Quantcast
Channel: VICE US
Viewing all 55411 articles
Browse latest View live

This Guy Got Attacked by a Mountain Lion and Killed It with His Bare Hands

$
0
0

Imagine this: You're out for a pleasant, casual jog in the Colorado mountains, sucking down deep breaths of crisp pine-scented air, staring out at the grassy foothills, when suddenly you hear a strange sound behind you. It's getting louder, getting nearer, as if something (or someone) is closing in on you. You turn around, and there it is: A mountain lion—a fucking mountain lion—coming straight for you. It pounces at your head and bites you in the face, rips at your wrists, tears into your arms.

This is it, right? This is where most of us would probably just give up, accept the fact that there's no goddamn way we are going to come out on top here, curl up into a ball, and get mauled to death. But somehow, a jogger managed to survive just that attack on Monday, fending off a mountain lion with his bare hands until, eventually, he killed it—and no one knows exactly how he pulled it off, the Denver Post reports.

The man, who hasn't been identified, was trail running on Colorado's Horsetooth Mountain when the cat charged him from behind. It bit his face and wrists, and left him with cuts on his arms, legs, and back, according to Rebecca Ferrell, a spokeswoman for Colorado Parks and Wildlife. He "partially blocked" the mountain lion with his forearms, started brawling with it, and scrambled away. Then he went on the attack.

According to Ferrell, he managed to get on top of the cat and "suffocate" it with his bare hands. Whether that means he smothered the thing somehow or actually choked it to death, no one knows.

“It’s an amazing story. Everyone is baffled and impressed,” Ferrell told the Denver Post. "He had no weapons, no knives or trekking poles with him. How did he do it? It’s pretty rare."

Battered and bleeding, the guy hiked off the mountain and took himself to a nearby hospital, where he's currently being treated for injuries. He asked Colorado Parks and Wildlife officials to grab the gear he left at the scene of the attack, which they've since found—along with the animal he killed.

There's no word on how long the man might be in the hospital—the Denver Post described his injuries as "serious"—but Wildlife officials plan to interview him about what went down Tuesday. Hopefully, they'll get a clearer picture of how in the actual hell he managed to kill an 80-pound, fang-toothed cougar using nothing but his bare hands.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Drew Schwartz on Twitter.


Finally, a New Emoji to Mock Men

$
0
0

A version of this article originally appeared on VICE Brazil.

Great news! We’re finally getting an emoji that’s perfect for easily humiliating men when they’re being disgusting online or, you know, being men: the small dick emoji. Officially named “pinching hand,” the emoji has been approved by the Unicode Consortium for release across major platforms this year. It’s also great for illustrating capitalism’s failures by capturing the inadequate minimum wage or your lackluster salary. The possibilities are endless.

Countless men who aren’t secure in their masculinity will be affected by the new option, we know. But it was high time to replace the purple eggplant—which, as a 2015 study confirmed, everyone obviously used as a dick—for something more realistic.

Emojipedia, the emoij catalog that announces updates to the Unicode Standard, announced the launch of the small dick emoji on their blog. This batch includes a total of 230 new emojis, featuring additions such as a wheelchair, a gender inclusive couple, two service dogs, a yawning face, a flamingo, an orangutan, a hang glider, butter, garlic, and more.

Personally, we can’t wait. Come on, update!

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

This Australian Guy Used a Baby Shark as a Bong

$
0
0

This article originally appeared on VICE Australia.

You can make a bong out of pretty much anything. Gatorade bottles, obviously. Furbies. Shane Warne’s head. Recently, an Australian fisherman turned a baby bull shark into a bong. By putting a cone-piece in the dead animal’s head and a mouthpiece below its fin, Billy Brislane created what may well be the world’s first ever shark bong. Then he uploaded a video of himself taking a hit while the song “Baby Shark” played in the background. And then, predictably, he copped some searing social media backlash.

Billy, the moderator of popular Facebook group Fried Fishing, has made his name on stunts like this. His page boasts more than 25,000 followers at the time of writing, and is stacked with videos of the guy hanging crabs from his nipples and a fish from his penis. He’s essentially the Steve-O of Australia’s fishing community. But the shark bong footage seems to have really struck a nerve among viewers, prompting criticism from a rabble of online commentators and media outlets.

"Humans need to do better than this. Sharks are not trophies, toys, or bongs… Shame on this person and anyone who thinks this is even remotely okay,” wrote one commenter. Another said “You’re off your head.”

In his own defense, Billy responded to his detractors by claiming that the shark was “caught by my mate when we were fishing for mangrove jacks [red snapper] on Friday,” and “it was tobacco” in the cone-piece.

“After two nights [with the shark] left in the ice box I came up with the idea,” he said. “There is no possible way it was alive.”

Others have waded into the debate to take a similar line of argument, emphasizing the fact that the shark was already dead when Billy turned it into a bong. “I don’t get why it offends people so much,” wrote one Facebook user. “Can’t make a joke about anything anymore.”

Billy's no stranger to media attention. Just last month the New South Welshman made headlines after catching five large bull sharks in the Macleay River, near Coffs Harbour—some of which he said had stingrays, baby sharks, and dolphin in their stomachs. He's since announced that he plans to “walk away from social media” in the wake of the shark bong backlash, however, citing abusive messages and death threats, as well as his own concerns for his mental health. In a follow-up post, he claimed that the ongoing complaints have led to visits from the authorities.

“I just want to say thanks to the bunch of people who have complained to the point of the police visiting,” he wrote. “Honestly, I quit.”

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Gavin Butler on Twitter or Instagram.

Trump's State of the Union Showed Us Everything Wrong with His Presidency

$
0
0

On Tuesday night, Donald Trump trudged his way through the State of the Union, an ode to American greatness that the president delivered with the halting, half-bored delivery of an assistant vice principal doing morning announcements at a suburban high school. The annual address is overhyped and forgettable at the best of times, and Trump's oratorical skills don't lend themselves to the occasion. He doesn't do so well when he has to create great sweeping portraits of national uplift; he's more of a finger-painter who smudges together crude emotions like resentment, nostalgia, and fear. This is a guy who opened his presidency by invoking "American carnage" and whose rally repertoire includes a parody of being "presidential" and a recitation of a song about a woman being killed by a snake.

So it wasn't surprising that a speech hyped as keying on bipartisanship was instead mostly just another airing of grievances on Trump's part—another chance to complain about Democrats and praise his own right-wing agenda. The most colorful parts described in lurid detail the supposed horrors of illegal immigration and late-term abortion, both highly charged issues Trump's diminishing base and the rest of America do not tend to agree about. Infrastructure—which once upon a time was supposed to be his big bipartisan innovation, a chance to break from GOP orthodoxy—was barely mentioned. This makes sense when you consider how Trump spent the first two years of his presidency ignoring campaign promises to rebuild America's roads and bridges.

At one point, he claimed that the many investigations into his administration might harm the economy. Later, in what was apparently an ad lib, he claimed he wanted legal immigrants to come "in the largest numbers ever," an obvious falsehood given his administration's work to restrict the ability of people to come to the US legally. That wasn't even his only baldfaced lie of the evening—he also made noise about protecting Americans with preexisting health conditions when his party is actively trying to do away with those protections.

There were certainly things in his speech everyone, even left-wing Democrats, could get behind, at least in theory. In what could be interpreted as a rare moment of grace, he praised the record number of women in Congress—even though most of them are Democrats, and some of them probably won because of his presence in the White House. The administration's plan to reduce the cost of prescription drugs, unveiled before the State of the Union, could make a positive difference in some people' lives. His pledges to wipe out HIV by 2030 and include funding for more cancer research and family leave in his budget request also probably sounded pretty good to lots of people across the political spectrum.

But just as it's hard to buy Trump's talk of "unity" after he dragged the government through an ultimately pointless shutdown, there are reasons to distrust even those least objectionable of policy goals when they come out of this president's mouth. He's only asking for $500 million in cancer research funding over ten years—a relative drop in the ocean of a federal budget—and his praise for family leave hasn't included embracing actual legislation on the table for years but blocked by Republicans. And if Trump is committed to his anti-HIV crusade, why did his administration propose making drastic cuts to programs that fight the virus worldwide? (That proposal, like the rest of Trump's budget, ultimately went nowhere—which underscores the impotence of presidential budget requests in the first place.)



The State of the Union is one of those events that is important because everyone believes it's important—the speech is blasted out across the media, news outlets run fact-checks of it in real time, the inboxes of journalists are flooded by interest groups of every stripe issuing responses and rebuttals. But then the news cycle spins on and you're left with a president who hours before his big speech on bipartisanship reportedly spent a lunch snarking to TV anchors about how Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer was a “nasty son of a bitch” and former Vice President Joe Biden was "dumb."

The problem with the speech wasn't that it was dull or full of untruths or delivered badly, though it was all of those things. It wasn't better or worse than any of Trump's public speeches, which are normally Frankensteins of various right-wing policies combined with whatever he happened to see on TV that day. The problem is the expectation hovering over the whole event that this was supposed to be taken seriously. Trump's incompetent, lurching, scandal-ridden administration wasn't able to get a unified Republican government to agree on how to repeal Obamacare in 2017—how is anyone supposed to believe that he's going to be able to follow through on anything he outlined Tuesday night?

Maybe there is one way that Trump united the country during his speech: No one from either party, least of all the president himself, likely believed a word of it. And by next week we'll have forgotten the episode entirely.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Harry Cheadle on Twitter.

Women Tell Us Why They Prefer Porn with No Women

$
0
0

This article originally appeared on VICE Canada.

Each year that Pornhub puts out user data, we’re reminded that women make up a substantial 37 percent chunk of the company’s gay male porn viewers. According to 2016 findings, gay male porn is the second-most viewed category by women on the site—“lesbian" is the first but only by a small margin. It is also revealed in this study that 18 to 24-year-old women are 24 percent more likely to watch gay male porn than other age groups.

But perhaps it’s not surprising that more and more women are ditching heterosexual porn for something a little gayer? Heterosexual porn is predominately made for and by men, meaning it rarely caters to what women want to see. Without meaning to yuck anyone else’s yum, for most women, watching another lady get spermed on doesn't quite cut it. But it’s not just the content that women are finding unsatisfactory, it is the context also. Much of the heterosexual porn out there can be exploitative, dehumanizing, degrading, and display troubling gender dynamics, and even if it doesn’t, most are still inextricable from an industry that is built on monetizing all those things. So for a lot of women that makes for uncomfortable viewing.

Women consuming male-on-male erotica is far from a new phenomenon. The traditions go far back in Japanese and Chinese culture in a genre known as “boys love.” This genre of fiction can take the form of manga comics, film, literature, internet forums, and TV series and generally depicts androgynous boys being gay together. It has a huge following and is primarily written by and marketed toward young women. The same can be seen in modern fan fiction where male-on-male slash pairings are by far the most common, and again predominantly written and read by young women.

So not only are women watching guys bang they’re also reading about it too. I was curious to find out what exactly women are looking for and finding in gay guy sex, so I reached out to some women, straight and queer, who might be able to shine a light on this guy-on-guy phenomena.

Lou, 26

VICE: Hey Lou, so what made you move away from heterosexual or lesbian porn in favor of guy-on-guy action?
Lou: A lot of things to be honest. I first found myself moving away from lesbian porn because it felt very male-gazey. It largely didn’t feel created for women. My main reason though was an ethical choice. Though the industry does often feature empowered women who have chosen to be there, more often than not there is some kind of coercion. As I have gotten older, this knowledge has become inextricable from the porn-watching experience.

And what is it that you like about guy on guy porn?
I am very queer and feel like queer male sex is some of the queerest porn available because there are more genuinely queer male performers than female in the industry. Seeing immaculately manicured women performing queer sex, visibly not enjoying it, just isn’t as hot as seeing something really gay to me. I’m also fascinated by situations that I could never really be in and as a cis femme, there is nothing about seeing two men fucking that I can connect with so it’s totally escapist.

What about escapism is important to you?
I find it hard to derive joy from anything that could invoke guilt so keeping it fantastical and escapist allows me to enjoy something without confronting some of the emotional challenges that come with actual sex.

So you feel more comfortable watching two guys?
Yes. Although this sounds counter-feminist in some ways, I don't feel the same obligation or protectiveness over men, who typically have more agency in these sexual circumstances than women. Viewing men being dominated in porn doesn’t feel like a painful reflection of society, in a way that it does for women for me. So I can enjoy watching the dom/sub dynamic, without feeling the worry about what is happening to the woman outside of the film to lead her to this position and if she is really choosing this.

Now you only watch dudes, what don’t you miss about other forms of porn?
Young women or women of very slight build being physically dominated by a man, anything that involves women being extremely degraded or physically hurt by men, and anything that features long fingernails going anywhere near vaginas.

Clare, 29

VICE: Hey Clare, so tell me what’s wrong with hetero porn?
Clare: A lot of hetero porn doesn’t do it for me because it’s just focused on the man’s pleasure and to me isn’t realistic. It’s so formulaic; get a blowjob, fuck the woman then do anal usually. I find some really unrealistic stuff uncomfortable, like the women touching themselves while they have giant fake nails on.

So you moved onto the gay male variety?
Yes, I like bear porn, I think I’m into the whole subversion of traditional gender roles. I mainly like fantasy porn that’s like one ‘straight’ guy, or straight guys ‘experimenting,’ and I like dick so I’ll watch gay porn to look at penises!

All about the cock?
Oh yes, I also like seeing how men give head to see if I can pick up any tips!

Sensible! And how did you get into it?
I’ve always had mmf threesome fantasies. I think I got into it when I was in a phase of threesome porn and I got into bisexual mmf threesome porn and realized I enjoyed watching the men doing sexual things to each other more than when they included the woman!

Alexandra, 20

VICE: So Alexandra, you’re into guy-on-guy fanfiction, when did you start reading it?
Alexandra: I probably started reading slash at around 13 or 14.

What was more appealing to you about m/m fanfic?
I used to read f/m a lot, but I think I enjoyed the ways in which m/m, and to a smaller extent f/f was presented. I'd seen a lot of romcoms with straight couples and I hadn't seen any with queer couples. It was refreshing to read about normalized queer couples.

What problems does m/m fic overcome that you might find uncomfortable in other pairings?
I think in certain contexts, I find m/m safer than straight pairings. I’m not comfortable worrying about unwanted pregnancy or the second class status of women in fic. With male pairings, I knew both characters could have agency without it being historically inaccurate. There's also a point about women not wanting to put female bodies in a dangerous situation, even fictionally

Why do you think it’s predominantly women who read and write m/m fic?
I definitely think that it has a lot to do with historical context. Queer female relationships were never explicitly illegal in Canada or America, likely because we have always been heavily sexualized and not seen as valid, or as revolutionary as male queer relationships. It's still hard to discuss queer women without sexualizing them. So as teenagers and young adults, I think a lot of slash writers don't want to delve into that difficulty. Especially when the much easier and more dramatic queer male narrative is right there.

So you find reading about two guys hot, do you think this is different from a man finding girl-on-girl action hot?
Well, in essence, I don't think it is, but the latter comes from a long tradition of using female sexuality and appropriating it for men. Not just in consumption but very much in production and public perception. There definitely are issues with teenage girls using male homosexuality for themselves, but that's very different than adult men building industries around it.

And do you worry it might be appropriating gay male culture at all?
There's the potential for that element, but if you continue too far down that path writers wouldn't be able to write about anything they haven't experienced! I think it all comes down to respect and research.

Charlotte, 26

VICE: Hi Charlotte, so why does guy on guy porn stand out to you?
Charlotte: Sometimes I find lesbian porn uncomfortable because it seems really fake to me, whereas gay porn, because I’m not a gay man, I probably can’t tell if it’s fake.

What is it about gay male porn that you prefer over other kinds of porn?
I like the power dynamic. I almost feel like the people in it are safer, or it’s more consensual. Even though there’s no logical basis for this.

When you’re watching, do you imagine yourself as part of the scene or as separate to it?
Definitely, separate to it, and it’s this separation that I like. It makes it more taboo and exciting to watch because it’s so separate from anything I’ve ever experienced.

Do you think the way you watch guy-on-guy porn is at all similar to how a straight guy might consume girl-on-girl porn?
No, I don't think so. I'm not straight so I’m not just watching two guys fucking because I want to see two guys together untainted by a girl being there, which I think is sometimes how straight guys watching girl-on-girl view it. I guess a lot of men watch lesbian porn and imagine themselves as part of it, which I definitely don’t do with guy on guy stuff.

How did you realize it was something you enjoyed?
I tried it just to see what it was like and ended up liking it a lot. But way before that I used to YouTube ‘emo boys kissing’ which was a gateway I think.

Cute! Why did you do that?
Again it was something exciting and voyeuristic.

Rosie, 33

VICE: Hello Rosie, so what is it about gay male porn that you prefer over other kinds of porn?
Rosie: It doesn't make me feel uncomfortable in the same way heterosexual porn does. I find there’s something more sensual about watching two men. It’s just uncomplicated fucking.

What is uncomplicated about it?
I think there are problematic power dynamics at play in heterosexual porn that I can find uncomfortable. With two guys it seems far more equal.

What specifically about watching two guys fuck gets you going?
I think there's something liberating watching it, and imagining myself as a guy. It’s also liberating to distance my sexual fantasies from my own body. Any insecurities or discomfort or personal preference to do with my own body has no relevance and that’s nice for me.

So you don’t enjoy watching women in porn scenes at all?
Not really, I feel protective of the women in scenes, and feel almost guilty watching them. With gay guys I don't have that because it’s so far removed from a straight male gaze, like it’s the only porn out there that isn’t for them, so I don't have to worry about being complicit.

Do you feel heterosexual porn is too designed for straight men?
Of course! I like watching gay male porn because it focuses on the male body. I'm a straight woman, I love the naked body of a man. I love watching guys cum, even better if I get to watch two guys cum at once. I think any porn that focuses on men as the sex objects over women is more favorable for me, and it doesn't make me feel bad or uncomfortable.

Will you ever go back to watching heterosexual porn?
I don’t see that happening. The more cocks the better!

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Laura Bell on Twitter.

Trump's Very Bad State of the Union Inspired Some Very Good Memes

$
0
0

Trump's 2019 State of the Union was an interminable trudge through his usual amalgam of weird tangents and baseless immigration claims, peppered with a couple flat, unconvincing calls for unity. It mostly just went to show why the State of the Union sorely needs to be put out of its misery, but thankfully, there was at least one silver lining from the night—namely, that it inspired some very good memes.

The moment Nancy Pelosi pointedly clapped at Trump's bullshit was, without question, the greatest part of the evening, and it also made for an equally strong meme:

But Pelosi wasn't the only one to get the meme treatment. Beloved sitcom bit player Buzz Aldrin did, too:

And so did a freakishly-bearded Ted Cruz:

Even Trump's wonky tie managed to inspire a few solid jokes:

And of course, last but certainly not least, was Joshua Trump—the sixth-grader who was invited to the State of the Union after apparently getting bullied about his name at school. Joshua already proved himself to be a wellspring of meme fodder long before he climbed the steps of the US Capitol on Tuesday night:

But by god, he definitely delivered during the speech itself—by capturing exactly how the entire country felt about the State of the Union in one image.

We're with you, Joshua. You are not your name, bullies are just cowards, and when your parents or whoever pressure you to go sit and watch a human apricot prattle on and on, there's only one suitable response: Just fall asleep. The 2019 State of the Union was a night best appreciated unconscious.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Here's Why Some People Are Now Paying More Under Trump's Tax 'Cut'

$
0
0

One of the many internet subcultures to pop up in the Trump era is the schadenfreude-laden discourse around Trump voters who now regret their choice, often after ignoring the warnings of scores of friends and family. Though typically found on the “Trumpgrets” subreddit, one of these public shamings recently went vira in the form of a Monday tweet collecting screenshots of supposed Trump voters shocked to learn they’d be paying more in taxes, thanks to the president’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

That bill, though built around a tax cut that mainly benefited the wealthy and corporations, contained a lot of other provisions that may have not been obvious to the general public at the time. Some polls have shown that voters don't much like the tax bill (though Republican donors certainly do), and the cuts have largely not trickled down to workers.

But did it also raise taxes on a significant number of Americans? To help make sense of this, VICE turned to Vanessa Williamson, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institute:

VICE: Under what circumstances might someone be paying more this year?
Vanessa Williamson: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, on average, cut taxes for all income groups, especially for very high earners. But a certain percentage of households at all income levels were likely to see a tax increase. Overall, our estimates at the Tax Policy Center were that about 5 percent of taxpayers would see an average federal tax increase of about $28,000, and that is clearly happening.

For instance, the people in the middle quintile of earners, something like 90 percent of them saw a tax cut under the TCJA, and about 7 percent saw a tax increase of about $900 on average. But people in the quintile below that, about 5 percent of them saw a tax increase. And in the quintile above [the middle], about 7 percent saw an increase too. So, it's not just earners at a particular income level that saw that will see a tax increase this year. It's something that a small percentage of people at all income levels will have seen.

What are some specific factors that could cause these individuals to experience this increase?
There are a couple of major provisions that will have mattered. Most obviously, the SALT deduction—the amount of your state and local taxes that you can deduct from your federal income taxes—is now capped at $10,000. So, for people who pay a lot of state and local taxes, that is going to cost them money. It was obviously an issue in certain electoral districts, particularly purple districts in blue states, places like California and New Jersey, New York. If you're a high earner in those states, you make enough money that you pay a lot in taxes at the state level and now you also make enough money that itemizing your federal return makes sense. So, if you're in that category, you may have a lost out on the TCJA.

The home mortgage interest deduction was also capped, although I'm not sure how much of those effects should really be felt at this point since it hasn't been very long. There was a change for alimony. I think you probably would have had to get a divorced in the last two months for it to matter. But still, it is a change.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo recently attributed a dip in state revenue to the changed tax policy and claimed that the wealthier taxpayers of those states are changing home addresses or moving to avoid paying at the new rates. Do you think there’s merit to those claims, and do you believe the TCJA was designed in part to hurt blue states?
Was it a political consideration that the people they were going to be raising taxes on were wealthy people in blue states and therefore more likely to be Democrats? I mean, we certainly heard all throughout the process that that was a consideration. Now, the idea that rich people move when taxes go up—that is simply not borne out by the facts, frankly. If you think about where very, very rich people are, they're in places like New York and California. Sometimes they move to Florida when they retire. But, beyond that, there has been very comprehensive research looking at whether wealthy people move because tax rates are high and the canonical work on this is literally called The Myth of Millionaire Tax Flight .

While it may have been a political consideration that capping the state and local tax deduction was basically aimed at blue states, it's very unlikely to have resulted in many wealthy people moving. These are typically older people who are invested in their communities. As a rule, it's not a population that moves around nearly as much as, for instance, younger people who have far less resources on average.


Were there major misconceptions that voters had about the TCJA and how it would affect them?
One thing that struck me is that rank-and-file Republican support for the TCJA was considerably weaker than you might anticipate given that it was the signature legislative achievement of the Republican Congress. A number of polls suggested that Republicans recognized that this bill was predominantly aimed at cutting taxes for extremely wealthy people and did not therefore personally expect to benefit very much from the law.

You see the fact that it wasn't a real political winner in the strategic choices made by Republican legislators not to really run in 2018 on the legislation. The only place you really saw the TCJA as a prominent component of the political campaign in the fall was in those places where the SALT deductions were controversial.

Do you anticipate further “unforeseen” consequences or changes for taxpayers due to this act?
The law was written so quickly that there are any number of loopholes and errors that are continuing to be uncovered. The fact that some low, moderate, middle, and upper-middle taxpayers were going to see a tax increase is something new that was all the models of the legislation would have predicted.

Will any of this actually change how people will vote?
The idea that small changes in people's individual taxes would change the voting behavior of any substantial number of voters is highly unlikely. Partisanship is very, very strong in this country and, as a rule, Americans engage care a lot about the economy when they think about who they vote for president, for instance. But they are what social scientist call sociotropic. That is to say they are focused on the overall state of the economy as opposed to their own pocketbooks. So, I'm not saying, of course, that there were no people who have begun to look at their tax responsibilities for the year and are upset to discover that their taxes have gone up and therefore will vote differently, but it is not typically how political scientists think about how voting decisions are made.

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and length.

Follow Justin Caffier on Twitter.

Fifty Years Later, Russia Is Still Trying to Figure Out What Killed These Hikers

$
0
0

This article originally appeared on VICE Canada.

In the deep cold of a northern Soviet Union February in 1959, nine hikers made camp for the night under the peak in the Ural Mountains known as Kholat Syakhl, the Dead Mountain.

The group were residing in a pass they recently discovered named after their leader, Igor Dyatlov. But they weren’t supposed to be there. The eight men and two women ended up in this particular pass due to losing their direction in bad conditions—they were about a week into their 16-day expedition, and about 10 kilometers [6 miles] outside of their turnaround point.

They would never make it through the night. At the end of that cold night on Kholat Syakhl, all nine hikers would be dead—what caused their deaths remains one of the most popular mysteries of the modern era.

And now, Russian police have finally reopened the case—known colloquially as the “Dyatlov Pass incident.” The announcement came last week from the Russian prosecutor general's office who have vowed to finally put all the theories about the hikers' deaths to rest.

1549480471288-Foto_chlenov_turgruppy_Igorya_Dyatlova
The tomb for the dead. Photo via Wikimedia Commons.

"All of [the deaths] are somehow connected with natural phenomena," Alexander Kurennoi, a spokesperson for Russia’s prosecutor, said in a video of the announcement. The Russians say that a group of expert investigators and what have you will be involved in this new investigation. While it’s been 60 years since the bodies with the ever so strange positions and injuries were found, Kurennoi said people are still hungry for answers.

"Relatives, the media, and the public still ask prosecutors to determine the truth and don't hide their suspicions that something was hidden from them.”

In order to understand why the mystery of what’s known as the “Dyatlov Pass incident” has been able to survive for 60 years, you needn’t look further than the bodies. The entire expedition—minus one hiker who left earlier because of heart problems—died over the same night.

While the route was known as an exceptionally hard one, the group were experienced hikers and camping out on the pass shouldn't have proved fatal to them. Therefore, when they didn’t return as expected on February 20, a search party went out looking for them.

A little under a week after setting off, the party found the tent the group had set—it had been abandoned and was sliced open from the inside. While the camp was deserted, the hikers had left all their belongings and shoes. They seemingly left in a damn hurry, leaving behind eight sets of footprints, some of them in socks, some barefoot, others wearing just one shoe. The camp baffled the search party.

It was a few days later when they found the bodies.

The first of the bodies—those of Yuri Doroshenko and Yuri Krivonischenko—were found about a mile from the camp, they were surrounding a small fire under a lone pine tree. Both were stripped to their underwear. It looked like someone had climbed the tree to search for something in the distance. Near this tree, the search party found the bodies of Rustem Slobodin, Zinaida Kolmogorova, and the group’s leader Igor Dyatlov—it was noted these three appeared to perish in attempts to make their way back to the camp.

The last four wouldn’t be found until the snow melted two months later—eventually turning up 75 meters [246 feet] away from the pine tree in a ravine covered in snow. The four who died here were actually dressed for the weather—i.e. not in their underwear.

Initially, no one thought too, too much of the incident—other than it was an expedition that went bad—as the cause of death for the first five found was to be hypothermia. However, the cause of death for ones that turned up after the snow melted was another story. Three of them were found to have suffered severe injuries. One, Lyudmila Dubinina, was found with no eyes and no tongue. Dubinina and Semyon Zolotaryov were found to have major chest fractures, while Nikolai Thibeaux-Brignolles had extensive skull damage—their injuries were likened to that one would suffer in a major car accident. Oddly though, while there was extensive damage, it was reported that there were no external injuries dealt to the bodies—it was like they were crushed by something.

1549480682753-Screen-Shot-2019-02-06-at-20647-PM
Yudin hugging Dubinina prior to leaving the expedition. Photo via Wikimedia Commons.

On top of the bodies, the amount of weird things have been reported regarding these deaths—some reasonable: trace amounts of radiation on clothes, their bodies were a strange tan color, the eyes and tongue were missing because Dubinina was found in a stream. Some note seeing orange orbs around the mountain when the hikers were on it, their bodies were prematurely aged, etc—paired with how the Soviets handled it (the deaths were blamed on "spontaneous power of nature" and the case was quickly shuttered) caused many, to this day, to speculate about what actually caused it.

An avalanche? UFOs? Hypothermia driving the crew to madness? A big ol’ stumblin’ Yeti? Murdered out by an Indigenous tribe who considered the mountain sacred? Just type in Dyatlov Pass incident into YouTube or where ever you get your conspiracies these days, and prepare your ass. A shit ton of books, documentaries, teams, and what have you have taken time to look into this theory with no one ever definitely being able to say what actually occurred.

One persistent theory is that it was caused by Soviet weapons testing. These theories range almost as widely as the ones listed above. Some have speculated that they stumbled upon a bombing test ground and were running down the mountain to escape the bombardament. Others claim that the army was testing radiological weapons and that’s what caused the weird injuries and the feelings of warmth which led the hikers to stripping.

One explanation, coming from the best-selling book Dead Mountain, is that the wind that whips through Kholat Syakhl in such a way it produces a sound that can cause panic attacks in humans. This caused the hikers to bolt from their tent, and sprint away down the mountain. The injuries to the three bodies were thusly acquired by them falling down the ravines.

Now, hopefully, we’ll get our official answer.

The prosecutor's office said they will be flying investigators out to the office to investigate the deaths. Now you would think they would have their hands full—even the Russians acknowledge there are about 75 theories surrounding the deaths—however, they’re only going to look into three explanations. The office has officially written off any criminal explanation to the deaths, with Kurennoi saying “there is not a single proof, even an indirect one, to favor this (criminal) version. It was either an avalanche, a snow slab, or a hurricane."

I’m not going to lie, at least to me, blaming the deaths on “either an avalanche, a snow slab, or a hurricane” isn’t too far removed from the "spontaneous power of nature.”

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Mack Lamoureux on Twitter.


'Alien Body Two: Identity Crisis,' Today's Comic by Valentine Gallardo

'I Love Velvet': All the Weirdest Lines from Spicer’s Allegedly Wasted SOTU Interview

$
0
0

Trump's garbage-ass State of the Union was an event best enjoyed unconscious, but the whole thing left at least one person in high spirits: former White House press secretary Sean Spicer. He rolled into Trump International Hotel in DC Tuesday night for a post-SOTU interview with Blaze TV's Eric Bolling and, boy oh boy, was he having fun. Maybe too much fun.

Spicer's stumbling, red-faced interview unleashed a wave of speculation that the guy was completely plastered during the talk.

There's reason to believe it might be true: He's slurring his speech, tripping over his words, and has the unsteady gaze of someone's shit-faced uncle. Could Spicer actually have been fully blotto? Did he spend the night playing some kind of SOTU drinking game where he downed a shot every time Trump said "criminal aliens?" Or was he just blitzed as fuck off the clean high of patriotism? The world may never know if he was actually hammered, but we do know one thing for sure—he said some goofy-ass shit.

So in honor of Spicer's allegedly wasted interview, here's a rundown of his weirdest and most memorable lines of the night.

"Katrina offered some real serious and insightful insights into what the president said tonight."

Spicer is referring to Katrina Pierson, the onetime Trump campaign aide who had spoken to the Blaze earlier in the night and, uh, apparently shared some very insightful insights. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for Spicer. He mostly just bellowed stuff like this:

"I look like a model."

"I need velvet. I love velvet. It feels good."

"Just stop! Like, listen to me... OK! Don't give me the two-finger... Ah!"

Sadly, the camera punches into a tight shot of Spicer right when he blurts this one out, so it's unclear what, exactly, Bolling was doing with his fingers. Do we even want to know?

"Here's my point!"

Spicer continually shouted this throughout the interview, though unfortunately, he never quite managed to make one. He did come close once:

"But, but, but hold on—no, but here's the point—you should love me! Well, you should. What are you talkin' about?"

But, but, but hold on yourself, Spicer—what are you talkin' about?

"Look it, that's good! I never knew that Target had good clothes like that."

This one was apparently a dig at Bolling's suit, the sleeve of which Spicer rubs vigorously in the clip. Judging by Bolling's reaction, the burn definitely landed: After Spicer lets out another unhinged "TARGET!" at the top of his lungs, Bolling grumbles, "Armani!"

"[Trump] said, 'I want you to come back to the White House,' and I told him, I said very clearly, 'Mr. President, I love you, I love this White House, but you're never getting me back.'"

And why, you ask, wouldn't Spicer take Trump up on a job offer? The answer is clear: He's having too much fun on his own.

"I'm havin' a fun time. I went down and talked to Glenn, I've talked to you a bunch. I have a fun time!"

But what, exactly, does a "fun time" entail for a man like Sean Spicer?

"Free drinks at the hotel!"

Ah, there we go. Mystery solved.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Phones Are Trash

$
0
0

This is FEEL IT, a weekly soft landing, a way out, some relief, an offering. It's also my fourth column here, after Girl News and then Obseshes and also Li’l Thinks (my VICE ring was made out of pastel gummy candy and then dipped in gold eyeshadow glitter). Unlike the others, this column is semi-explicitly about me telling you what to do, self-help-ily, although I definitely tried to in the other ones, sometimes.

First up: managing life with a phone, these hard and greasy familiar spirits that give and take so much in the lives and brains of tenderhearted sweeties like you and me. Like: this thing was happening where I’d start to fall asleep and instead of the loose images and fantasies I used to see, this almost-dreamy collabo of my actual life and my semi-realized fears and desires, there was a quickly rotating series of images, like a cartoon flip book, or actually, like Instagram. So I took almost every app off my phone and now just do email on my computers, like a 1990s business lady (also email is disgusting and needs to get the fuck away from me!) AND use my phone for daily horoscopes and music and Instastories about dogs and my personalized reality-TV favorites only.

INATTENTION

The first thing to do here is consider the structural problem that results in collective submission to an object, sure, but a close second, and maybe more important for practical, results-oriented kiddos like me, is to consider the ooze of inattention—a bioluminescent ooze, but an ooze nonetheless—that follows submission to a phone.

Seems like “inattention” should be the lack of something, but it’s not, it’s its own gross thing, a frantic occupation of a void that feels good, like so so so good, as long as you’re spinning in it, the same function as weaponized carbs, to take a for-instance from my own shitty day. (Cereal!!!)

Attention is the rarest commodity, the only thing anyone wants from us, the only thing we have to give. (Like: love is attention; likes are attention.) And the first thing our late-stage phone culture does, even before it really digs into the work of aggressively disassembling our vision and fingies, is scramble attention so completely that I’m not convinced we really remember what’s missing. When anyone talks about what they’ve lost in their surrender to technology, they seem bewildered by it, but not like they’re solving it. “I get so distracted when I’m reading, I can’t read more than a page before I pick up my phone” they say, but then it kind of ends there, like, “YEP, so that’s it!” So: okay????? Like, YES AND?

Where I really care about this is how it relates to the deep-self, and to feeling good and feeling better. You just can’t be really nice to yourself, or regard yourself, or even become aware of what you think and want and what you need, if you’re never quiet, alone, or unoccupied, if you’re always receiving and managing, even passively, live bright neon-white energy and acres of data. If we can agree that millennial burnout is real, and realer still for people without the hysterical privilege that “millennial” implies, can we also shake on the idea that opting in to peeing and sleeping and eating with your phone is a kind of self-harm?

THE MEARCHY

Or, “Me-Archy”? Yeah, “neither,” I know, I know, I know. Let’s never have to say it out loud but we’ll just know it and think it.

So okay, stay with me, I’m still working this out: the problem with us and our phones is actually an outdated problem, one that made sense like five or even ten years ago, whenever we were still grinding ourselves into powders, fine pink and blue and silver dusts, powered by disgust and shame turned inward. Remember!? This is why even though “self-care” is corny, in phrasing and meaning, I still like it, because it marks something that was collectively identified as this urgent thing to do.

The vibe, before, was about just… taking it, when we were still in the dirt before the lotus bloomed, or blossomed, or whatever moondancing flowers do. When I think of me five years ago (aww!), or, when I accidentally see my old emails and chats and stuff, it’s just these high tides of rage and chaos and sadness. Overusing tech because I was/we were scavenging for meaning and relief, and still finding our people and our online atmospheres, made some sense, then.

But then, you know, all at once the world assploded and a normal human attention span became shrapnel (thanks in part to NEWS, yer welks) and the idea of assuming responsibility for our own care and pleasure became very suddenly essential, and we started to create as much of our own experience as possible, in mini-me-archies, lit by our feelings, the slush-puppy squish-stuff. Safety, softness, even boundaries, just aren’t coming from anywhere else, so here we are, doing it. So, the phone addiction grabby-baby stuff just isn’t for now, you know? We’re over it. Should be.
I have been after this so intensely for a while now that yesterday I commanded, just to myself and all stern, “Gentle!” It was cute.

FEELSPACE

As a feelspace, phones aren’t even good: the “touch” experience is hard, unyielding (unless you have an old Blackberry in which case, yuuuuuh), just a lot of tappa tappa tappa with no give, no exchange, no transformation. Isn’t that so unsettling? Like, everything else you do by touching has to give you something: even the click of a key on a laptop bounces back, is a compact. The real stuff is, like, touching skin or slicing a radish or pulling on a sweater or rubbing split ends or skimming the smooth grain of paper. Phones, though: yug!

(It’s unreal that we have invited them into some of the safest and softest and most private rituals, like falling asleep and waking up and meditating, when there are still alarm clocks. I have a Philips Wake-up Light and highly rec, but recognize the counter-intuition of buying more devices in order to defeat your devices.)

Phones chose to be sentient but not to be good. Mine turns off when it’s cold. I live in Toronto and use an iPhone 6 and these things are my own fault.

GERMS

My Secret Agent Lover Man, the person I entrust with my self and truth and tears and needs and constant proximity and earthly future, occasionally puts his phone in his mouth when his hands are full of dog and keys and coffee and hoodie and whatever other boy-ephemera he deals with and you know I love him but does this also make me want to barf myself inside out? Yuh.

Think about how gross your phone is. So gross! That we aren’t ritualistically wiping off their crusts like twice a day is an important detail that the simulation got wrong.

MANNERS

Phones engender bad manners. If you are touching a phone in front of someone else, it’s rude. You’re being rude.

I had this good friend and then roommate and then ex-friend and ex-roommate who was baffling in that way particular to under-30 geniuses, but one thing he did continues to exist in my everywhere-imagination with perfect clarity: he never took out his phone, just never used it in front of definitely me and I think our other friends, too, and—I’M PRETTY SURE—he did it so we wouldn’t (theoretically) know he had one, and therefore couldn’t contact him, unless he was the one initiating. So, if I’m right, this is a way to be really observant and polite through a profound expression of dickishness, and I find that to be really something.

PLEASURE

The psychic damage of violence and porn as everyday essentials, a demented Target aisle of the mind, has also consumed aspiration, and maybe some parts of pleasure. Instagram has desensitized us—okay there is no “us,” here, I know, but I’m definitely implicating you guilty fux, too—to wealth, taste and beauty to such an extent that I can only get it up for someone’s actual bank statement, or equivalent life evidence. Right? Or whatever else is for-real, for real.

So here I am, desiring of less entertainment and more pleasure. When I want to get really fucked up, and way-deep into emptiness, away-ness, silence, and removal from not only the un-real but from its mediation, from both attention and decisions about attention, I do, adorably, what I did when I was a little kid, before I had a phone: nothing.

The pleasure, and the care, comes from returning to the self, to alone-ness, and letting the phone fall out of your hand and into a dark recess. (For me: the designated “junk drawer” in the kitchen where it lives among decommissioned lip balms and pens.) It usually takes an hour or more for my left hand to stop clawing for it. A day later, even, I’m free.

Follow Kate on Twitter @KateCarraway and on Instagram @KateCarraway.

Satanists Are the Heroes of a New Sundance Documentary

$
0
0

On a recent Saturday night, while Sundance attendees partied in Park City, a cabal of Satanists gathered miles away in a small theater in Salt Lake City for a midnight ceremony of sorts. As the clock struck 12, the lights dimmed and the acolytes began to cheer in anticipation of what was to come. There were no goats slaughtered or crucifixes defiled or any of the other pop culture clichés that have been tacked onto Satanists over the years. The crowd was there to watch and celebrate the silver screen debut of their young, rapidly growing non-theistic religious movement, The Satanic Temple (TST), at a special screening organized by Sundance.

To be distributed by Magnolia pictures, Hail Satan? highlights the headline-grabbing political activists’ rise to prominence since their founding in 2013 and seeks to present their audacious-yet-noble mission to a wider audience.

TST's prime directive is maintaining that America is a pluralistic nation: one where many cultures, religions, and ways of life should coexist harmoniously without the largest of those groups attempting to dominate or exert their will over the others. The majority of this fight has been spent combating the slow creep of America’s Christian far right into local, state, and federal government. Using stunt activism where they judo-throw most people’s inherent revulsion toward Satan right back at them, TST highlights why folding the Abrahamic God into government proceedings establishes a bad precedent.

Over their five years in operation, the group has made national headlines with their “pink mass” to turn Fred Phelps’s deceased mom gay, various litter clean-up initiatives, and, most notably, their (copyrighted) Baphomet statue created to counterbalance any ten commandments monuments erected on public property. These and other campaigns feature heavily in the doc, and though filmmaker Penny Lane, whose past documentaries include Our Nixon and Nuts!, says she was already familiar with and liked the group, her opinion and understanding of TST changed dramatically over the course of the project.

“There were so many points of discovery for me along the way. First realizing that they weren't pretending to be Satanists, but were actually Satanists," Lane, who describes herself as "living in a “secular atheist bubble,” told VICE.

"Then realizing that I actually had no idea what it meant to be a Satanist and that my ideas were largely wrong. And then realizing how many people were really involved with this movement and how personally meaningful it was to them, beyond any sort of trolling content, but as like any other religion,” she added.

As Lane learned while making Hail Satan?, TST members are not affiliated with the Anton LaVey Church of Satan, nor do they worship or believe in the classic horns and pitchfork devil. Their site's FAQ page explains that "to embrace the name Satan is to embrace rational inquiry removed from supernaturalism and archaic tradition-based superstitions." These non-theocratic core beliefs are likely to have contributed to TST's numbers growing from a handful of friends to over 50,000 global members, according to the film.

Though she doesn’t expect many from the Christian nationalist camp to see her film (save for a few hate watches), Lane insists she isn’t trying to recruit her less dogmatic audiences to Satanic worship either.

“By no means do I expect the audience to walk into the film open to any of these ideas,” said Lane. “The film asks you to do a lot of intellectual work in 90 minutes to overturn about ten deeply held and incorrect assumptions about reality. If all you get from the film is learning that ‘under God’ was added to the pledge of allegiance in the 1950s, that's cool!”


Related Post


Lucien Greaves, co-founder and spokesperson for The Satanic Temple tells VICE that he was initially reluctant to agree to a feature film about his movement. But after attending a screening of Lane’s previous documentary, NUTS! , about a Depression-era man who transplanted goat testicles into humans, he felt he’d finally found a suitable filmmaker to tell TST’s story, especially after a post-screening Q&A where she fielded questions about topics like anti-vaxxing and the archaic medical practices seen in NUTS! (goat testicle transplants were apparently believed to boost sex drive) with what he saw as a healthy skepticism.

"I know there's this image we have of being kind of press hungry, but people would be amazed if they realize how much press we turned down,” said Greaves. “We had gotten a lot of pitches for people wanting to do documentaries. We've gotten pitches for people wanting us to be on daytime talk shows, even gotten regular pitches for people wanting to put together reality type shows. To all of that we say no.”

Greaves seems pleased with his decision to open up to Lane, and hopes that even those who walk away from the film still put off by the Satanic Temple can't deny that their messaging has "resonated with a large population in a short time, which indicates a real need for what we're doing.” And they seem to be doing a lot. Beyond their Ten Commandments statue victories, they've helped score a win for reproductive rights in Missouri, have stewardship over a Santa Cruz beach for a year, and have launched a "Grey Faction" initiative that seeks to highlight instances of the ongoing "Satanic Panic" of the 80s as well as expose what they deem to be harmful pseudoscientific mental healthcare practices.

In the meantime, as buzz for the festival favorite grows, the spokesperson so used to adversarial press is learning to contend with an “unusually positive” side of fame.

“These executive types were coming up to me at Sundance and saying ‘you realize you're in a whole new level of exposure and things are going to be different now,’” said Greaves of his sudden shift from despised to lauded figure. “I’m still not used to walking into an interview where the interviewer says ‘I think what you’re doing is very uplifting and brave.’”

Sign up for our newsletter
to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Justin Caffier on Twitter.

Government Workers Are Still Waiting on Payouts from the 2013 Shutdown

$
0
0

This most recent government shutdown left many federal employees working without pay for 34 days, leading to multiple lawsuits filed on behalf of workers trying to get damages. In a recent piece for VICE, journalist Will Greenberg explains that the lawyers in these cases expect smooth sailing. That's because the exact same lawyers brought the exact same case after the 2013 shutdown—which lasted for 16 days—and won. On this episode of The VICE Guide To Right Now Podcast, we talk to Greenberg for more on the story.

You can catch The VICE Guide to Right Now Podcast on Acast, Google Play, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts. And sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Artist Jan Hakon Erichsen Explains His Balloon Popping/Pasta Breaking Instagram Videos

$
0
0

Oddly satisfyingInstagram videos fall into a helluvalotta niches. Tap over to your explore page and you’ll no doubt find *inhale* soap cutting, sand smushing, slime handling, paint mixing, calligraphy writing, industrial machine-ing, hypnotic CG noodling, and whatever the hell this is.

That’s a lot to sort through, but I’ll add one more instantly gratifying craft to the mix—the art of balloon and pasta destruction, of which Norwegian visual artist Jan Hakon Erichsen is Instagram dot com’s foremost purveyor.

As Erichsen notes in his Insta bio, “You should really, really, not try this at home.”

The Oslo-based artist has only been posting bite-sized clips of his ruinous creations to Instagram for just a little over a year, but has already racked up an impressive online following. Though he also uploads compilations of these “Destruction Diaries” to YouTube, the project certainly feels Instagram-first, and unsurprisingly that’s where it has really taken off—his new posts almost always garner six digit view counts on the platform.

Besides people @’ing their friends over and over again in the comments, Instagram users often ponder some version of “WTF is this?” on Erichsen’s posts. So, I hit up the dude and asked just that, albeit phrased a bit more professionally (maybe).

As opposed to some sort of grand pronouncement about the world or life or love or whatever, the artist told me via email that the genesis of the videos was basically boredom and spare materials.

“I had just finished a longer time consuming art project and just wanted to make something short and funny for my own amusement,” he said. “I just took some parts I had lying around my studio and decided to make a contraption to destroy something. I filmed it with my phone and decided to share it with a few friends on Instagram and it has just escalated from there.”

And thus, begun, the spaghetti war, has.

Though, again, I do not recommend attempting anything like this at home, Erichsen told me he “hasn’t ever gotten badly hurt” in the making of his art, “only some scratches and bruises.”

“I try not to rush into things and always test the more dangerous contraptions thoroughly before filming,” he said. “I’m more scared that other people will get hurt trying out my stunts, I sort of know what I’m doing.”

The bulk of the knives, he says, were bought at a dollar store, with the rest being more “typical carpenter knives.”

“The knives obviously don’t really need to be [too] sharp to pop [balloons], but most of them are quite sharp anyway,” he adds.

Personally, I think the secret sauce to these often viral vids is the potent mix of DIY kinetic art mixed with some Japanese mascot-esque tomfoolery (Erichsen uploads his failed experiments as well as his successes, and often shows moments of flailing before a successful balloon pop or pasta smash). Also, it doesn’t hurt that there are often sharp things (knives) involved in the clips, an often critical component to #oddlysatisfying art.

“If people only see the humor in the videos that is fine by me,” he said “Hopefully some of my more dedicated followers will see that it is more to it than just laughs, but it is by no means necessary to understand my references to enjoy my work.”

You can follow Jan Hakon Erichsen on Instagram here.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Peter Slattery on Twitter.

Some Workers Can Now Trade Vacation Time for Student Loan Relief

$
0
0

When CNBC reported last May that hundreds of businesses were offering to help pay down their employees' student loans, it seemed like a positive development, a way for debt-saddled workers to get some relief. After all, health insurance became a common benefit for businesses to give workers during World War II, when wage controls and other government rules incentivized bosses to provide it, and that has given rise to an employer-provided system that is generally popular among the Americans lucky enough to be a part of it. Why shouldn't businesses fill another gap in America's broken social insurance system and help out workers with expensive degrees?

Well, maybe they should. But a benefit employees at an insurance company will enjoy next year, while seemingly just another spiffy perk, points to the larger problem of relying on corporate benevolence to solve massive social ills.



As Bloomberg News reported Wednesday, Unum Group—which, it should be said, provides 28 or more paid days off per year, well above the national average—will allow employees to trade in unused time for the equivalent in payment toward their student loan debt. Given that some workers might not use all their vacation time, it certainly seems preferable that they get help with their debt burden rather than let that paid time-off waste away. As 30-year-old Unum employee Jimmy Valentine told the outlet, "I should take more days off. But I continue to work to make sure I keep up with everything.”

The problem, as the Bloomberg piece noted, citing a popular recent BuzzFeed essay called "How Millennials Became the Burnout Generation," is that young workers graduate from college with incredibly high debt in the first place. The lucky ones find steady work that compensates them well enough to start paying down that debt, but some millennials are so overwhelmed by student loans that they literally flee the country. Plenty of others may find themselves trapped in jobs they hate—high-paying or otherwise—or neighborhoods they despise for fear that they might otherwise start seeing wages garnished at a new gig or even lose their driver's licenses due to not paying back their loans. Though wages for American workers have recently showed signs of growth, employees may still feel theirs is a tenuous position in a post–financial crisis reality where hot companies tank after a bad quarter and entire skillsets can become irrelevant in the blink of an eye. Those feelings of uncertainty may only be exacerbated when your employer is providing you with money for loan repayments.

In that context, encouraging workers to sacrifice traditional benefits for help with debt—debt they may have taken on in hopes of winning a job—is at least a bit concerning.

"We're seeing more employers offering a trade-off between things like vacation days or perhaps making payment toward retirement and repaying student loans," said Julie Margetta Morgan, a fellow at the left-leaning Roosevelt Institute, who described the issue as one of employer power.

"We're asking people, particularly younger people, to make tradeoffs and framing it as a choice," she added. "We're saying: Choose to go to college and take on debt, or the alternative is that you fake the sharply declining wages of people with just a high school diploma."

In other words, perks like this only exist because a) college is far too expensive in America, and b) society has made it clear to many young people that taking on debt is the only way they can generate value. Given the health insurance example—and the popularity of employer-backed insurance stymying past attempts at broader reform—it's not entirely unreasonable to worry policies that help some workers with their debt might convince those same workers that there's no need to overhaul the education and debt systems. After all, it's not just radical solutions like free college or debt cancellation that seem bewilderingly out of reach: Even existing student-loan forgiveness programs, like the federal one targeted at people who go into public service, have been dishing out help at comically low rates.

Meanwhile, it's fair to wonder if businesses that decide to offer student loan relief in exchange for other benefits in the future may do so at growing cost to their employees' well-being.

As Margetta Morgan put it, "If we approach this big social problem by allowing employers to dictate how much or how little help people get, we'll never really solve the problem and end up with really unequal solutions."

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Matt Taylor on Twitter.


Why Europe Has Dodged America's Fentanyl Crisis

$
0
0

This article originally appeared on VICE UK.

In 2017, a spike in fentanyl-related deaths in the north of England and a series of police raids on suppliers led many to believe the super potent opioid had finally found its way into Britain's narcotic food chain. It was only a matter of time, the thought went, before the devastation wreaked in parts of America and Canada—by heroin suppliers stretching out supplies with cheaper, more potent fentanyl—would start to be mirrored in the UK and Europe

On January 18, three dealers busted in April 2017 were jailed for a total of 43 years for selling 2,800 packages of fentanyl and 635g of pure carfentanil over the darknet from their storage unit in Leeds, West Yorkshire. Yet, in the nearly two years between their arrest and jailing, the expected US-style fentanyl explosion has so far failed to ignite. The drug has a growing presence in Europe, but that's still nowhere near the levels seen in north America.

In the US there were 29,000 deaths linked to synthetic opioids, mainly fentanyl, in 2017. Fentanyl usurped heroin in 2016 as the most lethal illegal substance in America. By contrast, in the UK in 2016, there were 58 fentanyl-related deaths, and 75 in 2017. The National Crime Agency (NCA), Britain's version of the FBI, told VICE that despite increased vigilance, it has not come across any significant fentanyl suppliers since 2017. Over the last 18 months, the NCA says, seizures of fentanyl at UK borders and on the streets have been "at very low levels."

A snapshot analysis of 460 heroin users at 14 treatment projects in the UK, carried out between December 2017 and May 2018 by Manchester University and drug agency CGL, found an average 3 percent of people tested positive for fentanyl. In the US, analysis of heroin users in treatment in Michigan carried out in 2015 and 2016 found 38 percent tested positive for fentanyl.

Fentanyl is "currently playing a small role in Europe's drug market," according to the EU's drug agency. Apart from an isolated and long-standing fentanyl problem in the Baltic state of Estonia, and clusters of deaths in Ukraine, Sweden, and Lithuania, the picture across the rest of Europe—and, in fact, globally—is of fentanyl as a much-feared, but as yet rarely found drug. There were 738 seizures of fentanyl in Europe in 2016, compared to 40,000 seizures of heroin.

In its 2018 World Drug Report, the UN's Office on Drugs and Crime reported: "Outside North America, with the exception of Estonia, where fentanyl has dominated the use of opioids for 15 years, the impact of fentanyl and its analogues is relatively low."

As the US desperately seeks an answer to its drug death vortex, and the rest of the world looks on in dread, the question has to be asked: Why are businesses that supply heroin to some of the world's most lucrative markets—such as the UK—so far refusing to adopt the callous, but highly economical, US fentanyl business model of mixing fentanyl into street heroin deals to maximize profits, even if it means killing off some of their valued customers?

Or, to put it another way: Why has this happened in north America and almost nowhere else?

A perfect storm of conditions over the last decade led to the current fentanyl epidemic in the US. It began with rising social deprivation and excessive opioid prescribing by doctors, leading to mounting addiction. Then came a crackdown on over-prescribing and a surge in demand for street heroin, which at the time happened to be poor quality and in short supply. In order to meet demand, heroin suppliers were boosted with the addition of fentanyl imported from China.

In a paper published this week in the International Journal of Drug Policy, Dan Ciccarone, a professor at the University of California in San Francisco, and an expert in heroin markets, says the fentanyl crisis came off the back of three successive waves of deadly opioid epidemics. "In the first wave, overdoses related to opioid pills started rising in the year 2000 and have steadily grown through 2016. The second wave saw overdose deaths due to heroin, which started increasing clearly in 2007, surpassing the number of deaths due to opioid pills in 2015. The third wave of mortality has arisen from fentanyl, fentanyl analogues, and other synthetic opioids of illicit supply, climbing slowly at first, but dramatically after 2013."

For the major heroin suppliers, fentanyl was economically an attractive option, being more profitable, cheaper, and easier to import, smuggle, and produce than heroin. It was no stranger to the black market in the US, a country with a history of non-medical use of fentanyl stretching back to the 1970s—and, with 6 million medical fentanyl prescriptions a year, many opportunities for illegal diversion.

The Mexican cartels, which had been experimenting with heroin substitutes such as fentanyl as far back as 2006, are responsible for the supply of most of the heroin sold on the streets of America. They found fentanyl easy to get hold of, mainly by importing it from China, but also producing it in their own labs. The potent hidden mixer helped shore-up unstable heroin supplies and was also easily mixed into the light-colored "white" Mexican heroin increasingly dominating markets in the Northeast and Midwest. The downside, as soon became apparent, was that its high potency meant it started killing many more people than the heroin it was rapidly replacing.

It is this factor that represents such a dramatic departure from normal "drug business." On a historic scale, US heroin suppliers have chosen to ignore one of the golden rules of drug selling: Don't kill your customer. There is a growing consensus that fentanyl-laced products sold as "heroin" are produced purely for economic reasons by suppliers, rather than something demanded by heroin users, who prefer the real deal. But what was it that made them take on the risk of losing so much of their customer base, a number approaching 30,000 people during 2017?

"The only reasonable answer is that the customer base in America is larger than we acknowledge, and the 'loss' is not acutely felt by the crass business leaders," says Ciccarone. "The other hypothesis is that there is no business leader: that it's the Wild West in America and no one is in charge. Perhaps a sub-cartel faction has taken control of a piece of America and is promoting fentanyl on its turf. Even so, it's a bold and risky move with deadly consequences."

Tino Fuentes, a drug harm reduction consultant working in New York, says the fentanyl business model is proving so successful for the suppliers that many heroin deals he tests in the city have no heroin at all. He says heroin could, ridiculously, soon be a "VIP drug" in the US because its replacement is so cheap and ubiquitous. Fuentes says a kilo of heroin costs between $30,000 to $50,000 and will yield a profit of $250,000, while a kilo of fentanyl costs $12,000 but can generate $1.3 million profit. "We have dealers now that don't really care much about the customers," he adds. "They're not trying to kill them, but while they try by trial and error to perfect the fentanyl mix, they don't care if people die in the process. It's totally fucked up."


WATCH: Fentanyl – The Drug Deadlier Than Heroin


So what's stopping the European heroin suppliers following suit, and could this offer a solution to the massacre taking place in the US?

It's an obvious point to make, but what booms in the American drugs market does not necessarily translate over to Europe. Methamphetamine, for example, is a huge drug in the US, yet a niche pursuit in most of Europe, particularly in the UK. Neither has Europe experienced the perfect storm of unfettered opiate prescribing, severe deprivation, and patchy heroin supply that America has.

Apart from its better management of prescription drugs, perhaps Europe's unsuspecting savior from fentanyl is its historical nemesis, Afghanistan, a country British troops have tried and failed to subdue three times over the last 200 years. Last year, 263,000 soccer fields worth of opium poppies were cultivated by a narco-state that produces 90 percent of the planet's illegal heroin, despite successive attempts by foreign invading armies and the Taliban to cripple its lifeblood crop.

As a result, unlike in the US, regional heroin distributors in Europe have now had a stable supply of high purity, low-cost heroin for nine years running. They have less of a desire to seek heroin alternatives, such as fentanyl because Afghanistan is the vast opium farm that keeps on giving. Average street-level purity in the UK hovers around the 40 percent mark, and a wholesale kilo comes in at around $25,000. In the US, street purity averages 33 percent and the wholesale price per kilo is almost double that of the UK, at around $50,000.

It is also getting easier, not harder, to smuggle in heroin from Afghanistan. Heroin coming into the UK is now less likely to be interdicted than it ever was, with the number of heroin seizures at the UK border down to a record low in 2018, despite rising purity and falling prices—indicating a healthy supply to the country. Unlike the Mexican white heroin that has acted as the major carrier for fentanyl in the US, Afghani heroin is brown. Like the Mexican "black tar" heroin distributed west of the Mississippi, Afghan brown is harder to mix with fentanyl, a white powder.

1549547091805-HR2TM8
Graffiti about the fentanyl death toll in Vancouver, Canada. Photo by Gerry Rousseau/Alamy Stock Photo

For Europe's dealers, fentanyl is currently not tempting enough. "If there is a good supply of readily available, cheap heroin, why switch to something that is more problematic? Why would you switch from an iPhone to another phone? You would need to have a reason to switch, you would need a better product," says Jonathan Cole, a professor at the UK's University of Liverpool with expertise in drugs markets. "If the heroin market is working really well for you, what is the value of adding fentanyl if you are making a good profit without killing your customers?"

When asked about fentanyl, one off-street heroin trader in Liverpool who does home deliveries, said he knows of no dealers in the city who would purposefully add it to their product: "Our heroin is good enough without fentanyl, and we don't want to kill any of our established customer base, or we would soon be selling to those dickheads in the street."

Those tasked with hunting down Britain’s organized dealing gangs say they are not complacent, but have seen little evidence of fentanyl gaining much traction among major sellers in the UK. "We have seen high levels of production of heroin in Afghanistan, and heroin at high purity levels here, so maybe that’s why dealers are not adulterating their product with fentanyl," says Vince O’Brien, head of drugs operations at the NCA. He says other factors could be that since the NCA took out drug web market Alpha Bay in 2017, fentanyl is less easy to buy online, with many online drug markets now refusing to host fentanyl sellers. Perhaps, says O’Brien, the media coverage of America’s fentanyl disaster has acted as a bad omen for those running Europe’s heroin crews: "Fentanyl is so toxic, and maybe gangs are scared of making themselves ill, of getting big sentences or of killing off their customers."

All this could change, for example, if some kind of disaster hit Afghanistan’s opium machine, such as a major poppy blight or an enforced Taliban anti-opium edict, similar to that which hit supplies in 2000. The obvious conclusion for America, as fentanyl looks set to completely take over heroin as the number one street opioid fix, is to fight fire with fire.

Rather than wasting millions of dollars on building a wall that will not keep fentanyl out, or attempting to stem the stream of fentanyl through the internet and postal system, a rival product could offer a route out of the deadly corner in which America has found itself. Whether this opiate product is handed out by drug treatment services to users wanting to get off heroin, or by entrepreneurial criminals able to undercut the fentanyl business model using a safer opioid, it can only reduce the body count.

Either way, what is looking more inevitable the longer prohibition holds out is that the global illegal drug trade is moving inexorably away from plant-based substances trafficked via traditional trading routes, and onto a more high-tech platform: synthetic highs made in underground labs, ordered online, and trafficked under cover of a million brown packages—many times more lethal than the natural highs they will soon replace.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Max Daly on Twitter.

Michael B. Jordan Is Turning Marlon James's Epic African Fantasy into a Movie

$
0
0

Marlon James's last kaleidoscopic novel, the Man Booker Prize-winning A Brief History of Seven Killings, is currently being adapted into a limited series. While the folks at HBO struggle to turn what's basically As I Lay Dying if Faulkner wrote about Jamaican gangsters and cocaine into a cohesive TV show, it looks like another James book is getting the Hollywood treatment, too.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, Michael B. Jordan has secured the rights to James's new novel, Black Leopard, Red Wolf, and will bring the book James (somewhat jokingly) dubbed "an African Game of Thrones" to the big screen.

Like those poor saps at HBO, Jordan's got his work cut out for him with this one. Black Leopard is a dense fantasy epic set in an otherworldly, mythical Africa where shape-shifting leopards and water goddesses team up to find a mysterious, missing boy. And it's only the first in James' planned Dark Star trilogy, which will reportedly tell the same story from three separate angles, Rashomon-style.

"I think in the West we're a little too obsessed with the idea that a story told must be truth," James told NPR in an interview earlier this week. "Whereas in African storytelling, a lot of African storytelling, you already know that the trickster is telling you the story... I have no duty to tell it true or not. It's your job to judge if I'm lying or not."

There's no screenwriter attached so far, but good luck to whatever poor bastard has to take James's intricate web of sentences and a fractured plot full of maybe-lies and crank out a tight two-hour script. Even James, who's on board to executive produce, sounds eager to see how someone would pull that one off.

"It would be interesting to see how [the novel] would be adapted, because I still think our cinematic language of sci-fi and fantasy is still very European—particularly fantasy," James told i09 in another recent interview. "And my book is not even remotely European."

As of now, Jordan is just producing the project as part of his new first-look deal with Warner Bros. He doesn't have official plans to star, but we'll pray to the water goddesses or whatever and see what happens as the adaptation takes shape.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Matthew Lillard Talks About the Most Powerful Being in Existence: Shaggy

$
0
0

Every so often, the internet surprises us all with an out-of-left-field meme that is not only devoid of problematic elements, but also quite wholesome. This perfect storm is currently upon us in the form of an ongoing bit that has internet denizens worshiping Norville "Shaggy" Rogers, the slouchy layabout of Scooby-Doo fame, as the most powerful entity in the universe.

As the meme has grown from obscure 4chan greentext joke to getting its own subreddit, we’ve come to learn that the sleepy detective could effortlessly trounce Thanos or kill God by merely thinking about them, but is mostly a benevolent, timeless being who quietly uses his powers to prevent us from killing ourselves.

To gain further insight into the deity, I spoke with actor Matthew Lillard, who portrayed Shaggy on screen in two live-action Scooby-Doo films and has been voicing the character for games and cartoons ever since.

VICE: Tell me how you first learned of this meme and what your reaction to it was like.
Matthew Lillard: It's so funny. The whole thing is so bananas. I'm not really sure what the hell to say about it other than the internet is sometimes a weird, magical place.

I'm not a big Twitter guy, being a man that's almost 50. It just was not in my DNA growing up. But I'll pop on every now and then and check it out. There were a couple memes in my feed going through, and one in particular came through with Shaggy having blacked-out eyes and power beyond compare, and I just made a joke where I think I said, “This is wrong.” But two days later my kids are like, “Dad, you're retweeted a million times” or something crazy. And that's when I started. I’m a Reddit fan and once it rose to the front page, you knew it was something kind of crazy. It’s hilarious cause every now and then you can add kindling to that fire and it goes a long way, so it was fun to stoke it for a few days.

Have any of the jokes particularly resonated with you? Do you have any favorites?
I think the most impressive thing around all of it is the art is incredible. I mean there's one, Raiko, I think her name is. [Her painting] has been used a bunch to show Shaggy as this omnipotent power.

If you don’t know, I’m also an avid [Dungeons & Dragons] player. I even started a company this year called Beadle & Grimms, which is D&D-based gaming company. And there’s this company called Wyrmwood that does incredible work in the space, and they created the stat block of Shaggy as an omnipotent creature. So, for me, that was sort of a mic drop.

How do you prepare yourself for inhabiting the character of Shaggy? Is there any truth to the rumor that you screamed a lot to fry your voice into the Shaggy sound?
Yeah, when I had first started doing the voice, I would scream myself hoarse so that I would sound like I had a broken voice. It's not like I'm the guy walking around parties doing impressions and I was the first guy they saw to audition for the part, so I figured I’d better do a good job and the only way I could figure out how to do the voice at first was like, get hoarse so I sounded crazy. But, after I got the job, I quickly realized I couldn't do that every single day of work. Early on, you figure out that everything he does takes place right on that break. And now I do [the voice] twice a week.

But there's no doubt that whatever I was screaming was in tongues, and the powers that be found me a vessel acceptable to host the god whenever he went to work.

There’s a petition going around to add Shaggy as a Mortal Kombat character. What sort of moves would Shaggy have and are there any other games, fighting or otherwise, that you’d like to see him in?
Obviously his best move is that he can eat anything. He just swallows an opponent in one bite. That’d be the super move of all super moves.

But I'll take Shaggy in anything. You can have Shaggy in FIFA. You can have Shaggy in Madden. You can even have Shaggy in Red Dawn Redemption, or whatever the hell that is. As far as I'm concerned, when you're a god as Shaggy is, he can appear anywhere he so chooses.

Where does Shaggy come from and what’s the source of his power?
I have no comment about his origins because obviously that would literally blow your mind, and I don't want to hurt you because you seem like a nice guy. But the wealth of his power is borne from the ancient gods of fast food and pickles.

What is something that Shaggy would never use his powers to do?
Well, he would never make someone fast, that’s for sure. If there was ever a battle between like God-like figures, he and Gandhi would be arch enemies. The idea that Gandhi goes non-violent, he respects, but fasting and hunger strikes are never the way.

It's actually interesting, because Casey Kasem, who originally was the host entity to the great being, he was a vegetarian. So, back in the 70s, he made the animators draw Shaggy as a vegetarian. Little known fact.

What would happen if Shaggy used 100 percent of his power?
You can't do that. It's impossible. The universe cannot contain it. But if he used like, 50 percent, world peace would be a thing. He'd probably resurrect Michael Jackson to have him perform at birthday parties because he was the greatest.

That’s a controversial position to take right now after that movie just dropped at Sundance.
I take it back. I take it back! But world peace is definitely on the docket. I mean he can do things like make alligators fly. He can do anything he wants.

Why does he then choose not to grant us world peace?
Next question.

Ok, then why does this god-like figure choose to spend all his time with the mortals of the Scooby Gang?
He got jumped into that gang before he recognized his own powers. And once you're in a gang, you're in that gang for life. So even though he’s an omnipotent being, he still lives by the code of the streets.

Is there anyone or thing more powerful than Shaggy?
The power of love and a chocolate-covered eggplant burger. Those are the two most defined powers in the unknown universe.

Do you have a favorite memory from your time playing Shaggy?
Yeah. There’s no doubt. I was in London, for the premiere of Scooby-Doo 2, and we took a tour of the Children's Hospital in London, and there was a little girl there who was about to go in for her third open heart surgery. As I was walking around the ward, her family introduced me to her, and they were trying to get her to take the pre-surgery medicine so that she would become sedated enough so that they could start putting IVs in her. And in that moment, they said, “If Shaggy does his voice, will you take your medicine?” [Lillard begins to sniffle] I’m sorry. It just makes me cry. So, I did it, and she took the medicine, and then had open heart surgery for the third time. So, it’s funny and it’s fun to—Oh, God, that’s a weird memory.

In a life of uncertainty as an actor—you're trying to raise your kids and you have good moments and bad moments—there's something really profound about playing a character that is bigger than you. The reality is that I'm a caretaker for a part that will be somebody else's someday, but there's no doubt that—not to sound too hokey—as long as I have it, I’ll respect it and think it's really awesome. And the little moments like that where you can help kids and you can effect change, it's really pretty amazing.

Interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Justin Caffier on Twitter.

This Is What Trump Quietly Screwing the Poor Looks Like

$
0
0

Of all the powerful business interests that have benefited from Donald Trump’s unhinged presidency, payday lenders might be the easiest to overlook. They shouldn’t be. These companies prey on precarity by offering high-cost loans to cash-strapped borrowers, making billions of dollars annually even as their customers often get stuck in a vicious cycle of deprivation.

But it’s been clear for a while now that under the president’s hand-picked leadership, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)—the watchdog conceived by Elizabeth Warren to look out for regular people after the financial crisis—would refuse to regulate these lenders. Under Barack Obama, in contrast, the CFPB actually conceived and finalized a policy to rein in these loans. Last year, however, Trump’s initial acting director at CFPB, Mick Mulvaney, actually joined a lawsuit brought by the payday lending industry seeking to overturn it. A few months later, Mulvaney made clear his agency’s intention to alter (that is, gut) the rule, and the judge in the case suspended the effective date in anticipation of the lobby getting its way.

Now Trump’s new point person at this consumer agency—which ostensibly looks out for everyone from student debtors to people getting bilked for extra debit card fees—wants to finish the job. It’s the latest example of the president and his cronies hiding behind a seemingly hot economy as they dismantle what few safeguards stand between you and oblivion.



On Wednesday, former White House aide Kathy Kraninger, now atop the CFPB, proposed rescinding the heart of the payday lending rule. The more aggressive policy would have forced lenders to assess whether borrowers could actually afford to make their payments—while also meeting their other financial obligations—before issuing these risky loans. “Underwriting,” as this process is known, is common to virtually all loan transactions, because reputable lenders don’t want their loans to go into default. But payday lenders have a different model: most of their cash-strapped borrowers pay off their loans by taking out another loan, becoming trapped in a spiral of debt. This provides generous fees for payday lenders, who also make average interest rates as high as 400 percent.

CFPB’s rule, which was finalized under Obama appointee Richard Cordray in 2017, would not have put payday lenders out of business. But it would have changed the business model for small-dollar lending enough that the industry, which collectively issues around $46 billion in loans per year, undertook a monumental effort to fight it.

As VICE revealed in 2016, at a resort in the Bahamas, the Community Financial Services Association of America (CFSAA), the industry’s trade group, plotted to undermine the rule before it was even finalized. Lawyers and lobbyists discussed bombarding regulators with hundreds of thousands of comments, including from customers, to deliberately slow down the process. They urged lenders to recruit customers to sign form letters: “We will have a team of three full-time writers in our office" to assist them, said one attorney working for the industry.

This is exactly what happened: CFPB received a million public comments, many of them featuring the same words and phrases, suggesting they were ghost-written.

The industry also paid for studies suggesting many payday loan shops would likely go out of business if the rule were adopted. And they tried to use the courts to get the rule thrown out. But it turns out all they really had to do to ensure that it never saw the light of day was to get Donald Trump elected and keep him happy.

They worked that angle, too. Payday lenders have delivered over $2.2 million to Donald Trump's inauguration and political committees since 2016, including $250,000 from Advance America, the nation’s largest payday lender. And CFSAA decided to hold its 2018 annual meeting at the Trump National Doral Golf Club in Miami.

When Mulvaney, himself a past recipient of payday lending cash, became acting CFPB director in November 2017, he dropped at least one investigation into payday lenders and worked to prevent the rule from taking effect. In one case, the agency reduced a penalty (which would only have recouped excess charges) against a payday lender named Triton Management Group by two-thirds, citing the company’s “demonstrated inability to pay.”

That’s the same standard CFPB decided to eliminate for payday loan borrowers. In other words, it’s now official policy for the government to cut breaks for shady businesses facing a financial shortfall, but not for the human beings they prey upon.

The hard work of sliding campaign donations and personal flattery to a corrupt chief executive has paid off for the industry. CFPB’s proposed rule-making states that rescinding the ability-to-repay standard “would increase consumer access to credit.” If you think that the type of credit that traps you in a debt spiral with larger and larger fees is really worth getting into people’s hands, that argument might appeal to you.

Some more minor parts of the initial proposed rule would remain. Lenders would have to give written notice before withdrawing payment for their loans directly from borrowers’ bank accounts. If two consecutive attempts to make these withdrawal fail, lenders would need written consent before making a third attempt. For this reason, payday lenders have had the nerve to criticize the CFPB’s gift to their bottom line, pronouncing themselves disappointed. “We believe the 2017 final rule must be repealed in its entirety,” said Dennis Shaul, CEO of the CFSAA, in a statement.

Meanwhile, the proposal is open to public comment for 90 days, but nobody really believes Trump’s people are keeping an open mind. As Sherrod Brown, ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee and a potential presidential candidate, said in a statement Wednesday, “The CFPB is helping payday lenders rob families of their hard-earned money.”

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow David Dayen on Twitter.

'Arctic' Is the Latest in a Long Line of Horrifying Survivalist Flicks

$
0
0

Arctic—the new movie directed by Brazilian filmmaker and musician Joe Penna—has clomped into theaters after raving reception at Cannes and Sundance. The film’s frontman is actor Mads Mikkelsen, the tall, enviably-banged Danish star who simultaneously exudes grit, sophistication, decency, and the aroma of cedar leaves. He’s trapped in the arctic after a helicopter crash. It’s real cold. There are bears and monster blizzards. Even for a fellow like Mikkelsen, the odds of survival are grim.

Arctic belongs to a classic yet undervalued genre that we’ll call Modern Man Survives In The Wilderness. What makes this genre different from a frontier survival epic like The Revenant is simple: the characters who find themselves lost in the great outdoors are out of their element. They’re scientists, executives, doctors, tourists—they’re not the kind of people who already know things like How To Skin A Squirrel or How To Build A Wind Shelter From Pine Boughs. When they get hurt, we feel every blow, and when/if they get rescued, our spirits shoot through the roof.


The essential Modern Man Survives In The Wilderness film is both a humbling beatdown and an affirmation of man’s persevering strength. These movies make you want to burrow into a mountain of goose down blankets and run a marathon, simultaneously. And Arctic is exactly this—incredible but exhausting. If you’re going to watch, you’ll want to mentally prepare by experiencing the genre for yourself. Here are five grueling and highly-underrated survival movies to get you started:

Letter Never Sent (1960)

A team of geologists embarks on a diamond expedition into the Siberian wilderness. What could go wrong? Everything. A forest fire cuts the adventurers off from their canoes, a doomed love triangle germinates within the co-ed group, and their two-way radio stops broadcasting but keeps picking up breathless pep talks and exaltations from their comrades back in civilization. Directed by Mikhail Kalatozov and shot in black and white—which makes the boreal woods of Siberia look like a bristling ocean—Letter Never Sent is a dark, brooding film that doubles as a subtle parody of Soviet Union ideals like altruism and resolve. These ideals are tirelessly upheld by the lost adventurers, even as they wander deeper into the wild and find themselves increasingly removed from society. There’s the human spirit, and then there’s the fucking forest. Letter Never Sent is about the gulf between those planes of existence.

The Grey (2011)

Yes, this is the movie where Liam Neeson goes mano-a-mano with wolves in the Alaskan tundra, and no, it’s not a joke. The Grey, directed by Joe Carnahan, is about what happens when a bunch of dudes who’ve succumbed to toxic masculinity—in this case, a bunch of oil drillers who’ve been drinking and brawling themselves toward death at the ass end of the world—are stripped down to their most base selves. Neeson, a sharpshooter who protects the oil men from wildlife, is the guy you want to have on hand when your plane crashes in Alaska—even when shrouded in anger and grief. (His wife has left him recently.) The Grey is less about the wolves and more about the specter of death that stalks each of the men. But the wolves are fucking badass too.

Alive (1993)


You’re on a plane that crashes onto a glacier in the Andes, and you survive. There’s no food and your strength is fading. Could you bring yourself to eat your dead seatmate? That’s what Frank Marshall’s Alive explores with surprising empathy. Based on the true story of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571, which was carrying a rugby team before it crashed in the mountains, Alive is about not only the Donner Party-esque brutalities of survival but the bond that grows between survivors. The terror and angers that initially afflicts the rugby players and their families—one of them tells a dying, moaning woman to shut up early in the film—morphs into a gallows love and humor that transcends the awfulness of their situation. “If I do die, and you don’t eat me, I’ll come back and kick your ass,” one of the rugby players says to his friends. I’m not crying. You’re crying

Castaway (2000)

Wilson jokes aside, Robert Zemeckis’s Castaway is a surprisingly haunting movie about what it’s like to be alone on a deserted island for a very long time. Casting Tom Hanks—a man not known for quiet performances—as the titular castaway is ingenious. Watching him suffer and stave off insanity on the island after his plane crashes into the Pacific is an emotional rollercoaster. It’s not an experience to be taken lightly. By the time Hanks knocks out an abscessed molar with a rock and an ice skate, you know you’re in a movie where anything could happen. This gives Castaway a sense of danger and mortality that’s rare in studio films—at least, until the final 20 minutes, which you should honestly just skip. I mean, they feed the guy sushi after he’s lived off raw fish for years!

Backcountry (2014)


True story: I once worked as a wilderness hostel manager. Part of my job was offering trail advice and helping hikers who got lost or hurt. No film in recent memory better depicts how adventurous urbanites get into trouble outdoors than Backcountry, a tense Canadian thriller from Andrew MacDonald. It stars Missy Peregrym, the rebel gymnast from the highly underrated Stick It, and takes place in the mountains of Ontario and British Columbia where a couple of hikers from Toronto set out on a camping trip without a map and get lost. Oh, and there’s a bear attack that makes the one in The Revenant look like a friendly tussle. (Two words: “exposed skull.”) It caught me off guard nearly as much as it blindsides the hikers themselves.

Arctic is out now in selected theaters.

Sign up for our newsletter to get the best of VICE delivered to your inbox daily.

Follow Miles Howard on Twitter.

Viewing all 55411 articles
Browse latest View live