Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

The absolute best way to cook fennel (because this underappreciated veggie deserves a Renaissance)

When asked for my favorite vegetable, I never hesitate. 

I cook a dish which I deem an excellent “gateway vehicle” to the wonder of fennel for many of my friends, and I’ve gone to absurd lengths in order to convert many a licorice-averse acquaintance to embrace the beauty of this vegetable. One of them never fails to joke about the amount of fennel dishes I’ve brought to various “Friendsgiving” events (pre-COVID, of course!) over the years. 

Whether shaved, raw, braised, roasted or sauteéd, I’ll never turn down fennel. And if you’re one of those people who doesn’t necessarily stock up on this gnarled and unique vegetable, maybe I can convince you to add some to your next grocery list. 

What is fennel?

Fennel — sometimes called anise or “finocchio” in Italian households — is a bulbous, off-white vegetable that has fibrous green stalks (almost celery-like) and frilly, herb-esque “fronds” (similar to dill). Very popular in Italy, it’s traditionally included in many fish dishes. It’s also often served as a “palate cleanser” — many a family often serves small plates of raw, thinly sliced shards of fennel that are munched in between courses. When raw, the flavor is very herbal and licorice-focused, but when cooked, it becomes very mild. Fennel is also good for you: Cooking Light notes that fennel packs tons of iron, fiber and potassium into each bulb. 

Raw fennel palate cleanser 

This “preparation” of fennel is the only exposure that many people ever have to this vegetable. But that’s for a good reason: The clean flavor of thinly sliced raw fennel is an exceptional means of transitioning from one course to another.

  1. Cut stalks/stems off of fennel, cut the bulbs in half and cut on a bias to remove the core. Repeat with remaining fennel halves. Be sure to remove any bruised, discolored and/or extra-thick outer pieces. Clean and dry well. 
  2. Slice thinly into “shards” of fennel, or  if you have it  use a mandolin to thinly slice.
  3. For a traditional palate cleanser, embrace fennel at its simplest, and serve as is between meals/courses. 
  4. Alternatively, serve with bowls of orange segments (raw fennel pairs exceptionally well with citrus), pistachios, olives, etc.

***

The following is my aforementioned “gateway vehicle” recipe. One of my absolute favorite dishes in the world, this recipe has only a few ingredients, and it’s immensely simple to make. But don’t let that fool you: The cheeses meld together to form the most delicious, frico-laced roasted and blistered fennel imaginable. 

Recipe: Roasted Fennel with Gruyere and Parm 

Serves: 3-4 (and/or one especially hungry human being)

Time: about 1 hour, start to finish

vegetarian, nut-free, low-carb

  • 2-3 fennel bulbs, depending on size
  • 6 oz. block of gruyere, shredded 
  • 1/2 cup grated parm
  • 1/4 cup EVOO
  • kosher salt
  • freshly ground black pepper
  • 1.5 tsp garlic powder
  • 1.5 tsp onion powder

1. Preheat oven to 425 degrees.

2. Cut stalks/stems off of fennel, cut the bulbs in half and cut on a bias to remove the core. Repeat with remaining fennel halves.

3. Slice fennel — not especially thinly, but not in enormous chunks.

4. Toss fennel slices with EVOO, salt, pepper, garlic power and onion powder.

5. Roast for a half hour, stir and rotate pan, add grated cheese and parm.

6. Broil or continue to roast for another 15-20 minutes, until the cheeses melt into the fennel, the fennel begins to blister and the cheese starts to darken and caramelize.

7. Try not to eat off of tray.

8. Enjoy!

Tip: You can also reserve the fennel fronds, and finely chop them to add a *garnish* element. (This also spruces up this generally beige-white dish with some greenery.)

***

Blood Orange Fennel Salad

Other flavor combos to try

Fennel salad with blood orange and hazelnuts 

The fennel salad is immensely popular and delicious in its many variations, but I find that the crossroads of paper-thin, crunchy and refreshing fennel in conjunction with juicy, bright citrus and the crunch of hazelnut to be irresistible.

Crostini with fennel ala baba ghanouj

Though the fennel doesn’t necessarily break down like eggplant does naturally, topping garlic-brushed grilled baguette with an alluring mix of braised fennel, tahini, garlic and olive oil is an incredible way to welcome guests.

More ways to up your game in the kitchen:

Salon Food writes about stuff we think you’ll like. Salon has affiliate partnerships, so we may get a share of the revenue from your purchase.

Giada De Laurentiis’ easy-to-make lemon poppyseed cake will please even the toughest crowd

One of the most challenging things about baking for a crowd can be navigating different dietary restrictions. If a loved one is gluten-free, it may sometimes feel daunting to tweak a recipe so that it tastes just as good without adding extra ingredients or steps.

When it comes to comfort food, we can always count on Giada De Laurentiis to come through with easy-to-navigate recipes that never take shortcuts on flavor. Her recipe for lemon poppyseed cake, which was recently resurfaced on Instagram, just so happens to be gluten-free. And that means you don’t have to reinvent the wheel or worry about baking two separate cakes, because this one recipe is guaranteed to please anyone and everyone. 

Giada gives her personal promise that this recipe doesn’t taste like a substitute for the real thing. On her website, she writes that “when I first began ideating and testing this cake, I didn’t envision it to be gluten-free — I just wanted to have a recipe for the perfect lemon poppyseed cake.” But once Giada started tweaking her recipe for her Aunt Dina’s birthday, she “actually began to love this version much more than the original.”

An added bonus? The ingredients used in Giada’s gluten-free recipe happen to make this cake not only more delicious but also more nutritious. That means what you’re actually about to enjoy is a dessert that’s “free” of guilt. 

The complete list of ingredients for this cake may look daunting at first, but you likely already have most of them on hand in your kitchen pantry. They include some of our favorite things to mix into bakes: almond flour and Greek yogurt. Even better? There are only three steps in this one-bowl recipe: Combine all of your ingredients, pour the batter into a loaf pan and bake! 

Giada also has a three-ingredient glaze that you can drizzle over your cake once it’s out of the oven (and cooled). Few things in life are better than a slice of cake paired with an afternoon cup of coffee or tea. Find out for yourself when you fall in love at first bite with this recipe from one of our favorite chefs

For more of our favorite recipes from Giada, check out: 

Salon Food writes about stuff we think you’ll like. Salon has affiliate partnerships, so we may get a share of the revenue from your purchase.

“Ugly depths of the GOP’s ongoing radicalization”: Columnist nails Bannon’s latest “crackpottery”

Four years ago, Steve Bannon was the face of Trumpism when he was serving as then-President Donald Trump’s White House chief strategist — and although Trump is no longer president, the far-right Bannon is still declaring war on non-Trumpist conservatives. Liberal Washington Post opinion writer Greg Sargent analyzes some of Bannon’s recent activities in his column this week, stressing that Bannon hasn’t become any less extreme.

“Trump’s former adviser is now elevating his profile as spokesman for the pro-Trump wing in a way that usefully illuminates the ugly depths of the GOP’s ongoing radicalization,” Sargent observes. “But the contours of this radicalization also impose an obligation on Democrats — to ensure that nothing impairs a full accounting into Trump’s most recent crime against the country: the effort to incite the violent overthrow of U.S. democracy.”

According to Sargent, Bannon has “entered the fray on two fronts”: a “GOP civil war” in Pennsylvania and “a looney plot to impeach” President Joe Biden.

During Trump’s second impeachment trial, Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania infuriated Trump loyalists when he voted that the former president was guilty of “incitement to insurrection.” Toomey doesn’t have to worry about facing a GOP primary challenge in Pennsylvania’s 2022 U.S. Senate race, as he has officially announced that he won’t be seeking reelection. But Sargent notes that even without Toomey, Bannon wants to make that primary a referendum on the senator’s impeachment vote. 

“As Politico reports, Toomey’s vote against Trump is now the central issue in that primary, which is becoming a proxy battle between Republicans still loyal to Trump and those who think continued devotion to him will damage the party’s statewide chances,” Sargent notes. “Bannon has moved to put his stamp on the contest.”

Bannon told Politico, “Any candidate who wants to win in Pennsylvania in 2022 must be full Trump MAGA.” And Sargent explains what “full Trump MAGA” means in Pennsylvania, writing, “It means absolute devotion to the mythology that Trump should not have been held accountable for his effort to incite the violent disruption of the election that was stolen from him.”

“The rage of the MAGA forces are pouring down on former (Pennsylvania) Congressman Ryan Costello, who is mulling a run for Senate and who suggested it’s a bad idea for county parties to censure Toomey for his vote to convict Trump, as some have already done,” Sargent observes. “Costello says the censures ‘will hurt Republican candidates.’ For this, Bannon scaldingly denounced Costello as ‘a sellout to the globalists.’ The grand populist nationalist vision that once animated Trumpism has been reduced to little more than a demand for unwavering lickspittlery to Trump despite — or perhaps because of — his effort to incite violent insurrection.”

Sargent goes on to say that Bannon’s “second threat is even more comically absurd.”

The columnist explains, “(Bannon) recently told a Boston audience that he hopes to see Trump run for Congress in 2022, then run for speaker of the House — which Bannon presumes Republicans will win — then preside over the impeachment of President Biden…. This is rank crackpottery, but here again, the singular organizing and motivating principle is the idea that Trump’s loss to Biden couldn’t possibly have been legitimate, or that there’s simply zero obligation on the part of the Trump movement to recognize it as such — and that loyalty to Trump requires unwavering fealty to that idea.”

Sargent warns that Bannon’s actions underscore the Republican Party’s “radicalization.”

“This radicalization of the GOP against democracy could have a major impact on our political future,” Sargent writes. “All of this, I think, imposes an obligation on us to ensure that what happened on Jan. 6 is not memory-holed and gets the full accounting it deserves.”

No-measure peanut butter cookies. But how?

Big Little Recipe has the smallest-possible ingredient list and big everything else: flavor, creativity, wow factor. That means five ingredients or fewer — not including water, salt, black pepper, and certain fats (like oil and butter), since we’re guessing you have those covered. Psst, did you hear we’re coming out with a cookbook? We’re coming out with a cookbook!

* * *

We are told that baking is a science, that there’s a right way to measure flour (fluff, spoon, level), that there’s a wrong way to measure brown sugar (to pack or not to pack?), that weight is superior to volume, that grams are more precise than ounces. And all of this is true, but none of it matters right now.

For this recipe, you’ll need no measuring cups, no measuring spoons, no scale. Not even a good night of sleep. And yet, still, somehow, with three ingredients that might already be in your kitchen, you’ll bake up cookies that are pillowy and plush, with a fudgy center and mochi-like chewiness.

Before they became an internet sensation, even more sought-after than many of their baked goods brethren, like chocolate cookies and M&M cookies and protein cookies (this is a thing?), three-ingredient peanut butter cookies popped up in cookbooks. Notably: “The Family Baker” (1999) by Susan G. Purdy, “BakeWise” (2008) by Shirley Corriher, and “Ovenly” (2014) by Erin Patinkin and Agatha Kulaga, whose inspired addition of flaky salt was inaugurated into the Smitten Kitchen Hall of Fame.

To stick to three ingredients, all of these recipes ditch the usual suspects, like flour, butter, baking powder, baking soda, and vanilla extract. Which leaves us with what? Just peanut butter, eggs, and sugar, be it granulated or brown.

Today, we’re taking another route, one that keeps the ingredient list little, and makes the technique even lazier.

Peanut butter? Check. Unsweetened, so the distinction between dessert and breakfast becomes blurry enough to fail an eye exam. Eggs? Check. Because, at least in my kitchen, they’re never not around.

But — and this is where you ignore Google Maps directing you to stay on the highway, put on your blinker, change lanes, and zoom toward the billboard exit for an amusement park — sugar? Nope. Instead, we’re reaching for a jar of jam.

I don’t need to tell you that peanut butter and jam are a power couple. But when you stir them together into cookie dough, they become more than the sum of their parts. Think of it like when Taylor Swift sings and then Bon Iver sings and then Taylor Swift sings and then Bon Iver sings and then, all of the sudden, Taylor Swift and Bon Iver sing, together, as one. That’s the vibe.

While sugar serves up sweetness, jam delivers a fruity tang and, well, jammy texture. Peach and apricot both slap. But who’s to stop you from enlisting apple or fig? Just stick to something that’s orange-ish in color and humble in flavor, so the peanut butter can shine bright like a diamond.

I have a theory that if you give this cookie to someone who doesn’t know that the just-so-goodness comes from jam, they’d never be able to guess. But I’ve only tested this on my husband and could use a bigger sample size. You can help with that, right?

***

Recipe: 3-Ingredient Peanut Butter Cookies

Prep time: 10 minutes
Cook time: 20 minutes
Makes: About 2 1/2 dozen cookies

Ingredients:

  • 1 (16-ounce) jar unsweetened peanut butter
  • 1 (13-ounce) jar apricot or peach jam
  • 2 large eggs
  • Flaky salt (optional)

Directions:

  1. Heat the oven to 350°F and line 2 sheet pans with a silicone mat or parchment. Add the peanut butter and jam to a bowl. Stir until combined. Crack in the eggs and stir again. Scoop the dough in heaping tablespoons onto the prepared pans, spacing each cookie a couple inches apart. Sprinkle with salt if you’d like. Bake for 20 to 25 minutes, until bouncy to the touch, browned on the bottom, and starting to crack on the top. Remove from the oven, wait a few minutes, then transfer to a cooling rack to cool completely.

From “The Bachelor” to “Bridgerton,” examining the fraught dynamics of interracial romance on TV

Regina King‘s “Saturday Night Live” debut last weekend contained a lot of highlights, but the rollicking fun she had with the satirical game show “What’s Your Type?” stayed on our minds all week long.

In this MTV dating show spoof, Instagram-famous host Tampa Bay Janae (Cecily Strong) welcomes King’s Kendra Sutter, a marketing supervisor from Oakland. Kendra is an elegant woman who looks like she could land any man she wants, but has awfully specific tastes.

“I’m looking for a sure thing, a man who will worship me. That’s why I want a cringey white dude in his early 40s,” she explains, throwing in a thirsty shoulder shimmy. “Corny, awkward, or douchey, this freak likes to binge on cringe.”

Janae and her co-host DJ Snizz (Ego Nwodim) serve up three absolute dweebs: Kyle Mooney’s hyper-enthusiastic “ally” (opening line: “Kendra, how psyched are you on Kamala Harris?!”); Alex Moffatt’s Justin Timberlake wannabe; and bipedal nematode resembling Mikey Day who lays down his game by yelling, “Happy Black History Month to yoooou!”

A visibly aroused Kendra (How? Why?) chooses Disaster No. 3, Day’s eligible-for-reasons bachelor. He slithers over to her and whines “OK I’m going to hug you now!” before making a smooching noise near her shoulder.  

Here, the racial specificity is intentional and, in contrast to “SNL” sketches like “Black Jeopardy,” provocative. King’s Kendra is a distorted satire of Madison Avenue’s figment of interracial harmony, which posits that as long as we sell the dream of an ebony and ivory America, side by side on the collective piano keyboard, eventually we may will their ads to reality.

There’s a concrete reason for this marketing direction and indeed, Harris’ hard-won rise to the office of vice president is a part of it: Black women are “on trend” right now, hailed for saving democracy and awakening the nation to racial injustice.

We are still ignored by the health care system, treated far worse by the justice system and according to the Center For American Progress can expect on average to earn $946,120 less than our white male counterparts. But portraying our acceptance is also attractive to people who want to feel better about America in 2021.

Thus you may have noticed endless commercials featuring white men snuggling with Black women. Maybe you’ve seen the automobile ads featuring the white husband driving his Black wife into the woods with their biracial children and zero indication of apprehension about being out in the middle of nowhere.

This is the case despite the reality of interracial marriage statistics in the United States: According to Pew Research Center only 3% of interracial marriages include a Black woman and a white man. (Harris’ marriage to Douglas Emhoff is part of that number.)

Still, people probably weren’t thinking about any of that as they enjoyed “Bridgerton” or sniffed around this season of “The Bachelor,” which follows the love quest of Matt James, the first and only Black “Bachelor” the show has seen in 25 seasons.

Longtime “Saturday Night Live” viewers know that every skit that lands in an episode’s pre-“Weekend Update” slot is a response to one of the preceding week’s events.

And the seven days leading up to King’s Feb. 13 appearance included a crown-worthy cringe moment from “The Bachelor” host Chris Harrison, who tried to casually downplay the significance of contender Rachael Kirkconnell appearing in photos showing her at an antebellum-era themed “Old South” ball. The pictures surfaced on the Internet, as all things eventually do, along with screenshots of instances of her “liking” racist social comments.

“Extra” correspondent Rachel Lindsay interviewed Harrison about the furor, and the host defended Kirkconnell by blaming so-called “cancel culture” for making a controversy out of a bad decision made “five years ago.”

When Lindsay points out that the picture was from 2018, Harris argues, “Well Rachel, is it a good look in 2018? Or, is it not a good look in 2021? Because there’s a big difference.”

“It’s not a good look ever,” she retorts. “. . . If I went to that party, what would I represent at that party?”

“I don’t disagree with you,” Harrison says. “You’re 100 percent right in 2021. That was not the case in 2018.”

Oh . . . oh. Ew. That’s some cringe right there. But to really experience some true ovary-shriveling cringe I challenge you to get through Harrison and Lindsay’s entire 14-minute conversation without flinching every time Harrison says “woke.” It’s nearly as terrifying as someone repeating the word “moist” over and over again.

Knowing that Lindsay is the one confronting Harrison’s dismissive attitude towards race and racism demonstrates the questionable durability of this “moment” we’re in. Lindsay made history as the first Black “Bachelorette” in that show’s 13th season in 2017. While that’s terrific for her . . . it still took 13 seasons and a lot of hemming and hawing and claiming to fill diversity quotas by highlighting half white, half Asian women in its contestant pool to avoid giving a Black woman a chance to act out its fairy tale.

Despite Lindsay giving him multiple opportunities to course correct Harrison mansplains himself into such a hole that he’s announced he’s taking a leave from the series.

That doesn’t shift the disastrous trajectory of this season’s likely outcome. Kirkconnell is on track to be one of the final women vying for James’ heart and the production has yet to show her talking to James about what they should expect from each other, and from interacting with the world, as an interracial couple. One that is half racist.

Harrison’s inability to understand the problem with this speaks to a larger issue with casting the world as diverse and harmonious. One might think of this as a very “Bridgerton” conundrum: on the one hand, the opportunity to accelerate cultural and social evolution should be maximized as frequently as possible. But as Harrison proves with his clueless extemporizing, tossing a few people of color into arenas of whiteness and calling it progress can cement dishonest impressions of racial equality in place for decades.

Given how easily liberals were lulled into a daydream that we’d arrived in a supposedly post-racial America after Barack Obama’s election in 2008, we need to closely observe these new portrayals of inclusion on TV and consistently place them in the context of reality.

“Bridgerton” is Shonda Rhimes’ first production for Netflix, a Regency-style series starring a Black man, Regé-Jean Page, as Simon Basset, the Duke of Hastings. Simon falls in love with Daphne Bridgerton, a white woman – and critics have hailed the romance’s inclusive casting.

Few interrogate one young Black woman’s role in this TV confection: Ruby Barker’s Marina Thompson is a mysterious beauty who arrives in London to find a love match, which she in a hurry to do because she’s pregnant out of wedlock.

 “Bridgerton” is equal parts promising and frustrating, in that it shows a type of period piece traditionally presented as entirely white and places Black nobility in a central role. Audiences love this premise, and they really love Page. But “Bridgerton” also sells an illusory version of progress, evinced by casting a Black woman as a “ruined” character. Barker gives a fine performance in a forgettable part that plays to a musty stereotype.

Don’t get me wrong, “Bridgerton” is delightful, but we should also notice its diverse picture of 19th century London society isn’t meeting on common ground. This is still an instance of a production inviting a few characters of color into the racial ‘burbs. Queen Charlotte is played by a Black woman (Golda Rosheuvel) but she’s hovering on the outskirts of the action not at its center; Lady Danbury (Adjoa Andoh) is a delight, but an occasional one. The Bridgertons are white, as are Featheringtons, save for cousin Marina.

The show’s producing team appears to be aware of this: When Season 2 turns its focus on the love life of eldest son and heir Anthony Bridgerton (Jonathan Bailey), the woman who captures his heart will hail from a high society family of Indian descent. The character in question has even been renamed from Julia Quinn’s novel, which introduces her as Kate Sheffield; on TV the object of Anthony’s desire is named Kate Sharma, and played by “Sex Education” actress Simone Ashley.

It may very well be that the view “Bridgerton” paints of the past will eventually look like the multicultural present we live in.

But cringe doesn’t observe a schedule, as “The Bachelor” and its history of hanging on to its whiteness for dear life proves. Over its many seasons of courtship Harrison has come to be the prosopopoeia of all the nation’s unease over changing demographics.

Stuffed with the three-course meal of insurrection, inauguration and impeachment, our upset bellies aren’t quite ready to fully return to a realistic reckoning with race. But we’ll romance the false image of unity, soft-scripting fantasies purporting that we’re moving on.

Page hosts “Saturday Night Live” this week, and it would be incredible to see him pop up on some kind of ruthlessly satirical dating game. But if we’re looking for America’s type, it’s Harrison – he just wears a more expensive suit that any of those other guys. 

Why we’re obsessed with music from our youth

People tend to be extremely nostalgic about the music they listened to when they were young. If you were a teenager in the 1970s, chances are you will love Queen, Stevie Wonder or ABBA. And if you were young in the 1990s, “Wannabe” by the Spice Girls probably still gets you on the dance floor.

But why is that? Do we genuinely think music from the past is better, or has it got something to do with the memories we have of that time?

Our recent study, published in Music and Science, has come up with an intriguing answer.

Music is closely linked with memory and emotion. There’s a reason for the popularity of the long-running BBC radio programme, Desert Island Discs, in which celebrity guests share the soundtrack of their lives. Or why the recent video of a retired ballerina with Alzheimer’s disease being spontaneously brought back to her past through music went viral.

Music seems to be particularly associated with positive emotional memories with social themes, making it relevant for helping to improve life satisfaction during the pandemic.

General psychological research has shown that autobiographical memories (life experiences) from certain time periods are remembered better than others. One particularly notable phenomenon is the “reminiscence bump“: the fact that people tend to disproportionately recall memories from when they were 10 to 30 years old.

Several theoretical explanations have been offered for this phenomenon, including that this lifetime period contains many novel and self-defining experiences — which may be encoded in the brain more deeply and retrieved more easily. Biological and hormonal changes may also boost the effectiveness of our memories during this period.

It has been shown that when people are asked to choose their favourite record it is likely to come from the reminiscence bump period, and that older adults know more about music from their youth than current pop songs. But does that mean that music from this period is more likely to be connected to autobiographical memories?

The results

In our study, my colleagues and I investigated the presence of the “musical reminiscence bump” in a group of 470 adults who were between 18 and 82 years old. Our aim was to investigate how a person’s age when a song was popular affected three related but distinct concepts: the degree to which the song was associated with autobiographical memories, how familiar the song was and how much they liked the song.

Participants in our study were shown the titles and artists of 111 pop songs that had featured in the charts across a 65-year period (1950-2015) and provided ratings of the three concepts of interest.

We discovered that, across our participant sample as a whole, music that was in the charts during one’s adolescence was not only rated as more familiar, but was also associated with more autobiographical memories. This music-related reminiscence bump peaked around age 14: songs popular when participants were this age evoked the most memories overall.

In addition, older adults (around age 40+) also liked songs from their adolescence more than other songs. However, younger adults (aged 18-40) did not show this same trend, and in some cases gave even lower liking ratings to music from their adolescence than music released before they were born.

This suggests that songs from our adolescence can become closely entangled with memories from our past even if we don’t personally value the music. This may be because it has accompanied various memorable settings from this period (school dances, gatherings with friends, graduations, and so on).

Some songs were preferred regardless of a participant’s age when they were in the charts, however. For instance, we saw a general increase in how much people liked songs from the late 1970s to early 1980s, even in participants who weren’t yet born during that time period.

This suggests pop music from certain time periods is intergenerationally valued. Examples of songs we used from this time period include “Hotel California” by the Eagles, “I Will Survive” by Gloria Gaynor and “Billie Jean” by Michael Jackson.

So it seems that we aren’t primarily so interested in the music of our youth because we think it’s better than music from other eras, but because it is closely linked to our personal memories. However, some songs may be able to transcend generational boundaries.

Advertisers who want to elicit a nostalgic reaction from a certain consumer demographic should take note. So should clinicians aiming to reconnect patients with self-defining memories from their pasts.

Kelly Jakubowski, Assistant Professor in Music Psychology, Durham University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Most brain activity is “background noise” — and that’s upending our understanding of consciousness

What are you thinking about right now?

Have you ever wondered why it’s so hard to answer this simple question when someone asks? There is a reason. 95 percent of your brain’s activity is entirely unconscious. Of the remaining 5 percent of brain activity, only around half is intentionally directed. The vast majority of what goes on in our heads is unknown and unintentional. Neuroscientists call these activities “spontaneous fluctuations,” because they are unpredictable and seemingly unconnected to any specific behavior. No wonder it’s so hard to say what we are thinking or feeling and why. We like to think of ourselves as CEOs of our own minds, but we are much more like ships tossed at sea.

What does this reveal about the nature of consciousness? Why is our brain, a mere 2 percent of our body mass, using 20 percent of our energy to produce what many scientists still call “background noise?” Neuroscientists have known about these “random” fluctuations in electrical brain activity since the 1930s, but have not known what to make of them until relatively recently. Many brain studies of consciousness still look only at brain activity that responds to external stimuli and triggers a mental state. The rest of the “noise” is “averaged out” of the data.

This is still the prevailing approach in most contemporary neuroscience, and yields a “computational” input-output model of consciousness. In this neuroscientific model, so-called “information” transfers from our senses to our brains.

Yet the pioneering French neuroscientist Stanislas Dehaene considers this view “deeply wrong.” “Spontaneous activity is one of the most frequently overlooked features” of consciousness, he writes. Unlike engineers who design digital transistors with discrete voltages for 0s and 1s to resist background noise, neurons in the brain work differently. Neurons amplify the noise and even use it to help generate novel solutions to complex problems. In part, this is why the neuronal architecture of our brains has a branching fractal geometry and not a linear one. The vast majority of our brain activity proceeds divergently, creating many possible associations and not convergently into just one.

Spontaneous fluctuations make up the vast majority of brain activity, yet are frequently ignored because of their unpredictability. As a philosopher of science and consciousness, I believe that any future progress in our understanding of consciousness or artificial intelligence needs to start from these understudied fluctuations and work our way up.

Fortuitously, multiple scientists have been working on exactly this problem. One of the most exciting new research fields in brain science today is known as the “neuroscience of spontaneous thought.” Several critical studies in this area have shown that cognitive flux, or “spontaneous fluctuation,” is not secondary to but rather fundamental for consciousness, as neuroscientists Georg Northoff, Robin Carhart-Harris, and Stanislas Dehaene argue. The frequency and distribution of this flux can even accurately predict whether someone is conscious or unconscious.

Cognitive flux changes everything

Put simply, this discovery could be a game-changer for theories of consciousness. It flips the old models on their heads. In most theories, consciousness is “mission control” perturbed by background noises. But consciousness functions more like an eddy in a river in this new model. Just as whirling patterns emerge from turbulent waters, our stream of conscious thoughts and feelings arise from the torrent of spontaneous brain fluctuations.

Our “metastable minds” are emergent properties of lower frequency fluctuations that conjoin into “nested hierarchies” with higher frequency fluctuations. Neuroscientists call this process “cross-frequency coupling.” It works a lot like syncopation in music. At the lowest frequencies, the drums lay down a beat. In-between these beats, the bass plays a rhythm, and in-between the notes of that rhythm, the guitar plays a melody. The song is a sound-wave made of sound-waves.

There are similar spontaneous fluctuations in the world, our bodies, and our brains. When the frequencies interact, they improvise and create diffractive patterns like the converging rings of two stones dropped into the same pool of water. The world pulses with frequencies of sound and light that work as a drumbeat to lay down a relatively stable vibration. The sun rises and sets; gravity pulls things down; trees blow back and forth in the wind. Within and in-between these frequencies, our bodies digest food, beat hearts, and pump lungs.

Our brains respond to these frequencies with their own spontaneous fluctuations. They play between the waves with melodies that make up our thoughts and feelings. Like a jazz trio, the world, body, and brain have their own spontaneous fluctuations that are the basis of the creative improvisation we call existence. The world, body, and brain entrain with one another like interlocking eddies floating down a stream.

For instance, in just the last few years, new research methods have shown that fluctuations in brain activity are not as random as once thought. They are related to internal neural mechanics, bodily states of stress, arousal, and tiny physical movements responding to the world. Cognitive flux initially appeared random because the precise neural pathways and patterns between fluctuations and observable behaviors were unknown. For the most part, they still are.

You know that feeling where your brain is “babbling” and making you think the most unrelated series of thoughts? Or the feeling when you wake up in the morning and groggily step into the shower and begin to recall your dreams or have flashes of insight about various problems? Well, you have cognitive flux to thank for that. Mind-wandering, dreaming, and creative insights are emergent mental states of flux that rise like waves from the ocean and disappear again. Our conscious thoughts are the tips of those enormous icebergs of spontaneous cognition. Even as much as 50% of our conscious activity is pushed up and pulled down by stray waves that we experience as “mind wandering.”

Once we have a conscious thought, though, we can try and direct it in various ways. This directed thinking is what we usually call our “will,” but it’s much more like riding a wave than a bicycle.

These empirical findings are of profound philosophical significance. They indicate that consciousness works more like a jazz trio or a babbling stream than a computer. This means that rational goal-directed cognition should no longer be the paradigm of thought but the exception to the rule of cognitive flux. It is also one of the reasons that the German philosopher of mind Thomas Metzinger thinks that our understanding of some fundamental philosophical ideas needs revising. “Mind-wandering research suggests that we need to get rid of naive, black-and-white distinctions such as ‘free will’ versus ‘determinism’, ‘conscious’ versus ‘unconscious,'” Metzinger writes. Our old conceptual dualisms and computer metaphors hold us back because they assume rigid distinctions between processes, which are instead nested and built-up out of waves of cognitive fluctuations.

We are at an exciting tipping point where a new theory of consciousness based on spontaneous fluctuations is emerging. 

Flux and Mental Health

Cognitive fluctuations also have some pretty incredible consequences for treating mental illness, especially relevant during a global pandemic. In a recent survey, 40.9 percent of US adults reported at least one adverse mental health condition, including anxiety, depression, and substance abuse related to COVID-19. We are living through the worst mental health crisis of the last half a century, but spontaneous fluctuations may be the key to treating them.

If the recent theories of these fluctuations are correct and consciousness emerges noisily from the bottom-up, this suggests a different mental health treatment model. Over time, spontaneous brain activity can become entrained and coupled into negative perceptions and rigid mental habits that constrain the lower frequencies. Higher frequency brain activity can act as a “filter” on our incoming perceptions and feelings about ourselves and the world. In particular, recent research on cognitive flux shows that depressive and anxious rumination occurs at some of the highest levels of nested activity in a region scientists recently named the “default mode network.”

The upshot of this relatively recent discovery is that neuroscientists are now conducting experiments to see if increasing the brain’s spontaneous activity at lower levels while decreasing it at higher levels can “reset” certain negative mental habits. Initial results indicate that increasing cognitive flux may be akin to shaking the Etch-A-Sketch of our brains. The traces of old marks may remain, but it is much easier to draw new habits over the top of them like a palimpsest. Instead of reducing so-called background noise and limiting the function of the default mode network, researchers are instead flooding the brain with spontaneous fluctuations. It’s an unconventional approach, but it is making significant strides where conventional methods have failed.

At Imperial College London, Robin Carhart-Harris and his colleagues use psychedelics such as psilocybin on individuals with treatment-resistant depression. What is so fascinating about these studies is that they are combining the therapies with functional magnetic resonance (fMRI) technology to see exactly how the drugs work in the brain in real-time to treat depression. The results show that psychedelics work by amplifying spontaneous brain activity while simultaneously decreasing the default mode network’s connectivity. By strengthening brain noise from the bottom up and the top-down, psychedelic therapies have been clinically successful in reducing depressive symptoms in individuals for whom other treatments have failed.

At the University of Ottawa, the neuroscientist and philosopher Georg Northoff is working on an individualized treatment approach for depression using magnetic fields to amplify spontaneous brain fluctuations. In cases of mania, Northoff has found that the default mode network is under-active, and in cases of depression, it is over-active. By doing individual brain scans and amplifying spontaneous fluctuations, scientists can rebalance brain activity in these areas. With this method, Northoff has shown clinical success in treating severe depression.

At the University of British Columbia, the psychologist Kieran Fox and his coauthors presented in 2013 for the first time strong neuroimaging evidence that the same state of increased spontaneous fluctuations underly both mind wandering and dreaming. These fluctuations are also why dreams can help us process negative emotions and reduce depressive symptoms and why reduced dreaming can make us depressed. According to sleep researchers Antonio Zadra and Bob Stickgold, the dreaming brain does the same thing it does on psychedelics. It increases spontaneous fluctuations and adjusts negative mental patterns, among other things.

Scientists are still in the early stages of experimenting with these mysterious cognitive fluctuations. In my view, though, they likely hold the key to a paradigm shift in theories of consciousness and mental health — at a moment, in the grips of a pandemic, when we need them most.

We tried snow ice cream — here’s the honest verdict

There have been unprecedented levels of snow across the U.S. this week. You don’t need me to tell you that. Just yesterday, my family sent me snapshots of our backyard in Houston completely dusted with snow, which is really not normal! You also don’t need me to tell you that. And while many find themselves bravely facing down with the unfortunate and unexpected weather just outside their doors, others it seems, are making snow ice cream.

Yes, all this new snow has incited a sudden interest in a novel frozen dessert. As I mentioned, I’m from Texas, and ice cream is something we buy in shopping malls, or strip malls, or movie theaters inside shopping malls and strip malls. What ice cream is not, is something we make from the contents of our backyards.

Apparently, people in other parts of the country have been making sweets from snow for a while now. Writer and author Anne Bramley in a 2016 article for NPR had this to say: “Growing up in Missouri, I consumed as much snow ice cream as possible from November to March. Each time the winter sky let loose, I caught a bowl of fresh flakes. My grandmother mixed raw eggs, cream, and sugar and poured it over top.” Hmmmm.

Earlier this month, Jenna Bush Hager appeared on “Today with Hoda & Jenna” saying that she’s been making snow ice cream with her kids. According to the recipe Bush Hager remembers from her childhood in Midland, Texas, you scoop up fresh snow and add almond milk, sugar, cinnamon, and vanilla. She also recommends adding condensed milk for sweet creaminess.

I’d heard of maple syrup taffy (pouring fresh maple syrup onto fresh snow) from friends in Vermont, but this whole snow ice cream business was new. A quick Google search revealed a wide variety of options like this Real Simple article telling me that snow ice cream was the treat I needed today. Well, I didn’t know it was the treat I needed today, but maybe now it is? All you need is milk, sugar, vanilla and, of course, snow. You stir all these ingredients together and voilà! Is it ice cream? Is it snow with toppings? Who knows, but hurry up and eat it before it melts.

This blogger combines fresh snow with a can of condensed milk and vanilla, and stirs it all together. A search on Instagram shows people all across the country running out to their snow strewn yards and mixing snow into ice cream.

Is snow, uh . . .safe to eat? Because by the looks of some snow, it most definitely is not. Real Simple recommends leaving a Tupperware out in the snow to collect fresh flakes. Jenna Hager Bush says she scooped fresh snow off the top of a mound on her roof. Martha Stewart suggests pulsing ice in a food processor to make pseudo-snow indoors. And the NPR article advises waiting for an hour or two after an initial snowfall to start collecting. Fact: Snowflakes clean the air as they fall downwards, so “the longer the snow falls, the lower the pollution levels in the air, and thus in the snow.”

Compelled by . . . journalism, I decided to make some snow ice cream myself. Bereft of any fresh snow, I tossed some ice cubes in a Vitamix and made a nice bowl of freshly shaved ice. Into that bowl I drizzled some oat milk, vanilla extract, and a sprinkle of sugar, and gave it all a nice toss until combined. Well, it kind of worked. To say it tasted bad would be an overstatement, but to say it tasted like regular ice cream would also be an overstatement. It tasted more like an extremely cold (icy!) bowl of vaguely flavored and sweetened ice. Which . . . it was! I’m sure the excitement is a bit more tangible when the snow is freshly fallen, so I’ll be sure to leave a container outside.

Related reading:

Disney Pixar’s Soul: how the moviemakers took Plato’s view of existence and added a modern twist

Ideas about the soul have been powerful throughout the history of religion and philosophy. Until the 19th century, most people took the existence of souls for granted. With the rise of modern psychology, this belief lost its plausibility, and today it is largely absent from academic philosophical and even theological writing.

Many now deny the existence of a soul, considering human emotions and motives simply a function of neurons firing. Disney Pixar’s new film “Soul” seems to go against the grain of this development.

It presents its viewers with two realms of being. The first is the realm of human activity, where life occurs. The second realm is of the soul – where life has yet to begin, the great before, and where it ends, the great beyond. In their conception of the soul, the producers hark back to some of the most influential ideas of western intellectual history but in an unmistakably 21st-century way.

Souls, bodies and death

The film follows Joe Gardner, an aspiring jazz pianist who is stuck in the rut of his daily life as a part-time middle school music teacher. At the beginning of the film, Joe suffers an accident which leaves him hovering between life and death. The viewer observes Joe’s soul separate from its body as it journeys to the great beyond.

This starting point accurately mirrors the historical origins of western ideas about the soul. The Greek word for soul – psyche – was originally restricted in its use to the context of dying. Homer describes death as the soul’s departure from its body. At the beginning of its history in the west, the soul was evident primarily in its absence from a dead body.

With the rise of Greek philosophy in the 6th century BC, the soul was also seen as the force animating the living body. Meanwhile, the idea of death as the separation of body and soul remained generally accepted.

This created tension. If souls were supposed to enliven a particular body, they had to interact closely with the body and arguably form a unity with it. But then how could the soul survive the body’s decay or even exist separately?

A further difficulty arose from the widely shared belief in reincarnation. Could human souls be born again into the bodies of animals or even plants? And if so, how could they then constitute the operational centre, so to speak, of their current host?

Plato and Aristotle parted ways over these questions. For Plato, the soul’s connection with the body was only accidental. The hero of Plato’s dialogues, Socrates, explained to his friends, hours before his execution, that the philosopher yearns for his death because it marks the liberation of the soul into its true existence.

Plato’s student Aristotle, by contrast, denied that there even was a proper afterlife for the soul. Insofar as the soul was simply the life of the body, he urged, the two formed an indissoluble unity, which death brought to an end.

Things took a further turn with the rise of Christianity. Overall, Christians were more sympathetic to the Platonist view than to its alternatives, because they believed in a life after death. But they rejected the idea of an accidental connection between soul and body. The classical Christian view of the soul as found in Thomas Aquinas fused Platonic with Aristotelian ideas: the soul is immortal but tied in eternity to the identity of a body-soul compound. As such, it will be brought back to life at the end of time.

Pixar’s Platonist conception of the soul

Against this rough sketch of the western history of the soul, Pixar’s position comes closest to the Platonic view. Souls depart from the dying person and travel to the great beyond. Souls also pre-exist their earthly incarnation, and some of them at least don’t seem overly keen to embark on this journey into life. Souls are immaterial — another tenet of Platonic philosophy — although in the movie they are understandably not invisible. Finally, reincarnation seems possible, even across species as Joe finds out when, for a while, he enters the body of a cat.

Yet the parallels only go so far.

Joe Gardner is unwilling to accept his departure from earthly life, and much of the movie deals with his attempts to return to his previous existence. For Plato, this would indicate that Joe was a bad person unable to detach himself from material pleasures. In the film, however, it is this desire that makes Joe remarkable.

His companion, a not-yet-born soul introduced only as number 22, learns more from Joe, due to his unbending will to return to Earth, than she did from the souls of Gandhi, Einstein and Jung, who had previously tutored her in preparation for her birth. In the world of 21st-century New York, into which the two enter through an extraordinary series of events, number 22 suddenly develops a lust for life after experiencing the simple pleasures of living — from eating pizza to watching the leaves fall from a tree.

None of this would have made much sense to Plato. Rather, the film relies on distinctly modern ideas about the affirmation of the present life as worth living on its own terms. The ultimate “purpose” of the soul is to be the “spark” that imparts the simple gift of life.

Joe’s conclusion from his experience as a disembodied soul is to savour every remaining moment of the earthly life he regains at the end of the film. And even number 22 comes to embrace the value of an embodied existence, despite its risks and limitations.

These are ideas well known from romantic and existentialist philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries. Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834) sneered at the notion of personal immortality as the ridiculous wish to perpetuate one’s own miserable existence. Instead, he posited the idea of “immortality in this moment”. The lesson Joe learns, and wants us to learn, from his unusual experience is rather similar, and points to the thoroughly modern cast into which traditional ideas about the soul have been moulded by the makers of this film.

Lydia Schumacher, Reader in Historical and Philosophical Theology, King’s College London and Johannes Zachhuber, Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology, University of Oxford

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Conspiracy theories — unmasked! From Winston Churchill to QAnon in a few easy steps

Many people may believe that we live in a golden age of conspiracy theories. That’s not really the case, according to German academic Michael Butter, who teaches American literature and culture at the University of Tübingen in Germany. But we do live in the golden age of conspiracy-theory studies. Butter’s recent book, “The Nature of Conspiracy Theories,” published just after the presidential election, does an invaluable job synthesizing a wide range of research across multiple disciplines — from psychology and sociology to philosophy, literature and cultural studies — over a period of decades.  

While conspiracy theories are certainly much more prominent now than they were 20 or 30 years ago, they remain widely stigmatized. Before the 1950s, as Butter explains in his book and this interview, they were taken for a granted as a legitimate framework for describing the world. After the Nazi period and the McCarthy era they were driven to the political and social margins, and then returned under a cloud. The internet has played a central role in providing an environment where they can flourish, but the role of media is in itself hardly a new thing: Before the invention of the printing press, conspiracy theories as we know them today simply didn’t exist, as far as we can tell, except in more limited scope in ancient Greece and Rome. 

With America’s conspiracist in chief now gone from the White House, such paranoid beliefs are not going to suddenly disappear, any more than the populism structurally associated with the dominant forms of conspiracy theories today. But what role will conspiracy theory play in the political future of the United States and the West, and what can its history tell us to expect? Salon reached out to Butter to explain the secret forces at work behind the surface of reality — or at least to discuss those questions and his new book. This interview has been edited, as usual, for clarity and length.

Winston Churchill probably isn’t the first person who comes to mind when we talk about conspiracy theory, but you begin your introduction by discussing a short speech he gave in 1920. Why begin there, and what does the most famous British statesman of the 20th century have to tell us? 

I begin with Winston Churchill for two reasons. On the one hand, because it’s a prototypical conspiracy theory that he develops in this speech. All the elements — nothing is at it seems, nothing happens by accident, everything is connected — are there, so this allows me to define what a conspiracy theory is. Secondly and equally important, I begin with Winston Churchill because this cuts to the major point of my book, which, besides providing a general introduction to conspiracy theories, is that it used to be quite normal to believe in conspiracy theories. People that you usually do not associate with conspiracy theories, but regard very highly — people like Churchill, but also George Washington or Abraham Lincoln — spread conspiracy theories, because this is what people did in the past. It was perfectly normal.

Right. But if conspiracy theories were taken for granted then, they’re seen very differently now. Before asking the obvious question — how did we get here? — I’d like you to clarify several things. First of all, what’s your definition of conspiracy theory?

I like two definitions, one that has been provided by the American political scientist Michael Barkun, who says conspiracy makes three assumptions: a) nothing happens by accident, which means everything has been planned by the conspirators, b) nothing is as it seems, which means that you always have to look beneath the surface to find out what is really going on because the conspirators are operating in secret, and c) everything is connected, that once you look beneath the surface and once you realize that there is a group secretly plotting you, then you also realize that there are connections between people, institutions and events, that you would not have thought possible otherwise. For example, in coronavirus conspiracy theories that make connections between 5G technology and the virus. 

After I finished the book, I realized that Geoffrey Cubitt, an English historian, comes up with a slightly different definition. I’ll give you the definition first and then explain why they’re different. Cubitt says that there are again three elements: intentionalism — everything has been planned, and that corresponds exactly to what Barkun means by “nothing happens by accident.” The second element for Cubitt is occultism — things happen in secret, and this would correspond to what Barkun means when he says nothing is as it seems. But then Cubitt does not highlight “everything is connected,” but he highlights Manichaeanism, a clear distinction between good and evil, which is something Barkun also talks about, but which he considered less important than highlighting that everything is connected. 

So these are the two definitions that I very much like because I think they really capture what conspiracy theories are about. The reason why they’re different is that Cubitt is thinking as a historian about conspiracy theories in the 18th and 19th centuries, and that’s the time when conspiracy theories mostly focused on specific events or on specific groups — the Jews or the Communists or the Catholics, but not all of them together. Whereas Barkun is really looking at the second half of the 20th century, which is the time in which we find what he calls “superconspiracy theories,” that is, conspiracy theories that basically cover all of human history and that forge connections between the Nazi and the Jews and the Communists and other groups. Therefore for him to assume that everything is connected makes a lot of sense, whereas in conspiracy theories of the 18th and 19th century, there are limits to how far a conspiracy theory will go. Taken together, I think these are two very good definitions of conspiracy theory.

So how can we categorize conspiracy theories in terms of who is being accused, where the supposed conspiracy comes from and who’s being conspired against?

I think we can come up with a couple of useful typologies. Many people assume, because they only look at the present and the Western world, that conspiracy theories always work from below towards those above, so that they’re always tackling alleged conspiracies from above, conspiracies by the elites against the people. That would be one way to categorize modern conspiracy theories, but this is not what all conspiracy theories do. In fact, for centuries, when it was still normal to believe in conspiracy theories, they usually worked the other way around: They targeted enemies from below. It was the elites who were articulating conspiracy theories, and they were concerned with alleged conspirators that were challenging their powers. 

Another useful distinction is that between an enemy within and an enemy without. In the 18th and 19th centuries in the Western world, for example, we very often have this idea of an enemy who is outside the country and who is plotting, maybe with the help of some people within the country, against that nation. In the second half of the 20th century, the dominant feature that we find the Western world is that there is an enemy within — your own elite, your own government — that is in league with the conspirators. They might not be the ones pulling all the strings, but they’re a big part of that. There might be an enemy without as well, but very often these conspiracy theories can do without an enemy without. So, enemies within or without, from above or from below, I think these are useful categories to think about conspiracy theories.

You also discuss how conspiracy theories are dependent on a public sphere and the right sort of media environment. For the public sphere, you go all the way back to ancient Greece and Rome, and for media environments you talk about the role of the printing press in the modern world. Can you elaborate on this? 

For some time during the 1980 and 1990s, a lot of scholars thought that conspiracy theories were an anthropological given, meaning that they exist everywhere in all at all times and all places. Since then, a new generation of scholars has highlighted that this is probably wrong, and that conspiracy theories do not exist everywhere. So the question is then, where and when do they exist?

We know that we do find what we could call modern conspiracy theories from the early modern period or maybe the late medieval period onwards, with certain precursors in the 13th or 14th century. This is something one can link to the emergence of a reading public that is tied to the invention of the printing press, where texts can circulate, where many people can be exposed to these theories. 

At the same time, we know that there are examples that come very close to our modern conspiracy theories in ancient Greece and ancient Rome. The reason for that is probably that in these places we already had something like a public sphere: people meeting in the market square to take decisions together in ancient Athens or people discussing events in ancient Rome. Of course conspiracy theories can circulate orally, as well as in the form of manuscripts. And then this disappears in a way. During the early Middle Ages and the high Middle Ages, at least from what we know today, it seems as if there really aren’t full-blown conspiracy theories around. 

And then came the printing press.

It’s only with the emergence of a new public sphere and new media conditions that conspiracy theories, you could say, re-emerged, or emerged fully for the first time. They’ve been around since then, changing when the environment changed as well. So you could tell the whole history of conspiracy theories as the history of different media regimes. The printing press triggers the movement towards pamphlets and then later to treatises and books filled with footnotes.  

The internet in turn gives us these YouTube conspiracy-theory documentaries during the early 2000s that are no longer dry and full of footnotes, that are really exciting and fun to watch, as I know from talking to lots of my students. Then the latest development would be some platform like Twitter where the restriction of 140 characters, or now 280 characters, makes for the development from full-blown conspiracy theories toward conspiracy rumors. You just make a bold claim, but you don’t offer any evidence for that because there’s simply no space to do that and because of the conditions of the medium. You’re only talking to your followers anyway, so they don’t require you to provide evidence.  

What social, psychological and epistemic needs do conspiracy theories meet? 

We know that there are two groups of people in the West, in the present, who in terms of psychological profile are particularly drawn to conspiracy theories. First, there are people who feel out of control and feel powerless and they can explain the fact that they are not being heard, that the country is developing in a direction that unhappy with, by resorting to conspiracy theories. Secondly, there are people who have trouble accepting insecurity and ambiguity, and what conspiracy theories do for these people is to resolve this ambiguity and provide seemingly clear answers. 

Think about the beginning of the coronavirus crisis, at least in Germany and Europe, when everything went into lockdown in early March last year and we were all sitting at home and nobody knew what our lives would look like in three days or three weeks or three months. That’s a situation where conspiracy theories were extremely attractive because they provided an answer. They told people, “Well, this is what’s really going on. These are the people who are responsible for this, and this is what they are trying to trying to achieve.” 

Obviously, it’s easier for some people to believe that a group of conspirators is pulling the strings than to accept that nobody is pulling the strings, because it’s easier to accept that people are acting intentionally than to accept that there’s a lot of chaos and contingency at work. If human agents are responsible, then of course you have scapegoats, you have people you can point your finger at and blame for everything. If it’s abstract forces like globalization, or just coincidence and chaos, then you really can’t point your finger at anybody. And if human agents are responsible for all that, then no matter how powerful they might appear they can, at least in theory, be defeated. Even though this might prove difficult to achieve, at least it’s possible. You can’t really defeat chaos or an abstract force like globalization. So this is what makes conspiracy theories attractive. 

Then, in the present period, where it’s no longer normal to believe in conspiracy theories, believing in them also allows you to reassure yourself that you are special: You can claim that you are somebody who has understood something that most people are missing. While they are walking through life with their eyes closed, sleeping, you have opened your eyes. You’ve woken up, and these are powerful metaphors in conspiracy’s discourse. You can claim that you are special because you know something that others don’t.

Let’s get back to the journey from Winston Churchill in 1920 to us in 2021. First, you describe a three-phase process of stigmatization in Europe and North America, focused both on psychology and epistemology. How did that process begin?

We need to keep in mind that during the 1950s it was still normal in the United States to believe in conspiracies. The majority of people believed there was a vast conspiracy orchestrated by Moscow in the 1950s to subvert the country. We may think today of Sen. [Joseph] McCarthy as a raving madman, but he was really representative of a specific historical moment, and only a couple of years earlier in Germany, belief in a different conspiracy theory — that of the Jewish Bolshevist world plot — had led to the Holocaust. So Western countries were rife with conspiracy theories, and then this changed rather quickly, because by the mid-1960s only a minority of Americans, usually those on the extreme right, believed in this communist plot. So what happens? 

What happens is a popularization of insights from psychology and the social sciences that basically had two different sources. On the one hand, you have scholars like Theodor Adorno and other émigrés of the Frankfurt School, who are sitting in exile in the United States in the 1940s and early ’50s looking at what’s happening in Europe, and seeing what conspiracy theories can result in — namely the extermination of European Jews. So they begin to argue that conspiracy theories are dangerous. 

At the same time, other people, especially from sociology — and I’m thinking particularly here of Karl Popper — argue that conspiracy theories are an inadequate explanation of what is going on in social reality, because they always overemphasize intentional action and tend to neglect structural effects or unintended consequences. 

So these two arguments — conspiracy theories are dangerous and conspiracy theories are bad explanations — would be the first step in the stigmatization, and are, at least initially, really restricted to the ivory tower. I mean, hardly anybody reads all 800 pages of “The Authoritarian Personality.” 

What happened next to create broader criticism?

During the early 1950s, liberal American scholars and journalists pick up on these ideas and develop them further, because they are trying to defend themselves against accusations by conspiracy theorists that they are part of a Moscow-orchestrated communist plot. One way of countering this activation is of course to dismiss this mode of thinking entirely. So you have people like Edward Shils, for example, who do not write 800 pages on the authoritarian personality in a book nobody will ever read outside academia, but who write 800 words for Harper’s or The Atlantic or other magazines. So these ideas get developed and popularized. 

This works incredibly well, so by the early 1960s, as I mentioned earlier, only people on the extreme margins of society still confess to openly believe in conspiracy. This in turn allows a third generation of scholars — we can think of somebody like Richard Hofstadter — to make the argument that conspiracy theories are always populist, and that they are always the instruments of minority movements, and that there is no path and no place for them in mainstream American politics, that they are always a dangerous populist cry from the margins. This is basically the argument Hofstadter makes in his seminal 1964 essay, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” in which he so powerfully associates belief in conspiracy theories with paranoia.

You mentioned earlier that around this same time a lot more people were being exposed to the social sciences, and to a more sophisticated understanding of causality in the social sphere. 

That’s the other development. In that sense, we have two-way development. One is that more and more people get exposed to these ideas from social science and psychology because these ideas become part of the more popular general discourse. At the same time, of course, more and more people are attending college because of the G.I. Bill, which multiplies the number of students in American colleges within a couple of years. Of course, in college people take classes in psychology, in sociology, in political science, and it’s obvious that they were exposed to these ideas there, and this also contributed to this stigmatization of conspiracy theories. 

In the second part of this interview, Butter describes the three-phase process that brought conspiracy theories back into the public sphere, their structural relationship to populism, the case study of Donald Trump and more.

 

Dying on the waitlist

In early December, Miguel Fernandez lay unconscious in the intensive care unit at a Los Angeles area hospital. A mechanical ventilator pumped oxygen into his lungs, which had been ravaged by COVID-19. The 53-year-old was dying.

The best, and likely only, chance of Miguel surviving was a therapy calledextracorporeal membrane oxygenation, better known as ECMO. It would allow his lungs to rest while a machine infused his blood with the oxygen he needed. But PIH Health Whittier Hospital, where he had been admitted, didn’t have any ECMO machines or the highly trained staff needed to run them. Only a handful of hospitals in southern California did, and they were overrun with COVID-19 cases.

Since the beginning of the pandemic, public health experts had been warning about the need to “bend the curve” — to prevent the number of COVID-19 cases from spiking so hospitals wouldn’t get overwhelmed.

But starting in early November, the daily number of COVID-19 hospitalizations surged in Los Angeles County, rising eightfold between then and the wave’s crest, which arrived just after New Year’s Day. Within weeks, overflowing hospitals faced exactly the types of care-rationing decisions experts had feared. Hospitals set up tents to increase capacity, and ambulances circled for hours as they waited for beds to open. By early January, Los Angeles County emergency medical personnel were directed to conserve supplemental oxygen by only administering it to the neediest patients, and to stop transporting to hospitals cardiac arrest patients who couldn’t be revived in the field. State officials dispatched refrigerated trucks and thousands of body bags to the region.

Inside the hospitals, for patients like Miguel, a dire situation unfolded out of public view. Critically ill patients who might survive with ECMO could not get the treatment. Doctors had to choose who received the therapy based on who they thought had the best chance to survive. Some were approved, but had to be put on a waitlist. Many patients died waiting.

“I don’t think we ever thought we’d get to this point, not in California,” said Dr. Jack Sun, who oversees the program that includes ECMO at UCI Health in Orange County, 30 miles southeast of Los Angeles. “You know if you don’t have a bed for somebody, they are going to die.”

In some parts of the country, doctors can tap into centralized systems to quickly find any available bed for ECMO at any hospital in the region. That’s not the case in Los Angeles. Miguel’s caregivers and family would have to hack through red tape and navigate an opaque, disconnected and sometimes unfair system to try to save his life.

Miguel, the oldest of seven siblings in a family of Mexican immigrants, was always the one who fixed things. If someone needed a job, he would help them find work. If a car broke down, he would repair it. His sister, Margarita Rodriguez, described him as a “big cuddly bear” who gave her hugs and always made her smile. Just before he was hospitalized, he had stopped by to patch a leak in her roof.

Now the family had to find a way to fix Miguel.

They scoured the internet with searches like “What do you do when a ventilator fails?” One night, Margarita found a success story from San Diego about the use of ECMO. An ECMO machine takes over the work of a patient’s lungs. It extracts blood from the body and circulates it through an artificial lung that removes carbon dioxide and adds oxygen before returning the blood to the body. One study of patients at 68 U.S. hospitals found that critically ill COVID-19 patients like Miguel “had a considerably lower risk of death” if they received ECMO during their first seven days in an ICU.

Miguel was relatively healthy other than having COVID-19. He didn’t smoke or have any preexisting illnesses like diabetes. He was overweight, but below weight cutoffs used by ECMO centers to determine eligibility. Across the country, patients like Miguel who had been near death on a ventilator one day were alive and leaving a hospital weeks later after undergoing ECMO.

Miguel’s oldest son, Miguel Jr., knew from his conversations with doctors that his dad wasn’t going to get better by staying on the ventilator. “ECMO was his last hope, his best chance to survive,” Miguel Jr. said. “It was ECMO or death.”

A Desperate Search

Miguel and his family had tried to protect themselves from the virus. Three of his four adult children live in his home, and when they got infected in the fall, the family isolated as much as possible. Miguel stayed distanced on some nights by sleeping in an old RV he had in the backyard.

The pandemic had forced the extended Fernandez clan to cut back on family gatherings. Before COVID-19, Miguel had often organized get-togethers at his home on the southeastern side of Los Angeles, for birthdays or graduations, or to watch football or grill. After his only daughter, Jeannette, was accepted by UCLA last year, he proudly walked around her send-off bash in a “UCLA Dad” T-shirt.

But Miguel had to keep working. He and two of his brothers owned a construction business that bought and renovated homes. They had flipped hundreds of properties, starting 12 years ago with an $80,000 fixer-upper in Compton and more recently a $2.5 million project in Pasadena. Two of Miguel’s three sons worked with him. Even after COVID-19 struck his family, Miguel still had to pick up supplies and go to job sites.

In early November, Miguel started to feel sick and went to a coronavirus testing site at a local recreation center. Two days later he received an email telling him what he already suspected: He had COVID-19. By Nov. 15, he had a fever and night sweats and was having trouble breathing.

Even though he was getting sicker, Miguel didn’t want to go to the hospital. He knew people like him were dying. Latino Angelenos have suffered the highest COVID-19 death rate in Los Angeles County — almost twice the rate of Blacks and about three times the rate for whites.

But by Nov. 17, Miguel struggled to breathe as he walked from the bathroom to the couch. The family had purchased an oximeter, a device that measures oxygen levels in the blood when clipped onto a finger. His oxygen level had dropped to 77%, dangerously below the 95% considered at the low range of what’s normal.

“We realized this was a real emergency,” said Jeannette, his 21-year-old daughter. Just before midnight, two of Miguel’s sons helped him into the passenger seat of the family’s Ford Explorer. Jeannette took the wheel and Miguel’s wife, Alejandrina, got in the back seat.

Jeannette headed to PIH Health Whittier Hospital, a 523-bed facility near their home. Outside the emergency room, the staff helped the 275-pound Miguel into a wheelchair and put an oxygen monitor on his finger. It sounded an alarm. His wife and daughter could see fear in his eyes; he didn’t say a word as he was rushed into the hospital. Jeannette and Alejandrina didn’t even get to say goodbye.

PIH Health declined to make caregivers available for interviews or answer questions about Miguel’s care. “PIH Health will not be able to provide a statement for this story,” a hospital spokesperson said in an email.

Hospital records show that Miguel was given high-flow oxygen through a face mask and put in a bed that allowed hospital staff to flip him on his belly, boosting his oxygen level to 93%. He was treated with steroids and an antiviral drug. Two days after admission, things were looking up.

Jeannette began providing updates through a group text message labeled “Familia.” It included Miguel’s brothers, many cousins, nieces and nephews, parents and his four children. Miguel was “doing good,” she reported. Miguel spent his days reading messages on his phone, even when lying on his stomach. He sent his family photos of his food, and made special requests of the hospital staff, asking for buttered sourdough toast and prune juice with breakfast.

The family hoped Miguel would be home for Thanksgiving. But the course of COVID-19 is unpredictable.

At 11 p.m. on Nov. 22, Miguel texted his family, letting them know he expected to have a long night. He wrote in a text: “if I want to make it to thanksgiving have stay awake and restore my oxygen levels.”

When Thanksgiving arrived four days later, a scan of Miguel’s lungs revealed inflammation and scar tissue. Doctors started him on a 10-day course of anti-inflammation medication. “Be out by Christmas,” Miguel texted.

The family responded with encouragement. “Hang in there we are all with you,” wrote his sister Margarita. “Ten days go by really fast.”

But eight days later, on Dec. 4, Miguel’s oxygen levels plummeted. The doctors put him on a ventilator.

Miguel was now fighting for his life.

Unable to visit him, the family prayed for his recovery. Every night Miguel was in the hospital, his extended family gathered on Zoom at 7:30 p.m. Miguel’s 71-year-old mother, Martha, and 73-year-old father, Salvador, would lead an hour-long prayer session while clutching rosary beads.

The separation was especially difficult for Alejandrina, who had been married to Miguel since 1991. Miguel liked to tease her when she watched her Mexican telenovelas: Why do you watch those shows when you have me? On Mother’s Day earlier in the year, Miguel had surprised her by buying a pair of rings, getting down on one knee and proposing again. The couple made plans to renew their vows on their 30th wedding anniversary this summer. When he became sick with COVID-19, Miguel assured Alejandrina he would get better so they could get married again. She promised she would wait for him.

After Miguel was intubated, his family gathered in the parking lot outside the building where ICU patients are treated, to be as close to him as possible. Miguel’s mother knelt on the pavement for 40 minutes, her hands clasped in prayer. She told her grandchildren that praying needed to be sacrificial. It had to hurt to be effective.

It was hard for Miguel’s family to reach the doctors to discuss treatment options, in part because family members couldn’t visit. It was impossible to build a relationship at the bedside or buttonhole doctors on their rounds, the way they could have in non-pandemic times. They called multiple times a day, but it was difficult to get clear information.

When a doctor did call with an update, Miguel’s daughter Jeannette would patch in her brother, Miguel Jr., and Miguel’s niece, Jhaimy Fernandez, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Vermont’s Larner College of Medicine.

Miguel’s family members said they were the ones to bring up ECMO, shortly after he was intubated. The ICU doctor treating Miguel told them ECMO was not an option, they recalled. Jhaimy requested a consultation with the palliative care team, which specializes in helping critically ill patients and their families make treatment decisions. The palliative care team, however, agreed with the ICU doctor, she said.

“They just thought it was outrageous for us to even think about ECMO,” Jhaimy said of the hospital’s doctors.

Miguel Jr. said it seemed as if the doctors were not familiar with his father’s medical history. They asked if he had diabetes, Miguel Jr. said, which he didn’t. He didn’t have any preexisting conditions that typically make patients unsuitable for ECMO. Although some ECMO centers use age cutoffs, Miguel, at 53, was young enough to be considered appropriate for the therapy.

Carlos Fernandez, Miguel’s younger brother and business partner, said it was frustrating that the family had to bring the ECMO option to the caregiving team.

“They just kind of wrote him off,” he said, adding that it’s possible the treatment team was just overwhelmed. “He’s an older, Latino, overweight man. That is the demographic the coronavirus is looking for.”

In a discussion with Miguel’s daughter in the early afternoon of Dec. 7, a doctor called his prognosis “very poor,” according to notes in his hospital record.

That update, however, was followed by more hopeful news. The family’s insistence had paid off. His doctors had now decided he was, in fact, a candidate for ECMO. The family doesn’t know what changed their minds, and the medical records do not describe how the doctors arrived at that decision. The medical team told the family Miguel would be transferred soon to a site where he could receive the new treatment.

A Tangled System

That afternoon, a hospital patient case manager began the effort to find Miguel an ECMO bed.

There is no central database that hospital staff can tap into to quickly figure out where in the greater Los Angeles area an empty ECMO bed might exist. Case managers typically have to call hospitals one by one, navigating each facility’s particular bureaucracy and coordinating it all with Miguel’s insurer.

“It is a nonsensical, haphazard collection of stakeholders, and the pandemic has found the fault lines in it,” said Dr. Douglas White, a physician who directs the program on ethics and decision making in critical illness at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.

A key reason ECMO is being rationed in the U.S. is a lack of regional coordination, White said. “If one hospital has no ECMO [units], but another 50 miles away has one, there needs to be a system in place to connect them,” he said. “That’s how you prevent the need to ration.”

In Arizona, the state health department created the Arizona Surge Line early in the pandemic to coordinate care statewide for critically ill patients, said White. More than 4,000 patients, including many from hard-hit Native American reservations, have been transferred through this clearinghouse, according to White. The system is focused on capacity for all critically ill patients, so it’s broader than just ECMO treatment. But it’s an example of how to connect patients to the resources they need in real time, he said.

In Washington and Oregon, ECMO program directors can log in to a document that displays the availability of ECMO beds throughout the region.

In 2016, the directors of Minnesota’s six ECMO centers created a consortium to help with pandemic and emergency operations, said Dr. Matthew Prekker, a pulmonologist and critical care specialist at Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis. The consortium established uniform eligibility guidelines to make sure all critically sick patients get a fair chance at the therapy.

If half the state’s medical centers reach capacity, it triggers an emergency conference call between the ECMO center directors, who steer patients to open beds. “We are well organized,” said Prekker. “We don’t work in silos.”

Los Angeles has vast academic medical centers, but no real-time coordination on finding ECMO beds. Before COVID-19 there had not been a need to coordinate such a high volume of patients, said Dr. Peyman Benharash, director of the adult ECMO program at UCLA Health. He said when COVID-19 hit, ECMO doctors created an informal group chat so they could coordinate patients and resources, but it’s not something case managers can access. Benharash said his center does not use a waiting list, because he wants case managers to continue searching for any hospitals that might have a bed available. If UCLA is full, it tells case managers to call back in 12 hours.

The lack of a centralized system in Los Angeles can result in a scramble for case managers and doctors as patients’ lives hang in the balance.

On the afternoon of Dec. 7, Miguel’s medical records show, the PIH Whittier case manager called Miguel’s insurance company. There was no guarantee the insurer would agree to a therapy that can easily run into the six figures. Insurance company rejections of ECMO are not uncommon, according to ECMO directors. But in Miguel’s case that didn’t seem to be an obstacle. The insurer told PIH that the University of Southern California’s Keck Hospital, the Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center and Cedars-Sinai Medical Center might be options. The case manager left a message at USC and provided UCLA with Miguel’s information. Cedars-Sinai came back with a no, saying Miguel didn’t meet its criteria for ECMO therapy.

The case manager, after talking to Miguel’s insurer, tried two more hospitals. One, UCI Health in Orange County, didn’t have any ECMO beds available. A second, Providence Saint John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, said it would review Miguel’s records.

During the COVID-19 surge, ECMO centers were screening the growing number of patients to prioritize those with the best chances of survival. At 5:08 p.m., after three hours of working the phones, the case manager turned over the search to a colleague. Soon after, UCLA called to say it wouldn’t take Miguel because he had a hematoma and blood clotting.

A Prayer Answered

As the case managers searched for an ECMO bed, Miguel’s mother was back in the hospital parking lot holding a vigil for her son. This time, she hid a prayer card and string of rosary beads underneath the green leaves of a day lily to protect Miguel when she was not there.

The search for an ECMO bed did not make progress for most of the day on Dec. 8. The longer Miguel depended on a ventilator, the greater the chance he would either die or suffer complications that could disqualify him for ECMO. Even without complications, extended ventilator time could rule out ECMO. By now, he had been intubated for four days. Some programs will not take a patient who has been intubated more than a week.

“When it comes to somebody needing ECMO, they can fail very quickly,” said Sun.

The next day, on Dec. 8, the palliative care team offered a grim prognosis in a telephone call with Miguel’s family: “We told them that Mr. Fernandez was not likely to recover at this point,” according to hospital records. The family said it still wanted the hospital to make every effort to save Miguel if his heart stopped.

Throughout the day on Dec. 8, a staffer at the Saint John’s transfer center was trying to reach someone at PIH to discuss Miguel’s case. At 8:33 that evening, a case worker at PIH wrote that she had received a call from Saint John’s. The transfer contact said he had “been trying to get in contact with [case manager] all day and left VMs but no one called back.”

The next day, a PIH case worker noted in the records that she had missed messages from Saint John’s because it was her day off.

Saint John’s had been calling PIH with good news: The hospital had accepted Miguel for its ECMO program and would admit him as soon as a bed became available. Over the next few hours, paperwork was faxed back and forth between the hospitals, and the insurance company was contacted for approval.

“Great news!!!” Jeannette announced in a message to the family group chat, adding a heart emoji. “My dad got accepted to St. John’s hospital in Santa Monica!!”

The plan, she informed the group, was for Miguel to be moved later that day.

A Life-Saving Therapy

At Saint John’s, Dr. Terese Hammond was receiving up to three requests a day to use ECMO to treat patients like Miguel. Hammond had been instrumental in starting the hospital’s ECMO program after she was recruited in 2018 to oversee critical care. She had worked with the therapy at USC, where she headed up the pulmonary critical care fellowship.

Community hospitals like Saint John’s don’t typically have the budget or specialized staff for an ECMO program. Even in the United States — which spends about twice as much per person on health care as other developed nations — more than 90% of hospitals do not offer ECMO. In Los Angeles, the established programs are located at big academic medical centers like USC, UCLA and Cedars-Sinai.

At Saint John’s, private donors came up with the money to buy a dozen ECMO units, which can cost up to $85,000 each, Hammond said. The hospital can care for as many as eight ECMO patients at once, depending on staffing.

Hammond was an early believer in using ECMO to help COVID-19 patients whose lungs were failing. Nearly every one of the COVID-19 patients treated with ECMO at Saint John’s transferred in, some from more than an hour away.

“We have to validate there is benefit, and we have been able to do that,” she said. “I have people alive today because of ECMO.”

Miguel’s family didn’t have to look hard for those success stories. Los Angeles Police Department detective Michael Chang was an early ECMO patient at Saint John’s whose near-death experience was featured in local news reports.

Chang had been assigned to robbery and gang investigations but was shifted early in the pandemic to working in uniform at COVID-19 testing sites, food giveaways and supermarkets. On March 30, he was admitted to a small Orange County hospital near his home with COVID-19. Six days later, he was intubated and placed on a ventilator.

As soon as Chang was intubated, his wife, Dana Chang, tapped into a network of police contacts in search of more advanced care. A captain put her in touch with an LAPD reservist who is also a surgeon, she said. That doctor told her about Saint John’s and its ECMO program. He called Hammond, and a transfer was arranged.

“He was going downhill fast,” Dana said of her husband. “If I left him there, he would have died.”

Chang arrived by ambulance at Saint John’s on April 7 and was immediately hooked up to an ECMO machine. On the evening of April 12, he was removed from the machine. He left the hospital five days later.

Michael Chang sometimes still experiences shortness of breath and bouts of a dry cough, but he credits ECMO with saving his life. “Prior to me getting it, I had never heard of ECMO,” he said. “I had no idea what this thing is. The world needs to know about this.”

Of the 39 COVID-19 patients placed on ECMO at Saint John’s since the start of the pandemic, 15 are alive today. Hammond said most of them almost certainly would have died without ECMO.

Hammond is the first to caution that ECMO is not a miracle cure. About half the COVID-19 patients undergoing ECMO die in the hospital, according to a registry of more than 3,400 COVID-19 patients worldwide, though some centers have reported survival rates of as high as two-thirds.

Miguel’s family said they knew ECMO wasn’t a guarantee, just a chance, something the doctors at PIH were telling them he didn’t have there. If it didn’t work, they said, they would take comfort in knowing everything possible had been done to help him.

The Waiting List

The news of Miguel’s pending transfer to Saint John’s quickly gave way to a larger reality: There were lots of patients like Miguel in Los Angeles.

COVID-19 was surging. The number of COVID-19 patients in intensive care units had doubled in the three weeks since Miguel was hospitalized. At PIH Whittier, two weeks before he was admitted, 17 patients had COVID-19. The week Miguel arrived, that number swelled to 47. By the time he was intubated, there were 76. By Dec. 7, when the ECMO search began, there were 93.

At Saint John’s, the ICU was full and unable to take in any new patients. While Hammond had approved the transfer of Miguel and had an ECMO machine to treat him, there were no beds available.

The waiting list was not something the family could see or monitor. There was no way to know who was ahead of Miguel, or why, or how fast people were moving up the list. At least at the deli counter or DMV, they could see numbers on a board, monitor their progress and make sure no one jumped the line. With Miguel’s life in the balance, his family was completely in the dark.

“My dad didn’t have anybody that would call to make him a priority,” said Miguel Jr. “There was no way for us to hold anyone accountable for what they were saying. We just had to take them at their word.”

Hammond said the waiting list is not influenced by a patient’s wealth or social status, only whether they are medically qualified and “likely to survive this therapy.” In the case of Miguel, she had approved him for ECMO when other hospitals said either they had no room or he didn’t meet their criteria.

On Dec. 10, Miguel Jr. shared the bad news on the family chat that his father’s transfer had not taken place the night before as hoped. “We have been calling my dads transfer case manager at the hospital and we even called saint johns and spoke to one of their case managers to try to speed up the transfer process but there is not much we can do but wait for a bed to open,” he texted to the Familia group.

The next two days brought more waiting. “Call to Providence St Johns to follow up on ECMO spoke w/ Rachel, still no bed. no movement yet, same status,” Miguel’s caseworker at PIH wrote in her notes for Dec. 11.

By now Miguel had not been breathing on his own for a week and was becoming “more and more difficult to ventilate,” according to hospital records.

The family didn’t understand what it meant when hospitals said they had “no beds” in their intensive care units. Jeannette and Miguel Jr. called Saint John’s to ask if they could buy a bed for their father. They did research to find out if donations were allowed to fund additional beds at the hospital, but were told it doesn’t work that way.

Jeannette imagined ways to get inside the hospital and see with her own eyes that every one of its 266 beds was occupied. She looked into becoming a volunteer at Saint John’s and found an application online.

Hammond said the phrase “not having a bed” was a euphemism for lacking enough nurses, respiratory therapists, perfusionists and doctors to care for patients who need intensive care. Saint John’s expanded its ICU capacity from the normal 23 beds to 40, but adding beyond that meant stretching the staff too far.

On the morning of Dec. 12, nearly five days after the search for an ECMO bed began, the case manager told Miguel’s family that he was in “the top 3” of those waiting for an ICU bed at Saint John’s, according to the medical records.

Less than an hour later, a team of doctors and nurses hurried to Miguel’s room at PIH. The hospital had called a Code Blue. Miguel’s heart had stopped. The team started chest compressions and administered drugs to restart his heart. It worked, but Miguel had suffered damage to his kidneys and other organs.

The next day around noon, someone from the Saint John’s transfer center called a nurse at PIH Whittier to say that once again no beds were available. The PIH case manager told Saint John’s that Miguel was in multi-organ failure, and might not survive the ambulance ride to the other hospital. Two hours later, Saint John’s informed PIH it would no longer take Miguel as a patient “due to change in condition.”

At 5:23 p.m., another Code Blue alert was sounded. This time, Miguel did not survive. In his room, a hospital worker gathered items left behind after his 26-day stay: an Apple laptop, an iPhone and a pair of cracked black-rimmed glasses.

“People Are Dying Waiting”

The story of Miguel’s death and his family’s scramble to get him potentially life-saving care has become a familiar one for Hammond.

She said she has had as many as seven people on her waiting list at one time, all in similarly desperate situations.

“Part of the PTSD I have, the nightmares I have, are as much having to say no and having people die on a waiting list,” she said. “Those are all things that represent a lot of moral injury for physicians. We know the limitations the surge placed on our ability to do the best we can. People are dying waiting.”

The rationing is not limited to Los Angeles. It is playing out across the country.

In Dallas, the ECMO unit at Baylor University Medical Center receives daily requests from across Texas and neighboring states on behalf of desperately sick COVID-19 patients. Their last chance at survival could come down to whether Baylor has a bed. “A few days ago I had five patients on my waitlist,” Dr. Gary Schwartz, a lung transplant surgeon who leads the ECMO program at Baylor, said in an interview. “Two passed away while waiting. It is absolutely terrible.”

Schwartz said his center, one of the busiest in the country, averaged about 120 ECMO patients a year before COVID-19. In 2020, that number grew to 158, and the number would have been higher if he had had additional capacity. “Quite honestly, there was an additional 50 to 100 who were appropriate but there were no resources for them,” he said.

National guidelines created by the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization, a consortium of hundreds of ECMO centers, essentially call for rationing as the demand for ECMO spikes in regions saturated with COVID-19 cases. As surge levels escalate, “we recommend that selection criteria become more stringent to use this resource for those most likely to benefit,” according to the guidelines.

Some centers have moved to implement an age cutoff for ECMO, or lower the age in existing guidelines. At Baylor, the maximum age of those considered appropriate for ECMO was dropped to 60 from 75 before COVID-19, Schwartz said. He said another center in the region reduced its age range to 50 or younger because it was overwhelmed with requests. “Many of the patients in the beginning were elderly, and we were afraid that if we had lots of those people that the younger people, 30 to 40, wouldn’t have that available,” he said. Schwartz said he has colleagues in Europe who think an age restriction is unethical. “In a perfect world, we would be using [ECMO] for the people most likely to survive,” he said.

Schwartz and the directors of other ECMO centers in Dallas created an ad hoc group chat on WhatsApp to try to keep track of where beds were available as hospitals filled to capacity. “The real question is do we learn from this and change in the future to some kind of centralized process?” Schwartz said.

Hammond said the ECMO directors in Los Angeles have a similar arrangement where they text each other to find empty beds. The surge in Los Angeles is waning, and cases throughout the country are also going down. But new variants of COVID-19 are emerging, posing a threat of fresh surges. Hammond hopes the experience with COVID-19 will prompt the creation of a formal, permanent network to coordinate the care and movement of critically ill patients in Southern California.

Miguel’s niece, Jhaimy, will become a doctor in five months and has been interviewing to do her family medicine residency training in Los Angeles. She’s always been aware of health care disparities, and went to medical school to find ways to improve the system.

“It just pains me to see how typical a case my uncle was,” she said. “He was Hispanic, mid-50s, an essential worker, not trusting of the health care system. He fit all the checks.”

On Dec. 30, Jhaimy was one of dozens of family members who gathered to bury Miguel in a sprawling cemetery near his home.

A family friend organized a fundraiser to help defray the cost of the funeral. Miguel was his family’s primary source of income, and since his death, bills have mounted.

A blue and white floral arrangement spelling out “PAPA” was placed on a stand near his grave. Underneath it was a photograph of a younger Miguel, wearing a white button-down shirt and a leather jacket.

The specter of COVID-19 hung over the graveside service. Everyone wore a mask. Miguel’s mother slumped over his casket, gripping it with hands covered in clear medical gloves. She wore a face shield and a cloth mask.

The burial did not bring Miguel’s family members much closure. Jhaimy said she has wondered what would have happened if her uncle had not been so afraid to go to the hospital. Would he have survived if he had been treated sooner?

Miguel Jr. and Jeannette are troubled that Miguel’s doctors didn’t present ECMO as an option, and then resisted the idea when the family suggested it.

The family still thinks about what would have happened if an ECMO bed opened up in time.

“I believe with ECMO he would still be here today,” Miguel Jr. said. “He never got the chance to fight.

Utilities work year-round to harden the grid against extreme weather. They may build berms to protect power plants against floods, fill reservoirs in preparation for droughts, replace equipment that can get overheated in the summer or weatherize power plants for cold conditions.

Almost exactly a decade ago, in February 2011, Texas suffered a significant series of rolling blackouts when cold weather forced dozens of coal and natural gas power plants offline. This cold snap is testing the upgrades utilities made after that event.

3. Does having a diverse fuel mix protect against energy crunches?

Texas is blessed with multiple energy sources. Much of it is produced locally, including natural gas, wind and solar power. Over the past 15 years, the state has diversified its fuel mix: Coal use has dropped, wind and solar have grown, and nuclear and natural gas use have held steady.

Each of these options has pros and cons. Wind and solar do not require water cooling, so they work fine during droughts and floods. But they vary based on wind patterns, cloud cover and time of day.

Nuclear power is reliable, but sometimes nuclear plants have to reduce their output during heat waves or droughts if their cooling water is too hot or scarce.

Natural gas is a high performer, but in the 2011 Texas cold snap, gas plants struggled to keep up with demand because many homes and businesses were using the fuel for heat. That reduced the pressure in gas pipelines, which made it hard to physically move gas to turbines that needed the fuel to generate electricity.

Much of the coal burned in Texas power plants comes from Wyoming over a sprawling rail network that can be disrupted if a bridge or section of track is out of commission for repairs. Utilities store 30 days or more of coal in piles near their power plants, but those piles can freeze or be flooded, as occurred when Hurricane Harvey swamped Houston in 2017.

Because all of these options fail in different ways, a diverse mix is the best basis for a robust system. Today Texas has three times as much wind power-generating capacity as it did in 2011, which may help stave off the worst risks of a statewide blackout.

This extra wind will be especially important because about 30% of ERCOT’s generating capacity is offline right now, reportedly due to natural gas shortages. Some West Texas wind turbines have also shut down due to icing, but turbines in other parts of the state are partially offsetting those losses. ERCOT will investigate all power losses after this storm passes and use what it learns to make new improvements to its system.

4. California has had rolling blackouts recently, too. Is this a national risk?

California is a big state with power sources in many locations, so it relies on a sprawling network of wires and poles to move electrons from one place to another. Those power lines can sag when it’s hot out and fail when high winds blow trees down onto the wires.

Aging transmission and distribution networks can also spark wildfires, which is a growing risk as the effects of climate change worsen drought conditions in the West. To manage those risks, California grid operators will preemptively turn off the power to prevent wildfires. They also did this in August 2020 to ration power during a heat wave.

Weather-related power outages are increasing across the U.S. as climate change produces more extreme storms and temperature swings. States that design their buildings and infrastructure for hot weather may need to plan for more big chills, and cold-weather states can expect more heat waves. As conditions in Texas show, there’s no time to waste in getting more weather-ready.

Michael E. Webber, Josey Centennial Professor of Energy Resources, University of Texas at Austin

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Rush Limbaugh’s toxic patriotism will be his worst legacy

Back in 2014 I pissed off Rush Limbaugh. The source of his ire was a piece I wrote for Salon on the eve of Stephen Colbert stepping down as host of “The Colbert Report.” In it, I suggested that Colbert’s character on that show had played a valuable role in redefining patriotism for the left.

Limbaugh wasn’t pleased. It led him to deploy his characteristic misogyny and call me a “professorette” as he twisted my argument in order to make his point. His angry rant included the fact that I was part of leftist academe, that I dared to criticize American exceptionalism, and that I had something positive to say about the legacy of Stephen Colbert’s character. 

Well, now that he’s dead, I have something negative to say about his legacy.

Rush Limbaugh made America worse. He made the media worse, he made his party worse, and he made our democracy worse. He made toxic masculinity worse. He made white nationalism worse. Actually, he made a wide spectrum of noxious bigotry worse. Even more, his twisted invective passed off as reasoned arguments made our collective intelligence worse.

Rush Limbaugh left our country more angry, more divided, more stupid, more intolerant, more prejudiced, more arrogant and more incapable of solving any of our problems. Limbaugh created chaos and he fed off of it. There was never any moment when he wasn’t trying to make everything worse so he could profit from his followers’ fear and anger over it.

Much will be made of what will be Limbaugh’s most lasting legacy. Will it be the way that his radio show single-handedly opened the floodgates for alt-right punditry? Will it be that his unique brand of manufactured outrage and angry hysteria became a seminal feature of right-wing rhetoric? Will it be that his vicious bigotry came to epitomize the “values” of the right? Or that his celebrity cult following paved the way to Trump?

These, of course, will all be a central part of his story, but they will not be the most significant. Instead, as we unpack the devastating consequences of his life on this nation, it will be his unique brand of toxic patriotism that will be his worst legacy.

Limbaugh certainly wasn’t the first one to suggest that the left “hated” their country, but he was the most successful at amplifying that view and embedding it as a core feature of right-wing identity.

In Limbaugh’s world patriotism was synonymous with right-wing politics. Thus, if the left criticized the right, it meant they hated their country. And when the right criticized the left, it demonstrated love of country. It was a perfectly circular logic that allowed the right to understand any form of critique as hatred and any disagreement as treason.

The consequences of this twisted version of nationalism have been devastating. Limbaugh offered up a fascist version of U.S. patriotism and, at least for many years, till he lost his edge to even more lunatic incarnations like that of Alex Jones and Glenn Beck, his toxic patriotism was his trademark symbol. 

As Limbaugh put it in his rant against me: “I can’t escape these professors and these lies and all this crap that’s in the media about everything that’s so-called wrong with America. Meanwhile, we’re losing everything this country’s known for.”

The number one goal of the left, according to Limbaugh, is to destroy the right. For him, the left sees the right as its enemy. “I really do think that they are so twisted with this hatred for us,” he cried.

But who exactly hates whom? I mean, yes, I — along with many, many others — critique the right. Yet, critique is not akin to hatred. Nor is questioning American exceptionalism. Debating the core values of U.S. nationalism is not hatred, either. But for snowflake Limbaugh and his followers, any questioning of them feels like a full-on assault.

In this way Limbaugh manufactured liberal hatred of the right in order to stoke right-wing hatred of the left, all in the service of merging partisan hatred with patriotism.

It was a brilliant move, because it allowed Limbaugh to suggest that the right is both a victim of left-wing attacks and also the only ones who care about the country. The left, according to him, is too busy hating the right to care about preserving the nation. Thus, the right are aggrieved nationalists left to fight off treasonous liberals while elevating their nation to greatness. 

And that’s where Colbert comes in, because his in-character persona on “The Colbert Report” did an excellent job of parodying toxic right-wing patriotism and suggesting that it was high time for the left to fight for an alternative version of the country. As I argue in “Colbert’s America,” Colbert was uniquely focused on wresting the notion of patriotism away from the right and suggesting that an active, engaged and critically thinking citizenry could offer a powerful contrast of national values.

Colbert’s parodying of exaggerated patriotism on his show had him swooping in on the opening credits accompanied by a bald eagle and an American flag only to take a seat in a studio that was filled with Americana. Colbert often used his satire to poke at Limbaugh, who functioned as one of his character’s alter egos, alongside those based on other right-wing pundits like Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck.  

In a clip from March 5, 2009, Colbert highlighted the fact that Limbaugh loved to suggest he was more patriotic than anyone on the left — in this example, President Barack Obama, who Limbaugh claimed was violating the principles of the Constitution. In his anti-Obama rant, Limbaugh then offered up a quote of the sacred document. Except that the quote was from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution; and even worse, Limbaugh got it wrong anyway.

Colbert’s bit did an excellent job of pointing out what a bunch of buffoons these so-called patriots are. They don’t even know the patriotic documents they accuse the left of disparaging.

But, in contrast, Colbert did. He used his character to not just mock the faux patriotism of Limbaugh, but also to give his own viewers a lesson in U.S. history. Throughout his show, through recurring segments like “Better Know a District,” Colbert outed self-proclaimed patriots by showing how little they actually knew about their country. Instead, he suggested, all they really knew was that they hated the left.

So, it was my defense of Colbert’s patriotism that really set Limbaugh off. Because for the most part, up until Colbert and Jon Stewart used their satire shows on Comedy Central to satirize right-wing “values,” there really hadn’t been an effective counter to the vicious nationalism on offer from Limbaugh and his allies. Their satire served as a particularly good foil for the rise of extremist patriotism because it was able to use satirical irony to expose the absurdity of saying that the best way to love your country is to hate the left. Colbert and Stewart suggested that hatred wasn’t a patriotic value, but reason, debate, attention to the truth and critical engagement were.

Shortly after Limbaugh decided to attack me to the over 3 million listeners who tended to tune in to his show every hour, I got death threats. They came via social media, via email and even in the form of creepy hand-written letters that I had to turn in to campus police. 

My experience wasn’t unique. In fact, it was common for Limbaugh’s listeners to use death threats, nasty messages, and social media stalking to harass anyone Limbaugh had chosen to single out on his show. As has been noted by Dannagal Young, the rise of outrage as the core “virtue” of the right has been decades in the making. And, as Peter Isackson explains, death threats have “become one of the standard means of expression for aggravated outrage.”

But Limbaugh’s special contribution was to make death threats, aggressive attacks, and belligerent bullying the ultimate act of patriotism. He infected conservative patriotism with vicious hate. 

He might be dead, but as we all witnessed on January 6, the legacy of his toxic patriotism remains very much alive.

QAnon followers still think Trump will be inaugurated — on March 4. National Guard will be ready

Nearly 5,000 National Guard troops are expected to stay in Washington for at least another three weeks amid concerns over potential violence from QAnon adherents, some of whom believe former President Donald Trump will be inaugurated on March 4.

House Armed Services Chairman Adam Smith, D-Wash., cited QAnon chatter surrounding March 4 during a hearing this week with defense officials flagged by CNN.

“Some of these people have figured out that apparently 75 years ago, the president used to be inaugurated on March 4,” Smith said. “Now why that’s relevant, God knows. At any rate, now they are thinking maybe we should gather again and storm the Capitol on March 4 … that is circulating online.”

Pentagon official Robert Salesses said at the hearing that 4,900 National Guard troops will remain in D.C. through March 12 at the request of Capitol Police in response to “different missions” that the troops will support. He said there isn’t a specific threat that the National Guard is tracking but the Pentagon will work with law enforcement agencies to evaluate any potential threats.

The Trump Organization appears to have taken notice of the chatter too. The Trump International Hotel in Washington has jacked up its room rates for March 3 and 4 by nearly $1,000, Forbes first reported. It was the only hotel in the nation’s capital to increase rates for those days — and has not increased them on surrounding days. The hotel similarly raised its prices dramatically for Jan. 5 and 6, the dates around the deadly Capitol riot.

Followers of the QAnon conspiracy theory, which is effectively based on the fictitious idea that Trump is secretly fighting a satanic cabal of child-trafficking Democrats, have struggled to cope with President Joe Biden’s inauguration. Many of them had expected that Inauguration Day would bring “The Storm,” when, according to clues left by an anonymous message board poster known as “Q,” Trump would lead the National Guard in mass arrests of his political enemies. The “storm” never came, leaving many to grapple with reality as Q stopped posting shortly after the election. Some QAnon followers have since hatched their own conspiracy theory, claiming that Trump will return for the “real” inauguration on March 4.

Setting unrealistic timelines for world-changing events is nothing new in QAnon world, said Julian Feeld, co-host of the “QAnon Anonymous” podcast, which details the “best conspiracies of the post-truth era.” QAnon followers previously wrongly predicted that Trump would usher in “The Storm” in October 2018, which they dubbed “Red October,” and again in December 2018, and then again in March 2019, just to name a few.

“It’s kind of like an evangelical cult waiting for the rapture,” said Robert Guffey, an author and lecturer at California State University, Long Beach, who tracks the movement. “It doesn’t happen so you’ve got to push the day back, and then it doesn’t happen again — push the day back.”

But the March 4 conspiracy theory is unique, Feeld said, because it did not come from a clue posted by Q, but from followers themselves.

“They believe essentially that the 14th Amendment is the last valid amendment, and that basically, the last valid president was Ulysses S. Grant,” Feeld said in an interview. “So the idea here is that Trump would be inaugurated as the rightful 19th president, after Grant, and they chose March 4 is because that used to be the day of the inauguration in the time period that they idealize.”

That theory is itself based on an even more brain-melting conspiracy theory that seems borne entirely out of a tragically comical misreading of a 150-year-old law. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 formally incorporated the Washington, D.C., municipal government. Some QAnon followers have mistaken that to mean that as of that year the entire United States was incorporated like a business.

“They believe that the United States was turned into a corporation and that invalidated, in their minds, everything that happened after that,” Feeld said. “They believe, essentially, that a company was created called the United States of America Inc., or something like that. And that meant that we stopped being a country, like, it broke the Constitution, and made everything after that basically an act of sedition and treason.”

This baffling idea is actually not entirely new, and stems from a related set of delusional beliefs known as Sovereign Citizen ideology.

“Sovereign citizens have had crossover with QAnon for a while,” Feeld said. “But this is the first time that it’s so central.”

The QAnon-Sovereign Citizen mind-meld may have been sparked by social media algorithms, which have long been criticized as radicalization engines for recommending increasingly extreme content to users.

“This is kind of an autonomous, QAnon-like decentralized problem that we have on social media platforms,” Feeld said, “where algorithms and engagement contribute to floating the wildest things that agree with people’s profound inability to face reality in a very difficult time.” These systems kind of just self-replicate and they go on and on.”

Feeld said it’s possible that these conspiracy theories could produce lone-wolf style attacks, but he doubts there will be anything like a repeat of the Jan. 6 Capitol siege, mostly because Trump is no longer present as an inciting factor.

“The Capitol was a perfect storm of so many things,” he said. “It is actually very difficult to get a group of people in America that worked up and that violent unless there is profound actual injustice or a president that goes, ‘Hey, you should walk to that place close to here and get pissed off.'”

Guffey noted that some QAnon followers have already picked the next date if March 4 doesn’t pan out: May 20, which is 120 days after January 20. That date stems from an economic recovery plan called NESARA, the National Economic Security and Recovery Act, proposed during the Clinton administration by an obscure engineering consultant named Harvey Barnard, who authored a book called “Draining the Swamp.”

“Somehow this obscure failed attempt to basically reset and forgive the national debt has gotten woven into QAnon mythology,” Guffey explained. “The way they see it, NESARA was enacted on Jan. 20 by Trump and under the precepts of this proposal, after 120 days, that’s when the military can come in and take over. And then the entire country will be reset back to before the United States became USA Inc. 

“Trump will come back and the military will pull Biden out of the White House. Then all the debt goes away and the IRS is abolished. And then, at that point, Trump starts releasing all these hidden patents for free energy. It’s going to be utopia and all the Democrats will be in Gitmo. Then, when that doesn’t happen, they’ll either create another fake date or cobble up reasons why Joe Biden is actually a hologram and Trump is actually in the White House.”

The diverging conspiracy theories and growing skepticism inside the movement suggest that Trump’s defeat has left the Q community in a state of chaos that could manifest itself in potentially violent ways.

“These communities are encouraged to share memes, they’re not usually encouraged to violence,” Feeld said. “But lately, there have been more calls that could be interpreted as calls for violence, because they’re no longer on the platforms where that stuff would have gotten them banned.”

Social media platforms have increasingly cracked down on QAnon-related content since the Jan. 6 riot, which has sparked an exodus of QAnon followers to platforms like Telegram, Gab and the recently-relaunched Parler — which was also used to coordinate the Capitol attack. Other followers have started to avoid terms directly linked to QAnon, like “Pizzagate,” but instead use terms like “pedo-gate” to avoid getting flagged on more mainstream social networks.

More importantly, QAnon has birthed an entire autonomous online subculture that no longer relies on clues from Q.

“As COVID continues, we’re going to see a growth in some of the belief systems that exist within QAnon and always have, because it’s a type of umbrella movement,” Feeld said, noting that many have tied QAnon ideology into videos and posts about New Age beliefs and meditation.

“We have seen a generation of influencers that are younger, that are perhaps into Tarot cards and all this,” he said. “But the end result is always the same. Their politics shift to the far right, and they think Donald Trump is some form of messianic figure or essential element in this great awakening.”

Many of these followers view themselves as “digital soldiers” in a war that goes far beyond Trump.

“It’s a broader war against what they see as Communist, anti-Christian, Satanic pedophiles that have taken over things like Netflix,” he said, citing the QAnon community’s uproar over the streaming network’s film “Cuties.”

“So it’s not just about the president. There’s a cultural war boiling underneath this,” Feeld said. “We’ll see less direct mentions of the word ‘QAnon’ but we will continue to see people being digital soldiers on a kind of battlefield where good and evil are the two sides and the stakes are saving our world under the light of Christ and God.”

Guffey agreed that QAnon is going to evolve “without Q.”

There’s a large contingent of Christians involved in QAnon but “it’s almost like a secular religion because you have people attracted to it who are not necessarily evangelical Christians,” he said. “It also appeals to people who are into the paranormal, people who are into conspiracy theories, accelerationists. I know former Democrats who just went down the rabbit hole and are now completely for Q and for Trump.”

The “Save the Children” campaign, a splinter movement from QAnon that has spread falsehoods and conspiracy theories about child trafficking, is a particularly effective recruiting tool because it is not overtly tied to QAnon or Trump.

“It’s being fed by a new wave of young people who used to perhaps be liberal or not think too much about politics and have now become born-again Christians or digital warriors,” Guffey said. “Then they sw-ng far-right and believe there is a kind of demonic invasion all around them. They’re reading these patterns in the endless media they’re being fed.”

It’s ironic, Guffey said, that QAnon adherents who often use military language and pride themselves on their pattern-recognition ability “seem incapable of recognizing the most obvious.”

Social media platforms feed into this confusion because “all information is flat” in user feeds, Feeld argued. “Conspiracy theories sit next to historical facts very comfortably. Someone’s blog post sits next to an article by a renowned journalist.”

Some QAnon followers have even bigger plans, potentially following in the footsteps of Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., in bringing fringe ideas into national politics. Gene Ho, a frequent speaker at QAnon events who has accused liberal elites of drinking children’s blood, is running for mayor in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. Jo Rae Perkins, who has pledged her support to QAnon, won the Republican Senate primary in Oregon last year. An analysis by the watchdog group Media Matters identified two dozen Republican candidates in last year’s election cycle who had espoused or flirted with QAnon beliefs.

While QAnon has largely been a Republican-linked phenomenon, many true believers “consider most Republicans to be RINOs, or Republicans in name only,” Feeld said. “They have a hatred for a majority of the Republican Party. If you’ve betrayed the MAGA movement in some way, you’re persona non grata.

“They have a radical new project for the Republican Party and they see them as a vehicle that is not extreme enough and is not willing to get its hands dirty in the ways that they would imagine. They just don’t understand why Hillary Clinton is not behind bars or why there are no trials in Guantánamo Bay. They’re often fascists. Under the Julius Evola definition, you could call them ‘super fascists,’ since their fascism is completely outside the bounds of reality.”

Guffey said he sees QAnon as “veering more toward the religious end of the spectrum rather than the political end of the spectrum, almost like if the Church of Scientology, back in the 1950s, had branched off into 50 different subsets, all of whom were accusing each other of secretly working with the government.”

The disparate subgroups forming out of the core QAnon movement suggest that many followers may be outgrowing their singular focus on Trump, and that the movement may morph into something entirely different, even while retaining core QAnon beliefs.

“This will be with us for at least a generation,” Feeld said. “These are beliefs that will be held by parents and their offspring. We’ll have grandparents gathering children around the fireplace, telling them the story of how Hillary Clinton sheared the face off a baby and danced with it and ate the child. These are the stories that are being told in our culture for a variety of reasons. That’s something we’re going to have to contend with in a broader way than just labeling it QAnon.”

“I’m speaking to you, Sen. Manchin”: West Virginians blast Democrat for opposing $15 minimum wage

Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia is under sustained fire — including from low-paid workers in his own state — for his resistance to a provision in the Senate’s coronavirus rescue package that would raise the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour.

“I’m speaking to you, Sen. Manchin,” Jean Evansmore of the West Virginia Poor People’s Campaign said at an online event Monday. “You know that in West Virginia the minimum wage needs to be $23 in order for people to live, not wonder where their next meal is coming from.”

“Enough’s enough,” added Pam Garrison, also with the West Virginia Poor People’s Campaign. “When will you give us a living wage?”

Evansmore and Garrison’s comments came during an online Moral Monday event organized by the campaign. The event highlighted voices of those impacted by low wages and the campaign’s suite of policy priorities for the White House and new Congress, including lifting the minimum wage to $15 — a change the group frames as a way to “lift from the bottom and take seriously the costs of inequality.”

Manchin and fellow Democrat Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona have publicly announced their opposition to the popular wage hike proposal.

The bill in question, the House-passed Raise the Wage Act, would incrementally raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $15 an hour by 2025.

West Virginia’s minimum wage is currently $8.75 an hour. While that’s higher than the federal wage floor, it’s far below the $24 an hour the wage would be now if it kept pace with productivity growth, and well below the $28.70 an hour rate MIT estimates to be a “living wage” for an adult with one child working full time.

Amid the progressive push for better wages, the Poor People’s Campaign said Monday that Manchin had requested a meeting with the campaign — a meeting the anti-poverty group said was agreeable dependent upon the inclusion of “a diverse group of low-wage workers and moral leaders from the West Virginia Poor People’s Campaign.”

Sinema’s assertion that the proposed minimum wage provision “is not a budget item” and thus doesn’t belong in the reconciliation measure, meanwhile, was further undercut on Monday by a Congressional Budget Office analysis requested by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., chair of the budget committee, showing that the wage hike would have a broader budgetary impact than two provisions included in the GOP’s 2017 tax bill — which were passed using the reconciliation process.

Despite the new finding from the CBO, it remains unclear whether the Senate parliamentarian will deem that the wage provision complies with the so-called Byrd Rule — a requirement that any provision must have a direct budget impact to be included under reconciliation. If the bill does emerge from the “Byrd bath,” it will still need the support of all 50 Senate Democrats to pass by a simple majority.

Sanders, for his part, told CNN Monday, “We absolutely believe that raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is consistent with the rules of the Senate and the reconciliation process.”

“It is popular, it is what the people want, it is what justice demands,” said Sanders.

The Rev. Dr. William J. Barber II, co-chair of the Poor People’s Campaign, gave a similar assessment in his comments at the Monday event.

“We cannot heal this nation without full COVID relief of the minimum wage of $15. There is no way we can go through the pain and poverty prior and since COVID and not make this a major part of our economic recovery and economic future,” he said.

“If you want to be serious about poor and low-wealth people, and 50 percent of West Virginians,” said Barber, “then don’t talk about money when you talk to everybody else, but then when you get to the poor folk, you say, ‘Pray.'”

“No,” he continued, “we need you to stop preying on poor and low-wealth folks and start paying poor and low-wealth folk so that they can live and have the fruit of their labor.”

Simply allowing the nation’s inequality to fester as part of a post-coronavirus recovery should not be an option, stressed Poor People’s Campaign co-chair the Rev. Liz Theoharis.

“Americans cannot in this moment be fooled into thinking that the very policies and measures that left this world in ours in a wreckage of inequality, poverty and low wages can get us out of this mess,” she said.

“We cannot be fooled that raising the minimum wage will do anything except to lift people from the bottom so that all of our society can rise,” said Theoharis. “What will work is to build back better and build the power of 140 million poor and low-income Americans, hundreds of thousands of West Virginians who are not making a living wage, but who desperately need one.”

Ted Cruz named ranking member of aviation subcommittee, one day after Cancún antics

One day after Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, returned to the U.S. from a controversial trip to Cancún during the Texas crisis, he was named the ranking member of the Senate subcommittee that oversees aviation.

“Today, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chair of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and Ranking Member Roger Wicker (R-MS), announced the new Commerce subcommittee structure and leadership for the 117th Congress,” the committee said in a press release.

“Subcommittee on Aviation Safety, Operations, and Innovation: Chair Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ); Ranking Member Ted Cruz (R-TX),” the committee explained.

In fact, Cruz formerly chaired that subcommittee — before Republicans lost control of the Senate by losing both runoff elections in Georgia.

 

Joe Manchin, who voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh, to vote against Neera Tanden over mean tweets

Joe Manchin, the West Virginia senator who voted to confirm some of Donald Trump’s most controversial Cabinet and Supreme Court picks, announced on Friday that he would become the first Democrat to vote against one of Joe Biden’s nominees.

Manchin told CNN that he informed Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, of his decision not to support Neera Tanden as the head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Tanden, who previously ran the progressive think tank Center for American Progress and served as an adviser to Hillary Clinton and former President Barack Obama, would be the first woman of color to oversee the OMB. The conservative Democrat pointed to Tanden’s history of acerbic tweets as the reason for his opposition.

“I have carefully reviewed Neera Tanden’s public statements and tweets that were personally directed towards my colleagues on both sides of the aisle from Senator Sanders to Senator McConnell and others. I believe her overtly partisan statements will have a toxic and detrimental impact on the important working relationship between members of Congress and the next director of the Office of Management and Budget,” Manchin said in a statement. “For this reason, I cannot support her nomination.”

Manchin, who in the past voted against the repeal of the anti-LGBT “Don’t Ask, Don’t tell” policy, said on Friday that “we must take meaningful steps to end the political division and dysfunction that pervades our politics. At a time of grave crisis, it is more important than ever that we chart a new bipartisan course that helps address the many serious challenges facing our nation.”

Without Manchin’s support, Tanden’s nomination appears in peril in a Senate split 50-50 between. Democrats and Republicans.

Tanden acknowledged at her confirmation hearing last week that her statements on social media “caused hurt to people.”

“I do think the last several years have been very polarizing and I apologize for my language that has contributed to that,” Tanden told members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. “I know it’s on me to demonstrate to this committee and to Republican members and Democratic members I can work with anyone.”

Manchin’s announcement marks the first time a Senate Democrat has announced opposition to a Biden Cabinet nominee.

When asked if he planned to pull Tanden’s nomination because of Manchin’s announcement, Biden said, “No” on Friday, adding, “I think we’re gonna find the votes to get her confirmed.”

Other potential picks who have been floated publicly, like former Chicago mayor Rahm Emmanuel, have a considerably more moderate record than Tanden.

 

 

“Kenan,” “WandaVision” and the case against forcing laughter into grief

“Kenan” is not NBC’s next great comedy. It barely qualifies as middling. But it is worth watching at least once if only to appreciate what’s missing.

I’m talking about the laugh track.

“Saturday Night Live” performer Kenan Thompson‘s first primetime vehicle is produced in a way that make it resemble a standard multi-camera family comedy, leading a person to expect gales of canned laughter to flutter over designated punchlines like Don Johnson‘s corny “sax to be you!” groaner featured in the promos. But the recorded giggles never appear, which seems like a technical error until we consider the details of Kenan’s situation.

The title character’s wife Cori recently died, leaving him to care for his daughters Aubrey and Birdie (Dani and Dannah Lane) with the help of his brother Gary (Chris Redd) and father-in-law Rick (Johnson), who came to help out after his daughter’s death and still hasn’t gone home a year later.

The widower-with-children situation is a TV sitcom classic, a tried and tested formula that played out long before “Full House” became a cultural phenomenon. “Family Affair,” “The Andy Griffith Show,” “The Courtship of Eddie’s Father,” all of these series drop men in the starring role of caretaker and breadwinner – mom and dad – wringing humor from the harried challenges of men taking on single parenting. Imagine!

But Thompson’s father knows how to care for his kids. Fictional Kenan wakes up cruelly early, carefully choosing his girls’ outfits, preparing their lunch as he makes himself coffee. That part he has down cold. It’s the rest of his world that’s falling apart because he can’t fully acknowledge his loss.

Kenan also is the host of “Wake Up with Kenan,” Atlanta’s most successful morning program, where he usually excels at connecting the live studio audience with stories about his wife and daughters. But he avoids cheerfully bantering about his family whenever it comes up. He can’t even call Cori “mom” when he talks about her to his daughters, referring to her instead as their “deceased parental figure” whenever it comes up.

“Kenan” follows the beats of a multi-camera sitcom thereby enhancing our awareness of a live studio audience’s absence and the omission of any manufactured punch-up. The pilot’s shiny, hollow merriment stumbles through the motions of a sitcom, but that’s OK when you realize most of its jokes are rooted in Kenan’s reluctance to face reality. The humor comes across as gentle and sweet, not quite lame but distinctly lacking in zing. A laugh track would only call attention to the writing’s edge deficit. A lack of one buys the story some grace.

Television trends constantly re-evaluate our relationship with sitcoms and the laugh track, just as TV sitcoms grapple differently with life’s sadness from era to era.

“Kenan” isn’t the first show to feature a major comedy star as the headliner of a story about contending with massive loss. In fact, NBC had another show about a broadcaster mired in denial over his wife’s death in 2012 – “Go On,” starring Matthew Perry as a man who learns how to grieve in group therapy. Since a “Friend” was attached to it, “Go On” ran for a full season. But it never caught on for a number of reasons including, I’m guessing, the lack of appetite to try to find something to laugh about in other people’s despair.

But in the way of so many things the show plays differently now that it did nine years ago when the thought of a pandemic crippling our nation and killing nearly 500,000 Americans was unfathomable. This is not to say that death is more of a laughing matter these days but rather to surmise that there are many more people who can relate to the absurdity of grief now than were in the audience back then.

It’s worth noting that “Go On” did not use a laugh track.

Forced laughter went out of style when cable comedies brought single-camera productions into vogue and broadcast laughers like “Malcolm in the Middle” began applying cinematic techniques to the sitcom format, but even before them some creators resisted recorded laughter, resenting its artificiality.

This is driving inspiration of another show about depression, which is really just another flavor of grief: AMC’s upcoming “Kevin Can F**k Himself,” which folds a standard multi-camera sitcom about a wife propping up a worthless goofball husband into a dark drama version of the same story. In its sitcom half Annie Murphy’s Allison is a housewife made to clean and put up with her husband’s laziness and antics with good humor as recorded laughs roar at every dumb joke he makes; in the dark single-camera side of the show she’s enraged and homicidal.

“Kevin Can F**k Himself” positions sitcom laughter as boorish and dehumanizing.

The other side to this argument points to the overwhelmingly broad success of CBS’ hits “The Big Bang Theory” and “Two and a Half Men,” both of which were shot with live audiences laughing along. Genuinely funny writing gets a boost from the give and take of people watching and laughing in the room where the actors deliver the jokes.

But then neither of these shows made mourning its central focus. Neither, for that matter, does CBS’ contribution to the widowed dad subgenre “The Unicorn, ” another laugh-track free single camera show about a handsome man played by Walton Goggins awkwardly navigating the world of dating a year after his wife died. (In the land of sitcom etiquette one year appears to be the proper amount of time that needs to pass between the point of deepest despair and readiness to return to shenanigans.)  

In “The Unicorn” the quest to find new love supersedes overt grief – and to be fair, that could very well turn out to be the case with “Kenan,” since critics were only given one episode to preview.

By this point in “WandaVision,” though, we now recognize that profound, dark grief is the story’s Big Bad. Anyone aware of the romance between Wanda (Elizabeth Olsen) and Vision (Paul Bettany) must have suspected mourning would take on a starring part in the series eventually, although opening episodes keep the audience in the dark as to what is actually going on.

Stylistically “WandaVision” time travels between the chipper fakery of 1950s and 1960s-style sitcoms, where the writer – i.e. Wanda– inserts managed laughter in places the audience recognizes as funny. Right away we’re supposed to notice how disconnected the laughter is from the larger action, and as Vision’s suspicions that something isn’t right grow, the laugh track transforms into an unpredictable menace and increasingly out of sync with what is unfolding before our eyes.

Recent episodes parody comedies that don’t use laugh tracks, namely “Malcolm” and “Modern Family,” with its the fourth-wall breaking faux-documentary style. As the grave reality of the world presses in on her Wanda realizes her tenuous hold on the reality she believes she’s created is falling apart – hence, no more disembodied laughter.

Wanda has something in common with Kenan in that respect – masking her grief can only help her hold it together to a point. Her only salvation now may be to face it, which is advice she’s reluctant to take from the only other character in the show who also happens to be mourning someone she dearly loves, Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris). Rambeau’s grieving leads her to take chances, and while one of those involves a reckless risk that could have killed her, it meaningfully transformed her instead – which some would say is grief’s purpose.

We have yet to see whether “Kenan” similarly morphs into something better than it is by staying with its character’s process and earning its laughs without help from recorded Pavlovian triggers. If it doesn’t go the distance, the lesson it unintentionally imparts is worth remembering: When it comes to finding comedy in sorrow, nothing is better than artificial sweetener.

“Kenan” airs Tuesdays at 8:30 p.m. on NBC. “The Unicorn” airs Thursdays at 9:30 p.m. on CBS. New episodes of “WandaVision” premiere Fridays on Disney+. “Go On” is streaming on NBC.com. “Kevin Can F**k Himself” premieres this summer on AMC.