Advisers to President Barack Obama (D) have just dropped a bombshell: the swine flu may infect half of the U.S. population this year, killing over 90,000 and hospitalizing 1.8 million. These advisers have also recommended a feverish stockpiling of flu vaccinations for over 40 million people and establishing a cabinet member (perhaps the Homeland Security Secretary) as the person responsible for the government’s response to this horrible, earth-shattering pandemic flu.

Part of me, given the earnestness of these recommendations from the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, wants to give them the benefit of the doubt. But it all just doesn’t pass the common sense test; not yet anyway.

I’ve written some over the last several months about the somewhat irrational response to the ‘pandemic’ swine flu that is, by all accounts, less dangerous, less virulent, less deadly, and less worrisome than the regular, annual, seasonal flu. I would be much more likely to believe the President’s science advisers if, for example, they had explained why they thought—against all publicly available evidence—that this flu is particularly dangerous. Imagine if on September 1, 2001, President George W. Bush (R) had taken drastic anti-terror measures, tightening airport security and detaining people, because he thought something bad was going to happen soon. Perhaps it would have been a prudent move on the President’s part, and perhaps it would have prevented the September 11, 2001, attacks . . . but we would have demanded a clear, public explanation before we went along with it.

I do the same now. I demand a clear, public explanation of why the swine flu is worthy of drastic public action, vaccine stockpiling, and fear-mongering about half of the population getting sick. If you can explain your reasoning in plain, believable English, I’ll gladly go right along with the hysteria. In the mean time, I’ll continue to think this is just the mindless fear-mongering it appears to be at face value.

Scott Bradford has been building web sites and using them to say what he thinks since 1995, which tended to get him in trouble with power-tripping assistant principals at the time. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Public Administration from George Mason University, but has spent most of his career (so far) working on public- and private-sector web sites. He is not a member of any political party, and brands himself an ‘independent constitutional conservative.’ In addition to holding down a day job and blogging about challenging subjects like politics, religion, and technology, Scott is also a devout Catholic, gun-owner, bike rider, and music lover with a wife, two cats, and a dog.