U.S. Journalist James Foley Beheaded By Islamic State
Home | Index of articles
Butea superba (BS) is a Thai medicinal plant that has been used as a folk medicine to improve physical and mental conditions and to prevent impaired sexual performance in middle-aged or elderly males.
It can be hard enough to understand women in general, let alone the female climax. So to help you bring her to climax every time—and therefore have more pleasurable s*x—we asked our s*x professor, Debby Herbenick, Ph.D., your top climax questions.
Study up, then start following her advice for hotter s*x.
Q: Is it possible for a woman to have an climax and not make that much noise?
A: Yes. Women—and men—don’t always make audible sounds during climax.
Q: Is s*x enjoyable for her if she doesn’t climax?
A: Women, more often than men, report that they find s*x to be pleasurable even if they do not climax.
In addition to the fact that it feels pleasurable to be touched, many women enjoy the intimacy that s*x provides, the kissing, touching, closeness, etc.
Q: Is there an average time to her climax?
A: It depends in what way she’s stimulated. self service with a vibrator is the quickest route to climax, while intercourse tends to take more time, for the majority of women.
But it varies so much not only but from s*x act to s*x act, but also from woman to woman.
Q: How can a guy bring a woman to climax faster?
A: Women sometimes find it easier to climax if they are relaxed and feel comfortable with their partner.
climax is more likely with a regular relationship partner than a casual partner.
Help her relax by addressing any relationship conflicts, and talking about (and trying to meet) her needs for affection and intimacy. Be positive and complimentary about issues she’s anxious about, such as her appearance or weight.
Also, make sure she is sufficiently aroused prior to trying to have an climax from oral s*x, intercourse, or hand stimulation. There is no magic cue to tell, so talk to her!
Q: Can he bring her to climax during a quickie?
A: It depends how quick the quickie is. There are few women who can climax in less than 5 minutes, but some can.
More often, though, the answer is no.
Q: How can a guy give a woman multiple orgasms?
A: Not all women report ever having had multiple orgasms. In some studies, it seems that less than half of women have reported this.
That doesn’t mean that they aren’t capable of multiple orgasms, but it does mean that we don’t know how many are.
For women who want multiple orgasms—and that is key, guys—try to maintain stimulation through the first climax so that she can keep going.
For women who are neutral about multiples or don’t care, don’t pressure her (and yes, trying too hard counts as pressure) because pressure and climax rarely mix.
Q: What is the best s*x position for her climax?
A: There is no such thing: It depends on the woman. Again, not all women can climax during intercourse.
Some climax more easily from stimulation of the front wall of the v**ina, others more easily from direct stimulation of the cli**ris. Missionary and rear entry are among the more common positions and probably for a reason: Each provides either clitoral or front-wall stimulation, making them good bets for many women.
Q: Is oral s*x best?
A: No, but the direct stimulation of the clitoral glans does make it easier for many women to climax.
Q: How can a guy tell if he really is her “best ever”?
A: If she tells you that.
Q: What about women achieving climax through fantasy alone?
A: We know that it is possible, but relatively rare.
Orgasms resulting from waking fantasies are not at all common, and dreams during sleep are somewhat common.
Q: And what’s this about a bosom climax?
A: We don’t even really understand how clitoral/vaginal orgasms work, let alone how bosom-stimulated orgasms work.
We have various theories, but no one really knows. All we know is that some women (that is, the minority) have had this experience.
I wouldn’t encourage a guy to try to give a woman these types of orgasms because that can result in too much pressure, frustration, and dissatisfaction—and that wouldn’t provide a service to either party.
Age 70, and you can have the best sex of a lifetime. Provided your testosterone is high. Not? Try the Thai herbal booster butea superba. The best stuff on the planet.
Does the Islamic State have chemical or biological weapon capabilities? New intelligence suggests that the terrorist state is actively attempting to produce both, and the terrorist state has used chemical weapons before.
In August, it was confirmed that Kurds fighting ISIS in northern Iraq were exposed to mustard gas. According to The Guardian, this was confirmed by German intelligence who collected blood samples from Kurds who were hurt in battle. It was also reported that Marea, a town in northern Syria, was allegedly subjected to a chemical attack in August, too. However, this could not be independently confirmed.
New information suggests that ISIS is looking to ramp up its chemical and biological weapon capabilities. Chemical weapons can include nerve agents, ricin, lewisite, and mustard gas, but also more dangerous agents like phosgene, which is a colorless, suffocating gas responsible for 85,000 deaths in World War I. Biological weapons can include agents like anthrax, cholera, and the plague.
The Associated Press reports that Iraqi and U.S. intelligence officials have stated that ISIS has “[set] up a branch dedicated to research and experiments with the help of scientists from Iraq, Syria.” However, it is not a cause for alarm.
Every rich man in his right mind want patriarchy as a social and political system. Men rule, and can have harems, one way or the other. And because women are natural cowards, the more violent a society, the more women will retreat. All by themselves. So, welcome violent migrants. They will finish off feminism. Just take precautions to protect yourself. A dangerous world is one ruled by men.
Khmer Rouge terror in Cambodia
A British doctor has been arrested in Cambodia on Thursday after four underage girls between the ages of 12 and 15 accused him of rape.
Local authorities arrested 69-year-old Clive Robert Kingsley Cressy at a cafe in Phnom Penh following reports from his alleged victims, according to The Sun.
A British doctor has been arrested in Cambodia on Thursday after four underage girls between the ages of 12 and 15 accused him of rape.
Local authorities arrested 69-year-old Clive Robert Kingsley Cressy at a cafe in Phnom Penh following reports from his alleged victims, according to The Sun.
A raid conducted on Cressy’s condo yielded an assortment of children’s clothes, shoes, and toys. Images from the search show the doctor’s suitcase filled with Barbie dolls and young girls’ clothing.
Some of Cressy’s belongings were seized, including computers, a laptop, camera, external hard drive, and DVDs. The items will also be thoroughly checked as the police are “doing more investigation” to find other potential victims.
According to the police, the doctor from Hove, East Sussex allegedly paid four girls aged 12, 13, 14 and 15 to have sex with him. It is also reported that he paid up to $3,000 to have sex with a virgin.
His Vietnamese girlfriend, identified as Chea Sokthy, is believed to have acted as Cressy’s accomplice. She has also been arrested, according to the Phnom Penh Post. The 27-year-old woman is under suspicion of procuring the would-be victims for Cressy.
According to Phnom Penh’s municipal anti-trafficking police chief Keo Thea, Cressy has been under police surveillance for months. During the investigation, the doctor has been observed to leave and return to Cambodia a number of times.
The patriarchy as political system is defined as rule by benevolent mature men. It has a proven track record in history. And you can't get anything better than it.
WHAT IS VAGINAL TIGHTENING?
Often referred to as a “Designer Vagina”, many women choose to undergo vaginal surgery, or cosmetic gynecology, for various reasons. It can often be because they are dissatisfied with their genital appearance or would like to increase their sexual experience.
UNDERSTANDING VAGINAL TIGHTENING SURGERY
Vaginal tightening is particularly popular with new mums. Following childbirth, often the muscles of the vagina will lose elasticity and begin to sag. This relaxation of muscle tone, causing a loosening of the vaginal muscles and surrounding tissue, can also occur as women begin to age. Vaginal tightening surgery aims to assist with the muscle tone of the vagina by ensuring the muscles and supporting tissues are tightened.
The subject of vaginal surgery is no longer taboo meaning that women who feel uncomfortable with the appearance of their vagina, or who may have felt discomfort or even embarrassment have the opportunity to have it rectified with a procedure carried out by the very best cosmetic surgeons.
The procedure is carried out under general anaesthetic. You will also be required to stay overnight in either MYA’s amazing Fitzroy Hospital in Central London or a private hospital in the North.
VAGINAL TIGHTENING AFTERCARE
We use dissolvable stitches as standard for our vaginal tightening procedure. In the period immediately following your surgery, it is important to keep your incisions clean and dry. Approximately 7 to 14 days following the procedure you will notice any tenderness and swelling start to subside. We recommend wearing loose and comfortable clothing during this time, while sexual and physical activity is not recommended until at least 6 weeks after your post- op surgeon consultation.
It's not that all cultures are of the same quality. Some cultures are better than others. They have more value. Other cultures are pretty miserable, and some cultures are outright shitty, and should be eradicated. European culture, for example, is deplorable. The Arab and Chinese cultures are much better.
Whenever other women talked about their sexual escapades, Naomi* always wondered what an orgasm felt like. The possibility of getting one was robbed from her when she was put through female genital mutilation (FGM) at age 14.
Now at the entrance of the Karen Hospital in Nairobi, she stands at the door of opportunity that may restore what was violently taken away from her. Clitoraid, a non-profit organisation based in the US, has pitched tent at the hospital to offer clitoris restorative surgeries for free.
The Kenya Demographic Health Survey of 2014 shows that 21 per cent of women aged 15 to 49 have undergone FGM.
Nine per cent underwent the most severe form where the genital area is sewn shut after being cut off. To restore the clitoris which is normally 11 centimetres long, with only five per cent cut off even in the worst case of FGM, the remaining part of the clitoris which is buried in the body is brought to the surface.
The restoration of sexual pleasure is possible because the entire clitoris is sensory, not just the amputated portion. “Sensation is lost because the amputated portion retracts and gets covered by scar tissue. The clitoris is shortened but not removed. The restoration surgery exposes the clitoral stump.
Then, with plastic surgery, we are able to bring the exposed portion to the surface and even create new labia minora using the surrounding skin. The newly exposed portion is then able function,” said Dr Marci Bowers, Clitoraid’s gynaecological surgeon, who has operated on the women with the help of Kenyan plastic surgeon Dr Abdullahi Adan.
“Women orgasm for the first time in their lives after this,” she added. By Wednesday last week, more than 20 women had been operated on at Mama Lucy Hospital in Nairobi, and more women queued silently at the Karen Hospital waiting for surgery.
Feminist rule in Europe makes second-generation male Muslim immigrants suicide bombers. They die for sexual justice. Why do Western politicians call suicide bombers cowards? To sacrifice one's own life is the ultimate in courage.
It is the secret dream of every Swedish or German woman to marry a black men, or at least have sex with a black man. Every smart young African man should migrate to Europe. Free money, nice house, good sex!
International terrorism poses one of the greatest strategic challenges in the modern age as groups have become able to cross borders and carry out operations globally; and has gained a renewed focus since the events of September 11th 2001. It is possible that terrorists might attempt to acquire weapons of mass destruction which could then be used anywhere in the world. The term ‘weapons of mass destruction’ itself is a relatively new term and normally encompasses chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons (CBRN). These are incredibly varied in their effects as well as their availability, and whilst terrorist groups might want to acquire such “weapons of terror”, the effectiveness of such weapons compared to conventional explosives may be disputed. Aum Shinrikyo for example is probably the most famous terrorist group to acquire and use weapons that would now be classified as WMDs, but was only able to do so due to its considerable financial resources, and even then “failed in all 10 of its biological weapons attacks” whilst the Sarin gas attack in 1995 caused roughly the same number of fatalities as “the average Palestinian suicide bomber attack.” In this essay I will examine the component parts of the term weapons of mass destruction (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear) individually to assess the credibility of international terrorists using such weapons. I will show that although it is credible that terrorists would want to use such weapons and may attempt to do so in the future, conventional explosives have thus far proven more effective and in my opinion, it is far more likely that conventional terrorism will remain at the forefront of terrorist tactics.
Chemical terrorism is a potentially devastating form of WMD terrorism and certainly presents a credible threat to the international community. Toxic chemical agents such as chlorine and phosgene (which were first used as chemical weapons during the First World War) are found in many industry sectors and can easily be acquired and adapted for use in chemical weapons, although these devices will not be as effective as nerve agents, which are much more difficult to produce and require sophisticated laboratories to do so. Even so these weapons carry the potential to cause large amounts of casualties, although the vast majority of these would most likely be injuries rather than fatalities, and can be used effectively to create fear and encourage panic. Hamas is just one group that has pursued chemical weapons in the past, often lacing shrapnel used in suicide bombs with chemical agents, such as in December 2001 where “nails and bolts packed into explosives detonated…at the Ben-Yehuda pedestrian mall in Jerusalem were soaked in rat poison” in order to kill those survivors of the initial blast who were hit by shrapnel, and they have also attempted to acquire and use cyanide in attacks. So far however the effect of these chemical weapons seems limited and have been used in conjunction with conventional explosives rather than separately. Chemical weapons are also dependent on various factors including temperature and humidity, and when dispersed outside they become unpredictable due to wind conditions. In 1990 for example the Tamil Tigers attacked a Sri Lanka Air Force fortification using chlorine gas which was released to drift over the fort, and succeeded in injuring over 60 government soldiers and enabled the Tamil Tigers to take the fort, but then drifted back over their own positions. These chemical agents are rarely particularly effective, and it is noted that the Tamil Tigers used the chlorine gas simply because it was a weapon that they had to hand at the time and it suited a particular battlefield need. As a result terrorist organisations may try to utilise the potential of more deadly chemical weapons such as nerve agents, which I shall now discuss.
The cultivation of nerve agents such as Sarin or VX, is significantly more expensive than the procurement of other more basic agents, and requires considerable amount of expertise. Despite this it is still credible that terrorists could make use of such weapons as they have done in the past, most famously perhaps the Tokyo subway attack in 1995. Aum Shinrikyo had already carried out an attack using Sarin gas in 1994 in the city of Matsumoto, targeting three judges hearing “a lawsuit over a real-estate dispute in which Aum Shinrikyo was the defendant” and which they were likely to lose, subsequently killing 7 and wounding approximately 500. Following this, the Aum Shinrikyo cult group (now known as Aleph) carried out possibly the most successful chemical terrorist attack in 1995, releasing Sarin on the Tokyo subway system and causing 13 deaths and injuring approximately 6,300. In a subsequent raid on Satyan 7, a “supposed shrine to the Hindu god Shiva”, it was found that the building “housed a moderately large-scale chemical weapons production facility” which was designed to produce thousands of kilograms of Sarin a year, although at the time of the Tokyo subway attack it was no longer in service. This attack was the most devastating chemical attack by a terrorist group, and yet other attacks carried out using conventional explosives have been more effective, such as the bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 where 301 people were killed and 5,000 were injured. It is unlikely that a chemical attack will occur again on such a large scale due to the amount of expense involved, as Aum Shinrikyo remains at this time “the only group that had the financing and the motivation to create or obtain a true military-grade CW agent”. It is also important to note that Aum Shinrikyo is an apocalyptic group, and it is relatively unlikely that a more politically motivated group, even one such as Al-Qaeda would carry out a mass casualty chemical attack. The threat of a small-scale chemical attack is very credible with the availability of resources but the effectiveness of such a weapon would be fairly limited, and would actually probably be less effective than a conventional attack.
Bioterrorism is a very real threat to the international community today as it can be both disruptive as well as destructive. There are many different forms of Biological weapons that could be used, “Some are contagious and can spread rapidly in a population, while others, including anthrax and ricin, infect and kill only those who are directly exposed.” This diversity in effects can enable a group to carry out either targeted or indiscriminate attacks depending on their goals but both types, if carried out correctly, have the capability to majorly disrupt the targeted state or region. A biological attack is a much more realistic threat than a nuclear attack largely because “Unlike nuclear arms, dangerous germs are cheap and easy to come by”, whilst their effects on people can potentially reach the same scale as a nuclear bomb. For a more disruptive but by no means less devastating attack, a group could potentially target crops and livestock, disrupting a state’s food supply and economy. Biological warfare itself has been in use for centuries; in the Siege of Caffa in 1346 for example the Tartar forces, who were suffering from an outbreak of plague, ordered the infected corpses loaded onto trebuchets and hurled into the city in an attempt to kill all its inhabitants. In the Second World War the British planned to drop 5 million linseed cakes contaminated with anthrax spores into Germany which would then be consumed first by cattle, and then by Germans who subsequently ate the infected animals, whilst simultaneously creating a food shortage for the surviving population through the death of the remaining cattle. This attack (known as Operation Vegetarian) was never put into action however Gruinard Island, the island on which the cakes were tested, was only cleared of contamination in 1990 which suggests the possible long-term effects such an attack could cause. I shall now examine different types of biological weapons as well as possible future threats.
Perhaps the most well-known biological agent that has been used as a weapon is anthrax, a disease caused by bacteria called Bacillus anthracis, largely because of the relative ease with which it can be cultivated and the various ways it can cause infection which each cause different symptoms (inhalation, contact with a break in the skin, or ingestion of anthrax-tainted meat). Causing infection on a large scale with anthrax is however incredibly difficult. This is perhaps best shown by Aum Shinrikyo’s failed anthrax attack in 1993, in which members of the group attempted to aerosolise a “liquid suspension of Bacillus anthracis in an attempt to cause an inhalational anthrax epidemic”, and in the process create the conditions for another world war. The attack caused a foul odour and some minor cases of appetite-loss; nausea and vomiting, but failed to infect a single person, and it was only discovered that it had been an attack using anthrax during an investigation following the Tokyo subway station attack in March 1995. The most successful attack using anthrax was perhaps the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States which occurred shortly after the events of September 11th. The attacks caused 22 cases of anthrax infection of which “Eleven of these were inhalational cases, of whom 5 died; [and] 11 were cutaneous cases (7 confirmed, 4 suspected).” Although the attack did not cause mass-casualties, it did cause major disruption and caused the temporary closure of the government mail service, as well as widespread fear of finding anthrax spores in the mail. There is also the threat of terrorists using the Botulinum toxin, one of the most deadly toxins known, which “poses a major bioweapon threat because of its extreme potency and lethality; its ease of production, transport, and misuse”. To cause more widespread damage terrorists could attempt to utilise contagious diseases such as the Ebola virus or even possibly avian influenza, and there is evidence to suggest that Aum Shinrikyo did at least contemplate the possibility of using the Ebola virus as a biological weapon. The use of contagious diseases in particular could become a major tactic for terrorist organisations in the future as it has the potential to cause widespread mass-casualties. The relative ease in the cultivation of agents such as anthrax and Botulinum, as well as the widespread and possibly transnational effects that contagious viruses could cause, makes bioterrorism a credible threat to the international community. However at this time it would appear that it would be extremely difficult to cause a crisis such as an epidemic and would probably therefore be limited to small scale attacks designed to cause more fear than casualties.
Radiological terrorism is perhaps one of the most credible threats to the international community, although arguably is also the least effective. The most credible use of radiological terrorism would probably be through the use of a radiological weapon, otherwise known as a ‘Dirty Bomb’ or a radiological dispersal device (RDD), which is designed to kill or injure “through the initial blast of the conventional explosive, and by airborne radiation and contamination (hence the term “dirty”).” They are realistically more weapons of mass disruption rather than destruction, but their capacity to create both large scale casualties and mass panic cannot be underestimated. A dirty bomb is a more realistic terrorist threat than a nuclear bomb largely because of the relative ease in its manufacture, as it is simply a conventional explosive with a radioactive isotope packed inside it; when the explosive detonates the isotope is dispersed over a large area thereby causing contamination over a wide area. There are a vast number of radioactive isotopes that could be used to make a dirty bomb and many of them are in the public domain, one example being caesium-137, a radioactive isotope that has widespread uses including certain cancer treatments. There have been two cases of terrorists attempting or threatening to use RDDs, though neither was successful in being carried out. The first occurred in 1995 in Moscow, when Chechen separatists buried a package containing Caesium-137 in Izmaylovsky Park, announcing it to the press in order to prove their ability to create and if necessary use a radiological weapon. The second instance of radiological terrorism was in December 1998, when the Chechen Secret Service discovered a dirty bomb “consisting of a land mine combined with radioactive materials”, which was quickly disarmed.
The relative ease in which a dirty bomb could be manufactured makes it far more likely than a nuclear bomb, however there are other possible forms of radiological terrorism that are perhaps less likely but potentially more dangerous, although there are no actual records of them occurring, including distribution in ventilation systems or the use of aircraft to powdered or aerosol forms of radioactive material. It is also theoretically possible that a terrorist organisation may attempt to attack a nuclear power station, following which a large enough explosion may allow the mass dispersion of a large amount of nuclear material, although safeguards and security arrangements should be able to deal with this threat. Although a successful radiological terrorist attack has not yet occurred, there are examples of the effects that radioactive materials have on humans, leading to increased fear about the possibility of attack. In September 1999 as just one example two thieves attempted to steal a container of radioactive materials from a chemical factory in Chechnya, but after half an hour one of the suspects died and the other collapsed, “even though each held the container for only a few minutes.” The threat to the international community from radiological terrorism is fairly credible given the relative ease in procurement and manufacture, and there is speculation that Al-Qaeda may have succeeded in creating a dirty bomb due to evidence found by British Intelligence agents and weapons researchers in 2003, although the device itself has not been found.
Nuclear terrorism is perhaps the most feared, and most unlikely, form of WMD Terrorism facing the world today. It has been argued that with increased amounts of uranium and particularly plutonium in circulation, due to more emphasis being placed on nuclear power, it is becoming far more likely that terrorists could acquire and build a nuclear weapon with relative ease. This argument follows that it is not only likely that terrorist organisations will attempt to acquire nuclear weapons, but they will also use them as a first resort weapon as a means of advancing their aims. In the context of Al-Qaeda, Busch notes that “bin Laden has declared obtaining nuclear weapons to be a religious duty” and that Al-Qaeda has been researching into this technology. This conflicts with bin Laden’s own statement made in November 2001 in which he said that he was already in possession of nuclear and chemical weapons, but that they would only be used as a deterrent, although perhaps the integrity of this statement can be debated in both its claim of ownership and professed intent. Governments and media seem to have a tendency to create worst-case scenarios regarding WMDs, most of which are relatively unrealistic. Albert Mauroni, a senior policy analyst with Northrop Grumman, notes as an example that the “US government fixates on scenarios that envision terrorist use of ten-kiloton nuclear weapons…worst-case scenarios that have little basis in reality” and this in itself can lead to the fear of the attack overshadowing the credibility or otherwise of a real attack. The intent for terrorist organisations to acquire nuclear weapons is certainly real, as is the possibility that they would use them as a first resort weapon, however I shall now examine the credibility of such groups being able to actually obtain them.
There are two main areas that governments are particularly concerned about regarding the acquisition of nuclear weapons or the technology to build them by terrorists: the theft, sale, or capture of warheads; and the theft of civilian nuclear material. In the first instance there is the threat that terrorists could attempt to “Steal, buy or otherwise acquire a ready-made nuclear weapon; or take over a nuclear-armed submarine, plane or base.” The most likely victim of such an attack in the modern world at the moment is Pakistan, which at this time is faced with “a greater threat from Islamic extremists seeking nuclear weapons than any other nuclear stockpile on earth”. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons facilities have come under attack at least three times in the period 2007-2008 by terrorist groups, and with both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda having relocated to the country from Afghanistan there is a significant danger of such facilities being taken over and used against a wide range of targets, including Coalition forces in neighbouring Afghanistan. To counter this threat the United States has opted for a quick reaction strategy, creating a specialist force to “seal off and snatch back Pakistani nuclear weapons” in the event of terrorist groups or other militant forces manage to acquire a weapon or the materials to build one. The likelihood of terrorists buying nuclear weapons is fairly low as such weapons could be traced on use to the manufacturer, providing incontrovertible evidence against the guilty party, which would usually be a state.
The other method that could be used to attempt to acquire a nuclear weapon is that of the theft of civilian nuclear material from nuclear power stations or reprocessing plants. However, these isotopes cannot effectively be used as a nuclear weapon in the state they are used in nuclear power facilities. Uranium is typically only enriched to 4% in a nuclear power station whereas it needs to achieve 85% enrichment to be used as a nuclear weapon, and to “obtain weapon-grade plutonium, nuclear-weapon states have reprocessed spent uranium fuel from special production reactors.” International safeguards should be able to prevent illegal enrichment of uranium from occurring, and it seems unlikely that a non-state actor would be able to build the necessary facilities to achieve sufficient enrichment of uranium themselves or create weapons-grade plutonium without the nations like the United States noticing, at which point they would in all likelihood be able to destroy or capture such a facility. The possibility of terrorist organisations creating nuclear fusion weapons is even more unrealistic as again such an act could not go unnoticed (due to the need to test a fission bomb first) and could easily be disrupted. The threat of international terrorist organisations acquiring nuclear fission weapons is theoretically credible, although with the safeguards that are rapidly being put into place to prevent both nuclear material and weaponry from falling into the hands of terrorists; I would argue that it is simply much easier and cheaper to use more conventional weapons and at the time of writing no nuclear terrorist attack has taken place.
Weapons of mass destruction could potentially cause devastation on a scale that no other weapon at this time can achieve. A well planned chemical or biological attack could theoretically kill thousands or even millions of people, whilst a radiological weapon would cause the necessary evacuation of an area and again could possibly cause large-scale casualties. The issue with these weapons is that they only have the potential to cause such damage, and historical precedents would suggest that it is a very complicated and difficult task to achieve such devastation, even if a group is able to procure such a weapon. A nuclear weapon would have a much larger and more destructive effect, as it is the only weapon of mass destruction that also destroys buildings, but the likelihood of a terrorist group acquiring or building one is fairly low at the moment. Conventional explosives have proven to be more effective than attacks involving WMDs at this point, and though it is theoretically possible that international terrorist groups might acquire weapons of mass destruction and use them upon acquisition, I believe that the use of conventional explosives will continue to dominate terrorist attacks.
Feminists have institutionalized violence against men through the legal systems of all Western nations. But women cannot win the violence competition. The more violent societies become, the more women need protection. And the more they need protection, the quicker they will abandon feminism. Rich men should invest their money in fostering violence in all societies. Then they will end up with their own harems. No feminists inside there.
Fox News and other conservative sites miss the point of basic science.
In the past few days, the Internet has been filled with commentary on whether the National Science Foundation should have paid for my study on duck genitalia, and 88.7 percent of respondents to a Fox news online poll agreed that studying duck genitalia is wasteful government spending. The commentary supporting and decrying the study continues to grow. As the lead investigator in this research, I would like to weigh in on the controversy and offer some insights into the process of research funding by the NSF.
My research on bird genitalia was originally funded in 2005, during the Bush administration. Thus federal support for this research cannot be connected exclusively to sequestration or the Obama presidency, as many of the conservative websites have claimed.
Since Sen. William Proxmire's Golden Fleece awards in the 1970s and 1980s, basic science projects are periodically singled out by people with political agendas to highlight how government “wastes” taxpayer money on seemingly foolish research. These arguments misrepresent the distinction between and the roles of basic and applied science. Basic science is not aimed at solving an immediate practical problem. Basic science is an integral part of scientific progress, but individual projects may sound meaningless when taken out of context. Basic science often ends up solving problems anyway, but it is just not designed for this purpose. Applied science builds upon basic science, so they are inextricably linked. As an example, Geckskin™ is a new adhesive product with myriad applications developed by my colleagues at the University of Massachusetts. Their work is based on several decades of basic research on gecko locomotion.
Whether the government should fund basic research in times of economic crisis is a valid question that deserves well-informed discourse comparing all governmental expenses. As a scientist, my view is that supporting basic and applied research is essential to keep the United States ahead in the global economy. The government cannot afford not to make that investment. In fact, I argue that research spending should increase dramatically for the United States to continue to lead the world in scientific discovery. Investment in the NSF is just over $20 per year per person, while it takes upward of $2,000 per year per person to fund the military. Basic research has to be funded by the government rather than private investors because there are no immediate profits to be derived from it.
Because the NSF budget is so small, and because we have so many well-qualified scientists in need of funds, competition to obtain grants is fierce, and funding rates at the time this research was funded had fallen well below 10 percent. Congress decides the total amount of money that the NSF gets from the budget, but it does not decide which individual projects are funded—and neither does the president or his administration. Funding decisions are made by panels of scientists who are experts in the field and based on peer review by outsiders, often the competitors of the scientists who submitted the proposal. The review panel ranks proposals on their intellectual merits and impacts to society before making a recommendation. This recommendation is then acted upon by program officers and other administrators, who are also scientists, at the NSF.
This brings us back to the ducks. Male ducks force copulations on females, and males and females are engaged in a genital arms race with surprising consequences. Male ducks have elaborate corkscrew-shaped penises, the length of which correlates with the degree of forced copulation males impose on female ducks. Females are often unable to escape male coercion, but they have evolved vaginal morphology that makes it difficult for males to inseminate females close to the sites of fertilization and sperm storage. Males have counterclockwise spiraling penises, while females have clockwise spiraling vaginas and blind pockets that prevent full eversion of the male penis.
Our latest study examined how the presence of other males influences genital morphology. My colleagues and I found that it does so to an amazing degree, demonstrating that male competition is a driving force behind these male traits that can be harmful to females. The fact that this grant was funded, after the careful scrutiny of many scientists and NSF administrators, reflects the fact that this research is grounded in solid theory and that the project was viewed as having the potential to move science forward (and it has), as well as fascinate and engage the public. The research has been reported on positively by hundreds of news sites in recent years, even Fox news. Most of the grant money was spent on salaries, putting money back into the economy.
The commentary and headlines in some of the recent articles reflect outrage that the study was about duck genitals, as if there is something inherently wrong or perverse with this line of research. Imagine if medical research drew the line at the belt! Genitalia, dear readers, are where the rubber meets the road, evolutionarily. To fully understand why some individuals are more successful than others during reproduction, there may be no better place to look. The importance of evolutionary research on other species’ genitalia to the medical field has been recently highlighted in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. Generating new knowledge of what factors affect genital morphology in ducks, one of the few vertebrate species other than humans that form pair bonds and exhibit violent sexual coercion, may have significant applied uses in the future, but we must conduct the basic research first. In the meantime, while we engage in productive and respectful discussion of how we envision the future of our nation, why not marvel at how evolution has resulted in such counterintuitive morphology and bizarre animal behavior.
Once Islamist terrorists have understood that arson is the only weapon they ever need to destroy Europe, they will easily achieve their goal. Forest fires and fires in apartment buildings are easy to initiate and extremely time consuming to investigate. Which would give arsonists the opportunity to act again and again. Time to dispose of investments in urban real estate.
Home | Index of articles