President Donald Trump's inauguration brought up a lot of fiery emotion in people, and if the left's anger and frustration can be distilled into a single image, it's that clip of white supremacist and Trump supporter Richard Spencer being decked by an anti-fascist protester while giving an interview on camera. (Here is a primer for those wondering why someone would want to punch him.) You've probably already seen the video, but here it is again:

Unsurprisingly, people on the internet really, really liked this, setting the video to music and generally rejoicing in this bit of violence that was part World Star Hip Hop, part Captain America, and part, "eh, whatever, fuck that guy."

But this punch inspired a lot of debate. If you think nonviolence is generally the answer, is it OK to hit someone if you really, really don't like them? On the other hand, if you disagree with socking Nazis in the face, are you giving a pass to literal fascists? If you're conflicted about all this, is it still OK to giggle at the whole thing?

To settle this, I called up Randy Cohen, the former ethicist from the New York Times Magazine, and the person I generally ask when confronted with moral quandaries.

VICE: So—punching Richard Spencer in the face, OK or not OK?
Randy Cohen: No. You don't get to punch people in the face, even if their ideas are odious. You don't. We want a civil society, where ideas are met with other ideas. We don't want a society that encourages thuggish behavior, where if someone has politics different from yours, you get to beat them up. Aside from it just being morally wrong in itself to assault people, there's the practical consideration that in a society where ideas are met with fists, one is as likely to be the punched as the puncher, and it's no fun to be punched in the face.

Does violence against a political enemy become justified if they are not only encouraging violence against targeted groups but systematically committing it? 
Not for speech. Even though he's encouraging actions that we find horrible, he's not our moral teacher, we're not supposed to imitate his methods. We don't do that. There is no tipping point there—you don't respond with violence. You do have the right to defend yourself if physically attacked, but that's not what this was.

Watch the VICE News interview with Richard Spencer: 

Certainly there must be a tipping point.
There's a point at which encouraging violence becomes a crime. There are harassment laws and laws against assault. Inciting violence is a crime in many jurisdictions. But, no. The response to that is still not physical violence. The great example here is still Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement of the 60s. It was a nonviolent movement, which was a profoundly moral act. That was a group of people who had the courage to uphold a nonviolent stance even when attacked. They would not fight back, which is so impressive and so powerful, and something that we ought to aspire to.

Why do you think people who are smart and relatively civil in their regular lives taking joy in the punch?
There are no thought crimes. So it's hard not to feel some glee when a proponent of physical violence against others is himself the victim of the very act he prescribes. I'm not saying you don't get to feel good when someone punches Richard Spencer in the nose. You would have to be superhuman and a more moral person than I not to feel some happiness that he received just the treatment he was advocating for others. But that doesn't make it right to do it.

Is it OK to laugh privately at the video? What about share it?
That's a little iffy, because that's when it's on the brink of encouraging such actions. It really is important not to do this, and to not be a violent movement. Violence against unpopular ideas is not permitted. I would not circulate them, but if in the recesses of your heart, you feel a moment of glee at seeing Richard Spencer punched in the nose, I would not criticize you. Not for your feelings, but for your actions if you encouraged other people to punch him.

So what should you do if you see a Nazi then? Certainly there's value in shaming them.
It's not just what you're supposed to do at that moment; it's what you're supposed to do before you see the Nazi. It's organizing for social change, it's struggling, it's resisting, it's being aligned with progressive social movements, it's being out on the streets marching, it's writing your local representatives. There are a hundred things you're supposed to be doing, and what you do if you happen upon some nitwit is a trivial question. You can yell at him; you can verbally confront him. And in a way, that's good. It's good to remind people that some ideas are so odious that they have no place in decent society, and that [if you have them], you will be scorned. But you ought not be met with punches.

Follow Allie Conti on Twitter.

Lauren LeRoy gets a lot of surprised looks when she tells people what she does for a living. The diminutive 26-year-old (she still gets ID'd when she orders a drink) doesn't look the part of your stereotypical funeral director, but she has done more than a 1,000 funerals in her six-year career. She has witnessed her share of familial graveside disputes—and been on the receiving end of some unusual postmortem requests.

VICE spoke with her about mortuary makeup, weird smells, and what it's like to deal with death all day (and all night) long.

VICE: When did you know you wanted to be a funeral director?
Lauren LeRoy: I have known since I was 12 that I wanted to be a funeral director. My great-aunt and great-uncle owned their own funeral home, so I would go over there a lot and there wasn't anything odd about it, because they lived above. It was a normal thing. When I was 12, my grandfather passed away, then my great uncle [who owned the funeral home] passed away within eight months of one another. So having those deaths occur—especially my grandfather's passing—that one affected me really hard, because he was the man in my life. That's when I decided I wanted to be a funeral director, even if I didn't know everything that it meant at the time.

Has this career affected your dating life?
If I was not married, I would say yes. I've been with my husband since I was 15. He's always known what I've wanted to do, and he's so unbelievably supportive it's not even funny. I don't have a schedule. Everything that I do is up in the air, so it means that a lot of things he does are up in the air as well. I think if I wasn't with him that dating for me would be extremely difficult. I like being home, after having a stressful day or just working for so long, I just want to come home, sit on the couch and relax. I don't know how I would meet somebody—I wouldn't have the energy to go out and meet somebody.

How much of your job is mediation among warring family members?
A lot. But you do what you can with everybody. I have a job to do as a funeral director, and I have to do that job. I can't get in the middle—it's hard. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a counselor. When it comes down to it, sometimes you have to step back and let family members take care of things themselves.

Any pet peeves?
My job is to give people information, so I don't have any pet peeves when family members choose to do one thing over something else. If I have a pet peeve it may be other funeral directors in the industry not wanting to go along with change. I know some funeral directors say they don't want to do personalization [of services], so that's going to affect us all. People think of funeral directors as a whole. So if one does something bad, it really affects everybody.

Photo courtesy of Lauren LeRoy

Has this job enabled you to better contend with your own mortality?
I grew up in a Catholic household. I've always had my religion be the center of my life. I've always believed there was something more, I've never believed that that was it when you died. I don't know if the job itself has helped that or not, but what being a funeral director has done for me is not take any day for granted. I bury old people and I bury babies and young people. You never know what tomorrow is going to hold. If anything, it's taught me to take each day as it comes, and make the most of each day.

Favourite part?
The people that I meet. I always say I meet the best people, it's just during one of the most difficult times in their lives. I get to hear really fantastic stories about how people lived their lives, and I just love people. That's why I do what I do.

Least favourite?
Probably the unpredictability. I can't necessarily schedule things like normal people. It's kind of a joke among my family—if I get an invitation to something, it's like, I'll be there if someone doesn't die. I like the unpredictability in a sense because every day is different and I never get bored, but it makes planning things for your own life very difficult.

What do you wish people knew about funeral directors?
That we're not scary! [laughs] I think when people think about funeral directors, they think of the Addams family. Don't get me wrong, I wear black every day, but funeral directors aren't these morbid death-loving people. I just wish people knew that funeral directors are normal people, just like everybody else.

Are you seeing more women enter the field?
My official graduation date was 2010, and the majority of my class was actually female. It was really great. I feel like the female presence is just larger now, you definitely see a lot more.

What funeral music is in heavy rotation these days?
"You Raise Me Up" by Josh Groban is one I get requests for all the time. Also, "In the Arms of an  Angel" by Sarah McLachlan, I hear that so many times. We have a couple of CDs we keep in our back pocket. I don't know why, but our funeral home gets a lot of Elvis fans, so we have this one inspirational Elvis CD that we have on hand all the time. They'll come in like; "Mom was a huge Elvis fan...." Well, we have the CD for you.

Any unusual requests?
I'm never stunned by anything. I don't judge anyone or anything, whatever you want is OK. I had this one guy whose son passed away. They gave us his outfit to lay him out in for the visitation.. This guy was in his early 20s. His parents wanted to have him cremated. At the end of his visitation, his dad comes up and says, "OK we want his clothes back." I said; "so you want him to be cremated in nothing?"  And he's like, yeah. I never know the reason why people request something. I'm just the funeral director, so whatever you want—as long as it's reasonable and doesn't hurt anyone—I'll do that for you.

Do any funerals stick out in your mind?
Two in particular. One I will never forget. It was during the visitation itself. It was a young woman who had passed away from breast cancer. She was only a couple of years older than me at that point. We had prepared her and got her ready. The girl was in her casket, and I just remember watching her father walk up to her casket. He put his hand on her and he just started talking to her. And that broke my heart so bad. I walked away because it was such a beautiful moment between this father and his little girl—it just made me think of myself and my dad. It was so in the moment, just spending time talking to her. That will stick with me for a long time.

Another one was a couple years back, a baby had passed away. The baby was about a month old and was very sick. The parents had set up the nursery with butterflies—that was the theme of the nursery. The baby never ended up coming home, and passed away in the hospital.

When we went to the cemetery, the priest was saying the final prayers, and I actually had to interrupt him, because suddenly, all around us, were a dozen butterflies. No one had released them--they had just appeared there. I said' "Sorry Father, but is everybody seeing this right now?" After that, I had the family come back to the funeral home and they said that seeing those butterflies made them feel that their baby was at peace.

How do you prep for this career?
In high school I took public speaking because I figured that would be something I would be doing a lot of. Every state has different rules for how to become licensed. In NY State where I practise, you need to have an associate degree in Funeral Services, and then you have to take a national board exam in Science and Art—two separate exams that cover everything you've learned in mortuary school. Once you've passed those, you have to do a year of residency under a licensed funeral director. So basically, he monitors your embalming, meeting with families, removals, things like that. Then after your internship, you have to take a New York State law exam in public health law. When all is said and done, it's about a three year process.

Is the pay good?
The pay can be good, but normally it's not that great. If you own your own funeral home, that's when you're living a better lifestyle. If you're just an employee with the funeral home, it's not the best pay. You're not working a normal forty hour work week. A lot of funeral directors are salaried. When I factored in my salary compared with the 60 hours a week I was actually working—I could have made more working at McDonalds. You don't become a funeral director to make a lot of money, let's put it that way! [laughs]

Do all funeral directors do embalming?
All in NY will learn how to embalm, not all will end up practicing that. I've been licensed for six years now, I only embalmed my first three years. Now I meet with families, do arrangements, things like that. You basically choose what route you want to go down. I know funeral directors who do both because they work for a small funeral home and they have to do it all.

Is there a limit [from the time of death to the time of embalming them]?
There's not in New York State. It's better to embalm a body as close to the time of passing because you get better results.

What do you mean?
The blood hasn't had a lot of time to settle and pool. It makes a person look more natural, it makes a huge difference. I've worked on bodies where it's been close to a week (since time of death). Their body has had longer to shut down, decomposition may have set in. So it's more work. I don't think any funeral director likes that—it's a smell you never forget, but it's a smell that I can't describe. It hits you in your face almost, when it's really bad. You just do what you can. You remember that, no matter what's going on, this is a person. They may have been dead for a little bit, but it's still a person.

Have you seen any trends emerge?
The entire nation is seeing a rise in cremation. I work in the Buffalo area, with an older clientele. They are very much in that traditional mindset, where they've had a cemetery plot for years already. That's what their parents had, that's what they're comfortable with.

For the younger generation—baby boomers and younger—a lot of cremation, just because it comes down to cost (it's a lot cheaper). The younger generation doesn't talk about their mortality very much, so they don't have cemetery plots. If you don't have that available, that cost can be so huge for families, that cremation seems like an easier way to go. It's really just personal preference. I know a lot of people who don't want to be cremated because they don't like the idea of being burned, and I know a lot of people who don't want to be buried because they're claustrophobic.

What does a person need to do this job well?
You have to be compassionate. You can't come into this career and not care. This is not just a job you can go through the motions with. You have to want to serve other people and help them through a very difficult time. Because a lot of times you are putting these families above your own. If you don't have that mentality, you won't last in the field.

Follow Tiffy Thompson on Twitter.

When it comes to the Endangered Species Act, no group of legislators is considered more hostile than the previous two years' 114th Congress. America's newest batch of congressional members is on track to assume that title and make the law weaker than ever, but that doesn't mean endangered species are necessarily doomed. While the Endangered Species Act has been instrumental to many wildlife recoveries, diverse groups of people across the country on federal, state, and local levels have fought to enforce it, and they're still here.

Before their session was over, the 114th Congress launched 135 legislative attacks on the Endangered Species Act, accounting for 45 percent of all bills aimed at the Act since 1996—a record-breaking achievement, according to the Center for Biological Diversity who keeps track of policies targeted at the historic environmental law.

But now, with Republicans controlling the House and Senate, and a Cabinet whose environmental record is decidedly shoddy, the next few years could effectively gut the Endangered Species Act. "It's been mostly a death by a thousand cuts," Sarah Greenberger, Vice President of Conservation at the National Audubon Society, said.

A handful of these bills and amendments have already been introduced since the start of the year. One of them, H.R. 424, would strip gray wolves of protections endowed by the Endangered Species Act in in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Wyoming. "It has never been used for the rehabilitation of species. It's been used for control of the land," House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop told ABC News. Bishop added that he "would love to invalidate" the law.

Read more on Motherboard

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer may have expressed a lack of appreciation for facts during his very first media briefing when he claimed that Trump's inauguration had the "largest audience to ever witness an inauguration—period—both in person and around the globe," despite extremely strong evidence to the contrary. But it turns out that Spicer happens to have a far greater adversary than something as inconsequential as easily demonstrable truths.

The man seems to hate Dippin' Dots. Like, he abhors them.

Yes, we're talking about the spherical ice cream snack that is the object of desire for every third grader on a class trip to the local science museum. Dippin' Dots appears to be the bane of existence for the man who is President Trump's public voice.

Why? We have no fucking idea.

Spicer has been expressing his disdain for the frozen novelty treat—which is marketed under the tagline "Ice Cream of the Future"—for a full five years. And in keeping with his boss's predilection, he has taken to Twitter to express his feelings.

Read more on MUNCHIES

Hasta el 28 de diciembre del año pasado, según los datos de la Secretaría Distrital de la Mujer, se contabilizaron 456 casas de lenocinio en Bogotá. De estas, solo 71 (15,6%) quedan en la zona de tolerancia, o mejor dicho el mítico barrio Santa Fe de la localidad de Mártires, y están integradas, en un 73%, por mujeres jefes de hogar. Las demás están por ahí, escondidas tras puertas diminutas bañadas de neón rosa, que pasan casi desapercibidas en las oscuras y mugrosas calles de la capital, o que se esconden en silencio detrás de los senderos de barrios ostentosos. Lugares caletos y refundidos como tratándose de una especie de tesoro escondido que solo se encuentra si uno tiene el mapa en las manos. El mapa muchas veces llega a través de algún desconocido que da a los incautos transeúntes: el mapa son unos papelitos boca abajo que ocultan un mundo de colores exorbitantes, mujeres voluminosas y mensajes jocosos como: "sexo en vivo", "show lesbian" y "chicas complacientes".

Estos pequeños volantes son el medio de publicidad que tienen muchos de estos locales en los que más de tres mil personas ejercen la prostitución. Además son una interesante muestra de creatividad artística, erótica y criolla, que de forma magistral logra que un compacto papelito grite placer y fiesta en cada centímetro.

Los volantes de prostíbulos son el triunfo del kitsch, una mezcla entre la estética de Delfín Quishpe y Brazzers, que en verdad no tiene mucha ciencia detrás. Basta con escribir chicas sexys en Google, bajar cualquier imagen, ponerle una letra bonita en Photoshop o algún programa similar, y listo. Una pequeña obra de arte erótica lista para inundar los andenes de Bogotá y guiar a los acalorados a una noche de desenfreno y excesos.

Uno de los compañeros de la redacción ha pasado años recolectando y guardando estos volantes en una cajita en su cuarto, junto a su bola de chicles viejos (nadie sabe por qué carajos tiene esas cosas). Muy atrevidamente escarbamos en su peculiar colección y aquí tenemos algunas de las mejores muestras.

 

This post originally appeared on VICE Canada.

Last October, I took the overnight Megabus from Toronto to New York City. The purpose of the trip was to watch the World/Inferno Friendship Society, a gypsy-punk anarchist collective, play an annual Halloween concert.

We arrived at the Canadian American border around 2 AM. Our bus was sold out, and the line to see customs wrapped around the building. As I waited, I began to people-watch. Passengers played with their hair or picked at their fingernails. Some made small talk, while others stood silently and stared at their shoes. As I got closer to the border agents, the people-watching changed from a game of spot the idiosyncrasy to full-on drama.

The agents aggressively grilled passengers with question after question. They used hand scanners. One lady had to put her face on a machine that shone light into her eyes. It was like the border agents were expecting something out of Total Recall. I don't know if it was the sleep deprivation, the boredom, or the Orwellian nature of the scene in front of me, but for whatever reason, I began to get nervous.

What if the border guards asked about the band? What if they googled them? The last time I saw World/Inferno play a drum kit was on fire, and the singer ranted for 20 minutes about overthrowing the government. There were videos online. All of a sudden my hands began to shake, and I felt a bit queasy. As the border guard waved me to the desk, I pictured interrogation rooms and strip searches.

"Where are you going?" asked the agent.

"Brooklyn," I said.

Then the border guard waved me through.

I've shared my border story on a bunch of different occasions. It's been met with everything from casual laughter to full on disgust, but every time sharing the story sparked conversations about people's own experiences crossing country lines. Below are my favorite anecdotes from those conversations.

Faisal Butt

My name is Faisal Butt. That's my actual name. It's not a great name to have in elementary school or prison. It's an especially terrible name to have when you're trying to cross a border. After 9/11, my white friends got a little too comfortable talking about my appearance. They were always coming up to me being like: Faisal! Look at you, man! You're brown! Your hair is all over the place! You've got this crazy beard! You're starting to look like a terrorist! I was always like, man… Why can't you just say I look lazy? Or broke?

"Anyways, the whole you-look-like-a-terrorist thing can cause trouble. Especially when I'm trying to travel."

If we're being honest: I'm a middle-aged, unemployed, pot-smoking, whisky-drinking Muslim who is dating a British girl. The only people I'm terrorizing are my parents. It's like I've got a jihad on their dreams. Anyways, the whole you-look-like-a-terrorist thing can cause trouble. Especially when I'm trying to travel.

I don't really go into the States, but I've been to the UK a bunch. Every time I go, I end up with a brown immigration officer. Usually that makes things more comfortable. But there was this one time, a couple of years ago, when I was going through the magnetic security gates, and I started beeping. The guy at security got all stern and told me to take my jacket off. He was ready to wand me when all of a sudden he sees my Wu-Tang shirt. He stops everything and says in this thick Icelandic accent: "Hey! Wu-Tang clan ain't nuttin to fuck with!" Then he put the wand down and basically just motioned me through. I'm glad that things turned out like they did, but that's the most fucked-up thing ever.

Lia Hero*

I'd been in the States for about three hours. That morning I'd driven from Toronto to Niagara Falls and crossed into Buffalo. I wanted to pick up this fancy hair-straightening treatment that was discontinued in Canada after the formaldehyde burned some girl's scalp. Turns out they discontinued the product in the States, too. Back at the border, I pull up to the little booth and hand over my passport. The border guard seems to be a cheery enough fellow. He starts into the spiel:

"How long have you been in the United States?"

"Three hours."

"Your license plate says Quebec. Why are you coming through at Niagara Falls?

"I go to school in Toronto for radio. Haven't changed my license plate yet. This is the closest border."

"What do you want to do with radio?"

"I want to work for the CBC."

"Oh! Are you a lesbian?"

Wait… what?

While the question was obviously inappropriate, the border guard did not ask it rudely. He had this cheery lilt in his voice. His brain had quite genuinely gone: CBC = lesbian. You can make all the jokes about public broadcasting you like, but that is one hell of a cognitive leap. Not to mention he actually vocalized it. Thing is though… I am a lesbian. But I have no idea how he knew! I am super femme, so that stereotype is out of the running. I legit started looking around my car thinking: Do I have my rainbows out? Am I wearing my "This is what a lesbian looks like" T-shirt? Is my toaster oven in the back seat? After a few awkward seconds, I finally said to him: "Yes... ?"

"Oh. Good. You should tell them that when you apply for a job at the CBC. They probably have that thing. That hiring thing..."

"Affirmative action?"

"Yeah that! We have that. We've started hiring all these LGBT people. Don't know what the 'T' stands for… But, anyways, good luck with that!"

And then he sent me on my way.

Sima Sahar Zerehi

Like many refugees, I've crossed a lot of borders in my life. Sometimes legally. Sometimes not so legally. It's something that my family had to do to ensure our safety. When I was a child my dad was forced to leave Iran. A play he had written was closed down, and it had landed him on the wanted list. If my dad was found in the country, he would have been arrested. There was a strong possibility that they would have killed him. My father ended up in Canada, and the journey for our family to join him was long and difficult. An Iranian passport gives you access to almost no parts of the world. We knew we needed to leave, but it wasn't as easy as just leaving.

For most of my childhood we went from country to country. There are dozens of different stories I could tell from that time, but there is one that stands out the most. I was 12, and my family had three Greek passports. We had gotten them from a smuggler that we paid an exuberant amount of money. The Greek passports looked decent. After years of being ripped off and scammed, we were grateful to have them. The problem was we were definitely not Greek. We didn't speak the language. We didn't know anything about the country. We don't really look Greek either. Our skin and hair is too dark. After years of bad experiences with police officers and the constant threat of being found out, we were nervous. But the passports were what we had. So we tried to use them.

We were in the Florence airport trying to get on a connecting flight that would eventually bring us to Canada. The border agent asked for our passports. He looked at us, then he looked at our passports, and this big smile crossed his face. He began to speak in Greek. I looked at my mom and recognized the horror on her face. I knew that something needed to be done or we were going to be arrested.

I turned to my sister and loudly began to sing the children's song "Stella-Ella-Ola" along with the accompanying hand gestures. My sister quickly joined me. As the border agent tried to ask more questions my sister and I got louder and louder. We smiled at him with our biggest grins. Mom just kept on shaking her head like she couldn't hear the questions over the song. Eventually the border agent got frustrated and handed us back our passports. We were let through, but my sister and I didn't stop singing until we knew we were out of earshot. We kept singing as loudly as we could.

Tom Arthur Davis

My brother's name is Jack George Donaldson. He was born on July 5, 1979. He has a wife and two kids. Jack is pretty much the WASPiest looking dude in the world. If I were to ask you to think of a handsome white-straight-cis man, you'd be picturing him. He's the last person on Earth you'd expect to have trouble crossing the border.

"When the officer poked his head into the van and asked me, 'Are you or have you ever been a member of the Crips gang?' I knew that I had become feverish."

Last Christmas, my family and I took the long pilgrimage to the most magical place on earth: We drove 24 hours (straight!) to Disney World. I had the flu for the entirety of this trip. Upon reaching the American border, I was expecting long vacation lines. What I was not expecting was an interrogation from border security.

My brother was wearing tan khakis that day. My niece and nephew were sitting in the back wearing Mickey Mouse ears. My mother was knitting a sweater in the passenger's seat. My whole family looked like the Bradys mated with the von Trapps. We were border security gold!

When we reached the border, I noticed that Jack was sweating, almost as much as my flu-ridden ass. He took a deep breath and pulled up to the gate. Maybe it was the flu, but he seemed nervous. "What could he possibly be nervous about?" I wondered.

I knew that my flu had progressed when they asked Jack to get out of the car. But he remained very calm. Even when they spread him across the hood of the car. It was like he expected as much. Like he was just going through the motions.

When the officer poked his head into the van and asked me, "Are you or have you ever been a member of the Crips gang?" I knew that I had become feverish. This couldn't be real, could it? I felt like I was a character from a Kafka novel.

"The Crips? The Crips?! Oh yes, officer. My whole family are members. We're the ones who killed Tupac."

That's what I almost said. Luckily my flu made it difficult to speak without vomiting. You see, there are disadvantages to having such a generic name as Jack George Donaldson. In my brother's case, these disadvantages include sharing the same name, date of birth, marital status, and number of children as an alleged Crips member. No amount of khaki can get you through border security with a coincidence that big. Apparently the Crip thing happens to him every time he tries to cross.

Mark Marczyk

We walk up to the border services desk at Pearson, booth ten.

"Where are you going?" The agent has a New Jersey drawl, his name tag reads Ewo.

"Washington."

"Why."

"To check out the inauguration."

"Why?"

"Because we're interested."

"But you're not American."

"No. Ukrainian. And Canadian."

"So why are you interested?"

"We've been watching online for the past two years..."

"Why?"

We don't know what else to say.

"What do you do for a living?"

"Musicians."

"Put your hand on the bible." Marichka presses her four right fingers down on the green scanner. She knows this process well; her thumb already tucked into her palm when we walked up.

"Look up," he says, without looking up himself. She is already looking into the camera.

He stamps our passports, tosses them on the countertop.

My phone automatically connects to the airport WiFi. I have mail: See you at the 58th Presidential Inauguration of Donald J. Trump and Michael R. Pence! Thank you for your patience. Attached is your FREE, commemorative Voices of the People and Make America Great Again! Welcome Celebration Ticket.

Marichka's phone automatically connects, too. She has a message from her sister from a log cabin in Pushkin Hills, Russia: The winter is so beautiful here. 20cm of snow and it doesn't melt. But I'm scared to go out for a walk by myself because there are wild animal tracks everywhere.

* Name has been changed to protect anonymity.

Follow Graham Isador on Twitter .

At his first White House press briefing, Sean Spicer—Trump's gum-swallowing, Dippin' Dots–hating press secretary—defended the widely criticized claim he made Saturday that the president scored the "largest audience to ever witness an inauguration—period—both in person and around the globe." 

"At the time, the information that I was provided by the inaugural committee came from an outside agency that we reported on," Spicer said. "It wasn't like we made them up in thin air."

Although those initially reported numbers were false, Spicer went on to argue that among the thousands in the crowd in DC on Friday, the millions who caught it on TV, and the "tens of millions" who watched the event online, more people viewed Trump's inauguration than any other in history. 

"It's unquestionable," Spicer said. "I don't think there's any question that it was the largest watched inauguration ever."

According to photographic evidence and Metro ridership numbers, more people attended both of President Obama's inaugurations than Trump's. Nielsen ratings were also higher for Obama's first inauguration, at 37.8 million viewers, compared to Trump's 30.6 million. Trump's very own "alternative facts" defender, Kellyanne Conway, tweeted that data herself on Monday. 

"I believe we have to be honest with the American people," Spicer said Monday. "But I think sometimes we can disagree with the facts." 

In our new show HATE THY NEIGHBOR, premiering tonight on VICELAND, comedian Jamali Maddix sees what can be learned about racism from meeting people around the world who dedicate their lives to hate.

HATE THY NEIGHBOR airs Mondays at 10 PM on VICELAND.

Want to know if you get VICELAND? Head here to find out how to tune in.

Throughout the 1980s and 90s, American fashion advertising came to be overtaken by a new, more ribald kind of sexuality. From a scandalously young Brooke Shields's declaration in 1980 that nothing comes between her and her Calvin Klein jeans, to Abercrombie & Fitch's A&F Quarterly, a catalog-cum-magazine that included sex tips from porn stars among its scantily clad young men and women, the ad world began to sell sex like never before.

The man behind "the ad world's sex revolution," as the New York Post had it, is Sam Shahid, the art director who pioneered some of the most-talked-about fashion photography of the late-20th century. Shahid, who is gay, moved to New York from Atlanta in 1969 to get into the industry; that was also the year he first bought a camera, and the decades to follow nurtured a love of photography that developed alongside the gay liberation movement of the 70s and 80s.

Shahid happened to live at its epicenter, and he was prescient enough to document those years, from New York City's gay pride parades to summers spent on Fire Island—and keep documenting gay culture through the present day. In a recently launched Kickstarter for a book of photos from his archives, titled And the Band Was Playing a Gay Tune, we get to see gay New York for the first time through his eyes. He sat with VICE to discuss his work, LGBTQ politics, and what he thinks is yet to come amid a tumultuous time for gay culture.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Provincetown, Massachusetts, 2015. Photo courtesy of Sam Shahid

New York, New York, 1976. Photo courtesy of Sam Shahid

VICE: You've been shooting for the past 40 years. Looking back, what made it so important to put this project out now?
Sam Shahid: I've shown these photos to a lot of people, some of whom I don't know that well, and they all said, "God, this needs to be seen." There's a celebration, there's a pride. That's what's great about it; there's no shame. [In New York during these years,] you were able to express yourself any way you wanted to. I think there was just a celebration of ourselves, basically.

I thought what was really good though is at the beginning, when my friends would call me up [to photograph them]—they felt so free to perform for me and the camera. We would scream and shout. They were just fantastic. I had one friend who would love to dress up. He would take things around the house, like a shower curtain, and make a gown and a crown and all that sort of stuff. Then, every Friday, we would put on a slideshow and play Donna Summer and look at all the photos. Everyone would shout, and what was really great is that we felt so comfortable when we were together. There was no question about what we were doing, there were no doubts. It was just, "I know who I am, and I love it, so let's have a good time!"

A Sunday afternoon with a friend in New York City, 1976. Says Shahid, "He found a bra in the dryer and called me over with my camera." Photos courtesy of Sam Shahid

New York City Pride Parade, 2015. Photo courtesy of Sam Shahid

How does that play into the current political climate?
I had some friends who looked at this and said, "We need this now." You know, let them see us. I think that's important, because even though we've come a long way in places like New York and LA, when you go outside of there, it's not like we'd like it to be.

That's like with Trump. A lot of people [on the coasts], when they went out to do the polls, you would ask, "Who are you voting for?" and they would say Clinton in denial. They didn't want people to know that they were voting for Trump, but secretly they were. I think the same thing happens in regards to the gay community. In New York, yes, we're "accepted," but underneath it all there are a lot of people out there who I think don't accept us. They do so publicly because it's the thing to do right now, but underneath, I think there's still a disgust with the gay community. I can hear it sometimes when you're talking to someone, and they don't realize you're gay.

Visiting with friends in Fire Island Pines, 1978. Photo courtesy of Sam Shahid

Was there a pivotal moment to you in the past four decades that changed how gays are thought about in America?
When Anita Bryant came against the gays, that's really when you saw the big turning point in New York. The pride parades before that—you used to go to Central Park, and it was very small. It was getting a little bigger and a little bigger, but when Anita Bryant came against the gays, you really saw New Yorkers and the gay community show themselves in force. After that, it still even kept getting bigger and bigger. It was great, because all your life you feel like you're not accepted, and it's a completely different world you have to try to fit into. You feel like no one understood you and accepted you. This showed that that wasn't true. This was the first time the community really came together and said "enough."

Gay Pride March, New York City, 1977. Photo courtesy of Sam Shahid

Photographer Stewart Shining in Water Mill, New York, 2013. Photo courtesy of Sam Shahid

Did any of this play into your advertising work with Abercrombie and Calvin Klein?
No. I say no because I think it's just part of me. I've been very lucky that I've been able to work with people like Bruce [Weber] and Herb [Ritts] and other photographers. We connected, and we had clients that connected. I think who I am is [in these issues] and it's [in my advertising work], but I don't think one influenced the other. It's all just one continuation.

An 80s themed Carnival in Provincetown, Massachusetts, 2016. Photo courtesy of Sam Shahid

New York City Pride Parade, 2005. Photo courtesy of Sam Shahid

You mentioned how things have changed over the 40 years. What's to come?
Hopefully things are going to get better, especially when you think about same-sex marriage and the fact that kids are involved now. I think it'll all change once we have a gay president. I have known people who would tell me "no gay man or woman could ever hold a political office"—women and straight guys, they would make jokes of it. This was back in the 70s and 80s. Look what's happened.

I remember when AIDS came about. It wasn't called AIDS at the time, but it seemed so distant from us. But then, I was at Calvin Klein, and I ran the in-house advertising, and you just didn't talk about it. If someone in your office—I had two guys in my office, that were friends of mine—had AIDS, you just didn't talk about it. I couldn't tell Calvin that. I made sure they had a car to get to the hospital and all of that and kept it quiet, but we did not talk about it. In those days, there was such a stigma, the idea that the fashion industry wouldn't buy our clothes.

I remember how people would go to the funeral of their boyfriend or their lover and then go right back to work and not mention any of it. So we've come a long way. When I look at Anita Bryant and the things she said, no one could do that today. Yes, Mike Pence can be against same-sex marriage and that kind of thing, and yet we can demonstrate in front of his house and be safe doing that. Also, I think people really question when you say homophobic things now; it's like, "really?" But I believe when we have a gay president it's going to be divine. I hope I can live long enough to see that happen.

From a Candyland-themed Carnival in Provincetown, Massachusetts, 2015. Photo courtesy of Sam Shahid

Follow Mikelle Street on Twitter.

Este artículo apareció originalmente en VICE Canadá.

Hay que admitirlo: todos decimos groserías. Algunos más que otros. Si bien es mal visto ser soez y malhablado en público, la ciencia nos dice que la gente que maldice mucho en realidad podría ser más honesta y digna de confianza que aquellos que prefieren usar un vocabulario conservador.

De acuerdo con un estudio conjunto (titulado "Frankly, We Do Give a Damn" ("Honestamente, sí nos importa") —publicado este mes por la Universidad de Cambridge, la Universidad de Stanford, la Universidad de Ciencia y Tecnología de Hong Kong y la Universidad de Maastrich— decir groserías, tanto on-line como en la vida real, está fuertemente asociado con la honestidad, porque las personas honestas son emotivas, y la gente emotiva maldice.

"Hay dos perspectivas contradictorias con respecto a la relación entre maldecir y ser deshonesto: estas dos formas de comportamiento que violan las normas comparten causas comunes y se considera con frecuencia que están relacionadas entre sí de manera positiva", señala el estudio.

"Por otra parte, sin embargo, las palabrotas se utilizan a menudo para expresar sentimientos genuinos, y por lo tanto, podría estar relacionado negativamente con la deshonestidad".

Los científicos analizaron su investigación de tres maneras diferentes. En primer lugar, compararon el comportamiento deshonesto con la actividad de decir palabrotas en un ambiente de laboratorio. Pidieron a los 276 participantes que describieran sus hábitos de maldecir y que escribieran las groserías que les gusta usar, las groserías que sienten que no pueden decir pero que les gusta usar en privado, y cómo usan distintas groserías en entornos diferentes.

Los investigadores luego compararon esos resultados con otro cuestionario, en el que les preguntaron a los participantes sobre diferentes escenarios éticos y cómo manejarlos. Por ejemplo, "Si dices que vas a hacer algo, ¿siempre cumples tu promesa, sin importar lo inconveniente que pueda resultar?".

Al contrario de lo que pueda parecer, los investigadores encontraron que quienes eran más liberales con el uso de groserías y la frecuencia con la que las usan eran mucho más consistentes a la hora de mantener la honestidad con otras personas, y rara vez mentían para escapar de situaciones difíciles.

La segunda prueba analizó el uso de palabrotas de las personas en Facebook en comparación con su comportamiento real en privado. Esto se logró (con astucia, si me preguntan) mediante el uso de una aplicación de Facebook llamada myPersonality en la que los usuarios se sometieron voluntariamente a una prueba de personalidad y les dieron a los investigadores acceso a sus perfiles/respuestas a analizar. Un total de 153,716 participantes fueron reclutados a través de la aplicación, pero sólo se pudieron utilizar los resultados de 73,789.

En esta prueba, los investigadores encontraron que los participantes que decían menos groserías tenían un porcentaje más alto de estados considerados "deshonestos". El algoritmo utilizado para lograr esto —el sistema de Investigación Lingüística y Conteo de Palabras (LIWC, por sus siglas en inglés)— es un poco complejo, pero básicamente se usó para analizar la lingüística de las declaraciones construidas artificialmente en internet.

"La explicación fue que las personas deshonestas intentan inconscientemente (1) disociarse de la mentira y por lo tanto abstenerse de referirse a sí mismos; (2) prefieren el lenguaje concreto sobre el abstracto cuando se refieren a otros (usar el nombre de alguien en lugar de "él" o "ella"); (3) son propensos a sentirse mal por mentir y por lo tanto expresan sentimientos más negativos; y (4) requieren más recursos mentales para encubrir la mentira y por lo tanto terminan usando un lenguaje menos exigente cognitivamente, que se caracteriza por una menor frecuencia de palabras exclusivas y una mayor frecuencia de verbos de movimiento", indica el informe.

¿Qué significa eso? Bueno, la investigación sugiere que las personas deshonestas se abstienen de usar "Yo", "Me", "Él", o "Ella", y más frecuentemente usan los nombres completos de la gente cuando hablan de asuntos o eventos. Esto es, de acuerdo con 15 años de ciencia, un esfuerzo para volver impersonales las emociones de la persona que miente en la declaración misma. Una persona honesta, por otra parte, podría dejar que las palabras vuelen a la hora de contar algo, muchas veces usando groserías en el proceso.

La prueba final examinó los datos de los estados estadounidenses que comparaban la integridad con el uso de palabrotas. En general, los estados con un nivel más alto de uso de groserías se clasificaron mejor en la escala de integridad, con Florida, California e Iowa a la cabeza de la lista de los estados más confiables.

En última instancia, los investigadores fueron capaces de evaluar que decir groserías con mayor frecuencia era indicativo de ser más honesto. Aún así, también señalan que por honesto se referían a ser una persona buena. Por ejemplo, el estudio señala que muchas veces la gente dice palabrotas porque está enfadada. El contexto en el que uno maldice es incierto, todo lo que significa es que es probable que la persona que lo hace está diciéndote la verdad sobre cómo se siente.

Que tengan un buen jodido día.

Sigue a Jake Kivanc en Twitter.

Not so fast Ajit.

Public interest groups, political organizers and free speech advocates expressed anger and alarm on Monday about President Trump's decision to elevate Ajit Pai, a right-wing opponent of net neutrality, to lead the Federal Communications Commission.

Pai, a 44-year-old Republican and former Verizon lawyer who has served as a FCC commissioner since 2012, has repeatedly opposed the agency's recent pro-consumer free speech reforms. Last month, Pai vowed to take a "weed whacker" to the FCC's policy protecting net neutrality, the principle that all internet content should be equally accessible to consumers.

"Ajit Pai has been on the wrong side of just about every major issue that has come before the FCC during his tenure," Craig Aaron, President and CEO of DC-based public interest group Free Press, said in a statement. "Pai has been an effective obstructionist who has always been eager to push out what the new presidential administration might call alternative facts in defense of the corporate interests he used to represent in the private sector."

In addition to net neutrality, Pai has opposed FCC initiatives to advance broadband privacy protections, to increase competition in the cable "set-top box" market, and to make it easier for local municipalities to develop affordable, high-speed public broadband networks. He's also been a vocal booster for telecom industry consolidation—Pai actually voted  against the Charter-Time Warner Cable mergerbecause he considered the FCC's conditions  too onerous.

Read more on Motherboard

Since Donald Trump began threatening to deport millions of immigrants in America, those who live here without papers have lived in a state of uncertainty and fear. He's softened his stance on deportation since his initial hardline statements, but many immigrants—including the undocumented youth who qualified for legal work permits and deportation relief under President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program—are still holding their breath. Will they have to leave the schools and jobs made available to them through the program? Even worse, will they have to leave the country?

Now that Trump has taken office, their futures are no less uncertain. Either way, the so-called DREAMers in the program, better known as DACA, are preparing for the worst. That's partly thanks to the release of a Department of Homeland Security memo showing the Trump transition team had asked the federal agency about its handling of the database. The database, which contains information including names, addresses, and in some cases fingerprints of 750,000 DREAMers, is now fully in Trump's tiny hands.

It's not entirely clear what a Trump administration would do with that database, if anything. On Monday, the White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, said in his first official press conference that Trump's immigration priorities were "building the wall and making sure that we address people who are in this country illegally." When someone asked if Trump had ruled out the plan to shut down the DACA program entirely, which he'd previously made a centerpiece of his immigration plan, Spicer rebuffed the question, saying he didn't "have anything further on the executive action front."

At the same time, House Speaker Paul Ryan said last week that mass deportations for DACA recipients and other immigrants were absolutely "not happening," and Chief-of-Staff Reince Priebus even suggested on Sunday that the president would work with a bi-partisan group of lawmakers who have introduced a bill called the BRIDGE Act that would extend DACA protections for a few more years.

So which is it? An executive order that immediately rescinds DACA, which has been in place since 2012 and effectively created 750,000 legal citizens? Or some temporary extension of the program that would require Trump's approval? Either way, DREAMers are preparing to potentially have to slink back into the shadows—ironically creating more immigrants working under the table, the very thing Trump has complained about for months. 

"DACA gave people the opportunity to come forward, and there is a benefit to the country and to the federal government by having these people come forward because it gives you records about the population that is here," said Greg Chen of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. "If the program is extinguished or people are afraid of coming forward for fear of deportation, we'll simply return to the status quo of people being undocumented."

Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the sponsors of the bill extending DACA protections that was introduced in December, echoed that sentiment the same month. 

"I do not believe we should pull the rug out and push these young men and women—who came out of the shadows and registered with the federal government—back into the darkness," Graham said in a statement, according to Politico.

Related: Deporting Young Immigrants Only Hurts America

In his briefing Monday, Spicer announced that no matter how Trump goes after DACA recipients and other undocumented immigrants in the country, his "priority" will be on those with criminal records.

But Leon Fresco, a former assistant attorney general in the Justice Department's Office of Immigration Litigation, pointed out that some of those people could be young people with minor criminal records—like getting caught with weed. Those DREAMers might be included in another database of undocumented immigrants who qualify for deportation proceedings, but who aren't deemed an immediate threat and therefore aren't targeted, according to Virginia Raymond, an immigration attorney based in Austin.

These are called "unexecuted orders of removal," and Trump could choose at any moment to begin executing all of them. That means Trump wouldn't have to sign an executive order or wait to veto the bi-partisan bill extending DACA protections before deportation proceedings can begin. 

If that does happen, Trump could use the database of DACA recipients for exactly what immigration advocates fear: targeting the young people who outed themselves as undocumented in exchange for protection from the government under Obama. "The final stake in the heart is that he could then deploy his Immigrations Customs and Enforcement officials to go to their homes and initiate deportation proceedings," said Chen. 

Even if DACA recipients aren't deported—which seems likely, since immigration courts are already backed up until 2019 with deportation cases, according to Raymond—the possibility of losing legal work status is devastating. Judith Jimenez, a 35-year-old DACA recipient in Arizona, told USA Today Obama's policies had enabled her to find a job and get a mortgage on a house. Now, she's worried she could lose everything.

"It would definitely put a stop to our dreams, for now," Jimenez told USA Today, referring to the possibility of dismantling DACA. "But I guess we would do what all immigrants have done throughout history, which is try to survive."

Follow Justin Glawe on Twitter.

On an all new episode of NOISEY, we head to Paris, where the second-biggest hip-hop market on earth has been in a state of emergency since 2015, following the deadliest terrorist attacks on French soil in 100 years. VICELAND host Zach Goldbaum sits down with rapper MHD in the 19th arrondissement, internationally known as the district where the Charlie Hebdo shooters were radicalized, to talk about Afro-trap and how he's trying to change the reputation of the neighborhood he grew up in.

NOISEY airs Tuesdays at 10 PM.

Want to know if you get VICELAND? Head here to find out how to tune in.

"If he gets in, I'm moving to New Zealand."

It became a throwaway refrain during the US election, a favourite quip for those who felt global political tides were looking especially ugly. But with Trump in office, nuclear codes in hand, some of the world's super-rich are making good on that promise.

It's called 'apocalypse insurance', and it's lead to a flood of interest from US citizens looking to pull off a New Zealand getaway plan.

Immediately following the election of Trump, Immigration New Zealand received 13,000 registrations of interest from US citizens hoping to come here - more than 17 times the number of registrations usually received in a week.

The latest arrival is Facebook billionaire Peter Thiel, who has recently obtained New Zealand citizenship and bought himself a bolthole in Wanaka. NZ Herald's Matt Nippert was enquiring as to whether Thiel had gained special foreign-investment permissions to buy the land when he was told it wasn't necessary — as Thiel had obtained citizenship.

According to the Herald, how much Thiel paid for the Lake Wanaka property was not disclosed in documents, but the property had a rateable value of $7.8 million and the most recent previous sale of the section, in 2002, was for $10.1m.

Thiel himself is actually a prominent Trump supporter - he was one of the first in the business community to publicly announce his support during the Trump campaign. He was one of Facebook's early angel investors. More recently, he's the man who bankrolled Hulk Hogan's defamation suit against Gawker, which bankrupted and closed the publication.

News of Thiel's property-buyup follows a report from the New Yorker on how New Zealand has become the destination of choice for super-rich seeking getaway options from a future political or natural disaster.

Reporting for the magazine this week, Evan Osnos spoke to Silicon Valley's super-rich about their preparations for the worst.

Linkedin founder Hoffman tells him, "Saying you're 'buying a house in New Zealand' is kind of a wink, wink, say no more." He calls it a form of 'apocalypse insurance' – a backwater getaway for when the end comes – if you can afford it.

"I asked Hoffman to estimate what share of fellow Silicon Valley billionaires have acquired some level of "apocalypse insurance," in the form of a hideaway in the U.S. or abroad," Osnos writes.

"I would guess fifty-plus per cent," he said, "but that's parallel with the decision to buy a vacation home. Human motivation is complex, and I think people can say, 'I now have a safety blanket for this thing that scares me.' "

Un atardecer en la playa o broncearse al lado de una piscina o un paseo de olla pueden ser momentos de descanso y ocio para la mayoría de las personas, pero para algunas personas trans esto puede ser sinónimo de mucha ansiedad. Todos estos planes implican ponerse un vestido de baño y mostrar el cuerpo. Para empezar, es muy difícil ponerse un vestido de baño porque uno no sabe a que vestidor ir: ¿al de mujeres o al de hombres? En ninguno de los dos eres bienvenida y no conozco lugares turísticos en Colombia con lockers o baños de género neutrales. Pero ahí no termina la aventura. Las personas trans nos mantenemos con miedo y ansiedad de lucir vestidos de baño en lugares públicos. Estamos a toda hora escondiéndonos algo. Por ejemplo, algunos hombres trans temen quitarse las camisetas porque se sienten inseguros de mostrar los senos. Inclusive, aquellos que han decidido quitárselos, pueden no sentirse cómodos de mostrar las cicatrices. La mayoría que conozco optan por vendarse su pecho y se dejan la camiseta puesta.

El primer bikini que compré lo pedí por internet cuando vivía en Estados Unidos a un sitio web que se dedicaba a hacer ropa interior y bikinis para mujeres trans. El bikini era negro con bolitas de colores. La parte de adelante del calzón era de un material duro que hacía que la parte delantera se viera más plana. Además, tenía una faldita que cubría el pene. Mientras llegaba el bikini por correo, googleaba artículos, hablaba y chateaba con otras personas trans sobre la inseguridad y el miedo que me generaba ponerme por primera vez un bikini. Una amiga trans me dijo que ella no se escondía su pene (ni siquiera para ponerse un vestido de baño), que ella estaba orgullosa de ser trans y que no tenía por qué esconderse nada. Otra amiga me decía que para ella era un asunto de seguridad, que la transfobia se podía presentar en insultos, violencia física o la muerte, y que en las vacaciones ella no quería temer por su vida. Otras mujeres trans que deseaban hacerse una cirugía de afirmación sexual, me decían que se escondían su pene porque no les gustaba cómo se veían.

Finalmente llegó el bikini y me lo medí varias veces en el espejo antes de empacarlo. Me sentía muy insegura de lo que veía en el espejo y el pene no era mi única preocupación: tenía una espalda gruesa, un abdomen medio peludo, hombros grandes, mandíbula brusca, cintura recta, panza flácida y rellenita y una mini manzana de Adán. En el avión de ida, no dejaba de pensar que lo que veía en el espejo era un monstruo, ¡de que me veía como un hombre en bikini! En pocas horas acabé con mis uñas y pedí varios vinos a la azafata. La ansiedad y el miedo de estar en público en bikini eran totalmente abrumadores: ¿qué iban a pensar? ¿Me iban a chiflar? ¿Me iban a insultar o a ridiculizarme? ¿Alguien podría agredirme físicamente? ¿Me iban a echar del hotel? Pero además del susto, había algo terriblemente doloroso que no podía cambiar: me sentía fea.

Pensé que la mejor forma para perderle el miedo al bikini, era poniéndomelo, enfrentando así la situación. Me fumé un porro, me emborraché un poquito, me puse gafas oscuras y me fui a la playa. La faldita me cubría el pene y pasé desapercibida, excepto cuando hablaba. Mi voz gruesa hacía que las miradas cambiaran de desapercibidas a confundidas, asqueadas, curiosas y hasta excitadas. Esto hacía que intentara no hablar tanto o que modulara la voz para que sonara más suave, y así ser lo más invisible posible.

Cuando volví de vacaciones sentía rabia por tener que esconder una parte del cuerpo para que el resto del mundo estuviera más cómodo. Yo tenía que perder mi voz y esconder mi pene para evitarle al mundo la molestia de mi existencia. Cuando las personas trans nos vemos obligadas a esconder nuestro cuerpo sentimos que debemos odiarlo, que es feo, que nadie debería verlo porque es vergonzoso: que hay que maquillarlo, operarlo, disimularlo, disfrazarlo o borrarlo. No dejaba de pensar en mis amigas del barrio Santafé en Bogotá, que no escondían su pene. Durante mucho tiempo me pareció vulgar, pero ahora me parecía valiente y digno. Parecer trans no tenía por qué ser algo malo, indeseable o desagradable.

Cuando las personas trans construimos nuestra identidad, muchas veces el miedo y las inseguridades hablan más duro que nuestra opinión sobre cómo deseamos vernos. Nuestra cultura nos dice constantemente que ser trans significa ser fea: "tengo voz de travesti", "esa vieja tiene cara de man", "parece un travesti". Y esos imaginarios también están presentes cuando nos preguntamos cómo queremos ser. Es muy difícil amarse y sentirse sexy si eres trans. Nunca escuchas en el bus: "qué lindas que son las mujeres trans". Es muy difícil creerte el cuento de que tu también puedes ser linda y sensual, cuando el mensaje en todas partes es el contrario.

Laverne Cox, actriz trans afro-americana conocida por su papel en Orange is the New Black, de Netflix, inició el hashtag #TransIsBeatiful (TransEsBella/o) para enviar mensajes positivos sobre el autoestima y la apariencia física de las personas trans. Cuando inció su hashtag me hizo cuestionar muchas de mis inseguridades y me retó a amarme a mí misma, me retó a verme con otros ojos, a pensar en mi pene con mis tetas como partes de mi cuerpo: una combinación sexy y diferente, a resignificar mi voz ronquita y mi espalda ancha como parte de un conjunto delicioso.

Ahora, me encanta ser trans. Me encanta tocar mi verga y mis tetas. Me encanta que los pezones traspasen la camisa y la verga se forre en el pantalón al mismo tiempo. Que rico es desearse desde los propios ojos.  No me da pena decir que me siento linda, sexy, regia y divina. Sí, soy convencida, prepotente, caprichosa y egocéntrica. ¿O nos prefieren inseguritas, prudentes y miedositas? Es un acto revolucionario amarse a sí misma, cuando toda la vida te han dicho que debes sentir asco por tu cuerpo.

Ahora cuando voy a la playa #NoMeLoEscondo porque no hay vergüenza en ser trans. Al contrario, mis pezones y mi pene se forran en mi bikini mojado sin ningún tipo de remordimiento. Aunque me he demorado, me he dado cuenta de que ser trans no es únicamente aceptable. Ser trans está bien. Ser trans es bueno. "Parecer trans" nos hace lindas porque ser trans es sexy. Tener tetas y pipí es delicioso y se ve precioso. Las personas trans que se operan son divinas, y las que no también. Somos regias porque somos trans, no a pesar de ser trans. Somos hermosas por nuestras voces gruesas, espaldas anchas, pies y hombros grandes, y caderas rectas. Las personas trans feas no existen.

A new video shows Toronto police tasering a seemingly motionless man who is already lying on the ground and then aggressively intimidating a bystander who was filming the incident.  

In the video, which was released by City News today, a man lays in the street surrounded by three Toronto Police officers. "I dunno man, I just saw this cop kick this guy in the head," a voice off camera says.

Then the unmistakable sound of a Taser going off is heard.

"He's down and they tased him," the man filming says. The cop with a Taser in his hand points a finger at him and yells at him to move back if he wants to be a witness. The man filming appears to be about a dozen metres away from where police have surrounded the man on the ground.

"I'm not obstructing your arrest," the man says back to police. "I'm not getting involved."

Another officer walks over to tell the witness to "let them do what they need to do." The officer with the Taser then proceeds to stomp on the arrested man's legs and yells "stop resisting."

The same officer points at the man filming and says "get that man out of my face, please." Again, the guy filming appears to be at least a dozen metres away.

The man filming is then approached by two cops telling him to move back and stop filming.

"He's going to spit in your face, you're going to get AIDS," says one of the police officers, though it's unclear who he is talking about.

"Stop recording or I'm going to seize your phone as evidence and then you're going to lose your phone."

Toronto police spokesperson Mark Pugash told VICE that the officers were called to Seaton House for reports of a man spitting on a staff member at the homeless shelter. When they arrived the man reportedly hit a female police officer in the face and knocked her to the ground. Several construction workers came to help and one was apparently bitten during the fracas. Police then managed to get the man in the back of a police car where he kicked out the back window. Pugash said police attempted to taser the man but it had no effect because of his heavy clothing. They then got him out of the car which is where the video picks up from.

"We got him out, he was on the ground, my understanding is that he still was in the process of biting one of the police officers and they subdued him," Pugash told VICE.

But Ottawa-based criminal lawyer Michael Spratt said the video is "a depiction of the worst of Toronto police."

"There are no words to describe the impropriety of what this officer did. It's fucking crazy," he told VICE.

"At every level, from the officers' actions, to the officers' first attempts to cover this up, to the officers' interfering with a member of the public who is acting completely within his rights, everything that is depicted in this video is shocking behaviour."

The officer who told the man filming that he had to stop or they would seize his camera (photo via City News video screenshot)

Pugash said officers are aware that people have every right to film police interactions as long as they aren't obstructing an arrest.

"Several officers talked about seizing the man's camera, or phone," Pugash said. "They have no authority to do that. From what I can see from the video is that the man was not obstructing, not impeding the police officers in any way."

Pugash said that the TPS Professional Standards Unit is looking into the incident and "if any further action is necessary, it will be taken."  

Pugash said the TPS is in favour of body worn cameras as this video only showed the last moments of the arrest and the body cameras would have shown the full account.

This isn't the first time that TPS officers have been accused of intimidating people with cameras. In October of 2015, Toronto police officers intimidating a bystander who recorded what he believed was a racially-motivated street check.

Spratt said anyone is allowed to film a police officer and witness public police actions provided they are not interfering with the officers. Witnesses are under "no obligation to turn off a video camera or to shut his eyes to obvious injustices happening before them," he added.

"The police have no right to interfere, especially in this case with an individual standing a far distance away, (who) is not involved whatsoever and is doing a public service in capturing some gross violations perpetrated by the police."

In order to obstruct an arrest, Spratt said an individual would have to be much closer to the officer or getting between an officer and the suspect and preventing them from performing their duty. Someone causing a disturbance by yelling or committing a criminal offence themselves could also be accused of obstructing police.

"This individual has done everything correctly," Spratt said. "Under these circumstances it's perfectly justifiable to film police officers as long as you're not breaking the law or interfering with their investigation."

Follow Mack Lamoureux on Twitter.

When starting a band, it's necessary to ask two important questions:

1. Why?

2. Specifically, why a band?

These questions are not jokes. Music is good. Music is fun. Music is perhaps the oldest human art form and the most accessible. Despite what they'll tell you, everyone can sing. Our culture often treats being a musician as something you do as a route to getting rich and famous, but that is, at best, an exciting potential side effect. Art is worthwhile, both for what it does for the soul and for a viable society. And making it with other people can multiply those effects.

In recent years we've faced unprecedented changes to the simple ways we interact with each other. We've watched local, real world communities flounder even as digital ones flourish. As it becomes easier to live behind screens, assuming that everyone is living in a bubble except us, it's good to remember the enormous value of square but super important notions like civic involvement, participating in the world around us, and engaging with one's fellow bags of bones. Getting involved in a local music scene—DIY punk, country, jam, wedding cover band, whatever—builds community, the bedrock of civic life, and it happens to also be a good way to kill time before we all die in nuclear hellfire, in addition to being pretty fun. Even if you're not very good at it. Some people will tell you "it's all about the music, man" but, like, why? And who made them the "what really matters" cops anyhow? Play music. Make friends or at least enemies worth your time.

Read more on Noisey

Toda la semana pasada, después de que mi esposa y mi hijo se quedaran profundamente dormidos, estuve jugando Resident Evil 7 con mi PlayStation VR. Más o menos 90 minutos después, tenía que quitarme el casco, es demasiado. Inevitablemente, mi corazón se empieza a acelerar, mis músculos se tensan, y me quedo sin aliento. Resident Evil 7 no sólo es la reinvención de una franquicia que hace mucho tiempo necesitaba una sacudida, sino que es uno de los mejores juegos de terror que he jugado en años, una masacre interactiva de Texas Chainsaw que al mismo tiempo es el mejor pretexto para comprar un  PlayStation VR.

El único póster del juego que tengo en mi casa es el mismo que he tenido desde 1996. Hace unos meses lo encontré guardado en el sótano de mis padres. Me han gustado un montón de videojuegos en mi vida, pero son pocos los que de verdad significan algo para mí. Sin embargo, Resident Evil, era uno de ellos. Los pasillos de la mansión Spencer están grabados en mi mente, y todavía me da escalofríos el momento en el que un perro hambriento salta a través de una ventana.

He estado esperando que Resident Evil vuelva a ser como antes, y Resident Evil 7 está muy cerca. En términos de mitología y espectáculo, cada juego de Resident Evil se ha vuelto más ridículo que el anterior. Y aunque Resident Evil 7 técnicamente va después de Resident Evil 6,  el hecho de que los jugadores se hayan esforzado durante 20 horas al luchar contra un insecto del tamaño de un kaiju arriba de un edificio, es básicamente un reinicio. Mientras que el juego hace un guiño a sus predecesores, no está basado en las gastadas historias de las que la franquicia perdió el control hace años.

Si te has estado preguntando si Capcom podría lograr que Resident Evil vuelva a dar miedo otra vez, ya no te preocupes. Al cambiar la perspectiva de tercera a primera persona, Resident Evil 7 restablece la tensión latente del juego original aislando al jugador y haciéndolo sentir solo. Resident Evil era un "terror de supervivencia", porque apenas te quedabas sin balas te sentías inseguro. La serie fue perdiendo ese sentido sobre la marcha, cambiando el terror por la acción, pero está de regreso. Una vez más, cada bala cuenta, y es posible que quieras huir en lugar de pelear. Vas a estar murmurando mierda, mierda, mierda mientras giras, sin saber qué podría haber a la vuelta. Sea lo que sea, no es bueno.

Todas las imágenes son cortesía de Capcom

La mayor parte del juego está adaptado a una sola casa, Resident Evil 7 te provoca una claustrofobia muy incómoda, y hace que las caminatas por los pasillos que parece ser inofensivos sean una experiencia estresante. Resident Evil 7, al igual que el juego original, opera dentro de un entorno limitado y denso que va cambiando, a medida que los eventos conspiran a tu alrededor. Pasarás de cinco a 10 minutos en una habitación, con la esperanza de encontrar balas, primeros auxilios o notas que te expliquen lo que está pasando. Es probable que regreses, ya que cada habitación oculta secretos. Cuando te sales, no puedes dejar de pensar, "olvidé algo". (El juego incluye un ítem que resalta rápidamente los elementos ocultos. ¡Asegúrate de usarlo!).

Por momentos, Resident Evil 7 es tan tranquilo que duele,  hace que los jugadores se sientan en un ambiente muy seguro, sólo para sorprenderlos de repente. Cuando es ruidoso, es ruidoso, e inspira el mismo temor que seguramente las pobres víctimas de las películas Viernes 13  sentían, cuando sabían que Jason Voorhees se dirigía lentamente a ellos desde cualquier lugar. 

Al principio, no tienes nada para defenderte más que tu ingenio y la habilidad de esconderte. Pero con el tiempo, tendrás acceso a armas y a otras herramientas para crear resistencia. Sin embargo, nunca te sientes poderoso, y sientes la muerte cerca todo el tiempo. Se supone que una escopeta debe darte seguridad, pero en Resident Evil 7, a medida que vas a avanzando, apuntando con el arma, sólo estás en la cuerda floja, el mal se esconde siempre dentro de las paredes. Es una sensación extraña de tener en tus manos un arma grande y seguir pensando, "Sí, todavía estoy jodido."

Y aunque el tema del juego es de terror, también tiene un sentido del humor agudo. No te sorprendas cuando de repente te hagan recoger una serie de objetos misteriosos, como un puñado de cabezas metálicas de perro, para abrir las puertas. Sin embargo, esta vez también puedes encontrar una carta de alguno de los miembros de la familia, preguntándose por qué las puertas son tan extrañas. Tu personaje hará el comentario "¿Quién construye esta mierda?" después de tropezar con un rompecabezas muy al estilo de Resident Evil. El juego regresa a las raíces y a la cantidad adecuada de indulgencia, dándole a los fans lo que quieren sin atascarse en la idiosincrasia excesiva. El juego también es reflexivo ya que da un paso adelante sin olvidar de dónde vino.

Capcom está lanzando Resident Evil 7 en PlayStation 4, Xbox One y PC, pero deberías jugarlo en PS4; VR es la mejor manera de  experimentarlo. No hay nada mejor. He pasado horas jugando fuera de VR y no es lo mismo. Cualquiera que sea el detalle que se pierde al ponerte el casco que funciona a una resolución más baja, fue fácilmente compensado por el sudor frío que corría constantemente por mi cuello. La VR añade una profundidad a la casa de la familia Baker que a veces era demasiado detallada. En VR, volteo a ver que hay en las esquinas, tratando de tener una idea de lo que está por venir, o giro mi cabeza, como el Exorcista, para no quitarle el ojo de encima a cualquier criatura grotesca que estaba persiguiendo, mientras corro para huir. Y saltar asusta, saltar te da miedo de verdad.

Cuando jugué Resident Evil 7 en VR el año pasado, escribí acerca de cómo me hizo querer vomitar, a pesar de que los VR no suelen tener ese efecto en mí. Estaba muy preocupado de que esto fuera un problema en el juego final, pero afortunadamente, encontré una solución. De forma predeterminada, al activar el VR, mueves el stick analógico hacia la izquierda o hacia la derecha y cambiará bruscamente tu perspectiva en 30 grados, sin rotarla suavemente. Es alucinante al principio, y se siente un poco como si estuvieras cambiando de escenas en Myst, pero sólo me tomó unos minutos instalarlo. Puedes cambiarlo y dejar que el stick analógico ajuste tu dirección de la manera que esperas, pero me pasó igual que con la demo E3, me dieron náuseas. Esa ha sido la experiencia de otros escritores con los que he hablado.

Desafortunadamente, el juego no es capaz de mantener su ímpetu de principio a fin, con Resident Evil 7 tienes una primera mitad  mucho más fuerte, antes de caer en las mismas trampas que los juegos anteriores. (A veces, lo que sucede " en realidad" es mejor dejarlo sin explicación.) Aunque su mejor momento fue cuando se creó, este es el juego de Resident Evil que he esperado durante 20 años.

Resident Evil 7 se estrena hoy 24 de enero.

Sigue a Patrick en Twitter. Si tienes algún consejo o idea de una historia, envíanos un correo electrónico aquí.

Este artículo se actualizará continuamente a lo largo de 2017 a medida que el presidente Donald Trump firme órdenes ejecutivas y convierta facturas en leyes . Lee más sobre este proyecto aquí.

25 de enero

Orden Ejecutiva 7: la mejora de la seguridad fronteriza (incluyendo el avance en la construcción de una gran barrera física en la frontera sur)

Lo que hará: sí, este es el famoso muro. Como algunos han especulado durante un tiempo, la administración de Trump parece estar diciendo que la Ley de la Cerca Segura de 2006 le da al Departamento de Seguridad Nacional la autoridad para construir cualquier infraestructura que considere necesaria para controlar las fronteras. Aunque Trump necesitará la aprobación del Congreso para financiar completamente el proyecto, que costará entre $8 y $25 mil millones de dólares, la orden exige a las autoridades pertinentes que evalúen qué créditos existentes pueden ser desviados al proyecto tan pronto como sea posible. Esto también aumenta la dotación de personal de las autoridades de control fronterizo, termina con la política de "captura y liberación" de Bush y Obama en favor de una persecución más agresiva y generalizada y prevé la construcción de más centros de detención. Trump prometió políticas más draconianas sobre la inmigración indocumentada; pues aquí están.

A quién afectará: cuando comience la construcción del muro, podrían surgir algunos empleos de construcción. Pero los efectos que tendrá en las comunidades fronterizas serán mucho más duraderos que eso, los terratenientes podrían tener sus propiedades incautadas mediante un dominio eminente, los hábitats de la vida silvestre podrían ser destruidos y, por supuesto, probablemente se intensifique la venta de escaleras. Agregar más oficiales fronterizos probablemente significará más deportaciones de inmigrantes indocumentados; queda por ver qué pasará con los tribunales de inmigración sobrecargados y subfinanciados por Estados Unidos.

Para más información: ve el informe de VICE News sobre la ineficacia del muro fronterizo existente.

Orden Ejecutiva 8: la habilitación de la Seguridad Pública en el interior de los Estados Unidos

Lo que hará: aunque el texto completo de esta orden no estuvo disponible de inmediato, las declaraciones oficiales indican que esto instruirá a las autoridades pertinentes a revisar los flujos de dinero federal que se mueven hacia las "ciudades santuarios", municipios que, en diferentes grados, no cooperan con los funcionarios de inmigración en sus esfuerzos de deportación y cómo estos fondos se pueden recortar en un intento de obligar el cumplimiento de las políticas federales de inmigración. También autorizará una aplicación más vigorosa de la política de inmigración en el interior de la nación, no sólo en la frontera, incluyendo la creación de una oficina para la defensa de las víctimas de los crímenes cometidos por inmigrantes indocumentados. Al parecer, la orden también amenaza con negar visas a las naciones que no aceptan fácilmente a sus ciudadanos cuando son deportados de Estados Unidos.

A quién afectará: como "ciudad santuario" es un término impreciso y parcialmente informal, no está claro qué criterios utilizará la administración de Trump o si cualquier flujo de fondos federales estará fuera de los límites de los recortes. Sin embargo, por lo menos 165 jurisdicciones están en la mira; un informe calculó que simplemente Denver podría perder hasta $175 millones de dólares en fondos federales si no cumple. Las jurisdicciones individuales tendrán que decidir si renunciar al dinero federal o dejar que los federales deporten a los inmigrantes indocumentados, posiblemente rompiendo familias y perturbando a las comunidades. Algunos alcaldes de las ciudades liberales han jurado que sus ciudades seguirán siendo santuarios y han prometido ayudar a inmigrantes indocumentados. La mejora de la aplicación de la inmigración interna de manera más general probablemente también conducirá a un aumento en las deportaciones.

Para más información: lee acerca de cómo una pequeña ciudad en Iowa está ayudando a inmigrantes indocumentados

24 de enero

Orden Ejecutiva 2: avanzar en la construcción del oleoducto Keystone XL

Lo que hará: fue propuesta en 2008, se suponía que el oleoducto Keystone XL transportaría con más eficiencia cientos de miles de barriles de petróleo canadiense hacia Estados Unidos. En noviembre de 2015, el Departamento de Estado de John Kerry anuló el proyecto, ya que no conduciría a un aumento significativo de empleo o a una disminución de los costos del gas. Pero como muchos sospechan, Trump quiere traer a Keystone de vuelta. Esta orden invita a la compañía, TransCanada Corporation, a reenviar la solicitud del proyecto para su revisión e instruye al Departamento de Estado a revisarla rápidamente, según se informa, en el plazo de 60 días, en la medida de lo posible.

A quién afectará: suponiendo que la intención es aprobar Keystone, la orden es un beneficio para TransCanada, que ya ha visto un alza en el precio de las acciones. Los ecologistas probablemente se organizarán para bloquear el oleoducto, al igual que muchos terratenientes en Nebraska a los que no les gusta la idea de la tubería que invade sus patios traseros. El proyecto, si se construye, puede dar a unos pocos miles de personas trabajos de construcción a corto plazo, pero podría afectar negativamente al cambio climático.

Para más información: lee acerca de una reciente fuga en un oleoducto existente de TransCanada.

Orden Ejecutiva 3: avanzar en la construcción del oleoducto Dakota Access

Lo que hará: el oleoducto Dakota Access es el que se suponía que iba a atravesar la reserva de Rock Sioux Rota y fue resuelto por la resistencia masiva. Eventualmente, el Cuerpo de Ingenieros del Ejército decidió no otorgar el derecho a la compañía encargada del oleoducto, Energy Transfer Partners, y bloquearon el oleoducto. El cuerpo de ese entonces inició una revisión ambiental, para considerar rutas alternativas. La nueva orden de Trump les exige completar su revisión y aprobar una ruta para el oleoducto tan rápido como la ley lo permita.

A quién afectará: el Cuerpo de Ingenieros del Ejército tendrá que decidir cómo seguir estas instrucciones, pero los de Standing Rock Sioux ya se estaban preparando para bloquear el oleoducto nuevamente. Es probable que haya pleitos, protestas, y confrontaciones. (Incluso si la tubería se construye, probablemente tendrá un impacto insignificante en la creación de empleos, la seguridad energética y los costos de gas. Los residentes de Standing Rock están preocupados por que contaminen el agua de que dependen).

Para más información: lee acerca de los veteranos que acudieron a Standing Rock.

Orden Ejecutiva 4: promover el uso de materiales internos en la modernización o construcción de tuberías domésticas

Lo que hará: esto significa que, dentro de 180 días, el secretario de comercio tiene que desarrollar un plan para asegurarse de que los materiales internos se usen con la mayor frecuencia posible, el título lo dice todo. A corto plazo, es una muestra simbólica de la administración de Trump del apoyo a la producción estadounidense. 

A quién afectará: Si el comercio puede llegar a un plan ejecutable y práctico, entonces esto es probablemente una buena noticia para los fabricantes de acero y otros productores de EE.UU. Aún así, el efecto en la industria de acero de Estados Unidos que se está desvaneciendo está supeditado a la materialización de proyectos del oleoducto.

Para más información: lee sobre los protectores de agua de Standing Rock.

Orden Ejecutiva 5: agilizar el proceso de revisión ambiental para proyectos de infraestructura de alta prioridad

Lo que hará: básicamente, Trump acaba de decirle a los responsables de revisar el impacto ambiental de los proyectos de infraestructura que se apuren tanto como puedan. Dado que el proceso actual está muy consagrado en la ley, no está claro cómo pueden acelerar las cosas los organismos involucrados. Es una señal del compromiso de la administración de Trump de disminuir lo que ve como regulaciones innecesarias y onerosas.

A quién afectará: por lo pronto la orden hará que algunos burócratas se escabullan. Hasta que decidan lo que pueden hacer, sin embargo, no habrá un impacto más grande.

Orden Ejecutiva 6: agilizar el proceso de permiso y revisión para proyectos de producción interna

Lo que hará: es similar a la última orden, cuando se trata de dar a la gente una respuesta sobre si pueden abrir nuevos caminos o no, Trump sólo le dice a la gente que se apure a revisar los proyectos más extensos, en la medida en que la ley lo permita. En gran parte es lo mismo que la orden anterior, y tiene los mismos efectos.

23 de enero

Actualización: los siguientes puntos fueron inicialmente reportados por algunos canales como órdenes ejecutivas, pero están enlistados como memorandos en el sitio web de la Casa Blanca. Este artículo fue editado para reflejar eso.

Memorando Presidencial 4: respecto a la salida de Estados Unidos del Acuerdo Transpacífico de Cooperación Económica

Lo que hará: puesto que el TPP aún no estaba en vigor y era poco probable que fuera ratificado por el Congreso, en términos prácticos, esto no es nada. Sin embargo, esto anula oficialmente un acuerdo de libre comercio que ha estado en obra durante la mayor parte de una década entre los EE.UU. y otras 11 economías importantes a lo largo de la cuenca del Pacífico. (Dada la oposición en general al trato, y el fracaso de la campaña de Hillary Clinton en contra de este, incluso si Trump no estuviera a cargo, el TPP probablemente habría sido anulado).

A quién afectará: a corto plazo, ya que el TPP no estaba en vigor, esto no afecta a nadie. Los opositores de la TPP argumentaron que anular el acuerdo ayudará a conservar los empleos en Estados Unidos a largo plazo manteniendo de forma permanente las barreras económicas internacionales a la deslocalización, mientras que los defensores dijeron que los trabajos perdidos podrían haberse compensado con la creación de nuevos empleos en Estados Unidos por el acuerdo. También existe el argumento de que anular el TPP le dará a China, que estaba fuera del acuerdo, la libertad de dominar y escribir las reglas para el futuro del comercio regional. Dado que los acuerdos comerciales son increíblemente complejos, este involucra miles de disposiciones, y por lo general no revelan todas las consecuencias hasta años después de su promulgación, el efecto interno de anular el acuerdo seguirá siendo poco claro. 

Para más información: Lee la perspectiva de un activista de la libertad de internet sobre por qué la anulación de TPP fue algo bueno.

Memorando Presidencial 3: respecto a la suspensión de contrataciones federales

Esta acción ejecutiva impone una suspensión indefinida sobre la contratación de nuevos empleados en agencias federales, excepto aquellos involucrados en funciones de seguridad nacional.

A quién afectará: si tenías puestas tus esperanzas en un trabajo con el gobierno federal o estabas en el proceso de ser contratado para un puesto, esto te afecta directamente a ti.

Para más información: lee algunas de las promesas que hizo Trump durante la campaña.

Memorando Presidencial 2: respecto a la restitución de la política de la "Ciudad de México"

Lo que hará: la política de la Ciudad de México, conocida entre algunas comunidades pro-elección como la Regla Global Gag, prohíbe las organizaciones no gubernamentales fuera de América que reciben financiamiento federal de los Estados Unidos a través de programas de ayuda ofreciendo abortos o incluso hablando con mujeres o legisladores sobre abortos. Esta prohibición estricta se aplica incluso a las organizaciones que no utilizan la financiación estadounidense que reciben para llevar a cabo actividades relacionadas con el aborto. Primero promulgada por Reagan en 1984 en una conferencia en la Ciudad de México (de ahí el nombre), esta política ha sido suprimida por todos los demócratas y restaurada por cada republicano después de que la Casa Blanca cambie de manos.

A quién afectará: esto no se aplica a las organizaciones dentro de las fronteras estadounidenses, pero obliga a algunos grupos a cambiar la forma en que operan en el extranjero o simplemente a rechazar fondos de los Estados Unidos. Estudios anteriores del MCP/GGR han indicado que la regla a menudo resulta en una disminución general del acceso a la atención médica de las mujeres en las naciones que reciben ayuda de los Estados Unidos. También ha aumentado históricamente el número de abortos cada vez más inseguros en el África subsahariana, y también puede tener un efecto paralizador en el discurso público sobre el aborto en otras naciones.

Para más información: lee acerca de cómo algunas mujeres se están preparando para luchar contra el programa contra el aborto de Trump.

20 de enero

Orden Ejecutiva 1: minimizar la carga económica de la Ley de Protección al Paciente y Asistencia Asequible pendiente de revocación

Lo que hará: la primera orden ejecutiva de Trump fue un movimiento valiente para pasarle por encima al Obamacare de manera general. La orden incita a todas las agencias federales importantes a "renunciar, aplazar, conceder exenciones o retrasar" la aplicación de las reglas clave bajo su jurisdicción relacionadas con la Ley de Protección al Paciente y Asistencia Asequible que dichas agencias creen que imponen cargas financieras o reglamentarias a ellos o a los individuos.

A quién le afectará: la orden está vagamente redactada, y muchos de los requisitos de Obamacare están escritos en la ley, lo cual un presidente no puede simplemente cambiar a voluntad. Pero esto podría afectar la estabilidad de los mercados de seguros.

Para más información: lee sobre cómo te podría afectar la desaparición del Obamacare.

Proyecto de ley del Senado 81: un proyecto de ley para hacer una excepción a la limitación contra el nombramiento de personas como Secretario de Defensa dentro de los siete años de la exención del servicio activo como oficial comisionado regular de las Fuerzas Armadas.

Para más información: ve el video de VICE News Tonight sobre la nominación de Mattis.

Proclamación 1: declarar un día Nacional de Patriotismo

Lo que hará: aunque el Congreso tiene que aprobar un proyecto de ley para crear una nueva festividad federal, el presidente puede proclamar unilateralmente un día especial por cualquier motivo, el año pasado, Barack Obama declaró varios días de oración y recuerdo en honor del 15 Aniversario del 11 de septiembre. Actualización: cuando Trump hizo esta proclamación, no estaba claro cuándo sería el día pero resulta que fue el 20 de enero, así que ya te lo perdiste.

A quién afectará: no conseguirás un día libre de trabajo, pero si quieres puedes ser muy patriótico este día.

Para más información: lee sobre las primeras horas de la firma de documentos de Trump.

Memorando Presidencial 1: con respecto a los procesos regulatorios para los Jefes de Departamentos y Agencias Ejecutivas

Lo que hará: esta acción, comunicada en un memorando del Jefe de Gabinete Reince Priebus de la Casa Blanca, requiere que todas las nuevas reglas y regulaciones de la agencia sean presentadas a la persona nombrada de Trump que ahora encabeza la agencia o departamento al que pertenecen para su revisión.

A quién afectará: este es un asunto bastante rutinario, el gobierno de Obama hizo algo similar en 2009. Actualización: los informes iniciales indican que las agencias federales han respondido a esta orden de una manera extensa y cautelosa, quizás alargando o suspendiendo más regulaciones de las que necesitan.

Mary Tyler Moore, the sitcom star best known for her seven-season run as the lead of The Mary Tyler Moore Show, has died at 80 years old, according to the Hollywood Reporter. Hers was the first sitcom centered on a single-by-choice woman with serious professional aspirations, opening the door for shows like 30 Rock, Parks and Recreation, and Girls decades later. 

In her 20s, Moore played the long-suffering wife of the protagonist on The Dick Van Dyke Show, another of the most well-regarded TV comedies in American history. The Mary Tyler Moore Show, which was about a woman in her 30s who moved to Minneapolis after a breakup and found herself producing a local TV news show, also left a feminist mark in Hollywood. Premiering in 1970, it came along at a time when perhaps only a token woman might be added to a TV writing staff. However, one-third of the 75 writers hired over the history of the show were women. 

The two legendary roles place Moore at the center of an interesting continuum: both a feminist icon and a symbol for the kind of idyllic, mid-century domestic bliss people get nostalgic for, even though it never really existed.

After The Mary Tyler Moore Show ended in 1977, Moore turned briefly to drama. She was nominated for an Oscar for her role in the Robert Redford–directed family drama Ordinary People. In the film, the son of Moore's character attempts suicide—suicide would claim her real-life son and only child shortly after the film's release. 

Moore largely gravitated back to TV later in her career. In one memorable turn, she played a talk-show host on That 70s Show, despite the headache-inducing conceit that her character's show was contemporaneous with The Mary Tyler Moore Show. 

She was also immortalized in the chorus of the song "Buddy Holly" by Weezer, famous for its video that is also a nostalgia trip (despite no appearance by Moore herself).

According to the Hollywood Reporter, Moore is survived by her third husband, a cardiologist named Robert Levine.

Follow Mike Pearl on Twitter.