Book Newss

A pair of melons or anything of that sort is all it takes to turn on a guy but for women, it’s a bit more complex than that. Certain critical switches must be triggered before her brain orders the release of that critical chemical, that turn on women. Many men don’t know how to really pleasure a woman sexually. And plain old boring s3x isn’t very enticing to them. If you want to get laid and turn on women in just 10 minutes, hold on guys, it’s not going to be easy but I assure you, it’s going to be totally worth it!

So, all the men out there, we have some incredibly amazing tips and ways for you to turn on women in just 10 minutes. Let’s get started!

1.Take your time
When touched, the body of a woman releases oxytocin that’s responsible for the feeling of comfort, relaxation, and love. And that means, the more we’re touched, the more we want to be touched. Of course, it doesn’t mean you jump right onto things, take your time and move slow. So caress, fondle, stroke, and embrace us to get that oxytocin flowing.

 

2.Pay attention
Pay attention to us be it inside or outside the bedroom. Look us in the eyes and really listen when we share our feelings, thoughts, desires, or just tell you about our day. This really gets us interested and get involved with you.


3.Make use of your tongue
Oral s3x when done right can be a sure fire route to ecstasy for a lot of us. Keep her guessing what you’re going to do next and I bet she won’t want you to stop. Make sure you don’t overdo anything; she’s a woman after all.

Because small packages don't necessarily mean small packages.

If you're getting it on with a relatively small-size partner, or if you happen to be a curvier lady yourself, here are five sexy-ass ways to position yourself for optimal enjoyment.

 

   

1.

The T-Bonin'

Lie on your back with your legs spread, knees bent, and feet in the air. Your partner lies on his side by your butt, perpendicular to you. You get extra-deep penetration at this new angle, plus tons of room to supplement your own stimulation via hand or vibrator.

2.

Get a couple of pillows and lie on your side with the pillows under your hips. Bend your knees and curl up; you will be arrayed there pretty fucking irresistibly. This also gives your partner unfettered access to gently rub your clit as they thrust comfortably from behind.  

3.

The Daily Special

Hop up on a kitchen counter and open wide, girl. Scootch to the very edge, propping up each foot on a sturdy chair back and holding on to your partner's shoulders to avoid head injuries/embarrassing explanations to EMTs. This position works well for a wide range of couples, 'cause it positions you to be ready for whatever mouth, fingers, strap-on, or penis is headed your way. Feel free to make special requests.

4.

The Throbbing Bass

If you've got a particularly ample butt, give them better access to it. He gets into doggie, then you bend your arms so your head is lower than your bum. (Go ahead and rest your forehead on some pillows if your neck feels like it's bending at a weird angle.) If you press a really strong vibe (that would be you, Magic Wand) on your clit, you'll both feel those deep rumbly

throbs reverbing through you.  

5.

The X-Rated

   If a belly is preventing "access" where you need it most, try this workaround. He lies on top, sliding P into V, then he slides over about 45 degrees so you're forming an X. Do the pivot slowly, hold him inside of you with your hand, and do one hell of a Kegel squeeze to ensure a smooth transition. Once situated (phew), you can push your legs together for a tighter squeeze or open wide and tilt your pelvis up for deeper penetration.

Nov. 21, 2013: U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon gestures during an interview during the 19th conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Warsaw.

EXCLUSIVE –  This month, the United Nations will double down at another climate summit on calls for sweeping and costly global action on a wide array of environmental fronts, as part of a drive for “sustainable development” and a comprehensive new global climate control treaty.
But an important U.N. investigative unit is warning that the world organization’s management of environmental programs and treaties is a chaotic mess that has not improved much in years.
 Among other things, the U.N. investigators warn of:

• Large-scale duplication  of effort and unnecessary competition between 28 U.N. organizations and the managers of 21 international treaties  that deal with vital environmental issues;

• A sense of environmental priorities that focuses on issues “that are often accompanied by mass media attention, such as climate change and green economy,” giving less attention to other important priorities;

• The related lack of “a clear division of labor” among U.N. development organizations and a welter of U.N. treaty bodies that slops over into definitions of the boundaries between “environmental protection and sustainable development;”

• Huge, uncoordinated overall increases in environmental spending—the inspectors report that as of 2012, U.N. spending on environmental issues was increasing faster than its spending on anti-poverty efforts—that also failed to make a distinction between “normative” and “operational” spending, i.e.,  between generating mandates to protect the environment and various types of actual  activity;

• Lack of a “transparent” U.N.-wide framework to track spending “in a manner that would pave the way for more efficient allocation of resources,” not to mention clarifying the distinction between spending on conservation and other actions.

• Evidence of what the report calls a “conflict of interest” by project managers of the United Nations Environment Program, the ostensible flagship of U.N. environmental action, in hiring outside evaluators to examine their own projects.

The updated “review of environmental governance in the United Nations system” was published over the summer by a Geneva-based organization known as the Joint Inspection Unit, or JIU, which is charged with examining management issues across the entire sprawling U.N. system, and submitting findings to the U.N.’s top leadership.
It is a return to an examination that JIU made of the same topic in 2008, when the unit found a lot to be concerned about, much of it linked to the U.N.’s tendency since the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro to link  “sustainable development” with environmental preservation, leading to the same kind of organizational confusion that the JIU still finds today.
In its 2008 report, the JIU made a dozen recommendations on how the U.N. needed to refocus itself on separating environmental conservation from “sustainable development” by giving greater authority to the Nairobi-based United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), separately tracking environmental and development spending, and otherwise clarify the expanding and expensive confounding of development and environmental priorities. Almost all of the recommendations were accepted at the time by the U.N.’s top brass.
Since then, however, the number of U.N. global conferences merging the environment and “sustainable development” has only multiplied, culminating in last year’s 20-year anniversary gathering to commemorate the original Earth Summit—and push the “sustainable development” agenda still further.
When it came to the clarification of tasks and assignments—and subsequent elimination of waste and duplication-- that the JIU suggested, not so much has apparently been done.
According to JIU, the 20^th anniversary Rio conference in 2012 “agreed to make a few institutional rearrangements,” including  an expansion of the mandate of UNEP that would “empower it”  to lead efforts to “formulate United Nations system-wide strategies on the environment,” but not a lot else has taken place in the areas of clarification of the roles of the remainder of the organization.
The 97-page JIU update report contains one lengthy paragraph inserted into its executive summary that lauds a number of vaguely worded changes it describes as “significant improvements” made in the wake of its 2008 review. These include “enhancement of the UNEP coordinating mandate on the environment,” and “better coordination and mainstreaming of environmental and environment-related activities in the field.”

UNEP has produced a dizzying tally of some 285 environmental goals that exist across the U.N. system

The paragraph is otherwise laden with dense but vague references to “enhanced synergies and efficiency in the management of the secretariats” of various multilateral environmental treaties on hazardous waste disposal and organic pollutants, and “intensified cluster synergies in thematic and sectorial areas.”
But the main body of the report restates a blunt assessment from the 2008 report that “the current framework of international environmental governance is weakened by institutional fragmentation and specialization,” and adds: “The statement is unfortunately still valid six years later.”

CLICK HERE FOR THE REPORT


Meantime, UNEP has produced a dizzying tally of some 285 environmental goals that exist across the U.N. system that the inspectors call “the first step towards the identification of common goals and system-wide planning for results in the environmental area.”
The list includes “goals and objectives drawn from existing international treaties and non-legally binding instruments” and includes everything from promises to monitor and coordinate action against forest fires to “substantially increase the global share of renewable energy resources.”
The list, however, is just that: a list—albeit one that gives some indicator of the staggering array of targets and priorities that have been tucked away in a host of international agreements over the years. As the JIU report sardonically notes, additional progress “cannot be achieved without coordinating responsibilities and efforts.”

CLICK HERE FOR THE EXISTING GOALS

As for UNEP’s increased role in global management of the environment, the JIU noted that its scientific findings were, at times, questionable.
Different divisions of UNEP “sometimes produce separate scientific assessments outside the [UNEP] Office of the Chief Scientist,” the report notes. That office was founded, according to UNEP’s website, “to help strengthen the interface between global environmental science and policy while making the science base of UNEP’s activities stronger.”
Moreover, those outside assessments are used by project managers to assess their projects supported by UNEP’s Environment Fund, which is described on the UNEP website as “is the main source of funding for UNEP to implement its Program of Work and Medium Term Strategy.”
(Current UNEP budgeting calls for “voluntary” contributions to the Environment Fund of $118 million for 2014, and $134 million in 2015. The U.S. contribution in both years is still apparently undefined; in the past, it has ranged between roughly $6.2 million and $6.6 million.)

CLICK HERE FOR ENVIRONMENT FUND FINANCES

In other words, when assessing their own projects, UNEP officials hire their own outsiders to do the job.
The JIU report calls those actions “an issue of conflict of interest, and notes that “despite its competent scientific assessment capability the Office of the Chief Scientist has never been involved in the scientific assessment of those projects.”
Small wonder that the current JIU inspectors acknowledge  tepidly that “progress has been made,” in  bringing a sense of order and efficiency –as well as objectivity and restraint--to the U.N.’s huge and still-growing menu of environmental ambition, they are much more firm in stating that still, “there is much to be accomplished.”

By: Bajram Hysa                                                                                Facebook       Twitter        Google+


People are popping off rounds beneath the busy streets of Manhattan. The stench of burnt gunpowder fills the air. Paper targets twitch from incoming bullets. And shell casings clank with each ear-piercing bang from the shooters in their booths.
It’s just another day at West Side Rifle and Pistol Range, Manhattan’s only commercial gun range and one of the few places where people can practice using firearms legally in the New York City area. Hundreds of clients shoot there, many of them police officers.
Despite the limitations within New York City, owner Darren Leung says fear of the government and the possibility of more gun restrictions is what really helps drive his business.
“We’ve often said that our government is our best gun seller,” he says. “Every time they say something people go crazy and they start running out and buying a lot.”
The range first opened in 1965 in the basement of an otherwise standard Manhattan office building. Leung has since taken the reins and says he has a lot of fun running the business. But he says it’s also about furthering education.
“It really makes us feel good that we can actually entertain and educate the population about enjoying firearms and not being afraid of them and not saying that it’s a bad thing,” he says. “It’s a sport and people should enjoy the sport and people should try to understand it a little bit better.”
In addition to the general public, many of Leung's clients are police officers. “We welcome our friends in law enforcement any time they come down,” Leung says. The NYPD Police Academy is a few blocks away, and Leung says the instructors often tell trainees to the visit range because it’s so close. The recommendations have helped sustain a long-standing relationship with local law enforcement.
Leung says some of his clients have been coming to the range for decades and that many of them are close friends.
“Lifelong friends I would say. Some of these folks have been to my house,” he says. “Because I want them to come and see how it is with me and enjoy my family too we have annual barbecues and have a bunch of people come out.”
And Leung’s family is an important part of the gun range’s future. He says he wants his two young children to eventually take over the business.

By: Bajram Hysa                                                                                Facebook       Twitter        Google+




Last week I said the Environmental Protection Agency has become a monster that does more harm than good. But logical people say, “What else we got?” It’s natural to assume greedy capitalists will run amok and destroy the Earth unless stopped by regulation. These critics don’t understand the real power of private ownership, says Terry Anderson of the Property and Environment Research Center. “Long before the EPA was a glint in anyone’s eye,” said Anderson on my TV show, “property rights were dealing with pollution issues.” Contrary to what environmentalists often assume, it’s really property rights that encourage good stewardship. The worst pollution often happens on land owned by “the people” -- by government. Since no one person derives direct benefit from this property, it’s often treated carelessly. Some of the worst environmental damage happens on military bases and government research facilities, such as the nuclear research site in Hanford, Washington. Worse things may happen when government indifference combines with the greed of unrestrained businesspeople, like when the U.S. Forest Service lets logging companies cut trees on public land. Private forest owners are careful to replant and take steps to prevent forest fires. Government-owned forests are not as well managed. They are much more likely to burn. When it’s government land -- or any commonly held resource -- the incentive is to get in and take what you can, while you can. It’s called the “tragedy of the commons.” “No one washes a rental car,” says Anderson, but “when people own things, they take care of them. And when they have private property rights that they can enforce, other people can’t dump gunk onto the property.” That’s why, contrary to what environmentalists often assume, it’s really property rights that encourage good stewardship. If you pollute, it’s your neighbors who are most likely to complain, not lazy bureaucrats at the EPA. “Here in Montana, for example, the Anaconda Mining Company, a copper and mining company, ruled the state,” says Anderson. “And yet when it was discovered that their tailings piles (the heaps left over after removing the valuable material by mining) had caused pollution on ranches that neighbored them, local property owners took them to court. (Anaconda Mining) had to cease and desist and pay for damages. … They quickly took care of that problem.” They also restored some of the land they had mined. Property rights and a simple, honest court system -- institutions that can exist without big government -- solve problems that would be fought about for years by politicians, environmental bureaucrats and the corporations who lobby them. In fact, it’s harder to assess the benefits and damages in environmental disputes when these decisions are taken out of the marketplace and made by bureaucracies that have few objective ways to measure costs. Markets even solve environmental problems in places where environmentalists assume they cannot, such as oceans and other property that can’t be carved up into private parcels. Environmental bureaucrats usually say, to make sure fishermen don’t overfish and destroy the stock of fish, we will set a quota for every season. That command-and-control approach has been the standard policy. So bureaucrats regulate the fishing season. They limit the number of boats, their size and how long they may fish. The result: fishing is now America’s most dangerous job. Fishermen race out in all kinds of weather to get as many fish as they can in the narrow time window allowed by regulators. They try to game the system to make more money. Sometimes they still deplete the fish stock. But Anderson points out that there is an alternative. “In places like New Zealand and Iceland … we’ve created individual fishing quotas, which are tradable, which are bankable, which give people an incentive to invest in their fisheries.” Because the fisherman “owns” his fishing quota, he is careful to preserve it. He doesn’t overfish because he wants “his” fish to be there next year. The moral of the story: when possible, let markets and property protect nature. That avoids the tragedy of the commons.