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.