Showing posts with label swimming pool. Show all posts
Showing posts with label swimming pool. Show all posts

Thursday, August 13, 2009

French Fakeroversy


And today's international fakeroversy (fake controversy) hails from a swimming pool in Paris in the land of France. What we have there is a woman who goes by the name of Carole who wished to use the local swimming pool. She ended up being banned in the pool because she was not wearing swimming attire which had been deemed appropriate for such an activity (ie, all the swimming). According to the AP, France has "...unusually strict hygiene standards in pools". I don't know what "unusually strict" is supposed to mean when it comes to "hygiene standards in pools", but I wrongly assumed that it had something to do with bodily functions when, in fact, it has to do with the attire that you wear in the pool. (Actually, I think I'm in favor of unusually strict hygiene standards in most instances which involve members of the public. Have you been out in public? Heathens, I tell you. Unhygienic heathens roaming about!) I then again wrongly assumed that this woman must have been banned for being unclad or less than clad (going by the French standards of clad, of course). In fact, she was banned because she wanted to wear the Muslim equivalent of a swimsuit, the burquini, in the pool. Behold!
Oh, what the hell is that? THAT is a woman clad in a burquini (or burkini). Yes. She was going to go swimming in that! Now, if you're like me and you were thinking that a burquini is a cross between Delta Burke and a martini, well, you'd be wrong. The word "burquini" is a cross between a "burqua (or burka)" and a "bikini (or bikini)". I, for one, think that sounds asindiculous (a cross between "asinine" and "ridiculous") and for one glaring reason. That get-up that she's wearing has absolutely NOTHING to do with a bikini! It's not in the bikini family! It's not even a neighbor of the bikini! I doubt that it would even be the bikini's pen pal! But I digress. Where was I? OH, right...asinidiculous.


The public pool policy of the French says that "...swimmers are prevented from wearing any street-compatible or baggy clothing, such as Bermuda shorts, in favor of figure-hugging suits." Apparently, the guidelines include "...swimsuits for women and tight, swim-specific briefs for men — and caps to cover their hair. Bathers also must shower before entering the water." Sounds fun and relaxing, doesn't it? Yeah, not so much. So clearly, the woman's burquini did not conform to those standards. Thus, she was banned. That would be the end of the story if she wasn't Muslim. Then again, if she wasn't Muslim this wouldn't have happened in the first place...because she wouldn't have been wearing the burquini at all! She would have been wearing more appropriate pool attire. Perhaps like that of Carla Bruni, wife of France's President Sarkozy. Behold!


You guessed it. Because she's Muslim, her not being able to swim in the pool whilst fully clothed is due to her being Muslim...if you ask her. If you ask anyone else, they'll tell you it has nothing to do with Muslim and that it had to to with the fact that what she wanted to wear in the pool isn't allowed. Nope. Not according to her. According to her? Muslim!

When she purchased the burquini, she did so because "it would allow me the pleasure of bathing without showing too much of myself, as Islam recommends. For me this is nothing but segregation." See, and that's where it becomes apparent that she and I are difference because for me, this is nothing but her needing a dictionary so she can become familiar with the term "segregation" and what the actual definition is because this is a lot of things, but it is not segregation.

I would have (yes, again, incorrectly) assumed that not being able to wear something that looks like a cross between a housecoat and a wet suit in the pool would be a safety issue. When something like that gets wet, it's going to add a ton of weight for you to carry around. Drowning sounds like an option in that scenario. No public pool wants the drowning stigma attached to it. But it turns out, the reasoning isn't necessarily safety. If you believe a one Daniel Guillaume (with the choice job of being "a regional official in charge of swimming pools), he said "....swimmers throughout France must wear special clothes to the pool, whereas a burquini could be worn all day long, collecting everything from food spills to sweat along the way." Spills? Maybe, maybe not. But sweat? OH, heck yes they're sweating in those things! It'd be like spending every day in your own personal traveling sauna.

Mr. Guillaume said, "These clothes are used in public, so they can contain molecules, viruses, et cetera, which will go in the water and could be transmitted to other bathers. We reminded this woman that one should not bathe all dressed, just as we would tell someone who is a nudist not to bathe all naked." VERY glad to hear about the "don't bathe naked" guideline there. That was some good thinkin'. (You think there's problems with the burquini? Double those problems if you've got a naked guy.) I disagree with Mr. Guillaume's rationale, as the "molecules and viruses" that he cites would likely be killed by the chlorine in the pool. That's just an aside to the fact that "molecules and viruses" are transmitted in a gazillion ways, and being fully clad in a swimming pool is probably just one of them. (Since when did "molecules" become part of the conversation? What happened to good old fashioned bacteria?)


As far as the purchase of the burquini (God, I'm hating that word SO much right now), "I thought that it could enable me to enjoy the pleasure of bathing without uncovering myself, as Islam recommends.” Yeah, see, that's the thing. Islam recommends a lot of stuff and not all of it is acceptable. Perhaps she is unaware that for women, Islam is a bit repressive. She also said, "I understand that it might shock people, but I am annoyed because I have been told that it is a political matter. I didn’t set out to cause a stir." Well then, whoever is telling you that it is a "political matter" is wrong. It's not. (She's not listening.)

I guess she might have viewed this next statement she made as some sort of a threat or something, but it's really a grand solution to the whole thing. Actually, it's the most reasonable solution to the whole thing. She said, " “I will fight to try to change things. And if I see that the battle is lost, I cannot rule out leaving France.” You're going to leave? France? You're going to leave France if you can't swim wearing a complete track suit? That sounds like the best solution I've heard yet!

See, that's how a lot of things work. If you don't like it how it is where you are, you are able to go somewhere else where you might find the surroundings and the rules within a bit more to your liking. Are folks supposed to be appalled by that? You want to take your ball and go home? Have at it. Can I pack your burquini for you?

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, June 18, 2009

The Most Obvious Information You'll Read All Day

News is good. We like news. We don't like news that is not news. Is Lindsay Lohan always news? Always? No. Is Lindsay Lohan without a shirt on making out with a chick who is much hotter than Samantha Ronson always news? Yeah, pretty much. (Hey! In order to make this particular analogy work, I needed someone hotter than Sam! What's wrong with that? It's two chicks hypothetically making out! I don't think it's time for complaining!) But where I get stuck is when the obvious (aka the 'not news') makes its way into the news stream or is presented as news.

Case in point (also known as 'that which irritated me today') would be an article in the
New York Times bearing the title "In Some Swimming Pools, a Nasty Intestinal Parasite". And they're not referring to that one neighbor kid down the street, either. It goes on to talk about how "Reports of gastrointestinal illness from use of public pools and water parks have risen sharply in recent years" because of a"...microscopic organism that lives in human feces" which spread illnesses "...when people ingest contaminated water." Ewww.

It's something called cryptosporidium. (Things that live in places like the human rectum usually have names like that. There's always an -ium or an -ius at the end.) The reason it can live in chlorinated water is because it's a smart little thing that has a little egglike shell on the outside of it which allows it to hang out for as long as 10 days in the water. It's as if Superman were not vulnerable to kryptonite (and if he lived in poo). In 2007 there were 31 recreational water outbreaks (ie, public swimming pools) which involved 3,726 unfortunate individuals. In 2004 there were 7 outbreaks with 567 people involved. They don't know if there's more of the poo-bug in the pools or if the increase is just because we've turned into a panic ridden society and there is more reporting of the incidents. (Oh, I'm paraphrasing there just a little bit.)

So let's just use our collective noggins to noodle through this here. The crypto butt bug lives in feces. Illnesses are spread when people ingest water the the crypto butt bug has been swimming in. Thus, the crypto butt bug has to find its way into the water. (We are assuming that the water is intended to be free of any and all forms of feces. You know. Because people are swimming in it!) This can be avoided by not having poo in the pool. Solved! Our work is done here! Who's up for a drink!

Not so fast. In the article, a one Michele C. Hlavsa of the CDC tells us "People should not swim or allow their children to swim when they have diarrhea." ::: blink ::: ::: blink ::: And newspapers wonder why their revenue is dropping. I was reading this online, but had I picked up my morning paper from the very end of the driveway (because for some reason, newspaper delivery folks have de-volved to where their arm cannot fling a paper more than a foot and a half from the curb) and read that helpful hint I'd be asking a few questions. Let me get this straight. I am paying for this subscription. Therefore, by including content such as "Don't go in a pool when your bowel control is questionable or non-existent" the publisher of said newspaper is assuming that I WANT that sort of information, that I must have ASKED for that sort of information as implied by my subscription to their lovely periodical. Not only is it assumed that I wanted and asked for that information, it is also implied that I wanted it SO badly that I was willing to PAY FOR IT!! Newsflash: I DON'T! I DIDN'T! AND I'M NOT!

Seriously? That's the best you've got for me? Who is that for? I don't think that information is for folks for read the New York Freaking Times! At least I certainly hope it isn't.

Oh, but as if that isn't bad enough, as I continued reading I realized how much they had hyped up this 'story' to make it appear worse than it is. We read about the increase in outbreaks and in people affected to be a difference of 3,159 more people in 2007 than in 2004. One has to wonder if there is anyone out there who is NOT swimming in poo! But later on they quote a one Utah epidemiologist Robert T. Rolfs who says that "One of the largest recent crypto outbreaks occurred in Utah in 2007. There were 2,000 confirmed cases". Wait. What? ONE of those outbreaks has 2,000 people affected? So, excluding that there were only 1,726 people affected by 30 instances? Well, that averages out to 57 people per incident, while in 2005 the average was 81 people per incident. So really, the average number of people affected by each instance of this has decreased. There are several reasons that could be speculated about as to why this is and some of them might even be relevant. Then again, some may not, as Dr. Rolfs noted that the aforementioned large outbreak was eventually slowed by "...temporarily barring all children 5 and younger from pools" and that the outbreak subsided "...after the swimming season."


Really?! AFTER swimming season, when there were no people in the public swimming pool that was affected, that is when the outbreak subsided? REALLY?! Shocking! Aren't the methods of modern science grand?! Ah, yes, it's a great time to be alive. Please kill me.

Once again my beloved statistics were brutally misused and assaulted by some gung-ho reporter (probably should be dung-ho for this story) who seemed intent on terrorizing the public by insinuating that feces in public swimming pools is on the rise (literally in most instances) and we should all be concerned about it! Oh, pipe down. (Believe me when I say that yes, feces in swimming pools IS a concern and SHOULD be a concern of all. Is it a NEW concern? Good Lord, I hope not.)

Did you notice how I just sort of breezed over the other insultingly obvious point in this non-news story? The part about ingesting water that's contaminated with the crypto butt bug is what makes you sick, so don't do that? Really? So, just so I understand, because it's a difficult concept to grasp, DON'T drink water that has feces in it? Because if I'm really thirsty, I'll just head right on over to the local swimming pool and just dunk my head right in the water and start gulping away. So, don't do that? I better write that down. Where's my pen?

It's like I'm reading an edition of the Helmeted Folks Times or something. Another 'need to know' tidbit they share with us is "never use the pool as a toilet." Again, GOOD TO KNOW! But then, for some reason that is completely unfathomable to me, they tell us "Children in diapers require vigilant attention."

::: blink ::: ::: blink ::: Why, yes. Children in diapers DO require vigilant attention. Yes, they do. ALL THE TIME! Not JUST at the freaking pool! But hey, if your kid is in diapers, should they be in the pool at all? Well, I guess, if you're going by the implication of that sentence and the prior golden advice of "don't swim with diarrhea", that seems to imply that it's FINE! Just be VIGILANT! After all, they might be in diapers, but do they have diarrhea? If not, then just be VIGILANT! It's a wonder there were ONLY 31 instances of this happening in 2007.

Other ways you can "protect yourself"? (Avoid people that write articles such at the one in the NY Times, for starters.) "Water in pools should not be cloudy, tiles should not be slick and filtration machines should hum in the background." Got that? So if you can't see the bottom of the pool and you're slipping on tiles covered in fecal matter, don't swim there. I know! I know! It sounds crazy! But after all, this was in the New York Times. They must know what they're talking about.

And so do I. That's why I'm pretty sure we're doomed. DOOOOOMMMMED! Happy swimming.

Stumble Upon Toolbar Sphere: Related Content