What the hell is going on in the world?

I just don't seem to make sense out of things these days - is it just me?

For instance and in today's news -

1 - Second ebola nurse case - in the USA of all places - you would think they above all othes (with their sue on sight philosophy) would be able to treat a patient without catching the virus?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29632433

2 - Eating fat (some forms of it anyway) - is good for you.

In fact - researchers followed 1,589 Swedish men for 12 years. They found that those following a low-fat diet (no butter, low-fat milk and no cream) were more likely to develop fat around the gut (central obesity) than those eating butter, high-fat milk and whipping cream.

So much for me being health conscious for all these years!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29616418

3 - Minister says that some disabled people are unable to give value for money at minimum wage.

Kicked up a storm this but basically what he said was sound reasoning.

Lord Freud's comments came during a fringe meeting at the Conservative conference last month when he was asked whether it was preferable for someone with a disability, who could not get a job, to be paid less than the minimum wage - and to have their income topped up with benefits - in order to give them the experience of work and boost their self esteem.

In response to the question, from Conservative councillor David Scott, he reportedly said there "was no system for going below the minimum wage"

But he added: "Now, there is a small… there is a group, and I know exactly who you mean, where actually as you say they're not worth the full wage and actually I'm going to go and think about that particular issue, whether there is something we can do nationally, and without distorting the whole thing, which actually if someone wants to work for £2 an hour, and it's working can we actually…"


Yes not very PC and he ended up giving a grovelling apology but it was logical.

If an employer can't get value from an employee then they are hardly going to employ them are they?

If the bar is set at minimum wage and the employee is not able to meet it, then they are never going to get a job and working life experience.

If the bar is somehow able to be removed, the employer and employee agree a hourly rate and the benefit system meets the difference then surely everybody wins?

The state would pay less benefit than if the employee had no job at all, the employee is happy and chooses to work at an agreed rate and the employer is paying a rate where he is employing someone with less capability of doing the job compared to others but that is reflected in the pay rate.


Or am I missing the real point of all this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29628557


Am I alone in thinking these sorts of thing?

No, you're not alone.

Another one for me is the "Rooney Rule" in American sport.

It was basically introduced because there weren't enough ethnic minorities represented in managerial positions within the NFL, the NBA and MLB and they wanted to shoe-horn some black faces in.

I'm all for leveling the playing field if someone is unfairly being held back, but guaranteeing someone an interview just because of the colour of their skin can't be a good thing, surely?

In fact, if I was the only black person on a shortlist for a job and I knew it was because I was there as the "token", I'd be pretty pissed off.

On point 2 it is amazing how so called expert medical advice on diet changes all the time. I spent years eating margarine because it was supposed to be healthier but recently switched back to butter. Butter is not only now thought to be healthier but it tastes about a million times better than margarine! It's the same for skimmed and full fat milk.

The only diet that makes any sense to me is the 5:2 fasting diet. Restrict your calories on any two days in the week and live normally the rest of the week.

The thing with "lower fat" options is, whilst they may contain less fat than the "full-fat" alternatives, it's not actually that much less.

But people don't realise this and consume them with gay abandon in huge quantities, thinking that they're being healthy.

And the net result is, they put weight on.

Another big problem is that "low fat" doesn't mean "low sugar", so whilst a product may have slightly less fat in it, it could still contain massive amounts of refined sugar which will do you just as much damage (if not more) than the fat.

You need an MSc in Food Science to understand labels nowadays......

Breadman wrote:No, you're not alone.

Another one for me is the "Rooney Rule" in American sport.

It was basically introduced because there weren't enough ethnic minorities represented in managerial positions within the NFL, the NBA and MLB and they wanted to shoe-horn some black faces in.

I'm all for leveling the playing field if someone is unfairly being held back, but guaranteeing someone an interview just because of the colour of their skin can't be a good thing, surely?

In fact, if I was the only black person on a shortlist for a job and I knew it was because I was there as the "token", I'd be pretty pissed off.

It's worked though.

Since it was introduced in 2003 17 teams have had African/American or Latino coaches in charge. In the 80 years before there were only 7. 

We're not as bad in this country but in America they needed it.

Breadman wrote:The thing with "lower fat" options is, whilst they may contain less fat than the "full-fat" alternatives, it's not actually that much less.

But people don't realise this and consume them with gay abandon in huge quantities, thinking that they're being healthy.

And the net result is, they put weight on.

Another big problem is that "low fat" doesn't mean "low sugar", so whilst a product may have slightly less fat in it, it could still contain massive amounts of refined sugar which will do you just as much damage (if not more) than the fat.

You need an MSc in Food Science to understand labels nowadays......

Not being able to understand labels is a pathetic excuse for being overweight.

bwfc1874 wrote:

Not being able to understand labels is a pathetic excuse for being overweight.

So what's your excuse?

It is now 6 months since 200 Christian Nigerian schoolgirls were kidnapped by Procol Harum. Why have they not been rescued?

bwfc1874 wrote:

It's worked though.

Since it was introduced in 2003 17 teams have had African/American or Latino coaches in charge. In the 80 years before there were only 7. 

We're not as bad in this country but in America they needed it.

It depends how you define it "working", though doesn't it?

Are they there on merit?

Or are they just there so that Liberal America can pat itself on its back and feel all warm and fuzzy about how "progressive and inclusive" it is?

The Rooney rule means they have to be interviewed, nothing says they have to get the job. So they've obviously impressed enough in the interview to get the job - in other words - they did enough to merit the job.

Reebok Trotter wrote:It is now 6 months since 200 Christian Nigerian schoolgirls were kidnapped by Procol Harum. Why have they not been rescued?

They're waiting for them to turn a whiter shade of pale.

boltonbonce wrote:

Reebok Trotter wrote:It is now 6 months since 200 Christian Nigerian schoolgirls were kidnapped by Procol Harum. Why have they not been rescued?

They're waiting for them to turn a whiter shade of pale.

It certainly looks as if they have opened Pandora's Box.

It does seem I'm not alone in my thinking - at least on the ebola one -

When President Barack Obama first spoke about Ebola after an American aid worker was flown to Atlanta for treatment having contracted the disease in West Africa, he said the risk of an outbreak was small in the extreme. It was all about containment.

Spool forward to today, and let's just look at the maths for Texas alone.

The Dallas Presbyterian Hospital treated one Liberian, Thomas Duncan, who died. From caring for him, two nurses have now contracted the disease.

Nearly 80 health workers are under observation. It is claimed by the biggest nursing union that those charged with his care did not have the right protective clothing, flesh was exposed, there were no clear guidelines of what to wear, how to wear it, and how to disrobe.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concedes that it is possible flesh was left exposed when treating Duncan. And that is why among those nearly 80 still under observation, no one can rule out the possibility that there will be further cases.

This is a crude, and damning, statistic but so far Medecins sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders) has treated thousands of people in West Africa with Ebola, and has seen 16 medical workers contract the disease. This hospital in Dallas has treated just one patient, and has two sick healthcare staff.

In the country with the most advanced healthcare of anywhere in the world, with the best trained health workers, with resources that any third world medical centre would kill for, the question that - not surprisingly - is being asked is how in the name of God is this possible.

Now if this bit causes you to arch an eyebrow, the next bit has caused many jaws to hit the floor. The day before the second nurse was diagnosed she flew on a commercial flight from Cleveland, Ohio, back to Dallas.

The CDC is now trying to reach 132 passengers who were on the plane with her as a matter of urgency. The CDC has said it was a clear breach of guidelines and protocol for a health worker under observation to fly, or travel on a bus or a train. But did the nurse herself know this?

Remember that word containment? It seems to be quite the reverse. It is as though someone has taken Steven Soderbergh's script from the film Contagion and decided to try to make it reality - what is it they say about life imitating art?

Of course, there is no serious outbreak in the US - there are two healthcare workers who've contracted the disease and are receiving the best possible treatment, and it may be that these will be the first and last cases contracted in the country.

But no wonder the president has cancelled his scheduled trips to New Jersey and Connecticut today. The public like to see their political leaders "gripping" a crisis. What has been seen so far is a crisis being fumbled.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-29638724

This article by the author John Grisham caught my eye. I make no excuses for kiddy fiddlers but he does make a reasoned argument.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/john-grisham-men-who-watch-child-porn-are-not-all-paedophiles/ar-BB9i6yU

Reebok Trotter wrote:I make no excuses for kiddy fiddlers but he does make a reasoned argument.

Disgraceful post.

You make no excuses for kiddy fiddlers but think it's a reasoned argument?

Grisham seems to be saying one minute you're a red blooded male looking at photos of big breasted women over 18, but after a few drinks you suddenly start looking for child porn. Absolute bullshit!

Wanting to look at photos of kids is inside you whether you are sober or pissed - and people who look for pics of child porn are as much a part of the problem as the people who create the stuff. If no one was looking for child porn there wouldn't be a demand for it.

I demand an apology from John Grisham and Reebok Trotter.

A surprising fact about pasta:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-29629761

Reebok Trotter wrote:This article by the author John Grisham caught my eye. I make no excuses for kiddy fiddlers but he does make a reasoned argument.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/john-grisham-men-who-watch-child-porn-are-not-all-paedophiles/ar-BB9i6yU

I don't think he does. I very much doubt his friend is in prison because one drunken night he downloaded some pictures of "16 year old girls". He probably has thousands of pictures of children being abused on his computer. This week's episode of 24 Hours in Police Custody gives a far more realistic picture of what the police are having to deal with.

On the ebola thing I was a bit gobsmacked in the early days when it was announced that due to the highly infectious nature of the disease, British Airports would start screening people arriving from West Africa "in a few days time".

Well it's a bit bleedin' late don't you think? Only needs one person to start an epidemic and how many infected people could enter the UK in the intervening days?

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Reebok Trotter wrote:I make no excuses for kiddy fiddlers but he does make a reasoned argument.

Disgraceful post.

You make no excuses for kiddy fiddlers but think it's a reasoned argument?

Grisham seems to be saying one minute you're a red blooded male looking at photos of big breasted women over 18, but after a few drinks you suddenly start looking for child porn. Absolute bullshit!

Wanting to look at photos of kids is inside you whether you are sober or pissed - and people who look for pics of child porn are as much a part of the problem as the people who create the stuff. If no one was looking for child porn there wouldn't be a demand for it.

I demand an apology from John Grisham and Reebok Trotter.

I think it's obscene that you (Nat) can argue that society shouldn't even debate anything morally complex - although I don't think it is particularly difficult to see a difference between raping a child and looking at an image of someone raping a child.

As the article points out:

"A provocative article in the libertarian magazine Reason headlined "Looking v Touching" argued last February that something was "seriously wrong with a justice system in which people who look at images of child rape can be punished more severely than people who rape children".
"And in January this year the US Supreme Court was unable to resolve a debate over whether a man who viewed images of a child rape should be as liable to pay the same financial compensation to the victim as the original perpetrator of the crime."
Now that's a debate that seems straightforward and FWIW I personally think that rapists and voyeurs are different and should be treated differently.
But in your censorious world, our basic human right to discuss the distinction between the two - a right that sets Britain apart from many places in the world - would be removed. Well you can f*** right off. I'm British and I'll discuss it if I wish to. 

apparently every person with Ebola will on average infect 2 others.

so you can obviously do the math if that woman infected 2 people on that plane... and so on and so on and so on. 

fact of the matter is, this is still minor (in the west, because lets face it, thats all most care about) but if they want to stop it becoming major, they need to start hitting the source... Africa. 

Is anyone surprised a disease can rip through a country without any sanitation to speak of, unbearably hot climates (sweating all over the place) and ridiculous beliefs like having to wash your loved ones body before you bury it (thus infecting yourself) gee whiz.