AIDS Overblown? Finally the press allows dissent

I've been saying AIDS has been overblown for years. AIDS is relevantly preventable. There's only going to be so much money donated. Donations to AIDS hurts donations for cancer research. Cancer doesn't discriminate. A lot of the AIDS cases and deaths in Africa are sometimes other diseases, reclassified as AIDS in order to increase numbers, in order to increase funding.

Global AIDS crisis overblown? Some dare to say so

LONDON – As World AIDS Day is marked on Monday, some experts are growing more outspoken in complaining that AIDS is eating up funding at the expense of more pressing health needs.

They argue that the world has entered a post-AIDS era in which the disease's spread has largely been curbed in much of the world, Africa excepted.

"AIDS is a terrible humanitarian tragedy, but it's just one of many terrible humanitarian tragedies," said Jeremy Shiffman, who studies health spending at Syracuse University.

Roger England of Health Systems Workshop, a think tank based in the Caribbean island of Grenada, goes further. He argues that UNAIDS, the U.N. agency leading the fight against the disease, has outlived its purpose and should be disbanded.

"The global HIV industry is too big and out of control. We have created a monster with too many vested interests and reputations at stake, ... too many relatively well paid HIV staff in affected countries, and too many rock stars with AIDS support as a fashion accessory," he wrote in the British Medical Journal in May.

Paul de Lay, a director at UNAIDS, disagrees. It's valid to question AIDS' place in the world's priorities, he says, but insists the turnaround is very recent and it would be wrong to think the epidemic is under control.

"We have an epidemic that has caused between 55 million and 60 million infections," de Lay said. "To suddenly pull the rug out from underneath that would be disastrous."

U.N. officials roughly estimate that about 33 million people worldwide have HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. Scientists say infections peaked in the late 1990s and are unlikely to spark big epidemics beyond Africa.

In developed countries, AIDS drugs have turned the once-fatal disease into a manageable illness.

England argues that closing UNAIDS would free up its $200 million annual budget for other health problems such as pneumonia, which kills more children every year than AIDS, malaria and measles combined.

"By putting more money into AIDS, we are implicitly saying it's OK for more kids to die of pneumonia," England said.

His comments touch on the bigger complaint: that AIDS hogs money and may damage other health programs.

By 2006, AIDS funding accounted for 80 percent of all American aid for health and population issues, according to the Global Health Council.

In Ethiopia, Rwanda, Uganda and elsewhere, donations for HIV projects routinely outstrip the entire national health budgets.

In a 2006 report, Rwandan officials noted a "gross misallocation of resources" in health: $47 million went to HIV, $18 million went to malaria, the country's biggest killer, and $1 million went to childhood illnesses.

"There needs to be a rational system for how to apportion scarce funds," said Helen Epstein, an AIDS expert who has consulted for UNICEF, the World Bank, and others.

AIDS advocates say their projects do more than curb the virus; their efforts strengthen other health programs by providing basic health services.

But across Africa, about 1.5 million doctors and nurses are still needed, and hospitals regularly run out of basic medicines.

Experts working on other health problems struggle to attract money and attention when competing with AIDS.

"Diarrhea kills five times as many kids as AIDS," said John Oldfield, executive vice president of Water Advocates, a Washington, D.C.-based organization that promotes clean water and sanitation.

"Everybody talks about AIDS at cocktail parties," Oldfield said. "But nobody wants to hear about diarrhea," he said.

These competing claims on public money are likely to grow louder as the world financial meltdown threatens to deplete health dollars.

"We cannot afford, in this time of crisis, to squander our investments," Dr. Margaret Chan, WHO's director-general, said in a recent statement.

Some experts ask whether it makes sense to have UNAIDS, WHO, UNICEF, the World Bank, the Global Fund plus countless other AIDS organizations, all serving the same cause.

"I do not want to see the cause of AIDS harmed," said Shiffman of Syracuse University. But "For AIDS to crowd out other issues is ethically unjust."

De Lay argues that the solution is not to reshuffle resources but to boost them.

"To take money away from AIDS and give it to diarrheal diseases or onchocerciasis (river blindness) or leishmaniasis (disfiguring parasites) doesn't make any sense," he said. "We'd just be doing a worse job in everything else."

S&P 500 breaks new lows

The S&P 500 close at 752.44. It's down almost 50% for the year. That's the lowest it's been since 1997. Yep, 11 years of gains have been erased. That means if you started working from any point since 1997, and have been duitifully investing in a 401K, you are negative. If a fund option was "Bury it in my backyard", you would have a better return than everyone else.

It's down over 22% since Barack Obama got elected. While Obama didn't cause the financial crisis, noone can claim that there isn't uncertainity of what an Obama administration will do. The market will sell into uncertainity.

Back in 2002, there was fear it would go to 500. It stopped at 768 and climbed. We'll see what happens this year.

Civic Review: Checks and Balances

So a civics reminder. The constitution was designed with checks and balances. While the judicial check on legislatures is well known (declaring things unconstitutional), there is a check on the judiciary. It's called a constitutional amendment.

That's what voters decided to do in California with Proposition 8. The new constitutional amendment should supersede any vague language about "due process of law".

However, the liberal judiciary is still trying to push it's nose in the way.

"The California Supreme Court today denied requests to stay the enforcement or implementation of Proposition 8, and at the same time agreed to decide several issues arising out of the passage of Proposition 8.

"The court’s order, issued in the first three cases that had been filed directly in the state’s highest court challenging the validity of Proposition 8, directed the parties to brief and argue three issues:

(1) Is Proposition 8 invalid because it constitutes a revision of, rather than an amendment to, the California Constitution?

(2) Does Proposition 8 violate the separation-of-powers doctrine under the California Constitution?

(3) If Proposition 8 is not unconstitutional, what is its effect, if any, on the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the adoption of Proposition 8?"

Who needs a democracy? We can just be ruled by a few judges.

Pirates Ho!

The level of pirate hijacking has increased to level not seen in recent memory. Ten years ago, when I would tell people that there are still pirates, people were surprised. They mostly prowled in the Straits of Malacca near Singapore. Now the lawless country of Somali has given these pirates a place to stay.

Among the recent prizes, the Somali pirates have gained a Russian ship full of T-72 tanks and Saudi supertanker.

"This year, 39 ships have been hijacked in the Gulf of Aden, and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Wednesday that pirates off Somalia had taken in an estimated $25 million to $30 million in ransom in 2008."

Where's the Navy? We hear about all of these ships moving to the area, yet we hear about the attacks continuing. The Indian Navy, today, sunk a "mothership". Probably because the Indians can see pirate ship and sink it. The Americans and the British probably have to get permission from the top ranks who are busy weighing the political implications of actually doing something. What good is a weapon if you are not allowed to use it?

I understand the size and the speed of the Pirate ships can be difficult from the relatively slower capital ships. However, what is preventing the Navy from arming some merchant ships and creating some bait. The pirates are in open top speed boat. Have the ship fire some larger exploding shells which rain metal scrap onto the open boat. Is it that hard?

Can we finally agree that inaction only breeds more brazeness. You only can negotiate diplomatically with rational people.

An Auto bailout is a Union Bailout

I am very supportive of the American auto industry, I've only owned American cars. I think their quality is better than their reputation. However, I am wary of an auto bailout. An auto bailout is a union bailout.

The reason that US auto makers are not competitive and their quality lags is that the UAW has had a strangehold on the auto makers. Union imposed costs and regulation have made the auto makers uncompetitive. They have selectively increased costs to GM and Ford, but Honda and Toyota are not subject to their agreements. That means Honda and Toyota can not only make cars for cheaper, they can cut wasteful spending and improve production processes. Toyota's manufacturing system is world reknown. GM couldn't even think about replicating it because the union contract would stipulate that X number of worker are required to do a certain job.

A bailout won't make GM more competitive. It'll buy them some more time. 3 years later, they'll need bailing out again. Let them go into Chapter 11 and break the union contracts. Emerge a stronger company. Delta did. So can GM.

The Coming Judiciocracy

While this decision went in favor of the Supreme Court, this decision was scarily a 5-4 decision to allow the Navy to train using sonar. Do they really want handcuff our Navy? It's a decision that should be 9-0. Imagine what the court would be if even Anthony Kennedy was replace with a Ginsberg clone?

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that military training trumps protecting whales in a dispute over the Navy's use of sonar in submarine-hunting exercises off the coast of southern California

"In contrast, forcing the Navy to deploy an inadequately trained anti-submarine force jeopardizes the safety of the fleet," the chief justice wrote. He said the "overall public interest tips strongly in favor of the Navy."

Joining Roberts' opinion were Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Justice John Paul Stevens did not join the majority opinion, but said the lower courts had failed to adequately explain the basis for siding with the environmental groups. Justice Stephen Breyer would have allowed some restrictions to remain.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, saying the prospect of harm to the whales was sufficient to justify limits on sonar use

Politics as Marketing

Today, there's been a lot of discussion recently as to what the Republicans need to do to get back on track. Politics isn't terrible much different than marketing. The reasons why someone buys a product is similar to why someone will vote for you.

Why would someone want to vote for a Republican? What is their message? What's their value proposition? What do they stand for?

If you look at the years when they had control, 2002-2006, it would be pretty hard to spot. High spending, pork projects, high deficits, a war without proper leadership, odd judicial appointments, amnesty for illegals, and the inability to fix social security or taxes.

Now the Republican Party needs to restructure.

Kill Karl Rove's "Big Tent" Republicanism

The big tent, is the idea that if the Republican party moves to the left a bit, they will keep the conservatives and pick up moderates. Wrong. In marketing, this is called brand dillution. It's like saying that Porsche would get more in sales if they made minivans as well. Porsche stands for something: frickin' fast cars. That image is lost if they made minivans. The same principle applies to the Republican Party.

Increase Party Discipline

Stop coddling the liberal Republicans. Liberal Republicans, such as Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chaffee, and Arlen Spector, were often a thorn in any effort to pass any substantive conservative legislation. Instead of cultivating party discipline, the party waffled. These liberal Republicans constantly took Democratic positions, but then the RNC supported their reelection. Bush memorably campaigned for Arlen Spector in 2004 in the Republican primary, fearing that Toomey couldn't win the general election. The party might have lost a fight, but they would have been willing to show that they were the party of principle and new energy, not politics as usual. They won that battle and Spector was reelected, but four years later, the Republicans who then had 56 seats, now have 43 at most. Republicans seem to be a party that is intent on winning the battle but losing the war.

Businesses close unprofitable stores or product lines all the time. The Republicans need to do the same.

An Uncertain Future

Despite wishful predictions, Barack Obama was elected president. However, I see an uncertain future. Some thoughts and comments:

• With the election of Barack Obama, we've witnessed what I call, "The American Idolization of Politics" (Pop Idolization for all you Brits). People voting for the most important job in the world based on a good smile and flowery rhetoric. Some people voted because they always vote Democrat or they "wanted to a part of history" (bandwagon voters).



• How will Barack Obama govern? All the pundits were debating whether he would govern from the left or from the center. It's anybody's guess because he has no track record.



• This is a victory for the mainstream media. They have proven that they can put someone in the White House, no matter how inexperienced, no matter who his previous alliances were, and no matter how many times he had broken a promise. The media savagely attacked Palin for a lack of experience while their own Presidential candidate had just as much. Although I'm not a fan of campaign finance limitations, I can't imagine what the media would have said about McCain had he broken a promise to take public financing while Obama kept one. I wonder what was on the Rashid Khalidi tape that the LA Times sat on. Was it Obama laughing at anti-semetic jokes?



• I'm not hopeful about the economy, especially in the next several months. Who wants to invest money when the capital gains taxes rates are uncertain? Business hates uncertainty.



• Will Barack be tested at Biden predicted? Where will it come from? Russia trying to gain control over a former Soviet state? Palestine and Israel? Iran or Syria? China and Taiwan? Will his years as a law school professor provide valuable experience?



• How will Barack handle having to make tough decisions? He either signs a bill or he doesn't. He can't vote "present."



• Will people turn sour to Barack once the country is magically changed into a utopia within 6 months? He's already trying downplay expectations. In his acceptance speech, he said that "There will be setbacks and false starts" and "We may not get there in one year or even in one term." (He's already reelected himself).



• Various ballot initiatives indicate the country hasn't lurched to the left. Gay marriage bans passed in California by 52% and Florida by 62%. Affirmative action was banned in Nebraska by 58%, and is leading in Colorado. Arkansas banned adoption by unmarried couples (gay) by 57%. On the downside, severely limiting abortion in South Dakota failed 55%-45%, Colorado's attempt to define life from conception failed with only 27%. Washington allowed doctor-assisted suicide with 59%



• I am curious as to how Obama in the popular vote compared with the total of all the votes for a Democrat in the House. Did he outperform or under perform?



• If amnesty is given to millions of illegal immigrants, will the Democrats be able to cement their majority for years by adding another 10 million voters? Will they push through sameday voter registration?



• How radical will Obama's judges be? Obama could be voted out in 4 years, but his judicial appointments could be around in 30 years. Will the Supreme Court continue to think that your property can be confiscated for any purpose it sees fit? Will it revisit Heller? We know Roe won't get overturned.



• I think Sarah Palin has future. If her main criticism was a lack of experience, certainly more experience will erode that concern. She was not completely typecast as stupid, like Dan Quayle was.

Update: Attacks on Sarah Palin have continued. She is being blamed in the press for causing the loss of the election. The left is trying to destroy her chances of a political future on the national stage. While she can come back from criticism of lack of experience as I noted, if she is tarnished as being a loser or a failure, then her future is much more in jeopardy. Her best bet may be to become the Senator. If she returns to Alaska as governor, she will fall away from the spotlight. If she is able to continue to play a role in national politics, then these criticisms will lose their effect.

Election Predictions

With the election tomorrow, McCain seems to be trailing heavily in the polls. For the popular vote, Rasmussen says Obama by 6%, Zogby says 7%. Gallup says 8%, and CBS News has a landslide 13%. The only close one is Investors Business Daily/TIPP, which has Obama by 2%, with nearly 9% undecided. Electorally, yahoo says it's going to be a blowout:



So does electoral-vote.com:


However, I take a different view. I find it hard to believe that Obama is going to win in battleground states that went to Hillary Clinton by a significant margin. I believe some Clinton supporters will either stay home or vote McCain. That combined with the traditional Republican voters, you don't need a huge percentage of Clinton defectors to win. If 10% stay home, then Obama will lose roughly 5% of the overall vote. Clinton won Ohio and Pennsylvania by about 9%.




I also don't think McCain will lose any state that Dole won in 1996. McCain hasn't run the greatest of campaigns, but he's better than Dole and Obama is worse to the electorate than Clinton was in 1996. I also don't think that Obama will win any state that Bush won by 9% or 10%. I refuse to believe that the demographics and voting principles have changed that much. That means Virginia or North Carolina should stay with McCain despite conventional wisdom.

The pessimist in me says that the polls are underweighting McCain somewhat, but not enough to win. So this is the worst that I think that McCain will do:



Conversely, millions of people will press the lever for a Democrat regardless of who it is. Here's the best I think McCain could do:



Interestingly enough, a tie is a real possibility:



Finally, my prediction and/or hope. To recap my philosphy, McCain wins: states that Dole won + battleground states that Hillary won by a margin + states that Bush won by 9%.