Conservative does not necessarily equal evil political mastermind. So, I called Paul to put the internet’s wild accusations to the test.

Paul told me this campaign is 100 percent personal, and not related to any specific political party: “I have no love lost for Tim Hudak and even a slight search on Google will yield a few articles where I call him out. It’s one of the reasons why I launched Decline your Vote, because I’m not supporting or working with the Conservative party this time. I’m actually declining my vote. Once I decided to decline my vote, talking to friends and family, I found that a lot of people had no idea that was an option. A lot of them were going to stay at home and not vote. And I’d rather see them go to the polls and take part in the process, rather than not vote.”

Many opponents of the Decline Your Vote campaign are arguing that by influencing people to negate their ballot, they’re actually helping the Conservatives, who they say do well in elections where few people turn up to the polls. This is not exactly a very scientific approach to voter turnout, but there is some basis to it. Kinda.

In 2011, when the Tories took a majority federal government, low voter turnout was attributed to their victory becauseaccording to a political scientist at the University of Ottawalow turnout usually favours the government, while a high turnout usually favours the opposition.” So, in this case, a low turnout would favour the Liberals. There is also an argument to be made, however, that young people and minority groups, who are more likely to vote Liberal or NDP and less likely to hit the polls, could therefore have a positive impact on the Conservatives (through their absence) in an election with low voter turnout.

I asked Paul if he thinks his vote-declining campaign is helping the Conservatives:

“I’m trying to increase the turnout… If you look at the Decline Your Vote Facebook page, anywhere and everywhere I’m encouraging people to go out and vote for any and every party. I encourage that first and foremost. This campaign is specifically targeted at people who don’t know who they want to vote for; they can’t stand Hudak, they don’t trust Wynne, and they don’t trust the NPD. So they’re going to stay at home. So that’s who this campaign is particularly targeted at.”

Ultimately, no matter what a Conservative says, people are probably going to blame them for causing global warming, rigging the election, and destroying orphanages. I’m certainly no Conservative sympathizer when we’re talking about roughly 90% of political scenarios, but in this case, I can’t see Decline Your Vote being a “grassroots” campaign designed to trick the people of the internet into staying away from voting.

Still, I put the question to Paul one last time. Is Decline Your Vote a subversive Conservative campaign to rig the election?

“This hasn’t been created as any war room strategy or by any Conservative strategist. To be honest with you, I don’t think Hudak’s team has the brains to come up with a plan like that. Seriously… That’s what I think of his team.”

While declining your vote can be dismissed as being unstrategic, or more plainly as a copout, it’s overly conspiratorial to presume that it’s all a Conservative rouse. If you do decide to decline your vote, an Elections Canada source provided me with materials that explain precisely how a declined vote is interpreted. As you can see from the screenshot above, taken from an Elections Canada manual, a declined vote is not interpreted as a protest vote or “none of the above.” It’s a forfeit.

So, if you really wanna mess with the system, vote Green or Libertarian. If you're not into that, maybe you should reconsider the whole strategic voting thing. But don't listen to me, because I could be just a puppet of the internet media conspiracy here to manipulate your thoughts and emotions.


@patrickmcguire

I Helped Division I Athletes Cheat in College

0
0

Illustration by Sofya Levina

People were outraged when basketball player Rashad McCants admitted on an episode of ESPN's "Outside the Lines" that student athletes pay tutors to write their term papers. What the former University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill basketball player revealed wasn't a big surprise to me. But the sports world freaked out and commentators, columnists, and fans bickered over ethics, the lack of oversight in the NCAA, and the opportunistic nerds who get the athletes A's. 

For years, I willingly did homework for a number of student athletes. To this day, I don't consider any of it unethical. It all started back in 2007, when I was finishing up my degree in radical economics at the University of Utah, which is also a Division I school. To help cover food and booze, I worked a variety of odd jobs including tutoring undergrads. 

Tutoring worked like this: I'd tell the campus tutoring center which classes I could tutor, and when a student came in and asked for help in one of those subjects, the center would pair us together. The students would pay $10 for a "slip" from the tutoring center. They'd give me that slip at the end of each session and I'd turn it back into the tutoring center and wait for my measly check. I made a whopping $6.25 per hour, which was just enough for a pint and a bagel. The school pocketed the leftover $3.75 an hour—I guess they had to make theirs too, on top of my massive tuition and the beaucoup bucks coming in from sporting events. 

After awhile, I started getting more and more requests from football players who needed help with their economics courses. They liked that I swore a lot and didn't give a fuck. Eventually, I became the go-to tutor for jocks. At first, I tried to help them work through their boring macroeconomics multiple choice homework, but it became more and more apparent that they didn't care about learning any of it. The kids always seemed tired and disinterested in economics in general. I couldn't blame them for the latter—introductory economics is almost as boring as a seminary class. But I painstakingly did my best to explain how widgets fluctuate along abstract supply and demand curves. 

Then one day, an offensive lineman cut straight to the chase. His tutoring slips were covered by his athletic scholarship, so the slips didn't have any monetary value to him. Because of this, he was more than willing to give me three hours worth of tutoring slips if I'd just do his homework. After all, it would take 15 minutes for me to do it myself, versus the two hours it would take me to explain the shit to him. I didn't even hesitate before saying "Yes." I mean, so what? He didn't have to worry about taking tests—his grade was completely based off of multiple choice homework. And helping him cheat the system didn't seem any more unethical than forcing some kid to learn about how great capitalism is. 

I did the homework for guys like him all semester long, making sure to randomize a few incorrect answers here and there. In the end, all the kids I worked with got A's. I made more money than I would have otherwise while helping them stay in good academic standing with the school, effectively keeping them on the field. If the university knew about it, they would have probably reacted negatively in public. But I have no doubt that those athletes making it to a bowl game were far more important to the school's administration than making sure they understood marginal rates of transformation. 

I bet you're wondering if the coaches know about the cheating. How could they not? But as long as nobody got caught, it wasn't a problem. It's far more important to coaches that their players attend practice than some trivial art appreciation class. And let's face it, coaches are paid based on their team's performance on the field, not in the classroom. Although it's nice to boast that your quarterback is a 4.0 student, if your team is zero for 12, his good grades don't mean shit. The highest paid public employee in most states are either football or basketball coaches. They're not stupid people. They know what form of success the universities are looking for. So the argument that the athletes I helped cheat were taking advantage of public tax dollars is a moot point when you consider how much these coaches are paid.

The NCAA's response to McCants' comments were predictably vilifying to him and cheating athletes like him in order to protect their business built on the broken bodies of young people. The NCAA isn't concerned with the future of student athletes—they want profits. The only reason reality and illusion overlap is because they make their money off the athletes. Do you think a one-and-done prospect really cares about introductory sociology, or that his school really cares if he cares? As long as the university is making money, everything is peachy keen.

Beyond the guise that they actually give a damn, there is another way they are misleading the public on this "scandal." UNC publicly said the fraud was limited to the Afro-American Studies program, which is a dog whistle that implies that only black kids were the ones doing the cheating. It was almost like UNC was saying, "Sure Rashad McCants cheated, but it's because he's black and didn't know any better. You know how those people are. They'll take advantage of every freebie, the same way they cheat welfare programs. White athletes, on the other hand, inherently care more about their education. Just ask Johnny Manziel." That line of thinking is fucking bullshit. In my day, I helped a ton of dumbass white athletes cheat their way to good grades.

To be sure, academic fraud is alive and well throughout the system. Just go online and search "write my paper" and you'll find countless companies who will pen a term paper for the right price. Students help each other cheat, professors get caught plagiarizing each other's papers, and scholars get paid handsomely to conduct specious studies to debunk real shit like climate change. Let's not even bother bringing up student loans—a system that has cheated this generation's middle class youth out of a future. Our education system is just one giant hustle—and if you ain't hustling, you're getting hustled. The only reason athletes are being singled out is so that universities and the NCAA can claim the moral high ground as they continue to exploit young people.

As every tutor knows, there's a fine line between helping someone do their homework and actually doing it for them. These days, I tend to force my students to work through their coursework, mainly because it takes longer and I can charge upwards of $50 dollars an hour. Not to mention, I'm a rather sadistic individual... But I don't see a problem with student athletes cheating. As far as I can tell, that's the American way.

Follow Mike on Twitter and read more of his musings on MikeAbu.com

We Visited the First Nations Community That's Standing Up to Mining Companies by Turning Their Land Into a Tribal Park

0
0



Meares Island. All photos via the author.
The distant thud-thud of helicopter blades sliced through the sky, growing louder as a crowd began to gather on the beach at C’is-a-qis Bay on Meares Island. A logging company called MacMillan Bloedel was set to commence work on a clear-cut operation of 90 percent of the island’s old growth forest.

It was November 21, 1984. Tensions over the plans had been growing for months. Members of the Tla’o’qui’aht First Nation had been camped out in the bay since fall, constructing a cabin and scooping out the innards of red cedar logs to craft a series of traditional canoes.

Chief Moses Martin stood and surveyed the crowd as it swelled to more than 200 people: locals and members of nearby Nations as well as non-indigenous environmentalists and supporters from Friends of Clayoquot Sound. The tide was high, ideal for boats intending to pull up on shore and soon enough, the MV Kennedy Queen pulled into the bay, loaded with MacMillan Bloedel loggers in hard hats. A wind kicked up as RCMP helicopters and boats hovered into view, anticipating conflict.

“I’m standing on the bank of this bay, and wondering if I should wade out into the water and pull them off, or stay there and welcome them to our garden, and I chose to do the latter. I didn’t want to get wet and cold. But I would have if I had to," Martin said with a chuckle.

“You’re welcome to come and visit us in our lands, but we ask you to leave your chainsaws in your boat,” Martin said to the loggers, as they arrived on the beach to a feast prepared and shared by the community. A MacMillan Bloedel representative disembarked and asked them to get out of the way, a request that was refused. After gathering some names of those on shore, the loggers left.

It was a moment that served to define the nation—then, and for decades to come. After five months of blockades, it was ultimately decreed that there would be no logging in their territory—still unceded to this day—until a treaty was negotiated.



A message from locals.
The fight is far from over, however. Today the nation faces new challenges, namely in the form of the proposed Fandora gold mine slated for the Tranquil Creek watershed, 14 kilometres northeast of the hippy surfer mecca of Tofino. A landbase rich in minerals and bristling with stands of towering cedar, hemlock and Sitka spruce, the Clayoquot Sound—territory of the Tla’o’qui’aht and four other First Nations within the wider Nuu-chah-nulth Tribal Council—is a treasure chest ripe for plunder by a resource-hungry world.

There’s just one hitch: the area’s indigenous people, deeply committed to the ancient principles of Hishukish Tsawaak—that everything is one, and interconnected—say their responsibility as stewards of the land is simply non-negotiable. The claim to their Haahuulthii, or traditional territory, goes back thousands of years; it is stitched into their ceremonial curtains, etched into the faces of their whalebone war clubs and pounded into the earth by their traditional dances.

In April, the nation celebrated 30 years since they declared Meares Island to be Wah-nah-jus-Hilth-hoo-is, a Tribal Park under their sole jurisdiction and management. Faced with the imminent threat of the gold mine, they took the opportunity to also reiterate in no uncertain terms that their entire 103,000-hectare territory, including Tranquil Valley, is now a series of Tribal Parks and is therefore off-limits to mining.

Though the province stated in an email that the declaration of a mining moratorium by the nation does not, in their view, “have any legal enforceability,” and requires a decision by the legislature, this stance of the nation nevertheless has the potential to completely change the rules of the game.

The Mine

Deep in Tranquil Cove, Tribal Parks manager Terry Dorward, Tribal Park guardian Cory Charlie, and representatives from Friends of Clayoquot Sound had spent the morning tracking three Imperial Metals surveyors who choppered into the area to gather core samples. The sampling was the first step in what was slated to become a series of multi-year surface explorations for gold, and for which the province extended permission in the summer of 2013.

The workers were firmly informed they were trespassing and asked to leave.

“We’ve had to kick them off the mountain a few times,” said Dorward with a grin. “And they respected that. It’s kind of strange, how the whole referral process has been, and how the government sees consultation… We’ve been saying ‘no’ all along, but they see that as consultation. They could keep saying, ‘Yes, yes we’re going to do it,’ and we could keep saying, ‘No, no you’re not,’ and then they’ve met their requirements for consultation and accommodation. So that in itself has been frustrating.”

Dorward cut his teeth on the battle for Meares as a 12-year old boy storming the BC Legislature with his uncle Ray Seitcher Sr. He went on to work with the no-holds-barred West Coast Warrior Society until it disbanded in 2005.

“The province is committed to ensuring it meets its legal obligation to consult with First Nations and accommodate, if necessary, where Crown decisions could impact Aboriginal rights,” said Matt Gordon, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Natural Gas spokesman via email. If First Nations want their interests considered, they should participate in the consultation process, he said, adding that “consent is not required.”

A discarded boat on the edge of the island.
This sentiment is complex, however, and subject to a variety of interpretations. Since the Haida court case in 2004, which established the Crown’s duty to consult and accommodate with First Nations, there have been more than 200 cases alleging the Crown has failed in these duties—the majority of them in BC, said Douglas White, a lawyer and former chief of the Snuneymuxw First Nation who specializes in indigenous law.

“The standard of the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights is to get free, prior and informed consent,” said White. “And of course Canada says that isn’t legally enforceable in Canada, that it’s just an ‘aspirational document.’” White continued, “At the same time we see more and more First Nations ready to use other tools—in addition to the courts—to protect their lands and resources from further destruction when their rights have not been respected.”

Consultation with the Tla’o’qui’aht has primarily taken the form of sometimes-tense letters and meetings between the nation and the provincial government over the past two and a half years. At its centre is the issue of Tla’o’qui’aht members’ use of the area for ritual bathing and spiritual practices, as well as medicinal plant gathering, hunting and fishing (the watershed was recently restocked with tens of thousands of smolts in a partnership with the Tofino hatchery).

In a letter to the province in November of 2012, the nation’s lawyer Patrick Canning raised this issue of water purity, expressing concern that mining exploration could lead to “acid mine drainage,” which could effectively poison the river. The province responded by assuring that though they were unaware of the exact location of spiritual bathing sites they would propose that the mining company ensure its activities did not interfere with or alter the sites.

“When has mining ever gone well or looked pretty when you’re finished with it? What’s the mitigation for mining? Just cover up the hole when you’re done? And just let Mother Earth do its thing?” Charlie said with a laugh. “Never mind that it’s in one of the most pristine areas in the world.”

He added that the nation is “100 percent” prepared to defend the land by any means possible.

“We don’t need conflict for this mine to be stopped, and we shouldn’t have to fight it out on a logging road. I’ve got enough shit to do without having to spend six months in the bush,” said Saya Masso, natural resource director for the nation.



Saya holding whale bones.
Masso pointed out that their stance is not simply one of opposition: the nation have already invested millions into their own detailed sustainable development plans and projects, with an eye towards providing employment for generations, not just “10 years of jobs and then 500 years of impact” from the mine.

In an hour-long land use plan presented to Energy, Mines and Natural Gas Minister Bill Bennett last fall, Masso said he invited the province to refuse the mine project in favour of the nation’s $290 million stewardship-oriented vision for the land.

“They’re either going to have to get with it or get out of the way,” said Dorward with a chuckle.

The Tribal Parks

“It was the best job I ever had in my life,” said Charlie, of his tenure as a Tribal Park guardian. We’re in the sunny, south-facing village of Opitsaht on Meares Island. He’s illustrating the occasionally-sketchy aspect of the job with a story about how campers in the Ha’uukmin Tribal Park on Kennedy Lake had fallen asleep under the canopy of a giant 500-year-old cedar tree, only to wake and find they had set the entire thing ablaze from the inside. It had to be felled, still burning, by a grizzled tree faller flown in from the Canadian Forest Service.

Trained through a partnership with Parks Canada, Charlie hasn’t worked as a guardian since last September due to a lack of funds. Masso said they plan to deal with the issue of funding by stepping up their existing “ecosystem service fee.” The idea is that they collect a fee from local tourism outfits—wildlife-watching tours and hotels that benefit from the nations’ efforts to protect the land—and channel it into an endowment fund put aside especially for stewardship and education. This has already functioned well on a limited scale in partnership with the District of Tofino—who along with the city of Victoria have voted to support the mining moratorium—and is something mayor Josie Osborne hails as a successful partnership.

“We just want have a model that sees us benefitting from what’s happening in our own territory,” said Masso. The nation is also in talks with major US investors like The Nature Conservancy, though Masso said he’s frustrated by the wrench a potential mine throws in these plans.

“I’m not going to get million-dollar donors from New York to help protect a watershed that’s poisoned,” he said, shaking his head.

“What we’ve learned over the years is that to become politically sovereign we’ve got to cut ties with the government. We’ve got to become truly economically independent. So that’s been a great challenge,” said Dorward. The parks form part of an effort to demonstrate how it can be more economically viable to leave ecosystems intact rather than simply exploit them for resources, he added.

This is also a central argument posed by National Geographic explorer Wade Davis, author of a recent book which explores Imperial Metals’ plans to open the Red Chris gold and copper mine in an area of BC known as the Sacred Headwaters.

“None of us are against mines, it’s just: how many mines, in what places, at what cost to the environment and for whose benefit? The real issue is, do we want to tear up our landscape? Is that something we want to do? Tourism employs more people in British Columbia than mining, logging and commercial fishing combined. Tell me why, after generations, our government continues to say the only way to build an economy, with all these assets, is by destroying our natural heritage?”

Despite having valid permits for exploration, “there are no current plans for exploration drilling or road building at Fandora this year,” said Steve Robertson, vice president of corporate affairs for Imperial Metals, via email. He added that at present it would be more accurate to describe Fandora as an “exploration” project rather than a mine.

As it stands, the project has encountered a potential snag in the form of a case settled in January in the Supreme Court of Canada, which upheld the nation’s constitutional right to a commercial fishery. In a letter to the province dated February 28, the nation explained how a mine located near the fish-bearing Tranquil Creek watershed impedes upon those newly-affirmed rights, and invited them to change the permit for exploration so that it ended within 30 days. They received no response.


@juliehchadwick

Vladimir Nabokov’s Unpublished ‘Lolita’ Screenplay Notes

0
0

Photo by Carl Mydans/Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images

Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita was first published in 1955, as part of the Paris-based Olympia Press Traveler’s Companion books, a series of louche and sometimes avant-garde fiction. Lolita was both: A rapturous first-person account of a middle-aged European’s passion for a prepubescent “nymphet,” the novel was resplendent with Nabokov’s usual wordplay, puzzles, and recondite allusions. Quite apart from its erotic content, Lolita would seem an unlikely best seller in Eisenhower’s America, but when Putnam published an edition in 1958, it sold faster than any American novel since Gone with the Wind. A month later, Stanley Kubrick bought the film rights for $150,000, despite the considerable challenge of making a movie that would satisfy the censors. Meeting with Nabokov the following summer, in 1959, Kubrick tried to entice the great Russian-American novelist to write the screenplay himself. Nabokov gave the matter some thought, but finally declined. “A particular stumbling block,” his wife, Véra, wrote Kubrick’s partner, James Harris, was “the [filmmakers’] idea of having the two main protagonists”—Lolita Haze and her 40-something lover, Humbert Humbert—“married with an adult relative’s blessing.”

A few months later, back in Europe, Nabokov “experienced a small nocturnal illumination” as to how he might fruitfully proceed with an adaptation of Lolita—whereupon, as if by magic, a telegram from Kubrick materialized: “Convinced you were correct dislike marriage Stop Book a masterpiece and should be followed even if Legion and Code disapprove Stop Still believe you are only one for screenplay Stop If financial details can be agreed would you be available.” Hollywood agent Irving “Swifty” Lazar negotiated a deal whereby Nabokov would receive $40,000 for writing the screenplay and an additional $35,000 if he received sole credit, and in March 1960 the novelist came to California and rented a villa in Brentwood Heights. As he later recalled in his foreword to the published screenplay, “Kubrick and I, at his Universal City studio, debated in an amiable battle of suggestion and countersuggestion how to cinemize the novel. He accepted all my vital points, I accepted some of his less significant ones.” Meanwhile, with the help of Lazar and his wife, the Nabokovs were introduced to the Hollywood cocktail circuit. “I’m in pictures,” John Wayne explained when Nabokov cordially inquired about his line of work.

Soon the writer’s days were consumed with a task that, to his surprise, he found rather pleasurable. Something of a cinephile since his émigré days in Berlin and Paris, Nabokov had a keen understanding of the medium, and while he stuck to the basic characters and story line of his book, each scene was dramatized with the camera eye in mind. On page two of the novel, for example, a fraught parenthetical explanation—“(picnic, lightning)”—is given for the death of Humbert’s mother; in the screenplay, Nabokov elaborates the tragedy as follows:

Humbert’s Voice

…she was killed by a bolt of lightning during a picnic on my fourth birthday, high in the Maritime Alps.

CUT TO:

A Mountain Meadow—A thunderhead advancing above sharp cliffs
Several people scramble for shelter, and the first big drops of rain strike the zinc of a lunchbox. As the poor lady in white runs toward the pavilion of a lookout, a blast of livid light fells her. Her graceful specter floats up above the black cliffs holding a parasol and blowing kisses to her husband and child who stand below, looking up, hand in hand.

 

As one may gather from this passage, the lucidity and wit of Nabokov’s writing—the “rain strik[ing] the zinc of a lunchbox,” that “blast of livid light”—make this perhaps the most readable of screenplays, which was perhaps what Kubrick and Harris meant when they declared it the best ever written in Hollywood. The genius of the novel, however, resides above all in the first-person narration of Humbert Humbert—the hilarious disparity between what he imparts so lyrically to the reader and what little he can actually say to the gum-snapping nymphet—whereas a screenplay, no matter how gorgeously written, is confined mostly to the latter: dialogue. It’s hard to film a prose style.

Every two weeks or so, Nabokov and Kubrick would meet to discuss the author’s progress, and Nabokov was bemused by the director’s increasing reticence: “By midsummer,” he recalled in his foreword, “I did not feel quite sure whether Kubrick was serenely accepting whatever I did or silently rejecting everything.” It’s possible the man was daunted by the sheer abundance of Nabokov’s imagination; in any event, when presented with a 400-page first draft, Kubrick was emboldened to point out that such a film would likely run almost seven hours: too long, even by art-house standards. Obligingly Nabokov cut his script to a more manageable length (“Prologue, 10 [minutes]; Act One, 40; Act Two, 30; Act Three, 50”), and Kubrick said it was fine. During their last meeting, on September 25, 1960, Kubrick showed Nabokov some photographs of the actress Sue Lyon—“a demure nymphet of fourteen or so,” Nabokov observed, a little deploringly, though Kubrick assured him that she “could be easily made to look younger and grubbier” for the part of Lolita.

Almost two years passed, during which Nabokov heard suspiciously little from his collaborator in Hollywood. Finally, though, he was invited to the movie’s New York premiere at the Loew’s State Theatre in Times Square (“horrible seats,” Nabokov noted in his diary), where a crowd of fans pressed around his limo “hoping to glimpse James Mason but finding only the placid profile of a stand-in for Hitchcock,” as the portly novelist remembered. By then he was all the more placid for knowing the worst: “A few days before, at a private screening, I had discovered that Kubrick was a great director, that his Lolita was a first-rate film with magnificent actors, and that only ragged odds and ends of my script had been used.” As it happened, Kubrick and Harris had decided to cut the entire backstory (including that zany vignette in the Alps) and begin with Humbert’s arrival at the Haze house in Ramsdale; moreover, Kubrick had encouraged his actors to improvise—especially Peter Sellers, with whose genius he became “besotted,” according to James Mason.

Nabokov affected to be at peace with it, somewhat mollified by the $35,000 he did, in fact, receive for sole screenwriting credit; besides, he looked forward to publishing his own version someday—“not in pettish refutation of a munificent film but purely as a vivacious variant of an old novel.” It’s hard to say whether he was gratified or amused, later, when he was nominated for the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar—Lolita’s only nomination—but lost out to Horton Foote for To Kill a Mockingbird.

Below are six pages from Nabokov’s Lolita screenplay, with notes in his handwriting. The insertions and deletions don’t appear in the published text.

Sexual Abuse in Women's Sports: A Q&A with Three-Time Olympic Gold Medalist Nancy Hogshead-Makar

0
0
Sexual Abuse in Women's Sports: A Q&A with Three-Time Olympic Gold Medalist Nancy Hogshead-Makar

The US Government Claims It Must Destroy Key NSA Evidence to Protect National Security

0
0
The US Government Claims It Must Destroy Key NSA Evidence to Protect National Security

The Fate of Mankind’s Libido Depends on the Health of Oysters

0
0
The Fate of Mankind’s Libido Depends on the Health of Oysters

Ground Zero: Journey to Golan

0
0

In May 2013, Syrian rebels took control of the heavily disputed border between Israel and Syria. Seven months later, they were joined by FSA forces from Daraa.

In January 2014, various Islamic tribal factions and militant religious groups banded together with the FSA in their fight against President Bashar al Assad’s forces to form the Brigade of the Two Holy Mosques.

Currently, groups such as Ansar al Sunna—who have been linked to the al Qaeda–afilliated Jabhat al Nusra and other Islamic militant groups—hold control of much of the border between Syria and Israel.

A Chemical Leak in Nova Scotia Has Sparked a First Nations Blockade

0
0



Chief Andrea Paul of Pictou Landing First Nation stands in front of a make-shift blockade. Paul and the blockade have turned back a mill-contracted excavator fromthe area, which is in the direct area of a traditional burial ground. All photos via the author.

Yesterday morning, staff at the Northern Pulp-owned Abercrombie Point pulp and paper mill in Pictou County, Nova Scotia, observed that a pipe carrying raw effluent to its final destination of the Boat Harbour Treatment Facility had sprung a leak and was spewing its contents into the adjacent waters of Pictou Harbour.

Northern Pulp spokesperson Dave MacKenzie could not verify how many hours the leak had been going on for, nor if the pipe itself had been absolutely severed – and was thus spewing its total contents into the harbour. The official mill stance is that the leak was discovered at about 7AM and the shutdown process: “began immediately and took a couple of hours.”

Pictou Landing First Nation resident Jonathan Beadle, however, suspects that the leak had gone undetected through the previous night—and that the pipe itself was completely ruptured at the leak point.

Beadle and his son were at the end of the raw effluent pipe at the Boat Harbour Treatment Facility, where the effluent should have been shooting out from. The pair were taking video footage for an upcoming documentary on the effects of living adjacent to the facility, considered locally as an environmental disaster. At this point, on Monday night around 7PM, the pipe, which MacKenzie confirms spews approximately 70 million litres of effluent daily, was dry.

“We were there between about seven and 7:30. I wanted to show my son the devastation brought onto the land, air and water and at the same time explain the impact of what such a hazardous site can do,” says Beadle. “Normally the pipe is spewing raw effluent into the settling ponds of Boat Harbour. The stench coming from the treatment facility was elevated, but the pipe was not running effluent into the settling ponds.”

Beadle has footage of the in-operational pipe from Monday night and it has been confirmed that the mill was running normally throughout the night.

By Tuesday morning, alarmed residents from the small community of Pictou Landing First Nation and the town of Pictou had become aware of the effluent leak. Pictou Landing First Nation chief Andrea Paul was incensed to learn of the spill via Facebook and text message, rather than by representatives of the mill. Her texts directed her to a Northern Pulp-issued media release.

“The media release [suggested] that the spill was under control, that it wasn't really such a big deal,” says Paul. “Then I came down and I was actually really shocked when I saw it...It looked like a swamp...In that area, you can see all the trees bent over, so you can imagine the force when it was first pumping out.”

Paul confirms that raw effluent was still pumping out of the ruptured pipe at approximately 10:30 a.m. on Tuesday morning. She then called the band's fisheries officer, who had also not been formally contacted by Northern Pulp. She then contacted the local branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, who Paul says had not been alerted either.

From the site of the ruptured pipe, as of press time, I observed raw effluent, now slowed to a relative trickle, flowing untreated into the waters of Pictou Harbour. The force of the effluent's path has also carved deep gouges through the shoreline as it made its way to Pictou Harbour, and the Atlantic Ocean beyond.

Supported by community members, Paul and Pictou Landing band council alerted their community of the emergency situation and descended upon the area of the ruptured pipe.



Investigative crew from the Mi'kmaw Conservation Group gather water and wildlife samples from the site of the spill. The crew was only part of numerous investigative units on the scene today. Investigators from the provincial and federal departments of environment as well as a third party consultant hired by the mill were also gathering information on the after-effects of the spill.
Unsatisfied with the information that Northern Pulp representatives were providing her with concerning their plans to remediate the spill zone—and in particular about an excavator potentially set to dig up the ruptured pipe, Paul and council decided to set up a snap blockade of the access road. The site of the spill is of extreme cultural sensitivity to the Mi'kmaq peoples of Pictou Landing and beyond, as it is in direct proximity to a traditional burial ground.

By later in the evening, the excavator had been removed and police had visited the scene of the access road blockade. About 50 people had joined the blockade at its high point, which remains in effect today.

Numerous governmental departments are currently examining the spill site, including the Nova Scotia Department of Environment, Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Mi'kmaw Conservation Group. Northern Pulp has also hired a third party consultant to conduct sampling of the area to determine the exact environmental damage.

“The concern of the content of the effluent is that it contains some chemicals,” says Nova Scotia Department of Environment media communications officer Lori Errington. “The biggest concern, really for us, is that there's pulp fibre and lignans. What happens when these enter a water system untreated in large amounts is that they suck the oxygen out of the water and affect the fish and wildlife.”

Indeed, unconfirmed reports and photos from as far away as Melmerby Beach Provincial Park—a popular summertime destination for Maritime nature lovers—show discoloured plumage washing ashore. Errington could not confirm whether the plumes of greenish-brown wash-up were related to the effluent leak, citing an ongoing investigation.

Paul echoes the Department of Environment's concerns to the local fishery, which is a vital source of economy to the First Nation band.

“Fisheries; that's our economy,” says Paul. “We have our commercial, band and core fisheries. And what does all this mean for our fishery? And it's not just the lobster, we also have the rock crab that will be happening right after the lobster. We have the Gaspereau. We have the salmon. You name it, we are fishing it.”

The story at hand is a compelling one, as it brings into focus not only the immediate risk of the effluent spill itself—Paul says that the blockade will remain and no excavation of the site will proceed without the presence of an archaeologist and a clear remediation plan from the mill and the provincial government.

But Paul also notes in her demands that the Nova Scotia provincial government must address the decades-old issue of the Boat Harbour Effluent Treatment Facility. Simply put, she wants the facility firstly closed and then remediated. Since 1967, Boat Harbour, once a tidal estuary of vital importance to the local Mi'kmaq peoples, has been the mill's effluent treatment dumping site. Locals consider the site a 163-acre environmental dead zone.

“In '91, '95, '97, 2008, we've received promises of: 'Yes, the province is going to clean this up,'” says Paul. “My ancestors said that these were the issues that were going to happen for using Boat Harbour as an effluent site. It was promised by the province that they would rectify this once it became a septic issue. And now we have to have something concrete.

“The clean up is a piece of this. The second piece is the commitment from the government and the mill that they are going to stop using Boat Harbour as their effluent dumping site and that they are actually going to come up with a plan of how they are going to deal with Boat Harbour and then move their treatment facility off-site and I'm guessing maybe at the mill.”

The blockade of the access point to the burst pipe remains in effect as of press time. There is currently a small police presence on site, but all in attendance are peaceful.

An Increasing Number of Canadian Women Are Surgically Tightening Their Vaginas with No Real Benefit

0
0



Image via Creative Commons.
If you’re not familiar with the hottest new genital-based surgery, vagina rejuvenation, aka vaginal tightening, is a two-part cosmetic surgery comprised of vaginoplasty and labiaplasty. The process works by using a laser to remove excess skin and tighten the vaginal canal and opening, while also reshaping the labia. It costs around $3,000 Canadian to go through with such a vagina overhaul, and it’s often used to reconstruct the vaginas of women who have been genitally mutilated or suffered major burns to their private parts. When performed on patients like these, vaginal tightening is a phenomenal surgery that has the potential to give women back their lives. However in recent years, more Canadian women are opting to have their vaginas sliced apart for aesthetic improvement, increasing self-confidence or, most commonly, for better sex—either for themselves or their significant other.

Unsurprisingly, this vaginal surgery trend is worrying doctors. In fact, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of Canada (SOGC) will be discussing concerns over genital cosmetic surgery during their Annual Clinic and Scientific Conference next week

The problem is that there is no scientific data to prove claims of an enhanced sex life, which is one of the main selling points for the procedure, according to plastic surgery websites. In fact, experts are beginning to find that vaginal tightening tends to have no long-term effect on sexual pleasure. Some insist the surgery can even lessen sexual pleasure.

Dr. Cleve Ziegler is a gynecologist at the Montreal Jewish General Hospital. He travelled to California nearly 10 years ago to certify himself to perform vaginal tightening surgeries. In 2010, he presented his data on the surgery, finding that there was no significant advantage to vaginal tightening. He subsequently discontinued performing the surgery. He is not the first, nor the last gynecologist to come to the conclusion that, as he puts it, “surgery to tighten a woman up rarely makes her sex life that much better.”

Dr. Jim Pfaus is a sexual behaviour psychologist who worked with Naomi Wolf on Vagina: A New Biography—a societal, physiological and psychological look into properly understanding the female mind and body. He’s done extensive research on vaginal tightening, and explained to me that there are serious risks involved in this procedure, which can cause bleeding, clotting, rectal, and bladder damage (to name a few). Plus, there’s also a chance that the procedure can cause nerve damage to the clitoris.

“Sexual pleasure is, most importantly, in the brain,” explains Pfaus. “So when you damage a nerve along its route to the brain, there’s a change in feeling. When nerve damage occurs in the vagina, it can’t be made up anywhere else.”

Add to that the risk of scar tissue—which actually has a numbing effect—and the possibility of the vagina becoming too tight so that it causes pain during intercourse, and you’re left with pretty much the opposite of the intended effect.

That’s not to say that women haven’t benefitted from the procedure. Both Dr. Pfaus and Dr. Ziegler have seen success stories, but warn that they are rare and cognitive.

“Some women will feel more sexual because instead of having a gaping vagina, they feel like they’re snug. But the most important sex organ is your head, not your vagina.” Dr. Ziegler explains. Of the five patients Dr. Ziegler performed the surgery on, only one saw substantial sexual improvement.

As Dr. Pfaus explains, “women can see a short term increase in sexual pleasure but it’s all mental.” He explains that the arousal and increased sexual pleasure can be temporary. “When a woman’s sexual partner looks at her and compliments her new vagina or describes how her new, tight vagina feels, it raises the woman’s self-esteem.”

Dr. Zeigler has since stopped performing the procedure, concluding that with the lack of proven benefit, it just amounted to giving women “designer vaginas.”

Unfortunately the only completed study we have on this cosmetic surgery is that of plastic surgeons Dr. Miklos and Dr. Moore who released a study on May 27 stating that there was substantial evidence that vaginal tightening increases sexual pleasure. The study followed 78 women before and for six months after their surgery finding sexual improvement in all but three. Those three saw no change, but there was no decrease in sexual pleasure at all. Here’s the problem: a study about plastic surgery by plastic surgeons is the moral equivalent of an environmental study rejecting climate change funded by an oil company. It’s unreliable, unethical, and has the potential to do harm.

We live in a society that encourages women to uphold an unrealistic ideal of physical perfection. The fact that the images women are trying to replicate are Photoshopped is not new information, but it’s information that is often ignored. Vaginal rejuvenation takes these ideals to a dangerous, labia-laser-beaming level. Like all surgeries, risks are involved—and like most plastic surgeries in their early stages, a lack of scientific evidence makes them controversial.

Vaginal rejuvenation is not merely superficial. It also hocks the false promise of increased feeling in the vagina. People trust their doctors, and obviously some women are taking their plastic surgeons’ advice at face value, undergoing a costly and unnecessary surgery while being misled into becoming the ‘perfect woman’ only to find that, in many cases, they are doing more harm than good.

Considering the price and risks of vaginal tightening, wouldn’t it be safer and more cost efficient to just work out the vaginal muscles? As Dr. Pfaus explains: “if you combine kegel exercises with a workout like yoga or Pilates, you’ll naturally tighten your vagina to the point that you’ll be able to squirt on command or any of those other things you see women do. All women are capable of it, but vaginal rejuvenation can’t do that for you.” 


@jesskenwood

Comics: Happy Birthday, Fashion Cat

Viewing all 38002 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images