Half of what you read is bull and the other half is **** (26 March)

 

The anti-alcohol, politically correct brigade that is based in the UK has now infected the Australian Federal Government. Recently in the press, they have been all sorts of reports detailing the Prime Minister's concern with binge drinking.

 

The cynic in me thinks this is a great opportunity to deflect attention away from some more substantial issues that need fixing, for which the government doesn't have solutions, and to look like they are actually doing something, rather than being seen as being bereft of ideas, and sitting on their thumbs and spinning in circles. Ouch.

 

In the UK, there are more and more press articles on the evils of the daemon drink, as the anti-alcohol zealots and wowsers gain traction. Unfortunately the same thing will soon happen in Australia.

 

The thing that really concerns me is the bias and inaccurate reporting. I have often said that half of what you read that is meant to be fact is bull, and the other half is shit. Here is a perfect example.

 

In the UK Daily Mail there is an article headed “ONE glass of wine a night can increase risk of breast cancer by 60 per cent.” According to the article, the findings are based on a study by the Department of Health. A credible source one would think. Wrong. They must either be completly bloody stupid or are have framed the research to give themselves a predetermined result. One of the factors used for the results states, "Stronger wine, varying from 9 per cent to 13 per cent, and larger glasses, varying from 125ml to 250ml, have led to confusion over how many units drinkers consume.”

 

Since when has "stronger wine" been deemed as wine that ranges from 9% to 13% alcohol? If this is indicative of the understanding of the people doing the testing, or analysing the results, it really brings into question their understanding, and the competence of their work. If they would have said 13-16% alcohol it would have been reasonable, but when you start saying that wine at 9% is a problem you have lost all credibility. 

 

No argument that a 250ml glass of wine holds a fair whack of alcohol. That's a third of all bottle. Let's face it, anyone who thinks a third of the bottle of wine is really one glass of wine, is probably about as thick as the glass tumbler they are drinking from, and need some serious education, assuming they are capable of thinking. Or even care about their health.

 

Binge drinking is a problem, wine is not the issue. And bagging wine as the root of all evil will not fix the problem.

 

Updated 30 March

 

Here is another example of a story that has been slanted to present a predetermined position. It appeared in the Herald Sun newspaper.  Headed "You'll pay for good food and wine." The story starts off by stating, "THEY buy organic food, work out and don't smoke, but the lives of affluent professionals are a ticking health time bomb." It then goes on to detail how these successful people drink twice and much wine as the average person and when visiting restaurants, eat fatty foods. It goes on point out that these people are not as healthy as they may think, even though they do a lot of exercise."

 

The article then went on to say, "Many of this work-hard, play-hard generation assume they're being healthy by drinking red wine, which has purported heart-protective benefits in small amounts. But when it's served in huge goblets, they drink way too much." Here is the big, bad bogyman man called wine being given a hard time again. But its not only just wine that cops a serve from the puritanical do-gooders. How about this, "While they eat lots of fruit and vegies, new indulgents also love to re-create dishes promoted by TV chefs, which are often too rich and fatty. The research found Ramsay's shepherd's pie recipe had 24.8g of saturated fat in a single serve. And when mixed with alcohol, a rich diet puts huge pressure on the liver, potentially leading to cirrhosis and cancer."

 

It's true that drinking to much causes problems, but that's the same for beer, wine, or spirits. I am willing to bet my left one that there is a far bigger drinking problem amongst those who drink beer and spirits than those who drink wine. Naturally the journalistic puppets, who repeat any rubbish that comes across their desk as fact in parrot fashion, don't bother to look at the bigger picture or question what they are told. That would be too much like hard work. And it requires the ability to actually think for yourself, not to mention the desire to do so. No, much easier to be a dumb parrot.

 

I bet the average person who likes to re-create those dishes prompted by TV chefs; you know, the ones that will cause a heat attack in one mouthful, have enough time to go home and spend hours in the kitchen every night recreating these masterpieces. Not! The article states these are people who earn over $100K a year so the chances are they actually spend a lot of their time working, and don't have time to prepare these wonderful dishes on a regular basis. They may do it for special occasions, but they wouldn't do it every day.

 

This article also fails to take into account one little fact that is kind of important. Well its about as relevant as oxygen in a submarine. There are nay number of proven reports which shows that in Australia on average, the post codes with higher the highest average income have the lowest level of obesity (and other health problems). The postcodes with the lowest incomes have the highest rates of obesity and health problems. We all know that those in the less affluent areas are not dining on foie gras and sculling Petrus from thieir Riedels every night. More likely a few beers and regular take away pizza or CrapDonalds are forming a chunk of their food intake.

 

So why concentrate so much "fear" publicity on those who are the healthiest? Its called an agenda.              

 

   

Copyright © Ric Einstein 2008