Even with the best possible brushing and flossing techniques, some people still end up suffering from gingivitis. It can be due to not taking care of their teeth and gums as they should. It can be due to changes in their bodies such as diabetes or pregnancy related. It can also be due to genetics [...]

Sometimes proper brushing and flossing isn’t enough to offset the development of gingivitis. As a result a person can start to experience various symptoms that they should not ignore. Even if they come and go, you should be aware that this is just the start of gingivitis. If you take the time to consult with [...]

Gingivitis is the number one cause of tooth loss for people so it is something everyone needs to be aware of. Even individuals that take good care of their teeth can suffer from gingivitis due to genetics. Changes in the body such as diabetes and pregnancy can make a person more prone to gingivitis as [...]

Derma Wand is the newest anti-aging product that promises to make you look years younger with no surgery, no face lifts and no needles, and save you thousands of dollars in visits to skin care specialists. In this Derma Wand review, I’ll tell you how it works and why so many people can’t live without [...]

The Health Rider r60 is a treadmill designed mainly for people who use a more moderate approach to their workouts. It is a good machine to use for fast walking or a medium jog. It may be a bit disappointing to an avid runner who is looking for power and speed. It has a nice [...]

We all love looking young all year round and we will go to great lengths to ensure that we have the youngest skin ever. It boosts our confidence by giving us a high self-esteem since the skin speaks volumes about us. Our bodies are entirely covered by skin thus making it the largest organ in [...]

Chris Matthews on Wednesday said a federal judge’s ruling that struck down much of Arizona’s new immigration law would be a killer politically for the Democrats in November and a huge windfall for the Right. 

This surprisingly occurred in the same "Hardball" program that Matthews claimed deporting illegal immigrants would be the equivalent of the American government orchestrating a pogrom.

For whatever reason, in his final "Let Me Finish" segment, the perilously liberal host was seeing this judge’s decision as being very bad for the Party he loves and shamelessly shills for on a daily basis under the guise of "journalist" (video follows with transcript and commentary): 

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Let me finish tonight with this federal injunction against the new Arizona immigration law.

First of all, it is a killer issue politically for the Democrats this fall and a huge windfall for the Right. It will anger even those people who believe the Arizona law went too far. It will dramatize the main case raised by the Tea Party people, that the federal government in Washington has become too powerful, that the rights of states have been terribly abridged. That is the political consequence and it will be felt mightily this November.

I say this realizing a critical problem with the Arizona law. The policeman who stops a suspected illegal immigrant would under the new Arizona law be required to check out that person`s immigration status. Standing next to that stopped car, he would be at a horribly unfair disadvantage. He might suspect the person of being in the country illegally. The immigrants would certainly know it and might well decide to fight it out rather than face deportation and separation from his or her family.

It is not hard to imagine the desperate moral calculation this would trigger. But the plain fact that most Americans recognize to their distress is that the federal government has not been serious about enforcing the immigration laws. Arizona, whatever you may think of its law, is at least attempting to deal with that situation. That, too, is a fact — cruel as it might come across.

Shocking, yes?

Of course, after that, Matthews hoped for a bipartisan resolution on this issue that was one part amnesty with a healthy splash of preventing the hiring of illegal immigrants.

But let’s not hold that against him. Let’s instead revel in his brief moment of clarity.

After all, it happens so infrequently.

The risk that Afghanistan might once again become a staging ground for al Qaeda attacks on the US?  Meh.

The danger of cross-border raids from Afghanistan into Pakistan that could lead to nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists?  Yawn.

But a US withdrawal from Afghanistan that would lead to a setback for women’s liberation there?  Now you’ve got the liberal media concerned!  Rick Stengel of Time gave a perfect illustration of the phenomenon on today’s Morning Joe.  As is his Friday wont, he unveiled the new Time cover, which portrays the heart-rending image of a young Afghani woman who had her nose and ears cut off for fleeing an abusive family and husband.  [Disturbing screencap after the jump.]

Stengel went on to make the case that notwithstanding the administration’s protestations that it is not engaging in country-building, we have indeed been involved in such an effort, particularly to the benefit of Afghani women.  Said Stengel: "I wanted people to see the reality. To me, as disturbing as the image is, it’s even more disturbing what will happen there if we leave."

Pat Buchanan asked the necessary question: "How long do we pay 60 dead Americans every single month to prevent this from happening?"

Stengel acknowledged that some might not think the cost is justified, but asserted that "people may decide, you know what? It is worth the sacrifice we’re making to help the women of Afghanistan, the people of Afghanistan . . . To say that we haven’t helped made an investment there, that we haven’t helped build a nation, that we haven’t helped Afghan women is not true. All of those things are true, and all of those things will go by the wayside if we leave."

On August 1, former CNN anchor Christiane Amanpour will become the permanent host of ABC’s This Week, replacing Jake Tapper. In preparation, the MRC has compiled the top ten examples of the journalist’s over-the-top liberal bias.

Despite asserting in 2009 that "nobody knows my biases," Amanpour has gushed over many left-wing politicians, including Hillary Clinton: "…A lot of the women that I meet from traveling overseas are very impressed by you and admire your dignity." She also justified Barack Obama’s Nobel Prize win, lauding, "He’s obviously done something very significant" since the U.S. now has a "new relationship with the rest of the world."

Here are some of the highlights of what the MRC has uncovered. For the full top ten list, including video and MP3 audio clips, visit MRC.org’s Profile in Bias.

Insulting Rioters = Insulting Obama

"The black people in France are very proud and very hopeful for their future. They also live, many of them, in poor situations. And you know, you’ve had your own riots here and protests and disturbances in the Banlieue – in the city. At one point, when we were covering those riots, when you were Interior Minister, you called the rioters ’scum.’ And I’m wondering whether you feel, today, when you stand next to someone you clearly admire so much, and who has broken so many barriers, that you regret that term or that you wish you hadn’t said it?"

- CNN correspondent Christiane Amanpour to French President Nicolas Sarkozy during a July 25, 2008 press conference with Barack Obama shown live on CNN. [Audio/video (0:51): Windows Media | MP3 audio]

Criticism of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize ‘Overdone’

"Can I just say, I think it’s overdone, this pushing back against his award. He’s obviously done something very significant, and that is, after eight years in which the United States was really held in contempt around the world, the United States has now had a new relationship with the rest of the world."

- Christiane Amanpour, reacting to criticism of President Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, December 10, 2009 American Morning on CNN. [Audio/video (0:44): Windows Media | MP3 audio]

Hillary’s Dignity, or Dependency?

"A lot of the women that I meet from traveling overseas are very impressed by you and admire your dignity. A lot of the people you meet are people who suffered, people you saw today, and who believe that they identify with you, because they have seen you suffer. And in a speech in Africa last year, you spoke about living for hope and reconciliation, living for forgiveness and reconstruction, and living for a new life – have you been able to apply that to your own circumstances? Have you been able to forgive your husband?"

- CNN’s Christine Amanpour to Hillary Clinton in Macedonia after a tour of refugee camps, May 14, 1999.

Scary ‘Totalitarian’ Christians

"On [Christian youth activist Ron Luce's Honor Academy] campus, students must follow a strict set of rules: No secular music or television. No R-rated movies. No alcohol. No drugs. No dating. [To Luce] When I, you know, read that women have to wear skirts of a certain length and guys aren’t allowed to, you know, go on the Internet unsupervised, I mean, I think, you know, totalitarian regimes."

- Correspondent Christiane Amanpour in her August 23, 2007 profile of "Christian Warriors," the last of CNN’s 3-part special on "God’s Warriors."

For more Profiles in Bias, including Helen Thomas and George Stephanopoulos, go here. 

Washington Post reporter David Brown found "rage and panic" at a recent meeting of AIDS activists in Vienna, placed on page A-10 of Thursday’s paper: 

The rage is directed at the Obama administration, which many activists say is reneging on a commitment to continue big annual increases in global AIDS spending. The panic arises from the knowledge that in some African countries, patients who want antiretroviral treatment are being turned away and will soon start dying.

Some activists pine for former president George W. Bush, who launched a much-praised multibillion-dollar fund to fight AIDS around the world. But now, in the eyes of many, the U.S. government has replaced the pharmaceutical industry as the main impediment to progress.

The headline on the piece is nondescript, mentioning neither president: "Rage, panic in AIDS fight: Activists fear a lack of funding will force people to be turned away from help and accuse the U.S. of reneging on pledges."

Brown began with how the AIDS picture improved in those supposedly dreadful eight years of Bush:

Ten years ago, many experts thought you couldn’t bring antiretroviral therapy to people with AIDS in poor countries. The drugs cost too much, there weren’t enough doctors, the patients wouldn’t take the medicines correctly, and the risk of creating a resistant virus was too high.

None of that turned out to be true. About 5.2 million people with HIV infections are on lifesaving treatment in low- and middle-income countries. In sub-Saharan Africa, antiretroviral therapy, much of it paid for by the U.S. government, is resurrecting whole communities.

But the world is facing a potentially more intractable problem: the price of success.

There’s barely enough money to pay for people whose treatment is underway and who will need it for a lifetime. There isn’t enough to start treatment for about 5 million more who urgently need it.

It should be stated that AIDS activists can easily mount a soapbox against anyone from the moral high ground, begging for help for people dying from a terrible disease. But it should also be stated that most of the international aid community and the news media rarely consider placing any responsibility for contracting AIDS infection on the behaviors of the infected. With a broad brush, they are absolved of any responsibility, regardless of the moral circumstances.

It can also be stated that it’s unfair for global activists to rage against the United States when it has been the U.S. that has been the primary funder, when other countries have not done as much. This is just an example of how President Bush never seemed to get any credit for policies that liberals would ardently support if there weren’t political points to be scored. Here are the numbers Brown provided:

The United Nations agency UNAIDS estimates that $23.6 billion was needed to address the epidemic in low- and middle-income countries last year. Yet only $15.9 billion was available from all sources, public and private. The U.S. government provided 27 percent of that money, mostly through PEPFAR, which Bush started in 2003 with a then-staggering commitment to spend $15 billion on prevention and treatment over five years.

The United States has been by far the biggest donor of money for AIDS treatment to the world’s poor, last year providing 58 percent of the $7.6 billion given by governments. Britain, a distant second, gave 10 percent of the total. Japan, with the world’s third-largest economy, contributed 2 percent.

Brown quotes several Obama officials in their defense, including Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of the president’s chief of staff, who blandly states that stopping HIV infections requires "improving their overall health and the health systems around them." Brown didn’t reproduce what offended Emanuel: stickers at the conference that blared "Obama’s AIDS plan. Take a Number, Wait to Die."