Pax Ahimsa Gethen: Wikimedia

Nowadays, it seems to be popular to label Donald Trumps a “fascist”.

Several writers from major news outlets have made this comparison, and with good reason: he wants to deport every Mexican illegally in the United States and draws from the violently racist rhetoric of Hitler and the blame that he placed upon the Jews for the plight of the Germans.

There is no doubt that like other dictators, he poses a threat to a healthy democracy by undermining the rule of law and skirting past limits on government power and authority.

But I must object to the idea that Trump can be equated to the likes of Nazis, or other totalitarian regimes such as Maoist China or Soviet Russia. Applying the term “fascist” to him is counterproductive because it overstates his threat to democracy in some ways and grossly overlooks other distinct ways in which he does endanger the integrity of our political system. Instead, it is more appropriate to label Trump as a right-wing populist — an ideology that shares several traits with genuine fascism, but is crucially different in certain areas and should be approached differently.

Trump does not actively attack the ideal of democracy, unlike true dictators such as Stalin, Hitler or Mao, who violently transform their nations into autocracies by complete reworks of the legal system. This usually entails a suspension or drastic revision of the constitution to nullify civil rights, as well as the suspension of elections and the official decree of a single person as absolute ruler. Instead, his populist ideology seeks to adopt a version of democracy that is illiberal, a state which nominally has civil liberties, fair elections and the rule of law, but fails to execute these ideals in practice.

Selective application of the rule of law and elections is key to illiberal states, such as Russia, by allowing its leaders to cement their power and influence. Courts are generally fair when it comes to small claims and torts, but the same objectivity can’t be expected when a case involves an oligarch or politically connected individuals. Likewise, elections do exist on paper, but the integrity of it at the highest levels is undermined by voter intimidation and fraud.

The same “playing field” analogy can be carried over to how an illiberal democracy, such as Russia or Trump’s America, would handle civil liberties. These regimes promise standard rights such as freedom of speech or expression, the right to bear arms, due process and other negative rights that preclude action against individual choices or traits that are of personal matters. They are generally granted to the masses on a superficial level, but they are often subverted as well when it suits the interests of whoever is in power.

Russia is a notorious example of this: the phenomenon where dozens of journalists who are critical of Putin and the ruling United Russia Party disappear or are killed in “random” muggings and robberies is well documented, and there is substantial evidence to suggest that the Kremlin is orchestrating these events.

Totalitarian dictatorships, by their nature, force political activism, often in the form of violent resistance. The often intolerable living conditions brought on by repressive leaders, such as Hitler and Mao, seeking to further their ego or twisted ideology leave little room for political apathy. Illiberal democracies circumvent this by granting their citizens civil liberties on a superficial level. Allowing people the freedom to conduct everyday tasks without bother while providing a functioning government at the very low level is enough of an incentive to pacify the average citizen.

Meanwhile, the threat of arbitrary imprisonment or worse serves as a disincentive to push for more rights. It is difficult for a member of mainstream society to make the connection between corruption, cronyism and their everyday struggles. Even for those who do see the link between corruption and their everyday affairs, they would question if bucking against the system is worth losing what they already have — a life where they are free to do their everyday affairs as long as they pay their taxes.

So what should progressives, civil libertarians and constitutionalists do to stop Trump’s vision of a crony capitalist state? We need to preserve and strengthen the democratic system that creates meaningful political engagement and places checks on consolidated power. It is key that civil bureaucracies at all levels — local, state and federal — are free from political interference and corruption to work as efficiently as possible.

Meanwhile, the integrity of our judiciary and legislature needs to be maintained by taking measures that encourage transparency and independence from the executive branch. Lastly, the establishment of both parties need to radically rethink on how they approach issues. The public has lost its patience with a gridlocked government that has accomplished little, and their anger is fertile ground for autocrats like Putin, Trump or Duterte.

Jarmoluk: Pixabay

Movie adaptations of novels have become more and more prevalent. Unfortunately, this is both a blessing and a curse because the quality of movie adaptations is about as inconsistent as the weather has been this week.

Sometimes, movie adaptations are spot-on when it comes to being accurate to events that took place in the novel, but that doesn’t mean that the movie was directed well. In other cases, it’s the exact opposite; the movie doesn’t follow the book at all, but it somehow ends up being better than the actual book. And, in the best-case scenario, the movie is faithful to its source material and directed expertly.

A perfect example of a movie adaptation of a novel would be the first “Hunger Games” movie. Not only was the directing done very well, but it was also excellently cast, and the actors gave very believable performances. Jennifer Lawrence certainly did Katniss Everdeen justice, bringing the character to life on the big screen.

An example of a not-so-good movie adaptation of a novel was the first “Hobbit” movie. To be fair, I’m considering the first film alone and not all three. The movie itself was surprisingly well-crafted, but it didn’t follow the novel as closely as many fans of the series were hoping for. This blunder was amplified by the two sequels. Making a single book into multiple movies is, generally speaking, not a good idea, especially when the book is as short as “The Hobbit.” The movies had too much extra material crammed into them that could have been excluded without any complaints, and that would have made for overall better films.

With these two examples of movie adaptations in mind, let’s look at some of the things that generally end up making books better than their film counterparts.

The first, and probably the most well-known, reason is that books don’t have to go through the same difficulties as a movie does when it comes to production. Novels don’t have budgets, and authors don’t have to worry about things like finding the right actors for certain roles, getting the necessary equipment to shoot the film and finding good locations to film at. There are a lot fewer restrictions when it comes to writing a novel and a lot more flexibility.

The second thing to take into consideration is a conflict of interest, and this can be especially problematic if the author of the novel is helping with the writing for the film. When writing a book, the author has total control of what he or she can write, and there are no restrictions when it comes to what is written and how it is written. However, writing a script and writing a novel require two completely different styles of writing, and tweaks almost always need to be made to the source material of a book when it is made into a film. A director who respects the source material will understand this, but they will also understand that there is a certain line that you don’t cross.

For most authors, a book is like their baby; they don’t want anybody that they don’t deeply trust messing with it. You can probably imagine how this mindset could quickly become a problem if it isn’t addressed early on. Creative differences could potentially lead to the film being delayed, and, in the worst-case scenario, the film would never finish being made.

Lastly, books don’t have a limit on how long they can be in the way movies do. Although movies do not technically have a max running time, there are standards that most films generally adhere to. Books also have a standard number of pages, but this standard isn’t followed all that closely. When making a book into a movie, it can be difficult to judge what material to include and what to leave out. Some directors like to stick directly to the novel and make next to no changes, while other directors prefer to make some creative changes to the source material to give the film its own identity. Both styles are completely respectable so long as they are done properly, but doing them properly is obviously no easy task.

I may have written very negatively about movie adaptations, but I still love a good movie adaptation of a book. Regardless of whether it’s a 1000-page book being turned into a two-and-a-half-hour movie or a 300-page book being turned into a movie trilogy, a film adaptation can always succeed with flying colors if it is done correctly.

Unsplash: Pixabay

The nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency showed exactly what President Donald Trump’s commitment, or lack thereof, to the environment would be for the duration of his presidency.

Trump’s comments on climate change have varied from calling it a hoax to agreeing that it is a problem that needs to be dealt with in some manner. Pruitt as a nominee reflects the former of these views on climate change and a commitment to fossil fuel corporate interests.

The EPA is here to stick around, but that does not mean that Pruitt cannot facilitate a conservative agenda that drastically cuts EPA funding, relaxes EPA-mandated regulations, and turns a blind eye to industrial interests. The Senate confirmation of Pruitt, someone who has sued the EPA 14 times, will mark a tremendous blow to environmentalists in an era where climate change will be the most pressing global issue. With this, it is important to look to green movements that can facilitate pushback against a pro-industry, anti-environmental administration for the next four years.

John Dryzek, a professor at the University of Canberra’s Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, outlines specific approaches to solving environmental issues, including survivalism, environmental problem solving, sustainability, and green radicalism.

Sustainability and green radical movements are both worldviews that recognize the environmental issues facing us today and the fact that humans are at the center of this negative impact on nature. What is abundantly clear in Dryzek’s study of the different worldviews is that their blueprint for protecting the environment represents the central value structure of each discourse.

For example, the sustainability world view positions the environment at the feet of humans, while the Green Radical worldview does not. Sustainability as a solution is committed to the Western, capitalist principles of development at all costs, but wants to “sustain” the environment by promoting a cause that can achieve it all.

Green radicals see capitalism and its ideals of incessant production and consumption as a problem that can only be fixed by overthrowing the system itself. It becomes a question of whether we work with the system or destroy it to build our own.

The sustainability worldview is broken into sustainable development and ecological modernization. While both intentionally fit the neoliberal framework, focusing on progression and economic development, they are also attempting to change the systems of production so that we can “have it all.”

Moreover, sustainable development revolves around the idea that we can still grow if we solve environmental issues in a multifaceted approach, much like democracy, that promotes many values in a competitive and cooperative manner.

The problem with this is twofold.

We must first make sustainable resources desirable to corporate interests, initially by making them economically more efficient and then finding a way to incorporate the oil and automobile industry in this transition seeing as they have an immense amount of political power.

This effort was made clear by President Barack Obama when he presented the efficient models of clean energy and used them to reduce emissions throughout his presidency. Then, even if we can produce less, emit less, and become more sustainable, because of our consumer habits inherent in a capitalistic economy, we will continue to harm the earth when consuming what developing countries are producing.

This multifaceted attempt to promote sustainable economic growth through international and grassroots organization while de-emphasizing national government, is encouraging in that it decentralizes power, reducing the strength and validity behind realist political thought, while promoting traditional liberal political theory. The fact that this discourse incorporates decentralization makes it better than ecological modernization by giving people more access and focused less on experts and elites setting up the so-called sustainable economy. I believe this would be beneficial to many international issues of power facing us today by moving from a zero-sum to a positive-sum foreign policy. From an environmental perspective, however, sustainable development still submits to market capitalism and its relentless need for growth, and therefore will not be successful.

Though this model of sustainable development promotes the notion of having it all, scientific research tells us this may not be possible. Scientific reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that the threat of an environmental catastrophe is imminent. Continued growth means more emissions, meaning higher global temperatures, rising sea levels, increases in the number of natural disasters, huge displacements of refugees and economic ruin. Even if we were to turn to a sustainable economy, this would take time that we may not have. The transition to sustainable resources such as solar or wind would require continued reliance on emissions simply just for infrastructure development and implementation.

To tackle the environmental problems facing the globe, an approach along the lines of green radicalism seems more appropriate.

Green radicalism is able to detach from capitalist imprisonment through a polycentric approach. While green radicalism as a worldview encompasses the discourse of green consciousness and green politics, together, they may be best fit to tackle the dilemma of protecting the environment while overthrowing and rebuilding the political and cultural structures that I believe are most fit for society.

Through the implementation of what Dryzek calls eco-theology (though I will call it eco-spirituality) and bioregionalism, a greater appreciation and connection can be made between humans and nature, molding our cultural identity to one that coincides with the environment rather than battling it. On a political front, green politics can transform institutions from the inside out, promoting a decentralized style of governance rather than government, while grassroots organizing can mobilize from the ground up through what may look like what Dryzek calls “radicalized democratic pragmatism.”

This democratic mobilization can borrow from activist, grassroots agendas laid out by democratic pragmatists such as: alternative dispute resolution, policy dialogue, citizens’ juries and town meetings. Furthermore, the implementation of worker cooperatives, where employees own and democratically make decisions about the company’s future, would help to derail capitalism at its core through infusing corporate markets with more efficient, better-run businesses for the people. These worker co-ops have been shown to increase the happiness of workers, increase the efficiency by which they work and increase the overall productivity of the business.

This is simply because the people are given the power to take control of their destiny, because it is their own — and not a wealthy elitist’s — business. If you change the value structure in societal culture then mobilize on the ground to support political action within these capitalist market economies that are headed by corporate interest, the liberal capitalist political economy can be uprooted and overthrown. From there, local initiative and community action could build a greener socialist alternative that incorporates the principles of self-governance.

Daria Nepriakhina: Unsplash

A new product has burst onto the market for anyone who eats a gluten free diet. It’s called Nima, and in less than three minutes it can confidently detect whether or not there’s gluten present in a food sample, with a sensitivity of 20 parts per million or even lower. Scientific testing by top food laboratories has confirmed the technology as 99.5 percent reliable. Nima uses disposable capsules, is small and easy to carry and is rechargeable. The only catch?

It’s $279.

Although it’s a miracle product for lots of people who can’t eat gluten, Nima isn’t an affordable option for most people — especially since it’s an extra charge of about $5 for each single-use disposable capsule. And now that the product is on the market, the company is looking into developing similar products for other major allergies. However, I think that they should focus on making their current product cheaper for the average consumer and getting medical certification so that people may be able to claim it on insurance.

Nima is easy to use (and is actually safe and simple for children, too) but the technology inside is far more complicated. Each quick, on-the-go test is actually an immunoassay, a full biochemical experiment carried out in ten cubic inches of plastic.

Each cartridge contains an antibody that Nima scientists designed for use in the device. When the antibody binds to a gluten protein, the reaction produces a color change, which then triggers the light-up response in the machine that shows an ear of wheat on the screen. Gluten is a very large protein composed only of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen atoms arranged in a very specific order, which means the antibody has to be very specific to only recognize gluten and not other proteins with similar compositions.

If no reaction has taken place after three minutes and the light has not been triggered, a blue smiley face will appear on the screen, indicating that the antibodies were not able to react with any gluten in the sample. This could be because there’s no gluten in the sample (or gluten below the FDA gluten-free food limit of 20ppm), or could be because the gluten is chemically unable to react. This is only the case in select foods such as soy sauce and beer, which have undergone fermentation, a chemical process that affects the structure of the gluten protein such that it can no longer be recognized by the antibody.

There are a lot of different reasons why people choose to go gluten free — for some it’s as a diet or a health kick, some are gluten intolerant and have stomach or bowel problems after eating gluten and for others such those with celiac disease, gluten can actually be life threatening. I think that when eating gluten poses a serious health risk to someone, technology like this should be available to them for free, or at the very least as part of a health insurance plan.

Healthcare should be about more than just medicine and surgery; it should be about quality of life too. Eating at restaurants is a massive part of socializing, from work dinners to lunch with old friends to quizzo and karaoke nights in bars, and someone who can’t trust food from these places is forced to miss out on a huge number of things. All people with serious food allergies should be able to have control over what goes into their bodies rather than blindly trusting a waiter — not just those people with high incomes.

Mobilus In Mobili: Flickr

After less than a month in office, President Donald J. Trump’s ratings are soaring — but not in his favor.

According to a recent Gallup survey, the 45th President’s disapproval ratings are up to a staggering 55 percent, which is seven percentage points higher than it was during the week of his Jan. 20 inauguration. Since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency, no other president has reached a 50 percent disapproval rating until months into their presidency — for most, it took years to reach a 50 percent disapproval rate.

Trump’s favorable ratings will proceed to plummet as he continues to apply his unconventional tactics to his already shaky administration.

Undoubtedly, Trump possesses an unwavering and firm leadership style that has not been practiced by most recent presidents. While many do favor his ability to lay down an iron fist and stick to his campaign promises, this support does not translate to approval of his character or his political competence.

Between Trump’s controversial immigration ban and his appointment of remarkably unfit officials to senior positions in the Cabinet, he has been unable to provide a sense of security about his capacity to effectively govern the most powerful nation in the world. If he continues on this path with disregard for consequences — a path that he has yet to stray from since the beginning of his campaign — I suspect he will quickly lose the respect of even his biggest supporters.

Although the president has stood by his vow to lead with power and apply his campaign assertions, he has not remained consistent with his promise to lead all Americans. He has thus far attempted to ban immigrants from seven nations wholly, despite the fact that the threat they pose as a whole is virtually nonexistent. By neglecting these people, many of whom are hardworking citizens of our nation, he employs a sense of ostracization, which threatens the unity of our nation. For a land and a people who find strength in solidarity, Trump will not continue to enjoy the support of most.

After Trump’s nomination of Betsy DeVos for secretary of education, he experienced further backlash from those in the education system. DeVos, who has never held a role in teaching and never struggled to pay for her own education or that of her children, will lack the ability to empathize with those in such circumstances. With her confirmation, Trump has further assured the nation that he lacks a sense of understanding for a majority. This will have a considerably negative effect on his future approval.

President Trump’s ratings are down because, aside from his stern authority and quick action, he has failed to instill confidence in Americans regarding his governing abilities. He has persistently disappointed many by leading them to think he is a defender of all Americans.

This premature dissatisfaction with the new administration foreshadows a certain loss of Republican strength in the Senate after the 2018 midterm elections. The party can thank its head for its untimely departure from power. A leader is only so effective with the support of those around them; for President Trump, that support is quickly dwindling.

Henry Gray: WIkimedia Commons

It’s amazing when you look high up in our government how much garbage you can find.

We have Betsy DeVos, who doesn’t know the very first thing about education as our education secretary, we have Sean Spicer, whose unfriendly demeanour is the last thing you want as the official press secretary, and now, as of Feb. 10, we have Tom Price, a man who believes that vaccines cause autism, as our health secretary.

Yes. We have a health secretary that believes, among many things, that vaccines cause autism. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration and the World Health Organization — the three major authorities in health in the United States and across the globe — have all agreed that there is absolutely no link between vaccine ingredients and autism.

Price is backed by six percent of Americans and another 52 percent of Americans are uncertain if there is a connection.

This belief of the correlation between autism and vaccinations is not a matter of opinion. It is a fact.

You cannot become autistic or anything on the spectrum (including Asperger’s syndrome, PDD-NOS and childhood disintegrative disorder) because of a vaccination. And yet some Americans are either unsure or dead certain that vaccines cause autism.

And that’s not even the worst of it. According to a study conducted by Global Strategy Group and Widmeyer Communications for the National Alliance for Autism Research, a majority of Americans are aware of the existence of autism, but are not aware of how it impacts those affected physically.

It’s not even confined to autism. All across the media, you will hear jokes about other mental disorders/disabilities such as down syndrome, obsessive compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia, all of which are very serious and, depending on the severity, life impeding.

I know this because I am one of these people who is affected by a mental disorder. I am one of the more than 3.5 million Americans who are on the spectrum.

When I was younger, I was diagnosed with PDD-NOS, later specified as Asperger’s syndrome. I had to work hard to learn numerous things that come easily to those not on the spectrum, such as social skills, proper motor coordination (for example, writing by hand) and personal space when speaking with other people. While others might look at it as a curse or an impediment, I see it as a blessing. I would never change my condition for anything on this Earth, even a chance to know what it is like to exhibit proper social skills without constant internal second-guessing.

Asperger’s has given me the opportunity to open my mind to new possibilities, to explore perspectives and ideas that not many people would even dare to go. It has also given me an awareness of others like me, even here at Drexel University.

A month into my first quarter at Drexel, I received an email from Gerard Hoefling, the director of the Drexel Autism Support Program, requesting that we meet so I could potentially join. DASP is an academic and social support program not just for those on the autistic spectrum, such as myself, but for those with any learning or mental disability.

DASP has, over time, become my third home, and I am fortunate to say that most of the people to whom I’ve become close at Drexel are from DASP. DASP is also launching Neurodragons, a group composed of those both neurotypical and neurodivergent, whose primary goal is to spread the word on neurodiversity and increase awareness of mental health.

DASP is doing what the government should be doing. Government officials like Tom Price should be defending the rights of all neurodiverse Americans, rather than preaching the constant rhetoric that having a mental disorder is something negative. The government should be making mental health a high priority, instead of having only four mentions of autism on the White House website, in comparison to the nearly fifty references during President Barack Obama’s administration.

Our government should be sticking up for those who have been long discriminated against, and should be providing even more opportunities for those with a mental disadvantage to play on an equal playing field. DASP and the Neurodragons are doing just that. The Neurodragons will stick up for those who are misunderstood. The Neurodragons will make mental health a high priority and a talking point throughout Drexel. And, most importantly of all, the Neurodragons will take out the political trash.

Tom Price and the current leaders in government still haven’t made research on mental disorders a higher priority, especially when considering that the number of children diagnosed with autism has increased by 78 percent in the last 10 years. If they’re not providing funding for locating the causes of these disorders, imagine how much time and money Price and the Department of Health and Human Services are going to invest into increasing awareness and understanding of these issues to the general public?

You’ve guessed it. None.

Jan Kahánek: Unsplash

College life at Drexel University is always progressing rapidly, and sometimes it can feel as though there is no time for fun. Despite this, one useful thing that every person has the time to do is to keep a journal of their daily experiences.

Journaling even a little bit of what you experienced in a day can become very important later on when you’re trying to remember something important that you did on a particular day or a certain place you went to. It’s also perfect for cataloging memorable events that take place throughout your life, which can be especially useful for a college student because of all the crazy and unexpected things that can happen.

Keeping a journal can also be a great way to reduce stress. What you write about in your journal doesn’t even necessarily have to be what you experienced during a day. You can write in a less structured way and put down your general thoughts on how the day went or what you are feeling at that exact moment. Any form of writing can be therapeutic, and this is a reason why some people choose to keep journals.

A journal is simply a very satisfying thing to possess. Having the ability to read your experiences of the past whenever you want is not a claim that every person can make. However, if you really do not have the time to write just a small amount of your experiences each day, then you can achieve the same thing through daily photographs. After all, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Just like any other piece of literature, a journal is an everlasting piece of art like a book or a painting, and it can have an impact on not only you, but on other people around you as well. These impacts could be educational, inspirational or even emotional. Imagine what it would be like if you wrote about an extremely difficult situation you were going through and how you overcame it and a college student in the year 3017 who was going through a similar situation somehow came across it. That kind of situation may sound far-fetched, but the kind of impact that that journal could have on the person could be huge. It may be the difference between them dropping out of college and graduating with a degree. Just the possibility that your personal experiences could indirectly impact a person years in the future is quite amazing in itself.

At the end of the day, writing a journal is a form of self-expression and reflection of one’s life. As a college student, getting good grades and keeping up a social life can be difficult, and this can lead to us becoming working machines overtime. With something always going on, it is easy to forget about the little things in life that we experience and take for granted. Keeping a journal can gives us the opportunity to slow down a little and reflect on both the good and bad things in life.

Alex Jones The Triangle

Fuel, Drexel’s newest street-level dining option, held its grand opening Jan. 30 at 3200 Chestnut St.

To celebrate the opening, Fuel offered the first 25 customers a free meal, and the first 100 people received a free Fuel gym bag.

Fuel offers an assortment of healthy options including paninis, wraps, salads and rice bowls. There is also a smoothie and juice bar.

Customers order their food from a screen, which simplifies the ordering process.

“We just hit order and paid and our food was ready in under two minutes,” Tom Hays, a junior studying engineering technology, said.

Gianna Masini, a pre-junior studying finance, agreed that the ordering system was very straightforward.

Though she was excited to try Fuel for the first time, she would prefer a different location.

“It would be more convenient if it was near the gym,” she said.

Since they offer healthy meals and protein smoothies, it would make more sense for it to be located near Drexel’s gym on 33rd and Market, so that students could enjoy a post-workout snack, Masini explained.

All of the menu options are made from local ingredients and are under 500 calories.

Masini said, “it’s a good fit for [Drexel’s campus], though, because there are a lot of healthy, active students here.”

Christopher Siracusa, a pre-junior studying marketing, said he wishes Fuel had done a better job marketing the new store.

“I had no idea it was here until five minutes ago when I walked by it,” Siracusa said, sipping on a smoothie.

“Not many students really know it’s here yet, which could be detrimental to the business,” he said. If you don’t typically spend time on that part of campus, there is no way knowing that it’s there.

Jon Landrigan, a psychology student in the graduate program, is elated to have a Fuel on campus. He frequents the other locations in Center City, so he is happy he can now simply go to this location instead.

He imagines that a lot of students will enjoy going, especially since it makes it easy to grab food in between classes despite hectic schedules. Customers can dine in, pick up and even get Fuel delivered to them.

Landrigan added that the prices are very affordable; everything on the menu is less than eleven dollars.

“It’s a good — and healthy — alternative to all of the food trucks on campus,” he said.

GabrielFerraz: Pixabay

Well, ladies and gentlemen, it is that time of the year again.

That time of the year where love is commercialized to the billionth power, a holiday built from the foundation of death that ended up becoming a holiday of love. The third most commercialized holiday in history, in my book, behind Christmas and Easter. The ultimate death of decency in this world as lovers clamp lips like there’s no tomorrow.

I am, of course, talking about the awful pox known to all the world as Valentine’s Day, also known as, “We’re Dating, Suckers. Where’s Your Significant Other?”

As a man who has been single his entire life and as someone who has, on every Valentine’s Day, watched as everybody else received valentines and affection, I can honestly say that this holiday is probably one of the worst.

Why does it suck for those who are single? Well, many reasons.

First, when you go into the confectionary stores and buy candy, the first thing the cashier will ask as you’re purchasing the candy is “excuse me, do you want this gift wrapped?” This question is, to the average person, a very innocent one, especially on Valentine’s Day. However, to the average single person, it is beyond hell. The cashier might as well ask whether or not the person is single. Gift wrapped means they aren’t, while not refusing it means that they are.

Second, the public interaction. I am, in a group of a few guys, the only one who is single. I have witnessed the kissing, the hugging, and have nearly had to stop people before they got a little too crazy. Yes, I am a fan of public affection; however, Valentine’s Day has slowly become an excuse to overdo it.

Third, when was the last time you wanted to shop for something, only to find that the price is just way more expensive because, big shock, Valentine’s Day has increased the demand on something as simple as a Hershey’s Kiss! You want to go home and simply enjoy your Hershey’s Kisses, but no, Valentine’s Day had to roll in and rain on your parade, simply because store owners have decided that you can only enjoy buying expensive gifts for your significant other and enjoy a nice day hugging and kissing to your heart’s content.

If anybody is reading this and is single, then I hope you understand and recognize the plight and sheer annoyance. It is something we all are forced to go through. To those dating, I respect how you are able to get through such a day unscathed. Your love of relationships and of your significant other are unparalleled, and I salute you.

Just, do me a favor, if on Valentine’s Day, you decide to get lovey-dovey, please do it far away from me.

ArtsyBee: Pixabay

While shopping for Valentine’s’ gifts for my girlfriend this year, among all the heart-shaped merchandise, I found myself thinking about how not everyone has a working heart.

Each year there are more than 3,000 people in the U.S. in need of heart transplants and only about 2,000 take place. That means there are close to one thousand patients who don’t get hearts. But the Visible Heart Laboratory at the University of Minnesota is looking to change that.

The laboratory itself was established 20 years ago. Its goal was to conduct research that allows people to better understand the workings of the human heart. Now they’re successfully able to get hearts beating again just a few hours after they’ve arrived at the laboratory.

This is an incredibly important achievement considering how fast the human heart can degrade after death and how urgent the majority of heart transplants are.

When I think of restarting a heart, my first thought is of the defibrillators used to revive heroes in movies. But the technology this lab is developing is a lot more complicated than that.

First, these hearts are connected to the Visible Heart apparatus. This technology mimics the potential donor, pumping oxygen and minerals into the heart with a clear liquid that resembles blood in viscosity but is easier to monitor (due to being a different color to the blood vessels.)

Then, they create images of the heart by inserting a thin catheter tube attached to a miniature camera; sending high frequency sound waves into the heart and creating an image based on the relative intensity of the reflected wave; and passing X-rays through the heart, creating an image developed depending on which waves have enough energy to convert an electron into light when they reach a screen on the other side. Processes more succinctly referred to as endoscopy, echocardiography and fluoroscopy.

These images show how the potential donor would react to the new heart and can be used to develop devices that improve heart activity in humans and reduce the number of necessary heart transplants, increasing their success rate and longevity.

This technology is helping to increase the amount of successful transplant surgeries and the proportion of eligible donors whose hearts are able to be used for transplants.

However, only somewhere around half of eligible U.S. residents are signed up to the organ donor registry.

To make sure these scientists’ hard work can be used to its full potential, we need as many people as possible to put their names on the list because as any sappy romantic like me knows, there’s no such thing as too many hearts.

More than half of heart transplant recipients live another 10-plus years after their transplant, so it’s one of the longest lasting gifts you can give someone, especially on the average college budget.

Plus, signing up to the register only takes a couple of minutes, is completely risk free and doesn’t require any lifestyle changes, so there’s no reason not to.

I love Valentine’s Day, and I’m definitely planning to buy heart-shaped chocolates for somebody special — but this year, I’m also signing up for the Pennsylvania organ donation registry, so that I can (in a very small way) join in these scientists’ efforts to give everyone in the country a working heart.