8/18/2006

30 Million Dead, 40 Million Infected..




..and 40 million new infections in the next five years.

Thanks to a personality problem in the World Health Organizaton and the ignorance of Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton on the real scope of the problem, HIV/AIDS has gone from an epidemic to a pandemic with no end in sight.

Amazingly, it took 80's rockstar Bono's influence on none other than Jesse Helms to convince Rice and Bush that the world needed help. In the early years of Bush's Presidency he dedicated 15 billion dollars, much of it to Africa, to pay for medication that has, on average, extended the life of victims an additional 8 years.

That fund will dry up in early 2008, leaving many African's (and other developing countries) unable to afford the cost of the pricely Triple Cocktail. It should be noted that 95% of new infections are in developing countries.

Question: What should the United States' roll be in the world regarding this issue?

43 comments:

Cato said...

Absolutley nothing would be the moral choice. This Federal government can constitutionally do nothing regarding Americans with AIDS and would have to break the law to expend money on the matter, but in a broader scope, it is unjustifable for a government to waste it's citizen's blood or treasure on the well being of the citizens of other governments.

Josh said...

Wow, you said a lot right there. Let's break this down.

-On what grounds do you make the moral argument of 'nothing'?(This will really interest me - being an applied ethics major.

-What is your Constitutional argument against doing anything for AMERICANS with AIDS? How would it be a violation of the law?

-Since when does the US not 'waste its blood or treasure on the well being of citizens of other governments? Isn't that a primary argument for invading Iraq?

Cato said...

Wow, you said a lot right there. Let's break this down.

-On what grounds do you make the moral argument of 'nothing'?(This will really interest me - being an applied ethics major.

The purpose of government and the justification for government. If government is purportedly to be of the people, by the people, and for the people than it cannot be anything but. Africans are not "the people." They should not come into the minds of the men who make up a just governemtn of the United States, unless they do something stupid like attack us.

-What is your Constitutional argument against doing anything for AMERICANS with AIDS? How would it be a violation of the law?

It would be a violation of the law since it violates the Constitution. There is no grant of power to Congress to spend for people's medical benefits, therefore it is illegal and those who authorized it broke their oath to the Constitution and should be tried for treason.

-Since when does the US not 'waste its blood or treasure on the well being of citizens of other governments? Isn't that a primary argument for invading Iraq?

Of course it was. Neo-conservatives are socialists in socialist clothing. I don't know what to say, as the invasion of Iraq was completely unjustified. Just because X happens does not mean it is jusified or good by any means.

Cato said...

Also it is not morally justifiable to steal from Peter to help Paul. This is unlike something such as National Defense, which can be construed as justifiable to spend money on since it helps both Peter and Paul. But paying for Paul's medical expenses -- especially on a disease of choice -- by forcibly taking money from Peter is morally abhorrent.

Josh said...

-So let me get this straight, you're making the moral argument that an Action (or nonaction in this case) is morally 'right' so long as the government or culture approves of it?

That's an interesting moral argument, but let us simply look at Nazi Germany, Sadaam Hussein's slaughter of his own people, China's brutal treatment of its own citizens, etc to refute it. Even you cato would agree that purposeful ignorance of such issues is 'wrong'?

Government or cultural relativism are bad arguments for what is morally right

-There is no grant to spend congressional dollars on people's medical benefits?... yet it happens through Executive AND Congressional funds every day...

Let's talk AIDS, Cancer, Diabetes...

Josh said...

Disease of choice?

You need to educate yourself on the true scope of this problem cato. For the first time I have been disgusted at your lack of intelligence on an issue in that single statement alone.

Josh said...

The terms morality, legality, and propriety are often fallaciously used interchangeably. Legality is reserved to that which a specific society determines to be allowable. The mere presence of the law, however, does not provide a moral definitiveness of right or wrong.

AndyRand said...

CATO:
If everyone who is guilty of treason in your view was shot, the NRA would run out of bullets.

Josh said...

ANDY: Thought....

The NRA isn't in the business of lobbying for bullets. They lobby for guns. Maybe instead of being anti-gun, the socialist scum that are against Conceal and Carry should be anti-bullets???

Cato said...

-So let me get this straight, you're making the moral argument that an Action (or nonaction in this case) is morally 'right' so long as the government or culture approves of it?

That's an interesting moral argument, but let us simply look at Nazi Germany, Sadaam Hussein's slaughter of his own people, China's brutal treatment of its own citizens, etc to refute it. Even you cato would agree that purposeful ignorance of such issues is 'wrong'?

Government or cultural relativism are bad arguments for what is morally right


I never said anything remotely like this. I think what I said speaks for itself. I never even implied that jsut because a government thinks it's right it is morally jusifiable.

-There is no grant to spend congressional dollars on people's medical benefits?... yet it happens through Executive AND Congressional funds every day...

Let's talk AIDS, Cancer, Diabetes...


I point you to your own post below:

The terms morality, legality, and propriety are often fallaciously used interchangeably. Legality is reserved to that which a specific society determines to be allowable. The mere presence of the law, however, does not provide a moral definitiveness of right or wrong.

I know they are not the same thing, hence my reasons in my orinignal response for differentiating them. You on the other hand seem to think that just because something is law it is justified.

Cato said...

CATO:
If everyone who is guilty of treason in your view was shot, the NRA would run out of bullets.


No, they wouldn't. I said people who took an oath and broke it should be tried.

Cato said...

ANDY: Thought....

The NRA isn't in the business of lobbying for bullets. They lobby for guns. Maybe instead of being anti-gun, the socialist scum that are against Conceal and Carry should be anti-bullets???


There are a few politicans that have tried to do this, taxing bullets so that people can not defend themselves from criminals without taking up crime themselves to pay for the bullets.

Cato said...

Disease of choice?

You need to educate yourself on the true scope of this problem cato. For the first time I have been disgusted at your lack of intelligence on an issue in that single statement alone.


Has it mutated to be transfered through a vector other than direct blood-borne contact?

Please.

The way to defeat AIDS is to stop spreading it. Eventually those with AIDS will die off.

When shypillis first came to Europe (it was the only thing that spread across Europe faster than the tomato) it made people's jaws fall off. That very bad form of the diease mutated into something you can live with. Those with AIDS that die from it need to stop spreading it. There will be no cure. There is no cure for the common cold. There will be no cure. The hope is that there might be a strain that people can get and live with, similar to what simians have in SIV. But as long as life-prologoning drigs are around, this will not happen, IMO. So the best bet is to just not have sex with people with AIDS. Not sure if someone has AIDS or not? Don't have sex with them. Here's a hint though: nearly all people with AIDS in the United States got it from homosexual sex, heterosexual sex with a bisexual male, or through herion usage. That should narrow down your options.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

You know that wasn't my point. We can change to NRA members if you like.
Regardless, there would be nobody but you, Dr. Bill and 1 or 2 select OTBLers left as executioners. Let's call it the OTBL/Classical Liberal/Objectivist-full employment proposal.

Josh said...

First of all this question is centered around our involvement with the rest of the World... not just the US

Second of all you're forgetting the millions of children born each year with it...

Thirdly.. regardless of how it is spread your moral conclusion is extremely flawed. And that my friend is what I want to talk about... Getting back to the moral argument. How can you morally argue that no action would be the MORALALLY correct choice..?

AndyRand said...

CATO:

Most of what you say concerning the spread of AIDS may be true. Yet there
are those infected through transfusions in the U.S. Also, Josh was talking about Africa. Many of the infected women, and now children (born to infected women , many of them orphans now )are not necessarily participating in sexual activity concentually.
But of course as with most catotrophic issues in the world, that's not your problem.

Cato said...

CATO:

You know that wasn't my point. We can change to NRA members if you like.
Regardless, there would be nobody but you, Dr. Bill and 1 or 2 select OTBLers left as executioners. Let's call it the OTBL/Classical Liberal/Objectivist-full employment proposal.


I know what your point was and my point was I did not even imply what you thought I did. I only said that those people who violated their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States should be tried for treason. I didn't even mention anything about executions, let alone the method. And besides there is a much easier way to have full employment without all the death (by bullets at least): outlaw the tractor. Economies do not suffer merely because people do not have jobs.

AndyRand said...

Josh,
In order to understand objectivist morallity you have to turn your own moral system upside down. Your black is their white, your east is their west. I like to refer to their thinking as the moral upside down cake.

Cato said...

CATO:

Most of what you say concerning the spread of AIDS may be true. Yet there are those infected through transfusions in the U.S. Also, Josh was talking about Africa. Many of the infected women, and now children (born to infected women , many of them orphans now )are not necessarily participating in sexual activity concentually.
But of course as with most catotrophic issues in the world, that's not your problem.


I said it was not the government's problem. Which it can't be becuase it does not concern American blood or treasure. Well, except that it drains it from us if we help. The only moral choice is to live and let die.

Uganda actually has stemmed the tide, by going against what the UN said. They are encouraging their citizens to abstain. The UN wants condoms dropped like leaflets.

Josh said...

haha moral upside down cake huh? Are they going to be serving that at Elmwood's UFO days?

AndyRand said...

CATO:
What is the ultimate penalty for treason? Death!!!! You know that if those guiley of treason in your view were brought to trial, the penalties I alluded to (regardless of how hyperblolic they may be )would be the logical result.

Josh said...

Andy you should email me.

AndyRand said...

Josh,

Yes, and maybe Ellsworth too.

Cato said...

First of all this question is centered around our involvement with the rest of the World... not just the US

Yes and I think it is quite clear that a government is supposed to be concerned with it's own citizens. This is not some objectivist view. This is from everyone's basic reasons for creating government in the first place.

Africans don't vote for Americans. They don't pay taxes. They don't serve in the military. They are not the concern of this government.

Second of all you're forgetting the millions of children born each year with it...

There was still a choice. I suppose we could just remove their brains before they are born to thus get rid of the problem of children with AIDS.

Thirdly.. regardless of how it is spread your moral conclusion is extremely flawed. And that my friend is what I want to talk about... Getting back to the moral argument. How can you morally argue that no action would be the MORALALLY correct choice..?

Because, from a government's standpoint, only the citizens that it is charged with protecting from foreign invasion, only those people who give the government legitamacy, only those people who contribute to the treasury, only it's own citizens are of a just government's concerns. "Of the people, by the people and for the people." You know, all that jazz... and so if a government was to place the citizens of another country's government in front of it's own citizens than it is violating the social contract, violating the law (in regards to foriegn aid (not) in the Constitution), and is being generally morally abhorrent. My penny is worth more in the eyes of my government if it is just than the lives of every non-citizen on the planet.

Cato said...

CATO:
What is the ultimate penalty for treason? Death!!!! You know that if those guiley of treason in your view were brought to trial, the penalties I alluded to (regardless of how hyperblolic they may be )would be the logical result.


If found guilty. But there are only 546 people I can think of off the top of my head that would be considered in this bunch, and not all of them have violated their oath. So it's less than that, and I have that many bullets laying around the house that I probabbly have forgot about.

Josh said...

Ok so you're going to ignore the transfusions, the hospital accidents, the children who are born with it, the women (and men) raped, spouses who got it from spousal infidelity, broken condoms, etc...

hmm.. interesting.


Furthermore I find it interesting that you argue against helping other countries as if the US stands alone in the world..

hmm.., also interesting


and then you'll drop the gay issue in implying we're not morally responsible for gay US citizens.

hmm, you're just an interesting guy Cato

AndyRand said...

CATO:
You said:

"There was still a choice. I suppose we could just remove their brains before they are born to thus get rid of the problem of children with AIDS."

and...

"My penny is worth more in the eyes of my government if it is just than the lives of every non-citizen on the planet."


and....

"If found guilty. But there are only 546 people I can think of off the top of my head that would be considered in this bunch, and not all of them have violated their oath. So it's less than that, and I have that many bullets laying around the house that I probabbly have forgot about."

Do YOU have any idea how abhorant these statements are to myself, and most likely 95% or more of the populace or is that just your political theater?

Josh said...

maybe we should focus on the capitalist trivia for the day, a place where cato isn't out of his depth in a parking lot puddle.

AndyRand said...

Josh,

You fit right in here.

Cato said...

Ok so you're going to ignore the transfusions, the hospital accidents, the children who are born with it, the women (and men) raped, spouses who got it from spousal infidelity, broken condoms, etc...

hmm.. interesting.


Aside from rape they are all from a choice if you stipualte that a child within the womb is part of the woman. If you do not than it is similar as rape in that the mother infected the child and should be held liable. I cannot be held liable for infecting someone with a common cold. I didn't do it with choice. The rapist and the mother, however, did.


Furthermore I find it interesting that you argue against helping other countries as if the US stands alone in the world..

hmm.., also interesting


"Free trade with all... entangling alliances with none."

-Gerorge Washington


and then you'll drop the gay issue in implying we're not morally responsible for gay US citizens.

hmm, you're just an interesting guy Cato


I implied nothing of the sort. The US should not be providing mediucal beneifits to anyone, regardless of sexual orientation. I was just giving out some helpful --and lifesaving-- hints.

Cato said...

CATO:
You said:

"There was still a choice. I suppose we could just remove their brains before they are born to thus get rid of the problem of children with AIDS."

and...

"My penny is worth more in the eyes of my government if it is just than the lives of every non-citizen on the planet."


and....

"If found guilty. But there are only 546 people I can think of off the top of my head that would be considered in this bunch, and not all of them have violated their oath. So it's less than that, and I have that many bullets laying around the house that I probabbly have forgot about."

Do YOU have any idea how abhorant these statements are to myself, and most likely 95% or more of the populace or is that just your political theater?


Well yeah, I suppose about half of the population would not approve of abortion.

And I suppose that many people do not understand my statemtnt which is about how a just government ought operate. Once you realize I am talking about a government than people have to agree. It's the only thing really keeping me from being an anarchist. The idea that a government would put other people above it's own citizens is chilling.

And finally that last statement -- can you name more people? I'm all ears.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

"And finally that last statement -- can you name more people? I'm all ears."

I'll take that as a "no".

What percentage of the population do you believe hold similar views to yours regarding the govenment?

Cato said...

CATO:

"And finally that last statement -- can you name more people? I'm all ears."

I'll take that as a "no".


I am confused ANDYRAND.

What percentage of the population do you believe hold similar views to yours regarding the govenment?

Depends on the view. That the government should serve it's own people? Most everyone. They just don't realize the "extreme" of that, even though they know it is true. That those in charge are treasonous? Many do, but for wrong reasons. For the real reasons? A very small portion of the population. Something's popularity says nothing of how true it is.

Cato said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
AndyRand said...

CATO:

I'll take that as a "no".

I am confused ANDYRAND.

I take it as a "no" that you don't realize that most would view your statements I listed as abhorant.

As for popularity. While that may not determine truth, it does determine who is chosen to lead us, at least in our current system.

Cato said...

Ah ha, I found the place of confusion. I was addressing my last statement that you quoted, of the three you found "abhorrent." Can you name more people than I mentioned was my question. I really don't see how you could see my statement as abhorret.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

your said.
"I suppose we could just remove their brains before they are born to thus get rid of the problem of children with AIDS."

If you don't find this abhorant and can't understand why others would. I don't know what to say.

I too was confused as to who you meant when you said more people.

Well, Maybe Federal court judges?
Members of the Armed Services?
New citizens to this country?

If I'm not mistaken I believe they take an oath to protect and defend the constitution or don't they?

Cato said...

CATO:

your said.
"I suppose we could just remove their brains before they are born to thus get rid of the problem of children with AIDS."

If you don't find this abhorant and can't understand why others would. I don't know what to say.


I'm sorry if you did not see that that statement was laden with sarcasm.

As for the rest, most of them did nothing to pass or enforce the laws of which we were talking about here.

AndyRand said...

So the federal judges are safe from the wrath of your interpretation of the Constitution?

Cato said...

I don't know. I don't know enough to say.

AndyRand said...

Well aren't they the one's violating the strick "Constructionist" interpretation of the Contitution.
I think "Constructionist" is the right term?

Cato said...

I don't know enough to say how many are.

maggie.danhakl@healthline.com said...

Hi,

I hope this finds you well. Healthline just released an informative article with graphics regarding HIV/AIDs facts in the US and around the World. The page details who is being effected and the cost of treatment. You can check out the resource here: http://www.healthline.com/health/hiv-aids/facts-statistics-infographic

This valuable, med-reviewed information shows the need to continueeducating people on prevention and how to protect yourself and your loved ones. I thought this would be a great resource for your audience, and I am writing to ask if you would include it as a source of information on your page: http://atbl1.blogspot.com/2006/08/30-million-dead-40-million-infected.html

Please let me know if this would be possible. I’m happy to answer any other questions as well.

Warm regards,
Maggie Danhakl • Assistant Marketing Manager
Healthline • The Power of Intelligent Health
660 Third Street, San Francisco, CA 94107
www.healthline.com | @Healthline | @HealthlineCorp

About Us: corp.healthline.com