DIY Candy Gifts 2016

Hello world! I'm doing a gift post before January! I'm so happy, it's an accomplishment really. The joys of being a fourth year medical student. Anyways, this year I've tried using the phrase "holiday gifts" or "winter gifts" rather than Christmas gifts to be more inclusive to those people that don't celebrate Christmas. I don't, but I grew up celebrating "commercial Christmas" with my family, so we would always say Merry Christmas to people. I didn't think of the religious connotations till college when a friend of mine said, oh, I don't celebrate Christmas. So I tried switching my vocalizations to Winter Celebrations, or Happy Winter! It's a small correction, but it costs me nothing.

That's the thing, about "being PC" it's really just me saying that this thing that I'm doing/saying hurts/offends/excludes you, and it costs me nothing or very little to change, but it costs you a lot when you hear me say...make a joke about women, minorities, immigrants, etc. So I might as well change it. I don't understand the whole "our country is too PC" rhetoric that seems to have taken over some political stages. People are mad that they can't tell an off-color joke?

Frequently I find that people make hyperbolic examples to make their point that being "too PC" is a problem. For example it would not be unreasonable to hear someone say "Well, pink socks offend me/trigger me, so stop wearing them." This makes no sense not only because of the obvious hyperbole that usually the product of not being able to find a real example, but also because the issue of offensive jokes, etc is not that it affects one person, but rather an entire group of people that live a similar experience. Rather it seems like the polite, empathetic thing to do is to, when called out, think about why someone is saying they don't want you to tell that joke/say that thing/whatever else rather than just roll your eyes about having to "be too PC."

Now! On to these totally awesome DIY Winter gifts. During the winter months, no matter where you are, it gets colder...and for me that means time for hearty soups, casseroles, and candy.

So I figured what better way to help celebrate the coming of winter and the ringing in of the new year than with some simple to make candy that you can gift away to people!

Below are the recipes for: Chocolate spoons, Chocolate wreaths, and my personal favorite, the Sweet and savory toffee
Last year's DIY candy gifts can be found here.

Chocolate Spoons: A simple, but elegant gift you can give to your friends that they can use to sweeten up their morning coffee with or simply pop in their mouths for a pick me up. They're also lovely because you can decorate them any way you want.

What you need: Plastic spoons, bittersweet or semi-sweet chocolate (8-16 oz), toppings (marshmallow, sprinkles, cocoa nibs, peppermint pieces, more chocolate, toffee, etc.) 

Prep a baking sheet with parchment paper. Melt the chocolate in the microwave or double boiler. Dip just the spoon part of the spoons into the chocolate getting a good coating. Place the spoon on the parchment paper. Top it with whatever toppings you like. Place them in the fridge or freezer to cool, and then pack them up!

Chocolate Wreaths: Round pretzels (I used Utz that I bought from Costco), 16 oz chocolate, toppings (cocoa nibs, sprinkles, peppermint pieces, toffee) 

The key here is to buy pretzels that you'd want to eat just by themselves. If you buy pretzels that don't taste good, or are stale, you'll get beautiful wreaths that taste not so good.

Prep a baking sheet with parchment paper. Melt the chocolate in the microwave or in a double boiler. Add pretzels to the melted chocolate until you feel you've "saturated" the chocolate. You don't need each pretzel to have a thick coating, just enough that it coats it. Then give the pretzels a good toss in the chocolate. I used a spatula to do them. Then one by one, using a fork, pull out the pretzels and lay them on the parchment paper. After a row is done, go back and add the topping to your "wreath." Tossing the pretzels and using the fork adds a texture to the chocolate that makes it look more "wreath" like.

Savory and sweet toffee: This is my favorite. In fact I'm munching on some now as I write this. It's exactly the same recipe that I used last year for the Pretzel Toffee but instead of pretzels I used saltines and I definitely prefer the saltines. Seriously, make this. It's so easy -- you don't need a candy thermometer, you don't need anything fancy, you just need the ingredients, a baking sheet, and some parchment paper.

What you need: 1 cup salted butter, 8oz chocolate, 1 cup light or dark brown sugar, salt, toppings (cocoa nibs, marshmallows, sprinkles, chia seeds)

Preheat oven to 350F. Line a 9x13 baking sheet with parchment paper. If you don't have 9x13, use what you have and modify the recipe. Line the parchment paper with saltines. It doesn't have to be pretty, it just have to cover the bottom.

Then in a saucepan, heat up the butter and the sugar until it melts down and turns into a toffee. Should take about 2 minutes, watch it so it doesn't get too dark, you don't want it to burn. 

Then pour it carefully on top of the saltines, and spread it out. Don't worry if it doesn't cover everything, it'll spread in the oven. Put it in the oven for 8-10 minutes. Check to make sure it's not burning at 8 minutes. Pull it out, let it cool for a minute or two, then pour the 8oz of chocolate/chocolate chips on top.The heat from the toffee with the melt the chocolate. Spread it around in a thin layer.

 Then put your toppings on top! This year I went for a "messy" look, and mixed cocoa nibs, marshmallows, salt, chia seeds, and sprinkles on top. Pop it in the freezer for an hour to let it cool, then break it into pieces by hand and eat it or package it up to go! 

Global Sympathy

It's been hard to be on social media for the past few days. There is so much discussion about the attacks in Paris and its devastating effects, but only trickles of discussion about the attacks in Lebanon that happened just the day before. Then there are the few discussions shaming those who attempt to point out the difference, as though we have only enough compassion for one group of people. These conversations go on and on and on, and it pushed me away. In a time of devastation and horror, who wants to read that other human beings that they know closely or peripherally believe that more guns could have saved Parisian lives? That the wave of refugees was obviously to blame? The same refugees who were trying to escape this type of violence that was sadly all too common in their lives. And then there people who cheer on Rob Lowe and Scott Baio's nuggets which all but blame the refugees.

There were massive terrorist attacks only a few days apart, and the differential response and media coverage is shocking and sickening. Why? Is it that all Middle Eastern countries blend together? Or that violence in these non-Western countries is just expected? Is it that Brown lives matter less? Or that it just doesn't affect us, and when Western lives are shaken, well that just hits closer to home. I'm genuinely asking why. It has to be a mix of the above.

I've had people tell me that you can't be devastated by every sad thing that happens. I agree -- it would be just too overwhelming. But the juxtaposition of these two terrorist attacks shows the divergent response we have to terrorism depending on where and whom it hits. Why then, when terror strikes in the Western world, do we immediately deplore the people who were running from the same terror? Why can we not see past our tragedy-born hate and recognize that the actions of a few deranged people does not define 1.8 billion Muslims? Why is the response not compassion for the people of France, Lebanon, and the refugees running from a homeland saturated with terror?

I am genuinely sad. Sad that we live in a world where safety is a privilege, sad that so many people are being mindless murdered for politics, sad that there is a differential response in lives lost, and sad that we have come to accept this level of violence as the new normal. But I'm also scared. I'm scared for people that look like me, with my skin color, who wear clothing that marks their cultural or religious backgrounds. I'm scared for the refugees who lost or left their homes to escape the terrorism that permeated their country.

Let us have global sympathy for Paris, for Lebanon, and for the refugees.  

Strange Fruit in the Friendly Toast

I finished my OB/GYN exam. Now it's 6 down, 2 to go and I have a weekend off. A weekend I have thus far spent going to my medical school formal, lying in bed reading this book all day, making butternut squash gnocci in a brown butter sage sauce adapted from this recipe with blistered shisito peppers and a butternut squash ginger bisque, talking to my mom, doing my nails in a lovely black color, and wrapping my mind around an event that happened at the Friendly Toast in Cambridge on Friday.

The Friendly Toast is a wonderful beacon of off-beat hipsterness in Kendall Square that serves delicious breakfast/brunch food with amazing waffles, interesting breakfast plates, and unconventional drinks. So unconventional that one of their drinks is called "Strange Fruit."

I don't remember exactly what went into the drink, because I couldn't entirely believe what I was seeing. Strange Fruit, a poem written by Abel Meerpol and immortalized into a song by Billie Holiday and later Nina Simone. Strange Fruit, a song of protest and grief so deep and palpable that I can't quite wrap my mind around it.

Southern Trees bear a strange fruit

Blood on the leaves and blood on the root

Black bodies swingin' in the Southern breeze

Strange fruit hangin' from the poplar trees

Pastoral scene of the gallant south

The bulgin' eyes and the twisted mouth

Scent of magnolias sweet and fresh

Then the sudden smell of burnin' flesh

Here is a fruit for the crows to pluck

For the rain to gather, for the wind to suck

For the sun to rot, for the tree to drop

Here is a strange and bitter crop

A song that should never, ever, ever be the name of a fruity drink, especially in a restaurant that purports to be a liberal hipster beacon in the heart of one of the most academic cities in the country and near a city that has an enormously problematic racial history.

But I am aware that not everyone knows of the song, and after looking at the menu for a few moments and repeating, "wow, that's offensive. wow, that is offensive. wow, that is offensive" I decided to bring it to my waiter's attention. Perhaps they didn't know? Perhaps, in their self-righteous, racially-privileged positions they just didn't know what the song was about and didn't hear about the Strange Fruit PR firm debacle of 2014. Maybe. 

We ordered our food and I brought it up to our waiter saying, the drink name is offensive as the song is about black bodies swinging from trees (the strange fruit) and naming a drink after it is repackaging domestic terrorism into a pretty picture. The (white) man looked genuinely taken back, and for a moment there was a glimmer of hope. Maybe they didn't know. Maybe they thought, huh, fun name, we are strange, and we like fruit -- boom. Maybe...not. 

The short of the story -- after bringing it up and asking him to take it to his manager or whomever the drink menu maker is, he repeatedly returned to our table to "discuss" the issue. It started out as him saying he had never heard the song and what a horrible tragedy it is that people continue to face racism, and then eventually morphed into telling me, 'you know, we just have have to see the positive light of things, the drink was supposed pay respect to a great singer, and well, there's a positive light. Try looking at it from a positive' Oh yes, I should just see things in a positive light. How could I forget? 

Some highlights, 'we can't take down everything that offends anyone in the restaurant. What about that picture [a picture of a man holding two animals on a leash], is it animal cruelty? Should we take it down if someone is offended by it?' Yep, hanging black bodies and animal cruelty are quite similar in that black people were treated as sub-human. And some extra verses of 'I'm sorry you're offended, I'm sorry you're offended, look, I'm sorry it offends you,' telling us it was inappropriate to bring it up with a waiter and we should e-mail our "concerns," and then ignoring us when we said we didn't want to have this conversation anymore. Multiple times. 

The bar manager came over, apologized for the waiter, and reiterated that the drink was meant to be
an homage to Billie Holiday and not meant to be offensive. 

Then why not name the drink, "Summertime" or "Fine and Mellow" or "Crazy He Calls Me" or any number of other songs she sang. Why that song in particular? Why select a song that was sung with anger, sorrow, and fearful fearlessness the depth of which many of us cannot possibly understand today? Because you're trying to be edgy? Controversial? Because it's a cute name and who would notice a 1939 song on a drink menu given that the majority of your clientele is well-to-do white folk? 

I truly don't believe that anyone at The Friendly Toast made a conscious decision to name a beverage after lynching. I think they just didn't think about it, and that's the problem. They didn't think about what it would be like for a black person to read that on the drink menu, the bile-rising horror of reading and re-reading the name that evokes hanging black bodies and radically appropriating it into a blend of liquor. They didn't think about it because they didn't have to. A few generations back, most of their ancestors were not owned, sold, and brutalized. They may look at Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice and get upset, support the protests, and say 'man that's horrible, when is it going to end?' but stop before they try to truly empathize enough to understand what it could feel like for someone who is black to hear, "I'll have a strange fruit" or "the strange fruit is a great." 

I am tired of people telling me to see the "positive light" in microaggressions (unintended discrimination) as though somehow the lack of malicious intent makes it all better. I get it, no one likes being told something they did is offensive, but demanding that people of color stop being offended and just "try to see the positive" is dismissive, demeaning, and halts progress. It infantilizes and diminishes the value of how a group of people feel, which is racist. Always remember that racism can exist without racial animosity. 

It is critical that people open themselves up to the uncomfortable sensations of discussing race and microaggressions, particularly in "liberal beacons" like Cambridge where most people (who are not people of color) don't expect racism and don't see microaggressions. So please, if you are white and a person of color tells you something is offensive -- fight down the urge to defend because you didn't mean it and just listen and digest. Ruminate on it and grow yourself because "standing your ground" isn't going to get us very far. 

I will not be going back to The Friendly Toast as long as that drink is on the menu, and I ask that if you live in Cambridge or Portsmouth, please consider finding somewhere else to enjoy a delicious breakfast. Though the owners may feel that "inclusive" is the word that best describes their restaurant, their drink menu and staff say otherwise. 

UPDATE 2/10/2015: According to Friendly Toast's facebook page, they will be removing the drink from their menu. I'm not sure when, but thank you to everyone who tweeted and retweeted and shared this blogpost, and who joined in on the desire for change -- we may have made a small but real difference! Thank you Friendly Toast -- issuing a formal recognition and apology would be better, as in a separate post on your facebook page rather than a response to a comment but I'll take changing the name. I'll update again if they actually do remove the drink!

UPDATE PART 2, 2/10/2015: A post from Cambridge Day about removing the drink name.

UPDATE PART 3, 2/10/2015: Friendly Toast issued an apology and is removing the drink name from the menu. I appreciate that they listened to the multitude of voices calling for action and I look forward to eating their in the future. Thank you again.

"But You're Married" : My thoughts on sexism

Over the course of the next year I doubt I will have much time to write. Not just to write notes for patients, or the occasional cooking post, but to really think about social constructs, political mishaps, cultural norms, etc. and put my thoughts to paper, or e-paper as it were, in a constructed, polished fashion. So for the most part I'll abstain from writing. We'll see though.

But before I stop clicking away entirely, I have one thought I wanted to share about the phrase: "but you're married." Over the course of the short time we have been married, multiple people have said that to me, usually in the context of a comment I make about someone else's good looks. Over the course of the short time we have been married zero people have said that to my husband, but multiple people have asked him why is he married? Looking at these two statements a little closer, it is not hard to make the jump that...

1. Why are you married? (to my husband) = why are you married when you could be out there livin' it up with the ladies.

2. You're married. (to me) = you're married, so therefore your eyes belong to your husband alone.

I don't think I have to discuss the sexist nature of the first question, other than to say I have only rarely gotten that question and when I have it has been wondering if I did it for tax purposes or a green card.

On to the second, and potentially more problematic, point. Now the obvious and defensive response to this is that I'm looking too closely at a benign statement, or it's just people being surprised that I might say "damn that guy is hot!" when I'm married.

Regarding the first explanation, that I am looking too closely for a problem that is not there, I say that in the world we live in now it is the insidious statements that can be the most damaging. It is the unintended hidden meaning behind the sentence that we can fail to realize, allowing subconscious sexism to slip into our actions. Looking closely at a sentence and saying it is problematic is not to suggest it is malevolence-driven, but to call attention to problems deeply ingrained in our society and ourselves that we must fix.

When a person gets married, do they lose their ability to see? Is the only thing that makes a marriage or partnership solid willful blindness to other physical attractiveness around you? Is the depth of your love and devotion to your partner reflected in whether or not you find someone else good to look at? And most importantly -- why is that my husband does not receive comments like this, but I do?

The implication of this, with a little mental processing, is that by getting married I signed on to an asymmetrical contract wherein he owns the entirety of my female sexuality -- including my ability to comment on the attractiveness of others. As such, men (most frequently but not exclusively) feel the need to remind me that I signed on to this binding contract by saying, "but you're married" in a mildly disapproving or scandalized tone.

From there, it is inferable that female sexuality is still something we as a society have not fully come to terms with. After years of bra-burning, birth control having, voting rights supporting feminism, we have reached new heights for women's rights, but it is clear that the jezebel-construct still underlies much of our social discourse. While seemingly innocuous, "reminding me" that I am married has the dual effect of shaming me for what I said and thought while making clear my husband's ownership.

This is another facet of modern-day sexism. It is not always in your face women-can't-drive-or-work comments, it is simple reminders, or shocked tones. If we accept these comments at face value, we will ultimately fail to move forward in our fight (and yes, it is still a fight) for equal rights on all grounds. It may be uncomfortable, but we must fight for equal footing on sexuality, or we will never really be equal.

So the next time you hope to remind me that I'm married, I can assure you that I happily remember, and I would ask that you reflect on why it is that you felt the need to say that. Hopefully, in doing so, you can realize any internal biases you may hold and help the next generation of young women step into a more fair world. 

Articles of the Day

So I got up wicked early this morning and have had the time to read to some super interesting articles...hope y'all enjoy!

Losing My Leg to a Medical Error -- super interesting, A. Because I'm going to be a doctor and B. because this is a real problem that the Affordable Care Act can hopefully prevent by reward quality instead of quantity for physicians and creating Accountable Care Organizations. It also reminds me of my own experience when I was in the hospital a few years back.

Strengthening Reproductive Rights in NY -- I found it fascinating that "...Mississippi, Arkansas, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming have made state [abortion] laws so restrictive that each of these states has just a single abortion provider. Some states could soon have no abortion services at all." This is so weird to think about, particularly when I think about the gentleman in Texas who truly argued that women's rights are were a moot point now, since we're completely equal. Ha.

Her Mom Abandoned Her When She Found Out She Was a Girl, Now She Could Run A Country This is in the same vein as the last one, but it's a video from a Daily Show interview. Very powerful and moving. To those who have entirely given up on Afghanistan, it shows how far people have come and how much support they still need. You can't birth a child raise it for 5 years and call it good. We need to keep this country in our minds because great or terrible things can happen.


Use of the Morning After Pill is On the Rise -- an interesting article that talks about birth control statistics and breaks it down by ethnicity. In terms of people using the morning after pill more--fantastic! The increase is in young women, in their early 20s. My thoughts -- people make mistakes, Plan B shouldn't be your primary form of birth control, but if you make a mistake, it's good to know it's there and you can rectify it. Another thing--I was surprised that only 57% of Asian women reported using birth control at all, and I wonder how much a role culture plays in that--in terms of being anti-sex, sometimes to a fault. Interesting.


That's all for now folks!

For the Sake of Truth, Part 3: People Do Die from Lack of Insurance

Previously known as On the Offensive...I've been posting these on facebook, but decided to switch it over to my blog.

Fact:  On Wednesday October 10th, Mitt Romney said that people don't die from lack of health insurance.

"We don't have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don't have insurance. We don't have a setting across this country where if you don't have insurance, we just say to you, 'Tough luck, you're going to die when you have your heart attack.' No, you go to the hospital, you get treated, you get care, and it's paid for, either by charity, the government or by the hospital."

Fact: Absolutely correct. As a future physician, I am not going to turn a person away from medical care they need. So yes, if you show up to a hospital ER, you will get treatment.

Will it be preventative? By definition, no.

Will it be long-term? Be definition, "emergency," no. 

Will it be expensive? Yes. Not everyone that comes into the ER can pay their bills. That cost gets shifted on to the other patients by raising costs on their insurance companies (hence why a Tylenol pill costs $7 at the hospital). In turn, the insurance companies raise premiums on their customers. 

Fact: People do die because of lack of health insurance. If you have insurance, you are more likely to go to a doctor, to catch illnesses ahead of time, to treat them before it becomes out of control. Think: heart disease, diabetes...diseases that are prevalent in communities that are a part of poor communities that usually do not have health insurance. Tell them that not having health insurance does not lead to death, and a painful death.

Opinion: Gov. Romeny goes around saying people need to have "personal responsibility" for their actions. I agree, but do we punish someone so severely by taking away the quality of their life if they make the silly mistake of not purchasing health insurance, or worse, not being able to afford health insurance? No. We are a first world country. We are socially advanced. We are a nation that takes care of each other, especially when others can't take care of themselves. 

His comments are a hallmark of an individual who has not had any experience with or even taken the time to reflect on the condition of people who don't have health insurance. It's really hard to imagine it unless you really, really try, or see it and experience it first or second-hand. This is not an individual who should be making policy. 

Opinion Why does not expanding insurance matter as much to him? Because the people who need it the most are the 47% that are not important Americans to him--they will not vote for him anyways. 

Educate yourself before you vote. 

Articles: 

Death by Ideology -- Paul Krugman, NYTimes

A Possibly Fatal Mistake, Nicholas Kristof, NYTimes

Romney: People Don't Die From Lack of Insurance, NPR

What Teach for America Gave Me

I meant to write this all summer. In fact, I meant to write this before I left San Antonio, Texas--my Teach for America home for 2 years after college. But for some reason, I just never did until I happened to see this article on the NYTimes setting up the debate about the effectiveness of TFA.

When I joined Teach for America in 2010 in the San Antonio Charter Corps, I knew I would be leaving for medical school in 2 years. I knew that TFA was notoriously difficult because of the high expectations placed on its corps members and the situation they were placed in.

Coming right out of college, wide-eyed and idealistic, it's a bit of a shock to go into a classroom prepared to pull a "Stand and Deliver" moment, only to be completely unsure of what to do when a student starts yelling racial slurs across the room, and another picks up a chair looking to throw it.

But how could I enter the world of medicine, saying I wanted to effect a change in health policy and work with the underserved population, when my experiences were primarily in volunteering? I did Teach for America because I knew it would give me perspective on the social, economic, cultural, and academic impacts of American poverty. In return, I could provide 2 years of my dedicated, unrelenting effort to my students as a science teacher.

I was provided about 6 weeks of in-class training, and then training throughout the school year about being at teacher. Most people, especially those who did semester or year long in-class training, gawk at that. How can you possible learn to drive an effective classroom in that amount of time? The answer is simple: you can't. I didn't, and I doubt anyone does. But what it gave me was a template of how to prepare lesson plans, focus on academic achievement, and set high standards for my students. More importantly, it slapped the wide-eyed innocence right out of me. It showed me what I would have to do, gave me the tools on how to handle it, and sent me off--trembling from excitement and a healthy dose of fear of failure.

But that's why Teach For America has a rigorous selection process. It's not all a numbers game: it's about leadership. After all -- what are you if not the leader, commander, and director of your classroom? Though it is not fool proof, it does effectively recruit people who are goal-driven, hard workers and will not give up at the first, second, third, or fourteenth failure.

I gave everything I could to my students over the 2 years that I worked for San Antonio Independent School District. I promised them I would teach them Biology, and I did. I promised them I would get them above and beyond passing the state Biology exam, and for most, I did. I promised them I would never give up on them, and I didn't. People often ask me if I feel that I made an actual impact on my students' lives--and I'm honestly not sure. I can tell you that there are students that will never remember, and students that will always remember me. I can tell that I had the opportunity to work with children to take them from knowing very little about Biology, to being conversational in basic Biology by the end of the year. I can tell them that I made students feel, and therefore be, smart. But a lasting impact? Only time will tell.

But my time with them gave me more. From an educational standpoint, TFA has made an education advocate out of me for life. I have internalized the impact that schools can have on students even when communities and families are struggling. I understand what it is like to be a teacher in an over-crowded underfunded classroom. And I know now what it's like to want to help your students so badly, but face a seemingly insurmountable sociocultural and political barriers. Education is no longer the great equalizer in our country, I see that clearer than ever, and I will work to ensure that changes.

From a medical standpoint, starting my future-physician career, I am more aware of how the world works. I can not only identify the socioeconomic determinants of health and health care delivery, but I have seen and internalized them. Two years gave me the time and experience to look at my school community broadly and learn why my students and their families make some of the choices they do, both helpful and harmful. I believe it has given me the beginnings of insight into what could be implementable and effective in these communities to better health outcomes. Or I could be wrong, but at the very least it has fueled my desire to learn more and push my career in medicine towards community health care and closing our health outcomes gap.

Do I think Teach for America is the answer to our educational woes? No, it's a very big band-aid on the wound that is our bleeding education system. I never took TFA for the answer--but rather a program that will push people who normally wouldn't be interested in education (either because of the extraordinarily low pay or the lack of respect the profession can engenders, or both) and change that,  making them more aware of the problem. TFA alums, no matter where we go, either staying in education or moving on to a different career, will always have our students and our experience in the back of our minds, consciously or subconsciously influencing our actions.

So back to my main point--what TFA has given me. It's given me a direction. A direction I was tentatively leaning towards after college, but now am barreling towards in medical school. A direction I can only hope will be worth the high monetary investment in my teacher training and classroom, and will help to shape the communities I was privileged enough to work in for 2 years. 

Medical School Starts With White

So it's been a while. Mostly because in the past few weeks after getting back from Paris, we've been running around like chickens with our heads just barely still attached.

We ran to IKEA, bought all of our furniture, built all of said furniture, dealt with an IKEA delivery mishap (they forgot to deliver one piece of furniture), unpacked all of our stuff, went on a trip to Hawaii (awesome!), came back, painted the apartment, cooked food for a month to feed us, went to Acadia (awesome!), came back, finished unpacking, and oh yeah...started medical school.

Ziplining in Kauai

A morning swim. Tyler and Adele. 

Our jam-packed apartment! 

My dad and I picked blueberries in Maine!

Hiking in Acadia

Surreal

Typical

More Hiking!

Love and a red hat :-)

My lovely sister in law and her frog

After a life time of dreams, moments of wavering fears, and still completely unsure of what's to come, I am now a medical student. Not a pre-med. Not a doctor. A medical student. A physician-in-training, as one of our professors put it.

One of the major events that most medical students in the US all experience is the "White Coat Ceremony." At the beginning of your medical school career (or in some cases, later) you are given a white coat by your school, signifying that you are now on the path to becoming a physician. Our coats are shorter than the actual doctor's coats, with a plastic name tag that we pin to our pockets, but they were significant none the less.

Cotton, slightly larger than expected, and white, they represented the culmination of the work we had all done to get to this place. The studying, the activism, the caring, the growth and maturation as individuals. But more importantly, the coat was humbling.

It's amazing that a piece of clothing humble you, but I should have known putting on a white coat would. I realized, or rather re-realized, that in a few short years, after my brain has been jammed packed with more information that I thought possible, people will be opening up their world to me. The life, the secrets, the illness, the pain, the happiness--all of it wrapped up into one person for me to care for. I became suddenly and uncomfortably aware of my ignorance. There is much to learn in the next four years, both in terms of the science and the humanity of medicine, before I really can touch my first patient. It is scary. But I am thankful for that time to learn, thankful for the support and guidance, and thankful I have seen my family go before me and do it well. I am not afraid.

So the white coat ceremony is done, my white coat is neatly put away, waiting to be taken out for my Introduction to Clinical Medicine class where I take my first steps talking to patients. Classes have started, and my time is spent primarily on concepts of Biochemistry and, soon, Anatomy. But every once in a while, when I open my closet and see my coat, and I get that tingly feeling of excitement for the day it becomes just a bit longer. 

Politics on vacation

Unsurprisingly, I have been avoiding writing about politics much on vacation. I have read about it, rolled my eyes at it, became over joyed by it, but definitely did not write about it. Why? Because I am in Paris. But there are things happening abound that must needs be discussed.

 

1. Justice Roberts restored some of my faith in the Supreme Court. He shook his fist at judicial activism and instead, a month before the decision was to be rendered, told his good friends Antonin, Clarence, and Anthony that they were going to be ridin' solo on this decision, since he wasn't going to allow petty partisianship to affect the decision that he, the Cheif Justice of the highest judicial body in all the land, would make. While I am a bit disheartened at just how happy I am that a conservative justice put the constitution above politics, I can rest easy knowing that America is on it's way to becoming a more morally correct country.

To those who oppose it: we will all use the health care system at least once in our lives. To ensure that our system can actually remain solvent, we must compel everyone to purchase health insurance, prior to actually being sick. This way, we can reduce the number of emergency-room-and-not-gonna-pay visits, allow for physicians to actually provide preventative health care to all (including the underserved population) while knowing that they're going to get paid, push our system to become more efficient and evidence-based, all the while increasing the health outcomes of our nation. More than that though--more people will be able to save money on their premiums, which will help overall. To those who think we should let people without insurance die on the side of the road: I hope a pigeon craps on your head.

 

2. Mitt Romney saying people should get as much education as they can afford. I completely agree with the sentiment--you're trying to say that people strive for higher education and spend their money on that. That being said, your idea of what people can "afford" is a bit skewed Mr. MoneyBags. Not everyone collects $200 dollars when they pass go. Most students and their families cannot "afford" to pay for any real higher education, that's why we have these things called grants and loans. As for your suggestion that people join the military and the government will cover the cost of your education--this is definitely not a feasible option for all those students in our country that cannot afford a higher education, nor is it ideal for all.

Also, the concept of, "if you're willing to serve, we can help you" as he puts it baffles me because increasing our rate of higher education IS serving--the more highly educated individual we have, the more economic output they can produce, the happier the general population will be. Either way, this further underscores my concern that Mr. Romney's childhood and subsequent life bathed in wealth has pushed him far out of touch with the "common man." So much so that the small bouts of volunteer work or interactions with the masses cannot mend the gaping hole in his understanding of the life the common folk. A man like this cannot be the President of the 99%.

My Mistake: Commentary on Douthat's latest article

Everyone makes mistakes. I made one today, I read the Ross Douthat column. My husband saw my hand making a increasingly taunt fist on the table, and immediately forwarded me a funny online comic.

I really shouldn't read them. It's not that I don't appreciate the other view, I do when it's well thought out and does not simply ignore reality. He claims Obama has ignored discussing unemployment rates and the economy in favor of discussing social issues. True, the past few weeks have been flooded with social debates, rather than commentary on the economy. Why though? Because the social issues have been forced to the forefront by the GOP, and what else is the President to do other than to respond? It is a campaign year, and it is a bit ridiculous to fault him for commenting on the numerous GOP foot-in-mouth moments (re: Rush Limbaugh calling a law student a slut).

Yes, social issues have taken over the news coverage greatly for the past few months. Many Republican pundits have lamented that we are talking about these "inferior" issues rather than the main issue facing America--the economy. I could not disagree more. While we are most certainly grappling with global economic crisis, we must never forget that it is more than the economy that affects citizen's lives--the social issues affect us everyday: access to health care, women's health, the ability to have your relationship federally recognized, freedom of speech no matter how repulsive, education allowing for social mobility, etc. These issues cannot be ignored, they are truly the foundation of our country and what makes us still the country where many people would (and do) walk through fire to live in.

Will the President address his economic policy and the unemployment rate in this country? Most certainly, after all, he will be forced to on the campaign trail. Do I think most Americans can understand that this is a global crisis, and it will take time, more than 4 years to pull us fully into the black again? Yes. Do I think most Americans will think we are better off now than in 2008, and realize that going back to Bush-era economic policies would be devastating? I sure hope so. But to endeavor to fault the President for responding to social issues that are critically important, well that is simply foolish and narrow-minded Mr. Douthat.

A lot

A lot has happened in the past few days. President Obama came out in favor of same-sex marriage, Tyler finished his final class at UTSA, my students took my Biology end of course (EOC) exam, and we went to a great restaurant.

I don't think I'll get to all that in this post. Let's take one thing at a time.

Today honestly felt like nothing I have ever experienced before. Watching my students take the EOC test was a moment that made me understand a little bit what parents probably feel towards their children--an overwhelming sense of pride. I saw them open up their test books, I saw them underline, highlight, star, cross off answers...use all the techniques I taught them. I saw them pick the right answers, I saw them get confused and pick the wrong answer. But they worked so hard, and I just couldn't help the smile plastered on my face for the first 30 minutes of class.

One student in particular, B, came to my tutoring since...February. Any time I had tutoring, she'd be there. During school, after school, heck, even once before school I think. And I was lucky enough to be testing with her today. I feel an unexpected attachment to her and a deep investment in how she did on the test. Just watching her circle the word transcription and write DNA --> mRNA on the paper was just enough to make me understand...remember, realize, why I did Teach For America. I taught her that. I did! Not any random thing, but me...up in the front of a class, coming up with lessons, teaching the general and nuances. Isn't that amazing to think about? If I didn't teach it, they didn't learn it. Sometimes the weight of responsibility becomes all too apparent. I am so proud to have been able to be her teacher, and well, a teacher to all my students--even the ones that make me want to tear my hair out.

There is an indescribable value to having good teachers in this world. Am I the best teacher? By far and away no. But I care about my students, invest time and effort, and if I were staying in the profession, I might I would get there. I hope that something can happen soon in terms of education reform to make it possible for all students to receive an equal and fair education by well trained teachers implementing best practices.

Either way, today has made me thankful, proud, and happy. I feel like I have accomplished something, even just a little. 

Why I Can't Vote for Romney

Even if I weren't a liberal, it's because he is beyond a flip-flopper: he is a liar. Maybe not on purpose, but he definitely does not stand for many things he's stood for before.


I'm not saying a politician is not allowed to change their mind: in fact I think that politicians, with great thought and self-reflection, should most certainly change their minds in light of new evidence. But that's not what's going on. Much like the girl in high school who changes what she wears, how she does her hair, and what books she reads to impress the person she wants to date, Governor Romney changes his stated views based on what he thinks other people want to hear. 


Case #1: In 1994, Mr. Romney supported a world with "full equality" for gays and lesbians. What does full equality mean? To most anyone you ask, that means having the same rights as all other American citizens. But this is back in Massachusetts, a fairly liberal state, where Mr. Romney also championed ground-breaking health reform that has been fiscally and socially beneficial to the population. 


Now though? He's radically shifted his position--pandering to the right and hard-right voters to show that he's not just a cyborg moderate who continue to enforce President Obama's policies that he once endorsed. 


Mr. Romney and his supporters continue to claim that he has never changed his position on gay rights, but simply that the gay community changed what it wanted:

"What happened was that the gay community changed their perspective as to what they wanted," Romney told CNN's Piers Morgan...

Apparently Mr. Romney's definition of "full equality" differs from everyone else's. 


Case #2: In 1994, then again in 2002, Mr. Romney said repeatedly that he was pro-choice, and would not enact any legislation that would infringe on a woman's right to choose. Let's take a closer look at those elections: in 1994 -- he was up against Ted Kennedy, a staunch and unwavering liberal, for his Massachusetts senate seat, and in 2002 he was running for governor again in Massachusetts. 


I will not argue that Mr. Romney has always personally been pro-life, but I used to respect that he would not allow his personal beliefs to influence the policies of the majority. Apparently he changed his mind though, as he now supports the 2004 Republican platform that is clearly pro-life. He says it's because when he was governor he grappled with legislation about embryonic stem cell research, was put off by the "cavalier" way medical researchers discussed disposing of those embryos, and changed his mind about policies regarding abortion. Right, that makes sense. Lots of sense. Loads of sense. 


Let's not look at the fact that those two elections where he ran on "pro-choice" statements, but later did not follow through, were in a liberal state, and now when he is vying for the Republican nomination he's Mr. Abstinence-education-and-human-life-amendment. Sure, makes sense. 


And finally, Case #3, for those of you that are still not convinced that the only thing Mr. Romney stands for is winning, is his flip-flop on health care. Health care breakdown:


1. In order to receive health care, you must pay for it. For some people this means out of pocket, for most that means health insurance.


2. If you do not have health insurance, either because you never thought you'd need it, the premium cost was too high, you were denied on the basis of a pre-existing condition (i.e. cancer), or you were kicked off of your insurance based on a pre-existing condition (i.e. you forgot to mention that you had pneumonia when you were 5, and may have potentially caused your colon cancer, so you no longer have health insurance), then you simply do not receive the care you need.


3. Truth: the people that fell in the category described in step #2, would die without care, or go to the hospital for acute treatment, not be able to pay, and shift the burden of payment on to the taxpayers. 


So, Mr. Romney put forth a conservative plan to deal with this problem: make it illegal for insurance companies in MA to deny coverage or raise premium costs based on pre-existing conditions. But in order to pay for that, he had to ensure that the pool of insured people widened, so viola! The individual mandate was born. Why not have every pay for health insurance, and subsidize those who can't? It will allow everyone access to health care and create a healthier state for the same cost! This is, in fact, exactly what it did in MA. 


It is an amazing piece of legislation that Mr. Romney was proud to have spear-headed. It worked so well in fact, that in 2009, when President Obama was grappling with health care reform on a national level, Mr. Romney published an op-ed piece in the Washington Post suggesting that the President look to Massachusetts policy as a model for the national program. 


But that was then, and this is now--when Romney-care has suddenly turned into "Obama-care." Now he repeats over and over at rallies that he will repeal Obama-care on day one. He now emphatically contradicts himself, saying Massachusetts health care was never meant to be a model for the national policy. 


For these reasons and more, the prospect that Mr. Romney could be our future president frightens me. A president should be someone who can stand their ground despite pressure to cave, someone who has well thought through policies, laws, and values that he sticks by, and someone that people can trust. Mr. Romney has made it clear that he embodies none of those characteristics. He had my support as a bipartisan conservative in Massachusetts, and has my vehement opposition as a thoughtless drone in 2012. 

Do we have an obligation?

So I have been shying away from social/political posts as of late because well...because. So I read, I keep up, but instead of posting about it, I just discuss it with Tyler. But I finally broke when I saw someone post this week, April 2012, about a the Trayvon Martin shooting which happened on February 26th.


As well educated adults, time is almost never something we have in excess, especially time to leisurely read the news. But do we have an obligation to society to ensure that we are baseline well-informed? I think we do. 


Educated adults will be a leaders of the next generation. Not necessarily through public office or private sector commerce, but in some way they will impact the future. It's important then, to be aware of the major current events that cause a ripple in our environment. The outcomes of these events are the ones that will define our generation and shape our future--healthcare, Trayvon Martin, Arab Spring, etc.


It is a bit ridiculous to suggest a person read the New York Times front to back everyday, and that's not my goal. Actions like setting a browser homepage to a new site website, or downloading a new site app on a smart phone and browsing the headlines over lunch, take less than five minutes and can continuously keep one in the know. 


Whether we like it or not, the world is become ever-smaller and we can no longer just focus on the events in our narrow life-bubble. To truly have an impact, and we must, the educated must look beyond the bachelor's degree and continue to critically think about the events and world around them in order to shape the future.

Commentary: The Media's Abortion Blinders

Ross Douthat wrote an article this week claiming that the Komen Foundation was the real victim of the recent Komen vs. Planned Parenthood debacle. 


The basic gist of the issue was that the Komen Foundation pulled about $700,000 in funding from Planned Parenthood (PP) recently because, it claimed, Planned Parenthood was under investigation. This was peculiar because this is definitely not the first time PP was under investigation, and in this case it was from a Republican representative from Florida who wanted even further proof that PP was not using federal funds to perform abortions. 

Now, later in the week, due to massive outcry from the public, including a pledge from Mayor Michael Bloomberg of $250,000 to PP to make up their losses, the Komen Foundation backtracked and decided to give the grant back to PP. 


Mr. Douthat's issue seems to be that the media representation of the Komen Foundation was unfair, especially given that American seem split pretty evenly on the issue of abortion, based on Gallup poll. He goes on to list "truths" about PP, and ends with his disgust at journalists for not paying enough attention to those facts in their reporting, and therefore demonizing Komen though much of the public probably agreed with their actions. 


Okay, now that we're done with the summary, let me insert my opinion. 


If you askme whether I think there are more pro-choice or pro-life individuals in America, I'd hands down say there were more pro-lifers. Why? Because that's what the media shows. In my experience, they tend to portray pro-choicers as anti-life, rather than what we actually are about...giving women a choice in their own reproduction. In fact, even respected, intelligent media personalities like Mr. Douthat tend to portray pro-choicers as individuals who have,

"...no moral qualms about using surgery or chemicals to put an end to a growing embryo or fetus..."

He attacks Planned Parenthood by putting forth facts that are meant to scare the average reader. Let's analyze them:


1. Planned Parenthood is the nation's largest abortion provider.


Completely true. PP is a national not-for-profit that strives to provide women's health care in all ways to women of all socioeconomic backgrounds. That includes birth control, women's health exams, breast exams, vaccinations, and yes, abortions. Because PP is so ubiquitous now and is a trusted name, women who otherwise would have been forced to either go without care or visit a less reputable source (i.e. back-alley abortions) now have a safe, alternative option. People frequently poke fun at the idea that women in America would go to back-alley abortionists, but it's what used to happen before PP became a known, reliable presence. So yes, because of this, PP is most definitely the largest abortion provider. Not because it pushes abortions on women, not because it does not provide all the options and facts like Crisis Pregnancy Clinics, not because it revels in ending potential life, but because it is a trusted source for comprehensive women's care. 


2. "By way of comparison, the organization also refers pregnant women for adoption. In 2010, this happened 841 times, against 329,445 abortions."


Can't argue with those numbers. It's true, PP performed 300,000+ abortions, and only 841 women opted to choose adoption. The implication Mr. Douthat is making here though, is that in some way PP is pushing women towards abortion rather than adoption. After all, what else could a juxtaposition of those numbers mean? 


The fact of the matter is, Mr. Douthat does not want to see the numbers as women's choice. These numbers indicate that PP provides options for its patients, gives them the information they need to make an informed decision, and some do decide to go through with their pregnancy and move forward with adoption. It is difficult to accept however, that many women choose to abort their pregnancies in light of the facts. So instead, Mr. Douthat subtly suggests that PP must be pressuring them. He does not consider the emotional and psychological pain a woman has to go through to carry a child to term and then give it up for adoption or even the social stigma, monetary strain, and consistent check-ups the woman will face as legitimate reasons for a woman to choose abortion. 


3. Planned Parenthood’s critics have estimated, plausibly, that between 30 and 40 percent of its health center revenue is from abortion.


The fact that Mr. Douthat gives credence to these numbers baffles me. In numerous fiscal reports, PP, a not for profit organization, has noted that less than 15% of its revenue comes from abortions, which make up only 3% of the services it provides. The rest of the services are cancer screening and prevention, contraception, and STI screening and treatment. Numerous social conservatives have inflated the number so greatly to make it appear that though PP has a financial incentive to push abortions on women. After all, why else would a woman choose abortion if it was not pushed on her? Either way, this point made me particularly sick that a NYTimes columnist, who just wrote a piece about media bias would get his numbers from an article by Charlotte Allen, a know conservative with a strong dislike for atheists, who wrote a piece about rape that essentially victim-blamed, and has a passionate hatred for Planned Parenthood. Yeah, she's not biased at all. 


4. And finally, two quotes together that truly made my blood boil,


"Although mammograms, it should be noted, are not necessarily among them: the group usually provides referrals, but not the mammogram itself, which is one of the reasons Komen’s founder had cited for discontinuing the grant"


and 


"And if you think abortion rights are more important to female health and flourishing than the nearly $2 billion the pink ribbon has raised for breast cancer research, Komen deserved your scorn and Planned Parenthood deserves your donations."


Let's address the mammogram issue first. Over the past decade, the effectiveness of mammograms in preventing deaths from breast cancer has been called into question, with data suggesting it is  not as effective as we once thought. In light of this, many Planned Parenthood facilities have not purchased a mammogram machine and instead perform breast exams during their check-ups. When something is found to be problematic, they refer their patient to a doctor that can adequately look into it. I see no problem with this, but it sickens me that one would suggest that PP is somehow doing it's patients a disservice by not providing them a treatment that is no longer accepted as effective. Douthat's implication that PP is not truly providing comprehensive women's health services ties directly into my problem with the next quote...he boils all of Planned Parenthood's services down to their abortion services.


Yes, Komen raises billions for cancer research, which is completely valuable. But as someone put it, pink ribbons and pink spatulas don't provide care for people, health care providers do, like those at Planned Parenthood. The reality is that without PP, millions of low-income women would be left in the lurch, unable to take control of their own sexual and body health because they don't have easy access to the care. Millions would be without sexual health exams, STI screening, pre-natal care, and yes, birth counseling. For Mr. Douthat to sum up Planned Parenthood as Planned Abortion-hood is inexcusable and disgusting.


So, this is a really long post that took much longer than my other posts usually take to write, but it's because I was shocked at the hypocrisy and idiocy of the article. But I'm not sure what else I expected from Mr. Douthat whose many articles make it clear that he is not fully in touch with reality. 

The Third Jihad

A few years back, my husband compared his life experiences to mine, making the argument that because we come from similar socioeconomic backgrounds, we had similar life experiences. After living with me for a few years, and seeing what I see, he knows this is not true. In most cases, that is true. The most glaring difference however, is that he is white, and I am brown. 


I am fully American inside and out, my parents have achieved the "American Dream" when they moved here from India, yet I have been, and unfortunately will probably always be, treated differently than my husband because of my skin color.  


Before I even open my mouth, it is what you see on me. Some assume I am hispanic, other assume I am Muslim, others still assume I am vaguely middle eastern, and some get it right, Indian. Most of the time, the assumption leads to nothing, other times, it reminds me that no matter how integrated I am in the country, no matter that I was born here, no matter that I went to school here, went to college, am teaching the next generation--I am viewed as other by plenty. 


Like all the times I am followed around a department store, or the times I am told that clothes are "quite expensive" when I ask for help, or the times that people will ask me a question in restaurant and their friend will say "Don't bother, she probably doesn't speak english," or the times I am told I am less of a person because I am brown, or the times that people ask me if I am Muslim im an accusatory tone, or the times...well, I could go on. 


This came to my mind because of a NYT article about the NYPD showing a movie to over 1,000 of its police officers called The Third Jihad. This movie, which they had playing on constant loop for up to a year in some departments for 3 months to a year, conveys the extreme message that most American muslims are out to deceive Americans and infiltrate the country from within. It implies that American Muslims are something less than American. 


Showing this heinous movie over and over and over to an individual, no matter how devout they are in trying to remain unbiased or unprejudiced, would get into their brains. It just does, you know that, I know that. It's worse that it was forced on the people that are supposed to protect all Americans. 


I not even mad anymore, I'm just sad and disappointed that a group as large as the NYPD was stupid enough to propagate this stereotype. Shame on you, NYPD. 

Lemon Cur...oh darn, Newt Gingrich Spoke Again

So this was supposed to be a post about lemon curd. But nope, Newt Gingrich spoke again, so now it's going to be about that. 


At the most recent debate, Gingrich's comments on the poor black work ethic were brought up. If you missed that, he said, 

Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works...so they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of 'I do this and you give me cash,' unless it's illegal.

How lovely, no? Anyways, when questioned about whether he thought this was downright insulting to poor black Americans, he respond that he absolutely did not. 


What's his suggestion? Well, because they have no role models that actually go to work, their parents must just sit around watching their big-screen TVs and and get welfare checks to fund their drug and drinking problem, the children should go to work! As janitors! In their own schools! 


Yes, that makes perfect sense, put children to work for money. It will show them from a young age what a job actually entails, put money in their pockets legally, and give them a sense of pride in their school. Child labor laws? Who needs them? In Newts words, '...for the price of one janitor in New York, we can hire 37 kids!'


Wonderful idea Newt, really top-notch. Afterall, black people should demand jobs, not food stamps.


Annnnnnnd...then reality hits. 


The idea of the "welfare queen" was created by Ronald Reagan (also known as Emperor Reagan to the conservative party). Does it exist? Maybe. Is it the majority? No. 


It is an uncomfortable thought that hard work and walking the straight and narrow in life will no longer pull you up the socio-economic ladder in this country. It is easier to assume that people on food stamps and getting welfare checks are simply bums that are too lazy to work. Not that they already have a job, or two, or three, and still can't make ends meet or can't find work. 


The truth of the matter is that most poor people work 2-3 jobs to make ends meet. If not, all of my students' parents would be at home all the time, instead of at home for a few hours a day in between their jobs. At the age of 16, my students are not excited to get their drivers license like most kids in this country, they are excited to be able to get a job and contribute to their family's income, or have income of their own (though most start working at much younger ages). 


To say that poor kids have no one to look up to that works except for drug dealers and gang bangers just illustrates how out of touch the conservative movement, and specifically Gingrich, is with reality. 


What do my students see? They see their parents work a few jobs very hard, come home tired, with worn health, make a minimal amount of money, with very little left over in the end. Most do not turn to selling drugs or other illegal activities, but some do...they see easy money, and go for it, and it's unfortunate. But that's the anomaly, not the norm. The idea that it is the norm is rooted in racial prejudice, fear, and ignorance that festers with the words of people like Newt Gingrich.


Just by virtue of being born poor, you should not have your childhood taken away by being forced to work as a janitor in your own school. School should be a place where students can learn to aspire for bigger and brighter things, more than working class job in the ghetto they grew up in. We have child labor laws for a reason.