I have had tinnitus off and on for many years and then in August of 2005 it became a permanent condition. It was maddening for the first few weeks. Quite by accident, while shaving actually, I found that the sound of running water would nearly eliminate the ringing. Try it, it might work for you. If so, you can get yourself one of those zen waterfall things to put by your bedside to help you sleep. Still the tinnitus remained, I tried many "natural" remedies" found on the internet. None worked, not even a little. Little over two years ago I was diagnosed with Afib, a heart arrhythmia condition. As part of my ongoing treatment for this my cardiologist suggested I take 800-1000 mg of magnesium on a daily basis. It took several weeks, probably more like 3-4 months, I noticed that my tinnitus had lessened near 50% I'd say. It has stayed at that lower level since. I can't say that this will work for you, but it's worth a shot. You should be aware that magnesium is also a natural laxative so expect some extra bowel activity until your body adjusts. I don't take it all at once. 400mg in the morning, 200 mid day, another 200 at night. Vitamin B6 helps the magnesium absorb. Magnesium oxide is shit, don't waste your money. Chelated Magnesium is much more expensive and supposed to absorb better. I take magnesium citrate. It's much less expensive than the Chelated, and for me works just as well. Good luck.
Sorta, except the courts have put some limits on it these days in regard to how an EO can be unwound. Some EO's are complex and some are not. If the President issues an Executive Order to agencies saying that they all must reduce their travel budgets by 10%, the next president or the same one can just cancel that "with the stroke of a pen." But some of the appellate courts and the supreme court in one ruling- as I recall- have said that if the EO creates a full program that impacts the lives of citizens- rather than bureaucrats- then the President has to unwind it by following the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires a notification period, hearings, and a period for public comment. The president can still go ahead and kill the program but may want to modify it based on the hearings, or congress may want to enact legislation to replace the EO based on public input and so on. Dont mean to get too far into the weeds on this, but the lefties and the leftie press have erroneously and fakely reported in the past that the court has "upheld daca" when it fact it has not. It upheld a motion to require the president to meet the requirements of the administrative procedures act, and also upheld motions to stay the implementation of Trump's EO killing daca until it has gone through the appeals courts, including the Supreme Court. So that is the part that is more than "just a stroke of the pen" these days, but that doesnt mean that the underlying issue has been resolved until the court has ruled on it rather than just on the procedural motions. Similarly, the appellate courts were foot dragging pricks on the "Travel Ban" and the lefties declared the travel ban dead at each step of the way. Except when it finally reached the Court, the Court sided with Trump on the underlying issue. So, sometimes an EO can be reversed with the stroke of a pen, but sometimes it be drawn out. Anything that goes through the Nineth Circus will be drawn out with a pantload of requirements. That's a given. And then there are amazingly opposite scenarios in the pipeline where the skids are amazingly greased for the President. eg. several or more of the states are trying to kill daca too and have brought suit against the government, but under Trump's directive, the DOJ is not even defending against them so that the government can lose an automatically appeal the issue up to the higher courts- to counter all the lefty footdragging.
Most of goowurm's stuff should be posted there as there is no value in it whatsoballsout anywhere else.
Thanks to all who replied about the tinnitus, guess I didn't realize it was quite that common. Maybe I'm just a wuss cause it really eats me up at times.
How can Americans be split on birthright citizenship when practically all Americans have citizenship based on birthright?
People inside our borders legally, no problem. Buy why should tax payers approve and fund someone who's intent is to circumvent our laws?