Thai 'Yellow Shirt' leaders charged for 2008 rally

BANGKOK (AP) ? Protest leaders in Thailand were indicted Thursday for storming the prime minister's office compound and sealing off Parliament during massive anti-government rallies in 2008 at the height of political turmoil, which left the country deeply divided to this day.

Prosecutors filed charges against Sondhi Limthongkul, Chamlong Srimuang and other leaders of the People's Alliance for Democracy, also known as the Yellow Shirts.

They face up to five years in prison for trespassing at Government House during an August 2008 rally, in which protesters stormed the compound and thousands occupied the grounds for weeks. They face an additional seven years in prison for blockading the Parliament in an October 2008 rally that left hundreds injured.

They also led a two-week seizure of Bangkok airports but have not yet been charged for that.

Mostly hailing from the urban elite, the Yellow Shirts' protests grew from their visceral hatred for former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, a telecommunications tycoon, whose democratically elected government was in power from 2001 until it was overthrown in a 2006 military coup. The Yellow Shirts claimed he was corrupt and that his proxies were running the country after he went into exile following the coup.

His sister, Yingluck, is now premier, which critics say has helped accelerate long-stalled legal cases against opponents of Thaksin, who says the corruption charges that he says are trumped up.

After a year of martial law following the 2006 coup, fresh elections were held that were again won by Thaksin's allies, triggering the Yellow Shirt protests, which took a heavy toll on the economy and tourism. The political turmoil continued for months until the pro-Yellow Shirt Democrat Party formed a government in December 2008 without an election. That brought to the streets tens of thousands of Thaksin supporters, mostly rural folk, who called themselves the Red Shirts.

They were evicted from central Bangkok in a military operation in April 2010 that left dozens of people dead.

The deadlock was finally broken when the Democrat Party stepped aside and called elections in July 2011 that Yingluck's party won. Thaksin remains in exile.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/thai-yellow-shirt-leaders-charged-2008-rally-080757203.html

knowshon moreno knowshon moreno sovereign citizen komen chrome for android hatchet leah messer

How Dark Money Helped Democrats Hold a Key Senate Seat

In the waning days of Montana's hotly contested Senate race, a small outfit called Montana Hunters and Anglers, launched by liberal activists, tried something drastic.

RELATED: The Colbert Report Is School House Rock on Steroids

It didn't buy ads supporting the incumbent Democrat, Sen. Jon Tester. Instead, it put up radio and TV commercials that urged voters to choose the third-party candidate, libertarian Dan Cox, describing Cox as the "real conservative" or the "true conservative."

RELATED: Super PACs Make It Easier for Rich People to Waste Money on Bad Ideas

Where did the group's money come from? Nobody knows.

RELATED: In the Sport of Fundraising, This Is Who Colbert's Super PAC Beat

The pro-Cox ads were part of a national pattern in which groups that did not disclose their donors, including social welfare nonprofits and trade associations, played a larger role than ever before in trying to sway U.S. elections. Throughout the 2012 election, ProPublica has focused on the growing importance of this so-called dark money in national and local races.

RELATED: Zombie Super PACs: What Happens to the Money After a Candidate Drops Out

Such spending played a greater role in the Montana Senate race than almost any other. With control of the U.S. Senate potentially at stake, candidates, parties and independent groups spent more than $51 million on this contest, all to win over fewer than 500,000 voters. That's twice as much as was spent when Tester was elected in 2006.

RELATED: The Guy Bankrolling Karl Rove Is a Casino Mogul

Almost one quarter of that was dark money, donated secretly to nonprofits.

"It just seems so out of place here," said Democrat Brian Schweitzer, the governor of Montana who leaves office at the end of this year. "About one hundred dollars spent for every person who cast a vote. Pretty spectacular, huh? And most of it, we don't have any idea where it came from. Day after the election, they closed up shop and disappeared into the dark."

Political insiders say the Montana Senate race provided a particularly telling glimpse at how campaigns are run in the no-holds-barred climate created by the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision, giving a real-world counterpoint to the court's assertion that voters could learn all they needed to know about campaign funding from disclosure.

In many ways, Montana was a microcosm of how outside spending worked nationally, but it also points to the future. Candidates will be forced to start raising money earlier to compete in an arms race with outside groups. Voters will be bombarded with TV ads, mailers and phone calls. And then on Election Day, they will be largely left in the dark, unable to determine who's behind which message.

All told, 64 outside groups poured $21 million into the Montana Senate election, almost as much as the candidates. Party committees spent another $8.9 million on the race.

The groups started spending money a year before either candidate put up a TV ad, defining the issues and marginalizing the role of political parties. In a state where ads were cheap, they took to the airwaves. More TV commercials ran in the Montana race between June and the election than in any other Senate contest nationwide.

The Montana Senate race also shows how liberal groups have learned to play the outside money game ? despite griping by Democratic officials about the influence of such organizations.

Liberal outside groups spent $10.2 million on the race, almost as much as conservatives. Conservatives spent almost twice as much from anonymous donors, but the $4.2 million in dark money that liberal groups pumped into Montana significantly outstripped the left's spending in many other races nationwide.

As in other key states, conservative groups devoted the bulk of their money in Montana to TV and radio ads. But sometimes the ads came across as generic and missed their mark.

Liberal groups set up field offices, knocked on doors, featured "Montana" in their names or put horses in their TV ads. Many of them, including Montana Hunters and Anglers, were tied to a consultancy firm where a good friend of Jim Messina, President Barack Obama's campaign manager, is a partner.

The end result? Tester beat Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg by a narrow margin. And the libertarian Cox, who had so little money he didn't even have to report to federal election authorities, picked up more votes than any other libertarian on the Montana ballot.

Montana Republicans blamed Montana Hunters and Anglers, made up of a super PAC and a sister dark money nonprofit, for tipping the race. Even though super PACs have to report their donors, the Montana Hunters and Anglers super PAC functioned almost like a dark money group. Records show its major donors included an environmentalist group that didn't report its donors and two super PACs that in turn raised the bulk of their money from the environmentalist group, other dark money groups and unions.

"Part of what's frustrating to me is I look at Montana Hunters and Anglers and say, 'That is not fair,'" said Bowen Greenwood, executive director for the Montana Republican Party. "I am a hunter. I know plenty of hunters. And Montana hunters don't have their positions. It would be fairer if it was called Montana Environmental Activists. That would change the effect of their ads."

Cox and Tester deny the group's efforts swung the race. No one from Montana Hunters and Anglers returned calls for comment.

Tester, who's argued that all groups spending on elections should disclose their donors and also pushed against super PACs, said he wasn't familiar with any of the outside groups running ads. By law, candidates are not allowed to coordinate with outside spending groups, which are supposed to be independent.

Despite his ambivalence, he said he was glad the outside groups jumped in.

"If we wouldn't have had folks come in on our side, it would have been much tougher to keep a message out there," Tester said. "We had no control over what they were saying. But by the same token, I think probably in the end if you look at it, they were helpful."

* * *

Montana has long prided itself on a refusal to be pigeonholed. It's the kind of place that votes Republican for president but elects Democrats to state office. Politicians wear bolo ties, tout their Montana credentials and use words like "hell" and "crap." People introduce themselves by saying what generation Montanan they are.

Consistently, the state fights against any mandate that smacks of Washington meddling, from the federal speed limit to the Citizens United ruling in early 2010, which opened the door to corporations and unions spending unlimited money on independent ads, echoing an earlier court ruling that equated money with free speech.

Before that, Montana had one of the country's toughest campaign finance laws, dating back 100 years, to the time of the copper kings. After one of those kings bribed state lawmakers to back him as senator, the state banned corporate political spending.

Even after Citizens United, the Montana Supreme Court insisted that Montana's legacy of corruption justified keeping the ban. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court squashed that move, saying the Citizens United decision applied to every state in the nation.

By then, dark money groups were already weighing in on Montana's Senate race.

The TV ads started in March 2011, the month after Rehberg announced. The Environmental Defense Action Fund attacked Rehberg for his stance on mercury emissions. The Electronic Payments Coalition praised Tester for his push to delay implementing new debit-card swipe fees.

"The thing that surprised me a little bit was how early they got involved," said David Parker, an associate professor of political science at Montana State University who tracked all 160 TV commercials as part of a book he is writing on the race. "And I think that was critical, because very early on, they were able to establish the contours of this race. The candidates were just busy putting their organizations together and raising money."

Most of the money spent in 2011 on TV ads came from groups that didn't have to report their donors. They also didn't have to report their ads to the Federal Election Commission, because they didn't specifically tell voters to vote for or against a candidate. Instead of saying "Vote for Rehberg," they said things like "Call Jon Tester. Tell him to stop supporting President Barack Obama." Ads like that only have to be reported to the FEC if they air during the two months before an election.

The only way to compile data on such ad spending is by visiting TV stations, which Parker did. ProPublica helped him collect information on the last round of ads.

Parker's data shows that several heavyweight conservative groups entered the fray in mid-2011 to try to cast Tester, whom they saw as vulnerable, as a big spender.

Crossroads GPS, the dark money group launched by GOP strategist Karl Rove, ran two ads in July 2011 similar to those attacking Democrats in other states for supporting excessive spending.

Also that month, a conservative group called Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee ran a sarcastic ad about a new miracle drug called "Spenditol," Washington's answer to America's problems. "Call Sen. Jon Tester," the ad said. "Tell him, stop spending it all." Similar ads ran against Democratic senators up for election in tight races in Florida, Nebraska and Ohio.

Several ads run by conservative groups backfired, messing up in ways that irked Montanans.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee ? a party committee that reports its donors ? ran an ad that appeared to show Tester with all five digits on his left hand. (Tester is well known for having lost three fingers in a childhood accident involving a meat grinder.) The U.S. Chamber of Commerce misspelled Tester's first name. A Montana cable operator yanked a Crossroads ad for claims the operator deemed false.

"The first one that burned me really bad was from the U.S. Chamber," said Verner Bertelsen, a former Republican state legislator and Montana secretary of state. "I thought ? you buggers! We don't need you to come in here and tell us who to vote for."

Starting in July 2011, three new liberal dark money groups ran ads. Patriot Majority USA criticized Republicans for allegedly planning to cut Medicare and help to seniors. The Partnership to Protect Medicare praised Tester for opposing Medicare cuts.

And in October, weeks after forming, the dark money side of Montana Hunters and Anglers, Montana Hunters and Anglers Action!, launched its first TV ad, starring Land Tawney, the group's gap-toothed and camouflage-sporting president, who also served on the Sportsmen's Advisory Panel for Tester. At the time, the super PAC side of the group was basically dormant.

The new Hunters ad accused Rehberg of pushing a bill ? House bill 1505 ? that supposedly would give Washington politicians control of access to public lands in Montana. Rehberg, one of 60 cosponsors, argued the legislation was necessary to help the Department of Homeland Security protect the state from illegal immigrants, drug smugglers and terrorists.

"Nobody in Montana was talking about that bill," Greenwood said. "I've only heard it talked about in campaign ads. And it played a role throughout the election."

* * *

The gusher of outside money into Montana's Senate race was part of a larger pattern. Nationally, in addition to the $5.1 billion spent by candidates and parties, almost 700 outside spending groups dumped more than $1 billion into federal elections in the 2012 cycle, FEC filings show.

Of that, about $322 million was dark money, most of it from 153 social welfare nonprofits, groups that could spend money on politics as long as social welfare ? not politics ? was their primary purpose.

Relating those numbers to previous elections is a largely pointless exercise, akin to comparing statistics from baseball and lacrosse. The Citizens United ruling changed the game, opening the door to unlimited corporate donations to super PACs and to a new breed of more politically active nonprofits.

"Instead of being in a boxing match in a ring, you're in a dark alley being hit by four or five people, and you don't know who they are," said Michael Sargeant, the executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, which helps Democrats run for state offices.

Some of the players in the 2012 cycle were longtime activist organizations such as the liberal Sierra Club and the conservative National Right to Life Committee, with clear social welfare missions and only a limited amount of political spending. Other dark money groups were juggernauts like Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity, founded years ago by conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, which crank up their fundraising during election years and devote more money to election ads than other nonprofits.

Finding out about some of the less prominent nonprofits was no easy feat. Many were formed out of post-office boxes or law firms. On their applications to the Internal Revenue Service, they minimized or even denied any political activity.

Documents for pop-up nonprofits like the conservative America Is Not Stupid and A Better America Now, both of which formed in 2011, led back to a Florida law firm that offered no explanations. The Citizens for Strength and Security Action Fund, a liberal pop-up group that spent millions on elections in 2010, closed down in 2011. In its place came a new group: the Citizens for Strength and Security Fund, which earlier this year bought almost $900,000 in ads attacking Rehberg and the Republican Senate candidate in New Mexico.

Groups picked names that seemed designed to confuse: Patriot Majority USA is liberal. Patriotic Veterans is conservative. Common Sense Issues backed conservatives. Common Sense Movement backed a Democrat.

As in the 2010 midterms, the dark money spent in 2012 had a partisan tilt. Conservative groups accounted for about 84 percent of the spending reported to the FEC ? mainly through Crossroads GPS, Americans for Prosperity and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Liberal groups spent 12 percent of the dark money. Nonpartisan groups made up the rest.

Despite shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars, conservatives lost big. Only about 14 percent of conservative dark money went to support winners.

Still, campaign-finance reformers say it's a mistake to minimize the influence of this money.

"What these donors were buying was access and influence, not only to the candidates but to the party machine," said Paul S. Ryan, senior counsel for the Campaign Legal Center. "And they will get that access. On the Republican side, you have people lining up to kiss the ring of (billionaire donor) Sheldon Adelson. And on the Democratic side, you have even people critical of these groups meeting with the funders of these groups. This money is not going away."

Even though liberal groups spent far less than conservative ones, they had a higher success rate. About 70 percent backed winning candidates.

Some Democrats have shown distaste for the dark-money arts, pushing for more transparency. But liberal strategists are preparing to ramp up their efforts before the next election, unless the IRS, Congress or the courts change the rules.

"We probably have a lot less comfort with some of the existing rules that allow for the Koch brothers to write unlimited checks to these groups," said Navin Nayak, the senior vice president for campaigns at the League of Conservation Voters, a liberal social welfare nonprofit for more than 40 years. "But as long as these are the rules, we're certainly going do our best to make sure we're competitive and that our candidates have a shot at winning. We're certainly not going to cede the playing field to the Koch brothers."

* * *

By the time Tester and Rehberg started buying TV ads, outside groups had been defining the race for a year.

Rehberg, 57, a six-term congressman and rancher often pictured wearing a cowboy hat and a plaid shirt, was portrayed as voting five times to increase his pay and charging an SUV to taxpayers. Tester, 56, a farmer with a flat top, was dinged for voting with Obama 95 percent of the time.

Tester's campaign went up with ads in March, mainly to counter the outside messages.

"The original plans were going up 60 or 90 days later than that," Tester said. "But it was important...We had to remind people of who I am."

His early ads highlighted his Montana roots, depicting him riding a combine on his farm and packing up Montana beef to carry back to Washington.

Rehberg had less money, so his earliest TV ads, which mainly attacked Tester, went up in May.

Neither Rehberg nor anyone from his media staff responded to requests for an interview on his views on campaign finance. In the past, he has said he supports the Citizens United ruling.

Meanwhile, conservative groups bought TV ads that hit at Tester but stopped just short of telling people how to vote. For instance, the conservative 60 Plus Association spent almost $500,000 buying TV ads featuring crooner Pat Boone criticizing Tester over the health care law. None of that was reported to the FEC.

Over the summer, the Concerned Women for America's legislative committee, Crossroads GPS and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce all weighed in. The TV spots were overwhelmingly negative, and many of them were cookie-cutter ads, similar to those that ran in other states against Democrats.

Liberal groups bought TV ads, too, but that was only part of their game plan. They spent their dark money on retail politics, hitting the streets and knocking on doors.

In January, the League of Conservation Voters set up two offices in Montana ? one in Missoula and one in Billings. It canvassed voters and hired a full-time organizer, reaching out to 28,000 sporadic voters to urge them to vote early by mail.

Lindsay Love, the spokeswoman at Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, another nonprofit that doesn't report its donors for election spending, said the group targeted 41,000 female voters. More than 1,500 people ended up knocking on 28,500 doors and making 162,000 phone calls, she said. The group sent out about 470,000 pieces of mail.

"It's hard to unpack this," Parker said. "But it's fascinating to look at groups like the League, unions and Planned Parenthood. By and large, they did phones, canvassing, mail, very little TV. One of the best ways to get out the vote is personalized contact."

Many liberal groups active in Montana, including Montana Hunters and Anglers, were connected through Hilltop Public Solutions, a Beltway consulting firm.

Barrett Kaiser, a former aide to Montana's other Democratic senator, Max Baucus, is a partner at Hilltop and runs its office in Billings. The Hilltop website notes that Kaiser helped with Tester's upset Senate win in 2006. Kaiser is also a good friend of Messina, the manager of Obama's 2012 campaign, who also once worked for Baucus.

Kaiser was on the board of the Montana Hunters and Anglers dark money group. Another Hilltop employee in Billings served as the treasurer for the Montana Hunters and Anglers super PAC.

Hilltop partners in Washington also helped run two other dark money groups that spent money on the Montana race: the Citizens for Strength and Security Fund and the Partnership to Protect Medicare.

The League of Conservation Voters and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana paid management fees to Hilltop.

No one from Hilltop returned calls, but Nayak and Love said they worked with Hilltop independently of other groups.

Outside groups are allowed to coordinate with each other or use the same consultants ? they're just not allowed to coordinate with a candidate. By working together, groups can disguise who is actually behind an ad.

In early July, for instance, the League of Conservation Voters gave $410,000 to the Montana Hunters and Anglers super PAC ? almost all the money the group raised as of that date.

When the super PAC spent the money on TV ads against Rehberg later that month, the spots were paid for by what appeared to be an organization of Montana hunters, not some Washington-based conservationist group. Nayak said that was not a coincidence.

"We figured having a local brand like that and partnering with them on local issues made more sense than having a D.C. brand," he said.

Nayak said the League did not donate money for the later ads pushing Cox, the libertarian.

It's not clear where that money came from. The dark money side of Montana Hunters and Anglers paid for the radio ads. The super PAC bought the TV ads and had to disclose its donors, but FEC filings show its money came mainly from two other super PACs, which in turn reported getting most of their money from unions and dark money groups, including the League.

* * *

As the Montana Senate race approached its climax, as many as five fliers landed in voters' mailboxes daily. Robocalls, supposedly illegal in Montana, interrupted meals. Strangers knocked on doors, promising free pizza for voting. People turned off their TVs, dumped their mail without looking at it and stopped answering the phone.

"My ex and I moved in together, because he had cancer and I took care of him," said Louise McMillin, 51, who lives in the university district in Missoula. "He kept getting polling calls as he was dying. After he died, I kept saying, 'He's dead, could you take his name off the list?' And they said, 'Sure, sure.' And they kept calling."

The race stayed tight. Demand for TV ad slots spiked, so the TV stations started raising their prices. The law required them to charge candidates their lowest rate. But outside groups? They could be hit up for whatever the market would bear.

Rehberg's campaign paid $400 to run a 30-second ad during the show Blue Bloods on Oct. 19 on the CBS affiliate in Great Falls. A week later, Crossroads GPS paid $2,000 for a slot during the same show.

Anything was fair game for the ads. One, from the super PAC Now Or Never, made fun of Tester's buzz cut, then showed his hair growing down to his shoulders, a bizarre sequence apparently designed to signal his ties to Obama. Another ad, from the dark money group America Is Not Stupid, featured a baby with a gravelly voice saying he didn't know what smelled worse, his diaper or Tester.

"By the middle of October, people were just so tuned out and quite frankly disgusted by all these third-party ads," said Ted Dick, the executive director of the Montana Democratic Party. "We found that face-to-face conversations toward the end were most persuasive and effective. That's the lesson we're taking forward."

There are other lessons. Tester said the Montana race made clear that candidates will have to raise money sooner, and go up with TV ads faster. Although uncomfortable with outside money, Tester also said it's just the way things are now, even on the liberal side.

"I mean, look, they did it," he said. "And with as many ads that were against me, I was glad they did. But it needs to be transparent. I mean, everybody's needs to be transparent... It's important to know who's spending money on who so you know why they're doing it. And the way the system is set up right now, there is no transparency. Very little."

Campaign finance reformers agree that knowing who is behind a message helps people assess it.

One example: Two postcards sent to thousands of Montanans just before the election didn't include the required notice saying who paid for them. One said Rehberg had wasted "hundreds of millions of our tax dollars on pork barrel projects," and urged people to vote for Cox, "a champion for fiscal responsibility." The other called Rehberg "the king of pork" and told people to vote for Cox.

Cox said he didn't send them. The bulk-mail permit on the postcards came back to a Las Vegas company called PDQ Printing, according to the U.S. Postal Service. In an online manual, PDQ describes itself as "Nevada's preeminent Union printer." No one there returned phone calls.

Greenwood, the head of the Montana Republican Party, filed a complaint with the FEC over the mailers. The complaint blames liberal groups and says they "engaged in a duplicitous strategy of supporting the libertarian candidate, Dan Cox, in a desperate attempt" to siphon votes from Rehberg.

More than likely, that complaint won't be resolved for years.

Greenwood said he didn't think disclosure was a cure-all. But he also said the current system marginalized political parties.

"Whether it's Montana Hunters and Anglers or (the conservative super PAC) American Crossroads, they are not responsive to the grassroots," Greenwood said. "These are the professionals and the money men who are not responsive at all to people. The system as it is now does not reflect what people want."

Besides picking between Tester and Rehberg, Montanans got a chance in this election to say how they want the system to work. On the ballot was an initiative ? largely symbolic in light of recent court decisions ? that declared that corporations are not human beings and banned corporate money in politics.

Gov. Schweitzer, a Democrat, and Bertelsen, the former Republican secretary of state, campaigned for the initiative. In a shocker for backers, almost 75 percent of voters supported it.

"I realized it absolutely didn't have any legal basis to do anything dramatic," said Bertelsen, who is 94. "But it's a case of saying, 'We don't like it.' I guess we could just sit down and not say a word. But the Supreme Court ? I think they made a mistake. Money isn't speech, anyhow. It's just money."

?

?

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/dark-money-helped-democrats-hold-key-senate-seat-172446902.html

adam levine 9/11 Memorial Google Docs 911 masterchef Dictionary.com Chicago teachers strike

Eating asparagus may prevent a hangover, study suggests

Dec. 26, 2012 ? Drinking to ring in the New Year may leave many suffering with the dreaded hangover. According to a 2009 study in the Journal of Food Science, published by the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), the amino acids and minerals found in asparagus extract may alleviate alcohol hangover and protect liver cells against toxins.

Researchers at the Institute of Medical Science and Jeju National University in Korea analyzed the components of young asparagus shoots and leaves to compare their biochemical effects on human and rat liver cells. "The amino acid and mineral contents were found to be much higher in the leaves than the shoots," says lead researcher B.Y. Kim.

Chronic alcohol use causes oxidative stress on the liver as well as unpleasant physical effects associated with a hangover. "Cellular toxicities were significantly alleviated in response to treatment with the extracts of asparagus leaves and shoots," says Kim. "These results provide evidence of how the biological functions of asparagus can help alleviate alcohol hangover and protect liver cells."

Asparagus officinalis is a common vegetable that is widely consumed worldwide and has long been used as an herbal medicine due to its anticancer effects. It also has antifungal, anti-inflammatory and diuretic properties.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:


Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), via Newswise.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.


Journal Reference:

  1. B.-Y. Kim, Z.-G. Cui, S.-R. Lee, S.-J. Kim, H.-K. Kang, Y.-K. Lee, D.-B. Park. Effects of?Asparagus officinalis?Extracts on Liver Cell Toxicity and Ethanol Metabolism. Journal of Food Science, 2009; 74 (7): H204 DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01263.x

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/living_well/~3/WHW_RR0aDoQ/121226101227.htm

zappos john elway john elway i have a dream speech fox news debate martin luther king jr mlk

Aerobic vs Weight Training: Which is Better For Fat Loss | Burn The ...

A recent study from Duke University comparing aerobic versus weight training to see which is better for fat loss was one of the most publicized studies of the year (my in-box was bursting with emails from Burn the Fat readers sending me links and asking me, ?What do you think of this Tom? ?I think the researchers missed the mark when they concluded that ?Aerobic exercise is better than resistance training for weight and fat loss? ? Read on to find out why and see what the top trainers, best bodybuilders and hottest fitness models in the world really say is the ?best way to burn fat the fastest?

The press release headline said:

?Aerobic exercise trumps resistance training for weight and fat loss.?

The New York Daily News picked up the story and published this headline:

?Aerobic training may burn more fat than a combination of weights and aerobics.?

Medical News Today published this one:

?Aerobic exercise best way to burn fat, not weights.?

These were the messages getting passed all around the Internet, usually by people who clicked a ?retweet? or ?share? button and didn?t even read the entire research paper. But what did the study really tell us?

What?s better for fat loss: aerobics, weight training or both?

After reading the news blurbs, you might be ?led to believe that if your goal is fat loss, you should focus on aerobics like running or cycling, not resistance training. Although aerobics (aka cardio) is a proven way to help burn fat, I believe that saying, ?Aerobics alone is best? is sending the wrong message and taking us backwards into the dark ages of fitness.

After decades of being ignored or even shunned by the health and medical communities, and after an era of aerobics dominating the fitness scene, weight training finally got its due respect as a key element in a total fitness program, including for fat loss. ?In the strength and conditioning community, we were thrilled when institutions like the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) finally added resistance training to their position statements.

We want to see that positive message continue to be spread widely to the public. Unfortunately, we still have researchers and the media running you around in circles: First recommending aerobic training only, then it was aerobics training plus resistance training, and now they?re saying it?s just aerobics again.

Confused? Trust me, they had it right at aerobics plus resistance training, especially when you look at the big picture and not just the body fat percentage alone. Strength training is the unsung hero in achieving total health and fitness.

Of course, the media loves stories like these because there is nothing better for getting attention than controversy and contradiction. While it?s important to keep an eye on new research and balance those academic findings with real world results, in this case, I don?t agree with all the conclusions of the study authors.

Study design

The study, known as STRIDE-AT/RT (Studies of a Targeted Risk Reduction Intervention Through Defined Exercise ? Aerobic and Resistance Training) was conducted at Duke University in North Carolina. In this randomized controlled trial, 211 test subjects were assigned to one of three groups:

1. Resistance training

2. Aerobic training, or

3. Aerobic plus resistance training

Aerobic training included treadmill, elliptical trainers or bicycle equivalent to 12 miles per week at 65% ? 80% of peak VO2. Resistance training included 3 days per week of weight training exercises for 3 sets of 8-12 reps. There was a ramp-up period with 1-2 sets during the first month. Exercises were not specified, but they covered all major muscle groups and workouts were supervised or confirmed.

These were the general findings:

  • All three groups lost fat mass and body fat percentage
  • The aerobic training group lost more total body mass (body weight) than the other two groups
  • The resistance training group increased lean body mass more than the other two groups (confirmed by body composition and thigh circumference measurements)
  • The resistance training group did not reduce body mass. Weight went up slightly. (However, body fat went down slightly. The lack of decrease in scale weight was due to an increase in lean mass).
  • The resistance training plus aerobic training group decreased body fat percentage and fat mass more than the other two groups.

Looking at these results, it actually appears as though the resistance training plus aerobic training group had the best fat loss results: Similar total body weight loss as the aerobic only group, but greater loss in body fat percentage and greater loss in body fat mass.

The researchers seem to discount this fact by qualifying their ?aerobics is best? conclusion based on time efficiency or what they believed was the most important outcome for health benefits.

However, the truth is ? and even Duke?s own press release didn?t mention this ? when you read the full research paper and analyze the actual change scores, NONE of the results of ANY group were very impressive?

These were the specific findings, by the numbers:

  • The aerobics only group (deemed ?most successful?), lost a mere 3.8 pounds of body weight and 3.6 pounds of fat in 8 months.
  • The resistance training group gained 2.3 pounds of lean body mass and lost?only .57 pounds of fat mass.
  • The aerobic plus resistance group lost 5.36 pounds of fat mass and gained 1.78 pounds of lean body mass. That looks like the winner to me for overall body composition improvement, but even that is nothing to get excited about.

Suppose the press release had said, ?Study shows that aerobic training produces almost 4 pounds of fat loss in 8 months,? or ?Aerobic training burns three-tenths of a pound more than aerobics plus resistance training.? Do you think there would have been so many headlines? Well, those are the numbers!?Why was there any buzz or hoopla about these study results at all?

With proper program design, shouldn?t you be able to lose a lot more than 4 pounds in 8 months? In fact, since this study was conducted on overweight and obese subjects, wouldn?t you have expected more weight loss than average? ?(Isn?t it common to see an obese person lose 4 pounds of bodyweight in the first week?) Regardless of your starting point, if your goal is fat loss, would you be happy with less than 4 pounds for 8 months of effort?

Why the poor results? There are many possible explanations.

For one, we don?t have that many specifics about the program design, progression or energy expended from the weight training workouts. The exercises may have been all low-energy expenditure machine movements like leg extensions. There may have been?poor application of progression and periodiziation. And in the aerobic group, the volume and/or?of training may may not have been enough.

Diet: The crucial (missing?) element

More than likely, one of the biggest reasons for less fat loss and weight loss than you?d want or expect in 8 months is lack of tight control over the subject?s diets.

A cursory skimming of the study suggests that they did have the subjects report their food intake. However, it was done with 3-day food records and 24-hour food recalls. It?s a well-proven fact that self-reporting of food intake by research subjects is horribly unreliable. A lack of weight loss can very often be chalked up to more calories being eaten than were reported. No exercise program ? weights or aerobics or both ? works well without proper nutrition.

Granted, studies with true control for food intake are difficult to perform, especially for extended periods of time. But fortunately, we don?t need more studies to understand what happened in this case.

We already know that the key to fat loss is the calorie deficit, not aerobic training per se and not resistance training per se. It?s possible to create a calorie deficit with ANY type of training program ? cardio or weights. However, is it possible to do aerobics and not have a deficit? Of course. Is it possible to lift weights and not have a deficit? Of course! Is it possible out-eat ANY training program? Of course.

The biggest question in my mind is why the researchers drew the conclusions they did: ?Here?s what they said, word for word:

?If increasing strength and muscle mass is the goal, a program including resistance training is required? (So far so good? we?re still cool)?

?However, balancing time commitments against health benefits accrued, it appears that aerobic training alone is the optimal mode of exercise for reducing fat mass.? (Based on this data? Really? Okay, now we have a difference in opinion).

I believe, and actually the absolute data seems to confirm it, that resistance training plus aerobic training together trumps either type of training by itself. The study authors themselves point out that each type of training has its own set of benefits. But apparently, factoring in the increased time commitment of doing both, they judged in favor of aerobics only as the preferred option for decreasing fat mass.

That raises yet another question: Should losing weight or even just losing fat be your only goal or your primary focus?

Weight training: Key to the world?s fittest, leanest, healthiest and most attractive bodies?

I?m not sure what is the background of the authors of this study. Some researchers have done mostly academic work, others have a practical background in strength and conditioning. Here?s mine: I come from the trenches of a personal training and competitive bodybuilding career, with a degree in exercise science and I?ve held many personal trainer and strength coach certifications. So, I?m definitely partial to weight lifting and muscle-building as the best tool for transforming the body. However, I?m not alone in my ?bias??

I?ve been surrounded by other professionals in the fitness trenches my entire life and I don?t know a trainer worth his salt (one who actually transforms other people?s bodies every day) who agrees that aerobic training should be the sole focus of a fat loss program or even that fat loss should be the sole focus of a health and fitness program.

Mind you, I?m not knocking aerobics ? not at all. I?m a big fan of including cardio as one part of the mix. That?s my whole point: It?s practically common knowledge among experienced trainers that better body composition is produced from combining weight training with cardio training.

There is a group of strength coaches and diet gurus today who insist that weight training combined with very strict diet is sufficient to produce fat loss. Surely that is true, but isn?t it also true that most people seem to get better results when adding cardio on top of weight training? Aren?t there ?endomorph? body types where weight training alone doesn?t seem to produce the ?fat loss/ weight loss results wanted at the rate they are wanted? Didn?t this study seem to bear that out? ?I can side with the researchers as far as that goes: Weight training alone may not be optimal for fat loss for most people. Put cardio into the mix.

I suppose a good question is how do we prioritize and allocate our time to each activity? Following the same rationale as the researchers ? balancing time commitments with health benefits ? shouldn?t weight training be higher in the hierarchy than aerobics? Given the huge benefit list for weight training (which includes better health), shouldn?t an ideal program start with weight training plus nutrition as the core elements and then add cardio in to increase fat loss and conditioning as needed? That?s how I see it.

For those with real time commitment issues, it?s comforting to know that fat loss really can be achieved just by dialing in the diet (being meticulous about caloric deficit), and that a calorie deficit can be achieved with any choice of exercise. In a perfect world, I?d have you doing all three elements, with that order of priority: Nutrition, weight training and cardio training and order them in a hierarchy of importance based on your goals and time available.

The muscle and metabolism argument: Was this point overlooked?

Although this study had limitations and subjects had less than stellar results, it did have its strengths and it did raise some?good questions. I think a valid point was made in this research paper that may have been even more important than the part that made all the headlines. It was about the role of increasing lean body mass in helping with fat loss.

It has been widely believed and advertised for years, especially in the bodybuilding world, that if increasing lean mass increases metabolism, then increasing your lean mass will help you lose weight. It has sometimes even been implied or stated directly that you can sit on the couch or sleep and (with your new muscle), you?ll burn more calories and lose more fat from that alone.

The Duke researchers suggested that if this were true, shouldn?t the resistance training only group have fared better in the fat mass lost department? They wrote:

?It may be time to seriously reconsider the conventional wisdom that resistance training alone can induce changes in fat mass due to an increase in metabolism.?

It?s well known that an increase in lean body mass leads to an increase in basal metabolic rate. Therefore, for years, we have promoted the idea that gaining lean mass helps with fat loss ? and it does to some degree ? that part is not in dispute. However,?does it?help so much that we can say increasing lean mass, by itself, is a great fat loss strategy? If you only gain a few pounds of lean body mass, the increase in metabolism is nothing to write home about. Without dietary control, it?s no help at all.

It seems to me that the researchers could have made this their primary conclusion. Instead, they said, ?Aerobics is better than weight training for fat loss.? ?That?s where I think they mixed up their message, because weight training does help with fat loss in the short term, directly and significantly, from increased calorie expenditure. Over the long? term it helps too, but maybe not as much as we thought purely from increased basal metabolism.

Conclusions

Because the research is so inconclusive and opinions always vary due to personal preferences and ideaologies, the weights versus cardio (and what kind of each) debates are likely to continue. But if you consider the entire body of research we have today on improving body composition, combined with the real world experience of the top trainers and athletes who are in the trenches, you can find it very easy to conclude that the optimal method of fat loss is a combination of cardio training and resistance training.

Is more time required to do both resistance and aerobic training? Yes, but with proper program design, time efficiency can be greatly increased (and that is a subject I will be more heavily exploring in future Burn the Fat Blog posts). And isn?t it worth doing both, so you can gain ALL the benefits: burning more calories, increasing your strength, gaining lean muscle, decreasing your body fat, improving your health and transforming your entire body shape?

Aerobics helps increase fat loss and you can lose body weight and body fat with aerobics alone. But pumping iron should stay high on your fat loss strategy list. Which of these two ? cardio or weights ? gets the most priority and time from you may depend on your personal goals, but almost everyone can agree that either way, controlling your diet is critical.

When you add in motivation and accountability, that increases compliance to those first three elements, and you have as close to a ?no fail? program as you?ll ever have?Hey??doesn?t that sound a lot like Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle?

References:
Effects of aerobics and/or resistance training on body mass and fat mass in overweight or obese adults. LH Willis et al, Journal of Applied Physiology, 1831-1837, December 2012. Duke University Medical Center

?

?

Source: http://www.burnthefatblog.com/archives/2012/12/aerobic-vs-resistance-training-for-fat-loss.php

easter recipes live free or die hard carlos pena amanda bynes arrested f 18 jet crash in virginia beach john tortorella

U.N. General Assembly voices concern for Myanmar's Muslims

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - The U.N. General Assembly expressed serious concern on Monday over violence between Rohingya Muslims and Buddhists in Myanmar and called upon its government to address reports of human rights abuses by some authorities.

The 193-nation General Assembly approved by consensus a non-binding resolution, which Myanmar said last month contained a "litany of sweeping allegations, accuracies of which have yet to be verified."

Outbreaks of violence between ethnic Rakhine Buddhists and the Rohingyas have killed dozens and displaced thousands since June. Rights groups also have accused Myanmar security forces of killing, raping and arresting Rohingyas after the riots. Myanmar said it exercised "maximum restraint" to quell the violence.

The unanimously adopted U.N. resolution "expressing particular concern about the situation of the Rohingya minority in Rakhine state, urges the government to take action to bring about an improvement in their situation and to protect all their human rights, including their right to a nationality."

At least 800,000 Muslim Rohingyas live in Rakhine State along the western coast of Myanmar, also known as Burma. But Buddhist Rakhines and other Burmese view them as illegal immigrants from neighboring Bangladesh who deserve neither rights nor sympathy.

The resolution adopted on Monday is identical to one approved last month by the General Assembly's Third Committee, which focuses on human rights. After that vote, Myanmar's mission to the United Nations said that it accepted the resolution but objected to the Rohingyas being referred to as a minority.

"There has been no such ethnic group as Rohingya among the ethnic groups of Myanmar," a representative of Myanmar said at the time. "Despite this fact, the right to citizenship for any member or community has been and will never be denied if they are in line with the law of the land."

(Reporting By Louis Charbonneau; Editing by Paul Simao)

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/u-n-general-assembly-voices-concern-myanmars-muslims-041849796.html

lunar eclipse alabama football florida lotto dancing with the stars sean taylor Lisa Robin Kelly Nexus 4

I prepared to take the captaincy reiterates Angelo Mathews ? Cricket ...

I prepared to take the captaincy reiterates Angelo Mathews ? Cricket News Roundup ? Part 1 ? December 24, 2012

Sri Lankan all-rounder, Angelo Mathews, has reiterated that he is ready to take over from current leader Mahela Jayawardene if the selectors offer him the role.

?Jayawardene himself as earmarked Mathews as the next in line to lead the side, having been impressed by the latter?s consistent form over the past 12 months. Mathews was the leading run scorer for his side in the previous home Test series against New Zealand, which prompted the current skipper to relinquish his role following the conclusion of the ongoing Australia tour.

Mathews termed the opportunity as a tough challenge, but remained eager to take on the added responsibility if it fell on his shoulders. "Mahela has done a wonderful job. Those are not easy boots to fill and do as well as Mahela has done. It's a tough challenge, let's see how it goes. I am prepared for the role and if they offer it to me, I will take it. "

Brendon McCullum hailed the match-winning contributions of Martin Guptill after he helped New Zealand claim a last-ball win against South Africa in the second T20I last night.

The Kiwi impressively recovered from a thumping defeat in the opening T20I by sealing victory in the second game, courtesy an unbeaten 101 from Guptill, who also scored the winning runs.

Needing to overcome a stiff target of 169 in 19 overs, the Black Caps were up against it for larger periods before Guptill took centre stage and smashed the final ball for a boundary, giving McCullum his first victory as captain since taking over from Ross Taylor.

Australian Head Coach, Mickey Arthur has backed Nathan Lyon despite the off-spinner coming under fire for his failures to take regular wickets.

Lyon had a disappointing outing in the recently concluded clash against Hobart, where he finished with just two scalps, despite the track aiding spinners on the final day.? That prompted the likes of former greats in Stuart MacGill and Muttiah Muralitharan to criticize Lyon?s bowling prowess, but Arthur was quick to come out in defence of his premier spinner.

"Nathan is doing everything right. He is working extremely hard. Nathan is a very good bowler and will be a very good bowler for Australia going forward."

Source: http://blogs.bettor.com/I-prepared-to-take-the-captaincy-reiterates-Angelo-Mathews-Cricket-News-Roundup-Part-1-December-24,-2012-a210875

Bumbo recall USA Basketball taio cruz taio cruz Winter Olympics 2014 powerball numbers freddie mercury

Feeding - Mommy & Baby: Nursing Questions & Answers

Q. How often should I nurse a newborn infant?

A. No fewer than 8 times per day, depending on how long he gives you at night. If he can go 4 hours, you?ll probably see two feedings in between 11:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. If you tank him up right before you go to bed, you may only have one.

Q. How often should I nurse an older baby?

A. Depending on your child?s age, you should be on a 3-4 hour routine during the day. Remember, as your child gets older, the frequency of nursing sessions will drop off, but he will be eating more at each session. If you are committed to nursing past 6 months of age, it?s not recommended that you drop below 5 feedings per day. If you believe your milk supply is waning and you don?t want to stop breastfeeding, add a feeding or two to your daily routine in order to increase your milk supply

Q. How do I drop a feeding as my baby grows?

A. The most common changes are moms who want to switch from a 3 to a 3.5 hour routine or a 3.5 to a 4 hour routine, babies who are ready to drop their middle of the night feeding, or parents who are ready to stop the late-night feeding.

Most often you?ll know when your baby is ready to switch by a change in his sleep patterns. A baby on a 3 hour routine typically takes 3 naps per day (morning, afternoon, late afternoon) and the switchover to a 3.5 hour routine will see a shortening of one of those naps or the dropping of the last nap of the day. Babies are generally ready for this switch by about 12 weeks of age.

Dropping the middle of the night feeding is most often accomplished by the baby himself between 7-14 weeks of age. You?ll know your baby is ready when he doesn?t wake you up until 6:00 a.m. or so, and you?ll probably wake in a panic that morning, realizing you weren?t beckoned in the middle of the night. He will require more food during the day from this point on, and your breasts will likely be overly full for several days, but it?s all good!

Stopping the late night feeding is typically the trickiest to do. Many parents are reluctant to drop it, thinking that if they do, their baby will wake in the middle of the night, starving.

If you think he cannot drop the feeding completely, back it up in 15-minute increments until you arrive at your desired time. If his last two feedings of the day are closer than your flexible schedule says it ?should be,? don?t worry. It?s a temporary fix, and that?s what flexibility is all about. The routine serves you, not the other way around!

Source: http://revistawomenshealth.com/baby/feeding-mommy-baby-nursing-questions-answers.html

jim yong kim michael bush the host trailer whitney houston cause of death marquette university marquette hilary duff

More Primary Structured Settlement Players Now in Factoring Mix ...

by John Darer

The year 2012 saw more primary structured settlement players overt in their participation in the structured settlement secondary market. In my opinion transparency is a good thing.

The issue of whether or not the majority of the primary structured settlement industry feels it is acceptable to take a referral fee, appears to be a dead issue.? The only open questions now are whether the issue of compensation is discussed and/or the amount of compensation is disclosed to the seller. Furthermore, whether the amount of such compensation is reasonable and whether it is any of the seller's business.

Over the years the trial bar has sent mixed signals on factoring. On the one hand the actual and purported behavior of certain factoring company participants is publicly reviled. Yet on the other hand there is evidence of actively practicing personal injury attorneys purchasing structured settlement payment rights themselves or even owning companies that actively market such services.

One structured settlement brokerage counts two or more affiliates who appear to have ownership interests in entities that directly solicit structured settlement annuitants offering a resource of funding to purchase their payment rights.
?

Other affiliates of the same brokerage started a company to acquire structured settlement payment rights in the secondary market through trusts and provide an alternative asset class that associated settlement consultants can market to their clients.

Another actively practicing settlement planner in San Francisco, who is affiliated with the same brokerage, and markets under 360 Financial, registered the domain StructuredSettlementInfo.com with Godaddy.com in March 2012. The website solicits people who want to sell their structured settlement payments and generates leads.? Nick Coccimiglio uses the email address purchases@ravenholdings.com for the registration acccording to information that is in the public domain. ?

Financial planners and, in recent years, settlement planners and actively practicing structured settlement brokers, have been a source of money, or pathway to a source of money for the acquistion of structured settlement payment rights. Make no mistake, there is a strong interest in these cash flows.? Clients of financial planners and, in recent years, settlement planners and actively practicing structured settlement brokers seek the stable, secure cash flows that structured settlement payment rights provide with attendant rates of return that are generally higher than alternatives. Individual investors may be willing to accept a lower rate of return than large institutional investors and those who sell to them who have large advertising budgets to account for.

By cumulatively pricing a large volume of deals at lower discount rates the participants hope to squeeze JG Wentworth and other nebulous "TV advertisers". Some operators in the space have already claimed success in bringing rates down.

Coccimiglio is purportedly involved in an effort to obtain a favorable tax status on the use of secondary market cash flows to finance the long term obligations of claimants in the primary market.

A major challenge facing settlement planners that employ this strategic alternative, is finding inventory.? Interpolating various published estimates suggest that between 5-10% of structured settlement annuitants seek to sell their payment rights. How does one find a suitable vehicle that matches up perfectly with a plaintiff's cash flow needs? While a traditional structured settlement or annuity can be immediately custom designed and priced using software provided to the appointed agents of the life insurance companies that issue the annuities, secondary market cash flows effectively are a "used car lot" system. Finding exactly what you need takes time just like it would if you visited a used car lot. Those who are patient reap the rewards. Soliciting directly is a method for gathering inventory.

Other challenges concern the under regulated marketplace, for? structured settlement payment rights, such as lack of statutory protection afforded buyers and other risks detailed here in my November 16, 2012 commentary of a post written by Atlanta attorney Page Perry LLC.

NSSTA's ethics rules concerning factoring see some of its members operating in the secondary marketplace space on the QT.?

The aformentioned 3 examples are firms and individuals who are not members of NSSTA.? Fellow industry commentator and former NSSTA member*, Patrick Hindert has been openly critical of NSSTA for its stance and has advocated the postulate that factoring improves structured settlements.

Further developments in this space are to be expected in 2013. Subscribe and stay in touch with our commentary.

* this author understands that Hindert is no longer an NSSTA member.

?

?

?

?

Source: http://structuredsettlements.typepad.com/structured_settlements_4r/2012/12/more-primary-structured-settlement-players-in-factoring-mix.html

veterans day world war z When Is Veterans Day 2012 brooke burke Alexa Vega Bram Stoker books Paula Broadwell Photos

3 Steps to Ensuring Your Office Security - Globial Talks Business

3 Steps to Ensuring Your Office Security - CCTV Camera

Don't let basic security slip for your business

Today?s post comes courtesy of business contributor Malachy Pollock

Security is of more concern now than ever before as people have less disposable income and shops are making fewer sales across the board. As a result, each item that is shoplifted stings a business more than it did in times gone by. Unfortunately, the financial difficulties people find themselves in these days have also led to an increase in shoplifting. All of this just goes to show how important it is for a business to have good quality security nowadays. If you think your business? security systems are lacking, here are some tips to help you make improvements.

Essential Security Systems

A working security alarm on your premises is essential as it will alert neighbours and police if your shop is broken into during the night, when most burglaries take place. 24-hour CCTV cameras are also advisable as video footage can help you identify burglars, as well as deterring would-be burglars who don?t want to risk being caught on camera. The points of entry to your business should be secure, with good quality locks and a roller shutter door on the fa?ade of the business if possible. All of these measures are essential if you wish to keep burglars at bay because burglars are far more likely to target businesses that don?t seem well-secured than ones that have a good security system in place.

Let There Be Light

Good lighting at your premises? entry points is another good way of warding off burglars as burglars are more likely to be seen by passers-by or neighbours if they are trying to break in via a well-lit doorway or window. You should also keep a few lights on inside the property so that burglars who manage to break in can be more easily seen from outside.

Daylight Robbery

During the day, staff should report any suspicious behaviour by customers. Shoplifters often work in groups, with one or two members distracting staff while others make off with goods from the shop. Expensive items should be further protected with security tags, which can only be safely removed by staff at the tills, as this will make them more difficult to rob. If ever there is a burglary during the day time, staff should not try to stop the burglars as they might be stressed or panicked and rash actions could lead to staff being injured or worse.

By investing in good security systems, not only are you protecting your stock and cash, you?re also protecting the staff who work in the business. As well putting the right security systems in place, it?s important to educate staff about what to do in the event of a burglary so you can be prepared if the worst does come to pass.

About the Author

This article was written by business owner Malachy Pollock who used roller shutters Ireland to secure his business premises.

More in This Category

Recommended for You

  1. How Can You Protect Your Business From Theft?

  2. Get an Office Without the Cost: A Guide to Virtual Office Addresses

  3. 3 Tips for Choosing the Best Office for Your Business

  4. The 3 Best Ways to Save Money on Office Supplies

Source: http://globial.com/globialtalksbusiness/3-steps-to-ensuring-your-office-security/

ufc diaz vs condit super bowl start time target jason wu gi joe jason wu for target collection jason wu jason wu