Hunger games: True to story, but still hungered for more

To be honest, the extreme amount of hype surrounding the release of The Hunger Games kind of pissed me off. I got the impression that people (including the media) were trying to turn it into the next Twilight craze, and while I enjoyed the books I wanted absolutely no part of sure-to-exist creations "Team Peeta" or "Team Gale." And I was afraid all the frenzy surrounding the franchise would take away from my own experience. So I was a little reluctant to see the movie yesterday, but I also kept my expectations low.

Thankfully, I wasn't terribly disappointed. Of course, it's to be expected that any movie will not follow the book it's adapted from exactly, even if that book happens to be written like a TV script. (Author Suzanne Collins apparently was a television writer. Who knew?) But the movie did a pretty good job of sticking with the story and trying to include as much detail about the novel and character interactions as possible. I did find that the movie ran incredibly long, and they could've used some of the people they had on screen more effectively. But more on that later.

Anyway, that being said, there was quite a bit lost in translation. And quite frankly, given the book's writing style I had kind of thought that impossible. I didn't feel as invested in Katniss' story as I was while reading the books.

Let me go back for a minute: For those of you who haven't read The Hunger Games, (pretty much anyone over the age of 25, although with everything being Hunger Games-themed I'm sure that audience is dwindling) it's a young-adult trilogy of Katniss Everdeen, a girl living in a post-apocalyptic world called Panem, where residents of the outlying districts are forced to send two tributes, one boy and one girl, to a gladiator-type contest broadcast on national television called The Hunger Games, where they kill each other off until only one tribute remains. Oh, and the tributes must be between the ages of 12 and 18, so they're basically children. Katniss volunteers to be a tribute to save her sister, Prim, so she is sent off with her male counterpart, Peeta, to train and fight to the death in an arena. What Katniss doesn't realize is that her actions will set off a string of events that threaten to unravel the life she's always known.

Anyway, I liked the books. But that's it. I didn't think they were anything spectacular, and the writing style lacked the vigor and imagination I was hoping for. But the storyline was extremely compelling, and quite interesting. After all, how many novels are about children killing each other in arenas? The writing is from Katniss' point of view, so I had a great time imagining the arena and various characters, even if her inner monologues got tiring.

The movie did not live up to that imagination. There was more that could have been done with the characters of Cinna and Haymitch, and less with President Snow (played by Donald Sutherland, a choice I was originally not happy about but have since come to terms with.) Lenny Kravitz did a nice job as Cinna, but it was hard to really gauge his ability because he spent so little time on screen. And Woody Harrelson as Haymitch also did a good job, but again, he could've played a bigger role.

That being said, Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss and Josh Hutchinson as Peeta were excellent and got just the right amount of screen time. I particularly enjoyed Hutchinson as Peeta, and while I didn't have a specific description in mind when I was reading the books, I thought the movie adaptation was perfect.

Spoiler alert: This would be so much happier if all of the characters except the last three
on the right didn't die. Photo from Vanity Fair.

So, is this a family-friendly flick? The series is for pre-teens or teens, but I wouldn't really take my children to it. Not that it stopped anyone from leaving their 10-year-olds by themselves in the theatre. Unfortunately, this seems to be the way of the world now, and while I could go on and on about the moral decline of parenthood, I'll just say that I honestly don't think children under the age of 14 would be able to fully understand what's going on in the books and the movie(s). The undercurrents of war and politics can make for some raw emotions, and unless your junior is a boy/girl genius and/or has actually suffered the effects of war, it's hard to imagine him or her fully grasping the meaning of such a state.

Finally, my last issue with the movie was the literal headache it gave me. The camerawork seriously leaves something to be desired. I did not need to see so many different shots zooming in and out all over the place during the first minute of the movie. And the first-person camera effect (think Blair Witch Project) was completely distracting and made me nauseous. Thankfully, it was only used in one scene--perhaps the director, Gary Ross, realized it was in bad taste. The number of close shots was also overdone, perhaps in an attempt to literally draw the audience into the characters' various facial features (or flaws, if you look carefully enough and are feeling particularly judgmental) but it got very tiring after a while. So be warned.

Overall, I did enjoy the movie. I would recommend it to anyone who has read the books because it does a good job of staying true to them (I think it helps when the author is also a screenwriter for the movie), and I would recommend it to anyone who is interested in the series. I'd still say to read the books first to get a better idea of the world of Panem, but for someone who really wants to hop on the Hunger Games bandwagon, it's perfectly acceptable to see the movie and then read the books. Just don't do it around your children, unless you want to give them the stuff of nightmares.

Baby names for the traditional and eccentric

Surfing around Yahoo, I found a little gem on baby names. I'm not in the market for baby names, but I like name origin and that kind of thing, and this article happened to be the top 10 illegal baby names from around the world--a little twist.

I won't list all of them here, but a couple of my favorites are Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116 (pronounced "Albin" --don't ask me how or why) from Sweden, and Chow Tow from Malaysia. Perhaps my very favorite though, is from a comment by someone about a mom who sadly tried to name her twins Fish and Chips.

[sic] ridiculous, Fish and Chip would be great names for twins, especially if they were NBA players...'Fish Jones brings it down court... ally oop to Chip Jones, bam, Fish and Chip fry'em again...' --Glenn

Thank you, Glenn for providing some amusement at the expense of those twins.  Not too much though, the name was blocked by a judge.

Personally I stick with traditional names. Call me boring and old-fashioned, but I like a name that most people won't make fun of. Children do enough damage teasing their classmates without needing to add "your name's like fruit!" (I'm thinking of you, Apple Paltrow-Martin.) Sometimes the name speaks for itself, as in the case of New Zealand's rejected name Talula Does the Hula From Hawaii. I mean seriously, give it a rest. There are better ways to give your child that uniqueness you never had than by christening them with a name they'll never live down.

St. Patrick's Day, the other half of the drinking holiday

Did you know that there's more to St. Patrick's Day than getting completely wasted on green beer and wearing green? Here's a brief history of the most Irish of days, from history.com and the Huffington Post:

• The Irish have been celebrating the holiday, which honors the patron saint of Ireland, for 1,000 years.
• The first St. Patrick's Day parade was not held in Ireland, but in the U.S. in 1762. (This comes only as a mild surprise to me since so many Irish immigrated to the U.S.) According to history.com, Irish soldiers serving in the English army marched through the streets of New York in order to connect with their Irish roots.
• Chicago's famous dyeing of its river green allegedly came from Savannah, Georgia.
• Contrary to popular belief that Irish are raging drunks on St. Patrick's Day, Irish law mandated until the 1970s that all pubs be closed, because the holiday was celebrated as a religious one.
• 26.1 billion pounds of delicious corned beef and cabbage were consumed for St. Patrick's Day in 2009.

Also, you don't have to wear green. There is the option to wear orange, as well. Because St. Patrick's Day is a Catholic holiday (celebrating a saint) and Catholics are represented by green on the Irish flag, it's the more popular color. Orange represents the Protestant sect. However, Protestants don't celebrate saints days.

There is also a legend that if you wear green you will be invisible to leprechauns, who will pinch you if you don't. Now we know where the obnoxious people who go around looking for people to pinch come from.

A thank-you letter can say more than it implies

This was recently picked up by Boing Boing, but I saw it beforehand on Twitter (finally, I feel like I have the inside scoop!). A local weatherman visits a classroom to talk about meteorology and weather stuff, and this kid writes him a thank-you letter.

Here's the photo of the letter. I couldn't help but notice that he wrote it on the back side of the page, with the holes on the right side. That always used to bother me as a kid, and actually still does a little today. But, he's a kid, so he can be forgiven.

The smiley face at the end is a nice touch.

Honestly, this kid is going to be like the guy in the Coke Zero commercials who adds "And?" to everything. A 200-story castle and unicorn servants...who happen to ride gold-encrusted Harleys AND throwing out presents of peppermint candy filled with world peace? Right up his alley. I eagerly await the day he becomes a weatherman.

This drawing is better than anything I can do now.

 

Bullying lessons to be learned from the Awl

I haven't read too many articles on The Awl, simply because I find the vocabulary to be rather fanciful and the overall tone a little snooty for my taste, but this was a very interesting article about bullying--always the hot topic. I perked up a bit because I took the headline ("How to Bully Children") a little to literally and thought it might give me a handy guide for making small, rude, annoying children go away. Alas, it was not meant to be. But reading into the article, I still discovered some interesting points.

I wasn't exactly bullied in school, but there was a girl in elementary school who liked to single me out for whatever reason. But it wasn't all that terrible because I had friends, even if they were also friends with this girl. And I had a friend who was bullied terribly, for reasons I never really understood why. (She turned out okay though, since she's now a model. Literally.)

It's probably because I finished elementary school (and in fact, high school and most of college) before bullying became "cool" in the sense that it was THE thing to talk about, but I never received anti-bullying classes. We had "conflict management" where we learned to sort out our differences with classmates by telling them how we felt using the "I" statements. That was enough for me, because the one thing I learned to do with my elementary tormentor was to leave her alone and avoid her as much as possible. It was pretty much pointless to tell her to stop bothering me, because I knew she wouldn't--she had too many friends who were my friends, and she simply didn't like me. And in a closed environment like an elementary school, it's not like you can get lost in the crowd.

So that's why I found the Awl's article about a writer observing a classroom being "taught" (I'll explain the quotes later) how to stand up to bullies completely ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, the article itself wasn't a problem, it was the nature of the subject. And the author knew it.

If you didn't read the article, it's a first-person account of the author tagging along with a couple friends as they visit a classroom to talk about bullying. The friends go through some steps and role playing where they pretend to be bullied and then deal with the situation in a positive way. Then they have the kids practice on each other. The writing got on my nerves a little bit with all the "likes" the author put in in an attempt to sound real, but that's beside the point.

Here's a little excerpt of the idea:

“Now we’re going to do role playing,” Linda says as she hands out little slips of paper. “One of you is the one being bullied, one of you is a coach they go to for help. The slips of paper let you know what you’re being bullied about.”
I visit Caroline and her seatmate. His name is Andrew. He looks like a nice solid person, and he has dark eyes and a great smile. If he were 45, I would probably try to go out with him and the fact that I don’t mention this to him is what I believe is often referred to as personal growth.
Andrew unfolds the slip of paper in his hands and reads it to Caroline: “You’re too short to play kickball.”
Caroline looks at me. “I don’t know what do say because I’m not short.”
“Ok,” I say. “That seems reasonable.” I don’t understand this either.
“I’m not short,” she tells him.
“You’re not supposed to say that,” Andrew tells her. “You’re supposed to say, ‘Stop bullying me,’ and walk away.”
“Stop bullying me,” Caroline says, and, not getting up from her chair, pantomimes a walk. She smiles shyly into her hand. “I just pretended to ‘walk away.’”
“Are we done?” Andrew asks me, and because I know he will actually take my word for it, I tell him yes and good job.

And when the author asks the kids if they'd ever be bullied in real life, this is their response:

“Does anyone ever bully you?” I ask Caroline.

“Not really,” she says. “I am just not that nerdy of a kid.”

“What about you?” I ask Andrew.

“No. I'm too big.”

“What would you do if someone did?”

“I don’t know,” Caroline says, “Because they wouldn’t.” Andrew seems to be trying to imagine being bullied and failing. He shakes his head and shrugs.

“What would you say to someone who said you can’t play kickball?”

Caroline says, “I’d just say, ‘Shut up, I’m playing.’”

Andrew nods. “Yeah. And it would never happen.”

“Would you ever say to anyone, ever, ‘stop bullying me’?”

They look at each other. Andrew says no, he wouldn't. Caroline adds, “You’d sound really stupid.” 

 That seems to be the problem right there. It's stupid, and everyone knows it. All of the ideas around stopping bullying by bringing awareness to the issue and saying "stop bullying me" simply do not work. I don't understand where the adults who decided to use this tactic got the idea from, because they clearly must have forgotten childhood. I am sure there are some children who would be shocked into silence by such brazen action, but I would be willing to bet the majority would not. And that's based on my extremely limited interaction with schoolchildren, but I remember elementary school fairly well. And I won't even get into middle or high school.

This isn't to say that I think talking about bullying or dealing with it is a waste of time. It certainly is not. I can well remember my own hurt over the teasing I got in elementary school, and I'd classify that as fluff bullying, if such a thing exists. I know there can be real pain caused by the words and actions of others. And if there isn't a support system to help those people in the form of peers, parents and teachers, there's a real problem.

I think that's the most important issue--getting kids to stand up for their peers. It's hard for adults to understand sometimes that they can't always step in and save the day--it just causes more teasing because then the person being bullied is labeled a teacher's pet or worse. Kids need to see what is happening to their friends and report it, if it's a serious situation (ie violence) and comfort the person being victimized. Maybe include them in their game of soccer or four square. Something to make the victim NOT feel as if they're a loser, rather than standing by the sidelines and assuming it's going to go away. If bullies see that their victims are being included in the classroom, then they'll be the ones ostracized and might actually shut up.

Not to brag, but I stood up for my friend and made sure I still talked to her in class and hung out with her after school--which we did,  A LOT. And it was my parents who taught me to always be nice to others, even if everyone else in class picks on them and I wanted to be "cool" by not associating with said victim. And it didn't kill me! Not all my friends liked this particular girl (rather obvious I guess if no one wanted to hang out with her except me) so I made sure to arrange play dates that didn't involve conflicts of interest, if I could. And if I couldn't it's because it was my birthday and I didn't care.

The point is, there are other ways to stand up to bullies besides telling them "It's not cool to bully me" and walking away. I don't think kids are going to stand there in shock and miraculously leave their victims alone, and I'd hardly expect them to. You just sound stupid.

I could go on and on about this, but I won't. I won't even mention my reaction to learning that the kids in class didn't even discuss the insults (or put-downs, as the anti-bullying instructors called them) they were supposed to write down from the TV shows they watched, as mentioned at the beginning of the article. (It's weakness and stupidity, I think. If you're trying to prove that our culture is endorsing bullying by example of all the different TV shows people are insulted and cowed into submission on, you can't very well say "Oh yes, they exist, ok, let's move on!" and expect there to be change. It won't happen.) If you want to have a change in the bullying culture, it's not going to come from people politely asking you to leave them alone. It comes from having the confidence to stand up for yourself and having the support of your peers and school community to help you get that confidence.

It's OK to be Takei

We all know and love George Takei for his Star Trek days, his campaigns for gay rights, his Facebook photo postings and his hilarious videos. At least, I hope we all at least know of, and hopefully like, George Takei and all that he does. Since he's been such a news staple lately, I've decide to compile some of my five favorite George Takei moments, in no particular order.

1. He turns "Don't say 'gay' into "Say 'Takei.'" Because it's okay to be Takei.

2. A continuation of his discussion with Tennessee lawmakers, but this time he compares them to Dorothy's friends in the Wizard of Oz. And his mention of the movie Twilight being "so Takei" is hilarious.

3. His happy dance. It's so happy!

4. The photos he posts on Facebook. These are just samples.

It's true. Daylight savings sucks.

5. He was on Murder, She Wrote! Granted, the episode was a little racist when he played a janitor who spoke broken English. But you could get away with a lot more during the 80s.

He's a crazy trash-obsessed janitor who helps solve the case!

Florence + the Machine = awesome

I've been searching around for new music lately, and while I was in Chicago a couple weeks ago I heard a great Florence + the Machine song I didn't recognize. I tried to memorize some of the lyrics so I could look it up when I got home. However, I misheard the lyrics, so looking up every single Florence song out there didn't help me find the song I heard. So I gave up, thinking that maybe it was a different artist who sounded shockingly similar. But lo and behold a few days ago, I stumble across the song!

It's called "Heartlines" and it's from their "Ceremonials" album. Turns out that "Just keep going" is NOT how the chorus goes. Rather, it's "Just keep following." Well, I was somewhat close.

Then I discovered there was an acoustic version of the song. Actually, I might have found the acoustic version first, I'm not sure. But in either case, I'm extremely picky about my acoustic covers, because much of the time (about 99 percent) I enjoy the percussion and faster tempos of album versions. And I also have found that the artists don't seem to be as in tune and tend to wander around the notes more than I would like. And the same goes for this song, too--except for the singing. It's utterly fantastic. I've always been a Florence fan; she has a beautiful voice. But it's really shown off in the acoustic version.

It's a little weird that it's the same cover photo, but oh well.

I haven't listened to the entire album yet, but it's on my to-do list. I also particularly like "Never Let Me Go," but because it reminds me of a book of the same title. 

So if you haven't checked out the group (nearly impossible to do at this point since they're super popular now) I highly recommend you do that. Right now. 

Occupational therapy, a world I never knew

Occupational therapy: What is it?

Most of us know physical therapy, of course, and might have been lucky enough (or not) to receive it. And we've probably heard of speech therapists, people who help others learn or re-learn how to speak and make the basic sounds many of us take for granted. But what about occupational therapy?

Well, as you might guess, it involves therapy on things that occupy your time, in all kinds of ways. Chores, errands, and social activities are some examples of things that take up a person's time. Anything that we take for granted like buttoning a shirt or making a sandwich are things an occupational therapist helps a patient learn. The job of an OT is to make sure the non-physical aspects of a patient's life (so the mental, social or health aspects) are provided and nurtured to an acceptable standard in society.

Great examples of patients who would need occupational therapy are stroke victims, severely mentally handicapped patients or traumatic brain injury victims. Any of these types of people might need to learn or re-learn how to cook a meal, go grocery shopping or do laundry. Easy stuff, right? But there's so much to do when it comes to starting these most basic tasks.

For example, cooking a meal: What kind of food do you want to cook? Do you need to prepare anything beforehand? What kind of materials are you going to be using? Do you have said materials? Do you need to go shopping (hence the grocery shopping list)? Do you know how to properly use a stove? Or use a knife?

Grocery shopping: What do you need? Do you know where the store is? Can you confidently find everything that you need? Do you know how to pick the best kinds of eggs or fruit? Do you know how to check out of the store?

Doing laundry: How do you sort clothes? What kind of detergent do you need? Will you need stain fighters or fabric softener? Dryer sheets? Money to operate the machines? Do you know how to fill the machine properly? Will you remember to clean the lint trap if necessary? Can you fold clothes? Put them away?

There's probably even more stuff that I didn't think of for those kinds of things. It's a lot of work! But OT's help you through all that and train you so you can get back out on your own. That's what I like best about the field--it gives you the opportunity to help someone become independent.

Another nice thing about occupational therapy: The salary. Median compensation is about $75K per year, according to Salary Wizard. Not bad, right?

So what kind of education does OT require? Well, it's a medical field, so it essentially requires a lot. But it's not as bad as medical school. You'll need a master's degree or higher, and you'll need to graduate from an accredited institution recognized by the Accreditation Council for Occupational Therapy Education. So no slacking off at the Institute of Rainbows and Clover.

You'll also need to have a license, which you earn after taking the national certifying exam (boards, basically.) Different states have different licensing requirements, so keep that in mind when you're looking for jobs out of state. But you can proudly call yourself Occupational Therapist Registered when you're finished. (It's a mystery to me as to why they have "registered" at the end when it clearly makes more sense to say "registered occupational therapist," but I doubt it's a big concern to anyone in the field.)

There's a lovely article giving more information about occupational therapists and tips to get started in a career here.

Younger people, less income: The world gets crappier

Gawker writes that young people (college graduates) are making less money these days. Cheerful food for thought, yes? I know I find it particularly exhilarating to know that not only will it be incredibly difficult to find a job, but finding one with a decent salary. It makes me feel better about knowing I can quickly save up for that $3,500 camera I want.

I wish I had this much money.

Also, I just have to say that the accompanying photo with the article is hilarious. And it's a perfect example of why young people can't make money.

Rush Limbaugh comments not appropriate

Rush Limbaugh, along with the rest of the politicians, radio hosts, talk show hosts, and media in general, needs to keep his mouth shut. After his comments toward Sandra Fluke, the law student who testified before Congress about birth control, The Daily Mail reports that he has apologized for them.  But it's too little, too late.

Despite his apology, advertisers have continued to drop like flies from his show, and radio stations are suspending playing it. And I say, good for them.

This is why I hate politics so freaking much. I don't like to lean one way or another toward any political party because they're all tiresome and boring, but Limbaugh is flat-out wrong for the comments he made. No one deserves to be called a slut or a prostitute because of their position on a particular issue--in this case, birth control. And he's the type to make comments just to inflame popular opinion.

The controversy is over Obama's birth control plan--basically, he wants to require employers of any kind to cover contraception. That leaves some people, like the Catholic Church, a little testy because they don't believe in contraception. So Obama changed some provisions in the bill that allowed religiously affiliated groups like hospitals and universities to be exempt from the requirement. But that didn't satisfy some enough, according to the article.

I absolutely am for coverage of birth control in employee health insurance, but I am absolutely against requiring anyone to do it. Limbaugh, while an idiot 98 percent of the time, actually made a good point when he said "if birth control insurance is important to you as a student, you might want to work at or attend a school that isn't run by Catholics." It's all about the choices you make and the sacrifices you may need to endure to get what you really want in life. What's more important to you, getting into your dream job or program or saving money on your prescriptions? Sometimes you really can't have it both ways.

Buuutttttt, you really can't go around calling people prostitutes and/or sluts, as I said before. It is not only a terrible thing to say, but it makes you look like a drooling idiot. Not to mention, if you're doing it to try to help your choice political candidate curry favor with certain voters (which Republicans are certainly trying to do with socially conservative voters), it really just makes them treat you like poison ivy. 

Basically, if you want to make a point, there are plenty of other ways to do so without degrading people and giving them a possible case for slander. To all of the talk show hosts and political pundits, please. Just, go away. Use your passion for discussing the issues for a more useful purpose and actually think about what your words mean, rather than just saying them because you think it will drive hits.

Canon sure makes some nice-sounding cameras

I found this Kottke.org article on my blog roll earlier while scanning to see how my stats were doing. Little to none of the words make sense to me, and yet the Canon 5D Mark III sounds absolutely fantastic.

I've been wanting to get more into photography for the past couple months, but since I know nothing about cameras and what constitutes a good shot, I've held off on purchasing anything serious.

Photo from pinoytechnology

But for those of you who are photography junkies, the 5D features 4 level high ISO noise reduction, automatic LCD brightness adjustment, is GPS ready (whoa), has ISO 100-6400 calibrated range and a 98 percent coverage viewfinder, along with plenty of other options.

Again, I don't know what any of this means besides being GPS ready...if that's Global Positioning Satellite, that is. But it sounds like a great product and I know Canon makes some wonderful cameras.

I can't imagine what the instruction manual for this must be, besides very long. And intimidating. But since anyone who's paying for this probably knows what they're doing and has had experience with DSLR cameras before, it shouldn't be a big deal.

So how much does this little baby retail for? Oh, say about $3,500. And if you act now, you can get a wide-angle telephoto lens (which is not included) for only $1,200! Another reason why I can't have nice things: I can't afford them.

The camera's not actually out per se, but it is available for preorder. 

Russia's man losing his manhood?

This was an amusing little article. With Russia's so-called election coming up, it looks like Vladimir Putin is running against...well, a less manly version of himself.

Putin is more or less guaranteed to win the presidential election March 4, but a new puppet show satire has him as two different versions: One of his usual domineering, self-assured and authoritative self, (i.e., below) and one of him without his "trouser snake addendum" as Louise Rennison puts it in her books featuring Georgia Nicholson. (A fantastic read, by the way.)

Ooooh how manly, with the fishing reel
casually sticking out from his upper thigh like that.
Photo from opendemocracy.net.

According to Reuters, the play is based on a short story about an official whose nose decides to wander off on its own. In this version, Putin loses his genitalia and becomes a weak, impotent "anti-Putin" until he can rediscover what's missing.

"There is a constant dialogue between the authoritarian Putin, the tyrant, who has a constant erection, and the more democratic (anti-Putin), who shows no aggression, no eroticism, and has no penis,"said Alexander Donskoy, founder of the museum, in the Reuters article.

Kudos to the Moscow Erotic Museum of Art for deciding to take this one step further, and on the eve of the election, no less.

I hope Putin sees this as a satire and not a serious attack  against his persona, otherwise the producers of the show could (and probably would) be in some serious trouble. After all, freedom of the press is still questionable in Russia. And if he doesn't, then it looks like he has some ego problems about his manhood.

Staying active: More reasons than ever to be fit

How much exercise would you say you do during a typical day? Most Americans hardly do any, as demonstrated by the rising numbers in obesity as well as the rising number of overweight reality TV shows. Everyone knows they need to get out and walk around, but the New York Times has another reason why you should: Prevention of heart disease and Type 2 diabetes.

Biking is a great form of exercise.

In a study done at the University of Missouri and published in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, researchers found that volunteers who kept up a daily exercise routine of at least 10,000 steps per day (about five miles) did not have their blood sugar levels spike after eating meals, as opposed to eating the same meals but cutting exercise in half.

Sure, sometimes it's hard to get in all that walking when your job entails sitting at a cubicle for eight hours. But there are plenty of things you can do to get your blood moving. Here is an article about some stretches you can do right in your chair, if you don't mind the possible strange looks from your coworkers.
Other things you can do include:

• Taking the stairs instead of the elevator whenever possible.
• Taking frequent breaks for water or the restroom--make sure to walk to the one that's furthest from your desk.
• Instead of ordering in lunch, walk to the burger joint or cafe to pick it up.
• Walk or bike to work, if possible. You'll save on gas, too.

Don't fret if you don't have time to go out for a two-mile run after lunch, however. The study also found that blood sugar levels returned to normal once physical activity resumed. And scientists added that the levels only become concerning when inactivity is the norm. According to the NYT article, Dr. John P. Thyfault, an associate professor of nutrition and exercise physiology at the University of Missouri who conducted the study, said, "We hypothesize that, over time, inactivity creates the physiological conditions that produce chronic disease," such as heart disease or diabetes.

Basically, if you haven't moved in a while, get up and walk around. It's just the healthy thing to do.

Google privacy still a problem: Android phones the culprit

We're still peeking!

With all the hullabaloo surrounding Google's new privacy policy (which takes effect today), I mentioned earlier that Android phones were also affected. Turns out there's another privacy invasion problem: Android apps can access your photos and (in some cases) publish them publicly.

The New York Times reports that they actually got an Android app developer to make a test app demonstrating just how susceptible your photos are:

"Ralph Gootee, an Android developer and chief technology officer of the software company Loupe, put together a test application that appears to be a simple timer. Installing the app produces a notification that it wants to be able to access the Internet, but there is no notice about photos. When the app is started and the user sets the timer, the app goes into the photo library, retrieves the most recent image and posts it on a public photo-sharing site."

Awesome! Oh wait, no it's not. That time you got wasted and took 800 pictures so you could remember the great times you had? It could possibly go on the Web.

To be fair, most people who use their phones as cameras end up sharing the photos anyway via Facebook or Twitter (and yes, I'm talking those terrible drunk photos no one wants to see), but the point is that they post the pics themselves, with their knowledge and their consent. But Android apps don't need permission.

In the NYT article, a Google spokesman said, "We originally designed the Android photos file system similar to those of other computing platforms like Windows and Mac OS. At the time, images were stored on a SD card, making it easy for someone to remove the SD card from a phone and put it in a computer to view or transfer those images. As phones and tablets have evolved to rely more on built-in, non-removable memory, we’re taking another look at this and considering adding a permission for apps to access images.”

Oh good, considering it, are you? As an Android owner, this is making me rather nervous. I'm starting to like it better during the days of non-Internet phones, where all we could do was actually call people.

And think you're safe because you're an Apple user? Don't bet on it.