Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 889

January 19, 2016

Audiences reject “13 Hours”: Big blow for the right’s desperate quest for Clinton’s Benghazi smoking gun — it’s just not there

The new Michael Bay movie, "13 Hours," was regarded in right-wing circles as this big, election-changing event that would help crush Hillary Clinton. The movie, which follows the mercenary team that went to rescue Americans caught up in a confusing attack on U.S. ambassadors to Libya in 2012, was pumped up in right wing media for months and released with great fanfare to red state audiences, including a showing at AT&T Stadium, home of the Dallas Cowboys, to a crowd packed with anti-Clinton fanatics. And yet the movie is basically a flop, bringing in only $19 million over the three-day holiday weekend. This is especially disappointing for those who were rooting for this film, because January is, for whatever reason, a good month for movies that pander to military worship and pro-war "patriotism," with previous years seeing movies like "American Sniper" and "Lone Survivor" cleaning up with these crowds. But this movie, which has the hook of the word "Benghazi" — which Fox News viewers are supposed to recite 100 times a day like a rosary — just isn't taking off. What gives? Part of the problem might just be the movie itself. Perhaps if the movie was called "Hillary Clinton Is A Castrating Feminazi Who Reminds You Of Your Ex-Wife," it would have done a better job pulling in the target audience. But as it stands, the movie is just a rundown of the events that happened that day in Benghazi, and not some expose on how the administration dealt with it or anything like that. This matters, because the last thing conservatives actually care about it what happened that day in Benghazi. For one thing, the actual victims of the attacks are held in barely disguised contempt on the right. The very existence of ambassadors, especially those working under a Democratic administration, runs counter to the current Republican attitude on foreign policy. Right now, Republicans are throwing a hissy fit because President Obama got some captured soldiers in Iran home quickly and safely, suggesting that they would have much preferred if he used the capture as a pretext to war with Iran. So while it's standard operating procedure on the right to shed crocodile tears over the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, enduring an entire movie where you're supposed to care about people whose job is to make peace instead of war might be more than red state audiences can handle. More importantly, there's no reason to believe conservatives want clarity about Benghazi. I haven't seen the movie, to be clear, but it's clearly marketed as the movie that will lay out, in clear narrative detail, the events behind one of the favorite red button words of the right. But the power of "Benghazi" is in the mystery of it. As far as conspiracy theories go, this one is maddeningly vague. As Gawker's Christopher Hooks discovered when he went to the premiere event at Cowboys stadium, the true believers on hand could not — and frankly didn't seem to want to — explain what, exactly, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama did wrong. Vague accusations were thrown out, but when Hooks corrected the facts, audience members shrugged it off. Knowing anything about Benghazi is not the point of "Benghazi." The facts don't matter and the actual content of the accusations matters even less. What matters is the word "Benghazi": Getting it out there, saying it a lot, tying to vague notions of Democratic "weakness" or "corruption", but evading discussion of the particulars. The less attached "Benghazi" is to the actual events that day or the actual choices the administration made, the better. Knowing more means realizing the entire controversy is built on sand, and so clinging to ignorance is the best way to preserve the illusion that this is somehow a major political problem for Clinton. When you actually start trying to figure out what, exactly, the complaints about the administration's handling of this are, it ends up backfiring on the right. Hillary Clinton's lengthy testimony in front of the Benghazi committee in October proved that. When exposed to the actual tidbits the conspiracy theorists chew on — that she was more candid about what she thought this might be to her intimates than she was to the public, that the administration wanted to be sure of what was going on before committing to a public narrative — it becomes immediately clear that they have nothing. As with the Iran prisoner exchange, the Obama administration's unwillingness to rush to judgment should be regarded as a strength, not a weakness. Perhaps this is why, as many critics note, the movie focuses strictly on the events of that day. (That, and Bay is an action film director, not an Oliver Stone-style conspiracy theorist director.) To even touch on the "controversy" around Benghazi is to strip it of the mystique it needs to keep going. Believing requires not looking too closely. But Bay's strategy, to focus on the attacks themselves, isn't very satisfying to conservatives, either, since there's no clear line between "this happened" and "Hillary Clinton sucks" to be drawn there. Obviously, some right wingers are so deep into the "Benghazi" muck that they went to see "13 Hours" anyway, so intent on keeping the word "Benghazi" in the political discourse that they don't care much, one way or another, if the movie is actually good or actually even supports their conspiracy theories. And obviously, Fox News is hustling as hard as they can to get people to go see it. But maybe they shouldn't want that. As embarrassing as it is to see "13 Hours" flop at the box office, worse would be to invite people to actually sit and think, even for a couple of hours, about what actually happened in Libya in 2012. The key to being a believer in this conspiracy theory is not knowing any of the real life details, even the kind that might slip into your brain accidentally by watching an action film about it, even one that fudges the details. Right-wing audiences get this and so are staying as far away as they can. When it comes to "Benghazi," they realize, ignorance is their greatest strength. 13 Hours Author Stands By Benghazi FilmThe new Michael Bay movie, "13 Hours," was regarded in right-wing circles as this big, election-changing event that would help crush Hillary Clinton. The movie, which follows the mercenary team that went to rescue Americans caught up in a confusing attack on U.S. ambassadors to Libya in 2012, was pumped up in right wing media for months and released with great fanfare to red state audiences, including a showing at AT&T Stadium, home of the Dallas Cowboys, to a crowd packed with anti-Clinton fanatics. And yet the movie is basically a flop, bringing in only $19 million over the three-day holiday weekend. This is especially disappointing for those who were rooting for this film, because January is, for whatever reason, a good month for movies that pander to military worship and pro-war "patriotism," with previous years seeing movies like "American Sniper" and "Lone Survivor" cleaning up with these crowds. But this movie, which has the hook of the word "Benghazi" — which Fox News viewers are supposed to recite 100 times a day like a rosary — just isn't taking off. What gives? Part of the problem might just be the movie itself. Perhaps if the movie was called "Hillary Clinton Is A Castrating Feminazi Who Reminds You Of Your Ex-Wife," it would have done a better job pulling in the target audience. But as it stands, the movie is just a rundown of the events that happened that day in Benghazi, and not some expose on how the administration dealt with it or anything like that. This matters, because the last thing conservatives actually care about it what happened that day in Benghazi. For one thing, the actual victims of the attacks are held in barely disguised contempt on the right. The very existence of ambassadors, especially those working under a Democratic administration, runs counter to the current Republican attitude on foreign policy. Right now, Republicans are throwing a hissy fit because President Obama got some captured soldiers in Iran home quickly and safely, suggesting that they would have much preferred if he used the capture as a pretext to war with Iran. So while it's standard operating procedure on the right to shed crocodile tears over the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, enduring an entire movie where you're supposed to care about people whose job is to make peace instead of war might be more than red state audiences can handle. More importantly, there's no reason to believe conservatives want clarity about Benghazi. I haven't seen the movie, to be clear, but it's clearly marketed as the movie that will lay out, in clear narrative detail, the events behind one of the favorite red button words of the right. But the power of "Benghazi" is in the mystery of it. As far as conspiracy theories go, this one is maddeningly vague. As Gawker's Christopher Hooks discovered when he went to the premiere event at Cowboys stadium, the true believers on hand could not — and frankly didn't seem to want to — explain what, exactly, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama did wrong. Vague accusations were thrown out, but when Hooks corrected the facts, audience members shrugged it off. Knowing anything about Benghazi is not the point of "Benghazi." The facts don't matter and the actual content of the accusations matters even less. What matters is the word "Benghazi": Getting it out there, saying it a lot, tying to vague notions of Democratic "weakness" or "corruption", but evading discussion of the particulars. The less attached "Benghazi" is to the actual events that day or the actual choices the administration made, the better. Knowing more means realizing the entire controversy is built on sand, and so clinging to ignorance is the best way to preserve the illusion that this is somehow a major political problem for Clinton. When you actually start trying to figure out what, exactly, the complaints about the administration's handling of this are, it ends up backfiring on the right. Hillary Clinton's lengthy testimony in front of the Benghazi committee in October proved that. When exposed to the actual tidbits the conspiracy theorists chew on — that she was more candid about what she thought this might be to her intimates than she was to the public, that the administration wanted to be sure of what was going on before committing to a public narrative — it becomes immediately clear that they have nothing. As with the Iran prisoner exchange, the Obama administration's unwillingness to rush to judgment should be regarded as a strength, not a weakness. Perhaps this is why, as many critics note, the movie focuses strictly on the events of that day. (That, and Bay is an action film director, not an Oliver Stone-style conspiracy theorist director.) To even touch on the "controversy" around Benghazi is to strip it of the mystique it needs to keep going. Believing requires not looking too closely. But Bay's strategy, to focus on the attacks themselves, isn't very satisfying to conservatives, either, since there's no clear line between "this happened" and "Hillary Clinton sucks" to be drawn there. Obviously, some right wingers are so deep into the "Benghazi" muck that they went to see "13 Hours" anyway, so intent on keeping the word "Benghazi" in the political discourse that they don't care much, one way or another, if the movie is actually good or actually even supports their conspiracy theories. And obviously, Fox News is hustling as hard as they can to get people to go see it. But maybe they shouldn't want that. As embarrassing as it is to see "13 Hours" flop at the box office, worse would be to invite people to actually sit and think, even for a couple of hours, about what actually happened in Libya in 2012. The key to being a believer in this conspiracy theory is not knowing any of the real life details, even the kind that might slip into your brain accidentally by watching an action film about it, even one that fudges the details. Right-wing audiences get this and so are staying as far away as they can. When it comes to "Benghazi," they realize, ignorance is their greatest strength. 13 Hours Author Stands By Benghazi Film

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on January 19, 2016 15:08

Right-wing conservatives erupt in a round of long-deserved mockery at news of a possible Sarah Palin endorsement of Trump

Rumors are running rampant that none other than former Alaskan governor and failed Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin is set to endorse the current frontrunner, Donald Trump. Of course, The Donald himself stoked such rumors with his Facebook post announcing his rally in Iowa Tuesday evening with "a very special guest in attendance." And in a blog post on Tuesday, Palin's daughter, Bristol, added fuel to the garbage-fire that is a potential Trump/Palin match, writing that she hopes the rumors are true and that her mother "actually does endorse Trump":
Is my Mom going to endorse Donald Trump for President of the United States? [...] We need someone who has a vision for economic prosperity, who won’t let us get kicked around in the world, and who will fight for our future. [...] I hope you’re right, and that she endorses Donald Trump today for President.
The younger Palin also shot back at Ted Cruz's campaign, which reacted to news of the anticipated endorsement by slamming the move as damaging to the one-time Tea Party darling's appeal:
I didn’t go to Harvard Law School, but I know this:  You can like two people in a race, but there will only one president. The audacity to suggest that because she chooses one over the other will somehow “damage” her just shows arrogance.
Mama Grizzly then milked the moment by tweeting out her daughter's blog post: https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/sta... In the past, Palin has indicated her support for both Trump and Cruz, but only her fellow reality tv participant has promised her a potential position in his would-be presidential cabinet. Now, ahead of the anticipated Palin endorsement of Trump, conservatives on Twitter are finally joining the rest of America and rejoicing in a round of well-deserved mocking of Palin: https://twitter.com/hotairblog/status... https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/sta... https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status... https://twitter.com/VodkaPundit/statu... https://twitter.com/DrewMTips/status/... https://twitter.com/jimantle/status/6... https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status... https://twitter.com/JayCostTWS/status... https://twitter.com/FBillMcMorris/sta... https://twitter.com/NathanWurtzel/sta... https://twitter.com/AndrewStilesUSA/s... https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/6... Well, not all conservatives .... https://twitter.com/HeyTammyBruce/sta... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... And Cruz, in an apparent move to not alienate the remaining Palin supporters left, walked back his campaign's dismissal of her impending endorsement this afternoon: https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/68... are running rampant that none other than former Alaskan governor and failed Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin is set to endorse the current frontrunner, Donald Trump. Of course, The Donald himself stoked such rumors with his Facebook post announcing his rally in Iowa Tuesday evening with "a very special guest in attendance." And in a blog post on Tuesday, Palin's daughter, Bristol, added fuel to the garbage-fire that is a potential Trump/Palin match, writing that she hopes the rumors are true and that her mother "actually does endorse Trump":
Is my Mom going to endorse Donald Trump for President of the United States? [...] We need someone who has a vision for economic prosperity, who won’t let us get kicked around in the world, and who will fight for our future. [...] I hope you’re right, and that she endorses Donald Trump today for President.
The younger Palin also shot back at Ted Cruz's campaign, which reacted to news of the anticipated endorsement by slamming the move as damaging to the one-time Tea Party darling's appeal:
I didn’t go to Harvard Law School, but I know this:  You can like two people in a race, but there will only one president. The audacity to suggest that because she chooses one over the other will somehow “damage” her just shows arrogance.
Mama Grizzly then milked the moment by tweeting out her daughter's blog post: https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/sta... In the past, Palin has indicated her support for both Trump and Cruz, but only her fellow reality tv participant has promised her a potential position in his would-be presidential cabinet. Now, ahead of the anticipated Palin endorsement of Trump, conservatives on Twitter are finally joining the rest of America and rejoicing in a round of well-deserved mocking of Palin: https://twitter.com/hotairblog/status... https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/sta... https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status... https://twitter.com/VodkaPundit/statu... https://twitter.com/DrewMTips/status/... https://twitter.com/jimantle/status/6... https://twitter.com/guypbenson/status... https://twitter.com/JayCostTWS/status... https://twitter.com/FBillMcMorris/sta... https://twitter.com/NathanWurtzel/sta... https://twitter.com/AndrewStilesUSA/s... https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/6... Well, not all conservatives .... https://twitter.com/HeyTammyBruce/sta... https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status... And Cruz, in an apparent move to not alienate the remaining Palin supporters left, walked back his campaign's dismissal of her impending endorsement this afternoon: https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/68...

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on January 19, 2016 14:28

January 18, 2016

“A few weeks after I graduated, I tried to jump in front of a train”: My bipolar disorder nightmare

When I was 17, I decided that I wasn’t going to get out of bed anymore. It was a grey morning in March, and I woke up feeling lifeless and sad. There was nothing particularly wrong with my life; I had a great group of friends, I was involved in several clubs, and I was set to graduate in three months with straight A’s. I knew my misery was completely unjustified, but I couldn’t move.

My dad dragged me to a psychiatrist and I was diagnosed with major depressive disorder. This wasn’t a shocking revelation for me. It was pretty obvious I was a sad kid. I had figured out that I was probably depressed years ago, but until the diagnosis, my family had dismissed my lifeless demeanor as typical teenage angst. I was almost proud to hear a doctor say that I actually had a mood disorder; it made all my mood swings seem legitimate and, more importantly, fixable. I was going to be prescribed a happy pill, feel better, and go back to my life like nothing had happened.

The doctor wrote me a prescription for Prozac. I took the pill diligently every day and it only took two weeks to see improvements in my temperament. Within the first month, however, my mood had escalated from happy to exuberant to totally delusional with inexplicable joy. I’d stay up until 4 in the morning writing what I thought was the next great American novel. I’d sleep for an hour at most and then go for a three-hour run. I couldn’t sit still in school. My thoughts were fireworks. I started and ended three different relationships in the span of a week. I talked too much and laughed for too long. I didn’t care. Everything was amazing. The future was beautiful. I was brilliant, confident, perfect. I had it all figured out.

A few weeks after I graduated, I tried to jump in front of a train. My good mood had dissipated and while I still wasn’t sad, I wasn’t happy either. My brain was submerged in a cold, thick sludge that rendered it numb and apathetic. The fireworks in my head had burnt out. I felt detached and distant from everyone around me. I don’t remember deciding to go to the train station; I just ended up there, barefoot and determined to jump. A construction worker saw me teetering on the edge of the platform and asked me if I was OK. I realized I was sobbing. He called 911 and an ambulance came to pick me up. One of the EMT workers was in my graduating class, so I tried to act normal and start a casual conversation about college applications, but I don’t think I was speaking coherently.

After the ambulance unloaded me at the hospital, I was shuffled from one doctor to another and had to repeatedly recount my explanation of why I was there while they scribbled notes on their clipboards. I mentioned how great I had been doing on the Prozac just a month prior, and, after taking a few notes, a doctor told me that I had bipolar disorder. Long story short, the Prozac had triggered a manic episode, hence my excess of energy and delusional overconfidence. When the mania wore off, my mood spiraled and I decided to die. It wasn’t an uncommon sequence of events for bipolar patients, apparently.

While my prior diagnosis had been a relief, I wasn’t entirely comforted by the new one. Being labeled “depressed” made sense, but the word “bipolar” didn’t suit me. I obviously had some sort of mood disorder, but not to that extent. Bipolar people are crazy. Serial killers are bipolar. Drug addicts are bipolar. Angry homeless people in the subway are bipolar. It didn’t make sense, and it terrified me. Maybe I was crazy. Or at least on my way to being crazy. Crazy-in-training. If someone had told my childhood self that I would end up sitting barefoot in a psych ward when I was seventeen, I would have laughed at the ridiculousness of the idea. Yet here I was. How could I predict where I would be in a few months, let alone years? What if my mental health only continued to deteriorate as time passed? There was no way of knowing how I would progress, and the uncertainty terrified me.

The doctors put me on lithium carbonate, a mood stabilizer. They explained that lithium is one of the oldest, most well known drugs for treating bipolar symptoms. It’s been around forever, and it’s supposed to level out the ups and downs of your moods. It can also cause nausea, dehydration, shakiness, and kidney failure. I wasn’t sure if that was a fair trade-off, but I was too overwhelmed by the situation to complain.

I spent ten days in the hospital. When my dad picked me up, I figured that that was the end of my bipolar adventure. I was diagnosed, I was medicated, and now I could start college with the rest of the happy sane people.

The beginning of my first semester was a whirlwind of new friendships, classes, and adventures. Although only a month had passed, my time in the hospital seemed like a distant memory. Halfway through the semester, my depression returned. I spoke with the campus psychiatrist and she suggested that maybe my meds needed to be adjusted. It turns out that it can take a long, long time to find the combination of medications that works best for a bipolar person’s brain. And even if you find the perfect combination, it might just stop working one day. Your brain could develop a tolerance for that perfect combo after weeks, months, or even years of stable functioning. This was my first time realizing that I had a real chronic illness. I had been so optimistic about my treatment initially, but now I realized that I might be fighting an endless battle, that there was no way to estimate when I’d be “better,” if ever.

The psychiatrist wrote me a prescription for Seroquel, an antipsychotic. In higher dosages, it’s given to schizophrenics, but smaller dosages are useful for some bipolar patients. She warned me that the new drug might make me sleepy, which turned out to be a severe understatement. Trying to function while taking Seroquel was like walking around with a heavy, wet blanket draped over me. I was perpetually fatigued, physically and mentally. I’d sleep for twelve hours, wake up for food, and then sleep for another eight hours. When I was awake, I shuffled around campus aimlessly like a pajama-clad zombie. I couldn’t read, write, or even communicate with people; I felt like my thoughts and feelings were engulfed by a thick fog. Words had no meaning to me. I had stopped caring what other people thought of me as I dragged my disheveled self around campus. Sometimes I wondered if maybe I was going crazy. Maybe the Seroquel was systematically destroying all my brain cells. I wasn’t sad anymore, though. My doctor was pleased.

I slept through the next few weeks. My GPA plummeted as I missed classes, assignments, and exams. My psychiatrist recommended that I withdraw from the semester. I signed the Medical Leave form. My dad was livid. He thought I was making up excuses for my academic failure. In his eyes, I wasn’t sick; I was lazy. I didn’t need medication; I needed discipline. He made me wonder how much responsibility I should take for my shortcomings, and forced me to consider the idea that I might be imagining my condition. If my own father refused to believe that I was sick, then maybe I was just an inherently flawed person. Untreatable. Worthless. I slept through the car ride home.

Back in my hometown, I found a psychiatrist to help me treat my condition. Each appointment with her made me wonder if psychiatry was just one big guessing game. She had a giant book that listed pretty much every medication that existed. I’d describe how I was feeling and she’d thumb through the book until she found a pill that sounded suitable. Depressed? Try Celexa, Effexor, Nortriptyline. Anxious? Try Abilify, Latuda, Xanax. The list goes on. Some improved my mood a bit and then stopped working. Others didn’t have any effect at all.

I tried a few different drugs every month and started to feel like a slave to pills. I started and finished my day with them. I monitored my every thought and emotion, every second of the day, trying to see any improvement. I spent my lunch breaks at work researching alternative treatments for bipolar disorder. Fish oil pills, herbal mixtures, vitamin D supplements; I tried anything that might make even the slightest difference in my moods. I wanted to feel like a normal person, and I wanted to know that there was a real, tangible solution to my problem. I had definitely improved; I was more stable than I was before I started receiving treatment, and I was functioning well enough to keep a job and interact with people on a daily basis. But I was still always tired or irritable or apathetic or nervous. Nothing helped me feel like I had fully recovered.

I grew tired and frustrated, although I wasn’t sure if I was frustrated with my psychiatrist or with myself. My brain wasn’t supposed to sabotage me like this. It wasn’t fair that everyone else was allowed to be healthy and contented and fully functional while I went to sleep every night praying that the next morning, I wouldn’t wake up suicidal. All of my high school friends were scattered around the country, enjoying their first year of college, while I was bagging groceries every day and struggling to stay sane. The local Walgreens’ pharmacist was probably my best friend at the time. She’d talk to me about her grandkids while I paid for my drug of the week. Her stories weren’t that interesting, but it was comforting to be treated like a regular person when I felt stranger than ever.

As I struggled to accept the dismal state of my day-to-day life, I was haunted by internal doubts about who I really was and if I even had my own identity anymore. At eighteen, forming my own adult identity was difficult enough without the quandaries that stemmed from my disease. It seems absurdly unfair that so many major mental illnesses, bipolar disorder included, generally appear in patients during their late teens or early twenties, the exact time when our identities are in flux.  I started to wonder if the person I was becoming was inauthentic. People’s thoughts and personalities are determined by chemical and electrical signals traveling through their brains, so was I cheating nature by adding all these synthetic chemicals? Did I have a legitimate personality? If I stopped taking all of my medications, I would be dysfunctional and, for lack of a better word, crazy. So is that who I actually am? Is my real self my unstable, un-medicated self? Or is the real me the sane version of me, the one who gets all her emotions from a bottle of pills?

While these questions did stem somewhat from my own personal uncertainties, they were compounded by a harsh societal stigma that became increasingly noticeable over time. It’s hard to avoid the disparaging attitudes so many people harbor toward mental illness, and the more I was exposed to them, the more I began to internalize them. I felt personally responsible for losing control of my emotions and for lacking the strength to keep myself stable and disciplined on my own.

Society has a way of trivializing the problems that mentally ill people face and making them feel that their condition is less serious than physical ailments. For instance, if I suffered from Type 1 Diabetes and needed to administer daily insulin injections, no one would accuse me of being overdramatic or hint that I was simply too weak-willed to regulate my blood sugar on my own. I’d probably receive sympathy for my condition. But because I was born with a neurochemical imbalance that resulted in a mental illness, I was pressured to hide my condition, to toughen up and deal with it on my own. There are countless stigmas against mentally ill people – we’re imagining it, we’re making excuses, we’re looking for attention – all of which place the blame on the bearer of the disease, rather than on the disease itself. As a result, my perception of my own identity was muddled and confused, and I constantly wondered if my ailment was legitimate.

Maybe whatever antidepressant I was on at the time started working, or maybe I just got fed up with my constant stream of self pity, but by the middle of the summer, I found the energy to stop hating my situation and to use my resources to improve myself. I started exercising, speaking to a therapist, and spending more time on productive hobbies instead of lurking on depressing bipolar forums all day. I created a fitness-themed blog and amassed thousands of followers within a month. Whenever my brain tried to hold me back from being creative, I used all of my willpower to shut out its protests. It was the first time I had experienced genuine, wholesome happiness in months, and it made my fears about my identity seem far less daunting. Even if I wasn’t sure who I was, at least I was in control of my mind and using it productively. I realized that I had to accept my illness as a part of me, integral and eternal, that I couldn’t ignore. Despite the pain it caused, it made me braver, wiser, and more resilient, and gave me a unique perspective of the world.

I’ve been on the same medications for a while now, and they’re not perfect by any means; I have a lot of weird side effects from them, and I still have bad days every now and then. There are times when I sink into a depression not unlike the one I experienced during my first semester. I stay in bed and stare at the ceiling for hours. I forget to eat for a few days. As time goes on, though, each spell of sadness gets a little easier to deal with, a little quicker to dissipate. I’ve figured out how to use coping mechanisms – drawing, writing, listening to music – to lessen the intensity of my lows. Forcing a bad mood to disappear is somewhat empowering; I used to pray for a miracle pill to fix my disorder but, while I’m still dependent on my medications to keep my brain stable, now I know that there are other ways I can combat my symptoms myself.

I’m well aware that my condition is always going to be here. Every day I carry it with me, and every day I do my best to stop it from interfering with my life. My journey with bipolar disorder is far from being over. My mind is a chaotic, confusing place. It probably always will be. But, contrary to what I used to believe, my brain’s abnormalities don’t make it impossible for me to enjoy existing and being myself. If most people’s lives are paintings, mine is more like a first grader’s mosaic. It’s messy and imperfect, and none of the pieces really fit together. There’s no consistency or symmetry. When I look at it, I’m not really sure if I understand it, or if I even like looking at it. But I do think it’s strangely beautiful. I like being alive. I like waking up in the morning, and I like being me, whoever that is.

When I was 17, I decided that I wasn’t going to get out of bed anymore. It was a grey morning in March, and I woke up feeling lifeless and sad. There was nothing particularly wrong with my life; I had a great group of friends, I was involved in several clubs, and I was set to graduate in three months with straight A’s. I knew my misery was completely unjustified, but I couldn’t move.

My dad dragged me to a psychiatrist and I was diagnosed with major depressive disorder. This wasn’t a shocking revelation for me. It was pretty obvious I was a sad kid. I had figured out that I was probably depressed years ago, but until the diagnosis, my family had dismissed my lifeless demeanor as typical teenage angst. I was almost proud to hear a doctor say that I actually had a mood disorder; it made all my mood swings seem legitimate and, more importantly, fixable. I was going to be prescribed a happy pill, feel better, and go back to my life like nothing had happened.

The doctor wrote me a prescription for Prozac. I took the pill diligently every day and it only took two weeks to see improvements in my temperament. Within the first month, however, my mood had escalated from happy to exuberant to totally delusional with inexplicable joy. I’d stay up until 4 in the morning writing what I thought was the next great American novel. I’d sleep for an hour at most and then go for a three-hour run. I couldn’t sit still in school. My thoughts were fireworks. I started and ended three different relationships in the span of a week. I talked too much and laughed for too long. I didn’t care. Everything was amazing. The future was beautiful. I was brilliant, confident, perfect. I had it all figured out.

A few weeks after I graduated, I tried to jump in front of a train. My good mood had dissipated and while I still wasn’t sad, I wasn’t happy either. My brain was submerged in a cold, thick sludge that rendered it numb and apathetic. The fireworks in my head had burnt out. I felt detached and distant from everyone around me. I don’t remember deciding to go to the train station; I just ended up there, barefoot and determined to jump. A construction worker saw me teetering on the edge of the platform and asked me if I was OK. I realized I was sobbing. He called 911 and an ambulance came to pick me up. One of the EMT workers was in my graduating class, so I tried to act normal and start a casual conversation about college applications, but I don’t think I was speaking coherently.

After the ambulance unloaded me at the hospital, I was shuffled from one doctor to another and had to repeatedly recount my explanation of why I was there while they scribbled notes on their clipboards. I mentioned how great I had been doing on the Prozac just a month prior, and, after taking a few notes, a doctor told me that I had bipolar disorder. Long story short, the Prozac had triggered a manic episode, hence my excess of energy and delusional overconfidence. When the mania wore off, my mood spiraled and I decided to die. It wasn’t an uncommon sequence of events for bipolar patients, apparently.

While my prior diagnosis had been a relief, I wasn’t entirely comforted by the new one. Being labeled “depressed” made sense, but the word “bipolar” didn’t suit me. I obviously had some sort of mood disorder, but not to that extent. Bipolar people are crazy. Serial killers are bipolar. Drug addicts are bipolar. Angry homeless people in the subway are bipolar. It didn’t make sense, and it terrified me. Maybe I was crazy. Or at least on my way to being crazy. Crazy-in-training. If someone had told my childhood self that I would end up sitting barefoot in a psych ward when I was seventeen, I would have laughed at the ridiculousness of the idea. Yet here I was. How could I predict where I would be in a few months, let alone years? What if my mental health only continued to deteriorate as time passed? There was no way of knowing how I would progress, and the uncertainty terrified me.

The doctors put me on lithium carbonate, a mood stabilizer. They explained that lithium is one of the oldest, most well known drugs for treating bipolar symptoms. It’s been around forever, and it’s supposed to level out the ups and downs of your moods. It can also cause nausea, dehydration, shakiness, and kidney failure. I wasn’t sure if that was a fair trade-off, but I was too overwhelmed by the situation to complain.

I spent ten days in the hospital. When my dad picked me up, I figured that that was the end of my bipolar adventure. I was diagnosed, I was medicated, and now I could start college with the rest of the happy sane people.

The beginning of my first semester was a whirlwind of new friendships, classes, and adventures. Although only a month had passed, my time in the hospital seemed like a distant memory. Halfway through the semester, my depression returned. I spoke with the campus psychiatrist and she suggested that maybe my meds needed to be adjusted. It turns out that it can take a long, long time to find the combination of medications that works best for a bipolar person’s brain. And even if you find the perfect combination, it might just stop working one day. Your brain could develop a tolerance for that perfect combo after weeks, months, or even years of stable functioning. This was my first time realizing that I had a real chronic illness. I had been so optimistic about my treatment initially, but now I realized that I might be fighting an endless battle, that there was no way to estimate when I’d be “better,” if ever.

The psychiatrist wrote me a prescription for Seroquel, an antipsychotic. In higher dosages, it’s given to schizophrenics, but smaller dosages are useful for some bipolar patients. She warned me that the new drug might make me sleepy, which turned out to be a severe understatement. Trying to function while taking Seroquel was like walking around with a heavy, wet blanket draped over me. I was perpetually fatigued, physically and mentally. I’d sleep for twelve hours, wake up for food, and then sleep for another eight hours. When I was awake, I shuffled around campus aimlessly like a pajama-clad zombie. I couldn’t read, write, or even communicate with people; I felt like my thoughts and feelings were engulfed by a thick fog. Words had no meaning to me. I had stopped caring what other people thought of me as I dragged my disheveled self around campus. Sometimes I wondered if maybe I was going crazy. Maybe the Seroquel was systematically destroying all my brain cells. I wasn’t sad anymore, though. My doctor was pleased.

I slept through the next few weeks. My GPA plummeted as I missed classes, assignments, and exams. My psychiatrist recommended that I withdraw from the semester. I signed the Medical Leave form. My dad was livid. He thought I was making up excuses for my academic failure. In his eyes, I wasn’t sick; I was lazy. I didn’t need medication; I needed discipline. He made me wonder how much responsibility I should take for my shortcomings, and forced me to consider the idea that I might be imagining my condition. If my own father refused to believe that I was sick, then maybe I was just an inherently flawed person. Untreatable. Worthless. I slept through the car ride home.

Back in my hometown, I found a psychiatrist to help me treat my condition. Each appointment with her made me wonder if psychiatry was just one big guessing game. She had a giant book that listed pretty much every medication that existed. I’d describe how I was feeling and she’d thumb through the book until she found a pill that sounded suitable. Depressed? Try Celexa, Effexor, Nortriptyline. Anxious? Try Abilify, Latuda, Xanax. The list goes on. Some improved my mood a bit and then stopped working. Others didn’t have any effect at all.

I tried a few different drugs every month and started to feel like a slave to pills. I started and finished my day with them. I monitored my every thought and emotion, every second of the day, trying to see any improvement. I spent my lunch breaks at work researching alternative treatments for bipolar disorder. Fish oil pills, herbal mixtures, vitamin D supplements; I tried anything that might make even the slightest difference in my moods. I wanted to feel like a normal person, and I wanted to know that there was a real, tangible solution to my problem. I had definitely improved; I was more stable than I was before I started receiving treatment, and I was functioning well enough to keep a job and interact with people on a daily basis. But I was still always tired or irritable or apathetic or nervous. Nothing helped me feel like I had fully recovered.

I grew tired and frustrated, although I wasn’t sure if I was frustrated with my psychiatrist or with myself. My brain wasn’t supposed to sabotage me like this. It wasn’t fair that everyone else was allowed to be healthy and contented and fully functional while I went to sleep every night praying that the next morning, I wouldn’t wake up suicidal. All of my high school friends were scattered around the country, enjoying their first year of college, while I was bagging groceries every day and struggling to stay sane. The local Walgreens’ pharmacist was probably my best friend at the time. She’d talk to me about her grandkids while I paid for my drug of the week. Her stories weren’t that interesting, but it was comforting to be treated like a regular person when I felt stranger than ever.

As I struggled to accept the dismal state of my day-to-day life, I was haunted by internal doubts about who I really was and if I even had my own identity anymore. At eighteen, forming my own adult identity was difficult enough without the quandaries that stemmed from my disease. It seems absurdly unfair that so many major mental illnesses, bipolar disorder included, generally appear in patients during their late teens or early twenties, the exact time when our identities are in flux.  I started to wonder if the person I was becoming was inauthentic. People’s thoughts and personalities are determined by chemical and electrical signals traveling through their brains, so was I cheating nature by adding all these synthetic chemicals? Did I have a legitimate personality? If I stopped taking all of my medications, I would be dysfunctional and, for lack of a better word, crazy. So is that who I actually am? Is my real self my unstable, un-medicated self? Or is the real me the sane version of me, the one who gets all her emotions from a bottle of pills?

While these questions did stem somewhat from my own personal uncertainties, they were compounded by a harsh societal stigma that became increasingly noticeable over time. It’s hard to avoid the disparaging attitudes so many people harbor toward mental illness, and the more I was exposed to them, the more I began to internalize them. I felt personally responsible for losing control of my emotions and for lacking the strength to keep myself stable and disciplined on my own.

Society has a way of trivializing the problems that mentally ill people face and making them feel that their condition is less serious than physical ailments. For instance, if I suffered from Type 1 Diabetes and needed to administer daily insulin injections, no one would accuse me of being overdramatic or hint that I was simply too weak-willed to regulate my blood sugar on my own. I’d probably receive sympathy for my condition. But because I was born with a neurochemical imbalance that resulted in a mental illness, I was pressured to hide my condition, to toughen up and deal with it on my own. There are countless stigmas against mentally ill people – we’re imagining it, we’re making excuses, we’re looking for attention – all of which place the blame on the bearer of the disease, rather than on the disease itself. As a result, my perception of my own identity was muddled and confused, and I constantly wondered if my ailment was legitimate.

Maybe whatever antidepressant I was on at the time started working, or maybe I just got fed up with my constant stream of self pity, but by the middle of the summer, I found the energy to stop hating my situation and to use my resources to improve myself. I started exercising, speaking to a therapist, and spending more time on productive hobbies instead of lurking on depressing bipolar forums all day. I created a fitness-themed blog and amassed thousands of followers within a month. Whenever my brain tried to hold me back from being creative, I used all of my willpower to shut out its protests. It was the first time I had experienced genuine, wholesome happiness in months, and it made my fears about my identity seem far less daunting. Even if I wasn’t sure who I was, at least I was in control of my mind and using it productively. I realized that I had to accept my illness as a part of me, integral and eternal, that I couldn’t ignore. Despite the pain it caused, it made me braver, wiser, and more resilient, and gave me a unique perspective of the world.

I’ve been on the same medications for a while now, and they’re not perfect by any means; I have a lot of weird side effects from them, and I still have bad days every now and then. There are times when I sink into a depression not unlike the one I experienced during my first semester. I stay in bed and stare at the ceiling for hours. I forget to eat for a few days. As time goes on, though, each spell of sadness gets a little easier to deal with, a little quicker to dissipate. I’ve figured out how to use coping mechanisms – drawing, writing, listening to music – to lessen the intensity of my lows. Forcing a bad mood to disappear is somewhat empowering; I used to pray for a miracle pill to fix my disorder but, while I’m still dependent on my medications to keep my brain stable, now I know that there are other ways I can combat my symptoms myself.

I’m well aware that my condition is always going to be here. Every day I carry it with me, and every day I do my best to stop it from interfering with my life. My journey with bipolar disorder is far from being over. My mind is a chaotic, confusing place. It probably always will be. But, contrary to what I used to believe, my brain’s abnormalities don’t make it impossible for me to enjoy existing and being myself. If most people’s lives are paintings, mine is more like a first grader’s mosaic. It’s messy and imperfect, and none of the pieces really fit together. There’s no consistency or symmetry. When I look at it, I’m not really sure if I understand it, or if I even like looking at it. But I do think it’s strangely beautiful. I like being alive. I like waking up in the morning, and I like being me, whoever that is.

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on January 18, 2016 16:00

The unromantic gift that saved my marriage

I wasn’t afraid of giving birth. I was healthy, I was in love, and at 29, I was seemingly the youngest pregnant person in Manhattan.

“I have a feeling this will be very easy for you,” my doctor confessed as my due date approached. “In my experience, women with freckles rarely have complications.”

But a few days after I delivered a healthy baby boy, there was a problem. Between every breast-feeding session I was rushing to the bathroom. I had expected all sorts of postpartum aches and pains, but diarrhea?

Within two weeks, I weighed less than I had pre-pregnancy. I couldn’t keep anything in my stomach for longer than a few minutes. My world shrank to the size of my bed and my bathroom: all day I alternated between caring for my baby and caring for myself. I was exhausted, in pain and afraid.

Above all, I was humiliated. I was the type of Kate-Middleton-worshipping girl who used the word “restroom.” My colleagues had recently thrown me a baby shower and gifted me “Boudreaux’s Butt Paste” just to hear me say the name. I had been raised by a Southern mother who taught me to cross my legs at the ankle and “not chase boys”—but even she thought my modesty went too far when I asked her to leave the dressing room while we shopped for my wedding dress. There was no logical reason for my shyness about my body. My bachelorette weekend devolved into a therapy session on sharing a bathroom with a boy. “He’ll be your husband!” the girls shrieked over champagne.

Now here I was, trapped with that boy in a tiny New York apartment, living my worst nightmare. There was no hiding my humanity.

“You’ve gotten your figure back,” Eric offered lovingly, but I could tell he was worried.

A gastroenterologist on the Upper East Side explained that the antibiotics I received during delivery had killed bad bacteria, but also all of the healthy bacteria that I relied upon to digest properly.

“Try eating Activia,” she suggested.

I ate gallons of yogurt with no results. The plastic cartons piled up on my kitchen counter next to the menacing breast pump equipment. I pushed my way into other doctors’ offices, and to my great horror, tested positive for something called Clostridium difficile.

The doctor looked at me apologetically and said that it was true: antibiotics had killed off all of my friendly “gut flora”—something I had never even considered—and “bad guys” had taken over. On the ride home, I looked up C. diff and WebMD assured me that this was no regular case of “D.” I was captive to the king of bacterial infections, which kills more than 14,000 people per year.

Medication kept my symptoms at bay for a few weeks, but the C. diff came raging back and I was rushed to the emergency room. “The bacteria is getting smarter and more resistant,” the doctor said. He wrote me a different prescription, with no promises.

“I love you, Duchess of Diff,” my husband said, wrapping me up in the warm hospital blankets.

If I was an aspiring Kate Middleton, delighting in the storm of teacups and thank-you notes that our wedding precipitated, my husband was a double for Mitt Romney. A string-bean financier with a 4.0 GPA, he approached everything in his life with precision.

But whatever calculations had gone into the match of a priss and a perfectionist were now deconstructed. My moment with seduction—at least the physical kind—was long gone. The only thing that could take its place, I dared to hope as I looked in the mirror and saw dark under-eye circles and baby spit-up in my hair—would be a kind of emotional seduction. The spell of two people cocooned in a never-before and never-again situation.

I smiled at him, knowing how terrible I looked in the hospital bed, and realized that he was the person I wanted closest to me—no matter what.

“C. diff?” a nurse who was refilling my IV asked, and shuddered. “I used to work for a doctor who fixed that stuff with stool transplants. That’s just a fancy way of saying he puts someone else’s poop in your colon to restore the good bacteria. He’s kind of a nutty professor, but it works like 95 percent of the time.”

Horrified, I clutched my prescription for the next drug and whispered to my husband to pull the car around.

The days after that I felt optimistic. The new drug seemed to be working. I identified the neighborhood coffee shops with no front steps, and pushed the stroller confidently in their direction. There was a bakery that made cupcakes in the shape of hydrangeas; the baby watched while I photographed and devoured them.

But within hours of finishing the medication, fever struck and my insides ached.

This third bout with C. diff replaced my embarrassment with ice-cold fear. If this disease was stronger than drugs, would I have it forever? Worse yet, would it kill me? I thought of the baby and his chubby cheeks that looked full of acorns. I thought of the years ahead of him and my throat constricted. Taking four pills a day could keep the symptoms at bay, but C. diff still owned me.

My nightly routine had gone from turning off Netflix to turning off my panic over my condition.  “We’re going to get you all patched up,” Eric whispered near my hair as we fell asleep.

Somehow, we  were growing closer, and perhaps even—against all logic—happier. In my memory of this time we are dancing down the aisles of RiteAid, shopping for probiotics, enemas and suppositories; we are gossiping at the breakfast table about the regulars on cdiffdiscussion.org; we are singing little rhymes about poop and pronouncing every syllable in the old-English spellings of “Faeces” and “Diarrhoea.” We are finally dialing the Nutty Professor’s office, holding our breath to see if he can fit us into his schedule. We cross our fingers that Eric will be an eligible donor. We pretend it is like The Bachelor, except instead of “will you accept this rose?” we are asking each other, “Will you accept this stool?”

Friends wanted to know how motherhood was going. I told a few of them the wacky secret that I was not only breast feeding around the clock and sleeping five hours per night, but also slave to a potentially fatal gastrointestinal plague. When they texted frantically to get more updates, I often had to suppress the urge to report on my largest looming symptom: love. C. diff was winning in my gut, but it was losing to the chemicals of the brain that went nuts when I saw my husband's endearing too-short haircut, or held his hand in the front seat of our Jeep.

The day of our consultation, the Nutty Professor entered the room with gingery hair and a quick smile.

“Drugs are not going to help you,” he said cheerfully, as if this pleased him. He went on to say that it was true about the near-perfect success rate of his experimental procedure.

“What can I expect afterwards?” I asked, fearing another relapse.

“Well,” the Nutty Professor said, grinning like a Cheshire cat, “what does your husband like to eat? If he likes beer and chicken wings, you can expect to eat a lot more bar food.”

He wasn’t kidding: Once a patient receives new intestinal flora, his or her tastes adapt to reflect the donor’s. Some doctors had seen vegetarians convert back to meat eaters. If this was the worst side effect he could think of, it sounded like a miracle. 

I signed the paperwork consenting to be part of his clinical trial; poop as a drug was still pending FDA approval and only a handful of doctors in the country were performing the procedure. But with antibiotics causing more and more resistant infections, stool transplants were becoming the only answer for many patients like me.

Eric reassured me that this was the necessary next step, and that he was honored to be my donor. “We’ll sort of be like blood brothers after this,” he mused at a red light.

“More like stool sisters,” I corrected him.

The girl who had stood at the altar two years ago had no idea what “in sickness and in health” would mean for her. She might have turned and run the other way if she’d seen the forecast of this shitstorm. But the woman I’d become cared very little about the “ick” factor of human bodies; I now merely bowed to its power and my own vulnerability. 

On the day of the procedure, we stopped at Starbucks to get Eric an iced coffee, black. About an hour later, the nurses high-fived him for his “generous donation,” and he beamed as wide as he had when our son was born. Then, through the curtain to our room, we heard one of the nurses whisper, “Whoever prepares it gets to go home early.”

While the nurses rolled me into the operating room and hooked up the anesthesia, the Nutty Professor sat at his desk, chatting about college basketball with my husband. Everyone asked about my son; I mentioned his stick-up hair and the intoxicating scent of Johnson & Johnson’s. It all became very hazy, and I woke what seemed like minutes later with my eyes crossed.

The C. diff symptoms didn’t return. It took weeks for me to believe that I was normal again. 

“How are you feeling, Lady Diff?” Eric asked each day, and tentatively, I would say “Okay,” as if even uttering the word “good” would cause a relapse. After months of sickness, could the cure really be so immediate?

Eventually, my maternity leave ended. I got a haircut, bought a new pair of heels and refilled my Metro card. The tears I cried when I left my son at daycare were mostly about those Squirrel Nutkin cheeks, but also the ability to continue my life as planned.

Recently my husband gave me a beautiful new bathrobe. Cotton, for our second anniversary.

But the gift I value most this year is the one made up of bacteria. The one that rescued me from the toilet, brought me back to my life, and taught me that romance can flourish, like a weed, in a dark and unlikely place.

I wasn’t afraid of giving birth. I was healthy, I was in love, and at 29, I was seemingly the youngest pregnant person in Manhattan.

“I have a feeling this will be very easy for you,” my doctor confessed as my due date approached. “In my experience, women with freckles rarely have complications.”

But a few days after I delivered a healthy baby boy, there was a problem. Between every breast-feeding session I was rushing to the bathroom. I had expected all sorts of postpartum aches and pains, but diarrhea?

Within two weeks, I weighed less than I had pre-pregnancy. I couldn’t keep anything in my stomach for longer than a few minutes. My world shrank to the size of my bed and my bathroom: all day I alternated between caring for my baby and caring for myself. I was exhausted, in pain and afraid.

Above all, I was humiliated. I was the type of Kate-Middleton-worshipping girl who used the word “restroom.” My colleagues had recently thrown me a baby shower and gifted me “Boudreaux’s Butt Paste” just to hear me say the name. I had been raised by a Southern mother who taught me to cross my legs at the ankle and “not chase boys”—but even she thought my modesty went too far when I asked her to leave the dressing room while we shopped for my wedding dress. There was no logical reason for my shyness about my body. My bachelorette weekend devolved into a therapy session on sharing a bathroom with a boy. “He’ll be your husband!” the girls shrieked over champagne.

Now here I was, trapped with that boy in a tiny New York apartment, living my worst nightmare. There was no hiding my humanity.

“You’ve gotten your figure back,” Eric offered lovingly, but I could tell he was worried.

A gastroenterologist on the Upper East Side explained that the antibiotics I received during delivery had killed bad bacteria, but also all of the healthy bacteria that I relied upon to digest properly.

“Try eating Activia,” she suggested.

I ate gallons of yogurt with no results. The plastic cartons piled up on my kitchen counter next to the menacing breast pump equipment. I pushed my way into other doctors’ offices, and to my great horror, tested positive for something called Clostridium difficile.

The doctor looked at me apologetically and said that it was true: antibiotics had killed off all of my friendly “gut flora”—something I had never even considered—and “bad guys” had taken over. On the ride home, I looked up C. diff and WebMD assured me that this was no regular case of “D.” I was captive to the king of bacterial infections, which kills more than 14,000 people per year.

Medication kept my symptoms at bay for a few weeks, but the C. diff came raging back and I was rushed to the emergency room. “The bacteria is getting smarter and more resistant,” the doctor said. He wrote me a different prescription, with no promises.

“I love you, Duchess of Diff,” my husband said, wrapping me up in the warm hospital blankets.

If I was an aspiring Kate Middleton, delighting in the storm of teacups and thank-you notes that our wedding precipitated, my husband was a double for Mitt Romney. A string-bean financier with a 4.0 GPA, he approached everything in his life with precision.

But whatever calculations had gone into the match of a priss and a perfectionist were now deconstructed. My moment with seduction—at least the physical kind—was long gone. The only thing that could take its place, I dared to hope as I looked in the mirror and saw dark under-eye circles and baby spit-up in my hair—would be a kind of emotional seduction. The spell of two people cocooned in a never-before and never-again situation.

I smiled at him, knowing how terrible I looked in the hospital bed, and realized that he was the person I wanted closest to me—no matter what.

“C. diff?” a nurse who was refilling my IV asked, and shuddered. “I used to work for a doctor who fixed that stuff with stool transplants. That’s just a fancy way of saying he puts someone else’s poop in your colon to restore the good bacteria. He’s kind of a nutty professor, but it works like 95 percent of the time.”

Horrified, I clutched my prescription for the next drug and whispered to my husband to pull the car around.

The days after that I felt optimistic. The new drug seemed to be working. I identified the neighborhood coffee shops with no front steps, and pushed the stroller confidently in their direction. There was a bakery that made cupcakes in the shape of hydrangeas; the baby watched while I photographed and devoured them.

But within hours of finishing the medication, fever struck and my insides ached.

This third bout with C. diff replaced my embarrassment with ice-cold fear. If this disease was stronger than drugs, would I have it forever? Worse yet, would it kill me? I thought of the baby and his chubby cheeks that looked full of acorns. I thought of the years ahead of him and my throat constricted. Taking four pills a day could keep the symptoms at bay, but C. diff still owned me.

My nightly routine had gone from turning off Netflix to turning off my panic over my condition.  “We’re going to get you all patched up,” Eric whispered near my hair as we fell asleep.

Somehow, we  were growing closer, and perhaps even—against all logic—happier. In my memory of this time we are dancing down the aisles of RiteAid, shopping for probiotics, enemas and suppositories; we are gossiping at the breakfast table about the regulars on cdiffdiscussion.org; we are singing little rhymes about poop and pronouncing every syllable in the old-English spellings of “Faeces” and “Diarrhoea.” We are finally dialing the Nutty Professor’s office, holding our breath to see if he can fit us into his schedule. We cross our fingers that Eric will be an eligible donor. We pretend it is like The Bachelor, except instead of “will you accept this rose?” we are asking each other, “Will you accept this stool?”

Friends wanted to know how motherhood was going. I told a few of them the wacky secret that I was not only breast feeding around the clock and sleeping five hours per night, but also slave to a potentially fatal gastrointestinal plague. When they texted frantically to get more updates, I often had to suppress the urge to report on my largest looming symptom: love. C. diff was winning in my gut, but it was losing to the chemicals of the brain that went nuts when I saw my husband's endearing too-short haircut, or held his hand in the front seat of our Jeep.

The day of our consultation, the Nutty Professor entered the room with gingery hair and a quick smile.

“Drugs are not going to help you,” he said cheerfully, as if this pleased him. He went on to say that it was true about the near-perfect success rate of his experimental procedure.

“What can I expect afterwards?” I asked, fearing another relapse.

“Well,” the Nutty Professor said, grinning like a Cheshire cat, “what does your husband like to eat? If he likes beer and chicken wings, you can expect to eat a lot more bar food.”

He wasn’t kidding: Once a patient receives new intestinal flora, his or her tastes adapt to reflect the donor’s. Some doctors had seen vegetarians convert back to meat eaters. If this was the worst side effect he could think of, it sounded like a miracle. 

I signed the paperwork consenting to be part of his clinical trial; poop as a drug was still pending FDA approval and only a handful of doctors in the country were performing the procedure. But with antibiotics causing more and more resistant infections, stool transplants were becoming the only answer for many patients like me.

Eric reassured me that this was the necessary next step, and that he was honored to be my donor. “We’ll sort of be like blood brothers after this,” he mused at a red light.

“More like stool sisters,” I corrected him.

The girl who had stood at the altar two years ago had no idea what “in sickness and in health” would mean for her. She might have turned and run the other way if she’d seen the forecast of this shitstorm. But the woman I’d become cared very little about the “ick” factor of human bodies; I now merely bowed to its power and my own vulnerability. 

On the day of the procedure, we stopped at Starbucks to get Eric an iced coffee, black. About an hour later, the nurses high-fived him for his “generous donation,” and he beamed as wide as he had when our son was born. Then, through the curtain to our room, we heard one of the nurses whisper, “Whoever prepares it gets to go home early.”

While the nurses rolled me into the operating room and hooked up the anesthesia, the Nutty Professor sat at his desk, chatting about college basketball with my husband. Everyone asked about my son; I mentioned his stick-up hair and the intoxicating scent of Johnson & Johnson’s. It all became very hazy, and I woke what seemed like minutes later with my eyes crossed.

The C. diff symptoms didn’t return. It took weeks for me to believe that I was normal again. 

“How are you feeling, Lady Diff?” Eric asked each day, and tentatively, I would say “Okay,” as if even uttering the word “good” would cause a relapse. After months of sickness, could the cure really be so immediate?

Eventually, my maternity leave ended. I got a haircut, bought a new pair of heels and refilled my Metro card. The tears I cried when I left my son at daycare were mostly about those Squirrel Nutkin cheeks, but also the ability to continue my life as planned.

Recently my husband gave me a beautiful new bathrobe. Cotton, for our second anniversary.

But the gift I value most this year is the one made up of bacteria. The one that rescued me from the toilet, brought me back to my life, and taught me that romance can flourish, like a weed, in a dark and unlikely place.

I wasn’t afraid of giving birth. I was healthy, I was in love, and at 29, I was seemingly the youngest pregnant person in Manhattan.

“I have a feeling this will be very easy for you,” my doctor confessed as my due date approached. “In my experience, women with freckles rarely have complications.”

But a few days after I delivered a healthy baby boy, there was a problem. Between every breast-feeding session I was rushing to the bathroom. I had expected all sorts of postpartum aches and pains, but diarrhea?

Within two weeks, I weighed less than I had pre-pregnancy. I couldn’t keep anything in my stomach for longer than a few minutes. My world shrank to the size of my bed and my bathroom: all day I alternated between caring for my baby and caring for myself. I was exhausted, in pain and afraid.

Above all, I was humiliated. I was the type of Kate-Middleton-worshipping girl who used the word “restroom.” My colleagues had recently thrown me a baby shower and gifted me “Boudreaux’s Butt Paste” just to hear me say the name. I had been raised by a Southern mother who taught me to cross my legs at the ankle and “not chase boys”—but even she thought my modesty went too far when I asked her to leave the dressing room while we shopped for my wedding dress. There was no logical reason for my shyness about my body. My bachelorette weekend devolved into a therapy session on sharing a bathroom with a boy. “He’ll be your husband!” the girls shrieked over champagne.

Now here I was, trapped with that boy in a tiny New York apartment, living my worst nightmare. There was no hiding my humanity.

“You’ve gotten your figure back,” Eric offered lovingly, but I could tell he was worried.

A gastroenterologist on the Upper East Side explained that the antibiotics I received during delivery had killed bad bacteria, but also all of the healthy bacteria that I relied upon to digest properly.

“Try eating Activia,” she suggested.

I ate gallons of yogurt with no results. The plastic cartons piled up on my kitchen counter next to the menacing breast pump equipment. I pushed my way into other doctors’ offices, and to my great horror, tested positive for something called Clostridium difficile.

The doctor looked at me apologetically and said that it was true: antibiotics had killed off all of my friendly “gut flora”—something I had never even considered—and “bad guys” had taken over. On the ride home, I looked up C. diff and WebMD assured me that this was no regular case of “D.” I was captive to the king of bacterial infections, which kills more than 14,000 people per year.

Medication kept my symptoms at bay for a few weeks, but the C. diff came raging back and I was rushed to the emergency room. “The bacteria is getting smarter and more resistant,” the doctor said. He wrote me a different prescription, with no promises.

“I love you, Duchess of Diff,” my husband said, wrapping me up in the warm hospital blankets.

If I was an aspiring Kate Middleton, delighting in the storm of teacups and thank-you notes that our wedding precipitated, my husband was a double for Mitt Romney. A string-bean financier with a 4.0 GPA, he approached everything in his life with precision.

But whatever calculations had gone into the match of a priss and a perfectionist were now deconstructed. My moment with seduction—at least the physical kind—was long gone. The only thing that could take its place, I dared to hope as I looked in the mirror and saw dark under-eye circles and baby spit-up in my hair—would be a kind of emotional seduction. The spell of two people cocooned in a never-before and never-again situation.

I smiled at him, knowing how terrible I looked in the hospital bed, and realized that he was the person I wanted closest to me—no matter what.

“C. diff?” a nurse who was refilling my IV asked, and shuddered. “I used to work for a doctor who fixed that stuff with stool transplants. That’s just a fancy way of saying he puts someone else’s poop in your colon to restore the good bacteria. He’s kind of a nutty professor, but it works like 95 percent of the time.”

Horrified, I clutched my prescription for the next drug and whispered to my husband to pull the car around.

The days after that I felt optimistic. The new drug seemed to be working. I identified the neighborhood coffee shops with no front steps, and pushed the stroller confidently in their direction. There was a bakery that made cupcakes in the shape of hydrangeas; the baby watched while I photographed and devoured them.

But within hours of finishing the medication, fever struck and my insides ached.

This third bout with C. diff replaced my embarrassment with ice-cold fear. If this disease was stronger than drugs, would I have it forever? Worse yet, would it kill me? I thought of the baby and his chubby cheeks that looked full of acorns. I thought of the years ahead of him and my throat constricted. Taking four pills a day could keep the symptoms at bay, but C. diff still owned me.

My nightly routine had gone from turning off Netflix to turning off my panic over my condition.  “We’re going to get you all patched up,” Eric whispered near my hair as we fell asleep.

Somehow, we  were growing closer, and perhaps even—against all logic—happier. In my memory of this time we are dancing down the aisles of RiteAid, shopping for probiotics, enemas and suppositories; we are gossiping at the breakfast table about the regulars on cdiffdiscussion.org; we are singing little rhymes about poop and pronouncing every syllable in the old-English spellings of “Faeces” and “Diarrhoea.” We are finally dialing the Nutty Professor’s office, holding our breath to see if he can fit us into his schedule. We cross our fingers that Eric will be an eligible donor. We pretend it is like The Bachelor, except instead of “will you accept this rose?” we are asking each other, “Will you accept this stool?”

Friends wanted to know how motherhood was going. I told a few of them the wacky secret that I was not only breast feeding around the clock and sleeping five hours per night, but also slave to a potentially fatal gastrointestinal plague. When they texted frantically to get more updates, I often had to suppress the urge to report on my largest looming symptom: love. C. diff was winning in my gut, but it was losing to the chemicals of the brain that went nuts when I saw my husband's endearing too-short haircut, or held his hand in the front seat of our Jeep.

The day of our consultation, the Nutty Professor entered the room with gingery hair and a quick smile.

“Drugs are not going to help you,” he said cheerfully, as if this pleased him. He went on to say that it was true about the near-perfect success rate of his experimental procedure.

“What can I expect afterwards?” I asked, fearing another relapse.

“Well,” the Nutty Professor said, grinning like a Cheshire cat, “what does your husband like to eat? If he likes beer and chicken wings, you can expect to eat a lot more bar food.”

He wasn’t kidding: Once a patient receives new intestinal flora, his or her tastes adapt to reflect the donor’s. Some doctors had seen vegetarians convert back to meat eaters. If this was the worst side effect he could think of, it sounded like a miracle. 

I signed the paperwork consenting to be part of his clinical trial; poop as a drug was still pending FDA approval and only a handful of doctors in the country were performing the procedure. But with antibiotics causing more and more resistant infections, stool transplants were becoming the only answer for many patients like me.

Eric reassured me that this was the necessary next step, and that he was honored to be my donor. “We’ll sort of be like blood brothers after this,” he mused at a red light.

“More like stool sisters,” I corrected him.

The girl who had stood at the altar two years ago had no idea what “in sickness and in health” would mean for her. She might have turned and run the other way if she’d seen the forecast of this shitstorm. But the woman I’d become cared very little about the “ick” factor of human bodies; I now merely bowed to its power and my own vulnerability. 

On the day of the procedure, we stopped at Starbucks to get Eric an iced coffee, black. About an hour later, the nurses high-fived him for his “generous donation,” and he beamed as wide as he had when our son was born. Then, through the curtain to our room, we heard one of the nurses whisper, “Whoever prepares it gets to go home early.”

While the nurses rolled me into the operating room and hooked up the anesthesia, the Nutty Professor sat at his desk, chatting about college basketball with my husband. Everyone asked about my son; I mentioned his stick-up hair and the intoxicating scent of Johnson & Johnson’s. It all became very hazy, and I woke what seemed like minutes later with my eyes crossed.

The C. diff symptoms didn’t return. It took weeks for me to believe that I was normal again. 

“How are you feeling, Lady Diff?” Eric asked each day, and tentatively, I would say “Okay,” as if even uttering the word “good” would cause a relapse. After months of sickness, could the cure really be so immediate?

Eventually, my maternity leave ended. I got a haircut, bought a new pair of heels and refilled my Metro card. The tears I cried when I left my son at daycare were mostly about those Squirrel Nutkin cheeks, but also the ability to continue my life as planned.

Recently my husband gave me a beautiful new bathrobe. Cotton, for our second anniversary.

But the gift I value most this year is the one made up of bacteria. The one that rescued me from the toilet, brought me back to my life, and taught me that romance can flourish, like a weed, in a dark and unlikely place.

I wasn’t afraid of giving birth. I was healthy, I was in love, and at 29, I was seemingly the youngest pregnant person in Manhattan.

“I have a feeling this will be very easy for you,” my doctor confessed as my due date approached. “In my experience, women with freckles rarely have complications.”

But a few days after I delivered a healthy baby boy, there was a problem. Between every breast-feeding session I was rushing to the bathroom. I had expected all sorts of postpartum aches and pains, but diarrhea?

Within two weeks, I weighed less than I had pre-pregnancy. I couldn’t keep anything in my stomach for longer than a few minutes. My world shrank to the size of my bed and my bathroom: all day I alternated between caring for my baby and caring for myself. I was exhausted, in pain and afraid.

Above all, I was humiliated. I was the type of Kate-Middleton-worshipping girl who used the word “restroom.” My colleagues had recently thrown me a baby shower and gifted me “Boudreaux’s Butt Paste” just to hear me say the name. I had been raised by a Southern mother who taught me to cross my legs at the ankle and “not chase boys”—but even she thought my modesty went too far when I asked her to leave the dressing room while we shopped for my wedding dress. There was no logical reason for my shyness about my body. My bachelorette weekend devolved into a therapy session on sharing a bathroom with a boy. “He’ll be your husband!” the girls shrieked over champagne.

Now here I was, trapped with that boy in a tiny New York apartment, living my worst nightmare. There was no hiding my humanity.

“You’ve gotten your figure back,” Eric offered lovingly, but I could tell he was worried.

A gastroenterologist on the Upper East Side explained that the antibiotics I received during delivery had killed bad bacteria, but also all of the healthy bacteria that I relied upon to digest properly.

“Try eating Activia,” she suggested.

I ate gallons of yogurt with no results. The plastic cartons piled up on my kitchen counter next to the menacing breast pump equipment. I pushed my way into other doctors’ offices, and to my great horror, tested positive for something called Clostridium difficile.

The doctor looked at me apologetically and said that it was true: antibiotics had killed off all of my friendly “gut flora”—something I had never even considered—and “bad guys” had taken over. On the ride home, I looked up C. diff and WebMD assured me that this was no regular case of “D.” I was captive to the king of bacterial infections, which kills more than 14,000 people per year.

Medication kept my symptoms at bay for a few weeks, but the C. diff came raging back and I was rushed to the emergency room. “The bacteria is getting smarter and more resistant,” the doctor said. He wrote me a different prescription, with no promises.

“I love you, Duchess of Diff,” my husband said, wrapping me up in the warm hospital blankets.

If I was an aspiring Kate Middleton, delighting in the storm of teacups and thank-you notes that our wedding precipitated, my husband was a double for Mitt Romney. A string-bean financier with a 4.0 GPA, he approached everything in his life with precision.

But whatever calculations had gone into the match of a priss and a perfectionist were now deconstructed. My moment with seduction—at least the physical kind—was long gone. The only thing that could take its place, I dared to hope as I looked in the mirror and saw dark under-eye circles and baby spit-up in my hair—would be a kind of emotional seduction. The spell of two people cocooned in a never-before and never-again situation.

I smiled at him, knowing how terrible I looked in the hospital bed, and realized that he was the person I wanted closest to me—no matter what.

“C. diff?” a nurse who was refilling my IV asked, and shuddered. “I used to work for a doctor who fixed that stuff with stool transplants. That’s just a fancy way of saying he puts someone else’s poop in your colon to restore the good bacteria. He’s kind of a nutty professor, but it works like 95 percent of the time.”

Horrified, I clutched my prescription for the next drug and whispered to my husband to pull the car around.

The days after that I felt optimistic. The new drug seemed to be working. I identified the neighborhood coffee shops with no front steps, and pushed the stroller confidently in their direction. There was a bakery that made cupcakes in the shape of hydrangeas; the baby watched while I photographed and devoured them.

But within hours of finishing the medication, fever struck and my insides ached.

This third bout with C. diff replaced my embarrassment with ice-cold fear. If this disease was stronger than drugs, would I have it forever? Worse yet, would it kill me? I thought of the baby and his chubby cheeks that looked full of acorns. I thought of the years ahead of him and my throat constricted. Taking four pills a day could keep the symptoms at bay, but C. diff still owned me.

My nightly routine had gone from turning off Netflix to turning off my panic over my condition.  “We’re going to get you all patched up,” Eric whispered near my hair as we fell asleep.

Somehow, we  were growing closer, and perhaps even—against all logic—happier. In my memory of this time we are dancing down the aisles of RiteAid, shopping for probiotics, enemas and suppositories; we are gossiping at the breakfast table about the regulars on cdiffdiscussion.org; we are singing little rhymes about poop and pronouncing every syllable in the old-English spellings of “Faeces” and “Diarrhoea.” We are finally dialing the Nutty Professor’s office, holding our breath to see if he can fit us into his schedule. We cross our fingers that Eric will be an eligible donor. We pretend it is like The Bachelor, except instead of “will you accept this rose?” we are asking each other, “Will you accept this stool?”

Friends wanted to know how motherhood was going. I told a few of them the wacky secret that I was not only breast feeding around the clock and sleeping five hours per night, but also slave to a potentially fatal gastrointestinal plague. When they texted frantically to get more updates, I often had to suppress the urge to report on my largest looming symptom: love. C. diff was winning in my gut, but it was losing to the chemicals of the brain that went nuts when I saw my husband's endearing too-short haircut, or held his hand in the front seat of our Jeep.

The day of our consultation, the Nutty Professor entered the room with gingery hair and a quick smile.

“Drugs are not going to help you,” he said cheerfully, as if this pleased him. He went on to say that it was true about the near-perfect success rate of his experimental procedure.

“What can I expect afterwards?” I asked, fearing another relapse.

“Well,” the Nutty Professor said, grinning like a Cheshire cat, “what does your husband like to eat? If he likes beer and chicken wings, you can expect to eat a lot more bar food.”

He wasn’t kidding: Once a patient receives new intestinal flora, his or her tastes adapt to reflect the donor’s. Some doctors had seen vegetarians convert back to meat eaters. If this was the worst side effect he could think of, it sounded like a miracle. 

I signed the paperwork consenting to be part of his clinical trial; poop as a drug was still pending FDA approval and only a handful of doctors in the country were performing the procedure. But with antibiotics causing more and more resistant infections, stool transplants were becoming the only answer for many patients like me.

Eric reassured me that this was the necessary next step, and that he was honored to be my donor. “We’ll sort of be like blood brothers after this,” he mused at a red light.

“More like stool sisters,” I corrected him.

The girl who had stood at the altar two years ago had no idea what “in sickness and in health” would mean for her. She might have turned and run the other way if she’d seen the forecast of this shitstorm. But the woman I’d become cared very little about the “ick” factor of human bodies; I now merely bowed to its power and my own vulnerability. 

On the day of the procedure, we stopped at Starbucks to get Eric an iced coffee, black. About an hour later, the nurses high-fived him for his “generous donation,” and he beamed as wide as he had when our son was born. Then, through the curtain to our room, we heard one of the nurses whisper, “Whoever prepares it gets to go home early.”

While the nurses rolled me into the operating room and hooked up the anesthesia, the Nutty Professor sat at his desk, chatting about college basketball with my husband. Everyone asked about my son; I mentioned his stick-up hair and the intoxicating scent of Johnson & Johnson’s. It all became very hazy, and I woke what seemed like minutes later with my eyes crossed.

The C. diff symptoms didn’t return. It took weeks for me to believe that I was normal again. 

“How are you feeling, Lady Diff?” Eric asked each day, and tentatively, I would say “Okay,” as if even uttering the word “good” would cause a relapse. After months of sickness, could the cure really be so immediate?

Eventually, my maternity leave ended. I got a haircut, bought a new pair of heels and refilled my Metro card. The tears I cried when I left my son at daycare were mostly about those Squirrel Nutkin cheeks, but also the ability to continue my life as planned.

Recently my husband gave me a beautiful new bathrobe. Cotton, for our second anniversary.

But the gift I value most this year is the one made up of bacteria. The one that rescued me from the toilet, brought me back to my life, and taught me that romance can flourish, like a weed, in a dark and unlikely place.

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on January 18, 2016 16:00

Mediocrity is for white kids: Debates over Asians and the academic “ethnic divide” are about white entitlement, not oppressive immigrant parents

In the midst of a national debate about the effects of affirmative action, elections for the Harvard Board of Overseers have reinvigorated a discussion about the school's discriminatory practices toward Asian-Americans. One slate of candidates has demanded the release of data on admissions criteria. “The politically charged data holds,” according to the New York Times, “the potential to reveal whether Harvard bypasses better-qualified Asian-American candidates in favor of whites, blacks, Hispanics, and the children of the wealthy and powerful, the group argues.” The article comes on the heels of another Times piece titled “New Jersey School District Eases Pressure on Students, Baring an Ethnic Divide,” an investigation into the West Windsor-Plainsboro school district of New Jersey. The district, which has seen an influx of East and South Asian immigrants in recent decades, is currently locked in a debate purportedly triggered by high levels of student stress. But rather than focusing on the provision of mental health services, the bulk of reforms were academic, limiting homework, test schedules, advanced programs, and opportunities for outside study. In a stab at faux-empathy, the article quotes sociology professor Jennifer Lee. “What they believe is that their children must excel beyond their white peers in academic settings so they have the same chances to excel later,” Lee says of immigrant parents. In an attempt at feigning balance, the Times portrays this as a “belief,” one that may or may not be confirmed by unreleased data. In actuality data, necessarily apolitical, has already revealed that Asian-Americans must outperform their white peers to the tune of 140 SAT points in order to win admissions to elite universities. Harvard admissions officers have also made many a, how do I put this, charged, statement in evaluating Asian applicants. “He’s quiet and, of course, wants to be a doctor,” wrote one. These prejudices ought to outrage students, parents, and educators alike. Having attended WW-P schools from third grade through my senior year of high school, I would have hoped that my white peers would have expressed unease about the measurable psychological impact of being constantly typecast and discriminated against. Instead, they responded on social media with put upon concern that would place them in lockstep with Harvard admissions. They complained that students' schedules were being handed down to them by dictatorial, oppressive parents unconcerned with their well-being. They stressed the importance of down time for social learning, the development of emotional intelligence that couldn't be measured by a math test. They pointed out that they didn't fit into this mold of quantitative excellence but turned out great. Most horrifyingly, current and former educators groaned about levels of parental involvement many teachers would kill for, and bemoaned how awkward and odd many of their bright and overachieving students were. Though disappointing, the reaction was hardly unpredictable. This bizarre claim is one I've been hearing all my life — that there's some kind of negative correlation between what we traditionally define as academic success and things like creativity, athletic ability, sense of humor, taste, or any other traits people not-so-subtly imply Asians don't have. In years of academically rigorous summer programs, the kind the district is clamping down on, and later during four years at Harvard, where I majored in computer science, I met scores of people who bucked this trend. Students and professors who were hilarious and kind and incredibly engaging and confident public speakers, in addition to being brilliant mathematicians and engineers with a deep and genuine love of learning. Their self confidence just happened to be well-deserved and hard-earned. The debates and biased Times coverage are snippets of broader conversations. Studies show that white Americans favor meritocracy until they learn how well Asian Americans would fare under such a system. There is certainly a way to approach the concept of "holistic education" that isn't misguided, but the term has been co-opted by those who'd rather point to imagined differences in social and emotional intelligence than grapple with the realities of their unearned material comfort. Indeed, what was described by the Times as a district easing pressure on students could have just as easily, and in my opinion more accurately, been described as a district changing standards to appease parents who don't want their children to feel average. Framed differently, this is a story about white entitlement, not Asian oppressiveness. It would be easy to dismiss others' problematic worldviews if they weren't so clearly perpetuating the problem. The pigeonholing, from a young age, of Asian students who excel academically is part of what drives discrimination in college admissions, and in promotion to management later on in life. (Not to mention vast discrepancies in representation in more creative fields, writing included.) State employees whose salaries are being paid by the taxes of Asian and white parents alike ought to think long and hard about their role in shaping the students they teach. Where they ought to be encouraging students to embrace social differences, so long as they don't interfere with others' learning, they instead seem to be passing judgment, particularly when those students happen to look a certain way. For it seems that the very people complaining that there is no one way to be smart, that academic structures ought to do a better job of recognizing different forms of intelligence, seem to think students need to fit a one-size-fits-all mold to be socially and emotionally healthy. Thankfully, our economy is increasingly recognizing that personality is a poor barometer for character. Many “socially awkward” people whose work ethic, quantitative ability, and intelligence are indisputable have been able to thrive as business leaders and entrepreneurs, humorists and artists. Unfortunately, the figures who have risen to social prominence while embracing all these aspects of their personalities are still almost all white men. Cultures do not develop in a vacuum. They are the collective result of individual lived experience. I'm glad to hear from my white classmates that their low GPAs and lack of extracurricular involvement haven't precluded their professional success. That must be a wonderful reality to live in. Perhaps they can give me a tour some time. Unfortunately, that is not a reality in which their Asian-American peers have the luxury of residing. Correcting that injustice is a prerequisite to lecturing immigrant parents on how to raise their kids. Kids who, like white children and teenagers, have agency. By and large, they're capable of seeing that their parents care deeply about their well-being, want better for them than they've had themselves, and are doing their best to prepare them for the world they're about to enter. If only the   adults in their community could be so insightful.

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on January 18, 2016 16:00

Glenn Frey of the Eagles dies at 67

NEW YORK (AP) — Glenn Frey, who co-founded the Eagles and with Don Henley became one of history's most successful songwriting teams with such hits as "Hotel California" and "Life in the Fast Lane," has died. Frey was 67 and had been battling multiple ailments. He died Monday. The band's website says he died in New York. Guitarist Frey and drummer Henley formed the Eagles in Los Angeles in the early 1970s, along with guitarist Bernie Leadon and bassist Randy Meisner. They would become a top act over the next decade, embodying the melodic California sound. An Eagles greatest hits collection from the mid-1970s and "Hotel California" are among the best-selling albums in history. Frey was born in Detroit and was raised in the suburbs. His solo hits include "The Heat Is On" and "Smuggler's Blues."

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on January 18, 2016 14:56

Dr. Ruth loves happy endings: “Most people want to be in a relationship, and not just have a one-night encounter”

Once upon a time, the most explicit sex acts people saw on broadcast television were brought to us in National Geographic documentaries about, say, the mating of the wildebeest. Today, entire blocks on home shopping channels are devoted to selling sex toys. Affairs can be initiated and managed on websites. Finding a sex partner can be as easy as downloading an app to your phone, creating a profile and swipe, swipe, swiping a screen. In spite of all these innovations, we can still benefit from the wisdom and advice of the 87-year-old Dr. Ruth Westheimer. The 4-foot-7 sex therapist brought sexuality out of the dark and onto radio airwaves with her 1980s-era radio program "Sexually Speaking," which spawned a Lifetime TV show that debuted in 1984. Her popularity gave rise to a slew of other shows fueled by frank talk about sex in the years that followed, including MTV’s “Loveline” with Dr. Drew Pinsky and Adam Carolla (which was also a radio show), “Talk Sex With Sue Johanson” on Oxygen and more recently, TLC’s “All About Sex.” This year Dr. Ruth returns to TV in the upcoming series currently titled “Original Sin: How Sex Changed the World,” which will examine how much more visible and impactful sex has become in modern times. The network airing “Original Sin”? National Geographic Channel. “Original Sin” is in pre-production, and it isn’t the only new show about sex bowing this year. On Comedy Central’s “Not Safe With Nikki Glaser,” debuting on Feb. 9, self-described “curious perv” Glaser dissects modern mating rituals such as the sharing of dick pics, subcultures and unconventional turn-ons. Glaser enthusiastically credits Dr. Ruth for “Not Safe’s” existence. “She was like the Joan Rivers of sex to me,” Glaser said following a recent press conference for her show. “She was doing something that no one is even doing now. She was that far ahead!” As for how this revolutionary sees today’s treatment of sexuality, “I hope she’s a little bit inspired by some of it, but I think that misogyny is kind of taking hold again,” Glaser observed. “Selfies, sending sex pics, and how sexualized young girls are… I hope Dr. Ruth’s [view] is hopeful, but I have feeling she’s got some bones to pick.” You’d be surprised. Then again, some of the responses she shared in an interview conducted following National Geographic’s announcement about “Original Sin” are pretty much what one would expect for a woman who proudly describes herself as “square” and “old-fashioned.” Dr. Ruth also is very entertaining and endlessly entertained by the world around her, as her signature titter indicates. “That a channel like National Geographic, a place where I think about animals having sex, is now willing to do a program about human sexuality -- for the ratings, no question! – I think this is a welcome step in the right direction,” she said. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. It’s been quite a while since you’ve been a series regular on television, hasn’t it? I’ve done interviews all over. But as for regular appearances, it’s been a couple of years. I did 450 television shows with Lifetime, so that should not be a problem. The issue will be the mechanics, which also should not be a problem because I live in New York. Let's talk about modern views of sexuality, contrasting how you’ve presented it in your career versus how it’s presented in culture today. Going all the way back to your radio show "Sexually Speaking," you were always so precise and honest about how joyful sex and sensuality are. That’s always been very true. And I was also very clear that when I didn’t know the answers, I’d say, I don’t know. I had a wonderful run of 10 years, of every Sunday night. It was listened to every Sunday in New York, across the country, and in Canada. …Now I’m teaching, at the age of 87, at Columbia University’s Teachers College. I do have a Twitter [account] with 87,000 people, but I’m not computer literate. I talk and Pierre Lehu, who I’ve worked with for 35 years, puts it on the Twitter. You also have a YouTube series. I’m all over in that medium of you young people! On the one hand, I welcome it. On the other hand, I also have some worries that not enough is being talked about [in terms of] being in relationships. So on the series, I’m going to talk about that I’m old-fashioned and a square. I believe that most people want to be in a relationship, and not just have a one-night encounter. I will shout that from the rooftops, of your website and anyplace else where I can talk about that. That seems to be a big change from when you first started doing the radio show and then the shows with Lifetime, and now Nat Geo. There have been a lot of shows featuring frank talk about sex on TV since then. But what you did was much more focused on presenting specific guidance about sex and the human body, and how sex fits into human relationships. That’s what a sex therapist does. I come across as the old-fashioned but very well-trained and well-educated sex therapist that I am. Which I think in this series will come out very well. It will make people think that whatever is presented on the social media, that that is not the reality of life… People should be sexually literate. People should know what it is that pleases the other partner. I know that women, for example, have heard the message that I’ve been saying, that the woman has to take the responsibility for their sexual satisfaction. She can’t just say, “Oh, he loves me, so he ought to know." …And it’s particularly important, for young people today, to know that sexually transmitted disease is something that still worries me. It worries me about AIDS, because I lived through that period. Young people today have never seen an AIDS patient. So they think they don’t have to worry anymore. And that’s not so. We have a culture now in which finding sexual partners is easier than ever, thanks to dating apps and dating sites. And yet it seems that it’s more difficult to find a relationship without the assistance of one of these services. That’s why I’m saying everybody should use social media in order to connect to somebody, but then they also have to use their brains… There’s no question that there’s been a change in our society. Look at how advanced that we’ve become. But it has some danger, this advancement. Because I don’t want people to walk around and ask each other, at the first encounter, "How’s your sex life?" I don’t want people necessarily to write it on the social media. That fine line of privacy has to be preserved. And right now that’s not happening. TMI. Too much information. Too much information is absolutely a problem. Because, first of all, I don’t want a couple, if they meet, to right away say who their partners were before or what they exactly did. There has to be that little bit of privacy and discovery in terms of the relationship. Another thing that’s become problematic is the proliferation of Internet porn. A lot of young people are actually getting their initial education about sexuality by consuming it. Pornography for me, I only call it pornography if it’s violent or if it involves children. Any other sexually explicit material, I have no problem if they watch it in the privacy of their living room or bedroom, where there are no children. But they have to know that what is depicted is fantasy. Nobody has an erection for so many hours as is depicted in those movies, and no woman has this kind of orgasm that is depicted in those movies. Understandable, but this is a concerning issue. There was even a famous Ted Talk about it, and the fact that there’s a lot of misinformation being perpetuated about sex and sensuality. Like…choking has become a thing. I don’t want to hear about that. But I will tell you something. "Fifty Shades of Grey." Of course I read it. Not required literature, but it made a point that I’ve been making for all of these years: Women get aroused by sexually explicit material, whether in books or movies. "Lady Chatterley’s Lover," "The Fear of Flying," I say to women, “Read it.” But if there are passages you don’t like, turn the page. Not required reading! But it can be made a point about knowing that women do want to have a relationship. [Anastasia] Steele is in a relationship. She’s 18, she’s not underage. And she’s in love with this wealthy Christian – hee-hee-hee! – but part of the pages, I turned the page because the sadomasochism is not for me. But what I love the most is the happy ending. That’s typical for old Westheimer! Once upon a time, the most explicit sex acts people saw on broadcast television were brought to us in National Geographic documentaries about, say, the mating of the wildebeest. Today, entire blocks on home shopping channels are devoted to selling sex toys. Affairs can be initiated and managed on websites. Finding a sex partner can be as easy as downloading an app to your phone, creating a profile and swipe, swipe, swiping a screen. In spite of all these innovations, we can still benefit from the wisdom and advice of the 87-year-old Dr. Ruth Westheimer. The 4-foot-7 sex therapist brought sexuality out of the dark and onto radio airwaves with her 1980s-era radio program "Sexually Speaking," which spawned a Lifetime TV show that debuted in 1984. Her popularity gave rise to a slew of other shows fueled by frank talk about sex in the years that followed, including MTV’s “Loveline” with Dr. Drew Pinsky and Adam Carolla (which was also a radio show), “Talk Sex With Sue Johanson” on Oxygen and more recently, TLC’s “All About Sex.” This year Dr. Ruth returns to TV in the upcoming series currently titled “Original Sin: How Sex Changed the World,” which will examine how much more visible and impactful sex has become in modern times. The network airing “Original Sin”? National Geographic Channel. “Original Sin” is in pre-production, and it isn’t the only new show about sex bowing this year. On Comedy Central’s “Not Safe With Nikki Glaser,” debuting on Feb. 9, self-described “curious perv” Glaser dissects modern mating rituals such as the sharing of dick pics, subcultures and unconventional turn-ons. Glaser enthusiastically credits Dr. Ruth for “Not Safe’s” existence. “She was like the Joan Rivers of sex to me,” Glaser said following a recent press conference for her show. “She was doing something that no one is even doing now. She was that far ahead!” As for how this revolutionary sees today’s treatment of sexuality, “I hope she’s a little bit inspired by some of it, but I think that misogyny is kind of taking hold again,” Glaser observed. “Selfies, sending sex pics, and how sexualized young girls are… I hope Dr. Ruth’s [view] is hopeful, but I have feeling she’s got some bones to pick.” You’d be surprised. Then again, some of the responses she shared in an interview conducted following National Geographic’s announcement about “Original Sin” are pretty much what one would expect for a woman who proudly describes herself as “square” and “old-fashioned.” Dr. Ruth also is very entertaining and endlessly entertained by the world around her, as her signature titter indicates. “That a channel like National Geographic, a place where I think about animals having sex, is now willing to do a program about human sexuality -- for the ratings, no question! – I think this is a welcome step in the right direction,” she said. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. It’s been quite a while since you’ve been a series regular on television, hasn’t it? I’ve done interviews all over. But as for regular appearances, it’s been a couple of years. I did 450 television shows with Lifetime, so that should not be a problem. The issue will be the mechanics, which also should not be a problem because I live in New York. Let's talk about modern views of sexuality, contrasting how you’ve presented it in your career versus how it’s presented in culture today. Going all the way back to your radio show "Sexually Speaking," you were always so precise and honest about how joyful sex and sensuality are. That’s always been very true. And I was also very clear that when I didn’t know the answers, I’d say, I don’t know. I had a wonderful run of 10 years, of every Sunday night. It was listened to every Sunday in New York, across the country, and in Canada. …Now I’m teaching, at the age of 87, at Columbia University’s Teachers College. I do have a Twitter [account] with 87,000 people, but I’m not computer literate. I talk and Pierre Lehu, who I’ve worked with for 35 years, puts it on the Twitter. You also have a YouTube series. I’m all over in that medium of you young people! On the one hand, I welcome it. On the other hand, I also have some worries that not enough is being talked about [in terms of] being in relationships. So on the series, I’m going to talk about that I’m old-fashioned and a square. I believe that most people want to be in a relationship, and not just have a one-night encounter. I will shout that from the rooftops, of your website and anyplace else where I can talk about that. That seems to be a big change from when you first started doing the radio show and then the shows with Lifetime, and now Nat Geo. There have been a lot of shows featuring frank talk about sex on TV since then. But what you did was much more focused on presenting specific guidance about sex and the human body, and how sex fits into human relationships. That’s what a sex therapist does. I come across as the old-fashioned but very well-trained and well-educated sex therapist that I am. Which I think in this series will come out very well. It will make people think that whatever is presented on the social media, that that is not the reality of life… People should be sexually literate. People should know what it is that pleases the other partner. I know that women, for example, have heard the message that I’ve been saying, that the woman has to take the responsibility for their sexual satisfaction. She can’t just say, “Oh, he loves me, so he ought to know." …And it’s particularly important, for young people today, to know that sexually transmitted disease is something that still worries me. It worries me about AIDS, because I lived through that period. Young people today have never seen an AIDS patient. So they think they don’t have to worry anymore. And that’s not so. We have a culture now in which finding sexual partners is easier than ever, thanks to dating apps and dating sites. And yet it seems that it’s more difficult to find a relationship without the assistance of one of these services. That’s why I’m saying everybody should use social media in order to connect to somebody, but then they also have to use their brains… There’s no question that there’s been a change in our society. Look at how advanced that we’ve become. But it has some danger, this advancement. Because I don’t want people to walk around and ask each other, at the first encounter, "How’s your sex life?" I don’t want people necessarily to write it on the social media. That fine line of privacy has to be preserved. And right now that’s not happening. TMI. Too much information. Too much information is absolutely a problem. Because, first of all, I don’t want a couple, if they meet, to right away say who their partners were before or what they exactly did. There has to be that little bit of privacy and discovery in terms of the relationship. Another thing that’s become problematic is the proliferation of Internet porn. A lot of young people are actually getting their initial education about sexuality by consuming it. Pornography for me, I only call it pornography if it’s violent or if it involves children. Any other sexually explicit material, I have no problem if they watch it in the privacy of their living room or bedroom, where there are no children. But they have to know that what is depicted is fantasy. Nobody has an erection for so many hours as is depicted in those movies, and no woman has this kind of orgasm that is depicted in those movies. Understandable, but this is a concerning issue. There was even a famous Ted Talk about it, and the fact that there’s a lot of misinformation being perpetuated about sex and sensuality. Like…choking has become a thing. I don’t want to hear about that. But I will tell you something. "Fifty Shades of Grey." Of course I read it. Not required literature, but it made a point that I’ve been making for all of these years: Women get aroused by sexually explicit material, whether in books or movies. "Lady Chatterley’s Lover," "The Fear of Flying," I say to women, “Read it.” But if there are passages you don’t like, turn the page. Not required reading! But it can be made a point about knowing that women do want to have a relationship. [Anastasia] Steele is in a relationship. She’s 18, she’s not underage. And she’s in love with this wealthy Christian – hee-hee-hee! – but part of the pages, I turned the page because the sadomasochism is not for me. But what I love the most is the happy ending. That’s typical for old Westheimer! 

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on January 18, 2016 14:30

Birds are going extinct: Entire species are hanging on by their wingtips

A visit to the California Academy of Sciences, located in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park, speaks volumes about the disaster that has befallen birds with the spread of humanity. A maze of narrow corridors in the scientific collections leads an explorer to the Ornithological Collection. There you will find a cabinet with a sign: “Extinct Birds.” If you look inside, you’ll experience a dreadful moment as you take in
the sight of specimens of species that no longer exist. Your eyes will move from the imperial woodpecker and the passenger pigeon to the Guadalupe Island petrel, among many others. Each is carefully preserved in death – an ironic twist. We failed to preserve them while they lived, not so very long ago. Dread fades to sadness as your eyes linger on these inert specimens, the last samples of what once were animated creatures. Numbers have a way of numbing the mind, but seeing the remains of so many lost species of birds should touch a nerve and prompt a pledge.

America’s conservationist president, Theodore Roosevelt, knew what it meant to lose a species of bird. He once famously stated,

The extermination of the passenger pigeon meant that mankind was just so much poorer; exactly as in the case of the destruction of the cathedral at Rheims. And to lose the chance to see frigate-birds soaring in circles above the storm, or a file of pelicans winging their way homeward across the crimson afterglow of the sunset, or a myriad terns flashing in the bright light of midday as they hover in a shifting maze above the beach – why, the loss is like the loss of a gallery of the masterpieces of the artists of old time.
Unfortunately, Roosevelt’s fears became realities 
all too often as the twentieth century unfolded. Today thousands of bird populations and many entire species hang on by their wingtips. Large portions of our avifauna seem destined to disappear in this century 
if we continue with business as usual, as increasing climate disruption adds to the effects of habitat destruction, hunting, and other assaults humans have imposed on the world’s fauna. Beyond the species themselves, we will also lose the important roles birds play in our lives, from giving us esthetic pleasure to eating various insects that plague people. Among birds we have lost in more recent times or are now close to losing, is the Spix’s macaw. Midnight for the Macaws The last known free-living individual of Spix’s macaw was seen in Brazil in the year 2000. The Spix’s macaw got its common name from its discoverer, a German naturalist named Johann Baptist von Spix. Over-harvesting has been the main culprit in the demise
of this species. But people generally didn’t eat Spix’s macaws; they captured them from the wild to be sold as house pets because of their great beauty and rarity. Even when the macaws were on the brink of becoming extinct, many reports indicate that capturing and sales continued until none were left to be trapped, caged, and sold. The species is now presumed to be extinct in the wild. Genetic evidence supports the view that, even before the wild birds were turned into pets, Spix’s macaws survived in nature in extremely small numbers. They were predominantly found in woodlands along watercourses in otherwise treeless landscapes (so-called gallery forests) that were dominated by caraiba (trumpet) trees in which the birds nested. They usually fed on the fruits of two plant species belonging to the family Euphorbiaceae. The demise of the wild Spix’s macaws at the hands of the pet trade was accelerated by the loss of the forests and perhaps by the shooting of wild birds. Another possible human-fostered problem for the macaws was the invasion of their native habitats by aggressive Africanized honeybees. Honeybees are native to Africa, where they have long been subject to nest-raiding by mammals and birds for their honey and wax. People domesticated bees centuries ago, producing a relatively calm “Italian” strain, which has been introduced over much of the world, including in Brazil, where it was not a great producer of honey. A well-known scientist, Warwick Kerr, thought that by hybridizing African and Brazilian bees he might be able to create a strain that was both calm and yielded a rich lode of honey. But before Kerr could do the experiment, a Brazilian beekeeper visiting Kerr’s lab deliberately allowed some of the African bees to escape. That beekeeper’s motives are unknown, but besides possibly hastening the exit of Spix’s macaws, he has been responsible for the deaths of numerous human beings. In a poignant twist, the last known wild male Spix’s macaw was discovered in 1990 paired with a female, but the female was not of his own species. The male Spix was trying to reproduce with was a female blue- winged macaw. The mismatched couple did mate, and she even laid eggs, but, as one might expect, the eggs were infertile. Conservationists tried to get the male hitched to a female Spix’s macaw by releasing 
a formerly captive female Spix’s into the territory of the interspecies pair, but the male showed no interest in her. Unhappily, she collided with a power line and disappeared, presumably dying from her injuries. This episode is an example of the difficulty of acclimatizing captive birds and successfully re-establishing species in nature. The “odd couple” presumably remained paired until January 2000, after which they too disappeared. More than seventy Spix’s macaws now live in captive breeding programs run by conservationists. To counter the risk of losing genetic variability due to inbreeding, individuals have been exchanged between various institutions in an effort to maintain their genetic diversity. But conservationists are afraid to release the macaws, worried that the birds might end up being trapped and sold as pets. Several captive macaws are currently held by the Al-Wabra Wildlife Preserve (AWWP), far from their native Brazil in the Middle Eastern country of Qatar. In 2009 AWWP announced that it had purchased 2,200 hectares (5,437 acres) of land in Brazil at the site where the last wild Spix’s macaw had been observed. In a careful, step-by-step process, domestic livestock are first being removed from the site to facilitate habitat recovery, especially regeneration of the trees essential to the birds’ breeding. This commendable effort demonstrates how much money and effort are required to give a single bird species a chance and how much easier it would have been simply to protect the wild populations that once existed. Lonesome as the last wild Spix’s macaw was, its plight has been shared by virtually all the seventeen other species of macaws. These gorgeous, long-lived, highly social big parrots are all threatened by deforestation and capture for the pet trade. Hyacinth macaws, the giants of the group, are down to a few thousand individuals. Their close relative, Lear’s macaw, is now represented in the wild by only one hundred or so birds in the interior of the northeast bulge of Brazil, where the stands of palm trees on which they depend for food have been reduced to tiny remnants. Fortunately, though, there is great interest in both species, and local conservation groups and landowners are working to keep them wild. Is it really so important to have a bird in one’s apartment in New York or Manaus or Hong Kong that we as a society are willing to permit unregulated, or barely regulated, trade in avifauna? The problems that vex macaws are human problems. We seem to value someone’s right to have a pet, or to own a patch of land, or to harvest timber over our ethical and self-interested responsibility to protect nature. Then, when a species reaches a crisis level, we sometimes react, spending ten or a hundred times what we would have needed to spend had we just strongly enforced a policy that simply said no, stop, leave this species in peace. Even better, if we could just adopt a global policy of humanely and fairly limiting the scale of the human enterprise, gradually reducing the population size of Homo sapiens, curtailing overconsumption by the rich (while increasing needed consumption by the poor), then we might leave some room for the natural systems all humanity depends on.  A visit to the California Academy of Sciences, located in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park, speaks volumes about the disaster that has befallen birds with the spread of humanity. A maze of narrow corridors in the scientific collections leads an explorer to the Ornithological Collection. There you will find a cabinet with a sign: “Extinct Birds.” If you look inside, you’ll experience a dreadful moment as you take in
the sight of specimens of species that no longer exist. Your eyes will move from the imperial woodpecker and the passenger pigeon to the Guadalupe Island petrel, among many others. Each is carefully preserved in death – an ironic twist. We failed to preserve them while they lived, not so very long ago. Dread fades to sadness as your eyes linger on these inert specimens, the last samples of what once were animated creatures. Numbers have a way of numbing the mind, but seeing the remains of so many lost species of birds should touch a nerve and prompt a pledge.

America’s conservationist president, Theodore Roosevelt, knew what it meant to lose a species of bird. He once famously stated,

The extermination of the passenger pigeon meant that mankind was just so much poorer; exactly as in the case of the destruction of the cathedral at Rheims. And to lose the chance to see frigate-birds soaring in circles above the storm, or a file of pelicans winging their way homeward across the crimson afterglow of the sunset, or a myriad terns flashing in the bright light of midday as they hover in a shifting maze above the beach – why, the loss is like the loss of a gallery of the masterpieces of the artists of old time.
Unfortunately, Roosevelt’s fears became realities 
all too often as the twentieth century unfolded. Today thousands of bird populations and many entire species hang on by their wingtips. Large portions of our avifauna seem destined to disappear in this century 
if we continue with business as usual, as increasing climate disruption adds to the effects of habitat destruction, hunting, and other assaults humans have imposed on the world’s fauna. Beyond the species themselves, we will also lose the important roles birds play in our lives, from giving us esthetic pleasure to eating various insects that plague people. Among birds we have lost in more recent times or are now close to losing, is the Spix’s macaw. Midnight for the Macaws The last known free-living individual of Spix’s macaw was seen in Brazil in the year 2000. The Spix’s macaw got its common name from its discoverer, a German naturalist named Johann Baptist von Spix. Over-harvesting has been the main culprit in the demise
of this species. But people generally didn’t eat Spix’s macaws; they captured them from the wild to be sold as house pets because of their great beauty and rarity. Even when the macaws were on the brink of becoming extinct, many reports indicate that capturing and sales continued until none were left to be trapped, caged, and sold. The species is now presumed to be extinct in the wild. Genetic evidence supports the view that, even before the wild birds were turned into pets, Spix’s macaws survived in nature in extremely small numbers. They were predominantly found in woodlands along watercourses in otherwise treeless landscapes (so-called gallery forests) that were dominated by caraiba (trumpet) trees in which the birds nested. They usually fed on the fruits of two plant species belonging to the family Euphorbiaceae. The demise of the wild Spix’s macaws at the hands of the pet trade was accelerated by the loss of the forests and perhaps by the shooting of wild birds. Another possible human-fostered problem for the macaws was the invasion of their native habitats by aggressive Africanized honeybees. Honeybees are native to Africa, where they have long been subject to nest-raiding by mammals and birds for their honey and wax. People domesticated bees centuries ago, producing a relatively calm “Italian” strain, which has been introduced over much of the world, including in Brazil, where it was not a great producer of honey. A well-known scientist, Warwick Kerr, thought that by hybridizing African and Brazilian bees he might be able to create a strain that was both calm and yielded a rich lode of honey. But before Kerr could do the experiment, a Brazilian beekeeper visiting Kerr’s lab deliberately allowed some of the African bees to escape. That beekeeper’s motives are unknown, but besides possibly hastening the exit of Spix’s macaws, he has been responsible for the deaths of numerous human beings. In a poignant twist, the last known wild male Spix’s macaw was discovered in 1990 paired with a female, but the female was not of his own species. The male Spix was trying to reproduce with was a female blue- winged macaw. The mismatched couple did mate, and she even laid eggs, but, as one might expect, the eggs were infertile. Conservationists tried to get the male hitched to a female Spix’s macaw by releasing 
a formerly captive female Spix’s into the territory of the interspecies pair, but the male showed no interest in her. Unhappily, she collided with a power line and disappeared, presumably dying from her injuries. This episode is an example of the difficulty of acclimatizing captive birds and successfully re-establishing species in nature. The “odd couple” presumably remained paired until January 2000, after which they too disappeared. More than seventy Spix’s macaws now live in captive breeding programs run by conservationists. To counter the risk of losing genetic variability due to inbreeding, individuals have been exchanged between various institutions in an effort to maintain their genetic diversity. But conservationists are afraid to release the macaws, worried that the birds might end up being trapped and sold as pets. Several captive macaws are currently held by the Al-Wabra Wildlife Preserve (AWWP), far from their native Brazil in the Middle Eastern country of Qatar. In 2009 AWWP announced that it had purchased 2,200 hectares (5,437 acres) of land in Brazil at the site where the last wild Spix’s macaw had been observed. In a careful, step-by-step process, domestic livestock are first being removed from the site to facilitate habitat recovery, especially regeneration of the trees essential to the birds’ breeding. This commendable effort demonstrates how much money and effort are required to give a single bird species a chance and how much easier it would have been simply to protect the wild populations that once existed. Lonesome as the last wild Spix’s macaw was, its plight has been shared by virtually all the seventeen other species of macaws. These gorgeous, long-lived, highly social big parrots are all threatened by deforestation and capture for the pet trade. Hyacinth macaws, the giants of the group, are down to a few thousand individuals. Their close relative, Lear’s macaw, is now represented in the wild by only one hundred or so birds in the interior of the northeast bulge of Brazil, where the stands of palm trees on which they depend for food have been reduced to tiny remnants. Fortunately, though, there is great interest in both species, and local conservation groups and landowners are working to keep them wild. Is it really so important to have a bird in one’s apartment in New York or Manaus or Hong Kong that we as a society are willing to permit unregulated, or barely regulated, trade in avifauna? The problems that vex macaws are human problems. We seem to value someone’s right to have a pet, or to own a patch of land, or to harvest timber over our ethical and self-interested responsibility to protect nature. Then, when a species reaches a crisis level, we sometimes react, spending ten or a hundred times what we would have needed to spend had we just strongly enforced a policy that simply said no, stop, leave this species in peace. Even better, if we could just adopt a global policy of humanely and fairly limiting the scale of the human enterprise, gradually reducing the population size of Homo sapiens, curtailing overconsumption by the rich (while increasing needed consumption by the poor), then we might leave some room for the natural systems all humanity depends on.  

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on January 18, 2016 13:30

Racism is “America’s original sin”: Unless we tell the truth about our history, we’ll never find the way to reconciliation

Race is about the American story, and about each of our own stories. Overcoming racism is more than an issue or a cause—it is also a story, which can be part of each of our stories, too. The story about race that was embedded into America at the founding of our nation was a lie; it is time to change that story and discover a new one. Understanding our own stories about race, and talking about them to one another, is absolutely essential if we are to become part of the larger pilgrimage to defeat racism in America. It is also a biblical story, and now a global story in which we play a central role. We all start with our own stories about race, so I will begin with mine. My Story Fifty years ago I was a teenager in Detroit. I took a job as a janitor at the Detroit Edison Company to earn money for college. There I met a young man named Butch who was also on the janitorial staff. But his money was going to support his family, because his father had died. We became friends. I was a young white man, and Butch was a young black man, and the more we talked, the more we wanted to keep talking. When the company’s elevator operators were off, Butch and I would often be the fill-ins. When you operated elevators, the law required you to take breaks in the morning and in the afternoon. On my breaks, I’d go into Butch’s elevator to ride up and down and talk with him. On his breaks, Butch came to ride and talk with me. Those conversations changed the way I saw Detroit, my country, and my life. Butch and I had both grown up in Detroit, but I began to realize that we had lived in two different countries—in the same city. When Butch invited me to come to his home one night for dinner and meet his family, I said yes without even thinking about it. In the 1960s, whites from the suburbs, like me, didn’t travel at night into the city, where the African Americans lived. I had to get directions from Butch. When I arrived, his younger siblings quickly jumped into my lap with big smiles on their faces, but the older ones hung back and looked at me more suspiciously. Later, I understood that the longer blacks lived in Detroit, the more negative experiences they had with white people. Butch was very political, and even becoming militant—he always carried a book he was reading, such as Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth, stuffed into the back pocket of his khaki janitor’s uniform—but his mom certainly wasn’t. She was much like my own mother, focused on her kids and worried that her son’s ideas would get him into trouble. As we talked through the evening about life in Detroit, Butch’s mom told me about the experiences all the men in her family—her father, her brothers, her husband, and her sons—had with the Detroit police. Then she said something I will never forget as long as I live. “So I tell all of my children,” she said, “if you are ever lost and can’t find your way back home, and you see a policeman, quickly duck behind a building or down a stairwell. When the policeman is gone, come out and find your own way back home.” As Butch’s mother said that to me, my own mother’s words rang in my head. My mom told all of her five kids, “If you are ever lost and can’t find your way home, look for a policeman. The policeman is your friend. He will take care of you and bring you safely home.” Butch and I were becoming friends. And I remember his mother’s advice to her children as vividly today as I heard those words fifty years ago. Five decades ago, revelations about race in my hometown turned my life upside down—and turned me in a different direction. Encounters with black Detroit set me on a new path, on which I am still walking. My own white church ignored and denied the problem of race. People there didn’t want to talk about the questions that were coming up in my head and heart—questions that suggested something very big was wrong about my city and my country. As a teenager, I was listening to my city, reading the newspapers, having conversations with people. I wondered why life in black Detroit seemed so different from life in the white Detroit suburbs. I didn’t know any hungry people or dads without jobs, and I didn’t have any family members who had ever been in jail. Why were all these things happening in the city? Weren’t there black churches in the city too? Why had we never visited them or had them come to visit us? Who was this minister in the south named King, and what was he up to? Nobody in my white world wanted to talk about it—any of it. All of this drew me into the city to find answers to questions that nobody wanted to talk about at home. When I got my driver’s license at age sixteen, I would drive into the city and just walk around, looking and learning. I took jobs in downtown Detroit, working side by side with black men, and I tried to listen to them. That’s how I met Butch and many young men like him who had grown up in an entirely different city from me—just a few miles away. In Detroit, I found the answers I was looking for, and I made new friends. I also met the black churches, which warmly took in a young white boy with so many questions and patiently explained the answers. When I came back to my white church with new ideas, new friends, and more questions, the response was painfully clear. An elder in my white church said to me one night, “Son, you’ve got to understand: Christianity has nothing to do with racism; that’s political, and our faith is personal.” That conversation had a dramatic effect on me; it was a real conversion experience, but one that took me out of the church. That was the night that I left the church I had been raised in and the faith that had raised me—left it in my head and my heart. And my church was glad to see me go. During my student years I joined the civil rights and antiwar movements of my generation and left faith behind. But that conversation with the church elder was indeed “converting,” because it led me to the people who would later bring me back to my Christian faith—“the least of these” whom Jesus talks about in Matthew 25, which would ultimately become my conversion text. How we treat the poorest and most vulnerable, Jesus instructs us in that Gospel passage, is how we treat him: “Just as you did it to one of the least of these . . . you did it to me” (v. 40). My white church had missed that fundamental gospel message and, in doing so, had missed where to find the Jesus it talked so much about. My church, like so many white churches, talked about Jesus all the time, but its isolated social and racial geography kept it from really knowing him. At the same time, black churches were leading our nation to a new place. Their more holistic vision of the gospel was transforming my understanding of faith, and my relationship to the churches was forever changed. I had to leave my white home church to finally discover Christ himself and come back to my faith. In doing so, I discovered something that has shaped the rest of my life: I have always learned the most about the world by going to places I was never supposed to be and being with people I was never supposed to meet. What I discovered by driving from the white suburbs to the city of Detroit every day, and going into neighborhoods and homes like Butch’s, were some truths about America that the majority culture didn’t want to talk about—truths that are always more clearly seen from the bottom of a society than from the top. This different perspective continues to change me, and Matthew 25 continues to be my conversion passage. As a teenager, I didn’t have the words to explain what happened to me that night with my church elder, but I found them later: God is always personal, but never private. Trying to understand the public meaning of faith has been my vocation ever since. How that personal and public gospel can overcome the remaining agendas of racism in America is the subject of this book. Much Has Changed, but Much Still Hasn’t A half century later, much has changed. Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. and the black churches of America led a civil rights movement that changed the country and impacted the world. The historic Civil Rights Act passed in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Black elected officials moved into office around the country for the first time since Reconstruction. And Barack Obama was elected the first black president of the United States and reelected four years later. African Americans have achieved much in every area of American society, from law and medicine to business and labor, from education and civil service to entertainment, sports, and, always, religion and human rights. A new generation, of all races, is more ready for a diverse American society than any generation has ever been. But much still hasn’t changed. Too many African Americans have been left behind without good education, jobs, homes, and families—and these factors are all connected. Perhaps most visibly and dramatically, the treatment of black men by police and a still-racialized criminal justice system in America became a painful and controversial national issue over the last few years, making visible what has been true for decades. The cases of Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida; Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri; Eric Garner in New York; Tamir Rice in Cleveland; and Freddie Gray in Baltimore, along with countless other black men whose names didn’t receive national attention, have provoked a raw and angry racial debate in our nation. As I finish the final edits on this book, yet another story has drawn national attention, this time involving a young black woman named Sandra Bland, who was on her way to take a new job at Prairie View A&M University, her alma mater in Texas, until she was arrested in a routine traffic stop and died three days later in police custody. The facts in specific cases are often in great dispute. But the reality that young black men and women are treated differently than are young white men and women by our law enforcement system is beyond dispute. A half century after my relationship with my friend Butch’s family, there is still not equal treatment under the law for black and white Americans. And that is the great moral and religious failure we must now address. I feel a deep sadness at recent revelations that show how deep our racial divides still go. The stories of young black men, in particular, are still so different from the stories of my young white sons. As a dad who is also a person of faith, I believe that is an unacceptable wrong it is time to right.  The Talk All the black parents I have ever spoken to have had “the talk” with their sons and daughters. “The talk” is a conversation about how to behave and not to behave with police—“Keep your hands open and out in front of you, don’t make any sudden movements, shut your mouth, be respectful, say ‘sir,’” as my friend and regular cab driver, Chester Spencer, said he told his son. “The talk” is about what to do and say (and what not to do and say) when you find yourself in the presence of a police officer with a gun. White parents don’t have to have this talk with their kids. That’s a radical difference between the experiences of black and white parents in America. Why do we continue to accept that? As a Little League baseball coach, I know that all the parents of the black kids I have coached have had the talk, while none of the white parents have had such conversations with their children. And most white parents don’t have a clue about those talks between their children’s black teammates and their parents. It’s important now that we white people begin to understand “the talk.” Even white couples who have adopted black sons and daughters have that same conversation with their kids. As a white dad, that is a talk I don’t need to have with my two white sons, Luke and Jack, who are now ages sixteen and twelve. The fact that most white parents don’t know that this talk is even occurring is a big problem. Not being able to trust the law enforcement in your community—especially in relationship to our own children—is a terrible burden to bear. The stark difference in the way young black men and women are treated by police and our criminal justice system compared to white children is a deeply personal and undeniable structural issue for every black family in American society. For many white Americans, the tragic deaths of young black men at the hands of white police officers are “unfortunate incidents” that can be explained away. But for most black families, they are indicative of systems they have lived with their entire lives. Therein lies the fundamental difference: a radical contrast in experience and, therefore, perspective. If the mistreatment of young black men by law enforcement officials is true, if black lives are worth less in our criminal justice system than white lives are, then this is a fundamental and unacceptable wrong that it is time to correct. I know it is true. The overwhelming evidence on the operations of our criminal justice system proves it is true, even beyond the individual facts of particular cases. Believing that black experience is different from white experience is the beginning of changing white attitudes and perspectives. How can we get to real justice if white people don’t hear, understand, and, finally, believe the real-life experience of black people? Families have to listen to other families. If white children were treated in the ways that black children are, it would not be acceptable to white parents; so the mistreatment of black children must also become unacceptable to those of us who are white dads and moms. The old talk is still necessary—and it’s time to start talking together. If we do, I believe we can change the underlying patterns of personal and social prejudice that hold up the larger structural injustices in our society. Building Racial Bridges The best way to change that old talk that black parents have with their children is to start a new talk between white and black parents. These conversations will make people uncomfortable, and they should. White parents should ask their black friends who are parents whether they have had “the talk” with their children. What did they say? What did their children say? How did it feel for them to have that conversation with their children? What’s it like not to be able to trust law enforcement in your own community? Pay attention, read, listen. If you are white and have African American colleagues at work or friends at your church, ask them to talk with you about this, to tell you their stories—then listen. If you don’t have any black people or other people of color in your church, it’s time to ask why. Reach out, and ask your pastor to reach out, to black and Latino churches in your community. We must find safe and authentic ways to hear one another’s stories across the racial boundaries that insulate and separate us from others. Reach out sensitively to black parents at your children’s schools. Ask to hear their stories. Talk to the black parents of your children’s teammates if they play a sport. Or maybe it’s time to realize that not having children of color at your children’s school or on their teams is a big part of the problem. Parents talking to parents and hearing one another’s stories may be one of the most important ways of moving forward in the church and in the nation. But white Americans must also take responsibility for their self-education and preparation before these talks so as to not put the whole burden of their learning on their colleagues and friends of color. White people need to stop talking so much—stop defending the systems that protect and serve us and stop saying, “I’m not a racist.” If white people turn a blind eye to systems that are racially biased, we can’t be absolved from the sin of racism. Listen to the people the criminal justice system fails to serve and protect; try to see the world as they do. Loving our neighbors means identifying with their suffering, meeting them in it, and working together to change it. And, for those of us who are parents, loving our neighbors means loving other people’s kids as much as we love our own. Racism as a Faith Issue To put this in a religious context: overcoming the divisions of race has been central to the church since its beginning, and the dynamic diversity of the body of Christ is one of the most powerful forces in the global church. Our Christian faith stands fundamentally opposed to racism in all its forms, which contradict the good news of the gospel. The ultimate answer to the question of race is our identity as children of God, which we so easily forget applies to all of us. And the political and economic problems of race are ultimately rooted in a theological problem. The churches have too often “baptized” us into our racial divisions, instead of understanding how our authentic baptism unites us above and beyond our racial identities. Do we believe what we say about the unity of “the body of Christ” or not? The New Testament speaks of the church as one body with many members. For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. . . . For the body does not consist of one member but of many. . . . As it is, there are many parts, yet one body . . . that there may be no discord in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together. (1 Cor. 12:12, 14, 20, 25–26 RSV) Another version of 1 Corinthians 12:26 reads, “If one part of the body suffers, all the other parts share its suffering” (GW). What would it mean to share in the suffering of our brothers and sisters of color who are subjected to a racialized criminal justice system? So let’s be honest. As I said in the introduction to this book, if white Christians in America were ready to act more Christian than white when it comes to race, black parents would be less fearful for their children. Racial healing is a commitment at the heart of the gospel. If we say we belong to Christ, that mission of reconciliation is ours too. What does racial healing and reconciliation mean in the face of America’s racial divide over policing and the criminal justice system? Churches, in particular, can offer leadership in navigating us through these difficult issues. The American Pilgrimage The United States has the most racial diversity of any country in the world. This diversity is essential to our greatness, but it has also given us a history of tension and conflict. It has always been the resolving and, ultimately, the reconciling of those tensions that makes us “a more perfect union.” However, that cannot happen when we ignore, deny, or suppress our racial history and journey; it can occur only when we talk about it, engage it, embrace it, and be ready to be transformed by it. Ironically and tragically, American diversity began with acts of violent racial oppression that I am calling “America’s original sin”—the theft of land from Indigenous people who were either killed or removed and the enslavement of millions of Africans who became America’s greatest economic resource—in building a new nation. The theft of land and the violent exploitation of labor were embedded in America’s origins. Later immigration of other racial minorities was also driven—at least in part—by the need for more cheap labor. Therefore, our original racial diversity was a product of appalling human oppression based on greed. Many people have come to America, involuntarily in chains or voluntarily in the hope of a better life. And our great diversity is the key to our brightest and most transforming future. Indeed, it has already been one of America’s greatest contributions to the world. I believe that most police are good cops, but it would take more than a few “bad apples” to produce all the stories that almost every black person in America has about their experience with the police. Those stories are about a system, a culture, old structures and habits, and continuing racial prejudice, and how the universal but complex relationship between poverty and crime is made worse by racism. All of that can and must change with reforms that begin with better training and transparency and more independent prosecution in incidents of lethal police violence—and end with making police more relational and accountable to the diverse communities they serve. But underneath the flaws and injustices of the criminal justice system is our unfinished business of challenging and ending racism, an agenda that is not finished and never will be. We are not now, nor will we ever be, a “postracial” society. We are instead a society on a journey toward embracing our ever-greater and richer diversity, which is the American story. The path forward is the constant renewal of our nation’s ideal of the equality of all our citizens under the law—which makes the American promise so compelling, even though it is still so far from being fulfilled. Our highest and most inspirational points as a nation have been when we have overcome our racial prejudices; our lowest and ugliest points have been when we have succumbed to them. In 2013, Time magazine did a cover story on the fiftieth anniversary of the “I Have a Dream” speech. In it, Time rightly said that Martin Luther King Jr. is now understood to be a “father” of our nation because he helped shape its course as much as the founding fathers did. King and the movement he led opened a new door of opportunity for the future of America. But as we are becoming, for the first time, a country with no single racial majority—having been from our beginnings a white-majority nation—we stand at another door, which many white Americans are still very fearful of passing through. Race is woven throughout the American story and each of our own stories. All of our stories can help to change the racial story of America. I hope you will join me in this hard but critical—and ultimately transforming—conversation. Only by telling the truth about our history and genuinely repenting of its sins, which still linger, can we find the true road to justice and reconciliation. Excerpted from "America's Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege, and the Bridge to a New America" by Jim Wallis. Copyright © 2016 by Jim Wallis. Excerpted by permission of Brazos Press. 

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on January 18, 2016 12:00

It really takes one to tango: Science explains why we view other bodies as extensions of our own

Scientific American Among dance forms, tango holds a unique and potent allure. It showcases two individuals—each with a separate mind, body, and bundle of goals and intentions, moving at times in close embrace, at times stepping away from each other, improvising moves and flourishes while responding to the imaginative overtures of the other—who somehow manage to give the impression of two bodies answering to a single mind. For performers and viewers alike, much of tango’s appeal comes from this apparent psychic fusion into a super-individual unit. Michael Kimmel, a social and cultural anthropologist who has researched the interpersonal dynamics of tango, writes that dancers “speak in awe of the way that individuality dissolves into a meditative unity for the three minutes that the dance lasts. Time and space give way to a unique moment of presence, of flow within and between partners.” Tango offers more than aesthetic bliss; like all artistic practices that demand great skill, it also presents a seductive scientific puzzle, highlighting the mind’s potential to learn and re-shape itself in dramatic ways. But it’s only very recently that scientists have started building a systematic framework to explain how a person might achieve the sort of fusion that is needed for activities like social dancing, and what the impact of such an interpersonal entanglement might be. At the heart of the puzzle is the notion of a body schema—a mental representation of the physical self that allows us to navigate through space without smashing into things, to scratch our nose without inadvertently smacking it, and to know how far and how quickly to reach for a cup of coffee without knocking it over. We can do all these things because our brains have learned to identify the edges of our bodies using information from multiple senses and devote exquisite attention to stimuli near our bodily boundaries. As it turns out, the body schema is remarkably fluid. Scientists have had strong evidence for more than a decade now that it can easily incorporate objects that we interact with. For example, after using a tool for a period of time, people respond in a heightened way to visual stimuli near the end of that tool just as they would to stimuli near the edge of their hand—their brains have learned to treat the tool as an extension of their hand. Presumably, this is what gives us the feeling that, once we’ve learned to ski or play tennis, the skis or racquet no longer feel like foreign objects, but like parts of our bodies. But can other people come to feel like extensions of our bodies just as objects can? In a recent paper, psychologist Tamer Soliman and his colleagues used the tool-based studies as inspiration to explore whether coordinating physical actions with other humans can lead us to integrate their bodies into our own body schema in much the same way that interacting with objects extends our perception of our physical boundaries. To do this, the researchers had some of their participants use a tool rigged with two handles to jointly saw through candles with an experimenter; others performed the task solo, or simply watched the experimenter do it. Each group of participants then performed one of two tests intended to measure whether they had expanded their bodily boundaries to include the experimenter’s sawing hand. The first test was used to establish whether the participants would show heightened perception for visual stimuli near their partner’s hand if they had performed the task jointly—much as the tool-based studies showed heightened attention to stimuli at the edge of a tool that participants had used. Subjects felt a short burst of vibration either under their thumb or their index finger, and were told to use a foot pedal to indicate as quickly as possible which finger had been vibrated (toe for index, heel for thumb). However, just before the vibration, they also saw a light flash near either their own or the experimenter’s thumb or index finger. Normally, flashing a light near a subject’s own thumb slows down their detection of a vibration under their index, and vice versa, because the light stimulus near the hand is integrated with the vibrating sensation. The question was whether participants would show similar interference from the light flashed near the experimenter’shand. They did, but only if they had jointly performed the sawing action a while earlier. The second test was designed to get at whether participants’ actions—and not just their perceptions—would be affected by the actions of a partner with whom they’d previously coordinated movements. In this task, subjects had to draw a straight line while watching the experimenter draw an oval; their own lines became more curved if they had previously sawed candles jointly with the experimenter than if they had watched or performed the task alone. Both of these tests showed that participants extended their body schemas to incorporate a partner’s body part when it had been involved in a jointly coordinated activity. But not everyone was equally affected by the joint task. The researchers also had participants fill in questionnaires to measure the extent to which they held an independent sense of self versus an interdependent one. An independent mindset, most common in the individualistic cultures of North America and western Europe, is revealed by “yes” responses to questions like “I enjoy being unique and different from others in many respects”; an interdependent mindset, more typical in Asian, African or Latin American cultures, yields “yes” responses to questions like “My happiness depends on the happiness of those around me.” Subjects who had taken part in the joint sawing task were more likely to become physically entangled with their partner if they inclined toward an interdependent view. In other words, their personal philosophy of the self affected how readily they extended their bodily boundaries to include a partner. The relationship between a person’s notion of self-hood and the openness of their body schema to another human being hints that perhaps it’s no coincidence that tango, which takes entanglement to sublime heights, originated in a culture that orients toward interdependence. It also raises an intriguing question: if emotional boundaries between the self and others can influence bodily perceptions and actions, can the reverse be true as well? There is already evidence for it: a recent study led by Paul Reddish found that asking people to move together to keep time to a beat—rather than having them move to separate beats, or even just do their own thing to the same beat—led to a more interdependent mindset and more cooperative behavior. Many have argued that tango is not merely a dance form, but the embodiment and enactment of a relationship between two people; it has taken a while for the science to catch up with the art, but there is now a scientific framework within which this romantic notion can thrive—and become more profoundly understood.

Continue Reading...










 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on January 18, 2016 11:00