AIDS expenditures and Nation States

[Archaea]

Funding should be in proportion to curability.

Prostate, a common occurence; breast is also.

In reality, I would listen to physicians in establishing priorities.

Because I would want to know proximity to cure, numbers in US affected and costs of cure.

AIDS is political, the other diseases are not. I'm against politics in general.

Of course, funding for AIDS will continue, but why not make it proportional to US numbers?

Africa has so many problems, not the least of which is AIDS, but to me, Africa's problems are unsolvable until it develops true, good leaders. We outsiders can't give them that.

Did you weep about the killing fields of Cambodia?

I have never advocated no funding, but do not agree with the disproportionate funding that has occurred because it's the favorite "gay disease", which it is here in the US.

I find it foolhardy for US research policy to be significantly altered based on what's occurring in Africa.

A nation state's expenditures are based on its own security first. We fund AIDS here because it is a known health risk, a threat to our security. Threats to the security of Africa's population should not be our main funding concern. To me, that's simply pragmatic. It has nothing to do with fault, and everything to do with what makes practical sense. Biggest bang for the buck for local populace.

The US did not create the Africa AIDS problem; hence we do not have a higher duty to fix it than anybody else. It will not promote our immediate or even long term self-interest.

If individuals want to do so, then they should in whatever proportions they desire.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Funding should be in proportion to curability.

Prostate, a common occurence; breast is also.

In reality, I would listen to physicians in establishing priorities.

Because I would want to know proximity to cure, numbers in US affected and costs of cure.

AIDS is political, the other diseases are not. I'm against politics in general.

Of course, funding for AIDS will continue, but why not make it proportional to US numbers?

Africa has so many problems, not the least of which is AIDS, but to me, Africa's problems are unsolvable until it develops true, good leaders. We outsiders can't give them that.

Did you weep about the killing fields of Cambodia?

I have never advocated no funding, but do not agree with the disproportionate funding that has occurred because it's the favorite "gay disease", which it is here in the US.

I find it foolhardy for US research policy to be significantly altered based on what's occurring in Africa.

A nation state's expenditures are based on its own security first. We fund AIDS here because it is a known health risk, a threat to our security. Threats to the security of Africa's population should not be our main funding concern. To me, that's simply pragmatic. It has nothing to do with fault, and everything to do with what makes practical sense. Biggest bang for the buck for local populace.

The US did not create the Africa AIDS problem; hence we do not have a higher duty to fix it than anybody else. It will not promote our immediate or even long term self-interest.

If individuals want to do so, then they should in whatever proportions they desire.

Our positions are polar opposites. I simply cannot understand how you can remain so cold and uncaring towards fellow human beings. Instead of sympathizing with affected AIDS individuals, you view them in pure political terms, though you claim to despise politics. Have you ever known a person with AIDS? Have you ever watched them melt away from this life? No human being deserves the suffering brought on by AIDS.

Clearly you harbor a lot of resentment towards the gay community within the US, and I think it is coloring your perception of what should be done with the AIDS virus. While this discussion has been geared towards the AIDS epidemic in Africa, you continue to reference the gay nature of the disease in the US, so fine- let me address that group as well.

Many homosexuals do not take proper precautions to protect themselves from AIDS. Sometimes their actions are reckless. We have not, however, ever been instructed to withhold our assistance from those who are "sinful." Rather, we have been given the commandment to assist everyone we can.

Refer to the parable of the Good Samaritan. Why do you think it is that it was a Samaritan who assisted the Israelite on the side of the road instead of the Levite or the priest? Samaritans were mortal enemies of the Israelites and were considered blasphemeres and wicked by the Jews. It was this group of individuals, however, that Christ utilized to answer the question, "and who is my neighbor?"

You will try and avoid the difficulty of reconciling your position with that of doctrine by claiming that nations are not held to the same standard as individuals, and, as above, your arguments will remain unpersuasive. I would simply refer you to the Book of Mormon to counter your assertion that we have been given no guidance as to how governments should act. How did the government act under King Benjamin? How did it act when the people were righteous under the Reign of the Judges? Why is it that we are told that this nation will be blessed as long as a majority of its inhabitants are righteous? Because the government is a reflection of its people.

For the record, of COURSE I weep for the killing fields of Cambodia!!! What decent human would not? Your comment sounds about as awful as, "well, do you cry over the holocaust too? You can't worry about spilled milk!"

Quite clearly we are on opposite sides of the fence here and I don't anticipate either one of us is about to cross over. Feel free to take the last word and best to you.

[Archaea]

Ad hominem attack.

Other than mentioning it as a gay disease wherein is my argument that it's a gay disease. It is measured against cancer in the States.

Have you ever watched somebody melt away from cancer, Parkinsons, MS, Alzheimers and host of other diseases. And yes I had an acquaintance die of AIDS.

I am accustomed to setting policies and living by them, irrespective of the consequences. I don't let emotion dictate policy, just cold reason. We can trust reason and cannot trust emotion.

Proportionately fund research for all killer diseases. That's fair and even-handed. AIDS is no better or worse than a host of other diseases. You're heartless to the hosts of cancer victims in favor of your gay friends. What's wrong with heterosexuals. You prefer the one to the ninety and nine? If the 99 are lost you find them first.

Liberals don't believe in the BoM. More specifically it spoke of a time when righteous men judged the people. That is not the case today, so its principles cannot apply in total.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

No kidding!!! People who think we can be isolationist today are living in a bubble. The world is heading towards a truly global economy, if it isn't already past that point now. What happens to others will dramatically affect us, and vice versa.

Jeesh, I go to bed and miss all the fun.

How am I being Machiavellian? Seems that all nation states focus on security and national interests when they encounter the world outside their borders. Pity the country that doesn’t. I’ve said nothing about the means by which a nation state pursues it’s national interests, nor have I said that looking out for number one precludes doing things that make us all feel good.

Interesting that you bring up World War II. Policymakers at the time did not decide to join the war in Europe because they thought it the “good and right” thing to do. While that thinking may have played into their decision-making and makes for great propaganda, they did it primarily because it was in the national interest (opposing a totalitarian-dominated Europe, standing by our allies, striking back at German attacks on U.S. shipping, etc.). The same goes for rebuilding Europe and Japan after the war (served to fuel the post-war economic boom as well as built a bulwark against Soviet expansionism as far away from U.S. soil as possible). Liberating Western Europe, ending Nazi horrors, and reinvigorating destroyed economies and infrastructure were wonderful and laudable consequences of an intervention reacting to events and intended to shape the world to our liking.

You also raise Bush’s aid to Africa. His people in Washington didn’t do this just because it feels good. They did it because it serves foreign policy objectives, one of them possibly being payback to Blair for his support on Iraq. Another may be pursuing certain strategic objectives in Africa itself. I’m not privy to this, but I suspect there is more going on here, if nothing more than building goodwill.

I’m far from an isolationist and agree fully that what happens to others can affect us. A limited pot of money dictates that we dedicate resources to the most pressing needs and perceived threats. Given its limited communicability vis-à-vis other air or water born diseases (such as a possible bird flu epidemic), the threat of AIDS from Africa to the U.S. is limited.

I just don’t think altruism should be a primary driver of any foreign policy decision. There are numberless problems in the world. Which do we address and which do we pass on? The next logical step is to choose those that serve our interests.

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

If nations can't find the will to be altruistic, they should be generous anyways knowing it will come back to be of benefit in the future.

I might agree with you if you can frame the argument in a way that shows it serves the national interest to do so. I suspect most Americans feel as I do when it comes to spending tax dollars. Now, if, as I suggested, you hit them up for their private funds to support a cause, then I’m sure you’ll find plenty of “altruist” thinkers out there. As suggested before, start in Hollywood. Deep pockets and ever telling us what to think. I’d like to see some action on their part.

Just out of curiosity, how many dollars are you going to need from our good friends in Hollywood to educate people in Africa on AIDS prevention? How much has already been spent and where? Who provided the funding? How is it spent? Who oversees and enacts the education program? What NGOs and governmental organizations are involved? How do they work together? How do you measure success? How successful has this education program been so far?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Most in Africa have NO IDEA how AIDS is spread and have no way of preventing the spread of AIDS in many instances.

Are you saying that those in Africa either have never been told that there are ways to prevent the spread of AIDS?

Why is that?

[Alkili]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Are you saying that those in Africa either have never been told that there are ways to prevent the spread of AIDS?

Why is that?

You probably need to go to Africa to understand the answer to this question.

Most of the people that I met in kenya don't even understand how or why to wash their hands. They have much bigger problems on their minds, like where they are going to get food for the next day from.

How do you explain AIDS to someone who doesn't understand what germs are or what they do, let alone what a virus is.

You know what a digestive system is, or what a liver is, they don't.

There are some very well educated men and women there, but they are very few and far between.

One very big problem in kenya is even the educated parents feel inadequate in teaching their kids, so they send them to a boarding type school. There the kids have a very likely chance of being molested and raped, and possably getting HIV.

This is just a sample of the problem.

[JohnnyLingo]

I agree that it's a huge challenge to educate many Africans about AIDS, for the reasons you explained.

So what do we do? To be honest, I see it almost as a hopeless situation. I know that in South Africa, AIDS is being spread like crazy even among educated people who intellectually KNOW about AIDS, but either don't believe it or can't keep their pants on.

When someone dies of AIDS, the reported cause of death among the family is usually something like "He died of a cold". It's almost taboo to mention it.

And President Mbeki publically stated that AIDS was not a problem while I was there. Absolutely crazy.

I also had opportunity to talk with Elder Lyman, who was the Southeast Africa Area doctor while I was there about the problem. He stated that the church estimates that they will have over 30,000 orphans on its hands within 10 years, due to their parents dying of AIDS.

[Alkili]

I have even talked to people here in the U.S. who try to pass of AIDS as the best thing that has ever happend to them.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

When someone dies of AIDS, the reported cause of death among the family is usually something like "He died of a cold". It's almost taboo to mention it.

It's really no different here. In my days as a funeral director, there were two separate occassions when the family of the deceased told me, when I came to their home to retrieve the deceased for embalming, that he had died of something other else, rather than telling the truth that it was an AIDS related death. It wasn't until the doctor signed the death certificate that I learned the true cause of death.

[JohnnyLingo]

Although technically, they're right, aren't they? AIDS never killed anyone, it's the disease that came in after AIDS shut down their immune system.

So I suppose "he died of a cold" is accurate.

:?