Spring Sale: Get 1 Year, Save 58%

Trump launches new Truth Social attack on Georgia election worker Ruby Freeman

Former President Donald Trump late Monday night took to his fake Twitter app Truth Social to rekindle conspiracy theories about two Georgia elections workers whom he and his allies baselessly believe prevented ballots that were supposedly cast for Trump from being properly tabulated, thus costing him Georgia’s sixteen Electoral College votes in the 2020 election.

During a House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol hearing in June, Wandrea Shaye Moss and her mother Lady Ruby Freeman testified under oath that Trump’s then-attorney Rudy Giuliani alleged that they helped steal the presidency away from Trump.

Moss emotionally recounted how erstwhile New York City Mayor Giuliani’s false accusations destroyed her life:

It’s turned my life upside down. I no longer give out my business card. I don’t transfer calls. I don’t want anyone knowing my name. I don’t want to go anywhere with my mom because she might yell my name out over the grocery aisle or something. I don’t go to the grocery store at all. I haven’t been anywhere at all.

I’ve gained about 60 pounds. I just don’t do nothing anymore. I don’t want to go anywhere. I second guess everything that I do. This affected my life in a major way. In every way. All because of lies, for me doing my job, the same thing I’ve been doing forever.

Moss and Freeman sued Giuliani in December 2021. He attempted and failed to have the defamation proceeding dismissed this past November.

The case stated that “on multiple occasions, strangers camped out at Ms. Freeman’s home and/or knocked on her door. When Ms. Freeman was not home or would not answer the door, these strangers would sometimes also harass her neighbors. Strangers were coming to her home so frequently that the local police agreed to add her address to their patrols in the area.”

The mother-daughter duo also filed a lawsuit against the right-wing news website The Gateway Pundit for promoting Giuliani’s “campaign of lies.”

That complaint, which was ultimately settled by the parties, contained additional details of the petitioners’ plight:

Freeman made a series of 911 emergency calls in the days after she was publicly identified in early December by the president’s camp. In a Dec. 4 call, she told the dispatcher she’d gotten a flood of ‘threats and phone calls and racial slurs,’ adding: ‘It’s scary because they’re saying stuff like, ‘We’re coming to get you. We are coming to get you.’

Two days later, a panicked Freeman called 911 again, after hearing loud banging on her door just before 10 p.m. Strangers had come the night before, too. She begged the dispatcher for assistance. ‘Lord Jesus, where’s the police?’ she asked, according to the recording, obtained by Reuters in a records request. ‘I don’t know who keeps coming to my door. Please help me.’

All of that prolonged trauma was forced back into the fray by Trump’s trio of so-called “Truths,” which were posted roughly twenty minutes apart.

11:47 p.m.:

Wow! Has anyone seen the Ruby Freeman ‘contradictions’ of her sworn testimony? Now this is ‘BIG STUFF.’Look what was captured by Cobb County police body cameras on January 4, 2021. ‘And everything they are saying is false. Everything from the quote unquote SUITCASES OF THE BALLOT BOXES, TO THE WHY WE OPENED THEM BACK UP. EVERYTHING THEY SAID WAS FALSE.THE FBI…REACHED OUT TO ME ONLY TO CLEAR MY SOCIAL MEDIA (evidence tampering?)…COUNT WAS LOW, IT WAS REALLY LOW.’ Now it gets really bad,TRUTH 2

12:07 a.m.:

Ruby Freeman, page 2: ‘BOOM under the table. Cut the zip ties to scan them so the number would go up…so that’s how the number was CREATED, by the ballots going through the scanner…I do want an attorney. IT’S ALL A FRAUD. EVERYTHING THEY ARE SAYING IS FALSE. FROM THE SUITCASES OF THE BALLOT BOXES, TO WHY WE OPENED THEM BACK UP. EVERYTHING THEY SAID WAS FALSE.’ They got Ruby 7 top D.C. lawyers and protection from the FBI (Again?). WHY? She then ‘changed’ her statements – LIED? TROUBLE FOR RUBY!!!

12:29 a.m.:

What will the Great State of Georgia do with the Ruby Freeman MESS? Why not just tell the TRUTH, get rid of the turmoil and guilt, and take our Country back from the evils and treachery of the Radical Left monsters who want to see America die? MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

Kari Lake ally rages after Katie Hobbs is sworn in: “The legislature must vote to decertify”

Democrat Katie Hobbs on Monday was officially sworn in as Arizona’s governor, and allies of defeated Trump-backed rival Kari Lake are not taking it well.

Rachel Jones, a newly elected Arizona state representative, took to Twitter to express her rage that Hobbs was officially sworn in as the winner after she received roughly 17,000 more votes than Lake.

“I will NOT move on like everything is o.k.,” wrote Jones. “I will NOT pretend like Fake Katie Hobbs is the legitimate governor of AZ. I will NOT standby while my favorite state is stolen by radical leftists. I will NOT allow this election to be stolen.”

When one of Jones’ followers asked when she was prepared to actually do about it, she replied she would push for the Arizona State Congress to “decertify” the results.

“The legislature must vote to decertify,” she wrote. We need to demand to see chain of custody documents required by law. If this election is on the up and up, like the haters want us to believe, why won’t they prove it?”

Another follower sarcastically asked Jones if she planned to send a mob to attack the Arizona Capitol building like Trump supporters did on January 6th, 2021 — and she replied with conspiracy theories about the FBI organizing the entire riot.

Jan. 6 transcript reveals Trump plot to “court-martial” retired military officers who criticized him

The Jan. 6 insurrection testimony of General Mark Milley revealed that there were conversations among members of the Trump administration to court-martial retired military officers who criticized Trump’s handling of 2020 civil unrest in published op-eds, Insider reports.

A 20th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and top military aide to Trump since 2019, Milley’s testimony was part of a trove of documents the committee released earlier this week.

The testimony includes Rep. Elaine Luria, D-Va., asking if Milley considered approaching former Trump advisor, Michael Flynn, about the administration’s desire to enforce military action against the retired officers. Milley said he was “concerned about the politicization of the military” after op-eds “very critical of then President Trump” by retired military officers were published.

Milley said, “There was actually discussions with me: Bring him back on Active Duty, court-martial him, you know, make him walk the plank sort of thing, right? I advised them not to do that, because that would further politicize, in my personal view.”

Retired military officers the administration targeted for court-martialing were not named during testimony, but according to Insider, a few did publish op-eds criticizing the way Trump responded to nationwide protests following George Floyd’s murder in 2020.

For Foreign Policy, retired Marine Corps General John Allen wrote, “Donald Trump expressed only the barest of condolences at the murder of George Floyd, but he also said nothing about the fundamental and underlying reasons for the unrest: systemic racism and inequality, a historic absence of respect, and a denial of justice.”

Allen also highlighted that Trump “threatened to deploy the U.S. military against American citizens.”

Navy Admiral Mike Mullen said in his Atlantic op-ed titled “I Cannot Remain Silent” that he was “deeply worried that as [the military] execute their orders, the members of our military will be co-opted for political purposes.”

Mullen wrote, “Even in the midst of the carnage we are witnessing, we must endeavor to see American cities and towns as our homes and our neighborhoods. They are not ‘battle spaces‘ to be dominated, and must never become so.”

Milley mentioned during testimony that he “was worried about the ‘broader implications’ of politicization of the military, taking action against retired officers who speak out shouldn’t be done lightly,” Insider reports.

America’s epidemic of loneliness: The raw material for fascism

In the United States as in many other societies, rates of depression, anxiety, loneliness, drug abuse, self-harm (including suicides) and other mental health problems greatly increase during the holiday season and just after the New Year. 

In the American context, this crisis is largely explained as a reflection of private and personal troubles rather than as a symptom of an unhealthy society that is plagued by extreme wealth and income inequality, economic precarity, loneliness and social atomization, pathocracy and the culture of cruelty, and a form of predatory capitalism that has financialized all areas of life, fueling false needs, endless consumerism and feelings of spiritual and emotional emptiness which, by design, can never be fully satisfied.

Sick societies thrive on damaged human relationships, and also exacerbate them. Fascism, authoritarianism and right-wing populism are especially prevalent in societies where a larger sense of shared social identity, community, belonging and meaning is endangered or in crisis. 

Donald Trump’s movement and the larger tendencies of American neofascism have apparently been slowed by their recent “defeat” in the midterm elections. But such anti-democratic tendencies in America will not be vanquished until their root causes are confronted and treated. In an essay at Counterpunch, scholar Henry A. Giroux provides this context:

Under neoliberalism, domination has become internalized, politics has collapsed into the personal, meaningful registers of the social and public sphere have largely disappeared. In this historical period of social atomization and loneliness, social problems are now defined through the regressive neoliberal language of excessive individualism in which all troubles are reduced to pejorative categories such as a lack of ambition, personal failings, individual deficits, laziness, and lack of resilience.

The May 2021 American Perspectives Survey highlighted growing rates of loneliness among men in this country, including the troubling fact that a majority of them report having few close friends. Over the past 30 years or so, the survey found, “American friendship groups have become smaller and the number of Americans without any close confidants has risen sharply,” but men “have suffered a far steeper decline than women”:

Thirty years ago, a majority of men (55 percent) reported having at least six close friends. Today, that number has been cut in half. Slightly more than one in four (27 percent) men have six or more close friends today. Fifteen percent of men have no close friendships at all, a fivefold increase since 1990. 

Women have witnessed a friendship decline too, but it has been far less pronounced. In 1990, roughly four in ten (41 percent) women said they had six or more close friends, compared to 24 percent today. Ten percent of women reporting having no close friends.

A new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston indicates that American men are also leaving the labor force in increasing numbers. Since the friendship networks of men tend to be connected to their jobs, this has clear mental health consequences. Fortune reports that while the U.S. job market remains “hot,” with unemployment “close to a 50-year low,” non-college-educated adult men continue to drift out of the workforce: 

And they’re leaving in part because of their perceived social status relative to better-educated men of similar age. … Non-college-educated men have seen their pay shrink by more than 30% since 1980 compared to the average earnings of all other prime-age workers. Their weekly earnings have declined 17%, while those of college-educated men rose by 20%, adjusting for inflation. That earnings loss has caused a decline in their social status, prompting them to walk away from work entirely, Pinghui Wu, the author of the study, wrote.

“For many workers, a job not only offers financial security, it also affirms their status, which is tied to their position relative to their age peers and many social outcomes,” Wu wrote.

This new report also suggests that perceptions of gender and class relations, particularly for younger white men, have fueled this dynamic. Younger white men were more likely to leave “when their expected wages fell relative to their more educated peers,” and women in the workforce have generally seen their earnings increase, “irrespective of their educational qualifications,” as the effects of previous sexist discrimination begin to fade. 

These findings about American men and loneliness have broad implications for societal stability, and also speak to the specific appeal of fascism and other forms of illiberal politics that target and radicalize (mostly white) men who may experience a crisis of masculine identity.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


It would not be correct to suggest that loneliness, social atomization, dislocation and related troubles are limited to any particular age, race or gender. A widely read article by Paula Span at the New York Times calls attention to the growing number of “kinless” older Americans who do not have spouses, siblings or children. The total may be close to a million people, Span reports, “including about 370,000 women over 75”:

Several demographic factors have fostered increased kinlessness. Baby boomers have lower marriage rates and higher divorce rates than their parents, and more have remained childless. The rise of so-called gray divorce, after age 50, also means fewer married seniors, and extended life spans can make for more years without surviving family.

In addition, seniors who are Black, female and have lower levels of wealth have particularly high rates of kinlessness.

Researchers are concerned that these kinless Americans are likely to die earlier, and toward the end of their lives receive fewer hours of caregiving and are likelier to die alone in nursing homes. As a doctor quoted in the article observes, “Getting old is hard under the best of circumstances, and even harder if you’re going it alone or with weak social ties.”

Dr. Jeremy Nobel, a Harvard professor and expert on loneliness, summarized the health implications of loneliness in a recent interview with PBS NewsHour. His perspective is somewhat different, focusing not on the elderly but on younger people raised in the era of social media: 

Loneliness and isolation are often associated with their effects on mental and emotional health. But Nobel says it’s also important to understand the impact on physical health that can come from experiencing those feelings.

“What’s only recently come to light is that loneliness won’t just make you miserable, it’ll kill you. And not just from suicide or drug overdose, but from heart disease, cancer or other kinds of physical ailments,” Nobel said. “It turns out that loneliness increases risk of early death by 30 percent — as much as smoking 15 cigarettes a day.”

Though loneliness is experienced widely across Americans, it disproportionately affects younger people, people of color and low-income individuals, according to the Cigna study. The study found that 79 percent of adults aged 18 to 24 report feeling lonely, in comparison with 41 percent of seniors aged 66 and older. Nobel says that social media is a big factor in why younger generations experience loneliness at higher rates.

How can we alleviate America’s crisis of loneliness and social atomization? On many levels and in a myriad of different ways, we need to nurture the public sphere and what we used to call the “commons.” This demands a wide-ranging combination of government, nonprofit and private initiatives that recognize the importance of such spaces and the types of interactions, relationships and social capital that they generated there as crucial to the health and future of democracy.

America’s greatly weakened social safety net must be protected and expanded. But even more important than that, we must recognize that America’s political and media classes have created and reinforced a false divide between emotional and mental health and questions of politics, power, democracy, freedom and justice. Americans know and feel, in their bodies and minds, that something is wrong in their society, but largely lack the language or conceptual framework to understand the true nature of the problem.

In the PBS interview cited above, Dr. Nobel offered a concrete suggestion: “Often the path to connect with others starts with connecting to yourself. To give yourself the room, to be authentically curious about what matters to you in the world, what you’re interested in. And as you move towards that and explore that, it often opens up channels to connect with other people who have similar curiosities and similar interests.”

Unfortunately, some of the loudest and most influential voices in American society, including the inescapable Donald Trump and many other Republicans (although not them alone), are offering Americans only toxic and self-destructive answers for their deeply-felt anxiety and pain. More respectable and moral leaders, by and large, have not addressed this crisis openly and directly. America’s collective emotional and mental health crisis is not a phenomenon that can be separated from our political crisis. They are profoundly connected, and there is no way to repair or redeem our democracy without addressing them together. 

“Sick disgusting human beings”: Right-wingers use NFL player’s collapse to push anti-vax conspiracy

Right-wing anti-vaxxers pushed a debunked conspiracy blaming COVID shots after NFL player Damar Hamlin collapsed on the field on Monday.

Hamlin, a 24-year-old safety for the Buffalo Bills, suffered a cardiac arrest and collapsed on the field after a scary hit to his chest during the Monday Night Football matchup against the Cincinnati Bengals. Players surrounded Hamlin as he received CPR for about nine minutes before being taken off the field in an ambulance. The game was postponed and Hamlin was taken to a local hospital.

“Damar Hamlin suffered a cardiac arrest following a hit in the Buffalo Bills’ game versus the Cincinnati Bengals. His heartbeat was restored on the field and he was transferred to the University of Cincinnati Medical Center for further testing and treatment. He is currently sedated and listed in critical condition,” the Bills said in a statement early Tuesday.

The scary moment led to an outpouring of support and prayers for the young second-year player and an online toy drive fundraiser launched by Hamlin quickly raised more than $3 million in donations in the hours after his collapse. But some right-wing anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists used the incident to stoke a widely debunked claim that the COVID vaccine is causing young, healthy athletes to suddenly collapse.

“This is a tragic and all too familiar sight right now: Athletes dropping suddenly,” tweeted Charlie Kirk, the head of the Trump-allied Turning Point USA.

“There have been too many recent #diedsuddenly cases to deny it anymore,” wrote failed Nevada GOP gubernatorial candidate Joey Gilbert.

“Prior to 2021, Athletes collapsing on the field was NOT a normal event. This is becoming an undeniable (and extremely concerning) pattern,” insisted Lauren Witzke, a conservative commentator and failed Delaware GOP Senate candidate.

“I know what everyone with any common sense is thinking. This isn’t the first time a pro athlete had this happen,” wrote right-wing commentator Grant Stinchfield, blaming the “NFL mandate” even though the NFL currently has no vaccine requirement for players.

The conspiracy theory has swirled in conservative circles since early in the pandemic and has been boosted by Republicans like Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., who claimed in an interview with Kirk that he has heard “story after story” about “all these athletes dropping dead on the field” after receiving the vaccine.


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Though there have been rare instances of myocarditis, a form of heart inflammation, in people who have received the vaccine, the risk of suffering myocarditis from COVID itself is about 100 times higher. Conspiracy theorists have cited reports on the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which allows anyone to submit a report and the reports are not verified.

“The numbers are basically meaningless,” wrote Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler, adding that “this claim has been debunked repeatedly. The story of athletes dropping dead from coronavirus vaccines has its roots in mysterious Austrian websites with ties to that country’s far-right populist party, the Freedom Party. Those stories were then recycled by right-wing media in the United States and then eventually came out of the mouth of a U.S. senator.”

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., condemned the conspiracy theorists for trying to use the alarming episode to advance their baseless claims.

“Sick disgusting human beings.  This isn’t politics this is straight up heartless, cold, evil,” he wrote on Twitter.

Kinzinger specifically called out Kirk in another tweet, calling him the “biggest piece of human garbage that can possibly exist right now.”

“Using this tragedy for your BS lies is sick,” he wrote.

Public health experts also slammed the conspiracy theorists.

“The antivaxers who watched a potential lethal injury to a young man and decided that it was the perfect time to blame vaccines are beneath contempt,” tweeted Dr. Jonathan Reiner, a cardiologist at The George Washington University Hospital. “The worst this country has to offer. Climb back under your rocks.”

Meet the new MAGA generation: These newly-elected Republicans set to join Team MTG

Trumpist election deniers were soundly defeated in competitive midterm races this year, for the most part. But there’s no shortage of far-right MAGA diehards who are joining Congress this week, mostly elected from safe Republican districts and states.

While the midterm elections served as a sweeping repudiation of fringe Trump-backed candidates in many swing states and purple districts, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s 21-point re-election victory in her rural district in northwestern Georgia makes clear that Trumpism is still alive and well in deep-red areas. House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy predicted a “red wave” that never reached shore — and it’s still not entirely clear that McCarthy can get himself elected speaker on Tuesday. Even so, there are 48 new Republicans entering Congress, at least half of whom count as election deniers.

Republicans have already vowed to put far-right lawmakers like Greene and Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona back on key committees and to launch aggressive investigations into the Biden administration and his family. McCarthy will need the most extreme Republican members in order to pass any legislation, and given the GOP’s slim margin, his speakership (assuming he gets there) will be subject to their whims. Here are six new Republicans to watch in 2023.

1
Rep. Max Miller, R-Ohio

Miller, 34, is a former White House aide who helped Trump plan his Jan. 6 rally at the Ellipse ahead of the Capitol riot. He  replaces Rep. Anthony Gonzalez, one of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump after the attack. A “scion of one the Cleveland area’s wealthiest, most prominent, most powerful families,” according to Politico, Miller was the first person endorsed by Trump this cycle.

 

Longtime associates told the outlet that they recall Miller having an “anger problem” and being “very scary.” Others described him to the outlet as “abrasive” and “volatile.” The report cited Miller’s long criminal history, which included charges of assault, disorderly conduct and alcohol-related offenses, which were ultimately dismissed. Former Trump press secretary Stephanie Grisham, Miller’s ex-girlfriend, last year accused Miller of physical abuse. Miller denied the allegation and filed a defamation lawsuit against her.

2
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla.
Luna, 33, a conservative social media influencer and media personality who once worked for the far-right Turning Point USA, has repeatedly made false claims about the election. She has described herself as a “pro-life extremist” while cozying up to right-wingers like Steve Bannon and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell. Luna campaigned with Greene and has already aligned herself with the House Freedom Caucus and members like Reps. Jim Jordan of Ohio, and Lauren Boebert of Colorado (who herself barely won re-election).
 
During the campaign appeared on a QAnon program, where she praised the hosts as “good conservative Republicans.” Though she did not discuss QAnon directly, she pushed other conspiracy theories about Democrats controlling the media and trying to “fix the election.” Luna in the past has defended Kyle Rittenhouse and Christian nationalism.
3
Rep. Derrick Van Orden, R-Wis.

Van Orden attended Trump’s Jan. 6 rally and marched to the Capitol. He said he never entered the building even though a photo showed him smiling in an area of the Capitol grounds that was behind police lines. He allegedly funded his trip with thousands in campaign funds from his failed 2020 House bid. Van Orden supports a national ban on abortion, which he compared to genocide, and linked rising murder rates to women working outside the home. He is also the co-author of a male-oriented self-help volume called “Book of Man: A Navy SEAL’s Guide to the Lost Art of Manhood.”

 

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, called Van Orden’s victory in Wisconsin’s 3rd district (which was represented for the last 26 years by Democrat Ron Kind) “horrific and bone-chilling.”

 

“It is very difficult to serve with people who took part in any way, shape or form in what happened on Jan. 6,” she told the Washington Post. “There’s a very physical reaction for many of us who were trapped there and who went through a lot of traumatic experiences.”

4
Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio

Vance, the “Hillbilly Elegy” author and tech venture capitalist whose campaign was backed by millions from billionaire right-winger Peter Thiel, was once a harsh Trump critic before embracing MAGA and the former president once that became politically advantageous. Vance, who has claimed the 2020 election was stolen, has also supported the idea of a federal abortion ban and billions of dollars to finish Trump’s border wall, and has promoted the “great replacement” theory popularized by right-wingers like Tucker Carlson and white nationalists.

 

More than most winning Republicans in 2022, Vance embraced culture-war issues, suggesting that women should stay in “violent” marriages to reduce divorce rates, tying undocumented immigrants to crime and decrying “wokeness.”


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


5
Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y. 

Santos became a national celebrity of sorts weeks after winning election from a suburban district on Long Island, when the New York Times reported that his résumé appears to be entirely made up. He has subsequently admitted that he never  worked at Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, as he claimed in campaign materials, and never graduated from Baruch College (or any other college). But the fictions didn’t stop there. He also repeatedly claimed that his grandparents were Jewish and had fled the Holocaust in Europe, that he had attended an exclusive prep school in the Bronx, that he had founded an animal-welfare charity and that his family was wealthy and owned numerous real estate properties. None of those things appear to be true either.

 

Santos is now under investigation by local and state officials in New York, and also in his native Brazil, where he was accused of check fraud in 2008, shortly before moving to the United States. It’s unclear how he was able to lend himself large sums of money to run a lavishly-funded congressional campaign, since he was sued for minor personal debts at least twice in recent years and the company he claims to work for has no known clients.

 

Santos also attended Trump’s Jan. 6 rally denying the 2020 election and later claimed he “wrote a nice check” to help the rioters with their legal troubles. Though he condemned the riot, he said in an interview with Lara Trump that it “was the most amazing crowd, and the president was at his full awesomeness that day. It was a front-row spectacle for me. And despite everything everybody says, I think Donald Trump will not go away.” He also specifically defended the Capitol rioters, saying, “Imagine “breaking into your own house and being charged for trespassing.”

6
Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga.

Collins, the son of a former congressman, appeared in a campaign video posted to Twitter carrying an assault rifle and falsely claiming that Trump won Georgia in 2020. He has also spoken in defense of the Capitol rioters, comparing them to “political prisoners.” Collins, who is set to join the far-right Freedom Caucus, has complained that McCarthy and other establishment Republicans are not conservative enough and has vowed to “make a great teammate” for Greene.

 

“The time for civility, the time for compromise, that’s over with; the time for bipartisanship is done,” he said in one campaign ad. “There is no compromising.”

 

Collins’ office will reportedly be headed by Brandon Phillips, who resigned in 2016 as Trump’s Georgia campaign chief after it was reported that he had been previously arrested for battery. WXIA reported that Phillips had “attacked” a man and slashed his tires, causing “visible bodily harm” and “cuts and bruises to the head and torso,” according to police. He was later arrested again after a woman said he pointed a gun at her head after she knocked on his door. Phillips was arrested again last month on a charge of animal cruelty after he allegedly kicked a woman’s dog with his boot, causing a cut on the animal’s stomach.

The GOP is about to go wild with phony Biden investigations. The media must not take the bait

Dark Brandon strikes again! Republicans have been drooling openly for weeks now over the small House majority they will have in the new year, and not because they have plans for legislation that will improve the lives of Americans. Nah, the blueprint for 2023 is all revenge on Democrats, all the time. Republicans are still salty over House Democrats investigating Donald Trump for minor transgressions like attempting to overthrow democracy and sending a murderous mob after Congress and his own vice president. The main form this revenge will take will be endless, stupid “investigations” into the various conspiracy theories about President Joe Biden that have been dredged up from the bowels of right wing media. 

But Biden is not interested in making it easy for them. On Thursday, White House lawyer Richard Sauber metaphorically crumpled up Republican requests for materials on various fake scandals, telling them they don’t have the authority yet and will have to redo all the paperwork in the new year. 

“Should the Committee issue similar or other requests in the 118th Congress, we will review and respond to them in good faith, consistent with the needs and obligations of both branches,” he wrote. “We expect the new Congress will undertake its oversight responsibilities in the same spirit of good faith.”


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


One can smell the sarcasm dripping off the letter, of course. Even a cursory review of the requests shows that “good faith” is not a concept that holds much meaning for House Republicans. As Reuters reports, “lawmakers requested documents related to probes into the 2021 U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan; the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, which started during the previous administration; and the federal government’s response to threats against members of local school boards over pandemic-era restrictions and curriculum disputes.”

They didn’t ask for Hunter Biden’s laptop, but then again, they don’t need to. That’s already been stolen for them, under shady circumstances involving Rudy Giuliani. But this list gives us a general idea of the B.S. that will be pouring out of the House Oversight Committee for the next two years: Conspiracy theories smearing White House chief medical advisor Anthony Fauci, who will likely be pulled out of retirement to testify while Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, screams false accusations at him. Faux outrage over Biden ending the expensive, go-nowhere war in Afghanistan, coupled with hypocritical whining over military aid to Ukraine. And, perhaps most troubling, winking encouragement of domestic terrorism by portraying those who were investigated for seditious scheming as victims. 

And, because Republicans have no limits to their pettiness, we can expect two years of taxpayer money being used to show off pictures of Hunter Biden’s penis, excused with the vague pretext that it’s necessary to investigate his “business dealings.” 

Republicans no doubt are aware that they look like a bunch of clowns when they do stuff like this, but they don’t care for one reason: Traditionally, these antics work to bait the mainstream media into giving credulous coverage to fake scandals about Democrats. The gold standard, of course, is how the phony Whitewater investigation in the ’90s took a winding road to the discovery that President Bill Clinton had an affair with a young White House employee named Monica Lewinsky, leading to months of lavish, embarrassing coverage of Clinton’s sex life. Even more preposterous pumped-up scandals have followed, from President Barack Obama’s birth certificate to Benghazi, which became a national catchword, even though no one can really explain what was supposed to be so scandalous about it. 

Republicans understand all too well the Achilles heel of the mainstream media: The cavernous longing for “balance.” Journalists want desperately to be seen as objective and the cheapest way to achieve that is to present “both sides” as equally corrupt. The problem, of course, is that simply isn’t true. Democrats, like all political parties, have their problems, and when they mess up or engage in corruption they should be held accountable. But their issues at the moment are a pittance compared to the endemic lying and corruption of the party of Donald Trump. One way for the press to achieve “balance” is to make mountains out of Democratic molehills — or worse, to cover flat-out fake or unimportant stories as if they were for-real scandals. 


Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.


For instance, Republicans are undertaking a truly despicable defamation campaign against Fauci because they believe the mainstream media will give airtime to false accusations that the doctor somehow caused COVID-19. Sadly, they have good reason to believe this, because in 2021, outlets that really should know better — including the New York Times and The Washington Post — gave lavish coverage to a conspiracy theory claiming that COVID-19 was invented in a Chinese lab. (Most scientists believe it mutated in an animal-to-human transmission.) They were bullied into it by internet trolls like Matt Yglesias who basically insinuated that the press was covering up for the Chinese government out of some anti-Trump bias. (For reasons that take too long to recount here, there was a perception that it was somehow better for Trump politically if the disease was manufactured instead of evolved.) Sure enough, even though the press largely covered the conspiracy theory as “questions are being asked,” the idea that the pandemic was man-made took off in the public imagination. 

Despite that debacle, there are some hints that some in the mainstream press are finally starting to prioritize truth and relevance over “balance.” We see this most with the bogus Hunter Biden story. Initially, Trump and Giuliani did have some success getting the New York Times to run a story misleading readers into thinking that Joe Biden had used his time as vice president to assist his son’s money-making schemes. (These accusations are flat-out false.) But the conspiracy theory was swiftly eclipsed by a very real conspiracy between Giuliani and Trump to leverage military aid in a plot to force Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy into announcing an investigation into the Bidens and Hunter’s dealings with a Ukrainian gas company. Trump was impeached, though the New York Times still has not apologized for its role in amplifying Trump’s smears. 

Since then, there have been many efforts by right wing media to turn Hunter Biden’s problems into a mainstream news story. So far, it’s largely failed, as the press has correctly assessed that “the president’s son has a substance abuse problem and his father has tried to support his recovery” is not a scandal. Still, Republicans are betting that the imprimatur of congressional hearings will convert this non-story into a media maelstrom. The good news is that, generally speaking, Biden stories have a harder time getting traction in the mainstream news marketplace than Trump stories did and still do, as many readers apparently assume anything the president does is hella boring. Capitalism may save us from this particular faux scandal, even if the urge to “balance” the endless-but-real Trump controversies with a spurious Biden one is still kicking. 

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of Fauci, or the various colorful characters who threaten school board officials and get a call from law enforcement as a response. Those folks are reliable attention magnets. There’s a not-small chance that the media will take the bait and let Republican lies convert the former into a villain and the latter into victims. 

It’s probably pissing in the wind to write this, but I would implore the editors at the New York Times, CNN, and other such outlets to resist the bait. Just because Republicans cast aspersions doesn’t mean they need lavish coverage for doing so. The role of the press is not to “balance” very real, bad stories about Trump and other Republicans with fictitious nonsense about Democrats. The first duty should be to the truth. And the truth is there’s no equivalence between Biden and Trump, or, at this point, Republicans and Democrats, broadly speaking. Plus, Trump is probably going to keep committing crimes, lying, plotting another coup, and being extremely and loudly racist. Cover that instead. It’s way more relevant and entertaining than trying to manipulate right wing conspiracy theories into something that looks like “news.”

Scene of the crime: Was there a conspiracy to keep Cassidy Hutchinson silent?

The September transcripts of star witness Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony before the House Jan. 6 committee read like a script for a sequel to “Goodfellas,” Martin Scorsese’s legendary crime film.

In May 2022, Hutchinson, a former top aide to Mark Meadows, who was Donald Trump’s final White House chief of staff, gave the committee some of its most incriminating testimony against Trump.

But that damning testimony came in Hutchinson’s third interview with the committee, only after she did a complete course correction. In two earlier sessions with the committee, she had apparently adhered to the advice of her then-lawyer, Stefan Passantino, that she answer “I don’t recall” to virtually every question the committee asked — advice that led her to deny recalling things she had in fact recalled.

Soon after her blockbuster interview in May, she replaced Passantino with new lawyers and gave the committee further interviews in September. It is those interviews that we focus on here.

For anyone not accustomed to reading 195-page court documents, the September transcripts reveal a pattern of conduct that points to what appears to have been a conspiracy to suppress the truth that this key witness ultimately revealed.

Here are some important facts to keep in mind:

Passantino was a former White House ethics lawyer under Trump. Shortly after the Jan. 6 committee’s Dec. 22 release of Hutchinson’s September testimony, Passantino resigned from his law firm. He has denied wrongdoing; his side of the story is yet to be told. 

What made Hutchinson’s September testimony so devastating is the picture that emerges from six pieces of her story that, taken together, suggest a well-orchestrated effort to hide the truth from the House committee and thus the American people.

First: According to Hutchinson, it was months into Passantino’s representation that he let slip that “Trump World” was the source of his compensation for serving as her attorney. Absent Hutchinson’s informed consent, a palpable conflict of interest arises from Trump or his circle pulling the purse strings of the lawyer supposedly representing a key witness in a congressional investigation into Trump’s role in disrupting the peaceful transition of power.

That conflict was brought into stark relief by Hutchinson’s testimony that, in her very first conversation with Passantino, she had specifically asked him who was paying him. His reply: “[W]e’re not telling people where funding is coming from right now.”

Second: Hutchinson testified that Passantino made a revealing statement bearing on the early concern she had expressed about whom the person serving as “her” lawyer was actually representing. Later, according to Hutchinson, Passantino advised her: “We just want to focus on protecting the president.”


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


Third: Hutchinson described an especially telling exchange that took place at a crucial break in her first committee interview: According to Hutchinson, she told Passantino in a panic, “I’m fucked. I just lied.” She explained that she had testified “I don’t recall” regarding things she in fact recalled perfectly well. Passantino sought to reassure her, insisting that she was “doing the right thing,” adding, “We’re all really proud of you.”

Fourth: Over what Hutchinson testifies was her objection, Passantino discussed her committee interviews with his “Trump World” law partners, including Justin Clark, who represented Trump himself. Passantino also said he would be alerting George Terwilliger and John S. Moran, lawyers for Mark Meadows, of the date of her second committee interview.

In short order, Hutchinson described receiving a phone call from Ben Williamson, Meadows’ spokesperson, just before her second interview. According to Hutchinson, Williamson said, “Mark wants me to let you know that he knows you’re loyal and he knows you’ll do the right thing tomorrow and that you’re going to protect him and the boss.”

Fifth: Hutchinson said that after her third interview with the committee, Passantino recommended that she simply defy the committee’s subpoena; he told her she needn’t fear prosecution for such defiance, however unlawful. The Justice Department, he reminded her, had just announced that it was declining to prosecute Meadows and Dan Scavino, Trump’s former social media director, for flouting the committee’s subpoenas.

Her resistance to Trump World’s pressure to stay silent distinguishes her from several Trump allies who defied subpoenas.

Six pieces of Cassidy Hutchinson’s story, when put together, suggest a well-orchestrated effort to hide the truth from Congress and thus from the American people.

Under federal law, a person can face a 20-year sentence if convicted of witness tampering, the crime of “corruptly persuad[ing]” a witness “to withhold testimony … from an official proceeding” or attempting to induce a witness to “evade legal process” with the intent to do so.

In addition, witness tampering to cover up responsibility for a prior crime subjects the tamperers to potential additional charges as accessories to the offenses they tried to help hide.   

Sixth: According to her September interviews, after Hutchinson told Passantino she was out of work, he and various other Trump allies had dangled a range of financial opportunities in front of her with the apparent purpose of luring her to testify favorably, if she testified at all.

Tellingly, the timing of those offers often coincided with Hutchinson’s committee interviews.

Case in point: It was the morning before her first committee interview that Passantino told Hutchinson he wanted to talk to her soon about job possibilities. And it was shortly before her second committee interview that he told her, “[W]e’ll find you something in Trump world. … We’re going to get you taken care of.”

Hutchinson also described how, the day before that interview, Trump lawyer Justin Clark, Passantino’s then-law partner, “sent [her] a text message … to try to schedule a call [in which] we could talk about job opportunities.”

Hutchinson said that between her second and third interviews, she received a text from yet another Trump lawyer, Pam Bondi, telling Hutchinson to “call Matt next week. He has a job for you.” The reference was apparently to Matt Schlapp, chairman of the American Conservative Union. Hutchinson quoted Bondi’s text as saying that she’d “just had dinner with POTUS” and Schlapp that night.

As if that hadn’t been enough, Hutchinson testified that on the morning of her third interview, Passantino told her about two job opportunities he said he would follow up on after that interview.

The upshot of these and other such incidents to which Hutchinson testified in September is the unmistakable appearance of coordinated and carefully timed actions by multiple people meant to keep Hutchinson from speaking honestly to the committee — what the law refers to, when proven, as a conspiracy.

Hutchinson’s testimony should be wrapped in the yellow police tape used to protect crime scenes. Without doubt, a prosecutor’s scrutiny is needed. No one is above the law.

Trump drank non-stop Diet Cokes to avoid filming video announcing he’d leave the White House

On the day after his supporters ransacked the United States Capitol building, former President Donald Trump released a video announcing that he would be leaving the White House and that then-President-elect Joe Biden would be taking over.

However, outtakes released by the House Select Committee investigating the January 6 Capitol riots showed that Trump was reluctant to read from the script he had been given, and refused to say that the 2020 election was over even as he prepared to leave the White House.

And as newly released testimony flagged by Politico’s Kyle Cheney shows, Trump’s reluctance to concede he would be leaving extended beyond what the House Select Committee showed in its hearings.

Specifically, former Trump White House photographer Shealah Craighead told the committee that Trump would repeatedly deploy what she viewed as stalling tactics during the filming of the video.

“His agitation of stopping and starting the conversation was based on asking for Diet Cokes several times, or stopping to take a sip and then starting again, immediately stopping and taking another sip and then starting again, reading some of the scroll, and then asking for a new Coca-Cola, or needing a towel to wipe his head or something,” she explained.

Craighead then told the committee that it seemed as though Trump wanted to do anything he could to not film the video.

“It was just there is anything — you know, as you procrastinate, you’re finding anything to… not to do what you have to do,” she explained. “Anything that he could procrastinate with before getting the words out he would do.”

“Past and ongoing GOP failures” plague McCarthy as he seeks House speakership support

This Tuesday, January 3, a new Republican majority will take over the U.S. House of Representatives. Democratic Rep. Hakeem Jeffries of New York will become House minority leader, but it remains to be seen who will be chosen as House speaker.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is hoping that fellow Republicans will choose him, and he has the support of far-right Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. But some House Republicans clearly don’t want McCarthy as House speaker and have said that they aren’t supporting him. Others have been noncommittal.

Reporting for Fox News’ website in an article published on New Year’s Day 2023, Greg Wehner and Tyler Olson explain, “Prospective House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is still tussling with some members of his party who are concerned electing him to be speaker would be a ‘continuation of past and ongoing Republican failures.’ Last week, the California Republican floated a congressional rule change that would make it easier to remove a House speaker in exchange for his rise to the post, a key demand from powerful GOP opponents.”

The Fox News reporters note that under the rule that was “imposed under” ongoing Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, “only a member of the House leadership can offer a motion to vacate, while the new proposal would allow any member of the House to force a vote to remove the speaker at any time.”

On New Year’s Day, McCarthy met with other House Republicans in the hope of persuading them to vote for him as House speaker. And before that, on New Year’s Eve, McCarthy made his case in a letter titled “Restoring the People’s House and Ending Business as Usual” — a letter that received an unfavorable response from a combination of House Republicans and Republicans who are set to be sworn into the House on January 3.

Those Republicans included Rep. Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona, Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, Dan Bishop of North Carolina and Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia, among others.

The Republicans, responding with a letter of their own, argued, “Regrettably, however, despite some progress achieved, Mr. McCarthy’s statement comes almost impossibly late to address continued deficiencies ahead of the opening of the 118th Congress on January 3rd. At this state, it cannot be a surprise that expressions of vague hopes reflected in far too many of the crucial points still under debate are insufficient. This is especially true with respect to Mr. McCarthy’s candidacy for speaker because the times call for radical departure from the status quo — not a continuation of past and ongoing, Republican failures.”




 

Hope Hicks on Jan. 6: “We all look like domestic terrorists now”

According to a report from the Daily Beast, Donald Trump adviser Hope Hicks was furiously texting during and after the Jan. 6 insurrection complaining about how it would appear to the public and fretting about her future job prospects.

As the Beast’s Zachary Petrizzo wrote, Hicks — who was a member of the former president’s inner circle — engaged in a texting back-and-forth with Ivanka Trump aide Julie Radford where they both expressed dismay at the long-term damage the riot was creating when it came to their reputations and others who worked at the White House.

As Petrizzo noted, the series of texts was prompted by tweets from Jared Kushner’s sister-in-law Karlie Kloss who wrote, as the riot raged, “Accepting the results of a legitimate democratic election is patriotic. Refusing to do so and inciting violence is anti-American.”

That, in turn, led Hicks to text, “I am so done. Does she get how royally f**ked they all are now?”

Without mentioning Trump by name, she continued, “In one day, he ended every future opportunity that doesn’t include speaking engagements at the local Proud Boy’s chapter.”

She continued, “And all of us that didn’t have jobs lined up will be perpetually unemployed. I’m so mad and upset. We all look like domestic terrorists now.”

Petrizzo wrote, “The self-pity didn’t end there, with Hicks moaning that she and other Trump White House officials would be ‘unemployable’ and ‘untouchable’ after the violence aimed at overturning the election of Joe Biden ‘God, I’m so f**king mad,’ she wrote.”

“Not being dramatic, but we are all f**ked,” Hicks later texted while admitting that former White House aide Alyssa Farah Griffin was smart to resign before things got out of hand.

You can read more here.

Toilets spew invisible aerosol plumes with every flush – here’s the proof captured by lasers

Every time you flush a toilet, it releases plumes of tiny water droplets into the air around you. These droplets, called aerosol plumes, can spread pathogens from human waste and expose people in public restrooms to contagious diseases.

Scientific understanding of the spread of aerosol plumes – and public awareness of their existence – has been hampered by the fact that they are normally invisible. My colleagues Aaron True, Karl Linden, Mark Hernandez, Lars Larson and Anna Pauls and I were able to use high-power lasers to illuminate these plumes, enabling us to image and measure the location and motion of spreading aerosol plumes from flushing commercial toilets in vivid detail.

This video compares the visibility of an aerosol plume after a flush without and with lasers in a lab.

Going up instead of down

Toilets are designed to efficiently empty the contents inside the bowl through a downward motion into the drain pipe. In the flush cycle, water comes into forceful contact with the contents inside the bowl and creates a fine spray of particles suspended in air.

We found that a typical commercial toilet generates a strong upward jet of air with velocities exceeding 6.6 feet per second (2 meters per second), rapidly carrying these particles up to 5 feet (1.5 meters) above the bowl within eight seconds of the start of the flush.

Diagram of jet-siphonic toilet

Water streams forcefully into the toilet bowl during a flush cycle. SouthHamsian/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-NC-SA

To visualize these plumes, we set up a typical lidless commercial toilet with a flushometer-style valve found throughout North America in our lab. Flushometer valves use pressure instead of gravity to direct water into the bowl. We used special optics to create a thin vertical sheet of laser light that illuminated the region from the top of the bowl to the ceiling. After flushing the toilet with a remote electrical trigger, the aerosol particles scatter enough laser light to become visible, allowing us to use cameras to image the plume of particles.

Even though we expected to see these particles, we were still surprised by the strength of the jet ejecting the particles from the bowl.

A related study used a computational model of an idealized toilet to predict the formation of aerosol plumes, with an upward transport of particles at speeds above the bowl approaching 3.3 feet per second (1 meter per second), which is about half of what we observed with a real toilet.

Why lasers?

Scientists have known for decades that flushing toilets can release aerosol particles into the air. However, experimental studies have largely relied on devices that sampled the air at fixed locations to determine the number and size of particles toilets produce.

While these earlier approaches can confirm the presence of aerosols, they provide little information about the physics of the plumes: what they look like, how they spread and how fast they move. This information is critical to develop strategies to mitigate the formation of aerosol plumes and reduce their capacity to transmit disease.

This video shows Aaron True monitoring the live image data of a flushing toilet plume on a computer screen.

As an engineering professor whose research focuses on interactions between fluid physics and ecological or biological processes, my laboratory specializes in using lasers to determine how various things are transported by complex fluid flows. In many cases, these things are invisible until we illuminate them with lasers.

An advantage of using laser light to measure fluid flows is that, unlike a physical probe, light does not alter or disrupt the very thing you are trying to measure. Furthermore, using lasers to make invisible things visible helps people, as visual creatures, better understand complexities in the fluid environment they live in.

Aerosols and disease

Aerosol particles containing pathogens are important human disease vectors. Smaller particles that remain suspended in air for a period of time can expose people to respiratory diseases like influenza and COVID-19 through inhalation. Larger particles that settle quickly on surfaces can spread intestinal diseases like norovirus through contact with the hands and mouth.

Toilet bowl water contaminated by feces can have pathogen concentrations that persist after dozens of flushes. But it is still an open question as to whether toilet aerosol plumes present a transmission risk.

While we were able visually and quantitatively to describe how aerosol plumes move and disperse, our work does not directly address how toilet plumes transmit disease, and this remains an ongoing aspect of research.

Limiting toilet plume spread

Our experimental methodology provides a foundation for future work to test a range of strategies to minimize the risk of exposure to diseases from flushing toilets. This could include assessing changes to aerosol plumes emanating from new toilet bowl designs or flush valves that change the duration or intensity of the flush cycle.

Meanwhile, there are ways to reduce human exposure to toilet plumes. An obvious strategy is to close the lid prior to flushing. However, this does not completely eliminate aerosol plumes, and many toilets in public, commercial and health care settings do not have lids. Ventilation or UV disinfection systems could also mitigate exposure to aerosol plumes in the bathroom.


John Crimaldi, Professor of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado Boulder

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

What happens when a family caregiver needs caregiving?

Mary Ann Evan, now 82, was a long-time caregiver to her 102-year-old mother. Evan experienced a crisis when her mother’s ability to be independent suddenly changed.

“My mother had lived with me for 15 years and her health had started to decline,” she says. Then, as Evan relays, her mother suffered a serious fall. The aftermath was grave.

“When she came home, it was clear that she had been discharged too early from the hospital,” Evan said. “She couldn’t do anything. She could not dress herself. She couldn’t go to the bathroom by herself. I could see that I didn’t have the [physical] strength to do it.”

But Evan, as a woman in her eighties, wasn’t fully equipped to become a full-time caregiver. “I was angry that I was unable to do what she needed to have done,” she continued. “My mother said, ‘I don’t want to be a burden to you.’ She always said that. It was clear that my mother needed round the clock care.”

These paid home care services were not covered by Medicare; fortunately, Evan had savings that helped her find an experienced empathetic nursing professional named Vida Bampoe, who came to her New York home to take care of Evan’s mother’s essential needs — including putting fresh clothes on her mother, toileting her, and taking care of hygiene.

Bampoe took on other tasks, too: scheduling follow-up medical appointments (including rehabilitative and therapeutic after care), and devising a scheduling master plan for professional caregivers to come to the home. According to Mary Ann Evan, the hospital had not helped at all with any of these essential needs before discharging her mother.

Evan said she is still upset, stressed and traumatized by the entire experience, especially given that the hospital staff did not seem to show any regard for her mother’s health and well-being.

Evan’s situation is far from unique. For many caregivers, the lack of support, financial concerns and other day-to-day caregiving stressors can translate to mental health issues, chronic issues with physical health and even a higher likelihood of life-threatening diseases among caregivers themselves.

Caregiving

There are well over 53 million caregivers providing services to aging adults and adults and children with complex needs in the United States, according to a 2020 report for the National Alliance for Caregiving in collaboration with the America Association of Retired Persons (AARP). 

“The chronic stress of caregiving and inequity can have deleterious consequences,” Picard continued. “On a biological level, we are either resilient or are vulnerable and get crushed. The body ends up suffering the consequences of chronic stress.”

“Caregivers are incredibly marginalized, even though caregivers are the backbone of our society,” said Dr. Feylyn Lewis, Ph.D., program manager for the Students for Health Equity program at Vanderbilt University’s School of Nursing. “As the saying goes, care work helps make all work possible,” Lewis said, but too often caregivers — and recognition for caregivers— is non-existent, especially for Black, brown, low-income and immigrant families, she said.

But stress can have physical effects on us. Indeed, as experts tell Salon, there’s a psychobiological impact of stress — particularly among caregivers who have to deal with systemic inequity. 

According to Dr. Martin Picard, Ph.D., associate professor, and director of the Mitochondrial Psychobiology Group at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York, “stress experiences will naturally affect our biology. Our body will have very real psycho-biological responses.”

“The chronic stress of caregiving and inequity can have deleterious consequences,” Picard continued. “On a biological level, we are either resilient or are vulnerable and get crushed. The body ends up suffering the consequences of chronic stress.”

Stress hormones affect our body beyond our mere brain chemicals. “Every cell in the body can be impacted by stress hormones,” Picard says. Picard also warns that chronic inflammation is linked to stress, and in the long term, chronic inflammation can lead to a host of health issues, including cardiovascular disease.

Research into caregiving reveals a common sequence of events: caregivers often get depressed, which then makes them more vulnerable to a range of mental health issues. Caregivers are also more likely to not have much support. In some instances, caregivers are more likely to develop chronic health issues themselves, experience long-term issues relating to caregiver burnout and more. The burden for caregivers can be significant, as detailed in research papers from the journal  BMC Palliative Care and the European Journal of Cancer Care. Professionals recommend that caregivers get regularly screened for their own physical health and mental health needs.

Caregiving and parenting special needs children

As a family caregiver to his son who has special needs, Dr. Shailen Singh, Ph.D., admits that caregiving can be incredibly stressful.

“Being a father is central to my identity,” said Singh. “But many families of children who have disabilities do not get an operating manual either about how to be a caregiver, nor do they get help on how to receive caregiving,” said Singh, who is assistant professor in the Department of Occupational, Workforce & Leadership Studies at Texas State University.

Singh’s personal family experiences have influenced his career choices, his research, his daily work schedule — and pretty much every facet of his life. While Singh is quick to note that he comes from a position of privilege, being a caregiver of a special needs child is still quite hard, he says. Together with his wife, the couple are raising three young children; their middle child is neurodivergent, has cerebral palsy and is non-verbal, Singh said. The university administrator famously detailed his family caregiving experiences in a 2021 Ted Talk titled “Parenting a Disabled Child: Nurturing Self Worth.”

“There are significant barriers alongside the caregiver’s resources themselves” Singh said. In particular, when it comes to getting educational and therapeutic services for his son with special needs, sometimes the logistics of caregiving, transportation, and juggling non-caregiving work and other needs can be overwhelming.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.


“The pandemic created new problems and it made existing problems that much worse for caregivers,” he said. Singh says he finds it stressful and emotionally exhausting when he hears others state that the pandemic is “over,” and that related childcare and schooling problems are a thing of the past—a position that, in Singh’s opinion, is absolutely incorrect.

According to Singh, family caregivers, particularly children with special needs, often have to navigate both small and large challenges every day. And when it comes to special needs children and/or children with medically complex needs, most caregivers do not have an easy time to hire or trust that backup care or support is available. Singh said that caregivers can become isolated caregiving islands with no or minimal support.

“My perspective is that you just have to get stuff done. And perhaps that’s not healthy at all,” said Singh, admitting that he doesn’t really have time to think about his own mental health or balance at this point in his life. “I just want my kids to be happy,” he continued.

Last summer, Singh’s son’s public school located outside the Austin, Texas area, initially offered the family only 30 minutes a day of school-based learning. “Tell me why neurotypical kids are getting more school-based hours and time than special needs kids?” Singh asked school staff. After a lengthy period of advocating for his son together with his wife, the school finally adjusted their son’s summer school schedule to make it equitable compared to other neurotypical children.

Healthy and unhealthy coping strategies for caregivers

“Every aspect of your health can be really impacted by long-term caregiver responsibilities, “said Dr. Sheria G. Robinson-Lane, PhD, MSN, MHA, RN, who is an assistant professor at the University of Michigan School of Nursing in the Department of Systems, Populations, and Leadership and affiliate faculty with both the Michigan Alzheimer’s Disease Center. She continued: “Stress can really take a toll on your physical health. Every aspect of your health can be really impacted by long-term caregiver responsibilities.”

“After I became a caregiver, I realized I wasn’t taking care of myself, not just physically but emotionally. I was always on the go.”

Robinson-Lane says that caregivers sometimes turn to unhealthy coping strategies to deal with the stressors of their duties, including abusing drugs like alcohol or marijuana. “We need to talk about healthy coping strategies among caregivers,” Robinson-Lane stressed.

Letty Arroyo, who is the sole caregiver to her immigrant mother in New York, says she has learned to be more mindful of managing stress in her own life. Arroyo has a big family and many siblings who live locally; still, Arroyo feels little support in her duties. Two of Arroyo’s siblings are unable to consistently or reliably help with caregiving tasks due to substance abuse issues. Arroyo’s health issues include being a type-2 diabetic and having thyroid issues for which she takes daily medication.

“After I became a caregiver, I realized I wasn’t taking care of myself, not just physically but emotionally. I was always on the go. I had to do everything for my mother since she doesn’t speak any English. I had to be her advocate all of the time,” Arroyo said. “Since I have my own health issues of my own, I had to learn to create balance,” she added.

Caregivers and health insurance burden

Experts say many caregivers, particularly aging caregivers, often may not have any kind of plan for themselves in terms of health insurance, retirement planning or even savings. Many activists, family caregivers,  aging advocates and others have been disappointed about the lack of federal funding for programs to address these issues.

Ai-jen Poo, President, National Domestic Workers Alliance and Executive Director, Caring Across Generations, said there is an immense need for caregivers that is not being addressed.

“We essentially have not adapted any of our systems, policies and culture to support the incredible shift in our population. With the Boomer population aging and living longer, and as we live longer, [we] need long-term care and long-term supports and services for caregivers and those who need care.”

Part of the problem is the fractured public health care system in the United States. “A lot of people think that Medicare covers long-term care and it does not,” Poo said.

Deborah loved the work and caring for individuals in her community; yet in 10 years of work, her salary did not surpass $8 an hour.

And the people providing caregiving are often from marginalized groups or are unpaid, underpaid or exploited.

“We have overstretched family caregivers who are mostly women. We also have an underpaid, overstretched direct care workforce who are majority women of color who work incredibly hard—skilled work— but they still struggle to make ends meet as well,” Poo said, noting that paid home care workers typically have an average annual salary of $21,000. 

Poo recounts the story of a home care worker she called Deborah — a pseudonym to protect her privacy — who lives in Georgia. According to Poo, Deborah loved the work and caring for individuals in her community; yet in 10 years of work, her salary did not surpass $8 an hour. Deborah shared with Poo how she struggled to pay for gas and struggled to pay her own bills. That stress was “deteriorating” Deborah’s health and she ultimately left the industry for a manufacturing job where the hourly wage was $15 an hour, Poo said.

“Medicaid requires family members to deplete their assets. The dynamic is to impoverish yourself, ” Poo said. Poo explained that both the live-in family caregiver’s finances and the finances of the individual who needs care need to be completely depleted before Medicaid will agree to provide certain services—i.e. the caregiver can get full coverage if they decide to put their aging relative in a nursing home. But typically low-income and middle-income families cannot get any paid care services covered if they want their loved one to receive care at home—that has to come out of pocket. According to Poo, 88% of individuals want to receive care at home.

“Medicaid is biased towards institutional care and it does not cover care that family caregivers need. Paid direct care professionals also lose out as well,” Poo said.

For Mary Ann Evan, the entire experience of being a long-time caregiver for her mother has been eye-opening, and she bore witness to just about all of the systemic issues that the aging population faces. Evan is  often reduced to tears, especially when she hears harrowing and stressful caregiving stories from others who have little to no resources.

While Evan’s health is good currently, at 82, she has been proactive about finalizing— and funding— her own caregiving master plan. But this is a difficult question that many cannot answer:  Who will be the caregiver’s caregiver?

 

Envisioning a future without plastic packaging

As you stand in the grocery store, take a look around you. Almost every item you see is wrapped in something. There are cans of beans, plastic jars of peanut butter, cardboard boxes full of cereal, plastic clamshells holding strawberries or tomatoes, shelf-stable packs containing almond milk or vegetable broth. There are egg cartons made of plastic or cardboard or styrofoam and plastic bags full of pre-washed salad greens, organic bell peppers and ready-to microwave green beans. Head to the coffee shop or fast casual lunch spot and you’ll encounter compostable to-go bowls, paper coffee cups lined with something or other, plastic iced coffee cups, plastic cutlery, plastic water bottles and more.

These very convenient materials — many of them plastic — do their job once and then get thrown away or possibly recycled. But they don’t go away. And the impacts of their production on the environment and on our bodies, do not either.

The Limits of Recycling and Zero Waste Living

Too often, the narrative about plastic focuses entirely on individual avoidance of single use packaging, or recycling these products when we’re done with them. But only a very small percent of what is produced gets recycled, and individual reusables and bulk shopping are right now a small drop in the bucket of the larger retail landscape. It is important to recognize that these efforts don’t hold a complete solution to plastic’s problems. Plastic manufacturing is a major contributor to climate change and environmental pollution, and as plastic production continues to ramp up, it’s clear that big policy changes are needed to prevent those problems from getting even bigger.

A Plastic-Free Future

“Food packaging is one of these wicked problems, right?” says chemist Marty Mulvihill, on our podcast, “What You’re Eating.” We need a safe and convenient way to get food home from the store, and we need easy ways to eat and drink on the go. Packaging plays an important role, says Mulvihill, “but it’s a short term role. And it’s a very intimate role with the food that’s coming to our table.”

How can we do that in a way that does not create so much waste? How can we do it in a way that does not put our bodies at risk from the harmful chemicals and additives used in so much of that packaging? Is it possible to change course, now that we have come to rely on and expect so much of it?

In this episode of “What You’re Eating,” called “Unwrapping Food’s Plastic Problem,”  we look at food packaging, with a focus on plastic, since there’s so much of it, and it’s the one with the most problems. We talk to experts about how food packaging is problematic not just for the environment, but also for our health. We ask: is there a future that could exist that was not dominated — and polluted — by plastic? What would it look like and how can we help it come to fruition?

“Hot girl food”: How food porn changed in 2022

When Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart was asked to describe his test for obscenity in 1964, he responded: “I know it when I see it.” And for the last decade or so, the same could be said for food porn

The phrase “food pornography” was likely coined by feminist critic Rosalind Coward in her 1984 book Female Desire.” She wrote that cooking food and presenting it beautifully is often an act of servitude and signals an “enjoyable participation in servicing others.” 

“Food pornography exactly sustains these meanings relating to the preparation of food,” Coward wrote. “The kinds of picture used always repress the process of production of a meal. They are always beautifully lit, often touched up.” 

Through time, especially in the social media age, the meaning of the phrase has flattened — largely shedding its connection to an interrogation of domestic labor and instead conjuring images of decadent slices of chocolate cake dripping with glistening chocolate syrup or triple-stacked cheeseburgers oozing cheddar. Food porn became a comically large pat of butter melting down the contours of a giant stack of pancakes and a rack of spice-rubbed ribs coated in sticky barbecue sauce; it became “cheese pulls” and “yolk porn.” It became the slow-motion video I recorded of me gently pushing the tines of a fork into the yellow center of a fried egg, set to Marvin Gaye’s “Let’s Get It On,” which I ended up deleting from Instagram because my mother told me it was shameful. 

But something has changed. 

Tinned fish is “hot girl food” (as is oatmeal and buttered toast). Gorgeous, gorgeous girls love soup. And a negroni sbagliato with prosecco has enticed drinkers all across the country. The aesthetics of food porn have changed, which intersects — or is perhaps driven by — a shift in which foods are considered “sexy.” 

In 2010, Amanda Simpson, the creator of the site Food Porn Daily, told The Daily Meal that food porn is classified as “anything that makes me drool.” Several months later, Urban Dictionary provided this definition: “Taking mouthwatering pictures of delicious foods and proliferating them throughout various social media websites as status updates, thus tempting all those not even currently hungry into getting a food hard-on.” 


Want more great food writing and recipes? Subscribe to Salon Food’s newsletter, The Bite.


Those definitions of “food porn” tie into an even earlier term,  “gastro porn,” which the late journalist Alexander Cockburn described using the words “excitement” and “unattainable,” which mimics, obviously, a key part of the appeal of actual pornography. The sex that you see depicted in most mainstream pornography can often be comfortably defined as a performance; in many cases, there is even costuming, acrobatics and narrative conceit to bolster said production. 

In many ways, food porn has traditionally mimicked that template of inciting desire via performative fantasy. A quick search of the hashtag #foodporn on Instagram returns 292,896,962 results, the majority of which don’t depict the types of foods most of us every day: an entire tablescape covered in nachos, a hoagie that appears to be composed of nacho cheese and pork floss-covered French fries, impossibly tall layer cakes. Many are captioned with a variation of the query, “Smash or pass?” 

In a culture that prizes thinness and pushes deprivation as a virtue to achieve it, food porn of that ilk offers a kind of gustatory voyeurism. 

As noted in Signe Rousseau’s “Food ‘Porn’ in Media,” which was published as part of the “Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics” in 2014, the connotation of “food porn” is often that of guilty pleasure or allowable indulgence, however the term can also (sometimes simultaneously) negatively connote food which is regarded as “bad” and which should be avoided. Thus, in a culture that prizes thinness and pushes deprivation as a virtue to achieve it, food porn of that ilk offers a kind of gustatory voyeurism. 

As Molly O’Neill wrote in 2003, “Given the dissonance between food fantasies and everyday eating, the birth of food porn was all but unavoidable.” 

While this new genre of food porn — tins of expensive sardines, citrus-flecked pots of beans, effervescent cocktails — may present as restrained, or even sexless, in the face of its predecessor, it’s simply playing into a different kind of fantasy, one largely shaped by the pandemic. 

In early 2020, monotony and isolation left many people feeling both destabilized and desexualized. Harling Ross succinctly put it for the fashion publication Man Repeller, “I Don’t Know How Else to Say This, But… I Miss Feeling Hot.” She wrote: 

My three main activities are sleeping, working, eating, and re-watching Game of Thrones (currently on season four, thank you for following this journey). I haven’t worn pants without an elasticized waist in weeks. The word “eyeliner” might as well sound like “googoogeeksejkak”–i.e. pardon me?…The two most recent photos in my phone are of a massive tangle in my hair that I’m choosing to ignore and a piece of quiche I ate cold at 3:25 p.m. because I was too lazy to microwave it. Not hot–literally.

Seemingly to combat this, there was a distinct period of time during the first wave of the pandemic where everyday domestic activities and products that evoke a certain casual cool were romanticized. Ogling over an absurdly decadent restaurant-prepared (or influencer-prepared) meal was out. Popping open a tin of olive-oil packed sardines was in. 

As Bettina Makalintal reported for VICE in 2021, tinned fish saw a tremendous spike in popularity amid the pandemic. In some part this was because of convenience; the pandemic caused us all to rethink the types of foods we kept in our pantries. But Makalintal argues that an equally important part of the equation is tin fish’s cultural makeover. 

As she wrote, Caroline Goldfarb, co-founder of the trendy tinned fish company Fishwife, termed it the “ultimate hot girl food” in a 2021 interview with Nylon. “There is no food that will make you hotter than tinned fish,” she said. “Straight up. Do you know a hot girl who doesn’t exist on protein? I don’t.” 

Ogling over an absurdly decadent restaurant-prepared (or influencer-prepared) meal was out. Popping open a tin of olive-oil packed sardines was in.

“One risk of spending time on social media in the post-Megan Thee Stallion world is an affectation to describe everything as an extension of “hot girl s**t,” Makalintal wrote. “As many people have written on the subject, a ‘hot girl summer’ and the ‘hot girl’ descriptor are now more than indicators of attractiveness, but an invocation of confidence and ownership over one’s place in the world.”  

She continued: “‘Hot girl s**t’ is both something anyone can do and something anyone can aspire to.” 

And as such, “hot girl food” can and could really be anything, though much of it runs parallel to current wellness trends — as Goldfarb’s comment suggests — and is guided by a desire for more authenticity (or at least the illusion of authenticity). This is further reflected by the changing aesthetics of food media at large, a shift described by Zoe Suen in Feb. 2022 as “lo-fi food.” 

“Online, plates on my Instagram feed – taken by chefs, home cooks, food stylists or diners – are looking much more lo-fi,” Suen wrote for AnOther. “The photos themselves have also shifted gears from bright, high-contrast birds-eye views to seemingly unfiltered frames filled with negative space.” 

This paradigm “is a reaction to the moment that came before it,” Laila Gohar, a New York-based artist, told Suen. Gohar’s own art is constructed from carefully stacked fruit, “boob mochi” and carved butter. “Gohar says that, in the wake of the pandemic, people are craving a pared-back, comforting approach,” Suen wrote. 

Even some of the more whimsical food trends of 2022 emerge from that place. Aperol spritzes, for instance, speak to an aspirational desire to to vacation after now years of being in and out of lockdown, as well as an increased cultural interest in low-ABV beverages. 

“A bunch of ardent connoisseurs, including the NYT, called this drink an omnipresent internet trend bound to die just as quickly as it started. The pandemic was supposed to be the final nail in the coffin,” David Den, a viticulturist and distiller, told Paste. “But with well-being on the forefront of our consciousness [and] a desperate itch to soak [up] the sun, Aperol found itself hitting the sweet spot (again)—a well-priced drink that can keep up with the long conversations without the glitter and over-the-top intoxication.”

It’s a subtler seduction, but seduction nonetheless. It will be interesting to see what 2023 brings in terms of temptation.

 

Why fusion ignition is being hailed as a major breakthrough in fusion – a nuclear physicist explains

American scientists have announced what they have called a major breakthrough in a long-elusive goal of creating energy from nuclear fusion.

The U.S. Department of Energy said on Dec. 13, 2022, that for the first time – and after several decades of trying – scientists have managed to get more energy out of the process than they had to put in.

But just how significant is the development? And how far off is the long-sought dream of fusion providing abundant, clean energy? Carolyn Kuranz, an associate professor of nuclear engineering at the University of Michigan who has worked at the facility that just broke the fusion record, helps explain this new result.

What happened in the fusion chamber?

Fusion is a nuclear reaction that combines two atoms to create one or more new atoms with slightly less total mass. The difference in mass is released as energy, as described by Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2 , where energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Since the speed of light is enormous, converting just a tiny amount of mass into energy – like what happens in fusion – produces a similarly enormous amount of energy.

Researchers at the U.S. Government’s National Ignition Facility in California have demonstrated, for the first time, what is known as “fusion ignition.” Ignition is when a fusion reaction produces more energy than is being put into the reaction from an outside source and becomes self-sustaining.

A gold and plastic canister.

The fuel is held in a tiny canister designed to keep the reaction as free from contaminants as possible. U.S. Department of Energy/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

The technique used at the National Ignition Facility involved shooting 192 lasers at a 0.04 inch (1 mm) pellet of fuel made of deuterium and tritium – two versions of the element hydrogen with extra neutrons – placed in a gold canister. When the lasers hit the canister, they produce X-rays that heat and compress the fuel pellet to about 20 times the density of lead and to more than 5 million degrees Fahrenheit (3 million Celsius) – about 100 times hotter than the surface of the Sun. If you can maintain these conditions for a long enough time, the fuel will fuse and release energy.

The fuel and canister get vaporized within a few billionths of a second during the experiment. Researchers then hope their equipment survived the heat and accurately measured the energy released by the fusion reaction.

So what did they accomplish?

To assess the success of a fusion experiment, physicists look at the ratio between the energy released from the process of fusion and the amount of energy within the lasers. This ratio is called gain.

Anything above a gain of 1 means that the fusion process released more energy than the lasers delivered.

On Dec. 5, 2022, the National Ignition Facility shot a pellet of fuel with 2 million joules of laser energy – about the amount of power it takes to run a hair dryer for 15 minutes – all contained within a few billionths of a second. This triggered a fusion reaction that released 3 million joules. That is a gain of about 1.5, smashing the previous record of a gain of 0.7 achieved by the facility in August 2021.

How big a deal is this result?

Fusion energy has been the “holy grail” of energy production for nearly half a century. While a gain of 1.5 is, I believe, a truly historic scientific breakthrough, there is still a long way to go before fusion is a viable energy source.

While the laser energy of 2 million joules was less than the fusion yield of 3 million joules, it took the facility nearly 300 million joules to produce the lasers used in this experiment. This result has shown that fusion ignition is possible, but it will take a lot of work to improve the efficiency to the point where fusion can provide a net positive energy return when taking into consideration the entire end-to-end system, not just a single interaction between the lasers and the fuel.

A hallway full of pipes, tubes and electronics.

Machinery used to create the powerful lasers, like these pre-amplifiers, currently requires a lot more energy than the lasers themselves produce. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, CC BY-SA

What needs to be improved?

There are a number of pieces of the fusion puzzle that scientists have been steadily improving for decades to produce this result, and further work can make this process more efficient.

First, lasers were only invented in 1960. When the U.S. government completed construction of the National Ignition Facility in 2009, it was the most powerful laser facility in the world, able to deliver 1 million joules of energy to a target. The 2 million joules it produces today is 50 times more energetic than the next most powerful laser on Earth. More powerful lasers and less energy-intensive ways to produce those powerful lasers could greatly improve the overall efficiency of the system.

Fusion conditions are very challenging to sustain, and any small imperfection in the capsule or fuel can increase the energy requirement and decrease efficiency. Scientists have made a lot of progress to more efficiently transfer energy from the laser to the canister and the X-ray radiation from the canister to the fuel capsule, but currently only about 10% to 30% of the total laser energy is transferred to the canister and to the fuel.

Finally, while one part of the fuel, deuterium, is naturally abundant in sea water, tritium is much rarer. Fusion itself actually produces tritium, so researchers are hoping to develop ways of harvesting this tritium directly. In the meantime, there are other methods available to produce the needed fuel.

These and other scientific, technological and engineering hurdles will need to be overcome before fusion will produce electricity for your home. Work will also need to be done to bring the cost of a fusion power plant well down from the US$3.5 billion of the National Ignition Facility. These steps will require significant investment from both the federal government and private industry.

It’s worth noting that there is a global race around fusion, with many other labs around the world pursuing different techniques. But with the new result from the National Ignition Facility, the world has, for the first time, seen evidence that the dream of fusion is achievable.


Carolyn Kuranz, Associate Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of Michigan

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

“The Last of Us” could change how Hollywood does video games, but hateful gamers make it difficult

Post-apocalyptic zombie video game series “The Last of Us” is getting an ambitious TV adaptation on HBO, but the game has attracted numerous hateful conspiracy theories, which the show is apparently not immune to, either.

Anticipation that the show will deviate from the source material has already rankled fans of the game.

When “The Last of Us” debuted in 2013, it was showered with accolades, quickly becoming one of the best-selling PlayStation 3 games of all time. It was well-deserved, as the game expertly blended emotional cutscenes with environmental storytelling and intense, violent gameplay, redefining the limits of storytelling in video games.

Now the TV show will arrive on HBO in mid-January, and is one of the most expensive productions at Warner Bros. Discovery to date. Filmed in Calgary, Canada, it’s the largest television production in the country’s history, with a budget exceeding $100 million, surpassing the cost for each of the first five seasons of “Game of Thrones.” But internet trolls have spent the last several months bemoaning casting and other creative decisions, decrying the franchise as “woke” while making racist, ableist and derogatory comments.

The series unfolds in the decades following a devastating fungal pandemic that has left most of human civilization in ruins. The pathogen turns people into violent, fungus-covered monsters called “infected” which are technically a type of zombie, just not the kind risen from the grave. Think Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road” meets “Night of the Living Dead,” but with more elements of “Children of Men” than “World War Z.” 

Against this backdrop is Joel Miller (Pedro Pascal, “The Mandalorian“), a traumatized smuggler who is reluctantly tasked with chaperoning Ellie Williams (Bella Ramsey, aka Lyanna Mormont from “Game of Thrones”), a teenage girl with immunity to the fungal parasite, across a dilapidated United States. The pair quickly encounter things worse than zombies: cannibalistic raiders and murderous outlaws. Together, they must make every effort to survive in a brutal, unforgiving wasteland flowing with blood and fungi.

The Last of UsPedro Pascal and Bella Ramsey in “The Last of Us” (HBO)

The question of violence

Many have pondered if bringing “The Last of Us” to screen can avoid some of the pitfalls of other video game adaptations, which have rarely succeeded by the standards of fans or critics. With few exceptions, such as “Castlevania” or “Detective Pikachu,” most video games just don’t seem to translate as well to other mediums. Controlling a character, attacking enemies or vaulting obstacles using repetitive motions are all fun when pressing buttons — but it isn’t easy rendering that experience into a passive activity like absorbing a film or TV show that relies on narrative, not participation.

“The Last of Us” is poised to dodge this “curse” by enlisting the game’s creator Neil Druckmann, who has carefully attempted to keep core elements of the story intact, while co-creator Craig Mazin, lauded showrunner behind HBO’s “Chernobyl,” brings his TV narrative know-how. In a recent New Yorker interview, he addressed why video game adaptations tend to go awry: “They try to replicate the action. It’s just the wrong medium. That’s that. This is this.”

Anticipation that the show will deviate from the source material has already rankled fans of the game. Some have expressed contempt that the show will be purportedly less violent than the video game, which is a survival horror setting akin to “Resident Evil” or “Silent Hill.” This is ironic given that “The Last of Us” creators once had to defend against critics concerned with the game’s hardcore gore. But Druckmann has emphasized that the sadism was never without purpose.

“There is extreme violence, we wanted the violence to be realistic and believable so the stakes are real,” Druckmann told The Guardian in 2012. “But this also contrast with the extreme emotions of loyalty and love, and the sacrifice that these characters are willing to make for each other.” Now some are claiming that cutting down the violence to only the essentials is an insult to the fans.

The Last of UsBella Ramsey and Anna Torv in “The Last of Us” (Liane Hentscher/HBO)Casting controversies

Meanwhile, Ramsey has been the target of hateful comments because her appearance is different from the Ellie in the video game. Of course, Ellie’s looks in the video game have a long history of controversy, too. Even before the game released, Ellie’s digital rendering was redesigned, after it became clear her resemblance was too close to actor Elliot Page, who was not pleased by being “ripped off.”

The rage is far less about any creative storytelling decisions than it is about invoking the same old “woke wars.”

Ellie’s face was slightly altered yet again when “The Last of Us” was remade for PlayStation 5, as were the designs of many of the game’s characters, but the young girl’s transformation especially drew the ire of angry redditors, who painted the change as “attempts to make Ellie uglier.”

Other casting decisions in the show have attracted racist comments as well. Joel’s daughter Sarah is white and blonde in the video game. The actor who plays her, Nico Parker, is Black. Other changes, including making Sam, a previously hearing character, deaf on the show (portrayed by Keivonn Woodard) has been mocked as a “woke” decision.

The Last of UsNico Parker in “The Last of Us” (Shane Harvey/HBO)

An ongoing culture war

And on and on. There is no bottom to the vile groupthink of certain gamers, but many of these negative opinions aren’t outliers, either. By far, the “Last of Us” title to receive the most outpouring of hate and controversy is the game’s 2020 sequel, which somehow became “Conspiracy Theory: The Video Game,” as one confused fan put it.

Before “The Last of Us” Part II” was even released in summer 2020, major details of the game’s plot were leaked online. This spawned conspiracy theories that Naughty Dog, the studio behind “The Last of Us,” was paying for reviews; that a disgruntled employee was behind the leak because they hated the game; that Abby, one of the main characters, was transgender or “unrealistically” muscular; or that feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian, who was famously targeted in the infamous Gamergate harassment campaign, was somehow involved in the game’s development.

All of this spawned a flurry of hate mail, including violent, queerphobic and antisemitic messages, directed at the game’s creators and cast. Part II was review bombed by people who had never even touched the game giving it poor ratings, even though it otherwise achieved widespread critical acclaim.

Of course, the sheer loathing that “The Last of Us” has weathered is a fig leaf for typical alt-right dogwhistles. The rage is far less about any creative storytelling decisions than it is about invoking the same old “woke wars” that encircle people in cycles of endless, pointless arguing. But it may just get worse as this post-apocalyptic universe expands.

The TV evolution in storytelling

Next year is the scheduled release of an online multiplayer game set in “The Last of Us” universe, and a Part III is allegedly in production at Naughty Dog. Whatever Druckmann ends up working on next, he has said it will be “structured more like a TV show.”

Nothing else has come close to the depth of “The Last of Us” for me. Part I and Part II are my favorite video games of all time, both having upended what I thought video games — and even storytelling in general — could be. I never expected such an emotional connection to a video game, even though I’ve been roaming virtual universes since I was small. Naturally I’m invested in how the show might adapt the storyline to honor the fans in a way that also makes sense for TV. 

“The Last of Us” TV show and the game will not be one-to-one copies of each other, nor should they be. I’ll never understand the mentality that adaptations need to be clones. But then again, I’ll never understand the fixation with a fictional teenage girl’s facial structure, either. There are some hateful mentalities not worth interrogating. But it leaves me wondering, hoping — can HBO avoid them as their newest franchise unfolds?

“The Last of Us” premieres Jan. 15 on HBO. Watch a trailer for it below, via YouTube.

The scientist who discovered sperm was so grossed out he hoped his findings would be repressed

Human civilization had a good understanding of how sex and reproduction worked long before the microscope was invented. But it wasn’t until the 17th century that anyone knew what sperm actually were, or were aware of their strange appearance. And when sperm finally were formally discovered, by Antonie Philips van Leeuwenhoek, the father of microbiology, he was so uncomfortable he wished he could unsee what he’d just observed.

When Royal Society Secretary Henry Oldenburg asked Leeuwenhoek to look at semen, the Dutch draper initially did not reply “because he felt it was ‘unseemly.'”

Despite living in the Dutch Republic during the 17th century, Leeuwenhoek’s story could be mistaken for embodying the American Dream. He was never formally trained as a scientist, but he had a strong work ethic and a powerful mind. Armed with those tools, Leeuwenhoek made discoveries that transformed how human beings view the world. By the end of his life, he was a prosperous pillar of his community and regarded throughout the West as an intellectual giant. He owed all of this to one thing: His cutting edge microscopes and their ability to study “animalcules,” as bacteria were then called. His microscopes indisputably proved to humanity that it shared this planet with countless single-celled organisms.

Yet when Leeuwenhoek discovered sperm, he anticipated that the world would be disgusted.

Born in 1632 to a bourgeois family in the small town of Delft (where he would ultimately spend most of his life), Leeuwenhoek made his living as a draper, selling cloth to merchants who would use it to make clothing. While pursuing his vocation, Leeuwenhoek became frustrated with the existing lenses and how they were not powerful enough to see threads in detail. To fix this, Leeuwenhoek designed his own strong lenses. In 1673, Leeuwenhoek used his new single-lens microscopes to discover bacteria and perform scientific experiments, the first time that a scientist ever knowingly interacted with the microbiological world.

While Leeuwenhoek never wrote any books, he detailed his findings in letters published by a scientific journal known as the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. For several years, educated Europeans marveled at the discoveries of a man who used his microscope to analyze bee stingers, human lice, lake microbes and other relatively uncontroversial organisms.

Yet throughout this time, Leeuwenhoek would periodically be urged to examine semen. He was reluctant and stated that this was due to his religious beliefs, but in 1677 he finally relented to the pressure. His reaction can be best understood by what he wrote to the Royal Society about what he saw:

“If your Lordship should consider that these observations may disgust or scandalise the learned, I earnestly beg your Lordship to regard them as private and to publish or destroy them as your Lordship sees fit.”

“Without being snotty, Leeuwenhoek (the ‘van’ is an affectation he adopted later on) was not trained as an experimental thinker,” explained Matthew Cobb, a British zoologist and author of the book “Generation: The Seventeeth Century Scientists Who Unraveled the Secrets of Sex, Life and Growth.” Cobb recalled by email that when Royal Society Secretary Henry Oldenburg asked Leeuwenhoek to look at semen, the Dutch draper initially did not reply “because he felt it was ‘unseemly.'” Even though he eventually overcame his reservations, Leeuwenhoek added so many caveats to his semen research that it is clear he remained somewhat uncomfortable.

 A few months later, he wrote the aforementioned letter saying that he would not at all mind if his discovery was suppressed.

“He reassured the Royal Society that he had not obtained the sample by any ‘sinful contrivance’ but by ‘the excess which Nature provided me in my conjugal relations,'” Cobb explained. “He wrote that a mere ‘six heartbeats’ after ejaculation, he found ‘a vast number of living animalcules.” A few months later, he wrote the aforementioned letter saying that he would not at all mind if his discovery was suppressed. After all, in addition to being grossed out, Leeuwenhoek was not under the impression that he had found anything special.

“He was initially not particularly interested in the ‘animalcules’ as he called them — he assumed they were just another form of life, just like the stuff he saw in water, or from between his teeth,” Cobb pointed out. “Then he got interested in some odd fibrous structures that he could see, and considered that they were of some interest.”

The “odd fibrous structures” were, of course, the sperm tails. While Leeuwenhoek could never have imagined this at the time, the cells that he had spotted are unlike anything else in the human body. As Syracuse University biologist Scott Pitnick has pointed out, sperm cells are the only human cells designed to perform functions outside of the actual body. They must undergo radical physical changes as they undertake their journey from the testes through the complex female reproductive tract. Even today, scientists “understand almost nothing about sperm function, what sperm do” Pitnick told Smithsonian Magazine.

This context is crucial in understanding why Leeuwenhoek initially assumed sperm were nothing special. In the early 21st century, it is common knowledge that humans are created when a sperm fertilizes an egg, but in the 17th century such a concept was difficult to imagine.

“He did not conclude that the animalcules were involved in producing babies,” Cobb wrote to Salon, adding that the term “spermatozoa” was not even coined until the 1820s, and by a man who classified them as part of a group of parasitic worms. Yet despite (or perhaps because of) the lack of clarity on what these “animalcules” even were, Leeuwenhoek’s supporters at the Royal Society wanted him to continue studying them. As it turned out, at least some of Leeuwenhoek’s acquaintances in Delft shared his bashfulness about male bodily fluids.

“If your Lordship should consider that these observations may disgust or scandalise the learned, I earnestly beg your Lordship to regard them as private and to publish or destroy them as your Lordship sees fit.”

“A medical student acquaintance, Ham, said that his ‘friend’ had lain with an ‘unclean woman’ and had a discharge,” Cobb wrote to Salon. “Ham looked at the discharge from his ‘friend’ and saw animalcules in it (the modern consensus is that the ‘friend’ had gonorrhea, in which dead spermatozoa can appear in the discharge). He was not looking for the secret of life, or trying to understand the role of semen, and his discovery did not lead to any breakthrough in this respect. That lay about 170 years in the future!”

By contrast, sperm would remain mostly a mystery in Leeuwenhoek’s own lifetime. After telling Leeuwenhoek to make more observations, the Royal Society finally published his paper in Latin in 1679. It included illustrations of the “animalcules” from not only human semen but also the semen of dogs, horses and rabbits.


Want more health and science stories in your inbox? Subscribe to Salon’s weekly newsletter The Vulgar Scientist.


“The Royal Society was not particularly impressed — it didn’t discuss the issue until July 1679,” Cobb told Salon. “Other thinkers were sharper and suggested that this might shed light on ‘generation’ — where babies come from. But it wasn’t clear to anyone what it actually proved.”

For his part, “Leeuwenhoek eventually decided that these animalcules were the sole source of life, with eggs either being non-existent (mammals) or sources of food (birds, frogs, etc.) but he had no proof, and his view was very much a minority one for the next two centuries.”

At the same time, Leeuwenhoek mostly continued with his careers as a draper and a world-renowned expert on developing microscopes. Because he did not fully understand what he had seen, the world would view his discovery as little more than a gross piece of trivia for a few more centuries.

“He was not particularly interested in the problem of generation,” Cobb told Salon.

Disney’s Black mermaid is no breakthrough — look at the literary subgenre of Black mermaid fiction

Mermaids have become a cultural phenomenon, and clashes about mermaids and race have spilled out into the open. This is most pointedly apparent in the backlash over Disney’s much-anticipated “The Little Mermaid.”

After Disney unveiled its trailer for the film, which will be released in May 2023, social media captured the faces of gleeful young Black girls seeing Black mermaids onscreen for the first time. Less inspiring was the racism that simultaneously occurred, with hashtags like #NotMyMermaid and #MakeMermaidsWhiteAgain circulating on Twitter.

The fact that Disney’s portrayal of a nonwhite mermaid is controversial is due to 150 years of whitewashing.

In a 2019 op-ed for The New York Times, writer Tracey Baptiste – whose children’s novel “Rise of the Jumbies” features a Black mermaid as the protagonist – points out how “Eurocentric stories have obscured the African origins of mermaids.”

“Mermaid stories,” she writes, “have been told throughout the African continent for millenniums. Mermaids are not just part of the imagination, either, but a part of the living culture.”

Nonetheless, contemporary culture is pushing back. Mermaids have, in recent years, become a popular subject in literature, film and fashion. In many cases, their depictions reflect contemporary culture: They appear as Black and brown, as sexually fluid and as harbingers of the climate crisis.

As a scholar of contemporary literature and media – and as a lifelong lover of mermaids – I am fascinated by the recent surge of mermaid literature that remixes African folklore and connects the transatlantic slave trade to mermaid tales.

By briefly charting this new literary movement, I hope to show how these stories are part of a larger current with a much longer historical tail. I also hope to put to rest the idea that Disney’s decision to feature a Black mermaid represents some sort of modern breakthrough.

Here are three very different works of Black mermaid fiction that, in my view, deserve attention.

1. Rivers Solomon’s “The Deep” (2019)

This novella is marketed as fantasy, but it does the very real and important work of opening up new ways to think about the legacy of slavery.

Specifically, it pushes readers to think about mermaids as products of the Middle Passage, the harrowing stage of the transatlantic slave trade in which enslaved Africans were transported in crowded ships across the Atlantic Ocean.

The novel’s conceit is that pregnant, enslaved Africans who either jumped or were thrown overboard from slave ships gave birth underwater to babies who moved from amniotic fluid to seawater and evolved into a society of merfolk.

The protagonist, Yetu, is a mermaid who serves as a repository of the traumatic stories that would be too troubling for her people to remember on a daily basis. She is the historian, and once a year she delivers “The Remembrance” to her people in a ritual of sharing.

As the narrator explains, “Only the historian was allowed to remember,” because if the regular folk “know the truth of everything, they will not be able to carry on.”

Once a year, the society gathers to hear the history. The memories are not lost or forgotten but submerged and transformed, hosted by the ocean and housed in the body of a mermaid.

This vibrant and readable book can be tied to the work of literary scholar Christina Sharpe, who presents the concept of “the wake” – a means of contemplating the continued effects of the Middle Passage. For Sharpe, “The wake” is “a method of encountering a past that is not past” and of endeavoring to “memorialize an event that is still ongoing.”

“The Deep” also offers an allegory for the challenges of working in archives of African American experience – the main mermaid is, of course, the historian – and evokes the work of another important scholar in contemporary Black studies, Saidiya Hartman, who has written about the erasure of Black women from archives largely compiled by white men.

2. Monique Roffey’s “The Mermaid of Black Conch” (2020)

This gorgeous and complex work of Caribbean literature dips into magical realism but is deeply grounded in the reality of today – specifically, the effects of colonialism and exploitative tourism.

Like “The Deep,” “The Mermaid of Black Conch” explores lost ancestries and imagines alternative futures. The novel highlights the continued impact of white settlement on a fictional Caribbean island called Black Conch.

One day, a mermaid named Aycayia is caught in the net of a fisherman. She is ancient and Indigenous – “red-skinned, not black, not African” – and carries the weight of history. David, the fisherman who finds her and falls in love with her, recalls his first sighting of her: “She looking like a woman from long ago, like old-time Taino people I saw in a history book at school.”

Similar to Solomon’s historian in “The Deep,” this mermaid is depicted as an embodied archive; her hair is a home for sea creatures, and her face is a history book.

However, Roffey’s mermaid is an anomaly, singular and isolated, not a member of a tribe. The ocean keeps this ancient beast safe, hiding her from the destructive forces of Western capitalism, embodied in the father-son duo of American tourists who seek to capture and capitalize on what they see as an aquatic trophy.

3. Nnedi Okorafor’s “Lagoon” (2014)

“A star falls from the sky. A woman rises from the sea. The world will never be the same.” The publisher’s summary describes a science fiction novel that combines the alien-encounter genre with African mythology to create a vast narrative network of characters, human and nonhuman, that stretches across Nigeria.

The arrival of aliens off the coast of Lagos transforms the area and the people, miraculously remedying centuries of oceanic destruction caused by industrial and colonial exploitation. It also turns Adaora, a female marine biologist caught in a bad marriage, into a mermaid.

“Lagoon” is far more than an allegory of ecological repair. But I want to point out how literature explores the global ecological crisis and, specifically, how ecocriticism plays a key role in the emergent genre of Black mermaid literature.

As ecocritic and Caribbean literature scholar Elizabeth DeLoughrey writes, rising sea levels caused by global warming are spurring a planetary future that is “more oceanic.”

Many contemporary mermaid tales share an acute sense of environmental concern.

Mermaids serve as signals, in both senses of the word – as an emergency alert and as a medium for transmitting a message about humanity’s increasingly oceanic planetary future.

In “Undrowned: Black Feminist Lessons from Marine Mammals” (2020), Black feminist theorist Alexis Pauline Gumbs points to “several practices of marine mammals that resonate with Black freedom movement strategies and tendencies.” Racial justice and environmental activism are aligned – and, as many Black mermaid novels teach readers, inseparable.

There are many more works I could have included in this roundup – Natasha Bowen’s “Skin of the Sea” (2021), which grounds its narrative in the West African myths of Mami Wata and the goddess Yemoja, or Bethany C. Morrow’s “A Song Below Water” (2020), a young adult novel that tells the coming-of-age story of a Black girl who becomes a mermaid.

None of these texts are outliers because they feature Black mermaids.

Instead, they are part of a broader cultural movement – a contemporary mermaid craze deserving of critical attention and appreciation.

Jessica Pressman, Professor of English and Comparative Literature, San Diego State University

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

From “Aquaman” to “Avatar,” ocean-centric blockbusters are eroding our terrestrial bias

Currently, the oceans are making waves in popular culture. The oceans are prominently featured in a variety of recent blockbusters, including James Wan‘s “Aquaman” in 2018, its forthcoming  sequel “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom,” Ryan Coogler‘s “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” and most recently, James Cameron’s “Avatar: The Way of Water.” In all these films, the oceans are not simply backgrounds, nondescript settings, nor flat surfaces. Rather, in each of these blockbusters, the oceans are presented as complex ecologies of depth that merit serious and sustained attention.

The immersive experience of oceans in a blockbuster movie can perhaps turn audiences into budding ocean activists.

All these movies can be understood as part of an emerging field called the blue humanities, which studies the relationship between humans and oceans. It’s an urgent field of study because the oceans are becoming vast and deep graveyards due to a variety of interconnected, human-created conditions including, but not limited to, industrialized fishing, acidification, warming, sea-level rise and pollution. By 2050, the U.N. predicts there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish, and throughout the oceans, dead zones are growing and spreading.  

In the 2013 article “The Blue Humanities,” historian John R. Gillis suggests that popular culture is central to how we perceive and conceive oceans. In recent years, Hollywood blockbusters have recognized that oceans are in a state of crisis and have focused on how colonial forces are plundering oceans everywhere, from Earth to Pandora. 

In “Avatar: The Way of Water,” for example, Cameron immerses audiences into the oceans of the fictional moon of Pandora and dramatizes how this ecology is being destroyed for human profit. More specifically, the movie centers on colonial armies mercilessly hunting whale-like creatures known as tulkun because their bodies can be drained for a liquid that can stop human aging. Among the indigenous Na’vi is the Sully family, who are being hunted by humans and flee to live with the Metkayina clan, who are at one with the ocean and its inhabitants like the tulkun.

Cameron wants audiences to engage the movie on two levels: at the level of plot, and perhaps more importantly, at the level of aesthetics. Throughout the movie, there are extended underwater sequences in which the plot is largely suspended, where audiences are invited to marvel at the wonders of the oceans and to recognize the abundance of cultures flourishing beneath the surface.

Avatar: The Way Of WaterLo’ak (Britain Dalton) and a Tulkun in “Avatar: The Way Of Water.” (Photo courtesy of 20th Century Studios)In an interview with National Geographic, Cameron explains, “The film was . . .  an opportunity to show us what our oceans might have looked like 300, 400, 500 years ago, before we really got busy toward an industrial civilization. If people see this film, and aside from the drama of the Sully family and the relationships and all these big, dramatic conflicts, if they just love the underwater experience — and they love that sense of the profusion of life and the magic and mystery — then maybe it will reconnect them with what we are presently losing here on this planet.” As Cameron proposes, the immersive experience of oceans in a blockbuster movie can perhaps turn audiences into budding ocean activists.

Reevaluating Aquaman, from punchline to hapa hero

If popular culture is central to shaping our relationship to oceans, then how do superheroes, figures at the heart of contemporary popular culture, mediate this relationship? Superheroes are popular icons of justice, and in the pantheon of superheroes, perhaps the most prominent figure related to oceans is Aquaman. Aquaman is an icon of the global ocean with an explicit mission to help bridge the surface and watery world. 

Aquaman’s status as an object of ridicule and degradation both reflects and symbolizes the status of oceans in modernity.

Yet tellingly, prior to James Wan’s 2018 movie, Aquaman was routinely ridiculed, devalued and dismissed. In the final decades of the 20th and into the 21st century, just when the blue humanities was named as a field of study, Aquaman became a perennial punchline in popular culture. This trope is exemplified in myriad cultural texts, including “The Big Bang Theory,” “Entourage,” “Family Guy,” “Robot Chicken,” “South Park” and “SpongeBob SquarePants.” Even in DC Comics, Aquaman was treated and seen as a joke. In the 2011 rebrand of the DC universe titled The New 52, a massive corporate overhaul of all DC superheroes, the first issue of this new Aquaman begins with a journalist confronting Aquaman and inquiring, “How’s it feel to be nobody’s favorite superhero?” This question exemplifies a discourse about Aquaman, and symbolically, about the ocean as well. 

Jason Momoa in “Aquaman” (Warner Bros.)Aquaman’s status as an object of ridicule and degradation both reflects and symbolizes the status of oceans in modernity. Although the global ocean comprises 71% of the Earth’s surface, this ecology is largely outside of popular care and concern. Maritime historian Helen M. Rozwadowski writes, “The vast expanse of the world ocean, the dominant feature of planet Earth, has remained at the edges of our histories.” Earth is a blue planet, yet humans have developed a “terrestrial bias.” That is, our social and political imaginations have become landlocked, rarely venturing offshores.

Earth is a blue planet, yet humans have developed a “terrestrial bias.”

This, of course, wasn’t always the case. Prior to the 20th century, the oceans were central to human popular culture, as evident from Homer’s “The Odyssey” to Shakespeare’s “The Tempest” to Herman Melville’s “Moby-Dick.” It is only in the 20th century that the ocean has become a “forgotten space.” This collective forgetting — or rather, repression — denies the centrality of oceans in the making of modernity. Modernity, after all, is enabled by two ships: the slave ship and the container ship. The slave ship was the central vehicle in globalizing racialized slavery and racial capitalism, and the container ship is the central vehicle of contemporary global capitalism, connecting geographies of mass production (China, for example) to geographies of mass consumption (the United States, for example). Today, container ships are the equivalent of a 44-line freight train and they can carry 220,000 tons, the weight of Chicago’s Willis Tower (originally Sears Tower). 

This collective forgetting of the oceans, though, is being challenged by recent popular culture. In the past few years, a cultural sea change has occurred in Hollywood with oceans becoming central ecologies in many blockbusters, including Disney’s “Moana” in 2016 and “Aquaman.” To the surprise of many, Wan’s “Aquaman”  became the highest-grossing DC superhero movie, surpassing every Batman movie. What is so important about Wan’s “Aquaman,” in large part, is that this new iteration is delinked from whiteness. For all of the 20th century, Aquaman was represented as a white superhero at the center of white narratives. But Wan’s “Aquaman” features Joseph Jason Namakaeha Momoa, better known as Jason Momoa, in the titular role. The casting of Momoa foregrounds how Aquaman is not a white superhero and moreover, how the ocean is not exclusively a white ecology.

Moana“Moana” (Disney)Momoa is openly proud of his Hawaiian and Polynesian heritage, a heritage that informs the movie. More specifically, with the casting of Momoa, Aquaman becomes a hapa superhero. The Hawaiian term hapa developed in the early 20th century to describe someone of mixed heritage, usually with Pacific Islander or Asian heritage. Hapa was originally a derogatory term used to describe mixed-raced children of Hawaiian women and plantation guest workers from China, Korea and the Philippines. However, over the course of the 20th century, hapa subjects transformed the meaning of the word from one with derogatory connotations to one charged with affirmative associations.

Aquaman symbolizes a bridge to a new ecological world order that is delinked from whiteness, from colonialism and from unregulated capitalism.

In “Mixed Asian Media,” for example, Melissa Slaughter celebrates that “Aquaman” is “Hapa AF.” In her review, Slaughter, who self-identifies as hapa, describes the experience of watching “Aquaman”: “To be completely honest, I cried throughout the film. . . . Editor Lauren Hardie sat beside me, tears in her eyes, and we had a hapa moment . . . . in the end, when Arthur stood up to defeat the Big Bad and take his rightful place as the King of Atlantis, we cheered for Aquaman, our new hapa hero.” In the interview for the magazine, Slaughter asked Momoa about being a “hapa man with a hapa family” and playing the first hapa superhero. Momoa replied, “Honestly, to be the first mixed-race superhero in 2018 is like, ‘Really?’ Is there not one?” While corporate superheroes are becoming more diverse, this sea change in representation is still nascent. 

With Momoa in the titular role, Aquaman’s identity as a mixed-race superhero becomes an explicit theme. In this new version, the underwater kingdom of Atlantis is ruled by Aquaman’s half-brother Orm, played by Patrick Wilson, who is obsessed with racial purity. Early in the movie, the blond-haired, blue-eyed Orm calls his half-brother a “half breed.” In fact, throughout the movie, Aquaman is called variations of this racial epithet. When Aquaman, for example, encounters the monster Karathen, the monster insults him as follows: “You dare come here with your tainted mongrel blood to claim Atlantis’s greatest treasure?” (Ironically, Karathen is voiced by Julie Andrews, famous for her iconic role in “The Sound of Music,” a movie about the rise of Nazism). Such racist insults are strewn throughout the movie. Aquaman is called a “half-breed abomination,” “mongrel,” “half breed,” and “tainted.” Wan’s movie charts Aquaman’s journey to becoming protector of the ocean, which is narrated as inextricable from the superhero learning to embrace his mixed-race status as a source of strength and power. Aquaman symbolizes a bridge to a new ecological world order that is delinked from whiteness, from colonialism and from unregulated capitalism. 

Decolonizing the waters

Black Panther: Wakanda ForeverTenoch Huerta Mejía as Namor in “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” (Eli Adé/Marvel Studios)

Namor, like Aquaman, becomes an Indigenous aquatic superhero who fights to decolonize the oceans and fights for a future of thriving biodiversity. 

“Aquaman” importantly inspired “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever,” which features Marvel’s counterpart to Aquaman, Namor. In the Marvel movie, directed and co-written by Black filmmaker Ryan Coogler, Namor becomes completely reimagined — a reimagining that Coogler shares was largely because of Momoa’s Aquaman. In the movie, Tenoch Huerta, a Mexican actor of Aztec and Purépecha heritage, plays the serpent god K’uk’ulkan, who his enemies call Namor. In Coogler’s update of this previously white aquatic superhero, Namor’s underwater kingdom Talokan is a postcolonial nation that developed in response to Spain’s colonization of the oceans and the Yucatán peninsula. In this new iteration, Namor, like Aquaman, becomes an Indigenous aquatic superhero who fights to decolonize the oceans and fights for a future of thriving biodiversity. 


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


These recent iterations of Aquaman and Namor make an important intervention in the blue humanities. They foreground how the blue humanities must make the history of racism and colonialism central to its field of study. In her article “Offshore: Descending into the Blue Humanities” (2019), race and religion scholar Justine M. Bakkker suggests that the recent turn to the oceans announced by the blue humanities is predominately a white project. Bakker writes, “the once-neglected ocean is now receiving much-deserved, much-needed attention in European and North American journals, conferences, and courses.” However, as Bakker notes, long before the naming of the blue humanities, Black thinkers and artists have continually thought with and through the oceans, as evident by the work of  Frederick Douglass, Paul Gilroy, Robert Hayden, Fred Moten, Christina Sharpe, Hortense Spillers, Derek Walcott, and Kara Walker. As these Black thinkers and artists foreground, the modern world was created by slave ships, and moreover, that the Black Atlantic is central to the story of modernity.

In popular culture, Jason Momoa’s Aquaman and Tenoch Huerta’s Namor remind us that the oceans are Black, Brown and Indigenous ecologies, and that oceans are salient geographies in the fight for racial and ecological justice. A responsible blue humanities, in short, must be a Black, Brown and Indigenous humanities.

 

“They got Daddy”: Reckoning with my grandfather’s kidnapping, racial terror and our family’s trauma

Memories of my grandfather remain both vivid and vague, even now, after researching and writing about the most tumultuous season of his life. I see him in demented old age, sitting on a pine wood chair in my grandparents’ rural Alabama home, his gaze distant, his suspenders securing a pair of baggy slacks. Yet, I cannot recall any words or sentiments exchanged between us. I see the disabled arm hanging at his side, something I’d wondered about but never asked anyone to explain.

Several years passed from when I wore a ponytail and patent leather Mary Janes at his funeral to the day my mother mentioned the kidnapping. We were watching the news, and one story featured an upcoming Ku Klux Klan rally in some part of Indiana. My childhood mind questioned whether the hate group still existed in the 1980s, but my mother verified that they most certainly did. As a matter of fact, she said, “They got Daddy,” referring to my grandfather. Those words would guide me along a journey to learn much more about Israel Page, the grandfather whose character I saw more clearly after death than in my memories of his life. In the process, I would also learn about how racism affected me as a Black woman in America.

My first career as a newspaper journalist prepared me for the task. Editors and experience trained me in interviewing and researching people and their pasts. I gathered details from my mother, her siblings, my grandmother, and my grandfather’s contemporaries. Israel Page had worked as a church pastor, a sharecropper, and a well driller, they’d said. Research through courthouse records, libraries, online databases, and writings about racism yielded more results. I learned that the kidnapping ordeal began in 1954 with a car accident between my grandfather and a white sheriff’s deputy. The accident left his right arm lame, which meant he could no longer drill wells, which led to his lawsuit against the deputy, which culminated in the 1959 kidnapping and beating by white supremacists. 

I originally planned to tell the story of Israel Page’s five-year legal battle with that deputy, Benjamin Brantley “B. B.” Lee. The tale had moved silently through the Page family, feeding into cultural trauma from one generation to the next. The more I dug, the more the story swelled and extended beyond the 1950s and into the 21st century. Israel Page v. Brantley Lee eventually became my framework to explore lingering systemic issues through the experiences of one family, our family. Today, I still wonder about lasting repercussions from that disturbing slice of his life.

Trauma’s generational impact

Cultural trauma describes the lasting effects of racism on African Americans, or, more generally speaking, it occurs when members of a group endure something horrendous that scars their group consciousness and changes their identity. The concept applies, then, to Jewish people whose ancestors endured the Holocaust, Japanese Americans forced into internment camps, and of course African Americans in the aftermath of slavery, Jim Crow, and even 21st-century tragedies of police brutality. Racism and the cultural trauma it carries seeped from my grandfather to my mother, uncles and aunts, to me.

Author and experienced birth doula Jacquelyn Clemmons said cultural trauma can’t simply be dismissed or forgotten. “When we consider that we are not only walking around with our own lived experiences and traumas but also those of our ancestors, we must slow down and take a hard, honest look at our past,” Clemmons wrote in a 2020 article for Healthline. To truly heal, we must address the cultural trauma that has always been there, shaping our perspective from birth.”

Israel Page v. Brantley Lee eventually became my framework to explore lingering systemic issues through the experiences of one family.

While writing the book, my own racial fears and triggers unveiled themselves. I began remembering certain incidents, such as the time a retail worker practically chased my sister and I out of a store, assuming we’d plotted to steal clothes. Then there were instances when I shrank inwardly. Like when my homemade bologna sandwich fared cheaply compared to my white friends’ lunches during an elementary school field trip. When I froze as a young journalist while covering a story about a Klan march. When, as an adult, I feared stopping for fast food in a city once rumored to be a “sundown town” that forbade Blacks from being out past dark. In an instant, tears would fall as my body recalled the shame, embarrassment, or fear I felt during those moments. And I realized that I, like so many other African Americans — be they impoverished or wealthy, unknown or celebrity — fit within the rubric of the culturally traumatized.

Linking the past and present

My research became more than ingredients for a book when I considered the impact of cultural trauma and the stigma of black and brown skin in my life. This was a journey of reckoning, of relating and healing that linked my grandfather’s experiences with my own. I saw how my fears and emotions mirrored situations my ancestors suffered. Not that I had been blind to these connections before, but I hadn’t previously felt or processed them to the same degree. Civil rights legislation deleted the Whites Only signs, but total equity remained elusive.

In 2020, the killings of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd occurred in a four-month span. Other fatal shootings followed into 2021, pitting some white police officers against unarmed African Americans. The era marked a shift, an uprising of sorts that yielded protests nationwide, sharp social media debates of free speech and so-called cancel culture. America revealed its heart as divided, its future headed backward toward a stark segregation of ideals. For many people of color nationwide, these tragedies equaled triggers, awakening the trauma inside of us, sparking emotional pleas for help and hope, eliciting passions that our white friends and allies could not fathom because their bloodline lacked the tainted plasma of discrimination.

We have always amounted to more than the ferocity of our racial battles.

Today, I work as a nonprofit leader serving under-resourced communities and underserved groups. My experience and research in the human services realm, coupled with my work for “They Got Daddy,” revealed more links between past and present systemic racism. For instance, the eugenics movement sanctioned doctors who unwittingly sterilized Black women during the early 20th century. I recall mentioning a surgical procedure in 2017 to a friend who told me her family shunned major surgery of any kind because doctors stole the wombs of two Black relatives during the eugenics era. The horror echoed in 2020 when a whistleblower accused a doctor of performing hysterectomies on undocumented women detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) without their knowledge. It came as no surprise to me or other nonprofit leaders, then, when African Americans initially ranked among the most resistant groups to take COVID-19 vaccines. Of course, we were. A deep mistrust of American medicine had baked into the culture due, in part, to records of the eugenics movement, the well-documented Tuskegee Experiment, and modern reports of implicit bias in hospitals, to name a few reasons.

We are more than our struggles

Still, so much more filled my research journey than oppression and fear. Equally ingrained in our story are the family reunions, the bonds formed through laughter and perseverance, the oral histories I’d heard for years without appreciating their warmth and cultural swagger. These were the memories that relatives retold at holiday gatherings, during dinner after a funeral service, while sitting on the front porch to catch a spring breeze. These proud snapshots convey the strength of the Black family, the overcoming spirit that refuses to let the pangs of the world steal our joy and zeal for living. We have always amounted to more than the ferocity of our racial battles.

For many Black families, including ours, faith charted the course to overcome. It empowered us to survive the harshest of conditions from 17th-century fields, to the protest marches of the Sixties, to the shootings that preceded the Black Lives Matter movement. Throughout this project, I felt the complexity of emotions, including the pain that my relatives must have worked through and that people of color live with regardless of our generation or time. The defeat of discrimination. The frustration and belittling of injustice. But also, I felt the reasons why African Americans possess pride and distinction in who we are, nonetheless. The passion for our culture. The hope and confidence found through faith.

In the end, I embraced my grandfather by filling the voids left in my childhood memories. He was not the Martin Luther King Jr. I wrote about in a middle-school essay. He was no Medgar Evers or Thurgood Marshall. He was a Black man in suspenders who wanted to take care of his family and live his life in a small country town, a man who believed strongly in a God much bigger than us all. He was this guy living at a time when an unjust system threatened to use his skin color to steal his greatness and hope, in much the same way that injustice threatens us all. That same threat never stopped breathing through my grandfather’s children. It still breathes in me today. Yet, learning the fullness of his story — our story — has allowed me to exhale.

Big Meat is wasteful, polluting and powerful. Learn more from Chloe Sorvino, author of “Raw Deal”

Longtime Forbes reporter Chloe Sorvino has been on the food finance beat for seven years. She’s covered titans of the industry, farmers struggling with climate disaster and hopeful plant-based startups. As Covid created one crisis after the other across the American food supply chain, she kept a watchful eye on the monolith that is Big Meat, which stands accused of wage fixingprice gougingworker-sickeninganimal-abusing, and environmentpolluting, even as it’s recorded sky-high profits in 2022.

The all-powerful meat industry is also the focus of Sorvino’s first book, “Raw Deal,” which releases on December 6th. In it, Sorvino tracks how eight companies, including Tyson, JBS, Smithfield and Cargill, managed to gobble up 80 percent of the American beef sector, 70 percent of pork and 50 percent of chicken — then worked to drive up production. In the process, they consolidated the animals themselves, in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and coopted millions of acres of chemical-intensive farmland for growing corn and soy feed. Those companies “are now rolling in it,” Sorvino writes in the first chapter.

She goes on to lay out how the industry is driving climate change as well as poor human health and welfare yet managing to hold its own against calls for stronger regional agriculture systems and the alt-protein world’s Big Plant movement. In fact, the final chapters of the book lay out how Beyond and Impossible have become part of the industrial juggernaut despite early missions to improve agriculture, and the “dumb money” fueling it both alt and lab-grown meat.

FoodPrint talked to Sorvino about her years reporting on the industry and some of the key takeaways to be gleaned from “Raw Deal.” This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

After reporting in this space for a while, why did you decide it was time for a book?

In 2020, I was getting really worried that [readers weren’t] going to make this connection that’s so necessary [between] the billionaires who are calling me up and boasting about their profits, and the climate advocates sounding every alarm possible and the workers who are talking to me about their mistreatment. I’ve seen how much wealth and power and consolidation there has been in the food industry, particularly in meat. I realized [these companies] had carved out niches in a massive industry because of their power, their ability to lobby collectively, to amass profits, where smaller independents have not. This centralization has had ramifications, from harming especially communities of color and their health, to pollution and environmental degradation. I’ve come to these ideas about how the food system needs to change from doing stories [at Forbes] on billionaire profits growing and wanting to talk more about the externalities and the environmental ramifications. I wanted to flip the framing.

Why has it been so difficult to fight back against Big Meat?

There’s all these farmers, all these producers, all these startups, getting investor money to take a bite out of industrial meat. At the end of the day, industrial meat packers are billionaires who have so much profit and have amassed so much power it’s been very hard to take a significant amount of their market share away. The local food movement over the past decade has gotten lot of hype but still has barely amassed more than 1.5% of total volume. Then you have the alternative protein industry, which raised billions from investors for climate change solutions and yet it’s still less than 1%. There’s very little actual adoption and a lot of problems with how these alternatives have been erected.

What are some solutions?

There’s a lot of private money going into some of the systems that have been touted as alternatives on the pasture-raised side of [meat], but there’s also been so much co-opting of that language. I tried to focus on scientifically based, adaptive multi-paddock grazing which is proven [beneficial], especially given how much degradation there has been from industrialized farming and monoculture. There is land around the world that is so degraded that only livestock can bring it back so I think what we need to see is a balancing of actual revitalization that can support [some grazed] meat, and completely changing infrastructure to support plant-based in a regional way.

Do you think we should focus on local food systems?

Local farms are for sure amazing on every level compared to industrial, but there is something to be said for how big is able to leverage its scale for efficiency. I’m not sure that every single local small farm is better on emissions or better on soil health or less polluting, [although] they often are because there’s a major incentive for those farmers if they own the land and it’s generational and they want to be farming in the right ways. There’s also not necessarily any guarantees that farmworkers on local farms are more protected than on big farms and in some cases, it might be even worse because there’s not as much of a security net.

That said, supporting local is super important for everything I talk about in the book, in terms of making sure we’re able to withstand this [climate] crisis with dignity. But I still would love to see better farmworker protections at local farms, and a lot else. It’s been crazy to me to see how [more sustainable farms] essentially have to fight it out for funding and for changing how subsidies are given. It’s been one of the biggest problems and also one of the biggest reasons I wanted to write this book because that fighting it out at the bottom is just a distraction. Big Meat has continued to stay super powerful, continued to amass billions of dollars in profits and been able to have control over how their assets are used in the climate crisis.

The pandemic showed the chinks in industrial food’s armor. What are some important takeaways for you about Big Food’s failures?

The climate clock is ticking. We only have a few harvests left to make significant, very needed change. The meat industry needs to completely overhaul itself. Confinement systems [CAFOs] that pollute need to come to an end, meat consumption needs to go down, but there also needs to be a revitalization of regional food systems. I outline ways that can happen, both by supporting plant-based [foods] and certain types of grazing livestock systems. If change doesn’t happen by 2030, we’re going to lose any chance to have collective support around regionally based solutions and infrastructure for food.

In the book you post out that with the climate crisis already upon us, there’s no time to invest in the wrong things. Are we?

We don’t have enough time to start from scratch. We also don’t have enough time to waste resources. Billions have already been wasted in alternative protein. Impossible and Beyond, they’ve gotten billions and billions of dollars in funding. And this year, they’ve gone through massive of layoffs, their valuations have been chopped in half and their companies are struggling majorly. And those are the best-funded leaders in the industry.

Private equity-backed funds have been flowing into lab grown meat and other alternative proteins. But the problem is that investors are [funding] really young founders who don’t understand what giving away pieces of these companies means. [Funders] are expecting 10 times returns on their investments, but also just as equally they are expecting half the time [the company’s] going to fail completely. You’re getting a lot of copycats, a lot of bankruptcies. In 2021 there were hundreds of startups trying to make plant-based chicken, plant-based beef, plant-based pork, plant-based shrimp, and now you’re seeing a lot of them getting rolled up in mergers or entirely shutting down and getting written off by investors. That’s not a way to sustainably fund a better food system.

A chapter in your book is titled “Will Meatless Meat Actually Help the Earth?” Will it?

There’s a huge problem with the amount of monoculture and loss of biodiversity that the current alternatives [to meat] that are selling in grocery stores are supporting. Beyond, Impossible, they’re all sourcing mainstream commodities. They had the scale where they could have gone the extra distance and tried to source organic, there is enough of the market for that. But they’ve chosen as-cheap-as-possible global sourcing, which also adds to emissions. There’s a lot of problems when you’re continuing to support a system where monoculture exists. Right now, these companies that are saying that they’re going to transform the future of food, they’re just working within this commodity system to continue to create a cheap, ultra-processed product. That is not creating meaningful change.

I will say that I think plant-based can get a certain amount of scale and do its sourcing in a way that is actually helping the earth. I worked with Richard Waite from the World Resource Institute for the book to figure out if plant-based meat was able to take out a chunk of the meat industry if that would even cause anything substantial or meaningful. If the plant-based industry was able to take out 15% of total volume from the meat industry, that would be around the same as a quarter of all cars in the U.S. coming off the road, which is a fair amount of emissions.

With lab-grown meat, I do have deep questions around the energy usage and how billionaires and other private investors are creating a new protein source that could be one of the only protein sources at a certain point, but they own the intellectual property of that entirely. But I would be open to seeing how lab-grown meat, if it could be open source, could have a place in a public food sector where every region has its own plans to distribute it in times of crisis. That’s the only way that I’d be super happy to see it play out.

There’s lots of room for the meat industry to grow with exports. Is a 15% cut in American meat consumption really all we need?

I think there is more interest than ever before in figuring out how we get corporations to responsibly do what we need them to do. There needs to be a moratorium on feedlots. In my dream world, there would be no food companies going public, and there would be regulations on companies that have already gone public. Otherwise, Tyson will continue to say, I have a duty to my shareholders to make more than I did last quarter, and that puts us on this downward spiral towards environmental degradation and so much worse.

Do you see hopeful movement toward improvement?

We’re now in this space where [Tom] Vilsack is back as the chief of the USDA. He made significant accommodations to the meat packing industry to help the two Brazilian billionaire brothers [who own JBS] take over the American meat industry and become a huge driving force of consolidation in the past decade. History could repeat itself. I also wrote about how when you have Bill Gates owning the most farmland in the country then renting it out to corporations that aren’t farming sustainably, it takes a significant power like government to counterbalance that mismatch. We really haven’t had enough government intervention.

[But] the new farm bill is coming up and the Young Farmers Coalition is asking for [money] for better land access for Black, Indigenous, and other farmers of color, which would be huge. Overall, I think the more you can take an active role in how you get your food the better. There are billionaires and venture capitalists who have completely co-opted the system and made it hard to figure out if your dollar is getting where you want it to go. But there are ways for you to support farmers directly: Being a member of a CSA, getting a worker shift at a co-op. Otherwise, almost all restaurants and groceries are buying from the biggest players because that’s what’s [efficient]. The more you take yourself out of traditional mainstream economic systems in purchasing food, the more you’re going to be directly supporting our farmers as opposed to supporting a food system you don’t want to see in the future.

What I learned from years in the internet’s dark corners: We need real connections

We all do it. Make little snap judgments about everyday strangers as we go about our lives. Without giving it a second’s thought, we sketch minibiographies of the people we pass on the sidewalk, the guy seated across from us on the train or the woman in line in front of us at the grocery store. We wonder: Who are they? Where are they from? How do they make a living? Lately, though, such passing encounters tend to leave me with a sense of suspicion, a wariness tinged with grim curiosity. I think to myself: Is he or she one of them?

By them, I mean one of the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of “people” I encountered during my many forays into the darkest recesses of the Internet. Despite the staggering amount of time many of us spend online — more than six-and-a-half hours a day, according to recent research — we tend to haunt the same websites and social media platforms (Facebook, YouTube, CNN, Reddit, Google) again and again. Not me, though. Over the past five years, I’ve spent more hours than I wish to count exploring the subterranean hideaways and uncensored gathering spaces for some of the most unhinged communities on the Internet.

Call it an occupational hazard. Only recently, I published my first book, “A Death on W Street: The Murder of Seth Rich and the Age of Conspiracy,” an investigative political thriller that opens with the 2016 street murder of a 27-year-old who had worked for the Democratic National Committee. In the absence of a culprit, Seth Rich’s killing got swept into the fast-flowing conspiratorial currents of that year’s presidential race, a contest that pitted an unabashed conspiracy theorist, Donald Trump, against a candidate, Hillary Clinton, who had been the subject of decades’ worth of elaborately sinister claims (with no basis in reality). For my book, I set out to understand how a senseless crime that took the life of a beloved but hardly famous mid-level political staffer became a national and then international news story, a viral phenomenon of ever more twisted conspiracy theories that reached millions and all too soon became a piece of modern folklore.

To do so, I traced the arc of those Rich conspiracy theories back to their origins. In practical terms, that meant hundreds of late nights spent huddled over my desk, eyes fixed on my computer screen, clicking and scrolling my way through a seemingly endless trail of tweets, memes, posts and videos. The Internet is, in some ways, like an ancient city, its latest incarnation resting atop the ruins of so many civilizations past. I came to think of myself then as an online archeologist digging my way through the digital eons, sifting through archived websites and seeking out long-vanished posts in search of clues and answers.

Or maybe I was a waste handler, holding my nose as I picked through piles (or do I mean miles?) of toxic detritus that littered old versions of social media sites you’d know like Twitter and Reddit, and others you probably don’t, like 4chan, 8kun and Telegram. It was there that I encountered so many of them, those faceless users, the ones I might have passed on the street, who, with the promise of anonymity, had felt unburdened to voice their unfiltered, often deeply disturbing selves. It was all id, all the time.

Who were these people? I couldn’t help but wonder whether they actually believed the stuff they wrote. Or was it all about the thrill of saying it? In an unnervingly boundless online world, were they testing the boundaries of the acceptable by one-upping each other with brazen displays of racism, misogyny or antisemitism (just to start down the list)?

Venturing into those noxious places was like entering an inside-out world impervious to logic and critical thinking, where losers were “cucks,” loyal followers “pedes” and Hillary Clinton was always “Klanton.”

Firing up my laptop and venturing into those noxious places was like entering an inside-out world impervious to logic and critical thinking. They had their own language — losers were “cucks,” loyal foot soldiers “pedes,” and Hillary Clinton was Hillary “Klanton” — and they operated with their own sets of elaborate but twisted rules and hierarchies. After a few hours of studying such “conversations,” a form of vertigo would set in, a spinning sensation that made me get up from my desk and clear my head with a walk or a conversation with a real human being.

Now that the book is published, I don’t spend much time in those disturbing online worlds. Still, every once in a while, I can’t help checking in — old habits die hard — despite the horrors I saw there while gathering material for my book. What nags at me even now — in fact, it haunts me in some way — is the knowledge that there were real people behind those toxic accounts. The same people you might sit next to on a bus without having the slightest suspicion of just how disturbed they were and what a disturbing world they were helping create or elaborate. That knowledge still weighs on me.

Weapons of mass disinformation

A confession: on a few of those late nights spent in the online ruins, I caught myself starting to nod along with some of the wild-eyed nonsense I was reading. Maybe I found a particular Reddit thread surprisingly convincing. Maybe the post in question had sprinkled a few verifiable facts amid the nonsense to make me think, Huh? Maybe my sixth cup of coffee and lack of sleep had so weakened my mental safeguards that madness itself began to seem at least faintly reasonable. When I felt such heretical thoughts seep into my stream of consciousness, I took it as a sure sign that I should log off and go to bed.

Thinking back on those moments, I admit that the first feeling I have is pure and utter embarrassment. I’m an investigative reporter. I make a living dealing in facts, data and vetted information. Heck, my first job in journalism was as a full-time, trained fact-checker. I should be impervious to the demented siren song of conspiracy theories, right?

The correct answer is indeed: Right. And yet…

I realize now that, on those disturbing long nights at the computer, I was more than an avid journalistic explorer of online content. I had immersed myself — and immersion is what the Internet does best. It’s the gateway point to a seemingly infinite number of rabbit holes. Who hasn’t clicked on a Wikipedia entry about, say, the making of the atomic bomb only to check the time, realize that two hours had slipped by, and you’re now watching a YouTube video about the greatest comebacks in baseball history with no memory of how you got here in the first place?


Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.


That frictionless glide from one post to the next, video after video, tweet upon tweet, plays tricks on the mind. Spend enough time in that realm and even the most absurd theories and narratives start to acquire the patina of logic, the ring of reason. How else to explain the sheer number of QAnon adherents — one in five Americans, according to an analysis by the Public Religion Research Institute — who believe that a secret cabal of pedophile elites, including Tom Hanks and Oprah, run the world, or that the Earth is indeed flat, or that the moon landing more than half a century ago was faked, no matter what news broadcaster Walter Cronkite might have said at the time?

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that conspiracy theories weren’t a fixture of American life before the internet came along. Quite the opposite: for as long as we humans have existed, we’ve dreamt up elaborate theories and fables to explain the inexplicable or, increasingly in our time, the otherwise all too explicable that we refuse to believe. Some of the founders of this country were unashamed conspiracy-mongers. What those delirious late nights at the computer led me to believe, however, is that tools for spreading such fantastical theories have never been more powerful than they are today and they’ve entered our politics in an unnerving fashion (as anyone paying attention to the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol knows).

Put simply, we don’t stand a chance against the social media companies. Fueled by highly sophisticated algorithms that maximize “engagement” at all costs by feeding users ever more inflammatory content, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and the rest of them don’t simply entertain, inform, or “connect” us. As New York Times reporter Max Fisher writes in his book “The Chaos Machine,” “This technology exerts such a powerful pull on our psychology and our identity, and is so pervasive in our lives, that it changes how we think, behave, and relate to one another. The effect, multiplied across billions of users, has been to change society itself.”

Spending so much time burrowing into such websites, I came away with a deep sense of just how addictive they are. More than that, they rewire your mind in real-time. I felt it myself. I fear that there’s no path out of our strange, increasingly conspiratorial moment, filled with viral lies and rampant disinformation, without rewriting the algorithms that increasingly govern our lives.

The lost art of saying hello

Still, I’m under no illusion that tweets and memes can adequately explain the schisms in American life and this country’s descent into a more embittered, polarized, us-versus-them cultural moment. Nor can Donald Trump, who is as much a product of the strange internet world of conspiracies as a cause of it. They are, in fact, the ever-more-virulent symptoms of a country in which it’s not enough to disagree with your opponents. You also have to demonize them as subhuman, criminal and alien, while, in the process, doing genuine harm to yourself.

I fear there’s no path out of our increasingly conspiratorial moment, filled with viral lies and rampant disinformation, without rewriting the algorithms that increasingly govern our lives.

In what still passes for the real world, how else to explain the prominence of conspiracy theories like QAnon or the current far-right trend of accusing someone, especially anyone who disagrees with you, of being a “groomer”? Or how do you account for the existence of a seemingly inextinguishable belief now lurking in our world that one of the country’s prominent political families, the Clintons, are also prolific serial killers who have slaughtered dozens, if not hundreds of people? Or the explosion of those baseless claims I spent all that time exploring about the murdered Seth Rich, claims that would haunt his family for years, denying them even the space to grieve for their own son?

No amount of late-night online sleuthing was going to provide an answer to the larger social ills afflicting this country. Indeed, the more time I spent online, the greater the chasm appeared — so vast, in fact, that I began to wonder whether it could ever be bridged. Nor is this a malady that can be dealt with by politicians or governments, important as they are. It runs even deeper than that.

When I think about the root causes of such societal drift, I return to a phrase I read in a 2021 study that described a “national friendship decline.” According to that survey, “Americans report having fewer close friendships than they once did, talking to their friends less often, and relying less on their friends for personal support.” The data wasn’t all grim. More than four in ten respondents said that they had made a new friend during the pandemic. Still, the lockdowns and self-isolation of these Covid years had exacerbated what the survey’s authors called a “loneliness epidemic.”

When I think about those endless Twitter rants and Reddit screeds I encountered, I envision lonely people hunched over their computers in empty apartments, posting and scrolling madly (sometimes in the most literal sense) deep into the night. Loneliness and social isolation, of course, can’t explain away all the mad conspiratorial rants you find on the Internet, nor are they the sole cause of the brittle, increasingly dangerous state of American politics. But it’s so much easier to resent and rage against a perceived enemy if you’ve never met them or anyone like them, so much easier to cast the other side as the out-group or the villain if you’ve never shared a meal or a coffee or a phone call with them.

I mention that “loneliness epidemic” only to underscore my belief that healing the schism in our culture and politics will require something more difficult and yet simpler than major policy reforms or electing a new generation of officials. Don’t get me wrong: both of those are needed, on both sides of the proverbial aisle. Today’s politics too often resemble a race to the bottom, as politicians rush to outflank their rivals and whip up their constituencies (often using social media to do it). All the while, powerful interest groups, their lobbyists and a growing billionaire class shape (or sink) the kinds of wholesale changes needed to reboot our political system.

Yet our problems run deeper than that — and the solutions can’t be found in Washington.

One answer is finding ways to knit back together an unbearably frayed nation. Neighborhood groups, book clubs, sports leagues, civic associations, labor unions, religious groups, whatever it is, the surest way out of this stubborn conflict must come through the simplest of gestures — human connection. The lost art of saying hello.

Tech executives love to talk about the value of “connection” and their goals of “connecting” the world. Almost two decades into the social media era, we should know better than to believe those empty paeans used as cover for the relentless pursuit of profits. Now more than ever, it’s time to step away from those weapons of mass disinformation.

I don’t care much for New Year’s resolutions, but if I did, I would say: let’s make 2023 the year of logging off. Get to know your neighbors and colleagues. For my part, I’ll work on not thinking of those everyday strangers, or even those tiny avatars on the Internet, as them. Instead of fearing them, I’ll think I say hello.

Copyright 2022 Andy Kroll

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Books, John Feffer’s new dystopian novel, “Songlands” (the final one in his Splinterlands series), Beverly Gologorsky’s novel “Every Body Has a Story,” and Tom Engelhardt’s “A Nation Unmade by War,” as well as Alfred McCoy’s “In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power,” John Dower’s “The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II” and Ann Jones’ “They Were Soldiers: How the Wounded Return from America’s Wars: The Untold Story.”

Social media always remembers — which makes moving on from a breakup that much harder

Before the internet, people commonly burned Polaroids and love letters in a fire as an act of closure following a breakup.

Nowadays, it isn’t so simple. People produce and consume massive amounts of digital stuff – 33 trillion gigabytes of online data in 2018 alone, a number that has surely grown.

Even as more and more of daily life is experienced and documented online, there’s no playbook for how to navigate breakups in the digital age. In the past, if bonfires weren’t your thing, you could simply throw out love letters, gifts and photographs, or put them in a box and store them in the attic – out of sight and out of mind.

Now, as you scroll through your accounts, you might find yourself returning to your own memories – including reminders of your former partners, which live on long after the dissolution of a relationship.

As communication researchers, we’ve conducted a series of studies investigating how people decide whether to keep or delete something following the end of a romantic relationship – and how these decisions affect their ability to move on.

Relationship “cleansing”

In some of our earlier research – all the way back in 2013 – we studied how people used social media after a breakup.

We found that they often carried out what we call “relational cleansing” by hiding their relational status, deleting photos or scrubbing old social media posts.

In another study, we found that people who spent a good deal of time looking at old digital photos of their relationships and those who monitored their previous partners on social media following a breakup had a harder time moving on.

To explore these findings in more depth, we conducted a follow-up study that looked at whether keeping or deleting virtual objects following a breakup helped people move on and emotionally recover following the end of their relationship.

We found that people who were more nostalgic – that is, those who tended to have a sentimental longing for the past – were more likely to keep digital objects from their previous relationship, and that preserving those objects tended to make it harder to adjust to the relationship’s end.

In the analysis of the results, we speculated that when people continually revisit these digital memories, they’re unable to fully detach from the relationship.

Based on this research we came up with a model called Virtual Relational Memory. Specifically, we suggest that individuals going through a breakup consider three components of their digital lives: objects, stories and networks.

To purge or not to purge?

In relationships, people produce a trove of digital objects, such as messages and photos, that represent and document their relationships.

Those happy and joyous photos of past anniversaries and trips linger in online photo albums long after the relationship ends.

Because many of these digital objects are distributed across platforms and accounts – many of which people don’t have access to – they’re more likely to persist. Old photos memories can algorithmically appear at inopportune times, too, spurring unanticipated thoughts about your partner.

Still, you can exert some control over whether to delete or keep the memories you have access to.

By keeping the objects, maybe you can continue to reflect on the relationship, prompting personal growth. By deleting them, perhaps you can more quickly move on from your previous partner and prepare for your next relationship.

Losing control of the narrative

Beyond considering how to manage things like photos and old messages, people going through a breakup should also think about the narrative, or story, of the breakup.

The stories people tell about their breakups are powerful reminders of their relationships. But they also help people reconcile and move on to new ones.

When a relationship ends, people often construct a story, and that story varies for different audiences. When your parents ask why you broke up, you might tell a story about your differing life goals. When your friends ask why you broke up, you might tell a story about your inability to manage conflict.

Social media complicates the story-creation process, because it is more difficult to construct distinct stories for different audiences. For instance, some people have both a main Instagram account and a “Finsta” that presents their more authentic identity. Someone who shares the gritty details of their breakup on their finsta would have a difficult time reconciling that version of the narrative with the one they present on their more curated main profile.

Also, people tend to change the story they tell about breakups over time as they move on from a relationship. Their story might evolve to be less hostile to their partner, or more accepting of the need for the end of the relationship. When people are exposed to virtual objects such as old photos or texts, their narratives can quickly revert back to the stories they created shortly after the relationship ended.

Adapting your network

Next, it’s important to think about your network, which refers to the connections in which our relationships are embedded.

When you’re in a relationship, you often connect with your partner’s family members and friends on Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat. Those networks often linger following the end of the relationship unless you make an active effort to disconnect.

You may ask yourself whether you really care what your previous boyfriend’s childhood best friend is doing on vacation. Even worse, your previous partner could appear in those very vacation photos.

The persistence of these networks makes ending relationships harder. In a sense, these networks act as a brain, archiving virtual memories through social connections that can be reactivated by the social network.

Although research into the effects of these factors is ongoing, especially as technology continues to evolve, we suggest that people think carefully about which objects, stories and networks they want to retain, and which they want to jettison. Though tentative, the findings across our studies suggest that people who selectively keep some objects and delete others fare better following a breakup than those who obsessively keep or delete. In other words, everything in moderation.

Perhaps, as country singer Sam Hunt put it, breaking up was easier in the 1990s. But that doesn’t mean you can’t reassert control over how you want to move on – and decide which digital relics of your relationships to preserve and which to purge for good.

Kate G. Blackburn, Post Doctoral Researcher, The University of Texas at Austin College of Liberal Arts; Leah E. LeFebvre, Associate Professor of Communication, University of Alabama, and Nick Brody, Associate Professor of Communication Studies, University of Puget Sound

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