Research on caffeine found that it may improve the function of arteries.
By Harvard Health Publications
Wise lifestyle choices pay off for men, earning them enhanced vigor and longer lives. Prudent choices also pay off for stand-up comics, providing easy targets that earn loud laughs. The jokes often take advantage of the notion that anything that feels good or tastes good must be bad for you.
So it is with coffee. Its appeal is undeniable; about 150 million Americans drink coffee every day, together consuming some 400 million cups a day. Coffee is popular because it tastes good, and it makes most people feel better. Perhaps that’s why it’s been blamed for innumerable woes. It’s true that some people experience symptoms such as nervousness, a racing heart, headaches, insomnia, heartburn, and excessive urination after just a cup or two. And it’s also true that coffee can boost blood pressure, but the rise is small and short-lived, and people who drink coffee regularly are largely spared from even this modest hit.

Coffee has also taken the rap for more serious illnesses, ranging from heart attacks and strokes to cancer of the pancreas. Careful studies have debunked these fears, but lingering concerns persist, particularly regarding coffee’s cardiovascular effects. That’s why coffee lovers will welcome a study that makes coffee seem a bit sweeter; the research was conducted in Israel, where coffee is nearly as popular as in the U.S. To understand the experiments, though, we should first review how your arteries are built and how they work.

Coffee is good for your heart. Hell, it’s better than beans. (Because everyone knows that little ditty from our childhood.)
Beans Beans,
Are good for your heart.
The more you eat,
The more you fart.

Now, we can have something that is good and good for us, not that a doiuble healpin’a beans isn’t good.

Coffee is better.

It’s good for your heart, so lift a mug.

You’ve got to see this.

But all things considered, Libertarians should be allowed to use this kind of free market fishing every day until the spring thaw.

Eragon? Read it. Bit late, I suppose, what with four books, the Inheritance Cycle he called it, written and done. With a movie, something of a disappointment now that I’ve read Eragon, I consider it a rousing adventure and an excellent read.

Its strengths, at least in my opinion, is in the way the novel explores the world. I enjoyed following the adventures through a fantastic landscape. The novel put down deep roots in a past just breathed upon. There is more about this world, because its empty places are hinted at, and its past just caressed.

As to characters, Paolini doesn’t break ground. Eragon is an interesting character, but he rarely steps far from the archetypal male Messiah (Thank you Victoria Schmitt) He is most like Arthur, a boy who finds a dragon in an egg instead of a sword in a stone. He fits the archetype of an orphaned boy raised with his uncle, something he shares with Arthur, Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker, and many others. As Tolkien intimated in the hobbit, he enjoyed the “unexpected luck of widow’s sons.” This also shows his place as an Archetypal character. He is a sympathetic character who readers can relate to and want to win.

Brom, is Merlin, Gandalf, Obiwan, Dumbledore, or any other permutation of the guide whose job is to train the future hero. I was disappointed when he died, as I consider him a much more interesting character, but this is equally of most guides. His age and hinted past gave him a complexity missing in young Eragon.

And, of course, there is the Dragon, Saphira. Of all the characters, she is the least developed, being a support for the hero Eragon. At one point, after Eragon gets gloriously drunk she has a few things to say about the experience. The problem I had with this is that a six month old dragon who has never seen a man pissing down his leg drunk is a bit too wise. I am not sure whether this is a flaw or whether there is a deeper level of consciousness, perhaps reincarnation with memories of other lives within the dragon. I suppose I will find out later.

Paolini writes combat actions scenes well. His great battle of Farthen Dŭr didn’t make sense to me. With the Urgals coming from three thee separate tunnels a few at a time, I think a general would have marshaled a constant barrage of arrows, and since they held the cliff tops above the exits, The Urgals would have been forced to come out and survive long enough to clear unites above the cave. Even with the overwhelming size of the force, they should have been destroyed in detail. But the battle was actually a small part of the whole book, and I suppose critiquing here is sort of backseat generating on my part.

Because of the books strengths, I think anyone who enjoys heroic fantasy should read this book. It reveals a luxuriant and complex fantasy world, and interesting characters enraged in a world changing events. Better, it is fun.

So here we are,
Spending AM in the bedroom,
Christmas vacation
has taken me away.

They discussed how Republicans are now pushing laws to “Protect the Producer Class.” They even played a minute of an old Ayn Rand interview.

So the battle lines have been drawn with Republicans rallying to “Liberate the Producer Class from Washington.” Yes, they are using rhetoric that compares the “Producer Class” to slaves. This is in opposition to (1) Democrats, and (2) OWS, who are being sold as a tool of Democrats.

Who ever wins this confrontation between the Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie will define and dominate this government and the country for the next generation. Should Republicans win, I suspect they will move the national guard and military coming home from Iraq into the streets.

Interesting times.

M. Frank Darbe

Two must be left, because set is a transitive verb and requires a direct object. I set my burdens down. What burdens. It really doesn’t matter, as long as they are there, burdens being the direct object.

We can test set by putting it in its place. Set is synonymous with put, therefore “I set on the table” is the same as “I put on the table.” Since I can not wear a table, I must answer, “Put what on the table?” However, even if it is rude in polite company, “I sit on the table” means exactly what I say. I promise I will wash the table after I get up.

Sit, on the other hand, is intransitive and stands alone. I sit on the table. I sit on the floor. I sit in the bathroom and set shit on the floor. Sit stands alone. I can sit any damn place I want, but shit must be set somewhere.

I hear echoes and reverberations around the web from progressives and liberals (those groups are not synonymous. They look at the current Republican lineup of possible Presidential Candidates. The word circus and follies is bandied about. This is blamed on the imminent Republican Collapse.  I realize that I’ve heard this all before.

• MyDD saw the writing on the wall of a “Total Republican Collapse Imminent” linking to numerous news stories.
• The New York Times Heralded the “Republican Collapse in 2007 with, “The Republican Collapse” by David Brooks.
• Blogger Allan Caruba discussed evidence from their loss in 2006 about a “Republican Collapse.”
• Martin Nolan predicted the collapse in 2008 “The Republican Collapse: 100 Years In The Making” in the Huffington Post.
• A “Compilation of the Republican Collapse” appeared on Youtube in 2009.

Though Republicans have been collapses since 2006, somehow they continue to totter along.

Republicans embody one half of he American concept of a two party system, and have done so since the Whigs collapsed, for real. Republicans even were the most liberal of the two parties for a time after the Civil War. Unless we develop a system that allows multiple parties to participate in a system that is not winner take all, we will continue to see two parties that have successes and failures. After a retreat, they shine up their brand and come roaring back. It is even conceivable that the Republican Party might crash and burn so bad that the Right side of the spectrum will form a new party form the ranks. But whether they are called Republicans or something else, they will be there for the foreseeable future. Rather than crow about their collapse and sing the wonders of a one progressive party system, we should recognize that political conflict is part of what we are as humans. Short of evolving into trees, that won’t change.

“You can safely assume you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”

Anne Lamont – Bird by Bird