Saturday, November 12, 2011

Occupy Wall Street...Is Hazardous to Your Health

It's been a bad few weeks for the Occupy movement - a homicide in Oakland, a suicide in San Diego, two drug overdose-related deaths in Toronto, and one unexplained death in Oklahoma City. Sad, but not unexpected for such a broad movement. However, there is something more disturbing rising from this movement...

Since at least the 19th Century, public health officials have fought hard to educate the public of the importance of proper hygiene and sanitation. It was observed that people living in cramped, unsanitary conditions caused the fast, virulent spread of deadly airborne diseases. As a result, cities and towns set about developing a system of public sewage disposal, indoor toilets, public parks, and the aggressive education of the need for proper hygiene. The simple act of washing one's hands has save more lives than all the antibiotics in the world. In the last 50 years, the Plague, cholera, typhoid, yellow fever, tuberculosis and many other diseases have all but been eradicated from the "first world" because of these agressive public health systems. Airborne diseases like influenza, that wiped out nearly 16 million people in 1918, are, today, just inconveniences for healthy people.

So why the public health history lesson? Well, as they say, when one does not understand history, one is doomed to repeat it. And when a group of people who have been raised in a world where major problems of public health have progressed to the dangers of "transfats" and "obesity", it is not even in their thought process that there is a reason for proper sanitation beyond the smell. Okay, I will get to my point - the Occupy movement has become a matter of public health! In the last few weeks, there has been an alarming rise in reported cases of airborne and sexually transmitted diseases running rampant through the Occupy camps. Respiratory ailments are so prevalent at the Occupy Wall Street camp that medical professionals have a name for it - "Zuccotti Lung". More disturbing is the antibiotic-resistant strain of tuberculosis that cropped up at Occupy Atlanta. And now, the occupiers are hunkering down for the Winter. Big military-style tents began to crop up at Zuccotti Park this week and it is rumored that there are bunkbeds coming to fill them. No running water, no proper toilet facilities, and cramped, closed quarters - the only thing left is a an outbreak of cholera, and we will be right back to the 19th Century. The health department has shut down businesses for not keeping soup at the proper temperature. Is it going to take a typhoid epidemic for our Mayor to do something?

208 comments:

  1. Zuccotti Lung! Wow. Of course, any sane person would realize there's a reason the rest of us really, really like things like showers and toilets. But I guess that escapes them.

    One thing is for sure, the Boy Scouts wouldn't have had this problem!

    The STDs don't surprise me either because that was inevitable with this crew. They aren't exactly a particularly "moral bunch" and I don't think needle sharing is helping either.

    ReplyDelete
  2. P.S. Bev, Do you mind if we hijack your thread later for the debate? (CBS 8:00 PM EST)?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Please feel free use my thread, but can we not use the H-word? It's so unduly aggressive and it might cause the DHS to shut us down! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Andrew - You are absolutely right that the Boy Scouts wouldn't be having these problems. And I suspect that there aren't very many Scouts in the movement anyway. What is surprising is all the medical professionals involved in this movement and who have volunteered their time at OWS who don't seem to know much about public health themselves!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sorry Bev, can we please "involuntarily-confiscate-to-another-location" (ICTAL) your thread! Or is it just "man-made-relocationists"? ;)


    By the way, I saw a great quote from Frank Miller (Sin City, 300) about the OWS people today:

    Everybody’s been too damn polite about this nonsense:

    The “Occupy”movement, whether displaying itself on Wall Street or in the streets of Oakland (which has, with unspeakable cowardice, embraced it) is anything but an exercise of our blessed First Amendment. “Occupy” is nothing but a pack of louts, thieves, and rapists, an unruly mob, fed by Woodstock-era nostalgia and putrid false righteousness. These clowns can do nothing but harm America.

    “Occupy” is nothing short of a clumsy, poorly-expressed attempt at anarchy, to the extent that the “movement” – HAH! Some “movement”, except if the word “bowel” is attached – is anything more than an ugly fashion statement by a bunch of iPhone, iPad wielding spoiled brats who should stop getting in the way of working people and find jobs for themselves.

    This is no popular uprising. This is garbage. And goodness knows they’re spewing their garbage – both politically and physically – every which way they can find.

    Wake up, pond scum. America is at war against a ruthless enemy.


    Ouch!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bev, That's a really good point. They claim to have help from all kinds of professionals (doctors, lawyers, etc.) and yet either no one is offering their skills or no one is listening?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bev: Public health is a major factor. But just remember that most major cities (San Francisco in the forefront) leave homeless people wallowing in their own filth in alleys and encampments, worrying more about offending bums than about protecting public health. I'll be surprised if they use the obvious public health issue as their excuse for removing the trash (human and otherwise), if they remove it at all.

    One of the slogans of the hippies in the 60s was "cleanliness is next to nothing." The hippies were hygiene personified next to this generation of filthmeisters.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Woot woot! A debate tonight!

    Bev, Be careful going near those people because soon you'll be hearing about second-hand Zuccotti. ;D

    ReplyDelete
  9. LawHawk - this movement is just the grandchild of the Haight-Ashbury crowd - mostly overeducated, upper middle class white children who are rebelling against growing up.

    ReplyDelete
  10. DUQ - I already have second-hand Zuccotti lung...
    I thought the smell was just a myth perpetrated by "The Man". But I walked across the street and downwind this week and let's just say, it is sooo not a myth...yipe!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Andrew, Bev, what we are trying to do here is build consensus on redistribution of this thread from the Bourgeois bloggers to the Proletariat commenters. You can't see it, but I'm doing Zuccotti jazz-hands right now.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Zuccotti jazz hands. LOL!

    Are you ready for the debate? It looks like it's only going to be an hour long and based on foreign policy. No wonder they dumped it on a Saturday night!

    ReplyDelete
  13. You know me, Mr. Saturday Night with my two toddlers.

    ReplyDelete
  14. But wait, I thought foreign policy was so important that Cain is automatically disqualified for not having any.

    ReplyDelete
  15. That sounds like what the debate moderators are thinking... stuck with a bunch of toddlers.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So it's 90 minutes! My TV lied to me!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Notice their little montage ahead of the debate? Nothing inaccurate, but boiling each candidate's platform down like that ahead of the show puts most people in a frame of mind. Just my communications background showing.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I wonder what the ratings will be with this being a Saturday night?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think the best thing to come out of the Occupy movement is the "jazz hands". Nothing says "militant anarchy" like good choreography.

    ReplyDelete
  20. tryanmax, That's true. Everything is set up to make sure you aren't expecting a game show.

    Do the podiums strike anyone as a game show?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Forget that, I'm not going on line for the last half hour. Jerks.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The last half-hour won't be on the network, you'll have to get it on streaming video from cbs.com

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Please state your answers in the form of a question."

    ReplyDelete
  24. Cain emphasizes supporting the Iranian freedom movement before any military action. Good thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Lawhawk, That's a horrible ideas isn't it? Who is going to switch to their internet to watch the second half?

    ReplyDelete
  26. I love the way Cain pronounces "Ohl."

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sanctions only work if everybody is in on it. Russia and China make sanctions ineffective, and work to their advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  28. tryanmax: I had an office manager from Texas who pronounes it awl.

    ReplyDelete
  29. A moderator admits error. Hallelujah!

    ReplyDelete
  30. I can imagine a policy to dump American oil into the market such that Iran can't keep up, but now I'm reading my own fantasies into the answers.

    ReplyDelete
  31. He should have built credible action to create an affirmative zone to encourage others to participate in the medium which might achieve out goals.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Romney won't put war on the table, but given where we are and what we know, saying he would go to war is premature.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Romney basically said, given the choice, I'll take both.

    ReplyDelete
  34. How long do you think it take Romeny to order a sandwich? And how many sentences does he use?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Newt's turn. He says Romney and Cain both have superior thinking to Obama's.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Newt -- "maximum covert operations."

    I have to say I like that answer.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Oh oh... Paul.

    "We should be friends."

    ReplyDelete
  38. Good for Newt. Someone who advocates using covert activities.

    ReplyDelete
  39. That's an answer that even Dems I know would like. The old, "Do what you must but don't tell me about it."

    ReplyDelete
  40. sanctions don't work... never have.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Perry adds sanctioning the Iranian National Bank. Not bad.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Andrew: I agree (as above). But freezing Iranian assets would help a little. In most other areas, sanctions are a waste of time.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I like that he called O out for lack of support of the military.

    ReplyDelete
  44. WTF is "endless stamina for victory"?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Perry does seem really nervous, though.

    ReplyDelete
  46. So Santorum wants to win the Afghan civil war.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Santorum thinks the defeat of the Taliban would secure Afghanistan. It won't.

    ReplyDelete
  48. blah blah blah...Santorum needs to quit.

    ReplyDelete
  49. If only the world had listened to Santorum, nothing bad would ever have happened.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Santorum demand more time to babble. But at least he supports Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Bachmann revisits the surge.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Does Bachmann look like she just got back from a funeral to anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Bachmann is being too specific. That's gonna lose many people.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Publicly Setting a time table pis truly stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  55. But Bachmann also raises the issue of absolute withdrawal dates and the problems with insurgents in Pakistan.

    ReplyDelete
  56. tryanmax, True. The difference between 40k and 30k and which provinces won't mean anything to people.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I think Huntsman is right... and I hate that.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Huntsman channels Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "Pull out now and nuke the country from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."

    ReplyDelete
  60. We've been negotiating with them for years.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Donkeys bray. What does the rino say?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Andrew: You're right, and now he is at least adding the intelligence and covert activities necessity, and preparedness for outbreaks. Afghanistan is a problem nobody can solve without careful planning for new eventualities.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Timetable, timetable, blah, blah, blah.

    ReplyDelete
  64. It's a sh*thole that isn't worth any American lives.

    Newt is right -- you can't win this!

    ReplyDelete
  65. Newt ties the success of the Taliban to the terrorist camps in Pakistan. Realistic.

    ReplyDelete
  66. This is a huge problem that needs to be solved region wise. We can't solve this by just killing a couple guys in caves.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Thank you, Newt, for saying that the Middle East is not solvable by a soundbite.

    ReplyDelete
  68. I like that answer...what commitments will Pakistan make. Hold them to it, regional strategy.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Cain seems to have prepared well for discussion of Pakistan as it relates to the Afghanistan-area problem.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Perry wants to cut foreign aid to those countries who oppose us or covertly undermine us. I like that.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Romney looks constipated. I had to say it.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Yes, we should stop our foreign aid the Taliban until they get honest with us.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I too like the idea of $0 in foreign aid, but that's not the answer to the Pakistan problem.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I agree with Perry that our foreign aid system (if you can call it that) is totally messed-up and sends mixed messages to the world.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Perry also says "foreign aid" should emphasize actual work rather than money given to profligate governments who may not even support us. I like that too.

    ReplyDelete
  76. 7 Mississippi
    0 Louisiana Tech

    (2nd Quarter)

    ReplyDelete
  77. Nice reference to O's "friends"

    ReplyDelete
  78. All the candidates are doing well in describing the Middle East as complicated and convoluted.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Tam, Tryanmax and Lawhawk, I don't disagree. I think the system is broken and should be fixed and I don't know why we're paying anything.

    But that isn't he answer to how we fix Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Newt agrees with Perry. It's not the only answer, but it's a good start. $0 if you oppose us, help if you support us.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Thanks, Tam. I missed that. (Toddlers.)

    ReplyDelete
  82. YES! "Arab Spring" is not all sunshine and flowers.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Newt agrees with me (LOL). The Arab Spring is quickly becoming the Anti-Christian Spring.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Andrew, you're right, it's no fix, which was the question (sort of). But no fix would be complete without addressing it.

    ReplyDelete
  85. What is he talking about? There is a HUGE difference between 20 idiots acting as terrorist and a country that hates us and is undermining us.

    ReplyDelete
  86. I'm sorry, did that male mannequin they put on stage say something?

    ReplyDelete
  87. Santorum is showing at least a basic understanding of realpolitik. We must keep Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in the fold, but he doesn't have a good plan for how to do that.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Lawhawk, I agree. Rick gets the ultimate issue, but doesn't know how to get there except "keep doing what we're doing, it will all work out."

    ReplyDelete
  89. While they're taking the break, I have to continue to be impressed by Gingrich's steadfastness and deep knowledge of another area of presidential power and world politics.

    ReplyDelete
  90. tryanmax, It definitely is part of the whole package that needs to be fixed.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Santorum is doing all the convolution that make it impossible to have a serious discussion about the ME. I didn't expect that from him. That's usually a leftist tactic. I guess the difference is that he's doing it by accident.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Lawhawk, I agree with that. Newt continues to impress.

    In fact, none of them seem really out of their depth here, but I do have to note that few of them have said much more than "get 'em" or and "stop sending them money."

    ReplyDelete
  93. tryanmax, That's been his style in the prior debates too, he's 100% acting like a politician.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Newt ain't gonna bite, Mr. Moderator. "Every single one of us is better than Barack Obama."

    ReplyDelete
  95. This is why Newt is gaining in the polls.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Taking on the "absurdities" of the UN. CHEERS!

    ReplyDelete
  97. And that is jobs, and legitimate government.

    ReplyDelete
  98. That's a good answer by Cain. Very smart answer to an impossible question.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Cain's answer: the conservative approach in a nutshell. Nice!

    ReplyDelete
  100. "I don't hire people who disagree with me."

    BAD ANSWER... those are called "yes men."

    ReplyDelete
  101. Sadly, we are still confused about what Santorum believes.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Cain makes a good argument for having top advisers. But so did Kennedy prior to the Bay of Pigs. They even called themselves "the best and brightest." At some point, a crisis that requires an immediate decision from the Commander-in-Chief will be required, and there may not be time to consult all your advisors.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Cain says: I want a lot of opinions.

    Santorum says: I want an echo.


    Who do you trust?

    ReplyDelete
  104. Perry remembers the Department of Energy. Good laughs all around.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Good point, Lawhawk, especially in light of how they framed the debate at the outset, talking about crises that occurred in the first 100 days.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Perry is right about there being plenty of departments which could handle nuclear issues without relying on the useless Department of Energy. Eliminate it.

    ReplyDelete
  107. At the same time, not a bad answer.

    ReplyDelete
  108. So Perry plans to bring Texans National Guard people to advise him in Washington?

    ReplyDelete
  109. Oh, boy. Here comes the "torture" debate again. I oppose torture, Cain opposes torture. So who gets to define torture? Cain would rely on the military to draw the line. Maybe right, maybe not.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Cain would bring back waterboarding. Good (I know several people here disagree).

    ReplyDelete
  111. Bachmann: Good line. The ACLU is being allowed to run the CIA.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Yeah, this isn't "Do you support torture?" This is "How do you define torture?" Stupid question.

    ReplyDelete
  113. I don't disagree. I have a bumper sticker that says "I'd rather be waterboarding." It's effective.

    ReplyDelete
  114. ...and proving my point. Thanks Ron.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Paul says waterboarding is torture. His definition of torture obviously is at odds with Cain's. I'm with Cain.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Siberia is where Huntsman belongs.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Again, not asking them if they oppose torture, just asking them to define it. Grrrr!

    ReplyDelete
  118. Huntsman agrees with Paul. Uh, oh. We're outnumbered.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Of course absolutely. If you go to war with the US, you die.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Perry would shoot 'em all because this should be the American Century. Huh?

    ReplyDelete
  121. So many hedgewords, but the sentiment is ok.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Newt takes the ball and runs with "he is fighting against America, so he's not an 'alleged' terrorist." If you engage in war with America, you are an enemy combatant not subject to civilian rules of law.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Newt has a clear view on these things. I like.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Quoting Reagan ain't gonna help you, Rick.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Huh? Is virtues like "fluid essence"?


    P-O-E

    ReplyDelete
  126. I can't help but think this would have been done better in a series of interviews.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Romney would avoid a cold war with China by making markets accessible. I'm not sure that's a complete answer by any means.

    ReplyDelete
  128. All good points. So what do you do?

    ReplyDelete
  129. Perry's is a non-answer, it's a sidestep. Pthzzz.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Romney wants China to play by the rules. I agree. Now, how do we get them to do that?

    ReplyDelete
  131. tryanmax, It's a reference to Dr. Strangelove.

    ReplyDelete
  132. It's been too long. I'll have to watch it again.

    ReplyDelete
  133. "we can't just sit back..."

    great, but WHAT DO YOU DO?!

    ReplyDelete
  134. Romney actually thinks the WTO would do anything about China's currency manipulation. He has more faith than I do in international organizations.

    ReplyDelete
  135. His whole speech about virtue came across as the speech by the insane general in Dr. Strangelove about his fluid essences being sapped by communism, i.e. erectile dysfunction.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Huntsman believes the internet is magic, and that it will save us.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Huntsman loves small businesses in America, so let's not go into a trade war with China. OK, but give us a plan than doesn't include surrender.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Huntsman: The children are the future! La la la

    ReplyDelete
  139. Lawhawk, They actually do issue ruling like that all the time, but people ignore it.

    Also, most finance people are saying China actually isn't holding their currency down anymore.

    So the WTO answer is an evasion -- nothing will happen... after 10 years of litigation.

    ReplyDelete
  140. "integrity" of 60 Minutes?

    Since when?

    ReplyDelete
  141. Andrew: I agree about them making rulings, but they're rulings without teeth. It's not the the WTO might not act so much as it might act, and it's meaningless. Good point about ten years of litigation coming to nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Whoops. A lot of people are going to hate that.

    ReplyDelete
  143. He needs to stop going back to that "I was stupid" point.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Actually talking about zero-based budgeting. Unheard of! The conversation really has changed.

    ReplyDelete
  145. He's channeling George W. Bush right now.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Well, that's it for the debate for much of the nation. Now you'll have to stream the rest, and my download speeds are so bad that I won't even try.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Anyone sticking around for the internet part?

    ReplyDelete
  148. I'm still here, if my feed comes back.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Let me say again, this would have been better handled as a series of interviews rather than a debate. Too little time was given to each person and not enough follow up.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Nevermind, my feed is unwatchable. I'm out.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Of course, they save the Israel questions until after the broadcast part.

    ReplyDelete
  152. If intelligence, quick wits, in-depth knowledge and unflappability were the only criteria for a presidential candidate, I would be forming a Newt for President committee right now. He stood out above all the other debaters. But practical politics still say he may have too much baggage to be a viable candidate. Still, I would give him much more consideration than I would have just a month ago. And I'd support him enthusiastically if he were to win the nomination.

    ReplyDelete
  153. They shoulda done what Hulu does, allow the user to set their own bit rate. Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Lawhawk, Same here. I have my doubts about Newt, but he has moved up a lot in my estimation and I would enthusiastically support him in the general election.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Lindsey graham is proud of each and every one of the candidates for running for pres. I'm sure they are all glad for the affirmation.

    ReplyDelete
  156. and, my feed is terrible now. I'm probably going to have to leave.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Tam, Just he doesn't start handing out lollipops!

    ReplyDelete
  158. Okay, first off, who was impersonating me with their faux sockpuppet? Only I can do that. (not really)

    Second, the Ole Miss-Louisiana Tech game was Teh Suck. 27-7 defeat for us, against an unranked team we should have beaten, and it was chilly and windy the whole time. Bleh.

    Third, I gather from the comments nobody did badly tonight in the debate, but Newt did very well? And I still want to know what idiot scheduled a debate for tonight.

    Also, good post, Bev.

    ReplyDelete