Was the war in Iraq worth the costs?

[Natoma]

As far as you know?!

NO ONE has the ability to break the law. I can't believe there is even a question about whether or not an elected official has to "follow the law". This is insanity.

That's what is so ridiculous about this whole thing, and downright SCARY about this.

The Mayor is certainly entitled to his opinion on the constitutionality of anything, but geeze...that does not give him (or you or me) the "right" to break the law. "Because he thinks it's right."

Of all people, an ELECTED OFFICIAL is one we hold to a higher standard it's the blatant DISREGARD for the constitution (separation of powers) that is nauseating.

In a refreshing break from today's bickerings with you today, Joe, I agree. I think the mayor of SF's actions could quite possibly hurt gays' efforts when it comes to their marriage/legal partners efforts.

Yea it can. I think the intent here was to marry people, and then force the constitutionality of california laws to be brought before the judiciary. But that could backfire big time by strengthening the resolve of those who believe in discrimination against american citizens. They couldn't necessarily speak on "activist judges" in the case of the Mass. Supreme Court because of the history of supreme courts from the California Supreme Court in 1948 striking down California's Anti-Miscegenation laws to Loving vs Virginia in 1964. But in this case, they can easily point to the SF mayor's actions as criminal, and therefore, gay marriages are criminal. Or something to that effect.

Of course, the only way this could be done before would be for someone who was married in Massachusetts to move to California and then challenge California's laws in that manner. That would have been the most effective way, and it would have sidestepped the labelling of criminal behavior. With the current SF actions, now there's really no way to know what's going to happen.

 

[John Reynolds]

Well then I'll stop there, before I start saying things I regret...

It's ok to disagree. The world would be a boring place if we all shared the same views and opinions.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

think the intent here was to marry people, and then force the constitutionality of california laws to be brought before the judiciary.

The mayor (or anyone else trying to get married) can file a suit without acually breaking the law first. See Mass.

Of course, the only way this could be done before would be for someone who was married in Massachusetts to move to California and then challenge California's laws in that manner.

How did the similar case get to the Mass supreme court?

 

[RussSchultz]

Wow. I rest my case. Joe/Russ ^^^

CVD is probably the #1 or 2 killer here in the States. More research isn't necesarily needed either, since getting your average American to exercise more and improve their diet doesn't require a lot of federal money. But I suppose someone like Sabastian will gleefully correlate a lifetime of laziness and poor eating habits to casual sex with an infected person (the latter, after all, is the result "moral degradation").

Bullshit. My father and grandfather were reasonably fit and exercised regularly until the day they died at 62 and 57, respectively from heart disease. I too, am reasonably fit, but I'm pretty sure I'll suffer the same fate--either that or my brain will rot like my grandmother's did.

Lifestyle is a factor in heart disease and cancer, but is not the only, or even the greatest risk factor.

AIDS, on the other hand, the risk can be reduced to just about NILL by changing your lifestyle. The risk factors are well known and easily controlled.

Why you're dogging on Sabastian for pointing out the facts is beyond me.

p.s. how can you question how AIDs is spread? Its quite obvious and has been well known for years. The primary infection point was, if I remember correctly, traced to a particularly promiscuous flight attendant.

 

[Natoma]

Does anyone seriously think Bush's administration would increase funding for anything AIDS related? 'Tis God's divine wrath upon the gays.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030129-1.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/hivaids/

EDIT: Oh...and please...don't let Natoma hear you imply that AIDS is a "gay disease."

I know John's posting style rather well. It's pretty obvious he was being sarcastic. You, Sabastian, ByteMe, etc, on the other hand, I would take seriously.

 

[Sazar]

you sure about that russ ?

afaik per science journals is the source was a likely mutated disease that occured in monkeys in africa cept instead of the HIV... it was called the SIV (I suppose... humano v/s simian something or other)

I am unsure how one could trace the infection though because most often times the cause of death back in the day would have been noted as pneumonia or something else rather than HIV

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Well then I'll stop there, before I start saying things I regret...

It's ok to disagree. The world would be a boring place if we all shared the same views and opinions.

Disagreements are one thing...the constant Bush Bashing / rhetoric and character assassination so left wing liberals like you is something else.

I mean, it's obvious to me based on this discussion you're a left wing lib...just as I would say the sky is blue on a sunny day, right?

 

[Fred]

Actually John, Pres Bush increased Aids funding to Africa by a significant margin over any other US pres. Too much so in my opinion.

Leftists will complain that it isn't smart money (and there is some truth in that), since it doesnt address the issue about labeled drugs vs cheap alternatives, and spends a little too much money on abstinence programs. They are also pissed b/c it isn't going to the european charity thats already set up for Aids drug cocktail distribution, but rather goes it alone the American way.

Regardless, its still a big chunk of money that is going to help fight Aids in Africa.

Now, to be perfectly frank, I think its money badly spent also. The biggest killer in Africa is not Aids, but rather the usual killers like malnutrition, dsyentary, malaria etc All problems with known treatments. I think it would save more lives by spending some of that AIDs money fighting that. See the Economist article from circa september of last year.

Of course, everyone is scared of the virus and the rate of growth. But the sad truth is much of the money charities spends on AIDs, gets gobbeled up in bureacratic clout and corruption in that part of the world.

Ultimately, its their governments that will have to make the required change of policy for any of our help to ultimately be sufficient to curb the proliferation of the virus.

 

[Natoma]

think the intent here was to marry people, and then force the constitutionality of california laws to be brought before the judiciary.

The mayor (or anyone else trying to get married) can file a suit without acually breaking the law first. See Mass.

Of course, the only way this could be done before would be for someone who was married in Massachusetts to move to California and then challenge California's laws in that manner.

How did the similar case get to the Mass supreme court?

Lack of clarification on my part. The only way for someone to get this done in a bulletproof fashion would be to marry in Massachusetts and take their marriage to California. The California courts would be bound to the Full Faith and Credit Clause in making their decision.

 

[John Reynolds]

Lifestyle is a factor in heart disease and cancer, but is not the only, or even the greatest risk factor.

Didn't say it was the only factor (of course genetics play a role), but there certainly is a strong correlation between the increase in CVD and obesity in America.

AIDS, on the other hand, the risk can be reduced to just about NILL by changing your lifestyle. The risk factors are well known and easily controlled.

Why you're dogging on Sabastian for pointing out the facts is beyond me.

p.s. how can you question how AIDs is spread? Its quite obvious and has been well known for years. The primary infection point was, if I remember correctly, traced to a particularly promiscuous flight attendant.

I didn't "dog" on Sabastian for stating that AIDS spread first and foremost among gays because of anal sex. I totally agree with that. I do, however, disagree with the morally judgemental overtones directed by him toward their activities. He can believe such behavior is morally wrong and that's fine (though I find such judgmental attitudes hypocritical from a Christian, but that's usually par for the course), but the morality of such behavior, which he introduced into this discussion, is, IMO, completely irrelevent, and it most certainly casts a shadow of "they deserved what they got" over the subject.

 

[John Reynolds]

Disagreements are one thing...the constant Bush Bashing / rhetoric and character assassination so left wing liberals like you is something else.

I mean, it's obvious to me based on this discussion you're a left wing lib...just as I would say the sky is blue on a sunny day, right?

Easy, big guy. We've disagreed before without getting personal and I'd like to keep it that way. But for the record, I've voted for more right wing presidential candidates than left. I am, I will admit, growing more and more vehemently anti-Bush as the weeks go by.

 

[Natoma]

Wow. I rest my case. Joe/Russ ^^^

CVD is probably the #1 or 2 killer here in the States. More research isn't necesarily needed either, since getting your average American to exercise more and improve their diet doesn't require a lot of federal money. But I suppose someone like Sabastian will gleefully correlate a lifetime of laziness and poor eating habits to casual sex with an infected person (the latter, after all, is the result "moral degradation").

Bullshit. My father and grandfather were reasonably fit and exercised regularly until the day they died at 62 and 57, respectively from heart disease. I too, am reasonably fit, but I'm pretty sure I'll suffer the same fate--either that or my brain will rot like my grandmother's did.

Lifestyle is a factor in heart disease and cancer, but is not the only, or even the greatest risk factor.

AIDS, on the other hand, the risk can be reduced to just about NILL by changing your lifestyle. The risk factors are well known and easily controlled.

Why you're dogging on Sabastian for pointing out the facts is beyond me.

p.s. how can you question how AIDs is spread? Its quite obvious and has been well known for years. The primary infection point was, if I remember correctly, traced to a particularly promiscuous flight attendant.

There is a difference between labeling AIDS as a "gay disease" and knowing the risk factors Russ. As you see in Africa, India, and China, where HIV is spread in the vast majority of cases through Heterosexual Intercourse, it is obviously not a "gay disease".

As for the flight attendant, the cases of the gay men in San Francisco who were the first to be diagnosed as HIV infected were traced back to him. However, HIV is speculated to have come to this country in the 30s. Doctors passed it off as a severe case of Pneumonia.

So frankly, we don't know when HIV came into this country. Regardless of all of this, it is obvious from infection rates around the world that HIV isn't a "gay disease" or a "drug addict disease" or a "hemophiliac disease" or a "straight woman's disease" or an "African disease" or an "Indian disease" or a "Chinese disease."

Labeling is dangerous and completely useless. What will help now is to educate people on the dangers of their sexual activity, and how to help prevent transmission. That is what is needed now. Not finger pointing at one particular demographic.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Labeling is dangerous and completely useless. What will help now is to educate people on the dangers of their sexual activity, and how to help prevent transmission. That is what is needed now. Not finger pointing at one particular demographic.

Natoma giving lectures on how not to finger point and label?

 

[Natoma]

Aids was and is hardly one of the most horrible epidemics. One of the most emotionally charged? Sure.

You should read up on the current infection rates in non-developed nations, as well as the infection and death rates anticipated over the next 20-30 years. It is a terrible epidemic now because of how many people are infected. It's going to get FAR worse as people start dying from the disease.

Remember, it takes roughly 10-20 years for the infection to take hold and kill the average infected person who receives no treatment. Many of those people in non-developed countries have it and don't even know they're passing it along, especially in Africa where it's anathema to use protection during sex.

And lets not even get into the growing trend of infected people in our own country who, with the use of antivirals, reduce their HIV load so far that they think they're "cured" and start having unprotected sex again.

You are completely and absolutely wrong when you say that AIDS isn't one of the worst documented epidemics we have ever faced as a species.

 

[Natoma]

Labeling is dangerous and completely useless. What will help now is to educate people on the dangers of their sexual activity, and how to help prevent transmission. That is what is needed now. Not finger pointing at one particular demographic.

Natoma giving lectures on how not to finger point and label?

When it comes to things that are not necessary? Certainly. AIDS is everyone's problem.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

You should read up on the current infection rates in non-developed nations,

No need.

...as well as the infection and death rates anticipated over the next 20-30 years. It is a terrible epidemic now because of how many people are infected. It's going to get FAR worse as people start dying from the disease.

There's already FAR more people dying from cancer and heart disease and whatever else.

In any case...I'm just flabberghasted that Bush has pledged to spend record amounts of money toward AIDS, and still it's not enough.

You are completely and absolutely wrong when you say that AIDS isn't one of the worst documented epidemics we have ever faced as a species.

I completely disagree.

 

[Natoma]

...as well as the infection and death rates anticipated over the next 20-30 years. It is a terrible epidemic now because of how many people are infected. It's going to get FAR worse as people start dying from the disease.

There's already FAR more people dying from cancer and heart disease and whatever else.

Worldwide Joe. HIV utterly dwarfs Cancer and Heart Disease. It isn't even close.

In any case...I'm just flabberghasted that Bush has pledged to spend record amounts of money toward AIDS, and still it's not enough.

Well as far as I'm concerned, the operative word in your statement is pledged. It still hasn't happened yet.

$5 Billion a year isn't enough to combat AIDS worldwide, but it is a start, and I applaud Bush for going that far. However, I have serious reservations with the clause in the proposal that states that a large chunk of the money is going to go to abstinence only programs, when its obvious that abstinence only just does not work in curtailing the spread of the disease.

You are completely and absolutely wrong when you say that AIDS isn't one of the worst documented epidemics we have ever faced as a species.

I completely disagree.

Then here are some statistics that may sober you.

3 Million worldwide died in 2003
5 Million people were infected in 2003 worldwide
40 Million people are currently living with HIV (2.7 Million children)
21.8 Million people died between 1981 and 2001
14 Million AIDS orphans, most of which are infected with the virus thanks to their parents, worldwide

Of the 40 Million people known to be infected with HIV, 28 Million live in Sub-Saharan Africa, and it's only getting worse. And these numbers do not take into account all those who are infected and simply do not go for testing.

China and India's HIV rates, growth wise, are closing in on Africa as well. All the numbers from the CDC to the WHO to UNAIDS point to a growing epidemic that will take off exponentially in the next 20 years. We've got a big problem on our hands, and its in large part because of the lack of education in India, China, and Africa, as well as a lacksadaisical attitude taking hold in developed countries such as the United States towards this disease.

You are just wrong Joe. Please educate yourself on this matter. It's not to be underestimated or taken lightly at all simply because "It's not me" or whatever reasoning you have to believe that AIDS is not a big deal.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Worldwide Joe. HIV utterly dwarfs Cancer and Heart Disease. It isn't even close.

And here I thought we were talking about the "Reagan era" epidemic...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

It's not to be underestimated or taken lightly at all simply because "It's not me" or whatever reasoning you have to believe that AIDS is not a big deal.

Um, I never said it wasn't a "big deal." There are OTHER "big deals", that are receiving far less attention / funds than AIDS is.

 

[Natoma]

Worldwide Joe. HIV utterly dwarfs Cancer and Heart Disease. It isn't even close.

And here I thought we were talking about the "Reagan era" epidemic...

Huh?