June 28, 2005
June 25, 2005
Atlanta City Council Accused Of Bigotry
ATLANTA - A proposed ordinance to bar panhandlers from accosting people in Atlanta's tourist section has run headlong into the politics of race in this city of the New South that likes to portray itself as having moved beyond black and white.
Hoping to boost convention business and tidy up downtown, the City Council is considering a measure to prevent visitors from being hit up for money by homeless people around Olympic Centennial park, CNN Center and some of the South's finest restaurants.
Read the story at Yahoo!/AP
June 23, 2005
Dick's Non-Apologizing Apology *sick*
Dick goes to the floor the United States Senate with a scripted speech and says our troops are essentially Nazi's and that Guantanamo Bay is along the lines of the German Ovens that killed Millions of Jews.... oh.. how about you resign and profusely apologize to every Jew, American and each and every one of our fine men and women in the military, Dick.
Here is the planned, calculated and spoken words of Dick.
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what
Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have
been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no
concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the
treatment of their prisoners."
Huh??
He is describing the horrible, in-human conditions like, "the temperature unbearably hot", "extremely loud rap music was being played", "the temperature was so cold in the room" and "The detainee was almost unconscious on the
floor, with a pile of hair next to him".
*blink*
Dick, you are either the most brain dead person in Washington or someone looking to get the liberal base set on fire to fatten your wallet for the coming mid-term elections.
My guess since you ARE a senator you have some brains and therefore this was PURE POLITICS and you could give a rats ass about the poor terrorists in Guantanamo.
Mind you there are only three types of prisoners there, let me enlighten you.
1. People killing, shooting or attempting to kill American troops.
2. People transporting and/or physically assisting those in number one.
3. People behind the folks in one and two supporting them by moving money and/or raising money.
Full Text @ Chicago Tribune news
For those who don't know what Dick said here it is.
Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion in recent days about whether to close the
detention center at Guantanamo Bay. This debate misses the point. It is not a question of
whether detainees are held at Guantanamo Bay or some other location. The question is how we
should treat those who have been detained there. Whether we treat them according to the law or
not does not depend on their address. It depends on our policy as a nation.
How should we treat them? This is not a new question. We are not writing on a blank
slate. We have entered into treaties over the years, saying this is how we will treat wartime
detainees. The United States has ratified these treaties. They are the law of the land as much as
any statute we passed. They have served our country well in past wars. We have held ourselves
to be a civilized country, willing to play by the rules, even in time of war.
Unfortunately, without even consulting Congress, the Bush administration unilaterally
decided to set aside these treaties and create their own rules about the treatment of prisoners.
Frankly, this Congress has failed to hold the administration accountable for its failure to
follow the law of the land when it comes to the torture and mistreatment of prisoners and
detainees.
I am a member of the Judiciary Committee. For two years, I have asked for hearings on
this issue. I am glad Chairman Specter will hold a hearing on wartime detention policies
tomorrow. I thank him for taking this step. I wish other members of his party would be willing
to hold this administration accountable as well.
It is worth reflecting for a moment about how we have reached this point. Many people
who read history remember, as World War II began with the attack on Pearl Harbor, a country in
fear after being attacked decided one way to protect America was to gather together Japanese
Americans and literally imprison them, put them in internment camps for fear they would be
traitors and turn on the United States. We did that. Thousands of lives were changed.
Thousands of businesses destroyed. Thousands of people, good American citizens, who
happened to be of Japanese ancestry, were treated like common criminals.
It took almost 40 years for us to acknowledge that we were wrong, to admit that these
people should never have been imprisoned. It was a shameful period in American history and
one that very few, if any, try to defend today.
I believe the torture techniques that have been used at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and
other places fall into that same category. I am confident, sadly confident, as I stand here, that
decades from now people will look back and say: What were they thinking? America, this great,
kind leader of a nation, treated people who were detained and imprisoned, interrogated people in
the crudest way? I am afraid this is going to be one of the bitter legacies of the invasion of Iraq.
We were attacked on September 11, 2001. We were clearly at war.
We have held prisoners in every armed conflict in which we have engaged. The law was
clear, but some of the President's top advisers questioned whether we should follow it or whether
we should write new standards.
Alberto Gonzales, then-White House chief counsel, recommended to the President the
Geneva Convention should not apply to the war on terrorism.
Colin Powell, who was then Secretary of State, objected strenuously to Alberto Gonzales'
conclusions. I give him credit. Colin Powell argued that we could effectively fight the war on
terrorism and still follow the law, still comply with the Geneva Conventions. In a memo to
Alberto Gonzales, Secretary Powell pointed out the Geneva Conventions would not limit our
ability to question the detainees or hold them even indefinitely. He pointed out that under
Geneva Conventions, members of al-Qaida and other terrorists would not be considered
prisoners of war.
There is a lot of confusion about that so let me repeat it. The Geneva Conventions do not
give POW status to terrorists.
In his memo to Gonzales, Secretary Powell went on to say setting aside the Geneva
Conventions “will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice... and undermine the
protections of the law of war for our own troops... It will undermine public support among
critical allies, making military cooperation more difficult to sustain.”
When you look at the negative publicity about Guantanamo, Secretary Colin Powell was
prophetic.
Unfortunately, the President rejected Secretary Powell's wise counsel, and instead
accepted Alberto Gonzales' recommendation, issuing a memo setting aside the Geneva
Conventions and concluding that we needed “new thinking in the law of war.”
After the President decided to ignore Geneva Conventions, the administration unilaterally
created a new detention policy. They claim the right to seize anyone, including even American
citizens, anywhere in the world, including in the United States, and hold them until the end of the
war on terrorism, whenever that may be.
For example, they have even argued in court they have the right to indefinitely detain an
elderly lady from Switzerland who writes checks to what she thinks is a charity that helps
orphans but actually is a front that finances terrorism.
They claim a person detained in the war on terrorism has no legal rights -- no right to a
lawyer, no right to see the evidence against them, no right to challenge their detention. In fact, the
Government has claimed detainees have no right to challenge their detention, even if they claim
they were being tortured or executed.
This violates the Geneva Conventions, which protect everyone captured during wartime.
The official commentary on the convention states: “Nobody in enemy hands can fall outside the
law.”
That is clear as it can be. But it was clearly rejected by the Bush administration when
Alberto Gonzales as White House counsel recommended otherwise.
U.S. military lawyers called this detention system “a legal black hole.” The Red Cross
concluded, “U.S. authorities have placed the internees in Guantanamo beyond the law.”
Using their new detention policy, the administration has detained thousands of individuals
in secret detention centers all around the world, some of them unknown to Members of Congress.
While it is the most well-known, Guantanamo Bay is only one of them. Most have been captured
in Afghanistan and Iraq, but some people who never raised arms against us have been taken
prisoner far from the battlefield.
Who are the Guantanamo detainees? Back in 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld described them as
“the hardest of the hard core.” However, the administration has since released many of them, and
it has now become clear that Secretary Rumsfeld's assertion was not completely true.
Military sources, according to the media, indicate that many detainees have no connection
to al-Qaida or the Taliban and were sent to Guantanamo over the objections of intelligence
personnel who recommended their release. One military officer said: “We're basically
condemning these guys to a long-term imprisonment. If they weren't terrorists before, they
certainly could be now.”
Last year, in two landmark decisions, the Supreme Court rejected the administration's
detention policy. The Court held that the detainees' claims that they were detained for over two
years without charge and without access to counsel “unquestionably describe custody in violation
of the Constitution, or laws or treaties of the United States.”
The Court also held that an American citizen held as an enemy combatant must be told the
basis for his detention and have a fair opportunity to challenge the Government's claims. Justice
Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority: “A state of war is not a blank check for the
President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens.”
You would think that would be obvious, wouldn't you? But yet, this administration, in this
war, has viewed it much differently.
I had hoped the Supreme Court decision would change the administration policy.
Unfortunately, the administration has resisted complying with the Supreme Court's decision.
The administration acknowledges detainees can challenge their detention in court, but it
still claims that once they get to court, they have no legal rights. In other words, the
administration believes a detainee can get to the courthouse door but cannot come inside.
A Federal court has already held the administration has failed to comply with the Supreme
Court's rulings. The court concluded that the detainees do have legal rights, and the
administration's policies “deprive the detainees of sufficient notice of the factual bases for their
detention and deny them a fair opportunity to challenge their incarceration.”
The administration also established a new interrogation policy that allows cruel and
inhuman interrogation techniques.
Remember what Secretary of State Colin Powell said? It is not a matter of following the
law because we said we would, it is a matter of how our troops will be treated in the future. That
is something often overlooked here. If we want standards of civilized conduct to be applied to
Americans captured in a warlike situation, we have to extend the same manner and type of
treatment to those whom we detain, our prisoners.
Secretary Rumsfeld approved numerous abusive interrogation tactics against prisoners in
Guantanamo. The Red Cross concluded that the use of those methods was "a form of torture."
The United States, which each year issues a human rights report, holding the world
accountable for outrageous conduct, is engaged in the same outrageous conduct when it comes to
these prisoners.
Numerous FBI agents who observed interrogations at Guantanamo Bay complained to
their supervisors. In one e-mail that has been made public, an FBI agent complained that
interrogators were using “torture techniques.”
That phrase did not come from a reporter or politician. It came from an FBI agent
describing what Americans were doing to these prisoners.
With no input from Congress, the administration set aside our treaty obligations and
secretly created new rules for detention and interrogation. They claim the courts have no right to
review these rules. But under our Constitution, it is Congress's job to make the laws, and the
court's job to judge whether they are constitutional.
This administration wants all the power: legislator, executive, and judge. Our founding
father were warned us about the dangers of the Executive Branch violating the separation of
powers during wartime. James Madison wrote: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative,
executive, and judiciary, in the same hands may justly be pronounced the very definition of
tyranny.”
Other Presidents have overreached during times of war, claiming legislative powers, but
the courts have reined them back in. During the Korean war, President Truman, faced with a steel
strike, issued an Executive order to seize and operate the Nation's steel mills. The Supreme Court
found that the seizure was an unconstitutional infringement on the Congress’s lawmaking power.
Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority, said: “The Constitution is neither silent nor
equivocal about who shall make the laws which the President is to execute ... The Founders of this
Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good times and bad.”
To win the war on terrorism, we must remain true to the principles upon which our
country was founded. This Administration’s detention and interrogation policies are placing our
troops at risk and making it harder to combat terrorism.
Former Congressman Pete Peterson of Florida, a man I call a good friend and a man I
served with in the House of Representatives, is a unique individual. He is one of the most
cheerful people you would ever want to meet. You would never know, when you meet him, he
was an Air Force pilot taken prisoner of war in Vietnam and spent 6 1/2 years in a Vietnamese
prison. Here is what he said about this issue in a letter that he sent to me. Pete Peterson wrote:
From my 6 1/2 years of captivity in Vietnam, I know what life in a foreign prison is like.
To a large degree, I credit the Geneva Conventions for my survival....This is one reason
the United States has led the world in upholding treaties governing the status and care of
enemy prisoners: because these standards also protect us....We need absolute clarity that
America will continue to set the gold standard in the treatment of prisoners in wartime.
Abusive detention and interrogation policies make it much more difficult to win the
support of people around the world, particularly those in the Muslim world. The war on terrorism
is not a popularity contest, but anti-American sentiment breeds sympathy for anti-American
terrorist organizations and makes it far easier for them to recruit young terrorists.
Polls show that Muslims have positive attitudes toward the American people and our
values. However, overall, favorable ratings toward the United States and its Government are very
low. This is driven largely by the negative attitudes toward the policies of this administration.
Muslims respect our values, but we must convince them that our actions reflect these
values. That’s why the 9/11 Commission recommended: “We should offer an example of moral
leadership in the world, committed to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be
generous and caring to our neighbors.”
What should we do? Imagine if the President had followed Colin Powell's advice and
respected our treaty obligations. How would things have been different?
We still would have the ability to hold detainees and to interrogate them aggressively.
Members of al-Qaida would not be prisoners of war. We would be able to do everything we need
to do to keep our country safe. The difference is, we would not have damaged our reputation in
the international community in the process.
When you read some of the graphic descriptions of what has occurred here -- I almost
hesitate to put them in the record, and yet they have to be added to this debate. Let me read to you
what one FBI agent saw. And I quote from his report:
On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and
foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they urinated
or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one
occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so
cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold....On another
occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the
unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the
floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out
throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot,
but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day
before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.
If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what
Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have
been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no
concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the
treatment of their prisoners.
It is not too late. I hope we will learn from history. I hope we will change course.
The President could declare the United States will apply the Geneva Conventions to the
war on terrorism. He could declare, as he should, that the United States will not, under any
circumstances, subject any detainee to torture, or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The
administration could give all detainees a meaningful opportunity to challenge their detention
before a neutral decisionmaker.
Such a change of course would dramatically improve our image and it would make us
safer. I hope this administration will choose that course. If they do not, Congress must step in.
The issue debated in the press today misses the point. The issue is not about closing
Guantanamo Bay. It is not a question of the address of these prisoners. It is a question of how we
treat these prisoners. To close down Guantanamo and ship these prisoners off to undisclosed
locations in other countries, beyond the reach of publicity, beyond the reach of any surveillance, is
to give up on the most basic and fundamental commitment to justice and fairness, a commitment
we made when we signed the Geneva Convention and said the United States accepts it as the law
of the land, a commitment which we have made over and over again when it comes to the issue of
torture. To criticize the rest of the world for using torture and to turn a blind eye to what we are
doing in this war is wrong, and it is not American.
During the Civil War, President Lincoln, one of our greatest presidents, suspended habeas
corpus, which gives prisoners the right to challenge their detention. The Supreme Court stood up
to the President and said prisoners have the right to judicial review even during war.
Let me read what that Court said:
The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war and in
peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men, at all times, and
under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more pernicious consequences, was ever
invented by the wit of man than that any of its provisions could be suspended during any
of the great exigencies of government. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or
despotism.
Mr. President, those words still ring true today. The Constitution is a law for this
administration, equally in war and in peace. If the Constitution could withstand the Civil War,
when our nation was literally divided against itself, surely it will withstand the war on terrorism.
I yield the floor.
June 22, 2005
U.S. Trained Mexican Commandos on U.S. Killing Spree
The feds have been alerted through a memo to law enforcement throughout the southwest, telling them that Mexican commandos are now working for drug cartels.
You'll be shocked to learn where the commandos were trained.
The memo from the Justice Department warns that Mexican commandos were trained by U.S. forces, but switched sides. They are now using their deadly skills to work for the drug cartels.
They were elite forces trained by the U.S. Army at Fort Benning, \Georgia to battle against the powerful drug cartels.
They're known as "los zetas," but a memo from the Justice Department to police agencies in the southwest warns that some of those commandos changed sides and are now working with drug smugglers.
Sheriff Tony Estrada says, "Things like that are a concern to us, especially trained here on the U.S. side. They've gotten pretty special training in reguards to areas they were supposed to specialize. Now, they are working with drug traffickers on the Mexican side."
Using the commando training, Los Zetas are known to be extremely violent and have been blamed for an outbreak of violence along the Mexican border.
Full Story @ KVOA
June 21, 2005
Teens give adults mediocre grades, survey finds
WASHINGTON - School is out across much of the country, and so is the seventh annual Uhlich Report Card, a survey that gives teenagers a chance to grade adults on how well they're solving problems teens and the rest of the nation face.
They didn't give adults a report card that most kids would be proud to take home, however. Adults' overall grade came out to a C; they scored 10 B's, 13 C's, one D and no A's when their grades in 24 categories were averaged.
**I just thought this was an interresting article. Out of the mouth of babes.**
Full Story @ Yahoo! News
June 20, 2005
Schiavo Was Beyond Saving, Autopsy Finds
MIAMI — During
Terri Schiavo's final days, when her fervent supporters said she was alert, responsive and trying to speak, she was massively and irreversibly brain-damaged, blind and oblivious to what surrounded her, a medical examiner's findings revealed Wednesday.
Schiavo died March 31 at a Pinellas Park, Fla., hospice after the plastic tube through which she had received food and water for 15 years was removed by a Florida judge's order, sought by her husband, who contended that she was in a persistent vegetative state.
Full Story @ Yahoo! News
June 19, 2005
Oil shale activity may lag in Wyo
LANDER -- The Rocky Mountain West has up to 1 trillion barrels of oil bound in 1,000-foot-thick oil shale formations in northwestern Colorado, southwestern Wyoming and eastern Utah.
Don't expect much development of this resource any time soon in the Cowboy State.
"The quality of the oil shale deposits in Wyoming just isn't as good as those in Colorado," said Cindy Wertz, spokeswoman for the Wyoming office of the Bureau of Land Management.
Full Story @ casperstartribune.net
June 18, 2005
NIMBY is no solution for child molesters
For sex offenders who prey on children, out of sight isn't out of mind. That is just one reason the "pedophile-free zones" that the Hamilton Township Council created on Tuesday night won't work.
Though the goal is admirable, forbidding convicted pedophiles from living within 2,500 feet of schools, parks and playgrounds is largely a symbolic gesture.
The vast majority of sex crimes against children are committed not by strangers lurking in the bushes but by people those children know and trust - in other words, by people literally in the children's back yards.
Full Story @ North Jersey Media Group
June 17, 2005
Security Breach Could Expose 40M to Fraud
NEW YORK (AP) - A security breach of customer information at a credit card transaction company could expose to fraud up to 40 million cardholders of multiple brands, MasterCard International Inc. said Friday.
The credit card giant said its security division detected multiple instances of fraud that tracked back to CardSystems Solutions Inc., which processes credit card and other payments for banks and merchants.
The compromised data included names, banks and account numbers - not addresses or Social Security numbers, said MasterCard spokeswoman Sharon Gamsin. Such data could be used to steal funds but not identities.
It was the latest in a series of security breaches affecting valuable consumer data at major financial institutions and data brokers in an increasingly database-driven world.
The breach appears to be the largest yet involving financial data, said David Sobel, general counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.
"The steady stream of these disclosures shows the pressing need for regulation of the industry both in terms of limitation in the amount of personal information that companies collect and also liability when these kinds of disclosures occur," Sobel said.
Full Story @ Excite News
June 12, 2005
Zoids Genesis Review
Ok, it's not a real review as I have no idea what they were saying. I still don't understand Japanese, after 138 episodes of Naruto. :-P
I picked up the raw rip of the 1st ever episode of Zoids Genesis yesterday. (you can get it from SaiyMan.Net)
It's not too bad, although the main guy (or child) is quite young. He appears to be younger than Van was in CC.
I took a dozen screens for those that have not yet seen it. I'll post them up later today.
The main Zoid (the Murasame Liger)seems to have been hidden in the bottom of a lake (oh, kinda reminds me of the backdraft groups finding of the Beserk Fury) and found by Lugi. He and his family bring it to the surface just in time for some bio-dino type zoids to attack. His family tries to fight them off but they fail and he and the Liger join forces to defeat the attackers. Not a real clever plot or story as it's been done in Zoids and elsewhere before. But who really cares, its Zoids!
I'm looking for a fansub so I know what the heck they are saying, if anyone finds one let me know. Thanks.
(click on image)
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
 |  |  |
June 10, 2005
Star fulfills vow to Fisher House
FORT SAM HOUSTON - Months after visiting a military hospital and promising to help families of wounded U.S. soldiers, actor Denzel Washington has come through in a big way.
ADVERTISEMENT
Washington gave one of the biggest donations ever made to Fisher House Foundation Inc., which operates guest facilities for families with loved ones recuperating in military hospitals, an official at the nonprofit said Wednesday.
"Denzel and his wife, Pauletta, did send us a check with their donation," said James Weiskopf of Rockville, Md., the foundation's vice president for communications.
"While we do not disclose the amount of a donation without approval from the donor, we can acknowledge that it is one of the most significant received in our history," Weiskopf said.
Full Story @ HoustonChronicle.com
I think it's funny (not as in haha funny but sad/odd funny) how a big movie star has a heart and gives a huge donation to help our troops and almost nobody reports it.
June 09, 2005
Dean: The mouth that won't stop roaring
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, unapologetic in the face of recent criticism that he has been too tough on his political opposition, said in San Francisco this week that Republicans "all behave the same, and they all look the same. ... It's pretty much a white Christian party."
Full Story @ SFGate
"We're more welcoming to different folks, because that's the kind of people we are,'' Dean said Monday, responding to a question about diversity during a forum with minority leaders and journalists. "But that's not enough. We do have to deliver on things: jobs and housing and business opportunities and college opportunities.''
Dean's remarks are an example of why the former Vermont governor, who remains popular with the party's grass roots, has been a lightning rod for criticism since being elected to head the Democratic National Committee in February. His comments last week that Republicans "never made an honest living in their lives," which he later clarified to say Republican "leaders," were disavowed by such leading Democrats as Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.
June 06, 2005
Supreme Court Rules In Medical Marajauna Case
WASHINGTON - People who smoke marijuana because their doctors recommend it to ease pain can be prosecuted for violating federal drug laws, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, overriding medical marijuana statutes in 10 states.
ADVERTISEMENT
The court's 6-3 decision was filled with sympathy for two seriously ill California women who brought the case, but the majority agreed that federal agents may arrest even sick people who use the drug as well as the people who grow pot for them.
Read the story at Yahoo! News/AP
June 05, 2005
Petition of Mindless Fools
You have to see this, it's the saddest, yet funniest thing I've seen in a while.Petition to Impeach George W. Bush
All these mindless twits signing a petition to impeach dubbah. Oh the waste of good soldiers we have had when these fools would of been much better cover for our guys to shoot from behind.
Hell, the best one in their "list" is the crying about the Patriot Act that both sides wrote, agreed and voted into law!
How about voting out the losers that wrote the bill instead of bitching about the supposed misuse of it by a third party.
If you go on holiday and your kids decide to open up your pool to the public and people at random take dumps in the pool while swimming you don't come home and want to fire the lifeguard when it was your kids who created the situation in the first place? (unless your a mindless tool who signed this petition).
Ok, I'm done venting.
June 02, 2005
Mark Felt
I'm of the opinion that Mark Felt was a pretentious jerk. Hero? Hardly. A man with no honor or integrity I'd say.
The liberal press is painting this man as a saint. But look at the facts: he attempted to undermine our judicial system. You say, well he couldn't go to his superiors at the FBI, they were owned by Nixon. That may be true. But, there were people at the Justice Department who were not crooked and there was 535 senators and congressman most of whom would have loved to fry Nixon. Then, if all else failed he could have gone to the press and said it for all the world to see instead of hiding for 30 years like a little baby. Even now, his family made him because they thought they could cash in on it! The lack of honor just continues!
Was Nixon guilty? Yes indeed! There is no doubt left on that matter. But by the laws of the United States he was owed due process, something that Mark Felt de facto denied him.
I'm all for blowing the whistle on people, but do it like a man and to the right people.
UN Thinks Stopping AIDS Is Unrealistic.
I'm not going to reprint any of the article. I let you all read it, but essentially the UN's AIDS chief said that the goal of halting the worldwide AIDS spread by 2015 is not a realistic goal. He later said it was however possible. How he reconciles the 2 statements, I'll never know.
This is a particularly sore spot with me. Let me be the first to say the following:
It is very much realistic to stop the spread by 2006 and this lack of faith in humanity is both sickening and further reasoning for the abolishment of the UN.
The problem of AIDS is a lack of education. Most people know little to nothing about the disease. This problem is only compounded in Africa where civil wars have ravaged many nations preventing any sort of education about things as simple as disease.
We can not prevent idiots from continueing to put themselves at risk. But we can educate people as to how to prevent the disease.