29
Jan 13

“Going outside in cold weather will give you a cold.” – Fact or Fiction?

This winter, my mom was so concerned with the state of my outerwear.  As she can no longer indiscreetly monitor what I wear everyday (and make sure the coat I’m wearing is heavy enough), she insisted on giving me her huge, black, down-quilted and fleece-lined parka.  Without it, she was convinced I’d be more susceptible to the cold and flu season, so she really is just trying to look out for my well being.  I’ll admit, that jacket has kept me very warm on the coldest days (especially at last week’s negative wind chill temperatures), however has it served her intended purpose?  Does keeping warm while out in cold temperatures make you less likely to catch a cold?

While being outside when the thermometer is below freezing is uncomfortable for most, you cannot catch a cold solely for being in the cold.  According to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, you’re more likely to catch a cold when the colder temperatures roll around as the “start of cold weather prompts people to spend more time indoors and increase the chances that viruses will spread from person to person.”  To add, studies have shown that the flu virus spreads more rapidly in environments with high temperatures and low humidity, like that of an indoor space during the winter, explaining why flu season is when it is (check one out of the studies here).

However, being cold may indirectly lead to you catching a cold.  People who are suffering from hypothermia, which suppresses your immune system, are more likely to pick up an airborne or contact virus like the flu (but if you have hypothermia, a cold is probably the least of your problems).

Though many have tried, no scientists have been able to directly link colder temperatures to the spread of the cold and flu viruses.


26
Jan 13

WIP: Online Deliberation

I plan on using http://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics as the location of the deliberation part of the unit 6 project.  Unlike other areas of the reddit site, this section is highly monitored and the rules of discussion are stirctly enforced.  The rules are as follows:

Please keep discussion:

  • Civil
  • On topic
  • Reputable and sourced
  • Free of layman speculation

Also, the mission statement of this forum is as follows: “The goal of this forum is the promotion of political knowledge by disseminating knowledge of law and policy considerations that drive our representatives and other government actors.”  As I write this post, there are currently 19 users online and over 2,000 daily subscribers, so I feel as if I’ll be able to have a full discussion with the other members of this subreddit.  The topic I choose will change depending on which forum topic is trending on the day I decide to engage in discussion, but will range from anything like health care to abortion to international relations to current bills trying to become laws, etc.  I plan on choosing a topic that I have an emotional investment in so that I’m able to stay engaged and interested in the conversation, and I also plan on choosing a topic that people have already responded to so I may build off of or challenge their opinions.


23
Jan 13

WIP: Thoughts on TIB

What I liked most about working on my This I Believe podcast was that it was ok to use a more casual tone.  In doing this, I feel that I was effectively able to speak about personal issues/use personal anecdotes to get my point across without lowering my credibility as a speaker.  I also enjoyed reading my classmate’s TIB for the same reason, the use of personal experience and opinions in some of the podcasts allowed me to learn more about the people I see every Tuesday and Thursday but still don’t know that much about.  I also liked how I could choose to write about whatever I liked as long as it led to a brief, yet effective podcast.

While recording my podcast, I found it interesting that certain words that sounded great on paper didn’t sound so great when I said them aloud.  I found myself running through what I was going to say, getting tripped up on some phrases, and consequently rewriting them.  When I was finished recording, I also found myself adjusting the breaks in between paragraphs.  Depending on the point I was trying to make, some paragraph breaks required no pause while speaking, and others required one that lasted 2-4 seconds (which doesn’t seem like a lot when you write, but it down but it feels like ages!).


22
Jan 13

“Dark chocolate is good for me.” – Fact or Fiction?

If I had to pick my favorite thing on this entire earth, it would probably be dark chocolate (and if not that, mint chocolate chip ice cream with dark chocolate chips).  As a result, I love to read articles that tell me how good it can be for you, rather than the nutritional information on the back of the packaging that tells me it’s full of fat and calories.  How can something be good for you, yet bad for you at the same time?  What is in dark chocolate that makes it good for you?  Can it be beneficial to your health?

After some research, I’ve determined that it can improve your health (when eaten in moderation, unfortunately).  Dark chocolate contains flavanols, which are antioxidants that protect the body from free radicals and are believed to improve cardiovascular health.  The Cochrane Collaboration, “a science-based group in the U.K. that analyzes bodies of research to determine the effectiveness of health claims,” conducted a review of over 20 studies the evaluated the effects of dark chocolate on lowering blood pressure (Check out the NPR article here).  They found that overall, there were small reductions in blood pressure for those who consumed 3-100 grams of dark chocolate or cocoa powder over the course of 2-18 weeks (depending on the study length).  They attribute this decrease to the ability of flavanols to “contribute to the formation of nitric oxide in the body, which has the effect of relaxing blood vessel walls.”

However, this doesn’t mean you should start eating dark chocolate like it’s going out of style.  These same flavanols can be found in better-for-you foods and drinks, like cranberries, apples, peanuts, onions, tea and red wine, and consuming these foods in moderation are assumed to have the same cardiovascular benefits as consuming dark chocolate.  Also, as with anything, it’s recommended that an individual that decides to consume a small amount of dark chocolate everyday due to its health benefits stick to a lifestyle that includes a balanced diet and exercise.

Some argue that the benefits of consuming dark chocolate are miniscule, and can be achieved by exercising more, practicing meditation or yoga, or by eating more fruits and veggies and less processed foods.  Even if that may be so, it’s always good to have an excuse to indulge in some chocolate every once in a while!


16
Jan 13

“The Responsibilities of Competence in the Global Village”

In 1985, noted political scientist J. David Singer published an article in International Studies Quarterly titled “The Responsibilities of Competence in the Global Village.”  In this work, he makes many arguments regarding the state of international politics and of those who are deeply involved in its practice, research, and instruction, and I found one of his remarks to be exceptionally interesting:

“While we have a moderately solid basis for doubting the efficacy of sustained military buildup as an instrument of national security, we have considerably less evidence on the relative efficacy of alternative instruments or substitute strategies.”

This statement was especially accurate at the time of its conception during the Cold War era, as officials realized peace between nations could no longer be achieved by war – due to the existence of nuclear weapons and the concept of mutually assured destruction – yet they did not know how else to ensure the protected welfare of their state and its values without using force.  As a result, officials turned to international diplomacy as a makeshift solution and the period of Cold War uncertainty slowly fizzled out.

This example illustrates how historically, international relations has a tendency to come about out of a necessity to survive rather than a desire for coexistence, though I find that this notion is still applicable to the current state of global affairs.  The human race has practiced the art of war since the beginning of time, so this is where our experience lies.  When war no longer became an option for the major players on the global stage due to the existence of nuclear weapons, we (the human race) turned to the less practiced methodology of diplomacy to protect what we thought valuable.

Singer makes the argument that “we [society] do not know very much about the dynamics of world affairs…just as an athletic team will be quite unsuccessful if its coaches are ignorant of the principles of the sport…foreign policy elites will have an abysmal track record if the regularities-and exceptions-of global politics are relatively unknown,” and I agree.  Though international diplomacy is not a new concept, most nations’ dependence on the practice increased substantially during the nuclear and post-nuclear era.  Up until that those eras, diplomacy was a secondary tactic; we didn’t have to be good at international relations because there was always the war option to fall back on when we failed.

To see an illustration of this notion, one must look no further than the year preceding the start of World War II.  Adolf Hitler had, up until this point, been building up an army of massive proportions and looked to be in pursuit of substantial amounts of territory.  In order to put an end to his conquest, top officials from France and the UK devised what is known today as the Munich Agreement in 1938.  Signed into action by Benito Mussolini of Italy, French Premier Edouard Daladier, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, and Adolf Hitler himself, the agreement gave Hitler ownership of Czechoslovakia as long as he vowed to advance no further in his pursuit of power.

Though it was attempted, international diplomacy and cooperation was not achieved by this agreement.  Hitler violated its terms, and the start of World War II followed shortly after.  The leaders of the involved nations tried to find a solution to the problem that did not require violence, and when they could not make that solution work, they resorted to war.  I am not saying that war was not the right option, but trying to make a point about how inexperienced we are as a human race when it comes to politics on a global scale.  Until the coming about of weapons of mass destruction, we did not have to learn from our mistakes we made in international negotiations because there was always war to fall back on.  Today, that is not the case.

The current state of global politics is one, as Singer puts it, of “indifference, ignorance, and incompetence,” and to an extent, I agree with his judgment.  Most (if not all) nations tend to look out for their own best interests when interacting with others, for in the words of Singer, “too many of us find all too many temptations to ‘go with the flow’ in our nations’ policies…for challenging the conventional wisdom can be costly.”  Unfortunately, the conventional wisdom regarding international relations is lacking, and until those who are deeply involved in the practice, teaching, and studying of world politics find the gall to dispute or improved upon that wisdom, we are unlikely to thrive as a population.

In future civic issue blog posts, I hope to build upon this idea that growth is necessary to thrive on a global scale, and investigate how the United States, specifically, has improved upon their international relations skills, as well as the direction the field is headed in.  I would also like to investigate how the US’s idea of ‘good’ global politics differs from that of other major powers.


15
Jan 13

“Going gluten-free will improve your health.” – Fact or Fiction?

miley tweet

 

2012 was the year of the gluten-free diet.  Supermarkets across the nation started stocking their shelves with gluten-free products after talk show hosts, celebrities, and some nutritionists attributed better skin, weight loss, and an increased sense of physical well-being to cutting gluten out of their diets.  But is this diet right for everyone?

Typically, physicians recommend gluten-free diets to those individuals who suffer from celiac disease, an “autoimmune disorder that can appear at any age and is caused by an intolerance to gluten” (CNN.com).  The symptoms of celiac disease are similar to those of lactose intolerance, and include, but are not limited to, abdominal bloating and pain, fatigue, and skin rashes, and if not treated, can result in hair loss, liver disease, and in rare cases, intestinal cancers.  It makes sense then, why someone who has celiac disease should cut gluten out of their diet, for it’s a simple (and usually essential) way to get rid of their symptoms and lessen their chance of suffering from negative consequences.

Gluten free diets are also recommended to people who suffer from a gluten intolerance or allergy, but who do not have celiac disease.  Individuals with this condition tend to have stomach irritability or fatigue after eating something containing gluten, and by cutting it out of their diet they are rid of those symptoms.

However, someone who doesn’t suffer from celiac disease or gluten intolerance and decides to go gluten-free is likely to see little (if any) improvement to their health.  In fact, some scientists argue that those individuals may be worse off, for in cutting out gluten (which, in most cases, means cutting out grains entirely), they may not consume the recommended amounts of vitamins and minerals needed to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

The effect of a gluten-free diet on patients with celiac disease has been studied extensively, and has been shown to drastically reduce negative symptoms like skin rashes and abdominal pain and bloating.  However, the effect of this diet on individuals who do not suffer from this illness (or an allergy) has yet to be conclusively determined, since it is a relatively new concept that has only been popularized within the past 10 years.  For this reason, I am deeming the concept that going gluten-free will improve your health fictitious, unless of course you suffer from celiac disease or a gluten allergy, which, in that case, it is extremely factual.


14
Jan 13

WIP: This I Believe

I believe in sweatpants.

I’m the first person to admit that I hate wearing jeans.  I’d much prefer to go about my day-to-day business in a pair of sweats, or leggings, or yoga pants – frankly anything that isn’t made of denim, because being comfortable is what makes me happy.  Jeans can be constricting and tight and rarely ever fit like they’re supposed to, so why should I have to put up with that everyday?

As I say this, I can hear my mom’s sighs of disappointment.  She’s convinced I will never find a husband if I don’t stop “dressing like a slob” as she so eloquently phrases it, and I 100% disagree with this notion.  What’s she’s suggesting is that if I don’t adjust the way I look to please other people, then I’m going to have trouble finding companionship in our society, because no one will talk to me based on the fact that I don’t look put-together, so to speak.

If I were to indulge in her logic, it would mean that the primary reason people initially engage in conversation with one another is based off of whether or not they look presentable.  And, if that’s the case, a person who doesn’t look like they just rolled out of bed and went to class would have more friends than someone who does.

But are those “friends” actually worth having?

There’s a point where you have to ask whether or not you actually want to be friends with people who wouldn’t have otherwise talked to you had you not upheld a certain façade that meets their standards while compromising your own happiness.  In my case, that would mean ditching my sweatpants for, in the words of my mother, “acceptable attire,” but really, that façade could be built around a number of things based on your likes and dislikes. (Just a quick note: I plan on rewriting this paragraph in its entirety to make it sound more positive, since right now it’s kinda negative.)

I believe that I shouldn’t have to wear jeans everyday to make friends or meet someone, and, in a broader sense, that no one should have to change who they are and what they like to do or wear or think to please someone else.  If you’re going to change, you should do it because you believe it would make you happy, selfish as that may sound.  Life is very short, so why spend a minute of it trying to please anyone but yourself?


09
Jan 13

New Semester, Same Blog

I decided to continue my investigation of nutrition myths (fact or fiction), as there are many I didn’t get to address last semester.  If you’ve heard a crazy diet or exercise fact, or that a food can give you superhuman qualities, or that “doing this will stop you from getting that,”  but never got the chance to really figure out if that claim was legit, leave it as a comment and I’ll do some research!  If I’m going to blog, I’d prefer that someone be interested in what I have to say, so any suggestions are greatly appreciated and welcomed.

Also, a side note: I’m not a scientist, or a doctor, or anything like that, so how I determine what is fact and fiction is based off of a compilation of research, using material from credible sources as cited.  Take it with a grain of salt.


09
Jan 13

Ideas for the CI Blog

For the civic issue blog, I’m leaning towards focusing on politics, more specifically, the changing role of the United States on an international level.  I do not know much about this topic, but I’m very interested in learning more about it and being able to make educated statements about our country’s future on the international stage and how it affects trade, law-making, job growth, etc.  I’d also like to look into the role of the United States as a peacemaker/peacekeeper in developing or unsettled nations.  In doing this, I’d like to find out how scholars, public officials, normal citizens, etc. feel about our country intervening in the issues of foreign nations and if they believe it’s in our best interest, and be able to draw my own conclusions as well.

If I choose not to pursue US foreign policy, then I may evaluate the role of women within politics.  I’d like to investigate the presence of the “glass-ceiling” (though some may argue it no longer exists) and how women have taken strides towards breaking it.  I’d also like to talk about the skewed representation of our population in Congress, given that most members are older, educated, white males.  Can such a small sampling of individuals accurately represent the desires of their district, even though they may look nothing like their constituents?

 


Skip to toolbar