Sunday, 16 April 2017

Article of the week

The Observer view on Donald Trump’s foreign policy

A GBU-43/B bomb, or Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) bomb – as used in Afghanistan last week against an alleged Isis stronghold Photograph: Handout
Sunday 16 April 2017 00.03 BSTLast modified on Sunday 16 April 2017 10.34 BST

In the run-up to last November’s election, American voters were repeatedly warned that the inexperienced, volatile and impulsive Donald Trump would be a dangerous choice as next US president. Less than three months into his term, that prediction is coming true. Trump’s reckless behaviour is rapidly sucking the world into an alarming new era of extreme strategic instability, most evidently in the case of North Korea.


Suddenly abandoning his pledge to pursue non-interventionist policies and eschew the role of global policeman, Trump has performed an astonishing volte-face. It began with a casually insouciant decision, taken over dinner in Palm Beach in January, to order a special forces ground operation in Yemen that Barack Obama had previously blocked as too risky. The operation went badly awry.
Trump tried shoddily to distance himself from this failure and turned his attention to Syria and Iraq. Word went out from the White House that US field commanders would henceforth enjoy greater latitude in fighting Islamic State (Isis). There would be no more of Obama’s frustrating micro-management. Trump’s message: the gloves are off – not that they were ever really on.
Since then, civilian casualties in both countries have been rising, the result of US or US-led bombing. The Iraqi army’s slow and painful effort to retake Mosul from Isis has not been noticeably advanced by stepped-up American engagement. But the lethal impact of the siege on Mosul’s citizens has measurably grown, as in last month’s horrific American bombing of a basement shelter that killed up to 150 people.
Trump has significantly increased the number of US troops in Syria, ahead of an anticipated assault on the Isis stronghold of Raqqa. Then he upped the ante again, firing off 59 cruise missiles at a Syrian army base in an emotional retaliation for a chemical weapons attack in Idlib province. This self-indulgent escapade has done little or nothing to further peace in Syria. But it did trigger a destabilising confrontation with Russia, Syria’s ally, with possible implications for security in eastern Europe, Nato and the Asian power balance.
Having greatly impressed himself by this grandiose show of might, Trump, now self-styled global enforcer-in-chief, swivelled his sights on to Afghanistan, setting off the biggest explosion he could manage without actually going nuclear. Last week’s detonation of a Moab monster bomb was gimmick warfare. It may have killed some Isis fighters. It may not. That was not the point. The aim, again, was to showcase US firepower and Trump’s supposed martial prowess. The target audience was not Isis or the Taliban but North Korea, where, to China’s justified alarm, Trump has deployed a nuclear-armed naval armada in a bid to bully Pyongyang into submission.
And so, in the space or 100 days or so, Trump’s crudely intimidatory, violent, know-nothing approach to sensitive international issues has encircled the globe from Moscow to the Middle East to Beijing, plunging foes and allies alike into a dark vortex of expanding strategic instability.
In switching sides and policies from one day to the next, Trump resembles a punter in a betting shop, rashly gambling on a hunch. In the North Korean case, if Trump guesses wrong, the results could be utterly calamitous.
There is a place for deterrence in international affairs and, to work, deterrence must be backed by the possible use of force. That is how we survived the Cold War. It is possible that Syria’s regime will stop using chemical weapons because of Trump’s punitive response. It is arguable that China needed a jolt to get it more involved in containing North Korea and that Pyongyang may cease, for a time, its provocative behaviour. The defeat of Isis, wherever it lurks, is undoubtedly desirable.
But as every military strategist and experienced statesman knows, the uncertain means to these desirable ends are fenced about with deep complexities, subtleties and countless shades of political and military grey. Bombs and more bombs do not solve anything. Violence can and usually does make matters worse. The world beyond Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago is not a shooting gallery. War and diplomacy are not zero-sum games.
The US president is not hosting a television reality show – not any more, at least. This is all only too real. And if Bomber Trump has proved anything in the past three months, it is that he lacks the judgment, the common sense and the common humanity to be anybody’s commander in chief.

Tasks of the reading: 
1. Read the article between the lines, and comment your opinion regarding the standing of writer. Show your agreements, disagreements with the writer. 
2. How do you feel, in what direction the world affairs are moving, in the post Trump American policies?
3. Use a language suited to academic purposes. The objective of this activity is strictly academic, it does not intend to hurt any feelings, political, racial, or sectarian, at all.  


























































































Sunday, 25 December 2016

Five Paragraph Esssay


Dear Writers!Ċ

Your palpable progress towards writing is highly appreciable. We started with writing a sentence, and we experimented with different types of sentences with different sentence structures. We came up with paragraph: a well organized, paragraph,with focus on organization, structure and unity of thought. 

It is turn now to produce a five paragraph essay. It is time to apply almost all your grammar knowledge and vocabulary power. 


The following topics are recommended for the upcoming class. Hope you will post one well written essay on the suggested topics, before upcoming class.

Topic #1.' Advertising exerts too great an influence on lour daily lives'. How do you react to this statement.
Topic #2. 'Keeping fit'
Topic #3. ' Is war ever justified?'
Topic #4. 'Favouritism'
Topic#5. wasted opportunities
Topic# 6. secret hopes and ambitions
Topic# 7. 'Discipline'
Topic# 8. 'is population control necessary'
Topic# 9. ' some of the things that make you proud of your country'
Topic# 10. 'Men and animals'

Rubrics: Attempt should be made to opt one topic each person. 


Wednesday, 7 December 2016









Dear All!!!!Hope and pray you are as fit as fiddle!!!!Your blog anxiously awaits your write ups. Suggestively, you will drop the same enabling discussion in the upcoming class. 









HERE IS THE PARAGRAPH WRITTEN BY A GROUP AND AND REVISED BY THE OTHER GROUP

Apart from previously mentioned factors affecting failure in CSS[01]  [02] [03] exam, there are some other ones that require elaboration here. To start with[04] [05] , the level of education in our Country is very low and the base of the students are [06] not according to the CSS examination. The CSS exam is based on English, and due to absence of structure of grammar in their courses students couldn’t compete in exams[07] . Moreover, the number of institutions which provide proper education regarding CSS is very few. Furthermore, students appearing in CSS exams do not have proper guidance from the experienced ones. The main concept of the examination is not clear to them and they prepare selected topics in limited time.

Though[08]  these factors are critical but not insurmountable. This is how the issue can be overcome. At first, we[09]  should strengthen the standard of our education. According to research, the level of education in our Country[010]  is fifty-plus-year backward in primary education and sixty-plus-year in overall education. Therefore, it is necessary to priority[011]  higher education especially[012]  English. In addition, the government should establish proper institutions for the preparation of CSS examination and it should be educated by the experienced and highly qualified teachers. Furthermore, there should be seminars and conferences conducted by the CSP officers to provide awareness and guidance among the aspirants. There are only few of the measures thraough[013]  which CSS aspirants can overcome the failure.

 [01]
 [02]Are very few
 [03]There able to deliver only to ideas
 [04]
 [05]
 [06]Sub verb ag is
 [07]English language is a barrier in delivering the hundred percent of students efforts, as the students have studied urdu through out their academic period.
 [08]Comma splice
 [09]NEVER USE 1ST & 2ND PERSON IN ESSAY
 [010]AVOID USING CAPITAL LETTER FOR COMMON NOUN
 [011]PRIORITISE
 [012]ESPECIALLY,
 [013]THROUGH
 [014]QUOTE WITH PREFIX




Article of the week


No country with a McDonald’s can remain a democracy




The best way to combat the likes of Trump, Le Pen and Farage and the politics they represent is to rescue power from the grip of transnational corporations



A wave of revulsion rolls around the world. Approval ratings for incumbent leaders are everywhere collapsing. Symbols, slogans and sensation trump facts and nuanced argument. One in six Americans now believe that military rule would be a good idea. From all this I draw the following, peculiar conclusion: no country with a McDonald’s can remain a democracy.
Twenty years ago, the New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman proposed his “golden arches theory of conflict prevention”. This holds that “no two countries that both have McDonald’s have ever fought a war against each other since they each got their McDonald’s”.
Friedman’s was one of several end-of-history narratives suggesting that global capitalism would lead to permanent peace. He claimed that it might create “a tip-over point at which a country, by integrating with the global economy, opening itself up to foreign investment and empowering its consumers, permanently restricts its capacity for troublemaking and promotes gradual democratisation and widening peace”. He didn’t mean that McDonald’s ends war, but that its arrival in a nation symbolised the transition.
In using McDonald’s as shorthand for the forces tearing democracy apart, I am, like him, writing figuratively. I do not mean that the presence of the burger chain itself is the cause of the decline of open, democratic societies (though it has played its part in Britain, using our defamation laws against its critics). Nor do I mean that countries hosting McDonald’s will necessarily mutate into dictatorships.
What I mean is that, under the onslaught of the placeless, transnational capital that McDonald’s exemplifies, democracy as a living system withers and dies. The old forms and forums still exist – parliaments and congresses remain standing – but the power they once contained seeps away, re-emerging where we can no longer reach it.
The political power that should belong to us has flitted into confidential meetings with the lobbyists and donors who establish the limits of debate and action. It has slipped into the diktats of the IMF and the European Central Bank, which respond not to the people but to the financial sector. It has been transported, under armed guard, into the icy fastness of Davos, where Friedman finds so warm a welcome (even when he’s talking cobblers).
Above all, the power that should belong to the people is being crushed by international treaty. Contracts such as Nafta, Ceta the proposed TransPacific Partnership and Trade in Services Agreement and the failed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership are crafted behind closed doors in discussions dominated by corporate lobbyists. And those lobbyists are able to slip in clauses no informed electorate would ever approve of, such as the establishment of opaque offshore tribunals, through which corporations can bypass national courts, challenge national laws and demand compensation for the results of democratic decisions.
These treaties limit the scope of politics, prevent states changing social outcomes and drive down labour rights, consumer protection, financial regulation and the quality of neighbourhoods. They make a mockery of sovereignty. Anyone who forgets that striking them down was one of Donald Trump’s main promises will fail to understand why people were prepared to risk so much in electing him.
At the national level too, the McDonald’s model destroys meaningful democracy. Democracy depends on reciprocal belief, trust and belonging: the conviction that you belong to the nation and the nation belongs to you. The McDonald’s model, by rooting out attachment, could not have been better designed to erase that perception.
As Tom Wolfe observes in his novel A Man in Full, “the only way you could tell you were leaving one community and entering another was when the franchise chains started repeating and you spotted another 7-Eleven, another Wendy’s, another Costco, another Home Depot”. The alienation and anomie this destruction of place promotes are enhanced by the casualisation of labour and a spirit-crushing regime of monitoring, quantification and assessment (at which McDonald’s excels). Public health disasters contribute to the sense of rupture. After falling for decades, for instance, death rates among middle-aged white Americans are now rising. Among the likely causes are obesity and diabetes, opioid addiction and liver failure, diseases whose carriers are corporations.
Corporations, released from democratic constraints, drive us towards climate breakdown, an urgent threat to global peace. McDonald’s has done more than its fair share: beef production is among the most powerful causes of climate change.
In his book The Globalisation Paradox, the Harvard economist Dani Rodrik describes a political trilemma. Democracy, national sovereignty and hyperglobalisation, he argues, are incompatible. You cannot have all three at once. McDonaldisation crowds out domestic politics. Incoherent and dangerous as it often is, the global backlash against mainstream politicians is at heart an attempt to reassert national sovereignty against the forces of undemocratic globalisation.
An article about the history of the Democratic party by Matt Stoller in the Atlantic reminds us that a similar choice was articulated by the great US jurist Louis Brandeis. “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both,” he said. In 1936 the congressman Wright Patman managed to pass a bill against the concentration of corporate power. Among his targets was A&P, the giant chainstore of his day, which was hollowing out towns, destroying local retailers and turning “independent tradesmen into clerks”.
In 1938 President Roosevelt warned that “the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.” The Democrats saw concentrated corporate power as a form of dictatorship. They broke up giant banks and businesses and chained the chainstores. What Roosevelt, Brandeis and Patman knew has been forgotten by those in power, including powerful journalists. But not by the victims of this system.
One of the answers to Trump, Putin, Orbán, Erdoğan, Salvini, Duterte, Le Pen, Farage and the politics they represent is to rescue democracy from transnational corporations. It is to defend the crucial political unit that is under assault by banks, monopolies and chainstores: community. It is to recognise that there is no greater hazard to peace between nations than a corporate model that crushes democratic choice.

Sunday, 27 November 2016

Article of the Week


Has the internet become a failed state?
The internet was once a land of promise, with few fears about crime or privacy. Thirty years on, scammers, thieves and spies have created a place of chaos


John Naughton
The Guardian
Sunday 27 November 2016 07.59 GMT

Here are some stories about the world we now inhabit…
• In February this year, Bangladesh Bank was hit by the biggest bank robbery in history when thieves got away with $101m. The heist was accomplished not by tunnels or explosives, but by acquiring the access codes for the Swift global messaging system, which is what banks use to securely pass payment orders to one another. The criminals used Swift to instruct the US Federal Reserve to transfer money to their accounts. Then they cunningly erased their digital fingerprints by modifying the bank’s software.
• In June 2015, the US Office of Personnel Management revealed that its computer systems had been hacked and that the hackers had stolen the social security numbers, names, dates and places of birth, and addresses of 21.5 million people, including some who had undergone background checks for sensitive government posts.
• In October 2015, nearly 157,000 customers of the UK telco TalkTalk had their personal data stolen in a massive intrusion into the company’s computer systems. Police later arrested six teenage boys in connection with this cyber attack.
• In the past two years, hospitals worldwide have found themselves on the receiving end of a vicious type of cyber attack. Medical staff suddenly find that their hospital’s computer systems are locked and inaccessible to them because they have been secretly infiltrated. They then receive a message telling them that their data will be unlocked on payment of a ransom in Bitcoins. The European police agency Europol now reckons that the threat from “ransomware” has eclipsed all other forms of online theft and extortion.
Over the past year, someone has been probing the defences of the companies that run critical pieces of the internet
• Two months ago, a young Italian woman killed herself because she was traumatised by online abuse after an intimate video that she had sent to a friend was widely “shared” across the web. As soon as the images went viral, she was subjected to jeering comments, Photoshopped screenshots and cruel parodies that, in the end, tipped her over the edge.
• In June, it was revealed that two agencies of the Russian government had hacked into the computer systems of the Democratic National Committee. Shortly before the Democratic convention that nominated Hillary Clinton, WikiLeaks released thousands of emails and attachments stolen during the breach, some of which were distinctly unhelpful to Clinton and useful to Donald Trump.
• On 21 October, a series of distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks caused widespread disruption of internet activity in the US. The attacks involved directing huge amounts of bogus traffic at servers belonging to Dyn, a company that is a major provider of domain name services (DNS) to other companies. For a time this severely affected major websites – including Twitter, Pinterest, Reddit, GitHub, Etsy, Tumblr, Spotify, PayPal, Verizon, Comcast and the PlayStation network. The attack was conducted using a huge botnet of unsecured “internet of things” devices such as home webcams and broadband routers.
• According to Bruce Schneier, a leading security expert, over the past year or so, someone has been probing the defences of the companies that run critical pieces of the internet. These probes, Schneier says, “take the form of precisely calibrated attacks designed to determine exactly how well these companies can defend themselves, and what would be required to take them down. We don’t know who is doing this, but it feels like a large nation state. China or Russia would be my first guesses.”
It didn’t used to be like this. In the first decade after the internet we use today was switched on, in January 1983, cyberspace was a brave new world – a glorious sandpit for geeks and computer science researchers. There was, in that magical virtual world, no crime, no spam, no commercial activity and little concern about security – largely because “netizens” (for that is what they were called) knew one another, or at least knew what their institutional affiliations were. Discussion groups (then called newsgroups) were formed around every conceivable topic, no matter how arcane. (Early on, there was a vigorous argument about whether there should be a discussion group on sex, and when one finally appeared, someone else insisted that logically there should therefore also be newsgroups on drugs and rock’n’roll. So those were set up too.) Codes of conduct, etiquette and social norms evolved to regulate – or at least moderate – online behaviour, reduce “flame wars”, and so on. It was, in a way, a kind of wonderland, and it gave rise to the techno-utopianism embodied in John Perry Barlow’s “Declaration of the independence of cyberspace”, which began: “Governments of the industrial world, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from cyberspace, the new home of mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather...”
What it came down to was this: in the decade 1983-93, cyberspace and “meatspace” (Barlow’s term for the real, physical world) were effectively parallel universes. They existed side by side, and for the most part the inhabitants of meatspace knew nothing of the virtual world.
But from 1993 onwards, all that began to change. The main catalysts were the world wide web, the Mosaic browser and AOL. The web provided non-geeks with an answer to the question: what is this internet thing for? Mosaic, the first modern browser, showed them what the web could do and, more importantly, what it could become. Demand for access to the internet exploded. AOL met the demand by providing a reliable, easy-to-configure, dial-up service for millions of people, and so brought the “redneck hordes” – ie people unfamiliar with the mores and customs of the netizen era – on to the internet. Scenting profits, companies and pornographers scrambled for a piece of the action, closely followed by scammers and spammers and all kinds of other undesirables.
The result was that the parallel universes gradually merged, and we wound up with the composite networked world we now inhabit – a world that has the affordances of both cyberspace and meatspace. Which helps to explain why we are having such trouble coming to terms with it.
This blended universe is a strange place, simultaneously wonderful and terrifying. It provides its users – ordinary citizens – with services, delights and opportunities that were once the prerogative only of the rich and powerful. Wikipedia, the greatest store of knowledge the world has ever seen, is available at the click of a mouse. Google has become the memory prosthesis for humanity. Services such as Skype and FaceTime shrink intercontinental distances for families and lovers. And so on.
But at the same time, everything we do on the network is monitored and surveilled by both governments and the huge corporations that now dominate cyberspace. (If you want to see the commercial side of this in action, install Ghostery in your browser and see who’s snooping on you as you surf.) Internet users are assailed by spam, phishing, malware, fraud and identity theft. Corporate and government databases are routinely hacked and huge troves of personal data, credit card and bank account details are stolen and offered for sale in the shadows of the so-called “dark web”. Companies – and public institutions such as hospitals – are increasingly blackmailed by ransomware attacks, which make their essential IT systems unusable unless they pay a ransom. Cybercrime has already reached alarming levels and, because it largely goes unpunished, will continue to grow – which is why in some societies old-style physical crime is reducing as practitioners move to the much safer and more lucrative online variety.
“All human life is there” was once the advertising slogan for the now-defunct News of the World. It was never true of that particular organ, which specialised mostly in tales of randy vicars, celebrity love triangles, the foolishness of lottery winners and similar dross. But it is definitely true of the internet, which caters for every imaginable human interest, taste and obsession. One way of thinking about the net is as a mirror held up to human nature. Some of what appears in the mirror is inspiring and heart-warming. Much of what goes on online is enjoyable, harmless, frivolous, fun. But some of it is truly repellent: social media, in particular, facilitate firestorms of cruelty, racism, hatred and hypocrisy – as liberals who oppose the Trump campaign in the US have recently discovered. For a crash course in this darker side of human nature, read Jon Ronson’s book So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed and weep.
So we find ourselves living in this paradoxical world, which is both wonderful and frightening. Social historians will say that there’s nothing new here: the world was always like this. The only difference is that we now experience it 24/7 and on a global scale. But as we thrash around looking for a way to understand it, our public discourse is depressingly Manichean: tech boosters and evangelists at one extreme; angry technophobes at the other; and most of us somewhere in between. Small wonder that Manuel Castells, the great scholar of cyberspace, once described our condition as that of “informed bewilderment”.
One way of combating this bewilderment is to look for metaphors. The idea of the net as a mirror held up to human nature is one. But recently people have been looking for others. Sean Gallagher, the IT editor of Ars Technica, for example, reaches for an urban reference. “In the New York City of the late 1970s,” he writes, “things looked bad. The city government was bankrupt, urban blight was rampant, and crime was high. But people still went to the city every day, because that was where everything was happening. And despite the foreboding feelings hanging over New York at the time, the vast majority of those people had at most minor brushes with crime.”
“Today,” he continues, “we all dabble in some place that looks a lot like 1970s New York City – the internet. (For those needing a more recent simile, think the Baltimore of The Wire.) Low-level crime remains rampant, while increasingly sophisticated crime syndicates go after big scores. There is a cacophony of hateful speech, vice of every kind... and policemen of various sorts trying to keep a lid on all of it – or at least trying to keep the chaos away from most law-abiding citizens. But people still use the internet every day, though the ones who consider themselves street smart do so with varying levels of defences installed. Things sort of work...”
They do. But the weakness of the NYC metaphor is that the city was eventually cleaned up and a kind of order restored. So in that sense, it’s an unrealistic, optimistic scenario for the net. Consequently, those who fear that humanity will struggle to get a grip on cyberspace reach for more alarming metaphors. Could it, for example, become some kind of “failed state” like contemporary Somalia, with, as Gallagher puts it, “warring factions destroying the most fundamental of services, ‘security zones’ reducing or eliminating free movement, and security costs making it prohibitive for anyone but the most well-funded operations to do business without becoming a ‘soft target’ for political or economic gain”?
Our dilemma is that while the future of cyberspace is unknowable, we need to think about it because it affects us all
The Fragile States Index, an annual report published by the US thinktank the Fund for Peace and the magazine Foreign Policy, defines a fragile state as one “whose central government is so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory; non-provision of public services; widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of populations and sharp economic decline”.
Some, but not all, of this maps neatly on to cyberspace. There is, for example, no central government that has effective control over the network’s “territory” (though the US, for historical reasons, has had more influence over it than any other nation, much to the annoyance of the Russians and the Chinese). In fact, one of the central problems posed by the network is that it is a global system in a Westphalian world of sovereign states and local laws.
Our dilemma is that while the future of cyberspace is unknowable, we need to think about it because it affects us all. The standard method that large corporations and governments use for this purpose is by imagining a set of possible futures or scenarios and assessing the implications of each one. The aim is not to “predict” the future, but to try and sketch the range of possibilities that we might have to deal with.
As far as cyberspace is concerned, the most interesting set of scenarios I’ve seen come from a US thinktank, the Atlantic Council. Its analyst, Jason Healey, sets out five candidates:
• Status quo: a continuation of what we now have. “Cyberspace is generally a safe place in which to do business and to communicate with others, even though criminals continue to engage in multimillion-dollar heists and steal millions of people’s personal details; national foreign intelligence agencies poke and prod for military and industrial secrets.”
• Conflict domain: essentially an extrapolation of the militarisation of cyberspace that we are already seeing – a world in which cyberwarfare becomes common.
• Balkanisation: cyberspace has broken into national fiefdoms: there is no single internet, just a collection of national internets.
• Paradise: cyberspace becomes an overwhelmingly secure place where espionage, warfare and crime are rare.
• Cybergeddon: cyberspace degenerates into a virtual failed state with all that that implies. Think modern-day Mogadishu.
Some of these are more implausible than others. Healey’s “paradise” scenario is pure fantasy. And the power of internet corporations – plus the reach and dominance of national intelligence agencies such as the NSA – suggest that some kind of (possibly repressive) order would be restored long before “cybergeddon” would be reached.
So we’re left with two real possibilities – some blend of Balkanisation and inter-state conflict, both extrapolations of trends that we can already observe.
If this is indeed how things pan out, I know one scholar, a distinguished professor of international relations, who won’t be in the least surprised. Sixteen years ago, in a conversation about the internet, he asked me if I really believed that the internet represented a fundamental challenge to established power structures. I replied vehemently in the affirmative – because, in my techno-utopian fervour, I did believe. He smiled but said nothing, and so eventually I asked him what he thought. “We’ll see, dear boy,” he replied. “We’ll see.
He’s still around, as wise as ever. And I am a recovering utopian.
scammers
swindler , defrauder , chiseller , chiseler , gouger , scammer , grifter (noun) - a person who swindles you by means of deception or fraud
heist
burglarize , burglarise , burgle , heist (verb) - commit a burglary; enter and rob a dwelling, heist , rip-off (noun) - the act of stealing ,armed robbery , heist , holdup , stickup (noun) - robbery at gunpoint
ransom , ransom money (noun) - money demanded for the return of a captured person
reckon , count (verb) - take account of; "You have to reckon with our opponents"; "Count on the monsoon"
traumatised
traumatize , traumatise , shock (verb) - inflict a trauma upon
jeering
jeer , scoff , flout , barrack , gibe (verb) - laugh at with contempt and derision; "The crowd jeered at the speaker"
jeer , jeering , mockery , scoff , scoffing (noun) - showing your contempt by derision
breach
transgress , offend , infract , violate , go against , breach , break (verb) - act in disregard of laws, rules, contracts, or promises; "offend all laws of humanity"; "violate the basic laws or human civilization"; "break a law"; "break a promise"
gap , breach (verb) - make an opening or gap in
breach (noun) - a failure to perform some promised act or obligation
breach (noun) - an opening (especially a gap in a dike or fortification)
rupture , breach , break , severance , rift , falling out (noun) - a personal or social separation (as between opposing factions); "they hoped to avoid a break in relations"
disruption
break , interruption , disruption , gap (noun) - an act of delaying or interrupting the continuity; "it was presented without commercial breaks"; "there was a gap in his account"
disturbance , disruption , commotion , flutter , hurly burly , to-do , hoo-ha , hoo-hah , kerfuffle (noun) - a disorderly outburst or tumult; "they were amazed by the furious disturbance they had caused"
dislocation , disruption (noun) - an event that results in a displacement or discontinuity
disruption , perturbation (noun) - the act of causing disorder
bogus
bogus , fake , phony , phoney , bastard (adjective) - fraudulent; having a misleading appearance
calibrated
calibrate , graduate , fine-tune (verb) - make fine adjustments or divide into marked intervals for optimal measuring; "calibrate an instrument"; "graduate a cylinder"
calibrate (verb) - mark (the scale of a measuring instrument) so that it can be read in the desired units; "he calibrated the thermometer for the Celsius scale"
calibrate (verb) - measure the caliber of; "calibrate a gun"
calibrated , graduated (adjective) - marked with or divided into degrees; "a calibrated thermometer"
sandpit
sandpit (noun) - a large pit in sandy ground from which sand is dug
geeks
geek (noun) - a carnival performer who does disgusting acts
eccentric , eccentric person , flake , oddball , geek (noun) - a person with an unusual or odd personality
arcane
arcane (adjective) - requiring secret or mysterious knowledge; "the arcane science of dowsing"
wonderland
wonderland (noun) - a place or scene of great or strange beauty or wonder
wonderland (noun) - an imaginary realm of marvels or wonders
mosaic , tessellated (adjective) - decorated with small pieces of colored glass or stone fitted together; "a mosaic floor"; "a tessellated pavement"
configure
configure (verb) - set up for a particular purpose; "configure my new computer"; "configure a plane for a combat mission"
mores
mores (noun) - (sociology) the conventions that embody the fundamental values of a group
pornographers
pornographer , porn merchant (noun) - someone who presents shows or sells writing or pictures that are sexually explicit in violation of the community mores
spammers
spammer (noun) - someone who sends unwanted email (often in bulk)
prerogative
prerogative , privilege , perquisite , exclusive right (noun) - a right reserved exclusively by a particular person or group (especially a hereditary or official right); "suffrage was the prerogative of white adult males"
prosthesis
prosthesis , prosthetic device (noun) - corrective consisting of a replacement for a part of the body
snooping
spy , stag , snoop , sleuth (verb) - watch, observe, or inquire secretly
lucrative
lucrative , moneymaking , remunerative (adjective) - producing a sizeable profit; "a remunerative business"
defunct
dead , defunct (adjective) - no longer in force or use; inactive; "a defunct (or dead) law"; "a defunct organization"
defunct (adjective) - having ceased to exist or live; "the will of a defunct aunt"; "a defunct Indian tribe"
randy
aroused , horny , randy , ruttish , steamy , turned on(p) (adjective) - feeling great sexual desire; "feeling horny"
vicars
vicar (noun) - a Roman Catholic priest who acts for another higher-ranking clergyman
vicar (noun) - (Episcopal Church) a clergyman in charge of a chapel
vicar (noun) - (Church of England) a clergyman appointed to act as priest of a parish
obsession
compulsion , obsession (noun) - an irrational motive for performing trivial or repetitive actions against your will
obsession , fixation (noun) - an unhealthy and compulsive preoccupation with something or someone
frivolous
frivolous (adjective) - not serious in content or attitude or behavior; "a frivolous novel"; "a frivolous remark"; "a frivolous young woman"
paradoxical
paradoxical , self-contradictory (adjective) - seemingly contradictory but nonetheless possibly true; "it is paradoxical that standing is more tiring than walking"
technophobes
technophobe (noun) - a person who dislikes or avoids new technology
bewilderment
bewilderment , obfuscation , puzzlement , befuddlement , mystification , bafflement , bemusement (noun) - confusion resulting from failure to understand
rampant
rampant (adjective) - unrestrained and violent; "rampant aggression"
rampant(ip) , rearing (adjective) - rearing on left hind leg with forelegs elevated and head usually in profile; "a lion rampant"
rampant (adjective) - (of a plant) having a lush and unchecked growth; "a rampant growth of weeds"
foreboding
predict , foretell , prognosticate , call , forebode , anticipate , promise (verb) - make a prediction about; tell in advance; "Call the outcome of an election"
foreboding , premonition , presentiment , boding (noun) - a feeling of evil to come; "a steadily escalating sense of foreboding"; "the lawyer had a presentiment that the judge would dismiss the case"
foreboding (noun) - an unfavorable omen
fateful , foreboding(a) , portentous (adjective) - ominously prophetic
dabble
dabble (verb) - dip a foot or hand briefly into a liquid
dabble , paddle , splash around (verb) - play in or as if in water, as of small children
dabble , smatter , play around (verb) - work with in an amateurish manner; "She dabbles in astronomy"; "He plays around with investments but he never makes any money"
cacophony
blare , blaring , cacophony , clamor , din (noun) - a loud harsh or strident noise
cacophony (noun) - loud confusing disagreeable sounds
prod
nudge , poke at , prod (verb) - to push against gently; "She nudged my elbow when she saw her friend enter the restaurant"
prod , incite , egg on (verb) - urge on; cause to act; "They other children egged the boy on, but he did not want to throw the stone through the window"
jab , prod , stab , poke , dig (verb) - poke or thrust abruptly; "he jabbed his finger into her ribs"
goad , goading , prod , prodding , urging , spur , spurring (noun) - a verbalization that encourages you to attempt something; "the ceaseless prodding got on his nerves"
prod , goad (noun) - a pointed instrument that is used to prod into a state of motion
extrapolation
extrapolation (noun) - (mathematics) calculation of the value of a function outside
the range of known values
fiefdoms
fiefdom (noun) - the domain controlled by a feudal lord
fiefdom (noun) - an organization that is controlled by a dominant person or group
overwhelmingly
overwhelmingly , overpoweringly , irresistibly (adverb) - incapable of being resisted; "the candy looked overwhelmingly desirable to the dieting man"
espionage
espionage (noun) - the systematic use of spies to get military or political secrets
degenerates
devolve , deteriorate , drop , degenerate (verb) - grow worse; "Her condition deteriorated"; "Conditions in the slums degenerated"; "The discussion devolved into a shouting match"
pervert , deviant , deviate , degenerate (noun) - a person whose behavior deviates from what is acceptable especially in sexual behavior
implausible
implausible (adjective) - having a quality that provokes disbelief; "gave the teacher an implausible excuse"
farfetched , implausible (adjective) - highly imaginative but unlikely; "a farfetched excuse"; "an implausible explanation"
extrapolation (noun) - an inference about the future (or about some hypothetical situation) based on known facts and observations
vehemently
vehemently (adverb) - in a vehement manner; "he vehemently denied the accusations against him"
fervour
excitement , excitation , inflammation , fervor , fervour (noun) - the state of being emotionally aroused and worked up; "his face was flushed with excitement and his hands trembled"; "he tried to calm those who were in a state of extreme inflammation"
ardor , ardour , fervor , fervour , fervency , fire , fervidness (noun) - feelings of great warmth and intensity; "he spoke with great ardor"