Easy Method To Burning Fat and Lowering Cholestrol

If you are trying to lose weight and/or lower your cholesterol, grapefruit should be a major staple in your diet. A normal size grapefruit is only about 74 calories. (leave off the sugar and try a little cinnamon)

The major benefits of this fruit are:

1. It contains 15 grams of pectin (this fiber is linked to lowering cholesterol and reducing fat).

2. It is high in viamin C and potassium.

3. It is fat free and contains no sodium.

Grapefruit is also rich in natural galactronic acid. This aids in lowering cholesterol and fat. It also battles against hardening of the arteries and the development of heart disease.

Before you add grapefruit as a major staple to your diet, check with your doctor to see if it ok. Grapefruit can cause a bad reaction when taking some medicines. (I’m on a cholesterol medicine that warns me not to use any grapefruit products.)

Over at WebMd, they explain in further detail ALL the benefits of grapefruit. If the doctor gives you thumbs up, head to the store and stock up, they last several weeks in the refrigerator.

Grapefruit is a product that can help you lose weight, lower cholesterol, and lower fat. It’s a great addition to anyone’s diet.

The Preemptive Strike Doctrine: A Necessary Evil

The Preemptive Strike Doctrine

Clear and Present Danger

If an individual, or the United States as a sovereign nation is aware of a building danger to security or safety, is the optimal plan to wait until it is a clear and present danger before dealing with it? Common sense would seem to dictate that the line separating danger and imminent danger is extremely fine, and that waiting is in no way consistent with the premise of either personal or national security.

As an individual you would work the problem through the system to try and contain it. As a nation facing entities and regimes that seek to inflict as much damage and destruction as possible on innocent men, women and children, the solution is more complex. And yes, this solution may in fact require the use of military force to take that threat out.

The Preemptive Strike Doctrine was put in place by the Bush administration in 2002 with the expressed purpose of giving the United States the right to protect, not only our citizens, but our allies around the world from the ever increasing threats that exist. It stated that the United States had the right to deal with a building threat to security in addition to a threat that presented a "clear and present danger" Unfortunately for all involved, because it was implemented by President Bush, it is a pariah that President Obama wants to eradicate.

Obviously, Iran is the textbook case for the fine line that we have to walk. There is a quickly building danger posed to world security by the Iranian nuclear program. Our "allies" in the fight to end or contain this threat, Russia and China, are not true allies. In fact, China and Russia have their own agendas, which will prevent them from taking any real action against this regime. China has a need for the Iranian oil to fuel its 6% plus economic growth. Russia has economic ties to Iran and is in fact helping them in building its’ nuclear infrastructure and missile defense system. This very missile defense system will make dealing with the nukes problem, when it does become a clear and present danger, that much more difficult to deal with. Is waiting for this point in the best interest of United States national security?

The Obama Doctrine

This apparent method of the Obama administration for dealing with threats to the United States and our friends around the world has become clear. Ominously clear. It is the idea of diplomacy first and second, with the implementation of sanctions and deal making together with our supposed allies to gain the help needed to deal with the problem third. The fallacy of this plan?

You cannot enter into substantive and valid negotiations with when the other party to those negotiations is a rogue regime with the stated goal of destroying our allies and the U.S. You cannot implement economic sanctions against a government who does not have the vested interests of its' own population at heart. Additionally, when your partners in imposing the sanctions will most likely not abide by them, this method of containing the threat will fail. China and Russia have clearly stated that they do not favor sanctions at this time.

At the same time, through the Obama Doctrine premise of appeasement, the United States has portrayed itself as the polar opposite of Bush. Weak and willing to give up most anything to achieve our goals in ways that will make them unachievable. We gave up missile defense in Poland and Czechoslovakia to appease the Russians with the understanding that they would back sanctions, and they did not.

Our allies in this fight against global threats, as well as Iran and North Korea, do not respect weakness, but they will take full advantage of it. For the Russians under acting leader Putin, they will get whatever they can from the United States, and in return most likely never come through on their side of the bargain. For Iran, they will play the game and dance the dance, stringing us along while continuing on the way to a nuclear capability.

What the Obama Doctrine does not seem to account for is that rhetoric, flowery speech and empty threats do not scare anyone. Anyone, except for those around the world who see it for what it is: “Clear and present danger" to the United States itself. In the end, those nations who live under a daily threat to security will be forced to take matters into their own hands, act unilaterally, and pay a price to ensure national security.

What the Obama Doctrine needs to account for is that in the world today, the emphasis has to be on a pragmatic approach to events, and not an approach designed to simply be "not George Bush." While the far left may endorse that, the rest of us will pay the price.

The Basics of Pricing Your Home

You probably already know how significant the listing price of your home can be. Price too high, and you scare away qualified buyers; price too low, and you get less money than you could have. We’ve written here at the Buy Owner Blog about the perils of poor pricing before, but let’s talk now about the way to do it right:

Determine Your Margin
One of the first factors you need to consider is equity. If you’ve been in your home for several years or if you put down a large down payment, you have a pretty good idea how much money you’d like to get out of the house when you sell. That number may be tainted by your financial situation, if, say, you’re in financial trouble and need to sell quickly, in which case it could be best to lower your price, even if you take a short-term loss. No matter what, you need to make sure you’ll get enough money out of your house to pay off the mortgage and find new living arrangements. In today’s market, in some areas, the upside-down nature of real estate could make this a difficult proposition.

Do Some Research
The local MLS and a quick online search can help you identify properties that are considered to be comparable to yours. If you want to sell your house quickly, price your home as the best deal on the market by setting your price lower than all similar ones in your area. By using Buy Owner, you’re already cutting the cost of commissions, so lowering your price should be possible to do without taking a significant hit to your profit.

A real estate appraiser can also help you price your home. Most buyers will need a recent appraisal in order to qualify for a mortgage on your home anyway, so it may be worth the small investment required to have the home appraised prior to putting it on the market. Any time you can sell your home “below appraisal,” you have a better chance of selling it quickly.

If you price your home and no one comes to see it, you may have priced it too high. Remember that one of the best reasons to sell by owner is the flexibility it allows, and you can always lower the cost of your home if activity is less than you desire or if offers come in significantly lower than your asking price.

Blood oxygenation appeared to be the key to surviving influenza A(H1N1) for patients suffering respiratory failure

WELLINGTON: Blood oxygenation appeared to be the key to surviving influenza A(H1N1) for patients suffering respiratory failure, new research showed on Tuesday.

The observational study, carried out by New Zealand and Australian flu investigators between June 1 and Aug 31 this year, showed most patients who experienced respiratory failure after contracting the influenza A survived if they were treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), a type of life support that adds oxygen to the blood, China's Xinhua news agency reported.

The study focused on 68 patients with severe influenza A associated acute respiratory distress, who received ECMO in 15 intensive care units across New Zealand and Australia.

"We looked at a number of factors associated with patients receiving ECMO, such as the incidence, degree of lung dysfunction, clinical features, technical characteristics, duration, complications, and survival," Auckland City Hospital's cardiothoracic intensive care specialist Shay McGuinness said.

"By doing this we have established the importance of ECMO as a treatment option for patients with severe influenza A(H1N1) associated acute respiratory distress.

"Despite the severity of their illness and the lengthy period of time on ECMO life support most of these patients survived," McGuinness said.

McGuinness said 54 of the 68 patients had survived and 14 had died. Six were still being treated in intensive care units.

"These findings are important to our colleagues all over the world and should be used to facilitate health care planning and clinical management for these complex patients during the ongoing pandemic," McGuinness said.

The study was due to be published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on Nov 4, but will be published early online because of the importance of its findings for public health. - Bernama