24 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/28/11 10:36pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Hundreds of public, charter and private schools in the United States have implemented a practice that might seem strange, foreign or even ridiculous to some adults: the Quiet Time Program. It isn’t a ploy to have kids lay their heads on desks while teachers gossip in the break room. It’s not an extra session of math or reading exercises either, but it does help students’ academic achievements.The Quiet Time Program aims to improve the “overall environment of the schools” while giving students an effective way to reduce stress and develop “the full brain.” In other words, it’s a practical, highly effective form of meditation.The Quiet Time Program began in 2005 when David Lynch, film director and Transcendental Meditation practitioner, founded the David Lynch Foundation for Consciousness-Based Education and World Peace. The foundation’s name may sound like a mouthful of hippie-love, but its work has produced significant, tangible results. Students participating in Quiet Time improve their test scores, have a higher graduation rate and do better on intelligence tests than students in control groups. For years, independent researchers have noted the benefits of meditation. A study by Kaiser Permanente, the largest managed care organization in the country, found that teenagers practicing meditation techniques were less affected by “mood disorders, depression and self-harming behaviors like anorexia and bulimia.” Brain waves shift in meditation. Neuroscientists have found that meditators are calmer and happier because brain activity in the stress-prone right frontal cortex moves to the calmer left frontal cortex. Lynch’s foundation was established so children across America would be able to practice and profit from meditation. By sending a specially trained teacher to a school for a 10-month stay, the foundation is able to provide 200 at-risk students with an individualized and intensive meditation program. Using Transcendental Meditation techniques, the Quiet Time Program has students and teachers sit comfortably, with their eyes closed, for 20 minutes twice daily.The instruction is entirely optional, of course, and only done with parental permission. Since the program is so helpful for the students’ entire well-being and implemented with virtually no cost to the parents or school, it’s hard to imagine anyone would say, “No.”Transcendental Meditation is appropriate for everyone. The technique does not involve any religious or philosophical beliefs, nor does it require a change in lifestyle. The foundation has already brought the Quiet Time Program to schools in New York City, Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Detroit, Chicago, Tucson, Ariz., San Francisco and Los Angeles, but more cities should be aware of what the foundation can offer.“Consciousness-based education is not a luxury,” David Lynch says on the foundation’s website. “For our children who are growing up in a stressful, often frightening, crisis-ridden world, it is a necessity.” — paihenry@indiana.edu
(04/21/11 9:16pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Dove wants confident consumers. It wants to break away from the norms of today’s media and spread the title of “beautiful” to all ages and colors, shapes and sizes. The launch of “Campaign for Real Beauty” in 2004 supported Dove’s mission of making women “feel beautiful every day by widening stereotypical views of beauty” by featuring real women in its ads, not professional models. Unfortunately, Dove’s recent advertisement for its “go sleeveless deodorant” seems to retrogress from its idealistic movement.The product’s advertising hook is that it can give women “better-looking underarms in five days.” Yup, Dove’s new deodorant is doing double-duty. Not only will it eliminate smell, it will make those armpits pretty!The visual ad for Dove’s “go sleeveless” deodorant shows a woman, green-eyed and lip-glossed, of course, with her hand behind her head, exposing a flawless underarm. The text reads: “Rocking sleeveless styles makes me feel powerful and feminine,” which seems to fit with the Dove credo for supporting confident womanhood.While Dove, in general, does a better job of supporting natural beauty than most companies, I’ve still got a couple bones to pick with the overall presentation of this new product.For starters, I’m a little surprised that Dove chose “Gossip Girl” actress Jessica Szohr’s name, face and underarm to spread across the advertisement. What happened to those “everyday women” from 2004?Next, I wonder if this ad is promoting poise or self-consciousness. I thought Dove wanted to empower women, not guilt us into buying beauty products; this ad seems to suggest that only women with impeccable pits can feel secure in sleeveless tops.Basically, I didn’t realize my underarms were supposed to be sexy until I saw Dove’s new ads. Perhaps Dove really is just trying to cater to the public’s needs, but from my angle, it looks like the only aim of advertising, Dove included, is to create arbitrary insecurities in women.An “Uncovering Underarms” study conducted in part by Unilever (the corporation that owns Dove ) was the supposed prompt for this “go sleeveless” product. I think it has some biased results.Mike Dwyer, U.S. marketing director for Unilever’s deodorant business told the Wall Street Journal that in the company’s survey of more than 500 women, nearly all said they find their underarms unattractive. Sixty-two percent of the surveyed woman reported underarm skin problems like breakouts, discoloration or itchiness. I understand why companies and consumers want moisturizers added to their deodorants, but can we really believe that legitimate skin issues can be solved without a prescription?Sorry, Dove, but I have my doubts. If I’m that self-conscious about my armpits, or if they’re breaking out in hives or something, I’ll skip the convenience store aisles and go straight to the doctor’s office.— paihenry@indiana.edu
(04/14/11 11:13pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In the 1950s, a radio program called “This I Believe” collected short essays to broadcast to the American public. The contributors ranged from famous political and social leaders like Harry Truman and Helen Keller to scientists, cab drivers and secretaries. The writing prompt asked to describe your personal values and core principles for living. NPR revived “This I Believe” in 2005 and continues to share people’s thoughts and motivations similarly to how the show did 60 years ago. Even better, the essays can now be accessed online, which spreads their heartfelt messages even further.Rather than exposing ourselves to modern-day media’s disappointing newsroom arguments and superficial posts on social networks, I believe we should turn to the reflective credos of our fellow free-thinkers.“This I Believe” isn’t promoting trite blog commentaries. The not-for-profit organization is creating a real dialogue among people of all walks of life and offering a great opportunity for us to actively listen to and learn from each other. Some of the most moving comments I’ve found come from young people, children even. Instead of complaining or spewing doubts or showing thoughts of self-pity, their essays for “This I Believe” speak of resilience through hardship, optimistic attitudes and love.Teenagers share their views on religion, economic status and race and ultimately promote diversity. They respect others’ beliefs and pay tribute to the shaping moments in their own lives.Fifteen-year-old Alaa El-Saad wrote in 2009 about her decision to wear the hijab in sixth grade and how her classmates, instead of ridiculing her, were supportive. She believes in standing up for who you are. “America is built on all different religions, races and beliefs,” Alaa said. Josh Rittenberg, who was 16 years old in 2006, overheard his father talking to his mother about the state of the world. He was worried about the problems his son, and his son’s generation, would inherit. But Josh sees things differently. He believes tomorrow will be better than today. His father and his grandfather went through difficult times, but they witnessed great improvements too. Josh believes we will see the day when “AIDS is cured and cancer is defeated; when the Middle East will find peace and Africa grain.” “This I Believe” also welcomes words of wisdom from first-graders.Young Tarak McLain submitted his thoughts in a list of 30. The first five are my favorite.“I believe life is good,” Tarak said. “I believe God is in everything.“I believe we’re all equal.“I believe we can help people.“I believe everyone is weird in their own way.” In Tarak’s simplicity, I believe we can all be reminded of the important things in our lives.— paihenry@indiana.edu
(04/07/11 9:58pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Not all milk is created equal. The label of “liquid gold” only goes to one, all natural variety: human breast milk. Odds are you haven’t tasted this milk delicacy since infancy, but that’s okay — the “liquid gold” sticker isn’t backed by taste buds but rather by science.See, our mothers’ breast milk is gilded with magical properties. It contains amino acids, vitamins, minerals, infection-fighting antibodies and ideal levels of cholesterol that help a baby’s digestion and development. But what if the built-in benefits of human milk could be found in a cow?Last week, the United Kingdom newspaper The Telegraph reported that scientists “have successfully introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk.” Basically, scientists are working to invent something that already exists.The American Academy of Pediatrics promotes breastfeeding for all infants because baby formula simply can’t compete with the composition of human milk, but designing GE cows for this “liquid gold” is completely unnecessary.The researchers at the China Agricultural University used cloning technology to insert human genes into the DNA of Holstein dairy cows. The genetically altered embryos were then transferred to surrogate cows. In a scientific peer-reviewed journal, the researchers said they were able to manufacture cows that produced human milk proteins lactoferrin, alpha-lactalbumin and lysozyme, which help to protect infants from bacterial infection. Despite these technological strides, the lead researcher professor Ning Li said it may take 10 years or more to get this GE bovine milk to the consumers. But maybe the world’s babies don’t need special cows anyway. The chemistry of human milk is undeniably valuable, plus, it’s virtually free of cost.Yet, at times, baby formula appears to be the only option since a mother’s diet, medications and physical condition are all factors when breastfeeding infants. The research with humanoid cow milk may want to bridge this gap between processed formula and natural food for newborns, but the work seems entirely excessive.Despite the researchers’ insistence that the milk would be safe to drink, opponents of GM foods “reacted angrily to the research” and questioned the “effect of the cattle’s health,” according to The Telegraph.Since the “liquid gold” product already exists naturally in mothers, the efforts to create a store-bought version are odd.Organizations like the International Breast Milk Project don’t turn to science for imitations of human milk, they use the real stuff.IBMP provides nutritional milk to infants in immediate need, and they operate on donations from women in the United States. When the original form of breast milk is already available, why should we settle for anything less?— paihenry@indiana.edu
(03/31/11 10:25pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>If memory serves me, yesterday was Thursday. Odds are, today is Friday. And, assuming that our weekly calendar system won’t change, the next day will be Saturday, which can then be followed by Sunday, correct? So I’m a little behind on my pop-culture references, but Rebecca Black’s infamous song “Friday” sure knows how to introduce the weekend.“We-we-we so excited / We so excited / We gonna have a ball today,” she sings via Auto-Tune.If those lyrics don’t make you want to dance, I don’t know what will. Posted to YouTube on Feb. 10, the official “Friday” video received only 1,000 views during its first month online, but now there are more than 66 million views. What happened?Can money actually buy fame? Did Black’s parents pay $2,000 to the Los Angeles-based company Ark Music Factory to manufacture the next big Internet jingle? Or were they simply satisfying their daughter’s whim for an upscale version of a musical home video?Maybe tiny productions like Ark really can change the world, but how I see it, the video was advertised through an independent party.“Friday” didn’t go viral by being highbrow art; it’s famous because it’s funny. The kids try to act cool. They poorly imitate rap. It’s comical.All of this plus a few cheesy graphics add up to an ideal source of laughter for one of Comedy Central’s leading shows.The “Friday” video has so many views because Tosh.0 poked fun at it in its March 11 blog post. After the post, the video quickly racked up millions of views in mere days. People like humor, and lucky for us, “Friday” dishes it out.To be fair, it wasn’t Black who wrote the lyrics. Ark gave her two songs to pick from before making her music video.“The other song was about adult love — I haven’t experienced that yet,” Black told The Daily Beast. Whereas “Friday,” she said, is “about hanging out with friends.” I respect 13-year-old Black for shying away from the “adult love” song, but I wouldn’t say “Friday” is entirely age-appropriate, either.It’s nice that the girls in the video abstain from wearing skanky dresses, but the kids are obviously too young to drive to a preteen prom extravaganza. I know they’re excited for the weekend, but don’t they still need chaperones?Ah, but this is trivial. Viral videos have to be ridiculous so Tosh.0 will promote them. Fortunately, this one made the cut. And for that, Tosh, we thank you.— paihenry@indiana.edu
(03/23/11 7:56pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I miss our toys.Sure, Xbox and Wii systems have endless, exciting game scenarios, but I’ve been reminded, on recently rediscovering an old square Game Boy, that our childhood toys were great even without motion sensors. Heck, most of our early entertainment didn’t even require batteries!A recent article in TIME helped trigger my nostalgia. In the list of what one reporter considers “the 100 most influential toys from 1923 to present,” we’re encouraged to reflect on the bears and dolls and figurines of our past.More importantly, we can reminisce on the sheer danger of play.Today’s video games mimic violence through a television set, but we need to remember the past glory of our actual fights with neighbors and siblings.So from those 100 toys that TIME selected, I’d like to briefly commemorate a few toys for their peril and relative simplicity.The Wiffle Ball was created in the early 1950s, the project of a father of a semi-pro baseball pitcher who wanted his young son to have a better ball to play with. The plastic orb may be easier to throw, but it still has power. Baseballs might give black eyes, but the Wiffle Ball can deliver some pretty mean stings to playmates when aimed properly.Throwing balls was an easy way to provoke a friend, but even more essential to our backyard battles were our new water toys.The high-powered water guns affectionately called Super Soakers were 10 years in the making, finally hit shelves in 1993, and more than 250 million units were sold. Pairing Super Soakers with the treacherous Slip ’n Slide seems to define most hot summers. There’s nothing like running around drenched and barefoot in the fresh cut grass. We just had to be careful on the uphill race for the plastic tarp rides. Sliding down the hill is one thing, but wiping out is another.Finally, the Skip-It. TIME described the toy as “a small ankle hoop with attached ball and chain that kept track of its rotations.” Yet Skip-It was also equipped with what I call ‘sneak attacks.’The toy, although fun and great for competitions thanks to its skip counter, was potentially painful.Occasionally, a skipper would make a false step and the Skip-It ball would whack into the skipper’s ankle.But I’ve been thinking, isn’t the sense of danger what made these outdoor toys so wonderful?And now that spring is here, it seems like we should all try to take a break from the computer and from work, find some buddies and enjoy the great outdoors.Skip, slide and get soaked! Even though we’ve grown up, we can still have fun.— paihenry@indiana.edu
(03/10/11 9:54pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Sociable readers, tweet this: My close friends max out at 150.No, I’m not talking about character space for those microblogs. I mean real, true friends — you can’t have more than 150 of them.Here, I’ll go first to make you seem less cruel and heartless. (I have to confess here because my idea of Facebook is burying my introverted head in a hardbound book.)I, Paige Henry, admit in this article that I have less than 150 friends.Why this number? Well, some years ago a British anthropologist by the name of Robin Dunbar published an article theorizing that a primate’s neocortex size is directly related to its species’ general population of social groups. For us humans, Dunbar’s number is said to fall somewhere between 100 and 230, but the “mean group size” is said to be 147.8, which is then rounded up to the magical 150. This number is regarded as how many relatively close relationships our brains can maintain in a practical manner, and despite common misconceptions, it seems to be true.Even Facebook fits into the formula. Their statistics state that 500 million people actively use the site, yet the average has 130 friends. The Wall Street Journal says the number 150 has corresponded to our social groups for centuries: “The length of address books, the size of hunter-gatherer bands, the population of neolithic villages and the strength of army units” all typically add up to 150.So those of you boasting 300, 500, 1,000 friends or more — who are you kidding?We all know who our actual, best and dearest friends are; yet we’re claiming to be “friends” with people we don’t even talk to, let alone see.I know Facebook is a great tool for connecting with lost buddies and staying in touch with those we do care about, but maybe we should be honest and tweeze out those filler-friends.Deleting false friends (false acquaintances, really) doesn’t need to be viewed as murder. No one is going to die from a simple, polite “de-friend.”Maybe the Lenten season should promote this kind of purity purge, an abstinence from weak social ties.In an online interview from 2008, Dunbar elaborated on his number 150, saying that it’s just “one in a series of circles.” At our social core there are about five best friends; the next ring houses around 15, then 50, and finally 150 for quality relationships. We should be proudest of the people we know intimately. It seems to me that having a strong base of five friends is better than an army of strangers.An individual’s worth and “likeability” don’t belong in a numbers game measured by arbitrary buddies.As always, it’s about quality, not quantity.E-mail: paihenry@indiana.edu
(03/02/11 9:41pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>This time next week, most of us will be crossing the Indiana state-line and headed to sunny, southern destinations. Such travels are expected for spring break. What might come as a surprise though, are the recent finds along our southern beaches.Forget shells and shark teeth: During the past few weeks, two dozen dead baby dolphins have washed up on the shores of a 100-mile stretch of Alabama and Mississippi coastline. Whether this is a total anomaly or an after-effect of last year’s Gulf oil spill is up for debate, but there’s obviously a problem. The head of the Mississippi-based Institute for Marine Mammal Research, Moby Solangi, explains how unusual these deaths are: “Every year, we get one or two babies that die. Now, we’re seeing stillborn, or preemies dying.” These accounts of finding multiple dolphin bodies mark a staggering tenfold increase in the average number of dead calves found in a single year.It’s possible that the dolphins “ingested something that may have affected their reproduction,” Solangi said. Blair Mase, a marine mammal stranding coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, echoes Solangi’s confusion about the calves’ cause of death.“It could be infectious-related. Or it could be non-infection,” she said. Scientists have taken tissue samples from the dolphins in hopes of figuring out the issue, but it seems the tragedy will run its course with or without the efforts of science. There’s no stopping it now.Since the dolphin calving season doesn’t end until May, even more babies are likely to be found. I just hope I’m not the next person to come across one while strolling along the beach.Why can’t there be a sudden dumping of golf-ball-size pearls or something? Wouldn’t that be a fun prank, Mother Earth?Though, really, I doubt this is one of Nature’s random flukes. Earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tsunamis, sure, those happen on their own.As for temperature and climate changes — you be the judge.But with this mass of dead dolphins, I’m willing to make an unscientific guess that there’s foul play afoot.We can’t change the past, but we can definitely be conscientious beach-lovers this time around.So before you load up the van, make a pact with your buddies: no littering, no harpooning and no dumping bottles of sun tan oil into large bodies of water.Science may not be able to tell us why the dolphins showed up on the sand yet, but while we’re waiting, we might as well do our part to keep the beaches clean.E-mail: paihenry@indiana.edu
(02/24/11 11:22pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As a person with ovaries, I’m glad to be able to paint my nails, bake and wear skirts without upsetting society, but my female-size brain sure gets befuddled when it hears crap like “You need to treat women with respect.”Initially, this slogan sounds good, but really, it’s not just women that deserve respect. It’s everyone.I say we should honor the be-nice-and-play-fair policy instead.If it’s fair to pin someone down and squash his or her face into a salty wrestling mat because that’s part of the game and you’re respecting the rules, so be it. Boy or girl.I’m sorry to report that last week a young wrestler was denied the chance to properly compete in the Iowa State Championship. Sophomore Joel Northrup walked off the mat Feb. 17, refusing to wrestle his opponent. The match was subsequently forfeited to Cassy Herkelman. But isn’t a win by default a kind of insult? Consolation prizes are great for kids, but high school sports require extensive training, and each athlete should be treated with respect.To me, it would be more dignified to treat Herkelman and other female wrestlers as regular wrestlers.They’re wearing singlets like all the boys, and they know that wrestling is an aggressive contact sport.When on the mat, I see no problem attacking a perfectly qualified contender, and since Herkelman was in the same 112-pound weight class as Northrup, it’s a shame they weren’t able to compete.Northrup defends his decision to walk off the mat in a written statement: “As a matter of conscience and my faith I do not believe that it is appropriate for a boy to engage a girl in this manner.” I don’t want to say that Northrup’s beliefs are wrong, but it seems necessary to point out that Herkelman is not helpless. She had a 20-13 record entering the tournament. Northrup wasn’t asked to tackle a cheerleader, a lady walking down the street or his mother.Herkelman is on her school’s team because she wants to wrestle, yet she still found a way to respect Northrup’s actions.“He had the right to make his own choice, and he made his choice,” Herkelman said. “It’s not like he did what he didn’t want to do.” This same approach should be taken with female wrestlers. Like any other competitor, they willingly train for matches and put on their uniforms. While not the most flattering things, singlets can act as great equalizers.So if someone is literally asking you for a friendly wrestling match, go for it. Just remember that consent is the key factor for both girls and boys.E-mail: paihenry@indiana.edu
(02/22/11 1:51am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Indiana House Public Policy Committee approved a proposal Feb. 17 that calls to eliminate all state funding for Planned Parenthood or any other organization that offers abortion services. House Bill 1205 is now en route to the full House. Those who are morally opposed to abortions are understandably concerned about state spending, but Planned Parenthood is very clear about its funding, and there is no justifiable reason why its programs, or its clients, should be denied support.Betty Cockrum, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana, has stated repeatedly that federal funding is only used for “basic, preventative health services.” In response to the use of Title X funds, Cockrum states, “Not one dime goes for abortions or in any way supports the provision of abortion anywhere, and the Hyde Amendment specifically prohibits that from happening.” This is the honest truth. The Hyde Amendment was passed in 1976 and bars the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions. Denying further funds to Planned Parenthood will only harm the persons of low income who can benefit from PPIN’s basic reproductive care services.Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards highlighted the importance of the organization as a primary and preventative health care provider. She said its services include “lifesaving breast and cervical cancer screenings, annual exams, family planning visits, birth control, HIV testing and more.” Cockrum has also explained that 94 percent of PPIN’s work does not involve abortions. The federal money provides women with necessary pelvic exams and education about preventing unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Out of the 28 Planned Parenthood centers in Indiana, federal grant funds are only used in eight “high-need, underserved areas in northwestern and rural southwestern Indiana,” including Gary and Bedford. The other 20 sites are self-sustaining health centers. Without the government grants to help support their mission of affordable and preventative health care, Cockrum says about 22,000 men and women “will no longer have a medical home.” House Bill 1205, by taking money away from Planned Parenthood, would put 22,000 people at risk. PPIN has been serving communities with quality health care for nearly 80 years, and if low-income persons are suddenly unable to receive birth control, the consequences will be severe.E-mail: paihenry@indiana.edu
(02/17/11 11:16pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’ve been spending my hard-earned summer pay primarily on fancy coffee and cheap pizza, but I think I’ll diversify next weekend and grab a few boxes of Girl Scout Cookies. That’s right — the girls are back in town. If you haven’t already ordered from a green-vested lassie, they’re scheduled to have a booth at the Marsh Supermarkets during the weekends of Feb. 25-27, March 4-6 and March 11-13. It doesn’t matter if you’re more concerned with your wallet or your waistline, a box only costs $3.50, and they’re called Thin Mints for a reason.If you’re not a cookie monster like me, then just think of the children and buy the cookies anyway. About 70 percent of the Girl Scout Cookie proceeds stay within the local group to fund the girls’ field trips and community service projects. This year, the Girl Scouts of Southwest Indiana are up 7 percent with initial cookie orders, Product Sales Manager Cheryl Voight said. Already at 445,000 boxes of cookies, the Girl Scouts of Southwest Indiana hope to sell an additional 55,000 boxes from booths around the area to meet their 2011 goal of 500,000. And if prospective consumers are having problems finding these booths, a new app for iPhone and Android is available. By using GPS, the program maps “neighborhood cookie sale locations” and can even send texts to remind users of the cookie sales’ dates. Even for the smartphone-less folks, the official Girl Scouts website makes the cookie hunt easy. Just enter a zip code, and you’re well on your way to Cookie Mountain. As if this technological support wasn’t enough, there are even guides for determining an individual’s “cookie personality.”One analysis from Better Homes and Gardens suggests that Trefoils are for those with class and grace; that peacemakers grab for Do-Si-Dos and that Tagalong-people “ponder life’s deeper meanings and philosophical quagmires.” Only the Thank You Berry Munch cookie is associated with the surprisingly bold description of “maverick,” though. These classifications are cute, but as far as I’m concerned, a cookie is a cookie. It doesn’t matter what name it has or whether it contains chocolate, nuts, fruit, frosting or coconut. I’m not picky; I’ll take them all.And why not? The price is right, the cause is just and by next week, the girls will be ready and waiting.Really, there are no excuses for avoiding these kids. Give them the few bucks and make them smile. Your taste buds will be happy too.E-mail: paihenry@indiana.edu
(02/10/11 11:04pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>In second grade science, we noted that the tide comes in and goes out. We were told that the moon controls the ocean, and we believed it. But who controls the moon, huh?Seriously, how did the moon get there?Some pinheads think that science explains the tides, but Bill O’Reilly says that the moon’s existence is the work of a divine power.O’Reilly even suggests that devotion to science is more rigorous than believing in a god.“It takes more faith to not believe and to think this was all luck ... than it does to believe in a deity,” he said. Personally, I don’t really care where the moon came from — just that it stays in orbit.Regardless, I’d like to offer up a few theories regarding the moon’s origin. Just for fun.The Aztecs, for example, believed that the moon was created from the severed head of the goddess Coyolxauhqui. Embarrassed by her mother’s dishonorable pregnancy, Coyolxauhqui lead her 400 siblings in an attempt to murder their mother. The mother was saved however, by the sudden birth of Huitzilopochtli, the sun god. He sprang from her womb as a man in full armor, just in time to slay Coyolxauhqui. The goddess’s head was then thrown into the sky so the sentimental mother could be comforted by looking at it in its new form as the moon. Decapitated-goddess is one possible scenario for the moon’s origin, but Japanese culture has another one.According to Shinto beliefs, the moon god Tsukuyomi was born from his father’s right eye and then climbed the celestial ladder to live in the heavens with his sister Amaterasu, the sun goddess. One time, Amaterasu sent Tsukuyomi to have a lavish meal with the goddess of food on her behalf, but Tsukuyomi was disgusted with how the food was made and killed the goddess. When Amaterasu discovered what Tsukuyomi had done, she vowed to never see her brother again, which is why the sun and moon are forever alternating in the sky. The moon stories are innumerable.The Inuit people of Greenland refer to their moon god as Anningan. Similar to the Shinto belief, Anningan chases his sun-goddess sister across the sky. Mawu, the creator goddess of the Fon people in Benin, Africa, is also associated with the moon and brings cool weather from the west. Hinduism’s lunar deity is called Chandra. He is a beautiful young man who rides his moon-chariot across the sky each night with his 10 white horses.Among so many other colorful explanations, I don’t see how calling the moon’s presence just plain “lucky” is such a pinhead remark. Whether the moon came from a humongous head, the arts and crafts project of the Divine or a giant and random fluke, I think we can all agree that we’re impressed.E-mail: paihenry@indiana.edu
(02/03/11 11:46pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>While worried about my future summer plans and in between biting my nails and drying my eyes, I stumbled on an Interweb article discussing the high-anxiety American mentality. The author, Taylor Clark of Slate Magazine, highlights the “three real reasons why Americans are more anxious than ever before” as such: an increasing loss of a sense of community, an intolerant attitude toward negative feelings and the current surge of daily information we consume. Clark argues that direct human contact is the most useful for calming anxiety, but when families spread across the continent and youngsters turn more toward texting than face-to-face talking, an individual can feel alone. And instead of dealing with feelings of stress and anxiety in a proactive and head-on manner, our society has a tendency to mask away “bad” feelings with booze, pills or the boob tube. I’m not suggesting we live next door to our extended family to feel more connected. And social networking sites (despite being a little superficial) are certainly one way to keep in touch with people.But Clark does seem to be pointing in the right direction. These trends have undeniably impacted our society.We don’t need to condemn television outright, and I certainly respect that prescription medication is, at times, the single best option for an individual’s suffering, though it would be a good idea for us to start being more aware of the sources of our worried minds.Clark’s last point emphasizes the media’s role in American anxiety. Newspapers today contain “more raw information” than ever before, and our brains may not have been designed to handle the information surplus, according to some neuroscientists. Even the way the news is presented has a fearful undertone, and as worry expert Evelyn Behar from the University of Illinois-Chicago puts it, “We live in a culture where fear is used to motivate us.” I absolutely agree. Just minutes after reading Clark’s article online, an advertisement for life insurance popped up on my computer.The text “If you died today, who would take care of your family?” was placed above a sepia-toned picture of a young woman weeping at a small gravestone inscribed “Father.” Some might view this tactic as a practical warning, but I’m unimpressed.It’s a creepy ad and not even very effective. I can’t remember the insurance company’s name, just the fact that they’re playing up on a universal fear factor.If we’re going to keep our sanity, we ought to encourage positive attitudes and perspective.More real-life, substantial interactions with friends and family, fewer jumps into escapist coping techniques and a clear-headed approach to what the media feeds us are our best tools for reconciling our anxiety.Worrying isn’t some ferocious enemy. It’s just bad habit, so let’s kick it and enjoy the world.E-mail: paihenry@indiana.edu
(02/03/11 11:41pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>While worried about my future summer plans and in between biting my nails and drying my eyes, I stumbled on an Interweb article discussing the high-anxiety American mentality. The author, Taylor Clark of Slate Magazine, highlights the “three real reasons why Americans are more anxious than ever before” as such: an increasing loss of a sense of community, an intolerant attitude toward negative feelings and the current surge of daily information we consume. Clark argues that direct human contact is the most useful for calming anxiety, but when families spread across the continent and youngsters turn more toward texting than face-to-face talking, an individual can feel alone. And instead of dealing with feelings of stress and anxiety in a proactive and head-on manner, our society has a tendency to mask away “bad” feelings with booze, pills or the boob tube. I’m not suggesting we live next door to our extended family to feel more connected. And social networking sites (despite being a little superficial) are certainly one way to keep in touch with people.But Clark does seem to be pointing in the right direction. These trends have undeniably impacted our society.We don’t need to condemn television outright, and I certainly respect that prescription medication is, at times, the single best option for an individual’s suffering, though it would be a good idea for us to start being more aware of the sources of our worried minds.Clark’s last point emphasizes the media’s role in American anxiety. Newspapers today contain “more raw information” than ever before, and our brains may not have been designed to handle the information surplus, according to some neuroscientists. Even the way the news is presented has a fearful undertone, and as worry expert Evelyn Behar from the University of Illinois-Chicago puts it, “We live in a culture where fear is used to motivate us.” I absolutely agree. Just minutes after reading Clark’s article online, an advertisement for life insurance popped up on my computer.The text “If you died today, who would take care of your family?” was placed above a sepia-toned picture of a young woman weeping at a small gravestone inscribed “Father.” Some might view this tactic as a practical warning, but I’m unimpressed.It’s a creepy ad and not even very effective. I can’t remember the insurance company’s name, just the fact that they’re playing up on a universal fear factor.If we’re going to keep our sanity, we ought to encourage positive attitudes and perspective.More real-life, substantial interactions with friends and family, fewer jumps into escapist coping techniques and a clear-headed approach to what the media feeds us are our best tools for reconciling our anxiety.Worrying isn’t some ferocious enemy. It’s just bad habit, so let’s kick it and enjoy the world.E-mail: paihenry@indiana.edu
(01/27/11 11:40pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The breakfast-haters are a tough crowd. They’re few, but they’re proud and stubborn as mules. No granola bar or glass of milk for them between rising straight from bed and dashing off to work.They’ve pushed aside Mom’s morning French toast for years, saying they’re “not hungry.” But when dinner plans are up in the air (or burnt at the bottom of the casserole dish), who doesn’t love a good breakfast for dinner?Nothing’s better than channeling your inner-lumberjack with a big plate of pancakes, syrup, sausage, hash browns, bacon, toast and eggs in the evening.For some tummies, breakfast fare is only enjoyable when the sun is down, but are people healthier for skipping their morning meal? A new study from Technical University of Munich is challenging our long-held belief that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Researchers asked 380 subjects of varying weights to log their food intake for about two weeks. Analyzing this data showed that eating more calories for breakfast didn’t lower the subjects’ calorie count for the rest of the day. And instead of eating a large breakfast and then subsequently smaller meals, they simply ate more food during the day. In its conclusion, the study suggests that subjects “consider the reduction of breakfast calories as a simple option to improve their daily energy balance.” The German study calls for limiting breakfast calories, so the lumberjack smorgasbord may not be ideal, but breakfast doesn’t need to be reduced to a vitamin pill and a glass of water either.People may pass on breakfast in an effort to lose weight, but WebMD’s website says that eating “the same number of calories in smaller, more frequent meals” is a better way to reduce body fat.Breakfast should be served differently rather than skipped. For example, cereals and white breads are digested too quickly to keep that full feeling from morning until noon. One nutrition site suggests eating a hard-boiled egg in the morning at home and then an apple or handful of pecans or walnuts a few hours later during a break. Still, the breakfast-haters may not be willing to try these simple compromises. Anti-breakfast habits are tough to break.If people don’t like breakfast food in the morning, maybe they ought to flip the tables and promote the dinner-breakfast.A quick bite for breakfast should be easy. Breakfast is just food to kick start the day. It doesn’t need to be a health-nut routine. Just do your mom a favor and eat something before you head out the door, OK?E-mail: paihenry@indiana.edu
(01/20/11 11:33pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Let’s face it, the most “American” Disney princess isn’t Tiana or even Pocahontas — it’s Ariel. She may be under water for most of her life, but our little mermaid is a consumerism junky just like us. Recall her infamous song of greed:“I’ve got gadgets and gizmos a-plenty / I’ve got whozits and whatzits galore.” Despite her trove of goodies and 20 thingamabobs, Ariel’s far from content.Before long, today’s kids will be hooked on Ariel’s sister siren — the one who croons to the un-caffeinated masses.Because we adults have an additional mermaid-prompted vice: Starbucks.There’s no shame in adding an extra shot of espresso to your petite latte, and by all means, get a 20-ounce venti when your eyelids feel droopy, but is enough ever enough?We’re familiar with the Starbucks sizes “tall,” “grande” and “venti,” but a little known fact is that a fourth size also exists. It’s a cute eight-ounce cup going by the name “short.” But who wants kiddie sizes? By May 3, Starbucks will be pouring an even bigger beverage size.Already available in 14 states, the new “trenta” cup gives customers the option of ordering a 31-ounce iced drink. While the change is sure to create a happy buzz with the caffeine crowd, critics of the Starbucks “supersize” claim that the drink is simply too large for consumption.A graphic by the National Post depicts the volumes of the three usual Starbucks sizes compared with those of the new trenta, an average pop can and an average adult human stomach. The pop can and the Starbucks “tall” only differ by one milliliter, yet the trenta and the venti cup for iced drinks are separated by 325 mL (nearly the volume of one tall beverage).So is bigger better? Or bloated?The graphic suggests that the trenta — at 916 mL — is just more than the average stomach’s capacity of 900 mL. But before we go chastising the Starbucks sea witch for bursting our bellies, let’s look at the rest of the facts.The trenta may be large, but the maximum capacity of the stomach is much larger — anywhere between 2,000 mL and 4,000 mL. The National Post graphic seems to forget the most important factor of the trenta size: It’s for iced drinks, not hot. And the main part of these iced drinks isn’t coffee. Ice is filled to the cup’s brim; the actual drink is more like an afterthought.Consequently, the trenta-to-stomach-volume comparison is null and void. The cup may be big, but it’s the ice that fills it, not the coffee. So breathe easy, America: The 31-ounce trenta won’t kill you.Then again, neither will the mysterious 8-ounce short.E-mail: paihenry@indiana.edu
(01/09/11 10:36pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Last semester I started watching a little show called Survivor. Week after week, I felt the contestants’ struggles, rejoiced in their triumphs and by Dec. 19, after the season finale, I even had the nasty idea of applying to be on the show myself. Survivor is currently in the selection process for seasons 23 and 24, proving that the show lives up to its own name. It helped lead the way for all reality television in the beginning of 2000, and there doesn’t seem to be an end in sight. The show is a win-win for everybody, really. Contestants get a free vacation on a mysterious Nicaraguan beach where they sleep in, play afternoon games, have the occasional evening tribal bonfire and make fools of themselves, while the American audience laughs shamelessly.Ah, the advanced society.This past season’s winner was 21-year-old male model Jud Birza, aptly nicknamed “Fabio” during the first episode. As the underdog for the final few episodes, “Fabio” piqued my interest with the show.After all, who might have guessed that the silly blonde kid would take home the million-dollar prize and become the series’ youngest winner?If Fabio hadn’t won, I doubt I would have printed off the Survivor application. Young, fun, averse to manipulative scheming, I figured I could fit into this “Fabio-type” and coast through the majority of the game.During the 24 hours after Fabio’s win I was in a Survivor daze. I knew the odds of being asked to interview with the show’s producers were next to nothing; nevertheless, I tried to estimate my Survivor survival rate.I figured I could camp out, eat rice for a few weeks and forego a month of showering. The more I thought, I realized there’s nothing to really “survive” anyway. It’s not a disease, it’s not war — it’s a flipping game. It’s just obstacle courses and oversized puzzles.But my confidence began to waver when I considered the other factors to Survivor — the people. Great entertainment always calls for a few crazies, and for me, that’s where the real challenge would lie.Fortunately, the show’s adding a new twist called “Redemption Island” that will act as a loophole for the introverted contestant. Jeff Probst, the host of Survivor, explained how the 22nd season will be different. “When you’re voted out at Tribal Council, you don’t go home,” Probst said. “You go to Redemption Island and you live alone.”Eventually, another player will be sent to Redemption Island, and the two will compete in a duel. The winner stays on the island and still has a shot at the money; the loser leaves.Despite this fascinating change, I eventually decided to toss my application. The new year doesn’t quite scream “reality show” to me. I figure I can wait — Survivor isn’t going away anytime soon.So maybe next year — when instead I ought to face the world outside of the college bubble — maybe that’s the time to beg to be on Survivor.E-mail: paihenry@indiana.edu
(12/09/10 12:03am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Today, we tackle the differences between “nerd” and “geek.”You might think this doesn’t apply to you.Like me, you might sigh and remember when years (or semesters) ago, you, beaming, threw your TI-84 Plus calculator in a closet, dresser drawer or trash can, never to be seen again.Math and science are not your forte. You see yourself as “normal,” or perhaps even “unique,” but no, you are not nerdy, nor are you geeky. Those classifications only belong to computer-loving freaks.Well, maybe.For the past year, CNN’s blog Geek Out! has been asking celebrities (the geeky and/or nerdy kinds) how they distinguish between the two words.Some, like Adam Savage from “Mythbusters,” associate more with “geek” and claim that “nerds” are more socially inept. Conversely, there are other celebrities who actually prefer being called “nerdy” and view “geeks” as inferior.These disputes are all part of the bizarre nerd vs. geek debate where subjectivity (not logic) is king. Sure, definitions exist for each term, but it’s hard to extrapolate a clear consensus of what either word means from the general public.Everyone has their own nerd/geek standards, right?I, for instance, am clearly not part of the CNN blog’s target audience. They describe Geek Out! as such: “Are you a gadgethead? Do you spend hours a day online? Or are you just curious about how technology impacts your life?”No, no and, well, in regards to technology’s impact, I’m not so much “curious” as “concerned.”I know books kill trees, but in choosing between real books and e-books, I’d gladly pay for the paper.Nevertheless, Geek Out! is now my friend. I may not be one of their “gadgetheads,” but it did pique my interest in the perhaps geeky/nerdy quest for definitions.It’s important to note that the names are not mutually exclusive; it’s possible to exhibit both nerdy and geeky qualities. Weird Al Yankovic, for example, calls himself “a nerd in general, but probably a geek about some things.”For further exploration, CNN provides a useful link in its online article which directs the reader to a “Nerd Classification: Venn Diagram” graphic.With this visual, we see that a “geek” is considered to be intelligent and obsessive and that a “nerd” is essentially a geek sans social skills.This analysis for “nerd” seems fair; it matches Mythbuster Savage’s claim, and Merriam-Webster even defines nerds as “socially inept” (in addition to being “unstylish” and “unattractive”).There’s nothing like getting dissed by the dictionary.But chin up, nerds! You already know that “stylishness” and “attractiveness” don’t have any intellectual merit. Besides, the history behind the word “geek” is much more insulting. It started off as being rather repulsive.Ben Nugent, the author of “American Nerd: The Story of My People,” says the word has its roots in the early 20th century, when it was used to describe an unskilled carnie. A geek was someone who was so bad at entertaining people, he’d have to “bite the heads off of live animals” in order to get an audience.Here we see that “geek” doesn’t necessarily denote a smart person, but the Venn diagram showed “geek” to have intelligence.It’s baffling. The words are so often joined with brainy endeavors, but their actual definitions are impossible to pinpoint. It doesn’t make sense.Urbandictionary.com states that a nerd is “One whose IQ exceeds his weight.” I’m amused, but obviously this definition can’t apply to every nerd.How do we reach an agreement about “nerd” and “geek” connotations when everyone takes the words so personally?For whatever reason, I have never viewed myself as a “geek.”Maybe I’ve associated the word with Best Buy’s Geek Squad and wrongly related all geeks to computers, but that’s just what made sense for me personally.In the past, I’ve accepted that I’m nerdy because I like to do my readings for class. But now I’m willing to admit to being geeky, too.No, gadgets don’t enthrall me, but books do, so if the defining quality for geeks is “obsession,” then count me in, I guess.Whatever their history, the terms “nerd” and “geek” shouldn’t be viewed negatively today.Interests and passions are good, and as long as we remember to see the sunshine or another breathing human being, loving computers or books (or anything in between) is fine by me.E-mail: paihenry@indiana.edu
(11/17/10 9:39pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Whether you celebrate with a turkey, tofu or the ever-popular Turducken (a chicken inside of a duck inside of a turkey), the American Thanksgiving is time for family, reflection, football, food and, of course, Rush Limbaugh.See, Rush himself is similar to a Turducken (though his cross-section would yield arrogance, bigotry, and fat). He’s a mouthful, difficult to stomach, completely ridiculous, and he too goes well with conservative-red cranberry sauce.More importantly, Rush embodies what we Americans need most: Truth. And lucky for us, his talk show has a tradition for telling the real story of Thanksgiving. Every year, on the Wednesday before our national holiday, Rush references chapter six of his book “See, I Told You So” in order to re-educate his listeners on the history of Thanksgiving.He summarizes what school taught us about the Puritans: “The Indians came out, showed ‘em how to pop popcorn, fed ‘em turkey, saved ‘em basically.” Everyone sat down for Thanksgiving dinner, and then “we had the guts to swindle ‘em ... and we moved ‘em away from the various things that they had used religiously, peyote and so forth,” Limbaugh said. Even though I don’t personally recall my teachers referring to the Native Americans as drug addicts, according to Rush this is common (albeit incorrect) knowledge.Racist stereotypes aside, Rush’s real beef with the school kids’ version of Thanksgiving is that it forgets the Bible. He criticizes schools for leaving out descriptions of the Pilgrims as “steeped in the lessons of the Old and New Testaments.” He relates the Pilgrims’ settlement to a commune and said, “The first ever experiment with socialism failed.” Well, heck, why aren’t kids taught this in school? After all, the social issues of the 1600s sure correspond with construction paper and turkey handprints.Yes, and let’s discuss genocide before naptime in lieu of a Caldecott picture book. Our children need to know the truth about this nation’s history!“The Pilgrims decided to thank God for all of their good fortune, rather than the Indians. None of this is taught today. It should be,” Limbaugh said. He even refers to George Washington’s first Thanksgiving address and suggests we “count the number of times God is mentioned.” But this notion of “thankfulness” can’t be limited to the Judeo-Christian belief system. Just because the Pilgrims had strong connections with the Bible doesn’t make Thanksgiving a purely religious holiday. It’s a national holiday. I understand the Pilgrims were Christian, but America is a melting pot. And if the Pilgrims are supposed to stand for religious freedom, Thanksgiving should be a reflection of that.Unfortunately, Rush views religious tolerance as evil, insisting the real Thanksgiving story has “been hijacked by the multicultural community.” Because who needs diversity, anyway?In regards to Thanksgiving, what I learned about was respect. The simple concept of “sharing” doesn’t need to be likened to socialism.In school, being told to let a classmate have a turn with the train table and not gobbling up all of the M&M’s aren’t radical, political messages. You might even say it’s “the Christian thing to do.”For Rush, however, sharing seems sinful. He said the Pilgrims formed a commune because “the land they cleared and the houses they built belonged to the community.” But doesn’t this system make sense for just starting out in the New World? The people were starving, many had already died. ... of course everyone would team up and stick together. They all belonged to the same church!If I join a service group in a cross-country trip and the community van breaks down (yes, “community” van, the socialist church owns it), no one’s going to holler, “Every man for himself!”It sounds reasonable to me that the Pilgrims wouldn’t disband right after landing, but apparently William Bradford, the Pilgrims’ leader, wrote that young, strong men “did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.” So, Pilgrim teenagers whined about volunteer work. ... big deal.That just means they hadn’t read the parable of the Good Samaritan; not that capitalism triumphed. Anyway, the “wives and children” comment probably refers to widows and orphans, not lazy men.How I see it, the “real” story of Thanksgiving isn’t about religion or politics. It’s simple, and it’s just how we explain it to 5-year-olds: Thanksgiving is for giving thanks.And it’s always open for interpretation. Period.E-mail: paihenry@indiana.edu
(11/03/10 9:30pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I’ve never vandalized a bathroom stall, but I sure like reading the bold scribbles of the previous occupants.My current PG-rated favorite is “Sirius Black/Remus Lupin 4Ever.”Practically all of us on this campus are legal adults, and yet we still reference our childhood heroes/fictitious, middle-aged heartthrobs.On seeing this Sharpie-message, I realized that the next Harry Potter movie is just around the corner.Indeed, in a mere fortnight on Nov. 19, the much-anticipated “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I” will be shown in theatres. I’ve watched the movie’s two trailers online, but my computer’s sound system is shoddy, so I couldn’t actually hear anything. Makes me wish I were a witch.I believe the correct spelling would be “Reparo,” but perhaps “Fixo la computadora” would do the trick.It’s rather surprising how similar the silent Harry Potter trailers are to the ones playing the song “Hedwig’s Theme.” Sound or no sound, I can still tell what the characters are saying, and I can tell when they are screaming.For instance, trailer No. 2 shows Lupin pushing Harry in a very rough and frightened manner. And, without actually hearing his voice, I know that Lupin bellows “Go!” The only sounds to hear are the whizzing and hum of my struggling computer hard-drive; nevertheless, I can understand the secret language of the Harry Potter action sequences.It’s like speaking Parseltongue, only there aren’t any snakes, and I’m not actually speaking.In another shot, Harry and Ron Weasley are bickering, and by reading their lips, I know that they each say something with the word “fight” in the dialogue and that Ron says, “Your parents are dead!” in a British accent. There’s lots of wand-waving and clouds of smoke and sparkles, too.And a couple views of Potter, Weasley and Hermione Granger walking on a mountaintop and alongside a lake bear a striking resemblance to every third shot in “The Fellowship of the Ring.”Whether the Ministry of Magic is acknowledging it or not, Voldemort has returned (again, surprise), and he wants to kill Harry all by himself to regain his power, be evil and prove that love is naught.Of course, Harry Potter movie No. 7 (Part I) will outshine all of our expectations. How can it not? It’s not like we’ve seen Voldemort try to kill Harry yet. That should be exciting.I’m sorry to say, but really, movie seven won’t be much more than a cute riff on the same old plot.At least the setting will be new. Instead of another painfully uneventful school year at the Hogwarts castle, apparently Harry’s taking a gap-year with Hermione and Ron. They’re backpacking around the British countryside.Like all the others, this movie looks fun. Not too intellectually challenging, but they’re not “Dora the Explorer” either. Still, (like most) I prefer the books.Naturally, I’ve read them all.I might have even played make-belief Hogwarts once and awhile in my pre-teen days, but who’s to say for sure?I definitely cried when Sirius died. Yes, I grew up in a pagan household, where the sinful script of J.K. Rowling was read beside the fireplace, and as a kid I was encouraged to play and pretend.It seems not much has changed. I grew up with the Harry Potter craze, and it’s still lingering in my psyche.Odds are I’ll probably be in the middle of one of those crowded theaters in two weeks, sitting next to a 6 year old who couldn’t spell “Avada Kedavra” if their life depended on it.But that doesn’t phase me. The Harry Potter movies are about the kick-off for the holidays. It means having my childhood memories greet me on the big screen, even if the dialogue is sappy.I’m looking forward to seeing Luna Lovegood again. Her lines, at least, have always been stellar.Then again, nothing can top the famous Hagrid-quote: “Yer a wizard, Harry.” In the past, I’d resolved to re-read each book before seeing its respective movie. Now I just don’t have the time.I guess that’s just part of growing up.It’s probably better this way. I still know the books are better than the movies, but this time in the theater, I won’t be as disappointed about the movie leaving something out.I’ll be able to better appreciate the live action hullabaloo, though I’ll always remember: draco dormiens nunquam titillandus. E-mail: paihenry@indiana.edu