The Oscars as a TV program hasn't changed since the beginning: A host makes some jokes, then people give trophies with enormous cultural significance to the world's biggest narcissists, and then let them say whatever they want into a microphone for a few seconds—a couple of minutes if they're really famous. Also there are musical numbers.

Two years ago that formula really paid off: At the 2013 Academy Awards ceremony, Best Actor winner Matthew McConaughey capped off a moment in Hollywood history known as the McConaissance by finishing his rambling piece of stoner oratory with what has become his signature catchphrase: "Alright alright alright!" And it was an argument for the Oscar status quo: Why change a system that delivers that kind of wonderful weirdness into tens of millions of homes?

Answer: Because over the decades, that formula has led to countless baffling, cringe-inducing, offensive, horrible shitshows.

Having just read the transcripts of almost every Oscar speech ever—to be precise, it was only the 1,424 at Oscars.org, dating back to 1939—I consider myself an expert on these speeches.

I learned that most acceptance speeches are mind-bendingly boring, but some occasionally go off the rails. Five distinct brands of weirdness have emerged over the years, and each of them sucks the air out of the room in unique and wonderful ways. They are: drunken rambling, cryptic remarks that confuse everyone, offensiveness (accidental or otherwise), pontification, and my personal favorite, unnecessary eroticism.

Drunk Shit

The winner of the 1983 award for best animated short gave a pretty disastrous speech. His name was Zbigniew Rybczyński, and he arrived onstage looking pants-shittingly drunk, and spoke through a translator about god-knows-what (his speech starts at 1:55 in the above video). Then he wouldn't leave the stage when the music started, and tried in vain to kiss actress Kristy McNichol. According to a very sympathetic account of that night's events on a blog called Cartoon Brew, after that display, Rybczyński promptly wandered outside and got arrested for allegedly trying to kick a cop in the nuts.

But it was The Rat Pack who set the standard for drunken Oscars antics. When Rat Pack members were still alive, they were consistently on-brand at the Oscars—they managed to be incoherent at best, and offensive at worst. Frank Sinatra couldn't string a sentence together when he won the award in 1954 for his performance in From Here to Eternity. "I really, really don't know what to say because this is a whole new kind of thing. You know, I've—song-and-dance-man type stuff—and I'm terribly pleased," he eked out.

Fellow Rat Pack-er Dean Martin, meanwhile, didn't like to show up to the Oscars at all, but they dragged him there against his will (according to Johnny Carson) in 1979. It was Midnight Express composer Giorgio Moroder who won. But Martin, who presented the award, stuck around humiliating himself. He started things off on a weird note—looking at a cue card written in English and remarking to Raquel Welch that it was "written in Caucasian"—and then he basically made sure America knew that Dino still did not give a fuck about anything.

Offensive Shit

When grizzled septuagenarian actor Jack Palance won for his performance in City Slickers, and showed off his ability to do one-handed push-ups, it would have behooved him to not follow that up with some poorly delivered Vaudeville jokes about women. "As far as the two-handed push-ups are concerned," he said, "you can do that all night and it doesn't make any difference whether she's there or not. And besides, it's a hell of a lot less expensive!"

Perhaps the most profoundly racist speech in Oscar history came along in 1960, when extremely white actor Hugh Griffith won an oscar for playing an Arab in Ben-Hur—a role that required him to have his face dyed brown. That was all to be expected in the shitty 1950s, but when Ben-Hur director William Wyler accepted Griffith's Oscar, he acted like Griffith was heroic, claiming that his only regret was "that the people of the United Arab Republic will not be permitted to see his performance." How tragic for them.

Cryptic Shit

Cryptic speeches add a certain blink-and-you'll-miss-it brand of insanity that only rewards viewers who pay attention. Sometimes it's just a bizarre joke, like when Ed Begley started his speech by saying "I'm not Ed Begley," which was apparently a real side-splitter in 1963. Grace Kelly won in 1955 for The Country Girl, and said strangely, "The thrill of this moment keeps me from saying what I really feel. I can only say thank you with all my heart to all who made this possible for me." OK, but what the hell was she really feeling? According to biographer Donald Spoto: probably loneliness.

There have also been some interesting shout-outs over the years that people tossed out like they were nothing. Chariots of Fire producer David Puttnam thanked Dodi al-Fayed, the millionaire investor who later died in a car crash alongside Princess Diana. Louis Gossett Jr. matter-of-factly claimed that his grandmother lived to be 117, which if true would place her alongside the oldest people of all time. Short film director Bert Salzman appears to be the only person in Oscar history to ever directly thank L. Ron Hubbard.

My favorite cryptic speech is Carly Simon's (above), which ends with her addressing her children, saying, "If you found a television set on that island where you are, your mama's really proud." I think I know what she means, but I choose to assume she abandoned her kids somewhere in the Bermuda Triangle, and told them to dig in the sand for household appliances.

Sanctimonious Shit

Nothing kills the mood quite like making a big, serious point about an Important Issue. Don't get me wrong—this can be pulled off gracefully, like when Tom Hanks won for playing an AIDS patient in Philadelphia, and briefly reminded America that gay people are human beings, at a time when it was still common for people to think gay people deserved AIDS.

Important Issues can also be a massive bummer though.

Marlon Brando split the difference. In 1973, he apparently wanted to raise awareness of the mistreatment of Native Americans, by staying home from the ceremony. So rather than accepting his Oscar for The Godfather, he sent a Native American woman named Sacheen Littlefeather to reject it in his place. She was very serious, and taught everyone a valuable lesson, but the holy-shit-am-I-hallucinating-right-now effect it must have had at the time means it's also inarguably one of the most entertaining moments in Oscar history.

Vanessa Redgrave (above) played a World War II-era anti-Nazi activist in Julia, and won an Oscar for it in 1978. But around that same time, she narrated a pro-Palestinian documentary, which really pissed off Zionists. Some right-wing Jewish protesters campaigned for her to be denied an Oscar, but she won anyway, and she let fly the mother of all preachy Oscar speeches.

She thanked the Academy for what she called a "tribute to my work," and then said, "I salute you, and I pay tribute to you, and I think you should be very proud that in the last few weeks you've stood firm, and you have refused to be intimidated by the threats of a small bunch of Zionist hoodlums whose behavior is an insult to the stature of Jews all over the world and their great and heroic record of struggle against fascism and oppression." What came to be remembered in some corners as the "Zionist Hoodlums Speech" didn't go over all that well.

Over the years, plenty of winners have tried to outdo Redgrave. For instance, when Michael Moore won his Oscar for Bowling for Columbine, he said to President George W. Bush, "We are against this war, Mr. Bush! Shame on you, Mr. Bush! Shame on you! And any time you've got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up!"

George Clooney famously told the world that people who work in the Entertainment Industry are

There's a long road from Parliament to patients. Image via

While the passing of the Narcotic Drugs Amendment 2016 has legalised the cultivation and distribution of marijuana in Australia, there's still a long way to go before patients get access to pharmaceutical cannabinoids.

Troy Langman, CEO of medical marijuana lobby United in Compassion, told VICE that marijuana products are still probably a year from shops. The next six months will be spent drafting regulations to spell out licensing will operate, along with production, security requirements, and distribution.

The first of these—licensing—is particularly complex. At the moment, it looks as though there will be two types of licenses: one for commercial growers, and another for researchers.

On the commercial side, interest from both local and international companies is fuelling a speculative "medical marijuana boom." It's likely there will be separate licenses for growing the cannabis, versus producing the actual medication.

Some medical marijuana advocates are concerned the regulations may restrict what strains of cannabis can be grown, potentially limiting how many people can be aided. There are also questions around whether the government will allow plants to be grown outdoors, or if they will be restricted to cultivation in greenhouses. If companies are growing indoors, they may have their first crop within nine weeks of planting.

Regulation may mean only greenhouse growing is allowed. Image via.

Once the cannabis is grown and processed into medication, then it can be given to patients. Well, sort of. As the legalisation amendment states, "manufacturing can begin once a medicinal formulation of cannabis is identified."

This "medicinal formulation" is currently under development at the University of Sydney where a $33.7 million donation (the largest ever in Australia) is funding studies into the treatment of severe epilepsy, palliative pain, and nausea associated with chemotherapy. Childhood epilepsy research will also soon launch at the University of Melbourne; however, the study will only use synthetic cannabis.

The Federal Government has also promised to down-schedule medical marijuana to a "controlled drug." However, each individual state reserves the right to maintain its status as "restricted." In NSW, a compassionate access scheme for children with severe epilepsy using the cannabis-based drug Epidolex is set to start in March.

If you've wondered how in Australia—a country still squabbling over marriage equality—allowed this relatively progressive policy to pass so quickly (the amendment was written in just eight weeks), United in Compassion's founder Lucy Haslam is a good place to start.

Haslam became an unlikely campaigner for medical marijuana after her 20-year-old son Daniel was diagnosed with terminal bowel cancer. Lucy's descriptions of the relief marijuana brought Daniel, easing his extreme nausea after chemotherapy, even won over conservative radio shock jock Alan Jones. NSW's Liberal Premier Mike Baird spoke at Daniel's memorial. Exactly a year after Daniel died, the amendment to narcotics legislation was passed.

NSW Premier Mike Baird speaking at United in Compassion's 2014 medical cannabis symposium. Image via

"Lucy, this wouldn't have happened without your contribution," Greens leader Richard Di Natale said as he addressed Parliament. "Your family's grief, your family's pain and suffering, has not been in vain." It's hoped the broad public and political support for medical marijuana will expedite the process of getting the product to patients. Or at least see an amnesty announced on imported medical cannabis treatment until Australian-grown marijuana is available.

However, Australia is in a precarious position. As anyone who had the pleasure to watch the four-hour Senate debate on narcotics reform would've noticed, almost every politician who spoke was at pains to mention that Australia's legalisation medical marijuana is in line with the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961. As the bill itself clearly states, "It is important to note that the Bill does not legalise the cultivation of cannabis or use of cannabis outside of regulated medical purposes."

This is largely driven by Tasmania's poppy industry, which grows around half of the world's opiates and is tightly monitored by the UN. Any regulation around medical marijuana must be carefully constructed to ensure it doesn't jeopardise this industry.

This could also mean the full legalisation of marijuana may be a long way off. However, decriminalisation will be on the table on 2 March, when the National Drug Summit convenes in Canberra. The Greens have been pushing decriminalisation in the past few months, an approach that may combat the fact that the number of illicit drug offences have been rising in Australia since 2008.

Follow Maddison on Twitter

Photo by Daniel Arnold from our magazine photo series, 'Photos of the Wolfpack's First Visit to Hollywood'

There are currently over 900,000 posts tagged "#oscars" on Instagram. One in particular is a photoshop of Leonardo DiCaprio as Indiana Jones, poised to grab the award, substituted for the boulder-triggering idol in the first movie. Are all of the posts like this? Images as encouragement for multi-millionaires whom the poster will never meet? DiCaprio is a celebrity among celebrities who works with great directors and has multiple models Uber'ed to him on any given Wednesday. He doesn't need you to root for him.

But of course this is the point of the Oscars. When they're not meaningless, they promote nothing more than the status quo, and then try to make us excited about it. Thankfully, they are most often meaningless.

In 1970, the film critic Rex Reed appeared on The Dick Cavett Show just before the ceremony, to kneecap the awards. "I don't think they can be bought," said Reed, blasé, "but blocks of votes can affect awards because studios get behind their personnel." He goes on to correctly guess that Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid won't win because it had to split its votes with another film made by the same studio. Reed also has a "terrible, lurking, poisonous suspicion" that John Wayne will finally win Best Actor by reminding everyone of his cowboy legacy in True Grit. (In case you can't tell, Reed does not like John Wayne.)

Reed's prognostications remain excellent because they draw attention to something we all suspect to be true about the Oscars: that they do not aim to reward talent, and that most of the time they are a fait accompli due to weird agendas, inscrutable studio politics, and arcane etiquette. Anyone who's seen the 2004 best picture, Crash, knows that on some level. Perhaps Reed's other compelling element is his disaffection with the whole shebang. Because if you regard the Oscars as anything but the annual, televised offsite retreat of a company that is hugely profitable despite everything about itself (complete with the crummy inside jokes), the problem is really with you. The Academy Awards were never meant to be anything but that.

Initially founded as the International Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in 1927, the Academy was the brainchild of MGM kingpin Louis B. Mayer, who saw it as a way to circle the wagons and protect every studio from the twin threats of talkies and unionization. Insularity being the whole point, the "international" part was dropped not long after this.

Related: Watch our film about the two kids who remade 'Indiana Jones' shot for shot

The Academy was first and foremost a trade group, there to keep Hollywood running smoothly from a business and publicity perspective. Mayer's primary concern was the Studio Basic Agreement, the first major agreement between the studios and the unions, but the awards, first a gimmick, came to be useful too.

"I found that the best way to handle was to hang medals all over them," Mayer said later, in Scott Eyman's Lion of Hollywood: The Life and Legend of Louis B. Mayer. "If I got them cups and awards they'd kill themselves to produce what I wanted." The awards were never intended to do anything but reward the most profitable movies that featured politics and morality attractive to Hollywood at the time. The first ceremony was held in May 1929, at a private dinner at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel, where the first best actor award went to Emil Jannings, a literal Nazi who would go on to work for Joseph Goebbels.

The awards were also never intended for public consumption, but that first year publishing magnate William Randolph Hearst instructed Louella Parsons, gossip columnist for his papers, to pump them up, because he assumed that he'd be able to obtain one later for his actress girlfriend Marion Davies, according to Anthony Holden's Behind the Oscar. The awards were only broadcast on television, for the first time in 1953, to offset their growing costs.

Over the years the Academy Award—if it came to mean anything at all—meant a higher gross for a nominated movie and a higher pay rate for an actor in future roles. In 2010, a study out of Colgate University found that male actors can expect an 81-percent bump in salary after winning an Oscar. Actresses tend to experience no increase at all, perhaps because their wins tend to come in their mid-30s and the ageist industry offers women fewer roles as they grow older.

Politically, the Oscars have never really shaken these conservative, business-oriented origins, and there are dozens of examples of Hollywood showing its true colors during the Cold War, from the loyalty oath required of Academy members ("Any person who... shall have admitted that he is a member of the Communist Party... shall be ineligible for an Academy Award") to its awarding the 1952 best picture to a movie called The Greatest Show on Earth (Rotten Tomatoes rating: 44 percent), because it made $12 million (roughly $107 million today), over High Noon, a film written by blacklisted writer Carl Foreman that also happens to be one of the finest pieces of art to come out of that era.

"I found that the best way to handle was to hang medals all over them."

The spectacle of the awards has come to eclipse the other activities of the Academy. Last year the event is estimated to have hauled in $100 million in ad revenue. This is not to say its new cause is not any more worthy. Writing on the 2012 telecast, New Yorker critic Anthony Lane likened the whole thing to "teenage sex": "It's all about the fizzing buildup, and the self-persuading aftermath," he observed, a fizz that's only been encouraged by the internet over the past ten years. "The dafter the matter in hand," he wrote, "the more swollen the spleen of our opinions."

But even without an anti-union agenda and the inflated apparatus, the fact that the Academy is essentially the NRA of movies has led to all kinds of horrible decisions over the years. Studio dynamics, and a general sense that one has a duty to support what's best for business, are the only way to account for the fact that Alfred Hitchcock and Robert Altman never won best director, or the fact that a movie like Forrest Gump won over Pulp Fiction. Anyone over the age of 12 should have a memory of some year where a truly bizarre movie swept the Academy Awards for reasons that are completely inexplicable unless you work for a studio.

This year more people are finally paying attention to how old, white, conservative, and frankly boring the Academy is, and that's great. But it's important to remember that each Oscar statuette only costs around $100 to make. To us, the moviegoing public that subsidizes all the surrounding glamour, the award should never appear to be much more valuable than that.

Follow Dan on Twitter.

Image via.

Getting fined on a bike in NSW is about to get a whole lot more expensive. As of March 1, riding without an ID will cost $106, up from $71. Riding without a helmet or while holding onto a moving vehicle will incur a fine of $319. The fine for running a red light will be $425.

In anticipation, NSW Police ran a bicycle infringement blitz across Sydney on Thursday. The pompously named Operation Pedro 5 targeted Surry Hills, Redfern, Bondi Junction, and Bondi Beach where over 450 penalties were issued for a range of offences. According to this media release 210 cyclists were sprung without helmets, while 80 were caught riding on footpaths. Another 103 disobeyed traffic lights.

Police claim that the crackdown comes after seven cyclists died on NSW's roads last year. As NSW Traffic and Highway Patrol Commander, Assistant Commissioner John Hartley, said in a media release issued Friday morning after the blitz, "We are out there to make sure all road users share the road safely and that those that set out on their journey, make it home in one piece."

This is a reasonable goal, but in the same way that curbing street violence has unintentionally poured water over Sydney's nightlife, cyclists are worried what jacked-up fines will do to cycling. Pablo Columbi, a Redfern resident and director of bicycle courier company Urban Mind witnessed police pulling over several cyclists last week. He claims there was a general lack of manners about it, and an abundance of aggression. "I don't have anything against helmets but I don't understand the anger behind it," he said. "Why do they have to punish like this? Like a communist dictatorship?"

Columbi says he's heard similar accounts from others. A friend of his was stung Thursday for riding over the speed limit down a hill, which just seems a little uncompromising given most bikes don't have speedometers. "I feel like this is pushing Sydney cycling backwards," he said.

Sydney has half as many cyclists as Melbourne, which is a phenomenon US professor John Pucher wrote a paper about last year. He concluded Sydney polices cycling in such a way that discourages people from riding, and believes mandatory use of helmets actually encourages people to ride faster. As he told the Sydney Morning Herald, "I would be in favour of doing away with the helmet use law for adults."

Some research even questions the value of helmets at all. Back in May 2014 Dr. Henry Marsh, a neurosurgeon at St. George's Hospital in London, told the Telegraph that many bicycle helmets are "too flimsy" to be effective in preventing injury. He also highlighted research from 2006 at the UK's University of Bath that said the cyclists wearing helmets enhances the possibility of accidents, as drivers on average get three inches closer to cyclists wearing helmets.

Thursday's blitz occurred days before laws are set to officially change, but it also happened only days after one of Sydney's largest protests for Keep Sydney Open. The previous Sunday saw 15,000 people march against lockout laws that have flat-lined Sydney's nightlife.

The laws in each case are obviously different, but the overarching theme is NSW's increasing reliance on paternalistic regulation enforced with fines and over-policing. Sydney is slowly becoming a very annoying place to live.

Follow Sarah on Twitter.

I first learned about sex in the bathroom of my co-ed yeshiva day school when I was eight. While we huddled around an automatic hand drier, two of my kippa-wearing, tzizit-wielding friends told me roughly what happens when a man masturbates: "You rub your dick a lot and then white stuff shoots out!" I listened in horror, unsure if they were joking. I was too scared to ask my parents or teachers and embarrassed to ask my friends to clarify; I wouldn't hear about sex from my teachers until I was nearly 13.

I grew up in Teaneck, a town of 40,000 in northern New Jersey, which has, by my count, at least 18 Orthodox synagogues. For the first 17 years of my life, I split my time in a variety of Modern Orthodox Jewish schools in Manhattan, Paramus, and Riverdale. Half the day was devoted to Jewish classes with the other half committed to a secular curriculum. In these schools, the classes mixed boys and girls together, one of many ways being Modern Orthodox differs from being ultra-Orthodox/Hasidic.

We'd study Talmud, but still read Harry Potter. We'd observe the Sabbath, but still discuss last night's episode of The OC. Despite my relatively-liberal religious upbringing (at least compared to many other Orthodox Jews), there were still limitations and filters through which we learned about the world around us. For example, talking about sex was something that just didn't happen. Nevertheless, thanks to pop culture and the internet, I pieced together some information about intercourse the way any preteen might. Still, my school didn't formally broach the topic until the year before high school when an awkward rabbi who gave us a rough outline of all the terrible things that can happen as a result of sex: babies, disgusting rashes, dick discharges, and, of course, AIDS. Not once during the class was sex described as a mitzvah or something to be celebrated with a partner, which is how some observant Jews interpret sex between married couples.

"While not unique to the Orthodox community, sex education is not about sex in Orthodox schools," says Dr. Bat Sheva Marcus, a modern Orthodox Jew with a PhD in Human Sexuality and the founder of the women-focused sex psychology group Maze Women's Sexual Health. "Rather, it's about how not to get pregnant and how not to get STDs. Nobody talks about pleasure or the kind of framework sex can fit into and I feel like that's what kids are really curious about. And that's what they should be talking about, in addition to how not to get pregnant and how not to get STDs."

By the time I got to college, I felt a huge culture shock. The casualness of sex among my newfound college friends was startling—I had never discussed anyone's sex life before. It was only after considerable time spent with people from different backgrounds that I realized how my introduction to sex affected my own sexuality, and how the lack of sex-positivity ended up complicating my entrance into an independent adult life.

"I'll talk to a young girl, and she'll feel horrible about being sexually active before marriage," Dr. Marcus told me over the phone. "This will be a two-year blip in her life, but nobody in the Orthodox community sees it that way. [To many Orthodox teenagers], the things they do when they're 18 feel like the be-all and end-all of life."

Recently, I became interested in finding others Jews who grew up in the small Modern Orthodox world before exploring their own paths. I wanted to know how other people with such a limited education of sexuality as a teenager handled the transition into a world where suddenly sex seemed to be everywhere. I reached out to four former Orthodox Yeshiva students around my age and asked them about what their sex education was like growing up and how it influenced their sexual activity and outlook on sex as teenagers and young adults. The interviews were conducted anonymously (mostly for their parents' sake) and have been edited for length and clarity.

For more on sex and religion, watch our profile on the 'Slut-Shaming Preacher':

Talia
23 Years Old
Grew Up in New Jersey
Currently Lives in New York
Religious Status: Unaffiliated

VICE: What was your sex education like growing up in an Orthodox Yeshiva high school?
Talia: From what I remember, we had what my school called "Health Ed" in 11th and 12th grade. Once a month, for a few months, the instructor—either the school psychologist or the college guidance counselor—went over dealing with stress, sleep, and a very light version of sex education. The sex ed piece was focused on how reproduction works, without much detail.

Did your family talk about sex openly?
Not at all. I never even heard the word sex in the house. We didn't even talk about kissing or what a physical relationship with someone my brothers or I were dating might look like. I got most of my sex ed from watching TV and movies and reading books, which I think my parents assumed. I realized that sex was present in the world, but I had no communication about it with anyone until that mediocre sex ed class in 11th grade.

What was it like losing your virginity?
I was comfortable with it. I was no longer Orthodox and I was dating a non-Jewish guy who was older than me. I actually had to kind of convince him. He knew about my religious upbringing and was kind of nervous about being the one to "take away my virginity." We did not talk about it a lot since it made him nervous. The physical tension was intense and sex actually helped relieve that.

Learning what you did growing up, was there stress at the beginning your sex life?
It took time to reconcile. My mom's reaction to telling her I had sex was, "Your namesake is turning in her grave." Which was rough stuff; my namesake is my grandma. I told her because she asked me straight out and I decided it was silly to lie. My parents and I eventually went to family therapy and sorted it out and we now actually have a very strong relationship. We still don't talk openly about who I really am... I think that's the one thing I wish was a bit different.

Are you open about your sex life with your friends that are still Orthodox?
With the ones who want to hear it, yes. The ones who identify as Orthodox but are having sex themselves like to hear about it and like to reciprocate and share their own stories, fetishes, and general feelings around it. Most of these people are in monogamous relationships and I think they justify it through that. I also know many people who identify as Orthodox and justify their desire for sex by only having anal, because somehow that somehow makes it OK.

Sam
23 Years Old
Grew Up in Manhattan
Currently Lives in Manhattan
Religious Status: Self-Identified Pagan

VICE: How did you first learn about sex?
Sam: I think I learned from reading this young adult sci-fi novel in third grade, as well as from conversations with friends and stupid teen movies. I remember searching for the word sex on like Microsoft Word Clip Art in computer class in elementary school and seeing the gender symbols.

Did you learn about sex from your parents or school?
My family never really sat me down to explain because I assume they knew I knew about sex. In terms of sexual content in religious texts, my school usually skipped those passages or used euphemisms we would take literally.

As you got older, did the lack of communication about sex affect you?
In like seventh or eighth grade, I was really repressed and compulsive about trying to adhere to all the micro-details of the ritualistic stuff we were taught to do. It became like a form of OCD that I'd waste hours on—not meditative prayer, but anxious fiddling. Finally, I realized that wasn't what God would want, and then I became much more relaxed about sex. Over the next few years, as I saw adults become more extreme with enforcing these rules, it left a worse and worse taste in my mouth.

What was high school like?
For a while, I managed to fit in among various sub-areas of the modern orthodox bubble, but then as I got older, my relationship with my parents suffered (in the typical ways) and I began to draw away from these sub-groups. I never enjoyed being called or considered "off the derech" (path) because I continued to carry a strong sense of interpersonal ethics. But facts of my lifestyle made me feel like an outsider.

Which parts of your lifestyle that made you feel like an outsider?
Well, I'm gay and I was in the closet about my sexuality and didn't tell people that I was hooking up with people I met online. Inherently, that private aspect of my life made me feel like I didn't belong. In high school, I would ditch school, go on these fucked-up solo adventures, and be very much be on my own. At the end of high school, I ended up beginning to date this older guy who encouraged my personal interests and made me feel like perhaps I had a place I could belong. This relationship was kept secret from almost everyone, besides my closest friend and a teacher who I would talk to about it.

How did your parents react to your sexuality?
My parents knew since I was 16 because they had installed spyware on my computer, so they saw what I was looking at on the internet. My dad took it very bad and our relationship took a downward spin for a number of years. I didn't come out during school because I thought I'd get kicked out, but I wish I had in retrospect. That being said, I don't feel angry at Judaism itself, but rather its institutionalization.

Are you comfortable with your sexuality now?
Yeah, absolutely. The eroticism in the bible (both straight and gay) always seemed pretty explicit to me. The pain I felt related to my upbringing was more of a social isolation. Sexuality doesn't make me feel uncomfortable. I wish I was more open with it during school, and even if being forced to come out to my family was traumatic, I'm still glad it happened.

Ben
22 Years Old
Grew up in Flatbush, Brooklyn
Currently Lives in Manhattan
Religious Status: Secular Jew

VICE: Do you remember how you first learned about sex?
Ben: When I was 12 or 13, I went to Jewish sleepaway summer camp. My counselors played us one of the American Pie movies.

So you learned about sex from Jason Biggs?
Essentially. It was my counselors who discussed it with me for the first time, but they were just a few 17- or 18-year-old guys and were probably misinformed themselves.

Did you have any formal sex ed?
Nope, not at that point. I had it maybe in like tenth grade, but by then I already had my first sexual experience.

Do you think you would have benefited from having sex ed before then?
Totally, especially if my understanding of it at that point was just what I gathered from American Pie. I made a point to have my first kiss before I entered high school because I didn't want to be behind everyone else. So I kissed a girl in camp the summer before freshman year. Then, when I got to high school, I found out I was only one of a handful of people who kissed someone else before.

How did you feel about sex as you continued going to a Yeshiva high school?
I came from an even more Orthodox culture in Flatbush, so I thought it would be different going to a slightly more liberal high school. But at my school, guys and girls totally conflated money with popularity and sexual hierarchies; it was kind of messed-up.

Sex was also a way to rebel against the administration's constant nagging about tzniut (sexual modesty). Also, bringing attention to tzniut brings attention to those things, which were not allowed. It was like telling someone they can't have something, only making him want that previously unknown, unattainable thing even more. That was one of my first ways of realizing how distant I felt from the "Ortho" ways. But you also were conditioned to feel guilty for being interested in those forbidden topics. My high school set people up for that "othered" feeling, either while they were in high school or after.

How does your family feel about you having a sex life before marriage?
Well, they're used to it now. I've been out of high school five years and I'm dating a non-Jewish girl. That's a huge issue for them, though. And mind you, I'm a Jewish studies major, and committed wholeheartedly to my Jewish identity and community at large, but sometimes it's hard for Orthodox people to see outside of their monolithic understanding of Jewishness. The situation with my girlfriend is tough; my parents and I don't talk about her at all. It's an unspoken thing, and it causes me a lot of anxiety.

At what point did your thinking about sex change and evolve?
Once I started having oral sex in 11th grade, I was all in. My secular education in high school, however limited, showed me how wonderful it could be. Like watching any Goddard films outside of school, you just want to have passionate sex like that.

Rebecca
23 Years Old
Grew Up in Manhattan
Currently Lives in Israel
Religious Status: Secular Jew

VICE: Can you tell me about your religious background?
Rebecca: I grew up in a house with mixed views; my dad is Modern Orthodox and my mom is pretty much traditional, but not observant. I went to a Modern Orthodox school and I was very involved in the Jewish community. I went to synagogue and observed shabbat, etc. After high school, I became a lot less observant. Now I live in Israel on a kibbutz (a communal settlement), I work on Shabbat, and I don't go to synagogue.

Do you remember sex-ed in elementary school/high school?
I don't think I had sex ed at all in elementary school or high school. My mom used to tell me to use protection and I used to go to the gyno, so I pretty much knew about sex, but I guess I learned a lot on my own.

Was your mom always liberal in her attitudes towards sex?
She has always been liberal—thankfully. My mom's side of the family is also really secular, so I felt that I always had them to talk about these kinds of things with. Sex was not a taboo subject with them.

How did you reconcile your mom's views with the strictness of your high school and tziniut?
It was hard in elementary school because I was embarrassed about the fact that my mom is not religious and I felt like I wanted to keep the status quo. In high school, I matured and I grew to appreciate the way she was. I felt like she was there for me to talk about certain things, stuff I knew that my girlfriends' moms were more conservative about. She was the cool mom.

Did the students at your school have the same level of understanding about sex? Or was there more of a divide?
In high school, most of my friends started having romantic relationships. All of a sudden lots of people were hooking up. I think they did what was natural. It's not like they were rebellious about it, but we did have fun and smoke and go to parties because I went to a Modern Orthodox school and the students that go there have an open mind. It was not like the single-sex schools.

Do you ever feel guilty about your adult sex life?
As I got older, I released the guilt that school made me feel about sex, but it took a while. When I graduated and had sex for the first time, I kind of felt bad about it because was kind of a "bad boy." But I feel like if sex was a more normal thing in high school then I would have felt more comfortable about the whole topic in general. Today, I have a good relationship with my father and mother. I live with my boyfriend and it's all good with them. The fact that they even know I'm in a serious relationship makes them happy.

Visit Jackson's website and Instagram for more of his photo work.

A Golden Raspberry award

The Academy Awards purport to celebrate the best films to grace the silver screen each year, but with the omnipresent criticism of this year's ceremony, more and more people are putting the Academy's understanding of artistic excellence on the chopping block.

John Wilson, however, has distrusted both the Oscars' and Hollywood's taste for nearly four decades, inspiring him to found the Golden Raspberry Awards in 1981. Lovingly dubbed the Razzies, the ceremony has spent the last 36 years celebrating the absolute worst that Hollywood has to offer. Winners for Worst Picture have varied from now-cult classics like Mommie Dearest and Showgirls to bigger Hollywood fare, such as Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen and the final chapter of the Twilight saga.

The Razzies may be snickering from the sidelines, but they're far from the fringe. Since its inception, the anti-Oscars has become a big player in the cultural lexicon, applying a rubric and language with which to talk about bad movies. On the eve of the 2016 Razzies, we spoke to Wilson about the ceremony's modest start (which coincided with the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan), the future of the Oscars, and why Adam Sandler is still the king of Golden Raspberry nominations.

VICE: How did the idea for the Razzies come about?
John Wilson: It was August of 1980, and I'd paid 99 cents to see a double feature of Can't Stop the Music with The Village People and Olivia Newton John in Xanadu, and I wanted my 99 cents back. And the manager said no!

Can you tell me about the first ceremony?
I don't know if you're old enough to remember this, but when John Hinckley Jr. shot Ronald Reagan, they postponed the Oscars for 24 hours. That night was the first Razzies.

The first one was essentially an Oscar-watching potluck party. It was very silly, very innocent, and very short. It was 40 people total; we just all thought it was such a funny idea. And the next year, we got a friend of mine whose mom lived in Bel Air to let us use her mansion for the party. By the fourth year, we had USA Today and CNN in attendance and we moved the ceremony to a grade school. And it has just gotten exponentially more out-of-hand since.

How would you describe the relationship between the Razzies and the entertainment culture at large?
We like to think of ourselves as the voice of the people, really. A bulk of our membership is made up of moviegoers who pay a fee and can vote on the films we select. And we like to think it makes pretty good sense to become a member because Hollywood makes a lot of movies, and good movies and bad movies all cost the same so if nothing else, that should be enough of a motivating factor.

What's been the biggest change you've noticed in the Razzies over the years, either in terms of the nominated films or just the spirit of the ceremony?
Well, the basic essence of it hasn't changed much at all over the years, but the number of people voting is approaching a thousand. We have voters now from 48 states and, I think, 22 foreign countries.

What do you consider to be the duty of the Razzies? Do you aim to spoof Hollywood or actually highlight some kind of idea about what makes for a bad film?
The intent overall is humor, really. We want to get to the point where there are no films for us to pick on, but it's been 36 years and it still hasn't happened. But it's also about the ridiculousness of Hollywood this time of year.

You mean around Oscar season in particular?
Between Christmas and Easter, there are 357 awards shows! And they take them all so seriously—especially the Academy. So something that pompous and over-the-top is just begging for it. It wants to be ripped apart! It's like there's a big red balloon in front of you and you're holding a big, sharp pin—what are you going to do, not pop it?

Aside from the actual noise that surrounds the ceremony, what do you make of the actual Oscars nominations themselves?
The academy has a total disinterest in the films that people actually like. It's really crazy. They have ten spots, or however many, for Best Picture, so why wouldn't they nominate Star Wars: The Force Awakens? It made a zillion dollars, it's already the highest grossing movie ever, fans loved it, critics loved it. That's a great Hollywood film!

Do you think the box office is something that the Oscars should consider? It does factor into how you guys nominate the Worst Pictures—all five of the films up for consideration this year are big-budget productions.
They just have no excuse for being among the worst films of the year! They have so much at their disposal. Some of the movies are the result of bad marketing, so bad box office isn't the only qualifier. But we look at box office because it's Hollywood's own barometer of success.

Are you a fan of big Hollywood blockbusters? I would think a good number of those films would end up on Razzie ballots.
There are ways to make a good blockbuster, it's not an impossible task. A movie has to have a degree of respect for its audience, and that's a lot of what's missing today. The studios go into the films thinking, "If we hit them over the head with a rolling pin, they'll love it." But sometimes it's about doing less. There are a lot of big studio films that I love. I thought that J.J. Abram's first Star Trek was amazing; that's another film that should have been nominated for Best Picture, in my opinion.

Are there films from the past year that surprised you?
I thought Creed was terrific. I went into it thinking it would surely be on our list—it's like the eighth one of these movies, and himself, and they got a great performance out of him! Now he's the front-runner for that Oscar. I definitely didn't expect that, but he was terrific.

Where do you think the Oscars can go from here? This year has seen such a storm of criticism.
I think the criticism is totally valid, but I also think the Academy has handled it pretty graciously. It's going to be interesting going into the next two years because the Academy itself is in a state of flux now. You have them admitting new members to up diversity, which is amazing, so the next couple years will be very telling, I think.

What is one of your favorite Razzie memories?
When Halle Berry showed up to accept her Worst Actress award for Catwoman. We got a call the morning of saying that Halle wanted to come and accept the award in person, and immediately we had to figure out where to meet her, which exit to block off, how to coordinate with her security team, etc. It was nuts. I told my wife and she didn't believe me. When Halle came out, I think everyone in the room thought it was a look-a-like at first.

Were you surprised that she took the whole thing so well? It feels like it could be risky to bruise the ego of a movie star.
If you win a Razzie, we're really not saying "stop making movies," you know? We're saying, "stop making movies like this. We know you can do better." We don't have a ton of repeat offenders. Except for Adam Sandler, I think he might be our most-nominated actor.

Is there a particularly famous Worst Picture win or snub?
The only one that won by a landslide was Battlefield Earth. It got something like 93% of all votes for Worst Picture. So I felt free to vote for the film that I really couldn't stand which was Adam Sandler's Little Nicky. I still don't think it's even his worst movie.

You really hate Sandler, yeah? You keep bringing him up.
I don't hate him, I just wish he would grow up! He's a 45-year-old teenager.

Follow Rod on Twitter.

The "T" stands for thymus, a small organ located between the lungs and behind the sternum where T-cells mature. Illustrations by Michael Dockery.

For many years, there were only three possible types of cancer treatment: surgery, chemotherapy, and radiotherapy. In the last decade, drugs that target specific molecular changes on the surface of cancer cells have been developed, such as the drug Herceptin used for breast cancer treatment.

Now there is the promise of a fifth type of cancer treatment: immunotherapy. Instead of drugs, radiation or the surgeon's scalpel, this treatment uses the power of the patient's own immune system to kill cancer cells.

The possibilities of immunotherapy have led to cancer cures hitting the headlines again; scientists have had "extraordinary" success using modified T-cell therapy to treat blood cancers in early clinical trials. Although the research is still unpublished, The Guardian has reported some of the findings announced at the 2016 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

In one study, 94 percent of patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia (a disease where patients overproduce immature white blood cells) were cured, and patients with other blood malignancies had response rates of over 80 percent. This is a remarkable feat considering that these were patients that had failed other drug treatments and only had months to live.

But what exactly is T-cell therapy, and why is it such a game changer? To answer this, we have to go back to some basics.

The Immune System

The immune system is a collection of molecules, cells and tissues that protect the body from pathogens in the environment. The immune system has two broad categories of defence: innate and acquired immunity.

The innate immune system consists of cells and proteins that are always present and ready to eliminate pathogens. This part of our immune system includes physical barriers (such as our skin) and cells called phagocytes that destroy pathogens by "eating" them.

The adaptive immune system comes into play when pathogens evade or overcome our innate immune system. The components of this immune system are able to adapt to a specific pathogen, destroy it, and remember how to do so if it ever returns (which is why vaccinations work so well).

Despite the presence of both innate and adaptive immune systems, cancers are still able to develop and thrive. This is due to their uncanny ability to evade the body's defences, either by suppressing the immune system or by altering it's ability to recognise cancer cells as a threat.

What are T-cells?

T-cells are a type of lymphocyte (a category of white blood cell) that are an important part of the adaptive immune system. The "T" stands for thymus, a small organ located between the lungs and behind the sternum where these cells mature. There are two main types of T-cells: cytotoxic and helper.

The role of cytotoxic (or "killer") T-cells is to directly attack and destroy cells infected by viruses and sometimes by bacteria. Cytotoxic T-cells can also destroy cancerous cells that haven't evaded the body's immune system. Helper T-cells on the other hand are needed to recognise pathogens and activate both cytotoxic T-cells and B-cells, another type of lymphocyte that produces antibodies.

T-cells can be differentiated from other lymphocytes like B-cells because they contain proteins called T-cell receptors (TCRs) on their cell surface. TCRs are necessary for the activation of T-cells in response to specific proteins (or antigens) on the surface of a pathogen.

T-Cell receptors binding with cancer cells

What is T-Cell Therapy?

Put simply, T-cell therapy involves using genetically modified T-cells as cancer treatment. The therapy is made by first removing a patient's T-cells from their body. Then, the cells are modified so that they target the patient's immune-system evading cancer. This is done by either altering TCRs so that they then bind to molecules on the surface of the cancer cells or by introducing completely new cancer-targeting receptors onto the T-cells (called chimeric antigen receptors or CARs). Finally, the modified T-cells are allowed to multiply before being infused back into the patient. Once the T-cells are back in the body, the can seek out and attack the patient's cancer directly.

Advantages of this therapy include being able to harness the patient's own immune system and the ability of T-cells to multiply to great numbers. Another advantage of this therapy is that it is able to persist in the body for a person's entire life, meaning that cancer recurrence may be prevented. Indeed, The Guardian article refers to another study that has tracked the presence of "memory" T-cells (T-cells that remember how to fight the cancer cells) for two to 14 years after they had been introduced into cancer patients.

The recent clinical trials reported on by The Guardian used T-cells with CARs that target CD19, a molecule found on the surface of all B-cells. The reason this therapy has been so successful at treating acute lymphoblastic leukaemia is because most cases of this disease are caused by the overproduction of immature B cells. While using this therapy means that all B cells (both good and bad) are targeted and depleted, the resulting condition known as "B-cell aplasia" is a manageable disorder (patients can be infused with antibodies the B cells normally make).

Side Effects and Disadvantages

Despite the early promise of T-cell therapy, it is not without its drawbacks. Possibly the most serious of all the potential side effects is cytokine release syndrome—or CRS—which in the clinical trial described in The Guardian affected 20 patients. Two even died from it.

Finding the balance between activating T-cells enough so they kill cancer, but not too much so they don't cause CRS, has proved difficult. A 2014 study by Maude et al published in The Cancer Journal however has shown that the drug Tocilizumab may be effective at reversing CRS without completely inhibiting the T-cells.

Future Developments

There is still much to be done before T-cell therapy is available for widespread use. Alongside the technical, regulatory and financial challenges that plague most research groups, further clinical trials must be done and the patients monitored for greater periods of time to see how long they remain in remission. Further monitoring will also allow any unforeseen effects of using modified T-cells in the body to be detected.

There is also hope that T-cell therapy will eventually be able to be used against other cancer types, including solid tumours. This would involve identifying target molecules expressed on these cancer cells and designing receptors that safely target these, a time consuming and potentially difficult task.

Having said that it doesn't pay to be too pessimistic, as the rate of new discoveries and treatments are consistently surpassing forecasts.

Follow Matilda on Twitter.

The 88th annual Academy Awards have come and gone. Leo finally got his Oscar, Mad Max took home a shelfful, and some Los Angeles Girl Scouts made more money in cookie sales than most of us do all year.

In an era when most televised award shows are awkward as hell, the 2016 Oscars took it to a new level of hot-take launching weirdness, from the usual mindless presenter banter to constant reminders from the Academy, which often took the form of "yes, we're aware we have a race problem—here's a joke about it." If you missed the show, don't worry—here's a little round-up of all the big moments of the night, in GIF form.

Chris Rock made a pretty big deal about the lack of African-American nominees.

"You realize if they would've nominated hosts, I wouldn't have gotten this job," he joked.

A few minutes later he called Hollywood out for its inability to recognize its own internal bias.

So he took to the streets to create his own "Black Oscars."

Beyond Rock's monologue, the night still managed to have some memorable moments. Here is a good reminder that Fifty Shades of Grey is an Oscar-nominated film.

Somebody sat around sweating in this bear costume all night just for one Revenant sight-gag.

Sam Smith claimed to be the first openly gay man ever to win an Oscar.

Although, Radiohead's SPECTRE theme was better.

Without a doubt, the Girl Scouts were the biggest winners of the night.

Girl Scout cookies are $4 a box, right?

On one of the evening's rare serious notes, Lady Gaga and Joe Biden brought attention to the ongoing issue of campus sexual assault.

A drug testing kit presenting a positive reading on Ritalin. Image via

Dr Alex Wodak, president of the Australian Drug Law Reform Foundation (ADLRF), has vowed to defy the government and begin testing drugs at music festivals. The announcement comes after several people died at festivals across the country last year, most after thinking they'd taken MDMA.

Details of the plan are yet to emerge, except that the trial is planned for a festival in New South Wales. The Baird Government is firmly against testing, telling the ABC they will actively discourage Dr Wodak. "This won't be happening here in NSW," Premier Baird said. "In very simple terms this is an absolutely ridiculous proposal." Dr Wodak has defended the scheme, telling Fairfax Media "I am prepared to break the law to save young people's lives."

NSW police commissioner Troy Grant has also argued against pilli testing for an op-ed in The Age. "I have no firm evidence before me that pill testing will save a life," he wrote. "This government cannot act as a quality assurer for drug dealers whose pills may kill one of our young people."

Illustration by author

"The boy didn't know what happened. He only knew he was going to school, and, then waking up with a lost leg. That's a lot of shit for a seven-year-old child," said Dr. Hamza Kataeb, 29, in a voice message sent to me via Facebook. Dr. Kataeb is the manager of a 32-bed field hospital in Eastern Aleppo, and he was covering for another doctor; he was on the 72nd hour of his shift. In the voice message, his courteous voice sometimes broke from exhaustion as he described a recent victim of Russian airstrikes. He had 20 hours left to go.

Kataeb is part of a rare group. Ninety-five percent of Aleppo's doctors have left, fled, or been detained since the start of the war, according to the nonprofit Physicians for Human Rights. Kataeb himself has suffered from this persecution: After participating in anti-government demonstrations, he told me, he landed himself on a wanted list, and he had to abandon his medical residency. According to a recent UN report, airstrikes have destroyed the vast majority of the 33 hospitals in Aleppo, leaving field units like Kataeb's as some of the last providers of health care left in rebel-held parts of the city. Kataeb, who treats both chronic conditions and traumatic injury, says that once the Russian airstrikes started, he began treating the seriously injured in far higher numbers.

In January, these Russian airstrikes sent over 30,000 Syrians fleeing to the mostly-closed Turkish border. Camped out with little to no food, shelter, or sanitation, these refugees live in squalid conditions that aid groups struggle to address. From the other side of the border, international media document their plight.

But conditions in Aleppo and the surrounding countryside are even more dire.

Since the regime and its allied militias cut the main supply road from Turkey to Aleppo, prices of essential goods have spiraled upwards. "All food and fuel supply routes were cut except from one hardly-accessible and very dangerous road," said Amr Yagan, a Dubai-based activist and lawyer from Aleppo who works as a liaison with local aid organizations. "This caused the prices to jump up extraordinarily amid shortages of life's necessities." When the Russian intervention began, organizations Yagan worked with stocked up on fuel, wood, and basic foodstuffs. But with the road cut, Yagan said, it became difficult to bring in everything from diapers to heating to the vehicles used by the city's civil defense. Fuel has grown scarce, and according to one cab driver I interviewed through a translator on Facebook, the diesel that powers most cars and generators had nearly tripled in price.

Watch 'Inside the Battle: Al Nusra-Al Qaeda in Syria':

The partial blockade has been coupled with steady bombardment of civilian infrastructure—bombings that target not just Aleppo but most rebel-held parts of Syria. Earlier this month, after airstrikes hit a pair of hospital's in Syria's north, including one in supported by Médecins sans Frontiers, the organization said the attacks "can only be considered deliberate, probably carried out by Syrian-government-led coalition that is predominantly active in the region." Fearing more strikes, MSF now refuses to share the GPS coordinates of its facilities with the Syrian government.

Bombs fall on schools as well as hospitals. On January 11, Al Jazeera reported that 15 people, 12 of them children, had died after a Russian missile hit a school in Ain Jara, fewer than ten miles north of Aleppo. On February 14, Russian warplanes reportedly bombed a school in Orem Al Kubra, a town in Aleppo's countryside, leaving five children wounded. Over Facebook Messenger, Ismaeel Barakat, an Aleppo activist who witnessed the aftermath, told me, "The children's blood was mixed with pens, ink, books, and papers."

"There's a state of panic and psychological pressure," said Amr Yagan, the activist. "Our schools are functioning with major difficulties because of the bombing and the students' fear of going to school gravely affects their education."

Every day more bombs fall on the eastern part of Aleppo, the world's oldest continuously inhabited city, gradually turning neighborhoods into graveyards of rubble and dust. Recently, a member of the Aleppo's civil defense (also known as the "White Helmets") told me that airstrikes have targeted the city at least six times a day, concentrating on civil and residential neighborhoods. After bombing runs, he said, planes wait for first responders to gather, then bomb again. This is the notorious "double-tap" strategy that allegedly killed Canadian photojournalist Ali Moustafa and that was used in December against an MSF hospital in Homs.

Describing the challenges of his job, the first responder recalled one morning when he and other civil defense employees watched the government helicopters buzzing like insects in Aleppo's sky. One dropped a barrel bomb on a group of civilian cars. The White Helmets ran over. "I saw a horrific scene when I went to search inside one of the cars, a mother pressing her child to her chest because of the strong explosion and fear. Both bodies were charred," he said.

When asked about the toll of their airstrikes, the Syrian and Russian governments respond as governments always do. They deny killing civilians. According to them, their bombs kill only terrorists—and since 9/11, the Muslim terrorist has become a folk devil in the international imagination, whose existence justifies any torture, military aggression, or crime.

As Russian airstrikes displaced tens of thousands of Syrians in mid-February, the Russian Ministry of Defense tweeted: "Near #Aleppo, terrorists are evacuating their families to the north of the province, to the Turkish border due to complicated situation." Even fleeing women and children become terrorists when seen through the funhouse mirror of military PR.

Attacks on civilians are heinous but link civilians to terrorists, and to many people, such actions suddenly become palpable. It's not just the Russian government that engages in this kind of calculus, either. In December, Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz said of ISIS, "We will carpet-bomb them into oblivion. I don't know if sand can glow in the dark, but we're going to find out." Not to be outdone, GOP frontrunner Donald Trump has floated the idea that he would fight terrorists by "tak out their families." The US is no stranger to attacks on civilian infrastructure in Syria: In February, the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that US airstrikes killed 15 when it hit a bakery in an ISIS-occupied town near the Iraqi border. Nor does the US necessarily spare hospitals. In October, a US gunship razed an MSF hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, killing 30 staff and patients.

On midnight Saturday, a limited cessation of hostilities came into effect in Syria after negotiations between the US and Russia. But the agreement does not cover strikes on groups considered "terrorists," including ISIS or the al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra.

Because of this, many opposition supporters treat the "ceasefire" with bitter skepticism. When asked his thoughts, activist Ismaeel Barakat called it "a dirty game the Americans and Russians are playing to eliminate the revolution under the pretext of fighting terrorism."

On Saturday, the White Helmets reported via Twitter that things were "very quiet" compared to the last several years, but there have been numerous violations of the agreement throughout the country, with Russia trading accusations with Turkey and rebel groups about who was responsible for which attacks.

Despite bombings and a potential siege, an estimated 320,000 people remain in Aleppo. Some are too old, sick, or poor to join the flood of refugees. Others have established businesses, or built homes, that they are unwilling to abandon for a precarious life in Turkey.

Others stay out of a deep sense of commitment. No matter what happens, Dr. Hamza Kataeb and his colleagues aren't going anywhere.

"We are not only medical professionals; we are also activists," he told me. "We will stay here until the end. Until the regime is completely over. Until the end of the revolution, so that everyone who killed innocent people should get the outcome of his doing. That has to be in a courthouse."

The endocannabinoid system. Image by Alex Reyes

As you probably already know, unlike water, potatoes, and many top-selling pharmaceutical drugs, it's virtually impossible to fatally overdose on marijuana.

What you might not realize, however, is that this remarkable attribute of weed stems from the fact that the human body actually produces its own "endogenous" cannabinoids (chemicals otherwise unique to the cannabis plant). These cannabinoids—whether formed in your brain or inhaled via a nice fat joint—fit neatly into a series of specialized receptors located throughout the human body, with their greatest concentration in the hippocampus (which regulates memory), the cerebral cortex (cognition), the cerebellum (motor coordination), the basal ganglia (movement), the hypothalamus (appetite), and the amygdala (emotions). Cannabinoid receptors are similarly found in "every animal species down to the sponge," Dr. Donald Abrams, chief of hematology / oncology at San Francisco General Hospital and a leading medical marijuana researcher, told VICE's Krishna Andavalu.

Dr. Abrams was speaking to Andavalu about cannabinoid receptors for the first episode of Weediquette, our show about all things weed on our new TV channel, VICELAND. The episode explores the potential therapeutic benefits of THC in children with serious illnesses. When compared to the side effects of other drugs commonly prescribed to kids with cancer, the decision of parents to administer large doses of highly-concentrated cannabis oil to their sick children seems to some the better choice.

First identified in the late 1980s, the so-called endocannabinoid system consists of CB1 receptors predominantly located in the nervous system, connective tissues, gonads, glands, and organs; and CB2 receptors, primarily found in the immune system and also present in the spleen, liver, heart, kidneys, bones, blood vessels, lymph cells, endocrine glands, and reproductive organs. These receptors can be stimulated and modulated by compounds called endocannabinoids that are produced naturally in the body, like anandamide (ananda is the Sanskrit word for bliss); by ingesting a set of closely-related botanically-based phytocannabinoids like tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the cannabis plant's best known and most psychoactive compound; or by ingesting synthetic cannabinoids produced in a laboratory. After binding to receptors in the body that fit them like a lock fits a key, these endo, phyto, and synthetic cannabinoids all produce a wide range of physiological effects, altering everything from blood pressure to pain response to memory to appetite to "consciousness."

"The endogenous cannabinoid system, named after the plant that led to its discovery, is perhaps the most important physiologic system involved in establishing and maintaining human health," Dr. Dustin Sulak, a leading practitioner of what some have dubbed cannabinopathic medicine, said during a lecture at the 2010 NORML convention. "In each tissue, the cannabinoid system performs different tasks," he said. "But the goal is always the same: homeostasis, the maintenance of a stable internal environment despite fluctuations in the external environment."

'Weediquette,' episode 1, 'Stoned Kids.' Watch new episodes of 'Weediquette' Tuesdays at 11 PM EST on our shiny new TV channel, VICELAND.

Think of the endocannabinoid system as your body's "root level" operating system—a kind of central processing unit that regulates and alters the functioning of many other important systems and keeps them in balance.

Martin Lee, author of Smoke Signals: A Social History of Marijuana, notes in his book that cannabinoid receptors are more abundant in the brain than any other type of neurotransmitter receptor and "function as subtle sensing devices, tiny vibrating scanners perpetually primed to pick up biochemical cues that flow through fluids surrounding each cell... When tickled by THC or its endogenous cousins, these receptors trigger a cascade of biochemical changes on a cellular level that puts the brakes on excessive physiological activity. Endocannabinoids are the only neurotransmitters that engage in such 'retrograde signaling,' a form of intracellular communication that inhibits immune response, reduces inflammation, relaxes musculature, lowers blood pressure, dilates bronchial passages, and normalizes overstimulated nerves. Retrograde signaling serves as an inhibitory feedback mechanism that tells other neurotransmitters to 'cool it' when they are firing too fast."

The system's discovery kickstarted a profound sea change in medical science's understanding of neurological functioning. In a 2006 study published in Pharmacological Review, National Institute of Health researcher Pal Pacher, M.D., Ph.D explained the cognitive leap that took place.

"In the past decade, the endocannabinoid system has been implicated in a growing number of physiological functions, both in the central and peripheral nervous systems and in peripheral organs," Dr. Palcher wrote. "Modulating the activity of the endocannabinoid system turned out to hold therapeutic promise in a wide range of disparate diseases and pathological conditions, ranging from mood and anxiety disorders, movement disorders such as Parkinson's and Huntington's disease, neuropathic pain, multiple sclerosis and spinal cord injury, to cancer, atherosclerosis, myocardial infarction, stroke, hypertension, glaucoma, obesity/metabolic syndrome, and osteoporosis, to name just a few."

But what happens when you purposefully disrupt the body's ability to stimulate the endocannabinoid system?

Things can go haywire, as discovered when Big Pharma tested Rimonabant, an anti-obesity drug designed to create a kind of "reverse munchies" by preventing cannabinoids (endo or phyto) from binding to CB1 and CB2 receptors. Those enrolled in a planned 33-month study of Rimonabant did report lower overall appetite when taking the drug, but they also demonstrated an increased risk of suicide so pronounced that the study was abandoned after little more than a year—and four suicides.

"Patients taking Rimonabant reported feeling severely depressed and having serious thoughts about committing suicide," Psychology Today reported. "It was as though the patients had lost their ability to experience pleasure... tells neuroscientists that our endogenous marijuana system is normally involved, either directly or indirectly, in controlling our mood and allowing us to experience pleasure; antagonizing the actions of this chemical in the brain leads to depression with possibly dangerous consequences."

For more information on the endocannabinoid system, and the parents testing cannabis as a treatment for pediatric cancer, check out "Stoned Kids," the first episode of Weediquette airing tomorrow on VICELAND at 11 PM EST.

Watch all the first episodes of our shows now at VICELAND.com

Image via

Tinder has been around for long enough that we know who to swipe left on without even using our brains. When you see someone doing yoga on a beach or at a full moon party, your thumb moves with unthinking knee-jerk speed the same way it would if you touched a hot kettle.

But what makes you right-swipe? How can you in a split second, think, yes, I can foresee a future in which me and this person might have sex and a sweater we both wear and Christmas together and an apartment and a baby and a life insurance policy?

Conventional wisdom is that it's all about being looking good in your pictures. Millennials are base creatures, and dating apps have taken our tastes and desires down to the lowest common denominator. We want casual sex with attractive people, and we want it within five miles and with minimal conversation.

But perhaps it's not as simple as that. New data released by Tinder shows that certain professions get a lot more right swipes than others. For men, the jobs most likely right-swiped are: pilot, entrepreneur, firefighter, doctor, or TV personality (so basically the jobs you read about in kids books). For women it's physical therapist, interior designer, founder-entrepreneur, PR, and teacher.

Who knows why these jobs get the most attention. What is intrinsically sexy about an interior designer? The only way to find out what really makes these jobs attractive is to talk to the people who do them. So prepare yourself guys, some red hot professions coming your way.

THE MEN

NICK PATEL—PILOT; ALSO WORKS AT VICE WEIRDLY

VICE: So Nick, pilots are the most right-swiped for dudes. Why do you think that is?
Nick Patel: It's desirable in terms of profession because being a pilot is one of the very few things that's very high in terms of skill, alongside doctors and lawyers. It's not something everyone does or skills everyone has.

So it's niche and people dig that?
Yeah, a lot of people are impressed by it. You don't meet many people who have the ability to fly. Every time I've mentioned it to people they're so wowed about it.

Has it helped you get people into bed in the past?
Yeah. I'll definitely bring it up more if there's someone hot around.

Would you be impressed if you met another pilot?
Hell yeah. With flying, it's a passion. You have a lot of things you can talk about when it's someone with a similar interest. It's a job that's so different; that aspect of being in the air, for me it's a thrill. When I meet other pilots, you definitely have an understanding. I love planespotting and all of that, and you find that with pilots.

Oh my god, I just realized you have a plane sticker on your laptop.
Hahaha. Yeah...

Mike Buonaiuto, Founder Of Shape History

VICE: Your job is one of the most attractive out there for a human man. How does that make you feel?
Mike Buonaiuto: Your job says a lot about you. The fact we've gone out and done our own thing is attractive. I've gone off and set up my own agency, and that says a lot about me. Everyone wants to find someone who has job freedom and has the guts to go and do what he loves.

Is that willingness to take a risk sexy?
Definitely. I guess taking a risk is what I find attractive in other people and not just in partnerships but in people you work with too. You want to know people who are passionate.

Hypothetically, would you want to date a founder of a company?
I would but alarm bells would ring, because I know how workaholic and slightly crazy I am over work. I'm not sure I'd want to. The idea of dating a me is more attractive than actually the reality of it.

Billy Tarr—Junior Doctor

*This is not a real photograph of Billy Tarr, the doctor we spoke to; this is a stock image. Billy didn't want his picture in this because of all the junior doctor strike stuff, which is fair enough.

VICE: So doctors are hot. Top five level hot.
Billy Tarr: I was surprised that it's in the top five. You work 56 hours a week, minimum, and almost every weekend. I'm surprised people would put up with us coming home in the middle of the night or weekends or whatever. I guess we're portrayed as quite compassionate. We're nice people generally. We spend all day talking to people, so we're good at conversation.

Have you found potential lovers have gone crazy for it?
I go out with girls who are also medical students, so I've never really had a chance to find out.

So you all keep it within the community?
I've dated two medical students, and they've both been my kind of age and level of training. We're quite busy. They say that in every cohort of trainee doctors going through there'll be a few marriages within the class. But then we do spend six years together. I know a couple of my friends have been going out since first year, so there must be some truth in it.

The fact you've studied and actually been bothered to commit to something for so long is quite attractive.
Yeah, I guess. I'd never though of that. It's fair to say people do hold a certain amount of respect for it. That's nice.

THE LADIES

Lottie Hunt —PR, Devil PR

VICE: Your job is very likely to get you right-swiped. Well done. What qualities do you think PRs have that make them attractive?
Lottie Hunt: I suppose being a PR requires great interpersonal skills, confidence, creativity, and an ability to "attempt" to stay cool in high pressure and ridiculous situations. I mean, I would find those qualities attractive in a guy, so I guess that's why we've come out at the top of the list.

Have you ever used it trying to flirt with a guy?
Definitely not. In my experience, working in music PR, the interest is more in the music and artists that we work with, rather than what I actually do. I don't think people actually understand what PR is half the time. I get a lot of, "So what do you actually do?" I prefer to stay illusive than let on that I actually spend most of my time running up and down millions of flights of stairs in the backstage of venues that have no phone signal, manically looking for journalists and disappearing band members and trying to connect them together.

Would you ever date a PR yourself or has being one turned you off them?
Well never say never, but I guess the only thing is knowing how full-on the job is, and how many extra hours you work in the evenings and weekends at gigs and festivals. I'd probably never see them. Maybe I'd need someone with a bit more balance and calm in their job, like a carpenter, or wildlife photographer? Please direct all enquiries or applications my way of course.

Sophie Finch (pictured waving with her team)—Interior Designer; Finch Interiors

VICE: Why on earth do you think you lot get right-swiped?
Sophie Finch: Maybe because we're creative? We're intelligent but a bit more free thinking. We seem fun. It sounds a bit pretentious, but we're not stuck in a bank working nine to five. We also have sense of style.

That makes sense. If you make interiors look nice, you're not going to look bad.
Yes. And maybe we push things a bit more sartorially. For instance, I like a sequined jacket of the bomber variety. That might be what it is: They can spot us in the pub.

I thought maybe they think you're going to make their horrible apartment look better?
I hate the idea of that, us being the one that makes the nest, but maybe it is that. My other half is actually an interior designer as well. I've only ever been out with designers. One of the other girls here—her boyfriend's in fashion. I think designers as a whole bracket just go for each other. Creatives wouldn't likely date corporate people.

Edwina Eddleston—Founder of creative agency LDR

VICE: Why do you think your job is so right-swipeable?
Edwina Eddleston: As a founder, you get problems thrown at you from all angles. You have to constantly be on your feet. You have to actually rally people around you and have confidence. You're very problem-solving. That must be very attractive to people because you don't wait to be looked after. Or wait around for someone else to clear stuff up.

Do you think they find it intimidating—and they're kind of into that?
Yeah. I definitely do think guys find it intimidating. That intimidation factor also comes from the passion levels rising a bit too high when you know what you're talking about. Just the level of knowledge.

Founder-entrepreneur was number two for guys. Would you date another of your own?
There are two types of founders: an A type and a B type. The A type is hugely creative, and the B type is the organized, more process driven. I'm a B type, and I think if I met a creative, chaotic type, maybe yes if it worked well. But I'd be inclined to say no...

What do guys say when you drop the title in there?
A lot of intrigue. A lot of questions. There are no rules as such for a founder. Not to sound egotistical, but people are sometimes in awe that you have to wear so many hats.

Follow Hannah on Twitter.

Photo by Heather Davini Boucher

Around noon on Saturday, an SUV carrying members of the Ku Klux Klan pulled up to a park in Anaheim, California. A stand-off ensued between activists holding signs that read, "Freedom Has No Color," and Klansmen with titles like Grand Dragon and Exalted Cyclops whose signs read, "White Lives Do Matter Say No To Cultural Genocide." But when a man punched a hate group member in the back of the head, the scene descended into full-fledged chaos.

At one point, a man wearing a black shirt with Confederate patches on it wielded an American flag like a lance.

Eventually, a protestor wearing a studded leather jacket and a few others got close enough that the KKK member started jousting. "I'm a black man," one activist yelled before finally pouncing. "I'm here, baby."

The fight left three people stabbed and the pavement surrounding Pearson Park splattered with blood and Coca-Cola. Five people from the Klan and seven counter-protestors were arrested for participating in the gory melee. The protesters face charges ranging from assault with a deadly weapon to elder abuse, though local prosecutors have yet to indicate if they will go forward.

On Sunday, cops determined that the KKK members had acted in self defense or were merely protecting each other from instigators. As such, all five members of the hate group who were arrested have been released. Although Sergeant Daron Wyatt said the decision was based on both video evidence and interviews, it has left some residents frustrated with the city, which has a storied relationship with the Klan. In the 1920s, members of the hate group occupied four out of five of the city council seats, and nine out of ten spots on the police force. OCWeekly, a local paper, jokingly referred to Anaheim in a recent story as "Klanaheim."

A crowdfunding campaign was quickly set up to help the arrested protesters. "When the pigs came, they ended up targeting and arresting the counter protesters, many of them Black and Brown people, and not the racists who instigated the confrontation/violence in the first place," reads the campaign's page. "Not surprising."

Within five hours of the page being set up, $3,793 had been collected, and on Sunday, about a dozen people stormed the Anaheim police station to demand the protestors' release. Representatives for Santa Ana Cop Watch, the activist group behind the crowd funding campaign, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

At this stage, all three stabbing victims are in stable condition. Another protestor is still wanted by the police, and local law enforcement officials are defending how they handled the incident. They said a small group of officers—some plainclothes—were present for the rally, leaving it unclear how the situation exploded the way it did.

"We had individuals who specifically came there to commit acts of violence, and there is nothing to do to stop that," Sergeant Wyatt told the LA Times.

Follow Allie Conti on Twitter.

Chris Rock during his opening monologue at the 88th Oscars® at the Dolby® Theatre in Hollywood, California, on February 28, 2016. Photo by Aaron Poole/©A.M.P.A.S./courtesy of the Academy

In the lead-up to this year's Oscars, much interest focused on how Chris Rock would address the Academy's obvious—and self-acknowledged—diversity problem. Last night's ceremony at the Dolby Theatre in LA was a case study in the limits of self-awareness. The glitzy glad-handing and innate absurdity of the event, broadcasted to millions worldwide, was always going to make any sort of genuine impact unlikely, but the Academy proved beyond a doubt that it at least has a sense of humor about its glaring shortcomings.

Rock, of course, found himself in the awkward position of being expected by many to stick it to the man while standing onstage in the man's house with the man's money in his pockets. Clad in a sharp white tux, Rock strode out to the sounds of Public Enemy's anthem "Fight the Power," the song's juddering force immediately defanged by the vanilla surroundings.

He began by addressing the evening as the "White People's Choice Awards" before moving into edgier territory, wondering aloud why the #OscarsSoWhite outrage is happening now, and why it didn't happen in the 1950s and 60s. His answer? Because back then, "we was too busy being raped and lynched... When your grandmother's hanging from a tree, you don't care about best documentary foreign short." It was bold of Rock to summon up such charged imagery, but it was tone deaf given the ongoing problem of police brutality and the violent deaths of people like Michael Brown, Freddie Gray, Tamir Rice, and Sandra Bland. It also felt like an unwise trivialization of the very real struggles past generations of black actors had experienced: consider Gone with the Wind 's Hattie McDaniel, forced to sit at a segregated table for two at the 1940 Oscars.

Moments later, however, Rock attempted to redress the balance by chancing a bleak crack about how this year's "In Memoriam" package would simply feature "black people that were shot by the cops on their way to the movies." Rock aimed cutting, catty jibes at Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith's non-attendance, then came out and said the magic words, "Yes, Hollywood is racist... in a 'sorority' way," thus identifying the smiling, non-hostile racism that can, and does, fester within ostensibly progressive circles, i.e., everyone in the audience and many at home.

GIF by Marina Gertz

Following a couple of great jokes, including one about Paul Giamatti's acting range (from "whupping Lupita in 12 Years a Slave to crying at Eazy-E 's funeral" in the space of one year), and a weak one dismissing the #AskHerMore anti-sexism movement, Rock's opening monologue led into a short package of sub-Hollywood Shuffle parodies riffing on the limited roles afforded to black actors. The most eye-catching was Tracey Morgan's transformation into a burly, pastry-munching iteration of The Danish Girl ("These Danishes is good though!") These skits were tame, but their satirical aim was clear enough, as was Angela Bassett's grimly amusing "Black History Minute" tribute to Jack Black.

Far harder to parse was the surreal appearance of Stacey Dash—Clueless star, rabidly right-wing Fox pundit, and Black History Month abolitionist—whom Rock announced as the new director of the Academy's "minority outreach program." Awkwardly positioned at the side of the stage and sporting a rictus grin, Dash boomed: "I cannot wait to help my people out. Happy Black History Month!" For anyone unaware of Dash's outspoken political affiliations, the joke wouldn't have seemed like a joke at all—rather a bizarre wheeling-out of a has-been actress. For those in the know—like this author—it was still a little baffling: Was Dash self-satirizing? And if so, why? Either way, it was a welcome impenetrable moment in a mostly predictable evening.

One troublingly persistent theme, however, was Rock 's insistence on framing the #OscarsSoWhite debate as a solely black and white issue, thus undermining the idea of "inclusivity" promoted in an upbeat speech by Academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs. For example, it took roughly two hours before any reference to the absence of Asian and Latino acting nominees was made. Matters weren't helped by a misguided stereotype gag involving three palpably confused Asian kids being introduced to the stage by Rock as "future accountants," or the reappearance of Sacha Baron Cohen's dated Ali G character, whose joke about "hardworking little yellow people with tiny dongs" (he was referring to minions, geddit?) was the evening's clear nadir. Ironic racism is still racism, and when it's dispensed by a moneyed insider at an event with minimal Asian representation, it's that much worse. Speaking of inclusivity, it's worth mentioning that being white didn't protect transgender musician Ahnoni from not being invited to perform despite being nominated for best song ("Manta Ray," from Racing Extinction ).

GIF by Marina Gertz

Elsewhere, there was the small matter of the awards themselves. Despite the near-total lack of color in the nominations and awards—notable exceptions were The Revenant 's Mexican director Alejandro Gonzalez Iñárritu and Pakistani director Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy—there was an almost insulting bounty of color when it came to handing out the prizes. Chadwick Boseman, Pharrell Williams, Abraham Attah, Benicio del Toro, Priyanka Chopra, Michael B. Jordan, Common, John Legend, Quincy Jones, Dev Patel, Morgan Freeman, and more were all trotted out to bestow glory. This situation echoed that of the red carpet, on which almost all the interviewers and correspondents were either women, people of color, or both.

Some other political issues came up, giving this year's Oscars a markedly topical feel. Mad Max: Fury Road costume designer Jenny Beavan, keeping it real in a leather jacket and scarf combo, spoke up on climate change, as did best actor winner Leonardo DiCaprio. VP Joe Biden popped up briefly alongside Lady Gaga to rail against rape culture. Sam Smith, winner of the Oscar for best song for his caterwauling Bond theme "Writing's on the Wall," erroneously stated that no openly gay man had ever won an Oscar, before paying tribute to the international LGBT community. And Iñárritu, who won best director for the second year running, used his speech to make a well-intentioned but cringeworthy plea for color blindness: May "the color of our skin become as irrelevant as the length of our hair," he said as strains of Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries—this year's hilariously ill-considered "get off the stage" music—built steam behind him.

Ultimately, though, this was Rock's show. Intermittently, he channeled the discomfiting straight talk of Richard Pryor and Eddie Murphy, who spoke at the Oscars in 1977 and 1988, respectively, about industry racism. Mostly, though, he refrained to go for the jugular, jabbing instead at issues that run far deeper and wider than a glitzy awards night, or even an industry that seeks to address its problems by pointing and then laughing at them.

Follow Ashley on Twitter.

New Zealand has the highest inequality in the OECD. Image via

New Zealand was colonised under the premise of beating the class system. Our image of ourselves as a laid-back egalitarian utopia is ingrained in our vernacular: "Kiwi ingenuity," or "She'll be right." But this reputation appears to be misleading.

Last month The Washington Post published a report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which found income inequality affects New Zealand's economy more than any other in the developed world. Specifically, the report claimed that a lack of education among low income earners has marred the country's economic growth by 15.5 percent.

As a result of this gap between rich and poor, NZ beat 21 other developed nations (including Mexico and UK) for having had the least amount of economic growth in the past 20 years. To find out where we went wrong, we spoke to Dr. Tim Hazledine, who is a professor of economics at the University of Auckland and author of Inequality: A New Zealand Crisis.

VICE: Hi Tim, could anyone have predicted such a dramatic transition over the past two decades?
Tim Hazledine: I mean, which part? We were a very equal society and really prided ourselves on the living wage, or social wage, and then we hit the 1980s and went the other way. As inequality increased economists began to recommend trade-offs. The thinking was that you can reduce inequality by raising taxes. Many argued that would in turn reduce economic growth, because we would be taxing our big industries.

But that's not what happened right? Instead big earners revolted and taxes were lowered?
That's right. Cutting the tax rate was supposed to encourage really smart, energetic people to work hard. But these people basically said thank you very much, played some more golf and then went on more holidays, which didn't help at all. What the OECD study and a few others have revealed is that no, it's not even a trade-off. Not taxing to sustain economic growth is not bad for good—it's bad for bad. The countries that have higher inequality are doing poorer.

What was the outcome?
They wiped out a third of manufacturing sector over about five years. That's not good for anything as manufacturing is the core of the modern economy. It pays good wages to good working people and produces good stuff. Next we did very little about skills or trade training for people becoming unemployed. These are all reasons why tax cuts and subsequently inequality, severely impacted growth.

How much an impact do political decisions like tax cuts have on the way our mentality has evolved as a nation over time?
I think the increased inequality is deliberate and the people that are criticising are supposedly paying the top tax rate, which they're not actually paying. If you're rich you're also going to pay people to minimise your tax obligations. These people can't point to productivity as evidence because it just isn't true.

Is there something current or future governments can do for us to recover?
Well that's the question. First of all they've got to believe something can be done and want to do it. I don't think putting up tax will win an election in New Zealand, but getting everyone to pay tax could be more popular. I also think we're overeducated, but under-trained in skill and trade training. Rebuilding the unions would contribute significantly.

How badly does a lack of growth reflect on New Zealand's economy as a whole, internationally? Do overseas nations look at us and think uh-oh?
I think they are doing that a bit, especially if we're making international publications. It's hard to put things, as The Post has, mechanistically in terms of percentages of lost growth. I worry about inequality, not numbers. However it does show how other nations are looking at New Zealand. There are certainly many people who have issues with the steadily burgeoning gap between rich and poor but it's been slow and we've become accustomed to it.

Do you think this indicates an irrevocably changed New Zealand economy and our approach?
Well New Zealand is a fun place to be if you've got a little money in your pocket and credit on your credit card, which of course is the problem for a lot of poor people. I think we should be ashamed of the increase in inequality. It's shocking. We need to think about targets, decreasing the number of children in poverty, creating jobs that adhere to a good living wage. It's time to start figuring out how we might get there.

Follow Beatrice on Twitter

Even in a super-early, so-far-ahead-of-pre-alpha, hands-off presentation featuring placeholder art and a lot of imagination filling in for completed work, Cyanide Studio's Call of Cthulhu looks wickedly alluring.

Set in the twisted reality that is the Lovecraft universe, this set-for-2017 title, a digital reinvention of the 1981 pen-and-paper game, will star frightening, grotesque creatures and test the player's nerve as they stumble into insanity, irreversibly scarred by the supernatural extraterrestrial imposing on the world they thought they knew. But there's one word notably absent from the preview pitch of lead game designer Jean-Marc Gueney and narrative designer Maximilian Lutz: "horror".

"A lot of people have asked us if this game is like Amnesia, or Outlast, games like that," Lutz tells me, once I've seen all that the Paris-based team has to show, so far. "Those games are really horror games. But for us, we want the atmosphere of a horror game, but not all the time. You'll be able to catch your breath in this game – it won't always be stressful. Sure, in some sections, you won't be happy to be there. But this isn't a game of jump scares – we're going more for atmosphere."

"Exactly," says Gueney. "This is an investigation game, set in the Lovecraft universe. That means you will encounter horrific creatures, and you'll have to work out how to defeat them. But it's not a horror game – it's an investigation game, in this particular universe."

Cyanide has the official Call of Cthulhu licence in hand, meaning that its game is more closely related to the 1980s role-player published by Chaosium than any single one of Lovecraft's many novels and novellas. Penned between 1917 and 1935, several of the writer's works combine to create the Cthulhu Mythos – a fictional universe of cosmic entities and ancient deities that authors continue to mine for inspiration.

Video games have regularly leaned on the Mythos, too. 2015's Bloodborne has its share of Lovecraft-inspired nightmares plaguing the player; 1992's survival horror cornerstone Alone in the Dark was heavily influenced by all things Cthulhu; and the GameCube's Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem of a decade later used an array of techniques to imply the avatar being controlled at the time was losing their mind to the visions around them.

Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth, developed by the now defunct British studio Headfirst Productions and published by Bethesda in 2005, was based on Lovecraft's The Shadow Over Innsmouth, but reduced its story of the Deep Ones and their hold over a small Massachusetts town to a buggy and bastard-hard first-person shooter. Which isn't to say it didn't succeed in several respects, but Dark Corners' difficulty was its greatest flaw. Many Lovecraft admirers couldn't see it through to its climax.

Cyanide's game is different. It doesn't want the player to fail. The heart of this experience is the narrative, the investigation, which first attracts the player character of Edward Pierce, a Boston-raised, 45-year-old First World War veteran turned private detective, to the small community of Darkwater Island. He's here to discover the truth behind the death of an artist, Miriam Hallows, who'd only recently settled on the island. The year is 1924 – prohibition is in full effect, so these odd glimpses of things that aren't quite right in Pierce's peripheral vision probably can't be attributed to booze. There's definitely something wrong with this place, with this reality.

Article continues after the video below

Watch VICE's film on The Real 'True Blood'

"The Lovecraft universe is always, in the classic novels, about a common person who finds themselves discovering something more, something beyond our world," Gueney explains. "And beyond our world, there are monstrosities. We want to present Lovecraft's vision to players. So we start the game as a classic investigation, but as you arrive on the island you will discover that there is more to it. There's more beyond the reality that you initially see."

"The real issue in the Lovecraft universe is that the moment you begin to see this other reality, this real truth, you start to completely go insane," Lutz continues. "Because you're not prepared, as a human, to see that. Even in the sounds that the creatures make, the language they speak, it's not meant to be heard by humans. So all the characters in the Lovecraft novels become completely insane."

And it's insanity that poses the greatest risk to the player in Call of Cthulhu. "You can see a sanity system, and you begin your mission with a full amount," Gueney says. "You have to manage it across the game. And if it drops to zero, that's game over. Between missions, you can regain part of your sanity – you have a safe haven, to take time out. So the sanity system works like that. But when you refill your sanity, it won't completely regain, to the amount you began the game with – so you have less and less as the game goes on, making it harder."

On Munchies: Hunter S. Thompson Tried to Get Paid in Cocaine at My Tequila Bar

Unfortunately for Pierce, going slightly mad is essential to progressing in Cyanide's game. He'll need to see certain things in order to really understand what's afoot on Darkwater, and will therefore have to sacrifice some of himself to further the investigation. "It's a bargaining process," Gueney states. "You're faced with this situation: I know there's something more than I see, than I perceive. So I want to know more – I need to know more – but it will cost me. It will cost my own sanity."

Pierce can visit a police station to examine the clues he's discovered on the island – some of which can be attained by befriending residents and sending them off on missions (not that their return is guaranteed). Here, he's safe – "There will be no monsters coming out of the closet," Lutz says. "It's a regular station, full of regular police officers who you can talk to." He then explains that the game's system of processing evidence and coming to conclusions isn't set up to lead the player down any dead ends.

"For the investigation parts, you can't really fail – the story will always push you forward. But we really want the player to feel smart during the investigation. You'll have a lot of documents to read, a lot of facts to find, clues to find. And if the player has all the documents, they can have everything they need to for working out the investigation. The player has many answers to choose from – but if you're paying attention to the other characters on the island, you will always ask the good questions. Ask the wrong questions, and you can affect your relationship with the other characters. The only fact that we want you, him, to know is that you might lose complementary information about the case."

Which is a way of saying that, basically, the choices you make in pursuing the case of Miriam Hallows won't have an impact on the way this story ultimately concludes – Call of Cthulhu will begin in the same way for everyone, and all will see the same ending. However, how you get from A to B will vary wildly from playthrough to playthrough. "The choices you make are important, and they will define who helps you," Gueney explains. "Every player will experience the same final scene, but the way they manage to get there will depend on their individual decisions."

Making their game so accessible should allow Cyanide to appeal to players who aren't already familiar with the Cthulhu Mythos. "We need the game to be fun for everyone," Gueney says, before Lutz adds: "A lot of people know Cthuhlu – it's in the geek culture to know the creature. But we are not targeting only Lovecraft fans, of course. Even people who haven't read the novels can get into the game. And we'll have a codex, too, that will help the newbie to learn some things – even things that won't be shown in the game, but is useful background for the story."

Personally, I'm more into horror games that present a sustained atmosphere of dread and discomfort over cheap jumps scares. And if I learn a little more about Lovecraft's bizarre world in playing this one, that's a bonus. Cyanide isn't making Call of Cthulhu to get gamers into the inspirational fiction, but Gueney admits that if their game sells a few more books, and creates more fans of Lovecraftian lore, "that'll be a great reward". It's too early to say for sure that what the studio's making will transcend the existing Cthulhu fanbase (and as you can see here, there's not a lot of publicly released artwork to get excited about); but so far as first impressions go, this not-your-average-horror affair is making all the right wrong moves.

Call of Cthulhu is released in 2017. Follow the game's development at the Cyanide Studio website. VICE Gaming conducted this interview in Paris at the "Le What's Next de Focus?" preview event, with transport and accommodation covered by Focus Home Interactive.

@MikeDiver

More from VICE Gaming:

'Action Henk' Is Pretty Much the Only Game I Want to Play Right Now

'Superhot' Is the Shooter for People Who Hate Shooters

'Far Cry Primal' Is a Stone Age Setback for Open-World Gaming

The man, the myth. Image via.

Maybe all the weird shit espoused by Senator Cory Bernardi has become too much for the Coalition to bear. Or maybe, as Cory says, it's just that "experiences such as this broaden the knowledge of any parliamentarian fortunate enough to participate."

In any case, the ultra-conservative South Australian will be joining Tasmanian Labor senator Lisa Singh on a three-month bipartisan secondment to the UN. Usually, this happens in early September.

We have absolutely no proof that Bernardi is being buried over his outbursts as an ideological antique. However, we do know that Bernardi has previously shown little respect for the UN, or the Prime Minister.

In 2010, Bernardi told the Senate that policy under Labor had "seen billions of dollars of Australian taxpayer funds disappear into that fiscal black hole of bureaucracy known as the United Nations." In the same rant he also described the UN as an "unaccountable foreign organisation."

Bernardi has often disagreed with the Prime Minister as well. Last year he posted an ironic quote from Turnbull, highlighting that his position on gay marriage has changed since 2008. Then in December he criticised Turnbull for backing a bill with the Greens without consulting the party.

"The party room was promised that proper process would be followed in regard to policy initiatives. That promise now rings hollow and I hope it's not an indication of what we can expect in the future," he said.

And then there was the time Turnbull distanced himself from Bernardi over the latter linking gay marriage to polygamy and bestiality. He called the comparison "very extreme and extremely offensive," and told Sky News "his remarks create a lot of offence with same-sex couples.

"I dissociate myself from them completely," said Mr Turnbull.

Obviously Bernardi getting palmed-off to the UN would take a lot more than just a private spat with the PM, but then Bernardi has been making himself particularly embarrassing lately. On top of his usual Tweets against Islam, Bernardi has been getting vocal on the federally funded Safe Schools Program, which offers support to LGBTIQ students in high school.

"Bullying isn't something confined to homosexuals yet you are encouraging a program that actually bullies heterosexual children into submission for the gay agenda," Bernardi wrote in an email to William Russell, a supporter of the Safe Schools program.

It's speculated that the outcry from conservatives such as Bernardi is the reason the government has ordered a review into funding of the program.

So look, whatever the reason Cory Bernardi is out, it's really great news.

Follow Julian on Twitter.

All the memes were worth it, then. After 35 years as an actor and five Oscar nominations, Leonardo DiCaprio finally won his first Academy Award for his role as bear-mauled Hugh Glass in The Revenant. But you already knew that. You may not have known that a bunch of London-based fans had planned to celebrate his win late on Sunday/early on Monday, in London's Leicester Square.

According to Facebook, 11,000 people were meant to be there, before the event time was changed last-minute to make it a Monday evening celebration. So much for the Sunday die-hards. We headed over to the barren scraps of the "party", at about 2AM on Monday morning, and found two street cleaners and one guy lingering outside the rebranded "Leodeon" cinema. There were more fans inside the cinema, passing the time before the Best Actor award announcement – but first, we quizzed the lone guy hanging about outside.

VICE: So how did you hear about this celebration of Leo?
Alexander: I stumbled across it amongst many other stumblings ...

Do you think he's going to win, then?
I hope so. Yeah he's Leo – he's got to. Leos always win. Leos are like lions and lions are important – that's why there are lions in Trafalgar Square, that's why there's lions all over the place.

He deserves to win because of lions?
No, not really but that suggestion... you know what I mean.

Thanks! Inside, I found actors Joe, Amy and Simeon sitting in the front row, watching the last 10 minutes of Titanic.

Amy, Joe and Simeon, from left to right

VICE: So what do you think the outcome will be? Sixth time lucky for Leo?
Joe: I mean it's gotta be, innit – it's long overdue. But not only that, The Revenant itself was astonishing.
Simeon: Yeah - Leo's year. Leo's year!
Amy: I'll cry if he doesn't get it.

Why do you think the Oscar has eluded him for so long?
Simeon: Well I think the Academy itself has a certain bias towards particular actors...

Isn't Leo the kind of guy you'd imagine the Academy would love?
Simeon: No. I don't know why but I don't think he is. I think it would be fantastic if he won this year but if he didn't, again, I wouldn't be surprised. It's like the whole thing about black actors not being nominated for any acting awards this year. I'm not surprised by it because I think the Academy has been overdue a shake-up for quite a while. This just goes to show that you can have a guy who's acted his arse off in so many films and still is yet to achieve this ultimate accolade.

The cinema staff kept us updated with the award wins as the night wore on.

Then – elation. News of Leo's win came in, and people clutched their mobile phones and looked at their screens in excitement.

Bella and Paris took some time to chat to me about it.

VICE: There we go. Was that worth it?
Bella: I mean the group reaction of Leo winning is just... it's better than sitting at home on your laptop alone in your room.

Paris, on the far left, and Bella, giggling centre right

Were you expecting the celebration to be a bit bigger?
Bella: I was actually surprised – I was expecting a big party. We came here at 8PM because we expected there to be people, we expected to queue and then its like...
Paris: The doors didn't open until midnight either so we were just sitting in the cold.

VICE: How do you feel about the exciting news now, though?
Bella: Great! We can now say Academy Award WINNER Leonardo DiCaprio.
Paris: I definitely need to celebrate. I'm glad I brought my rum with me so I can celebrate on the way back.
Bella: Yeah, I'm going to bed.

Me too.

@theomcinnes

More on VICE:

The Founder of the Razzies Explains What the Academy Awards Are Getting Wrong

I Tried To Make a Film About North Korea and Fell Victim to Its Propaganda Machine

The Dying Art of Ridiculous Oscars Red Carpet Fashion

In a story that hits nearly all of the British tabloid sweet spots, a Catholic priest in Northern Ireland was caught on camera snorting coke surrounded by Nazi memorabilia during a party at his house on church grounds, the Sun reports.

The priest, 37-year-old Father Stephen Crossan, had allegedly been out on a bender for two days before inviting people back to his parish house to keep things going. In the video, the priest can be heard saying "I shouldn't," before leaning over and sucking down a line off a silver platter.

Things got weirder when Crossan reportedly started playing dress-up with some Nazi memorabilia he had around his house—including Nazi flags, a hat, and a statue of an eagle and swastika on his mantle.

" was all over the house," an anonymous source who was at the party told the Sun."At one point, Stephen put on a cap and did the Nazi salute."

"The house was lovely, but we were stunned to see the Nazi stuff," adding the source, who is apparently down to do coke with a priest but draws the line when the Nazi gear starts to come out.

Crossan has responded to the video by admitting to doing coke but saying that "it was just the one night and that was it. I do not have an issue with drugs." As for the whole "house full of Nazi paraphernalia" thing, Crossan said, "I'm no Nazi. I collect historical stuff."

Crossan was apparently on leave from the church for depression when the party took place. On Monday, the BBC reported that he had asked for a leave of absence from the priesthood and isn't living at the house any longer.

A classic night in Sydney. Illustration by Ben Thomson.

A melee involving police, security guards, and patrons erupted on Sunday evening at the Bondi Hotel, situated on the world famous Bondi Beach, after drinkers refused to stop singing.

Up to "six police cars" arrived according to eyewitnesses when drinkers, many of whom were foreign tourists, refused to stop singing the DJ Otzi classic, "Hey Baby."

We spoke to Joshua Duffy who reported the raid via Facebook. As he explained: "We were in the beer garden and this bloke had just driven down from the Gold Coast and wanted to go to karaoke. We said, why don't we just do it here, and we started singing, (Ben E. King's) "Stand By Me" at the table, then a couple of other tables joined in, then everyone was singing. People were hugging each other. I've never seen the Bondi Hotel like that. It was amazing," he says.

But security objected to the singing, asking for it to stop. Duffy and his table agreed but the bemused foreigners on the table next to them did not. The song changed to DJ Otzi's "Hey Baby" and chorused around the beer garden, prompting security to call in the police. "Six cars arrived," says Duffy,

"They came in waving batons in our faces. It was actually a joke, like, wow, how much more ridiculous can this bullshit get," he says. As the singing continued, police and security attempted to remove patrons resulting in a melee. Duffy witnessed a woman pushed to ground and hit her head along with several arrests. Two men were left handcuffed on the ground, one of whom was the woman's boyfriend.

Neither the Bondi Hotel nor local police would comment. "I can't make comment. I can't given any information to you. That's just our policy," said the Waverley Police Station representative.

Follow Jed on Twitter.

VICE is currently looking for video footage or photos of this event. If you have any, please contact Jed via Twitter.