Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 105

The bare minimum you should do to protect your family’s data

Getty/welcomia

For a lot of families, technology is maybe not a way of life but the glue that holds everything together. There's your kid's Instagram feed you follow to see what they're up to. There's your school's online network you check for homework and grades. There's the mapping app that gets you to your kids' playdates. And then there are the regular old texts from your kids that say "hi Mom" and let you know all is well. But this connection and convenience comes at a price — and that's your data. With increasing frequency, we're seeing large privacy violations — when hackers get access to people's online data or companies misuse it or fail to protect it — and we all realize how vulnerable we are to identity theft, the publication of sensitive information, and stolen credit card numbers. Technology use comes with privacy risks, but don't worry — the answer isn't living the life of a Luddite.

The thing is, most of us are far too reliant on technology to stop using it now. You may delete Facebook for a while … but you always go back, because how else are you going to see your cousin's new baby? And how can you tell your kid's teacher your kid can't sign up for Google Classroom when that's how the students work on group projects? It may be a stretch to say we need technology, but we sure don't want to live without it. Fortunately, there are some simple things you can do to reach a higher level of safety and security. It's important that the whole family is on board with these privacy best practices, because your data is only as strong as the weakest link. Do these now:

Use strict privacy settings in apps and on websites. When you or your kid signs up for a new website or app, establish your privacy preferences immediately. The default settings on most apps usually aren't super private, but on popular social media such as Instagram, Musical.ly, and Snapchat, you can control things like who can see what you post, who can contact you, and whose posts you can see.

Enable two-factor authentication. For an added layer of protection, enable two-factor authentication on apps and sites (like Gmail or Facebook) when available. This will help protect your accounts from hackers by sending a code to your phone when you log in from an unfamiliar device.

Beware of phishing scams. Don't open emails, texts, online "security" alerts, text notifications, or other things from anyone you don't know, don't recognize, or weren't expecting. Often this is "phishing" — companies sending out enticements hoping someone will click on them, thereby allowing entry to your device. Phishers can make their messages look authentic by copying logos from companies such as Amazon, Google, or even the IRS. But they often make mistakes such as using unusual grammar, weird punctuation, or threatening language.

Use antivirus protection. Buy and download antivirus software from a reputable source such as McAfee, Norton, or Symantec. Beware of free antivirus software, as it can contain malware. The iOS operating system has antivirus software built in, but it can still be vulnerable, so make sure you update your OS when prompted, as the updates can fix security holes.

Don't use unsecure Wi-Fi networks. Make sure any Wi-Fi you connect to has the little lock sign next to it and requires a password. Hackers are notorious for sneaking into unsecured Wi-Fi. Even better, get a VPN (virtual private network) — but, just like with antivirus software, don't use a free VPN.

Fine-tune your browser settings. Take a look at the privacy settings offered in your browser (usually in the Tools or Settings menus.) Most browsers let you turn off certain features — for example, the "cookies" that websites install on your computer that track your movements. Some cookies, such as those that remember your login names or items in your online shopping cart, can be beneficial. But some cookies are designed to remember everything you do online, build a profile of your personal information and habits, and sell that information to advertisers and other companies. Consider using plug-ins like Privacy Badger or HTTPS Everywhere to block tracking or keep your activity safer from snoops.

Turn off location services. Unless you use an app that lets you track your kid's location for safety reasons, turn off location services on your phone and your kid's phone. You can turn them on again if you want to find local businesses or use your mapping program.

Don't let apps share data. When you download a social app, it will ask if it can access information stored on your phone, such as your contacts, photos, music, and calendar. Say no. If the app won't work without this data, consider whether you can share some of what it's requesting but not all. Or find a similar app that doesn't overreach.

Be careful with social logins. When you log onto a site or app with your Facebook or Google username and password, you may be agreeing to share certain information from your profile. Read the fine print to know what you're sharing, and edit if possible. Even if you limit what's shared with the third party, your social network will continue to track your behavior.

Do regular privacy checks. Get in the habit of regularly checking your privacy settings on all social apps you use. Do this in front of your kids and narrate the experience to demonstrate how important keeping track of your information is.

Use tough passwords and change them frequently. The best practice for passwords is to use real words or phrases you can remember easily — but spell them incorrectly. They should be at least eight characters and have a combination of letters, numbers, and special characters, such as 5pEAzhawh$ for "five pizzas." Even better, use a password manager like Lastpass.
Tweak your home assistants. Keep Alexa and Google Home's microphones off if you're not using them. Also, periodically comb through the settings either on the apps or in your online profile to see what you've shared and whether you need to delete recordings or make other privacy changes.

Cover your cameras. Whether it's with a Post-it or a cute customized cover, block your webcam from potential spies. It might seem paranoid, but even Mark Zuckerberg does it.

Abusive relationships: Why it’s so hard for women to “just leave”

Taweepat via Shutterstock

“And so I stayed.”

In a widely read blog post, Jennifer Willoughby wrote this phrase after each of the many reasons she gave for enduring what she described as her abusive marriage to former White House aide Rob Porter.

Willoughby’s reasons are consistent with those that hundreds of abused women report to researchers. These are women often caught in a web made from isolating, confidence-crushing abuse and by realistic fears of greater harm should they leave. They also can feel caught when they meet indifference from others or, worse, insults that add to their injuries.

I am a social work scholar whose research focuses on the problems of dating and domestic violence. My colleague Deborah Anderson and I, as well as other researchers, have published reviews of many studies of the barriers women face in leaving abusers. We found the barriers cluster in several areas.

Not surprisingly, lack of material resources, such as not having a job or having limited income, is a strong factor. Lack of support — and even blame — from family, friends and professionals can add to the sense of helplessness caused by the abuse.

Then there is often the constant fear, based in reality, that abuse and stalking will continue or escalate after leaving. The risk of homicide, for example, increases for a period of time after a woman leaves her abusive partner.

Hidden obstacles

The psychological reasons women stay are naturally less visible, making it hard for many to understand and sympathize with victims.

Willoughby described the first stage women typically go through when she said she thought something must be wrong with her. Her response? “And so I worked on myself and stayed.”

She then described other reasons: “If he was a monster all the time, perhaps it would have been easier to leave. But he could be kind and sensitive. And so I stayed.

"He cried and apologized. And so I stayed.

"He offered to get help and even went to a few counseling sessions and therapy groups. And so I stayed.

"He belittled my intelligence and destroyed my confidence. And so I stayed. I felt ashamed and trapped.”

Willoughby illustrates themes commonly found in our review: abusers switching from extreme kindness to being a monster; the victim feeling compassion when the abuser apologizes; the victim holding on to hope the abuser will change; and the abuser destroying the confidence of the victim.

Porter’s other ex-wife, Colbie Holderness, described the last theme this way: “. . . his degrading tirades for years chipped away at my independence and sense of self-worth. I walked away from that relationship a shell of the person I was when I went into it . . . I had to take an extended leave from graduate school because I was depressed and unable to complete the work.”

Leaving is often a complex process with several stages: minimizing the abuse and trying to help the abuser; coming to see the relationship as abusive and losing hope the relationship will get better; and, finally, focusing on one’s own needs for safety and sanity and fighting to overcome external obstacles.

High status adds obstacles

Are the obstacles to leaving different for women married to highly respected, prominent men — the star quarterback, the well-regarded army captain, the beloved minister?

Research is sparse on this topic. The closest are a review of case studies and a survey of those married to police officers. Both show that, in addition to the obstacles described earlier, these partners are often reluctant to report the abuse for two reasons.

First is the fear of ruining their partner’s career.

When Willoughby went for help, she said she was counseled “to consider carefully how what I said might affect his career,” adding with resignation, “And so I kept my mouth shut and stayed.”

The second reason for staying silent is fear of not being believed.

“Everyone loved him,” Willoughby said. “People commented all the time how lucky I was. Strangers complimented him to me every time we went out.” Apparently, as a result, “Friends and clergy didn’t believe me. And so I stayed.”

Similarly, Holderness said that “an abusive nature is certainly not something most colleagues are able to spot in a professional setting, especially if they are blinded by a stellar resume and background.”

Holderness added that clergy did not “fully address the abuse taking place.”

Instead, she said, “It wasn’t until I spoke to a professional counselor that I was met with understanding.”

Accounts from Porter’s ex-wives echo those of Charlotte Fedders, who described her abusive marriage to the chief enforcement officer of the Securities and Exchange Commission in her 1987 book “Shattered Dreams.”

Fedders recently noted the parallels with Willoughby and Holderness. People said about her husband: “He just must be so wonderful to live with, as he’s extremely charming and smart.”

Disbelief and blame

Responses by the public and professionals can make it more difficult for victims to leave. For example, in one study the public viewed an assault against an intimate partner as less serious than an assault against a stranger, even when the same level of force was used.

And while public acceptance of domestic abuse has decreased over time, blaming victims for their abuse still exists and is tied to sexist views, such as the belief that discrimination against women is no longer a problem and men and women have equal opportunities.

Even professionals are not immune from such attitudes. In various settings, such as health care, marital therapy and family court, professionals often fail to ask about abuse. Or, if they hear of the abuse, they blame victims for triggering it or don’t believe them.

Professionals often insist on corroboration from official reports without giving any credence to victim reports. Yet fear and shame hold victims back. Less than half of domestic abuse survivors make reports to the police or health care workers.

In our studies examining attitudes — including those of police officers, judges, nurses and physicians — victim-blaming and a reluctance to believe women’s reports of victimization were closely tied to sexist views.

Fortunately, professional training is available on how to respond to domestic abuse, from programs for clergy to judges to law enforcement. And to fight gender bias, the National Center for State Courts is applying new strategies, such as exercises that increase awareness of unintended bias.

Ultimately, we need to prevent domestic abuse to keep it from happening in the first place. Involving boys and men is one promising approach, such as helping high school coaches model respectful behavior for their athletes and encouraging fathers to be more nurturing with their children.

In the meantime, it takes little or no training for professionals, or anyone else for that matter, to validate victims’ experiences and thus help them build the inner strength to leave.

We can do this by repeating what Jennifer Willoughby said recently to victims: “Please know: It is real. You are not crazy. You are not alone. I believe you.”

Daniel G. Saunders, Professor Emeritus of Social Work, University of Michigan

What a psychic taught me that my religion couldn’t

Shutterstock

“Please come in,” the woman said, smiling as she held open the front door. I’m about to enter the Devil’s lair, I said to myself. Despite my apprehensions, I stepped through the threshold. The woman identified herself as the housekeeper and invited me to take a seat. After a nine-month wait I’d snagged a consultation with Sonia Choquette, the renowned Chicago psychic.

I’d moved to Chicago from my hometown of Portland two and a half years earlier, after leaving the Jehovah’s Witnesses and divorcing my husband of nine years. For this reason I was declared immoral and expelled from the Witness religion and shunned by everyone in the community, including all members of my immediate family.

“Sonia will be with you in a moment,” said the housekeeper, who then disappeared behind one of two doors on either side of a long dining table. The home’s classic Victorian exterior did not prepare me for the room I now stood in. It was modern and vibrant. The left wall had a marble fireplace and was washed in a deep, soothing purple. There were splashes of magenta and mauve in the soft pillows of the couch, and modern paintings, hinting at shapes found in nature. Light poured in through sheer curtains on all sides.

It was a plush, comfortable environment. I breathed a little easier. The lady of the house had good taste. She lived here with her husband and two young daughters. I did my best to settle down, ignoring my sweaty palms.

According to my religious upbringing, just being in that room was risky. To get a psychic reading was the equivalent of putting out the welcome mat for Satan and his demons to intrude into my life. They might haunt me in the darkness with eerie whispers, or toss my furniture about, Linda Blair-type convulsions soon to follow. Just being in a room with a Ouiji board was an open invitation to Satan and his demons: Here I am, come possess me. If Satan decided to use this as an excuse to overtake me, I was doomed.

And yet, my hunger for answers was bigger than my fears. It had been more than a year since my expulsion from the church, a decision I never second-guessed. But my family had made good on their promise to shun me and there had been zero communication between us. The radio silence evoked a sadness that rattled me to the core. I missed them.

I was thriving in my new life, however, reveling in a vibrant city that offered itself to my whims and curiosity. The corporate job I’d relocated for was a perfect fit for me, and I was making new friends. After years of being taught to fear the world, scanning the horizon for a literal Armageddon, I was often overwhelmed by my newfound freedom. I’d go for a walk in my neighborhood, past the lumbering mansions near Graceland Cemetery, and practically squirm out of my skin with the sheer joy of life, recounting my lucky circumstances — and the next moment my thoughts would ricochet to the price I was paying: the suffocating vacuum of this chilling family estrangement. How could I reconcile these extreme experiences?

Two years earlier I was active in a spiritual community filled with hundreds of people who had known me since childhood. Now my circle of true friends was growing, but none of them had known me more than a year or two. Disaster scenarios played out in my imagination, where I’d receive a fatal diagnosis or get tangled in a car wreck and awake to find myself attached to blinking hospital monitors. Then I’d remember Mom’s parting salvo that you can’t count on “worldly people.” They’ll always let you down — the only true friends you’ll ever have are in The Truth.

In Witness parlance, The Truth is always capitalized, but my certainty had long since waned. The biggest part of me rejected that idea as negative nonsense, but neither claim had been tested by time. Lacking the depth of a shared history with the people in my life, I often felt disconnected, afloat. I was desperate to answer the question "why" and hoped Sonia could shed some light on the meaning of it all. What did I have to lose? I’d already lost plenty.

The door to the right of the dining table opened and there stood Sonia, slim and tall, wearing a cashmere sweater and blue jeans. She had the classic features of a French beauty, waves of shiny dark hair cascading just past her shoulders, and expressive brown eyes. There was a warmth and elegance about her that eliminated any feelings of intimidation. She was so normal.

“This is where I do my readings,” she said, inviting me into her library, guiding me to sit across from her at a table near the window. The room was small, bright with sunlight, two walls lined with books floor to ceiling. All of my preconceived notions of charlatans clad in billowy “I Dream of Jeanie” outfits, hovering over crystal balls in dark rooms, were shattered to bits. The table we shared was graced with a beautiful woven textile, a bouquet of fresh flowers, and stones and crystals in a vast array of shapes and sizes, scattered about like continents on a globe. The only one I recognized was a block of turquoise resting next to the glass of water Sonia placed in front of me.

“It’s important that we both drink water,” she said, sipping from her own glass as she sat down. “To keep the energy fluid. Drink up.”

And so I drank. She was self-assured with a reserved playfulness. I couldn’t help but think of the scripture in Corinthians that says, “Satan keeps transforming himself into an angel of light. It is therefore nothing great if his ministers also keep transforming themselves into angels of righteousness.”

She had a blank piece of paper and a pencil in front of her. She handed me a deck of tarot cards, soft from use, and asked me to shuffle them.

“We may or may not use them,” she said, “but I find it helps people settle in and ground themselves.”

I wasn’t aware that I was un-grounded, and found it an odd description. I’d never dared to even touch a tarot deck and was drawn to the vivid pictures of knights and crescent moons. As I shuffled, Sonia tossed three coins, seemingly gleaning data from how they landed, and jotted notes on her paper. She did this several times.

She looked up and must have noticed a quizzical look on my face. “These are I-Ching coins,” she said. “An ancient Chinese oracle. Very good to consult when in a cycle of change or vulnerability.”

I’d passed the point of no return.

She asked the date of my birth, wrote it down and quickly paged through a large volume of astrological charts and made more notes. As she did this I remembered another scripture, a parable where Jesus said you would recognize righteous teachers “by their works.” The outcome would be the test of validity. If I left with some new direction, some answers, I could justify this venture into divination.

“You have the energy of a news reporter, or a writer,” she said. “Are you in an expressive field of work?” The question cut to the heart of one of my unfulfilled dreams.

“Not really,” I said. “I’ve kept a journal since I was twelve. Does that count? Writing is the way I sort things out for myself. But I make my living in the corporate world, in sales.”

“But you’re a storyteller at heart. Talking and writing are your preferred ways of expressing yourself. You’re an old-soul sage. You have an engaging way of speaking, an eye for details that seem inconsequential to others, but you make them add up to something interesting. If you pause to think about it you’ll see it’s the main reason your clients purchase services from you.”

One of the bankers I called on regularly, in hopes of selling to one day, always insisted that I start our meetings by telling him a story, before we got around to business.

“You are quite articulate and easy to listen to,” Sonia continued. “You do sell services, as opposed to material things, am I right?”

I was flabbergasted by her accuracy. I couldn’t see anything I’d said or done to reveal these things through my body language or clothing. I nodded my head.

“This job you’re in looks fairly recent, but you’ve been selling for years, yes?”

She looked at me with a kind curiosity. I relaxed. If I was going to get what I came for I needed to approach this as a collaboration. There was no need to play guessing games.

“I’ve been selling, so to speak, since I was nine and I started knocking on doors as a Jehovah’s Witness.”

And then, being a storyteller, I told her of my strict and narrow upbringing, countless hours in the door-to-door ministry, all those demonstrations of preaching techniques on stage at the Kingdom Hall, the far-off future hope of an ideal life in paradise on earth, then a fork in the road, doubts, divorce, moving, being disfellowshipped, the family estrangement. It all came pouring out, though I doubt it was very engaging. When I came out of my reverie, I noticed the tarot cards she’d given me were resting in both hands on my lap. Sonia’s eyes were filled with compassion.

“Linda, you are an old soul, surrounded by a young-soul family.”

“What does that mean?” I asked, intuiting that she believed in a progression of lifetimes, an idea that was anathema to my Christian roots, but I was here to listen. I didn’t know what I believed anymore.

“Imagine a young toddler,” she said in a kind but firm voice, a voice of clarity. “They don’t like to venture too far from the parent. But as we grow into adulthood, we become comfortable venturing out. It is an essential and logical step toward maturity. It’s the same with soul ages. Young souls cling to the structure of external rules, like those found in most fundamental religions. Have you ever seen a child who has just learned to walk, captivated by the victory of each step, until that moment when they look up, realize how far they’ve strayed and race back to the arms of a trusted parent? They draw comfort and identify their place in relation to something outside of themselves. There is nothing wrong with this. It’s a natural stage of the soul’s development. Old souls, like you, have the capacity — the need — to move outside the established safety zone, and stay there.”

My mind told me this idea was out there, but that now-familiar bell-tone was sounding inside of me. Beyond the intellect, this had a ring of truth.

“One school of thought is that we come into our true soul age in our mid-thirties. I believe that is what happened to you. The deepest part of your essential nature, your soul, transcended your upbringing and family conditioning. The rules and confines of your religion became too small for you. Leaving was a natural step in your soul’s evolution.”

My mind was muddled by the magnitude of what she said. “I’m the youngest child in my family. But you’re saying I’m the ‘oldest’ in . . . soul age?”

She nodded her head and watched intently as this sank in.

“If this is a natural progression, then why does it hurt so much?” I asked.

“It only hurts at the level of personality. All feelings are part of our personality, not our soul. People can hurt your feelings, but they can never, ever hurt your soul, your essence. We are not our feelings. Feelings are like the weather, they come and go. At a soul level, everyone in your family, your old friends, your ex-husband, made an agreement that this is the way it would be.”

“But why?”

“Oh, Linda, there are a million and one reasons,” and she smiled. “Karma is at play, as well as any number of soul agreements. We are all here to teach and be taught. In this case, you set this up so you could explore a fuller expression of your creativity and sensuality, using the contrast of a religion that discouraged it. But more than anything, you and your family set this up to learn a fuller expression of unconditional love. Your father knows you are happy, and will be in touch with you at some future time, when he’s ready. Your mother confuses power with love and she is in complete and utter turmoil over your situation. But that is her emotional path, not yours. At the level of her soul she knows shunning you is wrong, but at the level of her personality she remains loyal to the rules of the church; very typical of a young soul. Thanks to your actions, she has an opportunity in this lifetime to move to the next level of soul autonomy, though I don’t think that is likely.”

“What about my brother and sister?” I was hanging on her every word now, experiencing the sensation of coming through a clearing to recovered memory, as though Sonia was shaking me out of a dream, and back into a soft-dawn reality where I had known all of this before. She sat quiet and pondered my question.

“I can’t get much of a read on your sister. It doesn’t feel like she has a center of her own. But your brother lights up with rage. He’s the youngest soul of the bunch. You’ve shattered his myth of predictability and infallibility and he’s powerless to stop you. This makes him very angry.”

“He was the first to shun me,” I said. His actions were making just a little more sense.

“Of course he was. And that caused a rift in your family, which was also part of the collective agreement the other members of your family made with each other at a soul level.”

I felt light-headed and woozy.

“Please drink more water,” Sonia said. “I’m going to give you a reading list before you go. There are wonderful books that you can study to absorb these concepts. Then you can judge for yourself — using your intuition and how they make you feel — if they are valid.”

The water did refresh me. “Is this why I feel so conflicted — one day enraptured with my life, the next moment in utter despair?”

“Yes. I can see you are also in the middle of a massive cycle of attraction. You’re drawing interesting people, vibrant experiences, and meaningful work. It’s quite lovely to observe, really, but I can see how it would be overwhelming. You’ve done a lot of intellectual healing, but all of this is taking a toll on you physically and there is much spiritual healing yet to do. When I look at your aura, it looks like a piece of shattered glass. Imagine a car windshield that has been struck by a rock, splinters everywhere but it retains its shape. That is what your energy body looks like. These high moments you experience are the euphoria of liberation and you’ll be able to enjoy it more if you get grounded. Have some bodywork done. You’re operating from your fourth chakra up. You need to give your lower chakras some attention. I have a lovely massage therapist I can refer you to.”

Energy body, chakra, bodywork — I’d never heard these words before.

“You’re a Cancer and family is very important to Cancer Crabs. Family is important to all signs of the zodiac, but Cancers are especially sensitive to the family dynamic. Cancers love hearth and home. You haven’t even begun to grieve the loss of your family because you are instinctively protecting yourself from the pain. This is why I urge you to get some bodywork, so you’ll be able to face that and handle it when it’s time. This burden you feel is not only your own sadness, but also that of your family. This has to stop. You must not feel guilty for following your heart. I sense in you vague anxieties about death and doom. You will not be punished for leaving a religion that did not fulfill your spiritual need. It is not immoral to pursue happiness, Linda. It’s your divine right.”

No one had ever told me that before. It was a stunning declaration and the truth of it touched me at a very deep level. The pounding hooves of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse started to recede. Tears welled up and I found myself sobbing with solace and relief.

“You are in a state of grace, Linda. The universe is behind you. You are safe.”

She handed me some Kleenex and sat with me while I cried some more. Her words gave comfort and a respite to my confusion. My family and religion had branded me as immoral for leaving my marriage and while I didn’t agree, there was guilt and shame attached to that label. Even though I didn’t fully grasp everything she was saying, I felt unburdened. I could begin to reframe my actions as a response to the yearnings of my soul. Despite the emotional pain of being cut off, there was a larger purpose to my journey. Maybe following one's heart is the journey.

Before I left she gave me some of the best advice I have ever received. “Go church-shopping,” she said. “Investigate but draw no conclusions. There is no need to swap one set of dogma for another. Just listen and observe.” She urged me to explore the vast array of beliefs from East and West to study philosophy and the history of religions. She predicted (correctly) that I would never find one church I wanted to join, but staying curious about other belief systems has helped me understand the world and feel connected by the common threads of our humanity. Being told I was not selfish to follow my heart, even though it meant disappointing people I love, was exactly what I needed to hear.

“Real teachers set their students free, Linda. There is always an absence of coercion in wise teachings.”

Amen.

To keep NASA’s golden age alive, we need more telescopes — but far less expensive ones

AP Photo/John Raoux

Starting around 50 years ago, astronomy began a winning streak of amazing discoveries. We found the cosmic microwave radiation left over from the big bang back in the 1960s, for instance, and in recent years we have identified thousands of planets orbiting distant stars. But the good times may be about to stop rolling. There is reason to fear that astronomy is ending its long run of lifting the veil on cosmic wonders.

Our early successes came from looking through new windows across a vast range of wavelengths invisible to the naked eye. The first radio, x-ray, ultraviolet and infrared telescopes were small, but everything we saw through them was new and mysterious. The next generation of telescopes leaped forward in capabilities, leading to the discoveries of neutron stars, black holes, dark matter, dark energy — the list goes on.

But this greater power came at a cost. Each new generation of telescopes carried a price tag several times higher than that of the one before. Today a single telescope can now take almost a full decade's worth of NASA's budget for “big astronomy.” A case in point is the James Webb Space Telescope, now scheduled for launch next year. Webb's price tag ballooned from what was originally supposed to be just about $1 billion to nearly $9 billion, crowding out nearly everything else. Without other major missions to fall back on, the only response to technical problems with Webb was to keep throwing more money at them.

The glory of our golden age has been that we can access the entire electromagnetic spectrum at a single point in time, from various instruments. The discovery of gravitational waves from the merger of two neutron stars is a perfect example: ground-based detectors spotted these ripples in spacetime, but follow-up observations with gamma-ray, x-ray and visible-light telescopes gave us a far better understanding of how the event unfolded. Ideally we need several comparably sensitive “flagship” telescopes, on a par with Webb — and they need to be flying at the same time.

Yet such flagships are designed to last only about five years (although that can often be stretched to 10). When the infrared-sensitive Webb flies, it will be 10 to 100 times more powerful than its predecessors, the Hubble and Spitzer space telescopes. But if new flagships cost as much as Webb, it will be a decade before even one of them can be launched. By then, Webb itself will likely be on its last legs. Every discovery it makes will take more than 10 years to follow up. At that point, we will have forgotten what it was that we wanted to know in the first place.

But it does not have to be this way. Once a decade astronomers set priorities about what new space telescopes to build, and the next time we do so, in the “Astro2020” survey, we should require multiple new missions. There are at least half a dozen ideas for much cheaper telescopes — not as powerful as Webb-scale flagship telescopes but dramatically better than their predecessors. These range from gamma-ray telescopes that can detect merging neutron stars to x-ray and ultraviolet telescopes for probing intergalactic space and more to a far-infrared telescope we can use to understand how stars and planets form. And unlike Webb, they are not just affordable; all of them can be completed within 10 years.

The downside of this approach is that highly desirable but extremely expensive flagship telescopes along the lines of Webb must be postponed until the commercial space industry comes fully of age. SpaceX, for example, already launches satellites at one third of the traditional cost, and soon, maybe, that will drop to as little as one fifth. That is a sizable saving by itself.

Cheaper launch services also take the pressure off engineers to relentlessly shave mass from the telescopes themselves by using the lightest and most expensive possible components. Without such a restriction, costs could plausibly be cut by two thirds. Shrinking costs makes a doubling of flagship launch rates feasible. As this commercial revolution continues, an even higher rate of flagship missions could come about.

If we embrace such a strategy, the good times needn't stop rolling, and the golden age of astronomy doesn't have to end.

“This is exactly where we are now”: A chat with Sandra Oh and the cast of “Killing Eve”

BBC/Nick Briggs

BBC America’s spy thriller “Killing Eve” is about much more than murder.

Ostensibly the killing’s the thing, of course. But woven into the search-and-destroy game between Sandra Oh’s MI5 agent Eve Polastri and Villanelle, the chic, youthful assassin played by Jodie Comer, are commentaries on gender dynamics in the workplace and queries about whether the power of sisterhood does indeed conquer all.

Every episode gives viewers a great deal to ponder, but few have mulled about its significance as deeply as Oh, its star.

My interview with Oh at a recent industry event felt conspiratorial at times; she leans in close, pauses to make nebulous ideas concise. When a realization dawns on her, the volume of her voice softens as it grows animated, inviting the interviewer to draw nearer too. It felt a bit like splitting a sundae at lunch and, through conversation, gently divining the mysterious secret flavors infused within its molecules. But her low voice is as confident as she is utterly candid about elements of the production that still fascinate her.

These details weren’t hidden behind the scenes, either. It’s all in front of the viewer, displayed with the assured attitude of its creator and executive producer Phoebe Waller-Bridge, who makes “Killing Eve” as intense a portrait of womanhood and power as it is a mystery caper.

When the series opens, Eve is the exemplar of a “good” woman in the workplace. She doesn’t make waves, observes her department’s structure and doesn’t show up her boss. But her curiosity and the nagging sense that she’s right leads her to step beyond her prescribed boundaries. This gets her noticed by Carolyn Martens (Fiona Shaw), the seasoned, formidable head of MI6’s Russia desk. Carolyn recruits Eve into an off-the-book assignment that soon puts Villanelle on Eve's radar, and Eve on Villanelle’s.

“I was looking at the first two episodes and I kind of almost forgot that people don't believe her,” Oh recalled. “That she struggles to remain confident in a position of power. There is a moment where her male colleague is really questioning her, that you see her not quite tremble, but you see her say ‘I need to take a breath.’

“This is exactly where we are now, and it's great to play someone who then moves through it,” Oh continued. “She is going through exactly that struggle of finding her voice in a place that has not empowered her.”

Comer’s Villanelle is styled to be Eve’s opposite. “She does whatever she wants,” Comer said. “She is sorry for nothing, and she's very confident in herself. But as you find over the series, she definitely kind of loses her reins over that. Her control is, in some respects, taken away from her. She doesn't know how to deal with that.”

Describing “Killing Eve” as a bizarre sort of courtship is not altogether wrong. As I wrote in my review, the saucy kick of the series comes in witnessing “two women who see the truth of each other, each sizing up the other and, in an undeniably perverse way, loving the view.” We're only two episodes into its debut season, and the series has already been renewed for a follow-up.

And when I spoke with Oh, it was clear that she sits in awe of its meaning to the women who see it, for women who made it, and to scripted television in general.

“What I love is that Eve is a middle-aged lady who walks around with a handbag,” she mused. “And Villanelle is a 20-year-old, beautiful, strong, all these things. You can feel the things, psychologically, that someone in her middle age is trying to grapple with. How do I find a new sense of power? Villanelle sees something in Eve which is very empowering — something that Eve does not see in herself and that's something that other people don't see.”

Oh gestures at a table nearby where co-stars Comer, Shaw and Kirby Howell-Baptiste (who plays Eve’s cheeky co-worker Elena Felton) are seated, and she marvels at the range of women represented in the series — ages, ethnicities, archetypes. The female leads are written to resist expectations of their characters, starting with Eve.

And Oh is also very conscious of the fact that “Killing Eve” is at the front of a practice of casually inclusive casting. She is one of a scant handful of Asian leads on television series right now, and she takes that very seriously.

As vital to Oh as the rising tide of empowerment is “for me, opening in that conversation about parity is also diversifying representation,” she said. “It’s just such a big part of myself and my identity and also, not necessarily the forefront of why I do what I do, but . . . ” she stops to think, then dips her tone into a soft level of seriousness — “I am completely aware that people in my community, the Asian-American community, do not have the representation on screen that we so sorely need. I'm not going to say deserve, I'm saying need. There is a cultural and psychological need to be represented, and I'm happy to do that.”

Oh also recognizes that she’s been fortunate in that respect, citing the decade she spent playing Cristina Yang on ABC’s “Grey’s Anatomy” and working with an executive producer and creator on the forefront of inclusive casting.

Waller-Bridge also exercises a paradigm that deliberately adopts a female-centered point of view that is realistic and refuses to pull its punches. Her women are complicated and experience the annoyances and frustrations real-world women live with.

Villanelle, for instance, is very good at what she does. She’s also a loose cannon, playfully psychotic and unflinching about killing . . . and yet her male handler often treats her like a petulant child, as evidenced in this brief clip featured exclusively on Salon.

“I was just saying to someone, ‘Why is it every female assassin has to be incredibly sexy, and all the rest?” Comer wondered aloud in a separate conversation. And Shaw, a veteran in her industry, replies “Because she has to be dominatable ultimately. By men.”

“That’s what I found too refreshing about Phoebe's writing and I thought, ‘This is brilliant!’” Comer continued. “There was so much humor in it, and charisma, and she’s kind of normal, you know, where most assassins are otherworldly. She’s a real person.”

That ease with one another carries over into the series, transforming what could be a simple cat-and-mouse tale into a visual metaphor for workplace politics and the pitfalls faced by women exercising power in environments dominated by men. This is true for the agents in British intelligence as well as for Villanelle.

“In the world, as we've all experienced as women, men recognize a woman who does what she wants as being unruly, or a woman being sort of like a diva, or boss,” Howell-Baptiste observed. “Whereas, I think that's a strength that she has. Because it's a strength that we recognize in men of someone who's very steadfast, and very strong.”

“It’s brilliant to play someone like that who just does what they want to do,” Comer added.  “Her attachment is her world, and her apartment, and her . . . what's the word I'm trying to think of? It's the most obvious word in the world. When you're on your own.”

Then, in a flash it comes to her. “Independence!” With that she breaks into a killer smile, brimming with satisfaction.

What the media got wrong about Elliott Smith

AP/Bloomsbury Publishing/Salon

On February 20, 1998, Yahoo! Launch ran a piece about Elliott Smith's Oscar nomination–one of the first to appear anywhere in the mainstream media. Discussing Smith's contributions to Gus Van Sant's popular Hollywood film, the article's writer retroactively constructs a "star image" for Smith via the "narrative image" of Matt Damon's Will Hunting:

Maybe [Smith and Will Hunting] aren't so far apart; maybe Elliott Smith was so perfect for "Good Will Hunting" because, just like Will in the movie, while seen by society as a f**k-up, he's a genius working in obscurity who's suddenly given the chance to enter the mainstream. That is, if he can . . . and if he wants to.

A number of assumptions are passively enacted here; most notably, that Smith is "seen by society as a f**k-up." Who exactly sees Smith as a f**k-up is not specified—the narrative of Smith's meteoric and unprecedented ascent is, in a sense, already written: just as Sean Maguire acknowledged and elevated Will Hunting's scorned and untapped genius, we can all acknowledge and elevate Elliott Smith's. The problem, of course, is that Smith's genius was not all that untapped, nor his ascent all that meteoric or unprecedented. By and large, "society" didn't see Elliott Smith at all, and among those who did, he was well respected for his musical talent. Having already released an album on one major label and signed a contract with another, any claim to Smith's absolute "obscurity” is more than a little bit dubious. But the story of the unrecognized, "authentic” genius suddenly thrust into the national spotlight is an irresistible one.

On March 20, 1998, this "authentic genius" was introduced to the country at large; Smith was written up in an extensive USA Today article that reads as a kind of primer on the deferrals and paradoxes inherent to Smith's cultural positioning. As with the Yahoo! Launch piece, it introduces Smith as a singer "plucked out of obscurity and plunked smack into Oscar hubbub." The article goes on to say that Smith “has been described as an acerbic poet and street bohemian who writes sad folk songs." Smith's self-description as "pop . . . I like melodies" does little to drown out the unspecified throngs who apparently perceive him as an "acerbic poet.” Once again, an uncredited passive voice is used to describe Smith to an audience that is likely quite unfamiliar with his work. Needless to say, I have not been able to find a single article that explicitly names Smith as a “street bohemian."

An April 1998 article in the LA Times expounded a bit upon what exactly the life of a newly elevated "street bohemian" might look like:

A few weeks ago, Elliott Smith performed his Oscar-nominated song "Miss Misery" for more than 55 million on the Academy Awards telecast. A month earlier, he was playing the tiny L.A. Rock club Spaceland. A year ago he was trying to kill himself.

Here again, Smith's "authenticity" is posed as a direct counterpoint to the inauthentic Academy Awards. And, as would often be the case, allusions to suicide attempts–or heroin use–are offered as irrefutable proof of such authenticity. (Both of these subjects have long been used as rhetorical shortcuts to "authenticity" for many artists, writers, and musicians.) Doubtless, the fact that Smith broached these subjects in his lyrics made it all the more necessary for suicide and drug abuse to be constructed as an integral part of his life story, as his status as an “authentic" singer-songwriter was predicated upon his musical expression being "real" and "genuine." Besides, if the aestheticization and idolization of a singer's image–like that of Celine Dion–render an artist shallow and false, then what could be more "authentic" than utter self-annihilation?

In her article “Art Versus Commerce: Deconstructing a (Useful) Romantic Illusion," Deena Weinstein suggests that drug use and suicide are common discursive tools for constructing the romantic myth of the artist:

Critics celebrate romantic rock deaths because they affirm the myth of the artist. A drug overdose, a shotgun suicide, or a gangland gangsta slaying; these deaths show, rhetorically, that the romantic artist was authentic, not merely assuming a (Christlike) pose. The right kind of death is the most powerful authenticity effect, the indefeasible outward sign of inward grace. "The artist must be sacrificed to their art; like the bees they must put their lives into the sting they give," Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote . . . Death isn't the only authenticity effect embraced by rock writers. They also champion heroin-addicted musicians and rockers who are off their rockers . . . Addicts and insane are automatically authentic because their grip on rationality is too weak to allow them to "sell out."

Thus, in the wake of his Oscar performance, Smith's "star image," as articulated in the news media, was that of the sad, suicidal sap, suddenly (and perhaps unwantedly) thrust into the national spotlight. His extensive back catalog, its enthusiastic reception, and its modest commercial success often get entirely omitted. Reputable labels (Kill Rock Stars) and sizeable clubs (Spaceland) are suddenly "tiny." And—most troubling of all—Smith himself is positioned as a suicidal "f**k-up," whose "sudden" success as a musician is in no way the result of hard work, perseverance or–God forbid–ambition (I mean, the guy tried to kill himself!).

As Ellis suggested, however, such "star images" are incomplete without that star's texts. In both the Yahoo! Launch and LA Times pieces, "Good Will Hunting" itself is positioned as such a text. The May 30, 1998 UK release of "Either/Or" offered a preliminary glimpse of how Smith's music would be read against his newfound popular construction. A column in the UK's Times includes a near-hallucinatory reading of Smith's music, and its positioning against the "hysterical" artifice of Celine Dion:

You just don't meet Oscar-nominated songwriters who aren't Celine Dion. And, unlike Dion, her 17 producers and her hysterical 1,600-piece orchestra, “Miss Misery," like all Smith songs, is just Smith and his guitar. Finger-picked Nick Drake melancholia. Vague country-folk, washed in inky blue blues, like Simon and Garfunkel trying to be Big Stars.

The equation of Smith's music with "Nick Drake melancholia”—ostensibly in a review of an album thick with electric guitar, bass, drum, and keyboards— seems rooted in more in Smith's popular construction as a Nick Drake-esque folk antihero than in the music itself. A review in the London Independent tows a similar line, opening with a picture of Celine Dion and Smith standing side-by-side at the Academy Awards: "the glittery, coiffured diva and the nervous, slowly spoken singer who etched out his career playing in the quirky and eclectic underground scene of Portland, Oregon.” Once again, Nick Drake is invoked as a point of reference:

For someone who delivers haunting tales of truncated, druggy relationships set to a mostly acoustic soundscape and delivered in fragile whispering tones, Smith's rave notices in the US press have often harked on about Nick Drake or other folk or singer-songwriting legends. It's not something he seems to cherish.

This curiously anthropological-sounding observation ushers in an extensive quote from Smith, explaining that he is "neither folk nor singer-songwriter," and that he's always had a preference for "punk bands."

 

 

Excerpted from "Elliott Smith's XO" by Matthew LeMay (Continuum, 2009). Reprinted with permission from Bloomsbury Publishing.

 

 

This is how the future will taste: Six high-tech foods that are changing the way we eat and drink

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File

The global food system faces an uncertain future. Consumer preferences continue to shift in the face of health, environmental and animal welfare concerns, and a warming climate means we’ll soon have to do more with less.

As we grapple with how to sustainably and ethically feed nearly 10 billion people by 2050, a growing number of researchers are thinking outside the farm. From lab-grown meat to grape-free wine, these high-tech innovations are poised to change the way we eat and drink.

1. Lab-grown meat from cells.

In August 2013, a team of Dutch scientists shocked the food world with the debut of a lab-grown hamburger that cost $330,000. Three years later, Bay Area startup Memphis Meats showed off the world’s first lab-grown meatball, at a cost of $18,000 per pound.

The process behind these pricey plates involves harvesting animal cells from a piece of meat and creating controlled conditions in which these cells can replicate. The result is essentially a Franken-meat that can be decoupled from conventional animal agriculture and all of the ethical and environmental problems that come with it. “Theoretically from one little piece of meat you can create an unlimited amount,” Mike Selden, CEO of lab-grown fish startup Finless Foods, told Wired earlier this year.

Biotechnology companies like Finless have cut costs dramatically since that quarter-million burger, but challenges remain. Namely, animal cells need protein in order to grow, and today the primary source of that protein is serum made from animal blood. These serums are expensive and render any cruelty-free claims moot, but they may soon be a thing of the past. “When we begin selling products we will absolutely have no serum whatsoever,” Selden told Wired. “That's not just because of any PR thing or environmental reasons. Cost-wise the economics of it make absolutely no sense.”

Memphis Meats and Finless Foods aren't alone in the game. Fresh off a product buy-back scandal and the exodus of its entire board, embattled startup Just (formerly Hampton Creek) plans to bring the first lab-grown meats to market later this year. Memphis Meats and Dutch rival Mosa Meats will debut in 2021 — and they’ll likely find favor among American consumers, with nearly 40 percent of omnivores and over 60 percent of vegans now saying they’d chow down on cultured meat.

In perhaps an even greater sign of its impending success, the U.S. Cattleman’s Association is desperately trying to legally prevent companies from using the term “meat” to describe cultured products.

2. Lab-grown meat from plants.

 As rivals experiment with cell culturing, Silicon Valley startup Impossible Foods is already making mouths water with its lab-grown burger made entirely from plants. “We want to completely replace animals as a food production technology by 2035,” Stanford biochemist and Impossible Foods CEO Patrick Brown said at a press briefing last year.

The company uses patented technology and a secret mix of plant-based ingredients to produce its flagship Impossible Burger, which is now served in 40 upscale restaurants nationwide. You may have tried veggie burgers before, but the Impossible Burger is an entirely different animal: It’s red when raw, browns when cooked and “bleeds” just like the real thing—garnering praise from vegans and non-vegans alike. The company already churns out a million quarter-pounders a week at its Oakland factory and will hit the grocery market within the next several years, reports the San Jose Mercury News. Brown—who has called animal agriculture the "biggest environmental catastrophe”—is also looking to apply his technology to other foods, including poultry, eggs and dairy.

Meanwhile, Unilever and other companies are backing an experimental technology to turn plant proteins into a layered, fibrous structure that closely resembles steak.

3. Synthetic wine.

Even as the global demand for wine surges, extreme weather events brought 2017 production down to its lowest level in decades. Experts say harvests will only get worse as the planet warms, and competition for usable land will grow stiffer as populations and demand for food increase.

Luckily, a grape-free solution is already on the way. San Francisco startup Ava Winery claims its experimental synthetic wines — made in a lab without grapes and with far less water — could one day mimic fine vintages at a fraction of the cost. The company began by replicating Moscato d’Asti, a sparkling Italian wine — which wine expert Chris Sadler described as “not half bad” — before turning to an imitation Dom Pérignon champagne.

The technology is decidedly not there yet — Ava has yet to sell its wines on the open market — but its founders are confident they can one day identify and duplicate all the molecular structures that give fine wines their flavor. “We did not start Ava so that we could rest on our laurels about saving the world,” co-founder Alec Lee told the San Jose Mercury News. “Companies like ours will not be successful based solely on sustainability pitches. They’ll be successful because their product tastes great.”

4. Plant-based dairy.

Some were quick to point out the problems in early plant-based dairy staples — soy has its health concerns and almonds have their water-efficiency woes. But today’s offerings span everything from pea protein milks and flaxseed yogurts to cheeses made from tapioca, coconut and cashews.

Berkeley startup Perfect Day claims its lab-made, yeast-derived milk perfectly mimics the flavor and nutrition of cow’s milk. “We’re taking plant nutrients and transforming them into animal proteins the same way that cows do, using the same milk proteins as found in cow’s milk, but much more efficiently, because we’re using a yeast cell, not a 2,000-pound animal,” Perfect Day co-founder Ryan Pandya told the Guardian. The company hopes to bring its analog milks to market in the near future, which Pandya claims can also replace whey and casein proteins in grocery products like ice cream and cheese.

5. Chewable coffee.

Want coffee on the go without the disposable cups or annoying cafe lines? HVMN has you covered with its chewable Go Cubes. The San Francisco startup has packed the caffeine found in a half-cup of coffee, along with green tea extracts and B vitamins, into a chewable cube for a portable jolt. Reviews are mixed when it comes to flavor, but Business Insider reviewer Lydia Ramsey said the taste has notably improved in the year since Go Cubes came to market.

6. Edible food packaging.

Containers and packaging represent more than 23 percent of landfill waste in the U.S., according to the EPA. Some researchers think they’ve found a solution — packaging you can eat.

New York City startup Loliware debuted the world’s first edible drinking cup back in 2015 and now sells disposable cups and straws in various flavors. It hopes to use a similar mix of agar, seaweed extracts and natural flavors to produce product packaging, disposable cutlery and more. Meanwhile, in London, Skipping Rocks Lab is out to battle plastic bottle waste with edible water pods called Oohos. Even large companies are entering the fray — KFC with an edible coffee cup concept and Stonyfield Organic with experimental frozen yogurt “pearls” — indicating this trend may be here to stay.

Would you try any of these food and beverage innovations? Tell us about it in the comments section.

“He’s crapping all over us!”: Alex Jones slams Trump in tearful meltdown over Syria

Infowars host and notorious conspiracy theorist Alex Jones made it crystal clear that he is "major league pissed" at President Donald Trump. The insane meltdown came late Friday night shortly after Trump announced a military strike against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

On the verge of tears, an emotionally distraught Jones, said the president he has long supported had "been doing so good," but now, "he's crapping all over us."

Alex Jones on Trump launching strikes in Syria... pic.twitter.com/FkPt3xnok4

— Andrew Peng (@TheAPJournalist) April 14, 2018

"If he had been a piece of crap from the beginning, it wouldn’t be so bad," Jones exclaimed. "We’ve made so many sacrifices and now he’s crapping all over us. It makes me sick."

He added, "Trump’s now a fraud. Done."

"I'm not in a f**king cult for Donald Trump, f**k him!" a livid Jones yelled. "F**k his family!"

Trump Bombs Russian Forces World Braces For WW3 https://t.co/3HOFJLcapf

— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) April 14, 2018

Jones has long been a staunch supporter of Trump, and he's even claimed that the president has called him on several occasions. But Jones said he would deliver a clear message to Trump if he ever called him again.

"You know I thought of Trump as a bigger man than me," Jones said, directly staring into the camera. "But you know what Trump? Alex Emric Jones is bigger than you, because when push came to shove, you put your tail between your legs — you crapped your pants."

He added, "That doesn't mean I hate your guts but, let me tell you, you ever call me again I'm going to tell you I'm ashamed of you."

The epic meltdown is certainly one that will go down as one of Jones' best, and there have been plenty, so that says a lot.

But Jones was not the only right-wing media figure to heavily criticize Trump for his actions against Syria. Conservative talk radio host, Michael Savage, quickly tweeted his discontent after the announcement was made.

We lost. War machine bombs syria. No evidence Assad did it. Sad warmongers hijacking our nation

— Michael Savage (@ASavageNation) April 14, 2018

Frequent Infowars figures Paul Joseph Watson and Michael Cernovich also weighed in and branded Trump with a nickname of his own, "Donald Bush."

So now that we’re sending cruise missiles into countries to send a message to brutal dictators who massacre children, when do the air strikes on Saudi Arabia begin?

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) April 14, 2018

Attacking a foreign nation that has not attacked or threatened America is globalist interventionism.

This is not 'America First'. This is not what Trump was elected for.https://t.co/fPdJlIQaYz

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) April 13, 2018

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/...

https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/...

Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter joined in and blasted the Trump administration and Defense Secretary James Mattis for, what she deemed to be lies.

The second lie. “Vital American interests” https://t.co/9ClwlDAapi

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) April 14, 2018

Even Rep. Ted Lieu D-Calif., found himself saying that he agrees with Jones, in a tweet that included the video of his epic tirade.

Do I dare say this? Can I say this? Should I say this?

Ok, here goes:

I agree with Alex Jones. https://t.co/IPC4Z8WCYb

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) April 14, 2018

It's still too early to tell if Jones' rant will come to haunt him or if he will stand by his criticism of Trump moving forward. But on Saturday afternoon he went live on Periscope and attempted to explain his anger.

Alex Jones: Why I Said F*** Trump/Russia Vows Retaliation For Syrian Strike https://t.co/12mFkt7lvz

— Alex Jones (@RealAlexJones) April 14, 2018

Watch the nearly three-hour meltdown in full below:

Mariah Carey, Junot Díaz and demystifying the stigma of mental illness

Getty/Mark Wilson/AP/Jordan Strauss

In the past week alone, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Junot Díaz bravely and publicly reckoned with his childhood sexual assault and subsequent battles with mental health issues; pop icon Mariah Carey revealed her bipolar diagnosis, 17 years after it was diagnosed; and "Roseanne" star Emma Kenney admitted that she is stepping away from Hollywood to seek treatment.

Increasingly, artists and celebrities across sectors are opening up about their mental health issues, from depression to bipolar disorder, and from addiction to trauma. In the era of social media, these disclosures are humanizing and can reveal a shared experience for fans undergoing similar experiences. Most importantly, this transparency is helping to erase the stigma still largely attached to mental health issues.

"I’m just in a really good place right now, where I’m comfortable discussing my struggles with bipolar II disorder," Carey first told People. "I’m hopeful we can get to a place where the stigma is lifted from people going through anything alone. It can be incredibly isolating. It does not have to define you, and I refuse to allow it to define me or control me."

Carey says she was first diagnosed in 2001 after she was hospitalized for exhaustion. "Until recently, I lived in denial and isolation and in constant fear someone would expose me,” she said. “It was too heavy a burden to carry, and I simply couldn’t do that anymore. I sought and received treatment, I put positive people around me and I got back to doing what I love — writing songs and making music."

The Grammy Award winner's coming out categorizes a shift. While celebrities have — the same as everyone else — experienced issues related to mental health, rarely have they been so honest about what that looks like, especially for celebrities of color, where, historically, there has been less of a platform. As Dior Vargas, a Latina mental health activist, wrote in an essay titled "People of color deal with mental illness, too": "The media representation of mental illness constantly excludes, ignores and silences people of color."

"I think the term we liked a lot was exhaustion," publicist Howard Bragman told the Los Angeles Times about the past. He acknowledged that "the spin" for mental health issues has changed significantly over his 30-year career.

In Díaz's essay for the New Yorker, the Pulitzer Prize winner says his childhood rape "defined" him, and, "By the time I was eleven, I was suffering from both depression and uncontrollable rage." By age 14, he was veering into self-harm and, a few years later, he attempted suicide. Díaz described suffering from decades of often debilitating depression before he finally sought treatment.

For 18-year-old Kenney, she told In Touch Weekly, "I’m going to be seeking treatment for my battles," and her decision to reveal her struggles publicly is because "I just want to send a message to my fans saying that it’s OK to admit that you need help, and it doesn’t make you weak."

Certainly one of the pioneers of celebrity transparency and even activism around mental health was the star of the original "Star Wars" trilogy, the late Carrie Fisher. "If you claim something, you can own it. But if you have it as a shameful secret, you’re fucked," she told Vanity Fair in 2009. Fisher wrote prolifically about alcoholism, drug addiction and living with bipolar disorder in her novels, multiple memoirs, Hollywood scripts and in her "Advice from the dark side" column for the Guardian.

"Fisher fearlessly dove into dark personal terrain rarely tapped by female celebrities -- at least not with such alacrity," Rolling Stone reported. "It was Fisher's willingness to tackle difficult subjects with wit and transparency that helped transform her into a bona fide role model, especially for people afflicted with mental illness."

Fisher wasn't the first, but given her fame and success, her forthrightness helped to normalize mental illness — and remove the stigma from a topic that is seen as taboo or a weakness, especially for women, into one that can be accepted, broadcasted and managed.

"We have been given a challenging illness, and there is no other option than to meet those challenges," Fisher wrote in her final Guardian column to a woman who also had bipolar disorder. "Move through those feelings and meet me on the other side. As your bipolar sister, I’ll be watching."

"Black-ish" star Jenifer Lewis is another Hollywood veteran who championed mental illness awareness years ago. In 2007, 17 years after she received her bipolar diagnosis and 13 years after she began taking medication, Lewis went on the "Oprah Winfrey" show to discuss her journey with the disorder. "After years of therapy and after years of medication, I feel experienced enough now to come out and say bipolar disorder is treatable, and you can get help and you don't have to live such a tortured existence," she proclaimed to Winfrey.

For too long, stereotypes of black women have left little room for the inclusion of mental illness. As scholar Alexandria Okeke writes, "The image of the 'strong black woman' compounded with the already existing culture of stigma around mental illness, made the barriers far greater for black women to recognize their symptoms or to have access to adequate treatment." But Lewis' disclosure has been particularly significant in opening up the floodgates for women of color to talk about their own struggles with mental health.

U-God, one of the founding members of the Wu-Tang Clan, has articulated how stigma permeates men, who he says often feel uncomfortable about sharing their emotions. That is why he decided to be forthcoming about his struggles with trauma, a mental breakdown and a short stay in a mental institution and therapy and healing in his new memoir, "Raw." "I let it go now," he said of writing it all down on a recent episode of Salon Talks, "I'm in a better place."

And the list goes on of celebrities coming out about their struggles with mental health in recent years, and they are not alone. About one in six U.S. adults, or 44.7 million people, live with mental illness, according to the National Institute of Mental Health. And yet, "68 percent of Americans do not want someone with mental illness marrying into their family and 58 percent do not want people with mental illness in their workplaces," according to research published in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior. "If we’re actually going to tackle stigma, then we have to talk about what it actually is, which is fear, shame and discrimination," Theresa Nguyen, vice president of policy and programs at Mental Health America, told Moneyish.

Another advantage of celebrities coming forward, with different mental illnesses and from diverse arenas, is the rewriting of public misconceptions. "Everybody's condition is different," Katrina Gay, national director of communications and public affairs for the National Alliance on Mental Illness, told the LA Times. "Mental illness and mental health challenges run a big gamut. People like things to be simple and easy to understand and this just isn't. It's not one-size-fits-all."

But now, perhaps more than ever, mental illness and success are not seen as mutually exclusive. From Díaz to Carey, and the celebrities who paved the way before them, there is visibility and proof that mental illness is diverse and far from categorical. This can help evaporate the isolation that mental illness often produces. "We didn't used to know anybody with mental illness and all of a sudden we do," Bragman said. "We know somebody. If we know a celebrity, we know somebody and good things generally happen."

Night owls may have 10 percent higher risk of early death, study says

gremlin via iStock

Do you wake up bright eyed and bushy-tailed, greeting the sunrise with cheer and vigor? Or are you up late into the night and dread the sound of your alarm clock? We call this inherent tendency to prefer certain times of day your “chronotype” (chrono means time). And it may be more than a scheduling issue. It has consequences for your health, well-being and mortality.

Being a night owl has been associated with a range of health problems. For example, night owls have higher rates of obesity, high blood pressure and cardiovascular disease. Night owls are also more likely to have unhealthy behaviors, such as smoking, alcohol and drug use, and physical inactivity.

We study the health effects of being a night owl. In our recent study published in Chronobiology International, we found even worse news for the owls of the world: a higher risk of early death.

Your very own biological clock

Our bodies have their own internal time-keeping system, or clock. This clock would keep running even if a person were removed from the world and hidden away in a dark cave (which some dedicated researchers did to themselves years ago!). We believe these internal clocks play an important role in health by anticipating the time of day and preparing the body accordingly.

For example, as humans, we typically sleep at night, and our bodies start preparing for our habitual bedtime even before we try to fall asleep. Similarly, we eat during the day, so our body is prepared to process the food and nutrients efficiently during the daytime.

Our chronotype is also related to our biological clock. Morning larks’ biological clocks are set earlier. Their habitual bedtimes and wake times occur earlier in the day. Night owls have internal clocks set for later times. But are there any problems related to being a lark or owl, other than scheduling difficulties? Research suggests that there are; night owls tend to have worse health.

And, in our new study, we compared risk of dying between night owls and morning larks. In this study, death certificates were collected for an average of 6.5 years after the initial study visit to identify those who died. We found that night owls had a 10 percent increased risk of death over this six-and-a-half year period compared to larks. We also found that owls are more likely to have a variety of health problems compared to larks, particularly psychiatric disorders like depression, diabetes and neurological disorders.

The switch to daylight saving time in the U.S. (or summer time in the U.K.) only makes things more difficult for night owls. There are higher rates of heart attacks following the switch to daylight savings, and we have to wonder if more night owls are at risk.

Why do night owls have more health problems?

We researchers do not fully understand why we see more health problems in night owls. It could be that being awake at night offers greater opportunity to consume alcohol and drugs. For some, being awake when everyone else is sleeping may lead to feelings of loneliness and increased risk of depression. It could also be related to our biological clocks.

As explained above, an important function of internal biological clocks is to anticipate when certain things, like sunrise, sleep and eating, will occur. Ideally, our behavior will match both our internal clock and our environment. What happens when it doesn’t? We suspect that “misalignment” between the timing of our internal clock and the timing of our behaviors could be detrimental over the long run.

A night owl trying to live in a morning lark world will struggle. Their job may require early hours, or their friends may want to have an early dinner, but they themselves prefer later times for waking, eating, socializing and sleep. This mismatch could lead to health problems in the long run.

What can owls do?

It is true that someone’s “chronotype” is (approximately) half determined by their genes, but it is not entirely preordained. Many experts believe that there are behavioral strategies that may help an individual who prefers evening. For example, gradually advancing your bedtime – going to bed a little earlier each night – may help to move someone out of the “night owl zone.”

A gradual advance is important because if you try to go to bed two to three hours earlier tonight, it won’t work, and you may give up. Once you achieve an earlier bedtime, maintain a regular schedule. Avoid shifting to later nights on weekends or free days because then you’ll be drifting back into night owl habits. Also, avoiding light at night will help, and this includes not staring into smartphones or tablets before bed.

On a broader scale, flexibility in work hours would help to improve the health of night owls. Night owls who can schedule their day to match their chronotype may be better off.

It is important to make night owls aware about the risks associated with their chronotype and to provide them with this guidance on how to cope. We researchers need to identify which strategies will work best at alleviating the health risks and to understand exactly why they are at increased risk of these health problems in the first place.

Kristen Knutson, Associate Professor of Neurology, Northwestern University and Malcolm von Schantz, Professor of Chronobiology, University of Surrey