Blogito, Ergo Sum
by Gregg Calkins
30 September 2010, a Thursday
Another legend gone with Tony Curtis, although he was never one of my favorites. Maybe because he divorced Janet Leigh? I think their daughter is a marvelously funny comedienne, however, and I wish she made more movies. Yes, I feel older.
Confused, though:
The Interior Department issued new safety and spill-response rules, but wouldn’t discuss ending a moratorium.
And the logic behind that would be?
Now
here’s an interesting article:The Claim: Gargling With Salt Water Can Ease Cold Symptoms
THE FACTS Nothing but time can cure the common cold, but a simple cup of salt water might ease the misery this winter.
A sore, itchy throat and respiratory congestion are some of the more common symptoms of a cold, and gargling with salt water seems to help for several reasons. A saline solution can draw excess fluid from inflamed tissues in the throat, making them hurt less, said Dr. Philip T. Hagen, editor in chief of the "Mayo Clinic Book of Home Remedies," which is due out in October. Dr. Hagen pointed out that gargling also loosens thick mucus, which can remove irritants like allergens, bacteria and fungi from the throat.
In a randomized study published in The American Journal of Preventive Medicine in 2005, researchers recruited almost 400 healthy volunteers and followed them for 60 days during cold and flu season. Some of the subjects were told to gargle three times a day. At the end of the study period, the group that regularly gargled had a nearly 40 percent decrease in upper respiratory tract infections compared with the control group, and when they did get sick, "gargling tended to attenuate bronchial symptoms," the researchers wrote.
Other studies have also found gargling helpful against sore throats and congestion.
You see anything at all there about salt being a natural antiseptic? I wonder why not?
Has the Rule of Obama been all bad so far?
David Broder says:Sometimes the most important clues are hiding in plain view. That was the case in late June, when the
That does not sound like a big change. But given the long-term stability of basic philosophical alignments, the reaction it measured to the economic troubles and the performance of the new Democratic administration is very significant.
The most recent number, a cumulative figure based on surveys during the first half of 2010, drew some attention because it was the highest percentage for conservatives in any such poll since Gallup started asking this question in 1992. The five-point gain came equally from the ranks of moderates and liberals, who fell to 35 percent and 20 percent, respectively.
Over twice as many conservatives now as liberals. I have said, repeatedly, that party affiliation is not nearly as important as philosophical affiliation. I’d much rather have a Blue Dog Democrat than a Republican Specter, for instance, the letter behind the name isn’t nearly as important to me as it is to others,. apparently. (I know some people who think by refusing to capitalize "republican" that they are somehow diminishing the individuals, as well.) Still, I recognize that with only two recognized political parties—the so-called "independents" caucus with Democrats, mostly—you of necessity have to refer to "the Democrats" or "the Republicans" as a generality.
Frankly, I think it would be a good thing if the two parties actually fragmented into several more discrete units and formed formal coalitions rather than voting for either one ‘side’ or the other. I don’t think the American people as a whole can be crammed into only one side or the other, like making sausages.
It’s one of the confusing things about the Tea Party candidates, where to categorize them since they don’t follow either party’s dogma or, ah, leadership. Mostly they are conservatives...or at least more conservative than liberal, which places them on the side of the 42% rather than the diminishing 20%.
The message emerges from some pretty basic math calculations -- work done by Lydia Saad of Gallup and then overlaid by Anne Kim and Jon Cowan of Third Way, the moderate Democratic advocacy and political action group.
Saad ran the Gallup numbers for individual states, with few surprises. Wyoming, Mississippi, Utah and South Dakota checked in with 50 percent or more conservatives. At the other end, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts and Colorado were the most liberal states -- but only in Rhode Island did the percentage top 30. ...
With the updated Gallup figures, a 2010 Democratic candidate who matched Obama's national percentages would win Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Oregon and Washington. But, with more conservatives and fewer liberals in the mix, the Democrat would come up short in 13 other competitive states and barely break even in California, Illinois and New Hampshire. Among the big states where the numbers break against the Democrats are Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.
However, even Obama isn’t going to match Obama’s national percentages any more since he is now in negative numbers (-6%) and nearly twice as many people think he’s leading the country in the wrong direction rather than the right one.
The apparent disconnect comes when an admittedly liberal press—and this is neither a secret nor an accusation since they have thusly described themselves—is forced to deal with a 42% plurality when their own hearts and minds lie within the 20% minority. Simple folklore says that birds of a feather flock together, and like tends to hang out with like, but I suspect that’s why the MSM are losing readership the way they are...the 20% are writing for the 20% and that’s not enough to support themselves.
When the next congress is seated the Democrats will have controlled both houses for a total of four consecutive years, yet they wish to pretend that George Bush was in control for the first two and thus those years should not count against them. But if they were unable to prevail against an unpopular president from the opposite party (look at Bush’s numbers) then that does not explain why they have been unable to prevail with a popular president (at least until recently) from their own.
In October of 2006, four years ago, the unemployment rate was 4.4%. The Democrats won control the next month and the "policies of George Bush" were no longer in effect, Nancy Pelosi declaring him to be irrelevant from then on and his approval rating went down from there. A year later, October 2007, the unemployment rate was still only 4.7%. In fact, from September 2006 through June 2007 unemployment had averaged under 4.5%, at which point congress perhaps coincidentally raised the minimum wage. Whatever, unemployment climbed rather steadily since that time. When President Obama effectively took complete Democrat charge with the election of 2008, the Dow stood at an all-time high of 14,165 and unemployment was still only at 6.6%.
To blame George Bush and the Republicans for where we stand today, October 2008, seems to the American public to be an increasing stretch of the imagination. How could a man so dumb and so unpopular and not in control of either party of congress do more in his last two years than a man as bright, as popular, and with both houses of congress now with two full years of experience under their belts, do in his first two?
It turns out that excuse won’t play in Peoria any more, if it ever did.