See if you can figure out what's wrong with this:
"There is a new HIV infection every 9 1/2 minutes in the U.S. But about one of every five people living with HIV doesn't know it."
That's right! 80% of people who are HIV positive know it! That other 20%, those people must be skunks because that 20% that doesn't know it's HIV positive is OBVIOUSLY generating a new infection every 10 minutes!
*cough choke hack*
Statistically, of course, it just doesn't fucking work. There's no way the HIV new infection rate can be that high from 20% of the HIV-positive population; it just can't.
It's not because people don't get how HIV is transmitted and it's not because some people don't know they're HIV positive. There are people out there who are HIV positive who know it and don't give a rat's ass about anyone else, and who have unprotected casual sex.
Then, of course, there are the homosexuals who try to become HIV positive. My gut tells me that has to be a really, really small minority of homosexuals, but still....
Now...do you really want to stop the spread of HIV? There are a couple alternatives:
1) Tattoos. I'm telling you, make people who have any incurable infectious disease get a tattoo on non-public skin which shows what disease(s) they have. HIV, Hepatitis, Herpes, MRSA, heebie-jeebies, WTF-ever. That way, if you have unprotected casual sex with a stranger in a setting without full nudity, it's your own goddamned fault you caught the bug. People who don't do that have a higher chance of saving themselves a lifetime of expensive drug therapy because they can see the tat and say, "Whoa, no way."
2) Permanent quarantine. Don't care where or how, but seperate the HIV positive from the general population and keep 'em seperate. Anyone tries to escape, shoot 'im.
YES these are both draconian and intrude somewhat on the first amendment. Which do you prefer? An incurable disease in the general population, which will cost the government a lot of money to take care of? Or do you want the general population to be disease-free?
If it's the latter, these two things are pretty much the only way to make that happen. Anything which relies on people telling the truth about their sex lives is completely doomed to failure.
* * *
I don't think that Obama quite gets it: if you promise, you must deliver.
You can't say, "If you don't do X, I'm gonna really be mad!" and then fail to get mad when "X" isn't done. You might get away with it once or twice; but do it too much, and people will begin to think that you don't really mean what you say, and they'll count your threats as empty rhetoric.
Obama has already shown the world that he's incapable of taking decisive action on anything, even policies which he supports. (For crying out loud, look at how long it took him with ObamaCare!) He waffles and ponders and passes the buck, and only does anything when he absolutely cannot avoid doing nothing. He thinks that saying things is enough, that his words are enough to solve the problems he sees.
But they're not; and that's why the Sudan is doing nothing. The leaders of Sudan are probably patting themselves on the back, nodding smugly to themselves that they just knew that pussy in the White House wouldn't actually do anything.
* * *
Here it is, 5 AM again. I intended to go to bed shortly after my shower; but I just had to do a quick surf and look at some stuff, and check my e-mail, and there were those two articles just begging for some sarcastic commentary.
So now it's almost 5 and I'm still not in bed, and I've got about 5 tracks of the Kimi ni Todoke OST left to listen to....