being a good citizen and belonging

There's a discussion underway in Sweden that has some similarities in the USA. It's that one about "who is a true citizen" or "who is a real Swede". You see, there will be governmental voting times in Sweden in September so the election speak is ramping up. Like a few other times the debate has been relit in terms of "distinguishing who is really a Swede". If you aren't familiar with the arguments and the issues, a lot of the arguments stem from a wish to distinguish between "Swedish citizens" and "real Swedes" (that would be the ethnicity and sometimes linked to cultural nation).

Some of this stems from one of the now largest parties in the politics, the Swedish Democrats (let's all remember what Hitler's party was called, and what the full name of China is, before you think that the democrat in the name means anything), that have written a few notes about "being Swedish" in their party program. Not only do they distinguish between "real Swedes" and "Swedish citizens", they also introduce the idea that you can be born Swedish and then move away (assimilate to another culture) or express views that aren't correct for Swedes and therefore lose your right to being Swedish.

Why I'm bringing this up here? Not only because I am at risk of falling in this "third category" (after all, I've lived away from Sweden for over a decade), but also because this discussion about citizen, citizenship and "being a true member of the nation" has been present in my life here in the USA for a while.

I do feel like people who have never moved across borders, by free will or due to coercion, don't really understand the restrictions and privilege that exist on citizenship and residency. You see, I know a lot of people who would be quite alright with not becoming a citizen yet staying in a country and integrate and be a productive member of society. However, a lot of rights in a country comes from being a citizen. Not to mention that if you have children, there is a clear advantage of being of same citizenship (especially now when people are placing even more value on the citizenship status). I know that in the USA you swear allegiance to the flag. That's not the case in Sweden. To be quite frank, that is one of the issues in Sweden - very complicated to sort out "what defines us as Swedes" and one of the reasons I think the discussion there is even more into the aryan/blond&blue eye territory...

Anyhow, not to make this a very long rant leading nowhere. My main issues with this "defining who is a real citizen" goes to that the only binary choice here is "are you a citizen or not". Once you start with the "you should have a mom and dad born there and there" or "you are only real if you can trace three generations of the citizens", or "you can't be a member of a Native Indian tribe/Sami nation and be a true American/Swede" it's very obvious that you will end up in the gray zone. When is enough enough? When are you not fitting into the narrative? And who gets to decide that? And what rights fall within the protection of being a true citizen?

All of this was of course much easier when there was an all powerful King or Emperor (or Dictator) ruling the nation. One word of decision, no gray zone since He decided it all. And your rights weren't really that many. Not even your life to be honest. Not many protections in place.

The problem now? That we have decided we like democracy and have moved towards "everyone has equal value and a few base rights called Human Rights" so this view isn't really as comfortable.

However, as many women I've met through the years who were active in the women's movement are quick to repeat, none of these steps forward have been free. And none of these steps forward will stay there unless we are willing to still defend them. We can't step back and say "look, we decided that everyone has human rights, regardless of citizenship so can we leave that now and keep moving forward". I would love to that we could do that, imagine how much we could accomplish. Alas, that is not where we are. We need to keep reminding everyone that "just being human" means that everyone has "human rights". There is no distinction between human 1 and human 2, based on citizenship or religion or political views, not when it comes to these rights.

Especially in the light of a language that is increasingly talking about "being taken over","attacked" and "infested" it's crucial to remember to speak up that Human Rights are not negotiable. Not even for people who have despicable views or threaten us. Why? Mainly because you never know when you will be "on the other side" and then not have any rights. Safeguarding the nation, one human rights at a time. Considering that, the discussion about "being a true good citizen" becomes something much more somber and threatening to all of us.

"you're here on a visa?" and Red Herrings....

I'm a little worried, more the last couple of days, that the energy spent on outrage is going to take a toll and once the initial energy is spent, there will be huge opportunities for other more recessive stuff to happen. Like what is going on in a lot of the states last week - banning demonstrations, making it harder for regular protests, adding fines to arrests etc. (This is affecting citizens of the United States so it is important to their Constitution and amendments.)

I'm worried that a lot of energy is spent on the most obvious thing, while the more insidious comments are being left behind and being slightly forgotten....while these comments and details might in fact be the real threat and issue.

Then again, I worry since there are so many things going on right now that there are not enough time and people to effectively go through them all so again - some things are missed. Of course, things are missed all the time, and that in itself are usually not an issue. You just need to focus on not missing "the important ones".

As a person who currently holds a visa to stay in the United States to work, the last couple of days have understandably made an impact on me. I have been caught between a few things though, and feeling slightly annoyed that certain things that people are outraged about aren't things that I think are the things to get outraged about. At least not right now. Why? Because they have always been like this. Some of these things are just the way visas work and countries adhere to (even if the general public might not know it).

One example of this is the outrage that "DHS will weigh your visa and application when you stand to enter the country". Maybe I'm naive, but my experience both here and when I was in Canada on a student visa, was that it is clearly written that even though you have your application to the visa and the visa - this will be on the discretion on Immigration at the point of entry to country. (I'm sure you can legally challenge if you get denied but this is another issue. Let's just say that the immigration person (CBP) has a lot of power and the whole system is based on them making the correct decision based on your paper work and their good will.) 

I have never been certain I'm allowed to enter with my new visa, just because the process is, imho, arbitrary and you have to be courteous and cute to the immigration officer to not get sent to a special room in the back for further questioning. (Yes, I have done been to a special room.) Then again, I wasn't really certain I was allowed to re-enter with my visa either. Like if you are a scientist and on a working visa and fill in "can you work with radioactivity/anthrax/other things regular people can't...." you end up in a special room, with special people.  (Yes, I have done that too.) Or, when you stand in front of the immigration person and they misread the paperwork, declare "this is not valid" and before you have a second they stamp everything with NO in red and ask you to turn away and you fight tears because you were only away for four days and the CBP person misread and the actual date they should look at is the top one and not the bottom one.... (Yes, that happened to me. Took a long time to resolve. Having a big NO on top of your visa in the passport is not helping future entries either.)

This doesn't of course include all the paper work you have to go through before even getting the temporary visa. Or the interview at the embassy or the paper work on your relatives etc ... Not to mention the things you go through when you apply for a green card. If you think the regular temporary visa has a lot of paper work, yeah it's got nothing on the green card. Plus the immigration physical, immunization records, clean bill of health (now here is something we could really talk about, what rights do you have as a non-healthy individual), tax records, criminal records (you shouldn't have any) and more and more. I'd call that vetting. It's already being done. Oh, and did I mention that you need to report where you live to DHS every time you move? There's already a tonne of data collected on green card holders so to issue an Executive Order to stop them from reentering on 12 hours notice is simply a malicious idea to show power.*

Anyhow, this has NOTHING to do with asylum seekers/refugees and their visas and entry to a safe country. Asylum seekers are someone who flees from persecution, death and is something generally accepted as a status in the world. There are treaties based on that we accept the notion that refugees has a right to apply for asylum and while their application is processed they have a right to be in the country awaiting the decision. If denied, they should leave the country. This process takes years for most countries. It's very unfortunately that there is a huge backlog, BUT this is not an excuse to forbid people to seek asylum when at the border to the country. Neither is the idea that you can turn away such asylum seekers, who have been granted visas in an insanely complicated process that USA is engaged in when it comes to agree to certain classes of asylum seekers to complete this process outside of USA**, and get granted asylum and then be allowed to get on the plane to come over. This process on average takes 18-24 months, during which time the asylum seeker is in a third country (who has agreed to let them be there while waiting for the USA vetting process). So they are vetted and the process is tedious and lengthy. Maybe even more than the average asylum seeker to say Europe - since there they are already in the country. And this is not mentioning the asylum seekers from Central America who are currently looking at a back log of more than 3 years, but they are in the country due to the opportunity of walking across land mass. This is also one of the issues that the wall won't solve since asylum seekers have an international right to seek asylum when touching the border (wall)...

Anyway, since this is turning too long and probably less interesting to read - I'll cut to the chase.

• It is a humanitarian right to seek asylum and turning people away at the border when they already have visas in order is breaking international treaties, brings chaos and decreases your credibility.
• To block Permanent Resident Card holders to re-enter with no warning after a short trip based on their country of origin and saying it's because of the safety of the American citizens is nothing short of faulty. It furthermore discredits the process by USA to monitor who gets the green card, if you don't trust the vetting that is already in place.
• Dual citizenship have always been an issue, and more so nowadays when a lot of countries are demanding visas for entries and making distinction between citizens and others, thus making more people dual. There are also countries who don't agree to give up your citizenship. This will not make things easier in the future.
• Real troubling is that people who have given up dual citizenship, gotten a new single one, are presumably targeted by this ban due to their "place of birth". (example a British parliament member who is born in Iraq but only UK citizen being told he is not allowed entry to the USA). This would be very telling of what is the back story... (imho)

And this is not even touching on the Muslim list for domestic use. I wish I could think that someone in congress would state "we don't make lists of citizens and their religion" - and I do hope that the SCOTUS would slam down on this. However, I am scared that immigrants and visa holders (both temporary and permanent residents) will be accepted to be on lists as such, "for the safety of the country" seem to work miracles and bring on short term memory.

I'm going to see what happens tomorrow at my work since we are a research facility, thus having a lot of immigrants working there. Personally I know people who are directly impacted by this and there will have to be some kind of reassurance or at least information from the higher ups what they will do to protect their scientists.

And yes, I'll try not to panic. But it is getting increasingly difficult.



*please note that it says in the information when you get the green card that if you leave the USA for a longer period of time (definetly 12 months and longer, but could be shorter depending on your travel schedule), you might not be allowed to reenter. This will be decided by the DHS/CBP person whom you encounter when you travel back. There's a lot of ifs and maybes, nothing is certain...

**you can read more about USA and refugees here: http://www.unrefugees.org/about-us/ or go to the governmental site https://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/admissions/index.htm










And this all coming from a "safe country".

women's rights and marching in the USA

I had an interesting experience Saturday when I met up with American friends for talking a walk in downtown city where we live. (paraphrasing, we went in the march.) I've done this quite a few times in my home country Sweden. This was different though and since then my head has been going a little on overdrive. I've tried to vocalize what's going on, and how to phrase it but I'm not there yet. However, I want to write something while it's still fresh and people might be interested in reading?

Anyhow, the main thing I hadn't really grasped before is exactly how uncomfortable and unused to demonstrations (marches?) a lot of people in the United States are. I should probably have known this, considering I've taken history and have lived here for a decade but still, the magnitude of things that has come up since threw me for a loop.

I'll explain the quickest and simplest way there is. I grew up in a country where there is demonstrations every May 1st. The international workers' day, as it is in most leftish/socialist countries all over the world. I also grew up with worker strikes (not many but the few that happened were pretty big), school demonstrations (students doing a "sit out for a cause") and a lot of demonstrations for solidarity - example "against violence against women", "for accepting refugees in the country", "for stopping the war in country X,Y or Z" (depending on which group is having the demonstration)* or protesting a decision that is going through in the local government. 

Most of the bigger demonstrations happen down town Stockholm (capital with the State government building) but a lot in "downtown small town" if not to show that people all over the country support it, like the "we stand together against racism" and similar.

My point? That most of the demonstrations (caveat; it's changed a little in the last decade with being more polarized and "counter-demonstrations") are peaceful and police are there, yet don't do arrests. And even if they end up "not super peaceful" there has only been one time the last 30 years when the police has shot someone and (international demonstration in Gothenburg with EU meeting and Bush visiting in 2001) and teargas hasn't been used since 1970ies (it wasn't allowed until a provision for very limited use in 2012 and forth...).

Obviously it's a different story in the USA. And add on top of that liberal gun laws in the South and who knows what can happen? Yes, different indeed. 

However, what really got me into this thinking is the aftermath conversations that have come up in conversation with coworkers, the media, on facebook and in twitter. It's partly "what's the point of a demonstration? You should DO something instead" (I) and partly "the march excluded a lot of people and also, {you} white women should be ashamed of not doing this earlier and listen to other women" (II).

My very brief thoughts on I and II based on my experience in organized politics from another country.

(I) One point of demonstrations is to show "the people" that there are several who think like them, to find unity and seek support towards or against [what ever the demonstration is there to show]. It's a good way (imho) to get grass roots to feel included and is generally a good way to rally people to get involved. (Part of why I was disappointed that the march I went to on Saturday didn't have pamphlets with "this is what you can do now when you are here and wanting to ACT", perhaps local organizations and phone numbers/names on congresspeople and state representatives supporting this?) 

The second, less kind yet important, part is to show "the rulers" that there is strength in numbers and that they shouldn't forget that the people put them in power, and that they can be removed. (this is of course more philosophical, yet why it's powerful with demonstrations and why a lot of countries don't allow them. Tienanmen square anyone? Terrible optics for the government and all for the world to see. Don't disregard it as a tool for power.)

(II) [read and remember that I am not American, living as an immigrant in the USA and English is not my first language.] The debate on white women, the blame of their vote for Trump. The debate on exclusion of transwomen when making signs showing uterus=woman and vice versa. And maybe most of all to me, the debate on women of colour and people of colour and that they have marched all this time and been met with violence and disregard but now when white people engage, it's a different story and it's peaceful.

This is the section I have hardest to explain eloquently what my perception is. I might be able to do it by simply telling my story - and letting you see where I come from - before being judged. 

I say this since I was part of a movement that worked on change back in Sweden. We wanted to promote diversity, not having only males in the university board. At first it seemed straight forward, trying to change language to "at least 30% of each sex". Of course, it is not simple. It then became a discussion if we didn't need more inclusion of "people from non traditional environments", "people originating from other countries", "people who had disabilities", "people who were religious" etc... and in the end, while we were talking about these important issues - because they are, and yes, we wanted a diverse board - nothing happened. After many years, the only thing that was concluded was "the board should be changed, however the parties can't agree on how the new board should look like apart from 'it needs to be diverse and included everyone'" but there was no change. The status quo had "won". (Similar debate is currently on going in discussions with Company Boards as per the Norway law that went into effect a few years back.)

The only one who wins when the oppressed people argue within themselves are the oppressors. The best way of not getting any progress is to get too focused on history that needs to be apologized for or special subgroups or interest and other things that detract from the main issue. It's the curse of caring for everyone and wanting inclusion and diversity; if you subdivide too much it won't pass, it needs to be finding the least common denominator and go for that (we are all human and should have same rights; regardless of sex, gender, ethnicity, religion?)

I would hate for this great point of working on getting equal rights for everyone** in the USA would be more stalled because of infighting. I understand that there are a lot of issues and widespread fear that this will be another way for white people [women] to get ahead at the expense of people of colour or anyone, but I really hope that the group will unite and see the opportunity of working together is so much more than the alternative. One of the slogans chanted Saturday was "women united, cannot be divided".  Even while women are a diverse group as they come - voting R, D or green for example, yet still there are opportunities to find common ground since at the moment, it is not all common with the general man, or everyone considered equal.

[I really hope what my head has been churning these last days came through in this post, but if I reread and notice it's off I will take it down.]

*also less savory demonstrations as the neo-nazis marching for Charles XII (annual commemoration of his time of death). freedom of speech and all.

**access to healthcare specifically in this case since it's so glaringly obvious it isn't. accessible good schools would be another one.

DeVos hearing yesterday

I spent this morning reviewing the DeVos hearing from the senate last evening. Thank you C-SPAN for the as always excellent coverage. It's such a great resource to be able to hear and see Congress working every day.

If you are interested in seeing this hearing: HERE IS THE FULL COVERAGE it's about 3h 20min long, It's very interesting and extremely telling on how much time is spent on discussing with Senator Alexander (TN) on why the Democrats would like to have more than 5 min questions per person and one round. There's quite a bit of grandstanding and some quite obvious fibbing going on, politics when it isn't pretty you might say. It's also a great underlying philosophical debate on how differently you might view the educational system in a country, with how it should be governed (state or federal), and how it should be paid. This is to me the underlying fundamental difference between a lot of views, and being open about how to view this would go a long way in discussions and not getting bogged down in other details. Some people think "all children should have the same opportunity", some people think "all children should have similar opportunities but shouldn't stop companies from making money and being hindered by laws to do so", and some people just don't think "all children should have the same opportunities as long as my children have a great opportunity".

There are some, to me, really sad things in this hearing. First of all, that it is extremely hard and difficult for a nominee to say "Yes, I will work to uphold the (federal) law". This would be in the context of "would you uphold the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)" and the nominee responding by moving from state to state examples of their little thought.

this video shows what I am talking about. And Senator Maggie Hassan is excellent and eloquent in her questions and responses in regards to protecting all children under the federal law. (that DeVos said "she may have been confused about").

Of course, she didn't really answer a lot of the questions from the Democrats. Most of it was spending some time saying thank you and rerouting and rewording the questions, and then ending with a "I would leave it to the states" for a lot of it. The Republicans showered with praised on her generosity of helping with charter schools, voucher programs that help children who don't get challenged in public schools to move to better schools and keeping with the faith based morality. And of course - all the donations overall that makes her a wonderful, generous great person to become Secretary of Education.

The more obvious issues to me would be simplified in some bullet points:

• If you don't answer the question "do you think everyone is entitled to a good school system" with a Yes, you are indeed saying No.
• If you don't answer "will you work to uphold the federal law" with a Yes, you are saying No.
• If you think schools should be allowed to have guns, please say so clearly instead of hiding behind "there might be a grizzly to protect from". We all know that's a red herring argument.
• If you don't know the biggest debate issues the last couple of years in Education, maybe you should have read up a little before the Hearing of the position when you are going to be in charge?
• I would've loved to hear more "do you know anyone who goes to, or have gone through public school system"? this since Ms DeVos has been quoted a lot of times in the past stating that no-one who goes through public schools goes on to become someone/succeed in life and that's why she want's to save children with the voucher system.

And finally,

• If you are going before a committee for a hearing on a Secretary position for the United States - please make sure that your CV is correct since "a clerical error" on claiming a position like "VP of a very wealthy and influential foundation" when claiming that's incorrect in person is pretty remarkable. Especially since that statement has been reported to the IRS for 14 years from the Foundation. It seems like that would be something you would like to check prior to ending up in front of the whole world.

If you want to read more about this, this article, albeit biased since it only shows the Democratic questions and Ms. DeVos' answers, you can see some of the more upsetting answers (if you want a public school system for everyone and run by someone who knows educational issues and debate that has been going on for quite some time).

Overall, since I won't drag this out forever, you can read another piece of "what might happen in the future based on previous behaviour by Ms DeVos" in the WaPo. It's pretty enlightening and, I would think, very clear and nice if you like the idea of Christian charter schools and voucher plans. Just be honest and state it clear, like she did before the hearing "not everyone is meant to go to a great school".

A little honesty and a clear vision. Like how it was done in the 1800s before most countries in Europe decided to go with "public education for all children" to increase the equality and give children a chance regardless of how much money their parents earned, or their parents' educational level.

I know, I'm such an idealist.....

"It's just a routine test"

It's one of those things I've covered once or twice before in this blog, I'm a lousy patient. I've had conversations with my physician (my old one before I got swapped to my new one) why I hadn't done a pap smear last five years even thought I am a microbiologist and should know about HPV. (My less than popular answer was that I didn't have the energy to deal with if I had cancer anyway so why look for it? Yeah, I know, I've grown up a little since.) We talked about that I have a head turned on for "worst case scenario" so therefore my stress level between taking the sample and waiting for the result is so large that I avoid them altogether. 

This is also why I book my next check up time with the dentist before I leave my appointment (yes, even if it is 6 months out) because I will probably avoid making that call otherwise. I find opportunities to not get the choice of avoiding things like yearly checkups since I find it embarrassing to cancel pre-booked appointments. What can I say? I'm a simple woman.

Of course, when you end up with a routine test and you are the fool asking the nurse in the middle of the test "it looks ok, right?", and they look at you and say "we can't really say anything in the middle of the test, the doctor will follow up with you in a call later today" that's when you know that things are not "normal". And that starts all the alternatives running around in your head. So when the call came and it was to schedule a meeting to discuss surgery, well - at least I was prepared.

What I wasn't prepared on was my head not stopping running after it was all said, done and path reports said "all clear". I mean one could think that I wouldn't make it a bigger deal than it was? Routine test, leading to finding, leader to removal of bad thing, all clear nothing to think about. After all, I'm a grown woman and I work close enough to real catastrophes (pediatrics) so I really shouldn't be this sensitive*.

It is though, something that has made me very tired the last couple of weeks. I have found myself gazing retrospectively and staying awake for too long at night. I need to get over it and move on. Now, how about that application for taking that specific certification......

(I'm all fine. It was a smaller thing that needed to be removed and it is now fine. I was happy it was taken care of very fast so I didn't have to be worried for longer. It's just been hard since I didn't want to talk about it with my family or my friends before the procedure and there's nothing to say now since everything was fine.)

*it's the feeling that I am not in control of my body. that it betrayed me since I rely on it being ok. Not to mention the fact that I couldn't fix this on my own. It wasn't like an ingrown toenail or an infected bite. I'll deal with that like a champ.

politics - abuse - domestic violence

I've had a rule, especially since I moved to the States, not to talk about certain things at work. Politics is one, religion another, and then trying to not discuss too private or personal things. I've mentioned this in the blog before. Trying to keep a neutral stance on a lot of things and mention sports, travelling, books and cooking; letting other people talk about their children and grandchildren etc.

However, the last couple of months it's becoming more and more difficult to keep "neutral" when people spew off comments. I've worked on focusing on "facts" and "history lessons" and a lot of times I end up making a gallic shrug with "well, I'm Scandinavian so maybe that's a little different". Last week though, that went into a little more delicate matter. The whole #blacklivesmatter got some commentary by some coworkers, and not in a delicate way. There were words mentioned that made me give a short history lesson (even as a non-US citizen), and then there was the Nice attacks and the idea, notion and history of France and liberty. And then we added the Turkey military coup and the history lesson in terms of Ottoman empire ("what is that?" led me to talk a little about the country).

And today the Republican convention started.... And not only did the commentary add into "no other civilization than the Western Civilizations have ever given the world anything" but there were some other grumblings on the side. And this is not even mentioning the underlying discussion and commentary about abuse that's been going on for a bit.

I know that abuse is a hard thing to define. It's been a little bit of this conversation in junction with the Katz affair. It's also been a time when a coworker mentioned some private stuff going on at home and me waiver on how much private information is appropriate to give. But when it comes to certain situations though, I have to say something. If you feel non safe at home, to the point that you take your kids and go visit a coworker, there are things that you need to do. And the other thing, not to paint the worst scenario on the wall but still, it's the time when you decide to leave the abuser that is the most dangerous time.

Again, not trying to scare anyone here. Not liking my experience with this. And I definitely don't feel comfortable with the whole thing. However, there are certain things that don't matter (and me being comfortable in this situation is one of them). I'm feeling a little better that I could make some practical suggestions to the specific situation. It's not a done thing, but a step in a right direction.

However, it can't take away the searing anger I saw the other day when one of the more short-sighted naive people expressed "I think they brought I upon themselves, they really should've walked away the first time". I wanted to tell them in not so many words: If it was that simple. If the line was THAT clear.  Don't you think they would've walked away? Maybe, just maybe, it is a little more complex than that?!

It doesn't matter if it's an abusive PI or a partner. The background, the luring, the normalization, is always there. It's not coming out of the blue - at least not when the perpetrator is good at it. Oh no. It's devious. It's a slow build up. It's a mix of "you're so good to me", "I'm not worthy of you", "you really understand me" and a number of similar comments. And the feeling that bloom in you, that they like you - and that it is special thing you have going. It's the waves, the ups and the downs. When it's good, it's very good, but when it's bad, it's very lonely. Not to mention the shame. The thoughts "I should've realized" or something equivalent as an emotion.

I spent today telling someone "if it was bad all the time you wouldn't have stayed, not found yourself in this situation. It's the good that starts is and then you get stuck. The really important thing though. It's to move away from the situation and next time you see the signs, act on them." It's the learning and improving. Not beating yourself up over something that has already happened.

It's easier said than done. Obviously. But we can all try and keep the judgmental comments out of the workplace. And maybe even just keep them out all together? After all, most of us have moments of weaknesses where we thrive on someone giving us attention and perceived likings. It's not always you see the deception until afterward.

Maybe tomorrow will be another day?


(and this is not even mentioning that I watch Mrs Trump's speech..... )

temper - demeanor - self control - board games - introvert

One of the things that appealed to me the most while learning the game system of VtM was the idea of "demeanor" and "nature". The very much in the game setting controlled idea that you have a choice of showing your feelings and actions in a demeanor, compared to when you can't control it and have your nature. (It's not really like this, and I had a longer post written all about the intricacies of the gaming system but I figured it wouldn't be interesting for the non-gamers whom I presuming are reading this blog.)

As for what I'm writing right now, I'm mainly focusing on the week full of emotions - by others and by myself - and the feelings and thoughts I have from them.

First of all, let's get one thing straight. I'm not a touchy feely person at work and don't feel comfortable talking about feelings too much when trying to solve a problem. (I am a solutions focused person and like logic, deduction and problem solving. Feelings and the cushion talk doesn't really factor in a lot for me when I look for the issue and try and fix it.) Then again, I realize that this  (feelings) is how a lot of people deal with things so I've learned how to work it. It doesn't mean I LIKE it, just that I know how others responds and how it's best efficiently solved.

However, if you want me drained, let's talk about feelings and talk all the time. And yes, that's where I am a lot of times these days due to a certain situation at work. People are feeling vulnerable and scared of losing their jobs. Hence they go talk to someone who can comfort them. And somehow that person turns out to be me. (yes, I'm flattered but yet it's getting to be a little annoying/stressing.) I know they mean well but hearing a lot of times "well your boss likes you so you're safe" makes me want to tell them - you have MISUNDERSTOOD the importance of work. It's not that my boss LIKES me that's important. It's that my boss finds my work as ADD VALUE (important and helpful) to them. I'm happy if they like me. It's important that they DON'T DISLIKE me. It doesn't mean that the important thing is that the like me, they just have to NOT dislike me. And "THEY LIKE YOU" isn't a compliment to keep me safe. It makes me feel slightly clammy. Almost like you imply an inappropriate relationship or something like that. (yes, like that's never happened where you work.) What I want to tell them are "Inefficient, invaluable people can still get sacked, even if the boss "like" them". Even people who are liked and shacking up with the boss gets canned so no, "Liking" isn't what you strive for - "add value/getting stuff done" is.  I'm not loving the idea that people go about thinking that my job is safe due to the "boss liking me".

Ah well, it's a small moon in the sky with plenty shining stars to annoy me this week.

I've been a control person for a very long time. I pride myself with being really good at poker at a poker table (being able to make myself hard to read, controlling my emotions), I had a stint playing a bunch of devious boardgames and being good at them, not to mention the whole RPG stuff and playing a character wile gaming. And that's not even talking about grad studies or post-docing. Alas, all of this experience is sometimes a moot point when you encounter something that makes your blood boil and your eyes only seeing red.

I know that people have various tolerance and reasons for violence. I've been very good at keeping my temper at check for being violent so that's seldom been an issue (unless you bet someone up in front of me - that's usually not working and I end up in trouble). However, I've realized that I might be a little less tolerant to this whole notion of being called "girl" in a work place environment (among other things, I'm trying to keep this part related to work and not other time).

This past week- let's just say I was VERY happy that I not only focused on "let's solve the issue" but also that I realized that a lot of people were watching my every move and it was very important to keep cool and professional demeanor. I did (although I needed to walk away for a small second in the middle - thank goodness I needed to find the printer with the important paper - and that I could face the floor and carry the heavy bag without looking at the person who was pushing every single button for me to want to obliterate them with my voice) and then later I wrote a very fact based account of what happened to the people in charge and explained my grievances and why I wasn't feeling comfortable with the whole situation and wanted an assurance it was going to be settled.

So yes, mostly it helped to get a remedy phone call from the main company we worked with, apologizing for the horrible situation and letting me know that the company who was the cause of it all will not be hired by them anymore. Regardless that I might feel sorry for the individuals in questions, I've been in the USA for too long and therefore feel that "If you were behaving badly and not doing your job, it's on you" so therefore I refuse feeling sorry for you. (NOTE, it's not the person losing their job, it's the company losing their spot with the other company. Also, apparently they were on notice so it wasn't solely me. Look at me being all sappy about this anyhow and feeling contemplative about the whole thing "maybeI was overreacting.)

Regardless of that, I became more content with my reaction since a couple of the people in the lab who saw the sad situation commented to me afterwards. "I'm so in awe, you looked nonplussed" or "You were amazing, so calm and collected and you couldn't tell if you were flustered". I got reminded yet again, my coworkers don't know where my fury could go. They don't know that if (when?) I fly off the handle I really do (which is why I don't even go near at work). There is a lot of F word related things and feelngs, "in your face B".... There is a certain joy in my to do a "no hands down, bar none, brawl fighting"  concept. I know though, both from experience and brain power, it's a shitty, very non productive way to explode. It's one of the reasons I dislike those bad, non good relationship fights since it's muddy and when mud starts slinging no one is clean afterwards and not good solutions in sight. Always better to stay out of those things. However, there are times when I am quite content having these icy comments roll out and stab the person who is just picking away at the worst possible way... especially if there is someone else that they hurt in the first place. I have no tolerance for bullies.

I guess it makes me a bad person. I enjoy a certain kind of hurt. Or it makes me a non-pushover, since it most often happens when other people are involved. However, today it was partly the idea of being called "this girl" in a derogatory way and the slight contenedness I got by picking up the phone expressing "yes, this is Dr Chall" and later receiving a letter where someone is expressing "their apologies for this horrible thing to happen" (not calling me a girl, that wasn't something I complained about. There was a whole other issue going on but the "girl" thing was what was like a red blanket in front of the bull in a bull fighting ring. hello temper.)

All in all - this is my convoluted way of saying "there is more to me that meets the eye". And that I am not entirely comfortable for you to see my feelings when someone hurts me or my friends since I am honest and react to it clearly.

Mixing hope with experiences

A friend and I spoke the other week about the problem with hope and experiences. You have this hope about people and situations, then you have your previous experiences that add into the situations. The notion that "previous behaviour is a prediction for future behaviour" and at the same time "giving people the benefit of the doubt and believe in them". We discussed in work context, they admitted to feeling naive since their approach to coworkers was that people
a) want to do a good job
b) care about the job
c) are telling the truth

However, what they have found out with experience is that a lot of people they work with seem to mainly be there in order to get a pay check and - this was the main cause of concern and annoyance - cover up and "looking good" while not doing anything. This was especially exampled in "they offered to help out, took over the task since I was busy, but ended up doing nothing and now I want to take the task back but it will cause a ruckus". I recognize the last example, I've encountered it myself and it is a little tricky to keep the environment happy without sounding like you are "selling out the person to your boss or others" and not getting thrown under the bus yourself.

The idea of "having hope" or "giving people a chance" (or two or three) has severely been challenged by my experiences that keep growing. I'm not saying I'm not giving people a chance anymore, I do. I probably give them too many*. However, it's part of the "using experience instead of only hope" that makes you to make alternative plans, make check points (things can get saved if you have early check points instead of waiting until deadline to confirm work), and most of all - getting used to the idea that "someone else's job is not your responsibility to fix great but to be there and help if they need help" and if that doesn't happen, well... it just doesn't. I should really work on how to phrase it since I'm sure it will be interpreted wrong.

What I mean is this, and this goes for things that aren't yours - not the things you delegate, that's slightly different.
a) if it isn't your job, don't fret too much about it since someone else is responsible and hopefully they have their ducks in a row (even if it might not be in your kind of row)
b) if you are working in a team, see if you can make clear to have check points/team meetings where reports are given so you all can make sure everyone is working on schedule
c) don't take over someone else's job just because you can do it better, do it faster, or do it "right" and IF you end up doing someone else's job - it has to be noted somewhere (preferably your boss) since otherwise you are on a track to end up as "the responsible cleaner" and risk missing doing your job as good as you can (and this will end up being bad for you).

Responsible cleaner = the person whom everyone knows will do a good job and fix problems for others, in short time frames (even when it means their own job will lack), and additionally some times without telling the boss thus making it less clear that someone wasn't doing their job.

It's important to understand a distinction here; It's not about telling on someone, but making sure your work doesn't get hurt in the end. Because I can tell you, when it comes to your job performance review it's going to be about how well you performed the things you were tasked to do, not others' tasks that you cleaned up. Sometimes it can be changed of course, if priorities in a group has shifted. In my experience though, I can't say that this really shines through as much as "why haven't you performed this thing" (especially if the 'cleaning up' happened more than a month from review time, people have short memories).

I guess what I'm trying to say here is: keep the hope to maximize your chances of success if it turns out that hope was slightly misgiven. That's what my experience tells me anyway.

*let's not go into personal compared to work... that's even harder

the shadow in the side of the eye

Some people talk about the black dog that follows them around, some talk about the elephant in the corner (or the gorilla, I may get the metaphors mixed up). I talk about the shadow in the corner of the eye. The one that you think you see, but when you turn your head towards it, it's not there. But if you focus straight ahead you can see it ever so slightly and you know that there is indeed something there. Flickering on the side and wanting you to pay attention to it, trying to lure it out to really see it.

And I had hoped it had gone away forever.

Needless to say, I know by now that it will probably never go away completely. It's like one of those things you learn about yourself, you have to live with it and just learn to deal with it. It's those days I decide to "not think about things too much", "not pay attention to what my brain tells me" and most definitely "not pay attention to the screaming emotion inside that's telling me it's a panic and I need to take action right now or it will all go to bad".

No. Nowadays I try and do what I should do. Quietly acknowledge that my body is playing tricks on me and that if I ignore it for just a while it will go away and the world will continue to rotate on its axle. The sun will shine, the wind will blow, the happiness will come back and the fear of being loveless and a failure will dissipate just like the trolls in sunlight in those fairy tales I read so much when I was a child. I wake up the next day and feel OK without the world having come to an end. No everlasting winter in darkness a la north pole.

But it's not easy and sometimes I get tricked into playing the "what if" game a little too long. Especially when a friend is going through some hard times that trigger those memories of "me in a dingy with one oar" (blog post a few years back) and worse times. Gosh, sometimes those moments really sneak up on you and catch you with your guard down.

Good thing I have had some great practice with the best of them to counter act. So today will be cleaning house (maybe even the brain) and being outdoors in the garden popping those trolls in the wonderful spring sun! Life is good and sometimes the best way to feel better is enjoying the nature around you and do some physical labour. Happy spring time!

Fight fire with fire

[and all I really wanted was to post a photo from the awesome weekend vacation.... maybe one at the bottom of this post, as a prize?]

Next time you see or hear (where I work and live I hear a lot of these) any more about Leviticus and the homosexual sinner and damnation just reply to the wonderful [supposedly] Christian person and repeat one of these gems.

I personally love Ez 25:17, but that’s due to other reasons (*cough* RPGs) but Romans 12:19 or Leviticus 19:18 (close proximity of the famous homosexual line) work well. If not, try the Hebrew 10:30, and if they are born again and supposedly loving the “Jesus saves” idea; point them to Matthew 5:38 (after all, it’s before the Matt 18:20 that many protestants/small churches rely on as a faith statement since it points to less need of a ‘educated’ priest but all people can talk to God/Jesus/Holy Spirit)

I am still amazed that there are so many people in this little world who focus so immensely much on others and not on themselves, in terms of behaving “correctly” and “right”. If I was rude, I’d start with just throwing Matt 7:4/Luke 6:42 in their faces. Funny enough they all seem to know John 3:16 so… what’s the problem with this “judging others” and pointing fingers. YOU can’t save others, you can only help others save themselves (by showing that there is a choice… and that FREE choice is on them …. And that you as a person are not judging them….) Similar to the old adage about AA, you can’t help others… they have to want it themselves.

Ah well, off I go to remember yet again that the State Church I grew up in was way more busy with working on installing the Wrath of God and “we as a people have a responsibility towards each other”, than ever telling us to hate the sinners and wreak vengeance on them. After all, aren’t we all supposedly going to be judged on the End of days? You think it would be good for you if you have helped killed some of those ‘sinners’ that Jesus so obviously hung around and tried to show “there is a life with love after this”…. Not to mention, it’s not a “pick and choose game”, it’s about the overall message.

Here endeth today’s lesson :)

[I have to get it out somehow since it is EVERYWHERE in the news and it’s so annoying/scary/frustrating that there aren’t more vocal Christians who talk about what the deal really is; love others as thyself and be a good shepherd of the world. Ring a bell anyone??]


List of qoutes:
Ez 25:17: I will carry out great vengeance on them and punish them in my wrath. Then they will know that I am the LORD, when I take vengeance on them.'"

Romans 12:19: Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

Leviticus 19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

Hebrews 10:30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.”

Matthew 5:38-39 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also

Matt 18:20: For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."


Matt 7:4 :How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? (It’s taken from this longer part, which actually has a pretty harsh attitude about this whole ‘clean your own backyard before messing with others’. Not to mention that all of these “sulfur preaching pastors’ should really worry what will happen to them since they will be treated as they treat others… how about that adultery now? Huh? Matt 7: “Do not judge others, and you will not be judged. 2 For you will be treated as you treat others. The standard you use in judging is the standard by which you will be judged. 3 “And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eye when you have a log in your own? 4 How can you think of saying to your friend, ‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye. 6 “Don’t waste what is holy on people who are unholy. Don’t throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you.)


Luke 6:42: How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.


John 3:16: For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Two bonus ones that paint a clearer picture…
Ezekiel 18:20: The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

the beach :)

Planned Parenthood = terroristorganisation.... in Texas... according to Judge and others...

You know, there are things that make me really really angry. And very upset and actually sort of make me consider the first amendment, and the second one too for that matters....  And why I would have to say one HUGE reason I didn't apply for the job in Texas that came up a while back since, well let's be honest, I wouldn't be able to live there. (Granted, the state I live in now has done a fair share of following Texas and making some headlines themselves.... so I'm not grandstanding too much. Not to mention that I am certain that the future will not have me living here forever too much longer .)

In short, the argument that Planned Parenthood (the clinics that are involved in the State's Women's Health Program, i.e. 8 in Texas) is comparable to "First Amendment does not prohibit application of federal material-support statute to individuals who give money to 'humanitarian' activities performed by terrorist organizations". The humanitarian actions would be the 'breast cancer screenings, pap smears, STD testing and birth control'. It gets even better though.

NONE of the PP clinics in Texas, the eight I mentioned, are performing abortions.

Wonderful. Now... these people DO understand that when women die, fall out of work from disease, spread disease to men who sleep with them (who might go to sleep with their wives too... in certain cases I'm sure) there will be an effect on society, right? [Or maybe this will only 'cleanse' society from the less desirable.....]

Or are we all just doomed to hell and therefore really, it's not as bad as if these services were provided?

Sometimes I wonder why the Bible I read isn't what 'they' read. And that my view of 'republican' and 'keeping the government out of my personal life' is so very different from these 'protectors of life and privacy'. But I forgot, I am just a mere woman. I really need to leave all this thinking to the men who govern and in certain cases wear black robes and have a gavel...

If you have nothing good to say...

...just stay quiet.

If you aren't sure you can keep the resentment and sarcasm away from a so called work conversation; just stay quiet.

If you realise that people talking aren't really looking for a solution, but someone to blame; just stay quiet.

If you feel a little abandoned in the mines of "endless slugging around"; just dig in and keep quiet.

But when someone tells you "it will all be ok in the end, sweetheart"; don't be quiet, smile and say "thank you sweetie". Because really, the rest is just smoke and fog to what really matters.



(I'm having a tempted time of going to the place where I don't want to go, i.e. "not caring as much" but since this would mean I'm not really doing as good of a job I need to find a happy medium of "working enough" and "sleeping through the night and not staying up tossing and turning until 3 am thinking about work and what needs to be done and protecting yourself etc etc etc". Now go and read Monday madness if you haven't, that might make a better Tuesday Tiresome story?

UPDATE: I think this article really shows how complicated things are and that indeed these laws being passed all over the US are more than "just unfortenate" or "to protect the unborn children"... http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/the-right-not-to-know )

rehashing the killing begins with a k....

Seriously, I need help.

If I have to repeat to myself one more time that "it is perfectly acceptable to not measure your worth in diamonds/jewllery that someone gives you and that I am worth something even if I don't have X, Y,Z".... I'm going crazy. There is only so much of this I can take. And it's wearing me down.

It might sound weird but I feel like I'm being brainwashed. Every. Day.

It's all about "the rings on the finger", the diamonds", "the nice car", "the expensive house", "the [insert whatever expensive visual thing that people can see], the outside... the thinness... the [whatever else].

Never, never, never about "reading books", thinker*. Never about 'being kind" (It sort of ends up with "I see her going to church every weekend kind of thing.... key phrase: 'see') Focus is always external and measuring. Never inside life. Thoughts. Happyness.

Of course, the thing that made me scared was the discussion that the notion that maybe it would be ok for me to take a man out and pay for dinner since {I know, it's crazy} I make money too? and the comment was along the lines of "any real woman who knew her worth would let the man pay for it**". In short, any man would go out with me if I pay, but would I want to be viewed as such? And really, I'd be getting short changed if I didn't get things....

[enter zombie voice] neeeeed more thingssss....shiny things.... expensive things...

Crazy. That's what I am. Sadly egelitarian... and lost in space. Now, I'm going to go home and avoid commercials and cook my own dinner like a proper woman. And wait for the phone to ring. While I clean the kitchen....  And hope that I don't end up thinking too much about this.

Or I could conform and stop being such a fuzzy about it!***


*ok, sometimes it's phrased as "the smartest person I've met" but very seldom, and always with an additive of 'and their spouse is good looking or something equvalent'
**not always clear what 'it' refers to.... ^^ (and surely women don't like having sex? right? so we need to be coaxed into it? with gifts?)
**It was added after the "worth" comment... "just don't have to be so darn different. Every woman loves diamonds and that they're worth it to a man". Who would 'just' love someone without giving tokens that are expensive? I know, who would?? [sound of head exploding]

the post doc scenario in a toxic environment

Every once in awhile I get surprised... Reading 27andapostdoc.com  where the toxic get to you somehow, and when three of my post-doc collegues talk about this "new post-doc or technician" who has started in their lab... and all of a sudden the lab dynamic changes. One of my post doc friends told me a few months ago that the new one had talked badly about her to the old ones in the lab...

The second one I'm thinking about, they didn't get re-newed by their PI so they were looking for a new post-doc place while their spouse was employed by the same PI. Messy situation to say the least...

Third, the post-doc didn't get re-newed but their spouse in another lab did. And I met with them to talk about future, and in the end I said "it's all about what you as a couple decide to do, if you're future ia brighter than theirs"... and i may sounds harsh, I know that, but seriously, that's the problem, isn't it?

It's the festering pain that happens. The one that leaves some at "point of no return"... I should and probably will, write something more profound about it, but right now,  I'm stuck with repeating "at least I knew what I signed up for". And yes, I think there is something more there, but right now - it's a bit of a blank..

positive or negative?! who knows...

After one day in the life of living with the "cruel mistress we know as science" [Cath], this Friday brought some unexpected joy and giggles (hmmmm).

You know when someone all of a sudden sends you an email, or you're at least cc:d on it, stating "We got the results from the testing by Company P and they say it's negative! But what should it be?!?!" And three scientists respond with the description of the cells and "it should be like the wild-type"... but you think that it should be negative based on the vector and what's in it?

Yes. That'd be my morning....

And after calling several companies that make said vector and cells find out that everyone of them gives"It should be positive" as a first response, but when you ask "really, based on that the insert is in the middle and it has a repressor..." they change their tune to "hm, let me put you on hold and check that out for you". And after a few minutes' wait (2-10) they come back and express "indeed, it should come up as a negative..." You don't say? (insert little dance of joy and giggles)

Now, I only have to wait until the big meeting later this afternoon to share my joy with all the other email recipients ^^ *

You don't have more fun than you make for yourself some days :)

Happy weekend indeed!

*might be slightly sarcastic here. I'll most likely be quiet until we arrive to the row in the paper work dealing with the "negative result" and then say "as it should be based on the manufacturing"... who knows though, I might have a smile on my face since it is a positive result for us...

best behaviour on display

I'm proud of myself. I have been able to not only be quiet (for me, it's sometimes hard), but also slightly smiling and saying "but of course" and then continued being quiet for a little while now.

Then I have finished a couple of reports, pointing out in what I would say might be the crux of the matter, interpretations of the data assembled and possible solutions (if that is something to be desired). And now, keep going until decisions are made and voiced.

Let's just go with that I haven't been this happy with my background in "scheming*", "temper check*", "planning ahead*" and last but not the least "scientific arguing with facts, data and statistics" (rather than anecdotal "I had feeling this was what we did").

I think I'm deserving a little drink after workout tonight, even if it is Monday. Or rather, especially since it is Monday - four more days in the week....

* all slight ambiguous traits from role playing games character traits....

private, not government, leads to what?

It's not the best title, and as former ScienceBear wrote on her blog, it's been very busy and even when I have had the time to "save draft" with some thoughts and ideas I have obviously not done anything with it. So, today I'll try a new approach and just make a short post about something I read this morning in the paper. I think that if I link it, it's free for access....

The main problem I have with this, not surprising maybe since I grew up (and was groomed) in a country with a kind government that promises to take care of you and your family, might be that I like some things to be state driven. I don't view the government as evil per se and I might even like the State a little too much...  Then it's my background (PoliSci and philosophy) where there are some thoughts about "what are the minimum requirements for a state to function?" and "what are the responsibilities for the state towards the people?" among other things that pop up when I read these kind of articles.

Personally, I have a hard time with this "long term storage" of people. I don't really distinguish between being locked up in a hotel (nice) or "behind barbed wire in a camp" (not so nice). It's pretty obvious what kind of image the writer wants you to get, and in this case I would've liked not to have that image since it takes away the focus on the real problem imho. "Who is responsible, when the system was built with control functions for the state driven things (prisons for example) but now shifted into private driven things?"

(I'm sure the questions can be formulated way way better but I'm under time contraints...)

I mean, it scares the beejeezus out of me to think what would happen if I end up in one of those private run places since if something were to happen, as history and experience show, there is no system in place for accountability since "we are not responsible since we bought the service from them" and "we only provided the service they wanted to buy" ... and then go on and on and on since most likely you (the 'little people' as so famously said by BigCo CEO) don't have the money or resources to go to the legal system, which you wouldn't have had to if it was the state.... since that system is in place....

Not to mention what a waste it is to keep people locked up/detained without decisions for several years and leaving them in limbo. I mean, not only thinking of these people, but from "my view as a citizen", but how much money is thrown at these private companies to keep these people in a secure place and they need food and living space etc but won't be able to work or provide for themselves. Although, I guess having these detention centers with "have to work to be here" might be very obvious why these campscenters leave a bitter taste in my mouth. Then again, I am a huge proponent of calling a spade a spade and not spray rose scent on a wilted flower to make it seem nicer....

Only a few thoughts on a Thursday when I am staring at my assay C, which will have to be qualified and cleared for usage within too short a time and I am not really sure on how I will make it work since I do have some* other things to do as well....

*a few more projects with deadlines looming before Xmas. There's nothing like projects all converging at the same time, right?

The I in team*

(As a side note, this was written prior to the Vikings game tonight. Of which, the first half led me to ponder what it really means packing lots of talented people together - doesn't mean they can work as a group. Second half though, made this disclaimer partly unnecessary... until the death with 1.30 to go in the fourth quarter. [VERY BAD WORD!!] Just learn not to throw those interception with less than 2 mins to go... learn from mistakes in the past. LEARN!)

As a young member of various organisations and movements I came to the realization that maybe I wasn't really a team player. After another couple of years as an undergrad (remember all the "group work"?) I pinpointed my problem a bit more. It's not really that I don't like working in a team. Actually, I love working in a team since I know that 1+1+1 can make 5, it's that I have two main issues.

First, I dislike working in a team where the leader is not good. (I guess it would be more honest to say "worse than I would be as a leader and maybe that I consider myself a decent one due to experience and training".) Second, I dislike working in a team where people don't pull their weight. (Probably need to clarify since this comment has led to accusations about being an elitist in the past.) The key thing is in the effort, not necessarily the execution! (And this sort of loops back to the leader thing, that a good leader imho does not ask impossible things from their underlings. Tough things, sure. Impossible things that don't fit their character - not so much.)

This all seems fairly obvious (at least to me). When you are hired to do a job, you take pride in doing the job well. And as long as that happens, there is no problem. Team work for everyone!

Well, I guess it's obvious where this is going?!

What happens when you encounter the other types of people... like the ones who either have no interest in doing a good job (I guess they can always end up in the fired pool?); the ones who have made it a talent to walk the thin line of doing "exactly that little in order not to be able to be fired but also not doing much at all"; or the ones, as I have discovered more in more recent times, actively try to undermine the team effort (hopefully in order to make themselves look good - I can only hope this is the reason since otherwise it is just plain stupid)?

Needless to say, the last category really pisses me off. The other two categories aren't making me happy either - and I wonder if this is one of the main concerns I have had the last couple of years. Where you work more with people who "only sees the pay check in the end of the month and don't really care too much about the job"? This isn't something I think it more common outside of science per se. I know a lot of people not in science who still take pride in doing a great job, maybe because they see it as  a moral thing to do? However, I do think that if you don't work hard and try and do the best you can - you'd probably get tossed out of science (or other competitive environments) pretty fast?

And the team work with people who don't pull their weight usually leads me to enter the "I'll do it myself since then at least I know it'll get done". It's not really the best solution, since it means more work for me, less work for them, and in pay I guess they "win". But at least I can stick to my morals and thoughts about doing a good job. And the job gets done (the most important thing!). Best solution would be to try and improve their work ethics... anyone see the mountain moving? Didn't think so.

Well, I won't go into details in regards to recent times, but I have been going to the gym a lot lately**. Adrenaline and frustration are best worked out on a heavy bag or a treadmill... and hopefully the feeling of accepting "enough is enough" and "it's ok to give up sometimes and stop trying to change people but the only thing you can do is to change your situation"will decrease since I do worry about where that feeling will lead me to do every once in awhile.

In certain less dark moments I guess I could see this as yet another "learning experience". But dang I am getting very tired of all this "learning through being sucker punched just because I believe in people". I don't want to end up building (more) shields and refraining from trusting people (even less than I tend to do anyway).

I guess I just don't get people. Period.


*reference to Buffy season 4 episode... as well as the sport term "There is no I in team", meaning that the team is one unit - comprised of individuals but they are not counted as individuals... only a team!

**I've managed to gain (!) weight (not more than 1 pound or so). Although, when measuring waist lines etc I've lost centimeters so... building muscle might be nice but it's throwing me off my "loosing weight effort" and making me even more annoyed... maybe just date the treadmill more and the punching bag less in the week to come.

loosing the faith

I'm about to give up. The last couple of months, as well as last night's*, experience is pointing me towards a sort of unsettling thought. That maybe it's never going to be about what people tell you in "truth". Or honesty at all. Maybe you just need to ignore what they say but rather just go for other angles and what you see? (And that is what you get.)


I've been at these cross road before. (Anyone who's read this blog earlier know that I have wandered down the path before and pondering why I bother listening to people and what they say, when it is really all about what they do. Like you tell children; "they don't do what you say, but what you do". And then of course, I would be silly not to repeat it "actions speak louder than words".)


I guess I'm mainly tired of being played like the fool - or acting the fool believing what's said (the lies) when all is pointing towards something not being said but I stay the course since they stated something different?


My main problem probably, as always, is that I am too logical and too rational. I do a "cost vs benefit" ration on most of my behaviour and others'. (Probably why I tend not to lie since most of the times the benefit isn't worth it. Of course, that is because I feel bad when I hurt due to the lies of others, assuming others might do the same, and tend to think gangrene is worse than a clear amputation, if you know what I am referring to?)


My main problem then, is that when people do things to others, as well as to me, I tend to try and explain it. Logical. And rational. And I have a starting point of looking at "what do the gain" and, probably more important, "what does the easiest way out mean"... and easiest in my opinion would mean "less messy" and "least explanation to others".


In a simple example, at a work place; if you are working in a closed space - say a BSL3 suite - and you are using the (almost to) last equipment and you get out of there and know that someone is going in there the next day. What would you do? (You don't want to do much work...) Would you go back into the suite with all the stuff you know would be needed when the next person goes in there? Would you tell the person you know going in there what they'd need to make their work? Or, as a middle ground, would you tell someone (maybe someone who is in charge of the suite) that "these things are missing and need to be replaced?". Or would you do nothing at all?


I'm the first to say that the first would be a "sucker thing" to do, above what you might need to do. (in this example, I'm not saying I would do that... maybe put the things needed into the air lock so it's obvious for the next person to bring it in with them. Telling them since I know they are going in there - no brainer.) But, the second or third example would be in line of what I would call "needed to do in order to do a good job and being a group member"...


Although, if you do the last option... at least be a decent enough person to not assume that anyone would do anything different to you (if you were the person going into the suite). Let's just go with "do to others what you expect them to do to you", since for a rational person it at least makes sense (and I would think that is not a super-Christian thing to do... but maybe I am wrong?). Or, "actions speak louder than words" but in my opinions you don't get to bitch about it if you were to enter that suite and find out that what ever you needed in order to to your job is not there. See, as a rational and logical person (as myself) this behavour doesn't make sense.


And to be annoyed and hurt if you were called on this behaviour? And lie about why/what happened? (I didn't do that!) Yeah... you got it.. In my limited rational book, that doesn't make sense since it is... more foolish that being played.


Did I mention that I am currently out of patience and being the nice girl (or doctor... or human) when other people are trying to fuck me over? Yeah...


And here I thought I was trying to save my soul (or personality) and being the good person, even if it cost me some slaps in the face... but once you start thinking kicking me when it looks like I am falling, it's no game. There are limits to my foolishness and niceness. However, I really hope that I can keep coming back to the "not looking at people as if they are lies pieces of dirt who wants to get ahead no matter what". But I'm starting to really questioning why it's worth it? Maybe I should just look out for me, all the time and not care anything about others? After all, there are a lot of people in the world like that...


(I just feel like that means I am giving up on the good in people... It's maybe about a grey scale? I've never been good with mixing black and white that much - apart from in clothing, of course.)




*election night in Sweden. People get the government the deserve and want... right? ehh... we're in deep trouble now.

You make a huge mistake

…in the middle of the day, aka lunch time. I started reading a little thing about the swine flu debate… and realized (again) that I won’t be able to be quiet nor calm. Some people are just too scary for their own good.

Since I’m busy today I can’t write my piece right now, but I will have too soon. I can however jot down a few bullet points. All of them since it makes me cringe how little people really understand “causality” and “correlation” and what this “statistical significance” really means.

Let’s start with simple biology;
*Virus infections can not be treated with antibiotics

*Actually, apart from some anti-virals that work against some viral infections, we humans have nothing real good to fight a viral infection. Hence the interest and need for vaccines

..and then on to the more hard to argue about since they are so… taken out of thin air?!

* Pharma is not out to kill us all, really not.

* Even if Pharma is only around to make money, they don’t want to kill everyone (especially not their potential clients who will buy drugs)

There are some mix ups of all these arguments which makes it really hard to argue the case. Why? Because the whole discussion focuses on A,B and then logically D,E and G. If you are to point out that in fact, “B is wrong, C and F are missing, and D doesn’t follow B, but sure, G is a bit tough” then the focus will be “G is a bit tough, huh I TOLD you so!!!” and all other points are forgotten since one of the statements were sort of true….

* I agree completely that the WHO screwed up on the “non disclosure” factor of which affiliation the researchers who were involved in the reference group had. I thought it would lead to, as it has, the whole “if you’re hiding it, it’s because it’s fishy”. That was real stupidly done. (Doesn’t influence what I think about the reasoning though…)

* If the vaccine hadn’t been done, and the pandemic would’ve flooded us, and people died en masse… you think anyone would’ve been holding back? Nah. We call this the classical “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”.

*The link between side effects of the swine flu vaccine and people, compared to the “seasonal flu vaccine” and side effects is going to be real interesting to study. Why you might ask. Because the swine flu vaccine was made exactly like the seasonal one… with the same mixings… apart from [drum roll] the actual virus. I guess my fascination as a scientist is key here- imagine if it is something with these epitopes that trigger something. Or, as some of us fellow flu scientists hypothesized, it might be a “huge cohort” and “underlying factors” that aren’t obvious to start with. Sure, x sounds like a large number. Comparing x to 10000x makes it less… so… still going to be investigated of course.

And my main source of irritation right now.

WHY are people so prone to listen to some person who hasn’t gotten any relevant experience (never mind degree) in the subject at hand and believe in them?!?! I mean, seriously. Would you believe Person A on the street telling you that newer models of air planes are unsafe to fly in because they have heard one other person telling them that and they liked this other person?

If you wouldn’t, why trust some person stating “anyone with a degree is associated with pharma, and therefore trying to make money of you, and not caring about your life. Me however, with no knowledge in anything related to life sciences or body functions, I know the real deal here”.

Really!?!?!

Time to go work and hopefully I can let go of this childish “let them all have viruses next time and see what they say then” attitude. Got to save the children, even if their parents are trying their hardest not to, right?!