| |
|
24. januar 2006
|
|
I hope this is not true for humans:
For some male bats, sexual prowess comes with a price — smaller brains. A research team led by Syracuse University biologist Scott Pitnick found that in bat species where the females are promiscuous, the males boasting the largest testicles also had the smallest brains. Conversely, where the females were faithful, the males had smaller testes and larger brains.
"It turns out size does matter," said Pitnick, whose findings were published in December in "Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Science," an online journal.
The study offers evidence that males — at least in some species — make an evolutionary trade-off between intelligence and sexual prowess, said David Hoskens, a biologist at the Centre for Ecology and Conservation at the University of Exeter in England and a leading authority on bats' mating behavior.
Hmm. What does this say about the priorities of female bats?
11:53:46 AM 
|
|
Where would you expect to find people who are the most optimistic about their economic future? The BBC conducted a worldwide poll to find out, and you may be surprised.
In Afghanistan 70% say their own circumstances are improving, and 57% believe that the country overall is on the way up.
In Iraq 65% believe their personal life is getting better, and 56% are upbeat about the country's economy.
Canadians, who just voted the Liberals out and the Tories in, are an optimistic lot. In Europe, the situation is mixed.
And while France appears to sink in gloom, Germans seem to believe that their economy is turning the corner.
Italians are uncharacteristically depressed, while the Finnish are optimists.
The World Bank will be happy to find that there is a clear connection between its involvement in the third world and optimism. In fact, 55 % says it has a positive influence in the world.
Update: More details about this global poll.
11:41:07 AM
|
|
George Russell and the never-tiring Claudia Rosett have obtained the draft of a secret 34-page report by the UN's internal toothless watchdog, the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), showing widespread corruption in UN peacekeeping. The pattern from oil-for-food palaces, what we call UNSCAM, is repeated all across the board.
In all, U.N. investigators have charged that nearly one-third of the $1 billion in major U.N.procurement contracts that they examined involved waste, corruption or other irregularities — $298 million in all. And that total covered slightly less than one-third of the $3.2 billion in major supply contracts that the U.N. has signed in the past five years.
In advance of publication, the U.N. last week announced that eight officials from procurement and peacekeeping had been effectively suspended with pay while additional investigation takes place.
UN graft and corruption wasn't invented for oil-for-food, but it was rather its scale and the, for the UN, unfortunate fact that Saddam Hussein was overthrown that brought the massive corruption to light. And now, after UNSCAM, the UNocrats continue robbing its member nations with impunity.
In a democratic country, no government would survive the disclosure of massive corruption scandals like those we have seen in the UN. Likewise, a public limited company would quickly fire and have prosecuted directors who had presided over such a mess. In the world body, however, only the few officials directly caught with their hand in the cookie jar have been forced to leave.
The leadership of the UN secretariat, including Kofi Annan himself, takes no responsibility for presiding over the most corrupt organisation on the face of the planet.
7:57:54 AM
|
|
AsiaTimes columnist Spengler writes about why he thinks the west is going to attack Iran.
The key, he argues, is not that Iran is going to use nuclear weapons, but that once it has nukes, it can do whatever it wants, using its conventional forces to cause havoc in the region. Saudi Arabia and of course Iraq (once US forces have departed) are prime targets for Iran's aggression.
Spengler does, I think, overstate the case for a western consensus on the use of force against Iran. Any US or Israeli sabre rattling will have the usual suspects out in the streets, no matter what the mullahs intends to do. A significant part of the European electorate are so dead scared of George Bush they'd side with Ahmenidejad against him.
Yes, saner elements no doubt are aware of the mortal danger the Middle East, and we, are in, if Iran acquires nukes.
First, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have the most to lose from a nuclear-equipped Iran. No one can predict when the Saudi kingdom might become unstable, but whenever it does, Iran will stand ready to support its Shi'ite co-religionists, who make up a majority in the kingdom's oil-producing east.
At some point the United States will reduce or eliminate its presence in Iraq, and the result, I believe, will be civil war. Under conditions of chaos Iran will have a pretext to expand its already substantial presence on the ground in Iraq, perhaps even to intervene militarily on behalf of its Shi'ite co-religionists.
Apart from Egypt and Turkey, I think only Iran of the Islamic Middle East nations have anything amounting to credible armed forces. Under the cover of nuclear weapons, Iran's Mullahs might feel free to employ these forces in the region, not to mention the countless terrorist and militia groups it arms and controls.
3:01:35 AM
|
|
|
© Copyright 2006 Jan Haugland.
Last update: 01.02.2006; 17:46:13.
|
|
|
