burning books - for food fire

 I got reminded a few weeks ago about a time when I realized that words matter and "mainly repeating things being told in a theoretical context" might hurt someone.

I was a 20 year old living in a dorm during second year of uni. It was a dorm where we shared one kitchen on 12 rooms (each room had its own bathroom) and we also shared a 'common room' with the TV. This was obviously in the dark ages where there was less internet, modems and no wifi, and TV had a cable package that we all shared to keep the costs down.

We lived together for years, 10 of our rooms with the same people, with two rooms being more transient students. Nowadays probably called "non-traditional" students. It was the Iranian exchange student who cooked food for all of us in the fall - when he made dinner he made enough for 12 people - as long as you wanted to eat at 10pm since it took time to make the rice correctly. (My goodness the rice was amazing!)

And then there was the woman who moved into the dorm room next to the TV room with her fiancee. They were born in former Yugoslavia, and this was post 1996 with the war and the siege of Sarajevo (1992-1996) the capital of Bosnia & Herzegovina. I had been exposed to the war in my middle school and high school with having class mates from different areas of former Republic of Yugoslavia. Meaning we had students in the class with grandparents and other relatives in the different parts of the then civil war (e.g. Serbia - Bosnia-Herzegovina - Croatia ) and also Kosovo, which meant all of us youngsters needed to talk and get to some sort of agreement on how to address one another as it was very bad "back home for their extended families". (this is a VERY shortened version on what happened in the class)

By some reason I had forgotten some of this when I got to university. Maybe I was living high on my "I'm taking philosophy 101 and 201 and have high standards". Maybe I was just young and not thinking things through? 

Anyhooo, one night were were having dinner together and during the meal somehow we ended up talking about "things that we shouldn't do" and I piped up; "Burning books is BAD", you should never burn books".

And the woman from the room next to the TV-room looked at me, with a specific facial expression and apologetic stance and said to me "I'm sorry, I burned out books in small cooking fires for food when we were in Sarajevo. We couldn't get out of the apartments and get wood due to the snipers, so we used what we could for cooking food and warmth".

I don't think I've ever been more aware of context. I looked at her and felt so bad for making her feel bad. And said in somewhat of a sheepish voice, although she had been perfectly civil and visibly sad they had done this, "I obviously didn't mean when it's a matter of survival. It's more of a theoretical conversation from my class".

And felt like a fool. Burning books if you're stuck in a place and need to prepare food and warmth is not an issue. And I shouldn't have made her feel bad about it.

Still thinking about it to this day, more than a quarter of a century ago, that I feel fortunate this happened. It was a great moment of showing me the meaning of remembering "my experience in life is NOT ALL people's experience" and that there's so much value of knowing people from everywhere with all sorts of experiences. Like all the non-me people I've met moving around the world, changing jobs, volounteering in places and traveling and talking to random people - I always learn something new and it's always something that makes me more humble. Here's to learning more things every year of our lives!

my tale of D&C - not what you might think

I wrote this in 2020 but it felt too personal and I hesitated then. After last week and the decision in Texas and US Supreme Court I feel more alright publishing it now.

--

It's a story - about something that people have an opinion about - or at least they think they do. It's really about definitions of words and what they mean to people. And of course, about medical codes and how they influence medical treatments today. 

I never wanted to write this post. I'm a bit personal about a few of my personal failures. However, at times my friends tell me that it's not really failures (per se), and it might make a difference talking and being open about them ("since you are a PhD, an educated woman and having agency" - their words). 

I also have had conversations with Trump voters and ended up having a similar reaction where they were surprised that their pro-life/anti-abortion stance had a negative impact on medical decisions, so I am trying to be more comfortable with this blog post.

Years ago I went for an investigation of my female reproductive parts as part of trying to have children. It involved trace dye in the fallopian tubes and then it was a "routine ultra sound of the uterus", which shouldn't have been an issue since I go to annual checkups and having everything cleared. However, during this routine checkup I of course asked the nurse (I'm an idiot, did I tell you? a nosy PhD person... with an ultra sound wand up her private parts... trying to make it less weird and more regular....) "does it look normal"?

The answer she gave, while she looked at me and trying to give a normal face (bless her heart) was "the doctor will call you with the results in the afternoon".

So when I left the visit and started to drive to work (since the appointment was in the morning - it was supposed to be a routine appointment as usual), all I kept thinking was "there's something there because otherwise she would've said it was all fine".

The physician (MD - I can't refer him as a doctor in this blog post since I'm the PhD and also a "doctor" and it played tricks with me) called me in the afternoon - and one of the more surrealistic conversations that I've had took place. Note, the MD and I are at this point well aware that I'm a trained microbiologist PhD working with cancer - sure it's pediatric cancer but some of it overlap...  Anyhow, his comment is that the ultrasound shows a growth and it should be taken out. "It's not definitively cancerous, but it wasn't there when we checked last".

Physcian doesn't think it is cancerous, however it has grown in less than two years so it's recommended to take it out for women who are of child bearing age to check for malignant cells - especially if trying to become pregnant.

The kicker, for me who is not grown up in the US health system, is that the physician tells me that due to my cycle they can only remove the growth the day after tomorrow or otherwise I would have to wait another 20 or so days. 

Why? Because due to the procedure being coded as an D&C, it can only be prescribed at certain days of a woman's cycle to be sure it is not "that kind of D&C"*, since the hospital is a Catholic hospital and they do not perform abortions. This means that they can't do anything with "a growth" in the uterus between day - say 10 - and the menses. During this time the "growth" could be a fetus, and since abortions aren't allowed, there are no D&C/surgeries allowed. (While the physician might not think this is best for the patient, their insurance and hospital admittance privileges do not allow it.)

The main issue of course is that D&C means "Dilation and curettage". It's used to describe a surgical procedure in which the cervix is opened (dilated) and a thin instrument is inserted into the uterus. This instrument is used to remove tissue from the inside of the uterus (curettage). It is used for ANY tissue in the uterus, which make sense when thinking about it from a medical procedure. "Something" is removed from a part in the body. It's not known what "something" is when removing it since that is often why it's removed, it shouldn't be there.

In short, I needed a abnormal growth removed. The tumor could be benign or malign, that wasn't the key issue. The key issue was that the surgery to take out the growth was only allowed being taking out between days in my cycle when contraception had not taken place (example of possible contraception day 11 to day 28 in a woman's cycle) for the hospital to allow it due to the place and the medical coding. 

It would be alright to let this growth grow more while waiting since hospital rules does not allow abortions even though this was 100% not an abortion but would be coded similarly in the medical chart and to insurance.

Long story short; it wasn't a fetus, it was a growth that turned out to be benign when I got the result five weeks later. "No malignant cells were found in your tissue." Good for me. But it could've been different.

The other obvious issue (apart from being alright to let potential malicious growths grow bigger while waiting) is the conversation of what the term "abortion" means when throwing it around in the "public setting" (when voting on it) vs the "legal and medical setting". This is also how people view "6 weeks pregnant".

Let's just reiterate that medical profession and legal profession have made a few standards that don't correlate exactly to what "the public" thinks it means. Pregnancy is such a thing. You are considered 6 weeks pregnant in legal and medical view - 6 weeks after your last menstruation's first day. That has nothing to do with "embryo development".

It's presumed that you have a 28 day cycle and that you ovulate on day 11-15 (looking at real data this is not accurate at some ovulate at day 6 and some at day 28). The whole pregnancy counting is furthermore based on the fact that since medical professionals know people ovulate at different times in their cycle and the ONLY thing an outsider knows is "when there was bleeding" (lots of religions make this a conversation with man & wife since there are cleansing parts after a wife has bled...) the pregnancy will be counted from the first day you bled last. Knowing full well that there is NO chance anyone is pregnant at that point (menses literary means the uterus is empty of a fetus), it's the way to start the calendar/counting and doesn't mean much for accuracy of start of conception or delivery date.

This means that at "6 weeks pregnant" most embryos are between 2 and 3 weeks. It also means that many  people might have discovered that they missed their period with a few days. However, back to the overall "misconception about menstruation" it's not that uncommon to have a few days extra/less of your cycle based on stress, food intake, global travel etc. And that is if your are lucky to have a "regular cycle", which is probably 50% or less of all at any given time.

Anyway, I wanted to not get side tracked into the other parts of legislature regarding abortion (might be another post down the line) as there is a disconnect between "what public think is general cases" and "what the medical reality is". And also how these legislatures affect health and medical decisions of pregnant people. 

To have a miscarriage that doesn't expel, but where the fetus is dead or dying, and not being allowed a D&C is fatal for the woman carrying the fetus. But for this post, let's leave it as "it's more complicated as a lot of Texas and other governmental people say it is".

"you're not a scientist, you don't have a PhD"

Ego getting in the way of making a good team. Ego ruining a good working team.

Everyone who has been in the science field for a certain time know when you meet new people in the field that there is a lot of questions about where everyone fit in and what roles everyone plays in these new teams and collaborations we do.

It's the newly hired person who thinks that "everyone in the labs who is involved with a paper gets on the authorship list". It's the newly minted PhD who know finally (?) feels secure that they have proved themselves explaining "I'm a real scientist now that I have the PhD title". It's the intern who spends three months in the lab washing dishes and cleaning up animal carcasses and studies for their MCAT since they are going into MedSchool and thinks that will give them power. It's the old technician who has seen numerous postdocs crash and burn with the thought that they are the special one who will change P&R while the technician has the ear of the PI.

And then there is that special person who takes it one step further and speaks up and tells people "you are not a real scientist since you don't have PhD" to their face.

And the kicker is that they don't seem to understand why it's offensive and making it impossible to work as a team. Never mind that they are wrong, oh so wrong they are. And that it is such a naive comment to make, and makes you look so small and misinformed. To disregard experience and the work that so many hand and heads in the lab contribute to. That science (STEM and biology is what I'm mainly talking about now since I'm mentioning lab work) is a team effort. That even if there is one PI seeing the bigger picture, writing grants, there is a lot of hands and thoughts and details getting in the way of the ego.... and that scientists come in different shapes, sizes, backgrounds, titles and knowledge areas.

It's similar to an old saying I had told to me in the scout movement and by military leaders in my leadership trainings;  "You're not a leader because you have a title. You're a leader because people follow you since they believe and trust you".

It's also called "if you have to call out in the room "I'm the boss/captain so you have to do what I say", your leadership is on the weakest ground/first step in the staircase of hierarchy and you don't have much in the long run. Authority is the position, that doesn't mean leadership which lies in the character of the person.

It's especially important if you are coming in new to a job, and your title is lab manager or lab supervisor - both titles that vary depending on where the job is, sometimes this requires a PhD, sometimes it doesn't. Whatever the requirements though, I would highly recommend a period of "look, see and gather information about the team" before making any big claims and statements. (Needless to say, I would never state anything as silly as "real scientist needs a PhD".) I would build confidence and trust with the new colleagues and lab members, as much or more as with the PI of the lab. Why?

It's a team sport this game we call science. The PI is the Captain/QB/Skipper/Coach depending on which sport we refer to and the rest of the lab take up various positions and depending on the time of the game, are of various importance at that specific time. An experienced lab technician who has been with the PI for a long time? Yep, crucial to the play. And, like a dishwasher (hello my old job) is key to get tables turned around fast in a restaurant to earn the money for the servers and seaters, someone to keep lab wear clean and sterile, changing animal cages, making regular solutions the same old reliable way are the backbone of repeatable, good and solid science.

And the absolute in the lab it trust. Trust that you know what you are doing at the bench. That you know when to ask for help. And that you realize that certain people in the lab know different things, and that the strength is in those differences and match ups. As long as you can make them all work together, towards a common goal, making al of them feel important and seen in their positions. That's a true leader, and something to strive for.

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.

"I've been to the Mountaintop" - remembering MLK

I first read "I've been to the Mountaintop" I was at university reading famous speeches from around the world. I remember reading it, picking it apart and seeing the tropes and when listening to it hearing where the words were enunciated and clear. It was a good speech, an emotional speech I thought. It must have been something listening to that at the time. It has a lot of references to what had happened during the close years, and a lot of references to the Bible.

Fast forward a decade or so. Me walking through the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis TN, the city I then had moved to, and getting to listen to the speech at the old Lorraine Motel. The museum is inside of the old Lorraine Motel, you get to see the two adjacent rooms where MLK stayed, and you see the wreath outside on the balcony. And wow, the difference in me when I now heard the words, rather than "just reading them back in my safe country". I can't explain it. I will say though, if you ever go to Memphis TN - You have to go to the National Civil Rights Museum! Schedule a day, even if you walk through the museum faster than 3 hours (average) you will most likely need another few hours to decompress, talk and try and grasp the things you've seen, heard and experienced.

The museum walks you through history of the United States, which is the history of Slaves and displacements of so many people. The checkered stories of the South in the USA in particular, the rest of the USA in context, and the world in general.

It's not an easy museum to go through. It takes time. It makes me feel uneasy. It brings up emotions I wasn't really sure of where they came from. Listening to my mother and father talking about their experiences with the 1960ies in Sweden when a lot of this went on in the USA. Talking to, and answering questions from my younger relatives and children of friends, trying to explain how the South could be so different, yet not so different from the North. How different I want it to be now. How some things have changed, and yet some has not.

Reading the eye witness accounts from the 1960ies and the Freedom Marches. Seeing Ross Barnett, then Governor of Mississippi on National TV proudly explaining "no school in Mississippi will be intergrated on my watch". And when James Meredith went of Ole Miss in 1962, after the Fifth Circuit Court had ruled he was to be admitted, there was two body guards with him his entire time at university and a riot broke out the first day - people died and the National Guard was there.

Watching Ernst Withers' collection of photographs on Beale Street with my visitors to my home when we walk downtown is another way of trying to understand, to grasp how and what happened in Memphis - and other places - in the 1960ies, 70ies and how it influences everything around us now today.

"Those who do not remember their history are destined to repeat it"

Listening to Billie Holiday's "Strange Fruit" is never easy to me nowadays but it shouldn't be. It should make us all work hard to never forget and never repeat those horrible times. (It's about lynchings. Something much more common even in the 1900 century than I thoughts.)

I'll round this off by quoting the man who died today 50 years ago. The man who spent numerous days in jail writing letters and supporting people all over to march for human rights, and who inspired thousands then and still does. The man for whom church bells will ring at 6pm tonight in Memphis, 39 times will the bells toll. One for each year of his life that was cut too short by someone gunning him down at the Lorraine Motel.

Martin Luther King, Jr died today in 1960 only 39 years old. And we should all wow to ourselves never to give up the fight for equal rights for all human beings.

"That's the question before you tonight. Not, "If I stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to my job. Not, "If I stop to help the sanitation workers what will happen to all of the hours that I usually spend in my office every day and every week as a pastor?" The question is not, "If I stop to help this man in need, what will happen to me?" The question is, "If I do not stop to help the sanitation workers, what will happen to them?" That's the question.

Let us rise up tonight with a greater readiness. Let us stand with a greater determination. And let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation. And I want to thank God, once more, for allowing me to be here with you." [from "To the Mountaintop", the last speech by Martin Luther King, Jr April 3rd 1960]

National Civil Rights Museum (from another march)

International Women's Day

So, another year and another International Women's Day. It's not surprising to me anymore when I encounter my coworkers who have no idea what this day is. (It never happened in Sweden, everyone knew about it.) However, there is a feeling in some of my female coworkers and friends this year that I am excited about. It's a feeling that maybe, maybe 2018 will be the year when some more ceilings get shattered, when some more borders will be broken and the goalposts be moved into another area.

It's partly based on the fact that the new generation, the ones who are about to graduate high school are giving people a "the emperor has no clothes on him" moment every so often. They don't understand why there would be a difference between people. Sure, they have grown up with old Disney and lots of hyper sexualized pictures and comics - but they have also grown up in a world where someone can have one mom, or two moms, or two dads or even living with your single dad... not to forget Mulan, Frozen and last year Wonder Woman. If you haven't seen the New Wonder Woman movie - I implore you, go see it. I wasn't interested and such didn't watch it in the movies. I did see it on a plane during a holiday though. And I ended up watching it twice. The battle scene. And the boat scene. And the training with amazons scenes. And ... well, a lot of scenes actually.

And I cried. I know it might sound silly but there is something that moves inside you fundamentally when watching a movie and realizing that it connects to you, and that you don't have to look at the one or two women roles and listen to them talk about their boy friends. Or for that matter, not even have a woman in the movie and you accept it and feel like the main male character. That you watch a movie about a woman who just does what needs to be done, and doesn't care about what "she's supposed to do".

I've shifted a little last year. I conscientiously decided to not watch TVseries that "investigates the crime of a dead girl" or similar. I've been a huge thriller watcher and avid reader of "all the books" but have slowly but surely moved away from these "generic crime books/TV series". Why? Because I think, the same way as I think watching my Facebook feed everyday, connects with my brain and gives me micronegative feelings that aren't helpful for me. I've tried to find uplifting and motivational movies and TVSeries. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to "self help books" but rather stuff that have either strong female leads, or altered realities where things are slightly different than our present day. I read books by women, about women and with women in them that have overcome obstacles and even those who haven't. Just to feel a little more like "this is it".

I digress, as usual.

My hope for 2018 is similar as every year, and I feel that there might be an opportunity here to actually continue to make change, to move towards a more equal society where women aren't generalized into a stereotype automatically (whore/madonna, mother/barren, girl/crone)...

How I intend to do this? Network, be supportive and give money to the right places that can help. I've expanded my network at work and in my field, where we are a few women in similar ages/peers who give each other support and strategy ideas on how to overcome obstacles and to place ourselves in various positions to move ahead. I'm a mentor, both formally and informally, to a couple of younger women who pick my brain about things every so often. I also connect them with others so they can expand their network. And I give money to political campaigns and Choice organizations, mostly locally here where I live. Side bar; If you live in the USA, now's the time to start looking for all those political races for the midterm election coming up. Take a look at your local elections and the issues the candidates are running on and look how you can contribute. If not with money, maybe with time and energy to the various causes.

And finally, last but not least, something that is near and dear to my heart: Doctors Without Borders and Kiva. Two organizations that change the world and try so hard to make it a better place for children, women and men all over the earth. Kiva will match your contributions to women if you make them today March 8th!

You can find practical tips and links to my old posts here

a christian, a muslim, a jew and a Swede walk into...

...a lab. What's the point with science?
The christian says "all is forgiven, even a botched western blot". The muslim says "being oldest doesn't automatically make it right, there's always improvement to be made". The jew says "the oldest ideas have a tendency to rear their head even how much changes have happened". The Swede says "it's because we all have different viewpoints that we examine together".

(I'm paraphrasing a famous Swedish joke "A Norweigan, A Danish and Bellman..". I know, I'm not that funny.)

This Swede thinks the best with science have been the environment where I have met so many diverse people whom I never would've had the opportunity to meet, talk and get to know otherwise. I work every day in a place where there are diverse religions (or non-religion), nationalities, skin colour, gender preferences, ages and what have you. The stories they can tell about their lives and their families. The view points they have that makes me think once more about why I think the way I think. All that. I am grateful for it. It makes me a better scientist but most of all, it makes me a better person.

It reminds me on a regular daily basis that I can't presume that everyone agrees with my views and that sometimes allies come in the strangest shapes. The devout male muslim with a stay-at-home wife who can't shake hands with men have a daughter whom he is clear about will be a doctor and go out work in the world. The devout jew who brings homemade baklava for everyone to feast one and who bonds with said muslim over customs they did as children, albeit being from different countries and religion. The catholic who is vegetarian and gets recipes from the hindu with all these different flavours. The born-here-in-the-south-never-leaving baptist who put up solar panels on their house and recycles while working on getting their church to do the same. And of course, the Swede who still gets surprised that Christian holidays aren't "off from work"days*, even though it's so obvious at the lab work depend on all these diverse people being able to go to service, or not, at different times and nothing ever shuts down. (I'm kinda slow with some of these 'new' customs and traditions that are different from my home country even though I left more than a decade ago.)

I hope that we can provide a good foundation for the future and keep up the good work to become even more inclusive and bring the frontier in science forward. After all, I'm a firm believer we only have one Earth and we need to take care of it and the people on it.

Now, time to go do some of that science I keep waffling about.



*Sweden, with their old state church and pretty non-going-to-church-apart-from-5-times-in-your-life and school graduations, still keeps Christmas eve, Christmas Day, day after Christmas Day, Good Friday, Monday after Easter Day, Ascension Day as Bank Holidays. And Monday after Pentecost was a holiday up until less than a decade ago when it was traded for the National Flag Day as a day off work. (it's a complicated history that one, TLDR; national day was never off when I was a child. Not too many people cared about it, no big parades or anything like that.)

snoring, choices and grad school

It feels like a thousand years have passed. I woke up at 5 am this morning, staring into space, trying to remember what my dream had been. Why it had woken me up. It took me a second to realise that it wasn't the dream. It was the hand that had reached out from beside me and shaken my shoulder, to disrupt my snoring sleep. I do that. Snore, that is. Some nights more than others. It's funny to me. It's one of those things you don't know about yourself. Someone else has to tell you about it. "You snore when you sleep".

There were times when that was something I was so embarrassed about. It scared me when starting dating (or for that matter, if you ended up with a short term fling). It's usually not like that in the romantic movies, obviously. Girl meets boy, hook up and go home to sleep together in a bed. Girl snores unbelievably loud and makes strange sounds in her sleep. Of course, someone will inevitably tell you that "snoring happens if you are overweight and have excess fat and tissue in the throat area". Others will tell you that "you can't snore if you sleep on your side" [I can, does that make me special?]. Others offer "you don't sleep well if you snore,".

The last part always makes me laugh. No, it really doesn't make me sleep well - since the person I share my bed with wakes me up to stop me from snoring! If I'm sleeping alone and snoring, there's not a care in the world. I wake up refreshed and happy (as happy as I can be in the morning that is). It's when my snoring bothers others that my sleep gets interrupted. And to be fair, it's two people's sleep that is affected. Or, as it happens when I grew up, three people since I could hear my dad snoring away on the other side of two doors. How my mother could sleep next to it, I don't know.

I was going somewhere with this.... ah, so earlier this week I remembered to make plans for a celebratory drink with one of the younger people in the lab. They applied to grad school before holidays and have now been accepted into one of their choices. They have been very interested in talking about potentially going to grad school, career choices and such with me since they started in the lab as a tech. And when we talked about the drink they admitted "I think you'll have to give me some wisdom, I'm probably going through my quarter life crisis. I don't know if I want to do grad school anymore. 7 years in that town?".

I, being the honest and slightly blunt person that I am, responded "I'm not sure that I have any wisdom, I'm quite confused about my life choices myself these days". Well, apparently the mere thing that I'm about 15 years older, having gone to grad school and "having a successful career with a great job in science" [listen to other people telling me how it looks from the outside!] makes me qualified to talk it through with them. I'm partly joking here, I think I could offer them some thinking points to make up their mind, even if I don't have my own stuff sorted out all that nicely as I would've wanted.

I'm going to have to tread lightly in my talk with them though. It's more about asking questions than giving answers (they have to sort out the answers themselves). It's a little interesting though since when they started in the lab they were happy with the idea of a Masters, and staying in science. After a year, interacting in our fairly competitive environment they got more convinced that the PhD was the way to go. Not sure that it's really what they want, or what they think is expected of them? (Which of course is part of the problem most of the time, isn't it.... you go with what others expect, what you expect and sometimes don't really give it too much thought.). I'm glad for the heads up since I've been thinking about choices we make at times. The choices I have made that led me to this place where I am today, warts and all. How changeable some choices are, some closes doors that can't be opened again. And most of all, that pesky question that doesn't seem to be answered anytime soon; what's the meaning of all this, what's meaning of life?

let's talk H1Bs for a second

I had planned to write my thoughts on FDA and the upcoming selection of the new Director and what policy decisions have been flagged for this week. A lot of them stemming from what I can only think is a naivety and non-understanding/misconceptions what FDA actually does and what is meant by saying "FDA approved drugs".

However, plans don't always go as you want. This morning a Huffington post article made the rounds in my twitter feed and since H1B was an issue that was floated around last week as well ("there's a draft that the president will soon sign"), I thought I'd tackle it instead.

Mainly because while the article seems to make some sense - especially to people who want to think "immigrants are taking the jobs from Americans" and the people who think "immigrants on H1Bs are getting vastly underpaid and this will help them" - while in essence it is talking about a very specific subset of jobs and people and dragging it to an "over all conclusion" that is non correct (or to the very least should acknowledge that this is not the whole story).

Also note that the article doesn't mention the idea of H1Bs being the visa for a lot of other workers in other sectors; non-profits (NGOs), post-docs in academia, pharma or other places. These places doesn't have the same salaries as Silicon Valley Tech and are not of the authors main priority as coming from the computer science field. It is worth noting that the far reaching suggestions in the article doesn't take these various places into account though.

First of all, anyone who reads this blog knows I'm an immigrant and I grew up in a place where there were unions, collective bargaining and student representatives present with voting rights when hiring professors at universities. This also means that I read any type of suggestions for "this is for the best of workers" with extra interest, simply because I grew up hearing that the USA didn't really care that much about workers but about the companies/employers.

I wouldn't mind having salaries public, so everyone in a company knows what everyone makes. Nor would I dislike having "similar salaries for similar jobs" and a suggestion from the legislature/union on what the job should pay. Neither of which is a reality in my state of the USA and everyone negotiates on their own. It's one of those "nice American opportunities where you as a skilled worker can argue your case and get lots of money if you are good". (Used a lot in the private sector, especially in finance/law/tech.) And one of the reasons companies who want to attract the best of the best have a lot of freedom to do so.

This article is a prime example of such a thing as posing as "this is thinking about the American worker and their salaries and the future of the country" while muddling the waters with all these odd ball comments that don't line up apart from "blame the immigrants"*. While in reality one should look at what the companies are doing when they are hiring "the cheapest labor" rather than "the skills needed for the job" and look further than to blame the lowest person on the scale.

Let's start with facts. H1B visas are for skilled workers. This means that there has to be a degree specification in the job advert and that the level needs to claim required - required to perform said job, not preferred or "if you have it, that's nice" but "you NEED this to do the job". (Anecdotal story; I applied and got hired for an industry job where the job ad stated "PhD preferred" [since they wanted to hire the best fit for the job and keeping it open to many applicants]. Thus not making it possible for me or anyone else to apply for an H1Bvisa since that wasn't eligible for that category. This "required" is an important point and piece of the puzzle, as you will see if you read the article since the author wants to use this to argue how immigrants take away from American workers.

Second, there is no obligation to pay _only_ the salary that is the limit for the H1B. If you want to hire someone who wants more money than the H1B floor because they negotiate well and you find them worth it - and that person turns out to be American - that's your choice (you might have to argue with HR and make sure that you didn't mislabel the level of work, but that's not the H1B issue). There is no "we have to hire the person with the lowest bidder for salary" for companies, especially not for "for profit Silicon Valley Tech companies". You think they ask their higher level candidates who wants the least? This is mixing two different things together as seen in passage below, which is directly arguing these two points. Maybe you can see what I mean that there are some difficulties getting both the arguments working with each other? Adding in the middle is the idea that "Americans are out competed by immigrants from their own universities to do doctorate degrees [that might not even be needed - in the second part - my emphasis] and these doctorate degrees are also on a visa status that should be curbed.

"The industry especially asserts a need to hire H-1Bs with a PhD, citing the fact that 50 percent of computer science doctorates in the U.S. are granted to foreign students. What they are hiding in that claim is that it simply doesn’t pay for an American student (i.e. U.S. citizen or permanent resident) to pursue doctoral study, as the salary premium for a doctorate is too small. That small wage premium is due to the flooding of the market by foreign applicants,[my emphasis] something correctly forecase with approbation by the National Science Foundation years ago. The industry claim is doubly deceptive, as they are not very keen to hire PhDs because this level of study just isn’t needed. We actually have a surplus of computer science PhDs; 11.3 percent of them are involuntarily working in a non-computer science field."

and further down in the article:

Employers claim that they hire H-1Bs for rare skill sets or outstanding talent ― traits that they would need to pay a premium for on the open market. Yet current law requires only that they pay the average wage.

A lot of the article then moves on to argue that the immigrant workers are inferior/weaker to the American workers who are out competed for these jobs (due to salary and not wanting to apply for these jobs) and therefore the salary requirements for H1Bs should be raised. How do they argue "weaker"?

But research performed at the University of Michigan and Rutgers University, as well as my own work for the Economic Policy Institute, shows that the former foreign students now in the U.S. workforce tend to be weaker than their American peers. On a per capita basis, the former foreign students in computer science file fewer patents, are less likely to work in research and development and have degrees from less selective U.S. universities.

At this point I wonder; does the author know what it takes to apply for a patent? And how it's decided who gets to be on a patent? I can tell you straight up, it takes money to file and the backing of your company and your boss. Never mind the last comment "less selective US universities" or the self citation. Is the author really annoyed that American graduates from "more selective US universities" can't get jobs in Silicon Valley? Or how to interpret this since there surely would be some American workers with degrees from "less selective US universities" who could get these jobs when the immigrants are gone? Or would they also take the jobs from those from "more selective US universities". Should we really make tiers to state "applicants from tier A gets hired, then graduates from tier B" even more than is currently happening with pedigrees and whatnot?

All of this writing and not once approaching the idea that employers - these massive tech companies and venture capital driven start ups in Silicon Valley - have any responsibilities of looking over their requirements or that maybe they are overstating what they need in order to do the work. I mean, IF the jobs are over stated just to attract and hire H1B people (which sounds plausible), when the jobs then are downgraded to not be eligible for H1B since the salary would be too high - the specific people the author is worried about wouldn't
a)get more money (downgraded the job requirements, remember -> less salary)
b)might not even apply since they are overqualified (thus would make them underpaid and overqualified if they get the job)

Maybe what is needed for this to be "fixed" would be more oversight on "how do you level/grade your job adverts to be eligable for the H1B visas" from the government and not leave it to the companies to make this up on their own? (Not that I think this would solve too much but it would solve a little. It sure as mud would place the responsibility where it should be, at the company and the government level. I'm sure you can't get an H1B level application on a janitor job advert for example so there has to be some oversight already.)

But nothing really showed the true idea of the article until the last paragraphs, if anyone ever reads that far anymore?

This approach would give the visas to those who can truly make exceptional contributions to our economy and society. If there is real interest in draining the swamp, [my emphasis] this is a great place to start.

"draining the swamp" ... of all the immigrants? Or what? Really? And here I thought that the "swamp reference" was in regards to a comment made by President Trump while campaigning meaning "the upper echelon of politicians, law makers and lobbyists in Washington DC". But the author means it's the swamp of immigrants that needs draining. The swamp who are to blame for (quote directly from the article as seen above in my post) "small wage premium is due to flooding of the market by foreign applicants"**

Talk about missing the mark so completely, while stating where your political affiliations lie ever so clearly, author Dr Professor from UC Davis.



*I don't get why it's not even a whisper on how the companies, IF they want the best person and currently not getting that, could change how the look for talent. But I do understand it's easier to blame the immigrants for all of this. It's always easier to blame the little guy, especially is they're not even American.

**applicants - let's not get confused that they are even hired at this stage. They shouldn't even be allowed to apply to the position.

"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".

Remember - Never forget. Never again.

Today is the International Holocaust Remembrance Day. It's always been an important day but maybe never as urgent to really think and act like today. The basics of the Holocaust didn't start with the extermination camps, it started years before that. It started with the descriptors of "certain people being less human". And once people had accepted that way of thinking, what's to stop them from agreeing or accepting that there are things you can do to these creatures. They were not looked upon as humans, that's the key of the whole thing. You have to keep a division of "they" and "us" for it to work. And work it did. For awhile. For years. To kill all those people. All those children.

I've been to Auschwitz, in the middle of the summer. It was green and so quiet. I remember thinking "it's so hard to understand since it looked so beautiful with all the trees and grass, like nature wanted to grow and show there could be a future". Then I walked into the houses, saw the torture chambers, saw all the hair and the skin taken from the people and made into lamps and books. Not to mention the shoes and the teeth and .... it was horrific. Seeing the lists of names and numbers, seeing the numbers on the skin of all the people. Understanding the organisation that it took before computers were around, and if it worked then - what possibilities now.

Seeing all the propaganda from the 1930ies, before the camps, making the arguments on blaming people and making it acceptable to beat them up without repercussions. The movies, the movie posters and everywhere you looked reinforcement of the picture of these dirty bad things (not people, "they" were lesser). To ban papers and philosophical discussions. There is nothing to debate, this is truth and this is what "we" want. To make it illegal to listen to any type of music or intellectual debate, and to put it under censorship from the state. Making lists of people who should be watched and controlled. And then making the "internment camps" to keep them in, presumingly to keep "our people safe". And once you have people in a camp, why stop there? And then now to remember that there are talks about this again, now. To add people to lists and then stop them from entering, stop saving children from the atrocities of adults and states...

If ever there was a time to remember the history and how that happened, it's now.

Surely, we have learned that making lists of undesirable people will lead towards the place where we put children in camps and tattoo numbers on their arms (or RFID chips under their skin to track)? That has been what I grew up learning. Listening to the Holocaust survivors coming to my school, showing me their numbers, telling their stories about their families who didn't make it. Telling about how they made it, about the brave men and women who fought back, how the human spirit can endure and keep faith in humans, even when something as atrocious happens as this. Telling me and my school friends so we as young teens would be on the lookout for the propaganda and be aware that this cannot happen again. That we had a responsibility to not be complicit and help the dark forces if (when) they reared their heads.

It might seem idealistic, but what else is there to do today but to affirm once again that I for one will not be a helper and complicit in these things. It will be hard, and it will be scary, but there is no alternative. All humans are worthy. There can't be a "we and them", it has to be "us humans". And there is no time to sit silently on the side lines but for action. This cannot happen again. We owe it to the dead and their relatives. And also to ourselves. We are, as humans, better than this.

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.....

scatter brained - november edition

I have had so many thoughts for blog posts the last couple of weeks. I was going to write a second part of the "unmentionables" and maybe even a third one. Then I had an experience at work which led me to think about data processing in the age of next gen sequencing and bioinformatics in a multidisciplinary team with PhDs, PharmDs, VMDs, and MDs... then I experienced a (water) weight increase going on a temporary medication and thought it was very scary (who knew going into surgery would lead to a 7 pounds gain in a day? clear not this PhD.) Went running and for my training - hello half marathon very soon - that my feet and plantar fasciitis are not super cheery about.Then the election happened and I found myself being some sort of cheer-leading person at work.

• "It will take time" - in regards to repealing ACA/Obamacare
• "He [Trump] has been a plutocrat without any extreme Christian-right views before, maybe he will keep women's health choices free"
• "There is a constitution that is written to keep power overhauls you are being scared of right now"
• "He [Trump] has to work with both the tea party and the other GOPs in the congress, maybe the division between them will lead to some working with the democrats"

Alas, latest days have showed me that I was never good cheerleader material, rather a "digging down into the trenches and fight" kinda girl.

Also, one of my huuuuuuge triggers? Hypocrisy in my face. Call a spade a spade. Or in this case, call a neo-nazi movement for a neo-nazist (or fascists....) movement and not "alt-right" or some other useless euphemism for shiny white men with short hair who screams loud, waves right arms in the air and want anyone who isn't white male to "accept the ruling of the power race". 

Not even touching on the fact that everyone and their mother seemingly aren't interested in anything but power, money and potential places in cabinet - and therefore toss ALL their precious values and morals out the window. Somehow it feels even more horrible when it's the highty, mighty, christian right-wing people who preaches about "morals and family values" but in the end have no qualms jumping into bed with anyone as long as they gain something on it. How about those spines? How about actually reading that constitution and look at other democracies and see what is not considered alright in terms of mixing personal gain and national securities & politics.

Maybe a Thanksgiving miracle? Or a Holiday present?

I'm taking a few days off, going into the woods to enjoy the real world and see the trees - the red colours contrast to the European yellow autumn as per Finnish and Israeli researchers . It'll be good to escape the reality and look for calm before going back to the slight fight mode and the idea that it's not alright to just accept anti-democratic ideals and especially not to fake it and call it normal.

assimilation, integration - my thoughts as an immigrant

It's interesting, the talk about assimilation and integration back in Europe and also to some extent in the USA. I had a post about a lot of conservative idea of women before, this is a more of a general post.

As an immigrant in the USA I have a few thoughts on the topic. Granted, I moved "sort of by choice" (there weren't any jobs in my home country and I never expected to stay for this long), so I'm not a refugee. However, when it comes to the discussion about "feeling like a member of my new country" etc, I think my feelings and thoughts are valid since I'm not a full fledged member of the new country disavowing my old country.

First of all, let me state that I do think one of the key things for moving to another country (volunteering or refugee status regardless) is a language thing. I don't think you can ever integrate or assimilate without language. You need the language to share the feelings and thoughts and all the other things with your newfound fellow country people. The language, books and some other things are pivotal to understand and relate to your new people.

Do I view myself as an American? Nope. This was more than clear to me after an awkward conversation with someone whom I love a lot saying to me that I should root for USA in the World Cup of Hockey "since it's my country over a decade" and I'm just blatantly laughing in his face saying "no way, I'm a swede". I'd root for Canada before USA in hockey. Why? Because the idea of rooting for USA in hockey is to me, just not there. I wouldn't call it blasphemy but it's extremely awkward and not my choice. Plus I lived in Canada first, even though it wasn't for a decade, but that's not the point. Mainly, it's the idea that I'm not a real American since I'm not as boasting and encompassing the American spirit*.

Do I view myself as an half American - loyal to the American values? Yep. Absolutely. A lot of the core American values, I share. What do I don't share? I'm not a clear hard core Christian. I'm going to church on a regular basis but on an American faith basis poll, I'd probably fit as a "liberal christian who believes in pro-choice". Not to mention my feminist point of view on a lot of life choices and world views.

I'm also not an American citizen. Let's be clear about this. I'm having a permanent residence card. When I talk about assimilation and integration, there is a lot of sub-context. You can decide if that is influencing, giving my views more or less value or just making it plain subjective. I think I might move home to my native Scandinavian country in my life - in my mind, I haven't left my native country forever. I am not giving up my citizenship, but could tentatively add the American on my present one. Am I proud of living in the USA? Yep. Definitely. Do I love aspects of the country. Yes I do. Do I want to give up my native birth-country? Never. Sorry but I wouldn't do it**.

What have I done and what do I think you need to do to assimilate/integrate into another country where you live?

1) learn the language
2) learn the history of the country
3) get to know some of the native people and talk to them.... hang out....

in reality, I can say what I think is acceptable for me and what I'm doing:
1) celebrate 4th of July - it's a BBQ or a festivity, but it's important as a historic moment
2) try to observe Thanksgiving - it's an important family holiday where you hang out with people, eat and be social
3) Armed Forces - it's a huge thing, need to be supportive of the people from all over the country who signed up and give their lives for the ideals of the country.
4) If possible, sports is an important thing in american (south at least). Pick a team and hang out during at Saturday (college football) or Sunday (NFL football) or any other time when baseball or hockey are playing. It'll go ways to make you feel and be viewed as an American.
5) know the anthem and can sign it - even if you don't keep your hand on the heart while it is playing (I don't since I'm not a citizen but I know the song)
6) read the classics of the country - Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Steinbeck, Steinem, Plath, Kerouac, Haper Lee - that will give you an idea where a lot of the
7) if possible, root for USA in bigger sports arena - like Olympics or World cup or any other bigger sports part

but if I was forced to say ONE thing to keep me assimilated or integrated: language and history or the country. Without that, I don't see how it works.....





*American spirit = influenced with how I viewed  USA growing up and all the different aspects that was ascribed to the country. "boasting, vivacious, great, no excuses for themselves, loudmouths" etc whereas a lot of virtue was called for "humble, quiet leadership, responsibility, understatement" and other more British words in context.

**we could make this interesting with some the background of military stuff that i was involved in before leaving my country but hey.... water under the bridge.. i wouldn't give it up since my family/parents are still alive and I would go back to take care of them and that is contingent on my keeping my citizenship and being a native.

what happens after conference

Going away on conferences has always been something I like. Even as an introvert. Maybe just because I'm an introvert? Maybe because I've not gone to too many a year, never having to share rooms, not usually going with coworkers, always having some opportunities to go aside alone.

I love learning new things. Seeing things in a different light. And it is an opportunity for me to play pretend. Or to see how people - who don't work with me everyday - see me and the work I do. To gage how much I'm worth on the job market. Sometimes even, in a galaxy far far away, to see my value on another market as well.

Oh yes, the introvert idea. The contradicting idea that I as an introvert like being in a crowd, networking with people, going to poster sessions and then later relax in my hotel room - alone. Waking up in the morning, going for a run (alone) and then eating breakfast (alone) and collecting my thoughts and feelings. During the day, I can network, go to talks, think a lot and see loops where I normally don't have the time to do it, and ignore regular day-to-day guilt feelings. Like a small vacation away from home and work, even when working in a conference.

Of course, coming back after a conference can be quite the trip. Noticing the work group being different (did they work better without me?), catching up on all the "regular life stuff" (catching up with family), and most importantly of all - sleep and recovering. Having at least one day or weekend where there is recharging time. And working through the feelings and thoughts that have awoken in the "in between time" at the trip.

Then going back to work and se if there is a chance to implement all the new knowledge and feelings.

most important for a woman: being likable

After reading this article in Slate about The Hillary Haters and contemplating the last few months at work when people who are scared that the changes will lead to a couple of people getting let go "but you are safe because He likes you", I'm back to the thought that the key aspect of being a woman today is to be likable (and attractive of course).

Remember the comments from leading RNC people describing Melania Trump (yes Newt, Chris and the retired colonel) "who care about the speech, she is attractive and likable".

And then listening & reading all the comments about Hillary... if she was a man, they'd be phrased a little different. They might still state "go to jail for emails" but I really doubt that they would emphasize the "robotic, manhating, non attractive" style as much.

This point was also raised in the UK when choosing their new prime minister Theresa May. She isn't attractive, although she also has another flaw - she is not a mother. Why this is important? Well, as far as I see a woman who is taking power is automatically going to be viewed as a "mother"["for the country" when talking about PM or President]. A mother should be warm, kind, likable, and potentially soft and malleable to her husband. Theresa May had her opponent (also a woman, notch) state that since she was a mother, and May isn't, she was more qualified to be prime minister. Yep. I'm tempted to dive into the sad stats which points to that a lot of women in power are childless (or affluent with specific childcare options) since again, the biggest gap between salary&power in men and women are when you look at "married men with children" compared to "married women with children". Women without children have a slight less gap to the males.... but I won't. Not now.

Anyway, am I overly pessimistic? Too feminist? Is it not against women per se but only against Hillary this hate and attractiveness concept?

Please let me know what you think since I'm getting very sad and tired and there are still three months left before the US election.