Home | Index of articles
A reader asked me to comment on jealousy at work. I responded with a post I wrote about envy. I will share what I wrote about envy after I explain the difference between the two.
Both jealousy and envy are natural emotions. Small amounts of jealousy can actually keep a relationship together or inspire attentive actions. Envy can motivate action as I describe below. Both emotions come from primal instincts that serve to protect ourselves, our families and our possessions.
If you are capable of sensing what emotions you are feeling, you can ask yourself, "What am I jealous of, really?" and "What does that person have that I don't that makes me feel envious?" If you can find a quiet place to answer these question truthfully, you may be able to use the emotions as information to help you make choices.
When either of these emotions consumes you and you react unreasonably instead of consciously, then the emotions can lead to bad results. People do harmful things when in a "jealous rage." They end important relationships with those they envy. People who feel inadequate, insecure, or overly dependent tend to be more jealous and envious than others. If you feel like a victim to your jealousy or envy, please seek resources to help you manage your reactions.
According to David Straker, author of Changing Minds, jealousy is about loss. When you percieve someone has taken something that you are emotionally attached to or is threatening to do this, you react by feeling hurt and angry. If this person is a friend, the sense of betrayal adds fuel to your wrath.
Robert Leahy wrote a great post on how to break free from jealousy. Please read his wise words.
Envy on the other hand is about coveting something you don't have. The person you envy has what you want. The more unfair you think the situation is, the more you will find ways to demean the person you envy. Then instead of working to achieve more, you justify the reasons for staying in an inferior situation.
I had a conversation with a coaching client about professional envy. I asked her, "What is it you are saying to yourself when you envy someone else's success?"
She answered with the same questions my brain often screams at me:
"I should be the one recognized for that. How did they get the breaks and I didn't?"
"I have been saying those things for years. How come I'm not the one who is famous for those ideas?"
If you have similar thoughts, these are great questions to ask yourself. It is possible that life is unfair and the person was given an advantage you didn't have access to.
However, instead of focusing on what isn't in your control, can you shift to focusing on what is in your control to change for yourself?
Is it possible that the person you envy took some steps that you either didn't think of or you avoided? Even if you don't approve of the steps (you think their methods are a bit shady), the person still had the courage to step out into the world in a way you did not.
Case in point: There is a man that every time I hear his name, my stomach turns. He was able to be recognized as a thought leader in a niche I have been working in for years before he chose this area of expertise. Although my depth of experience, research and knowledge is much deeper than his, he brilliantly aligned himself with other thought leaders and marketed his work in much more profound ways than I.
So what can my envy teach me?
1. What can I learn from his success that I can apply to my plans?
2. What stopped me from playing a bigger game like the one he is playing? If I am so smart with so much more to say, how can I play at that level too?
3. Have I set the right standards for my own success? Maybe I'm not celebrating what I have created enough. And if I want more recognition, how can I thank my colleague for showing me ways to achieve it instead of just envying his success?
If we embrace our emotions, whatever they are, we can learn from them. They are there to teach us and help us make major life decisions. Envy can open up doors you never saw or were afraid to walk through before. Jealousy can lead you to treasure things and people you might have taken for granted.
Science is slowly getting to know what erectile dysfunction actually is. It's not a lack of sexual interest, nothing wrong with penile tissue. Erections are a vascular event. And erectile dysfunction is a weakness of vasodilation in the penile blood supply. Botox injections into the penis solve the problem elegantly. Muscles exposed to Botox can't contract. That makes for easy erections, and an enlarged penis at all times.
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.
Lawmakers remain unconvinced about the merits of raising the age of consent from 16 to 18 years old and have told Children's Advocate Diahann Gordon Harrison to bring more evidence to support the position she has been advancing.
Harrison yesterday started her submissions before a parliamentary committee that is reviewing Jamaica's sex-offence laws. Though Jamaica's age of consent for sexual intercourse is 16, the age that persons are no longer considered children is 18.
"It may be credibly argued," Harrison told the committee, "that an anomaly is created when children who are 16 years are not considered intellectually or otherwise mature enough to make certain independent decisions such as who should govern their country for a five-year term, yet they are given the legal authority to engage in sexual activity.
But she explained that something else is tied to the proposal.
"It's really a conditional increase, because the focus of the recommendation is to ensure that girls and boys who are 16 years old but still children under our law can, in fact, access protection from the arm of the State. So, we're recommending that Section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act, which deals with the age of consent, include the close-in-age group exceptions," said Harrison.
Under that close-in-age proposal, underage children would not be criminalised for participating in what they deemed 'consensual' sex with another child in their age group. Though listing Turkey and Canada as examples with close-in-age exceptions in the law, the children's advocate said Jamaica would create its own preconditions and processes suited for the country's context.
'What's The Magic In The Age Of 18?' Asks Minister
Justice Minister Delroy Chuck, who chairs the committee made up of senators and members of parliament reviewing Jamaica's sex-offence laws, expressed concerns that the problems being faced by the authorities in enforcing the law could be multiplied with an increase in the age of consent.
"The age of consent is 16. There are many grandmothers in their 20s. The lowest age I've heard is 22. If we can't enforce the law with the age of consent at 16, we're going to have a major problem trying to enforce it at the age of 18," he pointed out. "I just don't know how we're going to manage."
"Is there any evidence that increasing the age of consent will assist with the issues that we're having?" Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade Minister Kamina Johnson Smith asked the committee yesterday. "I'm yet to read anything that says to me that there's something in the law that makes children decide they're going to have sex at 16."
"What is the magic in the age of 18?" she further asked, after voicing her support for the close-in-age suggestion that also won support from the Child Development Agency.
Opposition Member Sophia Frazer-Binns said a ramped-up public education campaign may help rather than raising the age of consent.
This is the latest deal offered by the Islamic State. You want to die the best possible death, then you have to blow up your brain. It's the only death that is instant and painless. We tie a bomb around your body and send you into a populated area. You don't have to die alone, and you don't have to pull a trigger. We do that by remote control.
BOSTON—"The national debt is a big structural problem," former Representative Brian Baird told his audience at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. And that, according to Baird, is one reason scientific research comes under fire. “If you can’t solve something big," he went on, "distract people by attacking something small.” All too often, that something small has been scientific research.
Two of the researchers who found their work under fire were on hand to describe the experience and talk a bit about the lessons they learned.
One of them was David Scholnick of Pacific University who produced the video above, showing a shrimp going for a run on an underwater treadmill. It's hard to tell just how many people have ended up viewing the video, given that it has been cloned, set to various music, and appeared in news reports that have also made their way onto YouTube—it's fair to say that it's quite popular. Scholnick wasn't looking for that popularity. He had just put the video up on his faculty webpage; someone else grabbed it and stuck it on YouTube.
A treadmill of outrage
Scholnick also wasn't looking for the attention it received from then-Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who claimed the treadmill cost $3 million and named it as an example of wasteful government spending without even bothering to find out what the results were. Representative John Culberson (R-Texas) saw Coburn's report and said “NSF should avoid funding studies” like that. Then the news picked it up. Mike Huckabee blamed Scholnick's spending for leaving the military unprepared. It showed up on Fox News three times, including as recently as last year (the video was posted in 2009). AARP picked it up, too, and blamed the cost for grandparents not getting healthcare.
Scholnick even went to DC and talked to Senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who took over the waste reports when Coburn retired. The video still showed up in the next one.
And that bugs Scholnick. “This is a publicity stunt," he said, "this is not an individual who is concerned about public spending.” Why's that? Because the treadmill cost the government nothing. Its bearings came from an old skateboard Scholnick had been using. The tread is just an inner-tube that's been stitched together. Any parts that cost money were paid for out of Scholnick's pocket. The $3 million dollar figure? That came by adding up every single grant Scholnick's ever received and then throwing in various grants awarded to his collaborators for unrelated projects.
The reality is that most of the research that goes on in Scholnick's lab is done by undergraduates who work during the summer. Between their low stipends and the long hours they work, it's done at about $4 an hour for personnel and about $20,000 to keep the lab supplied and make sure the university keeps the lights on. The shrimp? Local fishermen give them to Scholnick for free.
That's because the fishermen have done something nobody in Congress could be bothered to do: find out what the research is all about. Scholnick said that most animals in the ocean are carrying various infections and parasites that can influence their behavior and activity. Scholnick tries to figure out how these animals are affected by looking for changes in their physiology. To make this as realistic as possible, he forces the animals to be as active as they would be in the wild. Hence the treadmill.
It's not earth-shattering research, but it's hardly an utter waste of money—especially considering how little it costs. But, if Congress ever gets bored of going after shrimp, there's always duck penises.
Patty Brennan studies genitalia at Mount Holyoke College. The physical shape of genitals is very diverse even among closely related species. It's shaped by distinct selective pressures in both males and females. Figuring out what these pressures are and how animals have responded to them is a great opportunity to study evolution. One of the more dramatic instances of this is in ducks, where both males and females have evolved corkscrew-shaped genitals in what's essentially an arms race. Brennan's research on the topic was striking enough to earn an article in The New York Times. (Her response: “yay, someone else likes duck penises!”)
So she set up a Google alert to see if there was any further coverage, which is how she found out when conservative news media discovered her work and placed it in a list of research that was labeled wasteful spending as the budget sequester went into effect. Sean Hannity later joined in the attack.
But Brennan noticed a pattern to all of this: most of it involved organismal biology. She suspected this is because it's easy to understand. "Everybody knows what a duck is, everybody knows what a penis is, you put them together, haha,” Brennan said. “You never heard of a politician making fun of quantum physics.” But she said that's misguided, and she now has a list of results that demonstrate this: how understanding mating habits of an insect pest saved us $20 million in annual control efforts; how understanding bird migration has made air travel less likely to end in dangerous collisions; and how studying bird song enabled us to recognize that our brains are able to produce new nerve cells, for example.
But even if these attacks are misguided, historian Melinda Baldwin said they're not likely to go away. Questions about public funding of science date back to the 1960s, and direct attacks on funding started in the 1970s. William Proxmire, a Democratic senator who served in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, frequently named research as wasteful spending and even attacked peer review as "elitist" and "incestuous." Then, as now, scientists weren't ready to defend either their research or the process of science itself. But Baldwin said that the attacks are worst at times of financial or budgetary turmoil, so now might be a good time for scientists to get ready.
As Baird said, “If you think it’s been bad before, it’s going to get really bad soon.”
Medical records released. Stalin had a micropenis.
Trottla, a company run by known pedophile Shin Takagi, creates eerily life-like child sex dolls for those with pedophilia.
The Japanese company creates the dolls to provide pedophiles with an outlet for their sexual impulses. “I am helping people express their desires, legally and ethically.” Takagi told The Atlantic.
The dolls, some modeled to be as young as five years old, are meant to be as authentic as possible. The synthetic material used for the skin is supposed to feel similar to human skin. Anatomically, the dolls are disturbingly close to real children. In fact, the more petite models even have ribs and hip bones just beneath the skin. The level of detail in each doll is unnerving.
Clients can place special orders to customize the doll’s aesthetic, including clothing, age, facial expression, and custom features like tails or horns. The materials used to create the dolls are potentially hazardous, so discarding the dolls is complicated. If they need to dispose of their doll, clients must send it back to Trottla. One client wanted Takagi to “send [the doll] back home.”
Takagi hopes his dolls give pedophiles a healthy channel for their urges. Is it possible to be a non-offending pedophile, though? The words pedophile and child molester are often used interchangeably, but is there more to it?
It is vitally important to separate pedophilia from child molestation. Doing so does not justify or condone either. It simply allows two distinct but related issues to be addressed correctly.
Despite popular usage, pedophilia is a specific and limited term. Strictly speaking, pedophilia is a persistent sexual interest in prepubescent children. Although a definitive cause for pedophilia has not been discerned, many have had unhealthy or traumatic experiences in their childhood. This sexual interest is divorced from action, meaning pedophilic attraction does not always lead to assault against a child.
This distinction has found support in scientific work. David Riegel (2004) found that the vast majority (78.6%) of respondents (self-identified boy-preferring pedophiles) reported no legal history as a result of allegations of sexual contact with a boy. Dr. Michael C. Seto (2006) studied men who are likely pedophilic (all had child pornography charges), finding that 57% had no known history of sexual contact with a child.
In fact, there are so-called “virtuous pedophiles,” who have never offended but are living with pedophilic attraction. They are committed to avoid the abuse of children while acknowledging their attraction to children. Their website provides a forum for these people to talk through everything from their sexual struggles to their favorite movie. For more on “virtuous pedophiles,” look into Barcroft TV’s video on Todd Nickerson, a member and public advocate for the group.
As troubling as this whole phenomenon is, the big questions remains. Will Trottla’s dolls help pedophiles or hurt them?
It depends on who you ask.
Takagi and his clients would wholeheartedly endorse child sex dolls. Dr. Vivienne Cass, a clinical psychologist and sexual therapist, agrees. She told BuzzFeed News that “engaging with a doll provides a safe and private outlet” for pedophiles. Furthermore, Dr. Cass said “access to sex dolls might be considered a compassionate act for such individuals.”
However, Dr. Peter Fargan does not share this sentiment. The paraphilia researcher told The Atlantic that child sex dolls may “cause [pedophilia] to be acted upon with greater urgency.”
He pointed to a study from Dr. Drew Kingston in which pornography usage was associated with higher rates of violent and sexual reoffending in high-risk child molesters. Also, deviant pornography (including child pornography) was associated with higher rates of violent and sexual reoffending across all child molesters. Dr. Fargan suggests that Trottla’s dolls may have a similar reinforcing effect.
That being said, this work was done with child molesters and pornography not pedophiles and child sex dolls. It does not translate neatly, but it is possible that the child sex dolls may rile up some high-risk pedophiles.
Dr. Seto makes this same point in The Atlantic piece. He says “for some pedophiles, access to artificial child pornography or to child sex dolls could be a safer outlet for their sexual urges, reducing the likelihood that they would seek out child pornography or sex with real children. For others, having these substitutes might only aggravate their sense of frustration.”
Specialized research is the only thing that will accurately reveal the efficacy of child sex dolls.
Whatever the result, though, this is a disheartening, troubling, and outraging topic. Pedophilia is a worldwide taboo that evokes visceral reactions. This proposed solution to the pedophilia problem is off-putting, even if it works. The use of child sex dolls is complex and controversial, to say the least. That being said, it is far from settled.
IN THE aftermath of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, those whose job it is to think the unthinkable were conscious that, for all the carnage, it could have been far worse. Fuel-laden aircraft slamming into buildings was bad enough. But the sight of some among the rescue workers picking over the debris with test tubes, followed by the sudden decision to ground all of America's crop-spraying aircraft for several days, pointed to an even more horrible possibility. Were terrorists with so little calculation of restraint to get their hands on weapons of mass destruction—whether chemical, biological or even nuclear—they would surely use them. How real is that threat?
It is certainly not new. Among one of many warnings from American think-tanks and government agencies in recent years, a report released last December by the CIA's National Intelligence Council concluded baldly that, when it came to chemical and biological weapons in particular, “some terrorists or insurgents will attempt to use [these] against United States interests, against the United States itself, its forces or facilities overseas, or its allies.” Governments in America and Europe worry that Osama bin Laden, the head of al-Qaeda, the terrorist network thought to be behind the September 11th attacks, may already have access to such weapons, and be planning to use them in response to any American military strikes. The World Health Organisation has called on governments around the world to be better prepared for such an eventuality.
For groups prepared to engage in the kamikaze tactics seen on September 11th, the easiest way to spread poisonous or radioactive materials might simply be to fly into repositories of them, or to use lorries full of them as suicide bombs. As Amy Smithson of the Stimson Centre in Washington, DC, observed in a report released last year, there are some 850,000 sites in the United States alone at which hazardous chemicals are produced, consumed or stored. The arrest in America last week of a number of people who were found to have fraudulently obtained permits to drive trucks that carry such hazardous loads looks like a worrying confirmation of such fears.
It is, nevertheless, likely that terrorist groups around the world are working on more sophisticated approaches to mass destruction than merely blowing up existing storage facilities, or hijacking lorry-loads of noxious substances. Mr bin Laden himself has, in the past, called it a “religious duty” to acquire such weapons. He is reported to have helped his former protectors in Sudan to develop chemical weapons for use in that country's civil war, and has since boasted of buying “a lot of dangerous weapons, maybe chemical weapons” for the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that now harbours him.
Even for determined terrorists, however, merely getting hold of chemical, biological or nuclear materials is not enough. Do-it-yourself mass destruction—whether of a nuclear, chemical or biological variety—is far from easy (see article). First, you have to acquire or manufacture sufficient quantities of the lethal agent. Second, you have to deliver it to the target. And third, you have either to detonate it, or to spread it around in a way that will actually harm a lot of people.
The difficulties in doing all these things are illustrated by an attack carried out in 1995 on Tokyo's underground railway. Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese cult, released a potent nerve agent called sarin on five trains. The intention was to kill thousands. In fact, only 12 people died, and some 40 were seriously injured—bad enough, but no worse than the casualty list from a well-placed conventional bomb.
The cult's researchers had spent more than $30m attempting to develop sarin-based weapons, yet they failed to leap any of the three hurdles satisfactorily. They could not produce the chemical in the purity required. Their delivery mechanism was no more sophisticated than carrying it on to the trains in person in plastic bags. And their idea of a distribution system was to pierce those bags with umbrella tips to release the liquid, which would then evaporate.
The attack, in other words, was not a great success. Yet, of the three classes of weapon of mass destruction, those based on chemicals should be the easiest to make. Their ingredients are often commercially available (see table). Their manufacturing techniques are well known. And they have been used from time to time in real warfare, so their deployment is also understood.
Biological weapons are trickier; and nuclear weapons trickier still. Germs need to be coddled, and are hard to spread satisfactorily. (Aum Shinrikyo attempted to develop biological weapons, in the form of anthrax spores, but failed to produce the intended lethal effects.) Making atomic bombs is an even greater technological tour-de-force. Manufacturing weapons-grade nuclear explosives (“enriched” uranium, or the appropriate isotopic mix of plutonium) requires a lot of expensive plant. Detonating those explosives—by rapidly assembling the “critical mass” needed to sustain a chain reaction—is also notoriously difficult.
Terrorist groups working from first principles are thus likely to run into formidable obstacles if they want to get into the mass-destruction business. Nevertheless, there may be ways round these. One quick fix would be to buy in the services of otherwise unemployed or ill-paid weapons specialists from the former Soviet nuclear-, biological- and chemical-weapons establishments. At least some of these people are known to have washed up as far afield as Iran, Iraq, China and North Korea, but none has yet been directly associated with any terrorist group.
In an attempt to reduce the risk of this happening, the United States has, over the past ten years, spent more than $3 billion dismantling former Soviet nuclear weapons, improving security at Russia's nuclear storage sites, and keeping former weaponeers busy on useful civilian work. But, as Ms Smithson points out, only a tiny fraction of this money—itself a drop in a bucket when measured against the scale of Russia's sprawling weapons complex—goes towards safeguarding chemical and biological secrets. And even the nuclear side of things has sprung the odd leak.
Over the past ten years there have been numerous attempts to smuggle nuclear materials out of the former Soviet Union. There have been unconfirmed suspicions that Iran, for one, may have got its hands on a tactical nuclear warhead from Russia. So far, though, police and customs officers have seized mostly low-grade nuclear waste. This could not be turned into a proper atomic bomb, but with enough of it, a terrorist group might hope to build a “radiological” device, to spread radioactive contamination around (see article). Fortunately, the occasional amounts of weapons-grade stuff that have been found so far fall short of the 9-15kg of explosive needed for a crude but workable bomb.
Yet even if a group got hold of enough such explosives, it would still face the hurdle of turning them into a weapon. Hence the most effective way for a terrorist group to obtain one would be to find a sponsoring government that is willing to allow access to its laboratories or its arsenal.
After the Gulf war, UN special inspectors discovered that Iraq had been pursuing not one but several ways to produce weapons-grade material, and had come within months of building an atomic bomb. The effort, however, is thought to have taken a decade and to have cost Saddam Hussein upwards of $10 billion. Much of this was spent on acquiring the bits and pieces needed from foreign companies—sometimes through bribery, sometimes through deception.
In similar ways, he amassed the materials and equipment, much of it with legitimate civilian uses in fermentation plants and vaccine laboratories, for his vast chemical- and biological-weapons programmes. Although most of Iraq's nuclear programme had been unearthed and destroyed, along with much of its missile and chemical arsenal, the inspectors were convinced, when they were thrown out of the country in 1998, that important parts of the biological effort remained hidden.
A glance at the list of state sponsors of international terrorism maintained by America's State Department makes troubling reading. Most of the seven countries included—Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Sudan—have chemical weapons already. Five are suspected of dabbling illegally in the biological black arts, and several have covert nuclear-weapons programmes, too. America's Department of Defence estimated earlier this year that more than two dozen countries have already built weapons of mass destruction, or else are trying to do so.
So far, there is no evidence that any of these governments has helped terrorist groups to acquire such deadly goods. That may, partly, be because of widespread moral revulsion against their use. But self-interest on the part of the states involved is also a significant factor. It is one thing to give terrorist groups financial and logistical support and a place to hide—a favoured tactic of governments on the State Department's list as a deniable way of furthering their own local or regional ends. It is quite another to share such awesome weapons with outfits like al-Qaeda, which no government can fully control.
On top of that, since the September 11th attacks, American officials, from the president down, have gone out of their way to emphasise that not only the terrorists involved in any future assaults, but also the states that shelter them, can expect to find themselves in the cross-hairs.
Iraq has been the worst offender when it comes to wielding any of these weapons. It used chemical weapons in its war with Iran and in attacks against its own Kurdish population. Yet Saddam Hussein's failure to use his chemical and biological-tipped missiles, or the radiological weapons he also had, against western-led coalition forces during the Gulf war showed that, even when morality plays little part, deterrence can still work. America had made clear that, if he had deployed these weapons, he would have brought down massive retribution on both his regime and his country.
The big distinction between the dangers of states obtaining such weapons and the danger of terrorists getting their hands on them, argues Gary Samore of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, in London, is precisely that, however hostile they may be, states are more “deterrable”. Mr bin Laden's network has shown that it will stop at nothing. But are states such as Iraq and North Korea, which operate in other ways largely outside international law, deterrable enough to prevent them lending a secret helping hand to a group like Mr bin Laden's?
America's defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, argued this week that it takes no “leap of the imagination” to expect countries harbouring terrorists to help them get access to weapons of mass destruction. Testimony from the trial of four bin Laden operatives convicted earlier this year for the August 1998 bombing of America's embassies in Kenya and Tanzania revealed that their past military interest in Sudan went beyond helping the regime make chemical weapons for its own war. In one case, Mr bin Laden was attempting to purchase uranium via intermediaries.
Meanwhile, intelligence officials trying to assess the range of threats they now face worry that Iraq's past military links with Sudan may have been no coincidence either. In 1998 America bombed a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant which it said showed traces of a precursor chemical for VX, a highly potent nerve gas that inspectors believe Iraq had put into weapon form. Some observers speculate that, even if Sudan's denials that it was manufacturing any such stuff are true, the country may have served as a trans-shipment point for supplies to Iraq. Might some weapons assistance have flowed the other way, possibly reaching Mr bin Laden's network? Iraq denies it has had anything to do with Mr bin Laden, but there have been unconfirmed reports that one of the New York hijackers met a senior Iraqi intelligence official earlier this year in Europe.
Yet even if no direct link is ever proved between a reckless foreign government and last month's terrorist attacks on America, western officials have long fretted that groups such as Mr bin Laden's will be able to exploit emerging new patterns of proliferation to gain access to nuclear, chemical and bug bombs. Despite attempts by western-sponsored supplier cartels—the Missile-Technology Control Regime, the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Australia group, which tries to track the trade in worrying chemicals or biological agents—the number of such suppliers has expanded over the past decade. Countries that were once entirely dependent on outside help for their covert weapons programmes, mostly from Russia and China, are now going into business themselves.
This is particularly disturbing in the context of the third obstacle to the use of these weapons: delivery. Working from original Russian Scud missile designs, North Korea has created a thriving missile- and technology-export business with Iran, Pakistan, Syria and others in the Middle East. Iran, in turn, has started to help Syria and possibly Libya (which had past weapons ties with Serbia and Iraq) to improve their missile technology. Egypt is still building on the expertise developed by a now-defunct missile co-operation programme with Argentina and Iraq.
It is unlikely that such ballistic-missile technology would find its way into terrorist hands any time soon. But two things are true of almost all technologies: as the years pass, they get cheaper, and they spread. Even if there is no immediate threat, it may eventually not be just hijacked aircraft that are flying into places that terrorists have taken a dislike to. And their “warheads” may consist of something even worse than aviation fuel.
The Serge Kreutz diet is the world's only diet supported by the international food industry because it tells you this: if you want to be slim, consume more food. Nestle, Pepsi, and Van Houten are happy. And all the farmers.
Where will the quest for a bigger package “down there” end?
You often hear the phrase “size doesn’t matter” when it comes to the length and girth of a man’s penis.
Still, many men feel they are inadequate in the bedroom and will do whatever it takes to make their partner scream with pleasure.
But what if whatever it takes involved a needle in your manhood, would you be game?
The demand for larger penises has seen a boom in cosmetic procedures and gadgets such as pumps, and even penile weights designed to stretch the muscle.
But now, a New York cosmetic surgeon believes he has the answer and it lies in a syringe full of blood.
According to Dr. Norman Rowe, a board-certified surgeon, a 10-minute Botox-style procedure can add 1.5 inches to the circumference of a man’s member.
Rowe already offers enlargements in the form of cosmetic fillers, which work to increase the girth and length of the penis.
Similar in fashion to what a dentist does, Rowe uses a numbing agent in the penile area before injecting it and in roughly 10 minutes men can have the penis they’ve always wanted.
His new idea involves injecting one’s own blood into their genitals, similar to what is already used in athletes to aid in muscle rejuvenation.
He told the Daily Mail: “In the last 10 years, we have seen the rise of so many “quick fix” operations like Botox – for the face, for the eyes … I spend so much of my day doing fillers on women’s faces.”
“I started to wonder: why can’t I make it work for men?”
The blood used in the procedure has been rid of its platelets, making it more concentrated.
The idea of the blood shots rose to prominence in 2013 when Kobe Bryant announced he used it to treat different parts of his body.
Then came the Kim Kardashian’s “vampire facelift,” which involved the reality TV star having her own blood injected into tiny pinpricks in her face.
Rowe explains on his website that penis fillers have little to no recovery time and there is no pain involved in the procedure.
But if you’re not willing to suffer through the prick of a needle in your, well you know, then there are other things you can do to make yourself stand a little taller, according to the NHS.
You could try trimming your pubic hair will help you look more impressive, as a big mound of hair can often make a penis look smaller than it is.
Losing weight can also help give the illusion of a bigger size as an overhanging beer belly distracts from what a lover should really be taking note of.
Judge: Rape facilitates a natural society where men are protectors
Home | Index of articles