Sunday, December 03, 2006

AIDS carriers welcomed to America

The novel ways the Bush Administration keeps coming up with to give a continual figurative middle finger to its conservative base is nothing short of astounding. This isn't an Onion piece, though you could've fooled me. More compassionate conservatism I guess:
President Bush will ease a long-standing rule barring HIV-positive people from entering the United States without a special waiver, a ban long criticized by human rights groups.

Because of the rule, organizers of the biannual International AIDS Conferences have not held a gathering in the United States since 1990, when San Francisco hosted the event.
Reward the homosexual capital of the Western Hempisphere with an international AIDS conference for snubbing the military you're breaking on the sandy shoals of the Iraq debacle! Rove truly is a genius.

Bush is issuing an executive order that overrides the Congressionally-approved NIH Revitalization Act of 1993. Abuse of executive power, abuse of executive power!

Activists praise Bush's unexpected decision, but lament the damage the Act has already done:
If you want to remove stigma from AIDS, you have to go the whole distance, and eliminate all restrictions on entry to the United States for people with HIV.
Why remove the stigma? AIDS is ravaging Africa and spreading in Central America and Southeast Asia. It's a virtual death sentence that is totally preventable. It costs the global economy an estimated Excepting children who are born to HIV-positive mothers and rape victims, all those who do or will suffer from the AIDS virus do so of their own accord. It doesn't jump off the wall and zap you or end up in your salad when the cook forgets to wash his hands.

It's a discriminating plague, not an attribute of cultural diversity to be celebrated. Next to finding a cure (why not put efforts into that so those previously infected can visit the US with impunity in the future at the expense of currently laboring for them to be able to come here prior to a cure?), the best way to eradicate the nefarious thing is to find a way increase the globe's collective IQ (the inverse correlation between a nation's AIDS prevalency rate and its estimated IQ is a statistically significant .55, and a common misconception is that intercourse with a virgin provides a cure!), not cater to those who've made terrible decisions in their lives by pretending they're victims, and in the process stop sufficiently scaring some of those who would engage in similar risky behaviors out of doing so.

5 comments:

JSBolton said...

This triggers my apprehensions on this administration and the leftist anti-culture it is supposed to be well to the right of.
There are vectors, and to be for them, is to be awfully far down in a moral abyss.
If the vector is evil, what word conveys the depravity of the vectorist? That is, one who is not afflicted himself, but would aid those who spread such an affliction.
Alternatively, such people do have a disease themselves, and one that can get them to command others to be open to worse and worse things.
If, in Africa, there arises spontaneously such a notion, as that they might cure their disease by spreading it to a virgin; isn't this awfully like the exact program that an infectious agent, which needs only to transmit itself, would impose?
In proportion as someone is unintelligent, un-self-conscious and demented, won't they be more candid in expressing, without excuses or elaboration, such a program as could be a parasite manipulation, as suggested above?
If transmission is all it has to accomplish, and it can impose one and only one simple directive, mustn't this be : command others to be open- to such transmission?

crush41 said...

The argument as such makes sense, in a twisted sort of way. As if the AIDS virus afflicts more than just the immune system. Sinister thing!

Anonymous said...

Why remove the stigma?

Good question. Actually, the "stigma" (since they insist on calling it that) attached to AIDS is based on 1) its transmissibility, 2) its incurability, and 3) the way it is transmitted, i.e. largely via what used to be called sexual immorality. Just another example of the complete moral inversion attempted by some: it's not AIDS or the behavior that results in its transmission that is the problem.

Anonymous said...

The most easily preventable disease in the world. If you have certain strains of TB, you are not allowed into this country (legally that is). The only reason that AIDS patients are being permitted is becuse of the "activist" nature of the disease and those who are part of its politics. If AIDS was a middle class white guy disease, nobody would care. Speaking of the idea that sex with a vriogin will cure AIDS, there has been a campaign recently to put up large signs in public areas of SA refuting that belief. For a look at how the activist gay community is reacting to AIDS at this date, please read this article here:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050523fa_fact

We have this kind of behavior by Americans! So what do we do, we bring in those of an equally barbaric mindset. Unbelievable. My taxes just went up to support immigrant AIDS patients. Not to be crude, but every time I turn around the white middle class is being F*!@ked!!

crush41 said...

Anon,

I understand your sentiment only too well. The New Yorker article made my stomach turn, although I think it was supposed to be 'inspiring' (I guess).