#4: Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis

“[A] compassionate, discerning sociological analysis…Combining thoughtful inquiry with firsthand experience, Mr. Vance has inadvertently provided a civilized reference guide for an uncivilized election, and he’s done so in a vocabulary intelligible to both Democrats and Republicans. Imagine that.†(Jennifer Senior, New York Times)

“[Hillbilly Elegy] is a beautiful memoir but it is equally a work of cultural criticism about white working-class America….[Vance] offers a compelling explanation for why it’s so hard for someone who grew up the way he did to make it…a riveting book.†(Wall Street Journal)

“[Vance’s] description of the culture he grew up in is essential reading for this moment in history.†(David Brooks, New York Times)

“[Hillbilly Elegy] couldn’t have been better timed…a harrowing portrait of much that has gone wrong in America over the past two generations…an honest look at the dysfunction that afflicts too many working-class Americans.†(National Review)

[A]n American classic, an extraordinary testimony to the brokenness of the white working class, but also its strengths. It’s one of the best books I’ve ever read… [T]he most important book of 2016. You cannot understand what’s happening now without first reading J.D. Vance. (Rod Dreher,The American Conservative)

“J.D. Vance’s memoir, “Hillbilly Elegyâ€, offers a starkly honest look at what that shattering of faith feels like for a family who lived through it. You will not read a more important book about America this year.†(The Economist)

“[A] frank, unsentimental, harrowing memoir…a superb book…†(New York Post)

“The troubles of the working poor are well known to policymakers, but Vance offers an insider’sview of the problem.†(Christianity Today)

“Vance movingly recounts the travails of his family.†(Washington Post)

“What explains the appeal of Donald Trump? Many pundits have tried to answer this question and fallen short. But J.D. Vance nails it…stunning…intimate…†(Globe and Mail (Toronto))

“[A] new memoir that should be read far and wide.†(Institute of Family Studies)

“[An] understated, engaging debut…An unusually timely and deeply affecting view of a social class whose health and economic problems are making headlines in this election year.†(Kirkus Reviews (starred review))

“Both heartbreaking and heartwarming, this memoir is akin to investigative journalism. … A quick and engaging read, this book is well suited to anyone interested in a study of modern America, as Vance’s assertions about Appalachia are far more reaching.†(Library Journal)

“Vance compellingly describes the terrible toll that alcoholism, drug abuse, and an unrelenting code of honor took on his family, neither excusing the behavior nor condemning it…The portrait that emerges is a complex one…Unerringly forthright, remarkably insightful, and refreshingly focused, Hillbilly Elegy is the cry of a community in crisis.†(Booklist)

To understand the rage and disaffection of America’s working-class whites, look to Greater Appalachia. In HILLBILLY ELEGY, J.D. Vance confronts us with the economic and spiritual travails of this forgotten corner of our country. Here we find women and men who dearly love their country, yet who feel powerless as their way of life is devastated. Never before have I read a memoir so powerful, and so necessary. (Reihan Salam, executive editor, National Review)

“A beautifully and powerfully written memoir about the author’s journey from a troubled, addiction-torn Appalachian family to Yale Law School, Hillbilly Elegy is shocking, heartbreaking, gut-wrenching, and hysterically funny. It’s also a profoundly important book, one that opens a window on a part of America usually hidden from view and offers genuine hope in the form of hard-hitting honesty. Hillbilly Elegy announces the arrival of a gifted and utterly original new writer and should be required reading for everyone who cares about what’s really happening in America.†(Amy Chua, New York Times bestselling author of The Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother)

“Elites tend to see our social crisis in terms of ‘stagnation’ or ‘inequality.’ J. D. Vance writes powerfully about the real people who are kept out of sight by academic abstractions.†(Peter Thiel, entrepreneur, investor, and author of Zero to One)

Jessica Chastain on blurring gender boundaries

Story highlights

  • Jessica Chastain said she’s careful to chose projects that feature strong women
  • “The Zookeeper’s Wife” debuts in theaters March 31

“I think every woman is a strong woman. I think that in the past, we’ve connected strength, leadership, ambition, power, as masculine traits,” Chastain told CNN in an interview for her upcoming film “The Zookeeper’s Wife.” “We’ve connected compassion and emotion and kindness and softness as feminine traits. The great thing about today is the boundaries are being blurred.”

Chastain said she embraced the mix of gentility and power in her role as Antonina Żabińska in the film, based on the true story of a husband and wife who helped people escape the Holocaust in Warsaw, Poland during World War II.

“It was a great responsibility to play this character. I definitely felt the weight of history. I felt the weight of the family,” Chastain said. “There are incredible examples of women in history who have created paths that we walk on today. Antonina is an example.”

Chastain credits the women in her family for her success.

“I look up to my grandmother and my mother. My mother raised us, she was a single mom, and it was really difficult,” she said. “I’ve seen my grandmother and my mom sacrifice so much for their children. I am where I am today because of the sacrifices they made.”

“They didn’t have the opportunities to go to college and to create these careers,” she continued. “I think because of that, I’m very protective of single mothers out in the world and what they do for their children. I think we should support them as much as we can.”

Chastain hopes that audiences will feel uplifted by “The Zookeeper’s Wife,” despite the horrific time period in which it’s set.

“This is a film that also focuses on the light,” Chastain said. “Yes, there is a dark side of humanity. But, also, there is beauty, love … and those who really stick their neck out to exhibit love and to show compassion.”

“The Zookeeper’s Wife” debuts March 31.

Devin Nunes doesn’t get secrecy

Story highlights

  • Paul Callan: Democrats and others want intelligence committee chair to resign for odd late-night visit to White House
  • Callan: Nunes should do so; US has right to expect more circumspect behavior from head of committee in charge of America’s secrets

In the full technicolor version of this fantasy, the cuffs would next be fastened on Trump, ending the progressives’ enduring Trumpian nightmare.

It’s clear that a lot more information is required before anyone can fairly judge the propriety and legality of Nunes’ actions. What we do know is that shortly after this visit to view classified information, Nunes perhaps surprised even the President by requesting a meeting. He failed to tell the House Intelligence Committee about this meeting with the President, an action for which he recently apologized.

Nunes tried to explain all of this to Wolf Blitzer earlier today, fielding specific questions about the White House visit. The chairman hedged on some questions and flatly declined to answer other inquiries, invoking the need to protect “sources and methods” and still “classified” information.

As chairman of the intelligence committee, enjoying among the highest of security clearances, the chairman would clearly be committing a crime if he publicly disclosed classified information. Answers that appear to be specious and deceptive may fit that description or in fact just be an intelligence chairman trying to protect classified information as well as “sources and methods.” This can only be legally evaluated when more is known about the contents of the mysterious documents that are now causing such a controversy on Capitol Hill.

Many Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee as well as others in Congress, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, are calling for Nunes’ resignation, or recusal from any further role in the House committee’s investigation of the Trump campaign’s contacts with the Russians and the issues relating to the President’s Twitter-announced claim that President Obama ordered wiretaps on Trump Tower.

Nunes should seriously consider stepping aside, as his own actions have now become the center of an ever-widening and distracting controversy.

Though at this point there is no evidence that the chairman acted illegally, the country has the right to expect far more circumspect behavior from the chairman of the House committee in charge of America’s secrets. It’s a little late for him to be learning that secrecy is paramount in the business of investigating the intelligence community.

The missteps of Nunes and the inappropriate tweets of the President appear to be drawing both men into the dark fantasies of Trump opponents across the country. One lesson they both should have learned by now is that the denizens of America’s spy apparatus are nicknamed “spooks” for good reason.

The life-saving treatment that’s thrown in the trash

During a check-up, on his 43rd birthday, his doctor named summertime flu the most likely culprit.

Then the same thing happened again, and it settled into a disturbing pattern: midweek chills and an escalating fever that would break on Sunday. By Monday, Chris would feel fine, only to have the sequence repeat itself.

He joked about it with colleagues at T-Mobile, where he works in software development, “Well, I hope it’s not cancer!”

On alternating weekends from May to October, Chris would volunteer as a back country ranger for the US Forest Service — a physically demanding role that involves patrolling Washington’s Cascade Mountain forests and hiking along high-altitude trails with a backpack that can weigh up to 32 kilograms.

But now, even at sea level, he was getting winded just walking his two dogs around the block. What was going on?

A medical appointment revealed a heart murmur and suspicions of endocarditis, an infection of the heart’s inner lining. The scare triggered another series of tests that led Chris and his husband, Bill Sechter, to Emergency Room 4 at the University of Washington Medical Center.

A whiteboard checklist documented his Saturday morning: insertion of a large-bore IV as a potential conduit for antibiotics, a round of blood draws, and discussions with the ER doctor.

Then the phone rang and the nurse answered, listened and responded to multiple questions in quick succession: “Yes. Yes. Oh, OK. OK. Yeah.” He excused himself from the room and soon returned in a “full hazmat suit”, as Chris describes it. Yellow.

“And that’s when we were like, ‘Oh s***, it’s on. Something is seriously bad.'”

Chris learned that his level of infection-fighting neutrophil cells, normally churned out by the bone marrow, had fallen so low that his defenses were in tatters. He was also severely anemic, with roughly half the normal amount of red blood cells in his blood.

It wasn’t endocarditis. And when one of his doctors performed a blood smear, she saw something on the microscope slide that shouldn’t be there: blasts.

These leukemic cells, stuck in adolescence, were the harbingers of the coming horde that had so astonished 19th-century surgeons.

The doctor apologetically broke the news and Chris and his sister dissolved into tears. In an emotional Facebook post later that day, he attached a picture of himself in a hospital gown and pink face mask and wrote: “this avowed agnostic could actually go for your good juju / positive thoughts or even your (gasp) prayers.”

More tests, including a bone marrow biopsy of his pelvic bone, painted an increasingly disturbing picture. He had acute myeloid leukaemia, a fast-progressing cancer.

The biopsy suggested that an astonishing 80 per cent of his bone marrow cells were cancerous. Strike one.

Chris Lihosit was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia, a fast-progressing cancer, in 2015.

Chris Lihosit was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia, a fast-progressing cancer, in 2015.

Chris Lihosit was diagnosed with acute myeloid leukaemia, a fast-progressing cancer, in 2015.

Other results suggested that chemotherapy wouldn’t be as effective on his form of leukemia. Strike two.

And genetic tests put him in the unfavorable risk category by revealing that his cancer cells carried only one copy of chromosome 21, a rare anomaly associated with “dismal” outcomes, according to recent studies. Strike three.

Chris needed to start chemotherapy immediately.

But first, he had his sperm banked. Then, with family and a close friend at his side, he celebrated his impending treatment with prime rib and cheap champagne smuggled into his hospital room.

Over three days, he received multiple doses of the anticancer drugs cladribine, cytarabine and mitoxantrone, the last a dark blue concoction often dubbed “Blue Thunder.” The drug turned his urine a shade he describes as “Seahawks green” in honor of Seattle’s football team. Other patients have had the whites of their eyes temporarily turn blue.

On the third night of his drug infusion, a sudden back pain grew into an intense pressure in his chest that felt like he was being stabbed. A heart attack? An emergency CAT scan instead revealed two newly formed blood clots: one in his right leg and another in his right lung — not uncommon consequences of chemotherapy.

Over the next six months, Chris would need transfusions of blood-clotting platelets whenever his level of them dipped too low, and daily injections of a blood-thinning drug whenever it rose too high.

Thirteen days after being admitted into the hospital, he posted a more hopeful Facebook entry: “And I’m finally going home! Now the real adventure begins.”

New hope

Based on his leukemia classification, Chris was braced for multiple rounds of chemotherapy. He and his husband were overjoyed when a second bone marrow biopsy suggested that the leukemia had become undetectable after only a single round.

Because of his high-risk classification, however, Chris’s doctors said that the cancer was likely to return without a bone marrow transplant.

But Chris discovered that he had inherited an extremely rare set of cell-identifying protein tags. Only one bone marrow donor on the worldwide registry matched his genetic tags, and that person was unable to donate.

An umbilical cord blood transplant, Chris and his doctors agreed, was his best hope.

Like bone marrow, cord blood is unusually rich in hematopoietic stem cells — which can give rise to every type of blood cell — and their more developed descendants, progenitor cells, which are more limited in what they can become. But, unlike bone marrow, cord blood can be collected in advance and stored for decades in liquid nitrogen.

First, Chris would need to spend another five days in the hospital for a standard follow-up round of chemotherapy to pick off any hidden cancer cells. Chris marked the occasion with a Facebook post of himself in a grey felt Viking helmet and attached braids. “Round 2… And FIGHT!” This time, the chemo went off without a hitch.

He was a familiar face at the medical center, though, with three additional hospitalizations: twice for bacteremia, a bacterial blood infection marked by high fevers, and once so doctors could tame an allergic reaction to a transfusion of platelets, which always reminded Chris of chicken broth.

He had to steel himself again on Christmas Eve for the arrival of the “big guns”: two days of conditioning chemotherapy, headlined by a derivative of mustard gas. Its name is cyclophosphamide, and it works by sabotaging the machinery that copies DNA in rapidly dividing cells. As it does this, it breaks down to form toxic chemicals, including a pungent one called acrolein, which can destroy the lining of the bladder.

To neutralize its effects, patients must take another drug, called mesna, and drink plenty of water.

After a day of rest, Chris began a radiation therapy regimen so intense that it would have killed him if delivered in a single dose. Instead, his radiologists used a particle accelerator to fire X-rays at him in multiple bursts during morning and evening sessions over four days.

“You basically get into a tanning booth made out of clear Plexiglas,” he said.

Wearing nothing but a paper gown, Chris had to stay completely still behind two metal shielding blocks, each the size of a brick, positioned to protect his lungs from irreversible radiation-induced scarring. He did get a mild tan, he says, along with damaged skin that still resembles crepe paper.

Another absurdity still makes him laugh: while he requested punk rock for one of the sessions, he was instead blasted with the tune of Prince’s ‘Erotic City’.

When he finished the final round of total body irradiation on 30 December, the radiology team gathered for a final tribute and let Chris hit a small ceremonial gong.

Help from newborns

The morning of New Year’s Eve, Chris wrote on Facebook, “I’m as nervous as an expectant father!” An hour and a half later, he marked the delivery of his “zero birthday” with a small chocolate cake and a decorative “0” candle: the day when his own bone marrow cells, erased by radiation and chemotherapy, were replaced by roughly four tablespoons of a life-granting elixir from the cord blood of two baby girls.

Even with some of the best help that medicine can offer, transplant recipients face a daunting few weeks without functional bone marrow when nearly anything can kill them.

Chris and Bill have nicknamed the donors Amelia and Olivia based on their blood types, A-negative and O-positive. In a later post, Chris marveled at the new arrivals reseeding his bone marrow: “I use more vanilla flavoring creamer in my coffee than the volume of cells that are rebuilding my entire blood and immune system.”

Four hours after the initial infusions, he received his protective bridge of blood-forming stem cells, collected and expanded from the cord blood of a third baby, a boy he and Bill have nicknamed Eddie.

Less than three weeks after the transplant, Chris’s neutrophils had fully engrafted and genetic tests suggested that Amelia had decisively won the fight to form his new blood and bone marrow. He progressed so rapidly, in fact, that he had to stay in the hospital for two days after he was fit to leave, so that Bill could finish preparing the apartment.

28 January: discharge day. As his family packed up his hospital room, Chris was taking a shower when a wall of exhaustion hit him. He could no longer stand or even dry himself off and sat dripping on the shower bench until Bill heard his calls for help.

He had survived, but life had fundamentally changed.

At home, every surface had to be disinfected daily with a bleach solution. At first, Chris couldn’t walk 100 feet down the apartment hallway without leaning on his brother. Until he hit the 100-day milestone after his transplant, the end of the most vulnerable period for recipients, he returned to the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance every other day for blood tests and checkups.

On the 97th day, Chris and his family celebrated a hard-fought victory when he was officially declared cancer-free: a leukemia survivor.

Cord blood today

Despite dozens of studies documenting its curative powers, cord blood is saved after only 5 per cent of all US births. The rest is simply thrown away.

Michael Boo, chief strategy officer for the National Marrow Donor Program, estimates that only one in ten of those retained units passes the required screening tests and has enough volume to merit long-term storage.

Cord blood is also notoriously expensive, ranging from $22,000 to $45,000 per unit. Due to the relatively low demand from doctors, Boo says, public banks — at least in the US — are collecting as much as they can afford to keep. Beyond persuading new parents to donate, then, lowering the cost of cord blood transplants may depend upon persuading more doctors to use the cells and more insurers to cover them.

One potential use has attracted the avid interest of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, part of the US Department of Health and Human Services. As part of Project BioShield, the federal agency has been on the lookout for medical interventions that could treat acute radiation syndrome after a dirty bomb or nuclear disaster.

Keeping people alive

Cord blood transplants in adults, still an option of last resort in the early 2000s, nearly slammed to a halt over the quandary of how to keep patients alive until their new bone marrow cells could kick in.

Some researchers reasoned that they could boost the transplant volume by giving adults two cord blood units instead of one. John Wagner and colleagues at the University of Minnesota performed the first double transplant in 2000, using cells from two infant donors.

The tactic dramatically reduced the rate of graft failure, in which the recipient’s body rejects the new cells. But it barely changed the time needed to regenerate the bone marrow, and some critics have questioned whether a double cord blood transplant offers any significant benefits.

Wagner says his research suggested that transplanting enough blood-forming cells was necessary − but likely not sufficient − for better results. Improved patient survival, in fact, seemed to depend more upon a revised roster of drugs given pre-transplant.

Blood is extracted from an Umbilical cord at UCLH in London.

Blood is extracted from an Umbilical cord at UCLH in London.

Blood is extracted from an Umbilical cord at UCLH in London.

To their surprise, researchers also discovered that the donors in a double cord blood transplant seem to battle for dominance, a curious “graft-versus-graft” phenomenon that almost always results in the victor dominating the recipient’s new bone marrow and blood cells.

Filippo Milano, associate director of the Cord Blood Program at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, compares it to a pivotal scene in the 1986 movie Highlander, when the antagonist exclaims, “There can be only one!”

On a sunny morning nearly a year after Chris’s transplant, he and I meet the Italian-born doctor in his lab so he can greet one of his star patients and explain the science behind the therapy that saved Chris’s life. Milano is passionate about coaching soccer and cooking. On the side, he jokes, he conducts research on cord blood transplants.

Upon his arrival to “The Hutch” in 2009, Milano teamed up with Colleen Delaney, founder and director of the Cord Blood Program, to test and refine a treatment strategy that may yet prove a better option than a bone marrow transplant for people with leukemia who are at high risk of relapsing.

Based on collaborations and discussions with other experts in the field, Delaney pioneered a method to minimize the risk of infection and bleeding after a cord blood transplant by reducing the time needed for the new blood cells to kick in. The strategy relies on what she and Milano call an “expanded” blood unit.

Starting with an extra batch of cord blood, they separate out the minuscule fraction of blood-forming stem cells and their early descendants and expand that population in the lab.

The hundreds of millions — even billions — of resulting stem and progenitor cells can jump start the generation of protective blood cells in the recipient. When infused along with a more traditional transplant, they can act like a temporary bridge until the replacement bone marrow takes over. “The net gain was that you didn’t have those very prolonged periods of recovery,” Wagner said.

Blood extracted from an umbilical cord and placenta by a member of the Cord Bank Team at NHS Blood and Transplant.

Blood extracted from an umbilical cord and placenta by a member of the Cord Bank Team at NHS Blood and Transplant.

Blood extracted from an umbilical cord and placenta by a member of the Cord Bank Team at NHS Blood and Transplant.

One crucial component, Delaney discovered, is a protein called Notch ligand.

When added to the blood-forming stem cells, Notch ligand lets them divide quickly in the lab but temporarily pauses their development by preventing them from maturing into the normal range of cell types. Critically, they never give rise to T or B immune cells, which would seek out and destroy any perceived threats lacking the proper “self” ID tags.

See the latest news and share your comments with CNN Health on Facebook and Twitter.

Putting a donor’s T cells into an unmatched recipient, Delaney says, would trigger fatal graft-versus-host disease. “That’s the key: we get rid of all those bad parts of the immune system that need to be matched or they can kill you.”

The “bridge of recovery” lasts only so long before the full contingents of other donor cells begin attacking and dismantling it. But, with no cells checking IDs initially, the early flood of blood-forming stem cells need not be matched to the recipient at all, meaning that the “expanded” cord blood unit could be created well ahead of time and used whenever needed as a universal donor.

Other researchers are working on strategies toward the same end, and Mary Laughlin describes the overall progress as “very exciting”.

Delaney’s work, she says, “is very important, saving lives and improving the tolerability of these transplants and the success of these transplants”.

This is an edited extract from an article first published by Wellcome on Mosaic. It is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Five things you didn’t know about Jesus

You may hear revelations from new books that purport to tell the “real story” about Jesus, opinions from friends who have discovered a “secret” on the Web about the son of God, and airtight arguments from co-workers who can prove he never existed.

Beware of most of these revelations; many are based on pure speculation and wishful thinking. Much of what we know about Jesus has been known for the last 2,000 years.

Still, even for devout Christian there are surprises to be found hidden within the Gospels, and thanks to advances in historical research and archaeological discoveries, more is known about his life and times.

With that in mind, here are five things you probably didn’t know about Jesus.

1.) Jesus came from a nowhere little town.

Nearly all modern-day archaeologists agree the town of Nazareth had only 200 to 400 people. Jesus’ hometown is mentioned nowhere in either the Old Testament or the Talmud, which notes dozens of other towns in the area.

In fact, in the New Testament it is literally a joke.

In the Gospel of John, when a man named Nathanael hears the messiah is “Jesus of Nazareth,” he asks, “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” He’s dissing Jesus’ crummy backwater town.

2.) Jesus probably didn’t know everything.

This is a thorny theological question. If Jesus is divine, wouldn’t he know all things? (Indeed, on several occasions Jesus predicts his death and resurrection.)

On the other hand, if he had a human consciousness, he needed to be taught something before he could know it. The Gospel of Luke says that when Jesus was a young man he “progressed” in wisdom. That means he learned things. (Otherwise how would he “progress”?)

In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus initially refuses to heal the daughter of a non-Jewish woman, saying rather sharply, “It is not fair to take the children’s food and throw it to the dogs.”

But when she replies that even the dogs get the crumbs from the table, Jesus softens, and he heals her daughter. He seems to be learning that his ministry extends beyond the Jewish people.

3.) Jesus was tough.

From age 12 to 30, Jesus worked in Nazareth as a carpenter. “Is not this the carpenter?” say the astonished crowds when he begins to preach.

The word used for Jesus’ profession in the original Greek is tekton. The traditional translation is “carpenter.” But most contemporary scholars say it’s more likely a general craftsman; some even translate it as “day laborer.”

A tekton would have made doors, tables, lamp stands and plows. But he probably also built stone walls and helped with house construction.

It was tough work that meant lugging tools, wood and stones all over Galilee. Jesus doesn’t simply stride onto the world stage after having dreamily examined a piece of wood when the mood suited him. For 18 years, he worked—and worked hard.

4.) Jesus needed “me time.”

The Gospels frequently speak of Jesus’ need to “withdraw” from the crowds, and even his disciples.

Today by the Sea of Galilee, where Jesus carried out much of his ministry, you can see how close the towns were, and how natural it would have been for the enthusiastic crowds to “press” in on him, as the Gospels describe.

There’s even a cave on the shoreline, not far from Capernaum, his base of operations, where he may have prayed.

It’s called the “Eremos Cave,” from the word for “desolate” or “solitary,” from which we get the word “hermit.” Even though Jesus was the son of God, he needed time alone in prayer with the father.

5.) Jesus didn’t want to die.

As he approaches his death, and prays hard in the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus says, “Remove this cup.” It’s a blunt prayer addressed to the father, whom he affectionately calls Abba. He doesn’t want to die.

Unlike the way some Christians portray Jesus as courting death, and even desiring it, like any human being, the idea of death is terrifying. “My soul is sorrowful even unto death,” he says.

In other words, “I’m so sad that it feels like I’m going to die.” But once Jesus realizes that this is somehow the will of the father, he assents to death, even on a cross.

It’s natural to want to know as much as we can about Jesus; that’s one reason I wrote my new book. But beware of the more outlandish claims about the son of God (he fathered children, he was married to Mary Magdalene, he spent time in India and so on.)

Many of these claims tend to project our own desires on a man who will always remain somewhat elusive, hard to fully understand and impossible to pin down.

In the end, as theologians like to say, Jesus is not so much a problem to be solved as a mystery to be pondered.

Emily Deschanel on final ‘Bones’ show

It was around 5 a.m. on a day back in December when Emily Deschanel closed the door on a 12-year chapter in her life and finally hung up her lab coat as Dr. Temperance Brennan on Fox’s “Bones.”

The previous night was a lot more than a typical day in the lab, however.

The cast and crew of “Bones” were on location filming the climax of their series finale episode — an intense scene where Brennan and Booth (David Boreanaz) take on vengeful killer Mark Kovac (Gerard Celasco).

Boreanaz was at the helm, serving as director on the action-filled night, full of shoot outs, running, falling, and, eventually, a lot of tears.

Deschanel had planned to come back the next night for a few more scenes, but a half hour before they were set to depart set, Boreanaz told her that he could get everything he needed that evening.

“It was a little bit of a shock,” Deschanel said. “It was emotional. I burst into tears and choked up and said goodbye to people. It was really strange — and then it took two hours to drive home.”

How to say goodbye

It was a bit of a long goodbye for “Bones.”

Fox announced in February 2016 that the show was renewed for what would be a 12th and final season — “a good run,” Deschanel calls it.

The show’s final episode aired Tuesday.

Showrunners had time to plan one final arc and a proper farewell for loyal fans, who’d followed the show to 23 different time slots over the years.

Executive producer Jonathan Collier, who’s been with the show for six seasons, wanted to bring character stories full circle with something impactful. So he and fellow showrunner Michael Peterson looked to the past to find the show’s future.

In a Season 1 episode written by longtime executive producer Stephen Nathan they found their answer — a storyline that recalled Booth’s time as a sniper and a particular instance where he killed a boy’s warlord father during his son’s birthday party.

“We thought this would be a great way to show an emotional journey for Booth for the show,” Collier told CNN. “He finds healing and redemption.”

Kovac was killed in the series finale.

“[Booth] reached a place with Brennan where he’s no longer in pain,” Collier said of the finale. “Or he at least has the tools to deal with his pain.”

Emily Deschanel and David Boreanaz in the series finale episode of "Bones."

Emily Deschanel and David Boreanaz in the series finale episode of "Bones."

Emily Deschanel and David Boreanaz in the series finale episode of “Bones.”

For Brennan, the episode contained another twist. Following a lab explosion in the penultimate episode, she lost the scientific, crime-solving abilities for which she’s become famous. Doing this allowed the writers to show how much she’s grown, Collier said.

Though the character identified herself purely by her abilities in the early seasons, the last 12 years have proven to Brennan that she’s so much more than that.

“She defines herself by her abilities, by this enormous ability she has and this brilliance and this capability, and what happens when you strip that away?” he said. “Maybe something even more important remains….We wanted to have that emotional wholeness at the end.”

Deschanel was fascinated by the concept and encouraged the writers to explore the idea to its deepest depths.

The finale has an especially emotional scene where Booth and Brennan share a sweet conversation in the office about how much Brennan — with her abilities or not — means to Booth.

“I thought they did a great job coming up with a story that really kind of wraps up a lot of storylines and characters,” she said. “It’s dramatic but also satisfying in many ways. I thought they did an amazing job.”

Is this REALLY the end?

The finale also set up all of the show’s favorites for the future.

Camille (Tamara Taylor) and Arastoo (Pej Vahdat) adopted three children. She took a six month leave to help her children settle in.

In her absence, Hodgins (T. J. Thyne) was appointed temporary director — or “king of the lab,” one of the show’s running jokes.

Aubrey (John Boyd) got a promotion that would keep him in D.C. instead of moving across the country. And Angela (Michaela Conlin) wrote a children’s book.

The writers solved a long-time mystery, as well — the meaning of “447,” a number that has popped up repeatedly on the series and has been the subject of fan speculation.

In the closing scene of the final episode, a scene between Brennan and Booth reveals the number is essentially a metaphor for perseverance.

“Oh, that was [decided] up until the end,” Collier said, laughing. “We were trying to figure it out. We all had different ideas for what it should be. All of us weighed in and it was going on for a long time.”

The goal was to leave viewers with a sense of peace and hopefulness, Collier said.

“The characters are okay; they’re well and good,” he said. “The big thing, too, is I really hope it’s a positive message that adversity can be overcome. Everyone has problems in their lives. These people have a problem every week, and a huge problem at the end. But they’re together and they overcome it.”

But is this really the end for “Bones?”

The cast and producers have been open about the fact that the decision to end the show was prompted by the network — but there’s no hard feelings. And no reason to close the door on a possible return of some kind in the future, said Deschanel.

“I would not rule it out,” she said.

Transgender child’s mom: love your kids, period

I recognized the dress immediately. It had been his older sister’s — cast away, no doubt, in a donation bag that was never donated.

I didn’t race outside, tear the dress off and proffer admonishments. I watched, instead, as his makeshift wand of willow danced through the air — a little princess going from flower bed to flower bed casting enchantments over the marigolds.

I let our child continue playing undisturbed, but before I returned to my soup, I did what we all do when we see something adorable: I grabbed my phone and snapped a photo.

Later that night, my husband and I went to dinner with another couple we didn’t know well. As a fellow mom will do, the wife asked to see photos of our children, so I took out my phone and began swiping through recent family shots.

“Aren’t their children adorable?” she exclaimed, grabbing the phone out of my hands and showing photos to her husband.

Before I could get my phone back, they had discovered the photo from that afternoon.

I saw them exchange puzzled looks, then the wife said: “This is your son?”

‘Indulgence and permission are two different things’

Sensing their disapproval, I smiled and responded as calmly as I could, “Yes, he likes to play princess sometimes.”

“You really shouldn’t encourage that behavior,” the wife said with the grave compassion usually reserved for a potentially terminal illness. “When our son was little, he liked to play dress-up, too, but we didn’t indulge it. Not one bit. I even hired a male nanny! And now our son is completely normal! A strapping teenage boy — very popular with the girls — nothing odd about him at all!”

“You can’t indulge it,” the husband concurred. “That’s the key. It’s no different than enforcing bedtime. Children are very malleable. You can shape them, but not if you indulge their every whim.”

I politely thanked them for their (unsolicited) advice and my husband deftly changed the topic, but as I lay in bed later that night I couldn’t stop thinking about the the word “indulgent.”

My child at play.

My child at play.

My child at play.

Was it really indulgence to allow our child the freedom to express himself? It’s not as if he was shooting a BB gun at the neighbor’s pet cat, or throwing sand in another kid’s face.

Since that incident, I’ve had the word “indulgent” leveled at me many times by various detractors who disagree with the unconditional love and support my husband and I have offered our now-eight-year-old transgender daughter, as if that choice was the same as offering her an extra slice of chocolate cake even though we knew she already had seconds.

And here’s what I would say to those people: when it comes to parenting, indulgence and permission are two different things.

When we indulge a child, we let them get away with something — usually a behavior considered reprehensible by others. When we offer a child permission, we give them the reassurance that what they are doing is okay.

I like to think that the permission we gave Samuel to play as he saw fit in his early years paved the path for later emotional security.

On the eve of his sixth birthday, after a four-year battle with self-hatred and depression, he felt safe enough to transition from living as a boy to living as a girl. It was like witnessing a second birth.

And now we have a daughter who greets each day with excitement. Her name is Sadie, and she’s just as precious to us as her male counterpart was, only much, much happier.

What if we had punished Samuel instead of embracing Sadie?

I sometimes ask myself what would have happened if we had taken our dinner companion’s advice. What if we had shamed our son, or punished him? What if we had refused to let him out of his room unless he agreed to behave like a traditional boy?

In those early years of our child’s life, when my husband and I searched the Internet for information about children who claim to be the opposite gender than their anatomy indicates, we found these two statistics: Forty percent of transgender people attempt suicide each year, whereas a child who is accepted by his or her family is eight times less likely to attempt suicide later in life.

Better to be labeled as over-indulgent parents for letting our son play princess, we told ourselves, than to have a dead child.

If you worry that you, or someone you know, is indulging a young child by allowing him or her to cross-dress or do otherwise non-stereotypical activities, think again. Child development experts claim that children understand their gender identity as young as age 2.

But most children lack the vocabulary to articulate how they feel when they are so young. Their only recourse at gaining understanding may be to don a tutu as a boy, or to wear a Superman costume as a girl.

If your young child or student is a boy who likes traditional girl things, or a girl who likes traditional boy things, it doesn’t mean that he or she is transgender. It might mean nothing at all, or it might indicate that the child is what experts call “gender fluid.” It could be a phase, or it could be something more permanent.

No matter the reason, a child’s gender exploration isn’t something to punish.

Of course the nonconforming child’s behavior may be something you fear, and possibly for good reasons. You might live in a community that lacks understanding and compassion. You might be part of a religious group that doesn’t accept transgender identity as a possibility.

It doesn’t matter. Support that child anyway.

‘We’re living our lives, just like you’

Some may decry this decision, as if you are aiding and abetting a criminal. Nothing could be further from the truth. You are aiding and abetting the crucial work we all do in trying to figuring out who we are and why we’re here.

Like me, like my husband, like hundreds of other parents who have faced their young children’s gender dysphoria, you must push past fear and replace it with curiosity. And then you need to start learning, and connecting with other families who are going through similar experiences.

And if you don’t know any gender nonconforming children, or if you think the parents who support nonconforming children are mentally ill, child-abusing monsters — all things we have been called — I would wager a bet that if you came over to visit some afternoon, you might be surprised at how similar we are to you.

You might notice my teenage daughter’s school books and SAT prep manual scattered around. You might hear the sound of my younger daughter’s squeals as our dogs chase her around the house. You might notice we have the same favorite show playing on our TV, and if you look closely enough, you might see the imprint in the sofa where my husband naps as he pretends to watch.

What you wouldn’t notice is that one of my two daughters is transgender. You wouldn’t notice because there is nothing to notice.

We’re living our lives, just like you: struggling to keep things balanced, trying to look on the bright side, trying to get enough sleep, to drink enough water, to remember to brush our hair before we leave the house, to floss before bed, to say please and thank you, to apologize when wrong.

Those of us who are raising transgender children know it is time for us to be brave; to step forward; to introduce ourselves to you and welcome you into our lives; to prove that we haven’t indulged our children but merely chosen to love them.

Trump puts China in charge of the future

Saying that it would “start a new era of production and job creation,” Trump signed a sweeping executive order Tuesday scrapping much of Barack Obama’s climate legacy.

Some analysts have expressed concern this could enable Beijing — the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases — to water down its own commitments, but others say it is more likely China will step into a leading role in the vacuum left by Washington.

“China now finds itself in the unenviable position of being world leader on climate change, thanks to Trump’s willfully blind irresponsibility,” Mark Lynas, a fellow at the Alliance for Science at Cornell University, wrote for CNN Opinion.

Speaking Wednesday, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Lu Kang said the country will “continue to work with relevant parties for enhanced dialog and cooperation, hand-in-hand to manage climate change, to promote efforts to put the global economy on a green and low carbon path, in order to pass on a better future to the generations to come.”

New order

While Trump’s actions may force Beijing into a leadership role, it will not be one for which it is unprepared.

“There has been an embracing of environmental issues generally in China over the last few years,” said Matthew Evans, dean of science at the University of Hong Kong (HKU).

“China is increasingly taking its position on the world stage (as) an economic superpower in its own right.”

Speaking in New York last week, China’s ambassador to the UN Liu Jeyi said “whatever the vicissitudes of the international situation… China remains steadfast in its ambition to reinforce actions in responding to climate change.”

Liu said China is committed to “reducing carbon intensity by 40-45% in 2020 compared with 2005 and reaching the peak of carbon emissions by 2030 or even earlier.”

Carbon intensity levels are measured by a country’s emissions relative to economic output. According to the US Environmental Protection Bureau, China and the US were the biggest emitters of carbon dioxide in 2011, the most recent year for which statistics are available.

“(China and the US) are moving in opposite directions on this issue,” said Alex Lo, an expert on climate politics at the University of Hong Kong.

“The Chinese government has made a lot of commitment officially … those policies and initiatives are not going to stop.”

Push and pull

The events of the past few days mark a dramatic turnaround from 2014, when, under rare blue skies in Beijing, Presidents Barack Obama and Xi Jinping announced plans for a cut in greenhouse emissions by close to a third over the next two decades.

It was a dramatic statement of intent by the world’s largest carbon polluters, and a major win for the Obama administration in bringing China on board as an equal partner in the fight against climate change.

In September 2016, the pair underlined that partnership, ratifying the Paris climate agreement alongside each other in Hangzhou.

Following the election of Donald Trump however, Beijing looks to be standing alone.

Solutions

China is already a world leader is renewable energy.

The country’s National Energy Administration said in January that China will spend more than $360 billion through 2020 on renewable technologies such as solar and wind.
China invested more than $88 billion in clean energy in 2016, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, down from an all time high of almost $120 billion in 2015, but still significantly more than the $58.8 billion invested by the US last year.

Lo also predicted that China will take major action to introduce an emissions trading scheme this year, a means of controlling pollution via economic incentives.

“China might be able to take leadership in terms of motivating other partners, particularly those countries in the Asia Pacific region to follow suit,” he said.

China is highly vulnerable to climate change, with 145 million people living in areas at risk of flooding due to rising sea levels, and rampant desertification already occurring in much of the country’s northwest.

Risks

China will not stand alone in terms of tackling climate change. The EU is another major player, albeit one hampered by political divisions over issues such as Brexit and the refugee crisis.
A report by the NGO Carbon Market Watch this week claimed that only three EU countries were currently pursuing their goals under the Paris agreement: Sweden, Germany and France.
US states such as California are also taking action, with Governor Jerry Brown vowing to forge ahead on climate policies regardless of Washington.

“If China and the EU choose to act together then I think between them they can manage a lot of this,” said HKU’s Evans.

“But if the US tears up as many of their climate policies as it’s suggesting they’re going to, that will be a loss.”

“The atmosphere is a global good. You can’t constrain greenhouse gases released in the US to stay in the US, we’re all going to suffer from them,” he added.

Another major risk posed by the Trump administration’s action, according to Evans, is that it may encourage countries to move forward on their own on matters such as geoengineering.
Efforts to hack the planet in order to slow or reverse climate change have been put forward, but critics warn they could have unforeseen runaway effects that leave the world in a worse position than before.

“At the moment there’s a moratorium on any country doing that unilaterally,” Evans said.

But for nations most at risk from climate change, “you have to wonder how much of their country they’re willing to see go underwater before they take action unilaterally to modify the climate.”

Will Congress finally vote on ISIS war?

But a vote on the war threatens to expose the divisions over the US military campaign between hawks and doves that have lingered since the Obama administration began fighting ISIS in 2014.

On the one hand, congressional approval for the ISIS war could be a public affirmation of President Donald Trump’s plans to accelerate the military campaign and potentially give the commander in chief a freer hand to ramp up troop deployments across the Middle East.

On the other, anti-war lawmakers could press for restrictions on troop numbers and their theater of battle, imposing limits that don’t exist under the current post-9/11 authorization for fighting al Qaeda that successive administrations have until now relied on to fight ISIS as well.

The bipartisan group of lawmakers that for years has tried to force Congress to authorize the war against ISIS, arguing Congress is giving up its constitutional authority to declare war, says Trump’s desire to accelerate the ISIS campaign stresses the need for a formal vote on the war. 

“I haven’t thought that this war against ISIS is constitutionally authorized from the beginning,” said Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy. “Now that we’re talking about a potential massive increase in troop presence, we need to put some boundaries around it congressionally.” 

The White House has yet to weigh in directly on the issue, but like the Obama administration, the Trump administration says it has the legal authority to conduct its ISIS campaign even without congressional approval.

But one top administration official signaled the administration also sees a benefit to a new ISIS war authorization — albeit for different reasons than many Democratic advocates.

Defense Secretary James Mattis told a Senate panel last week that he wants them to authorize the war against ISIS because, “I think it would be a statement of the American people’s resolve if you did so.”

“I thought the same thing for the last several years, I might add, and have not understood why the Congress has not come forward with this, at least the debate,” he added.

Congress has been reluctant to debate — let alone vote on — a war authorization, due to an inability to find consensus as well as political concerns that a vote could be used against them later on, as Hillary Clinton’s vote in favor of the Iraq War was.

“I think Congress should weigh in and say what the support should look like, but the devil is in the details” of any authorization for use of military force, Washington Rep. Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, told CNN. “I don’t want the AUMF to be a blank check to the President to do anything he wants, anywhere, anytime, for any reason.”

Mattis delivered a plan to Trump to accelerate that campaign, and additional US troops in recent days have deployed to Iraq and Syria, including an air assault as part of a major offensive led by US-backed fighters to retake a dam near Raqqa, Syria. Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division were deploying to Iraq in the “low hundreds” this week, according to a US defense official.
The Trump administration is also looking at stepping up the US military’s involvement in Yemen’s civil war, and has loosened the rules for counter-terrorism missions in parts of the country.

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and Republican Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona tried to team up to pass a war authorization during the Obama administration, and they told CNN they’re now reworking a bill that can get support from both parties.

“We had a bill in for a couple of years nobody was interested in — we tried to wordsmith differences between Democrats and Republicans — so we’re actually exploring some different ways of coming at it,” Kaine said. “It’s the beginning of an administration, a new plan on the table might be time to look at it, and I think Gen. Mattis helps us move in that direction.”

Other Democrats predicted Trump could force Congress’ hand to pass a war authorization if he were to dive too far into military adventurism.

“I’ll tell you what will make it happen, is if the President takes some kind of aggressive military action that’s unexpected and that is not envisioned as just a continuation of the Global War on Terror,” Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill told CNN.

But for Republicans, a “robust” war authorization is what’s needed so the commander in chief’s hands are not tied.

“The draft that the Obama administration put out … it was very, very limiting, extremely limiting,” said Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan. “It might have a better chance now that we have a White House that probably will have a different outlook.”

Mattis said at last week’s hearing that he does not support limitations on time or geography in a war authorization. 

“Due to the nature of this enemy’s threat, that would only work to help the enemy,” Mattis said in response to a question from Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, about geographic restrictions.

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker, whose committee would handle legislation to vote on the war, said he wanted the administration to articulate its ISIS strategy first, and then Congress could consider passing an AUMF.

“We’ve said from day one, even back under the Obama days, we’d like for the administration to lay out a strategy. That never really happened,” the Tennessee Republican said. “I do think these guys are formulating one and we’ll see where it goes.”

After Brexit, can EU survive?

David Cameron — May’s predecessor who lost the Brexit referendum — has reason to be puzzled by the upshot of his defeat.

Yet, as a direct result of Brexit, Berlin and Paris are now adopting the idea of variable geometry as the way forward for the EU.

This first paradox is easier to understand when seen through the lens of the conventional European practice of making a virtue out of failure.

Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, had for years opposed the idea of a Europe that proceeds at different speeds — allowing some countries to be less integrated than others, due to their domestic political situation.

But now — after the colossal economic mismanagement of the euro crisis has weakened the EU’s legitimacy, given Euroskeptics a major impetus, and caused the EU to shift to an advanced stage of disintegration — Mrs Merkel and her fellow EU leaders seem to think that a multi-speed Europe is essential to keeping the bloc together.

At the weekend, as EU leaders gathered to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome, leaders of the remaining 27 member states signed the Rome Declaration, which says that they will “act together, at different paces and intensity where necessary, while moving in the same direction, as we have done in the past.”

The failure to keep the EU together along a single path toward common values, a common market and a common currency will come to be embraced and rebranded as a new start, leading to a Europe in which a coalition of the willing will proceed with the original ambition while the rest form outer circles, connected to the inner core by unspecified bonds.

In principle, such a manifold EU will allow for the East’s self-proclaimed illiberal democracies to remain in the single market, refusing to relocate a single refugee or to adhere to standards of press freedom and judicial independence that other European countries consider essential. Countries like Austria will be able to put up electrified fences around their borders. It could even leave the door open for the UK to return as part of one of Europe’s outer circles.

Whether one approves of this vision or not, the fact is that its chances depend on a major prerequisite: a consolidated, stable eurozone.

One only needs to state this to recognize the second paradox of our post-Brexit reality: In its current state, the eurozone cannot provide the stability that the EU — and Europe more broadly — needs to survive.

The refusal to deal rationally with the bankruptcy of the Greek state is a useful litmus test for the European establishment’s capacity to stabilize the eurozone.

As it stands, the prospects for a stabilized eurozone do not look good. Business as usual — the establishment’s favored option — could soon produce a major Italian crisis that the eurozone cannot survive.

The only alternative under discussion is a eurozone federation-light, with a tiny common budget that Berlin will agree to in exchange for direct control of French, Italian and Spanish national budgets. Even if this were to happen, which is doubtful given the political climate, it will be too little, too late to stabilize the eurozone.

So here is the reality that Europe faces today: a proper federation of 27 member states is impossible, given the centrifugal forces tearing Europe apart. Meanwhile, a variable geometry confederacy — of the type David Cameron had requested and which the UK might want to join after 2019 — requires a consolidated eurozone. But this also seems impossible, given the current climate.

Allowing EU member states to move in different directions and at different speeds is precisely the wrong way to address to address the differing concerns of Europeans living in different countries — and it seems an odd way to unite them behind a single way forward for the continent.

In fact, Europeans are already united by two existential threats: Involuntary under-employment — the bitter fruit of austerity-driven under-investment — and involuntary migration — the result of the overconcentration of investment in specific regions.

To make the European Union work again, each and every European country must be stabilized and helped to prosper.

Europe cannot survive as a free-for-all, everyone for themselves, or as an Austerity Union built on de-politicised economic decision-making with a fig leaf of federalism in which some countries are condemned to permanent depression and debtors are denied democratic rights.

Europe, in short, needs a New Deal — perhaps similar to the New Deal that my organization DiEM25 unveiled in Rome at the weekend while the European elites were toasting their variable geometry — that runs across the continent, embracing all countries independently of whether they are in the eurozone, in the European Union or in neither.