The nearest hospital was miles away. There were no cars; the only means of transportation were donkeys and the occasional bicycle. The Ugandan government sets and enforces fees for medication, which most people can't afford. It became clear to us that most people living in the Rakai district had no access to health care whatsoever. Malnutrition, filthy water, diseases left untreated - and the WHO had come in with "AIDS educational programs," instructing people how to use condoms?
Sums up the Africa issue in one paragraph nicely. Even if you believe in HIV, you can't argue with the ludicracy of the response.
I only make light of this epic tragedy to retain a sense of balance, but The Onion has eerily captured the essence of U.S. policy towards Africa in the never-ending "War on AIDS."
Our friend Harvey, the mad doctor, has a great piece on Lew Rockwell, offering the excellent analogy between the "War on AIDS" and the "War on Terror"
The key phrase is "Despite much progress, much work remains."
This is almost always a code phrase for...."We've spent an immense amount of time and energy on this futile effort, and we will continue to spend an immense amount of time and energy on this futile effort."
Now, I dunno squat about politics, and I have a "nuanced" view of the War on Terror/War on Iraq -- so I'll stay away from that aspect of it.
However, Bialy is DEAD ON, with respect to the War on AIDS.
Not to introject some actual reported facts into the discussion but it might be pointed out to the gentleman that allowed,
"they completely screwed up all their estimates about AIDS in most of Africa" referencing of course the WashPost article. The Wash Post does indicate in the graph on page one: see, the country Botswana in which the UN survey team found an infection rate of 37.3 percent of persons ages 15 to 49 years of age in 2004; the DHS (Democratic Health Survey) found infection rate of 34.9 % of persons ages 15-49 for the same year.
It would seem those figures hardly merit distinction as the DHS survey whose reported rate was a mere 2.4 % lower was based on a door to door survey. (Yes, its in the bottom of the graph for you scientists out there).
There's nothing like accurate reporting from the Washington Post. Now whom shall we thank on the Wash Post for those headlines, "How AIDS in Africa Was Overstated" ?
Kindly note on pages 1,2,and 3 of the Wash Post article a graphic entitled:
AIDS Data Revised:
"The Demographic and Health Survey was conducted by ORC Macro, a Calveton, Md firm, in partnership with Johns Hopkins University and other private groups. The studies were based on door-to-door surveys and were financed by national governments and international donors."
Perhaps, a better analogy for the Mad Doctor, is War on AIDS = War on Drugs.
Both begun with noble intentions (reducing drug use, reducing AIDS), yet both have morphed into enormous, counter-productive, gov't boondoggles, where billions of $$ are endlessly spent with little to show. Wars in perpetuity generally take on Orwellian dimensions.
Libertarians (I'm not one, though) should be jumping all over this.
Sums up the Africa issue in one paragraph nicely. Even if you believe in HIV, you can't argue with the ludicracy of the response.
Hank Barnes
Our friend Harvey, the mad doctor, has a great piece on Lew Rockwell, offering the excellent analogy between the "War on AIDS" and the "War on Terror"
The key phrase is "Despite much progress, much work remains."
This is almost always a code phrase for...."We've spent an immense amount of time and energy on this futile effort, and we will continue to spend an immense amount of time and energy on this futile effort."
Now, I dunno squat about politics, and I have a "nuanced" view of the War on Terror/War on Iraq -- so I'll stay away from that aspect of it.
However, Bialy is DEAD ON, with respect to the War on AIDS.
Hank Barnes
That's a treasure but yet an aside to this post.
Not to introject some actual reported facts into the discussion but it might be pointed out to the gentleman that allowed,
"they completely screwed up all their estimates about AIDS in most of Africa" referencing of course the WashPost article. The Wash Post does indicate in the graph on page one: see, the country Botswana in which the UN survey team found an infection rate of 37.3 percent of persons ages 15 to 49 years of age in 2004; the DHS (Democratic Health Survey) found infection rate of 34.9 % of persons ages 15-49 for the same year.
It would seem those figures hardly merit distinction as the DHS survey whose reported rate was a mere 2.4 % lower was based on a door to door survey. (Yes, its in the bottom of the graph for you scientists out there).
There's nothing like accurate reporting from the Washington Post. Now whom shall we thank on the Wash Post for those headlines, "How AIDS in Africa Was Overstated" ?
But you're not a scientist, so stop pretending to be one, m'kay?
AIDS Data Revised:
"The Demographic and Health Survey was conducted by ORC Macro, a Calveton, Md firm, in partnership with Johns Hopkins University and other private groups. The studies were based on door-to-door surveys and were financed by national governments and international donors."
The Washington Post
Both begun with noble intentions (reducing drug use, reducing AIDS), yet both have morphed into enormous, counter-productive, gov't boondoggles, where billions of $$ are endlessly spent with little to show. Wars in perpetuity generally take on Orwellian dimensions.
Libertarians (I'm not one, though) should be jumping all over this.
Hank Barnes