I had hoped to start off the new year being effective and productive at work. And I was for the first two weeks or so. They were shaping up to be representative of what I might expect from the rest of 2018. And then, in one fell sweep, it all ended. To be exact, on Friday, January 12th, the IT company that is responsible for all data management at our hospital informed us that they were under continual attack by hackers. Very sophisticated hackers who had gained administrative access to many of the servers where sensitive data is stored. The situation is so serious that it has become a criminal case, with federal authorities called in to investigate. Since that day, those of us (mostly researchers) who have always had access to the research network (internet and email), have been shut out of both. Emails cannot be sent or received. We have no access to the hospital intranet or to any of the administrative programs that are necessary for daily functioning. Our use of internet is blocked; we cannot get online at all. We cannot print any files on the network printers. For those researchers who spend most of their day working in the lab, it's probably not the end of the world. For those of us whose projects require constant interaction with the internet (writing and online research), it's been a crisis. I fall into the latter category as do many senior scientists and postdocs. It remains unclear when the situation will return to normal.
It's got me thinking about the obstacles that are placed before us in our daily lives. I've been pretty impatient and ticked-off thinking about all the time that's been wasted not being able to work on some of the priority projects for which I'm responsible. It riles me that we don't get more updates about the situation from hospital leaders and that there is no plan B, no backup plan, for those of us who are affected. There is no backup plan. We just have to wait it out; wait until the obstacle no longer blocks the road in front of us.
I was pretty annoyed today about the whole situation. I went to work briefly, found out that nothing was working (situation unchanged), and then went home to work instead. At least I can work from home. I have that opportunity. I have a functioning internet and email system at home, likewise a printer to which I can connect. I am grateful for that. I'm also grateful for the fact that working at home gives me the opportunity to multi-task. I can be working on several things simultaneously (some work-related, some not), and that is a good thing. It appeals to my need for effectiveness and desire for productivity. I need to feel that I've gotten something done each day. Working at home calms me down and gives me a sense of purpose. So perhaps this is all a blessing in disguise. I like to work at home, and perhaps I can begin to work at home more than one day a week. That would be a wonderful opportunity--an opportunity that evolved from an obstacle.
Monday, January 22, 2018
Sunday, January 21, 2018
Reminders of how difficult it is to be a Christian
When we hear that it is enough to be anti-abortion to be a Christian, this is my response. Yes, pro-life is the Christian way, the protection of embryos is the Christian way, but pro-life, the Christian life, encompasses a wide range of behaviors, starting with the embryo and ending with the elderly, the sick, and the dying. Lest we forget Christ's preaching on what it means to be Christian.
Matthew 25:31-46 New International Version
The Sheep and the Goats
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message spells out for us in no uncertain terms what Christ expects from us. There is no Christian argument that can justify white supremacy, racism, or the exclusion of others based on race, income, or gender. No matter the circumstances, we as Christians are called to help others, to include others, to think of others, to put ourselves in the shoes of others. It's hard. It's very hard. Sometimes it seems like an impossible task. We tell ourselves, we work hard for a living. Why should we give our hard-earned money away to the homeless or the unemployed, or those who seem to be lazy? There is some validity to the argument, because some people are lazy and don't want to work. How would Christ have responded? Would he have tried to convince the lazy to work, to contribute to society, at the same time that he said to us, continue to feed and clothe the poor anyway? I think he would have. Why should we visit the sick, the elderly, or the housebound or contact them regularly? We don't have the time to do that. We convince ourselves that a phone call twice a year is what we can manage. There is some validity to the argument, because we often don't have much free time at our disposal. I think Christ would have wanted us to dig deep and find the time. Why should we include other people in our social circle, or reach out to the new employee or the immigrant from a war-torn land? Why should we waste our time trying to understand that migrants and refugees are fleeing from war to a better life? There is some validity to the argument. Countries do need to take care of their own first before they can take care of migrants and refugees. But often it's easier to say that they're coming to our rich countries to take advantage of our wealth and benefits. That's what I sometimes hear in Norway, from well-educated and well-fed people. And then I think, you don't want to share any of your wealth, much of it based on a natural resource called oil. That's not right. I think Christ would have wanted us to dig deep and find the empathy and compassion needed to put ourselves in their shoes.
I don't think Christ worries too much about our bottom lines, about our profit margins, about our pension plans, about our lack of free time. I think he is more concerned that we are charitable toward others, despite the cost to ourselves. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. We cannot judge harshly the unfortunate as lazy and freeloaders and at the same time call ourselves Christian. It doesn't work that way, and it's a message that I understood already as a teenager. I understood that it was going to be very difficult to be a Christian. Because it means going against the norm, against the prevailing trends of xenophobia, against the fear of losing our material wealth. It means moving ourselves out of our comfort zones. Christ is challenging us to think about our fears. What is it we fear? Do we fear being homeless, sick, mentally ill, terminally ill, old, unemployed? Yes, we do, and it's normal to feel that way. All these things involve loss of prestige, loss of face, loss of our pride, loss of our easy life, and so on. It means we cannot always have things the way we want them. We may not be able to take that vacation abroad this year, or buy the new car, or the big house, or send our children to expensive schools. We often learn the hard way. Someone we love becomes sick or dies. Children commit suicide or overdose on drugs. Family members become mentally ill and difficult. We want to run from the problems, we want to have our comfortable lives back. But what if we can't? What if the problems are life-long? What if someone we love becomes disabled and can no longer take good care of themselves? What do we do? I think we're allowed to be angry, distraught, irritated, or sad about the turn of events, about the bad luck, about the bad karma. We're not allowed to turn our backs on those who need us. Mother Teresa said the same thing. Charity begins at home. But we have to acknowledge those outside our family who might need our help too. We cannot close our eyes to the suffering in the world. And there is a lot of suffering. Objectively, when I look at what migrants and refugees want, it's a better life for themselves and their children. Is that so wrong? They just happened to be born in the wrong part of the world. A toss of the dice, and perhaps we could have ended up like them. Who knows?
That is why, as a Christian and an American, I don't want to see us close our doors to immigrants and those who dream about finding a better life in America. That is what makes our country great. One of my friends on Facebook recently posted the poem that stands at the base of the Statue of Liberty--a beautiful poem and a Christian message if ever there was one:
The New Colossus--by Emma Lazarus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Matthew 25:31-46 New International Version
The Sheep and the Goats
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message spells out for us in no uncertain terms what Christ expects from us. There is no Christian argument that can justify white supremacy, racism, or the exclusion of others based on race, income, or gender. No matter the circumstances, we as Christians are called to help others, to include others, to think of others, to put ourselves in the shoes of others. It's hard. It's very hard. Sometimes it seems like an impossible task. We tell ourselves, we work hard for a living. Why should we give our hard-earned money away to the homeless or the unemployed, or those who seem to be lazy? There is some validity to the argument, because some people are lazy and don't want to work. How would Christ have responded? Would he have tried to convince the lazy to work, to contribute to society, at the same time that he said to us, continue to feed and clothe the poor anyway? I think he would have. Why should we visit the sick, the elderly, or the housebound or contact them regularly? We don't have the time to do that. We convince ourselves that a phone call twice a year is what we can manage. There is some validity to the argument, because we often don't have much free time at our disposal. I think Christ would have wanted us to dig deep and find the time. Why should we include other people in our social circle, or reach out to the new employee or the immigrant from a war-torn land? Why should we waste our time trying to understand that migrants and refugees are fleeing from war to a better life? There is some validity to the argument. Countries do need to take care of their own first before they can take care of migrants and refugees. But often it's easier to say that they're coming to our rich countries to take advantage of our wealth and benefits. That's what I sometimes hear in Norway, from well-educated and well-fed people. And then I think, you don't want to share any of your wealth, much of it based on a natural resource called oil. That's not right. I think Christ would have wanted us to dig deep and find the empathy and compassion needed to put ourselves in their shoes.
I don't think Christ worries too much about our bottom lines, about our profit margins, about our pension plans, about our lack of free time. I think he is more concerned that we are charitable toward others, despite the cost to ourselves. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. We cannot judge harshly the unfortunate as lazy and freeloaders and at the same time call ourselves Christian. It doesn't work that way, and it's a message that I understood already as a teenager. I understood that it was going to be very difficult to be a Christian. Because it means going against the norm, against the prevailing trends of xenophobia, against the fear of losing our material wealth. It means moving ourselves out of our comfort zones. Christ is challenging us to think about our fears. What is it we fear? Do we fear being homeless, sick, mentally ill, terminally ill, old, unemployed? Yes, we do, and it's normal to feel that way. All these things involve loss of prestige, loss of face, loss of our pride, loss of our easy life, and so on. It means we cannot always have things the way we want them. We may not be able to take that vacation abroad this year, or buy the new car, or the big house, or send our children to expensive schools. We often learn the hard way. Someone we love becomes sick or dies. Children commit suicide or overdose on drugs. Family members become mentally ill and difficult. We want to run from the problems, we want to have our comfortable lives back. But what if we can't? What if the problems are life-long? What if someone we love becomes disabled and can no longer take good care of themselves? What do we do? I think we're allowed to be angry, distraught, irritated, or sad about the turn of events, about the bad luck, about the bad karma. We're not allowed to turn our backs on those who need us. Mother Teresa said the same thing. Charity begins at home. But we have to acknowledge those outside our family who might need our help too. We cannot close our eyes to the suffering in the world. And there is a lot of suffering. Objectively, when I look at what migrants and refugees want, it's a better life for themselves and their children. Is that so wrong? They just happened to be born in the wrong part of the world. A toss of the dice, and perhaps we could have ended up like them. Who knows?
That is why, as a Christian and an American, I don't want to see us close our doors to immigrants and those who dream about finding a better life in America. That is what makes our country great. One of my friends on Facebook recently posted the poem that stands at the base of the Statue of Liberty--a beautiful poem and a Christian message if ever there was one:
The New Colossus--by Emma Lazarus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Saturday, January 20, 2018
Three articles absolutely worth reading
I stumbled upon these articles today, written by the New York Post columnist Maureen Callahan. I'm glad I did, as I think they're excellent. Her writing is spot on and pithy; she faces her topics head-on and doesn't relent in her treatment of them. Good for her. We need more writers like her. I love her piece Fashion is dead and there's no coming back. It's true, and no one will miss it. And her article about why Oprah would be a bad choice for a future president. Maureen Callahan deserves kudos for telling it like it is.
https://nypost.com/2018/01/20/fashion-is-dead-and-theres-no-coming-back/
https://nypost.com/2018/01/11/tonya-harding-doesnt-deserve-her-heroic-second-act/
https://nypost.com/2018/01/08/no-oprah-havent-we-learned-our-lesson-with-celebrity-candidates/
https://nypost.com/2018/01/20/fashion-is-dead-and-theres-no-coming-back/
https://nypost.com/2018/01/11/tonya-harding-doesnt-deserve-her-heroic-second-act/
https://nypost.com/2018/01/08/no-oprah-havent-we-learned-our-lesson-with-celebrity-candidates/
The government shutdown
The U.S. federal government officially shut down as of early this morning. This has happened before, e.g. back in 2013 under President Obama, but it is interesting to listen to the recriminations from both sides this time. Not unexpected in any case. It's just more proof that America is a deeply-split country at present (it was under Obama also and has just gotten worse), and it's not likely to change any time soon. We need a new leader (president), one that can unite both parties, or at least appeal to their compromise instinct. Because the compromise instinct exists on both sides. Leaders in both parties need to find the common ground and get rid of the rhetoric. They need to stop blaming each other and get on with the business of governing. We need to get back to a time when people talked to each other and really listened to each other. We need more Lincolns and less Trumps. We don't need another Civil War. We need more focus on respect for the other side. We need more politicians who 'agree to disagree' for the sake of their nation. We need more politicians who truly love their country. We don't need politicians who are only interested in ripping those in the opposing party to shreds. We don't need more politicians who seek to enrich themselves at the expense of the American taxpayers. There seems to be little in the way of strong moral and ethical focus in many politicians these days.
Mostly, we need a president who appeals to the best nature in people. The current president does not. He appeals to the base instincts in us, those instincts that would have us hate rather than love or try to love, those instincts that would have us exclude rather than include others, those instincts that compel us to be selfish, narcissistic, self-involved, arrogant, proud, superficial, lazy, and ultimately unintelligent while screaming 'I know it all'. This is the complete opposite of how we were raised as Christians. I have no use for priests and clerics who praise Trump for his pro-life stance while ignoring his support for white supremacy, racism, poor business ethics, greed, lack of respect for women, and other such issues. He is no role model in any of those areas, and no role model for children. And yet, he is held up as a good role model on church pulpits across America because he is (claims to be) anti-abortion. I'm sorry to say that those who promote him are at best, misinformed. His philosophies and way of living bear little resemblance to the Christianity we were taught to practice.
In any case, a Facebook member (Nick Velander) posted the following statements made by Trump back when the government shut down under Obama. Can you feel the hypocrisy in these quotes? Can you feel the 'do as I say not as I do'? Aren't we waiting for Trump to say these quotes are 'false news'? Because if he says they are, the Trumpers will believe it. We are living in strange times. I have come to believe that we are moving toward dangerous times, and I take nothing for granted anymore.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Obama's complaints about Republicans stopping his agenda are BS since he had full control for two years. He can never take responsibility." - Sept. 26, 2012 - Donald Trump - Twitter
"Does any Republican have the ability to negotiate?" - Jan 2, 2013 - Donald Trump - Twitter
"Just shows that you can have all the cards and lose if you don’t know what you’re doing." - January 3, 2013 - Donald Trump - Twitter
"FACT – the reason why Americans have to worry about a government shutdown is because Obama refuses to pass a budget." - Aug 9, 2013 01:33:39 PM - Donald Trump
"My sense is that people are far angrier at the President than they are at Congress re the shutdown—an interesting turn!" 2:05 PM - 7 Oct 2013 - Donald Trump - Twitter
"Congress must pass a budget and hold Obama to it. No more continuing resolutions and no more excuses. Republicans soon hold both houses." 12:00 PM - 3 Dec 2014 - Donald Trump - Twitter
Mostly, we need a president who appeals to the best nature in people. The current president does not. He appeals to the base instincts in us, those instincts that would have us hate rather than love or try to love, those instincts that would have us exclude rather than include others, those instincts that compel us to be selfish, narcissistic, self-involved, arrogant, proud, superficial, lazy, and ultimately unintelligent while screaming 'I know it all'. This is the complete opposite of how we were raised as Christians. I have no use for priests and clerics who praise Trump for his pro-life stance while ignoring his support for white supremacy, racism, poor business ethics, greed, lack of respect for women, and other such issues. He is no role model in any of those areas, and no role model for children. And yet, he is held up as a good role model on church pulpits across America because he is (claims to be) anti-abortion. I'm sorry to say that those who promote him are at best, misinformed. His philosophies and way of living bear little resemblance to the Christianity we were taught to practice.
In any case, a Facebook member (Nick Velander) posted the following statements made by Trump back when the government shut down under Obama. Can you feel the hypocrisy in these quotes? Can you feel the 'do as I say not as I do'? Aren't we waiting for Trump to say these quotes are 'false news'? Because if he says they are, the Trumpers will believe it. We are living in strange times. I have come to believe that we are moving toward dangerous times, and I take nothing for granted anymore.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Obama's complaints about Republicans stopping his agenda are BS since he had full control for two years. He can never take responsibility." - Sept. 26, 2012 - Donald Trump - Twitter
"Does any Republican have the ability to negotiate?" - Jan 2, 2013 - Donald Trump - Twitter
"Just shows that you can have all the cards and lose if you don’t know what you’re doing." - January 3, 2013 - Donald Trump - Twitter
"FACT – the reason why Americans have to worry about a government shutdown is because Obama refuses to pass a budget." - Aug 9, 2013 01:33:39 PM - Donald Trump
"My sense is that people are far angrier at the President than they are at Congress re the shutdown—an interesting turn!" 2:05 PM - 7 Oct 2013 - Donald Trump - Twitter
"Congress must pass a budget and hold Obama to it. No more continuing resolutions and no more excuses. Republicans soon hold both houses." 12:00 PM - 3 Dec 2014 - Donald Trump - Twitter
Monday, January 15, 2018
The old films and strong roles for women
I continue to buy the classic old films of my parents’
generation, i.e., films from the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. I am enjoying
watching them, and I must say that the roles written for women in the 1940s and
1950s often had real substance. These roles showed women as owners of companies,
business leaders and managers—in other words—career women—in short, that they
could be married and have children, and be career women at the same time. They
could also play hussies, whores, mean-spirited women, ruthless business women,
but they did not have to take off their clothes to prove anything to anyone. Barbara
Stanwyck, Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Gene Tierney; Katherine Hepburn; these
women were not taking off their clothes for the movies in which they starred. The
explanation is likely that the Motion Picture Production Code at that time in
society prohibited nudity, rape, gory violence, erotic sex scenes, etc. This
Code was the set of industry moral guidelines that was applied to most United
States motion pictures released by major studios from 1930 to 1968. Prior to
that time, there were a fair amount of films made that tested the limits of
decency. The Production Code, which was minimally enforced during the 1960s,
was replaced by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) film rating
system in 1968. I started to go to the movies in the 1970s when I was a
teenager, and as I have written about before, there was not all that much
censorship of nudity and violence in the films we could see at that time. Pretty
much anything ‘went’. I remember the first time I saw nudity onscreen; it was
in Alfred Hitchcock’s Frenzy (1972).
I was sixteen at the time, old enough to get into the film without parental
guidance. It was a bit shocking as I remember, and even years later, I find the
film quite lurid. It is not one of the Hitchcock films that comes to mind when I
think of the repertoire of excellent films that have made him famous.
But back to the films of the 1940s and 1950s; I have to say
I find them refreshing for their lack of nudity and lack of graphic violence.
The subject matter could be quite grim—murder, betrayal, illicit love affairs, psychopathy,
mental illness, terminal illness, etc.—but it all seemed more stylized, not down and dirty. It
may be that this is a false representation of such subject matter, but in some
senses I prefer it because it allowed for more concentration on character
development and the psychological aspects of the characters involved. I think
of films like Dark Victory (1939), Now,
Voyager (1942), Mr. Skeffington (1944), Laura (1944), Mildred Pierce (1945),
Leave Her to Heaven (1945), The Strange
Love of Martha Ivers (1946), Adam’s Rib (1949), The Night of the Hunter (1955),
and Lust for Life (1956), to name
a few. Some of these are noir films,
i.e., ‘stylish Hollywood crime dramas’, especially those that ‘emphasize
cynical attitudes and sexual motivations’ (from Wikipedia). I prefer these
kinds of films to the tawdry and explicit ones that came later. I guess I
realize as I get older that I don’t want to see murder in all its gory details;
it’s enough to see that someone shoots another person without all the blood and
gore. Nowadays, there can be twenty shootings in a criminal drama and at some
point you become inured to the blood and gore, which is not a good thing. I can
recommend the above-mentioned films as excellent examples of film-making and
cinematography. Many are also wonderful examples of films with strong solid
roles for women, e.g. Mr. Skeffington
(Bette Davis), Laura (Gene Tierney), Mildred Pierce (Joan Crawford), Leave Her to Heaven (Gene Tierney), The Strange Love of Martha Ivers
(Barbara Stanwyck), and Adam’s Rib
(Katherine Hepburn). I’ve yet to see some of Barbara Stanwyck’s other films;
the same is true for Katherine Hepburn and Joan Crawford. I’m looking forward
to doing so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)