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

High Wire: The Story of the Stanford Rape Is Also the Story of a Drug Overdose

0
0

A young girl with no relation to the Stanford rape case but suffering an overdose of alcohol gets treated on July 29, 2006 in Atlanta, Georgia. (Photo by Jonathan Torgovnik/Getty Images)

When Brock Turner sexually assaulted the woman now famous for her seething court statement about the crime, at least two other men had also seen her lying unnaturally still behind a dumpster near a fraternity house on the Stanford University campus. But while much has been said in recent weeks about the lax sentence Turner received, little attention has been paid to the fact that what he did was way worse than a sexual attack on a drunk woman unable to consent. It was actually an assault on an overdose victim, one who was at risk of serious medical problems and even death if she didn't get help fast.

According to the police report about the January 2015 incident, one man who saw the woman lying on the ground immediately called 911, reporting an unconscious person in need of medical attention. A second witness said he saw Turner trying to photograph the woman's uncovered body, apparently using the flash on his cellphone.

That man reportedly told him to stop, checked the woman's pulse, and asked for help in turning her on her side to make it easier for her to breathe. Turner apparently responded by walking away. Since the victim, who is known as "Emily Doe" in the press, was breathing, the two men both left. (It is not entirely clear if they were present at the same time.)

The actual sexual assault seems to have occurred when Turner returned shortly thereafter. Fortunately, the former swimmer was interrupted by two more men, Swedish graduate students who happened to be biking past. After taking a second look, they suspected that what they were seeing was not consensual sex, and, as is now well known, chased and held down the perp until cops arrived.

With the obvious exception of Turner, these men are examples of how and why bystander intervention matters. One might even argue (some of) their actions suggest educating college students to stand up against sexual violence may be having an impact.

Still, an important part of the story continues to be overlooked: This wasn't any kind of ambiguous case where two drunk people disagreed about whether sex was consensual. Instead, it was an assault on a completely unconscious and unresponsive overdose victim who could have died or been seriously brain injured while Turner used her as a sexual object.

There is absolutely no doubt Doe was in medical danger: According to the police report, her blood/alcohol level was nearly three times the legal limit, in a range that is often linked with stupor and coma. In fact, she has no memory of the crime taking place. Police and medical personnel were unable to rouse her for three full hours after the attack, even though they attempted to do so every 15 minutes once she got to the hospital.

Research shows that blood/alcohol concentrations of .250 or higher can be associated with loss of breathing function, coma, and even death. Worse, the lethal dose can vary widely between individuals, in either direction depending on factors like genetics, the person's tolerance, if they've taken any other drugs, and even how tired they are. The victim's BAC was estimated at trial to be between .24 and .249.

"It really is a serious problem when get above 0.2 on average," says George Koob, director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. "There's the potential for lethality."

Koob notes that before modern anesthesia was developed, alcohol was used to do that job. But the dose that produces coma and unresponsiveness is too close to the fatal dose to make it a safe anesthetic.

Turner used his own drunkenness as an excuse for his actions, but none of the other men who saw her, two of whom were also visibly drunk when they spoke with the cops, reacted the way he did.

Given how common alcohol overdose is—there are six deaths every day in America, according to the CDC, and around 59,000 annual hospitalizations of people between 18-24—being able to recognize it and act appropriately is important, particularly on college campuses.

If someone is drunk to the point of unconsciousness and can't be awakened by any means—especially if there is any chance he or she might have used other drugs—it is a medical emergency and help should be sought, rather than trying to let them "sleep it off," Koob says.

While calling 911 is critical, the victim should not be left alone, the grave error made by some of the bystanders in this case.

Depressant drugs like alcohol and opioids (heroin, painkillers) kill by slowly stopping breathing or by making it more likely that people will choke to death if they vomit—if you leave the victim alone, this becomes more likely. Placing the person in the " recovery position"—on his or her side—and doing rescue breathing can be lifesaving. (Chest compressions alone, which are now recommended in some emergencies, may not be appropriate in a potential overdose situation.)

If there is any chance someone you know has taken an opioid in addition to alcohol, there is an antidote, naloxone, that can now be obtained over the counter in many states from drug stores. (Click here for information on local sources and on training in how to use it.) It will not do harm if used in a pure alcohol overdose, but it also will not help. Medical attention is still essential.

Check out the VICE News documentary on the heroin overdose antidote making a difference in New England.

In this case, Turner may not have known how much alcohol his unconscious victim had consumed. He also presumably had no idea if she'd taken opioids, benzodiazepines, or any other drugs that can make alcohol far more deadly at lower doses. He didn't even know her name, he claimed, and told police that he would probably be unable to identify her if he saw her again.

Turner used his own drunkenness as an excuse for his actions, but none of the other men who saw her, two of whom were also visibly drunk when they spoke with the cops, reacted the way he did. Turner's BAC was estimated to be .171 at the time—far less than that of his victim. And in any event, alcohol tends to exaggerate existing tendencies, not create them. It shuts down brain regions involved with good judgment—the same ones that normally inhibits peoples' worst impulses.

In fact, some research suggests that in cultures where alcohol drinking tends to occur with meals and with family—as in Italy or France—violence is less associated with drunkenness than it is in places like the United States. Here, drinking to excess is culturally linked with aggression and manhood, and may be more deliberately pursued outside the family at bars.

So while Turner outrageously tried to blame campus drinking culture for his crime, it's more accurate to say America's cultural associations between alcohol, masculinity, and violence are at least part of the problem.

Nonetheless, four other men—including two who were intoxicated—managed to do the right thing, or some version of it. They knew that when you meet or come across an overdose victim, you don't prey on her. You try to help.

Follow Maia Szalavitz on Twitter.


Could Removing Brock Turner’s Judge Hurt Poor and Minority Defendants?

0
0

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky in 2011. (Jason Doiy/The Recorder via AP)

Download the new and improved VICE app for iOS and Android now.

This story was co-published with the Marshall Project.

Santa Clara Judge Aaron Persky is still feeling a fierce backlash for sentencing Brock Turner to six months in jail (three, assuming "good behavior") and three years of probation for sexually assaulting a young woman at Stanford University. Jurors are refusing to serve under him. Santa Clara prosecutors have successfully pushed to have him removed from a separate sexual assault case. More than a million people, inspired by the victim's harrowing public account of the rape, have signed a petition to put him up for a recall election, a rare move that isn't even allowed in most states.

But the judge is finding support from a number of public defenders who argue that punishing him will ultimately hurt their own clients—most of them, unlike Turner, poor people of color.

A group of more than 70 defense attorneys, including many who have practiced before Persky, have put out their own petition, arguing that if Persky is forced out for what they consider a "reasonable, fair sentence," it will scare other judges into giving more severe sentences—a dynamic they say contributes to high rates of incarceration.

"When we as a community reprimand or condemn a judge for engaging in such a holistic analysis and for exercising discretion, such efforts can have a chilling effect on judicial courage and compassion," the letter states. Punishing him, the defenders explain, will "deter other judges from extending mercy and instead encourage them to issue unfairly harsh sentences for fear of reprisal." The Santa Clara County Bar Association has also released a statement saying that removing Persky would be a "threat to judicial independence."

It's an argument that exposes a tension between advocates who want sexual assault cases treated more seriously, and those who believe draconian sentences have overpacked the country's prisons, disproportionately with blacks and Latinos.

The new letter stemmed from a blog post by Sajid Khan, a deputy public defender in Santa Clara County, who wrote that "the culture of mass incarceration has so shaped our minds" that "we still insist on arbitrary, lengthy terms of incarceration as the response to crime." He points out that Turner will register as a sex offender for life, and if he violates his probation, he could go to prison for 14 years. "Not exactly lenient."

After Khan's post was reprinted by the National Association of Public Defenders, other lawyers around the country contacted him to say they agreed that the backlash against the judge plays into a larger tendency, born out in judicial elections around the country, to reward punitiveness and punish mercy. As John Oliver pointed out last year, the US is one of very few countries that leave judicial appointments to the ballot box. And as the Marshall Project has reported, judicial elections tend to favor candidates who are most vociferously "tough on crime."

Critics of Persky's sentence in the Turner case say that people without the young man's status—privileged, white, a promising athlete—are sentenced more harshly. But Khan points out that Persky's reputation among public defenders (a group closely attuned to racial inequities in the courtroom) is that of a fair-minded jurist. "No one has been able to cite an example so far of him where a similarly situated minority client has been treated harshly by him," Khan said.

"We appreciated...the judge's understanding of Brock Turner's humanity," he added, "and we would want any judge to do the same for our clients."

Asked for comment on the letter, Santa Clara District Attorney Jeff Rosen, whose office requested Persky be removed from a new sexual assault case, sent a statement that seemed to straddle the divide exposed by the Persky case: "Judicial independence is a critical part of the US justice system. The immense power that comes with judicial independence also comes with accountability to the people we serve."

This article was originally published by the Marshall Project, a nonprofit news organization that covers the US criminal justice system. Sign up for the newsletter, or follow the Marshall Project on Facebook or Twitter.

Life Inside: I’m a Cop Who Went Viral for Not Killing a Man

0
0

Life Inside is an ongoing collaboration between the Marshall Project and VICE that offers first-person perspectives from those who live and work in the criminal justice system.

Josh Hilling, a police officer in Glendale, Ohio, a small town near Cincinnati, shot a man in the stomach on March 29. Hilling, 30, spotted Javier Pablo Aleman, 46, walking on the side of the highway and stopped to ask him for ID. During a pat down, Aleman pulled out a knife, and Hilling responded by firing one shot. Despite the wound, Aleman chased Hilling while shouting, "Kill me. Kill me."

Hilling did not fire a second round, though, and Aleman survived. The cop's body camera recorded the confrontation, and the video received tens of thousands of hits, getting picked up by a number of news outlets.

Hilling later learned that Aleman was wanted for murder; the man was accused of stabbing his landlord in Baltimore. Hilling had only been a full-time cop with the department for under three months when the shooting took place. This is the story of that day.

I was doing my usual patrol. It was lunchtime, about 1:30, so I decided to grab something to eat. When I was on southbound I-75, looking for a little fast-food joint, I noticed a guy walking on the side of the highway. I got on my police radio and let my partner know I was pulling over to make contact with the man. My original thought was to stop, see where this guy was headed, and figure out what I could do to help him. It's not safe for him to be up there walking on the highway, and it's not safe for drivers, either.

I got out of my cruiser with the lights on, approached him, and started asking the typical police questions: What's your name? Where you from? Where you heading? What brings you up here on the highway? We began to have what I would consider a normal conversation; he didn't seem excited—he didn't seem anxious, even.

But after starting to give me a name, he stopped, and then started giving a different name. I asked if he had any ID on him; he said no. I asked him if he had a social security number; he said no. At this point, I just felt something was a little off. I feel uncomfortable when I don't have something in my hand that tells me who somebody is.

He had a large backpack on, so I asked him if there was anything in there I needed to know about. He said no—just some dirty clothes—and handed it over to me. I got on our county radio to inform all of the surrounding agencies where I was and what I was doing. That's when the gentleman stuck his hands in his pockets, and I asked him to remove them. He did, voluntarily, with no problem. After that, I went ahead and decided that I was going to pat him down for officer safety. I asked him to approach the back of my cruiser and put his hands on the vehicle. I wanted to make sure that he didn't have a gun, a knife, a needle, weapons of mass destruction—anything that could be harmful to me or himself or others.

I was going to put him into my cruiser and give him a ride. But once he's in my cruiser, he becomes my responsibility, and has access to me. So I need to be safe about it. He wouldn't have been under arrest; he wasn't going to be detained. I was simply going to give him a lift.

He wasn't putting his hands up when I approached him for the pat down, so I went to put my hand on his shoulder. He turned and pulled away. Suddenly he grabbed a large knife out of his waistband and started coming at me. I drew my weapon and pointed it at him. Once I was able to focus and notice that he had a knife in his hand, I fired one round, striking him in his abdomen. He immediately went down. I continued to keep my gun on him, backing up to create more distance. I also got on the radio and asked for help.

There were two moments during that three minutes and 20 some-odd seconds that I will never forget. They will stay with me the rest of my life.

The first is when I put it together that he had a knife, and he was going to try to harm me. My adrenaline went through the roof; I'd be lying to you if I didn't tell you I was scared for my life.

The second moment is right after I pulled that trigger. There was something that came over me that made me stop and think, instead of just reacting. What do I do next?The first thing that popped into my head was: Create distance between you and this person—who is trying to hurt you—and get help.

He continuously yelled, "Kill me. Kill me. Kill me." He also screamed, "I'm going to kill you." My main focus was not only him, but the traffic. Cars slowed down, and I continued to give him verbal commands to drop the knife, to stay down. But he kept coming.

My backup arrived shortly after, which obviously drew his focus. I continued to give verbal commands, and so did my immediate partner. At that point, officers from other agencies were in play. We shut down the highway and kept giving him commands, but he still wasn't listening. Eventually, an officer from another police department Tased him, and he went down. That's when we took him into custody.

There was an investigation, and I had to turn in my body cam for evidence, along with my duty weapon to be logged. They asked me if I would be willing to make a statement about what happened, but I didn't do that immediately. I went back in the next day, when I was able to decompress and calm down and take in the gravity of the situation. They advised me that the man was wanted in Baltimore County, Maryland, for homicide.

I had no idea who this guy was. I didn't comprehend or understand why the situation went the way that it did. I had no idea who I shot, and why it came to this.

I had worked really hard to get a full-time job to support my family. I didn't want anything taken from me—our livelihood, how we live. We're comfortable, and we're happy. I didn't want to see all that disappear overnight, even though I believed I did everything in my power the right way.

When something like this happens, it affects everybody you're in touch with: my friends, family, everyone. A week later after the shooting, a press conference was scheduled, and my body cam footage was released. It was stressful waiting for it, because that press conference was either going to be: I did something wrong, or I'm cleared of any wrongdoing.

When the footage came out, it went viral, garnering thousands of hits on YouTube and national attention. That was really hard for me to stomach: I didn't like my name and my face being out everywhere.

The fact is you have no clue how you're going to react until you're in that situation. I've watched many videos where officers do shoot more than once. I can't Monday-morning quarterback what they did, but I can understand the stress level they were under.

But to this day, I still have to live with the fact that I shot someone. If I had killed him, I would have to live with the fact that I had taken someone's life.

This is something that will never go away. It's always going to be part of my identity. Twenty years from now, my name could be brought up, or Glendale Police Department could be brought up, and someone might be like, "Oh, didn't they have an officer who shot someone? Were you there when that happened?"

"Was that you?"

Prisoners Talk About DIY Body Modification Behind Bars

0
0

Not prison. Photo via Flickr user Beatrice Murch

Tattoos are standard in prison. If you come into the penitentiary with bare skin, you damn sure aren't going to leave without a few pieces. But behind penitentiary walls, tattoos aren't the only option for body modification. Some guys get piercings, horns, or even "pearling," in which small objects like dominos are implanted into the skin of the penis.

Technically, body modification—which includes tattoos, piercings, and putting stuff in your dick—is against prison rules. It's considered "self mutilation" by the federal Bureau of Prisons and can cost an inmate up to 60 good behavior days or up to six months of solitary confinement.

The issue is currently at the heart of a lawsuit from Adrian F. King Jr., an inmate at the Huttonsville Correctional Center in West Virginia, who was forced to remove the small marbles implanted in his penis back in 2013. King claims that he had the the pearling done before he got locked up, but another inmate claims to have seen King getting it done in the prison. Either way, the warden reportedly threatened to make King spend the remainder of his sentence in solitary confinement unless he got them removed. He did, and now he's suing the prison for what he sees as an infringement on his bodily integrity.

Where King had his genital implants done is up for debate, but plenty of men do get stuff inserted into their dicks in prison. We spoke to several inmates about body modification behind bars—how it works, who gets it done, and what it feels like to have a domino in your dick.

Prisoner One, 31
Serving ten years at FCI Beckley in West Virginia

This is a growing style in prison. It's actually happening here too. Almost every person that I've known to get one of these, they regret it. Usually it begins with boredom. They get bored in prison; too much idle time. Their cool friend gets one inserted in his dick, then it gets talked about. The next thing you know, a few more people get it done. Then, it continues to spread amongst the bored inmates. another man brace your dick in his hand, tie a shoestring around it, and poke a hole through the foreskin with a sharpened plastic spoon.

They sand down a domino in whatever shape they want—usually a heart, a lightning bolt, or a small bump—and they insert into that small hole that was poked open. I knew one guy who passed out when he saw all the blood. He wore the string that was tied around his penis for almost a week because it wouldn't stop bleeding.

I was talking to this dude in recreation today. He said at FCI Memphis he had a heart-shaped domino put in his dick. It got infected, and it hurt to the point that he could barely touch it. It started leaking and shit. He had to cut it back out himself. It took two weeks for it to heal up. But once he got here, he had a Spanish dude in his unit do the entire procedure again. This time he got a barbell domino. Apparently the Spanish dude knew what he was doing and it only bled a small amount.

PRISONER Two, 32
SERVING TEN YEARS AT FCI MEMPHIS

I've done this myself. I watched as a dude held my penis in his hand, then used an open shaving razor to make an incision into the skin. He placed a polished domino under the skin. My body rejected the polished domino about six months after I had it done. My body started pushing it out. It was swollen and irritated. I had to cut it out myself. I'm straight now, but it scared the shit out of me at the time.

We did the procedure in my cell. We waited until we had a guard that didn't walk the unit that much. Dude wore plastic gloves and had alcohol. It was all very surgical. I don't think the cops would even care, but it would be embarrassing to get caught with your dick in another man's hand. Tattoos are illegal, but a lot of cops operate with the "don't ask, don't tell" policy as long as the dudes in the unit are chill.

When you get a new tattoo and it scabs over and is all red, dudes just wear long sleeves and stay covered up so that a cop can't see a fresh tattoo. Once its healed, you're good. The next time they take a photo of your tats they might notice a few extra but they don't usually make a big deal out of it.

Prisoner Three, 42
Serving five years at USP Big Sandy in Kentucky

I wanted to come out of prison a fucking monster. I got all the obligatory gang tats everywhere and devil horns blasted on my head to give my name, Diablo. I like to do things to set myself apart—like my lizard tongue as I call it, which is split in half. The split starts at the tip of my tongue and goes an inch deep. I already had my tongue pierced, but I couldn't keep the barbell, so I just said fuck it and split it. I used a piece of dental floss and slid it into the hole and just sawed it open. It didn't hurt as much as you'd think.

Related: A Tattoo Artist Explains Why She Got Her Eyeballs Inked

I'm not gonna lie. I was shook when I first got my pinga done. I got a small heart-shaped stone right below my head. It was fucked up having a dude holding my dick and coming at me with a razor, but fuck it. The hynas are going to love it. I got two more stones inserted into my shaft after the first one healed up. It's just a small cut and they slide right in. The worst part was I couldn't jerk off for two weeks.

My eyes are red too. I had my carnalito use a binkie and inject ink into my eyeballs. He had to hit each eye eight times. Shooting up around my pupil. The binkie he used is the same one that all of his homeboys use to shoot dope. It consists of a needle that's melted into a pen tube and the blatter off the milk bags in the kitchen. We sharpened it before we did it, so it wasn't that dull and it went in pretty smooth.

Prisoner Four, 45
Serving Life at FCI Terre Haute in Indiana

I had a cellmate who did this and he said when he got out a girl wouldn't give him head because she thought it was a wart or something. I had a friend in Australia who was an ex-prostitute and said many of the girls at the brothels she worked at hated these. The marbles hurt the girls. Many Puerto Ricans and Dominicans do this; it's not uncommon for them to insert up to five inside of them. I've seen the after effects. It looks like a bee stung their cocks. They think its awesome.

One guy in here charges $50 each piercing, and it can be more depending on what they want. The tooth brush is sharpened after being melted down and the domino is carefully sanded into hearts or diamonds. The latest craze is a barbell or worm—these cost $75 to do, because they take more time to make the design. Before piercing he sanitizes the dudes dick with rubbing alcohol pads they get in the infirmary. Most dudes get it on the bottom because guys say they like fucking girls doggie style and believe the marbles will give girls the most pleasure that way.

Follow Seth Ferranti on Twitter.

Jo Cox Was the Ideal of a Public Servant

0
0

Nigel Roddis / PA

There are people who seek power to pursue their own ends. There are people who use power in service of a higher ideal, whose personal and moral convictions are evident in the work they do and the change they achieve. Listening and speaking to those who knew Jo Cox, the Labour MP murdered yesterday, a picture has emerged of an internationalist humanitarian who was struck by a calling to improve the conditions of some of the world's most vulnerable people. Far from being the caricature of a self-interested politician, she seems to have been the ideal of a public servant.

Jo Cox was elected MP for her home constituency of Batley and Spen, in West Yorkshire, in 2015, the start of this Parliament. Prior to this, she was a high-flyer in the NGO world, working for Oxfam, Save the Children and the NSPCC, among others. She was known as a committed advocate for the rights and protection of refugees and was a prominent campaigner for Britain to remain in the European Union. She died in the heart of her constituency, shot and stabbed following a meeting with her constituents in Birstall.

A 52-year-old man, Thomas Mair, has been arrested. It is believed that Mair has long-term links to a far-right group whose main aim was the defense of the apartheid regime in South Africa, and which has been campaigning for Britain to leave the European Union. Last night, British fascist groups like Notts Casual Infidels reveled in Cox's murder.

Speaking to me from his home in the US, Jo Cox's old friend and former Oxfam colleague Martin Kirk said that Cox spent her life "fighting for social justice, making the world a better place: it was unquestioning that these things were what life was for... I know people always say this about people when they've passed, but she genuinely was loved as a person... her personal authenticity rang so true." I also spoke with Max Lawson, who worked closely with Cox at Oxfam, and recalled an "inspiring leader" who brought the best out of everyone around her, always believed they could win and was "passionate for change."

Cox and her husband Brendan were staunch Labour campaigners whose relationship began while they were both working at Oxfam. Martin remembered the "intimate" wedding of Jo and Brendan in a small country church, as well as trips to climb the Munros—mountains in Scotland that are over 10,000 feet high.

"They had a big map on their wall and their aim was to climb every single Munro. They spent years doing it; it was a huge thing for them. The first time I went up there, I took a suitcase as if I was going for a nice weekend away. They couldn't believe it, and I had to drag this thing up a rain-soaked mountain! Brendan, particularly, loves the hardcore outdoor thing, but the two of them, that was their passion."

The couple lived in a houseboat on the Thames and Jo talked about taking a speedboat to work in Westminster. This "spirit of non-conformity" was something that Cox mentioned in her maiden speech in the House of Commons as being a key characteristic of the West Yorkshire constituency she represented. It was, she said, something she intended on maintaining. Even when she co-authored a seemingly critical letter to the Guardian calling for more leadership from Jeremy Corbyn in the wake of this year's council elections, she bucked the usual trend: this was not an unnamed Labour source looking to incite a leadership coup, this was not some condescending figure of the establishment taking his usual pop at the Labour leader, this was a genuinely committed MP asking, in a totally non-Machiavellian way, for more.

Cox's maiden speech also makes reference to how the communities she had been elected to represent had been "deeply enhanced by immigration." "We are far more united, and have far more common, than that which divides us," she said of the different ethnic communities in the area. A fierce campaigner on behalf of the Syrian people, she highlighted the murderous horror of the Assad regime and Russia's support for that regime time and again. "Why can we not now join forces with our European allies to get food to starving people," the MP asked an unresponsive House of Commons, as she called for an end to the government's "shameful refusal to give 3,000 unaccompanied children sanction in the UK."

It may still turn out that Jo Cox's commitment to a group of people demonized by a section of British society had little to do with why she was killed. Still, in a week in which England football fans have been filmed throwing coins at child refugees in France and on the day in which Nigel Farage stood in front of billboards showing lines of non-white refugees in a seemingly fascist attempt to stir up the hatreds of the nation, it is shocking enough that a British public servant who stood up for the world's most marginalized people has been killed in cold blood.

"This horrific attack," says Martin Kirk, "seemed so full of rage. Shooting and stabbing and then kicking: It was a portrait of utter, blind rage. Jo was little. She was a little woman. The image of a large, full-grown man bearing down on her is unconscionable."

"If anything of her attitude can infect politics, can infect conversations about the referendum, then that is a good thing."

Right now, we only have to look to Russia, to mainland Europe, to the United States, and to Britain to see fascists of various shapes and sizes picking up on this anger and enflaming it and letting it loose in truly horrifying ways. Speaking at a rally in the days leading up to the war in Iraq, the late socialist Tony Benn called for, "anger at injustice, optimism for a better world."

At this moment, it can seem hard to locate that optimism. Tributes for Jo Cox have flooded in from across the political spectrum. Everyone from Jeremy Corbyn to David Cameron, Sadiq Khan to Theresa May, has spoken of her in glowing terms.

I asked Kirk if any hope could be found at a time like this. "If anything of Jo's core beliefs get amplified," he said, "that is a fitting tribute to her. Compassion, empathy for people of all stripes wherever they are in trouble, just a complete humanitarian view of the world, such strong values, work with rather than fight against, if anything of that attitude can infect politics, can infect conversations about the referendum, then that is a good thing."

Kirk's words echo those of Jo Cox's husband Brendan, who said in a statement that his wife would have wanted two things "above all else now: one, that our precious children are bathed in love and two, that we all unite to fight against the hatred that killed her. Hate doesn't have a creed, race, or religion: It is poisonous." That fight against hatred goes on, but it will be harder without the compassion and leadership of Jo Cox.

The VICE Guide to the 2016 Election: Republicans Are Starting to Turn on Trump

0
0


Donald Trump telling everyone how great he is in Georgia. (Photo by Branden Camp/Getty Images)

Download the new and improved VICE app for iOS and Android now.

On Wednesday, Donald Trump stood in his natural habitat, on a podium in front of some flags, and said, in his baritone kazoo of a voice, "We have to have our Republicans either stick together or let me just do it by myself. I'll do very well. I'm going to do very well. OK? I'm going to do very well. A lot of people thought I should do that anyway, but I'll just do it very nicely by myself."

These are not the words of a man doing so well by himself.

This past week was one of the worst of the Republican presidential nominee's brief political career. The Orlando nightclub shooting was the sort of national tragedy that demands a response from public figures. Democrats called for gun control measures that they've long supported, Republicans demanded that Barack Obama say the words "radical Islam," the NRA denounced "political correctness."

As for Trump, first he congratulated himself for predicting that there would be another mass murder on American soil, then implied that Obama was somehow maybe letting attacks like this happen. Then he gave a speech doubling down on his toxic "no Muslim immigration" policy. That was all on Monday, and the next few days produced a wave of stories about what an asshole Trump was.

He antagonized an already hostile media by banning the Washington Post from covering his events because he didn't like a headline about his conspiratorial ramblings about Barack Obama—a petty move that didn't seem to accomplish anything. Then, Obama himself came out with some extremely forceful remarks condemning Trump's Islamophobia, and asking, "Do Republican officials actually agree with this?"

Turns out no, many of them didn't: House Speaker Paul Ryan, who has been playing a disapproving Marge to Trump's wild-eyed Homer Simpson act, said, "I do not think a Muslim ban is in our country's interest"; other Republicans said Trump's response was "disappointing" or just refused to answer questions about him. Senator Lindsey Graham said, "I don't think he has the judgment or the temperament, the experience to deal with what we are facing."

Presidential campaigns are brutal, bitter affairs. But this sort of venom from inside one's own party seems unprecedented. What are you supposed to do if you're running for president and your presumed allies in Congress—the people you'll need on your side to actually pass legislation, should you win—are calling the things you say "the definition of racism"? Or when former high-ranking Bush administration official Richard Armitage says, "He doesn't appear to be a Republican—he doesn't appear to want to learn about issues. So I'm going to vote for Mrs. Clinton."

If you're Trump, you go onstage and tell GOP leaders, "Don't talk, please, be quiet." Then you say that the US should be surveilling mosques.

A recent Ryan Lizza piece in the New Yorker shows just how disconnected Trump is from the Republican elite, who are themselves fairly disconnected from many Republican voters. Those elites, like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, were, broadly, pro–free trade and open to some sort of immigration reform, but Trump's protectionist, starkly anti-immigrant rhetoric was what voters actually wanted to hear. Consultants and party insiders have been worried about the GOP's standing with millennials and Latinos, but the base, it turns out, are more concerned with closed factories and a social order where white men aren't towering over everyone.

But the real problem is not policy disagreements—it's Trump's shitty personality. Thin-skinned, narcissistic, vindictive, habitual liars who say whatever thought comes into their heads do not normally make for great presidential fodder, and Trump's prejudiced persona is actively hurting candidates who have to run beneath him on the GOP ballot. Case in point: Illinois Senator Mark Kirk, facing a tough reelection fight, found it prudent to not just refuse to endorse Trump but call him "too bigoted and racist" to be president on Thursday.

Trump could laugh off the scorn of people like Kirk and Armitage if he were riding a wave of populism to the White House, but there's mounting evidence that people outside of DC aren't warming to his schtick either. Recent polls found him dropping both nationally and in important states, and a majority of respondents disapproved of his response to Orlando.

It was difficult for Republicans to decide whether to support Trump when he was a popular demagogue; his increasing unpopularity makes the choice a lot easier. Some GOP officials in areas with a lot of Trump supporters will safely praise every wall he wants to build, but the rest of them may see value in getting off the Trump train before it careens burning off a cliff come November. It's pretty telling that when top conservatives have big meetings to discuss the future, the topic is Ted Cruz and the 2020 race.

Follow Harry Cheadle on Twitter.

The VICE Morning Bulletin

0
0

Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail. The 2016 Democratic candidate vowed to help defeat Republican Donald Trump, but stopped short of conceding the primary to Hillary Clinton. Photo via Flickr user Phil Roeder

US News

State Department Dissenters Want the US to Go After Assad
Dozens of State Department officials have signed an internal memo calling for a major shift in US policy in Syria. Specifically, they urged military strikes against President Bashar al Assad's government to force regime change. The memo, which was filed to the State Department's "dissent channel," highly critical of the Obama administration, was signed by 51 mostly midlevel officials. –The New York Times


Sanders Vows to Help Clinton Beat Trump

Bernie Sanders promised to work with Hillary Clinton to defeat Donald Trump in November, but stopped short of formally conceding the Democratic race. Sanders will continue to fight for his liberal policy agenda and said he wanted the Democrats to become "a party of working people and young people, and not just wealthy campaign contributors." –ABC News

Microsoft Invests in Legalized Marijuana Trade
Microsoft has teamed up with a California-based startup to help businesses and government agencies track sales of legalized marijuana "from seed to sale." KIND Financial has been selling its weed-tracking software for three years, but the startup will now be working with one of the world's most valuable companies to help governments regulate weed. –The Denver Post

Corporate Lawyers Back Garland for SCOTUS
Lawyers at 44 major companies, including Nike and Viacom, have urged the Senate to seriously consider Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Barack Obama nominated Garland months ago, but Republicans have refused to hold confirmation hearings. In a joint letter, the lawyers argued Garland was "exceptionally well-qualified," and argued a prolonged vacancy could leave many important legal issues unresolved. –Bloomberg

A memorial for British Labour MP Jo Cox, who was killed by a man with suspected ties to far right groups. Photo via Flickr user Garry Knight

International News

UN Says ISIS Guilty of Genocide Against Yazidis
ISIS fighters are committing genocide against the Yazidi community in Iraq and Syria, according to UN human rights investigators. A UN report based on interviews with survivors found that ISIS has tried to "erase the Yazidis through killings, sexual slavery, enslavement (and) torture." Girls as young as nine have been raped, the report said. –Al Jazeera

British Opposition MP Assassinated
British Labour Party MP Jo Cox has died after being shot and stabbed as she prepared to enter a meeting with constituents in northern England. A 52-year-old man, reported to have sympathy for far-right extremist groups, has been arrested following the killing. Prime Minister David Cameron said the death was "a tragedy." –VICE News

Ex-President of Guatemala Faces Corruption Charges
The former president and former vice president of Guatemala have both been charged with corruption and money laundering. Otto Perez Molina and Roxana Baldetti are among 70 people accused of taking part in a scheme to embezzle millions of dollars of government money. They both deny the charges. –Associated Press

Hong Kong Bookseller Accuses China of Abduction
Hong Kong bookseller Lam Wing Kee, 61, said at a press conference that he was blindfolded, taken by train to the city of Ningbo, and then held in a small room, where he was unable to call his family. According to him, this abduction was perpetrated by the Chinese government, who also kidnapped several other publishers critical of the country's ruling party. Lam accused the Chinese authorities of behaving "like gangsters." –The Guardian

Meat Loaf on tour in 2007. The singer collapsed onstage in Canada Thursday night. Photo via Flickr user Christie D. Mallon

Everything Else

Meat Loaf Collapses Onstage in Canada
Meat Loaf, the 68-year-old rock star, collapsed onstage during a concert in in Edmonton Thursday night while performing his biggest hit, "I'd Do Anything for Love." He was taken to a nearby hospital. – NBC News

Russia Athletes Face Possible Olympics Ban
The International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) will decide today whether Russia's athletics team can compete in the Rio Olympics. The Russian team is currently suspended following an IAAF report about state-sponsored doping. –AFP

Grammys to Recognize Streaming-Only Albums
The Recording Academy has changed its rules so that streaming-only releases are now eligible for Grammys. It makes albums like Chance the Rapper's Coloring Book eligible for next year's awards. –Rolling Stone

Philadelphia Will Tax Soda
Philadelphia has introduced a levy on sugary or artificially sweetened drinks to tackle obesity, the first major US city to implement a soda tax. It will come into effect in January and is expected to raise $90 million annually, money that will mostly be spent on schools. –VICE News

Canadian Border Guards Seize Fentanyl Shipments
The Canada Border Services Agency has intercepted over a kilogram of fentanyl in the past month, more than $1 million worth of the potent opiate. In total three separate shipments were seized, all of which originated in China, said authorities. –VICE News

Immigration Raids Sometimes Target People with Valid Asylum Claims, Says Group
A new civil report from a coalition of immigration lawyers and groups claims Central American families picked up in US immigration raids sometimes have valid asylum claims. The CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project says people are targeted before their claims are heard in court. –VICE

We Asked People How Often They Have Sex

0
0

All photos by Yasmin Jeffery.

This article originally appeared in VICE UK.

Don't know how often you're having sex but it's too much, it's too much. That's according to the great oracle 'the Daily Mail', anyway, which somehow this week decreed that the ideal number of instances of intercourse you should be enduring per week is one. One. Uno. One shag. Single digit orgasm number, for you, per seven days. Once. It is possible to break the Mail's conservative shag numbers in an hour. It is possible to defy the Mail five times in one day.

To prove their point, the Mail got various lumpen middle-aged couples to stand back to back in a photography studio and share their stories of how only nailing once a week is actually really brilliant, actually. " a new frisson between us," one couple says. "There is a constant frisson between us," says another. The third couple does not say 'frisson' but they do say 'frisky'. Truly, the Mail is doing its upmost to erode the very concept of sex in Britain today.

But is once a week truly, really, the best way to keep the frisson in your life? What about the friskiness? I took to the streets to find out how often real people actually have sex, and whether they'd ever consider giving a weird MailOnline sex diary a shot.

Gary, 32

VICE: Are you seeing anyone at the moment?
Gary: I am yes; we've been together for about a year.

How often do you have sex?
Probably three times a week. I think that's enough, I'm happy with that.

Would you say you and your partner have more or less the same libido, or is hers different to yours?
I think hers is lower, to be honest (laughs) but I think we find a happy medium. I probably would have sex a little bit more, but that's what we do. Three times a week, it's kind of just one of those things. I'm fine with it.

Do you think having sex once a week, and only once, would be beneficial for your relationship?
I think, if you're in a good relationship and you like each other, sex more than once a week is just a given. It's hard to have sex once a week if you're genuinely really attracted to someone and you're lying in bed with them every single night. I mean, I wouldn't say it would be a healthy relationship to have sex once a week and carry on like that forever and ever.

Given your answer, I'm guessing you wouldn't consider trying out a sex diary and scheduling intercourse?
No, probably not. You want sex at different times! Sometimes you're in the mood for it, sometimes you're not. It depends what kind of day you've had. Unless I was trying for children or something along those lines, I don't see how I'd ever, ever want to do that.

Mona, 27

Are you in a relationship?
Mona: Yes, something like that. It's been around three months now.

How much time do you guys spend in the bedroom?
Not much, we probably have sex around once a week. It's not enough for me; I'd prefer it to be way more.

How do you deal with that?
I don't know, because we don't talk about it. I'd like to talk about it, but we don't...

Would you say your partner has a different libido to you?
Yes, it's much lower. It creates a bit of tension in the relationship, but it's also because we both work, and this makes it really difficult to meet up.

Envisage the perfect relationship – how often would you be having sex every week?
At least five times a week, I think. If you're in a relationship and you like each other, that's normal to me.

So, what do you think about the claim having sex once a week is actually healthier for your relationship?
I think it's wrong. If you're in love, you want to have sex with the person! Even if your libido is low, you should still be having sex more than once a week.

In this study they allocated a time and day for couples to have sex every week. Would you ever try that for the sake of your relationship?
A sex diary? That sounds hilarious. I don't think so, because you shouldn't plan when you want to have sex. Some days you wake up and don't even want to see the person you're dating. Other times, they're all you want to look at. The idea of scheduling it all is just wrong.

Pete, 34

How long have you and your girlfriend been together?
Pete: Almost two years now.

How often do you guys do the nasty every week, would you say?
Three to five, but it depends really. If I saw her daily, that would be good for me, but it's not a big deal, you know?

Would you say you guys have pretty evenly matched libidos?
Yeah, it's pretty much the same, so everything works out okay.

How do you think your relationship would be if they were wildly different?
There'd probably be more arguments if she wanted to have sex way less than me. If her libido was higher than mine, I think it would be okay; I'd just be more tired all the time but that's alright with me.

How often do you think people should be having sex to have a healthy relationship?
I reckon it varies from person to person. Some people don't do it at all – others' relationships are built on their sexual interactions. It really depends on the person, but I'd say at least once a week, maybe? That's if you're with each other every day.

That's the amount of sex the Daily Mail is saying all of us should have. What do you think about that?
Just once a week? I'd prefer not to plan it, because I think going with the flow is the best way to go. I don't know how I'd go with the once-a-week idea, though.

Natalie, 28

How often do you have sex on a weekly basis?
Natalie: Right now I'm single, so not that often, unfortunately. When I was last in a relationship, just before Christmas, my ex and I would have sex at least once a day, if not more.

Was that enough for you?
Yeah, that was fine, but definitely once a day. Definitely.

When you were still together, did you and your partner have the same libido, or did they differ slightly?
It was equal, but the two guys I dated before had lower libidos. They just fell in line, though, so yeah.

How often do you think people should have sex for a healthy relationship?
As long as it's not getting in the way of life, I think once a day is the right amount. Absolute minimum, three days a week. But that's the absolute minimum.

That's quite a lot, especially when compared to what the Mail are claiming that sex once a week is the way to go.
Each to their own. Guys can't concentrate when they want it, and I can't concentrate. I think I was born a man, though, that's more my problem!

Would you ever consider keeping a sex diary?
No way, I'm not that organised. That would just be way too stressful and too much of a headfuck to put that in my calendar.

Tim, 25

Are you with anyone at the moment?
Tim: Yeah, in my current relationship, which has been going on for a year, we maybe have sex once a week or so, which isn't enough for me. I'd prefer it if we had sex like two or three times a week, that would be nice.

Would you say your girlfriend has a lower libido than you do?
I think she does, yeah. It's come up in conversation a few times, but at the end of the day I don't let it worry me too much. I think there are other things to focus on. She realises it, definitely, but with the stress of work and life in general, it's hard to get on top of everything sometimes.

How much sex do you think people should be having every week?
I would say two to three times a week would be good. I think if you do it too much, you stand a chance of getting bored with them.

So, what do you think of this new research advocating sex once a week?
I think once a week is not enough. If you're in a steady relationship, why wouldn't you be having it more? Mind you, I'm happy with what's happening at the moment. It also varies depending on how old you are, so maybe the Mail were thinking of what works for older people...

What do you think about the idea of a sex diary? Would you ever give that a go?
No way. I don't want sex to become a chore!

Isabella, 21

VICE: How long have you been with your partner?
Isabella:
Around one year now. We see each other on the weekends mostly, so I would say maybe once or twice a week. It's not enough for me, if I'm honest. I have a pretty high sex drive, so sometimes I feel like I want more, and he doesn't have as high of a sex drive as I do. I think it's also because we only see each other on the weekends. If I saw him more I might want to have sex with him less.

How do you guys cope with that? Do you talk about what you want sexually?
Yeah, we always talk about it. I always tell him when I want to, and sometimes when I tell him he wants to too. I think you have to talk about it, though.

How often would you have sex if you could do it whenever you wanted?
It goes in phases; sometimes I want to have sex all the time, and sometimes I feel like I don't need it. It depends on how long it's been since I saw my boyfriend last, or if we haven't spent a lot of quality time together. Sometimes, when I feel like if I'm spending a lot of quality time with him, that's fine. But yeah, it really depends on my mood.

How often do you think couples should aim to be having sex?
There's no rule, because it really depends on the person and it also depends on your circumstances. Maybe you're young and you don't feel ready, or maybe you're not young, maybe you just don't feel ready with the person and you just want to get to know them instead. As long as everyone's happy and as long as everyone's communicating, you know, if you're not communicating you shouldn't be in that relationship.

Do you think the idea of this new research is fundamentally wrong, then, because they're saying everyone everywhere should have sex once a week and that's it?
I think these are just claims that are taken out of thin air, but then it is the Daily Mail! Sex should be enjoyable, not just beneficial! I think if you're happy and it's making you feel good and it's not causing any problems, do what you want.

So, would you ever give a sex diary a go?
Maybe I wouldn't have thought of it before this encounter... maybe after today I'll be like, "Hey, just for fun let's try that", but I think that kind of takes the spontaneity out of sex. I've spoken to people about sex and they've said that if you're working and both you and your partner are in full time jobs, sometimes you do have to plan it, and you do have to set that time aside. I can't see myself doing that, though.

@YasminAJeffery

More from VICE:

"There Was More Duty Sex" – How Moving in Together Can Change Your Sex Life

Vincent Cassel on Sex, Hip-Hop and the Legacy of 'La Haine'

Sex Workers Talk About Their Dating Lives


How to Survive Your First Wedding as an Adult

0
0

Probably took 40 minutes to get this carefully posed-as-unposed photo. Photo via Lindsey Child

Dreadful news: All of your friends are deliriously happy and in love and want to throw a $20,000 party to celebrate it. It is wedding season, and if you are between the ages of 25 and 26, then you have just been invited to your first one. Maybe it is your slightly older friend who has really got her life together, and this is no surprise. Maybe it's that guy with two kids who is just doing the right thing. Maybe, most terrifyingly of all, it's just two people your age, who have been in a relationship even less time than you have with your current significant other, and... just... seem... to... be... really... happy? God. Fuck. God. Nothing like wedding season to put your own inadequacies into sharp relief.

But perhaps you have not attended the wedding of a friend before. Yeah, when you were a kid, weddings were fun, weren't they? You skidded around on your knees on the dance floor, maybe you were roped into something fun and ceremonial like throwing flowers about, and then you had a bunch of cake and soda while your mom wasn't watching and hyped the fuck out before crashing at 9 PM. As a kid, weddings were brilliant. As an adult, the reality of them—that your peers have found love and sanctuary in a time of ghosting and Tinder—can be harrowing. Here's how to survive your first go:

The bride might make you dress in purple because this is the only chance she will ever get in her life to make you wear purple. Photo via Robert Kintner

GET ON TOP OF THE INFINITE FUCKING ADMIN OF IT

First thing you will notice when you are invited to a wedding is a "save the date" card (this is a small piece of paper mailed to your house—to your actual house, through the mailbox—that tells you to keep a certain weekend some distant date in the future free, as if you ever make plans that far ahead anyway). It is a card that says, "Please, refrain from spending Friday 6 PM through Sunday 10 AM doing drugs, mainly on your own, and occasionally drinking with others, and instead come to an idyllic field in Kent and attend a party about our love." Pass the save the date through your hands a couple of times. Turn it over, feel the heft of that expensive stationery. This is a card that is asking you for your time. This piece of A5 paper is making your weekend plans for you. Fuck this cardboard. Fuck it right up.

What we all do with a save the date card is put it on the mantelpiece and forget it exists.

That is why people send invitations: to remind you, proper, that you have already agreed to give this weekend up, to turn your back on the gods of fun and instead commit your time to the lords of matrimony and monogamy, to eat from a buffet, to get mayo on your suit. Invitations are very well-designed extensions of the save the date card. They often have complex and fun little jokes about how the couple met on them, and will also have your friend's full names on them, as tradition dictates. This is confusing. Do you know how confusing this is? It took me a full 30 seconds to process that my friend Bob was getting married in September because the invite said "Robert." This is what wedding invitations do to you: You have to get a Filofax for all the paperwork, a paper calendar to hang on your wall. You need to learn the actual names of all your friends.

WHAT IN THE FUCK TO WEAR

Yeah you mainly have to dress nice for a wedding. Unless it's one of those "fun" weddings—"The Mad Hatter's Tea Party: Wedding Style!," that sort of thing; "Grease: The Wedding!" or something like that—you need to put on a suit for a boy and a dress for a girl. But look in your wardrobe. Isn't the only suit you have that gray old Burtons thing you wore once ten pounds ago to an interview? Isn't the only dress you have that weird taffeta thing you wore ironically to the summer ball? Unfortunately for you, you now have to go and buy an entire wedding outfit. The most expensive and uncomfortable clothes you own, plus shoes. You are $200 down, and you haven't even bought train tickets and a hotel yet. Other people's love is the greatest expense in your life. 1

1A small aside: Something inside your young lithe body is going to feel a certain undeniable need to try and "twist up" your staid and adventure-less outfit and make it young, somehow—you're going to try and wear Converse with a dress, aren't you, you Anti-Establishment bastard, you're going to try and do something preppy and GQ-y with a pocket square—and can I tell you now, from embarrassed experience: Do not do this. The only people who can get away with twisting formalwear is people who wear formalwear on the daily. If you're wearing a suit with all the presence of a 12-year-old at his dad's funeral, you are not ready to twist on a classic. Wear your uniform, and shut the fuck up.

Photo via Rob Barrett Photography

MAKING POLITE SMALL TALK WITH SOMEONE'S DISTANT COUSIN OR SOMETHING

Thing about weddings is that they have strict seating plans—it's because, as it emerges on their wedding day, everyone has these weird diverse groups of friends and family, and even if you think you know the friend getting married intimately—you grew up together, you live together, you've known them longer than you've known yourself—at one point they will go, "Oh, you've got to meet my college friends!" And then they will introduce you to a table full of people who all have nicknames, and you will suddenly feel this weird pang of jealousy, you'll see your group of friends reflected in this alt universe version of you all, you'll make direct eye contact with You 2.0, and then—

We're getting off topic. The point is, you will have to talk to a grandma for a bit, because you'll be sat next to her for two hours, because of seating plans. This is the rule. This is the punch you have to take if you're going to be invited to a wedding. This grandma does not understand what your job is ("What's a social media manager, dearie?") and doesn't really want to know. This grandma will be on a weird restricted diet, and you will feel duty bound to go to the buffet for her. This grandma will eventually conform to type and say something emotional about her right to display a golliwog tea towel in her village post office. This grandma is your penance for having a friend who is capable of being loved.

The DO YOU GET TRASHED/DO YOU NOT GET TRASHED CONUNDRUM

The primary thing here is: Yes, you absolutely get trashed. But you have to pace yourself at a wedding, because it's not just "vows then get on it." There's this whole 45-minute interval where everyone stands outside and takes photos. Everyone has to really slowly sit down in a marquee and eat a meal. Someone dings a glass, and there is, like, an hour and a half of speeches about love. If you hit the complimentary champagne too hard when you got there, then you are going to be a shapeless mass of moaning by this point. Like: You're going to go full Katona.

My rule is: You are allowed three glasses of champagne, and then you need to take a break. You are allowed two glasses of wine pre-speeches and one during. And then when all the boring wedding shit is over, you get so on it that it makes history. I am serious. I am talking: There are nerds in basements updating the Wikipedia page for "drunkest a human has ever been and lived." You need to get so drunk bystanders watch and abandon their religion. "Why?" you ask. "Why get so drunk?" Because it is free. If you go through life and don't take every opportunity to rinse a free bar down to its very dust, then did you really live? Did you, truly, exist?

GET. THIS. MOTHERFUCKING. PARTY. STARTED. Photo via pcutler

THERE IS GOING TO BE SOME FUCKING

Science did a formula about it, hold on. Some study in 1997 found this:

Weddings + singledom = odd sense of romantic misery (or, 'O1')

O1 + alcohol = bad kind of drunk + bad kind of horny

Because there is Always One. Always One person who gets carried away and spirals down one of two staircases of drunkenness: the one where they take their trousers and/or underwear off in a way that literally everyone sees (bad), or the one where they get really weird about the fundamental lack of affection in their life and get really morose and ornery and also horny in a very hard-to-quantify way (extremely bad). We've all been there: When everyone is coupled up and dancing, there is you, alone at the free bar, eyes darting hither and yon for something, anything, to grind up to. This is how you end up rubbing your ass on someone's extremely geriatric uncle. This is how you end up trying to ask a newly crowned mother-in-law if she "wants a bit." If you find yourself getting sadly horny at a wedding, sit down, have a glass of lemonade and a bit of cake, and try and get on a level a bit. Then do shots and make everyone do Rock the Boat in a completely non-sexual way.

GIFTS: NO

Unless you are rich, you do not have to get a gift. That is my rule, anyway. I don't think it is a widely accepted rule. But that is my rule. If you invite me to your wedding, know you're not getting a gift. Your gift is my company. Your gift is I will be nominally nice to your grandma.

A table full of people who have never met before in their lives but now they have to wear formal wear. Photo via Eli Christman

ATTENDING A BACHELOR PARTY: A GUIDE

Can't offer you any advice about attending a bachelorette party (but as far as I can tell, it's a 400-message-long email thread where every entry starts with the words "Hi girls!!!!!" and somehow ends up costing $1,000 each, even though you only go to the nearest city and do a cupcake class before getting your penis straws confiscated at the doors of Funky Fish) but can tell you that bachelor parties are essentially just 12 guys divided into three distinct groups, with at least two of them named "Jonno," and you'll all go to a really shit pub and have this weird day drinking synthesis of fun, going through all the motions of fun but not quite having it, and to try and overcome this awkwardness you get so drunk it gets weird, then on the day of the wedding you will half-recognize some guy you drank beer out of the ass of, and you will greet him with a silent nod. Outlaw bachelor parties.

IT IS HARD TO KNOW WHEN TO HECKLE THE DJ, BUT IT IS BASICALLY "NEVER"

You're four or five drinks ahead of where you're meant to be, and it's 10 PM, and you're possibly high a little, and for some reason the DJ—a 17-year-old local boy with a single revolving disco ball and two big iPods—keeps playing Abba, and you are shouting at him—as you remember it the next day, you were at the back of the dance floor being jovial, but photographic evidence will show you were right in the face of this kid—this kid who is basically acne, half a mustache, two pubes, and a Spotify subscription—yelling about Wu Tang. Try to avoid doing this. This kid is only trying to raise the roof for a family audience.

Someone is going to talk to you a lot and point while you present gifts to them. Photo via Eric Auchard

YOU ARE GOING TO GET INVOLVED IN A 45 MINUTE CONVERSATION ABOUT YOUR JOB WITH A FRIEND-OF-A-FRIEND WHO IS "SURE SHE CAN HELP YOU OUT" BUT FOR SOME REASON THIS CONVERSATION HAPPENS OUTSIDE, SOMEWHERE, BY AN OLD DEAD TREE

Something weird about that first juddering summer wedding of adulthood is it tends to coincide with two or three personal crises you may be going through in your real life, most of which you decide to tell some stranger outside when you both try and get a bit of air and watch the sunset out from the oppressive heat of the main wedding marquee. You are both clutching small plastic cups, empty of their punch. You are both very seriously leaning on a fence and saying, "I just thought I would be more by now, you know?" You look into the reception going on behind you. "John and Lisa seem so happy," they say (John and Lisa are 100 percent the name of the couple who's wedding you go to first). "Why can't I get my shit together?" It's because you're a shitshow, mate. No blaming anyone else. Get your shoddy life together. Start tomorrow. But for now, in a field in fucking Cumbria with a load of friends-of-friends, you may as well get trashed.

HARD PARTY DRUGS: THE DOS AND DON'TS

Grade As are generally OK at a wedding, if that's your thing—I am going to heaven so it is not my thing—as long as you don't do it, like, directly in front of an aunt. At weddings, aunts rove like floating robots in some sort of lonely, futuristic shoot-'em-up—aunts around every corner, aunts bumping into you at the buffet, aunts beckoning you disgustingly with a single finger onto the dancer floor—and they are offended by you doing keys in the middle of reception. So you need to be discrete and avoid the aunts. You need to remember you are not in south London anymore.2

2 Note: A lot of aunts think they are "fun aunts." A good way to tell if an aunt considers herself fun is if she says either of the following sentences: "I'm a fun aunt!"; "I'm an old girl, but we can still be fun!"; "Ooh, if you kids knew what we used to get up to in our day!" Do not be tricked by the aspirational fun aunt. She is designed to lull you into a false sense of security. This is a pretty cool aunt, actually, you think. Maybe I'll offer her some gak? And then as soon as you do, she goes cool and says, "You know, of course, my husband Paul is a police officer?" No. Do not be tricked by the fun aunt.

Photo via Jimmy and Sasha Reade

DON'T GET ALL WEIRD AND PROPOSE TO SOMEONE JUST BECAUSE OF THE OCCASION

It's nice, though, isn't it, and you can see yourself here in maybe a year, little Chinese lanterns lighting up the sky in the name of your love, you doing a fun choreographed first dance to a fun and unexpected first dance song, cake, crying, all your friends in one big hired marquee, the pomp of it, the ceremony, everyone in suits and dresses, everyone looking his or her best, the best day of someone's life, one of the best of yours, and you're fuzzy and warm and filled with loving vibes and you think: Hey, maybe it's time. Maybe it's time I popped the question. You think: Hey—maybe this wedding thing is for me. No, come on. Get real. You're a shitshow. Come on. You don't even know what income tax is. Come on. We've discussed this. You're a shitshow. You're a good ten, 15 years away from being ready for this. Just enjoy the wedding for what it is and try not to wet yourself in front of people.

Follow Joel Golby on Twitter.

Why the Kiki Ballroom Scene Is As Important As Ever

0
0

Gia Marie Love, one of the stars of the new documentary Kiki. Photo courtesy of Kiki

There's a lot worth pausing for, rewinding, and then watching over and over again until the electric charge of the images and the raw dialogue stay with you forever in Sara Jordenö's ballroom documentary Kiki. It's not the first time a documentary has been made about the ballroom scene appropriated by Madonna for her David Fincher-directed "Vogue" music video. In 1991, Jennie Livingston's Paris is Burning served as a time capsule for the 80s New York ballroom scene that was the inspiration for current hit TV show RuPaul's Drag Race. That documentary can now be seen as a prologue to an era where more and more trans characters are popping up in the mainstream. However, we still have a long way to go when it comes ending problems like homelessness, HIV, poverty, and gender discrimination that impact young queer people of colour. The recent homophobic attack in Orlando that killed 49 people at a gay club is a reminder that safe spaces for LGBT folks are still desperately needed, something that the Kiki scene provides.

A member of Toronto's Kiki scene gets low at a recent ball in the city. All photos below by Samra Habib

Read more: Pulse's Regulars Talk About What the Nightclub Means To Them

Long before ballroom dancers popped up on Rihanna tours and at H&M designer collaboration launches, there was Harlem's drag circuit which held masquerade events, eventually graduating to a competitive scene throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s, reminiscent of today's ballroom culture. The Kiki scene emerged out of practice spaces for the mainstream ball at health outreach organizations. It was headed by ballroom members who were active in community-based organizations like the Gay Men's Health Crisis. It was born out of the need to create a safe space for New York's LGBT at-risk youth. It embodies the concept of community through houses that consist of chosen families and enforces the idea of self empowerment. As Symba McQueen who serves as the father of the House of Juicy Couture puts it, "we often become the parents we never had." A house father and mother are responsible for taking care of kids who might have been rejected by their families or are experiencing homelessness.The house becomes integral to the LGBT kids' quest to find love and support. A large portion of young black folks in the Kiki scene are impacted by HIV, which is why there is a strong presence of HIV prevention services, testing, and counseling at the balls.

Some offshoots of the New York Kiki scene have sprung up in recent years, including one in Toronto.

In 2010 Twysted, the founder of the Kiki Ballroom Alliance in Toronto was contacted by Mike Ebony from House of Pink Lady in New York about starting a Toronto chapter. After getting a Youth Line's Spirit of Will Munro Award, Twysted was able to help launch the Kiki ballroom scene in Toronto.

"I brought three kids with me to New York in 2011 and we officially performed. You have to perform to be in the community, if you're not seen in the ballroom scene, it never happens," says Twysted.

What makes Kiki distinctly different is that it digs deep into the lives of the members of the Kiki ballroom world, revealing what led them to the scene in the first place. It closely follows the seven main characters as they deal with being HIV positive, transitions, homophobia, isolation by loved ones, and homelessness—issues that are noticeably absent when the ballroom culture is appropriated solely for entertainment.

Gia Marie Love, one of the stars of the documentary and House of Juicy mother discusses the need to pair voguing with critical dialogue about the lived experiences of people who are part of the Kiki scene when ballroom dancers are invited into mainstream spaces that often only highlight the performance aspect.

"Outside the larger queer movement, you see a lot of appropriation of ballroom. You see vogueing in movies and commercials but you don't really know where it comes from and the community that's the most impacted by it. Ballroom is a great platform because it visualizes the talents we use to cope with the stress of what we have to deal with because we're so different in society's eyes," she told VICE.

One of the most important scenes in the film that captures the state of LGBT rights today and why we need Kiki now is when Twiggy Pucci Garcon, founder of the Opulent Haus of PUCCI is invited to the White House where Obama is celebrating the legalization of same-sex marriage. During the visit, Twiggy, who works with Cyndi Lauper's True Color Fund to end LGBT youth homelessness, gets a call from his landlord that he himself is getting evicted without notice or a reason. Although marriage equality is important for queer couples who choose to get married, the scene speaks to the harsh reality that LGBT people still have to fight for basic rights like housing because of discrimination. In fact, 40 percent of homeless youth in America identify as LGBT, a number that is disproportionately high considering that seven percent of young people in America are LGBT. During the rough week, Twiggy manages to find support and help from his Kiki family. "We still gotta fight for LGBT homelessness, we still gotta fight for trans rights, there's so much left," muses Twiggy after leaving the White House, shortly after finding out that he's getting evicted.

As Toronto gears up for its first ever Pride month in the shadow of the Orlando shootings, the need for safe spaces for LGBT youth is more evident than ever.

In preparation for the Rebellion ball taking place on Pride weekend, Twysted talks about why the city's Kiki scene is one of those vital spaces.

"We challenge what's masculine and what's feminine and we really have nowhere else to do that. We weren't able to express ourselves before. Some of us are coming from oppressive places that are very homophobic. So we made our own world."

Follow Samra Habib on Twitter


How to Make a Tactful Film About the On-Air Suicide of a News Reporter

0
0

Actress Kate Lyn Sheil imitates how Christine Chubbuck shot herself on air. Images supplied.

On July 15 1974, Florida news reporter Christine Chubbuck became the first person to commit suicide live on air. We say "first" because the act has, tragically, been repeated several times since. It's also said that the 1976 film Network was based on her death. In a sense, Christiane's story of mental illness isn't uncommon— but the way her death played out in public certainly was.

America filmmaker Robert Greene was intrigued by the story the moment he heard about it. His fascination grew into a film, which premiered in Australia on Thursday night. Called Kate Plays Christine, his quasi-documentary follows actress Kate Lyn Sheil as she prepares to play Christine Chubbuck in a second, non-existent film. The audience watches as Kate tries to understand Christine and her motivations, exposing how closely ties between reality and fiction can form.

VICE met with Robert to talk about Christine's real-life story, and his unusual approach to her death.

VICE: Hi Robert, let's start with why. Why Christine Chubbuck?
Robert Greene: Well, for me it started around 2002 or 2003. I had a friend who asked, "Have you ever heard this story? Supposedly it's like Network." The details made it the most extraordinary thing—especially because of the fact she scripted the story of her own suicide and that it was probably one of the last times something like that would be lost to history. There were no VCR recorders at that time, so only the station had the copy. [It's been rumoured for decades that the only people to have seen Christine's suicide were those watching the live broadcast]. Just a few years later, another guy committed suicide on live television and you can now find it on YouTube. I was intrigued, but my next thought was: I don't have the right to tell this story.

I would have struggled with that too.
Yeah, when you look at the details, what happened was actually horribly simple. Immediately I was sure that I wasn't the person to make this documentary, or at least not the person to make a straightforward documentary. I wrestled with that. But gradually, I had an idea: we'd have Kate play this role and that way I could interrogate my own feelings. So that's what this movie is about, really.

Would you say it's also an attempt to explore who Christine was?
Yes. We wanted to explore Christine, so we talked to people who knew her, most of whom had almost forgotten her. But the film is also about how when someone commits suicide—especially is such a memorable way—our instinct is to create a story out of it, because once you explain something you can put it away. But that's a flawed instinct. The film is more about the failure of storytelling to capture something that is, really, unspeakable. In a sense, you're watching is a movie that fails. And it's meant to fail. I think by failing to understand Christine you actually get a deeper sense of the real horror.

So in many ways, you're just exploring storytelling itself?
Well what I think is so intriguing about Christine is that she claimed to be protesting blood and guts television, but she created the most sensational blood and guts thing that's ever happened on television.

Okay, I know you're suggesting Christine's suicide isn't the real point of the movie, but I do want to know more. Is there still a recording of her suicide? What happened to the tape?
You discover this in the movie, we did find the tape. Since then there's a big news story that broke like a week ago—the person with the tape has now given it to a lawyer.

Does the film show the tape?
I don't really want to spoil it for you. Confirming the tape's existence and wrestling with why we want to see the tape in the first place, that sort of carries the last act of the film.

Okay, fair enough. You say you grappled with the idea of not being the right person to make this film. Now that you've gone and done it, how do you feel?
Look, I'm proud that we interrogated that feeling. I still feel that she committed suicide on television to make a statement, but she was a deeply disturbed woman who needed help. Yet 42 years later, we're still giving her this platform. I don't feel comfortable about that because she ended her life sort of wanting a platform.

Have you wondered what she'd think of your film?
I don't allow myself to think that way. Part of the whole thing is that we know so little about who she was. As I was saying before, there's a tendency to make a narrative out of what happened. But we just know so little. Her brother is still alive but he made it very clear that he doesn't want to talk about it. On some level I would be interested in him seeing the film and seeing how he deconstructs it. But I don't want to think about what Christine would think.

Some audiences might have preferred a straight documentary. Have you been happy with how the film has been received?
Yeah, people seem to really get it. People want to engage in movies that are trying to engage with them. A critic wrote this review saying she'd watched it a second time and she was struck by how much the audience, or the viewer, is active in creating its meaning. That's really what I wanted, so I'm happy.

Kate Plays Christine screens at the Sydney Film Festival on Sunday June 19. View the full schedule here.

Interview by Julian Morgans. Follow him on Twitter.

How Scared Should I Be?: How Scared Should I Be of Getting Attacked by a Shark?

0
0

Download the new and improved VICE app for iOS and Android now.

In the column "How Scared Should I Be?" VICE staff writer and generalized anxiety disorder sufferer Mike Pearl seeks to quantify the scariness of the world he lives in. We hope it helps you to more wisely allocate that most precious of natural resources: your fear.

I mostly avoid swimming. Not because I'm particularly afraid of the ocean, it's just I look very out of place inside of it. More like someone who lost his rekel on the way to the synagogue and fell into the Pacific than someone out for a leisurely swim. But this summer I'm moving closer to the beach, and I'm planning to try something I've never considered in 31 years of being a Californian—surfing.

My timing couldn't be worse, it seems. According to a story from Wednesday's Los Angeles Times, the Pacific coastline is teeming with sharks, and that's in keeping with an overall trend that might be tied to global warming. That encouraging piece of news follows a report of a non-fatal shark attack last month off of Newport Beach—the only beach where I've gone swimming in the past ten years. "I've seen more white sharks this year than I have in the previous thirty," a beach safety officer named Claude Panis told the Times.

"A large tiger shark will crunch a sea turtle like a taco chip" —George Burgess

But according to George Burgess, director of the International Shark Attack File at the Florida Museum of Natural History, there aren't actually more sharks than there were in years past. "The areas where shark attacks mostly occur are the areas where humans enter the water the most," he said. If anything, Burgess told me, shark populations have dwindled, and despite the recent uptick in bite-y white sharks, it's unlikely that any popular beach has such a concentration of them that it should be avoided altogether.

Although some places are "sharkier than others," he said. "They don't call the area off of Monterey and San Francisco and the Farallon Islands the 'Red Triangle' for no reason." The International Shark Attack File keeps a map of shark attacks, but Burgess told me not to read too much into that. "You'd be sadly mistaken if you looked at those maps and said, 'This is where shark attacks occur or don't occur,'" he cautioned.

The International Shark Attack File's summary of 2015 says that, at 59 attacks, it was a banner year for hungry sharks in the US. But that's approximately the same number of people in America who earned Super Bowl rings that year. Estimates vary on the number of people who die in an average year, but Burgess told me it's around six. That's less than the rate at which people die by having TVs fall on them.

But shark attacks are a special brand of horror, because they come seemingly at random from the quiet deep, and the injuries can be as devastating as they are abrupt. "Any predator will try to grab at the biggest chunk of body that's available, which in our cases would be our torso and our thighs," Burgess explained. And bigger sharks have no problem biting clean through human bones, he warned, adding that "a large tiger shark will crunch a sea turtle like a taco chip."

But he pointed out that after the initial chomp shark behaviorists are noticing a feeding behavior in great whites that makes attacks relatively easy for humans to survive.

"It appears that white sharks work on a strategy of grabbing prey, usually swinging it in its mouth, holding it for a while, and then oftentimes letting go and circling the area," Burgess explained. Animals like seals that have just been chewed on by a great white shark will bleed out until they're dead, or too weak to fight back, Burgess told me. Human shark attack victims, however, tend to scream and find their way to a boat or a beach—a much better survival strategy.

Still, strategies for surviving an attack are often less important than just following basic safety guidelines for a day at the beach. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the areas where white sharks like to hang around are sea line and seal colonies," he said. He also encouraged me to avoid swimming between dusk and dawn, and to stay away from spots where people are fishing from the shore, or spots where sea birds are diving. Where there are schools of delicious fish, there are likely larger fish eating them.

But surfers either can't wrap their heads around, or don't give a shit about, the single most basic principle of safety: If someone sees a shark, get the fuck out of the water. "A lot of surfers tend to ignore that," Burgess said.

When surfer Mick Fanning was attacked last year, an onlooker had just noticed a shark, and the competition had continued. In 2013, when a surfer was fatally attacked off the coast of Australia, another surfer named Marc Baldan stayed in the water all day, later explaining to the press that surfing is too much of "a release," to give up just because of a shark. "I don't know what I would do without it," he said. "It's not until you see one that you think twice."

Like Baldan, I will try surfing this summer, and I'll follow Burgess's advice: "Accept the risk that there are animals out there that can, and occasionally do, do us harm." But I might just be at an advantage when it comes to sharks, because unlike avid surfers who seem to consider the vague possibility of death-by-shark to be a simple fact of life, if anyone yells something that even rhymes with "shark," after I piss myself, I'm running for the shore.


Final Verdict: How Scared Should I Be of Getting Attacked by a Shark?

2/5: Taking Normal Precautions


Follow Mike Pearl on Twitter.

The VICE Guide to Right Now: Here Are All the Bizarre Things Canada Has Bought to Promote Canada

0
0

One flag is enough, ok. Photo via Flickr user Venture Vancouver

There are few symbols as distinctly "branded" as the Canadian red and white maple leaf (save for the US' stars and stripes and the former Soviet Union's hammer and sickle). Douchey Canadian travellers have been proudly wearing the maple leaf on their backpacks for decades to make sure anyone they encounter on their requisite post-high school European piss-up knows right away they're not Americans. It's as close to bragging as we get in this country, where tall poppy syndrome has eternally coloured our mild approach to patriotism. We all collectively cringe when our flag-waving-est citizens like Don Cherry and world's most annoying human, the I Am Canadian guy attempt to do otherwise. Where many a landfill overflows with USA-themed merch, we prefer to let our humble leaf speak for us. That's all the self-promotion we need, eh bud?

Which is why here at VICE we're especially shocked that the government of Canada disagrees with our collective stance against cheesy promotional items. In fact, it turns out they've spent $1 million in just six short months branding everything from cufflinks to foam chickens in an effort to hype our governmental institutions.

READ MORE: A Guide to Awful Sports Merchandise for Women

The list of merch was only recently discovered after Conservative MP Arnold Viersen asked for a breakdown of any promotional materials the government has commissioned between November 4, 2015 and April, 2016. The government's response was 199 pages of some of the most embarrassing ways our institutions could have possibly promoted themselves.

Here's just some of that soon-to-be-trash:

500 Canadian Security Establishment lip balms, which is a weird way to brand the country's spy agency, though the 300 Canadian Security Establishment Rubik cubes make more sense. $1,500 worth of Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission "Nuclear Watchdog" fidget toy dogs, which is honestly terrifying, what do these nuclear safety people have to be so fidgety about? Though the Nuclear Commission's branded colour-changing mood pens sound pretty dope actually. There were 4,000 insanely cliche eye glasses wipes for Library and Archives Canada, which like, is just embarrassing in its laziness. (For next year's library swag we'd like to see some sexy cardigans and pens that you use to put your hair up in a bun that you inevitably shake out in a super seductive way.)

Global Affairs Canada racked up a massive bill of nearly $150,000 on everything from cufflinks to tie tacks (seems like Trudeau's promise of gender parity missed this department) and for the millennials, some probably very sick temporary tattoos. And finally, the most audacious, on-brand promo purchase goes to the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions who handed out 425 "fugitive backpacks" just in case you were on the fence about whether or not to finish paying off your student loans or just flee the country like our federally-employed financial overlords.

That being said, if you have any extra mood pens we'll gladly hype Nuclear Safety.

Follow Amil Niazi on Twitter

Which Gun Control Policies Will Actually Work in America?

0
0

Download the new and improved VICE app for iOS and Android now.

For years, gun control advocates have been wondering what it will take to pass new laws limiting everyday Americans' easy access to deadly weapons. In the aftermath of the Orlando nightclub shooting, we may have our answer: When an obviously disturbed man who had been previously investigated by the FBI for terrorism connections is able to buy guns and use them a few days later to slaughter 49 people, that's a problem no one can deny.

On Thursday, after Senate Democrats filibustered for 15 hours, their Republican colleagues agreed to hold a vote on two measures. One would ban people on the federal terrorist watchlist from buying weapons; the other would require all gun purchasers to undergo background checks, even those who buy firearms over the internet or at gun shows. The latter has long been on liberal wish lists, and even Donald Trump is in favor of the former. Also this week, Fox News hosts Gretchen Carlson and Bill O'Reilly surprisingly came out in support of a ban on assault weapons, saying that the reason the Orlando shooter was able to kill so many people was because of his powerful weapon.

The fate of all these reforms is up in the air—even if the watchlist ban bill passed the Senate, it would still have to go through the Republican-dominated House, and that's the most modest of all the suggested reforms. (Last year, only 244 gun purchases from registered dealers were attempted by watchlist suspects.) And the focus on high-profile but rare mass shootings often excludes other aspects of gun violence, like accidental shootings, suicides, and the everyday killings that make up the lion's share of the 11,000 or so annual firearm homicides in America.

To talk about measures that could chip away at that, VICE spoke to Laura Cutilletta, the managing attorney for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a California-based gun control group. Here's what she had to say about background checks, assault weapons, and how to cut down on gun suicides.

VICE: What do you think of the proposed ban on firearm purchases by people on the terrorist watchlist? Do you support it?

Laura Cutilletta: We do support this. It's something that's only been enacted so far in one state, New Jersey. We think it makes good sense because if these are individuals who have already been identified as possibly dangerous, and we don't allow them to fly on airplanes. It certainly makes sense that they wouldn't be permitted to purchase a weapon.

What about the other thing the Senate will vote on, universal background checks?
Universal background checks is something that we've devoted a lot of time and resources to. Without universal background checks, any law that you have on the books is harder to enforce because without a background check, you don't know whether the potential purchaser is prohibited. federal law only requires a background check if you're buying from a licensed dealer. If you buy from someone who doesn't have a license, you don't have to have a background check, and there's evidence saying that's about forty percent of gun sales. That's at gun shows or over the internet or through going to someone's house or going to the back of their car. It could happen in a number of ways. This is the most important law that can be enacted because it's the foundation for many other laws that are on the books.

The other thing that is kind of in the air at the moment is an assault weapons ban, which Bill O'Reilly of all people has endorsed. There was a 1994 ban on these guns that lasted until 2004, but it's efficacy has been hotly debated. Where do you guys stand on it?
The old assault weapon ban had a lot of compromises made at the time that law was passed. The definition of "assault weapon" in that ban was weak. The ineffectiveness of that ban really was due to the problematic language in the law itself. The way that you define "assault weapon" should really be about the function of the weapon. It's important not to include features in the definition that are more about cosmetics or how dangerous the gun looks. What you really want to get to is what makes the weapon different from other firearms. The type of stock, the pistol grip, the types of magazine—all of these features were designed for military use. The idea is to be able to control the weapon easily while you're firing a high volume of rounds so that you can kill as many people as possible. What distinguishes an assault weapon from a sporting weapon is that ability to spray fire.

The NRA and other gun rights activists always claim that more guns, more concealed carry permits, will make us safer because there will be more "good guys with guns." What's the evidence on that?
The most recent data on that is by John Donohue from Stanford. His research showed that not only does not make a state safer, but there is an actual increase in assaults. If you go to our website on the concealed weapons policy summary, we have some other studies, like the Los Angeles Times and the Orlando Sentinel looking at crimes committed by concealed-carry permit holders. The Violence Policy Center has an analysis of CCW permit holders that have killed people. Those are not as rigorous academic studies in the way the Donohue study is, but they're very enlightening. The gun lobby is always saying, "It's the law-abiding citizens that want to carry a gun," but data shows that's not always the case.

I know suicides are the majority of gun deaths. What sort of measures do you support that would reduce this?
Waiting periods are effective because it gives people a chance to cool down, go to a therapist, have family or friends intervene. Also, the way that guns are stored in the home has a large effect on this because a lot of suicides are committed by teens, and they're often using guns found in the home. If a gun is harder to get to, or locked, or in a safe, it can deter an impulsive act by a teenager. If you attempt suicide and you don't use a gun, you're less likely to succeed. If you can keep people who may be suicidal away from accessing guns, it could save their lives.

Besides background checks, what are some of the most effective reforms we could enact?
We think that domestic violence is a really important area because when you have a firearm in a domestic violence situation, it's twelve times more likely that a violent assault will result in death, if the assault involves a firearm. We really strongly advocate for laws that are aimed at keeping abusers unarmed. That means if they have been the subject of a restraining order, or if they have been convicted on a domestic violence misdemeanor, not only prohibiting them but actually putting mechanisms in place to force them to surrender the gun

We also think it's very important to require gun dealers to be regulated. There's a bill pending in Illinois that would require dealer regulation. Chicago has this huge gun problem, and they have been able to identify that those guns are coming from corrupt dealers, some of them are in Illinois. Chicago has strong gun laws and regulates dealers but the state does not. They really have no way to stop those guns from coming in so legislators are pushing for this law that would help Chicago out.

Another one would be reporting loss or stolen firearms. If you are a gun owner and you lose your gun or it's stolen, you should be required to report that within a short amount of time.

Do you think that generally the way to pursue these policies is at the state level opposed to the federal level?
We do. We've always been focused at the state level. The reason is it's always easier to get things done at a smaller level of government. Start with your local city council member then you move up. The best way to get good policies enacted is to work at the state level. It's sometimes the only way. If the federal government won't act, state legislators are left with no other option.

Follow Harry Cheadle on Twitter.

The Other Mass Shootings in America This Week

0
0

In this Monday, June 13, 2016, photo, family members gather at a red-brick home in Roswell, New Mexico, where Cynthia Villegas and her four daughters were shot and killed Saturday. (Bethany Freudenthal/Roswell Daily Record via AP)

Over the past seven days, America witnessed 11 mass shootings that left 59 dead and 86 wounded, with the Orlando nightmare accounting for the bulk of the total. These attacks bring the US mass shooting body count so far in 2016 to 177 dead and 556 injured. This means that more Americans have been killed in such attacks this year than in Timothy McVeigh's 1995 bombing of an Oklahoma City federal building, the largest terrorist attack on US soil until September 11, 2001, which claimed a total of 168 lives.

Meanwhile, Europe suffered zero mass shootings over the same period, holding the continent's body count in such attacks this year steady at 20 dead and 70 injured.

The most significant of these mass shootings was, of course, Omar Mateen's terrorist assault on Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, between 2 and 5 AM on Sunday. Over that span, Mateen, with the aid of a Glock 17 9mm semi-automatic pistol and a SigSauer MCX .224-caliber assault rifle, mowed down more than a hundred people. He killed a total of 49 and injured 53 more, including one of the officers who eventually shot him to death in a raid. Details are still emerging regarding the circumstances of this atrocity and Mateen's motives for carrying it out. But it was almost certainly the worst mass shooting in American history.

This tragedy has been the focal point of global media coverage on the United States for almost a week now—and rightly so. It is an exceptional bloodbath that deserves exceptional mourning, dissection, and reflection. But Orlando is not an isolated catastrophe; it is the most galling manifestation of a wider epidemic of less deadly but still horrific mass shootings in America.

Beyond Orlando, this week saw ten other mass shootings that killed ten people and injured 33. On Saturday around 3 AM—about a day before the Orlando shooting—a shooting in an apartment complex in Charlotte, North Carolina, left one dead and three injured. About an hour later, a shooting at a house party in Webster, Minnesota, left four injured. Around 7:30 PM, a man in Panorama City, California, injured his girlfriend and her son, then shot her two daughters dead. Just about 45 minutes later, a gunfight at a park in Stockton, California, left one dead and three injured. Then, at around 11:15 PM, police suspect that a man in Roswell, New Mexico, shot his wife and four daughters dead.

On Monday at about 5 AM, about a day after the Orlando shooting, gunfire at a graduation party in Fresno, California, left four young people injured. That same evening, a shooting near a park in Brooklyn, New York, at about 5 PM injured five more teens. About 11:30 PM, yet another shooting near a playground in Chicago, Illinois, left five more injured. Then, on Tuesday, an argument around 6 PM on the edge of a vigil for two boys who drowned while swimming led to a shooting that killed one and left three more injured. And finally, at about 9:15 PM, a street shooting in Wilmington, Delaware, left four more teens injured.

The casualties from these shootings alone were intolerably high—the worst since late April, when 13 mass shootings over the course of one week (including the Piketon, Ohio, massacre) left 15 dead and 44 injured—and took a notably heavy toll on young people. Orlando's body count elevated what was already a harsh yet representative week into an unreal tragedy, one more than capable of demanding public attention in a way that most mass shootings do not.

In the wake of Mateen's attack, America has begun to speak more openly and frequently about its mass shooting epidemic. This is cause for celebration. However, many of the calls for action directly inspired by Orlando, from an assault weapons ban to regulations that would restrict people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns, are designed more to prevent a repeat of Orlando than to stem the overarching plague of mass gun violence—much of which is committed beyond the remit of those proposals.

Focusing on the issues raised by the unique circumstances of Orlando makes sense. But if that attack is to be a wakeup call regarding mass shootings writ large, then America needs to drive the conversation deeper, to look at the smaller but still brutal mass shootings that flanked the unprecedented horrors of Orlando and discuss the issues they point to as well, from gun access in domestic violence incidents to the tricky issue of gang beefs.

Some might worry that doing so could detract from the gravity of the Orlando tragedy by conflating it with "lesser" violence. But none of these shootings ought to be tolerable. Although some are pessimistic, Orlando may finally be an incident with the power to change the national discourse on guns as a whole. So it's almost imperative that this time is used to discuss broad and comprehensive solutions. Because if the United States cannot address mass shootings after Orlando, it's awfully hard to imagine the country ever will.

Follow Mark Hay on Twitter.


The VICE Guide to Right Now: Cops Found Guns, Drugs, Bombmaking Tips, and Nazi Swag in a Long Island House

0
0

Photo via the Suffolk County Police Department

Police found a frightening collection of assault rifles, bomb-making instructions, drugs, at least $40,000 in cash, and Nazi paraphernalia in the Long Island home of Edward and Sean Perkowski early Thursday, as the New York Times reports.

Authorities raided the 20-something brothers' Mount Sinai home and found swastika flags, at least one photo of Adolf Hitler, six assault rifles, a handgun, a shotgun, four rifles, a stun gun, and a black binder apparently containing handwritten instructions on how to craft explosives. Cops also found shrooms and marijuana, and arrested Edward, 29, on weapons and drugs charges, and Sean, 25, on an outstanding bench warrant.

"We neutralized a clear public threat," the Suffolk County police commissioner, Timothy Sini, said in a press conference, likening the potential threat the Perkowski brothers posed to that preceding the tragic Orlando mass shooting last Sunday.

Edward Perkowski's lawyer told a local CBS affiliate his client plans to fight the charges "one hundred percent." According to one friend, the man ran a military surplus business—which could explain the guns, but doesn't quite account for all the Nazi shit. But a neighbor, Brian Saltzer, complained of ongoing problems at the house, indicating he's called the cops multiple times to alert them of possible drug dealing and violence.

Read: Someone Bought a Hitler Statue for $17.2 Million at a New York Auction

Photos from a Muddy, Messy Demolition Derby in France

0
0

Download the new and improved VICE app for iOS and Android now.

This article originally appeared on VICE Netherlands.

On a field in northern France, close to the Belgian border, the Rodeo Car Club regularly gets together for its stock car races—or stock car "rodeos," as the club more appropriately calls them. The budget is limited, the track muddy, the cars home-built, and looking like they'll fall apart when you sneeze. There's hardly any money in winning the race, but winning just isn't that important at the Rodeo Car Club.

During the races, the booze flows freely, children run around the track, a merciless, endless stream of 80s power anthems blasts through the speakers, and there's an absolute absence of sponsors or bannering. French photographer Edouard Sepulchre couldn't resist documenting one of the rodeos recently.

How to Travel the World First Class When You're Broke

0
0

Photo via Flickr user Traveling Otter

Download the new and improved VICE app for iOS and Android now.

For most people, travel is about an escape or a change of scenery. For Ben Schlappig, travel is a game. Schlappig knows how to turn $49 cash into a $500 hotel room in Paris or London, and a month's worth of groceries into a first-class flight across the world. He travels entirely in luxury, for about 5 percent of the sticker price.

Schlappig is part of a growing group of "travel hackers"—people who use credit card points for airfare—but Schlappig knows how to score cheap flights and hotels with cash too. As a kid, he spent his weekends flying nonstop around the country to rack up airline points for his parents, and since college, he's been traveling full-time while running a blog called One Mile at a Time.

I wanted to ask him how he does it, so I gave Schlappig a call during one of his brief stays in the United States. He'd only been in LA for a few days but was already antsy for his next trip. Over the phone, he told me about when and where to book the best flights, how to get deals on luxury hotel rooms, and how he manages living life perpetually on-the-go.

VICE: How much would you say you spend on travel in any given year?
Ben Schlappig: The retail cost of my travel would be over a million dollars. That's largely because first class is so overpriced. A first class ticket from New York to Hong Kong would cost $30,000 if you were paying cash, so obviously I'm not spending anything close to that. I don't know the exact number, but what I'll say is that the retail cost is a million, and I spend a tiny, tiny fraction of that. Less than five percent of the total value .

And how many credit cards do you have open right now?
At any given point, I typically have about thirty to forty credit cards.

That sounds confusing.
Sounds confusing in theory, and it's certainly a lot to keep track of, but it's also extremely rewarding. People have a lot of misconceptions about how credit scores work, how credit cards work, so it ends up working out very well.

So basically you fly around the world and stay at hotels for a fraction of the price by manipulating credit card points?
I'm not always using points. I crunch the numbers with every trip to see if there's a better value, because sometimes there are extremely lucrative promotions. For example, there was a Hyatt promotion where you could spend two nights at any Hyatt in the world, and then you'd get one free night at another Hyatt hotel. So I could stay at the airport Hyatt in Tampa, which costs $80 a night, and book two nights. And then I could use that free night at a hotel like the Park Hyatt Sydney, which would be $1,000 a night.

Whoa. How do you find out about these deals?
I am obsessed full-time. I follow this stuff constantly, but I think for the average person, the best way to do it is to follow along with the blog that's best suited for you and your travel goals. For some people, the goal is to travel for free, and they don't really care about comfort, and other people want to fly first and business class and stay at five-star hotels at a fraction of the cost. I fall in that latter category.

So when you're hunting for cheap flights what are some of the strategies you've uncovered?
Something I often do, which might sound weird, is rather than having my tickets originate from the US I have them start elsewhere. For example, tickets are much cheaper if you are originating in Cairo, Egypt, or Colombo, Sri Lanka, or Casablanca, Morocco, or Cape Town, South Africa. So what I'll do is if I'm on a trip, I'll position myself there, and I will have my tickets originate in, for example, Cairo or Columbo. Those are the two I do most that literally knock the cost of my tickets down by about ninety percent.

Wait, what do you mean when you say "position yourself"? You mean just fly to one of those places?
Yeah. So for example the round trip ticket from Cairo to New York would cost $1,200 in business class. If you were to book New York to Cairo the other way—the same exact flight in the other direction—it would cost about $9,000.

Interesting. But you still have to find tickets from the US to those places, right? How do you find good deals?
So the key to finding cheaper tickets in general is knowing that there's a strategy behind how airlines price. Atlanta is the Delta hub, for instance, and Dallas is the American Airlines hub. So if you want to fly anywhere nonstop out of Dallas, American Airlines will have a flight. But if you're flying Delta out of Dallas, it's going to be so much cheaper, because they can't compete on the route network. So the key is to fly an airline out of the city where they don't have much of a presence.

There are certain markets—typically non-business markets—that are going to be cheaper. You're going to pay more to fly from New York to LA than you are to fly from New York to Oakland, purely because of the business market that they see there.

And what about timing? When do you usually book your flights?
I would say usually I book about sixty days out for flights. That's generally the cheapest time to book.

That said, the best time to book an airline award ticket is literally the day of departure, or within a few days of departure. I could right now redeem the miles probably to anywhere in the world for a flight from LA because airlines open up all the seats last minute. In the past, I've booked a first-class trip to Hong Kong, for example, just two hours before departure.

"You could do a vacation for virtually nothing if you approach it correctly." — Ben Schlappig

Does it help to patch together trips using a combination of large and local airlines? Like, if you're going to somewhere in Asia, does it make sense to first fly to somewhere in the continent and then book a ticket from a Turkish or Indian or Chinese airline to get to your specific destination?
Absolutely. There are so many low-cost carriers globally that the cost of flying from continent to continent is often the same price as the cost of your taxi to the airport. Because of all these airlines, there are so many opportunities to fly long distances for very little cost.

There are two cautions, though. First of all, keep in mind these airlines typically nickel-and-dime the hell out of you, so you want to look at the full cost of flying with them. You want to know what are their bag fees, their seating fees. In most cases, you'll still come out ahead—but double-check and be sure.

And then, along similar lines, you want to make sure you know which airlines operate in the markets. If you go to Orbitz or Expedia, you won't see Southwest flights. So if Southwest is cheaper, which they often are, you wouldn't see that there. The same is true of Allegiance. The key with these low-cost airlines is that you typically have to go to their website directly to look at their pricing. Don't rely on the common online travel agencies to show you all the prices.

What sites do you generally use?
If I'm trying to generally compare, I use Orbitz, but that won't show you the low-cost carriers. There's not a website that consolidates everything because these airlines don't give them access to their inventory. The airlines don't want to have to pay Orbitz a commission on the booking because they try to have a lower-cost structure, and that's why they don't show up there.

Back to the credit cards: For you, they're a lifestyle. But for those of us who don't want thirty cards in our wallet, what's the best option? Say I want to go to Mumbai and spend hardly anything on hotels.
On the most basic level, there are a lot of credit cards that offer bonuses of fifty thousand points. So what you would do is you apply for two cards and spend the minimal amount of about $1,000, usually, within a few months. Typically there's no annual fee the first year, so getting two cards and just completing that minimum spending requirement you would have a hundred thousand miles, which is more than enough for a free ticket to India. That makes your flight taken care of for literally nothing. You don't pay a dime. And then for hotels, there are hotel credit cards, so you could get a credit card that offers you free hotel nights after spending a certain amount, which is often very minimal. You could do a vacation like this for virtually nothing if you approach it correctly.

And this is something anyone can do, for any vacation?
Yes, anyone. I would say that is the most common question I get is, "Doesn't it ruin your credit score to apply for a lot of cards?" and that is not the case at all. When you apply for a new credit card, the downside effect is that your credit gets hit with an inquiry, and the inquiry knocks down your score two or three points, and that lasts for up to twenty-four months. But what people don't realize is that every other aspect of your credit score improves when you get more cards. Last year, I applied for about fifty cards, and my score went up during that time. The reason is the much more important metric is whether you're paying everything on time.

Another metric is how much of your credit you're using. So let's say you have $100,000 credit available if you have twenty cards with $10,000 credit each. If you spend $1,000 per month, you're using just one percent of your credit and to the banks that's very secure because you're using money responsibly.

So say you're a broke kid coming out of college with shit credit. What's the card you get?
For somebody just out of school, get either an American Express EveryDay Preferred card or a Chase Sapphire Preferred or a Citi ThankYou Premier. The reason is you get a big sign up bonus, and it brings you a lot of points for everyday spending. For Chase Sapphire Preferred, you earn double points on all dining and travel purchases, which for the average young person he or she is probably spending a lot on dining or food. And the Citi ThankYou Premier gives you triple points on all travel and gas purchases, double points on dining and entertainment.

So what are some of the great hotel loyalty card deals out there?
One that I think anyone should get is the credit card for Intercontinental, which gives you a free night valid at any Intercontinental hotel in the world. So for a $49 annual fee, you can use it at a $500 Intercontinental in London or Paris or even Bora Bora. I think just about anyone would get value from getting to stay at a five-star hotel for just $49 anywhere in the world, which is realistically within anyone's budget.

What are some of your other travel tips?
This might sound crazy to people, but airlines often sell miles directly to consumers, and they often have promotions. It can make a lot of sense to buy miles directly from airlines and then use those for free tickets. That's a great way to get discounted first- and business-class tickets.

I would also say always sign up for loyalty programs. Even if you're not going to be loyal to a chain, there's no reason not to earn miles or points for a stay or flight you're making anyway. You often don't need a lot of miles to redeem them, and often they even have shopping portals, so you can at least redeem smaller increments miles for something versus getting nothing.

Does it ever get tiring—living in hotels full-time, flying around constantly? You seem weirdly energetic.
In a very twisted way, I am. It's an addiction. When I was a kid and would get home from flying every weekend for thirty-six hours without even a night in a hotel, just red-eyes, I would get home and be dead, thinking, I don't know if I ever want to get on a plane again. But the next morning, I'd wake up and think, Man, I want to be on a plane. It's an addiction, and any addiction is probably not a great thing. But the truth is I'm happiest with a view of the window looking down at the Earth.

Follow Michaela Cross on Twitter.

A Lottery Lawyer Explains What You Should Do if You Hit the Jackpot

0
0


Photo of a UK lottery ticket via Flickr user Iain Watson

Download the new and improved VICE app for iOS and Android now.

In middle school, we had to read Steinbeck's The Pearl, which is about how awful getting rich quick is. The SparkNotes version: A guy's son gets stung by a scorpion, and he doesn't have money to pay the doctor until he serendipitously finds a precious treasure inside an oyster. As a result, he becomes the victim of arson, has to stab a would-be robber, and ruins relationship with his wife.

In modern times, we don't open mollusks until an extremely allegorical gem pops out; we play the lottery instead. And like Steinbeck's poor protagonist, a lot of people who have struck jackpots end up finding out that winning is sometimes the fastest way to lose for good. There are countless stories of people getting million-dollar lotto windfalls and turning to drugs, making bad investments, getting robbed or even killed by family members, going deep into debt, and killing themselves. Picking lucky numbers doesn't solve all your problems, and a lot of times, it can create new ones that make the old problems seem like cherished friends.

As it turns out, there are lawyers who specialize in the niche field of advising instant millionaires on how not to blow their windfalls. To learn more about what I should if I ever scratch my way into wealth, I called up one of these lawyers, Jason Kurland––who calls himself the "go-to" attorney for lotto winners––and asked him for some preemptive advice.

VICE: First off, this is a pretty unique area of law. How did you get into it?
Jason Kurland: I kind of fell into it five years ago. Somebody won a large jackpot in Connecticut and wasn't sure where to go, and he worked for one of my clients. So my client basically said to him, "Listen, this is one lawyer I can trust with my life. I don't know if he does this sort of thing, but you might as well call him, and he'll direct you in the right way." He called me, and we do estate planning and stuff like that so we were able to help him, and we worked with him for about a month or so before he claimed .

That was pretty highly publicized, and then from there somebody won $300 million in Rhode Island, remembered me, and called. So I went to Rhode Island and helped and then started promoting . We started getting call after call dealing with every kind of lottery issue you can come up with, until it's become this niche market.

OK, so what's the first thing you should do if you have a winning lottery ticket?
First thing, you want to sign the back of it, because is what's called a bearer instrument—technically whoever hands it in is declared the winner. If you sign the back of it, you secure that it is yours. And I tell the big jackpot winners to sign the back, but to leave some room above it, because if we decide to claim it in a trust fund or an LLC or any other kind of entity, you will be able to write the name of that entity above it, and then sign as a trustee or something like that. So sign the back, make a copy of it, and preferably put it in a safety deposit box, or hide it somewhere in your house.

Then what you want to do is start hiring your professionals. You want to call a lawyer for sure—I am talking about if you win $1 million or more, you should do this stuff. Call an attorney, a financial planner, an accountant––that's the team you're gonna need. Obviously the bigger the jackpot, the more necessary it is to get a team like that. Get your team in place, keep quiet, and don't tell anybody. You can tell your immediate family, but as soon as word gets out your life is gonna change, and you don't want your life to change unless you're ready for the change. That time between knowing you won and claiming to the whole world you won is like your last chance of keeping your old life the way it was.

Then figure out how you want to do with the money, because everybody's first instinct is never what they actually want to do when they think about it. So you need that time to figure out what you want to do. Then at least nobody is banging on your door asking for handouts.

Do you do this before you even contact the lottery commission?
I would, because every state is different when it comes to the process. On the big jackpots, you file an initial claim, and they'll do a background check on you. But if you're gonna wanna claim it as a trust or an entity, you really need to do that first, because it's really difficult to change it once you hand the ticket in. I know a lot of people just want to get the ticket out of their hands and bring it to the lottery office, but if you call us first, we can help you walk through it.

Is there a possibility of the lotto ticket expiring? That's what I would be nervous about.
Yeah, but you have six months to a year, depending on where you win, to do it. This whole process I am talking about takes two or three weeks; it's not a long time. So we'll set you up with an entity or a trust in a day and get it done.

Can you explain the benefit of putting it in an entity or a trust?
First of all, if you can preserve any kind of anonymity, you wanna do that. You wanna limit your exposure. So a lot of the winners choose to form a trust just for that purpose, so that the name of the winner is gonna be the trust. So if you're looking up in the past who won $300 million two years ago, it's gonna say the name of the trust rather than your name. Because people are gonna look for you whether it's for handouts, charities, investment opportunities, whatever.

It's interesting you say you shouldn't tell people about it. It's a stupid idea to put it on social media, obviously.
Oh, forget it. If you win like a large jackpot––I think it's $300 million this week––the first thing you've got to do is shut down your Facebook because even if you don't write on social media that you won, your name is gonna come out, and everyone is gonna be looking at pictures of you and your family. So just get it off the internet.

What about the people who appear on the local news what seems like every other week talking about their big win? Are their lives over?
Everyone is different. I tell winners, "Do you want to be in the spotlight? I can get you on the reality shows. I have reality TV calling me, and they would love a winner. If you wanna be famous, I can help with that, but if you wanna kind of go on with your life, and do it the right way, don't go on any shows." I remember when it was $1.6 billion, the family from Tennessee went on the Today Show before they even claimed the ticket. I thought that was insane.

You mentioned that what people initially want to spend their money on changes with a little more thought. How so?
Most people just want to pay off their debt, which is the correct thing to do. But sometimes, all of a sudden they say, "I wanna buy houses for me and my family," and when they meet with a financial advisor, they realize that it may not be the smartest thing to do. Maybe we wanna invest it, let it grow, and then figure out what they're gonna do. A lot of people say they're gonna quit their job immediately, and when they think about it, they don't want to quit.

But a lot of it is a mental thing. It's not easy for people to change their lives. Everybody thinks that since they have all this money they're gonna change their lives, but it's sort of a scary thing when your life as you knew it is over. So there's a lot of growing into it that you have to do.

Why do so many winners go broke?
If someone wins let's say $50 million, after taxes it's $25 million in their account. Then they buy a house, which is fine, but then someone they know says, "Listen, I have this great real estate investment opportunity, you put $10 million in, and you'll make $30 million." And they do it because they don't know how real estate works—you could lose it that way. Or you can say, "I wanna start a business that I've always dreamed of starting, what's the worst it'll cost me, $5 million?" Then you realize you have to put another million into it, and then another $3 million.

One of the services I provide for large winners is, I say your attorney should be the bad guy. So anybody who asks you for any kind of investment, tell them that you've hired this attorney, and the only way he took you on as a client is if he got the final say of where you spend it. Then I would talk to the client, and figure out what they want to do—if they wanted to spend on something, then I would let them spend on something, but I would explain that maybe it's not a great idea, and if they were just afraid to say no , then they use me as the guy who says no. It seems to be a service that a lot of the bigger winners take me up on.

Do people lose money to scams a lot?
Oh tons of times it's just someone off the street trying to rip your wallet off, but it could also be someone who has a brochure of a development he wants to build, in Florida or South Carolina, you know all they need is $6 to $10 million, money to get going, and when you really look into it, there is nothing there. A lot of these winners are not sophisticated enough to see it, so you really have to rely on the professionals.

Have you ever had a client whose life changed so much that they ended up saying, "Oh man, I wish I never won?"
I haven't had that, but I've definitely read the stories about that. Luckily people who have hired me are concerned about their lives changing, and I am able to help them with that.

This interview has been edited for clarity.

Follow Allie Conti on Twitter.

Megg, Mogg, & Owl: 'Megg's Fantasy,' Today's Comic by Simon Hanselmann

Viewing all 38002 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images