top of page


Public·14 members

A Billion Wicked Thoughts: What The World's Lar... ((LINK))

This is just one of numerous findings brought to light by coauthors Ogi Ogas, a computational neuroscientist, and Sai Gad-dam, an expert on biologically inspired models of machine learning. The "billion wicked thoughts" in the title refers to the vast data set that they compiled and analyzed from users of sex-oriented websites on the Internet, all with the goal of answering one central question: what does human desire look like? While deploying a number of methodologies to approach this question, their core research is based on some 400 million searches that were entered into Dogpile from July 2009 to July 2010, of which thirteen percent were sexual in nature- totaling some 55 million searches conducted by two million individuals.

A Billion Wicked Thoughts: What the World's Lar...

Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer Press Briefing view listen 2:30 P.M. EST MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I have a number of statements I'dlike to make, so let me begin with those. President Bush will host British Prime Minister Tony Blair at CampDavid on March 26th and March 27th -- that's Wednesday and Thursdaythis week. The United Kingdom is a close ally and the largestcoalition military partner with us in Iraq. The President and thePrime Minister will discuss the progress of the conflict in Iraq,urgent issues of humanitarian relief, reconstruction, and helping theIraqi people build democratic institutions. One question that the White House often receives from the Americanpeople as the developments on the war unfolds is, what can individualsdo to help, particularly to help our troops who are serving abroad.And today I'd like to bring to people's attention that the USA FreedomCorps has launched a new resource for people seeking to support ourtroops, their families, and their communities, and this is called OnThe Homefront. By logging on to, people can getinformation on sending letters and care packages to our troopsstationed away from home, and they'll be able to find other sites onthat web page to link on -- such things as Operation Dear Abby, whichsends email messages to deployed troops of any service from people'shome state. Defend America is an on-line thank-you for the troops.And Operation USA Care Package provides a way to send purchases ofitems requested by troops, such as sunscreen, disposable cameras,prepaid calling cards, and other items for the troops. Finally, one other item on the humanitarian relief picture. TheUnited States is currently providing $105 million to international aidagencies to help the Iraqi people, including $60 million to the WorldFood Program, $21 million to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees,$10 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross, and $8million to the International Organization for Migration. We're also providing 610,000 metric tons of food, worth $300million. We have deployed approximately 3 million humanitarian dailyrations in Kuwait and other locations, to meet emergency food needs.This is the largest number of HDRs -- humanitarian daily rations --ever forward-deployed for contingency use. To assess the needs and coordinate the efforts, we are deploying a62-person civilian disaster response team, the largest of its kindever. To provide this relief, coalition forces have seized thesouthern port of Umm Qasr. The coalition is working to get this portup and running. It will be a gateway for food and other relief items.Coalition forces are currently sweeping the port for mines, a necessaryprelude to allow incoming humanitarian traffic. Two Iraqi tugboatscarrying mines have already been interdicted. This is a major step in providing humanitarian aid and resumingration distributions to the Iraqi people. The President mentioned thisin his remarks this morning at the Pentagon. It remains a veryimportant priority and we will continue to pursue it. With that, I'm happy to take your questions. Q There's some doubt about whether aid is actually flowing.And there's an aid crisis, there's a water and food crisis in Basra, weunderstand, and there's no indication that we're aware of that any helpis reaching these people. When will it? MR. FLEISCHER: Number one, there is assistance that has beenreaching people. As the troops move through, they have been providingrelief to the people that they encounter as often as they can -- Q -- that's sort of a case-by-case basis. MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. And as I mentioned, there's amassive stockpiling that stands by and ready. And what is at stakehere is the mining of the harbor that was done by the Iraqis, whichonly serves, once again, as a reminder of how Iraq is willing to starveits own people to accomplish its military aims. Q -- immediate crisis on your hands. MR. FLEISCHER: And the only way to deal with that crisis is byremoving the mines that were laid by the Iraqis in order to get theships through. Q So nobody gets fed until the mines get removed? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the ships will sink if you don't remove themines, and nobody will get fed and the situation become even worse, ifthe ships back up as a result of them sinking. The British ship, SirGalahad, is equipped with 700 -- 76,000 days* of supply of food andapproximately 1,500 tons of water. It's ready to go. The Australianshave two shiploads of wheat, each carrying 50,000 tons, awaitingoff-loading. So the mine operation is continuing. It is a priority.And as was noted in the briefing in the Gulf this morning, 40 percentof the water for Basra has already been turned back on. Q The President said Sunday that this humanitarian aid wouldbegin flowing in 36 hours. Was he -- did he misspeak, or is this anexample of where the coalition plans haven't gone as quickly as youwould hope? MR. FLEISCHER: As the President said, massive amounts ofhumanitarian aid should begin moving within the next 36 hours. Theyare moving. We desire to get them to their end object. And as Imentioned, there is one impediment to aiding the long-suffering peopleof Iraq, and that is the removal of these mines. This is a real sign of what the Iraqi regime will do. They arewilling to block their own ports, starve their own people, stophumanitarian aid from getting through. All the efforts that we aremaking in the middle of a shooting war to feed the Iraqi people are areflection on how the United States and our allies fight wars. Q -- point, but I just want to make it clear -- is this --is the aid proceeding to the Iraqi people on a timetable set out, orhas the coalition been delayed, because of the fighting on the ground,in getting the aid to the Iraqis? MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's a question of the mines. It's not thefighting on the ground, it's a question of the mines. Q But isn't it more than the mines? Obviously, the Iraqiregime has mined this harbor, and that is a wicked thing to do. Butthe coalition battle plan was to bypass Basra and leave the more thanhalf-million citizens there essentially to fend for themselves until wecould get this aid flowing. It's not that we can't only get ships intoUmm Qasr; it's that we didn't take Basra, which is now a scene of utterchaos and total unpredictability, and there's no telling when aid willflow there. Does the administration take any responsibility for theplight of the people in Basra? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the administration is the one, working withour allies, that is working to get the food and the water to the peopleof Iraq. The people of Iraq have been put in harm's way as a result ofthe actions of the Iraqi military, of the Fedayeen, and the brutalregime under which they've lived that doesn't care about the people ofIraq. And that's why the United States and our allies are the ones putin this position, working through, as I mentioned, a series of groups,providing money and transport. We stand ready, willing, and able. Themines need to be moved and the mines will be moved. The people will befed. Q But it does seem, based on, as Ron points out, the Presidenton Sunday saying, within 36 hours massive amounts of aid should beginto move -- and perhaps the prediction that we heard quite a bit, thatthe people of the south, and particularly Basra, will rise up -- thatyou didn't expect this. That you did not expect there to be this -- MR. FLEISCHER: We didn't expect the Irani -- the Iraqis to ceasecaring about their own people, to cease feeding their own people, toput up impediments to this humanitarian relief supplies? That's thenature of the Iraqi regime. They've been doing it for years. So, no, Terry. I think what you see here is, once again, in theclassic sense, of the United States working with our allies as beingsomeone who cares and provides for the humanitarian needs of peopleworldwide. You have an Iraqi regime that has laid mines in an effortto block shipments of humanitarian supplies -- as well as other reasonsthat they laid the mines, for military purposes -- the consequence ofwhich is that the humanitarian relief, which the United States isdedicated to providing, will get there as soon as the operations can becleared, to get the mines removed. Q Ari, not until the President ordered war to begin and headdressed the American people last Wednesday did he prepare the publicfor what would be, in his words, a longer and more difficult militaryfight than many have predicted. Why didn't he do it sooner? And whatdoes he believe the level of patience is of the American public? Atwhat cost is the public prepared to pay for achieving this end? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, number one, I think the American people havefully understood all the way along that there is risk, that there issacrifice, as the nation prepared for war. And the President was veryovert with the country about -- that this could result in the use offorce. I want to cite for you three specific instances in which thePresident laid it out rather explicitly, going back in time. One was aweek ago last night, a week ago Monday, March 17th, when the Presidentsaid, and I quote, "Americans understand the costs of conflict becausewe have paid them in the past. War has no certainty except thecertainty of sacrifice. If Saddam Hussein attempts to cling to power,he will remain a deadly foe until the end." And then on Wednesday last week, March 19th, the President said, ona campaign on the harsh -- "A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nationas large as California could be longer and more difficult than somepredict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free countrywill require a sustained commitment." And then again, Saturday, in thePresident's radio address, he had a very similar message. So I dispute the premise. The President has said thisconsistently, and I think the American people have been prepared forthis and they understand the sacrifices that must be made in order todisarm the Iraqi regime. Q Let me follow up on that, because given -- given your precisepreparation for a question like that, it seems to me -- MR. FLEISCHER: You're easy to read, David. (Laughter.) Q I guess so. Well maybe that -- then maybe that means thatthere's some level of defensiveness, that perhaps the President isworried that the American public may be less patient than he advisedthem to be. Is that the case? MR. FLEISCHER: No, I just anticipate your questions well. Q Wait a second, Ari. This is wartime. That's a dodge of thequestion. MR. FLEISCHER: You're asking me why am I prepared to answer yourquestions? Q No, that's not what I asked you. I asked you, does he feelthat the public did not adequately bring up its expectation for what weare facing. MR. FLEISCHER: No, and as I answered your question at the verybeginning, I said that the American people, in the President'sjudgment, have been well-prepared for this. And the American peopleunderstood -- as the President repeatedly, going back to September 12that the United Nations, talked about the possibility of the use offorce. The American people understand it when the President talks aboutthe use of force, they understand that means that lives can be lost.The President made that perfectly plain in those remarks that I quotedto you. Q Ari, this just in -- the Senate has voted to cut the proposedtax cuts by about half, to $350 billion, after getting the request formore funds for the war. MR. FLEISCHER: There are a series of events that are underway, andvotes that are underway in the Senate right now. We'll see what theultimate outcome is. If that vote is the final vote, they have manymore to come. The manner in which the Senate on this particular votedid this, the money will be available for more spending. While thosewho back that amendment say that it will provide money in a reservefund for Social Security, the history of such reserve funds is thatthey serve as a piggy bank for more spending. And so the President believes that the most important thing to dois to provide growth for the economy. The number that the Presidentproposed that looks like -- that passed in the House is the number thePresident thinks is the right number and the best number to supportgrowth. So we'll see what ultimately comes out of the Senate. Theyhave a lot more voting to do. Q Ari, why are you offering money for Turkey in thesupplemental since they wouldn't let the U.S. troops there? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President's supplemental contains arequest for a provision for assistance to Turkey. The request consistsof a fixed grant of $1 billion that can be used to back a larger loanfacility to Turkey. Turkey has made impressive progress over two yearsin stabilizing and reforming its economy. The Turkish government isnearing agreement with the IMF on an economic program that will furtherstrengthen the economy, and which we fully support. There was a previous package of a much, much larger magnitude thatwas withdrawn. This is something far different. Q Is there some recognition that their economy is in direstraits and they desperately need this money? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, all along, we have always said that there wasa particular package that was on the table dealing with Turkey,involving their particular cooperation. We did not see all the resultsof the cooperation we saw in the instance of that particular package.But we've always said that Turkey, being a state in the area, had othereconomic costs that were -- something we saw in 1991. And so there isa request pending before the Congress. Q Ari, if I could just take you back to your comment beforeabout how you didn't expect the Iraqis to interfere with thehumanitarian aid. MR. FLEISCHER: I didn't say that. Q You said, we didn't expect the Iraqis to step in and helpstarve their own people and so forth -- MR. FLEISCHER: I didn't say we didn't expect; I said this issomething that we've seen throughout Iraqi history, where they havestarved their own people. It's a sign of how the Iraqi regime hastreated its own people. I think that's what I said. Go ahead. I hear there is a question coming. Q The essence of the question here is, you said that thehumanitarian aid is delayed because of the demining operation. But,clearly, Basra, which is where the biggest need is right now and thesecond largest city, does not appear to be in a condition where youcould deliver aid without fear of military action against theaid-givers. In retrospect, did the plan that you folks had call for anability to get that aid into Basra, assuming that you got past themining issues, by this time? Or did you expect that it would takeweeks or months to be able to deliver that aid? MR. FLEISCHER: You'd have to talk to the Pentagon planners for anymore precision on exactly what their plans called for. I can assureyou from the President's point of view that the focus on humanitarianaid remains a paramount issue. And as was mentioned in the briefing inthe Gulf this morning, 40 percent of the water for Basra has alreadybeen turned back on again. And it remains unclear on who turned thewater off for Basra, how it got turned off and who turned it off. Q I'm sorry, Ari, if I could just follow up on that. MR. FLEISCHER: Go ahead, David. Q The second issue is, yesterday we were hearing from bothSecretary Powell and then others at the Pentagon that there was concernabout a red line around Baghdad that would -- once we crossed, therecould be a use of chemical or biological weapons. Is this based, toyour understanding, on any new intelligence? Or is this basically arecycling of a fear that we've heard many times before, which was theIraqis could use chemical and biological, which they do not appear tohave done yet? MR. FLEISCHER: I think you need to address that to the Pentagon.That's something they've talked about repeatedly. Dana. Lester, we're going to save you for last. Q For last? MR. FLEISCHER: For last. Or close to it; maybe penultimate.Dana. Q The Kremlin is contradicting the account of the conversationthe President had with President Putin yesterday, saying that Putin isthe one who brought up the allegations and denied them, and said -- thespokesman for the Kremlin is saying the President of Russia also notesthe discussion concerned unproved public declarations that can damagerelations between the two countries. Why are -- is this -- why arethese two at odds here? MR. FLEISCHER: One, I don't think it's a contradiction. I thinkif you look at exactly what I said yesterday, I said the two nations --the two Presidents -- Q -- you said -- MR. FLEISCHER: No, I said the two Presidents spoke about. It'snot my habit -- Q -- it's not the first time the United States has raised thisconcern. MR. FLEISCHER: And it's not. The United States has raised thatconcern over the last year. And then I said -- at the beginning of thebriefing, I said, the two Presidents discussed. And I don't think itreally matters who brought what issue up first. The fact of the matteris, as I said yesterday, the two Presidents discussed an issue that theUnited States has brought up over the last year. I saw also there was some question about who placed the phonecall. And yesterday I said the two Presidents spoke. I did not saywho placed a phone call; I said, the two Presidents spoke. And so theconversation was much -- just as I described it. Of course, it isalways the prerogative of every nation to fill in additionalinformation about what their leader spoke about. I don't report everyword that a foreign leader speaks. Q Two questions. One, can you describe the most importantissue when the President meets the Prime Minister? Is it that thetroops have advanced to a point close to Baghdad where you have to makekey decisions about where to go forward? And also, Dr. Rice was up atthe United Nations today. Can you discuss at all her conversations andthe disagreement between the United States and the United Nations --and with the United Kingdom to a degree -- about how long the UnitedStates would have an interim authority, led by General Franks and downthrough, before it ceded any power to any U.N. -- MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, the discussions at the United Nations wereabout the humanitarian situation in Iraq. That's what the focus of itwas. We reiterated our concern about the humanitarian situation. Wealso discussed the status of the oil- for-food program, which ispending at the United Nations, which is a matter of some discussionamong the various members of the United Nations. There was discussion of the post-conflict Iraq and our desire tosecure sovereignty for the Iraqi people just as soon as possible. Wealso talked about -- Dr. Rice talked about the protection of humanrights in Iraq. These remain issues that are important, that we willcontinue to talk with the United Nations about. Q No details about who would be securing Iraq? MR. FLEISCHER: I don't have every detail of a privateconversation. But I -- you many want to take a look back at thestatement that was made at the Azores, where we very publicly discussedthe importance of the United Nations playing some type of role in thehumanitarian reconstruction efforts. Q

  • About

    Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...

    Group Page: Groups_SingleGroup
    bottom of page