Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

NEWS -- 2009.04.01.Wednesday

Expand Messages
  • James Martin
    1) Oops! UCSD Sends Acceptance E-mail to Wrong List 2) FRC Faith Based Prejudice -- Stop President Obama s Agenda to Silence Your Beliefs 3) Masterminds
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      1) Oops! UCSD Sends Acceptance E-mail to Wrong List
      2) FRC Faith Based Prejudice -- Stop President Obama's Agenda to Silence Your Beliefs
      3) Masterminds Behind 'Yes on 8' Reveal How They Did It
      4) Masturbation Prevails (over hay fever)



      1)
      Oops! UCSD Sends Acceptance E-mail to Wrong List
      University Fails Basic Math, Gives Rejectees Hope
      By ERIC S. PAGE

      Updated 9:07 AM PDT, Wed, Apr 1, 2009

      http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Youre-Out-Youre-In-No-Youre-Out.html?yhp=1
      UC San Diego -- a school for the smart ones, supposedly -- mistakenly congratulated nearly 29,000 applicants on their acceptance, according to university officials.

      From mermaids to flying pigs check out these pictures of off-beat, interesting happenings from around the world.

      Earlier this month, about 17,000 student were offered admission for the fall, leaving nearly 29,000 hopefuls out in the cold.

      But on Tuesday, the school's communications office said an e-mail was sent Monday afternoon to all 46,377 students who applied for admission -- including the 29,000 rejects -- welcoming them to the campus.

      A half-hour later, school officials said, they realized their mistake. Almost two hours after the first note went out, a second e-mail was sent, apologizing to 28,889 freshmen applicants for the mistake.

      "No member of this department is more acutely aware of the emotional roller-coaster that this could cause for our applicants," Assistant Vice Chancellor Mae W. Brown said.

      An anonymous parent told the Los Angeles Times it was a "colossal screw-up."
      Similar incidents have happened at other schools -- including Cornell in the recent past, the paper reported, but the UCSD incident was the biggest "screw-up."


      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      2)
      from the Family Research Council (FRC) www.frc.org
      Southern Baptist political front organization -- liars and bearers of false witness
      They call themselves "people of faith"
      I call them "people of prejudice"
      --->

      Stop President Obama's Agenda to Silence Your Beliefs
      March 31, 2009

      Please help FRC Action persuade conservatives and centrist Democrats in the Congress to stop a proposed federal "hate crimes" law that could lead to the criminalization of the biblical view of homosexuality in sermons and elsewhere.
      With your secure online gift, FRC Action -- the legislative advocacy arm of Family Research Council -- will be your voice to protect the gospel and tell Congress: "The Bible is no hate crime!"

      Our expert staff on Capitol Hill will talk to members and their staffs. We will talk to policy-makers such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

      Sen. McConnell is the man most able to rally the 40 votes needed to filibuster the so-called "hate" crimes bill and stop it.

      Please give, and please pray for our efforts (1 Tim. 2:1-4).

      Many members of Congress are simply unaware of how dangerous the proposed "hate crimes" law is. FRC Action will warn them that this could lead to simple expressions of religious faith-including sermons and radio broadcasts-being prosecuted as "hate."

      Our nation is at a danger point. In 2007, such a "hate crimes" bill actually passed the House (HR 1592) and the Senate (SB 1105)-but died when President Bush threatened a veto.

      Now, President Obama has made passing the Hate Crimes law a top priority.

      A "hate crimes" law is really a "thought crime" law that punishes a person's beliefs-part of the Left's intolerant agenda to silence the voice of Christians and Conservatives in America and eliminate moral restraint.

      How would it happen?

      A federal "hate crimes" law prohibiting "bodily injury" could be construed by many law enforcement officials and judges to include words that inflict emotional or psychological distress.

      That means an "offended" homosexual could accuse a religious broadcaster . . . a pastor . . . Sunday School teacher . . . or other individual of causing emotional injury simply by expressing the biblical view that homosexual behavior is morally wrong and unhealthy.

      That's all it could take to trigger a wave of federal prosecutions and begin an era of censorship like America has never seen!

      Click here to give a secure online gift to help FRC Action warn Congress to again reject the "hate crimes" bill.

      I will update you on what happens.

      Remember, all violent criminals should be prosecuted but we already have laws for that.

      Sincerely,
      Tony Perkins

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      3)
      http://www.queerty.com/masterminds-behind-yes-on-8-reveal-how-they-did-it-20090224/

      Masterminds Behind 'Yes on 8' Reveal How They Did It

      Feb 24, 2009 · posted by Japhy Grant
      Frank Schubert, president of Schubert-Flint Public Affairs, and Jeff Flint, a partner in the firm, reveal just how they won the battle to pass Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage in California just months after being ruled a "fundamental right" by the California Supreme Court. If you can stifle your seething rage for just a few moments, there's quite a few instructive lessons to be learned from their approach.

      Schubert (who, incidentally, has a lesbian sister) and Flint portray the campaign as a plucky upstart facing a difficult battle in their article in Politics Magazine:

      "A survey released by the Field Institute in mid-September showed that fully 55 percent of likely voters were opposed to Prop 8, with just 38 percent in favor. The political elite all but wrote off Proposition 8 as being dead once the Field Poll was published. To make matters worse for us, less than a week after the Field Poll came out, the No on 8 campaign began its television advertising in the state's major media markets."

      How did they win?

      Rally and engage the base. Schubert-Flint made sure that those who would naturally support a ban on gay marriage were informed and empowered.

      "We worked hard during this period to urge our supporters to have faith that Prop 8 could still be enacted despite what they saw on the news. We organized countless meetings and conference calls of pastors and other campaign leaders. And we restructured our online presence and delivered a stream of messages to supporters designed to keep them informed and engaged."

      Raise doubts, broaden the implications. It was important to make gay marriage not just an issue about gays getting married, but about religious freedom, an 'activist' Court, and the potential threats to children. The more the water was muddied, the more opportunities voters had to latch onto a rationale for voting for the ban that wasn't purely homophobic.

      "We strongly believed that a campaign in favor of traditional marriage would not be enough to prevail. We needed to convince voters that gay marriage was not simply "live and let live"-that there would be consequences if gay marriage were to be permanently legalized. But how to raise consequences when gay marriage was so recently legalized and not yet taken hold? We made one of the key strategic decisions in the campaign, to apply the principles of running a "No" campaign-raising doubts and pointing to potential problems-in seeking a "Yes" vote. As far as we know, this strategic approach has never before been used by a Yes campaign."

      Engage and use the grassroots. While grassroots volunteers are not trained campaigners, they have heart and personal messages that they can take to individual voters and by using the Internet to coordinate these efforts, activists had maximum impact. For 'Yes on 8', this was a big advantage.

      "Our ability to organize a massive volunteer effort through religious denominations gave us a huge advantage, and we set ambitious goals: to conduct a statewide Voter ID canvass of every voter; to distribute 1.25 million yard signs and an equal number of bumper strips; to have our volunteers re-contact every undecided, soft yes and soft no voter; and to have 100,000 volunteers, five per voting precinct, working on Election Day to make sure every identified Yes on 8 voter would vote. All of these goals, and more, were achieved.

      We built a campaign volunteer structure around both time-honored campaign grassroots tactics of organizing in churches, with a ground-up structure of church captains, precinct captains, zip code supervisors and area directors; and the latest Internet and web-based grassroots tools. Our campaign website was rebuilt to serve as an incredibly effective organizing tool. Online volunteer sign-ups were immediately sent electronically to the appropriate ZIP code supervisor for follow up. We set up a statewide voter file with remote access for regional volunteer leaders, which allowed them to input results for canvassing efforts remotely, and then download and print updated voter lists."

      Money, money, Mormon money. Not that there was any doubt, but the Yes on 8 campaign freely admits that an infusion of Mormon cash did a great deal in helping to bolster the campaign.

      "By this time, leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had endorsed Prop 8 and joined the campaign executive committee. Even though the LDS were the last major denomination to join the campaign, their members were immensely helpful in early fundraising, providing much-needed contributions while we were busy organizing Catholic and Evangelical fundraising efforts.

      Ultimately, we raised $22 million from July through September with upwards of 40 percent coming from members of the LDS Church. Our fundraising operation also relied heavily on small contributions from some 60,000 individual donors via an extensive direct mail operation, and an extraordinarily effective online fundraising campaign. When we filed our finance report electronically with the secretary of state, it was more than 5,000 pages thick and crashed the filing system. We ultimately raised more than $5 million online, and $3 million from direct mail."

      Having an ineffective opponent helps, too. 'Yes on 8's' own internal polling showed that their ability to define the issues gave them an advantage, but that advantage began to evaporate once No on 8 released an ad calling their tactics "shameful." Up until then, the moral high-ground belonged to Yes on 8, but they had already effectively framed the debate.

      "The response to our ads from the No on 8 campaign was slow and ineffectual. They enlisted their allies in the education system to claim that we were lying. They held press conferences with education leaders to dismiss our claims. They got newspaper editorial boards to condemn the ads as false. What they never did do, because they couldn't do, was contest the accuracy of what had happened in Massachusetts.

      Finally, three weeks after the Yes on 8 campaign had introduced education as a message, the No on 8 campaign responded with what would be their best ad of the campaign. It featured State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell claiming that Prop 8 had nothing to do with education and that our use of children in our ads was "shameful." This in-your-face response, much delayed but very effective, foretold the final period of the campaign-it would be largely about education."


      A Google surge. You may remember that even gay websites running Google Ads were running 'Yes on 8' ads in the final days of the campaign. That's the power of internet advertising dollars at work.

      "As the campaign headed into the final days, we launched a "Google surge." We spent more than a half-million dollars to place ads on every single website that had advertising controlled by Google. Whenever anyone in California went online, they saw one of our ads in the final two days of the election."

      Schubert-Flint sum up their winning plan like this:

      "Prop 8 didn't win because of the Mormons. It won because we created superior advertising that denied the issues on our terms; because we built a diverse coalition; and, most importantly, because we activated that coalition at the grassroots level in a way that had never before been done.

      The Prop 8 victory proves something that readers of Politics magazine know very well: campaigns matter."

      Sounds about right. While some 'No on 8' leaders still complain that the only reason they didn't have enough cash, the fact remains that neither did the 'Yes on 8' campaign when it started. Certainly, big donations from churches helped, but by activating and empowering their base, they were able to raise millions of small donations, Obama-style. With that money, they focused on making a reasoned moral argument for banning gay marriage through advertising, one-on-one canvassing across the whole state and employing a massive grassroots get-out-the-vote effort.

      We've said it once and we'll say it again: Political campaigns are not about fairness or the inherent righteousness of your cause, they're about winning. Prop 8.'s fate is now in the hands of the California Supreme Court, but with more than half a dozen gay marriage or civil unions bills making their way through state legislatures everywhere from Hawaii to Maine, the gay community needs to work smarter, not harder to win their equal rights. You can look at the opponent's playbook and scorn it, or you can take it and make it your own.

      ----------

      Lots of comments at the URL.

      My comment --
      Never, never underestimate the degree to which a devout religionist will lie and bear false witness.
      Strange, isn't it.

      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      4)
      www.newscientist.com
      01 April 2009 by David Robson
      Masturbation Prevails (over hay fever)
      http://digg.com/general_sciences/Masturbation_Prevails_over_hay_fever
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16872-masturbation-could-bring-hay-fever-relief-for-men.html

      Spring is here and with it come the woes of hay fever. Never fear, however, as there may be a quick and pleasurable treatment to clear those bunged noses, for guys at least - a well-timed ejaculation.

      That's what Sina Zarrintan, a neurologist from the Tabriz Medical University in Iran proposes, anyway. The logic behind the proposal is based on the fact that the nose and the genitals are both connected to the same part of the nervous system that controls certain reflexes - the sympathetic nervous system.

      A blocked nose is caused by swollen and inflamed nasal blood vessels, irritated by an infection or pollen in the air. But during ejaculation, the sympathetic nervous system constricts blood vessels across the body. That should soothe the swollen nasal blood vessels, freeing the airway for normal breathing, according to Zarrintan.

      He hasn't yet performed clinical trials to test the hypothesis, but if it works, it could have many benefits over decongestant drugs, Zarrintan says, which have been known to contribute to hypertension. "Furthermore, if used for more than two or three days, they can actually make congestion worse," he adds.

      Take as needed
      He suggests masturbating or having sex whenever the symptoms are bad enough to warrant another ejaculation. "It can be done [from] time-to-time to alleviate the congestion and the patient can adjust the number of intercourses or masturbations depending on the severity of the symptoms," he says.

      The theory is not without its critics, however. Mohammad Amin Abolghassemi Fakhree from Tabriz University in Iran, believes the disadvantages of ejaculation outweigh the possible benefits.

      "There are some limitations in using ejaculation or masturbation as treatment of nasal congestion, such as not being applicable out of home and not having any sex partner", he writes in a response to the proposal.

      No-one has yet argued that it makes your palms hairy.

      Journal reference: Medical Hypotheses (DOI: 10.1016/j.mehy.2008.03.010)

      Fakhree's response: Medical Hypotheses (DOI: 10.1016/j.mehy.2008.07.022)

      ***


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • James Martin
      1) Oops! UCSD Sends Acceptance E-mail to Wrong List 2) FRC Faith Based Prejudice -- Stop President Obama s Agenda to Silence Your Beliefs 3) Masterminds
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        1) Oops! UCSD Sends Acceptance E-mail to Wrong List
        2) FRC Faith Based Prejudice -- Stop President Obama's Agenda to Silence Your Beliefs
        3) Masterminds Behind 'Yes on 8' Reveal How They Did It
        4) Masturbation Prevails (over hay fever)



        1)
        Oops! UCSD Sends Acceptance E-mail to Wrong List
        University Fails Basic Math, Gives Rejectees Hope
        By ERIC S. PAGE

        Updated 9:07 AM PDT, Wed, Apr 1, 2009

        http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Youre-Out-Youre-In-No-Youre-Out.html?yhp=1
        UC San Diego -- a school for the smart ones, supposedly -- mistakenly congratulated nearly 29,000 applicants on their acceptance, according to university officials.

        From mermaids to flying pigs check out these pictures of off-beat, interesting happenings from around the world.

        Earlier this month, about 17,000 student were offered admission for the fall, leaving nearly 29,000 hopefuls out in the cold.

        But on Tuesday, the school's communications office said an e-mail was sent Monday afternoon to all 46,377 students who applied for admission -- including the 29,000 rejects -- welcoming them to the campus.

        A half-hour later, school officials said, they realized their mistake. Almost two hours after the first note went out, a second e-mail was sent, apologizing to 28,889 freshmen applicants for the mistake.

        "No member of this department is more acutely aware of the emotional roller-coaster that this could cause for our applicants," Assistant Vice Chancellor Mae W. Brown said.

        An anonymous parent told the Los Angeles Times it was a "colossal screw-up."
        Similar incidents have happened at other schools -- including Cornell in the recent past, the paper reported, but the UCSD incident was the biggest "screw-up."


        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        2)
        from the Family Research Council (FRC) www.frc.org
        Southern Baptist political front organization -- liars and bearers of false witness
        They call themselves "people of faith"
        I call them "people of prejudice"
        --->

        Stop President Obama's Agenda to Silence Your Beliefs
        March 31, 2009

        Please help FRC Action persuade conservatives and centrist Democrats in the Congress to stop a proposed federal "hate crimes" law that could lead to the criminalization of the biblical view of homosexuality in sermons and elsewhere.
        With your secure online gift, FRC Action -- the legislative advocacy arm of Family Research Council -- will be your voice to protect the gospel and tell Congress: "The Bible is no hate crime!"

        Our expert staff on Capitol Hill will talk to members and their staffs. We will talk to policy-makers such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

        Sen. McConnell is the man most able to rally the 40 votes needed to filibuster the so-called "hate" crimes bill and stop it.

        Please give, and please pray for our efforts (1 Tim. 2:1-4).

        Many members of Congress are simply unaware of how dangerous the proposed "hate crimes" law is. FRC Action will warn them that this could lead to simple expressions of religious faith-including sermons and radio broadcasts-being prosecuted as "hate."

        Our nation is at a danger point. In 2007, such a "hate crimes" bill actually passed the House (HR 1592) and the Senate (SB 1105)-but died when President Bush threatened a veto.

        Now, President Obama has made passing the Hate Crimes law a top priority.

        A "hate crimes" law is really a "thought crime" law that punishes a person's beliefs-part of the Left's intolerant agenda to silence the voice of Christians and Conservatives in America and eliminate moral restraint.

        How would it happen?

        A federal "hate crimes" law prohibiting "bodily injury" could be construed by many law enforcement officials and judges to include words that inflict emotional or psychological distress.

        That means an "offended" homosexual could accuse a religious broadcaster . . . a pastor . . . Sunday School teacher . . . or other individual of causing emotional injury simply by expressing the biblical view that homosexual behavior is morally wrong and unhealthy.

        That's all it could take to trigger a wave of federal prosecutions and begin an era of censorship like America has never seen!

        Click here to give a secure online gift to help FRC Action warn Congress to again reject the "hate crimes" bill.

        I will update you on what happens.

        Remember, all violent criminals should be prosecuted but we already have laws for that.

        Sincerely,
        Tony Perkins

        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        3)
        http://www.queerty.com/masterminds-behind-yes-on-8-reveal-how-they-did-it-20090224/

        Masterminds Behind 'Yes on 8' Reveal How They Did It

        Feb 24, 2009 · posted by Japhy Grant
        Frank Schubert, president of Schubert-Flint Public Affairs, and Jeff Flint, a partner in the firm, reveal just how they won the battle to pass Proposition 8, which outlawed gay marriage in California just months after being ruled a "fundamental right" by the California Supreme Court. If you can stifle your seething rage for just a few moments, there's quite a few instructive lessons to be learned from their approach.

        Schubert (who, incidentally, has a lesbian sister) and Flint portray the campaign as a plucky upstart facing a difficult battle in their article in Politics Magazine:

        "A survey released by the Field Institute in mid-September showed that fully 55 percent of likely voters were opposed to Prop 8, with just 38 percent in favor. The political elite all but wrote off Proposition 8 as being dead once the Field Poll was published. To make matters worse for us, less than a week after the Field Poll came out, the No on 8 campaign began its television advertising in the state's major media markets."

        How did they win?

        Rally and engage the base. Schubert-Flint made sure that those who would naturally support a ban on gay marriage were informed and empowered.

        "We worked hard during this period to urge our supporters to have faith that Prop 8 could still be enacted despite what they saw on the news. We organized countless meetings and conference calls of pastors and other campaign leaders. And we restructured our online presence and delivered a stream of messages to supporters designed to keep them informed and engaged."

        Raise doubts, broaden the implications. It was important to make gay marriage not just an issue about gays getting married, but about religious freedom, an 'activist' Court, and the potential threats to children. The more the water was muddied, the more opportunities voters had to latch onto a rationale for voting for the ban that wasn't purely homophobic.

        "We strongly believed that a campaign in favor of traditional marriage would not be enough to prevail. We needed to convince voters that gay marriage was not simply "live and let live"-that there would be consequences if gay marriage were to be permanently legalized. But how to raise consequences when gay marriage was so recently legalized and not yet taken hold? We made one of the key strategic decisions in the campaign, to apply the principles of running a "No" campaign-raising doubts and pointing to potential problems-in seeking a "Yes" vote. As far as we know, this strategic approach has never before been used by a Yes campaign."

        Engage and use the grassroots. While grassroots volunteers are not trained campaigners, they have heart and personal messages that they can take to individual voters and by using the Internet to coordinate these efforts, activists had maximum impact. For 'Yes on 8', this was a big advantage.

        "Our ability to organize a massive volunteer effort through religious denominations gave us a huge advantage, and we set ambitious goals: to conduct a statewide Voter ID canvass of every voter; to distribute 1.25 million yard signs and an equal number of bumper strips; to have our volunteers re-contact every undecided, soft yes and soft no voter; and to have 100,000 volunteers, five per voting precinct, working on Election Day to make sure every identified Yes on 8 voter would vote. All of these goals, and more, were achieved.

        We built a campaign volunteer structure around both time-honored campaign grassroots tactics of organizing in churches, with a ground-up structure of church captains, precinct captains, zip code supervisors and area directors; and the latest Internet and web-based grassroots tools. Our campaign website was rebuilt to serve as an incredibly effective organizing tool. Online volunteer sign-ups were immediately sent electronically to the appropriate ZIP code supervisor for follow up. We set up a statewide voter file with remote access for regional volunteer leaders, which allowed them to input results for canvassing efforts remotely, and then download and print updated voter lists."

        Money, money, Mormon money. Not that there was any doubt, but the Yes on 8 campaign freely admits that an infusion of Mormon cash did a great deal in helping to bolster the campaign.

        "By this time, leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints had endorsed Prop 8 and joined the campaign executive committee. Even though the LDS were the last major denomination to join the campaign, their members were immensely helpful in early fundraising, providing much-needed contributions while we were busy organizing Catholic and Evangelical fundraising efforts.

        Ultimately, we raised $22 million from July through September with upwards of 40 percent coming from members of the LDS Church. Our fundraising operation also relied heavily on small contributions from some 60,000 individual donors via an extensive direct mail operation, and an extraordinarily effective online fundraising campaign. When we filed our finance report electronically with the secretary of state, it was more than 5,000 pages thick and crashed the filing system. We ultimately raised more than $5 million online, and $3 million from direct mail."

        Having an ineffective opponent helps, too. 'Yes on 8's' own internal polling showed that their ability to define the issues gave them an advantage, but that advantage began to evaporate once No on 8 released an ad calling their tactics "shameful." Up until then, the moral high-ground belonged to Yes on 8, but they had already effectively framed the debate.

        "The response to our ads from the No on 8 campaign was slow and ineffectual. They enlisted their allies in the education system to claim that we were lying. They held press conferences with education leaders to dismiss our claims. They got newspaper editorial boards to condemn the ads as false. What they never did do, because they couldn't do, was contest the accuracy of what had happened in Massachusetts.

        Finally, three weeks after the Yes on 8 campaign had introduced education as a message, the No on 8 campaign responded with what would be their best ad of the campaign. It featured State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell claiming that Prop 8 had nothing to do with education and that our use of children in our ads was "shameful." This in-your-face response, much delayed but very effective, foretold the final period of the campaign-it would be largely about education."


        A Google surge. You may remember that even gay websites running Google Ads were running 'Yes on 8' ads in the final days of the campaign. That's the power of internet advertising dollars at work.

        "As the campaign headed into the final days, we launched a "Google surge." We spent more than a half-million dollars to place ads on every single website that had advertising controlled by Google. Whenever anyone in California went online, they saw one of our ads in the final two days of the election."

        Schubert-Flint sum up their winning plan like this:

        "Prop 8 didn't win because of the Mormons. It won because we created superior advertising that denied the issues on our terms; because we built a diverse coalition; and, most importantly, because we activated that coalition at the grassroots level in a way that had never before been done.

        The Prop 8 victory proves something that readers of Politics magazine know very well: campaigns matter."

        Sounds about right. While some 'No on 8' leaders still complain that the only reason they didn't have enough cash, the fact remains that neither did the 'Yes on 8' campaign when it started. Certainly, big donations from churches helped, but by activating and empowering their base, they were able to raise millions of small donations, Obama-style. With that money, they focused on making a reasoned moral argument for banning gay marriage through advertising, one-on-one canvassing across the whole state and employing a massive grassroots get-out-the-vote effort.

        We've said it once and we'll say it again: Political campaigns are not about fairness or the inherent righteousness of your cause, they're about winning. Prop 8.'s fate is now in the hands of the California Supreme Court, but with more than half a dozen gay marriage or civil unions bills making their way through state legislatures everywhere from Hawaii to Maine, the gay community needs to work smarter, not harder to win their equal rights. You can look at the opponent's playbook and scorn it, or you can take it and make it your own.

        ----------

        Lots of comments at the URL.

        My comment --
        Never, never underestimate the degree to which a devout religionist will lie and bear false witness.
        Strange, isn't it.

        ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        4)
        www.newscientist.com
        01 April 2009 by David Robson
        Masturbation Prevails (over hay fever)
        http://digg.com/general_sciences/Masturbation_Prevails_over_hay_fever
        http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16872-masturbation-could-bring-hay-fever-relief-for-men.html

        Spring is here and with it come the woes of hay fever. Never fear, however, as there may be a quick and pleasurable treatment to clear those bunged noses, for guys at least - a well-timed ejaculation.

        That's what Sina Zarrintan, a neurologist from the Tabriz Medical University in Iran proposes, anyway. The logic behind the proposal is based on the fact that the nose and the genitals are both connected to the same part of the nervous system that controls certain reflexes - the sympathetic nervous system.

        A blocked nose is caused by swollen and inflamed nasal blood vessels, irritated by an infection or pollen in the air. But during ejaculation, the sympathetic nervous system constricts blood vessels across the body. That should soothe the swollen nasal blood vessels, freeing the airway for normal breathing, according to Zarrintan.

        He hasn't yet performed clinical trials to test the hypothesis, but if it works, it could have many benefits over decongestant drugs, Zarrintan says, which have been known to contribute to hypertension. "Furthermore, if used for more than two or three days, they can actually make congestion worse," he adds.

        Take as needed
        He suggests masturbating or having sex whenever the symptoms are bad enough to warrant another ejaculation. "It can be done [from] time-to-time to alleviate the congestion and the patient can adjust the number of intercourses or masturbations depending on the severity of the symptoms," he says.

        The theory is not without its critics, however. Mohammad Amin Abolghassemi Fakhree from Tabriz University in Iran, believes the disadvantages of ejaculation outweigh the possible benefits.

        "There are some limitations in using ejaculation or masturbation as treatment of nasal congestion, such as not being applicable out of home and not having any sex partner", he writes in a response to the proposal.

        No-one has yet argued that it makes your palms hairy.

        Journal reference: Medical Hypotheses (DOI: 10.1016/j.mehy.2008.03.010)

        Fakhree's response: Medical Hypotheses (DOI: 10.1016/j.mehy.2008.07.022)

        ***


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.