Wednesday, December 30, 2015

The VICE Guide to Right Now: You're Most Likely to Die of Natural Causes on New Year's Day

Photo via Flickr user Angelia Sims

Read: How to Survive New Year's Eve Without Embarrassing Yourself

Everyone knows that people die on New Year's—which is a buzzkill, I know, but it's true. Half the fatal car crashes on New Year's Day are from drunk drivers, and there's a slight increase in homicides and suicides during the holiday. But January 1 is also the day you're most likely to die of natural causes, according to research by sociologist David Phillips.

Phillips, along with two other researchers, studied 57 million death certificates over a 25-year period. They found a sharp spike in deaths on Christmas, the day after Christmas, and New Year's Day, which has the most fatalities. It's pretty well-documented that substance abuse and accidental fatalities go up during the holidays, but their research showed a spike in natural causes of death—things like cardiac diseases and cancer—more than accidents like drunk driving.

There's no obvious explanation for the pattern. The health problems aren't weather-related, and even if they were, that wouldn't explain the distinct increase during Christmas and New Year's. It's tempting to blame the deaths on stress from visiting with family members or wrapping up end-of-year to-do lists, but the research notes a lack of evidence that "heightened psychological stresses can cause abrupt, sharp increases in mortality from a wide range of diseases and for a wide range of demographic groups." In other words, finding the coolest New Year's party might stress you out, but it's probably not going to kill you.

Stressed about where to party on New Year's Eve this year? THUMP has you covered.

In a recent interview with the Washington Post, Phillips chalked it up to "a mystery," but he did offer a few hypotheses: Most of the Christmas and New Years deaths happen in emergency rooms, which could suggest that people wait longer to seek medical attention during the holidays (because they want to spend time with their families) and are more likely to die by the time they reach the hospital. Alternatively, hospitals might be understaffed during the holidays, meaning you're less likely to make it if you get sent to the ER on New Year's Day.

Either way, if you start feeling weird chest pains on New Year's Day, don't blow it off as a side effect of your hangover.

Follow Arielle Pardes on Twitter.




from VICE http://ift.tt/1RSba6q
via cheap web hosting

The VICE Guide to Right Now: Belgian Cops Are Being Investigated for Allegedly Having an Orgy After the Paris Attacks

Belgian police in Brussels in 2011. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

In the wake of the tragic terrorist attacks that killed 130 and wounded hundreds more in Paris last month, the planet's collective gaze promptly turned to Belgium. That's because several of the attackers reportedly once lived or had family connections to the capital of Brussels, which has apparently become a hotbed of radical Islamic activity in what some argue is a testament to the fragility of the European Union.

Suffice it to say international condemnation of Belgium's security apparatus has been intense. And it didn't get any easier for the local powers that be on Wednesday when officials confirmed they're investigating an alleged orgy said to have occurred about a week after the Paris attacks at a precinct not far from where several of the attackers once lived, as the New York Times reports.

The participants apparently included two female members of the Brussels police force and a coterie of Belgian soldiers who were stationed in the city during the chaotic days after the bombings and mass shooting in France. At the time of the alleged orgy, the Belgian government had raised its terror threat level to the highest possible level, though it has since been reduced. Still, on Tuesday, cops in Brussels announced the arrest of two men earlier this week suspected of plotting yet another attack, this one intended for New Year's Eve. Yet another arrest was made Wednesday.

According to the local paper La Dernière Heure, on the night of the alleged orgy in late November, two female cops were encouraged to visit the police dorm where the soldiers were sleeping after the station had been closed for the night, and had sex with eight men. As you might expect at a time when emotions were running high, alcohol is believed to have been involved.

The police commissioner for the adjacent Brussels-Capital district, Ilse Van de Keere, acknowledged the rumors have been percolating, but maintained what you might a call a euphemistic stance.

"All these people have been working closely together for weeks now, often doing long hours," she told the Times. "We have developed a very good working relationship with the army."

Follow Drew on Twitter.



from VICE http://ift.tt/1ZCmVz6
via cheap web hosting

What We Learned About Australia in 2015

Image via

This post originally appeared on VICE Australia

This has been a rough year for Australia. To me, and others who question the wisdom of Christian-themed conservatism and free market economics, 2015 seemed like an orgy of dumb where the nation did everything to prove that, yes, Australia is in fact the world's largest trailer park. Those of us confronted by the mess could only go home to tune out, drink it off, and find a better world in Fallout 4.

But 2015 was also the year the first signs of a correction started to take place. We hit peak-stupid and reached the other side. If feels nice to be on the other side, like being able to eat again after particularly savage food poisoning. It also provides a chance to work out exactly what happened and find some lessons in the rubble. So here's what 2015 taught me about Australia—and Australians.

Tony Abbott in his single most memorable moment. Image via

Tony Abbott United Us. Accidentally.

Of course the story starts with Tony Abbott. He was the man who made himself minister for women. He scrapped the Science portfolio. The guy ate raw onions just because he liked them and threatened to shirtfront Vladimir Putin. He pretended to take climate change seriously but made every action to affirm otherwise. His public oratory was stilted and embarrassing. He was mean and ruthless, but unlike Turnbull, he was incapable of curbing his less popular instincts.

When Abbott woke up to the idea that people didn't like him, he spent 2015 trying to scare Australia back into line. He asked The ABC, "whose side are you on?" He held increasingly flag-cluttered press conferences. In one public appearance he used the word threat 16 times and death cult 19 times. When green groups challenged the right of a multinational corporation to build a mine on the edge of the Great Barrier Reef, Abbott called it sabotage and green lawfare.

So as far as 2015 goes, watching former Prime Minister Tony Abbott go down with a whimper on September 14, 2015 had to be the feel-good highlight. For the first time in a long time I felt optimistic.

Malcolm Turnbull in his most memorable jacket. Image via

We Woke Up with Malcolm

When Australia woke up after disposing of Abbott, there seemed a new feel in the air. Malcolm Turnbull was going to be our guy. We didn't really care about the details because he wasn't Abbott and we needed him to not be Abbott for a while. Progress couldn't help but like him and the center-right desperately hoped he could rescue them from the Christian jihadists of the Liberal Party.

The problem for Malcolm Turnbull, though, is that he is Julia Gillard in a blue tie. He knifed a sitting leader for the good of the country and his own party, but not one of them is likely to appreciate it in the long run. The New South Wales state Liberal Party already hates the guy and then he can only do so much because he's got to regularly deal with such conservatives as Mathias Cormann, Peter Dutton, and Josh Frydenberg.

This is why the Paris climate agreement for Australia was a lukewarm start to a better Australia. It's why Turnbull seems keen on wind farms at the exact same time he's pushing Abbott's "Green Lawfare" changes to keep farmers and activists from challenging the will of multinational companies. And, again, the Adani coal mine on the edge of the Great Barrier Reef got re-approved.

A poster from Operation Sovereign Borders. Image via

We're Still Really Hung-Up on Borders

Australia is a nation that loves border controls. On the right side of politics, that means treating refugees like dirt until they set themselves on fire. Literally. On the left, that means sending misogynists back where they came from. For Barnaby Joyce, it occasionally means threatening to murder Johnny Depp's dogs.

Australia has been detaining people fleeing torture and burning cities in remote, hellish corporate-run Pacific Island prisons for long enough now. It's become just another thing we do. Then in September pictures started coming in from Europe where refugees were fleeing Syria and Australia was actually moved. The public pressure was enough that Tony Abbott announced the country would take 12,000 more people than we normally would, even as Germany was talking about taking 800,000. Then Australia fucked it all up by talking about giving preferential treatment to Christian refugees over Muslims.

Then there was that time the government decided latte-sipping Melbourne needed the Border Force to straighten them out. Unfortunately, Melbourne didn't take well to a bunch of jackboots on its streets asking anyone with a brown tinge for their papers and the city rallied to tell them with a single voice to fuck off.

A Reclaim Australia protest in Melton. Photo by Julian Morgans

Is It Just Me, Or Did We Get More Racist?

2015 was a big year for Reclaim Australia, but by far the standout through it all were the boys from the United Patriots Front (UPF)—another tough-sounding acronym on Australia's ultra-nationalist scene. The guys said they were on a mission to save Australia from Islam, even though no one asked them to and Islam has been here since 1861.

But as time wore on, the group struggled to remain coherent as their ex-leader, Shermon Burgess, handed off his job to Blair Cottrell and quit because his own people were teasing him. Once the dust settled, the group announced over Facebook that they were going to launch their own political party, " Fortitude," which would inevitably compete for votes among the far-right with another anti-Islam political party, the Australian Liberty Alliance. This is the party that was recently launched in secret somewhere around Perth by Dutch anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders.

The soon-to-be closed Ford plant in Geelong. Image via

Shit Is Expensive and There Are No Jobs

All the things that made Australia fat and happy over the last decade are over. The mining boom is done, even if Australia is trying to keep the dream of easy money alive through its coal mines. The car industry will start shutting down next year, which will hit South Australia and Victoria hard. Around the country, those under 30 have become the most educated generation ever at a time where fewer people are hiring graduates. Those same people are moving to Melbourne and Sydney in large numbers despite the need to earn six figures just to afford living there.

Point is, it's been a big year for Australia. The road ahead is uncertain and filled with problems, as it is every new year, but maybe the worst is in the rearview mirror. Pat yourself on the back because you made it through, if only a little dented.

Follow Royce on Twitter.



from VICE http://ift.tt/1Uha5mx
via cheap web hosting

'Magic Mike XXL' Was the Most Important Feminist Movie of 2015

Photo courtesy of Warner Brothers

Many year-end articles have been calling this a good year for women in film and television, but identifying what that actually means and what, specifically, counts as a good example of feminism is a hard consensus to reach. Search results for "Amy Schumer feminist" will yield an alternating list of reasons why she is an amazing, sneaky, raucous failure of a feminist. Repeat the search with Mindy Kaling or Lena Dunham's name and you might begin to suspect that it's impossible to be both an accepted feminist and an actual human woman. Even a film like Mad Max: Fury Road, which has been widely praised (including here at VICE) as the feminist action film we've all been waiting for, has its share of detractors criticizing it as being mired in lazy, sexist tropes and using Charlize Theron's Imperator Furiosa to problematically equate female empowerment with force, violence, and militaristic competence.

The cumulative effect of all these articles has got me worried. When we write criticisms of mainstream attempts at feminism, do we have a goal in mind? If so, what is it? The questions of what we want feminism to be and how to best represent it in the mainstream are absolutely necessary to answer, but both are so massively complex that any attempt at a mainstream feminist cultural production will prompt a glut of responses pointing out its shortcomings. These responses spur useful and nuanced discussions, but also run the risk of shaming women and men for not being the "right" kind of feminist, when what that would require remains difficult to pin down. Reducing the complexity of such issues is certainly not the solution either: Historically, attempts to simplify social causes end up excluding significant portions of the population the cause is intended to benefit.

I asked Dr. Carol C. Gould, a distinguished professor of philosophy at Hunter College and the CUNY Graduate Center, for her thoughts on this knotty problem. "I think that positive references to feminism are helpful, even—perhaps especially—in popular culture contexts," she told me over email. Similar concerns were echoed by the former president of the American Philosophical Association, Linda Martín Alcoff, who has written extensively on feminism and race. "The representations of feminism in popular culture are hugely important," Alcoff told me. "Too many celebrities feel they will lose portions of their audience if they use the F-word. And as a result, young people think feminism is a weird, small cult. I'm more accepting than perhaps most feminist theorists on its emergence in the public domain, even when what is meant by feminism seems a little thin or vague."

It is exactly this "thin or vague" version of mainstream feminism that gets attacked by critics and scholars, and it is understandable when it does. Part of the problem is that there are so many different kinds of people affected by the social (rather than biological) construction of the concept "woman." It's not by accident that Simone de Beauvoir opens up her seminal text, The Second Sex, with the question, "What is a woman?" Short answer: It's hard to determine, but there are a lot of us and we look and act and want a lot of different things, thus making any attempt to represent an ideal version in a single character—like Furiosa or Jessica Jones or the mega-capable Rey of the newest Star Wars film—necessarily incomplete, lacking, and problematically non-representative.

On Broadly: 'Rose McGowan on Sexism in Hollywood':

And this is in part why I believe MMXXL to be the most important feminist film of 2015. It eschews any attempt to exalt a single woman as the ideal and, instead, absurdly, inelegantly attempts to jam all of us onto the screen. And it fails. Of course it fails! But I've never seen a film that really made such a good faith, if clumsy, effort to try.

This surprised me because the first Magic Mike film didn't seem to care much about women. Tatum's love interest, Brooke, is a straight-laced nag/saintly nurse who chastises Mike and Alex Pettyfer's "The Kid" when they just want to have fun. One night she arrives at the strip club, ready to smother everyone with disapproval, and sees Tatum strip for the first time. Throughout much of this scene, the camera stays on Horn who reacts as if director Steven Soderbergh were in her ear whispering, "OK, now while you watch him strip, pretend you've never thought about sex before and now are suddenly confronted with it for the first time. Feel embarrassed, make an embarrassed face, roll your eyes, now flee the club feeling conflicted and joyless." A few other women roam around the film's periphery in order to provide blowjobs or offer up their fake breasts for a feel.

So, I wasn't expecting Magic Mike XXL to devote scene after scene to an inclusive picture of female happiness. That happiness comes in multiple forms—sexual pleasure being chief—and is for women of all sizes, ages, races, and economic classes. Additionally, the film presents a view of masculinity that includes honesty and emotional communication, condemns violence as an immature way of solving problems, and pronounces that men should take pride in the "healing" pleasure they bring to women. These points are hammered home so often that some critics claimed the overzealousness of the diversity grows " wearying."

Did I roll my eyes when a bunch of hot dudes were telling women how they'd "heal" them? Yes, I did. It's condescending. Also, I certainly did take note of the absence of disability in the otherwise diverse representation of female bodies worthy of sexual attention. Onscreen, disabled women are mostly represented as tragic, frail, and sexless, and while Theron's amputated Imperator Furiosa is certainly not frail, she still is a bit tragic and sexless. Dr. Alcoff had a different concern about the film. "There's a danger when popular culture uses feminist ideas in ways that not only misrepresent but mislead," said Alcoff. "This is the case with Magic Mike XXL, which appears to be about the gender equality of men and women in sex work. So the movie makes use of this representation, and then goes on to portray sex work as a choice individuals can make. It does not show the real costs, the constant violence, regular dehumanization by clients, wage theft, and sexual violence that is part of so much sex work. So, there is a falseness to that representation."

These are all valid, useful critiques of the film, but I still believe MMXXL to be the most important film of 2015 and my reason for that has something to do with my weeping mother. We saw the film together and while the entire theater was laughing and clapping, we were crying.

My mother cried at the scene when our road-tripping protagonists make a stop at a palatial estate in Charleston. They are there to visit a girl they've met earlier, but upon their arrival, they find the girl's mother, played by Andie MacDowell, and her rich, wine-drunk, middle-aged friends. I noticed my mother shifting uncomfortably at the beginning of this scene. There's an expectation that this interaction will be played for laughs at the expense of the older women who seem to be nothing more than sloppy cougars throwing themselves pathetically at younger men. I could sense my mother preparing herself to sit through yet another sexually desperate and cartoonish depiction of women her age. But that's not what happens. Instead, the men and women engage in genuine conversation about, as my mother put it, "the nature of love and desire." Here were a room full of people, said my mother, "who had been married or were married or wanted to be married. They were all talking to each other, trying to figure out why things don't always work well. And no one is ridiculed." One still-wedded woman admits that her husband won't make love to her with the lights on. Ken, played by Matt Bomer, is shocked by this and is eager to remind her how beautiful she is while serenading her with Bryan Adams's "Heaven." It's a scene that comes close to being cringeworthy, but is somehow saved by Ken's unabashed sincerity.

At the same time that Andie MacDowell's crew is entertaining the men, Mike notices that Zoe (Amber Heard) is feeling blue and goes to investigate. One expects Zoe to clearly emerge in this scene as Mike's love interest, but—despite a bit of friendly flirting—a love story between them never materializes. They share a conversation in the kitchen that is both sweet and displays Mike's emotional intelligence. Zoe has met a photographer who tries to sleep with her under the guise of supporting her talent. In this scene, Tatum does not: dodge the emotional burden of the conversation, make her feel apologetic for having feelings, chastise her for being too emotional, fetishize her sadness, condescend to her by telling her she should have known better than to trust a guy who claims to be interested in her talent, condescend to her by telling her she's worth so much more than she herself knows, condescend to her by telling her she's so special and someday everyone will see her the way he sees her. He does not tell her she's perfect or beautiful with the accompanying assumption that that is all that really matters. At no point does their conversation reveal itself to really be about their attraction or love. At no point does Mike indicate that what he is really after is sex and that he's willing to do this talking bit due to the future promise of sex. At no point does he require a congratulatory pat on the back for being able to have a non-sexually motivated conversation with a woman. The camera does not linger uncomfortably on Zoe, letting us watch her watch him leave the kitchen, new feelings burbling up on her angelic tear-streaked face, her eyes telling us that he's not like the other guys. None of that happens. Instead, they make each other laugh. He tries to make her feel better. And then the scene moves on. He does slip in a few cheesy lines about helping her "get her smile back" about his god being a "she," but the moment is saved, yet again, by sincerity. Cue my weeping.

My mom and I were deeply moved by these scenes simply because they showed something so divorced from the day-to-day reality of our female lives. And that was a huge fucking bummer. "I've come to expect men to either ignore me or approach me with a rote come-on," said my mother, my heart breaking from the sheer recognition of this pattern in my own life and the lives of the women I know. "I haven't experienced much sincerity from men," she said in a quiet, stern voice.

MMXXL is not a perfect film, but, through stark contrast, it did remind me just how far our society is from achieving its feminist goals. It's intended to be a wish-fulfillment film, but it was painful to be reminded just how much of it is fantasy. None of this is meant to be some blanket statement about "men," as I'm well-aware that there are many men in this world who regularly communicate with women without entitlement or the promise of sex; there are men who can celebrate a woman's sexuality without implicit or explicit blame; there are men who comfortably share their feelings without punching each other or hurling insults borne of their bizarro gay panic. I know a bunch of these men and, luckily for me, I'm married to one of them.

But here's my point: This is still not the expected norm for me in my interactions with men, nor media representations of male and female relationships. Nope. I still live in a world where the morning news tells me that a presidential candidate referred to Clinton's 2008 loss to Obama as her being " schlonged" and pundits blame her for her husband's infidelities. I still live in a world where I have to explain to a male colleague why it's anti-feminist to frequently say women's periods and vaginas are disgusting (his response: "But they are disgusting!") We still live in a world that denies rape culture and legislates women's reproductive choices, but won't pass laws ensuring women get paid the same amount on the dollar as their male counterparts. So, the world of MMXXL was, in many ways, painful to visit, as it is just so far removed from the one I inhabit. Nonetheless, the film is a helpful and important reminder of how much work toward gender equality can—and, hopefully, will—be done. It comes as a great surprise to me that, at the end of 2015, I'm lobbying for further consideration of thick-necked Channing Tatum's feminism, and I'm sure plenty will disagree with me, but I urge you to watch the film again with an eye toward the inclusive, progressive world it attempts to build.

Chloé Cooper Jones is a writer and philosopher who studies and teaches in New York City. Follow her on Twitter.



from VICE http://ift.tt/1mqgy3A
via cheap web hosting

'Concussion' Is Important Simply Because It Exists

It's difficult to pinpoint the precise moment public perception toward the NFL began to trend negative. But with the holiday release of Concussion, a new film focused on the league's consistently escalating medical crisis, something that has been slowly thickening in the undercurrents of the scientific and intellectual communities for over a decade has become clear: There is something very wrong with football. This has proven to be a jagged and bitter pill for many, but it appears that now is the time for the medical as well as the ethical and social implications of the game to be seriously addressed. There is a rapidly growing body of literature devoted to the "The End of Football," and the sentiment surrounding this conceptual novelty has already shifted from laughable to intriguing.

Concussion tells the story of Dr. Bennet Omalu, a Nigerian-born forensic pathologist. Since co-authoring a paper published in 2005 titled "Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy in a National Football League Player," Dr. Omalu has been one of the key figures in the investigation into the long-term and potentially devastating neurological effects caused by playing football. Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, a term he coined better known as CTE, is a degenerative disease of the brain caused by repetitive trauma to the head, marked by atrophy and the accumulation of tau protein, associated with dementia, depression, and other symptoms of major mental instability, and, crucially, now found in an overwhelming majority of deceased NFL players.

In Concussion, Omalu is played by Will Smith, and the narrative naturally bends to a strong performance from its star to an ultimately detrimental effect, often relegating the most compelling tension—an inquiry into the NFL's systematic attempts to cover up and undermine the developing scientific evidence linking the inherent activity of the sport to significant health concerns—in favor of the melodrama of one man fighting a growling and shadowy organization. Spotlight, a similar movie currently in theaters, details the Boston Globe's efforts to unravel a massive sexual abuse cover-up by the Boston Archdiocese, fixates on the issue and not the individual, lending it a weight that Concussion, despite documenting serious transgressions on an even larger scale, just doesn't have. It is important mostly for simply being made, and could serve as a kind of prologue for a more definitive film a few decades away.

Earlier this month the New York Times ran an opinion piece written by Dr. Omalu under the fairly severe headline " Don't Let Kids Play Football" appealing not to parents but rather to Capitol Hill to establish a minimum legal age for football, like for voting or drinking. In the wake of his earlier research and amid the media swirl around the movie, his plea feels only partially incendiary, and if what he's positing is true—that CTE can develop through even the relatively minor contact of even grade-school football—then the dismantling of football's all-consuming grip on the fundamental level of this country's existence is inevitable. "If a child who plays football is subjected to advanced radiological and neurocognitive studies during the season and several months after the season, there can be evidence of brain damage at the cellular level of brain functioning, even if there were no documented concussions or reported symptoms," Omalu writes. "Depending on the severity of the condition, the child now has a risk of manifesting symptoms of CTE, like major depression, memory loss, suicidal thought and actions, loss of intelligence as well as dementia later in life."

At this point there is no conclusive data to substantiate or undermine this claim, and, due mainly to the pathological reality of being unable to detect or diagnose CTE in a living brain, we are nowhere close to understanding most of the nuances associated with this still very newly discovered disease. There is a case to be made that the risk and effects have been sensationalized by an overactive media, and it's not just NFL suits or angry fans making the claim: Last week Slate columnist Daniel Engber penned a lucid takedown of the film and the "pervasive national myths about head trauma," arguing that much of the mounting evidence implicating football and CTE with the major neurological degenerative manifestations is anecdotal and circumstantial. Engber cites two major studies, one conducted in 2012 by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health indicating that former football players both lived longer and were less likely to commit suicide than the statistical average, the other a 2008 University of Michigan-led survey, that found the rates of depression and aggression in retired NFL players were in line with population averages (although he does admit that the same study suggests that a former player is six times more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer's, dementia, or another memory-related disease). Engber concludes that our knowledge of an illness "still in an embryonic stage" is imperfect, and that is certainly a highly rational approach.

And yet it's hard to reconcile that with this, from Frontline:

Researchers with the Department of Veterans Affairs and Boston University have now identified the degenerative disease known as CTE in 96 percent of NFL players that they've examined and in 79 percent of all football players.

Or with this headline and lede from the New York Times "Brain Trauma to Affect One in Three Players, NFL Agrees":

The National Football League, which for years disputed evidence that its players had a high rate of severe brain damage, has stated in federal court documents that it expects nearly a third of retired players to develop long-term cognitive problems and that the conditions are likely to emerge at "notably younger ages" than in the general population.

The most vocal and prominent intellectual figure leading the charge against football is New Yorker staff writer Malcolm Gladwell, who has likened football to dogfighting, compared the sport and CTE to coal mining and black-lung disease, and deemed it a "moral abomination." The ethical and existential issues he raises—how can we, knowing what we now know, justify not only allowing the game to continue, but to also remain fervently devoted to it—should give even the vaguely philosophically inclined fan pause. An economics-fueled scenario he has put forward is a "ghettoization" of the sport at the professional level, with the player demographic skewing dramatically poor, as those at the lowest rungs of the country's social and fiscal ladders will take on the health risks in exchange for the monetary reward. It's not a huge stretch to imagine a future society judging our current fixation with the NFL to be as grotesque and barbaric as we now consider the gladiatorial games of Ancient Rome.

So what would a more acceptable version of the game look like? If I embrace the shittier parts of my own brain, it's honestly probably not something I would want to watch. The aspects of football that make it so appealing are of course the ones that make it so intrinsically addictive, and curtailing them to a reasonable modicum of safety feels futile. It's been proven again and again to be awfully hard to legislate successfully against human nature, regardless of how vicious or bad. The challenge will be to learn to hold both instinctual strands—the somewhat perverse base-level pleasure that has and continues to draw so, so many people toward the sport, and the somewhat slower knee-jerk empathy that comes from seeing someone seriously and repetitiously debilitate themselves—and develop some kind of internal mechanism that balances the perspective. The work of Dr. Omalu, and the effect that Concussion has had in catapulting it to a more immediate presence on the national agenda, is just the first salvo in what will be a difficult and protracted culture war trying to make peace with just another violent contradiction in a country composed of almost nothing but.

Cody Wiewandt is a writer living in New York.

Concussion is in theaters nationwide.



from VICE http://ift.tt/1RRU7Bu
via cheap web hosting

An Ilustrated Tribute to Lemmy Kilmister

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Daily VICE: Step Inside an 'Infinity Room' on Today's 'Daily VICE'

On today's episode of Daily VICE, we head to the Day for Night Festival in Houston, Texas, to see Rafik Anadol's "Infinity Room." Using computational art coding, Anadol creates an immersive installation that allows visitors to literally step inside of the art.



from VICE http://ift.tt/1mpYhDh
via cheap web hosting