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

'Dry Sex' Is the African Sexual Health Issue No One’s Talking About

$
0
0

[body_image width='1024' height='613' path='images/content-images/2014/12/02/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/02/' filename='dry-sex-is-the-african-sexual-health-issue-no-ones-talking-about-body-image-1417546556.jpg' id='8471']

A billboard advertising safe sex in Ghana. Photo via Flickr user ​Erik Cleves Kristensen

I first heard about "dry sex" when one of my friends returned from Malawi, where she was doing work with women and cervical cancer screenings. Dry sex, she told me, is the practice of reducing moisture in your vagina in order to seem tighter and cause more friction during intercourse. This is believed to be more pleasurable for the person with the penis, but for the women involved, it's incredibly painful. It's and idea linked to the perception that a tight vagina is one that hasn't been stretched out by overuse, which speaks to the low level of sexual education in the region.

It gets worse. To achieve dryness, some women insert chalk, sand, pulverized rock, herbs, paper, or sponges before sex. Douching with caustic liquids such as detergents, antiseptics, alcohol, and bleach is also common. The use of these substances, in combination with un-lubricated penetrative sex, can lead to vaginal abrasions and increased condom breakage—which compounds the spread of HIV.

Looking into the trend I found that information was thin. The studies I did find were mostly over a decade old. The impression was the issue was endemic, but hard figures were few and far between. For all the efforts put into HIV awareness and prevention campaigns in this part of Africa, none seemed to address dry sex or its role in the spread of the disease.

After much searching I found Dr. Marlene Wa​sserman, popularly know as Dr. Eve in South Africa. She's a sexual health clinician, advocate, and host of a radio program on which she attempts to dispel the country's rampant misinformation around sexual health. She believes that the silence around the issue isn't just due to ignorance, but also a massive hole in sexual education relating to pleasure equality and women's rights.

VICE: Why aren't people talking about dry sex?
Dr. Eve: There's on-again-off-again discussion around it, but you're right. There isn't enough. It hasn't got attention from the government to that level where policies are being put in place. 

And it's because it's about vaginas—it's way too real to talk about. We can talk about penises and circumcision, which we do all the time, and the government puts policies into place. But dare we talk about vaginas? I've been doing radio for 20 years and the only time I've been reported to the broadcasting commission was when I referred to vaginas.

Why is there reluctance to discuss it? You'd think with South Africa on the front lines of HIV AIDS people would get over their squeamishness.
We don't even talk about AIDS anymore, we're too fatigued. It's the same with violence, we're so immersed in a culture of it we don't want the discussion, there's a rebelliousness and a resistance. We don't have these conversations because we're so disenchanted by daily violence and the lack of justice in our country.

Look at how HIV/AIDS has been framed in Australia. Even within the paradigm of sexuality, it's been presented in the disease model. It's the ABC: abstain, be faithful, use a condom. The education is don't have sex. No one is talking about your anatomy, or vulvas, or vaginas, or clitoroses, or sexual pleasure. They're talking about falling pregnant and becoming infected—it's a fear-based approach.

So how do you remedy that when the discussion has become tired but isn't resolved?
It's about educating people and trying bring awareness. The conversation began when we realized HIV was impacting more on heterosexual women in South Africa than gay men. There was a drive then to say to women: Don't put Dettol in your vagina; don't dry your vagina out; this is dangerous. But the conversation hasn't gotten going and women are suffering.

Is there a class divide in sexual education?
It's definitely a class issue... among women who are less informed and less educated, there's an unbelievable ignorance around the idea the vagina adapts to the penis. People believe if you're with a guy with a bigger penis it means that your vagina is going to stay that big. And if you break up with him and go with a guy with a smaller penis you're going to still be really big and he's going to know you've been with other guys with larger penises. He's going to be self-conscious and not want to be with you. A woman's reputation depends on the size of her vagina.

Where is that message coming from?
It's from other women and it's intergenerational. Men aren't saying to women, "Put Dettol in your vagina," but rather they're saying, "Your vagina's loose, that means you're loose, that means you're a slut, and I'm throwing you away."

Has this thinking always been around?
It's always been around, the need to have a tight vagina, it's about youthfulness. But it's also blending with myth. You might remember in the 90s in South Africa when the discussion of HIV began, one of the myths that was incredibly damaging was if you had intercourse with a virgin you're going to cure yourself of AIDS. Do you remember that?

Yes, and I remember all the rapes of very young girls. But it's the same as women in the West chasing youth through vaginoplasties.
They're having their own genital mutilation. It's just a little more advanced and expensive than putting creams in your vagina. But isn't the principal the same? It's incredibly unhealthy as well to go have your vagina tightened because you want to have a honeymoon experience or have your partner think you're youthful.

I can see the social pressures, but I can't get past the pain. Is the larger issue also that pain is acceptable in sex?
Yes, and that's a big conversation. I've been part of a task force with the World Association of Sexual Health and we've launched the declaration of sexual rights: the right to pleasure, and we've been really pushing that. Women are surprised that's one of their rights. We know 33 percent of women have and tolerate painful penetration. That becomes part of what they expect from sex.

I suppose that's what happens when sex culture is dictated from the male perspective.
I did a workshop in a school in Knysna with 200 students and was horrified when these girls were telling me they would protect their virginity by going down on men. I said, "I expect they then go on their knees and go down on you."

There was this shocked silence. They said it's just not what men do. Why wouldn't you expect it, there has to be reciprocity, there's no way you should be going down on a guy if you're not getting assurance he's going down on you.

The motivation for doing that is to get a commitment and please the guy. They haven't thought about their pleasure.

Is that key? Re-approaching sexual health by teaching women about pleasure as much as teaching them to be safe?
Oh God, I spend my life talking about that. It's not an education at all. When I spoke to these kids I asked what has sexual education been about? It was all fear-based. Here we are in 2014 and that's still what they're getting.

Sex is about pleasure, rights, health, how to make good decisions, how to negotiate, and they're not getting taught that.

But as you mentioned, the message is coming from the families, so it's not just about formal education.
The same night I did that workshop I did one for the parents. I was telling them their kids are having sex because they love to have sex. It feel nice. Let's just be aware of that and manage it from there. 

Follow Wendy Syfret on ​Twitter.


Comics: Flowertown USA: Doofus and Henry Become Made Men

$
0
0

[body_image width='1200' height='2298' path='images/content-images/2014/12/02/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/02/' filename='flowertown-usa-in-doofus-and-henry-become-made-men-body-image-1417547686.jpg' id='8473']​

Why Was the BBC So Scared of World AIDS Day Ribbons?

$
0
0

[body_image width='1180' height='707' path='images/content-images/2014/12/02/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/02/' filename='bbc-world-aids-day-chris-mandle-327-body-image-1417517283.png' id='8288']

Prince Harry's speech, via ​YouTube

Every year​World AIDS Day aims to raise awareness and mourn the losses of those who have lost their lives to the disease. It's one of the eight official global public health campaigns recognized by the World Health Organization, and given that AIDS claims around 2 million lives each year, and the fact that ​Public Health England estimates that a quarter of men in the UK living with HIV don't even know they have it, it's crucial ​we talk about what's going on

So why does it feel like yesterday came and went in a heartbeat?

Across the pond there was a benefit concert featuring Kanye, Bruce Springsteen, and a Chris Martin–fronted U2 (that's right) and Obama—as he does every year—made an  ​official presidential proclamation.

Here? Well, Prince Harry teased us all day about revealing some huge secret. In the end it was a damp, special  World AIDS Day admission that he sometimes gets nervous speaking in publicOh, and the London Eye was red, which is sort of cool.

People had been wearing World AIDS Day ribbons in the run up to yesterday (all the X Factor judges wore them this weekend), but there's a big, BBC-shaped elephant in the room. Their blanket ban on publicly supporting charities meant a glaring absence of red ribbons across all their channels.

Last year, Graham Norton  ​was reprimanded by BBC bosses for wearing a red ribbon. The BBC isn't allowed, as an institution, to support or endorse the charities favored by its staff, and—except for the two weeks in November where nearly everyone has a poppy stapled to their chests—prefers to remain on the fence in such matters.

Politics surrounding what people in the media wear on their lapels has never been as controversial as this year, given the recent backlash against what the poppy represents, from what one Guardian critic suggested was pro-nationalist ideals to the needless opulence of the chintzy, diamanté ones worn by talent-show judges. ITV's Charlene White got a ton of abuse online when she was seen without one this year, and she had to write a blog post explaining why she didn't want to wear a poppy.

The BBC's reasoning behind everyone wearing a poppy in the first place was that it was a politically neutral, non-controversial way of support. That no longer seems to be the case. And yet, they  ​won't allow hosts to wear red World AIDS Day ribbons under the following code of conduct, guideline 4.4.20:

"The BBC must remain independent and distanced from government initiatives, campaigners, charities, and their agendas, no matter how apparently worthy the cause or how much their message appears to be accepted or uncontroversial."

In my mind, to allow staff to wear Remembrance Day poppies on air but not World AIDS Day ribbons, is like saying, "Everyone hates war, amirite?" and therefore, by virtue, "But not everyone hates AIDS."

Daisy Ellis, acting policy director at Terrence Higgins Trust, a charity that campaigns on issues relating to AIDS and HIV, points out that the red ribbon has never been a symbol of charity. Rather, one of solidarity for the 35 million people worldwide who live with HIV.

"We've seen red ribbons everywhere from the front benches of Parliament to the judges desk of the X Factor," she told me. "It is disappointing that, for the second year running, the BBC has chosen red tape instead," by which she means a resounding "no" to the ribbon.

World AIDS Day isn't asking people to pick a side. Trying to point out the devastating social stigma afflicting people who are diagnosed with HIV isn't—or shouldn't be—controversial in the slightest. But with a lack of visibility, we run the risk of people thinking this isn't something they need to support.

Gay health charity GMFA is running a campaign to stop HIV stigma and has profiled men of all ages who are living with the disease. The case studies show men losing their jobs, being evicted from their homes, and even shut off from their friends when they disclose their status. And it all comes from a total lack of understanding about the disease which, without the right attention, keeps the struggle hidden in the shadows. 

If BBC staff want to openly support the AIDS cause, they should be allowed to. Except they sort of can, and that's where it gets complicated: Graham Norton was told off because he was supporting World AIDs Day on his own show.But this restriction only applies to hosts, not guests. On the episode of his show where Norton was figuratively slapped on the wrist, professional foghorn Jeremy Clarkson was wearing the same ribbon and didn't get into trouble.

It's a weird loophole—one that's particularly odd when you look at the coverage the BBC gave one of its staff shaving off his mustache for Movember a few years ago. Why not just let people make an informed choice about representing charities on screen?

[body_image width='805' height='520' path='images/content-images/2014/12/02/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/02/' filename='bbc-world-aids-day-chris-mandle-327-body-image-1417517135.png' id='8287']

Still from Saturday night's  ​X Factor

What kind of hell are they afraid will break loose? Take X Factor, for example. The judges wore ribbons. There was no chaos. Are the BBC worried that the charitable floodgates will open and everyone will wear so many pins on their jackets they'll start jangling like TGI Friday employees?

Sure, if a newsreader supports a charity by wearing a pin that a journalist subsequently discovers is a controversial charity that promotes capital punishment or being able to marry dogs, it'll reflect bad on the Beeb. But wariness over divisive causes is having a pronounced effect on the visibility of other ones. The kind of blanket ban they're running now is completely shortsighted. It's keeping good causes in the dark.

"As a public body and a globally respected organization, the BBC should be taking this opportunity to remind its viewers of the impact that HIV continues to have on the world, and to challenge the unacceptable stigma that persists around the virus," Ellis tells me. "We appreciate that dress codes are not uncommon in large organizations, but a blanket ban on such an important international symbol seems heavy-handed."

The BBC reversing their stance probably wouldn't be the cultural apocalypse they think it is. Sky News and ITV staff are able to quietly and professionally back charities without it capsizing their news agenda or bringing any shame on them. And when there are ways around the rules—and contradictions surrounding them—it begs the question: why have them in the first place?

Follow Chris on  ​Twitter.


Sony Pictures Hack Is the Latest in Mega-Malware Tradition Started by Stuxnet

A Conversation with the 'World's Most Controversial Jew'

$
0
0

[body_image width='1200' height='800' path='images/content-images/2014/12/02/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/02/' filename='a-conversation-with-the-worlds-most-controversial-jew-182-body-image-1417541301.jpg' id='8443']​

Rabbi Shmuel "Shmuley" Boteach. All photos courtesy of Rabbi Boteach

This article originally appeared on VICE UK

Rabbi Shmuel "Shmuley" Boteach doesn't find much time to sleep. When he's not touring the world lecturing on sex, Judaism, or the Arab-Israeli conflict, you'll find him writing one of his 30-odd books, hanging out with US Senators or talking life on Oprah.

Ten years ago you would have found Shmuley at home with his close friend and pupil, Michael Jackson. But, at the end of last week, I found him tearing through an airport at 8.30AM, mobile phone in hand, about to board a plane back to LA after chairing a debate on Israel and Hamas at Oxford University.

Boteach has been named "The World's Most Controversial Jew" by his detractors and "Preacher of the Year" by the Times newspaper. He's also routinely cited as one of Newsweek's "50 Most Influential Rabbis."

We chatted about all things Shmuley: his teachings, his support of Israel, and why he believes, even in the wake of the recent Israeli offensive that caused  ​an estimated 580 Palestinian deaths, that Israel's proposed nation-state bill—which would enshrine the country as the Jewish homeland, prompting accusations that it would also institutionalize discrimination against minorities—should not trouble the West.

Born and raised in Los Angeles, Shmuley found his rabbinical path after being tutored by a group of young rabbis at a local college. "My parents did not have a happy marriage," he explains in an animated American accent. "They divorced when I was eight, and I think that led directly to my decision to become a rabbi. And, in becoming a rabbi, I transformed my own darkness into something that would bring light."

In 1988, the 21-year-old Rabbi Boteach was sent to Oxford University, where he gained a reputation as a charismatic public speaker, establishing the L'Chaim Society, which soon became the second largest organization in Oxford history and included  ​over 5,000 non-Jewish members.

It was L'Chaim's non-exclusivity that resulted in the first round of criticism agains Shmuley from within the Jewish community—criticism that has only increased as his status has grown. I ask him if he recalls the period when his teachings began to differ from traditional Judaism.

"I'd argue they never differed," he replies. "But the challenge of any religion or any system is how to take its eternal truths and adapt it to modern relevance. I don't think that Judaism can survive with its insularity and the kind of self-ghettoization that Jews have practiced... and I've tried to push against those boundaries of insularity. If I write a book about sexuality, for example, I'm not changing Judaism's truths; I'm bringing them to a wider audience."

[body_image width='960' height='638' path='images/content-images/2014/12/02/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/02/' filename='a-conversation-with-the-worlds-most-controversial-jew-182-body-image-1417541368.jpg' id='8444']

Shmuley spent 11 years in Oxford, traveling to London to speak on subjects like ethics, value-based societies, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the subject he's best known for: sex.

"In Oxford, I was debating all the time. Suddenly, people were coming to me for relationship counseling. Then the Sunday Times sent a reporter down to write a story about this rabbi who's emerging as relationships counselor," he laughs. "That kind of led to a book deal, [which] led to another book deal, and everything kind of escalated after that—until I published Kosher Sex in 1998, which became, very unexpectedly, an international best seller."

Shmuley's ideas surrounding sex have been widely criticized. His declarations that Jews are "frigid" and should readily engage in S&M and anal sex were met with thundering condemnation by a section of the Jewish community, with some denouncing the book as heresy.

I ask Shmuley what he thinks it was about Kosher Sex that riled everyone up so much.

"That rabbis shouldn't be writing about sex," he says. " The Daily Mail ran a story on my statement that it's part of Jewish law that a woman should orgasm before a man. Funnily, the vast majority of non-Jewish women who read the articles wrote comments on the website like, 'I better find me a Jewish man.' The women knew what I was talking about.

"But religion has its way of doing things," muses Shmuley. "And when you veer from that, you rattle the cage and people feel uncomfortable."

[body_image width='1600' height='1090' path='images/content-images/2014/12/02/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/02/' filename='a-conversation-with-the-worlds-most-controversial-jew-182-body-image-1417541380.jpg' id='8445']

Shmuley with Michael Jackson, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and others

In 1998, after relocating back to the US amid a frenzy of publicity and several world-tours, Shmuley's work was featured on Oprah, and his TV show Shalom in the Home premiered on TLC, giving him widespread recognition. One year later he was crowned "Preacher of the Year" by the Times and became a close friend and "spiritual advisor" to Michael Jackson.

"We just bonded," he explains. "We both had volatile childhoods. We were both raised in very religious families—Michael was a devout Jehovah's Witness—so we both had a firm religious anchor and a deep belief in God."

The pair were introduced by a mutual friend and began to meet regularly, with The King of Pop attending Sabbath meals at Boteach's house and accompanying him to the synagogue. "He loved it," says Shmuley. "Prayer was always a good thing, and I think Michael needed to be more spiritually grounded. And it just went from there. We also did lectures together at Oxford University and at Carnegie Hall."

Alongside Shmuley's lectures on sexual and spiritual equilibrium, he also chairs regular debates on the Arab-Israeli conflict. I was curious about his opinion on the dangers of the Jewish Nation State Bill, his perspective on the conflict and why he feels the UK is one of the most anti-Israeli states in the modern world.

§

"I'm really puzzled as to why Israel comes across such ferocious, nonstop criticism here—in Parliament, among British celebrities, among British editorial writers, among British students on British campuses," he tells me. "I mean, if you had to choose between a genocidal terrorist organization like Hamas, which believes in the extermination and annihilation of the Jewish people based on its 1988 charter, and a society like Israel, which is an open, liberal democracy that affirms all the values and rights that Britain does, how could Britain side with a terrorist organization? It doesn't make sense."

I say that people in the UK generally view Israel as an aggressor state, one that's well funded, heavily militarized and routinely brutalizes Palestinians, suggesting that Israel's aggression is responsible for the growth of Hamas. Of course, Middle Eastern conflict is a realm in which he's well versed, and as he presents his case, the pace of Shmuley's speech quickens.

"Last night I heard this argument a thousand times: Hamas is bad, but only because of Israel. If Israel didn't have military checkpoints, if Israel didn't humiliate Palestinians, if Israel didn't have an occupation... the list goes on," he says. "Even if this were true, which I'm not saying it is—but let's say that Israel is the worst country in the world. I mean, does anyone remember the Holocaust? When Jews were actually put into gas chambers and cattle cars? During that time, did you see Jews going around blowing up German buses full of children, like Hamas?"

I reply that it's possible Jews didn't engage in Hamas-esque tactics during World War II as their main focus was probably concealment and survival, not waging a offensive against the Nazi war machine. And that Hamas's offensive against Israel's cutting-edge weaponry may be a case of relying heavily on guerrilla tactics in place of a legitimate military force.

"Everyone agrees that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) are very powerful," Shmuley continues. "If Israel's so evil, why doesn't [it] just carpet-bomb Gaza and end the war tomorrow? Israel would never contemplate doing that. Israel's a righteous and just democracy that never wants to hurt a single Arab life. But what's it supposed to do when rockets are fired into its cities to murder its civilians every single day?"

"Israel doesn't carpet-bomb Gaza because it doesn't have the support of the international community," I answer. "That's why Israel's aggression towards Palestine is a little more clandestine." An answer to which, surprisingly, he agrees.

[body_image width='960' height='638' path='images/content-images/2014/12/02/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/02/' filename='a-conversation-with-the-worlds-most-controversial-jew-182-body-image-1417541461.jpg' id='8447']

Next, I ask the rabbi what he thinks of the newly drafted bill for Israel's controversial nation-state bill.

"I think everyone's making much more of it than it is," he argues. "Let's say Ed Miliband is elected prime minster. He's Jewish. Is he immediately going to switch Christmas for Hanukkah? No. As a Jew, he's going to respect that this is a Christian nation. So I'm not completely understanding of why the bill is so controversial. It doesn't disenfranchise anybody. Israel's the only place in the Middle East where Arabs live with complete freedom. Not like Syria, Qatar, or Iraq, and certainly not under the Islamic State."

I remind Boteach of the many, many Human Rights Watch reports on abuses in Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank, which certainly don't paint the country as a land of plenty for Arabs. And also that many,  ​including Israel's own president, feel the legal drafting of the Jewish nation state will further institutionalize racism and violence.

"Israel is the exact opposite to a racist state," says Boteach. "It has a national religious identity, like Britain. Is Britain racist? No. I just don't see that this [bill] is such a cataclysmic change for something that already exists. Israel's always been the Jewish state—everyone knows that."

Alongside his books, lectures and stance on the conflict, Shmuley is also active in American politics. In 2012 he ran for the US House of Representatives, where he won the Republican primaries for New Jersey's ninth congressional district seat, but lost to Congressman Bill Pascrell in the general election. As he prepares to board his flight to LA, I ask Boteach what's in store for the future, and if he plans to run again.

"Only for the presidency," he says, chuckling, "Shmuley for the White House, 2015. And you're the first to know that." 

Follow James Rippingale on ​Twitte​r.

Kristie Muller's Latest Photo Series Pulls Abstract Moments from Extreme Weather

$
0
0

[body_image width='1200' height='1600' path='images/content-images/2014/12/02/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/02/' filename='checking-in-on-photographer-kristie-mullers-evolution-344-body-image-1417551782.jpg' id='8493']

Photo by Kristie Muller.

We first published Kristie Muller's work last summer, which we described as a series of "peculiar still lifes and body​-part ​portraits." It's exciting, then, to revisit Muller's work and see some of the same ideas evolved. According to the artist herself, this new series was shot entirely in 2014, some of which were taken "in extreme heat" and the others were taken "in extreme cold."

Kristie Muller's first solo show was this year at Interstate Projects in New York. She's currently working on a second solo show. You can follow her on Tu​mblr and Ins​tagram

The Shared Experiences of Teenage Girls in Iraq and Chicago

$
0
0

[body_image width='2000' height='1480' path='images/content-images/2014/11/30/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/11/30/' filename='teenage-girls-from-chicago-and-iraq-tell-us-their-story-456-body-image-1417318511.jpg' id='7723']
​Art by Matt French

"Chiraq" has entered the popular lexicon as the new nickname for the Windy City. It's become so ubiquitous that some activist​s and artists have started speaking out against the term, claiming it portrays Chicago in a bad light. They blame the nickname's prevalence on everything from the drill rap made by artists like Chief Keef, to that docum​entary that our sister site Noisey made earlier this year. But the reason the name has stuck is because parts of the Midwestern city and the Middle Eastern country have both been home to a staggering amount of violence and suffering in recent years.

Iraq has long been seen as an unstable, volatile nation. The brutal Saddam Hussein regime ruled the country from the late 70s up until the 2000s, when the US invaded, overthrowing Hussein but destabilizing the nation in the process. Currently, Iraq is dealing with the Islamic State, an incompetent national army, and sectarian conflicts that have made governing the country seem impossible at times. According to the Iraq Body Count Project, ​more than 1,400 civilians met violent deaths in Iraq in November.

Chicago's murder rate peaked in 1992 wi​th 943 violent deaths. Though that number has fallen in the past few years, the third ​most populous city in the United States led the country with ​500 murders in 2012 according to the FBI. Although there are cities in the US with a higher per capita murder rate, Chicago's murder rate outpaced Baghdad's in 2012 with 18.5 murders per 100,000 compared with Baghdad's 15.79. (And that's leaving aside the city's reputation for ​corruption and police brutality.) 

The critics who've come out against the term Chiraq are mostly right: Although the nickname highlights the violence we all should be aware of, it's not fair to the real people behind the staggering statistics and menacing headlines. Even in the gang-ravaged streets of Chicago or the war-torn towns of Iraq, there are still people living their lives there with laughter, love, and excitement for the future.

In an effort to find out how life in Chicago and Iraq might be similar beyond bullets and blood, I reached out to two teenage girls, Chicagoan Lalah Smith and Iraqi Ameem Nasier. Lalah lives in the West Side of Chicago. Ameem lives in Babylon, a town about 55 miles away from Baghdad. I spoke with them about everything from crushing on boys to religion and music. Here's what they had to say.

[body_image width='2000' height='843' path='images/content-images/2014/11/30/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/11/30/' filename='teenage-girls-from-chicago-and-iraq-tell-us-their-story-456-body-image-1417318536.jpg' id='7724']

HOME

Ameem Nasier: I'm from Babylon, but we call it "Hillah," which is the name of the town's center. It's not a big city. Baghdad, however, is a big city and I love it. I visit it sometimes to see my uncle and my grandma. But I haven't been in awhile because it's not safe there. It's not all that safe in Babylon, either—but it's home.

Lalah Smith: Chicago is a good city. It's the people who can make it look bad because of their actions. The killings, the shootings, the fighting, the robberies... It happens every week where I live. But I love Chicago. I especially love downtown, because it is so pretty. You have people walking around. There's a lot of stores. And there's the Willis Tower—you can actually go in there! There's so many things you can see and discover in Chicago.

FAMILY

Ameem Nasier: I have two sisters and one little brother. I'm the oldest. The second one is 16 years old, the other is 13, and my brother is six years old. I'm close to all of them. We're like best friends and we always hangout together. I also have a cat. Her name is Simsima and she's got little kittens.

Lalah Smith: My dad works at a school. My mom does community service, answering phones and stuff. I live with my mom. My siblings live all over. My brother is like 25 or 26 and lives in New York City. My second oldest sister is about to be 30 and lives in Minnesota. And my oldest sister lives right here in Chicago. For the holidays, sometimes we go to my grandparents house out in Las Vegas. Last time I went was about three or four years ago. My grandmother's the type of person who doesn't like to cook. She always takes us to Arby's. I got sick of that the last time we visited. And I'm gonna tell her that the next time I see her.

RELIGION

Ameem Nasier: We are Muslims—most of the families in Babylon are. Babylon is mostly Shia, but there are a lot of Sunnis, too. But my family doesn't care about that. It's not important to be Shia or Sunni, because we are all Muslims. ISIS are not Muslims, they are just using the name of Islam, because they are killing both Shia and Sunni. It's not strict like that in Babylon. We don't have to pray at school. We can do it when we're at home. But everybody likes to celebrate Eid. Especially with the whole family. We don't have gifts, we have "eideya," which is money. When we get it, we can go and buy whatever we want.

Lalah Smith: I am not religious. But God knows my heart. My favorite holiday is Christmas. The best gift I ever got was a Hello Kitty comforter. I love Hello Kitty, I'm obsessed with it.

SCHOOL

Ameem Nasier: Girls and boys have their own schools. There's only like one school in Iraq that I know where the girls and boys can go together. At school, we study mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, English, Arabic, and Islam. All of the schools teach English. My favorite subjects are English and biology. We wear the same uniform Americans wear for special schools. It's a white shirt and a black skirt. I actually like wearing it. We have no school on Fridays. Some of my friends drive to school. I learned how to drive, but my parents won't let me drive alone until I'm 18. If I get good grades, my parents might buy me a car as a reward. Right now, we have our own driver who takes us to and from school. I'm excited because I'm finally a senior and this is my last year.

Lalah Smith: I go to an OK high school. I'm getting close to my senior year. I like high school more than middle school, because at least we have more freedom and we can be on our phones and stuff. My favorite class is child development. I'm watching the baby for that class this week. It's a little irritating, because it cries all the time. It either wants to be fed or needs a diaper change. The whole thing makes me not want to have kids.

My least favorite classes are math and geometry. My least favorite teacher is old and irritating. Nobody gets along with her in class. And she doesn't do her hair in the morning and her breath stinks. We only had one substitute in her class. But I didn't like the sub either, and I got kicked out. The worst thing I've ever done in school is get suspended, because of a little altercation. It's a long story. But I'm not going to tell it because I don't want to be a part of any gossip. I hate that... I get to school on the bus, so all I want for my birthday is a new car. I always wanted a Dodge Charger, that's my dream car.

MUSIC

Ameem Nasier: I like Eminem, One Direction, Ed Sheeran, and so many others. There are Iraqi songs I like, too. There is Kadim Al Sahir, he is really popular. There are a lot of old singers I like as well. There are some concerts in Erbil and Baghdad. But here in Hillah, there are no concerts. I've never really been to a concert before. I sort of went to one here in Babylon, but it wasn't a real concert. It was more like a small party for one of the newest singers. I really want to go to one of the huge concerts with One Direction or Kadim Al Sahir.

Lalah Smith: I don't have many CDs. I've got Keyshia Cole's, Kelly Price's, and Chris Brown's—I think that's it. But I listen to a lot of music. I like R&B. I like hip-hop. I like loud music. My favorite artist is August Alsina. I've never been to a concert, but I always wanted to go to one.

FOOD

Ameem Nasier: My favorite snacks are chips, chocolate, and cupcakes. We buy things like those from a small shop at school. At school, sometimes I take a sandwich with me that I made at home. My favorite foods at home are finger chips, grilled chicken, grilled or fried fish, dolmas, and biryani.

Lalah Smith: My favorite snacks are Oreos. And probably ice cream. All I eat is Oreo ice cream and mint ice cream. I also love Hello Kitty candy. I don't eat the lunch they serve at school, it's disgusting. I bring peanut butter and jelly and small little oranges. My favorite home-cooked meal is chili—my mom's chili.

AFTER SCHOOL

Ameem Nasier: I like to skate. Or sometimes I go out with family. I also love to read. My favorite books are The Fault in Our Stars, The Ocean at the End of Lane, and some other Arabic novels by Ahlam Mosteghanemi. I also like to go on to my Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram and connect with friends or text them over the phone.

Lalah Smith: At first I did not like Twitter. I was all against it because I thought Facebook was better. But then I made one and I got addicted. So I stopped going on Facebook, but I'm on Twitter every single day.

I used to be on a step team, but I had to quit because my grades were kind of going down and I didn't have time. I actually like to go shopping or to the movies. I don't really watch TV because I always have homework to do. But my favorite show is Love & Hip Hop: Atlanta. I actually just got done watching a scary movie with my sister called Annabelle. That will be the first and the last time I watch a scary movie. I will never ever watch a scary movie again.

BOYS AND FRIENDS

Ameem Nasier: One of my friends has a boyfriend. But it's a secret because of course her parents will be angry if they find out. On the weekend me and my friends can't hangout together. But the boys are allowed to get together on the weekends.

Lalah Smith: I heard that Erica Mena and Bow Wow are engaged, which makes me happy. He used to be my crush when I was little. But August Alsina is my number one, and Kevin Gates is my number two. He's so cute, oh my God. I don't like boys from my high school. Some of them are cute but their personalities are ugly. I wouldn't date none of them.

I had a best friend but we stopped talking because I moved away. When I came back, I found out she had moved too. Then I found out she got herself another best friend. She was the only best friend I ever had.

I used to go to parties when I was younger but then I stopped, because sometimes people fight at parties and I just didn't wanna get involved with that. The worst party I've ever been to was in a basement full of people. We got kicked out because the music was too loud and we were disturbing the neighbors.

EMBARRASSING MOMENTS

Ameem Nasier: A couple of days ago, I thought I heard my friend talking about the books I gave her. I thought she was saying my books are not good. So I confronted her about why she would say things like that. But she was talking about other books. [Laughs]

Lalah Smith: One time, when I was in the first grade, I got in trouble at school. They called my mom. So she took me in the bathroom and whooped me. And everybody at school heard me screaming.

Then there was the time I started my period—I was in the third grade. I went to the bathroom and I was like, What the hell is this? I went back to the classroom and I waited until the end of the day. My mom came and picked me up and I was like, "Mommy! I'm bleeding!" And she was like, "What are you talkin' about?" So I wiped myself with a tissue and I was like, "Look!" And then she was like, "Oh my God!" She took me to my auntie's house cause it was literally right down the street. I still remember that. My auntie was like, "You know what this means? You're a grown woman."

STYLE

Ameem Nasier: I love shopping, of course. My style is casual, like a bloomer or jeans and a T-shirt and jacket. I like to wear sweaters, too. I don't wear a hijab.I like decorating, because my room is my world. The bed, cupboard, and all the other stuff are pink. They all go together. There are a lot of pictures and two dreamcatchers on the wall. I have a lot of cute things.

Lalah Smith: I'm the type of girl who will pick out some pants first, then I will change my shirt, then my shoes. Because, I like to match... No, I have to match. I cannot go anywhere without matching. Blue is my favorite color—navy blue. We have to wear uniforms at school now. And people dress almost the same, nothing is different.

I love to decorate my room. I've got black dressers and I have a queen-sized bed. Half of my dresser is covered with all of my perfume bottles. And my bed has my favorite Hello Kitty cover and I have my mom's big teddy bear that she bought me for Valentine's Day.

SCARY EXPERIENCES

Ameem Nasier: About four years ago, I experienced an explosion. I was going home with my driver and a car blew up. It was too scary. But things like that usually happen here. Like while we are in class, we can hear the sound of explosions. When we first hear it, we all get scared. Then the teacher says, "It's OK, it's just an explosion, let's continue." Like it's not something strange or new.

In 2003, the bombarding stopped, and then I remember it was safe in Babylon. But in Baghdad it wasn't. In 2008, there were a lot of gangs. After that, it was safe for like six months. Then there was a month of explosions. And then six months of safety... It's random. But now the danger is ISIS. They are in the north of Babylon, and that's not good. My neighborhood is a safe place, but because I don't wear hijab, the people look at me as a bad girl. Because there is a mosque and most of our neighborhood is very religious.

Lalah Smith: One of my friends got shot. But that's not even the scariest thing. Have you ever seen The Purge movie? The movie's about criminals going to other people's houses and killing them. They have masks on and stuff. Some people out here in Chicago actually do that!

When my friend got shot, he was outside, standing on the corner with another guy. Some people drove by and they shot him. The other guy with him didn't get shot. He had a car come pick him up, like right away. My friend was there on the corner, dead. It happened last month. He was like 18 or 19. He would have been a senior this year.

THE FUTURE

Ameem Nasier: I've visited Lebanon, Turkey, Malaysia, Singapore, Jordan, Ukraine, and the United States. Next, I really want to visit Greece. I plan on going to college. And maybe I'll work in a shop or mall in the holidays while I study. Not because I need the money, but it's better than sitting at home, doing nothing. In terms of the future, I don't know. I haven't planned for that yet. I would like to be an architect or pharmacist. But my family wants me to be a doctor!

Lalah Smith: I've been to Las Vegas, I've been to Texas, and I've been to Minnesota. I want to travel to either Atlanta, Paris, or somewhere that is an island.

If I won the lottery I would go to Las Vegas and I would spend it all on a house with five bedrooms, three full bathrooms, and a three car garage. Then I'd put $80,000 in each of my kids' bank accounts. I would then buy my two favorite cars, and then save up the rest... And then go shopping!

Right now I'm in the process [of looking for work], but I'm still in school. I was gonna work at either a grocery store or the mall, but for some stores you have to be 18 or 16. Well actually, some people have permits you can get. And that's what I'm gonna do.

I'll probably go to college. But I don't even know if I really even want to go to college. I want to be an FBI agent because of Criminal Minds. And I actually wanna leave Chicago one day and explore new things.

Follow Rula on ​Twitter.

The Trials and Tribulations of Matisyahu


The Art of Not Dying or: Being Frozen Until You Can Come Back

A Guy in Detroit Says He Stole an Ambulance to Get to a Strip Club

$
0
0

​Late on Sunday night, two ​paramedics parked their ambulance outside McLaren Hospital in Pontiac, Michigan, in order to wheel a patient inside on a gurney. They did so without locking up or taking the keys out of the ignition. This is an accepted practice among paramedics, because who, other than ​Trevor Philips, fucks with an ambulance?

When they came out, according to a ​local ABC news affiliate, their ride was gone, apparently commandeered for an urgent mission: to get to a strip club in neighboring Detroit called the Booby Trap, post-haste.

The paramedics used a GPS tracking app to locate the ambulance, and found that it was slowly ambling through nearby Sterling Heights, where cops stopped the driver. After his apprehension, the driver told the officers where he was trying to go, maybe on the assumption that they would tell him, "Oh, we didn't realize it was urgent! Carry on." Or maybe he was just lying.

Screen grab from the ABC News ​Report

The Booby Trap, in case you're curious, was described by a ​Yelper as a tiny place that "isn't so bad. Sure the women are a little rough around the edges, but after a few of their bottom-priced drinks you'll forget all about that." But sadly, the Booby Trap no longer exists—it's been renovated, and turned into a ​brand new joint called the King of Diamonds, which describes itself as "Detroit's premier adult night spot," featuring cuisine by "certified five star chef's (sic)." There's been no comment on whether or not the strip club's recent facelift was the reason the 51-year-old man allegedly stole an ambulance to get there.

Two months ago, a similar thing happened in Baltimore, when cops say a man and a woman ​stole a school bus in order to buy cigarettes. These excuses point to a kind of hasty, ass-covering logic, like when Homer Simpson ​told the cops Moe's Tavern was a pornography store, not a bar, to get away with drunk driving.

Sometimes, honesty isn't the best policy. If my scheme was to steal a big, inconvenient vehicle to get to my smack dealer fast because I was itching hard and I didn't have much of a plan for what to do with my stolen ride after I scored, I probably wouldn't tell the cops that. If I got caught, I'd probably just say I was on my way to buy some fireworks and condoms.

The alleged thief remains unidentified by the Detroi​t News, which says he'll probably face grand theft auto charges. 

Follow Mike Pearl on Twitte​r.

Romania Paraded Its Old-Fashioned War Machines Through a Terrible Blizzard on Monday

$
0
0

Romanian president Traian Băsescu walks sad and alone through the blizzard.

This post originally appeared on VICE Romania

Romania is not exactly renowned for its advanced military, but that didn't stop thousands of Romanians from flooding the center of Bucharest this past Monday to see the National Day military parade through one of the worst blizzards to have ever hit the city.

As a proud Romanian, I too went to check out the parade but left with a bitter taste in my mouth. You see, to me, this military parade that takes place every year on December 1 is just a remnant of unjustified communist megalomania. Of course, most (if not all) countries in the world parade their war machines around their big cities every once in a while, but those countries usually have something better to show off.

The car in the picture hasn't been produced in Romania since 2003. Some of them are 50 years old

Romania is way behind both when it comes to military budget and weaponry. We have a few tanks, but we don't have ammunition to use in live-fire drills. It's lucky that military service is no longer mandatory, because in the last decade people were starting to pass on their boots to their sons—that's how poor the military is.

The Red Scorpions battalion

I am not saying it's not OK to show some respect to the men defending your country. I was touched to see the Red Scorpions Battalion, which fought in Afghanistan. 

But I think there are ways to show our respect without parading tons of useless metal through our city. I assume there are enough bright people at the Ministry of Defense to come up with an event in which Romanians could show their appreciation for their heroes.

It's embarrassing to organize a military parade when an old military chopper crashed just a week ago— killing eight R​omanian soldiers. Or when the planes the country bought second-hand from Russia won't even fly anymore. 

Americans

A Polish officer

If this year's parade had any purpose it was to transmit one single message: Romania has allies. So Romanian soldiers marched with American Marines and French, Turkish, and Polish infantry forces. 

I suppose it helps remind our neighboring countries that Romania is part of NATO and that we are close to the Republic of Moldova, who also sent some soldiers to march alongside ours.

French soldiers

Soldiers from the Republic of Moldova

If you think about the low defense budget, the "modernized" MIG planes and helicopters that keep crashing and Russia being just a stone's throw away, you realize that all Romania can really brag about are its NATO allies.

Whether we want to admit it or not we are a country of modest means. Maybe it's time to start acting the part.

American Navy Seals

Follow Alex Mihăileanu on ​Twitter.

​Why Can’t New York City Keep Track of Crime in Public Parks?

$
0
0

[body_image width='2000' height='1500' path='images/content-images/2014/12/02/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/02/' filename='why-cant-new-york-city-keep-track-of-crime-in-public-parks-1202-body-image-1417545754.jpg' id='8470']

Photos by the author

On the morning of Thursday, October 16, a 50-year-old man named Alfedo Caracena-Camber was found lying face-up at Lozada Playground, a recreational area for children in the Bronx Projects. He had been stabbed multiple times in the head and chest. He was barely clinging to life when a jogger found him, and died in the ambulance. 

If nothing else, one might assume Bronx residents could turn to their government to educate them on the safety of parks and playgrounds like this one. But the New York Police Department doesn't keep track of crimes there. In fact, the NYPD doesn't track crime in most of the thousands of parks in the city, tallying statistics for a mere 31 of them.

New York "wrote the book on data-driven crime fighting," as Mayor Bill de Blasio  ​wrote himself back in 2012, when he was serving as public advocate, but the "dearth of statistics on crime in [its] parks is astounding." And it's not like they've just forgotten about it. The NYPD has been mandated for almost a decade to track crime in all parks one acre or greater via Local Law 114, which passed in 2005, but they've bullshitted around, pointing to a clause in the bill that made that mandate "subject to the availability of resources and the introduction of necessary technology." In the age of the iPhone, GPS, and constant surveillance (including of ​innocent Muslim citizens), the NYPD has continued to claim it doesn't have the technology to track crime in public spaces. 

When a crime like the Padazo playground murder happens, "it won't go into a database earmarking that it happened inside a park," says Geoffrey Croft, director of the NYC Park Advocates, an organization that attempts to track crime in the city's parks and playgrounds. "Unless you had access to tens of thousands of criminal complaints a year, you would never know this type of activity was going on in the parks."

Joe Puleo, President of Parks Enforcement Union Local 983, thinks it's just a question of commitment. "I believe that they do have the resources [to track crime in parks]," he told me. "I just think that they're not motivated to do this—one, because it costs extra money, manpower, and two, if they were to start tracking crime in parks, it would reflect that there really is a problem out there."

Croft, for his part, repeatedly emphasized how "disgraceful" and "embarrassing" the city's approach to crime in parks is.

When faced with park crime, he told me, the city not only neglects to properly report it, but often takes inefficient measures to curb it. One of the city's approaches—used on Riverside Park, St. Mary's Park, and Marcus Garvey Park—is to simply to rip out all the benches in problem zones, which makes it unusable for everyone. "It's ridiculous," Croft said. "It's a horrific example of society failing. And giving over our open spaces to criminals."

Our conversation concerned one park in particular: Marcus Garvey Park, in Harlem. It has a hill known as the Acropolis, atop which sits the legendary Harlem Fire Watchtower. Over the years, the Acropolis has gathered a reputation as a criminal hangout, and it has been subsequently gutted of its lights and benches.

"It's disgraceful what they did. It means that you or I or the average person can't go up there and enjoy those views," Croft said. "They even put up that stupid chain-link fence around [the water tower]. So instead of fixing it, they put up the fence, which is actually more of a safety issue, because there's less room if you were in trouble up there. This is another example of how parks are abandoned to deal with crime."

"See for yourself," Croft dared me. "Go up to the top of Marcus Garvey Park—not at night, of course—and physically look around."

I asked him what would happen if I went at night. "I don't recommend it," He said ominously. "That's just not safe."

Naturally, I took a subway uptown and arrived at the park after midnight, staring up the hill at the Acropolis. Even at the bottom, it was quiet and scary. Few people were around. I began to climb the monumental steps. As I climbed higher and higher, noises retreated into the shadows. Light began to fade. Soon it became so dark that I could barely see the steps in front of me. I pulled out my camera and took a picture, half-expecting to see some crazed ghoul in the frame. At one point, I realized that if I screamed up here, no one would be able to hear me.

Finally, I reached the top—a beautiful view, one of the best in the city, no doubt. I began to walk towards the watchtower, which was enclosed by the chain-link fence Croft told me about. All of a sudden, not three steps away, leaning against a wall, I saw the shadowy outline of a man. I froze.

The person started shuffling. I looked down, and realized the man had a hand on his exposed penis. The guy was masturbating.

He grunted and started to zip up his pants, declining to be interviewed. "You're not allowed to go there," he muttered over his shoulder, walking away.

I waited for the guy to disappear from sight, and promptly scaled the fence, dropping down the other side. The terror from that strange encounter suddenly began to settle in my chest. I quickly scaled the fence again, sprinted down the steps, my heart pounding, and made it to the bottom. I was safe.

[body_image width='2000' height='1500' path='images/content-images/2014/12/02/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/02/' filename='why-cant-new-york-city-keep-track-of-crime-in-public-parks-1202-body-image-1417545691.jpg' id='8469']

The Harlem Fire Watchtower

For park-goers determined to avoid that kind of eerie experience, there does appear to be some light at the end of the tunnel. In February, the city passed a new bill requiring the tracking and disclosure of crimes in over 870 NYC parks by 2017, with stronger language than the 2005 legislation. Mark Levine, chair of the Parks Committee on the City Council, thinks the wait is almost over.

"I know that folks from the Council have been really anxious to get the reporting [from the recent bill] that was mandated," he told me, "and we're hopeful that it happens as soon as possible—the end of the year is what the administration is promising, but we feel some urgency here, for sure."

That's all well and good, but the NYPD, following in the tradition of its past mandates,  ​already missed the first deadline for that bill, which required them to report crime in the city's 100 biggest parks by June 1. Once again, they hid behind technological iss​ues and "computer problems." When I asked Levine about this, he said, "In the age of geocoding and GPS, there's no reason that we can't have precise location data on every crime, so I don't think there's a technological barrier here. I think it's probably been that they haven't had the bandwidth to pull it all together, but I really want to make sure it happens as soon as possible. It's critical information for the public to have. If we've learned one thing about fighting crime in the last couple decades, it's that having accurate data is essential."

The NYPD and mayor's office did not respond to my requests for comment. 

Everyone—often depending on their size, gender, and skin color—has their own take on which parks are safe. But the NYPD owes it to the public to provide basic safety information about the parks, which are supposed to be peaceful respites from the intensity of everyday urban life.

"If people see that the playground that they go to has a large number of felony crimes that occurred there," Joe Puleo, the union president, said, "they might not want to go there anymore. But if it happens at night, then maybe the average person won't know that it happened and they would continue to go there. But ultimately, if we don't track it, it catches up to them, and then something explodes, and everyone says, 'Well, how come nobody said anything?' But it was building all along, and people just didn't want to acknowledge it."

Several officials, asking to speak off the record, stressed to me that the delay was an "issue," but that they had no idea why the NYPD wasn't moving faster. It's also worth noting that George Kelling, who coined the "​broken windows" policing model embraced by the mayor and his police commissioner, Bill Bratton, has been brought on to ​help the city figure out park crime, among other things. Now we just need some transparency. It's been almost a decade in the making.

Follow Zach Schwartz on ​Twitter.

Every Warlord's Favourite Assault Rifle Is Getting Rebranded

$
0
0

[body_image width='800' height='460' path='images/content-images/2014/12/02/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/02/' filename='every-warlords-favourite-assault-rifle-is-getting-rebranded-324-body-image-1417556752.jpg' id='8526']

The iconic AK-47 is being discontinued. Photo via ​Wikipedia.

After years of being among the most recognizable faces of death and destruction the world over, Soviet-made Kalashnikov assault rifles (the most famous of which is the AK-47) are being rebranded to get in line with our fancy, fashionable, modern era.

Since the days of the Cold War, the Soviet response to the American M16 has found itself in the hands of child soldiers in Africa, Colonel Gad​dafi, the Taliban—hell, it even has a Chinese k​noc​koff. Few can deny that its rugged durability withstands the tests of war: bury it in an Iraqi desert for 20 years and it'll still fire when you dig it up.

For those of you who've never fired an AK-47 before, the sand-resistant rifle is not perfect. Its rounds are larger and harder to control when an operator fires at the fully automatic setting, so there's a reason western soldiers still use lighter, more precise assault rifles. But the fact remains: the Kalashnikov may just be the most impactful engineering feat of the former Soviet empire.

But now, with Russia brazenly trying to reassert its place as a militaristic superpower, the Kalashnikov company is also rebranding. Accordi​ng to Sputnik News, the Russian state media agency, Kalashnikov ​Concern (the official title of Russia's largest small arms producer) is outlining a new corporate strategy that will last through 2020.

[body_image width='690' height='460' path='images/content-images/2014/12/02/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/02/' filename='every-warlords-favourite-assault-rifle-is-getting-rebranded-324-body-image-1417556950.jpg' id='8530']

Kalashnikov's new branding. Photo via Rostec State Corporation.

Based on this ​RT report, Kalashnikov Concern paid over $380,000 to gussy up its brand image. The result: a revamping of its military, civilian, and sports brands, and a new line of survival wear and hunting knives.

Already the top assault rifle producer in the country, Kalashnikov said not all of its new weapons line would share the same visual brand we've come to recognize in the AK-47, AK-74, and AKM assault rifles. The new military/police weapons line will have a new logo that integrates the iconic curved clip of an AK-47 into a red K.

[body_image width='690' height='460' path='images/content-images/2014/12/02/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/02/' filename='every-warlords-favourite-assault-rifle-is-getting-rebranded-324-body-image-1417556866.jpg' id='8529']

Kalashnikov guns and the new Kalashnikov logo. Photo via Rostec State Corporation.

"It is impossible to compete with global arms industry leaders without a strong, recognizable brand," said the company.

Part of the Kalashnikov rebranding strategy also includes a new slogan commonly translated as "Protecting Peace." However, the Russian slogan reads either "Weapons of Peace" or "Weapons of the World"—depending on the reader's interpretation of the Russian word "mir." This may suggest that Kalashnikov takes pride in how ubiquitous its firearms have become.

The AK-47 is possibly the most widely recognizable weapon on earth. How many rifles have found its way onto a natio​nal flag, or a Miami ra​pper's face, for that matter?

Let's face it: whatever your favourite AK variation is, the Russian assault rifle enjoys a dominant place in pop culture as the emblem of anti-American forces. It seems whatever new conflict zone US forces find themselves in, the enemy always wields an AK.

And as Kalashnikov maintains on i​ts website, in over 60 years, 100 million of its assault rifles have been manufactured—not to mention the knockoffs available in illegal arms bazaars all over the world.

As it stands, few military experts will argue against the effectiveness of the machine. Moreover, in a media unveiling of the new plan, the company claims it will sport a new face of "pe​ace" across the world, in a move measured to help resuscitate its image in the face of western ​weapons sanctions against Russia. This rebranding looks to legitimize the company's reputation and expand its markets both domestically and internationally.

The question is, why mess with a good thing? What other weapons-dealing contractor can boast the same track record of success? The answer might be just that: the Russian arms manufacturer could be moving toward upgrading its weapons systems to force potential buyers into a new purchase.

Whether or not this rebranding means the end of the classic AK-47 as we know it remains to be seen. But it's certain that it's cultural impact and notoriety will live on forever. After all, in the roughly Google tran​slated words of Mikhail Kalashnikov, father of all AK assault rifles: "A firearm must be beautiful like a woman, it must fit your hands perfectly and make you want to take it!" 

A Woman Faked Having a Baby to Keep Her One-Night Stand Around

$
0
0

​ [body_image width='1200' height='799' path='images/content-images/2014/12/02/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/02/' filename='a-woman-faked-having-a-baby-to-keep-her-one-night-stand-around-122-body-image-1417557573.jpg' id='8542']

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Charmaine Wilson, a 25-year-old nurse from Bridgend, South Wales, was charged with fraud last month when her beau found out that the toddler she said had been conceived during their one-night stand was ​actually a kid she had been "borrowing" from a friend for the last six months.

Wilson met Liam Griffiths, her faux baby daddy, in 2012, when they had some kind of drunken ​one-night stand. Griffiths said he made it clear that he wasn't interested in doing it again, but Wilson was apparently hung up on him and proceeded to stalk him on social media. Griffiths said he blocked her and changed his number.

So when Wilson ran into him at the hospital where she worked (Griffiths was reportedly there to visit his dying grandfather), she "borrowed" a toddler from her friend and told Griffiths that it was his. When he demanded proof, Wilson used her position as a nurse to create a fraudulent birth certificate and forge a DNA test.

I'm going to pause here, because there are some really puzzling components to the story already:

  1. Did the parent willingly lend out their toddler for this elaborate con? Maybe it seemed like a harmless joke at first, but what kind of person is like, "Yeah, borrow my kid for a few months or whatever and let me know how it goes with that guy you're trying to get back together with!"
  2. How long did Wilson think this con was going to last? It's one thing to convince Griffiths that the baby is his, but do you then have to keep that charade up for the rest of your life together? Do you have to enroll the kid in school and raise him? If so, it's not really "borrowing" the kid so much as "taking it forever."
  3. Speaking of which, is it really that easy to forge birth certificates in the UK?
  4. What the fuck is wrong with people?

I don't want to give ​Men's Rights Activists any more reason to crow about how all women are crazy, but I will say that Wilson isn't the only person who's done this kind of thing: In September, a woman named  ​Catherine Goins tried to pull off a similar ruse by faking pregnancy to make her boyfriend stay with her. When he found out that she wasn't actually pregnant, she murdered another woman so that she could steal her baby and pretend it was hers. 

There was another case in April, where a woman named ​Grisel Ramirez kidnapped a newborn from a hospital in an attempt to get back with her estranged husband. And in 2012, a woman named ​Annette Morales-Rodriguez stabbed a pregnant woman with an X-Acto knife in an attempt to "cut the fetus out" and steal it. I'm not sure why she wanted the fetus rather than a baby that had already been birthed, but it had something to do with her wanting to give her boyfriend a baby after previously having two miscarriages. (It also probably had something to do with her being pretty darn disturbed.)

Anyway, back to the story: When Wilson told Griffiths that he had knocked her up, he seemed to take it in stride. He and his parents reportedly welcomed Wilson into the family and showered her with gifts, including a car. It's not totally clear what the status of their relationship was at this time, but Griffiths was building a small house "on the grounds of the family home,"  ​according to the Telegraph, so it looks like they were trying to scrape things together and be a little family. This went on for six months.

Then, when Griffiths posted a photo of him and his "son" on Facebook, someone recognized the kid and told Griffiths that there was no way he could be the father.

When the case was presented at the Bridgend Magistrates' Court, the judge ruled that "the discovery of the child's real identity has left [Griffiths and his family] with a feeling of loss similar to bereavement." Some examples of this included the fact that Griffiths had sacrificed his summer vacation to build a new house for his new family, and had planned to sell his MGF convertible as it wasn't "child friendly." Griffiths's parents also stated that they had "spent an awful lot of money in accepting that he was our flesh and blood."

Wilson was sentenced to four months in jail on two counts of fraud, but she was let out early yesterday—after only 23 days—on the condition that she take a course on "thinking skills."  Griffiths and his family have now placed a restraining order against Wilson.

In Wilson's defense, her attorney argued "she felt she had a connection with Mr. Griffiths and wanted to be with him"—which seems like a pretty thin excuse for lying to someone for months. It's unclear why the toddler's real parents gave the kid up to this woman for six months, but the child is likely back with them now, or at least until one of their other friends asks to borrow it.

Follow Arielle Pardes on ​Twitter.

Obama Doesn’t Really Want to End Police Militarization

$
0
0

Four months ago, when ​​protests first erupted in Ferguson, Mo.​, and images started to emerge of camo-clad police officers patrolling the streets in armored tanks, President Obama promised to review federal programs that funnel military-grade equipment to local police department. Now, the​ findings of that review are in, and for the most part, the reportputs us right back where we started.

What comes out of the review, released by the White House on Monday, is a promise for increased transparency and tightened standards for transferring military gear to local law enforcement. But the report doesn't call for terminating the programs, or even curtailing them in any meaningful way.

In short, it looks a lot like Obama is trying to have it both ways on the issue of police militarization. The report's release came amid a day of White House meetings with police, civil rights activists, local leaders, and law enforcement aimed at projecting a strong response to the events in Ferguson. Speaking to reporters after the meeting, Obama promised to "make sure we're not building a militarized culture inside our local law enforcement." take steps to address the "simmering distrust that exists between too many police departments and too many communities of color."

"This is not a problem simply of Ferguson, Missouri," he said. "This is a problem that is national. It is a solvable problem, but it is one that, unfortunately, spikes after one event and then fades into the background until something else happens."

But while Obama promised to take steps to "make sure we're not building a militarized culture inside our local law enforcement," White House officials continued to defend programs that have sent billions of dollars in surplus military equipment, including weapons and tactical vehicles, to state and local police. In fact, administration officials found that the equipment transfers were actually useful as a counterterrorism strategy, despite the alarmingly heavy-handed use of the equipment by police in Ferguson and other cities.

Rather than repeal the bills that established the equipment transfer programs, the administration said Monday that it was focused on improving accountability. ""It is not clear that there is a consistency with regard to the way that these programs are implemented, structured and audited, and that's something that needs to be addressed," White House Press Secretary Joshua Earnest said Monday.

To that end, Obama will issue executive orders directing federal agencies to improve the way that equipment is transferred and audited to local agencies, including requiring local governments to authorize any procurements by law enforcement, and requiring that police be trained to use the equipment. The White House will also propose a $263-million spending package to expand law enforcement training. About $75 million of that would provide matching funds for as many as 50,000 body cameras for police.

Still, the moves are unlikely to appease critics of the Pentagon's 1033 program, the source of most of the military-grade gear used by police in Ferguson. While administration officials have pointed out repeatedly that only about 4 percent of equipment transferred through the program is actually "controlled property" (i.e. weapons, tanks, and other military surplus items), the numbers are still jarring. According to the report released Monday, the federal government has provided 460,000 pieces of military equipment to local police, including 92,442 small arms, 44,275 night-vision devices, 5,235 Humvees, 617 mine-resistant vehicles, and 616 aircraft. All told, state and law enforcement agencies have gotten $18 billion in funds and resources from the feds in the last five years alone. And of course, it doesn't help that one of the chairs of Obama's new police militarization task force is Philadelphia Police Commissioner, a former Washington, DC, police chief who oversaw the mass arrest of protesters during the 2002 IMF and World Bank meetings. 

Much of what the press and public has learned about the Pentagon's 1033 program has come through Freedom of Information Act requests, but in many cases police departments released incomplete data or stonewalled the requests entirely. A 2014 ACLU study found 62 percent of the SWAT raids surveyed were searches for drugs and disproportionately used against people of color. However, hundreds of police department's refused to turn over data for that study. Thirteen states refuse​d to turn over data to Muckrock on what equipment they received from the federal government. Massachusetts SWAT teams even claim​ed they were exempt from state public record laws.

The limited reforms proposed by the White House reflect a dwindling interest in Washington in curbing police militarization. While the images from Ferguson initially incensed both liberals and small-government conservatives, bipartisan momentum behind reforming police militarization ran out of steam, as so often happens on Capitol Hill. Republican Senators Rand Paul and Tom Coburn are working together to craft legislation to curb police militarization in the next session of Congress. But administration officials refused to say Monday whether Obama would support proposed legislation to limit the transfer of equipment to local law enforcement.

"Our assumption is Congress has an intent here to support local law enforcement with the use of this kind of equipment," an administration official told reporters, according to BuzzFeed. "Our focus is on what kind of protections are in place to make sure it's used properly and safely."

Still, some activists hope that the White House actions will at least restart the conversation about the heavy-handed tactics used by local law enforcement, particularly against minorities. 

"The president really wanted to make clear that problems with policing of communities of color are not isolated incidents," Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU's  Washington Legislative office, said in an interview with VICE. "I felt more optimistic than I have in a long time that the Michael Brown, Eric Gardner and Trayvon Martin incidents are being connected by the federal government." 

"We think the guidance [Obama] has issued is a good start, but it needs to go farther," she added. "We would like him to consider a possible moratorium on the entire program. Or at least for police departments under investigation by the Justice Department. They should not still be getting rewarded with military equipment."


'Jingle All the Way 2' Is the Pinnacle of Larry the Cable Guy's Career

$
0
0


[youtube src='//www.youtube.com/embed/UVstztozgvg?rel=0' width='700' height='394']

There is no ​comedian quite like Larry the Cable Guy. His films are completely dreadful in every way possible—the acting, writing, direction, and comedic timing are all functioning at a grade school level. From Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector through to his current infatuation with starring in direct-to-video sequels to decades-old family comedies, every entry in the Cable Guy Canon has tested my patience and driven me to the brink of madness. His new film, Jingle All the Way 2, might be the most perfect version of this abominable sub-genre of "redneck comedy."

The release of a new Larry the Cable Guy motion picture is rarely celebrated in mainstream culture. His movies are like a self-replicating organism or the Michael Keaton clones from Multiplicity. As if you were biting into a fast-food hamburger, you can taste the infernal machines that made it when you watch it. Since he appeared in his first starring vehicle in 2006—the aforementioned Health Inspector—he's acted in six live action films and played a guy named "Larry" five times.


[youtube src='//www.youtube.com/embed/A-COoCHkueI?rel=0' width='700' height='394']

The one movie where he has to stretch his range and try to remember to respond to a name that's not "Larry" was A Madea Christmas—which was the "shitty racial stereotype" equivalent of a ​Marvel/DC crossover. His character's name was "Buddy," which has the same number of letters as "Larry" and helpfully also ends in "y." I wondered to myself if there was just another character already named Larry when he was cast that necessitated the change, but there wasn't. 

He also wears glasses in the movie, which was probably a point of contention during production. If he could have convinced Pixar to forgo animating a car for the character of Mater and instead plopped the real Larry into Cars, he would have. As it stands now, A Madea Christmas was Larry the Cable Guy's Punch-Drunk Love—an earnest attempt to show the world a comedian can act. 

Madea and Larry the Cable Guy share a comedic sensibility that starts at laughing at mispronounced words and ends with cliche jokes about lower-class oafs, but what separates Larry from Madea and makes him the gold standard of cringe comedy is that Tyler Perry exists out in public, but Dan Whitney does not.

The long con of Larry the Cable Guy's career has been so perfect and so fascinating to watch because the character of "Larry" has ceased to be a character at all. Larry is all we know and all we will ever know of this man. If he's out in public, ​he's Larry.  Dan Whitney makes Sacha Baron Cohen look like ​Steven Seagal when it comes to commitment to character. I think we've all given up hope of ever seeing ​Dan Whitney again, as though he's in a trunk somewhere with his throat slit and a banana in his mouth. 

Maybe an alien carved his stomach open and crawled inside like Han did with the Tauntaun in Empire Strikes Back. Some sick space parasite is controlling Dan Whitney's body, forcing him into ever more ludicrous career decisions. Yes, Dan. You will sponsor your own ​brand of snack foods, appear in ​heartburn medication commercials, and star in Tooth Fairy 2. Maybe it's some kind of scheme by the aliens to destroy the human race not with weapons, but through poisoning our culture without us ever noticing. 

Jingle All the Way 2 is not a mean-spirited film. It has a heartwarming message about the importance of family. It is only 90 minutes long. It's the low-budget sequel to a baroque era Arnold Schwarzenegger comedy that's only claim to fame is how many clips from it are in those ​"Arnold quotes" supercut videos on YouTube. This isn't ​American Psycho 2 or ​S. Darko. The original Jingle All the Way was a miserable bowl of lukewarm cinematic haggis, so no one is going to be upset about Jingle All the Way 2 tarnishing the legacy of its predecessor. The production company behind the sequel is WWE Films, which has a legendary pedigree of making cheap schlock. With all that in mind, no one can be accused of getting tricked into watching this movie. The studio might as well have slapped a sticker on the front of the box that says "This is going to suck."

What's actually insidious about the whole endeavor is that it's so good at being so bad. I once compared the ​mediocrity of Britney Spears to a truck-stop painting—so polished in its meaninglessness that it becomes beautiful. Jingle All the Way 2 is the Britney Spears of movies. I did not laugh once. I did not weep for humanity's future. I did not move from my seat except to get water. I didn't even get mad that I had to watch it to write this article. I just let the images and sounds wash over me like a cool redneck mud bath on a humid day at Honey Boo Boo's house. Jingle All the Way 2 offers a full compliment of expertly awful sight gags: Larry glues his ass to a mechanical bull, has his pants ripped off, is sprayed with fake snow, and occasionally puts his family in mortal danger. It's glorious.

The plot of the film is what you would expect: Larry plays "Larry" a doofus who shares custody of his daughter with his ex-wife and her new, wealthy husband. Larry and the new guy try to one-up each other until the end, when they realize the little girl just wants her family to get along.

In one of the film's more appalling set-pieces, Larry and sidekick Claude (played by Santino Marella, the latest recipient of ​WWE's vertical integration master plan) pack a semi-truck with snow to one-up his daughter's step-dad's lavish Christmas decorations. Real snow is preferable to fake snow, after all. It's real, and fake snow is, of course, not real. Larry is too dull, dim-witted, and devoid of any basic understanding of physics to realize that the snow will melt inside the hot truck. When Larry opens the back of the truck, he's hit with a rushing wall of water that knocks him back on his ass. Boy, is he embarrassed! Fortunately for Larry, his daughter finds the whole thing hilarious (which is more than I can say for myself).

Only in these sorts of movies do human beings exist who find morons charming. Larry lighting his homemade, makeshift Christmas lights early in the film could have started a fire that would murder his entire family in a most horrific way. The man has no formal training as an electrician and doesn't seem to have any trade or talent outside of falling over backwards. If something went wrong with his lights, he'd have to stand there watching his ex-wife and young daughter melt right before his eyes, just praying he can find a working landline phone to call 911 before they dissolve into puddles of gelatinous human flesh. Kinda grim for a Christmas movie, so thankfully that didn't happen.

[youtube src='//www.youtube.com/embed/VoLDPTkEYIg?rel=0' width='700' height='394']

The reason why Larry the Cable Guy is perfect for these cookie-cutter ​sequels is because half of the movie is already written when he's cast in the lead. The problem with direct-to-video franchises like ​Bring It On​American Pie, and ​Behind Enemy Lines is that thought has to go into writing new characters and fitting the micro-budget, shoddy sequels into an elaborate continuity. Not with a movie headlined by ol' Larry. 

Just like ​Ernest before him, you can plug this character into a situation, a genre, or a wacky scenario and it "works." The Ernest or ​Police Academy formula of recycling the same shitty jokes for seven movies only works if the brand attached is popular. The first Ernest and the first Police Academy films were blockbusters in their day. Larry the Cable Guy has never starred in a successful feature film comedy, but he is someone people know. You can expect his fans to show up, but you can dupe even more people into dropping coin if you market his movies as sequels to popular old titles. That's the entire business of cinema now—brand recognition. Larry in a sequel means two fanbases for the price of one. 

Could this formula be applied more frequently? Yes, but I won't stop at the theoretical. I want to put your money where my mouth is. I'm ready to pitch a whole slew of unnecessary sequels starring Larry the Cable Guy, so pick up your landline phone, Hollywood! 

How do you feel about Get Smart 2 starring Larry as a bumbling redneck spy who lives in a trailer and has a phone built into his workboots? Not your cup of moonshine? Then try Coneheads 2, starring Larry as a lovable oaf who lives in a trailer, but also has a cone on his head. For the sake of saving valuable money, instead of him being an alien from the planet Remulak, he's just a dude with a traffic cone glued to his skull.

Last, but not least, may I suggest How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days 2? Larry is an ill-educated hillbilly who lives in a trailer and accidentally loses his best friend from school (who has grown up to be a snooty billionaire) in the unforgiving woods of North Carolina after a ten-day visit for their class reunion. Will Larry find his friend before he starves to death or is eaten by bears? More importantly, will he realize the true meaning of Christmas? The only way to find out is to greenlight my script. 

Follow Dave Schilling on ​Twitter.

Knight Foundation and VICE Launch Fund to Train Journalists in Innovative Storytelling

The Government Is Trying to Keep You From Swallowing Magnets

$
0
0
[youtube src='//www.youtube.com/embed/uLwR81UyceE' width='640' height='360']

Over the past two years, the ​Consumer Product Safety Commission has been actively crusading against the sale of small neodymium sculpture magnets, colloquially called "buckyballs," citing the high risk factor of children potentially swallowing these powerful magnets, resulting in what has been described by the agency as "a gunshot wound to the gut with no sign of entry or exit" as they pin against each other, breaking through intestinal tissue, and necessitating ​surgical removal.

In 2012, following a passionate letter by US Senator  ​Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) to the CPSC, pleading for a ban on these toys, saying "the current warnings on the packaging have not reduced the number of incidences of accidental ingestion, and in fact, cases are on the rise," the agency sued the three major magnet producers—Buckyballs, Magnicube, and Zen Magnets—attempting to force bankruptcy via mandatory recall. Although Buckyballs and Magnicube quickly and quietly shut down operations and initiated a recall, Zen Magnets, who had never been subject to an injury complaint, fought the suit, and as of yesterday, have begun a three-week hearing with the CPSC to determine the validity of the lawsuit and potential ban, which would go into effect April 1, 2015.

We spoke with Zen Magnets owner, Shihan Qu, to learn more about why, according to him, this innocuous toy has been getting so much attention. Shihan recently released a video detailing what he claims are the dishonest statistics used by the CPSC to justify the ban.

[body_image width='1583' height='2048' path='images/content-images/2014/12/02/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/02/' filename='the-consumer-product-safety-commission-is-leading-a-crusade-against-magnets-122-body-image-1417544838.jpg' id='8457']

Poster via  the ​CPSC Flickr

VICE: Based on your video, it seems as though the CPSC is hell-bent on stopping you guys. Why?
​Shihan Qu: Well, one of the past commissioners told me that she thought it was because back in the mid 2000s the agency got a lot of backlash for not regulating magnetic toy products after a ​child died due to ingestion. So it seems like they're taking it all out on these magnet spheres now, and after these past few years, they're kind of entrenched in the battle, they have too much momentum, and if they turn back now it'll look bad on their agency. 

Do you feel like a scapegoat?
​Yeah. It's so they can look like they're doing a lot when there's relatively little risk to shut down such a small industry, unlike something like detergent pads. A little while ago they were going after Proctor & Gamble, and just last week they had a meeting about altering standards with them, but they wouldn't do that for us.

Their language concerning detergent packs read like an ​advertisement: "A product intended to make your clothes clean and bright should not lead to a parent having to call the poison help line because their child is in distress," while the decision on Buckyballs talks about the "​sacred charge" of protecting children. 
I mean, that's exactly it, and there are a ton of other harmful products. Say somebody goes and dies on a bike; it doesn't get the same kind of attention obviously, even though trampolines and balloons have a much clearer injury rate than these magnets. 

To be clear, though, swallowing these magnets can lead to serious harm, more so than swallowing a marble or falling off a bike.
​Oh for sure, don't get that wrong. They're more dangerous than many other products, and they definitely require more care, but that doesn't mean we should ban them. It means they should be respected.

[body_image width='1200' height='498' path='images/content-images/2014/12/02/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/02/' filename='the-consumer-product-safety-commission-is-leading-a-crusade-against-magnets-122-body-image-1417543302.png' id='8450']

Screengrab via    ​zenmagnets.com

In your video about the ban, you say that the CPSC data used to support the ban was very misleading.
​Extremely misleading; there are so many false positives from there it's not even funny. They're projecting from 72 [injuries], and they even include specifically magnets that are one centimeter in diameter, even though magnet spheres are like half the diameter of that.

But that's part of the wording of their ban, isn't it? It's not a complete ban on spherical magnets, only those of a certain size and strength.
​Yeah, so technically it's a ban on small magnets that are strong and small enough for a child to ingest, which covers pretty much all sculpture magnets. They need to be strong and they need to be small, if they were any bigger—say, two inches in diameter—they would be so strong they could amputate your fingers, and it would be very hard to pull them apart, like hard drive magnets.

But in terms of strength, could you not put out weaker small magnets as sculpture magnets?
​No. That's actually something that one of our experts have addressed. If they were weak enough to be below the guidelines, you could barely build anything. You could build nothing with them, literally. You can't build anything rectangular, they don't really hold formation beyond two layers because they'd just fall apart, and if you were to drop them on the ground they would just scatter everywhere.

Somebody on ​Reddit suggested marketing them as bullets to get around the necessity of the ban, which is kind of silly, but why not just rebrand them as not toys?
​It's a pretty ironic loophole to joke about, but the new guidelines have most recently added, in the past year, that magnets must also be banned based on how they are most commonly used. So usually bans are based on how they're marketed, how they're intended to be used, but now it's about how they're commonly used—which means there's no way we can sell them as, say, industrial magnets, because the spheres are still commonly used for sculptures.

So you guys are the last ones still fighting to stay in business.
​Yeah, we're the very last ones.

So, why...
​Why are we fighting?

Yeah, what keeps you going?
​You know, the actual answer is two-fold. First of all, I want to keep selling magnets, I want to keep making money from magnets, I want to keep seeing the magnets provide inspiration and joy for people. And man, I love magnets. But number two is that I really feel like the CPSC is stepping out of bounds, and that somebody needs to go and teach them some humility. And as much as I want to win, I really want to see the CPSC lose. It's not only about the financial incentives.

So I'm assuming that for this hearing on Monday, you'll be arguing that the data doesn't justify the ban?
​Um, I don't think so. I think the CPSC is going to try to keep that information out of the trial. It's a three week long hearing, and it's in front of an administrative law judge. The CPSC are going to say that all the rule-making stuff is separate, and they're going to basically try to avoid any talk that would involve the ban itself.

How has the public support been?
​Oh man, if this were on a ballot, it would be laughed off so fast. But of course, it's not, it's just unelected bureaucrats in Washington doing whatever they want. So basically it's a pretty solid 88 percent that opposed a magnet ban for all ages. The majority believes that the proper age would be above eight, because that's the age approved for science kits. There's two public polls, one by  ​Public Policy Polling and ​Google Consumer Surveys.

What can people do to sway the CPSC's opinion?
​I don't think they necessarily can be swayed. They've already made their decision. There was a period of time when they had to take public comments, and during that period they received over 2,500 comments and that was more than half of the comments the agency had ever received in their history, but still they dismissed it. 

Not to be too bleak, but then what hope is there?
​What hope is there? Well, we're going to appeal to the rule-making, we're challenging that. And also, concerning the recall, we're fighting that, although the rule-making is a bit more complicated. And way more expensive, I'll tell you that. But they've already made their decision—they're banning magnets, that's that, it's up to us to try and fight it.

After I had this conversation with Qu, I got in touch with Scott Wolfson, the Communications Director for CPSC. Although Qu seemed to have a problem with the number of accidents used for the ban, Wolfson stressed that their approach has been comprehensive and not solely based on the number of incidents, and without adequate voluntary standards, they've had to "step in and step up" to take action. When asked why not simply include an age limit or warning label, the CPSC explained that educating and warning labels don't really do much, and that small magnets "pose a unique risk." Apparently, children don't often tell their parents when they swallow them, and doctors often don't take x-rays to diagnose the problem correctly, sending kids home instead, as was the case with 19-month-old Annaka Chaffin who died last year from ingesting Buckyballs. I asked why, in that case, do certain other dangerous products simply receive warning labels (as Qu pointed out with detergent pods) but Wolfson denied that it was so simple. He explained that safety standards had been raised for pods and were more severe than simple warning labels, including calling for ingredient changes and tamper-proof containers.

Follow Jules Suzdaltsev on ​Twitter.

The Law Firm That Works with Oligarchs, Money Launderers, and Dictators

$
0
0

[body_image width='1600' height='1039' path='images/content-images/2014/12/03/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/03/' filename='evil-llc-0000524-v21n12-body-image-1417576517.jpg' id='8614']

Illustrations by Ole Tillmann

One purpose of a so-called shell company is that the money put in it can't be traced to its owner. Say, for example, you're a dictator who wants to finance terrorism, take a bribe, or pilfer your nation's treasury. A shell company is a bogus entity that allows you to hold and move cash under a corporate name without international law enforcement or tax authorities knowing it's yours. Once the money is disguised as the assets of this enterprise—which would typically be set up by a trusted lawyer or crony in an offshore secrecy haven to further obscure ownership—you can spend it or use it for new nefarious purposes. This is the very definition of money laundering—taking dirty money and making it clean—and shell companies make it possible. They're "getaway vehicles," says former US Customs investigator Keith Prager, "for bank robbers."

Sometimes, however, international investigators are able to follow the money. Take the case of Rami Makhlouf, the richest and most powerful businessman in Syria. Makhlouf is widely believed to be the "bagman"—a person who collects and manages ill-gotten loot—for President Bashar al Assad, who during the past three years has helped cause the deaths of more than 200,000 of his citizens in the country's civil war.

Besides Assad, there are few people more hated in Syria than Makhlouf. He's the president's cousin and the brother of the chief of Syrian intelligence. Using these connections, Makhlouf built a business network that spanned from telecommunications to energy to banking, and by the time he reached 40 he had accumulated a fortune estimated to be in the billions. When the uprising against the regime began in early 2011, protesters torched a branch of his mobile-phone company and chanted, "Makhlouf is a thief!"

In 2006 the British magazine the New Statesmen said "no foreign company can do business in Syria without Makhlouf's approval and involvement," and a classified 2008 cable from the American embassy in Damascus released by WikiLeaks described him as the "poster boy of corruption in Syria." In that same year, the US Treasury Department banned US companies from doing business with Makhlouf, saying that he'd "amassed his commercial empire by exploiting his relationships with Syrian regime members" and "used Syrian intelligence officials to intimidate his business rivals."

When the Syrian civil war kicked off in 2011 and state security forces began gunning down Assad's opponents, the US and the European Union put Makhlouf on a list of regime cronies whose international assets should be traced and seized, because, as the Treasury Department put it, he'd grown rich by bribing and "aiding the public corruption of Syrian regime officials."

If Makhlouf was a bank robber, his getaway car was a company called Drex Technologies SA. In July 2012, the Treasury Department identified Drex—a dummy entity with a British Virgin Islands address—as the corporate vehicle Makhlouf secretly controlled and used "to facilitate and manage his international financial holdings." In other words, say Makhlouf had skimmed a few million dollars off the top of a secret business deal with a crooked Syrian official. He wouldn't put it into a bank account that he could be linked to; instead, he'd funnel it through Drex so the money couldn't be connected to him.

In late October, I obtained several documents about Drex from the British Virgin Islands business-registration office. The records reveal very little—Makhlouf's name, for example, is nowhere on them. It was only because the Syrian civil war had prompted international investigations to try to track down and freeze the assets of Makhlouf and other Assad regime bandits that the US Treasury discovered that he controlled the company and was its owner, officer, and shareholder. But by the time the Treasury Department did it was too late, as Drex had by then disappeared from the British Virgin Islands' corporate registry. In other words, Drex Technologies SA was a vehicle that hid Makhlouf's shadowy financial activities, and before that was discovered Makhlouf had had plenty of time to move its operations and assets to another offshore jurisdiction.

Across the globe, there are vast numbers of competing firms, and many of them register shells that are every bit as shady as Drex. 

Yet who makes these fictitious entities possible? To conduct business, shell companies like Drex need a registered agent, sometimes an attorney, who files the required incorporation papers and whose office usually serves as the shell's address. This process creates a layer between the shell and its owner, especially if the dummy company is filed in a secrecy haven where ownership information is guarded behind an impenetrable wall of laws and regulations. In Makhlouf's case—and, I discovered, in the case of various other crooked businessmen and international gangsters—the organization that helped incorporate his shell company and shield it from international scrutiny was a law firm called Mossack Fonseca, which had served as Drex's registered agent from July 4, 2000, to late 2011.

Founded in Panama in 1977 by German-born Jurgen Mossack and a Panamanian man named Ramón Fonseca, a vice president of the country's current ruling party, it later added a third director, Swiss lawyer Christoph Zollinger. Since the 70s the law firm has expanded operations and now works with affiliated offices in 44 countries, including the Bahamas, Cyprus, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Brazil, Jersey, Luxembourg, the British Virgin Islands, and—perhaps most troubling—the US, specifically the states of Wyoming, Florida, and Nevada.

Mossack Fonseca, of course, is not alone in setting up shell companies used by the world's crooks and tax evaders. Across the globe, there are vast numbers of competing firms, and many of them register shells that are every bit as shady as Drex. Proof of this includes the case of Viktor Bout, who, in the 1990s, peddled arms to the Taliban through a Delaware-registered shell. More recently, in 2010, a man named Khalid Ouazzani pleaded guilty to using a Kansas City, Missouri, firm called Truman Used Auto Parts to move money for Al Qaeda.

Scattered news accounts and international investigations have pointed to Mossack Fonseca as one of the widest-reaching creators of shell companies in the world, but it has, until now, used an array of legal and accounting tricks that have allowed it and its clients to mostly fly under the radar.

(The company disputes this claim and asserted in an email that "there is no court or government record that has ever identified Mossack Fonseca as the creator of 'shell' companies. Anything tying our group to 'criminal activity' is unfounded, inasmuch as we have not actually been notified of the existence of any legal proceeding... thus far.")

But a yearlong investigation reveals that Mossack Fonseca—which the Economist has described as a remarkably "tight-lipped" industry leader in offshore finance—has served as the registered agent for front companies tied to an array of notorious gangsters and thieves that, in addition to Makhlouf, includes associates of Muammar Gaddafi and Robert Mugabe, as well as an Israeli billionaire who has plundered one of Africa's poorest countries, and a business oligarch named Lázaro Báez, who, according to US court records and reports by a federal prosecutor in Argentina, allegedly laundered tens of millions of dollars through a network of shell firms, some which Mossack Fonseca had helped register in Las Vegas.

Documents and interviews I've conducted also show that Mossack Fonseca is happy to help clients set up so-called shelf companies—which are the vintage wines of the money-laundering business, hated by law enforcement and beloved by crooks because they are "aged" for years before being sold, so that they appear to be established corporations with solid track records—including in Las Vegas. One international asset manager who talked to Mossack Fonseca about doing business with them told me that the firm offered to sell a 50-year-old shelf company for $100,000.

If shell companies are getaway cars for bank robbers, then Mossack Fonseca may be the world's shadiest car dealership.

Last March, I flew to Panama City, home to Mossack Fonseca's headquarters. Victor, a local journalist, drove me around town, past the lush golf courses and mansions in the old US-run Canal Zone, by dingy apartment buildings in the shantytown of El Chorrillo, and through the skyscraper-lined central business district. At the time of my visit Panama was preparing for national elections, and campaign posters plastered every telephone pole and whitewashed wall. Victor offered a running commentary as we drove. "That guy's an asshole," he said, pointing to a billboard for a candidate for the national assembly who, he claimed, was linked to the local drug trade. "Well, they're all assholes. But he's a real asshole."

Panama has been run by assholes for more than a century. In 1903, the administration of Theodore Roosevelt created the country after bullying Colombia to hand over what was then the province of Panama. Roosevelt acted at the behest of various banking groups, among them J. P. Morgan & Co., which was appointed as the country's official "fiscal agent," in charge of managing $10 million in aid that the US rushed down to the new nation.

American banks helped turn Panama into a financial center, and the country emerged as a tax and money-laundering haven in the 1970s after the government passed some of the world's strictest financial-secrecy rules. That likely encouraged Mossack Fonseca to establish itself here in 1977. The financial-secrecy rules didn't just promise foreign investors confidentiality—they made it a crime for banks to disclose any information about clients unless they were ordered to by a court in a case that involved terrorism, drug trafficking, or another serious offense (tax evasion was specifically excluded from that category). These laws attracted a long line of dirtbags and dictators who used Panama to hide their stolen loot, including Ferdinand Marcos, "Baby Doc" Duvalier, and Augusto Pinochet.

When Manuel Noriega, commander of the Panama Defense Forces, took power in 1983, he essentially nationalized the money-laundering business by partnering with the Medellín drug cartel and giving it free rein to operate in the country. Noriega reliably supported American foreign policy in the region—and for years the CIA had him on its payroll—but the US lost patience when he opposed American efforts to topple the leftist Sandinista government in neighboring Nicaragua. That helped lead to the 1989 invasion of Panama that ousted Noriega and returned to power the old banking elites, heirs of the J.P. Morgan legacy. 

The new government of President Guillermo Endara, a corporate lawyer who was sworn in on an American military base a few hours after the invasion began on December 20, 1989, offered a kinder, gentler face than Noriega's regime. But since then he and his democratically elected successors have done little to address the country's most obvious problems: corruption and poverty. A recent US government report said that Panama is "plagued" by fraud and international tax evasion, all of which are "major sources of illicit funds."

"You can go to any law firm in the city, from the smallest to the biggest, and open up a shell company with no questions asked."

Today, Panama's financial laws remain extraordinarily lax. Foreign firms can bring unlimited amounts of money into the country without paying taxes, and an International Monetary Fund report earlier this year said that of 40 recommended steps countries should take to combat money laundering and terrorism financing, Panama had fully implemented only one. In September, the New York Times reported that cronies of Russian president Vladimir Putin had funneled money offshore though shell structures in Panama. "When it comes to money laundering, we offer full service: rinse, wash, and dry," said Miguel Antonio Bernal, a prominent local lawyer and political analyst. "You can go to any law firm in the city, from the smallest to the biggest, and open up a shell company with no questions asked."

In Panama City I was comfortably shacked up in a mammoth 16th-floor studio suite at the Waldorf Astoria hotel, a glittering tower with a panoramic view of Panama Bay. I'd timed my arrival to coincide with a two-day conference at the hotel of about 70 international financial consultants to the über-rich—high-net-worth individuals, in financial-industry parlance—and I'd discovered that one of the featured speakers was Ramses Owens, a lawyer and financial expert who had worked for Mossack Fonseca.

On the second morning after I arrived, I awoke and lifted my head from one of the fluffy feather pillows on my king-size bed, climbed out from under the 300-thread-count sheets, dressed, and took the elevator down to the conference locale: the hotel's Diamond Ballroom.

Although the affair was private, I was able to snoop on the proceedings and get a list of participants and copies of talks and presentations. Seated at tables topped with pitchers of ice water and flower-filled vases, the attendees were overwhelmingly middle-aged men with graying hair and thickening waistlines, dressed in dark wool business suits that would have induced immediate heat stroke on the sweltering streets of Panama City but were just right in the Diamond Ballroom, which was chilled to about 65 degrees.

There were corporate tax attorneys, accountants, bankers, and trust administrators, and they faced a small stage with a podium for speakers and a screen to show PowerPoint presentations. About half the attendees were Panamanians; a quarter had flown in from the United States, Europe, and South America; and another quarter had come from traditional offshore havens like the Turks and Caicos Islands, the Bahamas, St. Lucia, and Belize. These are "really bad people," Jack Blum, a former US Senate investigator and Washington lawyer specializing in money laundering, had told me before my trip. "And they want to learn how to become even worse people."

"I see you're playing the Lone Ranger," ruddy-faced Edward Brendan Lynch, a Bahamas-based financial adviser, said to me during a break in the proceedings. I sat at the bar spying on attendees, and he waited for a Scotch on the rocks. "Where are you from?"

When I told him I hailed from Washington, DC, Lynch, who looked like Thurston Howell III from Gilligan's Island, said he'd visited the city many years ago. "Saw the cherry blossoms," he reminisced. "Lunched at the Jockey Club. Lovely place."

Americans are believed to hold more than $1 trillion secreted in offshore havens, with annual losses to the IRS alone coming to some $100 billion. 

Back in the Diamond Ballroom, Ramses Owens took to the podium. Immaculately dressed and groomed with hair that was perfectly trimmed and parted, he embodied the banality of modern financial evil. Owens, who was billed in the conference program as a master of "tax planning," joked with the audience that he preferred to describe his work for clients as "asset optimization."

When he worked at Mossack Fonseca, Owens drew on his expertise about the competitive advantages of incorporating companies on the South Pacific island of Niue. In 1996 the firm won exclusive rights to set up shell firms on the island, and within four years, 6,000 shell firms were registered there, some reportedly controlled by Eastern European crime syndicates and international drug cartels, according to international investigations and news accounts. The findings led to the imposition of international sanctions in 2001 that forced the island to shut down its corporate-registration business five years later. Mossack Fonseca turned lemons into lemonade for its clients by moving their accounts out of Niue and into other secrecy havens, including Samoa and, as revealed in court records that Mossack Fonseca was ordered to turn over, Nevada. (There is no proof that the firms they moved were engaged in criminal activity, though the identities of the owners of those companies remain unknown.)

The crackdown on Niue was part of a broader international effort led by the US, Britain, and other Western nations. Originally prompted by concerns about terrorism and organized crime, the initiative has intensified recently due to hemorrhaging budget deficits, which have swelled in no small part because of widespread tax evasion. Americans are believed to hold more than $1 trillion secreted in offshore havens, with annual losses to the IRS alone coming to some $100 billion. In 2010, the US government passed the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act after hitting Swiss giant UBS with a $780 million fine for helping thousands of American account holders hide their assets (in one case, a UBS banker smuggled a client's diamonds across borders in a toothpaste tube). FATCA, which is being rolled out in stages and whose full implementation has been delayed due to fierce opposition from the financial industry, already requires foreign banks to notify the IRS about accounts held by US taxpayers.

Naturally, FATCA was worrying to those seated in the Diamond Ballroom—among them Marie Fucci, an adviser to American and European clients who righteously denounced the act as a form of financial "apartheid"—but Owens sought to calm their fears. As he clicked through PowerPoint slides with images of bank vaults, piles of hundred-dollar bills, and other financial-porn shots, Owens outlined ways to evade onerous and annoying international regulations. FATCA, he confidently averred, wouldn't bring down the offshore system, and it certainly wouldn't do so in Panama, where lawyers, accountants, and other shell-firm enablers have powerful political allies (like the country's then finance minister, who also spoke at the event). Owens estimated that nine out of every ten business entities registered in the country were foreign-owned and said that Panamanian private foundations—a local creation that in the offshore world is as beloved as traditional favorites like the Swiss bank account—would still be able to hold money anonymously, even when FATCA is fully implemented. Audience members wagged their heads in approval.

The morning after Owens's speech, I headed out of the Waldorf to the offices of Mossack Fonseca. I had no expectation of meeting with anyone at the firm, as I'd made numerous requests for an audience and had been politely but firmly rebuffed. "We have decided not to participate in this interview," spokeswoman Lexa de Wittgreen wrote me in a brush-off email, which at least demonstrated that Mossack Fonseca is capable of performing due diligence, on journalists if not clients.

I was using a hotel map and soon got lost in Panama City's crowded business district, which resembles a miniature Hong Kong in tropical tones. As I looked around to orient myself, I saw a young man dressed in dark slacks and a green pinstripe shirt stride out of an office building—Edificio Omega—and open the driver's door of a black Mitsubishi Sportero pickup.

"It's not that close," he said in flawless English when I asked him if he knew how I could get to Mossack Fonseca's building. "Do you have an appointment with them? Because I do similar work and might be able to help you." He pulled out a business card and handed it to me with an ear-to-ear smile.

By coincidence, he turned out to be Alejandro Watson Jr. of Owens & Watson, where Ramses Owens is a name partner. "I work right over there," he said, pointing toward the firm's second-floor office. "I'm late for a meeting, but I can see you later today, or I can take you in now and introduce you to one of my colleagues."

Before my trip, I'd wondered if I should contact a local law firm to test how easy it would be to set up a shell company. This was too good an opportunity to pass up.

"I'm down from the States for a few days looking at real estate," I ad-libbed as traffic whizzed by and car horns blared. "I need to set up a company here to make the purchase. What sort of information would you need?" 

"All I need to have is your passport, a driver's license, something that shows your home address, and a letter of reference from any bank," Watson said. "We don't push you for information about your business. We just want to help you do business so you continue to work with us."

"Will my name appear anywhere in the paperwork?" I asked.

I thought my bluntness might trigger at least mild concern on his part—after all, it was the very same promise of anonymity that had attracted all those dodgy clients to Niue when Watson's current boss was employed by Mossack Fonseca. But he remained as cheery and eager as a Mister Softee driver dispensing soft-serve cones. "You have a FATCA problem," Watson said with a smile and a knowing look. "We can work that out. I might recommend you set up a trust, because that can be legally owned by someone else entirely."

I asked whether I'd be able to open a bank account for my shell firm so I could access my money. After all, there's no point in hiding cash offshore if you can't spend it.

"Absolutely," Watson said, enthusiastically. He reached into the Sportero and pulled out a brochure from a small stack jammed between the two front seats. "We have a global banking network," he said, and pointed to a page listing a few dozen financial institutions his firm worked with. 

The network included small banks in Panama, the Cayman Islands, Monaco, and Andorra, and brand-name players like HSBC and the diamond smugglers at UBS. A US Senate committee report described the former as a major conduit for "drug kingpins and rogue nations," and last year the bank signed a $1.92 billion settlement with the Justice Department after admitting to helping launder millions of dollars through shell firms for Colombian and Mexican cartels. There was even a US component to Owens & Watson's network: Helm Bank in Miami. In 2012, US regulators hit Helm with a consent order for multiple violations of the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money-laundering rules.

This was a list that would certainly inspire confidence, at least if I were a crook looking to hide my money from the IRS or law enforcement.

The whole process would take only a few days, Watson said, and my costs would be negligible: About $1,200 to incorporate my shell, $300 to cover government fees, and a few hundred dollars more for Owens & Watson to provide nominee directors, if necessary. If I wanted to buy a shelf company—the aged variety—it would cost me a little extra.

"And my name won't appear anywhere, right?" I asked, deciding I might as well push as far as possible.

"No, no, no," Watson exclaimed. "That's not a problem."

Soon after my conversation with Watson I found the offices of Mossack Fonseca, which occupies the top three floors of a four-story glass building that has a dental clinic at ground level. Though I'd hoped to get inside, I abandoned the idea when I spotted a guard at the entrance, vetting all the building's visitors.

At least, I thought, I'd take a picture of the office, whose glass exterior reflected the city's landmark Revolution Tower, a hideous corkscrew-shaped office building. But Mossack Fonseca apparently guards its headquarters as zealously as it protects its clients' identities. "He's taking a picture!" a woman, who was returning to the building with a restaurant takeout bag, shouted when she spotted me snapping a photo with my iPhone. She screamed again and pointed at me. "He's taking a picture!"

Next, I decided to try my luck in Las Vegas. Mossack Fonseca describes Nevada as "one of the best jurisdictions" in the United States to set up a company because of the state's "versatility, low costs, and fast service." America is a great place for Mossack Fonseca to do business since it's the second-easiest country to register a dummy company—behind Kenya—according to a DC group called Global Financial Integrity. And crooks love registering companies here, too, because owning a US company provides them with a phony gloss of respectability that can help divert attention from their criminal deeds, Heather Lowe, the group's director of government affairs, told me.

Since Mossack Fonseca began offering services in the state more than a decade ago, it has used a closely linked local firm called MF Corporate Services to register more than 1,000 Nevada companies, most of them managed from offshore destinations like Geneva, Bangkok, and the British Virgin Islands, according to records on file with the secretary of state. Under Nevada law the only names that must appear on a shell firm's public records are those of a resident agent and a "manager," and neither has to be a human being. The resident agent is typically the company that registers the shell firm, and the manager can be yet another anonymous company. That makes it virtually impossible to discover who actually controls a Nevada shell unless law enforcement or the courts compel disclosure.

Technically, MF Corporate Services is independent of Mossack Fonseca. But in practice, court papers, incorporation records, and other confidential documents show it functions as Mossack Fonseca's local branch office, with its main employee reporting directly to Panama City. This sort of bogus separation is a tactic employed by many big shell-firm incorporators, because it allows the parent company to disavow any connection to its local offices if the shit hits the fan from a legal standpoint. It's sort of like how Walmart might operate in Bangladesh, distancing itself from sweatshops by long and complex supply chains. (Like Walmart, Mossack Fonseca has never been directly prosecuted for the actions of its affiliates.) "These are seamless, vertically integrated top-down organizations until the minute that a cop or investigator comes along," says Jack Blum, the money-laundering expert. "Then they disintegrate into a series of unconnected entities, and everyone swears they don't know anything about anyone else in the system. It's like a jigsaw puzzle that's assembled but suddenly falls apart when someone starts investigating."

Indeed, this is exactly how Mossack Fonseca has replied when questioned about shady activities it's been connected to in Las Vegas. While there's no way to know precisely who's behind the vast majority of dummy companies the firm has been helping to create there, an ongoing criminal investigation in Argentina and a related case before the United States District Court of Nevada involving the oligarch Lázaro Báez offer an idea. The investigation and court records allege that Báez is the secret owner of more than 100 shell firms that Mossack Fonseca has helped establish in Nevada. All of them were managed by Aldyne Ltd., an anonymous company that Mossack Fonseca registered in the Seychelles Islands, according to prosecutors. (Mossack Fonseca has not been charged to date in either Argentina or Nevada, but one of its operatives in Las Vegas has been deposed in the legal case, and the district court has told the firm to turn over records related to the Báez shell companies, an order with which it has refused to fully comply.)

A former bank teller, Báez built a vast business empire through contracts awarded by his close friends Cristina and Néstor Kirchner, the current and previous presidents of Argentina, respectively, and their political allies in his home province, according to news reports and investigators. Báez was so bereft when his patron Néstor died, in 2010, that he erected a three-story mausoleum to house his remains. Prosecutors allege that the Nevada shells were part of a network that Báez used to move offshore more than $65 million in funds diverted from public infrastructure projects.

The Báez-linked firms in Nevada were registered by MF Corporate Services, whose assistant manager, Patricia Amunategui, was asked by Mossack Fonseca headquarters to also serve as secretary of Aldyne Ltd., according to a source close to the issue. When questioned about the illegal activities of past client firms, Mossack Fonseca's reply was to remind me in an email that "registered agents are not liable in any way for the business transactions or any other dealings of the companies they incorporate." For her part, Amunategui—a native Chilean who previously worked as a casino cocktail waitress and, based on her Facebook page, enjoys yoga, spiritualism, and hiking and admires the Dalai Lama, the Tea Party, and former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet—has claimed that MF Corporate Services does "not have, nor have we ever had, any kind of relationship with Lázaro Báez." She also claims she has no employment relationship with Mossack Fonseca, even though a few years ago she provided a testimonial used in a University of Nevada, Las Vegas, catalogue that said right after she graduated from its paralegal program she "landed a great job as the vice president of Mossack Fonseca, an international law firm." (She claims she was misquoted.) Amunategui was the person I most hoped to meet when I flew to Las Vegas in early November.

"Your car is in space B-15," the twentysomething woman at Avis told me after I'd landed at McCarran International Airport. "B like in brothel."

Her face was expressionless, so I wasn't sure whether to be insulted or merely amused. But I'd been traveling all day from Washington, on two long flights in economy class, so at that point I didn't really care. It was good to have landed in Vegas, even if the airport is named for Pat McCarran, the casino-loving, Jew-hating, racist politician whom the corrupt Nevada senator in The Godfather: Part II was allegedly modeled on.

Nevada had become the headquarters for a variety of Ponzi schemers, corporate crooks, pump-and-dump penny-stock promoters, internet swindlers, and tax evaders.

In 2001, the Nevada legislature considered a bill that would encourage companies to incorporate in the state by shielding them from disclosure and liability laws. "We are holding up a sign that says, 'Sleaze balls and rip-off artists welcome here,'" then state senator Dina Titus said during debate on the bill, whose supporters argued that it would gin up badly needed revenues.

Titus, who now serves in the US House of Representatives, rather bizarrely proceeded to vote "Yes" on the bill, and her prophecy duly unfolded. Within a few years Nevada had become the headquarters for a variety of Ponzi schemers, corporate crooks, pump-and-dump penny-stock promoters, internet swindlers, and tax evaders. Among them were Donald McGhan, who in 2009 received a ten-year sentence for bilking investors of almost $100 million through a scam real estate venture called Southwest Exchange, and defense contractor Mitchell Wade, who used a Nevada-registered shell to funnel a bribe to then congressman Randy Cunningham. (The pair were doomed during a lunch when Cunningham diagrammed on his own congressional stationery a fatal list of bribes he'd received from Wade and the corresponding federal contracts he'd steered his way in exchange.)

The secretary of state's website offers a host of reasons for companies to incorporate in Nevada, trumpeting the lack of corporate income tax and the near impossibility of piercing the "corporate veil." Those sorts of rules have helped draw some 300,000 active companies to the state, one for every nine residents, and netted revenues of $133 million in 2012 alone. So much of that activity is potentially criminal that Deputy Secretary of State Scott Anderson says his office has taken a number of steps to clamp down on abuses, including a rule that strictly prohibits anyone from creating a Nevada corporation to commit a crime. "Granted, if someone is going to do something illegal," Anderson conceded, "they probably wouldn't disclose it."

One day during my trip I interviewed Cort Christie, head of Nevada Corporate Headquarters, one of the state's most prolific shell-firm incorporators. His company is located in an oversize, sterile office building in an area called Spring Valley. Christie is a former board member of the powerful, politically connected Nevada Registered Agent Association (MF Corporate Services is a member), which "is working to ensure the state's future as America's incorporation center," according to the group's website. It warns that if Nevada's "current tax-advantaged, pro-business environment is lost, the state's reputation... will be lost as well. Once that public trust is damaged, it cannot be easily replaced."

Last year, the NRAA lobbied against a proposal by the secretary of state that would have tightened up rules discouraging corporate secrecy. The bill, which Christie told me "would've curbed the appearance that people can come out here and hide out," was overwhelmingly rejected.

On the morning of November 4, I cruised down S. Casino Center Boulevard through the heart of downtown Las Vegas, past the Golden Nugget and El Cortez (the original mob-owned casino) and the heaviest concentration in America of restaurants offering $9.99 prime-rib dinners. Then I got on Interstate 15 and headed south to Henderson, a suburb where gigantic malls give way to a seamless blur of stucco and adobe-style tract houses.

MF Corporate Services is situated in the Parc Place Professional Complex, home to several identical, single-story buildings with red-tile roofs. There were only a few cars in the parking lot, and I didn't see anyone outside. A red-and-white metal MF Corporate Services sign, planted into a patch of rocks and cactuses, blew forlornly in the warm breeze.

As far as I could tell from public records and court documents, MF Corporate Services doesn't do any drop-in work—its only purpose seems to be setting up Nevada shells for Mossack Fonseca clients—and the remote setting did nothing to dispel that impression. Amunategui runs day-to-day operations, though internal company documents I found in court records show she works closely with Mossack Fonseca employees in Panama, such as Leticia Montoya, the custodian of record for dozens of shell firms linked to Lázaro Báez.

Montoya has quite a checkered career, having previously registered or served as a nominee director for at least six anonymous companies that were involved in major international corruption scandals. Among those is a Panamanian shell firm called Nicstate, whose beneficial owners turned out to include former Nicaraguan president Arnoldo "Fat Man" Alemán. He used Nicstate and other offshore vehicles to divert nearly $100 million of state funds into his own pockets. Montoya also helped set up Mirror Development Inc., which Siemens of Germany employed to funnel bribes to Argentine government officials who helped it win a $1 billion contract to produce national identity cards. This was just one component of a global scheme by Siemens, which also used corporate cutouts to pay off government officials in Bangladesh, Venezuela, and Iraq, where the recipients included Saddam Hussein.

I figured that my best chance to speak to Amunategui would be if I dropped in unexpectedly, so I hadn't called ahead. When I knocked on the glass door of MF Corporate Services, a man holding a clipboard, sitting in a randomly placed blue chair in the office's lobby, waved me in. A white plastic trash bag filled with shredded documents sat just inside the door, and a framed map of the world hung on a wall. There were four clocks above it, showing the time in Las Vegas, Hong Kong, Switzerland, and Panama.

The man on the chair—a locksmith, it turned out—called to Amunategui when I asked to speak with her, and she emerged from a back room. Her face was splashed with freckles, and she wore her long brown hair in a bun. She frowned softly and declined to talk when I told her I was a journalist interested in MF Corporate Services' work for Báez. "Give me your name, and I'll see if our attorney can talk to you," she said while shaking a finger in the negative.

"The attorney for Mossack Fonseca?" I asked.

"No, my company's attorney," she replied, referring to MF Corporate Services. "They're separate."

I stood there for a moment beneath the bright glow of the ceiling lights, desperately trying to figure out a way to keep the conversation going. There was so much I still wanted to know, and Amunategui was the closest I'd come to being able to speak directly with someone actually affiliated with Mossack Fonseca.

I wanted to ask her about specific people who'd been linked to Mossack Fonseca–incorporated shell firms by the US government, court records, international investigators, and my year of research: Billy Rautenbach, an alleged bagman for Robert Mugabe, the longtime ruler of Zimbabwe; Yulia Tymoshenko, a former Ukrainian prime minister and oligarch nicknamed the "gas princess"; Beny Steinmetz, an Israeli billionaire who'd reportedly used a Mossack Fonseca–incorporated shell firm in the British Virgin Islands to pay a bribe to a wife of the homicidal dictator of Guinea, where Steinmetz was seeking (and subsequently got) a huge mining concession. I even wanted to ask her about Mossack Fonseca's feel-good Facebook page and Twitter feed, which feature pictures of smiling recipients of the firm's charitable contributions and platitudes from the likes of Thomas Edison and Dr. Seuss ("Today you are you! That is truer than true!").

But Amunategui wouldn't say a word after taking down my contact information. She promised she'd pass it on to her lawyer. She didn't even bother to escort me out the door but ducked into her personal office, sat at a desk sprinkled with a few folders and FedEx packages, and picked up the phone. I could hear her talking from the hallway, and though I couldn't make out what she was saying, she was clearly speaking in an agitated manner, presumably with the company's aforementioned lawyer (whom I never heard from).

Amunategui's refusal to answer questions was frustrating, but unsurprising. When you work with Mossack Fonseca there are a lot of dirty secrets to keep, so being tight-lipped is perhaps the most essential part of doing your job.

Ken Silverstein is a reporter for First Loo​k Media

Drinking Poop Tea with the Chinese Villagers Who Swear by It

$
0
0

[body_image width='700' height='394' path='images/content-images/2014/12/03/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/03/' filename='drinking-tea-made-of-poop-with-the-chinese-villagers-who-swear-by-it-038-body-image-1417614136.jpg' id='8769']

All photos by author

When the doctor diagnosed 77-year-old Ma Su Qun with lung cancer in January, her family decided not to tell her the bad news. This is a normal practice in much of China, where cancer is seen not as something to be fought and defeated, but as a definite death sentence. "When people think of cancer, they think they are going to die," a Chinese friend told me. To let someone know the news would only make them afraid and unhappy during what will surely be their final months, or so goes the logic.

So it was not until two months after the diagnosis that Ma Su Qun's family finally told her that she had stage 1 lung cancer. They felt OK about breaking the news because it didn't look like she was dying anymore—it appeared she had found a cure, and that cure was tea made from poop.

It is rainy and gray the day I find Ma Su Qun and her miraculous poop tea. She lives in Golden Stone Village, a rural, hilly backwater a few hours drive from Changsha, the capital city of Hunan Province.

[body_image width='2000' height='1325' path='images/content-images/2014/12/02/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/02/' filename='i-drank-poop-tea-981-body-image-1417564209.jpg' id='8591']

The poop has to be fresh. It's a mixture of goat and bovine shit, collected in the hills right up the road from Ma Su Qun's house and dried in the sun until approximately 80 percent of the water has evaporated. If it's too wet to dry it outside, she will bake it in the oven. The poop is then ground into a fine powder and stored in an old "MIDDLE-AGED & SENIOR MILK POWER" can that Ma Su Qun keeps in a desk by her bed. 

She prepares a cup for me by spooning out a couple of heaps from the can onto a porous white cloth laid flat. She wraps the cloth around the fecal powder to make a tea bag and places it into a rusty metal mug. She then adds plenty of white sugar to the mix and fills it with water. She sets the mug on a gas stove to boil, and, after a couple minutes, she takes it off and pours the mud-colored liquid into a glass mug. She hands it to me and I take a sip.

Folk remedies such as Ma Su Qun's poop tea are common in China's rural areas, where only 20 percent of the country's health care services are located—that means over 100 million people are without access to expedient medical care. And for most peasants, the total cost of transportation and out-of-pocket expenses at the doctor's office (which may or may not get reimbursed by insurance) is just out of the question. Many also don't see a need for a doctor when simple remedies that use readily found ingredients (such as poop) are seen as legitimate means of medicine.

[body_image width='2699' height='1810' path='images/content-images/2014/12/02/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/02/' filename='i-drank-poop-tea-981-body-image-1417564230.jpg' id='8592']

The persistence of folk remedies can be linked to the widespread practice of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). This ancient system is based on the idea that the illnesses are caused by disruptions of natural equilibriums in the body, such as heat and cold. These imbalances, according to TCM, can be manipulated and relieved through the consumption of specific organic ingredients, along with other techniques like sage burning and acupuncture.

While many Western health practitioners have found scientific evidence that several TCM practices can heal people, much of it remains unproven by the standards of lab coats. Meanwhile, peasants in the countryside often craft dubious-sounding home remedies like being stung by bees, eating live ants, and even chowing down on "virgin boy eggs," which are eggs boiled in the urine of young boys (this is thought to prevent heat stroke).

[body_image width='2000' height='1325' path='images/content-images/2014/12/02/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/02/' filename='i-drank-poop-tea-981-body-image-1417564270.jpg' id='8593']

Of the 1,700 people in Golden Stone Village, at least 40 percent of them have consumed the poop tea, according to an article in a Chinese medical journal. Most of them are middle-aged and elderly. Two other ladies besides Ma Su Qun have claimed that it cured their cancer. It has been alleged to help also with skin problems, bone aches, and gynecological issues.

People will often tell you in China that a place is special because of certain natural elements: a hot spring that makes you live longer or bark from a particular tree that gives you a boner. The secret of the poop tea, I was told, lies in the local fauna that the goats and cows feed on in the hills. Looking out at a dense line of trees that Ma Su Qun was pointing toward, surrounded by rural emptiness and hearing only the sound of roosters and dogs, without a pharmacy or hospital for miles, I couldn't help but sort of believe her. Maybe there was something cancer-curing in that mess of green and purple? Such is the mystifying power of folk medicine in a place shut off from the modern world. Witch doctors, voodoo priests, tiger's penis, poop tea—it all suddenly made sense.

[body_image width='2000' height='1500' path='images/content-images/2014/12/02/' crop='images/content-images-crops/2014/12/02/' filename='i-drank-poop-tea-981-body-image-1417564293.jpg' id='8594']

Before I sipped the poop tea, I gave it a sniff. It was a familiar smell, the kind that hangs around any farm or horse stable. Having many fond memories in such areas, I almost enjoy that scent. Almost. I nearly gagged when I put my nose to the steaming cup. Still, I sipped. The first taste in my mouth was the overwhelming sweetness from the sugar. That was followed by the taste of poop, which you can imagine pretty easily—just stick your head in a toilet and inhale through your mouth. It was, without a doubt, shitty.

Ma Su Qun claims she doesn't have cancer any more. She is healthy looking. She smiles a lot, and for someone who is nearly 80 years old, she moves around fluidly. While I was there she went briefly to the garden to do some weeding. Whatever her actual physical health is, she is not bedridden nor is she constantly heaving or weak, as people with lung cancer typically are. Who is to say if it is because of the poop tea or not? 

It's probably not the poop in any direct way, at least. And it's worth noting that although drying, baking, and steeping it in boiling water no doubt helps, manure can contain ​viral and bacterial pathogens that can taint drinking water. Ma Su Qun is living proof that whatever she's doing, the germs in the poop tea probably aren't a huge risk, but drinking shit still can't be recommended, even if you're desperate to cure your cancer.

Follow Brent Crane on ​Twitter.

Viewing all 38002 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images