I believe we all agree that everyone has a right to work on their own destiny, and everyone has a right to choose the fields they want to pursue, and to study what they want, and I believe we all agree too that no sensible developing state should invest in people who want to study nonsense. The sensible developing state decides what kind of knowledge it will invest in, and if you want to matriculate in the frivolous, it’s got to be on you or your pa’ an ma’ money.
Ai, little Belize invests in too many people who let her down, though I have said that we should let a lot of these brains drain because they want what we can’t afford to pay them. When they have the ants to live the American dream they should stay there, earn the big loot, and send money back to us as payment for brain escape.
Now, I’m the type who likes to judge what people say and do in the moment, separate from their baggage or pedigree, but I have come to realize that when it comes to the scientists, we need to get the whole goods, down to dehn ancestors, and that’s because they lie worse than people trying to win votes, or court cases.
That science doesn’t ever fall in the classification of frivolous, unimportant studies, not even in developed countries. Heaven knows they are very important, even the branch that has a telescope that can see 50 million light years into tomorrow. But yu kyaahn tros dem ataal.
I’ll tell you when I realized that crooks don’t only abound in the law and politics business. It’s when it became obvious that some scientists condemned coconut oil because they were being nationalistic about cooking oils produced in their home country, or were in the employ of the biscuit companies that wanted to drive down the price of our essential oil.
The scientists who need the most watching are those who are under the influence of religion. Ouch, I read a recent science-influenced-by-religion study that said even the lee low-potency wine is bad for our health, and I think you must have escaped from hell, or had a pa who couldn’t hold his drink or stop when he should, to come up with that.
I’m looking at this recent alcoholic beverages story by Ms. Samantha Raphelson, and aren’t ladies infamous for regurgitating stories with negative comments about drinking alcohol because they swallowed warped studies that show a strong connection between rum and domestic violence. Anyone who cares to look would see that drinking rum plays a role that is minor next to culture, and deep-rooted issues in these cases. Ah, our good lady here is no Miss Gullible, praises.
Ms. Raphelson’s story, titled “No Amount of Alcohol Is Good for Your Health, Global Study Says,” was published by NPR, at npr.org, and it is based on a study that appeared in The Lancet, one of the oldest and most respected medical journals in the world. I guess The Lancet should be given a pass for reproducing nonsense, because they are the source of much eye-opening information.
Ms. Raphelson wrote that “countless scientific studies have espoused the idea that a glass of red wine a day can be good for the heart,” but the authors of the study concluded that while “moderate drinking may safeguard people against heart disease…the potential to develop cancer and other diseases offsets these potential benefits, as do other risks of harm… (so) the safest level of drinking is none.” You know we desperately need a set of acceptable expletives for use when we run into this kind of blank.
Raphelson did not yield her integrity to the teetotalers; she got major hero points by sharing the views of a very sober, brilliant person, “David Spiegelhalter, the Winton professor for the public understanding of risk at the University of Cambridge”, who said the arguments in the research weren’t that compelling.
She said Spiegelhalter told the BBC, “There is no safe level of driving, but governments do not recommend that people avoid driving…Come to think of it, there is no safe level of living, but nobody would recommend abstention.” Go Spiegelhalter, you da the man.
These big-time scientists, they contradict each other so much, and we don’t have to ask who these ones are behind this dishonest, biased research. My verdict is the same as yours: religious zealots.
In the future, scientists must state their affiliations so that we can apply the appropriate disclaimer. So, Mister, Ma’am, you’re a scientist researching drinking rum, or smoking weed, and you are also steeped in the religious right. My, do you see why they invented the word, “recuse”; do you see the glaring conflict there?
None of us can say which Christian group will save more souls, but on earthly matters the nod goes to the Catholics. They acknowledge the vice in drinking but fully appreciate that a little wine, or beer, or rum, does not present great harm. When it comes to weed the Catholics can’t say anything good, because priests don’t have license to smoke, but they still get props, because they aren’t eager with the negative vibes, like some good folk are.
People come up with the weirdest arguments when they are trying to force their views on you. Condemning weed as a gateway drug is like condemning good cooking because it leads to gluttony, or condemning delicious Valencia orange from the Stann Creek Valley because it can lead to a sweet tooth. Understandably, there are concerns over the use of weed because the US persists with their cramping laws, but those Americans who enacted Prohibition and placed a ban on weed have the integrity of lawyers.
You know the truth about this “no drink is better than one drink.” Somebody paid these researchers to sell their name. The price was right, and wala, we get stuff and nonsense backed up by scientists.
Red fascination with deejays
Well, well, well, I couldn’t believe Mr. Dean Samuels had dreams of leading Belize City. If I did I would have held back that jab that he should put a covering on his mouth when on Wave so he doesn’t sicken the well-masked-down Joe. No, I don’t see myself as a major influencer on Belize’s landscape, but every whisper can catch an ear and end up who knows where.
Those barefaced appearances on Wave — was Mr. Samuels about leading the revolution to unmask Belize City? Why didn’t anyone in his party tell him that he was stabbing himself in the foot every Thursday he appeared sans mask on the party’s morning show? Did they not want him?
Ah, this week we found out who the Reds wanted. Before I go on, when will the PUP get a couple gallons of paint and get rid of that flagrant red on our telephone company in Belmopan? Braa, look how the UDP got back our company, and then stole it! Please, no more Los Angeles Lakers purple either.
What is it with the UDP and the glitter of deejays? Start with Dean Barrow, “the original Glitter”; Curl Thompson, “the discotheque owner”; John Saldivar, “the singerman”; Shyne Barrow, “the rappa”; Orson Elrington, “the Dancehall promoter”; and now Brother Orson Picart, “deejay/journalist”. Hey, Brother Hubert, it’s like these red people don’t too much care for “substance”. It’s no wonder they sailed our ship upon the rocks.
Hmm, I don’t have the space to explain why in this municipal election I’m voting for every PUP candidate, unless I have the horse hair that they are flat-out bad, and not voting for any UDP candidate, unless I have the horse hair that they are super gifted.