Posts tagged with "Huffington Post"

White House welcomes two ‘very good boys’ as Biden’s dogs move in

January 25, 2021

Who let the dogs in? Well, President Joe Biden did. And they are very glad to be reunited with their “hoomans,” according to their Twitter feed, @TheFirstDogs.

Now that the two German Shepherds are in their new home at the White House, they commented, “Our hoomans, @potus and @flotus, are heccin’ awesome.”

And, as for 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Major loves the South Lawn and Champ’s Monday thoughts involve mainly “bacun,” according to a report by The Huffington Post.

The fur babies belonging to Biden and his wife, first lady Dr. Jill Biden, arrived this weekend—marking the first time a pet has taken up residence in the White House since the Obamas left.

Notably, President Donald Trump was the first president in more than 100 years to not have had a pet while in office.

“The First Family wanted to get settled before bringing the dogs down to Washington from Delaware,” said Michael LaRosa, press secretary for Jill Biden, in a statement to CNN on Monday, January 25.

Of the two very good boys, Champ is more than ten years old and has lived with the Bidens since December 2008—previously cohabitating with the family at the vice president’s residence during Obama’s presidency. Major, who is three years old, is the first-ever dog adopted from a shelter to live in the White House.

Rumor is they soon will have a brother or sister. Dr. Biden also wants a kitten.

Research contact: @HuffPost

Whodunnit? New monolith mysteriously materializes in Romania

December 2, 2020

Officials have launched an investigation into the strange appearance of a metallic monolith— this time, in Romania— that’s similar to the one found in the Utah desert that later vanished (removed, “eyewitnesses” say, by four unidentified men).

One Romanian news outlet reported Monday that the latest structure also has vanished—but that could not immediately be confirmed, according to  a story by The Huffington Post.

The Romanian monolith, which has been described as a near twin of the Utah version—although this one is covered with scribbled circles and has an angular top—was found on Batca Doamnei Hill in the city of Piatra Neamţ in northeastern Romania on November 26, according to a number of press reports supported by photos and videos.

The 13-foot structure seems to be made of dark metal. It appeared close to the ancient remains of the Petrodava Dacian Fortress, a battlement believed to have been destroyed by the Romans in the second century.

“We have started looking into the strange appearance of the monolith,” Rocsana Josanu of the Neamt Culture and Heritage Department told Euro Weekly on Monday.

“It is on private property, but we still don’t know who the monolith’s owner is yet. It is in a protected area on an archaeological site,” she added. “Before installing something there, they needed permission from our institution, one that must then be approved by the Ministry of Culture.”

The Romanian and Utah structures eerily resemble the giant monolith in Stanley Kubrick’s classic science-fiction movie 2001: A Space Odyssey — raising some observers’ hopes that space aliens are visiting. Others believe they’re elaborate art exhibits.

Managers of a gallery for late artist and sci-fi enthusiast John McCracken believe he may have placed the Utah structure. They tweeted an image of a similar exhibit by the artist for comparison.

Biologists spotted the Utah monolith from a helicopter on November 18 while working for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. They had been counting bighorn sheep in the red rock area of southeastern Utah.

But internet sleuths using historical images with the help of Google Earth discovered that the monolith had appeared on the spot sometime between August 2015 and October 2016CNET reported. The futuristic TV series Westworld was being filmed nearby at the time, CNET noted, which could be another clue as to its source.

Research contact: @HuffPost

Pennsylvania Republicans mobilize for an election nightmare scenario

October 2, 2020

Whether he wins or loses the presidential election, Donald Trump will be able to declare victory in Pennsylvania, if Republican state legislators have their way.

In fact, GOP representatives are planning to challenge the outcome of Pennsylvania’s presidential election, if Trump fails to garner sufficient votes, The Huffington Post reports.

On Wednesday, September 28, Republicans in the state’s House of Representatives passed a resolution (House Resolution 1032) out of the chamber’s Government Committee on a 15-10 party-line vote to create a special “election integrity committee” of three Republicans and two Democrats to investigate the 2020 election. It could possibly certify its own slate of electors for Trump based on phony charges of voter fraud.

In a statement released right after the vote, Keystone State Governor Tom Wolf  (D) argued, “The House Republicans are not only walking in lockstep with President Trump to try to sow chaos and put the results of the election in question; they are also taking steps to take the authority to administer elections away from the Department of State. The resolution also attacks the integrity of county election administrators. This is an unprecedented attack on non-partisan election administrators at a time when we should all be doing everything we can to instill confidence in our elections.”

“The push to create this new election committee came “out of nowhere,” Pennsylvania House Democratic Leader Frank Dermody told the HuffPost.

“We heard the president say last night, ‘Bad things happen in Philadelphia,’” State Representative  Malcolm Kenyatta (D) said, referencing Tuesday night’s presidential debate between Trump and his Democratic opponent Joe Biden, at the hearing on the resolution. “The reality is, bad things are happening in this committee. This is a bad bill that never should have been brought up.”

Republicans, led by Trump, have been laying the groundwork for this type of move for weeks through lawsuits to limit ballot-counting, claims of potential mass fraud, and more. The Atlantic reported that Pennsylvania Republicans discussed a plan with Trump’s campaign whereby the Republican-controlled legislature would use accusations of voter fraud in order to discard the popular vote as too tainted to count. They could then, theoretically, certify Trump’s slate of electors and send them to Congress for the official Electoral College count on Jan. 6.

Since Governor Wolf would likely certify electors for Biden if he wins the popular vote that the legislature discards, Congress would then be forced to vote on which slate to adopt.

“I’ve mentioned it to [the Trump campaign], and I hope they’re thinking about it too,” Lawrence Tabas, the Pennsylvania Republican Party’s chairman, told the HuffPost about the plan to certify Trump electors.

If the Electoral College vote is close, this scheme could help Trump “win” a second term.

“We wake up and they have this resolution,” House Democratic Leader Dermody said. “It came out of nowhere. My guess is they wanted to have a companion operation going along with their plan to try and fix the Electoral College.”

Research contact: @HuffPost

Adam Schiff: ‘Dangerous’ Trump chooses own personal interests over country and Constitution

January 27, 2020

House impeachment manager Representative Adam Schiff (D-California) showed off his prosecutorial chops on Thursday night, January 23, capping the second round of the Senate inquiry, the Huffington Post reports.

Schiff, who is also the chairman of the House Intelligence Commitee, delivered a fervent appeal, the news outlet said; imploring Republicans to vote to remove Donald Trump from office because the president had put his political aspirations ahead of the nation’s interests.

Schiff said that no one was arguing in good faith that Trump wasn’t guilty of putting his personal political interests ahead of the interests of the United States when he withheld aid to Ukraine to pressure its government to smear a political rival.

“He’s done what he’s charged with. He withheld the money, he withheld the meeting, he used it to coerce Ukraine to do these political investigations. He covered it up, he obstructed us, he’s trying to obstruct you, and he’s violated the Constitution,” Schiff said.

“Do we really have any doubt about the facts here? Does anyone really question if the president is capable of what he’s charged with? No one is really making the argument ‘Donald Trump would never do such a thing’ because, of course, we know that he would and, of course, we know that he did,” Schiff said.

“That makes him dangerous to us, to our country,” Schiff said. “Why would Donald Trump believe a man like Rudy Giuliani over a man like [FBI Director] Christopher Wray? Why would anyone in their right mind believe Rudy Giuliani over Christopher Wray? Because he wanted to, and because what Rudy was offering him was something that would help him personally, and what Christopher Wray was offering him was merely the truth.”

If Russia tries to interfere in the 2020 election, Schiff said, Trump will choose his own personal interests over the interests of the country yet again.

“Let’s say they start blatantly interfering in our election again to help Donald Trump. Can you have the least bit of confidence that Donald Trump will stand up to them and protect our national interest over his own personal interest? You know you can’t, which makes him dangerous to this country. You know you can’t. You know you can’t count on him,” Schiff said.

“The American people deserve a president they can count on to put their interests first,” Schiff said. “The framers [of the U.S. Constitution] couldn’t protect us from ourselves if right and truth don’t matter. And you know that what he did was not right.”

“No Constitution can protect us if right doesn’t matter anymore. And you know you can’t trust this president to do what’s right for this country. You can trust he will do what’s right for Donald Trump. He’ll do it now. He’s done it before. He’ll do it for the next several months. He’ll do it in the election if he’s allowed to.”

“Right matters. And the truth matters,” Schiff said. “Otherwise we are lost.”

It’s unlikely that Republicans took those words to heart. Were the American people listening? The polling numbers have not been released yet.

Research contact: @HuffPost

Pleasingly plump hands are being celebrated by a new social media movement

October 18, 2019

There’s a new kind of “digital revolution” going on—an online celebration of “diverse fingers and hands.”

Model and plus-size fashion expert Maxey Greene uses Instagram to connect with her followers—reaching out for wisdom on fashion, culture, relationships, how they feel about their bodies, the list goes on. But, as HuffPost tells the story, she wasn’t using it for that recently when she posted a photo of her manicure. At least she didn’t think she was. Then the DMs started.

“In tiny font in the corner of the image, I mentioned how I never see fingers that look like mine,” she said of the photo she told the news outlet about the photo she posted. “About two seconds after posting it, a woman sent a photo reply of her chubby fingers and said ‘chubby hands for life!’ After that they just started pouring in.”

Fingers that look like hers, or fingers that are not extremely thin, aren’t represented in jewelry and engagement ring advertisements.  “I think a lot of women instantly felt seen,” Greene said.

The inherent message that the lack of hand diversity sends stems from a larger systematic issue that love, like high fashion, is seen as only being reserved for people who look a certain way. Photos of rings might seem like a small thing, but it plays to that same old trope, Greene explained to HuffPost.

“I think not seeing chubby fingers with rings, specifically engagement rings may stem from the mentality that ‘fat women can’t find love’ or don’t deserve it—n idea that’s been ingrained in our heads for years,” she said. “But it’s just not true! Advertising should reflect that. We’ve got plus-size dollars to spend!”

“Someone told me a story about how when they posted a picture of their engagement announcement on Facebook, she was made fun of for the ring being too small on her and that it didn’t look good on her finger,” she said. “It did fit her, that’s just the way chubby fingers look in rings. She was mortified and it turned a happy moment into an insecure one. It devastated me to read that.”

It’s a small movement just in its early stages, but it sends a clear message to the engagement ring industry—and the ring industry in general—that it’s time for a change. Inspired by the people who reached out with their stories, Greene started an Instagram account called @allhandsaregoodhands, where people can look for inspiration and to see what rings look like on hands that more closely resemble their own.

Research contact: @HuffPost

Psychiatrists’ analysis: Trump seems to be suffering from mental decline

April 29, 2019

President Donald Trump’s “reckless” response to the investigation into his campaign—as detailed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller in his report—shows that he is unable to rationally process risk, making him a danger to the entire nation, according to a new analysis released on April 26 by an elite group of psychiatrists.

In an excerpt from the study posted on dangerouscase.org, the mental health professionals noted that, instead of worrying about an attack on the nation’s electoral process, Trump has revealed that he is “preoccupied with himself to the point where he does not even consider the good of the nation.”.

The report bears an unwieldy title: “Mental Health Analysis of the Special Counsel’s Report on the Investigation Into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election.” The authors’ chosen subtitle, though, goes more to the heart of their thesis: “If One is Too Incompetent to Commit a Crime, Despite Trying Hard, Is One Competent to be President?”

The five authors of the report include:

  • Bandy X. Lee, M.D., MDiv., assistant clinical professor in Law and Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine (Project Group Leader);
  • Edwin B. Fisher, Ph.D., professor in the Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill;
  • Leonard L. Glass, M.D., M.P.H., associate clinical professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School;
  • James R. Merikangas, M.D., clinical professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, George Washington University; and
  • James Gilligan, M.D., clinical professor of Psychiatry and Adjunct Professor of Law, New York University.

According to a story on the study published by The Huffington Post, Yale University’s Bandy Lee, the lead author of the analysis, said that she and her colleagues believe Trump’s behavior shows that his mental condition is deteriorating rapidly. They are requesting that he undergo a full evaluation within the next three weeks by a “non-governmental, independent and non-partisan” panel that would include psychiatrists, neurologists and internists.

“If he believes he is fit, he should agree to submit to one,” Lee said, adding that if he refuses, her group will piece together a “profile” of Trump’s mental condition much the way the CIA prepares psychological profiles of foreign leaders who are deemed to be threats to the United States. “We believe it is equally valuable to do one when an internal leader is a danger to the nation.”

The White House press office did not respond to HuffPost’s queries about the new report—other than to argue generally that doctors should not offer diagnoses without performing clinical evaluations.

Lee has been arguing for some time, the Huffington Post said, that Trump’s public remarks and written statements on Twitter show that he is unfit for the presidency. She said the 448-page Mueller report offers even more evidence, meticulously collected over a period of two years by a team of experienced investigators.

“There couldn’t be higher quality data,” she said, adding that while Mueller was looking at Trump’s words and deeds from a criminal justice standpoint, her team studied his findings from a mental health perspective.

James Merikangas, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at George Washington University and another author of the report, said it does not make a diagnosis, as the White House is implying.

“We don’t claim to make a psychiatric or neurological diagnosis, although we’d like to,” he said, adding that evidence collected by Mueller shows that Trump seemed unable to anticipate the bad consequences that would have followed had he managed to fire the special counsel.

“Looking one or two steps down the road requires a certain mental capacity,” Merikangas said.

He noted that the president’s father, Fred Trump, had Alzheimer’s in his final years and that the president, who will turn 73 in June, is at the age where the neurological disorder commonly starts to manifest itself. Merikangas pointed out that President Ronald Reagan, who also developed Alzheimer’s, was known to be exhibiting some symptoms in his second term.

“Reagan was at least surrounded by competent, patriotic people,” said Merikangas, adding that Trump has methodically driven off competent advisers with sound judgment in favor of those who cater to his whims.

The professor said that as a Navy officer in 1962, he witnessed the last above-ground nuclear test conducted by the United States and that has shaped his concerns about Trump. “The president still has the authority to start a nuclear war by himself,” Merikangas said. “That’s one possible consequence. … It’s a very, very dangerous situation.”

The five authors of the new report are among the 37 mental health professionals who contributed to the book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,” which came out in 2017 and was updated earlier this year.

Research contact: bandy.lee@yale.edu

Democrats: Trump’s move to terminate Obamacare gives us a gift ahead of 2020

March 28, 2019

In a move that has appalled his own advisers, and alarmed the G.O.P. as a whole, President Donald Trump on March 27 began a legal effort to “essentially terminate” the entire Affordable Care Act ―including its heretofore sacrosanct pre-existing conditions protections.

About half of Americans—133 million—have a health issue that qualifies as a pre-existing condition. Under the ACA, also known as Obamacare, insurers have been banned from denying coverage for (or from charging more for plans that cover) pre-existing conditions.

And American voters have made it clear that they like it that way. According to a poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation just before the midterm elections last November, fully 58% of Americans said they were “very concerned” that Republicans would remove this safeguard—and expose them either to higher costs or no coverage at all.

In fact, at that time, healthcare was top-of-mind for U.S. voters—and indications are that it continues to be.

According to a report by the Huffington Post,  Democrats are saying that the president’s extreme position on the ACA will matter far more to voters in 2020 than anything coming out of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the 2016 presidential election.

And while Republicans have said for years that the ACA should be “repealed and replaced,” they are not so sure that the issue should be revisited at this time.

It comes down to this: On March 25, the Department of Justice asked federal courts to throw out all of Obamacare, not just one part of it, as it had done previously. If the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is weighing the lawsuit, agrees with the government, the matter will almost certainly go before the Supreme Court, which has already turned away two major challenges to the 2010 healthcare law, the Huffington Post notes. With two new Trump-picked justices on the high court, however, there is no telling whether the law would survive a third.

“This move by the Trump administration to take away health care will prove far more detrimental to the administration and the Republican Party than any gains they might have made by the issuance” of Attorney General William Barr’s letter summarizing the findings of Mueller’s investigation, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York.) said on March 26.

 “They are literally teeing this up as an issue for Democrats for the next year and a half. They’re not even making a laughable attempt to save the most popular parts of the Affordable Care Act,” Senator Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) told reporters on Tuesday.

Vulnerable Republican senators up for re-election in 2020, whose seats Democrats need to win in order to take back control of the Senate, are likely to face additional attacks over healthcare following the Trump administration’s new stance on the lawsuit. But GOP leaders say they have confidence in their members to fend off attacks over Obamacare going into the 2020 election.

By contrast, the Huffington Post reports, G.O.P. senators facing tough re-election fights in 2020 said they support popular elements of the Affordable Care Act even as they continue to maintain that the law should be repealed ― a delicate rhetorical balancing act that failed to save many GOP members of Congress in the 2018 midterm election.

“I support coverage for pre-existing provisions, and Congress should act to make sure that happens. I think what we need to do is make sure we have affordable health care,” Senator Cory Gardner (R-Colorado), who is facing a tough campaign, told reporters.

Only Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), who voted against repealing Obamacare in 2017, criticized the decision to argue in court that the entire law should be struck down as unconstitutional.

“It is highly unusual for the [Department of Justice] not to defend duly enacted laws, which the Affordable Care Act certainly was. This decision to even go more broadly in failing to defend the law is very disappointing,” Collins said.

Research contact: @HuffPost

Ten steps to better skin? Dermatologists weigh in.

January 31, 2019

American women are buying into Eastern wisdom bigtime: While hordes of U.S. females are following “The Life Changing Magic of Tidying Up” by Marie Kondo of Japan; many others have gone on to buy and try board-certified esthetician Charlotte Cho’s Soko Glam ten-step Korean Skin Care Routine.

Founded in 2012 with products curated from South Korea, Soko Glam advances an already rampant trend: If there’s a skin “problem,” there must be a cream, mask, serum, or scrub for that.

And, as the Huffington Post points out in a January 29 story, at a time when high-profile politicians— yes, we’re talking about Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) —are sharing their own skin care secrets, and other beauty-obsessed influencers are boasting about their own favorite elixirs and panaceas; it’s easy to convince ourselves that more is more, and more is better—especially on the path to “perfect” skin.

But are all those products really helping us? Do we really need to be spending all that money and piling a ton of stuff on our faces to keep our skin at its best? The HuffPost spoke to dermatologists to get some answers.

It’s true that plenty of people out there really do love their skin care routines. As Dr. Jennifer Chwalek, a board-certified dermatologist at Union Square Laser Dermatology in New York City, told the news outlet, “I think part of this whole trend of wanting to do multi-step skin care comes from a real need or desire in our society to do more self-care.”

So it feels good, but is that a good reason to spend so much time and money on your skin?

“Need is a relative term,” Dr. Anna Guanche, a board-certified dermatologist at Bella Skin Institute in Calabasas, California, told the HuffPost via email. She explained that if someone has, say, a ten-step process, that would be “optimal if all ingredients are compatible, stay active on the skin when layered, penetrate, and most importantly, are applied consistently.”

And therein lies one problem: compatibility. There’s a good chance most people aren’t scientists who’ve studied every ingredient in every formula and know exactly how all their products interact with each other.

Chwalek noted that skin care and beauty products are studied for their efficacy on an individual basis, not as part of a layered routine. When you put multiple layers of products on your skin, you can’t always be sure the active ingredients in each of them are penetrating as deeply as they should be for the results you want, she said.

“Not only that, you’re also adding on top of something where there are other ingredients that could be deactivating the active ingredient, or affecting the pH at which the active ingredient works,” Chwalek told the online news source. “It’s hard to know if the active ingredient of the last thing you added actually got [to where it needed] to be in the skin, and if it wasn’t deactivated by something else you put on.”

Chwalek and Guanche both agreed that doing too much to our skin can actually irritate it. And if you’re using so many products, it becomes difficult to pinpoint which one or which ingredient is causing that reaction.

If you do have a large arsenal of products you like using, Dr. Angela Lamb, director of the Westside Mount Sinai Dermatology Faculty Practice in New York City, suggested alternating them. “For example,” she told HuffPost “if you have two cleansers you love, use one in the morning and one at night. If you have two anti-aging serums, use one in the morning and one at night, or one Monday, Wednesday, Friday and another Tuesday, Sunday.”

In Guanche’s opinion, a few high-quality products and consistent application are key when it comes to skin care. Lamb agreed, noting that she likes to walk through exactly which products her patients are using and why.

“I try to pin down their goals for each product,” Lamb said. “Once I get my arms around that, then I can really trim down their regimens.”

Chwalek offered a similar viewpoint, saying that each product should have a purpose.

“Each time you’re putting something on your face, you have to ask yourself, why are you doing it? What is its purpose? If you’re using a bunch of stuff and you can’t say why you’re doing it or what it’s doing for you, I think you have to rethink it.”

It’s no surprise, therefore, that it turns out, it’s possible for a good skin care routine to be composed of only two or three basic products.

According to Guanche, the musts in beauty care are few: a cleanser, a sunscreen, and a moisturizer.

Some people might not even need moisturizers, Chwalek said, especially those who find that their skin naturally produces more oil. In her opinion, not every single person should be using the exact same products ― “it needs to be individualized,” she said ― but her typical recommendations include a gentle cleanser, a vitamin C or antioxidant serum in the morning and sunscreen.

Lamb’s essentials were similar: cleanser twice a day (once for those with drier skin), serum, eye cream, moisturizer and sunscreen. She did note, however, that some products, like combo moisturizers with SPF, can simplify things even more.

All three dermatologists told the HuffPost that toner is one product that’s not necessary for everyone. Chwalek noted it could be beneficial for those with oily skin, and Guanche suggested it for acne-prone individuals.

The reality with skin care, Chwalek said, is that we’re all “wowed by marketing and there’s new products coming out every day.”

“It’s such a huge industry. I understand the desire for people to want to use multiple things, but I do think keeping it simple is best,” she said.

Ultimately, “the best skin care is the is skin care you actually use,” Guanche said. And in this case, that doesn’t always mean more.

Research contact: @juliabruc

Cold comfort: If you always feel ‘chilled out,’ here’s advice on bringing the heat

November 27, 2018

Does even the thought of winter send a shiver down your spine? Most of us want to bundle up when the temperature drops—but if you are always turning up the thermostat or turning down the AC, there may be some good reasons.

The Huffington Post talked to experts and posted some advice on November 26. Do any of the following factors apply to you?

  1. Your thyroid is out of wack. Hypothyroidism—a condition in which the thyroid gland does not produce enough hormone to regulate the body’s metabolism—can cause cold sensitivity, Chirag Shah, a specialist in Emergency Medicine and co-founder of Accesa Labs, a thyroid lab-testing service, told the online news outlet.
  2. You’re older: “The elderly [are] more prone to being cold because their metabolism is slower and they produce less heat,” said Marcelo Campos, an Internal Medicine physician at Atrius Health, a large nonprofit independent medical group based in Newton, Massachusetts. Another factor may be decreased muscle mass.
  3. It could be something you’re eating. Josh Axe, a clinical nutritionist and co-founder of Ancient Nutrition, told HuffPost that certain foods may be to blame. “People who eat lots of water-dense, cold foods are going to feel cooler,” he said. Examples of these are smoothies, iced drinks and salads. To combat this, try switching to items like soups instead of smoothies, and stir-fry meals in lieu of salads.
  4. You’re anemic. Shah also said that iron deficiency anemia can definitely cause a person to feel frostier than usual—noting that iron is a mineral that is a key component of red blood cells. “Red blood cells are important for carrying oxygen around the body. Without enough iron, the red blood cells cannot function properly and can lead to the sensation of feeling cold in addition to other symptoms,” Shah said. Other symptoms may include exhaustion, light-headedness, rapid heart beat, or shortness of breath.
  5. You’re pregnant. When you are carrying a baby, your body temperature rises, HuffPost reminds us. A pregnant woman’s normal core temperature rises from a norm of 6 degrees to around 100 degrees. “What’s more, pregnant women are prone to both anemia and poor circulation, especially in their legs. They are likely to complain about feeling a chill, especially in their hands and feet.
  6. You’re dehydrated. Carol Aguirre of Nutrition Connections, a nutrition counseling center in South Florida, said that water drives the metabolism by helping break down food, which creates energy and heat. “Not enough water slows your metabolism and prevents your body from making enough energy to keep you warm,” she said in an interview with the news site.
  7. It could be your hormones. According to the experts, estrogen generally dilates blood vessels—dissipating heat in the body. Progesterone has the opposite effect. For women, the time of month may affect how warm or cold they feel. In men, higher testosterone levels may reduce sensitivity to the cold by desensitizing one of the main cold receptors in the skin.
  8. You have poor circulation. If your hands and feet feel like ice but the rest of your body is comfortable, a circulation problem that keeps blood from flowing to your extremities might be to blame.
  9. You may be anxious. “People with anxiety usually feel cold more than others,” said Maryam Jahed, founder Airo Health, which makes an anxiety-tracking wearable device. When you experience anxiety, she told HuffPost, the feeling activates your amygdala ― the part of the brain responsible for protecting the body and responding to danger. “This makes your body put all of its reserves and energy into keeping you ‘safe,’” she said—and your extremities may feel colder, because it’s harder for the blood to circulate there and keep you warm.
  10. Your BMI is too low. Your body mass index affects whether you feel cold, but the amount of fat and muscle you have can also be a factor.  “Muscles are metabolically more active and this generates more heat. Fat is an insulator and this can reduce the amount of heat you lose,” Campos said.

Research contact: @NicolePajer

Matt Whitaker’s appointment may be illegal, says Fox News analyst Andrew Napolitano

November 9, 2018

Following his lightening-fast dismissal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions in the wake of the midterm elections, President Donald Trump’s appointment of Matthew Whitaker as acting attorney general may do his agenda and his reputation more harm than good: It may constitute obstruction of justice in the ongoing Russia investigation. And it also may be illegal, Andrew Napolitano, senior judicial analyst for Fox News, said on November 7, according to a report by the Huffington Post.

“Under the law, the person running the Department of Justice must have been approved by the United States Senate for some previous position. Even on an interim post,” Napolitano told Fox News’ Dana Perino, who hosts The Daily Briefing. 

Sessions was canned on Wednesday—in his resignation letter, he said he was leaving at the request of the president—and Napolitano said his interim replacement should have been Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

While Whitaker was confirmed by the Senate in 2004 when he was appointed U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa, according to the HuffPost, Napolitano said that he was nevertheless ineligible to serve in his current post as the confirmation was not “for a leadership position in the Justice Department.”

“Who has been confirmed and who’s next in line? Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein,” Napolitano added.

Research contact: @davefbarden