Replies

Fairbanks is thinking with his glands--not his brain. If the money is going to be spent it ought to at least be spent wisely. That's means understanding what the effective vectors of the disease are and designing a strategy around that knowledge.

Weeping and wailing that it isn't fair to single out anal sodomizers and intravenous drug abusers for their behavior choices doesn't constitute a strategy. It might make Fairbanks feel self-rightoues and pious, but it is not a strategy.

I feel so weird agreeing with you.

anal sodomizers and intravenous drug abusers

Aids in Africa is not being transmitted by anal intercourse. Please refrain from posting when you're ignorant.

Excuse me, but most of the criticism against this initiative is based on the principle of foreign aid to AIDS victims, not against any strategy, because Bush didn't mention exactly how he wants to use that money, so there is no strategy to criticize, only the principle.

In the U.S., AIDS is confined largely to gays and drug users. In Africa, it is not a gay/junkie disease; it affects men, women and children. Sure, changing people's behavior is the key to preventing the spread of this disease; we all know that. But in Africa, what you and I know to be true they don't know. There's a lot of ignorance and superstition in Africa about AIDS.

Oh, and as for the African and Caribbean AIDS victims, just because they are foreigners who "brought it on themselves" doesn't make them any less human. They are still human beings whose lives are worth just as much as yours. They aren't dirt; even though they may treat themselves like dirt. They don't suffer from the disease any less because of it, either.

And another thing, many of the people here aren't arguing against this initiative because the money might not get to the right people; that's a valid concern, and I hope if Congress does approve this that they plan it in such a way that the money doesn't go straight down the toilet. Many people are against it simply because they are against foreign aid to a passel of sick foreigners, no matter how well distributed the money is. There's something wrong with that way of thinking. Luckily, all most Americans want is to know that the money will be used the way it was intended. I don't mind helping sick people, even if we don't get anything out of it, as long as the money goes actually to help sick people and prevent new cases. Who cares if the rest of the world doesn't appreciate how much we help out other countries? Do we feed the starving, heal the sick and prevent disease in the Third World in order to receive appreciation and recognition, or do we feed the starving, heal the sick and prevent disease in the Third World in order to feed the starving, heal the sick and prevent disease in the Third World?

You can call Chad "self-righteous" and "pious" all you want to, but something tells it's not your approval Chad needs or wants.