To be removed!

This time the blog entry could be about anything. So I decided to write about the fact that I am soon to be "removed"! That I could actually read in an e-mail this morning from a moving company agent. He will visit us and make an estimate how much it will cost to move our, my families, belongings back to our house in Sweden. It is not the issue as such that I got hooked up on but the choice of the word "removed". My first interpretation of it was in the sense "taken away". This sort of hit a soft spot because that is actually what it feels like for me at the moment. Our days here in Columbus are soon over and it feels sad because we have really come to enjoy life here.

My intention is not to complain about "moving back", which is the actual meaning of "remove" in this context. To go back to Sweden is what I want. But I have to admit it feels more difficult to leave than I originally thought. Back at home I will probably miss some of the people that I have met here, the rather uncomplicated everyday life, the warm weather and the smiles. Why do we in Sweden have to look so indifferent, or even grumpy, all the time?

Before we moved from Sweden, during a preparatory course, we were actually told that we should expect the repatriation more difficult than moving out. Now I think I am starting to understand that. To start with, now I leave a place I considered as home and I am not supposed to come back. Secondly I move to, or am "reinserted" in, a place where I am used to know how everything works but that is not the case anymore. You sort of expect it to be the same as when we left but surely people and how certain things are done have changed and we have changed too. Another thing that we were told to be prepared for was that when asked the question "-So, how has it been, living over there?" We have, on an average, twenty seconds to tell our story. After that the interest fades. So I have begun to think about that, but it is so hard to decide where to start..!

The Queen!

The most recent film I have seen in its entirity was "The Queen". The Queen in question is Elisabeth II of Great Britain. The film is a portrayal of Elisabeth during the time following the death of Princess Diana.

The Queen is pictured as mostly governed by old protocols stating how a sovereign of the United Kingdom should act and behave towards her, or his, subjects. When Diana, the former Princess of York, is killed in a car accident in Paris these old protocols are put to a test. And it turns out they are not really applicable in a modern Britain where the Royal family has lost most of its former glory but still remain very dear and important to its fellow countrymen. The behavior of the queen, and of the whole royal family, during this crisis does not meet the need or expectations of the British people. Instead it is the, at the time, newly elected Prime Minister Tony Blair that rises as a leader. It is his influence that makes the Queen finally find a way to publicly approach the people and consolidate her position. If she had not been able to do that the whole monarchy in Britain had been in jeopardy. So it turns out rather awkwardly that it is a labor party prime minister that is the one saving the monarchy.

Since the film is not a documentary you cannot really know how much of the story that is made up. This I think is the big weakness of the film. You recognize the frame story, with the car crash of Princess Diana and remember the huge drifts of flowers in front of Buckingham Palace, but apart from that you do not know what is true and what is fiction. However Helen Mirren's portrayal of the Queen is done really delicately and that makes the story appear really genuine. Her skillful presentation rendered her an Oscar for "Best actress 2006".

I enjoyed the film and thought it was interesting, even though I am not a big fan of royalties or scandal chronicles. Somehow you got concerned with Elisabeth and felt sorry on her behalf because of her inability to adjust to a modern society and to allow her self to show some humanity.

The State of the planet

Reading scientific articles and watching reports on TV regarding the state of the planet makes me deeply concerned and worried. The predictions from scientist are really omnious. I often even feel that the ruin of the planet is so close that it is impossible to stop.

Considering how poor most people in the world are I think it will take a lot to turn things around. The poor countries, which have huge populations, of course want the same possibilities as the rich countries. The authorities in these countries do not want to impose to hard regulations on their own domestic industries. Why should not they have the same possibilities to get going as the established industrialized countries have had? It is, or it ought to be, easy for us in the rich part of world to try and limit our pollution and consumption. We have sort of come past the survival limit and can have the luxury to try and perfect our processes, means of transportation and to minimize waste. Some people do not have anything to waste! Somehow the rich countries, besides looking after things within their own borders, must support the poor countries so that they also can improve their living conditions but in an environmental friendly way.

One rich country that is very influential is of course the US. But when it comes to environmental issues its influence has not been positive. For the moment I live in the Midwest of the US and it is sad to see how little they are working with these issues here.
The lifestyle here is conservative in many ways. However conservative does not apply when it comes to consumption. Shopping is a way of life. We have huge stores and you really do not understand where everything goes. How can they sell so much stuff?
In the other end of consumption we have the waste issue and a year ago we got new trash totes. The new thing about them was really only that they enables automatic handling by the garbage truck. The interesting, or I should say scary, thing is that they are huge, about 45o liters and are emptied every week! Despite this many households cannot manage with only one of these huge containers! Before introducing these new trash totes some actually argued that it would be good to have smaller ones to encourage recycling. But the town mayor responded with the following:"- Well, recycling is a good thing in the ideal world. Trash is however a part of life." Sadly I do not think he is alone in his view of recycling and if prominent persons of a society makes these kinds of statements he really undermines the efforts to establish recycling.

We live in little town where many people commute to the closest big town, Indianapolis, but there are no possibilities to go there with public transportation you must go by car. To have a car here is considered life essential. Last week there actually where an article about a family who did not have a car and had a "terrible situation" since "They actually had to take all their groceries home on a bike." Having no car also meant walking to work since there are no buses going in that direction. The reason for the article was that they now had gotten a car from a charity organisation. It had been more interesting if the article had reported that the city now had a new route for the local bus.
I guess still the gas is much too cheap here, it is only about 4 SEK per litre. In order to change peoples attitude towards the car it must be more expensive. If they would put some more tax on the gas price the size of the cars would be smaller and people would be more interested in using alternative means for transportation.
Now many people here talks about that ethanol derived from corn should be a good alternative to oil as fuel for cars. But the main argument for corn seems to be that the US then would be more independent from the oil producing countries in the middle east. That it might be good for the environment is only a secondary benefit.

Finally, after telling you some of my local observations I would like to recommend the BBC produced serie of articles called "Planet under pressure". It is like a summary of all the problems we are facing in the world of today. Reading it is very informative but also so depressing that I feel my desire to do my part in improving the situation instead is impaired. However I try to shake that feeling off because I really hope we somehow can master this precarious situation.

Just another addicton!

I do not consider game addiction any different than any other addiction. It probably in some way fill a need in the life of the people who gets hooked up on it. Then some of these persons do not have the ability to limit themselves and it gets an abuse.

I have never heard the terms MMOG or WOW before even though I have heard a little bit of these kind of games. I guess that they are really absorbing and fun to play once you get in to it. I have played simpler kinds of video- and computer games and although they were not at all this technically advanced they were also kind of "addictive". Once you started you should try "only one more time" since you might be able to improve this or that. Suddenly you realized that time just had flown away! I however do not miss this time consuming hobby and have no plans to take it up.

What drives bloggers?

Blogging was a completely new thing for me when starting this course in English. I had heard the term mentioned but not bothered to look into it. This since I in my spare time have chosen to limit my time in front of the computer. I think it will take some time before I start a blog that is "genuinely mine".

However, what have I found to be characterizing a blogger? Judging by the vast flora of topics that are discussed in a web log the blogger could be anyone. But still I think that bloggers have two typical features. First they have a stronger urge than others to be heard, to share and exchange knowledge, ideas and opinions with others. Secondly they consider Internet as the most convenient and useful medium to do so.

But what is then the actual trigger to start a blog? I guess the reasons could be many. The first that comes to my mind is that you would like to share your opinions with others and feel that the immediate surrounding is not enough. You would like to extend further to receive more and different input. Then a blog is a good way to communicate.
It seems to be rather common that celebrities, journalists and others that also have the opportunity to speak their mind in newspapers and other media also start blogs. The reason for this I think is the more informal and direct publishing. In a blog they can elaborate more than they are allowed to do on TV or in an newspaper article since there you have a limited time or a certain amount of lines that you can fill. In the blog you can ramble on as you like with no editors or producers to set the limits! But also, of course, it must be really interesting to get their readers reactions more directly than what is the case if you express yourself in TV, newspaper or a magazine.
I also get the impression that in certain circles it is sort of "hip" to have a blog. Here it is the actual blogging that is the purpose not the content. They strive to add interesting effects and to get a really stylish design. This group are more interested in blogging in a technical sense but somehow they any way fit into my description of a typical blogger; they want to share their interest and are also eager to receive others reactions.

Why I study at the university?

The main reason that I now study at the university is to be able to keep my job!
Now two and a half years ago my husband, that works for Scania, got an offer to work for a three year period in the US. At that moment I where on parental leave, from my job at Astrazeneca, so I considered moving here as an opportunity to spend even more time with my children. The first six months here in Indiana I was on parental leave, then I got study leave for the rest of the three year period.
A prerequisite to keep my employment is that I study half time. That is quite a lot for me considering that raising kids here demand a lot of the parents, or actually I should say the mother. So that is the reason I chose to study on the Internet. That way I do not have to have a certain schedule to fit with my kids activities. But I think it would have been more interesting to attend some university classes locally. Then I would have had more social interaction.

However during this time my studies has grown more important to me than just enabling me to keep my employment. It gives me challenges, something important that is my own responsibility and I think it adds on to my competence. If I had not studied I think I would have felt more restless and had a harder time getting used to live like this.

Many years ago, after finishing my studies at technical college, I also studied at the university. The reason then was that I thought I needed a more specific and somewhat deeper education in order to get an interesting job. I chose to study a one year program at the university. The reason I chose this particular program was firstly that the subjects interested me, secondly it was really convenient because it was on the neighbouring campus from my college. That way I did not have to move. I also considered longer programs at other schools but I guess I have always been swaying about the question "What to do when I grow up?" So to choose this short program was what I could motivate myself to do at that point. After completing this program I immediately got a job and have been working in this field ever since.

In retrospective I suppose if I had invested in a longer education I would have had a broader field of job opportunities. Not giving myself that advantage I sometimes regret. But I have also learned that education is not the only factor that is influence what kind of job you get or how your career develops. It is also very much depending on opportunity and your own personality.

Entry no.5, The status of equality?

In this assignment I would like to reflect upon the equality between men and women in the society that you get a glimpse of in "Rendezvous with Rama", by Arthur C. Clarke. The plot of the novel is set in the year 2131, only 125 years from now. The story is about the exploration of an unknown interstellar spacecraft named "Rama".

The person most closely portrayed in the book is Bill Norton. As the Commander of Endeavour, the spacecraft summoned to Rama, he is in the center of this mind-boggling mission. He is a man in his fifties, a very successful and experienced astronaut. He is also a husband to two wives who lives on different planets. With the wife on Earth he has one child and with his Marsian wife he has two children. This kind of family constellation suggests that the relationship between man and woman has taken a step backwards to a more patriarchal society.

Although Commander Norton seems to be a fair and nice guy that respect everyone in his crew professionally, I think he shows some chauvinistic tendencies. As mentioned he has both wives and children but that does not stop him from having occasional sex with his female medical officer.
In the story you can also read about his theory that women with big breasts should not be allowed in zero gravity because it might cause distraction for their male fellow crew members. Has he ever paid attention to his own private parts being weightless, or perhaps they are not so impressive!
If I view Norton as a typical representative of the age there seems to be a dualism in how women are looked upon, very much as today. They might be respected professionally but still there is this gender, or even sexual, aspect that complicate things!

Aboard the spaceship Endeavour there is evidently both men and women. How many individuals there are in the crew do not seem to be described. However, I can find ten names of persons who somehow take part in different exploration missions. These crew members are the one's considered as the most competent, intelligent and physically fit. But only two of these are women.
This might be a reflection of a contemporary society where women do not have the same possibilities as men. On the other hand it might not, for some reason, be so desirable for women to work as astronauts even though they have the same possibilities as men. So maybe it is presumptuous to make such a conclusion.

The "Rama committee" which was formed to deal with the Rama crisis seems to consist of the science elite of the time. But there is only one woman included, Dr. Thelma Price. Among the ambassadors representing the different settlements of the United Planets no one appears to be female. So it seems the trend of today is preserved - i.e. women tend to be outnumbered by men when it comes to gaining top positions in society.

In think Arthur Clarke's description of the society in the year 2131 give a rather gloomy picture of the status of equality. In more than a hundred years nothing seems to have changed for the better. However since the author was not supposed to write a novel describing equality but an entertaining Science fiction story I am not so worried.