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

Are We There Yet? - Apocalyptic Christians Are Boring

$
0
0

Are We There Yet? is a feature in which I break down the current issue of Endtime magazine, the bimonthly print publication of Endtime Ministries. As you might have guessed, Endtime’s purpose is to advance the notion that the end of the world is nigh and that current news events were prophesized in the Bible's more apocalyptic passages. The magazine has been published for 22 years without ever questioning whether the end times are actually upon us, which is impressive in a way. I’ll be writing this column every other month or so until the sounding of the first trumpet, or until I get bored with it, whichever comes first.

When I started reading Endtime, I thought getting a magazine devoted to the end of the world every two months would be fascinating—I’d get loads of insane theories, wacky photoshop jobs, and far-out interpretations of news stories from the Middle East. I was right about the photoshopping (get a load of that cover!), but wrong about everything else. As I learned from previous issues of this publication, publisher/editor/company founder Irvin Baxter believes that there is a war coming that will wipe out a third of humanity; that a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine will result in animals being sacrificed on the Temple Mount for the first time in 2,000 years; that a global government, led by the Antichrist, will emerge and persecute Christians and Israel before a big, end-of-the-world fight between good and evil. These are fairly nutty things to believe, but as it turns out, hearing about them makes for pretty mind-numbing reading.

After the letters to the editor section—where Irvin answers questions such as, “Is a third of the world population really going to die in that big war?” (yes) and “Is there really going to be a river of blood five feet deep at the Battle of Armageddon?” (yes, but it won’t be that deep all the way from the Plain of Megiddo to Jerusalem)—the July/August issue of Endtime features a long, somewhat meandering story on the Israel-Palestine peace negotiations organized by US Secretary of State John Kerry that concludes casually by saying that there will some day be peace in Israel because the Bible says so, “but probably not now. The Sixth Trumpet War that will kill one-third of the human race will probably happen first.” Oh, that clears that up then, I guess.

That’s followed by a remarkably boring article that lists the various people who could be considered the President of Europe. It’s mainly a rundown of the EU’s bureaucracy that only ties into the publication’s the-world-is-ending theme when it reminds us that “according to Bible prophecy, the European Union will one day be central to the Antichrist’s global system of governmental, religious and economic control.” Then there are two pieces about the evils of the US adopting a national ID system—one, by Jim Harper of the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, argues that if the federal government requires people to have ID cards it will soon use that system to track and monitor them; the other is much, much crazier and compares identification cards to the numbers that the Nazis tattooed on Jews in concentration camps. The magazine dealt with the topic of ID (the “mark of the beast” which will “control buying and selling”) cards four months ago as well, so I sort of get the sense that Irvin and co. are running out of stuff to write about, though their supply of ominous graphics remains bottomless. All of these articles are heavy on dry quotes (mostly from the Bible, but also from Ron Paul) and minute historical details, and light on rivers of blood. It’s the apocalypse as foretold by a textbook.  

Irvin’s specialty throughout his career as a Pentecostal minister/apocalypse scholar has been linking modern-day events to biblical prophecies. (For instance, apparently “the color of capitalism is black,” which means that the black horse in the Book of Revelation is a metaphor for capitalism.) He’s identified five of the seven trumpets that will sound before the world goes kerplunk (the fifth was the Gulf War), which, you’ll note, doesn’t leave him with many more events to predict or parse. Peace between Israel and Palestine is practically the last marker on his timeline toward Armageddon—after that, we’ve just got seven years until the world ends. The tone of most of the articles he publishes can best be described as “cautiously apocalyptic”: Is Israel about to start sacrificing animals again? Is there a world government? Is the Pope the False Prophet? Probably not, but we’re close, I promise! Tune in next time!       

What Endtime Ministries really seems to want you to do is to buy their DVDs, which cost $20 apiece or $199 for the whole set of 14. Judging by video clips floating around the Endtime site, these DVDs mainly consist of Irvin sitting at a desk and speaking through his jowls about beasts and the prophecy of Daniel while dramatic music plays in the background, a static shot only occasionally broken up by hacky computer animation: 

I’m going to go out on a limb and say all those hours of “prophecy lessons,” like the magazine, keep circling back to the same topics over and over again—Israel, animal sacrifices on the Temple Mount, a world government, the Mark of the Beast, etc. Turns out, when someone tries to apply an ancient, metaphorical text to contemporary news stories there are only so many things he can say. The first time you hear about multi-horned biblical beasts and animal sacrifices in modern-day Israel you’re intrigued; the tenth time your eyes glaze over.

Irvin Baxter is nuts and obsessed with the same few bits of scripture he’s been worrying over for 30 years. Unfortunately, he’s not a particularly fun nut. I said I’d recap Endtime until I got bored with it, and unfortunately, that moment has come. I’ll check back in with Irvin when the Antichrist stands in the Third Temple and announces he is God.

Previously: The May/June Issue

@HCheadle


David Gordon Green Talks About His New Movie, 'Prince Avalanche'

$
0
0


Paul Rudd and Emile Hirsch in Prince Avalanche. Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures

David Gordon Green is a tough man to pin down. He began his career with the intimate and lyrical dramas George Washington, All The Real Girls, Undertow, and Snow Angels. Each film was deeply grounded in character and steeped in southern atmosphere. All of those films found strong critical success, but none were able to convert commercially.

In 2008, seemingly out of the blue, Judd Apatow tapped him to direct the brilliant stoner-buddy action-comedy Pineapple Express and the world quickly discovered Green had a funny bone and strong crossover potential. He used his newfound fame to launch one of the most iconic, if still relatively unknown, TV characters in Danny McBride’s Kenny Powers from Eastbound & Down. It seemed as though he could do no wrong, which allowed his next two star-powered stoner films Your Highness and The Sitter to be greenlit. However, both were critical failures and box-office flops, more or less, which seemed to emphasize that Green needed to get back to his roots. Devoid of all press, he quietly holed up in the burnt-out Texas woods for 16 days and came out the other side with his newest film, Prince Avalanche. 

What results is a return to form where he effortlessly blends his past to make a drama peppered with offbeat laughs. The jokes aren’t engineered, but situational, and come from the deeply personal stories of the film's two main characters, Alvin (Paul Rudd) and Lance (Emile Hirsch). On paper, the plot of Prince Avalanche, where two dudes paint yellow lines down winding rural roads while coming to grips with love, loss, and the future, sounds really fucking boring. Fortunately, David Gordon Green is a master at mining humor and humanity from his actors and the framework of their jobs as road painters offers much fodder for Rudd and Hirsch to play with. There’s also a ghost-story element to it. Weird...

The film’s publicist shot me an email asking if I was a fan of David. I said yes, and he told me to come to the Crosby Hotel. Right as I stepped into David Gordon Green’s hotel room I immediately realized I was walking into a situation. The man was standing barefoot on his bed with his finger outstretched demanding a list of my favorite movies. I listed off a couple Luis Buñuel titles including The Discreet Charm of the BourgeoisieBelle de Jour, and That Obscure Object of Desire. Hopping down from the bed, David pontificated on Buñuel’s device in That Obscure Object of Desire of using two women for one character’s emotions, saying that it couldn’t be done today, that it would be too gimmicky. I mentioned Todd Solondz’s Palindromes, which attempted to do the same in 2004, and of course garnered those gimmick critics. David stopped midsentence and started in on how much he loved Solondz’s previous film, Happiness, about people longing for happiness, but instead getting cum kisses, pedophilic fathers, and cursed by Jon Lovitz.  

“I have Happiness memorized,” he says. “I don’t know what that means.” As we talk, I realize David isn’t a filmmaking enigma, but rather just a cinephile who loves all movies. He continued geeking out on Solondz and went as far as telling me I had to look up this old Sony Pictures Classics website that hasn’t changed since the 90s. “This is an early, early website for Welcome to the Dollhouse,” he says. “It’s hilarious... If old websites are funny.”

VICE: You’ve managed to stay away from getting pigeonholed or following a type, going from small indie dramas to studio comedies and now splitting the difference with Prince Avalanche. Do you actively pursue different projects or are you a man of whims?
David Gordon GreenPrince Avalanche has been an interesting movie in a lot of ways. I’ve traveled pretty extensively with it in the country and internationally and it’s the first thing that I’ve done that doesn’t piss anyone off. I’m sure there will be people who are bored by it. It’s not for everybody, but no movie I ever do will be for everybody.

I look at my career like I’m a character actor. Sometimes there’s a gig that comes my way that seems like a great idea, it has financing, somebody’s written the script, and actors are attached and that’s cool. Other times I need to dig into a personal place and make a movie like this where it’s very expressive. I’ve designed it specifically for a few people to watch—people I know that want to see this, who will know what that line means—and it has that kind of intimacy in the target of it. I wrote this movie for about six people and as long as those six people see it, then I’m totally cool. The various projects that I entertain always have some selfish core in there, which I don’t cry about. That’s the best part of my job.

With Prince Avalanche you’ve made your first remake, based off the 2011 Icelandic film Either Way. What was that experience like and how did you come across the film?
I found this state park in Bastrop, Texas, a few months after this major forest fire. I loved it and really wanted to put together something immediately and use it as a backdrop. It’s a beautiful landscape with this road winding through it. I wanted to make a movie that’s like two guys in some very simple scenario, really like a character piece, and get an opportunity to work with some of my actor friends who wanted to do something raw and small. I didn’t know who at the time.

My friend mentioned that he had just seen this Icelandic film about two guys painting stripes on a road and I said, “That’s exactly what I want to remake.” It had recently won the Torino Film Festival, which is a festival I had won with George Washington, so I had a connection there to track it down. I was watching it and excited that I couldn’t wait to remake this movie I knew nothing about. It was an interesting first viewing with the novelty of not knowing anything about it, yet trying to find something to get excited about. It wasn’t hard because the movie was fantastic. It was a very backwards process.

It seems as though this film just kind of appeared. How did it come to fruition?
It came together really quickly. I saw the Icelandic film in February and we were sound-mixing the film in July. I mean, it’s quicker than most scripts I’ve written. I wrote this in three days or something really quick. Just plagiarized it from the movie and put my own spin on it.

Where did you stray from the original film?
It was a 65-page script that worked as a great treatment where we could loosen it up and have ideas on set. We used that as an opportunity to integrate situations and characters like the older woman sifting through ashes in her house. She wasn’t in the script, that was just someone we met. But when you meet someone that has this incredible magical quality and you’re in production on a movie you immediately invite them into your creative process in any way you can. But once I found Either Way, it became a perfect playground to add my eccentric touches, modest symbolism, interpretations, and a lot of ambiguities into it. People can read into it or watch it on the surface and be fine with it.

Are you a fan of remakes now?
I want to do a lot more! People roll their eyes at remakes, but it’s no different than adapting a book. You’re taking someone else’s vision of something and taking characters out and rewriting the ending and all this shit. To me, it’s just a great foundation. I didn’t need to write anything to get the funding. I showed this film and said, "Me plus Paul plus Emile plus this film equals give us money." We got it in less than 24 hours. It’s a great blueprint: Here’s the idea and we’re going to go do our own personal thing with it. Through production we always had the confidence that we could turn to this brilliant original film if we needed to or take any detour that came to mind. It gave us incredible freedom, because everyone believed in the framework. I really enjoyed it. However, there are certain movies I wouldn’t want to remake.

Are you still slated for Suspiria?
I don’t know. I think that moment might have passed. I hope it gets made though. Either by me or someone cool.

Screw those “uncool” filmmakers.
Yeah, no uncool filmmakers. It’s just at a point where right now in the trend of the horror genre that everything is down and dirty and nitty gritty as possible. So maybe later.


David Gordon Green on set. Photo courtesy of Magnolia Pictures

In terms of breaking trends, you cast Paul Rudd in a more dramatic role than we’re used to and Emile Hirsch in a more comedic role. Were those important ingredients in making this film?
I like things that are emotionally challenging. Serious content dealt with in a funny manner, or something that’s funny taken very seriously. I wanted an actor known more dramatically and the other more comically and also someone that was open to being paid very little and going out in the middle of the woods for a couple weeks.

And sporting a badass mustache.
Yeah, sporting a badass mustache and some happening blue overalls.

Emile was a revelation to me. I had no idea he could be so funny. Did you have to work with him or was it natural?
I know Emile very well and knew that was all within him. Even hanging out on press days there are moments where you want to get him in a headlock and other times where you want him to ramble on. There’s a long story he tells in the movie about not getting laid and he’s very emotional about it. The one direction I gave him was, “This hurts to tell. It’s a painful story and I want you to make everybody in the audience cry when they hear it.” He goes for the drama of that, but it’s written so stupid. Now he sees people laughing and at first he was confused, because he thought he’d done a really dramatic scene. It’s cool now because he says, “I don’t care who laughs at that scene, cause I know there’s one guy who is on the same level as Lance. There’s one guy in the audience who’s like, ‘I know, man.’”

He’s got this idiot savant sort of presence. Where you dismiss him because he doesn’t know what a chiropractor is and then realize he’s somehow oddly perceptive. His stories are better than the sex would have been anyway.
Yeah, and the movie is still rated R.  It’s the least rated R movie ever. There’s not even a cuss word in it. There’s a middle finger and Emile simulates jerking off. That gets an R and World War Z is PG-13.

World War Z was ridiculous. This is too, but in a completely good way. Was making the movie exactly how the movie appeared? Drinking hooch, hanging out, complaining, and cracking jokes.
It was 16 days of summer camp. It was a really good crew, most of the guys I’ve been working with almost 15 years since film school. Everyone works for $100 a day. My producer, Craig Zobel, works at Columbia and he brought a bunch of students down to come PA and hang out with us. It was a great mixture of old, cynical bastards and young, hungry, aspiring filmmakers. It was the kind of energy that at the end of the day, everyone goes to the same bar and gets trashed. It was an amazingly intimate experience. 

Sounds good. Thanks for chatting.
Absolutely.

Prince Avalanche is now playing in theaters and On Demand. Check out the film's website here.

@PRISMindex

More film stuff on VICE:

I'm Short Not Stupid Presents

Watch the Trailer for the New Spike Jonze Film, 'Her'

All Over the Place in New York

The Demise of Lavabit and Silent Circle Means Your Emails Will Never Be Safe from the US Government

$
0
0


The NSA's headquarters in Maryland. via.

This week, two encrypted email providers shut down their services, and that’s very bad news if you’d rather the government didn’t read your private communications.

The first company, Lavabit, closed after founder Ladar Levison announced that after a decade of running his secure email service (which is supposedly the one Edward Snowden used to deliver his NSA leaks to the Guardian), he was being forced to shut it down or “become complicit in crimes against the American people.”

Ladar’s official statement is vague, but you can hear him clench his teeth as he writes, “I wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot.” It certainly sounds like he was asked to hand over data or open his servers in a secret court; since he refused he had to walk away from his business. Chillingly, Ladar finished his statement with a stern warning about American-based communications services: “I would _strongly_ recommend against anyone trusting their private data to a company with physical ties to the United States.” So basically, he’s saying you’re fucked if you store confidential information on Facebook, Gmail, Skype, Twitter, or any cloud service owned by Microsoft or Apple.

Just hours after the announcement from Lavabit went up, Silent Circle—an encrypted communications company that had just become profitable in May and was forecasting 2 to 3 million subscribers by the end of 2013—shut down its own email service. While they say the US government hadn’t made any move to compromise Silent Circle’s secure email service, Jon Callas, one of Silent Circle’s founders, wrote that the company can “see the writing the wall” and concluded it was “best for us to shut down Silent Mail now.” (The company plans to continue to provide encrypted phone and text services.)

This message is in sharp contrast to the more optimistic tone Jon took in an interview with VICE last month. “In Silent Circle’s view, every person in this world, regardless of their station in life or religion, should expect a level of basic human privacy,” he said back then. “And many of the people on the internet have no understanding on what level they are giving that up.”

With the shutdown of these two services, it’s clear that the US government is worried about private encryption technology—in other words, the good news is that these companies’ security techniques are working, the bad news is that the government won’t allow them to exist. Clearly, the right to buy and sell on the free market and the right to privacy only apply to people who don’t piss off US intelligence agencies. Entrepreneurs are being forced to chose between immoral cooperation with the surveillance tactics their products are meant to combat and losing their businesses entirely—which is all the more absurd since they don’t seem to have violated any law and haven’t been charged with any crime.

As Edward Snowden told the Guardian, “Ladar Levison and his team suspended the operations of their ten-year-old business rather than violate the Constitutional rights of their roughly 400,000 users… America cannot succeed as a country where individuals like Mr. Levison have to relocate their businesses abroad to be successful. Employees and leaders at Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Yahoo, Apple, and the rest of our internet titans must ask themselves why they aren't fighting for our interests the same way small businesses are.”

The situation resembles what happened in the aftermath of the raid on popular file-sharing site Megaupload last year. Back then, two similar services—Uploaded.to and Filesonic—shut down on their own, while other sites were quick to distance themselves from evil piracy in an attempt to prevent their own businesses from being crushed by the government. Evidently, taking out one tech company in a vicious and authoritative fashion is an effective way to shut down their competitors, too.

Like much of what the intelligence community does, the crackdown on encrypted emails was largely secret—we still don’t know what exactly Lavabit did that the powers that be had an issue with, or who made the decision to target that company. It’s the polar opposite of transparency in government, and it echoes something Julian Assange told VICE’s Royce Akers in an interview we aired last week: “The desire to be seen as a vicious authority that can terrorize people is higher than the desire to be seen as an authority that commands respect, as a result of its integrity."

The government’s presumed rationale for shutting down Lavabit is that terrorists and other unnamed bad guys could use encryption for evil. Yet the idea that because a few people are committing crimes using a product it means that no one can use it is deeply paranoid and strange, especially in a country that is supposed to value free speech and the free market.

Yesterday, it came out that the NSA is monitoring the content, not just the metadata (which is valuable enough on its own), of text messages and emails of Americans who are talking with, or even about, foreigners. With every new story revealing that the government monitors more and more of our supposedly private information, the idea that the authorities will essentially ban encryption is extremely disturbing. This is, quite clearly, not a positive direction for an allegedly free society to be taking.

 

Follow Patrick on Twitter: @patrickmcguire

Wanna get spied on? Bait the NSA with this phrase generator from MOTHERBOARD.

Previously:

Hiding Your Calls and Texts from Big Brother

Dodge the NSA with this Fancy, Encrypted Messaging Service

Interviewing the Editor of the Middle East's Version of the 'Onion'

$
0
0


Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mohamed Morsi playing squash. All images courtesy of the Pan-Arabia Enquirer

For reasons pertaining to sanity, it tends to be useful to occasionally find humor in the midst of a crisis. But when the Pan-Arabia Enquirer—a satirical news website, kind of like the Onion of the Middle East—published a blog post titled "Starbucks' Central Tahrir Square Branch Reports Record July '13 Earnings," not so many of my ex-pat friends found (or even realized there was) a funny side. They took to social media and posted outraged messages about corporate greed, "black gold exploiting revolutionary spirit," and other righteous stuff about corporations profiteering from social upheaval.

The same sort of thing happened when the Pan-Arabia Enquirer broke their "story" about the new Sex and the City film being shot in Gaza, or when the press release for Emirates Airlines' new in-flight shisha service was leaked on the website. Then there was the time, earlier this month, that the site declared Qataris were being given the rest of the year off for Eid. A bunch of them actually believed it and freaked out on Twitter, writing about how they were planning to spend the rest of the year lounging around on paid vacation.             

The concept of a satire website existing in such a tumultuous region was interesting to me, so I thought I'd get in touch with the people behind the site for a chat. Its founder, understandably, wishes to remain anonymous because, as he put it, "While most of the stories are harmless, [this region] is not a place that is particularly good at laughing at itself, and people can get the wrong end of the stick and take offense at the most minor of things. We wouldn't want this to jeopardize our ability to live and work here… yet.”

So, for the sake of addressing him here, let's call him Mr. Pan. 

VICE: How long have you been doing the Pan-Arabia Enquirer for, Mr. Pan?
Mr. Pan: It's been going longer than you’d think. It started off way back in about 2006 as something called the Dubai Enquirer, which focused solely on Dubai and was just a front page of a newspaper sent around as a PDF. We had to stop that, though, because Dubai was building more ridiculous things than we could even imagine. It was in the silly season before the crash happened, and I think the crux came when it was announced that Dubai was going to be building a tower in the shape of a man in Arabic dress. At that point we just thought, You win—we can’t beat that. It was put on hold for a bit and then, about late 2010, I picked it up again, but this time as the Pan-Arabia Enquirer to give it more of a regional focus. It's been going properly since February of 2012.

Is it just you at the moment?
It’s a very small team; there’s only a tiny handful of us who actually write. We do get people sending in ideas, which is very nice and they are coming quite regularly, but by and large, it's really just a small handful of friends who write it.

Have the good responses outweighed the bad?
Oh, God, yeah—100 percent. To be honest, there haven’t been that many bad responses. The main bad responses have been people getting confused because they’re not used to the concept of satire and they’ve genuinely thought the story is real. They haven’t really been angry at us—they’ve been angry at the story, were it to be true. 

Yeah, I grew up in the UAE so I’ve got a lot of ex-pat friends who have been sending me messages with links to the site saying stuff like, "Have you seen this story? Can you believe this actually happened?"
Brilliant. At first, a lot of our followers were Western ex-pats, because they got that kind of humor. But now we’ve got more of an Arabic following, which is very nice. And obviously I would say that a sizable percentage of our readership are people who probably still think it’s true. I just put up a story about five or ten minutes ago about Qataris being given the rest of the year off for Eid, and already there are people on Twitter going "WTF?!!" In a way, it's unintentionally become something of a social experiment watching how people react to some of the stories.

Do you think the Middle East is a good place for satire? A good amount of the true stories that come out of the region can be quite absurd in their own right.
It is, it is. Obviously in the West we get fed a continual stream of fairly depressing headlines from the region, but behind all that lurks a truly absurd place. I mean, Dubai on its own is preposterous on a daily basis, but the funny thing is it takes itself very seriously. This is a place that builds a penguin enclosure in a shopping mall in the middle of the desert and you’re not expected to laugh at it. The rest of the region as well—you’ve got Qatar, which is intent on buying up the rest of the world, and Saudi.

There are endless jokes about Saudi, but the trouble with Saudi is that, every time we write a story and think we’ve gone a bit too far, out comes a genuine headline from Saudi of some cleric having banned air-conditioning, or something like that, you know? One of the nicest things is that now every time a ludicrous headline comes out of the region, which is pretty regularly, we get sent it and asked whether we’ve infiltrated that newspaper—whether it’s one of ours. But nine times out of ten it’s not and it’s just what it’s like out here.

Have you thought about having an Arabic-language section?
I’m not sure. I think it would be fantastic for hits, but I have been warned that when you go to the Arabic side of things you could potentially veer more into the realm of offending people—getting people more rattled and more upset, which is something we definitely don’t want to do. So I think we’re better off sticking to English for now.

I was wondering whether the stories about Bassem Youssef being prosecuted in Egypt worried you at all?
There are occasional worries. What Bassem Youssef does is fantastic and necessary and very funny, but he is very much more about continual jabbing at the government. We make little jokes about things going on in society and we make references to the governments of the region, but we’re not so hardcore in our political satire. We covered what’s going on in Egypt quite a lot, and in Syria. You’ve got to try to find ways around it so it’s not offensive or crude—you can’t laugh at misery. I think we're less political than Bassem Youssef, so we are—cross fingers, touch wood—less likely to face any government action, so to speak.

That's good. What are you guys going to do now that Ahmadinejad is no longer in power? That’s half your stories gone.
It’s a nightmare. He was an absolute goldmine. I don’t know what to do now, because Rouhani looks mega boring in comparison. I’m still gonna try and drag out the Ahmadinejad postgovernment stories, but at some point we’re gonna have to let him go. He was the goose that laid the golden egg in satire circles. It’s a real shame. Obviously not for international relations with Iran, but certainly for us doing stupid Photoshops involving his face.

Oh yeah, the Photoshops are great.
The best one was the Emirates shisha story—that was by far the one with the most hits.

That was the first one I saw, actually. All my friends were sharing it, saying, "No way!"
That was another one of those stories that wasn't that funny, and obviously it was complete bollocks, but it just seemed to capture the anger of health and safety people, antismoking lobbyists, and flying enthusiasts. That one had 600,000 hits in the space of three or four days and crashed the site. Emirates took it quite well because people were actually getting in touch with them to ask about their new shisha lounges. Actually—this is one of my favorite comments of all time—this guy posted an email they got from Emirates that said, "It’s a comedy website, it's only meant to amuse, we won’t be launching any shisha lounges on our flights." Underneath, he wrote, "So stop spreading your lies!" It made my day.  

You have some great commenters as well.
Yeah, I think that’s what drives half the traffic. We get a bit upset when people say the comments are funnier than the stories, but in many cases they definitely are. I don’t know if you saw quite an old story about a "bewildered human rights activist who was campaigning against the chewing of cats in Yemen." The story itself—I hold my hands up—is not one of our finest, but the comments beneath it from parts of Yemen were absolutely outraged. No one seems to bother reading the comment that points out that it’s a joke, the red mist rises, they go straight to the Add Your Say section and fire out something absolutely irate, pointing out the fact that it’s "khat," not cats.

Amazing. Thanks, Mr. Pan.

Follow James on Twitter: @duckytennent

More stuff about satire:

Booze, Drugs, Violence And Madness

Meet the Satire Called the Mets

Is Bam Margera Really Unfunny Now? Or Am I Being Trolled?

The Burka Avenger's Creator Talks About the Pakistani Cartoon's Haters

$
0
0

Burka Avenger is a Pakistani cartoon about an ass-kicking superheroine who fights bad guys and wears a ninja-style burka to conceal her identity. The show has been making its rounds through the media echo chamber, sparking discussions on the appropriateness of using the burqa as a tool for female empowerment. For the blowhards, either the Burka Avenger is exactly what the Pakistani youth need for social reform, or it's corrupting the youth by trying to normalize burkas for children.  

Halfway through watching the first episode, which aired at the end of July, it was clear to me that beyond the novelty of having a burqa replace the standard superhero cape and tights, Burka Avenger was like any other cartoon. Besides a few references to Pakistani pop culture—like name-dropping Pakistani actress Veena Malik—the show follows the same template as Captain Planet. The show features three good Samaritan children who get in trouble for taking on corrupt politicians, industrialists, and religious authorities, and the Burka Avenger is summoned at the end to beat them up and deliver some moral guidance.  

The most surprising thing about the cartoon is that its central theme—promoting girl’s education in Pakistan’s tribal belt—wasn’t based on the story of Malala Yousefzai, the teenage female education activist who was shot in the head by religious extremists. Six episodes of the cartoon were completed before Malala was even attacked. To find out more about the show and the direction it is headed, I had a chat with the new show's creator, Haroon—who is best known for being an international pop star. 

VICE: You’re best known in Pakistan for being in a mid-90s boy band. How did you end up creating something so controversial?
Haroon:
I’ve been doing my own video production for so many years. Often times I’d watch local movies and think, This is crap. My experience with making music videos in Pakistan for 20 or 25 years has given me more experience than a lot of people currently doing video production. So I thought, Why not try doing a movie?

We started with an iPhone game, and it worked well, so I began storyboarding her backstory. I’m antigun, so when it came to tools to repel the enemy, we came up with the idea to use books and pens and school bags. I worked with my animator, Yousaf Ejaz, on some images and the programmers began animating them. I did the music and voiceovers separately in my home studio.

The video was about the bad guys trying to shut down a girl school. The Burka Avenger appears and fights back with pens and books. When I saw the final product in the fall of 2010, I said, "Wow, we have all the resources to do animation here in Islamabad." Ejaz introduced me to some more animators. We initially thought we’d do something very basic, with maybe ten or 20 people, but we kept getting more ambitious as we went along.

The first episode's plot, which is about girls’ education, almost predicted the Malala incident. How did that story come together?
Living in Pakistan, all these social issues are constantly staring you in your face. It’s very difficult to ignore them. When I sat down to create ideas for a movie, one was about a protagonist who protects a girls' school from shutting down. In 2010, I was reading about a lot of girls’ schools being shut down by extremists.

In 2011, I decided to act on the idea. I thought a movie might take a year to do, so I started with the iPhone game and then moved into the show. When we started it was me, one artist, one animator, and a couple programmers. The team today is 22 animators, 30 to 32 people total. The first episode was done in May 2012. That was the school episode, where a little girl confronts the bad guys about shutting down her school. By October 2012, we had about six episodes done. That was the month when the Malala incident occurred. We were stunned. I hadn’t heard of Malala. It seemed like life imitating art. It hit home that this is a very important topic. A lot of people urged us to launch the show right then.

But you didn’t.
No. I felt like that would be trying to cash in on a tragedy, and, secondly, I didn’t have all 13 episodes ready. I wanted them ready. We got them together by January 2013, and it has been released mid-Ramadan.

You know what they say: "Ramadan is for the children."
[laughs]

What are some of the other topics for later episodes?
We touch on child labor, discrimination, electricity theft, and things like that. When I was a child, I remember hearing my parents read me stories with morals at the end. Unfortunately, a lot of children are illiterate in Pakistan and won’t get to experience that. A lot of our stories were built from a moral or theme.

One of the episodes deals with discrimination. In it, Vadero Pajero, a corrupt politician, is trying to build a two-star hotel called Feroz Sentimental where one of the schoolchildren, Mooli, lives. All of Mooli’s family are designed to look like him, with a few strands of stringy hair, an oversized head, and thick glasses. Vadero Pajero starts to drum up hostility towards the Mooli family. He gives a speech to the city, saying, “These Mooli people are different to us. What business do they have here? Throw them out.”

The whole city turns on the Mooli family, and the main characters are torn up about it and crying, “I don’t want you to go Mooli.” Mooli goes, “I don’t want to leave. I love you guys. Halwapur is my home, but they don’t want us here.”

Then, animated versions of the Canadian band Josh [a famous Canadian Bhangra group] show up and ask the kids what’s wrong.

The band talks about how their duo consists of one Pakistani and one Indian—one Muslim and one Sikh. They talk about touring the world together, and then they sing a song about brotherhood and peace. And all the people of the city sing along with them, very embarrassed for being intolerant.

How do you start writing the episodes?
I think of a theme, and build an episode around that theme, like electricity theft. Superstition is also a theme we wanted to tackle in Pakistan because people in Pakistan are very superstitious. In that episode, a man in a mosque kidnaps children and takes them to a bhoot bungala [haunted house], which is actually a child-labor factory. That episode was split into two parts: the first part tackles superstition, where everyone's scared of the haunted house, and the second part addresses the child-labor issue.

What do you think people need to know about the Burka Avenger?
This is about women empowerment. It's about girl power. We have three prominent female characters. One is Jiya, the school teacher and Burka Avenger. Another is Ashu, a confident and intelligent little girl who cares deeply about things. She stands up to Baba Bandook when he tries to shut down the school. The third character is [a] television reporter. When the school is shut down, she is outraged. "How dare they shut down the school?" she says. "What are they going to do, stop us from living and breathing next?"

Some women in the West have written me to say that they don’t like how female superheros are hypersexualized, and how most Disney characters seem antiquated. Our female leads are strong and not submissive.

It’s good to see these issues being unpackaged and addressed with entertainment. Why do you think Pakistan produces a lack of visible entertainment that tackles these issues?
I think it has something to do with the influence of Indian media. In Pakistan, especially now, channels find it easier to play mostly Indian content, and much less Pakistani content. A lot of the Indian content feels more “packaged.” They’ll hire a famous vocalist like Sonal Nigum to do the vocals, a big Bollywood industry film director to direct, and a famous actress all dressed up. It's very difficult for Pakistani artists on shoe-string budgets to compete with that. A lot of Indian budgets for a single music video are more than what we’d spend on a whole project and promotion.

This is kind of the elephant in the room, but why do you think Pakistan is so fucked up?
The 80s under the [American-supported] dictator Zia ul Haq. He kind of brought Wahabi [Saudi Arabian] Islam into Pakistan. In the 60s and 70s, Pakistan was a lot more liberal. If you look at photographs, you can really see the difference in how everyone is dressed. During the 80s, Zia used Wahabi Islam as a political tool to shore up support amongst a new right wing.

They stopped all the music programming. When I was a young teenager, the only way I’d get to see music or hear music was listening to BBC’s Top 20 on short-wave radio. It used to run on Tuesday. Any time a friend or relative went to England, I’d beg them to record Top of the Pops, and I’d watch that Top of the Pops again and again. They didn’t have music programing on television again until the 90s. What I remember from the 80s was the lack of freedom of press. I remember times as a kid getting the newspaper and seeing a story on the front page all blotted out. They didn’t have time to change the story, so one whole article on the front page would be blanked out.

Is there a story from the 80s you’d recreate with the Burka Avenger?
I remember getting clobbered with a laathi charge [police baton] in the 80s. It's actually a funny story. Back then in Pakistan, breakdancing was huge. We formed a little breakdance crew when we were teenagers and had a face-off with another crew in Jinnah Market.

We put our little boom box down, and we did our thing and they did theirs. While this is happening, a huge crowd gathered. At that time, public gatherings were against the law, because Zia was so paranoid about a public uprising. Suddenly, 20 minutes into our face-off, we hear a loud whistle and policemen with huge dandas [sticks] began laathi-charging the crowd. I remember turning to my little brother, Benny, who was only ten years old, grabbing his hand, and running for our lives. I was 15 at the time and it was the craziest thing I had been through up until that point. We were running and the police were chasing us. The crowd ran in all directions. That was what it was like growing up under Zia ul Haq in the 80s.

Wow. How has the response been to the Burka Avenger?
The first episode's feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. The only negative feedback is from ultra-liberal feminist bloggers. They hadn't watched the show, just maybe heard the name, or watched the trailer. They don't know that the Burka Avenger is the alter ego of Jiya the schoolteacher, who teaches them ethics. She doesn’t wear a veil or a head scarf. Most people in Pakistan and in the West are getting it, but the .0001% of Pakistani feminist bloggers don’t.

These women haven’t seen the show, it’s just a knee-jerk reaction. Even conservatives who watch the show and think it may be trivializing Islam, see the show and how it upholds the ethics in true Islam. They actually love it. The GEO network has been getting very high ratings, and it’s only growing. On GEO Taiz, so many people were tuning in. Since the premiere it has become popular not just in Pakistan, but worldwide. People are loving it.

Learn more about Burka Avenger here.

More on Pakistan:

Pakistan After Bin Laden

Al Qaeda Prison Breaks Could Lead to a New Wave of Terror Attacks

Facedown in Chitral

This Week in Racism: Oprah Accused a Swiss Person of Racism

$
0
0


Photo by Flickr User whoohoo120

Welcome to another edition of This Week in Racism. I’ll be ranking news stories on a scale of 1 to RACIST, with “1” being the least racist and “RACIST” being the most racist.

-You might have seen advertisements for Oprah Winfrey’s new film, The Butler. It’s Oprah’s first acting role in 15 years, so she’s out making the press rounds. Oprah’s doing the usual prerelease gladhanding; appearing on TV shows, doing interviews, and accusing Swiss people of being racist.

The Big O told Entertainment Tonight’s Nancy O’Dell that while in Switzerland for Tina Turner’s wedding, she attempted to purchase a $40,000 handbag, but was denied when the shopkeeper said it was “too expensive.” The shopkeeper didn’t even want to show Oprah the bag, for fear of “hurting her feelings.” All of this, despite the fact that Ms. Winfrey made $72 million last year. That ain’t “hood rich.” That’s just plain, old, regular rich.

She’s quoted as saying, “I could’ve had the whole blow-up thing and thrown down the black card, but why do that?” I’m hazy as to which black card she was referring to. Is it the black card that invokes the 200-year history of bigotry perpetrated against people whose heritage is derived from Africa, or is it the AmEx “Black Card” that would have allowed her to easily purchase the bag?

I’m not saying Oprah wasn’t within her rights to be offended, but how easy would it have been for her to just politely state, “Actually, I am incredibly rich, and can easily afford this bag, and 30 more just like it. Also, here’s $20,000 for your trouble. Good day to you.” Instead, she thought her best bet was to go on national TV and humiliate the shopkeeper who probably has never seen a rich black person before.

This is actually the second time Oprah has claimed a European store was racist after she tried to buy a gift for Tina Turner. She accused an Hermes store in Paris of discrimination in 2005. The gift in question was a watch for Tina, who was her dinner partner that evening. The store manager claimed that they were closed for a private event. I can believe someone from Switzerland wouldn't recognize Oprah. Like, it's Switzerland, you know? The Hermes store in Paris? Yeah, right. That guy knew who he was dealing with. Maybe the lesson here is to avoid Tina Turner at all costs? The woman is clearly trouble. 5

-Back in the good old USA, the campaign for former Mayor Steve Lonegan, Cory Booker’s New Jersey Senate opponent, felt like mocking minorities and Mayor Booker’s city was the easiest path to winning their contest.

As you can see in the above screencap of Lonegan’s tweet (which was quickly deleted), he’s insinuating that Newark is actually just a collection of foreign countries because of the city’s heavily diverse population. The best part of this was that the tweet went out during the candidates’ foreign policy debate.

Lonegan was not personally responsible for the tweet, as his staff is responsible for updating the account in question. The candidate was quick to make it clear that he did not find the tweet funny, “or reflective of the way he thinks,” according to Lonegan staffer Rick Shaftan.

Folks, this is the Democratic primary. Just let that sink in. 7


Photo by Flickr User GageSkidmore

-Lady in the streets, freak in the sheets Ann Coulter receives this week’s Ann Coulter Award for Excellence in Racism for continuing her personal crusade to tell black people what’s wrong with them.

Ann chose to defend this statement from Bill O’Reilly on race in America:

"The reason there is so much violence and chaos in the black precincts is the disintegration of the African-American family. Right now, about 73 percent of all black babies are born out of wedlock. That drives poverty. And the lack of involved fathers leads to young boys growing up resentful and unsupervised. And it has nothing to do with slavery. It has everything to do with you Hollywood people and you derelict parents." 

Coulter vehemently agreed with O’Reilly, saying, “If African-Americans started marrying again at their pre-Great Society rates, it would wipe out the entire black ‘culture of poverty’.” After that, she found the time to plug her book, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama, because let's not forget what this is really about: cashing in with cheap hit-piece books.

God, if black folk would just get married, all of our problems would be solved! Coulter sites a report from Erol Ricketts, a black demographer from the Rockefeller Foundation who found that black people outmarried white people from 1860 to 1960, and this directly resulted in low crime rates in the black community. What ruined black culture? What drove black families apart and created the statistic O’Reilly cited? According to Ann, it’s… social-welfare programs designed by liberals! If you had that in your Ann Coulter Crazy Pool, you win a new microwave. Congrats. Enjoy your Hot Pockets.

First of all, marriage has been dropping across the board for decades now. According to a poll by Pew Research, barely half of all adults in the United States are married. That’s an all-time low. People aren’t getting married as much because of things like widespread acceptance of contraceptives (which Ann Coulter is terribly upset about) and the high cost of starting a family (which Ann Coulter could give two shits about). Just because a kid is born without its parents being married doesn’t immediately correlate to the father not being involved. That’s an assumption that O’Reilly doesn’t even bother backing up with facts.

Secondly, O’Reilly’s statistical range ends in 1960, which is not only D-Day for the American conservative who hated hippies, but also the beginning of the massive explosion in the American illegal drug trade. According to a 1969 Gallup poll, only 4 percent of the population was willing to admit to smoking weed. In 2011, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, conducted by an arm of the Department of Health & Human Services, found that 22.5 million Americans were using illegal drugs. This stat includes weed, coke, hallucinogens, heroin, and illicitly obtained pharmaceuticals. Perhaps the real reason for the spike in crime within the black community is how prevalent the drug trade is in the economy of the ghetto? If a man with a child to feed can make minimum wage working at a fast-food restaurant, or slangin’ on the corner, what choice will he make?

Claiming moral superiority is a well-worn trick of the close-minded, absurdly wealthy, and shows a distinct lack of empathy (and that includes Oprah's need to belittle that Swiss shopkeeper). This is especially true in a country where 65 percent of the population has no friends outside their own ethnicity. It singles out a whole group of people for problems completely out of their control. It's not the Swiss person's fault that they live in a racially homogenous culture, nor is it a black man's fault that one of the only reliable sources of income available to him is selling crack. Ignoring the lack of good jobs for black people in America, and the lucrative nature of selling drugs is laughable. It’s also kind of RACIST.

@YesYoureRacist’s Ten Most Racist Retweets of the Week [all grammar sic'd]:

10. @jeasysah: #notracist but fuck Chinese are the rudest people ever. Just plain ignorant.

9. @doitlikearaisin Im not racist but the amount of durga durga's on this boat is unbearable. Theyre so loud, rude, oblivious and annoying

8. @mirandadelasole I Can And WILL go off on black bitches alllday. Not Racist but they piss me off open they big ass mouth without thinking

7. @KursedKambo: They say Asians look alike...well so do black people in my opinion. #notracist

6. @ashleymanzo_: i'm not racist but if you're a asian, mexican, or a black guy, there's a 100% chance i won't like you. unless you're white

5. @jorgesouthbeach: I'm not a racist but if you've ever ridden a f*cking camel I don't trust you.

4. @brianlira2: Honestly am not racist but why can't black people act civilized I mean wtf my dog didn't do shit to u .

3. @babarjamil: I'm not Racist, but I hate Jews and their supporters as they are the biggest enemies of Islam

2. @jamieakabeaks: I'm not racist but England should be predominantly filled with white skin.

1. @mcstocksie: Im not racist but I dont believe in interracial couples, honestly.

Last Week in Racism: "Asian Girlz" is the Most Racist Song of All Time

@dave_schilling

There Are So Many Other Reasons to Hate the Olympics

$
0
0


An extremely hetero pageant to celebrate the upcoming Sochi Olympics. via Flickr.

With the Sochi Winter Olympics only six months away, denizens of the internet, media pundits, and LGBTQ activists have engaged in a fiery debate over whether or not Western nations should boycott the Olympics in protest of Russia’s new anti-gay legislation. While disagreeing on how to effectively send Russian lawmakers a message—whether through an all-out boycott, individual acts of protest at the games, or moving the event to a different country—both sides of the debate began by condemning Russia’s criminalization of homosexuality as the egregious assault on human rights that it is. But this conversation fails to consider the ways in which the Olympic Games violate human rights everywhere they are held.

Many of the loudest voices in this debate have argued that Russia’s anti-gay legislation is antithetical to the unifying and egalitarian spirit of the Olympic competition. For example, Kristopher Wells wrote in the Edmonton Journal that: “The modern Olympic movement was founded on the principles of equality, fairness and respect for all. The Olympics are the moment when the world stops and all nations come together as one, regardless of gender, race, culture, class, heritage, age or sexual orientation.” Similarly, Barack Obama told Jay Leno: “If Russia wants to uphold the Olympic spirit, then every judgement should be made on the track, or in the swimming pool, or on the balance beam. And people’s sexual orientation shouldn’t have anything to do with it.”

Although it’s nice to imagine the Olympics as a beacon of peace and equality in a world rife with discrimination, the history of the games has proven statements like these to be problematic and hollow. So really, Olympic egalitarianism is a dumb, stupid myth. Here’s why:


A mob of anti-Olympics protesters in Vancouver. via Flickr.

Evictions and displacement
A UN-funded study by the Center on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) found that from the 1988 games in Seoul to the Beijing Olympics of 2008, more than 2 million people have been displaced to make way for Olympic celebrations. These displacements disproportionately affect the poor and ethnic minorities, pushing people out of their homes and leaving behind high-cost real-estate that most former residents cannot afford. 

In the six years prior to the Seoul Olympics, 48,000 residential buildings were demolished displacing 720,000 people, while over 1.25 million people were displaced in the lead up to the Beijing Olympics. In advance of the Atlanta games of 1996, 9,000 arrest citations were given out for the city’s homeless while 2,000 public housing units were demolished.

The years leading up to the Olympics in Barcelona saw the availability of public housing decrease more than 75%, and almost all of the Roma residents in surrounding communities were displaced. And currently, well in advance of the Brazil games of 2016, residents of Rio’s favelas are being targeted for eviction against their will. Consent is rarely a part of this process—while in 2012 London residents were told to suck it up when they objected to having missile defence systems installed on their roofs—the 2010 Olympics were held on unceded Indigenous territory without the consent of 80 of the region’s Indigenous bands.

The Olympics give police new powers, often used to criminalize anti-Olympic sentiment and marginalized groups.
The official Olympic charter leaves little room for dissent or protest, stating in its rules that “No kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in the Olympic areas.” Through a new law passed in time for the 2012 Olympics, 13,500 British troops, alongside more than 10,000 private security personnel, were given the power to forcibly enter people’s homes and destroy or seize any material not sanctioned by the Olympics.

A similar law in Vancouver rendered any material that did not celebrate the Olympics illegal and similarly granted police the right to seize such materials from people’s homes. A public outcry saw this law amended in Vancouver, but BC officials—following the model set by Olympic host cities like Seoul, Atlanta, Sydney, and Athenspassed a law allowing police to forcibly transfer the homeless to shelters in the event of extreme weather (like winter), or jail them temporarily if shelters are full.

Cleaning cities up for the arrival of global tourists also means proactive police operations to intimidate and clear the streets of “undesirables.” In addition to a crackdown on the homeless and Roma people, prior to the London 2012 games, London police conducted a series of raids to intimidate sex workers in advance of the games. Even the LGBT community has been targeted by these proactive raids—in the year leading up to the Montreal Games in 1976, the city saw a sharp increase in raids on bath houses and queer hotspots.


via Flickr.

Companies with horrendous human rights records are selected as Olympic sponsors.
Without a shred of irony, the London 2012 Olympics had BP Oil as its chief “sustainability partner,” a company with a questionable human rights record that is best known for the massive gulf oil spill that continues to threaten the gulf’s seafood industry. Next year’s “sustainability partner” is DOW Chemical, a company which for over a decade has refused to take responsibility for its gas leak which killed 25,000 people.

Profit and debt
While the International Olympics Committee (IOC) generates massive profits ($383 million in 2008) from sponsorship deals and the sale of television rights, it leaves the residents of host cities to pay off enormous debts. The IOC host city agreement stipulates that the Olympics, as a non-profit organization, pay no taxes to host nations on money made during the Olympics. With the IOC left to self-audit, the salaries of IOC executives are unreported and nobody is certain where Olympic profits go.

In the past, board members have been implicated in bribery scandals, taking “gifts” in exchange for their vote on where the Olympics should be held. Meanwhile, with Olympic ceremonies often exceeding their projected budgets tenfold, host cities are left paying off the games for years. Montreal took 30 years to pay off the $2 billion debt it acquired by hosting the Olympics while Vancouver got off easy with a debt of only $1 billion. Meanwhile, Olympic expenditures in Greece contributed €9 billion to its national deficit, fucking over the entire country for the foreseeable future.

And this is just a taste of what the Olympics has to offer. So while everyone in this debate is on point in arguing that human rights are under threat with the upcoming Sochi 2014 games, there are actually many reasons why this global celebration of athleticism causes a lot of seriously alarming societal issues.  

 

Previously:

This Guy Says FIFA and the IOC Are to Blame for the Brazilian Protests

Question of the Day: Is It OK to Steal from Rich People?

$
0
0


Kim Kardashian is a rich person with lots of stuff. Photo via

I know, I know—we were all brought up to understand that stealing is wrong. But is stealing really that wrong when the person you're taking stuff from has a tons of stuff left over?

Like, would Kim Kardashian really notice if one of her lip glosses went missing? Or would Donald Trump notice if a floor of one of his towers were quietly converted into a spa cum private department store? It's a difficult question, and one we're still unsure of how to answer. This guy thinks stealing from rich people isn't wrong, but the law still thinks it is. Help us, general public—who is right? Is it OK to steal from rich people?

Sarah, 28, designer: No, it’s never OK to steal from anyone, not even a dog.

What if the dog didn’t notice?
You just don’t steal from another… stealing is wrong. You make efforts to make the ridiculously rich less rich, but that’s a different thing. You don’t steal.

OK, OK.

Emma, graphic designer, 25: Urm, no.

Why not?
I would just never steal from anyone, I don’t think.

Not even a grain of rice?
I think no matter how big or small, if you steal something it will come back around. Like karma.

Kieran, 34: Well, I’m very rich, so if you stole from me—no.

Would you steal from someone richer than you?
No.

Because you don’t need to?
Yes.

Congratulations.

Mehmet, 25, barber: I don’t think so. It’s not a good thing to take from someone rich, you know.

So you think it's wrong?
Yeah, I think it’s wrong. You know that it’s not yours, you’re going to lose sleep. Your heart won’t be clean.

How sweet. What if you're not such a romantic?
Yeah, if you’re a bad person maybe it's worth doing.

Nathan, 24, traveler: I guess it’s still a crime regardless of who you steal from.

What if you could get away with it?
I mean, if it were me, yeah, I’d probably do it. If no one was going to catch me.

So it’s just about getting caught, not morals.
Yeah, I guess so.

No wonder you didn't want your face in the photo.

Previously – When Is It OK to Kill?


I Spoke to Some Sex Addicts About Anthony Weiner

$
0
0


Image via/via

Unless you have been in a coma for the past few months, I don’t need to tell you what former congressman and current NYC mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner has been doing with his penis. 
 
As Anthony has promised to "seek help," I went to a Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous (SLAA) meeting to see if I would find him there. Unfortunately, he was not in attendance, so I did the next best thing: asked other sex addicts what they thought of his behavior. Obviously, all names have been changed. 
 
 
"Mike"
Mike, the first man I spoke to, has a past of becoming obsessed with woman and stalking them. This behavior has prevented him from having normal relationships and earned him a rap sheet of sexual assault and stalking charges.
 
VICE: What do you think of the whole Anthony Weiner thing?
Mike:
You know it’s funny, we've talked about him a lot lately in our meetings. He obviously has problems, but it isn’t anything too unusual. He's what is called a "love addict’, he talks to these girls and they become obsessed with him, he gets off on that. 
 
So he is definitely an addict? 
Without a doubt. A lot of people think sex or love addiction means you are having sex constantly, it's a popular misconception. I would say that is not that case for 80% of people in SLAA. There are so many people here, who, just like him, threw their life away by things like sexting, webcams, chatrooms, etc. 
 
But it doesn’t seem like he is doing it all the time.
[laughs] Yes, he is. He just has something to distract him now and then. 
 
"Scott"
Scott was an alcoholic, compulsive gambler, drug addict, and sexaholic. He used “prostitutes, sex hotlines, you name it.” 
 
VICE: What're your thoughts on Weiner?
Scott: I've been following him closely since this all started because it's really interested me. He clearly has a sex addiction, but his biggest problem is that he is in denial. Alcoholics Anonymous tells you the hardest problem to overcoming an addiction is crossing the ‘River of Denial.’  I remember watching him on TV, and he said the phrase “when I was doing those things.” That is a classic denial phrase. What he should have said was “When I did those things.” When I saw that I turned to my wife and said, “Oh man, this guy is in some hard denial.” 
 
Is there any way he can stop?
Not without admitting to it. Which, in my opinion, he has yet to do. I have seen a lot of people come and go with all kinds of addictions, not once has some stopped without admitting to it. You know, one of the commonalities in sex addiction is leading a double life. In his life with his wife and as a congressman, he doesn’t acknowledge this other life he is living online. He won’t come to terms with it because he has this inherent narcissism that prevents him from recognizing any flaws. 
 
"Daniel"
Daniel, like many others in SLAA, grew up with an alcoholic father who abused him. He began doing drugs at 13, becoming a full-blown addict at 16. Daniel become obsessed with various women and hired prostitutes ‘regularly.’ He has left SLAA multiple times just to fall back "into the same shit."
 
VICE: What do you make of this whole Weiner thing?
Daniel: I just feel bad. I know how hard it can be living with an addiction. With all the attention on him, I don’t fault him for falling back into the same behavior. He obviously needs help.
 
Where Should He Go?
He should come to one of our meetings, he would be more then welcome here. 
 

The Best of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the Clown Prince of Russian Politics

$
0
0

Vladimir Zhirinovsky sounds like a serious person on paper. He's a colonel in the Russian army, Vice-Chairman of the State Duma (the lower house of Russia’s legislature), a member of the Parliamentary Assembly Council of Europe, and, most notably, the founder and leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia. But a quick Google search reveals that he’s earned his reputation as the insane clown prince of Russian politics. When he ran for prime minister in 1993, his campaign promises included free vodka for men and better underwear for women. He’s throttled newscasters and state officials, told world leaders to suck Russian dick, and pontificated about enslaving the planet. A couple weeks ago, he called the Royal Baby a “bloodsucker,” but he’s said far, far worse things. If his party ever managed to take control of the country, the world would be a much more terrifying place (thankfully, there's little chance of that).   

And yet, even though he’s a belligerent, racist, sexist, homophobic, nationalist sociopath, you can’t help but admire his refusal to play politics as usual. With Zhirinovsky, you don’t get any fake smiles (or any smiles, period), or false promises, or two-faced diplomacy. He says what’s on his mind, even if what’s on his mind isn’t so much a political position as a violent, incoherent rant that can only be communicated through wild gestures. And that’s sort of endearing, in it’s own jaw-droppingly offensive kind of way.

For your entertainment pleasure, here are the Lib Dem leader’s Greatest Hits.

His Drunken Rant About Bush, the Iraq War, and Condoleezza Rice
One late night in 2002, so wasted he had to be propped up by two lackeys, he gave a riveting speech against the War in Iraq. He counseled Bush on his daddy issues, called America a “second-hand goods store” filled with “cocksuckers, handjobbers, and faggots,” and threatened to change the gravitational field of the Earth in order to sink the entire country.  

If you skip to 5:16, you can listen to him call Bush an ignoramus who can’t count and say much, much worse things about Condoleezza Rice: “She is a black whore who needs a good cock. Send her here, one of our divisions will make her happy in the barracks one night. She will choke on Russian sperm as it will be leaking out of her ears... until she crawls to the US embassy in Moscow on her knees.”

For more of his thoughts on Condoleeza Rice, you can check out this article from 2006, in which he offers her sympathetic advice:

“Condoleezza Rice released a coarse anti-Russian statement. This is because she is a single woman who has no children. She loses her reason because of her late single status […] If she has no man by her side at her age, he will never appear. Even if she had a whole selection of men to choose from she would stay single because her soul and heart have hardened. Like Napoleon, Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, or Alexander the Great of Macedon, Ms. Rice needs to fight and release tough public statements in global scale […] Condoleezza Rice needs a company of soldiers. She needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied. On the other hand, she can hardly be satisfied because of her age. This is a complex. She needs to return to her university and teach students there. She could also deal with psychological analysis.”

His Explanation of Why Men Hate Women
On a popular Russian TV program, Zhirinovsky took upon himself the heavy task of revealing the harsh realities of gender relations to us poor, delusional women: “All men lie to you. When they tell you that they love you, it’s a lie... All men hate you, ladies, they hate you. Because you prevent men from thriving… This is why all the crimes committed in the world are women’s fault.”

As always, you have to appreciate his candor, if nothing else. When the female interviewer asks if his wife is happy he doesn’t miss a beat. “Of course not. How could she be happy? I ignore her,” he says, as though the interviewer is a moron for asking such a stupid question.

And yet, behind all of the women-bashing, he’s almost unintentionally making a feminist argument: If women were self-sufficient, they wouldn’t need the endless supply of furs and shoes that apparently drives men to their graves. And in 2006, Zhirinovsky proposed that polygamy be legalized in Russia. So that’s kind of open-minded. Kind of.

His Many, Many, Many Fights
It happens all the time. You’re watching footage from a Russian legislative session as people read documents, make boring speeches—then you recognize Zhirinovsky’s unmistakable bark. Within moments, papers are flying, officials are scrambling to get Zhirinovsky’s latest victim out of his death-grip headlock, and the presiding officer is making tired appeals to restore order in the chamber. Often, it takes more than a dozen people to restrain him. On televised programs, he often responds to someone disagreeing with him by pelting them with whatever is on the table, water bottles and stationary being his favorites. He’s spoken out about being bullied at school growing up, so perhaps it’s no wonder that he regresses to the problem-solving strategies of a rabid kindergardener, but he's the bully in practically all the situations he gets himself into these days. (The best fight in the legislature is between 2:37 and 5:01 in the video below, and his fight on a televised debate show is from 6:17 to 6:57. It’s in Russian, but just imagine the worst insults you can think of, and you’ll get the gist.)

BONUS ROUND:

In this video, Zhirinovsky tells his bodyguard to take his political opponent and shoot him in the corner.

His Hardcore Racism and Voldemort-esque Anti-Semitism
He’s been pretty frank about his hatred for Turks and people from the Caucasus Mountains, as well as his desire for the Chinese and Japanese to be deported from Russia. He’s warned America several times to be careful about turning the country over to the blacks. He wants to forcibly take back Alaska because it’ll be “a great place to keep the Ukranians.” In Zhirinovsky’s dream world, all of the former Soviet countries will get back together, the ethnic minorities will murder each other, Russians will rule, Georgians will serve as slaves, and the Baltic countries will be used for the dumping of nuclear waste. Oh, and they need to seize Afghanistan and the Middle East so that Russians have somewhere warm to go on vacation.

As for his own heritage, Zhirinovsky has long denied that there was any non-Russian blood in him, shrugging it off with the statement, “My mother is Russian, my father is a lawyer.” He finally stopped playing coy in his tantalizingly-named autobiography, Close Your Soul, Ivan (it shares a lot with Mein Kempf in terms of blaming all of history’s misfortune on the Jews), in which he revealed his father’s Jewishness but also said that he wasn’t going to change his opinions just because of “that single drop of blood that my father left in my mother’s body.” Like his plan for world domination, his understanding of reproductive biology is fairly shaky.

His Awesome Ideas on How to Stop Epidemics
When the bird flu was spreading around the world in 2006, world leaders everywhere were scrambling and trying to figure out what to do. But Zhirinovsky, who is a man of action, came up with a simple solution: just shoot all the birds.

“This little song of theirs has to be broken,” he said. “No more migration to the north. They can stay in the south. We must shoot all the birds. We have to send all of our troops, from Sochi to the Crimea, and force migratory birds to stay where they are. This is not a joke!”

Diana Bruk is a freelance writer who was born in St. Petersburg, Russia, and raised in New York City. You can follow her on Twitter: @BrukDiana

More about Russia:

These NSFW Russian Party Photos Might Send a Guy to Prison

Russia's Silent but Deadly AIDS Epidemic

Portrait of a Russian Oligarch

Sympathy for the Beijing Airport Bomber

$
0
0

Beijing Capital Interational Airport terminal three, without a trace of the bomb set off by Ji Zhongxing. Photo via Flickr user thewamphyri.

The day before Ji Zhongxing detonated a homemade explosive in terminal three of  Beijing Capital International Airport, I left on a trip to Hong Kong. That morning, the gleaming airport thrummed with efficiency, and it was difficult to imagine that the country which had built this—at the time the largest terminal in the world—had also neglected thousands of its own citizens.

Ji Zhongxing was one of those neglected.

A Shandong native, Ji was operating a motorcycle taxi in the factory city of Dongguan, Guangdong Province when he was beaten by local police and left paralyzed from the waist down. This was 2005.

In 2007, Ji sued the Dongguan government for 338,267 yuan ($55,168) in compensation for medical expenses and unemployment, but lost due to lack of evidence. Dongguan's public security bureau claimed that Ji collided with a policeman and paralyzed himself while falling, which, you know, happens. Ji appealed the next year to no avail.

In 2009, Ji went to Beijing to petition the central government, a common process known as shangfang. There, the Commission of Politics and Law of the CPC Central Committee overturned the previous verdicts and required Dongguan's local police to pay Ji 100,000 yuan ($16, 309), provided he stopped petitioning.

The fact that Ji received money at all makes him luckier than many. Local governments, for fear of being punished, have been known to intercept, detain, or harass people from their districts who try to petition the central government.

Cut to July 20, 2013.

Witnesses outside the international arrivals area of terminal three spot a man in a wheelchair handing out leaflets regarding his grievances. Airport security officers approach and ask him to stop. The man, now shouting, holds up a bag of powder and cautions people to move away before detonating it in his hand.

THE REACTION

Sadly, Ji is not alone, neither in his experiences nor his decision to make a public spectacle. Desperate men who turn to violence after failing to find redress are a growing phenomenon.

Last month, a disgruntled street vendor in Xiamen set a bus on fire and killed 47 people, including himself. On his blog he wrote that he had been bullied by chengguan, China's reviled urban management officers.

(Chengguan have been in the news recently for beating a watermelon vendor to death in Hunan.)

Last year in Fuzhou, Jiangxi Province, another disgruntled local who claimed his house had been forcibly demolished and spent a decade seeking compensation set off three car bombs outside three government buildings, killing himself and two others.

But what's surprising about Ji's case is not that it ended in extremism, but that the public's response has been largely sympathetic. Short of being appalled or terrified, many see Ji as the victim of a corrupt and unjust society.

On Weibo, users focused on the fact that Ji had only hurt himself and had warned others before detonating the bomb. A professor at the University of Science and Technology in Beijing went so far as to call Ji a "righteous" and "kindhearted man" on his account.

A reporter at Caixin Magazine covering the story confessed her sympathy for Ji and others whom society had left behind. "How strange, after an explosion, to feel sympathy for the bomber," she wrote. "I think what he did was terrifying. My first reaction was that he did not mean to hurt anyone; he meant to take revenge."

But beneath people's sympathy for Ji is something more cynical—the belief that in this society a man can look eight years for justice and not find it; that his despair can push him to commit an act of violence; and that it is understandable, if not acceptable, for him to do so. Deep down, those sympathetic toward Ji have a profound lack of faith in the system to dispense justice.

Perhaps sensing this cynicism, the state media has been quick to remind the public that Ji is a criminal, not a martyr.

"It's important to remember that Ji should be condemned and dealt with by law," said an editorial in Global Times. "His grievances can't provide moral support for his extreme actions, nor can they shield him from legal punishment."

Which begs the question, where is the law to condemn those that commit brutality? And where is the legal punishment for those that oversee a system which marginalizes those who have had everything taken from them?

THE AFTERMATH

Ji was taken to a hospital where he had his left hand amputated. That evening, Beijing police received two bomb threats, one threatening to blow up an airport out of anger over a land dispute and the other to bomb a video game arcade because the man had been spending too much money there. Both were swiftly detained.

For their part, Guangdong officials have promised to look into Ji's case. And to think, all it took was him blowing himself up.

When I came back from Hong Kong a few days later, I went to the international arrivals section of terminal three. There was no trace of the bombing—no dust, no cracked glass or marks on the ground. Tourists from around the world and people returning from vacations filled the arrival hall. They met those waiting for them and pushed their luggage outside, into a country that had no time to slow down or look back.

If you hadn't read the news, you'd have no idea that something had happened, or that anything was wrong.

@Dingsanbai

More about China:

TOXIC: Linfen, China

In China, Tigers Are Being Farmed Like Chickens 

China World - A Bootlegger Speaks

 

Taji's Mahal: Billy Rohan Left Florida to Create Illuminati Videos

$
0
0

This week, I caught up with my forever friend, the Mason, pro skateboard personality, and filmmaker Billy Rohan. After spending a year in Florida to gather his thoughts, he’s back in New York City to launch a new video series called Illumignarly inspired by his hit Illuminati Radio show. I met up with Billy to talk about his rad new project and whether or not Masons talk about the Illuminati during their meetings. 

VICE: Dude, welcome back to the City! What about your Floridian hiatus made you want to return so badly?
Basically, I had spent enough time in Florida to miss out on winter in New York. Once I got all sober, I realized that there was a reason I left Florida when I was younger. Getting back to New York was what I needed to do.

How did the opportunity for Illumignarly arise?
When I returned to New York, I was staying in Greenpoint, really close to Josh Stewart's place and [clothing and art company] Theories HQ. I ran into Soy Panday from Magenta and his partner Vivienne. They told me to come check out the Theories art show that they were in town for. After bringing my craze cam (aka the TRV 900) to the art show and video premiere, I stopped by Josh's to show him and Pat Stiener some of the footy. Soon after hitting up Mark Gonzales about needing a computer to edit with, he hit me up with his old PowerBook. I started putting some edits together with a few pointers from Josh. After showing Josh and Pat the edits, they came up with the idea to do a video series called Illumignarly. 

Where did all the footage come from?
I filmed most of the footage in the clips either on the craze cam or grabbed clips from an old hard drive that I forgot I still had.

The first Illumignarly video.

You’re an actual Free Mason. Does the term Illuminati have a special meaning for you?
The term Illuminati had more meaning to me when it was a sick board company that Ricky Oyola skated for in the early 90s. Now it's associated with hip hop conspiracies about Jay-z and Beyonce. So no, it's not what it used to be. But as a Mason, I've never heard the term Illuminati used in a Masonic setting. I like to think the word illuminati means enlightenment. Imagine someone who goes to college versus someone who only finishes high school—the college grad would be considered more of an illuminati.

Are you going to bring back Illuminatti Radio or just stick to the Illumignarly videos?
I miss doing the radio show, mostly because I was able to have my friends come over and spaz out and pretty much talk about whatever we wanted to. We would just throw craze for a few hours a week without being on camera usually. There is something special about radio that's a kind of freedom you don't get when you’re shooting video. For now though, I'm really enjoying taking the craze cam out with me and getting clips with my friends, which show some of the more random thing that happen in our everyday lives in New York City.

Thanks, dude! I'm looking forward to next week's Illumignarly.

@RedAlurk

Previously on the Mahal — 2013 Summer Roll

Weinergates in Waiting: Will My Sexts Come Back to Haunt Me Too?

$
0
0

Somewhere in the world, in someone else’s possession, there are some fairly pornographic selfies of me. There is also an array of sexts so vulgarly composed as to make my mother’s uterus blush for having nourished such a filth demon. I might be exposed out there, but I don’t think I’m the only one who has left a trail of sexts in the wake of their various 21st century hook-ups and romances.

And as Weinergate 2.0 has played out in recent weeks, it has occurred to me that many of us who now sext with wanton abandon may end up in, or vying for, positions of power. On the chance that I fulfill my dream of winning multiple Grammys and bagging that “Best Kiss” MTV Movie Award, might I also be facing a full-blown media scandal? Will I go from “Kat George: Winner of awards both Grammy and MTV”, to “Kat George: Open legged and sprawled on a bed sucking her fingers, and look! You can see some of her pubes!”?

Whatever the outcome, I embrace that future. Not only because it means my dreams will have come true, but because soon having a history of semi-tawdry pics in the possession of others won’t be such a big deal.

Sexting and sending pics is such a pervasive part of this generation’s cultural psyche and method of social interaction that when all our old sexts are paraded for the world to see, we’ll sort of shrug about it and fondly recall a time when we too spent 30 minutes pressing our boobs together to get the perfect busty look for a sext photo.

Even as I ready myself for that open tomorrow, I still have parents and grandparents and brothers and family. So although I am more than confortable having my peers gawk at my sexts, I think I’d still be rather mortified to confront a reality where my dad will have seen my come-hither eyes and labia.

Call me conflicted. But to get a sense of what my paramours of the past have done with my more prurient communications, I did that sad-sack Nick Hornby thing and got in touch with some ex-lovers to figure out what they’re holding and what they might do with it.

Matt

Matt is a guy I dated for about two months last year. We sometimes bump into each other around the place and are on good terms.

VICE: So I sent you a few dirty photos. Do you still have them?
Matt: I'm actually not sure. They are not on my phone, but it's possible that they were backed up to iPhoto. I don't have that old computer anymore. (Don't worry, I wiped all the files.) So they are probably stored in my Time Capsule wireless backup thingy. For the record, I never showed them to anybody.

How explicit were the pictures?
From what I remember, there were a few underwear shots and maybe one of you with your bra off. Nothing overtly filthy.

Did you ever look at them again?
I can't recall a specific time, but I'm sure I did.

When I get super famous, would you consider selling them to the press?
Absolutely not. That's a sleazeball move and I would feel like a GIANT douchebag.

Come on. Everyone has a price! What’s yours?
The only way I would sell them is if you gave your consent, and we split the money or came to some other arrangement. (Tits for Tots charity, maybe?) I'd probably just show a couple of my friends and be like, "Yeah, I totally banged that girl who is famous now."

T.Kid, Author of VICE's Weediquette Column 

For the past ten months or so T.Kid and I have sort-of slept together, and we definitely argue a lot. We’re pretty good friends, so there’s not all that many boundaries. Until someone gets mad, that is.

So we've had some dirty texts and Gchats. Do you still have these?
T. Kid: I haven't checked, but I'm sure they're saved in my Gchat/iPhone history.

But you haven’t deleted them?
I did not delete them.

Did I ever send you any pictures? I don't think I did.
Nope. No pictures. What the hell, Kat!

How filthy are the sexts I wrote you?
Some of them are just "Hey, let's fuck." But then others are a bit more descriptive and lewd. I think we said more dirty stuff on Gchat before we ever actually hooked up. I think you were dating someone at the time, and we talked about that quite explicitly. I think the sexts got tamer and more straightforward after the first time we hooked up. There were still some good ones over text, if I remember correctly.

Do or did you ever go back and check them out again?
No. I haven't. I only check back for ammunition when we are arguing.

Why don’t you check them out?
I would feel too weird and creepy about it. Not to judge people who check back, but it just feels too self indulgent for me personally.

If I ever got super famous for whatever reason, would you sell them to the media?
Yes.

What’s your price? This could be a good time for you to make some money.
$50. You mean my price to whore myself out to anyone or anything, right? If you're talking about sexts from you, $10,000 a character.

Will

Will and I were sleeping together and sort of vaguely dating last year. He was a friend for a long time before that and continues to be my friend now. I should also add that he’s now madly in love with his live-in girlfriend.

Do you still have the sexy picture I sent you?
Will: This email has made me think. Like, really think. Like really, really think. Like, why do I have these pictures of naked(ish) girls I once had a something with. What's the point? I keep them unkempt and unlooked and buried in a lost folder on my computer. Is it a treasure trove? Is it a proof that I was once a virile conqueror of poon?

So you never deleted my photo from your phone?
They've never lived on my phone. The thought of having sexts on my phone always felt crass. One of my cousins revels in the naked photos of his “conquests”  (my term), and his revelry in having them has always made me feel icky. His revelry in his conquests leans toward the problem, as I see it, of the male idea of banging as much as they can bang purely so they can brag to their bros of who they've banged—a weird justification and realization of their manhood. Notches on the belt. High fives high fiving. Not to say that I haven't fallen host to these kind of justifications, but using photos as a kind of prize has always made me feel uneasy. As I mentioned before, I'm not sure why I haven't deleted the image. Maybe because it's a pretty girl in undress. Maybe because I fall prey to the same notions I decry about conquest and manhood.

So how racy is the photo you have of me?
Really, it's a pretty innocuous photo. You're wearing both top and bottom underwear (I have revisited the photo just now), though your top underwear is pretty see-through. I can see your nipples. What makes it a sext, I suppose, is the come-hither sexy face you're making. (It feels rather funny to so clinically dissect this photo, all while listening to noise punk.)

Apart from just now, have you revisited the photo before?
There were those slippery drunk nights that I would revisit the various sexts I'd gotten, and I would come across yours. There are three women who've sent me sexts. You're one. My girlfriend is one. And a third former acquaintance is one. And every time I viewed the collection, it wasn't so much an arousing journey as a weird anthropological jaunt through history—if that makes sense. As a side note, it was the third former acquaintance who clarified what a sext was. Prior to her clarification, I thought a sext was essentially a transcribed texting of phone sex, which sounded incredibly boring and laborious to me. Even with my present knowledge, sexting seems incredibly boring and laborious. And I make my money making pictures.

If I ever become a celebrity, would you sell the picture to the media for personal profit?
No. That's shitty.

But everyone can be bought. Surely you have a price?
See above. That's shitty. I mean seriously. You get famous. I have a picture of you in a see-through bra. Just the thought of profiting off such a private thing makes me feel really god damn greasy. And I really god damn hate feeling really god damn greasy.

@kat_george

Previously by Kat George - Maybe I'm a Chubby Chaser

 

John Kerry Doesn't Realize Middle Eastern Peace Is an Oxymoron

$
0
0

Image courtesy of Flickr user DonkeyHotey.

Here's a remark that probably won't be uttered this weekend at the kitchen table: “Hey, honey, great news! Middle East peace talks are resuming on August 14th!” 

A yawn is more likely. The Israelis and the Palestinians are indeed set to negotiate again after a three-year hiatus, but virtually nobody— except maybe U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, the peripatetic diplomat who talked the two sides into talking—seems stoked about the prospects of a historic breakthrough. That's because, after two decades of faint hopes and dashed dreams, the phrase “Middle East peace talks”  has become an oxymoron, like “government intelligence” or “legitimate rape.” 

Consider what happened last weekend. On the cusp of the talks, the Israeli government authorized the construction of nearly 1,000 more Jewish settlement homes in the occupied West Bank. That decision is more provocation than peace gesture, given the fact that the Palestinians' top priority in the talks is to establish an independent nation in lands held by Israel since the 1967 war—notably the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem, where settlements already house 560,000 Israelis.

In other words, the prospects for long-term peace begin with Israel. Unless Israel signs on to a viable state for the Palestinians, unless Israel's bulldozers stop leveling Palestinian dwellings to make way for more settlement condos, the talks will stall just as they did in 2000 and 2008 and 2010. But Israel is led by a prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, whose Likud party platform flatly opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state.

No wonder so many Palestinians are jaded about the new talks. According to a June opinion poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Research, 58 percent of respondents in the West Bank and Gaza believe that the two-state solution is no longer doable because of the Israeli settlement expansion; worse yet, 69 percent believe that the odds of establishing a Palestinian state within five years are slim or non-existent. And 82 percent believe that Israel's end game is to formally annex the occupied lands, to either expel all Palestinians or deny them political rights.

Distrust is endemic on both sides of the divide. Hard-line Israelis in the government and the settlement community believe that Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, spurned an Israeli olive branch in 2008. Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert pitched the idea of a Palestinian state, but the talks stalled amid disagreements over how many Israeli settlements would remain (too many, in Abbas' view), and how many Palestinian refugees could return to Israeli turf (too few, in Abbas' view). It all became moot when Olmert resigned in the midst of a corruption probe; soon thereafter, Netanyahu got the job.

Dani Dayan, a prominent spokesman for the West Bank settlers, recently told The Guardian, “The two-state formula has proved futile innumerable times....Abbas has also not changed since his 2008 rejection of the most generous offer an Israeli leader will ever present.” And, like many Israelis, Dani remains psychologically scarred by the terrorist attacks and intifadas that have bloodied his people: “We can only hope that when this new round of talks also fades away, this time the inevitable failure does not explode in our faces again, leaving debris and scorched earth all around.” 

Given this Israeli attitude, why has the government agreed to resume peace talks? Because, for public relations reasons, it had to.

Israel's settlement policy in the occupied lands is constantly being condemned by the international community. The European Union recently assailed the policy as “the biggest single threat to the two-state solution.” President Obama said, “We do not consider continued settlement activity... to be something that can advance the cause of peace,” and the United Nations Human Rights Council said in February that the settlements breaches international law. Worse yet, the European Union has decided to halt EU financing of any Israeli projects—grants, scholarships, you name it—in the occupied lands.

Put simply, Netanyahu has agreed to sit at John Kerry's table because he didn't want to be the bad guy and get blamed for nixing the latest peace dream. He has agreed to talk about talking in the hopes of easing the international pressure.

But it might also be said of Abbas that he's at the table simply to avoid being blamed. And distrustful Israelis suspect that he'll use the talks for his own public relations agenda—namely, to condemn the West Bank settlements as illegal and seek a formal opinion from the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Which he has the standing to do, because last November the U.N.
recognized Palestine as a “non-member observer state.”

And even if they get substantive, the details are daunting. For instance, how many West Bank settlers would the Israelis being willing to move out (assuming they'd agree to move any)? How many Palestinian refugees would be allowed to move in? What kind of land swaps? Whose security forces would police the peace? And, politically, how far can Netanyahu extend his hand without risking a domestic backlash? And how far can Abbas extend his, given the fact that his more militant domestic opponents, such as Hamas, distrust him simply because he's talking to the occupiers?

But perhaps it's Kerry, and the nation he represents, that has the most to lose. As the guy who goaded the adversaries to talk, he has raised the stakes. In April he told a congressional committee: “I believe the window for a two-state solution is shutting... a year, a year and a half, or two years, or it's over.” If that window snaps shut, he'd own the failure. He'd be wise to prepare for the worst while he hopes for the best.

@DicPolman1

Dick Polman is Writer in Residence at the University of Pennsylvania, and he blogs daily on American politics at Newsworks.

More about Israel and Palestine:

Israel's Killer Robots

'Out in the Dark' Explores the Gay Relationship Between an Israeli and a Palestinian

We Just Spoke to People in Israel and Palestine About the Gaza Crisis

A Comprehensive Guide to Cooking Meth on ‘Breaking Bad’

$
0
0

Frank Ockenfels/AMC.

Disclaimer: Cooking and/or selling methamphetamine and other controlled substances is illegal unless you are working under the aegis of a pharmaceutical company.

As a chemist and someone interested in psychoactive drugs, I’m frequently asked if I watch the AMC series Breaking Bad and if the show accurately portrays clandestine chemistry. I am a huge fan of the show and frequently watch it while working in the lab late at night. Although the clandestine chemistry always appeared accurate at first glance, I desired a more detailed critique of Walter White’s syntheses. But season after season my thirst for technical analysis was left unquenched; I found a few articles that touched on the clandestine chemistry, but none were comprehensive. After dedicating the last seven years of my life to organic chemistry, it felt like a natural departure from writing my dissertation to examine this matter more closely.

Nagai Nagayoshi(1844-1929)

N-methyl-1-phenylpropan-2-amine or methamphetamine was first synthesized from the naturally occurring alkaloid ephedrine by Japanese chemist Nagai Nagayoshi in 1893 while researching the structure of ephedrine [1]. Meth’s psychostimulant effect does not seem to have been noticed until the mid-30s when Friedrich Hauschild discovered it at the Berlin based pharmaceutical company Temmler. By the 1950s stimulants became a regular part of the American routine, and a flourishing black-market in diverted pharmaceuticals soon developed. This supply began to wither in the 1960s as law enforcement prosecuted over-prescribing doctors and placed pressure on pharmaceutical companies to withdraw certain products. Many believe the first clandestine labs originated in the California bay area from this environment around 1962 [2].  

When it comes to making meth, the difference between cooking and synthesis should be acknowledged. In the same manner anyone can learn how to cook a fancy meal, anyone can be taught to cook meth regardless of chemistry education—cooking meth may be just a little more explosive. In fact, cooking meth can be extremely dangerous because a lack of chemical knowledge puts the cook (and anyone else nearby) at serious risk of injury. As Gus’s assistant Victor in “Box Cutter” (S.4E.1) states, “It’s called a cook, because everything comes down to following a recipe.” Walt appropriately asks him, “What happens when you get a bad barrel of precursor? How would you even know?” and “What happens in the summer when the humidity level rises and your product goes cloudy?” These are important points that someone just following a recipe may not be able to deal with. A skilled chemist like Walt understands the chemistry allowing him to alter or adapt the synthesis as necessary.

In early episodes, Walt and Jessie produce methamphetamine using the Nagai method—the same synthetic route used by Nagai Nagayoshi in the first recorded methamphetamine synthesis. The Nagai method employs pseudoephedrine as a precursor, which is reduced with hydroiodic acid (HI) to yield methamphetamine. This method was once the favorite of small scale meth operations in America—along with the misnamed “Nazi method,” which was most common in agricultural areas with access to liquid ammonia fertilizer (Li/NH3 reduction or Birch reduction). Today small-scale operators prefer the one pot “shake and bake” method, a modified form of the Birch reduction [3]. 

Pseudoephedrine.

The Nagai method is portrayed twice in the pilot episode (S.1E.1): first when Walt's DEA agent brother in law, Hank Schrader, and his DEA pals raid Jessie's lab while Walt rides along, and then again during the Winnebago cook scene. The paraphernalia characteristic of this method is seen as the agents storm through the house: coffee filters, match books, road flares, iodine tinctures, boxes and blister packs of OTC cold medicine, and mason jars of transparent red and yellow solvents (from removing the red wax coating and extracting pseudoephedrine from cold medicine respectively).

As may now be obvious, the popularity of the Nagai method stems from the ease of obtaining the necessary chemicals. Pseudoephedrine is extracted (via water or alcohol and coffee filters) from OTC cold medicine. Red phosphorus needed to reduce elemental iodine (I2) to HI and to recycle reformed I2 [4], is collected from matchbook striker pads or road flares. (Walt and Jessie use both as phosphorus sources at different times.) I2 crystals can be extracted from readily accessible disinfectants. Once readied, pseudoephedrine, I2, and red phosphorus are placed in a boiling flask along with water and heated for varying lengths of time. The resulting deep purple solution, a result of I2, is a telltale sign of this reaction. (As acknowledged several times on the show, care should be taken—unless intentionally trying to kill a rival drug dealer who’s holding a gun to your head—to vent the toxic phosphine gas produced on heating.) Once complete the reaction is worked up.

How to prepare l2 from Iodine tinctures.

In the pilot episode, Walt does this by making the solution basic and then extracting it with an organic solvent. His use of a plastic syringe to remove the organic solvent layer is typical of clandestine cooks—an easier alternative favored by legitimate chemists is a seperatory funnel. By bubbling the HCI gas into the solution, the resulting d-methamphetamine is then precipitated as the HCl salt.

In the Nagai method, the β-hydroxyl group on ephedrine or pseudoephedrine is protonated forming a hydronium ion leaving group. A nucleophilic substitution reaction then occurs with an iodide anion. Water is lost to give iodoephedrine, which then undergoes reductive dehalogenation by liberated H2 producing methamphetamine [4]. The mechanism of the “emede method,” a previously popular clandestine procedure, is equivalent; however, in this case it is performed in two separate reactions, isolating the ephedrine halide, usually Bromo- or Chloro-ephedrine, and then reducing it to methamphetamine.

By the seventh episode of Season 1 (“A No Rough-Stuff-Type Deal”), obtaining pseudoephedrine for the large-scale production that Walt desires becomes an issue. To circumvent this, Walt decides on an alternate synthesis—reductive amination using P2P (phenylacetone) and methylamine. Upon hearing he no longer has to smurf pseudoephedrine, an infamously tedious process, Jessie enthusiastically exclaims, “Yeah, science!” The synthesis of methamphetamine using reductive amination is not new; Japanese chemist Akira Ogata first used it in 1919 [5] with various modifications appearing in the scientific and patent literature ever since. Obtaining methylamine required for this reaction—which is on the DEA watch list, a list of chemicals the DEA has classified as having use in drug manufacture—becomes a major plot line throughout the seasons. 

Methylamine.

In reductive amination, a ketone or aldehyde is condensed with an amine to form an imine or Schiff base intermediate, which is then reduced to an amine.  In this case, P2P and methylamine are condensed forming the imine; this is then reduced by adding hydrogen to methamphetamine. The steps can be performed in separate reactions or together (one-pot).  In Secrets of Methamphetamine Manufacture 7th edition, author and former meth cook Uncle Fester discusses several possible reduction methods for reductive amination—including NaCNBH4, mercury aluminum amalgam reductions, and Hydrogen bomb using H2/PtO2 or Raney nickel [6]. Based on several scenes referencing or depicting aluminum metal and mention of “mercury amalgam,” Walt and Jesse use the former where aluminum foil is “activated” with HgCl2 to give aluminum amalgam. As Uncle Fester outlines, Walt and Jessie use a one-pot reaction where P2P, 40 percent aqueous methylamine, and alcohol are mixed with mercury amalgam—mercury amalgam reductions have a characteristic foaming cloudy grey appearance, as portrayed in the cook scene from “Hazard Pay” (S.5E.3).

Although H2 is generated, the reduction actually involves an internal electrolytic process involving electron transfer from the metal that forms a radical carbon and subsequent hydrogen abstractions from solvent. Once complete, the reaction is worked up and product-obtained by vacuum distillation. This is Walt’s preferred reduction. In “Green Light” (S.3E.4) Walt criticizes Jessie’s product, derogatorily stating he probably used a platinum dioxide reduction. However, Jessie states he used “mercury aluminum amalgam” because “dioxide's too hard to keep wet,” which surprises Walt.

This statement likely refers to the fact that PtO2, or Adam’s catalyst, is prophetic, meaning it ignites if exposed to open air. (A clandestine meth chemist using the pseudonym Loius Feech writes of his own experience with PtO2 spontaneously exploding in his lab [7] in his guide Large Scale Methamphetamine Manufacture.) PtO2 is a perfectly good reducing agent and was at one point common in clandestine methamphetamine labs [8]. However it’s pyrophoric nature and cost are downfalls. There is some suggestion Walt may have even used PtO2 at one point—perhaps in the first P2P cook in “A No Rough-Stuff-Type Deal” (S.1E.7). One of the listed items Jessie gets for Walt is hydrogen gas. (This wouldn't be used with a mercury amalgam reduction but would be useful for a heterogeneous reduction employing a reducing agent such as PtO2.)

In 1980 the DEA placed P2P into Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act, making it illegal to buy, sell, or possess without a controlled substance license. This is one of the earliest examples of the odd and unfortunate habit of making pharmacologically inert chemicals illegal because career criminals “could” misuse them. Although P2P became harder to purchase, this did little to impact methamphetamine’s availability, because clandestine chemists began synthesizing P2P themselves. Meanwhile clandestine operations became more complex, dangerous, and environmentally hazardous. The resourceful clandestine chemists adopted several well-known methods to synthesize P2P [9]. (Details of these are available in the latest edition of Uncle Fester’s Secrets of Methamphetamine Manufacture or his Advanced Techniques of Clandestine Psychedelic and Amphetamine Manufacture.)  The clandestine favorite for P2P synthesis has always been phenylacetic acid (PAA), which is also that used by Walt and Jessie [8, 9]. PAA is mentioned in “Sunset” (S 3.E.6) when Gale asks Walt about tapering its addition rate and in “Salud” (S4.E10) when Jessie criticizes the cartel, whom he’s visiting in Mexico for not having PAA ready.

There are a number of ways to make P2P from PAA. The list Walt gives Jessie in “A No Rough-Stuff-Type Deal” (S.1E.7) contains two items: thorium nitrate and a tube furnace indicative of a dehydrocarboxylation reaction. Thorium nitrate is used to generate thorium dioxide (ThO2), a radioactive metal oxide catalyst used in the relatively complex—though high yielding—gas phase reaction in a heated tube furnace. Mention of “thorium oxide,” a moniker of ThO2 and a “catalyst bed” in “Más” (S3.E.5), further supports this. In dehydrocarboxylation, two carboxylic acids are vaporized—in this case PAA and acetic acid—and passed through a catalyst bed enclosed by a heated tube furnace. These form the desired asymmetric ketone (P2P), some undesirable symmetric ketones, acetone, dibenzylketone, and the side products CO2 and water. The resulting crude brownish oil is collected. After separation from the aqueous water layer, the P2P is purified via vacuum distillation. 

From the 1960s to the mid-1980s, reductive amination was the method of choice for clandestine methamphetamine production. Enterprising biker gangs who dominated the trade at this time mostly ran these operations. (The slang term “crank” for methamphetamine allegedly originated from Biker’s transporting meth in the crankshafts of their bikes.) Reductive amination is less common today. Reference to this occurs in “Seven Thirty-Seven” (S.2E.2) when Hank shows his surprise after being shown the video of the methylamine heist. He says, “P2P––they’re cooking old school biker meth.” Increased DEA restrictions, including placement of PAA on its “watch list,” led to a switch to ephedrine based syntheses. While ephedrine was the initial choice, additional controls led to greater use of pseudoephedrine. While pseudoephedrine remains available over-the-counter today, the 2005 Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act (CMEA) title VII limits retail purchases and keeps records on all sales. Aside from limited short-term impacts, these legislative efforts failed to reduce availability of methamphetamine—the DEA Domestic Drug Seizure Statistics indicate meth availability may have even increased in recent years with 3,898 kgs confiscated in 2012 from 2,481 in 2011. While domestic large-scale clandestine labs have been impacted, small-scale (less than two ounces) labs have become increasingly common, representing 81 percent of seized domestic laboratories in 2006 [3]. These small-scale domestic labs only provide a minor portion of the current US meth supply—the majority originating in Mexican cartel operated super-labs [2,3]. Showing the scale of these operations, one 2012 bust of a Guadalajara based super-lab allegedly confiscated 15 tons of high purity methamphetamine [10]. The Mexican government’s new controls have effected ephedrine and pseudoephedrine availability, leading to a significant portion of Mexican super labs switching back to reductive amination, specifically P2P prepared from PAA [11,12]. 

Phenylacetic acid.

Assuming all else is equal, most clandestine chemists would choose a pseudoephedrine/ephedrine reduction over reductive amination, because reduction of pseudoephedrine produces the more potent d-methamphetamine where reductive amination produces the much less potent racemic l-methamphetamine. The potency difference is due to a chemical phenomenon called chirality, not purity. Using the analogy of handedness, Walt correctly explains chirality to his class in “The Cat’s in the Bag” (S.1E.2): “Just as your left hand and your right hand are mirror images of one another… identical and yet opposite, well so two organic compounds can exist as mirror image forms of one another.”  Since methamphetamine has one chiral center, it can exist as two different mirror forms called enantiomers (R- and S-based on an assigned priority of substituent and d- and l- or + and - based on interaction with plane polarized light). Since pseudoephedrine and ephedrine are themselves chiral—containing the (S-) configuration at the α-carbon—reduction produces exclusively d-methamphetamine. On the other, reductive amination produces a racemic or 50:50 mixture of d- and l-methamphetamine. This is because the planar P2P-methylamine imine is not chiral and hydrogen addition occurs equally from either side of the planar imine bond. Enantiomers often have distinct biological effects. Walt explains, “Although they may look the same, they don’t always behave the same.” He then illustrates this with the textbook example of thalidomide, the morning sickness pill that caused major birth defects, when sold as the racemic mixture, due to the activity of the less active enantiomer. Despite being a common pedagogical illustration, the enantiomers of thalidomide interconvert in the body because of the acidic hydrogen at the chiral center. This means Walt’s statement regarding R-thalidomide being safe to give to a pregnant women is technically false as the R-thalidomide would convert to the mutagenic S-thalidomide in the body. Walt could have better illustrated this phenomenon with methamphetamine, since  d-methamphetamine induces classic stimulant effects, whereas l-methamphetamine is only a weak stimulant but an excellent decongestant ,which is sold over-the-counter in Vicks® inhalers under the pseudonym les-desoxyephedrine. The enantiomers do not easily interconvert, because the chiral center of methamphetamine does not have acidic hydrogen.

Despite using reductive amination, Walt implies his product is enantiomerically pure in “Box cutter” (S.4E.1). He asks Victor, “If our reduction is not stereospecific, then how can our product be enantiomerically pure?” Since he's not a chemist, Victor was unable to answer, and anyways, before he could try, Gus slits his throat with a box cutter. Unfortunately, we don’t know if Walt is just bluffing to try and save his and Jessie’s life. If Walt’s product is pure d-methamphetamine, we can assume he must use some technique to separate or “resolve” the isomers, because the starting material is not chiral and the reduction not stereospecific. Crystallography (derivatization with a chiral group followed by physical separation) and chiral chromatography are both possibilities. Crystallography is relatively easy and high yielding, and the resolving agent can be recycled, making it a green option. We also know that Walt has professional experience in crystallography, further pointing to this method. In a crystallographic resolution, a diasteromeric crystal or complex is formed between a chiral acid (like D-tartaric acid) and the compound so they can be separated. Unlike enantiomers, diastereomers have distinct physical properties that allow cooks to separate them using physical means like solubility. One chiral acid used to resolve methamphetamine is Di-p-toluoyl-tartaric acid [13]. One last point of pertinence—stereoselective reductive aminations has been performed to synthesize enatiomerically pure amphetamines,  which containing a primary amine, using asymmetric synthesis with chiral auxiliary (R-) or (S-)-α-methylbenzylamine [14]. 

THE BLUE STUFF

Photo of blue meth from Kansas City Police Department chief's blog.

Walt's methamphetamine becomes blue when he switches from pseudoephedrine reduction to reductive amination. When delivering this new product to cartel drug dealer Tuco, in “Seven Thirty-Seven” (S.2E.1), Walt says, “I used a different chemical process but it is every bit as pure.” In his own vernacular, Jessie also attests to the quality saying, “It may be blue but it’s the bomb.” After a short snort, Tuco agrees. “Tight, tight, tight, tight, yeah, blue, yellow, pink, whatever man just keep bringing me that,” he yells.

As the pure HCl salt, methamphetamine is a colorless-white crystalline solid. Illicit methamphetamine exists in a number of colors, although colorless, white, and yellow are most common.  In the early days of clandestine production, a brown waxy product called peanut butter crank was common. Like Walt’s blue, the colors result from impurities formed during the reaction.

While I don’t know why the writers chose blue, there may be some logic. In the fifth chapter of Uncle Fester’s Secrets of Methamphetamine Manufacture 7th Edition (2005), Uncle Fester describes an internet conversation he had with “another cooker.” During the pressure gassing of a solution of 100 grams of methamphetamine freebase in 1000 milliliters of Et2O, the “process generates blue-colored product.” During any chemical reaction, “side reactions” occur which produce impurities. Identity and quantity of impurities vary by synthesis. Profiling the impurities, an analytical chemist can often determine the method used to produce a sample. However, the analytical chemist should take care—P2P is actually produced as a side product in the Nagai reduction of pseudoephedrine [15]. Crystallization, chromatography, and other purification methods can remove some impurities, but it is impossible to remove all, and even a minor amount (less than one percent) can influence a sample's color.

Despite its light blue coloration, Walt's product is highly pure. “Box-cutter” (S.4E.1) opens with flashback to Gale giddily setting up equipment in the laundromat super-lab. He tells Gus that he has the sample he asked him to analyze saying it is “quite good.” He then lets us know it was Walt’s product: “I can not as of yet account for the blue color.” Gale goes on to guaranty Gus a purity of 96 percent for his own product. Walt’s sample was 99 percent pure and “maybe even a touch beyond that.” Gale says to know for sure, he would “need an instrument called a gas chromatograph.” (A gas chromatograph or gc vaporizes and separates the components of a sample allowing impurities to be detected and quantified.)

Although at least one forensic report of blue methamphetamine, an unimpressive powdered sample adulterated with “blue chalk,” predates Breaking Bad [16], the show has certainly influenced the international methamphetamine trade. A quick search of posts from the last few years of various online drug discussion forums shows that there has been many encounters of high quality crystalline blue meth. In 2010, Kansas City MO police chief Darryl Forté posted an entry on his blog, saying blue meth was encountered several times in the previous two months. 

Surprisingly many of the law enforcement personal and reporters in Kansas City failed to make the connection to Breaking Bad. Two news reports speculated the blue color might have been an ineffective attempt to fool the chemical reagent field tests, which give a blue color when tested positive for methamphetamine. It seems very unlikely that highly successful criminals would think dying their product blue would be sufficient to fool police detection efforts. Another explanation was the blue color was a marketing technique—drug dealers do use a variety of methods to brand their products and colored drugs are not new. Saint Patrick’s day in Marietta, Ohio apparently includes green crack cocaine [17]. Similarly pink strawberry flavored cocaine has been encountered by the DEA [18], and methamphetamine has been available in a rainbow of colors and flavors [16].

The best source of information on the phenomenon is a 2010 “el Paso” intelligence bulletin which describes a potential influence of Breaking Bad on the appearance of blue methamphetamine in several states including Texas, California, and Washington beginning in December 2009. This “blue meth” or “blue ice” was allegedly more potent and expensive—with two samples found to be an impressive 98.4 and 98.2 percent pure d-methamphetamine. The nature of the blue color was unfortunately not determined but speculated to be an additive dye. Attesting to the power of entertainment, Mexican drug cartels are believed to be responsible for these samples [19].

CONCLUSION

As should now be clear, Breaking Bad accurately portrays methamphetamine synthesis. From pronunciation of complex chemicals to the appearance of specific reactions, they get it right—Bryan Cranston pronounces chemical names better than some graduate students I know. This is all possible because the staff at Breaking Bad “do their homework,” consulting experts like associate chemistry professor Dr. Donna Nelson from University of Oklahoma. No, they aren’t perfect. Details are sometimes overlooked, like condensers not being connected to a water source and the order of synthesis steps sometimes being wrong. The industrial scale crystallization technique shown is unfamiliar to me, but my synthesis experiences are on the relatively small scale. While entertainment doesn’t have to always get it right, it is nice that it can. With the final episodes starting, I hope that Breaking Bad continues to set a new standard in narco-entertainment.

Sources

1. Nagai N. Studies on the components of Ephedraceae in herb medicine. Yakugaku Zasshi 1983;139:901–933

2. Owen F. No Speed Limit: The Highs and Lows of Meth. St. Martin's Griffin. 2008

3. U.S. Department of Justice National Drug Intelligence Center. National Drug Threat Assessment. 2011.

4. Albouy, Dominique; Etemad-Moghadam, Guita; Vinatoru, Mircea; Koenig, Max. Regenerative role of the red phosphorus in the couple ‘HIaq/Pred’. Journal of Organometallic Chemistry. 1997;529:295-299.

5. Ogata A. Constitution of ephedrine – Desoxyephedrine Journal of the Pharmaceutical Society of Japan. 1919; 451:751-54

6. Uncle Fester. Secrets of Methamphetamine Manufacture 7th Edition. Loompanics Unlimited. 2005

7. Freeh L. Large-Scale Methamphetamine Manufacture. Reductive Amination of P2P through Catalytic Hydrogenation Using Adams Catalyst.https://www.erowid.org/archive-/rhodium/chemistry/meth.louisfreeh.html

8. Allen A. Cantrell TS. Synthetic Reductions in Clandestine Amphetamine and Methamphetamine Laboratories: A Review. Forensics Science International. 1989;42:183-199.

9. Frank RS. The Clandestine Drug Laboratory Situation in the United States. Journal of Forensic Science. 1983;28:18-31.

10. Stevenson M. Perez A. Mexico Meth Bust: Army Finds 15 Tons Of Pure Methamphetamine. Huffington Post. 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/-mexico-meth-bust_n_1266251.html 

11. Maxwell JC. Breecht ML. Methamphetamine: here we go again? Addictive Behaviors. 2011;36:1168-73.

12. Koop DW. Pseudoephedrine Crackdown Forces Mexican Meth Cartels To Go Back To Basics. Huffington Post. 2009. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/-pseudoephedrine-crackdown_n_390894.html

13. Kozma D. Fogassy E. Optical Resolution of Methamphetamine by O,O'-Dibenzoyl-R,R-Tartaric Acid in Dichloroethane-Water-Methanol Solvent System. Synthetic Communications. 1999;29:4315-4319.

14. Nichols DE. Barfknecht CF. Rusterholz DB. Benington F. Morin RD. 

Asymmetric synthesis of psychotomimetic phenylisopropylamines. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry. 1973;16:480-483.  

15. Windahl K.L. McTigue M.J. Pearson J.R. Pratt S.J. Rowe J.E. Sear E.M. Investigation of the impurities found in methamphetamine synthesized from pseudoephedrine by reduction with hydriodic acid and red phosphorus. Forensic Science International. 1995; 76:97-114.

16. Leinwand D. DEA: Flavored meth use on the rise. USA TODAY. 2007. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-25-flavored-meth_N.htm 

17. Zachariah H.  Drug suspects dye crack cocaine green for St. Patrick's Day. The Columbus Dispatch. 2008. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/-

2008/03/20/green.html

18. US Department of Justice. Drug Enforcement Administration. Microgram Bulletin. July 2008;41(7):59-67. http://www.justice.gov/dea/pr/micrograms/2008/mg0708.pdf 

19. El Paso Intelligence Center. Tactical Bulletins Team – Bulletin EB10-25. Blue Meth. 2010.  http://publicintelligence.net/el-paso-intelligece-center-blue-methamphetamine-report/ 

More about meth:

Austerity's Drug of Choice

'Breaking Bad' May as Well Be Set in China

Meth Heads Are Robbing People's Graves

I Love Meth


Weediquette: The Panickers

$
0
0

Image of wuss who probably can't handle weed via Flickr user newagecrap.

As far as weed is concerned, there are two types of people in the world: those who love weed and those who can’t handle it. The ones who are down to smoke are the people I can usually be friends with. Weed has been the initial bonding experience in almost all my adult friendships, and marijuana remains the main reason we continue to hang out as long as our brands of stoned shenanigans remain compatible.

But then there’s the dark side of weed—or at least the dark side that comes out of people when weed dislikes them. You’ve heard it all before: the anxiousness, the paranoia, the desire to retreat into the bathroom and let the insanity run its course. I can’t imagine how the greatest plant in the world could have such an effect, but you can always tell who can't hang from the way they react to someone offering them weed. They get that “I’m not falling for that again” look in their eyes and put their hand up. I always have to ask them why. These are the responses I usually get, along with my corresponding reactions.

I’ve tried it before. It makes me freak out.

Something always clicks in my head when I hear this. I don’t want to judge a person based on their personal preferences, but this preference means that this guy and I would have nothing to do if we hung out. There’s a high likelihood that I judged him right when we met before weed came into play, but the weed question was his last shot at redemption. Knowing our disparity, any more time spent together is a waste for both of us.

And yet, I do know what he means. Sure, I smoked too much when I was younger and had lil’ panic attacks. Hell, I got a little too stoned off some edibles just a couple of weeks ago, but the important difference is I don’t blame the weed. I don’t say, “It makes me freak out.” To me, the poor weed is probably just as freaked out as I am that this shit is going down. It’s my responsibility to moderate how much I consume, and if I ever get too high, I'll remember that it’s a drug and eventually I’ll be normal again. I think this is pretty easy, but people seem to have a really hard time with it, and many people will completely write weed off because they misused it one time. 

I used to smoke all the time and love it, but at some point it started making me freak out.

This one haunts me a little bit. Frankly, I can't imagine a scenario where I wouldn’t enjoy smoking weed. These people will sometimes say, “Yeah, sure! I used to smoke just as much as you. More, even! But one day, it just disagreed with me.” I’ve heard of this happening to a lot of people in their late 20s and early 30s. It really depresses me because I’m currently in that age range. It’s weird to think that my positive relationship with weed may one day sour, my body and mind rejecting something that I’ve loved for so long. The weirdest part is that the weed would be exactly the same plant it has always been. I would be the thing that changes. Gross.

Let's not talk about this. I still believe that weed chooses who it melds with, and I’m good with that. The plant has smiled upon me, and I have smiled back. We’ve made lots of sweet love over the years, and I can’t imagine that one day I might come home and the weed will flip the script and just start raping my mind.

Never have, never will.

This person and I can also definitely not hang, but it doesn’t just have to do with weed. This is a matter of open-mindedness. I would be just as irritated with a person who says weird foods are gross or comic books are for kids. Even worse, it’s someone who has allowed a set of completely misguided secular laws to dictate their perception of the world. Anyone who goes through life using only widely legal intoxicants to alter their state is massively missing out on the best altered states. If someone is not even willing to try something and give it a chance to blow their mind, well, then I bet they have plenty of other traits that would clash with mine too.

I’m on probation.

To this excuse, I react the way I do when I’m accosted by a homeless person in New York or Philadelphia: silent sympathy with no eye contact.

I’ve never tried it before, let’s do it!

Hell no, homeboy. I’m trying to chill. I’m not going to roll the dice on your peace with mother nature. My shit tends to be very powerful, and I have no gage for what is too much for a regular person.

While the above list is kind of a goof, I would like to give serious props to another brown journalist who recently endorsed weed after a long stand against its use. That’s right, Sanjay Gupta. The Kid is talking ‘bout you!

Even though he admitted to Piers Morgan that weed hates him, and that he became “anxious” the first time he tried it, Gupta recently did a bit more research and has completely reversed his position. He’s got a show coming out tonight on CNN that attempts to redeem his long-gone hating days. It’s called Weed. (I know, I’m gonna hit him up and ask him brown guy to brown guy to please stop scheming on my shit.) Good for you, homes. I wish you’d have gotten at me before, so I could have saved you some reading. All the research you need is in a mason jar on my desk.

@ImYourKid

Previously – P.J. the Narc

I'm a Russian Lesbian Pretending to Be Straight to Avoid Persecution

$
0
0

When I came out to my Russian mother, she shook her head and attempted to ignore my homosexuality for nearly a year. In June, before I left for Toronto's Pride Parade with my girlfriend, she told me to “behave.” She wasn’t comfortable with my sexuality, and she never did really accept it. This month, when we left together for a cross-Atlantic flight to Russia to visit our relatives, she didn't warn me about anything.

I already knew.

Russia has always been conservative and homophobic, but in recent years this has gone from relatives disapproving of homosexuality to the government taking one of the most intense anti-gay stances in the world. Almost every day, the government releases new laws and government statements that make queer Russians’ lives more and more difficult—if not impossible. Current legislation forbids people from spreading “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations to minors.” Because Russian legislatures lack a clear definition of gay propaganda, the law effectively bans people from saying anything pro-gay. People have already been attacked for looking gay, police arrested everyone who attended a Saint Petersburg gay pride event, and last month a neo-Nazi group forced a boy to come out on camera and then brutally beat him. Most likely, the boys’ attackers thought they were beating the gay out of him as a favor.

Although I’m lucky enough to be a Canadian citizen who resides safely in Toronto (I moved from Russia in 1998 to Canada, because my parents wanted a better life for me), right now I’m a Russian lesbian visiting relatives in Russia.

To survive the past two weeks, I’ve had to pretend to be straight.

I'm currently staying with my grandparents in a small village in southeastern Russia with a population of less than 600. Both my grandparents from my mom’s side and my dad’s side live here. When I was a kid, I would come visit for a month every summer, but the older I get, the more boring this place is, so I visit Russia less often. The last time I was here, I was 17, and not out yet. The city nearest to me is Samara, which used to be known as the second capital during World War II.  It's the sixth-largest city in Russia, and it’s not the kind of place where you will see rainbow stickers on windows--it's a place where shopkeepers give you the evil eye if you look a little different. This country is built on old-fashioned Orthodox Christian values and the beliefs of the Soviet Union. Lenin statues still grace almost every town square.

Most the time when I’m here, I hang out and walk or drive around the village with my cousin. He shows me his graffiti and steals plums for me; sometimes I give him Canadian coins as a novelty. At our respective home, we end up listening to Russian-skewed international news coverage and updates on Putin's anti-gay agenda. My cousin doesn't like Putin, but he doesn't like the gays either. Last night, a conversation with him and his friend amounted to his friend admitting that he has two gay classmates, but he doesn't “want to associate with those kinds of people.” But I say nothing. If he knew I was gay, he wouldn’t want to associate with me either, and if the neighborhood skinheads found out, they’d be happy to rape me. Every time I walk down the street, I’m reminded of this when I see them leering at me. I’m privileged enough to look typically femme, but if they found out I was gay, they’d be happy to “correctively” rape me. I’m a lesbian, a blight to my country, and they would be applauded for fixing me—or at least trying to.  

Besides making me worried about my safety, my secret has also stressed my relationship with my aunt, among other family members. A few weeks ago, we went to her son’s wedding. My aunt dislikes my cousin’s bride, but she was glad to say she had raised a good, heterosexual boy who married a girl before his his 22nd birthday.

“Did you like the wedding?” she asked me.

It had been my first wedding, and I sat at a table with my cousin's friends. I spent the second half of the event listening to the guys make jokes about femme gay dudes.

“Yes,” I lied.

She told me that when I get married and have my own wedding, it can be like my cousin's ceremony. A real Russian wedding. 

I nodded, faked a laugh, and then accidentally choked on my own forced chuckle. I know that if and when I get married, it won’t be in Russia, and it won’t be like my cousin's wedding. The majority of my family wouldn't come, and they probably wouldn’t speak to me after they found out whom I’m marrying. And there’s nothing I can do about it. So every day, when a family member asks if I have a boyfriend, I mumble, “No.” They’re shocked. I’m almost 20, and in Russia, everyone marries young. But I do have a partner. I've been in a committed relationship with my girlfriend for over a year, and it hurts, because when we Skype here, I can't introduce her to anybody—she's just “my friend.” No babushka would understand. So I am forced into silence, for my sake and my family's safety. I play straight around them, and then wear my girlfriend’s shirts to bed.

I feel powerless—no matter how much I want to speak out, I can't. While I have a life in Toronto, I have family here that needs to be protected with the assurance of my normality. I feel helpless because the only brave thing I can do is wear a tank top with a picture of Keith Haring on it—a small act of defiance nobody will ever know.

I have heard about the protests in Moscow, and I keep seeing Twitter exploding with hatred for Russia, calling for boycotts against Russian vodka and the 2014 Winter Olympics. Although my loyalties lie with the persecuted, I disagree with the attempts to boycott Russian vodka. I don’t agree with punishing legitimate businesses for something their bigoted government ordered. Also, I am a Russian citizen who holds a Russian passport; if I protest or am found guilty of any of the vague anti-gay laws here, I could be detained for up to fifteen days or fined. Most importantly, I’m both a lesbian and a Russian. These are my people—on both sides.

A few days ago, my aunt gave me this Sochi 2014 keychain. It's hard to look at its cute rabbit mascot. It’s supposed to be a symbol of national pride, representing the glory our athletes will achieve next winter, but if I put it on my keys am I supporting my home country or homophobia? Am I putting on a keychain or am I a hypocrite? 

Right now, I don't know. 

@sofiesucks

More about Russia:

These NSFW Russian Party Photos May Send a Guy to Prison

Russia's Silent but Deadly AIDS Epidemic

What Really Happened in Russia This Morning?

 

Heroin Junkies Create the Most Depressing Instagrams

$
0
0
Heroin Junkies Create the Most Depressing Instagrams

Comics: No Dongs, Tits or Sex Acts (Sort Of)

I Tried to Talk Drugs with the Creator of 'Breaking Bad'

$
0
0

UPDATE: While every plot point discussed in this interview has already aired and been discussed in multiple corners of the internet, if you didn't see the last couple of episodes this article will probably tell you some things you didn't know. Consider yourselves spoiler alerted.

A sly handoff of car keys during dinner and a machine gun in the trunk of a car can only mean one thing: a class A shitshow that has been five seasons in the making is right around the corner. That flash-forward, which kicked of the final season of Breaking Bad, was something that Vince Gilligan and his writers set themselves up for when they decided to chronicle the journey of Walter White, a loser-ass high school chemistry teacher who turns into a reckless, power-hungry drug kingpin. Walt’s descent into madness has been the least graceful, most surprising fall of any character in television history, and countless dead bodies and pounds of really good meth later, it’s impossible for anyone to positively predict where the final episodes of the series will take him.

If we were ever committed as an audience to seeing this through, it’s now when all the bets are off. We’ve lost faith in Walt’s humanity and in his ability to avoid being a prideful fuckhead at any given turn, and after last week's episode, which found him killing the ever-lovable Mike in the heat of passion, there are very few of us who don’t want to see him get filled with lead, be it standard DEA issue or Mexican cartel surplus. But before we get there, a few things have to happen: Other beloved characters must die. The lives of everyone from Walt’s kids to Saul Goodman are up for grabs.

All this excitement is thanks to Vince Gilligan, a man who decided that TV was just too predictable. Vince is not a meth head, a meth dealer, a cop, or even a dick, really. He’s a guy who made a name for himself producing the much-beloved show The X-Files, writing Home Fries and Hancock—two vastly different films that both sucked—and then decided to shock all of us with work that defies his entire career history. So in essence, he’s Walter White.

I spoke with Gilligan on the phone, within a small window of time punctuated by a fixer who I was surprised to realize was on the line the whole time when she cut me off in the middle of asking him what was his drug of choice. During our chat, we got pretty nerdy-specific about the motivations of various characters.

For Pete’s sake don’t read this if you haven’t seen the goddamn show. And if you’re behind a few episodes and dodging spoilers, sorry I already told you Mike is dead.

VICE: So, it's the final season. How has the reception of the show been?
Vince Gilligan: Oh, it’s been wonderful. I keep wanting to pinch myself and see if I’m dreaming. I’m starting to sound disingenuous saying this but I still truly can’t believe that the show is even on the air. This week will be our 54th episode and it is crazy that people still seem to be coming to it now and more people seem to be watching it and enjoying it after five years. The fact that people are really digging it is so wonderfully surprising to me and it’s blowing me away.

How long have you known how Walter's story was going to end?
You should’ve seen us last night. The writers and I are plugging away on the last eight episodes. We haven’t even written them yet. We’ve certainly had ideas for months, very broad stroke ideas of big things we want to happen. But it’s unfinished right now. We’re lucky to be blessed with the amount of time that we need by the studio and network so we can dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s. The scary and exciting thing is how little we know at this point because it leaves the possibilities wide open.

How much of the show did you make up as you went along and how much was part of your original idea of Mr. Chips turning into Scarface?
It’s a tricky ratio to nail down because on the one hand we never altered course from my original pitch of taking our protagonist and turning him into our antagonist. On the other hand, that broad stroke pitch left a lot of room to maneuver. So as far as the ins and outs of the plot, we often make those up week in and week out. It’s a tricky sea to navigate because we try to think ahead for these final eight episodes and figure out what our end game is. On the other hand you don’t want to be too artificial in your storytelling and say, “Walt has to hit this point and then he has to hit this point and then he has to hit this one.” The best writing is to let the characters tell you where they want to go and tell your story as organically as possible.

Those two philosophies seem to go against each other.
We do our best to try to have our cake and eat it too. We try to let Walt, Jesse, and the rest of the characters be organic. We also do our best to hit those signposts along the way.

Do you come up with a function for a character first, or with their personality first?
We bend both ways. I hate to admit it, because I love to be organic. But you do have a logistical purpose in mind. For instance you might need a “bad guy” for the season. A good example of a character that started out serving a storytelling end and wound up being a crucial and integral to the show itself is Hank. I wanted Hank to be everything Walt wasn’t. I wanted Hank to be a winner and in that first episode Walt is kind of a loser. Hank was going to be a bigger than life, bold, and confident DEA agent. And I wanted the gist of it to be that Walt was thinking of cooking meth in some small fashion to get back at Hank for being everything he was not.

How did your conception of Hank change?
We hired Dean Norris to play the role. Norris is such an interesting guy and had so many levels to him. He’s complex and very smart and capable of great nuance as an actor. It quickly became apparent that there could be much more to the character of Hank than initially meets my eye. As we got to know Dean, the writers started to put more nuance into the character.

Now that Mike’s out of the picture, and the cartel seems to be out of the picture as well, are we headed for a showdown between the DEA and Walt, or Walt and Hank?
I don’t want to give too much away. It is logical to infer that a big, last, dramatic sweep would be Hank finding out about Walt. We’ve all been waiting for that for a while. As to when that may or may not happen… I’m trying to be a little coy here, but I can’t fault you for your assumption.

Seeing the fact that your writing plays with expectations, are you guys purposefully purporting that ending? I feel like this is one of those WIFOM type situations. You recently quoted Henry Mancini, something about moving toward an inevitability. Are you still planning on playing with our expectations? Or is there just a solid inevitability now?
There’s a little bit of both. We always want to surprise the audience and keep them on the edge of their seats. That desire will never go away. Having said that, there’s always a happy medium to be attained. Sometimes giving the audience what they want is the right thing to do. As writers, we have to approach all of these stories on a case by case basis. Just because something might seem kind of obvious doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do it.

What do you mean?
It's like with Titanic. Everybody knew the boat was going to sink in the end. But you didn’t know the characters you were going to meet or who was going to live and who was going to die. Even though there was an inevitability to the broad events at the end of Titanic, on a human scale you had no idea what was going to happen next... It’s odd for me to use this analogy because I’ve never seen Titanic.

What? You’ve never seen Titanic?
Yeah. But having said that, I think the analogy holds water—no pun intended. There are things that we’re expecting to happen at the end of Breaking Bad, and some of them may indeed happen, some may not. There’s a lot of twists and turns that get us there. The devil’s in the details and there’s a lot of little details. There are a lot of surprises and a lot of twists and turns left to come in these final nine episodes.

In the most recent episode, it was a bit of a surprise that Mike would actually trust Walt to bring him his go-bag. Especially after all they’ve been through and all the times Walt has shown that he can’t be trusted. He also chooses to pay off his legacy guys rather than killing them and he has a soft spot for Jesse. Is this all an indication that Mike is sort of an old head who’s fallen off or gone soft? 
Well he was  grievously wounded at the end of the last season. He probably had a tougher time of it physically in these final eight. He got back into a deal with the devil. He got into a deal with Walter White doing something he really did not want to do for his guys. He loves his guys and he would do anything for them. These last eight episodes point out to us that Mike, as tough as he is, and he’s tough as nails sometimes, has a code that he lives by and he doesn’t break his it for anyone. He’s just not as ruthless or greedy as Walt. But I don’t think it was particularly careless in the end, in the sense that Walt was the guy who called to warn him at the park. No one else warned him, Walt told him the cops were coming. I think he figured this was a guy who didn’t care for him very much but had a similar set of needs and desires at that point so they were strike-head fellows, but essentially on the same side. He had a lot on his mind in the end there, but in the final calculus of it I think he made one brief mistake in the very end, which was to turn his back on this guy. But face to face with Walt it’s a situation in which Mike, as grizzled as he is, could have taken Walt any minute of the day, but his one mistake was turning his back on him.

As far as Walt’s business goes, at first he did it for his family, now he’s lost his family so is that why he’s going into the empire business? Because he’s got nothing left?
That’s a good question. The $64,000 question is always, what drives Walter White? He is a guy who, by his own actions, has lost the love of his family. I won’t speak for his son, but he has in fact sort of alienated himself from his son as the episodes progress. His son certainly does not know all the terrible secrets Walt keeps. He’s also lost the love of his life. He has put everything in jeopardy that he purports to care about.

Exactly. So why does he do it?
Everyone who watches the show has an equally valid opinion of why Walt does what he does. When I say what my opinion is, it may sound disingenuous, but it’s just one person’s opinion. My take on it is that Walt had all these things within him his whole life. Fifty years before the story ever started he had his darknesses within him. They have come to the surface ever since this ultimately terrible yet liberating news he receives in the first episode that he’s dying of cancer. Suddenly the constraints of civilization have one-by-one fallen away. Now he’s free to be who he really was all those years. Free to do the terrible things he had in his heart but was too afraid to act upon. I think he loves the feeling of power. Money is just a measuring stick for him. You can tell he never gets to spend that much of it. Money measures his power as a drug kingpin. While he has to live through a lot of terrible things and do a lot of terrible things that he’s probably not proud of, on the whole he’s proud of the fact that he’s a man of strength and respect now within a certain world. That’s something he’s never had in his life. At the end of that act of episode six when he says, “This is all I have left,” it’s nobody’s fault but his that it’s all he has left. He figures there’s no way he’s going to stop now, especially now that he’s lost everything because of this road that he’s on.

When Walt was dealing with Tuco, who is a lunatic, Walt was using a lot of logic and  was pretty level-headed. But when Gus Fring came into the picture, it seems like you guys saw that as an opportunity to match up Walt with a character who was more similar to himself. Someone who got into the game on a no-rough-stuff type of premise but then was suddenly thrust into the violence. Walt starts acting really, really crazy at that point. Was he going crazy to oppose Gus’s level-headed approach to the drug game?
No, I think he was losing it. He was in a corner, trapped like a rat. For most of season four and even before that, season three when he started to realize just how powerless he was. There was a moment there when he really started to go crazy, around Fly episode. The reason in our minds that he was suffering with his own form of post-traumatic stress was that he had recently learned of his inadvertent responsibility in the shooting and wounding of his brother-in-law Hank. He found out about [Tuco’s] cousins who were out to get him and he found out that Hank got in the way of their shooting and found out that indeed Gus Fring gave Walt’s brother-in-law to the cousins instead of Walt himself. In that moment of powerlessness, in that moment of shared responsibility and that moment of realizing just how culpable he was, and just how he would have to suck it up and grin and bear it to this very dangerous man who he thought he was a very business-like, very rational man. Then he finds out this guy is rational to the point that he’s almost sociopathic. “My brother-in-law is now in danger and everybody is a pawn to this guy and I’m trapped here and I have to grin and bear it.” It’s the old Godfather line, “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” So we had that episode in which he goes to Gus and says, “I know you essentially ordered a hit on my brother-in-law and I know why you did it and I want you to understand that I’m fine with it and I would have done the same thing. Of course he wasn’t fine with it, because then he got into his car and almost drove into an oncoming semi. That craziness you’re speaking of really all stems from that, that moment. It was a craziness that derives from “I’m really trapped here. I don’t like this feeling of being trapped. How the hell do I get out of this? How the hell do I live with this guilt?”

He’s found some ways to live with it since then.
Yeah, he feels pretty proud of himself that he managed to kill of this powerful kingpin. It’s almost like the Central American warriors who kill their enemy and then pull his heart out still beating and bite into it and assume their power. It’s old school in that sense. I’ve got a feeling that he thinks by killing Gus Fring he becomes Gus Fring. If not Gus Fring literally, then figuratively. He’s assumed his power, he’s assumed his mantle of respect. Of course, the thing that’s galled him these last seven episodes is that Mike never saw it that way. He always saw it as, “Get a hold of yourself, Walter. You’re not that great. Just because you killed Jesse James doesn’t make you Jesse James.” It’s a real burr under Walt’s saddle that Mike has never respected him.

In the show there’s some measure of incompetence from the DEA agents—like the fact that Hank can’t detect what’s going on with Walter when Hank is somebody who’s so vigilante in every aspect of his life. And the rest of the department had no suspicion of Gus Fring. Do you think that’s indicative of the DEA in real life?
No, no. You know that optical illusion where you either see a vase or two faces? I’m seeing a vase and you’re seeing the two faces. Having said that, you’re free to interpret it that way. The way I see it, the DEA as depicted in the show is reasonably intelligent and hardworking. They’re doing their job pretty well. It’s just that Gus Fring is so very smart, James Bond villain smart. And Walter White has this perfect camouflage of hiding in plain sight right underneath his brother-in-law’s nose. In the world of our show, Hank is the smartest DEA agent around, but he has that big blind spot for his brother-in-law.

How does that make sense?
It follows the time-honored way that human behavior tells us that we size people up when we first meet them. Hank met Walt many years, if not a decade or more, before Walt ever decided to become a drug kingpin. Hank’s opinion of Walt is kind of set in stone. The way Hank sees Walt is that he’s a sweet, bumbling fellow who’s too smart for his own good and sort of sweet-natured, ineffectual cuckold now that Hank knows that Walt’s own wife is cheating on him. Hank thinks he makes a lot of mistakes. If the time ever came, he would have a very hard time accepting who Walt really is. As far as the DEA goes, in our minds we went to great lengths to establish just how brilliant Gus was. Like with the chess game he was playing, how many moves ahead he was thinking. I always go back to the Godfather. Gus Fring worked very hard to keep his criminal activity very much submerged. He was never greedy, always very careful, very circumspect. He played a very long and deep game. He made friends with the DEA and gave money to their various causes. It could have probably worked forever, if not for Walt coming in and playing the part of the spoiler.

Do I think that there are that many brilliant criminals out there in real life?
I think not. I worked on a short-lived cop show ten years back and we had a bunch of real police officers come in as technical advisors. I remember asking a robbery homicide detective from the LAPD, “You’ve seen all the movies and TV shows I’ve seen in which there’s a criminal mastermind out there who’s brilliant and always ten steps ahead of the cops. Have you ever come across a criminal mastermind in real life?” He said, “No, most criminals are idiots! And thank God for that because we’re so overworked and there are so many bad guys out there that if there is a criminal mastermind out there we might not ever know he existed. We might not ever catch up with him because the workload is so intense and there are so many crimes to solve. Most criminals are knuckleheads.”

So on that token, do you think the war on drugs is effective? Especially on our border with Mexico?
I’m kind of Agnostic on that subject. I don’t know if it’s the best possible way to go. I don’t know if decriminalization of certain drugs is the way to go, either. You’d think I’d have a stronger opinion on it, but I spend all my time thinking about this one character and not the politics at large. Having said that, I know there are a lot of well-intended men and women trying to stop the flow of drugs and I know these cartels in Mexico, to use one example, are the cause of a great deal of pain and suffering and death. Having said that, is it the right way to go to hit them even harder and keep it all criminalized or is it the way to go to suddenly take them out of the market by making all that stuff legal? Hard to say.

Have you ever tried meth?
No, definitely never actually tried it. I suspect I would be more of a downer drug guy than an upper.

What’s your drug of choice?

[PR Lady chimes in] "Hey Abdullah, sorry we need to wrap it up because Vince is running late on everything."

Shit.

@imyourkid

Want more meth? Check these out:

Crystal Meth Addicts Keep Setting Themselves on Fire

Meth and Chili Cook-Off!

Tinkle Tweaking

Viewing all 38002 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images