I think I have writer's block!!!

Okay, so I recently started thinking about entering a writing contest. So, naturally, I googled those two lucky words and came up with a load of possibilities. Having had a break from writing creatively for the whole summer I was weary of how quickly I'd be able to get back into "writing mode", so I chose one of the writing contest sites I found and began writing on its topic for this year as an exercise. I started off with the one thing that used to come most easily and naturally to me before, poetry.

And I failed. I don't know why or how, but I couldn't think of anything. All the words I found on my paper after the nagging whiteness of the page made me write anything (as long as it was something) made no sense when put together. Nonsense! I had just written absolute nonsense! This had never happened before. Of course, I'd written the occasional poem where although I couldn't see it, I was sure there was some meaning buried deeply, very very (um, let me add VERY) deeply between the lines... But I'd never had a time when the poem I wrote turned out to be, at a second glance, just a lot of words mismatched/fitted roughly together. I thought I was past that stage in my writing development the last time I walked out of Countryside (elementary school).

Well, I guess I was wrong. After all, plenty of people have writer's block. And maybe this isn't it? I mean, I haven't tried writing any stories for a while. Maybe this is only a temporary lack of poetic abilities? Or maybe I never had them in the first place and somehow only realized that now... Whatever the case, I really hope that this will end ASAP (preferrably tomorrow) as I really want to enter one of those writing contests.

Catching the Common Cold...

Recently I've been hit by a piercing bullet: one that has left me coughing and sputtering - er - sniffling for air. This bullet was a virus, emanating either from a long sleep somewhere in my body, or from a gust of breath delivered directly to my face from someone very careless. So, naturally, I've had plenty of time to ponder - what was it that caused my cold?

For many people, the answer to this is more than obvious. Someone was carrying the virus before me and transmitted it, as I've already said, directly (and very rudely) through either my eyes, mouth or nose. I'm not trying to argue with that, because I know that that was in fact the original cause.

My main area of curiousity is: Did the cold start as an immediate result of coming into direct contact with someone infected, or was it due to my being dressed too lightly as to expose my body to too severe a cold (temperature) for too long, giving the viruses already settled in my body an advantage because of a weakened immune system

Phew, that was a long question. Hopefully still understandable. Well, I guess I'll try to keep my sentences a bit shorter as I debate the aforementioned issue.

These questions arose out of something said by my mother today after I mentioned an article published on Yahoo, arguing for the former possibility stated in my question (that one becomes affected with the common cold due to direct exposure to someone infected, NOT from the body being cold for too long). This article can be read at http://health.yahoo.com/experts/childhealth/2134/colds-and-the-cold. To summarize, the writer states that although being in the cold for a very long time can possibly weaken the immune system, the cold is usually not a significant factor in wether or not one actually becomes sick.

According to my Mom, there has been an ongoing debate about whether or not this is really true. She believes that cold weather is in fact a significant factor in causing the common cold. Generally I trust my Mom on issues like this. In this case, I'm not sure what or whom to believe. I googled "cold weather causes common cold", and the results I found supported only the argument of the yahoo article.

One of my immediate thoughts is, maybe the second belief (that the common cold can in fact be induced due to cold weather - note, though, that I am not saying that a virus "magically appears" due to the weather, I am only wondering wether or not cold weather can be a significant factor in starting a cold) is a Russian thing. I mean, my parents come from Russia - or, rather, the former Soviet Union. According to my parents, colds were frequent there back then (which was about 12 years ago). Supposing, for a minute, that the second possibility were true, this would not be a big surprise considering Russia's climate and all. Still, my parents have done a very good job, generally, in protecting me from and aiding me (rather, my immune system) in defeating colds. And most of the websites that are firm believers of the 1st possibility are American-based. So, who is right and who is wrong? Does this mean I should stop dressing in 30 layers during the winter (don't worry, I'm joking... but of course, every winter brings its surprises, so one never knows XD)? Or that I should dress even more warmly (if this is possible)? The answer to these questions is pretty important, I think. After all, it could diminish that amount of colds I and all people have to suffer through every year, which is not little I can tell you. Children suffer 3-8 colds a year on average , according to http://www.drgreene.com/21_1053.html, and adults 2-4, according to http://www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/cold.htm.

I'm unfortunate enough to say that I was one of those unlucky children who suffered in the higher range of average colds/year. Of course, being older now, the recurrence of these colds diminishes slightly year by year. But not by much, and I still get more than enough of stuffy noses during the night that give me temporary insomnia.

My point is, I think finding the answer to the question of whether or not colds can be started due to cold weather is pretty damn important. I'd be great if I could have some feedback on the said above - from experienced doctors and anyone who empathizes.

Why international ballroom (latin included) is the hardest dance style

Why do I think that international ballroom and latin dancing are the hardes styles of dance to succeed in, especially when it comes to competitive dancing?

I'll start with partnering. Most styles, with the exception of ballet, feature individual dancers, dependant for the most part on their own bodies, showing off their beauty and grace on the floor. Even when in groups, dancers must rely on themselves to be in the right place at the right time, spin twice here, or do a split there. Ballet, of course, does feature partner dancers; yet the connection and body language required for one dance partner to trigger a reaction in the other is nowhere near as demanding or complex. Sure, the male ballerina must be strong enough to pick up the female or spin her several times - yet the dancers are not responsible for making each other's bodies move on command or in response to one another. This connection and successful partnering is the first, and possibly the most important thing that sets apart ballroom dancing from all of the other styles - and makes it significantly more difficult.

Next is variety. Ballroom dancers should be experienced in many kinds of dance styles, not only ballroom dancing alone, to succeed in that respective field. Proficiency in ballet is preferable. On the other hand, to be a successful ballet dancer, proficiency in ballroom is not necessary at all. The same applies to the other dance styles. Ballet is essential for a top ballroom competitor because it adds grace, stability, and flexibility to the dancer's qualities. Jazz adds more style to the dancing. Tap can help greatly in the Paso Doble (as can Flamenco), where one will often see a couple heel-toeing it to the famous rhythm of the Spanish bullfight-themed song.

The high heels on the shoes of any woman ballroom dancer are another issue. In general, heels are 2 1/2 inches high, and in some cases, 3 (though this decreases the stability of the dancer and is therefore much less common). As one can imagine, things are much harder to do in high heels. Anyone who complains from several hours of plainly walking in them during the day will surely testify. Dancing is of course much harder than walking, and dancing in high heels is.... well.... how do the pros do it? one may ask. The answer is practice, practice, practice - and pain. The high heels factor automatically eliminates jazz, tap, contemporary, and all of the other styles in which dancers wear no shoes, heel-less shoes, or shoes on heels much lower than 2 1/2". In comparison to ballet: even though ballet dancers must put their body weight on the very tips of their toes with no support from any kind of heel, they are never in danger of stepping on themselves or their partner, or kicking either in any undesireable places.

Finally, come on - how many of those other (appropriate!) dance styles out there require the ability to shake it once in a while?

:-P