Am I the only one disgusted by the media exploitation of the current flu scare? One of the news channels, I don't know which one, was saying things like “Tens of millions could die from this”. Really? Where are they getting their information? Do they realize that this “Swine flu” still has a LONG way to go before it's death toll equals that of the average winter flu? According to Wikipedia, the average death toll associated with the flu in America alone, is 36,000, with up to 500,000 worldwide. Right now, as of this writing, there has been ONE reported death attributed to the swine flu in the U.S. And we've got, what, 200 some worldwide?

I just want news sources to give me facts, and not try to compete for my attention with ever escalating sensationalistic headlines. On another channel, they have a big world map up on their screen, and their color coding countries to indicate where this strain of the flu has appeared. There was no scale of color coding, it was bright, blood red, or white. They then went on to say that “there have been 6 cases of mild flu reported in Canada” and they turned Canada red, just as red as Mexico which has reported thousands of cases and hundreds of death (although only 20 have been confirmed as the swine flu so far). This is like they're saying, “Uh Oh! Stay away from Canada! Somewhere in that 4.5 million square mile expanse, there are 6 people with mild flu symptoms, and they're out to get you and your children!”. Now I, myself, have been experiencing mild flu symptoms since Saturday. I don't believe I have the flu. But, if I do have the flu, and it is the Swine Flu, then people really need to chill out because it's the mildest flue I've ever experienced. I haven't even felt sick enough to call out of work. I think it's just a cold, though. Granted, it will effect everyone differently.

That being said, about 3 times per century there is a flu Pandemic. If a strain with similar virulence to the one that struck in 1918, there very well could be deaths in the tens of millions. I'm not here to say this isn't something to be concerned about, it is. I'm just here to say that the media needs to be more realistic in their portrayal, instead of presenting the worst case scenario as being inevitable. If they continue in their wolf-crying sensationalism, eventually people will stop paying attention, or being alarmed. And, if it comes to the point when people genuinely need to be alarmed, they will no longer take the news seriously.

This reminds me of a volcano I once read about. Scientists had foreseen a major eruption coming, but couldn't place exactly when it would happen. So, they proceeded to issue evacuation orders every time seismic activity in the area suggested that an eruption was imminent. After multiple false alarms, the residents started ignoring the warnings. Of course, the volcano did eventually erupt, and many of the residents perished after having ignored the evacuation call.

But, in these days of “news entertainment” and the importance of the almighty ratings, we are stuck with competing headlines of increasing direness. Say you are flipping through the channels, and station A is reporting facts about the epidemic and what we can reasonably expect to happen based on events. Station B is flashing a headline proclaiming that tens of millions are going to die. Which station are you going to tune in to?

Have you watched any of the New York Yankees home games on TV so far this season? If you did, you probably saw something like this:
(AP)

A packed stadium, up until the premium seats closest to the action, which remained empty. Why, you ask? Well, at best it's financial planning that is out of touch with reality, coupled with corrupt politics. At worst it's class warfare. I'm guessing the former. The Yankees used their considerable clout in NYC to push through legislation that secured mostly public funding for their shiny new $1.5 billion stadium. At the same time, they plowed under several free public parks that had been available for the locals to use. Then they proceeded to price those locals out of the ballpark. In fact, they priced everyone out of the premium seating. Which led to ludicrous scenes like the one above. An understandably embarrassed Yankees organization has since slashed the pricing on their premier seating, but they've already exposed themselves as greedy poor planners.

How absurd is it that the locals are forced to pay to have their public parks removed and covered with a new stadium that they can never afford to get into? This is some serious backwards Robin Hood stuff. Force the poor to build a playground for the rich.

The seats in question originally sold (or didn't sell, actually) for prices ranging from $325-$2500. Note that those prices are the season ticket per-game prices, individual game prices were even higher. The most expensive premium seats in San Diego's Petco Park, by comparison, go in the $40-$50 per game range.

It just occurred to me that it's probably cheaper to travel to all the Yankees away games, with travel costs and hotel rooms, and buy the premium seats from the host  teams,  than to buy season tickets to their premium home seating. But I digress.

This is the latest example in an obvious trend of major sports franchises being hopelessly out of touch with reality in regards to economics. The NFL is the biggest offender, with even seats in the nosebleed section costing $75/game.

My main point here is that it is borderline criminal that major sports franchises can force locals to pay to build them a new stadium, and that the public then not only does not have any ownership stake in the stadiums they paid to build, but they still have to pay rediculous prices to make use of that which they paid to build. That's like paying to have an apartment building built, then still having to pay rent to live in it.

Would a canyon by any other name still smell as sweet? A week ago we hiked Rose Canyon in the University City area in San Diego. In fact, Rose Canyon is not far north of Marian Bear park, which I wrote about earlier. The guide book describes this as a 2.5 mile hike (1.25 miles in, 1.25 back), but that's only if you turn around at the “suggested turning point”. The trail goes on for another 2 miles after that. We went a total of 2.5 miles in, for a round trip of 5 miles. Unfortunately, we weren't quick to arrive, and walked at our usual casual pace, and as a result, we were caught out in the unexpected scorching heat that hit us last weekend. Temperatures reached nearly 100 degrees while we were still miles from our car. I exhausted the water I had brought, but fortunately not until we were almost back.

During our hike we encountered rabbits, lizards, bugs and birds. We even encountered a rogue swarm of bees. The were obviously not “africanized” because they didn't attack anyone.

Can anyone tell me what kind of bug this is below? It looked like a weird cross between a spider and a cricket.

There is a butterfly in the picture below, really. It wouldn't stay still, and my camera wouldn't focus on it. I still like the picture, though.

A spider having lunch.

Swarm! See all the little dots in the air? Bees.

Welcome shade in the heat.

After the hike, I encountered a very cooperative moth. We thought it was dead, since it hadn't moved all day, but it reacted when I touched its antenna. The little guy looks like a flying mammal, almost.