Third Party & Independents Archives

The dangers of "Disorderly Pig Rearing"

No person can contract the H1N1 virus (nee Swine Flu) directly from a pig…not even a politician. Yet, the government of Egypt recently sent 400,000 piggly-wigglies to that Big Sty in the Sky.

Pressed for why, an Egyptian “health official” admitted “the authorities took advantage of the situation to resolve the issue of Disorderly Pig Rearing.”

Disorderly Pig Rearing?

More likely, the pretenses of Swine Flu and/or Disorderly Pig Rearing (take your pick) were opportunities to extend anti-Christian bigotry into matters of Egyptian livelihood and diet.

In the parlance of the moment, A Crisis is a Terrible Thing to Waste.

Consider: Protectionist Russia is using Swine Flu as an excuse to ban pork exports from the USA and Canada. And U.S. immigration restrictionists are seizing upon the same opportunity to lobby for a wall along the Mexican border to protect us from their tired, poor, and huddled masses.

In sum, government types are predisposed to tenaciously seizing upon a crisis (whether extant, imagined, or instigated) to dissemble their own particular agendas, whether such agendas are driven by fear, prejudice, ideology, and/or Keynesian orthodoxy.

Not that such a thing could ever happen here in America. Not in a Pig’s Eye.

Posted by Stephen G. Barone at May 10, 2009 5:55 PM
Comment #281492

I’m afraid that while it’s not common, your claim is flatly false; transmission has been documented.

These things actually happen. That’s where the first H1N1 flu virus was found, as a matter of fact: in a pig. There are many kinds of viruses and other diseases that can be transmitted between animals and humans.

This particular H1N1 virus, though, is not typical to our country’s native livestock; it came from somewhere else.

Anti-Christian Bigotry. Good heavens man. There’s nothing anti-Christian about killing pigs. It is probably religiously motivated, with the driving force being the general dislike of swine in Muslim culture. Ironically, they’ll probably catch it sooner from each other than the creatures they’re killing.

That’s their government’s way of handwaving their way towards looking like they’re doing something.

But as for your underlying point?

Mister, you folks drove the economy into the ground, after using the failures of liberals to manage the economy Post-Vietnam as a means of continually tarnishing the opposition’s credentials.

Now things are worse for the economy. Congratulations. Political motivations may matter but as long as they act in our nation’s best interests, that’s the way the system was designed. To put it bluntly, you folks fumbled, we recovered, and we will run this ball for a bit. If we do some good for the country, we will earn the good regard. If we fail to do so, we’ll pay the price, just like the GOP did.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 10, 2009 7:39 PM
Comment #281493

Hmmm, pig’s in Iraq? KBR? Maybe, if you torture some Iraqi’s they’ll confess to being Al Qaeda. How would an ex ceo create high profits while in a blind trust?

2 trillion dollars in savings from the healthcare industry?

What COULD be the motive?

Posted by: gergle at May 10, 2009 7:43 PM
Comment #281494
Not that such a thing could ever happen here in America. Not in a Pig’s Eye. quote tex

So I guess Ronald Reagan did not take advantage of the inflationary crises of the 1970s to implement his right-wing agenda?

In any case, I agree with Stephen regarding the motivation behind the pig slaughter ordered in Egypt. There is a taboo against pigs in Islamic communities, so the leaders lept at the first excuse they had to get rid of the pigs. In a related note, Afghanistan’s one and only pig (located in the Kabul zoo) has now been quarantined because of fears that uninformed zoo visitors might believe that the pig was dangerous.

Posted by: Warped Reality at May 10, 2009 11:31 PM
Comment #281503

It is not just governments that take every opportunity in a crisis to advance their agenda, most corporations and many people do the same.

It is not just the Qur’an that speaks against pigs, the Bible has it’s say also. Leviticus 11.7 and 8.

Posted by: j2t2 at May 11, 2009 2:08 PM
Comment #281506

What happened I thought they were the Horizontal Human, pot bellied pigs make great pets!

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 11, 2009 3:18 PM
Comment #281515

Why I think most of the Establishments throughout the world over reacted I can’t help to wonder what would have happened if the governments once again done nothing to stop a Natural Crisis.

So why I do believe that most got or will get compensation for the pigs I do see the lost of livestock more as a waste of renewable resources than an attack of Man. However, I do understand the concern of others on the issue since what would happen if the next time millions of citizens would have to be forced into Medical Camps.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at May 12, 2009 2:23 AM
Comment #281516

The City of Baguio in the Philippines,which so far has no reported swine flu, sent the police to the city market and siezed a bunch of pork. I suspect the pork is now in the freezers of several officials for safe keeping.

Kenynesian ortodoxy? A bit of a contradiction in terms,especially considering the legions of supply side Stepford wives being churned out by major universities these past twenty years or so.

Posted by: bills at May 12, 2009 6:39 AM
Comment #281529

Who wouldn’t ban American pork potentially tainted? The only reason we embargoed Cuba is because we were pissed at Castro for a successful Communist country, something we didn’t want to happen! And this isn’t very political. The most far out you could go with this is to illegalize unprotected sex with barnyard animals. And where does Christianity come into this? Stop using religion as a vehicle of seperation and hate! Religion has nothing to do with this! I’m unable to fluently speak to pigs, but I very much doubt they’re Christians. Egypt is doing what they’re doing out of fear of an uncontrollable epidemic! Not very intellegant, but not anything like anti-Christian.

Posted by: Aaron Hughes at May 12, 2009 9:43 PM
Comment #281532

The Swine Flu is just media/political hype. It’s a real virus for sure, but it’s no more dangerous than malaria, dysentery, typhoid, normal flu, or the hundreds of other diseases that kill (and keep our population in check) humans around the world.

Analysts love to point out “the similarity” of the 1918 pandemic to this virus, though they omit that fact that nobody back then knew much about prevention or treatment of said virus, just like how mostly poorer populations of countries like Egypt have no idea how it’s transmitted as-

Pig -> Human ->Human->Human->Human……

That being said, as horrible as it is, the world is ripe and overdue for a pandemic that would control our exploding population.

Posted by: Jon at May 12, 2009 11:07 PM
Comment #281536

I’m not a big fan of the “let microbes keep our population in check” notion. The trouble with that idea is that depopulation by germs is not exactly the most elegant solution to that problem if elegant solutions truly do exist.

The Swine Flu is dangerous because it’s an airborne pathogen with a marked preference for the young, the healthy and the strong. Unlike most Flu Viruses that came on the scene since then, the 1918 strain didn’t kill the old, the weak, the sick and children, it went right after folks who would ordinarily be thought not to be likely to die of the infection.

Yes, we’re better at prevention. Even so, it doesn’t mean people will act to prevent it. Yes, we have anti-viral drugs, but they are not a cure.

This is not media/political hype, and it does our country a disservice to consider it in those terms, because that gives liberty to all kinds of self-serving impulse regarding an issue that really needs people to understand the collective issues at stake.

We can get ahead of these pandemics, or they can get ahead of us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 13, 2009 9:03 AM
Comment #281537

Stephen -

True, but I look at it in terms of the natural order, the more congested and overpopulated we are, the more likely that new viruses will emerge and sicken a majority of that population. We have no say in the matter of a virus or disease that forms itself to harm or kill a large number of people before it dies down or there’s a vaccine for it.

Places like the U.S., as congested as we are, are nowhere close to the urban areas of India, China and South America, Mexico City for example.

As much as I’ve learned of medicine, and knowing that as little as I know now, I don’t believe that it’s in humanity’s place to prevent every single sickness, virus, everywhere in the world, as a greater threat of population explosions can result, leading to famine, mass poverty, civil strife and instability. I wish we could control our population a better way, but the reality is some urban families having 8-12 children and their children having 8-12 children, and so on, is much worse in the long run that a virus.

To combat this, nature devised the best way to fight cull overpopulation, in ANY species and that is disease. While I’ll accept that’s a hard fact as a person to swallow, but fighting nature sometimes leads to a worse outcome.

Posted by: Jon at May 13, 2009 9:17 AM
Comment #281540

The Plagues of the 14th century wiped out 30-60 percent of europe, They had to blame someone IE the minorities the “Others” and had another effect “uncertainty ” if i’m going to go so are you and the rest.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 13, 2009 12:15 PM
Comment #281545

Nature didn’t devise anything. It doesn’t devise. Most widespread diseases are actually relatively mild. Those that kill quickly burnout their host populations before they can spread.

But even so, you occasionally get huge, deadly plagues, and though we can muse philosophically about what a good thing it would be to get rid of excess population, when it actually happens, it’s not altogether pleasant as an experience, and few people look for repeats.

I think the better exercise is looking for ways to better handle our growing population, not try to cop out of it by waiting for the next deadly plague.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 13, 2009 5:18 PM
Comment #281546


Nature does plan, is what I meant, I’d like to think nothing is just born out of chaos. If say, we exterminate cancer or a host of illnesses in the next 100 years, all well and good, but the world can’t sustain more than 10 billion people, and by something like 2050(or maybe 2040) we may reach or exceed that point.

Unless we somehow mass sterilize (extremely unethical) or convince people to have 1-2 children per couple that number is *going* to happen. It’s not copping out to wait for the flu, pox etc, because it’s inevitable that it’s going to happen.

For example, before the Darfur crisis, southern Sudan and parts of Chad always had droughts/famine, it’s the desert right? Yet people are always shocked to see malnourished children in those countries, when they don’t realize that food, shelter, and medicine is in short supply all the time because there are way way too many people in large numbers together but are spread out enough to make relief or sustainable living very hard. Same thing goes for the slums in Mexico City, where poverty and density jam together to make a perfect environment for sickness.

On the topic, wherever there is disease, politics have always found a way to exploit it, for good or ill, and in recent history, Big Pharma and certain individuals with vested interests in creating hysteria have reaped cash by the billions.

Posted by: Jon at May 14, 2009 2:23 AM
Comment #281550

Mexico city is densely populated. But so is Tokyo. Chad and Southern Sudan did not always have such problems with water and food; civil wars and resource mismanagement play a role. Changes in climate have as well. The sense that big populations necessarily create resource shortages helps people cop out of the realization that half of the problems are both man-made, and man-unmakeable at the same time.

Disease in urban areas was once considered a given, an impossible to avoid consequence of large people gathering. But ever since a Cholera Outbreak ended at the removal of the pump handle of a contaminated well, improvements in hygeine, sanitation, and other services and practices have cut down communicable diseases. Vaccination and the discovery of Antibiotics has also helped.

I don’t like to buy into arguments that declare something like commonly known diseases like bird and swine flu as frauds, created to benefit big pharma. Where’s the evidence? If you show me conversations, memoes and whatnot, okay, but before that it, it is speculation, and irresponsible at that, in the perspective of previous, dangerous pandemics of this kind.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at May 14, 2009 10:36 AM
Comment #281554

• 5,000 children die every day from water-born illnesses. That’s roughly one child every 15 seconds.

• 1.1 billion people live without access to clean water—that’s nearly one sixth of the world’s population.

• 90 percent of all diseases in the world are caused by unsafe drinking water, inadequate sanitation, and poor hygiene.

• At any given time, half of the world’s hospital beds are occupied by patients suffering from a water-related disease.

• Every year, 4 billion cases of diarrhea result from drinking contaminated water; this results in more than 2.2 million deaths each year—the equivalent of 20 jumbo jets crashing every day.

• In sub-Saharan Africa alone, 40 billion hours of labor are wasted each year carrying water over long distances.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 14, 2009 12:04 PM
Comment #281567

RE Swine Flu Even the scientist who disagree say no stone should be left unturned. And Quote,1918 Flu per Wiki “”Deadly second wave
The second wave of the 1918 pandemic was much deadlier than the first. During the first wave, which began in early March, the epidemic resembled typical flu epidemics. Those at the most risk were the sick and elderly, and younger, healthier people recovered easily. But in August, when the second wave began in France, Sierra Leone and the United States,[39] the virus had mutated to a much more deadly form. This has been attributed to the circumstances of the first World War.[40] In civilian life evolutionary pressures favor a mild strain: those who get really sick stay home, but those mildly ill continue with their lives, go to work and go shopping, preferentially spreading the mild strain. In the trenches the evolutionary pressures were reversed: soldiers with a mild strain remained where they were, while the severely ill were sent on crowded trains to crowded field hospitals, spreading the deadlier virus. So the second wave began and flu quickly spread around the world again.[41] It was the same flu, in that those who recovered from first-wave infections were immune, but it was far more deadly, and the most vulnerable people were those like the soldiers in the trenches—young, otherwise healthy, adults.[42] Consequently, during modern pandemics, health officials pay attention when the virus reaches places with social upheaval, looking for deadlier strains of the virus.[41]

Posted by: Rodney Brown at May 14, 2009 3:14 PM
Comment #281597

Swine Flu is only as contagious as the latest scandal to hit Washington D. C. Checking the dates that the pig got out of hand against the dates that the pig made the news, will tell the whole story in a “nut shell.”

Posted by: Donna F. Fallis at May 15, 2009 11:11 AM
Comment #281604

“Loyalty to petrified opinion never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world—and never will”.

Posted by: cyndi swipes at May 15, 2009 1:34 PM
Comment #282423

Donna F. Fallis-
Here’s what I would say: We can never get perfect information, but it’s better to gain information from questionable sources and verify for yourself their authenticity or falsity, than to leave ourselves unaware about all but the information we trust.

The Republicans had the misfortune of their trusted sources betraying them, and those continue to betray them. If they surveyed more information and took reasonable steps to see what was true and what was not, they could have more control over the information that comes into them, and therefore their own destiny.

Which is why I do not subscribe to disregarding official information. You can deal with it skeptically, all citizens should. But it’s better to be aware of that information, than to be ignorant of it in case it’s actually right.

Which, all indications from the scientific side of things, it is. We should not be judging information about the real world through political filters, because there are going to be certain hard truths that the parties, all of them, are not prepared to face.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 3, 2009 6:35 PM
Post a comment