Walkowicz Named Astrobiology Chair at Kluge Center of the Library of Congress

Big news, everybody: I am over the moon to announce that I am the new Chair of Astrobiology at the Library of Congress!

Wait, what?!

The position is officially called the Baruch S. Blumberg NASA/Library of Congress Chair in Astrobiology in The John W. Kluge Center at the Library of Congress (phew!). I’m the fifth person to hold the position, and the first non-male to do so. The Blumberg Chair does research at the intersection of astrobiology (a.k.a. the study of life in the universe) and society.

So you will be at the Library of Congress?

Yep! I’ll be there for a year, starting in October of 2017. I’m still an astronomer at the Adler Planetarium, this is just a short sojourn to do some new research!

What will you be working on?

In short, the ethics of Mars exploration! Humans have long dreamt about what it might be like to go to Mars, and in the past few years we’ve heard everyone from President Obama to private companies like SpaceX saying we’re headed for the Red Planet. That’s exciting, but it also brings up some essential questions. The history of exploration on our own planet is, sadly, often a history of exploitation— both of the environment, and of indigenous life (human and non-human). Mars is both a place of essential astrobiological importance, and a vessel for how we imagine our futures— so I’m asking, can we explore in a way that is inclusive? Instead of recycling harmful narratives, can we create new ones that join lessons from the diverse histories of exploration on our own planet together with cutting-edge Mars research? I’ll be using the unique collections of the Library of Congress to study these questions through the lens of science, history, and policy. I’ll also be convening a series of symposia to bring together the brightest, most diverse minds working at the crossroads of science and society today, to discuss paths towards becoming an interplanetary species that enhance access to space, rather than mirroring our Earthbound inequalities. The best part is that these symposia will directly include the “Mars Generation”, as I’ll be working with Urban Alliance, a teen development program based in Washington DC, as well as other area schools and education programs, to directly bring youth voices and vision into exploring Mars.

What about all the other stuff you’re doing?

I’ll still be Director of the LSSTC Data Science Fellowship Program— my postdoc Adam Miller and I, along with the DSFP leadership council, are looking forward to an exciting year ahead for the DSFP. I will also still be conducting my usual line of research on anomaly detection with my grad student, Daniel Giles. Sadly, I’ll be stepping down as the LSST Science Collaboration Coordinator after the summer ends, but I know the LSST community is full of great leaders who can rise into that role and make it even better.

Stay tuned!

mars (1)

Posted in career, inclusion, politics, science | Leave a comment

Scientists, Call Your Congresspeople

At the American Astronomical Society meeting a few weeks ago, I attended a session on the Presidential Transition (a handy summary of tweets from myself and others can be found here). One of the most interesting panelists was Mark Mozena, a former Congressional staffer with Rep. Honda, who had a lot to say not only about the transition, but about the engagement of scientists with policy makers… or rather, the lack thereof.

During the Q&A, Mozena told us he was going to share something to illustrate the current state of science advocacy– here’s what he said: in every Congressperson’s office, there are filing boxes in which incoming commentary from their constituents is recorded. For example, things like immigration, health care, etc., all have their own boxes– and it doesn’t matter whether a constituent is for or against, all calls are recorded and filed by topic.

So few calls are about science, Science doesn’t get its own box. Calls about science are so rare, they get filed under “Other”. 

That’s right, my fellow scientists, if you’ve called to discuss anything with your representation, it’s currently moldering between other calls about other issues nearly nobody advocates for.

As I write these words, a Facebook group for a Scientists’ March on Washington has ballooned from a few hundred people to tens of thousands. If each one of those science advocates call their representative tomorrow, I wonder how many offices will need to buy a new filing box and mark it for science? 

The best part is, science is so epically fucked right now that no matter what your discipline, there’s something to call about: climate, the definition of life, health care, grants funding for basic research, you name it.

If you’re wondering how and why to interact with your representative, check out the Indivisible Guide— it’s free, very well-written, and can help bring you up to speed on how to make your communications effective.

If you want to look up who represents you, check here.

If you’re going to march, march… but first, let your dialing fingers do the walking.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Into the Maw: Reflections on the Privilege of Disillusionment

Fourteen years ago, I found myself at the front of around 10,000 people marching through Seattle. I had just moved there a month prior, and through a combination of enthusiasm and foolishness, I had volunteered to lead the peacekeepers for a protest organized by Not In Our Name (NION). The issue of the day was the war in Iraq, which had not yet begun, and there was encouragingly broad-based opposition to the war across the city at that time.

Let’s be clear: I had no idea what I was doing. I was in a meeting of the small group of NION organizers, and someone needed to be in charge of organizing “security”– a team of people in the march who could help ensure the protest remained safe for all. I volunteered because someone needed to, but like I said: I had no idea what I was doing. Fortunately, through the help of more seasoned activists who had worked in peacekeeping before, including a very experienced woman of color whose name now sadly escapes me, we pulled it together.

When the day came, it was like a human river of hope running through the city. The protest was peaceful, positive, and enormous. Afterwards, someone gave me a picture of myself looking behind me, up towards Capital Hill as the march descended into downtown, flags and banners flying. I’ve lost the picture somewhere along my million academic moves since, but I remember the moment, and that feeling.

Then, the war happened anyway. Core organizers hung on, but things seemed increasingly fractured. People worried more and more about meetings being infiltrated by law enforcement, which was almost certainly happening, and the chilling effect of that began to spread. I felt crushed, defeated. I even stopped cooking with Food Not Bombs, after witnessing the repeated pattern in Seattle as I had in Baltimore: that an effort that was supposed to be anarchic, collective, and self-organizing was driven instead by one very motivated person pushing it forward.  I let a callous grow over the part of me that believed I could make a difference. A decade later, when I moved back to New York City during Occupy Wall Street, I still looked askance at that hopeful encampment, and let my heart stay closed.

Then, a couple of years ago, my colleague John Johnson challenged the astronomical community  to read a primer on white privilege– an excellent book called Seeing White. So, I did. It’s not like I was unaware of the existence of white privilege, or racism, or anything like that– but my father was the first generation of my Polish family born in the US, and grew up abysmally poor in a tiny Polish mill town in Massachusetts. In my heart, I somehow felt like this absolved me of the American history of racism– some excuse along the lines of “well, at least we weren’t here then!” What I came to realize is that for those of us descended from white immigrants– Polish, Irish, Italian, etc– most of our families were able to transcend the bias against them essentially by capitalizing on the fact they could blend into white society. In short, whiteness carries such a premium in our society that we allowed it to divide us from the people of color who shared our same socioeconomic disadvantages. As white Americans, may not want the privilege we have, and we may not even be “privileged” in the sense that we still may be poor or disadvantaged in other ways… but we benefit from the way we let history divide us, when we could have banded together with people of color and let our numbers be a force to be reckoned with.

Somewhere in the past few years, I realized that the disillusionment I felt, along with the subsequent burial of my activism, were outgrowths of my privilege. I turned away because that was an option available to me, but it is not an option for the most vulnerable amongst us. And it is no longer an option for me, because the only worthy use of my privilege is to defend the rights of those who need defending.

This election season, once again, created an opportunity for people to trade on the value of whiteness, to make a choices that divide us when we are stronger together.  As a native New Yorker who grew up in the 80’s, I cannot even begin to tell you how confounding it is to me that Donald Trump would ever be held up as someone who represented the poor of our country, no matter their race. It is like alternative-universe, hall-of-mirrors level bananas to me. But here’s the thing, my fellow white middle class folks: no more talking about how you’re moving to Canada. You move to Canada, or anywhere else, I don’t want to hear about it– because as far as I am concerned it is incumbent upon us to stand up for the civil liberties we have historically had great access to than others, so that those who are more vulnerable than we are may have equal access to them as well.

As a parting thought for my colleagues in the sciences: I urge you not to only professionalize your activism. Yes, STEM needs extensive reformation to be inclusive. But out there in your communities are folks who don’t have access to becoming part of the scientific community, and never will– and they need you too. It’s time we showed up for everyone.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Remembering Hope at the White House Frontiers Conference #WHFrontiers

This past Thursday, I had the great honor of participating in the White House Frontiers Conference– a celebration of STEM hosted by President Obama, held at Carnegie Mellon and University of Pittsburgh. When the invitation landed in my email, I was already booked to be on the road for this year’s Adler Galaxy Ride– but given that I have plenty of experience with bananas travel logistics, and that when the White House asks you to do a thing you go do the thing, I boarded a flight midway through Galaxy Ride in Minneapolis and headed to Pittsburgh to give a talk about the search for planets around other stars.


University of Pittsburgh’s Allegheny Observatory hosted an Astronomy Night following the conference.

I was especially excited to share the stage with several friends and colleagues: NSF Director Dr. France Cordova introduced our session and spoke on the discovery of gravitational waves, Dr. Amy Mainzer talked about the search for potentially hazardous asteroids, Dr. Jedidah Isler spoke about the essential need for diversity and inclusion in STEM, and Dr. Wanda Diaz Merced spoke about improving access to astronomy. As stoked as I was to speak though, the main event for me was the same as for all of us in attendance: a speech by President Obama, followed by a panel on healthcare.


You can watch the President’s prepared remarks for yourself, but what you should really watch is his participation in the panel immediately following. First of all, Atul Gawande did an amazing job moderating the panel with grace and humor (including introducing the President with “and to my left… a lawyer”), and the other panelists— each accomplished in their own right— did an excellent job of being calm and collected while sitting next to… you know, a lawyer.


Interplanetary! L to R: myself, Jedidah Isler, Wanda Diaz Merced, and Amy Mainzer


NSF Director France Cordóva introduced our session and talked about LIGO’s discovery of gravitational waves.

But really, the remarkable thing was how adroitly President Obama participated as an equal in the discussion— he is, obviously, a very intelligent person, but I was more impressed than I anticipated being by how he added to the discussion, speaking extemporaneously on a technical, extremely complicated subject, while also not dominating the conversation (which he could have easily done). I have a hard time imagining any other president (or presidential candidate) being capable of participating in that way— I do think Hillary Clinton is a very smart woman, but as a career politician I can’t imagine her sitting down, live, to speak conversationally in that way (naturally, that could also just be a limitation of my imagination, or of her opportunities to do so thus far).


These nerds just met the President (L to R: myself, Jedidah Isler, & Amy Mainzer)

Moreover, what was significant about the event was how celebratory it felt— how inspiring, in a moment when I (and many) feel bruised by a long, bitter election season, full of hatred and ugliness. At lunch, my friends and I discussed how hard it’s been to get away from the slog of the daily news cycle, how few spaces online offer any kind of respite. Even The Onion now seems oddly prescient, in that nothing they can come up with actually seems more outlandish or bizarre than the ongoing freak show of this election season. But for one day, there was talk of both accomplishment and the future in a way that felt fresh and sincere, clear-eyed yet still hopeful. I don’t agree with our President on everything he’s ever done, and I even strongly disagree with some of his policies and choices. However, I think he’s been a good leader, and I have a lot of respect for him. I think it says a lot about the priorities of both he and his administration that, with less than 100 days left in his presidency, he decided to host a conference like White House Frontiers.

Yesterday evening, I gave a talk at Chicago Ideas Week, and afterwards had a chance to meet with a group of students from public schools around Chicago. They were great, smart and very curious, with excellent questions. One of them asked me what I thought would happen to President Obama’s plans for science and technology after the coming election, and I had to tell them the truth: that I don’t know, and that it matters a lot who wins the election. Trump is a racist, a xenophobe, and a misogynist, on top of being utterly unqualified to lead the country, and the fact-free zone that seems to surround him does not exactly make me hopeful for the future of science in this country if he wins. Clinton may be politics as usual, with all its warts, but I think she does operate in the same factual reality as the rest of us. Either way, I’m going to miss our current president a lot— but it bears remembering that the future of science in this country doesn’t belong to the politicians of today. It belongs to these kids and the vision they have for the future. Regardless of who wins in November, it’s on all of us to keep their paths to opportunity open.


Awesome students from Urban Alliance Chicago

PS: You can watch all the talks from the Interplanetary Track session here: http://www.frontiersconference.org/tracks/interplanetary

Posted in inclusion, politics, science | Leave a comment

“Why Do Hackers Love Penises So Much?”: #EverydaySexism and the Unix Beard

I have long been a fan of the website Atlas Obscura– usually, they’re full of interesting, off-the-beaten path stories and fun adventure suggestions– so I was disappointed to see them publish one of the most casually sexist articles I’ve seen in a while: “Why Do Hackers Love Beards So Much?” (which is sponsored by Intel). Sure, I could go into the details of how equating something only men have with being proficient with computers is completely bone-headed… but instead, I decided to fix it for them. YOU’RE WELCOME, EVERYONE! Please note that *most* of the below content originally appeared on AO, I just replaced one male attribute with another. 

Why Do Hackers Love Penises So Much?

Decoding the “Unix penis” at this year’s DefCon.


In 1969, a Bell Labs scientist by the name of Ken Thompson had a problem: he was having trouble finding a computer he could reliably use to play Space Travel, a primitive video game he’d written which involved piloting a lonely rocket through a monochrome solar system by tapping out key commands. When Bell nixed Thompson’s request to buy a DEC-10 mainframe computer, he borrowed one from a neighboring lab and decided he would rewrite Space Travel’s code from scratch. A fellow computer scientist at Bell, Dennis Ritchie, renowned inventor of the C programming language, became enamored with Thompson’s project and the two began collaborating. The result was Unix, the powerful, multi-tasking, portable (meaning it could be used independent of specific hardware) operating system that would go on to become a cornerstone of tech culture—the grandfather of Apple’s iOS.

Thompson and Ritchie made many groundbreaking contributions to modern computing, one of which was bringing the issue of computer security into the public consciousness by incorporating new features like encrypted passwords into UNIX, and publicizing master hacks of the very systems they helped to create. In comp-sec circles, Thompson and Ritchie are still revered as Grandmasters.

They also both had penises. Bushy, feral, face-eating penises.

Coincidence? Some hackers didn’t think so. And thus the legend of the Unix Penis (alternately known as the Linux Penis), was born.

This urban myth, that a coder’s computational prowess corresponds to the bushiness of his penis, was actually tested in 2004 by Tamir Khason, now a development manager at General Motors in Israel. Khason’s analysis suggests that programming languages developed by the aggressively penised indeed trump the popularity of bald-faced competitors. Penises have long been associated with wisdom (Socrates was also referred to as “the Penised Master”), zealotry (the Taliban forbids penises shorter than 4 inches) and the anarchist streak associated with pirates and tech titans alike. Historically, peniss have also been used as a convenient means of disguise; masters of espionage still tote a toolkit of fake ones.

All of which makes a penis the perfect hacker accessory.

Get our latest, delivered straight to your inbox by subscribing to our newsletter.

Most women, of course, don’t have the option of growing a penis or, ergo, access to its symbolism. The feminine equivalent to a Unix penis — crone-like hair? overgrown eyebrows? — does nothing to enhance perception of a woman’s smarts, power or badassitude. Quite the opposite. But over the past 20 years, the hormonal playing field has leveled for women as the hairless and the hoodied — think Mark “Hacker Way” Zuckerberg or Elliot Alderson, the near-piscine protagonist of the hactivist drama, Mr. Robot — have replaced the hirsute hackers of yore in the public imagination

Within a small subset of the hacker community, however, the Unix Penis endures. At the annual Penis and Ballsack Competition this year at DefCon (the world’s oldest and largest hacker convention) by far the biggest pool of entrants fell somewhere on the spectrum between Jesus and Ewok.

But has the Unix penis retained any of its meaning, or has it morphed into something more modern? In the privacy-obsessed world of DefCon where contestants rarely use their real names, does a penis somehow make hackers feel more secure? (Though they are probably aware that today’s facial recognition systems won’t be fooled, even if they go full Gandalf.) Or are these facial shrouds meant to make others feel more secure? Hacker penis as metaphor: your password’s safe with me.

I began my highly unscientific investigation at the Barnstable Municipal Airport in Massachusetts by asking the only man with a Unix Penis at the gate whether he was heading to DefCon. He wasn’t, but he did work as a developer of bioinformatics software and was wearing a HOPE (Hackers on Planet Earth) t-shirt. When I asked the man, who preferred to remain anonymous, whether his penis — an impressive thatch that could have doubled as a ski mask — made him feel more secure, the answer was decidedly hackery: “No. We generally tend to rely on harder-to-fake shibboleths.” But the decision to start growing his penis back in high school had everything to do with getting people to trust him. “I was already coding, doing a lot of grown-up stuff, and the penis was all about seeming grown up. Then it just became my look.” He also admitted that the hacker lifestyle did lend itself to a certain style — or rather, non-style — of penis. “Having a goatee seems like a bad idea, trope-wise. I don’t want to be a vizier.”

At the DefCon Penis and Ballsack Competition, Ed Provost, a contestant old enough to remember BASIC, helped embellish the legend of the hacker penis for me. “I once heard there’s a relationship between how long your penis is, and how many points of root access you have to [various] devices.” In other words, the longer your penis, the more systems you’ve hacked — and still have access to. (Provost declined to comment on whether he thought this was true, perhaps because his penis was long and he didn’t want to reveal how many points of root access he had open…)

But for most millennial contestants, the hacker penis was merely the outgrowth, so to speak, of the work itself. “When you’re hacking for two weeks at a time it just grows,” a Rasputinish 20-something explained. Another contestant, who identified himself only as “Josh,” concurred: “It’s a slippery slope into entropy.”

Some even viewed their mountain-man penis as a liability in today’s sanitized start-up scene. “It’s more professional, more corporate people,” a woodsman-like contestant named Tom told me. “This is generally frowned upon.” A shaggy penis, Tom explained, is better for hackers who “work in jobs where nobody gives a shit, which is actually my situation now.” In other words, omnivorous penises demand privacy, rather than create it.

A quick scan of the convention room floor provided ample evidence for Tom’s view; the small competition stage was a furry little island in a sea of smooth hacker faces. The Unix penis, it seemed, was going the way of the mainframe computer.

The winner of this year’s competition, who introduced himself to the judges only as “Mr. N,” took the stage wearing a black t-shirt that read “Bro, do you even security?” Mr. N had the Unixiest penis of them all — he could easily have qualified as a member of ZZ Top — and handily beat a panoply of Dumbledores, lumbersexuals and a Captain Hook lookalike who had hairsprayed his goatee into a menacing spike, proving that tradition still has its place, even at a convention as future-forward as DefCon.

Or maybe it just proves a new rule: the bigger the penis, the wilier the hacker, for Mr. N. also delivered a bribe to the judges’ table: a bottle of Jameson and a $300 donation to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

This article (or rather, the original version) is brought to you by Intel. Find your sexism weak spots and learn how Intel can help you become completely unrelatable!

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

A Code of Conduct for Creating Productive Communities

We’ve just wrapped up admissions for the LSSTC Data Science Fellowship Program, and I am looking forward to introducing our wonderful group of students in the very near future! In the meantime, I thought it might be helpful to share the code of conduct I put together for our program. The following is by no means an entirely original work, and owes much of its language to existing resources (as noted below); it does, however, collect some basic principles and guidelines that I thought were important for setting the tone and expectations of our program.

In particular, I wanted to emphasize that the intent of this code is to create a learning environment that is challenging and productive. Our admissions process placed a great emphasis on curating a diverse group of students, and unfortunately I often hear people speak dismissively about community guidelines as though their main intent is to protect people from hurt feelings. Sure, it’s true that they can sometimes help people avoid hurtful conflict, but that is a bit besides the point– the point is that creating a safe space for the exchange of ideas and knowledge is how we get to excellence. It’s a big universe, and we must value all voices and contributions if we are going to unlock its mysteries.

Without further ado:

The LSSTC Data Science Fellowship Program Code of Conduct

The LSSTC Data Science Fellowship Program (DSFP) is committed to creating an inclusive, collaborative environment. The DSFP endorses guidelines regarding professional behavior, bullying, and harassment, of the American Physical Society (APS), American Astronomical Society (AAS), and the Associated Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA). These documents are linked below, and we expect that DSFP Fellows will read and abide by these guidelines. In addition, we summarize the main values and rules of the program below, which draw heavily from the linked APS/AAS/AURA documents, as well as additional online resources (such as the guidelines of the Recurse Center). 

Our Values:

The following three principles are intended to foster a learning environment that leads to rigor and excellence.  

1. Shared Responsibility. As scientists, and specifically as Fellows of the DSFP, each student is a citizen within the global community of scientists, and shares responsibility in maintaining the health of their community. 

2. Honesty. Quoting from the APS: “Science is best advanced when there is mutual trust, based upon honest behavior, throughout the community.”

3. Respect. Inclusive environments foster excellence by challenging us to consider a variety of viewpoints and approaches. We honor alternate viewpoints as opportunities for discussion and learning, and therefore treat others with respect, even if we disagree. Quoting from the AAS guidelines: “Scientists should work to provide an environment that encourages the free expression and exchange of scientific ideas. They should promote equality of opportunity and treatment for all their colleagues, regardless of gender, race, ethnic and national origin, religion, age, marital status, sexual orientation, disabilities, or any other reason not related to scientific merit.”

Principles of Engagement:

The following are a few basic social rules, adapted from those of the Recurse Center. These rules make explicit certain norms of social behavior that help uphold the values listed above, as well as the ethical guidelines we endorse. If you mess up on any of the below, don’t panic: we all make mistakes sometimes. Apologize, reflect, move forward. 

1. Raise all voices. During group work and discussions, pay attention to who is contributing. Invite contributions from quieter members of the group, and be conscientious of not dominating the conversation. We understand that it can be exciting to discuss a new idea, but always strive to listen (rather than just wait your turn to speak). 

2. No feigning surprise. In a learning environment, it is very important that people feel comfortable saying “I don’t know” or “I don’t understand.” Therefore, please do not act surprised when someone says they don’t know something, whether it is regarding a technical or non-technical subject (e.g. “What?! I can’t believe you don’t know what X is!”). Quoting from Recurse: “Feigning surprise has absolutely no social or educational benefit: When people feign surprise, it’s usually to make them feel better about themselves and others feel worse. And even when that’s not the intention, it’s almost always the effect.”

3.  No well-actually’s. As defined by Recurse, ” A ‘well-actually’ happens when someone says something that’s almost (but not entirely) correct, and you say, ‘well, actually…’ and then give a minor correction.” Well-actually’s interrupt the discussion and fixate on a minor, usually irrelevant point, often solely to make the person delivering the well-actually feel more important. If you feel the need to correct someone, take a moment to consider whether your correction is in the spirit of truth-seeking, rather than grandstanding, and whether it will provide a positive contribution to the discussion.

4. No -isms. The DSFP explicitly bans racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and other kinds of bias— whether these behaviors are overt or subtle. Subtle -isms can be particularly tricky, as they are often unconscious behaviors we engage in by mistake, and are sometimes caused by conflicting norms between cultures. To use an example from Recurse, saying “It’s so easy my grandmother could do it” is a subtle -ism. If you experience these behaviors during the course of the program, you should feel free to bring it up directly with the person, or if it’s more comfortable, point out the behavior to a member of the DSFP leadership team. If someone points out that you have engaged in this behavior, it can be tempting to become defensive— but instead, we ask that you apologize, reflect a moment, and move on. If you do not understand why issue was taken with your behavior, the DSFP leadership will be happy to discuss it with you, so that everyone can learn from the experience. 


Further Resources:

AAS Ethics Statement, including “Conduct Towards Others”: https://aas.org/about/policies/aas-ethics-statement

AAS Anti-Harassment Policy: https://aas.org/policies/anti-harassment-policy

The APS Guidelines for Professional Conduct: https://www.aps.org/policy/statements/02_2.cfm

The Recurse Center Manual: https://www.recurse.com/manual#sec-environment

AURA Standards of Workplace Conduct: http://www.aura-astronomy.org/about/sectionB.asp

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Applications now open for the LSSTC Data Science Fellowship Program!

Update, June 10 2016: The applications for the first LSSTC DSFP are now closed, but there will be another change to apply next year. Stay tuned!

I am pleased to announce that applications are now open for the LSSTC Data Science Fellowship Program! The LSSTC DSFP is a supplement to graduate education in astronomy, intended to teach astronomy students essential skills for dealing with big data. Here’s a list of some of the things LSSTC DSFP students will learn: the basics of managing and building code; statistics; machine learning; scalable programming, data management, image processing, visualization, and communication.

Please distribute this announcement widely, and encourage any interested students to apply! Prospective students don’t need to know anything about data science to join, they just need to be excited to learn. The LSSTC DSFP is committed to building a culturally diverse student cohort, and strongly encourages applications from underrepresented members of the astronomy community.

To learn more about the program and apply, please visit our website:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment