Friday, September 05, 2003
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
Food for Thought
While we're still sort of on the subject of controversial but practical positions (see Bobby's post on sterilization below), I direct you to this article on AIDS medication in Africa from today's New York Times.Semi-hidden as it was, the article highlights some significant facts -- namely, that despite what the Times calls "racial prejudice" (but is probably rooted more in practical fears common to all types of investment in very poor, unstable regions than in an abstract prejudice) about the consistency with which Africans are taking their pills, they're actually more responsible than Americans in that respect.
The main question is why, and the fascinating answer, according to this article, is as follows:
Though poor, more than 80 percent of the Ugandans had jobs, though most earned less than $50 a month. Most were women in their 30's, and paying $27 a month for their twice-a-day, three-drugs-in-one pill called Triomune, made by Cipla Ltd. of Bombay.The harsh economic truth speaks loud and clear: when people don't have to work for something, they take it for granted, with all the useless waste that goes along with it. I'm not saying we shouldn't help people in need. I am saying that it's still better, in both the short and the long run, economically and idealistically, to teach a man to fish. And it's high time we incorporated those thoughts into this country's public health policies.
In many such cases, explained Dr. Merle A. Sande, a University of Utah medical school professor who also works in Uganda, the whole extended family, possibly with several infected members, will chip in so that one member will be saved to care for the children.
"If the whole family is pooling its resources to pay for you," he said, "you damn well better take your drugs.
"That's a whole different scenario from the U.S., where patients get free medicine, and if they change therapy, will let a month's worth go to waste."
[PS I believe there was an article in last week's Economist along the same lines, but addressing the issue of homelessness. I'll try to dig it out for a later update if anyone is interested.]
Hey, why hash it out in comments, when we have all this space to work with.
Being flown to an aircraft carrier and saying "mission accomplished" doesn't end a war.
I challenge anyone to quote Bush saying that a war was over. Firstly, and rightly, he referred to Iraq as a battle, as in Iraq is only one battle in a much bigger war. Just as Midway, Okinawa, all those pesky little islands in the Pacific, were battles (and much bloodier than Afghanistan and Iraq combined) in a much larger war. As Kashei points out in the comments below, the primary mission of removing Hussein from power was accomplished by that point.
And the swagger of a President saying "bring em on" will never bring peace.
Need I drag out the fly-paper analogy again? I have no problem with "bring 'em on." And "bring 'em on" decidedly wasn't intended to bring peace. It was meant to attract all the looneys and death-worshippers to a theater where they can be dealt with by professional soldiers, rather than dealt with by firemen, police and EMT crews mopping up human remains from the floor of a cafe or shopping mall.
That speech by Kerry was a long-winded serving of yesterday's leftovers. Hurts my eyes to read it and makes me thankful my ears didn't have to suffer through it.
Being flown to an aircraft carrier and saying "mission accomplished" doesn't end a war.
I challenge anyone to quote Bush saying that a war was over. Firstly, and rightly, he referred to Iraq as a battle, as in Iraq is only one battle in a much bigger war. Just as Midway, Okinawa, all those pesky little islands in the Pacific, were battles (and much bloodier than Afghanistan and Iraq combined) in a much larger war. As Kashei points out in the comments below, the primary mission of removing Hussein from power was accomplished by that point.
And the swagger of a President saying "bring em on" will never bring peace.
Need I drag out the fly-paper analogy again? I have no problem with "bring 'em on." And "bring 'em on" decidedly wasn't intended to bring peace. It was meant to attract all the looneys and death-worshippers to a theater where they can be dealt with by professional soldiers, rather than dealt with by firemen, police and EMT crews mopping up human remains from the floor of a cafe or shopping mall.
That speech by Kerry was a long-winded serving of yesterday's leftovers. Hurts my eyes to read it and makes me thankful my ears didn't have to suffer through it.