Thursday, April 24, 2003

SARS At what point do we officially start to be concerned about SARS?  Perhaps we already should be, but I just don't get the sense that people in Minnesota are all that concerned about it.  But now, there is troubling word from China that they have severely underestimated the infection rate of the disease, in addition to other intentional misrepresentations about the spread rate, symptoms, history, etc.  On top of that, an entire hospital was sealed today in Beijing, with patients and workers inside, impacting almost 2000 people.  That seems to be a pretty drastic measure. Toronto has also been declared a destination of concern by the WHO, which understandably has Canada up in arms.  Here's the thing: You don't want to have a panic situation, which has already started to happen in some places and industries.  But at the same time, it's clear that the health authorities really don't have a good handle on what SARS is, and there are now hundreds of deaths, with new diagnoses appearing (and being rescinded) each day.  Respiratory ailments, contracted via mysterious means, I think are going to be one of the societal fears that grows in the years to come.  It will become a new boogeyman for our world, the way people used to fear the plague, or polio, or bad weather.  It feeds on the paranoia of an over-populated world and a world in which chemical and biological weapons are a reality.  I suspect the most severe implications will be economic, as entire parts of Asia are being crippled through real and self-imposed travel restrictions.  That's what Toronto is afraid of, too.  Could you imagine if two fatal SARS cases showed up near Disneyworld?  The paranoia isn't just about the disease; it's about entities (like the Chinese government) that have an awful lot to lose if they are seen as having an epidemic on their hands.  Who's covering up what? Still, you can't be too careful.  I personally have taken the precaution of wearing a mask in public, but it's a Richard Nixon mask... 2:28:17 PM    Say what?[]

The Dixie Chicks are fighting back The Dixie Chicks Just Won A Fan... I won't be buying any of their albums, but I just became a huge fan. Why? Not because of their vocal opposition to the war. I'm a fan because they are choosing to fight back against the ignorance of the people who are boycotting their work and their concerts. How many artists do you think would try to shrink away from what they originally said in an effort to not further alienate the record-buying public? I think an awful lot of them. Instead, the Dixie Chicks are taking the offensive, not only defending their actions, but trying to explain their actions via art and protest. I doubt very much that this will win back any of their "fans" that decided to burn their CD's and Dixie Chicks coloring books. What's impressive to me is that the Dixie Chicks seem to know that, and they don't seem to care. 2:10:37 PM    Say what?[]

Who Needs Money When You're Safe? I half expect the above statement to become the Bush campaign slogan in 2004.  Bushco has used the terrorism hammer to win every significant fight since 9/11.  Now that they are finishing one war (and preparing to move to another in Syria?), Bushco is preparing to face the one boogeyman that can keep them from a second term: the economy.  How are they approaching the economy?  With another huge round of tax cuts, natch.  But this time, the Bush Administration is making the attempt to tie the willingness to support the tax cuts into the same patriotic sentiment (and fear) that they tapped into for war support.  The associations aren't quite so blatant now, but I predict they will be as we move forward. Of course, Bush has already been granted a huge tax cut package; why aren't we seeing signs of the "economic stimulus" that he predicted? I just can't believe that the majority of people in this country support what this Administration is doing in the large picture, and specifically with the economy.  But what do I know about the common citizen?  Very little, considering I supposedly am one. For example, I can't believe the common citizen in Minnesota supports allowing more people to legally carry concealed handguns, and yet that seems to be what our local government has decided.  But is that what the common citizen wants, or what the NRA wants?  Either way I know I'll feel safer as long as it's still legal for me to wear my concealed bulletproof vest. I mean, isn't that really exactly what you want in this country, when people are losing their jobs and 401k's at a rate unseen since the early '80s?  You want people to have guns, right?  Fortunately, Americans are so famous for their clear-thinking and restraint.  Now, instead of having to resort to Gandhi-esque soft tactics like boycotting French Fries or the Dixie Chicks, you can just shoot them, American style.  Of course, you might want to invite them over first.  Like Chief Wiggum says, once somebody's in your house, anything you do to them is nice and legal. Remember, guns don't kill people.  People kill people.  And given a choice, people usually kill people with a gun. Why doesn't the Bush Administration just go all the way and offer massive tax credits to any person who buys a gun?  That way we'll be giving the King of England a double whammy.  I can see the new bumper stickers now: Charlton Heston Is My Accountant 12:23:27 PM    Say what?[]

© Copyright 2003 Doug Hennessee. Last update: 5/1/2003; 10:47:46 AM.