Random News Stories

[P3nT4gR4m]

Our culture fetishizes the forbidden. Sex is dirtybadwrong, therefore the more badwrong, the sexier. Most of us draw lines, some of us run with it.

Eureka! Why are you so fucking smart? I get jealous sometimes.  Anyway, thanks for that. Makes a lot of sense to me.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Our culture fetishizes the forbidden. Sex is dirtybadwrong, therefore the more badwrong, the sexier. Most of us draw lines, some of us run with it.

Eureka! Why are you so fucking smart? I get jealous sometimes.  Anyway, thanks for that. Makes a lot of sense to me.

Awwww

[Doktor Howl]

lolwut

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=10238

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

lolwut

http://www.newscorpse.com/ncWP/?p=10238

The 4th grade thing makes perfect sense. The right wing has always railed against the "intellectual elite", thinking that they are appealing to the majority of Americans. To a certain point, they were probably correct, but I think they've taken it too far.

It also explains why they want to gut education, though.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

WOW I am watching that video right now, it is like watching political TV for 10-year-olds. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JVflsEE8w2k

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

No federal limit exists for arsenic in most foods, but the standard for drinking water is 10 parts per billion (ppb). Keep in mind: That level is twice the 5 ppb that the EPA originally proposed and that New Jersey actually established. Using the 5-ppb standard in our study, we found that a single serving of some rices could give an average adult almost one and a half times the inorganic arsenic he or she would get from a whole day's consumption of water, about 1 liter.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/11/arsenic-in-your-food/index.htm

"It is critical to not get ahead of the science," says Michael R. Taylor, FDA's deputy commissioner for foods. "The FDA's ongoing data collection and other assessments will give us a solid scientific basis for determining what steps are needed to reduce exposure to arsenic in rice and rice products."

http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm319827.htm

Does the FDA make you feel safe?

[Junkenstein]

Vice on the UK Employment situation:
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/hope-and-despair-at-the-watford-jobfair

Conveniently for those who like to understand things through false dichotomies, and frustratingly for everyone else, the government has come up with a narrative that differentiates between the "strivers" and "shirkers" in British society. "Strivers" are those who struggle to provide for themselves by working like slaves and "shirkers" are those who struggle to provide for themselves because they're too busy wanking on the couch, cackling as they drag the rest of us down into their mire of jobless largesse.

However, this idea is revealed as fallacy when you look at the figures, which show that even if every unemployed person in the country spent their every waking hour looking for a job, they wouldn't be able to find one. There simply aren't enough to go around – there's no hidden well of endless jobs that someone has been sneakily hiding from us. The latest Labour Market Survey showed that while there are nearly half a million vacant positions, there are 2.5 million unemployed who want them. Not to mention the 7 million underemployed making the stats look a bit nicer as they wallow in a personal purgatory.

Despite this, Chancellor George Osborne used his spending review at the end of June to add another 144,000 public sector workers to the unemployment list. He gave those who are already out of work a kicking too, by making them wait a week before claiming benefits rather than the three days they'd been used to. For good measure, jobseekers must now attend the dole office every week rather than fortnightly, which, if we're lucky, will merely be a logistical nightmare.

Of those new jobs that are out there, 75 percent pay peanuts. Feel like complaining? It'll cost you. From now on, if you want to take your beef with your boss to an Employment Tribunal – a service that's been free since the Victorians were employing kids to huff chimney soot all day – you'll have to pay for it up front.

Excellent article covering a lot of the issues surrounding UK unemployment. The employment Tribunal thing is quite disturbing too. Totally missed that.

[Junkenstein]

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2013/07/what-todays-introduction-employment-tribunal-fees-really-means

The Government's legal aid cuts may have attracted their fair share of criticism, but another reform with potentially huge implications for access to justice quietly kicks in today.

As of this morning, Employment Tribunals - set up to provide a proper, impartial forum for the resolution of disputes between employees and employers - are no longer free to access. If you're unfairly sacked, discriminated against or don't receive wages owed from now on, you'll need to pay an upfront cost or bite your lip.

The Ministry of Justice claims that the £84m (or £74m, depending on which particular Government document you happen to be looking at) cost of running the Employment Tribunals Service is too high. They say it's unfair for taxpayers to foot the bill for workers who choose to "escalate workplace disputes to a tribunal" and argue that "drawn out disputes" can "emotionally damage workers and financially damage businesses".

What this translates to is a fees system compelling claimants (almost always employees or ex-employees) to pay £160 just to begin the process of challenging employers over relatively simple matters like non-payment of wages or statutory redundancy pay.

Should they then want to take the case to a full hearing, they'll need a further £230. If that seems onerous, spare a thought for those challenging unfair dismissal, sexual or racial discrimination in the workplace, or sackings arising from whistle-blowing, who will now have to cough up £250 upfront, with a further £950 due for a day at tribunal.

There's no guarantee either that a claimant will get their fees back, even if they win their case. While the new rules allow tribunals to impose a costs order against a losing party, this is entirely at a judge's discretion, so even if an employee proves that they were, for example, the victim of sexual harassment at work, a good chunk of their compensation awarded could well be swallowed up by fees.

Although the Government's own impact assesment freely concedes that it "cannot rule out... fees may have the effect of deterring some claimants from bringing a claim", it insists that the policy is not designed to reduce claims, only to transfer some of the cost from taxpayers. Responding to criticism that fees might put poor people off seeking redress, the MoJ points to the Civil Fee Remission scheme, whereby low-earners and those in receipt of state benefits such as Jobseekers Allowance can obtain a full or partial waiver of fees for tribunal proceedings.

I wish I was more surprised. UK government has a fairly serious whistle-blowing case at least every 3 months over something quite sensitive. It would be nice if people tried to change shit instead enacting measures against revealing wrongs.

[Doktor Howl]

They say it's unfair for taxpayers to foot the bill for workers who choose to "escalate workplace disputes to a tribunal" and argue that "drawn out disputes" can "emotionally damage workers and financially damage businesses".

Stop being America.   

Why, no, it's not the businesses FUCKING THE EMPLOYEE UP THE ASS, it's the employee deciding to make an issue out of it.

[Doktor Howl]

Vandalism now "an attack".



http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/30/19770054-woman-arrested-over-washington-dc-green-paint-attack?lite

[Doktor Howl]

HAW HAW!

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/30/19771320-guns-in-school-ark-district-arming-more-than-20-teachers-staff?lite

[P3nT4gR4m]

HAW HAW!

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/30/19771320-guns-in-school-ark-district-arming-more-than-20-teachers-staff?lite

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

HAW HAW!

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/30/19771320-guns-in-school-ark-district-arming-more-than-20-teachers-staff?lite

Sometimes I get a little dizzy watching everything circle the drain.

[Junkenstein]

Caught a documentary on a religious school who preform drills based around an armed intruder. Teaching kids to hide under desks, "Swarm" the shooter and various other "tactics". Several teachers were armed and to be fair had undergone some training.

Would I actually trust any of them with anything more lethal than a spoon? No.

[Junkenstein]

Very loosely related:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23503394

A new superhero, who is set to make her debut on Pakistani television, has provoked a mixed reaction.

The 'Burka Avenger' is a mild-mannered Pakistani teacher with secret martial arts skills.

She uses a flowing black burka to hide her identity as she fights local thugs seeking to shut down the girls' school where she works.

Video at the link.

I doubt the reaction to this is not going to be quiet. By which I mean someone's likely to end up dead before the end of the year.