...but then I read that the police believe these guys carved up and burned part of a guy's arm, to remove his tattoo because they thought he had shown disrespect for a band. They reportedly belonged to a fan based group for the band and thought the guy did not deserve the tattoo because of his presumed disrespect. Hard core fans I suppose.
My bet would be the tattoo was gang related. That brings me right back to my original thought, it must have been one ugly tattoo and if it wasn't, it sure must be ugly now. The guy wound up losing his arm below the elbow but the article did not say if his buddies cut it off or if it had to be removed medically because of them allegedly having carved it and burned it.
See: http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/police-men-tried-to-remove-housemates-arm-tattoo
What the hell is wrong with people!
All the best,
Glenn B
I just do not understand why many politicians, bureaucrats and other government employees feel compelled to spew balderdash just about every time they open their mouths as if they have to protect the citizenry from the truth or as if they believe we are too stupid to understand the truth. Take for instance the case of the latest person, in the United States, who is undergoing testing for the Ebola virus. The bureaucrats (including the doctors involved) are playing it down. They are saying she has symptoms that are consistent with Ebola's early signs but it is improbable that she has it because , they are saying, she had no known contact with Ebola and they are only testing her out of an abundance of caution.
One has to wonder why they tell us bullshit like that because they certainly are full of it. While they are testing her, it is not due to an abundance of caution. Yes, of course they are being cautious but not overly so! For them not to test her for it would be absolutely negligent on their part. Testing her is the logical thing to do to rule out Ebola and to find out what she has if not Ebola. It is also the logical thing to do to see if she actually has it and that it is logical to do it is based upon the facts surrounding her illness and her recent personal history.
She lived and worked in Sierra Leone. She was a teacher there. Sierra Leone is in Africa, western Africa. It just happens to be one of the three major countries involved in the current outbreak of Ebola. She was obviously in contact with others who lived there, she was not a recluse. Does it matter that she had no known contact with it to make one be cautious and check her for it - maybe yes but only if there was not another reason to check her. There is another reason, she is ill and she has early stage Ebola symptoms.
The woman in question reportedly traveled back to the U.S. from Sierra Leone on August 4 and then, on August 15th, she started to show symptoms which are the same as those for the initial signs of someone with Ebola. Ebola has an incubation period of from two days to three weeks. Her symptoms, the timing of them, the fact that she lived and worked in an Ebola stricken nation all are evidence that indicate that caution is NECESSARY based upon those FACTS. There is no abundance of caution here - there is a logical and prudent application of caution and I she actually has it, it may prove not to have been enough caution. Yet, U.S. officials try to make it sound as if it is almost impossible that she has it and that they are going overboard to protect us all by testing her. Why is that.
Whether she has it or not is no reason for these officials to spew caca de toro (that's my kind of Spanish for BS). We should be treated as adults and instances that could possibly wind up effecting us all should be reported to us truthfully and transparently and not with balderdash wrapped all around them. It's BS like that which continues to promote an overall distrust of not only the government but the medical profession. They of course, know best - or so they think of themselves. It is that attitude that can hurt us and hurt us badly.
If for instance, this woman has Ebola, then everyone with whom she came in contact since shortly after her arrival here is the U.S. may be at potential risk. As time goes on, so too will everybody who came in contact with those other folks and on and on. I am not trying to stir fear and panic, I am stating a fact that people should be aware of because Ebola is a deadly disease that is not difficult to transmit from one infected person to another. Why make folks aware without veiling things? Because if anyone else she came in contact with also gets the same symptoms, they should be seeing their doctors without haste.
Hopefully she will not have it but what if she has it and people believed it when they heard how improbable it is that she does have it. I, for one, would rather hear some other cautionary words coming from these government stooges and doctors as to what precautions to take if you were in contact with her than that they are using an abundance of caution in testing her. You can bet every health care official who has treated her, since they decided to use their so called abundance of caution in testing her for Ebola, has worn full body protection including a full face mask - maybe even a gas mask and full bio suit to protect from what the are calling an improbable case of it. You can also bet that they would call any medical professional, who treated her while not so protected, negligent and foolish as opposed to someone who just did not use an abundance of caution.
Read the source article for more info.
All the best,
Glenn B
