Open Letter Requesting Awareness

Today, Thursday December 1st , is World AIDS day.

With so many other stories vying for national attention the spotlight has faded somewhat on the AIDS epidemic. But the war has not been won; now more then ever is a time for vigilance. In 2005, 5 million NEW infections have been diagnosed. 40 million people live with AIDS including 3 million children. 3 million people died from complications due to AIDS, and there are 12 million AIDS orphans in Africa alone.

In 1991 Earvin “Magic” Johnson announced that he had tested positive for HIV, thrusting a disease into the national spotlight that had been previously thought to be a “Gay” problem. A slow miracle has happened.
Magic is still alive and well (against many
predictions) and opening up new Starbucks and movie theatres every week. Some say that Magic’s very public ability to live with HIV has caused complacency towards the disease. People forget that Magic has the very best medical care at his disposal and not everyone can be so lucky. Of the 6.5 million people in developing and transitional countries who need life-saving AIDS drugs, only 1 million are receiving them.

The battle lines maybe slowly shifting from medical breakthroughs to treatment dispersion but the war rages on.

The theme for this year’s World AIDS day is “Stop
Aids: Keep The Promise”. It’s appeal to governments to keep fighting for the reduction targets that they set 5 years ago. It’s scary that we have to appeal to governments and policy makers around the world to keep fighting this epidemic but that’s where we find ourselves today.

This battle is not over and we need to keep fighting the good fight.

For more information and to find out how you can help check out www.avert.org its where most of these statistics came from.

Chris

Placing the Blame

As we all continue to try and make sense of Hurricane Katrina, blame is being thrown at the Bush administration left and right. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin blames President Bush, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid blames President Bush, and even uber-musician Kanye West blames President Bush.

With Democratic leaders demanding answers, the Republicans have tried to distance themselves from the situation, calling for a bipartisan committee to examine the delayed reaction to the disaster. The question is: whose fault is it?

President Bush, for starters.

This is the part in the post when the right wingers complain about how unfair it is for the left to blame President Bush for everything gone wrong in the U.S. To them I say: a sitting President should be held accountable for the successes and failures of this country. It's just part of the job.

When President Kennedy helped establish equal rights in this country, many staffers that worked tirelessly on the bill received little or no public praise for their work. Conversely, during the Bay of Pigs, President Kennedy was, and should have been, ripped apart by the press and now by historians. In the case of Hurricane Katrina, President Bush and his administration needs to be blamed for the response time it took to get relief to the people of the Gulf Coast. Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans on August 29th. Relief took nearly a week to come. We have already heard the spinmeiters in the Bush administration say that they couldn't put people on the ground right away, couldn't get supplies there, etc. Why wasn't help in the region in advance? Where were the National Guard?

On August 26th a CNN report warned of the pending force of the Hurricane. So there was ample time to get support in place before Katrina hit. You'd think the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a division of Homeland Security, would have figured that out in advance...

Unless the Director of FEMA, Michael Brown, had NO PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE in disaster relief. You see, Director Brown was the former head of the International Arabian Horse Association, a job that he was fired from. So, if there happens to a be a disaster involving horses, saddles, or any other equestrian needs, it's safe to say that Brown's got you covered.

(In a curious moment of logistics, Brown's official title is actually Under Secy. of Homeland Security for Emergency Prepardness and Response. This makes him director of FEMA, and also...it's good, wait for it...responsible for directing the Nuclear Incident Response Team. After this debacle, I'm sure you're as psyched as I am that this is the unit responsible for the nukes. This information is straight from FEMA.gov, kids.)

I'm not suggesting that President Bush or Under Secy. Brown is responsible for the entirety of the unacceptable relief efforts. Blame needs to also fall on Ray Nagin, Mayor of New Orleans, and Gov. Blanco (D-La.) Unlike former New York City Major Rudolph Giuilani, who strode into the 9/11 chaos from day one, Mayor Nagin did not set foot in New Orleans until almost a week later. He claimed he could not properly communicate with both city officials and Washington from New Orleans. Maybe, but Nagin could have helped to restore order in a panic-striken Superdome, as well as direct the rescue effort in the French Quarter, an area left without someone calling the shots.

Both Mayor Nagin and Gov. Blanco completely dropped the ball on evacuating the people of their state, especially the thousands of people living under in poverty who did not have the means to leave their homes. Their struggles are well known, and both politicians should have had police officers patrolling around several days before, picking up the people that didn't have the means to leave. Not to mention providing at least one shelter that allowed pets -- which would have saved hundreds of lives.

I am shocked that, post 9/11, our disaster relief consists of looking like a deer in the headlights for three days before we even figure out ways to fix the problem.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty scared for the next disaster...

Point: The Catch-22 of being a Republican

The Catch-22 of being a Republican
We're damned if we do, we're damned if we don't.

In the debate between Howard 'Ha!' Dean and ex-Pentagon advisor Richard Pearl, good ol' Ha!ward reminded me of a time not so long ago: a time where I knew why I didn't vote Dem. A time when I stood in the middle of Copley Square, a majority stuck in a minority crowd. On that fateful November night, I stood there silently protesting against a wishy-washy Democrat (it's amazing how well a blue blazer covers a red dress), while bearing witness to his indecision when he kept the crowd waiting for 8 hours while he contemplated a public appearance (talk about the perfect anti-climactic conclusion to a mediocre campaign - What? Who said that?).

In this debate, Howard clearly voiced his objection to the US-led invasion of Iraq. The inference made here in the context of these debates is that Bush over-reacted to intelligence reports. Howard then stated that President Bush had been ignoring the reports of a mounting threat of Iran and North Korea. Well, which is it man? Is it that Bush over-reacts or under-reacts to intelligence reports? Even the Democrats will agree that Bush is a president who doesn't waver in decision.

Howard commented that the Bush administration picked "a low hanging fruit" in Iraq and ignored all else. Well, did he? Did the Bush administration really ignore Iran? Or was Bush finally trying to listen to the 'nagging child' that is the Democratic Party by trying to perhaps be more diplomatic, only further proving his point that we should not wait for the rest of the world to get on board with the measures we need to take to protect ourselves. Bush knows what's going on in Iran: they're trying to get nuclear fuel from Russia. Hmmm. Why would an Arab country want nuclear fuel? I wonder...

Bush is urging Russia to reconsider it's position, and help prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Russia is saying "dey wull not make dee nuclear whey-pons be-cooz dey will giv oos back de fuel." Oh, well in that case...

Dean, and Dems, do you want Bush to sit back and wait for Iran and North Korea to fatten up their arsenal and come out, nuclear bombs a-blazing, all for the sake of diplomacy? OR, can we continue to follow the path we've carved by stopping countries like this from mobilizing before they even start? What will it be - door #1 or door #2? Kerry will definitely need to flip a coin on this one.

Might I make another suggestion to the Democratic party? While I have constantly tried to help the blue people sound more accountable by urging them not to say things like "Bush is stupid," or "Republicans are rednecks", I will once again put partisanship aside to say to the Democrats, it doesn't exactly add to the credibility of a party when you start throwing shoes to prove a point.

I mean who throws a shoe? Honestly!

tamar.

Point: Proposed Democratic Theme Song

"Democrats 2005" (Featuring Lil Jon, Fat Joe, and Senator Barbara "BeatBox" Boxer)

Sung to the tune of "Iran the Beautiful"

We're the party of the free
The party of the people
Fighting for your rights
Like the Beastie Boys

We've got Al Franken
We've got Howard Dean
We've got Hilary Clinton
Forget the last three

Oh we are Democrats
We let killers live
Where, oh where, is this going?
I'm making tamar's point for her

OH DEMOCRATS
OH DEMOCRATS
So weak on de-FENSE
Can't balance the budget
Cause we're spending T's
That's why we always lose

THAT'S WHY WE ALWAYS LOSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Play Ball!

paul.

Point: And Iran, Iran so far away, We Gotta Get Away...

The Bush admistration continued to find ways to divert attention away from the lagging economy this week, as Secretary of State Condoleeza (Six Shooter) Rice announced that "Force is not on the agenda; yet." Rice went on to say that this is a matter for the U.N. security council to investigate.

Like Whitesnake, here we go again. When is the madness going to stop? We don't even give excuses for war anymore. Before we went into Iraq, we made this big production about their link to Al-Qaida, and then used that as a segway (no, not the subsitute for a car) into the fact that they had WMD's. Turns out they didn't have them, or we just couldn't find them. THIS JUST IN...The United States also has WMDs!. Does that mean that other countries are demanding that the U.N. show up here, and order us to dismantle. What would happen if they did? Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (Our President and Vice President) would probably ride in and eliminate the problem. By this time next year, It'll probably be illegal to say that the President's wrong. Opposition, today. Free speech, tomorrow.

It is sad to admit that we live in a world that has nuclear weapons. It is even sadder that we need these nuclear weapons as a deterrent for crazy dictators like Saddam Hussein. We have no right to regulate what weapons other countries have; I can't think of anything more hypocritical. The U.N. needs to stop hiding in the corner, and relieve the U.S. of their role of the world's cop. Although our methods are ridding the world of bad guys, they are flawed and may very well catch up with us. I worry that countries like Iran and North Korea will start to live up to their crazy reputations.

The U.S. cannot afford another quagmire like Iraq; losing hearts, minds, and most importantly, American lives, is and never will be acceptable for a unsoliticied war. Furthermore, we are dealing with an administration that doesn't understand diplomacy. Hopefully the U.N. will realize that and step in; it's in everyone's best interest.

Especially ours.

paul.

Point: Why Bush and Cheney Should be "Rules" Men

Ellen Fein and Sherri Schneider, two Manhattenite housewives, wrote a book dictating the Rules that women should abide by if they wanted to find and land a husband.  While I resented this book with every ounce of my being (read below and you'll see why), I realized upon further examination that while their doctrines may not be suitable for dating, it may be for applicable for American politicians.  I'm a Bush supporter, but I will admit that sometimes he needs to work on his game.

Here is my interpretation of how the current administration can use the Rules to win the everlasting love and affection of the American Public: maybe they'll even close the deal. They have 4 more years, the rules say you only need 2! Read on...

Top 10 Rules:

1. Be a creature unlike any other

Guys, you're politicians: not only that, you're the President and Vice President for Pete's Sake. Everyone is going to watch EVERYTHING you do and scrutinize EVERYTHING you say.  You've got to set yourself apart and hold yourself to the highest of standards. W, Rules people don't pay... they don't pay for dinner, they don't pay for sex, and they certainly don't pay to put members of the Press on the payroll to facilitate programming that defines a marriage as one that exists between a woman and a man. Come on man! You can't force feed the biters.

2.   Show Up to Parties, Dances and Social Events even if you don't feel like it...

But don't forget to dress appropriately: Cheney, when going to a memorial for the worst case of genocide in the history of the human race, throw on a pair of Tod's and some leather O.J. gloves: would you show up dressed like that on a blind date? I think not.

3.     It's a fantasy relationship unless a man asks you out.

 "weapons of mass destruction". That's all I have to say about that.

4.     In an office romance, do not email him back every time he emails you, unless it is business related.

George, you're a pretty candid guy. Now some people, like myself, take comfort in the fact that you're a man of your word and you "stick to your guns" quite literally, but sometimes your words are hard to articulate. No one likes getting e-mails with spelling errors, and I'm pretty sure you can't use the fact that you're talking from your Blackberry as an excuse.

5.     If you are in a long distance relationship, he must visit you three times before you visit him

Well, actually, I like Bush's policy on this rule better: no way do I want terrorists visiting us three times before we visit them.

6.     When deciding whether or not to use personal dating ads or other dating services, you should place the ad and let men respond to you.

Maybe it would be nice if the president did some basic PR. Why not take an ad out in every major newspaper to publicly thank the troops and their families now that Iraq is a democratic state? It shows appreciation, and signals the finality of the war in Iraq.

7.     If he does not call, he is not that interested. Period.

On a personal note, do the single women of America a huge favor and make this statement a part of your State of the Union address! You may gain more of their support.

8.     Close the deal. Rules women do not date men for more than two years.

Ok guys. It's been at least two year since we've been liberating Iraq, and with the general success of the elections held on the 30th, I think it's safe to say we can now put an exit strategy into action.  I'm almost certain Iraq isn't planning on buying a ring.

9.     Buyer's beware: observe his behavior or else you could end up with Mr. Wrong

Tread lightly if you do in fact get to make any Supreme Court appointments. They have the same power that the "reset" button did on the Original Nintendo Entertainment System: and God knows how hard we cried when we finally found Level 9 in Zelda and the lesser talented sibling hit the reset button out of jealousy. Let's not "reset" our civil liberties as we know them today.  

10.    Keep doing the rules even when things are slow.

Yes this is your second term and there are no worries for re-election, but keep your relationship with the American public in mind. Who else is going buy your auto-biography in 2009?

tamar

Point: Change Clothes, and Go!

This week marked the 60th anniversary of the liberation at Auschwitz. Many world leaders were there to recognize the symbol of history's worst moments. French President Jacques Chirac and Russian President Vladimir Putin took part in this event, along with U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney.

As you can imagine, the ceremony was about as serious as you can get. So, you wouldn't think that I'd be discussing the choice of attire in this blog. Chirac and Putin were dressed appropriately for the event, wearing formal overcoats and dress boots. Cheney, conversely, was not dressed close to appropriately. The second-most powerful man in the most powerful country in the world looked like he just walked out of a screening of "Napoleon Dynamite" at Sundance. Cheney wore a ski parka, hiking boots, and a wool hat that said "Staff 2001". Classy duds for an event such as this one.

I'm not going to over-dramatize this misstep, and feign outrage on the level reversing roe vs. wade or the war in Iraq. I AM going to say this fashion faux pas is symbolic for Cheney's self-absorbed, piggish attitude. Don't forget, this is a man who tried to hide his lesbian daughter during the 2000 election. Cheney has been to hundreds of state events during his thirty-five years in public service, and has no excuse for showing up under dressed. How would YOU dress for a Holocaust reception?